[Bored chemist]

His brain must be absolutely addled from not being able to follow a clear argument. 

Neither you not Dave was able to offer one.
That's the problem

Things still don't fall up out of BH in breech of the conservation laws.

If you think that Dave Levy put forward a clear argument as to how the laws were broken, in spite of being proven to be true, please quote it.

That's going to work a whole lot better than being stupidly wrong about my IQ and motivation.

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.

You think that's a serious point?
Those hot dense clouds emitted a lot of radiation. And that meant they cooled down.

Since they have cooled down, they no longer emit (much) radiation.

The stuff they now emit is called starlight or sunlight- and it's from a differed process.

They don't get included in"background radiation" discussions because they are the foreground, to which the other staff is the background.

Did you really not realise that?

On the other hand a forum such as Naked Scientists, is the only place where it is possible to discuss such ideas

You have made it clear that you do not want a discussion; you want to soapbox without anyone contradicting you.
Did you notice that your thread got locked?

no matter how weird illogical or plain ridiculous it is.

You keep saying that established science is wrong, but when i asked you to cite evidence for that- and to show your calculations- you decided to rant about my motivation.

Did you rethink that was going to convince people that you were right?

[Kryptid]

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.

In my experience, those who think that established theories of science are "illogical or plain ridiculous" usually think so because they have one or more misconceptions about them. Evolution, relativity and the Big Bang theory are some good examples of theories that have a myriad of misconceptions floating around about them.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

  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.

Thanks McQueen
Do appreciate your support.

In my experience, those who think that established theories of science are "illogical or plain ridiculous" usually think so because they have one or more misconceptions about them. Evolution, relativity and the Big Bang theory are some good examples of theories that have a myriad of misconceptions floating around about them.

In my experience, our scientists don't care about observation. They ONLY care about the BBT.
So, let's highlight the observations as they are::

1. NOTHING really falls into the SMBH' accretion disc from outside. Not any star, any gas cloud or even any atom as it falls from the bulge into the accretion disc.
NEVER & EVER.
2. We observe a constant outflow from the M87 SMBH' accretion disc to the Bulge that is called UFO.
3. Only once we have observed some sort of inflow from the inner side of the accretion into the SMBH itself.

That's all
I hope that you know that, all the moderators know that and even all the 10,000 Scientists know that.

However, even as our scientists have never ever observed any matter as it falls in, you continue to hold the imagination that somehow matter falls in.
You all support each other in that imagination.
Therefore, I have stated that you have won.

However, I have found new article that could help me to show that the plasma in the accretion disc is generated by the BH/SMBH EM field.
Please look at the image of "Cygnus X-1 system. A stellar-mass black hole orbits with a companion star located 7,200 light years from Earth" in following article:

https://www.eastmojo.com/news/2021/02/22/1st-black-hole-spotted-in-1964-much-bigger-than-earlier-thought-says-study/

Our scientists observe accretion disc that is directly vertically to the ejected jets stream. We already know that the jet stream is a direct indication of the BH' magnetic poles.
So, we have to agree that the accretion disc is vertically to the BH's magnetic poles. Hence, the matter in the accretion disc must fully align with the BH magnetic poles.
This MUST be correct to any sort of accretion disc, Including M87 disc.
However, the chance for any falling star to fall directly into the accretion disc that must be vertically to the poles is just not realistic.
Therefore, as the matter in the accretion disc is located exactly at that located due to magnetic field it proves that the magnetic field sets the plasma over their.
As the magnetic field can't technically set any falling star exactly at the locating which is vertically to the poles, it proves that new matter that is created by that EM is created at the accretion disc.

In the article it is also stated:

"Research says the Cygnus X-1 contains the most massive stellar-mass black hole ever detected. It is also known to have 21 times the sun’s mass, which makes it 50 percent bigger than researchers previously believed it to be."

So, how can we believe that the BH is eating the matter from that ultra big star that its size is 21 times the Sun's mass?
If the BH is eating that star, then in the past it should be bigger.
So, how big it could be?
30 Times the size of a sun or 100 or 1000 times?
How a star could be so massive in our galaxy?
Sorry, you have a fatal mistake!
As that star is so massive it proves that the star is eating the matter that is ejected from the accretion disc and not the other way.
Actually, this twin system is located just 7,200 light years from Earth.
So, we can easily discover the matter flow.
We can observe if the matter flows from the accretion disc to the giant star as UFO or the other way as UFI.

I know by 100% that the matter flows IS - From the accretion disc to that star (UFO).

So please,  go ahead and verify the flow.
If we will observe the UFO then the BBT should be set in the garbage.
If we observe the UFI, then my theory would be set in the garbage.

[Bored chemist]

In my experience, our scientists don't care about observation. They ONLY care about the BBT.
So, let's highlight the observations as they are::

1. NOTHING really falls into the SMBH' accretion disc from outside.

Not seeing something is not an observation in circumstances where you would not expect to see it.

Not seeing a black cat in a coal cellar is not evidence that the cat is not there.

So, until you learn what "observation" means, you should probably keep quiet about it.

