[Dave Lev (OP)]

Based on my understanding, stars have no arms.
So, without arms, how can they spin faster?

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

Let me explain why you have a fatal mistake:
In the article it is stated:
"Because her moment of inertia has decreased, I′ < I, her final rotational kinetic energy has increased. The source of this additional rotational kinetic energy is the work required to pull her arms inward. Note that the skater’s arms do not move in a perfect circle—they spiral inward. This work causes an increase in the rotational kinetic energy, while her angular momentum remains constant. Since she is in a frictionless environment, no energy escapes the system. Thus, if she were to extend her arms to their original positions, she would rotate at her original angular velocity and her kinetic energy would return to its original value."
This is very clear.
It is also stated:
"The solar system is another example of how conservation of angular momentum works in our universe. Our solar system was born from a huge cloud of gas and dust that initially had rotational energy. Gravitational forces caused the cloud to contract, and the rotation rate increased as a result of conservation of angular momentum "
So, our scientists compare the impact of the hands of the skater to the gravitational forces.
However, the gravitational force of that huge cloud of gas and dust is constant.
So, without a significant change in that gravitational force, the gas cloud won't spin faster.
Therefore, the extra gravitational force must come from outside.
That extra gravitational force MUST come from the SMBH itself.
So, when we look at all of those G gas clouds that orbit around the SMBH, we ignore its great impact.
As they come closer to the SMBH, they spin faster. That increase of the spin creates the requested performances for the creation of new stars in those gas clouds.
Hence, most (or even all) the stars in our galaxy MUST be created while the gas clouds orbits close enough around the SMBH.
There is no way for gas cloud to set even one moon without the impact of external ultra high gravity force.
Hence, all the stars in the Milky way galaxy had been created at the center of the galaxy.
Our Sun had also been created over there.
So, the idea that stars could be created at the spiral arms or outside the galaxy is a fiction.
As all the stars in the galaxy MUST be created at the center of the Galaxy by the impact of the SMBH gravity force, then they have to migrate outside over time.
As they migrate/spiral outwards, new matter must be created at the core of the galaxy in order to create new gas clouds constantly.
That proves that the SMBH accretion disc ejects its matter outwards.
That matter sets all the gas clouds that orbit around the SMBH.
In those gas clouds all the stars in our galaxy had been formed.
As orbital objects MUST spiral outwards over time, as the stars are drifting outwards they set the spiral shape of the spiral arms in the galaxy.
If you wish to understand that activity - You can understand how the spiral galaxy works and how our Universe really works.

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

You have stated the accretion temp in hot high enough for the pair process.
As the accretion disc temp is 10^9c it is your obligation to inform what should be the accretion temp in order to support the pair process.

[Bored chemist]

is your obligation to inform

No, it's simple physics.
However, since you are saying that pair production takes place, it is your job to show that the disk is hot enough do produce pairs.

[Bored chemist]

So, without a significant change in that gravitational force, the gas cloud won't spin faster.

Yes it does, just like the water going down the drain, and for much the same reason.
The "change" in gravitational force is that there's a stronger force nearer the BH, so, as matter falls in, it is exposed to a greater force.
Instead of the skaters muscles doing the work, gravity does it.
That shouldn't be difficult to understand, should it?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

So, without a significant change in that gravitational force, the gas cloud won't spin faster.

Yes it does, just like the water going down the drain, and for much the same reason.
The "change" in gravitational force is that there's a stronger force nearer the BH, so, as matter falls in, it is exposed to a greater force.
Instead of the skaters muscles doing the work, gravity does it.
That shouldn't be difficult to understand, should it?

Wow
What a nonsense!
Did you ever have a chance to read Isaac Newton shell theorem?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem

"Isaac Newton proved the shell theorem[1] and stated that:
1. A spherically symmetric body affects external objects gravitationally as though all of its mass were concentrated at a point at its center.
2. If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e., a hollow ball), no net gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object's location within the shell."

