0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Would you kindly offer one real observation for Star or BH outflow without magnetic field?
The magnetic field around the black hole in V404 Cygni has been measured as being about 500 gauss: https://www.space.com/39051-astronomers-measure-black-hole-magnetic-field.html
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.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 23/04/2023 04:17:54Would you kindly offer one real observation for Star or BH outflow without magnetic field?I don't need to.Someone already posted the details of a BH with practically no field.Quote from: Kryptid on 16/04/2023 01:13:17The magnetic field around the black hole in V404 Cygni has been measured as being about 500 gauss: https://www.space.com/39051-astronomers-measure-black-hole-magnetic-field.html(I have stronger magnets than that, and they don't glow with a haze of emitted ionised gas.)It will emit particles by Hawking radiation.
It's not a hypothesis because we can deduce that it actually does happen from the observational evidence
Do you think that with your magnet you can "create a jet of matter moving almost at the speed of light"?
(I have stronger magnets than that, and they don't glow with a haze of emitted ionised gas.)
The magnetic field acts like a slingshot
Quote from: Dave Lev on 16/04/2023 15:01:24However, that matter can't fall outwards once it falls inwards.Why not?We do it with spacecraft.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist
However, that matter can't fall outwards once it falls inwards.
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?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:53:28Sorry, A theory is always backed by evidence:It is backed by evidence.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:53:28Sorry, A theory is always backed by evidence:
It's not an assumption, it's a deduction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
We have never directly observed subatomic particles, but we don't have to
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:53:28Can 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,
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:53:28Can you please show just one star as it falls into the SMBH in the milky way or at any other location?
but we have seen the remnants of stars (i.e. the accretion disk) before they are consumed by the black hole.
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.
The accretion disk is evidence of inflow because the star is the only source of gas nearby
So we know that a much bigger than 500 gauss field does not fling things around at nearly the speed of light.
Have you forgotten who told you about slingshots?
Let's just agree that we don't have direct observation on any star as it falls inwards.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 18/04/2023 19:55:21Do we all agree on the above understanding?You still keep trying why haven't you learned?Quote from: Bored chemist on 07/04/2023 09:31:45Quote from: Origin on 01/04/2023 16:52:48Quote from: Dave Lev on 01/04/2023 16:42:07Do you confirm that so far, we have Never ever observed any fireworks that is related to any star as it falls into a BH?I notice when ever you say, "Do you confirm that..." or "Do you agree that..." what follows those statements is pseudoscience, plain wrong or an obfuscation. He hasn't learned to stop this stupid behaviour.
Do we all agree on the above understanding?
Quote from: Origin on 01/04/2023 16:52:48Quote from: Dave Lev on 01/04/2023 16:42:07Do you confirm that so far, we have Never ever observed any fireworks that is related to any star as it falls into a BH?I notice when ever you say, "Do you confirm that..." or "Do you agree that..." what follows those statements is pseudoscience, plain wrong or an obfuscation. He hasn't learned to stop this stupid behaviour.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 01/04/2023 16:42:07Do you confirm that so far, we have Never ever observed any fireworks that is related to any star as it falls into a BH?I notice when ever you say, "Do you confirm that..." or "Do you agree that..." what follows those statements is pseudoscience, plain wrong or an obfuscation.
Do you confirm that so far, we have Never ever observed any fireworks that is related to any star as it falls into a BH?
Let's call it - Infant BH.
Evidence means Observation.
1a: an outward sign : INDICATIONb: something that furnishes proof : TESTIMONYspecifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter2: one who bears witnessespecially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against one's accomplices
deduction can't replace an observation.
You can't justify the observation of the outflow without justify the observation of the inflow.
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.
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 disc is evidence that there is matter over there.
How it gets there without anything to fall down it is your task to solve.
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.
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.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:56:42We 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.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:56:42We 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.
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.
Yes it is.the sun's core reaches temperatures of about 27 million degrees F