[evan_au]

https://www.urban-astronomer.com/news-and-updates/milky-ways-black-hole-a-picky-eater/
...they found that more than 99% of the infalling material was ejected long before reaching the event horizon...

Thanks for the reference.
- Now I can see why you were confused.
- This is talking about the black hole at the center of our Milky Way galaxy
- This is surrounded by hot gas which produces some X-Rays, which is why it showed up in early X-Ray telescopes
- However, our SMBH does not have a very active accretion disk (as we observe it, at present)
- This hot gas is (currently) slowing down the rate at which gas can approach the SMBH in out galaxy
- So our galaxy is not (currently) producing a strong relativistic jet

However, the behavior of SMBHs does change over time
- If there is another SMBH in the vicinity, they will work together to eject stars and gas clouds away from the center.
- The activity of the accretion disk depends on how much matter is pouring in
- At present, not much is pouring in

So I think that you are better start using the 10% figure for the amount of mass falling into the accretion disk that ends up in a relativistic jet
- Not the 99% figure you have been quoting, as this is for a SMBH that does not have an accretion disk or a relativistic jet

We can hope to see some new data in the next year. The Event Horizon Telescope took data on our SMBH. They are currently trying to process this data to see if they can see any evidence of an accretion disk at microwave wavelengths.
- The Max Planck Institute continues to monitor the orbits of some extremely bright stars passing close to the location of the central black hole. But these orbits do not pass close enough to the central black hole to be tidally disrupted. This may take decades to reveal new information
- Progress with High speed X-Ray observations may reveal more information about the innermost stable orbit of a black hole. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-periodic_oscillation

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Models and mathematical calculations are evidence when they are based on the known laws of physics. They allow us to make inferences about phenomenon that we have not yet directly observed.

Are you sure that Models and mathematical calculations are evidence?
Do you agree that when our scientists have used Models and mathematical calculations (till the last 10 years ago?), they were positively sure that ALL the matter in the accretion disc is falling into the black hole?
Now, we clearly have direct observation that over than 99% is ejected outwards.
Do you think that they would dare to call it "accretion" if they knew on day one that 99% of the matter is ejected outwards?
So if our Models and mathematical calculations didn't give us any indication for the 99% ejected matter, than how can we call it - evidence?
Based on Google -
Evidence - the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
How can we call those Models and mathematical calculations - "evidences" if  we have found that our belief (based on those models) isn't true?
Do you agree that the evidence (which is based on Models and mathematical calculations) is representing the current belief of our scientists? However, in order to verify if the evidence is true or false - Direct observation is needed?

I provided a link to the scientific paper that describes the matter falling into a super-massive black hole at 30% the speed of light.

Do you mean the link which I have offered:

I have found a very interesting article:
https://phys.org/news/2018-09-falling-black-hole-percent.html
"First detection of matter falling into a black hole at 30 percent of the speed of light"

In this article they claim for direct observation of in falling matter into a super-massive black hole at 30% the speed of light.
However, that article is dated for 2018.
In that Article it is stated that it is the first time that our scientists discovered a direct observation:

"A UK team of astronomers report the first detection of matter falling into a black hole at 30 percent of the speed of light, located in the centre of the billion-light year distant galaxy PG1211+143."

However, if we ignore that direct observation:
Do you agree that till this first detection in 2018:
1. There was no direct observation (by X-ray) for any in falling matter. Not to the accretion disc and not to the SMBH. Not in our Galaxy and not in any galaxy in the whole Universe?
2. There is a direct observation that over than 99% of the matter in the accretion disc is ejected outwards.
3. There is direct observation for Jet molecular stream that is boosted upwards and downwards from the accretion disc plane (That jet steam is reaching 27,000 Light year above and below the disc with estimated 10,000 solar mass)

Please answer the following:
1. Severe mistake in the Models and mathematical calculations
How could it be that our evidences (Models and mathematical calculations) have missed the true? (Over than 99% of the matter that is ejected outwards from the accretion disc)?
What is the source for our severe mistake in our Models and mathematical calculations which we have set just 10 years ago?
2. How our updated Models and mathematical calculations can explain this new discovery of outwards ejected matter?
3. Why tidal/gravity force of the mighty SMBH can't pull all/most/some/more than 1% of that matter inwards?
4. How our updated Models and mathematical calculations can explain the discovery of the Molecular jet stream?
5. What is the source for that molecular jet stream?
6. Why tidal/gravity force of the SMBH doesn't pull the molecular jet stream inwards?
7. Why the jet moves at the opposite direction from the SMBH? (Directly upwards/downwards to the accretion disc)
8. Why the upwards/downwards velocity of the jet stream is so high (I assume that it is almost 0.8 speed of light)?
9. Do you agree that our scientists are mainly using Models and mathematical calculations to prove that their theory is correct? In order to do so they set the parameters that meets their needs. Therefore, theoretically, they could prove the opposite, if they would use different parameters/setup.
10. If the direct observation proves that there is a severe mistake in their Models and mathematical calculations, why they are not brave enough to say - sorry, we have failed in our "evidences".

[Kryptid]

Are you sure that Models and mathematical calculations are evidence?

When they are based on the known laws of physics, yes, they are. Gravitational waves are one good example of this. Their existence and characteristics were described by relativity long before we ever detected them. When we finally did detect them, they had exactly the properties that they were predicted to have. So calculations and predictions based on successful models are good evidence for the phenomena that they predict.

Do you agree that when our scientists have used Models and mathematical calculations (till the last 10 years ago?), they were positively sure that ALL the matter in the accretion disc is falling into the black hole?

I'm extremely doubtful of your claim. Astrophysical jets have been known to exist since at least 1918, and we knew that black holes couldn't emit those jets directly. We must have known long before "10 years ago" that the jets had to originate from matter in the accretion disk.

Now, we clearly have direct observation that over than 99% is ejected outwards.

Perhaps in the Milky Way specifically, but that would not necessarily follow for other galaxies where their super-massive black holes have different masses, different spins and accretion disks of different masses, temperatures, composition, rotation rates, etc.

Do you think that they would dare to call it "accretion" if they knew on day one that 99% of the matter is ejected outwards?

Yes, because the matter was originally accreted from an outside source. That's how you get an accretion disk around a black hole in the first place, since such black holes don't emit matter. The fact that the matter in the accretion disk is blasted off in the form of jets is beside the point, since that step comes after the accretion process.

So if our Models and mathematical calculations didn't give us any indication for the 99% ejected matter, than how can we call it - evidence?

Do you have a link showing that any particular models describing the Milky Way's super-massive black hole can't account for that?

Evidence - the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
How can we call those Models and mathematical calculations - "evidences" if  we have found that our belief (based on those models) isn't true?

Again, how has that 99% figure falsified all of our models of accretion disks and super-massive black holes? Remember, you are talking about one particular case which may not apply to other galaxies.

Do you agree that the evidence (which is based on Models and mathematical calculations) is representing the current belief of our scientists?

You have it the wrong way around. The belief is what it is because of the mathematical evidence.

However, in order to verify if the evidence is true or false - Direct observation is needed?

Yes, I never denied that. I never said that evidence is the same as proof. But evidence is still evidence. And if you're going to be picky about this and demand direct observations, then you should realize that your own assertions lack observational evidence as well (we have never seen a black hole create matter, for example).

In that Article it is stated that it is the first time that our scientists discovered a direct observation:

To finish your sentence, it says that this is the first observation of matter falling into a black hole at 30% the speed of light. It doesn't say that this is the first observation of matter falling into a black hole ever.

1. There was no direct observation (by X-ray) for any in falling matter. Not to the accretion disc and not to the SMBH. Not in our Galaxy and not in any galaxy in the whole Universe?

No, the article doesn't say that this was the first ever detection of any form of matter falling into a black hole, so we cannot draw that conclusion.

2. There is a direct observation that over than 99% of the matter in the accretion disc is ejected outwards.

Only in our galaxy specifically. Evan_au pointed out a case where it was only 10%.

3. There is direct observation for Jet molecular stream that is boosted upwards and downwards from the accretion disc plane (That jet steam is reaching 27,000 Light year above and below the disc with estimated 10,000 solar mass)

Where did you get those numbers from? Even if those numbers are right, it doesn't matter. Those are no problem for our models.

