Possibility of star formation around black holes

[origin]

Beaconator, are you going to respond to this or are you done....

Photovoltaic effect causes electrons (like all fermions) to gain mass by emparting energy from entropy into electrons. The mechanism is gravity.

The way the photovoltaic process works is that a photon is absorbed by an electron in a semiconductor. If the photon has sufficient energy then the electron will jump across the band gap of the semiconductor and become a free electron that can be used in an electrical current.
The electrons in a photovoltaic cell get their energy from photons not entropy.

How do you think gravity would drives the photovoltaic effect?

Also this explanation is different from your original statements. It seems you are no longer saying that a star forms from energy; instead you are saying that the existing mass around a star increases in mass from the photons near the black hole, leading to star formation.

This presents some problems. The rest mass of an electron is $$9.109 x 10^{-31}$$ kg. When a photon is absorbed by the electron its rest mass does not change. The electron has an increase in velocity that corresponds to an increase in its relativistic mass. So the more photons it absorbs the faster the velocity of the electron making it less likely to coalesce into a star. Another issue is that stars are not composed of a relatively few heavy electrons and protons.

Could you go into more detail about the formation/increase of mass around a black hole?

 

[Beaconator]

Beaconator, are you going to respond to this or are you done....



The way the photovoltaic process works is that a photon is absorbed by an electron in a semiconductor. If the photon has sufficient energy then the electron will jump across the band gap of the semiconductor and become a free electron that can be used in an electrical current.
The electrons in a photovoltaic cell get their energy from photons not entropy.

How do you think gravity would drives the photovoltaic effect?

photons cause entropy through the use of momentum if you count the slits and rough edges of your appartment where light is concerned. eg putting the same light in different places in the room.

Also this explanation is different from your original statements. It seems you are no longer saying that a star forms from energy; instead you are saying that the existing mass around a star increases in mass from the photons near the black hole, leading to star formation.

This presents some problems. The rest mass of an electron is $$9.109 x 10^{-31}$$ kg. When a photon is absorbed by the electron its rest mass does not change. The electron has an increase in velocity that corresponds to an increase in its relativistic mass. So the more photons it absorbs the faster the velocity of the electron making it less likely to coalesce into a star. Another issue is that stars are not composed of a relatively few heavy electrons and protons.

Could you go into more detail about the formation/increase of mass around a black hole?

Iv'e dragged it out far enough. less likely is still insanely likely knowing only three elements present photovolaic qualities in our day and having 118. why play the game with no end in sight? It bores me when someone who is so intelligent misses something simple for a solution.

 

[krash661]

I just want to skip the bulls@&t.

stop posting and take your meds..
simple.

 

[Beaconator]

Until Someone describes the functions of the area between a black hole and a star from every angle including quasars and cluster galaxies, I am still the worlds foremost expert on the subject of star formation.

High energy near 2 Swartzchild radius causes an intermittent formation of all elements The lightest of which coalesce with photons and other particles riding just outside the rim of a black hole. Therefore Stars are formed from the orbital resonance caused by a black hole.

A single photon not headed into a black hole has the energy to pick up a string of these intermittent elements and carry it into a non orbital location, which is why many new stars are not shown to begin formation by our standards so near to a black hole.

 

[origin]

Until Someone describes the functions of the area between a black hole and a star from every angle including quasars and cluster galaxies, I am still the worlds foremost expert on the subject of star formation.

I have no doubt that you believe that and I am sure this is a very exciting fantasy for you.

High energy near 2 Swartzchild radius causes an intermittent formation of all elements The lightest of which coalesce with photons and other particles riding just outside the rim of a black hole. Therefore Stars are formed from the orbital resonance caused by a black hole.

This is an absurd fantasy and the reasons for this not being possible have been pointed out throughout this thread. You apparently are not capable of understanding the issues so you resort to simply repeating your demonstrably false claims.

