[Bored chemist]

I'm sorry that you can't see that the Doppler shift would be different falling in than coming out.
And it's a pity that you don't understand that, if they made the measurements accurately enough to say that the doppler broadening (which is a measure of temperature, not absolute motion) is small, then they can measure the absolute Doppler shifts accurately.
And I guess somehow, you just can't get the idea that, if they found an anomalous Doppler shift which indicated material coming our way, they would publish it and claim their Nobel prize.


But, could you explain this?

Now, please explain why you called me a liar for telling the truth.
Don't try to blame some mysterious "others" who don't exist..

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I'm sorry that you can't see that the Doppler shift would be different falling in than coming out.

Yes that is clear.
However, they have stated that:

https://www.space.com/spaghettified-star-observed-near-black-hole
"They are NOT broadened by the Doppler effect".

Therefore, there is no Doppler shift.
Without that observation we can't know for sure if the matter is falling in or out.
Hence, your falling statement is just incorrect:

Actually it is stated with:
"The authors of the current study, however, claim that the material they were looking at wasn't part of the accretion disk. "

So it's the stuff that's falling in.
If it was coming out there would be a Doppler shift due to that motion.
As you say; they didn't find it.
Because it's not coming out.

Sorry if it was falling in there would be a Doppler shift due to that motion.
So, in any direction we must get a Doppler shift (however while one is red shifted, the other one might is blue-shifted).
Therefore, as they can't verify if that matter is moving in or out than it is a severe mistake to assume that this matter is falling in.
There is a possibility that this matter (which is not part of the accretion disc) had been ejected from the accretion disc.

And it's a pity that you don't understand that, if they made the measurements accurately enough to say that the doppler broadening (which is a measure of temperature, not absolute motion) is small, then they can measure the absolute Doppler shifts accurately.

It's a pity that you still don't understand the real meaning of:
"They are NOT broadened by the Doppler effect".

And I guess somehow, you just can't get the idea that, if they found an anomalous Doppler shift which indicated material coming our way, they would publish it and claim their Nobel prize.

Actually, our scientists clearly observe the constant UFO which indicates that the matter in the M87 accretion disc is coming out. So, the Nobel prize could be given to those scientists that have observed the UFO at M87 and to those scientists that have been observed to the magnetic molecular jet stream that is ejected from the MW accretion disc and almost any SMBH' accretion disc in the universe.
It's a pity that you and all our science community don't wish to accept the observations as they are.
It's a pity that you and all our science community which to force the accretion disc to eat its food from outside while even one tiny particle isn't falling in from outside.

Now, please explain why you called me a liar for telling the truth.
Don't try to blame some mysterious "others" who don't exist..

Well, as you insist to deal with lies then:
You have totally failed to prove by real observation as Doppler shift that matter is falling into the accretion disc.
Therefore, any scientist who claims that matter falls into the SMBH accretion disc from outside without real observation for that is liar.
If you wish to support this lie then you are part of those liars gang.

[Bored chemist]

Well, as you insist to deal with lies then:

I don't.
But you called me a liar for telling the truth and then, when I called you out on it you lied again by saying it was because of some "they" who lied- but there was nobody else involved.

Therefore, there is no Doppler shift.

You don't understand this, do you?
Broadened is not the same as shifted.
shift vs broad.jpg (28.72 kB . 837x583 - viewed 2977 times)

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 11:14:29
Therefore, there is no Doppler shift.

You don't understand this, do you?
Broadened is not the same as shifted.

Sorry, do you really think that you can band the observation or (no observation) according to your wish?
We wish to understand the real meaning of "NOT broadened by the Doppler effect":

https://www.space.com/spaghettified-star-observed-near-black-hole
"They are NOT broadened by the Doppler effect".

So first let's understand the meaning of
Doppler broadening
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_broadening
"In atomic physics, Doppler broadening is the broadening of spectral lines due to the Doppler effect caused by a distribution of velocities of atoms or molecules. Different velocities of the emitting particles result in different Doppler shifts, the cumulative effect of which is the line broadening.[1] This resulting line profile is known as a Doppler profile. A particular case is the thermal Doppler broadening due to the thermal motion of the particles. Then, the broadening depends only on the frequency of the spectral line, the mass of the emitting particles, and their temperature, and therefore can be used for inferring the temperature of an emitting body."
It is also stated:
"Derivation
"When thermal motion causes a particle to move towards the observer, the emitted radiation will be shifted to a higher frequency. Likewise, when the emitter moves away, the frequency will be lowered."
Based on that let's read again the whole message from our scientists:
https://www.space.com/spaghettified-star-observed-near-black-hole
"The absorption lines are narrow," said Giacomo Cannizzaro, the lead author of the paper. "They are not broadened by the Doppler effect, like you'd expect when you would be looking at a rotating disk."
The Doppler effect, caused by the fast motion of the material in the accretion disk, stretches or shrinks the electromagnetic waves depending on whether the source is moving towards or away from the observer. As a result, the light emitted by the part of the accretion disk that is moving away from Earth would be brighter. But the scientists saw no evidence of that.
So, The Doppler effect, caused by the fast motion of the material in the accretion disk, stretches or shrinks the electromagnetic waves depending on whether the source is moving towards or away from the observer.
Therefore, it is expected that the light emitted by the part of the accretion disk that is moving away from Earth would be brighter.
However, our scientists saw no evidence of that.
Do you agree with that?
If so you have to agree that there is no evidence whether the source is moving towards or away from the observer.
It is stated clearly " the scientists saw no evidence of that".
So why do you claim that our scientists have evidence for matter that falls into the accretion disc while they clearly claim that they saw no evidence of that?
Who is lying to us?
Is it you or they?

