[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.

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

Let me focus on this issue.
The idea that the accretion disc could generate magnetic field is totally wrong!!!
As the accretion disc is affected by the magnetic field, it can't generate that field for itself.
Let me compare the accretion disc to the following two examples -
1. The rotor in electric motor - The rotor rotates due to magnetic field that comes from outside. So, if we could hold it in the space without any impact from magnetic field that comes from outside, it clearly won't rotate. So the rotor can't rotate and generate the requested magnetic field that is requested for its rotation.
2. Solar wind - We clearly see the solar wind above the poles of our Earth. So, if we will use your assumption, we could claim that the solar wind create the magnetic field that is needed to push it to the earth poles..

Sorry - if the accretion disc is affected by the magnetic field, than it can't be the cause for that field!!!


On the other hand, we also clearly see the Molecular jet stream.
Based on our scientists - 10,000 solar mass had been boosted at 0.8c to a distance of 27,000 Ly above and below the magnetic poles of the SMBH
We already confirmed that this molecular jet stream is due to magnetic field.
So, is it due to the accretion disc magnetic field or due to the SMBH' magnetic field?.
How anyone could even think that an accretion disc with its only 3 Sun mass can do such incredible activity?
How the accretion disc could push away its own mass (it has only 3 Sun mass and it is needed to push 10,000 solar mass) at that ultra velocity (0.8c - while in the outwards disc/ring it only orbits at 0.3c) and to that distance (27,000 Ly while its size is less than one hour Ly) and all of that - by its own magnetic field that had been created by its own mass?

Don't you see that this is a pure fiction? So do you agree by now that ONLY the SMBH' magnetic force with its 4 Million solar mass could do it? 

[Bored chemist]

As the accretion disc is affected by the magnetic field, it can't generate that field for itself.

That is exactly the situation with the Earth's magnetic field.
Are you saying the Earth can not have one?

Let me compare the accretion disc to the following two examples -

Why not compare it to something appropriate?
https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/self-exciting-dynamo

Don't you see that this is a pure fiction?

What I see is that you do not understand enough science to comment on it.
If you did then you wouldn't say things like "Sorry - if the accretion disc is affected by the magnetic field, than it can't be the cause for that field!!!"

Incidentally, 1+29 still isn't 42

[Kryptid]

The idea that the accretion disc could generate magnetic field is totally wrong!!!

Therefore, it is quite clear that the accretion ring generate local magnetic field that is used for bonding between the particles in that ring.

Congratulations on contradicting yourself.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The idea that the accretion disc could generate magnetic field is totally wrong!!!

Therefore, it is quite clear that the accretion ring generate local magnetic field that is used for bonding between the particles in that ring.

Congratulations on contradicting yourself.

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.
In the accretion disc at a very local area (at the size of Pico Millimeter or Centimeter), the particles are bonded by magnetic field. The source for that magnetic could come directly from the SMBH' itself or could be created locally as a side effect from the ultra orbital velocity of the hot plasma under the impact of the SMBH' magnetic field.
However, that local magnetic field has no impact on the activity outside the accretion disc.
So, once a particle is ejected from the accretion disc, it would be trapped by the Mighty SMBH' magnetic field and should fully obey to this force.

That is exactly the situation with the Earth's magnetic field.

The earth magnetic field doesn't blow its own mass away.
It affects the solar wind that comes from the Sun.

Why not compare it to something appropriate?
https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/self-exciting-dynamo

How can you compare it to self-exciting dynamo?

What I see is that you do not understand enough science to comment on it.
If you did then you wouldn't say things like "Sorry - if the accretion disc is affected by the magnetic field, than it can't be the cause for that field!!!"

What I see is that if you believe that a 3 Sun mass accretion disc would tear up 10,000 sun mass from its own mass and blow it at 0.8c to 27,000 Ly above/below the disc than I have nothing to add.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:03:34
In this case, don't you agree that the jet stream must be fully aligned with the magnetic poles?

Presumably.

Thanks

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

That is correct.

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 ()"

So, it is tilted at an angle of 15 degrees.

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.

I claim that if the jet stream is tilted at an angle of 15 degrees than also the accretion disc should be tilted at the same angle of 15 degrees.

So what are you saying then? That the star itself was formed from the accretion disk of the black hole?

