[Bored chemist]

Where is the accretion disc of our planet?

One suggestion is that we call it the Moon.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Where is the accretion disc of our planet?

One suggestion is that we call it the Moon.

Is it?
Do you estimate that the moon orbits at almost the speed of light around the Earth and its temp is almost 10^9c?
Even if we ignore those functions, don't you know that the moon is actually drifting outwards over time.
So, the Moon is actually falling outwards.
Therefore, if you use the moon as a general rules for the accretion disc, it proves that the matter in the accretion disc must drift outwards over time (or falling outwards if you wish).

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

We all know that the Moon in you example is falling up over time.
So, my idea isn't as silly as you claim

Dave, you are being so dishonest here.

Why?
Why is it dishonest to accept the observations as is?
There are millions over billions accretion discs in the Universe.
We have a supper advanced technology today. Based on this technology we could clearly see many SMBH accretion discs including that famous M87 SMBH accretion disc picture.
Unfortunately for you and for all the 10,000 BBT scientists with all of the billions opportunities that exists in the entire universe we have never ever seen any star/Planet/Moon/Asteroid/Atom or even a tinny particle that falls into any SMBH' accretion disc from outside.
However, while we can't see any matter that falls in, we clearly see all the matter that is ejected outwards.
We see the Molecular jets stream as they are ejected upwards/downwards from many SMBH at almost 0.8c including the one in the Milky way.
We clearly see all of those hydrogen clouds that are streaming away from the center of the Milky Way:
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."
We also clearly see that each galaxy generates new stars.
The milky way generates 10 stars per year while the Baby Boom galaxy generates about 4,000 new stars per year.
We also see that the aria near the SMBH is fully loaded with Hydrogen.

Therefore, we have to ask ourselves what is the source of all of that Hydrogen in the center of the spiral galaxy?
How could it be that we see so many Gas clouds that are ejected outwards, while we don't see even one Atom falls in?
How so many gas clouds could be ejected from the center of the galaxy and there is still many more to generate so many new stars every year?
How could it be that even after 12 Billion years the aria around the SMBH at the center of the galaxy is still fully loaded with Hydrogen?
How could it be that there is still plenty of hydrogen at the center of the galaxy to form 4000 new stars per year (at that baby boom galaxy?)
How could it be that the SMBH is so massive while there are so many stars and gas cloud around it?

If this is not good enough for you then let me remind you that the galaxy is crossing the space at almost 600 Km sec.
Did you know that for any star in the galaxy there is at least one outside?
So, the galaxy must collide with millions over billions stars as it cross the space.
Where are all of those stars?
Why none of them penetrate into our galaxy and collide with one of the existing stars in the spiral arms?
Why we do not see any star from outside that falls into the galactic disc?
How could it be that the ring in the galaxy is so thick (about 3,000 LY) while the edge of the spiral arm is so thin (less than 400 LY)
How the Bar had been formed and how it really functions?
Why at the center of the galaxy there is a bulge?
Why the galactic disc starts from the Ring and not from the SMBH itself?
There are many more questions.
Do you claim that our scientists have real answers for all of those questions?

They actually claim that they have succeeded to modeling the spiral galaxy.
Is it real?
Did they get in their modeling the real shape of the spiral galaxy (Bulge, Bar, Ring, spiral arms?
Did they get in their modeling the correct thickness at any location in the galaxy including the correct thickness of the Bulge, Bar, Ring, spiral arm?
You know and all the 10,000 scientists know that the answer is clearly NO
So our scientists have totally failed to model the real shape of spiral galaxy.
Hence, any scientist that claims that we have succeeded to model the spiral galaxy by 100% is a LIAR!!!
That by itself proves that our scientists don't have a basic clue how spiral galaxy really works.
Even so, those scientists try to let us know how it works.

So, who is the real dishonest here?
Is it me that sets the clear observations in front of your eyes (especially the no observation), or is it our 10,000 BBT scientists that totally ignore all of those observations that they don't like and totally failed to understand how to fit the observations to their wrong understanding?

