[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 02:30:05
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

What kind of imagination do you wish to prove with this article?
Can it be used to prove that orbital object (S2 for example) from outside (Bulge) should spiral inwards?

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".

Yes, there is a big difference.
1. Spiraling inwards - Phobos spirals inwards and decreases its average radius by two meter per year. It is expected that it would take it about 40 M Years before it would break down due to the closest approach to Mars. It also has a circular orbital shape. this is a key factor for any spiraling in object. We also see that activity in the gravity wave when the objects spiral inwards in a circular way around their common center of mass until they finely merge.
Hence - spiraling inwards means that the orbital object orbits at a circular shape, decreases its average radius, decreases its orbital cycle time and increases its orbital velocity over time. That process takes time. Therefore, although Phobos is located now just three times the radius of mars, it could take it 40 million years to get inwards. However, if there is a friction (As atmosphere friction) it could merge with the main object after few months or even days.
2. Falling inwards - This is a different scenario. In this case, the object falls at accelerated velocity and merge with the main object without setting even one single orbital cycle. As an example we can use the meteorites that collide with our planet and merge with it. Those objects do not orbit about the planet but around the Sun. Therefore, falling inwards objects are not orbital objects with reference to the object that they collide with.
In this case, we can use the examples: falling apple, falling air-plan & falling meteorite.
None of them sets even one natural orbital cycle around the planet before it merge with it.

So, in spiraling inwards and in falling inwards the final stage is merging with the main mass.
There is no way for the orbital object to spiral inwards decreases its average orbital radius up to almost a circular shape at the event horizon and then suddenly change the spiraling/falling from inwards to outwards or outflow.
This is the biggest mistake of the modern science.

[Bored chemist]

The thing that makes an object which spirals in go downwards is gravity.
Moving under the influence of gravity (without much other influence) is falling.
So spiraling in is falling.
You then posted about 350 words of stuff that must be wrong.

It also has a circular orbital shape. this is a key factor for any spiraling in object.

That can not possibly be true.
A spiral is not a circle.
What did you think you were talking about?

the object falls at accelerated velocity and merge with the main object without setting even one single orbital cycle

You made that up, and it's bollocks.
Or, as you would put it.
Provide an article that shows this definition.

[Bored chemist]

What kind of imagination do you wish to prove with this article?

Imagination has nothing to do with it.
I don't think you know what the word means.


"the ability of the mind to be creative or resourceful."
"the part of the mind that imagines things."

But the point I made is simple enough.
Tides happen when gravity of an orbiting body changes the structure of something; such as when teh Moon moves teh eas around.
So a thing with no structure can't have tides.
And the "No hair" theory says that a BH has no structure.
So it can't have tides.

If you were any good at science, you would have understood that.

But you didn't understand it, did you?
Because you don't know any science.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Tides happen when gravity of an orbiting body changes the structure of something; such as when teh Moon moves teh eas around.
So a thing with no structure can't have tides.
And the "No hair" theory says that a BH has no structure.
So it can't have tides.
If you were any good at science, you would have understood that.

Thanks
So the No Hair theorem should reject the idea of Tides as BH has no structure.

The science, while largely theoretical, is quite clear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem

This is incorrect due to the following:
1. Different kinds of BH's
In the article it is stated:
"A study by Stephen Hawking, Malcolm Perry and Andrew Strominger postulates that black holes might contain "soft hair", giving the black hole more degrees of freedom than previously thought.[13] This hair permeates at a very low-energy state, which is why it didn't come up in previous calculations that postulated the no-hair theorem.[14]"
So there is a possibility for soft hair. Therefore, not all the BH's are exactly the same. There are different kinds of BH's as there are different kinds of planets. Some planets have atmosphere around them and carry water while others have no atmosphere and no water.
2. Gravity wave -
Based on gravity wave theory two BHs/Neutron stars orbit around their common center of mass and spiral inwards. At the final stage, just before the final merging phase they gain ultra high orbital velocity. That velocity would set the spin/rotation velocity of the combined BH after the merging process. Let's call this combined BH a gravity wave' BH.
So, this gravity wave' BH rotates at ultra high velocity and therefore it should be able to generate ultra high Electromagnetic power. We clearly observe in our universe the Pulsar and Magnetar that are so unique with their ultra EM power.
Therefore, not all the BH's are the same. In some of them there will be no hair, no rotation and no any sort of EM. While on other (especially at those Gravity wave BHs) there is high rotation velocity, high EM and even soft (or higher) hair that is sensible to tides. Those kinds of BH's with their high ability of EM could generate high radiation around them. Therefore, we clearly observe the jet stream that is boosted away from them. There is high chance that the SMBH had been evolved from this kind of Gravity wave' BH.