No.
A compact BH won't be able to form a Star.
In order to do so it must be big enough as SMBH or at least MBH.
This compact Twin Star/BH had been created by a SMBH.
The gas that we see between the two objects had been created by the BH Itself during its own pair creation process.
Some portion of the gas might fall into the Star, but most of it would spread into the open space.

Do larger black holes emit more radiation and have larger disks?

Sure
Over time, a BH would gain enough mass to form its own stars and galaxy.

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.

As usual, you have excellent questions.
So, first - the accretion disc can't produce any sort of real magnetic field (comparing to the BH' magnetic field).
Therefore, we can totally neglect the accretion disc as a source of magnetic field.
If there is no accretion disk (again - please ignore the accretion disc magnetic field) to capture the new created particles that had been ejected from the BH, then those new created particles should be forced into jets instead of forming an accretion disk.
However, at some point, as the BH would be big enough, it would surely be able to set its own accretion disc.
The accretion disc is vital to convert the new created particles to real atoms and Molecular

[Bored chemist]

The earth magnetic field doesn't blow its own mass away.

Nobody said it would.
That's just some bull you made up.

How can you compare it to self-exciting dynamo?

because a self  exciting dynamo exists and the rotation  creates the field that makes it work.
Which means it is a counter example to your misstatement

As the accretion disc is affected by the magnetic field, it can't generate that field for itself.

It really would be better if you learned some science.

And some arithmetic.
29 +1 is not 42

[Kryptid]

However, at some point, as the BH would be big enough, it would surely be able to set its own accretion disc.

How? That doesn't solve this problem:

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.

I claim that if the jet stream is tilted at an angle of 15 degrees than also the accretion disc should be tilted at the same angle of 15 degrees.

That's the claim, but where is the evidence?

However, that local magnetic field has no impact on the activity outside the accretion disc.

That ignores the inverse cube law that magnetism obeys. The magnetic field doesn't magically drop to zero just because you are outside of the accretion disk.

Sure
Over time, a BH would gain enough mass to form its own stars and galaxy.

So your model predicts that a black hole with 100 solar masses emits more radiation than one with 10 solar masses, which in turn emits more radiation than one with 3 solar masses and so on?

So, first - the accretion disc can't produce any sort of real magnetic field (comparing to the BH' magnetic field).

Do you have the math to back that up?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.

I thought that I have already answered this issue:

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 scenario 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, in 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.

However, as it is still not clear enough, let me explain it as follow:
The orbital velocity at the accretion disc is too high to hold a single particle without the accretion disc.
As I have explained, the particles hold each other by local magnetic force.
Therefore, they can still hold themselves at the ultra high orbital velocity of the accretion disc.
So, if we eliminate the accretion disc, and leave there only a single particle orbiting at the same orbital velocity of the accretion disc, it would be ejected immediately.
Actually, I have already set a calculation for that based on the data which Malamute had offered.
I have found that in order to hold a particle only by the SMBH' gravity force, the requested mass of the SMBH should be significantly higher.
Therefore, as long as the particle is in the accretion disc, it must fully obey to the local forces at that disc.
However, once it is ejected from the accretion disc, the gravity force can't hold it there anymore and therefore, the magnetic force has no competition with the gravity force and it can grab it and boosts it to the magnetic poles.
So, there is no competition between the SMBH' magnetic field to SMBH' gravity force.

With regards to the SMBH' magnetic field:
The SMBH' magnetic field is much more complex than any other example that we can find.
Please look at the following image:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field#/media/File:VFPt_dipole_electric.svg
We see the magnetic pole model: two opposing poles, North (+) and South (−), separated by a distance d produce a H-field (lines).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field
It seems to me that somehow the SMBH sets imaginary magnetic poles high above its real matter.
So, if we assume that the imaginary SMBH' North (+) and South (−) are located at a distance of 27,000 Ly away from the SMBH itself, than this could explain why the jet stream is moving at ultra velocity of 0.8c to that imaginary Poles location high above the disc.
This can explain why the magnetic force is still so strong after the location of the accretion disc.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 18:15:40
I claim that if the jet stream is tilted at an angle of 15 degrees than also the accretion disc should be tilted at the same angle of 15 degrees.

That's the claim, but where is the evidence?

You have offered the evidence.
If I recall it correctly, you have stated that we know something about the inner section of the accretion disc.
If the accretion disc was exactly at the same plane as the galactic disc, we surly won't be able to get any information from inside.
So, In order to see something from inside, it must be tilted at the same angle of 15 degrees as the jet stream.

