[Kryptid]

So by assuming that BH has a net electrical charge, Antiparticles will fall into the BH, while the accretion disc will get particles.
That is perfect solution.

That depends upon the charge. If it's negative, positrons will preferentially fall in. If it's positive, electrons will preferentially fall in. This, however, is a problem. As more charged particles fall in, their opposite charge starts canceling out the net charge of the black hole. Once the charge is all gone, then no preference for negatively or positively-charged particles being pulled in will exist.

It shows that the BH increases its mass due to the in falling new born Antiparticles.

No, it won't. The black hole is sending more mass-energy out than is coming back in, remember? Two particles out, one particle back in.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

That depends upon the charge. If it's negative, positrons will preferentially fall in. If it's positive, electrons will preferentially fall in. This, however, is a problem. As more charged particles fall in, their opposite charge starts canceling out the net charge of the black hole. Once the charge is all gone, then no preference for negatively or positively-charged particles being pulled in will exist.

I really don't understand why the BH charge is needed?
Why the magnetic force by itself is not good enough?
Lorentz force sets the force direction based on the charge of the particle
If the particle is positive - it will be ejected in one direction, if it is negative - it will be ejected to the other direction.
What is the problem with that?

Energy issue - soon to come.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Let's try to find a solution for the Energy:

Basic math will tell you that much. If 1.022 MeV of rotational kinetic energy is extracted from the hole in order to produce a positron-electron pair, then the black hole can only get 0.511 MeV of that energy back by consuming one of the particles. It would only get back half of the energy that it expended.

There is a solution for that.
It is called - Tidal
Please look at the following article:
https://www.space.com/31385-saturn-moon-enceladus-geysers-losing-steam.html
"The 330-mile-wide (530 kilometers) Enceladus hosts a global ocean of salty liquid water beneath its icy shell. This ocean stays liquid because Saturn's powerful gravity twists and stretches Enceladus, generating internal heat through tidal forces. (This tidal heating also provides the energy that powers the jets.)"

Hence, Tidal heating provides the energy that powers the jets.
Therefore, as long as the BH is under tidal forces it could potentially get a compensation for the energy lost due to the pair production activity.
It seems to me that the tidal heating can generate much more energy than the energy lost due to that pair production.
Even if it can only add the energy for one extra gram per year - this new mass is added to the total energy/mass of the whole universe.

[Kryptid]

What is the problem with that?

It's wrong. I have told you over and over and over and over and over again that magnetic fields don't attract or repel electric charges.

Repeat after me:

Magnetic fields neither attract nor repel electric charges.
Magnetic fields neither attract nor repel electric charges.
Magnetic fields neither attract nor repel electric charges.

Even if it can only add the energy for one extra gram per year - this new mass is added to the total energy/mass of the whole universe.

Let me ask you for the third time: do you know what the first law of thermodynamics is?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

It's wrong. I have told you over and over and over and over and over again that magnetic fields don't attract or repel electric charges.
Repeat after me:
Magnetic fields neither attract nor repel electric charges.
Magnetic fields neither attract nor repel electric charges.
Magnetic fields neither attract nor repel electric charges.

Are you positively sure about it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force
"Lorentz force F on a charged particle (of charge q) in motion (instantaneous velocity v). The E field and B field vary in space and time."
"Charged particles experiencing the Lorentz force"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force#/media/File:Lorentz_force.svg
"Trajectory of a particle with a positive or negative charge q under the influence of a magnetic field B, which is directed perpendicularly out of the screen."
Any updated understanding from that?

[Kryptid]

Are you positively sure about it?

Yes, I am positively sure of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force
"Lorentz force F on a charged particle (of charge q) in motion (instantaneous velocity v). The E field and B field vary in space and time."
"Charged particles experiencing the Lorentz force"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force#/media/File:Lorentz_force.svg
"Trajectory of a particle with a positive or negative charge q under the influence of a magnetic field B, which is directed perpendicularly out of the screen."
Any updated understanding from that?

The force they experience is neither an attraction or repulsion. The direction of the force depends on the direction of the particle's path and the relative orientation of the magnetic field lines. I already told you this. Watch this video:

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The direction of the force depends on the direction of the particle's path and the relative orientation of the magnetic field lines

What about the particle charge?
Even in this video they clearly show a different impact due to the particle charge.
So, how can you constantly claim that the magnetic field has no influence on the direction of a moving charged particle?
You can see it very clearly in the following image:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force#/media/File:Lorentz_force.svg
"Lorentz force. This diagram illustrates the behavior of a charged particle q moving with velocity v in a magnetic field B. The latter is oriented out of the page, as indicated by the dot in the circle. The particle is accelerated by the Lorentz force, with its behavior determined by the formula: where F is the force vector, E is the electrical field, and c is the speed of light. The × symbol represents the mathematical curl operator. The direction of the electron's curved path is determined by the sign of its charge, which modifies the sign of the v × B in the formula above."
Let's assume that we just stand above the accretion disc (Near the event horizon)

S and N - represent the Poles of the magnetic fields (Below and above the accretion disc)
B - represents the magnetic fields. "The latter (B) is oriented out of the page (directly in our point of view), as indicated by the dot in the circle.
V - represents the orbital velocity/direction of the new pair particles which have just been created.
At the same moment of creation, they also cross the magnetic field.
As one has a positive charge (+q) and the other had a negative charge (-q), one of them will be pulled inwards while the other will be pushed outwards.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that simple activity of Lorentz force?

