[Bored chemist]

In the same token, our scientists today are sure that matter MUST fall into the accretion disc.

Yes, because we have evidence.
Things fall.

It's not complicated.

So, they really don't care that so far they couldn't find any matter that falls into the Milky Way' SMBH.

The only thing we can see  from there is the stuff falling in.
(Even if you are making the weird assertion that things fall up rather than down).

You should get a mirror.

[Kryptid]

In the same token, our scientists today are sure that matter MUST fall into the accretion disc.

It has to come from outside because black holes don't release hydrogen clouds. You don't have any plausible mechanism by which the particles emitted by the black hole can form an accretion disk.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

In the same token, our scientists today are sure that matter MUST fall into the accretion disc.

Yes, because we have evidence.

Is it?
If so, why don't you offer the evidence?
In all the articles that I have found it is stated that we only see Outflow from the accretion disc.
If I understand it correctly, our scientists explain that this outflow is "for sure" due to inflow although they have NEVER EVER observe any sort of falling matter into the Milky way accretion disc.

I couldn't find even one article that states that we see falling matter.
 

Things fall.
It's not complicated.

This is their biggest mistake.
They are absolutely sure that things MUST fall in.
Therefore, the real observation is none relevant.
As I have explained - they do not confuse themselves with real observation.
They wish to believe that things fall in and that is their biggest mistake.
Therefore, they don't deal with real observation - they deal with a concept that "things must fall".

The only thing we can see  from there is the stuff falling in.

Is it?
Would you kindly introduce the observation of the falling matter into the accretion disc?
Or ,do you mean that they clearly observe outflow, but due to the concept that "things must fall" they assume that this outflow must be an indication for inflow?
So, do you agree that they have never observed any inflow into the accretion disc of the Milky way?

In any case, please don't forget to tell them, that Dave claims that they will never find even one falling atom!!!

black holes don't release hydrogen clouds.

That is correct.
BH and SMBH release particles and ONLY particles.
In order to transform those particles to real hydrogen, Helium, Gold, water... Ultra high magnetic field is needed to work under the ultimate accelerator.
That accelerator is called - the accretion disc.
Without all the unique features of that accelerator - not even a single Hydrogen Atom would be created.
Therefore, the Big bang story is a pure fiction.
You can get any sort of energy out of nothing at the Big bang moment.
It won't help us to generate even one real atom without magnetic field and accelerator.

You don't have any plausible mechanism by which the particles emitted by the black hole can form an accretion disk.

I have clearly informed how the accretion disc works in order to form Hydrogen and all the molecular variety.
I also have already explained that Atom is a cell of energy.
You can break it and get its energy (in atomic bomb), but we need special conditions to form it.
So, even if we have unlimited energy - we won't be able to form even a single Hydrogen atom without having those special conditions that only exist in the nature in the accretion discs.
As there were no accretion discs after the Big bang, this Big bang story won't be able to form even a single hydrogen Atom.
Why don't you ask the scientists at the CERN if it is possible to create an atom or even any sort of particle by a pure energy of a bomb without using accelerator and especially - without using magnetic field.
So, without magnetic field and without accelerator, the story of creating atoms at some stage in the BBT is a pure fiction.

Sorry - you don't have any plausible mechanism by which Atom Or particle could be created after the Big Bang without magnetic field and real accelerator.

[Kryptid]

That accelerator is called - the accretion disc.

You are invoking the accretion disk as the cause of the accretion disk forming. That's circular reasoning. What happens when there is no accretion disk yet?

As there were no accretion discs after the Big bang, this Big bang story won't be able to form even a single hydrogen Atom.

There is no accretion disk after a black hole first forms either. So using your same reasoning, a black hole can't form a single hydrogen atom either.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

What happens when there is no accretion disk yet?

There is no accretion disk after a black hole first forms either. So using your same reasoning, a black hole can't form a single hydrogen atom either.

Thanks for this question
I actually ask myself the same question, and I think about it for quite long time.
There is high similarity between the accretion rings to the 3KPC rings.
I don't have a real answer how those rings had been formed at the first time.
I have some ideas but I'm not sure about it.
In any case, it seems to me that not all the BH/SMBH has accretion rings or 3KPC rings.
Those that don't have accretion disc won't create atoms and molecular.
Those without 3KPC ring won't carry spiral galaxy.

[Kryptid]

Those that don't have accretion disc won't create atoms and molecular.

