0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Do you claim that there is no need Negative mass particle, Dark matter, dark energy and many other none realistic ideas as density wave to justify the BBT and the activity of the spiral galaxies in the Universe?
Based on Newton formula I have found that the total mass should be 75 M sun mass.
I already pointed out to you that you are using the radius of the very large cold gas halo and assigning it the estimated speed of the inner edge of the accretion disk, which is much higher than the outer edge of the halo. This is why your calculation of the mass is way off. And this is why I am not bothering with this thread anymore. You are not listening to anyone but yourself.
As I said earlier, if the universe were in fact contracting at the same rate it is now expanding, there would be no change in how stars act. Mass-energy would still be positive, the physics of fusion would still be the same. The expansion of the universe is irrelevant.
It does not matter.You can not explain where the first black hole came from, and you can not explain how the Universe came into being.
Hence, if you agree that a big bang could create so much energy and mass out of nothing, why is it so difficult to you to agree that a bang can create a single BH?
Don't you agree that due to gravity all of that mass should immediately fall in and set the Biggest BH ever created?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 08/08/2020 05:30:13Hence, if you agree that a big bang could create so much energy and mass out of nothing, why is it so difficult to you to agree that a bang can create a single BH?Partly because we actually know how black holes are formed.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 08/08/2020 05:30:13Hence, if you agree that a big bang could create so much energy and mass out of nothing, why is it so difficult to you to agree that a bang can create a single BH?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 08/08/2020 05:30:13Don't you agree that due to gravity all of that mass should immediately fall in and set the Biggest BH ever created?No because of inflation.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 08/08/2020 05:30:13Don't you agree that due to gravity all of that mass should immediately fall in and set the Biggest BH ever created?
If, by act of God or whatever, there was a black hole in the middle of an infinite void we know what would happen.It would evaporate.
So, how can you explain the Billion over billions Supper massive BH in our Universe?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 08/08/2020 12:19:04QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 08/08/2020 05:30:13Hence, if you agree that a big bang could create so much energy and mass out of nothing, why is it so difficult to you to agree that a bang can create a single BH?Partly because we actually know how black holes are formed.So you claim that because you know how the BH is formed than in one theory (let's call it theory B or BBT) a mass which is equivalent to Billions Over Billons Over... BH could be create in a single bang and out of nothing, while in other theory (let's call it theory D) it is absolutely impossible to get even a single BH in a bang.Is it real?What do you know about the BH that could support this unrealistic idea?Quote from: Bored chemist on 08/08/2020 12:19:04QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 08/08/2020 05:30:13Don't you agree that due to gravity all of that mass should immediately fall in and set the Biggest BH ever created?No because of inflation.Based on our scientists, after the inflation the size of the universe was only 10,000LY.So how could it be that by placing the whole mass/energy of the observable Universe including all the Millions over Billions massive galaxies at the size of 1/10 the Milky Way Newton gravity wouldn't force them all to fall in into a SS...SMBH?What Newton would say about it?Quote from: Bored chemist on 08/08/2020 12:19:04If, by act of God or whatever, there was a black hole in the middle of an infinite void we know what would happen.It would evaporate.So, how can you explain the Billion over billions Supper massive BH in our Universe?How could it be that so many BHs that have to be evaporated, could surprisingly increase their mass so dramatically and became SMBHs?
But the real problem is that your idea doesn't work....So the "universe" you have invented doesn't look anything like the real one.
You need to address that.One BH doesn't make a Universe
As an example let's use the evolvement of life on Earth.
If, by act of God or whatever, there was a black hole in the middle of an infinite void we know what would happen.It would evaporate.It would emit particles- mainly photons which would radiate off into the distance, never to be seen again.It would also produce a few particles of matter.But almost all those particles too would have one of two fates they would fall back in, or they would, like the photons, diffuse away into the vacuum.There would be a few particles which ended up in orbit- initially- but the stream of photons would, eventually push them away too.Eventually the black hole would evaporate entirely and leave nothing but a few dregsSo the "universe" you have invented doesn't look anything like the real one.
In the same token, a BH which should be considered as a "living" cell of mass as it has the ability to create new mass.
It has not got the ability to do that. Sadly you don't have the ability to understand the conservation of energy.
However, their velocity is given for free by the Newton gravity force.
So let's agree.Even if you don't like my explanation about the real impact of Newton gravity, as long as you can't answer for the source of energy at the Big bang and how the conservation of energy works there, than you can't reject other theory based on this law.
Well, I have already gave the answer for the conservation of energy for the particle creation process.
Therefore, our scientists claim that the SMBH is a picky eater.Milky Way’s Black Hole a Picky Eater
As I have already explained:There are only positive particles in our Universe!!!
It's amazing that our scientists don't see any in falling matter,
The BBT more or less depends on the idea that the energy came from outside.ONE TIME ONLY.Whereas you are expecting it to happen all the time- but only where you want it to.That's the sort of special pleading that you might as well call "God", and be done with it.
And the cool thing about an orbit is that it's what you get when something "falls in", but misses.So, all the stuff in orbit is, in fact, falling in.
Well, it actually says "If there’s one thing nearly everybody knows about a black hole, it’s that they voraciously gobble up anything and everything that drifts nearby. It’s not true, of course, since they’re powered by nothing more mysterious than gravity, so plenty material falling inwards manages to miss the black hole and gets sling-shotted back into space." which is true.
Trying to pretend that a journalistic headline is a scientific principle is a bit silly.
But you keep missing the big picture.Even if you were right, you would still be wrong.
However, to justify that bypass you call for some help from God.
This is your biggest Mistake!!!There is no possibility for falling in object to increase its ORBITAL velocity while it decreases the eccentricity of the orbital path (in order to set a circular orbit).This is a pure fantasy.
We can't use one error in order to disqualify the whole articale
Well, once we agree that the same law and the same God is applicable for theory D as for theory B, ...
I said that a one time event- more likely a crash of 'branes than- God is plausible.
The BBT more or less depends on the idea that the energy came from outside.ONE TIME ONLY.
Gravity definitely has energy, which means that it modifies gravity force. This is one of the things that makes GR math so nastily non-linear and solving GR problems so hard. Luckily the interaction of gravity energy with other gravity energy is convergent, that is, the end result is finite.
Since the negative energy particle tunnels through the event horizon courtesy of quantum uncertainty, there is no falling involved. The negative energy (negative frequency) of a photon that goes through the black hole accounts for the existence of a real photon outside. In the case of photons, the speed is always lightspeed. Negative mass-energy particles with non-zero negative mass tunneling through the event horizon can account for the existence of a real positive mass-energy particle with positive mass outside. But it does not provide them with kinetic energy.
Energy as a real quantity is not dependent on position. Potential energy and kinetic energy are observer dependent and can change values or even vanish in different reference frames.
The BBT doesn't offer any realistic process of creating that requested energy.
In theory D there is a clear explanation for the source of new energy.