Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[Native]

Native said: ↑
"The Milky Way has a supermassive black hole in its Galactic Center, which corresponds to the location of Sagittarius A*.
Accretion of interstellar gas onto supermassive black holes is the process responsible for powering active galactic nuclei and quasars:"

Which word(s) in this sentence is it you don´t understand?

I understand them perfectly well. What is it that you don't understand when I point out that these processes occur *close* to the black hole and not in the galaxy as a whole?

You´re a victim of the scientifical exaggerated focus of *black hole*, thus failing to make connect the quoted words above into the factual meaning of it´s sentence.

*Accretion of interstellar gas onto supermassive black holes*

Without the entire galactic accreation disk, you simply couldn´t have a hole in the first place, according to the consensus definition.

I asked:
Can you consistently come to agreement on what you mean and WHEN you do which?

I have been consistent. You have fialed to understand both what you read in other sources AND what I said.

Oh, have you really?

And the accretion disk is formed from the black hole, not the other way around.

Compared to this:

The material falls into the BH, orbiting and gaining energy as it does so.

Your arguments are going both ways and you call this to be *consistent*?

Above, I was referring to the consensus definition of a *Supermassive Black Hole* and you´ll apparently have nothing of it:

"The Milky Way has a supermassive black hole in its Galactic Center, which corresponds to the location of Sagittarius A*.[6][7] Accretion of interstellar gas onto supermassive black holes is the process responsible for powering active galactic nuclei and quasars".

I said:
In fact, you´re here confirming my perception of a formation of stars in the galactic centers and out in the galactic arms, which of course you frequently rejects just for being opposite.

No, the stars are *destroyed* by the BH, not created by it. The stars are FORMED much farther out in HII nebula, like the Orion and Eagle nebula.

And yet again you´re fiddling inconsistently with your very own argument here:

And the accretion disk is formed from the black hole, not the other way around.

Can you come to agreement with yourself whether a *Black Hole* destroys stars in the accreation disk or format stars in the accreation disk?

The unscientific idea of *a black hole* is pure speculative non sense as it´s de facto defined to be a 2D hole in where everything can disappear - and where all your belowed math breakes completely together.

Get a real scientific and dynamical understanding by an serious scientific update here Eye Cyclone.

Note the *Cyclone* is defining a *Cyclical Formation* from which, the full *causes and effects* can be scientifical deduced and concluded *logically*.

All genuine philosophical and metaphysical terms which you´ve in publik have rejected and at the same time hold your math higher than these scientific terms. But just hold your focus on what happens with your belowed math in your black holes.

According to your good self, it´s sufficient enough to *explain things* when your math fits - so what will your perceptions af a *black hole* be now and in the future?

In fact you - and the entire scientific consensus proponents - have huge troubles explaining the full circle of what´s happening - and this also goes for all other circlical formation and motion in the Universe. All simply because of the *Linear Thinking Model* in modern cosmology.

Edit: Polymath257, I don´t blame you personally - just the silly parts of astrophysics and cosmology you once was indoctrinated to believe in.

 

[gnostic]

In fact, you´re here confirming my perception of a formation of stars in the galactic centers and out in the galactic arms, which of course you frequently rejects just for being opposite.

No, the stars are *destroyed* by the BH, not created by it. The stars are FORMED much farther out in HII nebula, like the Orion and Eagle nebula.

I have brought up molecular clouds that have been forming and continue to form new stars along the spiral arms, in another last year’s thread - Investigating Sacred Waters, Rivers and Deities - where Native claimed that all new stars, including our Sun, were formed at Milky Way centre, before these stars were pushed out along to their current positions.

I have also brought up the Eagle Nebula and Orion Nebula, which are evidence that new stars can form outside of the Milky Way’s centre.

 

[Polymath257]

And

Where are your logical senses? The calculations work on the basis of an ASSUMED *occult force* to which you ascribe all calculations and thus gaining interpretations which only confirms your assumed force - and adding further assumptions ad hoc when the theoretical force fails or directly is contradicted.

We can measure positions in the sky without needing an 'assumption'. That the calculations agree with the observation is evidence of that 'occult force'.

And this is called *science*!?

Absolutely. This is how it works.

