Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #584708 > unrolled thread

NOTHING stays in a Black Hole

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  NOTHING stays in a Black Hole john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-13 09:09 -0700
    NOTHING stays in a Black Hole HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-13 09:34 -0700
    Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-13 16:38 +0000
      Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-13 09:58 -0700
        Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-13 10:35 -0700
          Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-13 11:08 -0700
            Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-13 20:02 +0000
              Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-13 14:17 -0700
                Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-14 02:58 +0000
                  Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 02:22 -0700
                    Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-14 12:26 +0000
                      Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 06:32 -0700
                        Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-14 16:48 +0000
                          Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 10:46 -0700
                            Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 12:56 -0700
                            Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-15 00:39 +0000
                              Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 00:23 -0700
                                Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-15 14:39 +0000
                                  Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 11:52 -0700
                                    Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-15 20:29 +0000
                                      Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 16:38 -0700
                                        Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 17:17 -0700
                                          Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-16 01:54 +0000
                                            Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 19:24 -0700
                                              Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-16 12:59 +0000
                                                Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-16 06:06 -0700
                                        Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-16 01:40 +0000
        Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-13 19:50 +0000
          Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-06-13 14:42 -0700
    Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-06-13 14:45 -0700
    Re: NOTHING stays in a Black Hole "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 14:08 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#584708 — NOTHING stays in a Black Hole

Scientists have observed a star
falling into a BH.
It shredded and immediately outgoing
jets formed.

A Black Hole is a HOLE!!
NONE of our matter can be in there.
(Is there ever anything in a hole?)

Black Holes trap neutrinos. When matter
falls in and is shredded, it combines
with these neutrinos to become high
energy particles that are shot back out
as jets.

In regions of Space where there are excess
neutrinos, the accretion discs become
maximal, pulling the arms in by their gravity
until a tipping point is reached, and
the discs are released as the galactic
equivalent of entangled PHOTONS.

Of course, if current theory is right,
we will NEVER see a release of
any kind from a BH. 

Ha ha.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#584710

john
Scientists have observed a star 
falling into a BH. 
It shredded and immediately outgoing 
jets formed. 

A Black Hole is a HOLE!! 
NONE of our matter can be in there. 
(Is there ever anything in a hole?) 

Black Holes trap neutrinos. When matter 
falls in and is shredded, it combines 
with these neutrinos to become high 
energy particles that are shot back out 
as jets. 

In regions of Space where there are excess 
neutrinos, the accretion discs become 
maximal, pulling the arms in by their gravity 
until a tipping point is reached, and 
the discs are released as the galactic 
equivalent of entangled PHOTONS. 

Of course, if current theory is right, 
we will NEVER see a release of 
any kind from a BH. 

Ha ha. 
---------

This message of hogwash is brought to you by little pharma. Little pharma, making your day brighter!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#584713

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> tarded:

>Scientists have observed a star
>falling into a BH.
>It shredded and immediately outgoing
>jets formed.

>A Black Hole is a HOLE!!
>NONE of our matter can be in there.
>(Is there ever anything in a hole?)

That is the exact opposite of the physics definition.  Once anything goes 
in, it NEVER comes out.  Barring Hawking radiation, of course.

(BTW jets come from the accretion disks, from 
matter BEFORE it falls in) 

BTW if black holes don't contain matter, explain their enormous gravity.

<snip word salad>

>Of course, if current theory is right,
>we will NEVER see a release of
>any kind from a BH. 

And so far, we haven't.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#584716

John said
>Of course, if current theory is right, 
>we will NEVER see a release of 
>any kind from a BH. 

Mikey:
And so far, we haven't. 

John:
You're sure about that?
Or, everything that comes away
"just bounced off the accretion disc".
Right!!
Look again, Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#584721

john
John said 
>Of course, if current theory is right, 
>we will NEVER see a release of 
>any kind from a BH. 

Mikey: 
And so far, we haven't. 

John: 
You're sure about that? 
Or, everything that comes away 
"just bounced off the accretion disc". 
Right!! 
Look again, Michael 
--------

John read about how relativistic jets are formed. Even a cursory search will give you the basics.

You're a Luddite

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#584727

HVAC and Michael
Do a search.
They saw a large pulse of energy
exit a BH followed by a release of X-rays.

Black Holes are NOT "gravitationally-squashed
matter". They are a "relativistic" SPIN in
the UNDERLYING FABRIC of Space, which is,
of course, the next order of matter down

Hey, you heard it from me first. Consider
yourself lucky

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#584759

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> tarded:

>HVAC and Michael
>Do a search.
>They saw a large pulse of energy
>exit a BH followed by a release of X-rays.

Why yes, given how the accretion disk and the jets have been heated to
extraordinary temperatures, they give off "heat" in the X Ray region.
Astronomers see that all the time with super hot gases.

