[Dave Lev (OP)]

Theory D

1. Introduction
The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size. Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age.
The ability of the BH/SMBH to generate new particle pair is the foundation for the evolvement of our Universe
Therefore, the Universe is increasing its mass and its size over time.
Theory D is based on the following pillars:
Darwin, Fred Hoyle, Newton and Einstein.
No dark matter or dark energy is needed for this theory. What we see is what we have.
No need for inflation, no need for expansion and no need for the BBT.
If we could go back in time (to the infinity) we would find that only one BH was needed to generate our wonderful infinite Universe.
I will introduce the whole theory step by step.

2. Fred Hoyle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle
"Hoyle was a strong critic of the Big Bang. He is responsible for coining the term "Big Bang" on BBC radio's Third Programme broadcast on 28 March 1949."
"Hoyle,  unlike Gold and Bondi, offered an explanation for the appearance of new matter by postulating the existence of what he dubbed the "creation field", or just the "C-field", which had negative pressure in order to be consistent with the conservation of energy and drive the expansion of the universe"
Fred Hoyle estimated that galaxies should have the ability to produce new matter, but he did not foresee the recent developments and the idea of particle accelerator, and therefore couldn't explain how new mass had been created. At his time our scientists couldn't observe the ejection of mass from the accretion disc around the SMBH.

3. The "Universal Darwinism
Universal Darwinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Darwinism
"Universal Darwinism - The idea is to formulate a generalized version of the mechanisms… so that they can be applied to explain evolution in a wide variety of other domains"
The first requirement in Darwin approach is that the pattern can "survive" (maintain, be retained) long enough or "reproduce"
The Big bang isn't a reproduce pattern. Therefore it doesn't meet even the basic requirement for the Darwinism approach. Hence, if Darwin was living today, he would probably reject the Big bang theory.

4. Albert Einstein
To my best knowledge, Einstein had totally rejected the BBT.
He has also rejected his first idea for cosmological constant. He called it: the greatest blunder""
https://owlcation.com/stem/Einstiens-Cosmolgical-Constant-and-the-Expansion-of-the-Universe
"In fact, he felt it was his “greatest blunder” which had no merit in science. That supposed mistake turns out to be the cosmological constant"
Therefore, Einstein has told us clear and laud that it is forbidden to use that cosmological constant in his formula. By using that constant, we actually contradict his formula. So, we can't call it Einstein formula while we are using there a constant that is considered as his "greatest blunder".
Without that cosmological constant, there is no mathematical confirmation for the BBT.
That shows that the mathematical confirmation for the BBT is based on Einstein greatest blunder.
In any case, if our scientists insist to use that constant in Einstein formula, than they shouldn't call it "Einstein formula" anymore!!!

5. The universal common ancestor by Darwin
The "universal common ancestor" theory was first proposed by Charles Darwin more than 150 years ago."
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/5/100513-science-evolution-darwin-single-ancestor/
"All life on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism that lived roughly 3.5 billion years ago".
However, this "single-celled organism" must have the ability to multiply/generate other organism cell.
In the same token, as all life on Earth had been evolved from a single-celled organism, than all the variety of matter, galaxies, BH, SMBH, Stars, Planets...have been evolved from a Single cell of matter.
That "Single cell of matter" is the First matter that had been created in the whole Universe. However, it must also have the ability to multiply/generate other cell of matter
Therefore, everything we see in our Universe is a direct outcome from that first single cell of matter..
We know that a BH/SMBH can generate a new Particle pair.
We also know that the accretion disc around a SMBH is full with hot plasma (10^9 c) that orbiting at 0.3 speed of light.
Our scientists call it: "accretion disc" as they wish to believe that it accretes matter from outside. However, they clearly see that the matter in this disc is actually ejected outwards. Therefore, this disc should be called - Excretion Disc
So, the SMBH in our galaxy is actually generates new matter that is ejected outwards from its accretion disc (or actually from its excretion disc).
Therefore, we can claim that the first BH/SMBH in the Universe could be considered as the first Single cell of matter that had the ability to generate new matter.
The creation of that first BH/SMBH could be explained by some sort of Big Bang (as it is in our BBT Theory) or small bang. However, In the BBT, all the matter in the whole Universe had to be created in that Big Bang. In Theory-D only a single BH is needed for the creation of the whole infinite Universe.

6. Repeatable - Natural activity
Any nature activity must be repeatable. For example: Rain, morning, evening, supernova birth and even death.
Steady state by wiki: "In steady state views, new matter is continuously created as the universe expands". This is a repeatable activity.
Theory D is based on this idea. Therefore, it meets the criteria of natural activity and Darwinism approach.
However, The Big bang took place only once in the History of the Universe. Therefore, it doesn't meet the criteria of natural activity.

7. Energy source for the BBT
Why our scientists don't try to explain the scenario before the BBT?
Could it be that there was something before the Big bang or just nothing?
I agree to accept the idea that something could be created out of nothing.
Darwin has told us that one living cell could be the source for the whole variety of life that we see. Therefore, we all can agree that first living cell could be created out of nothing. However, how can we agree that everything could be created at the same moment from nothing or even from something if our universe is infinite?
The BBT doesn't explain what is the source of energy for all the matter in the Universe.
It is just stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
"The Big Bang theory is a cosmological model of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution The model describes how the universe expanded from an initial state of very high-density and high-temperature"
So, what is the source for that high density and high temperature?
What is the meaning of high density?
Density of what? Is it some sort of a matter? If so, than why do we need the Big bang if the matter is already there? How any sort of density can be converted into real matter by bang without any energy transformation as electromagnetic field?
Please be aware - Not even one word about energy in the BBT…
How could it be that our scientists speak on the name of science and the first law of thermodynamics (when it comes to different theory), while they don't have a basic clue for the source of energy (or high density) for the BBT activity?