As you in public rejects the definitions and terms in Metaphysics i.e. *what is behind and beyond*.

Yes. I think most of metaphysics is badly misguided.

I leave you to believe what is assumed and to what your assumed *occult agency force* are assumed to explain, since you obviously have no interest of what really is going on in modern astrophysical and cosmologcal science.

As long as you have your *belowed number acrobatics of occult agencies*, you seemingly are satisfied and peace be with that then.

Absolutely. And, if your model can do 'number acrobatics' that agree with observations, that would be evidence for your model. But your model doesn't allow that type of precision. Which is why it is useless scientifically.

 

[Native]

I have brought up molecular clouds that have been forming and continue to form new stars along the spiral arms, in another last year’s thread - Investigating Sacred Waters, Rivers and Deities - where Native claimed that all new stars, including our Sun, were formed at Milky Way centre, before these stars were pushed out along to their current positions.

I have also brought up the Eagle Nebula and Orion Nebula, which are evidence that new stars can form outside of the Milky Way’s centre.

Once you´ve thaught to think for yourself, instead of referring to other debaters for help and mentioning me in your posts, we can have a REAL debate.

 

[Native]

We can measure positions in the sky without needing an 'assumption'. That the calculations agree with the observation is evidence of that 'occult force'.

Absolutely. This is how it works.

Yes. I think most of metaphysics is badly misguided.
Absolutely. And, if your model can do 'number acrobatics' that agree with observations, that would be evidence for your model. But your model doesn't allow that type of precision. Which is why it is useless scientifically.

Why are you suddenly changing the subject? I/We were reasently discussing *Black Holes* in where your math is useless.

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
"The Milky Way has a supermassive black hole in its Galactic Center, which corresponds to the location of Sagittarius A*.
Accretion of interstellar gas onto supermassive black holes is the process responsible for powering active galactic nuclei and quasars:"

Which word(s) in this sentence is it you don´t understand?

You´re a victim of the scientifical exaggerated focus of *black hole*, thus failing to make connect the quoted words above into the factual meaning of it´s sentence.

*Accretion of interstellar gas onto supermassive black holes*

Yes. The black hole destroys the stars, forming a accretion disk. Some of the matter in that accretion disk then falls 'onto' the black hole, making it larger. Some of the matter that does NOT go onto the BH gets energetic enough to power the AGN or quasar.

Without the entire galactic accreation disk, you simply couldn´t have a hole in the first place, according to the consensus definition.

Wrong. The BH was there first. As it destroys stars, the accretion disk forms, becomes very energetic (powering the AGN) and some of the matter in that disk fall into the BH making it larger.

I asked:
Can you consistently come to agreement on what you mean and WHEN you do which?

Oh, have you really?

Compared to this:

Your arguments are going both ways and you call this to be *consistent*?

Um, yes.

Above, I was referring to the consensus definition of a *Supermassive Black Hole* and you´ll apparently have nothing of it:

"The Milky Way has a supermassive black hole in its Galactic Center, which corresponds to the location of Sagittarius A*.[6][7] Accretion of interstellar gas onto supermassive black holes is the process responsible for powering active galactic nuclei and quasars".

Which I agree with.

I said:
In fact, you´re here confirming my perception of a formation of stars in the galactic centers and out in the galactic arms, which of course you frequently rejects just for being opposite.

And yet again you´re fiddling inconsistently with your very own argument here:

Can you come to agreement with yourself whether a *Black Hole* destroys stars in the accreation disk or format stars in the accreation disk?

I have been consistent: the BH destroys stars, bringing them into the accretion disk.

The unscientific idea of *a black hole* is pure speculative non sense as it´s de facto defined to be a 2D hole in where everything can disappear - and where all your belowed math breakes completely together.

Looks again like you don't understand something you read.

Get a real scientific and dynamical understanding by an serious scientific update here Eye Cyclone.

Note the *Cyclone* is defining a *Cyclical Formation* from which, the full *causes and effects* can be scientifical deduced and concluded *logically*.

All genuine philosophical and metaphysical terms which you´ve in publik have rejected and at the same time hold your math higher than these scientific terms. But just hold your focus on what happens with your belowed math in your black holes.

