'Mosh pits' in star clusters a likely source of LIGO's first black holes

'Mosh pits' in star clusters a likely source of LIGO's first black holes

Northwestern University astrophysicists have predicted history. In a new study, the scientists show their theoretical predictions last year were correct: The historic merger of two massive black holes detected Sept. 14, 2015, could easily have been formed through dynamic interactions in the star-dense core of an old globular cluster.

These binary black holes are born in the chaotic "mosh pit" of a globular cluster, kicked out of the cluster and then eventually merge into one black hole. This theory, known as dynamical formation, is one of two recognized main channels for forming the binary black holes detected by the Advanced LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory).

LIGO's first detection of merging black holes is perfectly consistent with the dynamical formation model from the Northwestern research team and is what you would expect from a globular cluster, the researchers say.

Colliding black holes do not emit light; however, they do release a phenomenal amount of energy as . The first detection of these waves occurred Sept. 14, and the second—announced to the world this morning—occurred three months later. These events have launched a new era in astronomy: using gravitational waves to learn about the universe.

"Thanks to LIGO, we're not just theorists speculating anymore—now we have data," said Frederic A. Rasio, a theoretical astrophysicist at Northwestern and senior author of the study. "A relatively simple and well understood process seems to work. Simple freshman physics—Newton's first law of motion—explains the gravitational dynamics of the first black holes detected by LIGO."

Rasio will detail how the first LIGO detection fits into his team's theory at a media briefing at 2:15 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time today (June 15) at the summer meeting of the American Astronomical Society (AAS) in San Diego.

Black hole mosh pit. In this simulation, 60 black holes and 500 stars interact with each other at the chaotic core of a globular cluster until two black holes combine to form a black hole binary. Credit: Carl Rodriguez/Northwestern Visualization (Justin Muir, Matt McCrory, Michael Lannum)

At a separate media briefing earlier today, the LIGO Scientific Collaboration announced its second detection—on Boxing Day in the U.K. and Christmas Day 2015 in the U.S.—of gravitational waves and merging black holes. This growing population of black holes will help astrophysicists learn more about the universe.

"We were ecstatic by the news announced earlier this year by LIGO about its first detection of colliding black holes," said Carl L. Rodriguez, lead author of the study and a Ph.D. student in Rasio's research group. "The findings are pretty much where we thought they would be. We look forward to working with the data from new detections."

The coalescence of two black holes is a very violent and exotic event. Rasio and his team used models of globular clusters—spherical collections of up to a million densely packed stars, common in the universe—to demonstrate that a typical cluster can very naturally create a binary black hole that will merge and form one larger black hole.

Their powerful computer model can predict how many merging binary black holes LIGO might detect: potentially 100 forged in the cores of these dense star clusters per year. The model also shows where in the universe the binary black holes are, how long ago they merged and the masses of each black hole.

"Simple physical processes make the heavy black holes go to the center of the cluster," Rasio said. "These pairs eventually merge and are detected by LIGO." He is the Joseph Cummings Professor in the department of physics and astronomy in Northwestern's Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences.

"By the end of the decade, we expect LIGO to detect hundreds to thousands of binary black holes," Rodriguez said.

Rasio and Rodriguez are members of Northwestern's Center for Interdisciplinary Exploration and Research in Astrophysics (CIERA).

In their study, Rasio, Rodriguez and colleagues describe in detail the dynamical interaction processes that could form a merging binary black hole system. They also show that theoretical predictions for this dynamical formation channel are, in general, far more robust than models for the other main channel for forming , based on the evolution of massive stars in isolated binaries (not in star clusters)."

Rodriguez and colleagues used 52 detailed computer models to demonstrate how a globular cluster acts as a dominant source of binary , producing hundreds of black hole mergers over a cluster's 12-billion-year lifetime.

By comparing the models to recent observations of clusters in the Milky Way galaxy and beyond, the results show that Advanced LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) could eventually see more than 100 binary black hole mergers per year.