8. Mass v.s Energy in the BBT
Einstein has stated that mass can be converted to Energy by:
E = mc^2
In the same token we can claim that Energy can be converted to mass
m = E / c^2
We can convert Atom mass to energy by a bang. We call it Atom bomb or fusion. However, can we convert energy to atom?
Let's verify the mass/energy in one electron:
Its energy is - 0.511 MeV. That electron represents an energy cell with mass of 9.1093×10^−31 kg.
Therefore, in order to create a single particle, somehow we need to find the source of energy for that mass creation and a special process is needed.
How a bang by itself can convert heat or density into real Atom without real source of energy and especially without acceleration and electromagnetism?

9. Divine power?
Why our scientists insist to ignore the process before the big bang? If they don't have any responsibility for that, than who is taking care about the time before that Big bang? Do we need to think about some divine power?
If a divine power is needed, why do we need the BBT? Why can't we just accept the bible as is?
If they can't clearly explain the source for the creation of the whole mass in the Universe due to the Big Bang, than this theory should be set in the garbage of the history.

10. SMBH generates magnetic field
Black Holes & Time Warps states that a spinning black hole with a net electric charge will have a magnetic field.
Galactic nucleus - the nucleus of the Spiral galaxy is supper massive black hole – Wikipedia: "A supper massive black hole defined mass ranges from100 thousand to 10 billion solar masses. Scientists tend to assume that such a black hole exists at the center of most galaxies in the universe, including the Milky Way."   It holds around hundreds of billions of stars. So clearly, the nucleus creates tremendous power and energy. 
The spin of the SMBH generates ultra powerful magnetic field. 
"A team of researchers has measured the magnetic fields in the vicinity of the suppermassive black hole at the center of NGC 1052."
https://scitechdaily.com/researchers-measure-magnetic-fields-in-the-vicinity-of-a-black-hole/
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.
The team concludes that the magnetic fields provide enough magnetic energy to power the twin jets.
Similar particle jet stream stretch 27,000 light-years from the center of the Milky Way galaxy:
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2012-16
"The newfound jets may be related to mysterious gamma-ray bubbles that Fermi detected in 2010. Those bubbles also stretch 27,000 light-years from the center of the Milky Way. However, where the bubbles are perpendicular to the galactic plane, the gamma-ray jets are tilted at an angle of 15 degrees. This may reflect a tilt of the accretion disk surrounding the suppermassive black hole.
"Finkbeiner estimates that a molecular cloud weighing about 10,000 times as much as the Sun would be required"
In order to blow those kind of particles jet stream to that distance of 27,000 LY  it is clear that an Ultra Magnetic field is needed.
ONLY SMBH Can generate that kind of magnetic field!!!

[Dave Lev (OP)]

11. New mass creation:
The gravity and electromagnetism don't contribute to the black hole's expendable energy, but the rotation does.
Chapter 12 of Black Holes & Time Warps does indeed mention that a black hole's rotation can produce radiation. So, new pair of particles can be created around a BH or SMBH.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
"Pair production is the creation of a subatomic particle and its antiparticle from a neutral boson. Examples include creating an electron and a positron, a muon and an antimuon, or a proton and an antiproton."
" 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."
In order to produce a positron-electron pair, 1.022 MeV of rotational kinetic energy is extracted from the BH
Let's assume that we are looking down on the most inwards side of the accretion disk (or even below) from above.
Let's also assume that electron and positron had been created at some radius below the inmost accretion ring. At the moment of creation they will probably orbit at almost the speed of light.
Please remember that at the moment of creation, the new created particles pair must fully meet the orbital speed for the attitude (or radius) from the SMBH.  It must fully obey to Newton orbital law.
We can get better understanding by look at the following Newton Cannon Ball explanation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball#/media/File:Newtonsmountainv=7300.gif
If the speed is the orbital speed at that altitude it will go on circling around the Earth along a fixed circular orbit just like the moon.
How Lorentz force works on those new particles pair?
In order to get better understanding let's look at the following video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=135&v=RqSode4HZrE&feature=emb_title
The North/South Poles of the SMBH is up/down with reference to their orbital direction. Therefore, based on that video, one charged particle should be deflected to the left while the other one would be deflected right. Hence, one particle should be deflected inwards to the SMBH direction, while the other one would be deflected outwards to the direction of the accretion disc.
The deflection inwards would decrease its altitude or radius from the SMBH. Therefore, it will face stronger gravity force from the SMBH.
That radius change will force it to fall in as its current orbital velocity would be too low. As it is stated in the following video:
"If the speed is low, it will simply fall back on Earth" (or to the SMBH in our case)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball#/media/File:Newtonsmountainv=6000.gif
On the other hand, the other particles must be deflected outwards from the SMBH. Therefore, its speed would be too high with reference to its current radius. Even a small deflection should bring it under the influence of the inwards side of the accretion disc. At that aria it would have to obey to the magnetic forces/pressures that are generated by the accretion disc itself. We know that the average orbital velocity at the accretion disc is about 0.3c. So, the new arrival particle might bang with the other particles already orbiting at the inwards side of the accretion ring and reduces its velocity from almost the speed of light to about 0.3c. At that moment it would become a new member at the plasma.
With regards to temperature – A new created particle must come with Ultra high temp. Adding to that the ultra high pressures, forces, Electric current flow and fusion activity in the plasma would increase the temp to almost 10^9 c at the accretion disc.   
This separation deflection process is vital. Without it, any new created particle pair would be eliminated at the same moment of their creation as each particle carry a negative charged with reference to the other.
Energy transformations
The requested energy for electron-positron pair is 1.022 MeV. That energy had been taken from the energy of the SMBH by the transformation of the magnetic field.
So, theoretically, the SMBH had lost 1.022Mev (due to the creation of the particle pair) and gain only half of that as the mass of a falling in particle
However, at the moment of the creation the orbital velocity is almost at the speed of light. That speed is given for free from the Ultra gravity force of the SMBH.
Hence, the Kinetic orbital velocity of each particle -with mass m at the moment of creation (assuming that its velocity is the speed of light) is as follow:
Ek = 1/2 m v^2 = 1/2 m c^2
Each falling in particle (as electron for example) is increasing the total mass of the BH by only 0.511 MeV.
However, it also increases the spin of the SMBH due to Conservation of momentum and Tidal. We only discuss on a tiny particle. However, unlimited number of falling in particles can have a similar impact as a falling star with the same total mass.
So the SMBH gravity force had contributed Ultra rotational energy to the created particle pair for free. Some of that rotational energy is transformed back to the SMBH due to Conservation of momentum and due to Tidal energy transformation.
Please remember that Tidal forces transform existing orbital or rotational energy into heat energy.
Therefore, this process doesn't contradict the first law of thermodynamics
Since the total amount of orbital/rotational energy in a New particle pair around the SMBH is ultra high (and it is for free due to the SMBH mighty gravity force), Conservation of momentum, tidal heating process, SMBH Spin, Transformation of energy by magnetic force to new creation particles pair cycle can go on forever.
Hence, as the universe age is infinite, than unlimited number of falling in particles should increase dramatically the total Energy & mass of the BH and converts it over time to a SMBH without violating the first law of thermodynamics.