So then how do any black holes have accretion disks?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Those that don't have accretion disc won't create atoms and molecular.

So then how do any black holes have accretion disks?

Are you sure that any BH has accretion disc/ring?
If I understand it correctly, we see the BHs by their accretion discs
However, what is the chance that there are many more in the galaxy or even next to us that we can't see as they don't have yet accretion disc?

[Kryptid]

Are you sure that any BH has accretion disc/ring?
If I understand it correctly, we see the BHs by their accretion discs
However, what is the chance that there are many more in the galaxy or even next to us that we can't see as they don't have yet accretion disc?

You misunderstood my question. Since all black holes start out without accretion disks, then how can any of them develop an accretion disk at all?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

You misunderstood my question. Since all black holes start out without accretion disks, then how can any of them develop an accretion disk at all?

Yes, I clearly understood your question.
I fully agree that all black holes start out without accretion disks
However, I don't know for sure how the accretion disk had been developed at the first stage.
I only have some ideas.

[Bored chemist]

This is their biggest mistake.
They are absolutely sure that things MUST fall in.
Therefore, the real observation is none relevant.

Show us the real evidence of things falling up.

[Kryptid]

However, I don't know for sure how the accretion disk had been developed at the first stage.

Here are how things stand right now:

You have repeatedly insisted that accretion disks can never form by gas or dust falling into orbit around a black hole from an outside source. So that means your model doesn't allow accretion disks to come from the outside. You have also repeatedly insisted that the magnetic field of a black hole is too strong to allow any particles through it and instead it will inevitably force those particles into jets if they try to cross it. That means your model doesn't allow accretion disks to come from the inside either. If an accretion disk can't come from the outside or from the inside, then an accretion disk can't form at all. So your model predicts that black holes cannot have accretion disks.

Yet we know that they have them.

So you now have three options:

(1) Admit that gas can indeed fall into orbit around black holes from the outside (which would be in line with what Bored Chemist and I have been arguing this whole time).
(2) Admit that some particles can indeed cross the black hole's supposed intrinsic magnetic field without being forced into the jets (which would again be in line with what Bored Chemist and I have been arguing).
(3) Admit that your model is wrong (which Bored Chemist and I already knew).

[Bored chemist]

It's pretty clear that Dave also knows his model is wrong, or he would be able to answer this.

I would like to add the following:
If one day the Moon would be disconnected from the earth gravity, it won't orbit around the Sun, but it would surly escape to the open space.

No, it wouldn't.
Escape velocity from the Sun (starting from near the Earth's orbit) is 42 km/sec
The Earth's orbital velocity is 29 km/s
And the Moon's is about 1 km/s

You can't add 29 and 1 to give an answer bigger than 42.

Try doing science; it can be very rewarding.

As it is, he's just ignoring it (along with lots of other things, like the fact that the first few lines of his opening post are clearly wrong).
He knows it's wrong, but he can't face up to admitting it.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

You have repeatedly insisted that accretion disks can never form by gas or dust falling into orbit around a black hole from an outside source. So that means your model doesn't allow accretion disks to come from the outside. You have also repeatedly insisted that the magnetic field of a black hole is too strong to allow any particles through it and instead it will inevitably force those particles into jets if they try to cross it.

So far so good.

That means your model doesn't allow accretion disks to come from the inside either.

Why do you claim such unrealistic statement.
Based on my model the accretion disc MUST come Only from inside.
So, the idea that I don't know how it had been formed at the first phase, doesn't mean that my model doesn't allow the disks to come from inside as it surly comes from inside.
Actually, any first stage is always some miracle.
We can ask how a baby is created at the first stage?
How the 3KPC ring had been created at the first stage?... and so on.
In any case, if you feel that without a clear explanation for the first stage, there is no first stage, than I would try to offer a solution.

Show us the real evidence of things falling up.

Clear observation for "jets from Sagittarius A*"
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/milky-way-black-hole-jet/
Now researchers have combined x-ray photographs of the galaxy’s center from NASA’s Chandra space telescope with radio data from the Very Large Array (VLA) observatory in New Mexico to offer the best support yet for the idea of jets from Sagittarius A*

Our scientists claim that at least for the last 6 million years the suppermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, has been on a bit of a diet.
https://www.iflscience.com/space/when-the-milky-ways-supermassive-black-hole-last-had-a-meal/
It looks like Sagittarius A*, the suppermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, has been on a bit of a diet lately. Astronomers have estimated that its last meal was 6 million years ago.

