[Bored chemist]

Do you really think that it could be heated so high just by things that fall in?

It's not a matter of what I think, is it?

You can calculate  the temperatures involved.
And grown ups have done it.

But you sit there in your uneducated mess and say you don't think it is possible,

Why not lean some science.

Now it is your job to adjust your laws to that observation.

There's nothing to adjust.
It's hot.
At high enough temperatures you get pair production (it's not the only mechanism).
I already pointed this out earlier in your rant when you were getting things wrong about the early universe- you were saying ew are not here because pair production is impossible.
I was pointing out that we are here.

The fact that you refuse to believe it isn't important, it just makes you look stupid.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.

Dear Jeffrey
I would like to remind you that we discuss on a falling matter into the SMBH' accretion disc and not about my personality.
You and BC have offered articles to support the imagination that we do have observation for that. I have clearly proved that in none of them there is any observation for a falling matter. So they all clearly LIEI
Unfortunately, instead of comforting my reply you all prefer to contort my personality.
This is the looser strategy of kids. How can you try to position yourselves as grownup at this poor strategy?
As "grownups" would you kindly answer my questions or accept my message?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 04:52:48
Do you really think that it could be heated so high just by things that fall in?

It's not a matter of what I think, is it?
You can calculate  the temperatures involved.
And grown ups have done it.

Thanks BC
At least I have got a reply to one question.
So, would you kindly show us the Grownups calculation for the 10^9c at the Milky Way accretion disc due to falling matter (by real article)?

As we already focus on the knowledge and wisdom of those grownups do they know that 99.99..9% of the orbital objects aren't aliened with the accretion disc galactic plane..
So please would you kindly ask those Grownups the following:
1. What is the chance for a random falling star to collide with that thin and soft SMBH' accretion disc?
2. If a falling star miss the accretion disc, why it would have to stop exactly at the accretion disc radius instead of continuing its momentum to fall directly into the SMBH??
2. Even if one of a trillion falling star would finally collide with that thin and soft accretion disc while it falls at ultra high momentum, what should be the impact of this collision?
Please show the grownups calculation (if possible by real article) how a massive star that falls in would stop exactly at the outer edge of the accretion disc.

I assume that if your answer was just imagination or lie, then you would probably ignore my questions and move back to the winning "grownups" strategy which means to highlight again my poor knowledge or personality.

What do you prefer?

[Bored chemist]

I have clearly proved that in none of them there is any observation for a falling matter.

No, you have not.
So it really is

...about my personality.

.

You are deluded in two related ways.
Firstly, you think the matter in the universe is created by black holes (which is impossible for a number of reasons).
Secondly you hold the delusional view that you are the only one who is right, even though the evidence shows that you  understand very little.

It's your personality which stops you recognising that you are not some genius.
It's your personality which stops you accepting that many more things fall into black holes than come out.
It's your personality which stops you accepting that your idea can't work, because there would be nowhere for the "first" black hole to come from.
It's your personality which stops you accepting that stops you recognising that the conservation laws, having been mathematically proven to be true, are, in fact true.

It really is about your damaged personality.

[Bored chemist]

I assume that if your answer was just imagination or lie, then you would probably ignore my questions and move back to the winning "grownups" strategy which means to highlight again my poor knowledge or personality.

Your assumption misses something.
The problem is your " poor knowledge or personality."
So that's why we highlight it.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Firstly, you think the matter in the universe is created by black holes.

Yes, that is based on clear OBSERVATION and therefore it is correct by 100%

(which is impossible for a number of reasons).

As you ignore the observation and base your understanding on a wrong theory and wrong laws then you have fatal error.
The SMBH' accretion disc generates all the matter in the galaxy!
Every star ever atom every star in the galaxy had been created by the SMBH.
Yes, any star in the galaxy including all the stars & dwarf galaxies that are still orbit around the galaxy.

Secondly you hold the delusional view that you are the only one who is right, even though the evidence shows that you  understand very little.

The evidence/observation shows clearly that NOTHING falls into the SMBH' accretion disc!
In all articles that you have offered so far there is no observation/evidence for matter as it falls into that disc.
Hence, if you claim that there is an evidence/observation for matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc, then you are LIAR!
You lie in the name of the BBT imagination!

It's your personality which stops you accepting that many more things fall into black holes than come out.

