[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.

So what is your intention?

[Bored chemist]

You have offered the example of black cat in the coal cellar

I asked a simple question about it too, and you are pathetic, so you didn't answer.
Please try again.

Is the cat there or not?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Is the cat there or not?

Wow!
We all proud of you that you took the difficult decision and moved away from your comfort zone of the insulted lie cube (even if it is just for one Pico-second). Don't forget to jump backwards to this cube ASAP...

With regards to your question:
If we can't see any cat as it is ejected inwards or outwards - no one can claim that it is there or not!
Not even me.
However, that is not the case.

We see that this cat is ejected outwards from the coal cellar. Therefore, we must agree that it is/was there.
So, it is/was there by 100%.

[Bored chemist]

asked a simple question about it too, and you are pathetic, so you didn't answer.
Please try again.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 13:43:36
Is the cat there or not?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

asked a simple question about it too, and you are pathetic, so you didn't answer.
Please try again.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 13:43:36
Is the cat there or not?

Is it a new tactics?
Instead of going back to your comfort insulted lie cube, you just ask the same question as you didn't get any.
At least you show some improvement.

Enjoy.

[Bored chemist]

Is it a new tactics?

No.
Asking questions is not a new tactic.

asked a simple question about it too, and you are pathetic, so you didn't answer.
Please try again.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 13:43:36
Is the cat there or not?

[Kryptid]

So what is your intention?

What I asked you was a yes or no question, not an essay question.

To remind you, this was my question: do you believe that anything that we can't see doesn't exist?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

So what is your intention?

What I asked you was a yes or no question, not an essay question.

To remind you, this was my question: do you believe that anything that we can't see doesn't exist?

The answer to your question is: NO
However, I claim that your question doesn't reflect the reality of the accretion disc.
If for example we couldn't see any matter as it is coming in or ejected out from the accretion disc- then your question was perfectly ok.
In this case we all can agree that: as the matter is there in the accretion disc there is high chance that it came from outside.
However, in our case, we clearly see the matter as it is ejected outwards from the accretion disc.
Therefore, it was incorrect to claim that we don't see ANYTHING, as we see clearly the matter moving in one direction - while they are ejected outwards from the accretion disc.
Hence - if we can see the matter in one direction (ejected outwards), there is no technical limitation to prevent from us to see it in the other direction (falling inwards direction).
Therefore, as we don't see any matter in the other direction (falling inwards) then the simple answer is - That matter/star from outside doesn't fall inwards!

Conclusion:
The chance that we miss all the stars/matter as they fall into the accretion disc from outside, while we deeply observe so many SMBH' accretion discs (some of them at a distance of 1 Billion LY) for more than 50 years with a supper advanced technology (and we clearly see everywhere the ejected matter) - Is Zero!

Therefore. Nothing really falls inwards into the SMBH' accretion disc from outside!

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Dear Kryptid

Based on the above explanation - The idea that we can see the ejected matter, but we can't see the infalling matter - Can't be true!

Therefore - it is your obligation to set this imagination of our current mainstream in this location (That can't be true) and move this tread to the real science location!!!

[Bored chemist]

However, I claim that your question doesn't reflect the reality of the accretion disc.

That's because you don't understand it.

as we don't see any matter in the other direction (falling inwards) then the simple answer is - That matter/star from outside doesn't fall inwards!

A mentally competent adult would remember that this difference was already explained.

The stuff falling in is, like the cat in the coal cellar, black.

The stuff flung out has just been "kicked" out by collisions and is bright.

Why do you ignore this difference?

Dear Kryptid

Based on the above explanation - The idea that we can see the ejected matter, but we can't see the infalling matter - Can't be true!

Therefore - it is your obligation to set this imagination of our current mainstream in this location (That can't be true) and move this tread to the real science location!!!

That viewpoint is based on not understanding the reality, isn't it?
So that viewpoint is what should be put in the bin, shouldn't it?

[Bored chemist]

Is it a new tactics?

No.
Asking questions is not a new tactic.

asked a simple question about it too, and you are pathetic, so you didn't answer.
Please try again.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 13:43:36
Is the cat there or not?

Is not answering questions- i.e. not doing science, your "tactic"?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

A mentally competent adult would remember that this difference was already explained.
The stuff falling in is, like the cat in the coal cellar, black.
The stuff flung out has just been "kicked" out by collisions and is bright.
Why do you ignore this difference?

Sorry, your answer doesn't reply the key question:

How could it be that we clearly see the stuff that flung out from the accretion disc into the bulge, but we have never ever see any stuff/matter/star as it falls from the Bulge into the SMBH' accretion disc?

[Bored chemist]

How could it be that we clearly see the stuff that flung out from the accretion disc into the bulge, but we have never ever see any stuff/matter/star as it falls from the Bulge into the SMBH' accretion disc?

I did answer it, repeatedly.
You refuse to listen.
Here we go again.
The stuff that is falling in is just "stuff"- mainly hydrogen.
It is not hot and it emits no light it is black- like a black cat.

So you do not see it.

The stuff that is coming out is  DIFFERENT; it has just been flung out by a violent collision or ripped up by a magnetic field.
It is white hot and glowing.