[Kryptid]

So, how can you constantly claim that the magnetic field has no influence on the direction of a moving charged particle?

Stop misrepresenting me. I never said that magnetic fields don't influence the direction of a moving charged particle. I have said the exact opposite. What I said is that the force is not in the form of an attraction or a repulsion. Charged particles are not drawn towards the field nor pushed away from the field. Instead, their path is deflected by the field.

As one has a positive charge (+q) and the other had a negative charge (-q), one of them will be pulled inwards while the other will be pushed outwards.

No they won't. Did you even look at the animation? When the charged particle entered the field at a 90 degree angle to the field lines, it was not pushed away from the field nor drawn into it. Instead, it moved around in a circle. An oppositely-charged particle will move in a circle as well, just in the opposite rotational direction (clockwise vs. counter-clockwise).

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that simple activity of Lorentz force?

I do understand it. Nothing about the Lorentz force causes charged particles to be drawn towards or pushed away from the source of the field. You need to learn the difference between attraction/repulsion and a deflected path.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Did you even look at the animation? When the charged particle entered the field at a 90 degree angle to the field lines, it was not pushed away from the field nor drawn into it. Instead, it moved around in a circle. An oppositely-charged particle will move in a circle as well, just in the opposite rotational direction (clockwise vs. counter-clockwise).

It seems to me that you have missed the key point in my explanation.
So, let's set it again step by step
1. Magnetic Field- B

S and N - represent the Poles of the magnetic fields (Below and above the accretion disc)
B - represents the magnetic fields. "The latter (B) is oriented out of the page (directly in our point of view), as indicated by the dot in the circle.

Do you understand that diagram and the direction of the magnetic field?
If we stand just above the accretion disc we should see that the magnetic fields (B) is pointed directly to us.

2. Direction of the new charged Particles

V - represents the orbital velocity/direction of the new pair particles which have just been created.
At the same moment of creation, they also cross the magnetic field.
As one has a positive charge (+q) and the other had a negative charge (-q), one of them will be pulled inwards while the other will be pushed outwards.

Hence, the particales are pushed/pulled in "90 degree angle to the field lines". (Not to the direction of the B itself).
The one which is pulled in should move in the direction of the BH, while the other must move in the direction of the accretion disc.
3. "moved around in a circle"

Instead, it moved around in a circle. An oppositely-charged particle will move in a circle as well, just in the opposite rotational direction (clockwise vs. counter-clockwise).

Please look at the following diagram:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force#/media/File:Lorentz_force.svg
Actually, if we ignore the impact of the BH gravity than yes, the Particles should "moved around in a circle".
One moves inwards in a circle, while the other one move outwards in a circle (as we can see in the video which you have offered). So, they could stay close to each other while they "moved around in a circle".
4. Impact of the BH gravity 
However, the BH has also gravity force.
As one particle starts to move inwards, the impact of the BH's gravity on this particle is increasing. therefore it might continue its  "moved around in a circle" but on any given moment it will come closer and closer to the BH and faster - Due to increased gravity force. Eventually it must fall in.
The other one will face less gravity force at the moment that it starts to move outwards. Therefore it might ""moved around in a circle" while its gravity force gets weaker and weaker. Eventually it will get into the inwards side of the accretion disc.

Is it clear by now?
If not, please specify what is not clear for you.

[Kryptid]

Hence, the articales are pushed/pulled in "90 degree angle to the field lines". (Not to the direction of the B itself).
The one which is pulled in should move in the direction of the BH, while the other must move in the direction of the accretion disc.

They are indeed deflected 90 degrees, but not in the directions you think they are. If we are looking down on the accretion disk from above, we will see the charged particles deflected to the left or the right, not towards the black hole and away from the black hole. Here is yet another video that shows this:

The negatively-charged electron beam is not attracted towards the magnetic field nor is it repelled away from the field. Instead it bends downward or upward (depending on which pole is pointed towards the beam).

4. Impact of the BH gravity
However, the BH has a also gravity force.
As one particle starts to move inwards, the impact of the BH on this particle is increasing. therefore it might continue its  "moved around in a circle" but on any given moment it will come closer and closer to the BH (and faster). Eventually it must fall in.
The other one will face less gravity force and therefore it will ""moved around in a circle" while its gravity force gets weaker and weaker. Eventually it will get into the inwards side of the accretion disc.

