[Dave Lev (OP)]

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?

What a nonsense.
Now you call the "hit" for help.
I hope that it is finally very clear to you and to all of those 10,000 grownups that without that imaginary "hit" any object that falls in has only two possibilities:

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.

As those possibilities sets the BBT at the garbage, now you ask some help from the good luck/chance that is called "hit".
So you claim: "it would then take a different path- which could include being flung out."
Don't you understand that any falling matter that doesn't meet the SMBH core itself must flung out due to  Hyperbolic_trajectory.
So, the flung out isn't a problem.
You need to find a creative idea how you can convince any falling matter to hold itself at that perihelion radius for at least one full orbital cycle.

Can you please specify what is the real chance of a falling star to hit something (anywhere you wish), and by some magic power its atoms would suddenly orbit there at the accretion disc
Is it 100% or 10^-10000....0?
Would you kindly set the calculation for your "hit" imagination chance?

[Bored chemist]

What a nonsense.
Now you call the "hit" for help.

You are right again.
That is nonsense.
Why did you write it?

Don't you understand that any falling matter that doesn't meet the SMBH core itself must flung out due to  Hyperbolic_trajectory.

No
It could go into an elliptical orbit.
Ir it might bump its way through the other stuff in the area in what can hardly be called an "orbit" at all.

now you ask some help from the good luck/chance that is called "hit".

BH are dense, so they are small.
Stars and dust clouds are big.

So, if one falls into a BH it gets "compacted" into a smaller volume.
In the Earth's atmosphere molecules typically move about 10 nm before hitting eachother. They hit eachother roughly a billion times per second.
The gas in a star is many orders of magnitude hotter and denser so the average distance is much less.

And yet you somehow think that things hitting eachother is  a matter of luck.

That's because you don't know any science.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Dear BC

Before we discuss about the "hit" idea, do you confirm that without that hit there are ONLY two possibilities for any falling object (star or atom):
1. Falls all the way into the core of the SMBH
2. Ejected outwards due to hyperbolic trajectory.

Yes Or no please?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:57:56
now you ask some help from the good luck/chance that is called "hit".

BH are dense, so they are small.
Stars and dust clouds are big.
So, if one falls into a BH it gets "compacted" into a smaller volume.
In the Earth's atmosphere molecules typically move about 10 nm before hitting each other. They hit each other roughly a billion times per second.
The gas in a star is many orders of magnitude hotter and denser so the average distance is much less.

What is your intention by that Earth's atmosphere molecules example?
Do you mean that the Atoms in a star collide with each other as the molecules in the Earth's atmosphere?
So can we assume that based on this idea the internal collisions between the atoms in a falling star should eject some of those atoms outwards from that falling star and set them exactly at the accretion disc?
Did I understand you correctly?
However, in this case there is a contradiction with your following explanation that "if star falls into a BH it gets "compacted" into a smaller volume."
If it gets compacted then the internal gravity force in that star is higher.
Hence, more internal gravity force, less chance for something to escape.
Actually, if you take a star and  "compacted" into a very very smaller volume then theoretically you could get a BH.
So, how a falling star that is compacted could eject outwards some of is matter?

If your idea is correct, why the matter from that falling star is ejected exactly at the accretion disc?
Why not above or below the disc?
Why we don't see the supernova or at least fireworks as matter is ejected from that star?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:57:56
Don't you understand that any falling matter that doesn't meet the SMBH core itself must flung out due to  Hyperbolic_trajectory.

No
It could go into an elliptical orbit.
Ir it might bump its way through the other stuff in the area in what can hardly be called an "orbit" at all.

Sorry, the accretion disc has a pure circular orbit.
There is no elliptical accretion disc.
So, even if few atoms had been ejected from that falling star, how could it be that they would fall exactly at the accretion disc and how the Hyperbolic_trajectory that should work on any atom at that star can't flung them all outwards?

And yet you somehow think that things hitting each other is  a matter of luck.

Sorry – if you wish to get a specific outcome from a hit, then this Hit is always a matter of luck.
If one atom from that falling star would hit/collide with other atom in the same star or even with any sort of matter near the SMBH, what is the chance that due to that collision it would get a pure circular orbit exactly at the accretion disc?

For me it seems as a chance to smash randomly a truck into highway where all the cars there are moving at 120 Km/s and hope that this truck would move with all the other.
Is it real?
Don't you think that due to that collision you would actually destroy the ability to ride at that highway?
So, don't you agree that if a star would hit/collide with the accretion disc, it should actually break completely that accretion disc?

[Bored chemist]

What is your intention by that Earth's atmosphere molecules example?

It is so well documented that even you should know about it, in spite of your poor understanding of science.