[Bored chemist]

black holes might contain...

Or they might not.

Quote from: Bored chemist on 24/07/2021 18:19:56
I'm saying it's more complicated than that, but irrelevant because your hallucination requires a breach of the conservation laws.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 20:06:31
black holes might contain.

Or they might not.

If you accept the LIGO observation of the gravity wave' BH, you have to accept that it rotates at ultra high velocity and contain EM power. This kind of BH is absolutely different! Pulsar and Magnetar are good examples for other kinds of BHs.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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

I'm saying that it's not so complicated.
If you accept the gravity wave' BH and agree that a Pulsar has ultra high EM power, then you have to agree that it could generate new particles near its event horizon by its ultra high EM power/radiation.

[Bored chemist]

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

I'm saying that it's not so complicated.
If you accept the gravity wave' BH and agree that a Pulsar has ultra high EM power, then you have to agree that it could generate new particles near its event horizon by its ultra high EM power/radiation.

You are ignoring the conservation laws again.
Blackholes can generate particles- via the Hawking radiation mechanism.
In doing so they must lose mass.
So they can not do it forever.
So they can not be the mechanism for a steady state universe.

That bit is not complicated.
The orbital mechanics of stuff falling into a black hole is also not really complicated.
On the whole, it falls down.

But the details of the path taken by different materials and objects is rather complicated.
Even with a simple system like Mars, Phobos and Demos, I had to explain it to you several times  before you began to understand it.

Those details don't matter.
In the long run you only need t look at the big picture.
In the long run, things fall down.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

You are ignoring the conservation laws again.
Blackholes can generate particles- via the Hawking radiation mechanism.
In doing so they must lose mass.
So they cannot do it forever.
So they can not be the mechanism for a steady state universe.

Yes they can.
Please let me know if you agree with the following:
1. Do you agree that Pulsar has high EM energy/radiation?
2. Do you agree that based on this EM radiation it can generate new positive mass particle pair (with opposite charged to each other) around its event horizon?
3. Do you agree that due to Lorenz force under the magnetic field, as one new created particle falls into the Pulsar the other one is ejected outwards?
4. Do you agree that as a pulsar rotates and generates EM it should have at least soft hair. Therefore, it is affected by tides.
5. Do you agree that if there is an orbital object around it, then it could set tides that would generate new internal heat at that Pulsar which will compensate the lost of EM energy due to the new created particle pair?

[Bored chemist]

Do you understand that when a star shines it loses mass?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Do you understand that when a star shines it loses mass?

Sure

[Bored chemist]

Do you understand that, as a pulsar or black hole shines it loses mass?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Do you understand that, as a pulsar or black hole shines it loses mass?

BH's & Pulsar are very dense objects.
They do not emit light from their core therefore they do not shine and do not lose mass (as the sun does)
However, Pulsar has Ultra high EM power/radiation.
Our scientists claim that this high EM power can generate new particle pair:
https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0205077
"We investigate the conditions required for the production of electron-positron pairs above a pulsar polar cap (PC) and the influence of pair production on the energetics of the primary particle acceleration."
In the following image it is stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsar#/media/File:Chandra-crab.jpg
"Composite optical/X-ray image of the Crab Nebula, showing synchrotron emission in the surrounding pulsar wind nebula, powered by injection of magnetic fields and particles from the central pulsar."
Hence, new particle pair are created By the ultra high Pulsar electromagnetic.
As they carry opposite charged, one is falling into the Pulsar while the other particle is ejected outwards.
Those particles that are emitted outwards make the Pulsar so visible.
Hence, the Pulsar does lose mass. Actually it gain one of the new created particle pair and increases its total mass.
However, it must lose EM energy in that process.
Never the less, if next to this Pulsar there is a massive planet or a white dwarf, it would get back new energy due to tides.
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.1.20190916a/full/
"Astronomers have identified a handful of binary systems in which a pulsar is gravitationally and closely bound to a white dwarf."