1. Severe mistake in the Models and mathematical calculations
How could it be that our evidences (Models and mathematical calculations) have missed the true? (Over than 99% of the matter that is ejected outwards from the accretion disc)?

Again, give me a link where it was found that this figure violated our models.

2. How our updated Models and mathematical calculations can explain this new discovery of outwards ejected matter?

That was answered in the very article that you got the 99% figure from:

Thanks to the conservation of angular momentum, anything falling in towards a black hole has to lose some of its energy if it is not to miss the black hole.  Particles within dense clouds lose kinetic energy easily, due to friction within the cloud.  Similarly, the particles within cool clouds have little individual energy to start with, so are more easily captured by the black hole.  But the Chandra observation, collected over five weeks in 2012, revealed that the material in the vicinity of Sgr A* is not only very thin and diffuse, but is also extremely hot.  As a consequence, it escapes the black hole while it is still far away, and before it has time to form a superheated accretion disk, which explains the coolness of the ejected material.

3. Why tidal/gravity force of the mighty SMBH can't pull all/most/some/more than 1% of that matter inwards?

Apparently, the jets are formed far enough away from the black hole that over 99% of the matter reaches escape velocity (which is below the speed of light outside of the event horizon). The prior quote from the article says as much. You are very bad about quote-mining.

4. How our updated Models and mathematical calculations can explain the discovery of the Molecular jet stream?

You mean the astrophysical jet? Those have been easily explained for a long time. The magnetic field generated by the disk propels them away from the black hole.

5. What is the source for that molecular jet stream?

If you're talking about the astrophysical jets, then that would be the accretion disk. As much as you talk about this, I figure you would have known that already.

6. Why tidal/gravity force of the SMBH doesn't pull the molecular jet stream inwards?

It's moving too fast.

7. Why the jet moves at the opposite direction from the SMBH? (Directly upwards/downwards to the accretion disc)

It's because of the alignment of the generated magnetic field lines relative to the disk. You end up with a north pole and a south pole in the direction of the jets.

8. Why the upwards/downwards velocity of the jet stream is so high (I assume that it is almost 0.8 speed of light)?

The matter is hot, which corresponds to a high particle velocity.

9. Do you agree that our scientists are mainly using Models and mathematical calculations to prove that their theory is correct?

No, scientific theories are. Not. Proven.

In order to do so they set the parameters that meets their needs. Therefore, theoretically, they could prove the opposite, if they would use different parameters/setup.

No, you can't modify the laws of physics to suit your desires and come up with a realistic model.

10. If the direct observation proves that there is a severe mistake in their Models and mathematical calculations, why they are not brave enough to say - sorry, we have failed in our "evidences".

Because the observations don't contradict our models.

[evan_au]

Now, we clearly have direct observation that over than 99% is ejected outwards.

You continue to quote this 99% expulsion as characteristic of a SMBH with an accretion disk. But this figure is actually for a SMBH without an accretion disk (as we see it at present).

How our updated Models and mathematical calculations can explain this new discovery of outwards ejected matter?

The radio lobes around galaxies is not a new discovery. They were described and categorised in the 1970s.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_galaxy#Radio_structures

Models explain it by twisted magnetic fields embedded in the swirling plasma of the accretion disk, which funnelout matter  along the polar axis of the central object.About 10% of the mass falling into the accretion disk ends up in the jets, and 90% falls onto the central object (SMBH, stellar-mass black hole, neutron star, white dwarf, protostar, etc).

6. Why tidal/gravity force of the SMBH doesn't pull the molecular jet stream inwards?

Because around 90% of it does get pulled inwards.
The models show that the magnetic fields in the rotating plasma can propel around 10% of the accretion disk flow up to twice the escape velocity of the central object (SMBH, stellar-mass black hole, neutron star, white dwarf, protostar, etc).

Depending on the radial distance of the source material, that escape velocity can be fairly low (for a small protostar), but approaching the speed of light for a black hole.

Do you agree that till this first detection in 2018:
1. There was no direct observation (by X-ray) for any in falling matter.

The first millisecond pulsar was discovered in 1982. We now know of several hundred of these objects, and many of them emit X-Rays.

The majority of these are believed to be neutron stars that have absorbed matter from a companion star, forming an accretion disk. Most of the matter in the accretion disk rains down on the neutron star along the magnetic field lines.
- This produces the "hot spots" detected as pulsations in light output
- This additional angular momentum causes the pulsar to spin faster & faster - the fastest known example is spinning 716 times per second, with an equatorial speed of 24% of the speed of light.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millisecond_pulsar

From the viewpoint of the donor star, there is no difference between the gravitational field of a neutron star & a black hole of similar mass. It only makes a difference when you get within about 20km.
- However, for astronomers, the pulsar has a significant benefit that we can measure the orbital period of its companion star by the emitted pulses from the central object. This companion star is the source of the accretion disk (which probably only operates in bursts as it periodically sucks matter off the companion star).
- Black holes are much harder to observe, because no matter or light has ever been observed being emitted from a black hole.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_J1748%E2%88%922446ad

[Dave Lev (OP)]

7. Why the jet moves at the opposite direction from the SMBH? (Directly upwards/downwards to the accretion disc)

It's because of the alignment of the generated magnetic field lines relative to the disk. You end up with a north pole and a south pole in the direction of the jets.

Wow!!!
Thanks for your great answer!
You have just confirmed the great impact of the magnetic field around the SMBH.
That magnetic field is a key element in the galaxy.
We clearly see that it boosts the Molecular jet stream at ultra speed of almost 0.8c upwards/downwards.
It takes its matter from the accretion disc:

5. What is the source for that molecular jet stream?

If you're talking about the astrophysical jets, then that would be the accretion disk. As much as you talk about this, I figure you would have known that already.

If it is so powerful, and if you agree that it takes the matter from the accretion disc, than don't you agree that this is the answer for why 99% of the matter in the accretion disc is ejected outwards?
In other words - the mighty gravity force, force the matter in the accretion disc to be ejected outwards.
Therefore, do you agree by now that the same ultra magnetic force that push the matter in the accretion disc outwards and boosts the jet stream at 0.8c - must also prevent from any matter from outside to fall into the accretion disc. If something will come in - it will be boosted upwards/downwards.

That is also the answer for that gas which our scientists thought that the SMBH eats:
https://phys.org/news/2018-09-falling-black-hole-percent.html
The researchers found the spectra to be strongly red-shifted, showing the observed matter to be falling into the black hole at the enormous speed of 30 per cent of the speed of light, or around 100,000 kilometers per second. The gas has almost no rotation around the hole, and is detected extremely close to it in astronomical terms, at a distance of only 20 times the hole's size (its event horizon, the boundary of the region where escape is no longer possible).
Look carefully what is written:
"The gas has almost no rotation around the hole"
So this gas cloud does not orbit around the super massive black hole. Therefore, it can't be in the accretion disc as the plasma must orbit around the SMBH. Hence, it must be outside the accretion.
However, it is also stated that it is "falling into the black hole at the enormous speed of 30 per cent of the speed of light".
So, our scientists assume that now it is moving to the center of the Black hole.
That is a severe mistake.
What they really see is the great impact of the magnetic field.
As that gas cloud had been ejected outwards from the accretion disc, it had been traped by the mighty power of the magnetic filed.
Let's look again on the following answer:

It's because of the alignment of the generated magnetic field lines relative to the disk. You end up with a north pole and a south pole in the direction of the jets.

That magnetic field pulls the gas cloud directly the north/south pole and then boosts it at ultra velocity upwards or downwards as a molecular jet stream.
So, as the gas cloud gets to the pole, it is actually located above or below the SMBH (depending on the galaxy view from our location. Therefore, our scientists thought that this gas cloud is falling into the SMBH as they have no real technology to verify its upwards/downwards location with regards the SMBH. Once it gets to the pole, the magnetic fields break it down to a molecular jet that is boosted upwards/downwards.
This jet stream is very difficult to verify. Therefore, they thought that the SMBH had swallowed the gas cloud:
He continues: "We were able to follow an Earth-sized clump of matter for about a day, as it was pulled towards the black hole, accelerating to a third of the velocity of light before being swallowed up by the hole."
Sorry dear scientist let me tell you the following:
You have a fatal error.
This gas cloud had been boosted into the molecular jet stream. The SMBH didn't eat it.
Remember the fireworks???
That fireworks that we are expecting to see if matter is falling into the SMBH?.
Where is that fireworks?
There is no fireworks as the SMBH didn't eat that gas cloud.

