0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
https://www.urban-astronomer.com/news-and-updates/milky-ways-black-hole-a-picky-eater/...they found that more than 99% of the infalling material was ejected long before reaching the event horizon...
Models and mathematical calculations are evidence when they are based on the known laws of physics. They allow us to make inferences about phenomenon that we have not yet directly observed.
I provided a link to the scientific paper that describes the matter falling into a super-massive black hole at 30% the speed of light.
I have found a very interesting article:https://phys.org/news/2018-09-falling-black-hole-percent.html"First detection of matter falling into a black hole at 30 percent of the speed of light"
"A UK team of astronomers report the first detection of matter falling into a black hole at 30 percent of the speed of light, located in the centre of the billion-light year distant galaxy PG1211+143."
Are you sure that Models and mathematical calculations are evidence?
Do you agree that when our scientists have used Models and mathematical calculations (till the last 10 years ago?), they were positively sure that ALL the matter in the accretion disc is falling into the black hole?
Now, we clearly have direct observation that over than 99% is ejected outwards.
Do you think that they would dare to call it "accretion" if they knew on day one that 99% of the matter is ejected outwards?
So if our Models and mathematical calculations didn't give us any indication for the 99% ejected matter, than how can we call it - evidence?
Evidence - the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.How can we call those Models and mathematical calculations - "evidences" if we have found that our belief (based on those models) isn't true?
Do you agree that the evidence (which is based on Models and mathematical calculations) is representing the current belief of our scientists?
However, in order to verify if the evidence is true or false - Direct observation is needed?
In that Article it is stated that it is the first time that our scientists discovered a direct observation:
1. There was no direct observation (by X-ray) for any in falling matter. Not to the accretion disc and not to the SMBH. Not in our Galaxy and not in any galaxy in the whole Universe?
2. There is a direct observation that over than 99% of the matter in the accretion disc is ejected outwards.
3. There is direct observation for Jet molecular stream that is boosted upwards and downwards from the accretion disc plane (That jet steam is reaching 27,000 Light year above and below the disc with estimated 10,000 solar mass)
1. Severe mistake in the Models and mathematical calculations How could it be that our evidences (Models and mathematical calculations) have missed the true? (Over than 99% of the matter that is ejected outwards from the accretion disc)?
2. How our updated Models and mathematical calculations can explain this new discovery of outwards ejected matter?
Thanks to the conservation of angular momentum, anything falling in towards a black hole has to lose some of its energy if it is not to miss the black hole. Particles within dense clouds lose kinetic energy easily, due to friction within the cloud. Similarly, the particles within cool clouds have little individual energy to start with, so are more easily captured by the black hole. But the Chandra observation, collected over five weeks in 2012, revealed that the material in the vicinity of Sgr A* is not only very thin and diffuse, but is also extremely hot. As a consequence, it escapes the black hole while it is still far away, and before it has time to form a superheated accretion disk, which explains the coolness of the ejected material.
3. Why tidal/gravity force of the mighty SMBH can't pull all/most/some/more than 1% of that matter inwards?
4. How our updated Models and mathematical calculations can explain the discovery of the Molecular jet stream?
5. What is the source for that molecular jet stream?
6. Why tidal/gravity force of the SMBH doesn't pull the molecular jet stream inwards?
7. Why the jet moves at the opposite direction from the SMBH? (Directly upwards/downwards to the accretion disc)
8. Why the upwards/downwards velocity of the jet stream is so high (I assume that it is almost 0.8 speed of light)?
9. Do you agree that our scientists are mainly using Models and mathematical calculations to prove that their theory is correct?
In order to do so they set the parameters that meets their needs. Therefore, theoretically, they could prove the opposite, if they would use different parameters/setup.
10. If the direct observation proves that there is a severe mistake in their Models and mathematical calculations, why they are not brave enough to say - sorry, we have failed in our "evidences".
How our updated Models and mathematical calculations can explain this new discovery of outwards ejected matter?
Do you agree that till this first detection in 2018:1. There was no direct observation (by X-ray) for any in falling matter.
