[jsaldea12 (OP)]

 The identified boiling, evaporating gas and dust that completely envelop black hole is one and the same as the Hawking radiation. 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 line of Hawking .and know the uncanny  similarity, except that his identified 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. That  long argument between Hawking, Thorne, Preskill that started since  1974 is over.  Jsaldea12  2.25.19

[Kryptid]

Not even close:

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.

Also, since when were "gas and dust" and "radiation" even close to being the same thing?

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

Wrong. Why dont we ask Dr. Kip Thorne is my allegation is right. Hawing radiation and ,gas and dust are one and the same. jsa 2.25.19

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

Wrong because you assume that the supposed black hole is COLD. No!!  See all galaxies, repeat ALL GALAXIES, the center is very bright, even after 12 billion years travel. Where does it get its brightness? Unless the source is boiling, not cooling. .That is why the surface of supposed false black hole is boiling too and evaporating gas and dust, just like boiling water. Now make a computation with this basis. Please do. Jsaldea12     2.26.19

[Kryptid]

Wrong. Why dont we ask Dr. Kip Thorne is my allegation is right. Hawing radiation and ,gas and dust are one and the same. jsa 2.25.19

Feel free to contact him. I'm absolutely certain that he won't agree with you. He dedicated a lengthy section of his "Black Holes & Time Warps" book to Hawking radiation and he describes it in the same way Hawking does (he references Hawking's work quite a bit). Here is one of the important quotes from that section:

How long does it take for a black hole to evaporate and disappear? The answer depends on the hole's mass. The larger the hole, the lower its temperature, and thus the more weakly it emits particles and the more slowly it evaporates. The total lifetime, as worked out by Don Page in 1975 when he was jointly my student and Hawking's, is 1.2 x 10⁶⁷ years if the hole's mass is twice that of the Sun. The lifetime is proportional to the cube of the hole's mass, so a 20-solar-mass hole has a life of 1.2 x 10⁷⁰ years. These lifetimes are so enormous compared to the present age of the Universe, about 1 x 10¹⁰ years, that the evaporation is totally irrelevant to astrophysics.

So here he agrees that black holes with stellar-level masses and above radiate so weakly that their "evaporation is totally irrelevant to astrophysics". So he would not agree that Hawking radiation is something strong enough to be detected from Earth.

Wrong because you assume that the supposed black hole is COLD.

I didn't assume anything, I simply used existing mathematical equations to determine a black hole's temperature luminosity due to Hawking radiation. Those equations were derived from the known laws of quantum mechanics and relativity. The astrophysics community at large is in agreement about the results of these equations. If you think there was some kind of error in deriving these equations, then how about you show us what the proper derivation is and therefore the correct formulas to use in place of the existing formulas? Here is a paper showing the derivation of the black hole temperature equation: http://kiso.phys.se.tmu.ac.jp/thesis/m.h.kuwabara.pdf

Have fun showing us where the error in the math is.

See all galaxies, repeat ALL GALAXIES, the center is very bright, even after 12 billion years travel. Where does it get its brightness? Unless the source is boiling, not cooling.

I never said there wasn't anything hot there. It's just that the Hawking radiation of the black hole itself is not what is hot.

Now make a computation with this basis. Please do.

As soon as you show where the error is in the existing equation and derive a superior one, I will.

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

Then both Hawking and ThOrone are wrong. And you accept that? See all the galaxies, the burning brightest portions, all, in the center of the core supposed where black hole resides. Repeating why are the galaxy  super- burning brightly, even for 12 billion light years.. Because the source is the core where supposed black hole is..  How do we know that the core is super-heat. What was ejected by that super-heated jets, jettison from galaxy, such jet could  be even a billion to trillion Celsius from source, the core. Where did you get the idea that black holes are cold? It is cold only when the jets speeds off at almost the speed of light, that the farther the jet travels, the colder it becomes because outer space is super-cold. Prove to me that the supposed black hole is cold. Because of its super-gravitation compaction? Then the greater the gravitational force compression, the stronger the pressure, the greater the pressure, plus super-rotation of galaxy,  the greater it will produce heat, super-heat!!!. WHERE IS THE PLACE OF SUPER-COLD IN THE INTERIOR OF THE CORE OF GALAXY WHERE SUPPOSED BLACK HOLE RESIDES?. PROVE TO ME.  JSAL 2.26.18

[evan_au]

Wrong because you assume that the supposed black hole is COLD.

