[Dave Lev (OP)]

Did you completely miss this quote of mine?
Quote
[2] The Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter (MOLA) instrument on the Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft has observed 15 transits of the shadow of Phobos across the surface of Mars, and has directly measured the range to Phobos on one occasion. The observed positions of Phobos and its shadow are in good agreement with predictions from orbital motion models derived from observations made prior to 1990, with the notable exception that Phobos is gradually getting ahead of its predicted location. This effect makes the shadow appear at a given location earlier than predicted, and the discrepancy is growing by an amount which averages 0.8 s/yr.

Phobos' orbital period is getting shorter every year. We know this because the shadow has been observed to move further and further ahead of schedule. It takes less time for the shadow to reach the same spot every year. That is a direct observation.

Yes, that message is only valid at the "Introduction".
However, in the article it is stated totally differently:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2004JE002376
[34] However, as the corrections required to fit the new observations are very small, and appear to be almost entirely along‐track perturbations, we can use a very simple linear perturbation analysis and adjust only 3 parameters. If the adjustments in time of along‐track position were large, compared to the shortest forcing periods, this simple linearization would not be sufficient. The orbital model has secular effects, long period effects, and short period effects, and the forcing periods are mainly at harmonics of the Mars heliocentric orbital period, and the Phobos mean orbital period. As these periods are incommensurate, the orbital motion is quasi‐periodic and a shift in time by a significant fraction of the shortest period will alter the structure of the beat patterns between the input periods. However, the rate of accumulation of along‐track position error is equivalent to 0.8 s/yr, or a few parts in 10^7, and the linear analysis is warranted."

So, we see clearly that they had to make several assumptions:
1.  Adjustments : "If the adjustments in time of along‐track position ..."
2. Linearization: :"this simple linearization would not be sufficient."
3. orbital model: "orbital model has secular effects, long period effects, and short period effects..."
4. shift in time - "As these periods are incommensurate, the orbital motion is quasi‐periodic and a shift in time by a significant fraction of the shortest period will alter the structure of the beat patterns between the input periods"

After all of this, how could it be that they can really measure the difference of 0.8sec per year???
Actually they do not claim for that.
They only say: "the rate of accumulation of along‐track position error is equivalent to 0.8 s/yr...
So, the 0.8 s/yr represents a position error, so I really can't understand how a position error had been suddenly converted to real position location.
In the article they don't show any real calculation for that  0.8 s/yr and how all the assumptions and Adjustments set the outcome.
However, they deeply discuss and set calculation based on tidal as follow:
"[40] We will consider four elements of the tidal process. The response of an ideal elastic body to tidal perturbations sets much of the required background. We then consider the influence on the orbit of a delay in tidal deformation, which causes the tidal bulge to be misaligned with the tide raising body. Next we consider the behavior under tidal forcing of a particular model of viscoelastic deformation. Finally, we consider the long term orbital evolution of a pair of tidally interacting bodies."
So, its quite clear that Tidal formulas has a severe impact on our scientists understanding.
If our scientists have really set the measurements for that result, why most of the calculations in the article are based on tidal formulas???

In any case, let's try to see what kind of sensitivity we really need to measure that 0.8 s /year/
In a year there are 31,556,926 Seconds.
0.8/31,556,926 = 2.5 * 10^-8
Do you really think that it is possible to achieve that kind of sensitivity for a none circular object (Phobos) which orbits with some low eccentricity around Mars, by using the measurements from another object that orbits in space (MOLA)?
It really seems to me as an impossible mission.
But as usual, our scientists make the impossible - possible.

Why our scientists didn't try to find further information?
1. Eccentricity - it is stated that Phobos has low eccentricity, but how low it is?
"Both orbits (MGS and Phobos) have low eccentricities, and thus nearly uniform speed in the along‐track direction."
How that low eccentricity could affect the outcome of their calculation.
I'm not sure if they really took that impact in their calculation and if they did, don't you think that this issue by itself could set an error which is bigger than just 0.8s/year?
and the MOST important issue:
2. Phobos orbital velocity -
Did they measure the orbital velocity of Phobos?
This is the most important issue in my point of view.
If phobos is drifting inwards without increasing its average orbital velocity than it proves that there is no possibility to increase the orbital energy by reducing the potential energy.
In any case, the Eccentricity is quite important factor for the orbital velocity.
So, as our scientists have totally ignored the Eccentricity, the orbital velocity, add to that all the assumptions and tidal effect/calculations, it is quite clear to me that they can't get that 0.8 s/y accuracy.
Therefore, their conclusion is totally useless.

If they wish to set real measurements, than they have to set a laser beam between Phobos to Mars.

[Kryptid]

You are unteachable. I give up.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

You are unteachable. I give up.