Before we discuss about the "hit" idea, do you confirm that without that hit there are ONLY two possibilities for any falling object (star or atom):
1. Falls all the way into the core of the SMBH
2. Ejected outwards due to hyperbolic trajectory.

Yes Or no please?

The answer is still no as I explained before.

It could go into an elliptical orbit.

Did I understand you correctly?

No; you didn't even read what I said; never mind understand it.

Sorry, the accretion disc has a pure circular orbit.

Not exactly.

If one atom from that falling star would hit/collide with other atom in the same star or even with any sort of matter near the SMBH, what is the chance that due to that collision it would get a pure circular orbit exactly at the accretion disc?

Pretty small, but the trajectory would be nearer to being circular.
Once you have many collisions you end up with most of the matter in a nearly circular orbit.
It's called an accretion disk.

For me it seems

For those who understand, it seems different.

Don't you think that due to that collision you would actually destroy the ability to ride at that highway?

It seems you finally worked out the mechanism of pair production.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 04:51:07
Before we discuss about the "hit" idea, do you confirm that without that hit there are ONLY two possibilities for any falling object (star or atom):
1. Falls all the way into the core of the SMBH
2. Ejected outwards due to hyperbolic trajectory.

Yes Or no please?
The answer is still no as I explained before.

Sorry - You didn't offer any real science law or calculation to protect the idea that a star/matter that is falling into the direction of the SMBH from outside (the Bulge), could perfectly fit itself exactly at the accretion disc.
All you have offered so far is the hyperbolic trajectory which shows that if a falling star/matter miss the SMBH it must be ejected backwards & outwards into the Bulge.
Therefore, inorder to bypass that problem you have offered new idea that is called "Hit".
Now you claim that there is no need for that hit.
Please, how many times can you lie in one message?
Would you kindly reconsider your answers?
If you still wish to belive that a falling star/matter could perfectly fit itself exactly at the accertion disc without a need for "hit", then please offer the science law and calculation for that imagination.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 04:51:07
Sorry, the accretion disc has a pure circular orbit.

Not exactly.

Is it real?
Can you please show even one SMBH' accretion disc which its shape isn't a pure circular orbit?
If you can't do so, why do you lie again and again?

[Bored chemist]

Can you please show even one SMBH' accretion disc which its shape isn't a pure circular orbit?

Well, one thing you and I seem to agree is that there's some sort of traffic to or from the accretion disk.
I think stuff falls in- randomly and thus introduces random perturbations which mean it will never be perfectly circular.

You, on the other hand thik stuff magically rises out of it but, again, that must perturb what's leftt.
So the disk can not be perfectly circular.

Also, of course, collisions within the disk- even if teh only collisions involve photons- will knock teh atoms out of a perfectly circular orbit.

So the one thing we know for certain is that the orbit can not be exactly circular.

Why didn't you realise that?
Is it because you don't understand science?

Sorry - You didn't offer any real science law or calculation to protect the idea that a star/matter that is falling into the direction of the SMBH from outside (the Bulge), could perfectly fit itself exactly at the accretion disc.

Where else is it going to go?

Do you realise that if something falls in at an "odd" angle, the disk changes its axis a bit?

[Bored chemist]

Now you claim that there is no need for that hit.

No, I did not.
That's just nonsense you made up.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Well, one thing you and I seem to agree is that there's some sort of traffic to or from the accretion disk.

No.
We can agree that there's some sort of traffic to or from the SMBH but not to or from the accretion disk.
For you the SMBH and its accretion disc is one.
That is your fatal problem
There is no traffic to the accretion disk. Not even a single Atom!!!
So as I have stated:
If something is falling into the direction of the SMBH it has ONLY two possibilities:
1. Falls all the way into the core of the SMBH
2. Ejected outwards due to hyperbolic trajectory.
There is no other possibility.
You know it and all the other 10,000 BBT scientists know that.
However, that idea kills the BBT.
So, you try to find some unrealistic ideas to prove this imagination.
Once you call it "Hit" and now you try your luck by "random":

think stuff falls in- randomly and thus introduces random perturbations which mean it will never be perfectly circular.
You, on the other hand thik stuff magically rises out of it but, again, that must perturb what's leftt.
So the disk can not be perfectly circular.

So, you hope that the matter that comes from the Bulge and falls into the SMBH would miss the core of that SMBH and somehow it would set an elliptical orbit very near the SMBH. You wish that over time that orbit would be converted to more circular orbit but you do understand that it would never be perfectly circular.
So, you have several errors in your understanding.
1. Based on our observations ALL the SMBH' accretion discs have a PURE circular orbit.
You know that, and any scientist know that.
Therefore, as you know that a falling star/matter shouldn't set a circular orbit - you have actually killed the idea that the accretion disc is made out of falling matter!!!
2. Any falling matter that falls from the Bulge inwards and miss the SMBH, MUST be ejected all the way outwards due to your explanation of - hyperbolic trajectory.
So, there is no possibility for a falling matter that comes from the Bulge to set even a single full orbital cycle near the SMBH (even not an elliptical orbital cycle). The hyperbolic trajectory would eject any star/matter that comes inwards to the SMBH backwards to the same Bulge where it comes from!

