[jsaldea12 (OP)]

Quoted: “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”
Jsa response: Read again.2.27.19

Quoted: “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”.
Jsa response: now you are realizing.that formula  of computing how cold is supposed black hole,, which contains several -000000000000000 etc. Kelvin,    is UNBELIEVABLE, RIDICULOUS. That conceived  black hole is figment of imagination  which Einstein and Hawking  denied! 

[Kryptid]

Quoted: “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”
Jsa response: Read again.2.27.19

Read what again? You never supported the leap from your premise to your conclusion. All your argument ever amounted to was, "supermassive black holes are surrounded by hot gas and dust. Therefore, the hot gas and dust came out of the black hole." You never explained why this must be the case. That's like arguing, "The planets surround the Sun, therefore the planets came out of the Sun" or "The peanut butter in a Reese's cup is surrounded by chocolate, therefore the chocolate came out of the peanut butter" or "Islands are surrounded by the ocean, therefore the ocean came out of islands." It's the non-sequitur fallacy.

Jsa response: now you are realizing.that formula  of computing how cold is supposed black hole,, which contains several -000000000000000 etc. Kelvin,    is UNBELIEVABLE, RIDICULOUS.

That is the argument from incredulity fallacy. Something isn't wrong just because it seems unbelievable to you.

Again, if Hawking is wrong, then show where the error in the math is. You can't expect us to take you seriously if you claim that the math is wrong without being able to demonstrate that it is, in fact, wrong. Until you can do this, your idea isn't going to get anywhere in the astrophysics community.

That conceived  black hole is figment of imagination  which Einstein and Hawking  denied! 

Are you serious? Hawking is the very one who predicted Hawking radiation...

[Bored chemist]

now you are realizing.that formula  of computing how cold is supposed black hole,, which contains several -000000000000000 etc. Kelvin,    is UNBELIEVABLE, RIDICULOUS.

It is not unbelievable, since those of us who understand this stuff believe it.
It is not ridiculous to those who know the science.
Your view- that stuff magically comes out of black holes is, however, ridiculous.

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

Jsa: Why is the supposed black hole conceived  super-cold, lower than absolute zero? It is because all astronomical telescopes cannot see the core of the galaxy, thus invisible!!! therefore black hole. But, reiterating,   center of galaxy, ALL  galaxies, are  camouflaged by too thick dust and gas, its own making.  Modern astronomical observations is becoming clearer and clearer:  there is the detected object, supposed black hole, occupying the core of galaxies, but it is “not the traditional black hole that light cannot escape”. And here is the undeniable proof that the core is super- hot:  jets ejected at almost the speed of light,  from the center of super-galaxy  is super-hot, otherwise if it is cold, it cannot be ejected in gaseous state.  Prove to me that the ejected jets emanating from the center of galaxies is cold, not hot. 2.27.19

[Kryptid]

Why is the supposed black hole conceived  super-cold, lower than absolute zero?

(1) This question has been answered (more than once).
(2) Nobody said that they are colder than absolute zero. That's a straw-man argument.

It is because all astronomical telescopes cannot see the core of the galaxy, thus invisible!!!

The concept of Hawking radiation is based on theory, not direct observation. So you are wrong.

And here is the undeniable proof that the core is super- hot:  jets ejected at almost the speed of light,  from the center of super-galaxy  is super-hot, otherwise if it is cold, it cannot be ejected in gaseous state.  Prove to me that the ejected jets emanating from the center of galaxies is cold, not hot. 2.27.19

Now you have created another straw-man argument. No one here denied that the cores of galaxies are hot. No one here denied that the jets are hot. What we are saying is that the Hawking radiation is not hot. Learn the difference.

[Bored chemist]

Prove to me that the ejected jets emanating from the center of galaxies is cold, not hot.

Those jets are hot.
Nobody ever said they were not hot.
Hawking radiation is cold
Obviously, a cold thing is not the same as a hot thing.

That's exactly why the jets are not Hawking radiation.
And that's why you are wrong.

