[Halc]

If there is no mathematical proof for the BBT, than do you agree that there is a chance that it is incorrect?

Any theory might be falsified some day.  If it was mathematically proved, it would be a theorem, not a theory.

I have set several obstacles for the feasibility of the BBT.
One of the main obstacles is time frame.
I really can't see how can we fit all of this magnificent Universe in only 13.8 Billion years.

How is you unwillingness to see something an obstacle to the theory?  It seems only an obstacle to you.

If the Universe is infinite in its size and there is no curvature - than why do you insisted that the 13.8 BY is still ok to set it?

Question lacks syntactic sense.  Set what exactly?  The age?  The size?  The former is finite, and the latter depends on the coordinate system under which it is measured.

In one program they have discussed about the SMBH.
They have asked how the SMBH had been created.
They have set a calculation that if we take a BH and give it the time to eat as much as it wants, it can't technically be converted to SMBH after 13.8 BY.
Much more time is needed.

If you put enough stuff nearby, it can be done in a few minutes, so this obviously doesn't follow.  Sgr-A is fairly small.  There are galaxies with black holes 100 or 1000 times as massive, meaning they achieved SMBH status in far less than 13 billion years.

However, we see massive spiral galaxies (with embedded SMBH) with estimated age of about 12 BY.

You have a link for that, or it it just another assertion?  I agree that galaxies with SMBH of age 12 BY are probably out there, but I don't necessarily agree that we see it. 
Edit:  Kryptid's link posted just below seems to satisfy this request.

In SMBH there are over than Billion BH.

No, there is just the one.  They don't consist of a collection of objects.

Why don't we see as many mid size BH with only few Millions of BH?

A BH is not a unit of mass.  Sgr-A is 4 million solar masses, so does that count?  A solar mass IS a unit of mass.

In any case, they were positively sure that the SMBH can't evolve from a BH due to time limitation.

What alternative do they propose?  I don't see any other path than being small at first, and then growing, even if it takes a short time to do the growing part.  I also don't know a specific designation distinguishing a BH from a SMBH.  What mass separates the two?  Is there a standard one?

In the other program they have discussed about the heavy metal as Iridium and gold.
They have found that those metals could not been created by a supernova. The maximum power of that supernova is Setting Iron.

Iron is the lowest energy form, but creation of the higher elements has not been shown to be impossible.

They have stated that one hypothetical idea for the creation of those two heavy metals is an explosion in twin neutron stars.

Out of curiosity, how does this TV program justify that a supernova lacks the ability to create these higher elements and yet a neutron star merger can do it?  Is the supernova insufficiently violent?  I mean, the scientists can create these elements in a lab without involving the sort of degenerate matter than exists in a neutron star.

3. Time to set the first star. However, we have already found that in order to set a star in Hydrogen cloud there must be a nearby SMBH).

The show found this?  Or is this just you?  None of us has found this at all, as Evan points out.

3. Time for the first hydrogen star to set the first Supernova explosion. Due to this explosion we get the iron. However, it is very rare and it is stes the iron as dust in space.

This is again pointed out above:  The time for this is quite short and the event is quite common.

5. How long it might take to this first iron dust could to set the first twin neutron star systems.

Neutron stars tend to form from first generation stars (the mostly hydrogen ones), and not from second generation stars like our own.  They can form from 2nd generation stars.

7. How long it might take to those heavy metal to arrive to our planet?

They were always here.  If they were not (just passing through say), then a solar system would not form here.

If they are too far away, do you agree that due to the expansion in space, they have no chance to get by Asteroids to our planet?

Space expansion has nothing to do with it unless you propose that the elements needed come from other galaxies and for some reason stop here.

So, how do we have got Gold and iridium in only 13.8 Billion years?

By not watching National Geographic TV shows that deny the accepted dynamics of a supernova explosion.

In this program they didn't even try to explain how heavier Atoms as plutonium had been created.

Plutonium doesn't naturally occur except as a short lived byproduct of the decay of more stable things like Uranium.

So, how do the the plutonium had been created and how it had been arrived to our planet in only 13.8 BY?

It doesn't.  Virtually all plutonium on Earth was manufactured here.

So, if the BBT has no real approval, why don't you open your mind to a breakthrough theory?

Yours isn't a theory, it is just an idea, and one that is trivially falsified. One need not employ a closed mind to discount it.

