What is the source of energy for the orbital motion?

[write4u]

6 hours ago, Dandav said:

2. Kinetic energy.

The "loss of energy and momentum of the orbiting object" must come from the orbital kinetic energy of the object. Even if your believe was correct, then by decreasing the radius and increasing the orbital velocity, you actually increase the orbital kinetic energy. That contredicts the idea that we must decrease that energy.

A planet in steady orbit will lose energy over time and gravitational force will cause it to spiral inward.  This means the orbit shrinks and the speed of the planet increases. So there remains a tenuous balance between relative energy loss and relative energy increase. In the end the planet will be swallowed up

6 hours ago, Dandav said:

3. Examples:

If your believe was correct, then we have to see many planets and moons as they orbit inwards.

Surprisingly for this believe, all the planets in the solar system and almost all the moons are drifting outwards. Therefore, the observations proves that spiral outwards is the realistic idea.

I don't think that's true. It is spacetime itself that is expanding and may perhaps also contract in time, while everything inside spacetime is subject to local conditions.

Jupiter is known for protecting the solar system from intruders by capturing them in its gravitational well.

Quote

Jupiter has been called the vacuum cleaner of the solar system because its gravity sucks in asteroids and comets, protecting us from those objects. But it's not all good: Jupiter's gravity can also nudge an object onto an orbital collision course with Earth.May 7, 2021

https://www.planetary.org/the-downlink/saving-the-world-one-asteroid-at-a-time#

Let's expand this to Black Holes with enormous gravitational wells. There are objects orbiting  black holes at incredible speeds, but they always end up up falling into the black hole.   The same principle applies to ordinary stars and planets, just at a more leisurely pace. 

Quote

Researchers have discovered the fastest known star, which travels around a black hole and reaches speeds of around 8,000 kilometres per second. The star, named S4716, orbits Sagittarius A*, the supermassive black hole at the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy.Jul 6, 2022

https://www.space.com/fastest-star-milky-way-black-hole#

So, eventually nothing escapes the gravitational pull when in orbit around a massive object, unless its trajectory is disturbed by a third massive object.

Edited October 22, 2022 by write4u
credits

[Dandav]

1 hour ago, write4u said:

A planet in steady orbit will lose energy over time and gravitational force will cause it to spiral inward.  This means the orbit shrinks and the speed of the planet increases. So there remains a tenuous balance between relative energy loss and relative energy increase. In the end the planet will be swallowed up

I don't think that's true. It is spacetime itself that is expanding and may perhaps also contract in time, while everything inside spacetime is subject to local conditions.

Jupiter is known for protecting the solar system from intruders by capturing them in its gravitational well.

You are totally wrong!

All the planets in the solar system are drifting outwards including Jupiter!

Earth Is Drifting Away From The Sun, And So Are All The Planets (forbes.com)

Earth Is Drifting Away From The Sun, And So Are All The Planets

So, you are more then welcome to keep on with your believe

Some pepole believe that elephent can fly. However, so far there is no evidence/observation for that imagination.

1 hour ago, write4u said:

Let's expand this to Black Holes with enormous gravitational wells. There are objects orbiting  black holes at incredible speeds, but they always end up up falling into the black hole.   The same principle applies to ordinary stars and planets, just at a more leisurely pace. 

With regards to BH and SMBH.

NOTHING falls into BH & SMBH.

Actually, even a single photon can't fall into a BH.

Gravitational lens - Wikipedia

It is stated:

Lensing by a black hole

"The maximum amplification occurs when the background galaxy (or in the present case a bright part of it) is exactly behind the black hole."

The Ultra high gravity force bends the photon beam around that BH.

Therefore, based on the observation, photon beam which is in a direct colision with the BH can't fall in.

Unfortunatly, our scientists want to belive that matter falls into the SMBH and they won't let the observation to "confuse" them.

They convince you that matter/stars falls into the core of the SMBH, but so far they couldn't find even one atom as it falls inwards.

Not in the Milky way' SMBH and not in any SMBH in the entire universe.

Same issue with the Milky way Gravity.

