[Halc]

They specifically claim that the source of the jet is the plasma that squirted out from the galactic center. So, the gamma ray is just an evidence for the "hot matter blowing outward from the black hole's accretion disk."

Yes, I agree with that.

So, do you agree that the hot matter/plasma is blowing outwards from the accretion disc?

I was not clear about the part with which I am in agreement. I agree with their comment that the jet is plasma squirted out from the galactic center. It says from the center, not from the disk, which is not at the center. I don't agree with you chnaging that to imply that the jet emanates directly from the disk.
The material does come in through the disk, and if it gets 'squirted' to the poles as some of it seems to, then the field there is capable of ejecting it like that.

Therefore, do you agree that the accretion disc acts as an excretion disc?

What you have described as an excretion disk is a disc created by material excreted from the central object itself.  An accretion disk is material from outside that was drawn in via the gravity of the central mass.  The difference is matter coming from above or below.  No, your excretion description defies gravitational field theory, which is not Newton's work, but rather Einstein's.
Yes, I agree that some of the accreted material is ejected at the poles (not at the disk), rather than completing its fall into the gravity well that drew it in.  There are countless websites that depict the typical disk and jet such as https://i.pinimg.com/originals/25/f0/60/25f060ef8e26c1012d3e137b97a5226d.jpg
These pictures seem to all be artists conceptions and not actual photographs.  The beam of light is quite visible if it gets pointed straight at Earth as it does in pulsars.

Do you agree that this hot matter is boosted upwards & downwards due to the ultra high magnetic field around the SMBH?

Yes.  Most of that beam is light, but some of it is matter.  The magnetic field only allows it in those two directions.  Any other direction involves crossing the magnetic field lines which reduces motion.

If so, why do you still claim:

Your comments seem to imply that the jets come directly from the disk, and are not just powered by the disk.

Because that is a different claim than the one above with which I have far less objection.

Don't you see that the hot matter is coming outwards directly from the excretion disc while it powers up/down by the magnetic field and set the jet?

From the poles.  Not from elsewhere.

This matter is the source for all the stars in our galaxy.

Well, It's the matter falling in, a small percentage of which is ejected.  There is a net loss, not a net gain.  This is quite apparent in our own galaxy which currently lacks significant material falling in, and thus the jets are all but gone.  Dump new stuff in, and the jets will start up again.
The excretion model would presumably be a more continuous process and not rely on material being dumped in from the outside.  It needs to rewrite relativity, and thus there is no black hole at all, but just some sort of matter/energy generation point, which is completely different physics.  It isn't wrong physics, but it certainly contradicts accepted principles.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Well, It's the matter falling in, a small percentage of which is ejected.  There is a net loss, not a net gain.  This is quite apparent in our own galaxy which currently lacks significant material falling in, and thus the jets are all but gone.  Dump new stuff in, and the jets will start up again.

O.K
Few questions:
In the article it is stated:" The jets were produced when plasma squirted out from the galactic center, following a corkscrew-like magnetic field that kept it tightly focused"
"The gamma-ray bubbles likely were created by a "wind" of hot matter blowing outward from the black hole's accretion disk."

1. Do you agree that Plasma exsists only at the accertion disc (at 10^9 c)?
2. Do you agree that there is a very strong magnetic field around the accertion disc?
3. Do you agree that this strong magnetic field can boost the Plasma/hot matter (which had been ejected from the accertion disc) upwards or downwards by almost 0.8 speed of light?
4. So, do you agree that we have clear evidences that hot matter/plasma are excerted outwards from the accertion disc?
5. Do you agree that so far we didn't find any evidence for any sort of matter which eccerts from outside directly into the eccertion disc?
6. If we only see matter that get's out from the accertion disc, while we have never ever see any sort of matter that gets in, why do you still believe that the eccertion disc get's its matter from outside?
7. What kind of evidence is needed to convince you that the accertion disc is actually axcertion disc?  That it never ever eats any matter form outside? That the plasma/hot matter is constantly generated by the SMBH gravity force and than ejected outwards from the accertion disc?

[Halc]

Few questions:
In the article it is stated:" The jets were produced when plasma squirted out from the galactic center, following a corkscrew-like magnetic field that kept it tightly focused"
"The gamma-ray bubbles likely were created by a "wind" of hot matter blowing outward from the black hole's accretion disk."

I really have no idea what it is trying to convey there.  Gamma rays are not matter, and do not gather anywhere.  They are light and part company with their origin at the speed of light.  So maybe it is some kind of matter that sticks around and visible because it gives off gamma rays of its own.  That sort of fits with that description, and corresponds a little to your description as well.  I don't know what might hold it in those 'clouds' above and below the disk.  If it is matter, gravity would theoretically pull it back in.  Orbiting stuff can't form the shape that they depict in their picture.  If it was moving anywhere, it wouldn't still be there after a million years.

1. Do you agree that Plasma exsists only at the accertion disc (at 10^9 c)?

Plasma exists in stars and in labs on Earth, although I have no idea of the temperatures in any of those places or near the SMBH.  I had a hard time finding a reference to that one.

