[Kryptid]

Do read all my postings why the dust and gas completely covering supposed black hole is itself the making of that supposed black hole.!! Nearly all the photos shown in the internets showing  black holes at the center of galaxies are artist perspective. All galaxies , actual, have total dust and gas covering all over centers of galaxies.

So then you are talking about the supermassive black holes at the center of galaxies, not the stellar-mass black holes detected with LIGO and VIRGO.

No matter how more EHT will add more astronomical  telescopes, to get higher resolutions, they will  always see  actual image of  gas and dusts., why because light is the carrier of image and informations, and light can not penetrate the dust and gas!!!.

So if the Event Horizon Telescope does publish images showing the event horizon, what will you say about that?

In 2004, Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne had arguments because Hawking declared no EH and Throne contends there is. Jsa 2.23.19

All Hawking did was replace an absolute horizon with an apparent horizon, the latter of which can fluctuate to allow Hawking radiation to carry information away about what went into the black hole. That Hawking radiation is still extremely weak, so it cannot be what creates the jets.

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

Please permit me to post:Do read all my postings why the dust and gas completely covering supposed black hole is itself the making of that supposed black hole.!! Nearly all the photos shown in the internets showing  black holes at the center of galaxies are artist perspective. All galaxies , actual, have total dust and gas covering all over centers of galaxies. No matter how more EHT will add more astronomical  telescopes, to get higher resolutions, they will  always see  actual image of  gas and dusts., why because light is the carrier of image and informations, and light can not penetrate the dust and gas!!!.
In 2004, Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne had arguments because Hawking declared no EH and Throne contends there is. Jsa 2.23.19

[Bored chemist]

Do read all my postings why the dust and gas completely covering supposed black hole is itself the making of that supposed black hole.!!

Why would I bother?
You can not explain the results from the LIGO experiment without involving black holes (or something  very similar).
And since the experiment shows that black holes exist, there's nothing that you could write which would change that fact.

[Bored chemist]

because light is the carrier of image and informations,

You can not see a car that is hidden behind a building.
That does not mean the car is not there.

And, even if you can not see it, you may be able to hear it.
So light is not the only carrier of information.

Another information carrier is a gravity wave. And those have brought us evidence of the existence of black holes.

[Kryptid]

Please permit me to post:Do read all my postings why the dust and gas completely covering supposed black hole is itself the making of that supposed black hole.!! Nearly all the photos shown in the internets showing  black holes at the center of galaxies are artist perspective. All galaxies , actual, have total dust and gas covering all over centers of galaxies. No matter how more EHT will add more astronomical  telescopes, to get higher resolutions, they will  always see  actual image of  gas and dusts., why because light is the carrier of image and informations, and light can not penetrate the dust and gas!!!.
In 2004, Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne had arguments because Hawking declared no EH and Throne contends there is. Jsa 2.23.19

You already said all of that in post #59...

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

The  controversial  “Hawking Radiation” that led to the arguments between Hawking and Thorne, and also Preskill, is nothing but that brightened burning gas and dust that completely cover-up  the falsely  conceived black hole!! That dust and gas its own making because in the first place there is no black hole. Please read all my numerious postings why..  jsa 2.24.19.

[Kryptid]

The  controversial  “Hawking Radiation” that led to the arguments between Hawking and Thorne, and also Preskill, is nothing but that brightened burning gas and dust that completely cover-up  the falsely  conceived black hole!!

I see that you do not know what Hawking radiation is. If you did, you would know that around a supermassive black hole it is so weak that the temperature is near absolute zero. So it isn't "brightened, burning gas", it's actually very cold in all cases except for very small black holes.

! That dust and gas its own making because in the first place there is no black hole. Please read all my numerious postings why..  jsa 2.24.19.

Your postings are wrong. LIGO showed them to be wrong when it detected gravitational waves from colliding black holes. I even posted a link to the original paper explaining why those waves had to come from merging black holes.

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

Please do not delete.The  controversial  “Hawking Radiation” that led to the arguments between Hawking and Thorne, and also Preskill, is nothing but that brightened burning gas and dust that completely cover-up  the falsely  conceived black hole!! That dust and gas its own making because in the first place there is no black hole. Please read all my numerious postings why..  jsa 2.24.19.

