Hungry black hole eats faster than thought possible

October 8, 2014
A rendering of what Black Hole P13 would look like close up. Credit: by Tom Russell (ICRAR) using software created by Rob Hynes (Louisiana State University).

Astronomers have discovered a black hole that is consuming gas from a nearby star 10 times faster than previously thought possible. The black hole—known as P13—lies on the outskirts of the galaxy NGC7793 about 12 million light years from Earth and is ingesting a weight equivalent to 100 billion billion hot dogs every minute.

The discovery was published today in the journal Nature.

International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research astronomer Dr Roberto Soria, who is based at ICRAR's Curtin University node, said that as gas falls towards a black hole it gets very hot and bright.

He said scientists first noticed P13 because it was a lot more luminous than other , but it was initially assumed that it was simply bigger.

"It was generally believed the maximum speed at which a black hole could swallow gas and produce light was tightly determined by its size," Dr Soria said.

"So it made sense to assume that P13 was bigger than the ordinary, less bright black holes we see in our own galaxy, the Milky Way."

When Dr Soria and his colleagues from the University of Strasbourg measured the mass of P13 they found it was actually on the small side, despite being at least a million times brighter than the Sun. It was only then that they realised just how much material it was consuming.

"There's not really a strict limit like we thought, black holes can actually consume more gas and produce more light," Dr Soria said.

Dr Soria said P13 rotates around a supergiant 'donor' star 20 times heavier than our own Sun.

He said the scientists saw that one side of the donor star was always brighter than the other because it was illuminated by X-rays coming from near the black hole, so the star appeared brighter or fainter as it went around P13.

Primary Image: This is a combined optical/X-ray image of NGC 7793. Inset image: This is a rendering of what P13 would look like close up. Credit: X-ray (NASA/CXC/Univ of Strasbourg/M. Pakull et al); Optical (ESO/VLT/Univ of Strasbourg/M. Pakull et al); H-alpha (NOAO/AURA/NSF/CTIO 1.5m). Insert Image: created by Tom Russell (ICRAR) using software created by Rob Hynes (Louisiana State University).

"This allowed us to measure the time it takes for the black hole and the donor star to rotate around each other, which is 64 days, and to model the velocity of the two objects and the shape of the orbit," Dr Soria said.

"From this, we worked out that the black hole must be less than 15 times the mass of our Sun."

Dr Soria compared P13 to small Japanese eating champion Takeru Kobayashi.

"As hotdog-eating legend Takeru Kobayashi famously showed us, size does not always matter in the world of competitive eating and even small black holes can sometimes eat gas at an exceptional rate," he said.

Dr Soria said P13 is a member of a select group of black holes known as ultraluminous X-ray sources.

"These are the champions of competitive gas eating in the Universe, capable of swallowing their donor star in less than a million years, which is a very short time on cosmic scales," he said.

Explore further: Taking the pulse of a supermassive black hole

More information: 'A mass of less than 15 solar masses for the black hole in an ultraluminous X-ray source' was published in Nature, 9 October 2014. C. Motch, M. W. Pakull, R. Soria, F. Grise, G. Pietrzynski. DOI: 10.1038/nature13730

Related Stories

Taking the pulse of a supermassive black hole

December 5, 2013

(Phys.org) —Rare heartbeat-like pulsations detected from a supermassive black hole may grant scientists better insight into these exotic objects, according to two University of Alabama astronomers who co-authored a recent ...

Smallest known galaxy with a supermassive black hole found

September 17, 2014

A University of Utah astronomer and his colleagues discovered that an ultracompact dwarf galaxy harbors a supermassive black hole – the smallest galaxy known to contain such a massive light-sucking object. The finding suggests ...

Black hole makes 'String of Pearls' clusters

April 1, 2014

(Phys.org) —Huge young star clusters resembling a string of pearls around a black hole in the centre of a galaxy 120 million light-years away have been discovered by researchers at Swinburne University of Technology.

Seeking proof for the no-hair theorem

September 9, 2014

According to general relativity, a black hole has three measurable properties: mass, rotation (angular momentum), and charge. That's it. If you know those three things, you know all there is to know about the black hole. ...

Recommended for you

Recurring martian streaks: flowing sand, not water?

November 20, 2017

Dark features on Mars previously considered evidence for subsurface flowing of water are interpreted by new research as granular flows, where grains of sand and dust slip downhill to make dark streaks, rather than the ground ...

Image: Hubble's cosmic search for a missing arm

November 20, 2017

This new picture of the week, taken by the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, shows the dwarf galaxy NGC 4625, located about 30 million light-years away in the constellation of Canes Venatici (The Hunting Dogs). The image, ...

107 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

castro
Oct 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Hat1208
5 / 5 (2) Oct 08, 2014
That is the first time I have seen the term, "neutrino stars". What are they?
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (16) Oct 08, 2014
In AWT
@castro/Zephir
in the real world, AWT is a known and debunked pseudoscience that is empirically proven wrong with the following studies:
http://arxiv.org/...1284.pdf
&
http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf

your religious belief is dead

now... about the article
a weight equivalent to 100 billion billion hot dogs every minute
WTF?
really?
is this the Ball Park hot dogs, which are known for being longer or the home style hot dogs most commonly found in homes in the US? or are we referring to another standard like the euro-dog? There is a difference, you know!
castro
Oct 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 08, 2014
That is the first time I have seen the term, "neutrino stars"
@Hat1208
Take a few moments of your time and look into the real science instead of AWT, which is "Aether Wave Theory". It is not a theory, it is a philosophy debunked years ago. Yes, that one that Einstein, Michelson and Morely debunked, just modified for modern crackpots like Zephir to proselytize about
See alo: http://math.ucr.e...pot.html

You will notice that real science doesn't just pick names out of a hat like "neutrino stars"... as proven by Zephir above with his reference to electroweak stars

Keep in mind that when you see these red flags: http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/
You can guarantee that the poster is pushing a pseudoscience
like awt

also note that those studies that I linked above for Zephir are science
not some gut-feeling interpretation of waves, water striders and perceptions of studies that are wrong
You can learn more real physics here: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 08, 2014
In AWT it's the most dense form of matter observable
@zephir
I know you don't like it when I tell everyone about your crackpot pseudoscience and how it is debunked....
tell you what. Lets clear the air

give me some empirical evidence PROVING that awt is a real science, and provide me some studies, like I linked above, proving that the studies above are wrong and refuted.

Make sure that you use the same level of scientific evidence that I linked above, mind you! Empirical evidence from a reputable peer reviewed source with a high impact in astrophysics as well as physics!

Just like the links i gave you!

that is only fair, right?
I will even re-link those links for you:http://arxiv.org/...1284.pdf

http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf

don't just give me what you THINK is wrong with them... I want PROOF that these studies are wrong!
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 08, 2014
That is the first time I have seen the term, "neutrino stars". What are they?
@Hat1208
Just adding this

Ask questions of everyone that you can... especially when you don't know something. There are those out there that will try to bamboozle you, like zephir and cantdrive (cantdrive believes in the electric universe, which is also debunked)

the best defense is education and learning the basics... which is why I linked the site here:

http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

courses are free and you can learn a LOT of information!
Professor Lewin's physics classes are pretty fun to me! try it out!

