[Kryptid]

I feel like all of this recent talk is a distraction from the main thrust of this thread. Dave_Lev, you have complained that the scientific models we speak of are "unreal" and not "proven", yet your model has these exact problems. You have claimed that super-massive black holes can conjure mass and energy from nothingness such that they both increase their own mass and create an accretion disk with new mass at the same time. We have repeatedly told you that this violates the first law of thermodynamics and is therefore very much "unreal". You seem to want proof for everything we claim, so why is it that you do not hold yourself to the same standard and offer proof of super-massive black holes creating mass and energy from nothingness? When was a black hole ever observed to create net mass or energy? They never have been and you know it. So why is it that we have to provide proof but you don't?

You have also cited the results of calculations from a scientific paper as being absolutely factual when they agreed with your model, yet you reject the results of calculations from other scientific papers when they disagree with your model. Do you know what that is called? A double standard.

Even if every model and theory about black holes and accretion disks was wrong, it wouldn't make your model correct. One model being wrong is not evidence that a competing model is right. Each model has to stand on its own individual merits, which your model does not have because it breaks the laws of physics.

[Halc]

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

That is not an image of that 'far end galaxy'.  It's an image from a computer simulation run 15 years ago, not meant specifically to model any particular galaxy.
There are images of that galaxy, but that article didn't include one.

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.

It doesn't say that.  There is no 'the disk' if there are multiple ones.  If they're misaligned, they can't orbit in opposite directions.  East is not opposite of North.

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.

Because it all came from the same object that was torn apart.  Mars will soon have rings of its own, and all in one plane like that.

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.

Not so.  The halo objects have fairly random orbits, so about half of them orbit the opposite way as the galaxy.  It is less frequent in the galactic plane, but there are exceptions like 'complex H' which is a group of stars/objects orbiting at around 33 Kpc and going the opposite way.

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?

Or maybe that all these things of which you're so sure is just made-up assertions with no basis.

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?

Things out that far are fairly stable and don't fall in any more than Earth is expected so suddenly make a turn and drop into the sun.  If a close encounter with another mass disrupts that stable orbit, then its new trajectory will be a random one, and if it drops near Sgr-A, it might come from any random direction.  Only disrupted objects get close to it.  If their normal orbit took it close, it would already have been absorbed long ago.

Can we assume that planets around solar system are ring???

Not even Mercury is anywhere close enough to become one.

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).[/quote]The can and do, but the probability of a collision between two specific particles is small.

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)?

Let me answer again:  A small number.

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.

That's still a hit.  Momentum has been exchanged.

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.

Are you expecting them to fuse or something?  If not, this statement is on par with your other assertions.  Fusion requires a pretty direct hit.  Not much of that takes place in the cloud collisions at the lower speeds we're considering.

A cloud in the Space is not as a cloud in the Earth.  It has a density.

Clouds on Earth have no density.  Or maybe you meant the other way around.  Either way, that's an interesting assertion.  I see little point in continuation of this discussion for fear that others might not be able to tell the difference, as the saying goes.

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.

Atoms have no requirement to all stop. That would make their temperature 0, and nobody is claiming the process cools the clouds. A cloud is not one atom. If a pair of gas clouds collide, there will remain a remnant of both that has little momentum, and there will also be ejecta in all directions. The total energy can't go up or down.

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.

Such a collision will result in slow garbage in the middle and yes, plenty more faster garbage to the sides.  It's a poor analogy because cars absorb the energy of the impacts and atoms do not.  You can't make dents in them.

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?

Because gravity pulls it that way.  These cars were not on a road, but rather in orbit.  If they hit head on in orbit and create a stopped truck, that truck will drop straight down, 90° from the direction they were moving before.  Gas doesn't behave like that.  More like a pair of water balloons colliding in low orbit creating not a bigger water balloon 'truck', but just a big splash.  Result is that more than half the water hits the Earth.  At a certain orbital altitude there is a point that water balloon collision results in less than half the water reaching Earth.

The computer simulation you link simulates exactly such a collision and demonstrates the incorrectness of many of the ideas you're asserting here.  You've obviously no background in fluid dynamics either.  You can't write such a simulation with flawed fluid dynamics.  Trivial empirical cases would falsify the validity of the simulation.

How could it be that they can cross the accretion ring without any difficulty?

Nobody said they do.  The rings are misaligned, so they're going around the rings, not through them.

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.

Since it is clear to you, my instincts are to say no, but in this case I agree.  What is wrong with the world when you can't count on a rule of thumb anymore?  The cloud goes around it, and they watched it drop in, not move to the poles.  I can cross a busy highway by using an overpass (or any route that does not intersect the highway).

[Dave Lev (OP)]

You have also cited the results of calculations from a scientific paper as being absolutely factual when they agreed with your model, yet you reject the results of calculations from other scientific papers when they disagree with your model. Do you know what that is called? A double standard.

You complain about double standard, but unfortunate, that exactly what you do.
In the article which I have offered, it is stated clearly in the title:
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"
You fully and happily accept the idea of "detection of matter falling into a black hole at 30 percent of the speed of light", but you reject the meaning of "First".
Although English is not my first language, I will try to help you by Google:
"coming before all others in time or order; earliest; 1st. his first wife."
Do you understand by now the meaning of the word "first"?
When I have asked you about it, your answer was:

I will answer that question if you answer it first.

Are we in the kindergartner?
Somehow, it seems to me that you do understand the meaning of the word "First"
However. you don't want to discuss about it as it contradicts your wishful list that we have already got many other examples for in falling matter long before this discovery. (Examples for in falling matter in M87, Andromeda galaxy, Milky way and many other long before 2018).
If this is not "double standard", than would you kindly explain to me the real meaning of this message in English?
I have no "double standard". I accept by 100% all the observations and all the laws in physics.
However, I reject the outcome of those observations.
You have stated that our science community call "modeling" - Evidence.
That by itself a fatal error.
If they are using wrong assumptions and setups in their modeling they will surly get wrong outcome.
As our scientists insist to look at all observations and discoveries through the BBT filter.
They also are using the "correct" setups and assumptions to fit the modeling into the BBT direction.
Therefore, any modeling which is based on a wishful list of setups and assumptions can't prove anything!
It seems to me that any new scientist get its diploma without the function of "eliminate BBT filter"
Hence, it is impossible mission to any scientist to look on any discovers and observations as I do.
I have no obligation to BBT or to any other theory.
If one day you will be able to eliminate the "BBT filter" (even momentarily), you would find why our Universe is so simple.
So, if you claim that you don't have a double standard - than you must except the very sad outcome that this article is the ONLY real observation for "detection of matter falling into a black hole"
In any case, I fully accept the idea that this is the first detection, but I don't agree with the message of "swallowing" due to the following:
It is also stated:
"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."
Can you please explain the meaning of:
"showing the observed matter to be falling into the black hole"
Why not - "We have observed clearly that the matter is falling into the Black hole? "or "We saw clearly the impact of that falling in activity."?
The answer for that is given in the following:
"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)."
So, they didn't see it really falling into the Black hole.
They just saw that the gas cloud came very close to the BH "at a distance of only 20 times the hole's size - event horizon".
As the "event horizon" represents "the boundary of the region where escape is no longer possible", they were very sure that it must fall in.
So, they didn't see it falling in, they just assume that as it get so close the the event horizon, which represents the boundary of the region where escape is no longer possible, that gas must fall in.
I claim that this is a fatal understanding.
That gas cloud was not even close to the event of horizon.
As they see the galaxy from the top at a distance of 1 Billion light year away, they can't really monitor the height of the gas cloud from the SMBH.
If this gas cloud was just flying above the SMBH, how can the monitor few million Km, from a top view of 1 Billion light year away?
They have totally neglected the great impact of the:
"The gas has almost no rotation around the hole"
In all the modeling that I have ever seen for in falling matter, our scientists have claimed that the in falling gas must orbit around the SMBH before falling in.
So, you want us to believe in the following process:
1. There was a gas cloud outside the accretion disc
2. This gas cloud had been accreted into one of the rings in the accretion disc.
3. As it falls in, it gain high orbital velocity of 0.3 c and above. Please be aware that I have offered clear observation also for 0.85c at the innermost side of the accretion disc. It was stated that this aria is the most chaotic aria in the whole galaxy.
4. It gain high temp - of 10^9 c and be converted into Plasma.
5. It works under the ultra power of the Magnetic field (around the SMBH)
6. Then suddenly there is a collision between two nearby rings in the accretion disc.
Based on the observations, as we move closer to the SMBH, the orbital velocity of the plasma is higher.
However, our scientists want us to believe those nearby rings are moving at opposite directions, and at the same orbital velocity.
7. Somehow, due to this unreal collision - our scientists want to believe that we get a very nice gas cloud that lost completely its orbital momentum.
Is it real? Why our scientists don't offer a modeling for that?
I Have tried to find at the web a modeling for a collision. I thought that a collision between two drops could do the Job
There is no way for the drops to stop at the spot of the collision:
http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/23094/InTech-3d_coalescence_collision_of_liquid_drops_using_smoothed_particle_hydrodynamics.pdf
"These authors identified two types of collisions leading to drops separation"
If you still believe that it is feasible - please show me the modeling for that.
8. Gas cloud temp - There is a big difference from gas cloud to plasma in many aspects especially in their temp. If I understand it correctly, a gas cloud has an estimated temp of less than 10^6 c. Plasma has a temp of 10^9c. So, our scientists want us to believe that the collision had also decrease dramatically the temp of the plasma in order to create a gas cloud.
9. The location of the gas cloud - Let's assume that somehow, we have got this unreal gas cloud of the collision. Don't you agree that it must be created just between the two rings? If it moves just a little bit inwards, why the inwards accretion ring will not grab it?
10. Separated rings in the accretion disc:

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

That is not an image of that 'far end galaxy'.  It's an image from a computer simulation run 15 years ago, not meant specifically to model any particular galaxy.
There are images of that galaxy, but that article didn't include one.

