0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
This is incorrect
Well, you had confused me with that message about magnetic filed.
On the other hand, the point about the 1/r^3 dependence of force on distance from a magnetic dipole is correct.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole#Magnitude
Magnetic field strength is related to the strength of the electric current used to produce it.
http://wikipremed.com/01physicscards600/371a.gifB is affected by 1/r, while the gravity force is affected by 1/r^2
Do you agree that the dynamo at the Sun is more massive than the one on earth and therefore, the Electric current there is higher so it can generate Higher magnetic field?
The idea that our scientists don't know how the SMBH works, doesn't mean that it has no core.We need to look around it.If we see flares next to the SMBH and we know for sure that similar flares around the Sun are due to the Sun' magnetic field, than it is clear that those flares also there due to the SMBH' magnetic field.As the accretion disc is located at the equatorial "where the polarity of the SMBH's magnetic field changes from north to south it proves that it is there due to the SMBH' magnetic field.You have also agreed that the molecular jet stream is due to Magnetic field. As its velocity (0.8c) and its length is 27,000Ly above/below the SMBH poles.
it is clear that it is due to the SMBH' magnetic field
Well, it seems to me that you have a mistake.
Hence, at the accretion disc near the SMBH, the gravity force is much stronger and therefore it can hold the new created particles at a circular orbiting cycle around the SMBH.
Hence, the plasma there is so hot 10^9K. The conditions there transform those new created particles into real atoms and Molecular.
Now that we know how it really works, we do understand how it had been created at the first phase.
I think that at this stage the science community should offer me a reward for my discovery!
How do you know that a SMBH even has a core? If it does, how do you know it has electric currents in it? What is it made of?
All of those questions are none relevant as we can't see it from inside and we would never ever see it.We can just see what is going around it.
1. Do you agree that the activity of the Sun' magnetic field could give us some indication on the SMBH' magnetic filed activity?
So, why the hot plasma in the accretion disc (which is estimated at a range of 100MK to 10^9K) around the SMBH couldn't be due to the SMBH' magnetic filed?
Do you agree that the Flares around the Sun are due to the Sun magnetic Field?
All of those questions are none relevant as we can't see it from inside and we would never ever see it.
Do you argree that the Hot plasma at the Corona around the Sun is due to the Sun magnetic field?
Matter's ability to support itself against pressure is due to the fact that each particle can "feel" the other particles around it using one of the four fundamental forces
However, those particles can only transmit forces between each other at the speed of light at the very most. So particles in the center of the core therefore cannot transmit a force to those into the outer region of the core because such a signal cannot move away from the black hole's center. If the force cannot be transmitted, then there will be nothing supporting those particles in the outer layer against collapse.
Because the Sun isn't a point, but a black hole is.
Black holes are not made of plasma like the Sun is.
Based on Theory D the BH/SMBH is full with Particles (without a single atom).Those particles can feel each other. Therefore, their "shell" actually touch each other back to back.
If you break the particle shell, its energy is lost and therefore it should also lose its total mass.
Any particle and any atom is a pure cell of energy.
Let's assume that the BH is full with nucleus
Do you agree with that?
Hence, the size of our SMBH with its 4*10^6 sun mass is4/10 = 0.4 Sun size
So simple and clear.
Because it hasn't got a core; it's a point.
No. The radius of a black hole is defined as the distance at which its escape velocity reaches the speed of light (obviously, since light can't escape black holes by definition). That is also called the Schwarzschild radius.
There is no evidence that particles have shells, so that statement doesn't make any sense.
You really need to look up what black holes are like.Since there is nothing which is strong enough to counter their gravity, they collapse down to point sized objects.Maybe they are as big as the planck length, but they certainly are not bigger.
No. The radius of a black hole is defined as the distance at which its escape velocity reaches the speed of light (obviously, since light can't escape black holes by definition). That is also called the Schwarzschild radius. For a black hole with a mass 4 million times the mass of the Sun, the escape velocity reaches the speed of light at a radius of about 12 million kilometers. That's significantly larger than the Sun's radius (which is only about 695,700 kilometers). So when you say:QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:58:34Hence, the size of our SMBH with its 4*10^6 sun mass is4/10 = 0.4 Sun sizeIt is wrong by a large margin.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:58:34Hence, the size of our SMBH with its 4*10^6 sun mass is4/10 = 0.4 Sun size
. The radius of a black hole is defined as the distance at which its escape velocity reaches the speed of light (obviously, since light can't escape black holes by definition). That is also called the Schwarzschild radius.
