[Bored chemist]

Now, can you show absolutely any example at all of energy not being conserved?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Now, can you show absolutely any example at all of energy not being conserved?

I have clearly explained the energy cycle that is needed for new particle creation.
Please read it again:

I hope that you agree that gravity force can set Tidal force.
Tidal force can generate conducting fluids within the interior of the SMBH.
Therefore it increases the SMBH EM field.
The EM is used to generate new particle pairs.
As one falls into the SMBH the other one is ejected outwards
More particles mean more gravity force.
More gravity force means more tidal force.
More tidal force means more EM field.
More EM field means more particle pairs and so on.

That activity fully meets the observation:
1. UFO is ejected from the outer side of the disc
2. UFI is falling into the SMBH from the inner side of the disc.
3. The plasma temp at the Inner side is higher than the outer side.
4. The orbital velocity of the Inner side is higher than the outer side.

Hence, due to tidal force we get new particle pair creation at the accretion disc.
Therefore, there is no need for any matter to fall into the SMBH or to its accretion disc from outside.
The SMBH' Accretion disc gets new created particles from inside and ejects its matter outside.
So it should be called - excretion disc instead of accretion disc!!!

Do you have any difficulty in understanding this cycle?

[Bored chemist]

I have clearly explained the energy cycle that is needed for new particle creation.

Yes, but that's something you made up. It isn't an observation. You have observed matter moving about, but you have not observed it being made.
You just believe that it is.

All the things we see there are better explained by real science..

So, do you have an actual example that shows energy not being conserved?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Dear BC
You are wasting our time for the same questions again and again
Would you kindly stop it.
So let me answer you for the last time (I hope):

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 17:43:39
I have clearly explained the energy cycle that is needed for new particle creation.

Yes,

Thanks

but that's something you made up.

No

It isn't an observation.

Yes it is.

You have observed matter moving about,

We OBSERVE the UFO as it is ejected from the outer side of the accretion disc outwards to the Bulge
We OBSERVE the UFI as it is ejected from the inner side of the accretion disc inwards to the SMBH
We do NOT OBSERVE any matter as it falls into the SMBH or its accretion disc from the Bulge.
As I have already explained, there is no possibility for matter to fall in from outside and then ejected back to the same outside.
Therefore, If we see matter falls in then nothing goes out (as we observe in our planet)
So, If we see matter that is ejected outwards then nothing really falls in (as we observe in the SMBH).
That is real Observation and real science.
I hope that you clearly confirm the above.
If no, please advise you difficulties.

but you have not observed it being made.

Why do you lie
We clearly observe it and I have already offered a link:

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!

However even if we could not observe it, it is clear that matter MUST be created at the disc due to the following:
We clearly observe that matter from the accretion disc is ejected outwards to the (Bulge UFO), while matter from the Bulge is not falling into the accretion disc, then there is only one explanation for that:
New matter must be created at the accretion disc.
So, we don't even need to observe the pair creation to know that it should be there.

You just believe that it is.

It is not an issue of my believe
It is real observation and real science

All the things we see there are better explained by real science..

After all of that, do you still call the BBT as real science?

So, do you have an actual example that shows energy not being conserved?

Why should I?
The New pair creation process doesn't contradict the law of conservation.
So what is your problem?

[Bored chemist]

It is real observation and real science

Show us the observations of more energy and or more mass coming out of the than are going into it.

Don't waste everybody's time with guesses; provide numbers.

Because, until you can show that there really is more coming out than going in, you do not have a plausible idea.

We clearly observe it and I have already offered a link:

You offered a link to your own, ill-informed opinion.
That's not going to convince anyone.

We OBSERVE the UFO as it is ejected from the outer side of the accretion disc outwards to the Bulge

We observe a wisp of fast hot gas coming out.
We don't observe the stuff that falls in to provide the power, because the stuff falling in isn't hot.

And you refuse to show any numbers for the stuff going in vs the stuff coming out because you simply have't a clue about it.

The New pair creation process doesn't contradict the law of conservation.

Yes it does- the way you are using it.

It is obvious that making new stuff and or new energy is a beech of the conservation laws.
How can you not see that?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Because, until you can show that there really is more coming out than going in, you do not have a plausible idea.

Did we ever observe any matter as it falls into the SMBH or its accretion disc from outside?
The answer is clearly no.
So why do you waste our time with that issue?