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that "A spherically symmetric body affects external objects gravitationally as though all of its mass were concentrated at a point at its center".

Sorry, you have just proved that your knowledge in gravity is zero (or less than zero).
So, please don't tell us about your nonsense of "self gravity increase"

We have a clear observation for the great impact of the SMBH on the G gas clouds that orbit around it:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0810/0810.2723.pdf
"The presence of young massive stars orbiting on eccentric rings within a few tenths of a parsec of the supermassive black hole in the Galactic centre is challenging for theories of star formation."
"The transfer of energy during closest approach allows part of the cloud to become bound to the black hole, forming an eccentric disc that quickly fragments to form stars. "
Our scientists clearly see all of those young massive stars that are created near the SMBH. They also clearly understand the great impact of the SMBH gravity on this process.
So why they claim that "The presence of young massive stars orbiting on eccentric rings within a few tenths of a parsec of the supermassive black hole in the Galactic centre is challenging for theories of star formation."?
The answer is very simple:
Our scientists clearly see the great impact of the SMBH on the G gas clouds.
They see all of those young massive stars that had just been created by the gravity power of the SMBH.
However, that observation contradicts the BBT.
Based on their wish the SMBH should eat stars and not create stars.
Therefore they claim that this observation "is challenging for theories of star formation".
You and all the other  10,000 BBT scientists including those at arxiv don't wish to accept the clear observations as it contradicts your lovely BBT theory.
Therefore, all of you are so confused and wonder how it could be that you have never ever seen even one star that is eaten by the one SMBH in the entire universe.
On the contrary, you actually see all of those young massive stars that had just been created by the gravity power of the SMBH.
That is a clear contradiction with the BBT.
However, as expected, you don't let the observation to confuse you.
You wish to believe that the SMBH is eating stars and not creating new stars.
Based on the BBT the SMBH MUST eat stars while what we see is that it generates new stars.
Therefore you are so frustrated that not even one SMBH in the entire universe works according to your wish.
You try to explain why it is so difficult to see even one single falling star into the accretion disc of any SMBH in the entire universe, but you do not deal with all those new created stars that we clearly see.

There is one more important issue:
https://astronomy.com/news/2019/03/astronomers-spot-massive-twin-stars-nestled-close-together
"scientists suspect that nearly all stars may form in multiples before splitting apart as they age. This is because stars form in groups, with the massive clouds of dust and gas that give birth to stars – stellar nebulae – forming thousands of stars in brief period"
Only the SMBH gravity force is strong enough to form thousand stars in groups in those nearby G gas clouds in brief period.

However, you and all the other scientists position your wish/hope (according the BBT) high above any real observation.
Shame on you. All of you!

[jeffreyH]

Dave, science is based upon observation, not fairy tales. The observations are then modelled. If the model can be shown to give accurate predictions then it is accepted as useful. The amount of time that astronomers have had to observe Sag a* is so little that nothing of significance has had time to happen yet. When useful data has been collected then conclusions will be reached and models will be developed. Until then it is hardly appropriate to indulge in wild and uninformed speculation.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Dave, science is based upon observation, not fairy tales.

Dear  jeffrey
Our scientists clearly ignore all the observations!!!
Do they see new thousands of stars that had been formed in groups around the SMBH in brief period?
Yes or no?
I hope that you agree that the answer is clearly - Yes.
Did they ever see any falling star into the accretion disc?
Yes or No?
I hope that you agree that the answer is clearly - No.
So, they have NEVER EVER seen any falling star into the accretion disc while they clearly see that the SMBH generates new forming groups of stars around it.

The amount of time that astronomers have had to observe Sag a* is so little that nothing of significance has had time to happen yet

How long time is need for our scientists to understand that nothing falls in?
Is it one year, one hundred years or minimal of one trillion years?

Based on this approach we can claim that every person in the Universe is a Thief.
If we didn't find him in action we can always claim that "nothing of significance has had time to happen yet".
Sorry - we can't claim that we should see something that we didn't see yet!
We must base our theory on what we clearly see and not on something that we didn't see yet.