I have just proved that Phobos isn't necessarily moving in
If you still don't agree with my explanation, then please let me know why you don't.
If you see that I'm correct, then why don't you accept the advantages of my explanation?
Actually, if you really monitor all the planets and moons in the whole Universe (Billion over billion moons & planets), you won't find even one that is drifting inwards while it is also increasing its orbital velocity in that process.

[jeffreyH]

The velocity of an object in a decaying orbit will increase. It will spiral into the central mass. Please stop making yourself look foolish.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The velocity of an object in a decaying orbit will increase. It will spiral into the central mass. Please stop making yourself look foolish.

What do you mean by "Velocity"
Based on Google: "Velocity = the speed of something in a given direction".
So, I fully agree that "the velocity speed of an object in a decaying orbit will increase."
However, what about the direction of that speed?
We should distinguish between Orbital velocity (or Horizontal speed direction) to "falling in" velocity (or vertical speed direction)?
You discuss on an object in a decaying orbit.
In order to get better understanding, let's agree that we start from a pure orbital circular.
So, as the orbital object is reducing its radius and spiraling in its vertical speed direction is increasing. That is very clear.
However, that vertical speed direction has no affect on the horizontal speed direction.
So, let's assume that at t=T1 the radius = r1 therefore:
The orbital velocity (or horizontal speed direction) is Vo1
The "falling in" velocity (or vertical speed direction) is 0 (zero)
At t=T2 the radius = r-h = r2
So, that decrease in the radius "h" is actually set a transformation in the Potential energy at  r1 to the kinetic energy at r2.
So, we can claim that the decreasing in the radius in a value "h" is similar to "falling in" for the object from a high of "h"
That "falling in" from that high "h" set a vertical speed direction (or falling in velocity) due to the transformation from potential energy to falling in kinetic energy.
So, as the object gets to radius r2 at T2 it velocity is a combination of the following two vectors:
Its orbital velocity at T1 (which represents the horizontal speed direction) Vo1 + Its new Falling in velocity at T2 (which represents the vertical speed direction) Vf2.
It is quite clear that the horizontal seed direction (orbital velocity = Vo1 ) is orthogonal to the vertical speed direction (falling in velocity = Vf2)
So,
With regards to your statement:
"The velocity of an object in a decaying orbit will increase. It will spiral into the central mass."
It should be as follow:
The Speed of an object in a decaying orbit will be increased.
However, its horizontal speed direction (orbital velocity=Vo1) will stay as it was at T1, while its vertical speed direction at T2 (falling in velocity) will be increased due to the reduce in the radius (or H (high)= h) to Vf2.
Therefore, It will spiral into the central mass
In order to get better understating, I highly advice to read the following explanation by Newton:
https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/images/269-newton-s-orbital-cannon.
With regards to my statement:

Actually, if you really monitor all the planets and moons in the whole Universe (Billion over billion moons & planets), you won't find even one that is drifting inwards while it is also increasing its orbital velocity in that process.

It should be:
Actually, if you really monitor all the planets and moons in the whole Universe (Billion over billion moons & planets), you won't find even one that is drifting inwards while it is also increasing its orbital velocity in that process, but it can increase the falling in velocity.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Actually not all the moon's move away.  Phobos orbits close enough to Mars to be spiraling in,  There are outer moons of all the gas giants that orbit retrograde and thus spiral in.

I would like to add that retrograde orbit can't be an indication for drifting inwards or spiraling in.
The only way to prove that an object is "spiraling in" is by real laser measurements as we have alreay found the discovery about the earth/moon "spiraling out".
In any case, we all agree that in order to be claim that an object is in orbital path around any main mass; its velocity must meet the following "magic" formula:
V^2 = G M / R
That orbital velocity is also called: "the magic orbital velocity"
Let's assume that at T1 (while the radius is r1) the magic orbital velocity is: Vo1
Hence, by decreasing the radius (assuming that it is in a pure circular orbit) the orbital velocity must be increased.
That orbital velocity represents the horizontal speed direction.
As I have stated, by decreasing the radius we only increase the falling in velocity vector or the vertical speed direction (without any impact on the Orbital magic velocity)
Therefore, at T2 (while the radius had been reduced to r2) the orbital velocity is also Vo1
That orbital velocity is too low to keep it in the orbital path.
So, the object or the moon must now spiral in at acceleration "falling in" velocity.

With regards to Phobos:
If I understand it correctly, we monitor that moon for almost 20 Years.
During this time we didn't see any real change in the orbital path (even if we agree for 0.8s per year it is really neglected verification).
That proves that Phobos is orbiting at the requested magic orbital velocity for the last 20 years.
Hence - it is surly not spiraling in.

[jeffreyH]

You take the 'instantaneous' velocity at tangents along the orbital path. These velocities when plotted against the time axis will show an increase. Or do you not understand physics?