PEACE
castro
Oct 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
castro
Oct 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Shootist
5 / 5 (5) Oct 08, 2014
That is the first time I have seen the term, "neutrino stars". What are they?


it has recently been observed that active singularities are neutrino beacons. there is an article around here somewhere discussing that.

AWT, right up there with the Spontaneous Generation of flies from rotted meat.
castro
Oct 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 08, 2014
IMO the "neutrino star" is much more logical denomination, than the "electroweak star" from this perspective
your "perspective" is not science, it is your gut feeling about physics, which is not better than speculation
For example
why not post some scientific studies to prove your point?
or can you? after all, posting something like that would mean that you comprehend physics
you cannot apply these informations in this discussion
you are saying physics and astrophysics is not in this discussion? maybe not from you, zeph, but I am providing physics backing up what i say
your links are OT here
links to learn physics and astrophysics is off topic on a science thread about astrophysics?
really?
Which is also the reason, why you're remaining stupid and uniformed too
i learned enough at MIT to know that you are a crackpot and that science requires empirical evidence, which you've never been able to provide... not even here
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 08, 2014
You cannot even choose the relevant informational sources
@zephir
what is not relevant about astrophysics and physics from MIT? there is even a link for Quantum Physics on that site
You apparently want to educate yourself, but because you never passed the high school, you cannot do it. You need a teacher for to learn something
2 bach degrees with specialties... you are the only high-school dropout here, zephy
the consequence of AWT model
everything ties in to aether, doesn't it... show Hat your proof!do like I did, zeph!

you sure don't mind condemning other people and their scientific information... but I noticed something: you NEVER offer proof that awt is correct, or even a viable philosophy

you sure don't like mainstream science... we get that. they will not let your precious debunked religion publish because it is already proven false. HOW DARE THEY!

all I have ever done is ask you for some proof... time and time again... and all you do is TROLL
castro
Oct 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 08, 2014
here (in 2008) I'm explaining,
@zephir
and here we see that it is you that cannot comprehend the difference between a legitimate source of information and a crackpot pseudoscience site.
didn't you notice that the link you gave was a BLOG?
and you say
You cannot even choose the relevant informational sources
when I use MIT as a source?
what about the Physics papers that I linked? Physical Review letters is just another crackpot site, eh, zeph?
This is a confirmation of five years old prediction of AWT
no, this is you posting a BLOG about a failed philosophy that was debunked with physics and modern science to a level of 10^-17 level
That is a WHOLE lot of zero's, zeph

just because you can link to yourself (a sign of pseudoscience and a red flag for crackpots) doesn't mean you have a valid hypothesis, let alone a scientific theory
http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 08, 2014
the cold fusion has been never proved, but in reality we have video of it
@zephir
oh, yeah... everything on youtube is totally real! silly me... all this time i thought i needed scientific evidence, and I had youtube!
you can also see this on youtube
a member of the paraphyletic group of organisms that consist of all gill-bearing aquatic craniate animals that lack limbs with digits being utilised for battery in cultural art that generally involves movement of the body, often rhythmic and to music
https://www.youtu...Qp-q1Y1s
(FISH SLAPPING DANCE)
which doesn't explain physics, but is more relevant to what you are posting than your BLOG links are...
The dismissal of evidence with negativistic & ignorant retired firefighters is not equivalent the absence of evidence
the absence of evidence is what I am complaining about, zephir, not my dismissal of your pseudoscience crackpot links

you have NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
just a Blog, youtube videos and BS
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (11) Oct 08, 2014
didn't you notice that the link you gave was a BLOG?

You continuously post from Timmy Thompson's blog, and links which have but a vague connection to the discussion. Then call it "proof".
castro
Oct 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 08, 2014
You continuously post from Timmy Thompson's blog
@cantthink
yep
it also has references, to which i usually refer other too as well... one reason that I read his page is BECAUSE it has references to fact check...
but you eu guys wouldn't know about that, would you? that is against the rules at eu... that would be something like peer review, and yall think that is conspiratorial! LMFAO

These papers aren't RELEVANT
@zephir
i got both of these links from here on PO in articles that proved aether was deader than sh*t... but even supposing that is not convincing, by all means, SHOW US THE PROOF that provides an explanation WHY aether is not dead

and they are NOT about black holes... they are about AETHER and they specifically debunk your philosophy proving with a phenomenally high degree of accuracy that aether is dead, which can then be used to prove that any awt theory used from that point is based upon a fallacy, which is proving you are stupid
again
or still
whichever

Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 08, 2014
YouTube is only platform for broadcasting videos
@zephir
thank you for proving my point yourself
it is a platform for broadcasting video;s, not a science site, not a research lab, not a peer reviewed publication, like those studies I linked above which prove aether is dead, when then subsequently prove that you are basing your conjectures upon a fallacy, which is the same thing as a blatant lie
you even cannot follow the sources of videos at YouTube
as I said before: ya got a source, present it, NOT some youtube crap. i don't watch tv!
the MIT video presented at YouTube is of the same factual relevance, like the Jennifer Lopez video
I don't watch MIT there either... but when there is a youtube video linked through a study or a course, I DO watch it. the difference is that the source is MIT. i dont go to youtube
it is NOT a scientific reference
it is NOT peer reviewed

you said so yourself
YouTube is only platform for broadcasting videos
you still have CD
Hat1208
4 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2014
@Captain Stumpy

Thanks for the real information. I was really just waiting to hear about how the "neutrino stars" have a neutron star inside of them and how it is trying to get out. And I will use the links.

Knowledge is power

Thanks again
castro
Oct 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 08, 2014
This is another problem with you - you even cannot follow the sources of videos at YouTube
@zephir
last thing before i gotta run for a while
you are making a personal conjecture not based upon evidence

I've linked sources from youtube before
just ask your snuggle buddy cantthink.
THIS is where yall have your fantasy crushed, btw
no matter how many youtube video's you link to... they are a visual medium used to interpret a study... NOT the study itself

ya can't link a scientific study, then you can't provide scientific evidence that your philosophy is legitimate

only another pseudoscience crackpot philosophy looking for acolytes like eu and cantdrive

Thanks for the real information... Knowledge is power

Thanks again
@Hat1208
You are very welcome
Don't forget, there is Quantum Physics there too, as well as a lot of other subjects!

enjoy them... i am having a BLAST there!
Gotta run for a bit!

