[Dave Lev (OP)]

And again, you are claiming that, because we have not seen the black cat in the coal cellar, it can not be there.
But I still want to know why you refuse to say that you will not tell lies.

No
I claim that you have to take a decision.
If you claim that due to gravity wave S2 decays its orbital motion - then you MUST agree that this decay should end at the final stage with a SMBH merger/collision. Nothing from S2 would be ejected backwards/outwards.

However, if you claim that due to gravity wave S2 decays its orbital motion - but as it gets to the accretion disc it is ejected outwards  - then you and all the other 100,000 scientists are LIAR!!!

[Bored chemist]

But I still want to know why you refuse to say that you will not tell lies.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 08/07/2021 14:31:05
Quote from: Bored chemist on 07/07/2021 18:59:07
Quote from: Bored chemist on 06/07/2021 21:32:20
Quote from: Bored chemist on 05/07/2021 08:26:29
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/07/2021 20:07:06
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/07/2021 17:34:15
Why can't you promise not to lie about this?

Are you so dishonest that you can not be sure you will not deliberately say something which you know is untrue?

[Bored chemist]

Therefore, there is no way to transfers energy from the orbital motion.

Yes there is; some will be radiated way as heat.

But...

But I still want to know why you refuse to say that you will not tell lies.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 08/07/2021 14:31:05
Quote from: Bored chemist on 07/07/2021 18:59:07
Quote from: Bored chemist on 06/07/2021 21:32:20
Quote from: Bored chemist on 05/07/2021 08:26:29
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/07/2021 20:07:06
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/07/2021 17:34:15
Why can't you promise not to lie about this?

Are you so dishonest that you can not be sure you will not deliberately say something which you know is untrue?

[Origin]

then you and all the other 100,000 scientists are LIAR!!!

You're delusional.

[Kryptid]

Therefore, system B have has the ability to generate gravity wave that force the orbital system to decay. This decay ends with a merger between the two objects. They are locked in a death orbital system that must end with a merger/collision!

So now you are admitting that your earlier claim here...

If you monitor all the billions stars/BHs/Planets/moons in the MW galaxy, you won't find even one that is spiraling inwards.

...was wrong?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on 07/07/2021 18:45:15
If you monitor all the billions stars/BHs/Planets/moons in the MW galaxy, you won't find even one that is spiraling inwards.

...was wrong?

Excellent question.

We have found that gravity wave has an impact on an orbital system with similar mass objects (as two Bhs, Pulsar and Neutron star or binary system). So, the gravity wave decay the orbital motion in orbital system where the objects have similar mass.
That understanding doesn't contradict my statement as I was aiming for orbital system where the mass of the main object is significantly bigger than the orbital object.
Therefore, all the planets in the solar system are drifting outwards from the Sun, while all the moons are drifting away from the planets.
In the same token it won't have any real impact (or decay) on the orbital motion of the matter in the accretion disc.
Therefore, this matter must be ejected outwards as UFO.

However, I hope that you agree with the following:
If the gravity wave decays the orbital motion and the orbital object spirals/falls inwards - then it must fall all the way and merge with the other object.
There is no way for the orbital object to reduce the average radius (by decay) and then increase it.


However, I still wonder how a decay in orbital motion could increase the orbital velocity as the average radius is decreasing while the orbital motion is decreasing..
 

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:27:48
Therefore, there is no way to transfers energy from the orbital motion.

Yes there is; some will be radiated way as heat.

I totally reject that idea.
Heat has no impact on orbital motion.
This is pure imagination!
Please – it is OK to believe in the gravity wave, but you must accept the outcome of the gravity wave.
If the gravity wave forces the orbital object to fall inwards - then it must fall all the way to the merger point as Einstein has told us.

If you think that your idea is correct - then please offer the formula that sets the connection between heat to orbital motion.
First - Please set the formula that proves that due to the decay as the orbital object decreases its orbital radius (or ejected inwards) it should also increase its heat.
Second -  Please set the formula that proves that due to that extra heat (as it is ejected inwards) at some point (at the accretion disc) it will suddenly stop the decay process and it would start to increase its orbital motion and finally be ejected outwards.

[Bored chemist]

I totally reject that idea.

