0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
If there is no mathematical proof for the BBT, than do you agree that there is a chance that it is incorrect?
I have set several obstacles for the feasibility of the BBT.One of the main obstacles is time frame.I really can't see how can we fit all of this magnificent Universe in only 13.8 Billion years.
If the Universe is infinite in its size and there is no curvature - than why do you insisted that the 13.8 BY is still ok to set it?
In one program they have discussed about the SMBH.They have asked how the SMBH had been created.They have set a calculation that if we take a BH and give it the time to eat as much as it wants, it can't technically be converted to SMBH after 13.8 BY.Much more time is needed.
However, we see massive spiral galaxies (with embedded SMBH) with estimated age of about 12 BY.
In SMBH there are over than Billion BH.
Why don't we see as many mid size BH with only few Millions of BH?
In any case, they were positively sure that the SMBH can't evolve from a BH due to time limitation.
In the other program they have discussed about the heavy metal as Iridium and gold.They have found that those metals could not been created by a supernova. The maximum power of that supernova is Setting Iron.
They have stated that one hypothetical idea for the creation of those two heavy metals is an explosion in twin neutron stars.
3. Time to set the first star. However, we have already found that in order to set a star in Hydrogen cloud there must be a nearby SMBH).
3. Time for the first hydrogen star to set the first Supernova explosion. Due to this explosion we get the iron. However, it is very rare and it is stes the iron as dust in space.
5. How long it might take to this first iron dust could to set the first twin neutron star systems.
7. How long it might take to those heavy metal to arrive to our planet?
If they are too far away, do you agree that due to the expansion in space, they have no chance to get by Asteroids to our planet?
So, how do we have got Gold and iridium in only 13.8 Billion years?
In this program they didn't even try to explain how heavier Atoms as plutonium had been created.
So, how do the the plutonium had been created and how it had been arrived to our planet in only 13.8 BY?
So, if the BBT has no real approval, why don't you open your mind to a breakthrough theory?
When these first stars exploded, they would have distributed a lot of elements up to iron, which made the formation of the next generation of "Population II" stars much easier.See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_population#Population_III_stars
The reason is that the early stars were formed from Hydrogen and Helium, and these have difficulty radiating away energy.
To collapse under their own gravity, the first "Population III" stars must have been very massive, perhaps 100 times the mass of the Sun. Since the rate of burning their nuclear fuel increases as something like the 4th power of the mass, these stars would have had short lives.
There is some natural Plutonium generated continually on Earth, as a neutron occasionally strikes a Uranium atom in Uranium ores; this unstable Uranium nucleus decays into Plutonium (and then into Americium). The balance between creation of Plutonium and decay of Plutonium is biased heavily on the decay side, so the long-term average level of Plutonium in Uranium ores is extremely low.
Iron is the lowest energy form, but creation of the higher elements has not been shown to be impossible.
Of relevance to this thread's discussion on suppermassive black holes: https://mediarelations.uwo.ca/2019/06/28/black-hole-formation/
I really don't know if our scientists accept this assumption.
In any case, if the SMBH can't get to that size at a very short period, Do you agree that the age of the SMBH (the very massive one) should be longer than just 800 Million years?
If that is corret, do you agree that the age of the Universe should be longer than just 13.8 billion years?
Only if it can be demonstrated that it must take longer than 800 million years for it to form and reach its measured mass.
The presence of these young and very massive black holes question our understanding of black hole formation and growth."
So how could it be that the Big bang could form so high percentage of Helium (25% of all the matters in the Universe are Helium)?
3billion is not 0.75 of 4 million. It is 750 times its current mass.
No, Sgr-A consumes almost no mass per year, far less than the average it would need (a star every 3000 years) to have grown to its present mass.
Sgr-A consumes almost no mass per year,
If you feed it, it will eat it. It isn't going to say "No-thanks, that's enough for today". There is no max rate.
Quote from: Kryptid on 07/07/2019 00:51:48Only if it can be demonstrated that it must take longer than 800 million years for it to form and reach its measured mass.In the article that you have offered it was stated clearly:Quote from: Dave Lev on 05/07/2019 15:49:46The presence of these young and very massive black holes question our understanding of black hole formation and growth."
Also in the TV program it was stated clearly that there is a limitation for the BH size increase over time.So, there is a big question about the minimal requested time to form a SMBH.
Let's look at our SMBH.If I recall it correctly, our scientists verified that it consumes about 3 Sun mass per year. So, in one billion year is will add about 0.75 to its current mass.
There is unlimited number of black holes in our Universe.
