Collapsing star gives birth to a black hole

May 25, 2017, NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center
This pair of visible-light and near-infrared Hubble Space Telescope photos shows the giant star N6946-BH1 before and after in vanished out of sight by imploding to form a black hole. The left image shows the 25 solar mass star as it looked in 2007. In 2009, the star shot up in brightness to become over 1 million times more luminous than our sun for several months. But then it seemed to vanish, as seen in the right panel image from 2015. A small amount of infrared light has been detected from where the star used to be. This radiation probably comes from debris falling onto a black hole. The black hole is located 22 million light-years away in the spiral galaxy NGC 6946. Credit: NASA, ESA, and C. Kochanek (OSU)

Astronomers have watched as a massive, dying star was likely reborn as a black hole. It took the combined power of the Large Binocular Telescope (LBT), and NASA's Hubble and Spitzer space telescopes to go looking for remnants of the vanquished star, only to find that it disappeared out of sight.

It went out with a whimper instead of a bang.

The star, which was 25 times as massive as our sun, should have exploded in a very bright supernova. Instead, it fizzled out—and then left behind a black hole.

"Massive fails" like this one in a nearby galaxy could explain why astronomers rarely see from the most , said Christopher Kochanek, professor of astronomy at The Ohio State University and the Ohio Eminent Scholar in Observational Cosmology.

As many as 30 percent of such , it seems, may quietly collapse into —no supernova required.

"The typical view is that a star can form a black hole only after it goes supernova," Kochanek explained. "If a star can fall short of a supernova and still make a black hole, that would help to explain why we don't see supernovae from the most massive stars."

He leads a team of astronomers who published their latest results in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

Among the galaxies they've been watching is NGC 6946, a spiral galaxy 22 million light-years away that is nicknamed the "Fireworks Galaxy" because supernovae frequently happen there—indeed, SN 2017eaw, discovered on May 14th, is shining near maximum brightness now. Starting in 2009, one particular star, named N6946-BH1, began to brighten weakly. By 2015, it appeared to have winked out of existence.

A team of astronomers at The Ohio State University watched a star disappear and possibly become a black hole. Instead of becoming a black hole through the expected process of a supernova, the black hole candidate formed through a "failed supernova." Credit: NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center/Katrina Jackson

After the LBT survey for failed supernovas turned up the star, astronomers aimed the Hubble and Spitzer space telescopes to see if it was still there but merely dimmed. They also used Spitzer to search for any infrared radiation emanating from the spot. That would have been a sign that the star was still present, but perhaps just hidden behind a dust cloud.

All the tests came up negative. The star was no longer there. By a careful process of elimination, the researchers eventually concluded that the star must have become a black hole.

It's too early in the project to know for sure how often stars experience massive fails, but Scott Adams, a former Ohio State student who recently earned his doctorate doing this work, was able to make a preliminary estimate.

"N6946-BH1 is the only likely failed supernova that we found in the first seven years of our survey. During this period, six normal supernovae have occurred within the galaxies we've been monitoring, suggesting that 10 to 30 percent of massive stars die as failed supernovae," he said.

"This is just the fraction that would explain the very problem that motivated us to start the survey, that is, that there are fewer observed supernovae than should be occurring if all massive stars die that way."

The doomed star, named N6946-BH1, was 25 times as massive as our sun. It began to brighten weakly in 2009. But, by 2015, it appeared to have winked out of existence. By a careful process of elimination, based on observations researchers eventually concluded that the star must have become a black hole. This may be the fate for extremely massive stars in the universe. Credit: NASA, ESA, and P. Jeffries (STScI)

To study co-author Krzysztof Stanek, the really interesting part of the discovery is the implications it holds for the origins of very massive black holes—the kind that the LIGO experiment detected via gravitational waves. (LIGO is the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory.)

It doesn't necessarily make sense, said Stanek, professor of astronomy at Ohio State, that a massive star could undergo a supernova—a process which entails blowing off much of its outer layers—and still have enough mass left over to form a massive black hole on the scale of those that LIGO detected.

"I suspect it's much easier to make a very if there is no supernova," he concluded.

Explore further: Astronomer discovers supernova in Fireworks Galaxy

More information: S. M. Adams et al. The search for failed supernovae with the Large Binocular Telescope: confirmation of a disappearing star, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (2017). DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stx816 , On Arxiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.01283

Related Stories

Astronomer discovers supernova in Fireworks Galaxy

May 17, 2017

On May 13, 2017, Patrick Wiggins, public outreach educator for the University of Utah's Department of Physics & Astronomy, and NASA solar system ambassador to Utah, spotted something unusual in the sky. He was looking at ...

Have we really just seen the birth of a black hole?

September 16, 2016

For almost half a century, scientists have subscribed to the theory that when a star comes to the end of its life-cycle, it will undergo a gravitational collapse. At this point, assuming enough mass is present, this collapse ...

Recommended for you

'Ultramassive' black holes discovered in far-off galaxies

February 20, 2018

Thanks to data collected by NASA's Chandra X-ray telescope on galaxies up to 3.5 billion light years away from Earth, an international team of astrophysicists has detected what are likely to be the most massive black holes ...

155 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

wduckss
1 / 5 (17) May 25, 2017
Nothing new. Everything in the article and event is contrary to the official knowledge of science.
Will we believe in old prevailing hypotheses or simply reject them, the question is now?
The Chandrasekhar limit, super-new, black holes ... all from the beginning on the second platform, or follow utopias that destroy evidence every time?
(Conclusions of the article follow the old hypothesis although offering contrary evidence.)
EmceeSquared
4.5 / 5 (17) May 25, 2017
wduckss:
Nothing new


The editors of the peer-reviewed journal _Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society_ disagree with you. And you don't even post a comprehensible sentence disagreeing. It's pretty obvious who to ignore, and it's not the ones with peer review backing them up.
Chris_Reeve
May 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1.3 / 5 (13) May 25, 2017
Now you see it, now it disappears behind a cloud of interstellar dust.

The editors of the peer-reviewed journal _Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society_ disagree with you. And you don't even post a comprehensible sentence disagreeing. It's pretty obvious who to ignore, and it's not the ones with peer review backing them up.
........and the same bunch of peer reviewers believe Infinite Gravity Wells & Infinite Density can exist inside the confines of a Finite Stellar Mass in violation of the Inverse Square Law.

Chris_Reeve
May 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) May 25, 2017
Interesting. What we need is a catalog of really large stars so we can watch to see how many of them disappear without a supernova over time.
Chris_Reeve
May 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1 / 5 (9) May 25, 2017
Interesting. What we need is a catalog of really large stars so we can watch to see how many of them disappear without a supernova over time.


Yeah, there's a lot of interstellar dust out there obscuring all kinds of things.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (12) May 25, 2017
@Lenni didn't read the article again.

After the LBT survey for failed supernovas turned up the star, astronomers aimed the Hubble and Spitzer space telescopes to see if it was still there but merely dimmed. They also used Spitzer to search for any infrared radiation emanating from the spot. That would have been a sign that the star was still present, but perhaps just *hidden behind a dust cloud.*


Duhhh ummm. Trolls gonna troll. But it's pretty dumb to post a troll of an article that ignores the actual article the troll is trolling.
wduckss
1.4 / 5 (10) May 26, 2017
@EmceeSquared
Reviewers are only paid staff who post the name, not the real value of the article.
Anyone outside the system would be spit upon for this article.
So the so-called reviewers would immediately say: it is not in line with existing knowledge. The article violates knowledge of Black Holes, does not respect the Chandrasekhar limit, does not understand the process of super-new, does not understand black holes, etc.
RNP
4.4 / 5 (13) May 26, 2017
@wduckss
Reviewers are only paid staff who post the name, not the real value of the article.

WRONG. The reviewers of major peer-reviewed journals (referees) are other (anonymous) scientists that work in the field of the paper. It is a voluntary (unpaid) service that researchers perform out of courtesy. The process is not easy for the authors. The referee will more often than not require many revisions/clarifications, over several iterations, before agreeing to recommend the paper for publication and will not do so if the paper 'violates knowledge' of anything.

I know that this is not the case in the pseudo-scientific journals that you publish in, but that is the difference between the professional and rank amateur journals.
Chris_Reeve
May 26, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
May 26, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
May 26, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
May 26, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
May 26, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RNP
4 / 5 (12) May 26, 2017
@Chris_Reeve
The hypothesis has been treated, to date, in a non-falsifiable manner; in each instance where it failed, unsupported conjectures were proposed -- and accepted -- as valid conjectures. Nobody blinks at this process.

