[Just thinking]

What we see is what we have!

I think that what has been observed thus far is an object that has great mass and appears to bend the light that is in the foreground as the depth of field at such a vast distance cannot prove nor disprove the source of transmission. As for the movement of materials whether inwards or outwards this is an interpretation of the foreground light.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:13:25
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.

Dear BC
I have already offered you the requested "real evidence"
You have stated that we can't see a stuff that is cold and Therefore you were sure that the falling cold stuff is invisible..
I have PROVED by real articale that our scientists have the technology to see a COLD stuff and/or a HOT stuff.
So you have totally failed with your argument that the falling stuff is cold and therefore it is invisible.
As our scientists can see the stuff (cold or hot) while it is ejected outwards from the SMBH' accretion disc,  then there is no technical limitation to prevent them for observing that stuff as it falls in.
If you still keep on with your imagination that the falling stuff is invisible - then please let your imagination to offer other argument.
Please remember not to use again the "Cold stuff" argument as you have already lost it.
What kind of limitation do you carry in your mind that prevents you to understand that: "not seeing something (especially when it is invisible  visible) is not grounds to believe it does not exist?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:13:25
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.

That argument could be relevant if also the ejected matter was also invisible.
However, we clearly see the ejected matter under those limitations of: "Particularly iit is faraway, poorly lit and right next to something bright"
Therefore, if we can see the ejected matter we should also see the falling matter (if there was a falling matter).

[Bored chemist]

That argument could be relevant if also the ejected matter was also invisible.

THE EJECTED MATTER IS GLOWING BRIGHTLY; THE STUFF FALLING IN IS NOT GLOWING.

[Bored chemist]

I have PROVED by real articale that our scientists have the technology to see

You keep ignoring the more detailed explanations from a scientist.
I am a scientist and, unlike you, I understand what the difficulties are.

I did point them out to you

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

but you never listen to anything that doesn't agree with your delusion.


You refuse to learn from the people who are here, on this site and who know better than you.

Why is that?
Why do you want to stay ignorant?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

THE EJECTED MATTER IS GLOWING BRIGHTLY; THE STUFF FALLING IN IS NOT GLOWING.

Why is it?
Our scientists can observe a cold stuff/matter.
Hence, as the temp of the falling matter is identical to the temp of the ejected matter, how could it be that "THE EJECTED MATTER IS GLOWING BRIGHTLY"?

[Bored chemist]

THE EJECTED MATTER IS GLOWING BRIGHTLY; THE STUFF FALLING IN IS NOT GLOWING.

Why is it?
Our scientists can observe a cold stuff/matter.
Hence, as the temp of the falling matter is identical to the temp of the ejected matter, how could it be that "THE EJECTED MATTER IS GLOWING BRIGHTLY"?

Because it is hot.

Our scientists can observe a cold stuff/matter.

Sometimes, if there's a ;lot of it and nothing else there  which makes to too difficult.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:53:39
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 17:51:23
THE EJECTED MATTER IS GLOWING BRIGHTLY; THE STUFF FALLING IN IS NOT GLOWING.
Why is it?
Our scientists can observe a cold stuff/matter.
Hence, as the temp of the falling matter is identical to the temp of the ejected matter, how could it be that "THE EJECTED MATTER IS GLOWING BRIGHTLY"?

Because it is hot.

So you are using again the argument of "Hot"
However, I have proved that even if the ejected matter is cold, our scientists can observe it.
Did you already forget it?
So, if the ejected matter is cold and still visible to our scientists, then why the falling matter at exactly the same cold temp should be invisible?

[Bored chemist]

However, I have proved that even if the ejected matter is cold, our scientists can observe it.
Did you already forget it?

No. I didn't "forget" it.
I answered it

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:53:39
Our scientists can observe a cold stuff/matter.
Sometimes, if there's a ;lot of it and nothing else there  which makes to too difficult.

and you ignored it because

you never listen to anything that doesn't agree with your delusion.


You refuse to learn from the people who are here, on this site and who know better than you.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:04:49

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:53:39
Our scientists can observe a cold stuff/matter.

Sometimes, if there's a ;lot of it and nothing else there  which makes to too difficult.

