Possibility of star formation around black holes

rivers said:
Thing is that " giants " restrict your reasoning and logic
And None of these " giants " have said or implied they " know it all "
You have though pad , and thats your obvious mistake
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
You say that taking into account the knowledge of the giants is restricitive? then you imply I think I know it all?
You know how contradictory that sounds?
:roflmao:
 
rivers said:
Thing is that " giants " restrict your reasoning and logic
And None of these " giants " have said or implied they " know it all "
You have though pad , and thats your obvious mistake
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
You say that taking into account the knowledge of the giants is restricitive? then you imply I think I know it all?
You know how contradictory that sounds?
:roflmao:

No , I know you don't know it all

Its just that you think these giants do
 
rivers said:
To continue from my post #534
BH, theory makes no sense
Simple as that
___________________________________________________

That's OK...you believe what you like.
The mainstream, has plenty of evidence to show otherwise.
And yep, you are correct, I certainly do not know it all...Happy to admit that. :)
 
Ing

But you are in the alternative hypothesis section, so alternate away rivers!

Actually its just using reason and the following logic

Which means that , in the end , that a BH , in the center of our or any galaxy , does not make any sense
 
rivers said:
Actually its just using reason and the following logic
Which means that , in the end , that a BH , in the center of our or any galaxy , does not make any sense
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""


But its still there! :)
 
river's only argument is 'I can't understand it, so it can't be.'
 
There's no reason, there's no logic, there's no science. It's just river.
 
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
rivers said:
Being irrational alex , gets you no where
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Pot, kettle, Black!
 
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
rivers said:
My stance is based on reason and the following logic
Its just above both , you and pads ability to understand
But not everybody , just you two
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""


You wish. Us two, and the whole of mainstream science in general.
But you keep wearing your "unique" brand of cosmology on your sleeve for all to see.
It certainly isn't going to change anything, is it?
 
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
rivers said:
My stance is based on reason and the following logic
Its just above both , you and pads ability to understand
But not everybody , just you two
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""


You wish. Us two, and the whole of mainstream science in general.
But you keep wearing your "unique" brand of cosmology on your sleeve for all to see.
It certainly isn't going to change anything, is it?

They already know
 
rivers said:
They already know
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""


Sure they do. They already know that the effects we see with most galaxies, AGN QUASARS etc, are only explained by BH's and EH's.
 
... why would I do that?

On viewing a black hole producing a quasar akin to an atomic nucleus.

Quasars are vortexes created by charged particles, from the accretion disk surrounding a black hole, that spin into the poles of a black hole and create vortexes. This is the same as an electric charge being passed through a string of atoms. A vortex creates a flow of charged particles on a much larger scale than a wire powered by chemistry. If you think of the cycle of black hole and star birth like a circuit it is easier to see how energy is conserved during the process.

The reason this is important is because hydrogen is formed from these jets which goes on to create stars. When these stars reach full maturity they expand and create black hole centered galaxies. So in the chicken vs. egg debate the black hole came first and last in creation. This shows it is impossible to create sustained fusion without a black hole to power a star with hydrogen.

In our galaxy where we recently witnessed charged particles being consumed by our black hole, entropy is driven by a similar process. There are not many new stars being formed here and as such our black hole is consuming hydrogen present within space. Still for every particle within space that is consumed expansion is driven by a pull of hydrogen from space toward the center of our galaxy. This pull allows hydrogen from space to continue to feed the stars within our galaxy with hydrogen. Though the hydrogen surrounding our galaxy was probably created when our black hole had a quasar present in its early formation or from a different galaxy entirely.
 
On viewing a black hole producing a quasar akin to an atomic nucleus.

Quasars are vortexes created by charged particles, from the accretion disk surrounding a black hole, that spin into the poles of a black hole and create vortexes. This is the same as an electric charge being passed through a string of atoms. A vortex creates a flow of charged particles on a much larger scale than a wire powered by chemistry. If you think of the cycle of black hole and star birth like a circuit it is easier to see how energy is conserved during the process.

The reason this is important is because hydrogen is formed from these jets which goes on to create stars. When these stars reach full maturity they expand and create black hole centered galaxies. So in the chicken vs. egg debate the black hole came first and last in creation. This shows it is impossible to create sustained fusion without a black hole to power a star with hydrogen.

In our galaxy where we recently witnessed charged particles being consumed by our black hole, entropy is driven by a similar process. There are not many new stars being formed here and as such our black hole is consuming hydrogen present within space. Still for every particle within space that is consumed expansion is driven by a pull of hydrogen from space toward the center of our galaxy. This pull allows hydrogen from space to continue to feed the stars within our galaxy with hydrogen. Though the hydrogen surrounding our galaxy was probably created when our black hole had a quasar present in its early formation or from a different galaxy entirely.

Any reference for any of that?

I see the majority of it as rubbish.


A few points....
A QUASAR is simply an AGN, or a galaxy that has a SMBH that is in some sort of feeding frenzy, gobbling plenty of gas and other stellar remnants.

Any polar jets do not originate within the BH's EH, rather it is matter spiralling in from an accretion disk, that is caught up in magnetic field lines, and spin, then thrown out at the polar regions.

No stars have ever been seen to form in the vicinity of a BH's EH.

But you are in the Alternative hypothesis section.
 
Any reference for any of that?

I see the majority of it as rubbish.


A few points....
A QUASAR is simply an AGN, or a galaxy that has a SMBH that is in some sort of feeding frenzy, gobbling plenty of gas and other stellar remnants.

Any polar jets do not originate within the BH's EH, rather it is matter spiralling in from an accretion disk, that is caught up in magnetic field lines, and spin, then thrown out at the polar regions.

No stars have ever been seen to form in the vicinity of a BH's EH.

But you are in the Alternative hypothesis section.

I have my imagination to reference, besides that there is a person in regular physics who doesn't believe in black holes.

i'll agree with "Any polar jets do not originate within the BH's EH, rather it is matter spiralling in from an accretion disk, that is caught up in magnetic field lines, and spin, then thrown out at the polar regions." and state it is a much better picture than I have made for that particular instance.

but perhaps you will find a more formidable opponent in regular physics. I see disbelief beats imagination on the scales of this site.

The rest of my statements you can neither confirm nor deny which appears to be the majority of your statements on this thread.

Atleast Aqueous can sort some possibility between my experiment and what I write here, showing some mastery of physics combined with chemistry in his false prophecies. I don't mean to put you down really I just intend for you to understand me a little further. If that is my mistake I'm sure I will make plenty more.

If you and him got together against me maybe you would have a chance to change my mind, but I highly doubt it. I would love the chance to go against someone who understands relativistic physics and chemistry simultaneously but I see none with a like mind of imagination or a simulator to challenge my beliefs.
 
Back
Top