This modeling had not been confirmed by any observation. It was just a fantasy of our scientists (15 years ago) and long before understanding how real Accretion disc works.
Therefore, it was forbidden to use that fantasy.
11. Observation

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.

So, no.
The gas cloud is not an evidence for in falling matter.
We see a gas cloud that moves directly to the pole of the SMBH.
This is not a typical falling in activity as there is no orbital movment in the process of that falling in.
It is very unrealistic to belive that after all the efforts in setting the accertion disc, most of the matter in that accertion disc will be ejected outwards, while the only real observation that we see, will bypass the accretion ring/disc and fall directly into the SMBH.
This is unreal.
The answer is very simple:
As the gas cloud gets close enough to the pole it is ejected outwards - NOT inwards to the SMBH.

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

"An astrophysical jet is an astronomical phenomenon where outflows of ionised matter are emitted as an extended beam along the axis of rotation."
"One explanation is that tangled magnetic fields[2] are organised to aim two diametrically opposing beams away from the central source by angles only several degrees wide (c. > 1%)."
So it is stated that "tangled magnetic fields[2] are organized to aim two diametrically opposing beams."
Therefore, the magnetic field is a key element in astrophysical jet stream.
Our SMBH also ejects that kind of molecular jet stream.
Therefore, it should be clear to all of us that the magnetic field has a key functionality in our SMBH and at any SMBH in the Universe. I really don't understand why our scientists ignore its great impact.
This is the only explanation for a direct movement of the Gas cloud to the SMBH pole.
Not Gravity force, but Magnetic force!!!
As it gets there, it is boosted upwards.
So simple and clear.


After all of this information, let's assume that you insist to avoid "double standard" from both of us.
Do you understand that out of the whole proves for the in falling matter, we end up with only one gas cloud at a size of the Earth which is located at a distance of one Billion Light year away.

So, assuming that you also respect your request about "double standard", do you agree that we see clearly that 99% (or at least 90%) from the mass in the accretion disc is ejected outwards and we actually don't have any real observation (by X-ray) for any in falling matter in any SMBH at the whole Universe (except of that unreal falling in gas cloud)?

[Halc]

You have also cited the results of calculations from a scientific paper as being absolutely factual when they agreed with your model, yet you reject the results of calculations from other scientific papers when they disagree with your model. Do you know what that is called? A double standard.

You complain about double standard, but unfortunate, that exactly what you do.
In the article which I have offered, it is stated clearly in the title:
"First detection of matter falling into a black hole at 30 percent of the speed of light"
You fully and happily accept the idea of "detection of matter falling into a black hole at 30 percent of the speed of light", but you reject the meaning of "First".

Titles are not written by scientists and often not even by the author of the article.  Example: Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity.
That said, the observation was a first, but not necessarily the first that you make it out to be:

you must except the very sad outcome that this article is the ONLY real observation for "detection of matter falling into a black hole"

There you go, bending an article (mostly from just the title) into what you want it to be.
Matter being pulled into black holes has been observed for a long time now, and all of it must move at 30% light speed at some point along the way.  Neither of those two points is a first, and you know that, but you cherry pick the assertion you want to make, from the title no less.

I have no "double standard". I accept by 100% all the observations and all the laws in physics.

Clearly you do not.  The whole thread started off with your rejection of tidal forces, and moved on to assertion of the creation of mass in the same breath where you state that you accept the law of physics saying mass cannot be created or destroyed.  No, you reject what you don't like, despite countless posts and sites explaining it in simple terms, but you unquestioningly embrace poorly worded quotes from fringe sources if it seems to support something you're pushing.  That's the double standard.  If you accept the laws of physics, read the books about them and get educated instead of approaching the subject from deliberate ignorance.

If they are using wrong assumptions and setups in their modeling they will surly get wrong outcome.

That's right. The wrong outcome would be a falsification of the model. It goes on all the time.

As our scientists insist to look at all observations and discoveries through the BBT filter.

There were plenty of non-BBT models. Pretty much all of them 'got the wrong outcome' you speak of above.
Many models (like the multi-ring black hole one you link) are not based on BBT since it isn't a model of the early universe.

Therefore, any modeling which is based on a wishful list of setups and assumptions can't prove anything!

You keep implying that science or models produce proof of anything.  They don't.

It is also stated:
"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."
Can you please explain the meaning of:
"showing the observed matter to be falling into the black hole"
Why not - "We have observed clearly that the matter is falling into the Black hole? "or "We saw clearly the impact of that falling in activity."?

1: Most writers don't litter their sentences with the word 'clearly' all the time. The word means 'I unquestioningly accept this statement' as distinct from statements to be rejected (labeled 'unreal').  Usage of the words just illustrates the selection bias being employed.
2. They report on the actual observation (the red shift), not the conclusion of that observation. Your wording does not.  As for seeing the impact of that falling activity, they said they observed red shift, which could be considered the impact.  If I moved away at 0.3c, the impact on somebody's observation of me would be a red shift.

The answer for that is given in the following:
"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)."
So, they didn't see it really falling into the Black hole.
They just saw that the gas cloud came very close to the BH "at a distance of only 20 times the hole's size - event horizon".

You omit the part where they observe it accelerate in.

As the "event horizon" represents "the boundary of the region where escape is no longer possible", they were very sure that it must fall in.
So, they didn't see it falling in, they just assume that as it get so close the the event horizon, which represents the boundary of the region where escape is no longer possible, that gas must fall in. I claim that this is a fatal understanding.

The article suggests none of this. You deliberately omitted the part where they saw it accelerate in, which indeed is fatal misunderstanding on your part.

That gas cloud was not even close to the event of horizon.

Then it could not have accelerated the way it  was observed.

If this gas cloud was just flying above the SMBH, how can the monitor few million Km, from a top view of 1 Billion light year away?

The article explains this.  Read it.

They have totally neglected the great impact of the:
"The gas has almost no rotation around the hole"
In all the modeling that I have ever seen for in falling matter, our scientists have claimed that the in falling gas must orbit around the SMBH before falling in.

The impact of a lack of orbital speed is that it will fall right in. Again, you misrepresent what scientists say.  Matter already orbiting a mass (like Earth) tends to continue that orbit.  Matter not orbiting will fall in, like a meteor, which almost never comes from orbit.

So, you want us to believe in the following process:

Nobody wants you to believe anything.  They're just reporting what was observed, and its similarity to a simulation that had already run.

1. There was a gas cloud outside the accretion disc
2. This gas cloud had been accreted into one of the rings in the accretion disc.

There is no 'the accretion disk'.  Each ring is a different accretion disk.  The cloud in question did not accrete into any of them. With every statement you demonstrate that you don't care what the article actually says.

3. As it falls in, it gain high orbital velocity of 0.3 c and above. Please be aware that I have offered clear observation also for 0.85c at the innermost side of the accretion disc. It was stated that this aria is the most chaotic aria in the whole galaxy.

The article makes no mention of the observed speed of the any of the disk materials.  You're referencing an observation of a different object with that figure.

4. It gain high temp - of 10^9 c and be converted into Plasma.
5. It works under the ultra power of the Magnetic field (around the SMBH)

None of this was stated. The strength of the magnetic fields in this situation is not stated.

6. Then suddenly there is a collision between two nearby rings in the accretion disc.
Based on the observations, as we move closer to the SMBH, the orbital velocity of the plasma is higher.
However, our scientists want us to believe those nearby rings are moving at opposite directions, and at the same orbital velocity.

None of this was stated or required.  Interaction between rings (which cannot have the same orbital velocity) can occasionally generate clumps of material that is relatively stationary.  The simulation demonstrated this, meaning the mathematics of the dynamics involved is sound.

7. Somehow, due to this unreal collision - our scientists want to believe that we get a very nice gas cloud that lost completely its orbital momentum. Is it real?

The collision and resulting cloud was observed, so it isn't unreal.  They really don't care if you believe it or not.  You're not their audience.

Why our scientists don't offer a modeling for that?

The model is referenced at the top (and bottom) of the article.

I Have tried to find at the web a modeling for a collision. I thought that a collision between two drops could do the Job
There is no way for the drops to stop at the spot of the collision:

Water has surface tension, so it can be done.  Ever watch them play with water drops on the ISS?
Anyway, with the gas cloud thing, energy cannot be destroyed, so much of the gas from the collision is ejected at higher speeds just like the splat of water drops hitting.  The simulation they ran took into account all the forces involved, which is a lot more complex than simulating a pair of water drops.

8. Gas cloud temp - There is a big difference from gas cloud to plasma in many aspects especially in their temp. If I understand it correctly, a gas cloud has an estimated temp of less than 10^6 c. Plasma has a temp of 10^9c. So, our scientists want us to believe that the collision had also decrease dramatically the temp of the plasma in order to create a gas cloud.

The article did not suggest this.

9. The location of the gas cloud - Let's assume that somehow, we have got this unreal gas cloud of the collision. Don't you agree that it must be created just between the two rings?