12. Accretion or excretion disc?
The SMBH doesn't eat any atom or particle from the Accretion disc. It is eating only the charged particles that had been forced to fall in due to Lorentz force. In the same token, the other negative charged (out of the new created pairs) are ejected to the accretion disc due to the same Lorentz force.
Therefore, all the matter in that disc had been created by the transformation of the energy from the SMBH using the Ultra magnetic field. Noting could come from outside!!!
Actually the matter in the accretion disc is ejected outwards:
 Milky Way's Giant Black Hole Spits Out Its Food http://www.space.com/22586-milky-way-giant-black-hole-food.html
"The new findings show definitively that most of the matter in the gas cloud surrounding the black hole is ejected out into space, which explains why it doesn't release light on its way in to be eaten."
This is an indication that new matter is ejected from the Milky Way supper massive black hole.
It is also clear that the Black hole does not eat any mass.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/astro801/content/l8_p7.html
"Using the highest resolution IR cameras available, astronomers have repeatedly observed the stars orbiting around Sgr A*. They have measured the orbit of a star that comes within 17 light-hours of the object in the core of our Galaxy, which is a distance that is only a few times larger than the orbit of Pluto around the Sun."
So, as the suppermassive black hole does not eat this star which is located so close it doesn't eat any mass at all.
It is also stated: "The dust gets thicker and thicker as we look into the center of the Galaxy."
This is an indication that the supper massive black hole does not eat any mass. If it was eating a mass then the dust should be thinner as we look into the core of galaxy.
If the SMBH was eating matter from outside than after billions years of "stars eating" we should expect that the center of spiral galaxy around the SMBH should be quite empty of mass and stars.
But in contrary, we actually see high concentrate of mass and new forming stars at the center. Based on Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way " The bar may be surrounded by a ring called the 5-kpc ring that contains a large fraction of the molecular hydrogen present in the galaxy, as well as most of the Milky Way's star formation activity."
That by itself proves that the SMBH is not eating any star or mass from outside. The SMBH is the biggest manufacturer for Hydrogen Atoms and for any molecular that is available in our galaxy.
Therefore, the accretion disc should be called – excretion disc.

13. Expansion
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/21/the-big-bang-wasnt-the-beginning-after-all/#37a6bfd255df
"The idea of the Big Bang first came about back in the 1920s and 1930s. When we looked out at distant galaxies, we discovered something peculiar: the farther away from us they were, the faster they appeared to be receding from us. According to the predictions of Einstein's General Relativity, a static Universe would be gravitationally unstable; everything needed to either be moving away from one another or collapsing towards one another if the fabric of space obeyed his laws. The observation of this apparent recession taught us that the Universe was expanding today, and if things are getting farther apart as time goes on, it means they were closer together in the distant past."
Let's focus on: "The observation of this apparent recession taught us that the Universe was expanding today, and if things are getting farther apart as time goes on, it means they were closer together in the distant past."
Let's add to that the following concept by Elbert Einstein and Fred Hoyle:
https://guardianlv.com/2014/03/albert-einstein-debunked-the-big-bang-theory/
 "According to the translation, the physicist (Elbert Einstein..) believed that “for the density to remain constant new particles of matter must be continually formed,” which confirmed Hoyle’s findings."
Therefore, if new matter is created as the Universe expands the density of the Universe can stay the same. Actually according to Theory D, the space in the Universe does not expand. Only the matters in our Universe (galaxies) are expanding in all directions.
Theory D confirms the predictions of Einstein's General Relativity - "Everything needed to be moving away from one another"!
However, we still need to explain the following observation: "the farther away from us they were, the faster they appeared to be receding from us."
Theory D gives a perfect explanation also for that. More to come…

[Dave Lev (OP)]

