Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 50

Thread: Excretion or accretion disc around the SMBH of Spiral galaxy?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    534

    Excretion or accretion disc around the SMBH of Spiral galaxy?

    It is vital to distinguish between accretion disc of Star to the accretion disc of SMBH in the core of Spiral galaxy. They have totally different characteristics. I wonder why our scientists put them in the same basket.
    In order to understand that issue we need to look again on the evidences:

    1. Accretion Mass – There are plenty of evidences for accretion Mass/gas around a star disc.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_disk
    "An accretion disk is a structure (often a circumstellar disk) formed by diffused material in orbital motion around a massive central body. The central body is typically a star."

    In the following image we see clearly that mass is drifting from outside to the center.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accret...etion_disk.jpg
    However, I personally couldn't find even one real evidence for mass/gas/star accretion around a SMBH disc in the center of spiral galaxy.
    Actually, our astronomers are still trying to work out why the accretion disc in the Milky way didn't suck in a gas cloud as expected:
    https://www.space.com/31524-black-ho...-goldmine.html
    "Remember that mysterious cloud of gas that was supposed to be on a collision course with the supermassive black hole in the center of our galaxy? Well, astronomers are still trying to work out why it wasn’t sucked in, and why it didn’t spark the mother of all cosmic fireworks displays."

    2. Excretion mass – There are evidences for gas emission from the accretion disc of SMBH:
    A. The outer parts of an accretion disc surrounding a suppermassive black hole (SMBH) in NGC 7213 galaxy:
    "Evolution of the accretion disc around the suppermassive black hole of NGC 7213"

    https://academic.oup.com/mnras/artic...rectedFrom=PDF

    "This is the first time that the double-peaked line profile of this nucleus – typical of gas emission from the outer parts of an accretion disc surrounding a suppermassive black hole (SMBH) – is reported to vary."
    This evidence should be considered as the "smoking gun" for that understanding.
    B. Evidences for a "wind" of hot matter blowing outward from the SMBH accretion disk of the Milky way:
    http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...that-glow.html

    "The two beams, or jets, were revealed by NASA's Fermi space telescope. They extend from the galactic center to a distance of 27,000 light-years above and below the galactic plane."

    "The jets were produced when plasma squirted out from the galactic center, following a corkscrew-like magnetic field that kept it tightly focused. The gamma-ray bubbles likely were created by a "wind" of hot matter blowing outward from the black hole's accretion disk. As a result, they are much broader than the narrow jets."

    3. Mass structure in the accretion disc of SMBH:
    If I understand it correctly, the plasma with the following characteristics is ONLY located at the accretion disc around a SMBH in the center of Spiral galaxy:
    A. Plasma with different structure/feature at different location in the disc: At the most inwards of the disc – Ionized/broken Atoms/other elements (electrons, cations…?). At the most outwards – Unionized Atom, Hydrogen, Molecular.
    Shaula - "There is a gradient from partly unionised to mostly ionised as you go in" Mostly hydrogen, some other elements."
    chornedsnorkack - "Mostly electrons and cations, besides atoms. A few anions and molecules."
    B. Different Temp based on location in the disc. At the most inwards side of the disc the Temp may reach to 10^9K. The highest temp records in the whole Universe. It is much more than the temp at the core of the Sun. However, at the most outwards of the disc it is much cooler.
    Shaula – "Yes, but again only in the inner disk. The outer disk is much cooler (hence the comment about H-alpha before)."
    C. Orbital velocity – Different orbital velocity based on location in the disc. At the most inwards side of the disc the orbital velocity is almost as high as the speed of light. It is the highest orbital velocity in the whole Universe. However, at the most outwards side, the orbital velocity is much more slowly.
    Shaula – "Not throughout the disk though - the edges far from the centre rotate much more slowly."
    D. Magnetic Energy – There is quite high magnetic energy in the disc.
    Shaula - Yes, but the energy in magnetic fields is not the only thing about an accelerator. It is also very much dependent on the configuration. Accelerators work by confining a beam and accelerating it, the disk magnetic fields are much less ordered
    However, I couldn't find the dispersion of the magnetic energy based on location in the disc. Based on the above structures of other elements, I would assume that at the most inwards side of the disc the magnetic energy is the highest while at most outwards it is fairly low.
    E. Different pressures based on location in the disc. I assume that the Highest pressure must located at the most inwards side of the disc.

    Conclusions – There are totally different characteristics of the mass in the accretion discs of star comparing to the accretion disc of SMBH. In accretion disc around a star there are no plasma with that Ultra high temp and Ultra high orbital velocity.
    Actually, if you eat something there is no need to rotate it in your mouth at the speed of light and break its Atoms before you swallow it.
    Therefore, it is quite enigma why the accretion disc around the SMBH should eat its mass from a nearby star or gas cloud, increase its orbital velocity as it gets dipper in his mouth, increase its temp to the highest temp in the universe, ionized the atoms just to blow it later on from the outer layer of the disc.
    I would consider it as unrealistic activity. The accretion disc must work in one direction. The accretion disc around star does not spit his food while it accretes the mass inwards.
    Therefore, what we really see around the SMBH is an activity of new mass creation.

    At CERN accelerator we have succeeded to generate the Higgs boson.

    http://cds.cern.ch/record/1998491
    "On 4 July 2012, the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN's Large Hadron Collider announced they had each observed a new particle in the mass region around 126 GeV. This particle is consistent with the Higgs boson predicted by the Standard Model. The Higgs boson, as proposed within the Standard Model, is the simplest manifestation of the Brout-Englert-Higgs mechanism. Other types of Higgs bosons are predicted by other theories that go beyond the Standard Model to generate"

    https://home.cern/about/accelerators
    "The accelerator complex at CERN is a succession of machines that accelerate particles to increasingly higher energies."
    However, this CERN accelerator is neglected to the real mighty one around the SMBH in our galaxy.
    So, if we could create that higgs boson in manmade accelerator, the mighty accelerator of the Universe which is located at the core of spiral galaxy must have the ability to create basic particles which are needed for Atoms. Those particles must be created at the most inwards side of the disc. They emerge at a location with the highest orbital velocity (almost at the speed of light), the highest temp (10^9K) The highest pressure and I assume the highest magnetic energy. At those energies the first Hydrogen atom is emerged. However, due to the huge pressures and collisions between the atoms, higher levels of Atoms and new molecules are created as they drift outwards in the disc and later on from the disc. This is the source for all the new mass in our galaxy. The accretion disc in our galaxy does not eat even one Atom from the nearby mass. On the contrary, all the nearby mass is a direct product from this accretion disc.
    Therefore, we must call the accretion disc around the SMBH as excretion Disc.
    Based on that breakthrough we can get better understanding on our Universe.
    Last edited by Dave Lee; 2018-Jul-21 at 07:26 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,955
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Conclusions – There are totally different characteristics of the mass in the accretion discs of star comparing to the accretion disc of SMBH. In accretion disc around a star there are no plasma with that Ultra high temp and Ultra high orbital velocity.
    Actually, if you eat something there is no need to rotate it in your mouth at the speed of light and break its Atoms before you swallow it.
    Therefore, it is quite enigma why the accretion disc around the SMBH should eat its mass from a nearby star or gas cloud, increase its orbital velocity as it gets dipper in his mouth, increase its temp to the highest temp in the universe, ionized the atoms just to blow it later on from the outer layer of the disc.
    I would consider it as unrealistic activity. The accretion disc must work in one direction. The accretion disc around star does not spit his food while it accretes the mass inwards.
    Therefore, what we really see around the SMBH is an activity of new mass creation.
    Your ATM theory can be summarised as "Because a black hole does not behave like my mouth eating something the accepted models must be wrong"? Seriously, analogies can be useful but you should not try to reason with them like this.

    You are wrong about stellar accretion disks too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbig...%93Haro_object - a stellar accretion disk, complete with jets. So doesn't the fact that stellar accretion disks work pretty much exactly like black hole accretion disks mean your ideas are wrong?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,230
    Dave Lee, are you presenting an ATM theory of what goes on in an active galactic nucleus, or are you merely questioning astronomers' choices of words for describing the disk?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    534
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    You are wrong about stellar accretion disks too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbig...%93Haro_object - a stellar accretion disk, complete with jets. So doesn't the fact that stellar accretion disks work pretty much exactly like black hole accretion disks mean your ideas are wrong?
    Thanks Shaula

    This article is very interesting.
    However, it doesn't give any sort of information about the accertion/Excretion disc around a SMBH at the core of spiral galaxy.
    It meainly gives a general overview about the interations between stars and gas cloud (which is also very interesting)

    Never the less, even if we focus on that kind of accertion disc, the only single word about plasma is writen in the following:

    "Stars form by gravitational collapse of interstellar gas clouds. As the collapse increases the density, radiative energy loss decreases due to increased opacity. This raises the temperature of the cloud which prevents further collapse, and a hydrostatic equilibrium is established. Gas continues to fall towards the core in a rotating disk. This is called a protostar.[6] Some of the accreting material is ejected out along the star's axis of rotation in two jets of partially-ionized gas (plasma)."

