0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The fatal flaw in your calculations is that you are considering the overall gravitational force, not the tidal force. Redo the calculations, but for tidal forces, and you'll be on the right track.
The Lorentz force would be there, but it wouldn't be "positive goes out and negative goes in". The Lorentz force would deflect the path of particles at a right angle to the field lines (assuming that they were already on a path perpendicular to the field lines. If they are parallel to the field lines, there is no force).
Yes. I don't know what it is off the top of my head, but the calculations have already been done by physicists (Don N. Page, for example). I do know that, according to those calculations, a black hole with a mass much larger than 1014 kilograms (about one-tenth the mass of Mar's satellite Deimos) doesn't produce electron-positron pairs.
Super-massive black holes are many, many orders of magnitude more massive than that. So you don't get charged particles from them.
We have already agreed that Lorentz force under the magnetic field can do that job. Therefore, there is no need for tidal.
However, in all of those articles, I couldn't find even one word about magnetism.So, they have totally ignored the great impact of Lorenz force.That was a severe mistake.If our scientists will add the impact of the Lorentz force (especially at the SMBH) they should find how easy it is for the SMBH to eject those new born positive charged particles as a BH can do without the need for Lorentz force.
Notice how the minus sign has moved from the t coordinate to the r coordinate. This means that inside the event horizon, r is the timelike coordinate, not t. In relativity, the paths of material particles are restricted to timelike world lines. Recall the discussion of timelike separation earlier in this paper (2). It is the coordinate with the minus sign that determines the meaning of "timelike." According to relativity, inside a black hole time is defined by the r coordinate, not the t coordinate. It follows that the inevitability of moving forward in time becomes, inside a black hole, the inevitability of moving toward r = 0. This swapping of space and time occurs at r = 2M. Thus, r = 2M marks a boundary, the point where space and time change roles. For the observer inside this boundary, the inevitability of moving forward in time means that he must always move inward toward the center of the black hole at r = 0. All timelike and lightlike world lines inside r = 2M lead inevitably to r = 0 (the end of time!) Because it is not possible for any particle or photon inside r = 2M to take a path where r remains constant or increases, the boundary r = 2M is called the event horizon of the black hole. No observer inside the event horizon can communicate with any observer outside the event horizon. The event horizon can be thought of as a one-way boundary.
Some news: A recent outburst was seen in Sgr A*: It was suddenly 75x brighter than normal, when observed over a 2-hour period.- It was observed in the infra-red, by the Keck telescope- Normally, the black hole is hardly visible in the infra-red, but on this occasion, Sgr A* was brighter than S2, confusing the astronomers somewhat.- During the observation period, Sgr A* was declining in brightness, so it was probably even brighter before they observed it. See: https://www.universetoday.com/143150/milky-ways-black-hole-just-flared-growing-75-times-as-bright-for-a-few-hours/
I have explained this to you several times already: you can't use magnetism to pull particles out of an event horizon!
Dave - 1. New created particles - New pair of particles are created constantly around the SMBH (at the event of horizon or below).Kryptid - Right.Dave- If one particle carry a positive charge, the other one gets a negative charge.Kryptid - For very small black holes, this would be true. This would not be true for super-massive black holes as they have insufficient tidal forces to produce anything other than photons, gravitons and maybe neutrinos. Charged particles like electrons, protons or muons have too much mass-energy to be generated by the (relatively) weak tidal forces present.Dave - 2. Magnetics field - Around the SMBH there is magnetic field. This magnetic field is quite strong at the event of horizon (or deeper?...)Kryptid- Although true black holes cannot have such a magnetic field, I will submit to the possibility that something like MECOs (magnetospheric eternally collapsing objects) could, maybe, be what "black holes" actually are. So I will tentatively agree that "black holes" could be MECOs and as such could have magnetic fields. I'll consider this plausible for the sake of discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetospheric_eternally_collapsing_objectDave - 3. Lorentz force - Based on Lorentz force, the magnetic fields deflects differently the path of the orbital new born particles pair:Hence, if the positive charged particle will be deflected outwards, the negative charged particle will be deflected inwards.Therefore, while the negative is pushed inwards into the center of the SMBH, the positive is pulled outwards and get's eventually into the accretion disc.Kryptid - The Lorentz force would be there, but it wouldn't be "positive goes out and negative goes in". The Lorentz force would deflect the path of particles at a right angle to the field lines (assuming that they were already on a path perpendicular to the field lines. If they are parallel to the field lines, there is no force).
