[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.

Thanks
You have just confirmed my key evidence/observation that so far we didn't see any falling star or gas cloud into any accretion disc in the entire universe..
There are billions of galaxies in the Universe. Each one carries a SMBH with its accretion disc.
All of those accretion discs are full with matter/hot plasma that revolves at about 0.3c.
Out of all of those billions SMBH' accretion discs our scientists have NEVER EVER seen any sort of falling matter into the accretion disc and also no inwards spiraling shape of falling matter.
However, you have the hope that one day we would see a falling star as it is accreted into the accretion disc.
So how long do we have to wait until all the 10,000 BBT scientists would understand that they have a fatal mistake?
One more year? 100 years? or minimal of one billion years?

People believe that there is a monster in loch-ness lake (Nessie).
Your daughter might believe that there is a monster under her bed.
So, how long do we have to wait in order to understand that there is no monster under the bed or in loch-ness lake?

Let's go back to the statistical calculation.
We look at all of those billions of accretion discs in the universe and we see that all of them (without exception) are full with matter/hot plasma.
However, our scientists tell us that some matter from the accretion disc must fall into the SMBH and some must be ejected back outwards.
We know that the Milky Way is creating about 3 new baby stars every year.
We also see that it ejects a molecular jet stream above and below its poles.
Our scientists claim that those molecular jet stream carry more than 10,000 sun mass.
So, how many stars must fall into the Milky way accretion disc to support all of this activity?
Do you agree for at least 3 stars per year?
So, why we didn't see even one falling star into the Milky Way accretion disc in the last 50 years?
Let's assume that only one star per 100 years is good enough for the Milky way.
So, you can claim that we need 50 more years.
However, there are billions of similar accretion discs in our universe.
If only one star per 100 years must fall into each accretion disc, then statistically, each year we have to observe about
1,000,000,000 / 100 = 10,000,000 falling stars in our Universe.
How could it be that for the last 50 years we didn't see even one falling star in the entire Universe while all the SMBH' accretion discs are full with hot plasma???
How long time might be long enough for you?

[Bored chemist]

People believe that there is a monster in loch-ness lake (Nessie).
Your daughter might believe that there is a monster under her bed.

And you believe that things fall upwards.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

People believe that there is a monster in loch-ness lake (Nessie).
Your daughter might believe that there is a monster under her bed.

And you believe that things fall upwards.

Sorry, the missing" falling" stars observation proves that you and all the 10,000 BBT scientists don't have a clue how the SMBH' accretion disc really works.
You all don't wish to understand the real meaning of upwards or downwards in that accretion disc as it contradicts the BBT.
In order to prove that nonsense, our scientists are eager to find just one falling star in the entire Universe.
However, somehow our Universe is not so cooperative with their expectation.
Therefore, they don't let the missing stars observation to confuse their unrealistic theory.

So please, would you answer my following question:

how long do we have to wait until all the 10,000 BBT scientists would understand that they have a fatal mistake?
One more year? 100 years? or minimal of one billion years?

How could it be that you reject the clear observation that matter/Stars/gas DO NOT FALL into the accretion disc?
How long do we have to wait for you until you would accept that simple observation?
You have stated that the BBT is based on observation - so why do you lie?
How can you reject this clear observation?
What is needed for you to finely understand that matter does not fall into the accretion disc?
Do you need God to tell you that message or do you have a contract with the BBT to believe in that nonsense indefinitely?

If you and all the other 10,000 BBT scientists would continue to reject that observation, why don't you step away and let other people to find the real meaning of that missing falling stars observation?

[Bored chemist]

how long do we have to wait until all the 10,000 BBT scientists would understand that they have a fatal mistake?
One more year? 100 years? or minimal of one billion years?

They won't change until you provide evidence.

I presume you can not provide any.

[Bored chemist]

How could it be that you reject the clear observation that matter/Stars/gas DO NOT FALL into the accretion disc?

This works both ways.
I can't show a video of the stuff going in because it is too slow.
Can you show a video of it "falling up"?
If not, you don't have any  valid argument.


However, common sense says it falls in.
Why would it fall up?

