[jsaldea12 (OP)]

Quoted: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:

Jsa: It is direction that makes it positive or negative. Cathode rays are negative direction from negative to positive. Here is a  clearer illustration: cut and cut a bar magnet with positive and negative sides into smaller slices. Note that each cut slices SELF-SUBDIVIDES into positive and negative, makes no difference whether the cut smaller slices is on positive side or negative side of the bar magnet. Can you follow? SELF-SUBDIVIDES 3.4.19

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

Quoted: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:

Jsa: It is direction that makes it positive or negative. Cathode rays are negative direction from negative to positive. Here is a  clearer illustration: cut and cut a bar magnet with positive and negative sides into smaller slices. Note that each cut slices SELF-SUBDIVIDES into positive and negative, makes no difference whether the cut smaller slices is on positive side or negative side of the bar magnet. Can you follow? 3.4.19

[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: Reiterating how these figures that the Hawking radiation is 20 trillion times colder than vacuum of space, even considering presence of CMBR is taking into account (actually it is not CMBR but the electro-magnetic fabric of spacetime.  CMBR is gone, cannot last 13 billion years. PLEAS E FURNISH FIGURES TO ARRIVE AT THAT 20 TRILLION. 3.1.19

[Bored chemist]

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.

Did you ever study science in school?

[Bored chemist]

PLEAS E FURNISH FIGURES TO ARRIVE AT THAT 20 TRILLION

Not only did he already supply those figures, but you quoted him doing so.

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

Do you not understand?

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

Jsa: It is direction that makes it positive or negative. Cathode rays are negative direction from negative to positive. Here is a  clearer illustration: cut and cut a bar magnet with positive and negative sides into smaller slices. Note that each cut slices SELF-SUBDIVIDES into positive and negative, makes no difference whether the cut smaller slices is on positive side or negative side of the bar magnet. Can you follow? 3.4.19

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: Reiterating how these figures that the Hawking radiation is 20 trillion times colder than vacuum of space, even considering presence of CMBR is taking into account (actually it is not CMBR but the electro-magnetic fabric of spacetime.  CMBR is gone, cannot last 13 billion years. PLEAS E FURNISH FIGURES TO ARRIVE AT THAT 20 TRILLION. 3.1.19

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

THIS IS VERY SIGNIFICANT PLEASE RESPOND
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: Reiterating how these figures that the Hawking radiation is 20 trillion times colder than vacuum of space, even considering presence of CMBR is taking into account (actually it is not CMBR but the electro-magnetic fabric of spacetime.  CMBR, black body radiation, is gone, cannot last 13 billion years. PLEAS E FURNISH FIGURES TO ARRIVE AT THAT 20 TRILLION. 3.1.19

[Bored chemist]

Can you really not do simple arithmetic?
You only have to divide one number by another.
The temperature of "space" is the cosmic microwave background- it's about 2.725 K
(It exists- we can measure it.
It doesn't matter that you don't like it, because it is still real.)

And the temperature of the Hawking radiation  is about 1.5 x 10^-14 kelvins
So, dividing about 3 by about 1.5 x 10^-14
Gives 200,000,000,000,000
(It looks like one of us has miscounted the zeroes, but it hardly matters if you are wrong by a factor of 20 trillion, or 200)

[Bored chemist]

Do you know what  "1.5 x 10^-14" means?

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

Jsa: It is direction that makes it positive or negative. Cathode rays are negative direction from negative to positive. Here is a  clearer illustration: cut and cut a bar magnet with positive and negative sides into smaller slices. Note that each cut slices SELF-SUBDIVIDES into positive and negative, makes no difference whether the cut smaller slices is on positive side or negative side of the bar magnet. Can you follow? 3.4.19

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: Reiterating how these figures that the Hawking radiation is 20 trillion times colder than vacuum of space, even considering presence of CMBR is taking into account (actually it is not CMBR but the electro-magnetic fabric of spacetime.  CMBR is gone, cannot last 13 billion years. PLEAS E FURNISH FIGURES TO ARRIVE AT THAT 20 TRILLION. 3.1.19

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

Quote: Do you know what  "1.5 x 10-14" means?
jsa: Is that correct? 20 trillion times  colder than vacuum space? Something is not right. There is a break down in the equation, that 20 trillion is too much a  mistake. Do you know why? 3.5.19.