Now, we clearly have direct observation that over than 99% is ejected outwards.

There is no direct observation of this.  We do not directly observe material moving in and out of Sgr-A's accretion disk.  At best we have a view of the radiation signatures surrounding it,

In the article it is stated:
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 (the point of no return around a black hole, from which not even light can escape) and was unusually cool, and therefore quite dim in the Xray spectrum."
So, it is stated that based on X-ray (real direct observation) our scientists observered that more than 99% of the matter in our accertion disc (which they consider as infalling matter), had been ejected outwards.
We have already agreed that X-ray means -- Observation.
So, why don't you accept this clear data?

Now, we clearly have direct observation that over than 99% is ejected outwards.

You continue to quote this 99% expulsion as characteristic of a SMBH with an accretion disk. But this figure is actually for a SMBH without an accretion disk (as we see it at present).

What do you mean by:"SMBH without an accretion disk"
Don't you agree that our SMBH has an accretion disk?

but our edge-on view is far too obscured to see things smaller than say S2 which doesn't get close enough to count as material moving in or out of the disk.

The accretion disc is located at about 28,000 LY from us, while the galaxy in which we have observed (also by X-ray) in falling matter for the first time is located at a distance of 1,000,000,000 LY (One billion light year away)
Hence - If our scientists wants to prove something - than they have the technology to observe an Earth size cloud at a  distance of One billion light year away. However, If they don't see the expected in falling matter in a distance of only 28,000 light year, than suddenly our technology is very poor.
Is it real?

Quote
How our updated Models and mathematical calculations can explain this new discovery of outwards ejected matter?
The radio lobes around galaxies is not a new discovery. They were described and categorized in the 1970s.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_galaxy#Radio_structures

Models explain it by twisted magnetic fields embedded in the swirling plasma of the accretion disk, which funnelout matter  along the polar axis of the central object.About 10% of the mass falling into the accretion disk ends up in the jets, and 90% falls onto the central object (SMBH, stellar-mass black hole, neutron star, white dwarf, protostar, etc).

So you claim that our modeling is an evidence for 90% in falling matter onto the central object.
However, we have already agreed that modeling is just an "evidence". Evidence is not a proof. Therefore, we still must prove this modeling. So, far we didn't find/observe any in falling matter into our SMBH or any other SMBH which is located at a distance of up to one billion light year away.
Actually, only in 2018 we have observed for the first time -Ever - the in falling matter in a galaxy which is located at one billion light year away.

From the viewpoint of the donor star, there is no difference between the gravitational field of a neutron star & a black hole of similar mass. It only makes a difference when you get within about 20km.

So, you claim that there is no difference between the gravitational field of a neutron star & a black hole of similar mass.
While Kryid claims that even SMBH might be different from each other:

Now, we clearly have direct observation that over than 99% is ejected outwards.

Perhaps in the Milky Way specifically, but that would not necessarily follow for other galaxies where their super-massive black holes have different masses, different spins and accretion disks of different masses, temperatures, composition, rotation rates, etc.

So, do you mean that if we want to prove that our SMBH eats the mass in its accretion disc, than we can base our understanding even on the activity of  neutron star, while in the same token we can claim that our SMBH can't be used as a study case for other SMBH because it doesn't fulfill our expectations?
Why our SMBH is so naughty? Why does it eject 99% of the food in the accretion buffet?   
In any case, do you mean that if we find a SMBH (even if it is located at a distance of a billion years away and even if we only find one in the whole Universe)  which eats his food (as expected by our scientists) - than this unique SMBH can be used as a key model for all the SMBH in the Universe. However, all the other Millions and billions SMBH (including our local SMBH) that insist to eject there food can't be used as a model as they do not fulfill our expectations?
So the only one exception SMBH in the whole Universe (which at least fulfill our expectation and show some signs of eating - at a distance of one billion LY away) is used as the key model for all the other Billions SMBH (that eject their food and don't show any eating activity) - Do you agree with that?

[Kryptid]

Wow!!!
Thanks for your great answer!
You have just confirmed the great impact of the magnetic field around the SMBH.
That magnetic field is a key element in the galaxy.
We clearly see that it boosts the Molecular jet stream at ultra speed of almost 0.8c upwards/downwards.
It takes its matter from the accretion disc:

I don't know why you're so surprised. I never denied the existence of the field.

If it is so powerful, and if you agree that it takes the matter from the accretion disc, than don't you agree that this is the answer for why 99% of the matter in the accretion disc is ejected outwards?

That's far from the whole story. The temperature of the matter is also important because hotter gases have faster-moving particles. The faster the particles move, the more easily they can reach escape velocity. The article you linked said the same thing.

Therefore, do you agree by now that the same ultra magnetic force that push the matter in the accretion disc outwards and boosts the jet stream at 0.8c - must also prevent from any matter from outside to fall into the accretion disc. If something will come in - it will be boosted upwards/downwards.

No, because the magnetic field strength is not uniform throughout the disk. It would be stronger the closer you get to the black hole because it spins faster and is more strongly ionized there. The inner region can exceed a million kelvins, but outer, cooler regions can be a mere 10,000 kelvins: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/accretion-disk-milky-way-galaxy-black-hole There is nothing keeping gases from being added to these outer regions.

So this gas cloud does not orbit around the super massive black hole. Therefore, it can't be in the accretion disc as the plasma must orbit around the SMBH. Hence, it must be outside the accretion.

It originally was in the accretion disk. Read the following excerpt from the article:

The observation agrees closely with recent theoretical work, also at Leicester and using the UK's Dirac supercomputer facility simulating the 'tearing' of misaligned accretion discs. This work has shown that rings of gas can break off and collide with each other, cancelling out their rotation and leaving gas to fall directly towards the black hole.

As that gas cloud had been ejected outwards from the accretion disc, it had been traped by the mighty power of the magnetic filed.

That magnetic field pulls the gas cloud directly the north/south pole and then boosts it at ultra velocity upwards or downwards as a molecular jet stream.
So, as the gas cloud gets to the pole, it is actually located above or below the SMBH (depending on the galaxy view from our location. Therefore, our scientists thought that this gas cloud is falling into the SMBH as they have no real technology to verify its upwards/downwards location with regards the SMBH. Once it gets to the pole, the magnetic fields break it down to a molecular jet that is boosted upwards/downwards.

So you really think that astrophysicists are so stupid that they can't tell whether a gas cloud is moving towards or away from the black hole? For one, the gas cloud was observed to become increasingly dense as it accelerated, which is what you would expect if the gas cloud was actually approaching the hole (it would be compressed by the hole's gravity). If it instead owed its great velocity to being accelerated into the jets, the gas cloud would become much less dense as it was stretched out. Also, if the gas cloud was converted into a jet, its X-ray signature would not have disappeared because there is nothing to keep the gas from continuing to emit X-rays (it would still be hot). If it fell into the black hole, then you would indeed expect it the X-ray signature to disappear (and it did).

The accretion disc is located at about 28,000 LY from us, while the galaxy in which we have observed (also by X-ray) in falling matter for the first time is located at a distance of 1,000,000,000 LY (One billion light year away)
Hence - If our scientists wants to prove something - than they have the technology to observe an Earth size cloud at a  distance of One billion light year away. However, If they don't see the expected in falling matter in a distance of only 28,000 light year, than suddenly our technology is very poor.
Is it real?

The paper about infalling matter moving at 30% the speed of light has the answer to that:

The transient nature of the rev2659 inflow largely explains why a compelling detection has not been reported before. Isolated claims are not uncommon, however, with several single-line detections noted in the ‘Introduction’ section, and both XMM–Newton and Suzaku archival searches finding – but not discussing – transient absorption lines in the region occupied by redshifted Fe K lines.

In order to see a gas cloud get eaten by a black hole, you have to be looking in the right place at the right time (this event happened over the scale of hours). It's easy to miss.

Therefore, we still must prove this modeling.

How many times do I have to tell you that you don't prove scientific models or theories?