For the study, the research team used a parallel computing code for modeling star clusters developed through a CIERA-supported interdisciplinary collaboration between Northwestern's physics and astronomy department and electrical engineering and computer science department. The paper includes 52 computer models, and their most massive model required 30,000 hours of computing power.

Advanced LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) is a large-scale physics experiment designed to directly detect gravitational waves of cosmic origin. Laser interferometers detect gravitational waves from the minute oscillations of suspended mirrors set into motion as the waves pass through the Earth.

The paper, titled "Dynamical Formation of the GW150914 Binary Black Hole," was published June 10 by The Astrophysical Journal Letters. In addition to Rasio and Rodriguez, other authors are Sourav Chatterjee and Vicky Kalogera of Northwestern and Carl-Johan Haster of the University of Birmingham.


Explore further

Dense star clusters shown to be binary black hole factories

More information: Carl L. Rodriguez et al, DYNAMICAL FORMATION OF THE GW150914 BINARY BLACK HOLE, The Astrophysical Journal (2016). DOI: 10.3847/2041-8205/824/1/L8
Citation: 'Mosh pits' in star clusters a likely source of LIGO's first black holes (2016, June 15) retrieved 21 September 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-06-mosh-pits-star-clusters-source.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.
579 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jun 15, 2016
Theoretical Black Holes is what they are classified, as long as there is a magnetic mechanical possibility of that mass constituting a quantum plasma of super hot positrons and electrons held in magnetic compression, untill that's ruled out in the process of two neutron stars being in a super high velocity collision,and turning those neutrons into positrons and electrons in high velocity collisions making it the only possible mass to be assembled, first, just like its in a super particle accelerator like CERN but a trillion times bigger

Jun 15, 2016
I dunno @Frosty, seems to me you'd need a couple many-solar-mass black holes to do that. I wouldn't wanna be anywhere near anything like that.

Worth noting that gravity is an effect of energy. Matter is merely condensed energy, nothing more. That's why the right side of the EFE is called the "stress-energy tensor."

Jun 15, 2016
Worth noting that gravity is an effect of energy. Matter is merely condensed energy, nothing more. That's why the right side of the EFE is called the "stress-energy tensor."

If EFE = Einstein Field Equation, that would have been a good poser for Benni...:-)

Jun 15, 2016
We are still missing the important point. A solar mass of matter was converted into gravity.

Not quite sure how you came by that conclusion. I only see multiple solar masses combining to perturb space-time in a wave like fashion.
Hence, gravity as a "property" of space-time...
(or of the Universe - whichever is more infinite...:-)

Jun 15, 2016
(Pssst, it said so in the article.)

Jun 15, 2016
(Pssst, it said so in the article.)

Re-read it 3 times...
Where does it say a solar mass of matter was converted to gravity?
(And thanks for whispering it and not letting everyone else know...;-)

Jun 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.


Jun 16, 2016
(Over there -> http://phys.org/n...les.html )

Oh... THAT article... (not this one)
So... That would indicate roughly one solar mass was converted to energy, which was sufficient to create a wave in the space time "fabric"....

Jun 16, 2016
(Over there -> http://phys.org/n...les.html )

Oh... THAT article... (not this one)
So... That would indicate roughly one solar mass was converted to energy, which was sufficient to create a wave in the space time "fabric"....
Actually, it's a bunch of waves, but yeah, turning the mass of an average star into gravity energy is sufficient to do that. That's more energy than a lot of supernovae put out in a much shorter time. Pretty sure that would be a violent event you wouldn't want to be close to. Close up the gravity waves would rip any material substance apart.

Jun 16, 2016
Careful, everyone. :)

Said gravitational wave claimed to have quadrupole effects on a-LIGO quadrupole-effects-detector setup from more than a BILLION LYrs away.

