Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: jsaldea12 on 25/02/2019 00:01:48
-
The identified boiling, evaporating gas and dust that completely envelop black hole is one and the same as the Hawking radiation. What did Wikipedia says: “Hawking radiation is blackbody radiation that is predicted to be released by black holes, due to quantum effects near the event horizon. It is named after the physicist Stephen Hawking, who provided a theoretical argument for its existence in 1974” Please read between the line of Hawking .and know the uncanny similarity, except that his identified black body radiation,while I finally identified it a black body gas and dust. Read between the lines of Hawking and mine and know both are one and the same. That long argument between Hawking, Thorne, Preskill that started since 1974 is over. Jsaldea12 2.25.19
-
Not even close:
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.
Also, since when were "gas and dust" and "radiation" even close to being the same thing?
-
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
-
Wrong because you assume that the supposed black hole is COLD. No!! 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. .That is why the surface of supposed false black hole is boiling too and evaporating gas and dust, just like boiling water. Now make a computation with this basis. Please do. Jsaldea12 2.26.19
-
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
Feel free to contact him. I'm absolutely certain that he won't agree with you. He dedicated a lengthy section of his "Black Holes & Time Warps" book to Hawking radiation and he describes it in the same way Hawking does (he references Hawking's work quite a bit). Here is one of the important quotes from that section:
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.
So here he agrees that black holes with stellar-level masses and above radiate so weakly that their "evaporation is totally irrelevant to astrophysics". So he would not agree that Hawking radiation is something strong enough to be detected from Earth.
Wrong because you assume that the supposed black hole is COLD.
I didn't assume anything, I simply used existing mathematical equations to determine a black hole's temperature luminosity due to Hawking radiation. Those equations were derived from the known laws of quantum mechanics and relativity. The astrophysics community at large is in agreement about the results of these equations. If you think there was some kind of error in deriving these equations, then how about you show us what the proper derivation is and therefore the correct formulas to use in place of the existing formulas? Here is a paper showing the derivation of the black hole temperature equation: http://kiso.phys.se.tmu.ac.jp/thesis/m.h.kuwabara.pdf
Have fun showing us where the error in the math is.
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.
I never said there wasn't anything hot there. It's just that the Hawking radiation of the black hole itself is not what is hot.
Now make a computation with this basis. Please do.
As soon as you show where the error is in the existing equation and derive a superior one, I will.
-
Then both Hawking and ThOrone are wrong. And you accept that? 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.. Because the source is the core where supposed black hole is.. How do we know that the core is super-heat. What was ejected by that super-heated jets, jettison from galaxy, such jet could be even a billion to trillion Celsius from source, the core. Where did you get the idea that black holes are cold? It is cold only when the jets speeds off at almost the speed of light, that the farther the jet travels, the colder it becomes because outer space is super-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!!!. WHERE IS THE PLACE OF SUPER-COLD IN THE INTERIOR OF THE CORE OF GALAXY WHERE SUPPOSED BLACK HOLE RESIDES?. PROVE TO ME. JSAL 2.26.18
-
Wrong because you assume that the supposed black hole is COLD.
Kryptid did not make up the coldness of the event horizon - Steven Hawking did.
- If you take a stellar-mass black hole, the blackbody temperature of the event horizon is something like nanoKelvins.
- If you take an accretion disk around a stellar-mass black hole, the blackbody temperature is hot enough to produce X-Rays
- So an accretion disk is not the same as Hawking radiation, despite the fact that they are both blackbody radiation
There is a theoretical scenario where Hawking radiation could produce high temperatures, and that is in the last seconds of a micro-black hole created in the Big Bang. Such an atom-sized (and mountain-mass) black hole would explode with Hawking radiation at X-Ray wavelengths. But at this time, they are purely hypothetical.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation#Overview
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Accretion_discs#Introduction
-
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.?? In both queries, I disagree. Rather it is opposite. The period of accretion disk is over or if there is left-over, it cannot be too dense as to completely, completely cover-up the supposed black hole. 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.
Jsa feb.26, 2019
-
Why a black hole, by its own self, the temperature it produces up to even horizon is something like nanoKelvins?
If you don't understand that then you don't know about Hawking radiation.
And, since you don't know about it, you should learn more rather than trying to pretend that you understand it well enough to say it is wrong.
-
Actually, there is an inherent contradiction in this entire thread. In order for Hawking radiation to exist, you have to have a black hole. If black holes don't exist (which is what you argue), then Hawking radiation doesn't exist either. If Hawking radiation doesn't exist, then it can't be responsible for the high temperatures we see in galactic cores.
Then both Hawking and ThOrone are wrong.
Oh, so you were ready and willing to point to a professional like Thorne as support for your opinion if he agreed with you, but as soon as you found out that he did not agree with you, you were ready to cast aside his words as if they were meaningless. Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne are (or were, in the case of Hawking) actual theoretical physicists. They know a whole lot more about the mathematics of black holes than you do. So who do you think we should trust more? Them or you?
See all the galaxies, the burning brightest portions, all, in the center of the core supposed where black hole resides.
If your argument is, "Black holes emit Hawking radiation, and black holes are found where it is hot, then Hawking radiation must be hot" is a fallacious argument. That is because you are automatically assuming that Hawking radiation is what is responsible for those high temperatures. It has been mathematically demonstrated to be impossible for Hawking radiation to be responsible for those immense temperatures. Hawking understood the mathematics of quantum mechanics and relativity a whole lot better than you do.
Repeating why are the galaxy super- burning brightly, even for 12 billion light years.
It comes from the heat of the accretion disk. Space is not entirely empty, especially not in the galactic center. The immense gravity of a supermassive black hole can pull in dust, gas and even stars themselves. All of that pressure and friction generates radiation.
Where did you get the idea that black holes are cold?
A supermassive black hole by itself is cold. That's because there are limits placed by quantum mechanics and general relativity on how much Hawking radiation can be released by a black hole at one time. If you are going to claim that Hawking radiation can account for multi-million degree temperatures, then you need to demonstrate this from a theoretical standpoint. You need to do the math that shows a supermassive black hole releases an amount of Hawking radiation that matches the temperatures that we observe. Scientists aren't going to take your claims seriously if you can't.
Prove to me that the supposed black hole is cold.
I guess you would need to understand quantum mechanics and relativity first.
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!!!.
That heat is inside of the black hole. It can't get out because of the event horizon.
Why a black hole, by its own self, the temperature it produces up to even horizon is something like nanoKelvins? Why???
Because the laws of quantum mechanics and relativity place firm limits on how much Hawking radiation can be released at one time.
And why accretion disk (must be cold from space) around black hole produces temperature hot enough to produce X-ray.??
It's due to the gas laws. When you compress a gas, it becomes hotter. That's something we know for a fact. It isn't just theoretical. Friction also produces heat. Again, that's something we know for a fact. By the way, not all black holes are associated with X-rays: https://www.space.com/24290-quiet-black-hole-discovery.html So all of this raises another question: what does your hypothesis predict the relationship between black hole mass and temperature to be? Do you say that more massive black holes are hotter or colder than less massive black holes?
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 .
You keep saying this but you have yet to demonstrate it on so much as sound mathematical grounds.
The primary source of radiation is the core, the secondary source of radiation is the super- evaporated dust and gas.
