What activates a supermassive black hole?

Jul 13, 2011
This very deep image shows the COSMOS field imaged by the Canada France Hawaii Telescope (CFHT). Huge numbers of very faint galaxies are visible. A new study of this field, combining data from ESO's Very Large Telescope and ESA's XMM-Newton X-ray space observatory has turned up a big surprise. Most of the huge black holes in the centres of active galaxies in the past 11 billion years were not turned on by mergers between galaxies, as had been previously thought. Some of the active galaxies with supermassive black holes at their centers that were used in the new study are marked with red crosses on this picture. Credit: CFHT/IAP/Terapix/CNRS/ESO

A new study combining data from ESO's Very Large Telescope and ESA's XMM-Newton X-ray space observatory has turned up a surprise. Most of the huge black holes in the centres of galaxies in the past 11 billion years were not turned on by mergers between galaxies, as had been previously thought.

At the heart of most, if not all, large lurks a with a mass millions, or sometimes billions, times greater than that of the Sun. In many galaxies, including our own Milky Way, the central black hole is quiet. But in some galaxies, particularly early on in the history of the Universe, the central monster feasts on material that gives off intense radiation as it falls into the black hole.

One unsolved mystery is where the material comes from to activate a sleeping black hole and trigger violent outbursts at a galaxy's centre, so that it then becomes an active . Up to now, many astronomers thought that most of these active nuclei were turned on when two galaxies merge or when they pass close to each other and the disrupted material becomes fuel for the central black hole. However, new results indicate that this idea may be wrong for many .

Viola Allevato (Max-Planck-Institut fur Plasmaphysik; Excellence Cluster Universe, Garching, Germany) and an international team of scientists from the COSMOS collaboration have now looked in detail at more than 600 of these active galaxies in an extensively studied patch of the sky called the COSMOS field. As expected, the astronomers found that extremely brilliant active nuclei were rare, while the bulk of the active galaxies in the past 11 billion years were only moderately bright. But there was a surprise; the new data showed that the majority of these more common, less bright active galaxies, even looking back far into the past, were not triggered by mergers between galaxies. The results will appear in The .

The presence of is revealed by the X-rays emitted from around the black hole, which were picked up by ESA's . These galaxies were subsequently observed using ESO's Very Large Telescope, which was able to measure the distances to the galaxies. When combined, the observations allowed the team to make a three-dimensional map showing where the active galaxies lie.

"It took more than five years, but we were able to provide one of the largest and most complete inventories of active galaxies in the X-ray sky," said Marcella Brusa, one of the authors of the study.

The astronomers could use this new map to find out how the active galaxies were distributed and compare this with predictions from theory. They could also see how the distribution changed as the Universe aged — all the way from about 11 billion years ago to almost the present day.

The team found that active nuclei are mostly found in large massive galaxies with lots of dark matter. This was a surprise and not consistent with the prediction from theory — if most active nuclei were a consequence of mergers and collisions between galaxies it had been expected that they would be found in galaxies with moderate mass (about a trillion times the mass of the Sun). The team found that most active nuclei reside in galaxies with masses about 20 times larger than the value predicted by merger theory.

"These new results give us a new insight into how supermassive start their meals," said Viola Allevato, who is lead author on the new paper. "They indicate that are usually fed by processes within the galaxy itself, such as disc instabilities and starbursts, as opposed to galaxy collisions."

Alexis Finoguenov, who supervised the work, concludes: "Even in the distant past, up to almost 11 billion years ago, galaxy collisions can only account for a small percentage of the moderately bright active galaxies. At that time galaxies were closer together so mergers were expected to be more frequent than in the more recent past, so the new results are all the more surprising."

Explore further: Transiting exoplanet with longest known year

More information: Research paper www.eso.org/public/archives/re… /eso1124/eso1124.pdf

Related Stories

Active galaxies are different near and far

Jan 06, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- An ongoing X-ray survey undertaken by NASA's Swift spacecraft is revealing differences between nearby active galaxies and those located about halfway across the universe. Understanding these ...

Rain of giant gas clouds create active galactic nuclei

Jul 08, 2010

Galaxies like our own were built billions of years ago from a deluge of giant clouds of gas, some of which continue to rain down. Now new calculations tie the rain of giant clouds of gas to active galactic nuclei (AGN), the ...

How often do giant black holes become hyperactive?

Dec 20, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- A new study from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory tells scientists how often the biggest black holes have been active over the last few billion years. This discovery clarifies how supermassive ...

Massive black holes 'switched on' by galaxy collision

Jun 15, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- The centre of most galaxies harbours a massive black hole. Our Milky Way galaxy is one of these - the exotic object there however is reasonably calm, unlike some super-massive gravity monsters ...

Recommended for you

Transiting exoplanet with longest known year

Jul 21, 2014

Astronomers have discovered a transiting exoplanet with the longest known year. Kepler-421b circles its star once every 704 days. In comparison, Mars orbits our Sun once every 780 days. Most of the 1,800-plus ...

Mysterious dance of dwarfs may force a cosmic rethink

Jul 21, 2014

(Phys.org) —The discovery that many small galaxies throughout the universe do not 'swarm' around larger ones like bees do but 'dance' in orderly disc-shaped orbits is a challenge to our understanding of ...

User comments : 108

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

kevinrtrs
1.9 / 5 (22) Jul 13, 2011
The team found that active nuclei are mostly found in large massive galaxies with lots of dark matter.

Since dark matter cannot be detected directly, perhaps the sentence should be rephrased to show the inference rather than state it as if such things as dark matter exists.

At that time galaxies were closer together so mergers were expected to be more frequent than in the more recent past, so the new results are all the more surprising

What this means is that the Big Bang is once again falsified because once again galaxies do not want to play ball with the expectation of being younger or having more frequent mergers, or having younger stars and galaxies. They appear altogether more mature and of more homogeneous distribution[comparable to those closer to us] than the BB theory would have us believe. But will someone stand up and say it's time to get another theory? No. BB is all there is.
HannesAlfven
1.5 / 5 (18) Jul 13, 2011
@kevinrtrs

You are 100% right. Whereas many people have assumed that the next step is to create the new theory which can compete with the BB, this has not worked particularly well so far at generating students who have a comprehensive understanding of the subject which spans both the conventional gravitational and the newer plasma-based frameworks.

The solution is to create a new curriculum which teaches both frameworks to students, for "free", online. Conventional ideologues think they are sitting pretty right now, but there are people already working on this new synthesis-based interdisciplinary approach to science education. It is, to be clear, a massive undertaking. But, the timing is perfect now, for not only are the resources finally there to do this, but Shelley Carson's new book, "Your Creative Brain" now provides a model for innovation in science which can be formalized into a new scientific curriculum.

We are on the very cusp right now of a new era in science.
HannesAlfven
1.7 / 5 (20) Jul 13, 2011
To the scientific ideologues of the world:

The feeling of empowerment and social inclusion are intoxicating feelings. However, they can also act as lures away from a more balanced search for truth. And there is a price to pay for prioritizing the former over the latter: The people of the future will simply relegate you and these simplistic notions to the scrap heap of scientific history and ideas.

The future of science is critical thinking, and research into innovation now establishes, without any doubt, that there is no place for ideology in innovation. To innovate, one must possess an open mind.