    So, in this case they only speak about plasma in a gas cloud which is ejected out. This is not the main issue of our discussion.
    Please be aware that in the article about the accertion/excretion disc of the SMBH in NGC 7213 galaxy they only speak about gas emission:
    "This is the first time that the double-peaked line profile of this nucleus – typical of gas emission from the outer parts of an accretion disc surrounding a suppermassive black hole (SMBH) – is reported to vary."
    In this article they specifically discuss about plasma emission.

    It is two completly diffrent senarios.

    In this article they also do not speak about any specific case.
    They put again all the activities in one basket without distinguish between the different cases.
    They do not split it to different categories as:
    Which kind of case has accretion disc, In which one we have found High temp plasma in the accretion disc, do we see different mass/plasma stracture as we move in, what is the orbital velocity of the mass/plasma and so on...

    So, in order to disqualify this ATM, we need to find a clear case for mass/Gas cloud/star which is drifting inwards to the accretion disc around a SMBH in the center of Spiral galaxy.
    If we had the technology to detect gas emission from NGC 7213 galaxy, we should have the technology to detect the mass which is drifting inwards.
    Please be aware that it should be much easier to detect this mass "eating process" as it must come with fireworks:
    "Remember that mysterious cloud of gas that was supposed to be on a collision course with the suppermassive black hole in the center of our galaxy? Well, astronomers are still trying to work out why it wasn’t sucked in, and why it didn’t spark the mother of all cosmic fireworks displays."
    If we can't find it in the whole Universe - then why don't we agree that no mass is drifting inwards to the accretion/Excretion disc of SMBH?
    Last edited by Dave Lee; 2018-Jul-22 at 05:27 AM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Thanks Shaula

    This article is very interesting.
    However, it doesn't give any sort of information about the accertion/Excretion disc around a SMBH at the core of spiral galaxy.
    It meainly gives a general overview about the interations between stars and gas cloud (which is also very interesting)

    Never the less, even if we focus on that kind of accertion disc, the only single word about plasma is writen in the following:

    "Stars form by gravitational collapse of interstellar gas clouds. As the collapse increases the density, radiative energy loss decreases due to increased opacity. This raises the temperature of the cloud which prevents further collapse, and a hydrostatic equilibrium is established. Gas continues to fall towards the core in a rotating disk. This is called a protostar.[6] Some of the accreting material is ejected out along the star's axis of rotation in two jets of partially-ionized gas (plasma)."

    So, in this case they only speak about plasma in a gas cloud which is ejected out. This is not the main issue of our discussion.
    Please be aware that in the article about the accertion/excretion disc of the SMBH in NGC 7213 galaxy they only speak about gas emission:
    "This is the first time that the double-peaked line profile of this nucleus – typical of gas emission from the outer parts of an accretion disc surrounding a suppermassive black hole (SMBH) – is reported to vary."
    In this article they specifically discuss about plasma emission.

    It is two completly diffrent senarios.

    In this article they also do not speak about any specific case.
    They put again all the activities in one basket without distinguish between the different cases.
    They do not split it to different categories as:
    Which kind of case has accretion disc, In which one we have found High temp plasma in the accretion disc, do we see different mass/plasma stracture as we move in, what is the orbital velocity of the mass/plasma and so on...

    So, in order to disqualify this ATM, we need to find a clear case for mass/Gas cloud/star which is drifting inwards to the accretion disc around a SMBH in the center of Spiral galaxy.
    If we had the technology to detect gas emission from NGC 7213 galaxy, we should have the technology to detect the mass which is drifting inwards.
    Please be aware that it should be much easier to detect this mass "eating process" as it must come with fireworks:
    "Remember that mysterious cloud of gas that was supposed to be on a collision course with the suppermassive black hole in the center of our galaxy? Well, astronomers are still trying to work out why it wasn’t sucked in, and why it didn’t spark the mother of all cosmic fireworks displays."
    If we can't find it in the whole Universe - then why don't we agree that no mass is drifting inwards to the accretion/Excretion disc of SMBH?
    My bold.

    Which spiral galaxies would you recommend be observed to test this?

    What instruments, on what telescopes, do you think would be appropriate for such observations?

    Please be specific; please avoid vague generalities in your answer.

    Also, why spiral galaxies? Why not lenticulars, ellipticals, or irregulars?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,230
    Here is a Wiki article on active galactic nuclei that may be of interest:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_galactic_nucleus
    There are phenomena described here that are similar to those around protostars, but on a much larger and more energetic scale.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    534
    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Tate View Post
    why spiral galaxies? Why not lenticulars, ellipticals, or irregulars?
    Yes, your question is valid.
    However, there is a special activity at the accretion disc around the SMBH in spiral galaxy.
    It has a plasma with very special structures/features. (Please see again my explanation about all of those important features.)
    Any accretion disc without those key features is none relevant for our discussion.
    If enticulars, ellipticals, or irregulars galaxy have same structures/features of plasma in their accretion disc, than they also should be very important for our discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hornblower View Post
    Here is a Wiki article on active galactic nuclei that may be of interest:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_galactic_nucleus
    There are phenomena described here that are similar to those around protostars, but on a much larger and more energetic scale.
    In this article there is not even one single word about the plasma.
    Therefore, this specific article is none relevant for our discussion.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    558
    Thank you for your response.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Yes, your question is valid.
    However, there is a special activity at the accretion disc around the SMBH in spiral galaxy.
    It has a plasma with very special structures/features. (Please see again my explanation about all of those important features.)
    Any accretion disc without those key features is none relevant for our discussion.
    If enticulars, ellipticals, or irregulars galaxy have same structures/features of plasma in their accretion disc, than they also should be very important for our discussion.

    <snip>
    (my bold)

    I checked, and could see no primary sources. Please cite your primary sources (i.e. papers) for this claim.

    Also, please answer my other question. Here it is again:

    Which spiral galaxies would you recommend be observed to test this ("we need to find a clear case for mass/Gas cloud/star which is drifting inwards to the accretion disc around a SMBH in the center of Spiral galaxy")?

    What instruments, on what telescopes, do you think would be appropriate for such observations?

    Please be specific; please avoid vague generalities in your answer.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    534
    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Tate View Post
    I checked, and could see no primary sources. Please cite your primary sources (i.e. papers) for this claim.
    We have already discussed it at another thread. Please read it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Tate View Post
    Which spiral galaxies would you recommend be observed to test this ("we need to find a clear case for mass/Gas cloud/star which is drifting inwards to the accretion disc around a SMBH in the center of Spiral galaxy")?
    The Milky way is the best example for our discussion, however, any other spiral galaxy is also good enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Tate View Post
    What instruments, on what telescopes, do you think would be appropriate for such observations?
    Why the Instruments are so important for our discussion? What are you looking for?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    We have already discussed it at another thread. Please read it.
    This is the thread expressly devoted to discussion of the ATM idea you are presenting.

    I have no idea what is presented in “another thread”, and no interest in trying to pick out what is relevant to your specific ATM idea.

    Please cite the specific, primary sources (papers) for your claim.

    The Milky way is the best example for our discussion, however, any other spiral galaxy is also good enough.

    Why the Instruments are so important for our discussion? What are you looking for?
    My goodness, where to start?

    I have yet to read your primary sources, so what follows may be premature ... your ATM claims should be testable. Astronomical observations should, in principle, yield data which can be analyzed to do some such tests. As far as I know, there is limited direct data on mass flows into SMBH accretion discs, irrespective of galaxy morphology.

    But how does one get a clear observational signature of such a flow? Which instruments, on what telescopes, could - in principle - provide it?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,955
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Thanks Shaula

    This article is very interesting.
    However, it doesn't give any sort of information about the accertion/Excretion disc around a SMBH at the core of spiral galaxy.
    Of course it doesn't. If you read the part of your post I quoted and referred it is pretty clear the point I was making.