Which brings me back to a question I asked earlier that you did not answer: since when were gas and dust the same thing as radiation?
-
Alright, here is the clinging query: Do Hawking, Thoorne, followers KNOW WHY SUPPOSED BLACK HOLE IS CONCEIVED FALSELY COLD, SUPER-COLD? I KNOW THE ANSWER, BUT CAN FALSE BLACK HOLE FOLLOWERS ANSWER. PLEASE PRESENT. THE ANSWER. JSA 2.27.19
-
Please post this arrticle, as is complete, in Google for the public to know who is right or wrong? jsa 2.27.19.
-
Alright, here is the clinging query: Do Hawking, Thoorne, followers KNOW WHY SUPPOSED BLACK HOLE IS CONCEIVED FALSELY COLD, SUPER-COLD?
I already did:
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
I doubt it.
Please post this arrticle, as is complete, in Google for the public to know who is right or wrong?
What article? You mean an article giving the answer as to why black holes are usually cold? I already gave you one here: http://kiso.phys.se.tmu.ac.jp/thesis/m.h.kuwabara.pdf You never did show us where the error was. If you are willing to pay, you can read Hawking's original article here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02345020
I'll also ask you for a third time: since when were gas and dust the same thing as radiation?
-
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. This article/forum is not in Google: Hawking radiation ,and dust and gas are one and the same. yet. 2.27.19
-
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
-
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
If the radiation is coming from burning gas, then it isn't Hawking radiation. Hawking radiation is caused by the immense gravity of the black hole separating virtual particles from each other in the quantum vacuum, with one of them travelling into the hole while the other escapes. That's a completely different process from burning. You keep making it clear to us that you do not understand the concept of Hawking radiation.
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?
I've already answered this at least twice before. It hasn't changed since then:
Because the laws of quantum mechanics and relativity place firm limits on how much Hawking radiation can be released at one time.
The justification of Hawking and other proponent of black holes in the internet is not right.
Does that mean you found the error in his math? Please post it.
Again, how come the temperature of false black hole is conceived super-cold.?
I've already answered this.
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
You already made this same post...
-
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
-
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.
Then why do you call it Hawking radiation when that clearly is not what you are talking about?
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
So tell me how you make the leap in logic from, "Hot, luminous gas surrounds supermassive black holes" to "Hot, luminous gas comes out of supermassive black holes"? The first premise does not justify the second.
-
Just checking?
Has anyone ever actually detected Hawking radiation?
Also, Jsaldea;
Please explain how dust or gas burns in a vacuum?
-
Just checking?
Has anyone ever actually detected Hawking radiation?
Almost certainly not given how weak it is. It's just a prediction at this point (but one that falls naturally out of the known laws of physics). However, evidence for analogues of Hawking radiation coming from artificial "black holes" has been claimed: https://physicsworld.com/a/physicists-stimulate-hawking-radiation-from-optical-analogue-of-a-black-hole/
-
Quoted: “So tell me how you make the leap in logic from, "Hot, luminous gas surrounds supermassive black holes" to "Hot, luminous gas comes out of supermassive black holes"? The first premise does not justify the second”
Jsa response: Read again.2.27.19
Quoted: “Almost certainly not given how weak it is. It's just a prediction at this point (but one that falls naturally out of the known laws of physics”.
Jsa response: now you are realizing.that formula of computing how cold is supposed black hole,, which contains several -000000000000000 etc. Kelvin, is UNBELIEVABLE, RIDICULOUS. That conceived black hole is figment of imagination which Einstein and Hawking denied!
-
Quoted: “So tell me how you make the leap in logic from, "Hot, luminous gas surrounds supermassive black holes" to "Hot, luminous gas comes out of supermassive black holes"? The first premise does not justify the second”
Jsa response: Read again.2.27.19
Read what again? You never supported the leap from your premise to your conclusion. All your argument ever amounted to was, "supermassive black holes are surrounded by hot gas and dust. Therefore, the hot gas and dust came out of the black hole." You never explained why this must be the case. That's like arguing, "The planets surround the Sun, therefore the planets came out of the Sun" or "The peanut butter in a Reese's cup is surrounded by chocolate, therefore the chocolate came out of the peanut butter" or "Islands are surrounded by the ocean, therefore the ocean came out of islands." It's the non-sequitur fallacy.
Jsa response: now you are realizing.that formula of computing how cold is supposed black hole,, which contains several -000000000000000 etc. Kelvin, is UNBELIEVABLE, RIDICULOUS.
That is the argument from incredulity fallacy. Something isn't wrong just because it seems unbelievable to you.
Again, if Hawking is wrong, then show where the error in the math is. You can't expect us to take you seriously if you claim that the math is wrong without being able to demonstrate that it is, in fact, wrong. Until you can do this, your idea isn't going to get anywhere in the astrophysics community.
That conceived black hole is figment of imagination which Einstein and Hawking denied!
Are you serious? Hawking is the very one who predicted Hawking radiation...
-
now you are realizing.that formula of computing how cold is supposed black hole,, which contains several -000000000000000 etc. Kelvin, is UNBELIEVABLE, RIDICULOUS.
It is not unbelievable, since those of us who understand this stuff believe it.
It is not ridiculous to those who know the science.
Your view- that stuff magically comes out of black holes is, however, ridiculous.
-
Jsa: Why is the supposed black hole conceived super-cold, lower than absolute zero? It is because all astronomical telescopes cannot see the core of the galaxy, thus invisible!!! therefore black hole. But, reiterating, center of galaxy, ALL galaxies, are camouflaged by too thick dust and gas, its own making. Modern astronomical observations is becoming clearer and clearer: there is the detected object, supposed black hole, occupying the core of galaxies, but it is “not the traditional black hole that light cannot escape”. And here is the undeniable proof that the core is super- hot: jets ejected at almost the speed of light, from the center of super-galaxy is super-hot, otherwise if it is cold, it cannot be ejected in gaseous state. Prove to me that the ejected jets emanating from the center of galaxies is cold, not hot. 2.27.19
-
Why is the supposed black hole conceived super-cold, lower than absolute zero?
(1) This question has been answered (more than once).
(2) Nobody said that they are colder than absolute zero. That's a straw-man argument.
It is because all astronomical telescopes cannot see the core of the galaxy, thus invisible!!!
The concept of Hawking radiation is based on theory, not direct observation. So you are wrong.
And here is the undeniable proof that the core is super- hot: jets ejected at almost the speed of light, from the center of super-galaxy is super-hot, otherwise if it is cold, it cannot be ejected in gaseous state. Prove to me that the ejected jets emanating from the center of galaxies is cold, not hot. 2.27.19
Now you have created another straw-man argument. No one here denied that the cores of galaxies are hot. No one here denied that the jets are hot. What we are saying is that the Hawking radiation is not hot. Learn the difference.
-
Prove to me that the ejected jets emanating from the center of galaxies is cold, not hot.
Those jets are hot.
Nobody ever said they were not hot.
Hawking radiation is cold
Obviously, a cold thing is not the same as a hot thing.
That's exactly why the jets are not Hawking radiation.
And that's why you are wrong.