You offered a link to your own, ill-informed opinion.

What a poor memory...
You are the one that offered this like.
So, how could it be that when I reuse the link that you have offered then it's not good enough?
Shame on you.

We observe a wisp of fast hot gas coming out.

We observe constant UFO for the last 20 years or more!

We don't observe the stuff that falls in to provide the power,

So, you fully reconfirm that we do not observe any falling matter.

because the stuff falling in isn't hot.

What a nonsense.
If matter falls it must get heated as it falls in and not just at the accretion disc.
So, it is absolutely nonsense to claim that a star at 6000c would fall in and stay cool all the way till the accretion disc.
It won't break and it won't set any fireworks. Only at the disc it would be converted to plasma at 10^9 c without any sort of fireworks.
Second - As I have told you before, there is no possibility in our universe to fall in and then fall out. This is pure imagination of those people that hold the flag of the BBT kingdom.
Third and final - I don't care why we do not see. We don't see - that is the main issue and it is good enough to know that nothing really falls into the SMBH from outside.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 20:20:49
The New pair creation process doesn't contradict the law of conservation.
Yes it does- the way you are using it.

So please show where the error is in that cycle.

It is obvious that making new stuff and or new energy is a beech of the conservation laws.
How can you not see that?

It is all about Tidal force.
That force generates conducting fluids within the interior of the SMBH.
Once you agree with that then you have to accept the whole new pair particle cycle.

[Bored chemist]

Therefore, the "pair plasma near the black hole" activity is the ONLY activity that could justify that high temp at the accretion disc

That's not my link. It's your ill-informed opinion.

Did we ever observe any matter as it falls into the SMBH or its accretion disc from outside?

What's special about SM BH as opposed to ordinary ones where we do see stuff falling in?

In any event I'm getting tired of explaining why we should not see it.

We don't observe the stuff that falls in to provide the power, because the stuff falling in isn't hot.

Why can't you understand that?

We observe constant UFO for the last 20 years or more!

That's a very short time in astrophysics.

So, you fully reconfirm that we do not observe any falling matter.

Because it is invisible.

If matter falls it must get heated as it falls in and not just at the accretion disc.

No.
It gets hot when it hits something- like the other falling stuff i.e. the accretion disk.

So, it is absolutely nonsense to claim that a star at 6000c would fall in and stay cool all the way till the accretion disc.

And that's why we have an image of a star falling into a BH.
But a lot of stuff isn't "stars".

So please show where the error is in that cycle.

It breaks the conservation laws.
It also doesn't make any real sense

Tidal force can generate conducting fluids within the interior of the SMBH.
Therefore it increases the SMBH EM field.
The EM is used to generate new particle pairs.

Anything that happens- tidal or whatever, can't influence the rest of the universe.
No "message" about those tides could escape from the BH.

That's the thing about BH stuff falls in, not out.


So your "cycle" is antiscientific nonsense".

But that's beside the point.
We know it can't work because it breaks the conservation rules.

However, in this context, since you were asked to provide a single instance of something which breaks those rules, an your "explanation" makes no sense- it simply can not work- I have to ask again.

So, do you have an actual example that shows energy not being conserved?

As I have told you before, there is no possibility in our universe to fall in and then fall out. This is pure imagination of those people that hold the flag of the BBT kingdom.

You are the only one saying stuff falls out of a BH.
The grown ups are saying that some stuff gets accelerated by some gravitational slingshot type of effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist

[Dave Lev (OP)]

We don't observe the stuff that falls in to provide the power, because the stuff falling in isn't hot.
Why can't you understand that?

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that Matter which falls in due to gravity would never ever be ejected outwards against the same gravity.
If an matter falls on Earth, it falls to stay on Earth.
So, let's highlight your following imagination:
1. Star at 6000c from the Bulge that falls all the way into the direction of the SMBH core at extremely ultra high falling velocity would suddenly stop near the event horizon - Imagination
2. All the matter of that star should be converted to smoothly hot plasma at 10^9 and just to be ejected back to the Bulge against the gravity force - Imagination

If that is not good enough imagination, you also wish that falling star that is losing its life and is broken to its tinny particles exactly near the event horizon would be invisible.
We shouldn't observe any sort of fireworks or supernova during this process.
We should always observe a nicely thin and smooth accretion disc with or without a falling star.

