[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 14:44:35
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.

Would you kindly improve your common sense as both moons orbit in the same direction?
https://www.geo.fu-berlin.de/geol/fachrichtungen/planet/press/archiv2018/phobos_deimos1/_bilder/bild_Flugbahn-Phobos-Skizze/Flugbahn-Phobos-Skizze.jpg

[Bored chemist]

Would you kindly improve your common sense as both moons orbit in the same direction?

Learn to read.

from the PoV of someone stood on the equator, one moon goes forwards, while the other one goes backwards.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Would you kindly improve your common sense as both moons orbit in the same direction?

Learn to read.

from the PoV of someone stood on the equator, one moon goes forwards, while the other one goes backwards.

Ok
Is all about the point of view of someone that stood on the equator of mars?
The orbital velocity of Phobos is faster than Mars' spin. Therefore this someone would see that Phobos is moving clockwise.
However, Deimos orbital velocity is slower than Mars' spin. Therefore this someone would see that Deimos is moving anticlockwise.
So, it is all about the point of view (Pov).
Any time that the orbital velocity of the moon s faster than the planet's spin - clockwise, the moon would force to spiral inwards, while any time the planet's spin is faster than the orbital velocity - Anticlockwise, the moon would be forced to spiral outwards.
Is it correct?

[Bored chemist]

You are begiining to understand it.
I only needed to explain it 3 times.
You might find this helpful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobos_(moon)#Orbital_characteristics

In future you will never find this sort of stupid comment to be helpful.

Would you kindly improve your common sense

Do you realise that, if you were as clever as you think, I would not have to repeatedly explain the same ting to you?

Why do you need repeated explanations?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

You are begiining to understand it.

Thanks
Now we all agree that:

Any time that the orbital velocity of the moon s faster than the planet's spin - clockwise, the moon would force to spiral inwards, while any time the planet's spin is faster than the orbital velocity - Anticlockwise, the moon would be forced to spiral outwards.

Based on that understanding, let's go back to the SMBH - S2 orbital system.
S2 set one full orbital cycle in about 15 Years.
Our scientists call the SMBH as a rotatable object.
Hence, do you confirm that the SMBH' spin is much faster than one single cycle per 15 years.
Therefore, with regards to the Pov, S2 and actually any other S star or gas cloud must move anticlockwise with reference to the SMBH' spin.
So, how can you expect that one of those stars or gas clouds would spiral inwards while the Pov proves that it is anticlockwise?

[Bored chemist]

Hence, do you confirm that the...

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.

Well, now we all know that you don't care about real science
If your explanation about the clockwise/anticlockwise is incorrect then by definition your hope for falling/spiraling star/ gas cloud into the SMBH is incorrect.
It's time for you to understand that your hope that somehow orbital objects around the SMBH would spiral/fall inwards is just IMAGINATION.
You have lost the game!
Therefore, you and all the 100,000 scientists including any moderator that support your imagination should understand that Nothing spirals into the SMBH' accretion disc.
It's also time for you to apologize!

[Bored chemist]

If your explanation about the clockwise/anticlockwise is incorrect

There is no reason to suppose that I am incorrect.
But there is a very good reason to suppose that you are incorrect.

You have lost the game!

It's not a game, but you have lost the plot.

You asked about an explanation for one specific case- the moons of Mars and I gave you the explanation.
You now somehow imagine I think that exactly the same thing will apply to a supermassive black hole, even though what I repeatedly said was this:

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:19:56
I'm saying it's more complicated than that, but irrelevant because your hallucination requires a breach of the conservation laws.

You are not rational.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

You asked about an explanation for one specific case- the moons of Mars and I gave you the explanation.
You now somehow imagine I think that exactly the same thing will apply to a supermassive black hole, even though what I repeatedly said was this:
I'm saying it's more complicated than that, but irrelevant because your hallucination requires a breach of the conservation laws.

