1

New Theories / Re: How black hole really works

« on: 24/04/2023 06:31:30 »

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:56:42
We clearly observe the outflow at almost the speed of light.
Therefore, as the inflow should be the same matter and the same quantity as the outflow and we clearly see the outflow, then it is expected to see the inflow.

That does not follow. The temperature and luminosity of the jets and accretion disk is much higher than that of the infalling gas from the star. That makes them much easier to see.

Yes it is.
the sun's core reaches temperatures of about 27 million degrees F
https://www.space.com/17137-how-hot-is-the-sun.html
"The continual nuclear fusion, causes energy to build up and the sun's core reaches temperatures of about 27 million degrees F (15 million degrees C)."
Therefore, some of the falling hydrogens are as hot as the plasma in the accretion disc.
Therefore, if we can observe hot hydrogen while they are ejected outwards, why we can't observe hot Hydrogen when they fall inwards?
As an example let me offer you the following los-angeles-the-freeway.
https://la.curbed.com/2017/9/6/16264074/socal-los-angeles-the-freeways
If we can clearly observe the cars in the direction of los Angeles, is there any possibility that could prevent us to observe them in the other direction?
The falling hydrogen atoms are identical to the ejected Hydrogen atoms and they might also be at the same temperature.
We must observe at least some of the falling atoms.
If we can't see any, then it's the time for us to understand that nothing falls.
This is the reality.

Now, let's assume that the falling hydrogen are very cold and we can't see them as you claim.
Don't you agree that at some point as they fall inwards, they must be hot enough for us to see them falling in?

Please also remember that the chance that the ALL the orbital planes of a falling stars/Atoms would be identical to the accretion disc plane is ZERO. Also, the chance that they all would always end at the accretion disc radius is also zero.
Therefore, for every falling star, we should get a different plane of accretion disc and at a different radius.
We actually should see a small bulge instead of the disc as the falling stars are coming from the bulge.
However we clearly observe that the MW jet stream is moving in a direct line for up to 27,000 LY away from the core.
That proves that the accretion disc is very stable and therefore, it can't be due to falling random stars.

We clearly see the accretion disc.
Therefore, we should also see falling stars/matter as they penetrate into the accretion disc at a different temp/different radius/different plane/different velocity from above/outside.
We don't see that activity.
Therefore, nothing is falling into the accretion disc from outside.

The only option is that it came from outside. That's the only option the works within the laws of physics. Options that break the laws of physics therefore must be excluded.

Sorry, you can't twist the observation based on your understanding of laws of physics.
Those law of Physics had been set based on observation.
Therefore, Observation is more important than our understanding of how the universe should work.
We first must agree that we have never observed any Inflow in any BH/SMBH with outflow.
Then we must update our understanding about laws of physics to explain this observation.
We can't just twist the observation to meet our hypothesis that we call theory without real evidence for this hypothesis.
Those scientists that see X-Ray, Flare & corona clearly know that it is due to simple magnetic activity.
However, they tell us that this EM activity indicates about falling stars.
That is a sever mistake.
Why it is so difficult for the science community to tell us that they have never observed an inflow and outflow in the same BH/SMBH?
Why they keep twisting the real meaning of the observation?

2

New Theories / Re: How black hole really works

« on: 23/04/2023 19:56:42 »

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:53:28
Sorry, A theory is always backed by evidence:

It is backed by evidence.

Evidence means Observation.

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

deduction can't replace an observation.

We have never directly observed subatomic particles, but we don't have to

You can't justify the observation of the outflow without justify the observation of the inflow.
We clearly observe the outflow at almost the speed of light.
Therefore, as the inflow should be the same matter and the same quantity as the outflow and we clearly see the outflow, then it is expected to see the inflow.
If we can't see the inflow, then there is no inflow!

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:53:28
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,

Ok.
Let's just agree that we don't have direct observation on any star as it falls inwards.

but we have seen the remnants of stars (i.e. the accretion disk) before they are consumed by the black hole.

As we clearly see the matter in the accretion disc, we should see the falling matter - if there was any falling matter.
As we don't see that falling matter, then the matter in the accretion Disc isn't due to any falling matter!

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.

If you believe that we can't see the inflow matter, then we also shouldn't observe  the outflow matter or the matter in the accretion disc as they are all made from the same matter.

