[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 10:12:01
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.

Dear BC
Our understanding can ONLY be based on real observation.
Real science is all about OBSERVATION!
For more than 20 years we clearly observe M87 SMBH' accretion disc.
During all of those years we clearly see this accretion disc and it doesn't change its orbital plane.
Our scientists also  claim that they see the Jet stream as it is emerging from the M87 accretion disc:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2013-1/figures/1
"The example of M87
The first evidence of jet like feature emanating from the nuclei of galaxy goes to back to optical jet of giant elliptical galaxy M87"
In figure 1.6 it is we clearly see the model of jet formation from accretion disks.
In that image we clearly see the accretion disc - in Red, the central source or SMBH - in orange, the magnetic field lines of the jet – in green and the magnetic flux surface of the jet is blue.
It is even stated: the three component system – "central object, accretion disc jet – is coupled by magnetic field."
So we have a clear evidence & observation that:

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.

So, how can you use in one hand specific observation in M87 (UFO/UFI) as an example for your understanding while on the other hand you completely ignore other observation that the orbital accretion disc plane is vertically to the magnetic poles which contradicts your understanding.
Sorry - when we use M87 or the Milky Way observation to prove our understanding we can't ignore the magnetic jet stream from those galaxies and claim that:

We have not observed the entire universe.

We don't need to observe the entire universe.
We clearly observe the magnetic jet stream that is emerging vertically to the SMBH accretion disc  in M87, Milky Way and many more (hundreds or thousands ) galaxies.
So, we have solid observation that my following message is 100% correct:
"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."
You have failed to offer even one observation to support your imagination.
I hope that by now we all agree that the accretion disc plane must be 100% vertically to the magnetic poles.

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.

Thanks
In this reply you fully confirm my explanation that any falling star or falling matter should change the orbital plane of the accretion disc.
However, as we observe in the last 20 years the M87 accretion disc - we have NEVER EVER seen any change in its plane.
I would like to remind you that during those years we clearly observe significant changes in the total matter in that disc (due to the changes in the ring radius).
So in some years (in 2011 for example) we clearly observed a very thin ring, while in other years we observe that the ring is very wide and full with new matter.
Therefore, it is clear indication that the accretion disc is losing matter and getting new matter almost every year.
However, surprisingly for you, all of those years the orbital accretion disc was stable as a rock.
It didn't change at all.
So, what is the chance that during all of those years any invisible falling stars or gas cloud would fall exactly at the accretion disc plane?
When we look at the bulge we see that each star and each gas cloud has its own unique orbital plane.
So from statistical point of view to hope that all the stars would fall exactly at the current orbital accretion plane is imagination.
Actually, as in 2011 the M87 accretion disc was almost empty. So if that accretion disc was really getting matter from outside, then it had to adjust its plane to the next falling star.
As we clearly observe that the accretion disc plane is constant over the years (not just in M87, but also in all those galaxies that we can observe in the last 50 years - including the Milky way) it proves that all the accretion discs that we have observed so far don't change their orbital plane due to falling matter..
Therefore, to claim that maybe some other invisible SMBH' accretion discs change their plane but we still didn't see then – it is just nonsense or lies.
When Hubble set its law, he didn't observe all the 100% of the far away galaxies.
He could only observe few of them.
But as all of those few observed galaxies behave the same, then he claimed that any far away galaxy behave as those few galaxies that he observed.
In the same token when Newton had set his formula for gravity he didn't observe all the 100% orbital systems in the entire Universe.
The Solar system was good enough for him.
In the same token, any law and any understanding is actually based on relatively very few observations.
Why our scientists at that time didn't claim that Hubble has to observe all the 100% galaxies in the entire Universe in order to set his law? Why no one claimed that maybe some other far away galaxies should have blue shifted radiation instead of red shifted?
Sorry - we don't need to observe the 100% accretion discs in the entire Universe. We have to accept  the current observations as an indication for all the other missing observations.
Hence - we must accept the current observation as is!.
If we only can observe 10 SMBH' accretion discs in the entire Universe and in all of them the magnetic jet stream is vertically to the accretion disc while none of them change the orbital plane of that disc (due to the invisible falling matter) - then it is good enough to accept this observation as clear evidence for the entire SMBH' accretion discs in the Universe.
In the same token, as have NEVER & EVER observed any falling matter into that accretion disc and as we have NEVER & EVER observed any change in the orbital plane, then it proves that matter DOESN"T fall from outside into that disc.
NEVER & Ever.
The size of the M87 accretion disc in 2011 also proves that the magnetic get stream is based on the SMBH and not on the accretion discs.
As in 2011 the accretion disc was almost empty, then it can't generate enough magnetic field to boost the jet stream at almost the speed of light.
This is imagination.
We clearly observe that the jet stream is a constant flow above and below the disc plane.
In the milky way we observe that this jet is moving at almost 0.8c and up to 27,000 Ly above and below the disc.
Sorry -  that kind of energy could only be achievable by the SMBH magnetic.
If you think that a very thin of accretion disc (as we observe in M87 by 2011) can set so powerful magnetic jet stream - then you are dreaming.
Therefore - ONLY the SMBH itself can set so powerful magnetic jet stream.
This  SMBH' Ultra strong magnetic filed sets the plane of its accretion disc.
So, we can clearly claim that the accretion disc is there due to the ULTRA SMBH' Electromagnetic power.