The Moons of mars is not a specific case.
It is an ultimate example for spiraling inwards and outwards in orbital system.
You have clearly explained the requested conditions for a relatively small orbital object as a moon to spiral inwards in the direction of a massive object as a planet.
Mars and its moons is the ultimate example for this kind of orbital system.
You should clearly know that based on the anticlockwise - Nothing from the Bulge could spiral inwards into the SMBH accretion disc
Therefore, you claim that:

I'm saying it's more complicated than that

Sorry, there is nothing complicated in SMBH-S2 orbital system.
It is very clear and simple.
Based on the anticlockwise - nothing can spiral inwards.
However, that understanding could kill your lovely BBT imagination.
So, you try to find some other "complicated" solution (as gravity wave) for your imagination.
However, Gravity wave is all about BHs/Neutron stars with relatively similar mass size.
I have already proved it by a clear message from our scientist (by real article).
Therefore, gravity wave is not applicable for an orbital system as SMBH-S2.
There are billions of SMBH in the Universe.
We have the technology to observe the SMBH' accretion discs that are located even at 1BLY away.
Around each SMBH there are millions of stars.
Surprisingly, with so many opportunities for falling/spiraling stars - Our scientists have totally failed to find in the entire Universe even just one star as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.
But you don't care.
Your imagination tells you that stars should fall in - and you have no intention to accept No as an answer from the Universe.
You claim that you are the master of Knowledge.
You think that you have the power to force the SMBH to eat all of those stars around it.
However, I wonder how many more years is needed for you and for all the other 100,000 BBT scientists to accept the clear observation and clear data that nothing from outside (Bulge) could spiral into the SMBH' accretion disc.
Not even a single atom!

[Bored chemist]

The Moons of mars is not a specific case.

It is the specific case which you asked about.

Based on the anticlockwise...

All rotations are anticlockwise.
So,as I said, it can't be that simple.

You claim that are the master of Knowledge.

No, I don't.
But you already told us you are a troll, so there's no real point in you being here.

You have lost the game!

[Dave Lev (OP)]

All rotations are anticlockwise.
So,as I said, it can't be that simple.

It is very simple!
As all the orbital rotations in the solar system (except of Phobos) are anticlockwise, then all those orbital objects must spiral outwards.
We have 100% confirmation for that activity.
Therefore - the Anticlockwise/clockwise is the Ultimate indication for any orbital object to spiral outwards or inwards.
The Anticlockwise of S2 around the SMBH proves that it spirals outwards.
Hence, based on real science S2 is anticlockwise around the SMBH.
Therefore it Must spiral outwards!

But you already told us you are a troll, so there's no real point in you being here.

You and all the other 100,000 scientists that refuse to accept your own 100% correct theory about anticlockwise/clockwise - are the current real trolls of the modern science!
There is no difference between you to those scientists that claim 500 years ago that the Earth is the center of the Universe.
They were sure that they are correct - and they refuse to accept any observation that contradicts their imagination.
At that time - anyone that refused to accept their imagination had been set in jail.
You can't set me in jail as they did in the old good time.
However, you have set this discussion in the desert that is called - "It can't be true" while you and all the other moderators know that due to the anticlockwise Nothing really falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.
Sorry, its better for all of you to set the BBT at this desert and offer me a reward for my discovery.

[Bored chemist]

As all the orbital rotations in the solar system (except of Phobos) are anticlockwise,

They are actually all clockwise.

[Bored chemist]

But you already told us you are a troll, so there's no real point in you being here.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:13:55
You have lost the game!

[Dave Lev (OP)]

As all the orbital rotations in the solar system (except of Phobos) are anticlockwise,

They are actually all clockwise.

Is it?
Our moon sets one full orbital cycle around the earth in 28 Days while the earth set full spin cycle in one day.
Hence, the spin of the earth is faster than the orbital cycle of the moon. Therefore, it is anticlockwise.
Can you please show any other moon that moves faster than its planet spin?

[Bored chemist]

Have you really not recognised that "clockwise" and"anticlockwise" don't actually tell you which way something rotates?

The hands of a clock rotate anticlockwise.
https://unsplash.com/photos/uxg_B44me1E

It depends where you look from.

But you already told us you are a troll, so there's no real point in you being here.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:13:55
You have lost the game!

