1

New Theories / Re: Grand Canyon Formation By Anti-matter

« on: 07/05/2023 01:16:15 »

An antimatter asteroid would explode as soon as it touched the atmosphere.

Do Photons interact with Positrons?

Yes, but it's pretty much the same as photons interacting with electrons. Nothing special really happens.

2

New Theories / Re: How black hole really works

« on: 24/04/2023 16:29:45 »

Dave, you are quite obviously arguing that black holes make their own accretion disks. You might not be saying it directly, but you are saying it indirectly. If you're arguing that matter isn't coming from outside, then you are arguing for the opposite: that it's coming from the black hole. That's Theory D. This thread is taking basically the same path as if you were talking about it explicitly. I see that you are still trying to weasel your way around a thread closure. For that reason, this thread is getting closed as well.

3

New Theories / Re: How black hole really works

« on: 23/04/2023 18:07:25 »

Sorry, A theory is always backed by evidence:

It is backed by evidence.

You can't just assume that: " A black hole with an accretion disk must have acquired it from the star because that's the only source of gas that is nearby."

It's not an assumption, it's a deduction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning

You must prove it with real observation/evidence.

We have.

Hence, based on the current hypothesis, in order for the SMBH to set those Bubbles, it must "eat" at least 10,000 stars from outside.

Not so. There are stars that are both much heavier and much lighter than the Sun.

Therefore, if you wish to confirm that this hypothesis is correct, then please show the observation/evidence to support this idea.

We have already used deductive reasoning to show that it is.

Can you please show just one star as it falls into the SMBH in the milky way or at any other location?

We may not have, but we have seen the remnants of stars (i.e. the accretion disk) before they are consumed by the black hole.

Would you kindly and finally confirm that we have never observed such direct phenomenon?

We have never directly observed subatomic particles, but we don't have to. We can deduce that they are there based on the effects they have on our equipment. Do you deny the existence of subatomic particles because we cannot directly observe them?

Therefore, you have to agree that without direct observation for that idea, then it should be considered as Hypothesis.

Again, no. You don't have to have a direct observation of something in order to figure out that it happens or has happened. There are many things that we have not observed directly but can infer their existence based on the evidence that is available to us, such as nuclear fusion in the Sun, the evolution of land dwelling animals from fish, and the Earth having a core.

So how that v404-cygni-black-hole could set this kind of jet stream without any direct observed inflow?

The accretion disk is evidence of inflow because the star is the only source of gas nearby.

4

New Theories / Re: How black hole really works

« on: 15/04/2023 04:30:59 »

Dave, now that I have gone back and looked, I see that your argument about the jet stream having a higher mass flow rate than the mass flow from the start is even worse than I thought: you are using a piece of artwork as evidence: https://astronomy.com/news/2021/03/cygnus-x-1-the-black-hole-that-started-it-all

It's not even a photograph but merely artwork. Did you really not notice that? It even says "An artist’s concept of the Cygnus X-1 binary system." How could you have possibly missed that?

5

New Theories / Re: How black hole really works

« on: 12/04/2023 21:31:41 »

The Logical possibility that the gas/matter has to be going from star to black hole and not the other way around is very clear.

Then you should stop arguing against it because you are arguing against logic without any evidence that it is wrong.

However, don't you agree that we need to justify this Logical possibility by real observation?
So, when we look at this specific BH, do we really observe that the gas in the accretion disk is coming from the star and not vice versa?

Yes, we know that it is coming from the star because it coming out of the black hole is impossible. Impossible things don't happen. You even agreed yourself that things can't come out of black holes. You are treacherously close to getting this thread locked as you are a hair's breadth from arguing about your Theory D's proposition that black holes emit their own accretion disks.

Do you confirm that so far, we have never observed any real star as it falls into a SMBH?

I haven't had an exhaustive look at the literature, so I don't know. But we know enough about how gravity and black holes work that we know that it must happen (whether directly or by the star getting shredded into an accretion disk and then that getting eaten by the black hole).

6

New Theories / Re: How black hole really works

« on: 12/04/2023 17:25:16 »

Therefore, it is very clear that the total matter that the cygnus-x-1-the-black-hole ejects is greater than the mass that it consumes from the orbital Star.

However, as the total matter that the cygnus-x-1-the-black-hole ejects is greater than the mass that it consumes from the orbital Star

Again, show that what you are saying is true (while citing numbers from reputable sources).

there might be an error in the assumption that "the gas in the accretion disk is coming from the star."

That's the only place it could be coming from. You even agreed with me when I said that gas can't get out of the black hole. So it has to be going from star to black hole and not the other way around.

1. The BH is the most massive stellar-mass black hole that can be produced

No. You need to read the article more carefully. Here is what it says:

This makes the object the largest stellar-mass black hole ever discovered without the use of gravitational waves.

So the article acknowledges that there are more massive ones, but that they were observed using a different method.

If we don't know the real flow of gas between the BH to its star, why are you so sure that the total gas mass that the BH consumes (slowly or any) per year from that star is greater than the total gas mass that it ejects outwards as a jet stream from its poles at a speed of light?

Because that's the only logical possibility. Black holes do not emit gas.

