0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Therefore, if the understanding about falling stars without any impact was correct, then the whole star was supposed to fall into the SMBH
So far you didn't offer even one observation of a real star as it falls into the SMBH.
How can we continue to believe that 32.7 Billion stars could be eaten by a single SMBH while there are billions of SMBHs in the observable Universe and we can't see even one real star as it falls into one of those SMBHs?
Quote from: Dave Lev on 05/04/2023 04:51:15Therefore, if the understanding about falling stars without any impact was correct, then the whole star was supposed to fall into the SMBH Not quite.there is some "splashing" from near the BH.That's what we see coming out.If you look at your previous nonsense you will see that I have pointed this out before.
The direct collapse scenario already exists to explain such massive black holes
The accretion disk and the polar beams are both evidence of the black hole consuming stars
it isn't due to any falling star.
If you wish me to stop this tread, I would stop..
Stars can't just be collapsed directly into a BH without real impact.
Don't you agree that this process must be very energetic as gravity wave, supernova
or at least it can't be considered as quite direct collapse scenario?
Our scientists wish to believe that the accretion disk and the polar jet stream are both evidence of the black hole consuming stars.
1. We observe the M87 accretion disc for the last few years and clearly see that it gains matter without any observation for falling stars?
2. Our scientists have discovered that the matter in the jet stream is a NEW matter which had just been created and not due to any consumed star?
3. After so many years that we observe the entire universe and with so many BH/SMBH it was expected to see at least one real star as it falls inwards?
4. So far, our scientists have never ever observed even one REAL star as it falls into a BH/SMBH?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:27:111. We observe the M87 accretion disc for the last few years and clearly see that it gains matter without any observation for falling stars?I don't think it's possible with current technology to directly see individual stars fall into a black hole at such a great distance from us. If it happened, we would have to infer it indirectly.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:27:111. We observe the M87 accretion disc for the last few years and clearly see that it gains matter without any observation for falling stars?
.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:27:112. Our scientists have discovered that the matter in the jet stream is a NEW matter which had just been created and not due to any consumed star? I am not aware of this. Matter can change form but it can't just pop up out of nowhere.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:27:112. Our scientists have discovered that the matter in the jet stream is a NEW matter which had just been created and not due to any consumed star?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:27:113. After so many years that we observe the entire universe and with so many BH/SMBH it was expected to see at least one real star as it falls inwards?Again, it's a distance problem. Even the closest black holes are thousands of light-years away from us.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:27:113. After so many years that we observe the entire universe and with so many BH/SMBH it was expected to see at least one real star as it falls inwards?
Quote from: Dave Lev on 01/04/2023 16:42:07Do you confirm that so far, we have Never ever observed any fireworks that is related to any star as it falls into a BH?I notice when ever you say, "Do you confirm that..." or "Do you agree that..." what follows those statements is pseudoscience, plain wrong or an obfuscation.
Do you confirm that so far, we have Never ever observed any fireworks that is related to any star as it falls into a BH?
However, do you confirm that:1. We observe the M87 accretion disc for the last few years and clearly see that it gains matter without any observation for falling stars?2. Our scientists have discovered that the matter in the jet stream is a NEW matter which had just been created and not due to any consumed star?3. After so many years that we observe the entire universe and with so many BH/SMBH it was expected to see at least one real star as it falls inwards?4. So far, our scientists have never ever observed even one REAL star as it falls into a BH/SMBH?
Based on the idea that the matter in the accretion disc must come from falling stars then, how could it be that we can easily observe the accretion disc of M87, but we can't see any star that falls in (which its matter is needed for that accretion disc)?
Hence, we specifically discuss about new particles / molecular that were actually born within the winds around the SMBH!!!
Please remember that only in the MW galaxy it is expected that about 10 stars should fall into the SMBH per year.So, how could it be that we have never ever observed even one falling star into a BH at that minimal observable radius from us?
The Baby Boom Galaxy has been nicknamed "the extreme stellar machine" because it is seen producing stars at a rate of up to 4,000 per year (almost 11 stars per day).
Let's assume that we have been told that in Africa elephant can fly but as they are too far away from us, we just can't see any.Would you believe in that story?Won't we ask to see at least one real elephant as it flies?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:34:20The Baby Boom Galaxy has been nicknamed "the extreme stellar machine" because it is seen producing stars at a rate of up to 4,000 per year (almost 11 stars per day).Sounds like something they are inferring rather than direct observation of individual stars. It's not like we have numbered every star in an individual galaxy, recount them regularly and then say, "oh, those 11 are new".