Nonsense! How can a hypothesis be treated "in a non-falsifiable manner"? That makes no sense!

As to the rest of your post, it bears no relation to what actually happens as science developes.

There is nothing wrong with accepting "valid conjectures", assuming "valid" means they are consistent with all observational data. It does not mean they are right or even adopted as the consensus view, only that they are a viable explanation. Only those ignorant of science think that it has failed when previously viable theories are observationally refuted, requiring the development of better theories.

You are basing your claims purely on what you think you *see* conflated with your prejudices. If you want a real discussion provide evidence of your claims.
evropej
3.1 / 5 (7) May 26, 2017
If the reaction stops, it would not be visible. So why always assume they turn into black holes?
Chris_Reeve
May 26, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
May 26, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RNP
4.2 / 5 (10) May 26, 2017
@Chris_Reeve
Did you read the paper? They tried a whole variety of explanations, none of which seemed to explain the observational data better than their conclusions. There was nothing "ad hoc" about their conclusions regarding the most probable explanation, and they did not claim any certainty either.
Chris_Reeve
May 26, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
2.2 / 5 (10) May 26, 2017
Duhhh ummm. Trolls gonna troll. But it's pretty dumb to post a troll of an article that ignores the actual article the troll is trolling.


Yet another name calling binge by Schneibo.

You should try learning something about a certain Law of Physics called the Inverse Square Law & why it predicts BHs can never exist. In addition to that, cease from fabricating narratives that the basis for the formation of BHs is found in Einstein's GR when it was Einstein himself in his 1939 paper "On Stationary Systems with Spherical Symmetry consisting of many Gravitating Masses" who dispelled the potential for any such myth to have credibility in science.

Chris_Reeve
May 26, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
May 26, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RNP
4.2 / 5 (5) May 26, 2017
@Chris_Reeve
To what aspect of stellar evolution are you referring?
Chris_Reeve
May 26, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RNP
4.6 / 5 (9) May 26, 2017
@Chris_Reeve
Clearly, given the timescales involved, we have not observed significant evolution in an individual star. However, just as the evolution of human beings from birth to death can be deduced by observations of multiple people of differing ages, the vaste number of stars of varying age that we can observe in the nearby universe allow us to construct a picture of how stars evolve.

The pattern is patently clear when you consider the Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram of stellar populations of different ages, references for which are copious.

You can use Wikipedia (https://en.wikipe..._diagram ), and the references, therein as a starting point if you want to know more.
Chris_Reeve
May 26, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RNP
4.3 / 5 (11) May 26, 2017
@Chris_Reeve
NOBODY assumes that there is no energy in the space between stars, so your comment again bears no relation to current theory. It also has no bearing on stellar evolution. Prove me wrong if you think otherwise.
Chris_Reeve
May 26, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RNP
4.3 / 5 (11) May 26, 2017
@Chris_Reeve
You clearly have no scientific basis for your claims, and if you are going to continue with your usual Gish gallop approach to discourse, I am going to sign off in exasperation.
Chris_Reeve
May 26, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
May 26, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RNP
4.3 / 5 (11) May 26, 2017
@Chris_Reeve
LOL.

Your best evidence is a popular science magazine from 1963?!!!!

Surely, you are not serious. Do you have any grasp of modern science?
Chris_Reeve
May 26, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RNP
4.3 / 5 (11) May 26, 2017
@Chris_Reeve
This is another of your straw-man arguments.

Nobody has *ever* denied the existence of galactic magnetic fields (you are again falling foul of your preconceptions). The difference in our opinions arises because I recognize that the evidence tells us that these field are to weak to have significant effects on galactic scales and only serve to inhibit star formation, not promote it..

AGAIN, if you think you know otherwise, provide evidence.
Chris_Reeve
May 26, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RNP
3.9 / 5 (11) May 26, 2017
@Chris_Reeve
Your post is just more irrelevant nonsense.

I'm bored with trying to talk reason to somebody that refuses to even TRY to be scientific in their approach to discourse, so, I am going to leave you to wallow in your ignorance.
Chris_Reeve
May 26, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
SlartiBartfast
3.9 / 5 (11) May 26, 2017
@Chris_Reeve
LOL.

Your best evidence is a popular science magazine from 1963?!!!!

Surely, you are not serious. Do you have any grasp of modern science?


He is serious. And don't call him Shirley!
evropej
2.6 / 5 (5) May 26, 2017
The scientific method states that any theory is valid until it shown to be invalid via some type of data. Therefore, a star disappearing could be because it turned into a black hole, reaction stopped or aliens abducted it ( yes I know it silly ), or some other phenomena. So, theories are fine and we can entertain them no matter the degree of probability that it is plausible or even silly. The issue with some articles is to assume that it was one theory without any proof that was the case.

In either case, I find astronomy interesting and subject matters deep even at times when I might not necessarily agree with the conclusions.
Chris_Reeve
May 26, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RNP
4.3 / 5 (11) May 26, 2017
@Chris_Reeve
How much irrelevant nonsense can a single troll produce in 24hrs?

I suspect you are going for the record!
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) May 26, 2017
The scientific method states that any theory is valid until it shown to be invalid


......Is this so? Never heard this from those who are Science Professionals & I've been working as such my entire adult life.

I've sat in many a physics class, calculus class, thermodynamics class, or any other classroom in my 6 years working towards my engineering degrees & never heard any thing like this uttered from the prof.

I did hear something like this mentioned in a Philosophy class & you would probably hear something like this sitting in a classroom where asstrophysics is being taught, I mean after all, these people believe in all kinds of psycho-babble stuff like INFINITE GRAVITY WELLS & INFINITE DENSITY at the center of a FINITE stellar mass they call black holes.

So, the question I pose to you: Where did you come up with this?

Chris_Reeve
May 26, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
May 26, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) May 26, 2017
@RNP
@Chris_Reeve
How much irrelevant nonsense can a single troll produce in 24hrs?

I suspect you are going for the record!


What is "irrelevant nonsense" is believing that a Law of Physics known as the Inverse Square Law can be applied in a backwards fashion as to create greater gravitational attraction at the center of a mass than what exists at the surface of a given mass.

You Black Hole Mathematicians have never never gotten a good grip on reality as proven by the Laws of Physics, so you make up your own pseudo-narratives aside from the laws of physics & go on name calling binges when someone demands you PROVE them......but that's what we expect from a novice such as yourself & is the reason you're so much fun to banter with.

wduckss
1.9 / 5 (9) May 26, 2017
@Chris_Reeve
You're right. Inconsistency does not only see interest circles. Everyone knows long ago that the old hypotheses are aut.
My modest prologue.
"Reassessment of the old but still employed theories of Universe through database checking" http://www.svemir...sessment of the-old-but-still-employed-theories -of-Universe
Chris_Reeve
May 26, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
May 26, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
May 26, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
May 26, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
billpress11
1 / 5 (3) May 26, 2017
What if this star was a super nova many years ago, long before we first observed it. But it never ended up a black hole instead it became just a neutron star. Then the neutrons on the surface decayed forming dense hydrogen gas which eventually built up to a point and started the fusion process again which we observed as just a large star. Then if ran out of hydrogen to fuse and faded from view. If this is what has been happening maybe sometime in the future it may accumulate enough hydrogen gas from the decaying neutrons to reignite and become a fairly normal star again?
kochevnik
1 / 5 (5) May 26, 2017
Physicists corralled for century largely by authoritarian Jews in closed rooms, even when their theories contradict as relativity vs. QM

Relativity is a means-end reversal meant to hinder progress. A black hole is simple proof that space and time are posterior attributes, and not fundamental

Herd mentality dominant factor in hard science. Description trumps explanation
Bugsbunny67
1 / 5 (2) May 26, 2017
The energy emitted was in a beam not pointed in our direction... No accretion disk left or too faint...

The star collapsed in an accelerated inward rotation emitting a beam. The surrounding matter absorbed a small amount of the energy before emitting it back into space until the accretion disk becomes too faint. I don't think the black hole has zero radius, I mean there is no singularity. It is the infalling matter that cause the beam in the first place.
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (8) May 26, 2017
@ Bennie-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am right as rain and can't complain, thanks for asking.