We must trace the BH activities and verify how long it might take them to increase their mass over time.If we will discover that on average it takes about one Billion year for a black hole to double its mass, we could set the clock time for our Universe.
Is there any way to set a SMBH without crossing the stage of compact BH?Is there any possibility to form a man without crossing the stages of boyhood, childhood or babyhood?Why do we assume that a SMBH can be formed without crossing the stages of compact BH, Mid size BH and Massive BH?
Our scientists know/should know the maximal consumption rate of a BH.Based on that, they could easily calculate how long is needed to transform a compact BH into a mid size BH and how long it might take to a mid size BH to be transformed into a SMBH.We know that the SMBH at the core of the Andromeda galaxy is much more massive than the SMBH in our galaxy.So, we can also calculate the requested time to form that kind of Ultra SMBH out of a (Milky Way)' SMBH.Hence, we must look for the biggest SMBH in the Universe and try to calculate how long it might take it to be formed out of a compact BH.That time frame sets the minimal age of the Universe.So, why can't we use the SMBH to adjust the time clock for our Universe?
QuoteDo they see any infalling material?Yes. Sgr-A would not be visible in certain frequencies if no material fell in.
Do they see any infalling material?
That all depends on what model you are using to calculate the growth rate. The direct collapse model doesn't require a small black hole to grow into a large one. The gas cloud collapses directly into a heavy black hole.
"The colossal black hole at the heart of the Milky Way galaxy is a messy eater. "How could it be?If the mouth of that colossal black hole is full with food, why does it eject over than 99% from its food?Can we prove that it eats 0.1% or even 0.0...01% from that food?How many animals do we know that eject over than 99% from the food in their mouth?
Did we ever find evidence in the whole universe for a gas cloud that collapses directly into a SMBH?
If our scientists have no clue how the SMBH works today, how can they set any sort of modeling for its growth rate at the early time?
QuoteHow many animals do we know that eject over than 99% from the food in their mouth?
How many animals do we know that eject over than 99% from the food in their mouth?
Are you asserting a 1-way highway is seen? The computed percentage of in/out would be considerably higher than 100% then.
They don't have "no clue". There are a lot of good ideas about how they work. Testing those ideas is difficult, because of how far away these black holes are.
It is like a person how is looking his lost key under the light while he lost it at totally different location.Therefore, as long as our scientists lock themselves at the BBT black box, they will continue to complain about this uncooperative Universe and will never find the answer for the big enigma.
Hence, we have two options -Replace our universe in order to meet the good ideas of our scientists.orReplace our scientists or take them out from the BBT black box. Once they are free from the BBT limitation, they will surly find the ultimate idea..
Quote from: Dave Lev on 11/07/2019 19:52:59It is like a person how is looking his lost key under the light while he lost it at totally different location.Therefore, as long as our scientists lock themselves at the BBT black box, they will continue to complain about this uncooperative Universe and will never find the answer for the big enigma.You're assuming that the "key" is in fact lost in a place away from the Big Bang theory.You forgot the third option: the Big Bang theory is on the right track and that is where we will find "the ultimate idea".
B. Is there any possibility for any Atom/Rock/Star/Gas cloud from outside to cross the mighty magnetic field and get into the plasma disc?
Quote from: Dave Lev on 12/07/2019 11:55:26B. Is there any possibility for any Atom/Rock/Star/Gas cloud from outside to cross the mighty magnetic field and get into the plasma disc?Obviously it can, otherwise the disc would disappear over time as its mass was lost to space. When you take mass away from something without adding any back in, the mass eventually disappears. The first law of thermodynamics guarantees it. You can't expect that magnetic field to be absolutely perfect at preventing plasma from entering the hole, especially since that field is generated by the plasma itself.
If we can't, then the only possibility to see a constant ejected steam of hot molecular from the plasma disc is by the activity of new mass creation at the SMBH.
How long can we refuse to accept the real knowledge of our Universe?
How long are we going to lock ourselves in the BBT black box?
Mass/energy cannot be created or destroyed
Big Bang theory suggests otherwise. Inflation > Baryogenesis > nucleosynthesis etc
Hoyle theorised mass was constantly appearing in space, a cold slower form of particle creation.
Hawking theorised virtual particles can be converted to real particles via black holes gravity (converting gravitational energy to particles, energy is conserved here)
No it doesn't. All of those particles were created using energy that already existed. That doesn't violate conservation of mass/energy.
This is not the accepted model of today.
This doesn't violate conservation of mass/energy either. When the black hole emits Hawking radiation, it loses an amount of mass equal to what the radiation carried away.I am not saying that particles cannot be created or destroyed. I'm talking about mass and energy.