41
New Theories / Re: Why Quasars are So Hot?
« on: 13/09/2023 16:12:34 »Anyway, the answer to your question is obviously "from the other stuff that fell in".
I remember telling you this before in another of your threads where you failed to realise that science is actually based in reality, but your ideas were not..
It would have been better for everyone if you had listened.
Let's verify the issue from energy conservation point of view:
Cold Hydrogens particles at a distance of 2 day lights with a low orbital kinetic energy fall inwards.
As they get to the accretion disc, their starting potential energy is transformed to maximal kinetic energy.
At that location, they increase their temperature to billions or even trillions K and they orbit at 0.3c.
They also generate magnetic field.
This magnetic fields would help to redirect the same particles to the SMBH poles.
However, although they used a potential energy of only 2 day light, as they are ejected outwards somehow they would gain a potential energy of 27,000 Ly.
The formula for potential energy is:
EP = M G H
EP1 (at 2 day light) = M G (2 Day light)
EP2 (at 27000 Light years) = M G (27000 Light years) = MG ( 27000 * 365 Light days) = MG (9,855,000 day light)
Therefore, the potential energy had been increased by:
EP2 / EP1 = 9,855,000 / 2 = 4,927,500
In other words, we have increased the potential energy by 4,927,500.
This is just due to the potential energy.
Wow
I pointed out that the slingshot effect is perfectly within the laws of physics.So based on the idea of slingshot effect we could increase the energy by 4,927,500 without investing any sort of external energy.
Adding to that the idea that we increase the heat of the particles to billions or trillions of degrees and also gain magnetic field - all of that is free of charge.
If that activity is perfectly within the laws of physics, why can't we use this slingshot effect for our benefit.
We would invest very low energy and multiply it by 4,927,500 or more.
Is it real?
Are you sure that we can increase the energy by 4,927,500 times without investing external energy and without breaking the energy conservation law?
I'm quite sure that if I would dare to claim that I know how to multiply the energy by only two without extremal energy - my thread would be locked immediately.
You are lucky as you represent the good scientists.
In any case, would you kindly reconsider your reply.