[Bored chemist]

So, if it is full with hydrogen and the only force that can do it is magnetic force, why you still assume that the magnetic force can't grab Hydrogen or Helium from the plasma in the accretion disc?

I am not making an "assumption" that hydrogen isn't magnetic; I am making the observation that hydrogen is not magnetic.
You, on the other hand, are making the assumption that you are  right, based on the assumption that you are right.

Only one of us is doing science.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The gravity force is reducing as the particles in the plasma drifts outwards in the accretion disc.

So does the magnetic force. As a matter of fact, the force exerted by a magnetic field falls off faster than the force exerted by a gravitational field. Magnetic fields obey the inverse cube law, whereas gravity obeys the inverse square law. Doubling your distance from a magnetic field source will cause you to feel 2³ = 8 times less force than before, whereas doubling your distance from a gravitational field source will cause you to feel 2² = 4 times less force than before.

This means that you still have a problem. Both the magnetic field and the gravitational field will become stronger as you approach the black hole, but the magnetic field strength will increase at a faster rate than the gravitational field strength will. So if the magnetic field isn't strong enough to overwhelm the gravitational field right at the event horizon (where the particles are being formed), then it will be even less capable of overwhelming it at larger distances. This gives you two options:

(1) The particles formed at the event horizon are immediately funneled into polar jets, thus preventing an accretion disk from forming (remember, the magnetic field of your hypothetical magnetized black hole is going to be at its maximum possible strength right at the event horizon), or
(2) The magnetic field is weak enough even at the event horizon to allow particles to move through it without all of them being funneled into jets. If it's weak enough to allow particles out, then it is weak enough to allow particles in.

Thanks Kryptid for the excellent question.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.09677
"The most plausible theories for launching astrophysical jets rely on strong magnetic fields at the inner parts of the host accretion disks. An internal dynamo can in principle generate small scale magnetic fields in situ but generating a large scale field in a disk seems a difficult task in the dynamo theories."
So, they have an idea that: "An internal dynamo can in principle generate small scale magnetic fields.
Therefore, it is quite clear that the accretion ring generate local magnetic field that is used for bonding between the particles in that ring.
Hence, there are two main sources of magnetic field: the SMBH and the accretion ring..
The meaning of that is as follow:
If we could eliminate the whole accretion disc and leave there only one particle orbiting at the same velocity as the plasma does. In this case, without the local magnetic bonding of the accretion ring, the gravity by itself would be too weak to hold that particle and it would be ejected outwards immediately.
Therefore, the accretion disc holds the particles in the ring by its local magnetic field..
If I understand it correctly, the total mass in the accretion ring is about three Sun mass.
So, the gravity force that works at the accretion ring is not based on a particle vs SMBH but a 3 Sun mass Vs SMBH.
I would compare this senario to the 3KPC ring in the Milky Way galaxy.
It is quite clear to me that if we would eliminate that 3KPC ring at leave there only one star (orbiting at the same velocity as the ring) this star would be ejected immediately outwards from the galaxy. (as there is no dark matter in our Universe)
So, as long as there is a local bonding between the objects in the ring, that ring can hold and keep all the objects in the orbital cycle.
Hence,iIn the 3KPC ring the bonding force between all the nearby stars is based on local gravity force, while the bonding force between the nearby particles in the accretion ring is local magnetic field/force.
The outcome is the same.
Actually, I'm quite sure that if we would try to find the requested SMBH mass that could hold a single particle in the accretion disc, we would find that it should be significant higher than the real mass of the SMBH.
I wonder why our scientists don't even try to verify this important issue.

