Astrophysicists discover mechanism for spiral-arm formation in disk galaxies

August 11, 2016

Astrophysicists at the University of Arkansas have discovered a mechanism for the formation of the spiral arms in disk galaxies.

The finding was published in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, the journal of the American Astronomical Society.

The discovery provides a better understanding for the formation of in a kind of disk galaxy known as a spiral galaxy, said Hamed Pour-Imani, a physics doctoral student at the U of A and lead author of the study.

Spiral arms are the elongated and curved spiral sections that are connected to the center of a , such as our own Milky Way.

"Spiral galaxies are fascinating structures in astronomy, and the exact mechanism of the formation of spiral arms is still a mystery in astrophysics," Pour-Imani said. "Our work provides strong evidence for the density wave theory of spiral galaxies, which is one of two popular theories to explain the spiral structures."

Density wave theory was proposed in the 1960s to explain the spiral arm structure of spiral galaxies. The theory posited that spiral arms are not material in nature, but instead made up of areas of greater density, similar to a traffic jam on the highway. Stars move in and out of the spiral arms as they orbit the galaxy. The density wave theory predicts that the pitch angle of spiral arms should vary with the wavelength of the galaxy's image.

Previous research either failed to find any significant variation in pitch angle or only limited evidence for it, Pour-Imani said. In this study, U of A astrophysicists used an optical wavelength image for disk and images from the NASA Spitzer Space Telescope at two infrared wavelengths. The pitch angles agreed with the density .

Explore further: Image: Hubble spies a spiral snowflake

More information: Hamed Pour-Imani et al. Strong evidence for the density-wave theory of spiral structure in disk galaxies, The Astrophysical Journal (2016). DOI: 10.3847/2041-8205/827/1/L2

Related Stories

Image: Hubble spies a spiral snowflake

May 16, 2016

Together with irregular galaxies, spiral galaxies make up approximately 60 percent of the galaxies in the local universe. However, despite their prevalence, each spiral galaxy is unique—like snowflakes, no two are alike. ...

Hubble spies a spiral snowflake

May 13, 2016

Together with irregular galaxies, spiral galaxies make up approximately 60 percent of the galaxies in the local universe. However, despite their prevalence, each spiral galaxy is unique—like snowflakes, no two are alike. ...

Hubble looks at stunning spiral

July 13, 2015

This little-known galaxy, officially named J04542829-6625280, but most often referred to as LEDA 89996, is a classic example of a spiral galaxy. The galaxy is much like our own galaxy, the Milky Way.

Hubble eyes a loose spiral galaxy

November 26, 2012

(Phys.org)—The Hubble Space Telescope has spotted the spiral galaxy ESO 499-G37, seen here against a backdrop of distant galaxies, scattered with nearby stars.

Image: Hubble eyes galactic refurbishment

May 4, 2015

The smudge of stars at the center of this NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope image is a galaxy known as UGC 5797. UGC 5797 is an emission line galaxy, meaning that it is currently undergoing active star formation. The result ...

Surprise: Small elliptical galaxy actually a giant disk

July 11, 2016

Astronomers have believed since the 1960s that a galaxy dubbed UGC 1382 was a relatively boring, small elliptical galaxy. Ellipticals are the most common type of galaxy and lack the spiral structure of disks like the Milky ...

Recommended for you

Orbital mayhem around a red dwarf

December 18, 2017

In the collective imagination, planets of a solar system all circle in the equatorial plane of their star. The star also spins, and its spin axis is aligned with the spin axes of the planetary orbits, giving the impression ...

Mars and Earth may not have been early neighbors

December 18, 2017

A study published in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters posits that Mars formed in what today is the Asteroid Belt, roughly one and a half times as far from the sun as its current position, before migrating to ...

143 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

FredJose
1.4 / 5 (25) Aug 11, 2016
the exact mechanism of the formation of spiral arms is still a mystery in astrophysics

This statement clearly contradicts the attention seeking headline of this article.
What exactly DID the researchers discover?
Only that measuring pitch angles via a different method provides agreement with what is expected in the density wave theory. It does not in any way validate that theory since we will need direct observation of the formation of galaxy spirals and measurement of the presence of the density wave to confirm it. A very long wait is in store.
shavera
4.6 / 5 (31) Aug 11, 2016
Fred: Imagine I show you many pictures of many people. Even though you won't have seen one person go from infant to old age, you can probably reconstruct how humans grow and develop since you have pictures from many people over many different stages of life.

That's how astrophysics works. We have many examples of galaxies at different ages of the universe. And we even have approximate chronological ordering of those examples, unlike my above analogy.

The only problem with this article is that it didn't make clear that when they talk about "the wavelength of the galaxy's image" what they're really meaning is "how old is the image of the galaxy we now see." The article gives us the direct correlation, without the inferred more meaningful correlation.
FineStructureConstant
4 / 5 (31) Aug 11, 2016
@Fred, an even longer wait is in store for us before bar-room bores, Physics 101 failures and would-be experts on things cosmological like yourself learn to stop shoving their crap in our ears...
Benni
1.3 / 5 (30) Aug 11, 2016
The only problem with this article is that it didn't make clear that when they talk about "the wavelength of the galaxy's image" what they're really meaning is "how old is the image of the galaxy we now see." The article gives us the direct correlation, without the inferred more meaningful correlation
.

TRANSLATION: Shavo's real complaint being that the article mentioned nothing about Envelopes of Dark Matter.
bschott
1.5 / 5 (24) Aug 11, 2016
the exact mechanism of the formation of spiral arms is still a mystery in astrophysics

This statement clearly contradicts the attention seeking headline of this article.
What exactly DID the researchers discover?
Only that measuring pitch angles via a different method provides agreement with what is expected in the density wave theory. It does not in any way validate that theory since we will need direct observation of the formation of galaxy spirals and measurement of the presence of the density wave to confirm it.

Spot on.

@Fred, an even longer wait is in store for us before bar-room bores, Physics 101 failures and would-be experts on things cosmological like yourself learn to stop shoving their crap in our ears...

Truth hurts those who live in fantasy, but pain can be a good cure for unfounded mindless arrogance.
That's how astrophysics works.

MS astrophysics doesn't work (without A lot of invisible help)
Benni
1.4 / 5 (30) Aug 11, 2016
MS astrophysics doesn't work (without A lot of invisible help)


.......that's for sure, barely one rung on the ladder above Astrology & this problem will never get fixed until Schneibo ceases his stalling about releasing those pics of Black Holes he claims to have seen.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (31) Aug 11, 2016
@BSchott,
MS astrophysics doesn't work (without A lot of invisible help)


The height of hypocrisy! This from a bloke who thinks x-rays from solar wind interaction with comets causes them to brighten in visible light!
If I were you, I'd stick to what you know. Which quite obviously doesn't include science.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (33) Aug 11, 2016
MS astrophysics doesn't work (without A lot of invisible help)


.......that's for sure, barely one rung on the ladder above Astrology & this problem will never get fixed until Schneibo ceases his stalling about releasing those pics of Black Holes he claims to have seen.


And on the other hand, it'll never get fixed as long as posers like you think you've got all the answers, but can only be bothered to post on irrelevant sites like this, instead of putting your huge knowledge into a published paper so that we can all see just how brilliant you are('nt).
Benni
1.3 / 5 (27) Aug 11, 2016
And on the other hand, it'll never get fixed as long as posers like you think you've got all the answers, but can only be bothered to post on irrelevant sites like this, instead of putting your huge knowledge into a published paper so that we can all see just how brilliant you are('nt).


Jonesy, how's your Horoscope reading doing for you today? Given you a bad start for the day I see.
bschott
1.7 / 5 (24) Aug 11, 2016
Density wave theory was proposed in the 1960s to explain the spiral arm structure of spiral galaxies. The theory posited that spiral arms are not material in nature, but instead made up of areas of greater density,

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Greater density that is not material in nature eh? Is it the density of nothing that is increased then? Do we OBSERVE a greater concentration of light producing objects composed of matter/energy that form the spiral arms? Why yes we do. Makes sense this came from the 60's...Was it the noted PHD Jimi Hendrix?
similar to a traffic jam on the highway.

A traffic jam is caused by an increased number of cars....a higher density if you will...their analogy doesn't fit because they would be claiming the traffic jam is NOT caused this...but a "traffic wave"...comprising something other than vehicles.
The only problem with this article is....