Never heard this from those who are Science Professionals & I've been working as such my entire adult life.
I don't think they teach that in the Psychiatrist schools or the Psychologist schools which is why they did not discuss that with you. I think you are confusing the neurons with the neutrons, they are not the same..
EmceeSquared
4.1 / 5 (9) May 26, 2017
evropej:
The scientific method


Actually, the scientific method doesn't validate just any assertion as a valid theory. Not even a hypothesis is so unrestricted; it must explain the observations it claims to, even if only a narrow explanation or only those specific observations without necessarily applying to other potential observations. A theory must also explain the observations, in detail about the mechanism behind them, indeed enough to provide a model that also explains other potential observations of the same phenomenon - the theory must define the scope and fairly widely. FWIW a scientific law doesn't explain anything, just states what observations of the phenomenon are possible.
http://www.livesc...law.html

However, it's true that we can appreciate thinking that results in theories that we disagree with in part or in whole. But to say so publicly we must back it up with evidence disproving it.
Lex Talonis
3 / 5 (2) May 26, 2017
@EmceeSquared

Your just sorry that your pathetic story about New Zealand building rockets to become a nuclear super power wasn't believed.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) May 26, 2017
A theory must also explain the observations, in detail about the mechanism behind them, indeed enough to provide a model that also explains other potential observations of the same phenomenon


There has been a "theory" that the basis for the prediction of the existence for BHs is found in Einstein's General Relativity, this even though using the text of Einstein's own rebuttal he denies this in his 1939 paper:

"On Stationary Systems with Spherical Symmetry consisting of many Gravitating Masses"

........the summation of which is:

"The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light." (Einsteins own words)

........read the entire paper at:
http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

I guess it would be fair to say Einstein did not believe in Black Hole Math.

EmceeSquared
3.4 / 5 (5) May 26, 2017
Lex Talonis:
@EmceeSquared


I didn't post that story. Is there anything, however simple, that you can't get disastrously wrong? You're even dumber than your rancid trollery makes you out to be. Reminder: You're spelling your own name wrong.
EmceeSquared
3.7 / 5 (6) May 26, 2017
kochevnik:
Physicists


You sick racist, you waited far too long to use the word "trump" in that deranged post.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) May 26, 2017
Lex Talonis:
@EmceeSquared


I didn't post that story. Is there anything, however simple, that you can't get disastrously wrong? You're even dumber than your rancid trollery makes you out to be. Reminder: You're spelling your own name wrong.


I can plainly see why you recently posted that science is your "hobby".

The sheer quantity of words contained within your name calling binges far outstrips the miniscule quantity of words a real science major would engage in.
Chris_Reeve
May 26, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) May 26, 2017
Re: "The sheer quantity of words contained within your name calling binges far outstrips the miniscule quantity of words a real science major would engage in."


In public relations, one of the approaches deployed to obscure an embarrassing situation is to "crowd it out" with chatter which would cause most onlookers to move on. Whenever I see this nonsense chatter, it always reminds me of that.


I think this guy is some kind of amateur astrophysicist. I think this because I've picked up on hints he's dropped on that other thread with regards to his perception of someone with an Engineering degree, that he doesn't consider that as engaging in "real science", in the meantime he has demonstrated he has absolutely no comprehension of how to apply the Inverse Square Law to gravitating bodies.

Chris_Reeve
May 26, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
EmceeSquared
4.2 / 5 (10) May 26, 2017
Benni:
I can


I didn't post what you keep claiming I did. It's baffling why you'd want to believe that I did, but you're an incomprehensible idiot on any subject. You might not like being called these names, but you're the one who's earned them. I'm just the messenger. Of course you'd attack the messenger because that's a fallacious argument and that's the only kind you have. Logic isn't a requirement at your refrigeration academy.
Chris_Reeve
May 26, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
evropej
not rated yet May 26, 2017
Chris_Reeve

I wonder how often people who write these articles ever join the conversations?
Chris_Reeve
May 26, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) May 27, 2017
@hannes/reeve the idiot eu pseudoscience cult spammer
But I also find it noteworthy that there is never any overt moderation -- which leaves the suggestion for me that the moderation may appear in a more subtle form
there is no moderation unless there is a repeated non-similar IP reporting of a post
that means when multiple people report a post it's considered

but this happens only periodically anyway (approx once a month at best; typically once every three months)

this is substantiated by the evidence: as noted in the guidelines - "Pseudoscience comments (including non-mainstream theories) will be deleted"

this almost never happens, be it zephir's aether debunked a century ago, reg's "there aint no gravity: buy my book" or your own delusional cult eu references

the site leaves your posts because it pads their count allowing the site to make money because of perceived interest and interaction - which is elevated by your gish-gallop stupidity
Chris_Reeve
May 27, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) May 27, 2017
@reeve/hannes the eu pseudoscience idiot cult peon
can you help us to put an end to this business of Eddington's mistaken reasoning?
1- i aint psychic nor telepathic

2- neither are you

3- follow the evidence. you know, like the real scientific evidence
not like your assumptions about MS science because of your mistaken belief in eu cult propaganda

4- you don't have to rebut the history nor the beliefs around a topic when there is a trail of physical evidence that can be replicated

this is the logical fallacy of your argument

understanding the history and the debate in no way, shape or form supersedes the physical evidence or repeatable experiment that demonstrates any scientific facts
The theorists appear to have applied the mistaken assumption
1- prove it

otherwise
2- STFU and quit promoting pseudoscience

Benni
1 / 5 (4) May 27, 2017
Benni:
I can


I didn't post what you keep claiming I did. It's baffling why you'd want to believe that I did, but you're an incomprehensible idiot on any subject. You might not like being called these names, but you're the one who's earned them. I'm just the messenger. Of course you'd attack the messenger because that's a fallacious argument and that's the only kind you have. Logic isn't a requirement at your refrigeration academy.


Just the same stuff from you, it doesn't stop. Now you want to dignify your foul mouthed name calling ranting under the guise of being a "messenger". What you don't get is that there is no dignity in being a persistently profane foul mouthed "messenger", it's a character flaw on your part, not the asset you imagine that it is.

Hey, square guy, could you fix your refrigerator if it broke down? Do you know where to locate the compressor? Do you know what a TRIAC is? Maybe a better question would be: DO you even own one?
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) May 27, 2017
I wonder how often people who write these articles ever join the conversations?

In the years I've been here I've seen it happen two times that someone from phy.org engaged on the comment sections for one of the articles they authored themselves.
(Note: 99+% of the articles on here aren't authored by phys.org. This site is an aggregation site that reprints articles form accross the web. You can always find the original site by just pasting any one sentence into google)

I've also seen it happen 2-3 times that an author of a paper which is the basis for one of these articles has engaged in discussion here.

Sooo...once in a blue moon. (I.e. if anyone thinks they are engaging in a meaningful way with the scientific community by posting on these comment sections they are fooling themselves. Hard.)
EmceeSquared
4.1 / 5 (9) May 27, 2017
Chris_Reeve:
Emcee


You're not close. You're also not germane.
Chris_Reeve
May 27, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
EmceeSquared
4.1 / 5 (9) May 27, 2017
Chris_Reeve:
Just the same


Of course it's the same stuff. I'm criticizing your personality defects which haven't changed, but you keep posting from them. I'm dignified because I'm rational, while you're fallacious. You're attacking my (occasionally but deservedly "profane) "name calling", but the names suit you perfectly. You don't even defend yourself from the reasons I give for the names, but rather prefer to whine about "name calling" and fallaciously attack the messenger.

As for TRIACs, I replaced one in my Hammond's Leslie amplifier, but that can't compete with the expertise of a refrigeration academy dropout like yours. It's of course totally irrelevant anything, just as my age is, except to show you're as bad a guesser as you are a pseudoscientist. And dependent on ad hominems among other fallacies that are your only recourse. And overcompensating from an earned inferiority complex. So: relevant, but not helpful to you.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) May 27, 2017
@antialias.

Haven't you heard, @anti, the INTERNET has arrived!.....and has broken the elitist/mercenary 'club' that used to control the message/review/passing/publishing 'system'.....at last.

The internet has 'democratized' the scientific discourse/endeavor; even recruiting INTERNET users for "Citizen Science" projects!