Why is it so difficult for those scientists to understand that the SMBH isn't eating any star from outside but it generates all of those new forming stars?
Actually, if we could verify the DNA of all the stars in our galaxy you would find that we all share absolutely the same DNA.
So why is it so difficult to understand that there must be one single mother for all the 250 Billions stars in the Milky Way?
Why our scientists insist to reject all the observations that the SMBH is actually generates new stars and new matter?

The observations are then modelled.

No!
They totally ignore all the observations.
They model their wrong imagination which is based on the BBT theory.
Why do they need a modeling that contradicts the observations?

[Bored chemist]

Did you ever have a chance to read Isaac Newton shell theorem?

I not only ready it, but I understood it.
You should try that option some time.

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that "A spherically symmetric body affects external objects gravitationally as though all of its mass were concentrated at a point at its center".

And the effect of that is to pull the material in- just like the skater's arms.
It's not me who failed to understand it.
The BH pulls stuff in, just the same as the Earth pulls us down.

The big difference is that the earth is pretty much rigid, so we get to the surface and stop.

In the case of the BH, there's nothing to stop stuff falling all the way to the event horizon.
So stuff falls in.

So, please don't tell us about your nonsense of "self gravity increase"

That is nonsense, but you made it up.

The inverse square law applies to gravity. the nearer you get to the BH, the stronger gravity gets.

The shell theorem only applies inside something (like deep mines on earth) and we are not considering what happens inside the BH.

Sorry, you have just proved that your knowledge in gravity is zero (or less than zero).

No, All I did was prove that you don't understand when to apply the shell theorem, because you don't understand it.

Based on their wish the SMBH should eat stars and not create stars.

No, that's based on physics and observation.
The physics concerned is the conservation laws.
The observation is that things on't fall up.

So you are known to be wrong for to reasons.

Don't you feel it's time to think about actually learning science?

That is a clear contradiction with the BBT.

No, it isn't.
Nothing happening today can really affect a process like the BBT which happened 14 billion years ago,.

Your claim isn't just incompatible with science, it is incompatible with common sense.

while what we see is that it generates new stars.

Show me this, or shut up.

[Bored chemist]

Did they ever see any falling star into the accretion disc?

Did they see anything coming out?

[Bored chemist]

Actually, if we could verify the DNA of all the stars in our galaxy you would find that we all share absolutely the same DNA.

Stars do not have DNA.
But they do have chemical compositions which can be studied by spectroscopy.
In effect, you do this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_test

Stars are hot enough to be their own "flame".

And, because we can look at the spectrum of light emitted by stars, we know what they are made of.

It's one of the embarrassing stories of science where the first person to do the work didn't get the credit- because they were a woman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecilia_Payne-Gaposchkin

Now, perhaps you would like to apologise to her memory for your ignorant claim that the compositions of all stars are the same.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:25:04
Based on their wish the SMBH should eat stars and not create stars.

No, that's based on physics and observation.
The physics concerned is the conservation laws.

This is a simple lie.
We have no observation that the SMBH eats any star from outside.
Therefore, your physics of eating stars is a pure imagination!!!
How long are we going to wait for our scientists to understand that nothing falls in.
Please let us know if it is just one year or more than one trillion years?
Shame on all of you that you claim for falling matter without any OBSERVATION to backup this imagination!

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:25:04
while what we see is that it generates new stars.

Show me this, or shut up.

I have already did

We have a clear observation for the great impact of the SMBH on the G gas clouds that orbit around it:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0810/0810.2723.pdf
"The presence of young massive stars orbiting on eccentric rings within a few tenths of a parsec of the suppermassive black hole in the Galactic centre is challenging for theories of star formation."
"The transfer of energy during closest approach allows part of the cloud to become bound to the black hole, forming an eccentric disc that quickly fragments to form stars. "
Our scientists clearly see all of those young massive stars that are created near the SMBH. They also clearly understand the great impact of the SMBH gravity on this process.