[Bored chemist]

Why is it dishonest to accept the observations as is?

Saying that things fall up is dishonest or insane.
Which are you?

Do you estimate that the moon orbits at almost the speed of light around the Earth and its temp is almost 10^9c?

No, but I am also not stupid enough to mistake the Earth for a supermassive black hole.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Saying that things fall up is dishonest or insane.
Which are you?

Why do you call this matter as "things" and not "orbital things" or orbital objects?
Do you claim that around the SMBH there are "things" that are just waiting in for their time to be eaten by the SMBH?
Can you please offer some examples of those "things"?
If you confirm that those things are orbital things then my reply to your message is as follow:
Saying that orbital things fall into the SMBH accretion disc and in that process increase their orbital velocity to almost the speed of light and increase their temp to 10^9c  is dishonest.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 08:15:56
Do you estimate that the moon orbits at almost the speed of light around the Earth and its temp is almost 10^9c?

No, but I am also not stupid enough to mistake the Earth for a supermassive black hole.

Well, you are the one which offered the moon as an example for an accretion disc.
If you don't like this mistake, then please feel free to offer other example.

You are the one that claimed for: "general" rules for the universe

Do you understand that the point of  science is to find  "general" rules for the universe?

You also claimed that:

because we can't really see  what's happening near BH because of the distance,

So, please offer better example for your "general rules for the universe" that "orbital things" should fall in over time and in that process increase their orbital velocity and their self temp.

[Origin]

Dave, you are being so dishonest here.

Why?

Because, for instance, we are discussing accretion disks, which by definition are disks of material that accumulate around and then fall into a central gravity well.  You dishonestly bring up a stable circular orbit as a reason for material in accretion disks not falling into the central gravity well.  These are obviously not the same thing and you know it, or should, based on your opinion that you are a genius.

[Bored chemist]

Why do you call this matter as "things" and not "orbital things" or orbital objects?

Because I mean all things, obviously.

Do you claim that around the SMBH there are "things" that are just waiting in for their time to be eaten by the SMBH?

No

Can you please offer some examples of those "things"?

I dropped a screwdriver the other day, and it fell to the floor.
It is currently raining; the rain falls down.

Well, you are the one which offered the moon as an example for an accretion disc.

No. I said the moon may once have been an accretion disk. In fact, it probably wasn't- but that's beside the point.

But that is not the same as saying it's at a billion degrees, is it?

For you to imply that it is tells us that you are dishonest or stupid.

Which is it?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Because, for instance, we are discussing accretion disks, which by definition are disks of material that accumulate around and then fall into a central gravity well.

Definition of whom?
Did our scientists ever observed any sort of matter as it falls all the way into the SMBH accretion disc, increasing its orbital velocity to almost the speed of light and increasing its temp to 10^9 once it get o the accretion disc?
Yes or No - please!
As the answer is clearly no, why do they call it accretion disc?

You dishonestly bring up a stable circular orbit as a reason for material in accretion disks not falling into the central gravity well.

NO!
If you can offer one real observation for matter that falls all the way into the accretion disc, I would fully accept your understanding that the accretion disc is really accreting the matter from outside.
However, currently we only see matter that is ejected outwards from the center of the galaxy, while we have never observed any sort of matter that falls inwards into the disc.
Therefore, as we only really see and observe matter as it moves outwards, while we have NEVER EVER saw any matter that falls inwards all the way into the accretion disc - then this disc MUST be called excretion disc and not accretion disc.
Hence, Dishonest means that our scientists call it accretion disc while they have NEVER EVER observed any sort of matter that falls from outside into the accretion disc.
Any person that call the SMBH Disc as accretion disc is clearly dishonest!

These are obviously not the same thing and you know it, or should, based on your opinion that you are a genius.

I do not consider myself as a genius. I'm electronic engineer with master in communication. I have quite deep knowledge in science. I do believe that any person which would place the real observations in front of his eyes would get to the same conclusions as I did.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 17:00:37
Well, you are the one which offered the moon as an example for an accretion disc.
No. I said the moon may once have been an accretion disk. In fact, it probably wasn't- but that's beside the point.