The reason why science 'peer review' has been broken for so long is the EXCLUSIONIST "closed shop" mentality of THE PAST; which led to fiascos like BB/INFLATION/BICEP2 etc being 'passed' by incestuous/mercenary/corrupted 'peer review' effectively controlled by flawed characters/processes.

Many scientists NOW do seek/consider critiques in all sorts of internet venues; by entering relevant search terms into any search browser of their choice; and quickly check to 'see' what observers 'out there' are saying about relevant issues/claims, especially in science news/discussion forums like this. So your OPINION re who is/isn't 'watching' here, is moot, @anti.
Chris_Reeve
May 27, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) May 27, 2017
@reeve/hannes the eu pseudoscience idiot cult peon
You seem to want to argue that history of science has no bearing on which theories become favored over time
1- define your use of the word "theory" (i suggest you write this down)

2- now compare it per the following: https://www.nap.e...pter/2#2

3- note that a theory requires evidence and repeated testing (requires is the keyword)

now... really think hard about what you just said
this aint the 1800's
this aint even the 1920's
when you can learn at least that much you may be able to comprehend why so many people here denigrate your delusional stramwan argument
The fact that modern science relies so heavily upon the settled science approach
besides being a blatantly false claim, this is a strawman
again, re-read what i linked and what i just posted

do you know why this history is taught to scientists?
to help define bias and establish critical thinking skills

you didn't learn even that much
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) May 27, 2017
@Chris_Reeve.
Mate, what you are thinking of is a 'general' search using generic/general terms. That's not what I alluded to. Try it yourself. Imagine you are a scientist having written a paper/article, or a scientist interested in another scientist's paper/article, on a specific study/experiment etc you/they made/published. You don't just enter general terms into the browser, you enter specific terms/claims/authors etc which appear in your/their published paper/article! Many 'hits' where such SPECIFIC terms appear will come up....and you can just scroll through and check out any sites that involve comments on your/their specific paper/article/claims etc. That's what the more objective new breed of scientist/researcher does now, because they are no longer constrained to read the 'closed shop' discourse which was 'mandated' by past publishing/reviewing 'system'. You'd be surprised who 'reads through' here and other internet science news/comment sites/forums, Chris!
Chris_Reeve
May 27, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (7) May 27, 2017
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am just fine and dandy, thanks for asking.

Many scientists NOW do seek/consider critiques in all sorts of internet venues;


Well that explains why you are so mad here all the time. But you left out the elephant in the room Cher. This is the only place that lets you say all the silly stuffs you say over and over and over.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. It was looking at what you write here and the playhouse that caused Steinhardt-Skippy to critique you as being demented.
Chris_Reeve
May 27, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) May 27, 2017
@Chris_Reeve.

No need, mate. You know that the more with-it scientists/researchers now use the internet almost daily to not only check out what's happening in their field but also what's happening generally across the disciplines which may impact on their own field. Many 'studies'/reviews are now almost exclusively done via internet searches of data/commentary to check out what 'outsiders' and 'mavericks' are coming up with by way of reviews and commentary re old 'passed by peer review' claims which may not stand up to objective scrutiny nowadays in light of recent discovery/reviews which make old claims questionable/obsolete. This has happened in astro/cosmo field with BB, Inflation, 'exotic' DM etc since we have found ordinary stuff all over in huge quantities and have begun to apply GR to Non-Keplerian mass/orbit regimes/distributions properly. It's only in-denial' scientists who avoid checking out the internet news/commentary sites as part of their daily work/discourse.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) May 27, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am just fine and dandy, thanks for asking.
Many scientists NOW do seek/consider critiques in all sorts of internet venues;
Well that explains why you are so mad here all the time. But you left out the elephant in the room Cher. This is the only place that lets you say all the silly stuffs you say over and over and over.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. It was looking at what you write here and the playhouse that caused Steinhardt-Skippy to critique you as being demented.
A bot-voting ignoramus speaks for the scientists? Ok. :)

Anyhow, Ira, since I have been posting on (OLD)physorg/physforum(DEFUNCT) and Sciforums etc, many astro/cosmo theorists/researchers have CHANGED their minds because of what they read from OUTSIDERS all along which was correct all along. So claims they paid no heed to what I posted is subconscious denial, hey? Penrose/Steinhard/newer scientists/groups now agree with ME, Ira. Savvy? :)
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (7) May 27, 2017
A bot-voting ignoramus speaks for the scientists?
Well I will tell you the trut Cher, ol Steinhardt-Skippy thought I was a little strange at first. But after we traded a few notes he came around like most peoples do. I am not speaking for him, I am just repeated what he said about you being demented.

Penrose/Steinhard/newer scientists/groups now agree with ME, Ira. Savvy?
I don't think calling you demented means they agree with YOU now or ever.
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) May 27, 2017
@ Really-Skippy. Sorry I got to cut it short Cher and can't fool around with you more. The Skipper-Skippy needs my help in a hurry because he don't know this part of the river like I know him.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) May 27, 2017
If the reaction stops, it would not be visible. So why always assume they turn into black holes?
Because if the reaction stops there's nothing to prevent collapse. And they're massive stars; it's simply a matter of density.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) May 27, 2017
Because if the reaction stops there's nothing to prevent collapse. And they're massive stars; it's simply a matter of density.
........and in what section of Einsteins GR did you find "density" dependent "collapse"?

Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) May 27, 2017
@Lenni is trolling again.

and in what section of Einsteins GR did you find "density" dependent "collapse"?
In Schwartzchild's solution regarding which you have demonstrated your infinite ignorance wells:

Just as a reminder:
-m'' + m'n' - m'² - 2m'/r = 0
m'' + m'² - m'n' - 2m'/r = 0
e⁻²ⁿ (1 + m'r - n'r) - 1 = 0
R₂₂ sin² ϕ = 0
Source: http://www.etsu.e...esis.pdf

Do the math, @failedregeratortechLenni.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) May 27, 2017
Just as a reminder:
-m'' + m'n' - m'² - 2m'/r = 0
m'' + m'² - m'n' - 2m'/r = 0
e⁻²ⁿ (1 + m'r - n'r) - 1 = 0
R₂₂ sin² ϕ = 0


Black Hole Math doesn't compute Schneibo. How many times do you need to be told this?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) May 27, 2017
@Lenni can't do math. Anything it says about math should be ignored.

C'mon, @Lennirefrigeratortech, do some math for us instead of pretending. Just because you're too stupid to do it doesn't mean it's wrong.

@Lennifailedrefrigeratortech, you can't even do algebra:
And another reminder:
E² = (pc)² + (mc²)²
https://phys.org/...rgy.html
https://phys.org/...ole.html

Show us how those infinite ignorance wells work.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) May 27, 2017
Schneibo:

Albert Einstein- Oct 1939

"On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses"

Author(s): Albert Einstein Reviewed work(s): Source: The Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Oct., 1939), pp. 922-936 Published by: Annals of Mathematics Stable URL:
http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters whose particles move along circular paths it does not seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that most general cases will have analogous results. The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light.

Cont'd

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) May 27, 2017
1939? Really, @Lennifailedrefrigeratortech?

I mean, seriously, you don't think any science has been done since 1939?

Still waiting for an explanation of the infinite ignorance wells.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) May 27, 2017
Cont'd.....

This investigation arose out of discussions the author conducted with Professor H. P. Robertson and with Drs. V. Bargmann and P. Bergmann on the mathematical and physical significance of the Schwarzschild singularity. The problem quite naturally leads to the question, answered by this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of exhibiting such a singularity.

Read it & weep Schneibo, Einstein was a lot smarter than your DENSITY icon, he didn't believe in the phony BH Math you're trying to peddle.

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) May 27, 2017
Sorry, not all that interested in comments by a failed refrigerator technician who can't do math on relativity. It would be like listening to what a plumber had to say about Mozart.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) May 27, 2017
1939? Really,

I mean, seriously, you don't think any science has been done since 1939?

Still waiting for an explanation of the infinite ignorance wells.


Uhhhhhhhh, Schneibo? In case you didn't know. Schwarzschild wrote his Radii paper one year after Einstein published GR in 1916. So why then do you persist in referring to Schwarzschild anytime I challenge to give us the section in GR where you claim Einstein laid the foundation for BHs?

I mean, seriously, you don't think any science has been done since 1917? Well, how about 1939? That's more recent than Schwarzschild Radii, or are you having some trouble with that math as well?

Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) May 27, 2017
@Lennifailedrefrigeratortech, you've missed the point as usual.

We've done a lot of relativity math since 1939.

Especially about black holes.

Maybe you didn't notice.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) May 27, 2017
@reeve/hannes the idiot eu pseudoscience cult peon
It's becoming really obvious that nobody here has a non-evasive response to this historical argument
what is even more obvious is that you didn't read the definition of scientific theory

you are continuing to beat a dead horse about a topic that is nonsensical not only because it does not matter or even have any bearing on the subject, but it is completely and definitively irrelevant due to the fact that *not one single scientific theory in existence today is based upon what someone believed historically*

if you want to speculate about what the ants think about you during your next picnic, does it in any way affect the location of your tea jug?
no

STFU and quit spamming with pseudoscience

.

.

re:
Still waiting for an explanation of the infinite ignorance wells
i don't know who came up with that one but that is f*cking hilarious!

benji's infinite ignorance wells!
ROTFLMFAO
EmceeSquared
4.3 / 5 (6) May 27, 2017
Da Schneib:
demonstrated your infinite ignorance wells


Haha
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) May 28, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
A bot-voting ignoramus speaks for the scientists?
Well I will tell you the trut Cher, ol Steinhardt-Skippy thought I was a little strange at first.
You underestimate your 'quantum strangeness', Ira. Industrial strength bot-voter 'insensibility' produces quite a "strange" mental state if persisted in for as many years as you have.
But after we traded a few notes he came around like most peoples do.
Yeah, he "came around" to the realization he was being annoyed/stalked by a bot-voting, possibly deranged mental case. Everyone twigs to that realization after being on the receiving end of your "Cajun Schtick" self-delusional bot-driveling, Ira.
I am not speaking for him, I am just repeated what he said about you being demented.
He realized it was 'safer' to not call you "demented", Ira.
I don't think...
Yeah, we know bot-voting ignoramuses don't. Anyway, Ira, they admit BB/Inflation was bogus all along; as I have said all along. QED, Ira.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) May 28, 2017
@Emcee, told you I was stealin' it! ;)

Maybe we can discuss the actual article sometime soon.
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (9) May 28, 2017
You underestimate your 'quantum strangeness', Ira. Industrial strength bot-voter 'insensibility' produces quite a "strange" mental state if persisted in for as many years as you have.
I am not bragging Cher. I am just telling you how it is. It does not make me better than you so you really don't need to complain about it.

Everyone twigs to that realization after being on the receiving end of your "Cajun Schtick" self-delusional bot-driveling, Ira.
You are mad because you get the Cajun Stick and everybody else just gets the twig? Some people you just can not please.

He realized it was 'safer' to not call you "demented", Ira
Actually he called me "singular" whatever that means. Is that a nice way of saying I was "demented" like you?

Anyway, Ira, they admit BB/Inflation was bogus all along; as I have said all along. QED, Ira.
Why I got to admit that? I use a different dictionary, not the OED. Is it not the same as in Webster-Skippy's?

Benni
1 / 5 (6) May 28, 2017
We've done a lot of relativity math since 1939.

Especially about black holes.


Yeah, SCIENTISTS sure have. Einstein created the coup degrace for the BH fable with this statement from his 1939 paper:

"The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters whose particles move along circular paths it does not seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that most general cases will have analogous results. The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light."

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (7) May 28, 2017
Ya gotta do math if ya wanna do relativity, @Lenni.

BTW, most scientists think Einstein was right about singularities. We've been tryin' ta tell ya that for a couple years now, but your infinite ignorance wells keep getting in the way.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) May 28, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
You underestimate your 'quantum strangeness', Ira. Industrial strength bot-voter 'insensibility' produces quite a "strange" mental state..
I am not bragging Cher. I am just telling you how it is. It does not make me better than you so you really don't need to complain about it.
There is no basis for comparison between a bot-voting ignoramus (you, Ira) and one who has posted correct science/insights (me) all along and been confirmed correct all along by Penrose/Steinhardt and other mainstream scientists ADMISSION that BB, INFLATION, 'exotic'-DM etc were BOGUS all along without any scientifically/logically tenable evidence/support at any stage through all the decades since they have been 'passed by peer review', Ira. :)
He realized it was 'safer' to not call you "demented", Ira.
Actually he called me "singular".... Is that a nice way of saying I was "demented"...
His fuller diagnosis of Ira: "Singularly Demented Bot-voting Ignoramus". QED.
EmceeSquared
4.5 / 5 (8) May 28, 2017
Da Schneib:
infinite ignorance wells


I think the willful immunity to facts and logic of these science-hating crank trolls also proves, despite themselves, their infinite density.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) May 28, 2017
Psst!, @Ira, they're talking about you now:
infinite ignorance
....and...
infinite density
See, Ira, they all eventually twig, just like Steinhardt twigged, to your "Singularly Demented Bot-voting Ignoramus" insensibility and strangeness 'state' as an 'un-funny-stupid-on-a-science-site' troll. Yeah, Steinhardt had you "singularly" pegged, Ira. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) May 28, 2017
@Benni, Da Schneib (and all interested in maths/physics demarcation in reality).

I again post an important reminder: THE MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY.

I redently ame across a succinct restatement/paraphrasing of this important practical/effective distinction, posted at Sciforums, by a poster there called @someguy. The following is a direct link to his relevant post::

http://www.scifor...-3457949

Quote @someguy1:
The surface of an actual table is a layer of atoms that has quantifiable thickness.

The surface of a mathematical cylinder is a two-dimensional manifold that has no thickness.

Math \(\neq\) physics.
Please note the last line where @someguy1 uses Tex notation to remind his interlocutor that math does NOT EQUAL physics.

So all would be wise to remember this before claiming maths is some "final arbiter" regarding some claimed 'reality/validity' of some 'mathematial object'. :)
Benni
1 / 5 (5) May 28, 2017
I think the willful immunity to facts and logic of these science-hating crank trolls also proves, despite themselves, their infinite density.
.....including when Einstein wrote this in his conclusions to this paper in 1939?

"On Stationary Systems with Spherical Symmetry consisting of many Gravitating Masses"

"The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters whose particles move along circular paths it does not seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that most general cases will have analogous results. The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light."

http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf
EmceeSquared
4.2 / 5 (10) May 28, 2017
RealityCheck:
Psst!


As the person who posted what you quoted, I can unequivocally state that I was talking about you, RealityCheck, not about Uncle Ira.

You abject pathological lying troll.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) May 29, 2017
@EmceeSquared.
RealityCheck:
Psst!


As the person who posted what you quoted, I can unequivocally state that I was talking about you, RealityCheck, not about Uncle Ira.

You abject pathological lying troll.
Take it easy, mate. Relax, it's only me employing the same tactics/devices that @Uncle Ira has employed against me for years now. Ok? It's just me 'responding in kind' in defense; and to hopefully get it through that bot-voting dimwit's capesa that he shouldn't 'dish it out' if he can't take it. I know you're a relative 'newbie' to this and other 'frays' here, so I can understand your irritation at such tactics....but that's what the Uncle Ira bot-voting troll and his mates have been perpetrating here for years now. So it's about time they got to suffer a little of what they do to others. Fair is fair, eh? When they stop it then I won't need to respond in kind to defend. So perhaps you should be pissed off at 'the other guy' who starts it, hey?:)
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) May 29, 2017
@RC, lying about what people say isn't something they relax about.

Normal people apologize. You of course have no honor and are incapable of admitting a fault, so whatever you get you got coming to you. Get over it.

Maybe you shouldn't lie so much.

Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids and gets caught: https://phys.org/...ies.html
Thread where @RC makes conflicting claims within ten posts and gets caught: https://phys.org/...ome.html
Thread where @RC claims there is "REAL/PHYSICAL UNIVERSAL 'infinity'" and gets caught: https://phys.org/...rgy.html
Thread where @RC claims Rubin said galaxies will implode with out DM and confuses Zwicky with Rubin:
https://phys.org/...zzy.html

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) May 29, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, lying about what people say isn't something they relax about.

Normal people apologize. You of course have no honor and are incapable of admitting a fault, so whatever you get you got coming to you. Get over it.

