[Bored chemist]

Who is the real liar?

The one who says

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

after being shown the picture of stuff falling into the accretion disk.
There's no plausible mechanism to distinguish a SMBH from any other BH.
Stuff falls into both.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

There's no plausible mechanism to distinguish a SMBH from any other BH.

What a nonsense!
The SMBH might be 1,000,000 times bigger than a BH.
It is located at the center of any spiral galaxy.
So, don't lie and tell us that we can't distinguish a SMBH from a BH.

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

after being shown the picture of stuff falling into the accretion disk.

I do recall that you have offered a picture of the M87 SMBH' accretion disc.
In that image we don't see any sort of stuff as it falls into the accretion disc.
So, why do you lie again and again?

[Bored chemist]

So, don't lie and tell us that we can't distinguish a SMBH from a BH.

You and i can tell.
A hydrogen atom falling in can't.
So the distinction does not make a difference to the physics, does it?

In that image we don't see any sort of stuff as it falls into the accretion disc.

Yes. and I explained why.

Do you understand that stuff in space usually has to be very  hot to be visible?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Yes. and I explained why.

Sorry, you have totally failed to offer any observation of any sort of star or matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc from outside.
Your explanation why we can't see it is useless.

So, as you & our science community don't have any observation to support the imagination of matter that falls into the SMBH' accretion disc from outside, it's the time for all of you to accept the simple idea that this specific disc can set a constant flow of matter as the UFI & the UFO at the same time forever and ever without eating any matter from outside!

[Origin]

So, as you & our science community don't have any observation to support the imagination of matter that falls into the SMBH' accretion disc from outside, it's the time for all of you to accept the simple idea that this specific disc can set a constant flow of matter as the UFI & the UFO at the same time forever and ever without eating any matter from outside!

It such an epic battle I can't guess which is bigger.  Is your arrogance or ignorance?  I think it may be a tie!  It is so exciting...

[Bored chemist]

Your explanation why we can't see it is useless.

Only for you.
For the grown ups, the fact that you can't see a gas cloud in space unless it's very hot is a sensible answer.
But you are ignoring reality - as usual.

it's the time for all of you to accept the simple idea that this specific disc can set a constant flow of matter as the UFI & the UFO at the same time forever and ever without eating any matter from outside!

No.
It is not time to ignore the rules of physics.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Only for you.
For the grown ups, the fact that you can't see a gas cloud in space unless it's very hot is a sensible answer.
But you are ignoring reality - as usual.

You and all the other grownups BBT scientists ignore the VERY clear observation that Matter doesn't fall into the accretion disc from outside.
You have just offered an article to support your imagination but I have proved that it is just lies over lies.
I hope that at least by now all of those "grownups" including you understand that we have no observation to support the imagination of matter that falls into the accretion disc from outside.
It is just a hope for all of you
So, you try to convince yourself with the following pathetic answer that matter should fall in:
"For the grown ups, the fact that you can't see a gas cloud in space unless it's very hot is a sensible answer."
At least you confirm that we can't see any falling gas.

In any case, you fully aware that we observe that galaxy at a distance of one billion years away for more than 20 year
We clearly see the UFI (inflow from the accertion into the SMBH) and we also clearly see that constant outflow that is called UFO (Outflow from the accertion disc into the central bulge).
That UFO was there all the time (starting the first observation in 2001).
Just in 2018 we have discover the UFI.
So, the portion of the UFO which was there in all of those last 20 years must be significantly higher than the UFI.
But you don't care about it!
As a "grown ups" you don't let this significant UFO observation and the missing falling matter to confuse you as you do understand the real meaning of this observation.
You do understand that as the accretion disc is constantly ejected matter outside as UFO and inside as UFI then without eating from outside, it means that it must generate new matter.
That by itself kills the BBT and shows that those grown up people have no basic clue how the Universe really works.
That might be a fatal problem for all of those BBT grown ups.

Therefore, your mission is to protect the BBT under any sort of observation or no observation.
You have no intention to kill the BBT just because the SMBH' accretion disc refuse to eat his food.
Therefore, you claim that the SMBH' accretion disc eats an invisible food from outside.
What a great idea!

