0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
We have just found that it surly not zero!!!
Therefore, that minimal size sets the minimal distance between the particles in the core of a BH or NS.
The distance is limited by the radius of each particle.
Therefore, I hope that by this time you do understand that Infinite energy in a finite region is unrealistic while the distance isn't zero!!!
How can we beleive that this represents real science?
In this calculation you assume that the BH acts as a single particle.This is totally incorrect as QM specifically aim to use this formula for a single particle. How could you make so sever mistake and use that particle formula for a BH as it is a single particle?
The size of the BH is the direct outcome from the total size of all its particles.
That NS would never ever collapse under any sort of particles no as the pressure on each particle is finite due to finite radius of each particale as confirmed.
Therefore, the NS can become a massive NS or a Supper Massive NS without any difficulty.So, the idea that NS should collapse at 3 Sun mass is a pure imagination.
As I have proved
That leads to an average density of:Density = (2.0282 x 1030 kilograms)/(8.386 x 1020 cubic meters)Density = 2.41855 x 109 kilograms/cubic meterThat makes Sirius B about 17,400 times more dense than a carbon atom and about 8,500 times more dense than an oxygen atom, despite being composed primarily of carbon and oxygen.
A singularity is a single particle.
wavelength = 3.70507 x 10-73 meters
It doesn't collapse as our scientists wish to believe.
This by itself proves my understanding that any particle keeps its properties and will never ever collapse even under ultra extreme pressure.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/09/2020 16:29:45OK Dave...You seem to have missed this one again.Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:55:08Now try answering these questions. You have been ignoring one of them since the start of this thread.Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:58:59Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:41:05Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/09/2020 08:54:25If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years) box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth
If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years) box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth
They also add that QM fully rejects the idea of singularity.
Maybe they are as big as the planck length, but they certainly are not bigger.
It was stated that they have found a big aria in our universe that is very cold.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:24:55Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/09/2020 16:29:45OK Dave...You seem to have missed this one again.Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:55:08Now try answering these questions. You have been ignoring one of them since the start of this thread.Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:58:59Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:41:05Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/09/2020 08:54:25If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years) box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth
However, based on theory D
the carbon atom is about 8,500 times more dense than oxygen Atom
Therefore, in the same token, a proton will stay a proton under any sort of extreme pressure.
As Atom didn't collapse at ultra high pressure, its atomic nucleus won't collapse at any finite extreme pressure (assuming that it is not infinite).
I hope that you agree that without a finite pressure we can't force the particles to collapse.
If you still think differently, then please show the math at which pressure the Atom or atomic nucleus should collapse.
1. What are the differences between NS to BH at simmilar mass that we can OBSERVE?Please - not unproved theory. ONLY real observation.
Is it real?
Can we really observe a singularity of 3.70507 x 10-73 meters from a distance of 100 LY or more?
How anyone with basic common sense can accept that idea?
Hence, many of the black objects that we see (or only observe the outcome of their existence due to the impact of their high gravity field on nearby objects) aren't BH but actually Black dwarf.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 10:40:03Can we really observe a singularity of 3.70507 x 10-73 meters from a distance of 100 LY or more?Nothing inside of a black hole can be observed at all.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 10:40:03Can we really observe a singularity of 3.70507 x 10-73 meters from a distance of 100 LY or more?
Based on all the articles including the TV program of "How the universe really works"
I would like to remind you that the key message in this discussion was the ability of BH to generate magnetic field.
Therefore, we can continue our discussion from that point.
That quasar is clearly a SMBH. It has no stars around it to be eaten.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:39:22Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:24:55Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/09/2020 16:29:45OK Dave...You seem to have missed this one again.Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:55:08Now try answering these questions. You have been ignoring one of them since the start of this thread.Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:58:59Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:41:05Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/09/2020 08:54:25If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years) box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 09:51:29I would like to remind you that the key message in this discussion was the ability of BH to generate magnetic field.It still can't (or, at best, can't for long)
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 09:51:29I would like to remind you that the key message in this discussion was the ability of BH to generate magnetic field.