You seem to be of the opinion that we can't analyze cyclones mathematically. But we can. But the model is very different than that for a BH.

According to your good self, it´s sufficient enough to *explain things* when your math fits - so what will your perceptions af a *black hole* be now and in the future?

Yes, it is sufficient that the calculations agree with the observations in detail.

In fact you - and the entire scientific consensus proponents - have huge troubles explaining the full circle of what´s happening - and this also goes for all other circlical formation and motion in the Universe. All simply because of the *Linear Thinking Model* in modern cosmology.

Edit: Polymath257, I don´t blame you personally - just the silly parts of astrophysics and cosmology you once was indoctrinated to believe in.

You are comparing very different phenomena, not understanding the role of hypothesis in science, not understanding the role of mathematics in science, and proposing a set of ideas that simply doesn't work as an alternative to ideas that do.

 

[Polymath257]

Once you´ve thaught to think for yourself, instead of referring to other debaters for help and mentioning me in your posts, we can have a REAL debate.

Once again, stars are NOT formed in the galactic core. They are formed in the *arms* in nebulae.

We can see this happening in our galaxy as well as other galaxies.

 

[Polymath257]

Why are you suddenly changing the subject? I/We were reasently discussing *Black Holes* in where your math is useless.

I did not change the subject. We can watch the stars getting destroyed by the black hole. We see their positions in the sky next to it.

And the math for BHs agrees quite well with the observations.

YOU were the one that brought up metaphysics.

 

[Native]

Wrong. The BH was there first.

Don´t make me laugh!

But your definition matches perfectly all other non sense i modern astrophysics and cosmology where matters, informations and calculations occurs from a point and disappears in a *Occult Agency Hole* never to show up again.

Definition of a Black Hole:
A black hole is a region of spacetime where gravity is so strong that nothing—no particles or even electromagnetic radiation such as light—can escape from it.[1] The theory of general relativity predicts that a sufficiently compact mass can deform spacetime to form a black hole".

OK then: If you claim a black hole to *come first* then you´re out of order with this consensus definition in where masses - in our case above, from the accreation disk - are needed in order to form a black hole.

Yet another disconnected and illogical claim of yours: A black hole cannot come first at all. You cannot make a black hole with *compact* speculative mindstuff alone. And according to the Newtonian ide of *gravity" you even can´t begin to discuss *black holes* without gaseous and *metallic* matters.

But thanks a lot anyway for the amusing fairy tale entertainment

 

[Polymath257]

OK then: If you claim a black hole to *come first* then you´re out of order with this consensus definition in where masses - in our case above, from the accreation disk - are needed in order to form a black hole.

The accretion disk does NOT form the black hole. The black hole 8was* formed by previous mass (either a star or multiple stars), but the accretion disk formed *after* the black hole.

Yet another disconnected and illogical claim of yours: A black hole cannot come first at all. You cannot make a black hole with *compact* speculative mindstuff alone. And according to the Newtonian ide of *gravity" you even can´t begin to discuss *black holes* without gaseous and *metallic* matters.

FALSE. I'm not sure why you focus on 'gaseous and metallic matters' since *anything* with the right mass concentrated in a small enough region will produce a black hole.

But thanks a lot anyway for the amusing fairy tale entertainment

Sounds like you refuse to learn where your misconceptions are. You cannot even say what the standard theory says correctly, let alone propose an alternative that gives sufficient detail.

 

[gnostic]

Once you´ve thaught to think for yourself, instead of referring to other debaters for help and mentioning me in your posts, we can have a REAL debate.

But we have spoken about the Milky Way and star formation before, where I did mention stellar nurseries of the Orion Nebula and Eagle Nebula, in Investigating Sacred Waters, Rivers and Deities in post 23...

No, Native.

That’s the image of only very small portion of the Milky Way’s Carina-Sagittarius arm.

With the naked eye, we only see the dust, and glow from ionized gases, cause by the sources of light, coming from the stars, behind the cloud of dust, very much what you would see in any nebula.

For example, the Eagle Nebula have dark regions, filled with interstellar dust, and glow around these regions, like some halos:

That’s due to the stars, causing the ionized gases to glow in different colors.