It is also stated:
https://www.space.com/31524-black-holes-rejected-snack-becomes-science-goldmine.html
Remember that mysterious cloud of gas that was supposed to be on a collision course with the supermassive black hole in the center of our galaxy? Well, astronomers are still trying to work out why it wasn’t sucked in, and why it didn’t spark the mother of all cosmic fireworks displays.

So, they clearly see outflow, but no inflow (at least for the last 6 Million years).
Why don't you agree to accept what we really see???
If we see an elephant, why is it so difficult for you to accept the idea that we see an elephant?
If we don't see a big foot man, why is it so difficult for you to accept the idea that there is no big foot man?
We see outflow but no inflow.
So the answer is that there is no inflow.
Still refuse to accept that observation???
If so, what do you need in order to accept that clear observation?

[Bored chemist]

Clear observation for "jets from Sagittarius A*"

They aren't falling, are they.
Is it a language thing?
Do you understand what the word means?

[Bored chemist]

Why don't you agree to accept what we really see???

Crumbs from a 6 million year old meal , hanging round the mouth of a black hole.

[Kryptid]

Why do you claim such unrealistic statement.
Based on my model the accretion disc MUST come Only from inside.

Read this:

You have also repeatedly insisted that the magnetic field of a black hole is too strong to allow any particles through it and instead it will inevitably force those particles into jets if they try to cross it. That means your model doesn't allow accretion disks to come from the inside either.

Actually, any first stage is always some miracle.

No, no it isn't. You don't get to say "it's a miracle" just because you can't explain something. Otherwise, anyone can say anything that they want to and use "it's a miracle" as an excuse for the lack of evidence. If I said the Big Bang was a miracle, you wouldn't accept that as an answer and you know it.

We can ask how a baby is created at the first stage?

This is actually quite well understood by cellular biologists. There is no miracle involved.

In any case, if you feel that without a clear explanation for the first stage, there is no first stage, than I would try to offer a solution.

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that your model prevents an accretion disk from forming because you have an obstacle in place (the black hole's magnetic field) that prevents one from forming. Remember, you have been absolutely adamant that nothing can get through that magnetic field. You claim that anything that tries to is forced into the polar jets instead. If your model has an obstacle that prevents the formation of an accretion disk, then it has to be wrong because we see accretion disks around black holes in real life.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

What I'm saying is that your model prevents an accretion disk from forming because you have an obstacle in place (the black hole's magnetic field) that prevents one from forming. Remember, you have been absolutely adamant that nothing can get through that magnetic field. You claim that anything that tries to is forced into the polar jets instead. If your model has an obstacle that prevents the formation of an accretion disk, then it has to be wrong because we see accretion disks around black holes in real life.

What I'm saying is that our scientists don't have a basic clue how the SMBH works and especially how the black hole's magnetic field works.
In order to get some basic information, let's look at the Sun:

https://www.space.com/11506-space-weather-sunspots-solar-flares-coronal-mass-ejections.html

Solar flares
The high magnetic fields in the sunspot-producing active regions also give rise to explosions known as solar flares. When the twisted field lines cross and reconnect, energy explodes outward with a force exceeding that of millions of hydrogen bombs. [The Sun's Wrath: Worst Solar Storms in History]
Temperatures in the outer layer of the sun, known as the corona, typically fall around a few million kelvin. As solar flares push through the corona, they heat its gas to anywhere from 10 to 20 million K, occasionally reaching as high as 100 million K. According to NASA, the energy released in a solar flare "is the equivalent of millions of 100-megaton hydrogen bombs exploding at the same time."

So it is clearly stated that the magnetic field at the Sun is so strong that it sets flares and ultra high heat at the plasma around it to 100 million K.

However, when it comes to the SMBH, our scientists don't claim that the flares over there are due to the SMBH magnetic field.
They wish to believe that it is due to the falling matter.
They look at the plasma' ultra high temp in the accretion disc and they wish to believe that it is due to the falling stars, while we clearly see just in front of our eyes that the heated plasma at the Sun is due to the magnetic filed.

