[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:49:38
it proves that it has a perfect circular orbital shape.

No, it doesn't say that.

Why do you continue to ignore the observation?
Please read again the article:

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 accretion disc has the same diameter over years it proves that it has a perfect circular orbital shape.

It is specifically stated:
the circle in the middle of the glowing golden ring - was persistent throughout the time period, maintaining the same diameter over years.
If this is not good enough for you, please look at the (M. Wielgus, D. Pesce & the EHT Collaboration) image:
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-ring-around-supermassive-black-hole-m87-appears-to-be-glittering
We clearly see purely circular orbits of the M87 accretion disc over the years:
2009 - pure circular
2011 - Pure circular
2012 - pure circular
2013 - pure circular
2019 - pure circular
They even measure the diameter (40μas)

Therefore
The observations are very clear. The accretion disc is purely circular.
If you reject those clear observations than you are just LIAR!
I can fully understand that you do not wish to accept the meaning of those observations; however you have to accept the observations as they are real.
You don't lie just to me or to those readers in this forum, but you lie to real science and especially to yourself.
How can we continue the discussion while we all see that you lie again and again?

[Bored chemist]

Why do you continue to ignore the observation?
Please read again the article:

You need to read it.
Show me where the word "perfectly " occurs in this

"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."

[Kryptid]

How can we continue the discussion while we all see that you lie again and again?

The only one who appears to "see" that is you.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Show me where the word "perfectly " occurs in this

In the article there is a clear statement that it is: "maintaining the same diameter over years.
We use the word "Diameter" only for a pure circular orbit.
So, when they have stated that it is maintaining the same diameter over years they actually claim that it is also maintaining the same radius over years.
We also see it very clear in the images over the years.
As you don't like the word "perfect":
Even if we eliminat the word "perfect" from the "perfect circular orbital shape", we still get a "circular orbital shape".
However, based on your imagination of falling matter from the bulge, you have clearly stated that it can't have a circular orbital shape.

Quote from: Dave Lev on 26/05/2021 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.

How do you dare to claim for an "elliptical orbit" under those observations and clear data?
Sorry, you know that a falling matter can't technically sets any sort of circular orbital shape (or even almost circular orbital shape) near the event horizon of the SMBH.
You know that, all the 10,000 BBT scientists know that, all the moderators on this forum know that and even any person with basic knowledge should know that.
Unfortunately for all of you, the observation proves that the circular orbital shape can't be created by any sort of falling matter from the Bulge.
Therefore, based on the clear observation we all know that the plasma at the accretion disc can't come from any sort of falling star or falling gas cloud.
It's time for all of you to accept the simple idea that as we don't observe any falling matter and as we will never observe any falling matter, while outwards from the disc we ONLY observe matter that is ejected from the accretion disc to the Bulge as a constant UFO that we see for the last 20-50 years--- then you all must agree that somehow the plasma at that accretion disc MUST come from inside!

I know that it is very difficult for all of you to accept this simple observation as it kills the BBT for good, but it's time for all of you to accept the observation as is.

[Bored chemist]

As you don't like the word "perfect":

It's not that I don't like  the word.

The problem is that you say the article tells you that the orbit is a perfect circle.
And the article does not, in any way, say that.


Nor is it actually possible.

So.
You are the man who called me a liar because I said that this text
"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."
does not include the word "perfect".

You called me a liar for saying something which is obviously true.

So it is clear that you are not worth listening to.

[Kryptid]

You two need to chill: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8535.0

2.Keep it friendly

Do not use insulting, aggressive, or provocative language.

If you feel another forum user is using insulting language, seek to calm things down, or if that fails, report the matter to the moderators.  Under no circumstances should you seek to trade insults, or make accusatory remarks to that, or any other, forum user.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

As you don't like the word "perfect":

It's not that I don't like  the word.
The problem is that you say the article tells you that the orbit is a perfect circle.
And the article does not, in any way, say that.
Nor is it actually possible.
So.
You are the man who called me a liar because I said that this text
"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."
does not include the word "perfect".
You called me a liar for saying something which is obviously true.
So it is clear that you are an idiot, and not worth listening to.