[Kryptid]

Please do not delete.The  controversial  “Hawking Radiation” that led to the arguments between Hawking and Thorne, and also Preskill, is nothing but that brightened burning gas and dust that completely cover-up  the falsely  conceived black hole!! That dust and gas its own making because in the first place there is no black hole. Please read all my numerious postings why..  jsa 2.24.19.

You already said all of this in post #65. And it's all still wrong.

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

Quoted: I see that you do not know what Hawking radiation is. If you did, you would know that around a supermassive black hole it is so weak that the temperature is near absolute zero. So it isn't "brightened, burning gas", it's actually very cold in all cases except for very small black holes.

Jsaldea: Wrong. Hre is proof:That ejected jet as jettisoned from interior of super-galaxy is super heated gas and dust. This super-heated dust and gas is squeezed from the interior of  core of super-galaxy due to  its super gravity. It cools when its jettison  extend several light years at almost or 1/3 the speed of light.  FEB 24.

Quoted:Your postings are wrong. LIGO showed them to be wrong when it detected gravitational waves from colliding black holes. I even posted a link to the original paper explaining why those waves had to come from merging black holes

Jsaldea12:That the colliding false black holes was  detected creates ripples of gravitational waves … does not mean it affirms black hole. By the way, just think, light easily creates waves on skein of spacetime and it takes very tremendous pressure, takes collision of false black holes to do that, it  implies, gravity is short-range, obeys the law of inverse while light does not.  FEB. 24, 2019

[Kryptid]

Jsaldea: Wrong. Hre is proof:That ejected jet as jettisoned from interior of super-galaxy is super heated gas and dust. This super-heated dust and gas is squeezed from the interior of  core of super-galaxy due to  its super gravity. It cools when its jettison  extend several light years at almost or 1/3 the speed of light.  FEB 24.

How is that proof that it is the same thing as Hawking radiation? It's not even remotely similar.

Jsaldea12:That the colliding false black holes was  detected creates ripples of gravitational waves … does not mean it affirms black hole.

Of course it does. The LIGO paper even explained why they couldn't be something of a less extreme nature like neutron stars.

By the way, just think, light easily creates waves on skein of spacetime

According to who?

takes collision of false black holes to do that

What is a "false" black hole and how is it different from a real black hole?

implies, gravity is short-range

How?

obeys the law of inverse while light does not.  FEB. 24, 2019

Light absolutely does obey the inverse square law. A light source twice as far away appears four times as dim. It falls off at the exact same rate as the force of gravity:

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

The  controversial  “Hawking Radiation” that led to the arguments between Hawking and Thorne, and also Preskill, is nothing but that brightened burning gas and dust that completely cover-up  the falsely  conceived black hole!! That dust and gas its own making because in the first place there is no black hole. Please read all my numerious postings why..  jsa 2.24.19.

Quoted: I see that you do not know what Hawking radiation is. If you did, you would know that around a supermassive black hole it is so weak that the temperature is near absolute zero. So it isn't "brightened, burning gas", it's actually very cold in all cases except for very small black holes.

Jsaldea: Wrong. Hre is proof:That ejected jet as jettisoned from interior of super-galaxy is super heated gas and dust. This super-heated dust and gas is squeezed from the interior of  core of super-galaxy due to  its super gravity. It cools when its jettison  extend several light years at almost or 1/3 the speed of light.  FEB 24.

Quoted:Your postings are wrong. LIGO showed them to be wrong when it detected gravitational waves from colliding black holes. I even posted a link to the original paper explaining why those waves had to come from merging black holes

Jsaldea12:That the colliding false black holes was  detected creates ripples of gravitational waves … does not mean it affirms black hole. By the way, just think, light easily creates waves on skein of spacetime and it takes very tremendous pressure, takes collision of false black holes to do that, it  implies, gravity is short-range, obeys the law of inverse while light does not.  FEB. 24, 2019

 

[Bored chemist]

So, you still don't understand Hawking radiation.
The stuff you talk about "That ejected jet as jettisoned from interior of super-galaxy is super heated gas and dust. This super-heated dust and gas is squeezed from the interior of  core of super-galaxy due to  its super gravity. It cools when its jettison  extend several light years at almost or 1/3 the speed of light"
Is not Hawking radiation. It's essentially the radiation produced by stuff crashing itnto other stuff as they rush into the hole.

hat the colliding false black holes was  detected creates ripples of gravitational waves … does not mean it affirms black hole.

