[Dave Lev (OP)]

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?

I would like to remind you that we focus in this tread on the BBT.
Based on the BBT our scientists tell us that the hot plasma in that accretion disc around the SMBH is there due to falling stars from outside the disc. They also tell us that the falling matter creates a spiral inwards shape. They have even set an image for that falling matter that is spiraling inwards.
Few years ago I was positively sure that our scientists clearly see this activity
However, now it is clear to all of us that our scientists have NEVER EVER observed any falling star or any sort of matter that is spiraling inwards, not from outside into the accretion disc and not from the disc into the SMBH.
Therefore, this assumption of falling matter has no real evidence or observation. Hence this falling matter assumption is a simple lie.
However, in order to backup this lie, our scientists tell us that they are sure that one day in the future, they hope to see the that falling matter. They say that we just didn't wait long enough to see this activity.
Sorry - our scientists must explain how the Universe works based on all the CURRENT observations & evidences. They shouldn't use any sort of hope or lie as an observation.
Therefore, as they have never seen any falling stars or inwards spiraling shape into the accretion disc, it is a lie to call the ultra hot plasma that orbits the SMBH at almost 0.3c as "accretion disc".

Let's make it clear:
Our scientists have never even seen any falling stars or inwards spiraling shape into the accretion disc.
Therefore, that assumption of accreted matter is lie.
Hence, the BBT is based on lie.
How any person in our universe can support the BBT under this key lie?

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.

Sorry, the BBT is based on lie.
There is no real physics in that BBT.
I have offered many contradictions in the BBT.
Just two examples:.
1. Our scientists clearly understand today that the Universe is very big. Some of them claim that it might be Multiverse or even infinite.
If so, how can we accept the idea that a Multiverse or infinite universe can be created in just 13.8 BY from a proton size universe?

2. Actually the creation of matter is just a very minor problem comparing to the creation of space and time.
Our scientists try to explain how matter had been delivered to our universe from nothing but they didn't offer any explanation how the space and time could be created.
Can you please show the physics/math that could support the creation of space and time out of nothing?
If before the BBT there was no space and no time in the Universe then how space and time could be created by the Big Bang or any other sort of bang?

Sorry – the BBT is a useless theory, it is based on lie and it’s the time to set it once and for all at the garbage.
Unless, you wish to continue with that BBT lie.

[Bored chemist]

There is no real physics in that BBT.

Says the man who thinks things fall up.

Our scientists have never even seen any falling stars or inwards spiraling shape into the accretion disc.

True (at least for the time being)

Therefore, that assumption of accreted matter is lie.

No. The assumption that things fall down is not a lie; it is common sense.

Hence, the BBT is based on lie.

The BBT is not based on anything to do with black holes anyway, so your claim makes no sense.

How any person in our universe can support the BBT under this key lie?

Well, that"lie" doesn't exist, so all the scientists can, and do, support the BBT with no problems.

If so, how can we accept the idea that a Multiverse or infinite universe can be created in just 13.8 BY from a proton size universe?

We can.
And, because we are scientists, we must- because that's what the evidence says.

Actually the creation of matter is just a very minor problem comparing to the creation of space and time.

Actually, it's not.
The creation of mass/energy is mathematically impossible, but the creation of space is permitted.

[Bored chemist]

Based on the BBT our scientists tell us that the hot plasma in that accretion disc around the SMBH is there due to falling stars from outside the disc.

The accretion disks are nothing to do with the BBT.

I would like to remind you that we focus in this tread on the BBT.

So stop going on about things falling up out of accretion disks, because that's nothing to do with the BBT. It has something to do with your idea which was proved wrong before the start of last century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox

[Bored chemist]

our scientists must explain how the Universe works based on all the CURRENT observations & evidences.

So, we should never do another experiment; we should stop with what we currently know.

Is that what you really mean?

