Possibility of star formation around black holes

Congratulations. You have shown your subconscious to be half right and a generator can produce something in an English format. Also that synonyms and antonyms allow inferences to be connected in science not just the english language.

Don't you find it the least bit interesting that I am able to follow your subconscious more than a generator?
 
Beaconator said:
Congratulations. You have shown your subconscious to be half right and a generator can produce something in an English format. Also that synonyms and antonyms allow inferences to be connected in science not just the english language.

Don't you find it the least bit interesting that I am able to follow your subconscious more than a generator?
Click to expand...

The only thing it shows me is that I will not argue with you anymore becasue it would just not be kind.
 
Ahriman said:
This has probably been posted a hundred times, but light is an after effect of the fusion furnace we call suns. Light by itself will not coalesce into a sun, as it does not have heat in the kinetic sense it is typically thought of as having. Now, we might see some really fascinating light wave effects around black holes, which is all the more reason to build better telescopes and ships to see it all.
Click to expand...

This is actually an informative post. It is nice to see a new member able to point to flaws in the alternative theories. Sorry I didn't respond earlier and it actually hasn't been stated in such a manner.

You are right light needs a source like an electron in order to be absorbed. But there still exists the possibility of intense pressures and heat near a black hole to absorb light while simultaneously transforming into an electron.

I believe the standard model of the BB has electrons and a couple elements being formed before light comes into existence. This appears to me to be an incorrect interpretation. Skipping from timelessness to mass when light and time are known to have a direct correlation appears contradictory.
 
Beaconator said:
Congratulations. You have shown your subconscious to be half right...
Click to expand...
No, what it shows is that you are incapable of distinguishing true technical content from gibberish.
Don't you find it the least bit interesting that I am able to follow your subconscious more than a generator?
Click to expand...
You are a fascinating case, no doubt.
 
Sublimation could infer decay and is also has context with black holes giving off radiation. Piezoelectricity is a linear process. Substrata radicals could be inferred as radioactive ions as many heavy elements are radioactive and found below the surface.

Origin corroborated your statement, which leads me to believe he is incapable of distinguishing true content. (An inference I can easily make). Or was in on this little joke which shows me he has the ability to be dishonest and isn't afraid to use it.

Lastly you admitted to your own dishonesty. Something I caught around your second dishonest post and made known on the third. So excuse me for giving you the benefit of the doubt and taking words at face value knowing the truth behind a gambit was surely soon to be revealed.

To be completely honest the difference between the first two and the third was obvious. The second had no point whatsoever which is far from normal discourse.

The difference between gibberish and expressing an unknown idea is that corrections can be made to gibberish while unknown ideas express creativity. A faculty you admitted to not have.
 
Beaconator said:
Sublimation could infer decay....
Click to expand...
No it can't. The most important feature of technical writing is clarity. Sublimation is the direct conversion of a solid to a gas, period. It isn't and doesn't imply anything else to use that word. This perhaps even more basic than a lack of understanding of technical writing - you may be unaware of how language itself works!
 
The context inferred by the op and relevant discussion of black holes causing energy to transform into matter as implied by the big bang theory. Or more commonly energy to transform into matter via matter as implied by myself. Both of which are alternative theories to current understanding and interpretation to known data.
 
Further development of these ideas and proofs would lead to untold amounts of development in nearly every scientific avenue conceivable.
 
Beaconator said:
The context inferred by the op and relevant discussion of black holes causing energy to transform into matter as implied by the big bang theory. Or more commonly energy to transform into matter via matter as implied by myself. Both of which are alternative theories to current understanding and interpretation to known data.
Click to expand...


The inference of the OP, as already explained is crap.
Energy cannot be transformed into matter around a BH, because of the gravitational potential, and the heat generated.
The same reason why matter was not in existence at the first Planck instant. It simply could not possibly exist at such temperatures.
The EMF, and light were already in existence when the Universe/space/time had cooled sufficiently enough for the first fundamentals to form.
 
paddoboy said:
The inference of the OP, as already explained is crap.
Energy cannot be transformed into matter around a BH, because of the gravitational potential, and the heat generated.
The same reason why matter was not in existence at the first Planck instant. It simply could not possibly exist at such temperatures.
The EMF, and light were already in existence when the Universe/space/time had cooled sufficiently enough for the first fundamentals to form.
Click to expand...

Placing temperature (a system of measurement) a head priority over matter (a universal function) makes about as much sense as sticking a thermometer in someone's rectum to double check a 103 reading under the tongue instead of placing them in ice.

