[Dave Lev (OP)]

No it doesn't.  If you mean negative charge, then say negative charge.  Charge and energy are different things.
Gravitational potential energy is the obvious example of negative energy/mass, so it is quite real.

I have found myself very confused with the meaning of Negative energy/mass.
Based on the following formula:
E = mc^2
A negative Energy means a negative mass (as c^2 is always positive).
However, in all/most of the articles that I have read - The moment of the pair creation is described as pair particles
One with Positive electrical charge while the other one has a Negative electrical charge.
So, I was wondering what the source is for that Negative Energy and what is the real difference between Negative electrical charge to Negative Energy.
In order to answer this question I have looked again on the following article:

This article from LiveScience does mention it, though: https://www.livescience.com/65683-sonic-black-hole-spews-hawking-radiation.html

In this article it is stated:
"(Antimatter particles have the same mass as their matter counterparts, but opposite electrical charge.)"
So, it is clear to me that when we discuss on Matter and Antimatter, or Particle and antiparticle we actually discuss on:
"the same mass as their matter counterparts, but opposite electrical charge"
However, if during the moment of creation we get Particle and Antiparticle (both with positive mass) then how suddenly we get the Negative energy out that?
This article gives the answer for this question:
"Normally, after a pair of virtual particles appears, they immediately annihilate each other. Next to a black hole, however, the extreme forces of gravity instead pull the particles apart, with one particle absorbed by the black hole as the other shoots off into space. The absorbed particle has negative energy, which reduces the black hole's energy and mass. Swallow enough of these virtual particles, and the black hole eventually evaporates. The escaping particle becomes known as Hawking radiation."
So, if I understand it correctly:
We consider the Negative energy only when the Negative electrical charge is falling into the BH:
"The absorbed particle has negative energy, which reduces the black hole's energy and mass."
Hence, as long as the antiparticle is out of the BH, It is considered as a negative electrical charged particle
However, when this antiparticle (with its negative electrical charge) falls into the BH it actually reduces the total energy/mass of the BH. Therefore our scientists consider the in falling Antiparticle as it has a Negative energy or Negative mass.
Do you agree with that?
Do you have better explanation?
Why in all/most of the articles when it comes to moment of the creation of pair production they clearly discuss on Positive/Negative electrical charged and not Positive/Negative Energy?

[Halc]

However, in all/most of the articles that I have read - The moment of the pair creation is described as pair particles
One with Positive electrical charge while the other one has a Negative electrical charge.

You misinterpret almost every sentence you read then.  Most created pairs are not charged at all.
Sgr-A (or any stellar black hole for that matter) is incapable of producing charged particles via Hawking radiation.  The energy required to create such massive particles is not there.
What happens more often is that the hot accretion disk (not the black hole) radiates light (reducing the mass/energy of the disk), and those photons gain energy (blue shift) as they get close to the black hole.  A pair of photons with sufficient positive mass/energy (over 1 MeV) might interact, resulting in this electron/positron pair, which has the same positive mass as the photons.  Yes, that's a combined positive energy like you say, but the energy was already there, having been removed from the accretion ring.  No new mass was created or destroyed.  It's just being moved around.
One of the pair might escape the black hole, and on average, as many positrons as electrons escape.  The positrons will interact with a different electron in the disk where they annihilate,  becoming photons again, for a net loss of mass to the accretion disk.

So, I was wondering what the source is for that Negative Energy and what is the real difference between Negative electrical charge to Negative Energy.

Charge is an EM property of any particle/system.  Most particles don't have charge, but all have mass/energy.  The two are completely different things.

"(Antimatter particles have the same mass as their matter counterparts, but opposite electrical charge.)"
So, it is clear to me that when we discuss on Matter and Antimatter, or Particle and antiparticle we actually discuss on:
"the same mass as their matter counterparts, but opposite electrical charge"

And since most/all the particles from Hawking radiation have zero charge, the opposite charge is also zero.  You're mistakenly taking a statement that the particles have opposite charge to mean that they have charge at all.  Hawking radiation from any known black hole is confined to photons and gravitons and such.  It involves virtual particles, and I am no expert on the mathematics involved, but there are good books/articles that explain it.  I don't think you are up to understanding those articles, given your consistent misrepresentation of even the most trivial physics.  I don't understand the articles, and they are not backed by a unified field theory, so their conclusions are in question.

