[Kryptid]

Thanks Krypid
So you agree that they don't measured directly the inflow.
This article is actually based on assumptions:
"If θ ∼ 1 as typically assumed"
"assuming that the magnetic field is near equipartition,"
"With this upper limit, assuming that ri ∼ 102 rs we can infer s > 0.6"
"where PBondi is assumed to have a 10% efficiency of the Bondi mass accretion rate"
"The dashed circle around Sgr A* marks its Bondi capture radius (assumed to be 400)"
"..assuming collisional ionization equilibrium"
"..because the measurement then depends sensitively on the assumed thermal plasma model"
" The best-fit model gives γ = 1.9(1.4, 2.4). If θ ∼ 1 as typically assumed.

You know what you're doing, don't you? You're attacking the very study that you have continually cited as saying that over 99% of the matter in the Milky Way's accretion disk is ejected outward. If you are skeptical of assumptions and models, then you must also be skeptical of the very study that yielded that 99%+ figure. Modelling and assumptions were involved in the acquiring of that figure. I hope you understand that now.

If we will assume that (θ ∼ 1) is incorrect, does it mean that our assumption is correct or incorrect?
Sorry - is it about science, or assumption game?

When it comes to studying phenomena that are very difficult to observe (such as if they are very, very far away or very, very small), assumptions are necessary in order to come to conclusions. As I said before, science is about evidence, not proof. The question then becomes whether the assumptions are reasonable or not. Predictions about the properties of an exoplanet that we have not seen visually are much more likely to be correct if we assume that it is sphere-shaped instead of cube-shaped. Assumptions are practically unavoidable.

Are they looking to find the real understanding about our galaxy or they just wish to fit the current mainstream to the observations against all odes.
So, would you agree to say: "They had to model it based on spectral assumption"?

Like I said, assumptions are often unavoidable if we cannot directly observe something. The most we can hope for is to make the assumptions as reasonable as possible. Either that, or wait until we have technology that is good enough to make direct observations. That's no reason not to try to figure out what is happening the in mean time. Can these assumptions be wrong? Yes. Are they likely to be wildly wrong? That's a different matter.

Let me offer the following articles from the same arxiv:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1104.5443.pdf
"In regions close to the black hole, the AGN outflows are revealed through blueshifted absorption lines in X–ray emission (Pounds et al. 2003a, b; King 2010a). Tombesi et al. (2010a, b) show that they are present in more than 35 percent of a sample of over 50 local AGN, and deduce that their solid angles are large (certainly > 0.6 × 2π, and probably greater). The observed absorption columns imply that in many cases the outflows are quite recent (few years), suggesting that outflows are an almost ubiquitous feature of central black hole activity (King 2010b)"

That paper you linked also contains assumptions and models:

We assume that Sgr A* outflow either carries with it CR protons created near the black hole, or that the CR protons are accelerated on shock fronts where the outflow runs into the interstellar medium.

If instead we assume that the gamma–ray lobes were produced in this event, we must conclude that the energy–driven outflow is still proceeding, with a mean velocity hvi ≃1000 km s⁻¹ over its lifetime.

Our model is similar to that of Crocker & Aharonian (2011) in terms of assuming the CR protons (rather than electrons) produce the observed gamma-ray emission.

They further consider a quasi–steady state model in which the CR protons are continuously injected by supernova explosions.

Within this model, then, in galaxies with large σ>∼ 150 km s⁻¹, Eddington outflows tend to sweep the vicinity of the hole clear of gas of density (2) and prevent further accretion and growth, establishing the M−σ relation for the black hole mass (King 2003; 2005).

For the present day Milky Way and directions well out of the Galactic plane, we expect f_g to be significantly less than f_c, so we parametrize f_g as f_g = 1.6 · 10⁻³ f_0.01, where f_0.01 ∼ 1 is a dimensionless free parameter of the model.

In the following article (from arxiv):
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1501/1501.07664.pdf
"Wind from the black-hole accretion disk driving a molecular outflow in an active galaxy"
"Recent observations of large-scale molecular outflows3,4,5,6,7,8 in ultraluminous infrared galaxies (ULIRGs) have provided the evidence to support these studies, as they directly trace the gas out of which stars form.
So, now they claim that the outflow wind from the BH (or SMBH) drives the star formation activity.

This also contains assumptions and models:

The efficiency f = 0.2 is assumed.

We model the broad absorption at E ~ 9 keV with the XSTAR³¹ code v. 2.2.1bn. We consider a Γ = 2 power-law continuum, consistent with the observed value (see SI), and standard Solar abundances. A turbulent velocity of 30,000 km s⁻¹ is assumed for the fast wind model.

This equation assumes a spherical, but clumpy, geometry.

We derive a physical characterization of this outflow using a dedicated photoionization absorption model (see Methods).

To say that you don't like models or assumptions, you sure do cite a lot of studies that use them...

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Like I said, assumptions are often unavoidable if we cannot directly observe something

Yes, I fully agree. However, the only question is: "what do we really assume?".
Please look at the following article: "The Suzaku view of highly ionized outflows in AGN"
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/430/1/60/983995
"Measured outflow velocities span a continuous range from <1500 km s−1 up to ∼100 000 km s−1, with mean and median values of ∼0.1 c and ∼0.056 c,"
"Observational evidence for outflows and winds in active galactic nuclei (AGN) is seen in multiple energy regimes, "
So, yes, they have also set several assumptions.
However, they have only found OUTFLOWS. Not even a single word about inflow.
I have also found a very interesting article:
http://phsites.technion.ac.il/talks/agn2017/Reeves-J.pdf
Please look at the page before the last one
It is stated:
"Innermost   highly   ionized   wind launched   from   within 100   Rg (1016 cm)   of
black   hole   – ultra   fast   iron   K   absorption   (0.3c)"
We see clearly the location of the BH and the accretion disc.
However, the outflow wind comes directly from the BH while the accretion disc is located far away.
This proves my understanding that the matter is originally ejected from the BH.
In that picture we see that the outflow wind is banding upwards from the accretion disc.
Somehow, they don't show the outflow wind that is banding downwards.
The even ask:
"What   is   the   driving   mechanism   for   the   disk   wind?   Radiation,   
Magnetic   driving?"
I think that there is only one explanation for that outflow wind - Lorenz force Due to the strong magnetic field.
Actually, if we could trace the outflow wind upwards we should see the great impact of the magnetic field.
I assume that some of this outflow wind also gets into the accretion disc (Yes, I also assume).
In this article they discuss about AGN which must be a SMBH.
So, we see clearly that the SMBH ejects matter outwards.
Some of that matter might get into the accretion disc. If so, this is the ultimate matter source for the accretion disc - As I have offered in my theory.
They also ask:
"What   is   the   role   of   the   clumpy   gas,   is   it   
needed   to   accelerate   the   gas?"
NO!!!
There is no need for in falling matter/gas cloud/stars as the matter is ejected outwards directly from the SMBH.
In any case in both articles they only discuss about outflows and this is a solid proof that SMBH is ejecting matter outwards.
You have tried to explain why a SMBH can't eject any matter.
Now you need to adjust the theory in order to explain how could it be that a SMBH ejects matter (or outflow wind) directly from its core.