With regards to the SMBH' magnetic field:
In order to understand it, let's use the following example from our sun:
"Sun's magnetic field is ten times stronger than thought"
https://www.thehansindia.com/hans/young-hans/suns-magnetic-field-is-ten-times-stronger-than-thought-516981
"The Sun's magnetic field is ten times stronger than previously believed, according to study which can potentially change our understanding of the..."
So, if our scientists have made so severe mistake about the estimation of the Sun's magnetic field while we clearly can see that sun, how do we know that they don't have a sever mistake with the estimation of the SMBH magnetic field?
In any case, as we focus on the solar corona, we see that the matter that had been ejected from the sun is immediately captured by the magnetic field and form the famous corona structure.
In the same token, any particle that drifts away from the accretion ring is captured by the SMBH magnetic field.
Therefore, in order to answer your question:
The particles are drifting outwards in the accretion ring.
As long as they stay there, the SMBH' magnetic field can't pull them away.
However, as they get to the edge of the ring, the local magnetic bonding is quite weak. Therefore, they are easily disconnected from the ring and at that moment the SMBH' magnetic field grabs the ejected particles and boosts them at 0.8c in the direction of the poles.

[Kryptid]

So, if our scientists have made so severe mistake about the estimation of the Sun's magnetic field while we clearly can see that sun, how do we know that they don't have a sever mistake with the estimation of the SMBH magnetic field?

As a matter of fact, they did make just such a mistake: the magnetic field around black holes are weaker than we previously thought they would be: https://www.sciencealert.com/black-hole-magnetic-field-weaker-than-expected-v404-cygni

The particles are drifting outwards in the accretion ring.

This in itself doesn't make sense in light of the other claims that you've made. You say that objects which are orbiting at "close range" must move towards the object that they are orbiting over time (like Phobos and Mars). The particles created by the black hole are created at the event horizon, which is as close as you can possibly get to the black hole without falling in immediately. So those particles would be at "close range" according your reasoning and thus should not be capable of drifting away from the black hole to form an accretion disk in the first place.

[Bored chemist]

SMBH' magnetic field grabs the ejected particles

Magnetic fields do not grab hydrogen or helium.

So, if it is full with hydrogen and the only force that can do it is magnetic force, why you still assume that the magnetic force can't grab Hydrogen or Helium from the plasma in the accretion disc?

I am not making an "assumption" that hydrogen isn't magnetic; I am making the observation that hydrogen is not magnetic.
You, on the other hand, are making the assumption that you are  right, based on the assumption that you are right.

Only one of us is doing science.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The particles are drifting outwards in the accretion ring.

This in itself doesn't make sense in light of the other claims that you've made. You say that objects which are orbiting at "close range" must move towards the object that they are orbiting over time (like Phobos and Mars). The particles created by the black hole are created at the event horizon, which is as close as you can possibly get to the black hole without falling in immediately. So those particles would be at "close range" according your reasoning and thus should not be capable of drifting away from the black hole to form an accretion disk in the first place.

Well, there is a big difference between new created particles Vs planets & moons.
A particle is deeply affected by magnetic field. Planets & moons needs to obey only to gravity force.
So, how it really works:
The new positive particles pair with opposite charged are created near the event horizon.
They get their mass due to the energy transformation by electromagnetic field
Without that electromagnetic field, there will be no new created partiacles.
At the first brief moment of creation they both move at the speed of light at the same direction - which is the orbital direction.
However, due to Lorentz force, one is directed inwards and is used to increase the mass of the SMBH, while the other one is ejected outwards.
That particle join the accretion ring from inside.
Actually the location of the accretion ring is dictated by the magnetic field.
It is located in the ring between the poles.
Therefore, with regards to your question - as the magnetic field takes control, there is no meaning for "short range".

As a matter of fact, they did make just such a mistake: the magnetic field around black holes are weaker than we previously thought they would be: https://www.sciencealert.com/black-hole-magnetic-field-weaker-than-expected-v404-cygni

In this article it is stated:

"Black holes themselves don't have magnetic poles, and therefore don't generate magnetic fields."
I wonder why they claim such statement?
Do they really know how magnetic works at a BH or SMBH?
Why they can't estimate the poles could exchange at high frequency for example?
Actually, if BHs don't generate magnetic field, than how could it be that they have any sort of magnetic field?
They claim that:
"This means that the accretion disc corona magnetic fields are somehow generated by the space around a black hole - a process that is not well understood at this point."
So, now they hope that the space around the BH will generate a magnetic filed.
Is it real?
"The team's research did find that synchrotron processes dominated the cooling events, but could not provide data on what caused the particles to accelerate in the first place. It is, as one has come to expect from black holes, a finding that answers one question and turns up a lot more in need of further research."
"We need to understand black holes in general," said researcher Chris Packham of the University of Texas at San Antonio."
So, it is quite clear that our scientists have totally got lost.