So, we have clear observation that the SMBH generates young massive stars on eccentric rings within a few tenths of a parsec from its location.
I assume that you wish to believe that after the creation of those new massive stars the SMBH eats them all.
This is your personal imagination as we have never ever seen any falling in star.
So, you can keep on with your unrealistic hope that the SMBH eats stars while we clearly see that it generates new stars.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 08:18:40
Did they ever see any falling star into the accretion disc?

Did they see anything coming out?

Yes they do see!
We clearly see the molecular jet stream that is ejected outwards from the SMBH at almost 0.8c.
So, we clearly observe that matter is ejected outwards, while we have NEVER EVER seen any sort of matter that falls inwards into the accretion disc!

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:25:04
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that "A spherically symmetric body affects external objects gravitationally as though all of its mass were concentrated at a point at its center".

And the effect of that is to pull the material in- just like the skater's arms.
It's not me who failed to understand it.
The BH pulls stuff in, just the same as the Earth pulls us down.

The big difference is that the earth is pretty much rigid, so we get to the surface and stop.

In the case of the BH, there's nothing to stop stuff falling all the way to the event horizon.
So stuff falls in.

Well, it is clear that you don't understand the Isaac Newton shell theorem.
So, let me help you.
Lets verify the impact of creating a BH at the center of the gas cloud.
So, there is an object that orbits at radius R around the center.
Let's assume that your imagination is correct and somehow all the matter up to that radius (not including R) would fall in and set a BH at the center of that gas cloud.
It is clear that based on Isaac Newton shell theorem it won't affect that orbital velocity of the object that is orbiting at radius R
Therefore, that orbital object at R won't feel any difference in the gravity force.
You may set R to any radius that you wish and the outcome would be identical. Therefore, there is no way for the object to accelerate its velocity by your imagination.
Hence, the Gas cloud can't just get acceleration in its internal orbital velocity without external gravity help.

However, even if we accept the idea that stars could be created at the center of a gas cloud, it still won't help.
Our scientists tell us that:

https://astronomy.com/news/2019/03/astronomers-spot-massive-twin-stars-nestled-close-together
"scientists suspect that nearly all stars may form in multiples before splitting apart as they age. This is because stars form in groups, with the massive clouds of dust and gas that give birth to stars – stellar nebulae – forming thousands of stars in brief period"
Only the SMBH gravity force is strong enough to form thousand stars in groups in those nearby G gas clouds in brief period.

Therefore, all the stars in the Universe started their first day in groups.
So, a single star in a gas cloud is not an option.
Each gas cloud must generates several stars that are bonded in a group by gravity.
Therefore, the only possibility for that star creation process is by the impact of SMBH ultra external gravity force on a G gas cloud that pass nearby.
Our scientists clearly see all of those G gas clouds as they cross so close to the SMBH in their elliptical orbital cycle.
Hence, stars can Only be created in goups in a gas clouds near an ultra high gravity source as a SMBH.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The observations are then modelled. If the model can be shown to give accurate predictions then it is accepted as useful.

Dear Jeffrey

In the following article it is stated:
https://beltoforion.de/en/spiral_galaxy_renderer/
 "Until recently, the simulation field struggled to make spiral galaxies," he says. "It's only in the last 5 years that we've shown that you can make them."
I do remember that 10 or 7 years ago our scientists have already stated that the simulation is working.
Now we all know that it was a lie as only in the last 5 years hey hope to believe that finally it is working.
I claim that this hope is a pure nonsense.
Even with the most updated simulation our scientists can't set the perfect shape of the spiral galaxy.
At the maximum they might get something that might look like a spiral.
But the real spiral galaxy is much more complex that just a spiral shape.
The real shape is as follow:
1. A bulge at the center (up to 1KPC)
2. A bar from 1Kpc to 3KPC
3. The ring is located at 3KPC. the thickness of the ring is 3000 LY
4. From the ring up to about 12Kpc there are spiral arms.
The thicknesses of the arms are as follow:
At the base (ring) it is 3000LY.
At 8KPC (sun location) it is 1000Ly
At 12KPC (at the far end of the arm) it is 400Ly.
5. From 12Kpc all the stars are disconnected from the spiral arms and the galactic disc.
Nothing from outside the arm can move inwards!