Do you know that for any star in the galaxies there is at least one outside.

So, the open space is full with stars and small galaxies.

The milky way cross the space at 600Km/s. even so, not even a single star from outside can penetrate into the MW galaxy.

1 hour ago, write4u said:

So, eventually nothing escapes the gravitational pull when in orbit around a massive object, unless its trajectory is disturbed by a third massive object.

No, eventually all the orbital objects are drifting outwards with very few exceptions.

Edited October 22, 2022 by Dandav

[write4u]

2 hours ago, Dandav said:

Therefore, based on the observation, photon beam which is in a direct colision with the BH can't fall in.

I believe that is only partly correct. What we see is the outer area of the light cone emitted by the hidden object. Those beams would normally be invisible to earth, but as they pass through the outer part of the gravitational well they bend so that we can observe them. The majority of the light cone we'll never see because it is in direct collision with the BH and is swallowed up.

Ask why the larger area around a BH is totally empty from objects. This is not due to expansion away from the BH but is due to collapsing into the BH.

Ahhhh, ok.  What I overlooked was that the sun is burning lots of radiant energy and therefore losing mass and gravitational pull.

Quote

 

On a year-by-year basis, the Sun loses some 4.7 million tons of matter, which lessens the gravitational pull on every object in our Solar System. It’s this gravitational pull that causes our orbits to behave as we know them to behave.

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/earth-is-drifting-away-from-the-sun-and-so-are-all-the-planets-71f53d58a55a#

 

 

This does not happen around Black Holes.

Quote

 

Black holes grow in mass by capturing nearby material. Anything that enters the event horizon cannot escape the black hole's gravity. So objects that do not keep a safe distance get swallowed. Despite their reputation, black holes will not actually suck in objects from large distances.

https://www.stsci.edu/~marel/black_holes/encyc_mod3_q9.html#

 

So, radiant stars and black holes follow different physics. You are correct as far as radiant objects are concerned. 

 

Edited October 22, 2022 by write4u
additional info

[Dandav]

9 hours ago, write4u said:

I believe that is only partly correct. What we see is the outer area of the light cone emitted by the hidden object. Those beams would normally be invisible to earth, but as they pass through the outer part of the gravitational well they bend so that we can observe them. The majority of the light cone we'll never see because it is in direct collision with the BH and is swallowed up.

Did you had a chance to read the article?

"The maximum amplification occurs when the background galaxy (or in the present case a bright part of it) is exactly behind the black hole."

Sorry, you can continue to believe, but somehow we need evidence/

In the following articale it is ststed:

Supermassive black hole - Wikipedia

"Gas accretion is the most efficient and also the most conspicuous way in which black holes grow. The majority of the mass growth of supermassive black holes is thought to occur through episodes of rapid gas accretion, which are observable as active galactic nuclei or quasars."

Next to it they set the following image:

Artist’s impression of the huge outflow ejected from the quasar SDSS J1106+1939 - Supermassive black hole - Wikipedia

Artist's impression of the huge outflow ejected from the quasar SDSS J1106+1939^[59]

How could it be that they claim for "inflow" of gas ("rapid gas accretion"), while in the next image they introduce the observation of: "huge outflow ejected from the quasar"?

Is this the correct way of the modern science  to prove the "rapid gas accretion" - by intoducing the outflow observation?

Our scientists observe outflow from all the accertion SMBH discs, but they have NEVER EVER observe even one atom as it falls in.

Never the less, they still believe that one day they would see it.

In the web there are excelent images of M87 over the years

We clearly see this accertion disc as it full/less full/full /less full over the last few years.

They claim that in the accertion disc there is about 3 sun mass.

They clearly observe the outflow from all the accertion discs and they see that the accertion disc regain mass constantly, while they have never ever observed any star/planet/moon/atom as it falls in.

So, how long do they will continue to believe that the M87 SMBH gets its matter from outside while they have never found any observation to prove this imagination (not in M87 and not in any SMBH/Quasar in the whole universe - including the MW SMBH)?

One more year? 100 Years? 1M years?

