0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Alright, why don't we see just how similar Hawking radiation is to the heat and radiation detected from Sagittarius A*? You can use the following calculator to see what the temperature and luminosity Hawking radiation has for a given black hole mass: http://xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/The mass of Sagittarius A* is around 4,000,000 solar masses. When we put this mass into the calculator, we get a temperature of ~1.5 x 10-14 kelvins and a luminosity of ~5.6 x 10-42 watts. That means that the Hawking radiation given off by Sagittarius A* is almost 20,000,000,000,000 times colder than the vacuum of space and 250,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times dimmer than a firefly's flash.Your proposal that this radiation is responsible for the multi-million degree temperatures around the black hole is beyond ridiculous.
Wrong. Why dont we ask Dr. Kip Thorne is my allegation is right. Hawing radiation and ,gas and dust are one and the same. jsa 2.25.19
How long does it take for a black hole to evaporate and disappear? The answer depends on the hole's mass. The larger the hole, the lower its temperature, and thus the more weakly it emits particles and the more slowly it evaporates. The total lifetime, as worked out by Don Page in 1975 when he was jointly my student and Hawking's, is 1.2 x 1067 years if the hole's mass is twice that of the Sun. The lifetime is proportional to the cube of the hole's mass, so a 20-solar-mass hole has a life of 1.2 x 1070 years. These lifetimes are so enormous compared to the present age of the Universe, about 1 x 1010 years, that the evaporation is totally irrelevant to astrophysics.
Wrong because you assume that the supposed black hole is COLD.
See all galaxies, repeat ALL GALAXIES, the center is very bright, even after 12 billion years travel. Where does it get its brightness? Unless the source is boiling, not cooling.
Now make a computation with this basis. Please do.
Why a black hole, by its own self, the temperature it produces up to even horizon is something like nanoKelvins?
Then both Hawking and ThOrone are wrong.
See all the galaxies, the burning brightest portions, all, in the center of the core supposed where black hole resides.
Repeating why are the galaxy super- burning brightly, even for 12 billion light years.
Where did you get the idea that black holes are cold?
Prove to me that the supposed black hole is cold.
Because of its super-gravitation compaction? Then the greater the gravitational force compression, the stronger the pressure, the greater the pressure, plus super-rotation of galaxy, the greater it will produce heat, super-heat!!!.
Why a black hole, by its own self, the temperature it produces up to even horizon is something like nanoKelvins? Why???
And why accretion disk (must be cold from space) around black hole produces temperature hot enough to produce X-ray.??
Rather, the temperature, super-heat, is produced by the core of galaxy which the supposed black hole resides that cause the boiling and evaporating, like the sun, gas and dust outward from its surface .
The primary source of radiation is the core, the secondary source of radiation is the super- evaporated dust and gas.
Alright, here is the clinging query: Do Hawking, Thoorne, followers KNOW WHY SUPPOSED BLACK HOLE IS CONCEIVED FALSELY COLD, SUPER-COLD?
Because the laws of quantum mechanics and relativity place firm limits on how much Hawking radiation can be released at one time.
I KNOW THE ANSWER
Please post this arrticle, as is complete, in Google for the public to know who is right or wrong?
Quoted respected NSM: I'll also ask you for a third time: since when were gas and dust the same thing as radiation? Jsa response: That dust and guas are burning…. radiates light. 2.28.19
Jsa: Repeating: this clinger query is addressed to you and other respected Hawking proponents: do you know why the temperature of false black hole is conceived super-cold?
The justification of Hawking and other proponent of black holes in the internet is not right.
Again, how come the temperature of false black hole is conceived super-cold.?
Jsa: Reiterating: this clinger query is significant, will clear up matter, is addressed to you and other respected Hawking proponents: do you know why the temperature of false black hole is conceived super-cold? The justification of Hawking and other proponent of black holes in the internet is not right. 2..27.19
Jsa :We seem to be talking at different topics. You speak of false black hole , I don’t, I speak of real objects That is why we don’t understand one another. Cant help but, the radiation that I am referring comes from burning boiling core of galaxies.
Repeat, the primary source is the super- burning core and is pass-over and reflected , as it also burns, the completely enveloping gas and dust, igniting them, both the prmary source and secondary source, release radiation light that reaches earth after billion of light years travel. Where does the light comes from? Modern astronomical findings bear me out, see- UCLA and other astronomers.This dust and dust ejects from core and returns back to the core, and some ejected straight outward. Good day. Feb., 27, 2019
Just checking?Has anyone ever actually detected Hawking radiation?