Quote from: Dave Lev on 23/05/2021 21:23:59
So, it is absolutely nonsense to claim that a star at 6000c would fall in and stay cool all the way till the accretion disc.

And that's why we have an image of a star falling into a BH.

I would like to remind you again that we actually focus on a SMBH' accretion disc.
However, I claim that you also don't understand correctly that image of a star falling into a BH as it is actually the star itself that eats the matter that is coming outwards from the BH.
Therefore that star is normally so giant.
If you disagree than show the real data about the matter flows in that image.
You should verify that the real data/image doesn't fit to your lovely BBT nonsense.

Quote from: Dave Lev on 23/05/2021 20:20:49
Therefore, the "pair plasma near the black hole" activity is the ONLY activity that could justify that high temp at the accretion disc

That's not my link. It's your ill-informed opinion.

Yes it is:

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

So you have offered the link and you have lied twice.

Sorry - the BBT is based on lies & imagination.
We have never ever observed any matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc as nothing falls in.
Never and ever.
You and all the other 10,000 grownups can keep on with your imagination as long as you wish.
However - The BBT contradicts real science!

[Bored chemist]

So you have offered the link and you have lied twice.

No
This is what you linked to- and YOU wrote it.

Therefore, the "pair plasma near the black hole" activity is the ONLY activity that could justify that high temp at the accretion disc

And it isn't true.

Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/05/2021 18:27:50
So, do you have an actual example that shows energy not being conserved?

[Bored chemist]

If an matter falls on Earth, it falls to stay on Earth.

Previously, you were saying that, because the dust cloud from demolishing a building sometimes rises higher than the building, the building falls up.

Now you are saying that the dust cloud can't exist.


In the real world, things fall down. Some debris may get thrown clear.

We use this effect to launch things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist
but it only works because we are only trying to launch things that are a very small fraction of the mass of  the Sun.

It is a real well known effect, and you are pretending that it is impossible.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Previously, you were saying that, because the dust cloud from demolishing a building sometimes rises higher than the building, the building falls up.

What nonsense.
Even if the dust cloud rises higher than the building, eventually all the dust falls back on Earth.
So, noting actually is ejected outwards from the Earth gravity bonding.
Not even a single particle of dust.

In the real world, things fall down. Some debris may get thrown clear.

NEVER and EVER.
Even if that building would be 1 Km high, all of its matter including its dust won't escape from the Earth gravity force.

In the SMBH' accretion disc we clearly see that the UFO is ejected outwards from the SMBH gravity to never return.
So, it is totally different scenario. 

We use this effect to launch things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist
but it only works because we are only trying to launch things that are a very small fraction of the mass of  the Sun.

This example shows that you don't have a basic clue in orbital objects.
What we see is a simple outcome due to Kepler law for elliptical orbit shape.
As the orbital object gets closer to the main mass it gets extra force that boosts it outwards before it can set even one full orbital cycle. Hence, you would NEVER EVER observe any object that as it gets to the closest distance from the main object it keeps that radius (Rmin) and continue to set several pure orbital cycles at that Rmin radius.
NEVER, NEVER....NEVER and EVER.
If you wish to hold the orbital object at that Rmin for even one full pure circular cycle (at that Rmin), you must use an engine or rockets to resist the gravity from ejecting it back to space.

So, the falling in momentum due to gravity boosts that object back to space only if it is under the elliptic orbital shape (or Kepler law). There is no way to hold the object at pure circular orbits at that Rmin and just after several pure circular orbits eject it back to space.
This is a fiction.
If you don't understand that, then you don't understand real science

[Bored chemist]

NEVER and EVER.

We actually use this effect.
We send a spacecraft falling towards the Sun in order to launch it into interstellar space/.
It's called "gravity assist"
And it doesn't matter if you use capital letters, it is still observed to be true.


Exactly the same orbital mechanics could launch a small fraction of the incoming material away from a BH.

[Bored chemist]

There is no way to hold the object at pure circular orbits at that Rmin and just after several pure circular orbits eject it back to space.
This is a fiction.

Yes it is fiction.
You just made it up.
Nobody else said that the material was in a stable orbit and was launched, did they?

I said that some stuff falling in would get thrown out again.


Why did you make up that bit of fiction?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

We actually use this effect.
We send a spacecraft falling towards the Sun in order to launch it into interstellar space/.
It's called "gravity assist"
And it doesn't matter if you use capital letters, it is still observed to be true.