[Kryptid]

Of relevance to this thread's discussion on supermassive black holes: https://mediarelations.uwo.ca/2019/06/28/black-hole-formation/

Paper is here: https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/370/1/289/1026607

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Thanks

When these first stars exploded, they would have distributed a lot of elements up to iron, which made the formation of the next generation of "Population II" stars much easier.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_population#Population_III_stars

I have read carefully the explanation about the Stellar_population.

The reason is that the early stars were formed from Hydrogen and Helium, and these have difficulty radiating away energy.

In one hand we claim that after the BBT we have mainly got Hydrogen. So how the Helium had been pop up immediately after the Big bang in order to create the first Population_III_stars?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
"As the universe cooled, the rest mass energy density of matter came to gravitationally dominate that of the photon radiation. After about 379,000 years, the electrons and nuclei combined into atoms (mostly hydrogen);"
In this explanation about the Big bang they don't say even one word about helium.
However, in the following artical it is stated that the Helium had been created by the Big bang:
https://stardate.org/astro-guide/hydrogen-and-helium
"Hydrogen is an element, usually in the form of a gas, that consists of one proton and one electron. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, accounting for about 75 percent of its normal matter, and was created in the Big Bang. Helium is an element, usually in the form of a gas, that consists of a nucleus of two protons and two neutrons surrounded by two electrons. Helium is the second-most abundant element in the universe, after hydrogen, and accounts for about 25 percent of the atoms in the universe. Most of the helium in the universe was created in the Big Bang, but it also is the product of hydrogen fusion in stars."
So how could it be that the Big bang could form so high percentage of Helium (25% of all the matters in the Universe are Helium)?
Why there is no information about this massive Helium creation in the Big Bang activity?
If the Big bang could create Helium, why not more heavier elements?
Why not iron or even gold?
Why are we so sure that it is only Hydrogen and Helium?

To collapse under their own gravity, the first "Population III" stars must have been very massive, perhaps 100 times the mass of the Sun. Since the rate of burning their nuclear fuel increases as something like the 4th power of the mass, these stars would have had short lives.

Why we can't find even one "Population III" star in the whole Universe?
What is the chance that 100% of the "Population III" stars got a mass of at least 100 times the mass of the Sun?
I fully understand why a star with 100 times the mass of the Sun had a very sort lives. However, why there were no compact "Population III" stars (at the Sun size)? Don't you agree that at this compact size they could stay with us even today?
As we can't find even one Hypothetical "Population III" star, could it be that all the stars in the Universe had been formed from day one from more than just Hydrogen and Helium? Therefore, could it be that this hypothetical idea about "Population III" star  is not realistic.

There is some natural Plutonium generated continually on Earth, as a neutron occasionally strikes a Uranium atom in Uranium ores; this unstable Uranium nucleus decays into Plutonium (and then into Americium). The balance between creation of Plutonium and decay of Plutonium is biased heavily on the decay side, so the long-term average level of Plutonium in Uranium ores is extremely low.

Actually, I have to ask about the Uranium.

Iron is the lowest energy form, but creation of the higher elements has not been shown to be impossible.

So, how the Uranium had been formed?
If it is so difficult to creat Gold atom, what kind of explosion or activity could create Uranium atom?

Of relevance to this thread's discussion on suppermassive black holes: https://mediarelations.uwo.ca/2019/06/28/black-hole-formation/

It is stated:
"During the last decade, many suppermassive black holes that are a billion times more massive than the Sun have been discovered at high ‘redshifts,’ meaning they were in place in our universe within 800 million years after the Big Bang. The presence of these young and very massive black holes question our understanding of black hole formation and growth."
So, there is real question how those SMBH had been created in less than 800 Million years after the Big bang.
In the article it is stated:
"The model is based on a very simple assumption: suppermassive black holes form very, very quickly over very, very short periods of time and then suddenly, they stop. This explanation contrasts with the current understanding of how stellar-mass black holes are formed, which is they emerge when the centre of a very massive star collapses in upon itself."
I really don't know if our scientists accept this assumption.
In any case, if the SMBH can't get to that size at a very short period, Do you agree that the age of the SMBH (the very massive one) should be longer than just 800 Million years?
If that is corret, do you agree that the age of the Universe should be longer than just 13.8 billion years?