So, you claim that there is no difference between the gravitational field of a neutron star & a black hole of similar mass.
While Kryid claims that even SMBH might be different from each other:

You are taking my statements out of context. What evan_au is saying is absolutely true: due to shell theorem, a distant body will react to gravity in exactly the same manner whether the object it is orbiting is a normal star, a neutron star or a black hole (if they all have identical mass). My statements are different because, for one, I am talking about black holes of different masses. My statements aren't only about gravity, either, but are about differences in spin, temperature and gas densities as well. You're comparing apples with oranges.

So, do you mean that if we want to prove that our SMBH eats the mass in its accretion disc, than we can base our understanding even on the activity of  neutron star, while in the same token we can claim that our SMBH can't be used as a study case for other SMBH because it doesn't fulfill our expectations?

It depends on the circumstances. For a stellar mass black hole, yes, you'd expect it to behave in a similar manner to a neutron star put in its place when it accretes matter. A super-massive black hole, however, is many, many times more massive than a neutron star and (potentially) has an accretion disk many, many times more massive. You would still expect the super-massive black hole to pull the matter in just as the neutron star does, but the rate may be very different.

Why our SMBH is so naughty? Why does it eject 99% of the food in the accretion buffet?   

Would you please quit asking the same questions over and over again when they've already been answered? I've already given you the answer from that same article that you seem to love so much:

But the Chandra observation, collected over five weeks in 2012, revealed that the material in the vicinity of Sgr A* is not only very thin and diffuse, but is also extremely hot.  As a consequence, it escapes the black hole while it is still far away, and before it has time to form a superheated accretion disk, which explains the coolness of the ejected material.

In any case, do you mean that if we find a SMBH (even if it is located at a distance of a billion years away and even if we only find one in the whole Universe)  which eats his food (as expected by our scientists) - than this unique SMBH can be used as a key model for all the SMBH in the Universe. However, all the other Millions and billions SMBH (including our local SMBH) that insist to eject there food can't be used as a model as they do not fulfill our expectations?

No, you can't use any one super-massive black hole as a fool-proof model for all others. Each one is a unique entity with its own properties. Some may eat most of their accretion disk, others may expel most of it, while yet others may eat half and expel half. You have to look at it on a case-by-case basis.

So the only one exception SMBH in the whole Universe (which at least fulfill our expectation and show some signs of eating - at a distance of one billion LY away) is used as the key model for...

No, there is no good reason to believe that it is unique. As the article pointed out before, eating gas clouds is a transient phenomenon so it would be rarely observed. Assuming that this galaxy is somehow so magically different from all the others that it is the only one where the black hole consumes matter would be a ridiculous conclusion.

all the other Billions SMBH (that eject their food and don't show any eating activity)

Since when were "all the other billions" of super-massive black holes demonstrated to "eject their food"? You are making that up. Do you honestly think that we have closely investigated the accretion disk behavior of "billions" of super-massive black holes?

- Do you agree with that?

No, because, as usual, you don't know what you are talking about.

Sorry dear scientist let me tell you the following:
You have a fatal error.
This gas cloud had been boosted into the molecular jet stream. The SMBH didn't eat it.

Yes it did. The data is consistent with it having fallen into the hole, not with it having been converted into a jet.

Remember the fireworks???
That fireworks that we are expecting to see if matter is falling into the SMBH?.
Where is that fireworks?
There is no fireworks as the SMBH didn't eat that gas cloud.

What fireworks?

[Halc]

Now, we clearly have direct observation that over than 99% is ejected outwards.

There is no direct observation of this.  We do not directly observe material moving in and out of Sgr-A's accretion disk.  At best we have a view of the radiation signatures surrounding it,

In the article it is stated:
"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 (the point of no return around a black hole, from which not even light can escape) and was unusually cool, and therefore quite dim in the Xray spectrum."
So, it is stated that based on X-ray (real direct observation) our scientists observered that more than 99% of the matter in our accertion disc (which they consider as infalling matter), had been ejected outwards.

Yes, the X-rays were directly observed.  The matter falling in was not.  We cannot see the matter, only a general dim X-ray signature.  The one observation actually saw a clould move and accelerate over the course of hours, but that wasn't Sgr-A.  A direct observation of a mass moving in and/or out like that has not been made for Sgr-A.

Just because I see red light doesn't mean I've observed an apple.  I might deduce that it's an apple causing the red light, but that might not be a direct observation.  In the one distant galaxy, they actually saw the apple, and not just a signature glow from a steady process.

What do you mean by:"SMBH without an accretion disk"
Don't you agree that our SMBH has an accretion disk?

Only a negligible one, barely active at all.

The accretion disc is located at about 28,000 LY from us, while the galaxy in which we have observed (also by X-ray) in falling matter for the first time is located at a distance of 1,000,000,000 LY (One billion light year away)
Hence - If our scientists wants to prove something - than they have the technology to observe an Earth size cloud at a  distance of One billion light year away. However, If they don't see the expected in falling matter in a distance of only 28,000 light year, than suddenly our technology is very poor.
Is it real?

With high technology, we can see a magnesium fire in the dark from space, but that's looking down at the fire.  Looking at Sgr-A is like spotting a firefly from the vantage point on the ground with a forest between us and the firefly.  Sure, its a lot closer, but much less bright and completely obscured by the forest.

So, you claim that there is no difference between the gravitational field of a neutron star & a black hole of similar mass.

At a given radius, yes, there is no difference.  If the black hole had the mass of Earth and you put it in the middle of a hollow massless shell of Earth radius, we on the surface would feel the same gravity.  This should be obvious from Newton's formula which you've quoted.  There are not different kinds of gravity that depend on the nature of the mass involved.

In any case, do you mean that if we find a SMBH (even if it is located at a distance of a billion years away and even if we only find one in the whole Universe)  which eats his food (as expected by our scientists)

The Andromeda one is very similar to the one where they witnessed the cloud falling in.  About the same mass (10x that of Sgr-A), and also being fed far more than is ours.  The distant one is apparently accreting at an even greater rate than Andromeda.  Our galaxy is sort of the anomaly here.  Very little mass is falling into what's left of the disk.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

In the article it is stated:
"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 (the point of no return around a black hole, from which not even light can escape) and was unusually cool, and therefore quite dim in the Xray spectrum."
So, it is stated that based on X-ray (real direct observation) our scientists observed that more than 99% of the matter in our accretion disc (which they consider as in falling matter), had been ejected outwards.

Yes, the X-rays were directly observed.  The matter falling in was not.  We cannot see the matter, only a general dim X-ray signature.

Thanks Halc
If I understand you correctly, the X-rays of the ejected matter were directly & clearly observed.
However, there is no indication at all for any in falling matter.
Therefore, our scientists have stated that 99% of the matter is ejected outwards.
That is clear to me by now.

With regards to that gas cloud at earth size which had been discovered at the one billion light year away in 2018:

It originally was in the accretion disk. Read the following excerpt from the article:
"The observation agrees closely with recent theoretical work, also at Leicester and using the UK's Dirac supercomputer facility simulating the 'tearing' of misaligned accretion discs. This work has shown that rings of gas can break off and collide with each other, cancelling out their rotation and leaving gas to fall directly towards the black hole".

So, our scientists claim that " rings of gas can break off and collide with each other, cancelling out their rotation and leaving gas to fall directly towards the black hole"
Let see if this is feasible:
1. Orbital velocity of the matter/plasma in the "inner edge of the accretion disk"
Based on the article which Kryptid had offered:

Do we know for sure if a BH/SMBH rotates or not?
Yes: https://resonance.is/super-massive-black-holes-spin-near-the-speed-of-light/

"This research project utilized x-ray emission fluorescence produced by the reflection of hard X-rays off the inner edge of the accretion disk. The x-rays are produced in the region outside of the black hole as iron molecules are excited in the chaotic region outside of the event horizon."
So, they specifically measure the orbital velocity the inner side of the accretion disc (they even call it:  "the chaotic region outside of the event horizon").
In that region the have found that the orbital velocity is 0.85c:
"the suppermassive black hole called NG1365 is spinning at an extreme speed of 85% of the speed of light or 670 million miles per hour."