That's not how that works. If there are two particles at an equal distance from the black hole, one moving in a clockwise circle and the other moving in a counter-clockwise circle, each will still experience identical gravitational forces. Gravity doesn't care whether the circling motion is clockwise or counter-clockwise.

There is a thing called "right-hand rule" which allows you to deduce the motion of a charged particle in a magnetic field:

[Dave Lev (OP)]

They are indeed deflected 90 degrees, but not in the directions you think they are. If we are looking down on the accretion disk from above, we will see the charged particles deflected to the left or the right, not towards the black hole and away from the black hole.

OK
So, you agree that the charged particles are deflected to the left or the right.
Once you agree that the charged particles are deflected (to any direction) than we have already overcome 90% of the problem.
However, you assume that the deflection is to the left or the right, not towards the black hole and away from the black hole.
This is something that is not clear to me.

If there are two particles at an equal distance from the black hole, one moving in a clockwise circle and the other moving in a counter-clockwise circle, each will still experience identical gravitational forces. Gravity doesn't care whether the circling motion is clockwise or counter-clockwise.

Yes, that could be correct, if the particles are moving up and down. So, the radius to the BH is fixed.
This is not our case.
Particles can't move up/down as that represents the magnetic filed (B)
Lorentz force do not direct the particles in the direction of the magnetic fields.

So let's understand our looking point location:

we are looking down on the accretion disk from above,

So, we are located just above the accretion disc or actually - just above the point of the new created particles (which should be near the event horizon)
In order to get better understanding about this location.
Let's say that if we get down to the that specific creation point near the event horizon (at the galactic/accretion disc plane), the BH will be located at a radius r to the left, while the distance to the closest point in the accretion disc is x.
Therefore, the radius of the inner most side of the accretion disc is
r + x
the radius of the particle creation point is r.
If we stay above that point, to our left we see the BH and to our right we see the inner most side of the accretion disc.
Now, at the moment of creation, the new pair particles are located at radius r from the BH.
Without the impact of the magnetic field (assuming they do not cancel each other) they had to orbit around the BH at the same radius r. (remember - on the left side we have the BH on the right side we have the inner side of the accretion disc.)
However, the magnetic field is there. Lorentz force starts to works at the same moment that the particles had been created.
With regards to particle velocity/direction:
At the moment of creation V is directly vertical to r.
Therefore, as one particle will be move to the left (direction to the BH) the other one will move to the right (direction to the accretion disc)
Please be aware that due to Lorentz force, the particles can't move up or down to the disc plane as that is the direction of the magnetic field.
So, one will move into the direction of the BH while the other will move in the direction of the accretion disc.
Hence, one particle will get to r-Δr while the other one will get to r+Δr.
I only focus on the first moment due to the impact of Lorentz force. (before setting the whole loop cycle)
Therefore, I don't understand why do you insist that there is no change in the radius.

[Kryptid]

I only focus on the first moment due to the impact of Lorentz force. (before setting the whole loop cycle)

So what do you think happens when you do consider the whole loop?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

So what do you think happens when you do consider the whole loop?

Let's assume that the orbital velocity of the new particles should be at almost the speed of light (c) at the first moment of creation while the radius to the BH is r (Near the event horizon).
If there was no magnetic field the particle could orbit at that radius without any difficulties (so there is a balance between the orbital velocity to the radius r)
However, due to the magnetic field one particle will be pulled inwards while the other will be pushed outwards.
Let's assume that due to Lorentz force the time that it takes to the particle to set 45 degree in the loop is t1. (Which represents a movement of Δr). 
That time is a direct outcome of the magnitude of magnetic field
So, after t1 (from the moment of creation), one particle will be located at r-Δr and the other at r+Δr.
However, Lorentz force doesn't change the orbital velocity. it just changes the radius of the particle and its direction.
So, now we have one particle at r-Δr that is also moving inwards at 45 degrees.
That changes the balance between the orbital velocity to the radius.
Therefore, the ultra high gravity at that radius will force the particle inwards without setting any sort of loop.
Similar issue with the other particle.
As it gets to r+Δr its direction is 45 degree outwards from the orbital path. therefore, it will be pushed strongly outwards without any ability to come back. Therefore it should be ejected outwards to the accretion disc.

[Kryptid]

Let's assume that the orbital velocity of the new particles should be at almost the speed of light (c) at the first moment of creation while the radius to the BH is r (Near the event horizon).

How close are we talking? No stable orbits can exist within 1.5 times the radius of the black hole.

However, Lorentz force doesn't change the orbital velocity.

The overall velocity is unchanged, but the orbital velocity (the speed at which it travels around the black hole) is indeed changed. If a third, neutral particle was traveling with them, it would see the two charged particles lagging behind as it kept going forward. Since an orbit is just a form of "falling and missing", then this relative slow-down will draw both particles in closer to the black hole due to the hole's gravity.

therefore, it will be pushed strongly outwards without any ability to come back.

