[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:27:40
I have already proved that quasar' jet stream can't be formed from a falling stars.

No, you didn't
You just pointed out that you don't understand that the accretion disk would form around the "average" axis of rotation of the stuff that was falling in.
It also overlooks the obvious fact that the stars that fell in were previously part of the milky way.
Those stars are in orbit round the galaxy. So they are alreadylined up pretty nearly into one plane of rotatio

Sorry, you have a severe mistake.
The Plane of the Milky Way spiral arm disc starts only 3KPC from the SMBH.
As you come closer to the SMBH (from almost zero to 1KPC) there is a bulge.
In this bulge each star orbits at different orbital plane.
Please look at the following image of the S stars:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/left-Orbits-of-individual-stars-near-the-Galactic-center-right-Orbit-of-star-S2_fig1_236456058
Do you see any sort of possibility for "average" axis of rotation of the stuff that was falling in?
So do you confirm that there is no average axis of rotation as Any star should form a unique accretion disc once it falls in (if it falls it)?.
Therefore, you have to agree that your theory of falling star with "average accretion disc" should be set immediately in the garbage of the science history.

However, as you claim again and again: No No No.
Can we at least agree on something?

Let's look on Pulsar/magnetar:
https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/objects/neutron_stars1.html
"This diagram of a pulsar shows the neutron star with a strong magnetic field (field lines shown in blue) and a beam of light along the magnetic axis. As the neutron star spins, the magnetic field spins with it, sweeping that beam through space."
So, can we agree that the magnetic field of a Pulsar is created by the main mass of this object (Neutron star) and not due to the accretion disc?
However, when it comes to BH, you believe that as it must be at a singularity point (or zero space) there is no way for it to rotate and set any sort of magnetic field. Therefore, you are absolutely sure that a BH has no possibility to set any magnetic field. You wish to believe that if we monitor magnetic field, it must be due to the its accretion disc and not due to its main rotatable mass.

Hence, do you agree that based on your understanding BH can't generate Magnetic field ONLY because you assume that they must have zero space/singularity?
So, based on this understanding, "singularity" is the only gate that prevents you to believe that BH can't generate magnetic filed.

However, with regards to KERR BH.
Do you confirm that its magnetic field is due to the rotation of the BH main mass and not due to its accretion disc?
So, how could it be that a Kerr BH couldn't considered as a BH with singularity, while all the other BHs must considered as singularity?
As Kerr BH can't be considered as "singularity" or zero point mass, then do you agree that it must have some minimal space for its mass like Neutron star?
If so, why do we insist to call them "BH" instead of Kerr Neutron star/Pulsar or magnetar?
If one day our scientists will claim that any BH (even if we call it SMBH) has some minimal size for its mass, would you agree that by rotating its core, a BH can generate magnetic field?

[Bored chemist]

So, ratherthan keeping on producing more stuff that's wrong, why not answer this?
It only takes a one line answer.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 29/09/2020 18:10:31
Answer this question
Quote from: Bored chemist on 29/09/2020 08:47:08
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:26:07
Quote from: Bored chemist on 27/09/2020 19:34:08
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:39:22
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:24:55
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/09/2020 16:29:45
OK Dave...
You seem to have missed this one again.


Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:55:08
Now try answering  these questions. You have been ignoring one of them since the start of this thread.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:58:59
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:41:05
Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/09/2020 08:54:25
If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years)  box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth

It's the idea you raised in the first few lines of the first post in this thread.
And you still haven't answered my question about it.

Don't bother coming back until you have answered that.

[Bored chemist]

So, how could it be that a Kerr BH couldn't considered as a BH with singularity, while all the other BHs must considered as singularity?

In one case, the singularity is ring shaped.
Did you not understand that?

[Bored chemist]

Do you confirm that its magnetic field is due to the rotation of the BH main mass and not due to its accretion disc?

It won't have a magnetic field unless it is charged, and it won't stay charged for long.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 12:37:45
Do you confirm that its magnetic field is due to the rotation of the BH main mass and not due to its accretion disc?

It won't have a magnetic field unless it is charged,, and it won't stay charged for long.

Thanks
Why is it so difficult for you to give a positive answer as:
Yes, it will have a magnetic field as long as it is charged, and it won't stay charged for long.

In any case, at least we agree on something.

It won't have a magnetic field unless it is charged.

So, you confirm that rotatable object as BH or Neutron star can generate Magnetic field.
It is quite clear that without strong internal current, there will be no magnetic filed.
Therefore, I fully agree with you that as long as the object rotates it charges itself and generates high internal current which is the based for its magnetic filed.

and it won't stay charged for long.

