[Bored chemist]

When you realise that black holes don't have oceans, get back to us about things spiralling out.
When you understand the bit about a black cat in a coal cellar, get back to us about the scientists not seeing things.

Well, as expected, instead of dealing with the message that contradicts your theory,

The message just said I was wrong, but (see above) the messanger is mistake or dishonest.
I'm trying to find out which.

Why won't you promise not to lie?
Why is it so hard for you  to be honest?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Dear BC

We discuss about the orbital motions around the SMBH:
You confirm that you were wrong:

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 03:31:19
Well, as expected, instead of dealing with the message that contradicts your theory,

The message just said I was wrong,

So we all agree at this point that the gravity waves between the SMBH-S2 can't spiral the S2 inwards.

ut (see above) the messanger is mistake or dishonest.
I'm trying to find out which.
Why won't you promise not to lie?
Why is it so hard for you  to be honest?

Why do you keep on with personal attack?
If there is something that is incorrect in my message, please specify it.
If you think that I lie on something, please specify it.
However, it is your obligation to backup your understanding by real article.
Therefore, if you really think that:

When you realise that black holes don't have oceans, get back to us about things spiralling out. When you understand the bit about a black cat in a coal cellar, get back to us about the scientists not seeing things.

Then - Please show how black holes without oceans or a black cat in a coal cellar can force S2 to spiral inwards

[Bored chemist]

You confirm that you were wrong:

No, I did not.
Why did you claim I did?
Why did you say something that was not true?

So we all agree at this point that the gravity waves between the SMBH-S2 can't spiral the S2 inwards.

No.
We do not agree that at all.
Why did you claim we did?
Why did you say something that was not true?


Why did you tell those lies?

Why do you keep on with personal attack?

It isn't a personal attack.
I am just trying to understand why you keep saying things (like the two points above) which are obviously not true.

Why do you do it?

Do you think it makes you look clever or something?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 12:07:39
You confirm that you were wrong:

No, I did not.
Why did you claim I did?

Sorry. I was quite sure that based on my arguments you had been convinced that matter/stars from the Bulge can't spiral inwards into the accretion disc.
So, in order to prevent any further misunderstanding, please let me know which one of the following is correct or incorrect:

1. Is it correct that you and Kryptid have stated that due to the gravity waves matter/stars from the bulge must spiral inwards into the accretion disc?
Yes or No?
2. Do you understand by now that due to the high ratio between the SMBH and any orbital stars the gravity wave is negligible and therefore there is no orbital decay to force the orbital star to spiral inwards
Yes or no?

[Bored chemist]

Sorry. I was quite sure that based on my arguments you had been convinced

What caused that hallucination?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

What caused that hallucination?

You!
I assume that for the last 100 replies we focus on one key issue:
How the SMBH' accretion disc gets its matter?
Unfortunately, you do not answer the following questions:

1. Is it correct that you and Kryptid have stated that due to the gravity waves matter/stars from the bulge must spiral inwards into the accretion disc?
Yes or No?
2. Do you understand by now that due to the high ratio between the SMBH and any orbital stars the gravity wave is negligible and therefore there is no orbital decay to force the orbital star to spiral inwards
Yes or no?

So, please offer your answer (and backup it by real article) or keep yourself away from this tread.

[Bored chemist]

So, please offer your answer (and backup it by real article) or keep yourself away from this tread.

As I have explained, there's no point me posting a reply if you are going to lie about it as I pointed out that you did here.

You confirm that you were wrong:

No, I did not.
Why did you claim I did?
Why did you say something that was not true?

So we all agree at this point that the gravity waves between the SMBH-S2 can't spiral the S2 inwards.

No.
We do not agree that at all.
Why did you claim we did?
Why did you say something that was not true?

[Bored chemist]

You need to stop telling lies and apologise properly for the ones you have told so far or there's no point in this thread.
Most of your questions  can be answered  by pointing out that  things generally fall down rather than up.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 11:04:39
So, please offer your answer (and backup it by real article) or keep yourself away from this tread.

As I have explained, there's no point me posting a reply if you are going to lie about it as I pointed out that you did here.

I have never lied!
However, as I have explained, you fully support the LIE that star/matter from the bulge spirals/falls into the accretion disc due to gravity wave. This LIE is incorrect as I have proved that due to the SMBH-S2 ratio the orbital decay is negligible.
We also have NEVER EVER observed any star as it spirals into the SMBH' accretion disc!
Therefore, any scientist (including you) that would dare to claim again that the matter in the accretion disc gets from outside (the Bulge) - is LAIR!