Well, it is stated: "maintaining the same diameter over years"
So, it is all about the real meaning of the word "Diameter".
Please be aware that they didn't claim even for average diameter. Just "diameter".
So, let me help you:
https://www.learningstreet.co.uk/articles/what-is-the-diameter-learn-all-about-the-diameter/

What is the diameter?
The diameter is the length of the line through the centre of a circle.
The diameter is always twice the length of the radius of a circle.

Please let's read it again:
The diameter is always twice the length of the radius of a circle.
If this is still not good enough for you than there is an example:

Here is an example practice question:
What is the diameter of the circle below?
Answer:
Children should be able to work out the answer as they know that the diameter is the radius x 2 (r²).
6 x 2 = 12cm
Diameter = 12cm.
So diameter is all about circular shape and especially about PERFECT circular shape.
Why is it so difficult to you to understand something that any child at age of 6 should know?

As I have stated, our scientists don't claim even for average diameter.
So, it proves that the accretion disc orbital shape is even more circular than the orbital shape of the moon around our planet.
 it just proves that we observe a perfect circular orbital shape in the accretion disc.
Therefore, there is no possibility to have an elliptical shape while they clearly discuss on diameter.

Therefore, as you need an elliptical shape to support your imagination for invisible star/gas cloud/matter from the Bulge to fall into the accretion disc, then this imagination should be set in the garbage.
If you still don't understand the real meaning of diameter - then I can't help you any more.

You and all the other 10,000 scientists are more than welcome to keep on with your nonsense as none of you really wish to understand the meaning of "diameter".
I wonder how it could be that you all consider yourself as scientists while you don't wish to accept and understand the observation as is.
You all support each other in that nonsense that is called BBT while not even one of you really care that the accretion disc has doesn't reflect the elliptical orbital shape that is needed for your imagination of falling matter..
You just think that if you tell any individual that all the 10,000 scientists consider that matter falls in then he must accept your nonsense just because he is one and you are 10,000.
So, I don't care about what all of you together in a row say.
I care about real science and real observation while all of you only care about the BBT.
You have one mission: To fit any observation to the BBT.
If it can't fit, you just ignore it or kill it.
Sorry - as the SMBH' accretion disc observation proves clearly that it has a perfect circular orbital cycle (or for sure not an elliptical cycle that is needed for any matter that falls from the Bulge), then it proves that matter from outside can't fall from the Bulge into that accretion disc. Therefore - we have NEVER EVER observed any matter as it falls in from the Bulge!!!

[Dave Lev (OP)]

So it is clear that you are an idiot, and not worth listening to.

2.Keep it friendly

Thanks
Do appreciate this message!

[Kryptid]

Thanks
Do appreciate this message!

That was meant for you as well. Constantly calling Bored Chemist a liar is not "keeping it friendly".

[Bored chemist]

As I have stated, our scientists don't claim even for average diameter.

They don't need to. Because it's clear that they must mean that , because it is impossible for it to be perfectly circular.

So, it proves that the accretion disc orbital shape is even more circular than the orbital shape of the moon around our planet.

No. That's just a claim you made.
It is unsupported by evidence.

So.
You are the man who called me a liar because I said that this text
"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."
does not include the word "perfect".

You called me a liar for saying something which is obviously true.

So it is clear that you are not worth listening to.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 17:28:49
As I have stated, our scientists don't claim even for average diameter.
They don't need to. Because it's clear that they must mean that , because it is impossible for it to be perfectly circular.

I fully agree with you that based on the BBT it is impossible for it to be perfectly circular.
But only based on BBT.
Why is it impossible to you to understand that there might be an error in the BBT?
Do you really have the power to force the accretion disc to work according your understanding which is a BBT understanding?
Do you understand that it is very possible to have a prefect circular shape if the matter is created at the accretion ring?

Sorry - our scientists use the word "diameter" as they observe a perfect circular shape.
You are the one that are not willing to accept this observation.
If they would use the word "radius" would you then accept that it is a perfect circular?