[Bored chemist]

What is needed for you to finely understand that matter does not fall into the accretion disc?

Evidence.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

What is needed for you to finely understand that matter does not fall into the accretion disc?

Evidence.

The evidence is already there in front of our eyes.
We have NEVER EVER seen any falling star into any SMBH' accretion disc.
Therefore, the missing observation is by itself a clear observation and clear evidence.
As I have already explained, there are billions of galaxies in front of our eyes.
Each galaxy carries an accretion disc that is full with matter.
We clearly observe the matter that each accretion disc ejects outwards.
However, we have never ever observed any falling star into those accertion discs.
If the accretion disc was really an accretion disc, then from statistical point of view, Millions or even billions of stars have to fall into all of those discs per year.
However, we don't see even one falling star at all of those available billions accretion discs in the Universe.
Therefore, the current evidence/observation is very clear -
Stars do not fall into the BBT accretion disc.
You can continue to wait as long as you wish for your lovely falling star. It won't help you. Even if you wait for 100 billions more years, you wouldn't see even one single falling star.
So, based on the current available evidence, the Universe tells us that the BBT accretion disc is actually excretion disc.
This is the real evidence of our current Universe. You can't change it!!!.
However, surprisingly for you, that evidence doesn't meet your current mainstream/theory/law of physics.
Sorry - our mission is to fit the theory and the law of physics to the current universe evidence/observation and not the vice versa.
You can't just insist forever to force the universe to work according to our theory / law of physics.

First you must accept the simple observation / evidence that all the current BBT' accretion discs in the entire Universe - without any exception, work as execration discs.
Then it is your job to fit / fix your theory and law of physics to this clear evidence /observation !

Is it claer?

[Bored chemist]

We have NEVER EVER seen any falling star into any SMBH' accretion disc.

We have not been looking for long enough to see any.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

We have NEVER EVER seen any falling star into any SMBH' accretion disc.

We have not been looking for long enough to see any.

We are looking at the accretion discs all over the Universe for more than 50 years
We also have supper advanced sensitive detectors which help us to see an Earth size gas cloud at a distance of one billion light years away.

If the "falling stars" imagination was real, then each year more than billions stars had to fall into all the available SMBH' accretion disc.
There is no way to miss those falling stars as they must come with ultra energy emission.
We don't see it and we would never see it.
50 years is more than enough.
How many more years do you need in order to understand that your theory is useless?

So, let's agree on the following observation:
1. Based on our current data/observation/evidence we didn't find yet even one star in the entire Universe that falls into the SMBH accretion disc.
2. Therefore, based on this observation (or missing observation) all the SMBH accretion discs in our CURRENT universe are actually excretion disc.

Please be aware that I specifically highlight the idea of current Universe.
I hope that you fully agree that in our current universe (based on our current observation - or actually the missing observation) the SMBH's accretion discs are acting as excretion discs?

If in the future we would find a falling star, then for this future universe we would agree on accretion disc.
However, please relax. We won't see any falling star. Not tomorrow, not next year and not in one billion years from now!

Please, would you kindly set a time frame to expire your imagination?

[Bored chemist]

We are looking at the accretion discs all over the Universe for more than 50 years

And the best pictures we have look like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_disk#/media/File:Black_hole_-_Messier_87_crop_max_res.jpg

So it's impossible to say much about them, isn't it?

However, isn't it more likely that stuff is falling down into them than "falling up" out?

[Origin]

However, isn't it more likely that stuff is falling down into them than "falling up" out?

Dave's not very good at this stuff.  He just kinda guesses and invariably guesses wrong.

[puppypower]

We are looking at the accretion discs all over the Universe for more than 50 years

And the best pictures we have look like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_disk#/media/File:Black_hole_-_Messier_87_crop_max_res.jpg

So it's impossible to say much about them, isn't it?

However, isn't it more likely that stuff is falling down into them than "falling up" out?

Years back I developed a BB theory variation, that did not start the same way as the current model. Instead of the singularity of the BB, expanding into umpteen particles, the singularity of the new model split like a mother cell, into two daughter cells.