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

Are you starting to see that Dave hasn't even got a grasp of logic, never mid the actual science.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:50:32
Our scientists have never even seen any falling stars or inwards spiraling shape into the accretion disc.

True (at least for the time being)

Thanks
At least we all agree that our scientists had never even seen any falling stars or inwards spiraling shape into the accretion disc.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:50:32
Therefore, that assumption of accreted matter is lie.

No. The assumption that things fall down is not a lie; it is common sense.

Common sense of whom?
As you confirm that our scientists had never observed any falling stars or inwards spiraling shape into the accretion disc, then based on what common sense you can claim that matter must fall in.
In the following article about Messier_87 accretion ring it is stated that we have the technology to see a credit card on the surface of the Moon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_disk#/media/File:Black_hole_-_Messier_87_crop_max_res.jpg
"This ring is only about 40 microarcseconds across — equivalent to measuring the length of a credit card on the surface of the Moon."
Hence, with all of that advanced technology and while there are Billions of SMBH accretion discs all around us, how could it be that we have never ever seen any falling star?
The common sence should tell us that as we don't see any falling stars while there are billions of accretion discs in the Universe and all of them are fully loaded with hot plasma then their matter must come from inside.
It is very clear to any person with basic common sense that if the matter at the accretion disc was based on falling stars and while we never see any falling star then by definition some of the accretion disc have to lose all their matter
However, this is not the case. So as all of the accretion discs in the Universe are full with matter then the common sense tells us that their matter is not coming from falling stars.
We actually get a confirmation for the activity at the accretion disc from Hawking radiation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
"Hawking radiation is black-body radiation that is predicted to be released by black holes, due to quantum effects near the black hole event horizon. It is named after the physicist Stephen Hawking, who provided a theoretical argument for its existence in 1974.[1]"
"A pair of virtual waves/particles arises just outside the event horizon due to ordinary quantum effects. Very close to the event horizon, these always manifest as a pair of photons. It may happen that one of these photons passes beyond the event horizon, while the other escapes into the wider universe ("to infinity").[2] A close analysis shows that the exponential red-shifting effect of extreme gravity very close to the event horizon almost tears the escaping photon apart, and in addition very slightly amplifies it.[2] The amplification gives rise to a "partner wave", which carries negative energy and passes through the event horizon, where it remains trapped, reducing the total energy of the black hole.[2] The escaping photon adds an equal amount of positive energy to the wider universe outside the black hole"
So, we have a clear indication that particle pair could be created near the event horizon of a Black hole and while one particle/photon falls into the BH, the other one is ejected outwards.
It is specifically stated: "The escaping photon adds an equal amount of positive energy to the wider universe outside the black hole"
So, the SMBH has the capability to generate new particle pair. While one is falling into the SMBH, the other one is ejected outwards from its event horizon..
Please be aware that the innermost of the accretion disc is quite close to the event horizon.
So, the common sense must tell us that the accretion disc gets all its photons and particles from that Hawking pair activity.
Therefore, we also clearly see that the matter/plasma at the accretion disc is so hot and orbits at almost the speed of light as the virtual pair must also orbits at the speed of light before it can be transformed into real particle pair.
So, based on Hawking radiation explanation and a basic common sense we must understand that all the matter at the accretion disc comes from inside due to that hawking pair creation.
This Hawking activity clearly explain all the features of the accretion disc:
1. Ultra high orbital velocity - That velocity is almost at the speed of light which is due to the orbital velocity of the virtual pair.
2. Ultra hot temp - The pair creation process must come also with ultra high temp. therfore we call it hot plasma.
3. Falling matter - We can agree that matter can fall inwards directly into the SMBH. But there is no common sense to assume that matter falls into the accretion disc just to gain that ultra high orbital velocity and temp. There is no common sense in that activity. How could it be that the SMBH with all of its ultra gravity force let his food just to orbit near his mouth at almost the speed of light just to be ejected later on to the open space? If S2 star (for example) was really the food of our SMBH milky way, it would swallow it in less the less then a second and not brake it to its particles just to see as it orbits near his moth. That is a fantasy.
4. Rin - The most inwards ring of the accretion disc is almost at the same radius of the event horizon. That is evidence that due to the Hawking radiation one particle (out of the virtual pair) is ejected from the event horizon directly into the innermost ring. That proves that Hawking radiation process can create the matter that we see in the accretion disc.
5. Rout - Rout is just 3 times the size of Rin. After that we only may see some hot gas that had been ejected from the accretion disc.
6. Spiraling inwards - as we do not observe any sort of spiraling inwards - not from outside into the accretion disc and not from the accretion disc into the SMBH it proves that matter doesn't come from outside. If matter was coming from outside then we had to see a spiraling shape from the radius of S2 high above the accretion disc and all the way to Rout.
We don't see it at any accretion disc in the universe. Therefore, even if we don't see any falling star in real action, it also proves that nothing from the past is in falling spiral path into the accretion disc. Hence, Nothing - Just nothing from outside can fall into the accretion disc and increase its orbital velocity and temp to that level of the plasma that exist in that disc.
7. Twin molecular jet stream - Our scientists tell us that the matter at that jet stream is coming from the accertion disc. So, the particles that had been ejected from the accretion disc are trapped by the Ultra magnetic force of the SMBH and boosted at almost 0.8c high above/below its magnetic poles. Again, there is no common sense for the SMBH to "eat" a star into its accretion disc and then boost most of that broken star' particles above and below its poles.
8. Most of the new form stars activity takes place near the SMBH. Based on what common sense we assume that the SMBH eats those new created stars just to break them to their basic particles, orbit those broken particles at 0.3c and then boost them at 0.8c just to start the whole process of new stars activity.