2. Do you agree that there is a very strong magnetic field around the accertion disc?

Most of them have one, yes.  The one at the center of the galaxy has a very weak magnetic field compared to the one in almost any other galaxy like Andromeda for instance, which has almost the same galactic mass as our own, yet a much more well fed central black hole.  You talk about a central black hole, but your theory denies them.  Anything that excretes light or matter or anything is not black.  A black body absorbs everything and puts out nothing in return.  You need a different name for it like super massive matter creator (SMMC) or something.

3. Do you agree that this strong magnetic field can boost the Plasma/hot matter (which had been ejected from the accertion disc) upwards or downwards by almost 0.8 speed of light?

From the poles, yes.  That's where the magnetic field acts to accelerate mass, not decelerate it like it does near the disk.

5. Do you agree that so far we didn't find any evidence for any sort of matter which eccerts from outside directly into the eccertion disc?

No excretion disk has ever been observed, so of course there is no evidence of how such a thing might behave.

6. If we only see matter that get's out from the accertion disc, while we have never ever see any sort of matter that gets in, why do you still believe that the eccertion disc get's its matter from outside?

I don't believe that.  Any image of the disk (they just came out with a famous one) doesn't tag the matter with its origins.  I see Saturn's rings and the material there isn't thus tagged with the address of its origin, but no workable model has it springing from Saturn itself, so it's a fair bet that it came from outside.

7. What kind of evidence is needed to convince you that the accertion disc is actually axcertion disc?

A replacement for the laws of physics which are contradicted by the idea.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

6. If we only see matter that get's out from the accertion disc, while we have never ever see any sort of matter that gets in, why do you still believe that the eccertion disc get's its matter from outside?

I don't believe that.  Any image of the disk (they just came out with a famous one) doesn't tag the matter with its origins.  I see Saturn's rings and the material there isn't thus tagged with the address of its origin, but no workable model has it springing from Saturn itself, so it's a fair bet that it came from outside.

How can you believe in image???
How can you compare the SMBH to Saturn???
There is no room for "fair bet" in science.
Only clear evidence!!!
So, let me ask you again for the last time:
Do we see any sort of mass/matter that comes from outside into the accretion disc of the SMBH?
How can you ignore the great impact of the ultra power of the magnetic field around the accretion disc?

3. Do you agree that this strong magnetic field can boost the Plasma/hot matter (which had been ejected from the accertion disc) upwards or downwards by almost 0.8 speed of light?

From the poles, yes.  That's where the magnetic field acts to accelerate mass, not decelerate it like it does near the disk.

Sorry. It seems that your knowledge in electronics and magnetic field is very poor.
Magnetics can't start just from the poles. It covers the whole body!!!
It is similar to the magnetic field around the Earth.
Any solar wind is lifted to the poles.
Therefore, the magnetic field covers the SMBH & the accretion disc. Any molecular/matter that gets closer to that field (from outside the disc, or from the disc) is lifted upwards or downwards (according to the magnetic waves around the SMBH) directly to the Poles. However, due to the Ultra power of that magnetic field the matter is then boosted from the poles upwards/downwards at ultra high speed.
That is the only way how magnetic should work!!!
So, the real "fair bet" is that any atom which will dare to come closer (from outside) to the accretion disc, will never ever cross that ultra power magnetic field. As it will come closer to the impact of the magnetic field it will immediately lifted upwards or downwards to the poles. So there is no chance that any particle/molecular/Moon/Planet/Star will be able to cross that magnetic field in his way to the accretion disc.
That proves that the accretion disc will never ever get any sort of matter from outside.
So, how can you compare it to Saturn???
Therefore, all the matter in the accretion disc had been created in the accretion disc by definition!!!

[Kryptid]

Therefore, all the matter in the accretion disc had been created in the accretion disc by definition!!!

Created from what?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Therefore, all the matter in the accretion disc had been created in the accretion disc by definition!!!

Created from what?

Created from the SMBH' Ultra high gravity force.

Actually, Atom is some sort of energy cell by definition:
If we look at a proton for example -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton
"A proton has a mass of approximately 938 MeV/c2, of which the rest mass of its three valence quarks contributes only about 9.4 MeV/c2; much of the remainder can be attributed to the gluons".
So, the gluons contribute about 99% to the Proton Mass.
However, the galun itself doesn't carry mass. "It is just a type of energy"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon
"A gluon is an elementary particle that acts as the exchange particle (or gauge boson) for the strong force between quarks"
"Gluons are actually just bosons, since they are the equilibrium force between the two quarks, which together form a triumvirate, and thus the energy force of the boson is in the form of a gluon, and thus the quarks become stable. They cannot separate unless something greater is capable of separating the quarks from each other, and so the gluon appears to hold these forces together. In fact it is just a type of energy while the two smaller forces, the quarks (also forms of energy) can unite under a single force, and this is the gluon's job."
So, the Galun is a type of Energy while the Quarks are also forms of energy.
Therefore, the mass in the proton represents Energy.
So, the Ultra high Energy/Temp/Pressure/Velocity in the accretion disc around the SMBH, create new Protons and Neutrons?
Those new protons/Neutrons will be the basic elements for all atoms in our periodic table (novel atoms) and all the molecular.
With regards to velocities:
Please see the following message from evan_au

Plasma at the inner edge of the black hole has an orbital velocity which is a significant fraction of the speed of light (like 30% of c).

