[Dave Lev (OP)]

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

We have.
This one.
 [ Invalid Attachment ]
But, in spite of the evidence from the Doppler shift, you still think it is falling up.

Sorry
This is just an image.
Our scientists didn't really verify if the matter is moving inwards or outwards.
If you believe that we have the data to justify the imagination of accreted inwards- then please show if it is red-shifted or blue-shifted.
Therefore - this image is useless.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:56:18
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.

It seems that you already forgot the UFO.
Our scientists claim that there is a constant outflow from the accretion disc to the Bulge.
Therefore, it is incorrect to claim that the chance for collision is rare.
Actually, if we could clear the way for a falling matter all the way to the accretion disc then the chance to increase the temp of a falling atom from almost zero to 10^9c due to a single collision at the accretion disc and keep it there is absolutely zero.
As we discuss about a collision, how do we know what could be the outcome of that collision?
Please be aware that the plasma at the accretion ring orbits at the outer ring at about 0.3 seed of light.
So, what should be the outcome if a falling atom would collide with an orbital atom?
Don't you agree that in order to increase the falling atom temp to 10^9 the collision should has so high energy that the collided atoms must be ejected away from that disc?
If you wish to hold a falling atom at the accretion disc, then you actually must get a smooth falling in (or accretion) but in this case without significant collision there is no way to get that 10^9 c.
If you wish to increase the temp of the falling matter outside the accretion disc so it would be accreted smoothly into that disc, then as it falls in -  it must collide with the matter that is already located outside the disc (as that UFO). However, in this case, the falling matter has to be observable but we all know that it is not.

Hence, there is a significant contradiction between the request to deliver the falling matter smoothly into the outwards side of the accretion disc without observing it as it falls in - to the request of mighty collision in order to achieve that 10^9c exactly as the outer side of the accretion ring..
Somehow you can't gain them all.
If you need smooth accretion without increasing the temp of the matter as it falls in - then you might keep the falling matter at the accretion disc - but you prevent the mighty collision that is needed for the 10^9c at the disc itself.
If you get a mighty collision at the accretion disc - then you might get the 10^9 c but that collision should eject matter from the disc.

Please also be aware that our scientists clearly observed that in 2011 the accretion disc was almost empty. There was only a thin corona at the outer most accretion ring.
Therefore it is clear that a significant amount of matter had to be accreted into the accretion ring in order to bring back the full capacity of this accretion ring.
Therefore, the idea of a mighty collision is unrealistic.
If a falling matter would collide with that thin corona at ultra high momentum it would surly clear the accretion disc from any sort of matter.
Therefore, it is very clear that there is no falling matter but a smooth accretion matter.
That smooth accretion matter can't technically increase the matter from virtually zero c to almost 10^9c exactly at the accretion disc.
Therefore - Don't you agree that this is a dead end of the road for the falling matter imagination?
If you still not sure about it, then let's focus on the accretion disc.

We actually observe a ring.
So, if your imagination of falling matter was correct, then the falling matter had to fall into the outer ring and accreted inwards all the way into the inner ring.
During this process it has to decrease the orbital radius, increase the orbital velocity and also increase its temp.

However, as our scientists have no clue in orbital system - they don't know that orbital objects DO NOT decrease the radius and increase the orbital velocity
NEVER and EVER.
So even by this idea you can set your falling matter in the garbage.
However, if you wish to hold your imagination - then please go ahead and offer an example of orbital object that increases its orbital velocity as is accreted inwards.
Please - this time only real data and not just useless image.

[Bored chemist]

Our scientists didn't really verify if the matter is moving inwards or outwards.

Yes they did. If you look at the paper you will see the report about Doppler shifts.

Denial isn't just a river in Africa.

Therefore, it is incorrect to claim that the chance for collision is rare.

Do you understand that the stuff falls in from all directions?
Anything that hits the outgoing (hot, fast) jet will get knocked aside.
But the stuff that falls in anywhere close to tangentially will not hit anything much until it hits the edge of the disk.
So you won't see it.

Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/06/2021 17:35:40
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

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 17:25:48
Our scientists didn't really verify if the matter is moving inwards or outwards.

Yes they did. If you look at the paper you will see the report about Doppler shifts.

You have just offered an image.
Please offer the whole article and specify the message about that Doppler shifts to prove the falling direction of the matter.

[Bored chemist]

Please offer the whole article

It was already posted here.
You just didn't understand it.

What would be the point of posting it again?

Quote from: Bored chemist on 05/06/2021 11:25:18
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/06/2021 17:35:40
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

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:53:45
Please offer the whole article

It was already posted here.
You just didn't understand it.
What would be the point of posting it again?

