[jeffreyH]

Dear Dave, I am not a fisherman and you are not a scientist. Maybe you should take up fishing. Then you could answer your own question through observation of the phenomenon.

[Bored chemist]

Theoretically if someone in the past has never ever seen his brain then there is always a possibility that he has no brain.

No.
Because the fact that they can think, talk, walk etc proves that they have one.

We can point out that, while nobody has seen your brain, we wouldn't expect to see it.
So the fact that nobody has seen it doesn't tell us anything.

And, in the same way, we can point out that, while nobody has seen a star fall into the accretion disk of a SMBH, we wouldn't' expect to see it.

So the fact that nobody has seen it doesn't tell us anything.

That's just common sense, isn't it?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:03:33
Theoretically if someone in the past has never ever seen his brain then there is always a possibility that he has no brain.

No.
Because the fact that they can think, talk, walk etc proves that they have one.
We can point out that, while nobody has seen your brain, we wouldn't expect to see it.
So the fact that nobody has seen it doesn't tell us anything.

Well, it seems that you are missing the key point.
When it comes to any person in the planet, we all clearly know that each one must have a brain and this brain must be located at the head.
Therefore, I fully agree with you that if that person can think, talk, walk etc it proves that he has a brain.

However, there might be some different animals/creatures in our planet without brain in their head or even without head.
So, once we understand one animal/creature, we can understand where the brain is located in that specific family and if they have any brain.

Therefore:
We know that matter can fall on Earth or on the Moon.
Therefore, we can claim that matter should fall on any planet and any moon in the Universe.
However, the SMBH' accretion disc is totally different object from a planet, moon or even star.
It is clearly different.
Therefore it is a fatal mistake to claim that as meteor falls on Erath then Meteor/star should also fall into the SMBH' accretion disc.
As Earth and moon have no accretion discs, then it is forbidden to compare between those objects to the SMBH' accretion disc and claim that they should work the same.

This is your FATAL misunderstanding!!!

The SMBH and its accretion disc are totally different objects from any moon or planet.
They are very unique objects!

And, in the same way, we can point out that, while nobody has seen a star fall into the accretion disk of a SMBH, we wouldn't' expect to see it.

So the fact that nobody has seen it doesn't tell us anything.
That's just common sense, isn't it?

No.
It is your fatal error!!!
There is no sense in this kind of common sense.
You can't compare a person to Ameba.
Both eats and move but one has a brain and in the other we don't see any brain.

Therefore, it is forbidden to compare the activity on the earth/moon to the activity at the SMBH' accretion disc.
If we can find even one falling star as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc then we all should agree that matter are falling into that disc at any SMBH.
However, as we have NEVER EVER found even one star as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc then it is forbidden to hope/assume that matter really falls in!

Is it clear?

I'm still wait for your replay about the following statistic /probability calculation:

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?

[Bored chemist]

You can't compare a person to Ameba.

Nobody did.

Now, lets get back to the point you keep ignoring.
Would you normally expect to see someone's brain?

If you did not see it, would you assume that they did not have one?

[Bored chemist]

Would you kindly offer your calculation for that?

Sure.
Plenty of people have seen you- let's say it's 10,000 just to have a number, zero of them have seen your brain.
The probability of people seeing your brain is 0/10,000.
OK there's zero chance of seeing your brain.

But that is not the same as saying that there is zero chance of you having a brain. (Because your brain is hidden by your skull)


There is, by the same argument, zero chance of seeing stuff fall into the accretion disk of a SMBH (it is hidden by simply being too small and not bright enough).

But that's not the same as saying that there is zero chance of these collisions existing, is it?.

The problem here is not that you don't understand science.
The problem is that you won't follow simple logic.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 10:41:02
You can't compare a person to Ameba.

Nobody did.

Yes you do
You have stated that as meteor falls on Erath, matter should fall into the SMBH' accretion disc.
This is a fatal mistake.
Erath and SMBH are absolutely different from each other as Person is different from ameba.

Now, lets get back to the point you keep ignoring.
Would you normally expect to see someone's brain?

As I have already told you.
If a person has brain it doesn't necessarily an indication that ameba has a brain.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:03:33
Would you kindly offer your calculation for that?

Sure.
Plenty of people have seen you- let's say it's 10,000 just to have a number, zero of them have seen your brain.
The probability of people seeing your brain is 0/10,000.
OK there's zero chance of seeing your brain.