We now know that, given the proper methodology, anybody can become "an Einstein" in 10 years. So, add in five years for the creation of this new website, and we have a timeline of 15 years until we start seeing an army of experts circumventing the antiquated physics PhD program unleashed upon this world.
HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (17) Jul 13, 2011
The prevailing choice by mainstream scientists to look the other way when confronted with incomplete against-the-mainstream ideas which appear to be workable will ultimately have devastating effects for the traditional university-based system of education in science.

But, in the future, historians will look back on this transformation similar to the effect of the printing press: In the same way that the printing press brought education and information to the masses, from the protected fortress of the castle, the circumvention of the university system for higher education in science will bring complex cosmological thought to the masses. Where many concepts were previously cloaked in mathematical formulae, safe from understanding (and hence argumentation) by the masses, this new system of education will be fundamentally concepts-based. And very similar to Socrates' obsession with definitions, the concepts will carefully build upon one another.
omatumr
1.2 / 5 (19) Jul 13, 2011
What activates a supermassive black hole?


There are no black holes.

Neutron repulsion prevents there formation and activates

a.) Massive neutron stars at centers of galaxies, and

b.) Smaller neutron stars at cores of ordinary stars.

1. "Neutron Repulsion", The APEIRON Journal, in press, 19 pages (2011):

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

2. "Is the Universe Expanding?", The Journal of Cosmology 13, 4187-4190 (2011):

http://journalofc...102.html

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
HannesAlfven
1.7 / 5 (19) Jul 13, 2011
If you go to the BAUT Forum, you will clearly observe that conventional theorists imagine that the Internet can only be deployed to destroy competing ideas. For many years, innovators sensed that something wasn't quite right with this, and Carson's new model for innovation validates these suspicions by incorporating several vital steps prior to the "evaluation" stage for an idea.

Gradually, we will see a split emerge. On one side, people will use terms like "anti-science", "crank" and your "pet theory" and "pseudo-scientists."

On the other side, we'll see responses involving terms like "pseudo-skeptics", "anti-innovation", "critical thinking" and "creative problem-solving."

Where professional scientists refused to elaborate new models, students will gladly take up this challenge en masse. All that is required is to create the proper website to facilitate it. It is truly that easy.
TheRedComet
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 13, 2011
Nice book plug HannesAlfven
Sarcasm
omatumr
1.1 / 5 (17) Jul 13, 2011
See also PhysOrg story, "Dark fireworks on the Sun"
by NASA's own science reporter, Dr. Tony Phillips:

www.physorg.com/n...sun.html

These stories all point to flaws in "consensus" science
frajo
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 13, 2011
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
rjhuntington
1.4 / 5 (14) Jul 13, 2011
I know what activates a "super-massive black hole": a highly-reactive mixture of super-massive science mythology and super-massive gullibility. The results are quite predictable: super-massive delusion.

Save yourselves! Learn Electrical Engineering! Then decide.
Kio
1.5 / 5 (17) Jul 13, 2011
So called Black holes are the cooled supermassive neutron stars i.e. naked cores of the super massive precursor (parent) stars. In reality they are the central supermassive neutron nucleuses of the old spiral galaxies and globular clusters.

Central starburst nucleuses of the young spiral galaxies and globular clusters are the supermassive neutron star systems, due to permanent and violent star-forming events.

http://www.youtub...vk2wDYwc

The wrong understanding epoch false epoch of the BBT is over!
K. Margiani
Tuxford
1.5 / 5 (15) Jul 13, 2011
For those who have been slamming my comments over the past six months: What say you now? I recently commented that the galactic collision model did not fit observations. The observations are not convenient for what has been taught. Academics should be ashamed. New physics will emerge, despite the resistance.

Perhaps the obvious is correct afterall? This news is still further support for LaViolette's model, that galaxies grow from within, mostly from ejections of newly nucleated matter entering our universe deep within the cores of these supermassive gray-holes. The article has no answer for this. There is no need to remain confused, unless we continue to try to fit recent observations into our 'accepted' models. This has led to all kinds of contorted explanations....like Big Bang nonsense.
Ronan
5 / 5 (2) Jul 13, 2011
...Claims that this disproves the big bang, black holes, modern physics, or whatever else aside, this is very interesting. I know very little about the whole subject, but I wonder if the larger mass of the galaxies in which these active galactic nuclei tend to find themselves has a role to play aside from increasing the odds of the disc instabilities and starbursts mentioned in the article (a starburst, by the way, is a term I'm unfamiliar with; would I be right in thinking that that's a relatively sudden (on galactic timescales) increase in star formation? Wouldn't that tend to attenuate surrounding gas, decreasing the available food for black hole om-nom-nomming?), perhaps by increasing the overall black hole-wards gravitational pull, so that more infalling matter was able to overcome the radiation pressure from the black hole's leftovers.
rawa1
1.6 / 5 (13) Jul 13, 2011
But will someone stand up and say it's time to get another theory? No. BB is all there is.
Many people, including me are saying it all the time. But the "BB" is salary and grant generator at the first place. The more theorists are dealing with it, the more firmly is such model rooted in human civilization. You couldn't remove it, even if it would be completely wrong in the same way, like you cannot stop the fossil fuel industry - the existence of too many people depends on it.
Ronan
4.9 / 5 (15) Jul 13, 2011
My apologies for the double post, but after reading through some of the earlier posts...Hannes Alfven, please tell me that I'm misunderstanding you. It sounds to me as though you're arguing that the heavy focus on math in science should be discarded, giving way to an attempt to build science based on nothing but argument, analogy, and...well, words. We tried that before; it led to the four elements, the four humors, bloodletting, and crystal spheres. Einstein was Einstein not just because he had some brilliant insights, but because he did the math to back them up--even though, as he himself stated, he and math did not always get along well.
rawa1
2 / 5 (15) Jul 13, 2011
giving way to an attempt to build science based on nothing but argument, analogy, and...well, words
We should balance the formal and nonformal approaches. Why? Even in formal math the validity of theorems depends on predicate logics (not vice-versa) and it must be proven first before we can use such theorem in subsequent derivations.

So we shouldn't bother with theories, which are apparently fringe logically. yet still producing predictions and equations, like the epicycle model of Ptolemy. The physics should work by the same principles, like the formal math does. You can call such approach "words", I'd call it the logic.
SemiNerd
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 13, 2011
Some other mechanism is at play for activating galactic black holes (other than galactic mergers). Leaping from that to the invalidation of BB and essentially all the rest of current cosmological thinking is simply ludicrous. It just means that the source of the gas that activates them is coming from somewhere else. And that's all it means.
Callippo
2.2 / 5 (10) Jul 13, 2011
Leaping from that to the invalidation of BB and essentially all the rest of current cosmological thinking is simply ludicrous.
They said it to Galileo too.. IMO it's worth recalling the Wittgenstein's remark on the Big Bang subject. "Tell me," he asked a friend, "why do people always say, it was natural for man to assume that the sun went round the earth rather than that the earth was rotating?" His friend replied, "Well, obviously because it just looks as though the Sun is going round the Earth." Wittgenstein replied, "Well, what would it have looked like if it had looked as though the Earth was rotating?"