Pushed strongly by what? And where are your calculations showing that this mysterious force is stronger than the black hole's gravity at that distance? How does the particle get out of the magnetic field so that the field doesn't change its trajectory back towards the hole? I just calculated the radius of curvature for an electron/positron traveling at 99% the speed of light through a 1 Tesla field at about 500 kilometers. The magnetic field, however, extends much, much further out than that.

There is also still the problem of the build up of electric charge in the hole. If the black hole did manage to gain a net electric charge through this process, it is going to preferentially attract opposite-charged particles towards it while preferentially repelling similarly-charged particles. As the hole becomes more and more charged, it becomes increasingly difficult for oppositely-charged particles to escape and similarly-charged particles to enter. So this obviously isn't something that can go on forever. There comes a time where no further charge can be added to the hole.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Pushed strongly by what? And where are your calculations showing that this mysterious force is stronger than the black hole's gravity at that distance? How does the particle get out of the magnetic field so that the field doesn't change its trajectory back towards the hole? I just calculated the radius of curvature for an electron/positron traveling at 99% the speed of light through a 1 Tesla field at about 500 kilometers. The magnetic field, however, extends much, much further out than that.

All your questions are valid.
The main problem is that even our scientists don't have a real knowledge how the black holes really works from inside.
Let's start with:
What Is At The Center Of A Black Hole?
https://interestingengineering.com/what-happens-inside-a-black-hole
"At the center of a black hole is something called a gravitational singularity, or singularity for short. This is where gravity and density are infinite and space-time extends into infinity."
How a BH with a gravitational singularity can generate any sort of electromagnetism?
Why the BH spin/rotates?
In any case, the spin/rotate by itself can't generate any magnetic force.
We can get some ideas from the our planet:
https://cosmosmagazine.com/geoscience/what-creates-earth-s-magnetic-field
"The Earth's core works like a giant bicycle dynamo in reverse."
So, does it mean that the BH works according to similar concept?
If so, it must have a core and several layers around it.
Do we have any clue about it?
Do we know how to calculate the magnetic field magnitude around the black hole?
What Is A Black Hole Made Of?
"Put simply we cannot really be sure. Black holes are by definition regions of space time where extreme gravitational forces prevent anything, including light from escaping."
"Thanks to General Relativity, we think we understand what happens in this extreme gravity and, with the help of Quantum Mechanics, we can make an intelligent estimate as to what happens at smaller, microscopic scales. But if the two theories are combined – like they would be at the center of a black hole – they break down, leaving us with no idea as to what’s going on!" - spaceanswers."
In other words - Our scientists don't know how BH really works from inside.
It they don't know, do you really expect me to know?
It seems to me that understanding how the Universe works is a piece of a cake comparing to the same question about BH/SMBH.
In any case:

There is also still the problem of the build up of electric charge in the hole.

In one of the articles that I have found it was stated that in the nature there are no charged BH.
So, somehow, the matter that falls in must lose its electric charge.
We can also claim that charged BH acts as a battery. However, battery can't be function as a dynamo. So, if the BH generates electromagnetic it can't be in the same time a charged BH.

The overall velocity is unchanged, but the orbital velocity (the speed at which it travels around the black hole) is indeed changed. If a third, neutral particle was traveling with them, it would see the two charged particles lagging behind as it kept going forward.

I agree with that.

Since an orbit is just a form of "falling and missing", then this relative slow-down will draw both particles in closer to the black hole due to the hole's gravity.

Yes and no.
Yes - for the Antiparticle that is drifted inwards due to Lorentz force. That one should fall in.
No-  for the particle that is drifted outwards.
In order to understand that - we must look again at the accretion disc.
The average orbital velocity of the particles there is about 0.3c. However, I assume that the orbital velocity of particles at the inner most ring is much faster from the one at the outermost ring.

As the accretion disc is still under direct impact of the BH magnetic field, all particles/Atoms are drifted outwards due to Lorentz force. They actually have no other alternative. Lorentz force pushes them all outwards. So, even the mighty gravity force of the BH can't pull inwards even one particle from the accretion disc!

I don't know if our scientists have any clue how long each particle must stay at the accretion disc.
However, based on the orbital velocity pulse the drifting time, we might be able to extract the Lorentz force/magnetic field.
In any case, that shows that the drifting is quite minimal.
So, the new born particles are not drifting sharply inwards/outwards. They actually are drifted at a quite low magnitude.
Therefore, there is no possibility for the one that is drifted outwards to fall back into the BH.
As it gets into the inner most accretion ring its orbital velocity must be above the 0.3c. However, over time it is  transformed into Atom and molecular, reduces its velocity and at the end it will be ejected outwards from the accretion disc (thanks to Lorentz force) with all the other new Atom and molecular.

[Kryptid]

How a BH with a gravitational singularity can generate any sort of electromagnetism?