However, if during the moment of creation we get Particle and Antiparticle (both with positive mass) then how suddenly we get the Negative energy out that?

You don't. Antimatter reactions go kablooey.  Lots of positive energy out of that.  No net change.

This article gives the answer for this question:
"Normally, after a pair of virtual particles appears, they immediately annihilate each other. Next to a black hole, however, the extreme forces of gravity instead pull the particles apart, with one particle absorbed by the black hole as the other shoots off into space. The absorbed particle has negative energy, which reduces the black hole's energy and mass. Swallow enough of these virtual particles, and the black hole eventually evaporates. The escaping particle becomes known as Hawking radiation."
So, if I understand it correctly:
We consider the Negative energy only when the Negative electrical charge is falling into the BH:

Energy and charge are completly different things.  The bit you quote above doesn't even mention charge.
It is in fact talking about virtual particles, not physical particles.  The former might have a combined mass of zero, which is why they can appear out of a zero energy state.

"The absorbed particle has negative energy, which reduces the black hole's energy and mass."
Hence, as long as the antiparticle is out of the BH, It is considered as a negative electrical charged particle

This is what I mean by you not being able to read any sentence without twisting it.  It says the negative energy particle falls in, not the anti-particle.  The positive mass particle that escapes might be matter or antimatter.  There should be no predominance of one over the other.

However, when this antiparticle (with its negative electrical charge)

There's no mention of an antiparticle or one with charge.  It says the negative energy particle falls in.  Remember: Energy and charge are completely different things.

Therefore our scientists consider the in falling Antiparticle as it has a Negative energy or Negative mass.
Do you agree with that?

About as completely wrong as possible.

Do you have better explanation?

Yes.  The quotes you gave is the better explanation.  Read them instead of replacing all the words with ones of your choice.

[Kryptid]

I have found myself very confused with the meaning of Negative energy/mass.

Think of units of energy like electron-volts, joules or calories. Instead of, say, 10 joules you would have -10 joules.

So, if I understand it correctly:
We consider the Negative energy only when the Negative electrical charge is falling into the BH:

You don't understand correctly. The particle that falls into the black hole could have positive charge, negative charge or no charge at all. The energy is what is negative, not the electric charge. The absorption of electric charge wouldn't reduce something's mass because mass and charge are different things.

Hence, as long as the antiparticle is out of the BH, It is considered as a negative electrical charged particle

How many times do I have to tell you that antimatter isn't always negatively-charge? Positrons are positively-charged.

Why in all/most of the articles when it comes to moment of the creation of pair production they clearly discuss on Positive/Negative electrical charged and not Positive/Negative Energy?

Because most articles talking about pair production talk about electron-positron pairs. Conservation of charge is just as important as conservation of energy.

In this article it is stated:
"(Antimatter particles have the same mass as their matter counterparts, but opposite electrical charge.)"
So, it is clear to me that when we discuss on Matter and Antimatter, or Particle and antiparticle we actually discuss on:
"the same mass as their matter counterparts, but opposite electrical charge" However, if during the moment of creation we get Particle and Antiparticle (both with positive mass) then how suddenly we get the Negative energy out that?

They are talking about "normal" circumstances. Both matter and antimatter have positive mass/energy under normal circumstances. Stephen Hawking already explained one circumstance that can make that normally positive mass/energy be negative:

Normally, the energy of the particle is still positive, but the gravitational field inside a black hole is so strong that even a real particle can have negative energy there.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

In this article it is stated:
"(Antimatter particles have the same mass as their matter counterparts, but opposite electrical charge.)"
So, it is clear to me that when we discuss on Matter and Antimatter, or Particle and antiparticle we actually discuss on:
"the same mass as their matter counterparts, but opposite electrical charge" However, if during the moment of creation we get Particle and Antiparticle (both with positive mass) then how suddenly we get the Negative energy out that?

So, those scientists are talking about "normal" circumstances. In this case, both matter and antimatter have positive mass/energy under normal circumstances.