Sorry dear BC
You didn't offer any sort of real probability calculation.
You only care about what those 10,000 scientists believe/hope.
Science isn't a religion.
We don't care about their hope.
We only care on real observation.

In any case, it seems that you have a severe problem to understand this simple example.
So, let me explain it again to you.
We all agree that a person has a brain.
We don't need those 10,000 scientists to let us know about it.
One scientist with X-ray is good enough to convince us that any person has a brain.
However, a person isn't ameba.
So, if we compare a person to the planet, then we all agree that as a any person has a Brain than the matter should fall on any planet.
That is very clear to all of us.
However, Ameba isn't a person as a SMBH isn't a planet.
So, the indication that a Person has a brain can't give an indication that also ameba should have a brain
In the same token
The indication that matter/metaor falls on a planet can't give an indication that also matter/star must fall into the SMBH' accretion disc.

Hence
Your fatal mistake is that you use the observation of falling matter on our planet as n indication for the real activity at the SMBH.

SMBH and Planet are very different from each other.
One has accretion disc while the other has not.
We also know that the SMBH bands the space around it.
Therefore, we actually get the black hole lensing:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Scheme-of-formation-of-Einstein-ring-and-relativistic-rings-by-black-hole-lensing_fig4_318497993
"In this article, we present an overview of the new developments in problems of the plasma influence on the effects of gravitational lensing"
"Scheme of formation of Einstein ring and relativistic rings by black hole lensing."
So, there is an image of source of light that should fall at the Black hole as it is in a direct line with the observer.
Surprisingly, the light beam doesn't fall into the BH for never be seen.
That beam is actually banded or bypass the black hole without any collision with the SMBH.
So, we have clear evidence/ observation that light isn't falling into the SMBH.
Hence, if light can't fall into the SMBH due to its ultra high gravity, then there is no way for a matter to fall in.
Any matter that falls into the direction of the SMBH would be shifted away and bypass the SMBH as we see in this diagram.

This kind of activity can't take place at the moon or at the planet.
Therefore, we can't compare the activity at the planet and moon to the activity at the SMBH.

Conclusion:
As the SMBH gravity force is so high that it bands the space around it and prevents from a direct light beam to fall in, it would prevent from any sort of matter to fall in!
Therefore, although few years ago our scientists clearly observed S2 as it was almost falling directly into the SMBH, the space banding around the SMBH pushed this star away and prevent it to fall in.
So, as we have never ever observed any star or matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc it proves that NOTHING from outside can fall inwards!!!
Never & Ever.

[Bored chemist]

If a person has brain it doesn't necessarily an indication that ameba has a brain.

Let's be clear about this.
If anyone else had started talking about an amoeba, they would have got the spelling right.

You are the only one talking about them, and what you are saying is irrelevant.

Erath and SMBH are absolutely different from each other

They only need to have one thing in common; they both have mass.
So things are attracted to them by gravity.
You know that meteors get hot when they hit the Earth (again; note the spelling or use a browser with a spell check function)

And it's obvious that, because it's got a much stronger gravitational field, a black hole will get hit much harder.
And that's why the debris crowding in towards a BH gets very hot.

You didn't offer any sort of real probability calculation.

Yes I did.

We only care on real observation.

And, since we have observed that mass is a conserved quantity, we know that you are wrong.

One scientist with X-ray is good enough to convince us that any person has a brain.

A real scientist would use deductive logic and not expose the patient to x-rays.

But that isn't the point.
The point you are deliberately missing is that, if you do not expect to see something because it is hidden, then not seeing it does not tell you anything.

SMBH and Planet are very different from each other. One has accretion disc while the other has not.

That's just not true, is it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_system

Why do you tell such obvious lies?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Good Morning BC
Please wake up.
Don't you understand that the game is over and you have totally lost it.
Don't you understand that the gravity lensing is the ultimate golden evidence that is needed to kill once and for all your wrong imagination of matter that falls into the SMBH?
That gravity lensing would shift away photon that is moving at the speed of light directly into the center of the SMBH core.
In the same token it would shift away any laser beam, any particle (mass or massless) any atom, any molecular any asteroid any gas cloud any moon any planet any star and even any BH.
Nothing would fall in.
Therefore, after 20-50 years you have never ever found any matter that falls in and even in one Billion years from now, when we could travel at the speed of light and try our luck to fall into that SMBH with our space ship, it would shift us away..
If you still don't understand the real meaning of the gravity lensing, I would advise you to run to those 10,000 Grownups scientists and ask them about it.
In your way back please don't forget to set any law that prevent from the SMBH to generate new particle pair at its accretion disc deep in the garbage.
You can set there also your lovely BBT theory including all your dark imaginations.
As you get back I will explain you how our galaxy really works without any help form the dark matter.