No.  The simulation has arrows indicating the cloud formed well away from the rings supplying the material for it.

If it moves just a little bit inwards, why the inwards accretion ring will not grab it?

It isn't in the plane of that ring, as I stated in the prior post.
10. Separated rings in the accretion disc:

That is not an image of that 'far end galaxy'.  It's an image from a computer simulation, not meant specifically to model any particular galaxy.
There are images of that galaxy, but that article didn't include one.

This modeling had not been confirmed by any observation.[/quote]The article reports on the actual observation that confirmed parts of the model used in the simulation. Suddenly you deny the words in the article in claiming lack of observation.  What happened to 'clearly'?

We see a gas cloud that moves directly to the pole of the SMBH.

No such thing was observed.

[Kryptid]

You complain about double standard, but unfortunate, that exactly what you do.
In the article which I have offered, it is stated clearly in the title:
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"
You fully and happily accept the idea of "detection of matter falling into a black hole at 30 percent of the speed of light", but you reject the meaning of "First".
Although English is not my first language, I will try to help you by Google:
"coming before all others in time or order; earliest; 1st. his first wife."
Do you understand by now the meaning of the word "first"?

But I do agree with the title of the article:

First detection of matter falling into a black hole at 30 percent of the speed of light

That is the title of the article. I agree with this. On the other hand...

First detection of matter falling into a black hole

This is not the title of the article. I do not agree with it.

However. you don't want to discuss about it as it contradicts your wishful list that we have already got many other examples for in falling matter long before this discovery. (Examples for in falling matter in M87, Andromeda galaxy, Milky way and many other long before 2018).

But the article doesn't contradict those other discoveries. Nowhere does the article say that this was the first evidence we have ever had of matter falling into a black hole. That's the important distinction.

I have no "double standard". I accept by 100% all the observations and all the laws in physics.

So that gives us two options. Either:

(1) You agree with the laws of physics and therefore agree that your own model (which posits a violation of the first law of thermodynamics) is wrong.
(2) You agree with your model and therefore do not agree with the first law of thermodynamics.

Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

You have stated that our science community call "modeling" - Evidence.
That by itself a fatal error.

Then you can no longer cite that article about "magnetically levitating accretion disks" because it is a model.

If they are using wrong assumptions and setups in their modeling they will surly get wrong outcome.

Then by your own standards, your own model is wrong because because you use a "wrong assumption" (i.e. that black holes can magically introduce new mass and energy into the Universe).

As our scientists insist to look at all observations and discoveries through the BBT filter.

The Big Bang Theory has literally nothing to do with the behavior of accretion disks around super-massive black holes.

We see a gas cloud that moves directly to the pole of the SMBH.

Please quote the part of the scientific paper that states the gas cloud was observed moving towards the pole of the black hole. You actually contradict your own claim when you say:

As they see the galaxy from the top at a distance of 1 Billion light year away, they can't really monitor the height of the gas cloud from the SMBH.

Okay, so you claim that we saw the gas cloud approach the pole of the black hole and somehow at the same time we can't see that it is approaching the pole. Right...

This modeling had not been confirmed by any observation.

Neither has yours. Unless you know of some observation where a black hole creating new mass and energy was seen.

The gas cloud is not an evidence for in falling matter.

You are contradicting yourself again. You can't say on one hand "the gas cloud didn't fall into the hole" and on the other hand "this is the first time we have seen a gas cloud fall into a black hole".

As the gas cloud gets close enough to the pole it is ejected outwards - NOT inwards to the SMBH.

That is your hypothesis, and you already provided an experiment to test it. You stated yourself that, if it had been ejected outwards, we would have been able to continue to detect its X-ray emission. As I have stated many times before, they did follow the gas cloud and it disappeared. That means there were no longer any X-rays to detect and that the gas cloud was not ejected. So the observations have falsified your hypothesis.

EDIT: Actually, I am going to have to correct myself here. After giving the scientific paper another read, it seems that the gas cloud itself was not actually seen to disappear. The observations done by the spacecraft were done in sections. The period of observation that found the 0.3c cloud was labelled "rev2659". The cloud was seen until the end of rev2659. After that, there was a gap in the observations for a period of 4 days. When the observations were finally resumed (called "rev2661"), the gas cloud was no longer there to be observed. This could obviously imply that the cloud was consumed by the black hole, but the event itself was not actually seen firsthand. This would also explain why there were no "fireworks" seen because the actual consumption of the cloud itself was not witnessed.

8. Gas cloud temp - There is a big difference from gas cloud to plasma in many aspects especially in their temp. If I understand it correctly, a gas cloud has an estimated temp of less than 10^6 c. Plasma has a temp of 10^9c. So, our scientists want us to believe that the collision had also decrease dramatically the temp of the plasma in order to create a gas cloud.

What part of "plasma is already a gas" did you not understand the first time I told you? The Sun is mostly plasma, yet its surface temperature is only about 5,500 ^oC. So you don't "understand correctly". Your number is way off.

So, assuming that you also respect your request about "double standard", do you agree that we see clearly that 99% (or at least 90%) from the mass in the accretion disc is ejected outwards

Only for the Milky Way's black hole and others similar to it (for reasons that I have already brought up ad nauseum).

If you are going to claim that all matter is ejected away from black holes, you are going to have to provide the calculations that show this is what is to be expected (astrophysicists have already done their own calculations and they don't agree with your conclusion). If you had read that paper that evan_au posted a link to, you will see some of those scientist's calculations about the properties of accretion disks around black holes and they came to the conclusion that matter can enter the hole. If you think their numbers are wrong, then you need to point out the problems with their calculations. But you can't stop there. You need to actually show us what the correct calculations are and that those calculations demonstrate that the magnetic field will prevent any and all matter from entering the hole. Get to it.

and we actually don't have any real observation (by X-ray) for any in falling matter in any SMBH at the whole Universe (except of that unreal falling in gas cloud)?

There are varying degrees of observational evidence for matter falling into black holes, so to say that there is only one "real" observation depends on your definition of "real".

I really don't understand why our scientists ignore its great impact.

They don't ignore it. They have already done the calculations and it doesn't keep all matter out of the black hole. They have calculations to support their claims. You don't.

[Kryptid]

Since I'm having trouble keeping track of all these different articles and papers, I'm going to try to compile them here. I hope this proves helpful to others as well:

Magnetically Levitating Accretion Disks around Supermassive Black Holes: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/103/pdf

Accretion onto the Supermassive Black Hole in M87: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/344504/pdf

Disk Winds, Jets, and Outflows: Theoretical and Computational Foundations: http://www.mpia.de/homes/fendt/Lehre/Lecture_OUT/pudritz.pdf

Milky Way's Black Hole a Picky Eater: https://www.urban-astronomer.com/news-and-updates/milky-ways-black-hole-a-picky-eater/

The paper that the above news article is about: Dissecting X-ray-Emitting Gas Around the Center of our Galaxy: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.5845.pdf

First Detection of Matter falling into a Black Hole at 30 Percent of the Speed of Light: https://phys.org/news/2018-09-falling-black-hole-percent.html

The paper that the above news article is about: An ultrafast inflow in the luminous Seyfort PG1211+143: https://watermark.silverchair.com/sty2359.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAkUwggJBBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggIyMIICLgIBADCCAicGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMqnabWV9m-0kKhJ7oAgEQgIIB-C_O1niF1ETvTDVF6omnqQfqvYQpfwyJhmugfTUacCtwOfhRq1QD4mN9P7aCWCRUiw-3lWDoRemwXgEdsGJAU4ziqnDh327JK1i9DwR6l-_hUz6FOnk6USyHcK8E1ZfecTtMuyzMq0d2TKyBP5tUa_HQotJnvcBRYLqextviCD55SuU__Je5qcPjZlYpBFsqoc69merRkOOKfuFzh7QuuKrT-C7WO0K-ISVcViUvRG3AHM5gg44T_WM2y64MAAfBlVgvFJPnbIthaXXFBTRgX3jfA4ivEEg248PWbsgT0_7TWNUPqSfrP2AqahQ89bVhZmGK-9j46pi04txtNHvp1IGXlmzVrZIUeQekoMs8tlgFuyVJmN4XJxIcEjI9dL8oYWEyKvpw4nYHQp6Hidw7pO5vi1NL6NUwVAMBpmDYjV0giwbf96_W7A9G7Zxhqe9m9EUN0qmrpEbrLT1nTTD7XurOmQitythuhCnTQ-rwa3phRdjNgIfTWOb2EcMylLRu6IT0nbPK-Hv9RZ0p40e8O6pYkjEaZs4dT1PcGXgUj_XcDHErOwu9ir6q3QMQ3bRRVYam2Y_STdv089AWhzICYWm-AbEo2N1beNlt5DcOGXUeMLUiS4wXQpAGNxXI40imInlsR7s0Qr4P9HPossOf31oduYbQieeh1g

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Just a brief reply about the meaning of the word "First"

Titles are not written by scientists and often not even by the author of the article.

Sorry, I don't agree with this answer.
Title is a key part of the article.
However, I fully agree with the following answer.

I do agree with the title of the article:
"First detection of matter falling into a black hole at 30 percent of the speed of light"
On the other hand...
"First detection of matter falling into a black hole
This is not the title of the article. I do not agree with it.