Edited October 23, 2022 by Dandav

[write4u]

2 hours ago, Dandav said:

One more year? 100 Years? 1M years?

1 second.

Drop an apple and see if it falls or rises.  Newton had it right, don't you think?

[Dandav]

1 hour ago, write4u said:

1 second.

Drop an apple and see if it falls or rises.  Newton had it right, don't you think?

So why is it so difficult to find even one orbital apple as it falls into the core of the SMBH/quasar?

Why we only observe outflow and ZERO inflow?

Sorry, orbital objects behave diffrently then apple that is already located on Earth and the gravity force of the SMBH can't be compared to the gravity of the Earth.

Under strong gravity force - nothing - not even a photon can fall in or penetrate this mighty gravity force.

Never and ever!!!!

However, if you still believe that orbital objects fall into the core of the SMBH/Quasar - then please show that observation.

One falling orbital apple into the the core of just one SMBH in the entire Universe is good enough.

Good luck.

[write4u]

16 minutes ago, Dandav said:

So why is it so difficult to find even one orbital apple as it falls into the core of the SMBH/quasar?

Distance?

And we have seen many objects fall into other planets.

Here is one

Have you any idea how big this object must have been?

 

Anything that we observe in orbit is stabilized according to mass as can be witnessed in the rings of Saturn. I bet that inward falling is quite common when objects in the rings collide and are nudged into a lower orbit.

Edited October 23, 2022 by write4u

[write4u]

Just to be clear'

What size is the gravity well of the most massive black hole?

Quote

It measures 2 billion miles across, so it would stretch further than Uranus' orbit, and it has about the same mass as 660 million suns. And the supermassive black hole at the center of Messier 87 is so huge that astronomers could see it from 55 million light-years away.Jun 23, 2021

https://www.businessinsider.com/black-hole-how-big-largest-universe-2019-5#

[Dandav]

4 hours ago, write4u said:

Distance?

And we have seen many objects fall into other planets.

Here is one

Have you any idea how big this object must have been?

 

Anything that we observe in orbit is stabilized according to mass as can be witnessed in the rings of Saturn. I bet that inward falling is quite common when objects in the rings collide and are nudged into a lower orbit.

This one is irrelevant as we discuss about orbital objects that are drifting Inwards/outwards naturally.

Actually, I fully agree with you about the following possibility:

"I bet that inward falling is quite common when objects in the rings collide and are nudged into a lower orbit."

There is also a possibility that this object didn't orbit at all around Jupiter.

It could be an asteroid that orbits around the Sun and by chance collide with with Jupiter.

In any case, let's focus on SMBH.

Do you have a real observation for a star that falls into the SMBH anywhere in the Universe?

How could it be that we clearly observe that the accretion discs of many SMBHs regain new matter while nothing falls in?

Edited October 23, 2022 by Dandav

[OceanBreeze]

4 hours ago, Dandav said:

This one is irrelevant as we discuss about orbital objects that are drifting Inwards/outwards naturally.

Actually, I fully agree with you about the following possibility:

"I bet that inward falling is quite common when objects in the rings collide and are nudged into a lower orbit."

There is also a possibility that this object didn't orbit at all around Jupiter.

It could be an asteroid that orbits around the Sun and by chance collide with with Jupiter.

In any case, let's focus on SMBH.

Do you have a real observation for a star that falls into the SMBH anywhere in the Universe?

How could it be that we clearly observe that the accretion discs of many SMBHs regain new matter while nothing falls in?

Black Holes swallow stars, it is known as a Tidal Disruption event, TDE:

From this source:

"In the standard TDE picture, the gravity of the black hole shreds an approaching star into strands like spaghetti. The black hole immediately swallows half the star's matter while the rest arcs away in long streamers. These rapidly fall back and settle into an accretion disk that steadily feeds material into the black hole, growing so hot that it emits copious x-rays.

An x-ray mapping satellite spotted the first TDEs in the 1990s. Now, optical surveys like the ZTF are picking up the fast-changing events and capturing telltale details of the visible glow. They are also alerting other observatories, such as NASA's Swift telescope, to make follow-up observations at ultraviolet and x-ray wavelengths.