-
NS quoted: The concept of Hawking radiation is based on theory, not direct observation. So you are wrong"
.
jsa response: Concept of Hawking radiation is BASED ON THEORY ???Actual continued astronomical observations do not , cannot support Hawking theory. Will EHT, UCLA, European astronomical Societies come out in the open, what have the respected astronomical Societies have.increasingly observed.. Hawking had an inkling, knew there is a leak in that EH. That is why since 1974, he had argument with Thorne, Preskill and in 2004, Hawking finally opened up there is no EH, in short Hawking radiation escapes black hole, light escapes normally. Reiterating, for the the th time,That Hawking radiation is finally identified, is nothing more than the dense gas and dust cover-up.. Will we stick to becoming obsolete theory or learn to accept the actual. Einstein made a mistake on his cosmological constant, now Hawking is denying EH. ., Newton on his instantaneous gravity. Science is developing.See? 2.28.19.
-
Concept of Hawking radiation is BASED ON THEORY ???
See? I told you that you didn't know what Hawking radiation was. If you did, then you would have already known that it was theoretical.
Hawking had an inkling, knew there is a leak in that EH.
That "inkling" was also theoretical. No one has observed it firsthand.
in short Hawking radiation escapes black hole
Hawking radiation comes from just outside of the event horizon. This is another example of you demonstrating that you don't know what you are talking about.
light escapes normally.
It doesn't escape "normally" at all. You might want to read this article to get a better handle on it: https://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes-1.14583 Here are some relevant quotes on the distinction between the event horizon and apparent horizon and how a shrinking black hole would allow information out:
In place of the event horizon, Hawking invokes an “apparent horizon”, a surface along which light rays attempting to rush away from the black hole’s core will be suspended. In general relativity, for an unchanging black hole, these two horizons are identical, because light trying to escape from inside a black hole can reach only as far as the event horizon and will be held there, as though stuck on a treadmill. However, the two horizons can, in principle, be distinguished. If more matter gets swallowed by the black hole, its event horizon will swell and grow larger than the apparent horizon.
Conversely, in the 1970s, Hawking also showed that black holes can slowly shrink, spewing out 'Hawking radiation'. In that case, the event horizon would, in theory, become smaller than the apparent horizon. Hawking’s new suggestion is that the apparent horizon is the real boundary. “The absence of event horizons means that there are no black holes — in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infinity,” Hawking writes.
Reiterating, for the the th time,That
Hawking radiation is finally identified
You keep making the claim, but have yet to support that claim. Firstly, how about you tell us in your own words what you think the definition of Hawking radiation is. Then, demonstrate that it is the same thing as the gas and dust around a black hole. Don't merely say that it is: show that it is.
is nothing more than the dense gas and dust cover-up..
I thought you agreed earlier that radiation isn't the same thing as gas and dust? Now you're contradicting yourself.
-
NS quote:Hawking radiation comes from just outside of the event horizon.
Jsa response: You believe that, hook, line and sinker?. You believe in him, believe in me. Do you know what it means when it comes from just outside the EH. 2.28.19
-
You believe that, hook, line and sinker?
Given that Hawking radiation has not been detected yet, I cannot say with certainty that it exists. I can say that we have very good reason to believe that it exists and the math supports its existence.
You believe in him, believe in me.
Why should I? Hawking actually has the evidence on his side. You have never bothered to provide any. You keep making claims without bothering to support them.
Do you know what it means when it comes from just outside the EH.
Yes, but you apparently don't. Quantum vacuum fluctuations right at the horizon are pulled apart by tidal forces. One enters the event horizon and the other passes into outer space. The particles that move into outer space are what make up Hawking radiation.
-
jsa response: You said it, “Hawking radiation has not been detected” “ Hawking actually has evidence on his side”. This is double talk, contradicting itself. How can you have evidence when it has not been detected? Where is your evidence?
Jsa response But I am claiming I HAVE EVIDENCE, that hawking radiation is finally resolved/identified: the dust and gas. You said “Quantum vacuum, fluctuations right at the horizon??? Has science detected it? Nobody has. It is just theory.” Am presenting evidence after evidence, that particles that sprout from the supposed black hole, that moves into outer space are what make up hawking radiation. Exactly, now identified specifically as that dust and gas, as detected by modern astronomical observations. Ask UCLA and other European astronomical society. Even EHT. And that particles that enters event horizon are leftover accretion dust and gas, not much, because accretion period is over. You agree the jets are hot!! that jets that emanate from the supposed black hole. Thus, how can supposed black hole have temperature closest or exceeding absolute zero ?. Do you know what that jets on both opposite side of super-galaxy means? It means there is no singularity, that opposite jets of super-galaxy, one jet is positive and the opposite jet is negative. This is inherent indestructible nature of matter. 2.28.19
-
all astronomical telescopes cannot see the core of the galaxy, thus invisible!!! therefore black hole. But, reiterating, center of galaxy, ALL galaxies, are camouflaged by too thick dust and gas
Radio telescopes can peer through gas and dust that would obstruct a visible-light telescope.
The ongoing Event Horizon Telescope project is apparently still collecting and processing data. If and when they have something to publish, we should get an image of the bright (hot) accretion disk surrounding a dark (cold) event horizon.
How clear the image is depends on the orientation of the accretion disk and any polar jets, and whether there is one or more big black holes near the center of our galaxy.
Let's hope they soon iron out the teething problems, and settle the confusion of jsaldea12.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_Horizon_Telescope
-
jsa response: You said it, “Hawking radiation has not been detected” “ Hawking actually has evidence on his side”. This is double talk, contradicting itself. How can you have evidence when it has not been detected? Where is your evidence?
It's in the math.
Jsa response But I am claiming I HAVE EVIDENCE
But you don't. You keep making claims without substantiating them. I'm still waiting for you explain why the gas and dust around a black hole necessarily came out of the hole. You keep dodging that issue. Volcanic islands are surrounded by water. Volcanoes release water (in the form of vapor). Therefore, the water around the volcanic island came from the volcano. Does that argument make any sense to you? Because it doesn't to me. That's exactly the kind of argument you are making.
Am presenting evidence after evidence
Where? I have yet to see any.
Am presenting evidence after evidence, that particles that sprout from the supposed black hole, that moves into outer space are what make up hawking radiation. Exactly, now identified specifically as that dust and gas, as detected by modern astronomical observations.
Are you saying that radiation comes out of a black hole or dust and gas? Make up your mind already.
Ask UCLA and other European astronomical society.
Please post a link where they claim that the dust and gas around a black hole has anything at all to do with Hawking radiation.
You agree the jets are hot!! that jets that emanate from the supposed black hole. Thus, how can supposed black hole have temperature closest or exceeding absolute zero ?.
The contribution from the Hawking radiation is what is cold. The plasma around the hole is what is hot. They are not the same. The math proves it. The math simply does not allow enough particles to be generated by the laws of physics to generate that kind of heat. So you are arguing with the math.
Do you know what that jets on both opposite side of super-galaxy means? It means there is no singularity,
Non-sequitur.
-
Do you know what that jets on both opposite side of super-galaxy means? It means there is no singularity,
I would quibble with the word "singularity": No-one expects to see a singularity at the center of a galaxy. Physicists expect that singularities are hidden behind the black wall of the black hole's event horizon.
So I would rephrase this comment as follows:
Do you know what that jets on both opposite side of super-galaxy means? It means there is no black hole
Radio astronomers interpret the jets as strong evidence that there is an active black hole (with an accretion disk) at the center of a galaxy.