14. Orbital Velocity & Energy

This is a key element in our understanding how gravity really works.
Let's look at Newton Cannon Ball explanation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball
In order to get circular orbital motion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball#/media/File:Newtonsmountainv=7300.gif
If the speed is the orbital speed at that altitude it will go on circling around the Earth along a fixed circular orbit just like the moon.
That orbital velocity (Vo) is also called perpendicular velocity or magic velocity. The formula is as follow:
Vo ^2 = G M / r
We can also get better understanding by the following diagram:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_mechanics#/media/File:Orbital_motion.gif
Diagram of orbital motion of a satellite around the Earth, showing perpendicular velocity and acceleration (force) vectors.
We see that (v) represents the orbital velocity vector or Vo, while (a) represents the falling in acceleration vector.
They are actually orthogonal to each other.
The velocity vector v represents the direction of the kinetic orbital energy at any given moment:
Eko (Kinetic orbital energy) = 1/2 m Vo ^2 / r
The acceleration (a) represents the direction of the potential energy (Ep).
Ep (potential energy) = G M m / r
As those energies are orthogonal to each other, by increasing or decreasing one of them, there will be no impact on the other one.
We can get a confirmation for that in the following explanation by Newton:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball#/media/File:Newtonsmountainv=6000.gif
"If the speed is low, it will simply fall back on Earth"
Newton didn't say that as the satellite falls back to earth it will increase its orbital velocity!!!
In order to get better understanding, let's assume that we could shut down the gravity force in the following diagram:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_mechanics#/media/File:Orbital_motion.gif
It is clear that the satellite will continue to move on in a direct line with the same velocity Vo due to its momentum.
So, it will move in the same direction from the point of losing the gravity and it will keep its last velocity and its kinetic energy due to that velocity.
Ek (at the moment of losing gravity) = EKo = 1/2 m Vo^2 /r
On the other hand, if we could stop completely the orbital motion at a single moment, than the satellite should fall in directly to the center of Earth.
Converting the potential energy into falling in kinetic energy won't increase or decrease the orbital energy.
For example let's look at a satellite in a circular orbiting cycle around the earth. Its orbital velocity is Vo1 and its radius is r1.
Let's assume that due to external force it reduces its radius to r2 while its orbital velocity is still Vo1,
However, as Vo1 is lower than the requested Vo2, than this satellite will start to fall in. During this process of falling inwards, it will keep its orbital velocity Vo1 till the impact with the earth.
Hence, there will be no transformation of energy from the potential energy to the orbital kinetic energy. There is no way to increase the orbital velocity by decreasing the potential energy
Therefore, the idea that matter can fall into the accretion disc and increases its orbital velocity to almost 0.3c is a fiction!!!
Newton told us with its Cannon ball experimental that if an object is in orbital circular around a main mass, once it reduces its radius, the current  orbital velocity will be too low than the requested orbital velocity. As the potential energy can't be transformed to any sort of orbital energy, that object MUST fall in and collide with the main mass.
Therefore, the ONLY way to gain 0.3c at the accretion disc – is JUST due to new particle/matter that is ejected outwards (below the inmost ring of the accretion disc)
That is another confirmation for the idea of new mass creation around the SMBH.
So, matter in a circular orbital system can't increase its orbital velocity while decreasing the radius
However, on the other direction it can work.
The reason from that is: Orbital friction

15. Orbital Friction:
The orbital kinetic energy is Eko:
Eko (Kinetic orbital energy) = 1/2 m Vo ^2 / r
However, there is a friction in orbital system.
That friction could be for example due to Tidal
We know that Tidal power draws energy from the Moon's orbit.
So let's assume that ΔEt represents the energy that tidal draws from the orbital energy at a given time Δt.
Therefore, the correct formula for Ekof (with friction) should be as follow
Ekof (Eko with frictiont) = Eko – ΔEt
So, if we start at T=0
Eko (at T=0) = 1/2 m Vo1 ^2 / r1
At T = Δt
Ekof (at T= Δt) = 1/2 m Vo2 ^2 / r2 = 1/2 m Vo1 ^2 / r1 – ΔEt
The outcome is:
Vo2 ≤ Vo1 (it is equal if ΔEt = 0)
While
r2 ≥ r1 (it is equal if ΔEt = 0)
Therefore, due to friction (as tidal) orbital objects should increase the radius and decrease the orbital velocity over time.
Hence, any orbital system with a friction (as tidal) represents an orbit that is spiraling outwards.

[Bored chemist]

The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size.

Since you started with a non sequitur, I stopped reading at this point.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

15. Photon Sphere
I'm really excited. I have just found an article which confirms the creation zone of new particles between the accretion ring and the event horizon.
This aria is called – Photon sphere (I was not aware about that name).
Please look at the following image:
https://www.physicscentral.com/explore/action/black-hole.cfm
It is stated:
"Just outside the event horizon of the BH, gravity is strong enough to bend their paths so that we see a bright ring surrounding a roughly circular dark shadow."
However, they think that this radiation is coming from the outwards accretion disc or actually from the plasma in that accretion disc:
"Although the black hole itself is dark, photons are emitted from nearby hot plasma in jets or an accretion disc."
"As charged particles go around, they accelerate, causing the emission of electromagnetic radiation."
This is a severe mistake.
As Newton has told us very clear in his cannon ball experimental, matter that moves to lower radius, can't increase the orbital velocity and can't get higher orbital acceleration.
Therefore, the only way to generate this radiation between the event horizon to the innermost accretion ring, is by new created particle pairs at the photon sphere.
Due to the location of that zone it is also clear that the orbital velocity should be much higher than just 0.3c (as it is in the accretion disc). I would assume that the orbital velocity at the Photon sphere is almost as high as the speed of light.
The innermost accretion ring is called – innermost stable orbit. That shows that our scientists see the difference between the stable orbit at the innermost excretion ring to the aria of the new pair production that is called Photon sphere.
They also claim that the plasma in the accretion disc is made of broken Atoms - free electrons and nuclei.
"Black holes trap nearby gases in their gravitational pull and whip them around in an orbit at immense speeds. The gas material gets very hot and breaks apart into its constituent positive nuclei and negative electrons, not bound together as an atom. This hot mass of free electrons and nuclei is called a plasma."
But they don't understand that the process works the other way. The excretion disc doesn't break down the atoms to positive nuclei and negative electrons in that plasma. If that was the case, than as most of that matter is ejected outwards, we should see mainly broken atoms that are ejected from the excretion disc. However, we mainly see real Atoms and molecular that are ejected from the excretion disc. That ejected matter is actually ejected upwards/downwards as Twin molecular jet stream.
Therefore, the excretion disc is actually forming new Atoms and molecular from the new created particles that are ejected to that aria from the Photon sphere.

