Galactic accretion discs are baby Quasars.

[john]

Galactic accretion discs grow into Quasars which are eventually ejected in entangled pairs. They are shot away by the same field that is made visible when AGNs produce jets.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

Uh... John... apparently you do not understand that AGN's and quasars are the same thing...

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/6099/difference-between-quasar-and-active-galactic-nuclei&ved=0ahUKEwiOkcqE69nWAhWK6oMKHSDZBSsQFggsMAE&usg=AOvVaw1GzrybJYywbUdrxCJV8a1U

[Michael Moroney]

You are making up your own definitions. That's not what quasars are.
Quasars are a subset of AGNs. They are supermassive black holes feasting
on a lot of infalling matter.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

Yes. All quasars are AGN's, but not all AGN's are quasars... subset is exactly correct...

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

How do those accretion discs lose there stable orbits?

Mitchell Raemsch

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 4:20:33 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 2:08:54 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:

> How do those accretion discs lose there stable orbits?

I doubt they do, at least for a very long time. How their lives eventually end, I doubt anyone has much of a clue, perhaps a guess at best. I myself have not yet read or otherwise heard about any study involving an end-of-life black hole. This doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but I try to keep up with the ApJ as much as possible, and I don't recall seeing anything.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

What causes the maintaining of Super long stable orbits?
Why would accretion discs have a special gravity?

Mitchell Raemsch

[pnal...@gmail.com]

Special gravity? WTH are you talking about?

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

The special state of super long stable orbits...
for accretion disc gravity.
Where are the examples that would make them
not special?

Mitchell Raemsch

[pnal...@gmail.com]

What's so special about a long stable orbit? The Earth and the other planets have successfully been orbiting the Sun for 4.5 billion years now, is that so special?

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

That's the reverse of my question.
What is special about the long "unstable" orbit?
What would give accretion discs that gravity order?
And what other examples have the same order?

Mitchell Raemsch

[pnal...@gmail.com]

What unstable orbit? What makes you think that the matter in an accretion disk is in an unstable orbit? Do you know something the rest of us don't know?

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

When does it spiral in?
It has to have an unstable orbit to spiral in.
That is accepted about them.

Mitchell Raemsch

[john]

The material that forms the accretion disc is from trapped light. The material that forms the jets is from shredded Matter.

[reber G=emc^2]

On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 7:46:02 AM UTC-7, john wrote:
> Galactic accretion discs grow into Quasars which are eventually ejected in entangled pairs. They are shot away by the same field that is made visible when AGNs produce jets.

Are BHs baby quasars? BHs create accretion discs.Good reason why Its the disc that make BHs reality.

[hanson]

"reber G=emc^2" <herbert...@gmail.com> wrote
that it's "Good reason why Its the disc that make
___ Bert's Hemmorhoids__(BHs) a reality .. & "it's
tricky", but "it fits" & "it's on the money" as seen .
>
in <http://tinyurl.com/Bert-s-Selfintroductn-Oct2017>
wherein Ber says:
*** "I am a proud Jew with a Superiority complex &
*** an IQ of 122", and "I know how everything works."
*** "I feel very safe when I lie. I will lie till I die". Trebert
*** "Being Jewish I know this is so very true" -- Bert.
*** ___** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **___.
"

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Friday, October 6, 2017 at 8:26:04 AM UTC-7, john wrote:
> The material that forms the accretion disc is from trapped light. The material that forms the jets is from shredded Matter.

Look at a light bubble... light always gets out.
The escape velocity concept does not apply to light
therefore also light doesn't get trapped.
Science has overlooked that escape velocity
only applies to matter. Matter can slow down but
light doesn't if you accept Einstein's constancy
of the speed of light principle. It can always
get out.

Mitchell Raemsch

[benj]

Senile babbling nonsense. Makes Archie look like a rank amateur!

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

Escape velocity is not to be applied to light...
It applies to matter instead.

Mitchell Raemsch

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Friday, October 6, 2017 at 3:15:31 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> Escape velocity is not to be applied to light...
> It applies to matter instead.

So tell us, Mitchell... why are black holes called, well, black holes? Hmmmmm?

https://www.space.com/15421-black-holes-facts-formation-discovery-sdcmp.html

"Black holes are some of the strangest and most fascinating objects found in outer space. They are objects of extreme density, with such strong gravitational attraction that even light cannot escape from their grasp if it comes near enough."

Google is your friend. You can learn LOTS of things there, if you only look for them...

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

Stephen Hawking's paper entitled "There are No Black Holes"
Came out of the fact that light does not obey escape velocity
trap.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:

>The material that forms the accretion disc is from trapped light. The
>material that forms the jets is from shredded Matter.

John, you are back to pulling stuff out of your ass and posting it here
because you like the smell. Cut it out.

The accretion disk is matter being sucked into the hole, being compressed
and heated due to the extreme conditions there. While there is a
theoretical "photon orbit" where a photon can in theory orbit forever, it
is not stable so if disturbed, it will either fall into the hole or
escape.

[john]

MM

"john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:

>The material that forms the accretion disc is from trapped light. The
>material that forms the jets is from shredded Matter.

