[Bored chemist]

Why is it so difficult for you to remember that simple issue?
Why do we have to discuss about the same issue again and again?

It's not  a matter of me remembering it.
The issue is that you don't realise it isn't true.

But based on any observation that we have when the ratio between the orbital object to the main mass is more than 81, the orbital object would ALWAYS spiral outwards!

you made that up.
is 81 the sum of your lottery numbers?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

It's not  a matter of me remembering it.

Yes it is.
Your ability to remember our discussion is quite poor.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:29:25
But based on any observation that we have when the ratio between the orbital object to the main mass is more than 81, the orbital object would ALWAYS spiral outwards!

you made that up.
is 81 the sum of your lottery numbers?

I have already explained that the 81 is the mass ratio between the Erath to the Moon.
But as expected – you have already forgot it
I have also explained that ALL the Moons and all the Planets in the solar system and even in the entire Universe spiral outwards from their main orbital object - but who cares?

You should know that in any natural orbital system (Sun - Planet, Planet - Moon) all the orbital objects spirals outwards. (Yes, even Triton spirals outwards)
You can't offer even one real measurement that contradicts this understanding.
You rais the flag of gravity wave without understanding how it really works because you don't wish to understand anything that kills your theory of "falling orbital objects".
Therefore you totally ignore the clear message that the gravity wave is negligible for orbits of planets and planetary satellites:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_decay
"Gravitational radiation is another mechanism of orbital decay. It is negligible for orbits of planets and planetary satellites "
Therefore, it is also negligible for SMBH/S2 orbit. Hence, S2 MUST drift outwards as all planets in the solar system drift outwards from the Sun over time.

As all the 100,000 BBT scientists claim that S2 must fall into the SMBH, then in your imagination it must fall in.
You trace the entire Universe with millions of SMBH and trillions of stars around them, and you can't find even one falling star.
Even if you won't find a falling star in the next billion years - it won't convince you that orbital objects do not fall/spiral inwards
You just don't care about real science.
You don't care about real observation.
Therefore, you and all the other BBT scientists don't let the observation and real science to confuse your imagination science that is called BBT.

[Bored chemist]

Your ability to remember our discussion is quite poor.

How would you know?

Anyway, I remember you posting a lot of nonsense and calling it a discussion.
You were wrong at the start of it, and you are sill wrong now.

I have already explained that the 81 is the mass ratio between the Erath to the Moon.
But as expected – you have already forgot it

There is nothing special about the Earth and the moon.
As I pointed out, the difference in behaviour is due to tides and they are irrelevant to discussions of black holes.

You are the one who forgets stuff.

I have also explained that ALL the Moons and all the Planets in the solar system and even in the entire Universe spiral outwards from their main orbital object

No, you have not.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

As I pointed out, the difference in behaviour is due to tides and they are irrelevant to discussions of black holes.

OK
You blame the tidal forces for drifting the moon away from Earth.
Therefore you reject the idea that it is normal activity for all the orbital objects (around massive object) to spiral outwards.

Hence, in order to justify your understanding, would you kindly offer One orbital system in the entire Universe where moon spirals outwards from its planet or a planet spirals outwards from it sun.
Only one is good enough.
Good luck.

[Bored chemist]

Only one is good enough.

How many times do I have to answer that?

Maybe you will understand it better as a video.
This is what we expected to see
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/video/ligo20160211v9

and we saw it
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57639520

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Maybe you will understand it better as a video.
This is what we expected to see
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/video/ligo20160211v9

Dear BC
It seems that you didn't understand my request.
The Ligo is all about orbital system with similar mass (The ratio is 1:3).
I'm asking for an example with higher mass ratio where the main mass is much more massive with regards to the orbital object. (If possible at least 1:81)
Is it clear to you by now?
So, please try to offer one example of orbital system (with mass ratio above 1:81) and show that the orbital object spirals inwards.

[Bored chemist]

Maybe you will understand it better as a video.
This is what we expected to see
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/video/ligo20160211v9

Dear BC
It seems that you didn't understand my request.
The Ligo is all about orbital system with similar mass (The ratio is 1:3).
I'm asking for an example with higher mass ratio where the main mass is much more massive with regards to the orbital object. (If possible at least 1:81)
Is it clear to you by now?
So, please try to offer one example of orbital system (with mass ratio above 1:81) and show that the orbital object spirals inwards.

Please show a reason why I should look.

I realise a mere fact won't stop you pretending that you are  right, will it?
Well, here goes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiangong-1#/media/File:Altitude_of_Tiangong-1.svg

Or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobos_(moon)#Predicted_destruction
or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6489_Golevka

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Well, here goes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiangong-1#/media/File:Altitude_of_Tiangong-1.svg

Or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobos_(moon)#Predicted_destruction
or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6489_Golevka

Thanks
I would like to focus on Phobos and Deimos as they are the moons of mars and while Phobos spirals inwards, Deimos spirals outwards:

Phobos is the innermost and larger of the two natural satellites of Mars, the other being Deimos.
Phobos is a small, irregularly shaped object with a mean radius of 11 km.
Deimos has a mean radius of 6.2 km and also has irregularly shaped object.
Phobos orbital radius is 9.3Km.
Mars Radius s - 3.4 Km
Tidal deceleration is gradually decreasing the orbital radius of Phobos by approximately two meters every 100 years,
Deimos orbital radius around Mars is about 23,400 Km.
Both moons have very circular orbits which lie almost exactly in Mars's equatorial plane.
Mars Mass = 6.4^23 Kg = 0.107 Earth mass. Hence, Mass mass is significantly higher than its moons.