So, your problem is that you do not understand why we see the luminous cat in the cellar, but do not see the black cat.

As I said.
Any mentally competent adult would understand this.

[Bored chemist]

Is it a new tactics?

No.
Asking questions is not a new tactic.

asked a simple question about it too, and you are pathetic, so you didn't answer.
Please try again.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 13:43:36
Is the cat there or not?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The stuff that is falling in is just "stuff"- mainly hydrogen.
It is not hot and it emits no light it is black- like a black cat.
So you do not see it.

Sorry - you have a severe mistake!
Our scientists don't need the gas to be hot in order to see it. They clearly can observe cold gas cloud and/or hot gas cloud without any difficulties:
https://www.space.com/milky-way-mysterious-cold-gas.html
"We've observed there's not only hot gas coming from the center of our galaxy, but also cold and very dense gas. This cold gas is much heavier, so moves around less easily," McClure-Griffiths said in the same statement."
So, we have the technology to observe cold gas cloud and hot gas cloud.

Hence, if a cold gas was really falling in - we could see it very clearly.
Therefore, your statement that "It is not hot and it emits no light it is black- like a black cat" is a pure imagination.
We have the technology to see gas/stuff at any temp (cold or hot). If that cold gas/stuff was really falling inwards - we could see it so clearly as a white cat over a coal cellar.

Hence - your hope that we do not see the falling stuff as it is cold is totally incorrect!

Therefore - as we clearly see Hot and cold gas cloud as they are coming from the center of our galaxy while we don't see any falling gas/stuff (cold or hot) then it proves that nothing (absolutely Nothing) falls in!

[Dave Lev (OP)]

So, your problem is that you do not understand why we see the luminous cat in the cellar, but do not see the black cat.

You problem is that you (and all the other 100,000 BBT scientists) don't wish to accept the reality based on the clear observation.
You refuse to understand that as we don't observe any falling stuff (cold or hot) than nothing really falls in.
You do so as this observation/understanding kills your lovely BBT nonsense.

[Bored chemist]

And now you need to look at the resolution and sensitivity.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

And now you need to look at the resolution and sensitivity.

How long are you going to keep on with this pathetic approach?
How long it should take you to accept the observation as is?
I have clearly proved that based on our current supper advanced technology our scientists can:
1. Observe Cold/Hot Matter/stuff and their movement direction
2 Observe if the stuff is falling inwards into the SMBH or ejected outwards
3. Observe the SMBH' accretion disc activities up to at least One billion light year away from us.


Based on this supper advanced technology they can observe that the matter at ANY accretion disc is ejected outwards.
However, they have NEVER & EVER observed any sort of stuff that falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.

So what else is need for your BBT mind to understand that what we see is what we have?
Are you waiting for God to come down by himself and tell you face to face that stuff from outside never falls into the SMBH' accretion disc?

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

Dear Kryptid
Let me offer you the following example:
You stay in your room.
No one else is there.
You look under the bed and there is no monster.
You look under the carpet and there is no monster.
You look everywhere in the room and there is no monster.
So, Do you believe that the monster that you can't see doesn't exist?

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.

Let me tell you something about the black cat over a coal cellar:
Do you know that the cat' eyes reflect light?
So, if you set a black cat over a black cellar - you would easily detect the cat by the reflection from their eyes.
Hence, it is all about simple technology.
I have full trust in the supper advanced technology of our scientists.
They claim that they ONLY observed cold & hot stuff as it is ejected outwards from the accretion disc - and I fully accept this observation.
They claim that they have NEVER & EVER observed cold & hot stuff as it is falling inwards from outside into the SMBH' accretion disc - and I fully accept this observation

Therefore - Nothing really falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.
NEVER & EVER!

It's time for all the 100,000 BBT scientists to accept the observation as is.
What we see is what we have!

[Bored chemist]

Dear Kryptid Dave
Let me offer you the following example:
You stay in your room.
No one else is there.
You look under the bed and see there is no monster air.
You look under the carpet and see there is no monster  air.
You look everywhere in the room and see there is no monster  air.
So, Do you believe that the monster  air that you can't see doesn't exist?

So what else is need for your BBT mind to understand that what we see is what we have?

I'm still waiting for real evidence; not seeing something (especially when it is invisible) is not grounds to believe it does not exist.

I'm also waiting for you to explain the error in this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem



And I'm also still waiting for you to respond property to this.

Is it a new tactics?

No.
Asking questions is not a new tactic.

asked a simple question about it too, and you are pathetic, so you didn't answer.
Please try again.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 13:43:36
Is the cat there or not?

[/quote

And,while we are at it.
Why can't you promise not to tell lies?
Is it because you know that the truth is the opposite of what you are saying?
Is it because you know that things fall down, rather than up?]

[Bored chemist]

Do you know that the cat' eyes reflect light?

Yes.
But they don't emit light.
And the point about coal cellars is they don't have lighting.
So there is no light to reflect.

Did you think you had a point?

I have full trust in the supper advanced technology of our scientists.

It doesn't matter how good your technology is if the thing you are looking for is invisible.
Particularly iit is faraway, poorly lit and right next to something bright.