So please would you kindly answer the following:
1. If the matter falls in from outside in the direction of the SMBH' accretion disc, why it does not continue to fall all the way into the SMBH?
Why it suddenly stop at the accretion disc?
The disc is not rigid. It is very soft. So why the falling matter that comes at ultra high falling acceleration can't just cross it and continue its momentum all the way into the SMBH?
Can you please show the physics that force the falling matter to stop at that specific accretion disc radius?
2. Why the accretion disc is there? What is its benefit and why it is so hot over there?
Let's assume that at some SMBH all the matter in the accretion disc had been consumed. So, why the matter from the next falling star would know that it should stop exactly at this radius while there was no matter over there? Why it would be heated to 10^9c exactly at this radius while when the matter was above this radius it was cold as ice?
3. After the temporary stop at the accretion disc edge why not all the matter continue to fall into the accretion disc?
As I have proved, the UFO is significantly higher than the UFI. So how could it be that most of the falling matter is ejected backwards or actually upwards as a UFO?
4. Why do you calim that the UFO acts as a dust of a falling bulding that goes up while we don't see any falling building and there is no collision impact with the accretion disc as it isn't solid or rigid disc?
5. Why are you so sure that we won't be able to see the falling matter even if it is cold?
Why it can't be heated as it falls in? Why just at the edge of the accretion disc it goes from zero to 10^9c?

[Bored chemist]

You and all the other grownups BBT scientists ignore the VERY clear observation that Matter doesn't fall into the accretion disc from outside.

Please show that such an observation has been made.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

You and all the other grownups BBT scientists ignore the VERY clear observation that Matter doesn't fall into the accretion disc from outside.

Please show that such an observation has been made.

Dear BC
How long are you going to keep on with your lies?
1. You have stated that we have an observation for matter that falls into the accretion disc and I have proved that it is a lie. We have never ever observed any sort of matter that falls from outside into the SMBH' accretion disc
2. You have stated that the inflow (UFI) in the following article:

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

Means - an inflow from outside into the accretion disc:

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

I have proved that this is one more lie as this inflow is actually from the accretion disc into the SMBH.
3. You have stated that this UFI represents the main portion that is ejected from the accretion disc, while the UFO is just a minor energy.
That is another lie.
For more than 20 years our scientists ONLY observe the UFO. Just in 2018 they have verified that UFI.
So it means the UFO (matter that is ejected upwards into the Bulge from the accretion disc) is the most significant portion of the total matter that is ejected outwards from the SMBH' accretion disc. If you would monitor all the observations that we have made in all the last 20 years you would find that the UFO was always there while the UFI had been discover only in one observation in 2018. That UFI was just a single small gas cloud.  So it is very clear that the portion of the UFO is more than 99% with reference to that minor gas cloud that is called UFI.
4. You have stated that the matter that falls into the accretion disc is invisible. You have compared it to the building that falls while the UFO is just the Dust that goes up.
However, you totally ignore the simple understanding that the accretion disc isn't a rigid disc. So if that Star or Building is falling in at ultra high acceleration, there is no way to hold it at the edge of that ultra thin & soft accretion disc.
Actually, 99.9...9% of the stars and gas clouds that orbit around the SMBH don't orbit exactly at the accretion disc plane. So, the chance for a falling star to collide with that disc is virtually ZERO. If something would fall in from outside, it should fall all the way into the SMBH. Therefore, your example of a building that collides with the accretion disc is a pure lie.
Also your statement that the UFO is equivalent to a dust is also lie as the UFO represents more than 99% from the matter that is ejected from the accretion disc.
5. If you think that a full mass of building would fall in and without even a possibility to collide with that thin & sot disc it would suddenly stop from falling and 99% of its matter would be ejected backwards & outwards (as that UFO) then this is one more lie.
You actually ignore all the key questions that I have asked:

So please would you kindly answer the following:
1. If the matter falls in from outside in the direction of the SMBH' accretion disc, why it does not continue to fall all the way into the SMBH?
Why it suddenly stop at the accretion disc?
The disc is not rigid. It is very soft. So why the falling matter that comes at ultra high falling acceleration can't just cross it and continue its momentum all the way into the SMBH?
Can you please show the physics that force the falling matter to stop at that specific accretion disc radius?
2. Why the accretion disc is there? What is its benefit and why it is so hot over there?
Let's assume that at some SMBH all the matter in the accretion disc had been consumed. So, why the matter from the next falling star would know that it should stop exactly at this radius while there was no matter over there? Why it would be heated to 10^9c exactly at this radius while when the matter was above this radius it was cold as ice?
3. After the temporary stop at the accretion disc edge why not all the matter continue to fall into the accretion disc?
As I have proved, the UFO is significantly higher than the UFI. So how could it be that most of the falling matter is ejected backwards or actually upwards as a UFO?
4. Why do you calim that the UFO acts as a dust of a falling bulding that goes up while we don't see any falling building and there is no collision impact with the accretion disc as it isn't solid or rigid disc?
5. Why are you so sure that we won't be able to see the falling matter even if it is cold?
Why it can't be heated as it falls in? Why just at the edge of the accretion disc it goes from zero to 10^9c?

