Large Hubble survey confirms link between mergers and supermassive black holes with relativistic jets

Large Hubble survey confirms link between mergers and supermassive black holes with relativistic jets
This artist’s impression illustrates how high-speed jets from supermassive black holes would look. These outflows of plasma are the result of the extraction of energy from a supermassive black hole’s rotation as it consumes the disc of swirling material that surrounds it. These jets have very strong emissions at radio wavelengths. Credit: ESA/Hubble, L. Calçada (ESO)

In the most extensive survey of its kind ever conducted, a team of scientists have found an unambiguous link between the presence of supermassive black holes that power high-speed, radio-signal-emitting jets and the merger history of their host galaxies. Almost all of the galaxies hosting these jets were found to be merging with another galaxy, or to have done so recently. The results lend significant weight to the case for jets being the result of merging black holes and will be presented in the Astrophysical Journal.

A team of astronomers using the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope's Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) have conducted a large survey to investigate the relationship between that have undergone mergers and the activity of the supermassive black holes at their cores.

The team studied a large selection of galaxies with extremely luminous centres—known as active galactic nuclei (AGNs)—thought to be the result of large quantities of heated matter circling around and being consumed by a supermassive black hole. Whilst most galaxies are thought to host a supermassive black hole, only a small percentage of them are this luminous and fewer still go one step further and form what are known as . The two high-speed jets of plasma move almost with the speed of light and stream out in opposite directions at right angles to the disc of matter surrounding the black hole, extending thousands of light-years into space. The hot material within the jets is also the origin of radio waves.

It is these jets that Marco Chiaberge from the Space Telescope Science Institute, USA (also affiliated with Johns Hopkins University, USA and INAF-IRA, Italy) and his team hoped to confirm were the result of galactic mergers.

This artist’s impression illustrates how high-speed jets from supermassive black holes would look. These outflows of plasma are the result of the extraction of energy from a supermassive black hole’s rotation as it consumes the disc of swirling material that surrounds it. These jets have very strong emissions at radio wavelengths. Credit: ESA/Hubble, L. Calçada (ESO)

The team inspected five categories of galaxies for visible signs of recent or ongoing mergers—two types of galaxies with jets, two types of galaxies that had luminous cores but no jets, and a set of regular inactive galaxies.

"The galaxies that host these relativistic jets give out large amounts of radiation at radio wavelengths," explains Marco. "By using Hubble's WFC3 camera we found that almost all of the galaxies with large amounts of radio emission, implying the presence of jets, were associated with mergers. However, it was not only the galaxies containing jets that showed evidence of mergers!".

"We found that most merger events in themselves do not actually result in the creation of AGNs with powerful radio emission," added co-author Roberto Gilli from Osservatorio Astronomico di Bologna, Italy. "About 40% of the other galaxies we looked at had also experienced a merger and yet had failed to produce the spectacular radio emissions and jets of their counterparts."

Although it is now clear that a galactic merger is almost certainly necessary for a galaxy to host a supermassive black hole with relativistic jets, the team deduce that there must be additional conditions which need to be met. They speculate that the collision of one galaxy with another produces a supermassive black hole with jets when the central black hole is spinning faster—possibly as a result of meeting another black hole of a similar mass—as the excess energy extracted from the black hole's rotation would power the jets.

"There are two ways in which mergers are likely to affect the central black hole. The first would be an increase in the amount of gas being driven towards the galaxy's centre, adding mass to both the black hole and the disc of matter around it," explains Colin Norman, co-author of the paper. "But this process should affect black holes in all merging galaxies, and yet not all merging galaxies with black holes end up with jets, so it is not enough to explain how these jets come about. The other possibility is that a merger between two massive galaxies causes two black holes of a similar mass to also merge. It could be that a particular breed of merger between two produces a single spinning , accounting for the production of ."

Future observations using both Hubble and ESO's Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) are needed to expand the survey set even further and continue to shed light on these complex and powerful processes.