So, you can't offer even one real example to support your nonsense about those "general" rules for the universe" that should help the matter to fall all the way into the SMBH' accretion disc.
All you can do is to offer a screwdriver:

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 17:00:37
Can you please offer some examples of those "things"?
I dropped a screwdriver the other day, and it fell to the floor.

Would you kindly offer better example to support your imagination that matter can falls into that SMBH accretion disc and by doing so it also increase its orbital velocity to almost the speed of light and the self temp to 10^9.
As long as you (and all the other 10,000 BBT) can't do so, then this disc must be called Excretion disc.
Starting from this moment, any person that calls this disc as accretion disc is dishonest by my Definition.

[Bored chemist]

I do not consider myself as a genius.

Then why do you think you are right and everyone else in the world is wrong?

So, you can't offer even one real example to support your nonsense about those "general" rules for the universe"

I offered two examples of the general observation that things fall down.
You haven't produced a single example of them not doing.

[Bored chemist]

Starting from this moment, any person that calls this disc as accretion disc is dishonest by my Definition.

That's a stupid definition.

[Origin]

Definition of whom?

Not surprisingly, more dishonesty.  Go to google, type in, "what is an accretion disk".  You will find the whom is everyone, except for an occasional crank or moron.

If you can offer one real observation for matter that falls all the way into the accretion disc, I would fully accept your understanding that the accretion disc is really accreting the matter from outside.

Arguing with a crank is pointless.  A crank argues from a position that is not logical or evidenced based so logic and evidence cannot convince them of anything.

[Origin]

I'm electronic engineer......I have quite deep knowledge in science.

I don't believe the first part and the second part is false.  I don't believe that someone who has an electrical engineering degree could be so clueless, unless you have some form of dementia or have had some sort of brain injury, in which case I am sorry that happened to you.  Your knowledge of science is atrocious.

[evan_au]

we have never ever seen any star/Planet/Moon/Asteroid/Atom or even a tinny particle that falls into any SMBH' accretion disc from outside.

Does this count? https://www.space.com/spaghettified-star-observed-near-black-hole

[Bored chemist]

Or this.
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/481/2/1832/5090165

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Or this.
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/481/2/1832/5090165

Thanks for this great article.
It actually fully confirms my understanding about the SMBH accretion disc activity.
In this article it is stated clearly that the matter at the outer disc orbits at about 0.1c and this matter is clearly ejected outwards:
" UFOs appear to be a common component of luminous AGNs (Tombesi et al. 2010, 2011; Gofford et al. 2013). With typical velocities of v ∼ 0.1c, these highly ionized winds imply significant feedback on to the surrounding interstellar gas, offering a likely explanation of the M–σ relation (Ferrarese & Merritt 2000; Gebhardt et al. 2000), by simultaneously constraining the growth of an SMBH and star formation in the central bulge of its host galaxy (King 2003, 2005; King & Pounds 2015)."
Please remember that the meaning of UFO is ultrafast outflows!
So, we have clear indication that the matter from the outermost accretion ring is ejected outwards at ultrafast velocity.
It is also stated that this matter/gas is used for "star formation in the central bulge ".
So, now we understand the clear activity of the outermost ring of the accretion disc - which is UFO or ultrafast outflows!

However, this article also discuss about the innermost ring.
In this side, the matter orbits at 0.3c
it is stated:
" The redshifted absorption arises in a column of highly ionized matter close to the black hole, with a line-of-sight velocity, v ∼ 0.3c, inconsistent with the standard picture of a plane circular accretion disc. "
It is also stated a very important message:
"Here we report the detection of a short-lived, ultrafast inflow during the same observation."

Hence, let's understand the data:
At the outermost ring - The matter orbits at 0.1c and our scientists clearly observe stable ultrafast outflow.
At the innermost ring - The matter orbits at 0.3c and our scientists observe a short-lived ultrafast inflow.