It was published.
Bigbangcon
1.2 / 5 (21) Aug 11, 2016
The Big Bang based ideas of the origin, the evolution and the structures of galaxies are based on mechanical, quick-fix and dubious theories and mysteries.

Only a dialectics and quantum dynamics based perspective can give a rational explanation of the dynamics of the cosmos; as described below:
"It is entirely possible to speculate that some of the ellipticals
transformed into spirals by forming proto-arms through ejection from
the core, because unlike the case with the spirals, ejection along any
direction will be slowed down by the existing bulk of matter. The
spirals then slowly convert back to the SO or E type galaxies through
gravitational relaxation. The different types of galaxies are dynamic
structures in the various stages of formation/ dissolution,
succession/inter-conversion to each other (and not structures "perfect
in themselves" since their formation after the Big Bang)".
http://redshift.v...2MAL.pdf
bschott
1.5 / 5 (23) Aug 11, 2016
@BSchott,
MS astrophysics doesn't work (without A lot of invisible help)


The height of hypocrisy! This from a bloke who thinks x-rays from solar wind interaction with comets causes them to brighten in visible light!
If I were you, I'd stick to what you know. Which quite obviously doesn't include science.

I never said visible light, I used observations of brightening in visible light occuring to illustrate my point ( you foolishly claimed the increase in visible light was a result of factors that cause brightening on approach to the sun to be those causing it when it was moving away) . A little physics lesson for the ignorant idiot Jones....ANY production of photons IS brightening, this is simple and physically undeniable....unless you are so pissed about being wrong you can't admit that this is a physics fact....and wish to continue your little 6 day tantrum...do you still suck your thumb too?
bschott
1.5 / 5 (23) Aug 11, 2016
This from a bloke who thinks x-rays from solar wind interaction with comets causes them to brighten in visible light!

Also, if you are going to claim I said something, it should be what I actually said...which was that interaction with the solar wind causes comets to brighten, I never said the x-rays from the interaction caused them to brighten in visible light. But it was really funny when you started posting links that actually supported my point regarding increased photon production (across a few different wavelengths)as a result of the interaction. You keep digging the hole you are in deeper, and your covering yourself with the dirt moron.
Benni
1.3 / 5 (25) Aug 11, 2016
This from a bloke who thinks x-rays from solar wind interaction with comets causes them to brighten in visible light!


Well, what about the blokey guy, name of Schneibo, who has claimed to see pics of Black Holes but won't share them with us? I not only want to see the pics of the BHs, but I want to see a pic of the telescope through which those pics were made. Fair enough Jonesy?
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (22) Aug 11, 2016
Also, if you are going to claim I said something, it should be what I actually said
@bschitt
ok
Jonesdave
This (*i.e. the magnetosphere*) will only form as outgassing reaches a certain level and interacts with the SW. At low outgassing rates it doesn't exist."
(*my addition, to put it in context what 'This' refers to)
bschitt's reply:
I disagree. And you are stating theory as fact unless you have in situ measurments of cometary magnetic fields in both states from one comet.....
http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

that conversation alone demonstrates a few things from your pseudoscience beliefs to your clinging to religious faith based arguments over evidence...

you know, like your arguments for your cancer-killing super magnet that can't be proven?
http://phys.org/n...ant.html

http://phys.org/n...apy.html
billpress11
2.8 / 5 (11) Aug 11, 2016
I thought they might also consider the coriolis effect along with natural differences in density as a galaxy condenses due to the gravitational force?
billpress11
1 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2016
Deleted double post.
bschott
Aug 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (22) Aug 11, 2016
I have a few dozen people I will introduce you to someday
@bschit
threats will do you no good
neither will anecdotal evidence for a pretend machine you can't actually prove did *anything* (except make you feel better about spending large amounts of money on bullschitt)

...oh yeah, there's no cure for stupid
The conversation was about comets
unlike you i actually read the comments... i also happen to agree that you did not comprehend what was being said

this is a typical tactic of you in other threads as well... like your delusions re: martian soil
The Martian soil will need to be brought back to earth for study, to determine what colonists will have to add to it in order to make it fertile
http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

we know you're a conspiracy theorist
http://phys.org/n...ing.html

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (23) Aug 11, 2016
@bschit cont'd
so what we see is a reoccurring trend regarding your beliefs, tactics and refusal to accept evidence over said beliefs

this religious like adherence to pseudoscience and faith over evidence is one of the reasons you will always be considered a crackpot by anyone with any common sense and the ability to check your comments for their validity

you know, like your belief in the eu crap and your machine that can't be proven effective even with the insanely low requirements of the FDA?
http://phys.org/n...ant.html

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

so what can you actually bring as evidence for your more recent pseudoscience claims other than your opinion and false claims?
http://www.auburn...ion.html

what is that?
nothing but your misinterpretation of actual physics?

wow...
& you claim i am stupid?
LMFAO
bschott
1.7 / 5 (23) Aug 11, 2016
so what we see is a reoccurring trend

Yup...you showing up attempting to divert attention away from the topic at hand, and using what amounts to media smear tactics to attack the character of somebody who clearly has presented the stronger argument.
this religious like adherence to pseudoscience and faith

But in order to successfully debate my stance I used links provided by the Mainstream peer reviewed science supporter, with whom I was debating in both that section and this one, and actual scientific observations. So you are stating points which are A) Blatant lies to anyone who has posted here for a year or longer when you claim I support the EU and B) completely off topic to the discussion you have entered into. The only one here speaking from the stance of faith and ideology is you, who are too stupid to realize what you're doing.
wow...
& you claim i am stupid?
LMFAO

We OBSERVE your stupidity whenever you post, keep up the demonstration.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (29) Aug 11, 2016
ANY production of photons IS brightening, this is simple and physically undeniable....unless you are so pissed about being wrong you can't admit that this is a physics fact....and wish to continue your little 6 day tantrum...do you still suck your thumb too?


You really are stupid aren't you? How come you quit the thread, having claimed we should not get hung up on visible light, when it was pointed out to you that we only know comets are brightening DUE TO VISIBLE LIGHT? I'll repeat the question; can you see an x-ray photon in VISIBLE light? Yes or ****ing no, idiot?
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (28) Aug 11, 2016
@BS schott,
I said interaction with the solar wind and had my point proven by the person I was debating with when he provided a few links showing evidence that supported my stance.


No, you prawn, it did nothing of the sort. It was your total inability to understand what you were reading that led you to that conclusion. So, I'll repeat, for the sake of those with the IQ of a brain damaged trilobite: how does the SW cause brightening in VISIBLE light? Because that is how we know comets are brightening. Links, please. And please show where in that paper it shows that they do. As I said before; some people are so stupid that they are too stupid to realise that they are stupid.

Benni
1.3 / 5 (27) Aug 11, 2016
As I said before; some people are so stupid that they are too stupid to realise that they are stupid.


.......such as believing Einstein predicted the existence of Black Holes in his General Relativity thesis, which is exactly what you believe.......or that you believe Schneibo when he came onto this site claiming to have seen pics of Black Holes.

You imagine you're such a stellar genius, how about if you Copy & Paste the text of the section of General Relativity in which Einstein predicted the existence of BHs? Or maybe you will do as the DM & BH neophytes always do & defer to Schwarzschild's Black Hole Math & claim you found it in GR when you should have made it clear you were referring not to GR but to the funny farm science of Black Hole Math created by Schwarzschild.

Yeah, Jonesy, you're a stellar Black Hole from which light never escapes, leaving you more than just the dimmest lightbulb in the room......just none at all.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (28) Aug 11, 2016
@BS***for brains,
But it was really funny when you started posting links that actually supported my point regarding increased photon production (across a few different wavelengths)as a result of the interaction. You keep digging the hole you are in deeper, and your covering yourself with the dirt moron.


So post a link to a scientific paper that says interaction with the SW causes brightening in VISIBLE light. Shouldn't be hard. Should it? Remember, most of these brightenings (accompanied by dust and ice, as per 17P Holmes),are probably picked up first by amateurs using regular telescopes.

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (28) Aug 11, 2016
As I said before; some people are so stupid that they are too stupid to realise that they are stupid.