BUT...from link: https://van.physi...p?id=204
The quadrupole moment does give gravitational fields, but they fall off much faster as you leave the object than does the main monopole field, which falls as the square of the distance from the center. The quadrupole field falls as the fourth power of the distance.


So, claim that 'quadrupole effect' gravitational disturbance 'wave' can travel this far or be 'detected' by a-LIGO setup, is scientifically UN-tenable, according to known science.

Cheers. :)

PS: 'MONOpolar' gravitational-well/gradient 'variations' across space travel ALONG with associated mass-energy features/radiations (stars/Photons/Neutrinos etc); but any such g-w 'signals' from Billion+ LYs away would be SWAMPED by 'nearby' Solar Sys/Milky Way dynamics 'signals'.

Jun 17, 2016
Hi Protoplasmix, Da Schneib, Phys1, EMP-9 etc.

Until you address what I pointed out in my previous post, and which is supported by your own (Protoplasmix's) link, then all your discussion re quadrupole effect gravitational waves/detection (from Billions of Lyrs away) is effectively discussing anti-KNOWN-science beliefs instead of objective scientifically tenable discourse of real/physical events/possibilities.

Your collective silence on what I pointed out (as supported by known science quoted/linked) does lead one to question your collective dedication to actual objective thinking/science discourse. Is there any other cogent and objective reason you don't address that 'elephant in the room' I pointed out?

Why not do that FIRST?...instead of UNCRITICALLY believing/promulgating alleged a-LIGO 'detection' claim/setup etc; which are PATENTLY DUBIOUS according to KNOWN science, even before 'runs/analyses' were done?

That 'elephant in the room' makes it all GIGO. Address it. :)


Jun 17, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? Oh yeah, I am fine, thanks for asking.

Hi Protoplasmix, Da Schneib, Phys1, EMP-9 etc.


Cher, all those Skippys have you on the ignore thing. Well, except the the etc-Skippy, I suppose that is me.

Anyhoo, you should not be littering up the articles posting the exact same messages on different articles. If they are ignoring you on one, they are ignoring you on all of them. That's the way the ignore thing works,, you can't just set it for one article non.

I am a little to busy right now to do much fooling around with you but maybe the Captain-Skippy (if he also don't have you on the ignore thing) or the Otto-Skippy (he would never put you on ignore) might come around to goof off with you. Or Obama's-Socks-Skippy, he likes your stuffs.

But another anyhoo, don't keep trying to interrupt the humans and scientists while they are having a peaceful polite conversation while they are ignoring you. It is rude.

Jun 17, 2016
Hi Protoplasmix, Da Schneib, Phys1, EMP-9 etc.

Until you address what I pointed out in my previous post, and which is supported by your own (Protoplasmix's) link, then all your discussion re quadrupole effect gravitational waves/detection (from Billions of Lyrs away) is effectively discussing anti-KNOWN-science beliefs instead of objective scientifically tenable discourse of real/physical events/possibilities.

Your collective silence on what I pointed out (as supported by known science quoted/linked) does lead one to question your collective dedication to actual objective thinking/science discourse. Is there any other cogent and objective reason you don't address that 'elephant in the room' I pointed out?

Well, they either didn't see it as an "elephant" or maybe they all other shit to do. You are halfway around the world. They don't live on your schedule...

Jun 17, 2016
Close up the gravity waves would rip any material substance apart.

I think I did a calc somewhere that instead of the sub-proton-diameter effect we are witnessing here - if we had been in orbit at one AU around these coalescing BH pair - then the 4km leg of LIGO would have elongated by a full meter (simply by taking the distance and a 1/r-squared relationship for signal strength...though in the recent press conference they stressed that the amplitud goes linearly with the distance...I still haven't figured out how that works or if I just misheard)

...or if you want it a bit bigger: A planet like Earth at 1AU would have been stretched by roughly 3 km (and compressed by 3km along the transversal axis)
Now, this would probably not have ripped an earth-sized planet apart, but it would have been a shitty day for anything living on it.