This is the meaning of real science!

Sorry again dear BC.
You and all your 10,000 BBT scientists are wrong!
You all don't have a basic clue in orbital cycles if you wish to hold a falling matter around the SMBH (for one full orbital cycle)
It's better for you to read again the physics law and understand that your imagination is USELSS.

As matter from the Bulge can't fall and stay at the accretion disc or even near to it (at any orbital shape as you like), then there is only one solution:
The matter in the accretion disc is created by the SMBH
it meets all the criteria of pair creation due the following:

1. Orbital shape is a pure circular - Perfect fit
2. Orbital velocity at almost the speed of light - Perfect fit
3. The orbital velocity at the inwards side is higher than the outwards side which proves that the matter is drifting outwards - Perfect fit
4. Plasma temp - about 10^9c at the outwards disc and more than that at the inwards side, which proves that the matter is getting cooler as it drift outwards  - Perfect fit

Hence, based on all the criteria there is a perfect fit of the new created particles with the observation.

So, why is it so difficult for all of you to accept real science?

From now on if you would claim that matter can fall into the accretion disc and stay there without clear science law or calculations I will ignore your nonsense.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Also, of course, collisions within the disk- even if teh only collisions involve photons- will knock teh atoms out of a perfectly circular orbit.

No.
Due to the Ultra high gravity force and the ultra EM, the particles at the disc could collide with each other without knocked out from the disc. Actually, if we will monitor carefully the accretion disc we should find the following:
At the innermost disc there is only basic particles. As we move outwards we should notice that those particles would be converted to atoms - mainly Hydrogen atoms. So the Ultra high gravity force + ultra high EM field would convert particles into Hydrogen atoms. As we move to the outer disc we should find that there are more and more other atoms as Iron Gold and even molecular as water. Those kinds of complex atoms and molecular could only be created by collisions between the simple atoms.
Therefore, when the matter is eventually ejected outwards from the accretion disc as UFO, it has already all the atoms and molecular that are needed for any star and any planet in the Universe.
Our body comes from there!
No need for supernova for a complex atoms.
The accretion disc is doing it good enough.
All the massive gas clouds get the matter from that accretion disc.
All S stars including S2 have been created at one of those gas clouds.
Our Sun and all the planets in the solar system have been created from the matter that he accretion disc had ejected. All the solar system had been formed at the same time from the same gas cloud around the SMBH.
Any star any planet any moon had been formed as a hot gas object.
Our Earth and moon were probably 50 times bigger than their current size.
Over time they have lost all the light gas as Hydrogen to the open space.
Therefore all the solid and heavy elements moved to the center and formed a nice round ball shape object.
The idea that the Earth or the moon have been created by solid matter is NONESEBSE.
Our sun must have at least one twin brother.
They orbit around each other.
If we could trace the wobbling motion of the Sun we could identify how many brothers it has and where they are located.

[Bored chemist]

Due to the Ultra high gravity force and the ultra EM, the particles at the disc could collide with each other without knocked out from the disc.

Nobody said otherwise.
But they will no longer be in a perfectly circular orbit.
So this

Can you please show even one SMBH' accretion disc which its shape isn't a pure circular orbit?

is silly.
The orbits will not be circular.

[Kryptid]

From now on if you would claim that matter can fall into the accretion disc and stay there without clear science law or calculations I will ignore your nonsense.

Please do, so that this pointless back-and-forth will finally come to an end.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk]

I think that diameter of the Universe is about one light minute, all the "stars" (except the Sun) and "galaxies" are the objects of the Oort Cloud and reflect sunlight, and the border of the Universe is right behind the Oort Cloud.
Here are links with detailed arguments:
1) Nope
2) Nada
3) No way

[Bored chemist]

I think that diameter of the Universe is about one light minute,

Nobody else does.
One light minute doesn't even get you as far as the Sun.

Even the ancient Greeks knew it was further than that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipparchus#Orbit_of_the_Sun
We have sent spacecraft a lot further than that

[Kryptid]

I think that diameter of the Universe is about one light minute, all the "stars" (except the Sun) and "galaxies" are the objects of the Oort Cloud and reflect sunlight, and the border of the Universe is right behind the Oort Cloud.
Here are links with detailed arguments:
1) New model of the Universe.
2) The nature of light and the size of the Universe.
3) Is the phenomenon of dark matter so mysterious?