Explore further

DRAGNs in the sky

More information: "Radio Loud AGNs Are Mergers," Marco Chiaberge et al., 2015, to appear in the Astrophysical Journal. Preprint: arxiv.org/abs/1505.07419
Journal information: Astrophysical Journal

Citation: Large Hubble survey confirms link between mergers and supermassive black holes with relativistic jets (2015, May 28) retrieved 19 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-05-large-hubble-survey-link-mergers.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
1813 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

May 28, 2015
It is interesting to know how theory of relativity discribe mathematicaly so alleged relativistic jets. This theory claim that garvity can distort thevacuum of space, but this jets are highly strate in fact. Black hole as desribed mathematicaly by this theory can not allow such structural formations. They are imaginary objects. Modern theories like old clothes covered with patches.

May 28, 2015
Merger Maniacs gone Wild! Again!

Just unthinkable that the cores could instead grow from within, through the various stages of galactic cores observed. But there is the evidence, that some luminous cores (implying a recent merger in the minds of merger maniacs???) don't produce the radio emission or the jets.

No, one would expect a variety of stages in this core evolution if core stars grow naturally from within. And if the growth is periodic in outburst (Fermi Bubbles), then an even wider variety of stage growth should be expected, as is apparently observed.

May 28, 2015
A binary black hole has multiple event horizons and it also has a central point where there is no event horizons due to gravity canceling one another out. This is potentially where the jet comes from, as you have a toroidal vortex potentially forming in this zone.

May 28, 2015
(0)><(0)

Rotate that shape into and out of the screen to form a tear-drop shaped nested torus as the black holes orbit their barycenter.

The "0" is the event horizon of an individual black hole, the Tear Drop is the shape of the merged black hole, who's event horizon is wider, but less tall (in this graphic) than either of the individual black holes due to constructive and destructive interference.

May 28, 2015
(0)><(0)

Rotate that shape into and out of the screen to form a tear-drop shaped nested torus as the black holes orbit their barycenter.

The "0" is the event horizon of an individual black hole, the Tear Drop is the shape of the merged black hole, who's event horizon is wider, but less tall (in this graphic) than either of the individual black holes due to constructive and destructive interference.


Well Skippy, I am not the scientist like you are not either, but I think 0 plus 0 = 0.

May 28, 2015
https://phet.colo..._en.html

use "negative" charges to represent two black holes, and then put layers of the "sensor" dots around them. You'll find something very much like what I described, and you'll see how jets are formed by gravitationally sling-shoting particles through the space between the two "initial" event horizons.

May 28, 2015
@ Tuxford:
Collision/mergers, black-dark/hole/matter/energy are the magic wands of knowledge that are used anytime, anywhere and everywhere by official cosmology to cover-up their bankruptcy. How can "collision/merger" play a decisive role in the dynamics of the evolution of the universe imagined to be created at a point and supposedly undergoing unimaginable inflation, expansion and now even more accelerated expansion? And how could galaxies and black holes could form so early and close to the Bang and amid super-luminal expansion? Even the weirdest of the classical fairy-tales is no match to the mathematics based fairy tales!

If you take a dialectical and a quantum dynamical view of the evolution of this infinite and eternal universe; then its understanding does not require any kinds of fairy tales at all!: http://www.amazon...40414445

May 29, 2015
All mass has a structural limit , these so called black holes are dark matter masses, the environment of space is quantum particles the supply of parts to construct the hydrogen atom based universe that's the dark matter the quantum particle universe, the central core mass doesn't contain constructed atoms it contains the quantum particles that use to be atoms those jets are quantum particle super heated quantum plasma that are ejected from the magnetics orbiting the perimeters of this mass that it can not envelop into the mass ,its particle intake has a limit based on its mass ,

May 29, 2015
@ Tuxford:
Collision/mergers, black-dark/hole/matter/energy are the magic wands of knowledge that are used anytime, anywhere and everywhere by official cosmology to cover-up their bankruptcy. How can "collision/merger" play a decisive role in the dynamics of the evolution of the universe imagined to be created at a point and supposedly undergoing unimaginable inflation, expansion and now even more accelerated expansion? And how could galaxies and black holes could form so early and close to the Bang and amid super-luminal expansion? Even the weirdest of the classical fairy-tales is no match to the mathematics based fairy tales!


Magic Wands! I like it. Have to add this term to the Huge Bang Fantasy! And let's just call it all Dark Magic from now on. And Dark Magic is wielded by these well-respected cosmologists who are simply, Dark Magicians! Dark Magicians are so lost in their math fantasy, that they have forgot that math is not a 'thing'.