After agree on the above, I would like to see the simulation that can set that kind of real spiral galaxy structure by simulation.
I have full confidence that our scientists won't be able to set that kind of structure by any sort of simulation!!!
If you have a simulation that can do so, then please offer it! If you can't do so, then your simulation is useless.
It proves that our scientists don't have a basic knowledge how spiral galaxy really works!!!

[Bored chemist]

We have no observation that the SMBH eats any star from outside.

Nobody said we had,
We have observations that things fall down.

You ignore this observation, while complaining about others doing so.
Why is that.
Why are you the only one allowed to ignore the biggest most widespread observation about the issue?

We clearly see the molecular jet stream that is ejected outwards from the SMBH at almost 0.8c.

And we see that it's not coming out of the accretion disk.
But what you claim is that stuff i made in that accretion disk.


Again, why are you allowed to say things that are not what is observed?

Therefore, that orbital object at R won't feel any difference in the gravity force.

That's nothing to do with the shell theorem anyway but...
Nobody said it would.

You have not bothered to read what I said, have you?

I simply pointed out that things which are falling in get nearer to the BH
and the nearer they are to the BH, the larger the force that the BH exerts on them.
Do you remember saying this?

So, without a significant change in that gravitational force, the gas cloud won't spin faster.

And do you now understand that there is a reason for the change in gravitational force for a thing that is falling in towards the BH?
And do you understand that the shell theory has nothing to do with this?
And do you understand that it would have saved us both a lot of effort if you had just learned some science?

Therefore, the only possibility for that star creation process is by the impact of SMBH ultra external gravity force on a G gas cloud that pass nearby.

No.
The only thing you accept is the involvement of a BH.
But the rest of us are clever enough to see that the gravity of the gas cloud itself will do this.

Let us know when you catch up.
But in the mean time, please don't lie about the gas jest being evidence of anything being made in the accretion disk.
That's been explained to you now.
If you repeat it you will simply be proving that you are a liar.

[jeffreyH]

The observations are then modelled. If the model can be shown to give accurate predictions then it is accepted as useful.

Dear Jeffrey

In the following article it is stated:
https://beltoforion.de/en/spiral_galaxy_renderer/
 "Until recently, the simulation field struggled to make spiral galaxies," he says. "It's only in the last 5 years that we've shown that you can make them."
I do remember that 10 or 7 years ago our scientists have already stated that the simulation is working.
Now we all know that it was a lie as only in the last 5 years hey hope to believe that finally it is working.
I claim that this hope is a pure nonsense.
Even with the most updated simulation our scientists can't set the perfect shape of the spiral galaxy.
At the maximum they might get something that might look like a spiral.
But the real spiral galaxy is much more complex that just a spiral shape.
The real shape is as follow:
1. A bulge at the center (up to 1KPC)
2. A bar from 1Kpc to 3KPC
3. The ring is located at 3KPC. the thickness of the ring is 3000 LY
4. From the ring up to about 12Kpc there are spiral arms.
The thicknesses of the arms are as follow:
At the base (ring) it is 3000LY.
At 8KPC (sun location) it is 1000Ly
At 12KPC (at the far end of the arm) it is 400Ly.
5. From 12Kpc all the stars are disconnected from the spiral arms and the galactic disc.
Nothing from outside the arm can move inwards!

After agree on the above, I would like to see the simulation that can set that kind of real spiral galaxy structure by simulation.
I have full confidence that our scientists won't be able to set that kind of structure by any sort of simulation!!!
If you have a simulation that can do so, then please offer it! If you can't do so, then your simulation is useless.
It proves that our scientists don't have a basic knowledge how spiral galaxy really works!!!