John, you are back to pulling stuff out of your ass and posting it here
because you like the smell. Cut it out. "

The difference between photons that get trapped by the BH's SPIN and Matter, is that the matter is shredded and ejected by the field, while photons collect to form the accretion disc until they reach a critical size, when they are similarly ejected as Quasars

[pnal...@gmail.com]

John, you are simply delusional... its seems to be catching around here... these claims of your are just over the top!

[john]

Matter is spin 1/2.
So is the galactic dynamo, and when Matter gets drawn into the central spin, it is shredded and ejected as jets.
Photons are spin 1/1. They get to the Center of spin and are trapped as the accretion discs. When the accretion discs get to a certain size, they are able to be shot out as Quasars.
So in this way Light is being collected, rather than radiated.

[john]

This is an interesting place to get to: smaller-scale electromagnetic radiation is collected by atomic nuclei until it becomes a single photon at our scale.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

Unintelligible gobbledegook... read a freakin' article or 2 or 3 about all of this, instead of just imagining what is going on. You are looking more and more like some kind of freak...

[Michael Moroney]

John, did you really have to reach back and scoop out another posting?

Looks like "Little Pharma" got a hold of some really, really nasty shit
this time.

[john]

It's all discs of energy forms.
Atoms and galaxies are discs of 1:2 energy.
Quasars and photons are discs of 1:1 energy.

[reber G=emc^2]

BHs create a circular disk,and one shaped like a question mark.(?) or Q I think Q looks best to discribe the BH eating te disck TreBert

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

They are in orbit. Gravity does not create spiral curved motion.
They would have spiraled in at the beginning of their time.
Look at Saturn's rings rocks orbits...
They have complete stability.
How did they form that way?
Can anyone solve that?
Everything is flying around.

Mitchell Raemsch

[hanson]

Idiot "reber G=emc^2" <herbert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bert's Hemorrhoids (BHs) create a circular disk,and one
shaped like a question mark.(?) or Q. I think Q looks best
to discribe Bert's Hemorrhoid (BH) eating the shit of TreBert
said <http://tinyurl.com/Glazier-the-loud-retarded-pig>

[Lofty Goat]

Google is everyone's friend. There exists a minimum stable orbit around
rotating black holes, due to frame dragging. A more-or-less stable
accretion disc would have to be outside that region, but given
collisions between whatever sort of particles it comprises it's easy to
imagine that bits of material would find their way into that
no-stable-orbit region, so that the black hole would gradually absorb
its accretion disc.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

It is claimed to spiral in...
That is not a real motion curve from gravity.

Mitchell Raemsch

[hanson]

Mitchell Raemsch <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lofty Goat wrote: <snip crap>

>> Paul Analsinger <pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 8:24:12 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >> On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 8:13:53 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 5:51:43 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 5:18:56 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 5:01:05 PM UTC-7,
> >> > > > mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > > > > On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 4:56:02 PM UTC-7,
> >> > > > > pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > > > > > On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 4:20:33 PM UTC-7,
> >> > > > > > mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > > > > > > On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 2:08:54 PM UTC-7,
> >> > > > > > > pnal...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip crap>
>
hanson wrote:
Raemsch, never mind all that crap above.
Raemsch, first things first.
Tell your correspondent what maladies has fallen on
you, so that the Analsinger and the Goat can properly
administer to you, Raemsch.
Answer the question, or you must be considered that
you are nothing but a lunatic crackpot and a crank on
the same level as "low-wit-Glazier", the cretin is.
So what ails you, Raemsch?

[Lofty Goat]

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 12:45:49 -0700 (PDT), mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 9:31:59 AM UTC-7, Lofty Goat wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 21:01:42 -0700 (PDT), pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >What unstable orbit? What makes you think that the matter in an accretion disk is in an unstable orbit? Do you know something the rest of us don't know?
>
>It is claimed to spiral in...
>That is not a real motion curve from gravity.
>

>> Google is everyone's friend. <snip>

[sigh] "Motion curve from gravity?"

I have a friend who was pontificating once, years ago, about "ascending
hierarchies of functions". When I finally was able to pry a semi-lucid
description out of him, it was something which math types refer to as a
"family of curves". When he learned they were commonplace, and that
there was already a word for them, he calmed down a lot.

Gravity. Hmmm. A black hole's accretion is pretty complex.

Both tidal and thermal effects stress the matter in them far past their
elastic limit, so there isn't much in there that's solid no matter what
the material started out as, and indeed there is probably a lot of
plasma revolving around, adding electrical effects as well.

Space just inside the inner rim of the disc is rotating.

The particles which make up the disc are not just orbiting the primary,
they're also banging into each other. Other matter which happens to be
floating by is pulled into the disc, some going into not-quite-circular
orbits around the primary, complicating, among other things, the thermal
and electrical effects.

Some matter escapes back into space. Some drops inside the nearest
stable orbit and is eaten by the black hole. Some is blasted out
perpendicular to the disc by electromagnetic effects.

Sure, gravity plays a big part, but there are a hell of a lot of other
things going on there also.

