Possibility of star formation around black holes

[krash661]

He just copied and pasted from here http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/G/Galactic+Jets

i'm glad you informed about this, thanks.
i now see what this attempt is by this poster.
agian, thanks for that.

 

[river]

The important thing here , is that , the magnetic field prevents the black-hole from forming in the first place

Hence there are NO black-holes at all , hence again my post #441 stands as true

 

[AlexG]

The important thing here , is that , the magnetic field prevents the black-hole from forming in the first place

Incorrect nonsense.

 

[river]

Incorrect nonsense.

How so ?

 

[krash661]

The important thing here , is that , the magnetic field prevents the black-hole from forming in the first place

Hence there are NO black-holes at all , hence again my post #441 stands as true

no incorrect,
i already gave examples of why it's incorrect.

 

[paddoboy]

So then the magnetic field of a galactic black-hole , is significant

If it had a magnetic field [charge] it maybe significant.
But you need to remember that gravity did cause the BH, which again you should already know but refuse to accept.
I would speculate though that a Kerr-Newman BH could only come about from a spinning star of the required mass.
I'm not sure it could be applied to SMBH's as such.

 

[AlexG]

Magnetic fields do not prevent stellar implosions and the formation of black holes.

From the same source you plagerized above:

Although the formation of galactic jets is not fully understood, one suggestion is that the magnetic fields of the supermassive black hole and the accretion disk interact.

 

[paddoboy]

The important thing here , is that , the magnetic field prevents the black-hole from forming in the first place

How so?

 

[paddoboy]

From the same source you plagerized above:

Thanks for that info Alex.
Nice to know who one is dealing with.

 

[river]

If it had a magnetic field [charge] it maybe significant.
But you need to remember that gravity did cause the BH, which again you should already know but refuse to accept.
I would speculate though that a Kerr-Newman BH could only come about from a spinning star of the required mass.
I'm not sure it could be applied to SMBH's as such.

the magnetic field is the only way the astrophysics can explain the galactic jets , otherwise the theory black-holes are a contradiction

yet at the same time black-hole still is , it can't over power a magnetic field

 

[AlexG]

the magnetic field is the only way the astrophysics can explain the galactic jets , otherwise the theory black-holes are a contradiction

yet at the same time black-hole still is , it can't over power a magnetic field

Another post making no sense.

 

[river]

Originally Posted by river View Post

the magnetic field is the only way the astrophysics can explain the galactic jets , otherwise the theory black-holes are a contradiction

yet at the same time black-hole still is , it can't over power a magnetic field

Another post making no sense.

it makes perfect sense to me

give me your argument against what I said , instead of an empty statement

I'm listening

 

[paddoboy]

Originally Posted by river View Post







it makes perfect sense to me

give me your argument against what I said , instead of an empty statement

I'm listening

No, you are not listening. You never listen, for the reasons I have stated previously.

All BH's are destined to be Schwarzchild BH's.
In time both spin and charge are negated.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr–Newman_metric


http://www.chaos.org.uk/~eddy/physics/Kerr-Newman.html

 

[krash661]

, i just came across this,
it's not complete relative to this conversation,
but there is some relative things about it.
which will help the ones who are actually interested in learning/understanding.

[video=youtube;Hn5RJ2PN718]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hn5RJ2PN718#t=108[/video]

 

[river]

your right , this video has nothing to do with this thread , so what's your point here ?

 

[krash661]

your right , this video has nothing to do with this thread , so what's your point here ?

it has to do with it more than what is not understood here by post # 475

" help the ones who are actually interested in learning/understanding. "

 

[AlexG]

river, your entire posting history makes it obvious that you know nothing of physics or cosmology. You simply make assertions and then link to sites which contradict what you're saying. I've already quoted from the link you provided showing that you're wrong.

 

[krash661]

river, you're entire posting history makes it obvious that you know nothing of physics or cosmology. You simply make assertions and then link to sites which contradict what your saying. I've already quoted from the link you provided showing that you're wrong.

it appears to me that the intent from this individual is nothing more than
the typical focused arguing/er

 

[river]

river, your entire posting history makes it obvious that you know nothing of physics or cosmology. You simply make assertions and then link to sites which contradict what you're saying. I've already quoted from the link you provided showing that you're wrong.

from your post #467 ( by the way do have the courtesy, to # the post you are referring to )

but you don't explain why

so I ask , why ?

 

[AlexG]

but you don't explain why

Explaining why you know nothing is beyond my abilities.

Explaining why you're wrong is trivial, and been done many times. Magnetic fields have nothing to do with the formation of BHs. That's exclusively the action of gravity.