Dear Dave

You are not a scientist. Your ideas are pseudoscience. Stop trolling actual scientists.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on 02/05/2021 04:57:45
We have no observation that the SMBH eats any star from outside.

Nobody said we had

Thanks for this confirmation,
Actually, you have already confirmed it before.

We have observations that things fall down.

NO! - we have NEVER EVER observed any sort of matter that falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.
Please remember - We only focus on the SMBH accretion disc!

I simply pointed out that things which are falling in get nearer to the BH
and the nearer they are to the BH, the larger the force that the BH exerts on them.

As you have just reconfirm - we have NEVER EVER observed any sort of things which are falling into the SMBH' accretion disc!
We clearly observe things that get nearer the SMBH (For example: S2 Star or G2 Gas cloud) but those things are orbiting around the SMBH and not just falling in.
They might have an high eccentricity (as we can see in the following example):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic_orbit#/media/File:Animation_of_Orbital_eccentricity.gif
As the orbital object comes closer to the main object it gets higher acceleration and higher gravity force:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion#/media/File:Kepler-second-law.gif
However, it is a normal orbital activity.
Therefore, they aren't falling in but orbiting around with high eccentricity!!!
Hence, the statement that "things which are falling in get nearer to the BH" is a simple lie as nothing falls near or into the SMBH accretion disc!

And do you now understand that there is a reason for the change in gravitational force for a thing that is falling in towards the BH?

Again - Please stop telling us about "thing that is falling in towards the BH" as nothing falls in towards the BH.

Dear Dave
You are not a scientist. Your ideas are pseudoscience. Stop trolling actual scientists.

Dear jeffreyH
Do you claim that the following statement of: "thing that is falling in towards the BH" is correct? Or do you mean that only scientist has the permission for trolling real observation?

[Bored chemist]

Please remember - We only focus on the SMBH accretion disc!

Then we know nothing, because we can barely see it.

Do you understand that the point of  science is to find  "general" rules for the universe?
"Things fall down" is a pretty good example.
It is true in every single instance where we can check it.


If you have to make up a special rule like "things fall down, except near black holes where they fall up" then that's sort of OK, but you do need evidence.
And , because we can't really see  what's happening near BH because of the distance, you don't have that evidence.

Until you can show a picture of, or some evidence for, things falling out of the accretion disk of a BH nobody who understands the basics of science will believe that it happens.

As you have just reconfirm - we have NEVER EVER observed any sort of things which are falling into the SMBH' accretion disc!

No.
But as any five year old will tell you, things fall down.

Again - Please stop telling us about "thing that is falling in towards the BH" as nothing falls in towards the BH.

Light does.
That's the defining characteristic of a BH.

So we know you are wrong.

Why do you keep trying to pretend  things don't fall in?

Therefore, they aren't falling in but orbiting around with high eccentricity!!!

You do know that a thing in orbit is falling, don't you?
So what you are saying is that they are not falling because they are falling.

Again, why do you post such nonsense?

[jeffreyH]

Dear Dave, if your nutty conclusion were true then there wouldn't be an accretion disc at all. Since all the matter would be fleeing the event horizon. Stop trolling.

Your failure to accept correction is now becoming a real issue. You are simply using up the time of other members, where they are constantly having to correct you.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:35:29
Therefore, they aren't falling in but orbiting around with high eccentricity!!!

You do know that a thing in orbit is falling, don't you?
So what you are saying is that they are not falling because they are falling.