That's the size of the event horizon of the hole,
Any particle has some sort of volume/size. It is a key element in its chemical properties:
"Experimentally, we know (now) that the “size” of the electron is small, Re <∼ 10^−17 cm"
So, if it has a volume it also must have size or some sort of shell.
You can't squeeze it to zero.
if that proton collapse, we might get there quarks out of it at total mass of 9.1 Mev/c^2, but it must lose the gluons which represents 9% of its total mass.
Therefore, the assumption that particles/protons could be collapsed and still maintain their original mass is a pure fiction.
How could it be that a radius of Planck length had been shifted to 12MK?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:35:42"Experimentally, we know (now) that the “size” of the electron is small, Re <∼ 10^−17 cm"That represents an upper limit of the electron's size, not its actual size. Electrons could be point particles for all we know.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:35:42"Experimentally, we know (now) that the “size” of the electron is small, Re <∼ 10^−17 cm"
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:35:42Any particle has some sort of volume/size. It is a key element in its chemical properties:Atoms have a size. The fundamental particles that make them up (quarks and electrons), not necessarily so.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:35:42Any particle has some sort of volume/size. It is a key element in its chemical properties:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QuarkA proton is composed of two up quarks, one down quark, and the gluons that mediate the forces "binding" them together.The mass of the up quark is - 2.2 Mev/c^2The mass of the down quark is - 4.7 Mev/c^2Therefore, the total mass in the three quarks is - 2.2 +2.2 + 4.7 = 9.1 Mev/c^2However, the mass of a proton is - 938 Mev/c^2So, how could it be that those 3 quarks could set a proton with mass of 938 Mev/c^2?The extra mass is coming by gluonshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#/media/File:Quark_structure_proton.svg"The quark structure of the proton. There are two up quarks in it and one down quark. The strong force is mediated by gluons (wavey)."So, the total mass of the gluons is a proton is:938-9.1 / 938 * 100% = 99%Hence,The root mean square charge radius of a proton is about 0.84–0.87 fm (or 0.84×10−15 to 0.87×10−15 m)if that proton collapse, we might get there quarks out of it at total mass of 9.1 Mev/c^2, but it must lose the gluons which represents 9% of its total mass.Therefore, the assumption that particles/protons could be collapsed and still maintain their original mass is a pure fiction.The ONLY way to keep the proton' mass is by keeping its "charged radius".Therefore, any object (even if you call it - BH) with real radius of Zero would carry a mass of Zero.
You can't have free quarks, so this is wrong.
don't you agree that there must be also lower limit?
If the electron collapse below that lower limit how can we still consider it as electron?
Could it be that your assumption that Electrons could be a zero point particle is incorrect?
So, as you confirm that atom has a size then you also must confirm that its nucleus MUST has a size.
I have offered full explanation about Proton:
So, there is no way to break the proton.
Even if this value represents its upper limit, don't you agree that there must be also lower limit?
So, as you confirm that atom has a size then you also must confirm that its nucleus MUST has a size.A proton is located in that Nucleus.
Hence, what could be the outcome if it collapses much below its minimal size?
How the Gluons could still exist if we disconnect it from the three quarks?
Don't you agree that at the moment that we break the structure of the proton, the Gluons is lost forever?
At that moment 99% of the proton mass (938 Mev/c^2) had been lost.
In any case, if you believe that a proton could carry mass at a size of zero, then why atom couldn't carry mass at size of zero?
So, do you agree that a proton MUST have a minimal size?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:49:22So, do you agree that a proton MUST have a minimal size?Yes.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:49:22So, do you agree that a proton MUST have a minimal size?
Who said anything about disconnecting gluons from quarks?
If all three quarks are crushed into a singularity, then you no longer have a proton but a black hole instead. That singularity will have the charge and mass of the proton so that conservation laws are not violated.
You can't have free quarks,
Protons are broken all the time in particle accelerators. It's just that new quarks and anti-quarks are created in the process so that no single quark is left by itself.
So, you confirm that it has a minimal size. However, why don't you agree that if a proton is crushed, we actually split it to its basic element as three separated quarks and gluons?
Ok - you consider the gluons as some sort of charge.
Our scientists prefer to call it energy.
Therefore, this gluons charge/energy can't represent any sort of mass as the proton is crashed.
Why the gluons wouldn't be transformed into some sort heat or flare and lost f
So, how can you compare a BH core to accelerator?