.......such as believing Einstein predicted the existence of Black Holes in his General Relativity thesis, which is exactly what you believe.......or that you believe Schneibo when he came onto this site claiming to have seen pics of Black Holes.

You imagine you're such a stellar genius, how about if you Copy & Paste the text of the section of General Relativity in which Einstein predicted the existence of BHs? Or maybe you will do as the DM & BH neophytes always do & defer to Schwarzschild's Black Hole Math & claim you found it in GR when you should have made it clear you were referring not to GR but to the funny farm science of Black Hole Math created by Schwarzschild.



Do us a favour poser; put up or shut up. You are just a bag of wind. No science, just "look at me Mom, I'm telling scientists that they are wrong! Can I stay up late tonight?"
Poser.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (27) Aug 11, 2016
Do us a favour poser; put up or shut up. You are just a bag of wind. No science, just "look at me Mom, I'm telling scientists that they are wrong! Can I stay up late tonight?"

Poser.

I challenge you to post the relevant "science" & all you do is the usual comeback rant. I presume you respond like this because you know absolutely nothing about the contents of GR. Right?
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (27) Aug 11, 2016
I challenge you to post the relevant "science" & all you do is the usual comeback rant. I presume you respond like this because you know absolutely nothing about the contents of GR. Right?


And I've already told you, this site is a total irrelevance. Go and post your drivel, with the mathematical "proofs" that you claim to have, on a physics forum. If, that is ,you have anything to post. How can I argue against your nonsense if you refuse to post it? How can anybody say, as they did to the idiot Crothers, "you f***ed up there, mate. Try again."?
You keep saying Schrodinger was wrong. You have posted NOTHING to back that up. It is up to you to prove him wrong. Not for me to second guess whatever bollocks you have dreamed up.
http://www.intern...ndex.php
See you over there.

jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (26) Aug 11, 2016
@Benni,
...you know absolutely nothing about the contents of GR. Right?


And neither do you. Care to point us to where you have laid this out in a published paper? Or even in a Microsoft Word document? I'll be happy to post it on a more appropriate forum than this, even if you haven't got the cojones to do it.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (28) Aug 11, 2016
For anybody wondering who is the "Crothers" I was referring to above, see this link:
http://rationalwi...Crothers
bschott
1.3 / 5 (23) Aug 11, 2016
Well Mr Jones, if you can't fathom that an increase in photons being produced by a reaction = brightening (no matter what spectrum the photons are) you are a lost cause from a physics standpoint. But since we were talking about unexpected comet brightening and i have already provided links that we have observed this. Lets get to how dust and ice output increase in level (unexpected visible brightening) when the comet is travelling away from the sun as it is in the unexpected brightening scenarios. You have already conceded ( provided your own links to demonstrate) that X-ray brightness increases when comets interact with charged particles (solar wind)...so you cannot fathom the effect that an increase in X-ray photons would have when they are absorbed a comet:
http://www.sprawl...NTERACT/
You couldn't fathom why an increase in X-ray photons could cause "outgassing". I left it alone because of the misquote, should have buried you with it instead.
bschott
Aug 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
4.6 / 5 (20) Aug 11, 2016
we will need direct observation of the formation of galaxy spirals and measurement of the presence of the density wave to confirm it. A very long wait is in store.


Rarely read such a stupid comment.
Are you braindead?
Phys1
4.6 / 5 (18) Aug 11, 2016
They found evidence for a mechanism proposed over half a century ago,
so the title is a lie.
BigusDickus
Aug 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antiantigoracle
Aug 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TrollCondensate
Aug 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (14) Aug 11, 2016
FineStructureConstant4.7 / 5 (13)

BigusDickusnot rated yet

antiantigoraclenot rated yet

TrollCondensatenot rated yet

Same cockpuppet troll....
Benni
1.4 / 5 (19) Aug 11, 2016
...you know absolutely nothing about the contents of GR. Right?


And neither do you. Care to point us to where you have laid this out in a published paper? Or even in a Microsoft Word document? I'll be happy to post it on a more appropriate forum than this, even if you haven't got the cojones to do it.


.................I don't need to "have laid this out in a published paper", Einstein already did it in GR, all you need to do is read & Copy & Paste the section where you claim it exists. Just Copy & Paste it Jonesy, you don't need to do anything more complicated than that, well, except for finding some power to turn on the "black light bulb" you imagine makes you relevant posting science commentary using nothing but foul mouthed rantings which you confuse with science.

Phys1
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 11, 2016
There is also the report button.
bschott
Aug 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
CosmoX
4.1 / 5 (13) Aug 11, 2016
They found evidence for a mechanism proposed over half a century ago,
so the title is a lie.

This evidence is very interesting, and I didn't see a strong evidence like this before.
It can be a fabulous discovery!
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (14) Aug 11, 2016
you showing up attempting to divert attention away from the topic
@bschit
topic: science and astrophysics, along with verifiable information
your topic: pseudoscience and misinterpretations of content

so what we see is *your* attempt to divert and my attempt to bring it to your attention - except you want to argue how legitimate your point is
PROTIP- pseudoscience isn't legit
in order to successfully debate my stance
no, you linked MS science and then used your "interpretations"
... that isn't how science works

evidence says either put up or STFU
so tell ya what: get your bullschitt pseudoscience beliefs into a study, then peer reviewed and validated so you can come back and try again
If you add Stump
nice try: divert away from your obvious faux pas and attempt to put the blame on me using transference while posting/voting with your socks about how smart accurate you must be, etc

evidence or STFU
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (19) Aug 11, 2016
@BSh*tfor brains,
For the umpteenth time, can you see x-rays with a regular telescope. i.e. in VISIBLE light? You cannot be this thick. Surely?
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (19) Aug 11, 2016
@BSh*tfor brains,
Imagine how funny it is to me that someone as blatantly stupid as you are being right now typed this. But if it's any consolation, you'r still at least twice as smart as Stumpid


So what is it exactly that you have proved to yourself? F***wit? You seriously have not progressed beyond primary school science, have you? Would you like to provide a link to what you are claiming? OR DO I KEEP HAVING TO ASK? Sort it out. Let's see where x-rays are available to us in VISIBLE light. Just one link. That's all. Come on.

jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (20) Aug 11, 2016
...you know absolutely nothing about the contents of GR. Right?


And neither do you. Care to point us to where you have laid this out in a published paper? Or even in a Microsoft Word document? I'll be happy to post it on a more appropriate forum than this, even if you haven't got the cojones to do it.


.................I don't need to "have laid this out in a published paper", Einstein already did it in GR, all you need to do is read & Copy & Paste the section where you claim it exists. Just Copy & Paste it Jonesy, you don't need to do anything more complicated than that, well, except for finding some power to turn on the "black light bulb" you imagine makes you relevant posting science commentary using nothing but foul mouthed rantings which you confuse with science.


Benni,
No offence, but piss off. You are a waste of space. Spell it out, or you are just another child saying "hey, mommy, I'm telling the scientists off now." Huh? Jerk.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (18) Aug 11, 2016
@BS sh*t,
Now, you go ahead and tell us how all of YOUR ideas about how out gassing can increase while radiation levels from sun are decreasing.


So, we've gone off the idea of the SW causing it (searched; but there's f*** all there is there, dummy?).
So, tell me Einstein; what is the sublimation temperature of the following ices: H2O, CO2, CO, O2, CH4, et bleeding cetera. Are you really stupid enough to believe that......forget it; yes you are. Point me to a paper that even comes close to agreeing with your scientifically illiterate beliefs. Please, just one. Not a lot to ask, is it?

jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (18) Aug 11, 2016
@BSf*ckwit,
Now, you go ahead and tell us how all of YOUR ideas about how out gassing can increase while radiation levels from sun are decreasing.