Actually, the clearly claim that the matter in the outermost ring is ejected outwards and that matter is used to form new stars (remember 10 stars per year in the milky way and 4000 stars in the baby boom galaxy).
Therefore, they don't observe any sort of matter that falls from outside into the outermost ring.
That observation fully supports my understanding that no matter from outside falls into the SMBH accretion disc.

However, we still need to ask the following question:
If the matter from the innermost is falling inwards, while the matter from the outermost ring is ejected outwards, how could it be that the accretion disc is still full with matter/plasma?

I actually have already offered the answer for that question.
New particle pair is created by the SMBH near the innermost ring.
While one particle falls inwards (into the SMBH) the other one is drifted outwards.
As the creation of new particle pair is not a stable process we see that kind of short-lived ultrafast inflow.

Therefore, in this process the SMBH increases its mass with the inflow of one particle from the new created pair, while the other particle is drifted outwards.
That particle starts it orbital velocity at .3c at the innermost ring. As it gets to the outermost ring its velocity is reduced to  0.1c.
At that point it is ejected outwards with many others nearby particles/atoms as ultrafast outflow.
Those new created partials/atoms will be used to form new stars at the central bulge!

So many thanks for that great article which finely fully confirms my understanding that the accretion disc is actually excretion disc.

we have never ever seen any star/Planet/Moon/Asteroid/Atom or even a tinny particle that falls into any SMBH' accretion disc from outside.

Does this count? https://www.space.com/spaghettified-star-observed-near-black-hole

Thanks for this article.
However, it is not relevant for our discussion.
In this article they discuss about a BH and not about a SMBH.
They also don't give any relevant data about the matter from the star "which then wraps itself around the black hole"
How do they know if the matter from the star is drifting inwards into the BH or the matter from the BH is actually drifting outwards into that star?
They also don't give any information about that BH.
What is the size of the BH and the nearby star?
How do they know that the BH "sucks in its matter"?
Sorry, that article is useless without giving us full information about the direction of the matter.
Is it Inflow - redshift or outflow - blueshift?
They don't tell us about the velocities at different rings and where this BH is located.
Just a pure nonsense!
Nice try...

[Bored chemist]

It actually fully confirms my understanding about the SMBH accretion disc activity.

No, it doesn't.
It confirms the presence of "An ultrafast inflow "

[Dave Lev (OP)]

It actually fully confirms my understanding about the SMBH accretion disc activity.

No, it doesn't.
It confirms the presence of "An ultrafast inflow "

Shame on you!
You don't let the observation to confuse you.
You wish to believe that matter from outside falls into the accretion disc, while that article which you have offered fully confirms that matter from the outermost accretion ring is ejected outwards at ultrafast outflow. Actually starting 2001 our scientists already observe that outflow from the same accretion disc:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8150586
"We report two new XMM–Newton observations of PG1211+143 in 2007 December, again finding evidence for the fast outflow of highly ionized gas first detected in 2001. "
So, from 2001 the whole science community already KNEW that "highly ionized gas" is ejected from the accretion disc at a fast outflow.
That observation that was already in front of their eyes all those year doesn't convinced them (or you) that they have a fatal mistake in their statement that the accretion disc accertes matter from outside.
You have even stated several times that we have never observed any ejected matter from the accretion disc.
So, while all of this long time all the 10,000 BBT scientists knew that matter from the accertion disc is ejected outwards, they have continue to look for an observation that could confirm their wrong imagination that matter falls in from outside.
In the articale that you have offered (Published: 03 September 2018)
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/481/2/1832/5090165
They start the article with the highlight of the outflow:
"ABSTRACT
Blueshifted absorption lines in the X-ray spectra of an active galactic nucleus (AGN) show that ultrafast outflows with typical velocities v ∼ 0.1c are a common feature of these luminous objects."
They clearly highlight that this Blueshifted ultrafast outflows is quite common.
So, they see that matter from the outermost accretion ring is ejected outwards in many other galaxies.
However, when it comes to the inflow it is stated clearly that it comes from the innermost ring:
"The redshifted absorption arises in a column of highly ionized matter close to the black hole, with a line-of-sight velocity, v ∼ 0.3c, inconsistent with the standard picture of a plane circular accretion disc. "
They also claim that this inflow is "inconsistent with the standard picture of a plane circular accretion disc".
This statement is one of the most important messages in this article.
Why the matter at the accretion disc doesn't fall directly in?
Why they see that the matter that falls in is inconsistent with the standard picture of a plane circular accretion disc?
I have an answer for that:
The creation of the new particle pair is created very close to the event horizon of the SMBH.
It could be at any location at that specific radius.
So, it could be above or below the plane circular of the accretion disc.
Therefore, they see the inflow from that innermost radius (which is close to the event horizon) at any location above or below the plane circular of the accretion disc.

