0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Gravity by itself can't create mass - I agree with that.
The SMBH has the ability to generate new mass based on its pure gravity force.
It can't spontaneously spring into existence (that would violate the first law of thermodynamics).
Quote from: KryptidSince you agree that gravity can't create mass, then where does the accretion disk come from in the first place? Thanks, that is good question.If you accept the idea that a SMBH can create new matter,
Since you agree that gravity can't create mass, then where does the accretion disk come from in the first place?
So, I agree that there must be a moment that a compact BH gets its ability to set the accretion disc and start its new matter creation activity.
Once it starts its activity, it will be converted in the future into a SMBH that is hosting a spiral galaxy.
However, even if it sets in the disc real matter, it doesn't mean that it has already the ability to create new matter at the accretion disc. Without enough magnetic field it can't start this activity.
Therefore, I assume that at some point of time (after "eating" enough real matter) that BH should have enough mass to set ultra high orbital velocity of real matter at the accretion disc.
That orbital velocity generates the requested magnetic/electric field which is vital for the new matter creation activity at the accretion disc.
In the same token we could ask:How a star starts it first fusion activity? Are we sure that any new born star has the ability to set this activity?
How the first BH in the Universe had been created? How the first big bang had started?It is clear that any first step is critical.
However, as any child starts at some point of time its first step, most of the BH should start their first step in setting the new mass creation at accretion disc.
Technically-speaking mass can't be created. Matter can be created, but not mass. If what you are talking about is energy being converted into mass (which is somewhat redundant, since energy already has relativistic mass associated with it), then where does the energy come from that is required to create the new mass? You can't say it comes from the gravitational force, because force is not energy. They aren't even measured in the same units.A black hole plus its accretion disk have a finite amount of energy. Some of that energy is in the form of potential energy and some in the form of kinetic energy.
So the total energy content (and therefore the total mass) of the black hole/accretion disk system cannot increase over time unless it gets energy or matter from some outside source. To say otherwise would violate the first law of thermodynamics.
However, A SMBH with accretion disc converts its ultra high gravity force into energy in the accretion disc.
Therefore, as long as the total energy in the accretion disc is constant, there is no violation for that first law of thermodynamic.
All it does is convert the gravitational potential energy already in the disc into kinetic energy as it falls through the black hole's gravitational field. The total energy is unchanged
If the black hole gains mass, then the accretion disk must lose mass to compensate.
As "Some of that energy (in the accretion disc) is in the form of potential energy and some in the form of kinetic energy", than some of this energy must go down during that process.If I understand it correctly, the kinetic energy represents the orbital velocity. Therefore, during the creation process, this orbital velocity should go down. So, we can claim that the measured 0.3 c of the plasma orbital velocity at the accretion disc is direct outcome of that first law of thermodynamic. Without it, the plasma orbital velocity could be higher than that.
Actually, the black hole-accretion disk system as a whole must lose mass and energy over time since it is constantly radiating energy out into space. That is, if no more mass or energy is being brought in from outside.
Why this extra kinetic energy can't be used for the new matter creation at the disc?
Before I continue, I need to know something: do you claim that the total mass of the black hole-accretion disk system increases over time or not?
So I don't need to say anything else. Your idea violates conservation of mass. Therefore it cannot be correct.
you ignore the idea of energy transformation in that massive accelerator.
Just the evidence that 10 million stars within one parsec (about 3.26 Light years) of the Galactic Center proves that the SMBH doesn't eat even one single Atom from outside.
In the same token, you fully to accept the unrealistic idea that the Big Bang meets that first law of thermodynamics
although it is clear to you that there is no way to set new matter by any sort of bang.
The Big Bang did not create mass or energy. It represented an extreme expansion of space that mass and energy already existed in.
If "mass and energy already existed in" before the Big bang, than why do we need the Big bang theory?
How long before the Big Bang that mass and energy existed?
If the whole mass of the Universe was already existed before the Big bang why do we need the energy?
Why do we claim that the age of the Universe is only 13.8 Billion years if the mass of the whole universe was there before that time?
When did we get the first Atom in the Universe?
What is the real age of the Universe?
QuoteHow long before the Big Bang that mass and energy existed?Nobody knows. Some models posit that we live in a cyclic universe where an infinite number of Big Bangs and Big Crunches happen in sequence.
We also don't even know if the concept of time is meaningful before the Big Bang.
How do you know that "Nobody knows".
Do you mean that "Nobody" from our scientists?
Let me tell you the following:I'm leading several engineering design teams.I can accept an answer that the result doesn't meet our expectation.But I will never ever accept an answer as: "I don't know and "Nobody knows""If an engineer will dare to give me that kind of answer, he will have to look for new job!