Jun 17, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)

What you just posted above clearly tells that the 'family vacation' to Disneyland did nothing to reduce your erstwhile industrial-strength levels idiocy/dishonesty, mate.

If you really believe that they have me on ignore, and that they in fact do, then what does that say about your/their ON-SCIENCE 'discussion'? Bad.

If you/they have to ignore/deny the KNOWN SCIENCE facts being pointed out by me, then you/they are NO BETTER than all those perceived trolls you/they accuse of ignoring/denying KNOWN science.

Actually, it makes you/they WORSE, because you/they claim to 'defend' science! Your "smart peoples" pretend to ignore; in order to deny KNOWN science as and when it suits their 'egos'. What levels of HYPOCRISY and antiscienc ego-tripping must be in play by you/your "smart peoples" for them to act like anti-science trolls THEMSELVES while professing to 'defend' science?

Ira, a group-vacation to "Honesty-Logic-Science-land' for you/they is in order. :)

Jun 17, 2016
PS @ Uncle Ira:

The threads/discussions in question were closely related, hence point raised was relevant to said threads/discussions. Hence the posts of same in said threads/discussions. The apparent failure to address said KNOWN SCIENCE points, raised by me in all the related threads/discussions, tells of the failure of so-called scientists when faced with known science observations which refute the claims based on uncritical belief and ego-tripping on the part of so-called 'scientists' who prefer to ignore/deny inconvenient facts rather than address them squarely and honestly based on KNOWN science not their 'preferred' version/speculation/ego-tripping based on possible GIGO 'exercises'.

The above reminds objective observers only too well of the debacle which this 'Anti-Scientific-Method' (as distinct from the REAL and proper Scientific Method) being applied/followed by supposed 'researhers/discoursers' (eg, in BICEP2...and now in a-LIGO...'exercises') led to. Sad.


Jun 17, 2016
though in the recent press conference they stressed that the amplitud goes linearly with the distance...I still haven't figured out how that works or if I just misheard)
Actually I think the wave amplitude degrading linearly might be consistent with the waves propagating most strongly along the plane of orbit. You may not have heard wrong.

Jun 17, 2016
Hi Whyde. :)
Until you address what I pointed out in my previous post, and which is supported by your own (Protoplasmix's) link, then all your discussion re quadrupole effect gravitational waves/detection (from Billions of Lyrs away) is effectively discussing anti-KNOWN-science beliefs instead of objective scientifically tenable discourse of real/physical events/possibilities.

Your collective silence on what I pointed out (as supported by known science quoted/linked) does lead one to question your collective dedication to actual objective thinking/science discourse. Is there any other cogent and objective reason you don't address that 'elephant in the room' I pointed out?

Well, they either didn't see it as an "elephant" or maybe they all other shit to do. You are halfway around the world. They don't live on your schedule...
That point was first made days ago (June 14) in another thread.
Why are you 'selectively excusing' ignoring/denying in science discussion?

Jun 17, 2016
PS @ Whyde:

Putting people on ignore (just because you fear being refuted by them based on KNOWN SCIENCE facts) is what leads to GIGO; and to the dreaded and unfortunate ECHO CHAMBER EFFECT between a group of self-congratulatory YES MEN who only 'accept' their 'preferred' version/sources/claims etc instead of being OBJECTIVE and BRAVE enough to listen no matter WHO is pointing out the known science facts which may be unpalatable to the 'echo chamber' chorus of the moment.

Beware anyone/group who practices putting others on IGNORE just because they may be pointing out 'inconvenient' facts that spoil their own enjoyment of their self-imposed YES MAN Echo Chamber 'accoustics'.

More critical thinking and fair listening, Whyde, everyone! As the real proper scientific method DEMANDS of real scientific thinking/process/discourse. Cheers. :)

Jun 17, 2016
Well, they either didn't see it as an "elephant" or maybe they all other shit to do. You are halfway around the world. They don't live on your schedule...
That point was first made days ago (June 14) in another thread.