It wouldn't normally. It could only do so if it has consumed matter with a net electric charge. Conservation of electric charge doesn't allow electric charge to be destroyed, so the black hole must necessarily take on the charge of anything that falls in.

Why the BH spin/rotates?

Conservation of momentum. If the collapsing star or gas cloud that formed it was rotating, then the hole must as well.

So, does it mean that the BH works according to similar concept?
If so, it must have a core and several layers around it.
Do we have any clue about it?

An Einsteinian black hole can't be structured like that and therefore can't have a magnetic field unless it is both charged and rotating. Something like a MECO can have such a field, though.

Do we know how to calculate the magnetic field magnitude around the black hole?

It can be measured: https://scitechdaily.com/researchers-measure-magnetic-fields-in-the-vicinity-of-a-black-hole/ Although conventional models propose that the field is generated by the accretion disk and not the hole itself.

What Is A Black Hole Made Of?

This is unknown, but an Einsteinian black hole isn't made of any particular type of matter. It's just mass concentrated into a singularity.

It they don't know, do you really expect me to know?

This is your model. You are the one required to make the testable predictions.

In one of the articles that I have found it was stated that in the nature there are no charged BH.

That's because most matter is neutral or close to neutral.

So, somehow, the matter that falls in must lose its electric charge.

That would violate conservation of charge, so that is absolutely incorrect.

We can also claim that charged BH acts as a battery.

Batteries don't work that way.

However, battery can't be function as a dynamo.

Charged black holes aren't batteries anyway.

So, if the BH generates electromagnetic it can't be in the same time a charged BH.

That's a huge non-sequitur.

As the accretion disc is still under direct impact of the BH magnetic field, all particles/Atoms are drifted outwards due to Lorentz force. They actually have no other alternative. Lorentz force pushes them all outwards.

The Lorentz force doesn't do anything to neutral matter like plasma, so this is wrong.

So, even the mighty gravity force of the BH can't pull inwards even one particle from the accretion disc!

Demonstrate this with math please. I'm not going to accept it just because you say so.

However, based on the orbital velocity pulse the drifting time, we might be able to extract the Lorentz force/magnetic field.

You want to know the Lorentz force? Here is the equation: F = qvBsinθ

"q" is the value for charge. What happens when that charge is zero? The force is zero as well.

In any case, that shows that the drifting is quite minimal.

What shows that it is "quite minimal"? You haven't provided any numbers.

So, the new born particles are not drifting sharply inwards/outwards. They actually are drifted at a quite low magnitude.

Show me the math to support these claims.

Therefore, there is no possibility for the one that is drifted outwards to fall back into the BH.

Another non-sequitur.

and at the end it will be ejected outwards from the accretion disc (thanks to Lorentz force)

The Lorentz force can't eject neutral matter.

All of this is ultimately irrelevant, though. Even if you do have a valid way of getting a black hole to produce matter and eject it the way you want it to, that still ignores the fact that a black hole cannot generate unlimited mass-energy. The mechanisms are irrelevant. The specifics are unimportant. The first law of thermodynamics simply won't let your model work. No amount of figuring will allow you to get more mass-energy out of the black hole than was there to begin with. Doing so would violate the first law by definition.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Do we know how to calculate the magnetic field magnitude around the black hole?

It can be measured: https://scitechdaily.com/researchers-measure-magnetic-fields-in-the-vicinity-of-a-black-hole/ Although conventional models propose that the field is generated by the accretion disk and not the hole itself.

Thanks Kryptid
You have just offered clear observation for my theory.
Our scientists have measured the magnetic field that the BH generates:
"Two particle jets shoot out from the heart of active galaxy NGC 1052 at the speed of light, apparently originating in the vicinity of a massive black hole. A team of researchers headed by Anne-Kathrin Baczko from the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy Bonn have now measured the magnetic fields in this area. They observed the bright, very compact structure of just two light days in size using a global ensemble of millimeter-wavelength telescopes. The magnetic field value recorded at the event horizon of the black hole was between 0.02 and 8.3 tesla. The team concludes that the magnetic fields provide enough magnetic energy to power the twin jets."
They are stated clearly: "Two particle jets shoot out from the heart of active galaxy NGC 1052 at the speed of light"
That is almost identical to the molecular jet stream that we see at our galaxy. However, in our galaxy, the molecular jet stream is boosted at only 0.8c instead of the speed of light.
In any case, that proves that the magnetic field has direct impact on any particle/atom/molecular.
If the magnetic field can trap any particles, Atoms, molecular outside the accretion disc, it surly can affect the same matter while they are in the accretion disc.
Therefore, the following statement is totally incorrect:

The Lorentz force can't eject neutral matter.