You called me a liar for saying something which is obviously true.

Sorry - if based on our scientists they clearly observe diameter and the real meaning of diameter is a perfect circular, then it is a perfect circular.
Anyone that claims that the accretion disc is elliptical while our scientists clearly observe the diameter of its perfect circular shape - is a lie by definition.
Don't take it personally; I just think that no one can lie in order to twist the real meaning of the observation.
So, if you still believe that the accretion disc is elliptical - please offer real observation to support this wish/imagination.
Please set any other observation to prove your wish or accept the observations as is.
Don't twist the observation just because it doesn't meet your BBT understanding as this would be consider as a lie!.

[Bored chemist]

Sorry - if based on our scientists they clearly observe diameter and the real meaning of diameter is a perfect circular, then it is a perfect circular.

This is nonsense.
The definition of  the metre is based on the "circumference" of the Earth, but that doesn't mean that they thought it was circular.


And, as I pointed out, it can not be perfectly circular.

So.
You are the man who called me a liar because I said that this text
"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."
does not include the word "perfect".

You called me a liar for saying something which is obviously true.

So it is clear that you are not worth listening to.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Thanks
Do appreciate this message!

That was meant for you as well. Constantly calling Bored Chemist a liar is not "keeping it friendly".

Dear Kryptid
As you can see there is a severe conflict between me to  BC.
In the article it is stated that the M87 SMBH' accretion disc is "maintaining the same diameter over years."
As I have already explained Diameter is all about circle shape (or actually - perfect circular shape)

Well, it is stated: "maintaining the same diameter over years"
So, it is all about the real meaning of the word "Diameter".
Please be aware that they didn't claim even for average diameter. Just "diameter".
So, let me help you:
https://www.learningstreet.co.uk/articles/what-is-the-diameter-learn-all-about-the-diameter/

What is the diameter?
The diameter is the length of the line through the centre of a circle.
The diameter is always twice the length of the radius of a circle.

Please let's read it again:
The diameter is always twice the length of the radius of a circle.
If this is still not good enough for you than there is an example:

Here is an example practice question:
What is the diameter of the circle below?
Answer:
Children should be able to work out the answer as they know that the diameter is the radius x 2 (r²).
6 x 2 = 12cm
Diameter = 12cm.
So diameter is all about circular shape and especially about PERFECT circular shape.

Also in the image of that article we clearly observe perfect circular orbits of that accretion disc over the years.

If this is not good enough for you, please look at the (M. Wielgus, D. Pesce & the EHT Collaboration) image:
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-ring-around-supermassive-black-hole-m87-appears-to-be-glittering
We clearly see purely circular orbits of the M87 accretion disc over the years:
2009 - pure circular
2011 - Pure circular
2012 - pure circular
2013 - pure circular
2019 - pure circular
They even measure the diameter (40μas)
Therefore
The observations are very clear. The accretion disc is purely circular.

However, BC doesn't want to accept those observation s and data
He claims that the orbital shape of the accretion disc is elliptical without offering any image or any data to support that imagination.

Therefore, would you kindly let us know what do you understand from those images/observations and the key message about: "maintaining the same diameter over years."?
Do you understand that M87 accretion disc is elliptical or circular?

[Bored chemist]

As I have already explained Diameter is all about circle shape (or actually - perfect circular shape)

And, citing the evidence of the definition of the metre, I have pointed out that this is wrong.
But, rather than accept that "circular" does not always mean absolutely perfectly circular, you repeat this nonsense

2009 - pure circular
2011 - Pure circular
2012 - pure circular
2013 - pure circular
2019 - pure circular

None of the papers says it is perfectly circular.

On the other hand, I have proved why it can not possibly be circular.

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.

And yet you ignore this and say

He claims that the orbital shape of the accretion disc is elliptical without offering any image or any data to support that imagination.

Just for a start, I didn't say it was elliptical, did I?

I said

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.

Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 11:09:16
So.
You are the man who called me a liar because I said that this text
"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."
does not include the word "perfect".