Good luck!

[Bored chemist]

If I have "lost", why are you the one telling pathetic lies?

SMBH and Planet are very different from each other. One has accretion disc while the other has not.

That's just not true, is it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_system

Why do you tell such obvious lies?

[Bored chemist]

That gravity lensing would shift away photon ...

Gravitational lensing bends the light towards the BH, not away from it.

Now you know that lensing does the opposite of what you said, do you see how it kills your idea?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

That gravity lensing would shift away photon ...

Gravitational lensing bends the light towards the BH, not away from it.

Wow
What a nonsense.
Is it because your knowledge in science is so poor or you just can't understand simple explanation in English if it contradicts your lovely BBT?
So is it correct that any evidence / observation that contradict the BBT can't be accepted by your BBT mind??
Did you have a chance to take an advice from the 10,000 grownups?

If it is just poor Knowledge, let me help you:
Please read again my following explanation:

We also know that the SMBH bands the space around it.
Therefore, we actually get the black hole lensing:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Scheme-of-formation-of-Einstein-ring-and-relativistic-rings-by-black-hole-lensing_fig4_318497993
"In this article, we present an overview of the new developments in problems of the plasma influence on the effects of gravitational lensing"
"Scheme of formation of Einstein ring and relativistic rings by black hole lensing."
So, there is an image of source of light that should fall at the Black hole as it is in a direct line with the observer.
Surprisingly, the light beam doesn't fall into the BH for never be seen.
That beam is actually banded or bypass the black hole without any collision with the SMBH.
So, we have clear evidence/ observation that light isn't falling into the SMBH.
Hence, if light can't fall into the SMBH due to its ultra high gravity, then there is no way for a matter to fall in.
Any matter that falls into the direction of the SMBH would be shifted away and bypass the SMBH as we see in this diagram.

If you still don't understand then please look at the following clip:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens#/media/File:Black_hole_lensing_web.gif
It is stated:
"The maximum amplification occurs when the background galaxy (or in the present case a bright part of it) is exactly behind the black hole".
So, instead of blocking the light from the source to the observer by the BH (that is located in a direct line between the source of light and the observer), we actually get the maximal amplification of light.
That amplification of light proves that the photons/lights don't fall towards the black hole but they moves around it.
Technically if your imagination was correct and the photons from the source were falling towards the BH, then the observer won't get any light from the source at that point.
Hence, due to the gravity lensing, the photons from the source of light bypass the BH and get to the observer at maximal amplification.
So, simple and clear.


However, it is quite clear to all of us that you would continue to claim the opposite as you don't want to accept any evidence or observation that kills the BBT.
You just don't let the evidence to confuse you..

Sorry, in this case, I can't help you any more.
Keep on with your nonsense
You have master in ignoring real science!

[Bored chemist]

That amplification of light proves that the photons/lights don't fall towards the black hole

That is the exact opposite of the truth.
You need to think about why they call it "lensing".

https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/gk4hb/gravitational_lensing/

[Dave Lev (OP)]

That amplification of light proves that the photons/lights don't fall towards the black hole

That is the exact opposite of the truth.
You need to think about why they call it "lensing".
https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/gk4hb/gravitational_lensing/

The truth is that the ultra high SMBH' gravity force band the photons of light around it.
We see it in your image and we see it in the one that I have offered:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Scheme-of-formation-of-Einstein-ring-and-relativistic-rings-by-black-hole-lensing_fig4_318497993
I assume that the key issue in both images is the Einstein-ring.
So, any photon of light that is coming/falling in the direction of the SMBH at that ring instead of banding inwards and fall into the SMBH itself, it bands around the SMBH and continue it way.
So we all agree that the SMBH doesn't eat the photons that are falling/moving it its direction, but it actually band them around it so they can continue to move on at a different direction (To the observer).
If I understand it correctly, the key disagreement between us is that you believe that only the photons in that ring are banding around the SMBH so they can continue their way to the observer, while all the other which have lower radius are falling into the SMBH itself.
I don't agree with that.
In the image that I have offered we clearly see that even a photons of light at lower radius are banded around the SMBH and move on.