I must have missed it. Does that mean I had you on ignore...?
Why are you 'selectively excusing' ignoring/denying in science discussion?

Not excusing anything. Just stating the rather obvious...

Jun 17, 2016
Hi Whyde. :)

Protoplasmix linked a reference which confirmed what I had been saying all along. So unless you are also implying that they all are ignoring him AND his linked reference, they should by NOW been aware of the point: 'quadrupole effects type g-waves' being unlikely to be 'detected' billions of light years away.

Then I made a post thanking Protoplasmix for his linked reference; and made my point again, based on that known science which mitigates against 'detection' of claimed g-wave by a-LIGO setup so far from supposed source.

20+ hours ago I posted a further challenge in two threads, regarding ADDRESSING that point which Protoplasmix's linked reference confirmed and I had been pointing out for a LONG TIME now.

Yet despite all that 'opportunity' for those concerned to ADDRESS that linked fact as confirmed by Proto's reference, there has been TOTAL SILENCE from those who SHOULD have been addressing that all along.

And NOT ONE 'caught' any of that? Please. :)

Jun 17, 2016
@ Whydening-Skippy. How you are? I am good and home from a too long vacation. I have not wrote anything to or from you in awhile so I hope you are good.

It's kind of funny about Really-Skippy and his elephants. If I started talking about elephants in the house Mrs-Ira-Skippette would probably be on the phone trying to get me some help.

I wonder if Really-Skippy has considered maybe nobody is talking to him about his elephants because he is the only person in the world that sees them? And everybody except me is trying not to hurt his feelings by telling him seeing all those elephants that nobody else sees is a sure sign of mental conditions.

Just humor him and his elephants, at least he is not going on about the troll/gang/mod/bot/mafias out to get him.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. How's business going? I am still going to get around to ordering something from you on the Amazon. I still have that link marked up.

Jun 17, 2016
@Whyde, great lob return. It's extremely amusing to watch you make tennis returns to 5 dimensional kill-the-referee bank shots off the lighting carousel and win.

Jun 17, 2016
@ Forum. :)

Here, from Protoplasmix's own linked reference: https://van.physi...p?id=204
The quadrupole moment does give gravitational fields, but they fall off much faster as you leave the object than does the main monopole field, which falls as the square of the distance from the center. The quadrupole field falls as the fourth power of the distance.


It clearly implies that quadrupolar g-wave effects could NOT have travelled Billion+ light years to be 'detected' as claimed by a-LIGO setup.

How stupid/dishonest would anyone/group have to be, to pretend that is NOT a HUGE 'elephant in the room' for these claims/discussion?

I expect poor Uncle Ira nitwit to miss the import of that KNOWN SCIENCE fact/point. But for, Whyde, Da Schneib et al to be chatting lamely like trolls about ANYTHING BUT THAT 'elephant in the room', is beyond the pale re scientific/character integrity.

Only cowards/liars would still avoid addressing the point NOW.

Jun 17, 2016
Hey @Ira, glad to see you survived your adventures in the Wild West. Noted none of yours got eaten by 'gators. Over here we just try to keep them from climbing on the surf-facing sides of the rocks.

I think talking about the elephants is teh devvil. There is no elephants. /s

I hope you're having fun with all the speculation that we've been doing lately. I think it's a turn in a good direction for us here.

Jun 17, 2016
Hi Whyde. :)

Protoplasmix linked a reference which confirmed what I had been saying all along. So unless you are also implying that they all are ignoring him AND his linked reference, they should by NOW been aware of the point: 'quadrupole effects type g-waves' being unlikely to be 'detected' billions of light years away.

Then I made a post thanking Protoplasmix for his linked reference; and made my point again, based on that known science which mitigates against 'detection' of claimed g-wave by a-LIGO setup so far from supposed source.