PEACE
castro
Oct 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 08, 2014
woo-hoo! i got postponed for 45 min
you cannot have proof, only evidence
@zephir
and you have neither
The evidence of aether for example is
there you go again with your gut-feeling wave-water strider inspired delusions... where is your scientific evidence? where is the scientific studies like I provided to you? seems pretty unfair that I gotta go dig through all that physics after studying just to find the specifically relevant papers when all you are going to do is chant about longitudinal water bugs riding your CMB vacuum noise (satire)
The video itself contains an information about its source
no sh*t sherlock... i already said that. but a pseudoscience video citing a pseudoscience site with references to blogs and crackpot crap is no better than used toilet paper, which is, by the way, equivalent to your philosophy you call awt or daw/t, and likely has almost the same monetary value, unless someone is buying fecal matter for tests

NOT gonna watch aether porn
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 08, 2014
below this video
@zephir
you are getting better, but still stupid
that is not a link to a study... that was a link to New Energy Times, a LENR site which reports on LENR and "also provides news on next-generation nuclear power research and historical archives on the cold fusion controversy"

do you not know the difference between a study and a site?
also... there are quite a few links to studies on that site... you are saying that all those links support aether and your bullsnot aw/daw?
You DO realise that I do not have a problem directly querying authors, or did you forget when you linked that retracted paper that was trying to pose as a legitimate scientific publication from a reputable site?

you did, didn't you?
if you're able to dismiss the video with link to peer-reviewed study?
which freakin study?
all 30?
castro
Oct 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 08, 2014
ou're simply denying the evidence - no less, no more.
@zephir
listen up, retard
this is the first time you've provided a link that wasn't porn or stupidity wrapped in aw/daw crud!
so I can't make any judgements on those 30 studies until they've been read and I can cross-reference them with legitimate sites that might contain supporting info
Why I should waste my time with such an ignorant here?
because everyone else just calls you a stupid moron and heckles. at least I have given you the chance to prove yourself

too bad you are only supporting LENR and NOT aw/daw... still NO evidence for that yet!
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 08, 2014
@cantthink
yep
it also has references, to which i usually refer other too as well... one reason that I read his page is BECAUSE it has references to fact check...
but you eu guys wouldn't know about that, would you? that is against the rules at eu... that would be something like peer review, and yall think that is conspiratorial! LMFAO

I did the exact same thing here;
http://phys.org/n...ing.html

And you followed by saying...
AND lastly, it comes down to you not being able to PROVE your comment because you cannot provide a reputable source link.. therefore I can assume that it is simply been retracted from any reputable source


To which I'll respond in kind, Lil' Timmy Thompson's blog is neither reputable nor accurate. So try again meat head.
Hat1208
4 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2014
@Captain Stumpy

"neutrino stars" = 10 points

Am I right?
castro
Oct 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 08, 2014
I'm not here for advising the apparently negativist dull ignorants
nope. so far, you've only ever TROLLED, baited others, posted PSEUDOSCIENCE and tried to gain acolytes with your proselytizing about aw/daw
I presume, I'm talking here with intelligent people
if they are proponents of pseudoscience, you assume they are intelligent? really?
when you're just willing to believe in AWT, you're already wasted case for me
why would i believe in something that is debunked or proven false with science?
Not to say about present situation, when you're not even willing to do so. You're two levels bellow my threshold of interest about you
you could always teach me a right smart lesson and leave?

you are full of donkey urine, you know that?
your BS above about "why I should be motivated in production of another crowds of believers?"... that is the ONLY reason you are here.

looking for people stupid enough to believe in debunked science, just like the eu crowd
castro
Oct 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 08, 2014
@Captain Stumpy

"neutrino stars" = 10 points

Am I right?
@HatHat1208
you got it!
good work... there is some old info on there that may not be applicable to certain sites...
for instance: there is no means for highlighting or bold-faced type here, so you are left with using caps as bold face or as a marker for intentional emphasis.

Check out this site as well: http://www.tim-thompson.com/faqs.html" title="http://http://www.tim-thompson.com/faqs.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.tim-th...aqs.html
the site http://www.tim-thompson.com under the authors link 3/4 way down the page
Thompson also is a member here, debunking the electric universe (see his papers on Electric Stars, etc) or look at the comments here: http://phys.org/n...ggs.html

Q-Star also is an astrophysics professor and member here

Have fun and always check the facts when people post something.
personally, i never use youtube for scientific facts (hence the Fish Slapping Dance) as it is not empirical evidence from a reputable peer reviewed source with an impact in the subject.

castro
Oct 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 08, 2014
Look, this is just your conjecture
@zephir
conjecture supported by empirical data pubished in a reputable peer reviewed magazine called Physical Review Letters, which has a direct impact on your precious aw/daw philosophy (and also proves that your daw/aw is false)
The repeating "PSEUDOSCIENCE" thousand times still makes no evidence of pseudoscience
Nope.
but these links ( http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf )support my conclusions and proclaim your pseudoscience to be: pseudoscience

this is empirical evidence debunking you, whereas you can't come up with evidence supporting aw/daw except your personal blog (self reference)
I have quite opposite attitude
and this is why you and I are different, and why you believe in fairy tales like aw/daw and I only believe in real science
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 08, 2014
When I'm reading about some stuff in peer-reviewed study, I just want to see it.
nothing wrong with that
You know, the peer-reviewed study can be faked so easily
yep!
thats why eu gets published!... but don't get off track here...
The videos like these ones cannot be faked so easily
oh well... you almost were coherent:
any child with a basic understanding can make a video and with a little knowledge of the internet can even link it to a reputable site
plus there is the absolute dearth of proof against you regarding faked video's... see any sci-fi video on youtube
star trek
star wars
Dr Who
Hitchhikers Guide

those are youtube video's as well...still believe that it can't be faked?

sorry... i hold myself to a much higher standard than youtube
Hat1208
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2014
@castro

Here is a description of a course at MIT you may be interested in.

8.321 is the first semester of a two-semester subject on quantum theory, stressing principles. Topics covered include: Hilbert spaces, observables, uncertainty relations, eigenvalue problems and methods for solution thereof, time-evolution in the Schrodinger, Heisenberg, and interaction pictures, connections between classical and quantum mechanics, path integrals, quantum mechanics in EM fields, angular momentum, time-independent perturbation theory, density operators, and quantum measurement.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2014
leaving in 5
Please, don't even bother to look for evidence for AWT: the dense aether model is one hundred years old. You simply have no chance to get it, that's it. Just face the truth and stop bugging me...
and this right here is why you are considered a crackpot pushing a pseudoscience

you want me to believe in the debunked thoery that is over 100yrs old... but there is no mdern writing on the subject except your blog...WTF is wrong with you? you really can't see a problem with that?
that is crackpot pseudoscience 101!

and that crap about looking for cold fusion first?
WTF does that even mean?
not important... because i gotta go for now

i still can't believe that you can't see the problem with that...
maybe I should start telling you about my ToE. it doesn't even need math, it is no expansive and easy to understand, and translates easily.
In fact... i got some ideas from penguin head some time ago... so it must be real, right?
just ask sam-i-am AKA rc
its HIS page
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 08, 2014
@castro

Here is a description of a course at MIT you may be interested in
@Hat1208
AWESOME... and very relevant to the BH and more!

you can call him zephir... he has had the following sock-puppet accounts here (In other words, he has been known as all these names, but continues to get banned):

osnova Zwentoo Pejico Spadia Antuka Teper Incosa Zephir ahsan67 Jantoo Sikla otero Doiea Technico DoieaS Pexeso Arties Toiea Watebba Aligo Jixo Callippo Jizby Eseta Goika jeppe castro telic

He gets banned every month or three... then just makes another account

he has a wide range of sock-puppets that he down-votes people with too... just FYI

See you around!
PEACE
OZGuy
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 08, 2014
Well seeing every single Zephir/Castro comment was deleted by the moderators it's clear that science and logical debating is not his strong point.

