Water circling drain experiments offer insight into black holes

June 14, 2017 by Bob Yirka report
This artist's concept depicts a supermassive black hole at the center of a galaxy. The blue color here represents radiation pouring out from material very close to the black hole. The grayish structure surrounding the black hole, called a torus, is made up of gas and dust. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

A small international team of researchers has found that water waves created due to scattering from a spinning vortex can show rotational superradiance—an effect astrophysicists have predicted likely to occur in black holes, but which has never been replicated in a lab experiment. In their paper published in the journal Nature Physics, the group explains how they observed and measured waves propagating on the surface of water near a draining vortex and what they found.

As the researchers explain, when a wave strikes an obstacle, it tends to scatter, as can be observed at virtually any seashore. But more difficult to see is that some of the wave is reflected as well as partially transmitted. This led to a theory back in 1954 by Robert Dicke that suggests if an object is spinning, the waves can be amplified by extracting energy from the parts of the wave that are scattered—a phenomenon called superradiance. In this new effort, the researchers conducted experiments designed to prove the theory correct.

The experiments consisted of placing water in a 3 x 1.5 meter tank with a 4 cm hole at the center to serve as a drain—the researchers took measurements of wave activity by sensors mounted on the side of the tank (and by a high-speed, three-dimensional air–fluid interface sensor) as pumped-in water was drained, creating a . The researchers report that they observed waves propagating on the surface and that measurements confirmed the waves were amplified after scattering occurred. They further report that the largest amplification recorded was 14 percent +/– 8 percent with waves of 3.70Hz in water that was just 6.25 cm deep. They claim their findings agree with theory, and therefore that their findings can be applied to research surrounding black holes. This is because they believe the scattering of shallow waves on water is analogous to the action that occurs at the event horizon of a black hole. They also note that new, more sensitive gravitational wave detectors might someday be able to measure roughly the same behavior with real .

Press release from University of Nottingham

Explore further: Researchers uncover new gravitational wave characteristics

More information: Theo Torres et al. Rotational superradiant scattering in a vortex flow, Nature Physics (2017). DOI: 10.1038/nphys4151

Related Stories

Black holes not black after all

May 12, 2008

International scientists have used flowing water to simulate a black hole, testing Stephen Hawking's theory that black holes are not black after all.

Black holes on an electronic chip

January 26, 2017

A team of theoretical physicists has proposed a way to simulate black holes on an electronic chip. Additionally, the technology used to create these lab-made black holes may be useful for quantum technologies. The researchers ...

Recommended for you

NASA telescope studies quirky comet 45P

November 22, 2017

When comet 45P zipped past Earth early in 2017, researchers observing from NASA's Infrared Telescope Facility, or IRTF, in Hawai'i gave the long-time trekker a thorough astronomical checkup. The results help fill in crucial ...

Uncovering the origins of galaxies' halos

November 21, 2017

Using the Subaru Telescope atop Maunakea, researchers have identified 11 dwarf galaxies and two star-containing halos in the outer region of a large spiral galaxy 25 million light-years away from Earth. The findings, published ...

Cassini image mosaic: A farewell to Saturn

November 21, 2017

In a fitting farewell to the planet that had been its home for over 13 years, the Cassini spacecraft took one last, lingering look at Saturn and its splendid rings during the final leg of its journey and snapped a series ...

52 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Son_Of_Adonis
1.7 / 5 (12) Jun 14, 2017
I cannot believe that their moronic paper passed the peer-review !!!

Reasoning by analogy is purely IMAGINARY. From a "Logical" point of view, analogical reasoning is not a VALID mode of reasoning. It always leads to imaginations and false beliefs.

What on earth has "water bath" got to do with "black holes"?
"Black holes" are only hypothetical objects. Schwarzschild and Kerr solutions of Hilbert-Einstein equations, in Hilbert-Einstein theory of gravity (incorrectly called general relativity), suggests "infinite" gravitational collapse of an exhausted STAR (aka a black hole). BUT, if this theory of gravity is incomplete, as some people like Anatoly Logunov suggest, then "black holes" do NOT exist.

Analogical thought is imaginative only, and should be confined to the metaphors and similes of poetry or rhetoric. It has no place in scientific discussions.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 14, 2017
"The experiments consisted of placing water in a 3 x 1.5 meter tank with a 4 cm hole at the center to serve as a drain..."

So where is the BH "drain" located that causes the so-called "vortex"? Probably too obvious a question?