The polar jets are emitted at up to 80% of c...

So, how do we know if the SMBH ejects the matter/plasma in its accretion disc or swallows it?
Our scientists estimates that 99% of the matter ejects out while the SMBH swallow only 1%.
https://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/30/tech/innovation/black-hole-diet/index.html
"Less than 1% of matter will be actually sacrificed for the freedom of 99% of gas," Wang said. "So, 99% of gas can escape from the capture of the black hole."
"According to Wang and colleagues, the black hole needs to throw out more than 99% of the material in order to accomplish this. That ejected 99%, in turn, heats up the environment around it, which affects the evolution of the galaxy as a whole."
Even so, do they have any real evidence for swallowing even that 1%?
The answer is NO!!!
So, by definition all the hot matter/plasma which had been created at the accretion disc is ejected outwards.

I wonder why do we choose to believe in something that we don't see instead of believe in what we really see?
If we see that 99% goes out, and we can't see even 1% goes in, than why don't we understand that 100% goes out?
If we assume that the SMBH eats 1%, how do we know that this 1% comes from outside?
We claim that the SMBH is a bad eater.
"Why our galaxy's black hole is a picky eater"
You might think of black holes as indiscriminate eaters, hungrily gobbling up everything in their vicinity.
But the black hole at the center of our Milky Way galaxy, Sagittarius A*, is not exactly like this, new research suggests. Instead, this black hole -- and likely other black holes in the centers of galaxies -- must spit out a lot in order to swallow a little."
So, let's look at our self.
If we want to eat - we eat. Actually, 99.99..9% of our life time our mouth is empty. - and we are very good eater!
However, 99.99....9% (or 100%) of the SMBH at the center of spiral galaxy has a mouth (accretion disc) full with food.
Why is it?
The total matter in the accretion disc (of the Milky Way) is estimated to be around three Sun mass.
At any similar spiral galaxy that we look we see more or less the same amount of mass. (at any given moment)
None of them has an empty mouth or significantly more mass than that.
How could it be?
The accretion disc is the biggest accelerator in the Universe.
If our scientists at CERN have created the Higgs Boson, why the biggest acceleration in the universe (the accretion disc of the SMBH) can't create new matter?

Few year ago (2014), our scientists thought that the source for the gas cloud is a massive disc stars:
https://www.mpg.de/8777573/gas-cloud-galactic-centre
"A likely source for both G1 and G2 could then be clumps in the wind of one of the massive disk stars, which could have been ejected some 100 years ago close to the apocentre of the G2 orbit. Another possible explanation that has been suggested recently would be a large star, enveloped by an extended gas cloud. Based on the current VLT data, however, this model is highly unlikely.
Astronomers are nevertheless puzzled why they have not yet detected increased Xray emission from the gas cloud near the black hole."
I hope that by now they already know that the new matter is coming from the excretion disc of the galaxy.
Therefore, our scientists shouldn't be so "puzzled".
The black hole has no intention to eat any new matter which it just drifts outwards from its excretion disc.
So, do you agree that the mighty magnetic shield around the excretion disc protects the core from any accretion activity (from outside)?

New star production.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Boom_Galaxy
"The Baby Boom Galaxy has been nicknamed "the extreme stellar machine" because it is seen producing stars at a rate of up to 4,000 per year (one star every 2.2 hours). The Milky Way galaxy in which Earth resides turns out an average of just 10 stars per year.[4]"
So, how could it be that our SMBH eats one sun mass per year, produces 10 stars per year, ejects that kind of high-energy particles stream, and - we still see that the galaxy center is still full with mass?
The ultimate answer must be - New mass creation at the accretion disc!!!

[Halc]

How can you believe in image???

You asked for one.  I didn't state my level of belief in the image.  Do you think it was just made up like every image you've linked which are all artist's impressions?

How can you compare the SMBH to Saturn???

Saturn's rings is a lovely example of what happens to matter that gets sufficiently close to a gravity source.  The rings did not accrete from bits of material from outside, it accreted from a single object that came from outside and was torn apart by the same forces that would keep a star from forming close to a large gravity well.

So, let me ask you again for the last time:
Do we see any sort of mass/matter that comes from outside into the accretion disc of the SMBH?

The image they took shows exactly that, so yes, we see it.  It isn't just an artist's conception. It isn't a nice high resolution image like the artist ones, but it is real.

How can you ignore the great impact of the ultra power of the magnetic field around the accretion disc?

Nobody is ignoring that.  The disk generates most of that field after all.  The jets from the poles become quite visible if by chance they're pointed straight at Earth, and some of them are on a periodic basis.

Sorry. It seems that your knowledge in electronics and magnetic field is very poor.

It kind of is, yes.  I had to look all of that up.  I'm quite good at mathematics but hold no degree in it.  I'm a computer guy in the end.

Magnetics can't start just from the poles. It covers the whole body!!!

That it does.  Didn't say otherwise.

It is similar to the magnetic field around the Earth.
Any solar wind is lifted to the poles.