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

No!
The accretion disc is evidence that there is matter over there.
How it gets there without anything to fall down it is your task to solve.

So we know that a much bigger than 500 gauss field does not fling things around at nearly the speed of light.

You miss the point.
Jet stream that ejected at the speed of light directly in the direction of the pols (upwards and downwards) and be ejected against the ultra-gravity force is ONLY due to strong magnetic fields.

Have you forgotten who told you about slingshots?

Gravity, slingshots, and some other forces/ideas have no poles. Only magnetic fields has poles.
Hence, the idea that it is due to only 500 gauss field is just incorrect.
Our scientists made a severe mistake in their calculation.
They need to verify the requested magnetic power that is needed for that speed of light jet stream and this value would set the minimal value of the real magnetic fields in the BH.
It is stated:
https://www.space.com/39051-astronomers-measure-black-hole-magnetic-field.html
"The energy of a black hole's jet is proportional to its magnetic field squared, so even a small error in the strength of the field would lead to a huge discrepancy between the power scientists observe in the jets and the numbers they calculate, Eikenberry said. He added that he speculates something is amplifying the corona's magnetic field in the center, right at the base of the jets, raising it to the strengths that scientists expect are required for the jets to launch."
Therefore, it is possible that: "something is amplifying the corona's magnetic field in the center, right at the base of the jets"
That something could be the BH itself.
Hence, the jet stream is only due to magnetic fields.

3

New Theories / Re: How black hole really works

« on: 23/04/2023 16:53:28 »

It's not a hypothesis because we can deduce that it actually does happen from the observational evidence. 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.

Sorry, A theory is always backed by evidence:
https://www.diffen.com/difference/Hypothesis_vs_Theory
"A theory is always backed by evidence; a hypothesis is only a suggested possible outcome, and is testable and falsifiable."
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."
You must prove it with real observation/evidence.
The jet stream from the MW SMBH poles creates two bubbles with estimated of 10,000 solar mass.
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.
Therefore, if you wish to confirm that this hypothesis is correct, then please show the observation/evidence to support this idea.
Can you please show just one star as it falls into the SMBH in the milky way or at any other location?
Please, don't explain again why we can't see it.
Would you kindly and finally confirm that we have never observed such direct phenomenon?
Therefore, you have to agree that without direct observation for that idea, then it should be considered as Hypothesis.

Would you kindly offer one real observation for Star or BH outflow without magnetic field?

I don't need to.
Someone already posted the details of  a BH with practically no field.

The magnetic field around the black hole in V404 Cygni has been measured as being about 500 gauss: https://www.space.com/39051-astronomers-measure-black-hole-magnetic-field.html

(I have stronger magnets than that, and they don't glow with a haze of emitted ionised gas.)
It will emit particles by Hawking radiation.

Dear Bored chemist.
Do you think that with your magnet you can "create a jet of matter moving almost at the speed of light"?
In the following article it is stated clearly that this Jet stream in the V404 Cygni that is moving almost at the speed of light is due to magnetic field:
https://www.newsweek.com/v404-cygni-black-hole-jet-flare-magnetic-field-740697
"Magnetic fields are theorized to govern something called the "corona" of a black hole, where highly energetic particles swirl in hot gas above the accretion disk. When magnetic fields shift the corona, the cloud of particles can create a jet of matter moving almost at the speed of light, as pictured in the image above.

The magnetic field acts like a slingshot, "giving rise to a powerful wind or a jet, often moving out close to the speed of light," Loeb said. "We do not know how the corona forms or gets replenished or what heats it. We need better numerical simulations of these corona."
If you have better hypothesis for that speed of light jet stream, then please explain it to Mr. Loeb.

It's not a hypothesis because we can deduce that it actually does happen from the observational evidence

Please be aware that we discuss about Inflow & outflow in the same BH/SMBH.
So, the evidence must come only from a BH that clearly ejects jet stream.

The v404-cygni-black-hole is an excelent example for its outflow jet stream.
So we do observe the outflow, but do we also observe the inflow?
In the above articale I couldn't find even one word about inflow.
So how that v404-cygni-black-hole could set this kind of jet stream without any direct observed inflow?