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

NS quoted: The concept of Hawking radiation is based on theory, not direct observation. So you are wrong"
.
jsa response: Concept of Hawking radiation  is BASED ON THEORY   ???Actual continued  astronomical observations do not , cannot support Hawking theory. Will EHT, UCLA, European astronomical Societies come out in the open, what have the respected astronomical Societies have.increasingly observed.. Hawking had an inkling, knew there is a leak in that EH. That is why since 1974, he had argument with Thorne, Preskill and in  2004, Hawking finally opened up there is no EH, in short Hawking radiation escapes black hole, light escapes normally. Reiterating, for the the  th time,That Hawking radiation is finally identified, is nothing more than the dense gas and dust cover-up.. Will we stick to becoming obsolete theory or learn to accept the actual. Einstein made a mistake on his cosmological constant, now Hawking is denying EH. ., Newton on his instantaneous gravity. Science is developing.See? 2.28.19.

[Kryptid]

Concept of Hawking radiation  is BASED ON THEORY   

See? I told you that you didn't know what Hawking radiation was. If you did, then you would have already known that it was theoretical.

Hawking had an inkling, knew there is a leak in that EH.

That "inkling" was also theoretical. No one has observed it firsthand.

in short Hawking radiation escapes black hole

Hawking radiation comes from just outside of the event horizon. This is another example of you demonstrating that you don't know what you are talking about.

light escapes normally.

It doesn't escape "normally" at all. You might want to read this article to get a better handle on it: https://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes-1.14583 Here are some relevant quotes on the distinction between the event horizon and apparent horizon and how a shrinking black hole would allow information out:

In place of the event horizon, Hawking invokes an “apparent horizon”, a surface along which light rays attempting to rush away from the black hole’s core will be suspended. In general relativity, for an unchanging black hole, these two horizons are identical, because light trying to escape from inside a black hole can reach only as far as the event horizon and will be held there, as though stuck on a treadmill. However, the two horizons can, in principle, be distinguished. If more matter gets swallowed by the black hole, its event horizon will swell and grow larger than the apparent horizon.

Conversely, in the 1970s, Hawking also showed that black holes can slowly shrink, spewing out 'Hawking radiation'. In that case, the event horizon would, in theory, become smaller than the apparent horizon. Hawking’s new suggestion is that the apparent horizon is the real boundary. “The absence of event horizons means that there are no black holes — in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infinity,” Hawking writes.

Reiterating, for the the  th time,That
Hawking radiation is finally identified

You keep making the claim, but have yet to support that claim. Firstly, how about you tell us in your own words what you think the definition of Hawking radiation is. Then, demonstrate that it is the same thing as the gas and dust around a black hole. Don't merely say that it is: show that it is.

is nothing more than the dense gas and dust cover-up..

I thought you agreed earlier that radiation isn't the same thing as gas and dust? Now you're contradicting yourself.

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

NS quote:Hawking radiation comes from just outside of the event horizon.
Jsa response: You believe that, hook, line and sinker?. You  believe in him, believe  in me. Do you know what it means when it comes from just outside the EH. 2.28.19

[Kryptid]

You believe that, hook, line and sinker?

Given that Hawking radiation has not been detected yet, I cannot say with certainty that it exists. I can say that we have very good reason to believe that it exists and the math supports its existence.

You  believe in him, believe  in me.

Why should I? Hawking actually has the evidence on his side. You have never bothered to provide any. You keep making claims without bothering to support them.

Do you know what it means when it comes from just outside the EH.

Yes, but you apparently don't. Quantum vacuum fluctuations right at the horizon are pulled apart by tidal forces. One enters the event horizon and the other passes into outer space. The particles that move into outer space are what make up Hawking radiation.

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

jsa response:  You said it, “Hawking radiation has not been detected” “ Hawking actually has evidence on his side”. This is double talk, contradicting itself. How can you have evidence when it has not been detected? Where is your evidence?
Jsa response But I am claiming I HAVE EVIDENCE, that hawking radiation is finally resolved/identified:  the dust and gas. You said “Quantum vacuum, fluctuations right at the horizon???  Has science  detected it? Nobody has. It is just theory.” Am presenting evidence after evidence, that particles that sprout from the supposed black hole, that moves into outer space are what make up hawking radiation. Exactly, now identified specifically as that dust and gas, as detected by modern astronomical observations. Ask UCLA and other European astronomical society. Even EHT. And that particles that enters event horizon are leftover accretion dust and gas, not much, because accretion period is over. You agree the jets are hot!!  that jets that  emanate from the supposed black hole. Thus, how can supposed black hole have temperature closest or exceeding absolute zero ?. Do you know what that jets on both opposite side of super-galaxy means? It means there is no singularity, that opposite jets of super-galaxy,   one jet is positive and the opposite jet is negative. This is inherent indestructible nature of matter. 2.28.19

[evan_au]

all astronomical telescopes cannot see the core of the galaxy, thus invisible!!! therefore black hole. But, reiterating,   center of galaxy, ALL  galaxies, are  camouflaged by too thick dust and gas

Radio telescopes can peer through gas and dust that would obstruct a visible-light telescope.