[Kryptid]

However, they have only found OUTFLOWS. Not even a single word about inflow.

So now you think a single study contains all of the observations that we have ever made of inflows and outflows? Outflows are easier to observe because they cover a much larger volume of space and are further away from the hottest, inner regions of the accretion disk than material flowing into the black hole would be.

I have also found a very interesting article:
http://phsites.technion.ac.il/talks/agn2017/Reeves-J.pdf
Please look at the page before the last one
It is stated:
"Innermost   highly   ionized   wind launched   from   within 100   Rg (1016 cm)   of
black   hole   – ultra   fast   iron   K   absorption   (0.3c)"

10¹⁶ centimeters is equal to 10¹¹ kilometers. The black hole in PG1211+143 has a mass of 4 x 10⁷ solar masses. That corresponds to an event horizon radius of about 1.18 x 10⁸ kilometers. That, in turn, means that the outflows are originating about 9.99 x 10¹⁰ kilometers out from the event horizon, which is a distance almost 17 times greater than the average distance between the Sun and Pluto. To put that into perspective, you could shrink that black hole down to the size of a small marble (1 centimeter across) and that innermost highly ionized wind boundary would be almost the full length of an A-37 Dragonfly attack aircraft (8.62 meters long) away from it. So the following statement of yours...

This proves my understanding that the matter is originally ejected from the BH.

...is not at all supported by this data. In fact, it is contradicted by the data. We don't see the outflow originating right at the event horizon. Instead, we see it starting much, much further out.

What's more is that you are misinterpreting the diagram. The accretion disk is represented by the two wedge shapes on either side of the diagram. Those shapes extend all the way inward to the black hole in the diagram. So this claim...

the accretion disc is located far away.

...is also wrong.

Now you need to adjust the theory in order to explain how could it be that a SMBH ejects matter (or outflow wind) directly from its core.

There is no need to because the data doesn't support that conclusion at all. 99 billion kilometers is far, far beyond the event horizon.

As I have offered in my theory.

You don't have a theory. You have a hypothesis that has already been thoroughly falsified.

Some of that matter might get into the accretion disc. If so, this is the ultimate matter source for the accretion disc - As I have offered in my theory.

As I pointed out before, if the magnetic field is too strong to let any charged matter into the black hole, then it will also be too strong to let charged matter out of the black hole. So take your pick. Is the field too strong or is it not too strong?

In any case in both articles they only discuss about outflows and this is a solid proof that SMBH is ejecting matter outwards.

Woah, woah, wait a minute. Now you are saying that studies using assumptions and models (which both of those articles used) are proof of something? I thought your current stance was that assumptions and models can't prove anything? Have you changed your mind all of a sudden?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

016 centimeters is equal to 1011 kilometers. The black hole in PG1211+143 has a mass of 4 x 107 solar masses. That corresponds to an event horizon radius of about 1.18 x 108 kilometers. That, in turn, means that the outflows are originating about 9.99 x 1010 kilometers out from the event horizon, which is a distance almost 17 times greater than the average distance between the Sun and Pluto.

Thanks
Do you have any idea about the radius of the accretion disc in that AGN?
The inwards radius and the outwards radius?

In any case, do you agree that we clearly see outflow from that AGN?
Do you also agree that our scientists have found a clear outflow by the Suzaku detector/observation?

"The Suzaku view of highly ionized outflows in AGN"
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/430/1/60/983995
"Measured outflow velocities span a continuous range from <1500 km s−1 up to ∼100 000 km s−1, with mean and median values of ∼0.1 c and ∼0.056 c,"
"Observational evidence for outflows and winds in active galactic nuclei (AGN) is seen in multiple energy regimes, "

Actually, at any detector that I have looked it was stated that they have only found outflow.
This is correct even for NASA's Chandra detector:
NASA's Chandra Helps Confirm Evidence of Jet in Milky Way's Black Hole
https://www.nasa.gov/press/2013/november/nasas-chandra-helps-confirm-evidence-of-jet-in-milky-ways-black-hole/#.XXNdUi5vbIU
"Astronomers have long sought strong evidence that Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, is producing a jet of high-energy particles. Finally they have found it, in new results from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and the National Science Foundation's Very Large Array (VLA) radio telescope."
" Additionally, the energy signature, or spectrum, in X-rays of Sgr A* resembles that of jets coming from supermassive black holes in other galaxies."
Now, let's go back to that unrealistic article from arxiv which tries to confirm an inflow:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.5845.pdf
It is stated clearly that they took the data from NASA Chandra observation:
" Our own Galaxy’s SMBH provides a uniquely instructive exception, and we present a close-up view of its quiescent X-ray emission based on 3 mega-second of Chandra observations"
So, how could it be that NASA Chandra observations see only OUTFLOW jets (in our SMBH and in many others), while arxiv (which is based on the same data from NASA Chandra observations) see suddenly Inflow?
Is it real???
Can you please show one real detector/observation that see inflow?
Even only one real inflow please.