The matter in the accretion disc might not be so neutral (but that is not the issue).
If the magnetic field can collect the particles/molecular (after been ejected outside from the accretion disc) and boost them upwards/downward at almost the speed of light, it can also surly effect them while they are still in the accretion disc.
One of the side effect of magnetic force is - Lorentz force.
Therefore, as long as the particles/molecular are in the accretion disc they are fully affected by the magnetic force including Lorentz force.
Our scientists are also fully aware about the great impact of the magnetic force on the accretion disc.
However, somehow you insist to believe that the source for the magnetic field in the accretion disc is - the accretion disc itself:

Although conventional models propose that the field is generated by the accretion disk and not the hole itself.

This is a fantasy.
In order to understand that, let's go back to the unrealistic story of in falling matter into the accretion disc.
Let's monitor the temperature of an average atom outside in the galaxy.
Normally, the temp of a rock or asteroid should be much less than 0 c.
At the surface of the sun the temp is 5,000 c
At the core of the sun the temp is close to 10^6c
So, how could it be that suddenly at the accretion disc the temp is rising to 10^9c?
Somehow, new energy should come in.
We already know that gravity by itself can't create new energy.
Therefore, if we take a particle at 20 c and set it in an orbital path of 0.3 speed of light, would it increase its temp to 10^9 c?
They answer is quite clear - NO!
Therefore, the energy that is needed to heat up the accretion disc must come from somewhere.
The magnetic field is an excellent source for the new requested energy.
So, we can claim that the extra energy is coming from the impact of the magnetic fields on every particle/atom/molecular in the accretion disc.
It feeds them with the requested energy and therefore they all gain the super high temp of 10^9.
However, we have already agreed that the magnetic field is just a transformation tool.
So, the energy must come from a specific source of energy.
How can we assume that the source of the magnetic is the accretion disc.
The accretion disc can't use its own energy to heat itself
This is a clear violation of the first thermodynamic law.
Therefore, the source of the energy must come from an external source as the BH itself
.Hence, the energy in the BH is transformed into accretion disc by the magnetic field and have a direct impact on every particle there. This energy is used to transform the new born particles into atom and molecular. The 10^9 c is the outcome product of that activity.

Even if you do have a valid way of getting a black hole to produce matter and eject it the way you want it to, that still ignores the fact that a black hole cannot generate unlimited mass-energy. The mechanisms are irrelevant.

Yes it can.
The mechanisms is very important.
It works as follow:
Gravity set the tidal forces on the BH.
Tidal forces increases the heat/energy in the BH.
Magnetic field transformes some of that extra energy into the creation of new particles.
Lorentz force is using the same magnetic field to split between the new born particle to antiparticle.
One will get into the accretion disc while the other will fall into the BH.
The same magnetic field is also used to convert the new born particles into real atoms and molecular in the accretion disc.
Lorentz force is responsible to drift the particles outwards while they are still at the accretion disc and also to eject them all outside at the end of the new Atom/molecular creation process.

The first law of thermodynamics simply won't let your model work.

This law won't let your unrealistic model (that the accretion disc is the source of the magnetic field) to work!

No amount of figuring will allow you to get more mass-energy out of the black hole than was there to begin with. Doing so would violate the first law by definition.

Tidal is responsible to generate the extra requested energy in the BH.
Therefore, my explanation fully meets the first law by definition.

[Kryptid]

In any case, that proves that the magnetic field has direct impact on any particle/atom/molecular.

No it doesn't. The beams are made of charged particles like electrons and positrons. It isn't made of neutral matter like atoms.

Therefore, the following statement is totally incorrect:

The Lorentz force can't eject neutral matter.

So now you're telling me that you can multiply zero by some number and the answer isn't also zero. This demonstrates that you don't understand basic algebra either.

The matter in the accretion disc might not be so neutral (but that is not the issue).
If the magnetic field can collect the particles/molecular (after been ejected outside from the accretion disc) and boost them upwards/downward at almost the speed of light, it can also surly effect them while they are still in the accretion disc.
One of the side effect of magnetic force is - Lorentz force.
Therefore, as long as the particles/molecular are in the accretion disc they are fully affected by the magnetic force including Lorentz force.
Our scientists are also fully aware about the great impact of the magnetic force on the accretion disc.

Magnetic fields do affect neutral matter, but not in the same way that it affects charged particles. You can't take a piece of neutral matter and pretend that a magnetic field will do the exact same thing to it that it will to a charged particle. The Lorentz force equation doesn't work for neutral particles. If you don't believe me, do that math yourself. You'll get a force of zero as your answer every time.

However, somehow you insist to believe that the source for the magnetic field in the accretion disc is - the accretion disc itself:

Although conventional models propose that the field is generated by the accretion disk and not the hole itself.

This is a fantasy.

My, isn't this an interesting double standard. You cite the dynamo model that allows the Earth to generate a magnetic field on one hand, but on the other you deny the existence of the dynamo effect when it comes to accretion disks. Dynamo-induced magnetic fields are generated by electrically-conducting fluids in motion. The liquid metal in the Earth's outer core is a rotating, electrically-conducting fluid. The plasma in an accretion disk is a rotating, electrically-conducting fluid. It's the same thing. Both of them generate magnetic fields.