Logic: 1
Pseudoscience: 0

Well done Captain!
OZGuy
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 08, 2014
Actually I think Zephir has been banned from the site.. again. Time for the zephir sockpuppets to dance their jig of indignation and a new zephir alias emerge.
NOM
4.6 / 5 (11) Oct 08, 2014
Zeph's already back with a new sock TEP320, and he's still got a few others still going.
Shabs42
5 / 5 (4) Oct 08, 2014
Well seeing every single Zephir/Castro comment was deleted by the moderators it's clear that science and logical debating is not his strong point.

Logic: 1
Pseudoscience: 0

Well done Captain!


Just want to throw in my two cents. On most sites I'm a proponent of leaving all posts up unless they are deliberately offensive/inflammatory; but as someone with a strong interest in, but no higher education devoted to science, I would like many more conversations like that between Stumpy and Hat and many fewer like that between Stumpy and Castro. Posters like him pollute threads, derail conversations, and makes legitimate discussion about the articles somewhere between impractical to impossible.

Bravo for deleting his comments. Now please hire someone to patrol hot topic articles (anything involving outer space, climate change, or evolution off the top of my head) for the first few hours after posting to avoid wasting Stumpy's time. I'll do it for cheap.
OZGuy
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2014

Ah up into the numeric range now is he.Fortunately he is easy to spot, unfortunately more resilient than cockroaches and just as annoying.He usually has a major commenting account and several supporting sockpuppets to vote himself up and others down while squeaking from the sidelines.

What is the colloquial collective term for sockpuppets these days?
NOM
4.6 / 5 (11) Oct 08, 2014
What is the colloquial collective term for sockpuppets these days?
In Zeph's case, basement cupboard might be appropriate.

Zeph's clearly a troll and an idiot. But I wonder why the mods focus on removing him when there are far worse trolls posting here.

My order of removal would be:
1. LexTalonis for consistant obsenity
2. JVK for pseudoscience and trying to rip people off
3. 11791 for trying to steal peoples money (sock of Neil Farbstein)
4. ryggesogn2 for spamming politics
5. RealityCheck for general trolling and hacking the post size limit
6. Freethinking for political trolling
7. Noumenon for bullying posters with his 50 voting sockpuppets
8. cantdrive85 for pseudoscience
9. verkle for creationism

All of this behaviour is against the site's TOU, and warrant banning these posters.
OZGuy
5 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2014
I totally agree NOM but seeing the moderator only appears to act haphazardly I'm grateful whenever they act.

Looking at your list I'd push 2 & 3 up the chain, IMO obscenity is bad but scamming people out of money is illegal and as far as I'm aware Lex only comments here unlike 2 & 3.
DeliriousNeuron
1 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2014
@Captain Stumpy

Thanks for the real information. I was really just waiting to hear about how the "neutrino stars" have a neutron star inside of them and how it is trying to get out. And I will use the links.

Knowledge is power

Stumpydick is known as a troll around here so be careful what you read

Thanks again

DeliriousNeuron
1 / 5 (9) Oct 08, 2014
Mainstream theories falling apart right in front of you!
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (7) Oct 09, 2014
Now please hire someone to patrol hot topic articles (anything involving outer space, climate change, or evolution off the top of my head)
@Shabs42
Believe it or not, I've been pushing for this since I started posting here
Mostly because I want to learn science, and not pseudoscience (like aw and eu). I've even fired off multiple arguments volunteering time myself or suggesting people like Thermodynamics, antialias_physorg, Runrig and Q-Star, etc who work in the industry to moderate
perhaps if multiple people suggested?
there are far worse trolls posting here
@NOM
I've wondered about that myself!
pretty good list! You forgot antigorical and DeliriousNeuron though! and 2, 5 should be much higher
Stumpydick is known as a troll around here so be careful what you read
MY GROUPIE
I'm just gonna troll you exclusively from now on ok Stumpydick? Don't be mad! Screw science for now!
http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 09, 2014
Stumpydick is known as a troll around here so be careful what you read
Thanks again
My GROUPIE delirious has actually brought up a valid point...

be careful what you read!

This is very important to remember! THANK YOU DELIRIOUS for reminding everyone of that...

make sure the poster has references from reputable sources that have peer review as well as an impact in the subject! EU proponents (like Delirious) push a known pseudoscience as well... but there is SOME science in their religious like beliefs: that is what makes it hard to tell.. that and they are engineers.

but if you will notice, they publish in engineering sites (NO impact in astrophysics) like IEEE. that is why astrophysicists like Tim Thompson do not like IEEE. it might be good for engineers, but it is NOT a good reference for astrophysics

the best defense is KNOWLEDGE
that is why I left this link: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

Learn the basics so you don't get TROLLED by people like zephir, etc
saposjoint
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 09, 2014
Zephir, you ignorant slut. So happy to see that you're gone for a minute or two.

Good work, Stumpy!
DeliriousNeuron
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 09, 2014
Ol Stumpydicdoesn't...the problem is I do know mainstream physics and became bored with it.
It all just doesn't all add up. The computer simulations, hot gas bs and gravity is not all what its cracked up to be.
Almost every couple of days, we read things that defy mainstream.
So yea, the EUT helps fill in the gaps.
So keep trolling thinkers. I'll be right there to call you Stumpydick! LOL!
Happy trolling!
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 09, 2014
astrophysicists like Tim Thompson do not like IEEE.

Timmy doesn't like IEEE because he doesn't understand electric discharge or EM theory, the subjects are far over his head. He will not even acknowledge plasma is a distinct state of matter, contrary to his own links. BTW, if one is going to publish a paper on electric discharge, why exactly would you publish in an astrophysics journal whose "peer-reviewers" don't even have an elementary understanding of the process.