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Dear Kryptid

It is very clear that BC is doing whatever it takes to confuse me with uncorrected and contradicted answers.
He had confirmed the impact of Clockwise/Anticlockwise on orbital object:

Is all about the point of view of someone that stood on the equator of mars?
The orbital velocity of Phobos is faster than Mars' spin. Therefore this someone would see that Phobos is moving clockwise.
However, Deimos orbital velocity is slower than Mars' spin. Therefore this someone would see that Deimos is moving anticlockwise.
So, it is all about the point of view (Pov).
Any time that the orbital velocity of the moon s faster than the planet's spin - clockwise, the moon would force to spiral inwards, while any time the planet's spin is faster than the orbital velocity - Anticlockwise, the moon would be forced to spiral outwards.
Is it correct?

You are begiining to understand it.
I only needed to explain it 3 times.

However, once he understood that this indication could kill his hope for falling stars into the SMBH' accretion disc,  his reply was:

All rotations are anticlockwise.
So,as I said, it can't be that simple.

And then:

They are actually all clockwise.

and even:

Have you really not recognised that "clockwise" and"anticlockwise" don't actually tell you which way something rotates?

Is it Ok with you to let BC offering those kind of uncorrected and contradicted answers just in order to overcome the understanding that Stars can't fall/spiral inwards into the SMBH' accretion disc?
So, do you agree with BC approach in order to protect the mainstream hope that the SMBH must eat matter from outside – Although we have NEVER EVER observed any matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc?

[Bored chemist]

You seem not to have understood that what you asked for was a difference between photos and Demos which explained why they acted differently.
My reply was that they orbit in (from the point of view of an observer on the ground) different directions- one clockwise and the other counterclockwise.

But I didn't say which was which.
I couldn't have done so.
As I have pointed out, there is no absolute way to say if something rotates one way, or teh other.
Even clocks rotate anticlockwise.

But the important thing is that they orbit in different directions.

If you were half as clever as you claim to be, you would have realised this,


So there's nothing contradictory in what I wrote.
The problem, as usual, is your  lack of understanding.
But I guess that's what we expect from a troll.

[Bored chemist]

Although we have NEVER EVER observed any matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc?

Although we have NEVER EVER observed any black cat in a dark coal cellar?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

You seem not to have understood that what you asked for was a difference between photos and Demos which explained why they acted differently.
My reply was that they orbit in (from the point of view of an observer on the ground) different directions- one clockwise and the other counterclockwise.
But I didn't say which was which.
I couldn't have done so.
As I have pointed out, there is no absolute way to say if something rotates one way, or the other.
Even clocks rotate anticlockwise.

So you confirm that the clockwise/anticlockwise idea was just your personal manipulation of science?
I had the impression that your messages are based on real science.
Now we all understand that you offer ideas that are not connected to science.
How do you dare to manipulate the science in order to sell your wish?
Do you really have a certificate that confirms your position as a scientist?
Sorry - I have no intention to waste my time on someone that tries to sell me his personal manipulation of science or MOS (with or without certificate).
I have no intention to buy any sort of MOS from anyone!
From now on, if you wish to say something - you must backup your MOS by real article.
However, not just set an article and let me read all of it just in order to verify that you have just offered your MOS.
From now on it is your obligation to highlight the message in the article that supports your Idea.

In real science there must be a clear explanation why Phobos spiral inwards while Demos spirals outwards.
Our scientists have all the information about Phobos/demos orbital movements.
Therefore, Our science must offer clear explanation why each moon spirals to each direction.
Not just MOS, but real science.

[Bored chemist]

So you confirm that the clockwise/anticlockwise idea was just your personal manipulation of science?

I never said anything like that.
Do these hallucinations trouble you in other aspects of your life?

In real science there must be a clear explanation why Phobos spiral inwards while Demos spirals outwards.

There is a clear explanation. It is because one goes forwards and the other goes backwards.

They behave differently because they are in different circumstances.
For some reason  you seem not to understand that.
Which bit do you not understand?

Is it that you do not understand that forwards and backwards are different?
Or do you not understand that different circumstances will lead to different outcomes?