In engineering there is no room for: "Nobody knows"!!!However, in science it seems that you live very happily with "Nobody knows"
Somebody must know the answer.
If Nobody from our scientists knows, than why don't they open their mind and listen to other ideas?
I personally don't think that our scientists are so foolish to believe that "Nobody knows".
If it doesn't, than you shouldn't hide behind the statement: "Nobody Knows"
If you claim that "Nobody Knows", than you know that there is a fatal error in your theory.In order to avoid dealing with this fatal error you prefer to say "Nobody Knows".
I was expecting that you would love to hear my message as it might bring you some good ideas.
However, as I see that you reject any idea, now I understand that you have no willing to discover the real theory about our Universe.
It seems to me that your mission is protecting the BBT under any circumstances
even by presenting yourself so foolish by claiming: "Nobody Knows".
But Why? Why do you reject any new idea
while you know that there are severe problems with the BBT
and you really don't know all the answers?
What do you gain by protecting that unproved BBT theory?
How force you to do so?
Don't you want to understand how our Universe really works?
Science isn't about proof, it's about evidence. What I gain is some satisfaction in educating others (or at least attempting to).
It isn't a matter of "living happily" with "nobody knows". It's a matter of accepting reality. We can and do try to learn more about nature, but don't know everything.
About 379,000 years after the Big Bang. That was when the Universe was cool enough to allow electrons to bind to protons to form hydrogen.
The Big Bang theory isn't supposed to explain where mass and energy came from. It only describes the current properties of the Universe based on properties predicted about its distant past.
I mean it literally. Nobody knows. People have different ideas, but nobody has proof one way or the other.
The BBT had been set about 70 years ago. During that time how many contradictions did you find between this theory and new evidences?
How many times our scientists had added patch over patch in order to adjust the BBT to new evidences?
How the BBT goes with reality if we don't know what the reality of our universe is?
1. Is the universe infinite or finite in its size?
2. If there was something before the BBT, than why don't we count the time from that something?
3. Why do we insist to start the BBT theory while all the electrons and protons of the whole universe were already existed in the Universe?
4. Why don't we ask our self how all of those electrons & Protons had been created before the BBT and how long before they had been created?
5. It surly took some time to set all of those electrons & protons which we currently have in whole of our Universe, so why they didn't merge and set the atoms before the BBT?
If we start from the Protons and electrons, why don't we start the BBT while all the Atoms and molecular are here and make our life easier? Actually why we don't start it from the moment that we have all the galaxies?
7. Did we try to verify if the first law of thermodynamics meets the electrons & Protons creation process and the creation of the Hydrogen Atoms after the BBT? (or did we gave a waiver for this verification?)
Why it took so long time after the Big Bang to set the Hydrogen atoms? Actually, how do we know so well the exact time?
From "Nobody knows" you prove that we "perfectly know". How could it be?
9. How electron and proton could merge and set hydrogen Atoms without accelerator? did we try to verify if this merging process is feasible due to big bang?
10. Why they took them so long time (379,000 years) after the bang to set the atoms?
11. What kind of force set that big bang?
12. Why not? Why this theory isn't supposed to explain where mass and energy came from?
13. Why do you give that kind of waiver to this theory?
What is the difference between dark matter and magic powder?Both of them are magic.We don't see them, we don't feel them, but they are there without any way to confirm their existence.We use the dark matter in order to prove something that we see and we can't explain.I consider it as a fatal error.There must be a better explanation for what we see.The "dark" matter or energy ideas are clear indication that our scientists have failed in understanding how the Universe really works.
Why do you claim that "literally nobody knows"? Don't you think that someone might know the correct theory?
I do believe that I have full explanation on every aspect of our Universe.
In the same token, I can't explain how the first BH had been created in the whole Universe.
QuoteIn the same token, I can't explain how the first BH had been created in the whole Universe.So you're allowed to say "I don't know" but Big Bang theorists aren't? That sounds like a double standard to me.
So, there was a time when the Universe was totally without anything.
Based on BBT everything should come directly from nothing.
So all is needed is a compact BH with small excretion disc.
No need to come with any sort of requirements/theories as inflation, space expansion or the first second, dark matter &dark energy.
My first question is simple:As a fair judgment - what kind of starting point is more logical:1. The BBT Theory: With everything out of nothing and all the requested theories?2. Theory-D: Just Something out of nothing without any other special request. No Inflation, No space expansion, no first second, no dark matter, dark energy or magic powder. What we see in our universe is what we have.?