A collision of false black holes would  prove nothing.
But the collision of real ones proved that they exist.

" By the way, just think, light easily creates waves on skein of spacetime and it takes very tremendous pressure, takes collision of false black holes to do that, it  implies, gravity is short-range, obeys the law of inverse while light does not.  "
None of that makes enough sense to comment on.
Please try again.

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

 I was referring to  light waves and gravitational waves, both as upper layer and bottom layer, respectively, functions of  fabric/skein of spacetime. Light waves is easily, effortlessly  created, like sailboat, in the upper layer of the fabric  of spacetime while the deep-residing gravitational waves (not the ordinary gravity waves), at the bottom of fabric, requires  supreme extreme effort, like  the collision of supposed  black holes, to shake the bottom frame/skein of spacetime. In this case, though both obey the inverse square law but because  light dwells at the top layer and the shaking gravitational waves at the bottom layer, light appears to have  a wider and longer range of inverse law than gravitational waves. . jsaldea12 feb. 24, 2019..

[Bored chemist]

oth as upper layer and bottom layer, respectively, functions of  fabric/skein of spacetime.

That seem to be some woo you have invented.

the deep-residing gravitational waves (not the ordinary gravity waves), at the bottom of fabric,

Ditto

ight appears to have  a wider and longer range of inverse law than gravitational waves.

Both light and gravity waves have infinite ranges.

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

The  controversial  “Hawking Radiation” that led to the arguments between Hawking and Thorne, and also Preskill, is nothing but that brightened burning gas and dust that completely cover-up  the falsely  conceived black hole!! That dust and gas its own making because in the first place there is no black hole. Please read all my numerious postings why..  jsa 2.24.19.

Quoted: I see that you do not know what Hawking radiation is. If you did, you would know that around a supermassive black hole it is so weak that the temperature is near absolute zero. So it isn't "brightened, burning gas", it's actually very cold in all cases except for very small black holes.

 Wrong. Hre is proof:That ejected jet as jettisoned from interior of super-galaxy is super heated gas and dust. This super-heated dust and gas is squeezed from the interior of  core of super-galaxy due to  its super gravity. It super-cools when its jettison  extend several light years at almost or 1/3 the speed of light.  jsaFEB 24.

Quoted:Your postings are wrong. LIGO showed them to be wrong when it detected gravitational waves from colliding black holes. I even posted a link to the original paper explaining why those waves had to come from merging black holes

That the colliding false black holes was  detected creates ripples of gravitational waves … does not mean it affirms black hole. By the way, just think, light easily creates waves on skein of spacetime and it takes very tremendous pressure, takes collision of false black holes to do that, it  implies, gravity is short-range, obeys the law of inverse while light does not. jsa FEB. 24, 2019


 I was referring to  light waves and gravitational waves, both as upper layer and bottom layer, respectively, functions of  fabric/skein of spacetime. Light waves is easily, effortlessly  created, like sailboat creating waves, in the upper layer of the fabric  of spacetime while the deep-residing gravitational waves (like submarine creating waves in deep sea), at the bottom of fabric, requires  supra-extreme effort, like  the collision of supposed  black holes, to shake the bottom fabric/skein of spacetime. In this case, though both obey the inverse square law but because  light dwells at the top layer and the shaking gravitational waves at the bottom layer, light appears to have  a wider and longer range of inverse law than gravitational waves. . jsaldea12 feb. 24, 2019..
 

 

[Bored chemist]

The  controversial  “Hawking Radiation” that led to the arguments between Hawking and Thorne, and also Preskill, is nothing but that brightened burning gas and dust that completely cover-up  the falsely  conceived black hole!! That dust and gas its own making because in the first place there is no black hole. Please read all my numerious postings why..  jsa 2.24.19.

Quoted: I see that you do not know what Hawking radiation is. If you did, you would know that around a supermassive black hole it is so weak that the temperature is near absolute zero. So it isn't "brightened, burning gas", it's actually very cold in all cases except for very small black holes.

 Wrong. Hre is proof:That ejected jet as jettisoned from interior of super-galaxy is super heated gas and dust. This super-heated dust and gas is squeezed from the interior of  core of super-galaxy due to  its super gravity. It super-cools when its jettison  extend several light years at almost or 1/3 the speed of light.  jsaFEB 24.