    You said:
    The accretion disc must work in one direction. The accretion disc around star does not spit his food while it accretes the mass inwards.
    I pointed out that this was wrong. The article I linked to clearly shows a stellar accretion disk with jets of outflowing material. Proving your statement wrong. Since you whole argument seems to be that black hole accretion disks are different because they are seen to be spitting out matter the objects I pointed out at are a counter example rendering this claim of yours demonstrably false.

    Since you whole argument seems to be that SMBH accretion disks are special and magic beasts because of their unique properties I am pointing out that most of your conjectures are actually wrong.

    For example:
    We infer higher temperatures in newly formed neutron stars.
    We infer similar plasma temperatures in stars undergoing neon, oxygen and silicon burning.
    We model similar orbital velocities in stellar mass black hole accretion disks.

    So all of your claims about specialness are based on your own feelings, not any actual significant objective differences.

    Some other issues:
    The LHC actually runs at significantly higher temperatures than the accretion disk. The effective temperature of the plasma there is 1000x more than the most extreme accretion disks.
    The SagA* accretion disk is not as extreme as the ones reaching 10^9K, it more likely operates at somewhere in the range 10^7-10^8K (from the paper I linked to in the other thread). This further weakens your claims of specialness.
    Your point about gas emission is a misunderstanding of the article you quote. It is not referring to physically ejected gas. It is referring to Ha emission lines from gas.

    Now onto G2. G2 was disrupted by the pass and now has a tail of gas being drawn into SagA*. It looks like we didn't see major disruption because we misunderstood what G2 was. However we did see material stripped off it and pulled inwards. And eventually we will see this material drawn into the accretion disk.

    Now we are past that we can move on to your claims about mass generation. The rest mass of a proton is about 1GeV. This corresponds to a temperature of about 10^13K. So we are not going to see the spontaneous conversion of energy to protons in the ranges you are discussing. Next up - energy. In the current models the reason that the accretion disk is hot is because material is spiralling in. Conversion of energy from one form to another. If material is not spiralling in then where do these temperatures come from? Your idea appears to break local energy conservation. And ejection rates from SagA* are not high enough to remove the infalling material if you decide that material is falling but then ejected. The current model also matches spectral observations well. Something else you are going to have to think about because you write it off.

    So we are left with a few key points:
    - Your claims about the specialness of the accretion disk don't hold up under scrutiny
    - Your claims about lack of infalling matter are wrong (G1 and G2 tails)
    - You claims about the structure of the disk seem physically implausible
    - Your claims about the mass generation are energetically unlikely

    As Jean Tate has said - you need to start, as current astrophysicists do, coming up with achievable tests of your ideas. As is common in ATM threads you seem to have opted for a standard of proof for current models that is not achievable by current instruments while not looking at other pieces of evidence and how your ideas might be tested in the same way.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    9,075
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    We have already discussed it at another thread. Please read it.

    NO, you will have the courtesy to link to the papers that you are using!
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    534
    Thanks Shaula

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    Now we are past that we can move on to your claims about mass generation. The rest mass of a proton is about 1GeV. This corresponds to a temperature of about 10^13K. So we are not going to see the spontaneous conversion of energy to protons in the ranges you are discussing.
    Wow!
    This is a fantastic input.
    So, if I understand your message correctly, a temp of 10^13K is needed to create Proton.
    Now, let's assume that the plasma in the accretion disc is only based on new born protons.
    Based on that let's try to estimate the temp which we might verify at the accretion disc.
    So, if the accretion disc was full with only new born protons, (each one with 10^13 K) it is clear to me that the average temp of the accretion disc at that specific moment has to be 10^13K.
    However, from the other side, if we assume that the creation process of protons is very low (let's say one proton per day) it is clear that it won't have any sort of effect on the average temp of the accretion disc.
    So, the quantity of the Protons production process per second could have a significant effect on the plasma temp in the accretion disc.

    In the same token, I assume that there is a requested temp to create wide range of particles as electrons and so on.
    If we can understand the mixture of those particles in the plasma, the production temp of each practicle, the quantity per second, the size and density of the accretion disc, we could calculate the estimated accretion disc temp due to the new born particles.


    With regards to G1 and G2.
    Your answer is:

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    Now onto G2. G2 was disrupted by the pass and now has a tail of gas being drawn into SagA*. It looks like we didn't see major disruption because we misunderstood what G2 was. However we did see material stripped off it and pulled inwards. And eventually we will see this material drawn into the accretion disk.
    What do you mean by: " eventually we will see...)
    Do we see it, or it is just an expectation???
    If something drawn into the accretion disk, where is the "the mother of all cosmic fireworks displays"
    Sorry, you mixed up between wishing will and evidences. Nothing is falling in. If there was something we had to see that fireworks.
    Actually, I would expect that G1 and G2 are drifting outwards from the center. As the do so, they stripped off some of their matter. That is perfectly Ok. We can consider it as a comet star. This stripped of matter are not falling into the accretion disc!
    If you think that it does or will.. - then where are all the cosmic fireworks displays???

    Please be aware that all the mass in G1 and G2 had been created by the accretion disc of the Milky Way.
    So, G1 and G2 should be considered as the children of the Milky way galaxy.
    Mothers usually do not eat their children

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    Next up - energy. In the current models the reason that the accretion disk is hot is because material is spiraling in. Conversion of energy from one form to another. If material is not spiraling in then where do these temperatures come from?
    I really can't understand how matter in a spiraling motion could increase the temp to 10^9K.
    I would love to see that model.
    Please be aware that in order to justify that model, we need to set it into the estimated sizes of accretion discs around the SMBH in spiral galaxy and its estimated features.
    If we don't know the estimated size of that accretion disc, It's density and pressures, how can you set any sort of model for the accretion disc???

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    I pointed out that this was wrong. The article I linked to clearly shows a stellar accretion disk with jets of out flowing material.
    Yes, I fully accept your explanation.
    It was a mistake to compare the stellar accretion disc to accretion disc of SMBH. They are two different objects and we can't based one input on the other.

    more to come...
    Last edited by Dave Lee; 2018-Jul-23 at 12:34 PM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    534
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    The SagA* accretion disk is not as extreme as the ones reaching 10^9K, it more likely operates at somewhere in the range 10^7-10^8K (from the paper I linked to in the other thread)
    This proves that the production ratio of new particles in the Milky way is lower than other similar galaxies.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    This proves that the production ratio of new particles in the Milky way is lower than other similar galaxies.
    It does?

    Please provide data to back up this assertion. In particular, estimates of "the production ratio of new particles" in other galaxies (whether MW-like spirals or not). Please distinguish between those galaxies with AGNs and those which appear to lack an AGN.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,955
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    So, if I understand your message correctly, a temp of 10^13K is needed to create Proton.
    Not quite, 10^13K is the temperature equivalent for the proton's rest mass equivalent energy. It represents a ball park estimate of when the thermal energy of the system starts to be of the same order as the proton rest mass. It highlights that 10^9K, which is the highest temperatures the models that match observations predict, is fairly small compared to this energy and hence proton production is likely to be difficult.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Now, let's assume that the plasma in the accretion disc is only based on new born protons.
    Based on that let's try to estimate the temp which we might verify at the accretion disc.
    So, if the accretion disc was full with only new born protons, (each one with 10^13 K) it is clear to me that the average temp of the accretion disc at that specific moment has to be 10^13K.
    However, from the other side, if we assume that the creation process of protons is very low (let's say one proton per day) it is clear that it won't have any sort of effect on the average temp of the accretion disc.
    So, the quantity of the Protons production process per second could have a significant effect on the plasma temp in the accretion disc.
    This doesn't follow at all. Protons would not have a temperature of 10^13K as their temperature is related to their KE. Not their rest mass energy equivalent. This whole section is based on a misconception of what I have said.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    In the same token, I assume that there is a requested temp to create wide range of particles as electrons and so on.
    If we can understand the mixture of those particles in the plasma, the production temp of each practicle, the quantity per second, the size and density of the accretion disc, we could calculate the estimated accretion disc temp due to the new born particles.
    We can do this from the Xray and other spectra of the object already.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    What do you mean by: " eventually we will see...)
    Do we see it, or it is just an expectation???
    If something drawn into the accretion disk, where is the "the mother of all cosmic fireworks displays"
    Sorry, you mixed up between wishing will and evidences. Nothing is falling in. If there was something we had to see that fireworks.
    Actually, I would expect that G1 and G2 are drifting outwards from the center. As the do so, they stripped off some of their matter. That is perfectly Ok. We can consider it as a comet star. This stripped of matter are not falling into the accretion disc!
    If you think that it does or will.. - then where are all the cosmic fireworks displays???
    I thought it was fairly clear - before the interaction there was no tail stretching in towards SagA*. After the interaction there was. Comet tails point away from the flux source, not towards it. So we have evidence of matter being stripped off a passing body and drawn in. It hasn't joined the accretion disk yet as these things don't happen on convenient time-scales to observe. There will not be a fireworks display because the event that prediction was predicated on is not going to happen - the fireworks came from a hugely increases accretion rate due to a large influx of matter. There is not going to be one.