What happens, s***forbrains, when, due to thermal stress, stresses induced by torque (spin to you) a bit of cliff falls away? What if what is left to sublimate in the sunlight is CO? At what temperature does CO sublimate? Please do the research to at least educate yourself about this. Idiot. Is it a supervolatile? Yes or no.
Why, when telescopes were turned on 17P/ Holmes, did they see a shed load of dust and ice? How are your invisible x-rays causing this? What do you think the brightening was caused by? Sunlight reflecting off dust and ice? Or some other wavelength that the human eye can't see?
Benni
1.3 / 5 (16) Aug 11, 2016
Benni,


I don't need to "have laid this out in a published paper", Einstein already did it in GR, all you need to do is read & Copy & Paste the section where you claim it exists. Just Copy & Paste it Jonesy, you don't need to do anything more complicated than that,


No offence, but piss off. You are a waste of space. Spell it out, or you are just another child saying "hey, mommy, I'm telling the scientists off now." Huh? Jerk


......so this response is the text found written in Einstein's GR & is what you claim to be the text by which Einstein predicted the existence of Black Holes? Odd Jonesy, I've never seen any of these words within the text of GR. Maybe you added those words all on your own? Maybe you "have laid this out in a published paper"? Or, maybe it's just simply the lighting that makes your "published paper" so hard to read? I need a bulb that emits "dark-light", then I can see everything you can see?

jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (18) Aug 11, 2016
@Benni'sMum,
.I don't need to "have laid this out in a published paper", Einstein already did it in GR, all you need to do is read & Copy & Paste the section where you claim it exists.....


I don't claim anything s.f. brains. It is you who is claiming that every scientist who has ever studied this is wrong. So, where is your proof? You don't have any!!!!!! You keep prattling on about it, but you never have the balls to post it. WHERE IS IT?????? Are you a disciple of the proven f***wit Crothers? Yes or no? Or have you taken a day off school and done some maths of your own? If so, let's see it. Otherwise, STFU.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (18) Aug 11, 2016
@Benni,
SHOW US THE MATHS. Is that clear enough? For what it's worth, I agree with Schrodinger, t'hooft and W.D. Clinger on this. What about you? Care to disagree? Let's see it, poser.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (18) Aug 11, 2016
@Benni the Burke,
So, which particular part of Schrodinger's equation has got you in such a tizz? Care to spell it out? Or are you just going to carry on doing your "Hey Mom, look at me" act? Please, if you have something of value to say, spell it out. Or, as I said, STFU.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (18) Aug 11, 2016
FineStructureConstant4.7 / 5 (13)

BigusDickusnot rated yet

antiantigoraclenot rated yet

TrollCondensatenot rated yet

Same cockpuppet troll....


Lol. This from the guy/ girl who can't even get Alfven's stuff right. Brilliant.

P.S. Found any double layers causing diamagnetic cavities yet?
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (18) Aug 11, 2016
In case it has escaped the attention of the hard of thinking; Schrodinger's proof is just that. Proof. That is why it is 'mainstream'. Anybody wants to claim different, then the onus is on them to disprove it. Is that understood?
P.S. If you rely on the idiot Crothers, then this argument has already been had. He lost. Understood?
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (18) Aug 11, 2016
As quoted by BS sh*t;
so you cannot fathom the effect that an increase in X-ray photons would have when they are absorbed a comet:


Unbelievable. @bsch*tt; Yes I can. 67P has been through a number of increases in SW density. For the umpteenth and last fecking time, it DID NOT brighten. Got it? Can you get your tiny brain around the fact that x-rays do not cause VISIBLE brightening? Otherwise, I would suggest forgetting this, and preparing for your next 6th grade science exam.

I would further suggest that you figure out that the x-ray photons ARE NOT BEING ABSORBED by the effing comet. Jesus. If the coma is thick enough for O7+ to interact with the cometary neutrals, then it is nothing to do with x-rays getting near the nucleus. How the **** is that happening?
Nik_2213
5 / 5 (8) Aug 11, 2016
Ah, Crothers....

You couldn't make it up !!
Benni
1.3 / 5 (15) Aug 11, 2016
@Benni,
SHOW US THE MATHS. Is that clear enough? For what it's worth, I agree with Schrodinger, t'hooft and W.D. Clinger on this. What about you? Care to disagree? Let's see it, poser.


........right you obfuscating clown, just supposing YOU show us the MATH(s) in Einstein's GR that predicts the existence of BHs. But you don't want to discuss GR because you can't show us, you need to go outside GR for the math for your silliness.
Benni
Aug 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (13) Aug 12, 2016
just supposing YOU show us the MATH(s) in Einstein's GR that predicts the existence of BHs
@benji-TROLL
well... ok, but given that DaSchneib already posted it to you at least twice and you ignored it then, it will not do any good to post the math yet again, so i will post this link that uses small words for your limited literacy skills... maybe your mom can come down to the basement and read it to you?
http://casswww.uc.../GR.html

spotting them is due to our ability to model the situation and because we know GR is functional
IOW- it means we don't see the BH, but the effects of matter falling into them... you know, like how old guys your age knew there was wind? you can't see it, but you can see the effects it has on sh*t around it?
yeah... just like that (or were you out of school by the time that experiment was done?)
http://www.space....les.html

you fail again, benji
Steelwolf
1.9 / 5 (13) Aug 12, 2016
Those using profanity and ad homenim attacks on here are by FAR less intelligent and much less interesting to read since they cannot understand or even refer to the science in the articles themselves, or are paid trolls of Energy Corps, they only work do deride certain individuals, mercilessly.

These Spiral Arm problems have been confounding scientists for a couple of centuries, we have only recently found that galaxies like ours are apparently Corrugated, as in a spiral vortex series of wave forms, of course there are going to be density waves, and they will be more likely to show star formation rather than areas with less pressure/shock.

But why people have to lower themselves to the level of third graders arguing over what was said, the whole group of sock puppets here tend to override anything intelligent actually said and it appears to be quite intentional, and as I said, likely paid trolls, why else so consistently badmouth others without any real input of worth.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (18) Aug 12, 2016


Why are you changing the subject? I challenge you to produce the section of GR in which you claim Einstein predicted the existence of Black Holes & what do you do, you start talking about something else. You start talking about things which do not appear in GR because you've lost the argument when finally you realize you can't produce the SECTION or the TEXT citing Einstein's work because you've finally come to the realization it doesn't exist, so you punt to Shrodinger. Why did you punt to him?


I am not the one claiming anything. YOU are the one claiming GR doesn't predict black holes. PROVE IT. Show us the maths. Otherwise, I'm calling BS. It is accepted science that it does. For many decades. Has never been shown to be wrong. End of story. If you disagree, link to where it was shown to be wrong. And yes, it wasn't Schrodinger, it was Schwarzschild. My bad. Point remains. Show he was wrong. Otherwise it's a non-argument.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (17) Aug 12, 2016
@Steelwolf,
Those using profanity and ad homenim attacks on here are by FAR less intelligent and much less interesting to read since they cannot understand or even refer to the science in the articles themselves,


Agreed. However, their would be far less of that on here if it wasn't for scientifically illiterate fanboys of various cranks shouting "you've got it all wrong", every time there is a story of interest. Particularly when they can't back up their nonsense with facts.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (17) Aug 12, 2016
@Benji,
If you'd like it put in terms you can argue with, then: whether Einstein THOUGHT GR leads to the prediction of black holes is kind of irrelevant. Schwarzschild showed that it was an inevitable conclusion of the maths. Everybody who works in the field agrees. Including the likes of Hawking. Now, if you think Einstein's maths DOESN'T lead to Scwarzschild's conclusions, which are an accepted part of science, then it is up to you to turn the world on its head and show why. In other words, you need to show Schwarzschild (among numerous others) was wrong. Otherwise BHs are predicted, and things that look extremely like them are observed.
yep
1.8 / 5 (10) Aug 12, 2016
I thought Bosticks work in the late fifties answered that, maybe consensus stooges were to busy tooting their horns to read his work into the eighties, or the Russians work in the late nineties?
Maybe all that dark energy magic is clogging some of your mind holes.http://ieeexplore...D4316621
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (18) Aug 12, 2016
I thought Bosticks work in the late fifties answered that, maybe consensus stooges were to busy tooting their horns to read his work into the eighties, or the Russians work in the late nineties?
Maybe all that dark energy magic is clogging some of your mind holes.http://ieeexplore...D4316621


Nope. As I have invited others to do before, please explain, using the orbital parameters of stars orbiting Sagittarius A* at the centre of the galaxy, what is the mass of the object being orbited? And then explain what this invisible mass might actually be. Nobody takes Bostick seriously (with the possible exception of EU cranks; but they aren't exactly known for their scientific literacy).
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (18) Aug 12, 2016
A rather apt description of Bostick from elsewhere:

Bostick was a dense plasma focus researcher and a plasma cosmology crackpot. After a decade or two of actual plasma physics research, he spent most of his life "publishing" lone-wolf astro/particle/gravity crackpottery in Physics Essays and the like and hanging out with Lyndon Larouche. (It so happens that I'd heard of him ... because his particle-physics crackpottery had been adopted by a creationist crackpot I argued with a decade or so ago.)


http://www.intern...tcount=4
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (19) Aug 12, 2016
And for anybody that thinks Einstein's field equations do not lead to the valid solution by Schwarzschild, then I'd suggest going through this:
http://www.cesura...ism.html

If anybody has found a different argument than the flawed mathematics of Crothers, then I have yet to hear of it. So a link and/ or explanation would be good. i.e. let's see the maths.
jonesdave
3.6 / 5 (20) Aug 12, 2016
And if bschott is still reading:

"*As the solar wind also has no **visual** manifestation in interplanetary space*, there is therefore no simple relation between the optical and X-ray luminosities of comets.

http://arxiv.org/...10v1.pdf

Which also gives the wavelengths of some of the SW ions that CX with the coma. Down to Helium at 30.4 & 58.4 nm. Nowhere near the visible. Hydrogen emits at ~ 121 nm (Lyman alpha). The visible spectrum of light is ~ 400-700 nm. The heavier the ion, the shorter the wavelength. So what is bschott suggesting that might be lighter than H+ ions in the SW?
Benni
1.5 / 5 (17) Aug 12, 2016
I am not the one claiming anything.
.....sure you are, that Einstein in General Relativity predicted the existence of BHs.

YOU are the one claiming GR doesn't predict black holes. PROVE IT. Show us the maths.
....Einstein didn't generate any calculations proving the NONEXISTENCE of BHs, but if you imagine otherwise then you should Copy & Paste the relevant section of GR disputing this.

Otherwise, I'm calling BS. It is accepted science that it does
.....SETTLED SCIENCE, is that it? It was once SETTLED SCIENCE that planet Earth is flat.

For many decades. Has never been shown to be wrong. End of story.
...then show us where Einstein discusses the matter in GR.

link to where it was shown to be wrong. And yes, it wasn't Schrodinger, it was Schwarzschild. My bad. . Show he was wrong
.....Show he was wrong about what? Black Hole Math(s)? Prove he was right, implore Schneibo to put up those pics of BHs he's seen & that will lay it to rest.

Benni
1.5 / 5 (17) Aug 12, 2016
And for anybody that thinks Einstein's field equations do not lead to the valid solution by Schwarzschild, then I'd suggest going through this.........


What is this but a worthless pile of Black Hole Math.

Do you even know what Schwarzschild was attempting to do with his RADII calculations? No, you don't do you? He was trying to convince Einstein that by decreasing the VOLUME of a GIVEN MASS that GRAVITY is not CONSERVED, that by simply increasing DENSITY of a given mass that somehow gravity magically appears from out of nowhere without additional mass being added to the system, and as he continues shrinking the size of the given mass more gravity magically shows up proportionally with his radii calculations.

Einstein being a Nuclear Physicist laughed at Astro-physicist Schwarzschild for failing to understand the Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle of Special Relativity as Einstein made clear that GR was an extension of SR with no preclusions.

jonesdave
3.6 / 5 (20) Aug 12, 2016
@Benni,
So what are you trying to achieve by this endless bollocks that you keep posting? Is it just attention grabbing? Or is there a point to it? If there is a point to it, then I'm not sure what it is. Black holes don't exist? You think posting on here is going to change the view of astrophysicists on that? Are you a fanboy of some crank or other? If so, spell out whom.
jonesdave
3.6 / 5 (20) Aug 12, 2016
What is this but a worthless pile of Black Hole Math.


If you follow the argument, it shows the Schwarzscild's solution to Einstein's field equations (and further work by others) leads to the prediction of black holes. If you don't like that outcome, then do something about it. Better people than you have tried. Then again, you aren't even trying, by virtue of the fact that you have to keep posting on a site such as this!
Benni
1.3 / 5 (16) Aug 12, 2016
@Benni,
So what are you trying to achieve by this endless bollocks that you keep posting? Is it just attention grabbing?
It's the promotion of real Science, not this funny farm Trekkie stuff that came out of the age of Star Trek science fiction.

Or is there a point to it? If there is a point to it, then I'm not sure what it is. Black holes don't exist?


It requires an uncanny belief in Perpetual Motion that INFINiTE GRAVITY can exist on the surface of a FINITE stellar mass. Einstein denied his Field equations could be used to prove it & Astrophysicists have always been unable to prove otherwise, except to default to Schwarzschild's Perpetual Motion of shrinking RADII.

You think posting on here is going to change the view of astrophysicists on that?
I don't care about what they think, it's just because of what they think that our engineering team doesn't hire them to design nuclear reactor systems & monitoring components.

shavera
4.5 / 5 (15) Aug 12, 2016
Benni the phrase "gravity is not conserved" has literally no meaning. Gravity isn't something subject to conservation laws (there's no corresponding symmetry). You could speak of the 'potential energy' associated with gravity being conserved or something.

But you also don't have the slightest clue how to read Schwarzschild's equations either, I take it. Because precisely the same equations work for a spherical mass (beyond the surface of the sphere) or for a point mass at its center, just like Newtonian physics. If I'm at some distance r away from the center of the mass, the apparent 'force' of gravity is the same regardless of the volume of the mass, so I don't know where you're pulling this nonsense about gravity changing with density.
shavera
4.5 / 5 (15) Aug 12, 2016
Where on earth have you got into your head that there's anything like "infinite" gravity. Probably some stupid pop science article talking about why nothing can leave a black hole.

You wildly and totally misunderstand GR and black holes, and then you whinge on and on about how they're totally not real, but of course they're not real because you don't understand the slightest thing you're talking about.

Maybe go practice your differential equations with orbital lagrangians in curved metrics. Hartle's "Gravity" is an excellent resource in how to do just that. You'll see there's no "infinite gravity" nonsense associated with black holes. They make nearly perfect sense physically aside from the fact that we don't know what maths to use for exceedingly high precision measurements of position (because Quantum effects kick in around there). But on any macro-scale level of physics, black holes are entirely sensible.
shavera
4.5 / 5 (15) Aug 12, 2016
Finally, because I feel some sick obligation to correct the record: What happens at a black hole:

Accepting that GR is a valid description of the universe on macroscopic scales, time is a dimension like length. What this means is that there exist rotations of coordinates such that time mixes in with length and vice versa. This is most trivially seen in SR with Lorentz boosts; time dilation and length contraction are a coordinate rotation (in a hyperbolic coordinate system).

Thus, at a black hole, the rotation that exists is such that what a distant external observer would define as the 'future' axis of time is so extremely rotated that it now points 'inward' in space toward the center of the black hole. (more specifically the future light cone of some event is inward pointing). It has nothing to do with 'forces' infinite or otherwise, and everything to do with the fact that the only permissible futures are inside the event horizon.
Benni
1.2 / 5 (17) Aug 12, 2016
Benni the phrase "gravity is not conserved" has literally no meaning. Gravity isn't something subject to conservation laws (there's no corresponding symmetry).


Right Shavo, it makes sense a statement like this would come from you because it is you who has stated that Mass & Energy in Einstein's Special Relativity are not equal & you're still trying to defend that Perpetual Motion statement. Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle is the "corresponding symmetry", you have simply never sat in a classroom & studied Nuclear Physics like I have that you could comprehend the symmetry of the Mass/Energy Equivalence to GR & Einstein's Field Equations for gravity.

the apparent 'force' of gravity
Awwww, but you see Shavo, this is your catch phrase. If you really believed this statement :
gravity is the same regardless of the volume of the mass
then you could never believe that a stellar mass of a given mass can condense to an "infinite density", but you don't believe it.
shavera
4.5 / 5 (16) Aug 12, 2016
I'm sorry Benni, I don't use Looney Tunes as a valid scientific resource. The published equation is E²=(pc)²+(mc²)², please refer to the Energy-Momentum relationship: https://en.wikipe...relation

Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle is the "corresponding symmetry"

I literally can't even. Do you not know Noether's theorem? Have you ever even seen a Langrangian equation? Mass/Energy equivalence is nothing even remotely like a 'symmetry' so quit your bs about throwing around words you don't understand at all.

you have simply never sat in a classroom & studied Nuclear Physics like I have

Maybe not. I went to a real school and actually learned stuff beyond bragging about "differential equations."
shavera
4.5 / 5 (16) Aug 12, 2016
Again, I invite you to use your differential equation skills with force free lagrangians in curved metrics. Because you obviously haven't not even for a moment, the slightest remotest clue what GR is saying when it comes to gravity. If you did, if you understood it even the slightest, you'd see how full of sh!t you are.