2. The impact of the magnetic field on the Accretion rings:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/103/pdf
MAGNETICALLY LEVITATING ACCRETION DISKS AROUND SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLES
"In this paper, we report on the formation of magnetically levitating accretion disks around suppermassive black
holes (SMBHs). The structure of these disks is calculated by numerically modeling tidal disruption of magnetized
interstellar gas clouds. We find that the resulting disks are entirely supported by the pressure of the magnetic
fields against the component of gravitational force directed perpendicular to the disks. The magnetic field shows
ordered large-scale geometry that remains stable for the duration of our numerical experiments extending over 10% of the disk lifetime. Strong magnetic pressure allows high accretion rate and inhibits disk fragmentation. This in combination with the repeated feeding of magnetized molecular clouds to an SMBH yields a possible solution to the long-standing puzzle of black hole growth in the centers of galaxies."

It is stated clearly: "Strong magnetic pressure allows high accretion rate and inhibits disk fragmentation."
Hence, the ultra magnetic force "inhibits disc fragmentation".
Therefore, there is no possibility for: "rings of gas can break off and collide with each other" in the accretion disc.
We have already found that the matter in the "inner edge of the accretion disk" orbits in one direction at ultra high velocity of 0.85c.

So, even if there is a collision, while all the matter orbits at the same direction at ultra velocity - how can they suddenly stop the orbital velocity of plasma?
How our scientists believe that somehow in the "inner edge of the accretion disk" there is "disk fragmentation" while it is stated that -  "Strong magnetic pressure allows high accretion rate and inhibits disk fragmentation", and than somehow two plasma sections that orbit at the same direction and at the same ultra high velocity of 0.85C can collide and stop at their orbital momentum?
How could it be that after this imaginary stop the gas cloud move so nicely in the direction of the black hole and cross the event of horizon? No more orbital velocity of 0.85c, no more "Strong magnetic pressure allows high accretion rate and inhibits disk fragmentation" In that  "inner edge of the accretion disk".
How a plasma can be converted back into gas cloud?
Wow!
So, let's summarize:
A gas cloud from outside is falling into the accretion disc.
As it falls in it gain ultra high orbital velocity and ultra high temp, converted into plasma under the ultra gravity force of the SMBH and under the Ultra magnetic force.
At the "inner edge of the accretion disk" which is also called: "the chaotic region outside of the event horizon" the orbital velocity of that plasma is almost 0.85c.
Than suddenly, the plasma stops its orbital velocity, (from 0.85c to zero!) converted back into a nice gas cloud at the size of the Earth and move nicely and directly to the event of horizon of the SMBH (at 0.3c) without any orbital momentum.
If this is not science fiction - than I clearly don't know the meaning of science fiction..

[Halc]

However, there is no indication at all for any in falling matter.
...
That is clear to me by now.

There is indication.  My point was that it isn't directly seen.  Have you seen actual pictures of Sgr-A?  It looks like the forest I mentioned.  I'd personally never have guessed there was something special there, but then it's not my job.  Here's an image from a prior post in this thread when we were talking about S2:

Sgr-A isn't even centered on one of the bright spots.
The X-ray shots allow one to actually see it, if only an image of a fuzzy spot that isn't nearly as bright as many other nearby X-ray sources.

So, they specifically measure the orbital velocity the inner side of the accretion disc (they even call it:  "the chaotic region outside of the event horizon").
In that region the have found that the orbital velocity is 0.85c:
"the suppermassive black hole called NG1365 is spinning at an extreme speed of 85% of the speed of light or 670 million miles per hour."

That comment is obviously wrong.  Black holes don't have a spin rate, they have angular momentum. Your post says it is a measurement taken from the inner edge of the ring, not the black hole itself. So the article contradicts itself, which is typical of an article written by some guy instead of the scientist himself.  Yes, black holes spin, but it isn't measured in units of linear speed.
Similarly, the one article was similarly wrong when it said 'a cloud the size of Earth'.  There is no way an Earth-size object could be seen at that distance.  I suspect they meant mass-of-Earth.  I'm surprised you didn't latch onto that error and forever quote that 'clearly' Earth-size objects can be seen from a billion light years away.

It is stated clearly: "Strong magnetic pressure allows high accretion rate and inhibits disk fragmentation."
Hence, the ultra magnetic force "inhibits disc fragmentation".

For the most part, a single disk prevents itself from breaking up on its own.  It doesn't really cover the case of multiple accretion disks working on different planes, as is the case of PG1211+143, which had at least 7 disks according to the article.

Therefore, there is no possibility for: "rings of gas can break off and collide with each other" in the accretion disc.

Contradicted by findings you linked.  Again, I notice one quote is 'clearly' and the other dismissed.  Science cannot be done with that sort of blatant selection bias.

We have already found that the matter in the "inner edge of the accretion disk" orbits in one direction at ultra high velocity of 0.85c.

So, even if there is a collision, while all the matter orbits at the same direction at ultra velocity - how can they suddenly stop the orbital velocity of plasma?

It wasn't that black hole where they measured that speed.  That speed was also the inner edge of one exceptional disk.  In the PG1211+143 case, it was a interaction of a pair of slow-moving non-inner rings that was in what they call the 'tearing zone', somewhat between the inner and outermost rings where the conflicting forces can tear chunks off the rings and allow them to hit each other.

How our scientists believe that somehow in the "inner edge of the accretion disk" there is "disk fragmentation" and somehow two plasma sections that orbit at the same direction and at the same ultra high velocity of 0.85C can collide and stop at their orbital momentum?

Nobody said that except you.

How could it be that after this imaginary stop the gas cloud move so nicely in the direction of the black hole and cross the event of horizon? No more orbital velocity of 0.85c, no more "Strong magnetic pressure allows high accretion rate and inhibits disk fragmentation" In that  "inner edge of the accretion disk".
How a plasma can be converted back into gas cloud?

Nobody said it was plasma.  It probably became so just before entering the black hole, but not while they were watching it.

Wow!
So, let's summarize:
A gas cloud from outside is falling into the accretion disc.
As it falls in it gain ultra high orbital velocity and ultra high temp, converted into plasma under the ultra gravity force of the SMBH and under the Ultra magnetic force.
At the "inner edge of the accretion disk" which is also called: "the chaotic region outside of the event horizon" the orbital velocity of that plasma is almost 0.85c.

This is a terrible summary.  You're mixing descriptions of different things and different scenarios.  No real scenario is described by this summary.

If this is not science fiction - than I clearly don't know the meaning of science fiction.

I actually agree with this statement.  The above description is fiction.  For once, you didn't preface it with "Do you agree with that?".

[evan_au]

Oops! overlap with Halc...

the gas cloud was observed to become increasingly dense as it accelerated, which is what you would expect if the gas cloud was actually approaching the hole

Just to clarify this: A gas cloud that is "stationary" relative to the black hole will fall towards the black hole.
- Because it needs to maintain a minimum orbital velocity to remain in orbit
- Different parts of the gas cloud will fall towards the black hole
- Parts of the cloud that are closer to the black hole will accelerate away from more distant parts (because gravity is stronger when you are closer to the black hole): The "spaghetti effect"
- Parts of the cloud that are equidistant from the black hole will accelerate towards each other (because they are all aiming for the somewhat small black hole)

So whether the gas cloud is overall more or less dense depends on the relative sizes of the gas cloud and the black hole, and their relative velocities.

If the "stationary" gas cloud was formed by the collision of two gas clouds orbiting on different orbital planes, you could expect the collision to be violent, and to produce a debris cloud with a high temperature and a wide spread of velocities.   

even if there is a collision, while all the matter orbits at the same direction at ultra velocity - how can they suddenly stop the orbital velocity of plasma?

If you look at the orbits of the stars around Sgr A*, you will see that they have very different orbital planes and eccentricities - much like comets orbiting the Sun.

If two of these stars or dust clouds formed an accretion disk around SGR A*, they would be orbiting on different orbital planes - and perhaps even in opposite directions. These accretion disks would collide at very high speeds (we are talking of orbital velocities which are a fair fraction of c).
- This would produce heating and material that collapses into the black hole

If this is not science fiction - than I clearly don't know the meaning of science fiction..