Such is the case of the Sagittarius arm that we can see.

and I even follow up in my next reply post 25 about H II Region:

I recalled that you were the one who stated (from another thread) that the Solar System formed from the centre, before it moved everything to the current position on the Orion spur.

If so, then there are no evidence for such claim, because we know from our observation today, that stars can form where they are, form within nebulas that have molecular clouds, in regions known as H II regions.

For instances the stellar nurseries of the Orion Nebula and the Eagle Nebula, where new stars are formed.

Yes, stars can formed around near the galactic bar or bulge, but stellar formations can take place or form anywhere along the MW’s spiral arms, where there are molecular clouds of gases and dust.

You r notion that stars, including our sun, have to form near the centre, then push outward along the arms, are absurd with no evidence to support it.

Have you forgotten our debate in a thread that you have created?

Our Solar System is located on the same minor spiral arm - Orion spur or Orion arm - as that of the Orion Nebula.

New stars can be formed in cloud of ionized hydrogen in region known H II Region, such as those 2 nebulas I had mentioned, instead of the Milky Way galactic centre, which you have claimed the Solar System have formed.

My replies in this Investigating Sacred Waters, is quite relevant to what Polymath257 have been saying here in this thread, is it not?

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
OK then: If you claim a black hole to *come first* then you´re out of order with this consensus definition in where masses - in our case above, from the accreation disk - are needed in order to form a black hole.

The accretion disk does NOT form the black hole. The black hole *was* formed by previous mass (either a star or multiple stars), but the accretion disk formed *after* the black hole.

Do you really believe that firm matter can create a 2D hole in the Universe?

And then we have this magic explanation too where only a subjective term of *space-time* can create magical holes:

Definition of a Black Hole:
A black hole is a region of spacetime where gravity is so strong that nothing . . ".

You see? The *scientific* definitions goes in all directions at the same time because nobody can define the intellectual speculative invention.

Sounds like you refuse to learn where your misconceptions are. You cannot even say what the standard theory says correctly, let alone propose an alternative that gives sufficient detail.

Try in the first hand to explain your *black hole* consistently as in *causes and effects* and with just one definition, and then I´m sure I can understand if it´s nonsens or not.

And I´ve already given you the most plausable and natural explanation. but of course this require natural pattern recognition skills and the use of logic which you reject.

 

[Native]

My replies in this Investigating Sacred Waters, is quite relevant to what Polymath257 have been saying here in this thread, is it not?

What *Sacred Waters* are you referring to - Links please.

 

[gnostic]

What *Sacred Waters* are you referring to - Links please.

The links are in my reply, but here it is, again:

Investigating Sacred Waters, Rivers and Deities (post 23)

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
OK then: If you claim a black hole to *come first* then you´re out of order with this consensus definition in where masses - in our case above, from the accreation disk - are needed in order to form a black hole.

Do you really believe that firm matter can create a 2D hole in the Universe?

Huh? A BH is a 3D thing. The *event horizon* is 2D, but that is not the same as the entire BH.

And what do you mean by 'firm matter'? That just seems like a strange description, not relevant for *anything* connected to the formation of a BH.

And then we have this magic explanation too where only a subjective term of *space-time* can create magical holes:

Definition of a Black Hole:
A black hole is a region of spacetime where gravity is so strong that nothing . . ".

You see? The *scientific* definitions goes in all directions at the same time because nobody can define the intellectual speculative invention.

Subjective term 'spacetime'? Really?

It seems to me that the scientific description is nicely consistent, but you fail to understand what is being said.

Try in the first hand to explain your *black hole* consistently as in *causes and effects* and with just one definition, and then I´m sure I can understand if it´s nonsens or not.

When enough matter is concentrated in a small enough volume, the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. This is because the escape velocity is determined by the amount of mass and the volume.

And I´ve already given you the most plausable and natural explanation. but of course this require natural pattern recognition skills and the use of logic which you reject.

Just because things *look* similar doesn't mean the processes involved are similar. In this case, we see the difference between fluid flow and gravity.

 

[gnostic]

And I´ve already given you the most plausable and natural explanation. but of course this require natural pattern recognition skills and the use of logic which you reject.

If you want to make your points about black holes, then do so please.

But if you want to discuss cyclones, then do so.

