[Bored chemist]

You don't get it, do you?
We don't see most of the stuff that falls in because, essentially, it's just "dirt".
It's dust, hydrogen and a few other bits.
And it doesn't emit light, so we don't see it.

What we do see is a small amount of matter that is heated up by the energy released from the falling stuff.

What is needed for you to understand that nothing really falls into the accretion disc?

Evidence, and a plausible explanation which doesn't break the observed (and also the calculated) laws of physics.

What kind of evidence or observation would convince you that the accretion disc itself generates all the matter that falls into the SMBH as UFI and in the same time it also generates all the matter that it ejects outwards as UFO?

Scientific evidence.
So, for example, I need a lot more than just you claiming it does.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

You don't get it, do you?
We don't see most of the stuff that falls in because, essentially, it's just "dirt".
It's dust, hydrogen and a few other bits.
And it doesn't emit light, so we don't see it.

No
We clearly see the outflow from the accretion disc.
Therefore, in the same token if there was an inflow from outside into the accretion disc - We had to see it.
Please be aware that the inflow into the accretion disc must be much higher than the outflow as we clearly see that some matter falls from the accretion disc into the SMBH.
Therefore, If we don't see any matter that falls into the accretion disc, then nothing really falls

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 17:52:16
What kind of evidence or observation would convince you that the accretion disc itself generates all the matter that falls into the SMBH as UFI and in the same time it also generates all the matter that it ejects outwards as UFO?

Scientific evidence.
So, for example, I need a lot more than just you claiming it does.

There is no better science evidence than OBSERVATION.
For the last 20 - 50 years we OBSERVE stable outflow from the accretion disc.
We have never ever seen any sort of matter that is falling in the other way - from outside into the accretion disc.
Therefore, based on science evidence --- matter does not fall into the accretion disc from outside!!!
Never & Ever

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 17:52:16
What is needed for you to understand that nothing really falls into the accretion disc?

Evidence, and a plausible explanation which doesn't break the observed (and also the calculated) laws of physics.

We have already got the clear evidence observation that nothing falls into the accretion disc.
The law of physics must be based on observation.
If we see a contradiction between any law of science to the observation - then we must change the law of science and not the observation.
The observation is the Ultimate evidence for our Universe.
There is no way to bypass the observation!
You have no authority to ignore or to bypass it even if you call yourself "scientist"

Any scientist that is banding the observation can't be considered as a scientist!
Sorry - your science is based on lie.
Hence, as you and the whole BBT science community claim that matter from outside falls into the accretion disc without even a single observation of a single atom to backup your imagination, then you and all of those scientists lie to real observation and lie to real science!

[Bored chemist]

We have already got the clear evidence observation that nothing falls into the accretion disc.

No, we do not.
Why post that tosh?

The law of physics must be based on observation.

They are.
And that is perfectly consistent with the fact that we do not see what you describe.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:16:25
We have already got the clear evidence observation that nothing falls into the accretion disc.

No, we do not.
Why post that tosh?

You lie!
We have NEVER EVER observed any matter that falls into the accretion disc from outside!
Shame on you!

[Bored chemist]

We have NEVER EVER observed any matter that falls into the accretion disc from outside!

There are two problems with that.
First of all, yes we have seen it.*

Secondly, I didn't say we had.

But thee is a big difference between
" we have no evidence that apples are on the far side of the moon"
and
"We have evidence that no apples are on the far side of the moon"

If you have never seen the far side of the moon then the  first statement is true, and the second statement is false.
It's also the same if you swap "apples" for "rocks".

So, when you say

We have already got the clear evidence observation that nothing falls into the accretion disc.

you are lying.
We don't have any "clear evidence" at all about BH, they are too far away.

How could we say for sure that nothing - not a single atom- falls in?
Obviously, we couldn't be sure.
So this
quote author=Dave Lev link=topic=80881.msg639571#msg639571 date=1620929785]We have already got the clear evidence observation that nothing falls into the accretion disc.[/quote]
is nonsense.
We don't have that evidence, and we couldn't have it.

So, are you going to stop this sort of trolling ,

You lie!
...
Shame on you!

or are you going to carry on looking stupid?

*
https://www.space.com/spaghettified-star-observed-near-black-hole

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:36:48
We have NEVER EVER observed any matter that falls into the accretion disc from outside!

There are two problems with that.
First of all, yes we have seen it.*

You lie again
We have never observed matter that falls into the accretion disc from outside!