Therefore - Any scientist that claims that matter falls directly into that accretion disc that is there due to the ULTRA SMBH' Electromagnetic power without a solid observation to backup this imagination - is LIAR by definition.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:57:19
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?

Dear Kryptid
How can we accept lies in science?
Don't you agree that we must base our understanding ONLY on real observations?
Don't you agree that we have never and ever observed any matter as it falls into the accretion disc?
Don't you agree that we have never and ever observed any change in the orbital plane of any observable accretion discs over the years?
So why is it so difficult for those people that carry the title of "scientist" to accept the observations as they are?
Why I can't call them all liars while we clearly observe that they twist the observation to meet their imagination and they don't have even one observation to support their imagination?
Sorry. No one is allowed to lie even if he does so in the name of science.
So, they could claim that based on their theory matter should fall in - but in the same token they must highlight the evidence that so far we have NEVER and EVER observed any matter as it falls in.
It is not personally against BC.
It is against the whole science community that lies to all of us including to BC
Any article that claims for falling matter into the accretion disc (without backup this statement ith real observation) - lies by definition.
I would expect that  you and any  other moderator in this forum to request from our scientists to backup their understanding by real observation.
If they can't do so, they can't claim for any sort of imagination!
Therefore, would you kindly support my statement that it is a lie to claim that?
1.  The magnetic jet stream isn't vertically to the accretion disc.
2.  The disc changes its orbital plane over the years due to falling matter
3.  Invisible matter falls into the accretion disc

Actually, we observe an accretion disc just in front of our eyes:

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.

So, why can't we verify if the BH is eating that Giant star or this star is eating the matter that is ejected from the accretion disc?

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

No.
As we clearly observe that matter doesn't fall into the accretion disc and as we clearly observe that the accretion disc is stable and fully vertically to the magnetic poles of the SMBH then it proves that matter must be created at the accretion disc.
Once we agree on that - it proves that the Universe is stable as confirmed by Fred Hole and Einstein!

[Kryptid]

Dave, there is a difference between being mistaken and lying. That's why I don't think either you or Bored Chemist are lying. Both of you believe that what you are saying is correct.

Another reason I'm calling you out on the liar accusations is because it isn't conducive to decent conversation. Calling people liars is inflammatory, especially when they aren't lying (see above).

[Bored chemist]

Our understanding can ONLY be based on real observation.

And all the observations are consistent with the BBT.
On the other hand, I presume you accept that we have not been able to look at every single BH in the Universe?
Since we have not observed all of them, we can not say anything scientific about those which we have not observe.

Do you understand that?
If we have not seen it, we can not say anything much about it.

So it is wrong for you to make this claim.

We clearly observe that all the SMBH' accretion discs (without any acceptation) in the entire universe are 100%...

