0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Let's look at the following image of the accretion disc of that far end galaxy:https://phys.org/news/2018-09-falling-black-hole-percent.html
In the article it is stated:"The orbit of the gas around the black hole is often assumed to be aligned with the rotation of the black hole, but there is no compelling reason for this to be the case. In fact, the reason we have summer and winter is that the Earth's daily rotation does not line up with its yearly orbit around the Sun."So, they claim that in the accretion disc there are un aligned rings in the accretion disc and they also orbit in opposite directions.
For example let's look at Saturn's Rings:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rings_of_Saturn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rings_of_Saturn#/media/File:Unraveling_Saturn's_Rings.jpgIt has several rings. However, all of them orbit at the same plane and at the same direction.
All of them are located at the same plane and all of them orbit at the same direction.You won't find even one star that dare to orbit at the opposite direction in that spiral disc/ring.
Why is it? How could it be that all the stars that are falling inwards to the spiral disc/ring must orbit in only one direction?
How can they assume that star "can fall in from any direction" while we see clearly that this isn't the case in the spiral disc/ring?
Can we assume that planets around solar system are ring???
As evan says, almost zero chance that any two particles (improbably small targets) will hit.
Let me ask again:What is the chance that one Hydrogen from one cloud will hit that Atom directly at the center (face to face)?
If they hit each other even at only 0.29177210903(80)×10−11 m from their center, than they will both ejected to different directions.
So, it is not just about the collision chance between each two atoms, but it is also about the exact face to face collision point between the atoms.
A cloud in the Space is not as a cloud in the Earth. It has a density.
If two cars exactly at the same size collide with each other exactly at their center of mass, than, yes - theoretically they could stop at their current accident spot.
It seems to me as one will claim that a collision between two cars can create instantly new truck, without any garbage around the collision point.
Let's assume that somehow due the collision we have set a new truck out of two collided cars without any garbage. Why that new truck will move now at 90 degrees from the highway direction?
How could it be that they can cross the accretion ring without any difficulty?
It is clear to me that the only possibility for a gas cloud to cross the highway accretion disc is by flying above those rings.
You have also cited the results of calculations from a scientific paper as being absolutely factual when they agreed with your model, yet you reject the results of calculations from other scientific papers when they disagree with your model. Do you know what that is called? A double standard.
I will answer that question if you answer it first.
QuoteLet's look at the following image of the accretion disc of that far end galaxy:https://phys.org/news/2018-09-falling-black-hole-percent.htmlThat is not an image of that 'far end galaxy'. It's an image from a computer simulation run 15 years ago, not meant specifically to model any particular galaxy.There are images of that galaxy, but that article didn't include one.
Even if the idea of multiple rings is wrong, that doesn't invalidate our observations. We saw a gas cloud get eaten by a black hole. It happened. Complaining about it won't make it go away.
You can see this when a SMBH jet interacts with the very thin intergalactic medium. For example, see the end of the M87 jet.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysical_jet#Relativistic_jets
Quote from: Kryptid You have also cited the results of calculations from a scientific paper as being absolutely factual when they agreed with your model, yet you reject the results of calculations from other scientific papers when they disagree with your model. Do you know what that is called? A double standard.You complain about double standard, but unfortunate, that exactly what you do.In the article which I have offered, it is stated clearly in the title:"First detection of matter falling into a black hole at 30 percent of the speed of light"You fully and happily accept the idea of "detection of matter falling into a black hole at 30 percent of the speed of light", but you reject the meaning of "First".
you must except the very sad outcome that this article is the ONLY real observation for "detection of matter falling into a black hole"
I have no "double standard". I accept by 100% all the observations and all the laws in physics.
If they are using wrong assumptions and setups in their modeling they will surly get wrong outcome.
As our scientists insist to look at all observations and discoveries through the BBT filter.
Therefore, any modeling which is based on a wishful list of setups and assumptions can't prove anything!
It is also stated:"The researchers found the spectra to be strongly red-shifted, showing the observed matter to be falling into the black hole at the enormous speed of 30 per cent of the speed of light, or around 100,000 kilometers per second."Can you please explain the meaning of:"showing the observed matter to be falling into the black hole"Why not - "We have observed clearly that the matter is falling into the Black hole? "or "We saw clearly the impact of that falling in activity."?
The answer for that is given in the following:"The gas has almost no rotation around the hole, and is detected extremely close to it in astronomical terms, at a distance of only 20 times the hole's size (its event horizon, the boundary of the region where escape is no longer possible)."So, they didn't see it really falling into the Black hole.They just saw that the gas cloud came very close to the BH "at a distance of only 20 times the hole's size - event horizon".