    I'm actually laughing that you are saying that I mix up wishful thinking and evidence - you haven't presented one bit of evidence so far.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Please be aware that all the mass in G1 and G2 had been created by the accretion disc of the Milky Way.
    So, G1 and G2 should be considered as the children of the Milky way galaxy.
    Mothers usually do not eat their children
    You assert this but have not come close to showing it.

    Also - mothers often tuck their kids into bed at night. Does the Milky Way to that to G1 and G2? Mothers often teach their children how to tie their shoelaces. Does the Milky Way do that to G1 and G2? It is ridiculous to base your argument for how gas behaves around a black hole with how a parent treats their child. Almost as bad as arguing that because a black hole doesn't behave like your mouth our models of it must be wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    I really can't understand how matter in a spiraling motion could increase the temp to 10^9K.
    I would love to see that model.
    Please be aware that in order to justify that model, we need to set it into the estimated sizes of accretion discs around the SMBH in spiral galaxy and its estimated features.
    If we don't know the estimated size of that accretion disc, It's density and pressures, how can you set any sort of model for the accretion disc???
    You should really read the sources given to you. 'That model' is mentioned on the Wiki pages you have linked to, discussed extensively in the paper I linked you in the other thread and even mentioned in Daily Galaxy articles. Until you have familiarised yourself with this your argument from incredulity is of no value.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Yes, I fully accept your explanation.
    It was a mistake to compare the stellar accretion disc to accretion disc of SMBH. They are two different objects and we can't based one input on the other.
    And yet most of your case for why the black hole accretion disk needs a new model is based on how dissimilar it apparently it to stellar accretion disks. Which requires a comparison. So how are you justifying ignoring the current models now?

    You need to start presenting something more than just your own opinions and guesses. Use your ideas to make some testable predictions. Come up with a coherent model. Something. All you have done so far is reveal that you don't understand the current mainstream. Which would be fine if you didn't insist on making statements about it.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    534
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    Not quite, 10^13K is the temperature equivalent for the proton's rest mass equivalent energy. It represents a ball park estimate of when the thermal energy of the system starts to be of the same order as the proton rest mass. It highlights that 10^9K, which is the highest temperatures the models that match observations predict, is fairly small compared to this energy and hence proton production is likely to be difficult.
    This doesn't follow at all. Protons would not have a temperature of 10^13K as their temperature is related to their KE. Not their rest mass energy equivalent. This whole section is based on a misconception of what I have said.

    So, what is the requested/expected temp in order for Proton, Electron and other particles to be born/created in a generator/accelerator?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    I thought it was fairly clear - before the interaction there was no tail stretching in towards SagA*. After the interaction there was. Comet tails point away from the flux source, not towards it. So we have evidence of matter being stripped off a passing body and drawn in. It hasn't joined the accretion disk yet as these things don't happen on convenient time-scales to observe.
    .

    When was the first time that we have noticed that G2 has a tail? Was it just one day after the interaction, several weeks, months, years?
    How do we know that there was no tail before the interaction? could it be that we have missed it due to our excitement and expectation se see "the mother of all cosmic fireworks displays"? Could it be that our current technology had been improved and therefore we see today something that we could not see few years ago? In order to justify this issue we need to wait for the next orbital cycle to the interaction point. We also need to see that G2 has no tail after reversing its direction and moving closer and faster again to the SMBH.

    I also wonder how do we know that the tail is in the direction of the SMBH?

    We are located at the disc at a distance of about 28K LY from the SMBH and G2. I assume that it is quite difficult to estimate distances between the SMBH and the G2 as they also located at the same disc as we do.
    I assume that G2 has elliptical orbit path around the SMBH.
    Some time ago, our scientists thought that G2 is going to collide with the SMBH. (That was the interaction point as it was at its closest location to the SMBH). If that is correct, now it must moving away from the SMBH. Now we have noticed that it has tail. but this tail doesn't point to the SMBH It points to the interaction point. Let's assume that the distance between the SMBH and the interaction point was X, while now the distance between SMBH and the current location of G2 is 5X. So if we trace the tail we could easily believe that it point the SMBH, but in reality - it only point to the last interaction point.
    So, would you kindly advice why we are so sure that this tail is pointing to the SMBH (and not to the interaction point?)

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    So we have evidence of matter being stripped off a passing body and drawn in.
    So we have evidence of matter stripped off, but why do we claim that it drawn in?
    Do we really see that stripped matter moving closer and closer to the SMBH? Do we have a valid data for that? Based on our calculation/estimation When it should hit the accretion disc?
    Actually, if the tail has started at the interaction point (which was very close to the SMBH) why now after few years it does not hit the accretion disc?
    How long it should take it to join the accretion disk?
    I don't understand why you claim that we won't see that hit?