In the following article it is also stated:
http://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Integral/Monster_black_hole_wakes_up_after_26_years
"In this type of binary system, material flows from the star towards the black hole and gathers in a disc, where it is heated up, shining brightly at optical, ultraviolet and X-ray wavelengths before spiralling into the black hole."
So, they take it for granted that the BH eats its star,.
However they don't give any real observation for this idea.
They just claim:
"The star is about half as massive as the Sun, and by studying the relative motion of the two objects in the binary system, it was determined that the companion must be a black hole, about twelve times more massive than the Sun."
They don't say what is the orbital radius and don't say if they really see matter that goes out from the star.
Somehow, they see flares - and they immediately believe that it's a diner time.

Sorry, once I could get the whole information about this binary star/BH, I would be able to give a real feedback on that.
In the article it is also stated:
"Previous research has shown that these coronae and the jets are controlled by powerful magnetic fields - and the stronger the magnetic fields close to the black hole's event horizon, the brighter its jets.
This is because the magnetic fields are thought to act like a synchrotron, accelerating the particles that travel through it."

In any case, this BH can't give any real indication if the Magnetic field of Milky Way' SMBH is low or high.

[Bored chemist]

Hydrogen is still not magnetic.

29 + 1 is still not 42.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Hydrogen is still not magnetic.

29 + 1 is still not 42.

Let's assume that Hydrogen is not magnetic and see what might be the outcome:

So, based on your idea, hydrogen could fall in without any interruption from the magnetic field.
Please also remember that our scientists assume that the SMBH's magnetic field is very low

Now, please look at all the orbital cycles of G gas clouds and s stars around the SMBH.
You would see that none of them share the same orbital plane.
So, if all the hydrogen from S2 would fall in, don't you agree that they should set an accretion disc which is identical to the orbital plane of S2?
In the same token, if the hydrogen from S1 would fall in, they also should set an accretion disc which is identical to the orbital plane of S1.
As the orbital plane of S1 is clearly different from S2, than based on your message, we had to see many accretion rings at different plane.
Do we see it?
We clearly see that the accretion disc is directly located between the magnetic poles.
Based on your theory, the SMBH magnetic force is very weak and it can't have any impact on Hydrogen.
So, how could it be that the accretion ring directly between the magnetic poles?

[Bored chemist]

Based on your theory, the SMBH magnetic force is very weak and it can't have any impact on Hydrogen.

Hydrogen is not magnetic so hydrogen atoms can fall through a magnetic field.
Is hydrogen the only thing present?
Well, obviously, no.
In particular there are free electrons and protons present.
Their path is changed by a magnetic field.
And, given plenty of opportunities for interactions, they will affect the path of neutral hydrogen by banging into them.

Do you understand how that's not the same as this?

the mighty magnetic felid that is used as a shield around it.

[Kryptid]

A particle is deeply affected by magnetic field.

Only if it is electrically-charged. Neutrons and neutrinos aren't.

I wonder why they claim such statement?

Because black holes have no hair: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem

[Bored chemist]

29 + 1 is still not 42.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:10:13
A particle is deeply affected by magnetic field.

Only if it is electrically-charged. Neutrons and neutrinos aren't.

That is correct.
So, do you confirm that as all the matter in the plasma is electrically-charged? Therefore, even if it is hydrogen or helium it must be affected by the magnetic field?