Quote7. Why the jet moves at the opposite direction from the SMBH? (Directly upwards/downwards to the accretion disc)It's because of the alignment of the generated magnetic field lines relative to the disk. You end up with a north pole and a south pole in the direction of the jets.
Quote5. What is the source for that molecular jet stream?If you're talking about the astrophysical jets, then that would be the accretion disk. As much as you talk about this, I figure you would have known that already.
It's because of the alignment of the generated magnetic field lines relative to the disk. You end up with a north pole and a south pole in the direction of the jets.
QuoteNow, we clearly have direct observation that over than 99% is ejected outwards.There is no direct observation of this. We do not directly observe material moving in and out of Sgr-A's accretion disk. At best we have a view of the radiation signatures surrounding it,
QuoteNow, we clearly have direct observation that over than 99% is ejected outwards.You continue to quote this 99% expulsion as characteristic of a SMBH with an accretion disk. But this figure is actually for a SMBH without an accretion disk (as we see it at present).
but our edge-on view is far too obscured to see things smaller than say S2 which doesn't get close enough to count as material moving in or out of the disk.
QuoteHow our updated Models and mathematical calculations can explain this new discovery of outwards ejected matter?The radio lobes around galaxies is not a new discovery. They were described and categorized in the 1970s.See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_galaxy#Radio_structuresModels explain it by twisted magnetic fields embedded in the swirling plasma of the accretion disk, which funnelout matter along the polar axis of the central object.About 10% of the mass falling into the accretion disk ends up in the jets, and 90% falls onto the central object (SMBH, stellar-mass black hole, neutron star, white dwarf, protostar, etc).
From the viewpoint of the donor star, there is no difference between the gravitational field of a neutron star & a black hole of similar mass. It only makes a difference when you get within about 20km.
QuoteNow, we clearly have direct observation that over than 99% is ejected outwards.Perhaps in the Milky Way specifically, but that would not necessarily follow for other galaxies where their super-massive black holes have different masses, different spins and accretion disks of different masses, temperatures, composition, rotation rates, etc.
Wow!!!Thanks for your great answer!You have just confirmed the great impact of the magnetic field around the SMBH.That magnetic field is a key element in the galaxy.We clearly see that it boosts the Molecular jet stream at ultra speed of almost 0.8c upwards/downwards.It takes its matter from the accretion disc:
If it is so powerful, and if you agree that it takes the matter from the accretion disc, than don't you agree that this is the answer for why 99% of the matter in the accretion disc is ejected outwards?
Therefore, do you agree by now that the same ultra magnetic force that push the matter in the accretion disc outwards and boosts the jet stream at 0.8c - must also prevent from any matter from outside to fall into the accretion disc. If something will come in - it will be boosted upwards/downwards.
So this gas cloud does not orbit around the super massive black hole. Therefore, it can't be in the accretion disc as the plasma must orbit around the SMBH. Hence, it must be outside the accretion.
The observation agrees closely with recent theoretical work, also at Leicester and using the UK's Dirac supercomputer facility simulating the 'tearing' of misaligned accretion discs. 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.
As that gas cloud had been ejected outwards from the accretion disc, it had been traped by the mighty power of the magnetic filed.That magnetic field pulls the gas cloud directly the north/south pole and then boosts it at ultra velocity upwards or downwards as a molecular jet stream.So, as the gas cloud gets to the pole, it is actually located above or below the SMBH (depending on the galaxy view from our location. Therefore, our scientists thought that this gas cloud is falling into the SMBH as they have no real technology to verify its upwards/downwards location with regards the SMBH. Once it gets to the pole, the magnetic fields break it down to a molecular jet that is boosted upwards/downwards.
The accretion disc is located at about 28,000 LY from us, while the galaxy in which we have observed (also by X-ray) in falling matter for the first time is located at a distance of 1,000,000,000 LY (One billion light year away)Hence - If our scientists wants to prove something - than they have the technology to observe an Earth size cloud at a distance of One billion light year away. However, If they don't see the expected in falling matter in a distance of only 28,000 light year, than suddenly our technology is very poor.Is it real?