No!
This is a simple lie as you do not offer the full picture of the orbital cycle.
You have stated:

I simply pointed out that things which are falling in get nearer to the BH

However, things that orbit at a circular orbit cycle don't get nearer the BH over time.
For example things that orbit at high eccentricity ( Let's say higher than zero ) at one section of the orbital cycle they get nearer to the BH (so you can claim that they fall inwards to the BH) but at the other section they get further away from the BH (so technically I can claim that they fall outwards).
So let's agree on the following:
We must monitor the radius of those "things" or orbital objects after one full circular orbit.
If the radius is decreasing - then we have to agree that those things are falling inwards to the BH over time.
If the radius is increasing - then we have to agree that those things are falling outwards from the BH over time.
If the radius is constant - then we have to agree that those things aren't falling inwards or outwards!
So please. If you would continue to claim that orbital objects with high eccentricity are falling inwards in one section of the orbital cycle, while you would ignore the fact that those objects are falling outwards at the other section of the orbital cycle - then you would be consider as a liar.
Please remember that half of the true is still lie!
It is not expected that you would lie in the name of the science!

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:35:29
Again - Please stop telling us about "thing that is falling in towards the BH" as nothing falls in towards the BH.
Light does.
That's the defining characteristic of a BH.

How can you use light as an example for orbital things that falls inwards?
You have just stated that:

Do you understand that the point of  science is to find  "general" rules for the universe?
"Things fall down" is a pretty good example.
It is true in every single instance where we can check it.

However, we discuss on things that orbit around a BH/SMBH.
So, do you claim that light should orbit around a BH?
If this isn't the case, then how can you use light as "general" rules for orbital objects?
So, do you lie again?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:35:29
Please remember - We only focus on the SMBH accretion disc!
Then we know nothing, because we can barely see it.

This is incorrect.
Missing observation is a clear observation!
As we don't see any matter that falls into the SMBH accretion disc, then it is clear evidence that nothing falls in.

Do you understand that the point of  science is to find  "general" rules for the universe?
"Things fall down" is a pretty good example.
It is true in every single instance where we can check it.

Well, I assume that you would claim that as things falls inwards to our planet, then things should also falls inwards to the SMBH accretion disc.
However, in this case, you compare the activity at our planet to the SMBH.
Is it correct to do so?
Let's verify it:
There is an accretion disc around a SMBH. In that accretion disc the plasma is orbiting at almost the speed of light while the temp is almost 10^9c.
Where is the accretion disc of our planet? Do you see any plasma at high temp that orbits at the speed of light?
So, you can't just compare apple to truck. You have to compare apple to apple.
Therefore, your idea of "general rules for the universe" for totally different objects is a simple nonsense.
You have no "general rules for the universe" that acts as the SMBH accretion disc.
Therefore, your "general rules for the universe" for the SMBH accretion disc is a clear fatal mistake!

Dear Dave, if your nutty conclusion were true then there wouldn't be an accretion disc at all. Since all the matter would be fleeing the event horizon.

Sorry, you don't understand how the SMBH really works and the real impact of its accretion disc.

Your failure to accept correction is now becoming a real issue.

Why do we need a correction?
The observations are very clear!
We have NEVER EVER observed any sort of matter or things or star that falls inwards to the SMBH' accretion disc.
Our scientists claim that based on the current technology we can read a credit card that is located at the moon.
However, even if we could improve it to the infinity (and read that credit card at a distance of 13 BLY away) we still won't find any matter that falls inwards to that SMBH' accretion disc. Not in our galaxy and not in any other galaxy (out of the millions over billions) in the entire Universe.
So, why is it so difficult for our scientists to accept the simple fact that things do not fall into the SMBH accretion disc?
Why they force the Universe to work according to their understanding of  "general rules for the universe" while our universe isn't willing to work according to those rules?
So, who is the real trolling?
The one that accept the OBSERVATION as is or those scientists that wish to add a correction for this clear observation?

[Origin]

Dave, you are being so dishonest here.

[Bored chemist]

Why do we need a correction?

Because your ideas are silly.
 They require things to fall up.

[Bored chemist]

Why do we need a correction?
The observations are very clear!
We have NEVER EVER observed any sort of matter or things or star that falls inwards

Or out.