0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Did you completely miss this quote of mine?Quote The Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter (MOLA) instrument on the Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft has observed 15 transits of the shadow of Phobos across the surface of Mars, and has directly measured the range to Phobos on one occasion. The observed positions of Phobos and its shadow are in good agreement with predictions from orbital motion models derived from observations made prior to 1990, with the notable exception that Phobos is gradually getting ahead of its predicted location. This effect makes the shadow appear at a given location earlier than predicted, and the discrepancy is growing by an amount which averages 0.8 s/yr.Phobos' orbital period is getting shorter every year. We know this because the shadow has been observed to move further and further ahead of schedule. It takes less time for the shadow to reach the same spot every year. That is a direct observation.
You are unteachable. I give up.
The velocity of an object in a decaying orbit will increase. It will spiral into the central mass. Please stop making yourself look foolish.
Actually, if you really monitor all the planets and moons in the whole Universe (Billion over billion moons & planets), you won't find even one that is drifting inwards while it is also increasing its orbital velocity in that process.
Actually not all the moon's move away. Phobos orbits close enough to Mars to be spiraling in, There are outer moons of all the gas giants that orbit retrograde and thus spiral in.
Actually, if you really monitor all the planets and moons in the whole Universe (Billion over billion moons & planets), you won't find even one that is drifting inwards
However, there was one unusual case where astronomers were able to measure the orbital period with millisecond accuracy- And they found that there was an inwards spiral- This discovery was awarded a Nobel Prize in 1993See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulse%E2%80%93Taylor_binary
In the following article it is stated:https://www.urban-astronomer.com/news-and-updates/milky-ways-black-hole-a-picky-eater/"astronomers studying Sgr A* (the supermassive black hole at the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy) were surprised to notice that less than 1% of the gas and dust drawn into its gravitational field ever get consumed – almost everything else gets ejected."
That 1%, if accurate, refers to its current dormant state of barely sipping any new mass in at all. You dump a huge cloud in like that, a lot more than 1% falls into the black hole.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 21/12/2019 07:56:53Few years ago, our scientists were positively sure that they are going to see fireworks as S2 is going to collide with the SMBH.They even verify that S2 and the SMBH were in the same direct view line from us.Unfortunately for them and for you, there were no fireworks and no collision.S2 had passed very close to the SMBH without setting any sort of effect on the Accretion disc or on itself.Link please, because I've heard no such thing. Cannot comment on things made up.For S2 and Sgr-A to line up in our view, we'd have to cross the plane of S2's orbit, and that only happens every 100M years or so. It's called an eclipse when it happens and nobody expects collisions from an eclipse.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 21/12/2019 07:56:53Few years ago, our scientists were positively sure that they are going to see fireworks as S2 is going to collide with the SMBH.They even verify that S2 and the SMBH were in the same direct view line from us.Unfortunately for them and for you, there were no fireworks and no collision.S2 had passed very close to the SMBH without setting any sort of effect on the Accretion disc or on itself.
If 1.022 MeV of rotational kinetic energy is extracted from the hole in order to produce a positron-electron pair, then the black hole can only get 0.511 MeV of that energy back by consuming one of the particles. It would only get back half of the energy that it expended.Any method you use to try to get a system to create net energy is a violation of the first law of thermodynamics. You might as well stop trying.
Even if you do have a valid way of getting a black hole to produce matter and eject it the way you want it to, that still ignores the fact that a black hole cannot generate unlimited mass-energy. The mechanisms are irrelevant. The specifics are unimportant. The first law of thermodynamics simply won't let your model work. No amount of figuring will allow you to get more mass-energy out of the black hole than was there to begin with. Doing so would violate the first law by definition.