The transient nature of the rev2659 inflow largely explains why a compelling detection has not been reported before. Isolated claims are not uncommon, however, with several single-line detections noted in the ‘Introduction’ section, and both XMM–Newton and Suzaku archival searches finding – but not discussing – transient absorption lines in the region occupied by redshifted Fe K lines.
Therefore, we still must prove this modeling.
So, you claim that there is no difference between the gravitational field of a neutron star & a black hole of similar mass.While Kryid claims that even SMBH might be different from each other:
So, do you mean that if we want to prove that our SMBH eats the mass in its accretion disc, than we can base our understanding even on the activity of neutron star, while in the same token we can claim that our SMBH can't be used as a study case for other SMBH because it doesn't fulfill our expectations?
Why our SMBH is so naughty? Why does it eject 99% of the food in the accretion buffet?
But the Chandra observation, collected over five weeks in 2012, revealed that the material in the vicinity of Sgr A* is not only very thin and diffuse, but is also extremely hot. As a consequence, it escapes the black hole while it is still far away, and before it has time to form a superheated accretion disk, which explains the coolness of the ejected material.
In any case, do you mean that if we find a SMBH (even if it is located at a distance of a billion years away and even if we only find one in the whole Universe) which eats his food (as expected by our scientists) - than this unique SMBH can be used as a key model for all the SMBH in the Universe. However, all the other Millions and billions SMBH (including our local SMBH) that insist to eject there food can't be used as a model as they do not fulfill our expectations?
So the only one exception SMBH in the whole Universe (which at least fulfill our expectation and show some signs of eating - at a distance of one billion LY away) is used as the key model for...
all the other Billions SMBH (that eject their food and don't show any eating activity)
- Do you agree with that?
Sorry dear scientist let me tell you the following:You have a fatal error.This gas cloud had been boosted into the molecular jet stream. The SMBH didn't eat it.
Remember the fireworks???That fireworks that we are expecting to see if matter is falling into the SMBH?.Where is that fireworks?There is no fireworks as the SMBH didn't eat that gas cloud.
Quote from: HalcQuoteNow, we clearly have direct observation that over than 99% is ejected outwards.There is no direct observation of this. We do not directly observe material moving in and out of Sgr-A's accretion disk. At best we have a view of the radiation signatures surrounding it,In the article it is stated:"When astronomers used Chandra to study Sgr A*, in one of its longest ever observations, they found that more than 99% of the infalling material was ejected long before reaching the event horizon (the point of no return around a black hole, from which not even light can escape) and was unusually cool, and therefore quite dim in the Xray spectrum."So, it is stated that based on X-ray (real direct observation) our scientists observered that more than 99% of the matter in our accertion disc (which they consider as infalling matter), had been ejected outwards.
What do you mean by:"SMBH without an accretion disk"Don't you agree that our SMBH has an accretion disk?
So, you claim that there is no difference between the gravitational field of a neutron star & a black hole of similar mass.
In any case, do you mean that if we find a SMBH (even if it is located at a distance of a billion years away and even if we only find one in the whole Universe) which eats his food (as expected by our scientists)
QuoteIn the article it is stated:"When astronomers used Chandra to study Sgr A*, in one of its longest ever observations, they found that more than 99% of the infalling material was ejected long before reaching the event horizon (the point of no return around a black hole, from which not even light can escape) and was unusually cool, and therefore quite dim in the Xray spectrum."So, it is stated that based on X-ray (real direct observation) our scientists observed that more than 99% of the matter in our accretion disc (which they consider as in falling matter), had been ejected outwards.Yes, the X-rays were directly observed. The matter falling in was not. We cannot see the matter, only a general dim X-ray signature.
In the article it is stated:"When astronomers used Chandra to study Sgr A*, in one of its longest ever observations, they found that more than 99% of the infalling material was ejected long before reaching the event horizon (the point of no return around a black hole, from which not even light can escape) and was unusually cool, and therefore quite dim in the Xray spectrum."So, it is stated that based on X-ray (real direct observation) our scientists observed that more than 99% of the matter in our accretion disc (which they consider as in falling matter), had been ejected outwards.
It originally was in the accretion disk. Read the following excerpt from the article:"The observation agrees closely with recent theoretical work, also at Leicester and using the UK's Dirac supercomputer facility simulating the 'tearing' of misaligned accretion discs. 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".