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:16:25
We have already got the clear evidence observation that nothing falls into the accretion disc.

you are lying.
We don't have any "clear evidence" at all about BH, they are too far away.
How could we say for sure that nothing - not a single atom- falls in?
Obviously, we couldn't be sure.

You Lie.
We should be sure by 100% that nothing falls in.
The evidence for that is there in front of our eyes.
It is called the UFO.
That UFO is the ultra fast outflow from the accretion disc
Our scientists claim that this UFO is ejected from the accretion disc at almost 0.1c.
Now let's make a simple calculation:
We already know that the inner side of the accretion disc is very close to the event horizon.
We also know the outer side of the ring is about twice the size of the inner ring.
when we look at the radius of a S stars their minimal orbital radius (Rs) is still bigger by at least 10,000 than the outer radius of the accretion ring (Racc-out).
Rs = 10,000 Racc-out
The gravity force formula is reference to 1/R^2
So, if the gravity on an atom at the outer accretion ring is Gr1 than the gravity on the same atom at the S star radius is
Gr1 / 10^8
So, as the atom at the outer side of the accretion disc is ejected outwards at 0.1c while the gravity force there is Gr1, how can you believe that the same atom as it gets to the radius of Rs and the gravity force there is reduced by 10^8 would fall back to the accretion disc?
Please don't forget that we clearly observe a constant UFO for the last 20 years or more.
So, if something is ejected outwards from the accretion disc at that ultra high velocity against the ultra high gravity force of the SMBH, how can you believe that it should fall back after it ejected high above where its gravity force is reduced by 10^8 and against that constant outflow that is called UFO?

That by itself shows that you don't have a basic clue how the accretion disc really works!

[Bored chemist]

We should be sure by 100% that nothing falls in.

Not a single atom?

or are you going to carry on looking stupid?

[Bored chemist]

how can you believe that it should fall back after it ejected high above where its gravity force is reduced by 10^8 and against that constant outflow that is called UFO?

I didn't.
I said that the dull boring stuff that isn't glowing falls in.
I didn't say that the tiny energetic amount that is thrown out goes in.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

We should be sure by 100% that nothing falls in.

Not a single atom?

or are you going to carry on looking stupid?

Yes, not even a single atom would fall back against that UFO!
We also clearly see all of those 100 Hydrogen gas clouds that are ejected from the MW galaxy.
So, nothing falls back into the accretion disc.
As you don't understand it then you don't understand how the galaxy really works!

[Bored chemist]

Yes, not even a single atom would fall back against that UFO!

LOL

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Yes, not even a single atom would fall back against that UFO!

LOL

Who represents the real "LOL"?
Is it our science community that at least for the last 20-50 years clearly observe a constant outflow UFO from any SMBH' accretion disc that they could monitor in the entire Universe?

Or is it me that highlight the shocking evidence that in all of that time they have never ever observed any sort of object that falls/accreted into the accretion disc?
So how could they call it accretion disc while they ONLY observe that matter is ejected outwards from this disc and there is no evidence for any sort of matter that is accreted inwards into this disc?

Sorry - Any scientist that calls that disc as accretion disc instead of excretion disc represents the real LOL and lies all together.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I think, for me at least, to completely rewrite some of the basic pillars of physics it would take more than the hand waving of some uneducated guy on the internet.

Our basic pillars of physics are based on imagination!!!
Matter does not accrete or fall into the SMBH accretion disc from outside.
NEVER & EVER!
We have a solid evidence/observation for that!
Any uneducated guy on the internet can find that shocking evidence.
Therefore, the SMBH accretion disc is actually an excretion disc!

It is a task for those people that are called "scientists" to accept that clear observation as the real basic pillar of physics.
If they do so, they will clearly understand that the BBT is nonsense.
If they would insist to hold the BBT and continue to ignore this clear observation of the basic pillar of physics then they can't be called "scientists" any more!

It's the correct time for the science community to offer me (as uneducated guy on the internet that found this shocking evidence/observation) a reward for his great effort and contribution to real pillars of physics!

[Bored chemist]

Our basic pillars of physics are based on imagination!!!

No, they are generally based on observation.
A few of them, such as the conservation laws, can also be derived mathematically.
So we know they are right.
And, since your idea doesn't follow them, we know you are wrong.


The fact that you have failed to understand the observations regarding BH doesn't chance that.

So how could they call it accretion disc while they ONLY observe that matter is ejected outwards from this disc and there is no evidence for any sort of matter that is accreted inwards into this disc?

LOL
The fact that the disk is there is proof that material gathered were the disk is.
Otherwise you would need to explain how it got there (and how the BH got there- which you fail to do).