We can now ask as well: "How the universe would appear if it had looked like being eternal and infinite and the red shift would be a consequence of the dispersion of light at vacuum fluctuations"?

Apparently, many people today aren't willing to even think about it at all, thus effectively behaving like the opponents of Galileo in his era.
YawningDog
1 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2011
Another book plug but this time for "Origin of Inertia" by Amitabha Ghosh. He provides a very rational answer for many of the problems associated with BB theory. The "scientific" press considers BB as proven dogma and will not tolerate heresy. Go back to Mach's Principle and work your way forward using modern data.
MorituriMax
5 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2011
My God, it's as if the mention of black holes pulls all the trolls in. Maybe that's what activates supermassive black holes, equal parts ignorance and delusion.
Deesky
5 / 5 (10) Jul 13, 2011
This thread has to be some kind of record. Nowhere else has there been a greater concentration of nuts and cranks! Seriously, we have the full gamut here. Reading most of the comments here is like reading youtube comments - total drivel.

What I find of great mirth is that the anti-science cranks always latch on to some recent SCIENTIFIC finding in order to (falsely) deny other SCIENTIFIC knowledge (like the BB).

It's like the Adam Savage quote: "I reject your reality and substitute it for my own".
Kio
1 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2011
But the "BB" is salary and grant generator at the first place.

We can receive red-shifted Sun's spectrum. This is a powerful intellectual "bomb" against the BBT. This is the greatest conclusive evidence and huge proof and we can prove that the BBT is a false theory and billions of dollars have been spent in vain for the false projects and false investigations, so called "researches" on BBT, CERN, dust origin, circumstellar disc, the glowing ball - [Sun] ... etc. http://www.cosmog...er-7.htm
Thus we have greatest false epoch made by lots of false degrees, false researchers and false investigators like the Rondo Rawa and they are glad. Once the government rulers will understand huge danger. the important scientific fields will be destroyed and rotten to the bones by funding i.e. grant generator . I'm waiting ground-breaking scandals ASAP.
FrankHerbert
1.3 / 5 (56) Jul 14, 2011
At least Kio did us a favor and greyed out his whole post.
Darkboy
1 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2011


We can now ask as well: "How the universe would appear if it had looked like being eternal and infinite and the red shift would be a consequence of the dispersion of light at vacuum fluctuations"?

Apparently, many people today aren't willing to even think about it at all, thus effectively behaving like the opponents of Galileo in his era.

Yes! Come to think of it, it makes sense! Clearly, virtual particles are responsible for shifting electromagnetic radiation from one side of the spectrum to the other! And, OH!!! These same particles also seem to suggest that the universe is static! We must tell other humans!!
...sigh
Vendicar_Decarian
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2011
You don't know what "falsified" means, do you kevin?

"What this means is that the Big Bang is once again falsified because" - KevenTard
Vendicar_Decarian
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2011
You haven't been to a TeaPublican political rally have you?

"Nowhere else has there been a greater concentration of nuts and cranks!" - Desky
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (2) Jul 14, 2011
The concept of action at a distance is as dead as Mach.

Now it's all Location, location, location.

"Go back to Mach's Principle and work your way forward using modern data." - YawningDog
Vendicar_Decarian
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2011
Translation: I can't believe it. I won't believe it. Hence it can not be true.

I feel your pain Rawa. Now stop worrying your little head and be a good little boy, go put on your jammies, and go to bed.

"But the "BB" is salary and grant generator at the first place." - Rawa
Vendicar_Decarian
2.2 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2011
"Perhaps the obvious is correct afterall? This news is still further support for LaViolette's model, that galaxies grow from within, mostly from ejections of newly nucleated matter entering our universe deep within the cores of these supermassive gray-holes." - TuxTard

You don't seem to mind violating the law of energy conservation.

Do you have any grand evidence for such a grand violation of a well observed principle?
Vendicar_Decarian
2.4 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2011
Well, first of all, there wouldn't be a linear relationship between the intrinsic brightness of Cephied variable stars and their red shift, and secondly there wouldn't be a similar relationship between the diameters of galaxies and their red shift either.

As things get farther away they appear smaller and dimmer.

The kind of scattering you are referring to does not produce such a relationship.

You poor, sad, child.

"We can now ask as well: "How the universe would appear if it had looked like being eternal and infinite and the red shift would be a consequence of the dispersion of light at vacuum fluctuations"?" - CalliTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2011
Possibly, but since modern condensed matter theory tells us that Neutron's can not withstand the pressures inside a sufficiently large Neutron Star, and will collapse without limit, your speculation is nothing more than speculation.

You should talk to the Garden Gnome on your front lawn about your Neutron Star theory. He just might be a brilliant astronomer, or a cunning cosmetologist.

"So called Black holes are the cooled supermassive neutron stars i.e. naked cores of the super massive precursor (parent) stars" - Kio
Vendicar_Decarian
2 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2011
Possibly not, but unlike your stated beliefs, I believe that astronomers can actually see stars.

You are mentally Ill OmaTard. Get yourself to a psychologist before you do yourself or someone else harm.

"There are no black holes." - OmaTard
StandingBear
1 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2011
Apparently no one picked up on the key phrase at the heart of the article:
"The team found that active nuclei are mostly found in large massive galaxies with lots of dark matter. This was a surprise and not consistent with the prediction from theory".
I submit that isn't it possible that the galactic black hole in question was large enough maybe to have torn a hole in our reality to become a portal into another reality where maybe matter is dimensionally shifted, appearing dark to us in as much as it does not really interact with our matter except weakly through gravity......brane theory of gravity forces being felt across adjacent branes. Say this matter takes one of the OTHER 8 or so theorized spatial dimensions, maybe even two or three who knows, and creates the reality in the connected universe through which the large black hole has torn into; and say even its time dimension is one of the other two of the three available. If this matter is pulled through the portal fast...
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2011
..This was a surprise and not consistent with the prediction from theory..
Actually there are many theories, which consider the formation of galaxies just from dark matter (gravastar or dark star theories) already. In my theory such finding fits the very general model of steady state Universe, in which the galaxies are condensing and evaporating randomly in time like some giant fluctuations of hypothetical random gas.

Because every galaxy ends its life evaporated into radiation, it's evident from time symmetric model, it must be formed from radiation too. I.e. from very lightweight particles: photons, axions and neutrinos. When these particles condense mutually, they create a huge dense cloud, at the center of which the nucleosynthesis will ignite spontaneously. It's sorta small Big Bang - it just occurs at the many places of observable Universe at the same moment (just because of statistics, the more distant places of Universe are preferred).
ScienceLust
3 / 5 (2) Jul 14, 2011
I love the article.I learned from it.For some reason all the christians seem to think the telescope was lying.Does calling everyone a tard make you closer to god?

"Vendicar Decarian", aka: Scott Nudds, has escaped from the asylum again
From: Eric Swanson (swanson_at_notspam.net)
Date: 01/31/05

jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (1) Jul 14, 2011
If this is proof the big bang is false and its all a conspiracy then how did this paper and any other papers like it see the light of day? shouldnt they be hiding this info instead of working on improving our models to better fit observations?
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2011
If this is proof the big bang is false and its all a conspiracy
IMO there is no conspiracy, just emergent phenomena. When many people in the crowd will make just a tiny step against the wall, some people near wall will get crushed with no mercy. But no particular person in the crowd is responsible for their death. Well, and many theories have a similar destiny.