4

New Theories / Re: How black hole really works

« on: 23/04/2023 04:17:54 »

How could it be that we clearly observe the outflow from that Bh but we can't see any inflow while it is located so close to us?

We don't observe any outflow from that particular black hole.

Then this example isn't relevant to our discussion.
Now I finally understand your fatal mistake.
We discuss about Inflow VS outflow in the SAME BH.
BH without outflow is at a different phase in his life from a BH with outflow.
Let's call it - Infant BH.
It is like comparing a frog to tadpole.
The tadpole would be evolved over time to a frog, but at its current phase of life it acts as a fish.
In the same token, it is possible to an infant BH to "eat" matter from out side.
We might even observe this kind "eating" activity.
However, once it become an adult BH and start its outflow process, then it won't eat anything from outside.

We know that there is inflow in many star-black hole binaries because the star is the only source of gas that the accretion disk could have acquired it from.

Star-black hole binary without outflow from the BH itself, isn't relevant to our discussion!
Please lets focus ONLY on BH/SMBH with outflow.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:11:52
I would like to focus on the inflow Hypothesis.

It's not a hypothesis.

Yes, it is Hypothesis.
As long as we don't have a solid observation for a star as it falls into a SMBH (with outflow activity) then this inflow  would be Hypothesis.

Actually, any outflow (even the one from the BH itself) is due to magnetic field.

No.
Apart from anything else, most things are not magnetic.

Would you kindly offer one real observation for Star or BH outflow without magnetic field?
Please read the following message about Parker's theory:

https://www.space.com/22215-solar-wind.html
"Solar wind consisting of charged particles and the sun's magnetic field."
Therefore, this outflow is due to the Sun's Magnetic field
Parker's theory describes how the magnetic field can overcome the gravity force:
"Parker's theory described that in the sun's corona, plasma is continually heated with temperatures in this region reaching a blistering 3.5 million degrees Fahrenheit (2 million degrees Celsius). Eventually, the plasma becomes so hot that the sun's gravity can no longer hold it down so it is hurled into space as the solar wind, dragging the sun's magnetic field along with it, according to NASA JPL.

5

New Theories / Re: How black hole really works

« on: 22/04/2023 17:11:52 »

Dear Kryptid
I do appreciate the great support that I have got so far.
You are the master of this forum and I have no intention to upset you.
If you don't want me to ask any further question in this thread, then please let me know and I would stop immediately.

If you give me the possibility to continue, then I would like to focus on the inflow Hypothesis.
The idea is very clear:

The inflow itself is what makes the pair plasma as I just explained. Without inflow, the black hole sits there and does nothing.

However, In order to convert this hypothesis to real theory, we must observe the inflow of matter / star as it falls into the BH/SMBH.

In the article it is stated:
https://www.space.com/newfound-black-holes-closest-to-earth-gaia
"There are a lot of particles coming off the companion star in the form of stellar wind," Cendes said. "But because we didn't see any radio light, that tells us the black hole isn't a great eater and not many particles are crossing its event horizon. We don't know why that is, but we want to find out!"
"Gaia BH1 is located just 1,560 light-years away from Earth"
You have already confirmed that this Steller wind isn't being pulled off by the black hole.

Stellar wind (or solar wind) is what is produced naturally by the star. It isn't being pulled off by the black hole.

Hence, this outflow Steller wind is due to normal Magnetic activity in the companion star.
Actually, any outflow (even the one from the BH itself) is due to magnetic field.
Technically, without magnetic field, this companion star & the BH would not eject even one particle.
So why this Gaia BH1 refuses to eat even one particle from the Steller winds around it?
How could it be that we clearly observe the outflow from that Bh but we can't see any inflow while it is located so close to us?
As we have never observed any star as it falls inwards, could it be that there is an error in this inflow hypothesis?

6

New Theories / Re: How black hole really works

« on: 18/04/2023 19:55:21 »

It depends if you plan to stay within the laws of physics.

Thanks
So let's see if I get it correctly:
1. New particle pair is created near the SMBH' event Horizon by its EM power.
2. That new created pair that is called "pair plasma" would be ejected into the accretion disc and be part of the plasma.

This is called a "pair plasma".

3.No new mass is created:

No new mass or energy is created, it is only transformed into a different kind of particle.

