1

New Theories / Re: the forgotten aether,2023

« on: Yesterday at 17:37:17 »

The link below is a video of just that.

We've already been through this. It's not a real video of an actual event. It's a simulation made in a computer: https://benedikt-bitterli.me/femto.html

2

New Theories / Re: Why is the sky blue?

« on: Yesterday at 17:21:59 »

Could be that the sun is wrong and more colors would be appropriate, making you wrong,wrong again, making the sun mad.

This is exactly the kind of spam that got you banned the last time. If I observe that you haven't really changed your ways, you'll get banned again. Please act more maturely when other members disagree with you.

Anyhoo when light falls into the gravity field of the nucleus, it presumably blue shifts going in and red shifts going out.

The gravity of a single atomic nucleus would be so incredibly tiny that I don't think red shift and blue shift would even be detectable with our best instruments.

The speed of light is thought to be a result of the background temperature of the aether.

Can you give a citation for this?

But as light cools off it continues at the same speed?

Light doesn't have a temperature. Temperature is a quantity of bulk systems such as a collection of atoms.

3

New Theories / Re: Why is the sky blue?

« on: 31/05/2023 15:38:17 »

The light emitted by the Sun is red shifted by the Sun's gravitational field by a significantly larger factor than the Earth's gravitational field blue shifts it because the Sun is much more massive than the Earth. Despite this, the Sun's light still appears white from space. The degree of change in wavelength is incredibly small.

Besides, what Bored Chemist said about the sky being red at sunset also demonstrates that gravitational blue shift cannot be the reason behind the sky's color: the Earth's gravity doesn't change at sunset.

4

New Theories / Re: Newest Quantum Gravity and Theory of Everything, TOE

« on: 30/05/2023 14:16:10 »

In the three models galactical, cosmical and supercosmical the distances are of the order of 15 powers

How did you arrive at 15 orders of magnitude difference?

5

New Theories / Re: Newest Quantum Gravity and Theory of Everything, TOE

« on: 28/05/2023 01:22:53 »

The basis for matter is square microgrid of space sizes in the order of 10^-80 m.

How did you arrive at that number?

6

Chemistry / Re: Is nitrogen based liquid fuel a viable energy storage solution?

« on: 27/05/2023 07:32:23 »

When you combine nitrogen and oxygen into various compounds (whether it be nitrogen dioxide, dinitrogen tetroxide or dinitrogen pentoxide), what you get is generally an oxidizing agent and not a reducing agent. If you want to make something you can burn, you could potentially combine the hydrogen from water with the nitrogen in air to produce something flammable like hydrazine. From what I understand, that's not a very fun chemical to be around, though.

7

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: BLC 1 Signal from Proxima Centauri?

« on: 17/05/2023 17:46:33 »

Why does SETI not establish Radio Telescopes in Deep space?
Or on the ' Other ' side of the Moon?

That would require us to go back to the Moon first, which isn't something you can do on a whim.

8

New Theories / Re: Grand Canyon Formation By Anti-matter

« on: 07/05/2023 01:16:15 »

An antimatter asteroid would explode as soon as it touched the atmosphere.

Do Photons interact with Positrons?

Yes, but it's pretty much the same as photons interacting with electrons. Nothing special really happens.

9

New Theories / Re: How black hole really works

« on: 24/04/2023 16:29:45 »

Dave, you are quite obviously arguing that black holes make their own accretion disks. You might not be saying it directly, but you are saying it indirectly. If you're arguing that matter isn't coming from outside, then you are arguing for the opposite: that it's coming from the black hole. That's Theory D. This thread is taking basically the same path as if you were talking about it explicitly. I see that you are still trying to weasel your way around a thread closure. For that reason, this thread is getting closed as well.

10

New Theories / Re: How black hole really works

« on: 24/04/2023 01:52:43 »

Let's call it - Infant BH.

How do you know that particular black hole is an infant?

Evidence means Observation.

Let's look at what Merriam-Webster has to say about that: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence

1
a
: an outward sign : INDICATION
b
: something that furnishes proof : TESTIMONY
specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2
: one who bears witness
especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against one's accomplices

No mentioning of direct observation as a requirement for something to be evidence.

deduction can't replace an observation.

Sure it can. Forensic analysis of a dead body can determine how the person died. They don't need to have seen the death actually happen in order to figure out how it happened.

You can't justify the observation of the outflow without justify the observation of the inflow.

Technically, we have. The accretion disk is a type of inflow. We can observe the accretion disk.

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.

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!

The accretion disk is much hotter and much brighter than the gas that is freshly pulled from the star. Therefore, it does not follow that one should be as easy to see as the other. We also know that the accretion disk comes from outside the black hole because that's the only option that works within the laws of physics.

The accretion disc is evidence that there is matter over there.

And that matter had to come from outside, because black holes don't make matter like that.

How it gets there without anything to fall down it is your task to solve.

It's not like it just teleported there. 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.

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.

A lightbulb is made of the same matter whether it is turned on or whether it is turned off, so that argument doesn't work. When you turn it on, the filament gets much hotter and becomes bright enough to emit light. That same concept is at work with inflow vs. outflow luminosity.

We have recently observed a couple of black holes eating neutron stars through gravitational wave detection: https://scitechdaily.com/black-holes-detected-eating-neutron-stars-like-pac-man/

Just so we don't run around in circles, can you tell us what you think would count as a sufficient observation to determine whether or not a phenomenon actually happens?

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.

