[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 14:32:15
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.

OK
Now you are using Forwards/Backwards instead of Clockwise/Anticlockwise.
Can you please confirm the following understanding with regards to the impact of Forwards/backwards on spiraling Inwards/Outwards:

Spiraling Inwards - Phobos orbital velocity is forwards/faster than Mars' spin, Therefore it spirals inwards.
Spiraling Outwards - Demos orbital velocity is backwards/slower than Mars' spin, Therefore it spirals outwards.

Did I understand you correctly?

If the whole idea of Moon' spiraling Inwards/outwards is based on Forwards/backwards (Orbital velocity with regards to the planet' spin), then why did you use Clockwise/Anticlockwise?

Is it just to confuse me?
How happy you are after confusing me with your MOS and highlighting my poor understanding?

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?

Can you please backup this Forwards/backwards impact on orbital spiraling by real article or is it one more aspect of your MOS that you are going to change in your next reply?

[Kryptid]

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?

Clockwise and counter-clockwise are relative to your point of view.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Clockwise and counter-clockwise are relative to your point of view.

Yes, that is very clear.
However, why BC couldn't offer the forward/backwards instead of Clockwise/anticlockwise at the first time?
I have an impression that even Forward/backward is another MOS.
Later on he might claim that this one also has double meaning.
Please be aware that he didn't offer an article to backup any of his ideas.
Why he offers that kind of MOS with double meaning just to confuse me and waste my time?
How can we set any sort of real discussion when his main task is to confuse me with his MOS?
Is it OK with you?

[Bored chemist]

Clockwise/Anticlockwise?

Is it just to confuse me?

No.
I used clockwise and anticlockwise because those are the words we use to describe rotations.
Things like rotating bodies such as Mars, and orbits like the two moons rotate; and the rotations are described as clockwise or anticlockwise.

Your not understanding these words is not my fault.

How happy you are after confusing me with your MOS and highlighting my poor understanding?

If you want me to stop highlighting your misunderstandings then either stop posting them or learn more. That is your decision. If you keep on posting stuff that is wrong, I will keep pointing it out. How else will you learn any better? How else would others reading this  know that you post nonsense?

I would be happy if you understood things, but you keep refusing to learn.
If you learned that things fall down, rather than up that would be good.
If you learned that energy conservation is a fundamental law of the universe, that would be good.

But you do not learn, because you are a troll.

You proved this.
You said

You have lost the game!

This isn't a game, but if you are just pretending, then you are a troll.
That would explain why you keep pretending that things fall up.

[Bored chemist]

I have an impression that even Forward/backward is another MOS.

Most of your impressions turn out to be wrong.

[Bored chemist]

Please be aware that he didn't offer an article to backup any of his ideas.

Why are you obsessed with articles?

I can not find an article that says "Things fall down".
Nobody would write such an article because anyone old enough to learn to read already knows that things fall down.

I suppose, if I had time, I could write an article that says things like  "things fall down" and " the conservation of mass/ energy is true", and get it published.
There are vanity publishing sites that will publish anything- for a fee.

If you wanted, you could write an article that says grass is red, sunshine makes things cold, things fall up and the conservation laws are wrong.
And you could get that published.
But it would still be wrong, wouldn't it?

[Bored chemist]

his main task is to confuse me with his MOS?

You were more nearly right when you said

How happy you are after confusing me with your MOS and highlighting my poor understanding?

It is the job of people who know things to try to correct the mistakes of people who do not.
And the way to do that- what you call my "main task" is to highlight your misunderstandings so that you can learn a better understanding.
Unfortunately, you refuse to learn.

I think it is because you are a troll.

So, you need to convince me that you are not a troll.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Please answer the following:

Can you please confirm the following understanding with regards to the impact of Forwards/backwards on spiraling Inwards/Outwards:
Spiraling Inwards - Phobos orbital velocity is forwards/faster than Mars' spin, Therefore it spirals inwards.
Spiraling Outwards - Demos orbital velocity is backwards/slower than Mars' spin, Therefore it spirals outwards.
Did I understand you correctly?

[Bored chemist]

Unfortunately, you refuse to learn.

I think it is because you are a troll.

So, you need to convince me that you are not a troll.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Unfortunately, you refuse to learn.
I think it is because you are a troll.
So, you need to convince me that you are not a troll.