Don't try to hijack other member's threads.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:23:43
Can you please show even one SMBH' accretion disc which its shape isn't a pure circular orbit?

is silly.
The orbits will not be circular.

Dear BC
Are you sure that it is silly?
The observation proves that you are totally wrong.
In the following article about M87 accretion disc it is stated:
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-ring-around-supermassive-black-hole-m87-appears-to-be-glittering
"And they found, as predicted by general relativity, that the black hole shadow - the circle in the middle of the glowing golden ring - was persistent throughout the time period, maintaining the same diameter over years. This is yet further confirmation of the nature of M87*, the researchers said."
So, as the accertion disc has the same diameter over years it proves that it has a perfect circular orbital shape.
It is also stated:
""Actually, we see quite a lot of variation there, and not all theoretical models of accretion allow for so much wobbling. What it means is that we can start ruling out some of the models based on the observed source dynamics.
There could be any number of things causing the turbulence in the flow. The magnitude of the black hole's spin is one. The magnetic field structure in the accretion disc itself is another.
It could be driven by magnetorotational instability, or a misalignment in the black hole's spin and the accretion flow."
So, we clearly see the impact of the Ultra high SMBH Electromagnetic field on the wobbling activities at that disc.
It is also stated:
"It could also have a relationship with the formation of relativistic jets. Those are powerful streams of plasma from the inside of the accretion ring that are accelerated around the outside of a black hole's event horizon and launched into space at relativistic speeds."
So, we clearly observe that there is relationship between the activities at the accretion disc with the formation of relativistic jets. Hence, the plasma which is coming from the SMBH' event horizon, accelerated outwards and "launched into space at relativistic speeds, must be created somehow".
It is there.
We see it!
So, the new plasma that are launched into space at relativistic speeds must be created near the SMBH' event horizon.
That new plasma is created near the SMBH' event horizon by the Mighty SMBH' EM filed and gravity force.
So why is it so difficult for all of you to accept the observation as is?
It is there in front of our eyes!!!

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:28:53
From now on if you would claim that matter can fall into the accretion disc and stay there without clear science law or calculations I will ignore your nonsense.

Please do, so that this pointless back-and-forth will finally come to an end.

Dear Kryptid
Do you really consider the observations as  "pointless back-and-forth will finally come to an end"?
Or is it just that none of you would let the observation to confuse you with your BBT imagination?
How long would you all ignore the observations?
One year? 100 years or just forever and ever?

[Kryptid]

Do you really consider the observations as  "pointless back-and-forth will finally come to an end"?

Do you think Bored Chemist will ever change your mind? Do you think you will ever change Bored Chemist's mind?

That's what I mean by "pointless".

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Do you think Bored Chemist will ever change your mind? Do you think you will ever change Bored Chemist's mind?
That's what I mean by "pointless".

Dear Kryptid
This forum is all about real science.
Real science is all about real observation.
So, if we clearly observe that the accretion disc is circular while BC claims that it is silly to accept that observation, then why you as a moderator don't tell him about his mistake?
I get an impression that all of you fully support BC, while he clearly ignores all observations.
Is it correct that any observation that contradicts the BBT should be set in the garbage?
How can we all ignore the clear observation that : "plasma from the inside of the accretion ring that are accelerated around the outside of a black hole's event horizon and launched into space at relativistic speeds."
Why this observation is Silly?
Why we do not wish to accept the observation as is and understand that our wish that invisible matter from the Bulge should fall into the accretion disc is just imagination?
As a moderator, why don't you support those clear observations (even if the outcome contradicts the BBT)?
Is it correct that we all should do whatever it takes to prevent from any observation to destroy the BBT?

[Bored chemist]

Real science is all about real observation.

And nobody has observed what you claim is happening.

So you are not doing science.

Are you sure that it is silly?

Yes.

it proves that it has a perfect circular orbital shape.

No, it doesn't say that.

You made that up.

Hence, the plasma which is coming from the SMBH' event horizon, accelerated outwards and "launched into space at relativistic speeds, must be created somehow".

Yes. It is created from the stuff that falls in.
Just like I have been saying all along.

Do you think you will ever change Bored Chemist's mind?

In principle, he might.
But he would have to come up with evidence.
So far he has just misunderstood or misrepresented what is seen.

[Bored chemist]

So, if we clearly observe that the accretion disc is circular while BC claims that it is silly to accept that observation,

I am clever enough to understand that the disk is nearly circular, but you say it must be perfectly circular- which is impossible.

So you are being silly.

[Kryptid]

I'm not getting pulled into this debate with you, Dave. Been there, done that. Like I said, it's pointless.