Here is MIT's Open course on electric discharge;
http://search.mit...btnG.y=0

And that's what astrophysicists know about the subject!
Tec12
1 / 5 (7) Oct 09, 2014
The above problem of mainstream physics with overly radiative black hole is not a problem at all. In AWT the black holes will evaporate most of their infalling matter into radiation - as predicted & explained here. Recently the similar idea appeared in mainstream physics too in connection to firewall concept. The firewall will work in just the way, the infalling matter will get evaporated, so that the resulting star will glow much more, than the existing theories predict.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 09, 2014
the problem is I do know mainstream physics and became bored with it
@delirious
fascinating
your whole opinion is based upon boredom?
you ignore empirical evidence out of boredom? really?
Almost every couple of days, we read things that defy mainstream
Don't allow the comments of themedia or an excited scientists who is trying to push for an excited public sway you... after all, I've seen predicted results get presented the samw way (Higgs)
I'll be right there to call you Stumpydick!
I told you I didn't mind, D
I think it is cool that I have a Groupie!
I bet Q-Star doesn't have a groupie! LOL
Timmy doesn't like IEEE because he doesn't understand electric discharge or EM theory
@cd
you've already been shown that astrophysicists learn plasma physics, but engineers DON'T learn astrophysics, so you are only complaining that he proved you wrong
He understands real physics, not made up pseudoscience
that is what keeps getting your goat...
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 09, 2014
the subjects are far over his head
@cd
transference
it is you who doesn't understand physics etc
He will not even acknowledge plasma is a distinct state of matter, contrary to his own links
blatant lie
he was showing you that calling it an ionized gas or using MHD is perfectly acceptable given that it takes into account the properties of the plasma/ionized gas
Now, considering plasma IS ionized gas, they share a lot of the same physics and characteristics (which you argued against)
And that's what astrophysicists know about the subject!
you will also note that there is more about it in astrophysics courses as well...
if one is going to publish a paper on electric discharge, why exactly would you publish in an astrophysics journal
if one is going to publish a paper on electric discharge as it applies to plasma in the universe and galactic scales, etc, would mean that there would be astrophysical content with parameters that engineers do NOT consider (gravity, etc)
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 09, 2014
whose "peer-reviewers" don't even have an elementary understanding of the process
@cd
and THIS is the fundamental problem with the eu pseudoscience!
they publish articles in IEEE about astrophysics, tie it in to astrophysics and then publicly push this POV on their site with the intent of pushing an astrophysical theory, but there is NO astrophysics involved...
so perhaps you DO see my point, but you are not willing to accept that it is a valid argument against the EU?
why?
and just because you assume that astrophysicists don't know about plasma discharges doesn't make it true, as I have proven over and over and over, ad nauseum! Here is a simple link that I have shared with you more than 2 dozen times (YOU ALONE) that refutes your assumption: http://www.pppl.gov/

you've never been able to prove to anyone (except your fans that don't require proof) that astrophysicists don't know anything about plasma physics
whereas I've given you proof they DO

sorry, sparky
epic failure 4 U
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 09, 2014
In AWT the black holes
REALLY, Tec12/Zephir?
You've just been banned as castro and had all that aw/daw BS deleted for pushing known pseudoscience and you are going to come back and push it MORE?

as if the above argument against aw/daw that proved your religious fairy tale was proven wrong was not enough?

Two links, Zephir:
http://arxiv.org/...1284.pdf

http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf

Both these links show that empirical evidence proves to an stupidly high degree that there cannot be an aether

aether is dead and the only people who believe in it are pseudoscience crackpots pushing a failed religious style cult which needs followers
Hat1208
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2014
@Tec12

In AWT the black holes will evaporate most of their infalling matter into radiation.

If this is the case how would black holes attain mass?
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 09, 2014
blatant lie
he was showing you that calling it an ionized gas or using MHD is perfectly acceptable given that it takes into account the properties of the plasma/ionized gas


Really, blatant lie huh... Let's see what he said;

Plasma is often called a 4th state of matter, but it in fact is no such thing; calling it that is a very bad idea, because people like you are likely to take the words too literally and thus draw the usual very wrong conclusions. The particles of a plasma, like the particles of a gas, have mass & kinetic energy, and are obliged to obey all the same laws of kinematics & dynamics as are the particles of a common neutral gas.


So, in fact you are the one lying, as usual. Blame it on dementia or Alzheimer's, but the simple fact is you are a liar!

And it should also be known, his entire statement is completely wrong, just as you are wrong.

In conclusion, Captain Stupid is a pathological lying POS!
Tec12
1 / 5 (8) Oct 09, 2014
@Hat1208 Well, they don't evaporate completely and their subtle portion will be still swallowed. It's even illustrated schematically at http://i.imgur.com/SSOH4NJ.gif. The amount of matter swallowed will depend on many factors though. For example, the extreme case of accretion will be the black hole merger: in this case only roughly one half of matter will evaporate into outside. At the case of isolated particles this amount will be larger. IMO this ratio could be estimated from model of Hawking radiation. Let say, the black hole of proton diameter will evaporate during few nanoseconds and its fall toward event horizon will take one hundred of nanoseconds - in this case only one promile of proton matter can reach the surface of black hole. The pressure of radiation released will indeed slow-down the fall of another particles like the antigravity. The total speed of accretion will be therefore the lower, the more particles will fall in a single moment.
Tec12
1 / 5 (8) Oct 09, 2014
IMO the upper limit of infalling matter is given by contribution of Higgs field to the total mass of particles. Let say, that Higgs field is responsible for 2 percent of particle mass, so that the black hole driven with Higgs field completely (electroweak star composed of only W/Z bosons) will swallow 2 percents of infalling matter. This seems to be a reasonable fraction for me.

If the black hole would be a quark star, the total weight of quarks represents roughly 14% of particle mass, so that roughly 14% of matter will be swallowed. At the case of neutron star the mass of neutrons represents nearly 50% of total weight of atoms and nearly one half of matter will get swallowed.

But if the black hole will rotate, then the particles will acrete more slowly and they will get more time for their evaporation. The fraction of matter swallowed will be lower after then. It's known, the magnetic field of magnetars behaves like the atmosphere for meteors and it evaporates all infalling matter.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 09, 2014
in fact you are the one lying, as usual
@cd
I said nothing nonfactual. he did explain himself, used references and said that one reason that calling it "the fourth state of matter" is because people like you would take it the wrong way... which is exactly what you did, isn't it?
calling it that is a very bad idea, because people like you are likely to take the words too literally and thus draw the usual very wrong conclusions
and did I not also state above
he was showing you that calling it an ionized gas or using MHD is perfectly acceptable given that it takes into account the properties of the plasma/ionized gas
Now, considering plasma IS ionized gas, they share a lot of the same physics and characteristics (which you argued against)
so, in fact, i did NOT lie
i took the comment in context and with respect to what he was saying regarding physics and astrophysics as well as what I was learning at MIT
Hat1208
5 / 5 (4) Oct 09, 2014
@Tec12

So we should not see any black holes in the early universe?
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 09, 2014
@cd continued
after all, you were trying to argue semantics about terminology while he was talking physics
He will not even acknowledge plasma is a distinct state of matter, contrary to his own links
He acknowledged that the common knowledge was to call it thus, but that most people who are into physics can fully comprehend that the attributes to an ionized gas / plasma are more than well defined using MHD and modern plasma physics, which most models include (which you also argue against with no proof)

so this is about more than just "Thompson said, she said"... you are tying to argue that plasma physics is different than MHD and modern plasma physics taught in school or what?

are you trying to say that his characterization of the plasma/ionized gas/etc was wrong? even with the links and proof given? because you don't like how he used terminology?

this does not make your eu any "more right" you know...
in fact, it proves that you will argue semantics over content
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 09, 2014
And it should also be known, his entire statement is completely wrong, just as you are wrong.

