The Wikipedia article is fairly loose with language, but at any rate Hawking radiation does not originate past the event horizon itself but just before it.
I suppose it's a philosophical matter, but it seems legitimate to me to view this as matter moving out of the event horizon, even if the mechanism of that motion is very indirect. One's answer would depend on whether you consider a photon that travels to your eyes from the sun after reflecting from a mirror to be the same photon that was originally emitted by the sun, because it carries that photon's energy and information, even if it was actually absorbed and then coherently re-emitted by the mirror after a staggeringly complicated sea of particle-particle interactions.
Okay in terms of philosophy sure you could maybe make an argument, I don't know.
What we can, however, say that is more tangible is that the make-up of Hawking radiation cannot depend whatsoever on the matter that falls into the black hole apart from three properties: mass, charge and momentum. Other than those three properties, all other information that crosses the event horizon is lost and can't escape.
So, if one black hole was formed purely from 1 kg of protons with 0 momentum, and another black hole was formed from 1 kg of positrons with 0 momentum, these two black holes would be indistinguishable from each other. There would be nothing that could be emitted by either black hole via Hawking radiation or any other mechanism that could allow you to deduce that one was formed from protons and the other from positrons.
It's in this stricter information theoretic sense that nothing escapes from beyond the event horizon of a black hole.
Of course, but it looks like this accretion disk was below the «event horizon», because speed is much higher, 50% of speed of light, instead of typical 10%.
> > it looks like this accretion disk was below the «event horizon»
> No it doesn’t.
It is, because of the silence before the sudden «burp». Something consumed all the radiation produced by the accretion disk. I know the only one possible solution: the «event horizon».
Astronomers says that they are not sure:
> "Black holes are very extreme gravitational environments even before you pass that event horizon, and that's what’s really driving this," Cendes said. "We don’t fully understand if the material observed in radio waves is coming from the accretion disk or if it is being stored somewhere closer to the black hole. Black holes are definitely messy eaters, though."
but I can use this as evidence that the center of black hole contains a dense and cold crystal. Why not?
Moreover, if fractal theory is right, then we are inside infinite number of black holes of increasing sizes (or other objects). But, if we are inside a black hole, why sky is black and space is cold then?
> but I can use this as evidence that the center of black hole contains a dense and cold crystal. Why not?
The definitional trait of an event horizon is that it is causally disconnected from the outside universe. It is the "horizon" beyond which "events" cannot be causally connected to some observer.
A consequence of this is that nothing we observe on the outside can definitely tell us what's going on inside.
Closest we can get is creating a complete and consistent set of laws of physics and asking those laws what happens — it's fairly trivial to show there's an infinite number of such laws (such a demonstration is why Occam's Razor is even a thing), even despite the fact that right now we don't have a single one of them.
> Moreover, if fractal theory is right, then we are inside infinite number of black holes of increasing sizes (or other objects). But, if we are inside a black hole, why sky is black and space is cold then?
I don't even know what you think you mean with "fractal theory", but the reason space is black and cold is that (1) the hot surface visible in every direction to the right telescopes is very far away, and (2) the universe is expanding, and the combination of (1) and (2) means (3) it's been red-shifted so hard you can't see it with the naked eye.
The question of if the entire visible universe is the interior of a black hole in a bigger universe, has no apparent relationship in either direction to 1, 2 or 3.
One can see the dynamics like this: the star is tidally disrupted and produces energy discharge via frictional heating (basically). Then the remnant gas is sufficiently spread out so as not to radiate much, then the dynamics of the accretion disk concentrate the infalling matter enough to heat up again and some of the material is ejected.
Given our simultaneous understanding of GR and other physical phenomena this seems like the most likely explanation.