16. Twin Molecular jet stream
The excretion disc is the biggest Atoms/molecular manufacturer in our Universe. Under Ultra high Pressure, Electromagnetism, High temp 10^9 c, High electric current, all the variety of Atoms and molecular are created in the plasma that orbits at 0.3c. Eventually the new matter is elected outwards from the excretion disc.
The SMBH' Ultra high magnetic power grab the ejected molecular and boosts them upwards/downwards directly in line with the North/south SMBH' magnetic poles. Those twin molecular jets are lifted at 0.8c to 27,000 LY above/below the galactic disc.
Please look at the image of that twin molecular jets:
https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/hires/2012/ghostlygamma.jpg
Our scientists have found another observation for that process:
http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/matter-falling-into-black-hole-06440.html
“We were able to follow an Earth-sized clump of matter for about a day, as it was pulled towards the black hole, accelerating to a third of the velocity of light before being swallowed up by the hole.”
This far end galaxy is located at about one Billion LY away. We are looking at that galaxy directly from above.
Our scientists assume that they have traced an Earth-sized clump of matter that is moving at 0.3c directly to SMBH. This is absolutely incorrect due to the following reasons:
The whole accretion disc rotates according the SMBH spinning direction and under its mighty electromagnetism force and pressure. Therefore, there is no room for internal rings to move in different angels or opposite directions.
Therefore, the following assumption of the accretion structure is a pure fantasy:
http://cdn.sci-news.com/images/enlarge5/image_6440_2e-PG1211-143.jpg
Hence, the idea that this Earth-sized clump of matter could be created due to a collision between two nearby accretion rings is a pure fantasy. Even we could set there that Earth-sized clump of matter, it won't be able to cross above or below the accretion disc due to the Ultra pressure there. It will have to join all the other matter in the plasma and orbits at 0.3c around the SMBH. So, there is no way for that Earth-sized clump of matter to bypass the accretion disc and move DIRECTLY to the SMBH.
Hence, the process works as follow:
That Earth-sized clump of matter had been ejected outwards from the excretion disc. The Mighty SMBH' magnetic power grab that matter and boosts it at 0.8c to the twin molecular jets (up to 27,000 Ly above and below the SMBH). Therefore, our scientists see the Earth-sized clump of matter as it moves directly to the SMBH. Our scientists think that it is moving to the SMBH, but in reality it is moving far above/below the SMBH. They monitor 0.3c, but in it moves at 0.8c to the upwards or downwards poles.  However, as they see the galaxy and the Earth-sized clump of matter directly from above at one billion LY away, they can't see the difference.
However, if they will verify again the records they might find that as the Earth-sized clump of matter comes closer to the SMBH its velocity is going down due to the structure of the molecular jet stream.
There is high benefit for those twin jets stream.
By the time that the New Atoms and molecular (as water) are ejected from the excretion disc, they also include many particles that had not been converted to real Atom/Molecular. Therefore, a cleaning process is needed. As the stream is boosted upwards, heavy mature atoms/molecular are falling back to the galactic disc, while the none mature particles are pushed away from the galactic disc.
We see a constant flow of jet stream due to the constant production of new molecular by the excretion disc. If the excretion disc was a real accretion disc, eating stars from time to time, we would have to see it as a broken stream. So, for each time that it eats something, it also ejects 99% of that something. However, we don't see any fragmentation in the molecular jet stream. Therefore, this is one more evidence that the excretion disc is the biggest molecular manufacturer in the Galaxy.

[Bored chemist]

There really isn't any point adding 14 and 15 when 1 is clearly wrong.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

17. Gas Cloud & SMBH' dung

As the mature molecular/Atoms fall back to the galactic disc from the twin molecular jet stream, they grab into gas clouds as G1 and G2:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2892301/Mystery-cloud-near-Milky-Way-s-black-hole-Unidentified-gas-drifted-nearby-massive-star.html
"In this image the red part of the G2 cloud is seen in orbit around the black hole (path shown in solid white). The blue part is the second cloud, G1. The distance from red to blue is 900 times the Earth-sun distance."
"In 2013, the G2 gas cloud made its closest approach to the black hole, a distance of 20 light hours - about five times the distance of our sun to Neptune."
"Both are in a similar orbit, suggesting they are part of the same stream of gas - and they may just be one in a series of gas clouds deposited around the black hole by a star."
So, our scientists consider that they are part of the same stream of gas, but they don't have a clue that this gas is coming from the molecular in the twin molecular jet stream that fall to the galactic disc.
G1 and G2 are not there by themselves. There are more gas clouds:
https://www.universetoday.com/144654/more-mysterious-space-blobs-have-been-found-near-the-center-of-the-milky-way/
"And recently, a team from UCLA’s Galactic Center Orbits Initiative detected a series of compact objects that also orbit the SMBH. These objects look like clouds of gas but behave like stars, depending on how close they are in their orbits to Sagittarius A*".
"In 2018…identify three more of these objects (G3, G4, and G5) near the galaxy’s center. Since that time, a total of six objects have been identified in this region (G1 – G6)".
In those Gas clouds new Star forming activity takes place. There is an evidence for star in G2:
"The most recent observations also showed that while the gas from G2’s outer shell was stretched dramatically, the dust contained inside did not get stretched much. This means that something kept the dust compact, which is compelling evidence that star could be inside G2. "
Due to the high star forming activity at those gas clouds, there is high concentration of new born stars near the SMBH:
"At the center of our galaxy lies a region where roughly 10 million stars are packed into just 1 parsec (3.25 light-years) of space."
If the SMBH had any intention to eat stars from outside, it will probably eat them all. But the high concentration of stars near the SMBH proves that the SMBH has no intention to eat even one atom from outside.
We see further confirmation for new star forming activity near the SMBH:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way
"The bar may be surrounded by a ring called the "5-kpc ring" that contains a large fraction of the molecular hydrogen present in the Milky Way, as well as most of the Milky Way's star formation activity".
In order to understand that process, let's look at Pig sty
https://c8.alamy.com/comp/ED8KKW/pig-in-muddy-pigsty-uk-ED8KKW.jpg
What do we see?
Dung over dung everywhere. Do you think that this pig has any intention to eat its dung?
Let's try to compare that pig to the SMBH. In this case, the dung that we see would represent the matter that had been ejected from the excretion disc. Hence, the SMBH has no intention to eat its dung. It only eats one particle from the new created particle pair at the Photon Sphere. The other particle is ejected outwards from the SMBH. So, it is a product that is created by the SMBH, but it is ejected outwards as some sort of a dung.
Therefore, we can claim that our body, our solar system, our galaxy and the whole universe is made of SMBH' dung.

[Bored chemist]

There really isn't any point adding 14 and 15 when 1 is clearly wrong.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

There really isn't any point adding 14 and 15 when 1 is clearly wrong.

