0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Few questions:In the article it is stated:" The jets were produced when plasma squirted out from the galactic center, following a corkscrew-like magnetic field that kept it tightly focused""The gamma-ray bubbles likely were created by a "wind" of hot matter blowing outward from the black hole's accretion disk."
1. Do you agree that Plasma exsists only at the accertion disc (at 10^9 c)?
2. Do you agree that there is a very strong magnetic field around the accertion disc?
3. Do you agree that this strong magnetic field can boost the Plasma/hot matter (which had been ejected from the accertion disc) upwards or downwards by almost 0.8 speed of light?
5. Do you agree that so far we didn't find any evidence for any sort of matter which eccerts from outside directly into the eccertion disc?
6. If we only see matter that get's out from the accertion disc, while we have never ever see any sort of matter that gets in, why do you still believe that the eccertion disc get's its matter from outside?
7. What kind of evidence is needed to convince you that the accertion disc is actually axcertion disc?
Quote6. If we only see matter that get's out from the accertion disc, while we have never ever see any sort of matter that gets in, why do you still believe that the eccertion disc get's its matter from outside?I don't believe that. Any image of the disk (they just came out with a famous one) doesn't tag the matter with its origins. I see Saturn's rings and the material there isn't thus tagged with the address of its origin, but no workable model has it springing from Saturn itself, so it's a fair bet that it came from outside.
Quote3. Do you agree that this strong magnetic field can boost the Plasma/hot matter (which had been ejected from the accertion disc) upwards or downwards by almost 0.8 speed of light?From the poles, yes. That's where the magnetic field acts to accelerate mass, not decelerate it like it does near the disk.
Therefore, all the matter in the accretion disc had been created in the accretion disc by definition!!!
QuoteTherefore, all the matter in the accretion disc had been created in the accretion disc by definition!!!Created from what?
Plasma at the inner edge of the black hole has an orbital velocity which is a significant fraction of the speed of light (like 30% of c).
The polar jets are emitted at up to 80% of c...
How can you believe in image???
How can you compare the SMBH to Saturn???
So, let me ask you again for the last time:Do we see any sort of mass/matter that comes from outside into the accretion disc of the SMBH?
How can you ignore the great impact of the ultra power of the magnetic field around the accretion disc?
Sorry. It seems that your knowledge in electronics and magnetic field is very poor.
Magnetics can't start just from the poles. It covers the whole body!!!
It is similar to the magnetic field around the Earth. Any solar wind is lifted to the poles.
Therefore, the magnetic field covers the SMBH & the accretion disc. Any molecular/matter that gets closer to that field (from outside the disc, or from the disc) is lifted upwards or downwards (according to the magnetic waves around the SMBH) directly to the Poles.
However, due to the Ultra power of that magnetic field the matter is then boosted from the poles upwards/downwards at ultra high speed.
So there is no chance that any particle/molecular/Moon/Planet/Star will be able to cross that magnetic field in his way to the accretion disc.That proves that the accretion disc will never ever get any sort of matter from outside.
So, how can you compare it to Saturn???
Created from the SMBH' Ultra high gravity force.
Actually, Atom is some sort of energy cell by definition:
Therefore, the mass in the proton represents Energy.
So, the Ultra high Energy/Temp/Pressure/Velocity in the accretion disc around the SMBH, create new Protons and Neutrons?
With regards to velocities:Please see the following message from evan_auQuote from: evan_auPlasma at the inner edge of the black hole has an orbital velocity which is a significant fraction of the speed of light (like 30% of c)....The polar jets are emitted at up to 80% of c... So, how do we know if the SMBH ejects the matter/plasma in its accretion disc or swallows it?
Plasma at the inner edge of the black hole has an orbital velocity which is a significant fraction of the speed of light (like 30% of c)....The polar jets are emitted at up to 80% of c...
Our scientists estimates that 99% of the matter ejects out while the SMBH swallow only 1%.https://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/30/tech/innovation/black-hole-diet/index.html
Even so, do they have any real evidence for swallowing even that 1%?The answer is NO!!!
So, by definition all the hot matter/plasma which had been created at the accretion disc is ejected outwards.