If you compare these two scenarios, the atomization into umpteen particles increases entropy way more than a single splitting event. The atomization scenario of the standard model would be much more endothermic compared to the split scenario. It should have rapidly cooled. This also means the split scenario, does not require as much energy to happen. All else equal, a spilt can occur way before a BB atomization, using much less zero point energy. Or if it used the same amount eh first split would have much more left over energy for further splitting.

After the singularity splits into two, local space-time will expand, somewhat, since the mass/energy is now in two places. If these continue to split,with the left over energy, into smaller and smaller singularities, the universe will also expand as the super structures of the universe are laid out.  This settles this conceptual problem of the observed superstructure, common to the current theory. The standard model makes it harder to form supers structure in the time; 15 billion years, that is available.

In the split model, based on the modern universe, at a certain point, the smallest scale daughter cells; galaxy level, undergo a mini-BB phase, similar to the BB theory. The material for the galaxy and its stars come out of the  black hole style mini BB phenomena; 3-D white hole.

As each galaxy fluffs up with atomized matter, powerful energy wave fronts are emitted by all the expanding daughter cells, These powerful energy waves, add pressure waves that resist too much galaxy expansion, while also expanding the universe relative to the galaxies. This this energy also also adds eddies for early star formation. This explains the rapid formation of early galaxies and stars as well as the observed movement of galaxies relative to reach other. These all pose other problems for the current theory.

[Origin]

Years back I developed a BB theory variation, that did not start the same way as the current model. Instead of the singularity of the BB, expanding into umpteen particles, the singularity of the new model split like a mother cell, into two daughter cells.

Yep, it is kinda fun to make up little fantasies and pretend you are a great scientist.  I think it is even more fun to learn about the real universe, but hey everybody is a different.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

And the best pictures we have look like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_disk#/media/File:Black_hole_-_Messier_87_crop_max_res.jpg
So it's impossible to say much about them, isn't it?

Thanks for this article.
However, in the article they discuss about an accretion disc of a star:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_disk#/media/File:Black_hole_-_Messier_87_crop_max_res.jpg
"An accretion disk is a structure (often a circumstellar disk) formed by diffuse material in orbital motion around a massive central body. The central body is typically a star."
They also add that the matter in the disc spirals inwards:
"Friction causes orbiting material in the disk to spiral inward towards the central body."
However, at the attached image they discuss about a SMBH' accretion disc and there is no evidence for any sort of "spiral inward towards the central body".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_disk#/media/File:Black_hole_-_Messier_87_crop_max_res.jpg
It is very clear that our scientists can't see the difference between SMBH accretion disc to Star accretion disc.
In a star accretion disc we might see that "spiral inward" image. However, when it comes to a SMBH accretion disc, we would never see it.
Actually, if you look carefully in the image you should see some gas clouds that had been ejected from the SMBH accretion disc.
So, in the center there is no sign for "spiraling inwards" while after the outer ring edge there are signs for ejected gas clouds.
Hence, many thanks for that image.
For the first time I can get the real size of the SMBH' accretion ring size.
It is stated:
"The black hole’s boundary — the event horizon from which the EHT takes its name — is around 2.5 times smaller than the shadow it casts and measures just under 40 billion km across".
So our scientists know the size of the event horizon and the innermost ring (let's call it Rin).
If you also look carefully, you would see that the total size of the ring is similar to twice the radius of the innermost ring.
Therefore, the size of the outer radius is as follow (Rout)
Rout = Rin + 2 Rin  = 3 Rin
Hence the ratio between Rin to Rout is only 1 to 3.
That data contradicts the assumption of our scientists in the other article:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/71
"It has an inner radius ri = 0.1, outer radius ro=2.0, and maximum height zmax =0.2"
In this simulation article our scientists assumed that the ratio is 0.1 to 2
So, in this simulation, our scientists have used a wrong ratio of 1 - 2 instead of 1 - 3.
This leads them to fatal error in their simulation.
Hence, their mission now is to change the ratio from 0.1 - 2 to 1 -3 and then rerun the simulation.
Please also be aware that they have stated that in the simulation they have implemented an accretion radius Racc = 0.1, inside of which all particles are immediately accreted and removed from the simulation:
"Prior SPH works in which a prompt radiation assumption was used (see, e.g., Rossi et al. 2010) have implemented an accretion radius Racc, inside of which all particles are immediately accreted and removed from the simulation. In Rossi et al. (2010), the accretion radius was set to the inner edge radius of the initial disk, Racc = 0.1 (G. Lodato, private communication)."