That ignores the inverse cube law that magnetism obeys. The magnetic field doesn't magically drop to zero just because you are outside of the accretion disk.

The forces at the accretion disc (including the local magnetic field) are direct outcome of the conditions in the accretion disc under the impact of the SMBH' magnetic field.
So, once the particle is outside that disc, it is not effected any more by the forces at the accretion disc including the local magnetic forces that works up to a very limited distances even at the accretion disc

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 18:15:40
So, first - the accretion disc can't produce any sort of real magnetic field (comparing to the BH' magnetic field).

Do you have the math to back that up?

Do we really need a math?
Don't you agree that as the mass of the Sun is much higher than the earth mass, it surly generates higher magnetic field?
As the SMBH' mass is 4,000,000 Sun mass while in the accretion disc there is just 3 sun mass, which one should generate higher magnetic field?

[Kryptid]

I thought that I have already answered this issue:

No. Remember, we are talking about the moment of the black hole's creation where there is no accretion disk.

The orbital velocity at the accretion disc is too high to hold a single particle without the accretion disc.

If that's the case, then an accretion disk can never form because none of the particles can ever be held there.

Therefore, they can still hold themselves at the ultra high orbital velocity of the accretion disc.
So, if we eliminate the accretion disc, and leave there only a single particle orbiting at the same orbital velocity of the accretion disc, it would be ejected immediately.

And that's why there is a problem if the black hole has just formed. There is no accretion disk so there is no mechanism by which you can produce one.

If I recall it correctly, you have stated that we know something about the inner section of the accretion disc.

That's awfully vague.

If the accretion disc was exactly at the same plane as the galactic disc, we surly won't be able to get any information from inside.
So, In order to see something from inside, it must be tilted at the same angle of 15 degrees as the jet stream.

I wasn't talking about an accretion disk being at a different angle to the galactic plane. I was talking about its angle relative to the jets.

So, once the particle is outside that disc, it is not effected any more by the forces at the accretion disc including the local magnetic forces that works up to a very limited distances even at the accretion disc

It's as if you completely ignored this:

That ignores the inverse cube law that magnetism obeys. The magnetic field doesn't magically drop to zero just because you are outside of the accretion disk.

Do we really need a math?

Yes. You haven't even shown us a good reason to believe that black holes have a magnetic field, much less how strong it is.

Don't you agree that as the mass of the Sun is much higher than the earth mass, it surly generates higher magnetic field?

That has absolutely nothing to do with the magnetic field strength. Magnetism is not caused by mass. We have machines on Earth that can generate magnetic fields many, many times stronger than the Earth's field, and yet they are obviously many, many times less massive than the Earth.

As the SMBH' mass is 4,000,000 Sun mass while in the accretion disc there is just 3 sun mass, which one should generate higher magnetic field?

The accretion disk, given that the black hole doesn't have a mechanism to generate such a field in the first place.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:32:51
Don't you agree that as the mass of the Sun is much higher than the earth mass, it surly generates higher magnetic field?

That has absolutely nothing to do with the magnetic field strength. Magnetism is not caused by mass. We have machines on Earth that can generate magnetic fields many, many times stronger than the Earth's field, and yet they are obviously many, many times less massive than the Earth.

Let's try to understand how does the Earth generate magnetic field?

https://cosmosmagazine.com/geoscience/what-creates-earth-s-magnetic-field/
The Earth's core works like a giant bicycle dynamo in reverse.
"Magnetic fields around planets behave in the same way as a bar magnet. But at high temperatures, metals lose their magnetic properties. So it’s clear that Earth’s hot iron core isn’t what creates the magnetic field around our planet.

Instead, Earth’s magnetic field is caused by a dynamo effect.