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.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:31:02
In my experience, our scientists don't care about observation. They ONLY care about the BBT.
So, let's highlight the observations as they are::

1. NOTHING really falls into the SMBH' accretion disc from outside.

Not seeing something is not an observation in circumstances where you would not expect to see it.

This is nonsense!
We all agree that we have never ever observed any falling star.
However, based on your imagination, which is fully supported by all the 10,000 scientists and moderators - matter must fall in.
Unfortunately, you have ignored all the observations, evidences and explanation why matter from outside can't fall into the SMBH' accretion disc.
This time I demand to get answers.

So, in order to close this discussion - I will present all the key arguments - One by one - to prove that matter from outside (bulge) don't fall into that accretion disc.
NEVER & EVER!!!

1. SMBH' Magnetic Filed
We clearly observe that all the SMBH' accretion discs (without any acceptation) in the entire universe are 100% aligned with the magnetic field (or actually they are vertically to the magnetic poles) of the SMBH. Therefore, the orbital disc plane of the accretion disc MUST be 100% vertically to the SMBH' poles.
However, as we look at the stars at the bulge around the SMBH (as all of those S stars including S2) we observe that none their orbital plane is identical to the accretion disc plane.
So, how could it be that a falling star would shift its orbital plane in order to meet the exact orbital plane of the SMBH' accretion disc.

So, please go ahead and answer the above question.
But this time please offer real answer and not your usual imaginations.
You are requested to explain how a falling star that its current orbital plane isn't vertically aligned with the SMBH' magnetic poles would shift its plane directly to that one (and ONLY that specific plane)

If you can't offer a valid answer which must be based on the impact of the magnetic field, then please don't answer at all.

[Bored chemist]

This is nonsense!

Yes it is.
Please stop posting it.

Unfortunately, you have ignored all the observations, evidences and explanation why matter from outside can't fall into the SMBH' accretion disc.

No, there is none. It's just stuff you made up.

Quote from: Bored chemist on 31/05/2021 17:52:32
Quote from: Bored chemist on 31/05/2021 10:00:14
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.

[Bored chemist]

We clearly observe that all the SMBH' accretion discs (without any acceptation) in the entire universe

That's simply not true.
We have not observed all teh black holes in teh universe so we are not able to say that we have observed their magnetic fields.

You are posting nonsense.

So, how could it be that a falling star would shift its orbital plane in order to meet the exact orbital plane of the SMBH' accretion disc.

You have this the wrong way round.
The accretion disk is aligned with the mater that fell in- not the other way round.

So there is nothing to explain.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 10:12:01
We clearly observe that all the SMBH' accretion discs (without any acceptation) in the entire universe

That's simply not true.
We have not observed all the black holes in the universe so we are not able to say that we have observed their magnetic fields.

As usual, you continue to reject real observation and real science.
You know that any accertion disc that we could observe is 100% aligned vertically to its SMBH magnetic poles.
We see it clearly in the Milky way.
We see it in any observation. Just few examples:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/shows-astrophysical-jet-and-accretion-disk-around-the-black-hole_fig3_330184698

https://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/AGN-jet-Pearson-Education-Inc.-Upper-Saddle-River-New-Jersey.jpg

https://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2013-1/figures/1
"although various mechanisms have been proved to explain the jets acceleration and collimation, since the famous work of Blandford & Payne (1982) an electromagnetic origin of jet seems to be favoured "

I can offer you many more articles and images about the relationship between the electromagnetic jet stream to the accretion disc.
in all the 100% observations we get exactly the same message:

We clearly observe that all the SMBH' accretion discs (without any acceptation) in the entire universe are 100% aligned with the magnetic field (or actually they are vertically to the magnetic poles) of the SMBH. Therefore, the orbital disc plane of the accretion disc MUST be 100% vertically to the SMBH' poles.

Our scientists have NEVER EVER observed a magnetic jet stream that isn't vertically to the accretion disc.
Never and ever!

However, as expected - you ignore any observation which contradicts your imagination.
You actually don't care about observation and therefore, you don't care about real science.

Hence:
If you think differently - then please show the evidence or observation to support your wrong understanding (one is good enough).
However, if you know science - then you should know that my message is correct by 100%.
Therefore, as you reject the real observation - then you are LIAR!

Please, show the evidence/observation to protect your statement or be considered as LIAR!

[Bored chemist]

However, as expected - you ignore any observation which contradicts your imagination.

No actual observation contradicts the BBT.
All this stuff about BH is irrelevant to that question since the BBT doesn't even mention BH.

You know that any accertion disc that we could observe is 100% aligned vertically to its SMBH magnetic poles.

Nobody ever said that it would not be.

It's just that there reason isn't what you are claiming.

The stuff falls in  but, because it would be massively improbable that its path exactly hit the BH in the middle, every atom that falls in carries angular momentum.
When they interact with the accretion disk they change the rotation by a tiny amount.
The angular momentum of the disk as a whole is the sum of all those contributions and it is aligned with the direction in which matter fell into it.

Since the falling matter creates the disk, the disk has to be in the plane of the falling matter.(though, if other matter from another source also falls in the plane of the disk will change.