[Kryptid]

I really don't know if our scientists accept this assumption.

It's a brand new idea. What do you expect?

In any case, if the SMBH can't get to that size at a very short period, Do you agree that the age of the SMBH (the very massive one) should be longer than just 800 Million years?

Only if it can be demonstrated that it must take longer than 800 million years for it to form and reach its measured mass.

If that is corret, do you agree that the age of the Universe should be longer than just 13.8 billion years?

See my answer above.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Only if it can be demonstrated that it must take longer than 800 million years for it to form and reach its measured mass.

In the article that you have offered it was stated clearly:

The presence of these young and very massive black holes question our understanding of black hole formation and growth."

Also in the TV program it was stated clearly that there is a limitation for the BH size increase over time.
So, there is a big question about the minimal requested time to form a SMBH.
Let's look at our SMBH.
If I recall it correctly, our scientists verified that it consumes about 3 Sun mass per year.
So, in one billion year is will add about 0.75 to its current mass.
There is unlimited number of black holes in our Universe.
We must trace the BH activities and verify how long it might take them to increase their mass over time.
If we will discover that on average it takes about one Billion year for a black hole to double its mass, we could set the clock time for our Universe.
Is there any way to set a SMBH without crossing the stage of compact BH?
Is there any possibility to form a man without crossing the stages of boyhood, childhood or babyhood?
Why do we assume that a SMBH can be formed without crossing the stages of compact BH, Mid size BH and Massive BH?
Our scientists know/should know the maximal consumption rate of a BH.
Based on that, they could easily calculate how long is needed to transform a compact BH into a mid size BH and how long it might take to a mid size BH to be transformed into a SMBH.
We know that the SMBH at the core of the Andromeda galaxy is much more massive than the SMBH in our galaxy.
So, we can also calculate the requested time to form that kind of Ultra SMBH out of a  (Milky Way)' SMBH.
Hence, we must look for the biggest SMBH in the Universe and try to calculate how long it might take it to be formed out of a compact BH.
That time frame sets the minimal age of the Universe.
So, why can't we use the SMBH to adjust the time clock for our Universe?

What about the Helium?

So how could it be that the Big bang could form so high percentage of Helium (25% of all the matters in the Universe are Helium)?

How long it took the BBT to set all the Helium mass in the Universe?
Is there a possibility to set the first Population_III_stars without Helium?
How long it took to set the first Population_III_stars with Helium?

What about the Uranium?
How long it took to set the first Uranium Atom in the Universe?
How long it took to get the Uranium delivery to Mother Earth?

Why do we always insist to force the age of 13.8 BY to everything we see?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

3billion is not 0.75 of 4 million.  It is 750 times its current mass.

Thanks
I agree

No, Sgr-A consumes almost no mass per year, far less than the average it would need (a star every 3000 years) to have grown to its present mass.

We need to verify the meaning of:
 

Sgr-A consumes almost no mass per year,

Is it 0.001 Sun mass per year?
If so, do you agree that in order to double the size about one billion years is needed?
If it is less than that, do you agree that we might get to a conclusion that 10 Billion or even 100 Billion years is needed to double a SMBH size?

If you feed it, it will eat it.  It isn't going to say "No-thanks, that's enough for today".  There is no max rate.

We know that the SMBH is picky-eater
https://www.urban-astronomer.com/news-and-updates/milky-ways-black-hole-a-picky-eater/
"When astronomers used Chandra to study Sgr A*, in one of its longest ever observations, they found that more than 99% of the infalling material was ejected long before reaching the event horizon "
So, there must be a Max rate.

In any case - what is the real meaning of: "more than 99%"
Why they don't say: 100%???
Do they see even 0.0...1% that is reaching the event horizon?
Do they see any infalling material?
Do you agree that even if we only see more than 99%, and we don't see any star or gas cloud that is infalling in - than we have to call the accretion disc as excretion disc?

[Kryptid]

Only if it can be demonstrated that it must take longer than 800 million years for it to form and reach its measured mass.

In the article that you have offered it was stated clearly:

The presence of these young and very massive black holes question our understanding of black hole formation and growth."

If you had read the whole article, you'd see that the scientists were offering a solution to that problem.

Also in the TV program it was stated clearly that there is a limitation for the BH size increase over time.
So, there is a big question about the minimal requested time to form a SMBH.