So please - before you hold the "lie flag", grab all the other 100,000 BBT scientists and run into the nearest "lie shelter"!
Don't dare to get out before all of you fully confirm that we have no evidence for the imagination/LIE that matter from outside falls into the SMBH' accretion disc!

Shame on you - all of you!

[Dave Lev (OP)]

In the following article our scientists claim:

https://www.urban-astronomer.com/news-and-updates/milky-ways-black-hole-a-picky-eater/

 "..astronomers studying Sgr A* (the supermassive black hole at the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy) were surprised to notice that less than 1% of the gas and dust drawn into its gravitational field ever get consumed – almost everything else gets ejected. Who knew that a black hole could be such a picky eater"

"When astronomers used Chandra to study Sgr A*, in one of its longest ever observations, they found that more than 99% of the infalling material was ejected long before reaching the event horizon.."

So, our scientists clearly see that the matter is ejected outwards.
However, the have NEVER EVER observed any matter as it falls in.
Even so, the call that matter in the accretion disc as: "Iinfalling material"

So, I calim that as they have NEVER EVER observed any material or star as it falls inwards from the Bulge - then there is no "infalling material".

Therefore, the statement of "infalling material" is a clear LIE!

[Kryptid]

So, I calim that as they have NEVER EVER observed any material or star as it falls inwards from the Bulge - then there is no "infalling material".

Do you believe that anything that we can't see doesn't exist?

[Bored chemist]

I have never lied!

I have pointed out, repeatedly, where you did.

So, please offer your answer (and backup it by real article) or keep yourself away from this tread.

As I have explained, there's no point me posting a reply if you are going to lie about it as I pointed out that you did here.

You confirm that you were wrong:

No, I did not.
Why did you claim I did?
Why did you say something that was not true?

So we all agree at this point that the gravity waves between the SMBH-S2 can't spiral the S2 inwards.

No.
We do not agree that at all.
Why did you claim we did?
Why did you say something that was not true?

[Bored chemist]

So, I calim that as they have NEVER EVER observed any material or star as it falls inwards from the Bulge - then there is no "infalling material".

Do you believe that anything that we can't see doesn't exist?

Apparently, he does believe that.
I have tried to explain it to him by using the example of a black cat in a coal cellar, but he does not seem clever enough to understand it.

I'm not sure that this thread- which seems to be feeding his delusional beliefs- is good for his mental health.


He's clearly deeply troubled by this idea he has- he wants to tell us it's true, but he must have some understanding that it is nonsense or he would be prepared to promise not to lie about  it.

I wonder if it might be better to ban him for his own good, so he can focus on other things, more closely related to reality.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

So, I calim that as they have NEVER EVER observed any material or star as it falls inwards from the Bulge - then there is no "infalling material".

Do you believe that anything that we can't see doesn't exist?

Well, I do believe that if we don't see something - then there is a possibility that it doesn't exist.

Let me ask you the following:
Do you believe that if we can't see a monster under our bed then it does exist?
Do you believe that if we can't see Albert Einstein today then he does exist/live?
Do you believe that if we can't see the Big Foot Man in the forest then it does exist?

Therefore, as I have stated - if we can't see something then there is a possibility that it doesn't exist!

So let's make it clear:
Our Scientists have NEVER EVER see any matter that falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.
Therefore, there is good possibility that what they see (or what they do not see) is correct.
In other words - as they have never ever observe any falling matter, then there is a possibility that matter doesn't fall inwards from the bulge into the SMBH' accretion disc.

In the following article it is stated the SMBH is a picky eater:
https://www.urban-astronomer.com/news-and-updates/milky-ways-black-hole-a-picky-eater/
 "..astronomers studying Sgr A* (the supermassive black hole at the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy) were surprised to notice that less than 1% of the gas and dust drawn into its gravitational field ever get consumed – almost everything else gets ejected. Who knew that a black hole could be such a picky eater"

"When astronomers used Chandra to study Sgr A*, in one of its longest ever observations, they found that more than 99% of the infalling material was ejected long before reaching the event horizon.."

Hence, based Chandra to study Sgr A*, our scientists have found that more than 99% of the infalling material was ejected long before reaching the event horizon.."

So, our scientists clearly see/observe that the matter is ejected outwards.
However, we all agree that they have NEVER EVER observed any matter as it falls in.

Therefore, as our scientists clearly see matter that is ejected outwards from the accretion disc but they have never ever observed any matter that falls in then the accretion disc is actually excretion disc.