This is actually the most critical fatal error in this simulation.
If our scientists wish to prove the idea of accretion matter into the SMBH, how can they set the simulation for accretion ring at 0.1?
They should eliminate that pre-setting from the simulation and only then try to verify if something could fall into the SMBH.
Therefore, our scientists have used wrong data and wrong pre-setting in their simulation
Hence, this simulation is pure GARBAGE!

I have already set a calculation for the velocity at Rin = 0.1:

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

Based on this calculation, assuming the ratio of the ring is 1 -3, while the orbital velocity at the outer ring of 3 is 0.3c.
Then the velocity in the inner ring (Rin = 1) is:
v^2 = G * M / R
G * M = v^2 * R
Hence, if R (outer radius) = 3 and v = 0.3c
G * M = 0.3c ^2 * 3 = 0.27
Hence,
For R in = 1
v^2= G* M / R in = 0.27/ 1 = 0.27
v (for R in = 1) = 0.52c
So, the velocity of the plasma at the innermost accretion ring in elliptical galaxy Messier 87 is 0.52 c.
This is much more realistic the calculated 1.34c at the innermost ring (Rin =0.1) in that fatal simulation.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

However, isn't it more likely that stuff is falling down into them than "falling up" out?

NO!
You and all the other 10,000 BBT scientists don't have a basic clue how our universe really works. Nothing can fall into the accretion disc of the SMBH as in reality it is an excretion disc.
It is covered by ULTRA high electromagnetic field.
If something from outside would dare to come closer, the Ultra power magnetic force would boost it high above/below the poles.
The jet stream that we see above and below the poles of our SMBH is the ultimate evidence and clear indication for its existence.
However, our scientists don't let the evidences and observations to confuse them.
If they think that something must fall into the accretion disc, then they won't let the NO observation to confuse them.
If they think that the universe had been created 13.8 BY ago from a proton size, they won't change the theory even if they do understand today that our universe might be infinite in its size and there is virtually no possibility to set so big universe in that limited time frame.

Dave's not very good at this stuff.  He just kinda guesses and invariably guesses wrong.

Are you sure that you and all the other BBT scientists are good in this stuff?
They don't see any falling star, planet or moon into the accretion disc. Not even one single asteroid or single atom.
However they continue to guess/hope that somehow one day they would see it.
So let me tell you a brief story:
Do you know that deep in the ocean there is a Big Black Tuna fish (or in short BBT fish)
That BBT fish can swim at the speed of light. Therefore, it is very difficult to see it.
So, would you believe me if I will tell you that one day in the future, if we would wait long enough we must see it?
What is the chance that you would say that if we can't see it then it doesn't exist?
So why when it comes to my BBT fish theory you are not willing to wait even one day in order to see that BBT fish, while when it comes to the BBT theory you and all the 10,000 BBT scientists are ready to wait indefinitely for that "fishing" falling star nonsense.
Sorry - if we couldn't see that falling star with all our current advanced technology for more than 50 years (in any galaxy in the entire Universe), then we would not see it not tomorrow not next year and not in one billion years from now.
The BBT theory is a fiction and it is based on a fatal mistake.
The science community should offer me a Nobel reward for my discovery.
One day you all would ask me to forgive you as you had rejected the ultimate real explanation for our Universe/
How long can you keep that BBT nonsense? It's better for you to accept the BBT fish story instead of your BBT theory.

[Bored chemist]

You and all the other 10,000 BBT scientists don't have a basic clue how our universe really works.

Says the man who thinks  that things fall up.

They don't see any falling star, planet or moon into the accretion disc. Not even one single asteroid or single atom.
However they continue to guess/hope that somehow one day they would see it.

They also don't see them come out.