Why would you think it came from the black hole itself? They are so small
in comparison that there is no way to say something would come from the hole
as opposed to nearby.  And theory does predict super hot accretion disks and
jets which will produce X-Rays.

>Black Holes are NOT "gravitationally-squashed
>matter".

Once again, explain their enormous gravity. (I notice you didn't answer last
time I asked).

> They are a "relativistic" SPIN in
>the UNDERLYING FABRIC of Space, which is

NONSENSE. How can you have spin if there is nothing to spin? And what about
non-spinning black holes (Schwarzschild black holes) ?

>Hey, you heard it from me first. Consider
>yourself lucky

I am lucky that there are entertaining kooks such as yourself to amuse me on
these groups.  For free, too.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#584769

Michael, whose email I don't care about, said:

>Why yes, given how the accretion disk and the jets have >been heated to 
>extraordinary temperatures, they give off "heat" in the X >Ray region. 
>Astronomers see that all the time with super hot gases. 
>
>Why would you think it came from the black hole itself? >They are so small 
>in comparison that there is no way to say something >would come from the hole 
>as opposed to nearby.  And theory does predict super >hot accretion disks and 
>jets which will produce X-Rays. 

Examine your thinking, Dude: you have a very
small thing- the only thing around, surrounded
by LOTS of Space, and a huge burst of
energy comes from right there. And you
say because it's so small, we can't say for
sure where the energy is coming from?
What what?

>>Black Holes are NOT "gravitationally-squashed 
>>matter". 

Once again, explain their enormous gravity. (I notice you didn't answer last 
time I asked). 
I have answered this many times. Black Holes
COMPLETELY block the neutrino flux from stars
(causing Space expansion)
AND the "mini neutrino flux" from electrons
(the cause of gravity and inertia)
>> They are a "relativistic" SPIN in 
>>the UNDERLYING FABRIC of Space, which is 

>NONSENSE. How can you have spin if there is nothing >to spin? And what about 
>non-spinning black holes (Schwarzschild black holes) ? 

I SAID, spin in the underlying fabric of Space,
which is all the LOWER ORDERS OF MATTER
in the Universal Fractal. (Show me evidence
of a non-spinning BH- you can't)

>Hey, you heard it from me first. Consider 
>yourself lucky

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#584806

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> tarded:

>Examine your thinking, Dude: you have a very
>small thing- the only thing around,

Umm, no.  It has an accretion disk of matter plus more mass being sucked
in.  That star that got shredded that you like to bring up.

If there's nothing there, the black hole doesn't do much except have stuff
orbit it from a distance.  The giant black hole that should be at the 
center of our galaxy, for example.  It's rather quiet.  When we look at
where it should be, there's nothing there. But we know something really
is there, since stars orbit it.  It just doesn't seem to have much, if
any, accretion disk or active jets.

> surrounded
>by LOTS of Space, and a huge burst of
>energy comes from right there.

IF you have a black hole being fed with matter...

>>>Black Holes are NOT "gravitationally-squashed 
>>>matter". 

>Once again, explain their enormous gravity. (I notice you didn't answer last 
>time I asked). 
>I have answered this many times.

[snip incomprehensible gibberish]

Umm, OK, whatever you say.

>>NONSENSE. How can you have spin if there is nothing >to spin? And what about 
>>non-spinning black holes (Schwarzschild black holes) ? 

>I SAID,

[snip more incomprehensible gibberish]

OK John, that's nice. Now run along. (pats head)  And please clean up
your drool.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#584840

Michael
I'm sorry that you can't
understand the idea of fractals.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#584849

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Michael
>I'm sorry that you can't
>understand the idea of fractals.

I understand fractals just fine (and was "into" Mandelbrot set simulation
for a while).

It's just that the word salad that you post here makes no sense
whatsoever, regardless of whether the word "fractal" is an ingredient
of your word salad.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#584855

Michael
So, you don't understand
logarithms, either?

"Different gauge", where one is
many of another makes no sense to
you?

YOUR subatomic particles are made
from "swirling probabilities"? Nice for you,
but makes no sense in the real world.

I wonder where Odd is- cooking up a new
'nym? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#584881

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> tarded:

>Michael
>So, you don't understand
>logarithms, either?

Why would you say that?

>"Different gauge", where one is
>many of another makes no sense to
>you?

Things that violate the laws of physics don't make sense to me.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#584887

Michael
"The Laws of Physics" have been
changing as our knowledge grows.
You think that there is a "smallest"?
You go against the "laws of logic".

