[Bored chemist]

The accretion disc around the SMBH is the real particle generator in our Universe

That would still be a breech of the conservation laws and is impossible.
So why do  you keep saying it?

This particle generator creates only matter.

That would be a breech of the conservation of charge.
So we all know it is wrong.

Why do you keep posting stuff which is wrong?

Why is it so difficult for our scientists to understand that simple explanation?

It explains nothing, because it is wrong.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 09:07:52
The accretion disc around the SMBH is the real particle generator in our Universe

That would still be a breech of the conservation laws and is impossible.

You are wrong
The New particles are created by the EM energy + the super high gravity force of the SMBH without breach of the conservation laws.
Please be aware that only single particles are created as a pair positive and negative particles (quarks for example).
Due to the magnetic field, while one charged particle is drifted inwards, the other one is drifted outwards directly to the plasma at the accretion disc.

That would be a breech of the conservation of charge.

At the accretion disc, three quarks get the gluons and set a proton. However, in order to balance the positive electric charge of the proton, it gets one electron and be converted to the Hydrogen Atom without breach of the conservation of charge.
I have found the following article about the "Quark–gluon plasma".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark%E2%80%93gluon_plasma#/media/File:PhasDiagQGP.png
It is stated:
"Quark–gluon plasma or QGP is an interacting localized assembly of quarks and gluons at thermal (local kinetic) and (close to) chemical (abundance) equilibrium."
However, they assume that this Quark–gluon plasma took place at the early Universe:
"Quark–gluon plasma filled the entire Universe before matter was created."
There is no need to go back to the early Universe in order to find that Quark–gluon plasma.
Every accretion disc is full with Quark–gluon plasma.
So, if our scientists assume that by that Quark–gluon plasma it is possible to create new matter, than the Quark–gluon plasma of the accretion disc can do it easily.

In other words - somehow the BBT must cross that Quark–gluon plasma at the early universe.
I show you that you don't need to go back to the early universe in order to find that Quark–gluon plasma.
It is hear - at the accretion disc in front of our eyes.

If the BBT can use that idea of Quark–gluon plasma to create matter than each SMBH accretion disc can also use its Quark–gluon plasma to create new matter.

[Bored chemist]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 09:07:52
The accretion disc around the SMBH is the real particle generator in our Universe

That would still be a breech of the conservation laws and is impossible.

You are wrong
The New particles are created by the EM energy + the super high gravity force of the SMBH without breach of the conservation laws.
Please be aware that only single particles are created as a pair positive and negative particles (quarks for example).
Due to the magnetic field, while one charged particle is drifted inwards, the other one is drifted outwards directly to the plasma at the accretion disc.

That would be a breech of the conservation of charge.

At the accretion disc, three quarks get the gluons and set a proton. However, in order to balance the positive electric charge of the proton, it gets one electron and be converted to the Hydrogen Atom without breach of the conservation of charge.
I have found the following article about the "Quark–gluon plasma".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark%E2%80%93gluon_plasma#/media/File:PhasDiagQGP.png
It is stated:
"Quark–gluon plasma or QGP is an interacting localized assembly of quarks and gluons at thermal (local kinetic) and (close to) chemical (abundance) equilibrium."
However, they assume that this Quark–gluon plasma took place at the early Universe:
"Quark–gluon plasma filled the entire Universe before matter was created."
There is no need to go back to the early Universe in order to find that Quark–gluon plasma.
Every accretion disc is full with Quark–gluon plasma.
So, if our scientists assume that by that Quark–gluon plasma it is possible to create new matter, than the Quark–gluon plasma of the accretion disc can do it easily.

In other words - somehow the BBT must cross that Quark–gluon plasma at the early universe.
I show you that you don't need to go back to the early universe in order to find that Quark–gluon plasma.
It is hear - at the accretion disc in front of our eyes.

If the BBT can use that idea of Quark–gluon plasma to create matter than each SMBH accretion disc can also use its Quark–gluon plasma to create new matter.