The magnetic field will stay as long as it rotates and charges itself.

So, how could it be that a Kerr BH couldn't considered as a BH with singularity, while all the other BHs must considered as singularity?

In one case, the singularity is ring shaped.
Did you not understand that?

Well, there is no singularity in our Universe.
Did you not understand that?

As you clearly didn't, let me try to convince you with the following article
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328944131_Are_Black_Holes_Actually_Quark_Stars
"A contradiction exists between the gravitational singularity at the center of a black hole predicted by general relativity and the Pauli exclusion principle. General relativity theory asserts that collapsing stars over a certain size mass have no stable orbits and will become a gravitational singularity forming a "black hole," having finite mass within a point sized space inside an event horizon. On the other hand, the Pauli-exclusion principle predicts that for large collapsing stars, a quark-gluon plasma will be created to form a quark star at the central core inside an event horizon. Accordingly, the exclusion principle will preclude the collapse of a star into a gravitational singu-larity at the center of a black hole. A number of arguments in support of the quark star as black hole will be presented in this paper. It has been shown that the gravitational energy of a collapsed star (>3M), near the core of a quark star, exceeds the energy to create a quark-gluon plasma and the deconfinement energy of quarks from the neutron. It has also been shown that, instead of a black hole, a degenerate nonstrange quark star with a maximum density of 1.1 Â 10 25 kg/m 3 could exist at the center of an event horizon within the Schwarzschild radius. The quark star core would be an ultrarelativistic degenerate Fermi gas that is stable for masses from 3M to 20.69 Â 10 6 M. Calculations have also shown for stellar and rotating black holes that the quark star radius exists at the center and well within the radius of the Schwarzschild event horizon. However, the exclusion principle would preclude the formation of a gravitational singularity at the center. The problem for empirical science is that the quark star with an event horizon will have no emission of radiation and appear to observers to be similar to a black hole. Notwithstanding, the merger of two black holes for GW150914, producing gravitational waves, offers empirical evidence in the remnant event horizon for the existence of quark stars. "
So, our scientists confirm that the Idea of singularity is clearly incorrect.
They claim that as Neutron star would collapse at mass over than 3 Sun mass, it should form a Quark star.
It is the first time that I read this name.
Hence, a BH with Quark core could still be considered as a BH while it has no singularity.
Therefore, a Kerr BH has no singularity in ring shaped.
It must have a real size core as Quark star/core.
It's the time for you to abandon the idea of singularity as there is no singularity in our UNIVERSE.
It was clearly stated in any article which deals with real science that - There is no room for singularity due to Quantum Mechanics.
Any scientist must know it and even Einstein Knew it.
So, we all have to agree that the idea of singularity due to general relativity is absolutely wrong as this theory can't be used for very small scale. For this scale we have to use QM which fully contradicts the idea of singularity.
If you still refuse to agree with that, than you refuse to accept real science.

[Bored chemist]

So, ratherthan keeping on producing more stuff that's wrong, why not answer this?
It only takes a one line answer.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 29/09/2020 18:10:31
Answer this question
Quote from: Bored chemist on 29/09/2020 08:47:08
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:26:07
Quote from: Bored chemist on 27/09/2020 19:34:08
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:39:22
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:24:55
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/09/2020 16:29:45
OK Dave...
You seem to have missed this one again.


Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:55:08
Now try answering  these questions. You have been ignoring one of them since the start of this thread.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:58:59
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:41:05
Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/09/2020 08:54:25
If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years)  box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth

It's the idea you raised in the first few lines of the first post in this thread.
And you still haven't answered my question about it.

Don't bother coming back until you have answered that.

[Bored chemist]

It is the first time that I read this name.

Thanks for confirming that you do not know what you are talking about.

[alancalverd]

Just a note in passing

A neutron has a magnetic moment but no charge.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

It is the first time that I read this name.

Thanks for confirming that you do not know what you are talking about.

Do you mean that during our long discussion about neutron star you knew that it could/should collapse to Quark Star?
If so, why you didn't mention it?
How could you claim that neutron star should collapse directly to singularity while you are fully aware about that quark star?
How can I trust your answers/messages while you do whatever it takes to confuse me, hide important information and even lie to me?

[Bored chemist]

So, ratherthan keeping on producing more stuff that's wrong, why not answer this?
It only takes a one line answer.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 29/09/2020 18:10:31
Answer this question
Quote from: Bored chemist on 29/09/2020 08:47:08
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:26:07
Quote from: Bored chemist on 27/09/2020 19:34:08
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:39:22
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:24:55
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/09/2020 16:29:45
OK Dave...
You seem to have missed this one again.


Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:55:08
Now try answering  these questions. You have been ignoring one of them since the start of this thread.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:58:59
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:41:05
Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/09/2020 08:54:25
If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years)  box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth

It's the idea you raised in the first few lines of the first post in this thread.
And you still haven't answered my question about it.

Don't bother coming back until you have answered that.

[Bored chemist]

How can I trust your answers/messages while you do whatever it takes to confuse me, hide important information and even lie to me?

You are hiding information; answer the question.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Just a note in passing
A neutron has a magnetic moment but no charge.

Thanks for this important information.
Do you mean that Neutron star could generate magnetic field without any need to be charged?

[Bored chemist]

If so, why you didn't mention it?

You are claiming to know more about physics than everybody else. Why should we assume that you don't know stuff?

hide important information

Don't be silly, it's not "hidden"
It's on wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_star

even lie to me?

Got evidence of that?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

It seems to me that I have found the source for the singularity error in General relativity formula.

Please look at the following starting formula for general relativity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_of_general_relativity
"spacetime is assumed to be four-dimensional, each index on a tensor can be one of four values. Hence, the total number of elements a tensor possesses equals 4R, where R is the count of the number of covariant {\displaystyle (b_{i})}(b_{i}) and contravariant {\displaystyle (a_{i})}(a_{i}) indices on the tensor, {\displaystyle r+s}{\displaystyle r+s} (a number called the rank of the tensor)."
Then it is stated:
"Some physical quantities are represented by tensors not all of whose components are independent. Important examples of such tensors include symmetric and antisymmetric tensors. Antisymmetric tensors are commonly used to represent rotations (for example, the vorticity tensor).

Although a generic rank R tensor in 4 dimensions has 4R components, constraints on the tensor such as symmetry or antisymmetry serve to reduce the number of distinct components. For example, a symmetric rank two tensor and possesses 10 independent components, whereas an antisymmetric (skew-symmetric) rank two tensor and has 6 independent components. For ranks greater than two, the symmetric or antisymmetric index pairs must be explicitly identified.

Antisymmetric tensors of rank 2 play important roles in relativity theory. The set of all such tensors - often called bivectors - forms a vector space of dimension 6, sometimes called bivector space."


So, first they use the "rank R tensor in 4 dimensions" so it  "has 4R components
Why in some vectors they claim for 6 or 10 components/dimension?
The question is can we use it at higher dimension? So did we give up on some components/dimension?
Then it is stated: "as symmetry or antisymmetry serve to reduce the number of distinct components"
Could it be that those symmetry or antisymmetry components are not fully identical up to the infinity?

So, my impression is that they have give up on some components that have very minor impact on the whole formula.
Therefore, it has almost no negative impact on large scale.
That leads to the excellent formula of general relativity.
However, as we use that formula at very small scale the impact on the missing components are very critical.
Therefore, the outcome in the mathematics is singularity.
I'm quite sure that if we will add all the missing components we won't get any singularity at a very small scale as there is no error in the mathematics.
Conclusion - the singularity that we get from general relativity is based on the missing  components. Therefore, this formula shouldn't be used in small scale.
Hence, there is no room for singularity in our real life.
We must use QM at that scale which fully contradicts the idea of singularity.

[Bored chemist]

So, ratherthan keeping on producing more stuff that's wrong, why not answer this?
It only takes a one line answer.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 29/09/2020 18:10:31
Answer this question
Quote from: Bored chemist on 29/09/2020 08:47:08
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:26:07
Quote from: Bored chemist on 27/09/2020 19:34:08
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:39:22
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:24:55
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/09/2020 16:29:45
OK Dave...
You seem to have missed this one again.


Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:55:08
Now try answering  these questions. You have been ignoring one of them since the start of this thread.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:58:59
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:41:05
Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/09/2020 08:54:25
If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years)  box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth

It's the idea you raised in the first few lines of the first post in this thread.
And you still haven't answered my question about it.

Don't bother coming back until you have answered that.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years)  box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth

Ok
I have no problem to answer any question.
However, as you wish to change the subject of our discussion, let's summarize the following:

1. There is/was no singularity in our Universe. Not in any BH and not in the Big Bang moment.
2. Any BH has minimal physical size. If it rotates, it can surly generate magnetic field around it.
3. Any radiation or gas flow from a Neutron star/BH/SMBH/Quasar is ONLY due to its magnetic field. A BH without the ability to generate magnetic field, won't generate any sort of radiation.
4. There is no negative mass in our Universe. Therefore, the idea of hawking radiation that should evaporate a BH should be set at the garbage of the science history.
5. The accretion disc is affected by the main mass magnetic field and not the other way.
6. There is also no Curvature in space in our real Universe - Based on the explanation that I have offered about the missing components in general relativity which leads our scientists to a fatal error of singularity (at the infinity small scale), the same idea of missing components leads our scientists to the error of curvature in space.