Conclusion -
Our scientists have never even seen any falling stars or inwards spiraling shape into the accretion disc as all the matter there is created by the SMBH.
This is real.
This is based Hawking radiation activity, real observation, real evidence and real common sense.
 So, how can you claim that while we don't see any falling matter, the matter must come from outside?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:50:32
Based on the BBT our scientists tell us that the hot plasma in that accretion disc around the SMBH is there due to falling stars from outside the disc.

The accretion disks are nothing to do with the BBT.

Yes it does.
The accretion disc is a vital evidence that new matter is created in our Universe in order to keep it steady as Einstein had clearly explained.

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.

No
You don't understand the attached article or you just don't wish to understand.
Einstein had stated that his idea of the cosmological constant was his greatest blunder
However, later on he had used that cosmological constant for new matter creation (new particles of matter must be continually formed in the volume from space) to keep the overall density of matter constant as needed for a steady universe:

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-lost-theory-describes-a-universe-without-a-big-bang
And so Einstein proposed a revision of his model, still with a cosmological constant, but now the constant was responsible for the creation of new matter as the universe expanded (because Einstein believed that in an expanding universe, the overall density of matter had to still stay constant):
“In what follows, I would like to draw attention to a solution to equation (1) that can account for Hubbel’s facts, and in which the density is constant over time.” And: “If one considers a physically bounded volume, particles of matter will be continually leaving it. For the density to remain constant, new particles of matter must be continually formed in the volume from space.”
Einstein achieves this property by the use of his old cosmological constant, λ:
“The conservation law is preserved in that by setting the λ-term, space itself is not empty of energy; as is well-known its validity is guaranteed by equations (1).” (Quoted in O’Raifeartaigh, et al., 2014, p. 7.)
So Einstein keeps on using his discarded lambda — despite the fact that he invented it for a non-expanding universe. If the universe expands as Hubble showed, Einstein seems to be saying, then I still need my lambda — now to keep the universe from becoming less dense as it expands in volume