With regards to the hypothetical idea about uncharged matter that falls in from outside.
Let's assume that it falls in. However, in this case it must set an ultra flare which we can observe from our location. So, don't you agree that in this process it should get high charge?
Hence, do you confirm that any uncharged matter that falls in should be charged (in that flare) as it falls in?
If you still insist for "no", then would you kindly answer my question:

please look at all the orbital cycles of G gas clouds and s stars around the SMBH.
You would see that none of them share the same orbital plane.
So, if all the hydrogen from S2 would fall in, don't you agree that they should set an accretion disc which is identical to the orbital plane of S2?
In the same token, if the hydrogen from S1 would fall in, they also should set an accretion disc which is identical to the orbital plane of S1.
As the orbital plane of S1 is clearly different from S2, than based on your message, we had to see many accretion rings at different plane.
Do we see it?
We clearly see that the accretion disc is directly located between the magnetic poles.
Based on your theory, the SMBH magnetic force is very weak and it can't have any impact on Hydrogen.
So, how could it be that the accretion ring directly between the magnetic poles?

"Black holes themselves don't have magnetic poles, and therefore don't generate magnetic fields."
I wonder why they claim such statement?

Because black holes have no hair: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem

In the article it is stated that this idea is an assumption:
"There is still no rigorous mathematical proof of a general no-hair theorem, and mathematicians refer to it as the no-hair conjecture. "
So, how our scientists can claim that the BH/SMBH has no magnetic field based on this unproved assumption?
Actually, we clearly observe the impact of the magnetic field:
1. The Jet stream (Molecular are boosted at almost 0.8c up to 27,000 Ly directly above/below the magnetic poles.
Please remember that it is stated that it looks: "like magnetic field that kept it tightly focused"
So, as our scientists claim that there is no magnetic field, which kind of force can set this molecular jet stream?
2. Accretion disc - The accretion disc is located exactly between the magnetic poles?
So, if it is not magnetic field, why the accretion disc is located directly between the poles?
Which kind of force can set the accretion directly between the magnetic poles?

It almost seems to me that I ask:
What is green outside, red inside and has no seeds of watermelon?

[Bored chemist]

So, do you confirm that as all the matter in the plasma is electrically-charged?

No.

However, in this case it must set an ultra flare

Why?
If I chucked a handful of dust into the disk it would light up, but seeing it from Earth isn't realistic.

If you still insist for "no", then would you kindly answer my question:

Your questions are based on a lack of understanding of science.

2. Accretion disc - The accretion disc is located exactly between the magnetic poles?
So, if it is not magnetic field, why the accretion disc is located directly between the poles?
Which kind of force can set the accretion directly between the magnetic poles?

Did it occur to you that the disk might be the cause of the magnetic field?

[Kryptid]

So, do you confirm that as all the matter in the plasma is electrically-charged? Therefore, even if it is hydrogen or helium it must be affected by the magnetic field?

The plasma would very likely not have a net electric charge. Not all of the matter around a black hole is plasma either. There is a low density of neutral hydrogen molecules spread throughout space.

So, don't you agree that in this process it should get high charge?

No, because that would violate conservation of electric charge.

As the orbital plane of S1 is clearly different from S2, than based on your message, we had to see many accretion rings at different plane.
Do we see it?

I'm not sure that we've ever taken a high-resolution photograph of the accretion disk around a black hole, so such a thing may indeed be possible.

We clearly see that the accretion disc is directly located between the magnetic poles.

Evidence?

So, if it is not magnetic field, why the accretion disc is located directly between the poles?

Who said it is?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Not all of the matter around a black hole is plasma either.

Well, I only focus in the matter that exists in the accretion disc.
So, do you agree that in the accretion disc there is only hot plasma??

 

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:54:07
As the orbital plane of S1 is clearly different from S2, than based on your message, we had to see many accretion rings at different plane.
Do we see it?

I'm not sure that we've ever taken a high-resolution photograph of the accretion disk around a black hole, so such a thing may indeed be possible.