How can you talk observation being important and  about 100% of teh universe?
We have not observed 100% of the Universe, have we?

We all agree that we have never ever observed any falling star.

Why would anyone with any sense  agree with that?
We have pictures of the stars falling into BH.

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 13:52:30
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]

Dave, there is a difference between being mistaken and lying. That's why I don't think either you or Bored Chemist are lying. Both of you believe that what you are saying is correct.

Is there anyone else here who is qualified to make a judgement and who thinks Dave is correct?

[Origin]

Is there anyone else here who is qualified to make a judgement and who thinks Dave is correct?

Dave thinks that mass somehow magically pops into existence in the accretion disc of a black hole and that this new mass is not bound by gravity to the black hole.  So, I would think anyone who has taken at least one physics or astronomy course would be qualified to recognize him as a pseudoscience crank.

[Kryptid]

Is there anyone else here who is qualified to make a judgement and who thinks Dave is correct?

I doubt it.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

On the other hand, I presume you accept that we have not been able to look at every single BH in the Universe?
Since we have not observed all of them, we can not say anything scientific about those which we have not observe.
Do you understand that?
If we have not seen it, we can not say anything much about it.

We didn't observe any BH in the Universe as we didn't observe any orbital system in the Universe.
So, why we have to agree that any orbital system must obey to Newton or Kepler laws while we don't see all the orbital systems in the Universe?
Don't you understand that our current Theories including the BBT is based on what we can see and not on what we haven't observed yet?
Sorry - we must base our understanding on what we see and observe.
So, as I have stated:
 

When Hubble set its law, he didn't observe all the 100% of the far away galaxies.
He could only observe few of them.
But as all of those few observed galaxies behave the same, then he claimed that any far away galaxy behave as those few galaxies that he observed.
In the same token when Newton had set his formula for gravity he didn't observe all the 100% orbital systems in the entire Universe.
The Solar system was good enough for him.
In the same token, any law and any understanding is actually based on relatively very few observations.
Why our scientists at that time didn't claim that Hubble has to observe all the 100% galaxies in the entire Universe in order to set his law? Why no one claimed that maybe some other far away galaxies should have blue shifted radiation instead of red shifted?
Sorry - we don't need to observe the 100% accretion discs in the entire Universe. We have to accept the current observations as an indication for all the other missing observations.
Hence - we must accept the current observation as is!.
If we only can observe 10 SMBH' accretion discs in the entire Universe and in all of them the magnetic jet stream is vertically to the accretion disc while none of them change the orbital plane of that disc (due to the invisible falling matter) - then it is good enough to accept this observation as clear evidence for the entire SMBH' accretion discs in the Universe.
In the same token, as have NEVER & EVER observed any falling matter into that accretion disc and as we have NEVER & EVER observed any change in the orbital plane, then it proves that matter DOESN"T fall from outside into that disc.
NEVER & Ever.

Is it clear to you?
If you still insist to see all the 100% BHs in the entire universe before you accept the simple idea that matter doesn't fall into the SMBH accretion disc, then I demand to eliminate all your science laws based on the same argument that we didn't see the entire Universe to prove that those laws works on every galaxy at the same way.
In the same token I demand to eliminate the BBT as we didn't observe the entire Universe to understand if this theory is correct or wrong.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 10:12:01
We clearly observe that all the SMBH' accretion discs (without any acceptation) in the entire universe are 100%...

How can you talk observation being important and  about 100% of the universe?
We have not observed 100% of the Universe, have we?

Dear BC I really don't like to use the word "Lie" but please why do you keep on with the imagination that matter falls in.
Once and for all - Do you confirm that in all the 100% of the SMBH' accretion discs that we have observed so far - we have NEVER and EVER see any matter that falls in.
Yes Or No please!
I hope that you fully agree that the answer MUST be YES, YES and.... YES!!!
So, you can continue to believe that somehow, somewhere someday some month some century we would find a matter as it falls in. You are more than welcome to keep on with your imagination.
However, based on any current observation matter doesn't fall into the accretion disc.
Therefore - I really don't care about the all the other BH' or SMBH' accretion Discs in the entire Universe that we didn't see yet.
As based on the current observation we have never seen any matter as it falls into any SMBH' accretion disc (that we could observed so far) then this observation proves that matter doesn't fall.
 