Kryptid did not make up the coldness of the event horizon - Steven Hawking did.
- If you take a stellar-mass black hole, the blackbody temperature of the event horizon is something like nanoKelvins.
- If you take an accretion disk around a stellar-mass black hole, the blackbody temperature is hot enough to produce X-Rays
- So an accretion disk is not the same as Hawking radiation, despite the fact that they are both blackbody radiation

There is a theoretical scenario where Hawking radiation could produce high temperatures, and that is in the last seconds of a micro-black hole created in the Big Bang. Such an atom-sized (and mountain-mass) black hole would explode with Hawking radiation at X-Ray wavelengths. But at this time, they are purely hypothetical.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation#Overview
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Accretion_discs#Introduction

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

Why a  black hole, by its own self, the temperature it produces up to  even horizon is something like nanoKelvins? Why??? And why accretion disk (must be cold from space) around black hole produces temperature hot enough to produce X-ray.?? In both queries, I disagree. Rather it is opposite. The period of accretion disk is over or if there is left-over,  it cannot  be  too dense as to completely, completely  cover-up the supposed black hole. Rather, the temperature, super-heat, is produced by the core of galaxy which the supposed black hole resides that cause the  boiling and evaporating, like the sun,  gas and dust outward from its   surface . The primary source of radiation is the core, the secondary source of radiation is the super- evaporated dust and gas.
Jsa feb.26, 2019

[Bored chemist]

Why a  black hole, by its own self, the temperature it produces up to  even horizon is something like nanoKelvins?

If you don't understand that then you don't know about Hawking radiation.
And, since you don't know about it, you should learn more  rather than trying to pretend that you understand it well enough to say it is wrong.

[Kryptid]

Actually, there is an inherent contradiction in this entire thread. In order for Hawking radiation to exist, you have to have a black hole. If black holes don't exist (which is what you argue), then Hawking radiation doesn't exist either. If Hawking radiation doesn't exist, then it can't be responsible for the high temperatures we see in galactic cores.

Then both Hawking and ThOrone are wrong.

Oh, so you were ready and willing to point to a professional like Thorne as support for your opinion if he agreed with you, but as soon as you found out that he did not agree with you, you were ready to cast aside his words as if they were meaningless. Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne are (or were, in the case of Hawking) actual theoretical physicists. They know a whole lot more about the mathematics of black holes than you do. So who do you think we should trust more? Them or you?

See all the galaxies, the burning brightest portions, all, in the center of the core supposed where black hole resides.

If your argument is, "Black holes emit Hawking radiation, and black holes are found where it is hot, then Hawking radiation must be hot" is a fallacious argument. That is because you are automatically assuming that Hawking radiation is what is responsible for those high temperatures. It has been mathematically demonstrated to be impossible for Hawking radiation to be responsible for those immense temperatures. Hawking understood the mathematics of quantum mechanics and relativity a whole lot better than you do.

Repeating why are the galaxy  super- burning brightly, even for 12 billion light years.

It comes from the heat of the accretion disk. Space is not entirely empty, especially not in the galactic center. The immense gravity of a supermassive black hole can pull in dust, gas and even stars themselves. All of that pressure and friction generates radiation.

Where did you get the idea that black holes are cold?

A supermassive black hole by itself is cold. That's because there are limits placed by quantum mechanics and general relativity on how much Hawking radiation can be released by a black hole at one time. If you are going to claim that Hawking radiation can account for multi-million degree temperatures, then you need to demonstrate this from a theoretical standpoint. You need to do the math that shows a supermassive black hole releases an amount of Hawking radiation that matches the temperatures that we observe. Scientists aren't going to take your claims seriously if you can't.

Prove to me that the supposed black hole is cold.

I guess you would need to understand quantum mechanics and relativity first.

Because of its super-gravitation compaction? Then the greater the gravitational force compression, the stronger the pressure, the greater the pressure, plus super-rotation of galaxy,  the greater it will produce heat, super-heat!!!.

That heat is inside of the black hole. It can't get out because of the event horizon.

Why a  black hole, by its own self, the temperature it produces up to  even horizon is something like nanoKelvins? Why???

Because the laws of quantum mechanics and relativity place firm limits on how much Hawking radiation can be released at one time.

And why accretion disk (must be cold from space) around black hole produces temperature hot enough to produce X-ray.??

It's due to the gas laws. When you compress a gas, it becomes hotter. That's something we know for a fact. It isn't just theoretical. Friction also produces heat. Again, that's something we know for a fact. By the way, not all black holes are associated with X-rays: https://www.space.com/24290-quiet-black-hole-discovery.html So all of this raises another question: what does your hypothesis predict the relationship between black hole mass and temperature to be? Do you say that more massive black holes are hotter or colder than less massive black holes?

Rather, the temperature, super-heat, is produced by the core of galaxy which the supposed black hole resides that cause the  boiling and evaporating, like the sun,  gas and dust outward from its   surface .

You keep saying this but you have yet to demonstrate it on so much as sound mathematical grounds.

The primary source of radiation is the core, the secondary source of radiation is the super- evaporated dust and gas.

Which brings me back to a question I asked earlier that you did not answer: since when were gas and dust the same thing as radiation?

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

Alright, here is the clinging query: Do Hawking, Thoorne, followers KNOW WHY SUPPOSED BLACK HOLE IS CONCEIVED FALSELY COLD, SUPER-COLD? I KNOW THE ANSWER, BUT CAN FALSE BLACK HOLE FOLLOWERS ANSWER. PLEASE PRESENT. THE ANSWER.  JSA 2.27.19

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

Please post this arrticle, as is complete, in Google for the public to know  who is right or wrong?  jsa  2.27.19.