- The high-speed jets at "north" and "south" poles are driven by the matter and plasma falling into the black hole.
- The matter in the jets is a small fraction of the mass falling into the event horizon
This meets the expected criteria of:
- conservation of energy
- matter can't be accelerated faster than c
-
NS: Please post a link where they claim that the dust and gas around a black hole has anything at all to do with Hawking Radiation.
Jsa: Have identified first that Hawking radiation is no other than the dust and gas.. the respected Astronomical Societies are thinly behind.: I have been using their observations.which is becoming clearer and clearer .
NS:The contribution from the Hawking radiation is what is cold. The plasma around the hole is what is hot. They are not the same. The math proves it. The math simply does not allow enough particles to be generated by the laws of physics to generate that kind of heat. So you are arguing with the math.
Jsa: Wrong contribution. Wrong math.
o NS:I would quibble with the word "singularity": No-one expects to see a singularity at the center of a galaxy. Physicists expect that singularities are hidden behind the black wall of the black hole's event horizon.
Jsa: Wrong. That singularities are not hidden behind black wall of EH? Again another WRNG THEORY..
NS: Radio astronomers interpret the jets as strong evidence that there is an active black hole (with an accretion disk) at the center of a galaxy.The high-speed jets at "north" and "south" poles are driven by the matter and plasma falling into the black hole.
- The matter in the jets is a small fraction of the mass falling into the event horizon
jsa response: Wrong. What is detected is an ACTIVE FALSE BLACK HOLE, meaning the interior of supposed black hole is supra-heated, could reach trillion C. Now where is that supra-cold black hole? Wrong again. The jets do not come from the outside falling into black hole but comes from the supra heated interior of black hole. 2.28.19
-
Jsa: Have identified first that Hawking radiation is no other than the dust and gas.
Radiation isn't made of dust and gas.
Wrong math.
Show where the error in the math is. I've asked you to do this many, many times. You keep ignoring the issue.
Wrong. That singularities are not hidden behind black wall of EH? Again another WRNG THEORY..
Are you ever going to bother supporting your claims?
Wrong. What is detected is an ACTIVE FALSE BLACK HOLE, meaning the interior of supposed black hole is supra-heated, could reach trillion C. Now where is that supra-cold black hole? Wrong again. The jets do not come from the outside falling into black hole but comes from the supra heated interior of black hole. 2.28.19
When are you going to finally provide evidence that the gas, dust and jets come out of black holes? You keep saying that they do, but never explain how you know that it's true.
-
Reiterating the supposed black hole is super-boiling that it boils, evaporate gas and dust that far extend beyond EH. Time will tell who is right, you or me. The jets are super-heat, by trillion K and travelling at almost speed of light, it can only be due/come. from interior of supposed black hole, due to super-compression of super-gravity. That the jet reaches several thousand of miles in space, PROVES ITS ORIGIN IS NOT FROM SPACE. jsa 2.29.19
-
It is unfortunate the postings in the internet of the observations of UCLA and other astronomical societies are not there anymore. Nevertheless, these observations are too strong: That the gas and dust completely, completely, cover-up the center of galaxies is another proof, no accretion can do that; that there are stars, just outside the EH, that are rotating at 1/3 speed of light shows it escapes EH. That quasars at farthest distance of universe have light that reach earth after 12 billion light years travel.That the equation that temperature is inversely proportional TO MASS breaks down. jsa 2.28.19..
-
I'm also waiting for you to address this particular contradiction: if black holes don't exist, then neither does Hawking radiation. If Hawking radiation doesn't exist, then it can't be responsible for the high temperatures in the galactic center. Non-existent radiation can't heat things up.
Reiterating the supposed black hole is super-boiling that it boils, evaporate gas and dust that far extend beyond EH.
Are you ever going to bother supporting your claims?
it can only be due/come. from interior of supposed black hole, due to super-compression of super-gravity.
Based on what reasoning?
That the jet reaches several thousand of miles in space, PROVES ITS ORIGIN IS NOT FROM SPACE.
How does that prove anything? Accretion disk models explain the presence of jets just fine (it's due to magnetic fields in the accretion disk focusing the gas into jets) and they do assume that the gas and dust came from outside of the black hole.
Nevertheless, these observations are too strong: That the gas and dust completely, completely, cover-up the center of galaxies is another proof, no accretion can do that
Accretion can't do that? How do you know?
that there are stars, just outside the EH, that are rotating at 1/3 speed of light shows it escapes EH.
So now you're claiming that stars come out of black holes? Seriously...
That the equation that temperature is inversely proportional TO MASS breaks down.
Show how. Show where the error in the math is. You keep dodging the issue.
-
Quoted” I'm also waiting for you to address this particular contradiction: if black holes don't exist, then neither does Hawking radiation. If Hawking radiation doesn't exist, then it can't be responsible for the high temperatures in the galactic center. Non-existent radiation can't heat things up.”
Jsa response: Exactly, black hole does not exit, so does hawking radiation.
Jsa: o ask for evidence? Several timesI have been supporting that dust and gas have been seen by all astronomical ltelescopes
Jsa;That the jet reaches several thousand of miles in space, PROVES ITS ORIGIN IS NOT FROM SPACE.
Quote: How does that prove anything? Accretion disk models explain the presence of jets just fine (it's due to magnetic fields in the accretion disk focusing the gas into jets) and they do assume that the gas and dust came from outside of the black hole.
jsa: Read well.
Jsa: that there are stars, just outside the EH, that are rotating at 1/3 speed of light shows it escapes EH.
Quote: So now you're claiming that stars come out of black holes? Seriously...
Jsa: I am claiming that these stars can even rotate closest the sucking black hole because it is not a black hole. It is just a super-giant object, like the sun. 2.28.19 .
-
I am claiming that these stars can even rotate closest the sucking black hole because it is not a black hole. It is just a super-giant object, like the sun
Among your many mistakes is the fact that the sun isn't a supergiant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supergiant_star
Read well.
We read it.
It does not make sense.
Several timesI have been supporting that dust and gas have been seen by all astronomical ltelescopes
Yes.
You have said that several times.
You have wasted time by doing so, because nobody ever said that we can't see the dust etc.
The thread isn't about dust- everyone knows there is dust in space.
The question is whether or not black holes exist.
You Are claiming that they do not.
But we know lots of phenomena that are attributed to black holes- for example, the LIGO results.
You need to explain what else could cause the signals detected by LIGO.
That will be difficult for you, because you clearly do not understand how LIGO works.
-
Jsa response: Exactly, black hole does not exit, so does hawking radiation.
If Hawking radiation doesn't exist, then why are you saying that it is gas and dust?
Jsa: o ask for evidence? Several timesI have been supporting that dust and gas have been seen by all astronomical ltelescopes
We all know that there is gas and dust there. Just because it is there doesn't mean it came out of the black hole. That is the evidence that you are missing.
Jsa;That the jet reaches several thousand of miles in space, PROVES ITS ORIGIN IS NOT FROM SPACE.
That is the claim, but what is the reasoning? What is the evidence?
jsa: Read well.
Read what? You haven't provided an explanation. Just unsupported claims.
Jsa: that there are stars, just outside the EH, that are rotating at 1/3 speed of light shows it escapes EH.
They're not escaping the black hole. They are trapped in orbit around it. Also they are not "just" outside of the event horizon: they are hundreds to thousands of astronomical units away from it.