What do you mean by that reply?
Let's make it clear:
1. Cold/Hot stuff - You have stated that we can't see the falling stuff as it is cold.
I hope that by now you do understand that we can observe a cold stuff.
Therefore, you don't claim any more that the falling stuff is cold.
2. THE EJECTED MATTER IS GLOWING BRIGHTLY - You have stated that THE EJECTED MATTER IS GLOWING BRIGHTLY
I hope that by now you do understand that at the same temp the falling stuff would glow exactly as the ejected stuff.
Therefore, you don't claim any more that the falling stuff isn't GLOWING BRIGHTLY.
3. Visible/Invisible stuff - You have stated that we can't see the falling stuff as it is invisible.
I hope that by now you do understand that the falling stuff should be visible exactly as the ejected stuff.
Therefore, you don't claim any more that the falling stuff is invisible

Hence, lets confirm that you have abandon the following arguments about the matter that falls in:
1. The falling stuff is cold - Incorrect argument
2. The falling stuff isn't glowing -  Incorrect argumentt
3. The falling stuff is invisible -  Incorrect argument

Therefore, now you offer new argument:
Let's read it again:
"Sometimes, if there's a ;lot of it and nothing else there  which makes to too difficult."
So, do you mean that based on your understanding it is expected that the total falling matter must be higher than the ejected matter (as some matter must also be eaten by the SMBH monster)
Hence, as there is more stuff that falls in than the stuff that is ejected outwards - we can easily see the matter that is ejected outwards but it is difficult to see the falling matter.
Is it real? Are you sure about it? Would you kindly explain how it works?


You are using the word "sometimes".
Why is it?
If it is just sometimes "yes" why sometimes it can't be "no" or vice versa?
Hence If:
Sometimes, if there's a ;lot of it and nothing else there  which makes to too difficult.
Then also
Sometimes, if there's not a;lot of it and nothing else there  which makes to too difficult it visible.
Therefore, based on this "sometimes" you have to agree that sometimes we have to see the falling matter.
However, this isn't the case as we have NEVER & EVER see any falling matter.
So please would you update your statement as follow:
A. Forever and ever Sometimes, if there's a ;lot of it and nothing else there  which makes to too difficult.
or
B. Sometimes, the falling matter is invisible and sometimes it must be visible.

Hence - If sometimes due to your idea (what ever it is) the falling matter is invisible, then sometimes it must be visible.
However, as we have NEVER EVER observe any falling matter, then this argument is clearly incorrect


So far I have eliminated all your three main arguments.
I hope that you agree that this new one is also incorrect

Why don't you call the other 100,000 BBT scientists and ask for help with some more arguments?

[Bored chemist]

You are using the word "sometimes".

Because I don't mean "never" and I don't mean "always".

I hope that by now you do understand that we can observe a cold stuff.

Yes.
I have seen snow.

Do you now understand this?
 

Sometimes, if there's a ;lot of it and nothing else there  which makes to too difficult.

Let's try the cat analogy again.
If the cat (regardless of colour and luminous paint) is far enough away I will not be able to see it.
If the luminous cat is bigger then I will be able to see it at a greater distance than if it is smaller.

Similarly, if it is brighter I will be able to see it if it is either smaller or more distant.

 
All of those depend on there not being something else- like a pile of coal- between me and the cat.

So, I will sometimes be able to see the cat.
Do you now understand what "sometimes" means?

The rest of your post made no sense.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:47:05
You are using the word "sometimes".

Because I don't mean "never" and I don't mean "always".

Good!
I hope that by now you do understand that sometimes the falling matter must be also visible.
However, why do you try to explain that the falling matter is sometimes invisible but you ignore the fact that for the same reasons the ejected matter should also be invisible?
Do you agree that as our scientists can observe cold & hot matter then the chance to observe the falling matter should be similar to the chance to see the ejected matter?
If the chance is not equal, would you kindly explain why is it and tell us the chance for the falling matter & the ejected matter to be visible?
Can you backup this chance (for each matter) by real data?

As you agree that sometimes the falling matter is invisible and sometimes it is visible, then you also have to agree that sometimes the ejected matter is visible and sometime it should be invisible.

I hope that you agree that based on the mainstream theory, the total matter that falls in must be bigger than the total matter that ejected.

So, how could it be that we ALWAYS observe ejected matter but we have NEVER EVER observed any falling matter?
Why the "sometimes visible" for the falling matter is -  always "NEVER visible".
While the same idea of "sometimes visible" for the ejected matter is - always "ALWAYS visible"?

Do you know why the universe is not so cooperative with your theories about "sometimes" visible/invisible?
Did you try to explain the universe that you don't mean "never" and you don't mean "always"?
If so, why when it comes to real observation the Universe insists to tell us that the ejected matter is always visible but the falling matter is never visible?

[Bored chemist]

I hope that by now you do understand that sometimes the falling matter must be also visible.

I always did.
I pointed out that's why we can see the accretion disk.
Please try to pay attention.

but you ignore the fact that for the same reasons the ejected matter should also be invisible?

No.
Kicking something out of the gravity well near a black hole  will always require that you put a lot of effort into it.
Since that process, whatever it is, will not be 100% efficient, some of the wok will be converted to heat.
So the stuff coming out will always  (not just "sometimes") be hot.