You actually claim that the word first is related to the velocity (0.3c) and not to the "detection of matter falling into a black hole".
I'm not expert in English, but in my language I will set it as follow (after the translation):
"Detection of matter falling into a black hole for the first time at 30 percent of the speed of light"
With regards to the speed of "30 percent of the speed of light".
Don't you agree that any in falling matter should fall in that that range of speed?
Is there any possibility to fall in to a SMBH at a velocity of 1km per hour?
However, as I have stated, your answer is still perfectly OK and unfortunately, I'm obliged to agree with you.
In any case, would you kindly summarize all the articles that confirm real observation or detection of matter falling into a black hole by X-ray at any galaxy at any speed in the whole Universe (Please - no simulation or modeling)?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Magnetic field around the SMBH:

Disk Winds, Jets, and Outflows: Theoretical and Computational Foundations: http://www.mpia.de/homes/fendt/Lehre/Lecture_OUT/pudritz.pdf

Thanks Kryptid for this great article.
"The general stability of disk–outflow solutions is still being debated and the result may depend on the detailed assumptions about the model. In the solutions discussed here the accretion stress comes entirely from the large scale magnetic field rather than some small scale turbulence"
So, it is stated clearly that "the accretion stress comes entirely from the large scale magnetic field"
That proves that there is high magnetic force around the accretion disc.
They have even set a calculation with the impact of the external magnetic torque:
"How much angular momentum can such a wind extract from the disk? The angular momentum equation for the accretion disk undergoing an external magnetic torque may"
I have found the word "magn" (for: magnetic, magnetized, hydromagnetic,magnetosphere) 150 times!!!
In several threads I have highlighted the great impact of the magnetic filed around the SMBH.
I have also offered several articles that link the Molecular jet stream directly to the impact of the Magnetic field.
So, why our scientists insist to ignore the great impact of the magnetic field around the SMBH?
I wonder why our scientists are so surprised:

Milky Way's Black Hole a Picky Eater: https://www.urban-astronomer.com/news-and-updates/milky-ways-black-hole-a-picky-eater/

"astronomers studying Sgr A* (the supermassive black hole at the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy) were surprised to notice that less than 1% of the gas and dust drawn into its gravitational field ever get consumed – almost everything else gets ejected."
"they found that more than 99% of the infalling material was ejected long before reaching the event horizon"
Could it be that they didn't read the article about the magnetic field around the SMBH, or could it be that in 2014 our scientists were not fully aware about this great power?
It is also stated that "less than 1%" drawn into its gravitational field.
Do you agree that:
1. Zero is also less than 1%?
2. Less than 1% is not equal to 1%?
3. More than 99% could be also 100%?
Hence, they don't have a solid proof for even 1% of in falling matter and there is a possibility that 100% from the matter in the accretion disc is ejected outwards.

In any case, I hope that by now we all agree that there is an Ultra high gravity force around the accretion disc.
It pushes the matter from the accretion disc outwards (More than 99%?).
It Boosts the molecular jet stream at almost 0.8c u upwards/Downwards (up to 27,000 light year).
If we agree for all of that, why the magnetic field can't work also below the event of horizon of the SMBH?
We have already agreed that at this aria the SMBH creates new particles. (Positive and negative).
The magnetic field has a polarity.
As it pushes the atoms (Positive) out of the accretion disc, why it can't also pull the new created positive particle deep from the event of horizon?
Is there any barrier at the event of horizon that prevent the magnetic field from do that kind of job?
Our scientists were very surprised that the magnetic field can push outwards 99% of the matter in the accretion disc.
As they didn't have a clue about the outwards flow from the accretion disc, they also have no clue about the matter flow from the SMBH. 
Now they should be one more time surprise to know that all the matter in the accretion disc is coming deep from the SMBH event of horizon.
This process doesn't contradict any law of physics

where you state that you accept the law of physics saying mass cannot be created or destroyed.

Do you still see any conterediction with law of physics?

[Kryptid]

Sorry, I don't agree with this answer.
Title is a key part of the article.

News articles are often written with simplistic or hyperbolic headlines. The more authoritative source would be the very scientific paper that the article is reporting on. Nowhere in the paper does it state that this is the first detection (be it direct or indirect) of matter falling into a black hole ever.

Don't you agree that any in falling matter should fall in that that range of speed?

No, because the velocity would be dependent on (1) how far away the gas cloud is from the event horizon (if it starts further away, it has more time to accelerate), and (2) how much angular momentum it has (if it is circling the hole just barely slower than the required velocity to keep it in orbit, it will fall much more slowly than if it had no angular momentum at all and thus fell straight in).

Is there any possibility to fall in to a SMBH at a velocity of 1km per hour?

If it was in a very slowly decaying orbit, I don't see why not.

In any case, would you kindly summarize all the articles that confirm real observation or detection of matter falling into a black hole by X-ray at any galaxy at any speed in the whole Universe (Please - no simulation or modeling)?

How do you define a "real observation"?

So, why our scientists insist to ignore the great impact of the magnetic field around the SMBH?

I already told you before that they don't ignore it. How many of my replies do you even read?

Could it be that they didn't read the article about the magnetic field around the SMBH, or could it be that in 2014 our scientists were not fully aware about this great power?

The magnetic field isn't the only component responsible for this. The very high temperature of the gas is another one (as I posted before).

Do you agree that:
1. Zero is also less than 1%?
2. Less than 1% is not equal to 1%?
3. More than 99% could be also 100%?
Hence, they don't have a solid proof for even 1% of in falling matter and there is a possibility that 100% from the matter in the accretion disc is ejected outwards.

(1) You are talking about the Milky Way's black hole specifically, so don't forget that.
(2) Of course we don't have "solid proof" that matter falls into a black hole (just as you don't have solid proof that all matter is ejected away from a black hole). What we have is evidence.

In any case, I hope that by now we all agree that there is an Ultra high gravity force around the accretion disc.
It pushes the matter from the accretion disc outwards (More than 99%?).

No, gravity does not push matter. It pulls it.

It Boosts the molecular jet stream at almost 0.8c u upwards/Downwards (up to 27,000 light year).

No it doesn't. Gravity pulls, it doesn't push.

If we agree for all of that, why the magnetic field can't work also below the event of horizon of the SMBH?

It's not that it doesn't work below the event horizon, it's that it doesn't matter because any matter inside of the horizon can't get out.

The magnetic field has a polarity.
As it pushes the atoms (Positive) out of the accretion disc, why it can't also pull the new created positive particle deep from the event of horizon?

How many times do we have to repeat our explanations over and over and over again? You can't get them out of the event horizon because that would require them to be accelerated beyond the speed of light. That cannot be done with a finite amount of energy. No magnetic field of finite strength can provide infinite energy.

Is there any barrier at the event of horizon that prevent the magnetic field from do that kind of job?

Yes, it's called the escape velocity. But there is a second component as well. The space and time inside of a black hole is so distorted that anything falling in must inevitably travel towards the singularity regardless of how much force is applied to it. I've once heard this likened to space now behaving like time. As we inevitably travel forward in time, matter inside the horizon must inevitably travel towards the singularity.

Now they should be one more time surprise to know that all the matter in the accretion disc is coming deep from the SMBH event of horizon.

No, that's no possible. Matter cannot get out of the event horizon for reasons I just stated.

Do you still see any conterediction with law of physics?

That depends. Are you still claiming that black holes create mass and energy? If your answer is still yes, then there is your contradiction. As is your claim that particles can get out of the event horizon.

[Halc]

In any case, I hope that by now we all agree that there is an Ultra high gravity force around the accretion disc.

No mention of that is made in the article.  In fact, the word 'force' does not appear anywhere in it.
The black hole by itself does not generate any force at all.  A second mass is needed, and an underfed accretion disk amounts to very little mass, thus force well outside the range of 'ultra high gravity force' as you word it.
As for jets at the poles, it takes less than a Newton of force to accelerate a particle to something 0.8c over a short distance.

It pushes the matter from the accretion disc outwards (More than 99%?).

As Kryptid points out, you have this completely backwards.  Gravity pulls matter in, just like the sun does (which also consumes less than 1% of the matter that has been drawn into its gravitational field).  The sun ejects more mass than it takes in, but gravity is the one force not particularly involved in this process.

It Boosts the molecular jet stream at almost 0.8c u upwards/Downwards (up to 27,000 light year).

The article you quote makes no mention of that.  A different article suggested that figure for millions of years ago when much more material was falling in and a far higher percentage of matter falls to the event horizon.  You're mixing your scenarios.  If something moves at 0.8c out of the plane of the galaxy, it isn't going to stop by itself at 27,000 light years like you imply with your statement. 

If we agree for all of that, why the magnetic field can't work also below the event of horizon of the SMBH?
We have already agreed that at this aria the SMBH creates new particles. (Positive and negative).

New particles may or may not be created below the event horizon.  It is irrelevant since they can't get out.

Is there any barrier at the event of horizon that prevent the magnetic field from do that kind of job?

It is literally like trying to push a particle from here to 2018.  Matter just can't be made to move in that direction.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

In any case, I hope that by now we all agree that there is an Ultra high gravity force around the accretion disc.
It pushes the matter from the accretion disc outwards (More than 99%?).

No, gravity does not push matter. It pulls it.

Yes, I fully agree with this answer.
Gravity does not push matter. It pulls it.
However, It was typo error.
My intention was about Magnetic force.
The correct question should be:
"I hope that by now we all agree that there is an Ultra high Gravity Magnetic force around the accretion disc."
In one hand you claim that our scientists do not ignore the magnetic force:

So, why our scientists insist to ignore the great impact of the magnetic field around the SMBH?