Now we need to understand why Phobos spirals inwards, while Deimos spirals outwards.
The answer is very clear:
The ratio between Mars radius to Phobos orbital radius is less than 1:3
The ratio between Mars radius to Deimos orbital radius is about 1:7
That makes the whole difference.
I think that the ratio of 1:3 is a magic number.
In the Ligo, our scientists have detected two BH's with a mass ratio of 1:3. that are spiraling inwards.
Our scientists didn't tell us the distance between them.
I can just assume that they were close together.
So, we can now understand the following:
1. When the two objects are BHs and due to gravity wave:
If the two objects have a similar mass (ratio of about 1:3) and they are located near to each other - they would spiral inwards due to Gravity wave decay.
2. When the main object is much bigger than the orbital object and the ratio between the radius of the main mass to the orbital radius is about 1:3 the orbital object would spiral inwards due to tidal decay. The orbital shape is critical. In order to spiral inwards the orbital object must have very circular orbits.
3.  When the main object is much bigger than the orbital object and the ratio between the radius of the main mass to the orbital radius is above 1:6, then the orbital object would spiral outwards and the tidal decay would be neglected.

Once you understand that, you can clearly know the requested conditions for any orbital object to spiral inwards or outwards.
That will also answer the orbital activity at any other object as Tiangong-1 or 6489_Golevka.

[Bored chemist]

I realise a mere fact won't stop you pretending that you are  right, will it?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I realise a mere fact won't stop you pretending that you are  right, will it?

I realize that you won't let any observation or evidence to stop you pretending that you are right, will it?

Phobos and Deimos are the Ultimate examples for spiral in/out in orbital system.
As a person that calls himself "scientist" it is your mission to explain why Phobos and Deimos spirals to different directions, while both of them are quite similar and they orbit around the same planet.

You clearly don't accept my explanation, then would you kindly explain why Phobos spirals inwards while Deimos spirals outwards?

[Bored chemist]

both of them are quite similar and they orbit around the same planet.

In "opposite directions". One orbits faster than the planet's spin; the other slower.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

both of them are quite similar and they orbit around the same planet.

In "opposite directions". One orbits faster than the planet's spin; the other slower.

Well, their orbital velocity is an outcome of their orbital radius (or vice versa)
Phobos that is located closer to mars has a relatively fast orbital velocity, while Deimos that is located farther away from Mars orbits slower.

Do you claim that the ratio between the orbital velocity to the planet spin makes the difference?
What about the ratio between the Orbital radius to the planet radius?
What about the orbital shape?

[Bored chemist]

I'm saying it's more complicated than that, but irrelevant because your hallucination requires a breach of the conservation laws.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I'm saying it's more complicated than that, but irrelevant because your hallucination requires a breach of the conservation laws.

If it is complicated for you - as you say, then why don't you solve this problem?
How can you tell us (or even to yourself) that orbital objects should spiral inwards or outwards without understanding why those two moons of Mars spiral as they do?

Therefore, before you try to tell us how S2 should behave around SMBH it is your obligation to solve Phobos/Deimos orbital enigma.
If you can't solve it, or you don't want to solve it, then you can't be considered scientist and you can't tell that your wish is correct or wrong!
So please - take your time and solve this enigma.
Once you have a real answer, give us a call.

[Bored chemist]

why don't you solve this problem?

It isn't really a problem. Experimentally, we know the outcome; that's what LIGO is for.

On the other hand, your idea requires ignoring the laws of physicals and that is a problem.
It can be solved by simply ignoring your ideas- because they are plainly wrong.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:37:07
why don't you solve this problem?

It isn't really a problem. Experimentally, we know the outcome; that's what LIGO is for.

As it isn't a problem and you know the outcome, then why while Phobos spirals inwards, his brother - Deimos spirals outwards?
How LIGO could help you understanding if the orbital object should spiral inwards or outwards?

[Bored chemist]

How LIGO could help you understanding if the orbital object should spiral inwards or outwards?

Because this


LIGO.JPG (34.21 kB . 487x368 - viewed 1728 times)
looks different from this

OGLI.png (109.38 kB . 487x368 - viewed 1781 times)

[Bored chemist]

As it isn't a problem and you know the outcome, then why while Phobos spirals inwards, his brother - Deimos spirals outwards?

Tidal drag pulls on one, but pushes on the other.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

As it isn't a problem and you know the outcome, then why while Phobos spirals inwards, his brother - Deimos spirals outwards?

Tidal drag pulls on one, but pushes on the other.

Is it real?
1. Tidal force direction
How the same tidal force can pull one orbital object and push the other one?
Do you agree that if the a positive tidal force is needed in order to force one moon to spiral in one direction, then negative tidal force is needed to force the other moon to spiral in other direction?
Hence, we discuss about Positive tidal force and Negative tidal force.
However, tidal force is all about gravity.
Therefore, don't you agree that in order to get a positive/negative tidal force we must have Positive/Negative gravity?
How can you get that negative gravity?
If you think that the same positive gravity can generate positive and negative tidal forces - then please prove it by real formula.

2. Orbital radius/velocity.
Why do you ignore the orbital radius & Orbital velocity in your reply?
If both moons were orbiting exactly at the same radius & at the same velocity, is there any possibility for the tidal force to pull one and push the other?
If orbital radius/velocity are important for the tidal force direction, then please show the how the tidal forces direction is changing based on those elements.
If those elements are irrelevant, then how can you explain the different movement direction of each orbital object?

[Bored chemist]

How the same tidal force can pull one orbital object and push the other one?

If one object is going clockwise, and the other anticlockwise then a clockwise force pushes one forward and pulls the other back.

This is not some complicated science.
It is just common sense that you are failing to understand.

Why do you ignore the orbital radius & Orbital velocity in your reply?

I didn't.
Th orbital velocities are the reason why, from the PoV of someone stood on the equator, one moon goes forwards, while the other one goes backwards.
Again, this is nothing complicated.

Why don't you understand it?