A time that depends on the model you use to calculate it.

Let's look at our SMBH.
If I recall it correctly, our scientists verified that it consumes about 3 Sun mass per year.
So, in one billion year is will add about 0.75 to its current mass.

The amount that a black hole consumes now is not necessarily how much it consumed in the past. Nor does that take into account what the black hole's mass was when it was initially formed.

There is unlimited number of black holes in our Universe.

Based on what evidence?

We must trace the BH activities and verify how long it might take them to increase their mass over time.
If we will discover that on average it takes about one Billion year for a black hole to double its mass, we could set the clock time for our Universe.

Averages can be deceiving. Humans increase in mass quickly when they are infants, but very slowly once they become adults. The average rate of a black hole's mass increase today may not be what it was in the distant past.

Is there any way to set a SMBH without crossing the stage of compact BH?
Is there any possibility to form a man without crossing the stages of boyhood, childhood or babyhood?
Why do we assume that a SMBH can be formed without crossing the stages of compact BH, Mid size BH and Massive BH?

If you had read the article, you would know.

Our scientists know/should know the maximal consumption rate of a BH.
Based on that, they could easily calculate how long is needed to transform a compact BH into a mid size BH and how long it might take to a mid size BH to be transformed into a SMBH.
We know that the SMBH at the core of the Andromeda galaxy is much more massive than the SMBH in our galaxy.
So, we can also calculate the requested time to form that kind of Ultra SMBH out of a  (Milky Way)' SMBH.
Hence, we must look for the biggest SMBH in the Universe and try to calculate how long it might take it to be formed out of a compact BH.
That time frame sets the minimal age of the Universe.
So, why can't we use the SMBH to adjust the time clock for our Universe?

That all depends on what model you are using to calculate the growth rate. The direct collapse model doesn't require a small black hole to grow into a large one. The gas cloud collapses directly into a heavy black hole.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Do they see any infalling material?

Yes. Sgr-A would not be visible in certain frequencies if no material fell in.

How the Sgr-A is visible?
Do you mean that we see in "certain frequencies" the matter/plasma in the accretion disc around the Sgr-A?
If so, how the visible plasma can give any sort of indication about the infalling matter?
So, let me ask again:
Do we see any direct gas cloud, star, planet, stone or even one Atom/molecular that are falling in from outside the disc?
If we don't see, than why can't we say clearly that we have never seen any direct infalling matter?
There is a clear evidence that over than 99% of the matter in the accretion disc are ejected out from the accretion disc:
"more than 99% of the infalling material was ejected long before reaching the event horizon".
However, it seems to me that our scientists want to believe that all the matter in the accretion disc is due to infalling matter.
Therefore they claim: "more than 99% of the infalling material" instead of "more than 99% of the matter/plasma in the accretion disc", although they don't have even one single evidence for direct infalling matter.
It is clear to me that they didn't find infalling matter and they we will never ever find.
There is a reason for that
 Magnetic Field around the SMBH -
This magnetic field is so powerful that it boosts any atom or molecular upwards/downwards (relative to the galactic disc) at a verified velocity of 0.8 the speed of light. How any infalling matter can cross this ultra power magnetic filed?
Around our planet there is just a friction of a friction of that magnetic field. Even so, it has the power to shift the solar wind to the poles.
Do you agree that if we could set around our planet a magnetic filed in the same amplitude as the one around the SMBH, we would discover that nothing can cross that magnetic line?
What kind of magnetic power is needed in order to boost any nearby atom and molecular high above the galactic disc at that ultra velocity of 0.8 Speed of light?
Why our scientists didn't try to verify the amplitude of that magnetic power?
Why they have decided to neglect the great impact of this power?
Why they constantly insist that matter is falling in, while they didn't find any evidence to prove it?
How could they believe that the Sgr-A is just a messy eater:
Milky Way's Giant Black Hole Spits Out Its Food
https://news.yahoo.com/milky-ways-giant-black-hole-spits-food-180338156.html;_ylt=AwrCxGHe.SVdeSoA6x8PxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTByMHZ0NG9yBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwM3BHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--
"The colossal black hole at the heart of the Milky Way galaxy is a messy eater. "
How could it be?
If the mouth of that colossal black hole is full with food, why does it eject over than 99% from its food?
Can we prove that it eats 0.1% or even 0.0...01% from that food?
How many animals do we know that eject over than 99% from the food in their mouth?
Why our scientists ignore impact of the magnetic field around the SMBH, while there is a solid prove that it is so powerful that any nearby molecular/atom is ejected at 0.8 speed of light.
Why do they insist to believe that the matter in the accretion disc is in falling matter, while there is no direct evidence for that and they should know that nothing can cross the mighty magnetic power around the SMBH?
Why do they insist to believe that the SMBH eats some of the matter in the accretion disc, while there is no evidence for that?
Could it be that our scientists don't let the evidences to confuse them?