[Kryptid]

Alright, here is the clinging query: Do Hawking, Thoorne, followers KNOW WHY SUPPOSED BLACK HOLE IS CONCEIVED FALSELY COLD, SUPER-COLD?

I already did:

Because the laws of quantum mechanics and relativity place firm limits on how much Hawking radiation can be released at one time.

I KNOW THE ANSWER

I doubt it.

Please post this arrticle, as is complete, in Google for the public to know  who is right or wrong?

What article? You mean an article giving the answer as to why black holes are usually cold? I already gave you one here: http://kiso.phys.se.tmu.ac.jp/thesis/m.h.kuwabara.pdf You never did show us where the error was. If you are willing to pay, you can read Hawking's original article here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02345020

I'll also ask you for a third time: since when were gas and dust the same thing as radiation?

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

Quoted respected NSM: I'll also ask you for a third time: since when were gas and dust the same thing as radiation? Jsa response: That dust and guas are burning…. radiates light. 2.28.19
Jsa: Repeating: this clinger query is addressed to you and other respected Hawking proponents: do you know why the temperature of false black hole is conceived super-cold? The justification of Hawking and other  proponent of black holes in the internet is not right. Again,  how come the temperature of false black hole is conceived super-cold.?
Jsa. This article/forum is not in Google: Hawking radiation ,and dust and gas are one and the same. yet. 2.27.19

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

Jsa: Reiterating: this clinger query is significant, will clear up matter, is addressed to you and other respected Hawking proponents: do you know why the temperature of false black hole is conceived super-cold? The justification of Hawking and other  proponent of black holes in the internet is not right. 2..27.19

[Kryptid]

Quoted respected NSM: I'll also ask you for a third time: since when were gas and dust the same thing as radiation? Jsa response: That dust and guas are burning…. radiates light. 2.28.19

If the radiation is coming from burning gas, then it isn't Hawking radiation. Hawking radiation is caused by the immense gravity of the black hole separating virtual particles from each other in the quantum vacuum, with one of them travelling into the hole while the other escapes. That's a completely different process from burning. You keep making it clear to us that you do not understand the concept of Hawking radiation.

Jsa: Repeating: this clinger query is addressed to you and other respected Hawking proponents: do you know why the temperature of false black hole is conceived super-cold?

I've already answered this at least twice before. It hasn't changed since then:

Because the laws of quantum mechanics and relativity place firm limits on how much Hawking radiation can be released at one time.

The justification of Hawking and other  proponent of black holes in the internet is not right.

Does that mean you found the error in his math? Please post it.

Again,  how come the temperature of false black hole is conceived super-cold.?

I've already answered this.

Jsa: Reiterating: this clinger query is significant, will clear up matter, is addressed to you and other respected Hawking proponents: do you know why the temperature of false black hole is conceived super-cold? The justification of Hawking and other  proponent of black holes in the internet is not right. 2..27.19

You already made this same post...

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

Jsa :We seem to be  talking at different  topics. You speak of false black hole , I don’t, I speak of real objects That is why we don’t understand one another.  Cant help but, the radiation that I am referring comes from  burning boiling core of galaxies. Repeat, the primary source is the super- burning core and is pass-over and reflected , as it also burns,  the completely enveloping gas and dust, igniting them, both the prmary source and secondary source, release radiation light that reaches earth after billion of light years travel. Where does the light comes from? Modern astronomical findings bear me out, see- UCLA and other astronomers.This dust and dust ejects from core and returns back to the core, and some ejected straight outward.  Good day. Feb., 27, 2019 

[Kryptid]

Jsa :We seem to be  talking at different  topics. You speak of false black hole , I don’t, I speak of real objects That is why we don’t understand one another.  Cant help but, the radiation that I am referring comes from  burning boiling core of galaxies.

Then why do you call it Hawking radiation when that clearly is not what you are talking about?

Repeat, the primary source is the super- burning core and is pass-over and reflected , as it also burns,  the completely enveloping gas and dust, igniting them, both the prmary source and secondary source, release radiation light that reaches earth after billion of light years travel. Where does the light comes from? Modern astronomical findings bear me out, see- UCLA and other astronomers.This dust and dust ejects from core and returns back to the core, and some ejected straight outward.  Good day. Feb., 27, 2019 

So tell me how you make the leap in logic from, "Hot, luminous gas surrounds supermassive black holes" to "Hot, luminous gas comes out of supermassive black holes"? The first premise does not justify the second.

[Bored chemist]

Just checking?
Has anyone ever actually detected Hawking radiation?

Also, Jsaldea;
Please explain how dust or gas burns in a vacuum?

[Kryptid]

Just checking?
Has anyone ever actually detected Hawking radiation?

Almost certainly not given how weak it is. It's just a prediction at this point (but one that falls naturally out of the known laws of physics). However, evidence for analogues of Hawking radiation coming from artificial "black holes" has been claimed: https://physicsworld.com/a/physicists-stimulate-hawking-radiation-from-optical-analogue-of-a-black-hole/