Jsa: I am claiming that these stars can even rotate closest the sucking black hole because it is not a black hole. It is just a super-giant object, like the sun. 2.28.19 .
Black holes do not "suck". The gravity of a black hole is equal to that of a star of equal mass (this is called the shell theorem). If you were to replace our Sun with a black hole of equal mass, the planets would remain in orbit around it just fine. Yet those orbiting stars are much further away from Sagittarius A* than Pluto is from the Sun.
-
It is unfortunate the postings in the internet of the observations of UCLA and other astronomical societies are not there anymore. ... no accretion can do that; that there are stars, just outside the EH, that are rotating at 1/3 speed of light shows it escapes EH.
A lot of observations of the black hole at the center of the Milky Way have been led by researchers at the Max Planck Institute, using telescopes in the southern hemisphere. This includes studies of the motion of supergiant stars orbiting the location of the black hole; this used infra-red telescopes, which are better at peering through dust than optical telescopes. Their reports are still available on their website.
The recent report below shows:
- It was not stars traveling at 1/3 c, but super-hot gas (plasma)
- The reason is that before a star got this close to the black hole, it would be torn apart by the black hole's tidal forces.
- They have imaged the inner edge of the accretion disk, and suggest that its diameter is around 10 light-minutes (Earth is about 8 light-minutes from the Sun)
- This is the innermost stable orbit, just before the plasma plunges into the event horizon, on a one-way trip inwards
- and an accretion disk can do that
See: https://www.mpg.de/12447195/supermassive-black-hole-milky-way
-
Jsa: It is hopeless , you refuse to iisten, to open your mind that the Hawking Radiation is finally identified as actually the gas and dust, the making of the supposed black hole, itself. Trying to impress unto you such discovery has no effect. I have respect for Dr. Hawking but he is human and can make mistake. .he said something .like this to explain his Hawking radiation… half of the pair of particle? falls to black hole while the other pair falls out into outer space.. Wrong, There is no such thing. The positive and negative property of matter cannot be divided, all matter has positive and negative unto one!! It should be either the whole pair goes inside or goes outside the EH. But there is no Hawking Radiation, in the first place!!! 3.1.19
-
It is hopeless , you refuse to iisten, to open your mind that the Hawking Radiation is finally identified
But there is no Hawking Radiation, in the first place!!! 3.1.19
Congratulations, you just contradicted yourself in the same post. You can't say "there is no Hawking radiation" and "Hawking radiation is finally identified" at the same time. Either it exists or it doesn't. Make up your mind,
Trying to impress unto you such discovery has no effect.
Because you made no such discovery. We have known that gas and dust was there a long time before you said anything about it. All you have done is make claims about that gas and dust that you have consistently failed to support. You can't say that it came out of the black hole without providing evidence that it came out of the black hole.
I have respect for Dr. Hawking but he is human and can make mistake.
Then why don't you show where the mistake in his math is? You still haven't done that.
he said something .like this to explain his Hawking radiation… half of the pair of particle? falls to black hole while the other pair falls out into outer space.. Wrong, There is no such thing. The positive and negative property of matter cannot be divided, all matter has positive and negative unto one!! It should be either the whole pair goes inside or goes outside the EH.
It's too bad you think that, because it's provably wrong. Particle pair production has been observed in the laboratory. Photons have been observed transforming in an electron-positron pair: http://www.futura-sciences.us/dico/d/physics-positron-50003398/
-
Quoted: Because you made no such discovery. We have known that gas and dust was there a long time before you said anything about it. All you have done is make claims about that gas and dust that you have consistently failed to support. You can't say that it came out of the black hole without providing evidence that it came out of the black hole.
Jsa: Yes, the gas and dust hav been long seen but have not been identified as originating from supposed black hole. I have been supporting repeatedly repeatedly but you fail to listen..
Quote: Then why don't you show where the mistake in his math is? You still haven't done that.
Jsa: Show his (Hawking) math to show his mistake. Here is the mistake: Half pair of particle unto apparent EH and falls to supposed hole while the other half of pair of particle ejects outside of EH, called hawking radiation. Wrong. Positive and negative are inherent property of matter. You cannot separate one from the other, positive and negative unto one inseparable. Call that singularity,. like the center of supposed black hole. No singularity: Evidence the opposite dual super jets streaming from center of supposed black hole are positive and negative, north pole and south pole, like the sun, like earth!!! 3.1.19
-
Jsa: Yes, the gas and dust hav been long seen but have not been identified as originating from supposed black hole.
Exactly.
I have been supporting repeatedly repeatedly but you fail to listen..
When did that happen? I don't recall you ever showing that the gas came out of the black hole.
Jsa: Show his (Hawking) math to show his mistake. Here is the mistake: Half pair of particle unto apparent EH and falls to supposed hole while the other half of pair of particle ejects outside of EH, called hawking radiation. Wrong. Positive and negative are inherent property of matter. You cannot separate one from the other, positive and negative unto one inseparable.
Firstly, that is not an attempt to find an error in his math.
Secondly, I already showed you that exactly such a phenomenon has been observed in the laboratory. It isn't just a guess. It is observed, confirmed science. We know for a fact that electron-positron pairs can be generated and separated.
Call that singularity,
But that isn't the definition of a singularity.
vidence the opposite dual super jets streaming from center of supposed black hole
You haven't demonstrated that they come out of the black hole. Do you plan on actually doing this any time soon?
are positive and negative, north pole and south pole, like the sun, like earth!!! 3.1.19
Positive and negative in what sense?
-
Quoted: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.
jsa: Please explain how these figures are arrived. 3.1.19
-
jsa: Please explain how these figures are arrived. 3.1.19
This section on Wikipedia describes how the equations are derived: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation#Emission_process
These equations are used in a convenient online calculator which allows for speedy calculation using these values: https://www.fabiopacucci.com/resources/black-hole-calculator/. I have already stated the values that I arrived at earlier when putting the known mass of Sagittarius A* (which is about 4,000,000 solar masses) into the calculator. I divided 2.7 kelvins (the temperature of the microwave background of space) by the resulting temperature in order to see how much colder the black hole is than the microwave background of space. I divided 14.1 microwatts (the luminosity of a firefly as stated on this page: https://www.randombio.com/fireflies.html) by the resulting luminosity in order to see how much dimmer the black hole is than a firefly.
-
Quoted: When did that happen? I don't recall you ever showing that the gas came out of the black hole
Jsa: Ask UCLA and many other astronomers who have seen it, dust and gas“ like fountain” ,”gas and dust” ,”coming from black hole and back to black hole, even spring out STRAIGHT OUTWARD.”. "Detected a giant object at the center but it is the traditional black hole”. Have you read those comments”..
Quoted: I already showed you that exactly such a phenomenon has been observed in the laboratory. It isn't just a guess. It is observed, confirmed science. We know for a fact that electron-positron pairs can be generated and separated.
Jsa: Wrong, show me the article and I will show it is fake.
.Quoted:But that isn't the definition of a singularity
.
JSA: Singularity is when positive and negative are one, totally as one, no distinction from one another. Singularity is the signature that center of black hole is totally one, no distinction.? ,. That ejected dual jets of super-galaxy, demonstrates/proves the supposed black hole has positive and negative side, north pole and south pole, like the sun, like earth. Do you know where we can find singularity?