I wonder why do we choose to believe in something that we don't see instead of believe in what we really see?If we see that 99% goes out, and we can't see even 1% goes in, than why don't we understand that 100% goes out?
If we assume that the SMBH eats 1%, how do we know that this 1% comes from outside?
We claim that the SMBH is a bad eater.
If we want to eat - we eat. Actually, 99.99..9% of our life time our mouth is empty. - and we are very good eater!
However, 99.99....9% (or 100%) of the SMBH at the center of spiral galaxy has a mouth (accretion disc) full with food.Why is it? The total matter in the accretion disc (of the Milky Way) is estimated to be around three Sun mass.
At any similar spiral galaxy that we look we see more or less the same amount of mass. (at any given moment)
The accretion disc is the biggest accelerator in the Universe.
If our scientists at CERN have created the Higgs Boson, why the biggest acceleration in the universe (the accretion disc of the SMBH) can't create new matter?
So, do you agree that the mighty magnetic shield around the excretion disc protects the core from any accretion activity (from outside)?
So, how could it be that our SMBH eats one sun mass per year,
QuoteHow can you compare the SMBH to Saturn???Saturn's rings is a lovely example of what happens to matter that gets sufficiently close to a gravity source. The rings did not accrete from bits of material from outside, it accreted from a single object that came from outside and was torn apart by the same forces that would keep a star from forming close to a large gravity well.
The definition of accrete is to bring it together from outside under the influence of gravity, so your statement is completely wrong.
QuoteIf our scientists at CERN have created the Higgs Boson, why the biggest acceleration in the universe (the accretion disc of the SMBH) can't create new matter?They consumed the power of several cities to create that boson. They've been created matter in accelerators for a long time, but they do it by consuming energy. The two are the same thing, remember? You cannot create new mass/energy, and yet here you are asserting exactly that.
QuoteTherefore, the mass in the proton represents Energy.OK, I actually agree with this.
QuoteSo, the Ultra high Energy/Temp/Pressure/Velocity in the accretion disc around the SMBH, create new Protons and Neutrons?That doesn't follow at all. The energy/mass is already there. You are proposing new energy coming from somewhere. Nothing comes from the SMBH. That's why it's black. If something comes from it, then its mass/energy goes down correspondingly until it is gone, and you're describing something other than a black thing.
QuoteMagnetics can't start just from the poles. It covers the whole body!!!That it does. Didn't say otherwise.
QuoteSo, let me ask you again for the last time:Do we see any sort of mass/matter that comes from outside into the accretion disc of the SMBH?The image they took shows exactly that, so yes, we see it. It isn't just an artist's conception. It isn't a nice high resolution image like the artist ones, but it is real
QuoteIt is similar to the magnetic field around the Earth. Any solar wind is lifted to the poles.Where did you find this? I had to look up the parts I didn't know. I've never heard this one. The solar wind is definitely affected by Earth's magnetic fields, but it doesn't accrete, so it isn't a great example of what goes on in an accretion disk.
The article you quoted also says that most of that disk will be swallowed, but most of the matter falling in is hot and not in that cold disk.
QuoteAt any similar spiral galaxy that we look we see more or less the same amount of mass. (at any given moment)This is false. The other ones usually have much more mass. Andromeda is a good example. Same size galaxy (within 10%), but a far more active/massive black hole
He says that all material in the whole galaxy has sprung from the central object, making it a white hole of sorts.
How do you that this info is real?Had we been hear when it happened?Do we have any record on that?
The real story is as follow:Saturn had been formed from the same matter as the Sun and all the other Planets and moons and at the same day (with all the solar system).I assume that it had one moon (or more).
Quote from: HalcThe definition of accrete is to bring it together from outside under the influence of gravity, so your statement is completely wrong. The definition of accrete is very clear.
In CERN we have used electric power to set the acceleration at almost the speed of light.In the SMBH we get it by the ultra high gravity force!
Nothing comes from the SMBH.
However, the ultra high gravity at the accretion disc + the ultra high velocity (0.3 c) + the magnetic/electric fieldAll of that set excellent conditions for the mighty accelerator in the galaxy which has the ability to create quarks at the first stage.