Show us where they got the math wrong. Show us your working so we can see whether your criticism is valid or not. Are you aware that magnetic fields do not speed up electrically-charged particles? Magnetic fields only change the direction that those charged particles move in. Keep that in mind.

11

New Theories / Re: How black hole really works

« on: 23/04/2023 18:07:25 »

Sorry, A theory is always backed by evidence:

It is 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."

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

You must prove it with real observation/evidence.

We have.

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.

Not so. There are stars that are both much heavier and much lighter than the Sun.

Therefore, if you wish to confirm that this hypothesis is correct, then please show the observation/evidence to support this idea.

We have already used deductive reasoning to show that it is.

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

Would you kindly and finally confirm that we have never observed such direct phenomenon?

We have never directly observed subatomic particles, but we don't have to. We can deduce that they are there based on the effects they have on our equipment. Do you deny the existence of subatomic particles because we cannot directly observe them?

Therefore, you have to agree that without direct observation for that idea, then it should be considered as Hypothesis.

Again, no. 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.

So how that v404-cygni-black-hole could set this kind of jet stream without any direct observed inflow?

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

12

New Theories / Re: How black hole really works

« on: 23/04/2023 13:45:52 »

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.

13

New Theories / Re: How black hole really works

« on: 23/04/2023 00:33:50 »

I would like to focus on the inflow Hypothesis.

It's not a hypothesis.

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.

As we have never observed any star as it falls inwards, could it be that there is an error in this inflow hypothesis?

No. 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.

14

New Theories / Re: How black hole really works

« on: 18/04/2023 21:15:15 »

So do you give me now the permission to reuse this message, or it is still forbidden?

No, because what they are claiming is different from what you are claiming. The pair plasma is created by the accretion disk of matter that is taken from another star: https://phys.org/news/2023-02-illuminating-science-black-holes-gamma-ray.html

Electron-positron pair plasmas are abundant in high-energy astrophysical systems, such as those associated with neutron star and black hole environments. The interactions of photons with each other and with strong magnetic fields lead to prolific pair creation via electromagnetic cascades. These pair plasmas are typically hot and can be accelerated to high speeds in the winds or jets associated with these compact astrophysical objects, including pulsar magnetospheres, jets from active galactic nuclei and GRBs.

The extreme heat in the accretion disk leads to high energy radiation. This radiation, in turn, can turn into pair plasma. So you have to have an accretion disk before you get pair plasma, not the other way around. No radiation, no pair plasma. Black holes don't make radiation by themselves (except Hawking radiation, which is far, far, far too weak to make pair plasma except in very, very small black holes).

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?

No, this is not correct. The inflow itself is what makes the pair plasma as I just explained. Without inflow, the black hole sits there and does nothing. That was the point of me posting about those "quiet" black holes that are too far away from their companion stars to steal matter from them.

If you claim that black holes create pair plasma by themselves, then you are talking about Theory D (which is not allowed). That is not what the scientists are talking about and therefore you cannot use that as an excuse to bring it up. Do it again and I'm locking this thread because that would represent the bypassing of a previous thread locking on your part. You will get no further warnings from me.

15

New Theories / Re: How black hole really works

« on: 18/04/2023 17:16:07 »

Can you please explain how could it be that they start the simulation without plasma and then particles are created?

The abstract of the paper is here: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.035101 But, as is my bane when it comes to scientific papers, the whole paper itself is not publicly available. Here is what I can gather based on the abstract: the simulation starts off without any particles there, which is how a black hole would start out anyway. Then they add positrons and electrons to the simulation. This is called a "pair plasma". In nature, this is created during extreme conditions like what would exist in an accretion disk (or artificially in a particle accelerator). So in order to get this pair plasma, an accretion disk is needed in order to produce the needed temperatures. No new mass or energy is created, it is only transformed into a different kind of particle.

The take home is this: if the magnetic fields around the black hole can throw some of the pair plasma away from the hole and some of it into the hole, then the same thing will happen to plasma that comes close to the black hole that is pulled away from a star (because both types of plasma are composed of electrically-charged particles). So this simulation shows that you can have inflow and outflow in the same system.

16

New Theories / Re: How black hole really works

« on: 18/04/2023 06:12:00 »

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.

17

New Theories / Re: How black hole really works

« on: 17/04/2023 16:32:09 »

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?

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

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.

That wasn't the point of me posting this.

18

New Theories / Re: How black hole really works

« on: 17/04/2023 05:10:26 »

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

Yes, due to the outbursts. It wouldn't be a cataclysmic variable otherwise. As I said before, we know that the white dwarf isn't doing that on it's on because white dwarfs that are too far away from other stars to accrete matter from them don't have outbursts. Go check out Sirius B and Procyon B. They are far away from their companions and do not have outbursts.

Please, I just want to focus on the real observation/evidence.

So do I. We've never observed gas come out of a black hole. It can't get out because of the event horizon. 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. Thus, if a companion star is too far from the black hole, you don't get those things. That is confirmed with those two new black holes. They are far away from their companions and don't make jets.

Do you confirm that so far, we have never observed any inflow from a BH system with outflow jet stream?
Yes or no please.

Yes, indirectly by detecting the accretion disk and jets. Black holes do not make those things on their own. The laws of physics tells us so.

19

New Theories / Re: How black hole really works

« on: 17/04/2023 04:51:01 »

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

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.

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.

20

New Theories / Re: How to increase IQ level ? How to improve IQ ? cognitive psychology

« on: 16/04/2023 23:34:44 »

Can I take that as an indication that you didn't actually measure it?