The magnetic field is there because of the rotating disk.
So it is always going to be perpendicular to the disk- much like the Earth's field is perpendicular to its plane of rotation.

None of this is anything other than bog-standard high school physics.

be considered as LIAR!

Only you suffer from that delusion.
Anyone else reading this knows that you are the one getting everything wrong.

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 15:38:10
Quote from: Bored chemist on 31/05/2021 17:52:32
Quote from: Bored chemist on 31/05/2021 10:00:14
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.

[Bored chemist]

We clearly observe that all the SMBH' accretion discs (without any acceptation) in the entire universe

That's still a childishly stupid assertion.
We have not observed the entire universe.

[charles1948]

I predict that by 2050, the BBT will be old-hat , and dismissed with disdain as a "childishly stupid idea".

And a new "Modified Steady-State Theory ", MSST, will be the latest thing in cosmology.

Anyone want to bet?

[Kryptid]

Therefore, as you reject the real observation - then you are LIAR!

Please, show the evidence/observation to protect your statement or be considered as LIAR!

Didn't I tell you to cool it with that?

I predict that by 2050, the BBT will be old-hat , and dismissed with disdain as a "childishly stupid idea".

And a new "Modified Steady-State Theory ", MSST, will be the latest thing in cosmology.

What brings you to that conclusion?

[Bored chemist]

Anyone want to bet?

You could ask Olber if he would like to put a pound on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox

If, in 2050 it still goes dark at night, his argument will still show that the steady state is wrong.

[charles1948]

My conclusion arises from this observation - that scientific theories tend to go in swings.

Thus - in 1900 the Universe was generally regarded as being in a Steady State.  Which is why, as you know, Einstein introduced his "Cosmological Constant".  To keep the Universe steady.  Neither expanding nor contracting

Then in the 1920's evidence from Slipher and Hubbard  appeared to show that the Universe isn't steady.  So the view swung to it being not steady, but expanding.

Then evidence emerged to throw doubts on the expansion, as it seems to be going on in an inexplicable way  -  ie  much too fast.

This will probably lead scientific opinion to swing back to the view that it isn't expanding after all, but is in a Steady State.  I suggested in my previous post that the swing would occur by 2050, but it may be earlier, perhaps by 2030.

[Bored chemist]

My conclusion arises from this observation - that scientific theories tend to go in swings.

Did you notice how old Olber's observations are?

[Origin]

My conclusion arises from this observation - that scientific theories tend to go in swings.

Yeah, that is pretty much a crappy throw away statement backed up by nothing. 
For about 100,000 years+ man thought Gods were responsible for the stars and the cosmos.  The general assumption is that we were the center of a tiny universe and that stars were points of light and not suns.  Then about 400 years ago it was discovered that we were not the center of the universe.  For the next 300 years it was thought that the universe was basically the stars that we can see (IOW the milky way).  It was also assumed that the universe was in steady state during that time.  Einstein came along and made the Theory of General Relativity and found that his field equations indicated that the universe was not steady state, which he figured was wrong, so he put in a constant to 'make' it steady state.  About 10 years later Hubble found that the 'Nebulas' that astronomers had cataloged were actually other galaxies, which GREATLY INCREASED the size of the universe as we understood it.  He also found that the the galaxies were receding from us which indicated that the universe was expanding.  This led the the BBT.  More recently, about 20 years ago, we discovered that the universes rate of expansion is increasing. 
I don't see this flip flopping or swings that you are alluding to here, do you?

[Kryptid]

Then evidence emerged to throw doubts on the expansion, as it seems to be going on in an inexplicable way  -  ie  much too fast.

The expansion happening faster than expected is not the same as "throwing doubts on the expansion".

This will probably lead scientific opinion to swing back to the view that it isn't expanding after all

Why? Nobody would point to a balloon that is expanding faster than expected and try to use that as evidence that the balloon isn't expanding at all.

[charles1948]

My conclusion arises from this observation - that scientific theories tend to go in swings.

Did you notice how old Olber's observations are?

Yes , I have BC. I've read many books on Olber's paradox, about why the sky is dark at night.

The books offered varying explanations - mostly involving the expansion of the Universe, the agglomeration of stars into structures such as galaxies, leaving gaps in the sky, and so on.

The most appealing theory, it seemed to me, was that the apparent darkness is due purely to the inadequacy of our human eyes.  Which are adapted to operate best during the day-time.

Whereas, if we had eyes adapted to operate at at night, like owls, the night sky might not look dark at all.

Rather it might form a very bright sky background, lit up by the stars, which would shed plenty of light to illuminate the mice and voles on the ground, which the owls are hunting.

So to an owl,  the question "why is the night-sky dark" would be meaningless.

[Bored chemist]

Whereas, if we had eyes adapted to operate at at night, like owls, the night sky might not look dark at all.

Are you actually a moron, or do you realise that the point remains that it is darker at night than during the day?
Even a plant has good enough "sight" to recognise that; better eyes just make it more obvious.

[Bored chemist]

Yes , I have BC. I've read many books on Olber's paradox

About 0:50 to :58