0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote3. "A jet in the opposite direction is not seen,". If the "jet appears weak" is about outflow, than why the "A jet in the opposite direction" could not represents the inflow?If it is inflow - than it is stated clearly - "is not seen".Can you please explain what is the meaning in English for "is not seen"Outflow, obviously, since inflow isn't a jet.
3. "A jet in the opposite direction is not seen,". If the "jet appears weak" is about outflow, than why the "A jet in the opposite direction" could not represents the inflow?If it is inflow - than it is stated clearly - "is not seen".Can you please explain what is the meaning in English for "is not seen"
I already corrected you on this. Here's a hint: inflows aren't jets.
The study shows the spin axis of Sgr A* is pointing in one direction, parallel to the rotation axis of the Milky Way, which indicates to astronomers that gas and dust have migrated steadily into Sgr A* over the past 10 billion years.
The study was based on the observational data. The conclusion that matter has been moving inwards for 10 billion years is obviously a result of their analysis of the data. That seems painfully obvious.
Where do you get that it was a "different study"? Mark Morris is explicitly mentioned as a co-author of the study that the news report is about (with Zhiyuan Li being another co-author). There is another news report by Scientific American that says the same thing: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/milky-way-black-hole-jet/ And another: https://chandra.harvard.edu/blog/node/467 And another: http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-chandra-jet-supermassive-black-hole-01564.html
The study was based on the observational data
Super-massive black holes can't produce matter.
OkSo, do you fully agree that there is no observation for inflow jet?.
So, can you please explain how could it be that all the outflows are coming in jet forms, while the inflows must be just an inflow without jet?
Why there is no clear observation for inflow jet?
f an object will fall into the accretion disc or the SMBH, why it can't create some sort of a jet stream as it falls in?
What is the meaning of "Their" in the following: "their analysis of the data"?Do you mean NASA analysis?If so, I totally disagree.Who set that Study? Do you see any involvement in the Study by NASA?
In all of those articles which you have offered, you can't find even a single word about the involvement of NASA team in that "Study".
This is an error.In that study, they are using NASA observation to find "the spin axis of Sgr A* is pointing in one direction, parallel to the rotation axis of the Milky Way"So, they don't extract any inflow (Jet or none jet) from NASA data observation, but the observed outflow jet (which had been discovered by NASA), had been used to show the direction of that "spin axis of Sgr A*"Why do you insist to mislead yourself and still hope that NASA observation data itself is used to show the inflow?
As it is stated that - "the spin axis of Sgr A* is pointing in one direction, parallel to the rotation axis of the Milky Way", it proves that in that "study" they have used the verified "spin axis pointing direction" and not the observation data itself.
Therefore, it is clear to me that in this "study" they didn't try to find any sort of inflow directly from NASA observed data.
Hence, in that "Study" they didn't try to set any sort of manipulation in the data itself in order to prove any sort of inflow.
You wish to show that in NASA observation data there is a prove for inflow - and I fully disagree with that.
This is a wrong assumption of the science community.
They just disagree with what they see.
Based on their theory- the SMBH must eat matter from outside.So, they ignore all the clear observations (from any sort of detector) and try to show that somehow something must fall in.
Do you really believe that we have the power to tell our SMBH if it must eat something or not?
As NASA claims clearly and loudly that they only see outflow jets from any SMBH that they have observed, why is it so difficult for our science community to accept this message as is.
Why can't they accept this clear observation by NASA?
Why can't they go back to the design table and restart their theory?
This is what any design engineer will do once he discovers a contradiction between his theory and the observed data.
However, in Astronomy - they don't agree with NASA observed data as is.
Our ASTRONOMERS at arxiv insist to manipulate NASA observation data in order to find a fit to their wishful thinking of INFLOW (any sort of inflow is good for them).Why is it?Don't you agree that it is much more logical to update your theory instead of the manipulation in NASA observation data?
The outflow at the poles of the black hole obviously are, though. There is no reason that an inflow should be a jet.
Please look again at the Wind structure outflow from the accretion disc at the page before the last one:http://phsites.technion.ac.il/talks/agn2017/Reeves-J.pdfSo, the matter is first ejected outwards from the accretion disc and at the plane of the accretion disc.In the following article it is stated that it is due to magnetic field: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/milky-way-black-hole-jet/"Jets arise because the black hole is spinning. As matter falls into the black hole, the matter’s magnetic field gets twisted and amplified by the black hole’s spin, and this pumped-up magnetic field launches material outward in the form of jets."Therefore, the outflow from the SMBH is always from the accretion disc due to magnetic field.However, due to the magnetic field lines, the matter is lifted upwards.Again - we can see it in the presentation which I have offered.So, let me ask you if you agree with the following:1.The magnetic field launches material outward from the accretion disc and set the first stage of outflow?2. The same magnetic field also Pushes this outflow in the direction of upwards/downwards with regards to the accretion disc plane?3. As it boosted outwards (at almost 0.8c) due to the magnetic field lines it set the molecular jet stream that we see above and below the galactic disc. (this jet stream move directly above the pole)?4. So, the jet stream outflow that we see above and below the accretion disc plane is a direct outcome from the impact of the magnetic field on the matter in the accretion disc?
Dear KryptidThere is no outflow from the pole of the black hole.This is a severe mistake.The outflow is from the accretion disc itself.Please look again at the Wind structure outflow from the accretion disc at the page before the last one:http://phsites.technion.ac.il/talks/agn2017/Reeves-J.pdf
In the following article it is stated that it is due to magnetic field: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/milky-way-black-hole-jet/"Jets arise because the black hole is spinning. As matter falls into the black hole, the matter’s magnetic field gets twisted and amplified by the black hole’s spin, and this pumped-up magnetic field launches material outward in the form of jets."Therefore, the outflow from the SMBH is always from the accretion disc due to magnetic field.However, due to the magnetic field lines, the matter is lifted upwards.Again - we can see it in the presentation which I have offered.