Therefore, Einstein had never ever accepted the BBT theory and he also never ejected his theory for a steady Universe
Hence, you are the one that is insulting his memory and the real history.
Einstein had clearly stated that new particles of matter must be continually formed in the volume from space I have confirmed that the accretion disc does not get its matter from outside. Therefore the accretion disc must get its matter from inside. In other words - all the matter there must be formed by the SMBH Ultra high EM + Gravity force.
In any case, even if you reject hawking radiation as a source for pair creation it isn't my job to explain how the SMBH form or deliver new particles into the accretion disc.
I only highlight the real evidence from Einstein that new particles must be created in our Universe, the real observation that all the particles in the accretion disc doesn't come from outside as falling stars and the hawking radiation that proves the idea of pair creation b the SMBH.
Based on those real facts/evidences/observations it is your mission to explain how the SMBH really works and how it eject new particles to its accretion disc

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:50:32
Based on the BBT our scientists tell us that the hot plasma in that accretion disc around the SMBH is there due to falling stars from outside the disc.
The accretion disks are nothing to do with the BBT.

Yes it does.
The accretion disc is a vital evidence that new matter is created in our Universe in order to keep it steady as Einstein had clearly explained.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:50:32
Hence, the BBT is based on lie.

The BBT is not based on anything to do with black holes anyway, so your claim makes no sense.

Yes, the BBT is based on lie.
As the matter in the accretion disc comes from inside (by new pair creation of the SMBH) it fully contradicts the BBT that new matter can't be created in our universe in order to keep it steady as Einstein had stated.

[Bored chemist]

Common sense of whom?

Anyone older than about 3.

[Bored chemist]

I would like to remind you that we focus in this tread on the BBT.

Fine.
Stop banging on about your idea where things fall up.

And, when you do that , you will realise that black holes have nothing to do with it.
The black holes and accretion disks might have something to do with your fantasy, but they have nothing to do with the BBT.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Common sense of whom?

Anyone older than about 3.

Anyone older than 3 would tell you that as Our scientists had never seen any falling star or inwards spiraling shape into any accretion disc in the entire universe with all their supper advanced technology and with all the billions available discs, then noting really falls into those accretion discs.
Based on that simple common sense our scientists must explain the real source of the matter in those SMBH accretion discs.

The black holes and accretion disks might have something to do with your fantasy, but they have nothing to do with the BBT.

Hawking told us about the pair creation & radiation around the BH event horizon.
This isn't fantasy as the BBT. This is real.
I hope that even you confirm Hawking explanation that SMBH can generate new pair particles near its event horizon.
Those new created particles can keep the universe steady as Einstein clearly told us.
Therefore, we are living today in a steady universe.
That by itself kicks out the BBT theory.

[Bored chemist]

Based on that simple common sense our scientists must explain the real source of the matter in those SMBH accretion discs.

It fell in.
And I remind you that you have no evidence that says otherwise.

Hawking told us about the pair creation & radiation around the BH event horizon.

And it has nothing to do with the BBT which is why the BBT was decades earlier.

The only "link" between the BBT and BH is your bizarre idea that the universe is continuously falling out of a black hole.
But that's plainly impossible- where did the BH come from?

I hope that even you confirm his explanation that SMBH can generate new pair particles near its event horizon.

Yes.

Those new created particles can keep the universe steady as Einstein clearly told us.

No
Partly because Einstein said that was a mistake.
But mainly because, as the BH generates particles, the BH itself loses mass.
After it has emitted it's own mass in particles, it will cease to exist.
That will take a long while, but it isn't "forever".
So it can not be responsible for a steady state universe.

[charles1948]

Steady State Theory offers the only plausible explanation for the Universe - which is, that it has always existed.

Rival theories such as BBT are unsatisfactory,  Because they posit that the Universe began at a specific moment in time.

Which invites the obvious question - what was happening before that time?  To which there's no answer.

Other than a claim, than even before the Universe came into physical existence. the "Laws" of Quantum Mechanics already existed.