May 30, 2015
This supermassive black hole merger report has no scientific merit:

General Relativity: In Acknowledgement Of Professor Gerardus 't Hooft, Nobel Laureate, http://vixra.org/...72v6.pdf

May 31, 2015
Has anyone bothered to take into account the difference between galaxies merging that have cores spinning roughly the same direction and those galaxies the have them perpendicular or of opposite rotation? What difference would this make to the possible presence of jets or no?

May 31, 2015
Not merging galaxies, but interacting Birkeland currents (BC). And it has nothing to do with SMBH's, but the dense plasma focus (DPF) in the pinch region of the BC. Electron and Ion beams are an expected outcome depending on the current density of the DPF. No magic laden physics (GR, BH) are required, just real experimentally confirmed phenomena.

http://www.plasma...PS-I.pdf

http://journals.c...00001750

But I guess if you prefer fairy tales and scary monster stories you can still believe in merging galaxies and black hole monsters.

May 31, 2015
blah blah blah real experimentally confirmed BS blah
a simple test anyone can do!

search for the phrase "experiments that prove or validate General or Special Relativity" it comes up with millions of hits
the major hits come from sites like: MIT, Stanford, Princeton, Cal-Tech, and so many more
as well as reputable journals and studies, like Science Magazine and Physical Review
REPUTABLE SCIENCE SITES

but search for the phrase "tests validating/proving Birkeland currents" or even "tests validating/proving electric universe" and guess what?
not so many hits!
&
the BULK of the links go to thunderbutts or KNOWN PSEUDOSCIENCE SITES

IOW- the bulk of the eu claims are only being posted by eu acolytes
no validation through Plasma physicists or sites like PPPL or other large plasma physics labs

why is that cantdrive?
why can't you get validated, since you claim experimental proof?
maybe because you still ignore physics like magnetic reconnection?

yep
Jun 01, 2015
"...what is accepted as true by a particular generation may be classed as gross superstition by succeeding generations; it can never be absolute truth" Alfred M Still

Why is it that we never learn from history?

How is it a false priori based science can keep up with its ridiculous theoretical constructs and still retain credulity?
Maybe because people like Capitain Stumpy the gate keepers of its faith can ignore observational reality and continue to believe in miracles until their dying days.

Jun 03, 2015
because people like Capitain Stumpy the gate keepers of its faith can ignore observational reality
@yep
i don't ignore observed measured data
in fact, i prefer it
but just because you have a picture of a gorilla on your mantle at home doesn't mean you have one in your basement, nor is it proof that all gorilla's are living in your house

it simply means you have a picture of a gorilla

you like to extrapolate data that is not there nor is justifiable (and some has no correlation at all, or no evidence supporting said correlation)

science and the scientific method is about empirical evidence which is validated
THAT is what i believe in
and that is not a faith, BTW, but because it is based upon evidence
it means i can think critically and don't fall into the same traps as religions and pseudoscience

just because you BELIEVE in something doesn't make it real, yep


yep
Jun 04, 2015
Missed the point again. You are intrenched in the dominant cultures beliefs, based on false assumptions, made in the time when only the visible spectra was measurable. The trap is your mind. Take your own advise priori science is a false God and your truth is just another lie to me. Garbage in is still garbage out empiraclly.

Jun 04, 2015
Missed the point again. You are intrenched in the dominant cultures beliefs, based on false assumptions, made in the time when only the visible spectra was measurable. The trap is your mind. Take your own advise priori science is a false God and your truth is just another lie to me. Garbage in is still garbage out empiraclly.


@yep

So your conjecture is superior to empirical evidence---interesting thought process.

yep
Jun 05, 2015
Vievet your empirical evidence is conjecture because of its premise on false assumptions. That is the point.