Wrong on essentially every point.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Further the following message about the accretion disc :

However, that is not the case in the SMBH accretion disc which is actually a ring.
The minimal radius (R1) is quite close to the event horizon while the maximal radius (R2) is limited.
Therefore, if the matter in the accretion disc was due to the falling stars, how could it be that they fall all the way to that R2 ring and accelerated to that ultra high velocity(0.3c) at almost pure circular cycle?
Why the aria between R2 to the minimal orbital radius of G cloud and S stars is so wide, while there is no matter at all in that aria?
In other words, how could it be that a star (as S2 for example) which has an elliptical orbital cycle at a relative low velocity, would fall all the way to R2 and surprisingly get that ultra high circular velocity?
Our scientists have a fatal misunderstanding about the real functionality of the accretion disc.
It seems to me that in any SMBH accretion disc the ratio between R1 to R2 must be almost fixed while R1 must be located at a fixed ratio from the event horizon.

Would you kindly advice the following data with regards to the Milky Way accretion disc:
1. What is the event horizon radius?
2. What is the R1 (minimal radius) and R2 (maximal radius of the accretion disc.
3. How many new stars the Milky Way is created per year?

Do we have the data also with regards to Andromeda accretion disc?

[Bored chemist]

Which of those data do you hallucinate will get round the conservation laws?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Which of those data do you hallucinate will get round the conservation laws?

Einstein had clearly stated that new particles are created constantly in our Universe in order to keep it steady.
So, you have to argue with Einstein about it.

In any case, the accretion disc is a solid observation that new matter is created by the SMBH.

Our scientists wish to believe that the plasma in the accretion Disc is moving inwards.
In order to support this unrealistic imagination, they have set a simulation:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/71
"Figure 2. Top: the rotational profile of the disk, expressed as a ratio of the actual tangential velocity to the Keplerian velocity, shown as a function of radius. Bottom: initial disk configuration, projected onto the $\hat{r}_c\hbox{--}\hat{z}$ plane. It has an inner radius $\hat{r}_i=0.1$, outer radius $\hat{r}_o=2.0$, and maximum height $\hat{z}_{{\rm max}}=0.2$. Finite disks require super-Keplerian rotation on the inner regions and sub-Keplerian rotation outside so that the centripetal acceleration respects the additional pressure force component. The density maximum occurs at $\hat{r}=0.23$, where $\hat{v}_t=\hat{v}_{{\rm kep}}$."
So, in figure 2 we see that the accretion disc has a shape of a vertical drop (red). The inner radius is 0.1 while the outer radius is 2.

I wonder how they have got this idea.
So, let's try to verify if this is realistic:
Our scientists tell us the orbital velocity of the accretion disc is 0.3c (speed of light).
I assume that this velocity represents the velocity of the outer radius (which is 2)
The velocity formula is as follow:

v^2 = G * M / r
G * M = v^2 * r
Hence, if r (outer radius) = 2 and v = 0.3c
G * M = 0.3c ^2 * 2 = 0.18
Hence,
r = G* M / v^2 = 0.18/ v^2
In order to find the r (inner radius) we would look for the radius which represents the maximal velocity of the speed of light

So, when v = 1c
r (inner radius) = G* M / v^2 = 0.18/ v^2 = 0.18
Hence, if the outer radius is 2 and the orbital velocity there is 0.3c, then the inner radius can't be lower than 0.18 as at this radius the orbital velocity must already be at the speed of light.
We all know that nothing can move faster than the speed of light and therefore we all must agree that the inner radius can't be 0.1 as stated in that article.

Actually, when we set the radius to 0.1 the calculated orbital velocity must be:

v^2 = G * M / r

v^2 = 0.18 / 0.1 = 1.8 c

v = 1.34 c

So, it is clearly not realistic that matter could orbit at that velocity.
Therefore, I wonder why our scientists claim that the inner radius is 0.1

However, in this article it is stated that even at the inner radius of 0.1 during the simulation the matter didn't fall inwards as it was stated: "whereas all particles remain in our simulation throughout the duration of a run."

"the accretion radius was set to the inner edge radius of the initial disk, Racc = 0.1 (G. Lodato, private communication).
"They also include an "accretion radius," Racc, such that particles that approach closer than that distance to the BH are accreted and removed from the simulation domain (G. Lodato 2011, private communication), whereas all particles remain in our simulation throughout the duration of a run. As such, their results and ours bracket the range of possible heating scenarios."