Because the real truth of gravity, from the perspective of GR, is that it is not a force at all. Gravity is a fictitious force, like that of 'centrifugal' forces, that arise from choosing non-inertial reference frames (standing still on the ground, say). So it's entirely without meaning to say gravity is "infinite" because it's not a thing at all to begin with. It's an artifact, a behaviour that emerges from curved space-time.
shavera
4.5 / 5 (16) Aug 12, 2016
So if, like I perpetually ask you to do and friggin' LEARN WHAT GR ACTUALLY SAYS BEFORE SPOUTING NONSENSE, do a force free Lagrangian in a schwarzschild metric. Doesn't even have to be around a black hole, could be around a sun. You'll see. Even though you haven't included a potential energy term in your Lagrangian, one will appear out of the "Differential Equations" you love so dearly from how the metric is structured. Orbits fall right out of the equations and they're so obvious to see.

That's why I'm so vehemently against your nonsense and the nonsense of others like you. Because physics DOES work. It's freaking brilliant and beautiful and awesome how well it works. The day we did this exercise in class in undergrad was one of my favorite classes of all time. And it's a shame your idiocy tries to smother it simply because you don't understand it and can't be bothered to actually put in the effort.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (19) Aug 12, 2016
I don't care about what they think, it's just because of what they think that our engineering team doesn't hire them to design nuclear reactor systems & monitoring components.


You don't hire astrophysicists to design nuclear reactors? I'm sure they'll be relieved about that!
Benni
1.2 / 5 (18) Aug 12, 2016
I'm sorry Benni, I don't use Looney Tunes as a valid scientific resource.
Sure you do, Schwarzschild Black Hole Math for one, zany Zwicky's Dark Matter for another, your denial that Mass=Energy at any level, your belief that Infinite Gravity can exist on the surface of a finite stellar mass labeled Black Hole.

Again, I invite you to use your differential equation skills with force free lagrangians in curved metrics.
....and you like Jonesy keep bringing up the same thing & it never gets through to your extremely dark gray matter that Einstein has already done this work, all you two clowns are doing is looking to read stuff into GR that doesn't exist by inserting someones else's math (Schwarzschild's) to do it. Einstein doesn't need additional math contributions from me because I'm not contending HIS DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS, the problems is neophytes like you who are trying to shoehorn Schwarzschild's Black Hole Math into GR at a time Einstein warned him not to.

jonesdave
3.6 / 5 (20) Aug 12, 2016
...........neophytes like you who are trying to shoehorn Schwarzschild's Black Hole Math into GR at a time Einstein warned him not to.


It doesn't matter what we think. Plenty of scientists will tell you that you're wrong, as was Einstein. Not for the first time. Observational evidence seems to bear them out. If you aren't going to debate those scientists, and insist on posting on an irrelevant site like this, then it just says to me that you aren't particularly confident of what you say, and will remain an irrelevance.

shavera
4.8 / 5 (16) Aug 12, 2016
I have never denied "mass=energy at any level." I have tried, many many times to point out that they are equivalent if and only if you are at rest with regard to the system whose mass or energy you are describing. If you are not at rest with respect to that particle or system, then you MUST include its momentum as part of its energy. If you cannot be at rest with respect to that particle, then all of its energy must be momentum and none of it mass. That's why I keep writing E²=(pc)²+(mc²)². Set p=0, and you get E=mc², which you will agree to. Set m=0, and you get E=|p|c, the energy momentum relationship for massless particles.

What I object to, time and time again, is your absurd and false reduction of that statement to just E=mc². That equation is true *under a specific circumstance.*
Benni
1.2 / 5 (19) Aug 12, 2016
You don't hire astrophysicists to design nuclear reactors? I'm sure they'll be relieved about that!
.......we don't hire them because their educational level for Nuclear Physics is at such a sub-standard level compared to that of Nuclear Physicists & Nuclear Engineers that we just toss their resumes into the waste baskets as we see Astro-physics is the cornerstone of their education.....just one cut above Astrology, we laugh at their resumes.

shavera
4.7 / 5 (15) Aug 12, 2016
Einstein published a general equation. It's a lot like the "differential equations" you claim to know; having one equation doesn't mean you have a solution to the equation. Einstein's field equations link any and all space-time curvatures to any and all stress-energy tensors. That's neat. But it is entirely and utterly useless. It doesn't tell us anything about our universe

In order to be useful, you must input some physical stress-energy tensor. Literally all Schwarzschild's work is is putting a spherically symmetric mass into that stress-energy tensor. It's (one of) the easiest possible solutions of his equations. Now, it turns out that the equations are much easier to work with using certain coordinate systems, but the solution he derives is 100% perfectly valid solution to the EFEs.

So, once again, I can't possibly believe you've ever learned "differential equations" because you would know that on their own, they are meaningless. They must be SOLVED to mean something.
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (13) Aug 12, 2016
Maybe all that dark energy magic is clogging
@yep
apologies for up-rating your drivel... the page jumped, so it was a mistake

as i noted to others:
you are arguing against facts with your *belief*
just because you *believe* in the eu cult religion doesn't make it true, nor does it make it science
it is considered pseudoscience for a reason, starting with your refusal to accept evidnece and ending with your adherence to dogma over evidence

.

It was once SETTLED SCIENCE
@benjiTROLL
still arguing?
you've brought *zero* evidence to the table while arguing from a position of belief, not evidence

more to the point:
those links i left absolutely debunk your stupidity and claims re: GR and BH's
Phys1
4.7 / 5 (13) Aug 12, 2016

So, once again, I can't possibly believe you've ever learned "differential equations" because you would know that on their own, they are meaningless. They must be SOLVED to mean something.

This is where the psychopath goes to another thread and the whole thing starts all over again.
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (18) Aug 12, 2016
You don't hire astrophysicists to design nuclear reactors? I'm sure they'll be relieved about that!

.......we don't hire them because their educational level for Nuclear Physics is at such a sub-standard level compared to that of Nuclear Physicists & Nuclear Engineers that we just toss their resumes into the waste baskets as we see Astro-physics is the cornerstone of their education.....just one cut above Astrology, we laugh at their resumes.

Benni, that statement is an insult to astrologers everywhere. At least astrologers see results, astrophysicists only see darkness and magic.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (22) Aug 12, 2016
Benni, that statement is an insult to astrologers everywhere. At least astrologers see results, astrophysicists only see darkness and magic.


I don't suppose I'm the only one to see the irony in that, given who said it?

Phys1
4.7 / 5 (15) Aug 12, 2016
cd85 has to be a bot.
no breathing being can be so stupid.
Maggnus
4.8 / 5 (16) Aug 12, 2016
Benni, that statement is an insult to astrologers everywhere. At least astrologers see results, astrophysicists only see darkness and magic.


I don't suppose I'm the only one to see the irony in that, given who said it?


Not the only one, nope.
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (20) Aug 12, 2016
I am not the one claiming anything.
.....sure you are, that Einstein in General Relativity predicted the existence of BHs.