I already told you before that they don't ignore it. How many of my replies do you even read?

On the other hand, why they don't consider the great impact of that magnetic force on the activity of the SMBH (Around the SMBH and especially on the Molecular jet stream and the matter ejection from the accretion disc)?
1. Molecular Jet stream
Please look again on the following image of the molecular jet stream:
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Image169.gif
In the article it is stated:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2013/02/21/jet-streams-2/
"Recently, astronomers from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics announced that our own Milky Way galaxy is expelling enormous jets of gamma rays from a putative suppermassive black hole residing in its nucleus. In 2010, twin funnels of gamma ray emissions were detected above and below the galactic plane, measuring 65,000 light-years in diameter."
It is also stated:
"The prevailing theory of “compacted gravitational point sources” exciting gas and dust as they orbit does not address the existence of collimated jets. There is only one force that can hold such a matter stream together over those distances: magnetism."
So, starting from 2010 our scientists know that there is a massive molecular jet stream above and below the accretion disc.
They also know for sure that: Magnatism is only one force that can hold such a matter stream together over those distances.
So, what they did with this critical information?
Why our scientists didn't try to calculate/evaluate the magnitude of the Magnetic field?
Why they didn't try to verify how that ultra magnetic force might impact the SMBH?
2. Outflow ejection from the accretion disc

Do you agree that:
1. Zero is also less than 1%?
2. Less than 1% is not equal to 1%?
3. More than 99% could be also 100%?
Hence, they don't have a solid proof for even 1% of in falling matter and there is a possibility that 100% from the matter in the accretion disc is ejected outwards.

(1) You are talking about the Milky Way's black hole specifically, so don't forget that.

Yes, we are talking about the Milky Way's black hole specifically - Why not?
I would like to understand how the Milky way galaxy really works.

(2) Of course we don't have "solid proof" that matter falls into a black hole (just as you don't have solid proof that all matter is ejected away from a black hole). What we have is evidence.

Of course we don't have "solid proof" (X-ray observation) that ANY matter falls into a black hole, But we have "solid proof" (X-ray observation) that more than 99% is ejected away from a black hole.
We really don't need the 100%. Don't you agree that more than 99% is high enough?
We also have a clear indication that the only force that can set this activity is Magnetic force:

Disk Winds, Jets, and Outflows: Theoretical and Computational Foundations: http://www.mpia.de/homes/fendt/Lehre/Lecture_OUT/pudritz.pdf
"The general stability of disk–outflow solutions is still being debated and the result may depend on the detailed assumptions about the model. In the solutions discussed here the accretion stress comes entirely from the large scale magnetic field rather than some small scale turbulence"
So, it is stated clearly that "the accretion stress comes entirely from the large scale magnetic field"
That proves that there is high magnetic force around the accretion disc.

Again, our scientists have found that Magnetic force is the only force that can set this stress on the accretion disc.
So, why do you insist to minimize the great impact of the magnetic field?

The magnetic field isn't the only component responsible for this. The very high temperature of the gas is another one (as I posted before).

Do you really belive that the "very high temperature of the gas" can set the outflow of more than 99% from the accretion disc?
If so, please prove it?
3. Magnetic force VS Gravity force:
We have already agreed that:
"Gravity does not push matter. It pulls it."
However with regards to magnetic force:
Do you agree by now that the magnetic force is the only force (or the main force) that can boosts that molecular jet stream up to 27,000 Light year and set the outflow of 99% of the matter from the accretion disc (All of that - against the gravity force)?
So, do you agree that the magnetic force works on the opposite direction from the gravity force and therefore: "Magnetic does not pull matter. It pushes it."
Hence, there are two main forces that works on the opposite directions:
Gravity force pulls the matter inwards to the SMBH, while Magnetic force pushes the matter away from the SMBH.
Who wins the game?
If the magnetic force pushes more than 99% from the matter in the accretion disc outwards - than it is clear that the Magnetic force is the champion!!!
If we could shut down the magnetic force, it is clear that no molecular jet stream could evolve above and below the accretion disc. It is also clear that ALL the matter in the accretion disc should fall into the SMBH.
That statment is correct all around the SMBH, in the accertion disk, below the accertion disc and even below the event horizon.
That is the most important issue in our SMBH.
4. Polarity of the magnetic field
Gravity force has no polarity. Therefore, it pulls inwards matter and antimatter.
However, Magnetic force has a polarity.
Therefore Magnetic force pushes matter (positive) outwards, and pulls antimatter (negative) inwards.
Hence, Antimatter is pulled inwards due to the magnetic force + gravity force, while matter is pushed outwards as the magnetic force is stronger than the gravity force.
5. Magnetic force impact deeper into the event of horizon:

Is there any barrier at the event of horizon that prevent the magnetic field from do that kind of job?

Yes, it's called the escape velocity. But there is a second component as well. The space and time inside of a black hole is so distorted that anything falling in must inevitably travel towards the singularity regardless of how much force is applied to it. I've once heard this likened to space now behaving like time. As we inevitably travel forward in time, matter inside the horizon must inevitably travel towards the singularity.

Yes, this answer is correct if we ignore the magnetic force.
But we can't shut down the Magnetic field.
Therefore, the magnetic force around the SMBH is very valid and we have two main proves that the magnetic force is much stronger than the gravity force of the SMBH!!!
So, if the magnetic force is so powerful, why it can't work deeper into the event of horizon?
If there is a particle exactly at the event of horizon (or below), don't you agree that it should also feel the great impact of the magnetic force?
If you still assume that the magnetic force can't work below the event of horizon - than please prove it.
6. New matter creation

New particles may or may not be created below the event horizon.  It is irrelevant since they can't get out.

So, we all agree that New particles may be created below the event horizon.
We have also found that the magnetic force is stronger than the gravity force and works on the opposite direction (based on the polarity of the particle)
So, as new particle pair is created (positive + negative) the positive is ejected outwards while the Negative is pulled inwards to the SMBH.
Therefore - This new particles creation is very important.
The new created particle is not eliminated on the moment of creation.
The ultra high magnetic force pulls the positive particle inwards and pushes the negative particle outwards at the same moment of creation.
Therefore:
This is the ultimate answer for:
why we do not see any Antimatter in our Universe.
Any antimatter/negative particle will be pulled inwards to the SMBH by the gravity force + the magnetic force.
However, any matter/positive particle will be pushed outwards as Magnetic force - Gravity force is bigger than zero.

[Kryptid]

Why our scientists didn't try to calculate/evaluate the magnitude of the Magnetic field?

Who said they didn't?

Yes, we are talking about the Milky Way's black hole specifically - Why not?
I would like to understand how the Milky way galaxy really works.

Fine. Just don't pretend that any conclusions we form about it can be applied universally to all super-massive black holes.

Don't you agree that more than 99% is high enough?

High enough for what? It certainly isn't high enough to conclude that it never eats any matter at all.

So, why do you insist to minimize the great impact of the magnetic field?

I don't know where you keep getting this impression. I have repeatedly agreed that there is a strong magnetic field present.

Do you really belive that the "very high temperature of the gas" can set the outflow of more than 99% from the accretion disc?
If so, please prove it?

It was stated in the very same article that you got those numbers from in the first place. If the material is hot enough, the average particle velocity will be higher than the local escape velocity. I also never said that it was the only contributing factor. I agree that the magnetic field takes part in it.

Who wins the game?

That depends on your distance from the hole. This is partly because gravity obeys an inverse square law while magnetism obeys an inverse cube law and partly because the fields are generated in different locations (gravity coming from the black hole and magnetism coming from the disk).

It is also clear that ALL the matter in the accretion disc should fall into the SMBH.

Except for those particles that are travelling above the local escape velocity away from the black hole.

However, Magnetic force has a polarity.
Therefore Magnetic force pushes matter (positive) outwards, and pulls antimatter (negative) inwards.
Hence, Antimatter is pulled inwards due to the magnetic force + gravity force, while matter is pushed outwards as the magnetic force is stronger than the gravity force.

These statements are filled with misconceptions:

(1) The polarity of a magnetic field is north and south, not positive and negative (this is important to distinguish it from an electric field).
(2) Magnetic fields neither attract nor repel electric charges. Magnetic fields have no effect at all on stationary electric charges. All magnetic fields do is deflect the path of a moving electric charge at an angle dependent upon the direction of the field lines and the polarity of the electric charge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force#Trajectories_of_particles_due_to_the_Lorentz_force
(3) Matter is not "positive" nor is antimatter "negative". It depends on the particle in question. Electrons have a negative electric charge while their antimatter counterparts have a positive electric charge. The opposite is true for protons, which are positively-charged whereas antiprotons are negatively-charged. Neutrons and anti-neutrons are both neutral.

Yes, this answer is correct if we ignore the magnetic force.

It's correct even when we consider the magnetic force. You can't take things out of the event horizon. The extreme curvature of space-time won't allow it. No amount of force will do it.

Therefore, the magnetic force around the SMBH is very valid and we have two main proves that the magnetic force is much stronger than the gravity force of the SMBH!!!

Again, that depends on where you are and it also doesn't matter how strong the magnetic field is anyway.

So, if the magnetic force is so powerful, why it can't work deeper into the event of horizon?
If there is a particle exactly at the event of horizon (or below), don't you agree that it should also feel the great impact of the magnetic force?
If you still assume that the magnetic force can't work below the event of horizon - than please prove it.