The effect works in the same way as a dynamo light on a bicycle. Magnets in the dynamo start spinning when the bicycle is pedalled, creating an electric current. The electricity is then used to turn on the light.
This process also works in reverse. If you have a rotating electric current, it will create a magnetic field. "
So, it is stating: "If you have a rotating electric current, it will create a magnetic field.
They also explain:
"On Earth, flowing of liquid metal in the outer core of the planet generates electric currents. The rotation of Earth on its axis causes these electric currents to form a magnetic field which extends around the planet. "
So we understand that the outer core of the planet generates electric currents.
But why do we have current in the plasma of the accretion disc?
The Earth's core works like a giant bicycle dynamo in reverse.
That disc has no core. So, how it could act as a dynamo without a core and how it could generate any sort of current?
If it can't generate current, it is clear that it can't generate magnetic field.
On the other hand we know that there is high current at the accretion disc that transformed the matter there into hot plasma.
So, what is the source of the energy that gets into the accretion disc?
You always raise the flag of energy conservation.
So, how could it be that a falling star or cold gas cloud get to that ultra high temp and high current and be converted to hot plasma?
There is ONLY one solution for that.
The energy that transformed the matter in the accretion disc to hot plasma Must come from outside.
Magnetic field is the only valid way to transform the requested energy into the accretion disc.
That magnetic field must come from outside.
So, in order for the accretion disc to get to that high temp and high current don't you agree that this magnetic field must come from outside?
Please look at the following image:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysical_jet#/media/File:Galaxies-AGN-Inner-Structure.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysical_jet
"The environment around the AGN where the relativistic plasma is collimated into jets which escape along the pole(s) of the suppermassive black hole.
They specifically claim for "the pole(s) of the suppermassive black hole."
So, those poles of the SMBH are the indication of the magnetic poles.
We also see that the accretion disc is clearly orthogonal to those SMBH' poles as I have already expected.
Where are the magnetic poles of the accretion disc?
I still can't understand how you even think that the accretion disc could generate any real amplitude of magnetic field?
It is only a disc. Do you really think that the orbital momentum of that disc by itself would create high magnetic field while it has no core or dynamo?
So, why are you so sure that the accretion disc (with its 3 sun mass) could generate the requested energy that can heat its matter to hot plasma at almost 10^9 K sets high current there and also create Ultra high magnetic field that could boosts 10,000 Sun mass from its disc to that molecular jet stream at 0.8c up to 27,000 LY?
You ask for mathematic calculation. So where is the calculation of the accretion magnetic field?
What is the source of energy at the accretion disc for all of that activity?
Why don't you care about energy conservation when it comes to the accretion disc

On the other hand, as we already know that the core of the earth is a key element in the dynamo, why can't we assume that if the core would be bigger, then it should generate higher magnetic field?

So, if we take a super earth, (with 10 times the earth mass) and therefore, its core would be bigger than the earth core, why it couldn't generate higher magnetic field than the Earth??
Don't you agree that the core of the Sun should be bigger than the core of the earth? So, why the Sun couldn't generate higher magnetic field than the Earth?
In the same token - Why a BH with 10 Sun mass couldn't generate higher magnetic field than the Sun?
Or, why SMBH couldn't generate higher magnetic field than a BH?

[Bored chemist]

Imagine that you somehow drilled a tiny hole through the centre of the Earth from pole to pole. (I know it's impossible; I don't care. This is a thought experiment)
Would the Earth's entire magnetic field suddenly vanish?
It would be hard to see why- especially since right at the centre, ther stuff isn't moving and by symmetry, there's no current flow there.

But you would have turned the Earth into a disk with a hole in the middle (OK, a very fat "disk").
And it would still have a magnetic field, maintained by a self exciting dynamo.

And, since it works for a rather thick disk, there's no reason why it wouldn't work for a thin one.
So most of your post is built on sand.

[Bored chemist]

So, why the Sun couldn't generate higher magnetic field than the Earth?

The field strength at the Sun's surface is about twice that at the Earths surface and(obviously) the Sun is much bigger so the total energy stored in the Sun's field is much bigger.
Nobody had suggested otherwise.

Why a BH with 10 Sun mass couldn't generate higher magnetic field than the Sun?

Because it hasn't got a core; it's a point.

[Kryptid]

But why do we have current in the plasma of the accretion disc?

Because it's a moving, electrically-conducting fluid.

So, what is the source of the energy that gets into the accretion disc?
You always raise the flag of energy conservation.
So, how could it be that a falling star or cold gas cloud get to that ultra high temp and high current and be converted to hot plasma?

Gravitational potential energy is converted into heat.

There is ONLY one solution for that.
The energy that transformed the matter in the accretion disc to hot plasma Must come from outside.
Magnetic field is the only valid way to transform the requested energy into the accretion disc.

Nope.

I still can't understand how you even think that the accretion disc could generate any real amplitude of magnetic field?

Because it's a moving, electrically-conducting fluid. That generates a magnetic field. If it didn't, then the Tokamak fusion reactor wouldn't be able to use magnetic fields to hold the plasma inside. That plasma has the same ring shape as an accretion disk.