Didn't you see my reply at:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=78586.0

[Dave Lev (OP)]

18. New born stars system in a gas cloud

In the following article there is a brief explanation about that activity:
https://www.space.com/4584-spin-stars-born.html
"New stars form from enormous clouds of gas and dust collapse under their own gravity into dense spheres. The packed cores are ignited by thermonuclear reactions. As they collapse, the clouds rotate, and like an ice skater pulling in his arms while spinning, rotation speed increases as the collapsing cloud gets smaller."
However, there is a problem with this concept. A gas cloud has no arms like "Ice skater". Therefore, it can't increase its spinning. Our scientists also have no clue about the dissipation of the rotational energy as stated:
" Some of this rotation energy, called angular momentum, must be dissipated before the star can contract completely. How this happens, though, is unknown."
It is also stated that the centrifugal force will prevent from the gas in the cloud to collapse:
"Given the size difference between an ordinary star like our sun and a typical molecular cloud, if the rotation was allowed to increase as the cloud collapsed, the [apparent] centrifugal forces would never allow the material to collapse into anything small enough to form a star,"
So, how it really works? Our scientists assume that magnetic field is needed.
"A new model by Chrysostomou and colleagues suggests excess material and energy are borne away from the protostar along helical magnetic field lines that surround the star."
Our scientists assume that the Milky way is filled with magnetic field:
"Our Milky Way is filled with magnetic fields, which are generated any time charged particles move about. The new model predicts that field lines around a cloudy stellar womb get twisted by the womb's rotation."
However, there is no evidence that charged particles can generate the requested magnetic field in a gas cloud that is needed for the activity of new born star.
Hence, the only place for ultra high magnetic field is around the SMBH. I have already proved that issue.
So, the gas cloud must get closer to the SMBH inorder to be under the influence of the requested magnetic field.
There is an evidence of that:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2892301/Mystery-cloud-near-Milky-Way-s-black-hole-Unidentified-gas-drifted-nearby-massive-star.html
"In 2013, the G2 gas cloud made its closest approach to the black hole, a distance of 20 light hours - about five times the distance of our sun to Neptune."
At this distance, the influence of the SMBH' magnetic field can boost the Star forming activity at the nearby gas cloud.
However, "Most of the stars twinkling in the night sky aren't alone. They're pairs, triplets or other groups, and scientists haven't understood why."
https://www.seeker.com/why-most-stars-have-twins-discovery-news-1766498927.html
Therefore, several stars are formed at the gas cloud at same time.  So, by the time that those new stars are getting out from the gas cloud, they orbit around a common center of mass or braycenter. Therefore, the gas in the cloud doesn't just collapsed to the center in order to form single star. In reality as the gas orbits around the center of the cloud, and under the influence of the magnetic field, it crystallized in many gas balls. Many of them will be merged and form the new born stars, while the other might orbit around those new born stars as planets and moons. Therefore, each gas cloud will form several sets of stars. Each star will carry integrated planets and moons while each planet or moon comes as a hot gas ball. So, all our solar system including our planet and moon had been created in a gas cloud near the SMBH from the same matter and at the same time.
Hence, our planet and moon had been born as a hot gas balls with the same matter that sets the Sun. Therefore, nearly all Sun-like Stars have planetary systems:

https://www.universetoday.com/99309/nearly-all-sun-like-stars-have-planetary-systems/

"The latest analysis of data from the Kepler planet-hunting spacecraft reveals that almost all stars have planets, and about 17 percent of stars have an Earth-sized planet in an orbit closer than Mercury".
 In our Sun, there is about 75% of hydrogen while the solid Atoms/molecular are less than 2%.
Therefore, The Earth as a rocky planet includes less than 2% from the total matter in its first day. Hence, its real mass on day one was more than 50 times than its current mass. Even so, due to its relatively small size, our planet couldn't hold the light gas as hydrogen and helium that had been evaporated over time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen
"Hydrogen gas is very rare in the Earth's atmosphere (1 ppm by volume) because of its light weight, which enables it to escape from Earth's gravity more easily than heavier gases. However, hydrogen is the third most abundant element on the Earth's surface,[82] mostly in the form of chemical compounds such as hydrocarbons and water".
Same idea with any relatively small planet or moon in the solar system. Only the big gas planets as Jupiter or Saturn were big enough to hold some portion of the light gas under their gravity force.
On the first day, all the planets were much closer to the Sun. The moons were much closer to the planets and even the stars were closer to their braycenters.
At that early time the gravity force between Earth/Moon was much stronger than the Sun/Moon. Therefore, the moon had been forced to orbit around the Earth and not around the Sun. Please remember that today the gravity of the Sun/Moon is about twice stronger than the gravity of the Earth/Moon. However, due to hysteresis phenomena, the moon keeps its orbital cycle around the Earth.
In any case, star forming activity can only take place near giant source of magnetic field. As the SMBH is almost the only source for mighty magnetic field in the galaxy, than all/most of the new born stars system takes place in a gas clouds near the SMBH.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