Where did you find this?  I had to look up the parts I didn't know.  I've never heard this one.  The solar wind is definitely affected by Earth's magnetic fields, but it doesn't accrete, so it isn't a great example of what goes on in an accretion disk.  The rings of Saturn formed from the tearing apart by gravity of a single object that wandered too close.  It isn't a great example of magnetic effects since Saturn's field completely overpowers any magnetic field generated by the spinning rings.

Therefore, the magnetic field covers the SMBH & the accretion disc. Any molecular/matter that gets closer to that field (from outside the disc, or from the disc) is lifted upwards or downwards (according to the magnetic waves around the SMBH) directly to the Poles.

If that were true, there would be no accretion disk since your description has everything avoiding or leaving it.

However, due to the Ultra power of that magnetic field the matter is then boosted from the poles upwards/downwards at ultra high speed.

From where comes this energy?  I agree it happens, but if energy is transferred to some matter to eject it at high speed, that energy must be transferred from something else.  What is that, and what effect occurs due to the loss of that energy?

So there is no chance that any particle/molecular/Moon/Planet/Star will be able to cross that magnetic field in his way to the accretion disc.
That proves that the accretion disc will never ever get any sort of matter from outside.

That asserts that the accretion disc will never ever get any sort of matter from outside.  Your knowledge of magnetics is worse than mine since I at least look up the parts I don't know.

So, how can you compare it to Saturn???

From a magnetic standpoint, I didn't.  It was simply an illustration of why stars cannot form close to a large mass.

Therefore, all the matter in the accretion disc had been created in the accretion disc by definition!!!

The definition of accrete is to bring it together from outside under the influence of gravity, so your statement is completely wrong.  If material is created in the disk itself, it would seem to be an entirely new physics where mass just grows from nothing.  Kryptid I see also cannot bear such nonsense in silence.  Good to see there are a few actually reading this thread.

Created from the SMBH' Ultra high gravity force.

Force does not create things.  It accelerates things.

Actually, Atom is some sort of energy cell by definition:

What definition is this?  Where are you getting all these definitions?  The battery in my phone is some sort of energy cell by definition.  Yes, mass and energy are interchangable, so any mass can be expressed as a quantity of energy.  But that's not the definition of an atom.

Therefore, the mass in the proton represents Energy.

OK, I actually agree with this.

So, the Ultra high Energy/Temp/Pressure/Velocity in the accretion disc around the SMBH, create new Protons and Neutrons?

That doesn't follow at all.  The energy/mass is already there.  You are proposing new energy coming from somewhere.  Nothing comes from the SMBH.  That's why it's black.  If something comes from it, then its mass/energy goes down correspondingly until it is gone, and you're describing something other than a black thing.

With regards to velocities:
Please see the following message from evan_au

Plasma at the inner edge of the black hole has an orbital velocity which is a significant fraction of the speed of light (like 30% of c).
...
The polar jets are emitted at up to 80% of c...

So, how do we know if the SMBH ejects the matter/plasma in its accretion disc or swallows it?

The matter that gets to the poles might (does?) get ejected.  That takes energy away from the remaining disk that powered it, which means that it will drop down and eventually fall permanently into the gravity well (be it a black hole or pulsar or whatever).  If something shoots away, something else must drop down.  New energy cannot be created.

Our scientists estimates that 99% of the matter ejects out while the SMBH swallow only 1%.
https://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/30/tech/innovation/black-hole-diet/index.html

OK, That's actually an interesting link.  They say that the gas is too hot in our galaxy so it doesn't form a disk at all.  A higher percentage of cold disk material is swallowed, but hot gas is proposed to have a 99% escape rate.  The 1% that falls in provides the energy to heat the gas even further.  Something like that.  Not sure how much this is accepted or just a new hypothesis.  The article calls the figure 'a suggestion'.

Even so, do they have any real evidence for swallowing even that 1%?
The answer is NO!!!

The energy needs to come from somewhere, so the answer is quite yes.

So, by definition all the hot matter/plasma which had been created at the accretion disc is ejected outwards.

Here we go with the 'by definition' thing again.  "I found an article that says most stuff is ejected, so by definition, all of it is."  Logic is not your forte either, as I've noted before.

I wonder why do we choose to believe in something that we don't see instead of believe in what we really see?
If we see that 99% goes out, and we can't see even 1% goes in, than why don't we understand that 100% goes out?

They're basing it on what they see.  They see the part that goes in.  That's what lights the thing up.  They're wondering why our SMBH consumes so much less matter than comparable galaxies.

If we assume that the SMBH eats 1%, how do we know that this 1% comes from outside?

That's sort of the definition of 'eats'.  If I eat a pizza, the pizza presumably comes from outside.  I don't eat my heart because it is already inside.

We claim that the SMBH is a bad eater.

So is the sun.  Here's all these nice meaty planets and asteroids and stuff and it eats none of them.  Gravity is pretty great at moving things in circles but no so good at actually consuming them.  The sun is actually getting lighter since it ejects material faster than it sucks new stuff in.  The ejection is powered by fusion. If it stops burning, it will start gaining weight again.

If we want to eat - we eat. Actually, 99.99..9% of our life time our mouth is empty. - and we are very good eater!

Do you go out of your way to make up nonsense data?  You claim that a person has food in mouth less than a 10th of a second per day.  Seems suspect.  The black hole always has food in its mouth, but it doesn't swallow most of it.  I tend to swallow the majority of the food that makes it as far as my mouth, but that's just me.