As the "event horizon" represents "the boundary of the region where escape is no longer possible", they were very sure that it must fall in.So, they didn't see it falling in, they just assume that as it get so close the the event horizon, which represents the boundary of the region where escape is no longer possible, that gas must fall in. I claim that this is a fatal understanding.
That gas cloud was not even close to the event of horizon.
If this gas cloud was just flying above the SMBH, how can the monitor few million Km, from a top view of 1 Billion light year away?
They have totally neglected the great impact of the:"The gas has almost no rotation around the hole"In all the modeling that I have ever seen for in falling matter, our scientists have claimed that the in falling gas must orbit around the SMBH before falling in.
So, you want us to believe in the following process:
1. There was a gas cloud outside the accretion disc2. This gas cloud had been accreted into one of the rings in the accretion disc.
3. As it falls in, it gain high orbital velocity of 0.3 c and above. Please be aware that I have offered clear observation also for 0.85c at the innermost side of the accretion disc. It was stated that this aria is the most chaotic aria in the whole galaxy.
4. It gain high temp - of 10^9 c and be converted into Plasma.5. It works under the ultra power of the Magnetic field (around the SMBH)
6. Then suddenly there is a collision between two nearby rings in the accretion disc. Based on the observations, as we move closer to the SMBH, the orbital velocity of the plasma is higher. However, our scientists want us to believe those nearby rings are moving at opposite directions, and at the same orbital velocity.
7. Somehow, due to this unreal collision - our scientists want to believe that we get a very nice gas cloud that lost completely its orbital momentum. Is it real?
Why our scientists don't offer a modeling for that?
I Have tried to find at the web a modeling for a collision. I thought that a collision between two drops could do the JobThere is no way for the drops to stop at the spot of the collision:
8. Gas cloud temp - There is a big difference from gas cloud to plasma in many aspects especially in their temp. If I understand it correctly, a gas cloud has an estimated temp of less than 10^6 c. Plasma has a temp of 10^9c. So, our scientists want us to believe that the collision had also decrease dramatically the temp of the plasma in order to create a gas cloud.
9. The location of the gas cloud - Let's assume that somehow, we have got this unreal gas cloud of the collision. Don't you agree that it must be created just between the two rings?
If it moves just a little bit inwards, why the inwards accretion ring will not grab it?
That is not an image of that 'far end galaxy'. It's an image from a computer simulation, not meant specifically to model any particular galaxy.There are images of that galaxy, but that article didn't include one.
We see a gas cloud that moves directly to the pole of the SMBH.
You complain about double standard, but unfortunate, that exactly what you do.In the article which I have offered, it is stated clearly in the title:https://phys.org/news/2018-09-falling-black-hole-percent.html"First detection of matter falling into a black hole at 30 percent of the speed of light"You fully and happily accept the idea of "detection of matter falling into a black hole at 30 percent of the speed of light", but you reject the meaning of "First".Although English is not my first language, I will try to help you by Google:"coming before all others in time or order; earliest; 1st. his first wife."Do you understand by now the meaning of the word "first"?
First detection of matter falling into a black hole at 30 percent of the speed of light
First detection of matter falling into a black hole
However. you don't want to discuss about it as it contradicts your wishful list that we have already got many other examples for in falling matter long before this discovery. (Examples for in falling matter in M87, Andromeda galaxy, Milky way and many other long before 2018).
You have stated that our science community call "modeling" - Evidence.That by itself a fatal error.
As they see the galaxy from the top at a distance of 1 Billion light year away, they can't really monitor the height of the gas cloud from the SMBH.
This modeling had not been confirmed by any observation.
The gas cloud is not an evidence for in falling matter.
As the gas cloud gets close enough to the pole it is ejected outwards - NOT inwards to the SMBH.
So, assuming that you also respect your request about "double standard", do you agree that we see clearly that 99% (or at least 90%) from the mass in the accretion disc is ejected outwards
and we actually don't have any real observation (by X-ray) for any in falling matter in any SMBH at the whole Universe (except of that unreal falling in gas cloud)?
I really don't understand why our scientists ignore its great impact.
Titles are not written by scientists and often not even by the author of the article.
I do agree with the title of the article:"First detection of matter falling into a black hole at 30 percent of the speed of light"On the other hand..."First detection of matter falling into a black holeThis is not the title of the article. I do not agree with it.