4. Negative mass/energy - Therefore, as one particle has a positive mass/energy, then the other one must get negative mass/energy:
https://www.simonsfoundation.org/2019/01/29/black-hole-plasma-jets/#:~:text=As%20a%20black%20hole%20spins,magnetic%20fields%20collapse%20into%20clumps
"From afar, the descending particles appear to have negative energy."
5. Black hole loses a bit of its rotational energy
https://www.simonsfoundation.org/2019/01/29/black-hole-plasma-jets/#:~:text=As%20a%20black%20hole%20spins,magnetic%20fields%20collapse%20into%20clumps
"As the black hole eats them, the black hole loses a bit of its rotational energy in what’s called the Penrose process."

Do we all agree on the above understanding?
If so,
1. Can we agree that there is no need for any inflow as the plasma in the accretion disc had been created as a Pair plasma by the SMBH?
2. Did we ever observe any particle with negative Mass/energy?

7

New Theories / Re: How black hole really works

« on: 18/04/2023 18:06:22 »

The abstract of the paper is here: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.035101

Thanks for your explanation.
In the article it is stated very clearly:
"Black holes drive powerful plasma jets to relativistic velocities. This plasma should be collisionless, and self-consistently supplied by pair creation near the horizon."
I read it once and again and again.
Is it a dream?
For years I have claimed that new pair particles can be created near the BH/SMBH event horizon, but every time that I did so, I have got warning & penalty.
Those scientists are very lucky.
They can write this message without any penalty.
So do you give me now the permission to reuse this message, or it is still forbidden?

8

New Theories / Re: How black hole really works

« on: 18/04/2023 14:13:34 »

Hence, Outflow is due to Magnetic fields and inflow is due to gravity.

That isn't exactly a new idea (although energy extracted from the black hole's spin via the ergosphere probably also plays a role in outflow as well). You can have both inflow and outflow in the same system. We have done simulations and found that it is possible: https://www.simonsfoundation.org/2019/01/29/black-hole-plasma-jets/#:~:text=As%20a%20black%20hole%20spins,magnetic%20fields%20collapse%20into%20clumps.

As a black hole spins, its dense mass distorts and twists the surrounding fabric of space and time. The simulations show that magnetic fields at the poles of the black hole become coiled and spring outward, flinging jets of particles into space. At the equator, magnetic fields collapse into clumps. This tangling creates areas that act like particle accelerators, boosting some particles into the edges of polar jets at high speeds and others into the maw of the black hole.

Thanks
It is also explained that even by weak magnetic field creates strong electric field which accelerates the particles:
"Near the black hole’s midsection, a different and unexpected particle-boosting mechanism appears. Magnetic field lines operating in opposing directions like a two-lane highway meet at the equator. This congregation causes the lines to twist and tangle. In the space between these bundles, the magnetic field is relatively weak compared with the black hole’s electric field.

The electric field, now the strongest force at play, accelerates particles. Some fly outward, following a curved trajectory into the peripheries of the polar jets. Others speed into the black hole. From afar, the descending particles appear to have negative energy. As the black hole eats them, the black hole loses a bit of its rotational energy in what’s called the Penrose process.

Overall, the simulations suggest that roughly 80 percent of the jet’s energy comes from the corkscrewing magnetic field at the poles, with the remaining 20 percent originating from the particles accelerated near the equator.

Hence, due to the magnetic field and due to the strong electric field, we get the requested Electro-magnetic field that can boost the particles outwards.

However, they also discuss about new created particles:

"Turbocharge: This simulation of a rotating black hole (center) reveals the processes that power its jets (top and bottom). The simulation starts in an initial state without plasma, and as it progresses, particles are created and the black hole’s rotation twists and contorts the magnetic field (black lines). K. Parfrey et al./Physical Review Letters 2019"

Can you please explain how could it be that they start the simulation without plasma and then particles are created?
They do not claim for any falling matter.
So how could it be that we get new created particles without any falling matter?