We can observe an analogy between formation of theories and galaxies in this model: a new theory is formed spontaneously, when sufficient number of indicia is cumulated. But until such ignition occurs, these indicia are handled like invisible dark matter. They're simply ignored with mainstream, because mainstream physics can handle only deterministic phenomena with its math. The formation of new quality from quantity is an emergent multiparticle process, which is difficult to describe/predict with formal math. So it's simply ignored, because physicists are living from writing of equations.
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2011
The people evolved billion years at single place, so that their perception of reality is strongly biased towards perspective, mediated with transverse waves spreading. Whereas in my theory the Universe is random and time symmetric, the people are living in gradient driven reality. We can illustrate it with dense gas model in the role of vacuum: albeit it contains lotta particles, just the tiny density fluctuations are, what remains visible from this system for people - the rest is simply transparent, invisible homogeneous stuff.

This causal bias makes many time symmetric phenomena asymmetric and explosive for us. Because we cannot follow the condensation of dark matter into galaxies or ideas into theories well, both processes appear like sudden explosion for us. But from very general perspective such evolution doesn't differ from random condensation and dissolution of fluctuations of gas.
MorituriMax
not rated yet Jul 14, 2011
rawa, at best, you have a hypothesis. Now you need to gather actual evidence to support it. If you do, maybe someday it will be promoted to (T)heory.
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 14, 2011
Cranking, Cranking
Big Cranks keep on churning
They never lose a moment of sleep
Thinking about how thing really work
Big Cranks keep on churning
Oliver keeps on parolling

Lets see
kevinrtrs
HannesAlfven
omatumr
rjhuntington
Kio
Tuxford
rawa1 - who may be tuxford as well. I have lost track of all the fake names Zephyr posts under.
Callippo - that is another Zephyr

YawningDog - can't tell yet if this is another Crank. He did tell one fairy story about
"scientific" press considers BB as proven dogma and will not tolerate heresy.
Which is false since M-theory gets published.

What happened? Where are the others? Yep and TabulaMensa are missing.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2011
You are mentally Ill OmaTard. Get yourself to a psychologist before you do yourself or someone else harm.
Way to late for that. He is still on parole for doing harm to others. Not a joke. All of his living children accused him of molesting them. The fifth committed suicide.

Ethelred
jsdarkdestruction
1 / 5 (1) Jul 15, 2011
I didnt hear about the suicide,when did that happen? honestly all of his children are probably dead inside anyway though.
jsdarkdestruction
not rated yet Jul 15, 2011
the people evolved billion years at a single place? what?
No offense but your post doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me. Care to try again?
Kio
1 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2011
Kio? Where are the others? Yep and TabulaMensa are missing.

Ethelred

An amazing NASA agent Ethelred came in the best scientific forum, to defend falsifiers' degrees and calls other agents to help, including Yep and TabulaMensa
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 15, 2011
Kio it isn't my fault you see nonexistent conspiracies.

Yep is a Electric Universe Crank and has posted under different names. TabulaMensa would like your post. To the point that it looks like one of his.

To the best of my knowledge NASA doen't give a rats ass what idiotic ideas that Cranks have. Oh yes, Oliver is the only person here that definitely worked for NASA.

If I worked for NASA I wouldn't be so damn short on money.

Ethelred
Kio
1 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2011
Ethelred! You are fighting violently for the false. This is an amazing proof on false degrees and false researches. they are interrelated to your friends and heads from NASA and to you life as well. As your adherent Rawa said - "But the "BB" is salary and grant generator at the first place"
The false feeding has destroyed the important scientific fields of the Physics, Astronomy, Cosmology and historical sciences.
You have to know that the publication of the powerful injections without the spectral data in the NASA sites are the additional falsifications to hide solar wind of the planetary elements, that can explode whole old view on main heat source. Thus Sun is not the glowing ball of waste products (91% H and 9% He) that emits photons and hides the violently unstable neutron star at the solar core! http://www.cosmog...r-29.htm
Deesky
Jul 15, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
rawa1
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 15, 2011
Now you need to gather actual evidence to support it.
There are many evidence against Big Bang model. In addition, my model predicts blue shift for Universe observed in radio-waves, which can serve as an evidence, this model is symmetric along time arrow. When the radiowave portion of EM spectrum is ignored, than this model converges to Big Bang model.
thus Sun is not the glowing ball of waste products
The situation at the Sun core doesn't differ from surface of neutron stars so much even in mainstream models - I presume rather homogeneous transition there. The neutron repulsion is Oliver K Manuel hypothesis and I don't see anywhere his reference on your web. This doesn't change the fact, the neutron repulsion cannot serve as a source of heating: such force will simply expand the Sun in similar way, like the pressure of radiation - instead of heating it.
SCVGoodToGo
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2011
Ethelred! You are fighting violently for the false. This is an amazing proof on false degrees and false researches. they are interrelated to your friends and heads from NASA


So everyone who disagrees with you or omatumor is an agent for a neutered, bureaucratically inept organization whom lost sight of its original mission statement?

Did someone forget to take their Klonopin?

Though, after a quick google search of K. Margiani I find many quackish forum comments leading back to cosmogeology and theories of Atlantis and Baal and ancients and.... someone watches too much Stargate. I guess from that perspective it makes sense that you buy into NR.

Kio
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 15, 2011
Prof. Oliver is the best scientist in the world and Persona non grata for the mainstreams. I'm glad being his friend.
http://www.physor...sun.html
Neutron cores - i.e. neutron stars in the stellar cores are interrelated to neutron repulsion forces. Huge concentration of the neutrons without neutron repulsion forces contradicts the truth. Each old star after explosion shows naked neutron core - fiery noutron star. Thus a neutron star in the stellar core has an amazing conclusive evidence.
http://www.cosmog...r-29.htm
SCVGoodToGo
5 / 5 (2) Jul 15, 2011
I take back the Klonopin comment. Instead I shall ask this:

Are you a Turing test?
Kio
Jul 15, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Kio
Jul 15, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
yyz
5 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2011
AGN triggering is a very complex question, and in reality, we are probably looking to establish the relative contributions to triggering of multiple different mechanisms and the circumstances under which each dominate, rather than figuring which mechanism is solely responsible for the phenomenon.

For example, internal stochastic processes such as bar instabilities should be able to trigger the moderate and lower luminosity AGN, but it's hard to get them to feed enough material to the central regions of galaxies to power the high luminosity beasts. That at the moment still seems to require mergers. Certainly though, evidence is mounting that in most circumstances, AGN can be triggered through mechanisms other than mergers.

Another interesting possibility are minor mergers (mergers between galaxies and small gas rich companions). These are hard to detect and even harder to study, but both computer simulations and observations seem to suggest they are a viable triggering mechanism.
Kio
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 15, 2011
Ethelred and SCVGoodToGo! now go to bad. tomorrow You have to provide the exact spectral data on "Dark Fireworks on the Sun" The evaporated spectral data would be a conclusive evidence that you are the NASA falsifiers.
Javinator
5 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2011
Ethelred! You are fighting violently for the false. This is an amazing proof on false degrees and false researches. they are interrelated to your friends and heads from NASA and to you life as well. As your adherent Rawa said


You think rawa1 is an adherent of Ethelred?