You called me a liar for saying something which is obviously true.

So it is clear that you are not worth listening to.

[jeffreyH]

Dear Dave, your arguments are circular. Perfectly circular, and they go round and round and round again. Don't you get dizzy?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Dear Dave, your arguments are circular. Perfectly circular, and they go round and round and round again. Don't you get dizzy?

Dear Jeffrey
I don't get dizzy with regards to the SMBH' accretion disc as the shape of this disc is the ultimate evidence that the BBT is wrong.
Based on the current mainstream approach, the matter at the accretion disc is falling from outside (from the Bulge as a falling star or falling gas cloud)
BC had clearly explained that in order for matter to fall in, it must set an elliptical orbit.
However, we don't observe any sort of elliptical orbital shape at the accretion disc.
We clearly observe a circular shape of that disc over the last 10 years:

https://www.sciencealert.com/the-ring-around-supermassive-black-hole-m87-appears-to-be-glittering
We clearly see purely circular orbits of the M87 accretion disc over the years:
2009 - pure circular
2011 - Pure circular
2012 - pure circular
2013 - pure circular
2017 - pure circular
They even measure the diameter (40μas)

I have one more key evidence to support my claim:
Please look again at the same images of the disc over the years.
What do we really see:

2009 - Very Narrow ring
2011 -  Very Narrow ring
2012 - Wide ring
2013 -  Midsize ring
2017 -  Wide ring

As there is quite significant change in the size of the accretion ring, it proves that as matter is ejected from the ring, than matter must also come into that ring.

However, we also observe that the outer ring size is almost constant during all the observations, about 40μas (except some decrease in 2011), while the big change is mainly in the inner ring.
As the main change is in the inner ring, it proves that matter must come from the inner side of the ring.
We clearly see it between the years 2013 to 2017.
So, as we clearly observe a significant change in the inner side of the disc. while we do not observe any sort of elliptical shape of the outer ring to prove the idea of falling matter, then we all must agree that matter must come from the inner side of that ring.
This is clear observation.
So based on those observations as the matter must come from inside the ring (actually from the SMBH direction) - it proves that the SMBH itself generates new matter near its event horizon that is ejected into the inner side of the accretion disc.

So, I have only those observations of the accretion disc shape and changes over the years in order to support my claim that the SMBH generates new matter that is ejected into the inner side of the accretion disc and from this disc to the bulge by the constant flow of the UFO observation for the last 20-50 years.

While you don't have any observation to support the imagination of falling matter into that disc:
There is no indication for ANY SORT of falling Star/gas cloud or any sort of matter.
No fireworks or supernova as it falls and break.
No elliptical shape as it gets to the accretion disc.
No UFI from the Bulge inwards to the accretion disc.
Just Nothing!

However, you all support the idea that invisible matter must fall from the bugle into the accretion disc.

So, who wins?
Is it you just because that you all including the 10,000 scientists claim that matter must fall from outside without any sort of observation or evidence for that?
Or is it me based on the solid observations to support my claim?

[Bored chemist]

I don't get dizzy with regards to the SMBH' accretion disc as the shape of this disc is the ultimate evidence that the BBT is wrong.

In reality, there is nothing in the BBT which says anything about the shape of accretion disks round supermassive black holes.

BC had clearly explained that in order for matter to fall in, it must set an elliptical orbit.

No, I did not. I already told you that.
Here's what I said.

I said
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:35:32
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.

2009 - Very Narrow ring
2011 -  Very Narrow ring
2012 - Wide ring
2013 -  Midsize ring
2017 -  Wide ring

You just proved my point, and destroyed your own.
If the orbit can change size, then the matter in it can  not be following a circular path.

Or is it me based on the solid observations to support my claim?

You do not have any evidence.
All you have are misunderstandings and false deductions.

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:36:30
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 11:09:16
So.
You are the man who called me a liar because I said that this text
"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."
does not include the word "perfect".

You called me a liar for saying something which is obviously true.

So it is clear that you are not worth listening to.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.

