[Bored chemist]

The creation of new particles pair doesn't contradict the conservation laws due to tidal activity.

It does.
Making more stuff is a contradiction of the law of conservation of mass.
Nothing you can say will stop that being true, so it's silly that you keep insisting on it.

[jeffreyH]

There are no negative mass in our universe

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

That's a very interesting point BC.

[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.

That's a very interesting point BC.

And it demolishes Dave's idea.
But he will ignore that and continue to claim that creating mass from nowhere is consistent with the conservation of mass a.d that things fall up.
He just doesn't science.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The creation of new particles pair doesn't contradict the conservation laws due to tidal activity.

It does.
Making more stuff is a contradiction of the law of conservation of mass.
Nothing you can say will stop that being true, so it's silly that you keep insisting on it.

It is very clear that you and all the BBT believers are not going to confuse yourself with the evidences / observations of our Universe.
You all clearly see that he Milky Way creates every year 10 new stars and that Baby Boom Galaxy creates 4,000 new stars every year.
But who cares?
In your imagination the Universe must obey to your physics laws.
If you see a contradiction between the observation to your laws, then those laws must win.
Based on the conservation of mass law galaxies can't generate new mass.
So, even if you clearly see that it generates new mass/stars you all confirm that it shouldn't do so.
Hence, you really don't care about that clear observation of a galaxy that creates 4000 new stars per year.
You also don't care that you have never ever seen any falling star into any accretion disc in the entire Universe while all of those discs are fully loaded with hot plasma.
You only care about your physics laws.
It is forbidden for the Universe to work differently from those laws
I wonder what should be the correct punishment for those galaxies that does not obey to your laws?
Are you going to set them in jail for the rest of their life or just eliminate them from our observations?

If we would ask a child older than 3 what is the source of mass for a galaxy that creates 4000 stars per year while its accretion disc is full with matter and not even a single star falls into that disc (at least in the last 50 years or more), what do you expect to get as an answer:
1. Based on our law of physics, galaxies shouldn't generate new mass and therefore, please kill all the galaxies that do not obey to our laws
2. Those galaxy generate new matter to cover all the mass that is needed for the new created stars and therefore, we have an error in your law of physics.
So please as we see a severe contradiction between the observations to our physics laws - what is more important for you?
The observation/ evidence of our universe or your physics laws?
Sorry - if you were real scientists you had to ignore all your physics laws and focus only on real observations and evidences.
We are so lucky that you and all the other BBT scientists do not charge on electronic engineering & new technologies as based on this approach we would be stuck at the technology of 1915.

[Bored chemist]

You all clearly see that he Milky Way creates every year 10 new stars and that Baby Boom Galaxy creates 4,000 new stars every year.
But who cares?

Nobody, because they understand that the new stars are made from hydrogen that is already there (being drawn in by gravity).

However, your claim is that mass spontaneously pops into existence near black holes and that's an obvious breech of the conservation of mass.

Making more stuff is a contradiction of the law of conservation of mass.
Nothing you can say will stop that being true, so it's silly that you keep insisting on it.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 14:46:03
You all clearly see that he Milky Way creates every year 10 new stars and that Baby Boom Galaxy creates 4,000 new stars every year.
But who cares?

Nobody, because they understand that the new stars are made from hydrogen that is already there (being drawn in by gravity).

Do you have any evidence that could support this understanding that hydrogen is already there as it is drawn by gravity?
If so, would you kindly introduce it?
I actually found evidence/observation that contradicts this assumption:
https://phys.org/news/2018-01-swarm-hydrogen-clouds-center-galaxy.html
"A team of astronomers has discovered what appears to be a grand exodus of more than 100 hydrogen clouds streaming away from the center of the Milky Way and heading into intergalactic space."
In our real universe Hydrogen clouds streaming away from the center of the Milky Way and heading into intergalactic space.
Please be aware that this baby boom galaxy creates 4000 stars per year and 4,000,000 stars per 1000 years.
Please show us why do you claim that all of that mass drawn in by gravity while we clearly see that the hydrogen clouds are streaming away from the galaxy.
So, based on what kind of observation do you claim that hydrogen is moving inwards?
If you don't have any support to this imagination, then your assumptions are wrong and this message would be considered as a lie.
You set the physics law high above the observation and evidence.
You have one mission in your life - to protect the BBT from any sort of evidence and observation.
You are ready to offer lies just to bypass the contradiction.
I offer real observations to protect my understanding, while you offer unproved ideas and nonsense
Therefore, you and all the other BBT scientists don't have a basic clue how our universe really works and you even don't wish to understand how it works.

[Bored chemist]

If the hydrogen can go away in a jet, then the hydrogen is there.
Why did you ask me to prove that the hydrogen is there when you already knew it?

You set the physics law high above the observation and evidence.

You have offered no evidence.
You just keep claiming that things fall up.
There is ample evidence that you are wrong about that.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

If the hydrogen can go away in a jet, then the hydrogen is there.
Why did you ask me to prove that the hydrogen is there when you already knew it?

Wow
Why is it so difficult with you?
1. You have stated that due to gravity Hydrogen must move inwards due to gravity but based on real observation the Hydrogen clouds are moving outwards AGIENST the gravity. Actually, our scientists even claim that they are not just moving outwards but they are streaming away from galaxy and heading into intergalactic space.
You should apologize for this lie!
2. You also have stated that stars must fall into the accretion disc - But we have NEVER EVER seen any falling star in any SMBH accretion disc even as there are billions of discs and all of them are fully loaded with hot plasma at any given moment.
3. So, how come that this baby boom galaxy generates about 4000 stars per year (or 4M stars per 1000 years) while its disc is full with hot plasma, not even a single star falls in and any available hydrogen cloud is streaming outwards from the galaxy?

You just keep claiming that things fall up.

Why do you keep on with this nonsense while we clearly see that no star /matter is falling in and hydrogen clouds are actually ejected outwards?
Is there any possibility for you to accept the real observations and evidences?
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that those observations clearly indicates that new hydrogen MUST be created by the galaxy?
From now on - If you still insist that new stars could be created without new mass creation by the galaxy then it is your obligation to prove your imagination by real observation.
If you can't do so, I'm not going to accept any more lies/imaginations from you.

[Bored chemist]

Why is it so difficult with you?

Because I'm right, and you know it.
That's why you post nonsense.

Why do you keep on with this nonsense while we clearly see that no star /matter is falling in

We can't see anything "clearly" at that distance.

it is your obligation to prove your imagination by real observation.

No.
You are the on proposing some new ideas; it's your job to provide the evidence.

Is there any possibility for you to accept the real observations and evidences?

You have not provided any evidence.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:14:19
Why is it so difficult with you?

Because I'm right, and you know it.

You are absolutely wrong and you know that.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:14:19
Why do you keep on with this nonsense while we clearly see that no star /matter is falling in

We can't see anything "clearly" at that distance.

Why do you keep on with those lies?
Our scientists have supper advanced technology and they observe the Hydrogen gas clouds as they are streaming away from galaxy and heading into intergalactic space. So, how can you claim that "We can't see anything "clearly" or assume that the Hydrogen drawn in by gravity?

because they understand that the new stars are made from hydrogen that is already there (being drawn in by gravity).

Why do you insist to confuse us with wrong data?
Actually as expected you don't let the observation/evidence to confuse you.
You want to force Hydrogen from outside the Galaxy to move inwards however in our real universe our scientists OBSERVE that the Hydrogen clouds are moving outwards.
In order to bypass the contradiction between real observations to your imagination you suddenly claim that: "We can't see anything "clearly" at that distance".
Sorry – We do see and therefore this message is lie.
We clearly see the hydrogen clouds and we do observe their outwards direction.
Hence, you have the following possibilities:
1. if you didn't know that the Hydrogen clouds are streaming outwards from the galaxy, then it is not too late for you to understand that the matter/Hydrogen for the new created stars can't come from outside the galaxy.
2. If you already knew that the hydrogen clouds are moving outwards but you just wish to confuse us with wrong data, then you have to apologies for your lies.
In any case, you have failed to prove your "understanding" that matter/Hydrogen from outside the galaxy is using for the new created stars.
Hence, if the hydrogen isn't coming from outside - then it must come from Inside.
Therefore, in order to explain the creation of new stars in the galaxy - New matter/hydrogen clouds MUST be created at the SMBH accretion disc. Some might be ejected outwards from the galaxy while others would be used to form new stars.

your claim is that mass spontaneously pops into existence near black holes and that's an obvious breech of the conservation of mass.

You must have a fatal misunderstanding.
As the Observations clearly tell us that new matter must be created at the galaxy, then you can't prevent it by any law even if you call it "the conservation of mass".
The Observations and evidences are much more important than any physics law.
As there is a clear contradiction - it's time for you and for all other BBT believers to fit our laws to the observation and not vice versa.

[Bored chemist]

So, how can you claim that "We can't see anything "clearly" or assume that the Hydrogen drawn in by gravity?

Show me the clear pictures of accretion disks round blackholes or accept that we can't see them clearly.

If you don't think that gravity acts on hydrogen, what is keeping the Sun from exploding?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:40:25
So, how can you claim that "We can't see anything "clearly" or assume that the Hydrogen drawn in by gravity?

Show me the clear pictures of accretion disks round black holes or accept that we can't see them clearly.

Is it real?
You don't have to argue with me about that picture, it's better for you to argue with our scientists.
They claim that they cleary observe that 100 Hydrogen clouds are streaming away from the center of the Milky Way and heading into intergalactic space:

https://phys.org/news/2018-01-swarm-hydrogen-clouds-center-galaxy.html
"A team of astronomers has discovered what appears to be a grand exodus of more than 100 hydrogen clouds streaming away from the center of the Milky Way and heading into intergalactic space."
In our real universe Hydrogen clouds streaming away from the center of the Milky Way and heading into intergalactic space.

Do you think that they are liers?
Do you assume that if the picture/observation of the galaxy was no clear enough, they would tell us that kind of message? How could they count 100 Hydrogen clouds if they didn't really see them all?
Sorry - if they claim that they see/observe that those 100 Hydrogen clouds are streaming away from the center of the Milky Way and heading into intergalactic space then this message is real by 100%.
In the same token they also told us about their observation of the Molecular jet stream that is boosted outwards at almost 0.8c
Hence, our scientists tell us that they clearly observe matter/molecular/100 hydrogen clouds as they are moving outwards.
Do you accept all of those observations?
If you confirm that they see that matter is moving outwards from the galaxy, then how can you claim that the same matter should move inwards to the center of the galaxy or to the accretion disc or even to the SMBH?
You personally confirmed that we have never ever seen any falling star into the accretion disc.
So, if our scientists only observe outflow of matter from the galaxy, then how can you explain the creation of 10 stars per year in the Milky way or 4000 stars in the Baby boom galaxy?
Don't you see that you have already lost the game?
Don't you understand that galaxies MUST create new matter in order to support all the creations of new stars and all the outflows matter from the galaxy?

Actually, I already know your answer.
It is No No No.
You would never let the evidence/observation to confuse you.
So, you are more than welcome to keep on with your imaginations.

However, I would like to get the feedback from other friends as Kryptid, Halc and other about this key issue.
Do you agree or disagree that based on our scientists' observation and all the outflows of matter from the galaxy, there is no way for the galaxy to create new stars without the ability to generate new matter by itself?

[Bored chemist]

Is it real?
You don't have to argue with me about that picture, it's better for you to argue with our scientists.
They claim that they cleary observe that Hydrogen clouds are streaming away from the center of the Milky Way and heading into intergalactic space:

You have moved the goal posts.


There is plenty of hydrogen in the universe so it isn't a problem that some, near the BH is falling in, but other hydrogen far away is expanding out.

But there really is no clear picture of the accretion disk.
So we are left with extrapolation.
In every case which we have observed, unless there's some other effect  happening, things fall down.
It is reasonable to amuse this happens near black holes, because there si no reason to expect it not to.
.

Do you think that they are liers?

No
I think they are talking about something else.
They are talking about hydrogen that is relatively far from the BH, but the stuff falling into the BH is stuff that is near the BH.

They understand that "far way" is not the same as "near to"; do you?

[Origin]

Hence, our scientists tell us that they clearly observe matter/molecular/100 hydrogen clouds as they are moving outwards.
Do you accept all of those observations?

Those scientist also support the bbt, so you don't think they're believable, right?  What you are doing is known as a bad faith argument.  You accept anything that even vaguely supports your position and you reject everything that doesn't. 

[Dave Lev (OP)]

There is plenty of hydrogen in the universe so it isn't a problem that some, near the BH is falling in, but other hydrogen far away is expanding out.

Dear BC
You try to offer an explanation for the clear evidence/observation that so far our scientists have only observed matter/molecular/gas clouds as they are moving away from the galaxy, away from the center of the galaxy, away from the accretion disc.
You have already confirmed that observations/evidences.
So, I really appreciate that at least we all agree on those observations and evidences.
Now, let's discuss on explanations, ideas, theories for that observations:
1. You claim: "There is plenty of hydrogen in the universe so it isn't a problem that some, near the BH is falling in, but other hydrogen far away is expanding out -
My answers are as follow:
A. Our scientists clearly see in the Milky Way that 100 gas clouds are streaming away from the Milky Way galaxy. They also clearly see the molecular jet stream as it is moving away from the galaxy at 0.8c. So, if some other gas clouds near the BH or the accretion disc are falling in, then we had to see them. The chance that we see all of those 100 Gas clouds as they all streaming away and just one is falling in is zero. Please be aware that any falling in must come with Fireworks. so even if we assume that one hydrogen gas cloud was really falling inwards then we had to see its fireworks at that falling in activity. Hence, there is no way for us to miss even a small gas cloud as it falls into the accretion disc.
B. I also hope that you agree that there is no way for those 100 gas clouds to be ejected while at the same time and in the same path/distance other gas clouds would fall in.
That by itself kill the assumption that gas clouds from outside could fall into the galaxy. Therefore, we can only discuss about the gas cloud that are currently located in the galaxy. So how many of gas clouds are there by now?
C.

But there really is no clear picture of the accretion disk.

Even if you claim that it is difficult to observe our own galaxy, then there are other Billions galaxy and we clearly see their accretion discs. Therefore, the chance to miss a falling gas cloud from all of those opportunities is virtually Zero.
D. You actually offered a clear photo of M87. We don't see there any sort of falling in or even a spiral inwards shape. Not from outside to the accretion disc and not from the accretion disc into the SMBH. That proves that at least for the last several Millions/billions years nothing really fall into that accretion disc.
E.

So we are left with extrapolation.

Ok let's set the extrapolation:
The age of our galaxy is estimated to be more than 12 B years. So, if during all of that long time our galaxy was ejecting so many gas clouds outwards, how could it be that after so long time the center of the milky way is still full with hydrogen gas ?
Don't forget that the gas clouds are used also to create new stars. As the Milky Way generates 10 stars per year than in the last 12 Billion years it should generate 120 Billion stars. So how come that while so many gas clouds are streaming outwards, the galaxy could generate 120 Billion stars, "eat" some of the gas clouds and still be full with Hydrogen gas clouds?
Sorry, based on the extrapolation there is no way to keep so much gas clouds at the center of the galaxy after 12 BY. That extrapolation tells us that the only way for the galaxy to keep on with all of that activity of using so much Hydrogen gas and still streaming toady 100 Gas cloud from the galaxy is by creating constantly new hydrogen at the galaxy.
Please be aware that the accretion discs of all the Billions galaxies around us is still full with plasma. They all generate new stars while they all eject gas clouds. The Baby Boom galaxy generates 4000 stars per year. so in 10 Billion years it should generate 4,000,000,000,000 stars. There is no way for this galaxy to get all the requested hydrogen for this activity from outside, ejects hydrogen clouds and still be so productive after so long time.

You all have a severe mistake.
The galaxies MUST generate their own Hydrogen clouds in order to keep with their activity to eject gas clouds, creates new stars and increase the mass of the SMBH over time.

Those scientist also support the bbt, so you don't think they're believable, right?  What you are doing is known as a bad faith argument.  You accept anything that even vaguely supports your position and you reject everything that doesn't.

You miss the key point in my explanation.
I do understand that those scientists fully support the BBT (I assume that without supporting the BBT, no one can be considered as a scientist)
Therefore, I try to distinguish between observation and ideas.
So, when they claim that they observe the 100 gas clouds streaming outwards from the galaxy – than this data is correct.
However, when they tell us that although they have never ever observed any falling gas cloud into the galaxy on into the accretion disc and in the same token they assume / believe that matter must fall in based on their common sense, then I have no intention to accept this kind of stories/imagination/hope

[Bored chemist]

The chance that we see all of those 100 Gas clouds as they all streaming away and just one is falling in is zero

The stuff falling in is near the BH and the stuff not falling in is far.
The volume that is "near" is much smaller than the volume that is "far".
It is much easier to see big things than small things.
So the likelihood of only seeing the big things, but not the small things, is not "zero"; it is obviously very likely indeed.

This is just common sense.
Why didn't you realise that?

Please be aware that any falling in must come with Fireworks.

That's why we see accretion disks (albeit not very clearly).
Your own observation confirms the truth; stuff falls in.

Hence, there is no way for us to miss even a small gas cloud as it falls into the accretion disc.

We don't see the gas until it's in the process of falling in, and is getting compressed and heating up (because it's cold). The hot gas, heated by the energy released by converting potential energy to kinetic (and then heat)  is called the accretion disk, and we do see it.

I also hope that you agree that there is no way for those 100 gas clouds to be ejected while at the same time and in the same path/distance other gas clouds would fall in.

No, I don't agree with things that are wrong.
There's an obvious way for it to happen, and I already explained that.
The problem is either that you do not read, or that you do not understand.
I can't really help with that.

You actually offered a clear photo of M87. We don't see there any sort of falling in or even a spiral inwards shape.

Which shows that stuff isn't spiraling out, doesn't it?
Really, the picture isn't clear enough and you saying " a clear photo of M87" is just wrong.

Even if you claim that it is difficult to observe our own galaxy, then there are other Billions galaxy

Which are even further away than our own BH, so we see even less detail.

Do you really not understand that it is easier to see things if they are near, glowing, or big?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

As expected you have totally ignored all the key arguments in my reply.
So far we clearly observe matter/100 gas clouds as they are ejected outwards from the center of the galaxy.
You have already confirmed that we have never ever observed any sort of matter that is falling in.
Not from outside into the accretion disc and not from the accretion disc into the SMBH.

Quote from: Dave Lev on 16/04/2021 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)

However, now you suddenly claim

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 10:44:30
Hence, there is no way for us to miss even a small gas cloud as it falls into the accretion disc.

We don't see the gas until it's in the process of falling in, and is getting compressed and heating up (because it's cold). The hot gas, heated by the energy released by converting potential energy to kinetic (and then heat)  is called the accretion disk, and we do see it.

Sorry - how can you contradict yourself?
The accretion disc can't be used as an indication for a falling matter.
We have already deeply discussed about the accretion disc and so there is no need to say it again.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 10:44:30
The chance that we see all of those 100 Gas clouds as they all streaming away and just one is falling in is zero

The stuff falling in is near the BH and the stuff not falling in is far.
The volume that is "near" is much smaller than the volume that is "far".
It is much easier to see big things than small things.
So the likelihood of only seeing the big things, but not the small things, is not "zero"; it is obviously very likely indeed.

This is just common sense.
Why didn't you realise that?

This is not just a normal common sense. It is you BBT common sense which represents none-sense
Based on this sense, there is no possibility for the galaxy to create any sort of new matter.
Therefore - even if we don't see any falling stars/matter you and all the other BBT scientists would continue to hope that something must fall it

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 10:44:30
I also hope that you agree that there is no way for those 100 gas clouds to be ejected while at the same time and in the same path/distance other gas clouds would fall in.

No, I don't agree with things that are wrong.
There's an obvious way for it to happen, and I already explained that.
The problem is either that you do not read, or that you do not understand.
I can't really help with that.

Let's assume that those 100 gas clouds that are streaming outwards are currently located at radius R.
So, while all of those gas clouds are moving outwards, you wish to believe that other gas cloud at the same location should move inwards
This is really one of your biggest nonsense.

I really feel that I'm waste my timing on something that is absolutely so clear and simple.
So, if one day you would find an indication for falling stars or matter then let me know about it.
In the meantime - I would continue to claim that new matter MUST be created by the galaxy

[Bored chemist]

As expected you have totally ignored all the key arguments in my reply.

Snap!

Sorry - how can you contradict yourself?

I didn't.
It's just you refusing to understand things.

We see a vague glowing blob.
That's evidence that it's hot and that means something is heating it.
One of the few plausible reasons would be heat from stuff falling in.

But we do not see enough detail to watch things fall in.

So there is no contradiction really.
You just pretended that there was.

This is not just a normal common sense.

The fact that it easy to see big things is common sense.

Based on this sense, there is no possibility for the galaxy to create any sort of new matter.

Good.
Because that would be impossible.
It would be a breach of the conservation laws.

We have already deeply discussed about the accretion disc and so there is no need to say it again.

You have not "discussed" it, you have ignored the physics of it.
Stuff falls down.
Once you accept that there will be no need to say it again.

Therefore - even if we don't see any falling stars/matter you and all the other BBT scientists would continue to hope that something must fall it

The universe does not care what I hope.

So, while all of those gas clouds are moving outwards, you wish to believe that other gas cloud at the same location should move inwards

No. That's just you not understanding stuff that schoolkids would.
I didn't say at the same location.

There is plenty of hydrogen in the universe so it isn't a problem that some, near the BH is falling in, but other hydrogen far away is expanding out.

Do you not see that "near" is not the same location as "far away"?

[Bored chemist]

So, if one day you would find an indication for falling stars or matter then let me know about it.

You do not need me to point out that matter falls.

In the meantime - I would continue to claim that new matter MUST be created by the galaxy

You can claim that all you like, but it is still impossible.

I really feel that I'm waste my timing on something that is absolutely so clear and simple.

No.
The BBT is clear and simple, yet you waste your time on something impossible.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:31:07
So, if one day you would find an indication for falling stars or matter then let me know about it.

You do not need me to point out that matter falls.

You have a fatal mistake
We do not see any matter as it falls in.
Not form outside the galaxy into the galaxy.
Not from the galaxy into the center of the galaxy
Not from the center of the galaxy into the accretion disc
Not from the accretion disc into the SMBH
This is based on real observation.
Please be aware that the matter can't just fall into the accretion disc at the orbital velocity there is almost at the speed of light.
In order for the matter from outside to "fall in" to the accretion disc it must reduce its orbital radius and it also should increase its orbital velocity. So we need to see some spiraling inwards shape of that "falling matter".
For example - Let's assume that the Minimal radius of S2 is R-s2min.
At that point S2 orbits at its maximal velocity V-s2max.
However, that orbital velocity is just 0.0..1 the speed of light while the plasma at the accretion disc orbits al almost the speed of light.
So, in order for S2 matter to fall at the accretion disc, it must decrease its orbital radius and in the same token increase its orbital velocity.
That kind of activity must take time.
We know that S2 complete one orbital cycle in about 17 years.
However, the plasma at the accretion disc complete one cycle in a few second or minutes.
Hence, it should take the matter at least few years or even few thousands of years to be accreted into the accretion disc in spiraling shape.
We actually call it accretion disc as matter should be accreted inwards (and not just falling in)
You also claim that the matter must heat up at this accreted inwards (in spiraling shape).
Hence, there is no way for us to miss that accreted activity.
In any case – matter can't just fall in
It must spiral inwards and increase its orbital velocity as it comes closer to the accretion disc.
Therefore, we had to see that kind of spiraling inwards activity all the way to the accretion disc.

You have not "discussed" it, you have ignored the physics of it.
Stuff falls down.
Once you accept that there will be no need to say it again.

Sorry - Matter can't just fall in. It must set a spiraling inwards shape in order to meet the ultra high orbital velocity at accretion disc
There is no way for a matter that orbit at about 0.0..1 the speed of light to fall all the way to the accretion disc and just then start to orbit at almost the speed of light.
This is the BBT imagination
This is the BBT common sense that I call a BBT none-sense!!!
Matter can't just fall into the accretion disc and just at the accretion disc start to orbit at almost the speed of light.
It must spiral inwards.
Hence, as you claim for falling in, you actually ignore the physics that is needed to set the matter in the accretion disc.

So again - matter can't just fall into the accretion disc.
This is your fatal misunderstanding.

That spiral inwards shape should be visible at any galaxy.
However, we don't see it in our galaxy and we also can't see it in any other galaxy(out of the billions) in the entire universe.
Therefore, the missing spiraling inwards shape from S2 all the way to the accretion disc proves that Nothing really falls in!
Our scientists have solid observation that matter & Hydrogen gas clouds from the accretion disc are ejected outwards while nothing is spiraling inwards.
Please don't claim again for "falling in" as it is a sever mistake!!!

Conclusion:
I have proved by real observation that the galaxy ejects matter & 100 Gas clouds while nothing from outside spiraling inwards or accreted inwards into the accretion disc.
Hence - the galaxy must generate its own matter / Hydrogen atoms and molecular.

Please go and learn the real activity at the accretion disc before you tell us about the matter from outside that based on your BBT common sense (or none-sense) should fall into that disc!