Your claim is like saying  "houses must  exist because bricks breed"- just because you didn't see the truck deliver the bricks.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:50:02
Our basic pillars of physics are based on imagination!!!

No, they are generally based on observation.

This is a clear LIE!!!
We all agree that we ONLY OBSERVE UFO from any galaxy that we can monitor.
You have already confirmed that any matter that was ejected outwards as a UFO won't fall back:

I didn't say that the tiny energetic amount that is thrown out goes in.

So, you consider that UFO as a "tiny energetic amount that is thrown out".

You also confirm that we have NEVER EVER Observe any sort of matter that is falling into the accretion disc.
However, you try to offer an explanation for that:

I said that the dull boring stuff that isn't glowing falls in.

So, you think that the matter that falls in isn't glowing, while the matter that ejected outwards as a UFO is glowing.
This concept is nonsense due to the following:
1. Our scientists told us that any matter that falls in must come with fireworks and flares.
2. You personally told us that the ultra high temp of the plasma at the accretion disc is due to the ultra high heat of the matter as it falls in.
3. So, there is no way for a matter to fall in without ultra high glowing.
4. We have today supper advanced technology that allows us to read a credit card at the surface of the moon without any need for it to glow.
5. You claim that the UFO is just a tinny friction compare to the real falling matter. So, it is absolutely ridicules that we can see that tinny UFO, while we have never ever seen the huge amount of matter that should fall into the Billion accretion disc in the entire Universe.
6. I have already set the gravity calculation for you:

We should be sure by 100% that nothing falls in.
The evidence for that is there in front of our eyes.
It is called the UFO.
That UFO is the ultra fast outflow from the accretion disc
Our scientists claim that this UFO is ejected from the accretion disc at almost 0.1c.
Now let's make a simple calculation:
We already know that the inner side of the accretion disc is very close to the event horizon.
We also know the outer side of the ring is about twice the size of the inner ring.
when we look at the radius of a S stars their minimal orbital radius (Rs) is still bigger by at least 10,000 than the outer radius of the accretion ring (Racc-out).
Rs = 10,000 Racc-out
The gravity force formula is reference to 1/R^2
So, if the gravity on an atom at the outer accretion ring is Gr1 than the gravity on the same atom at the S star radius is
Gr1 / 10^8
So, as the atom at the outer side of the accretion disc is ejected outwards at 0.1c while the gravity force there is Gr1, how can you believe that the same atom as it gets to the radius of Rs and the gravity force there is reduced by 10^8 would fall back to the accretion disc?
Please don't forget that we clearly observe a constant UFO for the last 20 years or more.
So, if something is ejected outwards from the accretion disc at that ultra high velocity against the ultra high gravity force of the SMBH, how can you believe that it should fall back after it ejected high above where its gravity force is reduced by 10^8 and against that constant outflow that is called UFO?
That by itself shows that you don't have a basic clue how the accretion disc really works!

So, it is absolutely unrealistic to believe that orbital matter in the accretion disc that is very close to the SMBH and under ULTRA high gravity force, would be ejected outwards as UFO, while other orbital matter that is located far away from the SMBH and have significantly less gravity force (less by 10 ^-8) would fall in.
This is just a pure imagination!
7. We clearly see all of those 100 gas cloud and the molecular jets stream that are ejected from the galaxy.

If after all of that you rejects all observations and continue to hold your imagination that matter must fall into the accretion disc, then you are based your science on a pure imagination.

LOL
The fact that the disk is there is proof that material gathered were the disk is.

NO!!!
The fact that the disk is there while the UFI represents clear observation of matter that inflow from the accretion disc to the SMBH and the UFO represents the other clear observation of matter that outflow from the accretion disc to the Central bulge proves that the accretion disc MUST generate new matter by itself!!!
Actually the ultra high temp of the plasma which is 10^9c meets the requested criteria temp for the pair particle process.
You know that and all the science community know that!
This temp wouldn't get so high on just a falling matter.
Actually, in our planet, the heat of a falling object is achieving by a collision of that matter with the atmosphere.
There is no atmosphere around the SMBH.
So, even if something falls in it can't get that kind of ultra high temp
If you would insist that is should, then you can't claim that it won't glow.
So please stop contradict yourself again and again just to protect that BBT imagination of matter that falls in while we can't see it at all as it doesn't glow.
If you would continue to claim that matter must fall into the accretion disc without any observation to support this imagination - then this is pure lie.

A few of them, such as the conservation laws, can also be derived mathematically.
So we know they are right.