So, why are you so sure that the accretion disc (with its 3 sun mass)

Magnetism is not caused by mass.

could generate the requested energy that can heat its matter to hot plasma at almost 10^9 K sets high current there and also create Ultra high magnetic field that could boosts 10,000 Sun mass from its disc to that molecular jet stream at 0.8c up to 27,000 LY?

Physicists have done simulations of it, but you don't accept simulations as valid evidence for some reason.

Why don't you care about energy conservation when it comes to the accretion disc

That's a lie.

On the other hand, as we already know that the core of the earth is a key element in the dynamo, why can't we assume that if the core would be bigger, then it should generate higher magnetic field?

Because that depends upon the Earth's rotation rate as well.

In the same token - Why a BH with 10 Sun mass couldn't generate higher magnetic field than the Sun?
Or, why SMBH couldn't generate higher magnetic field than a BH?

Because (1) naturally-occurring black holes have no known mechanism by which they can generate any significant magnetic field, and (2) you have yet to provide such a plausible mechanism.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 12:44:39
So, what is the source of the energy that gets into the accretion disc?
You always raise the flag of energy conservation.
So, how could it be that a falling star or cold gas cloud get to that ultra high temp and high current and be converted to hot plasma?

Gravitational potential energy is converted into heat.

Well, I disagree with that statement due to the following:

1. We are monitoring the milky way accretion disc for the last 10 years or even more than that.
If I recall it correctly, so far we haven't find any falling in object into the milky way accretion disc.
Therefore, we can claim that at least for the last 10 years we didn't observe any matter that falls in.
However, during this quite long time, the accretion disc keeps its radius, keeps its very hot plasma and even generate ultra high magnetic force.
So, what it the source of energy for that activity?
How could it be that in the last 10 years the plasma is still so hot, It even generate ultra high magnetic field that can boosts the particles upwards at 0.8c and all of that without any observed falling in star or gas cloud?
How could it be that we get all of that energy out of nothing as nothing falls in?

2. Magnetohydrodynamics

Because it's a moving, electrically-conducting fluid. That generates a magnetic field. If it didn't, then the Tokamak fusion reactor wouldn't be able to use magnetic fields to hold the plasma inside. That plasma has the same ring shape as an accretion disk.

In the following articale we can get some more information about the magnetic properties and behavior of electrically conducting fluids:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamics
Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD; also magneto-fluid dynamics or hydro­magnetics) is the study of the magnetic properties and behavior of electrically conducting fluids. Examples of such magneto­fluids include plasmas, liquid metals, salt water, and electrolytes.
It is also stated:
The main quantities which characterize the electrically conducting fluid are the bulk plasma velocity field v, the current density J, the mass density ρ, and the plasma pressure p.
So, the electrically conducting fluid is the bulk plasma velocity field v, the current density J, the mass density ρ, and the plasma pressure p.
Don't you agree that all of those characterizations are based on the local forces at the plasma?
So which one is affected by any sort of falling matter.
Velocity - I hope that you agree that it is due to the radius, so it is not due to falling star.
The current density J, the mass density ρ, and the plasma pressure p  - are they due to falling star?
So, if none of that characterization is due to falling matter/star - then we can claim that the electrically conducting fluid is not affected by any sort of falling star/matter.
As "The flowing electric charge in the plasma is the source of a magnetic field B and electric field E."
Then we can also claim that the magnetic field B and electric field E isn't due to falling star.

3. Magnetohydrodynamics. poles
In that article they don't say even one word about the Magnetohydrodynamics poles. So how do we know for sure that the magnetic poles of the accretion disc are located directly at the direction of the jet stream. Actually, you have stated that there is no relationship between the two. So, which kind of magnetic force had set the molecular jet stream?
I still wonder how we know that this Magnetohydrodynamics could set enough force to set that jet stream

4. Accretion disc shape
Please remember that the chance that any falling star/gas would be fully directed with the accretion disc plane is less than one to one million or billiom.
However, we have never ever found in the whole Universe any sort of accretion disc which isn't a disc.
Therefore, the chance that the accretion disc is due to falling matter is also less than zero.