    I do remember that few year ago our scientists were positively sure that G2 is going to join the accretion disc. Now they are positively sure that the tail will join the accretion disc. Could it be that as they made a mistake in their expectations about G2, they also have one more mistake with the expectation about the tail? How long do we have to wait until they will understand that the tail has no willing to join the accretion disc?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    There will not be a fireworks display because the event that prediction was predicated on is not going to happen - the fireworks came from a hugely increases accretion rate due to a large influx of matter. There is not going to be one.
    Why do we eliminate completely the fireworks? The tail must have some matter. So why instead of "the mother of all cosmic fireworks displays" it couldn't set some low profile fireworks? At least something... How can we know that the tail had joined the accretion disc without any sort of fireworks?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    you haven't presented one bit of evidence so far.
    The absence of fireworks is clear evidence.
    Do you agree that if G2 will join the accretion disc we should see "the mother of all cosmic fireworks displays" ?
    How many spiral galaxies there are in our Universe? At the center of each spiral galaxy there are plenty of stars and gas cloud. Out of the billion spiral galaxies, what is the chance that at some of them a star or gas cloud is currently joining the accretion disc. If so, we had to see that fireworks. As we don't see (and we will not see) any sort of fireworks it proves that noting is joining the accretion disc.
    However, once we will have a clear evidence for any sort of mass is joining the accretion disc, I will fully accept that this ATM is wrong.
    Last edited by Dave Lee; 2018-Jul-24 at 06:22 PM.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,955
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    So, what is the requested/expected temp in order for Proton, Electron and other particles to be born/created in a generator/accelerator?
    It is not that simple. First off just making a proton or electron violates conservation laws. The interactions are always more complex. Protons, for example, are made up of three quarks and you tend to see them in the output of hadron jets in strong force dominated interactions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    When was the first time that we have noticed that G2 has a tail? Was it just one day after the interaction, several weeks, months, years?
    How do we know that there was no tail before the interaction? could it be that we have missed it due to our excitement and expectation se see "the mother of all cosmic fireworks displays"? Could it be that our current technology had been improved and therefore we see today something that we could not see few years ago? In order to justify this issue we need to wait for the next orbital cycle to the interaction point. We also need to see that G2 has no tail after reversing its direction and moving closer and faster again to the SMBH.
    It was extensively observed prior to the closest approach, because as you point out it was thought that it would be tidally disrupted to the point where the majority of it fell into the disk. After the event it was extensively observed to try to work out why it had not been disrupted. So it is pretty far fetched for you try to keep your ideas viable by saying we could have missed it. A change was observed consistent with minor gas stripping from G2. You can try to wriggle as much as you like - but that was what was observed. No amount of "oh well maybe they didn't see it because they were all so excited they somehow forgot to look and then they lost the data because their dog ate it while the backups were used as a nest by ants..." is going to change that. For example: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.05351.pdf - see figure one. Oh look. A tail is formed as the gas cloud is disrupted by tidal forces.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    I also wonder how do we know that the tail is in the direction of the SMBH?
    When I said in the direction of the black hole I mean back along the orbit. The tail is behind G2, whereas because G2 is now retreating from the black hole a cometary tail would be ahead of G2.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    We are located at the disc at a distance of about 28K LY from the SMBH and G2. I assume that it is quite difficult to estimate distances between the SMBH and the G2 as they also located at the same disc as we do.
    I assume that G2 has elliptical orbit path around the SMBH.
    Some time ago, our scientists thought that G2 is going to collide with the SMBH.
    No they didn't. That is your misinterpretation of popular science articles again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    (That was the interaction point as it was at its closest location to the SMBH). If that is correct, now it must moving away from the SMBH. Now we have noticed that it has tail. but this tail doesn't point to the SMBH It points to the interaction point. Let's assume that the distance between the SMBH and the interaction point was X, while now the distance between SMBH and the current location of G2 is 5X. So if we trace the tail we could easily believe that it point the SMBH, but in reality - it only point to the last interaction point.
    So, would you kindly advice why we are so sure that this tail is pointed to the SMBH (and not to the interaction point?)
    There is no interaction point. What happened was that G2 was tidally disrupted by the black hole. This left a trail of gas along its obit. G2 is now moving away from the black hole, so the gas tracing back along its orbit 'points' back towards SagA*. Now if it was like a comet what we would have seen was the 'tail' changing orientation as it went past. We don't, we see a tail aligned with the orbit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    So we have evidence of matter stripped off, but why do we claim that it drawn in?
    Orbital mechanics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Do we really see that stripped matter moving closer and closer to the SMBH? Do we have a valid data for that? Based on our calculation/estimation When it should hit the accretion disc?
    Actually, if the tail has started at the interaction point (which was very close to the SMBH) why now after few years it does not hit the accretion disc?
    How long it should take it to join the accretion disk?
    I don't understand why you claim that we won't see that hit?
    I've already said - it doesn't happen on convenient time scales. And where has this 'interaction point' stuff come from? You claimed it was like a cometary tail before. Feels like you are just making up anything you can think of to not accept the mainstream now. As for the rest - that would need to be modelled. I am sure someone has done it somewhere but I don't have the numbers to hand. And I am not doing your homework for you again. I spend far more time trying to come back to you with researched answers than you put into your speculations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    I do remember that few year ago our scientists were positively sure that G2 is going to join the accretion disc. Now they are positively sure that the tail will join the accretion disc. Could it be that as they made a mistake in their expectations about G2, they also have one more mistake with the expectation about the tail? How long do we have to wait until they will understand that the tail has no willing to join the accretion disc?
    Why is this even relevant? You are meant to be presenting your own ideas. So far you have focused all your efforts on asking endless 'what if' type questions about the mainstream. Come on, show us what YOUR ideas lead to. Show us that your ideas can make testable predictions, as Jean Tate and I have asked for, and that they match observations better than the mainstream. After this post I am not going to answer any more questions about the mainstream until you do. Because so far you have nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Why do we eliminate completely the fireworks? The tail must have some matter. So why instead of "the mother of all cosmic fireworks displays" it couldn't set some low profile fireworks? At least something... How can we know that the tail had joined the accretion disc without any sort of fireworks?
    We see X ray flares and other evidence. The tail has not joined the disk yet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    The absence of fireworks is clear evidence.
    Do you agree that if G2 will join the accretion disc we should see "the mother of all cosmic fireworks displays" ?
    How many spiral galaxies there are in our Universe? At the center of each spiral galaxy there are plenty of stars and gas cloud. Out of the billion spiral galaxies, what is the chance that at some of them a star or gas cloud is currently joining the accretion disc. If so, we had to see that fireworks. As we don't see (and we will not see) any sort of fireworks it proves that noting is joining the accretion disc.
    However, once we will have a clear evidence for any sort of mass is joining the accretion disc, I will fully accept that this ATM is wrong.
    We see fireworks all the time. AGNs. We see evidence for past fireworks around our galaxy, the Fermi bubbles. So you now accept that your ATM is wrong?

  19. #19
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    14,831
    Quote Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    We have already discussed it at another thread. Please read it.

    NO, you will have the courtesy to link to the papers that you are using!
    You have now had more than a day to comply with this moderator's instructions and have not done so, but you did find time to answer other posts. One infraction point for refusing to answer pertinent questions. I strongly advise you to answer the questions as soon as you can. I must also warn you that at this time, even ONE more infraction point will have you banned from this forum forever. Either learn to comply with our rules, and listen to what moderators tell you, or your stay here will end.
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Forum Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    534
    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Tate View Post
    This is the thread expressly devoted to discussion of the ATM idea you are presenting.
    I have no idea what is presented in “another thread”, and no interest in trying to pick out what is relevant to your specific ATM idea.
    Please cite the specific, primary sources (papers) for your claim.
    The key issue in our discussion is the plasma activity at the accretion disc around the SMBH in spiral galaxy (as the Milky way):

    http://research.princeton.edu/news/features/a/?id=17430

    "The colossal black hole at the center of the Milky Way — called “Sagittarius A*” because it is found in the constellation Sagittarius — has a gravitational mass that is four million times greater than our own sun. Yet the accretion disk plasma that spirals into this mass is “radiatively inefficient,” meaning that it emits much less radiation than one would expect. "

    "Accretion disks are clouds of plasma that orbit and gradually swirl into massive bodies such as black holes — intense gravitational fields produced by stars that collapse to a tiny fraction of their original size. These collapsed stars are bounded by an “event horizon,” from which not even light can escape. As accretion disks flow toward event horizons, they power some of the brightest and most energetic sources of electromagnetic radiation in the universe."

    This plasma is hotter than the Sun (can get to about 10^9K).

    http://fusioned.gat.com/images/pdf/Plasma_Tokamak.pdf

    "The sun converts 3636 kg of matter into energy every second!"

    Therefore, in order to maintain that super high temp at the accretion disc, new mass must come in.
    However, on the contrary, we actually see that the accretion disc spit mass:
    http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...that-glow.html
    "Active galaxies have cores that glow brightly, powered by suppermassive black holes swallowing stars and other material, and often spit twin jets in opposite directions."
    "The two structures also formed differently. The jets were produced when plasma squirted out from the galactic center, following a corkscrew-like magnetic field that kept it tightly focused. The gamma-ray bubbles likely were created by a "wind" of hot matter blowing outward from the black hole's accretion disk. As a result, they are much broader than the narrow jets."

    So, we have evidence for mass consumption in the accretion disc due to plasma activity, we also have evidences for hot matter blowing outward from the black hole's accretion disk.
    However, so far there in no real proof for inwards accretion of any gas clouds or stars as expected.
    I would assume that this absence of mass moving inwards (In order to recover the lost of plasma mass in the accretion disc) proves that the accretion disc generates new mass.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,984
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    "The sun converts 3636 kg of matter into energy every second!"
    Therefore, in order to maintain that super high temp at the accretion disc, new mass must come in.
    A star and an accretion disc generate their respective temperatures through entirely different mechanisms. Just because two things are "hot", do you think they must generate their temperatures the same way?


    However, on the contrary, we actually see that the accretion disc spit mass:
    http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...that-glow.html
    "Active galaxies have cores that glow brightly, powered by suppermassive black holes swallowing stars and other material, and often spit twin jets in opposite directions."
    Of the mass of material in an accretion disc, how much is ejected in these collimated jets? By the way: you have specifically quoted about an AGN here - these are the "cosmic fireworks" in galaxies that you have been arguing can't be found. Importantly (and I am fascinated by your ability to cherry pick quotes from a single sentence but completely ignore other points made in the same sentence!), the quote you provide there states, with my bolding: "Active galaxies have cores that glow brightly, powered by supermassive black holes swallowing stars and other material..."

    So, we have evidence for mass consumption in the accretion disc due to plasma activity....
    No, we have plasma being created by the energy generated from frictional forces within a differentially-rotating accretion disc. We do have evidence of consumption by the SMBH of accretion disc material, but this is not "due to plasma activity" (whatever you may mean by that).

    ...we also have evidences for hot matter blowing outward from the black hole's accretion disk.
    Correct. I am curious if you are able to put numbers into the mass of material expelled as a percentage of the mass within the disc.

    However, so far there in no real proof for inwards accretion of any gas clouds or stars as expected.
    Garbage. Shaula in particular has gone way above and beyond the call of duty in pointing you in the right direction re this.