The fingerprints of certain gases in the spectra of the visible light can reveal what kind of star went down the black hole's maw. Gezari and her colleagues found that the TDE spectra fell into three classes, dominated by hydrogen, helium, or a mixture of gases. Hydrogen likely signals large, young stars, whereas helium events could point to the cores of older stars whose hydrogen shells were stripped away—perhaps by an earlier brush with the black hole. She says the proportions reveal something about the populations of stars at the very centers of galaxies, at distances from Earth that would otherwise be impossible to probe."

Do you have any source to back up your claim that this does not happen?

As for the rest of your thread about "loss of energy from the gravity radiation" that is all nonsense.

While it is true the moon's orbit has been getting larger -  it is moving away from the Earth at 3.8 cm per year, this has nothing to do with any supposed loss of gravitatational radiation, whatever that is.

As the Earth spins. there is friction between the moving ocean and the seabed, resulting in a loss of tidal energy, which acts to slow the Earth’s spin. Some of that energy gets transferred to the moon, due to the fact that the tidal bulge slightly leads the moon’s orbital position. This has the effect of an energy transfer which would increase the moon’s orbital velocity, but in accordance with Kepler’s Third Law, the actual effect is to push the moon away from the Earth, into a higher orbit.

According to Kepler’s Third Law, the square of the orbital period is proportional to the cube of its average distance.

[write4u]

5 hours ago, Dandav said:

It could be an asteroid that orbits around the Sun and by chance collide with with Jupiter.

Wait, you claim that light from a star hidden behind a bigger star does not get absorbed by the bigger star, but is deflected around the bigger star, but now you admit that objects do fall into more massive objects?  Don't you think that the laws of physics apply to all physical objects equally?  

[Dandav]

23 hours ago, OceanBreeze said:

Black Holes swallow stars, it is known as a Tidal Disruption event, TDE:

From this source:

"In the standard TDE picture, the gravity of the black hole shreds an approaching star into strands like spaghetti. The black hole immediately swallows half the star's matter while the rest arcs away in long streamers. These rapidly fall back and settle into an accretion disk that steadily feeds material into the black hole, growing so hot that it emits copious x-rays.

An x-ray mapping satellite spotted the first TDEs in the 1990s. Now, optical surveys like the ZTF are picking up the fast-changing events and capturing telltale details of the visible glow. They are also alerting other observatories, such as NASA's Swift telescope, to make follow-up observations at ultraviolet and x-ray wavelengths.

The fingerprints of certain gases in the spectra of the visible light can reveal what kind of star went down the black hole's maw. Gezari and her colleagues found that the TDE spectra fell into three classes, dominated by hydrogen, helium, or a mixture of gases. Hydrogen likely signals large, young stars, whereas helium events could point to the cores of older stars whose hydrogen shells were stripped away—perhaps by an earlier brush with the black hole. She says the proportions reveal something about the populations of stars at the very centers of galaxies, at distances from Earth that would otherwise be impossible to probe."

Did you have a chance to read the articale which you have quoted?

In the titel it is stated: Black holes caught in the act of swallowing stars

Wow, what a great information.

However, what do they really see / Observe NOW?

They start by the TDE standard:

"In the standard TDE picture, the gravity of the black hole shreds an approaching star into strands like spaghetti. The black hole immediately swallows half the star's matter while the rest arcs away in long streamers."

OK, great standard.

However, what is the meaning of: "The black hole immediately swallows half the star's matter" Do they see the star as it breaks to two sections? Why they claim that it swallows that half immediately?

There is only one solution - they don't see it as it falls in, and they don't see the star as it breaks down. All they see is: "while the rest arcs away in long streamers"  

So, they see the outflow of the matter, but they don't see any sort of inflow therefore they claim for "immediately swallows".

All the above is just about the TDE standard. No star, no fireworks as the star breaks - only outflow of matter that "arcs away in long streamers"

However, what do they really see now that convinced them about "the act of swallowing stars"

In the article itself it is stated: Now, optical surveys like the ZTF are picking up the fast-changing events and capturing telltale details of the visible glow.