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:34:20The Baby Boom Galaxy has been nicknamed "the extreme stellar machine" because it is seen producing stars at a rate of up to 4,000 per year (almost 11 stars per day).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Boom_GalaxyThe Baby Boom Galaxy has been nicknamed "the extreme stellar machine" because it is seen producing stars at a rate of up to 4,000 per year (almost 11 stars per day).
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 06/04/2023 19:27:11Don't you agree that this process must be very energetic as gravity wave, supernovaYes, it is energetic.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 06/04/2023 19:27:11Don't you agree that this process must be very energetic as gravity wave, supernova
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:34:20Let's assume that we have been told that in Africa elephant can fly but as they are too far away from us, we just can't see any.Would you believe in that story?Won't we ask to see at least one real elephant as it flies?False analogy: elephants flying breaks the laws of physics, whereas things falling into black holes does not.
Dear KryptidIn the article it is stated clearly: "it is seen producing stars".
Even if you don't believe in a direct observation on this star creation process, why can't we trust them about the "rate of up to 4,000 per year"?Why they call this galaxy as baby boom galaxy if they aren't sure that it creates so many stars per year?
So, for any new created star, at least one star should be destroyed.
some is eaten by the SMBH
With a ratio of 1 to 4, there is a need for about 40 stars to be destroyed per year in order to create 10 stars in the milky way.
We monitor our galaxy core for more than 40 years and so far, we didn't see even one falling star.
Why do you force the SMBH to eat stars while you can't find even one SMBH in the entire universe that is willing to eat one single star?
When we observe a SMBH and quasar in any location in the Universe we clearly see the outflow stream from their accretion disc. We don't see any sort of falling stars, gas clouds or even a single atom.Hence, why can't we agree that we ONLY observe an outflow stream from the SMBH/Quasar.Therefore, we can claim that based on OBSERVATION - the stream flow in the SMBH works ONLY on the opposite direction from its expected gravity force.On Earth for example, there is no outflow stream. Any object must obey to the gravity force and fall on the surface of earth.Therefore, we can claim that on earth the flow is in the direction of the gravity force.Hence, if we would set an object at the accretion disc of the SMBH, that object would be ejected outwards, while if we would set the same object at 10,000 km above the earth, that object would fall into the direction of earth.Therefore, it's the time for us to accept the observation as follow:There is ONLY one direction of flow:On Erath - the flow is in the direction of the gravity force. (ONLY inflow)On the SMBH/Quasar - the flow is in the opposite direction of the gravity force (ONLY outflow).The theory is nice, but real observation must win the theory.As we can't see any star that falls into the SMBH in the entire universe including our milky way and M87, then it's the time for us to understand that nothing really falls in.How and why is a different story.Hence, first let's agree/accept the observation and then let's discuss about the theory.
I see the OP continuously struggling to Understand BH formations, but i see Noone helping the OP out with Logic based Evidence.
I see the OP continuously struggling to Understand BH formations, but i see Noone helping the OP out with Logic based Evidence.https://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/features/f_blackhole-briefing.htmlhttps://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/galex/galex20120502.htmlhttps://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nasa-gets-unusually-close-glimpse-of-black-hole-snacking-on-starhttps://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2023/hubble-finds-hungry-black-hole-twisting-captured-star-into-donut-shape
Why do you keep bringing up supernovae? A star being consumed by a black hole from the outside isn't going to make a supernova
"The outburst was caused by the gas from the obliterated star being super-heated to millions of degrees Celsius, before being swallowed by the black hole. The energy released was equivalent to a supernova and considered one of the most intense ever detected in a galaxy."
1. https://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/features/f_blackhole-briefing.html
Therefore, our scientists fully confirm that when a star falls into the SMBH "The energy released was equivalent to a supernova"
There are x-ray emissions from that, but no supernova.
Look at Cygnus X-1. The star in that system is slowly being pulled apart and consumed by the black hole.
The star in that system is slowly being pulled apart and consumed by the black hole
Therefore, do we agree that the ejected gas quantity is significantly bigger than the gas that is consumed from the star?