    I would assume that this absence of mass moving inwards (In order to recover the lost of plasma mass in the accretion disc) proves that the accretion disc generates new mass.
    No, because your underlying premises are almost entirely demonstrably wrong.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    The key issue in our discussion is the plasma activity at the accretion disc around the SMBH in spiral galaxy (as the Milky way):

    http://research.princeton.edu/news/features/a/?id=17430

    "The colossal black hole at the center of the Milky Way — called “Sagittarius A*” because it is found in the constellation Sagittarius — has a gravitational mass that is four million times greater than our own sun. Yet the accretion disk plasma that spirals into this mass is “radiatively inefficient,” meaning that it emits much less radiation than one would expect. "

    "Accretion disks are clouds of plasma that orbit and gradually swirl into massive bodies such as black holes — intense gravitational fields produced by stars that collapse to a tiny fraction of their original size. These collapsed stars are bounded by an “event horizon,” from which not even light can escape. As accretion disks flow toward event horizons, they power some of the brightest and most energetic sources of electromagnetic radiation in the universe."

    This plasma is hotter than the Sun (can get to about 10^9K).

    http://fusioned.gat.com/images/pdf/Plasma_Tokamak.pdf

    "The sun converts 3636 kg of matter into energy every second!"

    Therefore, in order to maintain that super high temp at the accretion disc, new mass must come in.
    However, on the contrary, we actually see that the accretion disc spit mass:
    http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...that-glow.html
    "Active galaxies have cores that glow brightly, powered by suppermassive black holes swallowing stars and other material, and often spit twin jets in opposite directions."
    "The two structures also formed differently. The jets were produced when plasma squirted out from the galactic center, following a corkscrew-like magnetic field that kept it tightly focused. The gamma-ray bubbles likely were created by a "wind" of hot matter blowing outward from the black hole's accretion disk. As a result, they are much broader than the narrow jets."

    So, we have evidence for mass consumption in the accretion disc due to plasma activity, we also have evidences for hot matter blowing outward from the black hole's accretion disk.
    However, so far there in no real proof for inwards accretion of any gas clouds or stars as expected.
    I would assume that this absence of mass moving inwards (In order to recover the lost of plasma mass in the accretion disc) proves that the accretion disc generates new mass.
    Thanks.

    I'm a bit confused, can you help me please?

    Your ATM idea, as presented (as I understand it) is general. However, in terms of observational support, it seems that SgrA* (the SMBH etc at the center of the nucleus of our own galaxy, the Milky Way) is the only object you have cited. In an earlier post you wrote "there is a special activity at the accretion disc around the SMBH in spiral galaxy".

    Other than the fact that the MW is a spiral galaxy, what evidence do you have to support you claim about SMBHs in spiral galaxies being different from those in galaxies with other morphologies?

    As I understand it, AGNs (active galactic nuclei) can be divided approximately into those whose emission is "quasar mode", and those with "radio mode" emission (see, for example, Best&Heckmann 2015). How does your ATM idea relate to this dichotomy?

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    534
    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Tate View Post
    As I understand it, AGNs (active galactic nuclei) can be divided approximately into those whose emission is "quasar mode", and those with "radio mode" emission (see, for example, Best&Heckmann 2015). How does your ATM idea relate to this dichotomy?
    AGN:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_galactic_nucleus
    "An active galactic nucleus (AGN) is a compact region at the center of a galaxy that has a much higher than normal luminosity over at least some portion—and possibly all—of the electromagnetic spectrum, with characteristics indicating that the excess luminosity is not produced by stars. Such excess non-stellar emission has been observed in the radio, microwave, infrared, optical, ultra-violet, X-ray and gamma ray wavebands. A galaxy hosting an AGN is called an "active galaxy". The radiation from an AGN is believed to result from the accretion of matter by a supermassive black hole at the center of its host galaxy."
    "the most powerful AGN are classified as quasars."
    There are different types of AGN:
    For example:
    "Nuclear optical continuum emission. This is visible whenever there is a direct view of the accretion disc. Jets can also contribute to this component of the AGN emission. The optical emission has a roughly power-law dependence on wavelength.
    Nuclear infra-red emission. This is visible whenever the accretion disc and its environment are obscured by gas and dust close to the nucleus and then re-emitted ('reprocessing'). As it is thermal emission, it can be distinguished from any jet or disc-related emission.
    Broad optical emission lines. These come from cold material close to the central black hole. The lines are broad because the emitting material is revolving around the black hole with high speeds causing a range of Doppler shifts of the emitted photons.
    Narrow optical emission lines. These come from more distant cold material, and so are narrower than the broad lines.
    Radio continuum emission. This is always due to a jet. It shows a spectrum characteristic of synchrotron radiation.
    X-ray continuum emission. This can arise both from a jet and from the hot corona of the accretion disc via a scattering process: in both cases it shows a power-law spectrum. In some radio-quiet AGN there is an excess of soft X-ray emission in addition to the power-law component. The origin of the soft X-rays is not clear at present"


    Some of the AGN are located at Spiral galaxies and its called Active spiral galaxy. So "Active" means that the galaxy emits radiation or jet of mass.
    I had an impression that the galactic nucleus of Spiral galaxy doesn't accretes mass from its own galaxy.
    In the article it is stated: "The radiation from an AGN is believed to result from the accretion of matter by a suppermassive black hole at the center of its host galaxy"
    So, they "believed" that the accretion disc in AGN accretes mass from its own galaxy, while I believe that this statement isn't relevant to spiral galaxy (with or without AGN).
    There are billions of active/none active Spiral galaxies. In each one there is an accretion disc. I have only asked to find even one accretion disc in spiral galaxy that CURRENTLY swallowing stars and other material from the nearby aria.
    Not in the past, not in the future - but today. Why is it so difficult? Why out of the billions spiral galaxies there is no clear evidence for current accretion of mass in spiral galaxy?
    Only one example for current accretion of mass in spiral galaxy is needed to proof that this ATM is wrong.


    Quote Originally Posted by AGN Fuel View Post
    Of the mass of material in an accretion disc, how much is ejected in these collimated jets? By the way: you have specifically quoted about an AGN here - these are the "cosmic fireworks" in galaxies that you have been arguing can't be found. Importantly (and I am fascinated by your ability to cherry pick quotes from a single sentence but completely ignore other points made in the same sentence!), the quote you provide there states, with my bolding: "Active galaxies have cores that glow brightly, powered by supermassive black holes swallowing stars and other material..."
    The full message in the article is as follow:

    http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...that-glow.html

    "Active galaxies have cores that glow brightly, powered by supermassive black holes swallowing stars and other material, and often spit twin jets in opposite directions. In contrast, the Milky Way's center shows little activity. But apparently, according to experts at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, it wasn't always so quiet. New evidence of ghostly gamma-ray beams suggests that the Milky Way's central black hole has been much more active in the past."

    "The two beams, or jets, were revealed by NASA's Fermi space telescope. They extend from the galactic center to a distance of 27,000 light-years above and below the galactic plane. "

    So, In the milky way we see little activity. which means that currently the Milky Way has no AGN at its center and it doesn't swallow any Star/matter from the nearby aria.
    However, we clearly see two beams, or jets, that extend from the galactic center (which represents the current time) to a distance of 27,000 light-years above and below the galactic plan. That means that there is a constant flow of jet from the galactic center even while the spiral galaxy's center shows little activity.
    In other words, there is no fireworks in the accretion disc of the Milky way which proves that it "eat" a nearby mass.
    In the article it is also stated:
    "It would take a tremendous influx of matter for the galactic core to fire up again. Finkbeiner estimates that a molecular cloud weighing about 10,000 times as much as the Sun would be required. "Shoving 10,000 suns into the black hole at once would do the trick. Black holes are messy eaters, so some of that material would spew out and power the jets," he said."
    So, let's assumed that somewhere in the past the SMBH in the milky way had shoved 10,000 suns from the nearby aria.
    If it did so, I would expect that at least most of it it will swallow. Remember the explanation of "swallowing stars and other material"?
    If it swallow at least some of the 10,000 suns, how it can blow it out? It contradicts the idea of event of horizon.
    Hence, the only possibility is that the SMBH had shoved those 10,000 Suns and kept them all in its mouth (the accretion disc).
    Is it feasible?
    In order to answer this question we must estimate the total mass in the accretion disc.
    I think that I have found an answer for that:

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.05351.pdf

    "During this time G2 has brought a substantial amount of mass to a distance of just a few thousand times the Schwarzschild radius of Sgr A* (RS). The estimated gas mass of G2 is 3 M⊕ (Gillessen et al. 2012; Shcherbakov 2014), which is comparable to the mass of gas in the hot accretion flow at this distance."