Conclusion:
Those articles prove that our scientists knew from 2001 that matter from the accretion disc at many galaxies is actually ejected outwards from the outermost accretion ring/disc at ultrafast outflow.
Therefore all of those 20 years (from 2001) they have kept this data uncovered and continue to claim that the accretion disc must get its matter from outside.
Therefore, they have totally confused all of us including Mr. Origin which had stated:

Not surprisingly, more dishonesty.  Go to google, type in, "what is an accretion disk".  You will find the whom is everyone, except for an occasional crank or moron.

This isn't just "dishonesty". This is a pure lie!
So, any scientist which knew about this observation that matter from the accretion disc is actually ejected outwards and hide this information is LIER by definition.
Therefore, I claim that the science community (including all the 10,000 BBT scientists) which knew for the last 20 year that matter from the accretion disc is ejected outwards at UFO are liars. ONLY those that knew about it!
As you Mr BC continue to ignore this key information then you are also part of those liars!
Shame on you and all of them!

[Bored chemist]

It actually fully confirms my understanding about the SMBH accretion disc activity.

No, it doesn't.
It confirms the presence of "An ultrafast inflow "

Shame on you!
You don't let the observation to confuse you.
You wish to believe that matter from outside falls into the accretion disc, while that article which you have offered fully confirms that matter from the outermost accretion ring is ejected outwards at ultrafast outflow. Actually starting 2001 our scientists already observe that outflow from the same accretion disc:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8150586
"We report two new XMM–Newton observations of PG1211+143 in 2007 December, again finding evidence for the fast outflow of highly ionized gas first detected in 2001. "
So, from 2001 the whole science community already KNEW that "highly ionized gas" is ejected from the accretion disc at a fast outflow.
That observation that was already in front of their eyes all those year doesn't convinced them (or you) that they have a fatal mistake in their statement that the accretion disc accertes matter from outside.
You have even stated several times that we have never observed any ejected matter from the accretion disc.
So, while all of this long time all the 10,000 BBT scientists knew that matter from the accertion disc is ejected outwards, they have continue to look for an observation that could confirm their wrong imagination that matter falls in from outside.
In the articale that you have offered (Published: 03 September 2018)
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/481/2/1832/5090165
They start the article with the highlight of the outflow:
"ABSTRACT
Blueshifted absorption lines in the X-ray spectra of an active galactic nucleus (AGN) show that ultrafast outflows with typical velocities v ∼ 0.1c are a common feature of these luminous objects."
They clearly highlight that this Blueshifted ultrafast outflows is quite common.
So, they see that matter from the outermost accretion ring is ejected outwards in many other galaxies.
However, when it comes to the inflow it is stated clearly that it comes from the innermost ring:
"The redshifted absorption arises in a column of highly ionized matter close to the black hole, with a line-of-sight velocity, v ∼ 0.3c, inconsistent with the standard picture of a plane circular accretion disc. "
They also claim that this inflow is "inconsistent with the standard picture of a plane circular accretion disc".
This statement is one of the most important messages in this article.
Why the matter at the accretion disc doesn't fall directly in?
Why they see that the matter that falls in is inconsistent with the standard picture of a plane circular accretion disc?
I have an answer for that:
The creation of the new particle pair is created very close to the event horizon of the SMBH.
It could be at any location at that specific radius.
So, it could be above or below the plane circular of the accretion disc.
Therefore, they see the inflow from that innermost radius (which is close to the event horizon) at any location above or below the plane circular of the accretion disc.