Do we know for sure if a BH/SMBH rotates or not?Yes: https://resonance.is/super-massive-black-holes-spin-near-the-speed-of-light/
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/103/pdfMAGNETICALLY LEVITATING ACCRETION DISKS AROUND SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLES"In this paper, we report on the formation of magnetically levitating accretion disks around suppermassive blackholes (SMBHs). The structure of these disks is calculated by numerically modeling tidal disruption of magnetizedinterstellar gas clouds. We find that the resulting disks are entirely supported by the pressure of the magneticfields against the component of gravitational force directed perpendicular to the disks. The magnetic field showsordered large-scale geometry that remains stable for the duration of our numerical experiments extending over 10% of the disk lifetime. Strong magnetic pressure allows high accretion rate and inhibits disk fragmentation. This in combination with the repeated feeding of magnetized molecular clouds to an SMBH yields a possible solution to the long-standing puzzle of black hole growth in the centers of galaxies."
However, there is no indication at all for any in falling matter....That is clear to me by now.
So, they specifically measure the orbital velocity the inner side of the accretion disc (they even call it: "the chaotic region outside of the event horizon").In that region the have found that the orbital velocity is 0.85c:"the suppermassive black hole called NG1365 is spinning at an extreme speed of 85% of the speed of light or 670 million miles per hour."
It is stated clearly: "Strong magnetic pressure allows high accretion rate and inhibits disk fragmentation."Hence, the ultra magnetic force "inhibits disc fragmentation".
Therefore, there is no possibility for: "rings of gas can break off and collide with each other" in the accretion disc.
We have already found that the matter in the "inner edge of the accretion disk" orbits in one direction at ultra high velocity of 0.85c.So, even if there is a collision, while all the matter orbits at the same direction at ultra velocity - how can they suddenly stop the orbital velocity of plasma?
How our scientists believe that somehow in the "inner edge of the accretion disk" there is "disk fragmentation" and somehow two plasma sections that orbit at the same direction and at the same ultra high velocity of 0.85C can collide and stop at their orbital momentum?
How could it be that after this imaginary stop the gas cloud move so nicely in the direction of the black hole and cross the event of horizon? No more orbital velocity of 0.85c, no more "Strong magnetic pressure allows high accretion rate and inhibits disk fragmentation" In that "inner edge of the accretion disk".How a plasma can be converted back into gas cloud?
Wow!So, let's summarize:A gas cloud from outside is falling into the accretion disc.As it falls in it gain ultra high orbital velocity and ultra high temp, converted into plasma under the ultra gravity force of the SMBH and under the Ultra magnetic force.At the "inner edge of the accretion disk" which is also called: "the chaotic region outside of the event horizon" the orbital velocity of that plasma is almost 0.85c.
If this is not science fiction - than I clearly don't know the meaning of science fiction.
the gas cloud was observed to become increasingly dense as it accelerated, which is what you would expect if the gas cloud was actually approaching the hole
even if there is a collision, while all the matter orbits at the same direction at ultra velocity - how can they suddenly stop the orbital velocity of plasma?
If this is not science fiction - than I clearly don't know the meaning of science fiction..
However, there is no indication at all for any in falling matter.
Let see if this is feasible:
How a plasma can be converted back into gas cloud?
It is stated clearly: "Strong magnetic pressure allows high accretion rate and inhibits disk fragmentation."Hence, the ultra magnetic force "inhibits disc fragmentation".Therefore, there is no possibility for: "rings of gas can break off and collide with each other" in the accretion disc.
So whether the gas cloud is overall more or less dense depends on the relative sizes of the gas cloud and the black hole, and their relative velocities.
" So you are willing to accept what that paper says (which is talking about a numerical simulation, which you normally seem to be suspicious of) when it agrees with your ideas, but when it contradicts them (like saying that black holes accrete matter) you ignore it?
Yes, the X-rays were directly observed. The matter falling in was not. We cannot see the matter, only a general dim X-ray signature.