[Halc]

10¹⁶ centimeters is equal to 10¹¹ kilometers. The black hole in PG1211+143 has a mass of 4 x 10⁷ solar masses. That corresponds to an event horizon radius of about 1.18 x 10⁸ kilometers. That, in turn, means that the outflows are originating about 9.99 x 1010 kilometers out from the event horizon, which is a distance almost 17 times greater than the average distance between the Sun and Pluto.

Do you have any idea about the radius of the accretion disc in that AGN?
The inwards radius and the outwards radius?

The diagram stopped labeling the outward radius at 10¹⁸ cm which is over a light year.  It doesn't say it stops there, it's just where the labeling stops.  The diagram actually goes out to about 20 light years.
As for inner radius, the size of the black hole limits it to about 3.5e8 km, which is a little outside the orbital radius of the asteroid belt.  The diagram doesn't show this because the labeling also stops in that direction.

In any case, do you agree that we clearly see outflow from that AGN?

This black hole is about the size of the one in Andromeda, although perhaps even more active since the study seems to seek particularly active ones.  Note that our galaxy does not have an AGN.

Now, let's go back to that unrealistic article from arxiv which tries to confirm an inflow:

Why is it unrealistic?  Does it say something that you've decided ahead of time is wrong?

So, how could it be that NASA Chandra observations see only OUTFLOW jets (in our SMBH and in many others), while arxiv (which is based on the same data from NASA Chandra observations) see suddenly Inflow?

Nowhere does it say that the observations saw only outflow.  The outflow is what they were concentrating on.  The inflow has a different signature and that signature was always there.  This new study seems to be more concentrated on that portion of the data, and still not on the myriad of other things shown during the observation periods.

Is it real???
Can you please show one real detector/observation that see inflow?
Even only one real inflow please.

You just quoted one.

Evan and I both pointed to articles about the event last May where a larger than usual inflow was seen.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Nowhere does it say that the observations saw only outflow.  The outflow is what they were concentrating on.  The inflow has a different signature and that signature was always there

Sorry
In both articles it is stated clearly that they have found an outflow jet.
For example - X-rays detected by Chandra:
"Astronomers have long sought strong evidence that Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), the suppermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, is producing a jet of high-energy particles."
"Jets of high-energy particles are found throughout the universe, on large and small scales. They are produced by young stars and by black holes a thousand times larger than the Milky Way's black hole. They play important roles in transporting energy away from the central object and, on a galactic scale, in regulating the rate of formation of new stars."
"We were very eager to find a jet from Sgr A* "
"The jet appears to be running into gas near Sgr A*, producing X-rays detected by Chandra and radio emission observed by the VLA."
So they clearly gives an outflow jet that is running outwards from the Sgr A* directly into the gas around it.
Therefore, they have observed an outflow jet and not an inflow jet.
However, they have a very interesting explanation for that:
"Scientists think jets are produced when some material falling toward the black hole is redirected outward. Since Sgr A* is presently known to be consuming very little material, it is not surprising the jet appears weak. A jet in the opposite direction is not seen, possibly because of gas or dust blocking the line of sight from Earth or a lack of material to fuel the jet."
So, they claim that this outflow jet is an outcome from the in falling material. They even say claerly that "A jet in the opposite direction is not seen". So there is no observation for any in falling (inflow) material into the SMBH.

Evan and I both pointed to articles about the event last May where a larger than usual inflow was seen.

The one that you and Evan pointed was not an observation for in falling matter.
Our scientists have discovered a flare.
This flare could be an outcome of magnetic field.
So, our scientists have never ever discovered any sort of clear X-Ray/observation of inflow matter.

[Kryptid]

Thanks
Do you have any idea about the radius of the accretion disc in that AGN?
The inwards radius and the outwards radius?

I don't know. If the inner edge of the accretion disk did extend all the way to the event horizon, then I don't think we would be able to see any defined inner edge. As for the outer radius, I don't know if that has been measured or not.

In any case, do you agree that we clearly see outflow from that AGN?
Do you also agree that our scientists have found a clear outflow by the Suzaku detector/observation?

Yes. The next question then becomes, are you willing to say that conclusions based on those models and assumptions are trustworthy?

Actually, at any detector that I have looked it was stated that they have only found outflow.

You must have a poor memory, since we extensively discussed that paper which stated that an inflow moving at 30% the speed of light was detected.

So, how could it be that NASA Chandra observations see only OUTFLOW jets (in our SMBH and in many others), while arxiv (which is based on the same data from NASA Chandra observations) see suddenly Inflow?

Your assumption here is that, since the particular NASA article you looked at doesn't mention inflows, they must not have detected any. Have you actually looked at the scientific paper that the article was based on? I strongly doubt you have, since the link to it from that particular website doesn't seem to allow public access to the file. Even if the paper doesn't mention inflows, that doesn't mean that none were seen. So there is no contradiction here.

Can you please show one real detector/observation that see inflow?
Even only one real inflow please.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1808.09373.pdf

They even say claerly that "A jet in the opposite direction is not seen".

That doesn't have anything to do with inflows. Active galaxies typically have two jets moving in opposite directions, one from the north pole and one from the south pole. Apparently, they only saw one of them.

By the way, you didn't answer these questions:

Woah, woah, wait a minute. Now you are saying that studies using assumptions and models (which both of those articles used) are proof of something? I thought your current stance was that assumptions and models can't prove anything? Have you changed your mind all of a sudden?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

You must have a poor memory, since we extensively discussed that paper which stated that an inflow moving at 30% the speed of light was detected.

I do remember that.
However, you might have missed the key point  that I have offered this article.
It was about in falling gas cloud in the size the Earth into a galaxy which is located at a distance of almost one billion light years away.
I have told you that our scientists have seen this gas cloud as it was moving directly in the direction of the SMBH, but it was not falling in. If it was falling in due to gravity, it had to set some sort of orbit.
That gas cloud cross the accretion disc and moved directly to the pole of the SMBH.
It is not gravity. It is magnetic field. From the pole it is boosted upwards as we clearly see the outwards jet stream in our galaxy.
If it was falling in, we had to see a fireworks.
So, that article doesn't proof any in falling matter.
Please look again at the following image at the pg before the last one.