Nik_2213
4 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2017
#SOA: IIRC, Einstein would beg to differ. Besides, analogies are good provided scaling is robust and you remember the map is NOT the landscape itself...
Son_Of_Adonis
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2017
#Nik_2213: Don't speak for your god Einstein. Then again, hero-worship is a hallmark of ignorant physics-enthusiasts.

Analogies are delusions. They have no logical value whatsoever. Evidently, you don' know the meaning of the word "analogy". Map and landscape is a metaphor for model and the system being modelled.

RNP
5 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2017
An open access copy of the paper can be found here: https://arxiv.org...6180.pdf
Lex Talonis
1 / 5 (1) Jun 15, 2017
Yeah they didn't paint the water black and do it in an unlit room so it's not a black hole..
Macrocompassion
4.3 / 5 (11) Jun 15, 2017
I think it is wrong to deny the use of analogies to support an hypothesis of an actual happening. The waves being generated when water flows out of a bath-tub or circular tank, may well have something in common with the kind of radiation as described above. I find it very strange that a scientific website can be criticized by people who obviously have no knowledge of the methods of science. I am curious if the proportion of the energy being scattered by the black-holes is similar to what has been measured in the water analogy.
Son_Of_Adonis
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 15, 2017
#Macrocompassion: FYI, I am a physicist. So, do NOT dare to lecture me about scientific research. Your stupefyingly ignorant and utterly imbecilic comment shows that you are a pretentious layman.

Generation of water waves in "water bath" and its drainage has got NOTHING to do with Schwarzschild and Kerr solutions of Hilbert-Einstein equations for supposedly "infinite" gravitational collapse (aka "black holes").

Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of Logic and history of science would know that analogical thought is imaginative only, and should be confined to the metaphors and similes of poetry or rhetoric.

Logicians and "intelligent" scientists KNOW about a valid alternative for analogical reasoning known as Parallel Reasoning. BUT, authors of this paper and laymen are completely ignorant of different modes of reasoning.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 15, 2017
It's notable that the authors of the paper found no less than five other papers where the claim was made that this scattering affect exists both in black holes and in vortices in water, and that the two situations are analogous. I only had to read the abstract of the paper to find that.

This paper details the first experimental observation of the effect. Now we have data; it's no longer theory alone.

So much for the #plasmacranks. Just put "black hole" in the title and they show up to push their obnoxious Eclectic Universe BS despite all the evidence to the contrary.
swordsman
not rated yet Jun 15, 2017
The measured results of this experiment fit that of transverse waves that reflect, thereby creating standing waves. In this case it is a mechanical effect, whereas in a magnetron it is an electromagnetic effect.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jun 15, 2017
Analogies are delusions. They have no logical value whatsoever. Evidently, you don' know the meaning of the word "analogy". Map and landscape is a metaphor for model and the system being modelled.

- a comparison between two things (typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification).
- a correspondence or partial similarity.
- a thing that is comparable to something else in significant respects.

Perhaps you'd prefer something a little edgier, like... - fractal equivalence...?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jun 15, 2017
For SoA and Benni,
Are house cat's and tigers feline?
They do things differently, sure. But they are still cat's...
As to the article, the similarity is in the vortex behavioural complexity...
cortezz
5 / 5 (4) Jun 16, 2017
#Macrocompassion: FYI, I am a physicist. So, do NOT dare to lecture me about scientific research. Your stupefyingly ignorant and utterly imbecilic comment shows that you are a pretentious layman.

Usually scientist are mild tempered. Provide proof of you being a physicist or don't throw your titles around here.

I cannot believe that their moronic paper passed the peer-review !!!

It is the very first observation of superradiance in a vortex flow. The math and proof is in the paper so how that is not science by your standards? You think the whole paper should be dismissed because the findings could be usable in black hole physics? Does the scientific value of an article go straight to zero if black holes are meantioned?

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2017
@Da Schneib, RNP, Whyde et al.

Are you now going to apologize to Zephir for longstanding ridiculing/trolling/banning of his (and Einstein's) use of the "water surface/body" wave/soliton analogies? I trust you will be fair minded enough to do that at least, whatever else you may think of his cosmology/physics ideas/explanations per se. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Jun 17, 2017
Apparently @BouncedRealityCheck needs another lesson in keeping its stinking pie hole shut:

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

There. Done. No one should believe this troll at any time for any reason. It's a liar, and it always responds with smarmy and subtly demeaning posts, unless you seriously challenge it and point out where it's lied before, when it becomes nastier.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2017
There it is, @Forum. Da schneib doesn't read and/or doesn't care about reality. Only his own ego-tripping spam and lies to cover his failings in both objective science discourse and in fairminded acknowledgement when he has been wrong to ridicule Zephir's use of water surface/body waves/soliton analogies which were always perfectly valid, as the above article and his own response to it patently indicates. But will he apologize to Zephir for 'demonizing' and trolling/insulting and causing his banning? No. Poor Da Schneib is just too wrapped up in his own subjective 'need' to 'correct' and 'ridicule' what he hasn't understood/caught up with yet. But does that stop him ridiculing/lying/trolling his double standards and hypocrisy based on his own ignorance/prejudices? No! He continues his personal tactics! Unfazed by fact/reality all around him, even as being presented in the above article which he finds no problem in THEIR use of water analogies! How sad is THAT, @Forum?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Jun 17, 2017
No more whining, @BouncedRealityCheck. You apparently think you have something to say about water circling the drain because you are a turd circling the toilet bowl. I doubt anyone here but other EU #physicscranks like you agrees.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2017
There it is again, @Forum. Proof that Da Schneib is more interested in ignoring/ridiculing, rather than in doing the correct thing according to the facts presented. DS just attacks the messenger (me) again, rather than apologizing to Zephir for demonizing Zephir's use of water analogies; just as the above article does, yet not being ridiculed by DS because 'it's not Zephir'! So, DS just refuses to face facts, and posts this insulting evasion in response:
No more whining, @BouncedRealityCheck. You apparently think you have something to say about water circling the drain because you are a turd circling the toilet bowl. I doubt anyone here but other EU #physicscranks like you agrees.
How sad is the waste/corruption of intellect in this sort of 'mind' whose ego over-rides his objectivity/fairness? Yep, that sad, @Forum. You are witnessing the worst sort of anti-science and anti-humanity 'tactics' being employed by DS for his own personal ego-tripping. Pity.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Jun 17, 2017
I think the hubbub about this article stems from a bit of a misunderstanding what they have done.

here's what I think they have done:
a) They note that superradiance is posited in BHs
b) They note that superradiance is posited also in other systems but has (and this is important) to date not been observed

This means: Up to this point superradiance was purely theoretical. no one knew if it was even real.

So what they have done here is show it in actual experiment - putting superradiance on a firm footing. So the idea behind superradiance is viable. Which in turn means that it *could* also be real for BHs and have put a rough oredr of magnitude on the phenomenon and how it could be tested.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2017
I can't imagine anyone would believe a claim of evidence, far less a claim of proof, from this lying nasty insidious troll, and I doubt after how soundly it has been pwnt that anyone does other than its EU troll psychophants and its admitted sockpuppets if even them.

I repeat, @BouncedRealityCheck, go post on your own virus-ridden ancient website claiming a mathematics-free Theory of Everything. (I'm sure that "mathematics free" will properly prepare you for the laughter you will get from any lurkers who manage to find the site; I will not link it, they can find viruses on their own without my help.)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2017
@Da Schneib.

Please stop your sorry personal lying spamming 'tactics' and keep to the science/logic point and facts presented. Otherwise you are demonstrating to the @Forum how bankrupt your intellect/ego is. You ignore or don't read before 'responding' with your lying, incorrect and preconceived impressions and beliefs which go against the recorded facts and reality evolving around you. Haven't you any sense of shame whatsoever? How can you keep pretending you haven;t been so wrong on so many things/people? You keep repeating lies made up by others in that 'gang', and have the gall to pretend you are interested in facts/science 'objectively'? You make a mockery of science and fairness with every such post you make that lies and perpetuates lies and mis-associations etc. Where is your conscience? Where is your scientific objectivity, DS? Are you totally without honor/sense, DS? Stop it! Stop your evasions and lies. Just HONESTLY apologize to Zephir for your past insults. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2017
@antialias, good explainer. You are of course correct.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2017
@BouncedRealityCheck, please stop attempting to make smarmy insinuating posts on this site after having repeatedly lied and been caught. Have you no shame sir? At long last, have you no sense of decency?

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 (4) Jun 17, 2017
@antialias.

Back to the science issue of above article.

This means: Up to this point superradiance was purely theoretical. no one knew if it was even real.
Actually, antialias, I and others have long realized/observed such phenomena in real 'drained' vortex systems every time we observe the 'choke effects'. Wherein the incoming fluid is too much for the vortex 'mouth' to 'ingest/handle', and a 'backscatter' shock/wave forms/propagates outwards against the inflow vector. More complicated patterns of waves/solitons etc evolves given sufficient time and inflows.