Quoted: Positive and negative in what sense?
Jsa: no comment... 2.28.19
-
Quoted:These equations are used in a convenient online calculator which allows for speedy calculation using these values: https://www.fabiopacucci.com/resources/black-hole-calculator/. I have already stated the values that I arrived at earlier when putting the known mass of Sagittarius A* (which is about 4,000,000 solar masses) into the calculator. I divided 2.7 kelvins (the temperature of the microwave background of space) by the resulting temperature in order to see how much colder the black hole is than the microwave background of space. I divided 14.1 microwatts (the luminosity of a firefly as stated on this page: https://www.randombio.com/fireflies.html) by the resulting luminosity in order to see how much dimmer the black hole is than a firefly
Jsa: Illustration: Which is colder, a black hole the size of earth, or outer space, of equal size, completely vacuumed of virtual particles? 3.1.19/.
-
Quoted: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.
jsa: Please explain how these figures are arrived. 3.1.19
Jsa: Please explain how black hole with particles closed or lapsing one another could be 20 billion times colder than vacuum space with nothing on it 3.1.19
-
Jsa: Ask UCLA and many other astronomers who have seen it, dust and gas“ like fountain” ,”gas and dust” ,”coming from black hole and back to black hole, even spring out STRAIGHT OUTWARD.”.
Show me where they said that it came out of the black hole itself. Coming from the direction of the black hole alone is not enough.
Jsa: Wrong, show me the article and I will show it is fake.
There are many places you can read about it, actually:
- Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
- A description of how pair production was discovered using a cloud chamber: http://www.cloudylabs.fr/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/1948-Blackett-Nobel-Prize-Lecture.pdf
- An experiment to detect pair production: http://instructor.physics.lsa.umich.edu/adv-labs/Pair_Production/PairProd_writeup_v5.pdf
JSA: Singularity is when positive and negative are one, totally as one, no distinction from one another.
So then you are not talking about a black hole singularity. That is, according to Dictionary.com, "a point at which a function takes an infinite value, especially in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, as at the center of a black hole."
Do you know where we can find singularity?
No one knows for sure. Black holes might not even contain singularities. The type proposed by Einstein had them, but quantum physics suggest that they are very tiny, dense objects, but not infinitely-small singularities.
Jsa: no comment... 2.28.19
If you're not willing to explain what you mean by "positive and negative", then stop using the terminology.
jsa: Please explain how these figures are arrived. 3.1.19
You already said this, and I already did.
Jsa: Please explain how black hole with particles closed or lapsing one another could be 20 billion times colder than vacuum space with nothing on it 3.1.19
Space is not empty. It contains background radiation.
-
Jsa: Positive and negative are inherent property of the universe, are two sides of the same coin. Has monopole been discovered? None. That is why that electron-positron, supposed to be experimentally separated from one another is wrong. That is why the Hawking Radiation, separating positive from negative, re-positive to fall to black hole and the negative back to outer space is not supported by the unwritten inherent law of positive and negative .because positive and negative cannot be separated. This is too the law of opposite. Everything in this universe has positive and negative, galaxies, stars, planets have north pole and south pole, Matters, plants, animals, human beings, male and female. EACH, has positive and negative property. right and wrong are opposite but the law of opposite is not inflexible, it is flexible, one can be good now, bad next moment but alwlays positive and negative is retained.... .... 3.1.19
-
That is why that electron-positron, supposed to be experimentally separated from one another is wrong.
People have done this.
So it is just silly for you to say it is "wrong".
What are you doing on a science web page if you do not believe facts?
-
Has monopole been discovered? None.
Magnetic monopoles haven't been found, but electric monopoles are all over the place. Electrons themselves are one such example.
None. That is why that electron-positron, supposed to be experimentally separated from one another is wrong. That is why the Hawking Radiation, separating positive from negative, re-positive to fall to black hole and the negative back to outer space is not supported by the unwritten inherent law of positive and negative .because positive and negative cannot be separated. This is too the law of opposite. Everything in this universe has positive and negative, galaxies, stars, planets have north pole and south pole, Matters, plants, animals, human beings, male and female. EACH, has positive and negative property. right and wrong are opposite but the law of opposite is not inflexible, it is flexible, one can be good now, bad next moment but alwlays positive and negative is retained.... .... 3.1.19
Firstly, absolutely none of that refutes the findings in the links I posted. It doesn't even address them. Explain what is being detected if not pair production. Secondly, positive and negative charges are separated from each other all the time. It happens whenever you get a static shock from a doorknob. It's also the working principle behind the Van de Graaff generator: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_de_Graaff_generator
-
Jsa: Positive and negative are inherent property of the universe, are two sides of the same coin. Has monopole been discovered? None. That is why that electron-positron, supposed to be experimentally separated from one another is wrong. That is why the Hawking Radiation, separating positive from negative, re-positive to fall to black hole and the negative back to outer space is not supported by the unwritten inherent law of positive and negative .because positive and negative cannot be separated. This is too the law of opposite. Everything in this universe has positive and negative, galaxies, stars, planets have north pole and south pole, Matters, plants, animals, human beings, male and female. EACH, has positive and negative property. right and wrong are opposite but the law of opposite is not inflexible, it is flexible, one can be good now, bad next moment but alwlays positive and negative is retained.... .... 3.1.19
-
Quoted:: Magnetic monopoles haven't been found, but electric monopoles are all over the place. Electrons themselves are one such example
Jsa: Wrong. Electrons in electrical wires have two sides: positive and negative, one side positive and the other negative, otherwise the bulb will not light.These two sides are inseparably connected. 3.4.19.
-
Jsa: Positive and negative are inherent property of the universe, are two sides of the same coin. Has monopole been discovered? None. That is why that electron-positron, supposed to be experimentally separated from one another is wrong. That is why the Hawking Radiation, separating positive from negative, re-positive to fall to black hole and the negative back to outer space is not supported by the unwritten inherent law of positive and negative .because positive and negative cannot be separated. This is too the law of opposite. Everything in this universe has positive and negative, galaxies, stars, planets have north pole and south pole, Matters, plants, animals, human beings, male and female. EACH, has positive and negative property. right and wrong are opposite but the law of opposite is not inflexible, it is flexible, one can be good now, bad next moment but alwlays positive and negative is retained.... .... 3.1.19
All you did was repeat your previous post.
Jsa: Wrong. Electrons in electrical wires have two sides: positive and negative, one side positive and the other negative, otherwise the bulb will not light.These two sides are inseparably connected. 3.4.19.
The positive and negative terminals in an electrical circuit are not the same thing as the electrons in the wire. Electrons by themselves are negatively-charged, as shown in many experiments. When you rub a balloon on your hair, it gains a net electric charge which allows it to attract other, electrically-polarizable objects like paper. No wires or positive and negative terminals are involved. This clearly demonstrates separation of charge:
Cathode rays (which are beams of electrons) can be proven to have a net negative charge based on the way that they are deflected by magnetic fields:
Since I feel like I'm getting sick, I'm going to be taking my leave from this thread. I don't know if I'll come back or not.