[Bored chemist]

Who is lying to us?
Is it you or they?

Neither.
It's just that you still don't understand the difference.
Try having another look at the picture I drew for you.

Doppler broadening refers (typically) to the broadening due to temperature- sometimes due to rotation of a star or disk.

But the doppler shift is the displacement of the absorption compared to what it would look like if we measured it in the lab where it is essentially stationary.

The first one tells you the temperature (which isn't very interesting)
The second one tells you if the material is coming towards you (i.e. out of the BH) or going away from you (i.e. into the BH).

In one case (stuff going in) you get a red shift and in the other case (stuff coming towards us) a blue shift.

What you are claiming is that this material- because it is coming towards us out of the hole should be blue shifted but somehow, the scientists didn't notice that.
Because, if they had noticed it, they would be lining up for their Nobel prizes by now.

How do you explain that?
How come, the shift , if you were right, would be the opposite of what is expected, but nobody noticed?

Are you saying that these scientist are utterly incompetent?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

In one case (stuff going in) you get a red shift and in the other case (stuff coming towards us) a blue shift.

That is very clear.

What you are claiming is that this material- because it is coming towards us out of the hole should be blue shifted but somehow, the scientists didn't notice that.

No
I claim that as our scientists don't observe the red shift or the Blue shift then they can't claim for matter that falling in or falling out.

How come, the shift , if you were right, would be the opposite of what is expected, but nobody noticed?

Our scientists claim that they observe the UFO at M87.
So, they see the redshift of the matter as it is ejected outwards from the accretion disc.

Therefore, do you agree once and for all that so far we have NEVER EVER observed any sort of matter as it falls into the accretion disc from outside, but we clearly see the matter (UFO) as it is ejected outwards from that accretion disc?

[Bored chemist]

I claim that as our scientists don't observe the red shift or the Blue shift

The shift is bigger than the broadening.
Why are you saying they can see (and measure)  the small effect, but didn't notice the Nobel prize winning big one?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The shift is bigger than the broadening.

How long can we discuss on that issue?
It is stated that they don't see the doppler shift or the broadening:

https://www.space.com/spaghettified-star-observed-near-black-hole
"They are NOT broadened by the Doppler effect"
"But the scientists saw no evidence of that..

Why are you saying they can see (and measure)  the small effect,

I didn't say that kind of nonsense.
I only say that so far we have no evidence to confirm the imagination that matter falls into the accretion disc.

[Bored chemist]

I didn't say that kind of nonsense.

Yes you did.

I claim that as our scientists don't observe the red shift or the Blue shift

[Bored chemist]

It is stated that they don't see the doppler shift or the broadening:

The Doppler shift and the doppler broadening are different things.
They say that the broadening is too small to see.
But they will have seen the much shift.
The smaller the broadening is, the easier it is to see the shift.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The Doppler shift and the doppler broadening are different things.
They say that the broadening is too small to see.

That is correct

But they will have seen the much shift.
The smaller the broadening is, the easier it is to see the shift.

Where in the attached article it is stated that they really observe this shift?

https://www.space.com/spaghettified-star-observed-near-black-hole
"The absorption lines are narrow," said Giacomo Cannizzaro, the lead author of the paper. "They are not broadened by the Doppler effect, like you'd expect when you would be looking at a rotating disk."
The Doppler effect, caused by the fast motion of the material in the accretion disk, stretches or shrinks the electromagnetic waves depending on whether the source is moving towards or away from the observer. As a result, the light emitted by the part of the accretion disk that is moving away from Earth would be brighter. But the scientists saw no evidence of that.

How do you twist the following messages of:
"They are not broadened by the Doppler effect"
&
"But the scientists saw no evidence of that"
To this kind of imagination that:

But they will have seen the much shift.

Where in this article it is stated that the imaginary observation of this "shift" proves that the matter is drifting/falling inwards into the accretion disc?
Please quote the messages from that article in order to backup your imaginations & wish.

[Bored chemist]

Where in the attached article it is stated that they really observe this shift?

Finally, you nearly get the point.
They don't say it.

But it must be there unless...

Are you saying that these scientist are utterly incompetent?

So, once again...

Why are you saying they can see (and measure)  the small effect, but didn't notice the Nobel prize winning big one?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:19:31
Where in the attached article it is stated that they really observe this shift?

Finally, you nearly get the point.
They don't say it.