With high technology, we can see a magnesium fire in the dark from space, but that's looking down at the fire. Looking at Sgr-A is like spotting a firefly from the vantage point on the ground with a forest between us and the firefly. Sure, its a lot closer, but much less bright and completely obscured by the forest.
May I ask you the same question?
We didn't see any in falling matter in our galaxy - not because our technology limitation, but because there is no in falling matter.In the same token - We have never ever found any in falling matter in any galaxy in the Universe (except that one at one billion years away) not because our technology limitation but because there is no in falling matter into the accretion disc or from the accretion directly into the SMBH!!!
With regards to the technology:Please remember that we have the technology to monitor a gas cloud at a size of Earth from a distance of one billion light year away.
if we could observe this in falling matter, don't you agree that we should have the technology to see in falling matter at any other galaxy in the Universe (up to one Billion Light year away)?
If so, do you agree that the following answer for our limitation to see the in falling matter by X-ray signature is not relevant?
Please be aware that the Gas cloud was observed by our scientists for one full day (24 H?).Please see the image (red arrow):
It came from outside, cross several accretion discs and than even cross the alighted accretion disc
(that disc surely has the Plasma - at temp of 10^9c and minimal orbital velocity of 0.3 speed of light)
Therefore, if we can trace a gas cloud at Earth size from a distance of one billion light year away, crossing the ultra high fire of the accretion discs (one by one) and even the most biggest fire in the inner most disc (aligned accretion disc)
than you should agree that we have the technology to see also any in falling matter at any nearby galaxy including our galaxy?
Therefore the conclusion is very simple:We didn't see any in falling matter in our galaxy - not because our technology limitation, but because there is no in falling matter.
In the same token - We have never ever found any in falling matter in any galaxy in the Universe (except that one at one billion years away) not because our technology limitation but because there is no in falling matter into the accretion disc or from the accretion directly into the SMBH!!!
Yes, it's feasible. For reasons the others have described.
If the gas cloud from one ring has different size, than it is clear that it will win and grab the other one with it.
What is the chance that the inner ring will send a gas outwards, while the outer ring will send a gas cloud inwards - both at the same size and face to face?
As there is a gap between the particles, what is the chance that one particle from one cloud will collide with other particle from other cloud?
When they say - "rings of gas can break off and collide with each other" what do they mean?
The "breaking-off" is referring to the breaking of an accretion disk into multiple, smaller rings that are oriented at different angles to each other (caused by the Lense-Thirring effect). Gas clouds are turbulent things and they don't have well-defined boundaries. Right at the interface where two rings of gas cross, friction between the clouds would be expected to cause some of the gas to be ripped off, slow down, and falling into the hole.
As evan says, almost zero chance that any two particles (improbably small targets) will hit.
Consider a small 'cloud' of blue gas to the left and another red one to the right, about a meter apart. Put a little portable fan in the red cloud, pointed at the blue, and turn it on. Does the red cloud pass through the blue leaving most of the blue cloud behind before it starts to move?
Hence, as stars/gas cloud might fall in different directions, they theoretically could set different orbital directions in the accretion Rings.Based on this answer, it seems to me that they have no real prove to those Unaligned rings.They just want to prove something, so they invent something.Sorry - If they want to prove that there is "different angles" between the rings and thery orbit at opposite directions - they must prove it based on real rings in Astronomy.
It has several rings. However, all of them orbit at the same plane and at the same direction.I positively sure that all the rings around all the other planets – must be fully aligned and orbit at the same direction.
We actually can also confirm the aligned idea with our own accretion disc.We see it from the side. So, if there were unaligned rings, we could easily see them.Do we see any unaligned rings in our accretion disc or in any nearby accretion disc?
I really sorry that the team didn't try to trace that earth size gas cloud as it was getting closer to the SMBH pole.
They could see some sort of X-ray as the gas cloud was boosted upwards.
You are citing the results of calculations as if they were absolutely factually. Your use of the phrase "no possibility" clearly demonstrates the weight of authority you give to these calculations. So are you suddenly saying that calculations are facts?
There are billion of stars there.All of them are located at the same plane and all of them orbit at the same direction.
Therefore, even if two different mass atoms/molecular will hit at their center (face to face), due to the mass change, one atom could grab the other one.