In conclusion, Captain Stupid is a pathological lying POS!
@cd
Link the thread and let the people decide for themselves, why don't you?

Personally, i believe he made a few good points while also providing legitimate evidence supporting his conclusions

link the thread and let everyone make their own informed decision
Hat1208
5 / 5 (4) Oct 09, 2014
@Tec12

I can't believe that it takes that long to answer a simple question, or statement about an absolute theory that is spoken of as fact. Should we see black holes in the early universe or not? The evaporation of matter would seem to preclude this from happening.
Hat1208
5 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2014
@Captain Stumpy

Could you riddle me this, at the current rate of expansion how much has the universe grown since the original inflationary period? A percentage would suffice although rough sizes in parsecs would also be appreciated. Thanks in advance.
TEP320
Oct 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TEP320
Oct 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TEP320
Oct 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
barakn
5 / 5 (7) Oct 09, 2014
additions to order of removal:
10. HannesAlfven: prolific copy-and-paste EU troll
11. Shootist: Polar bears, polar bears, polar bears, Dyson, Dyson, Dyson
12. julianpenrod: New World Order/chemtrails conspiracy junky
Hat1208
5 / 5 (7) Oct 09, 2014
@TEP320

I thought you were Tec12 sorry to reveal your true identity. Doesn't it say something about using multiple identities in the user agreement? I am not a physicist but I could not make heads or tails from your response other than the mayonnaise thing. Also where is the bottom of a galaxy, just saying.
TEP320
Oct 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
saposjoint
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 09, 2014
Zephir, you ignorant slut.

It's not ethical, but you do it anyway.

Sorry, I don't live at PhysOrg, I've many other hobbies & activities.


What, trolling other sites with your bullshit? You are insane, offensive and repetitive.
Hat1208
5 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2014
@soposjoint

I couldn't say it better myself. Thanks
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 09, 2014
Hi CapS. :)
maybe I should start telling you about my ToE. it doesn't even need math, it is no expansive and easy to understand, and translates easily. In fact... i got some ideas from penguin head some time ago... so it must be real, right? just ask sam-i-am AKA rc its HIS page


CapS, what are you on lately? Home brewed 'speed and moonshine'? You can't seem to keep your mouth shut. You even hysterically and hypocritically keep making disparaging allusions to/about me while claiming that it's me who is posting trolls and baits to you! Your troll and bait and hysterical hypocritical PARROT-SPAM posts count has surpassed the Phys.Org record! Congratulations! You have exceeded the text limit by posting REPEATED SPAM posts 'technically within the text limit each' but crossing the line overall by more than anyone else's posts combined! Can't you see your blabbermouth is making a mockery of your claimed 'high ground' and 'reportings'. You should 'report' YOURSELF, mate!

And my ToE on the net is only part of the whole, not the whole. And the maths is being re-worked based on my new Reality-Based Axioms which will eliminate all those 'undefined' and 'undetermined' and 'singularity' blowups which the conventional Philosophy Based (ie, 'dimensionless point' etc) are afflicted by and which has been preventing the completion of the physical theory/comprehension thereby. So stop yur BLATHERING about things which you do NOT comptehend at all, let alone in any way which qualifies you to 'take the high ground' and SPAM this site with ur uncomprehended parroted links and allusions and name-droppings.

And your 'suggestion' for putting NOM et al crazies and fools into 'moderator' positions is guaranted to turn ut badly for science discurse. It will be the genesis of the very things which THIS ARTICLE on BIASED PEERS/PROFFESIONALS was all bout...

http://phys.org/n...tml#nRlv

Did you even read it or understand it properly? Seems not, since you have obviously learned nothing from the situations discussed and its damaging effects on science and science disocurse. Read it, CapS, and stop acting so stupidly hypocritically egotistically elitistically parrotingly spamly USELESS to any proper science discourse.

And get off that 'speed and 'moonshine', CapS, it will rot whatever is left of your brain, and make that motormouth of yours even more dangerous than it was before! Silly sot.

NOM
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 09, 2014
additions to order of removal:
10. HannesAlfven: prolific copy-and-paste EU troll
11. Shootist: Polar bears, polar bears, polar bears, Dyson, Dyson, Dyson
12. julianpenrod: New World Order/chemtrails conspiracy junky

I quite agree.
OzGuy was right too about Farbstain need ing to go to #1. He has now completely abandoned restraint and is alternately asking people to give him $400,000 and trying to get teenage girls to send him sexts.
DeliriousNeuron
1 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2014
So that explains it stumpy. You came here to learn science. Study up stumpy. I promise, after you finally reach a point to where you can understand mainstream physics, try the EU Theory again. It will fill in the gaps and answer many of the unanswered questions you will have.
I can see why you and others dislike EU now. Honestly.
A beginner coming into astrophysics, MUST learn the basics first. Diving into the EU Theory first will seem strange to anyone. If someone came to me 30 years ago showed me about the EU, I'd laugh too.
Why can't we all get along on this board? The only time I get pissy is when people talk bad about the EU. Electricity/Plasma has its place somewhere in Relativity. We see it and measure it.....its there big time!
Now everyone....be nice and lets come up with good conversations! :)
OZGuy
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 09, 2014
TEP320/castro/zephir/.....
"Sorry, I don't live at PhysOrg, I've many other hobbies & activities"

You spend an inordinate amount of time here creating multiple accounts to post under. Why do you need multiple accounts anyway, the rest of us get by just fine with 1?
Tec12
1 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2014
Because the PM messaging is not working anymore, you can contact me here for asking of off-topic & personal questions.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2014
@Captain Stumpy

Could you riddle me this, at the current rate of expansion how much has the universe grown since the original inflationary period?
@Hat
Sorry I've been in and out... getting ready for a funeral
I will answer when I have more time, ok?
IIRC the expansion to date since the time if inflation would be the size of the known universe, which is
The estimated diameter of the observable universe is about 28 billion parsecs or 93 billion light years
this is per the study: Itzhak Bars; John Terning (November 2009). Extra Dimensions in Space and Time. Springer. pp. 27–. ISBN 978-0-387-77637-8. Retrieved 2011-05-01. you can find a link here too: https://en.wikipe...Universe

if there is anything else, I will try to help... like i said, be patient. i will be in and out... THANKS

CapS, what
@rc
TL;DR
NO POST ADDRESSED TO YOU
NO SCIENCE/ NO CONTENT
BAIT/FLAME/TROLL POST
reported
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 10, 2014
Poor CapS.
@rc
TL;DR
NO POST ADDRESSED TO YOU
NO SCIENCE/ NO CONTENT
BAIT/FLAME/TROLL POST
reported

First You and NOM discuss putting people on your mindless 'lists' which included me. Which is a bit rich for the gang of stupids making a 'list' of themselves in the ratings page...

https://sciencex....k/?v=act

Then you go and make this obvious allusion to me personally and my ToE work...
maybe I should start telling you about my ToE. it doesn't even need math, it is no expansive and easy to understand, and translates easily. In fact... i got some ideas from penguin head some time ago... so it must be real, right? just ask sam-i-am AKA rc its HIS page


And now you try to again lie and con the forum/readers that you did not troll and bait me?