So, all they see is a visible Glow.

They also add: "the TDE spectra fell into three classes, dominated by hydrogen, helium, or a mixture of gases. "

Hence, all they see is a glow of gases which is dominated by hydrogen & helium.

Do they see those gases as the fall inwards?

No, they even explain why: "It's like the black hole gets indigestion because it eats too much too fast." 

What is the meaning of: "indigestion" - "Pain or discomfort in the stomach associated with difficulty in digesting food."

So what would be the outcome of this indigestion?

Don't you agree that it is all about outflow?

Hence, they don't see any star as it breaks down and falls in, they don't see any gas as it falls in, they don't see any sort of inflow.

All they see is outflow and "glow of gases which is dominated by hydrogen & helium".

They add: "These rapidly fall back and settle into an accretion disk that steadily feeds material into the black hole, growing so hot that it emits copious x-rays" Hence, although they don't see any star or matter as it falls in, they believe that once it falls in it will directly be part of the accretion disc.

Is it real?

Think about an object that falls on earth from the sky and then at 1Km above the surface it will suddenly orbit around the earth.

If something falls in, why it can't fall all the way into the core of the SMBH?

Why it has to orbit at the accertion disc at almost the speed of light and at a temp of about 10^9c?

How can we believe in such imagination?

They admit that this TDE comes only from small galaxies.

"So far, all the growing number of TDEs come from smaller galaxies, suggesting the limit is real. Hence, they have never seen any TDE from a SMBH which should eat 3 stars just for breakfast

They also add: "If astronomers could turn the light into a reading of how quickly material is being sucked in, they might be able to determine a black hole's mass"

Hence, they are in the darkness!

They don't see any falling stars or any sort of falling matter and therefore, they can't claim that they see any sort of falling star.

Based on the following message we do understand that they don't have a clue about what they see:

"For a few TDEs, astronomers have been able to compare the rise and fall of the visible glow with x-ray measurements made from space—and puzzlingly, the two don't match. The x-rays often flare irregularly, appear late, or are absent altogether."

They call it "puzzlingly" as they don't have a basic clue about the real meaning of that glow.

Therefore, first they need to understand the real meaning of the glow, and then they can try to sell us their imagination about the falling stars that they have NEVER EVER seen!

So how can we use this nonsense as valid data?

Shame on them!

Edited October 24, 2022 by Dandav

[OceanBreeze]

3 hours ago, Dandav said:

Did you have a chance to read the articale which you have quoted?

In the titel it is stated: Black holes caught in the act of swallowing stars

Wow, what a great information.

However, what do they really see / Observe NOW?

They start by the TDE standard:

"In the standard TDE picture, the gravity of the black hole shreds an approaching star into strands like spaghetti. The black hole immediately swallows half the star's matter while the rest arcs away in long streamers."

OK, great standard.

However, what is the meaning of: "The black hole immediately swallows half the star's matter" Do they see the star as it breaks to two sections? Why they claim that it swallows that half immediately?

There is only one solution - they don't see it as it falls in, and they don't see the star as it breaks down. All they see is: "while the rest arcs away in long streamers"  

So, they see the outflow of the matter, but they don't see any sort of inflow therefore they claim for "immediately swallows".

All the above is just about the TDE standard. No star, no fireworks as the star breaks - only outflow of matter that "arcs away in long streamers"

However, what do they really see now that convinced them about "the act of swallowing stars"

In the article itself it is stated: Now, optical surveys like the ZTF are picking up the fast-changing events and capturing telltale details of the visible glow.

So, all they see is a visible Glow.

They also add: "the TDE spectra fell into three classes, dominated by hydrogen, helium, or a mixture of gases. "

Hence, all they see is a glow of gases which is dominated by hydrogen & helium.

Do they see those gases as the fall inwards?

No, they even explain why: "It's like the black hole gets indigestion because it eats too much too fast." 

What is the meaning of: "indigestion" - "Pain or discomfort in the stomach associated with difficulty in digesting food."

So what would be the outcome of this indigestion?

Don't you agree that it is all about outflow?