You are just confusing several different scenarios:
- A single active accretion disk, with a dominant orbital plane (such as M87, imaged with the Even Horizon Telescope). At present we see mass steadily falling into the black hole, with around 10% siphoned off in jets.
- A very short-lived accretion disk, containing matter in different orbital planes. The angular momentum is not enough to sustain an accretion disk, and it quickly disappears into the black hole.
- A minimal accretion disk, such as we see in our galaxy at present = 26,000 years ago. The high temperatures around the black hole (perhaps from a previous accretion disk?) are preventing a new accretion disk from forming, at present. (After it cools down, if something massive comes close enough in a decade or so, probably an accretion disk will resume in our galaxy.)

Note that cosmologists expect that the growth rate of black holes is somewhat self-limiting.
- A dietary binge is likely to heat up the environment enough so that it slows down subsequent consumption.
- This may be what we see in our own galaxy at present
- Cosmologists are trying to refine these dietary limits.
- In particular, it is unclear how SMBH which form the cores of galaxies formed so early in the universe.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole#Formation

[Kryptid]

However, there is no indication at all for any in falling matter.

I already explained why there is. Objects don't disappear into nothingness, so the disappearance of the X-ray signature indicates that the gas cloud was consumed by the hole.

Let see if this is feasible:

Yes, it's feasible. For reasons the others have described.

How a plasma can be converted back into gas cloud?

Plasma is already a gas. The fact that the cloud was emitting X-rays clearly showed that it was very hot.

It is stated clearly: "Strong magnetic pressure allows high accretion rate and inhibits disk fragmentation."
Hence, the ultra magnetic force "inhibits disc fragmentation".
Therefore, there is no possibility for: "rings of gas can break off and collide with each other" in the accretion disc.

The article is talking specifically about gravitational fragmentation, not fragmentation due to different parts of different disks at different angles to each other colliding. The Lense-Thirring effect, which is responsible for these multiple, out-of-plane disks, is not even mentioned in that particular article.

By the way, that very same study you cite also says, "We find that the resulting disks are completely dominated by the magnetic field pressure and display high accretion rates due to the Maxwell stress associated with the large-scale magnetic field the structure of which remains stable over the duration of the simulation." So you are willing to accept what that paper says (which is talking about a numerical simulation, which you normally seem to be suspicious of) when it agrees with your ideas, but when it contradicts them (like saying that black holes accrete matter) you ignore it?

So are calculations published by astrophysicists trustworthy evidence or are they not?

So whether the gas cloud is overall more or less dense depends on the relative sizes of the gas cloud and the black hole, and their relative velocities.

That's true, although the paper did say that the density increased in this particular case.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

" So you are willing to accept what that paper says (which is talking about a numerical simulation, which you normally seem to be suspicious of) when it agrees with your ideas, but when it contradicts them (like saying that black holes accrete matter) you ignore it?

May I ask you the same question?
Are you willing to accept the data which had been given in this article?
If so, why do you take one and reject the other?
In the article it is stated very clearly:
https://phys.org/news/2018-09-falling-black-hole-percent.html
"First detection of matter falling into a black hole at 30 percent of the speed of light"
So, do you accept the statement that this is the FIRST detection/observation?
Do you agree that before 2018 we didn't find any observation for in falling matter?
Do you agree that after this discovery we have also didn't find any observation for in falling matter?
Do you agree that this discovery is the only real observation that we have ever found?
We didn't find any observation for in falling matter. Not in M87 in 1987, not in Andromeda galaxy and not at any SMBH at any location in the whole Universe. Not before and not after this unique discovery
Please let me know if you agree to accept this clear statement from the article.

With regards to the technology:
Please remember that we have the technology to monitor a gas cloud at a size of Earth from a distance of one billion light year away.
if we could observe this in falling matter, don't you agree that we should have the technology to see in falling matter at any other galaxy in the Universe (up to one Billion Light year away)?

If so, do you agree that the following answer for our limitation to see the in falling matter by X-ray signature is not relevant?

Yes, the X-rays were directly observed.  The matter falling in was not.  We cannot see the matter, only a general dim X-ray signature.

So, can we agree that we have never ever see any in falling matter (except of this last verification of Gas cloud in the size of the Earth which had been observed at a distance of ONE BILLION LIght year away) although we have the most advanced technology to see any in falling matter For up to one Billion light year away?
Why do you claim:

With high technology, we can see a magnesium fire in the dark from space, but that's looking down at the fire.  Looking at Sgr-A is like spotting a firefly from the vantage point on the ground with a forest between us and the firefly.  Sure, its a lot closer, but much less bright and completely obscured by the forest.

Please be aware that the Gas cloud was observed by our scientists for one full day (24 H?).
Please see the image (red arrow):
https://phys.org/news/2018-09-falling-black-hole-percent.html
It came from outside, cross several accretion discs and than even cross the alighted accretion disc (that disc surely has the Plasma - at temp of 10^9c and minimal orbital velocity of 0.3 speed of light) and then it had been swallowed by the SMBH event of horizon.
Our scientists follow the whole rote. Therefore, if we can trace a gas cloud at Earth size from a distance of one billion light year away, crossing the ultra high fire of the accretion discs (one by one) and even the most biggest fire in the inner most disc (aligned accretion disc), than you should agree that we have the technology to see also any in falling matter at any nearby galaxy including our galaxy?
Therefore the conclusion is very simple:
We didn't see any in falling matter in our galaxy - not because our technology limitation, but because there is no in falling matter.
In the same token -
We have never ever found any in falling matter in any galaxy in the Universe (except that one at one billion years away) not because our technology limitation but because there is no in falling matter into the accretion disc or from the accretion directly into the SMBH!!!

[Kryptid]

May I ask you the same question?

I will answer that question if you answer it first.

We didn't see any in falling matter in our galaxy - not because our technology limitation, but because there is no in falling matter.
In the same token -
We have never ever found any in falling matter in any galaxy in the Universe (except that one at one billion years away) not because our technology limitation but because there is no in falling matter into the accretion disc or from the accretion directly into the SMBH!!!

I don't know if you missed it or intentionally ignored it, but the paper already addressed this:

The transient nature of the rev2659 inflow largely explains why a compelling detection has not been reported before. Isolated claims are not uncommon, however, with several single-line detections noted in the ‘Introduction’ section, and both XMM–Newton and Suzaku archival searches finding – but not discussing – transient absorption lines in the region occupied by redshifted Fe K lines.

Bring this up again and I'm going to post this quote again. The answer won't change just because you don't like it.

[Halc]

With regards to the technology:
Please remember that we have the technology to monitor a gas cloud at a size of Earth from a distance of one billion light year away.

We probably don't.  Yes, the article uses those words.

if we could observe this in falling matter, don't you agree that we should have the technology to see in falling matter at any other galaxy in the Universe (up to one Billion Light year away)?

Sure, if it's an isolated 'object' like that cloud.  Usually it's more of a bleeding of material in a steady rain, like all the local black holes they see siphoning material off a companion star.  No individual 'object' is seen moving.

If so, do you agree that the following answer for our limitation to see the in falling matter by X-ray signature is not relevant?

No.  There are no 'objects' falling into Sgr-A.  It is not well fed.  Instead of watching it eat a burger, we're watching it take in a thin stream of atoms. We can't see those individual atoms since groups of them don't move as a unit.

Please be aware that the Gas cloud was observed by our scientists for one full day (24 H?).
Please see the image (red arrow):

The image is not a picture of PG1211+143, but PG1211+143 has a configuration something like that.

It came from outside, cross several accretion discs and than even cross the alighted accretion disc

The article doesn't say that.  Point is that the rings are misaligned, so infalling material does not cross the more inner rings.

(that disc surely has the Plasma - at temp of 10^9c and minimal orbital velocity of 0.3 speed of light)

Perhaps, but the article doesn't say this, so you can't draw a conclusion from asserting it.

Therefore, if we can trace a gas cloud at Earth size from a distance of one billion light year away, crossing the ultra high fire of the accretion discs (one by one) and even the most biggest fire in the inner most disc (aligned accretion disc)

Article doesn't say this.  These are your words.

than you should agree that we have the technology to see also any in falling matter at any nearby galaxy including our galaxy?

Nearby, if the galaxy is not seen edge-on, sure.  Ours, perhaps not, because of our view being obscured.  If S2 fell in, we'd see that because suddenly it would blink out.  It apparently is bright enough to see despite all the clutter between us and it.