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 10:12:01
We all agree that we have never ever observed any falling star.
Why would anyone with any sense  agree with that?

How anyone with any sense  would claim that matter falls in while we have never ever observed any matter as it falls into the accretion disc.
Again - NEVER and EVER and you know that!
As you insist to reject this observation (that matter doesn't fall in) just because we didn't see the accretion discs in the entire universe, then I demand to reject all the science knowledge and especially the BBT based on the same argument.
Which is - We didn't observe yet the entire universe to qualify the BBT or any other science law.
Therefore, we should disqualify all our science knowledge.
Sorry – we should use any observation to our current understanding.
So, Kepler law is correct and Newton law is correct.
If one day we will discover an orbital system that works differently, then we can always change the law.
In the same token – as we do not observe any falling matter – then we all must agree that matter doesn't fall.
If one day we would see a falling matter then we can adjust this understanding.
However – currently without any solid observation to disqualify it – we all must agree that matter doesn't fall in!!!

We have pictures of the stars falling into BH.

This is incorrect.
We have a picture of Giant star near a BH. However, from that picture we really don't know if the matter is moving from the BH into the accretion disc or the other way.
So please read again the following and let me know in which direction the matter really flows:

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.

Sorry - in this article they do not offer any valid data to prove that "We have pictures of the stars falling into BH" as you wish to believe.
Therefore, We have no observation of the stars falling into BH.
Hence, it is forbidden to claim that We have pictures of the stars falling into BH as it is just incorrect/unproved data.

Dave, there is a difference between being mistaken and lying. That's why I don't think either you or Bored Chemist are lying. Both of you believe that what you are saying is correct.

Thanks Kryptid
I fully agree with you.
I just want to highlight that my message isn't directly against BC.
He is just a messenger.
He reads articles from our scientists that matter falls into the SMBH' accretion disc and he believes in those imagination stories.
Therefore, he claims that matter falls in.
He also read in those articles that "We have pictures of the stars falling into BH" and he believes in that nonsense.
Those two statements are clearly incorrect.
As our scientists have never observed any matter or star that falls in I would consider those kinds of statements from our scientists as lie.
So, our scientists that claim that matter falls in lie to all of us and confuse BC with this wrong data

Is there anyone else here who is qualified to make a judgement and who thinks Dave is correct?

I doubt it.

Why is it?
Do you also accept those lies from our scientists that matter falls in while they have never ever observed any matter as it falls in?

[Kryptid]

Why is it?

Because you have many deep-rooted misconceptions about science.

[Bored chemist]

We didn't observe any BH in the Universe

Yes, we did.
We have pictures. etc.

Dear BC I really don't like to use the word "Lie"

You clearly do like to use the word "lie"- you use it a lot, even though it is not the right word.
You even got into trouble for doing so.

So why do you make that claim even though it is obviously not correct?

why do you keep on with the imagination that matter falls in.

Because things fall down, not up.

We have a picture of Giant star near a BH. However, from that picture we really don't know if the matter is moving from the BH into the accretion disc or the other way.

Yes we do. the people who made the measurements took accurate spectra and were able to looks at the Doppler shifts.
We do know which way the matter is moving.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Because you have many deep-rooted misconceptions about science.

I base my understanding ONLY on real observation while our scientists totally ignore most of the observations and base their understanding on imagination.

So let set the observations as they are (I hope that at least we can agree on what we see and especially - about what we do not see):
1. Our scientists clearly observe a constant outflow (UFO) from the outer side of the accretion ring to the Bulge for the last 20 - 50 years
2. They also observed for one time (2018) an inflow (UFI) from the inner side of the disc (UFI) to the SMBH
3. However - They have NEVER EVER observed any star or matter as it falls all the way from outside into the SMBH' accretion ring.
4. There is a significant change in the accretion ring size per year. The main change is in the inner radius of the disc.
5. The magnetic jet stream flux is vertically to the accretion disc (and to the galactic disc).
6.All the stars and gas clouds around the SMBH are actually orbiting the SMBH. Nothing there is waiting just to be eaten by that main mass.
7. Our scientists have NEVER EVER verify in a giant star/ BH orbital system if the matter flows from the star to the BH or the other way.