19. The Sun motion due to Binary star

I have found one more article that confirms the existence of binary stars at each gas cloud around the SMBH
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/10752710/six-mystery-objects-orbit-black-hole/
"The six objects are named G1 through to G6.
"These objects look like gas and behave like stars."
"The astronomers now think that each G object could be a pair of binary stars that revolved around each other."
This is a key element in our understanding of star movement/orbit in the galaxy.
So, all/most of the stars in our galaxy revolve around at least one other star.
Our Sun is also part of the same galaxy system.
If there are binary stars in all the gas cloud, our sun should also be part of a binary star.
We don't see it yet, but it could be there as some sort of a dark star or even a small black hole.
Our SMBH form many of new BH
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5578539/Tens-thousands-black-holes-lurking-heart-galaxy-claim-scientists.html
"There may be tens of thousands of black holes may lurking in the heart of our galaxy".
Therefore, one of that baby BH might have set a binary star system with our Sun when they both had been formed near the SMBH. Therefore, we can't see it. But it is there.
So, our Sun must orbit around a braycenter while that braycenter revolves around the galaxy.
Therefore, when we look at the movement of our sun we think that it is bobbling:
https://slate.com/technology/2013/03/vortex-motion-viral-video-showing-suns-motion-through-galaxy-is-wrong.html
"A far more correct (though exaggerrated vertically for clarity) depiction of the Sun’s motion around the Milky Way galaxy has it bobbing up and down every 64 million years due to the gravity of the galactic disk."
However, Newton has told us very clearly that gravity means constant orbit around some center of mass.
Therefore, there is no way that our sun is just bobbling due to the gravity of the galactic disc as stated:
"The gravity of the disk would make the Sun plunge down into it. Since stars are so far apart, the Sun would go right through the disk and out the bottom. But then the disk would be pulling it up, once again toward the disk. The Sun would slow, stop, and reverse course, plummeting into the disk once again. It gets about 200 or so light years from the midplane of the galactic disk every time its bobs; the disk is 1000 light years thick, though, so we always stay well inside it. But these oscillations would go on forever, the Sun moving up and down like a cork in the ocean."
This is a severe mistake.
Orbital motion is not like a cork in the ocean.
The Sun orbits around a braycenter. therefore we see it as a cork in the ocean as it revolves around the galaxy - up and down.
In the article it is stated that the sun goes 200 LY above an below the disc. However, the disc is 1000 LY thick. So there must be stars high above/below our location.
If that theory of bobbling was correct than the star at the top should bobble 1000Ly up and 1000Ly down.
This is fantasy. Each star orbit around its own braycenter. Therefore we should see them all moving up and down while they all orbit around their own braycenter..
Hence, as our Sun shares a braycener with other dark star (or even BH) it can bobble up and down while it revolves around the galaxy.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

S2 Motion due to Binary star

Please look at the following image of S2 orbital motion.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Fit-to-the-orbit-of-the-S2-star-fitted-data-and-relative-errors-are-in-blue-the-red_fig1_272845577
We clearly see that it doesn't fit exactly with the expected orbital motion.
It also bobble around that expected orbital line.
The answer for that is also Binary System.
S2 Must share a braycenter with other dark star of BH.
This shared braycenter must fit perfectly with the expected orbital motion.
Again - there is no bobble or almost fit.
Newton have told us that there must be a perfect fit in every orbital Motion

[Kryptid]

Dave, please go back and edit your prior posts instead of double posting in the future. Thank you.

[Bored chemist]

Dave, please go back and edit your prior posts instead of double posting in the future. Thank you.

As far as I can tell, he's not double posting; he's rambling.
The fact that he was wrong in the first few lines isn't stopping him.

[Halc]

As far as I can tell, he's not double posting; he's rambling.
The fact that he was wrong in the first few lines isn't stopping him.

Well, pretty much every bit of this has been pushed in his prior topic, and all the responses have been completely ignored, so there seems to be no point in making any. Yes, he's just going to continue repeating this tripe over and over, in multiple threads no less.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Dave, please go back and edit your prior posts instead of double posting in the future. Thank you.

Dear Kryptid
In this thread I'm going to introduce the whole theory for our Universe.
I will explain why do we see that all far galaxies are moving away from us at almost the speed of light while the density of the Universe will stay the same forever.
No need for dark energy or dark matter. No need for inflation or space expansion. No need for bobbling theory or density wave.
Theory-D is the Only real theory for our Universe.
Sooner or later students will learn this theory in the University.
In the prior post I have just focused on spiral galaxy.
Please let me finish the whole introduction and then take a final conclusion about this theory.

However, I'm quite realistic.
The science community would probably reject this theory or any other theory that contradicts the BBT.
It seems to me that our scientists have one mission - to prove that the BBT is the only valid theory.
In order to do so they must also eliminate any other idea/theory that might negatively effect the BBT.
Why is it?
Why they all insist to ignore any observation that contradicts the BBT?
Why they insist to ignore the time before the BBT???
Why they can't give a real answer for the source of energy that was needed for the BBT?
How could they believe in bobbling orbital motion although it is a direct contradiction with Newton law?
How could they belive that star could drift inwards to the center of mass and increase its orbital velocity, while Newton have told us clear and loud that this is impossible mission?
Why they refuse to understand that ONLY Newton law must be used to explain the orbital motions at each segment in spiral galaxy?
Do they know why at the ring of the galaxy (3KPC) the thickness of the disc/arm is 3000 Ly while at the far end of the disc/arm  (12-15KPC) the thickness is less than 400LY?
How could they use the cosmological constant in Einstein formula (and still call it Einstein formula) while he had stated clearly that this constant is the biggest mistake of his life?
You speak on the name of thermodynamics laws. So, why you don't answer how the BBT fulfill that law without real source of energy?
Do you estimate that an Atom could be created without electromagnetic power?
Where is the source for the magnetic power at the BBT theory?
I do understand that if we wish to hook the BBT to some divine power, than the BBT could be the ultimate solution.
So, could it be that our scientists are ready to fight for the BBT and reject any other idea/theory as it hooks between their own divine believe to science?
Could it be that our scientists don't deal with the time before the BBT as the divine power gives the requested energy or magnetic power for that activity?
Therefore, could it be that the whole idea of the BBT is to show how the whole universe had been evolved from a divine power?
However, God is located in our hart. Why do we need to hook science with divine power?
Don't you agree that we can fully believe in God and still accept Darwin theory?
However, we all know that Darwin had been forced to reject his ideas..
So, could it be that even today our scientists reject any other idea/theory as it contradicts with their believe?
After many years scientists have understood that Darwin theory is correct.
So, how long do we have to wait for our scientists in order to accept the idea that the BBT is incorrect and we should open our mind to other theory as Theory D?

[Bored chemist]

As far as I can tell, he's not double posting; he's rambling.
The fact that he was wrong in the first few lines isn't stopping him.

Well, pretty much every bit of this has been pushed in his prior topic, and all the responses have been completely ignored, so there seems to be no point in making any. Yes, he's just going to continue repeating this tripe over and over, in multiple threads no less.

It's time he was banned.

