1
New Theories / Re: How black hole really works
« on: 24/04/2023 06:31:30 »Yes it is.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:56:42That 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.
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.
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?