Again, this is obvious physics.
Why don't you learn the science?
What are you scared of?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:43:54
I hope that by now you do understand that sometimes the falling matter must be also visible.

I always did.
I pointed out that's why we can see the accretion disk.

This is incorrect argument as the matter at the accretion disc has a circular orbit around the SMBH.
Therefore, the matter at the accretion disc can't be used as indication for a falling matter!

However, we clearly observe that the matter from the accretion disc is ejected outwards.
Therefore, based on real observation - this accretion disc should be called - Excretion disc!
Hence, as the accretion disc can't be used as an evidence for a falling matter - Not sometimes and not once in a life time.
JUST never and ever.
Therefore, your assumption for sometime is useless.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:43:54
but you ignore the fact that for the same reasons the ejected matter should also be invisible?

No.
Kicking something out of the gravity well near a black hole  will always require that you put a lot of effort into it.
Since that process, whatever it is, will not be 100% efficient, some of the wok will be converted to heat.
So the stuff coming out will always  (not just "sometimes") be hot.
Again, this is obvious physics.

Sorry - there is no science or physics in your explanation due to the following:
1. Kicking -  "Kicking something out of the gravity well near a black hole will always require that you put a lot of effort into it."
Can you please explain how the matter at the accretion disc is kicked out? Who is responsible for the requested effort/ energy to kick away the matter from the accretion disc into the Bulge and against the gravity force?
Do you claim that the SMBH had nothing to do but kick his food away from his mouth and also to lose energy in this process?

2. Heat - "Since that process, whatever it is, will not be 100% efficient, some of the wok will be converted to heat."
First you need to explain who invest the energy for that kicking process and why.
Second, you have a sever mistake with regards to the heat.
The temp of the plasma at the accretion disc is already 10^9c. Do you claim that the matter that is ejected outwards should be hotter than that?
Actually, if you discuss about the heat - you have to agree that as the matter falls in it should be heated to that 10^9 c.
Therefore, even if the falling matter at the first phase wasn't too hot, as it falls in the direction of the accretion disc it must be heated and GLOW BRIGHTLY
So, if we consider the heat, then due to that heat the falling matter should glow much more than the ejected matter.
Therefore, if matter was really falling in - we have to see it!

Unfortunately for your theory/imagination - we have NEVER ever observed matter as it falls from the bulge and glow in its way into the accretion disc.

So, you have totally failed in your arguments
1. The accretion disc can't be used as an indication for falling matter
2. The heat of the accretion disc is already 10^9c. Therefore, the assumption that the ejected matter gets hotter is just incorrect as we do not observe that kind of temp in any ejected matter.


One last question -
You fully agree that we have never ever observed any matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.
So, what is needed for you to finally understand that nothing really falls into that accretion disc?
If for example God by himself would tell you that what we see is what we have - would you believe him?

[Bored chemist]

You fully agree that we have never ever observed any matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.

No, I don't
Because we observe stuff falling in.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01153-7

And the rest of your post is wrong too.

By the way, have you noticed that none of this has anything to do with the BBT?

Is tat because you realise the the BBT is correct?

[Kryptid]

Therefore, based on real observation

We've never observed anything coming out of a black hole.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:33:02
You fully agree that we have never ever observed any matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.

No, I don't
Because we observe stuff falling in.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01153-7

Dear BC
It seems that you have severe problem with your memory.
Kryptid had already offered a similar article about this specific issue of gravitational wave that was discovered by LIGO and VIRGO in 2019 and we have discussed deeply about it.
If you do not remember, please ask Kryptid to remind you.
We have discovered that the gravitational wave works ONLY when the two orbital objects (as BSs or Neutron stars) are similar in their mass.
In this case the ratio in the mass is 1:3.
If the ratio between the orbital objects is too high, (for example the ratio between the Earth to Moon is 1:81) then the gravitational wave can't work.

Due to the gravitational wave the orbital objects MUST merge with each other in a final collision.
So. it is totally different process from the accretion disc where the matter must be ejected outwards.
In the gravitational wave not even one atom would be ejected outwards!
As I have already explained in the past, the ratio between the S2 to SMBH is 1:1,000,000).
Therefore, the gravity wave can't work there and has no impact.
Hence, as the Moon is spiraling outwards from the Earth (due to a ratio of 1:81), then S2 (and actually all the other orbital objects at the Bulge) are spiraling outwards from the SMBH. Therefore, it is expected that the time that it takes S2 to set full orbital cycle around the SMBH must be longer for every new orbital cycle.
The last orbital period of S2 around the SMBH was 15.2 years. The next one MUST be longer!
Therefore, stars & gas clouds do not fall inwards. Nothing falls into the accretion disc. NEVER and EVER!!!