If you reject science, why are you on a science forum?

Heat has no impact on orbital motion.
This is pure imagination!

Do you know why it is cold at the tops of mountains?

Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 16:52:02
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 16:30:30
But I still want to know why you refuse to say that you will not tell lies.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 08/07/2021 14:31:05
Quote from: Bored chemist on 07/07/2021 18:59:07
Quote from: Bored chemist on 06/07/2021 21:32:20
Quote from: Bored chemist on 05/07/2021 08:26:29
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/07/2021 20:07:06
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/07/2021 17:34:15
Why can't you promise not to lie about this?

Are you so dishonest that you can not be sure you will not deliberately say something which you know is untrue?

[Just thinking]

However, we clearly know that our Universe must be much bigger than that.

Hi, Dave you have mentioned a few times and questioned the size of the univers. Well, the largest optical and radio telescopes have a limit and the most distant galaxies seen to date are fully formed so that on its own implies that the universe continues on as for its actual size I very much doubt that it will ever be discovered as light and radiation can only be detected to the limit of time and the universe has already proven to extend beyond that of light and time its self. Some mistorys will stay just that.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 18:55:44
Heat has no impact on orbital motion.
This is pure imagination!

Do you know why it is cold at the tops of mountains?

If it is so easy, why don't you prove the following by real formula?

If you think that your idea is correct - then please offer the formula that sets the connection between heat to orbital motion.
First - Please set the formula that proves that due to the decay as the orbital object decreases its orbital radius (or ejected inwards) it should also increase its heat.
Second -  Please set the formula that proves that due to that extra heat (as it is ejected inwards) at some point (at the accretion disc) it will suddenly stop the decay process and it would start to increase its orbital motion and finally be ejected outwards.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

then you and all the other 100,000 scientists are LIAR!!!

You're delusional.

No!
Any scientist that claims that matter from the Bulge should fall inwards due to gravity waves and then as it gets to the accretion disc it should be ejected backwards/outwards while gravity waves force it to merge with the main mass (SMBH) is the real delusional.

[Bored chemist]

then you and all the other 100,000 scientists are LIAR!!!

You're delusional.

No!
Any scientist that claims that matter from the Bulge should fall inwards due to gravity waves and then as it gets to the accretion disc it should be ejected backwards/outwards while gravity waves force it to merge with the main mass (SMBH) is the real delusional.

OK, you don't think you are deluded.
But
(1) you think everyone else is a liar and
(2) You can't be sure that you won't lie about it if I answer a question.

Do you really think that's normal?

Do you know why it is cold at the tops of mountains?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

(1) you think everyone else is a liar

Well,
1. Do you confirm that based on your message the matter from the Bulge should fall inwards due to gravity waves?
Yes Or No?
2. Do you confirm that based on Einstein formula any falling matter or star due to that gravity wave should end its way by merger/collision with the other orbital object?
Yes or no?
Therefore, as you claim that heat should help the falling matter to be ejected backwards without any real formula to confirm this nonsense:

Yes there is; some will be radiated way as heat.

Then you and all the other 100,000 scientists have a severe mistake!

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Dear Kryptid

I have found a confirmation for my following explanation:

We have found that gravity wave has an impact on an orbital system with similar mass objects (as two Bhs, Pulsar and Neutron star or binary system). So, the gravity wave decay the orbital motion in orbital system where the objects have similar mass.
That understanding doesn't contradict my statement as I was aiming for orbital system where the mass of the main object is significantly bigger than the orbital object.
Therefore, all the planets in the solar system are drifting outwards from the Sun, while all the moons are drifting away from the planets.
In the same token it won't have any real impact (or decay) on the orbital motion of the matter in the accretion disc.
Therefore, this matter must be ejected outwards as UFO.

However, I hope that you agree with the following:
If the gravity wave decays the orbital motion and the orbital object spirals/falls inwards - then it must fall all the way and merge with the other object.
There is no way for the orbital object to reduce the average radius (by decay) and then increase it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_decay
Gravitational radiation
Main article: Two-body problem in general relativity
Gravitational radiation is another mechanism of orbital decay. It is negligible for orbits of planets and planetary satellites (when considering their orbital motion on time scales of centuries, decades, and less), but is noticeable for systems of compact objects, as seen in observations of neutron star orbits. All orbiting bodies radiate gravitational energy, hence no orbit is infinitely stable."