As they are talking about "normal" circumstances, why I also can't talk about "normal" circumstances?
Why do you push that discussion into the direction of none normal circumstances?
I would like to remind you that in my theory both matter and antimatter have to have positive mass/energy under normal circumstances.
So, why those scientists can claim that Both matter and antimatter have positive mass/energy under normal circumstances while you both insist that it is forbidden for me to use the same "normal circumstances"?

[Kryptid]

Why do you push that discussion into the direction of none normal circumstances?

The conditions inside of a black hole's event horizon are not normal.

So, why those scientists can claim that Both matter and antimatter have positive mass/energy under normal circumstances while you both insist that it is forbidden for me to use the same "normal circumstances"?

It's not forbidden so long as you are actually talking about normal physics conditions. By merely discussing black holes, you are entering "abnormal" territory.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The conditions inside of a black hole's event horizon are not normal.

OK
Based on that, the conditions outside of a black hole's event horizon are normal.
Is it correct?

[Kryptid]

OK
Based on that, the conditions outside of a black hole's event horizon are normal.
Is it correct?

It depends on how near the horizon you are. In Black Holes & Time Warps, it is stated:

Then, in 1974, came a great surprise: Hawking inferred as a by-product of his discovery of black-hole evaporation (Chapter 12) that vacuum fluctuations near a hole's horizon are exotic: They have negative average energy density as seen by outgoing light beams near the hole's horizon. In fact, it is this exotic property of the vacuum fluctuations that permits the hole's horizon to shrink as the hole evaporates, in violation of Hawking's area-increase theorem. Because exotic material is so important for physics, I shall explain this in greater detail.

Recall the origin and nature of vacuum fluctuations, as discussed in Box 12.4: When one tries to remove all electric and magnetic fields from some region of space, that is, when one tries to create a perfect vacuum, there always remain a plethora of random, unpredictable electromagnetic oscillations- oscillations caused by a tug-of-war between the fields in adjacent regions of space. The fields "here" borrow energy from fields "there," leaving the fields there with a deficit of energy, that is, leaving them momentarily with negative energy. The fields there then quickly grab the energy back and with it a little excess, driving their energy momentarily positive, and so it goes, onward and onward.

Under normal circumstances on Earth, the average energy of these vacuum fluctuations is zero. They spend equal amounts of time with energy deficits and energy excesses, and the average of deficit and excess vanishes. Not so near the horizon of an evaporating black hole, Hawking's 1974 calculations suggested. Near a horizon the average energy must be negative, at least as measured by light beams, which means that the vacuum fluctuations are exotic.

I'm not sure where the cut-off point is. That is, I'm not sure how far away you have to be from the horizon before the physics goes back to "normal". The fact of the matter is this, however: Hawking radiation must obviously be formed in a region of space close enough to the horizon where negative energy can exist. That's the only way that the first law of thermodynamics can be preserved. The energy of both particles must add up to zero. The only way to do that if one particle has positive energy would be if the other has an equal amount of negative energy.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I'm quite confused:
In one hand you claim that

Hawking radiation must obviously be formed in a region of space close enough to the horizon where negative energy can exist. That's the only way that the first law of thermodynamics can be preserved. The energy of both particles must add up to zero. The only way to do that if one particle has positive energy would be if the other has an equal amount of negative energy.

Hence, if "The energy of both particles must add up to zero. The only way to do that if one particle has positive energy would be if the other has an equal amount of negative energy" than you actually claim that at any pair production there must be a negative energy.
On the other hand you claim that the Normal condition depends on:

It depends on how near the horizon you are.

Would you kindly advice clearly when can we get the Normal condition?
Do you agree that in order to get the Normal conditions it must be close enough to the innermost side of the accretion disc (As further away there is no feasibility for the pair production activity)
If you don't agree with that, than please specify exactly the location for Antimatter particles that have the same mass as their matter counterparts, but opposite electrical charge.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

For one, the normal condition requires the energy to already be there.