[Kryptid]

Jsa: It is direction that makes it positive or negative. Cathode rays are negative direction from negative to positive. Here is a  clearer illustration: cut and cut a bar magnet with positive and negative sides into smaller slices. Note that each cut slices SELF-SUBDIVIDES into positive and negative, makes no difference whether the cut smaller slices is on positive side or negative side of the bar magnet. Can you follow? 3.4.19

What is true of a magnet is not necessarily true of other physical phenomena. If you understood electromagnetism, you would know why cutting a magnet in half produces two smaller magnets and you would also understand why that same principle is not true of electrical charges.

I see that you listed “male and female” as examples of your “law of opposite”. There are animals which have females but no males. They reproduce by cloning themselves (it’s called parthenogenesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis). So there is another example of your so-called “law” being violated.

jsa: Reiterating how these figures that the Hawking radiation is 20 trillion times colder than vacuum of space, even considering presence of CMBR is taking into account (actually it is not CMBR but the electro-magnetic fabric of spacetime.  CMBR is gone, cannot last 13 billion years. PLEAS E FURNISH FIGURES TO ARRIVE AT THAT 20 TRILLION. 3.1.19

You want me to do it the hard way? Alright, I’ll do it the hard way. Here is the equation that was derived to calculate the temperature of the Hawking radiation of a black hole:

T = (ħc³)/(8πGMk_B), where:

“T” is the temperature in kelvins
“ħ” is the reduced Planck constant (1.0545718 x 10^-34 J⋅s)
“c” is the speed of light (299,792,458 m/s)
“G” is the gravitational constant (6.674 x 10^-11 m³⋅kg^-1⋅s^-2)
“M” is the mass of the black hole (in kilograms)
“k_B” is the Boltzmann constant (1.38064852 x 10^-23 J⋅K^-1)

Since Sagittarius A* has a mass of around 4 x 10⁶ solar masses, and the Sun has a mass of 1.9885 x 10³⁰ kg, that would give Sagittarius A* a mass of (4 x 10⁶)(1.9885 x 10³⁰) = 7.954 x 10³⁶ kg. So now that we have all of the values we need, I’ll put them into the equation and find out the temperature contribution from the Hawking radiation:

T = (ħc³)/(8πGMk_B)
T = ((1.0545718 x 10^-34)(299,792,458)³)/(8π(6.674 x 10^-11)(7.954 x 10³⁶)(1.38064852 x 10^-23))
T = ((1.0545718 x 10^-34)(2.6944 x 10²⁵))/(25.132741(5.3084996 x 10²⁶)(1.38064852 x 10^-23))
T = (2.84143825792 x 10^-9)/(25.132741(7,329.172116))
T = (2.84143825792 x 10^-9)/(184,202.1845)
T = 1.54256 x 10^-14 kelvins

Since the microwave background is at 2.725 kelvins, then (2.725)/(1.54256 x 10^-14) = 1.766544 x 10¹⁴. That makes the Hawking radiation about 1.766544 x 10¹⁴ times colder than the background of space (these calculations are a little more precise than my earlier ones).

So that is a calculation for the temperature contribution from Hawking radiation. That is not the actual temperature at the event horizon itself. The microwave background and inflowing gas and dust would obviously contribute to the overall temperature as well. This calculation is simply a value for how much of the temperature comes from the Hawking radiation specifically.

[Bored chemist]

Something is not right.

Yes.
The thing that is not right is you.

Do you know what  "1.5 x 10^-14" means?

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

PLEASE  DO NOT DELETE:
Jsa: Kryptid asked? Show us where the error in math? It is direction that makes it positive or negative. Cathode rays are negative direction from negative to positive. Here is a  clearer illustration: cut and cut a bar magnet with positive and negative sides into smaller slices. Note that each cut slices SELF-SUBDIVIDES into positive and negative, makes no difference whether the cut smaller slices is on positive side or negative side of the bar magnet. Can you follow? 3.4.19

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: Reiterating how these figures that the Hawking radiation is 20 trillion times colder than vacuum of space, even considering presence of CMBR is taking into account (actually it is not CMBR but the electro-magnetic fabric of spacetime.  CMBR is gone, cannot last 13 billion years. PLEAS E FURNISH FIGURES TO ARRIVE AT THAT 20 TRILLION. IS THAT CORRECT; 20 TRILLION TIMES COLDER THAN SPACE??? 3.1.19

