Galactic Accretion Disks: Midwives In Reverse

[Village Idiot]

It is assumed here that Super Massive Black Holes do not precede the existence of a galaxy. This is just use of Occam's razor: As we will see, preexistence is unnecessary for the placement of a SMBH right smack in the middle. Another assumption is that a middle-aged accretion disk around a SMBH can get such quite a pot-gut that it is hardly flat enough to call it a disk except for old time's sake. If all are in favor, then so be it as we proceed. A critical assumption is that much of matter is made up of electrical particles, and these particles enjoy capability to array themselves concentrically in macroscopic as well as microscopic formations. Your informant is not the first to discover that phenomena, but may be the first one not to take a left turn with the information. Over six decades of experience provided my safety net.

 

It seems fair to question the function of an accretion disk. How does it entice orbiting matter into its folds, and why does such captured matter not remain up in orbit within the accretion disk? Asking for no tips about gravity: Gravity is all factored in if we agree to accept the functioning of orbital trajectories.

 

RSVP

Edited August 11, 2012 by Heedless

[Pincho Paxton]

It seems fair to question the function of an accretion disk. How does it entice orbiting matter into its folds, and why does such captured matter not remain up in orbit within the accretion disk?

 

It's hard to read your post...is that your question?

 

This is my theory... Stagnant energy is being released from its pressurised surroundings, and the disc is the area of least resistance. Therefore Gravity is energy moving towards lower energy states to escape pressure.

 

It's up to you to decide on my theory. All I do is program it into a computer.

 

But the thing is to look at sudden changes in energy that is observable. Whirlpools surround a hole. The hole is the area of least resistance. The hole is a drop from high energy to low energy...

 

Niagara falls creates high energy. The rocks drop from high energy to zero energy. the water cascades to create high energy in the low energy zone.

 

The accretion disc surrounds a hole. The hole is a drop from spacetime energy, to negative energy. The switch from high to low is your force.

Edited August 11, 2012 by Pincho Paxton

[Village Idiot]

It's hard to read your post...is that your question?

 

No. My question was: "It seems fair to question the function of an accretion disk. How does it entice orbiting matter into its folds, and why does such captured matter not remain up in orbit within the accretion disk?"

 

 

This is my theory... Stagnant energy is being released from its pressurised surroundings, and the disc is the area of least resistance. Therefore Gravity is energy moving towards lower energy states to escape pressure.

 

It's up to you to decide on my theory. All I do is program it into a computer.

 

But the thing is to look at sudden changes in energy that is observable. Whirlpools surround a hole. The hole is the area of least resistance. The hole is a drop from high energy to low energy...

 

Niagara falls creates high energy. The rocks drop from high energy to zero energy. the water cascades to create high energy in the low energy zone.

 

The accretion disc surrounds a hole. The hole is a drop from spacetime energy, to negative energy. The switch from high to low is your force.

 

You left out the supplemental j factor, but I cannot fault you on the oversight. Doing that would have brought out the whole truth but would have destroyed all of your credibility. Am working on starting over on a Thursday with a more readable post.

[Ti@NiS]

One must take into consideration that in the universe there is more stuff that does not radiate.

[maddog]

It is assumed here that Super Massive Black Holes do not precede the existence of a galaxy.

I can accept this for this thread though in my mind it has not been ruled out either way. Both "seem" to be about the same time (though maybe not always). Yet for this let's accept it as given. It will not change your outcome much.

 

It seems fair to question the function of an accretion disk. How does it entice orbiting matter into its folds, and why does such captured matter not remain up in orbit within the accretion disk? Asking for no tips about gravity: Gravity is all factored in if we agree to accept the functioning of orbital trajectories.

Have ever noticed the stuff orbiting the planet Saturn. The orbit of these small rocks and particles of dust (center at least) is within Roche's limit such that tidal forces will tear apart an orbiting body greater that a set size. This size is dependent on the mass of the central object. The Accretion Disk around all Black Holes behaves the same way - same universal law. It is just the strength (and size) is many times greater. When ionized particles are in motion they tend to radiate energy in the form of X-rays. As particles radiate in loss of energy, their orbit gets smaller. Eventually these particles fall in. It is not difficult.

 

maddog

[Village Idiot]

 

Have ever noticed the stuff orbiting the planet Saturn. The orbit of these small rocks and particles of dust (center at least) is within Roche's limit such that tidal forces will tear apart an orbiting body greater that a set size. This size is dependent on the mass of the central object. The Accretion Disk around all Black Holes behaves the same way - same universal law. It is just the strength (and size) is many times greater.

 

The mere fact that an orbiting body is torn apart simply results in it being converted into an orbiting ring. Smaller lumps escape the Roche limit thereby retaining orbit. Your point asserts that lumps would become reduced to powder and lends credence to the fact that once it does become enveloped by the Milky Way galactic bulge/accretion disk, it would then appear as a smoothly illuminated bar.

 

 

When ionized particles are in motion they tend to radiate energy in the form of X-rays. As particles radiate in loss of energy, their orbit gets smaller. Eventually these particles fall in. It is not difficult.

 

 

The tendancy for moving charged particles to radiate X-rays becomes an issue at relatavistic speeds. Such velocities lie far outside that of any orbiting material subject to the clutches of an accretion disk. Maybe it is not all that easy to get it straight.