BHs RELEASE huge amounts of
energy. That is observed. Continue
to fudge and say "it must be bouncing
off the accretion disc", which you notice
ALSO has not been irretrievably 
EATEN- which is ALREADY a fudge to
"black holes eat everything".

A few more years of better telescopes
and it's your words you will be eating.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#584913

john
Michael 
"The Laws of Physics" have been 
changing as our knowledge grows. 
You think that there is a "smallest"? 
You go against the "laws of logic". 

BHs RELEASE huge amounts of 
energy. That is observed. Continue 
to fudge and say "it must be bouncing 
off the accretion disc", which you notice 
ALSO has not been irretrievably 
EATEN- which is ALREADY a fudge to 
"black holes eat everything". 

A few more years of better telescopes 
and it's your words you will be eating. 
-----------

John no offense but you are one confused Canadian cocksucker.

Have a nice day!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#584945

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Michael
>"The Laws of Physics" have been
>changing as our knowledge grows.

Yes, and anything that goes counter to existing laws has to have a really
really good reason why those laws are no longer valid.

>You think that there is a "smallest"?

One single letter says "yes!": "h".

>You go against the "laws of logic".

The "laws of logic" state the earth is flat and the sun goes around it
once per day, and the stars are embedded in a crystal spherical shell,
and an iron cannonball falls faster than a bag of feathers because it is
heavier.

See how far "laws of logic" gets you?

>BHs RELEASE huge amounts of
>energy. That is observed.

In the process of consuming matter.  They are messy eaters.  As I stated,
our galaxy's black hole, with nothing to eat, is quite quiet.

> Continue
>to fudge and say "it must be bouncing
>off the accretion disc",

No, as I said, produced by the accretion disk.  It's a complex process.

> which you notice
>ALSO has not been irretrievably 
>EATEN- which is ALREADY a fudge to
>"black holes eat everything".

Anything that goes past the event horizon is GONE - but the stuff outside
the horizon, such as the accretion disk, is not necessarily gone.  Some of
the matter falling in actually doesn't, it reappears as the jets.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#584977

Michael said
"
Anything that goes past the event horizon is GONE - but the stuff outside 
the horizon, such as the accretion disk, is not necessarily gone.  Some of 
the matter falling in actually doesn't, it reappears as the jets. "
When matter falls in, jets form that shoot out.
Observed.
You say some stays inside.
Not observed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#584998

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>When matter falls in, jets form that shoot out.
>Observed.
>You say some stays inside.
>Not observed.

You *can't* observe it! It is GONE! The only way we can tell it is there
is its gravity.  And we *can* observe the effects of the gravity of many
black holes, such as SGR A* with multiple stars orbiting its millions of
solar masses.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#585021

Michael
WTF do you mean, "gone"!
Of course it is gone and you saw it going-
blasting away as jets.
You have NO EVIDENCE that the BH
kept ANY of it.
Only your stubborn fantasy that
BHs must be MADE FROM the matter
that they attract.
And the fact that they possess gravity-
which you are STILL trying to model,
and failing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#585028

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Michael
>WTF do you mean, "gone"!
>Of course it is gone and you saw it going-
>blasting away as jets.

Nope, GONE as in part of the black hole now, unobservable except for its 
gravity.  SOME escapes as the matter of the jets before it gets sucked in.  
Some does not.

>You have NO EVIDENCE that the BH
>kept ANY of it.

Yes we do, the gravity of the black hole. The gravity is caused by 
its mass-energy, all the mass-energy it swallowed over time.

>Only your stubborn fantasy that
>BHs must be MADE FROM the matter
>that they attract.

Nope, it is the logical conclusion of the thought process.

1) What happens if you get a whole lot of mass all in one place. It holds 
itself together gravitationally and you get a planet or asteroid or 
something.

2) What happens if you add a whole lot more matter?  The temperature and
pressure in the center become so enormous and you get fusion, and therefore
a star.

3) What happens if you add even more (and allow the fusion to burn itself 
out)?  The electron degeneracy pressure gets exceeded and instead of 
ordinary matter, we get white dwarf matter.

4) Add even more matter? The gravitational force is so strong that nuclear
degeneracy pressure is exceeded, electrons recombine with protons and we 
have neutron star matter,

5) And add even more matter so that the escape velocity exceeds c?  Nothing 
can escape, not even light, we call this a black hole.

So tell us, what happens if you add even more matter to the result of 5).
Hint: Nothing can escape.


>And the fact that they possess gravity-
>which you are STILL trying to model,
>and failing.

GR models gravity fine.  What hasn't been done is a grand unified theory of
all forces, essentially combining GR and QM/QED into a single unified
theory.  Someday, someone will do this. (The "someone" will probably be a
large team of scientists rather than a single "neo-Einstein".)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web