5. Potential energy Vs orbital energy vectors
I have already explained that in a falling matter, potential energy can't be converted to orbital kinetic energy.
The direction of potential energy is always directly into the center of the main mass. Therefore, it works vertically.
So, if we drop an object above high above the SMBH, that object could convert its potential energy into falling kinetic energy. Again - vertical falling in velocity.
However, the orbital velocity is horizontal to the center. Therefore, the vertical potential energy can't be converted into any sort of horizontal orbital velocity.
I'm quite sure that that you would claim for different potential energies vs orbital energies in elliptical orbit.
That is totally different scenario as it doesn't represent a falling star/matter but a star in elliptical orbital cycle.
So, I agree that in elliptical orbit there is transformation of energy during the orbital cycle, but that is correct as long as it keeps coming to the same spot (or even almost the same spot) every full cycle. That is the based for Kepler law.
However, if you break down the elliptical orbital cycle and wish that it will reduce its radius, and even set a pure circular orbit while gaining faster orbital velocity at lower radius  - that is a pure imagination.
Even if we go back to that moon that is called Phobos, I still wonder if it really could move faster as it drifts in (although it is located at "short range".
Why our scientists didn't monitor its orbital velocity while they monitor its full cycle time?
In any case, all those stars as S stars and G gas cloud are located at "long range" and therefore, none of them would be able to drift inwards and located its whole mass at the accretion disc at supper high velocity.

[Bored chemist]

If I recall it correctly, so far we haven't find any falling in object into the milky way accretion disc.

I haven't seen Australia, but I still believe it exists.

You are saying that we haven't seen dust 25,000 light years away.
If we ignore your impossible ideas then the only way that anything could be part of the accretion disk is that it's falling in.
And, if we see that disk at all, then what we are seeing is objects that have fallen in.
So to the extent that it's possible to see them; we can.

Velocity - I hope that you agree that it is due to the radius, so it is not due to falling star.

We recognise that you hope that we will abandon science for your fairy tale, but you should realise that it's not going to happen.

[Bored chemist]

I have already explained that in a falling matter, potential energy can't be converted to orbital kinetic energy.
The direction of potential energy is always directly into the center of the main mass. Therefore, it works vertically.
So, if we drop an object above high above the SMBH, that object could convert its potential energy into falling kinetic energy.

I have already explained why this is wrong.

[Kryptid]

The lengths you go to in order to deny non-controversial science is amazing.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

If I recall it correctly, so far we haven't find any falling in object into the milky way accretion disc.

If we ignore your impossible ideas then the only way that anything could be part of the accretion disk is that it's falling in.
And, if we see that disk at all, then what we are seeing is objects that have fallen in.
So to the extent that it's possible to see them; we can.

If you insist to believe in the current impossible idea, then the only way that anything could be part of the accretion disk is that it's falling in.
However, in this case, any falling star should set its unique accretion disc.
How many accretion discs per SMBH do we see?
How could it be that so many stars and gas could fall in and all of them will fall directly on the same accretion disc at the galactic center - while we know that almost none of the S stars and G gas orbit directly at the galactic center.

I haven't seen Australia, but I still believe it exists.

You also haven't seen the Big Foot Man, so do you still believe it exists?
How long time is needed for you and the whole science community in order to understand that nothing really falls in?
We are waiting now for at least 10 Year.
So, if in the next 100 Year, nothing would fall in, do you still believe it exists?
I have offered five points against the falling in matter.

The lengths you go to in order to deny non-controversial science is amazing.

Do you really consider the unrealistic idea that the accretion disc is based on falling stars as science?

So, let's verify those points:

1. Observation -
As in the last 10/20 years we only see constant outflow stream from the accretion disc, and as we didn't find even one atom that falls in, how long do you insist to wait for the falling matter
Shall we wait 20 more years, 100 Year or just wait for the next one million years?
When would you say - I'm not going to wait any more?
If nothing falls in into the accretion disc, then the matter there must come from inside.

2. Magnetohydrodynamics
Do you really believe that the electrically conducting fluids (hot plasma) could set so strong magnetic field that is needed to boost 10000 Sun mass jet stream at a velocity of 0.8c to 27,000Ly?

3. Magnetohydrodynamics Poles
How do you explain that this Jet stream is moving directly above/below the SMBH poles, while the Magnetohydrodynamics has no poles (at least they do not specify it in the articale)?

If it has poles, how could it be that it is fully synchronize with the SMBH poles?

4. Accretion disc shape
How many accretion discs per SMBH do we see?
Why all the falling stars/gas fall only at the accretion disc plan?