What sort of lamebrained sot cannot see that your latest hypocrisy and denial of your own culpability is obviously untenable, even at a glance through the post record in evidence above, CapS! Stop it.

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2014
@Hat1208
here is a perfect example of not replying to trolls. take the idiot posting above with
Poor CapS
he actually believes that if he is the last poster, he wins something
it doesn't matter if there is no evidence supporting his post, or if there is anything at all logical about the post that means anything, he simply believes that he is the "winner" when he gets a reply and then can post again.
When you encounter this, you will find that the best policy is to ignore the troll and report them. Really... the more you talk to them, the worse it will be
Why do I keep talking sometimes?
I am actually studying them. Especially those like the eu people above. i want to know WHY people believe in things when the empirical data in their face proves them wrong, and how they react, how they defend against the reality that encroaches upon their faith/fantasy world, and how their delusions integrate themselves into their every day world

there are a LOT of trolls here on PO too
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
Then you go and make this obvious allusion to me personally and my ToE work
@rc
before you go all stupid...would you please spell out exactly what part about that is referencing you?
is it the no math?
the part about it is no expansive and easy to understand?
or translates easily?
or penguin head?
And now you try to again lie and con the forum/readers that you did not troll and bait me?
where do I say that, rc?
can you post those words?
no...
why?
because I was talking to someone else, and sharing with them, not you

are you going to argue about all those posts i have against you on Sapo's Joint as well? if you DO... you better post them here first, so that everyone can see what is being said! there are only a few threads to read, though, so get the right one

i keep forgetting that we are not allowed to have personal feelings or opinions around you in order to be objective & science-y like you are

oops, guess that is a fail for you too!

thanks for answering with that!
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2014
The only time I get pissy ...talk bad about the EU. Electricity/Plasma has its place
@Delirious
no one is arguing that electricity and plasma doesn't have it's place. Not even me. what i am arguing against is the physics defying stuff that people like cd continue to push even when debunked. Like i said before, there is SOME physics in eu... just not as much valid physics what you think there is
for instance: cd argued till blue about the moon craters and grand canyon being made by plasma discharge. even when presented with the evidence that proves that the GC could not have been, and that the moon craters have been observed to be made by asteroids, etc.
can plasma discharges make a crater similar to the moon craters? until it is tested,& experimentally validated, we don't know, but we can surmise that it is possible by current experiments
But being possible is not the same thing as proving standard theory wrong, especially with observed facts

understand now?
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2014
(continued)
I can see why you and others dislike EU now
@Delirious
i would like to add that (especially with cd and his evidence) linking to the eu sites and considering it the same type and quality of evidence as linking to a reputable peer reviewed journal with an impact in astrophysics is not only blatantly stupid, but laughable
There is a reason that the scientific method works and we've advanced as much as we have in the past 150 years
When you link to eu sites, you are saying "there is no reputable evidence"
when you link to eu sites and claim peer review status, but cannot provide a link to the reputable journal that contains said paper, then it is saying either "no proof" or "this was pulled for being bunk"
when you link to an engineering journal for astrophysics, it is the same thing as using the blueprints from a toyota to try and build a multi-stage rocket
there may be similarities or useful information, but it's NOT the same thing because there's a different use/end
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 10, 2014
Poor CapS. Its your infamous HYPOCRITICAL TROLL MO, CapS. You have tried it on far too often and have been caught redhanded in quoted posts in black and white. But will you quit your pretense? No. How stupid does stupid denial get out your way, stupid? Oh, yes, that stupid. You compromize and make a mockery of all objective and fairminded standards and ethics in science and humanity by insensibly voting as a block without any comprehension of what is at issue; and you keep trolling and baiting in all sorts of sneaky-creepy ways but deny it when caught; and you keep blabbing and making everyone squirm with embarrassment for you and your gang pretending to the high ground when you are in the gutter of personality-cult tactics which sabotage discussions. You even had the gall to enter a thread (where a science based exchange between me and Schneib had yielded insights and benefits to all concerned in that discussion) and totally insensibly went on again with your personality cult crap even though Schneib and I HAD been on topic and on science! You have the stuidity necessary to carry out your stupid inaneness without ever being troubled by the fact that you are superfluous in discussions where proper science and humanity dicourse is the order of the day. You keep trolling and baiting and then have the temerity to accuse your victims of it? How wasted are you, CapS, that you still haven't twigged to your own faults? *Sigh*

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2014
caught redhanded in quoted posts in black and white
@rc
this is called a redirect. you are trying to direct the conversation away from the topic, which was
would you please spell out exactly what part about that is referencing you?

so, what you are saying is that you have no ability to spell out exactly anything?
Or do you not like the way i described it? you can use your own words
insensibly voting as a block without any comprehension of what is at issue
you mean your posts? why should i upvote a post with no science, or faulty logic and science? By all means, i asked for proof, rc
you've never hesitated to violate the 1000char limit before to post all kinds of crap, so post all of this black-and-white evidence for us all to see with links to verify it is legitimate
even though Schneib and I HAD been on topic and on science!
well, Schneib was talking science, anyway.

you are not answering the post, rc
is this going to be another BICEP2?
another epic fail?
Vietvet
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 11, 2014
"he actually believes that if he is the last poster, he wins something"

Just like another troll we've grown to despise, Ryggy.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 11, 2014
More hypocrisy from the useless drones and trolls. How deep does the hypocrisy go with this lot, I wonder? They block-bot rate on the ratings pages...

https://sciencex....k/?v=act

...without any comprehension or discrimination between issues/people, and then they call others trolls? Yep, that deep it goes.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2014
More hypocrisy
@rc
I noticed you are not answering
now... that would mean that the hypocrisy belongs to you, because you wanted this argument, and decided that i didn't have the right to believe anything about you without permission
you intruded in my conversation with someone else, right?
now I am asking you to answer the questions!
I am actually opening dialogue to you and requesting that you answer, and it is not even something that requires a great deal of research, mind you.

and you are refusing?
now THAT seems to be hypocrisy, as well as supports my claims about your baiting/trolling and more.