However, they have only found OUTFLOWS. Not even a single word about inflow.
I have also found a very interesting article:
http://phsites.technion.ac.il/talks/agn2017/Reeves-J.pdf
Please look at the page before the last one

We see the Wind Structure as it moves away from the accretion disc.
We clearly see that it starts to band upwards.
If we could trace the wind, we should see that it should move upwards in the direction of the pole due to the magnetic field.
That wind which is driven by the magnetic fields sets the jet stream.
So, the Earth size gas cloud is actually the same wind that we see here.

Can you please show one real detector/observation that sees inflow?
Even only one real inflow please.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1808.09373.pdf

This is about the same in falling gas cloud at the same galaxy.
As I have stated, this gas cloud is not falling inwards into the SMBH.
In any case,  you have only one discovery of in falling gas cloud in the whole Universe. This galaxy is located at a distance of 1 billion LY away.
That's all you have for in falling matter.
Wake up please!

[Kryptid]

If it was falling in due to gravity, it had to set some sort of orbit.

Not if it was falling directly towards the black hole it wouldn't. Orbits are not an automatic result of gravitational attraction (case in point, meteorites).

That gas cloud cross the accretion disc and moved directly to the pole of the SMBH.

Where was it ever stated that there was evidence that the gas cloud was moving towards the black hole's pole?

It is not gravity. It is magnetic field. From the pole it is boosted upwards as we clearly see the outwards jet stream in our galaxy.

Where was it ever stated that the gas cloud was boosted upwards?

If it was falling in, we had to see a fireworks.

The detector wasn't looking at the black hole during the time period the cloud would have been consumed, so that's the obvious reason why no "fireworks" were observed.

So, that article doesn't proof any in falling matter.

It isn't proof, but it is good evidence.

If we could trace the wind, we should see that it should move upwards in the direction of the pole due to the magnetic field.

You don't know that.

So, the Earth size gas cloud is actually the same wind that we see here.

It can't be. The cloud was moving inward, not outward.

As I have stated, this gas cloud is not falling inwards into the SMBH.

You never provided any evidence to support that claim and it goes against the findings of the scientists. So who should I believe, physicists who are experts in astrophysics or some random person on the Internet who has a long history of misunderstanding black holes?

In any case,  you have only one discovery of in falling gas cloud in the whole Universe. This galaxy is located at a distance of 1 billion LY away.
That's all you have for in falling matter.

One is all I need, but there are others: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/96

Wake up please!

Wake up to what? Your consistent inability to understand physics? I'm quite awake to that, thank you.

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions:

Woah, woah, wait a minute. Now you are saying that studies using assumptions and models (which both of those articles used) are proof of something? I thought your current stance was that assumptions and models can't prove anything? Have you changed your mind all of a sudden?

The next question then becomes, are you willing to say that conclusions based on those models and assumptions are trustworthy?

As I pointed out before, if the magnetic field is too strong to let any charged matter into the black hole, then it will also be too strong to let charged matter out of the black hole. So take your pick. Is the field too strong or is it not too strong?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

So, how could it be that NASA Chandra observations see only OUTFLOW jets (in our SMBH and in many others), while arxiv (which is based on the same data from NASA Chandra observations) see suddenly Inflow?

Your assumption here is that, since the particular NASA article you looked at doesn't mention inflows, they must not have detected any. Have you actually looked at the scientific paper that the article was based on? I strongly doubt you have, since the link to it from that particular website doesn't seem to allow public access to the file.

Would you kindly offer the NASA Chandra observation which arxiv have used to prove the inflow accretion in their article?
How could it be that NASA Chandra had detected any sort of inflow without giving any report on that?
If NASA Chandra had detected an inflow - they must highlight this inflow observation!!!
 

Even if the paper doesn't mention inflows, that doesn't mean that none were seen. So there is no contradiction here.

How could it be that there is no contradiction between NASA Chandra and arxiv?
NASA Chandra is the observation site.
If I understand it correctly, NASA Chandra have never ever observed any inflow into the Milky way SMBH.
So, how could it be that arxiv which have used the data from NASA Chandra claims that suddenly they have discovered an inflow?

Woah, woah, wait a minute. Now you are saying that studies using assumptions and models (which both of those articles used) are proof of something? I thought your current stance was that assumptions and models can't prove anything? Have you changed your mind all of a sudden?

The question is as follow:
Could it be that the unrealistic set ups/assumptions that arxiv have used, converted the Outflow observation by NASA Chandra into inflow?
Please remember - arxiv has no observation station/detector. They have stated clearly that they took the data from NASA Chandra
So, would you kindly explain what kind of manipulation arxiv have set in NASA Chandra data/assumptions in order to convert the outflow observation that NASA Chandra had verified into an inflow?

As I pointed out before, if the magnetic field is too strong to let any charged matter into the black hole, then it will also be too strong to let charged matter out of the black hole. So take your pick. Is the field too strong or is it not too strong?

Let me explain it again for you.
We all agree that there is quite strong magnetic field around the accretion disc.
Our scientists see the impact of the magnetic field on the plasma in the accretion disc.
They also claim that the Molecular stream is a direct product of the magnetic field.
In the following presentation that I had offered we see clearly the impact of the magnetic field.

http://phsites.technion.ac.il/talks/agn2017/Reeves-J.pdf
Please look at the page before the last one

