[Bored chemist]

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

Among your many mistakes is the fact that the sun isn't a supergiant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supergiant_star

Read well.

We read it.
It does not make sense.

Several timesI have been supporting that dust and gas  have been seen by all astronomical ltelescopes

Yes.
You have said that several times.
You have wasted time by doing so, because nobody ever said that we can't see the dust etc.

The thread isn't about dust- everyone knows there is dust in space.
The question is whether or not black holes exist.

You Are claiming that they do not.

But we know lots of phenomena that are attributed to black  holes- for example, the LIGO results.

You need to explain what else could cause the signals detected by LIGO.
That will be difficult for you, because you clearly do not understand how LIGO works.

[Kryptid]

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

If Hawking radiation doesn't exist, then why are you saying that it is gas and dust?

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

We all know that there is gas and dust there. Just because it is there doesn't mean it came out of the black hole. That is the evidence that you are missing.

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

That is the claim, but what is the reasoning? What is the evidence?

jsa: Read well.

Read what? You haven't provided an explanation. Just unsupported claims.

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

They're not escaping the black hole. They are trapped in orbit around it. Also they are not "just" outside of the event horizon: they are hundreds to thousands of astronomical units away from it.

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 .

Black holes do not "suck". The gravity of a black hole is equal to that of a star of equal mass (this is called the shell theorem). If you were to replace our Sun with a black hole of equal mass, the planets would remain in orbit around it just fine. Yet those orbiting stars are much further away from Sagittarius A* than Pluto is from the Sun.

[evan_au]

It is unfortunate the postings in the internet of the observations of UCLA and other astronomical societies are not there anymore. ... 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.

A lot of observations of the black hole at the center of the Milky Way have been led by researchers at the Max Planck Institute, using telescopes in the southern hemisphere. This includes studies of the motion of supergiant stars orbiting the location of the black hole; this used infra-red telescopes, which are better at peering through dust than optical telescopes. Their reports are still available on their website.

The recent report below shows:
- It was not stars traveling at 1/3 c, but super-hot gas (plasma)
- The reason is that before a star got this close to the black hole, it would be torn apart by the black hole's tidal forces.
- They have imaged the inner edge of the accretion disk, and suggest that its diameter is around 10 light-minutes (Earth is about 8 light-minutes from the Sun)
- This is the innermost stable orbit, just before the plasma plunges into the event horizon, on a one-way trip inwards
- and an accretion disk can do that

See: https://www.mpg.de/12447195/supermassive-black-hole-milky-way

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

Jsa: It is hopeless , you refuse to iisten, to open your mind  that  the Hawking Radiation is finally identified  as actually the gas and dust, the making of the supposed black hole, itself. Trying to impress unto you such discovery has no effect.  I have respect for Dr. Hawking but he is human and can make mistake. .he said something .like this to explain his Hawking radiation… half of the pair of particle? falls to black hole while the other pair falls out into outer space.. Wrong,  There is no such thing. The positive and negative property of matter cannot be divided, all matter has positive and negative unto one!! It should be either the whole  pair goes inside or goes  outside the EH. But there is no Hawking Radiation, in the first place!!!  3.1.19

[Kryptid]

It is hopeless , you refuse to iisten, to open your mind  that  the Hawking Radiation is finally identified

But there is no Hawking Radiation, in the first place!!!  3.1.19

Congratulations, you just contradicted yourself in the same post. You can't say "there is no Hawking radiation" and "Hawking radiation is finally identified" at the same time. Either it exists or it doesn't. Make up your mind,

Trying to impress unto you such discovery has no effect.

Because you made no such discovery. We have known that gas and dust was there a long time before you said anything about it. All you have done is make claims about that gas and dust that you have consistently failed to support. You can't say that it came out of the black hole without providing evidence that it came out of the black hole.

I have respect for Dr. Hawking but he is human and can make mistake.