I still don't understand why we insist to call it accretion disc.
If more than 99% is ejected out from the disc, why don't we call it excretion disc?
So, let me know if I understand it correctly (based on our scientists):
Accretion disc means that 99.99% ejects out from the disc while there is no evidence for any infalling matter to the SMBH.
while,
Excretion disc means that 99.99999999…9999% ejects out while there is no evidence for any infalling matter to the SMBH.
Is it correct?

That all depends on what model you are using to calculate the growth rate. The direct collapse model doesn't require a small black hole to grow into a large one. The gas cloud collapses directly into a heavy black hole.

Did we ever find evidence in the whole universe for a gas cloud that collapses directly into a SMBH?
If our scientists have no clue how the SMBH works today, how can they set any sort of modeling for its growth rate at the early time?

[Halc]

"The colossal black hole at the heart of the Milky Way galaxy is a messy eater. "
How could it be?
If the mouth of that colossal black hole is full with food, why does it eject over than 99% from its food?
Can we prove that it eats 0.1% or even 0.0...01% from that food?
How many animals do we know that eject over than 99% from the food in their mouth?

[Kryptid]

Did we ever find evidence in the whole universe for a gas cloud that collapses directly into a SMBH?

Please take note that no one claims to have proven that this is how super-massive black holes formed. The study simply showed that it is plausible. This means that we now know of a way that super-massive black holes could have formed within the known age of the Universe.

If our scientists have no clue how the SMBH works today, how can they set any sort of modeling for its growth rate at the early time?

They don't have "no clue". There are a lot of good ideas about how they work. Testing those ideas is difficult, because of how far away these black holes are.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

How many animals do we know that eject over than 99% from the food in their mouth?

Lovely.
Similar but with one small difference -
We clearly see the cookie as it moves directly to the monster' mouth.
Why don't we see the requested cookie (gas cloud) as it moves directly to the mouth of our colossal SMBH monster?
There are SMBH monsters at any spiral galaxy.
Our scientists claim that there are more than 100 Billion spiral galaxies in our visible Universe.
Some of them are clearly visible.
They also claim that as the cookie moves to the colossal SMBH it should set magnificent fireworks.
So, how could it be that we have never ever seen any fireworks that highlight the gas cloud as it moves to the mouth of the colossal SMBH monster?
Not even one in the whole Universe!!!
Just an example -
Let's assume that we stay at the center of the Highway for one full year and we only see that all cars are moving in one direction.
Why can't we assume that we are watching a one direction high way?
How long do we have to wait in order to understand that simple meaning?
In the same token -
Our scientists want to believe that the colossal SMBH eats gas cloud.
They are looking for this evidence in the whole universe, but they can't find it.
So how long do we have to wait till our scientists will get the unbelievable understanding that our colossal SMBH monster has no willing to eat any gas could.
One year? 10 year? 1000 years or one trillion years?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Are you asserting a 1-way highway is seen?  The computed percentage of in/out would be considerably higher than 100% then.

So, if we clearly see that more than 99% of the matter in the disc around the SMBH is ejected out, while NOTHING is coming in - Than, why our scientists still insist that it is accretion? Why not excretion?
How more time do they need in order to open their eyes and finely see that simple outcome?

They don't have "no clue". There are a lot of good ideas about how they work. Testing those ideas is difficult, because of how far away these black holes are.

Unfortunately, our Universe is not so cooperative with the wishful thinking of our scientists.
However, they don't give up. They bring more and more good ideas - but all of those ideas must obey to the BBT.

It is like a person how is looking his lost key under the light while he lost it at totally different location.
Therefore, as long as our scientists lock themselves at the BBT black box, they will continue to complain about this uncooperative Universe and will never find the answer for the big enigma.