9

New Theories / Re: How black hole really works

« on: 18/04/2023 03:27:12 »

OUR “MAGNETIC” BLACK HOLE

Astronomers have detected magnetic fields writhing around the Milky Way's central black hole.
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/our-magnetic-black-hole-0312201523/

Magnetic Fields Run Amok


This artist’s conception shows Sagittarius A*, the black hole at the center of our galaxy, surrounded by a hot disk of ionized gas. Blue lines trace magnetic fields. Astronomers using the Event Horizon Telescope have measured our black hole's magnetic fields for the first time, resolving structures as small as 6 times the size of the event horizon (6 Schwarzschild radii). The fields are disorderly and changeable, like intertwined spaghetti. The fields the team found are either in the disk or the jet (if the black hole has one — astronomers don't know).
CfA / M. Weiss

10

New Theories / Re: How black hole really works

« on: 18/04/2023 03:09:50 »

Stellar wind (or solar wind) is what is produced naturally by the star. It isn't being pulled off by the black hole.

Yes, you are absolutely correct:
https://www.space.com/22215-solar-wind.html
"Solar wind consisting of charged particles and the sun's magnetic field."
Therefore, this outflow is due to the Sun's Magnetic field
Parker's theory describes how the magnetic field can overcome the gravity force:
"Parker's theory described that in the sun's corona, plasma is continually heated with temperatures in this region reaching a blistering 3.5 million degrees Fahrenheit (2 million degrees Celsius). Eventually, the plasma becomes so hot that the sun's gravity can no longer hold it down so it is hurled into space as the solar wind, dragging the sun's magnetic field along with it, according to NASA JPL."
We clearly observe that the BH's jet stream is always ejected from the BH's poles.
Gravity has no poles. Only magnetic fields have poles.
Please remember that the Plasma in the accretion disc is heated to 10^9 c.
Therefore, Parker's theory works for the BH as good as it works for the Sun.
Hence, Outflow is due to Magnetic fields and inflow is due to gravity.
Once we accept that simple understanding, my mission had been accomplished.

11

New Theories / Re: How black hole really works

« on: 17/04/2023 10:55:57 »

Therefore, it is impossible to simultaneously have inflows and outflows in the same BH system.

Unless (as I keep pointing out) stuff bounces off other stuff that is also falling in.

Why do you think that's impossible?

Dear Bored chemist
How long are you going to reject the real meaning of the observation and force/hope/wish that the BH should eat its food?
So, please read again the follwing:

In the article it is stated:
https://www.space.com/newfound-black-holes-closest-to-earth-gaia
"There are a lot of particles coming off the companion star in the form of stellar wind," Cendes said. "But because we didn't see any radio light, that tells us the black hole isn't a great eater and not many particles are crossing its event horizon. We don't know why that is, but we want to find out!"

Please answer if based on the above data do you confirm that:
1. There are lot of particles in the wind between the BH and the star
Yes Or No?
2. The BH "isn't a great eater and not many particles are crossing its event horizon" which means that we don't observe that it eats any particle from outside.
Yes or No?
3. If the BH doesn't eat all the particles Infront of his mouth, then its gravity force isn't strong enough to grab them.
Yes or No?
4. As the BH' gravity force it too weak to grab even those free nearby particles, then it is very clear that it also doesn't have enough gravity force to kick any particle from the companion star.
Yes or No?
5. Therefore, all the lot particles have not been ejected from the star due to the poor BH gravity force
Yes or no?

6. So how can we explain the existence of all the particles that are there in the stellar wind next to the mouth of the BH?

7. How long are we going to dream about Bhs that eat food/Particles from outside, while BHs refuse to eat any?

8. It is stated: "We don't know why that is, but we want to find out!"
Don't you think that it's time to tell those puzzled scientists that their imagination about BH that could kick out particles from its companion star with its poor gravity force and eat them for breakfast is just incorrect?

9. Is there any possibility that we would accept the real meaning of the observation?

12

New Theories / Re: How black hole really works

« on: 17/04/2023 06:23:58 »

Further evidence for this comes from the discovery of two relatively nearby black holes: https://www.space.com/newfound-black-holes-closest-to-earth-gaia Those two black holes are not emitting jets nor do they have accretion disks. That is perfectly in line with the theory that accretion disks and jets come from matter stolen from a companion star.