Doesn't that  give rise to the question: then where did the "Laws" come from?

[Bored chemist]

Steady State Theory offers the only plausible explanation for the Universe

It isn't plausible, because it is impossible.
It would be a breach of the conservation of energy.

It also runs into this problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox

So the "steady state" is one option we can absolutely rule out.

Because they posit that the Universe began at a specific moment in time.

We know when that happened.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:11:58
I hope that even you confirm his explanation that SMBH can generate new pair particles near its event horizon.

Yes.

Thanks
So you have to agree that SMBH can generate the matter/particles to its accretion disc.
Therefore, there is no need for any falling star.

But that's plainly impossible- where did the BH come from?

They all come from the SMBH. We have clear evidence for that:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2165505-the-centre-of-our-galaxy-may-be-swarming-with-10000-black-holes/
As many as 10,000 new black holes have been discovered buzzing around in the centre of the Milky Way galaxy.
If those 10,000 BH were the food of the SMBH, it would eat them all long ago.
As they all bussing around the Milky Way SMBH it proves that all of them had been created by the SMBH itself.

Partly because Einstein said that was a mistake.

No
Einstein had just said the cosmological constant idea was his biggest mistake.
Till his last day he believed in a steady Universe.
You can't just change the history.

as the BH generates particles, the BH itself loses mass.

Well this is the only issue that Hawking missed.
There are no negative mass in our universe and therefore the pair particles that the SMBH generates have both positive mass but negative charged.
Therefore, as one is ejected outwards into the accretion disc, the other one falls in and increase the total mass of the SMBH.
Each one of those 10,000 BH that are buzzing around in the centre of the Milky Way galaxy has the ability to generate pair particles.
Sooner or later each one of them might become bigger and might carry its own galaxy.
Each BH at the center of each dwarf galaxy that we see around the Milky Way had been created by the SMBH Milky Way.
There is no need for the SMBH Milky way to eat any sort of matter from outside. It can generate its own food.
As it eats one particle from the pair, the other one is ejected outwards.
We can claim that all the matter that we see in our universe is actually a byproduct of that pair process.
All the stars in the Milky Way had been created by the SMBH Milky Way. Nothing comes from outside.
So, the Milky Way is the real mother of all the stars, Planets, moons, BH in the galaxy.
Anyone older than 3 would tell you that Mothers do not eat their child.
Therefore, the SMBH would NEVER EVER eat even one atom from outside.
If we could verify the stars DNA in the Milky Way, we should find that all the 400 Billions stars in our galaxy are our sun blood brothers.

Steady State Theory offers the only plausible explanation for the Universe - which is, that it has always existed.

Thanks
I fully agree

Which invites the obvious question - what was happening before that time?

Well, in order to set our wonderful infinite universe full with matter and steady, all is needed a single BH.
We can compare the creation of matter in our universe to Darwin theory.
Darwin had stated that all the versatility of life had been evolved from just one cell of life (as ameba). In the same token, all the versatility of galaxies had been evolved from just single BH.
There is good chance that this first BH had been created by some sort of Bang (Big Bang or small bang).
However, once it had been created, it can become the mother of all the matter in the entire infinite Universe.

[charles1948]

Thanks BC, I've looked at the link you kindly provided, about "Olber's Paradox". Which I knew about already.

But actually I don't think it's a real paradox.   It arises from the relative insensitivity of the human eye when viewing objects at night.  In the dark of the night, our eyes can't see very well.

But the eyes of other creatures can see better in the dark.  For example, owls. 
When owls look up at the night-time sky, don't they see a sky ablaze with the light of stars?

Of course, ordinary owls spend their all their time looking downwards, at the ground, to find voles to eat.

But what if a mutant owl evolved to keep looking upwards?

[jeffreyH]

Steady state universe? Entropy kills that idea stone dead, I'm afraid. If it was steady it wouldn't be heading towards heat death. Now that your fantasy has been destroyed you can go back to playing dungeons and dragons, in your anoraks. Off you toddle. Toodle pip.