Jun 05, 2015
Missed the point again
@yep
no, i didn't
You are intrenched in the dominant cultures beliefs, based on false assumptions, made in the time when only the visible spectra was measurable
and like i pointed out, science is about more than just observation, but also repeatable experiments etc
empirical evidence is not just about what you see, but what you can repeat as well, that is why we still repeat experiments of GR/SR (and continue to validate the theories)

the false assumption here is that you believe that science is a faith
Science is about adherence to a methodology that requires evidence and validation before acceptance (and continued validation for continued acceptance)
it is not enough that we can validate GR/SR with the observations of lensing, but we also continue to measure the effects and utilize it in satellites and GPS, etc

CONTINUE to validate it

just like evolution continues to be validated by experimentation
(Lencki, Extavour, Whittaker, etc)

Jun 05, 2015
@yep cont'd
The trap is your mind
and due to the EMPIRICAL evidence being noted and measured by using the scientific method, we can adjust for bias as well as remove it from experimentation and interpretations
blah blah science is a false God blah blah. Garbage in is still garbage out empiraclly
and this, more than anything else you've posted demonstrates you are scientifically illiterate and basing your opinions upon a false faith or belief

just because you want it to be true doesn't mean it is

shall we quit using evidence based science and go to your conjecture supported delusional tactics?
you are making ASSumptions above that are NOT substantiated by evidence, therefore you are saying that your method of conjecture is superior to evidence based science

so if i say you are a necrophiliac who prefers hairy primates, that has the SAME authority and validity as your claims above because-NO EVIDENCE

get it yet?

your "truth" is not based upon evidence

Jun 05, 2015
and yet the very same assumptions were used in the planning and operation of New Horizons - which will shortly visit Pluto and its moons - and the Gaia mission (to use just two examples).
@JeanTate
EXCELLENT points, thanks for sharing

welcome to the site

i hope the trolls like yep and ren82 don't scare you off

it is not often that logic and common sense (or even science and the scientific method) prevail in the comment threads any more as it is being overrun with trolls and spammers due to the lack of mods

as the site is un-moderated, for the most part, you will see a lot of comments like yep's based solely upon conjecture and faith rather than actual empirical evidence

PEACE

Jun 05, 2015
how do you create the indented quotes?
@JeanTate
for an example, use the "quote" button under the post in the lower right corner
Rest the mouse cursor just above the line ending a post and it will appear

it uses the bracket and begin a quote with q, ending with /q all in brackets like this, without spaces [ q ] end quote [ / q ]

is there a means of reporting comments, ones which explicitly violate the rules?
yes, but it is worthless
the site is not really moderated, so you CAN use the "report" link under a post (next to the "Quote" link as noted above)

Some posters have been reported for years and are still posting here, from RealityCheck and cantdrive, jvk, hannes_alfven and other pseudoscience posters to the worst type like Zephir (currently posting as "Docile")
Zeph uses an anonymizer to get around the IP ban

you can also use the site contact link at the bottom of every page

but like i said, it is NOT moderated
they ignore most complaints
sorry

Jun 05, 2015
Thanks Captain Stumpy.

Question: how do you create the indented quotes?

Also, is there a means of reporting comments, ones which explicitly violate the rules?
@JeanTate
for your information, there are moderated forums that concentrate on science, but do not post actual articles

http://www.sciforums.com/

http://saposjoint.net

the forum differs from the article site like this in that it is all about the discussion, not the article

those sites are moderated
if you stick to actual science and use links/references and validate your claims you will be fine

this site is predominantly an article clearinghouse and it allows public comments
there is a difference

Jun 05, 2015
@JeanTate

The "ignore user", "quote", and "report" aren't visible unless you you drift across them below the last sentence of a comment. Most new users only find them because they happened to scroll down after reading a comment.

Phys.org is only in business to make money, the more clicks they generate the more they can charge for ads. Allowing pseudoscience trolls to comment is good for their bottom line.

I have to add a big welcome, reading your comments on this and other threads shows you'll be a valuable asset for those of us who respect science.

yep
Jun 06, 2015
@JeanTate you are reading more into my diatribe with the Captain then I am saying, what do black holes have to do with new horizons? Nothing at all. Garbage in is the asumtion of Big Bang and a gravity based reality garbage out are the black holes, dark matter and other physics defying nonsense that theoretical astrophysical science has become. Puzzle this? Alfven was denied for half his life and misunderstood for the rest. "..my work is unacceptable to the American astrophysical journals" "Students using astrophysical textbooks remain essentially ignorant...astrophysics is to important to be left in the hands of astrophysicists.." This from one of the world's greatest.
My perspective is 99% of reality is plasma. Lab testable and scalable, no black hole dk matter magic or Big Bang miracles.
Question authority, question reality, question your belief, or be sheep. This is not the nineteen fifties I refuse to stay back then with the Captain and Vietvet even if the are relatively decent

Jun 06, 2015
Sources for these quotes

Here's one, it includes the tables and reference which shows his statement is accurate.

http://www.diva-p...XT01.pdf

Have you considered questioning Alfven?