Therefore, I claim that as the Ultra gravity force of the SMBH is high enough to band the photons that are falling into a lower radius than the Einstein ring, it should actually band around it any photon even if it is in absolutely in a direct collision with it.
So, the SMBH must band around it any photon.
It won't eat even one photon from outside.
This is a key element in any lensing activity even in optical lensing.
In order to get better understanding let me offer the following image of optical lensing:
Lenses can be used to focus light:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens#/media/File:Lens_and_wavefronts.gif
"Illustration of wavefronts after passing through a lens. Interestingly, to produce a point source reverse the direction of the waves, with the focus point acting as a point source."
So in lensing we focus the photons of light.
Not even one photon is lost.
In the same token, in order to get a gravitational lensing, we shouldn't lose any photon
Please look at the following clip:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens#/media/File:Imageedit_6_2578820362.gif
It is stated:
"A remote light source passing behind a gravitational lens. There is a large point mass in the center acting as a lens. The aqua circle is how we would see the light source if there was no lens, while the white spots/circle is the light source as seen through the lens. If the light source is collinear with the earth and lens, the image is an "Einstein ring". When the source is off this line we see a double image. As it moves far away, one of the images gets fainter while the other one is almost not affected by the lens any more (thus coinciding with cyan circle)."

The key point in this message is "Einstein ring":
" If the light source is collinear with the earth and lens, the image is an "Einstein ring"
That ring at that density of light can only be achievable if all the photons of light that collide with the gravitational lens are focused into that ring. Every single photon. Nothing really falls into that gravitational lens (that in our case is a SMBH).

[jeffreyH]

Dear Dave, there is a thing called the photon sphere where only photons can orbit since the magnitude of the orbital velocity is the speed of light. How many photons do you think occupy this sphere? Well it is likely zero, since the probability of a photon being at the right angle to enter this orbit is ASTRONOMICALLY small. So they either escape or fall in. This probability is the same as you ever catching any 'fish'.

[jeffreyH]

P.S. If it is a Kerr black hole, which all of them will be, then it is even more unlikely. We are fishing for truth, you are fishing for attention.

[Bored chemist]

The truth is that the ultra high SMBH' gravity force band the photons of light around it.

No
The truth is that the ultra high SMBH' gravity force band the photons of light TOWARDS it.

[Bored chemist]

a lower radius than the Einstein ring,

The Einstein ring is actually a cone, and has no particular radius.
When it reaches your eye, it's a point.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

a lower radius than the Einstein ring,

The Einstein ring is actually a cone, and has no particular radius.
When it reaches your eye, it's a point.

This is incorrect
We clearly see the ring.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens#/media/File:Imageedit_6_2578820362.gif
If the light source is collinear with the earth and lens, the image is an "Einstein ring"

The truth is that the ultra high SMBH' gravity force band the photons of light around it.

No
The truth is that the ultra high SMBH' gravity force band the photons of light TOWARDS it.

Sorry
This is also incorrect as we see in the following image.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Scheme-of-formation-of-Einstein-ring-and-relativistic-rings-by-black-hole-lensing_fig4_318497993

SMBH and Planet are very different from each other. One has accretion disc while the other has not.

That's just not true, is it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_system
Why do you tell such obvious lies?

No, you are totally wrong.
In the article it is stated:
A ring system is a disc or ring orbiting an astronomical object that is composed of solid material such as dust and moonlets, and is a common component of satellite systems around giant planets. A ring system around a planet is also known as a planetary ring system.
How can you compare hot plasma at 10^9c in the accretion disc that orbits at almost the speed of light around the SMBH to that kind of cool solid material such as dust and moonlets that orbits at relatively much lower velocity?
By forcing the SMBH' accretion disc to work according to that kind of totally different ring - you break the truth!
So who is really telling pathetic lies?
Our scientists know that a temp of 10^9c can only be achievable by pair particle creation.
A falling matter can't get to that ultra high temp especially.
If there was any falling matter, it must fall all the way into the SMBH.
A falling matter can't also just stop at the SMBH' accretion disc as it is thin and soft and suddenly star to orbit there at almost the speed of light.
We also know that the orbital velocity of the inner side of the accretion disc is much faster than the outer side.
Orbital objects in a pure circular orbit (as the accretion disc) can't accelerate its orbital velocity as it falls in.
We have NEVER EVER observed any orbital object in a circular orbit that speeds up while it reduces its radius.
So, the assumption of our scientists that the matter in the accretion disc is moving from outside to inside and then fall into the SMBH is a clear lie.
This is one of the biggest lies of our scientists!
Sorry, our scientists don't have a basic clue about the real functionality of the SMBH' accretion disc and they don't want to know as by using the real knowledge they would have to kill the BBT.
That issue is totally unaccepted by our BBT scientist.
Therefore, they would continue to do whatever it takes to band and bypass any observation which contradicts the BBT.