20+ hours ago I posted a further challenge in two threads, regarding ADDRESSING that point which Protoplasmix's linked reference confirmed and I had been pointing out for a LONG TIME now.

And NOT ONE 'caught' any of that? Please. :)

Must have missed those, too...
I guess I don't need an ignore button - I seem to do that all on my own...

Jun 17, 2016
@ Whydening-Skippy. How you are? I am good and home from a too long vacation. I have not wrote anything to or from you in awhile so I hope you are good.

Hey, Ira! Good to see ya back. Hope ya had fun!

I wonder if Really-Skippy has ... sure sign of mental conditions.

Don't think he's mental. He just likes to think he is ahead of the "available info" curve...

Oh yeah, I almost forget. How's business going? I am still going to get around to ordering something from you on the Amazon. I still have that link marked up.

Biz is ok, still a little slow, tho. Election year jitters, I guess...:-)
Me and Mrs WG have stepped up our show schedule to make up for it. But, that ain't all bad - it's whippin' this 62 yr old bod back into shape...:-)
Hope you also checked out our main web page. Lot's more cool stuff there, too!

Jun 17, 2016
@Whyde, great lob return. It's extremely amusing to watch you make tennis returns to 5 dimensional kill-the-referee bank shots off the lighting carousel and win.

That sounds way complicated...:-)

Jun 17, 2016
PS @ Whyde:
Putting people on ignore (just because you fear being refuted by them based on KNOWN SCIENCE facts) is what leads to GIGO; and to the dreaded and unfortunate ECHO CHAMBER EFFECT between a group of self-congratulatory YES MEN who only 'accept' their 'preferred' version/sources/claims etc instead of being OBJECTIVE and BRAVE enough to listen no matter WHO is pointing out the known science facts which may be unpalatable to the 'echo chamber' chorus of the moment.

I'm a pretty fair reader of stuff, even tho I may not have the tech expertise to fully understand all the details. And I find it funny how I never see those posts you claim, only the ones where you take credit for posting it...

Jun 18, 2016
Hi Whyde. :)
I'm a pretty fair reader of stuff, even tho I may not have the tech expertise to fully understand all the details. And I find it funny how I never see those posts you claim, only the ones where you take credit for posting it...
Remember the initial BICEP2 saga, and the in-denial howls of outrage when I cautioned about such flawed 'exercises'. My views as to WHY they could not have 'detected' primordial waves' are well known/longstanding (decades).

Well, it's happening again with this flawed a-LIGO 'exercise' purporting to have 'detected' RECENT (not primordial as in BICEP2 goal) quadrupolar effects g-w from a BILLION+ LIGHT YEARS away!

And my explanation as to WHY a-LIGO could NOT have 'detected' said recent quadrupolar effects g-w has also been longstanding. I even repeated them in brief in my posts of last few days, as supported/confirmed by Protoplasmix's own reference!

Face it, mate, I KNOW MORE CORRECT SCIENCE than your 'chat buddies' COMBINED. :)

Jun 18, 2016
Actually I think the wave amplitude degrading linearly might be consistent with the waves propagating most strongly along the plane of orbit.

Yeah..it's sort of hard to discern from the images/animations being shown whether these are just the usual 2D-representations-of-3D-space (i.e. whether we're dealing with an omnidirectional gravity wave) or whether this is a wave that is mostly in a plane.

In the latter case that would mean that we only detect a very minute part of the actual mergers going on out there (only those whose plane of rotation happened to lie close to Earth)

After googling a bit I found this
https://www.quora...ck-holes
Which seems to indicate a (semi) planar expansion (so roughly r dependent..which invalidates my calcs given earlier) but that that plane must NOT intersect Earth to be detectable by LIGO

Jun 20, 2016
Yeah..it's sort of hard to discern from the images/animations being shown whether these are just the usual 2D-representations-of-3D-space (i.e. whether we're dealing with an omnidirectional gravity wave) or whether this is a wave that is mostly in a plane.
It's a quadrupole field; in a sphere centered on the center of mass of the two black holes, this will have two tight maxima in field strength, one opposite each hole, and a minimal ring, equidistant on the sphere from the two maxima. As the holes orbit, a stationary observer in the orbital plane will see two cycles, minimum to maximum, pass by for every orbit. It is these passing minima and maxima that generate the gravity waves.