Instead of pointing openmouthed at the phenomenon and saying, "Golly,
that just can't be!" you should perhaps ask a physicist. There are a
couple or three hanging about here who know a hell of a lot more about
this than I do, and could probably explain it to you a hell of a lot
better than I could. Ask, then pay attention.

--
Goat

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 9:28:14 PM UTC-7, Lofty Goat wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 12:45:49 -0700 (PDT), mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 9:31:59 AM UTC-7, Lofty Goat wrote:
> >> On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 21:01:42 -0700 (PDT), pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >What unstable orbit? What makes you think that the matter in an accretion disk is in an unstable orbit? Do you know something the rest of us don't know?
> >
> >It is claimed to spiral in...
> >That is not a real motion curve from gravity.
> >
> >> Google is everyone's friend. <snip>
>
> [sigh] "Motion curve from gravity?"

Curved space creates curved motion.

Mitchell Raemsch

[john]

MM
From
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/55/meta
"Helical structures are common in extragalactic jets. They are usually attributed in the literature to periodical phenomena in the source (e.g., precession). In this work, we use very long baseline interferometry..."
to try to reason that the source can't be precessing, even though the jets do. Crazy, hey Michael?

[Odd Bodkin]

Helical structure has NOTHING to do with precession, John! DNA has helical
structure. What’s precessing???

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:


>MM

>to try to reason that the source can't be precessing, even though
>the jets do. Crazy, hey Michael?

Precessing in what ratio?
Precessing at what angle (first Euler angle)?

Did you notice they were talking about opening angles of about
13.9 degrees? Enough to provide a definite helical character
to the jets. Yawn. Well not yawn, it's actually interesting, but
definitely doesn't give any support to your retarded precessing
spinny thing hallucinations.

You should have noticed that I never said things don't precess.
In fact, with GR frame dragging, if you have a galaxy with a
supermassive black hole orbiting an even larger one at its
center, there will be quite a bit of precession.

However, they will NOT get all stupid and retarded and precess
in a 2:1 or 1:1 ratio like your OCD drives you to obsess over.

A 9.5 million:1 ratio like earth does? why sure!
Maybe a couple dozen:1 in a rather extreme dual black hole
environment, over several degrees? Sure! Do the GR math including
frame dragging, how the two holes influence each other and see
what happens. 2:1 and 1:1 over 360 degrees? Better have an
explanation, which you have never done!

[Edward Prochak]

On Saturday, October 7, 2017 at 6:02:46 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, October 7, 2017 at 1:51:09 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote:

[]

> >
> > BHs create a circular disk,and one shaped like a
> > question mark.(?) or Q I think Q looks best to discribe
> > the BH eating te disck TreBert
>
> They are in orbit. Gravity does not create spiral curved motion.
> They would have spiraled in at the beginning of their time.
> Look at Saturn's rings rocks orbits...
> They have complete stability.
> How did they form that way?
> Can anyone solve that?
> Everything is flying around.
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

It is a complex problem (multi-body motion), but some computer
models have provided some insight. One possibility is the ring
was a moon that was shredded by tidal forces. The current explanation
of the stability is that the several "shephard" moons keep the
rings in stable orbit. Look up some of the Cassini videos posted
recently. Good information.

Ed

[reber G=emc^2]

On Saturday, October 7, 2017 at 1:51:09 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote:

Can a BH with a accretion disc be found alone free of a galaxy? The disc is made by the BH as it eats a star atom by atom. Trebert

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 11:26:52 AM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote:

> Can a BH with a accretion disc be found alone free of a galaxy?

No evidence for that anywhere, AFAIK.

[hanson]

<http://tinyurl.com/Glazier-the-loud-retarded-pig>
"reber G=emc^2" <herbert...@gmail.com> asked:
> Can _Bert's Hemorrhoid_ aka (BH) with a accretion
> disc be found alone, free of a pail that Bert shits into?
? The disc is made by _Bert's Hemorrhoid_ as it creates
a turd, atom by atom by Trebert which Glazier shows in
<http://tinyurl.com/Bert-s-Selfintroductn-Oct2017>

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

Momentum doesn't work that way.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Edward Prochak]

On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 2:26:52 PM UTC-4, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
[]

>
> Can a BH with a accretion disc be found alone free of a galaxy?
> The disc is made by the BH as it eats a star atom by atom. Trebert

Certainly possible. is it likely? Should be rare because the BH
needs material to form. I would speculate a BH might be ejected
from the galaxy where it formed during a collision with another
galaxy. The accretion disk would not last long however, so it
would soon become a naked BH.

As Jim mentions, there is no record of such a beast found yet.
Ed

[Edward Prochak]

What are you talking about?

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

How do Saturn's ring's rocks achieve perfect orbit?
Momentum would have them flying around at all angles
at formation. What is left is far from possible
to have happened by the momentum exchange we see.

Mitchell Raemsch

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Monday, October 9, 2017 at 3:05:42 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> How do Saturn's ring's rocks achieve perfect orbit?
> Momentum would have them flying around at all angles
> at formation. What is left is far from possible
> to have happened by the momentum exchange we see.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepherd_moon

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

I think someone mooned you.
That is not an explanation of all of that order.
The momentum exchange angles would never work.