Hence this simulation proves that in order for the particles in the accretion ring to fall inwards, they must move closer (less than 0.1) and gain an orbital velocity higher than 1.34c.
This is clearly unrealistic.
The conclusion is that the matter in the accretion disc CAN'T fall inwards to the SMBH.

This is just one key explanation.
The other explanation is that as there is no matter above outer radius =2, then the idea that it is due to falling stars is also imagination.
How any scientist can believe that matter should fall from S2 (for example) which orbits at a relatively low velocity quite far away from the SMBH, would fall all the way to outer radius of the accretion disc and gain that 0.3c?


Conclusion:
The accretion disc is the ultimate observation that Nothing can fall inwards.
Not from the accretion disc to the SMBH and not from any external orbital star or gas cloud to the accretion disc.
As nothing can fall inwards to the SMBH (or to the accretion disc) while all the accretion discs all over the Universe are full with matter - it proves that the matter in the accretion disc must come from INSIDE.
That activity proves that new particles are created by the SMBH and ejected into the accretion disc.
Latter on as those new created particles are converted to real atoms / molecular and  they are ejected from the accretion disc in that molecular clear jet stream.

It is very clear to me that you would continue with you: No No.

The question is how long the 10,000 scientists can hold a useless theory as a BBT?
So far they have kept it for almost 100 years.
In the past they have hold a theory that we are at the center of the Universe for almost 500 years.
Hence, I assume that it might take them 400 more years to hold that useless BBT theory
I can't change the history of the modern science. Who am I?
I also can't argue with you and all the other people that believe in that useless BBT theory..
However, sooner or later you all would discover the Einstein was fully correct when he had stated that new matter is created in our universe in order to keep it steady forever and ever.
It might not be in our life time, but it would come.

[Bored chemist]

Einstein had clearly stated that new particles are created constantly in our Universe in order to keep it steady.
So, you have to argue with Einstein about it.

No.
Einstein knew that was wrong.
He called it his greatest blunder

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/10/29/this-is-why-einsteins-greatest-blunder-really-was-a-tremendous-mistake/

You are insulting his memory by not accepting that he had the strength to realise he had made a mistake, and admit it.

[Bored chemist]

Our scientists wish to believe that the plasma in the accretion Disc is moving inwards.
In order to support this unrealistic imagination

Scientists say that things fall down.
You call this unrealistic.

Nobody is taking you seriously.

[Origin]

In any case, the accretion disc is a solid observation that new matter is created by the SMBH.

I don't see how that logically follows at all.

[Kryptid]

I don't see how that logically follows at all.

It doesn't, but that doesn't seem to bother Dave for some reason.

[Origin]

It doesn't, but that doesn't seem to bother Dave for some reason.

I guess for him it is more fun to have his own theory even if makes no sense.  Seems odd to me, but what the hay...

[Dave Lev (OP)]

In any case, the accretion disc is a solid observation that new matter is created by the SMBH.

I don't see how that logically follows at all.

Very simple.
Do you agree that the accretion disc is full with matter/plasma?
If so, what is the source for that matter?
Do you agree that our scientists assume that the matter in the disc is coming from a falling star or gas cloud?
If so, do you agree that the matter had to fall in some sort of inwards spiral shape?
As an example please see the following:
https://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlight/accretion/
"The giant star is so large that for some of the matter in its outer envelope, the gravitational pull of the compact companion is greater than that of the giant star itself. Matter is pulled towards the companion. However, that matter does not plunge directly onto the companion star because it has sufficient sideways motion to build up a so-called accretion disk. This disk made of stellar material orbits the companion star."
In this case, we clearly see a direct connection from the giant star to the spiral accretion disc.
However, when it comes to a SMBH' accretion disc, we don't see that kind of spiral shape in the accretion disc.
We actually see the inner ring (r = 0.1) and the outer ring (r = 2).
As there is no spiral shape (at any SMBH' accretion disc in the whole Universe) it proves that matter isn't falling from outside into the accretion disc.
If the matter isn't coming from outside the accretion disc, then it must come from inside.
The meaning is that the matter in the accretion disc must come from the pair process activity near the event horizon of the SMBH.
Please also be aware that our scientists are so eager to show that at least some of the matter in the accretion disc should fall into the SMBH. However, I have proved that based on the following simulation:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/71

The assumption that the inner radius could be 0.1 or less is clearly not realistic.
In this simulation, our scientists found that matter at radius 0.1 can't fall in. The radius must be lower than that to achieve this goal.
However, as the inner radius must be higher than 0.1, than nothing could fall from the accretion into the SMBH.