Your deductive abilities explain your stance.
rawa1
2 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2011
Prof. Oliver is the best scientist in the world and Persona non grata for the mainstreams. I'm glad being his friend
Why not - the more I'd expect, you will respect him and quote him at your web at the case, when you're presenting his original ideas - not just those of yours. If the mainstream physicists are stealing the ideas from alternative researchers, you shouldn't do the same. BTW I'm not affiliated to prof. Manuel in any way.
AngryMoose
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2011
I know I'll probably be laughed at for this but at what point did black holes become reality? It seemed like they were theoretical not that long ago, was there a memo I missed?
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2011
You are fighting violently for the false
I am curious, how is telling the truth violent. I am pretty sure there has been no physical damage to anyone.

his is an amazing proof on false degrees
No. Its an interesting bit of information that tells us something. We don't know everything.

they are interrelated to your friends and heads from NASA
You must be TabulaMensa since that was a remarkably paranoid statement. I don't know anyone at NASA. I used to know two guys that used to work at JPL but they are retired and I haven't seen them in years.

As your adherent Rawa
Now that is batshit insane. Rawa is a sockpuppet for Zephyr and I really don't think he likes me. You can see him attacking me on this very thread.

But the "BB" is salary and grant generator
As is all science. Oliver Manual used to get paid for the silly stuff he writes.>>
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2011
The false feeding has destroyed the important scientific fields of the Physics, Astronomy, Cosmology and historical sciences
Disagreeing with you is not the destruction of any of those.

You have to know that the publication of the powerful injections
That is incomprehensible.

falsifications to hide solar wind of the planetary elements
Oliver has actually studied that stuff. And he is still a Crank.

Thus Sun is not the glowing ball of waste products (91% H and 9% He) that emits photons and hides the violently unstable neutron star at the solar core!
Excuse me. Were you trying to say that Sun has a neutron star in it or not? That was garbled even by my standards of leaving out words. The Sun does not have a neutron star in it. There is no evidence for that and even Oliver has been unable to do more than prove that a supernova was involved in the beginning of the Solar system but he has no evidence that the Sun was the supernova.>>
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Jul 15, 2011
By the way I think even Oliver won't claim I work NASA so why do make such ridiculous claims?

Prof. Oliver is the best scientist in the world
Not even close.

I'm glad being his friend.
I do hope you never meet him if you are under 18. It doesn't matter which sex you are as he doesn't care which sex he molests.

tomorrow You have to provide the exact spectral data on "Dark Fireworks on the Sun"
No I don't. If you need the data you will have to dig it yourself.

The evaporated spectral data would be a conclusive evidence that you are the NASA falsifiers.
I understand that English is not your native tongue but you really should stop using Eliza based programs for translation. Gibberish to English is tricky enough with modern translation programs.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2011
I know I'll probably be laughed at for this but at what point did black holes become reality?
When they first formed.

Of course that isn't the answer you wanted. There is very strong evidence for them. Has been for a long time but since we can't actually see them we aren't going to have Absolute Proof of their existence any time soon. There are objects of great enough mass and since they aren't glowing hot they don't have the means to avoid collapse. Thus it is reasonable to go on the assumption that they really do exist.

Ethelred
FrankHerbert
0.7 / 5 (48) Jul 15, 2011
I know I'll probably be laughed at for this but at what point did black holes become reality? It seemed like they were theoretical not that long ago, was there a memo I missed?


We know they exist because of gravitational lensing. Our telescopes have observed strong gravitational lensing from seemingly invisible objects. What else could do this (other than dark matter)?
Kio
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 15, 2011
Ethelred the important scientific fields are destroyed by modern rule of NASA and other scientific centers.
-selective observations,
-selective investigations,
-selective publications - (disappearance of the ground-breaking data)
You don't want to provide the spectral data? Your wrong understanding and rubbish text proves that you are a natural falsifier from NASA.
You have cart blanche to back up falsifiers and the ostriches like the Galileo's opponents but Truth is victorious.
False epoch is over for the BBT, CERN, dust origin, circum-stellar disc, the glowing ball - [Sun] ... etc !
After at least four decades of hiding, manipulating and distorting experimental observations, by government scientists we are indeed due a scientific revolution.
Now go to bed!
Javinator
5 / 5 (8) Jul 15, 2011
Your wrong understanding and rubbish text proves that you are a natural falsifier from NASA.


I don't think you know what "proves" means.
omatumr
1.2 / 5 (9) Jul 15, 2011
. . . at what point did black holes become reality? . . . they were theoretical not that long ago, . . .


That is one of the many magic ways that consensus science works.

Personal attacks, economic and social unrest are another.

Today I set aside work on a summary of my research, "A Journey to the Core of the Sun," to post a comment (#10) on the link between consensus and the current social and economic unrest:

http://noconsensu...ls-zeke/

A 2.5 page pdf file of a very brief, concise easier-to-read history of consensus science from 1945 to 2011 and its role in the current economic collapse and social unrest is available on request.

My interpretation may be wrong, but it fits a surprising array of observations and events.

Yes, there are advantages to being as old as dirt!

Please feel free to share this with others.

Comments would be appreciated.

With kind regards,
Oliver
Deesky
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 15, 2011
That is one of the many magic ways that consensus science works.

As opposed to when everyone disagrees with everyone else? Yeah, that's a good way forward. Consensus is achieved through verification of observations by independent researchers. No magic needed. It's what makes science work. Your non-consensus bleat is indicative of your crank status.
omatumr
1.2 / 5 (10) Jul 15, 2011
By the way I think even Oliver won't claim I work NASA so why do make such ridiculous claims?


No. I do not think NASA pays you to use the same techniques here that the Red Brigade used to support Lysenkoism - the old USSR version of consensus science.

If you didn't use such obvious names as EthelRed & Red Comet, those who have not lived under a tyrannical government might not recognize your techniques.

In view of the budget impass in Washington and the arrest of the Climategate Spin Doctor hired by UEA's Climatic Research Unit:

www.thegwpf.org/u...cru.html

http://climateaud...ias-cru/

You better grab your money and run, no matter who pays you, before the whole government scam comes down about your ears.

Congress will not approve more funds for Lysenkoism.

Oliver
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2011
Ethelred the important scientific fields are destroyed by modern rule of NASA and other scientific centers.
That is a fantasy. No single person can do much in science outside of theoretical work and you clearly are not the mathematical type. Oliver refuses to even learn the math he needs to back up his ideas. Yes I asked if he has done the math. He has not. Cannot any more than I can.

-selective observations,
All observations are selective. If you look in one direction you are not looking in others. They cost money.

-selective observations
Redundant.

-selective publications - (disappearance of the ground-breaking data)
Nonsense. Groundbreaking data gets published. For instance the data on supernova being involved in the beginning of the Solar system was published. Both Oliver's in Crank journals and other people's work in mainstream journals. The other people understood that signs of supernova in no way requires the Sun to have been the Supernova.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2011
You don't want to provide the spectral data?
You don't want to provide the spectral data?
Would you care to tell us just why the hell you think I have the unspecified data. I have NEVER claimed to be a working scientist.