NOTHING falls from outside into the SMBH' accretion disc.
Not even a single atom!!!
There is no need for that as all the matter at the accretion disc is created by the Mighty SMBH' electromagnetic force and its ultra high gravity.
You know that the pair process is the only explanation for the 10^9c at this disc.
Your following message is a clear LIE:

At high enough temperatures you get pair production (it's not the only mechanism).

The pair process is the ONLY explanation for the10^9c ultra high temp. Without that process, there won't be high temp.
Therefore, it is not that at the accretion disc there was already 10^9 c waiting to set the pair Electron/Positron process to take care, but the pair process itself is the ultimate evidence for that high temp.
Hence, that 10^9c is an ultimate evidence/OBSERVATION for new pair process activity at the accretion disc!
For the SMBH it's a win win situation as it gets its food from the inner side of that disc and there is a clear observation for that!
 

It really is about your damaged personality.

How can you discuss about my personality while you clearly LIE in the name of the wrong BBT imagination and ignore all valid observations!!

[Bored chemist]

Yes, that is based on clear OBSERVATION

You did not observe the creation of the universe.
You look silly if you claim you did.

Your idea is based on your flawed understanding of the actual data.

As you ignore the observation and base your understanding on a wrong theory and wrong laws then you have fatal error.

You have offered no evidence that the conservation of mass an energy are flawed.
In particular you have not shown the error in the maths.
Nobody in science will take you seriously until you can do the maths.

So, once again, I suggest you learn first and criticise second.

You repeatedly ignore my sensible interpretations of the data, and you pretend that I'm the one ignoring it.
People are going to notice that.
And it does not make you look clever.

The evidence/observation shows clearly that NOTHING falls into the SMBH' accretion disc!

Show me a picture of every atom in the history of the universe so we can check this.

Because you are claiming to have that "evidence/ observation".

So, where is it?
Or are you lying?
When you say you have made the observations, are you not telling the truth?

The SMBH' accretion disc generates all the matter in the galaxy!

If that was true, it wouldn't help.
You would need to explain where the SMBH came from.
That's not the only problem with your idea, but it is a fatal flaw.

(So, let's be clear- we know that you are wrong).

NOTHING falls from outside into the SMBH' accretion disc.

Shouting it repeatedly does not make it true, but it does tell us about your personality.

Without that process, there won't be high temp.

A meteor hitting the Earth gets the temperature up to a few thousand degrees.
The gravitational field of a black hole is a lot bigger, so things get a lot hotter.

That's just high school physics.
Why don't you accept it?

If, on the other hand, you are saying something else generates the high temperatures, where does it get the energy from?
It can't be coming out of the BH- we know how slow that process is.

How can you discuss about my personality

You keep ignoring reality, and calling me a liar.

I think I should discuss your personality.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 17:01:24
The evidence/observation shows clearly that NOTHING falls into the SMBH' accretion disc!

Show me a picture of every atom in the history of the universe so we can check this.
Because you are claiming to have that "evidence/ observation".
So, where is it?
Or are you lying?
When you say you have made the observations, are you not telling the truth?

There is no need for a picture as we have the real OBSERVATIONS to prove that the accretion disc MUST generate new matter.
Hence, the truth observations/no observations are as follow:
1. We Clearly OBSERVE for the last 20-50 year a constant and stable UFO that is ejected from the outer side of the SMBH' accretion disc to the Bulge.
2, We have one single observation (in all of those years) of the UFI that falls from the inner side of the accretion disc into the SMBH.

The truth NO observation is as follow:
3. WE have NEVER EVER observed any sort of matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.

The no observation is important as any observation!!!
You can't just ignore it or assume that an invisible matter must fall in.
As you do so, you should be considered as a liar.

Those there OBSERVATIONS/NO OBSERVATIONS points prove that the accretion disc must generate its mass.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 17:01:24
NOTHING falls from outside into the SMBH' accretion disc.
Shouting it repeatedly does not make it true, but it does tell us about your personality.

I will repeat it one trillion times as this is the true of "no observation"!!!
As you claim again and again that the accretion disc gets its mass from outside while we have never ever observed any matter as it falls in - then you are the real LIAR!!!

You keep ignoring reality, and calling me a liar.

You are the one that claims that matter falls in without any observation for that.
Therefore - you are the real liar.
Any time that you would claim that matter falls into the SMBH' accretion disc without clear observation - I will call you LIAR.

You have offered no evidence that the conservation of mass an energy are flawed.
In particular you have not shown the error in the maths.

As I have already told you several times.
I only care about real observation/no observation as those proves the true matter creation at the SMBH' accretion disc.
Therefore, I don't care about your wrong law/math as they contradict the true living observation!!!