Hence, they don't see any star as it breaks down and falls in, they don't see any gas as it falls in, they don't see any sort of inflow.

All they see is outflow and "glow of gases which is dominated by hydrogen & helium".

They add: "These rapidly fall back and settle into an accretion disk that steadily feeds material into the black hole, growing so hot that it emits copious x-rays" Hence, although they don't see any star or matter as it falls in, they believe that once it falls in it will directly be part of the accretion disc.

Is it real?

Think about an object that falls on earth from the sky and then at 1Km above the surface it will suddenly orbit around the earth.

If something falls in, why it can't fall all the way into the core of the SMBH?

Why it has to orbit at the accertion disc at almost the speed of light and at a temp of about 10^9c?

How can we believe in such imagination?

They admit that this TDE comes only from small galaxies.

"So far, all the growing number of TDEs come from smaller galaxies, suggesting the limit is real. Hence, they have never seen any TDE from a SMBH which should eat 3 stars just for breakfast

They also add: "If astronomers could turn the light into a reading of how quickly material is being sucked in, they might be able to determine a black hole's mass"

Hence, they are in the darkness!

They don't see any falling stars or any sort of falling matter and therefore, they can't claim that they see any sort of falling star.

Based on the following message we do understand that they don't have a clue about what they see:

"For a few TDEs, astronomers have been able to compare the rise and fall of the visible glow with x-ray measurements made from space—and puzzlingly, the two don't match. The x-rays often flare irregularly, appear late, or are absent altogether."

They call it "puzzlingly" as they don't have a basic clue about the real meaning of that glow.

Therefore, first they need to understand the real meaning of the glow, and then they can try to sell us their imagination about the falling stars that they have NEVER EVER seen!

So how can we use this nonsense as valid data?

Shame on them!

I asked you to produce a source to back up your claim, as I did.

Not only did you not produce any source, you just argued, with your arguments based upon nothing but your own beliefs, entirely made up, and for the most part nonsensical. Unlike some forums which would ban you, we do allow for alternative theories and even strange claims here.

Accordingly, I am moving this thread to Alternative Theories, as it certainly does not belong in Astronomy and Space.

If you continue to make arguments based on nothing but your own beliefs, without any source to back up your claims, your thread may end up in Silly Claims. If that happens, you are still welcome to continue your arguments there, if anyone is interested in engaging with you.

The key thing here is Back Up Your Claims!

Good luck with that, and welcome to our Science Forum.

[Dandav]

On 10/24/2022 at 9:54 PM, OceanBreeze said:

I asked you to produce a source to back up your claim, as I did.

Not only did you not produce any source, you just argued, with your arguments based upon nothing but your own beliefs, entirely made up, and for the most part nonsensical. Unlike some forums which would ban you, we do allow for alternative theories and even strange claims here.

Accordingly, I am moving this thread to Alternative Theories, as it certainly does not belong in Astronomy and Space.

If you continue to make arguments based on nothing but your own beliefs, without any source to back up your claims, your thread may end up in Silly Claims. If that happens, you are still welcome to continue your arguments there, if anyone is interested in engaging with you.

The key thing here is Back Up Your Claims!

Good luck with that, and welcome to our Science Forum.

Dear OceanBreeze

We focus on the activity of a SMBH.

Please look at the following gamma ray jet stream emission from the SMBH of the Milky way:

That jet stream is moving at almost 0.3c up to 27,000 LY above and below the galactic disc and the total mass there is expected to be at 10,000 sun mass.

That outflow is very smooth and constant.

Therefore, it shows that our SMBH generates that jet stream constantly.

It also generates about 10 stars per year.

We clearly see the young star cluster next the MW SMBH image.

The Baby Boom Galaxy is so named because it generates over 4,000 stars per year (compared to an average of just 10 per year for the Milky Way).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Boom_Galaxy

Hence, wherever we look we OBSERVE significant outflow from the SMBHs and serve creation of new stars around those SMBH.

Based on the TDE standard/theory, all the outflow matter that we clearly observe is coming by falling stars that the SMBH swallows.