It is stated clearly:
"Gravitational radiation is another mechanism of orbital decay. It is negligible for orbits of planets and planetary satellites "
So, it is also negligible for SMBH/S2 orbit.
Therefore, S2 MUST drift outwards as all planets in the solar system drift outwards from the  Sun over time.

Hence, there is no way for any star or atom from the Bulge to fall into the SMBH!

This is real science.

Now it is your obligation to set this thread at real science status and move the idea that stars fall into the SMBH' accertion disc to this section of "That CAN'T be true!"

[Dave Lev (OP)]

If it is  accepted that just about all of the threads in that section are nonsense, would it not be useful to have some kind of sub header pointing this out? Is there not a danger of people reading it and mistaking it for valid scientific fact?

I have proved that my understanding about the accretion disc is 100% true!

Don't you think that there is a severe danger of people reading the imagination that stars fall into the SMBH' accretion disc and mistaking it for valid scientific fact?

Now it is your time to correct your reply.!

[Bored chemist]

I have proved that my understanding about the accretion disc is 100% true!

No you have not.
If you had then we would believe you.
What you have done is demonstrate that you don't know the science- for example.

I totally reject that idea.
Heat has no impact on orbital motion.
This is pure imagination!

If you knew the science you could answer my question.

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 19:21:33
Do you know why it is cold at the tops of mountains?

But instead of admitting that you don't know what you are talking about, you make the insane leap to " everybody else is lying".

1. Do you confirm that based on your message the matter from the Bulge should fall inwards due to gravity waves?
Yes Or No?

There's no point in me answering questions if you won't promise not to lie about the meaning of what I say.
And you refuse to do that.
Why won't you say that you won't lie?

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 16:54:59
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 16:52:02
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 16:30:30
But I still want to know why you refuse to say that you will not tell lies.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 08/07/2021 14:31:05
Quote from: Bored chemist on 07/07/2021 18:59:07
Quote from: Bored chemist on 06/07/2021 21:32:20
Quote from: Bored chemist on 05/07/2021 08:26:29
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/07/2021 20:07:06
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/07/2021 17:34:15
Why can't you promise not to lie about this?

Are you so dishonest that you can not be sure you will not deliberately say something which you know is untrue?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:58:05
I have proved that my understanding about the accretion disc is 100% true!

No you have not.

Yes I did
Please read it again:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_decay
Gravitational radiation
Main article: Two-body problem in general relativity
Gravitational radiation is another mechanism of orbital decay. It is negligible for orbits of planets and planetary satellites (when considering their orbital motion on time scales of centuries, decades, and less), but is noticeable for systems of compact objects, as seen in observations of neutron star orbits. All orbiting bodies radiate gravitational energy, hence no orbit is infinitely stable."

It is stated clearly:
"Gravitational radiation is another mechanism of orbital decay. It is negligible for orbits of planets and planetary satellites "
So, it is also negligible for SMBH/S2 orbit.
Therefore, S2 MUST drift outwards as all planets in the solar system drift outwards from the  Sun over time.
Hence, there is no way for any star or atom from the Bulge to fall into the SMBH!
This is real science.

In other words - Due to the mass ratio between the Sun to a planet, the orbital decay due to gravity wave is negligible.
Therefore - any planet in the solar system drifts outwards from the Sun over time.
As the mass ratio between the SMBH to S2 is similar to the Sun/planet ratio, then also in this orbital system the orbital decay due to gravity wave is negligible.
Hence, S2 (and any other star or gas cloud) at the bulge MUST drift outwards from the SMBH over time!

Therefore, your statement that Stars from the Bulge should fall inwards due to gravity wave is incorrect.

Quote from: Dave Lev on 08/07/2021 14:03:55
You, BC and all the other 100,000 BBT scientists know by 100% that so far we have NEVER EVER observed any matter as it spirals inwards into the SMBH' accretion disc.

yes we have, most notably, recently, that  data from LIGO and VIRGO.
You seem very determined to ignore reality here.
Those results really happened.