Yes, this is your comfort zone.
Instead of dealing with difficult questions it is always better to claim that other one is a troll without a basic understanding of "real science" that is called BBT.
There is a reason why you ignore my question:

Can you please confirm the following understanding with regards to the impact of Forwards/backwards on spiraling Inwards/Outwards:
Spiraling Inwards - Phobos orbital velocity is forwards/faster than Mars' spin, Therefore it spirals inwards.
Spiraling Outwards - Demos orbital velocity is backwards/slower than Mars' spin, Therefore it spirals outwards.
Did I understand you correctly?

You know that Mars and its moons is an ultimate example for orbital system with spiraling Inwards and outwards Moons.
You know that this system proves that in order to spiral inwards, the orbital object must move faster/forwarder than the spin of the main object.
You know that S2 orbital time is 15 years and there is no chance that the SMBH (as a rotatable object) sets one spin in so long time.
You know that S2 can't spiral inwards.
You and all your 100,000 "BBT scientists" know that Nothing really falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.
Therefore, you have tried to confuse me with your clockwise/anticlockwise and then with Forward/backwards.
Why don't you try the Elephant/Ant or Fofo/Fifi?
Please be aware that anyone that know by 100% that his answer is incorrect and still offer that answer can't claim that his message is true!
If you wish to continue the discussion - it is your obligation to explain why the same gravity/tidal forces that spiral Demos outwards from Mars, can't also spiral S2 away from the SMBH?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I can not find an article that says "Things fall down".
Nobody would write such an article because anyone old enough to learn to read already knows that things fall down.

This message is another indication for your imagination.
There are no "free objects" around the SMBH that are waiting to be eaten.
Any object there MUST orbit around the SMBH.
Therefore, nothing really falls.
It is just an issue of spiraling inwards or outwards - in orbital system.
Mars gave us the key understanding points for spiraling inwards & outwards.
It is your obligation to use those points in the S2 - SMBH as this is an orbital system.

[Bored chemist]

There is a reason why you ignore my question:

Yes.
The reason is that the evidence shows you to be a troll.

[Bored chemist]

You know that S2 orbital time is 15 years and there is no chance that the SMBH (as a rotatable object) sets one spin in so long time.

SMBH has no tide.
So the point is moot.

I already explained this.
Why are you going on about it?
Is it because you are a troll?

[Kryptid]

How can we set any sort of real discussion when his main task is to confuse me with his MOS?

I don't think his intention is to confuse you.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 12:25:09
You know that S2 orbital time is 15 years and there is no chance that the SMBH (as a rotatable object) sets one spin in so long time.
SMBH has no tide.
So the point is moot.

What do we really know about the internal structure of a SMBH?
Have you ever been inside a SMBH in order to claim if it has tide or not?
So based on what evidence do you claim such imagination?

The reason is that the evidence shows you to be a troll.

What kind of evidence supports your manipulation that matter from the Bulge falls into the SMBH' accretion disc?
Actually - all the evidences that you are using are pure imagination as follow:
1. Spiral inwards - Mars and its moon show us clearly all the evidences that are needed for orbital object to spiral inwards or outwards. Based on those evidences, S2 that orbits around the SMBH would never spiral inwards.
2. Falling inwards - As I have already stated, There are no stars around the SMBH that are waiting to be eaten by falling in. All the objects orbit around the SMBH are in orbital motion. Therefore, they can only spiral in and not falling in. However, we have already verify that S2 can't spiral in. Never and ever.
Therefore - By real law of gravity and the requested conditioned for orbital objects to spiral inwards - stars do not spirals inwards.
3. Observation - We all agree that we have never ever observed any star as it spiral inwards.
You try to justify the missing observation for falling star by the following answer:

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?