Any law of science must be based on clear observation.
We all know that without a falling matter and in order for the accretion disc to support the UFO and the UFI it must generate new matter.
Therefore, it is your obligation is to adjust your law of science for that activity. As your current conservation laws and mathematics prevent it, it's the time to update the mathematics and the law for that kind of activity.
Please remember - the OBSERVATION is above any law and any mathematics.
There is no way to for the observation to meet our wrong mathematics.
We must adjust our mathematics to meet the real observation!!!

If you can't do so, please step away and let other scientists to take care on our real observable Universe,  while you can continue with your wrong mathematics and wrong law of science.

[Origin]

If you can't do so, please step away and let other scientists to take care on our real observable Universe

But that leave only you dave.  You said all the scientist are wrong.  Your wiki education has allowed you to acquire a vast amount of knowledge delusion far beyond any scientist.
Your ranting about magical mass formation and anti-gravity are absurd.  This is 34 pages of complete drivel on your part, what a waste of time.

[Bored chemist]

This is a clear LIE!!!
We all agree that we ONLY OBSERVE UFO from any galaxy that we can monitor.

Yes.
What you wrote there is a lie.
We can observe stuff falling into BH

It's good to see that you realise you are lying, and put in a warning.

It would be better if you just stopped posting.

1. Our scientists told us that any matter that falls in must come with fireworks and flares.

And when they "light up" that's the edge of the accretion disk.

We have today supper advanced technology that allows us to read a credit card at the surface of the moon without any need for it to glow.

No we don't, but even allowing for the absurd exaggeration, the telescopes only let us see the moon because the Sun shines on it.
BH don't shine much.

So, it is absolutely ridicules that we can see that tinny UFO, while we have never ever seen the huge amount of matter

In a forest at night it is not ridiculous to say that we can see a torch, but not the trees.
You, on the other hand, seem to think that the torch must be bigger than the trees, because it's the only thing we can see.

Any law of science must be based on clear observation.

We observe that things fall down, and that energy is conserved.
You, on the other hand are inventing "laws" that don't agree with these simple, obvious observations.

There is no way to for the observation to meet our wrong mathematics.

Please show where this maths is wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

If you can't do so, please step away and let other scientists to take care on our real observable Universe,  while you can continue with your wrong mathematics and wrong law of science.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

quote author=Bored chemist link=topic=80881.msg639652#msg639652 date=1620996065]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 11:48:17
This is a clear LIE!!!
We all agree that we ONLY OBSERVE UFO from any galaxy that we can monitor.

Yes.
What you wrote there is a lie.
We can observe stuff falling into BH[/quote]
How long are you going to keep on with that nonsense?
We discuss about the accretion disc and you keep on with the BH.
I have already told you that we do see the UFI matter as it falls into the SMBH from the inner side of the accretion disc.
However, we have never ever observed any matter as it falls into the accretion disc from outside!
On the contrary, we clearly observe the UFO as it is ejected outwards from that disc.
So, we clearly see at the same time the UFI as it falls from the accretion disc into the SMBH and the UFO as it is ejected from the accretion disc outwards.
As I have stated several times - we have no observation for any matter as it falls into the accretion disc and we will never have!

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 11:48:17
1. Our scientists told us that any matter that falls in must come with fireworks and flares.

And when they "light up" that's the edge of the accretion disk.

What a nonsense!!!
If a star was really falling inwards from outside into the direction of the accretion disc it should fall at ultra high velocity and high acceleration due to the mighty SMBH gravity.
It is expected that this star should be broken to its atoms long before it gets closer to the accretion disc.
So, we have to see the impact of that falling star.
In any case, due to its falling acceleration, it should reduce its distance to the SMBH at ultra high velocity. There is no way for it to suddenly stop at the accretion disc edge and just then start to orbit at a constant radius..
If it falls, it must fall all the way into the SMBH without any temporary stop at the accretion disc.
So, your idea that star (S2 for example) that is orbiting high above the accretion disc at relatively low velocity would fall in at ultra high acceleration and as it gets to the accretion disc edge it would suddenly stop from falling inwards and then it would "light up" and start to orbit around the SMBH at 0.1c is just imagination
Sorry, there is no science in this imagination!!!

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 11:48:17
We have today supper advanced technology that allows us to read a credit card at the surface of the moon without any need for it to glow.

No we don't, but even allowing for the absurd exaggeration, the telescopes only let us see the moon because the Sun shines on it.