It isn't that the magnetic field is no longer present there, it is that space and time have changed in such a way that movement towards the outside of the horizon is no longer possible: http://www.jimhaldenwang.com/black_hole.htm

Notice how the minus sign has moved from the t coordinate to the r coordinate.  This means that inside the event horizon, r is the timelike coordinate, not t.  In relativity, the paths of material particles are restricted to timelike world lines.  Recall the discussion of timelike separation earlier in this paper (2).  It is the coordinate with the minus sign that determines the meaning of "timelike."  According to relativity, inside a black hole time is defined by the r coordinate, not the t coordinate.  It follows that the inevitability of moving forward in time becomes, inside a black hole, the inevitability of moving toward r = 0.  This swapping of space and time occurs at r = 2M.  Thus, r = 2M marks a boundary, the point where space and time change roles.  For the observer inside this boundary, the inevitability of moving forward in time means that he must always move inward toward the center of the black hole at r = 0.  All timelike and lightlike world lines inside r = 2M lead inevitably to r = 0 (the end of time!)  Because it is not possible for any particle or photon inside r = 2M to take a path where r remains constant or increases, the boundary r = 2M is called the event horizon of the black hole.  No observer inside the event horizon can communicate with any observer outside the event horizon.  The event horizon can be thought of as a one-way boundary.

This is the ultimate answer for:
why we do not see any Antimatter in our Universe.

Except that it isn't, because black holes don't treat matter differently from antimatter. An antimatter particle is just as likely to move away from the black hole as a matter particle.

[evan_au]

A paper published last week tracks the orbit of a superluminous star S2 around the Milky Way's black hole.
By using the red shift of spectral lines from this star, they have been able to:
- Plot its orbit in 3 dimensions
- Determine that at closest approach it travels at almost 2% of c (even though it's distance is still more than 1000x the black hole radius
- Confirm Einstein's prediction of gravitational redshift in the vicinity of a black hole

With further observations, they hope to estimate the density of matter in the vicinity of the Milky Way's black hole
- Astronomers estimate that there are hundreds or thousands of stars and gas clouds orbiting in this region of space
- These stars are not bright enough to be visually identified through the dust near the center of the galaxy
- They could add mass to an accretion disk at any time (provided the temperature is not too hot, which it is at present)
- This hidden mass should perturb the orbit of S2, which should (eventually) be measurable. 

In any case, I hope that by now we all agree that there is an Ultra high gravity force around the accretion disc.
It pushes the matter from the accretion disc outward

I see that you have subsequently said that you made an error here. But just to clarify...
I agree that the gravitational field around the SMBH is strong.
But look at the orbits of the stars around the black hole - the stars go faster as they get closer, and slow down as they move away.
- The SMBH gravity is attractive, not repulsive
- And it is attractive all the way down to 1000 x event horizon radius
- General Relativity states that it will continue to be attractive all the way down to the event horizon
- No-one really knows what happens inside the event horizon, but General Relativity is interpreted to mean that it continues to be attracted all the way down to the central singularity

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

Look at the plotted orbits of bright stars in the Youtube video above.
- They don't orbit in nearly the same plane - it looks pretty random.
- You can't tell the actual direction without actually knowing the red shift of each star
- The average angular velocity of all stars is much less than you get by adding up the magnitude of the angular momentum of each star
- That means if these stars interact via some dissipative effect (eg an accretion disk, rather than gravity), then they will move closer to the black hole (not farther away).

and we actually don't have any real observation (by X-ray) for any in falling matter in any SMBH at the whole Universe (except of that unreal falling in gas cloud)?

Here is yet another case where matter fell into a massive black hole, from a tidally disrupted star.
- A supernova survey picked up the tidally disrupted star
- Follow-up observations found a white dwarf orbiting the black hole, near the Innermost Circular Stable Orbit (ISCO)
- The white dwarf star will follow the tidally disrupted star into the event horizon, probably within a century or so.
See: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/190109184731.htm

The ISCO is about 3 x the event horizon radius - any matter within this radius will end up falling into the event horizon.
- At about 1.5 x the event horizon radius is the photon sphere - any light within this radius will end up falling into the event horizon
- So high-speed X-Ray telescopes often detect blobs of matter falling into black holes
- Where the following article talks about "unstable" orbits, it means that the matter will fall into the black hole under the black hole's gravity (although it omits to mention that - they thought it would be obvious)
- Where it mentions "unstable" orbits, it does not mean that the matter will be blown away from the black hole by the black hole's gravity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innermost_stable_circular_orbit

If the magnetic force pushes more than 99% from the matter in the accretion disc outwards - than it is clear that the Magnetic force is the champion!!!

This fallacy is called a "false dichotomy".

In fact, temperature is another factor, and increased temperature always produces increased pressure, and it is high temperatures that are quoted as pushing away the 99% of matter.

However, Magnetic force has a polarity.
Therefore Magnetic force pushes matter (positive) outwards, and pulls antimatter (negative) inwards.

Matter does not work the way you imagine.
- Electrons (negative) are matter
- Protons/nuclei (positive) are matter
- Antimatter makes up a very small fraction of the mass of our galaxy

Magnetic forces do not work the way you imagine.
- Magnetic fields don't actually attract or repel charged objects (matter or anti-matter): Charged particles circle around the magnetic field
- The "north" and "south" beams are both made of balanced positive and negative particles, so it will be an electrically neutral plasma
- Gamma rays are electrically neutral, and cannot be accelerated by a magnetic field. They jets emit electromagnetic energy at all wavelengths (including gamma rays), but you would not describe them a gamma ray jets.

What repels matter is when charged particles are trapped in the magnetic field
- the magnetic field is twisted by the magnetic field of the rotating accretion disk
- The magnetic fields stretch and then "reconnect", releasing a burst of particles at high speed. This could explain pulsed beams. We can study this effect close-up in Coronal Mass Ejections from the Sun.
- Computer modelling also show that magnetic fields can collimate about 10% of the infalling accretion disk in a continual stream to form a jet.

[Halc]

1. Molecular Jet stream
Please look again on the following image of the molecular jet stream:
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Image169.gif
In the article it is stated:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2013/02/21/jet-streams-2/
"Recently, astronomers from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics announced that our own Milky Way galaxy is expelling enormous jets of gamma rays from a putative suppermassive black hole residing in its nucleus. In 2010, twin funnels of gamma ray emissions were detected above and below the galactic plane, measuring 65,000 light-years in diameter."

The article seems to have been written by somebody like you with a personal agenda. This one is obviously in denial of the existence of black holes. It calls the black hole 'putative' and the result of irrational manipulation of the equations. Interesting choice of authors for getting your info about black holes. It makes zero reference to 'molecular jet stream'. It reports that the jets are gamma rays. Gamma rays are light, and light beams are not held together with magnetism.

The article is pushing the concept of electrical currents between linearly arranged galaxies, with streams of electrons (held together with magnetism) passing from one galaxy to the next to form a circuit.

The image (an artist image, not an empirical one) comes from https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/a-milky-way-cooling-its-jets/
The actual finding come from The Astrophysical Journal, (Finkbeiner, Su) but I have no link.
This article is closer to what was actually seen and posited concerning the clouds and jets and such. Again, no mention of molecular streams. This article estimates about 10% of the matter pulled in gets flung back out, and 90% falls into the black hole.

So, starting from 2010 our scientists know that there is a massive molecular jet stream above and below the accretion disk

As for that, or the 'Ultra high Gravity Magnetic force around the accretion disc' that you speak of, the article quotes the scientist concerning the power of the jets:

As far as jets go, this is a faint jet. This is a pathetic jet.

This is a quote from the actual scientist, not the article author.

So, do you agree that the magnetic force works on the opposite direction from the gravity force and therefore: "Magnetic does not pull matter. It pushes it."

Then why do my magnets hold my kids' artwork to the fridge instead of being repelled by it.

However, Magnetic force has a polarity.
Therefore Magnetic force pushes matter (positive) outwards, and pulls antimatter (negative) inwards.

Ah, so it works because my fridge is antimatter.
Do you know nothing of electromagnetism?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Why our scientists didn't try to calculate/evaluate the magnitude of the Magnetic field?

Who said they didn't?

So can you please offer the calculation /estimation for the magnetic force?
What kind of magnetic force can boost that kind of molecular jet stream?
Please remember there are about 10,000 solar mass in that beam, the molecular is boosted at a speed of 0.8c to a high of 27,000 light years away from the accretion disc.
If we know the level of the magnetic field around the SMBH, would you kindly offer it?

(gravity coming from the black hole and magnetism coming from the disk).