[JMJones0424]

The tendancy for moving charged particles to radiate X-rays becomes an issue at relatavistic speeds. Such velocities lie far outside that of any orbiting material subject to the clutches of an accretion disk. Maybe it is not all that easy to get it straight.

Excuse my ignorance, but do you have a source for this?

[Village Idiot]

Excuse my ignorance, but do you have a source for this?

 

Ionizing radiation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation

 

How's that?

[JMJones0424]

I'm sorry, I still don't understand, and the wikipedia article on ionizing radiation didn't make it any clearer for me. For that matter, I'm not sure I understand maddog's original statement either.

 

When ionized particles are in motion they tend to radiate energy in the form of X-rays. As particles radiate in loss of energy, their orbit gets smaller. Eventually these particles fall in. It is not difficult.

The tendancy for moving charged particles to radiate X-rays becomes an issue at relatavistic speeds. Such velocities lie far outside that of any orbiting material subject to the clutches of an accretion disk. Maybe it is not all that easy to get it straight.

 

Are you saying that charged particles don't radiate x-rays unless they are moving at relativistic speeds? Also, perhaps incorrectly, I had been under the impression that high temperatures generated by friction is what led to the emission of x-rays and the subsequent loss of orbital energy in the accretion disk. Am I entirely off base?

[Village Idiot]

I'm sorry, I still don't understand, and the wikipedia article on ionizing radiation didn't make it any clearer for me. For that matter, I'm not sure I understand maddog's original statement either.

 

What seemed to be the clincher in the article was "Ionizing radiation includes cosmic rays, alpha, beta and gamma rays, X-rays, and in general any charged particle moving at relativistic speeds." I will try to revisit a source that stipulated acceleration of charged particles at relativistic speeds and will pass it on if possible.

 

 

Are you saying that charged particles don't radiate x-rays unless they are moving at relativistic speeds? Also, perhaps incorrectly, I had been under the impression that high temperatures generated by friction is what led to the emission of x-rays and the subsequent loss of orbital energy in the accretion disk. Am I entirely off base?

 

I agree with you that friction is what takes matter down within the accretion disk. My opening post asks first for what phenomenon brings orbiting matter into the folds of the accretion disk. My conclusion is that the matter does not come down until the accretion disk has expanded out to envelope it. It is on its way out to us, but will take a long while to get here.

 

Then, within the accretion disk there would be friction, because the rim of the hosting disk is composed of protons that would orbit more slowly than the transient matter heading for the event horizon. Below the rim, neutron-bearing positive charges would continue to impede the transient matter.

 

The X-rays presently considered to manifest growth of the SMBH are merely from polar jet activity that turns off when the disk has become bloated out to more of a spheroid due to electrostatic repulsion of the resident protons. The geometry of macroscopic electrostatic formations is germane to such a "switching" phenomenon. A charged sphere is coated by its excess particles of the polarity of that charge, and the consequential electric field within acts to form and hold a sphere of an opposite, lesser charge at the center. Given a disk hosting an electric charge, A hoop of the charge polarity forms at its outer rim, and the resulting electric field forms a linear filament of particles of opposite polarity to that of the disk, positioned along the rotational axis of the disk. Galaxies with sufficiently flat central bulges (the accretion disks for the BH) can manage to produce electron beams supplied from electrons pressed downward by upward-pointing electric fields. Since the electrons behind any given electron along that line would be closer to each other than the ones ahead of it, accelerating force would be present at least until relativistic velocity has been achieved. Apparently, scientists can assure themselves of BH activity when the accretion disk is flat enough to produce polar jets, but are not likely to realize that a maturing galaxy will grow to discontinue them even when BH activity continues to thrive. Hence, X-rays from those electron beams correctly manifest BH activity, but their absence bears no assurance of BH stagnation. Actually, the bar in our galaxy's fat bulge suggests a continuous feeding of pulverized matter to our BH, but we think it inactive because the bulge retains the electrons as a spheroid formation around the BH.

 

Some of this information is derived from insight from over six decades of successful reverse engineering experience with electronic systems. Thanks to considerations advanced by the preceding dialogs, we here may have dispensed with some confusion about BH activity.

Edited August 28, 2012 by Heedless

[Village Idiot]

I can accept this for this thread though in my mind it has not been ruled out either way. Both "seem" to be about the same time (though maybe not always). Yet for this let's accept it as given. It will not change your outcome much.

 

 

Since fundamental electrical theory explains inevitable production of a SMBH located precisely in the center of a galaxy, (right where we find it) then it might be a little silly to wonder why the SMBHs might not have existed before the galaxies came along. The chicken or the egg puzzle does not set us pondering so about that egg that we find under that chicken.

 

PS: Here is some promised technical stuff implying that we could care more about acceleration of electrons to get x-rays. Charged particles in a galaxy's wheeling bulge of a few light years' diameter are so numerous that they do fine in producing a magnetic field (which is up there but might not really matter much) without much acceleration at all.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_jet

(please ignore their explanation of how polar jets work)

 

 

Another edit:

Golly. Come to think of it, it seems that it is a little extreme to give tidal forces all the credit for pulverizing stellar matter. Way out a light year or so from the black hole, the proton atmosphere of the global bulge ("accretion disk") would be drawing out electrons from fresh transient matter. Wouldn't that say goodbye to just about all chemical bonds?

Edited September 8, 2012 by Heedless