7

New Theories / Re: How to increase IQ level ? How to improve IQ ? cognitive psychology

« on: 11/04/2023 21:17:11 »

I use an imaginary scale

That doesn't sound like a useful scale.

8

New Theories / Re: How black hole really works

« on: 09/04/2023 00:20:40 »

I see the OP continuously struggling to Understand BH formations, but i see Noone helping the OP out with Logic based Evidence.

We have tried in the past. It didn't work.

9

New Theories / Re: How black hole really works

« on: 08/04/2023 21:08:07 »

Dear Kryptid
In the article it is stated clearly: "it is seen producing stars".

"Seen" isn't always meant literally. I can say we have "seen" gravitational waves at LIGO, but that would be metaphorical for "detect".

Even if you don't believe in a direct observation on this star creation process, why can't we trust them about the "rate of up to 4,000 per year"?
Why they call this galaxy as baby boom galaxy if they aren't sure that it creates so many stars per year?

I never said they were wrong about it.

So, for any new created star, at least one star should be destroyed.

Not so. Gas clouds that have never been stars can become stars.

some is eaten by the SMBH

If you are now agreeing that black holes eat stars, then what is the point of this thread?

With a ratio of 1 to 4, there is a need for about 40 stars to be destroyed per year in order to create 10 stars in the milky way.

No, as I've already pointed out.

We monitor our galaxy core for more than 40 years and so far, we didn't see even one falling star.

Now you are contradicting yourself because you just said that some of the star's mass is eaten by the black hole.

Why do you force the SMBH to eat stars while you can't find even one SMBH in the entire universe that is willing to eat one single star?

The accretion disk is being consumed by the black hole and the accretion disk is made up of destroyed stars.

When we observe a SMBH and quasar in any location in the Universe we clearly see the outflow stream from their accretion disc. We don't see any sort of falling stars, gas clouds or even a single atom.
Hence, why can't we agree that we ONLY observe an outflow stream from the SMBH/Quasar.
Therefore, we can claim that based on OBSERVATION - the stream flow in the SMBH works ONLY on the opposite direction from its expected gravity force.
On Earth for example, there is no outflow stream. Any object must obey to the gravity force and fall on the surface of earth.
Therefore, we can claim that on earth the flow is in the direction of the gravity force.
Hence, if we would set an object at the accretion disc of the SMBH, that object would be ejected outwards, while if we would set the same object at 10,000 km above the earth, that object would fall into the direction of earth.
Therefore, it's the time for us to accept the observation as follow:

There is ONLY one direction of flow:
On Erath - the flow is in the direction of the gravity force. (ONLY inflow)
On the SMBH/Quasar - the flow is in the opposite direction of the gravity force (ONLY outflow).

The theory is nice, but real observation must win the theory.
As we can't see any star that falls into the SMBH in the entire universe including our milky way and M87, then it's the time for us to understand that nothing really falls in.
How and why is a different story.
Hence, first let's agree/accept the observation and then let's discuss about the theory.

We already know why all of that happens. It all works in accordance with material being consumed by a black hole. This has been explained to you many times before. I see no point in repeating myself.

10

New Theories / Re: Gravity as a unity force

« on: 06/04/2023 21:55:39 »

The sun in its nuclear fusion converts its mass to energy.

Not really. What it's doing is converting potential energy into kinetic energy. If you were to weigh all of the products of the reaction, you'd find that it weighs the same as all of the reactants.

When all mass is converted and the sun dies, it forms a black hole

The Sun isn't massive enough to become a black hole. It will become a white dwarf instead.

Which is also a singularity, now this singularity is intense energy in a single point it is not rest mass

Singularities (and thus the black holes they exist inside of) absolutely do have mass. We've measured the mass of quite a few black holes.

Now if the whole black hole converted to mass and exploded with a bang it will form the sun again.

That's not possible. Much of the Sun's mass and energy have been radiated away into space. The black hole isn't getting that back.

What will stop the nuclear fusion?

A lack of sufficient pressure and heat in the Sun's core to allow it to continue. If the Sun was heavier, it could continue to burn some of the material there and thus fusion would go on for longer.

11

New Theories / Re: Gravity as a unity force

« on: 06/04/2023 17:36:02 »

Space-time can not be proved in the absence of mass or motion space-time does not exist

This seems more a philosophical position than a scientific one, as we would not be able to do any experiments looking to detect space-time without putting something in it.

some of the energy in the singularity point transformed into rest mass

I think it's a bit of a misconception that energy and mass can be changed into each other. It's probably better to say that mass has energy or that energy has mass.

energy can be concentrated in a singularity point but rest mass needs a non-zero volume.

How do you know this?

12

New Theories / Re: How black hole really works

« on: 05/04/2023 04:58:35 »

It's not a game changer. The direct collapse scenario already exists to explain such massive black holes. I'm almost certain that the direct collapse scenario has already been mentioned in one of your previous threads.

That being said, I see nothing unique about this thread when compared to your old ones. You are repeating old arguments.

The accretion disk and the polar beams are both evidence of the black hole consuming stars.

13

Just Chat! / Re: Can a being with a strength like Superman exist?