The 'predictions" came in the 1700's by michell and laplace.
GR by Einstein was the instrument utilized in confirming that, as well as the modus. So, by extension, it did.
BTW, you can stop playing the fool with your "infinite gravity" schtick.
yep
1.7 / 5 (11) Aug 13, 2016
A rather apt description of Bostick from elsewhere:


Great minds are always maligned by consensus stooges and vindicated by history as was Birkeland, Alfven, and eventually so will Arp and Bostick.
A plasmoid can account for Saggittarious A and the emissions better then your physics defying non falsifiable black hole nonsence.
Math is not empirical try and let that sink in. Just because you can write an equation to explain something does not make it real. That's a simple mistake science zealots made last century and will continue to make in this one until enough data comes in to show their error as history has shown us before.
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (13) Aug 13, 2016
Math is not ...
@yep
physics math is a symbolic language of specificity based upon empirical evidence that allows one to describe reality

what you keep intentionally misunderstanding is that the BH "math that explains something" is based upon validated known physics (as noted above and in my links)

it is a means to model a known phenomena based upon validated knowledge... it also allows us to find a means to "see" or validate said phenomena which you are ignoring

this is like accident investigation:
the "math" doesn't just describe what happened, it can predict where you need to look for evidence to validate the model/description of what happened

this is and always will be a fail for you & your eu beliefs
because you can't follow the scientific method, you will always be considered a pseudoscience poster seeking to validate a delusional religious belief in the unreal

history has shown is that it isn't the NUT that is vindicated, but the evidence
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
LifeBasedLogic
Aug 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
5 / 5 (12) Aug 13, 2016
@bullshitisbullshit
Choose better. Your science thoughts are worth reading

So not only are you a brainless delusionist but also a crackpot?
Two accidents in one.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (10) Aug 13, 2016
Excellent.

However, the competing model is self-propagating star formation, and what this evidence actually shows is that the real situation is a combination of the two; this is what most astrophysicists expected. A bit more research into the subject would have made this clear.

So, good discovery, but not very good writing.
antiantigoracle
Aug 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antiantigoracle
Aug 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antiantigoracle
Aug 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1 / 5 (16) Aug 13, 2016
Just because you can write an equation to explain something does not make it real.
.......and is exactly how we got Black Hole Math from Schwarzschild even as the Nuclear Physicist Albert Einstein was advising that Astro-physicist against it. Well, he died soon after publishing his Radii Calculations laying the basis for his Black Hole Math, but we have Schneibo to vindicate his math because he has pictures proving BHs actually exist.
TrollCondensate
Aug 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Sheik_Yerbuti
Aug 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Sheik_Yerbuti
Aug 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (15) Aug 13, 2016
Just because you can write an equation to explain something does not make it real.
.......and is exactly how we got Black Hole Math from Schwarzschild even as the Nuclear Physicist Albert Einstein was advising that Astro-physicist against it. Well, he died soon after publishing his Radii Calculations laying the basis for his Black Hole Math, but we have Schneibo to vindicate his math because he has pictures proving BHs actually exist.


So quit whinging, you little girl! Do something about it! One of you cranks; just once. Do the effing maths!!!!!
jonesdave
3.6 / 5 (15) Aug 13, 2016
@whoever was the tosser that wrote this,
..... and vindicated by history as was Birkeland, Alfven, and eventually so will Arp and Bostick......


Yep. Where did that happen? Everybody believes in the Birkeland Sun model? Nope.
The Alfven-Klein model? Nope.
Arp? Lol.
Bostick? Ditto.
Sorry, it just isn't happening for you guys, is it? That's what happens when you trust your 'science' to somebody as scientifically illiterate as the idiot Thornhill.
jonesdave
3.6 / 5 (14) Aug 13, 2016
@whoever wrote this nonsense,
A plasmoid can account for Saggittarious A....//


Lol. Really? Let's see the maths for that, please! You do realise that you are following a cult that relies on Wal Thornhill for its 'science'!
Please, show us idiots how this works
And then I'll show you how shockingly badly he lied to you all about his electric comet b*llocks. And you all bought it. Hook, line and sinker. Because nobody within the cult was scientifically literate enough to realise that he was telling you all porkies!
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (16) Aug 13, 2016
@Any EU Believer,
You've been conned! Thornhill has the IQ of a goat. At best.
Talbott? Wouldn't go that far. Evolutionarily speaking. Maybe a mayfly.
You have all been led up the garden path by a couple of con artists When is anybody within that particular 'organisation' actually going to call them out on their pathetic attempts at 'science'? Nobody has the cojones to do it. Ditto various other posers like Mozina, and Siggy G. None of them have got the faintest clue what they are on about.
However, as long as Thunderdolts is the audience, they don't need to!
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (14) Aug 14, 2016
FineStructureConstant4.7 / 5 (13)

BigusDickusnot rated yet

antiantigoraclenot rated yet

TrollCondensatenot rated yet

Same cockpuppet troll....


You have done a fine job of associating his use of "sock".

Perhaps his cell buddy doesn't get him off?

That may explain his behavior here, all the games and the desire for nastiness.

You know, antiailias has complete complicity in what he has been doing. Causes it even.

LBL. You HAVE to be one of the most delusional commentors on this site...
I MUCH prefer Zeph to you.
yep
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 14, 2016
@Any EU Believer,

Progress in science is often hampered by dogmatic belief systems and new ideas are often scorned or ridiculed this is an old story.
We obviously have different perspectives and as I have said to Stump. Magnus, and a few others over the years the data will prevail and then we will have more answers and more questions agreements and disagreements hates and likes but it's our similarities that brings us back here.
I was listening to this Ted talk today and thought everyone on here would enjoy it regardless of what they do or do not believe.
https://www.ted.c...kthrough
Cheers!
Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 14, 2016
Do the effing maths!!!!!


Uh, Jonsey............it's "math".
Phys1
5 / 5 (9) Aug 14, 2016
@Benni
Wow,
you have now become comments corrector.
Not that your corrections make any sense.
Why don't you go back to cooking?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Aug 14, 2016
Progress in science is often hampered by dogmatic belief systems
@yep
whereas this has been true in the past, and may well happen still due to human nature, there is a big difference between science with evidence and pseudoscience like the eu

- it's not dogma to dismiss eu claims that have absolutely no evidence or are violating physics, or that are speculative

the cornerstones of the scientific method:
the claim + physical evidence supporting claim + it must be compatible with observation & past validated knowledge

dismissal of a baseless claim is not prejudice or wrong, it is REQUIRED by the scientific method
the data will prevail
this is absolutely true

and this is why science is far superior to pseudoscience & "looks like an electric sun" speculative delusions

.

.

it's "math".
@benji
in the US - maybe

in the Queens English "maths" is perfectly acceptable
http://www.thefre...om/maths

learn to f*cking read, ya illiterate git
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (13) Aug 14, 2016

Phys1 4.7 /5 (13) Aug 12, 2016
cd85 has to be a bot.
no breathing being can be so stupid.


You know that they sell "medicinal preparations" at Thunderbutts, don't you? You can't make that stuff up. They actually sell stupid pills.

It's the only thing of theirs that seems to work!

Are they ... suppositories?
yep
1 / 5 (7) Aug 15, 2016
Dogma is the inability to consider evidence in multiple perspectives. Science evolves. Please watch the video posted above.
Standard theories violate physics as well as common sense. We have come along way, time to pull your heads out of the sand and wrap your minds around other perspectives founded in testable science rather then the conjecture based in speculation that you defend with cries of condemnation and heresey.
http://safireproj...dex.html
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (9) Aug 15, 2016
Dogma is the inability to consider evidence in multiple perspectives
@yep
this is the very definition of the eu cult, and especially those who post here on PO that can't in any way produce evidence for their claims (you know, the stuff science uses to validate their own claims? evidence? that stuff used to actually prove a point?)
Standard theories violate physics as well as common sense
and if you could prove this you would be the "jeebus" of the eu cult, more famous even than velikovski, hannes and peratt

so it is time to pull your heads out of the sand (or your *ss, wherever it may be) and wrap your minds around other perspectives founded in testable science and science built upon validated physics rather then the conjecture based in speculation that you defend with cries of condemnation and heresey (like the eu cult bullsh*t)
Phys1
5 / 5 (10) Aug 15, 2016
@Benni the psycho plagiarist
Nuclear Physicist Albert Einstein

How many papers did Einstein publish on nuclear physics, Benni?
Let me help:
https://en.wikipe...Einstein
As far as I can see: none.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (10) Aug 15, 2016
it's "math".
@benji
in the US - maybe

in the Queens English "maths" is perfectly acceptable
http://www.thefre...om/maths

learn to f*cking read, ya illiterate git


Maybe Bennie-Skippy studied mathematic in school, eh?
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Aug 15, 2016
Dogma is the inability to consider evidence in multiple perspectives. Science evolves. Please watch the video posted above.
Standard theories violate physics as well as common sense. We have come along way, time to pull your heads out of the sand and wrap your minds around other perspectives founded in testable science rather then the conjecture based in speculation that you defend with cries of condemnation and heresey.
http://safireproj...dex.html


Why would anybody watch a fecking video?
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (13) Aug 15, 2016
.....you defend with cries of condemnation and heresey. .....