Your wrong understanding
Translation from Crank = you don't agree with me so you are evil incarnate.

Your wrong understanding
Lets see, I don't agree with you so I must be from NASA. So everyone but you and Oliver work for NASA. Ooops, Oliver worked for NASA. So that leaves you as the only person on Earth that is not in on the conspiracy.

Truth is victorious.
I agree. Which is why Oliver and you are such utter Cranks. You lost to the truth.

by government scientists we are indeed due a scientific revolution.
It isn't going to come from a 70 year old child molester or his toady.

Now go to bed!
No, I don't have to. I was told I could stay up and watch the fireworks from Disneyland.

Ethelred
omatumr
1.3 / 5 (10) Jul 16, 2011
Run, Ethel, Run!

The Climategate Spin Doctor, hired by Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, has been arrested!

www.thegwpf.org/u...cru.html

Congress will NOT approve more funds for manipulation or distortion of the scientific process by the likes of you, Red Comet, or James Hansen.

If you don't understand, read Bob Carter's paper on "Lysenkoism and James Hansen" and the forward by Vaclav Klaus:

"Todays debate about global warming is essentially a debate about freedom. The environmentalists would like to mastermind each and every possible (and impossible) aspect of our lives.

www.quadrant.org....alarmism

Congress will cut all funds for your Lysenkoism nonsense.

Oliver
jsdarkdestruction
1 / 5 (1) Jul 16, 2011
oliver is a great guy, if you like child molesters that is. Ethelred has shredded his nonsnse multiple times, as have others. since oliver went off topic onto global warming I shall go off topic too and show what a great man oliver is.put http in the front.://mominer.mst.edu/2006/08/30/dr-oliver-manuel-arrested-for-multiple-counts-of-rape-and-sodomy-of-his-children/
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jul 16, 2011
No. I do not think NASA pays you to use the same techniques here that the Red Brigade
Good. I don't use them but it is nice that you think I am not getting paid by NASA. The truth is more than enough for me.

the old USSR version of consensus science.
So glad they you understand that forcing people to believe your nonsense would be counterproductive. Hard the budget I would guess.

If you didn't use such obvious names as EthelRed & Red Comet,
I only post under one name, barring one joke post as I A M Right. And its Ethelred you ignoramus. Red is from REDE or advice and it was the name of one of the last Saxon kings of England. And in case you haven't noticed the USA has RED as part of its colors. The USA track teams switch between blue and RED. Clearly by your standards, and those of Tail Gunner Joe and his odious toady Roy Cohn, the USA Olympic teams must be Commies.>>
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2011
government might not recognize your techniques.
Those that read science might notice that I use the truth and you try to bully people. Actually DO bully people but I don't tolerate that crap for you or anyone else.

You better grab your money and run, no matter who pays you,
I work retail. They don't pay enough to run and you had better not run yourself since you are still on parole.

Congress will not approve more funds for Lysenkoism.
It never did. It did pay for witch hunts by Red Scare fraud artists.

I just love this. Disagree with those two Cranks and one says you're an Evil NASA villain and the other calls you a vile Commie. Sorry I am neither but YOU Oliver, you plead guilty. You are a bully. And this not the only time you have tried to bully me. I am not one of your children. I no more be bullied by you than the reporter was.

Ethelred
Kio
1 / 5 (7) Jul 16, 2011
Nobody knows names of the Galileo's Opponents. Greatest scientist Galileo found the wrong understanding on universe. He can explain the truth but his truth had been attacked by unknown governmental ignorants.
Gallileo began the new scientific epoch and became famous. Names of the governmental ignorants have been forgotten.
nobody knows names of the modern governmental ignorants: Ethelred, SCVGoodToGo... etc. The best scientist in the world Prof. Oliver found the wrong understanding on universe. He can explain the truth but his truth had been attacked by unknown governmental ignorants.
Prof. Oliver began the new scientific epoch and became famous. he is founder new field of science - neutron repulsion science. Names of the governmental ignorants (that are fighting violently against the truth) are unknown still and will be forgotten easily in the history.
!
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2011
Run, Ethel, Run!
Why? Because you want to switch to sodomizing 60 year olds? You can't leave Missouri and I live in Anaheim CA. Nothing to run from.

University of East Anglia, has been arrested!
That is in England you idiot. Congress is in the US. England has a Parliment. You are the worst source of disinformation I seen outside of the Creationists.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2011
Nobody knows names of the Galileo's Opponents.
I bet someone knows. I don't remember the name of the Pope at the time but it wouldn't take long to find out. Oliver is no Galileo. And the other natural philosophers of the day were on his side. Quite unlike Oliver who has not a single astronomer or physicist on his side. Arp has more support than Oliver and despite Oliver's fawning over Arp's work Arp doesn't back him either. Arp is wrong but he is not a Crank.

attacked by unknown governmental ignorants.
Known RELIGIOUS persons that weren't ignorant. They knew he was right. They were worried about the sheep. And he pissed of the Pope by sneering at him. Not smart for a man living in Italy. He should have moved to the Netherlands.

nobody knows names of the modern governmental ignorants: Ethelred, SCVGoodToGo
You know them so thats cool. However I don't work for any government. No matter how matter times you make that shit up it won't become true.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2011
The best scientist in the world Prof. Oliver found the wrong understanding on universe.
I think you botched that. As written it is half right. He found the wrong understanding but he is not the best scientist and he is a LOUSY human being, a pretty bad scientist as well.

neutron repulsion science.
For which he has no evidence. He has evidence of the Pauli Exclusion principle and is completely unable to give a single bit of evidence that it not the PEP. He just rants when asked.

fighting violently
Get a dictionary. Oliver is the one that engages in violence and force. I just use the truth.

Ethelred
Kio
1 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2011
Oliver is the famous and best scientist in the world! He is the famous persona non grata for the mainstream forums ad their mass media, especially for the top sciantist, US national academy of science, the UK royal society, the once distinguished research journals: Nature, Science, & PNAS, and the UN's IPCC.
You are nothing! An ignorant man and unknown agent working for the top falsifiers. You know on wrong understanding but are playing nervous game against Prof. Oliver. Don't worry! There are lots of rats in the mainstream forums to back up falsifiers, especially for the top falsifiers.
... !
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2011
Oliver is the famous and best scientist in the world!
That is delusional. Oliver is hardly known outside the forums he desecrates.

Oliver is the famous and best scientist in the world!
He is on parole. He isn't famous. He is an embarrassment to the institutions he worked for.

You are nothing!
Except the guy you are telling fairy stories to and the guy that Oliver gets mad at for showing his many errors.

An ignorant man
No. Not by any reasonable person's standards.

and unknown agent working for the top falsifiers.
Known to you. Not know to me. I work retail. And falsification is the norm in science. Most ideas don't hold up under scrutiny. I leave lies to Oliver and you.

You know on wrong understanding
I read his papers. I understood them. There is smidgen of good observational work hidden in a vast wasteland of bad theory. He is a LOUSY theorist.>>
Kio
1 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2011
You need a good doctor to feel better. Your crying is nothing!
I've had enough of your complaining for one day - leave it out, will you?
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2011
but are playing nervous game against Prof. Oliver.
I am not in the least nervous. I got over being nervous online a decade ago.