Mitchell Raemsch

[pnal...@gmail.com]

Show your work, Mitchell, just saying so does not prove a thing. Talk is cheap and mostly worthlesss...

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

What is your insight?
By what motion do they arrive in orbit?
They would have to adjust in their directions
at the beginning of their time...
What is your work for that?

Mitchell Raemsch

[pnal...@gmail.com]

I have no special insight, Mitchell, regarding the rings of Saturn. I only know that there are a lot of unknown regarding the rings, some theories say they are young and some say they are as old as Saturn itself. Who knows? Read this...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rings_of_Saturn

...where it says, in part...

"The rings of Saturn are the most extensive planetary ring system of any planet in the Solar System. They consist of countless small particles, ranging from μm to m in size,[1] that orbit about Saturn. The ring particles are made almost entirely of water ice, with a trace component of rocky material. There is still no consensus as to their mechanism of formation; some features of the rings suggest a relatively recent origin, but theoretical models indicate they are likely to have formed early in the Solar System's history."

Note that it says that there is only a trace of rocky material and that almost all of the rings are comprised of water ice!

When you come out with a statement like "The momentum exchange angles would never work", I get a little suspicious that you don't really know what the heck you are saying, so I asked to see your work. Is there *any* basis in fact for your statement. What is it even supposed to mean? The rings persist, to a great degree, because of the shepherd moons, which keep things more-or-less organized.

So... show your work as to why "The momentum exchange angles would never work".

[Edward Prochak]

I do not know what you define as a "perfect orbit".
There is not such classification in Physics.

> Momentum would have them flying around at all angles
> at formation. What is left is far from possible
> to have happened by the momentum exchange we see.
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

The interaction of the momentum of Saturn's ring particles,
from dust motes to shepherd moons, with Saturn's gravity
as well as the gravity of the ring particles themselves
all do converge into the shape we see today.

I'm sorry if that does not fit your understanding
of physics. But the motion of the ring fits just fine
with the current theory of gravity and the law of momentum.

You should really consider the rings a little closer
and see all their complexity and wonder.

Enjoy,
ed

[reber G=emc^2]

They orbit in lock step.The bigger moons over time must have created this.Is it possible there is more ice water in these rings that all our water on earth? Trebert

[hanson]

"reber G=emc^2" <herbert...@gmail.com> wrote
phony & transparently stupid Glazierola to cover up that
>

<http://tinyurl.com/Loudmouth-Glazier-8Feb2017> aka
"Herbert Glazier" <herbert...@gmail.com> wrote in
re: "Anaheim Hills is on Fire": "So much smoke I can look
directly into the Sun.Took pictures of how dark it is at 2 pm
My eyes are burning. Lucky I have my van and can move
away from the blaze", said TreBert, ... but ** NOT one**
word of concern or pity for the people who lost their homes.
>
So much for the self-centered, uncaring Jewish sociopath
Glazier who constantly praises & pimps himself, saying::
>
*** "I am a proud Jew with a Superiority complex &
*** an IQ of 122", and "I know how everything works."
>
and then Bert adds that "T/he/y is/are now taking bets on
Kim Jong-un and Trump, and says:
>
*** _____"I'm glad when war breaks out"____ Bert
*** "Being Jewish I know this is so very true" -- Bert.
*** ___** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **___.
>
and "Bert has more to say on this", which is seen in
<http://tinyurl.com/Bert-s-Selfintroductn-Oct2017> by
Bert, <http://tinyurl.com/The-Chosen-Graveyard-Vandal>
>

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

How did they all land in a stable orbit?
In formation at their time beginning
they would all have angles that woudn't
straighten out.. to the rings plane.

Their original angles would rule that out.
Their quantity is far too high for
that probability for them to form in
that place.


Mitchell Raemsch

[benj]

Mitch you idiot, the ENTIRE solar system has never been shown to be
stable so why would the rings be stable?

> Their original angles would rule that out.
> Their quantity is far too high for
> that probability for them to form in
> that place.

Obviously you know this by the quick exercise of your superpowers, right?

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

How old are the stars? The solar system would have decayed long ago
if you are right...

> so why would the rings be stable?

How old is Saturn?
They are stable an always will be.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Edward Prochak]

Why do you think the particles of
the ring "woudn't straighten out"?

the fact is they are not all straight now. Look at some of the
Cassini video. there are images showing parts of the ring rising
above the plan of the ring and casting shadows.

The rings of Saturn are not static. It may be that some time
in the future the rings will be gone, either dispersing or
forming a new moon for Saturn.

>
> Their original angles would rule that out.
> Their quantity is far too high for
> that probability for them to form in
> that place.

So you are missing an understanding of dynamics (the physics
of motion). It would be very difficult to go into all the
calculations, but know that the initial angle of motion for
the particles is exactly that, the initial angle of motion.
As things move the speed AND direction can change.

This is just as I (ed) said previously:

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

Its the forming angles that are the problem.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Edward Prochak]

What makes you think this is true? You are not following
any standard logic.