Gravity assist is real.
However why is it so difficult to you to understand the basic as I have explained:

If you wish to hold the orbital object at that Rmin for even one full pure circular cycle (at that Rmin), you must use an engine or rockets to resist the gravity from ejecting it back to space.
So, the falling in momentum due to gravity boosts that object back to space only if it is under the elliptic orbital shape (or Kepler law). There is no way to hold the object at pure circular orbits at that Rmin and just after several pure circular orbits eject it back to space.

Is it clear to you?

Exactly the same orbital mechanics could launch a small fraction of the incoming material away from a BH.

As long as the orbital object is in elliptical orbital shape, then any matter that is coming / falling in the direction of the BH would be ejected outwards. Not a small fraction of the object but the whole object!
However, there is no way for that object to set even one full circular orbit at that Rmin radius (prehelion).
Do you understand that key issue?

[Bored chemist]

There is no way to hold the object at pure circular orbits at that Rmin and just after several pure circular orbits eject it back to space.
This is a fiction.

Yes it is fiction.
You just made it up.
Nobody else said that the material was in a stable orbit and was launched, did they?

I said that some stuff falling in would get thrown out again.


Why did you make up that bit of fiction?

[Bored chemist]

Is it clear to you?

What is clear is that you do not understand the orbits we should be talking about are not the ones you are describing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_trajectory

I presume this is because, as usual, you do not know the science.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Nobody else said that the material was in a stable orbit and was launched, did they?

In this case, you can't get the matter at the accretion disc from a falling star.
So, if you can't hold the falling matter at a fixed orbital radius near the Event horizon, you have no accretion disc.

I said that some stuff falling in would get thrown out again.

You can say whatever you wish.
There is no way to keep some matter of a falling star in and some to thrown out again.
You have only the following options (for the whole star):
1. Or it falls all the way into the SMBH (the whole star)
2. It is thrown out (the whole star)
As you have offered in the following articale:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_trajectory

"In astrodynamics or celestial mechanics, a hyperbolic trajectory is the trajectory of any object around a central body with more than enough speed to escape the central object's gravitational pull. "

3. A falling star would never ever stay at the perihelion radius is in stable orbit.

Conclusion:
The matter in the accretion disc would never come from a falling star or gas cloud!

I presume this is because, as usual, you do not know the science.

I presume that you are the one that doesn't know that there is no way to set any sort of matter at the accretion disc from outside.

[Bored chemist]

In this case, you can't get the matter at the accretion disc from a falling star.

No.
You get it from stuff that's falling in.

There is no way to keep some matter of a falling star in and some to thrown out again.

Why not?
Stars are soft. You can break them up.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:49:56
In this case, you can't get the matter at the accretion disc from a falling star.

No.
You get it from stuff that's falling in.

What a nonsense!!!
You have just offered the Hyperbolic_trajectory
 

What is clear is that you do not understand the orbits we should be talking about are not the ones you are describing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_trajectory

So we know the real meaning of:
"In astrodynamics or celestial mechanics, a hyperbolic trajectory is the trajectory of any object around a central body with more than enough speed to escape the central object's gravitational pull. "
Therefore, this fully explain why  a hyperbolic trajectory is good enough to eject that object backwards to the open space.
Therefore, there is no posibility - based on real gravity forces) to hold a falling object to set even one full circular orbit at that Rmin radius (perihelion).

Stars are soft. You can break them up.

Stars are strong enough to keep all their atoms by their own gravity force.
However, even if we break it to its atoms, each atom would have to obey to the same gravity forces.
So, any atom that obeys to the hyperbolic trajectory, must be ejected outwards.

Even if all the 10,000 grownups together would try to hold a falling single atom at that Rmin radius (perihelion) it won't help!
They would all fall into the SMBH core or be ejected outwards.

Hence, there are ONLY two possibilities for any falling object (star or atom):
Falls all the way into the core of the SMBH
Or be ejected due to hyperbolic trajectory.

If you still think differently, please ask those 10,000 grownups to offer the gravity law that could help keeping any falling object/atom at that Rmin radius (perihelion) (even for just one full orbital cycle).
Good Luck.

[Bored chemist]

However, even if we break it to its atoms, each atom would have to obey to the same gravity forces.

Until it hit another atom, and got bounced into a different trajectory.
Obviously, it would then take a different path- which could include being flung out.

How did you not realise that?