This is the real observed data
If you, BC  or any other scientist disagree with one of the above - please offer the observation to protect your understanding.
 

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:53:14
why do you keep on with the imagination that matter falls in.

Because things fall down, not up.

It seems that this is all you have.
Hence, because things fall down, not up - then you, all the 10,000 scientists and all the moderators in this site hope that somehow matter should fall into the accretion disc.

Sorry - this is your fatal problem.
Around our SMBH there is no free star that is willing to fall down just to be eaten by that monster.
Any object around the SMBH is actually orbiting around this massive mass.
So, do you confirm that any star (as S stars), any gas cloud (as G gas clouds) around the SMBH is there due to its orbital momentum (around that SMBH)?

If you disagree - please offer the observation of the star/gas cloud that is there just to be eaten by the SMBH.

If you agree - than we should discuss from now on only about orbital system (or orbital object) and not about falling stars/matter.

If we all agree on that, now it is your job is to prove how any orbital object (for example S2) at average orbital radius- R (about 2Ly) and average velocity - V would fall all the way into the accretion disc.
During this process it should decrease significantly its average radius to the accretion ring radius (which is almost the event horizon radius). So, if we discuss about a nearby S star with average radius of about 2 LY, it should be reduced to almost the event horizon radius, while its orbital velocity should be increased dramatically to almost 0.3c

Can you please offer an example for orbital system where the orbital object decreases its average radius and increases its average orbital velocity so dramatically?

Good Luck!

[Bored chemist]

So let set the observations as they are (I hope that at least we can agree on what we see and especially - about what we do not see):

We do not see the black cat in a coal cellar.

But only you think that proves that the cat is not there.

Do you understand that point?

[Bored chemist]

The magnetic jet stream flux is vertically to the accretion disc.

Because the same rotation causes both the disk and the jet.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 11:34:54
So let set the observations as they are (I hope that at least we can agree on what we see and especially - about what we do not see):

We do not see the black cat in a coal cellar.

Why is it so difficult for you even to agree on the observations?
I have offered 7 points.

1. Our scientists clearly observe a constant outflow (UFO) from the outer side of the accretion ring to the Bulge for the last 20 - 50 years
2. They also observed for one time (2018) an inflow (UFI) from the inner side of the disc (UFI) to the SMBH
3. However - They have NEVER EVER observed any star or matter as it falls all the way from outside into the SMBH' accretion ring.
4. There is a significant change in the accretion ring size per year. The main change is in the inner radius of the disc.
5. The magnetic jet stream flux is vertically to the accretion disc (and to the galactic disc).
6.All the stars and gas clouds around the SMBH are actually orbiting the SMBH. Nothing there is waiting just to be eaten by that main mass.
7. Our scientists have NEVER EVER verify in a giant star/ BH orbital system if the matter flows from the star to the BH or the other way.

Why are you so afraid from those observations?
Would you kindly advice (Based on your data) which one is correct and which one is incorrect.

[Bored chemist]

Would you kindly advice (Based on your data) which one is correct and which one is incorrect.

I an not saying they are incorrect.
I am saying that one of them (the one you have numbered as 3)  is irrelevant.

Now, to try to get to to understand why it is irrelevant, please answer this.

We do not see the black cat in a coal cellar.

But only you think that proves that the cat is not there.

Do you understand that point?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 11:55:11
Would you kindly advice (Based on your data) which one is correct and which one is incorrect.

I an not saying they are incorrect.
I am saying that one of them (the one you have numbered as 3)  is irrelevant.