    Now we understand that G2 total mass is 3 M⊕ and this is comparable to the mass of gas in the accretion disc. (I hope that I understand it correctly).
    However, how could it be that an accretion disc with a capacity of only 3 Sun mass will shove and hold 10,000 Sun mass just in order to blow it out in a steady stream of jet?


    With regards to the following article about G2:

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.05351.pdf
    It is clearly stated that it is based on the OBSERVATIONS & METHODS which took place in 2015 and 2016.
    " In this paper we report on new near-infrared observations of both the ionized gaseous component and the dusty component of G2, obtained in 2015 and 2016 with the SINFONI integral field spectrograph and the NACO imager at the ESO VLT."
    "We have obtained new, deep near-infrared observations of the Galactic Center at the ESO VLT with SINFONI (Eisenhauer et al. 2003; Bonnet et al. 2004) in April/May 2015 and April/July 2016, as well as with NACO (Lenzen et al. 1998; Rousset et al. 1998) in July/September 2015 and April 2016.
    Based on those obeservations they have noticed that G2 has a tail. So the tail had been discovery only on 2015.
    After this discovery they went back to the 2014 data inorder to find a support for their discovery:
    "The so-called tail of G2 is an extended filament of gas and dust trailing the main G2 source (e.g. Gillessen et al. 2013a; Pfuhl et al. 2015), which appears to be the densest knot in this superstructure. To examine this tail in greater detail, we make use of a widely dithered set of SINFONI data that we were able to obtain as part of our 2014 observing campaign (Pfuhl et al. 2015). From this data, we are able to extract an extended pv-diagram, along a trajectory that follows the apparent tail emission, which is only tentatively detected in our regular monitoring observations (Fig. 9 & 10)."

    Therefore, it was fully correct to assume that G2 tail had not been discovered in 2014.

    With regards to G2 Orbital Velocity and its tail:

    "The gas emission has changed from being still partially red-shifted in 2015 to being entirely blue-shifted by 2016. This confirms that as predicted the bulk of cloud material has passed the black hole in 2014 at high velocity, assuming the emission is a valid proxy for gas mass throughout the evolution. The blue-shifted Brγ line is detected at a radial velocity of −2400 km s−1 in 2015 and redetected at −1700 km s−1 in 2016, with a respective line width of 320 km s−1 and 190 km s−1"

    So, in 2015 the orbital velocity of G2 was 2400 Km/s while in 2016 it had been reduced to 1700 Km/s. It is clear that in 2014 the velocity had to be higher than 2400 Km/s (but unfortunately, it seems that didn't check the velocity at that time.)
    So, as G2 is moving further away from the SMBH it reduces its orbital velocities but it also has less gravity impact from the SMBH. therefore, it is expected that the tail will be shorter or even disappear.

    However, based on the article I couldn't find any indication that the tail is getting shorter. (Actually I even recall that it was stated that it has the same length - but I couldn't find it again).
    Last edited by Dave Lee; 2018-Jul-27 at 12:00 PM.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,955
    Congratulations on another long post misrepresenting, misunderstanding or just plain being wrong about the mainstream.

    You are setting up a very tired false dichotomy. If the mainstream is wrong it does not imply you are right. You need to show, as Jean Tate and I have asked numerous times now, that your predictions and the testable components of your ideas are better than the current models. The current model might be utterly wrong, that doesn't make your claims the obvious replacement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Only one example for current accretion of mass in spiral galaxy is needed to proof that this ATM is wrong.
    Not how it works. We don't have to show, by your arbitrary standards of 'proof', that you are wrong. You need to show us that you are right.

    So far your ideas are basically that black hole disks and black hole disks alone are not bound by the laws of physics. They can ignore hydrodynamics, make particles from nothing as they see fit, accelerate particles to arbitrary velocities with no known mechanism. They can basically do whatever you decide they need to by unknown mechanisms. And the bonus of allowing this magic into physics? So far ... Nothing. A test we can't perform yet would turn out the other way to what we expected. No better predictions, no mysteries solved.

    So - are you going to step up, as you have been repeatedly asked, and actually defend and present your ideas or are you going to carry on evading and presenting your own misconceptions about physics?

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    9,075
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    <snip>I have only asked to find even one accretion disc in spiral galaxy that CURRENTLY swallowing stars and other material from the nearby aria.
    Not in the past, not in the future - but today. Why is it so difficult? Why out of the billions spiral galaxies there is no clear evidence for current accretion of mass in spiral galaxy?
    Only one example for current accretion of mass in spiral galaxy is needed to proof that this ATM is wrong.
    <snip>

    I think you have turned around the rules of ATM. It is NOT up to rest of CQ to answer your questions or find solutions for you.
    YOU have to bring the proof that your ideas have merit, and up until now you have not shown anything, apart from greatly misunderstanding mainstream astrophysics and a lack of knowledge of the topics you want to discuss (and overthrow).
    It is time that you start putting some effort in your ATM theory, apart from copypasting whole wiki paragraphs, and to try to learn some of the stuff that mainstream astrophysics is actually saying.
    If you keep on putting these kinds of post without any real concrete ideas, and with requests for people to answer your questions, this thread will be closed.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Tate
    As I understand it, AGNs (active galactic nuclei) can be divided approximately into those whose emission is "quasar mode", and those with "radio mode" emission (see, for example, Best&Heckmann 2015). How does your ATM idea relate to this dichotomy?
    AGN:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_galactic_nucleus
    "An active galactic nucleus (AGN) is a compact region at the center of a galaxy that has a much higher than normal luminosity over at least some portion—and possibly all—of the electromagnetic spectrum, with characteristics indicating that the excess luminosity is not produced by stars. Such excess non-stellar emission has been observed in the radio, microwave, infrared, optical, ultra-violet, X-ray and gamma ray wavebands. A galaxy hosting an AGN is called an "active galaxy". The radiation from an AGN is believed to result from the accretion of matter by a supermassive black hole at the center of its host galaxy."
    "the most powerful AGN are classified as quasars."
    There are different types of AGN:
    For example:
    "Nuclear optical continuum emission. This is visible whenever there is a direct view of the accretion disc. Jets can also contribute to this component of the AGN emission. The optical emission has a roughly power-law dependence on wavelength.
    Nuclear infra-red emission. This is visible whenever the accretion disc and its environment are obscured by gas and dust close to the nucleus and then re-emitted ('reprocessing'). As it is thermal emission, it can be distinguished from any jet or disc-related emission.
    Broad optical emission lines. These come from cold material close to the central black hole. The lines are broad because the emitting material is revolving around the black hole with high speeds causing a range of Doppler shifts of the emitted photons.
    Narrow optical emission lines. These come from more distant cold material, and so are narrower than the broad lines.
    Radio continuum emission. This is always due to a jet. It shows a spectrum characteristic of synchrotron radiation.
    X-ray continuum emission. This can arise both from a jet and from the hot corona of the accretion disc via a scattering process: in both cases it shows a power-law spectrum. In some radio-quiet AGN there is an excess of soft X-ray emission in addition to the power-law component. The origin of the soft X-rays is not clear at present"


    Some of the AGN are located at Spiral galaxies and its called Active spiral galaxy. So "Active" means that the galaxy emits radiation or jet of mass.
    I had an impression that the galactic nucleus of Spiral galaxy doesn't accretes mass from its own galaxy.
    Thanks.

    Can you point to any observations which could support (or be inconsistent with) your impression? In the form of papers, published in MNRAS, say, or AJ.

    From my reading of the literature, I think there are many papers which attempt to address this, but no AGN (other than SgrA*) is close enough for direct observations of any such accretion; however, I could be wrong.

    In the article it is stated: "The radiation from an AGN is believed to result from the accretion of matter by a suppermassive black hole at the center of its host galaxy"
    So, they "believed" that the accretion disc in AGN accretes mass from its own galaxy, while I believe that this statement isn't relevant to spiral galaxy (with or without AGN).
    Can you point to any observations which could support (or be inconsistent with) what you believe?

    There are billions of active/none active Spiral galaxies. In each one there is an accretion disc. I have only asked to find even one accretion disc in spiral galaxy that CURRENTLY swallowing stars and other material from the nearby aria.
    Not in the past, not in the future - but today. Why is it so difficult? Why out of the billions spiral galaxies there is no clear evidence for current accretion of mass in spiral galaxy?
    Only one example for current accretion of mass in spiral galaxy is needed to proof that this ATM is wrong.

    <snip>
    This brings me back to a couple of questions I asked you earlier in this thread, ones which you have not yet answered (that I can see); here they are again (slightly edited):

    Which spiral galaxies would you recommend be observed to test what you believe?