In order to understand that, let's go back to the unrealistic story of in falling matter into the accretion disc.
Let's monitor the temperature of an average atom outside in the galaxy.
Normally, the temp of a rock or asteroid should be much less than 0 c.
At the surface of the sun the temp is 5,000 c
At the core of the sun the temp is close to 10^6c
So, how could it be that suddenly at the accretion disc the temp is rising to 10^9c?
Somehow, new energy should come in.
We already know that gravity by itself can't create new energy.
Therefore, if we take a particle at 20 c and set it in an orbital path of 0.3 speed of light, would it increase its temp to 10^9 c?
They answer is quite clear - NO!
Therefore, the energy that is needed to heat up the accretion disc must come from somewhere.
The magnetic field is an excellent source for the new requested energy.
So, we can claim that the extra energy is coming from the impact of the magnetic fields on every particle/atom/molecular in the accretion disc.
It feeds them with the requested energy and therefore they all gain the super high temp of 10^9.
However, we have already agreed that the magnetic field is just a transformation tool.
So, the energy must come from a specific source of energy.
How can we assume that the source of the magnetic is the accretion disc.
The accretion disc can't use its own energy to heat itself
This is a clear violation of the first thermodynamic law.
Therefore, the source of the energy must come from an external source as the BH itself
.Hence, the energy in the BH is transformed into accretion disc by the magnetic field and have a direct impact on every particle there. This energy is used to transform the new born particles into atom and molecular. The 10^9 c is the outcome product of that activity.

You are missing the point. It doesn't matter where the heat came from to heat the accretion disk. The accretion disk is a rotating, electrically-conducting fluid. That makes it generate a magnetic field. That doesn't violate the first law of thermodynamics. Even in a scenario where your hypothetical black hole does have a magnetic field and that field did heat the accretion disk, that would simply mean that both the black hole and the accretion disk have fields.

So, the energy must come from a specific source of energy.

Conventional models say that it comes from a transformation of gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy. No violation of the first law there. The total amount of energy doesn't change (unlike in your physics-defying model).

The accretion disc can't use its own energy to heat itself

Why not? That's exactly what the Sun is doing right now. Sticks of dynamite do that too.

This is a clear violation of the first thermodynamic law.

The more you type, the more you demonstrate that you don't know what the first law of thermodynamics is. There are numerous examples of objects becoming hot because of the energy contained within themselves. How do you think explosives work? Why do your think your palms get hot when you rub your hands together quickly? What you are doing is transforming potential energy into heat energy. That doesn't break any laws of physics because the total amount of energy is the same before an after the process. All it did was change form.

Yes it can.
The mechanisms is very important.

Then you deny the first law of thermodynamics. The first law won't let you create energy. You don't know what the first law of thermodynamics even is. If you did, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.

Tidal forces increases the heat/energy in the BH.

Energy can't be created, so no it doesn't. The first law has killed your idea stone dead.

This law won't let your unrealistic model (that the accretion disc is the source of the magnetic field) to work!

More ignorance. The first law of thermodynamics doesn't prevent potential energy from being transformed into kinetic energy. What it prevents is the creation of new energy.

Tidal is responsible to generate the extra requested energy in the BH.
Therefore, my explanation fully meets the first law by definition.

Tidal forces can't create energy.

The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created.
You claim that your mechanism can create energy.
How do you not see the blaring contradiction there? Both cannot be true simultaneously. Either energy can be created or it can't. If energy can be created, then the first law has been violated. If energy can't be created, then your model won't work. Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

my explanation fully meets the first law by definition.

You don't know the definition of the first law.

Just so you know about conservation of energy: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/thermo1f.html

The conservation of energy is a fundamental concept of physics along with the conservation of mass and the conservation of momentum. Within some problem domain, the amount of energy remains constant and energy is neither created nor destroyed. Energy can be converted from one form to another (potential energy can be converted to kinetic energy) but the total energy within the domain remains fixed.

https://opentextbc.ca/physicstestbook2/chapter/conservation-of-energy/

Total energy is constant in any process. It may change in form or be transferred from one system to another, but the total remains the same.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/conservation-of-energy

conservation of energy Physics. a fundamental law of physics and chemistry stating that the total energy of an isolated system is constant despite internal changes. It is most commonly expressed as “energy can neither be created nor destroyed”, and is the basis of the first law of thermodynamics.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Our scientists are also fully aware about the great impact of the magnetic force on the accretion disc.

Magnetic fields do affect neutral matter, but not in the same way that it affects charged particles. You can't take a piece of neutral matter and pretend that a magnetic field will do the exact same thing to it that it will to a charged particle. The Lorentz force equation doesn't work for neutral particles. If you don't believe me, do that math yourself. You'll get a force of zero as your answer every time.

How can you contradict yourself?
In one hand you claim that the matter in the accretion disc is "electrically-conducting fluid":

The accretion disk is a rotating, electrically-conducting fluid. That makes it generate a magnetic field.