Disk Winds, Jets, and Outflows: Theoretical and Computational Foundations: http://www.mpia.de/homes/fendt/Lehre/Lecture_OUT/pudritz.pdf
Milky Way's Black Hole a Picky Eater: https://www.urban-astronomer.com/news-and-updates/milky-ways-black-hole-a-picky-eater/
where you state that you accept the law of physics saying mass cannot be created or destroyed.
Sorry, I don't agree with this answer.Title is a key part of the article.
Don't you agree that any in falling matter should fall in that that range of speed?
Is there any possibility to fall in to a SMBH at a velocity of 1km per hour?
In any case, would you kindly summarize all the articles that confirm real observation or detection of matter falling into a black hole by X-ray at any galaxy at any speed in the whole Universe (Please - no simulation or modeling)?
So, why our scientists insist to ignore the great impact of the magnetic field around the SMBH?
Could it be that they didn't read the article about the magnetic field around the SMBH, or could it be that in 2014 our scientists were not fully aware about this great power?
Do you agree that:1. Zero is also less than 1%?2. Less than 1% is not equal to 1%?3. More than 99% could be also 100%?Hence, they don't have a solid proof for even 1% of in falling matter and there is a possibility that 100% from the matter in the accretion disc is ejected outwards.
In any case, I hope that by now we all agree that there is an Ultra high gravity force around the accretion disc.It pushes the matter from the accretion disc outwards (More than 99%?).
It Boosts the molecular jet stream at almost 0.8c u upwards/Downwards (up to 27,000 light year).
If we agree for all of that, why the magnetic field can't work also below the event of horizon of the SMBH?
The magnetic field has a polarity.As it pushes the atoms (Positive) out of the accretion disc, why it can't also pull the new created positive particle deep from the event of horizon?
Is there any barrier at the event of horizon that prevent the magnetic field from do that kind of job?
Now they should be one more time surprise to know that all the matter in the accretion disc is coming deep from the SMBH event of horizon.
Do you still see any conterediction with law of physics?
In any case, I hope that by now we all agree that there is an Ultra high gravity force around the accretion disc.
It pushes the matter from the accretion disc outwards (More than 99%?).
If we agree for all of that, why the magnetic field can't work also below the event of horizon of the SMBH?We have already agreed that at this aria the SMBH creates new particles. (Positive and negative).
QuoteIn any case, I hope that by now we all agree that there is an Ultra high gravity force around the accretion disc.It pushes the matter from the accretion disc outwards (More than 99%?).No, gravity does not push matter. It pulls it.
QuoteSo, why our scientists insist to ignore the great impact of the magnetic field around the SMBH?I already told you before that they don't ignore it. How many of my replies do you even read?
QuoteDo you agree that:1. Zero is also less than 1%?2. Less than 1% is not equal to 1%?3. More than 99% could be also 100%?Hence, they don't have a solid proof for even 1% of in falling matter and there is a possibility that 100% from the matter in the accretion disc is ejected outwards.(1) You are talking about the Milky Way's black hole specifically, so don't forget that.
(2) Of course we don't have "solid proof" that matter falls into a black hole (just as you don't have solid proof that all matter is ejected away from a black hole). What we have is evidence.
Disk Winds, Jets, and Outflows: Theoretical and Computational Foundations: http://www.mpia.de/homes/fendt/Lehre/Lecture_OUT/pudritz.pdf"The general stability of disk–outflow solutions is still being debated and the result may depend on the detailed assumptions about the model. In the solutions discussed here the accretion stress comes entirely from the large scale magnetic field rather than some small scale turbulence"So, it is stated clearly that "the accretion stress comes entirely from the large scale magnetic field"That proves that there is high magnetic force around the accretion disc.
The magnetic field isn't the only component responsible for this. The very high temperature of the gas is another one (as I posted before).
QuoteIs there any barrier at the event of horizon that prevent the magnetic field from do that kind of job?Yes, it's called the escape velocity. But there is a second component as well. The space and time inside of a black hole is so distorted that anything falling in must inevitably travel towards the singularity regardless of how much force is applied to it. I've once heard this likened to space now behaving like time. As we inevitably travel forward in time, matter inside the horizon must inevitably travel towards the singularity.
New particles may or may not be created below the event horizon. It is irrelevant since they can't get out.
Why our scientists didn't try to calculate/evaluate the magnitude of the Magnetic field?
Yes, we are talking about the Milky Way's black hole specifically - Why not?I would like to understand how the Milky way galaxy really works.
Don't you agree that more than 99% is high enough?
So, why do you insist to minimize the great impact of the magnetic field?