If we ignore the Magnetic field, the outflow had to be ejected at the accretion disc plane.
However, we clearly see that the outflow is banding upwards.
There is only one force that can do it - Magnetic filed.
It shows that the matter which had been ejected from the accretion disc is lifted upwards.
That is the source for the molecular jet steam that we see above and below our accretion disc.
Therefore, the scenario is as follow:
New born particles are ejected deep from the SMBH event horizon into the accretion disc.
Those particles under the Ultra high temp (10^9c) high orbital velocity (0.3c) + electromagnetic and Fusion activity is converted into real Atoms and molecular.
As the atoms and molecular are ejected outwards, they are trapped by the magnetic field and banded directly backwards and upwards. at that stage there is no orbital velocity any more. (As the magnetic field is much stronger at that aria than the gravity of the SMBH). When the Magnetic field takes control it boosts the molecular upwards (and in the direction of the pole).
This also explains the "Earth size" gas cloud that our scientists had verified at that far away galaxy.
The gas cloud was originally a plasma in the accretion disc. As it was ejected outwards it was trapped by the magnetic field and lost the orbital momentum.
The magnetic field takes this gas cloud and boosts it upwards at a velocity of 0.8c.
However, this galaxy is located at direct face on with regards to our location. Therefore, we clearly see the accretion disc, but we can't see the height of the molecular jet stream.
Hence, as the gas cloud is boosted upwards (in the normal direction of any Molecular Jet stream) it is actually moving directly upwards to us.
Unfortunately, we can't see that galaxy in 3D. we only see it in 2D.
Therefore, instead of 3D movement of 0.8c upwards/and inwards to the pole, we only monitor the 2D inwards movement to the pole direction.
Hence, our scientists have only got the 0.3c instead of the real 0.8c. Please remember, that the confirmed velocity of the molecular jet stream in our galaxy is 0.8c. Therefore, I assume that also in this galaxy the velocity of the molecular jet stream should be similar.
In any case, as the molecular jet stream in the Milky way is boosted upwards without any impact of the SMBH gravity force, it also does not have any orbital momentum.
Therefore, that Earth size gas cloud is moving directly upwards while we only see that it moves closer to the pole (without any orbital momentum).
Actually, we think that it is moving closer to the SMBH (or even falling into it) but in reality it is moving far above the SMBH).
In our galaxy the molecular jet stream gets almost to 27,000 LY above the SMBH. That is the real destiny of that Earth gas cloud.
As it moves upwards, the gas cloud brakes down and therefore we can't see it any more. But all the molecular are there - directly high above the pole of the SMBH.
Later on, as the molecular are far enough from the impact of the magnetic field, they should lose their upwards momentum and fall back to the disc plane of the galaxy (Not far away from the SMBH, but outside the impact of the magnetic field/shield)
Their mass will be used to create new gas clouds that orbit around the SMBH.
In those gas clouds new stars will be formed. Each star will get planets and moons from the same matter in the gas cloud and at the same day.
Those stars will be drifted outwards and join all the other stars in the Bulge and later on in the galactic disc.
Why is it so difficult for you to see our real galaxy structure?
Why do you desperately insist for Inflow?
There is no inflow as there is no need for Inflow!

[Kryptid]

Would you kindly offer the NASA Chandra observation which arxiv have used to prove the inflow accretion in their article?

You sure do like to misuse the words "prove" and "proof", since neither are offered by the article in question. I already told you before that the results of this study (and many, many others) were obtained by putting the spectral data into a model and making conclusions based on what that model showed.

How could it be that NASA Chandra had detected any sort of inflow without giving any report on that?
If NASA Chandra had detected an inflow - they must highlight this inflow observation!!!

Says who? They might not have even known that they had such an observation. Data has to be analyzed in order to figure out what it means. They may simply have not done the necessary analysis required to find an inflow.

How could it be that there is no contradiction between NASA Chandra and arxiv?

Because NASA never said that there wasn't an inflow. They may not have even been looking for any and didn't scan the data for it.

If I understand it correctly, NASA Chandra have never ever observed any inflow into the Milky way SMBH.
So, how could it be that arxiv which have used the data from NASA Chandra claims that suddenly they have discovered an inflow?

Because what Chandra acquired was data. That data has to be analyzed in order to learn things about what produced the data. That almost certainly requires inputting the data into particular models and finding out what the model predicts. Interestingly enough, the NASA article which you claim doesn't show an inflow does have this to say:

The study shows the spin axis of Sgr A* is pointing in one direction, parallel to the rotation axis of the Milky Way, which indicates to astronomers that gas and dust have migrated steadily into Sgr A* over the past 10 billion years.

Could it be that the unrealistic set ups/assumptions that arxiv have used, converted the Outflow observation by NASA Chandra into inflow?

Who said the assumptions were "unrealistic"? The answer, of course, is no. The arXiv article already concludes that over 99% of the matter is being ejected, so they obviously already think that outflow represents the major phenomenon there. If what they were doing was merely converting an outflow into an inflow, then they should have concluded that over 99% of the matter was flowing in instead of out. That's not what they did.

So, would you kindly explain what kind of manipulation arxiv have set in NASA Chandra data/assumptions in order to convert the outflow observation that NASA Chandra had verified into an inflow?

They didn't manipulate an outflow into an inflow so your question is nonsensical.

New born particles are ejected deep from the SMBH event horizon into the accretion disc.

No, quit saying this. You can't eject particles from within the super massive black hole's event horizon. We have explained this to you a multitude of times. Do you think you live in some kind of magical world where repeatedly stating false information eventually makes it correct? You can repeat this a trillion times, but it will still violate the laws of physics. The swapping of space and time inside of the horizon won't let it happen. For objects inside the horizon, the horizon is in the object's past and the singularity is in its future. So please do explain how a magnetic field can push an object into the past. If it can't do that, then it can't get particles out of the horizon.

The second half of your question also ignores another problem that I pointed out. If the magnetic field is so strong that it won't let matter from the accretion disk into the black hole, then it also won't let matter from the black hole into the accretion disk. Is the magnetic field too strong for matter to cross it or is it not? You can't have it both ways. Pick one and stick with it.

Those particles under the Ultra high temp (10^9c) high orbital velocity (0.3c) + electromagnetic and Fusion activity is converted into real Atoms and molecular.

The mass/energy of the black hole/accretion disk system can't increase this way, though. The jets themselves are removing mass and energy from the system, so it is losing mass and energy as time goes on. Do you agree with this? If you don't agree with this, then you also don't agree with the first law of thermodynamics.

Therefore, instead of 3D movement of 0.8c upwards/and inwards to the pole, we only monitor the 2D inwards movement to the pole direction.

I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence that the gas cloud was moving towards either of the poles.

Actually, we think that it is moving closer to the SMBH (or even falling into it) but in reality it is moving far above the SMBH).