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

Quoted:You want me to do it the hard way? Alright, I’ll do it the hard way. Here is the equation that was derived to calculate the temperature of the Hawking radiation of a black hole:
Since Sagittarius A* has a mass of around 4 x 106 solar masses, and the Sun has a mass of 1.9885 x 1030 kg, that would give Sagittarius A* a mass of (4 x 106)(1.9885 x 1030) = 7.954 x 1036 kg. So now that we have all of the values we need, I’ll put them into the equation and find out the temperature contribution from the Hawking radiation:
T = (ħc3)/(8πGMkB)
T = ((1.0545718 x 10-34)(299,792,458)3)/(8π(6.674 x 10-11)(7.954 x 1036)(1.38064852 x 10-23))
T = ((1.0545718 x 10-34)(2.6944 x 1025))/(25.132741(5.3084996 x 1026)(1.38064852 x 10-23))
T = (2.84143825792 x 10-9)/(25.132741(7,329.172116))
T = (2.84143825792 x 10-9)/(184,202.1845)
T = 1.54256 x 10-14 kelvins
Since the microwave background is at 2.725 kelvins, then (2.725)/(1.54256 x 10-14) = 1.766544 x 1014. That makes the Hawking radiation about 1.766544 x 1014 times colder than the background of space (these calculations are a little more precise than my earlier ones).
 
jsa response: Sometimes common sense makes more sense. Do you mean to tell me that Hawking Radiation has temperature of 20,000,000,000 times COLDER THAN vacuum space. I thought there is only ONE ABSOLUTE ZERO TEMPERATURE KELVIN. But with that 20 billion TIMES, it implicates there are many absolute zero Kelvins. Thus it simply means   20 trillion times ABOV E ONE ABSOLUTE ZERO KELVIN OR - 273.15 CELSIUS.. 
Jsa:  Virtual particles that pops out and pop back to vacuum  due to vacuum fluctuation are real particle with indivisible  positive and negative property. Proof: read next paragraph. 3.6.19
Jsa: Cosmic micro background radiation (CMBR) has long been over, it cannot last for 13 billion years. What is forever in outer space is the all encompassing  fabric of spacetime, that is creating that background radiation; with positive and negative property, with indivisible positive and negative property, without which there is no radio, TV, internet..3.6.19

[Kryptid]

PLEASE  DO NOT DELETE:

Again, why do you keep saying that? No one is deleting your posts.

It is direction that makes it positive or negative. Cathode rays are negative direction from negative to positive. Here is a  clearer illustration: cut and cut a bar magnet with positive and negative sides into smaller slices. Note that each cut slices SELF-SUBDIVIDES into positive and negative, makes no difference whether the cut smaller slices is on positive side or negative side of the bar magnet. Can you follow? 3.4.19

You already said this and I already addressed it.

jsa: Reiterating how these figures that the Hawking radiation is 20 trillion times colder than vacuum of space, even considering presence of CMBR is taking into account (actually it is not CMBR but the electro-magnetic fabric of spacetime.  CMBR is gone, cannot last 13 billion years. PLEAS E FURNISH FIGURES TO ARRIVE AT THAT 20 TRILLION. IS THAT CORRECT; 20 TRILLION TIMES COLDER THAN SPACE??? 3.1.19

Did you not even read reply #71?

Sometimes common sense makes more sense.

If common sense contradicts math, then common sense is wrong. I'm still waiting for you to show the error in the math.

Do you mean to tell me that Hawking Radiation has temperature of 20,000,000,000 times COLDER THAN vacuum space. I thought there is only ONE ABSOLUTE ZERO TEMPERATURE KELVIN. But with that 20 billion TIMES, it implicates there are many absolute zero Kelvins. Thus it simply means   20 trillion times ABOV E ONE ABSOLUTE ZERO KELVIN OR - 273.15 CELSIUS.. 

You are straw-manning my argument. At no point in time did I say that Hawking radiation is colder than absolute zero or a perfect vacuum. Outer space is neither a perfect vacuum nor at absolute zero. It has a measurable temperature of 2.7 kelvins.

Virtual particles that pops out and pop back to vacuum  due to vacuum fluctuation are real particle with indivisible  positive and negative property. Proof: read next paragraph. 3.6.19

You never provided proof.

Jsa: Cosmic micro background radiation (CMBR) has long been over, it cannot last for 13 billion years.

Conservation of energy guarantees that it is still there. Energy can't be destroyed.

[jsaldea12 (OP)]

jsa: Please show my subsequent postings. Thank you. 3.12.19

[Kryptid]

jsa: Please show my subsequent postings. Thank you. 3.12.19

What are you talking about?