Do you really belive that the "very high temperature of the gas" can set the outflow of more than 99% from the accretion disc?If so, please prove it?
Who wins the game?
It is also clear that ALL the matter in the accretion disc should fall into the SMBH.
However, Magnetic force has a polarity.Therefore Magnetic force pushes matter (positive) outwards, and pulls antimatter (negative) inwards.Hence, Antimatter is pulled inwards due to the magnetic force + gravity force, while matter is pushed outwards as the magnetic force is stronger than the gravity force.
Yes, this answer is correct if we ignore the magnetic force.
Therefore, the magnetic force around the SMBH is very valid and we have two main proves that the magnetic force is much stronger than the gravity force of the SMBH!!!
So, if the magnetic force is so powerful, why it can't work deeper into the event of horizon?If there is a particle exactly at the event of horizon (or below), don't you agree that it should also feel the great impact of the magnetic force?If you still assume that the magnetic force can't work below the event of horizon - than please prove it.
Notice how the minus sign has moved from the t coordinate to the r coordinate. This means that inside the event horizon, r is the timelike coordinate, not t. In relativity, the paths of material particles are restricted to timelike world lines. Recall the discussion of timelike separation earlier in this paper (2). It is the coordinate with the minus sign that determines the meaning of "timelike." According to relativity, inside a black hole time is defined by the r coordinate, not the t coordinate. It follows that the inevitability of moving forward in time becomes, inside a black hole, the inevitability of moving toward r = 0. This swapping of space and time occurs at r = 2M. Thus, r = 2M marks a boundary, the point where space and time change roles. For the observer inside this boundary, the inevitability of moving forward in time means that he must always move inward toward the center of the black hole at r = 0. All timelike and lightlike world lines inside r = 2M lead inevitably to r = 0 (the end of time!) Because it is not possible for any particle or photon inside r = 2M to take a path where r remains constant or increases, the boundary r = 2M is called the event horizon of the black hole. No observer inside the event horizon can communicate with any observer outside the event horizon. The event horizon can be thought of as a one-way boundary.
This is the ultimate answer for:why we do not see any Antimatter in our Universe.
In any case, I hope that by now we all agree that there is an Ultra high gravity force around the accretion disc.It pushes the matter from the accretion disc outward
There are billion of stars there.All of them are located at the same plane and all of them orbit at the same direction.
If the magnetic force pushes more than 99% from the matter in the accretion disc outwards - than it is clear that the Magnetic force is the champion!!!
However, Magnetic force has a polarity.Therefore Magnetic force pushes matter (positive) outwards, and pulls antimatter (negative) inwards.
1. Molecular Jet streamPlease look again on the following image of the molecular jet stream:https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Image169.gifIn the article it is stated:http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2013/02/21/jet-streams-2/"Recently, astronomers from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics announced that our own Milky Way galaxy is expelling enormous jets of gamma rays from a putative suppermassive black hole residing in its nucleus. In 2010, twin funnels of gamma ray emissions were detected above and below the galactic plane, measuring 65,000 light-years in diameter."
So, starting from 2010 our scientists know that there is a massive molecular jet stream above and below the accretion disk
As far as jets go, this is a faint jet. This is a pathetic jet.
So, do you agree that the magnetic force works on the opposite direction from the gravity force and therefore: "Magnetic does not pull matter. It pushes it."
QuoteWhy our scientists didn't try to calculate/evaluate the magnitude of the Magnetic field?Who said they didn't?
(gravity coming from the black hole and magnetism coming from the disk).
(1) The polarity of a magnetic field is north and south, not positive and negative (this is important to distinguish it from an electric field).
Magnetic fields have no effect at all on stationary electric charges.
it seems to me that the accretion disc by itself can't produce the requested magnetism level.
The 4 millions solar mass at the core of the SMBH sets the magnetic force.
In order to set magnetism, we normally need a rotational core. For example, the Earth produce magnetism due to its core rotation.
As (the accretion disk) orbits under the magnetic field of the SMBH, an Ultra high current is flowing in its matter.This increases it's temperature and converts it into plasma.
and we actually don't have any real observation (by X-ray) for any in falling matter in any SMBH at the whole Universe
So can you please offer the calculation /estimation for the magnetic force?What kind of magnetic force can boost that kind of molecular jet stream?
The recent direct detection of a rather strong of a true disk field of strength 1 kG at 0.05 AU in FU Ori, provides new and strong support for the disk wind mechanism (Donati et al. 2005).