What you shouldn’t do, is not compare cyclones with black holes, since they have nothing to do with each other:

• not in the way they start,
  
• not in the mechanisms of either,
  
• and not what happen after they have started.

Your claims for one and other, are based on superficial observations and even more superficial comparisons of the two.

And for one, cyclones have to do with the atmospheric effects of low pressures, while the black holes have nothing do with the star's atmosphere, but deep in the interior of the star's mass - the core.

And while looking at the cyclone from above or below, the strong winds are blowing everything away, not pulling them within the centre. So as the cyclone move towards the lands, the winds are not sucking everything towards the centre, it is doing the exact opposite as the black holes, the squally winds actually push everything ahead.

Like Polymath257 said, you don't seem to understand either the black holes or tropical cyclones.

 

[Native]

The links are in my reply, but here it is, again:
Investigating Sacred Waters, Rivers and Deities (post 23)

Oh that old thread.
I was just surprised that YOU used religious and sacred terms in combination with modern science.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Interesting... Black holes are famous for ripping objects apart, including stars. But now, astronomers have uncovered a black hole that may have sparked the births of stars over a mind-boggling distance, and across multiple galaxies.

Chandra Press Room :: Black Hole Nurtures Baby Stars a Million Light Years Away :: 26 November 19

 

[Native]

Huh? A BH is a 3D thing. The *event horizon* is 2D, but that is not the same as the entire BH.

And what´s the rest then? In Danish language *BH* stands for a *bra*, wich at least shows real 3D forms

And what do you mean by 'firm matter'? That just seems like a strange description, not relevant for *anything* connected to the formation of a BH.

Blame yourself and your science for making things confused. We´ve been talking in several posts of accreation disks which, according to the strange convensus science in the *Swiss Cheese Cosmology*, can make a magical transformation to the nothingness realm for never to return again.

And this fantasy also goes for objects which all by themselves can disappear into nothing when the become too heavy. Do you think too if you pull yourself sufficiently enough together, that you´ll disappear into your own hole?

Subjective term 'spacetime'? Really?

I was referring to *curved space-time* as in this hilarious illustration.

Do you really believe in this nonsens? And that, if this illustrated shpere becomes sufficiently heavy, it will plop through the 2D rubber sheet and leave a hollow 3D figure in space?

When enough matter is concentrated in a small enough volume, the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. This is because the escape velocity is determined by the amount of mass and the volume.

Oh, so now you`ll have me to believe that matter can exceed the speed of light? Are you sure you´re dealing with real fundamental forces in a real world?

Just because things *look* similar doesn't mean the processes involved are similar. In this case, we see the difference between fluid flow and gravity.

Nonsense.

Both objects follows the rotational pattern as observed in the Galactic Rotation Curve. The only difference is the cyclon eye which shows the naturally motion compared to the *black hole* fantasy.

Here you have a real scientific description what is going on in galaxies too. The Eye/*Galactic Hole* represents a *swirling funnel of formation* in a circuital motion of in-folding and out-folding forces.

*Pattern recognition* is very important in order to get the intuitive philosophical knowledge of things. Just think of your dear Newton who was a Natural Philosopher, even though not a good one.

And poor Einstein who lost his mind to mathemagicial creation of holes all over in the Universe

 

[Native]

Interesting... Black holes are famous for ripping objects apart, including stars. But now, astronomers have uncovered a black hole that may have sparked the births of stars over a mind-boggling distance, and across multiple galaxies.

Fantastic isn´t it? Now THAT´s really Newtons *occult agency action at distances* at work

And now our brilliant scientists also have hypothesized *White Holes*.
Quote:
In general relativity, a white hole is a hypothetical region of spacetime and singularity which cannot be entered from the outside, although energy-matter, light and information can escape from it. In this sense, it is the reverse of a black hole, which can be entered only from the outside and from which energy-matter, light and information cannot escape.

The poor *linear thinking* scientists cannot comprehend that we´re dealing with cyclical formations in where both an attractive and a repulsive circuital motion is taking place at the same time.

In this case of cyclical motions,*gravity* of course is completely out of the equation and the noble E&M force is the only solution. Just as we observes on the Sun and on the Earth.