There are lots of rats in the mainstream forums
I am curious. Where did you study ranting? You have it down pat. Inarticulate, insane, nonsensical, self-contradictory, you got it all. What do you use to clean the foam off your keyboard?

Ethelred
omatumr
1.3 / 5 (8) Jul 16, 2011
To jsdarkdestruction and Ethelred:


Thank you for the opportunity to publicly respond to hypocrites who:

a.) Conceal their own identity

b.) Find flaws in personal lives of others

c.) Use this physics forum for malicious gossip

By the grace of God, I am able today to use my own name and accept full responsibility for my past - good and bad.

I pray that you will one day be able to do the same.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
omatumr
1 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2011
I pray that you will be able one day be able to do the same.
jsdarkdestruction
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 16, 2011
Oliveer, dont pretend your something great, your a child molester, plain and simple. Whats great about that? gossip and reality are 2 different things oliver, your neutron repulsion theory is nonsense/gossip. you molesting your children is fact/reality. Oliver, i want to see you take responsibility for your past, admit you are a child molester and i will drop it.i wonder what yourgod thinks about child molesting....
omatumr
1 / 5 (6) Jul 17, 2011
By the grace of God, I am able today to use my own name and accept full responsibility for my past - good and bad.

I pray that one day you will be able to do the same.

Oliver
Kio
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 17, 2011
Next chameleon with unknown name, came in the best and democratic scientific forum to play nervous game against Prof Oliver. Maybe known scientist owning false researches on BBT. http://www.cosmog...er-7.htm But he is not a blame. Government and false scientific epoch was paying, producing intellectual disorientation among the young scientists.
Publications in the mainstream forums and mass media are prohibited for the best scientist. This is an amazing proof on totalitarianism and authoritarianism in the important scientific fields. Oliver cannot answer you from the mainstream forum and you came here to play provocation game?
Kio
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 17, 2011
What is unacceptable in the neutron star system. You don't know even an elementary astronomy. Each astronomer has known long ego that the naked cores of the exploded stars are the neutron stars. what about young stars. How the young star core forms the neutron star in the old star before explosion.
Old M - stars spectrums indicate on fuel problem by neutron emissions, down to disappearance of the hydrogen lines, while the young star Sun triggers huge amount of protons and neutrinos. Clue is that the from the young stellar core, violent neutron emission from the inner neutron core (star) and violent P/N interactions produce star of the recycled neutrons without the positrons and electrons in the old stars
http://www.cosmog...r-29.htm
This is almost mainstream nuclear mechanism on thermonuclear fuel with Neutron star inside - source for the thermonuclear fuel.
Kio
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 17, 2011
http://en.wikiped...fication
"Although most Class M stars are red dwarfs, the class also hosts most giants and some supergiants such as Antares and Betelgeuse, as well as Mira variables. The late-M group holds hotter brown dwarfs that are above the L spectrum. This is usually in the range of M6.5 to M9.5. The spectrum of an M star shows lines belonging to molecules and all neutral metals but hydrogen lines are usually absent. Titanium oxide can be strong in M stars, usually dominating by about M5. Vanadium oxide bands become present by late M." the text is from wikipedia
Kio
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 17, 2011
Thus "hydrogen lines are usually absent" has only meaning. - The naked cores of the exploded M5 stars can't be formed by ordinary neutrons. Each naked core - neutron star consist by remaining protons (insignificant present) and neutrons (~99,999%) but the ordinary neutrons contradicts to the M5 spectrums. There is only explanation - the naked fiery cores are formed by recycled neutrons mainly, without the positrons and electrons.
What is unacceptable in the recycled neurons?
is it out of the nuclear laws?
FrankHerbert
0.8 / 5 (51) Jul 17, 2011
Nobody knows names of the Galileo's Opponents. Greatest scientist Galileo found the wrong understanding on universe. He can explain the truth but his truth had been attacked by unknown governmental ignorants.
Gallileo began the new scientific epoch and became famous. Names of the governmental ignorants have been forgotten.
nobody knows names of the modern governmental ignorants: Ethelred, SCVGoodToGo... etc. The best scientist in the world Prof. Oliver found the wrong understanding on universe. He can explain the truth but his truth had been attacked by unknown governmental ignorants.
Prof. Oliver began the new scientific epoch and became famous. he is founder new field of science - neutron repulsion science. Names of the governmental ignorants (that are fighting violently against the truth) are unknown still and will be forgotten easily in the history.
!

lmao
Kio
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 17, 2011
Frank Herbert I did not understand the "Imao" meaning. In reality so called Black Holes within the Milky Way branches are the stellar remains. BHs are the naked and cooled cores of the exploded stars, - i.e. the cooled dwarf neutron stars. http://www.omatum...Data.htm "N-N repulsion energizes neutron stars and prevents their collapse into imaginary "black holes." That is why the observations of neutron stars and "black holes" are so similar." actually the Milky Way BHs are the different concentrations of the recycled and cooled neutrons, which are compressed almost to the nuclear density by huge collective gravitation.
In the dwarf neutron stars violent N/N interaction prevents compression to the nuclear density. Huge collective gravitation prevents powerful explosion due to absolutely colossal neutron repulsion forces.
omatumr
1.3 / 5 (7) Jul 17, 2011
Binary (either/or, good/bad) thinking is designed into our minds - as it is in computers.

This great tool allows for rapid, usually correct, decisions.

But binary thinking has limitations that led us to paradoxes.

For example,

a.) Electrons repel other electrons, yet electrons pair in atomic orbitals.

b.) Protons repel other protons, yet protons pair in the nucleus.

c.) Neutrons repel other neutrons, yet neutrons pair in the nucleus.
Callippo
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 17, 2011
Electrons repel other electrons, yet electrons pair in atomic orbitals
You see, the electrons repel mutually, but the electron repulsion isn't source of heat anywhere. Why the neutron repulsion should be? These forces are balancing gravity and prohibiting the gravitational collapse of massive bodies, but they don't heat anything. Your theory is senile, just admit it.
Kio
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 17, 2011
Callippo! An important question is that. Where the fuel for the thermonuclear reactions come from? The fiery core has enough temperature to explode, what prevents the solar destruction and explosion? injecting by precursor star, colossal nuclear matter produces huge compression event to the nuclear density in the core by colossal collective gravitation. There is no volume for the orbiting electrons in the stable embryonic core, which causes the neutralization event for the compressed nuclear matter. lightest nucleuses around the embryonic core produce thermonuclear reactions and violent P/N interaction on the compressed neutron core, triggers neutrons step by step to form neutron star by violent neutron emission, without nuclear chain reactions.
Moebius
not rated yet Jul 17, 2011
Maybe activity comes from the merger of a black hole and a dark hole (a dark matter black hole). The merger would allow the blark? hole to suck up both matter and dark matter.