    What instruments, on what telescopes, do you think would be appropriate for such observations?

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,230
    Dave Lee appears to be demanding direct observations of infalling matter before he will accept it as a source of energy for the AGNs we observe from afar. By that line of thought we would have to demand direct observation of hydrogen fusing into helium in stellar cores before accepting it as a source of sustained energy that keeps a star hot for billions of years. Of course the fusion was obscured from direct observation before the advent of neutrino detection, but in theory it was in good agreement with what we were able to observe in man-made atom smashers here on Earth. Thus it was accepted beyond a reasonable doubt.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    534
    Quote Originally Posted by Hornblower View Post
    Dave Lee appears to be demanding direct observations of infalling matter before he will accept it as a source of energy for the AGNs we observe from afar.
    Please, I'm not demanding anything.
    I would mostly appreciate to have direct observation of infilling matter to the accretion disc in Spiral galaxy as we have direct observation of matter which is blowing out from the accretion disc. Please see the following Evidences:
    1. Evidence for Gas emission from the outer part of the accretion disc around the suppermassive black hole of NGC 7213
    https://academic.oup.com/mnras/artic...rectedFrom=PDF
    "This is the first time that the double-peaked line profile of this nucleus – typical of gas emission from the outer parts of an accretion disc surrounding a suppermassive black hole (SMBH) – is reported to vary."
    2. Evidences for a "wind" of hot matter blowing outward from the SMBH accretion disk of the Milky way:
    http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...that-glow.html
    "The two beams, or jets, were revealed by NASA's Fermi space telescope. They extend from the galactic center to a distance of 27,000 light-years above and below the galactic plane."
    3. Evidence for emission from any active spiral galaxy. (As AGN by definition set it into active mode - which means that it must have some kind of emission)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Tate View Post
    From my reading of the literature, I think there are many papers which attempt to address this, but no AGN (other than SgrA*) is close enough for direct observations of any such accretion; however, I could be wrong.
    As we have direct observations of matter emission from the accretion discs/AGN at the center of spiral galaxy (Even from quite far away galaxy NGC 7213), we should have direct observations of in falling matter. This request should come not just from me, but from any one of us.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Tate View Post
    Can you point to any observations which could support (or be inconsistent with) your impression? In the form of papers, published in MNRAS, say, or AJ.
    The absence of direct observation for matter accretion in spiral galaxy is fully support my ATM.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hornblower View Post
    By that line of thought we would have to demand direct observation of hydrogen fusing into helium in stellar cores before accepting it as a source of sustained energy that keeps a star hot for billions of years. Of course the fusion was obscured from direct observation before the advent of neutrino detection, but in theory it was in good agreement with what we were able to observe in man-made atom smashers here on Earth. Thus it was accepted beyond a reasonable doubt.
    Thanks for the comparison for Fusion activity. It is excellent example:
    We had an idea of the Fusion before the advent of neutrino detection. Later on we have got a direct observation to support our Idea. Therefore, it was accepted beyond a reasonable doubt.
    However, with regards to the accretion disc - We had an idea that the accretion disc must accrete gas cloud or stars. So, in 2014 we were sure that the accretion disc of the Milky way is going to swallow G2 gas cloud. As this expectation didn't fulfill, it is our obligation to re verify on our Idea/Theory.
    As we don't have any direct observations for in falling matter, the answer is that there is no matter which is falling in.

    This is a key element for understanding the activity in spiral galaxy.
    There is no need for spiral galaxy to eat other dwarf galaxies in order to increase its size.
    The accretion disc keeps on its process to eject new mass. Over time, new G gas clouds will be emerged. G2 and G1 include hot matter which had been ejected from the accretion disc. They are now in a process of forming new stars from that matter. If we could follow their orbital path for long enough time, we should see that they are drifting away from the core.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Tate View Post
    Which spiral galaxies would you recommend be observed to test what you believe?
    Any spiral galaxy is good enough for our observation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Tate View Post
    What instruments, on what telescopes, do you think would be appropriate for such observations?
    I'm not going to tell the science community which instruments they should use. However, in thread 23 I have stated which kind of instruments they have used:

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.05351.pdf

    "We have obtained new, deep near-infrared observations of the Galactic Center at the ESO VLT with SINFONI (Eisenhauer et al. 2003; Bonnet et al. 2004) in April/May 2015 and April/July 2016, as well as with NACO (Lenzen et al. 1998; Rousset et al. 1998) in July/September 2015 and April 2016.
    Last edited by Dave Lee; 2018-Jul-28 at 08:08 PM.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,230
    From the various sources linked in this thread, it appears to me that the conditions are such that the infalling material is not giving us usable spectral features for determining the Doppler shift which would give us the smoking-gun radial velocity information. The absence of explicit verbalization of that detail in material that has become available online does not necessarily rule it out, at least as I see it, any more than our inability to directly observe the nuclear fusion in stellar cores would be grounds for rejecting it in theory. The latter was accepted in theory beyond a reasonable doubt long before we could detect neutrinos.

    Dave Lee, what is your hypothesis for the source of energy in AGNs? If you have already stated such a hypothesis, please direct us to it. I do not wish to try to tease it out of the jumble of stuff in this thread.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Please, I'm not demanding anything.
    I would mostly appreciate to have direct observation of infilling matter to the accretion disc in Spiral galaxy as we have direct observation of matter which is blowing out from the accretion disc. Please see the following Evidences:
    1. Evidence for Gas emission from the outer part of the accretion disc around the suppermassive black hole of NGC 7213
    https://academic.oup.com/mnras/artic...rectedFrom=PDF
    "This is the first time that the double-peaked line profile of this nucleus – typical of gas emission from the outer parts of an accretion disc surrounding a suppermassive black hole (SMBH) – is reported to vary."
    That link is broken for me; can you cite the actual paper please?

    Also, I don't understand why you think the reported observation is direct evidence of gas emission "from the outer part of the accretion disc"; can you give details please? Note: perhaps those details are in the paper you cite, but as your link doesn't work, I do not know what paper you're citing.

    2. Evidences for a "wind" of hot matter blowing outward from the SMBH accretion disk of the Milky way:
    http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...that-glow.html
    "The two beams, or jets, were revealed by NASA's Fermi space telescope. They extend from the galactic center to a distance of 27,000 light-years above and below the galactic plane."
    3. Evidence for emission from any active spiral galaxy. (As AGN by definition set it into active mode - which means that it must have some kind of emission)
    That AGNs seem to "emit" a lot of matter has been known for a long time. Perhaps the first discovery was double radio lobes, first associated with elliptical galaxies (I think the paper most often cited was published in the 1960s). And AGNs have been observed in ellipticals, lenticulars, and spirals (I'm not sure about irregulars), and even some dwarf galaxies.

    I don't understand why you seem to refer to only a very limited number of AGNs.

    As we have direct observations of matter emission from the accretion discs/AGN at the center of spiral galaxy (Even from quite far away galaxy NGC 7213), we should have direct observations of in falling matter. This request should come not just from me, but from any one of us.
    Can you explain, in detail, why you think "we should have direct observations of in falling matter" please (my bold)?

    The absence of direct observation for matter accretion in spiral galaxy is fully support my ATM.

    <snip>
    How have your ruled out the possibility that such an absence is due to observational limitations? In particular, can you show - preferably in detail - that existing facilities could directly detect matter accretion onto the accretion disk in any galaxy (other than our own)?

    However, with regards to the accretion disc - We had an idea that the accretion disc must accrete gas cloud or stars. So, in 2014 we were sure that the accretion disc of the Milky way is going to swallow G2 gas cloud. As this expectation didn't fulfill, it is our obligation to re verify on our Idea/Theory.
    As we don't have any direct observations for in falling matter, the answer is that there is no matter which is falling in.
    My question above applies to this too.

    <snip>

    Any spiral galaxy is good enough for our observation.

    I'm not going to tell the science community which instruments they should use. However, in thread 23 I have stated which kind of instruments they have used:

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.05351.pdf

    "We have obtained new, deep near-infrared observations of the Galactic Center at the ESO VLT with SINFONI (Eisenhauer et al. 2003; Bonnet et al. 2004) in April/May 2015 and April/July 2016, as well as with NACO (Lenzen et al. 1998; Rousset et al. 1998) in July/September 2015 and April 2016.
    Please show - preferably in detail - that these are capable of directly detecting matter "falling in" to the accretion disk of any AGN in any galaxy (other than the Milky Way).

    For the record, I think you cannot provide a robust demonstration of such.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •