[Bored chemist]

We do not see any matter as it falls in.

I have never been to Canada.
So, I have never seen whether or not objects fall in Canada.

But, obviously, I don't need to.

If someone tried to tell me that things do not fall down in Canada, I would laugh at them. I would laugh all the more if I asked them if they had been there and they said "no".
If they said they had never been to Canada, but they thought that things there fell "up", because if they fell down it would spoil there idea I might- out of curiosity- ask what their idea was.

And if that idea, in addition to requiring things to fall up in Canada also broke the laws of physics, I think I would be justified as writing them off as an idiot.



Do you agree?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

If someone tried to tell me that things do not fall down in Canada, I would laugh at them. I would laugh all the more if I asked them if they had been there and they said "no".

While you are laughing, I'm crying.
So, please as you deeply believe that matter must fall down into the SMBH.
How a matter from S2 or G1 gas cloud that is located high above the SMBH could fall down all the way to the SMBH and just at almost the event horizon radius it would suddenly stop its falling in direction and start to orbit at purely circular orbit at almost the speed of light?
Please also be aware that each gas cloud and each star orbits at different orbital plane around the SMBH.
So, how could it be that matter from different objects that orbit at different orbital planes, different directions and different orbital velocities would all fall to the same single accretion disc and orbit together as one unite exactly at the same orbital plane, at the same pure circular orbital direction and at almost the speed of light?
Would you kindly explain the science law for that activity?

[Bored chemist]

So, please as you deeply believe that matter must fall down

Just for a moment, consider the alternative.
Do you really think that things fall up?

[Bored chemist]

How a matter from S2 or G1 gas cloud that is located high above the SMBH could fall down all the way to the SMBH and just at almost the event horizon radius it would suddenly stop its falling in direction and start to orbit at purely circular orbit at almost the speed of light?

Do you understand that something which is in orbit is still falling down? It keeps missing the ground because of its tangential velocity, but it is still accelerating down to the BH.
So it hasn't stopped falling.

It would be better if you understood science.
Try learning some.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

How a matter from S2 or G1 gas cloud that is located high above the SMBH could fall down all the way to the SMBH and just at almost the event horizon radius it would suddenly stop its falling in direction and start to orbit at purely circular orbit at almost the speed of light?

Do you understand that something which is in orbit is still falling down? It keeps missing the ground because of its tangential velocity, but it is still accelerating down to the BH.
So it hasn't stopped falling.

It would be better if you understood science.
Try learning some.

Why don't you answer my question?
As you claim that things/matter must fall down:

Do you really think that things fall up?

And as this matter must accelerate down to the SMBH:
 

it is still accelerating down to the BH.
So it hasn't stopped falling.

If it hasn't stopped falling as you claim, then how could it be that it doesn't get directly into the SMBH?
Please answer the following:

how could it be that matter from different objects that orbit at different orbital planes, different directions and different orbital velocities would all fall to the same single accretion disc and orbit together as one unite exactly at the same orbital plane, at the same pure circular orbital direction and at almost the speed of light?

If you understand science as you calim, then please:

Would you kindly explain the science law for that activity?

[Bored chemist]

Do you understand what it means when something is in orbit?

It keeps on falling- "forever".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit

Like I said; learn the science.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Do you understand what it means when something is in orbit?
It keeps on falling- "forever".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit
 

That is correct, but it isn't relevant to our discussion
Based on the article that you have offered it is stated:
"As the object is pulled toward the massive body, it falls toward that body. However, if it has enough tangential velocity it will not fall into the body but will instead continue to follow the curved trajectory caused by that body indefinitely. The object is then said to be orbiting the body."
Don't you understand that simple issue?
So, although S2 is falling toward the SMBH, it will keep its average orbital radius R-S2
Hence, it keeps its orbital radius..
The plasma at the accretion disc also orbits around the SMBH but its average orbital radius is R-Accer which is close to the radius of the event horizon.
R-S2 should be at least 10,000 times the value of R-accer.
So, how the matter from S2 that orbits at R-S2 which is more then 10,000 times the radius of the accretion disc (R-accer) and at 0.0..1 the speed of light can fall all the way to R-accer and only then keep on with the new orbital radius and also increase its orbital velocity to the speed of light?
Actually we can get better understanding from Newton’s orbital cannon:
https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/images/269-newton-s-orbital-cannon.
It cloud keep on falling "forever" at the same radius as you claim:

It keeps on falling- "forever".

However, if you reduce the velocity it must fall in and collide with the SMBH as we see in that diagram
You might hope that S2 could be accreted inwards and decreases its radius over time all the way till it get to the accretion disc.
However, in this scenario we must see some sort of inwards spiraling motion from S2 all the way to the accretion disc.
As we don't see any sort of matter that spiraling inwards then this hope is just imagination.
Therefore, matter can't just fall in a short time from S2 that orbits at R-s2 radius all the way to accretion disc and just then orbits at the R-accer radius.

Like I said; learn the science.

Please learn science and backup your nonsense by real science law.

[Bored chemist]

As we don't see any sort of matter that spiraling inwards

We don't see anything.
It's too far away.

Why can't you accept that?

[Bored chemist]

Don't you understand that simple issue?

Yes, I understood it, and if you had understood it, you wouldn't have asked this.

But, since you did ask that, it's clear that you didn't have a grasp of the simple science involved.

Hopefully you are starting to learn now.

If it hasn't stopped falling as you claim, then how could it be that it doesn't get directly into the SMBH?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

As we don't see any sort of matter that spiraling inwards

We don't see anything.

Thanks again for this reconfirmation.

It's too far away.
Why can't you accept that?

I don't accept it as it is totally unrealistic!!!
You wish to believe that we don't see it as it is too far away.
That is incorrect!
Technically, if the plasma at the accretion disc was really based on the matter that comes from outside, then we had to see in any accretion disc an evidence for that matter as it spirals inwards.
We can clearly see millions over billions accretion discs at a distance of over than one billion light year away.
Hence, as we have the technology to observe so many accretion discs, we also have the technology to see the spiraling inwards matter - if it was really spiraling inwards from outside.
However, as we don't see that spiraling inwards matter even at one accretion disc out of the billions than the chance for that activity is less than one of a billion.
The same technology that we use to observe the accretion disc at one billion LY away should help us to observe any spiraling inwards matter as it is accreted into the accretion disc from any similar distance or less.
So, please why do you insist to convince yourself that we don't see it as it is too far away?
This is a big mistake.
Why your BBT common sense can't let you consider a possibility that we don't see even one in a billion possibilities as in our real universe nothing from outside spirals inwards?
Just as an example:
If you see one billion people without horn at their head. what is the chance that all of those people carry a horn at their head?
Sorry - what we don't see doesn't exist.
If you still don't wish to accept it, then it is your personal BBT problem!!!

[Bored chemist]

I don't accept it as it is totally unrealistic!!!

OK, if you think we can see the accretion disk of a black hole, post pictures.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I don't accept it as it is totally unrealistic!!!

OK, if you think we can see the accretion disk of a black hole, post pictures.

I have already did:

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."

[Bored chemist]

So, it's a blob.
You can't see any detail, so you couldn't tell if stuff was spiraling in, spiraling out or dancing a waltz.

Thanks for confirming what I said.

.

We don't see anything.
It's too far away.

Why can't you accept that?

[Bored chemist]

However, you can see that it is glowing.
That shows that it is giving out energy, so it must be getting energy from somewhere.
A plausible mechanism, consistent with the observation that things fall down, is that it is heated because gravitational potential energy is being converted to kinetic energy and then, by friction, into heat.

Are you claiming that it is hot because the unicorns say it should be?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

However, you can see that it is glowing.
That shows that it is giving out energy

Yes!
That is correct.
It is giving OUT energy and matter!

so it must be getting energy from somewhere.
A plausible mechanism, consistent with the observation that things fall down, is that it is heated because gravitational potential energy is being converted to kinetic energy and then, by friction, into heat.

NO!!!
Your plausible mechanism, is incorrect as we don't see any sort of spiraling inwards matter.
Therefore, matter from outside doesn't fall into the accretion disc.
However, there is a better plausible mechanism - The matter MUST come from inside..
In other words - the SMBH generates its own new particles in that plasma

Are you claiming that it is hot because the unicorns say it should be?

The pair creation must come with ultra high heat. Also the fusion activity at the accretion disc increases the heat of the plasma

[Bored chemist]

It is giving OUT energy and matter!

No, it is giving out energy precisely because it is taking in matter.

The pair creation must come with ultra high heat.

It's not nearly hot enough for pair production to be happening.

Your plausible mechanism, is incorrect as we don't see any sort of spiraling inwards matter.

We still don't see it because it is still too small and too far away.
You proved this by citing the picture.

However, there is a better plausible mechanism - The matter MUST come from inside..

Calling your idea, where stuff falls out of a BH "plausible" is a lie.
It's a breach of the laws of physics.

Falling up is not a plausible process.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on 24/04/2021 20:58:22
It is giving OUT energy and matter!

No, it is giving out energy precisely because it is taking in matter.

Can you please prove this imagination by real observation?
Sorry - we have never ever seen any matter that was taking in by the SMBH.
Therefore, this statement is a pure lie.

Quote from: Dave Lev on 24/04/2021 20:58:22
The pair creation must come with ultra high heat.

It's not nearly hot enough for pair production to be happening.

Our scientists estimate that the Milky Way' accretion disc temp is 10^9 c.
If this is not enough for the pair creation, please advice the requested temp for that process.

Quote from: Dave Lev on 24/04/2021 20:58:22
Your plausible mechanism, is incorrect as we don't see any sort of spiraling inwards matter.

We still don't see it because it is still too small and too far away.
You proved this by citing the picture.

This is nonsense!
Why we can see that M87 accretion disc so clearly (while it is so tiny and far away) but be can't see any matter as it is accreted from the visible orbital radius as S2 and G2 all the way to the accretion disc?
Not in the Milky way and not in any other galaxy in the entire Universe while technically there are more than billions observable accretion discs?

Do you really think that things fall up?

If you claim that matter falls in than you just lie.
In order for the matter to get closer to the SMBH accretion disc at 0.3c orbital velocity it can't just fall in. It must be accreted in or spiraling inwards.
Hence, the whole idea is that orbital objects as S2 and G2 can't just fall in.
They must keep on with their orbital momentum around SMBH but while they decrease their radius over time they also increase their orbital velocity.
Hence, it should take significant time for matter in S2 or G2 to finally reduce their orbital radius to Raccr and increase their velocity to 0.3c
You claim that you are scientist
So, based on your understanding, how long it should take S2 to be accreted all the way into the Milky Way accretion disc?
It is one second, one year, one million year or more than one billion year?
In order to help you, let's look at triton.
Our scientists wish to believe that it is accreted inwards to Neptune as they have found that one orbital cycle decreases its orbital time by less than a second.
I claim that it was just an error. If they would check it again today they would surly find that triton had been drifted outwards and its orbital time had been increased. So in reality, Triton is drifting outwards as any orbital object as any moon, planet, S2 star, G2 gas cloud MUST drift or spiral outwards over time.
However, as you don't agree with that understanding, then please advice how many years it is needed for that triton moon to be accreted into Neptune?
Based on that data please try to verify how many years it might take to S2 to be accreted inwards.

Calling your idea, where stuff falls out of a BH "plausible" is a lie.

Claiming that matter falls in is the real lie.
As we have never ever seen any falling matter or even any accreted matter than anyone that claims that matter falls into the SMBH accretion disc at 0.3c is a liar by definition, even if he calls himself - "scientist".
From now on - you (and all the other 10,000 BBT scientists) are more than welcome to tell that you hope, Believe or wish that matter should fall in. But it is forbidden to lie by claiming that matter really falls in without any prove or observation to support this imagination.

It's a breach of the laws of physics.

Sorry - you must adjust your laws of physics to our real universe and not vice versa.
Our Universe doesn't need to dance according to your wrong laws of physics.
It is your mission to fit those laws to the real observation.
As we do not see any falling matter then you must consider a possibility that matter from outside does not fall in or even accreted in.
If you eliminate that possibility without any evidence or observation to support your imagination - then you can't be called "scientist" any more.

[Bored chemist]

Can you please prove this imagination by real observation?

Sure; it's a school science experiment.
https://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/mechanical_equivalent_of_heat.html#:~:text=The%20temperature%20goes%20up.,falls%2C%20and%20the%20temperature%20rise.
falling things get hotter.

This is nonsense!
Why we can see that M87 accretion disc so clearly (while it is so tiny and far away) but be can't see any matter as it is accreted from the visible orbital radius as S2 and G2 all the way to the accretion disc?