The very idea of temperature existing without matter goes against nearly every thermodynamic law known to be fact. Your statements thus far have only been clouded by convolutions of ipso facto misinterpretation of current groundbreaking theory and previous subjective mathematical formulas compounded into theory almost thirty years ago. For example; matter accumulates around black holes (fact)! It would be more illogical for me to suppose matter formed from the edge of the universe (which we have not confirmed objectively) yet the option is "the" only alternative. This logic plus the "fact!" Black holes have mass which most often correlates to matter, tears gaping holes in your theoretically imposed thought experiments.
 
Beaconator said:
Placing temperature (a system of measurement) a head priority over matter (a universal function) makes about as much sense as sticking a thermometer in someone's rectum to double check a 103 reading under the tongue instead of placing them in ice.

The very idea of temperature existing without matter goes against nearly every thermodynamic law known to be fact. Your statements thus far have only been clouded by convolutions of ipso facto misinterpretation of current groundbreaking theory and previous subjective mathematical formulas compounded into theory almost thirty years ago. For example; matter accumulates around black holes (fact)! It would be more illogical for me to suppose matter formed from the edge of the universe (which we have not confirmed objectively) yet the option is "the" only alternative. This logic plus the "fact!" Black holes have mass which most often correlates to matter, tears gaping holes in your theoretically imposed thought experiments.
Click to expand...



Again, the inference of the OP is crap.....Stars do not form near a BH's EH. At least not within the parameters of 1.5 Schwarzchild radius.
And to say the BB had no temperature [as well as pressure] is also crap.
Space/time has a temperature...we call it the CMBR.
 
Last edited:
paddoboy said:
Again, the inference of the OP is crap.....Stars do not form near a BH's EH. At least not within the parameters of 1.5 Schwarzchild radius.
And to say the BB had no temperature [as well as pressure] is also crap.
Space/time has a temperature...we call it the CMBR.
Click to expand...

You will admit star formation occurs in a region near a black hole as long as you input your own specifications. Fine. My point still stands as star formation "beginning" before or at your region by a process that has been previously described.

Sure from our measurements we can make inferences upon the BB. Cmbr is not the BB just like a black hole is not a vast nothingness. Meaning our objective research and measurements can only answer so many unanswered questions. Math can only provide so many reasonable interpretations and interpretations can only lead the imagination to ask so many questions. Immagination can tear physics apart easily yet it is the only formula we have to bring physics back together. This is why imagination is supreme to all other studies. It ia the underlying study of all studies.

So if the man with the biggest imagination says to put all the elements together to continue to gain answers unthought of by anyone else's imagination... What are the chances that any objective facts will supersede a real unresearchable experiment?
 
Beaconator said:
You will admit star formation occurs in a region near a black hole as long as you input your own specifications. Fine. My point still stands as star formation "beginning" before or at your region by a process that has been previously described.

Sure from our measurements we can make inferences upon the BB. Cmbr is not the BB just like a black hole is not a vast nothingness. Meaning our objective research and measurements can only answer so many unanswered questions. Math can only provide so many reasonable interpretations and interpretations can only lead the imagination to ask so many questions. Immagination can tear physics apart easily yet it is the only formula we have to bring physics back together. This is why imagination is supreme to all other studies. It ia the underlying study of all studies.

So if the man with the biggest imagination says to put all the elements together to continue to gain answers unthought of by anyone else's imagination... What are the chances that any objective facts will supersede a real unresearchable experiment?
Click to expand...

(shakes head)
comical. :)
 
Beaconator said:
You will admit star formation occurs in a region near a black hole as long as you input your own specifications. Fine. My point still stands as star formation "beginning" before or at your region by a process that has been previously described.
Click to expand...

Stars do not form near the EH of a BH, and I would say never inside 1.5 Schwarzchild radius, and very very rarely if at all, within 3 Schwarzchild radius where the inner most part of accretion disks form.


Beaconator said:
Sure from our measurements we can make inferences upon the BB. Cmbr is not the BB just like a black hole is not a vast nothingness.
Click to expand...


The CMBR is the relic heat from the hotter denser state that existed during the first few seconds after the BB.
Plus in actual fact, a BH is a "vast nothingness", if we call space/time nothingness. All the mass that has gone into forming the BH, is concentrated at the Singularity. The rest is just critically curved space/time [nothingness]
 
E nihilo nihil fit. Is there any opposition?

I wouldn't call anything a vast nothingness except a vast nothingness. Perhaps I'll recant the statement for the addition of your verbiage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top