The ongoing Event Horizon Telescope project is apparently still collecting and processing data. If and when they have something to publish, we should get an image of the bright (hot) accretion disk surrounding a dark (cold) event horizon.

How clear the image is depends on the orientation of the accretion disk and any polar jets, and whether there is one or more big black holes near the center of our galaxy.

Let's hope they soon iron out the teething problems, and settle the confusion of jsaldea12.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_Horizon_Telescope

[Kryptid]

jsa response:  You said it, “Hawking radiation has not been detected” “ Hawking actually has evidence on his side”. This is double talk, contradicting itself. How can you have evidence when it has not been detected? Where is your evidence?

It's in the math.

Jsa response But I am claiming I HAVE EVIDENCE

But you don't. You keep making claims without substantiating them. I'm still waiting for you explain why the gas and dust around a black hole necessarily came out of the hole. You keep dodging that issue. Volcanic islands are surrounded by water. Volcanoes release water (in the form of vapor). Therefore, the water around the volcanic island came from the volcano. Does that argument make any sense to you? Because it doesn't to me. That's exactly the kind of argument you are making.

Am presenting evidence after evidence

Where? I have yet to see any.

Am presenting evidence after evidence, that particles that sprout from the supposed black hole, that moves into outer space are what make up hawking radiation. Exactly, now identified specifically as that dust and gas, as detected by modern astronomical observations.

Are you saying that radiation comes out of a black hole or dust and gas? Make up your mind already.

Ask UCLA and other European astronomical society.

Please post a link where they claim that the dust and gas around a black hole has anything at all to do with Hawking radiation.

You agree the jets are hot!!  that jets that  emanate from the supposed black hole. Thus, how can supposed black hole have temperature closest or exceeding absolute zero ?.

The contribution from the Hawking radiation is what is cold. The plasma around the hole is what is hot. They are not the same. The math proves it. The math simply does not allow enough particles to be generated by the laws of physics to generate that kind of heat. So you are arguing with the math.

Do you know what that jets on both opposite side of super-galaxy means? It means there is no singularity,

Non-sequitur.

[evan_au]

Do you know what that jets on both opposite side of super-galaxy means? It means there is no singularity,

I would quibble with the word "singularity": No-one expects to see a singularity at the center of a galaxy. Physicists expect that singularities are hidden behind the black wall of the black hole's event horizon.

So I would rephrase this comment as follows:

Do you know what that jets on both opposite side of super-galaxy means? It means there is no black hole

Radio astronomers interpret the jets as strong evidence that there is an active black hole (with an accretion disk) at the center of a galaxy.
- The high-speed jets at "north" and "south" poles are driven by the matter and plasma falling into the black hole.
- The matter in the jets is a small fraction of the mass falling into the event horizon

This meets the expected criteria of:
- conservation of energy
- matter can't be accelerated faster than c

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

NS: Please post a link where they claim that the dust and gas around a black hole has anything at all to do with Hawking Radiation.

Jsa: Have identified first that Hawking radiation is no other than the dust and gas.. the respected  Astronomical Societies are thinly behind.: I have been using their observations.which is becoming clearer and clearer .

NS:The contribution from the Hawking radiation is what is cold. The plasma around the hole is what is hot. They are not the same. The math proves it. The math simply does not allow enough particles to be generated by the laws of physics to generate that kind of heat. So you are arguing with the math.
Jsa: Wrong contribution. Wrong math.
 
o   NS:I would quibble with the word "singularity": No-one expects to see a singularity at the center of a galaxy. Physicists expect that singularities are hidden behind the black wall of the black hole's event horizon.

Jsa: Wrong. That singularities are not hidden behind black wall of  EH? Again another WRNG THEORY..