We also see a very interesting phenomenon as Bow shock, termination sock and Heliospheric current sheet which prove that the magnetic field could form unexpected stractures

Bow shock[edit]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliosphere
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliosphere#/media/File:Solarmap.gif
Further information: Bow shocks in astrophysics
It was long hypothesized that the Sun produces a "shock wave" in its travels within the interstellar medium. It would occur if the interstellar medium is moving supersonically "toward" the Sun, since its solar wind moves "away" from the Sun supersonically.
This phenomenon has been observed outside the Solar System, around stars other than the Sun, by NASA's now retired orbital GALEX telescope. The red giant star Mira in the constellation Cetus has been shown to have both a debris tail of ejecta from the star and a distinct shock in the direction of its movement through space (at over 130 kilometers per second).


Termination shock[edit]
 
A "termination shock" analogy of water in a sink basin
The termination shock is the point in the heliosphere where the solar wind slows down to subsonic speed (relative to the Sun) because of interactions with the local interstellar medium. This causes compression, heating, and a change in the magnetic field. In the Solar System, the termination shock is believed to be 75 to 90 astronomical units[30] from the Sun. In 2004, Voyager 1 crossed the Sun's termination shock, followed by Voyager 2 in 2007.[2][6][31][32][33][34][35][36]
The shock arises because solar wind particles are emitted from the Sun at about 400 km/s, while the speed of sound (in the interstellar medium) is about 100 km/s. (The exact speed depends on the density, which fluctuates considerably. For comparison, the Earth orbits the Sun at about 30 km/s

Heliospheric current sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliospheric_current_sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliospheric_current_sheet#/media/File:Heliospheric-current-sheet.gif

The heliospheric current sheet[1] is the surface in the Solar System where the polarity of the Sun's magnetic field changes from north to south. This field extends throughout the Sun's equatorial plane in the heliosphere.[2][3] The shape of the current sheet results from the influence of the Sun's rotating magnetic field on the plasma in the interplanetary medium (solar wind).[4] A small electrical current flows within the sheet, about 10−10 A/m2. The thickness of the current sheet is about 10,000 km near the orbit of the Earth.

They claim that the solar wind particles are emitted from the Sun at about 400 km/s.
They also specifically discuss about "equatorial plane in the heliosphere" "where the polarity of the Sun's magnetic field changes from north to south.
That exactly the same location where the SMBH' accretion disc is located.
So, at different locations around the Sun there could be different phenomenon. I'm not sure that our scientists could deeply explain all of those activities at the Sun, but at least they do understand that all of those phenomenon are due to the Ultra high magnetic field of the Sun.


Therefore, your following message is totally incorrect:

Quote from: Dave Lev on 04/09/2020 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.

As you claim that the Magnetic field of the earth is so weak and we clearly see that the Sun' magnetic field is stronger than the one on Earth, then how can you claim that: "That has absolutely nothing to do with the magnetic field strength. Magnetism is not caused by mass"
Sorry, at the right conditions, Magnetism is directly affected mass.
The Dynamo in the core of the Sun is much more massive and hotter  than the one in Earth, therefore, the sun could generate much more magnetic filed.
In the same token, the Dynamo in the core of the SMBH is much more massive and hotter than the one in the Sun, therefore it generates much more magnetic field than the Sun.
This magnetic field sets ultra high force at the "equatorial plane" where the polarity of the SMBH's magnetic field changes from north to south. At this location the accretion disc is formed.
The plasma at the accretion disc is directly affected by the mighty ultra high magnetic field of the SMBH.
While the Sun' Magnetic field could increase the temp of its plasma to 100MK, the SMBH' magnetic field can increase its plasma temp to 10^9K.
How can you claim:

Quote from: Dave Lev on 05/09/2020 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.

Sorry, the plasma at the accretion disc at the SMBH is directly affected by the SMBH' magnetic field and not by any sort of potential energy of a falling star.
It is there directly do to the structure of the SMBH' magnetic field at the equatorial  "where the polarity of the SMBH's magnetic field changes from north to south.
That magnetic field might also generate some sort of "termination shock" or "shock wave" at far location from the accretion disc that could prevent from any atom from outside to come closer.
This is also the Ultimate force that can boosts all the new created molecular which had been formed in the accretion disc at 0.8c to the imaginary locations of the poles 27,000LY above and below the disc.
Therefore, I have claimed that the SMBH's poles are located at imaginary points high above its real mass.
I'm quite sure that once we know how the magnetic field of the SMBH works, we would understand all the phenomenon that we see around it.

So, how can you ignore such clear observations which we see at the sun - in front of our eyes?
How our scientists could ignore the ULTRA high magnetic field/force of the SMBH???