However, 99.99....9% (or 100%) of the SMBH at the center of spiral galaxy has a mouth (accretion disc) full with food.
Why is it?
The total matter in the accretion disc (of the Milky Way) is estimated to be around three Sun mass.

The article you quoted also says that most of that disk will be swallowed, but most of the matter falling in is hot and not in that cold disk.  It is the cold disk material that is slowly eaten.  The mass estimate might not be agreed upon by the guys that wrote that article.  It is working under different assumptions.

At any similar spiral galaxy that we look we see more or less the same amount of mass. (at any given moment)

This is false.  The other ones usually have much more mass.  Anromeda is a good example.  Same size galaxy (within 10%), but a far more active/massive black hole.
[/quote]None of them has an empty mouth or significantly more mass than that.[/quote]You're making up fiction.

The accretion disc is the biggest accelerator in the Universe.

More fiction.
They have something called a blazar that fires plasma blobs with the mass of Jupiter at .999c.  The energy needed to do that boggles the mind.

If our scientists at CERN have created the Higgs Boson, why the biggest acceleration in the universe (the accretion disc of the SMBH) can't create new matter?

They consumed the power of several cities to create that boson.  They've been created matter in accelerators for a long time, but they do it by consuming energy.  The two are the same thing, remember?  You cannot create new mass/energy, and yet here you are asserting exactly that.

So, do you agree that the mighty magnetic shield around the excretion disc protects the core from any accretion activity (from outside)?

I know of no excretion disk, so why would I agree to any property it?  Such properties cannot be predicted until you have new physics that allow the existence of an excretion disk.

So, how could it be that our SMBH eats one sun mass per year,

It doesn't eat one sun mass per year.  It is only 4 million masses, yet 12 billion years old.  That's no more than one sun mass per 3000 years, and the actual figure is much lower now since it was higher in the past.
You're losing your grip on 4th grade mathematics now.  Is your need to make up random numbers greater than your aversion to doing a simple division of two numbers?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

How can you compare the SMBH to Saturn???

Saturn's rings is a lovely example of what happens to matter that gets sufficiently close to a gravity source.  The rings did not accrete from bits of material from outside, it accreted from a single object that came from outside and was torn apart by the same forces that would keep a star from forming close to a large gravity well.

How do you that this info is real?
Had we been hear when it happened?
Do we have any record on that?
Sorry, this is absolutely imagination!
The real story is as follow:
Saturn had been formed from the same matter as the Sun and all the other Planets and moons and at the same day (with all the solar system).
I assume that it had one moon (or more).
Unfortunately, an external object had been collided with this moon (or moons) and break them to those small objects that form the ring.
We have one more evidence for a similar phenomenon - Asteroid belt
I assume that in the early days of the solar system, Cerest was just one big planet in the system.
Unfortunately, it was destroyed by an external object (It could be a comet or any big enough object) and therefore it had been converted to astride belt.
Hence, Saturn didn't accrete any object from outside (As there is no way to accrete objects from outside!). It just lost his moon. (Poor Saturn' moon...).

The definition of accrete is to bring it together from outside under the influence of gravity, so your statement is completely wrong.

The definition of accrete is very clear.
However, the assumption that gravity can accrete/bring objects from outside is just nonsense!!! (unless the object orbits too close to the planet/moon and effected by other factor -  atmosphere for example)

If our scientists at CERN have created the Higgs Boson, why the biggest acceleration in the universe (the accretion disc of the SMBH) can't create new matter?

They consumed the power of several cities to create that boson.  They've been created matter in accelerators for a long time, but they do it by consuming energy.  The two are the same thing, remember?  You cannot create new mass/energy, and yet here you are asserting exactly that.

You are 100% correct!!!
In CERN we have used electric power to set the acceleration at almost the speed of light.
In the SMBH we get it by the ultra high gravity force!

Therefore, the mass in the proton represents Energy.

OK, I actually agree with this.

Thanks

So, the Ultra high Energy/Temp/Pressure/Velocity in the accretion disc around the SMBH, create new Protons and Neutrons?

That doesn't follow at all.  The energy/mass is already there.  You are proposing new energy coming from somewhere.  Nothing comes from the SMBH.  That's why it's black.  If something comes from it, then its mass/energy goes down correspondingly until it is gone, and you're describing something other than a black thing.

Yes it is.
Nothing comes from the SMBH.
However, the ultra high gravity at the accretion disc + the ultra high velocity (0.3 c) + the magnetic/electric field
All of that set excellent conditions for the mighty accelerator in the galaxy which has the ability to create quarks at the first stage.
As those quarks drift outwards in the accretion disc, they gain the requested energy that is needed to form new Atoms and molecular

.
 

Magnetics can't start just from the poles. It covers the whole body!!!

That it does.  Didn't say otherwise.

Thanks

So, let me ask you again for the last time:
Do we see any sort of mass/matter that comes from outside into the accretion disc of the SMBH?

The image they took shows exactly that, so yes, we see it.  It isn't just an artist's conception. It isn't a nice high resolution image like the artist ones, but it is real

The image is nonsense. Our scientists have never ever found any evidence for that.
It is just science fiction as nothing can accretes from outwards to the accretion disc.