Alfven continuously questioned himself, including for example his own MHD. He came to realize through experiment MHD is largely misleading. That was over 45 years ago (see his Nobel lecture) , sadly astrophysics still relies heavily on that which "we know from experiment to be wrong ".

Says who?

Well, the Nobel selection committee. Not to mention the fact he was personally responsible for far ranging aspects of many modern concepts.
http://plasmauniv...fven.pdf

http://plasmauniv...asma.pdf


Jun 06, 2015
The first paper was Alfven giving a NASA lecture, the other two were biographies written by Falthammer and Peratt, two brilliant men in their own right.

Most of Alfven's research was based upon experiment, and he has been shown to be correct far more than not.

Jun 06, 2015
I missed them earlier, or there's some kind of threshold
@JeanTate
not that i know of?
rest the cursor over the last line/post
One thing that rather puzzles me so far: many of those who post, ... a lot of ignorance about contemporary astrophysics and cosmology, particularly the role of observations
Absolutely true
this is being studied in various ways
from here:
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

to various other studies

the bulk of the posters are simply adherents to a belief system and refuse to acknowledge science over their belief, be it conspiratorial like Cantdrive & zephir or religious like verkle & ren82

all are scientifically uneducated though
mostly, it is a fear of the unknown, so they cling to something that makes them feel better (or more knowledgeable, even if false)

one thing to remember: most will refuse to see evidence that doesn't conform to their delusion

Jun 06, 2015
You seem to be making a case that there is (or was) some sort of giant conspiracy; are you?
@Jean
Actually, that is one reason they (eu) continue to post that line- even though i've demonstrated through evidence ( from school curriculum to proof in studies) that astrophysicists MUST be educated in plasma physics in order to actually learn astrophysics

In fact, i've even used their own links and references in the past to prove them wrong, but it has not changed a thing
especially with regard to cantdrive

i also recommend using an anonymizer (like TOR) when visiting their pseudoscience sites
go here for TOR:

https://www.torproject.org/

it will help you avoid the phishing and IP specific data mining to your computer and it is easy to use
Also, make sure you have a good anti-virus

also: they will continue to use IEEE as a astrophysics reference when they post papers written by their engineers playing astrophysicists
always cross-reference with actual papers

Jun 06, 2015
Most of Alfven's research was based upon experiment, and he has been shown to be correct far more than not
@cd
and like i told you before: there is NO ONE challenging the factual data of alfven, nor are they making claims that proven validated science is wrong

BUT
just because he said something 30 years ago doesn't mean it is true today, like your continued blatant lie about astrophysicists not knowing plasma physics which has been debunked

just because you want to believe in something doesn't make it true, like your conspiracy beliefs
Secret mind control programs such as MK-ULTRA fostered by "intelligence agencies"or the use of patsies by those same agencies to provoke societal and political changes for our elitist masters. The false flag is a favorite tactic of the current control paradigm. From controlled economic turmoil to wars fomented for profit, very little "just happens".
Read more at: http://phys.org/n...ris.html

Jun 06, 2015
It almost seems - to me - like the acid test is something like "what would Alfven do/say?"
@JeanTate
yes and no
it is more like: what would the electrical engineers (ee's) who are the writers of thunderbolts and the various eu promotion sites say
The ee's like to use alfven, peratt and many others as justification for their eu con-job, and thus it becomes a rallying cry for the uneducated and scientifically illiterate
for better clarity and more insight read the arguments (in the comments section) between cantdrive and TimThompson here:

http://phys.org/n...ggs.html

and you will likely not get valid or honest replies from them about textbooks nor history (or a school curriculum)
good luck with your answers

read that link and the arguments between Thompson and CD
it will be an eye opener for you

(also note: feel free to open a profile at Sapo's Joint and tell them TruckCaptainStumpy sent you)
http://saposjoint.net/

Jun 06, 2015
yet today it's Vera Rubin and her work in the 1960s/70s on spiral galaxy rotation curves which is what most people know. But there isn't much of a Zwicky fan club.
@Jean
also found this interesting
i can speculate, but it would not be accurate

i am a retired investigator (Criminal and Fire) not an amateur astronomer (or professional one, for that matter)
i can say that Zwicky had some rather unpleasant traits, though, from what i've read and seen on various other media

for the record:
Sapo's joint has a lot of intelligent people and is highly moderated

you might really like it
you can also link PO articles and discuss them with science literate people rather than being trolled by eu and creationists


Jun 07, 2015
May I ask, when do you expect to answer my questions?