That would be 'heresy', by the way.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (13) Aug 15, 2016


Progress in science is often hampered by dogmatic belief systems and new ideas are often scorned or ridiculed this is an old story.
We obviously have different perspectives and as I have said to Stump. Magnus, and a few others over the years the data will prevail ....blah blah blah


So how do you explain Thornhill & Talbott lying in their presentation, in 2006 (allegedly), to the IEEE conference? Why lie, if data will always prevail?
Like me to list those lies? I'm up for it. Are you?
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Aug 15, 2016
OK, f*** 'em. They asked for it!

From: http://webcache.g...mp;gl=uk

IQ deficient loons T & T: ""But a much different vantage point on the water question is possible. When astronomers view the comas of comets spectroscopically, what they actually see is the hydroxyl radical (OH), which they assume to be a residue of water (H2O) broken down by the ultraviolet light of the Sun (photolysis). This assumption is not only unwarranted, it requires a speed of "processing" by solar radiation beyond anything that can be demonstrated experimentally."
[cont.......]
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Aug 15, 2016
[.....cont]
Now these eejits do not only fail to realise that the detections at Halley were due to the v3 asymmetric stretch of H2O, which is impossible inain OH molecule, they also fail to tell their idiot followers that H2O was also unambiguously found in numerous other comets between 1986 and 2006, when they wrote their work of fiction! Some of them are about to be listed...
[cont....]
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Aug 15, 2016
[cont.....]
Hale-Bopp 1997 (HDO) http://www.lesia....ence.pdf

C/2001 A2 Linear 2001 http://www.ursi.o...0903.pdf]http://www.ursi.o...0903.pdf[/url]]http://www.ursi.o...0903.pdf[/url]

19P/Borrelly 2001 http://www.ursi.o...0903.pdf]http://www.ursi.o...0903.pdf[/url]]http://www.ursi.o...0903.pdf[/url]

C/2000 WM1 Linear 2001/2 http://www.ursi.o...0903.pdf]http://www.ursi.o...0903.pdf[/url]]http://www.ursi.o...0903.pdf[/url]

C/1999 H1 Lee 1999 http://iopscience...#artAbst]http://iopscience...#artAbst[/url]

C/1999 S4 Linear 2000 http://iopscience...#artAbst]http://iopscience...#artAbst[/url]
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Aug 15, 2016
[cont....]
Given that the links aren't going well, I'll assume, rather stupidly, that EU acolytes can actually find such papers:
C/2001 A2 Linear 2001 Keck observatory.
21P/Giacobini-Zinner 1998 IR IRTF
153/P Ikeya-Zhang 2002 IR IRTF
C/1996 B2 Hyakutake 1996 sub-mm, Caltech
1986I Wilson 1987 NIR, KAO
1P/Halley 1986 IR, KAO & Vega
9P/Tempel 1 2005
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Aug 15, 2016
[cont.....]
And so it goes on. That is far from an exhaustive list. Now, for the hard of thinking, there are two options here (before I move on to other lies and obfuscations); they are either lying, or they are scientifically illiterate. Which is it, EU acolytes? Neither option looks good for your quasi-religious cult, does it?
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Aug 15, 2016
Here's another beauty:
T & T; "Neutral hydrogen is far too plentiful in the coma to be the "leftover" of the hypothesized conversion of water into OH. But if the negatively charged nucleus provides the electrons in a charge exchange with the solar wind, the dilemma is resolved and the vast hydrogen envelope is a predictable effect."

Really? Where are the figures? Biermann predicted in 1968 that there would be a large cloud of H around the comet. That paper isn't available, but as Alfven & Arrhenius said in a 1973 report for NASA on future missions: "In the case of comets, the information from ultraviolet line spectra has already begun to be exploited from orbiting satellites. Features that can be predicted can be checked by preset instrumentation relatively easily, without need for human feedback during flight. In this way it was possible to verify the prediction by Biermann of huge clouds of hydrogen emitting in Lyman alpha...."
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Aug 15, 2016
And more laughably bad garbage:

T & T: "Highly energetic and focused jets explode from comets' nuclei. The jets exhibit narrowly confined filamentary structures over great distances, defying the expected behavior of neutral gases in a vacuum."

Wrong. Idiots, it is the dust you are seeing, not the gas. FFS. Have a look at the Hartley 2 paper. Does the INVISIBLE gas expand like that? Jesus, how thick can you be, and yet still manage to con people? Very thick, it would seem.

jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Aug 15, 2016
Here's an absolute pearler:
T & T: "In the electric view, there is no real distinction between a comet and an asteroid, apart from their orbits."

Brilliant! So why do asteroids on highly eccentric orbits not show this behaviour? Have a look at asteroid 4179 Toutatis, for instance. Should be doing all sorts of electrical woo according to these geniuses. Where is it?
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Aug 15, 2016
And yet more lies:
T & T: "Comets have unexpectedly high apparent coma temperatures and are sufficiently energetic to emit extreme ultraviolet light and even x-rays."

No they don't. And, given that the reason for cometary x-ray production had been explained by 2004 at the latest, why are they saying this in 2006?
Lying, would be the answer to that.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Aug 15, 2016
For anybody who would like links for any of the above, just say so. For anybody who is not only astrophysically challenged, but mathematically challenged: T & T's lies about OH are so easy to dismiss, based purely on the number of SW ions striking the comet per second, compared to how much OH/H2O was actually seen, even way back! Why didn't they do the maths? Because they knew they didn't need to. Nobody would question their truth. Nobody was capable of doing the maths!!!!!!
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Aug 15, 2016
More lies:
T & T: "The absences of detectible water on comet nuclei had produced a crisis in comet theory well before Deep Impact. And the mission did nothing to rescue the theory."

No it hadn't. Pure fabrication. And the mission detected H2O ice grains in the impact ejecta. Definitively. Which essentially killed the electric comet nonsense stone dead. Which is why you won't find it mentioned by T & T. Bad for business. Just more lies, I'm afraid. Do they ever stop?
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Aug 15, 2016
In retrospect, I might have been unduly harsh on goats and mayflies, regarding their IQ levels.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Aug 15, 2016
Now, if we want to take these idiots' claims beyond 2006 (i.e. after their work of fiction), then it obviously gets worse for them. However, you will never find a retraction from either of these con artists anywhere on the web (or elsewhere).
So, how thick do you need to be to believe these burkes? Answers on a postcard, please.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Aug 15, 2016
Oh yes, almost forgot the biggest lie of all! Tempel 1, and the 'electrical flash'. Lol.
No, Wal, you burke, you weren't the first to 'predict' this:
As modelled by Pete Schultz: "In this scenario (and in Scenario 1b), a three-component plume should be observed in the MRI and may allow the identification of this surface property." Page 236, EXPECTATIONS FOR CRATER SIZE AND PHOTOMETRIC EVOLUTION FROM THE DEEP IMPACT COLLISION, received 20 Aug 2004, accepted 10 Jan 2005.

Secondly, it wasn't electrical. Chandra and SWIFT were looking at the impact in x-ray, as was XMM-Newton in UV. They saw NO evidence of any 'electrical' woo of any kind. Bugger all happened, in fact, until a fair few seconds after impact, when soft x-rays, due to CX with the SW of the ejected material, was seen.
More lies. Has nobody ever explained this to you nutters before?
Phys1
5 / 5 (6) Aug 16, 2016
@jd
I admire your bravery. It is a Herculean task to fight the tsunami of nonsense these trolls produce. The Greeks knew what they were doing when they imagined the Lernaean Hydra.
https://en.wikipe...an_Hydra
Sheik_Yerbuti
Aug 16, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 16, 2016
Mention potatoes to fight her sophistry. Drives her insane.


Lol. Not altogether sure what you're on about there, Sheik. On he other hand, having dealt with these nutters for decades, I do realise that it is hard to get rid of this plague.

Still, good to see that they have no comeback. Not that there is one possible.
BongThePuffin
Aug 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antiantigoracle
Aug 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Sheik_Yerbuti
Aug 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

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.