As those quarks drift outwards in the accretion disc, they gain the requested energy that is needed to form new Atoms and molecular
The image is nonsense. Our scientists have never ever found any evidence for that.
However, the magnetic power [of Earth] is quite low. Therefore it only affects the solar wind.In any case, so far our scientists don't have even one real evidence for that!!!
QuoteAndromeda is a good example. Same size galaxy (within 10%), but a far more active/massive black holeThat is incorrect
Andromeda is a good example. Same size galaxy (within 10%), but a far more active/massive black hole
QuoteHowever, the ultra high gravity at the accretion disc + the ultra high velocity (0.3 c) + the magnetic/electric fieldAll of that set excellent conditions for the mighty accelerator in the galaxy which has the ability to create quarks at the first stage.That likely actually happens, but creation of matter like that is going to remove the energy used to create it. The material of the disk slows down when its energy is used up like that, and slower material will fall closer to the black hole. Material will fall in if some of the energy is being consumed by matter creation. This results in a net loss of matter outside the black hole.If they drift out, they gain gravitational potential energy and lose kinetic energy. If electromagnetic force propels them out against that resistance (and it does), then that energy is again lost by the disk powering that thrust, and again, a disk that has lost energy will tend to drop some of its mass into the black hole.At no point is there a net gain of energy outside the black hole. Some leaks out, some is irretrievably lost to the gravity well, and the balance is unusable entropy.
The material actually formed from the SMBH (via quantum effects) decreases the mass of the SMBH. If it falls back in (as most of it does), there is no net change of mass. The stuff created by the disk is more than balanced by material/energy of the disk falling into the black hole, for a net loss of material/energy to the black hole. At no point can there be a net gain outside if the black hole is gaining mass.
On the contrary, the creation of new matter increases its mass over time
That violates the first law of thermodynamics. Gravity can't create mass.
mass creation in the accretion disc
Since you agree that gravity can't create mass, then where does the accretion disk come from in the first place?
most of the BH should start their first step in setting the new mass creation at accretion disc.
Gravity by itself can't create mass - I agree with that.
The SMBH has the ability to generate new mass based on its pure gravity force.
It can't spontaneously spring into existence (that would violate the first law of thermodynamics).
Quote from: KryptidSince you agree that gravity can't create mass, then where does the accretion disk come from in the first place? Thanks, that is good question.If you accept the idea that a SMBH can create new matter,
So, I agree that there must be a moment that a compact BH gets its ability to set the accretion disc and start its new matter creation activity.
Once it starts its activity, it will be converted in the future into a SMBH that is hosting a spiral galaxy.
However, even if it sets in the disc real matter, it doesn't mean that it has already the ability to create new matter at the accretion disc. Without enough magnetic field it can't start this activity.
Therefore, I assume that at some point of time (after "eating" enough real matter) that BH should have enough mass to set ultra high orbital velocity of real matter at the accretion disc.
That orbital velocity generates the requested magnetic/electric field which is vital for the new matter creation activity at the accretion disc.
In the same token we could ask:How a star starts it first fusion activity? Are we sure that any new born star has the ability to set this activity?
How the first BH in the Universe had been created? How the first big bang had started?It is clear that any first step is critical.
However, as any child starts at some point of time its first step, most of the BH should start their first step in setting the new mass creation at accretion disc.
Technically-speaking mass can't be created. Matter can be created, but not mass. If what you are talking about is energy being converted into mass (which is somewhat redundant, since energy already has relativistic mass associated with it), then where does the energy come from that is required to create the new mass? You can't say it comes from the gravitational force, because force is not energy. They aren't even measured in the same units.A black hole plus its accretion disk have a finite amount of energy. Some of that energy is in the form of potential energy and some in the form of kinetic energy.
So the total energy content (and therefore the total mass) of the black hole/accretion disk system cannot increase over time unless it gets energy or matter from some outside source. To say otherwise would violate the first law of thermodynamics.
However, A SMBH with accretion disc converts its ultra high gravity force into energy in the accretion disc.
Therefore, as long as the total energy in the accretion disc is constant, there is no violation for that first law of thermodynamic.