Do you accept that the observational evidence for your idea is just as much "missing" as it is for the conventional viewpoint?

[charles1948]

The so-called "Big Bang Theory" has inherent inconsistencies, and contradictions.  Many of which have been pointed out in the preceding posts.

Because of this, I predict that the BBT will not last much longer.  It's been with us since the 1950's.  That's a long time for a theory of the Universe to survive without being replaced by a new one.

The new one will,  I confidently predict, take the form of a modified "Steady State" theory.

Don't you feel, in your bones, that's what going to happen?  How soon it will happen, I'm not sure.
2040 would be my best guess, though it could be earlier.

[Bored chemist]

The so-called "Big Bang Theory" has inherent inconsistencies, and contradictions.  Many of which have been pointed out in the preceding posts.

Where?
Please note that most of what Dave has said makes no sense. It doesn't show problems with teh BBT, it shows problems with his understanding of physics.

The new one will,  I confidently predict, take the form of a modified "Steady State" theory.

One of the first options to have been proven wrong .

It's been with us since the 1950's.

Not as long as the theory that says that things fall down (rather than up); but Dave hasn't understood that yet.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:02:39
You and all the other 10,000 BBT scientists don't have a basic clue how our universe really works.

Says the man who thinks  that things fall up.

Dear BC
For how long you and all of those BBT "scientists" are going to keep that nonsense of "falling up" matter, while all the observations and evidences fully contradict your imagination?

Based on the data which you had offered:
1. Do you confirm that in the accretion disc of elliptical galaxy Messier 87 there is no signs of matter that spirals inwards?
Not from the accretion disc to the SMBH and not from outside into the accretion disc?
Yes or no please.
2. Do you also confirm that the most inwards radius of the accretion disc (Rin) is very close to the event horizon while the most outwards radius (Rout) is about 3 times Rin?
Yes or No?
3. So, do you confirm that this accertion disc is very compact, has no spiraling inwords matter and can't support your imagination for falling stars?
4. As this image can't support your imagination, please feel free to offer other image. If you can't find even just one SMBH accretion disc out of the Billions in the Universe to support your imagination for falling stars and spiraling inwards matter - then why do you insist to keep on with this imagination?
5. Do you confirm that this size of the accretion disc contradicts the simulation data which had been used by our scientists to prove the accretion activity of the disc
6. Do you confirm that our scientists have no confirmation for the idea of accreted matter – not by observation and not by simulation?


How can you ignore all the observations/evidence/technical data about our Universe which that fully contradicts the idea that matter falls into the SMBH accretion disc and still call yourself "scientist"?
How could it be that the BBT nonsense is more important than all the observations that we see in our real universe?

Sorry - Your mission as a scientist is to fit the theory to the observation and not just to fit our Universe to that nonsense that is called BBT.
As the BBT can't explain those observations - then this BBT should be set in the garbage once and for all.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:02:39
They don't see any falling star, planet or moon into the accretion disc. Not even one single asteroid or single atom.
However they continue to guess/hope that somehow one day they would see it.

They also don't see them come out.

Why do you lie?
Our scientists clearly see all the matter that the SMBH accretion disc is ejected outwards.
I have already offered several articles about it.
You are willing to lie in the name of the BBT.
Shame on you!

Do you accept that the observational evidence for your idea is just as much "missing" as it is for the conventional viewpoint?

All the observations and evidences of our universe are there in front of our eyes and they fully contradicts the BBT.
So, you don't have to deal with my personal idea, you have to deal with those real observations.
As long as you ignore them all and just wait to see that maybe in the future you would find something to support your imagination, then you can't represent the science any more.
You have to explain what we see TODAY
Is it clear to you?

From now on -
If you think that matter must fall into the accretion disc - then please show the observations to support this imagination.
TODAY not tomorrow.
As long as you can't find any falling star or any spiraling inwards matter, your lovely BBT is just imagination and you have no justification to support it any more!

[Bored chemist]

1. Do you confirm that in the accretion disc of elliptical galaxy Messier 87 there is no signs of matter that spirals inwards?

Do you understand that there is no evidence that it spirals outwards?