« on: 03/04/2023 21:42:37 »

Superman's bones and muscles couldn't be made of any known material that would allow him to do this:

The same goes for that machine he's lifting against as well as the floor he's standing on.

14

New Theories / Re: The two-blade hacksaw

« on: 02/04/2023 20:11:23 »

It looks simple enough that you could rig up your own and test it.

15

New Theories / Re: How black hole really works

« on: 02/04/2023 00:54:57 »

Can Primordial Gas Clouds collapse in such a manner that they surpass the Star Formation stage & Directly create a Black Hole?

There is a theory about that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_collapse_black_hole

16

New Theories / Re: Gravitoelectroweak Hypothesis?

« on: 29/03/2023 21:33:56 »

That is how it works. As for Kryptid's comments, yes I made up a thing to explain a thing, it's called an original idea, or 'hypothesis' in physics, a science in which this is the standard way of going about doing science. We see phenomena and come up with ideas to explain them.

That's not really what you've done. When confronted with something that completely prevents your model from working (by many, many, many, many orders of magnitude), you come up with something for which (1) there is no evidence and (2) doesn't even have a decent description. Your only statement about it is that it's a "special rule/principle". With that kind of reasoning, you can come up with an idea that goes against any observed phenomenon. For example, I could have a model where cells are powered by nuclear fusion. The immediate response to that is that cells are nowhere near hot enough for fusion to occur. Then I handwave that by saying there is a "special rule/principle" that allows it to occur in cells at low temperatures and pressure, despite there being zero evidence for this rule and no mechanism describing how it works.

You also haven't provided a reference where W bosons are observed to create an attractive force. Every time I've gone looking, I've found no references to the weak nuclear force being either attractive or repulsive.

There's also another problem: quantum tunneling only allows particles to travel to locations that are equal to or less than the energy level that they were originally at (otherwise, the first law of thermodynamics is violated). In order for an electron to tunnel up and out of the Earth, it would have to travel up against a gravitational potential. The only way that can happen would be if there was some location beyond Earth where the potential energy of the electron could be less than it is on Earth (in the Sun, for example). It could not tunnel, for instance, into me. My own gravitational field is far too weak and thus the tunneling electron would have to gain potential energy in order to do that (which is forbidden).

Then comes the question of how things that are neither electrons or protons experience gravitational attraction. Neutron drop experiments have been performed and they are observed to free fall. How does that happen in your model?

17

New Theories / Re: Gravitoelectroweak Hypothesis?

« on: 29/03/2023 17:44:10 »

You're using free electrons here as opposed to electrons in their bound state around atomic nuclei, aren't you?

How does that make any significant difference?

There would have to be some special rule/principle governing the behaviour of electrons in orbit around a nucleus allowing them to tunnel to far great distances

Sounds like something you made up in order to avoid having your model falsified by the available data.

or it might be that aspects of quantum theory are incorrect.

What's your evidence for that?

The explanatory power of this model is too great for me to simply put aside, unfortunately.

I don't see how. Your model doesn't seem to make quantifiable predictions. Can you do the math showing what the strength of gravity should be in your model? Can you do the same thing in terms of prediction the value of gravitational lensing of light?

Do you have a reference for the exchange of W bosons creating an attractive force?

I think, also, string theory more or less also made the admission that gravitational fields are formed of quanta (particles) of the electrical field (i.e. electrons).

Do you have a citation for this?

18

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 11/03/2023 18:55:47 »

I'm not the only moderator. If Halc thinks that you are getting too off topic, then you should respect his decree. If you want to ask about the energy source of the Big Bang, you can make a new thread about it. Just don't let it devolve into a discussion about your Theory D.

19

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 09/03/2023 17:32:28 »

However, now we do understand that the Universe was already infinite before the Big Bang.
Therefore, the time was ticking long before the Big Bang moment.

The current assumption is that time started at the Big Bang, which would make these two assertions incorrect.

So, please are you sure that we can bypass the law of physics while the time was already there?

There is no need to bypass the laws of physics. The energy was always there since the beginning of time.

20

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 08/03/2023 17:37:54 »

Don't you agree that our mission is to explain the entire space/universe and not just the part/section that we observe/see which is called observable universe?

We have no choice. We can't explain what we can't observe.

I would like to remind you that there was a time when people on earth thought that our planet is flat and if you cross the horizon, you might fall into the open space.
Hence, what we see is not good enough - not for today and not for the past.

The laws of physics weren't preventing people from accessing those unseen parts of the Earth. It was just a lack of know-how and trying. It's a rather different story for the observable universe (unless faster-than-light travel proves to be possible some day).

Hence, as the real space is infinite then why can't we assume that the real universe is also infinite.

The Big Bang theory generally does assume that.

Therefore, why do we insist on 13.8BY as some magic number?

Because that's how long ago the Big Bang happened.

Why do we refuse to accept the simple understanding that infinite space & Universe could exist if the time is also infinite or at least much bigger than this friction of moment (comparing to the infinity)

I already explained that the Big Bang theory already assumes an infinite Universe and it does so without any need for infinite time because it was already infinite in size at the very first moment of time.