In the article it is stated:
https://www.space.com/newfound-black-holes-closest-to-earth-gaia
"There are a lot of particles coming off the companion star in the form of stellar wind," Cendes said. "But because we didn't see any radio light, that tells us the black hole isn't a great eater and not many particles are crossing its event horizon. We don't know why that is, but we want to find out!"
So, if the particles are coming out from the star (as they claim) due to the mighty BH gravity force, then why that BH doesn't eat those ejected particles (after they had been ejected from the star)?
How could it be that the BH gravity force is strong enough to cut particles from the star but its not strong enough to direct them into its mouth?
Sorry, this is not realistic.
If the BH gravity force is strong enough to grab particles from the companion star, then as those participles are ejected outwards, its gravity force must grab them all and eat them.
Therefore, I wonder why they are so sure that the star is the source for those particles?
Did they really monitor/see the particles flow from the companion star or they just saw the stellar wind full with particles and they just assume that it must come from the star?
If the BH has not enough gravity force to eat the particles, how can we believe that it had enough gravity force to kick them out from the star?
Why they also discuss about particles? Why not Hydrogen or gas flow?
Can we get further information about what kind of particles they really observe?
In any case, in this observation there is no indication for inflow into the BH itself as they clearly cleam that black hole isn't a great eater and not many particles are crossing its event horizon.
When they say that "not many particles are crossing its event horizon" could it be that they didn't observe any particle as it falls inwards the event horizon?
They claim: "We don't know why that is, but we want to find out!"
Could it be that their expectation/hope/wish for matter/particles that are ejected from the Star and should fall inwards and be eaten by this BH is just incorrect?

13

New Theories / Re: How black hole really works

« on: 17/04/2023 05:04:03 »

No, there is inflow as well. If there wasn't, then there wouldn't be outbursts caused by matter hitting the white dwarf's surface.

Do we observe any inflow in that specific white dwarf?
If so, where is it?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:48:09
Hence, if we observe an outflow from the BH accretion disc, then this outflow isn't due to any inflow.

It has to be, since black holes don't make gas.

Please, I just want to focus on the real observation/evidence.
Do you confirm that so far, we have never observed any inflow in any BH system with outflow jet stream?
Yes or no please.

14

New Theories / Re: How black hole really works

« on: 17/04/2023 04:48:09 »

The article doesn't mention inflows because it is specifically about outflows

As expected, in that specific white dwarf there is only outflow.

I've already said that we know inflows are present because of the outbursts that are caused when accreting material hits the white dwarf's surface.

It is possible to have inflow in white dwarf or BH.
If the inflow hits the white dwarf's surface then technically some of that matter could be ejected outwards.
However, in BH it works differently. If the inflow hits the BH's and fall below the event horizon then technically nothing could be ejected outwards.
Therefore, it is impossible to simultaneously have inflows and outflows in the same BH system.
Hence, if we observe an outflow from the BH accretion disc, then this outflow isn't due to any inflow.

Do you understand that in a car crash the bits of debris are thrown in pretty much every direction?

This isn't the case in the accretion disc.
It is very thin and in order.
Therefore, the idea that matter from outside collides with the matter in the accretion disc is just imagination.
If that was the case, then we could observe the matter/star from outside as it falls inwards, see the impact of the collision as some sort of a supernova or gravity wave and also see the chaos in the accretion disc after the collision impact ("the bits of debris are thrown in pretty much every direction").
It is expected that the accretion disc would be break down due to a collision with a falling star.
As I have already stated, it is not expected that the orbital motion of the falling matter /star would be perfectly aligned with the accretion disc motion.
Therefore, even small quantity of matter that hits the accretion disc face to face while each one is moving at almost a speed of light could cause a severe damage to the accretion disc.

15

New Theories / Re: How black hole really works

« on: 16/04/2023 19:51:50 »

We know that it is possible to simultaneously have inflows and outflows in the same system. We know that cataclysmic variables have inflows because of the detectable brightening that occurs when gas from the donor star slams into the surface of the white dwarf. We know that they have outflows because those are detectable too:
https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0410200

This article is all about Outflow.
Observations of Outflows in Cataclysmic Variable
https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0410200.pdf
Not even a single word about inflow.

16

New Theories / Re: How black hole really works

« on: 16/04/2023 19:41:31 »

OK, so you don't understand that there's other stuff in the disk which complicates the mechanics.
Kepler's work was brilliant, but it's the maths of the simplest case.
Orbits can take other forms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabolic_trajectory

Can you please explain how Kepler law /  Parabolic_trajectory could help the matter from outside to fall inwards into the BH, sets several circular loops in the accretion disc, and then be ejected outwards?