5. Potential energy Vs orbital energy vectors
I have already explained that in a falling matter, potential energy can't be converted to orbital kinetic energy.

I have already explained why this is wrong.

Well, Halc actually explained that this is feasible if a falling object collides with other object at a lower orbital radius.
So, if there is no object at lower radius, how do you set it there?
Please remember, if you set a collision, than the collided object might be ejected from the orbital cycle.
So, a collision could change object with other object, but how do you add many more objects?
If the falling object is a star in the Sun size, while in the accretion disc there is only hot plasma, how that plasma could stop that star to fall directly into the SMBH?

Let me add the most important issue -

6. Conservation of energy:
Let's assume that the electrically conducting fluids at the accretion disc generates the requested magnetic force.
However, due Conservation of energy that magnetic force/field should come from some sort of energy source.
As we do not see for the last 10/20 years any falling stars, so it is clear that at least for the time frame there is no way to convert potential energy into heat.
However, in all of this time the plasma is still very hot.
So as we don't see any falling star, what kind of energy source could still keep the plasma so hot?

[Bored chemist]

If you insist to believe in the current impossible idea

There is no reason to suppose that it is impossible; indeed, the evidence we have supports it.

However, in this case, any falling star should set its unique accretion disc.

I can't see anything that would stop them merging.
It would be interesting to model it.

How many accretion discs per SMBH do we see?

Nobody has ruled out "1" as the answer here.

How could it be that so many stars and gas could fall in and all of them will fall directly on the same accretion disc at the galactic center

It could be that the process for forming the disk would "average out" their  individual contributions.
Simple viscosity would be enough to do this.

You also haven't seen the Big Foot Man, so do you still believe it exists?

No.
But that's got nothing to do with the point.
There is evidence for Australia- which is the point.

and as we didn't find even one atom that falls in,

The disk IS the matter that is falling in.

Do you really believe that the electrically conducting fluids (hot plasma) could set so strong magnetic field that is needed to boost 10000 Sun mass jet stream at a velocity of 0.8c to 27,000Ly?

Yes- mainly because it's big.
But I look forward to your mathematical analysis.

How do you explain that this Jet stream is moving directly above/below the SMBH poles,

How do you even know what axis the hole is rotating round?
It has no hair.

How many accretion discs per SMBH do we see?

As far as I know, with current technology, quite probably zero.

Why all the falling stars/gas fall only at the accretion disc plan?

You have the causation the wrong way round.
The gas falls in.
Because it carries angular momentum with it, the gas rotates round the BH.
That's what forms the disk.
It forms in the "right place" because it's caused by the gas that's falling in.

When I turn the tap on, I don't need to align the stream of water with the end of the pipe.

orbital energy vectors

Energy is a scalar.

However, due Conservation of energy that magnetic force/field should come from some sort of energy source.

Yes, gravitational potential energy of stuff falling into a BH.

Whereas you offer no credible source.

As we do not see for the last 10/20 years any falling stars,

The universe is a lot older than that.
What would you expect to see in 20 years?

[Kryptid]

due Conservation of energy

If you actually cared about conservation of energy, you wouldn't propose that black holes can create net energy.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:57:49
You also haven't seen the Big Foot Man, so do you still believe it exists?

No.
But that's got nothing to do with the point.
There is evidence for Australia- which is the point.

What kind of evidence do we have for Australia?
Don't you agree that we clearly see/observe that continental (even from space?)
So, what kind of evidence do we OBSERVE as falling in matter?

I would compare the current science approach to the science approach in 1490.
At that time our scientists were sure that India is located just after the horizon.
Therefore, as Columbus arrived to America he was sure that this is India.
Hence, he called the native - Indians.
In the same token, our scientists today are sure that matter MUST fall into the accretion disc.
So, they really don't care that so far they couldn't find any matter that falls into the Milky Way' SMBH.
Actually, they ONLY see that the hot plasma in a disc around the SMBH is ejected outwards almost on a daily basis.
However, they don't let this neglected observation/evidence to confuse them.
They are sure by 100% that sooner or later the SMBH would eat a star for his breakfast or dinner.
Therefore, they have called that disc - accretion disc instead of excretion disc.
They have unlimited hope and unlimited time. Hence, they will continue to monitor that disc from any direction for the next 100 years or even one million years without losing their hope that one day something Must fall in.
Good Luck for them.