As they don't say that there is a shift (even a small shift), and as they don't say that there is observation/prove for any sort of matter that is drifting/falling inwards into the SMBH' accretion disc from outside, then this is the reality!!!
Therefore, if you would claim again that this article proves that matter from outside falls into the accretion disc - then I would consider your message as a lie.

Conclusion
So far you couldn't offer any valid article that proves by real observation that matter from outside falls into the accretion disc!

[Bored chemist]

You need to explain why they don't say the thing that would win them a Nobel prize.
Do they not say it because they don't observe it, or because they are stupid?

Do you understand what the measurement is here?

They measure the wavelength of some incoming light from the object.

It hardly matters exactly what they look at so we can use made up numbers- it's easier that way.

They look at the light from a flame on Earth and they measure the wavelength of the light.
It has a wavelength of 100nm. There's some spread on it- say they find the light is between 98 and 102 nm.
So that's the broadening they see  (part of it will be Doppler, some will be measurement error, part will be uncertainty broadening- which is not the same thing as the measurement error- and some will be pressure broadening. There may be other contributions.)

And then they look at the spectrum they get from the object.
And they will see that it's 103 to 107 nm.
They conclude two things;
The broadening is the same- it's +/- 2nm
 And that's interesting, so they publish it.
They don't bother to mention the fact that it is red shifted from about 100 to about 105 because nobody cares.
Hubble already posted that result, and it has been  repeated loads of times since (and in a more interesting form where they compare shift vs. distance).

What you are saying is that they got a blue shifted measurement which said the light was between  93 and 97 nm.

And they reported the non- result - that the broadening was essentially the same.
But they somehow did not report the fact that the light was blue shifted from 100 to 95 nm.

That's the point at which you say they threw away their prize.

Now, can you please explain why you think they would do that?
Do you not think they would notice that 95 is smaller than 100?

[Bored chemist]

But, could you explain this?

Quote from: Bored chemist on 12/06/2021 22:15:01
Quote from: Bored chemist on 12/06/2021 18:40:26
Now, please explain why you called me a liar for telling the truth.
Don't try to blame some mysterious "others" who don't exist..

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Dear BC
Thank for the explanation
However:

What you are saying is that they got a blue shifted measurement which said the light was between  93 and 97 nm.

No
That is incorrect.
I only claim that in this article there is no evidence for matter that falls into the accretion disc.
So let me ask you for the last time:
Do they observe any matter that falls into the accretion disc from outside?
Yes or no?
Please answer!

It seems to me that the answer is clearly no as you even claim that:

You need to explain why they don't say the thing that would win them a Nobel prize.
Do they not say it because they don't observe it, or because they are stupid?

So as they are not stupid, then it is clear that they don't see any evidence for matter that falls in.
So simple and clear.
Therefore, why do you keep on with the incorrect data that we have evidence/observation for matter as it falls into the accretion disc?

[Bored chemist]

But, could you explain this?

Quote from: Bored chemist on 12/06/2021 22:15:01
Quote from: Bored chemist on 12/06/2021 18:40:26
Now, please explain why you called me a liar for telling the truth.
Don't try to blame some mysterious "others" who don't exist..

[Bored chemist]

Dear BC
Thank for the explanation
However:

What you are saying is that they got a blue shifted measurement which said the light was between  93 and 97 nm.

No
That is incorrect.

Are you saying they saw blue shifted light?
Because stuff coming out of the hole would be moving towards us and would emit light that was blue shifted.
And blue shifted light would be something they would have notice- but what they saw was not blue shifted, because it was not coming towards us, because it was not coming out of the BH.

Are you finally accepting that stuff does not come out of the accretion discs of BH, or are you saying it does, but these scientists missed it?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Are you saying they saw blue shifted light?
Because stuff coming out of the hole would be moving towards us and would emit light that was blue shifted.
And blue shifted light would be something they would have notice- but what they saw was not blue shifted, because it was not coming towards us, because it was not coming out of the BH.

Wow, it is so difficult to set even simple evidence with you.
You have offered that article in order to prove that matter falls in.
I hope for the last time that you confirm that this article doesn't offer any evidence for matter that falls in.

With regards to the Blue shift.
Actually, we have a clear observation of the UFO from the M87 accretion disc.
So, our scientists clearly see matter as it is ejected outwards from the M87 SMBH' accretion disc.
However, so far you couldn't offer any observation of matter that falls in (from any SMBH' accretion disc in the whole Universe!).
Therefore we all must agree for the following:
We have clear UFO observation for matter that is ejected outwards from the SMBH' accretion disc but we have NEVER & EVER observe any matter that falls in.

Now, please explain why you called me a liar for telling the truth.

Sorry - As you keep on with your nonsense and do not admit that we have no evidence for matter that falls in, then you clearly don't tell the truth.
So, next time when you raise the "Truth" flag, please try to hide somewhere.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Are you finally accepting that stuff does not come out of the accretion discs of BH, or are you saying it does, but these scientists missed it?

I clearly say that as we observe the UFO and we have NEVER &EVER observe any matter that falls into the Accretion disc.
Therefore  - Matter MUST come out from the SMB' accretion disc!!!
Any scientist that claims that matter falls in from outside without real observation to backup this imagination is LIAR!!!