Yes, not even a single atom would fall back against that UFO!LOL
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
how can you believe that it should fall back after it ejected high above where its gravity force is reduced by 10^8 and against that constant outflow that is called UFO?I didn't.
We should be sure by 100% that nothing falls in.Not a single atom?
or are you going to carry on looking stupid?
We have NEVER EVER observed any matter that falls into the accretion disc from outside!
We have already got the clear evidence observation that nothing falls into the accretion disc.you are lying.
You lie!or are you going to carry on looking stupid?
Shame on you!
We have already got the clear evidence observation that nothing falls into the accretion disc.No, we do not.
The law of physics must be based on observation.They are.
I can't help it that particles don't want to be described in simplest terms.That's not the problem.
It's like another paradox to be resolved.It's a washed up version of the Twins paradox.
What is needed for you to understand that nothing really falls into the accretion disc?Evidence, and a plausible explanation which doesn't break the observed (and also the calculated) laws of physics.
What kind of evidence or observation would convince you that the accretion disc itself generates all the matter that falls into the SMBH as UFI and in the same time it also generates all the matter that it ejects outwards as UFO?Scientific evidence.
I think since talanum1 cannot understand physics it seems like gibberish to him. So based on that he thinks any gibberish he writes down is physics.
You didn't even download to judge for yourself. If that is gibberish to Bored chemist then he must be below average intelligence.
I understand it quite well.
Relative reference is an illusion that appearsYou seem to be the only one who thinks it exists (outside of computer addressing).
We are told that there is no absolute reference, so pretending to run is as good as actually doing itNobody tells anyone that.
The beaker that is not moving, if it had consciousness and an imagination, can pretend to be the moving reference,No, it can't because it didn't experience the accelerations which the other beaker did.
It is stated that the redshirt is from the accretion into the BH while the Blueshift is from the accretion outwards.That's what I said.
If something collapse as a building it is expected to see it quite clearly even if stuff is coming up in this process.No.
New matter must be created at the accretion disc in order to supply matter to the SMBH and also eject some matter outwards at the same timeNo.
If you can't do it, then I can't help you anymore.You ae not helping anyone, or anything.
I keep looking but all I get is import agencies recommendations..That's like complaining that you want a Maserati, but don't want a "foreign" one.
But if we delivery a 10 ton payload in a 10 ton transporter parked alongside will the ISS slow down and by how much?? We can assume the ISS weight 400 tons so it increases in combined weight by 5%We don't throw stuff at the ISS.