NS: Radio astronomers interpret the jets as strong evidence that there is an active black hole (with an accretion disk) at the center of a galaxy.The high-speed jets at "north" and "south" poles are driven by the matter and plasma falling into the black hole.
- The matter in the jets is a small fraction of the mass falling into the event horizon

jsa response: Wrong. What is detected is an ACTIVE FALSE BLACK HOLE, meaning the interior of supposed black hole is supra-heated, could reach trillion C. Now where is that supra-cold black hole? Wrong again. The jets do not come from the outside falling into black hole but comes from the supra heated interior of black hole. 2.28.19

[Kryptid]

Jsa: Have identified first that Hawking radiation is no other than the dust and gas.

Radiation isn't made of dust and gas.

Wrong math.

Show where the error in the math is. I've asked you to do this many, many times. You keep ignoring the issue.

Wrong. That singularities are not hidden behind black wall of  EH? Again another WRNG THEORY..

Are you ever going to bother supporting your claims?

Wrong. What is detected is an ACTIVE FALSE BLACK HOLE, meaning the interior of supposed black hole is supra-heated, could reach trillion C. Now where is that supra-cold black hole? Wrong again. The jets do not come from the outside falling into black hole but comes from the supra heated interior of black hole. 2.28.19

When are you going to finally provide evidence that the gas, dust and jets come out of black holes? You keep saying that they do, but never explain how you know that it's true.

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

Reiterating the supposed black hole is super-boiling that it boils, evaporate gas and dust that far extend beyond EH. Time will tell who is right, you or me. The jets are super-heat, by trillion K and travelling at almost speed of light, it can only be due/come. from interior of supposed black hole, due to super-compression of super-gravity. That the jet reaches several thousand of miles in space, PROVES ITS ORIGIN IS NOT FROM SPACE. jsa 2.29.19

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

It is unfortunate the postings in the internet of the observations of UCLA and other astronomical societies are not there anymore. Nevertheless, these observations are too strong: That the gas and dust completely, completely, cover-up the center of galaxies is another proof, no accretion can do that; that there are stars, just outside the EH, that are rotating at 1/3 speed of light shows it escapes EH. That quasars at farthest distance of universe have light that reach earth after 12 billion light years travel.That the equation that temperature is inversely proportional  TO MASS breaks down. jsa 2.28.19..

[Kryptid]

I'm also waiting for you to address this particular contradiction: if black holes don't exist, then neither does Hawking radiation. If Hawking radiation doesn't exist, then it can't be responsible for the high temperatures in the galactic center. Non-existent radiation can't heat things up.

Reiterating the supposed black hole is super-boiling that it boils, evaporate gas and dust that far extend beyond EH.

Are you ever going to bother supporting your claims?

it can only be due/come. from interior of supposed black hole, due to super-compression of super-gravity.

Based on what reasoning?

That the jet reaches several thousand of miles in space, PROVES ITS ORIGIN IS NOT FROM SPACE.

How does that prove anything? Accretion disk models explain the presence of jets just fine (it's due to magnetic fields in the accretion disk focusing the gas into jets) and they do assume that the gas and dust came from outside of the black hole.

Nevertheless, these observations are too strong: That the gas and dust completely, completely, cover-up the center of galaxies is another proof, no accretion can do that

Accretion can't do that? How do you know?

that there are stars, just outside the EH, that are rotating at 1/3 speed of light shows it escapes EH.

So now you're claiming that stars come out of black holes? Seriously...

That the equation that temperature is inversely proportional  TO MASS breaks down.

Show how. Show where the error in the math is. You keep dodging the issue.

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

Quoted” I'm also waiting for you to address this particular contradiction: if black holes don't exist, then neither does Hawking radiation. If Hawking radiation doesn't exist, then it can't be responsible for the high temperatures in the galactic center. Non-existent radiation can't heat things up.”

Jsa response: Exactly, black hole does not exit, so does hawking radiation.

Jsa: o ask for evidence? Several timesI have been supporting that dust and gas  have been seen by all astronomical ltelescopes


Jsa;That the jet reaches several thousand of miles in space, PROVES ITS ORIGIN IS NOT FROM SPACE.

Quote: How does that prove anything? Accretion disk models explain the presence of jets just fine (it's due to magnetic fields in the accretion disk focusing the gas into jets) and they do assume that the gas and dust came from outside of the black hole.

jsa: Read well.

Jsa: that there are stars, just outside the EH, that are rotating at 1/3 speed of light shows it escapes EH.

Quote: So now you're claiming that stars come out of black holes? Seriously...

Jsa: I am claiming that these stars can even rotate closest the sucking black hole because it is not a black hole. It is just a super-giant object, like the sun. 2.28.19 .