Maybe you shouldn't lie so much....
Such insensibility and hypocrisy! You have yet to apologize for all those times you attacked me and called me liar etc even when I was correct all along (which you had to admit but have YET to apologize for your lies and insults in the meanwhile). You're also in denial of me being correct all along about BB, Inflation, 'exotic'DM etc 'myths' (and Bicep2 fiasco too) which were 'just believed' by you/others who still pretend you are in any way competent to judge despite being so patently biased/prejudiced and won't bother to actually read and catch up with the mainstream discovery/reviews which are confirming me correct, not you. DS, stick to catching up and understanding what's going on instead of lying. :)
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) May 29, 2017
@RC, I can't imagine what you could possibly say after being outed as a pathological serial liar. Sorry man, you have blown your cred beyond all imagination.
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (7) May 29, 2017
It's just me 'responding in kind' in defense; and to hopefully get it through that bot-voting dimwit's capesa that he shouldn't 'dish it out' if he can't take it.
Where you get the idea I can't take it? You are the only one whining about it.

So it's about time they got to suffer a little of what they do to others.
Well if this is me suffering then laissez les bons temps rouler Skippy.

You have yet to apologize for all those times you attacked me and called me liar etc
But Cher, mainstream scientists have been putting more and more articles proving that you was incorrect all along. You want him to apologize for being correct along about you being a mental case?

This is me suffering Skippy. How you like me now?
Benni
1 / 5 (3) May 29, 2017
@RC, I can't imagine what you could possibly say after being outed as a pathological serial liar. Sorry man, you have blown your cred beyond all imagination.


Uh, oh, schneibo on another name calling binge.

Hey, schneibo, there's a message a few posts above from Albert Einstein: "On Stationary Systems with Spherical Symmetry consisting of many Gravitating Masses", maybe you could find some words within your limited vocabulary of name calling & come up with the Law of Physics explaining to us why Einstein was wrong............?
EmceeSquared
4.6 / 5 (9) May 29, 2017
RealityCheck:
Take it


No. You just quoted me and crudely lied to reverse who I was talking about. Now you're claiming that since you have no scruples in your conflicts I should just accept your low grade sociopathic behavior. Which only underscores your disintegrity.

Apologize now. Or by failing to do so admit that you're nothing but a pathological liar. Pathological liars are to be ignored, or perhaps kicked around in public as submental easy targets when they get in the way of meaningful discussions.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) May 29, 2017
@Lenni can't read.

I didn't say Einstein was wrong. Everyone's been telling you this for years now and you still claim everyone is saying Einstein was wrong.

Infinite ignorance wells indeed.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) May 29, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, I can't imagine what you could possibly say after being outed as a pathological serial liar. Sorry man, you have blown your cred beyond all imagination.
You're in denial, mate. Still. You haven't apologized for your lies and insults when I was correct all along and you incorrect and ignorant of the the existing mainstream science as well as the recent mainstream discovery/reviews. Your ego-tripping and biased attacks have led you to self-demonstrate you are more interested in 'winning at all costs' rather than actually learning/understanding what is being posted for your benefit. You still do not comprehend the difference between math and physics (I even linked that post by @someguy1 at Sciforums for you, but you didn't even stop to consider how it also points out what I have been pointing out to you for so long now). You are no 'scientist', that is apparent; since 'objectivity' is missing in your 'method'. Good luck with your lies/denial 'spam', DS.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) May 29, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
...me 'responding in kind' in defense; and to hopefully get it through that bot-voting dimwit's capesa that he shouldn't 'dish it out' if he can't take it.
Where you get the idea I can't take it? You are the only one whining about it.
You bot-vote. That's 'tacit whining' on your part. QED.
So it's about time they got to suffer a little of what they do to others.
Well if this is me suffering then laissez les bons temps rouler Skippy.
The insensibility demonstrated by your response is staggering. But what can we expect from a bot-voting ignoramus who stalked/creeped out Prof Steinhardt; who twigged @Uncle Ira was a 'singular creep' and possibly dangerous lunatic (he played safe, just 'smile and nodded' at the @Uncle Ira).
mainstream scientists have been putting more and more articles proving that you was incorrect all along.
They admit BB, Inflation, 'exotic'DM etc were bogus all along; as I have pointed out all along. QED, Ira. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) May 29, 2017
@EmceeAquared.
RealityCheck:
Take it easy
No. You just quoted me and crudely lied to reverse who I was talking about. Now you're claiming that since you have no scruples in your conflicts I should just accept your low grade sociopathic behavior. Which only underscores your disintegrity.

Apologize now. Or by failing to do so admit that you're nothing but a pathological liar. Pathological liars are to be ignored, or perhaps kicked around in public as submental easy targets when they get in the way of meaningful discussions.
For someone who came in and started attacking me based on your own ill informed and biased wrong impressions of what's what around here, you make a 'perfect' naive 'pawn' for the games/tactics those perpetrators have employed a round here for years, despite me being confirmed correct all along and they incorrect/malicious trolls. Haven't you even stopped to consider you may just have the wrong end of the stick? Rethink/Inform/Relax, mate. :)
EmceeSquared
4.5 / 5 (8) May 29, 2017
RealityCheck:
For someone


So you so admit that you're nothing but a pathological liar. Pathological liars are to be ignored, or perhaps kicked around in public as submental easy targets when they get in the way of meaningful discussions.

The rest of your comment, like your other comments, is gibberish. You are nothing but a pathological liar. Live it, liar. Everything you post must be seen in that frame.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) May 29, 2017
I think it's really the arrogant bombast with which @RC lies that makes people dislike it so much. Nobody who lies that much-- and especially who gets caught lying so often-- has any business being that arrogant.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) May 29, 2017

@EmceeSquared.

Mate, you are obviously yet another/latest innocent naive dupe being 'used' by the old 'gang' of malignant bot-voting trolling ignoramuses that have been sabotaging/disrupting science discourse on many forums over the years. Stop and think; you are being 'used' by them. Your wrong impressions are obviously from you 'believing' their lies and malice campaigns. Stop 'just believing', ok? Here is an indication of their REAL 'agenda'; quote @Captain Stumpy:
leave and go to another site -or create a site that will moderate it's posts to compete with and replace this one - and take others with you so that the site loses revenue for their lack of moderation
They have LONG been sabotaging/disrupting and otherwise ruining sites for their own agenda: to POACH members for their 'preferred' sites; where they can control/censor as they please; a longstanding mercenary 'powerplay' from unconscionable 'control-freaks' who care not a jot for science. Wise up, mate. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) May 29, 2017
@Da Schneib.
arrogant bombast
@Uncle Ira's insensibility is catching! DS, if you want 'industrial strength' insensibility and 'bombastic arrogance' just go back through your posting history; read your posts attacking me as I was correct all along and you incorrect and clueless; which didn't stop you from being so 'arrogantly certain' I was 'lying' when I tried to tell you the KNOWN science as well as the EVOLVING science/insights which turned out to be correct. YOU weren't even aware of either while you were so 'bombastically and arrogantly' calling me names! You are an ego-tripping 'wiki-warrior' who deludes himself he 'knows' things even as he self-demonstrates he hasn't caught up with ALL the known science let alone the recently discovered/reviewed science/insights. It's YOUR sort of 'bombastic arrogance' that led to many here 'just believing' Bicep2 CRAP (not to mention BB, Inflation, 'exotic'DM etc CRAP now also being admitted as being such). Get objective/honest.
EmceeSquared
4.5 / 5 (8) May 29, 2017
RealityCheck:
@EmceeSquared. Mate, you


You are nothing but a pathological liar, as you have freely demonstrated in this thread alone. Nothing you say has any meaning.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) May 29, 2017
@EmceeSquared.
You are nothing but a pathological liar, as you have freely demonstrated in this thread alone. Nothing you say has any meaning.
I am the one being confirmed correct, mate. But the 'bot-gang' damage has been done and is now poisoning your mind. Yet another casualty of 'just believing' bot-voting trolls lies/manipulative tactics which you have so easily fallen prey to. But it's not entirely your fault, EcS; you are obviously naive and trusting, and caught in their net before you had a chance to properly inform yourself of all the facts in the sciences and the posters. It's the usual sad story of what happens if one is not scrupulously objective from a very young age, before being caught up in the mercenary/ego-tripping machinations of those who betray all good science and humanity principles/ethics of objectivity/fairness. Never mind; you'll wise up eventually. Not all your fault they 'used' you. Anyhow, in the meantime, no hard feelings this end, EcS. :)
EmceeSquared
4.5 / 5 (8) May 29, 2017
RealityCheck:
I am the one