[Bored chemist]

Thanks BC, I've looked at the link you kindly provided, about "Olber's Paradox". Which I knew about already.

But actually I don't think it's a real paradox.   It arises from the relative insensitivity of the human eye when viewing objects at night.  In the dark of the night, our eyes can't see very well.

So, you read it, but you didn't understand it.
It has nothing to do with eyesight.
The paradox is that it should be as bright during the night as it is during the day,

[Bored chemist]

So you have to agree that SMBH can generate the matter/particles to its accretion disc.

No. i don't have to agree with that, because it is silly.

[Bored chemist]

There are no negative mass in our universe

Then there is no particulate Hawking radiation.
You can't have one without the other.

[Bored chemist]

They all come from the SMBH. We have clear evidence for that:

So, your stupid answer to the question "where did the black hole come from?" is that it came from the black hole.

Did you stop to think about that before you posted it?

Therefore, as one is ejected outwards into the accretion disc, the other one falls in and increase the total mass of the SMBH.

Obviously false, because it is inconsistent with the conservation laws.

Why do you keep saying it?

[Bored chemist]

Well, in order to set our wonderful infinite universe full with matter and steady, all is needed a single BH.

No, we also need the laws of physics to not work.
You keep lying about that problem.
Why?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:06:27
Therefore, as one is ejected outwards into the accretion disc, the other one falls in and increase the total mass of the SMBH.

Obviously false, because it is inconsistent with the conservation laws.

The creation of new particles pair doesn't contradict the conservation laws due to tidal activity.
Each pair gets its energy from the Ultra high SMBH EM energy and gravity. That should reduce the total EM of the SMBH. However the tidal activity compensates that EM lose of energy.
So let's verify how it works.
Please look at the following Image of Low and high lunar tides diagram:
https://www.dreamstime.com/low-high-lunar-tides-diagram-effect-moon-gravitational-force-seacoast-water-level-astronomy-geography-science-kids-image126122013
Now instead of the Earth let's set the SMBH and instead on one single moon let's set millions of stars.
Each star sets some minor internal friction in the SMBH. Please remember that each star is moving at different orbital cycle. Therefore when we combine the total impact of all of those million stars we should find that their tidal impact should keep the SMBH internal heat and its EM force even as it loose some energy due to that pair creation process.
Actually, as more particles falls into the SMBH it increases its mass and its gravity force. On the other hand as more particles are ejected outwards there are more stars around it. That process increases the tidal forces on the SMBH which increase its internal heat and its EM force.
Therefore, over time the SMBH increases its mass, its EM force and its gravity force, all of that due to tidal force.
Hence, the SMBH can generate new pair particles without violating the conservation laws.

Based on this activity, some galaxies are very productive:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Boom_Galaxy
"The Baby Boom Galaxy has been nicknamed "the extreme stellar machine" because it is seen producing stars at a rate of up to 4,000 per year (one star every 2.2 hours). The Milky Way galaxy in which Earth resides turns out an average of just 10 stars per year.[4]"
So, this galaxy produces 4000 stars per year while the Milky Way produces about 10 stars per year.
This is evidence!
If your imagination/hope of falling stars into the accretion disc was correct, then how those galaxies could produce so many new stars while the SMBH should eat any nearby star?
Where the energy/mass for those new stars comes from?
How many billions years is needed for you and for all the BBT believers to understand that NOTHING falls into the SMBH accretion disc? Not even a single atom!
That observation fully supports Einstein theory for new mass creation in order to keep our Universe steady.
However, It is clear that you don't confuse yourself with real observations and evidences.
You and all the other 10,000 BBT scientists keep on with that useless imagination and ignore any evidence/observation that contradicts the BBT.
Sorry, there is no science in the BBT and anyone that supports the BBT can't even call himself as scientist!