Don't just say it, give evidence for it.

Their mass will be used to create new gas clouds that orbit around the SMBH.
In those gas clouds new stars will be formed. Each star will get planets and moons from the same matter in the gas cloud and at the same day.

And in the process, the black hole/accretion disk system must lose mass and energy because it is giving that mass and energy to something else (stars, planets, etc.).

Those stars will be drifted outwards and join all the other stars in the Bulge and later on in the galactic disc.

Where does the energy to make the stars "drift outward" come from? Remember, you're raising them against a gravitational potential and that requires an input of energy.

Why is it so difficult for you to see our real galaxy structure?

Your model contradicts the laws of physics. No more need be said. It has already been falsified. You just stubbornly refuse to accept that.

Why do you desperately insist for Inflow?

That's what all of the relevant physics points too.

[Halc]

Says who? They might not have even known that they had such an observation. Data has to be analyzed in order to figure out what it means. They may simply have not done the necessary analysis required to find an inflow.

The articles focus on trying to spot the outflow against the bright background of the inflow radiation.  It's hard to spot the jets when looking at all the X-rays due to the inflow heating the disk.  The disk isn't going to stay hot by itself without energy input from stuff falling in.  So it isn't a matter of trying to find the inflow (weak though it is in our galaxy).  Trick is to spot the evidence of the jets despite it.  And the jet has a different signature, so yes, they've been able to pick it out much of the time.

[Kryptid]

The articles focus on trying to spot the outflow against the bright background of the inflow radiation.  It's hard to spot the jets when looking at all the X-rays due to the inflow heating the disk.  The disk isn't going to stay hot by itself without energy input from stuff falling in.  So it isn't a matter of trying to find the inflow (weak though it is in our galaxy).  Trick is to spot the evidence of the jets despite it.  And the jet has a different signature, so yes, they've been able to pick it out much of the time.

That is true, although I'm sure Dav Lev is going to try to argue that just because we see a lot of heat and X-rays, that doesn't mean it's being caused by an inflow. I imagine what he is looking for is some kind of direct detection where we can visually watch matter move unambiguously into the black hole. We obviously don't have that.

Sometimes I feel like this is a pointless battle. Despite how broken his model is shown to be, he keeps insisting on it...

(1) He says that particles can be pulled out of the horizon by a magnetic field. This doesn't work because magnetic fields can't move particles into the past. He has consistently failed to understand how event horizons work.
(2) He says that those particles can cross the magnetic field into the accretion disk but not the other way around. This doesn't work because magnetic fields are not one-way doors. He has consistently failed to understand how magnetism works.
(3) He says that the particles that move out eventually end up in stars and planets. Yet at the same time, he keeps insisting that the black hole doesn't lose mass. He has consistently failed to understand the first law of thermodynamics.
(4) He says that planets and stars spiral outwards while ignoring that energy is required to make this happen. He denied that tidal acceleration can do this and seems to assume that it just happens naturally. Another case of him failing to understand the first law of thermodynamics.

I can't help but wonder at times if he is a troll.

[Halc]

That is true, although I'm sure Dav Lev is going to try to argue that just because we see a lot of heat and X-rays, that doesn't mean it's being caused by an inflow.

That's fine, since then he'd be denying the measurement of the outflow as well, which is also estimated the same way.  One is 'clearly', the other is to be dismissed.

Sometimes I feel like this is a pointless battle. Despite how broken his model is shown to be, he keeps insisting on it...

I can't help but wonder at times if he is a troll.

If you think he's going to actually pretend to learn something, I have a bridge to sell you. He's found our buttons and is pushing them.

He says that those particles can cross the magnetic field into the accretion disk but not the other way around. This doesn't work because magnetic fields are not one-way doors. He has consistently failed to understand how magnetism works.

I don't even understand how magnetism works.  I've tried to avoid asserting things about it.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

How could it be that there is no contradiction between NASA Chandra and arxiv?

Because NASA never said that there wasn't an inflow. They may not have even been looking for any and didn't scan the data for it.

Yes, I fully agree.
However, the past is a past.
We can gess, we can believe on, but we were not there 10 billion years ago.
The present is real.
Let's read again that statement by NASA:

The study shows the spin axis of Sgr A* is pointing in one direction, parallel to the rotation axis of the Milky Way, which indicates to astronomers that gas and dust have migrated steadily into Sgr A* over the past 10 billion years.

Do you see any conclusion that they see today any sort of inflow?
They say that: "the spin axis of Sgr A* is pointing in one direction, parallel to the rotation axis of the Milky Way".
So, does it mean that they see today any sort of inflow???
The answer is very clear.
It is NO NO NO.
They say that it gives an indication to our astronomers that in the PAST (not today) "gas and dust have migrated steadily into Sgr A* over the past 10 billion years"
But again - they don't see any sort of inflow TODAY!!!
Actually, the following statement  by NASA: "which indicates to astronomers" proves that there is no current inflow.
If there was any current inflow, they had to say it clearly as they say clearly that there is outflow.
Please read again the article from NASA site.
They don't mention any observation for current inflow.
I also wonder why the use the word "astronomers" instead of "scientists".
Could it be that the leading team in NASA are scientists.
They surly have the ultimate knowledge to analyze the data that they fetch from their observation site.
However, astronomers (that believe in the BBT) don't like that real verified current outflow observation by NASA
Therefore, NASA have added this remark in order to give them the possibility to continue with their dream.
If they have discoed any sort of inflow in their data, they were surly announce it - clearly and loudly.
Actually, in NASA article it is stated that they see outflow from the accretion disc at many others SMBH. Not even one word about any current indication for inflow.
Why NASA don't say:
The observation data "indicates to astronomers that gas and dust have migrated steadily into Sgr A* over the past 10 billion years."
This is one more evidence that NASA have full confidence that the data observation as it only indicates for OUTFLOW.
Therefore, my conclusion is very clear.
NASA didn't find TODAY any sort of inflow in the observation data. Not even a one to one million chance for inflow.
However, when you read the article from arxiv it shows that they have found in the same data from NASA an evidence for CURRENT inflow. So they see TODAY an inflow indication in the same NASA data.
Sorry - this is manipulation!!!
I have full trust in NASA' scientists knowledge.
Unless, you can show that NASA scientists are so foolish that they can't read correctly the data which they have extracted from their observation site. While Astronomers at arxiv are much more cleaver.