Then why don't you show where the mistake in his math is? You still haven't done that.

he said something .like this to explain his Hawking radiation… half of the pair of particle? falls to black hole while the other pair falls out into outer space.. Wrong,  There is no such thing. The positive and negative property of matter cannot be divided, all matter has positive and negative unto one!! It should be either the whole  pair goes inside or goes  outside the EH.

It's too bad you think that, because it's provably wrong. Particle pair production has been observed in the laboratory. Photons have been observed transforming in an electron-positron pair: http://www.futura-sciences.us/dico/d/physics-positron-50003398/

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

Quoted: Because you made no such discovery. We have known that gas and dust was there a long time before you said anything about it. All you have done is make claims about that gas and dust that you have consistently failed to support. You can't say that it came out of the black hole without providing evidence that it came out of the black hole.

Jsa: Yes, the gas and dust hav been long seen but have not been identified as originating from supposed black hole.  I have been supporting repeatedly repeatedly but you fail to listen..

Quote: Then why don't you show where the mistake in his math is? You still haven't done that.

Jsa: Show his (Hawking)  math to show his mistake. Here is the mistake: Half pair of particle unto apparent EH and falls to supposed hole while the other half of pair of particle ejects outside of EH, called hawking radiation. Wrong. Positive and negative are inherent property of matter. You cannot separate one from the other, positive and negative unto one inseparable. Call that singularity,. like the center of supposed black hole. No singularity:  Evidence the opposite dual super jets streaming from center of supposed black hole are positive and negative, north pole and south pole, like the sun, like earth!!! 3.1.19

[Kryptid]

Jsa: Yes, the gas and dust hav been long seen but have not been identified as originating from supposed black hole. 

Exactly.

I have been supporting repeatedly repeatedly but you fail to listen..

When did that happen? I don't recall you ever showing that the gas came out of the black hole.

Jsa: Show his (Hawking)  math to show his mistake. Here is the mistake: Half pair of particle unto apparent EH and falls to supposed hole while the other half of pair of particle ejects outside of EH, called hawking radiation. Wrong. Positive and negative are inherent property of matter. You cannot separate one from the other, positive and negative unto one inseparable.

Firstly, that is not an attempt to find an error in his math.

Secondly, I already showed you that exactly such a phenomenon has been observed in the laboratory. It isn't just a guess. It is observed, confirmed science. We know for a fact that electron-positron pairs can be generated and separated.

Call that singularity,

But that isn't the definition of a singularity.

vidence the opposite dual super jets streaming from center of supposed black hole

You haven't demonstrated that they come out of the black hole. Do you plan on actually doing this any time soon?

are positive and negative, north pole and south pole, like the sun, like earth!!! 3.1.19

Positive and negative in what sense?

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

Quoted: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.

jsa: Please explain how these figures are arrived.  3.1.19

[Kryptid]

jsa: Please explain how these figures are arrived.  3.1.19

This section on Wikipedia describes how the equations are derived: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation#Emission_process

These equations are used in a convenient online calculator which allows for speedy calculation using these values: https://www.fabiopacucci.com/resources/black-hole-calculator/. I have already stated the values that I arrived at earlier when putting the known mass of Sagittarius A* (which is about 4,000,000 solar masses) into the calculator. I divided 2.7 kelvins (the temperature of the microwave background of space) by the resulting temperature in order to see how much colder the black hole is than the microwave background of space. I divided 14.1 microwatts (the luminosity of a firefly as stated on this page: https://www.randombio.com/fireflies.html) by the resulting luminosity in order to see how much dimmer the black hole is than a firefly.

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

Quoted: When did that happen? I don't recall you ever showing that the gas came out of the black hole
Jsa: Ask UCLA and many other astronomers who have seen it, dust and gas“ like fountain” ,”gas and dust” ,”coming from black hole and back to black hole, even spring out  STRAIGHT  OUTWARD.”. "Detected a giant object at the center but it is the traditional black hole”. Have you read those comments”..

Quoted: I already showed you that exactly such a phenomenon has been observed in the laboratory. It isn't just a guess. It is observed, confirmed science. We know for a fact that electron-positron pairs can be generated and separated.