Why are you so sure that magnetism is coming from the disk?
Do we really know how SMBH works?
Do we know if the matter in the that SMBH rotates or not?
It seems to me that the accretion disc by itself can't produce the requested magnetism level.
In order to set magnetism, we normally need a rotational core. For example, the Earth produce magnetism due to its core rotation. Therefore, I'm not sure that an orbital rotation disc by itself can create any significant magnetism or even any sort of magnetism. If you have an example that supports your claim - please offer it.
In any case, even if it the accretion disc can produce some sort of magnetism it surly might be too weak to support that kind of molecular jet stream of 10,000 solar mass up to 27,000 light year and that is boosted at  0.8c.
Don't forget that the total mass in the accretion disc is only three sun mass.
I see it differently.
The 4 millions solar mass at the core of the SMBH sets the magnetic force.
It rotates (as the core of the earth) and sets the ultra magnetic force around the SMBH.
Therefore, A SMBH with an accretion disc will generate the same magnetism amplitude as identical SMBH without any accretion disc.
However, the accretion disc has a key function. It acts as a rotor under magnetic field (generator).
As it orbits under the magnetic field of the SMBH, an Ultra high current is flowing in its matter.
This increases it's temperature and converts it into plasma.
Therefore, we call the matter in the accretion disc - plasma (it gets to ultra high temp of 10^9). The orbital velocity by itself can't generate that kind of temp.
Without the magnetic field of the SMBH, there will be no current in the accretion disc.
Without the current flow, it might be an impossible mission to achieve that high level of temperature
Actually, we can compare it to plasma that we create in order to cut metal
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75495.600#quickreply
"Plasma cutting is a process that cuts through electrically conductive materials by means of an accelerated jet of hot plasma."
"OSHA recommends a shade 8 for arc current less than 300 A"
So, we are using very high current to set the plasma. In the same token, the ultra high current in the accretion disc converts the matter in the accretion disc into plasma.
I wonder why our scientists didn't even thought about it.
However, this high current sets an Electric field.
So, the contribution of the accretion disc is that it creates an Electromagnetic field around the SMBH.

(1) The polarity of a magnetic field is north and south, not positive and negative (this is important to distinguish it from an electric field).

As I have stated, around the SMBH there is electromagnetic force. Therefore it is a combination of magnetic and electric fields.

Magnetic fields have no effect at all on stationary electric charges.

A new created pair of particle must move at ultra high speed.
Therefore, we can't consider them as stationary electric charges.
We must evaluate them based on their speed in the first moment of creation under the electromagnetic fields and Lorentz force.

[evan_au]

it seems to me that the accretion disc by itself can't produce the requested magnetism level.

Computer modeling shows that it can.
Evidently, the physicists' computer knows more about magnetic fields than you do.

The 4 millions solar mass at the core of the SMBH sets the magnetic force.

In saying that the SMBH generates a magnetic field, you may be confusing the "No Hair Theorem".
This states that the only parameters of a black hole that are externally visible are:
- Mass (already measured for the Milky Way SMBH)
- Angular momentum (not yet measured for Milky Way SMBH, but they have hopes)
- Electrical charge (not yet measured for Milky Way SMBH, but expected to be very close to 0)

Electrical charge is a monopole, and so can come from a singularity.
- As far as we know, magnetic fields do not have a monopole component, and so cannot come from a singularity. There has been no verifiable detection of magnetic monopoles to date.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem

In order to set magnetism, we normally need a rotational core. For example, the Earth produce magnetism due to its core rotation.

Although something similar to Earth's oscillating magnetic field has been recreated in the lab (using liquid sodium), the exact mechanism for the Earth is still under investigation.

Earth has a solid inner core, and a liquid outer core, made of metallic nickel/iron. The magnetic field originates in the liquid outer core, where physical movement and circulation is possible, creating a dynamo. The central solid core does not create a dynamo because movement is not possible in a solid.

Similarly, the magnetic field of a galactic SMBH originates in the plasma of the surrounding accretion disk where physical rotation movement and circulation is present (due to Kepler's laws), creating a dynamo. The central black hole does not create a dynamo as matter is on a 1-way path to the singularity, and circulation is impossible.
 
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field#Physical_origin

As (the accretion disk) orbits under the magnetic field of the SMBH, an Ultra high current is flowing in its matter.
This increases it's temperature and converts it into plasma.

I agree that electrical/resistive heating will occur in the accretion disk.
- But magnetic fields only induce electrical currents in conductors
- And electrical currents only flow in conductors - and cool molecular gas clouds are not electrical conductors.
- You need a plasma for magnetic heating.
- More effective mechanisms for heating the accretion disk up to plasma temperatures are:
       + matter coming into the accretion disk at different speeds and different angles. Collisions/Friction causes heating.
       + Even when the accretion disk has settled into a single plane, there is differential rotation of the accretion disk at different distances from the black hole. Friction causes heating

and we actually don't have any real observation (by X-ray) for any in falling matter in any SMBH at the whole Universe

Listen to an interview with one of the leaders of the Event Horizon Telescope.

In the 1990s (when he was a Phd candidate) he was involved in radiotelescope observations of Sagittarius A*.
- From those observations, they were able to deduce that the Milky Way SMBH is currently consuming about 10^-8 solar masses per year (compared to 1 solar mass per year for quasars). At present, our SMBH is on a starvation diet.
- With further observations, they were able to determine that microwave intensity from the accretion disk drops off at shorter than 1mm wavelength - and these wavelengths are generated by matter very close to the event horizon.
- It is only the magnifying effect of the black hole's gravity that allows us to observe the black hole's "shadow", using a millimeter-wave telescope the width of the Earth.
Listen, starting at 32 minutes, for 5 minutes: https://omegataupodcast.net/320-the-event-horizon-telescope/
...but the whole podcast is interesting...

[Kryptid]

So can you please offer the calculation /estimation for the magnetic force?
What kind of magnetic force can boost that kind of molecular jet stream?

From "Disk Winds, Jets, and Outflows: Theoretical and Computational Foundations", it's at least 1 kilogauss:

The recent direct detection of a rather strong of a true disk field of strength 1 kG at 0.05 AU in FU Ori, provides new and strong support for the disk wind mechanism (Donati et al. 2005).

Why are you so sure that magnetism is coming from the disk?
Do we really know how SMBH works?
Do we know if the matter in the that SMBH rotates or not?

I know you are not going back over this again after I have already explained it to you so many times already...

Yes, the black hole spins. No, the black hole does not have significant charge. Don't you ask me how we know again, because I have already answered that several times now. I'm not going to give you a new answer. Go look up the old one if you've forgotten already.

In order to set magnetism, we normally need a rotational core. For example, the Earth produce magnetism due to its core rotation. Therefore, I'm not sure that an orbital rotation disc by itself can create any significant magnetism or even any sort of magnetism. If you have an example that supports your claim - please offer it.

For someone who seems to like magnetism so much, you sure have a poor understanding of how it works. Magnetism can be generated by spinning, electrically-conducting fluids. The liquid metal in the Earth's core is rotating around the inner core. This is what generates the magnetism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo_theory The exact same kind of thing happens in an accretion disk because it too is a spinning, electrically-conducting fluid (a plasma, in this case).

The 4 millions solar mass at the core of the SMBH sets the magnetic force.
It rotates (as the core of the earth) and sets the ultra magnetic force around the SMBH.

No.
It.
Won't.

The orbital velocity by itself can't generate that kind of temp.

No one said that the orbital velocity alone is what did it. Friction and compression have a lot to do with it too.

Without the magnetic field of the SMBH, there will be no current in the accretion disc.

Wrong. There is no magnetic field of the black hole. Ask me how I know and I'll tell you to go back and read the numerous previous instances of where I explained it.

As I have stated, around the SMBH there is electromagnetic force. Therefore it is a combination of magnetic and electric fields.

It is still incorrect to say that it attracts or repels electric charges. Magnetic fields don't do that.

We must evaluate them based on their speed in the first moment of creation under the electromagnetic fields and Lorentz force.

Evaluate all you want to. That still won't make matter come out of the black hole with antimatter falling in instead. That isn't how electromagnetic fields affect them.

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to address these:

Are you still claiming that black holes create mass and energy? If your answer is still yes, then there is your contradiction.

So that gives us two options. Either:

(1) You agree with the laws of physics and therefore agree that your own model (which posits a violation of the first law of thermodynamics) is wrong.
(2) You agree with your model and therefore do not agree with the first law of thermodynamics.

Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The figures you are quoting are wrong.  Yes, there was an article mentioning a figure of 10000 solar masses, but that wasn't a reference to said jet stream nor any current state of Sgr-A.  A jet stream going at 0.8c isn't going to stop at 27k light years.  The jet stream of our galaxy has instead been described as faint and pathetic with negligible matter.
Said 10000 solar masses has never been measured.

I have already introduce this article.
However, let me do it again for you.
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2012-16
"The newfound jets may be related to mysterious gamma-ray bubbles that Fermi detected in 2010. Those bubbles also stretch 27,000 light-years from the center of the Milky Way. However, where the bubbles are perpendicular to the galactic plane, the gamma-ray jets are tilted at an angle of 15 degrees. This may reflect a tilt of the accretion disk surrounding the supermassive black hole.
"Finkbeiner estimates that a molecular cloud weighing about 10,000 times as much as the Sun would be required"
Do you still think that this 10,000 solar mass is negligible matter?
Our scientists have stated clearly in one of the article that I have offered that magnetism is the only force that can boost that kind of molecular jet.
So, why we do not find what kind of magnetism force is needed for that jet stream?

From "Disk Winds, Jets, and Outflows: Theoretical and Computational Foundations", it's at least 1 kilogauss:

Based on this data, the requested magnetism for the accretion disc is 1 kilogauss.
Do we really think that this magnetism can set that kind of molecular jet stream?
With regards to the accretion disc magnetism:

it seems to me that the accretion disc by itself can't produce the requested magnetism level.

Computer modeling shows that it can.
Evidently, the physicists' computer knows more about magnetic fields than you do.