Therefore the conclusion is very simple:
We didn't see any in falling matter in our galaxy - not because our technology limitation, but because there is no in falling matter.

There are no 'objects' falling in, sure.  There is a steady, albeit thin stream of matter falling in, and we 'see' the signature from that.  So in that sense, we directly see material falling into that black hole just like any other.  If we don't see that, we can't tell the black hole is there except perhaps due to lensing if it passes in front of something.

In the same token -
We have never ever found any in falling matter in any galaxy in the Universe (except that one at one billion years away) not because our technology limitation but because there is no in falling matter into the accretion disc or from the accretion directly into the SMBH!!!

No, we see it all the time.  The stuff falling in is just not 'objects', so we can't track individual bits of it.  That's the new thing that was observed with PG1211+143, and even then, we could only track the displaced cloud due to its spectral lines being different than all the other material around it as it 'stopped' and then was pulled straight in, accelerating on the way down.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Yes, it's feasible. For reasons the others have described.

As we discuss on a gas cloud at the size of the Earth, let's verify the confidence in this feasibility:
1. "Gas can break off and collide with each other":
"The observation agrees closely with recent theoretical work, also at Leicester and using the UK's Dirac supercomputer facility simulating the 'tearing' of misaligned accretion discs. This work has shown that rings of gas can break off and collide with each other, cancelling out their rotation and leaving gas to fall directly towards the black hole."
When they say - "rings of gas can break off and collide with each other" what do they mean?
2. Same size?
If the gas cloud from one ring has different size, than it is clear that it will win and grab the other one with it.
So, what is the chance for the same size?
3. Face to face?
As each ring orbits at a different radius, what is the chance for face to face collision?
What is the chance that the inner ring will send a gas outwards, while the outer ring will send a gas cloud inwards - both at the same size and face to face?
4. Structure of the gas cloud:
If I understand it correctly a cloud is not a It is not a dense star planet moon or even rock. So cloud is based on Atoms Molecular & particles that are not too dense together (Atom to Atom). There must be a gap between the Atoms/Molecular/Particles.
Now, let's try to collide two Hydrogen gas cloud (at the same size of 1/2 Earth size) at the same size while each one is moving at a velocity of 0.3c.
What might be the outcome?
As there is a gap between the particles, what is the chance that one particle from one cloud will collide with other particle from other cloud?
Do you agree the chance for that is very low? So, there is good chance that the clouds can cross through each other without any severe impact to each other.
On the other hand. Let's assume that some particles would collide with particles from the other cloud:
What is the chance that one particle from one cloud will collide with other particle with the same mass and also face to face?
Do you agree that in order to stop at the spot of the collision, a particle from one cloud must collide with the same particle (Same size same mass) from the other cloud and the collision mast be face to face by 100%?
If they are not in the same size, or if they are not directly face to face than they should be ejected into different directions.
So, what is the chance that a particle from one cloud will collide face to face with the same particle from the other cloud?
Somehow, it seems to me that the highest chance is that they should cross each other without any significant impacts to each other.
On the other hand assuming that the gas could have the same size, it's made out of one sort of particle, and it is very dense, than don't you agree that the outcome should be like a bomb that explode to all directions.
So, if we add all the chances - it is very clear to me that the chance to have only one nice gas cloud moving directly into the center of the SMBH out of a collision - it is less than one to one million of a trillion.
This is just one section.
I would like to get your feedback before continue with the other one.

[evan_au]

If the gas cloud from one ring has different size, than it is clear that it will win and grab the other one with it.

Not quite.

If they had exactly equal angular momentum, both would fall straight into the black hole.
If they had a 50% difference in angular momentum (with opposite sign), about 2/3 would fall straight into the black hole.

What is the chance that the inner ring will send a gas outwards, while the outer ring will send a gas cloud inwards - both at the same size and face to face?

It is quite possible that gas clouds arrive with a highly elliptical orbit. This means that the gas moves inwards and outwards on every orbit. Due to friction within the cloud, the cloud will spread out radially, and due to gravitational dispersion it will also spread out along its orbit, starting to form an accretion disk in the orbital plane of the incoming gas cloud.

As there is a gap between the particles, what is the chance that one particle from one cloud will collide with other particle from other cloud?

Almost none.
Although there is a gap between atoms in a gas, there are a lot of atoms in a gas cloud with half the mass of the Earth..

Once the gas turns into a plasma, we are not talking about collision of electrically neutral atoms.
We are talking about electrically charged electrons and nuclei diverting other electrically charged particles.
Effectively all the spaces disappear.

[Kryptid]

When they say - "rings of gas can break off and collide with each other" what do they mean?

The "breaking-off" is referring to the breaking of an accretion disk into multiple, smaller rings that are oriented at different angles to each other (caused by the Lense-Thirring effect). Gas clouds are turbulent things and they don't have well-defined boundaries. Right at the interface where two rings of gas cross, friction between the clouds would be expected to cause some of the gas to be ripped off, slow down, and falling into the hole.

Since the rest of your post has been addressed by Halc and evan_au, I will now await your answer to my earlier question: can calculations done by astrophysicists be considered trustworthy sources of evidence? You said:

It is stated clearly: "Strong magnetic pressure allows high accretion rate and inhibits disk fragmentation."
Hence, the ultra magnetic force "inhibits disc fragmentation".
Therefore, there is no possibility for: "rings of gas can break off and collide with each other" in the accretion disc.

You are citing the results of calculations as if they were absolutely factually. Your use of the phrase "no possibility" clearly demonstrates the weight of authority you give to these calculations. So are you suddenly saying that calculations are facts?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The "breaking-off" is referring to the breaking of an accretion disk into multiple, smaller rings that are oriented at different angles to each other (caused by the Lense-Thirring effect). Gas clouds are turbulent things and they don't have well-defined boundaries. Right at the interface where two rings of gas cross, friction between the clouds would be expected to cause some of the gas to be ripped off, slow down, and falling into the hole.

Let's look at the following image of the accretion disc of that far end galaxy:
https://phys.org/news/2018-09-falling-black-hole-percent.html
In the article it is stated:
"The orbit of the gas around the black hole is often assumed to be aligned with the rotation of the black hole, but there is no compelling reason for this to be the case. In fact, the reason we have summer and winter is that the Earth's daily rotation does not line up with its yearly orbit around the Sun."
So, they claim that in the accretion disc there are un aligned rings in the accretion disc and they also orbit in opposite directions.
I wonder if they really see those rings in the accretion disc, or is it one more hypothetical idea.
In order to give a confidence to the opposite orbital directions of the rings in the accretion disc they claim:
"This is particularly relevant to the feeding of suppermassive black holes since matter (interstellar gas clouds or even isolated stars) can fall in from any direction."
Hence, as stars/gas cloud might fall in different directions, they theoretically could set different orbital directions in the accretion Rings.
Based on this answer, it seems to me that they have no real prove to those Unaligned rings.
They just want to prove something, so they invent something.
Sorry - If they want to prove that there is "different angles" between the rings and thery orbit at opposite directions - they must prove it based on real rings in Astronomy.
For example let's look at Saturn's Rings:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rings_of_Saturn 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rings_of_Saturn#/media/File:Unraveling_Saturn's_Rings.jpg
It has several rings. However, all of them orbit at the same plane and at the same direction.
I positively sure that all the rings around all the other planets – must be fully aligned and orbit at the same direction.
The spiral disc/ring in our galaxy can also be used as a perfect example
We call it disc, but in reality it is ring as it starts from about 3KPC to about 12KPC.
There are billion of stars there.
All of them are located at the same plane and all of them orbit at the same direction.
You won't find even one star that dare to orbit at the opposite direction in that spiral disc/ring.
Why is it? How could it be that all the stars that are falling inwards to the spiral disc/ring must orbit in only one direction?
How can they assume that star "can fall in from any direction" while we see clearly that this isn't the case in the spiral disc/ring?
So, in all the available rings in astronomy, those rings are fully aligned and orbit in one direction.
We actually can also confirm the aligned idea with our own accretion disc.
We see it from the side. So, if there were unaligned rings, we could easily see them.
Do we see any unaligned rings in our accretion disc or in any nearby accretion disc?
Is it science or wishful list?
You can't assume something and we all have to accept this unreal assumption just because you are professor in a famous University. (The team, led by Professor Ken Pounds of the University of Leicester)
If you want to prove your assumption - you need to offer information/example about similar rings in Astronomy.
Can you please show even one real example for unassigned rings around any Star or SMBH?
How can you compare a ring to a solar system?
Can we assume that planets around solar system are ring???
If he can't prove the basic idea about unassigned rings in accretion disc, how can we trust the theory of collision between clouds?