Thanks
So, you agree that if there is energy, we will get Antimatter particles that have the same mass as their matter counterparts, but opposite electrical charge.
That is perfect
The question is: What is the source for this energy?
If there is no energy than it is quite clear that it must come from something.
However, If there is an energy, than we don't need to deduct any mass from any nearby object.
The gravitational Energy is an excellent energy source for the new creation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
 "the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy"
Hence, the Gravitational energy is already there.
So, why can't we assume a Normal circumstances outside the event horizon while the energy is coming from the gravitational energy?
Please be aware that it is also stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
"the created particles shall have opposite values of each other. For instance, if one particle has electric charge of +1 the other must have electric charge of −1, or if one particle has strangeness of +1 then another one must have strangeness of −1."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron
"The positron or antielectron is the antiparticle or the antimatter counterpart of the electron. The positron has an electric charge of +1 e, a spin of 1/2 (same as electron), and has the same mass as an electron. "
So, there is a possibility for the  pair-production with the same positive mass at each particle, but with opposite electrical charge.
They don't say even one word about negative mass or deduct the mass/energy from the BH.
In ALL the articles that I have found (except of the one that you have offered) our scientists do not claim for Negative Energy/mass.
So, why do you consider that the scientists which wrote about the negative energy/mass are much more cleaver than all the others?
With regards to Negative mass:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass
"In theoretical physics, negative mass is matter whose mass is of opposite sign to the mass of normal matter, e.g. −1 kg."
It is stated: "In theoretical physics..."
So does it mean that we have never verified a Negative mass?
Do we have any real observation for Negative mass?
Actually, it seems to me that even negative energy should have some sort of mass.
If it has mass, it must be a positive mass.
Did we ever found a Negative mass that sets a negative gravity?
If we can't see that Negative mass, why do you push in that direction?

[Kryptid]

Thanks
So, you agree that if there is energy, we will get Antimatter particles that have the same mass as their matter counterparts, but opposite electrical charge.
That is perfect
The question is: What is the source for this energy?

Under normal pair production circumstances, that energy would come from the photons that they were created from.

 "the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy"
Hence, the Gravitational energy is already there.
So, why can't we assume a Normal circumstances outside the event horizon while the energy is coming from the gravitational energy?

Because this isn't a case of gravitational field energy being converted into a particle pair. The tidal forces of the gravitational field allowed the pair to come into existence, but you can't extract energy from a gravitational field itself. Gravitational fields can transform gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy (such as when an object falls into them), but that's all. Gravitational fields are not some kind of reservoir of energy that can be tapped and drained. Hence why the particle pair has to have a total energy of zero.

So, why do you consider that the scientists which wrote about the negative energy/mass are much more cleaver than all the others?

I don't. The articles you are referencing are talking about "normal" pair production (like the kind that happens inside of particle accelerators). Those create particles with net positive energy because net positive energy was already present that they could be created from. You are comparing apples with oranges.

"In theoretical physics, negative mass is matter whose mass is of opposite sign to the mass of normal matter, e.g. −1 kg."
It is stated: "In theoretical physics..."
So does it mean that we have never verified a Negative mass?
Do we have any real observation for Negative mass?
Actually, it seems to me that even negative energy should have some sort of mass.
If it has mass, it must be a positive mass.
Did we ever found a Negative mass that sets a negative gravity?
If we can't see that Negative mass, why do you push in that direction?

Those are different circumstances. It may well be impossible to have a container of "negative water" in your refrigerator. However, we are not talking about the normal space-time here on Earth. We are talking about the extremely warped space-time of a black hole. It is that which allows particles with negative energy to exist for prolonged periods of time.

If it did turn out that negative energy particles of the type that Hawking theorizes cannot exist either, then that would mean that Hawking radiation wouldn't exist and tidal force-induced pair production cannot happen at all. The first law of thermodynamics demands that energy not be created out of nowhere, so if you cannot have a negative and positive particle pair to balance that energy budget, then you get no particle pairs.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

1. Gravitational energy

Strictly speaking, gravity is not energy.  It is an acceleration field.  Earth gravity is expressed as acceleration (m/sec²), not in joules.

Why do you insist that Gravity is not energy?
In the article it is stated clearly about " black hole's gravitational energy":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
 "the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy"
So our scientists are fully aware about the energy that BH can create with its Gravitational force.
Do you think that they have no knowledge about that BH, gravity or Energy?
As an example, our scientists are using that gravitational energy to boost space probe on its journey to the moon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_flyby
"Flybys commonly use gravity assists to "slingshot" a space probe on its journey to its primary objective, but may themselves be used as primary means."
2. BH

An article about pair production isn't even talking about black holes.