So, let me ask you if you agree with the following:1.The magnetic field launches material outward from the accretion disc and set the first stage of outflow?2. The same magnetic field also Pushes this outflow in the direction of upwards/downwards with regards to the accretion disc plane?
3. As it boosted outwards (at almost 0.8c) due to the magnetic field lines it set the molecular jet stream that we see above and below the galactic disc. (this jet stream move directly above the pole)?
4. So, the jet stream outflow that we see above and below the accretion disc plane is a direct outcome from the impact of the magnetic field on the matter in the accretion disc?
1. How any sort of matter can fall into the accretion disc? Why the same mighty magnetic field that sets the outflow jets can't push outwards any matter that just think to fall into the accretion disc?
2. Why the same magnetic field can't pull particles from the event horizon of the SMBH?
Once you agree with that we have solved the enigma of the whole Universe.
The jets don’t literally come from the poles of the black hole, the accretion flow is just lifted along those particular axes.
The jets are going to be aligned with the axis of rotation of the accretion disk, not the axis of the black hole itself.
The polar jets are a different phenomenon. These are the jets from the poles that I am talking about: http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/G/Galactic+Jets There is one on each side of the galaxy. The jets don’t literally come from the poles of the black hole, the accretion flow is just lifted along those particular axes.
So, why our scientists can justify those pair-production near the event of horizon that are squirted out by magnetic force, while it is forbidden for me to use the same identical idea?
Your idea wasn't identical. You were proposing that they come from within the event horizon.
Not sure how that sources material for the jets since the positrons typically find another electron somewhere in the accretion disk and annihilate it, for a net zero gain of charged particles
Well, I really don't care about the distance between those new created pair production to the event horizon.As long as they are squirted out at almost light speed by the action of the combined magnetic fields from the SMBH into the accretion disc - that is perfectly OK with me.
The pair production happens in the accretion disk near the event horizon, where the temperatures are very, very high
The modern consensus is that the main constituents are electrons and their anti-particle equivalent, positrons. These are thought to be produced by ‘pair-production’ close to the event horizon of the central black hole, and squirted out at almost light speed by the action of the combined magnetic fields."
Since the temperature of the material itself is what drives this, the energy and mass of the accretion disk is reduced by it when the pairs are blasted off into the jets
Therefore, it is clear that the ‘pair-production’ have been produced outside the accretion disc.
Here, we use a self-consistent dynamical and radiative model to investigate pair production by γγ collisions in weakly radiative accretion flows around a black hole of mass M and accretion rate M.
For first time we compute non-equilibrium electron-positron pair production rates by γγ from turbulent accretion disk around spinning black hole
The high pair creation rate during this state is indicated by the presence of a broad e−e+ annihilation line-like feature and needs the presence of a high temperature radiation field. We put forward a scenario in which the observed spectrum originates from the inner region of an accretion disk around a rapidly rotating black hole.
Hence the pair- production activity itself has no effect on the energy and mass in the accretion disk.
the mass of the accretion disc is increasing.
Don't you see that the game is over?
You have offered solid evidence to that theory.
Fron now on we must call it - Excretion disc.
Why don't we share our efforts in bringing the breakthrough information to the science community and mankind?We need to get a reward for our discovery!!!
QuoteTherefore, it is clear that the ‘pair-production’ have been produced outside the accretion disc.Not at all. Pair production is modeled as happening inside the accretion disk. There are other sources that state this:https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/735/1/9/meta
http://cxc.harvard.edu/cdo/accr10/pres/moscibrodzka_monika.pdf:"For first time we compute non-equilibrium electron-positron pair production rates by γγ from turbulent accretion disk around spinning black hole"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117797000458:QuoteThe high pair creation rate during this state is indicated by the presence of a broad e−e+ annihilation line-like feature and needs the presence of a high temperature radiation field. We put forward a scenario in which the observed spectrum originates from the inner region of an accretion disk around a rapidly rotating black hole.
QuoteHence the pair- production activity itself has no effect on the energy and mass in the accretion disk.Yes it does, since the energy of the accretion disk is what allows them to be formed in the first place.
So, where do you see that Pair production is happening inside the accretion disk?
For first time we compute non-equilibrium electron-positron pair production rates by γγ from turbulent accretion disk around spinning black hole.
We put forward a scenario in which the observed spectrum originates from the inner region of an accretion disk around a rapidly rotating black hole.
I don't think that they aim for the accretion disc.
Therefore, the real meaning of "turbulent accretion disk around spinning black hole" is "magnetized disk around a spinning black hole."
Sorry, in most of the articles it is stated that the pair - production activity is NEAR the event horizon (and not in the accretion disc itself)
In this article it is stated clearly that pair production is concentrated close to the event horizon, but not in the accretion disc:"Electron-positron pairs may be produced near accreting black holes by a variety of physical processes"These indicate that γγ pair production is concentrated close to the event horizonSo, where do you see that Pair production is happening inside the accretion disk?
You realize that "near the event horizon" and "in the accretion disk" are not mutually-exclusive locations, don't you?
So every time an article says "near a black hole event horizon", they actually mean that it happens within, or on the edges of, the accretion disk.
The requested energy for that transformation is contributed by the gravity force + magnetic energy.