21
New Theories / Re: Do mechanical vibrations of atoms expend energy?
« on: 23/06/2023 03:47:07 »
Telling someone that they are wrong is not bullying.
The following users thanked this post: Zer0
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Have you noticed how badly that's working?Run in circles then what the hell do i care?
No pope. I just call it the aether because you people are so high strung on semantics. call it what you want, you still aren't going to find anything in the universe without tempetature?My stance is that the aether doesn't exist at all.why does an aether have to exist for my temperature theory to be true?
Because you said that it involved the aether.
Do Photons interact with Positrons?
Sorry, A theory is always 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."
You must prove it with real observation/evidence.
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?
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.
So how that v404-cygni-black-hole could set this kind of jet stream without any direct observed inflow?
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.
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?
Do you confirm that so far, we have never observed any real star as it falls into a SMBH?
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
there might be an error in the assumption that "the gas in the accretion disk is coming from the star."
1. The BH is the most massive stellar-mass black hole that can be produced
This makes the object the largest stellar-mass black hole ever discovered without the use of gravitational waves.
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?
I use an imaginary scale
I see the OP continuously struggling to Understand BH formations, but i see Noone helping the OP out with Logic based Evidence.
Dear Kryptid
In the article it is stated clearly: "it is seen producing stars".
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?
So, for any new created star, at least one star should be destroyed.
some is eaten by the SMBH
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.
We monitor our galaxy core for more than 40 years and so far, we didn't see even one falling star.
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?
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.
The sun in its nuclear fusion converts its mass to energy.
When all mass is converted and the sun dies, it forms a black hole
Which is also a singularity, now this singularity is intense energy in a single point it is not rest mass
Now if the whole black hole converted to mass and exploded with a bang it will form the sun again.
What will stop the nuclear fusion?
Space-time can not be proved in the absence of mass or motion space-time does not exist
some of the energy in the singularity point transformed into rest mass
energy can be concentrated in a singularity point but rest mass needs a non-zero volume.
Can Primordial Gas Clouds collapse in such a manner that they surpass the Star Formation stage & Directly create a Black Hole?
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.