The contradiction is your claim that this process causes the black hole to grow in mass. The mass of the black hole has to shrink, not grow, as the negative mass (not negative charge, an important difference) particle is invariably the one that passes into the hole (because the swapping of time and space coordinates inside of the event horizon is what makes that particular particle have a negative mass in the first place). That negative mass subtracts from the positive overall mass of the hole, causing it to become smaller. If you are willing to accept this point, then I will agree that your model no longer violates the first law of thermodynamics.
I have proved that whole your idea about the Virial theorem is totally wrong.In that theory we must OBSERVED the orbital objects. As we can't observe the dark matter we can't know its orbital velocity (and if it has any sort of velocity)Therefore our understanding of how the galaxy works must also be updated.As we have based the gravity force that holds the Sun around the galaxy on the Virial theorem - than we must look for better theory.How are you going to address this key issue?
The orbital period cycle of S2 is about 15.2 Yearshttps://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Kep3laws.htmIn 2002 and in 2017 it was very close to SMBH.The next time should be in 2032.So, how could it be that in 2019 it comes back again to the SMBH?Is it just to make the impossible – possible??
It’s possible that SO-2’s close approach disrupted the way that material flows into Sgr. A*. That would generate the kind of variability and bright flaring that astronomers saw in May, about one year after the star’s close approach.
The magnetism can pull particles out of an event horizon.
There is no need for a unrealistic high velocity. Lorentz force can do it!!!This is very clear to me and I thought that it was also clear for you.
So, you had agreed that the positive particles can be ejected outwards due to Lorentz force.
However, you were sure that the negative particles that fall in could decrease the size of the BH:
I wonder why did you agree in reply 635 to accept the impact of the magnetism and Lorentz force, while now you have decided to withdraw from your willing to accept it.
So, would you kindly answer the following question?
At unequal velocities, one has momentum that is not the negative of the other. The sum of the momentum of the system is not zero.
Magnetism could only move particles away from the hole if they are already outside of the horizon.
I agreed that magnetism would have an effect on electrically-charged particles generated as Hawking radiation (which are outside of the horizon), but at no point did I agree that magnetism can pull them out of an event horizon. It can't.
you can't stop yourself from moving towards the singularity inside the hole. Magnetism, even if it is literally infinitely strong, will make no difference.
So, do you mean that if there is a positive particle out of the event of horizon of a SMBH (But very close to it), based on magnetism and Lorentz force this particle could be ejected outwards.
However, if it is located inwards into the event of horizon, than there is no way to push it outwards even if the magnetism is infinity?
In order to get better understanding:Let assume that one positive particle is located one meter inwards from the Event of horizon and the other one is located one meter outwards from the event of horizonBoth particles orbits almost at the same velocity around the SMBH.
Do you agree that the gravity force on both two positive particles is finite and almost identical?
If the magnetism is infinite do you agree that Lorentz force should also be infinite?
If so, I can't understand why infinite Lorentz force can only extract the particle that orbits outwards from the event of horizon but can't do it with the one that orbits two meter inwards?
1. A particle that orbits inside the event of horizon (even one meter inwards) gets infinite gravity force in order to overcome the infinite Lorentz force. Is it feasible?
2. A particle that orbits inside the event of horizon doesn't get infinite gravity force. However, the Lorentz force there is zero. So, could it be that once we cross the event of horizon the magnetic force goes to zero?
Orbits don't exist inside the horizon nor is the gravity there infinite in strength.
Thanks KryptidSo, the info is as follow:1. A positive particle out of the event of horizon will be ejected outwards due to magnetism and Lorentz force
1. Space time.If I understand it correctly, Minkowski had developed the Space time module for the Universe.Based on this module our scientists have found that there must be a curvature in our universe.However, so far they didn't find any curvature in our universe.
We also know that if we go in one direct line, we will never come back to the starting point.
However, based on the space time module, we have discovered that if we go in one direct line, we might come back to the same starting point.
Therefore in the same token - if the space time can set a curvature in space, why it can't eliminate the speed limit?Why under the space time module, the speed can't get to infinite.
You have already confirmed that new particle can be created below the event of horizon in a BH.
This particle can even be ejected from the event horizon if the BH is small enough.
That proves that particle can orbits below the event horizon.
1. A positive particle out of the event of horizon will be ejected outwards due to magnetism and Lorentz force
1. Space time.If I understand it correctly, Minkowski had developed the Space time module for the Universe.Based on this module our scientists have found that there must be a curvature in our universe.However, so far they didn't find any curvature in our universe.Therefore, my personal understanding is that the space time is just a module which doesn't necessarily represents the real Universe - especially, once we get into the edge of the module.Now our scientists have decided to use this model also for the aria inwards the event horizon.Why is it? Based on what data?
