Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #546038 > unrolled thread
| Started by | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-17 00:01 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-01-17 15:32 -0600 |
| Articles | 7 — 5 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Why didn't Feynmann and Hawking mention jets? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 00:01 -0800
Re: Why didn't Feynmann and Hawking mention jets? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-17 23:41 +1100
Why didn't Feynmann and Hawking mention jets? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 05:58 -0800
Why didn't Feynmann and Hawking mention jets? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 07:00 -0800
Re: Why didn't Feynmann and Hawking mention jets? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-17 20:04 +0000
Re: Why didn't Feynmann and Hawking mention jets? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 15:34 -0600
Re: Why didn't Feynmann and Hawking mention jets? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 15:32 -0600
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 00:01 -0800 |
| Subject | Why didn't Feynmann and Hawking mention jets? |
| Message-ID | <78e97769-661b-47aa-a2bf-b06735f338bb@googlegroups.com> |
Why, when they were speaking and forming equations related to Black Holes, did neither Feynmann nor Hawking mention the jets? When we observe something falling into a BH, there are suddenly tremendous magnetic fields and jets. Which chapter in Hawkings book deals with those? Why are so many people blindly following this mathematical approach, when it overlooks stuff like jets with enough material to make a quasar?
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 23:41 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dg1ggiFlm6fU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #546038 |
On 17/01/2016 7:01 PM, john wrote: > Why, when they were speaking and > forming equations related to Black > Holes, did neither Feynmann nor > Hawking mention the jets? > When we observe something falling > into a BH, there are suddenly tremendous > magnetic fields and jets. > Which chapter in Hawkings book deals > with those? > > Why are so many people blindly following > this mathematical approach, when it > overlooks stuff like jets with enough material > to make a quasar? > The full ramifications of a mathematical theory are rarely immediately obvious. This doesn't mean the theory is wrong, it just means that the required analysis has not yet been performed. Indeed, part of the process is for someone to discover some consequence of the math, and then for the experimentalists or observers, to look for evidence that that consequence is really played out. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 05:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <71aed8dc-24c5-46b2-be18-a0f546ed91b4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #546038 |
In Einstein's time AGN were an unknown. We knew there were strong radio sources, but we didn't know what they were. Even today, the magnetic vortices that power these jets are poorly understood. But it has absolutely nothing to do with your retarded ideas of 'turtles all the way down'. Science is the answer. The unknown is the question. If you venture off the track of science and lower your standards of evidence, you will wind up with retard physics like that of your and BJ. Belief in ESP, ghosts, and other hogwash paranormal events are the result.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 07:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a32990b7-ebeb-48f8-bc23-4520391680bd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #546053 |
So- "A Brief History of Time" was unable to predict Black Hole jets. There you go with your math
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 20:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n7gs42$sh2$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #546055 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >So- >"A Brief History of Time" was unable to >predict Black Hole jets. The accretion disk jets are a product of the accretion disks. How much did they go into the math/physics of the accretion disks rather than the black holes themselves?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 15:34 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7h1d0$11qe$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #546055 |
On 1/17/2016 9:00 AM, john wrote: > So- > "A Brief History of Time" was unable to > predict Black Hole jets. > > There you go with your math > A Brief History of Time is in no way supposed to be a treatise on everything Hawking knew about black holes. So why did you expect it to appear there? You do know he's written other books, including those not aimed at the layperson? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-17 15:32 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7h18d$11qe$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #546038 |
On 1/17/2016 2:01 AM, john wrote: > Why, when they were speaking and > forming equations related to Black > Holes, did neither Feynmann nor > Hawking mention the jets? > When we observe something falling > into a BH, there are suddenly tremendous > magnetic fields and jets. > Which chapter in Hawkings book deals > with those? Which book by Hawking are you referring to? If you're talking about A Brief History of Time, the behavior of matter in the vicinity of black holes just wasn't what he was trying to convey. However, if you look at the book by Hawking an Israel, you'll see articles about matter in the vicinity of black holes. > > Why are so many people blindly following > this mathematical approach, when it > overlooks stuff like jets with enough material > to make a quasar? > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web