A single photon not headed into a black hole has the energy to pick up a string of these intermittent elements and carry it into a non orbital location, which is why many new stars are not shown to begin formation by our standards so near to a black hole.

This makes as much sense as a soup sandwich. The thought that photons 'pick up' elements is a mind numbingly stupid idea.

 

[paddoboy]

Until Someone describes the functions of the area between a black hole and a star from every angle including quasars and cluster galaxies, I am still the worlds foremost expert on the subject of star formation.

This nonsense is obviously posted to get a raise out of people. Sad.

High energy near 2 Swartzchild radius causes an intermittent formation of all elements The lightest of which coalesce with photons and other particles riding just outside the rim of a black hole. Therefore Stars are formed from the orbital resonance caused by a black hole.

I truly doubt you even knew what a Schwarzchild radius was until I mentioned it a while back, in relation to the fact that this is the inner most edge of where any accretion disk can form. This is at 3 Schwarzchild radius.
That alone makes your claims rubbish.
And even if by any stretch of the Imagination any stars could form there, they would be obviously very short lived due to tidal interactions.


Then as is the case with most all alternative hypothesis pushers, you ignore known evidence.
With regards to SMBH's no stars are seen within at least 2 L/years to the EH.

 

[Beaconator]

This nonsense is obviously posted to get a raise out of people. Sad.





I truly doubt you even knew what a Schwarzchild radius was until I mentioned it a while back, in relation to the fact that this is the inner most edge of where any accretion disk can form. This is at 3 Schwarzchild radius.
That alone makes your claims rubbish.
And even if by any stretch of the Imagination any stars could form there, they would be obviously very short lived due to tidal interactions.


Then as is the case with most all alternative hypothesis pushers, you ignore known evidence.
With regards to SMBH's no stars are seen within at least 2 L/years to the EH.

I doubt you knew there was physics involved in tennis till I pointed it out to you. Then screwed it up with a mechanical clock.

 

[paddoboy]

I doubt you knew there was physics involved in tennis till I pointed it out to you. Then screwed it up with a mechanical clock.

Whatever.
Your hypothesis have nothing of any value. Your ideas and thoughts have been shown to be illogical. So now you resort to further inane statements. Typical.

 

[Beaconator]

I have no doubt that you believe that and I am sure this is a very exciting fantasy for you.


This is an absurd fantasy and the reasons for this not being possible have been pointed out throughout this thread. You apparently are not capable of understanding the issues so you resort to simply repeating your demonstrably false claims.


This makes as much sense as a soup sandwich. The thought that photons 'pick up' elements is a mind numbingly stupid idea.

Our mathematical principals were established in India. Infinity over nothing was defined as ultimate peace of mind. That is what you lack as your triffeling eyes cast nothing but doubt upon any un-established truth. Undefined is what a black hole is and it has a mathematical formula raised before Jesus was born. Something containing everything has to also contain nothing and vice versa. This is a mathematical truth known to most anyone with a brain. Explaining its truth to those who easily discard its physical potential requires great thought.

Elements aren't created in stars they exist already in the sphere just beyond a black holes reach where nothingness is transformed into reality. They exist at the point where nothing meets reality and are furnished further into existence with the expansion of the universe as well as wave particle duality being extenuated to elements near the edge of a black hole.

 

[Beaconator]

Whatever.
Your hypothesis have nothing of any value. Your ideas and thoughts have been shown to be illogical. So now you resort to further inane statements. Typical.

You still have more inanities than I. Dhali.

Until you explain how a clock spinning infinitely is passed through an event horizon I stand victor in the answer. Bt that I mean a clock that spins as fast as light.

 

[paddoboy]

You still have more inanities than I. Dhali.

Until you explain how a clock spinning infinitely is passed through an event horizon I stand victor in the answer. Bt that I mean a clock that spins as fast as light.

I see you and your cryptic comments as best left unanswered.