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 17:01:24
Without that process, there won't be high temp.
A meteor hitting the Earth gets the temperature up to a few thousand degrees.
The gravitational field of a black hole is a lot bigger, so things get a lot hotter.

That's just high school physics.

If a meteor or especially star would fall into the direction of the SMBH, it won't stop at the accretion disc.
Its ultra high falling momentum must force it to cut the accretion disc as butter and fall directly at the SMBH.
You know that and anyone at low school physics knows it.

I ask you before and I ask you again.
Please reply on the following:

As we already focus on the knowledge and wisdom of those grownups do they know that 99.99..9% of the orbital objects aren't aliened with the accretion disc galactic plane..
So please would you kindly ask those Grownups the following:
1. What is the chance for a random falling star to collide with that thin and soft SMBH' accretion disc?
2. If a falling star miss the accretion disc, why it would have to stop exactly at the accretion disc radius instead of continuing its momentum to fall directly into the SMBH??
2. Even if one of a trillion falling star would finally collide with that thin and soft accretion disc while it falls at ultra high momentum, what should be the impact of this collision?
Please show the grownups calculation (if possible by real article) how a massive star that falls in would stop exactly at the outer edge of the accretion disc.

If you claim that any falling star should collide with the accretion disc (although the chance for that is less than one to one trillion) - then you are LIAR!
If you claim that a falling star would stop at the accretion disc radius, without colliding with the plasma at that disc and be heated by your imagination (without any collision) - then you are LIAR!
If you claim that even if one of a trillion falling star finally collide with that soft and thin accretion disc and stop at the accretion disc although it falling momentum is ultra high - Then you are LIAR!

[Bored chemist]

If a meteor or especially star would fall into the direction of the SMBH, it won't stop at the accretion disc.
Its ultra high falling momentum must force it to cut the accretion disc as butter and fall directly at the SMBH.

I am pleased to see that you have finally realised that things fall into black holes.

[Bored chemist]

There is no need for a picture as we have the real OBSERVATIONS to prove that the accretion disc MUST generate new matter.

Post a copy or a link.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

There is no need for a picture as we have the real OBSERVATIONS to prove that the accretion disc MUST generate new matter.

Post a copy or a link.

I don't need any link as I have the real observation/no observation.
So please do you confirm that the following observations/ no observations are correct by 100%?
 

Hence, the truth observations/no observations are as follow:
1. We Clearly OBSERVE for the last 20-50 year a constant and stable UFO that is ejected from the outer side of the SMBH' accretion disc to the Bulge.
2, We have one single observation (in all of those years) of the UFI that falls from the inner side of the accretion disc into the SMBH.
The truth NO observation is as follow:
3. WE have NEVER EVER observed any sort of matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.

[Bored chemist]

We have one single observation (in all of those years) of the UFI that falls from the inner side of the accretion disc into the SMBH.

Well, yes we have- the accretion disk is evidence of stuff falling in and forming an accretion disk.

But we wouldn't expect to see the stuff as it falls (beaus it's not hot  so it's not bright enough to see).
I have explained this before.
You ignore it.

[Bored chemist]

I have the real observation/no observation.

Prove it.

[jeffreyH]

Dear Dave, you are like a fish, flailing at the feet of the fisherman. The fisherman would like to throw you back in but it is nearly supper time. You will soon be falling into the black hole towards the fisherman's stomach. With the pangs of regret over your failed attempt to acquire any semblance of respect from your peers.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Dear Dave, you are like a fish, flailing at the feet of the fisherman. The fisherman would like to throw you back in but it is nearly supper time. You will soon be falling into the black hole towards the fisherman's stomach. With the pangs of regret over your failed attempt to acquire any semblance of respect from your peers.

Dear Jeffrey
We discuss about the SMBH' accretion disc
Unfortunately for our BBT scientists they have NEVER EVER observed any matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.
So, if that BBT fisherman would like to throw me back, please ask him to offer me one single real observation of matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.
Just one - but real one.
That's all I ask.

[Bored chemist]

That's all I ask.

All you ask for is something practically impossible- simply because they are small and far away.

Yet, because we haven't got a picture of something impossibly hard to see, you assume that you are free to make up all sorts of impossible nonsense and that we should believe you.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

That's all I ask.

All you ask for is something practically impossible- simply because they are small and far away.

Yet, because we haven't got a picture of something impossibly hard to see, you assume that you are free to make up all sorts of impossible nonsense and that we should believe you.