The field strength will fall off away from the orbital plane by a cosine law, so at 45° it will be at .707 and it will fall off to .5 at 60°. Near the axis of the orbital plane it will be near zero. So the only ones we couldn't see would be where we're near that axis.

Jun 20, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
my explanation as to WHY a-LIGO could NOT have 'detected' said recent quadrupolar effects g-w ... even repeated them in brief in my posts of last few days,

They are wrong no matter how often you repeat them. This has repetedly be explained to you but you keep pushing these flawed opinions. Even if the LIGO observations turned out to be a mistake, you would still be wrong.
I admire your 'faith' in the current mainstream cosmology flawed assumptions/flawed maths etc. As a student, you are necessarily 'uncritically invested' in the current culture/orthodoxy, due to the natural expectation that what you are 'learning' and being currently inculcated with will be correct now and forever. If you are to advance the status quo of cosmology, you EVENTUALLY need to 'outdo' your 'current' orthodoxy teachings; so why not start NOW rather than keep mouthing/believing by rote a patently flawed orthodoxy?

Before you again kneejerk "you're wrong" etc...[cont]

Jun 20, 2016
[...cont] @Phys1.

Before you again kneejerk "you're wrong" etc, go back to what I said about the currently incorrect assumptions/maths/model of a g-w. The interpetation of GR to 'supoort' such a model is flawed.

Mainly because a G-Wave CANNOT ACQUIRE/MAINTAIN A COHESIVE 'SOLITONIC' like form with which to PROPAGATE FREE FROM ITS PARENT GRAVITAIONAL WELL and the energy/mass feature which GENERATES that well. See?

UNLIKE E-M perurbations, alleged GRAV perturbations have NO self-containment processes which would resist the natural tendency to disperse during translating across the quantum vacuum expanses/space distances involved. See?

THAT is where the errors BEGIN. Then the assumptions/interpretations/models and 'exercises' keep EXACERBATING/COMPOUND the GIGO into a CASCADE of UNPHYSICAL nonsense which is built into subsequent 'exercises/results' (BICEP2 fiasco demonstrated this 'nonsense cascade' SYNDROME...and it was only the TIP of a nonsense 'iceberg').

[cont...]

Jun 20, 2016
[...cont] @Phys1 again.

I have more than once pointed out the many flaws which led to that mainstream nonsense cascade. For example, I recently pointed out to IMP-9/you/others the flaws and GIGO potential inherent in the DISTANCE LADDER system currently used/extrapolated for interpretations involving distance to sources/features critical in mapping the universal volume/time parameters attached to observed phenomena and extrapolated to/from theory. My point is even NOW AGAIN CONFIRMED by a reasonable objective Physicist, as follows. See article in thread:

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

Where he writes about the serious limitations and possible miss-steps of that system.

Combine GIGO potential from assumptive flaws I mentioned already re g-waves/bbang/cmb etc 'exercises', with GIGO potential from that currently untrustworthy (beyond a few million light years) 'extrapolated distance ladder based interpretations'!

See it now? :)

Jun 21, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 21, 2016
Hmm, CFD has a familiar style :)

Jun 22, 2016
Hi Forum. :)

Well, there you have it in black and white from CFD's own farting mouth. That is the 'standard' which 'mainstream defenders' have attained after all this time. No wonder the cosmology and some other disciplines are in a mess, if this is their idea of 'objective' and 'fair' science discourse and understanding. Poor CFD, farting his way to iirrelevance as an internet dumbass who farts and thinks it's 'science commentary' par excellence! What a waste of education and parenting. Poor CFD; poor CFD's parents.

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