We are fishing for truth, you are fishing for attention.

The truth is based on observation and ONLY on observation. No observation is as important as any observation.

Do you reconfirm that for the last 20-50 years we observe constant and stable outflow from the outer side of the SMBH' accretion disc into the Bulge?
Do you reconfirm that for in one time (2018) we have discovered an inflow from the inner side of that disc into the SMBH?
Do you reconfirm that we have never ever found any observation of matter as is falls into the SMBH' accretion disc?
Never and ever?
So, why is it so difficult for our scientists to accept the observation as is?
Why do they twist the observation?
Why do they claim again and again that they have discovered a matter as it falls into that disc but after deep verification we have found that it was a lie?
So, how could they discuss on the name of truth while they LIE in front of our face??
How can they ignore the clear evidence that they have NEVER EVER found matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc from outside?
Why they don't even consider a possibility that what they see is what there is?
Sorry - if you really speak on the name of truth, then our scientists have to accept the simple no observation that matter from outside had never ever discovered as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.
Don't try to explain why we don't see. Just accept the idea that what we see and especially what we don't see is the real truth.
Based on that simple evidence try to adjust you theory.
In our twisted science world, our scientists set the theory, set the law and try to force the Universe to work according their concept.
This isn't a truth and not even close to a truth.
500 Years ago, scientists claimed that we are the center of the Universe.
Anyone that dare yo claim the opposite had been set in jail.
They were not open to accept the observation as it was?
Even today, as long as they ignore the observations about the SMBH' accretion disc (please focus only on that disc!!!) they twist the truth
So, if our scientists wish to hold their current concept them it is their obligation to do the following:
1. Find clear observation of matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc (clear observation – not just imagination).
2. Show an example of orbital object in pure circular orbits that drifts inwards and increases its orbital velocity
3. Set the temp calculation how a falling matter/matter could get to that high temp of 10^9c only by that falling activity. what should be the falling velocity and what is the object that collide with it?
4. In order to gain high falling temp. it is quite clear that it must fall in at ultra high velocity. So how any falling object at ultra high falling velocity could suddenly stop near the event horizon of that SMBH, and start its pure orbital circular at almost the speed of light. Show the calculation for that activity.


Without covering all the above obligations the concept that the accretion disc is there due to falling matter from outside is just LIE.

So, please how can you raise the flag of truth while the current theoretical concept is based on lies and imaginations that fully contradict the observations or at least ignore the observation?

[Bored chemist]

This is incorrect
We clearly see the ring.

The same is true of a rainbow, but the light enters your eye from a cone of scattering drops.

Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:36:22
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:39:16
The truth is that the ultra high SMBH' gravity force band the photons of light around it.
No
The truth is that the ultra high SMBH' gravity force band the photons of light TOWARDS it.
Sorry
This is also incorrect as we see in the following image.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Scheme-of-formation-of-Einstein-ring-and-relativistic-rings-by-black-hole-lensing_fig4_318497993

OK so I took a copy of the picture there.
And I added a couple of things to explain why you are wrong.

The green line I added is the path which the light would take without the BH.
And the arrow shows the direction in which that light is bent.
You will see that the arrow points towards the black hole because the light is bent towards the black hole.
There really isn't anything complicated here.
You were just posting obvious nonsense.


lensing.png (118.1 kB . 1008x756 - viewed 1691 times)

[Bored chemist]

How can you compare hot plasma at 10^9c in the accretion disc that orbits at almost the speed of light around the SMBH to that kind of cool solid material such as dust and moonlets that orbits at relatively much lower velocity?

Because they are both disks formed by accretion,
I keep explaining why one is hot.
You keep ignoring the simple science involved.

500 Years ago, scientists claimed that we are the center of the Universe.
Anyone that dare yo claim the opposite had been set in jail.

That was the church, not science.

You don't seem to understand the difference.
You have faith in your idea, but we have evidence of the truth of ours.
You are the one acting like the church here.

Don't try to explain why we don't see.

Sometimes, what we don't see is what tells us the truth.
If I don't see a cat on my chair, I know there is no cat on the chair.