I do appreciate this honest reply.
So, if we assume that the accretion ring is horizontally and the next falling star orbits vertically, it is possible to get two accretion rings that are orthogonal to each other.
On the other hand, if the accretion ring orbits clockwise and the falling star is directly at the same plane but orbits on the other direction, than do you agree that the falling matter must set a new accretion ring on the other direction of the current accretion ring?
Do we see such observations?
Don't you confirm that the accretion ring is very thin, compressed and always orbits at the same direction?

So, don't you agree that this issue by itself is solid evidence that NOTHING could fall in?

Would you kindly answer the following?

1. The Jet stream (Molecular are boosted at almost 0.8c up to 27,000 Ly directly above/below the magnetic poles.
Please remember that it is stated that it looks: "like magnetic field that kept it tightly focused"
So... which kind of force could set this molecular jet stream?

Do you confirm that the only force that can set this molecular jet stream is magnetic force?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:54:07
We clearly see that the accretion disc is directly located between the magnetic poles.

Evidence?

The Molecular jet stream is the Ultimate evidence.

[Kryptid]

So, do you agree that in the accretion disc there is only hot plasma??

In the inner portion, probably. In the outer portion, no.

On the other hand, if the accretion ring orbits clockwise and the falling star is directly at the same plane but orbits on the other direction, than do you agree that the falling matter must set a new accretion ring on the other direction of the current accretion ring?

Maybe, assuming the two rings are sufficiently distant from each other not to collide.

Do we see such observations?
Don't you confirm that the accretion ring is very thin, compressed and always orbits at the same direction?

I already told you that I doubt we have any photographs at high enough resolution to see that.

So, don't you agree that this issue by itself is solid evidence that NOTHING could fall in?

No.

Do you confirm that the only force that can set this molecular jet stream is magnetic force?

That is the consensus, yes.

The Molecular jet stream is the Ultimate evidence.

...how?

The rings of Saturn are between its poles too, but that doesn't have anything to do with Saturn's magnetic field (the rings are made of ice).

By the way, how do you explain the observation of stars and black holes orbiting each other where the black hole is sucking streams of gas from the star into an accretion disk if you claim that the accretion disk actually comes out of the black hole itself?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 03:27:09
Do you confirm that the only force that can set this molecular jet stream is magnetic force?

That is the consensus, yes.

Thanks
So you agree that there is high possibility that the only force which can set this molecular jet stream is magnetic force.
In this case, don't you agree that the jet stream must be fully aligned with the magnetic poles?
So, we have clear indications for the magnetic poles directions.
https://insider.si.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/hires1.jpg
Therefore, as long as the accretion disc orbits at the galactic plane, than it is considered as orbiting between the galactic poles.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 03:27:09
The Molecular jet stream is the Ultimate evidence.

...how?
The rings of Saturn are between its poles too, but that doesn't have anything to do with Saturn's magnetic field (the rings are made of ice).

Therefore, I have stated that the jet stream is ultimate evidence.
You can't compare between rings of Saturn to the accretion ring.
Those rings of Saturn had been created by broken moon/moons.
The accretion ring is made out of new created matter/plasma.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 03:27:09
So, do you agree that in the accretion disc there is only hot plasma??

In the inner portion, probably. In the outer portion, no.

Why are you so sure about it?
How can we see the inner portion of the accretion disc while we both located at the galactic plane and therefore we see it from the size?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 03:27:09
Do we see such observations?
Don't you confirm that the accretion ring is very thin, compressed and always orbits at the same direction?

I already told you that I doubt we have any photographs at high enough resolution to see that.

How could it be that we see the inner portion of the accretion disc, we monitor the temp by location, however, we can't  get further information about it as orbital direction and thickness.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 03:27:09
So, don't you agree that this issue by itself is solid evidence that NOTHING could fall in?

No.

Why no?
Do you reconfirm that the accretion ring of falling star should keep the orbital plane of the star?
Do you agree that we have never ever found two orbital planes of accretion rings?
Therefore, that by itself is solid evidence that stars never ever fall in.