Well, if the data was real, you could set it again.
Therefore, I'm quite sure that there is no indication for any sort of Doppler shifts to prove the falling matter.
Its not too late.
If you don't do it - it proves that it is all about IMAGINATION.

[Bored chemist]

You are saying that you are too lazy to go back through the thread and find the reference to data which you didn't understand before.

You did not understand it before.
You have not learned anything between then and now.
You still would not understand it.

If you are too lazy to learn or check, that's OK.
Just accept that the data is real.

Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 18:13:25
Quote from: Bored chemist on 05/06/2021 11:25:18
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/06/2021 17:35:40
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

[Dave Lev (OP)]

You are saying that you are too lazy to go back through the thread and find the reference to data which you didn't understand before.

Dear BC
I'm not too lazy as you might consider.
Actually I have invested days and years in order to verify the key question about accretion activity:
"Is there any possibility for orbital object to reduce its average radius and increase its average orbital velocity?
The answer for that was clearly - NO!

In any case, I have found at the web an article that specifically discuss about the image that you had offered:
https://www.sciencealert.com/astronomers-spot-a-strange-black-hole-so-ravenous-it-s-pushing-the-limits-of-physics
In that article they do not claim about any sort of Doppler shifts.
They just claim that they have observed the X-ray flare:
"We've seen plenty of these TDE's in the past, thanks to the distinct X-ray flare they produce."
We already know that this kind flare is due to Electromagnetic field.
Therefore, there is no indication for Doppler shifts (as you have stated) which could justify the assumption of accreted matter.

[Bored chemist]

I'm not too lazy

Then get on with it.

Have a look at the right article.
https://www.space.com/spaghettified-star-observed-near-black-hole

Find the right report
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/504/1/792/6185055

And then tell me if I was right about you not understanding it.

[Bored chemist]

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:03:01
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 18:13:25
Quote from: Bored chemist on 05/06/2021 11:25:18
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/06/2021 17:35:40
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

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Good day BC

Have a look at the right article.
https://www.space.com/spaghettified-star-observed-near-black-hole

Did you had a chance to read the above article which you had offered?
Did they found the evidence of the Doppler shifted as you have stated?
No!!!
So what did they really observed?
"The astronomers observed the spectral absorption lines when looking at the black hole's rotational pole."
"Absorption lines are unusually dark lines detected in the otherwise continuous spectrum of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a source, in this case a black hole. These lines appear when material that absorbs part of the electromagnetic radiation (in this case the spaghettified star) obscures the source. "
So, it is all about the impact of the BH magnetic poles.
We normally observe similar magnetic jet stream as it is ejected from any BH/SMBH' magnetic poles.
So, that all they see.
Now comes the nice part of their imagination:
 The observation suggested that there was a strand of material wrapped multiple times around the black hole like a yarn ball, the scientists said in a statement on April 23. The team believes that this material is the torn star as it orbits around the black hole before disappearing inside of it."
So, they wish to believe that in the past a star was orbiting around this BH as they hope that this magnetic line that they have observed is actually suggested that there "was a strand of material wrapped multiple times around the black hole like a yarn ball".
So they see some sort of magnetic lines and that is already good indication for them that a star was there orbiting the BH and it then was torn apart.
How do they dare to discuss about a star the turn apart while all they see is the impact of the BH magnetic poles?
Why they set their "believe" and imagination as real science?
How can they claim that: "his material is the torn star as it orbits around the black hole before disappearing inside of it" without any sort of Doppler shifts to indicate the real flow of that matter?
In any case, this article doesn't offer any real Doppler shifts to indicate the material flow direction.
Therefore it is useless for our discussion.

In the other article that you had offered:

Find the right report
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/504/1/792/6185055

They mainly discuss focus on TDE and X-ray emission:
"We present the results of a large multiwavelength follow-up campaign of the tidal disruption event (TDE) AT 2019dsg, focusing on low to high resolution optical spectroscopy, X-ray, and radio observations"
So again there is no indication of any matter that is accreted inwards by any sort of Doppler shift.
However they claim that they actually observe an indication for star formation:
"instead, the TDE host galaxy shows narrow optical emission lines that likely arise from star formation activity."
Hence, this is the ultimate observation that the matter around the BH is forming NEW STAR.
However, the matter for that new star must come from somewhere.
This matter can't come from other torn apart star (as this idea is only imagination that had not been proved by Doppler shifts). Therefore, it must come from the SMBH itself!!!

In any case, you have totally failed to backup your statement that matter is accreted inwards by Doppler shifts as there are no Doppler shifts.
Therefore please don't believe those believers that wish to believe that matter is accreted inwards into the SMBH without any real Doppler shifts to backup this believe.
Please - don't mix believe with real science.

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.