Why?
In that article it is stated:
"the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy"
So, BH is there and also gravitational energy is fully there!
3. Negative mass

Do we have any real observation for Negative mass?

Not real, no.  No observation of Hawking radiation either.

We've never found a real object with negative rest mass, no.  Virtual particles are not real objects, but the mathematics of virtual particles has been verified.

Thanks
So you confirm that we have never found Negative mass.
Therefore, let's take out this unrealistic assumption from our discussion.
There is no way for the pair production activity to generate one particle in negative mass.
Negative mass is imagination - let's keep it there.

[Kryptid]

Why do you insist that Gravity is not energy?

Gravitational energy is a thing, but gravity itself is not energy. It is a field of force.

"the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy"
So our scientists are fully aware about the energy that BH can create with its Gravitational force.

If you consider that Wikipedia article accurate, then you need to consider what else was written there:

As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy, the escape of one of the particles lowers the mass of the black hole.

One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole). This causes the black hole to lose mass, and, to an outside observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle.

Do you think that they have no knowledge about that BH, gravity or Energy?

You seem to think so, as you disregard what Stephen Hawking has to say about it.

As an example, our scientists are using that gravitational energy to boost space probe on its journey to the moon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_flyby
"Flybys commonly use gravity assists to "slingshot" a space probe on its journey to its primary objective, but may themselves be used as primary means."

That process causes a transfer of energy from the planetary body to the spacecraft, lowering the total orbital energy of the planet afterwards. If anything, that only confirms that energy is being transferred away from the black hole itself.

Why?
In that article it is stated:
"the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy"
So, BH is there and also gravitational energy is fully there!

Did you read the rest of that sentence? You can't just quote the part you like and ignore the rest of it:

As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy, the escape of one of the particles lowers the mass of the black hole.

Thanks
So you confirm that we have never found Negative mass.
Therefore, let's take out this unrealistic assumption from our discussion.

Then you must also take pair production due to gravity out of the discussion, since it requires negative mass in order to balance the energy budget.

There is no way for the pair production activity to generate one particle in negative mass.
Negative mass is imagination - let's keep it there.

You're just demonstrating your ignorance of the physics involved by saying that, but let's say for the sake of argument you are right. We can cut to the chase a lot faster if you go ahead and answer the question that I posted earlier:

Does the black hole-accretion disk-jet system increase the total amount of mass-energy in the Universe over time?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Gravitational energy is a thing, but gravity itself is not energy. It is a field of force.

That is OK, as long as Gravitational energy represents the requested Energy which is needed to create the "Antimatter particles that have the same mass as their matter counterparts, but opposite electrical charge" (as stated in the article).

If you consider that Wikipedia article accurate, then you need to consider what else was written there:
"As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy, the escape of one of the particles lowers the mass of the black hole".

Let's read it all:
"Physical insight into the process may be gained by imagining that particle–antiparticle radiation is emitted from just beyond the event horizon. This radiation does not come directly from the black hole itself, but rather is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles.[citation needed] As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy, the escape of one of the particles lowers the mass of the black hole."
So, it is stated clearly that this particle–antiparticle radiation does not come directly from the black hole itself, but rather is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles.
Therefore, The creation of the particle–antiparticle does not come from the mass of the BH itself, therefore, there is no mass lost during to that creation process.
However, what does it mean: "the escape of one of the particles lowers the mass of the black hole"?
The answer is given:
"One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole). This causes the black hole to lose mass, and, to an outside observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle."
So, the BH is losing mass due to the in falling particle and not due to the creation process.
The next question is:
Why the in falling particle creates a negative energy?
Let's look again on the starting point of the pair creation. It is stated:
"Antimatter particles that have the same mass as their matter counterparts, but opposite electrical charge"
Do you see any Negative energy in that description?
They only claim that both particles have the same mass as their matter counterparts, but opposite electrical charge.
So, there are two particles with real mass. Not even one word about negative energy.
Now let's try to verify what could happen when each one is falling in:
1. If a particle with a positive electrical charge will fall in, do you see any negative energy?
2.  If a particle with a Negative electrical charge will fall in, do you see any negative energy?
Could it be that they actually was aiming for Negative electrical charge, but by a typo error they have written it as negative energy?
Do you have an idea how any particle (With Negative electrical charge or with positive electrical charge) can set a negative energy as it falls in?
This is real enigma for me.
In the article it is also stated as follow:
"while Hawking radiation seems to contain no such information, and depends only on the mass, angular momentum, and charge of the black hole (the no-hair theorem)."
So, could it be that the BH has a charge?
If it has a charge, than now it is fully clear to me.
If the Negative electrical charge particle is falling into a BH with positive charge, than by definition there must be a mass lost.
However, if a positive electrical charge particle is falling into a BH with positive charge, than by definition there must be mass increase.
What is your advice about all of that?