You even want to believe that it generates magnetic field.
But somehow, you insist that Lorentz force has no impact on that "electrically-conducting fluid" matter/plasma in the accretion disc.
Sorry if it is "electrically-conducting fluid" it must obey to Lorentz force and be pushed outwards!!!
Therefore, all the matter in the accretion disc MUST be drifted outwards - to the last particle or atom.
As they are pushed outwards - they are all still "electrically-conducting fluid".
Therefore, the BH's Magnetic field can easily boost them all upwards/downwards at almost the speed of light.

Tidal forces can't create energy.
The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created.
You claim that your mechanism can create energy.
How do you not see the blaring contradiction there? Both cannot be true simultaneously. Either energy can be created or it can't. If energy can be created, then the first law has been violated. If energy can't be created, then your model won't work. Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

Sorry
You miss the key functionality of "TIDAL".
Please look again on the following article:
https://www.space.com/31385-saturn-moon-enceladus-geysers-losing-steam.html
"The 330-mile-wide (530 kilometers) Enceladus hosts a global ocean of salty liquid water beneath its icy shell. This ocean stays liquid because Saturn's powerful gravity twists and stretches Enceladus, generating internal heat through tidal forces. (This tidal heating also provides the energy that powers the jets.)"
What is the meaning of:
"Saturn's powerful gravity twists and stretches Enceladus, generating internal heat through tidal forces. "
Don't you see that it is a clear indication of transforming gravity force into internal heat?
That internal heat is used as a source of energy that powers the jets
"This tidal heating also provides the energy that powers the jets."
So, we have simple explanation how Gravity is transformed into new Heat/energy.
That exactly the scenario in our planet:
The moon's tidal force twists and stretches the surface of the earth and increases the internal heat in our planet.
Thanks to that Tidal the core in our planet still rotates and generate the magnetic field that protects our life.
Look at Mars. Similar planet without tidal forces - lost the energy that was needed to create magnetic field and therefore lost the protection against the solar wind. From a planet full with water and potentially could support life - it became a frozen planet.
The same issue with our moon.
Its face is looked up with our planet. No tidal forces. No internal heat.
The outcome - Frozen moon.
So, tidal is key element that is needed to transform gravity forces into internal heat/Energy.
How can you reject that clear observation?
It does not contradict the first law of thermodynamics.
As the energy doesn't come from nothing. it comes from Gravity.
However - Gravity comes for free.
So, free gravity generates tidal forces that generate new internal heat/energy inside moons/planets/stars/BH/SMBH. That new Heat/energy is added to the total heat/energy in the Universe.

Conventional models say that it comes from a transformation of gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy. No violation of the first law there. The total amount of energy doesn't change (unlike in your physics-defying model).

Gravitational potential energy + kinetic energy represent the total orbital energy.
With or without tidal that orbital energy is fixed.
So, tidal force has no impact on that total orbital energy.
However, without tidal - it has no effect on the internal heat/energy inside the orbital object.
If you wish to believe that Tidal decreases that total orbital energy - than please show me the formula by Newton or Einstein about it.

[Kryptid]

I'm putting a hold on all of the other matters for the moment and focusing on conservation of energy because that is the crux of the problem right now. I'm not moving on until that issue is solved first.

So, free gravity generates tidal forces that generate new internal heat/energy inside moons/planets/stars/BH/SMBH.

No, it doesn't. Tidal forces transform existing orbital or rotational energy into heat energy. It does not create new energy.  Gravity is the medium by which that energy is transferred. Nothing more. Since the total amount of orbital/rotational energy in a planet-satellite system is limited, tidal heating is not a process that can go on forever. Eventually, sufficient rotational energy from the planet is lost in the form of heat so that it takes the same amount of time to spin on its axis as it does for the satellite to orbit it. This is known as tidal locking (which is what Pluto and Charon have). Since the planet and satellite are no longer changing position relative to each other, they no longer tidally flex one another and therefore tidal heating ceases. So tidal force is by no means an infinite energy source.

It does not contradict the first law of thermodynamics.
As the energy doesn't come from nothing. it comes from Gravity.

Gravity doesn't have energy that it can give. Don't you remember when I told you that? You can't suck energy out of a gravitational field. Energy conservation isn't about energy coming from "nothing". It's about the total amount of energy in a system remaining constant over time. If new energy could be created from a gravitational field, that would violate conservation of energy because the energy is no longer constant. I provided you with three different links stating that energy cannot be created. If energy cannot be created, then gravity cannot create energy either.

To summarize:

(1) Conservation of energy states that the energy in a system must remain constant over time (unless already-existing energy comes in from an outside source or if the system transfers some of its own energy to a different system).
(2) If gravity could create energy, then the energy of a system could increase over time all on its own.
(3) Since conservation of energy forbids that, gravity cannot increase the energy content of a system over time.