It is similar to the magnetic field around the Earth.
Any solar wind is lifted to the poles.

Where did you find this?  I had to look up the parts I didn't know.  I've never heard this one.  The solar wind is definitely affected by Earth's magnetic fields, but it doesn't accrete, so it isn't a great example of what goes on in an accretion disk.

Yes - "The solar wind is definitely affected by Earth's magnetic fields, but it doesn't accrete" - therefore it is an excellent example!!!
However, the magnetic power is quite low. Therefore it only affects the solar wind.
In any case, so far our scientists don't have even one real evidence for that!!!

The article you quoted also says that most of that disk will be swallowed, but most of the matter falling in is hot and not in that cold disk.

Unfortunately, our scientists don't have a clue how the SMBH really works.
Therefore, their hypothetical ideas is just none realistic. They have to offer real evidences - not just some science fiction stories.

At any similar spiral galaxy that we look we see more or less the same amount of mass. (at any given moment)

This is false.  The other ones usually have much more mass.  Andromeda is a good example.  Same size galaxy (within 10%), but a far more active/massive black hole

That is incorrect
https://www.quora.com/How-big-is-Andromeda-compared-to-the-Milky-Way
"The Andromeda galaxy (also known as Messier 31, M31, or NGC 224) could be considered the big brother of the Milky Way, as it contains over a trillion stars (compared to our 200-400 billion), and is approximately 220,000 light years across to our 100,000."
As it is much bigger, its SMBH is relatively more active.

[Kryptid]

Created from the SMBH' Ultra high gravity force.

It sounds like you are talking about Hawking radiation. For a black hole of such size, its radiation is far too weak to produce an accretion disk (the radiation would be in the form of radio wave photons anyway, not atoms).

[Halc]

It sounds like you are talking about Hawking radiation.

He says that all material in the whole galaxy has sprung from the central object, making it a white hole of sorts.  Our solar system formed in a single day with all planets and moons and all, straight out of the center of the galaxy, and it has drifted out here to 8.4 KPC since that event.

I don't think he has Hawking radiation in mind, which emits a low level radiation at a temperature of about 10^-14K, about 23 orders of magnitude less than the temperature of the plasma there which is claimed to excrete from the white hole and not accrete from above.

[Kryptid]

He says that all material in the whole galaxy has sprung from the central object, making it a white hole of sorts.

If that's his argument, then he is just plain wrong. Matter cannot get out of the event horizon of a black hole (and it isn't a while hole, as the recent photograph of M87* clearly shows).

[Halc]

How do you that this info is real?
Had we been hear when it happened?
Do we have any record on that?

Yes actually.  The breaking up of nearby objects has been witnessed on a number of occasions.  It is happening to Phobos right now (slowly, but the cracks are growing).  Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9 is a more immediately apparent example as it was torn into several large pieces as it approached Jupiter.

The real story is as follow:
Saturn had been formed from the same matter as the Sun and all the other Planets and moons and at the same day (with all the solar system).
I assume that it had one moon (or more).

It has 53 named moons as of some article I found.  If they were all there in day one, then you assume an awfully low number.
@Kryptid :  See what I mean?

The definition of accrete is to bring it together from outside under the influence of gravity, so your statement is completely wrong.

The definition of accrete is very clear.

I think I just said that, yes.  But you are defining it otherwise, which is why your comment is wrong.

In CERN we have used electric power to set the acceleration at almost the speed of light.
In the SMBH we get it by the ultra high gravity force!

Gravity accelerates matter inward (down), not outward (up).  Your ejected material is going the wrong way to be accelerated by gravity.  Gravity resists/slows such motion, but accelerates things falling inward, which is the source of the high temperature.

Nothing comes from the SMBH.

You say otherwise in a lot of you posts, but I agree that nothing (short of negligible Hawking radiation mentioned by Kryptid) is emitted by a black hole.

However, the ultra high gravity at the accretion disc + the ultra high velocity (0.3 c) + the magnetic/electric field
All of that set excellent conditions for the mighty accelerator in the galaxy which has the ability to create quarks at the first stage.

That likely actually happens, but creation of matter like that is going to remove the energy used to create it.  The material of the disk slows down when its energy is used up like that, and slower material will fall closer to the black hole.  Material will fall in if some of the energy is being consumed by matter creation.  This results in a net loss of matter outside the black hole.

As those quarks drift outwards in the accretion disc, they gain the requested energy that is needed to form new Atoms and molecular

If they drift out, they gain gravitational potential energy and lose kinetic energy.  If electromagnetic force propels them out against that resistance (and it does), then that energy is again lost by the disk powering that thrust, and again, a disk that has lost energy will tend to drop some of its mass into the black hole.
At no point is there a net gain of energy outside the black hole.  Some leaks out, some is irretrievably lost to the gravity well, and the balance is unusable entropy.

The image is nonsense. Our scientists have never ever found any evidence for that.

What, you think they just made it up?  Somebody created it with photoshop or something? That image IS the evidence for that.

However, the magnetic power [of Earth] is quite low. Therefore it only affects the solar wind.
In any case, so far our scientists don't have even one real evidence for that!!!