[Kryptid]

They say that it gives an indication to our astronomers that in the PAST (not today) "gas and dust have migrated steadily into Sgr A* over the past 10 billion years"

I know you are not a native English speaker, so perhaps I should explain this. When someone says "over the past 10 billion years", they are speaking of something that is on-going. It is something that is still happening now and has been happening for 10 billion years. If someone says "It's been raining over the past three hours", they mean it is still raining.

Actually, the way you phrase this has its own implications. Does this mean you agree that there was an inflow in the past and therefore black holes can experience inflows? That certainly seems to be what you are saying.

However, astronomers (that believe in the BBT) don't like that real verified current outflow observation by NASA

Why wouldn't they? Outflows don't contradict the Big Bang theory.

I have full trust in NASA' scientists knowledge.

If that's true, then that means you must agree with them that there was inflow in the past and therefore black holes can experience inflows.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I know you are not a native English speaker, so perhaps I should explain this. When someone says "over the past 10 billion years", they are speaking of something that is on-going. It is something that is still happening now and has been happening for 10 billion years. If someone says "It's been raining over the past three hours", they mean it is still raining.

Ok
Let's try to have better understanding:
https://www.nasa.gov/press/2013/november/nasas-chandra-helps-confirm-evidence-of-jet-in-milky-ways-black-hole/#.XXmqVC5vbIV
1. clear outflow observation of a jet of high-energy particles by NASA:
"Astronomers have long sought strong evidence that Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, is producing a jet of high-energy particles. Finally they have found it, in new results from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and the National Science Foundation's Very Large Array (VLA) radio telescope."
So, NASA observation have found that " the suppermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, is producing a jet of high-energy particles"
2. Explanation about the impact of that outflow jet on the gas around the SMBH:
"The jet appears to be running into gas near Sgr A*, producing X-rays detected by Chandra and radio emission observed by the VLA. The two key pieces of evidence for the jet are a straight line of X-ray emitting gas that points toward Sgr A* and a shock front -- similar to a sonic boom -- seen in radio data, where the jet appears to be striking the gas. Additionally, the energy signature, or spectrum, in X-rays of Sgr A* resembles that of jets coming from supermassive black holes in other galaxies."
3. Outflow Jets throughout the universe at other galaxies:
"Jets of high-energy particles are found throughout the universe, on large and small scales. They are produced by young stars and by black holes a thousand times larger than the Milky Way's black hole."
4. The Molecular jet stream had been set by the outflow jet.
"Astronomers have suggested the giant bubbles of high-energy particles extending out from the Milky Way and detected by NASA's Fermi Gamma Ray Telescope in 2008 are caused by jets from Sgr A* that are aligned with the rotation axis of the galaxy. The latest results from Chandra support this explanation."
5. The outflow jet stream tells the direction of the black hole's spin axis
"We were very eager to find a jet from Sgr A* because it tells us the direction of the black hole's spin axis. This gives us important clues about the growth history of the black hole," said Mark Morris of the University of California at Los Angeles, a co-author of the study. So, that confirmed outflow get shows the direction of the black hole's spin axis.
6. Mr. Mark Morris study:
That direction of the black hole's spin axis is important for another study which is totally not connected to NASA observation. This information was important to Mr. Mark Morris study at the University of California at Los Angeles.
"The study shows the spin axis of Sgr A* is pointing in one direction, parallel to the rotation axis of the Milky Way, which indicates to astronomers that gas and dust have migrated steadily into Sgr A* over the past 10 billion years."
So, based on the study of Mr. Mark Morris the University of California at Los Angeles, it was found that the direction of the spin axis of Sgr A* indicates to astronomers that gas and dust have migrated steadily into Sgr A* over the past 10 billion years.
7. Other scientists' wishful thinking:
"Scientists think jets are produced when some material falling toward the black hole is redirected outward. Since Sgr A* is presently known to be consuming very little material, it is not surprising the jet appears weak. A jet in the opposite direction is not seen, possibly because of gas or dust blocking the line of sight from Earth or a lack of material to fuel the jet".
So, Scientists think that jets are produced when some material falling toward the black hole is redirected outward.
However, do we see any evidence for inflow jet by NASA observation?
The answer is very clear: " A jet in the opposite direction is not seen"
So, NASA didn't find any observation for inflow jet (Not even for native English speaker).

[Kryptid]

. Mr. Mark Morris study:
That direction of the black hole's spin axis is important for another study which is totally not connected to NASA observation.

Where do you get that it was a "different study"? Mark Morris is explicitly mentioned as a co-author of the study that the news report is about (with Zhiyuan Li being another co-author). There is another news report by Scientific American that says the same thing: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/milky-way-black-hole-jet/ And another: https://chandra.harvard.edu/blog/node/467 And another: http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-chandra-jet-supermassive-black-hole-01564.html

1. clear outflow observation of a jet of high-energy particles by NASA:
"Astronomers have long sought strong evidence that Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, is producing a jet of high-energy particles. Finally they have found it, in new results from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and the National Science Foundation's Very Large Array (VLA) radio telescope."
So, NASA observation have found that " the suppermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, is producing a jet of high-energy particles"
2. Explanation about the impact of that outflow jet on the gas around the SMBH:
"The jet appears to be running into gas near Sgr A*, producing X-rays detected by Chandra and radio emission observed by the VLA. The two key pieces of evidence for the jet are a straight line of X-ray emitting gas that points toward Sgr A* and a shock front -- similar to a sonic boom -- seen in radio data, where the jet appears to be striking the gas. Additionally, the energy signature, or spectrum, in X-rays of Sgr A* resembles that of jets coming from supermassive black holes in other galaxies."
3. Outflow Jets throughout the universe at other galaxies:
"Jets of high-energy particles are found throughout the universe, on large and small scales. They are produced by young stars and by black holes a thousand times larger than the Milky Way's black hole."
4. The Molecular jet stream had been set by the outflow jet.
"Astronomers have suggested the giant bubbles of high-energy particles extending out from the Milky Way and detected by NASA's Fermi Gamma Ray Telescope in 2008 are caused by jets from Sgr A* that are aligned with the rotation axis of the galaxy. The latest results from Chandra support this explanation."