Conclusion:
Pulsar core is invisible (as a BH). Therefore it doesn't emit any sort of particle and doesn't lose any mass.
It is losing EM energy in the process of creating new particle pairs above its polar cap (PC).
In that pair particle creation process, it will even increase its mass over time as one particle out of the pair falls inwards while the other one is ejected outwards.
However, due to a nearby white dwarf it will regain new Heat energy that would compensate its losing EM energy.

[Bored chemist]

Our scientists claim that this high EM power can generate new particle pair:

I remember telling you this.

Our scientists didn't observe any sort of pair production by pure energy.

Why do you tell that lie?

I'm glad to see it has finally sunk into your  brain.

Pulsar core is invisible (as a BH). Therefore it doesn't emit any sort of particle and doesn't lose any mass.

What do you think stops it emitting Hawking radiation?

[Bored chemist]

. Therefore it doesn't emit any sort of particle and doesn't lose any mass.
It is losing EM energy

But losing EM radiation means losing mass
You already seemed to accept this.

Do you understand that when a star shines it loses mass?

Sure

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:58:56
Pulsar core is invisible (as a BH). Therefore it doesn't emit any sort of particle and doesn't lose any mass.
What do you think stops it emitting Hawking radiation?

Let's verify how Hawking radiation really works:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
"Hawking radiation is black-body radiation that is theorized to be released by black holes because of quantum effects near the black hole event horizon. It is named after the physicist Stephen Hawking, who developed a theoretical argument for its existence in 1974.[1]"
So Hawking radiation is all about black-body radiation.
That radiation doesn't reduce the total mass of the BH itself.
In order to reduce the total energy of the black hole a pair particle (one with positive energy and the other with negative energy must be created:
" A pair of virtual waves/particles arises just outside the event horizon due to ordinary quantum effects. Very close to the event horizon, these always manifest as a pair of photons. It may happen that one of these photons passes beyond the event horizon, while the other escapes into the wider universe ("to infinity").[2] A close analysis shows that the exponential red-shifting effect of extreme gravity very close to the event horizon almost tears the escaping photon apart, and, in addition, very slightly amplifies it.[2] The amplification gives rise to a "partner wave", which carries negative energy and passes through the event horizon, where it remains trapped, reducing the total energy of the black hole."
As the negative energy particle falls into the BH it loses some of its energy.
The production of this pair is due to "to ordinary quantum effects".
So, it is not that the BH is losing energy/mass due to Hawing radiation, but it is due to the fact that a falling particle with negative energy/mass reduces the total energy of the BH.
Hence, the creation of the pair itself doesn't take energy from the BH as it is due to "ordinary quantum effects"
The losing energy comes just after the particle with negative mass/energy falls into the BH.
Therefore, it was incorrect to claim that due to the Hawking radiation the BH is losing energy or mass.
Based on Hawking the BH is losing energy/mass due to the falling particle with negative mass/energy.
However, the main question is: Do Negative energy (or negative mass) exists in our Universe?
We had long discussion about it.
So far our scientists could not offer any observation that could support this idea.
Therefore - without clear observation that there is negative particle, then this idea is just imagination.
Hence - a BH is not losing energy/mass due to Hawking radiation (But due to falling negative mass/energy) particle.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

But losing EM radiation means losing mass

Losing EM energy doesn't mean losing mass.
Our planet generates EM without losing even one particle.
The EM energy comes due to the internal rotational activity and heat.
So, Losing EM energy would potentially reduce the internal rotation and its heat over time.
However, the Tides help the BH to regain the lost energy due to the pair creation.
Over time the BH increases its mass (due to the falling positive particle/energy) and it is increasing its EM as the tides is stronger (due to increase mass in the BH and increased mass outside the BH as the other positive mass/particle had been ejected outwards).

[Kryptid]

Losing EM energy doesn't mean losing mass.

E=mc² begs to differ.

[Bored chemist]

Losing EM energy doesn't mean losing mass.

E=mc² begs to differ.

Dave only reliably  believes the bit of Einstein's work which Einstein himself described as "his greatest blunder"

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Losing EM energy doesn't mean losing mass.

E=mc² begs to differ.

OK
If you consider the internal rotation and the internal Heat of a Pulsar as mass, then I fully accept your understanding that by losing EM energy to create the New particale pair, the Pulsar is losing mass.
However, in the same token, you have to agree that the nearby White dwarf' gravity Tides means an increasing in the internal heat and the internal rotation in that Pulsar.
Therefore, do you confirm that the nearby dwarf increases the energy/mass of the Pulsar by its tides force.