What is the chance that this model is not relevant for the event horizon? Can you please prove that space time module works also at the event of horizon?How the extreme conditions at that aria could affect the space time?If we use this module for the event of horizon, why we can't use it for outside that aria?Why not using it for the center Bulge or even for the whole galaxy?Why do we insist to fix it only for that limited aria - Event horizon?
Therefore in the same token - if the space time can set a curvature in space, why it can't eliminate the speed limit?Why under the space time module, the speed can't get to infinite. Did we try to verify this issue in our space time modeling?
You are talking about a universe with overall curvature. That is a different matter than the curvature of space-time around a massive body due to gravity. A massive body will produce space-time curvature regardless of whether the Universe as a whole has any curvature or is flat. Don't confuse local curvature with universal curvature.
spacetimemix.jpg (622.89 kB . 711x1198 - viewed 3 times)It's just that, at the event horizon, the conditions become so extreme that the mixing becomes a complete swapping so that space becomes fully time-like. This is what defines the event horizon and what makes it different from other locations in a galaxy.
How do we know that "A massive body will produce space-time curvature regardless of whether the Universe as a whole has any curvature or is flat?
In the articale which you have offered there is not even one word about event horizon.So, why did you decide to set the space time only below the event horizon?
There must be a solid proof for that. Would you kindly offer it?However, if there is no mathematical roof for that,
why the accretion disc can't be also part of the space time?
It is also around a massive Body. The conditions there are also extreme. The orbital velocity could be above 0.3c.
If we can claim that the accretion disc could also be part of the space time, than nothing should also be ejected from it.
Why can't we look at the whole central bulge as space time?Can you please prove it?
where the accretion disc is is part of spacetime, as is Earth.
What do you mean I decided to "set the space time"? Space-time is everywhere, not only below the horizon.
space-time is everywhere so I don't know what you are talking about.
The gravitational force is finite, but that is not what inevitably draws particles towards the singularity once they get inside the horizon. The particles are driven by the swapping of space and time. Time travels forwards outside the horizon whether you want it to or not. Space travels inwards towards the singularity whether you want it to or not. It's like trying to swim upstream when the current is moving too fast for even an infinite force to swim against.
So now you both agree that even the accretion disc is under the space time.
the accretion disc which is fully under the impact of space time
You have stated that based on space-time, nothing could be ejected from inside the horizon:
Why space time that works so nicely at the event of horizon
How could it be that the accretion disc which is fully under the impact of space time can eject most of its mass, while the event of horizon can't do so just because of the same space time.You have stated that based on space-time, nothing could be ejected from inside the horizon:Please see the following:
Why space time that works so nicely at the event of horizon and prevents from any particle to be ejected outwards, works so badly at the accretion disc and has no resistance for the massive ejection at that aria?In other words - If the space time has no objection that most of the particle can be ejected from the accretion disc, could it be that it also has no objection that particles can be ejected also below the horizon?Why it prevents from particles to be ejected from the horizon, while it has no resistance that most of the particles can be ejected from the accretion disc?
Do you have better idea than space-time to show the difference between the horizon and the accretion?
What you are missing is that space-time behaves differently inside of the horizon than it does outside of the horizon.
Because space is fully time-like inside the horizon but it isn't outside the horizon.
So, there are two types of space-timeA. Fully time-like Space-time which works exactly up to the event Horizon - Nothing can escape from it.B. Not fully time-like space time which works in the accretion disc - Everything can escape from it.
Questions:1. How the space-time knows exactly where is the border of the "fully time-like"?
2. Why the "fully time-like" is exactly located at the event horizon?
3. Why not 5% or 50% outwards or inwards from the horizon.
4. Would you kindly offer real proof for the border of the "fully time-like" space-time version (If possible -mathematical calculation)
Don't understand this. There are 4 dimensions, and they don't seem to 'mix'. Nothing moves through spacetime. They move through space, but have worldlines in spacetime. No worldline can be angled so much that its events become separated in a space-like manner. That's the speed of light restriction. It's the same as saying that my worldline must be entirely contained in my own causal cones.All this is no different inside the event horizon. There's still 1 time and 3 spatial dimensions, but the event horizon is in the past light cone of any event in there. None of it is in the future light cone.
Not necessarily true inside the event horizon. There are still the 3+1 dimensions with no preference for direction of movement through space. In theory, masses could form with stuff orbit them and such. There would be no obvious tidal force tearing such systems apart. The spacetime is reasonably normal and not different in a way that one is termed 'time-like' and the other not.
I find the river a poor analogy because sufficient force would allow one to resist any arbitrarily large flow. The river is still space. Time is not something that flows in a spacetime model.