Quite the opposite.  They measure it directly.  It has painted quite a good picture of what actually goes on with the solar wind.

Andromeda is a good example.  Same size galaxy (within 10%), but a far more active/massive black hole

That is incorrect

It seems I am wrong about that one.  Using a poor reference it seems.  The consensus is a larger radius galaxy with considerably more stars (which is not directly a measure of mass).  It still has a more active central black hole, as do the vast majority of galaxies around our size.  My point is that ours is unusually inactive.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

However, the ultra high gravity at the accretion disc + the ultra high velocity (0.3 c) + the magnetic/electric field
All of that set excellent conditions for the mighty accelerator in the galaxy which has the ability to create quarks at the first stage.

That likely actually happens, but creation of matter like that is going to remove the energy used to create it.  The material of the disk slows down when its energy is used up like that, and slower material will fall closer to the black hole.  Material will fall in if some of the energy is being consumed by matter creation.  This results in a net loss of matter outside the black hole.
If they drift out, they gain gravitational potential energy and lose kinetic energy.  If electromagnetic force propels them out against that resistance (and it does), then that energy is again lost by the disk powering that thrust, and again, a disk that has lost energy will tend to drop some of its mass into the black hole.
At no point is there a net gain of energy outside the black hole.  Some leaks out, some is irretrievably lost to the gravity well, and the balance is unusable entropy.

Thanks
Actually, I fully agree with you.
It seems to me that some of the new born quarks should be "eaten" by the SMBH, while the others are drifting outwards.
Those quarks that falls in, will increase the mass of the SMBH, while the others should be converted into new atoms and molecular.
So, the SMBH increases constantly its mass while it generates new mass that excretes from the accretion/excretion disc.
Hence, over time, the SMBH of the Milky Way might be as big and massive as the SMBH in Andromeda galaxy. At that time, its new mass production should be similar to the current production of the Andromeda' SMBH.
More massive SMBH + Higher new star productions mean bigger spiral galaxy.
Therefore, it is quite clear that sometime in the future, our Milky Way galaxy should be as big as the current Andromeda galaxy.

Therefore, once a BH has the ability to create new mass, it increases it's mass by definition (while it also ejects new mass). Over time any compact BH could be converted into a SMBH which is hosting the core of new spiral galaxy.

That actually the highlight of our discussion!
There is no need to create the whole mass of the Universe by one Big Bang.
We only need to have one compact BH in the whole Universe which has the ability to generate new mass based on its sufficient gravity force.
So, with regards to the matter creation in the Universe:
Only one BH is needed to be created by the Big Bang. That single BH has the ability to generate the whole matter in our magnificent universe that we see today (and also the other section that we don't see).

It seems to me that there is high similarity between living creatures and galaxies.
Darwin had claimed that only one living cell was needed to get all the variety of living creatures/animals on Earth.
In the same token, only one BH was needed to set the whole Universe.
However, that first BH must have the ability to generate new mass.
In the process of creation new matter, it increases its mass and sets the first spiral galaxy in the Universe.
This spiral galaxy generates new stars which had been ejected from that first galaxy.
Over time, some of them should be transformed into BH.
Each new BH sets a new baby spiral galaxy and so on...
Therefore, if we give that process the requested time (Infinity/almost infinity) we should get the universe that we see today.
Hence, the BH is the driving power of our Universe!

[Halc]

It seems to me that some of the new born quarks should be "eaten" by the SMBH, while the others are drifting outwards.
Those quarks that falls in, will increase the mass of the SMBH, while the others should be converted into new atoms and molecular.
So, the SMBH increases constantly its mass while it generates new mass that excretes from the accretion/excretion disc.

The material actually formed from the SMBH (via quantum effects) decreases the mass of the SMBH.  If it falls back in (as most of it does), there is no net change of mass.  The stuff created by the disk is more than balanced by material/energy of the disk falling into the black hole, for a net loss of material/energy to the black hole.  At no point can there be a net gain outside if the black hole is gaining mass.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The material actually formed from the SMBH (via quantum effects) decreases the mass of the SMBH.  If it falls back in (as most of it does), there is no net change of mass.  The stuff created by the disk is more than balanced by material/energy of the disk falling into the black hole, for a net loss of material/energy to the black hole.  At no point can there be a net gain outside if the black hole is gaining mass.

This is incorrect!!!
The SMBH has the ability to generate new mass based on its pure gravity force.
So, it doesn't consume any matter from its body to create that new matter.
On the contrary, the creation of new matter increases its mass over time

[Kryptid]

On the contrary, the creation of new matter increases its mass over time

That violates the first law of thermodynamics. Gravity can't create mass.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

That violates the first law of thermodynamics. Gravity can't create mass.