Is it clear to you by now?

[Bored chemist]

As there is no spiral shape (at any SMBH' accretion disc in the whole Universe)

Did you check them all?

[Bored chemist]

Is it clear to you by now?

It was already clear when I wrote this.

Our scientists wish to believe that the plasma in the accretion Disc is moving inwards.
In order to support this unrealistic imagination

Scientists say that things fall down.
You call this unrealistic.

Nobody is taking you seriously.

[Origin]

Is it clear to you by now?

It is clear what you think.
It is clear that your idea is wild speculation.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

As there is no spiral shape (at any SMBH' accretion disc in the whole Universe)

Did you check them all?

Well, I base my understanding on the available data as the following article:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/71
In this articale, our scientists explain why they have used in their simulation the inner accertion disc radius as 0.1 and the outer radius as 2.
So, the ratio is as follow:
R (outwards) / R (inwards) = 2/0.1 = 20
They don't claim for any sort on spiral inwards activity in this simulation.
There are billions of galaxies in our Universe.
Our scientists observe the accretion disc of many galaxies.
So, If you think that there is an error in this article, then would you kindly offer any article to support your understanding that the ratio between R(outwards to R(inwards) should be different.

Scientists say that things fall down.
You call this unrealistic.
Nobody is taking you seriously.

Sorry, our scientists are wrong.
Yes, all the 10,000 BBT scientists.
They have to prove this kind of understanding of falling matter.
If in all the SMBH accretion discs that our scientists observe (all over the universe) they don't see even one accretion disc with inwards spiraling/falling matter, then how can they claim for this imagination?
Let's try to understand it from statistical point of view.
Our scientists observe the SMBHs accretion discs for more than 50 years.
Can we assume that so far they have observed over than 10,000 SMBH accretion discs?
Assuming that the theory of falling matter is correct, what is the chance to see a falling matter into at least one accretion disc?
How could it be that so far they have NEVER EVER seen any sort of falling matter into the accretion disc and also no inwards spiraling shape of falling matter?
Why a wrong theory as falling matter is stronger than the clear observation?
How many more years are needed for them to understand that the idea that the accretion disc is full with falling matter is a pure imagination?
100 years or 10,000 years?

Sorry I don't take those scientists seriously while they set a theory without even one real observation to support their imagination.

It is clear that your idea is wild speculation.

Sorry, my idea is 100% correct!
The current Theory of falling matter is the real wild speculation.

Can you please offer just one real observation which shows the inwards spiral shape of falling matter (from gas cloud or star as S2 at relative low orbital velocity) into a SMBH accretion disc while the orbital velocity of the falling matter is increasing step by step to almost 0.3 c as it gets to the outer radius of the accretion disc.

I wonder how can you accept this wrong wild speculation of falling matter without any backup by real observation.

[Origin]

In this articale, our scientists explain why they have used in their simulation the inner accertion disc radius as 0.1 and the outer radius as 2.

Sorry, our scientists are wrong.

Quotes from the same post, you're a hoot.

You seem impervious to logic, facts or reason.

[Bored chemist]

Sorry, my idea is 100% correct!

Your idea breaks two of the laws of physics.

[Bored chemist]

Sorry, our scientists are wrong.
Yes, all the 10,000 BBT scientists.
They have to prove this kind of understanding of falling matter.

It's not just the 10,000 scientists who think that things fall down.
Everyone does.
You are saying that the entire population of the planet (apart from, a few infants) is wrong.

[Bored chemist]

You seem impervious to logic, facts or reason.

That's about the only thing he is consistent about.

How could it be that so far they have NEVER EVER seen any sort of falling matter into the accretion disc and also no inwards spiraling shape of falling matter?

Because we haven't been looking for long, and it's a very long way away.