Those results are based on the gravity wave between "compact objects, as seen in observations of neutron star orbits" (as stated in the article).

Are you so dishonest that you can not be sure you will not deliberately say something which you know is untrue?

You are the one that proved his dishonest.
If you have some basic knowledge in science you must understand how gravity wave really works.
Therefore - from now on if you would dare to claim that S2 (or any other star or gas cloud) must drift inwards into the SMBH' accretion disc due to gravity wave - I would claim that you are not just dishonest but also LIAR!
This message is not just for you, but also to any other scientist (from all the 100,000 scientists) that would dare to claim again that stars falls into that accretion disc!
It's time for our scientists to update the science book.
It is forbidden to sell us lies and call it "science"
Shame on them!

[Origin]

It's time for our scientists to update the science book.
It is forbidden to sell us lies and call it "science"
Shame on them!

Says the guy who is incapable of doing freshman physics?!  You're unhinged.

[Bored chemist]

You are the one that proved his dishonest.

No
The only person who has been proved dishonest in this thread is you.
Do you not remember?

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=80881.msg644506;topicseen#msg644506

[The Spoon]

It's time for our scientists to update the science book.
It is forbidden to sell us lies and call it "science"
Shame on them!

Says the guy who is incapable of doing freshman physics?!  You're unhinged.

As demonstrated by him typing LIAR in upper case followed by exclamation marks.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The only person who has been proved dishonest in this thread is you.

Well, as expected, instead of dealing with the message that contradicts your theory, you prefer to deal with the messenger.
You and Kryptid have stated that due to gravity waves, orbital stars should spiral inwards into the SMBH' accretion disc.
 

Surprisingly - all of them (without exception) are spiraling outwards.

Funny, that contradicts what you admitted to me a while back, but I'll just leave this here:

I won't even bother to explain why this video proves you wrong, as I'm sure someone else will do it.

However, now we clearly know that the gravity wave has negligible decay impact on orbital systems as Sun-planet or SMBH-S2 system:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_decay
Gravitational radiation
Main article: Two-body problem in general relativity
Gravitational radiation is another mechanism of orbital decay. It is negligible for orbits of planets and planetary satellites (when considering their orbital motion on time scales of centuries, decades, and less), but is noticeable for systems of compact objects, as seen in observations of neutron star orbits. All orbiting bodies radiate gravitational energy, hence no orbit is infinitely stable."

It is stated clearly:
"Gravitational radiation is another mechanism of orbital decay. It is negligible for orbits of planets and planetary satellites "
So, it is also negligible for SMBH/S2 orbit.
Therefore, S2 MUST drift outwards as all planets in the solar system drift outwards from the  Sun over time.
Hence, there is no way for any star or atom from the Bulge to fall into the SMBH!
This is real science.
In other words - Due to the mass ratio between the Sun to a planet, the orbital decay due to gravity wave is negligible.
Therefore - any planet in the solar system drifts outwards from the Sun over time.
As the mass ratio between the SMBH to S2 is similar to the Sun/planet ratio, then also in this orbital system the orbital decay due to gravity wave is negligible.
Hence, S2 (and any other star or gas cloud) at the bulge MUST drift outwards from the SMBH over time!

Therefore, your statement that Stars from the Bulge should fall inwards due to gravity wave is incorrect.

Hence, when the ratio between the main object mass to the orbital object is significantly high (in SMBH-S2 the ratio is: 1,000,000 to 1), the orbital object is spiraling outwards - exactly as I have stated long time ago.
Actually even at a lower ratio, the orbital object must spiral outwards.
For example In the Earth- Moon system the ratio is only 81 to 1 and still it is high enough to set negligible orbital decay due to gravity wave. Therefore, the moon is also spiraling outwards.

Conclusions:
1. Our scientists have NEVER & EVER observed any matter/star/gas cloud as it spirals inwards into the SMBH' accretion disc. (Not just to fall inwards for merging with the SMBH - but to stay at a circular orbital cycle near the SMBH' event horizon)
2. The theory that due to gravity wave star should spiral inwards into the SMBH direction - had been proved as incorrect.

Therefore - The imagination that the matter in the SMBH' accretion disc is there due to falling/spiraling objects from the bulge around the SMBH is absolutely wrong!