Thanks
Do appreciate you honest answer!
So, based on this answer I understand that all the 7 observations/points are correct.
However - you claim that number 3 is correct but it is also irrelevant.
Please confirm

Now let's focus on No. 3
As it is correct then we all agree that:  Our scientists have NEVER EVER observed any star or matter as it falls all the way from outside into the SMBH' accretion ring.
You claim that it is irrelevant while I claim that this is the MOST important observation.
We clearly see the UFO as it is ejected from the Accretion disc.
Why are you so sure that we shouldn't see a star as it falls in or actually be accreted in?
In the accretion disc there are no solid stars
So, if an orbital star (as S2) is accreted inwards, somehow it must be broken to its atoms.
Why are you so sure that when this star is falling in /accreted in and losing his life it isn't expected to see some sort of Supernova or mighty fire works?

[Bored chemist]

Why are you so sure that we shouldn't see a star as it falls i

If it is a star, we do see it.
Do you not remember the pictures, and my explanation that the doppler shifts  tell us which way it is going?

But most stuff that falls in is not a star.

Most of it is just hydrogen.

And you can't see hydrogen unless it is very hot.

So we do not see stuff falling in- because it is invisible.
Just like you do not see a black cat in a coal cellar.

Now, for the third time...

Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 11:38:29
We do not see the black cat in a coal cellar.

But only you think that proves that the cat is not there.

Do you understand that point?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

But most stuff that falls in is not a star.
Most of it is just hydrogen.

Thanks
1.What do you mean by "most"?
You claim that "most stuff that falls in is not a star". Therefore it is quite clear that you mean that at least some must be star.
However, as you claim that:

If it is a star, we do see it.

Then as some must be stars and as we must see those falling stars - then how could it be that we have NEVER ever observe any falling star?
2. .Falling star/matter or orbital star/matter?
Why are you using the message of falling star instead of not orbital star/matter.
In point 6 I have stated:

6.All the stars and gas clouds around the SMBH are actually orbiting the SMBH. Nothing there is waiting just to be eaten by that main mass.

So, do you claim now that this point is incorrect?
Do you mean that around the SMBH there are some stars or Hydrogen atoms that don't orbit around the SMBH and just waiting for their time to be eaten by the SMBH?

3. Hydrogen atoms

Most of it is just hydrogen. And you can't see hydrogen unless it is very hot.

Why are you so sure that most of the falling matter is Hydrogen atom?
From where those atoms are coming ?
Do you also claim that he Hydrogen atom doesn't orbit the SMBH? So do you mean that Hydrogen atom is a preferable food by the SMBH? If so why is it??
Why a gas cloud which is full with Hydrogen atoms is not falling in while just atoms must fall in?

4. Temp

And you can't see hydrogen unless it is very hot.

What is the minimal requested temp of the atom so it can be observed??
You have already explained that as the atom falls in, it should increase its temp. So based on this logic as it gets to the accretion disc its temp is already 10^9 c. However, it is not logical to assume that the temp is moving from almost 0c to 10^9c exactly at the accretion disc. Somehow it must increase the temp as it gets closer and closer to the SMBH.
So, it is quite clear that when the atom is falling in its temp is increasing as it gets closer.
Hence, at what distance from the accretion disc the temp of the atom would be high enough to be observable?
How could it be that we can only observe it at the accretion disc and not as it get hotter and closer to that disc?
Please try to answer all the above questions.

[Bored chemist]

then how could it be that we have NEVER ever observe any falling star?

We have.
This one.

Spag star.JPG (30.97 kB . 616x362 - viewed 5140 times)
But, in spite of the evidence from the Doppler shift, you still think it is falling up.

[Bored chemist]

What is the minimal requested temp of the atom so it can be observed??

Very roughly "red hot" of course.
It will be a lot brighter if it is hotter- say 10,000 K

Since it starts at roughly 3K it has quite a way to go.


Essentially, it is like asking "how hot does air need to get before you can see it glow?".
Why did you not know that?

[Bored chemist]

So, it is quite clear that when the atom is falling in its temp is increasing as it gets closer.

Only if it hits something, and most of the time it is space where collisions are rare.
The point where collisions become significant is the accretion disk.

Please try to answer all the above questions.

What do you mean by "try"?
They all have simple answers.