Thanks
Based on that answer you clearly reconfirm that our scientists have NEVER EVER observed any matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.
I don't need more than that.
The explanation why we can't see is irrelevant.
As we see the UFO and we see the UFI (although it was quite tinny) there is always a possibility that we don't see it because matter doesn't fall into the SMBH' accretion disc.
So, as long as we can't see it no one can claim for sure that matter falls in!!!

[jeffreyH]

Dear Dave, the halibut, turbot, mackerel and trout will sing your praises. Your ideas are so fishy the salmon falls at your feet. Leaping from the river to meet you.

[jeffreyH]

Those Super Massive Big Haddock! Dave, they are calling to you.

[Bored chemist]

That's all I ask.

All you ask for is something practically impossible- simply because they are small and far away.

Yet, because we haven't got a picture of something impossibly hard to see, you assume that you are free to make up all sorts of impossible nonsense and that we should believe you.

Thanks
Based on that answer you clearly reconfirm that our scientists have NEVER EVER observed any matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.
I don't need more than that.
The explanation why we can't see is irrelevant.
As we see the UFO and we see the UFI (although it was quite tinny) there is always a possibility that we don't see it because matter doesn't fall into the SMBH' accretion disc.
So, as long as we can't see it no one can claim for sure that matter falls in!!!

By that "argument, you presumably do not believe you have a brain, because it has never been seen.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

By that "argument, you presumably do not believe you have a brain, because it has never been seen.

Theoretically if someone in the past has never ever seen his brain then there is always a possibility that he has no brain.
However, today we have an advanced technology.
Therefore, if he isn't sure about the location of his brain, he can scan his head and verify if the brain is there.
So based on the current technology any person can verify if he has brain.
In the same token, in the past our scientists could claim that matter falls into the accretion disc.
No one could prove that it works differently (especially not a person without brain).
However, at our current time we have an advance technology that is called X-ray.
Based on this advanced technology our scientists have clearly observed the UFO (outflow from the SMBH' accretion disc into the Bulge) for the last 20-50 years, while they have never observed any falling/inflow of a matter from the Bulge into the accretion disc.
Therefore, we all must reconfirm that based on the current advanced technology we clearly observe that matter from the accretion disc is ejected outwards to the Bulge, while the matter from the outside never ever falls into that disc.
This is the meaning of real science!

Dear Dave, the halibut, turbot, mackerel and trout will sing your praises. Your ideas are so fishy the salmon falls at your feet. Leaping from the river to meet you.

Dear Jeffrey & BC
Let's try to convert our disagreement to agreement

Agreement -
We all fully agree on the observation which is:
Our scientists have NEVER EVER observed any sort of matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc

Disagreement:
I claim that as Our scientists have NEVER EVER observed any sort of matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc for the last 20-50 years then the chance that matter really falls in is ZERO..

You claim that even as Our scientists have NEVER EVER observed any sort of matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc for the last 20-50 years the chance that matter really falls in is 100%..

As we are dealing with science & Math we have to agree that it is all about statistics and probability:

https://blog.agradeahead.com/post/the-most-important-math-formulas-to-know-in-high-school/math-formulas-high-school-statistics-probability/

The formula for the Probability is as follow:

P = number of favorable outcome / Number of outcomes

Let's look at our Universe:
1. Number of outcomes = Number of SMBH' accretion discs = Number of galaxies = 400 Billions possibilities (in the observable Universe.
However, we can't see them all
So, let's assume that we can only see up to one Billion LY away which means about one billion possibilities.
In orer to make you happy, let's agree only on one million possibilities.

2. Number of favorable outcomes
We all agree that the Number of favorable outcomes that we have observed so far is Zero.
Therefore:
Number of favorable outcomes = 0

Hence, based on statistics the probability for a matter to fall into the SMBH' accretion disc is:

P = 0 / 1,000,000 = 0

So, while I have PROVED that P = 0 you both insist that P = 1. (or 100%)
Would you kindly offer your calculation for that?

As you Jeffrey like to use a fisherman' examples:

the halibut, turbot, mackerel and trout will sing your praises.

Let me ask you the following question.

A fisherman is going every day to the same spot in the ocean for the last 20-50 years
He opens his net and wait for 18 Hours (every day- at the same spot).

In all of those years he had NEVER EVER catch any fish.
Not halibut, not turbot, not mackerel and not even salmon.

What is the chance for him to catch one of those fish tomorrow?