Gravity by itself can't create mass - I agree with that.
However, with regards to BH (or SMBH) due to their Ultra high gravity force and the added unique features, we get the ultimate conditions for mass creation in the accretion disc:

1. Ultra high velocity of the plasma - We have measured 0.3 speed of light. However, I'm quite sure that at the inner most of the disc the velocity should higher (Almost the speed of light).
2. Very strong magnetic/electric field - This magnetic field is so strong enough to boost any particle that gets to its poles (upwards or downwards) at the speed of 0.8 speed of light.
3. Plasma - The plasma temp at the accretion disc is 10^9 c. This temp is high above any fusion activity. Please remember that the internal temp of the Sun is only 10^6. Therefore, this kind of ultra high temp is a clear indication for the creation process at that disc.
4. We see clearly that hot matter is ejected from the accretion disc. I have already introduced several articles which confirm that excretion activity. In one of the article it was stated that 99% of the matter in the accretion disc is ejected outwards.
5. Our scientists want to believe that the matter in the accretion disc is coming from outside the disc. However, so far they couldn't give even one real evidence for that. I have offered several articles about it. In one of the article it was stated that our scientists were very "puzzled" as the SMBH didn't eat the nearby star although it was so close to its location.
6. Magnetic shield - The magnetic field set a very strong magnetic shield around the accretion disc. On Earth we also have a Magnetic shield. That magnetic shield is very low, but even so it is strong enough to shift all the solar winds from the sun to the poles. The magnetic shield around the SMBH should be stronger by several millions (or more) than our local shield. So, if our local (low power) magnetic shield can shift the solar wind to the poles, than the ultra power magnetic field around the SMBH should have the power to break any object to it's basic Atoms and shift it to its poles. From that point we have already know that the matter is boosted upwards/downwards at confirmed speed of 0.8c.
Conclusions - Based on all the above there is no way for the accretion disc to get its matter/Plasma from outside. There is also no justification for the SMBH to orbits its food around it mouth at this ultra high velocity just to eject 99% and eat less than 1% at the end of this activity. Actually, if we could monitor the plasma structure, we should find different matter at different radius. At the inner most side, I'm quite sure that we won't find any atom or molecular. At that radius we should only find basic particles as quarks. Their temp & orbital velocity must be at the higher most level in the accretion disc. All of those quarks are new born particles. Some of those new born quarks falls into the SMBH and increase its mass. Some other are drifting outwards, gets the requested energy and transformed into real Hydrogen Atoms. However, due to the Ultra high orbital velocity - we also should get there all the variety of atoms & molecular that we know about. Therefore, the Jet that is ejected from the Poles is called by our scientists - Molecular Jets. That proves that the particles which are ejected from the outer most radius of the accretion disc are already fully mature & mixed Molecular. As those molecular get to the magnetic shield, they lifted to the poles and set the magnificent Jet stream that our scientists see so clearly! They can't fall back to the accretion disc due to the magnetic shield that keeps them all away from the disc. Those new molecular should fall back to the galactic disc, gather into gas clouds and set new stars. Therefore, most of the new born stars activity in our galaxy takes place near the SMBH. In any case, any new born star/planet/moon gets all its Atoms/molecular in his first day.

[Kryptid]

mass creation in the accretion disc

Since you agree that gravity can't create mass, then where does the accretion disk come from in the first place? You claim that it doesn't come from outside of the black hole and we know that it can't come from inside of the black hole either. It can't spontaneously spring into existence (that would violate the first law of thermodynamics). So where does it come from?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Since you agree that gravity can't create mass, then where does the accretion disk come from in the first place?

Thanks, that is good question.
If you accept the idea that a SMBH can create new matter, and we only need to deal with the BH first step, then our current situation is very good.
So, I agree that there must be a moment that a compact BH gets its ability to set the accretion disc and start its new matter creation activity.
Once it starts its activity, it will be converted in the future into a SMBH that is hosting a spiral galaxy.
However, the first step is critical. Any first step is critical.
I'm not sure that every BH must have the ability to start this activity, but I assume that most of them will be successful enough and set their first production.
I assume that they need to meet several criteria in order to overcome the first step.
The first matter in the accretion disc could come from a real matter that it accretes constantly in order to increase its mass.
However, even if it sets in the disc real matter, it doesn't mean that it has already the ability to create new matter at the accretion disc. Without enough magnetic field it can't start this activity.
Therefore, I assume that at some point of time (after "eating" enough real matter) that BH should have enough mass to set ultra high orbital velocity of real matter at the accretion disc. That orbital velocity generates the requested magnetic/electric field which is vital for the new matter creation activity at the accretion disc.
In the same token we could ask:
How a star starts it first fusion activity? Are we sure that any new born star has the ability to set this activity?
How the first BH in the Universe had been created? How the first big bang had started?
It is clear that any first step is critical. However, as any child starts at some point of time its first step, most of the BH should start their first step in setting the new mass creation at accretion disc.

[Kryptid]

most of the BH should start their first step in setting the new mass creation at accretion disc.

Technically-speaking mass can't be created. Matter can be created, but not mass. If what you are talking about is energy being converted into mass (which is somewhat redundant, since energy already has relativistic mass associated with it), then where does the energy come from that is required to create the new mass? You can't say it comes from the gravitational force, because force is not energy. They aren't even measured in the same units.

A black hole plus its accretion disk have a finite amount of energy. Some of that energy is in the form of potential energy and some in the form of kinetic energy. Those two forms of energy can be inter-converted, but the total amount must stay the same. So the total energy content (and therefore the total mass) of the black hole/accretion disk system cannot increase over time unless it gets energy or matter from some outside source. To say otherwise would violate the first law of thermodynamics.