[Kryptid]

That is OK, as long as Gravitational energy represents the requested Energy which is needed to create the "Antimatter particles that have the same mass as their matter counterparts, but opposite electrical charge" (as stated in the article).

Too bad, because it doesn't. That isn't how the Hawking process works.

So, it is stated clearly that this particle–antiparticle radiation does not come directly from the black hole itself, but rather is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles.
Therefore, The creation of the particle–antiparticle does not come from the mass of the BH itself, therefore, there is no mass lost during to that creation process.

No mass is lost during the creation process itself because one of the particles has negative energy.

Why the in falling particle creates a negative energy?

Because the black hole's gravitational field is so strong that it makes the energy of the particle negative as seen in the reference frame of a distant observer.

Let's look again on the starting point of the pair creation. It is stated:
"Antimatter particles that have the same mass as their matter counterparts, but opposite electrical charge"
Do you see any Negative energy in that description?

You have been corrected on this before. That is talking about normal circumstances.

1. If a particle with a positive electrical charge will fall in, do you see any negative energy?
2.  If a particle with a Negative electrical charge will fall in, do you see any negative energy?

In the reference frame of a distant observer, yes, they will see negative energy.

Could it be that they actually was aiming for Negative electrical charge, but by a typo error they have written it as negative energy?

Absolutely not. Stephen Hawking's book makes that abundantly clear:

Because energy cannot be created out of nothing, one of the partners in a particle/antiparticle pair will have positive energy, and the other partner negative energy. The one with negative energy is condemned to be a short-lived virtual particle because real particles always have positive energy in normal situations. It must therefore seek out its partner and annihilate with it. However, a real particle close to a massive body has less energy than if it were far away, because it would take less energy to lift it far away against the gravitational attraction of the body.

Normally, the energy of the particle is still positive, but the gravitational field inside a black hole is so strong that even a real particle can have negative energy there. It is therefore possible, if a black hole is present, for the virtual particle with negative energy to fall into the black hole and become a real particle or antiparticle. In this case it no longer has to annihilate with its partner. Its forsaken partner may fall into the black hole as well. Or, having positive energy, it might also escape from the vicinity of the black hole as a real particle or antiparticle (Fig. 7.8 ). To an observer at a distance, it will appear to have been emitted from the black hole. The smaller the black hole, the shorter the distance the particle with negative energy will have to go before it becomes a real particle, and thus the greater rate of emission, and the apparent temperature, of the black hole.

The positive energy of the outgoing radiation would be balanced by a flow of negative energy particles into the black hole. By Einstein's equation E = mc2 (where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light), energy is proportional to mass. A flow of negative energy into the black hole therefore reduces its mass.

If the Negative electrical charge particle is falling into a BH with positive charge, than by definition there must be a mass lost.

Are you serious? Now you think mass and charge are the same thing?

What is your advice about all of that?

My advice to you would be to learn the difference between charge and mass/energy. I'm also still waiting for your answer to this question:

Does the black hole-accretion disk-jet system increase the total amount of mass-energy in the Universe over time?

Stop ignoring it.

[Kryptid]

Disagree.

It depends on how you define it. Gravitational energy in the form of the potential energy of a mass in a gravitational field is a thing.

[Hayseed]

I believe the velocity gradient of a spiral galaxy is due to structure.  I think the spirals are helices.  And all gravity spirals are slowly releasing.

Therefore the mass(gravity)density is not centered.  Think of earth's internal gravity gradient.

I believe Sol is orbiting something much closer than the galactic center.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I believe the velocity gradient of a spiral galaxy is due to structure.  I think the spirals are helices.  And all gravity spirals are slowly releasing.
Therefore the mass(gravity)density is not centered.  Think of earth's internal gravity gradient.
I believe Sol is orbiting something much closer than the galactic center.