Either it can or it can't. Which is it?

Yes, matter can fall inwards
However:

once the matter falls inwards, that matter can't be ejected outwards.
Therefore, it must collide with the BH itself or obey to Kepler law and set the full elliptical orbital motion

17

New Theories / Re: How black hole really works

« on: 16/04/2023 18:23:22 »

Therefore, If we believe that the matter in the accretion disc is due to falling matter/star/gas cloud from outside, then the matter in that disc MUST continue to fall/spiral inwards and collide with the BH without exception.

This is the opposite of what you had claimed before (that not even a single atom can fall into a black hole). Why the change of position?

Sorry if I was not clear enough.
Let's make it clear:
If we observe an outflow from a BH (as a jet stream for example), then not even a single atom can fall inwards into its accretion disc.
If there is no outflow then matter can fall inwards.
However, once the matter falls inwards, that matter can't be ejected outwards.
Therefore, it must collide with the BH itself or obey to Kepler law and set the full elliptical orbital motion.

18

New Theories / Re: How black hole really works

« on: 16/04/2023 17:13:05 »

However, that matter can't fall outwards once it falls inwards.

Why not?
We do it with spacecraft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist

Gravity assist is real.
It is based on Kepler law for elliptical orbit.
So, the orbital object can accelerate as it comes closer to the central mass, but it can't just stay there at the minimal radius and set several loops. It must continue its momentum and get out in order to set one full elliptical orbit as follow:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion#/media/File:Ellipitical_orbit_of_planet_with_an_eccentricty_of_0.8.gif
The accretion disc is totally different scenario.
Is it clear?

19

New Theories / Re: How black hole really works

« on: 16/04/2023 15:01:24 »

So you admit, in the case of V404 Cygni specifically, that the magnetic field isn't strong enough to prevent matter from falling into the black hole?

Sure
Matter can fall inwards.
However, that matter can't fall outwards once it falls inwards.
Therefore, If we believe that the matter in the accretion disc is due to falling matter/star/gas cloud from outside, then the matter in that disc MUST continue to fall/spiral inwards and collide with the BH without exception.
If you still believe that matter could fall in, keep their orbital motion at the lowest distance/radius and then fall out (without touching the BH itself) then please offer the science low that could support this idea.

20

New Theories / Re: How black hole really works

« on: 16/04/2023 09:25:04 »

We know that a black hole's magnetic field isn't too strong to allow matter to pass it. The magnetic field around the black hole in V404 Cygni has been measured as being about 500 gauss: https://www.space.com/39051-astronomers-measure-black-hole-magnetic-field.html

BH/SMBH aren't the same
When we monitor the ability of infant child, does it give us real indication about the ability of an adult?
Don't you agree that we might find someone that can't walk while other can run fast?
In the same token, the ability of the V404 Cygni can't give indication about the magnetic ability of all the other BH/SMBH in the universe.
In the following article it is stated:
3. https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nasa-gets-unusually-close-glimpse-of-black-hole-snacking-on-star
“Our observations of AT2021ehb are in agreement with the idea that magnetic fields have something to do with how the corona forms, and we want to know what’s causing that magnetic field to get so strong.”
Therefore, this BH has a strong magnetic field.
Hence, each BH might have its different magnetic field and we must monitor them one by one.

However, that's a relatively weak magnetic field in terms of what astrophysical objects can produce. Take the white dwarf component of the AM Herculis system. That star has a magnetic field strength between 10,000,000 and 100,000,000 gauss: https://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/A/AM_Herculis_star.html

This is just a white dwarf.
Multiply its mass by one billion and we might get a SMBH/Quasar with magnetic field strength that is stronger by one billion.

However, matter is still able to pass from the other star and fall onto the white dwarf's surface. We know that this happens because the star is what is called a "cataclysmic variable". The star has outbursts caused by matter falling onto its surface. Since we know that even a field of millions of gauss can't stop the gas, then a field of only 500 gauss isn't going to do it either.

As I have stated, twin stars could fall inwards and collide with each other.
Matter could spiral inwards and collide with the BH/ white dwarf.
However, there is no possibility for matter to fall in and then fall out.
Sorry, how can we believe in such imagination?