Our scientists claim that they can read a credit card at the surface of the moon.
For more than 20 years they clearly observe the UFO from the accretion disc that is located at a distance of ONE BILLION LY away which is ejected outwards. How do you dare to claim that our technology isn't good enough with all of that supper advanced technology? Is it just because we can't see that falling matter which you and the whole science community are so willing to see?
Don't you understand that as we don't observe any matter as it falls in from outside into the accretion disc (and we have never did), then there is a good chance that matter doesn't fall from outside into that disc?
Did you ever consider this possibility, or your mind is so twisted that as you don't see something that you wish to see you just think that your ability to see is defected?
Is it a normal approach for you and for our scientists?
Don't you accept "no" as an answer from the galaxy?
Why don't you write a complain against all of those nutty accretion discs in the entire universe that somehow refuse to eat any matter from outside although your Math is telling you that they should do so?
You are the master of knowledge & Math, so please go ahead and force them to eat!

In a forest at night it is not ridiculous to say that we can see a torch, but not the trees.

I have better example for you.
You are in the desert.
There is no even one drop of water over there.
But you and all the other scientists don't give up. You are looking for the great living whale in the deep sand of that desert.
Good Luck for you.
You would never ever find even one atom as it falls into the accretion disc from outside as you don't have a basic clue how the accretion disc really works.
But you can hope. It is free of charge for all of you.

Please show where this maths is wrong.

As your math contradicts the real observation, then this math is useless.
We have an obligation to the observation and not to this or that kind of formula.
So if that math convinced you that matter from outside should fall into the accretion disc, it's better for you to ignore it!

We observe that things fall down, and that energy is conserved.

We have never & ever observed any kind of matter as it falls into the SMBH accretion disc and I can tell you that you would never see!
This disc is different.
Therefore, if you or any other "scientist" would dare to claim again that matter falls into that accretion disc without a clear backup observation of matter as it falls into the accretion disc - then all of you would be considered as LIARS.

Sorry - It is forbidden to lie even if you do so in the name of the BBT "science"!

[Bored chemist]

However, we have never ever observed any matter as it falls into the accretion disc from outside!

Yes we have.
https://www.space.com/spaghettified-star-observed-near-black-hole


Spag star.JPG (30.97 kB . 616x362 - viewed 1949 times)

Stop pretending we haven't.

(Also, don't try to pretend that the picture shows material coming out of the BH- you will just look silly.)

[Bored chemist]

It is forbidden to lie

Then stop lying.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:10:25
However, we have never ever observed any matter as it falls into the accretion disc from outside!

Yes we have.
https://www.space.com/spaghettified-star-observed-near-black-hole

NO!
You didn't
First we discuss about a SMBH' accretion disc.
In this article they discuss about a BH:
" a team of astronomers from the Netherlands Institute for Space Research (SRON) and Radboud University in the Netherlands has successfully detected such a spaghettified star in spectral absorption lines around the poles of a distant black hole."
Second, they do not discuss at all about an accretion disc:
"The authors of the current study, however, claim that the material they were looking at wasn't part of the accretion disk. "
So, they didn't see a SMBH and they didn't see its accretion disc then what did they really observe?
"The astronomers observed the spectral absorption lines when looking at the black hole's rotational pole"
"Absorption lines are unusually dark lines detected in the otherwise continuous spectrum of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a source, in this case a black hole.
Hence, they have observed an Absorption line which had been emitted from the black hole's rotational pole.

However, while our scientists claim clearly that this Absorption line which had been emitted from the pole of a far away BH isn't part of the accretion disc, you try to offer it as an observation for a matter that falls into the SMBH accretion disc. Why is it?

Sorry, this article isn't relevant to our discussion.
There is no observation in that article for any sort of matter that falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.

It is quite interesting how our scientists twist the data.
In the title of the article it is stated:
"Astronomers observe as a giant black hole sucks in a spaghettified star."
Wow!
What an important observation.
However, when you start to read the article you notice that there is no falling star, no matter that falls into the accretion disc and not even a giant BH.
It is all about an Absorption line which had been emitted from the black hole's rotational pole.
So, our scientists just continue to lie.
As all the BBT scientists wish to see a falling star into the SMBH accretion disc, then even if they only see absorption line which had been emitted from the black hole's rotational pole then this observation is good enough for them to lie and come out with this kind of title which is totally not connected to the real observation.

Then stop lying.

Who is the real liar?
As I have already stated:
If you or any other "scientist" would dare to claim again that matter falls into the SMBH' accretion disc without a clear backup observation - then all of you would be considered as LIARS.

Shame on you, all of you!