As evan says, almost zero chance that any two particles (improbably small targets) will hit.

Do you mean that they can't hit each other? (That exactly what I Claim).
Let's look at the radius of hydrogen Atom:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_radius
"The Bohr radius (a0 or rBohr) is a physical constant, exactly equal to the most probable distance between the nucleus and the electron in a hydrogen atom in its ground state. It is named after Niels Bohr, due to its role in the Bohr model of an atom. Its value is 5.29177210903(80)×10−11 m.[1][note 1]"
Let me ask again:
What is the chance that one Hydrogen from one cloud will hit that Atom directly at the center (face to face)?
If they hit each other even at only 0.29177210903(80)×10−11 m from their center, than they will both ejected to different directions.
So, it is not just about the collision chance between each two atoms, but it is also about the exact face to face collision point between the atoms.

Consider a small 'cloud' of blue gas to the left and another red one to the right, about a meter apart.  Put a little portable fan in the red cloud, pointed at the blue, and turn it on.  Does the red cloud pass through the blue leaving most of the blue cloud behind before it starts to move? 

The Answer is YES.
A cloud in the Space is not as a cloud in the Earth.
It has a density. So, there are limited no. of atoms in a limited space. So there is an empty space between the atoms.
I didn't set the calculation yet, but I assume that if the radius of Hydrogen atom is 0.29177210903(80)×10−11, than in a real gas cloud the distance between two nearby atoms cloud be one million or even one billion bigger than this no.
Therefore, even if billions of atom are crossing by, there is no real confidence that they will hit that specific atom.
If nothing will hit it, it will continue with its momentum and cross the other cloud.
If something will hit it - and not at the exact center, they will be ejected to different directions.
So, I wonder what is the chance to hit an atom exactly at its center of mass.
Please also take in account that gas cloud has different particles. It might be Hydrogen Atom but also it might be different kind of atom or molecular.
Therefore, even if two different mass atoms/molecular will hit at their center (face to face), due to the mass change, one atom could grab the other one.
We need to compare it to car accident in a highway.
If two cars exactly at the same size collide with each other exactly at their center of mass, than, yes - theoretically they could stop at their current accident spot.
However, how many times we have really found that kind of scenario?
Do you agree that it should be less than one to one million?
If one car has a little difference in its mass, don't you agree that  the heavier must grab the other one with it?
If it is not directly face to face, don't you agree that they will continue to move at different directions.
So, the chance for an Atom to collide and stay at its current location, is clearly less than this kind of unique collision between same cars in highways.
It seems to me as one will claim that a collision between two cars can create instantly new truck, without any garbage around the collision point.
Let's assume that somehow due the collision we have set a new truck out of two collided cars without any garbage.
Why that new truck will move now at 90 degrees from the highway direction?
In the same token?
Let's assume that all the atoms from the two gas clouds have been collided with the same atom mass and also face to face.
How could it be that they can cross the accretion ring without any difficulty?
Did you ever try to cross a highway?
Why the aligned accretion ring does not grab that gas cloud with its plasma orbital stream?
Therefore, I still consider that the idea of forming that single gas cloud out of a single collision which is moving directly to the SMBH while crossing the rings one by one,  is very problematic.
It is clear to me that the only possibility for a gas cloud to cross the highway accretion disc is by flying above those rings.
Therefore, it isn't falling into the SMBH, but it is moving to the pole of the SMBH. Magnetic force is the only power that can set this activity. It is moving directly under the magnetic field line directly to the pole.
Hence, this gas cloud will be ejected as a molecular jet stream above the SMBH.
I really sorry that the team didn't try to trace that earth size gas cloud as it was getting closer to the SMBH pole.
They could see some sort of X-ray as the gas cloud was boosted upwards.

[Kryptid]

Hence, as stars/gas cloud might fall in different directions, they theoretically could set different orbital directions in the accretion Rings.
Based on this answer, it seems to me that they have no real prove to those Unaligned rings.
They just want to prove something, so they invent something.
Sorry - If they want to prove that there is "different angles" between the rings and thery orbit at opposite directions - they must prove it based on real rings in Astronomy.

There is nothing made up about this. The Lense-Thirring effect is a prediction of relativity and has been observed to be consistent with the behavior of a jet emitted by V404 Cygni: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lense%E2%80%93Thirring_precession#Experimental_verification

It has several rings. However, all of them orbit at the same plane and at the same direction.
I positively sure that all the rings around all the other planets – must be fully aligned and orbit at the same direction.

If you actually understood what Lense-Thirring precession was, you'd know why all of these rings and orbits don't exhibit much distortion. The Lense-Thirring effect is normally extremely weak and only manifests to a significant degree when the object in question is very massive and spinning very quickly. Those are exactly the attributes that a super-massive black hole has.

We actually can also confirm the aligned idea with our own accretion disc.
We see it from the side. So, if there were unaligned rings, we could easily see them.
Do we see any unaligned rings in our accretion disc or in any nearby accretion disc?

Whether or not this even happens with the Milky Way's SMBH depends on the nature of the accretion disk. The Lense-Thirring precession would only break the disk into multiple rings if it is orbiting closely enough to the hole (the effect is stronger the closer you get). If it's too far away, there will be no breaking in the disk. The fact that the earlier article about 99% of material getting thrown away from Sagittarius A* stated that the material in the accretion disk gets thrown off before it can get close to the hole would support that idea. Then, on top of that, these out-of-plane disks would have to be bright enough for us to directly image them. Our disk is much dimmer than many other black hole disks.

Not that any of this matters. Even if the idea of multiple rings is wrong, that doesn't invalidate our observations. We saw a gas cloud get eaten by a black hole. It happened. Complaining about it won't make it go away.

I really sorry that the team didn't try to trace that earth size gas cloud as it was getting closer to the SMBH pole.

They traced the cloud until it was gone. Did you not even read the paper?

They could see some sort of X-ray as the gas cloud was boosted upwards.

Exactly. This is how we know that it didn't get blasted out as a jet. They followed the cloud until it disappeared. So it did go into the hole.

By the way, quit ignoring this:

You are citing the results of calculations as if they were absolutely factually. Your use of the phrase "no possibility" clearly demonstrates the weight of authority you give to these calculations. So are you suddenly saying that calculations are facts?

[evan_au]

There are billion of stars there.
All of them are located at the same plane and all of them orbit at the same direction.

The spiral arms of our galaxy is like a flat disk.
We can't see the core of our galaxy clearly (due to dust), but spiral galaxies like our own have a galactic bulge which is like a swarm of angry bees around a central black hole, all moving in different directions, in different planes. The same goes for all of an elliptical galaxy (and globular clusters).

The black hole develops an accretion disk when it gets fed, and with matter arriving from different directions at different times from within the galactic bulge, a temporary accretion disk could form at any angle.

If this accretion disk runs into an accretion disk at a different angle, both will end up with less angular momentum, and both will move closer to entering the event horizon.

Therefore, even if two different mass atoms/molecular will hit at their center (face to face), due to the mass change, one atom could grab the other one.

The velocity of these stars and gas clouds would be quite high when they approach the black hole on an elliptical orbit.

That means that any collision with a gas cloud will be quite energetic, so they are unlikely to form molecules during the collision - they are more likely to form a plasma.

A single star would probably bore a hole through a dust cloud, leaving swirls behind it.
- Provided it is well outside the Roche limit, the star will maintain its integrity
- If it is within the Roche limit, the star will be tidally disrupted, spreading gas along its orbit
- If the star is near the Roche limit, it may lose some of its outer atmosphere, but continue for another encounter on the next orbit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roche_limit

However, a dense gas cloud meeting another dense gas cloud will have a very energetic interaction, spread over a large volume of space.

You can see this when a SMBH jet interacts with the very thin intergalactic medium. For example, see the end of the M87 jet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysical_jet#Relativistic_jets