So, you claim that the accretion disc can produce the magnetism which is needed to its function.
This is really big enigma for me.
Let me tell you a story from the time that I was teaching Electricity.
One of my student came with a brilliant idea to invent a gen-motor that should work without any electricity source.
The idea was that the rotor of the Motor will also be used to generate current which will be used for the motor.
Based on his simulation, if we ignore the friction, it should work.
I have told him that it won't work as the his Gen-motor will never be able to produce enough current that is requested to keep its rotation.
In the same token, it is quite clear to me that the accretion disc can't produce the magnetism that is need for its requirement.
The magnetism must come from other source.
That is my point of view.
I really don't understand how a thin disc which orbits around a SMBH can produce any sort of magnetism.
Would you kindly share with me those Simulations/Computer modeling?
In any case, even if it produces some magnetism, it seems to me that it surly can't be enough to boost the 10,000 solar mass at ultra high velocity into those molecular jet stream.
As the magnetism field that the accretion disc might generate is very weak (especially - for the jet stream) it is clear that the main source for the magnetism must come for the SMBH itself.

Although something similar to Earth's oscillating magnetic field has been recreated in the lab (using liquid sodium), the exact mechanism for the Earth is still under investigation.

So, we don't know for sure how the magnetism works for Earth, while we are living on the surface of the Earth.
In our vision we see hot layers deep into the center of the Earth that orbits around a metal core .
That might be correct or incorrect.
In the same token, we really don't know the structure of the matter deep into the SMBH.
There is a possibility, that it also has layers that rotates around some core.
That theoretically can generate Magnetic field as the Earth does but much more stronger.

There has been no verifiable detection of magnetic monopoles to date.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem

"The no-hair theorem states that all black hole solutions of the Einstein–Maxwell equations of gravitation and electromagnetism in general relativity can be completely characterized by only three externally observable classical parameters: mass, electric charge, and angular momentum."
In this article they discuss about a BH.
BH isn't a SMBH. It is totally different.
If you try to gain data from BH and use it for SMBH than it is a sever mistake.
Do you agree that only SMBH can hold Galaxy while there is no galaxy around any BH?
We call them both Black Holes. However, the characteristics of SMBH might be totally different form those of BH.
As I have stated, there is good chance that deep into the SMBH there are layers that orbit around a core and generate the requested ultra high magnetic field.
This magnetic field affects the accretion disc and the molecular jet stream.
So please, try to offer dedicated articles about a SMBH and not about BH.
They are totally different!

[Kryptid]

Do we really think that this magnetism can set that kind of molecular jet stream?

You sound doubtful. What are those doubts based on, exactly? Don't say something generic like, "It doesn't seem like enough". Have you actually done some math that shows that measurement to be wrong? By the way, where did you get that number of 0.8c for the relativistic jet from a super-massive black hole?

But another point is that the measurement of 1,000 Gauss may not apply to all accretion disks (or even to all areas in that particular example). Closer in, the magnetic field could be much stronger (the measurement was made in a part of the disk about 7.5 million kilometers from the center of the disk). This article estimates field strengths of up to 10,000 Gauss for NGC 4258 right at the event horizon: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0909.1207.pdf

It is shown that the second model is preferable for estimating the magnetic field in NGC 4258. For estimations we used the standard accretion disk model assuming that the same power-law dependence of the magnetic field follows from the range of the optical emission down to the horizon. The observed optical polarization from NGC 4258 allowed us to find the values 10³ − 10[/sup]4[/sup] Gauss at the horizon, depending on the particular choice of the model parameters.

The Large Hadron Collider has magnets with a strength of 80,000 Gauss and they are capable of accelerating protons to more than 99.9% the speed of light. So if we are being generous, perhaps we can say that the field in the accretion disk of some of the more powerful active galactic nuclei have a strength somewhere in the 10,000 to 80,000 Gauss range. That should give you what you need for accelerating protons (which are the major mass component of a cloud of hydrogen plasma anyway) very close to the speed of light. Now that you have these numbers, what do you propose to do with them?

So, you claim that the accretion disc can produce the magnetism which is needed to its function.
This is really big enigma for me.
Let me tell you a story from the time that I was teaching Electricity.
One of my student came with a brilliant idea to invent a gen-motor that should work without any electricity source.
The idea was that the rotor of the Motor will also be used to generate current which will be used for the motor.
Based on his simulation, if we ignore the friction, it should work.
I have told him that it won't work as the his Gen-motor will never be able to produce enough current that is requested to keep its rotation.
In the same token, it is quite clear to me that the accretion disc can't produce the magnetism that is need for its requirement.

This a false analogy. What your student was talking about was a perpetual motion machine of the third kind (the kind that generates enough of its own power to power itself). Accretion disks do not "power" themselves: they are "powered" by gravity. The fact that they generate a magnetic field is just a consequence of the fact that they are both very hot and spinning. A plasma cloud does not require magnetism in order to enter a decaying orbit around a black hole. Anything with both mass and angular momentum can do that.

I really don't understand how a thin disc which orbits around a SMBH can produce any sort of magnetism.

Maybe if you actually read the replies sent to you, you'd understand. Go look at the dynamo thing I talked about earlier.

In any case, even if it produces some magnetism, it seems to me that it surly can't be enough to boost the 10,000 solar mass at ultra high velocity into those molecular jet stream.

80,000 Gauss can accelerate protons to almost the speed of light in the LHC. Would that not be enough for your tastes?

As the magnetism field that the accretion disc might generate is very weak (especially - for the jet stream) it is clear that the main source for the magnetism must come for the SMBH itself.

No matter how many times you say it, super-massive black holes are not going to magically sprout magnetic fields because you want them to have them. The fact that you have consistently refused to accept this clearly demonstrates that you do not accept all of the laws of physics. Electrically-neutral black holes cannot have magnetic fields. The no-hair theorem forbids this.

There is a possibility, that it also has layers that rotates around some core.
That theoretically can generate Magnetic field as the Earth does but much more stronger.

The only way that rotation in a black hole can generate a magnetic field is if the hole has a net electric charge. The no-hair theorem isn't invalid just because you don't like or understand it. In order for there to be some kind of complex internal structure inside of black holes that can produce a dynamo, whatever it is made of would have to be capable of withstanding the enormous crushing forces present there. No known form of matter can endure it. So what is your evidence for such a form of super-strong matter?

But let's say that you are right and super-massive black holes do, in fact, have very powerful intrinsic magnetic fields. If it was generated by a mechanism similar to that of the Earth, then you would expect the field lines to look similar as well. That is, the field lines would converge at the poles of the black hole just as they do on Earth, which draws charged particles towards the poles, not away from the poles. That's why we have auroras near the Earth's poles. If the magnetic field lines pushed those particles away in the form of jets, they wouldn't come down to Earth and make auroras. They would move away from the Earth instead. So you would have the same thing happen with a black hole. Particles are focused towards the poles, where they are consumed as soon as they follow those field lines down through the event horizon.

BH isn't a SMBH. It is totally different.

Super-massive black holes are black holes. That's like saying that large birds are not birds. The only thing that makes them what they are is their great mass. They obey all of the same physics as black holes because they are black holes. The no-hair theorem applies. You can't dance around that because you don't like it. The fact that thought that super-massive black holes were "something different" from black holes just further demonstrates your stubborn unwillingness to learn about the very subject matter that you claim to know more about than leading scientists. Until you cure that ignorance problem, you will never develop a working model.

And quit ignoring these questions. You expect me to answer your questions, so why won't you answer mine?

So that gives us two options. Either:

(1) You agree with the laws of physics and therefore agree that your own model (which posits a violation of the first law of thermodynamics) is wrong.
(2) You agree with your model and therefore do not agree with the first law of thermodynamics.

Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

[Halc]

The figures you are quoting are wrong.  Yes, there was an article mentioning a figure of 10000 solar masses, but that wasn't a reference to said jet stream nor any current state of Sgr-A.  A jet stream going at 0.8c isn't going to stop at 27k light years.  The jet stream of our galaxy has instead been described as faint and pathetic with negligible matter.
Said 10000 solar masses has never been measured.

I have already introduce this article.
However, let me do it again for you.
"Finkbeiner estimates that a molecular cloud weighing about 10,000 times as much as the Sun would be required"
Do you still think that this 10,000 solar mass is negligible matter?

I never said 10,000 solar masses was negligible matter.  I left my quote up there.  I quoted a scientist's description (yes, the scientist from that very article) of the jet from Sgr-A as being pathethitic and negligible, and I happen to agree with that assessment. The large mass figure is what one might have to drop into the black hole to fuel a more active jet. A proper wording would have been a rate of consumption instead of a total mass,. Is it 10,000 solar masses since the birth of the galaxy?  That would still be pathetic since one would have to question how it got to a mass of 4 million if you only fed it 1/400th of that.  So 10,000 per day?  Per second?  The figure Evan quotes is over 14 orders of magnitude lower than those.  Hence my saying that your figures are wrong, apparently by at least 14 zeros.

it seems to me that it surly can't be enough to boost the 10,000 solar mass at ultra high velocity into those molecular jet stream.

Did you actually read the article you linked?

"Shoving 10,000 suns into the black hole at once would do the trick"

He's suggesting dropping the large mass mass into the black hole (rate not specified), not jetting that kind of mass outward.  No estimate of the mass of the jet is given in the article.

You claim to have been a teacher, but lack any reading comprehension skills.

In our vision we see hot layers deep into the center of the Earth that orbits around a metal core.

For instance, do you know what the word 'orbit' means?

In this article they discuss about a BH.
BH isn't a SMBH. It is totally different.

Further embarrassment.