That proves that you don't care about real science.
You want to convince yourself that matter should fall in from outside into the SMBH' accretion disc while we have never ever observed any matter that falls in.
I have an advice for you:
Why don't you call it the Dark invisible falling matter.
You and all the other grown ups scientists are so good in all of those imaginations that are called "Dark".
You already have the dark matter and the dark energy. So why don't you add one more dark to your imagination list?
Let's call it the dark invisible falling matter.
However I request to get a reward for this idea.

In any case, with regards to your request:

Please show that such an observation has been made.

Sorry, I don't have to offer any observation.
The missing observation of that Dark invisible falling matter is good enough for me to kill your lovely BBT imagination
It is you and all your grownups BBT scientists that should offer the observation to support your imagination.
After all Einstein and Fred Hoyle were 100% correct.
New matter is constantly generated at the SMBH' accretion disc in order to support a steady state Universe.
However, they didn't know exactly where the new matter creation activity takes place. Now we all know exactly the correct location.
The ultra high temp of 10^9c at that SMBH' accretion disc is high enough to support the pair process activity.

However, it is very clear that you aren't going to accept it as you don't care about real science.
You and all the other grownups only care about your BBT imagination and you would do whatever it takes to kill any other idea even if it is based on real observation.

So keep on with your lovely BBT imagination as you don't have a basic clue how the spiral galaxy really works.
What is the real functionality of the accretion disc. Bulge, Bar, ring. How the spiral arms had been formed and why the base of the arm is 3000 LY thick while the far end arm is only 400 LY.
Actually only on this issue by itself we should kill the imagination that is called dense wave.

In any case, how long can you hold a wrong theory?
One generation or many more?.
At some pint of time you would understand the BBT is wrong!
At that time maybe one reader would remember my thread and only then I would get rewards for my great discovery.

[Bored chemist]

Sorry, I don't have to offer any observation.

So, you are saying that the whole of physics is wrong, but you don't have to offer any evidence.

The missing observation of that Dark invisible falling matter is good enough for me to kill your lovely BBT imagination

So, because we don't see something which nobody would expect to see, you think we are wrong.


Why are you on a science page?

[Bored chemist]

We have never ever observed any sort of matter that falls from outside into the SMBH' accretion disc

We have.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V404_Cygni#2015_outburst

Please don't waste time saying this hole isn't big enough until you have answered this

You and i can tell.
A hydrogen atom falling in can't.
So the distinction does not make a difference to the physics, does it?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 10:15:33
We have never ever observed any sort of matter that falls from outside into the SMBH' accretion disc

We have.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V404_Cygni#2015_outburst

Please don't waste time saying this hole isn't big enough until you have answered this

Wow!!!
What a great article.
If you were standing next to me I would probably give you a big huge.
This article is the one that I was looking for many years.

It is stated:
"A worldwide observing campaign was commenced and on 17 June ESA's INTEGRAL Gamma-ray observatory started monitoring the outburst."
"This outburst was the first since 1989. Other outbursts occurred in 1938 and 1956, "
" The outburst was unusual in that physical processes in the inner accretion disk were detectable in optical photometry from small telescopes"
So, our scientists have discovered an Outburst at the inner accretion disc.
Now comes the great message:
"A detailed analysis of the INTEGRAL data revealed the existence of so-called pair plasma near the black hole. This plasma consists of electrons and their antimatter counterparts, positrons."
So, they have "revealed the existence of so-called pair plasma near the black hole" at the inner side of the accretion disc.
That pair plasma is a direct indication of the new pair particle creation which I have already informed in my explanation.
It is even stated:
"This plasma consists of electrons and their antimatter counterparts, positrons"
So, our scientists have clearly observed the new particle pair activity of electron and its antimatter -positron, near the black hole at the inner side of the accretion disc. Exactly as I was expecting!!!
Wow!!!
I can't ask for better clear observation that fully supports the understanding of new particle pair creation that is taking place at the inner side of the accretion disc.
Manny thanks to you BC!!!
If one day, I would get rewards for this discover, you have to share this rewards with me!!!
We are partners!

[Bored chemist]

You seem remarkable excited about a confirmation of the obvious.
The  accretion disk is hot.
That was never in dispute.

But you claim it is heated by magic, and I say it is heated by the energy released as things fall in.

You are still at odds with the laws of physics.