>
>
> > so why would the rings be stable?
>
> How old is Saturn?
> They are stable an always will be.
>
> Mitchell Raemsch
>

No, the universe is not static.

What you just said is like this analogy
An ant on a tree says the branches of this
tree are stable and always will be. Then
along comes a lumberjack.

Think about it.
Ed

[Edward Prochak]

On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 11:07:46 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
[]

>
> Its the forming angles that are the problem.
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

No, that is not a problem.
Mutual gravity, collisions, even sunlight influence the motions
that can lead to Saturn's rings.

Do you agree that the initial velocity (speed AND direction)
of a particle can change?

Have you ever played Pool/Billiards? Miniature golf?

Ed

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 8:18:45 PM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 11:07:46 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> []
> >
> > Its the forming angles that are the problem.
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
>
> No, that is not a problem.

How do the entering angles at formation
go into the plane of the ring's orbit?

> Mutual gravity, collisions, even sunlight influence the motions
> that can lead to Saturn's rings.
>
> Do you agree that the initial velocity (speed AND direction)
> of a particle can change?

Not all of them would go into that plane...
Where do they go?

Mitchell Raemsch

We know they would come from all angles but
that does not give a plane of order.

Mitchell Raemsch

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

All angles at formation cannot align
perfectly to the flat plane of rings
orbits...

Mitchell Raemsch

You are not following
> any standard logic.

That is not my problem.

> >
> >
> > > so why would the rings be stable?
> >
> > How old is Saturn?
> > They are stable an always will be.
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> >
>
> No, the universe is not static.
>
> What you just said is like this analogy
> An ant on a tree says the branches of this
> tree are stable and always will be. Then
> along comes a lumberjack.

That lumberjack would have to come from the Oort Cloud.

>
> Think about it.
> Ed

[Edward Prochak]

On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 11:39:49 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 8:18:45 PM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 11:07:46 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > []
> > >
> > > Its the forming angles that are the problem.
> > >
> > > Mitchell Raemsch
> >
> > No, that is not a problem.
>
> How do the entering angles at formation
> go into the plane of the ring's orbit?
>
> > Mutual gravity, collisions, even sunlight influence the motions
> > that can lead to Saturn's rings.
> >
> > Do you agree that the initial velocity (speed AND direction)
> > of a particle can change?
>
> Not all of them would go into that plane...
> Where do they go?
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

Some of the initial material certainly is not there any more.
Some was ejected out of orbit, some ejected and fell into
Saturn. Point is it is no longer there.

>
> We know they would come from all angles but
> that does not give a plane of order.
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

And some of the material is still oscillating above and
below the plane of the rings. The rings show waves of density
variation even within the plane.

Why are you seeking perfection that is not there?

The same rules of momentum and gravity that applied to
the initial conditions that formed the rings lead
to the conditions that exist today and will lead
to the conditions and shape of the rings in the future.

With the amount of material it is difficult to perform
the calculations needed to determine how they formed
and what shapes they may take in the future, but
simulations have been done yielding results that
match the overall shape of the rings.

here is a link that might help you understand:
http://blogstronomy.blogspot.com/2009/10/how-are-planetary-rings-formed.html

At least I hope you are willing to learn and understand.
Enjoy.
ed

[john]

Ed
"..

and what shapes they may take in the future, but
simulations have been done yielding results that
match the overall shape of the rings. "

Yah, simulations don't prove anything. You can feed any constraints you want into a computer.
There's a magnetic field pattern that has them trapped- good an explanation as any.

[Edward Prochak]

On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 12:27:28 PM UTC-4, john wrote:
> Ed
> "..
> and what shapes they may take in the future, but
> simulations have been done yielding results that
> match the overall shape of the rings. "
> Yah, simulations don't prove anything.
> You can feed any constraints you want into a computer.

Ah, so your gif models fit into that non-proof bucket.
(Sorry, you set yourself up for that one.) 8^)

> There's a magnetic field pattern that has them trapped-
> good an explanation as any.

The simulations only show that we don't need to invoke
other forces like magnetic fields. Why? Because IIRC,
Cassini included a magnetic field sensor, and the strength
of the fields around Saturn would be too small.

Also the magnetic field idea would have to assume the
particles in the ring are influenced by the field.
since most of the material is water, it just doesn't
respond to a magnetic field in any way that would
help the rings to form or stay stable.

So yes, simulations alone are useless.
Simulations that match observed data are helpful.

Nice talking to you John.
Ed

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 9:05:18 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 11:39:49 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 8:18:45 PM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 11:07:46 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > []
> > > >
> > > > Its the forming angles that are the problem.
> > > >
> > > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > >
> > > No, that is not a problem.
> >
> > How do the entering angles at formation
> > go into the plane of the ring's orbit?
> >
> > > Mutual gravity, collisions, even sunlight influence the motions
> > > that can lead to Saturn's rings.
> > >
> > > Do you agree that the initial velocity (speed AND direction)
> > > of a particle can change?
> >
> > Not all of them would go into that plane...
> > Where do they go?
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
>
> Some of the initial material certainly is not there any more.
> Some was ejected out of orbit, some ejected and fell into
> Saturn. Point is it is no longer there.