That's a load of gibberish from a pathological liar. You misquoted me, admitted it when challenged, and refused to admit it's wrong. You're a psycho. Only a fool would believe anything you write.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) May 29, 2017
@EmceeSquared.
That's a load of gibberish from a pathological liar. You misquoted me, admitted it when challenged, and refused to admit it's wrong. You're a psycho. Only a fool would believe anything you write.
Amazing. You are 'outraged' at my responding 'in kind' to tactics employed by bot-voting trolls (to whom you give a 'free pass' while they are the ones who keep attacking the messenger and lying their guts out while you stand idly by). What does it take for you to be even-handed, mate? Do you even know you are being 'used' by those whom you apparently condone in lying and personal attacks even when I am correct and they incorrect? Never mind, mate; you are obviously already prejudiced and not listening to reason anymore. Time will heal your bias and naivete'. Meanwhile consider this: you are only the latest ill informed/biased novitiate in that 'gang'; and as such obviously blinded by same. Can you STOP and READ: I'm the one being confirmed correct, EcS. Ok? :)
Benni
1 / 5 (4) May 29, 2017
I didn't say Einstein was wrong. Everyone's been telling you this for years now and you still claim everyone is saying Einstein was wrong.
........the only thing about which you've ever been in agreement with Einstein is the spelling of his name.

Hey, how'ya doin' on the math in: "On Stationary Systems with Spherical Symmetry consisting of many Gravitating Masses"?

See any math there that looks familiar? Certainly doesn't look like Schwarzschild BH Math does it? Or how about that other favorite BH Math guy of yours over there at that University? By the way, here's the link again to Einsteins 1939 peer reviewed paper:

http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

You're great entertainment Schneibo, keep it coming.

EmceeSquared
4.5 / 5 (8) May 29, 2017
RealityCheck:
Amazing.


I'm not "outraged", but I was offended. Because misquoting me is offensive. Refusing to apologize because is offensive. I'm not even offended anymore, because you recalibrated my expectations of you.

You are a pathological liar who evidently believes the garbage excuses you're peddling. Your continuee blabbering only reveals a broader range of deep personality defects. Consistent with your sociopathic posts against actual peer-reviewed science, you're of course now attacking the messenger, blaming the victim - anything to evade personal responsibility for your personal bad acts. Nobody else believes it, but to a pathological liar that doesn't matter - it doesn't even exist for you sick losers.

You're a bad person, but most importantly to a public discussion you're a pathological liar. Nothing you say can be believed, because you're incapable of distinguishing reality from selfserving mumbo jumbo.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) May 29, 2017
@EmceeSquared.

Whoa there, buddy. You keep making ill informed assertions/opinions about me and expect to be thanked for it? What planet are you living on, mate? Haven't you twigged yet? You are obviously working from wrong impressions gained from biased info/lies which you have 'just believed' depite having been informed that it is I that is being confirmed correct by recent mainstream discovery/reviews regarding all the things I have been pointing out for years now to those troll gangs who still deny it all and spread lies for naive 'newbies' like you to 'just believe' against all reality that confirms me correct and them wrong. Can you even consider the possibility that you have it all wrong about me? I have been conducting internet experiments exposing/proving that the trolls in question have been doing their sabotage/lies campaigns and ruining forums for their own ends. Look, mate, I know you are a 'newbie', but there is a limit to how much naivete' can be excused. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) May 29, 2017
PS @EmceeSquared.

Please take a look at the latest confirmation that what I've been saying is not so 'mumbo' or 'jumbo' as you have been (mis)led to believe by lies/trolls from the usual 'gang'. Following article explains how quark-gluon plasma forms in energetic collisions.

https://phys.org/...rly.html

Note where they explain how the QGP REFORMS into subatomic particles and finally into protons etc. I have been pointing out such high energy (and much higher) collisions are occurring all the time throughout the infinite/eternal 'recycling' universal extent (polar jet systems on many scales and cosmic ray collisions throughout space, produces a 'background' level of RECYCLED protons/hydrogen which is NOT the 'primordial' hydrogen that BB claimed it was). Now understand that what I have been saying is being confirmed correct all along; hence why Penrose/Steinhardt have RENOUNCED all prior claims re BB/Inflation etc. Ok, EcS? :)
EmceeSquared
4.5 / 5 (8) May 30, 2017
RealityCheck:
@EmceeSquared. Whoa there


You're calling receiving your pathological lies "ill informed" now? But I'm clearly informed by your unambiguous posts that you misquote me and call it fair play. This goes beyond pathological lying, into deeper denial. More like an ad hoc delusion, schizophrenia.

Your slapping together your own inconsistent shadow of reality doesn't make me naive. It just reflects on my integrity, illuminating your deep psychpathy.

Or maybe you're not entirely crazy, just a wretched liar too lazy to care that it totally discredits you. Even back in Aesop's day people knew "nobody believes a liar, even when he's telling the truth". So no big deal, just in case you accidentally or meaninglessly blurt the truth, we don't have to believe that either.

You are a committed but unskilled liar. You are to be ignored, or abused for sport.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) May 30, 2017
@EmceeSquared.

Mate, you admit to being a 'newbie' when it comes to your background knowledge of both me and the science/insights which is being discussed. You also patently prefer to consort with longtime bot-voting ignoramuses and liars and instead single me out for your 'outrage' just because I used 'in kind' tactcis against those perpetrators of such tactics for years now?

Look, EcS, drop the personal/hypocritical trolling; concentrate on science, ok?

Now, have you read/understood my post/link to you in response to your ill-informed characterization of my posts/content as 'mumbo-jumbo'? Now will you pause your prejudiced attacks and actually READ what is posted so that you can be better-informed before opining about me and my science posts to date (which spans years, and which you have obviously not read or not understood properly...yet).

So, do you know who Sir Roger Penrose, Prof Paul Steinhardt are? Did you 'get' the import of my above PS and linked article? :)
EmceeSquared
4.4 / 5 (7) May 30, 2017
RealityCheck:
Mate, you admit


I "admit" to none of your lies. Who cares what you say? You are a blatant pathological liar. It defines you. None of your tests mean anything - you have no standing to judge me or anything else. Because pathological lying is *insanity*: clinical insanity. You have destroyed any possibility of anything you say meaning anything by embracing your pathological lying.

None of your distractions have any merit whatsoever. You're a liar. You're demented. This is not "ad hominem", any more than if a dog managed to type something under your username would it matter - even less, because dogs don't lie.

You don't get to "concentrate on the science" - especially since all you ever concentrated on was pseudoscience and sociopathic crankery. No, you have to own your status as a liar. Liars don't get to tell people anything, you get to slink off in shame.

Or else you get to rip through your desired credibility every time you post. Keep it up, liar.
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) May 30, 2017
@ mc^2-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am not doing too bad everything considered.

Don't mind Really-Skippy none. He's been doing this for 10 or 9 years now. He just is mad because everybody has give him the boot-a-roo at all the places where, well everywhere except for here (the nice peoples here at physorg feel sorry for him so they let him do what he does.)

You're demented.
Hey Cher, that is exactly Professor Steinhardt-Skippy said about him. He kept tossing the Steinhardt-Skippy's name around so I email him and showed him some of the stuffs he wrote here about "how Steinhardt recently said he has been correct all along".

He did. He told me that who ever it was that wrote somethings like that sounds "demented". And a few other things too. Then when I showed him Really-Skippy''s Earthman Club and Earthman Playhouse he told me that was the funniest thing he never did see and in his line of business he sees some real doozies.

http://earthlingclub.com/
SlartiBartfast
4.3 / 5 (6) May 30, 2017
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) May 30, 2017
@EmceeSquared.

Yes, yes, you've said that enough times now. Thanks, EcS. :)

Did you read/understand the PS-post/link I provided above for you as evidence that your assessment is wrong?

Or does the 'method' you employ work only on 'personal prejudice and beliefs' rather than objectively looking at the evidence provided, EcS?

Just stop your hysterics and look objectively, mate. The scientific method demands it. Ok? Go look, mate. It is just one example that confirms me correct all along; so your impressions are all wrong. Ok? :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) May 30, 2017
@Uncle Ira.

So a bot-voting ignoramus is now denying that recent mainstream discoveries/reviews have confirmed me correct all along on many fronts. No surprise, Ira.,that you drivel on in denial of the evolving reality. I even posted a link to an PO article which also confirms what I have been saying about recycled hydrogen rather than primordial hydrogen. And Penrose and Steinhardt have renounced BB/Inflation etc claims; so your calling me names doesn't change the objective fact they now agree with me as well: that BB/Inflation etc were unsupported 'myths' all along. So you're just bot-driveling all over the PO floors again. QED, Ira. :)
SlartiBartfast
4.6 / 5 (9) May 30, 2017
@Uncle Ira.

So a bot-voting ignoramus is now denying that recent mainstream discoveries/reviews have confirmed me correct all along ...


_Everyone_ is denying that, not just Ira.
EmceeSquared
4.6 / 5 (9) May 30, 2017
RealityCheck:
Yes, yes


You're the kind of insane that thinks I would have any interest in what you have to say about anything, even after I've made clear you're a proven liar.

I'm perfectly calm when I tell you again you're worth responding to only as a sport of "kick the lunatic". It's medieval, but I'm no saint. Have another kick, lunatic.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) May 30, 2017
@SlartiBartFast.

So you're another of those more interested in the 'form' rather than the substance of scientific/logic concepts presented. NO wonder science has suffered such fiascos since BB/Inflation (especially recently, Bicep2 fiasco) were 'passed' by those more interested in person/source/reputation rather than actual objective science/logics presented. Only now are all those fiascos being finally put to an end by brave/honest Penrose/Steinhardt and other mainstreamers; who have self-corrected and renounced all the myths previously built into 'well constructed/presented' peer-reviewed SITES/JOURNALS which unfortunately did not guarantee correctness of the science/logics content therein....for decades!

PS: re Earthlingclub site: it is OLD site which contained preliminary version of my work for information of clubmembers...the complete and consistent work will be published once the reality-based maths is also finalized. Patience, Slarti. And go for science not format.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) May 30, 2017
@SlartiBartFast.
@Uncle Ira.

So a bot-voting ignoramus is now denying that recent mainstream discoveries/reviews have confirmed me correct all along ...


_Everyone_ is denying that, not just Ira.
By "everyone", you mean all the bot-voting gang who have been proven wrong while mainstream keeps confirming me correct all along on many fronts. I even provided the links to articles which demonstrate that. But since you are part of that bot-voting gang who is more interested in personal tactics and ego-tripping instead of actual objective science discourse, you would naturally ignore the evidence when it is provided. Typical in-denial troll gang. Nasty. :)
SlartiBartfast
4.4 / 5 (7) May 30, 2017
@SlartiBartFast.
_Everyone_ is denying that, not just Ira.
By "everyone", you mean all the ...


No, by everyone, I mean this: https://www.youtu...r9MNmCwU
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) May 30, 2017
@EmceeSquared.
RealityCheck:
Yes, yes
You're the kind of insane that thinks I would have any interest in what you have to say about anything, even after I've made clear you're a proven liar.

I'm perfectly calm when I tell you again you're worth responding to only as a sport of "kick the lunatic". It's medieval, but....
The Objective Science Method is not interested in a person's characteristics, only the objective facts and work issuing from applying the objective scientific method. I have been doing that while you and your newfound 'friends' have been doing the exact opposite here for years. Now they are in denial of me being confirmed correct all along. So look to yourself/them when you talk of insanity and dishonesty, mate. And how 'sane' and 'scientific' are YOU, EcS? You refuse to look at evidence just because you dislike a person! Enjoy your '5's from the bot-voting gang 'using' you, EcS; it will turn sour all too soon. Still, no hard feelings this end. :)
EmceeSquared
4.2 / 5 (10) May 31, 2017
RealityCheck:
The Objective


As you already ignored, "Nobody believes a liar even when he is telling the truth." Nobody (sane) wastes time thinking about the assertions of a liar, even when the liar is (momentarily) asserting something correct.

It's no surprise that you are in pathological denial of this simple wisdom. And so no surprise that you hate peer review: Without peer review, despite its flaws, we have no way of distinguishing mere liars from legitimate science that hasn't been vetted. As I have been posting at you and other cranks in these discussions for the past several days.

A pathological liar cannot understand why others won't bother separating their lies from the occasional truths, because you cannot separate them yourself. By the same token you cannot understand why peer review is necessary even if it's not perfect, because it's better than nothing to sift lies from truth.

You're worthless except as a case in point.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) May 31, 2017
@EmceeSquared.
The Objective
As you already ignored, "Nobody believes a liar even when he is telling the truth." Nobody (sane) wastes time thinking about the assertions of a liar, even when the liar is (momentarily) asserting something correct.
The Objective Scientific Method was invented by wise minds expressly to EXCLUDE all the SUBJECTIVE personal/belief crap you have just been spewing ON A SCIENCE site, EcS. :)

UNDERSTAND, EcS? Science is blind to person/belief; caring only for facts in evidence and conclusions drawn objectively therefrom.

If you are that fascinated/fixated by person/belief then go to the social media sites where 'likes/dislikes' are the go! :)

HERE, in science/logics discussion on PO site, you are required by the scientific method to objectively observe/impartially consider what is presented on its merits, regardless of person/source! It is because this important science method principle was 'forgotten' that Bicep2 fiasco happened. Ok? :)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) May 31, 2017
So a bot-voting ignoramus is now denying that recent mainstream discoveries/reviews have confirmed me correct all along on many fronts.

lemme set you straight on something rather trivial:

To *prove* someone correct that someone has to actually make a provable argument (i.e. put forth some sort of reasoning that can be checked).
Instead what you did was make a statement - that is not an argument. So you weren't proven correct. You just happened to guess right.

That guessing right doesn't give you any kind of cred whatsoever should be even painfully obvious to you.
EmceeSquared
4.5 / 5 (8) May 31, 2017
RealityCheck:
The Objective


The objective facts: that you lied here in public, when caught you insisted that lying like that is perfectly acceptable. That you are a liar, that need to lie to support your assertions, that you embrace lying.

Science doesn't protect you from that. Nobody wants to read what you post except other trolls with similar spite for the truth or those looking for someone worthless to abuse. Who knows, who cares, whether you occasionally say something correct: it's not worth the effort to sift through your lies. Especially since so many of your lies are stupid lies.

This is the micro version of why you hate peer review. You want to hide your abysmal quality behind some delusion of equal value for consideration. You're infatuated with science being blind to personality because yours is unacceptable.

We are not doing science in these discussions. We are discussing with people. You disqualified yourself from that.

Goodbye troll.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) May 31, 2017
@antialias_physorg.
bot-voting ignoramus is now denying that recent mainstream discoveries/reviews have confirmed me correct all along on many fronts.
You just happened to guess right.
You missed the earlier response to that 'just lucked out' gambit from you, anti. Go back through all my posts and count the many scientific/technical/logical issues/observations/insights I posted for your/gang's info, only to be ignored by you and/or personally attacked/trolled besides. There are TOO MANY instances where NOW recent MAINSTREAM discovery/review is confirming me correct in all along for it to be 'just lucked out'. Do the stats, anti. See the pattern: me CONSISTENTLY correct, you/gang wrong, on many fronts; while you betrayed science/intellect by trolling./attacking the messenger instead of listening/comprehending objectively. You/gang NOW are in DENIAL TERRITORY; because you 'lost face' big-time, on many fronts (BB/Inflation/'exotic'DM/Bicep2 etc). Learn 'objectivity'.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) May 31, 2017
@EmceeSquared.
RealityCheck:
The Objective


The objective facts: that you lied here in public, when caught you insisted that lying like that is perfectly acceptable. That you are a liar, that need to lie to support your assertions, that you embrace lying.
You keep forgetting to recognize that it was others have been doing the same thing for years now, against me. Are you now condoning those others' same tactics while still being outraged I used it this once in self-defense against them, EcS?

As for my being 'correct sometimes': you have that wrong too. I have been CONSISTENTLY correct, all along, re NUMEROUS science/logics issues/observations/insighjts....OBJECTIVELY; while all the while the very same bot-voting trolls who have been using the same tactic you so despise have had 'carte blanch' to attack the objective messenger while they ignored the objective message.

As for 'peer review': I am FOR OBJECTIVE 'peer review' NOT corrupted by BIASED 'reviewers'. :)

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.