Why are you so sure that magnetism is coming from the disk?Do we really know how SMBH works?Do we know if the matter in the that SMBH rotates or not?
In order to set magnetism, we normally need a rotational core. For example, the Earth produce magnetism due to its core rotation. Therefore, I'm not sure that an orbital rotation disc by itself can create any significant magnetism or even any sort of magnetism. If you have an example that supports your claim - please offer it.
The 4 millions solar mass at the core of the SMBH sets the magnetic force.It rotates (as the core of the earth) and sets the ultra magnetic force around the SMBH.
The orbital velocity by itself can't generate that kind of temp.
Without the magnetic field of the SMBH, there will be no current in the accretion disc.
As I have stated, around the SMBH there is electromagnetic force. Therefore it is a combination of magnetic and electric fields.
We must evaluate them based on their speed in the first moment of creation under the electromagnetic fields and Lorentz force.
Are you still claiming that black holes create mass and energy? If your answer is still yes, then there is your contradiction.
So that gives us two options. Either:(1) You agree with the laws of physics and therefore agree that your own model (which posits a violation of the first law of thermodynamics) is wrong.(2) You agree with your model and therefore do not agree with the first law of thermodynamics.Which is it? You can't have it both ways.
The figures you are quoting are wrong. Yes, there was an article mentioning a figure of 10000 solar masses, but that wasn't a reference to said jet stream nor any current state of Sgr-A. A jet stream going at 0.8c isn't going to stop at 27k light years. The jet stream of our galaxy has instead been described as faint and pathetic with negligible matter.Said 10000 solar masses has never been measured.
From "Disk Winds, Jets, and Outflows: Theoretical and Computational Foundations", it's at least 1 kilogauss:
Quoteit seems to me that the accretion disc by itself can't produce the requested magnetism level.Computer modeling shows that it can.Evidently, the physicists' computer knows more about magnetic fields than you do.
Although something similar to Earth's oscillating magnetic field has been recreated in the lab (using liquid sodium), the exact mechanism for the Earth is still under investigation.
There has been no verifiable detection of magnetic monopoles to date. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem
Do we really think that this magnetism can set that kind of molecular jet stream?
It is shown that the second model is preferable for estimating the magnetic field in NGC 4258. For estimations we used the standard accretion disk model assuming that the same power-law dependence of the magnetic field follows from the range of the optical emission down to the horizon. The observed optical polarization from NGC 4258 allowed us to find the values 103 − 10[/sup]4[/sup] Gauss at the horizon, depending on the particular choice of the model parameters.
So, you claim that the accretion disc can produce the magnetism which is needed to its function.This is really big enigma for me.Let me tell you a story from the time that I was teaching Electricity.One of my student came with a brilliant idea to invent a gen-motor that should work without any electricity source.The idea was that the rotor of the Motor will also be used to generate current which will be used for the motor.Based on his simulation, if we ignore the friction, it should work.I have told him that it won't work as the his Gen-motor will never be able to produce enough current that is requested to keep its rotation.In the same token, it is quite clear to me that the accretion disc can't produce the magnetism that is need for its requirement.
I really don't understand how a thin disc which orbits around a SMBH can produce any sort of magnetism.
In any case, even if it produces some magnetism, it seems to me that it surly can't be enough to boost the 10,000 solar mass at ultra high velocity into those molecular jet stream.
As the magnetism field that the accretion disc might generate is very weak (especially - for the jet stream) it is clear that the main source for the magnetism must come for the SMBH itself.
There is a possibility, that it also has layers that rotates around some core.That theoretically can generate Magnetic field as the Earth does but much more stronger.
BH isn't a SMBH. It is totally different.
Quote from: Halc on 17/08/2019 20:20:23The figures you are quoting are wrong. Yes, there was an article mentioning a figure of 10000 solar masses, but that wasn't a reference to said jet stream nor any current state of Sgr-A. A jet stream going at 0.8c isn't going to stop at 27k light years. The jet stream of our galaxy has instead been described as faint and pathetic with negligible matter.Said 10000 solar masses has never been measured.I have already introduce this article.However, let me do it again for you."Finkbeiner estimates that a molecular cloud weighing about 10,000 times as much as the Sun would be required"Do you still think that this 10,000 solar mass is negligible matter?
it seems to me that it surly can't be enough to boost the 10,000 solar mass at ultra high velocity into those molecular jet stream.
"Shoving 10,000 suns into the black hole at once would do the trick"
In our vision we see hot layers deep into the center of the Earth that orbits around a metal core.
In this article they discuss about a BH.BH isn't a SMBH. It is totally different.