How did it get an exchanged momentum to eject it without
it disturbing the whole ring?

>
> >
> > We know they would come from all angles but
> > that does not give a plane of order.
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
>
> And some of the material is still oscillating above and
> below the plane of the rings. The rings show waves of density
> variation even within the plane.

Oscillation would have to mean orbit...

Mitchell Raemsch

[Lofty Goat]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 11:26:47 -0700 (PDT), "reber G=emc^2"
<herbert...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Can a BH with a accretion disc be found alone free of a galaxy? The
> disc is made by the BH as it eats a star atom by atom. Trebert

No reason why not, depending on your definition of "accretion disc".

All that's necessary is a black hole, and a supply of other matter, and
enough interactions, i.e. momentum-sharing, between those particles that
they don't all just go flying past.

But you know, outside a galaxy matter is pretty sparse. You might get
something that would qualify as a disc, but it might be too tenuous ever
to measure, let alone see from here.

Good luck building a telescope good enough to observe an almost
invisibly tenuous accretion disc around an extragalactic black hole.
They may be there, but I'll bet you or I never see one.

--
Goat

[Lofty Goat]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 08:10:53 -0700 (PDT), john <johnse...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>MM
>From
>http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/55/meta
>"Helical structures are common in extragalactic jets. They are usually attributed in the literature to periodical phenomena in the source (e.g., precession). In this work, we use very long baseline interferometry..."
>to try to reason that the source can't be precessing, even though the jets do. Crazy, hey Michael?

Sure. You have something spewing matter out its poles, and it's
precessing, the matter will be observed to form helices. You see
something similar with some kinds of lawn sprinkler.

Yet current models of such jets attain that without precession.

I know how cool an idea it is, and that it makes pretty nifty pictures,
but let's face it: most things don't cause precession, and precession
doesn't cause most things... other than monomania.

BTW, rotating black holes can precess. You get two orbiting one another
with one rotating non-perpendicular to the orbital plane, it'll precess.

You find one of those - and prove it - then they'll give you a plane
ticket to Oslo. You and Herb can work on the telescope together.

--
Goat

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

If black holes move and rotate their time rate slows down
by those speeds together...

Mitchell Raemsch

[john]

Galaxies accrete photons into Quasars and shred Matter into jets.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 12:39:25 PM UTC-7, john wrote:
> Galaxies accrete photons into Quasars and shred Matter into jets.

Stars are full of light...

[john]

M
"Stars are full of li.."
Jets of shredded Matter are associated with new stars.

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:

>Galaxies accrete photons into Quasars and shred Matter into jets.

Only if you apply Sefton "logic" with Sefton's very own definitions of
certain words: (a.k.a. word salad)

"Galaxy" - not exactly sure what he defines this as, other than it is
sonething that is retardedly precessing

"photon" - something else unknown, other than it also retardedly precesses.

"quasar" - something else unknown, but it splits in pairs and may be a
giant "photon" (see previous definition)

"matter" - not certain what he believes this is

"jets" - also unknown, but connected with retarded precession.

[john]

MM

""jets" - also unknown, but connected with retarded precession"

Oh, so connected

[Michael Moroney]

You really seem rather disconnected from reality.

I'm sorry I didn't remember your made-up definitions for those words
any better.

It certainly would help if you made up the words themselves, not just the
definitions. Call that thing you say splits in pairs a "pllumgh" rather
than "quasar" for example.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 12:39:25 PM UTC-7, john wrote:

> Galaxies accrete photons into Quasars and shred Matter into jets.

John, your imagination is working overtime and is about to go into automatic shutdown.

This most recent statement of yours is completely unintelligible...

[john]

Pnal

"This most recent statement of yours is completely unintelligible... "

Black Holes have been OBSERVED to shred Matter and immediately change it into outgoing jets of HEPs.
(Can't understand that? Why?)
Black Holes are OBSERVED to absorb light, and to have accretion discs at their centres.
(Still can't understand English?)
SOME Black Holes have Quasars at their centres, where the accretion disc was.
(Would French work better?)
Those quasars are released when they get to the right frequency- just like photons in atoms.

So- in short- Matter gets recycled into jets by Black Holes, and photons get accreted into Quasars. Short explanation. I know you don't have ANY explanation.

Have you considered that the 'unintelligible ' part might be at your end, only? Perhaps your receiver is too weak?

[john]

Anyway, a BH is simply spin at a rate that is too high for our Matter and photons to get to. It is spin by smaller Fractal energy structures, only.
Our gauge Matter gets shredded and expelled as jets ( observed- http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/swift/bursts/shredded-star.html.
And our gauge photons get accreted as discs in their smallest orbit, with clockwise photons on one side and counterclockwise photons on the other. As these discs increase in size, the arms of the galaxy are slowly pulled in, and it rotates faster. When the quasar reaches a critical size determined by the particular galactic arms, a tipping point is reached and the quasars are released; at the same time, the arms spread out and the rotation slows.