I'll give it a go.
trumps DIRECT EVIDENCE every time?

Never, but very little about astrophysics allows "direct evidence". Take your pulsar example, sure the radio observations are direct. However the implications of a pulsar being responsible is pure speculation. Pulsars/neutron stars are theoretical constructs without any real laboratory confirmation, lotsa "peer reviewed" papers, computer models, and maths but nothing in the way of experiment. BTW, the electric star model has a much simpler explanation for pulsar activity.

No matter how exquisitely well the direct evidence can be shown to be consistent with theory

Epicycles fit "exquisitely well" to direct observation. Without empirical/in situ support it remains conjecture. Do I think they deserve a Nobel? Hell no!

Almost the entirety of the standard model of cosmology is based upon assumption and conjecture. This is an absolute fact.

Jun 07, 2015


Today, as far as I know,...How many of such textbooks have you - personally - reviewed?

As far as you know? Are you trying to trump direct evidence in favor of your intuition? Regardless, how many papers/articles have you read in the past ten years that mentioned CIV, double layers, circuits, or Bennett pinches? If these deficiencies had been resolved there should be no shortage papers. However, I can name but a few, either written by people who studied under Alfven or regarding unexpected in situ measurements of near Earth plasmas. Again, how many can you name? That speaks volumes about your claim that something "must have changed" in two decades. His statement is as true today as it was 45 years ago when he first made the claim. He also discussed the pseudoscience of magnetic reconnection and frozen in fields, has anything changed there? Nope, afraid not. Still the nonsense continues today. Then again, you're a "keen citizen zooite", this shan't be news to you...

Jun 07, 2015
@cantdrive

You should have told Jean Tate the bit about the Grand Canyon being formed by a thunderbolt.

Jun 08, 2015
Um, with respect, it seems you are rather unfamiliar with the literature on space plasmas, over the last decade or three.

Just because the PPPL institutionalized MR doesn't mean it's not pseudoscience. "Field lines" can't break, twist, loop, or reconnect. They are not real objects that can do anything, any claim that they can is pseudoscience, hence PPPL's MRX promotes pseudoscience.

Jun 09, 2015
@Jean Tate

You'll have to keep in mind that one of the tenets of the Electric Universe religion holds that stars are not powered by fusion but by electric plasma.

Jun 09, 2015
They are not real objects that can do anything, any claim that they can is pseudoscience, hence PPPL's MRX promotes pseudoscience.
@cantdrive
but you said experimental evidence trumps everything else
PPPL have experimental evidence which says you are wrong...

worse yet, as JeanTate notes
... Alfvén Laboratory includes several on magnetic reconnection.
Just for fun, I did a quick search, and turned up ~40 such.
so that means you are clinging to your pseudoscience and religion, not to actual empirical and experimental evidence

one other point:

science follows the evidence
RELIGION denies evidence for the sake of a belief

as you have so aptly demonstrated here on phys.org, you believe in a RELIGION, not in science

maybe you can get your con-men to give you a congregation elsewhere?

Jun 09, 2015
To be fair, I do not know how many of the ~40 are about the "magentic reconnection" cantdrive85 is concerned with
@JeanT
well, historically cd has ignored all plasma physics regarding magnetic reconnection (as you noted above in the argument with Thompson) so the point will be ignored by cd anyway

cd believes religiously in her leadership, not science

you have also likely gone and made cd angry anyway

since you've been reading the Higgs link, perhaps you should Google "cantdrive Thmopson tool member phys.org" too
see the wonderful "science posts" due to the inability to refute Thompson with actual evidence OR science

http://phys.org/n...ggs.html

or use CTRL+F and search for "tool"
gems of scientific discourse

IMHO - cd isn't here to promote science: she is here to find acolytes and induct the gullible for the pyramid like con of eu
what she wrote is so brief as to be almost cryptic
precision means being proven wrong
this is typical of cd

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