Quoted:Your postings are wrong. LIGO showed them to be wrong when it detected gravitational waves from colliding black holes. I even posted a link to the original paper explaining why those waves had to come from merging black holes

That the colliding false black holes was  detected creates ripples of gravitational waves … does not mean it affirms black hole. By the way, just think, light easily creates waves on skein of spacetime and it takes very tremendous pressure, takes collision of false black holes to do that, it  implies, gravity is short-range, obeys the law of inverse while light does not. jsa FEB. 24, 2019


 I was referring to  light waves and gravitational waves, both as upper layer and bottom layer, respectively, functions of  fabric/skein of spacetime. Light waves is easily, effortlessly  created, like sailboat creating waves, in the upper layer of the fabric  of spacetime while the deep-residing gravitational waves (like submarine creating waves in deep sea), at the bottom of fabric, requires  supra-extreme effort, like  the collision of supposed  black holes, to shake the bottom fabric/skein of spacetime. In this case, though both obey the inverse square law but because  light dwells at the top layer and the shaking gravitational waves at the bottom layer, light appears to have  a wider and longer range of inverse law than gravitational waves. . jsaldea12 feb. 24, 2019..
 

 

Why do you keep repeating stuff which has already been shown to be wrong?

[Kryptid]

I was referring to  light waves and gravitational waves, both as upper layer and bottom layer, respectively, functions of  fabric/skein of spacetime. Light waves is easily, effortlessly  created, like sailboat, in the upper layer of the fabric  of spacetime while the deep-residing gravitational waves (not the ordinary gravity waves), at the bottom of fabric, requires  supreme extreme effort, like  the collision of supposed  black holes, to shake the bottom frame/skein of spacetime.

Since when did space-time have an "upper layer" or "bottom layer"? What does that even mean? Please link us to some evidence (from a reputable source).

In this case, though both obey the inverse square law but because  light dwells at the top layer and the shaking gravitational waves at the bottom layer, light appears to have  a wider and longer range of inverse law than gravitational waves. . jsaldea12 feb. 24, 2019..

What does "a wide and longer range of inverse law" even mean? Either something obeys the inverse square law or it doesn't.

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

  Please post this, do not delete my posting because at last the argument between Hawking, Thorne, Preskill, is over now. That  boiling, evaporating gas  and dust that radiate light, that completely cover-up supposed black holeI is NOW finally identified as one and the same. What did Wikipedia says: “Hawking radiation is blackbody radiation that is predicted to be released by black holes, due to quantum effects near the event horizon. It is named after the physicist Stephen Hawking, who provided a theoretical argument for its existence in 1974” Please read between the lines of Hawking .and mine and know the uncanny  similarity, except that he identified it as black body radiation,while I finally identified it a black body gas and dust. Read between the lines  of Hawking and mine and know both are  one and the same.   Jsaldea12  2.25.19

[Kryptid]

Please post this, do not delete my posting

Nobody is deleting your posts, so why do you keep saying this?

That  boiling, evaporating gas  and dust that radiate light, that completely cover-up supposed black holeI is NOW finally identified as one and the same.

By who (other than you, I mean)?

What did Wikipedia says: “Hawking radiation is blackbody radiation that is predicted to be released by black holes, due to quantum effects near the event horizon. It is named after the physicist Stephen Hawking, who provided a theoretical argument for its existence in 1974” Please read between the lines of Hawking .and mine and know the uncanny  similarity, except that he identified it as black body radiation,while I finally identified it a black body gas and dust. Read between the lines  of Hawking and mine and know both are  one and the same.   Jsaldea12  2.25.19

Alright, why don't we see just how similar Hawking radiation is to the heat and radiation detected from Sagittarius A*? You can use the following calculator to see what the temperature and luminosity Hawking radiation has for a given black hole mass: http://xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/

The mass of Sagittarius A* is around 4,000,000 solar masses. When we put this mass into the calculator, we get a temperature of  ~1.5 x 10^-14 kelvins and a luminosity of  ~5.6 x 10^-42 watts. That means that the Hawking radiation given off  by Sagittarius A* is almost 20,000,000,000,000 times colder than the vacuum of space and 250,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times dimmer than a firefly's flash.

Your proposal that this radiation is responsible for the multi-million degree temperatures around the black hole is beyond ridiculous.