[john]

Me

"Anyway, a BH is simply spin at a rate that is too high for our Matter and photons to get to. It is spin by smaller Fractal energy structures, only.
Our gauge Matter gets shredded and expelled as jets ( observed- http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/swift/bursts/shredded-star.html.
And our gauge photons get accreted as discs in their smallest orbit, with clockwise photons on one side and counterclockwise photons on the other. As these discs increase in size, the arms of the galaxy are slowly pulled in, and it rotates faster. When the quasar reaches a critical size determined by the particular galactic arms, a tipping point is reached and the quasars are released; at the same time, the arms spread out and the rotation slows. "

Then the quasars are released. They travel edge-on with their jets precessing around them- which makes a double helix:
https://www.google.ca/search?q=quasar+double+helix&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-ca&client=safari#imgrc=GefXG8LAtTu4BM:

Of course it makes a double helix! There is a turning disc travelling edge-on at .09c. There is a jet out each side and it is PRECESSING once every 12 years.

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:

>Pnal
>"This most recent statement of yours is completely unintelligible... "
>Black Holes have been OBSERVED to shred Matter

That's the Roche Limit and every massive object has this, even Earth, not
just black holes. Saturn's rings are within the Roche Limit, which is why
they are rings and not a moon. Saturn's rings are accretion disks of
sorts.

(you don't see Earth "shredding" objects because solid objects are held
together with electromagnetic forces, not gravity, so don't break up.
Stars are held together strictly by gravity)

>and immediately change it into outgoing jets of HEPs.

In the extreme environment of a black hole, an accretion disk will form
quickly, and it will quickly start to produce jets consisting of some of
the infalling matter.

>(Can't understand that? Why?)

I suspect he knows enough about the Roche Limit and GR to understand
things after I correct you.

>Black Holes are OBSERVED to absorb light,

Pretty much by definition.

>and to have accretion discs at their centres.

No! Accretion discs are OUTSIDE the hole. The hole is at the center of
the accretion disc, not the other way around.

NOTHING inside the hole can be observed.

>(Still can't understand English?)

You seem to be struggling with it.

>SOME Black Holes have Quasars at their centres,

No! Quasars are extremely large, energetic accretion discs outside a
supermassive black hole.

> where the accretion disc was.

They ARE the accretion discs.

>(Would French work better?)

I don't know your language abilities or whether you'd understand science
written in French any better than in English.

>Those quasars are released when they get to the right frequency- just
>like photons in atoms.

Gibberish. How could accretion discs be released?

>So- in short- Matter gets recycled into jets by Black Holes,

SOME matter gets released in jets by accretion discs. Most gets sucked in.

> and photons get accreted into Quasars.

Gibberish.

> Short explanation.

Short gibberish.

[john]

MM

"

Gibberish. How could accretion discs be released?"

Accretion discs are closely-circling photons on each side of a central focus of spin that is too fast for them to get closer. When they reach the right amount of accretion, the arms fall into their next orbital level, and they are released at right angles to the galactic disc.

[Odd Bodkin]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Pnal
> "This most recent statement of yours is completely unintelligible... "

Let’s check a few things here.

> Black Holes have been OBSERVED to shred Matter and immediately change it
> into outgoing jets of HEPs.

Black holes have been observed to shred matter in their VICINITY and funnel
the matter into outgoing jets outside of the black holes.

> (Can't understand that? Why?)
> Black Holes are OBSERVED to absorb light, and to have accretion discs at their centres.

Other way around. Accretion discs surround some black holes, with the black
holes at the centers of the accretion discs.

> (Still can't understand English?)
> SOME Black Holes have Quasars at their centres, where the accretion disc was.

No, other way around. Some quasars have black holes at their centers. There
are likely accretion discs inside the quasars, just outside the black
holes.

> (Would French work better?)
> Those quasars are released when they get to the right frequency- just
> like photons in atoms.

No corroborated evidence of this at all.

>
> So- in short- Matter gets recycled into jets by Black Holes, and photons
> get accreted into Quasars. Short explanation. I know you don't have ANY explanation.

Since you got almost all of this inside out and backwards, the preceding
sentence is nonsense.

>
> Have you considered that the 'unintelligible ' part might be at your end,
> only? Perhaps your receiver is too weak?
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Odd Bodkin]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> MM
> "
>
> Gibberish. How could accretion discs be released?"
> Accretion discs are closely-circling photons

No!

>on each side of a central focus of spin that is too fast for them to get
> closer. When they reach the right amount of accretion, the arms fall into
> their next orbital level, and they are released at right angles to the galactic disc.
>

[Michael Moroney]

As I said, Gibberish. Black hole accretion discs are simply matter (not
photons) orbiting the hole. If there's no matter to be sucked in, there's
no accretion disk. The massive black hole at the center of the Milky Way
apparently doesn't have much of an accretion disk, no bright "star" or
quasar at its location.

Photons will be deflected by the hole or sucked into it. There are plenty
of animations out there that shows what a black hole will "look like",
with the interesting part not being the hole but what background stars
look like.

[john]

Odd and MM

The "Black Hole" is the CENTER.
Yes.
We know that.