-
Quoted:: Magnetic monopoles haven't been found, but electric monopoles are all over the place. Electrons themselves are one such example
Jsa: Electrons in electrical wires have two sides: positive and negative, one side positive and the other negative, otherwise the bulb will not light.These two sides are inseparably connected. 3.4.19. Quoted
-
Quoted:The positive and negative terminals in an electrical circuit are not the same thing as the electrons in the wire. Electrons by themselves are negatively-charged, as shown in many experiments. When you rub a balloon on your hair, it gains a net electric charge which allows it to attract other, electrically-polarizable objects like paper. No wires or positive and negative terminals are involved. This clearly demonstrates separation of charge:Cathode rays (which are beams of electrons) can be proven to have a net negative charge based on the way that they are deflected by magnetic fields:
Jsa: It is direction that makes it positive or negative. Cathode rays are negative direction from negative to positive. Here is a clearer illustration: cut and cut a bar magnet with positive and negative sides into smaller slices. Note that each cut slices SELF-SUBDIVIDES into positive and negative, makes no difference whether the cut smaller slices is on positive side or negative side of the bar magnet. Can you follow? SELF-SUBDIVIDES 3.4.19
-
Quoted:The positive and negative terminals in an electrical circuit are not the same thing as the electrons in the wire. Electrons by themselves are negatively-charged, as shown in many experiments. When you rub a balloon on your hair, it gains a net electric charge which allows it to attract other, electrically-polarizable objects like paper. No wires or positive and negative terminals are involved. This clearly demonstrates separation of charge:Cathode rays (which are beams of electrons) can be proven to have a net negative charge based on the way that they are deflected by magnetic fields:
Jsa: It is direction that makes it positive or negative. Cathode rays are negative direction from negative to positive. Here is a clearer illustration: cut and cut a bar magnet with positive and negative sides into smaller slices. Note that each cut slices SELF-SUBDIVIDES into positive and negative, makes no difference whether the cut smaller slices is on positive side or negative side of the bar magnet. Can you follow? 3.4.19
-
Quoted: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.
jsa: Reiterating how these figures that the Hawking radiation is 20 trillion times colder than vacuum of space, even considering presence of CMBR is taking into account (actually it is not CMBR but the electro-magnetic fabric of spacetime. CMBR is gone, cannot last 13 billion years. PLEAS E FURNISH FIGURES TO ARRIVE AT THAT 20 TRILLION. 3.1.19
-
Wrong. Electrons in electrical wires have two sides: positive and negative, one side positive and the other negative, otherwise the bulb will not light.These two sides are inseparably connected.
Did you ever study science in school?
-
PLEAS E FURNISH FIGURES TO ARRIVE AT THAT 20 TRILLION
Not only did he already supply those figures, but you quoted him doing so.
Quoted:These equations are used in a convenient online calculator which allows for speedy calculation using these values: https://www.fabiopacucci.com/resources/black-hole-calculator/. I have already stated the values that I arrived at earlier when putting the known mass of Sagittarius A* (which is about 4,000,000 solar masses) into the calculator. I divided 2.7 kelvins (the temperature of the microwave background of space) by the resulting temperature in order to see how much colder the black hole is than the microwave background of space. I divided 14.1 microwatts (the luminosity of a firefly as stated on this page: https://www.randombio.com/fireflies.html) by the resulting luminosity in order to see how much dimmer the black hole is than a firefly
Do you not understand?
-
Jsa: It is direction that makes it positive or negative. Cathode rays are negative direction from negative to positive. Here is a clearer illustration: cut and cut a bar magnet with positive and negative sides into smaller slices. Note that each cut slices SELF-SUBDIVIDES into positive and negative, makes no difference whether the cut smaller slices is on positive side or negative side of the bar magnet. Can you follow? 3.4.19
Quoted: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.
jsa: Reiterating how these figures that the Hawking radiation is 20 trillion times colder than vacuum of space, even considering presence of CMBR is taking into account (actually it is not CMBR but the electro-magnetic fabric of spacetime. CMBR is gone, cannot last 13 billion years. PLEAS E FURNISH FIGURES TO ARRIVE AT THAT 20 TRILLION. 3.1.19
-
THIS IS VERY SIGNIFICANT PLEASE RESPOND
Quoted: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.
jsa: Reiterating how these figures that the Hawking radiation is 20 trillion times colder than vacuum of space, even considering presence of CMBR is taking into account (actually it is not CMBR but the electro-magnetic fabric of spacetime. CMBR, black body radiation, is gone, cannot last 13 billion years. PLEAS E FURNISH FIGURES TO ARRIVE AT THAT 20 TRILLION. 3.1.19
-
Can you really not do simple arithmetic?
You only have to divide one number by another.
The temperature of "space" is the cosmic microwave background- it's about 2.725 K
(It exists- we can measure it.
It doesn't matter that you don't like it, because it is still real.)
And the temperature of the Hawking radiation is about 1.5 x 10-14 kelvins
So, dividing about 3 by about 1.5 x 10-14
Gives 200,000,000,000,000
(It looks like one of us has miscounted the zeroes, but it hardly matters if you are wrong by a factor of 20 trillion, or 200)
-
Do you know what "1.5 x 10-14" means?
-
Jsa: It is direction that makes it positive or negative. Cathode rays are negative direction from negative to positive. Here is a clearer illustration: cut and cut a bar magnet with positive and negative sides into smaller slices. Note that each cut slices SELF-SUBDIVIDES into positive and negative, makes no difference whether the cut smaller slices is on positive side or negative side of the bar magnet. Can you follow? 3.4.19
Quoted: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.
jsa: Reiterating how these figures that the Hawking radiation is 20 trillion times colder than vacuum of space, even considering presence of CMBR is taking into account (actually it is not CMBR but the electro-magnetic fabric of spacetime. CMBR is gone, cannot last 13 billion years. PLEAS E FURNISH FIGURES TO ARRIVE AT THAT 20 TRILLION. 3.1.19
-
Quote: Do you know what "1.5 x 10-14" means?
jsa: Is that correct? 20 trillion times colder than vacuum space? Something is not right. There is a break down in the equation, that 20 trillion is too much a mistake. Do you know why? 3.5.19.
-
Jsa: It is direction that makes it positive or negative. Cathode rays are negative direction from negative to positive. Here is a clearer illustration: cut and cut a bar magnet with positive and negative sides into smaller slices. Note that each cut slices SELF-SUBDIVIDES into positive and negative, makes no difference whether the cut smaller slices is on positive side or negative side of the bar magnet. Can you follow? 3.4.19
What is true of a magnet is not necessarily true of other physical phenomena. If you understood electromagnetism, you would know why cutting a magnet in half produces two smaller magnets and you would also understand why that same principle is not true of electrical charges.