NOTE: The magnitude of the velocity is equivalent to a speed without  a defined direction. Geometrically, speed has no meaning. Since it is a scalar quantity.

[jeffreyH]

This may help to ease your confusion.

[evan_au]

Actually, if you really monitor all the planets and moons in the whole Universe (Billion over billion moons & planets), you won't find even one that is drifting inwards

These days, astronomers are happy to merely detect that there is a planet around a star.
- It is beyond our current technical ability to measure the orbital period to millisecond accuracy

That means it is also beyond your ability. So your statement is merely a wild guess driven by wishful thinking

However, there was one unusual case where astronomers were able to measure the orbital period with millisecond accuracy
- And they found that there was an inwards spiral
- This discovery was awarded a Nobel Prize in 1993

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulse%E2%80%93Taylor_binary

PS: I just saw that this case had been mentioned in a previous post...

[Dave Lev (OP)]

However, there was one unusual case where astronomers were able to measure the orbital period with millisecond accuracy
- And they found that there was an inwards spiral
- This discovery was awarded a Nobel Prize in 1993
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulse%E2%80%93Taylor_binary

Thanks
However, in that article it is stated:
"The pulsar and its neutron star companion both follow elliptical orbits around their common center of mass. The period of the orbital motion is 7.75 hours, and the two neutron stars are believed to be nearly equal in mass, about 1.4 solar masses."

This can't be used as an example for our case.
We only discuss on an object with relatively low mass orbiting around main mass.
For example: A moon that orbits around planet, planet around a star or even Atom around a SMBH.
It is quite clear to me that in all of those cases, the low mass orbital object can't spiral inwards while it also increases its orbital velocity in order to meet the requested "magic" orbital velocity.
Therefore, that discovery is none relevant to our discussion.

In any case, I would like to ask how can we distinguish between real modeling/theory to absolutely none relevant one.
As an Engineer, my answer for that is very simple:
You set a theory based on that set expectations and then verify the results.
If the results/verifications meet the expectations than the theory is correct.
If not, than we normally set that theory in the garbage and start from zero.
However, somehow, it seems to me that our scientists have never stopped for one moment and ask themselves if their current mainstream/theory is correct or not.
If they predict something and it doesn't work, this is still perfectly ok for them.
I have seen in several articles that our scientists were "surprised" to discover that their expectations didn't materialized.
But they don't stop. They keep on with their current assumptions and hope to find a positive discovery in the future.

For quite long time our scientists were quite sure that if you dump in a huge gas, significant portion of that must falls into the SMBH.
Therefore, they were absolutely surprised when they have discovered that only less than 1% of the gas and dust drawn into the SMBH/accretion disc. (and even this one is incorrect - as so far they couldn't find any real object that falls into the accretion disc)

In the following article it is stated:
https://www.urban-astronomer.com/news-and-updates/milky-ways-black-hole-a-picky-eater/
"astronomers studying Sgr A* (the supermassive black hole at the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy) were surprised to notice that less than 1% of the gas and dust drawn into its gravitational field ever get consumed – almost everything else gets ejected."

However, even after that discovery Halc still believes that somehow much more than 1% must fall in, without any real indication/observation for that.

That 1%, if accurate, refers to its current dormant state of barely sipping any new mass in at all.  You dump a huge cloud in like that, a lot more than 1% falls into the black hole.

Unfortunately our universe is not so cooperative and refuses to act according to our scientists wishing list.
I would expect that after the first "surprised" discovery, our scientists had to clear the table and look for better theory.
Why they do not wish to understand that if the Universe disagrees with something, they will not find it even if they climb to the top of the Everest...
Our scientists are 100% sure that matter must fall in to the accretion disc.
But so far they couldn't find any real object as star or gas cloud that falls into the accretion disc.
From time to time they see some flares coming from the accretion disc without any real observation for any falling in object.
Those flares could be simple outcome from the activity at the accretion disc.
Even so, they are using those flares as an indication for falling in objects.
So, how long they would still hope that their unrealistic wishing list will materialized?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

"The large-scale magnetic field of a thin accretion disk with outflows"
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1901.10103.pdf
In this article our scientists would like to assume that the magnetic field is generated due to the rotation of the accretion disc.
So, out of the blue, they have stated that above the disk a potential field is assumed:
"Above the disk, a potential field is assumed, which is a good approximation for a tenuous outflow, and is widely adopted in most previous modeling of magnetically driven outflows"
Based on that assumption and after long calculation they have concluded that:
"The disk is compressed in the vertical direction both by the magnetic stress (which acts like a negative pressure) and the vertical component of the gravity"
This actually explains why the accretion disc is so thin and compressed.
Now, let's try to understand the impact of that "compressed thin accretion disc"
1. It is clear that nothing can be above or below the disc (as it is compressed and thin)
2. The whole disc MUST rotate in one direction. That must be key assumption in this article. If the accretion disc was based on several rings that orbits at the opposite directions, we could assume that each one generates magnetic field at a different direction. This could eliminate completely the combined magnetic field. So, it is clear that the whole accretion disc must rotate in one direction.
I hope that you agree with all the above.