THE REASON that Matter gets shredded is that BEFORE it gets to the CENTER it gets accelerating so fast that the opposite charges literally blow each other away because their magnetic repulsion FAR outbalances their electric attraction.
So, yes, the jets arise probably close to the speed of light at the event horizon. They have MEASURED the spin rate of one black hole, recently, near the event horizon, to be 85% of lightspeed, or around there. Guess it wasn't a non-rotating one, hey? (Snicker)
And the photons that think they're flying straight in that SpaceTime that's spinning so fast form the accretion discs. One on each side of the hole- probably actually accretion TOROIDS, probably structured like smokerings.

And th th th THAT'S IT

[john]

But look at
https://www.google.ca/search?q=quasar+double+helix&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-ca&client=safari#imgrc=GefXG8LAtTu4BM:

You are looking at the pathway of (part of) a photon.
The Galaxy Model explains

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:

>Odd and MM

>The "Black Hole" is the CENTER.
>Yes.
>We know that.

>THE REASON that Matter gets shredded is that BEFORE it gets to the CENTER
>it gets accelerating so fast that the opposite charges literally blow each
>other away because their magnetic repulsion FAR outbalances their electric
>attraction.

No, John, no matter how often you repeat gibberish, it's still gibberish.
Look up Roche Limit. This is what you call "shredding" stars. All it means
is the tidal forces exceed gravitational binding forces and will pull things
held together by gravity (alone) apart.

Earth has a Roche Limit. The Sun does. Saturn does. Black holes do.
Nothing special about BHs having a Roche Limit.

>So, yes, the jets arise probably close to the speed of light at the event
>horizon.

From OUTSIDE the event horizon. Anything at or within is gone forever.

>And the photons that think they're flying straight in that SpaceTime that's
>spinning so fast form the accretion discs.

No, John, accretion disks are matter. Photons will either be deflected or
will enter the hole (which is why they are described as "black").

Infalling matter will tend to form an accretion disk. With black holes,
there is an innermost stable orbit, anything within that distance won't
continue to orbit but will fall in.

>And th th th THAT'S IT

Do you learn your physics from the Warner Brothers cartoons? Is that why
your science is so messed up, you think what happens to the likes of
Wile E. Coyote is real?

[john]

Black Holes are spinning aether, Odd.
Spinning at probably light speed.
No matter goes in there.
It gets turned into outgoing high-energy particle JETS instantaneously.
Do you know what those are?
NOT atoms.
Pieces of atoms.
Roche limit be damned.

[john]

Odd, Michael
We KNOW the BH is at the
Center.
That's the point.
Our LEVEL of Matter/photons cannot exist closer than a certain distance BECAUSE OF the EXTREME SPIN.

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:

>Black Holes are spinning aether, Odd.

No, John, black holes are mass concentrated so much that not even
light can escape their gravity. There is no aether.

>Spinning at probably light speed.

Except for the ones that don't spin, or spin slowly.

>No matter goes in there.

No matter ESCAPES from there, except perhaps Hawking radiation.

>It gets turned into outgoing high-energy particle JETS instantaneously.

Some infalling matter escapes as jets, yes, before it falls in.

>Do you know what those are?
>NOT atoms.
>Pieces of atoms.

Given the extreme environment, yes, they're ejected as subatomic particles.

Once in a while you accidentally post something that is correct. (see
blind squirrel/nut or stopped clock simile)

>Roche limit be damned.

How will those stars being sucked in get shredded, John?

[Michael Moroney]

You mean extreme gravity, of course. Or more correctly, their
extreme escape velocity (greater than c).

There is no requirement that black holes must spin.

[john]

MM

"There is no requirement that black holes must spin. "

You'll never find one that doesn't.
BHs are not caused by Gravity.
You have no clue how Gravity even works.
BHs are extreme spin in the underlying aether that you deny that is being proven by LIGO.

[Michael Moroney]

john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:

>MM
>"There is no requirement that black holes must spin. "
>You'll never find one that doesn't.

Maybe, maybe not. I said nothing says they MUST spin, and that by itself
makes your claim that they ARE spin absurd.

>BHs are not caused by Gravity.

They are, by DEFINITION.

>You have no clue how Gravity even works.

No, we understand gravity quite well. NASA has sent multiple space probes
to the outer planets and beyond without enough energy to get there, using
(and needing) multiple gravitational slingshots. If they got gravity wrong
by just 0.01%, the space craft would uselessly fly off into space or crash
into one of the planets.

>BHs are extreme spin in the underlying aether that you deny that is being
proven by LIGO.

There is no aether, just like Einstein said. LIGO verifies more of
Einstein's work. Specifically his GR which has no aether.

And explain: If black holes are "extreme spin", what about nonrotating
black holes (Schwarzschild black hole) ?

[john]

MM

"

And explain: If black holes are "extreme spin", what about nonrotating
black holes (Schwarzschild black hole) ? "

Same as Unicorns.

[Michael Moroney]

And why do you say that? You have no answer?

[john]

MM
"And why do you say that? You have no answe.."
Same answer I've been giving for years- BHs are SPIN in the Space that YOU are excited about WAVES existing in.
The aether- which is just all the energy forms SMALLER than our Matter and radiation.

There is no smallest because smaller is smaller

[Odd Bodkin]

Because words dictate reality.