By the way, how do you explain the observation of stars and black holes orbiting each other where the black hole is sucking streams of gas from the star into an accretion disk if you claim that the accretion disk actually comes out of the black hole itself?

You have good questions.
So, let me ask the following:
What do we really see?
Do we really see black hole that is sucking streams of gas from its twin star?
Do we see that stream of gas is going out from the star and moving falling into the BH accretion ring or do we just see an image without the ability to understand the direction of the gas flow?
You have already stated that:

I already told you that I doubt we have any photographs at high enough resolution to see that.

So how do we know for sure in which direction the gas really flows?
Can you please offer even one real observation that could justify by 100% the assumption that black hole is sucking streams of gas from the star?

I claim that there is no hot plasma accretion disc in our universe.
Any hot plasma accretion disc (around BH/SMBH) is actually excretion disc.
Therefore, if we see gas between BH' accretion disc to a nearby star, the gas flow is actually on the other direction - from the accretion disc to the star.

[Bored chemist]

The accretion ring is made out of new created matter/plasma.

Begging the question is a logical fallacy.
Were you hoping we wouldn't notice it?

Do you agree that we have never ever found two orbital planes of accretion rings?
Therefore, that by itself is solid evidence that stars never ever fall in.

I am not sure we have even found one.
So not having found two isn't evidence of anything.

Any hot plasma accretion disc (around BH/SMBH) is actually excretion disc.

No it isn't.

[Bored chemist]

Did it occur to you that the disk might be the cause of the magnetic field?

[Kryptid]

In this case, don't you agree that the jet stream must be fully aligned with the magnetic poles?

Presumably.

So, we have clear indications for the magnetic poles directions.
https://insider.si.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/hires1.jpg

Is that a photograph or artwork? The accretion disk is not at a 90 degree angle to the jets in that image anyway.

Therefore, I have stated that the jet stream is ultimate evidence.

And I asked you how, yet you didn't answer my question.

You can't compare between rings of Saturn to the accretion ring.
Those rings of Saturn had been created by broken moon/moons.
The accretion ring is made out of new created matter/plasma.

So what? You said that the position of the accretion disk at a 90 degree angle to the jets is due to magnetism, and I showed you an example of where that can happen without any magnetism involved.

Why no?

Because you have demonstrated no such thing. It's a non-sequitur.

Do you reconfirm that the accretion ring of falling star should keep the orbital plane of the star?

Not necessarily.

Do you agree that we have never ever found two orbital planes of accretion rings?

I don't think we've ever found that there was only one, either.

Therefore, that by itself is solid evidence that stars never ever fall in.

That's like arguing that asteroids can't fall into Saturn's atmosphere because Saturn's rings are only in one plane.

Therefore, if we see gas between BH' accretion disc to a nearby star, the gas flow is actually on the other direction - from the accretion disc to the star.

So what are you saying then? That the star itself was formed from the accretion disk of the black hole? By the way, what do you propose is the relationship between a black hole's mass and the size/brightness of its accretion disk/jets? Do larger black holes emit more radiation and have larger disks, or the other way around?

Going back to what I was saying earlier about the magnetic field of the black hole keeping particles from forming an accretion disk: it seems that you were invoking the magnetic field of the accretion disk itself as a way to help get those particles away from the black hole's magnetic field. But what about before the accretion disk has even formed? Immediately after the black hole forms, it will not have produced an accretion disk yet. If there is no accretion disk magnetic field to help those particles get past the black hole's magnetic field, then the particles can't get out and must be forced into jets instead of forming an accretion disk.

[Bored chemist]

Art
https://scitechdaily.com/gamma-ray-beams-suggest-milky-ways-central-black-hole-had-active-past/

"This artist’s conception shows an edge-on view of the Milky Way galaxy. Newly discovered gamma-ray jets (pink) extend for 27,000 light-years above and below the galactic plane, and are tilted at an angle of 15 degrees. Previously known gamma-ray bubbles are shown in purple. The bubbles and jets suggest that our galactic center was much more active in the past than it is today. Credit: David A. Aguilar CfA ()"