Wow!!!
It seems to me that your ideas are quite correlated with my theory.
Therefore,
Would you kindly answer the following?
1. "spirals are helices". "Therefore the mass(gravity)density is not centered" - Do you mean that all the stars in each spiral arm are connected to each other as in helices?
2. "I believe Sol is orbiting something much closer than the galactic center." - Why do you think so? What could be this "something"?
3. "And all gravity spirals are slowly releasing." - Do you mean that the Sun (and all the other stars in the spiral arms) are drifting outwards over time?

Dear Kryptid
I promise to answer your question ASAP.

[Hayseed]

Dave Lev,  I have not read this thread.  Was answering the Title of thread.  I disagree with most modern theory, especially astronomy.   My understanding of gravity comes from charge study, not stars.

1. Yes, also i think that G has a perpendicular component.  The G forces are exchanged thru perpendiculars.   The center of galaxy is not the densest, just like the earth.  Gravity does not come from a point.  No black holes.  No singularities.  No probabilities.  No randomness.

2.  There are too many G sources between here and the center.  The center probably has little effect on us........except thru a chain of G.

3.  Yes.  No BB.  A decay of G.  At first a very fast decay(inflation), now and for eternity.....very slow.

Once G falls, it can not stop.

Please forgive my rudeness for not reading thread.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

As an example, our scientists are using that gravitational energy to boost space probe on its journey to the moon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_flyby
"Flybys commonly use gravity assists to "slingshot" a space probe on its journey to its primary objective, but may themselves be used as primary means."

That process causes a transfer of energy from the planetary body to the spacecraft, lowering the total orbital energy of the planet afterwards. If anything, that only confirms that energy is being transferred away from the black hole itself.

Dear Kryptid
I fully agree that the spacecraft is lowering the total orbital energy of the planet afterwards.
However, that is normal process for any orbital system.
After any orbital cycle, the total orbital energy is decreasing.
Therefore, in real life, any orbital cycle has a shape of spiral (or helices?)
It might drift one Pico millimeter per cycle, but it is there for any orbital cycle.
The Moon is drifting outwards from the Earth and the earth is drifting outwards from the Sun.
So, this spiral orbital shape is real for any orbital system.
Unless, the objects are too close to each other and therefore the in falling momentum/gravity is faster/stronger than the drifting outwards due to the lowering total orbital energy.

Does the black hole-accretion disk-jet system increase the total amount of mass-energy in the Universe over time?

As I have already stated:
The black hole's gravitational energy creates New pair- particles.
Both particle and antiparticle have the same real mass.
The energy for that creation is taken from the black hole's gravitational energy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
 "the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy"
So, yes, the SMBH might loose gravitational energy due to this process, but it doesn't lose any mass.
As the SMBH is full with Antimatter, the in falling antimatter actually increases its total mass.
That SMBH mass increase compensates the decrease in the gravitational energy due to the pair production.
Therefore, if we could count the total mass + gravitational energy of the SMBH before the pair production, we should see that this total mass + gravitational energy is increasing after the SMBH gets the in falling antimatter particle.
Hence, the antimatter particle is used to increase the total mass of the SMBH and overcome the decreasing in the gravitational energy due to the pair production, while the other particle is ejected into the accretion disc.
Therefore, we actually gain new particles in the accretion disc (almost for free).
Over time, those new particles are transformed into new atoms and molecular while they are drifting from the innermost accretion ring/disc to the outermost.
Eventually, they are ejected outwards from the accretion disc and boosted upwards as a molecular jet stream by the power of the magnetic force

Therefore, the new creation of the pair-particles by the black hole's gravitational energy increases the total amount of mass-energy in the Universe over time!

[Kryptid]

drifting outwards due to the lowering total orbital energy.

You have it backwards. A lowering of orbital energy results in a decrease in the size of the orbit, not an increase. Moving away from a source of gravity requires an input of energy because you are moving against a gravitational potential. It's the same reason that energy input is required to lift something off of the ground, but not required to drop something.

Therefore, the new creation of the pair-particles by the black hole's gravitational energy increases the total amount of mass-energy in the Universe over time!

Then we can end the thread right here, as that violates the first law of thermodynamics. Your model has falsified itself.