I see that you listed “male and female” as examples of your “law of opposite”. There are animals which have females but no males. They reproduce by cloning themselves (it’s called parthenogenesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis). So there is another example of your so-called “law” being violated.
jsa: Reiterating how these figures that the Hawking radiation is 20 trillion times colder than vacuum of space, even considering presence of CMBR is taking into account (actually it is not CMBR but the electro-magnetic fabric of spacetime. CMBR is gone, cannot last 13 billion years. PLEAS E FURNISH FIGURES TO ARRIVE AT THAT 20 TRILLION. 3.1.19
You want me to do it the hard way? Alright, I’ll do it the hard way. Here is the equation that was derived to calculate the temperature of the Hawking radiation of a black hole:
T = (ħc3)/(8πGMkB), where:
“T” is the temperature in kelvins
“ħ” is the reduced Planck constant (1.0545718 x 10-34 J⋅s)
“c” is the speed of light (299,792,458 m/s)
“G” is the gravitational constant (6.674 x 10-11 m3⋅kg-1⋅s-2)
“M” is the mass of the black hole (in kilograms)
“kB” is the Boltzmann constant (1.38064852 x 10-23 J⋅K-1)
Since Sagittarius A* has a mass of around 4 x 106 solar masses, and the Sun has a mass of 1.9885 x 1030 kg, that would give Sagittarius A* a mass of (4 x 106)(1.9885 x 1030) = 7.954 x 1036 kg. So now that we have all of the values we need, I’ll put them into the equation and find out the temperature contribution from the Hawking radiation:
T = (ħc3)/(8πGMkB)
T = ((1.0545718 x 10-34)(299,792,458)3)/(8π(6.674 x 10-11)(7.954 x 1036)(1.38064852 x 10-23))
T = ((1.0545718 x 10-34)(2.6944 x 1025))/(25.132741(5.3084996 x 1026)(1.38064852 x 10-23))
T = (2.84143825792 x 10-9)/(25.132741(7,329.172116))
T = (2.84143825792 x 10-9)/(184,202.1845)
T = 1.54256 x 10-14 kelvins
Since the microwave background is at 2.725 kelvins, then (2.725)/(1.54256 x 10-14) = 1.766544 x 1014. That makes the Hawking radiation about 1.766544 x 1014 times colder than the background of space (these calculations are a little more precise than my earlier ones).
So that is a calculation for the temperature contribution from Hawking radiation. That is not the actual temperature at the event horizon itself. The microwave background and inflowing gas and dust would obviously contribute to the overall temperature as well. This calculation is simply a value for how much of the temperature comes from the Hawking radiation specifically.
-
Something is not right.
Yes.
The thing that is not right is you.
Do you know what "1.5 x 10-14" means?
-
PLEASE DO NOT DELETE:
Jsa: Kryptid asked? Show us where the error in math? It is direction that makes it positive or negative. Cathode rays are negative direction from negative to positive. Here is a clearer illustration: cut and cut a bar magnet with positive and negative sides into smaller slices. Note that each cut slices SELF-SUBDIVIDES into positive and negative, makes no difference whether the cut smaller slices is on positive side or negative side of the bar magnet. Can you follow? 3.4.19
Quoted: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.
jsa: Reiterating how these figures that the Hawking radiation is 20 trillion times colder than vacuum of space, even considering presence of CMBR is taking into account (actually it is not CMBR but the electro-magnetic fabric of spacetime. CMBR is gone, cannot last 13 billion years. PLEAS E FURNISH FIGURES TO ARRIVE AT THAT 20 TRILLION. IS THAT CORRECT; 20 TRILLION TIMES COLDER THAN SPACE??? 3.1.19
-
Quoted:You want me to do it the hard way? Alright, I’ll do it the hard way. Here is the equation that was derived to calculate the temperature of the Hawking radiation of a black hole:
Since Sagittarius A* has a mass of around 4 x 106 solar masses, and the Sun has a mass of 1.9885 x 1030 kg, that would give Sagittarius A* a mass of (4 x 106)(1.9885 x 1030) = 7.954 x 1036 kg. So now that we have all of the values we need, I’ll put them into the equation and find out the temperature contribution from the Hawking radiation:
T = (ħc3)/(8πGMkB)
T = ((1.0545718 x 10-34)(299,792,458)3)/(8π(6.674 x 10-11)(7.954 x 1036)(1.38064852 x 10-23))
T = ((1.0545718 x 10-34)(2.6944 x 1025))/(25.132741(5.3084996 x 1026)(1.38064852 x 10-23))
T = (2.84143825792 x 10-9)/(25.132741(7,329.172116))
T = (2.84143825792 x 10-9)/(184,202.1845)
T = 1.54256 x 10-14 kelvins
Since the microwave background is at 2.725 kelvins, then (2.725)/(1.54256 x 10-14) = 1.766544 x 1014. That makes the Hawking radiation about 1.766544 x 1014 times colder than the background of space (these calculations are a little more precise than my earlier ones).
jsa response: Sometimes common sense makes more sense. Do you mean to tell me that Hawking Radiation has temperature of 20,000,000,000 times COLDER THAN vacuum space. I thought there is only ONE ABSOLUTE ZERO TEMPERATURE KELVIN. But with that 20 billion TIMES, it implicates there are many absolute zero Kelvins. Thus it simply means 20 trillion times ABOV E ONE ABSOLUTE ZERO KELVIN OR - 273.15 CELSIUS..
Jsa: Virtual particles that pops out and pop back to vacuum due to vacuum fluctuation are real particle with indivisible positive and negative property. Proof: read next paragraph. 3.6.19
Jsa: Cosmic micro background radiation (CMBR) has long been over, it cannot last for 13 billion years. What is forever in outer space is the all encompassing fabric of spacetime, that is creating that background radiation; with positive and negative property, with indivisible positive and negative property, without which there is no radio, TV, internet..3.6.19
-
PLEASE DO NOT DELETE:
Again, why do you keep saying that? No one is deleting your posts.
It is direction that makes it positive or negative. Cathode rays are negative direction from negative to positive. Here is a clearer illustration: cut and cut a bar magnet with positive and negative sides into smaller slices. Note that each cut slices SELF-SUBDIVIDES into positive and negative, makes no difference whether the cut smaller slices is on positive side or negative side of the bar magnet. Can you follow? 3.4.19
You already said this and I already addressed it.
jsa: Reiterating how these figures that the Hawking radiation is 20 trillion times colder than vacuum of space, even considering presence of CMBR is taking into account (actually it is not CMBR but the electro-magnetic fabric of spacetime. CMBR is gone, cannot last 13 billion years. PLEAS E FURNISH FIGURES TO ARRIVE AT THAT 20 TRILLION. IS THAT CORRECT; 20 TRILLION TIMES COLDER THAN SPACE??? 3.1.19
Did you not even read reply #71?
Sometimes common sense makes more sense.
If common sense contradicts math, then common sense is wrong. I'm still waiting for you to show the error in the math.
Do you mean to tell me that Hawking Radiation has temperature of 20,000,000,000 times COLDER THAN vacuum space. I thought there is only ONE ABSOLUTE ZERO TEMPERATURE KELVIN. But with that 20 billion TIMES, it implicates there are many absolute zero Kelvins. Thus it simply means 20 trillion times ABOV E ONE ABSOLUTE ZERO KELVIN OR - 273.15 CELSIUS..
You are straw-manning my argument. At no point in time did I say that Hawking radiation is colder than absolute zero or a perfect vacuum. Outer space is neither a perfect vacuum nor at absolute zero. It has a measurable temperature of 2.7 kelvins.
Virtual particles that pops out and pop back to vacuum due to vacuum fluctuation are real particle with indivisible positive and negative property. Proof: read next paragraph. 3.6.19
You never provided proof.
Jsa: Cosmic micro background radiation (CMBR) has long been over, it cannot last for 13 billion years.
Conservation of energy guarantees that it is still there. Energy can't be destroyed.
-
jsa: Please show my subsequent postings. Thank you. 3.12.19
-
jsa: Please show my subsequent postings. Thank you. 3.12.19
What are you talking about?