So, let's deal with that nonsense:
The plasma at the accretion disc is very observable as its temp is 10^9c
You wish to believe that the source for that plasma is a falling star. However, if that was correct, then as the star falls in, it is expected that it would break down to its atoms and it would grain the requested. Therefore it is expected to observe fireworks during that falling in and break down process.
There is no way that a star would fall all the way from the Bulge up to the accretion disc, break down to its atoms, increase its temp to 10^9 collide with the plasma at the accretion disc - without any sort of signs that we could observe.
So, your idea about the Back cat is just nonsense. Any star that falls in must end its life with Ultra high observable fireworks.
Please remember that we can observe millions of SMBH' accretion discs. Around each SMBH there are Millions of stars. So there are Billions of cats over there to be eaten by the SMBH.
How could it be that we don't observe even one cat?
If I would tell you that there are Billions of cats in LA but you can't see them all as they are all black and at any given moment they all are located at a black cellar would you believe me?
Don't you agree that some of them could be white or gray?
Don't you agree that from time to time they might jump out the blacj cellar?
So, even if there were just one million instead of one billion it is expected to observe some of them.
However, we do not observe even one star as it falls in.
Not as it gain ultra gigh temp as it falls. Not when its end its life with ultra strong fireworks and not when its atom collide with the plasma at the accretion disc.
We clearly observe the accretion disc of M87.
We see significant changes in its shape every year.
So, as it lose matter in so short time - new matter must come in.
Surprisingly, we don't observe any signs of falling stars/matter from outside.
All we see is a constant OUTFLOW from that disc.
So how can you continue to believe in a falling star while all the evidences prove that we should observe that falling in process - if it was real?

Therefore - anyone that claims that stars should fall into the SMBH' accretion disc without clear observation for that activity while it contradict our understanding for the requested conditions for spiraling inwards - is the real troll of the modern science.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

How can we set any sort of real discussion when his main task is to confuse me with his MOS?

I don't think his intention is to confuse you.

Yes he is.
He confused me with his imagination of Clockwise/anticlockwise and then with Forward/backward while he refused to use his own ideas for the S2-SMBH system.
He offered the black cat example, while he knew that if there were cats over there, than the chance that all of them are black and all of them are constantly living on a black cellar is less than zero. Somehow we must observe at least one. In the same token as we have never observed a falling star - then it is the ultimate observation that NOTHING falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.
Please also be aware that he normally doesn't offer any article to support his imagination.
In the very rare times that he offered an article - he didn't highlight the important message that should support his idea.
Is it OK with you?
Sorry - He can't just sell us his personal imagination without any backup by real article and then claim that my understanding is poor.
He is wasting our time.
Therefore, I request you to force him to backup his imagination/ideas by real observation, real data and real article.
Any message that I have offered is backup by real article and real observation.
Hence, would you kindly set back this discussion at "new theories".

[Kryptid]

He confused me

There's a difference between him confusing you accidentally and confusing you intentionally.

Please also be aware that he normally doesn't offer any article to support his imagination.
In the very rare times that he offered an article - he didn't highlight the important message that should support his idea.
Is it OK with you?
Sorry - He can't just sell us his personal imagination without any backup by real article and then claim that my understanding is poor.
He is wasting our time.
Therefore, I request you to force him to backup his imagination/ideas by real observation, real data and real article.

Dave...

You do understand by now that's exactly what most of us, moderators included, think you are doing and not him, right? I know you strongly disagree with our view on that, but surely you at least acknowledge that pretty much everyone here who has taken the time to speak with you has opposed your idea?

[Bored chemist]

So based on what evidence do you claim such imagination?

It's not my imagination.
You keep trying to pretend that it is just me who thinks this.
The science, while largely theoretical, is quite clear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem

Why he offers that kind of MOS with double meaning just to confuse me and waste my time?

I'm not "manipulating" science; I'm not even sure that's possible.
I'm just telling you what the science says.
Only you thinks they have more than one meaning.
They are clear to everyone else.

The only person here wasting your time is you.
You could stop posting this nonsense any time you chose.

But you keep trolling- as you said, you think it's a game.
But your decision to try to mislead people isn't a game; it's dangerous.

Frankly, I don't see why you have not been banned for it.

[Bored chemist]

Therefore, they can only spiral in and not falling in.

This is an example of your poor understanding.
And object which falls from orbit will almost always follow a spiral path.
"Falling in" and "spiraling in" mean the same thing.
So when you say "Therefore, they can only spiral in and not falling in.", we look at that and  see this
"therefore, they can only fall in and not falling in.".

Do you realise it's not me pointing that out which makes you look a fool?
Everyone who read what you said knows that you do not understand that they mean the same thing and that you are a fool for saying they don't.

You keep making a fool of yourself, and then you try to blame me.
So there is no difference between "falling in" and "spiraling in".

So what you have said there is

[Bored chemist]

In the very rare times that he offered an article - he didn't highlight the important message that should support his idea.

If you were really more clever than the rest of the world's scientists, you would be able to find the important bit, wouldn't you?

None of the other scientists here had any problem.
Do you see now that they are the clever ones, and you are a fool?