And the rest of your post is wrong too.

You have fatal mistake.
If you would dare to claim again that we observe stuff/matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc, without real observation on SMBH' accretion disc (and only at that specific disc) - You would be considered as a person that twist the reality!!!
So, everything that I say about the SMBH' accretion disc is 100% correct!

We've never observed anything coming out of a black hole.

That is correct.
I have never claimed that matter is coming out from the SMBH.
I have stated that new particle pairs are created near the SMBH' event horizon by its ultra high Electromagnets and gravity force.
So, the SMBH isn't loosing mass in order to set new stuff at the accretion disc.
It is only loosing EM energy in that process.
However, as one partial falls into the SMBH the one is ejected out into the accretion disc. Therefore, the SMBH is gaining mass in that process over time. It doesn't need to eat any matter from outside as it's generating its food by its EM + Gravity power
The compensation for the EM energy lost is coming back to the SMBH from the tidal forces.
Therefore, the matter at the accretion disc is coming from the Ultra EM+Gravity power of the SMBH.
There is no need for any matter to fall in.
Due to that process, the new created particles (that had been ejected to the inner side of the accretion disc) orbit at almost the speed of light and have the 10^9 c (or even higher temp).
If the matter was just falling in, they would NEVER EVER get to that kind of temp and orbital velocity.
Matter that falls in the direction of the SMBH - falls to merge with that monster.
Nothing that falls in can escape from its ultra high gravity force.
However, the issue with the matter that had been created by the SMBH' power at the accretion disc is different.
They orbit around the SMBH at ultra high velocity.
So they are not falling in but they are in a circular orbital momentum (at ultra high velocity).
The mass ratio between any particle at the accretion disc to the SMBH is more than 1:to 1.000,000,000,000.
Therefore, they all must spiral outwards (as all the planets and moons spiral outwards)
So, the accretion disc gets new particles/stuff from inside (inner disc) and over time that stuff is spiraling outwards) to the outer disc)
As the stuff gets to the outer disc, it is ejected outwards to the Bulge as a UFO that we clearly observe at any accretion disc in the entire universe.

 

By the way, have you noticed that none of this has anything to do with the BBT?
Is tat because you realise the the BBT is correct?

Yes it is.
New matter is constantly created in any SMBH accretion disc.
This new matter compensates the escape galaxies from the observable universe.
Therefore - Over time, the density of the Universe would stay constant.
Therefore, the idea that all the matter/energy of the universe had been created at one single moment is ABSOLUTLY incorrect
Hence, after all Fred hoyle and Albert Einstein were fully correct in their theory that our universe MUST be steady forever and ever!

[Bored chemist]

It seems that you have severe problem with your memory.
Kryptid had already offered a similar article about this specific issue of gravitational wave that was discovered by LIGO and VIRGO in 2019 and we have discussed deeply about it.

The problems isn't my memory.
Kryptid posted it.
You didn't understand it  (and thus wrote nonsense about not having seen things fall into BH)
So I posted a similar article in the hope that you might understand it better this time.

In terms of falling and black holes, it's the only evidence we have.
Things fall in.

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.

Quote from: Bored chemist on 14/07/2021 20:05:08
Quote from: Dave Lev on 14/07/2021 19:39:57
Is it a new tactics?
No.
Asking questions is not a new tactic.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 14/07/2021 18:14:02
Quote from: Bored chemist on 14/07/2021 17:52:07
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?]

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The problems isn't my memory.
Kryptid posted it.
You didn't understand it  (and thus wrote nonsense about not having seen things fall into BH)
So I posted a similar article in the hope that you might understand it better this time.

In terms of falling and black holes, it's the only evidence we have.
Things fall in.

The main problem is that you consider the SMBH as it was a BH.
This is a fatal mistake.
Don't you understand that a SMBH could be almost 1,000,000 times heavier than a BH?
Do you also consider an elephant as you consider an Ant?
In this discussion we focus ONLY on SMBH' accretion disc
NOT BH' accretion disc, but only SMBH' accretion disc.
Is it clear to you?.
Therefore, your understanding / observation about a BH is totally irrelevant for our discussion.

Hence, as you offer again and again the BH as an evidence for the SMBH activity - it proves that you don't have a basic knowledge in real science.
As long as you can't offer real observation for matter that falls/spirals into the SMBH' accretion disc don't dare to claim that matter really falls into that specific disc!

[Bored chemist]

The main problem is that you consider the SMBH as it was a BH.

It is.
The hint is in the name.
A super massive black hole is a black hole.


I think this comment of yours is slightly dumber than your idea that things fall up.

Do you also consider an elephant as you consider an Ant?

Depending on circumstances, one of them might be easier to study, but they are fundamentally very similar, aren't they?