[jeffreyH]

Dear Dave

https://www.sciencealert.com/astronomers-have-seen-a-star-spaghettified-by-a-black-hole

[Bored chemist]

Dear Dave

https://www.sciencealert.com/astronomers-have-seen-a-star-spaghettified-by-a-black-hole

He will probably pretend that it is evidence that he is right.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Dear Dave
https://www.sciencealert.com/astronomers-have-seen-a-star-spaghettified-by-a-black-hole

Dear Jeffrey
This article is based on the same identical observation that was detected in April 2019 which had just been offered by BC
In this article it is stated:
1. Just such an event was detected in April 2019, picked up by the Zwicky Transient Facility
2. "The inner edge of the accretion disk closest to the black hole is the hottest part of the disk and therefore emits the most energetic radiation, the X-rays. That we can detect X-rays at all means that we are staring down the pole of the supermassive black hole"
3. "What we could be seeing is absorption lines caused by such streams, where the different orbital motions and projected velocities of these different streams cause the variation of the width of the lines.
In the other article it is stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V404_Cygni#2015_outburst
1. In April 2019, astronomers announced that jets of particles shooting from the black hole were wobbling back and forth on the order of a few minutes, something that had never before been seen in the particle jets streaming from a black hole. "
2. The outburst was unusual in that physical processes in the inner accretion disk were detectable in optical photometry from small telescopes; previously, these variations were thought to be only detectable with space-based X-ray telescopes

Therefore:
Exactly at the same date (April 2019) they observe almost the same stream
In Jeffry article it is stated : "absorption lines caused by such streams"
In BC article it is stated: "something that had never before been seen in the particle jets streaming from a black hole"
In one article it is called: absorption lines on the other it is: "bright outburst of energy."
So, they didn't observe any sort of falling star or matter.
All they clearly SEE and OBSERVE was some kind of a stream energy that was ejected at the inner side of the BH and was detected by X-Ray detectors.

However, now comes the fun section of the imagination (in both articles):

So although none of them claim for any observation of any sort of falling star or matter, they try to set an imagination connection between this stream of energy at the inner side of the BH to a falling star or matter:

In Jeffery article
"The variation and the width of these absorption lines were weird too. The observed configuration seemed to suggest multiple strands of material, like a ball of string."
So they think that the stream "SUGGEST" some Multiple stands of material.
OK. Very nice but what is the meaning of that suggested message?
They continue the explanation:
"This, in turn, suggested that there was something wrapped around the black hole at an unusual angle.."
Very Nice again.
So what does it mean?.
They think that : "something wrapped around the black hole".
So, far so good.
That "something" could clearly be the matter that the SMBH had just generated at the inner side of the accretion disc as explained by the BC article.
Hence, even in Jeffery article we see that the stream of energy is an indication for something that could be created by the inner side of the SMBH and still wrapped around the BH.
Please remember the inner side of the disc as it is a supper important message in both articles
Therefore, in both articles, this something which is detected at the inner side of the BH is 100% supports the idea of new created matter that had been created at the inner side of the BH and still wrapped around it.

However, now comes the imagination section: "such as the spaghettified filaments of a tidally disrupted star, perhaps, flung out away from the bulk of the stellar debris."
So, they now offer their imagination for this something: "tidal disrupted star"
Do they see any star? NO!
Do they see any falling matter? NO.
However, they have set some imagination connection between this "something" that was wrapped around the BH to a tidal disrupted star.
What a brilliant idea if you wish to prove your imagination!.
However, that message wasn't strong enough for them. Therefore in the title the took it one further step and use the following BOOMING message: "Astronomers Witnessed a Star Being Violently 'Spaghettified' by a Black Hole"
Wow!
How do they dare to offer such a lie?
On the other hand at BC article the imagination is softer: "The outbursts were probably caused by material piling up in a disk around the black hole until a tipping point was reached"
So, they don't call it "tidal disrupted star" or falling star but they call it: "material piling up in a disk around the black hole"
So, instead of falling star the reader might get the impression of falling matter.
Is it real?
WHY they don't give us the information about their observation as is?
Why they have to envelope that clear stream of energy that they have discovered at the inner side of a BH by this kind of falling star while they don't see any falling star or any falling matter
How something that is wrapped around the inner side of the BH accretion disc had been converted to falling star or falling matter without any observation for that?
Do you really believe that this stream of energy at the INNER side of the accretion disc is a clear observation for falling star?
How a falling star could get directly into the inner accretion disc and stop there?
Why both of them LIE to us?
 
Sorry - this doesn't represent real science.
They are all liars!!!
They lie in the name of science.
I assume that they lie in order to be the first one that deliver the image of the first missing falling star observation.

Shame on them!