[Kryptid]

What I'm saying is that our scientists don't have a basic clue how the SMBH works and especially how the black hole's magnetic field works.

What scientists do (or don't) know is irrelevant to the fact that your own arguments prevent an accretion disk from forming.

As you claim that the Magnetic field of the earth is so weak and we clearly see that the Sun' magnetic field is stronger than the one on Earth, then how can you claim that: "That has absolutely nothing to do with the magnetic field strength. Magnetism is not caused by mass"

Because it isn't. You missed this very important statement of mine:

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.

Sorry, at the right conditions, Magnetism is directly affected mass.

Magnetic field strength is related to the strength of the electric current used to produce it. Electric current isn't mass.

In the same token, the Dynamo in the core of the SMBH is much more massive and hotter than the one in the Sun, therefore it generates much more magnetic field than the Sun.

How do you know that a SMBH even has a core? If it does, how do you know it has electric currents in it? What is it made of? What keeps it from collapsing under the black hole's gravity?

How our scientists could ignore the ULTRA high magnetic field/force of the SMBH???

You're ignoring it when you claim that a black hole that does not yet have an accretion disk can produce one, so they're in good company. That magnetic field should make all of the particles form into jets because you say it is absolutely impassible. If it's impassible, then particles can't get out to form an accretion disk.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Magnetic field strength is related to the strength of the electric current used to produce it. Electric current isn't mass.

Do you agree that the dynamo at the Sun is more massive than the one on earth and therefore, the Electric current there is higher so it can generate Higher magnetic field?

How do you know that a SMBH even has a core? If it does, how do you know it has electric currents in it? What is it made of?

The idea that our scientists don't know how the SMBH works, doesn't mean that it has no core.
We need to look around it.
If we see flares next to the SMBH and we know for sure that similar flares around the Sun are due to the Sun' magnetic field, than it is clear that those flares also there due to the SMBH' magnetic field.
As the accretion disc is located at the equatorial  "where the polarity of the SMBH's magnetic field changes from north to south it proves that it is there due to the SMBH' magnetic field.
You have also agreed that the molecular jet stream is due to Magnetic field. As its velocity (0.8c) and its length is 27,000Ly above/below the SMBH poles it is clear that it is due to the SMBH' magnetic field.

What keeps it from collapsing under the black hole's gravity?

Well, it seems to me that you have a mistake.

Quote from: Kryptid on 04/09/2020 18:58:40
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.

This is incorrect
http://wikipremed.com/01physicscards600/371a.gif
B is affected by 1/r, while the gravity force is affected by 1/r^2
Therefore, near the SMBH, the gravity force is stronger while further away the magnetic force is stronger.
Hence, at the accretion disc near the SMBH, the gravity force is much stronger and therefore it can hold the new created particles at a circular orbiting cycle around the SMBH. At that aria near the equatorial plane, the polarity of the SMBH's magnetic field changes from north to south. Therefore, the new created particles that have just been created and ejected from the event horizon are deeply affected by the ultra force of the SMBH' magnetic force.
Hence, the plasma there is so hot 10^9K. The conditions there transform those new created particles into real atoms and Molecular.
As the molecular drift outwards from the accretion disc, the magnetic field takes control, grabs them all and boosts them into those molecular jet streams.
Latter on the molecular should fall into the galactic disc and join one of the G Gas clouds.
New stars forming activity would take place at those gas clouds as they come close enough to the SMBH.
Therefore, S2, S1 and all the other S stars are new born stars that have got their mass from the molecular which had been created at the accretion disc.
Hence, all the stars in the Milky Way galaxy including all the nearby dwarf galaxies are direct product of the mass creation activity at the accretion disc.

You're ignoring it when you claim that a black hole that does not yet have an accretion disk can produce one, so they're in good company. That magnetic field should make all of the particles form into jets because you say it is absolutely impassible. If it's impassible, then particles can't get out to form an accretion disk.

Well, you had confused me with that message about magnetic filed.
Now that we know how it really works, we do understand how it had been created at the first phase.

[Bored chemist]

Do you agree that the dynamo at the Sun is more massive than the one on earth and therefore, the Electric current there is higher so it can generate Higher magnetic field?

Do you understand that's not the only factor?
For example, the bigger the object is the more area of teh magnetic field is swept by a conductor, so the bigger the current are.
But a black hole is a point.
So it has no area
So it has no magnetic field.