This is like trying to prove there are no white crows by counting black crows.

So, Scientists think that jets are produced when some material falling toward the black hole is redirected outward.
However, do we see any evidence for inflow jet by NASA observation?

Yes, since that article says that matter has been migrating into Sagittarius* over the past 10 billion years.

The answer is very clear: " A jet in the opposite direction is not seen"
So, NASA didn't find any observation for inflow jet (Not even for native English speaker).

If you think that, then you clearly don't understand English as well as you think you do.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The answer is very clear: " A jet in the opposite direction is not seen"
So, NASA didn't find any observation for inflow jet (Not even for native English speaker).

If you think that, then you clearly don't understand English as well as you think you do.

I really can't understand your conclusions
Let's try to verify the following step by step:
"Scientists think jets are produced when some material falling toward the black hole is redirected outward. Since Sgr A* is presently known to be consuming very little material, it is not surprising the jet appears weak. A jet in the opposite direction is not seen, possibly because of gas or dust blocking the line of sight from Earth or a lack of material to fuel the jet".
1. "Scientists think jets are produced when some material falling toward the black hole is redirected outward."
So,  "Scientists think". It is very nice that they think. However, does it mean that they really see? Don't you agree that thinking is one issue and observation is totally another issue?
So, do you agree that this message doesn't gives any real observation for "material falling toward the black hole"?
2. " Since Sgr A* is presently known to be consuming very little material, it is not surprising the jet appears weak"
Which jet? Is it the Inflow or outflow?
I was quite sure that the following message: "it is not surprising the jet appears weak" is about outflow. Remember, was quite difficult to observed the outflow jet.
In the other article it is stated that:
"For example, scientists have detected a weak jet emanating from the black hole at the center of the nearby galaxy M81, but models suggest that if the same jet projected from the Milky Way’s core, we wouldn’t be able to see it. "
So, do you agree that the "a weak jet emanating from the black hole" is the outflow jet?
3. "A jet in the opposite direction is not seen,". If the "jet appears weak" is about outflow, than why the "A jet in the opposite direction" could not represents the inflow?
If it is inflow - than it is stated clearly - "is not seen".
Can you please explain what is the meaning in English for "is not seen"
Could it be that NASA see inflow but can't tell us what they see?
Or, NASA  just don't see any inflow?
If you still assume that NASA see inflow, would you kindly explain how do you read/understand that message?

Yes, since that article says that matter has been migrating into Sagittarius* over the past 10 billion years.

In the article it is stated:
 

The study shows the spin axis of Sgr A* is pointing in one direction, parallel to the rotation axis of the Milky Way, which indicates to astronomers that gas and dust have migrated steadily into Sgr A* over the past 10 billion years.

So, What do you understand from:
"The study shows the spin axis of Sgr A* is pointing in one direction, parallel to the rotation axis of the Milky Way"
Do you see there any word about the Observation data?
Don't you agree that the Observation data is only used to find the pointing direction of "the spin axis of Sgr A*" 
So, do you agree that the "study" is not the "Observation data"?
Hence, the "study" indicates to astronomers that gas and dust have migrated steadily into Sgr A* over the past 10 billion years and not the "Observation data".
However, if you still sure that the "Study" means "NASA observation data" then would you kindly explain this assumption to a person that isn't a "native English speaker".

[Kryptid]

1. "Scientists think jets are produced when some material falling toward the black hole is redirected outward."
So,  "Scientists think". It is very nice that they think. However, does it mean that they really see? Don't you agree that thinking is one issue and observation is totally another issue?

Yes, but all of the evidence points to this being the source of power for the jets. It's the only source of matter available. Super-massive black holes can't produce matter.

So, do you agree that this message doesn't gives any real observation for "material falling toward the black hole"?

They did when they said this:

The study shows the spin axis of Sgr A* is pointing in one direction, parallel to the rotation axis of the Milky Way, which indicates to astronomers that gas and dust have migrated steadily into Sgr A* over the past 10 billion years.

2. " Since Sgr A* is presently known to be consuming very little material, it is not surprising the jet appears weak"
Which jet? Is it the Inflow or outflow?

Outflow, obviously, since inflow isn't a jet.

So, do you agree that the "a weak jet emanating from the black hole" is the outflow jet?

Yes.

3. "A jet in the opposite direction is not seen,". If the "jet appears weak" is about outflow, than why the "A jet in the opposite direction" could not represents the inflow?
If it is inflow - than it is stated clearly - "is not seen".
Can you please explain what is the meaning in English for "is not seen"

I already corrected you on this. Here's a hint: inflows aren't jets.

Could it be that NASA see inflow but can't tell us what they see?
Or, NASA  just don't see any inflow?
If you still assume that NASA see inflow, would you kindly explain how do you read/understand that message?

Like this:

The study shows the spin axis of Sgr A* is pointing in one direction, parallel to the rotation axis of the Milky Way, which indicates to astronomers that gas and dust have migrated steadily into Sgr A* over the past 10 billion years.

So, What do you understand from:
"The study shows the spin axis of Sgr A* is pointing in one direction, parallel to the rotation axis of the Milky Way"
Do you see there any word about the Observation data?
Don't you agree that the Observation data is only used to find the pointing direction of "the spin axis of Sgr A*"
So, do you agree that the "study" is not the "Observation data"?
Hence, the "study" indicates to astronomers that gas and dust have migrated steadily into Sgr A* over the past 10 billion years and not the "Observation data".
However, if you still sure that the "Study" means "NASA observation data" then would you kindly explain this assumption to a person that isn't a "native English speaker".

The study was based on the observational data. The conclusion that matter has been moving inwards for 10 billion years is obviously a result of their analysis of the data. That seems painfully obvious.