Why is it so difficult to accept the observation as is?
When Newton had observed that the apple is falling in, he didn't claim that this apple was first falling out and then falling in.
He just accepted the observation that if the apple is disconnected from the tree it must fall down.
In the same token, we clearly observe that the matter from the SMBH' accretion disc is ejected outwards.
Therefore, as we do not see any matter that falls into that accretion disc - then the only outcome is that the matter in the accretion disc is created there by the SMBH power!

Hence, any scientists that call the matter in the accretion disc as "infalling material"  without any backup for this imagination - lie to himself and lie to all of us.

Why Is it so impossible mission for our scientists to accept the idea that if they don't see a falling matter - then there is a possibility that there is no falling matter?

[Bored chemist]

Therefore, as I have stated - if we can't see something then there is a possibility that it doesn't exist!

Finally, you accept that not seeing something is not proof that it isn't there; just a "possibility" that it isn't there.



Now, let's consider the more relevant case of a black cat in a coal cellar.
It would be very very hard to see.

Do you accept that not seeing it is not proof that it is not there?
In fact, it is only sensible to expect that you will not see it.
Not seeing the cat does not tell you anything about whether the cat is there or not.

A cellar with a black cat looks exactly the same as a cellar without a black cat.
So the view of the cellar does not tell you anything at all about the presence (or absence) of the cat.
Here is a picture of the cellar.


cellar.jpg (4.42 kB . 619x394 - viewed 2497 times)

Is the cat there or not?

[Bored chemist]

We still need to sort out your grasp of honesty.

I have never lied!

I have pointed out, repeatedly, where you did.

So, please offer your answer (and backup it by real article) or keep yourself away from this tread.

As I have explained, there's no point me posting a reply if you are going to lie about it as I pointed out that you did here.

You confirm that you were wrong:

No, I did not.
Why did you claim I did?
Why did you say something that was not true?

So we all agree at this point that the gravity waves between the SMBH-S2 can't spiral the S2 inwards.

No.
We do not agree that at all.
Why did you claim we did?
Why did you say something that was not true?

[Kryptid]

Well, I do believe that if we don't see something - then there is a possibility that it doesn't exist.

That's not what I asked.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Finally, you accept that not seeing something is not proof that it isn't there; just a "possibility" that it isn't there.
Now, let's consider the more relevant case of a black cat in a coal cellar.
It would be very very hard to see.
Do you accept that not seeing it is not proof that it is not there?

Well, what do we really see?
I hope that we all agree that we clearly see matter as it is ejected outwards from the accretion disc.
So, we see the matter as they ejected outwards, but we don't see any matter that is falling inwards.

Hence, with regards to your example of the black cat in a coal cellar:
If all the cats were back, then it is not expected to see any cat - not as it falls on the coal cellar and not as it jump away from that cellar.
However, as we clearly see them jumping outwards from the cellar it is clear that their color is not so black.
If the cats were really black - it was impossible to see them as they jump in or jump out.
Actually we see them all so clearly that we should agree that their color is white (If you insist - Let's agree on gray). Therefore the assumption that they are totally back is just incorrect.
If we see them jumping outwards, we also should see them jumping inwards.
Therefore, if we see them jumping outwards, but we don't see them jumping inwards - then we have to agree that none of them is jumping inwards.
Therefore - all of those cats that we clearly see jumping away from the coal cellar had been created over there at the coal cellar. As they became big enough they jump away from that coal cellar.

In the same token:
We clearly see all of that matter that is ejected outwards from the SMBH' accretion disc.
Therefore, if we see the matter as it is ejected outwards, there is no technical limitation that could prevent us from not seeing the matter as it falls in.
Hence, as we don't see any matter that falls in, then the only solution is that there is no matter that really falls in.
Therefore - the matter that was ejected from the accretion disc must be created over there at the accretion disc.

[Bored chemist]

Is the cat there or not?

We still need to sort out your grasp of honesty.

I have never lied!

I have pointed out, repeatedly, where you did.

So, please offer your answer (and backup it by real article) or keep yourself away from this tread.

As I have explained, there's no point me posting a reply if you are going to lie about it as I pointed out that you did here.

You confirm that you were wrong:

No, I did not.
Why did you claim I did?
Why did you say something that was not true?

So we all agree at this point that the gravity waves between the SMBH-S2 can't spiral the S2 inwards.

No.
We do not agree that at all.
Why did you claim we did?
Why did you say something that was not true?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

BC

You are so pathetic.
You have offered the example of black cat in the coal cellar and now you can't answer my message.
Therefore, it's better for you to force yourself at the insulted Lie cube.
Please don't forget to cover yourself with your coal cellar.
Stay there forever and ever as it is the safer location for you!
Don't go out as you might find that your imagination is totally unrealistic.