[jeffreyH]

we are staring down the pole of the supermassive black hole

What you do in your private life is not our concern. Put your pole away!

[Dave Lev (OP)]

we are staring down the pole of the supermassive black hole

What you do in your private life is not our concern. Put your pole away!

Is it a message to me or to those scientists that wrote the article?
https://www.sciencealert.com/astronomers-have-seen-a-star-spaghettified-by-a-black-hole
"The inner edge of the accretion disk closest to the black hole is the hottest part of the disk and therefore emits the most energetic radiation, the X-rays. That we can detect X-rays at all means that we are staring down the pole of the supermassive black hole – otherwise, it would be obscured by the outer regions of the accretion disk."

[Dave Lev (OP)]

You seem remarkable excited about a confirmation of the obvious.
The accretion disk is hot.
That was never in dispute.
But you claim it is heated by magic, and I say it is heated by the energy released as things fall in.

Well the accretion ring temp is 10^9c.
Do you really think that it could be heated so high just by things that fall in?

On Earth, the falling matter collides with the atmosphere and therefore it get hotter.
Do you consider that there is an atmosphere around the SMBH or its accretion disc?
Even if we set there an imaginary atmosphere, what might be the impact of that collision?
We know that a fusion activity created heat of about 10^6 c
However, in that thin and soft accretion disc there is 10^9c which is much higher even from fusion activity.
Therefore, the "pair plasma near the black hole" activity is the ONLY activity that could justify that high temp at the accretion disc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V404_Cygni#2015_outburst
"A detailed analysis of the INTEGRAL data revealed the existence of so-called pair plasma near the black hole. This plasma consists of electrons and their antimatter counterparts, positrons"
That pair plasma means the creation of new partials as: "electrons and their antimatter counterparts, positron". So, our scientists fully confirm the activity of that pair plasma near the accretion disc!
Only that kind of new particle creation can justify that ultra high temp of 10^9c.
Therefore, your following message is clearly incorrect!

I say it is heated by the energy released as things fall in.

Please also be aware that it is stated:
https://www.sciencealert.com/astronomers-have-seen-a-star-spaghettified-by-a-black-hole
"The inner edge of the accretion disk closest to the black hole is the hottest part of the disk
So, that is a clear indication for the pair creation at that inner side of the SMBH accretion disc.

Actually, as they claim that "The inner edge of the accretion disk closest to the black hole is the hottest part of the disk" we can understand that the outer edge of the accretion disk is the coldest part of the disk.
That shows that the pair particles are created at the inner side and get the maximal temp due to this process.
Over time, those new particles are drifted outwards and get colder.

If we could verify the real temp of the SMBH' accretion disc inner side and the outer side, we could technically calculate how long it takes for a particle to drift from the inner edge of the accretion disc to the outer edge of the disc.
As it get there it is ejected outwards and sets the constant Ultra Fast Outflow (UFO) that we observe for the last 20 years . Please be aware that we have discussed about the UFO at the other article.

Hence: New matter is created at the inner side of the accretion disc at ultra high temp. It is drifted outwards over time. As it gets to the outer edge of the accretion disc it gets cooler and then it is ejected outwards as a constant UFO at 0.1c.
This is a clear indication that the pair activity is a constant and stable.
Based on this new matter creation activity each galaxy gets new matter which is used for the new star formation activity.
Don't forget that the baby boom galaxy generates 4000 stars per year.
Its accretion disc works very hard to generate so much new matter.
Our galaxy generates only 10 stars per year.
So, our SMBH' accretion disc is quite active with it's new matter creation, but not at the level of that baby boom galaxy. 

You are still at odds with the laws of physics.

Sorry - I don't need to deal with your wrong understanding of laws of physics.
We have a solid observation of pair plasma activity that takes place at the inner side of the accretion disc.
Now it is your job to adjust your laws to that observation.
Unless, you are going to complain about that nutty SMBH that dare to break down your laws of physics by its pair plasma activity.

[jeffreyH]

we are staring down the pole of the supermassive black hole

What you do in your private life is not our concern. Put your pole away!

Is it a message to me or to those scientists that wrote the article?
https://www.sciencealert.com/astronomers-have-seen-a-star-spaghettified-by-a-black-hole
"The inner edge of the accretion disk closest to the black hole is the hottest part of the disk and therefore emits the most energetic radiation, the X-rays. That we can detect X-rays at all means that we are staring down the pole of the supermassive black hole – otherwise, it would be obscured by the outer regions of the accretion disk."

It is pointless actually answering you Dave. You stick your fingers in your ears and sing "la la la not listening" like a little girl.