I even gave you a half hour after the above post (58 minutes after your attempted redirect and 45 minutes after my reply pointing out your redirect) to answer ... which is plenty of time, i think

you are playing another BICEP card
you have nothing so you refuse to answer with specifics in order to make sure no one catches you and points this out
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 11, 2014
CapS, you poor sot. You have no right to misrepresent to third parties. The proof that you have misrepresented loudly and often is scattered all over the forum in the form of your posts which I have quoted in evidence already. Just because you stupidly try denying them now is more proof yet that you do misrepresent for your own personal-political-ego tripping motives. You are a disgrace to whatever 'course' and 'college' and 'teacher' is unfortunate enough to have any association at all with your creepy stalking suckup parrot hypocrite blabbermouth lying troll antics on the internet. How insensible does your insensibility go, CapS, that you haven't even stopped when you have been caught redhanded in your clueless hypocritical personal cult crap trolling and cluttering of discussions which you have no clue what is going on from either 'side'? The forum has lost count! Stop digging yourself deeper with every new such idiotic post, CapS.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2014
You have no right to misrepresent to third parties
@cd
you've not proved that I misrepresent
The proof that you have misrepresented loudly and often is scattered all over the forum
1- another redirection? really? so you will not answer the questions because?
2- should be plenty of proof to answer the questions I posed then, right? shall I re-post them for clarity or can you go back up and read?
you stupidly try denying them now
Ah, you are trying to redirect from the questions again...this is the BICEP card
IOW - You've no evidence so you redirect or confuse the issue with multiple posts and denigration as well as multiple false trails which only muddy the water
Just answer the questions
You are a disgrace to whatever 'course' and 'college' and 'teacher' is unfortunate enough to have any association at all with your creepy stalking suckup parrot hypocrite blabbermouth lying troll antics on the internet
you won me $500 with that one!

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2014
clueless hypocritical personal cult crap trolling and cluttering of discussions which you have no clue what is going on from either 'side'?
@rc
all this redirection and attempts to transfer this to someone else and play your faults off on me... lets step back a minute and start again, shall we?
I answered your post by asking
would you please spell out exactly what part about that is referencing you?
Now, you interrupted and claimed that I made "obvious allusion to me personally" etc so I asked for proof and I am asking for clarity, again

or what you are saying is that you have no ability to spell out exactly anything?
Or do you not like the way i described it? you can use your own words

this is progressing exactly like the BICEP argument... you tried redirect and obfuscation there as well to no avail

you still haven't answered with specific detail
so now it is time to come clean and ANSWER
that is the reason for this dialogue
any redirects will be reported as TROLLING
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 11, 2014
CapS. The whole forum has seen all too often where you have no clue, but just mindlessly link and suck up and name-drop and 'personalize' and otherwise sabotage any discussion with your insensible blundering ego-tripping crap. The science discussion can be going along nicely when up you pop with your personality cult baits and trolls, and then you accuse your victims of baiting and trolling. That is blatant and most egregiously hypocritically stupid misrepresenting, CapS. You have been caught out and proven many times, but you are doing exactly what the Climate Change Denier trolls do, you deny the obvious and proven case against you. And your insensibility runs so deep that you can't even see it even once! Don't make it worse, CapS. Stop now and start afresh and drop your 'gossip-gang' trolling personality cult and mindless block voting tactics. Such behavior brings SHAME on everything you 'stand for' and your current 'college', 'teacher' and 'course' ideals and aims. Be sensible. :)
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2014
The whole forum has seen all too often where you have no clue
@rc
mindless redirect and obfuscation
sabotage any discussion with your insensible blundering ego-tripping crap
transference, redirect and obfuscation
You have been caught out and proven many times
transference, redirect, obfuscation
SHAME on everything you 'stand for' and your current 'college', 'teacher'
transference, egomania, narcissism, obfuscation

if you aren't going to answer the questions sometime soon, I am leaving and I will come back later and continue to ask the same thing.

this is progressing exactly like the BICEP argument... you tried redirect and obfuscation there as well to no avail

you still haven't answered with specific detail
so now it is time to come clean and ANSWER
that is the reason for this dialogue
any redirects will be reported as TROLLING

I will give you one more chance, then I am sleeping
and I will have to come back and point out that you have not answered yet
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2014
You have been caught out and proven many times, but you are doing exactly what the Climate Change Denier trolls do, you deny the obvious and proven case against you. And your insensibility runs so deep that you can't even see it even once!
MAJOR TRANSFERENCE and serious inability to recognize reality and see yourself!
WOW
you got me another $100
(almost verbatim of what I said you would say, BTW)

you are not answering the questions posed above, and you've given NO PROOF at all whatsoever of your claims, OR of the questions, proving nothing but that you are the
nsensible blundering ego-tripping egregiously hypocritically stupid misrepresenting creepy stalking suckup parrot hypocrite blabbermouth lying troll
to use your own words

keep it up, i will have enough to fly to Australia on vacation soon!
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2014
CapS.
@rc
ok
what we are seeing is that you are going to ignore the very questions that you yourself got started. You made a claim that I was referring to you, but somehow you cannot verify this by pointing out what part of what I said was in reference to you
this is called baiting and trolling
then when asked to point it out and give evidence, you ignore it to post derogatory comments designed to inflame the point of attack, me, and cause confusion, obfuscation and more while side-stepping the topic
this is called trolling

This is exactly what you did in the BICEP argument
you BAITED and TROLLED, and never could provide any specific evidence supporting your claims
you still haven't
This is officially going to be the IDIOT/BICEP argument
redirection/obfuscation/no data/libel/baiting/troll

no more
just reporting and downvote
because you never produce any evidence

goodnight, fedora head
TROLL AWAY
I will report them all tomorrow anyway
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 11, 2014
You've been exposed and done to a nice turn, CapS. If you are still obsessive compulsively trying to deny and save face etc, it's too late. The record is there. No more need be said. So do stop ' graffitiing' the threads, mate. Enough. Peace. Good luck in the future, CapS.
katesisco
2 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2014
Yet another ultra luminous pulsar thought to be a black hole? And this bh is on the edge of a galaxy? How, when gravity is supposed to control these bh creations at the center of a galaxy.
movementiseternal
Oct 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
movementiseternal
Oct 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
movementiseternal
Oct 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
movementiseternal
Oct 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Oct 14, 2014
at the current rate of expansion how much has the universe grown since the original inflationary period?
IIRC the expansion to date since the time if inflation would be the size of the known universe, which is
The estimated diameter of the observable universe is about 28 billion parsecs or 93 billion light years
this is per the study: Itzhak Bars; John Terning (November 2009). Extra Dimensions in Space and Time. Springer. pp. 27–. ISBN 978-0-387-77637-8. Retrieved 2011-05-01. you can find a link here too: https://en.wikipe...Universe
I'll help.

Note that since the universe is only 13.6 billion years old, the fact that we can observe items that are 90-some-odd billion light years away *now*, and they were 13.6 billion light years away *then*, gives a basis for estimating the answer to your question. However, that is only back to the time when the universe became transparent, after the Big Bang, and therefore after the inflation epoch.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.