Please look at the following image:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar#/media/File:PKS_1127-145_X-rays.jpg"An enormous X-ray jet extends at least a million light-years from the quasar."
You really can't expect to cite a TV show as "evidence" and be taken seriously.
https://phys.org/news/2018-12-black-hole-singularity.html"For example, general relativity predicts that there are places in the universe where gravity becomes infinite and space-time simply ends. We refer to these places as 'singularities.' But even Einstein agreed that this limitation of general relativity results from the fact that it ignores quantum mechanics."
"the quantum corrections of loop quantum gravity allow for a repulsive force that can overwhelm even the strongest pull of classical gravity and therefore physics can continue to exist."
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 09:51:29That quasar is clearly a SMBH. It has no stars around it to be eaten.It is in the process of chewing them.that's what the accretion disk is made of.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 09:51:29That quasar is clearly a SMBH. It has no stars around it to be eaten.
please advice what could be the source of power for the following Ultra jet stream from the Quasar:
Quote from: Bored chemist on 27/09/2020 19:34:08Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:39:22Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:24:55Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/09/2020 16:29:45OK Dave...You seem to have missed this one again.Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:55:08Now try answering these questions. You have been ignoring one of them since the start of this thread.Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:58:59Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:41:05Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/09/2020 08:54:25If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years) box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth
How could it be that we couldn't observe even one star around them while they all are fully loaded with gas/matter in their accretion disc and while their jet streams are boosted away to ultra distance at ultra velocity?
Do you agree that you don't let the Observations/evidences to confuse you?
We did.so, what did you think you were talking about?
I have explained it a few times but you don't understand it or don't listen.The accretion disk could generate a magnetic field.
You or Kryptid have stated that the magnetic field falls in the ratio of 1/R^3.
In this article they do not discuss about quasar but about SMBH.
Please let's finish this issue before jumping to any other idea/question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:26:07Quote from: Bored chemist on 27/09/2020 19:34:08Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:39:22Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:24:55Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/09/2020 16:29:45OK Dave...You seem to have missed this one again.Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:55:08Now try answering these questions. You have been ignoring one of them since the start of this thread.Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:58:59Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:41:05Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/09/2020 08:54:25If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years) box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth
They even confirm that they have missed the beginning of that activity."If it had occurred outside this zone, TESS might have missed the beginning of the outburst."
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:42:21You or Kryptid have stated that the magnetic field falls in the ratio of 1/R^3.Yes, which means that near the thing the field is quite strong.One the particles are launched they travel ballistically. They don't need to be pushed any more.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:42:21You or Kryptid have stated that the magnetic field falls in the ratio of 1/R^3.
No, there is no way for the jet to get to more than one million LY only by ballistic force
Quote from: Dave Lev on 30/09/2020 19:43:54No, there is no way for the jet to get to more than one million LY only by ballistic forceShow your working.
The total estimated mass in the jet stream from the Milky way is about 10,000 Sun mass while it gets only to 27,000Ly,So, in each Ly there is by average 10/27 = 0.37 Sun mass.If we use the same density in the quasar jet stream, than the total mass in one million Ly should be 370,000 sun mass.So, let's assume that this jet stream is due to 370,000 stars that had been accreted into the accretion disc.However, each star might have different orbital plane. So, each star should set a different accretion disc plane.Therefore, if the magnetic field is due to the accretion disc' magnetic field, then for each falling star we should get different direction of jet stream.However, this is not the case.In all the jet stream in the Universe we clearly see that they move in one smooth and fixed direction.
Show your working.
Well, there is no need for that
I have already proved that quasar' jet stream can't be formed from a falling stars.
There are no stars around those Quasars.
Answer this questionQuote from: Bored chemist on 29/09/2020 08:47:08Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:26:07Quote from: Bored chemist on 27/09/2020 19:34:08Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:39:22Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:24:55Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/09/2020 16:29:45OK Dave...You seem to have missed this one again.Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:55:08Now try answering these questions. You have been ignoring one of them since the start of this thread.Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:58:59Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:41:05Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/09/2020 08:54:25If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years) box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on EarthIt's the idea you raised in the first few lines of the first post in this thread.And you still haven't answered my question about it.