We only see part of the accretion disk.
We see the bit which is hot enough to glow brightly.
We don't even see the outer part of the disk.
So, obviously, we don't see the stuff outside the disk.

If you claim that matter falls in than you just lie.

Either stuff falls up, or it falls down.
And I never thought I would be called a liar because I think things fall down.

In order for the matter to get closer to the SMBH accretion disc at 0.3c orbital velocity it can't just fall in. It must be accreted in or spiraling inwards.

It has some initial angular momentum, which is conserved.
Again, this is high school physics.
"the skater spins faster when they pull their arms in"

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-osuniversityphysics/chapter/11-2-conservation-of-angular-momentum/

You can see the same effect when bubbles show that the water speeds up its rotation as it spins down the drain.

You claim this is impossible, yet you can see it any time you bathe.

Sorry - you must adjust your laws of physics to our real universe and not vice versa.

The laws I use  are based on real observations like falling lead shot and spinning ice skaters.
Whereas there is absolutely no evidence to support your hallucinations.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Sure; it's a school science experiment.
https://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/mechanical_equivalent_of_heat.html#:~:text=The%20temperature%20goes%20up.,falls%2C%20and%20the%20temperature%20rise.
falling things get hotter.

"As a space capsule returns to Earth, friction with the atmosphere creates a great deal of heat."
Do you claim that there is an atmospher around the SMBH?
Without Atmospher there will be no friction and no heat.

We only see part of the accretion disk.
We see the bit which is hot enough to glow brightly.
We don't even see the outer part of the disk.
So, obviously, we don't see the stuff outside the disk.

You actually claim again why we don't see any falling matter.
That proves that we simply don't see a falling matter.
In any case, I don't agree with your explanation.
If S2 or G2 or any other star in that radius has to "fall in" or accreted in then the accretion disc has to start from that radius.
So, if matter was really accreted from S2 we had to see a significantly wide accretion disc. It should be all the way from Racc till Rs2.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:08:06
In order for the matter to get closer to the SMBH accretion disc at 0.3c orbital velocity it can't just fall in. It must be accreted in or spiraling inwards.

It has some initial angular momentum, which is conserved.
Again, this is high school physics.
"the skater spins faster when they pull their arms in"

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-osuniversityphysics/chapter/11-2-conservation-of-angular-momentum/

What a nonsense.
That skater spins faster when she pulls her arms. So, without pulling her arms she can't spin faster.
Based on my understanding, stars have no arms.
So, without arms, how can they spin faster?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:08:06
If you claim that matter falls in than you just lie.

Either stuff falls up, or it falls down.
And I never thought I would be called a liar because I think things fall down.

Sorry - there is no free matter around the SMBH that is willing to fall in.
Any star, any gas cloud and any matter around the SMBH is there as it ORBITS around that SMBH.
You are more than welcome to hope/believe/wish that those orbital objects are accreted inwards (or spiraling inwards), while I claim that any orbital object is excreted outwards or spiraling outwards.
Therefore, if you would continue to claim that those orbital objects fall in than it would be consider as a lie.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:08:06
Sorry - you must adjust your laws of physics to our real universe and not vice versa.

The laws I use  are based on real observations like falling lead shot and spinning ice skaters.

If you base your law on spinning ice skaters than you have to show the star' hands that are needed to increase its spinning.
If you also base those laws on falling objects while all the objects there orbit around the SMBH, than this idea is pure nonsense.
As long as we don't really observe any matter that is accreted inwards (and we clearly don't see!!!!) than your explanation for why we don't see is just nonsense.
Any law must based on what we see and not on what we don't see!
If you don't understand that, than you can't call yourself - scientist.
Therefore, a law that is based on nonsense without any real observation to support it -  is a nonsense by definition.

Please also answer the following:
1.

Our scientists estimate that the Milky Way' accretion disc temp is 10^9 c.
If this is not enough for the pair creation, please advice the requested temp for that process.

2.

based on your understanding, how long it should take S2 to be accreted all the way into the Milky Way accretion disc?
It is one second, one year, one million year or more than one billion year?

[Bored chemist]

Based on my understanding

Because you repeatedly refuse to learn, you just don't have any understanding.

Please also answer the following:

Do you need me to answer because you are too lazy, or because you are not clever enough?