Sorry that I called you liar.
You aren't liar. You are just believer. They are the real LIARS.
They lie to all of us. They confuse all of us.
Therefore you believed them and accepted their lies.

[Bored chemist]

So, you recognise that they measured the Doppler shifts.
Now all you need to do is explain why they didn't mention that those shifts indicated that the material was heading the wrong way- out rather than in.

Sorry that I called you liar.

Let's have a quick look at where you called me a liar.
It was 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.

Nobody else was involved, were they?

It's not that i was misled, is it?

You called me a liar for saying something that was and remains obviously true.

They are the real LIARS.

There was no "they" involved, was there?

Stop trying to avoid responsibility for calling me a liar when I told the truth.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

So, you recognise that they measured the Doppler shifts.

No
This is incorrect.
I have just informed you that:

So again there is no indication of any matter that is accreted inwards by any sort of Doppler shift.

Therefore - so far our scientists have NEVER & EVER found any observation of matter that is accreted inwards into the accretion disc.
You are the one that have stated that our scientists observed the Doppler shifts:

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.

However, so far you couldn't backup this nonsense by any article.
So please go home and find the article that could support this nonsense.
Please don't come back without it.

[Bored chemist]

So please go home

I'm already at home.

I have just informed you that:

You said it, but cited no reason to believe it.
You could just as well have said that horses are green.
Saying it does not make it true.

You are the one that have stated that our scientists observed the Doppler shifts:

No
The scientists who wrote the paper said they had examined the Doppler shifts.
It says so in the paper.

Now, please explain why you called me a liar for telling the truth.
Don't try to blame some mysterious "others" who don't exist..

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The scientists who wrote the paper said they had examined the Doppler shifts.
It says so in the paper.

Sorry, I couldn't find any discovery about that Doppler shifts in any article which you had offered.
So would you kindly offer the article/paper and highlight the message about that Doppler shifts.

[Bored chemist]

"The absorption lines are narrow," said Giacomo Cannizzaro, the lead author of the paper. "They are not broadened by the Doppler effect, like you'd expect when you would be looking at a rotating disk."

The Doppler effec

Now, please explain why you called me a liar for telling the truth.
Don't try to blame some mysterious "others" who don't exist..

[Dave Lev (OP)]

"The absorption lines are narrow," said Giacomo Cannizzaro, the lead author of the paper. "They are not broadened by the Doppler effect, like you'd expect when you would be looking at a rotating disk."

The Doppler effec

Sorry
Do you have some basic knowledge in English?
It is stated:
https://www.space.com/spaghettified-star-observed-near-black-hole
"They are NOT broadened by the Doppler effect".
So, the absorption lines are narrow and they are NOT broadened by the Doppler Effect.
What do you understand from that?
Actually it is stated with:
"The authors of the current study, however, claim that the material they were looking at wasn't part of the accretion disk. "
So we know that it is not part of the accretion disc.
Then it is stated:
"The Doppler effect, caused by the fast motion of the material in the accretion disk, stretches or shrinks the electromagnetic waves depending on whether the source is moving towards or away from the observer."
So they actually claim that the Doppler Effect stretches or shrinks the electromagnetic waves.
Then they claim: "As a result, the light emitted by the part of the accretion disk that is moving away from Earth would be brighter. But the scientists saw no evidence of that."
So it is clearly stated that:
"the light emitted by the part of the accretion disk that is moving away from Earth would be brighter. But the scientists saw no evidence of that"
Therefore, our scientists don't see any evidence as they have expected (from the Doppler effect?).

So, how do you claim that our scientists are using the Doppler Effect as an evidence for matter from outside flows/accretes inwards into the accretion disc while they claim that they don't have any evidence?

[Bored chemist]

Now, please explain why you called me a liar for telling the truth.
Don't try to blame some mysterious "others" who don't exist..

[Bored chemist]

Actually it is stated with:
"The authors of the current study, however, claim that the material they were looking at wasn't part of the accretion disk. "

So it's the stuff that's falling in.
If it was coming out there would be a doppler shift due to that motion.
As you say; they didn't find it.
Because it's not coming out.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

If it was coming out there would be a doppler shift due to that motion.
As you say; they didn't find it.

Thanks
So we all agree that there is no Doppler effect.
However you claim that:

So it's the stuff that's falling in.
Because it's not coming out.

Sorry, that outcome is not realistic as in the same token I could claim that:
"So it's the stuff that's falling out, Because it's not coming in"
Therefore, as they don't see if it comes in or out then no one can claim that it is falling in or out.

Conclusion
So far you have failed to offer any real evidence (as Doppler shifts) for matter that clearly falls into the accretion disc!

[Bored chemist]

Now, please explain why you called me a liar for telling the truth.
Don't try to blame some mysterious "others" who don't exist..