Hence, we have two options -
Replace our universe in order to meet the good ideas of our scientists.
or
Replace our scientists or take them out from the BBT black box. Once they are free from the BBT limitation, they will surly find the ultimate idea..

[Kryptid]

It is like a person how is looking his lost key under the light while he lost it at totally different location.
Therefore, as long as our scientists lock themselves at the BBT black box, they will continue to complain about this uncooperative Universe and will never find the answer for the big enigma.

You're assuming that the "key" is in fact lost in a place away from the Big Bang theory.

Hence, we have two options -
Replace our universe in order to meet the good ideas of our scientists.
or
Replace our scientists or take them out from the BBT black box. Once they are free from the BBT limitation, they will surly find the ultimate idea..

You forgot the third option: the Big Bang theory is on the right track and that is where we will find "the ultimate idea".

[Dave Lev (OP)]

It is like a person how is looking his lost key under the light while he lost it at totally different location.
Therefore, as long as our scientists lock themselves at the BBT black box, they will continue to complain about this uncooperative Universe and will never find the answer for the big enigma.

You're assuming that the "key" is in fact lost in a place away from the Big Bang theory.
You forgot the third option: the Big Bang theory is on the right track and that is where we will find "the ultimate idea".

Dear Kryptid
I would like to take you with me to a voyage outside the BBT black box.
A voyage to far end galaxy that is called M.W galaxy.
No one there knows anything about the BBT.
Once we start our voyage we get a reset to all our knowledge about the BBT (and only the BBT).
So
Those people at that M.W galaxy tell us about their following evidences/discoveries:
1. In the center of their M.W. galaxy there is a very massive object. They call it Abra Cadabra.
2. Around this Abra Cadabra they clearly see a disc with very hot matter which is orbiting at a velocity of 0.3 speed of light. They call this hot matter -Plasma. Its temp is 10^9 c.
At the inner most of the disc the plasma is mainly made out of particles.
At the outer most of the disc there are mostly Atoms and Molecular.
3. More than 99% of the matter in that plasma disc is ejected out and there is no indication that even one particle (0.0...01 from the total plasma disc) is falling directly to the abra cadabra.
4. A mighty magnetic field covers the Abra cadabra with its disc.
5. As those ejected Molecular gets closer to the impact of the mighty magnetic field, they are boosted upwards/downwards (with related to the disc) at a velocity of 0.8 Speed of light and set a very high/long stream jet above/below the disc.
6. The estimated total molecular mass in that jet stream above the disc is 10,000 solar mass (Our solar mass).
7. They also see that the molecular fall back to the galactic disc (outside the impact of the magnetic field)
8. At the galactic disc, those molecular gathers together and form a gas cloud.
9. As the gas cloud orbits around the Abra Cadbra (outside the magnetic field) it starts to form new stars.
10. They claim that this aria around the Abra cadabra is the most reach with Hydrogen atoms in the whole galaxy and most of the star forming activity is taking there.
11.  They have never seen any evidence for any molecular/atom or even particle that drifts directly inwards to the Abra Cadabra mouth.
12. They have also never ever seen any gas could or star that drifts inwards to the disc and try to cross the great impact of the magnetic field.

So, the questions are as follow (please remember - We are outside the BBT black box!):

A. If we compare this Abra Cadabra to our SMBH, do we see any difference in the evidences/discoveries?
If so, please let us know which evidence is incorrect/difference.
B. Is there any possibility for any Atom/Rock/Star/Gas cloud from outside to cross the mighty magnetic field and get into the plasma disc?
If positive - please explain.
C. If nothing can get into the plasma disc, how it gets its mass and constantly ejects hot matter outside. (There is a clear evidence for about 10,000 solar mass above the galactic disc.

[Kryptid]

B. Is there any possibility for any Atom/Rock/Star/Gas cloud from outside to cross the mighty magnetic field and get into the plasma disc?

Obviously it can, otherwise the disc would disappear over time as its mass was lost to space. When you take mass away from something without adding any back in, the mass eventually disappears. The first law of thermodynamics guarantees it. You can't expect that magnetic field to be absolutely perfect at preventing plasma from entering the hole, especially since that field is generated by the plasma itself.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

B. Is there any possibility for any Atom/Rock/Star/Gas cloud from outside to cross the mighty magnetic field and get into the plasma disc?