Jsa: Wrong, show me  the article and I will show it is fake.

.Quoted:But that isn't the definition of a singularity
.
JSA: Singularity is when positive and negative are one, totally as one, no distinction from one another. Singularity is the signature that center of black hole is totally one, no distinction.? ,. That ejected dual jets of super-galaxy, demonstrates/proves the supposed black hole has positive and negative side, north pole and south pole, like the sun, like earth. Do you know where we can find singularity?

Quoted: Positive and negative in what sense?

Jsa: no comment... 2.28.19

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

Quoted:These equations are used in a convenient online calculator which allows for speedy calculation using these values: https://www.fabiopacucci.com/resources/black-hole-calculator/. I have already stated the values that I arrived at earlier when putting the known mass of Sagittarius A* (which is about 4,000,000 solar masses) into the calculator. I divided 2.7 kelvins (the temperature of the microwave background of space) by the resulting temperature in order to see how much colder the black hole is than the microwave background of space. I divided 14.1 microwatts (the luminosity of a firefly as stated on this page: https://www.randombio.com/fireflies.html) by the resulting luminosity in order to see how much dimmer the black hole is than a firefly

Jsa: Illustration: Which is colder, a black hole the size of earth, or  outer space, of equal size, completely vacuumed of virtual particles? 3.1.19/.

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

Quoted: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.

jsa: Please explain how these figures are arrived.  3.1.19
Jsa: Please explain how black hole with particles closed or lapsing one another could be 20 billion times colder than vacuum space with nothing on it 3.1.19

[Kryptid]

Jsa: Ask UCLA and many other astronomers who have seen it, dust and gas“ like fountain” ,”gas and dust” ,”coming from black hole and back to black hole, even spring out  STRAIGHT  OUTWARD.”.

Show me where they said that it came out of the black hole itself. Coming from the direction of the black hole alone is not enough.

Jsa: Wrong, show me  the article and I will show it is fake.

There are many places you can read about it, actually:

- Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
- A description of how pair production was discovered using a cloud chamber: http://www.cloudylabs.fr/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/1948-Blackett-Nobel-Prize-Lecture.pdf
- An experiment to detect pair production: http://instructor.physics.lsa.umich.edu/adv-labs/Pair_Production/PairProd_writeup_v5.pdf

JSA: Singularity is when positive and negative are one, totally as one, no distinction from one another.

So then you are not talking about a black hole singularity. That is, according to Dictionary.com, "a point at which a function takes an infinite value, especially in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, as at the center of a black hole."

Do you know where we can find singularity?

No one knows for sure. Black holes might not even contain singularities. The type proposed by Einstein had them, but quantum physics suggest that they are very tiny, dense objects, but not infinitely-small singularities.

Jsa: no comment... 2.28.19

If you're not willing to explain what you mean by "positive and negative", then stop using the terminology.

jsa: Please explain how these figures are arrived.  3.1.19

You already said this, and I already did.

Jsa: Please explain how black hole with particles closed or lapsing one another could be 20 billion times colder than vacuum space with nothing on it 3.1.19

Space is not empty. It contains background radiation.

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

Jsa: Positive and negative are inherent property of the universe,  are two sides of the same coin. Has monopole been discovered? None. That is why that electron-positron, supposed to be experimentally separated from one another is wrong. That is why the Hawking Radiation, separating positive from negative,  re-positive to fall to black hole and the negative back to outer space is not supported by the unwritten inherent law of positive and negative .because positive and negative cannot be separated. This is too the law of opposite. Everything in this universe has positive and negative, galaxies, stars, planets have north pole and south pole, Matters, plants, animals, human beings, male and female. EACH, has positive and negative property. right and wrong are opposite but the law of opposite is not inflexible, it is flexible, one  can  be good now, bad next moment but alwlays positive and negative is retained.... .... 3.1.19

[Bored chemist]

That is why that electron-positron, supposed to be experimentally separated from one another is wrong.

People have done this.
So it   is just silly for you to say it is "wrong".