I just had to propose a crazy theory this session, if the wacko's can do it why not me? And I coined 2 new names for celestial objects, can't get wackier than that.
Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Jul 17, 2011
Where the fuel for the thermonuclear reactions come from? The fiery core has enough temperature to explode, what prevents the solar destruction and explosion?
The fuel comes from merging of tiny atom nuclei into more larger ones. Gravity prohibits the sun core explosion.
There is no volume for the orbiting electrons in the stable embryonic core, which causes the neutralization event for the compressed nuclear matter.
Sun core density has up to 150 g/cm3. It's huge density, nevertheless there is still lotta space for electrons. The density of neutron star varies from 109 kg/m3 in the crust, increasing with depth to above 6×1017 or 8×1017 kg/m3 deeper inside.
Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Jul 17, 2011
..the numbers after 10 digits are exponents. You should read it as 1x10^9 kg/m^3, 6x10^17 kg/m^3 or 8x10^17 kg/m^3 accordingly...
omatumr
1 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2011
Electrons repel other electrons, yet electrons pair in atomic orbitals
You see, the electrons repel mutually, but the electron repulsion isn't source of heat anywhere. Why the neutron repulsion should be?


1. Neutron-rich centers of atoms, stars and nuclei are observed to fragment.

2. Neutron repulsion is stored as rest mass in every nucleus with two or more neutrons ["Attraction and repulsion of nucleons: Sources of stellar energy" Journal of Fusion Energy 19, 93-98 (2001); . . . . ; "Neutron Repulsion", The APEIRON Journal, in press, 19 pages (2011)]

http://www.omatum...tnuc.pdf

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

Or, see video on "Neutron Repulsion"

www.youtube.com/w...yLYSiPO0

Callippo
3 / 5 (2) Jul 17, 2011
Why not to talk about proton repulsion, after then? There is much more protons than the neutrons inside of Sun. And the neutrons have no electrostatic charge. The repulsion of protons would store a much more mass and energy for Sun.

Which testable predictions such hypothesis would bring for us?
ACRScout
3 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2011
All the technical jargon as subjective analysis aside the question is very simple and the answer is even more so.

Question "What activates a supermassive black hole?"

Answer: "The collapsing(ed) star that created it."
MorituriMax
5 / 5 (1) Jul 17, 2011
All the technical jargon as subjective analysis aside the question is very simple and the answer is even more so.

Question "What activates a supermassive black hole?"

Answer: "The collapsing(ed) star that created it."

Well, aren't supermassive black hole's the result of LOTS and LOTS of stars? I don't think anyone has said yet what the origin of them is, just that they seem to be in the center of almost every galaxy we check them for, or not?
Callippo
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 17, 2011
Neutron repulsion is stored as rest mass in every nucleus with two or more neutrons
The isotope mass of tritium is 3.0160492 Daltons, the mass of deuterium is 2.014102 Da, the difference is 1.0019472 Da. But the mass of free neutron is 1.008664 Da, i.e. it's 6.7168 mDa heavier, than that difference. If the neutron repulsion would store some significant energy in atom nuclei mass, shouldn't be tritium heavier, than the sum of neutron and deuterium mass? Instead of it, the tritium is lighter, because of larger diameter (lower surface curvature) of its atom nuclei, than the deuterium.

You never checked your theories with hard numbers, right?
Callippo
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2011
If I should take your deductions seriously, I should consider, the neutron repulsion is actually decreasing the energy, released during fusion of two deuterons into helium nuclei (because it's stored in form of rest mass of helium nuclei). If the energy stored in compression of neutrons would be significant in comparison to fusion energy, then the fusion of deuterium into helium would actually become endothermic! We can deduce with simple logic, that even if the neutron repulsion would store some mass inside of atom nuclei, then its contribution must be quite negligible with compare to the fusion energy, or it would compensate the positive heat of this fusion.

And I'm not discussing the ways, in which the energy of neutrons should release later. It would require the emanation of protons, instead of consuming them with fusion reaction. In this way, the stars would produce lighter elements during their burning, instead of their fusion into heavier ones...
omatumr
1.2 / 5 (9) Jul 18, 2011
You never checked your theories with hard numbers, right?


Here are the hard numbers, plotted so you can see neutron repulsion:

www.omatumr.com/D...Data.htm

Neutron repulsion is explain in detail here:

1. "Attraction and repulsion of nucleons: Sources of stellar energy"
Journal of Fusion Energy 19, 93-98 (2001)

www.omatumr.com/a...tnuc.pdf

2. Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source,
Journal of Fusion Energy 20, 197-201 (2001)

www.omatumr.com/a...nrep.pdf

.

.

.

13. "Neutron Repulsion", The
APEIRON Journal, in press, 19 pages (2011)

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1
omatumr
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 18, 2011
Why not to talk about proton repulsion, after then? There is much more protons than the neutrons inside of Sun.


No.

There are no protons at the cores of stars or galaxies.

Even in atoms, the neutron/proton ratio increases as the mass increases.

Please take the time to read one or two of the above papers.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
flicktheswitch
4.5 / 5 (6) Jul 18, 2011
Wow... having just read this comments section all the way through (for entertainment) I am fundamentally amazed at the Cranks and their sock puppets.

I can understand that Oliver may not have much to do with his time, but what possesses people to get off on having long involved "arguments" with themselves under different handles just to provide some illusory groundswell of popular support for theories that, in all my reading, they cannot and will not answer direct questions on?

I'm not sure "nothing better to do" covers this sort of situation. Compulsive/obsessive? Seriously deranged?
What's the pay off here?
The satisfaction that nameless people on a physics forum have been converted?

Where is KevinRTS when you need him.... :O
jsdarkdestruction
3.8 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2011
part of my theory is that he's trying to swamp google so when people google his name the pages relating to his child molestation charges are not seen. being a spamming crank is better looking than a being a child molester. I think in general that has alot to do with him pushing his nonsense so hard as well(not wanting to be remembered for molesting his children). He's old and realizes his life has been pretty much a waste. I'd feel pity for him if he wasnt so arrogant and i hadnt seen him try to bully countless people pretending his working for nasa and all that makes him right and unquestionable, also the way he thinks posting the same crap links over and over again when he's asked a question he cant answer or the answer goes against his pet theory.
Kio
1 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2011
Callippo! "Sun core density has up to 150 g/cm3." Too small for the stable solar core and next wrong understanding. It would be source for the violent nucleo-synthesis reactions and the Sun would be exploded long ago. You don't know elementary nuclear laws, proved by researches. There are lots of false data in the wikipedia in the modern false epoch. Your finding describes a Super Dense Volume (SDN-150 g/cm3). You have to know the elementary nuclear laws. SDN is an excellent place for the nucleo-synthesis reactions. Only huge compression to the nuclear density in the core, can prevent the solar explosion.
Kio
1 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2011
Callippo! Each embryonic stellar core is formed by powerful injection from the precursor (parent) star. Each stellar core can be formed only by colossal pressure forces, made by huge collective gravitation. each young star has own inner neutron core - The neutralized enormous amount nucleuses, from the well-known table. The huge pressure forces have well-known boundary only - nuclear density. 150 g/cm3 is interrelated on false modeling by computer. Your intellect much better and you have to know an alimentary law in the Universe. If something giant pressure produced 150 g/cm3-density - there is no force to prevent next compression to the nuclear density.
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (1) Jul 21, 2011
Each stellar core can be formed only by colossal pressure forces, made by huge collective gravitation.

Well, you didnt intend it but you did say something partially right.