Mind you, perhaps we should let him carry on just for comedy value.

The science community would probably reject this theory or any other theory that contradicts the BBT.

Yes, we will- because we accept things that are supported by evidence.

But I predict that Dave isn't even going to address the fact that he was wrong in the first few lines.
Dave doesn't understand the importance of evidence.
Don't be like Dave.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Dave doesn't understand the importance of evidence.

Yes I do
Evrey idea that I offer is based on real evidence/observation
Let me highlight some of the observations that contradict the BBT:

1. Energy - What is the source of energy that is needed for the BBT? This is the ultimate question for the BBT.
2. Galaxy is growing from internally - Baby Boom  galaxy
"The Milky Way galaxy in which Earth resides turns out an average of just 10 stars per year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Boom_Galaxy
"The Baby Boom Galaxy has been nicknamed "the extreme stellar machine" because it is seen producing stars at a rate of up to 4,000 per year (one star every 2.2 hours)"
However it is stated: "The discovery also challenges the accepted model for galaxy formation, which has most galaxies slowly bulking up by absorbing pieces of other galaxies, rather than growing internally."
Based on this observation our scientists see that the galaxy is growing from internally.
Hence this observation contradicts the BBT. So, why this observation had been neglected?
3. Dark Matter - So far we have no direct observation for dark matter. The dark matter might give some brief concept for the spiral disc. However it doesn't answer why the spiral has several segments as central bulge, Bar, Ring, spiral arms, outside the galaxy and why at each segment the orbital motion is so different. How can we explain all of that different observation with just single idea of dark matter? Please also be aware that for each galaxy there might be different formula for dark matter. Actually, the gravity force is relative to 1/R^2, while the dark matter is relative to R^3. So, the dark matter formula is quite complicated as it should linearize the R^2 based on R^3. How can we accept this idea??
4. Dark energy - We also don't see any dark energy. The whole idea is to explain why further galaxies are moving away from us at ultra high velocity. Is it real? Theory D can easily explain that observation without any need for Dark energy.
5. Accretion disc - our scientists clearly see that the matter in the accretion disc is ejected outwards. This is a real observation at any spiral galaxy that we see. However, after long search they have found galaxy at a distance of one billion LY from us. In that galaxy they have observed a gas ball in the size of Earth that is moving directly to the direction of the SMBH. So, they want us to believe that suddenly that gas cloud had been created due to internal collision between the rings in the accretion disc. However, due to the ultra high pressure in that ring, there is no way to set that kind of gas cloud. In any case they also  know that Nothing can bypass the accretion disc (above or below) as it moves to the SMBH. I have proved this idea.
6. The aria near the SMBH is full with gas cloud, new born stars systems and even with ten thousands of new born BH. The central bulge is pack with Billions of new born stars and dust. This is all based on real observation. If the SMBH wish to eat that matter, why it refuses to eat them all? What is the benefit for the SMBH to eat a star, than break its atoms to particles in a 10^9c plasma, just to eject 99% of that mater outwards from the accretion disc? However, it must first convert back the broken particles/atoms to real molecular, boost them in twin molecular jet stream at 0.8 c and then start again the whole new star forming activity. Is it real? Did we try to understand what the energy benefit is for the SMBH from this cycle?
7. Central bulge - We clearly see at this aria that each star (for example S stars) is orbiting at different direction and different plane around the SMBH. So, as they fall in, it is expected that each one of them should set a different plane of accretion disc. Therefore, it is expected to see several accretion discs around the SMBH - each accretion disc for each falling star. However, we clearly see that this is not the case with the any accretion disc around a SMBH. Therefore, this is one more observation that the SMBH does not eat any star or even any atom from outside.
8. Newton - Newton has proved by his cannon ball experimental that there is no way for an orbital object to increase its orbital velocity as it falls down. Therefore, stars couldn't migrate inwards from outside the galaxy to the center.  However, our scientists do believe that stars/objects can migrate inwards and increase their orbital velocity due to the conversion of potential energy to orbital kinetic energy. This idea totally contradicts Newton law.
9. New born stars in a gas cloud - Our scientists clearly say that high magnetic field is needed to start the activity in a gas cloud for a new born stars. The SMBH is the only available source for ultra high Magnetic field in the galaxy. We clearly see the new born star forming activity in the gas cloud G1-G6 near the SMBH. However, we almost have no real evidence for high magnetic field or star forming activity outside the Bulge and especially not outside the galaxy. However, for any star in the galaxy there is at least one outside. Actually, there are more stars outside the galaxies than in the galaxies. So, how those billions over billions of stars outside the galaxy had been formed without real source of magnetic field? The answer is very simple - all of those stars had been ejected from the galaxy. So, the galaxy does not take any star from outside just to be eaten. Over time it actually ejects outwards all the stars that had been formed in the galaxy.
10. Binary star system - Braycenter
Our scientists claim that based on clear observation all the new born stars in the gas clouds (as G1 to G6) share a braycenter with at least one more star. However, when it comes to our sun, suddenly they have forgotten this observation. Now, they have no clue about a braycenter. Therefore, they start to believe in bobbling.
11. Bobbling - There is no way for an orbital object to move in a bobbling movement up and down several times in one orbital cycle. This is a clear contradiction with Newton and kepler law. So how could our scientists believe in such science fiction?
Why they don't accept their own observation???

Do you need more points?

[Bored chemist]

Let me highlight some of the observations that contradict the BBT:

1. Energy - What is the source of energy that is needed for the BBT? This is the ultimate question for the BBT.

That's not a contradiction.
the simple answer is " we don't know". It's not as if we were there at the time taking measurements.

But I predict that Dave isn't even going to address the fact that he was wrong in the first few lines.

I was right.

[Bored chemist]

However it is stated: "The discovery also challenges the accepted model for galaxy formation, which has most galaxies slowly bulking up by absorbing pieces of other galaxies, rather than growing internally."
Based on this observation our scientists see that the galaxy is growing from internally.
Hence this observation contradicts the BBT. So, why this observation had been neglected?

How did you miss this bit?
"which has most galaxies ..."