Conclusion:
Those articles prove that our scientists knew from 2001 that matter from the accretion disc at many galaxies is actually ejected outwards from the outermost accretion ring/disc at ultrafast outflow.
Therefore all of those 20 years (from 2001) they have kept this data uncovered and continue to claim that the accretion disc must get its matter from outside.
Therefore, they have totally confused all of us including Mr. Origin which had stated:

Not surprisingly, more dishonesty.  Go to google, type in, "what is an accretion disk".  You will find the whom is everyone, except for an occasional crank or moron.

This isn't just "dishonesty". This is a pure lie!
So, any scientist which knew about this observation that matter from the accretion disc is actually ejected outwards and hide this information is LIER by definition.
Therefore, I claim that the science community (including all the 10,000 BBT scientists) which knew for the last 20 year that matter from the accretion disc is ejected outwards at UFO are liars. ONLY those that knew about it!
As you Mr BC continue to ignore this key information then you are also part of those liars!
Shame on you and all of them!

You are now claiming that cars go backwards because that's the direction which the  exhaust fumes go.

Stuff falls into BH which is why the paper talks about "An ultrafast inflow ".

Some small fraction gets flung out.
You are trying to pretend that the first bit doesn't happen.

Is that because you didn't understand it, or are you lying?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Stuff falls into BH which is why the paper talks about "An ultrafast inflow ".

This is a clear lie!
Don't you agree that in the article it is stated that the Ultrafast inflow comes ONLY from the innermost accretion ring (as at this ring the orbital velocity is 0.3c) while the matter from the outermost ring is ejected outwards as Ultrafast Outflow (at that ring the orbital velocity is only 0.1c).
It is also clearly stated that the UFO that had been ejected outwards is used to form new stars at the central bulge.
If all the above is correct, then how can you continue to lie that matter falls into the accretion disc from outside???

Is that because you didn't understand it, or are you lying?

Sorry, you should understand the meaning of those observations while there is no indication/observation for any sort of matter from outside that falls into the accretion disc.
Don't you have some minimal obligation to all of those real observations?
How can you claim that I lie while my message is clearly based only on real observation.
How can you continue to lie in the name of the BBT "science"?
Do you really believe that as a scientist you have the power to ignore all those observations that fully contradicts your incorrect theory and force that Accretion disc to "eat imagination matter" from outside?
Shame on you!

[Origin]

Don't you agree that in the article it is stated that the Ultrafast inflow comes ONLY from the innermost accretion ring (as at this ring the orbital velocity is 0.3c) while the matter from the outermost ring is ejected outwards as Ultrafast Outflow (at that ring the orbital velocity is only 0.1c).

No, the article does not say that.  It is like you don't read what is printed, you read what you want to be printed.
You are in such denial that it is not possible to have anything resembling a reasonable discussion.  Your ideas are not correct,  ignoring reality does not make reality bend to your desire.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Don't you agree that in the article it is stated that the Ultrafast inflow comes ONLY from the innermost accretion ring (as at this ring the orbital velocity is 0.3c) while the matter from the outermost ring is ejected outwards as Ultrafast Outflow (at that ring the orbital velocity is only 0.1c).

No, the article does not say that.  It is like you don't read what is printed, you read what you want to be printed.
You are in such denial that it is not possible to have anything resembling a reasonable discussion.  Your ideas are not correct,  ignoring reality does not make reality bend to your desire.

As you reject the clear message from that article, then what do you understand?
If you understand that matter from outside is falling into the accretion disc as ultrafast inflow, then would you kindly highlight that message from the article.