So, let assume that by average only one falling star per month is needed to a SMBH.

We are monitoring the MW SMBH for over than 30 Year. So far we didn't detect even one falling star/planet/moon or even atom.

In the visible Universe there are about 200 Billion galaxies.

In each galaxy there is a SMBH.

Therefore, statistically, about 200 Billion stars should fall every month (or millions every second) into the core of a SMBH somewhere in the Universe.

Surprisingly, we didn't observe even ONE real star as it falls in (anywhere in the Universe)

All we see is a glow:

In the article which you have offered it is stated:

"Now, optical surveys like the ZTF are picking up the fast-changing events and capturing telltale details of the visible glow.

So what is the meaning of that glow?

In the following article they link the glow to Electro magnet activity:

https://phys.org/news/2022-05-surging-distant-galaxy-black-holes.html

"A surging glow in a distant galaxy could change the way we look at black holes"

"The observations suggest that the magnetic fields of supermassive black holes may be a lot more dynamic than scientists once believed"

Therefore, I wonder based on what data those scientists in the articale which you have offered linked the glow to a falling stars?

If star would fall in it must come with fireworks:

https://www.universetoday.com/144654/more-mysterious-space-blobs-have-been-found-near-the-center-of-the-milky-way/

“One of the things that has gotten everyone excited about the G objects is that the stuff that gets pulled off of them by tidal forces as they sweep by the central black hole must inevitably fall into the black hole,” he said. “When that happens, it might be able to produce an impressive fireworks show since the material eaten by the black hole will heat up and emit copious radiation before it disappears across the event horizon.”

Hence, a glow is not good enough.

Therefore, as we have never ever seen the fireworks of a falling stars as it heat up and emit copious radiation before it disappears across the event horizon then it proves that stars do not fall in.

Why a Baby boom galaxy would generate 4000 star per year just to eat them in the next morning?

Is it realistic to believe in such imagination?

Conclusions:

Statistically (based on the TDE) millions of stars should fall into the core of a SMBH somewhere in the Universe every second.

However, we didn't observe any fireworks from any star as it falls in for the last 30 Years.

Therefore, what is more important for us?

The unproved (no observation) theory that is called TDE, or my explanation that the mighty gravity force of the SMBH prevents from any sort of matter to fall in (not even a single photon).

Sorry, you should put my message in the mainstream and set that unproved article about falling stars (due to glow) under alternative theory.

Edited October 27, 2022 by Dandav

[Dandav]

I have found the following statement by Albert Einstien:

https://quotefancy.com/quote/3337/Albert-Einstein-If-the-facts-don-t-fit-the-theory-change-the-facts

“If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.”

— Albert Einstein

Could it be that in order to support the TDE theory our scientists change the facts and consider a normal EM glow as falling stars?

[OceanBreeze]

On 10/27/2022 at 12:42 PM, Dandav said:

I have found the following statement by Albert Einstien:

https://quotefancy.com/quote/3337/Albert-Einstein-If-the-facts-don-t-fit-the-theory-change-the-facts

“If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.”

— Albert Einstein

Could it be that in order to support the TDE theory our scientists change the facts and consider a normal EM glow as falling stars?

"Could it be that in order to support the TDE theory our scientists change the facts and consider a normal EM glow as falling stars?"

Sure, it may be all a conspiracy against you and your personal theory and your own facts.

You and your thread have just found a new home in strange claims.

Silly Claims is the last stop on the way to oblivion. I think you just might make it!

[write4u]

On 10/26/2022 at 10:42 PM, Dandav said:

If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.”

Einstein did not say that. 

Paul Mainwood

 Doctorate in the philosophy of physics.

"No, he did not. It appears nowhere in Einstein’s published works, nor his letters, nor anywhere it can be traced back to anyone who reported it coming from Einstein."

"The earliest recorded instance is in a 1958 article in the journal Product Engineering which noted:

There’s an age-old adage “if the facts don’t fit the theory, change the theory”. But all too often it’s easier to change the facts.

If anything he may have said "if the theory does not fit the facts, change the theory."

I think that sounds a lot more scientific.......