I wonder why our scientists waste their time and money in order to observe the Universe while it is so useless.
Why do we need those observations?
If they observe elliptical or pure circular orbital shape at the SMBH' accretion disc - then you can fit an invisible falling star into that disc orbital shape.
If we observe that the main change in that accretion disc is from the inner ring size, while the outer side is almost constant - then it is Ok as you have stated that it is OK.
So, any falling star from outside, won't set any negative impact at the outer side of the disc. It would directly penetrate into the inner side of the disc and increase it so smoothly without any sort of interruption in the disc shape - You say that it is Ok and then we all agree that it is OK by 100%.
Even if one day our scientists would observe a pure square orbital shape, it's quite easy for you to fit a falling star into that unique orbital shape. All you need to say that it is OK.
So, our scientists would tell you the shape and you would set the fit.
You actually don't need to set any calculation.
You are the master of knowledge and your word is good enough.
If you say that it is Ok then it IS Ok.
You say that there is invisible falling star - then this is 100% correct
You say that there is falling invisible UFI from the Bulge into the disc that is moving in the opposite direction of the Visible UFO - then this is 100% correct
You say that any star at any orbital plane must fall exactly at the accretion disc plane - then this is 100% correct.
We all know that the SMBH' magnetic poles are located vertically to the accretion disc
Therefore, I wonder how the falling star that only effected by gravity force are perfectly adjusted by the magnetic poles of the SMBH. How could it be that all the stars falls directly at the disc plane that is vertically to the SMBH' magnetic polls while the chance for any star at the bulge to orbit exactly at that plane is virtually zero.
However, Now I know that I shouldn't worry about any observation.
Whatever you say is correct - is correct by 100%.

So, no one in this planet should argue about any issue that we observe.
We only need to get your approval that this is correct and it will be correct by 100%.

At last - now I finally understand how real science really works
You say that it is OK – and you get the full support from the 10,000 scientists including our all moderators  in this forum.
So who an I to disagree?

You won!
Thanks for your great support.

[Bored chemist]

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:35:32

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:36:30
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 11:09:16
So.
You are the man who called me a liar because I said that this text
"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."
does not include the word "perfect".

You called me a liar for saying something which is obviously true.

So it is clear that you are not worth listening to.

[McQueen]

How can we continue the discussion while we all see that you lie again and again?

                  Dave Levy:  As far as I can make out, this argument has evolved over a subject that should not have been questioned at all. You had raised some very pertinent queries on how conflicting arguments about the age and size of the Universe had been voiced with such confidence.  Surely there is nothing wrong in that and for these questions to be answered by ridicule and disparagement makes absolutely no sense. One or two of those who have baited you ( I am specifically referring to Bored Chemist; whose sole reason in life seems to be to inflame and anger posters) don’t have any other response. As to his IQ and personality level think about how he has made 23,000 plus such posts. His brain must be absolutely addled from not being able to follow a clear argument.  But for everyone to have followed the same line of ridiculing the post seems inappropriate. 

                 Another, very pertinent point that you had raised were your comments about the CMBR. How can there be no mention in the CMBR about the present radiation that these unimaginably massive clouds of Hydrogen gas must surely be radiating. After all these massive clouds of hydrogen are very active, our Galaxies planets and stars had their genesis in these clouds. How is it possible that the CMBR has been postulated without taking into consideration the present. How can the CMBR be referred to as very faint relic radiation that permeates the wholel Universe, without taking into consideration the present?
 
                  On the other hand a forum such as Naked Scientists, is the only place where it is possible to discuss such ideas at all or to even get any kind of an answer, even though in the present case the discussion has gone nowhere, because the questions you had raised cannot be answered.  The question can and should, however, be discussed.

                     The main thing with any forum is that most of the regulars, and this includes most of the moderators, are totally committed to a belief in established science, no matter how weird illogical or plain ridiculous it is.  With such a philosophy in place what can you expect but entrenched and violent opposition: even if what you were after was just an explanation as to why theories about the Big Bang were so chaotic.