Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
This is in reference to ejected jet matter being greater than infalling matter into black holes. It has little to do with Hawking Radiation. This is a very slow process. Even though Steven Hawkings agrees that matter can escape from a black hole.
|
I may have been a bit flippant and I will have to rethink what I was getting at wrt
to Jet near Black Holes (i.e. Hawking Radiation, etc). Be that as it may. Jets
CATEGORICALLY CAN NOT COME from within the Event Horizon of a Black Hole ! <<<CAN NOT>>> This limitation is physics -- plane and simple.
To do so would exceed C as escape velocity.
So any method for "cycling" in a Black Hole requires that this process be outside of the Event Horizon. Matter falling in converts a lot of energy from
potential to kinetic. Jet are viable and may even be common around BH. I
will ponder this some more and may even look up some recent theories on the
subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
If the matter ejected is greater than the infalling,
Where does the matter come from? It must come from the stored matter inside the core of the black hole. How it does this is the issue that I'm trying to understand.
|
It does not as already stated above. Jets are likely process outside of the Event Horizon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
As for a cyclic process[:]
Just look at the formation of stars and phase stages and the cyclic processes that are involved. Similar with galaxy evolution and cluster galaxy formation. This is general information and google can give it to you.
|
This is where you go
unfounded.
Right here.
The
formation of stars plus the galaxy evolution and cluster galaxy formation are all processes of an evolving nature and are definitely asymmetric with time. Whereas "cyclical processes have an inherent time symmetry where like Deja' Vu you can be somewhat repeating a part of a process from before.
You can form new stars from old star stuff yet they form NEW stars that won't be like the OLD stars. So a galaxy will change forward one way in time.
So like others have said here you need to "Qualify" your assertion above in what you Mean! Especially wrt to "Cycling".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
As for the attac[k] on my posting, I feel sorry that I have offended some, it is not done intensionally.
|
Any such animosity has been brought on by yourself (as Buffy has said SO Well in a previous Post). If I were you I would read her post about 10 Times so maybe you comprehend what she is really saying.
I have been following your posts for some time in this thread. There is some good things in what you say. It is just riddled with such stuff that is hard to swallow. This is not about agreement. It is about following logic and forming a
conclusion. You just often state things as though a conclusion has been made
when being modest might only be a conjecture or hypothesis or sometimes even a mangled thought. Now I wonder could this be just Ignorance or just Pomposity ? Every time I read where you erred on the Nightmare side of Buffy's cohen, I keep considering the latter.
This is not so much an "attack" as you say, it is a plea for you to get Rigorous.
maddog