What are you doing on a science web page if you do not believe facts?

[Kryptid]

Has monopole been discovered? None.

Magnetic monopoles haven't been found, but electric monopoles are all over the place. Electrons themselves are one such example.

None. That is why that electron-positron, supposed to be experimentally separated from one another is wrong. That is why the Hawking Radiation, separating positive from negative,  re-positive to fall to black hole and the negative back to outer space is not supported by the unwritten inherent law of positive and negative .because positive and negative cannot be separated. This is too the law of opposite. Everything in this universe has positive and negative, galaxies, stars, planets have north pole and south pole, Matters, plants, animals, human beings, male and female. EACH, has positive and negative property. right and wrong are opposite but the law of opposite is not inflexible, it is flexible, one  can  be good now, bad next moment but alwlays positive and negative is retained.... .... 3.1.19

Firstly, absolutely none of that refutes the findings in the links I posted. It doesn't even address them. Explain what is being detected if not pair production. Secondly, positive and negative charges are separated from each other all the time. It happens whenever you get a static shock from a doorknob. It's also the working principle behind the Van de Graaff generator: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_de_Graaff_generator

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

Jsa: Positive and negative are inherent property of the universe,  are two sides of the same coin. Has monopole been discovered? None. That is why that electron-positron, supposed to be experimentally separated from one another is wrong. That is why the Hawking Radiation, separating positive from negative,  re-positive to fall to black hole and the negative back to outer space is not supported by the unwritten inherent law of positive and negative .because positive and negative cannot be separated. This is too the law of opposite. Everything in this universe has positive and negative, galaxies, stars, planets have north pole and south pole, Matters, plants, animals, human beings, male and female. EACH, has positive and negative property. right and wrong are opposite but the law of opposite is not inflexible, it is flexible, one  can  be good now, bad next moment but alwlays positive and negative is retained.... .... 3.1.19

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

Quoted:: Magnetic monopoles haven't been found, but electric monopoles are all over the place. Electrons themselves are one such example
Jsa: Wrong. Electrons in electrical wires have  two sides: positive and negative, one side positive and the other negative, otherwise the bulb will not light.These two sides are inseparably connected. 3.4.19.

[Kryptid]

Jsa: Positive and negative are inherent property of the universe,  are two sides of the same coin. Has monopole been discovered? None. That is why that electron-positron, supposed to be experimentally separated from one another is wrong. That is why the Hawking Radiation, separating positive from negative,  re-positive to fall to black hole and the negative back to outer space is not supported by the unwritten inherent law of positive and negative .because positive and negative cannot be separated. This is too the law of opposite. Everything in this universe has positive and negative, galaxies, stars, planets have north pole and south pole, Matters, plants, animals, human beings, male and female. EACH, has positive and negative property. right and wrong are opposite but the law of opposite is not inflexible, it is flexible, one  can  be good now, bad next moment but alwlays positive and negative is retained.... .... 3.1.19

All you did was repeat your previous post.

Jsa: Wrong. Electrons in electrical wires have  two sides: positive and negative, one side positive and the other negative, otherwise the bulb will not light.These two sides are inseparably connected. 3.4.19.

The positive and negative terminals in an electrical circuit are not the same thing as the electrons in the wire. Electrons by themselves are negatively-charged, as shown in many experiments. When you rub a balloon on your hair, it gains a net electric charge which allows it to attract other, electrically-polarizable objects like paper. No wires or positive and negative terminals are involved. This clearly demonstrates separation of charge:

Cathode rays (which are beams of electrons) can be proven to have a net negative charge based on the way that they are deflected by magnetic fields:

Since I feel like I'm getting sick, I'm going to be taking my leave from this thread. I don't know if I'll come back or not.

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

Quoted:: Magnetic monopoles haven't been found, but electric monopoles are all over the place. Electrons themselves are one such example

Jsa: Electrons in electrical wires have  two sides: positive and negative, one side positive and the other negative, otherwise the bulb will not light.These two sides are inseparably connected. 3.4.19. Quoted