Obviously it can, otherwise the disc would disappear over time as its mass was lost to space. When you take mass away from something without adding any back in, the mass eventually disappears. The first law of thermodynamics guarantees it. You can't expect that magnetic field to be absolutely perfect at preventing plasma from entering the hole, especially since that field is generated by the plasma itself.

How long we will continue to say "in falling matter" without any proof for that?
How long we can we reject the evidences which are located infront of our eyes?
How long we would continue to believe that the SMBH eats a nearby matter while we see clearly that nothing is falling in and everything (more than 99%) is ejected out (without even a clear evidence for 0.0…01 falling in).
Our scientists have clearly verified the mighty power of the magnetic field around the plasma disc.
Nothing... Absolutely nothing can cross this magnetic shield.
I'm positively sure that our scientists are fully aware about that obstacle.
If even one Atom can bypass it - Please prove it.
If we can't, then the only possibility to see a constant ejected steam of hot molecular from the plasma disc is by the activity of new mass creation at the SMBH.
So easy and so simple.
How long can we refuse to accept the real knowledge of our Universe?
How long are we going to lock ourselves in the BBT black box?.

 

[Kryptid]

If we can't, then the only possibility to see a constant ejected steam of hot molecular from the plasma disc is by the activity of new mass creation at the SMBH.

As has been pointed out to you many times before, that would break the laws of physics. Mass/energy cannot be created or destroyed. So we know that's not what's going on. If it isn't coming from the black hole, then it's coming from an outside source. Magnetic fields are not like those force fields you see in science fiction. They aren't impassable barriers. Besides, the outer, cooler area of the accretion disk wouldn't be hot enough to be a plasma and as such wouldn't have an intrinsic magnetic field.

How long can we refuse to accept the real knowledge of our Universe?

You're doing exactly that by claiming that black holes can create mass/energy. And no, don't say anything about particle accelerators creating mass/energy, because they absolutely do not do that.

How long are we going to lock ourselves in the BBT black box?

The Big Bang theory has nothing at all to do with this. Black holes simply don't work the way you claim them to.

[pensador]

Mass/energy cannot be created or destroyed

That is the generally accepted idea.
except
Big Bang theory suggests otherwise. Inflation > Baryogenesis > nucleosynthesis etc
Hoyle theorised mass was constantly appearing in space, a cold slower form of particle creation.
Hawking theorised virtual particles can be converted to real particles via black holes gravity (converting gravitational energy to particles, energy is conserved here)

[Kryptid]

Big Bang theory suggests otherwise. Inflation > Baryogenesis > nucleosynthesis etc

No it doesn't. All of those particles were created using energy that already existed. That doesn't violate conservation of mass/energy.

Hoyle theorised mass was constantly appearing in space, a cold slower form of particle creation.

This is not the accepted model of today.

Hawking theorised virtual particles can be converted to real particles via black holes gravity (converting gravitational energy to particles, energy is conserved here)

This doesn't violate conservation of mass/energy either. When the black hole emits Hawking radiation, it loses an amount of mass equal to what the radiation carried away.

I am not saying that particles cannot be created or destroyed. I'm talking about mass and energy.

[pensador]

No it doesn't. All of those particles were created using energy that already existed. That doesn't violate conservation of mass/energy.

What energy, where did it come from.?

The influence of dark energy appears to be increasing the accelerating expansion of the universe. Are you perhaps referring to dark energy. ?

If Dark energy has its origins in the HUP/zero point energy of the vacuum/quantum vacuum, is it real energy or is it just a temporary violation, because the energy is only momentarily borrowed and payed back to the vacuum. ?

Did the energy really exist prior to the big bang, or was it just a temporary violation of the laws of thermodynamics?

This is not the accepted model of today.

That is not the most widely accepted model of today, it is still a model.

This doesn't violate conservation of mass/energy either. When the black hole emits Hawking radiation, it loses an amount of mass equal to what the radiation carried away.

I am not saying that particles cannot be created or destroyed. I'm talking about mass and energy.

Yes I know, but the interesting point with Hawking radiation is that virtual particles are separated and become real, in a rapidly  inflating universe due to dark energy could virtual particles not be separated in a similar way prior to the hot big bang and what follows.