Once we agree with all the above, let's shift gear to your question:
I have stated that the Universe is infinite in its size and in its age. The CMBR is the outcome of the radiation of that infinite Universe.
I have explained that infinite universe acts as infinite Oven.
Theoretically, we could divide that infinite Universe to infinite sections each at a size cube of 100 billion light years  or even 100M LY.
We could set some imaginary walls around each cube in order to convert it to an "opaque and non-reflective object".
http://astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB.html
"A blackbody spectrum is produced by an isothermal, opaque and non-reflecting object. Usually a cavity with a small hole is used in the laboratory to make an opaque and non-reflective object. Radiation that enters the cavity through the hole will have to bounce off many walls before it returns to the outside, so even if the walls are only somewhat dark, the hole will appear to be completely black. The diagram at right shows such a cavity, with the blue incoming ray being absorbed completely while the red rays show the outgoing thermal radiation. A simple gedanken experiment shows that the spectrum emitted by a blackbody can only depend on its temperature T."
So, each cube' radiation would be black body and its temp would be as follow:
"The graph above shows the measured brightness temperature TB of the CMB at many different wavelengths. Clearly TB = 2.725 K is consistent with all the data within the statistical scatter expected for the stated errors."

As we take out the imaginary walls from the infinite cubes in that infinite Universe, we would still get exactly the same CMBR.

I hope that you have got the requested answer.

[Bored chemist]

However, as you wish to change the subject of our discussion, let's summarize the following:

I am not trying to change the subject.

It does not make sense to wait until we agree all that nonsense, because  we never will.
It's a whole lot of baseless assertions.

I have stated that the Universe is infinite in its size and in its age. The CMBR is the outcome of the radiation of that infinite Universe.

You have made that incorrect statement before.
That's my point.

Theoretically, we could divide that infinite Universe to infinite sections each at a size cube of 100 billion light years  or even 100M LY.

Then we wouldn't really be looking at the same thing but... never mind.

As we take out the imaginary walls from the infinite cubes in that infinite Universe, we would still get exactly the same CMBR.

Finally.
You have admitted that you were wrong.
It only took six months or so

You said this

The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size.

And now you finally admit that, if we were inside a big box with cold walls the CMBR would look exactly the same.

So the CMBR is not proof that the universe is infinite.

We can now move on to the second line in your idea.

Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age.

OK, do you realise that, this statement
(1) is a non sequitur and
(2) is based on the false premise of your first statement and therefore can not be relied on?

[Bored chemist]

Incidentally, you should probably hurry up a bit.
At the rate of 6 months per line for you to realise that you are wrong, it will take decades to get through the whole of your non- theory.
I'm patient enough, but unlikely to live that long.

Just a hint: it might be better if you don't need to be asked the same question a dozen times before you answer it.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on 18/03/2020 19:21:42
The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size.

And now you finally admit that, if we were inside a big box with cold walls the CMBR would look exactly the same.
So the CMBR is not proof that the universe is infinite.

No, you didn't understand my explanation.
The CMBH is a solid proof that the Universe must be infinite.
Please read it again:

Theoretically, we could divide that infinite Universe to infinite sections each at a size cube of 100 billion light years  or even 100M LY.
We could set some imaginary walls around each cube in order to convert it to an "opaque and non-reflective object".

So, we all can agree that in an "opaque and non-reflective object" cube the radiation must be black body.
However, in order to keep that Black body radiation the Universe MUST be INFINITE as explained:

As we take out the imaginary walls from the infinite cubes in that infinite Universe, we would still get exactly the same CMBR.

If the Universe was finite, then by taking out the imaginary walls from the finite cubes in finite Universe the radiation would change dramatically.
Therefore, the blackbody radiation could only exists in an INFINITE universe.

Quote from: Dave Lev on 18/03/2020 19:21:42
Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age.

OK, do you realise that, this statement
(1) is a non sequitur and
(2) is based on the false premise of your first statement and therefore can not be relied on?

You have one more error.
As the Universe is infinite, an infinite time/age is needed to set that kind of Universe.

[Bored chemist]

The CMBH is a solid proof that the Universe must be infinite.

No
Because there are other circumstances- like being inside a large but finite cold box where the CMBR would be exactly the same.
You already said this.

As we take out the imaginary walls from the infinite cubes in that infinite Universe, we would still get exactly the same CMBR.

It's going to take even longer to sort this if you insist on arguing with yourself.