Suffice to say in summation of the ridiculous claims in this thread....
Stars do not form at or near the EH of a BH.
Stars have never been seen within 2 or 3 L/years of any SMBH.
The inner most edge of where accretion disks form is at 3 Schwarzchild radius. Logically no star would be possible to form closer then this, and anything that did form, would have a very short life span due to tidal gravitational effects.

 

[AlexG]

Stars have never been seen within 2 or 3 L/years of any SMBH

Not quite right.

The star S2 follows an elliptical orbit with a period of 15.2 years and a pericenter (closest distance) of 17 light-hours (1.8×1013 m or 120 AU) from the center of the Supermassive Black Hole.

 

[Beaconator]

I see you and your cryptic comments as best left unanswered.

Suffice to say in summation of the ridiculous claims in this thread....
Stars do not form at or near the EH of a BH.
Stars have never been seen within 2 or 3 L/years of any SMBH.
The inner most edge of where accretion disks form is at 3 Schwarzchild radius. Logically no star would be possible to form closer then this, and anything that did form, would have a very short life span due to tidal gravitational effects.

Tidal Gravitational effects like elements exhibiting an increase in wave particle duality?

 

[paddoboy]

Not quite right.

The star S2 follows an elliptical orbit with a period of 15.2 years and a pericenter (closest distance) of 17 light-hours (1.8×1013 m or 120 AU) from the center of the Supermassive Black Hole.

Point taken, thanks Alex. I was though primarily referring to where stars formed.

 

[Beaconator]

So you mean the exact distance a nuclear explosion near a BH can carry the mass of a sun?

That's a good distance. What is more interesting is the production of stars occurs more frequently in cluster galaxies with a quasar. I think so

connection? I think so.

 

[Beaconator]

Point taken, thanks Alex. I was though primarily referring to where stars formed.

Who says where it exists now isn't where it was formed?

 

[paddoboy]

Who says where it exists now isn't where it was formed?

Having such a large elliptical orbit, plus the fact that we don't see stars in that close often, if at all, gives most logical thinking people a good idea of that near impossibility.

 

[paddoboy]

Our mathematical principals were established in India. Infinity over nothing was defined as ultimate peace of mind. That is what you lack as your triffeling eyes cast nothing but doubt upon any un-established truth. Undefined is what a black hole is and it has a mathematical formula raised before Jesus was born. Something containing everything has to also contain nothing and vice versa. This is a mathematical truth known to most anyone with a brain. Explaining its truth to those who easily discard its physical potential requires great thought.

Elements aren't created in stars they exist already in the sphere just beyond a black holes reach where nothingness is transformed into reality. They exist at the point where nothing meets reality and are furnished further into existence with the expansion of the universe as well as wave particle duality being extenuated to elements near the edge of a black hole.

Wow!!!
Elements are not created in stars?
You claim plenty, you talk in apparent circles, and as evidenced earlier, rather inane like.
I'll think I will leave you to whatever it is you do best.

 

[Beaconator]

Wow!!!
Elements are not created in stars?
You claim plenty, you talk in apparent circles, and as evidenced earlier, rather inane like.
I'll think I will leave you to whatever it is you do best.

If elements lasted forever this would not be their temporal resting place.

My theory rests upon change, higher to lower order transformations mostly, and the randomness of absolutes.

 

[krash661]

Until Someone describes the functions of the area between a black hole and a star from every angle including quasars and cluster galaxies, I am still the worlds foremost expert on the subject of star formation.

High energy near 2 Swartzchild radius causes an intermittent formation of all elements The lightest of which coalesce with photons and other particles riding just outside the rim of a black hole. Therefore Stars are formed from the orbital resonance caused by a black hole.

A single photon not headed into a black hole has the energy to pick up a string of these intermittent elements and carry it into a non orbital location, which is why many new stars are not shown to begin formation by our standards so near to a black hole.

q: what is the beginning process of a formation, is it gravity or static electricity ?