Now, based on those key understandings, let's go back to the following discovery that we have already discussed on:
https://phys.org/news/2018-09-falling-black-hole-percent.html
"We were able to follow an Earth-sized clump of matter for about a day, as it was pulled towards the black hole, accelerating to a third of the velocity of light before being swallowed up by the hole"
My questions are as follow:
1. How could it be that an Earth-sized clump of matter could exists above or below of a thin and compressed accretion disc???
If the accretion disc is compressed and thin, than this Earth-sized clump of matter must also be compressed to the disc!!!
2. How this Earth-sized clump of matter could even be created?
In this article our scientists assume that accretion disc is based on several rings that orbit at opposite directions:
https://phys.org/news/2018-09-falling-black-hole-percent.html
"This work has shown that rings of gas can break off and collide with each other, cancelling out their rotation and leaving gas to fall directly towards the black hole."
However, we have already found that the entire accretion disc must orbit in one direction. So there is no room for this "Rings" assumption.
Therefore, the idea that that Earth-sized clump of matter could be created due to a collision between two nearby rings (in the accretion disc) that rotate in different directions is totally incorrect.
Therefore, Our scientists must find better explanation for that Earth-sized clump of matter.
I clearly know the answer for that.
That Earth-sized clump of matter is not located near the accretion disc and not falling into the SMBH.
It is just a clump of matter that was already ejected from the accretion disc and now due to the magnetic field it is boosted upwards to the molecular jet stream that we see above and below any SMBH.
That clump of matter is moving at 0.8 c. However, as we see that clump from above (directly face on to the galaxy spiral disc), we only monitor 0.3c.
So, it is not falling in but actually moving far above the SMBH.
I also think that our scientists are not so foolish and they also must KNOW that.
However, as they are bagging for something that falls into the SMBH, they are using that discovery to prove their unrealistic assumption.

 

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on 21/12/2019 07:56:53
Few years ago, our scientists were positively sure that they are going to see fireworks as S2 is going to collide with the SMBH.
They even verify that S2 and the SMBH were in the same direct view line from us.
Unfortunately for them and for you, there were no fireworks and no collision.
S2 had passed very close to the SMBH without setting any sort of effect on the Accretion disc or on itself.

Link please, because I've heard no such thing.  Cannot comment on things made up.
For S2 and Sgr-A to line up in our view, we'd have to cross the plane of S2's orbit, and that only happens every 100M years or so.  It's called an eclipse when it happens and nobody expects collisions from an eclipse.

Dear Halc
As requested, please see the following:
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005sao..conf..286C/abstract
"We present the first NACO thermal infrared observations of the Galactic Center. L'-band imaging has been performed during NACO Science Verification nights in 2002. During these observations, the separation between S2, the closest star to Sgr A*, and the black hole was too small to directly see a counterpart of the latter."
So, it is clearly stated that they couldn't separate between S2 to Sgr A* in 2002.
Therefore, S2 and Sgr-A* lined up in our view
I have found several articles that try to explain that phenomenon.
Mostly, they try to claim that there was some error in the observation.
My answer is quite simple:
No, there is no error in this observation.
It is possible to see Sgr A* and S2 in the same line view and we even can see Sgr A* outside the S2 orbital cycle as S2 doesn't orbit around Sgr A**.
Somehow our scientists do not wish to accept that simple outcome from their clear observation.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Dear Friends

In this thread I have proved that the accretion disc is actually excretion disc.
The SMBH doesn't "eat" even one atom from that disc.
On the contrary;
The SMBH generates/creates all the particles/atoms that we see in the excretion disc.
New particles pair is created by the SMBH near the event horizon.
As one is drifted outwards to the innermost side of the disc, the other one is used as the main food for the SMBH.
Hence, for any new particle that the SMBH contributes to our universe it eats one.
Therefore the SMBH is so massive object and has the ability to generate an ultra electromagnetic filed.
That electromagnetic field is acting as the biggest "CERN" in the Universe.
It transforms the requested energy to the plasma in the disc and set ultra pressure that is needed to form all new Atoms/molecular that we know in our Universe including water!!!
All the 100% mass in that disc is drifted outwards, than boosted upwards/downwards by the SMBH' mighty electromagnetic fields (up to 27,000 Ly above/below the SMBH' poles).
After losing the energy and falling back to the galactic plane near the SMBH it is used to form new stars in a gas cloud.
This activity is the "life" creation for our whole Universe.
I will open a new thread and explain how our whole magnificent Universe had been formed by the ability of the SMBH' excretion disc to create new atoms.