PS: The most interesting aspect I see in this analogy is that, in my GRAVITATION in BLACK HOLE theory, a 'choke point' region arises such that incoming material/energy cannot be accelerated any 'stronger', and so material/energy 'piles up' and doesn't collapse 'indefinitely' into singularity state; but forms a real, extended energy-space aggregation/containment 'surface' at a 'choke region' just below EH. :)

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2017
@BouncedRealityCheck is lying again. It's attempting to claim it "discovered everything before everybody else" again, just like with Bicep2. It does this same thing over and over and over and over and over again, when it can't disagree with something. This is standard behavior for this troll and should be ignored, unless you are of course a #EUtroll or want to visit its web site and harvest some viruses from its decrepit site hosting software.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@BouncedRealityCheck is lying again. It's attempting to claim it "discovered everything before everybody else" again, just like with Bicep2. It does this same thing over and over and over and over and over again, when it can't disagree with something. This is standard behavior for this troll and should be ignored, unless you are of course a #EUtroll or want to visit its web site and harvest some viruses from its decrepit site hosting software.
Better to discover/know in fact (like I do) than to not discover/know while pretending/insulting (like you do), DS.

Anyhow, I responded to a SCIENCE post by antialias. Please don't make it an excuse to troll, DS.

So, have you stopped to read/consider what I posted in light of the physics implied/involved?

Did you note my PS re choke point also applying in GRAVITY/BH context?

DS, take a stab at actual science discourse instead of personal tactics spamming and lying (ie, I am NOT an EU etc guy, DS).

Thanks. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2017
@BouncedRealityCheck, if you keep using the same tired old decrepit disproven disorganized idiotic claims that have been proven lies again and again and again, and whine when someone who is watching points it out again and again and again, one would hope that eventually you would learn not to use them again and again and again.

Definition of insanity: doing the same thing again and again and again and thinking there will be a different result.

Just sayin'.

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

Three out of four. I have another one.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2017
@Da Schneib.

Spamming your lies and manic personal tactics is no substitute for reality, DS. Try to get a grip, DS. The science is what's important, not your misconceived versions of what you have ignored and misunderstood while insulting those correct all along. You have yet to apologize for demonizing Zephir's use of the water surface/body analogies, despite the fact that NOW you have no qualms about mainstream researchers (and Einstein long ago) using similar water surface/body waves etc analogies. How long does your hypocrisy need to be pointed out before you apologize for being so insulting to Zephir despite him being correct all along to use such analogies which Einstein and now above researchers are also employing? Have you no self-respect for your honor, DS? Why can you not apologize to Zephir now that you KNOW you were wrong to demonize Zephir's use of such analogies as well? Are you incapable of objectivity/fairness, DS? Apologize to Zephir for that at least. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2017
Fine, bringing the fourth @BouncedRealityCheck thread link: Thread where @RC claims Rubin said galaxies will implode with out DM and confuses Zwicky with Rubin: https://phys.org/...zzy.html

This is all evidence of repeated and deliberate lying. There is no reason anyone should believe this lying troll, and no reason for paying any attention to its posts other than to ridicule it.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2017
@Da Schneib.

Spamming lies and tactics won't work anymore, DS. You have to face reality. You have no qualms about above researchers (and Einstein long ago) employing water surface/body analogies for their explanations/concepts, yet you/gang demonized Zephir's using similar analogies. Why? Do you not see you were being hypocritical and unfair to Zephir on that score at least? Why not just apologize to Zephir for that at least and get it over with instead of having to be dragged kicking and screaming to do the right thing by Zephir re that at least, DS? Go on; apologize to him. Try to be fair to all instead of just those whom you 'gang' with. Go on, DS. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2017
Still waiting for the "ten criticisms of Bicep2" you claimed @BouncedRealityCheck. You claimed them and have never shown them. Apparently you forget that people actually remember what you say and whether it was a lie or not. Please post the "eleven criticisms of Bicep2." We're waiting for all twelve of them.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Still waiting for the "ten criticisms of Bicep2" you claimed @BouncedRealityCheck. You claimed them and have never shown them. Apparently you forget that people actually remember what you say and whether it was a lie or not. Please post the "eleven criticisms of Bicep2." We're waiting for all twelve of them.
Been there. Done that. You're behind the times/reality, DS. That's what happens when you ignore instead of fairly reading others. You have been insulting and wrong for so long now on so many fronts while I have been correct all along. Yet you keep spamming your denial and lies as if reality is something which you can 'manufacture' to suit your own ego-tripping 'need' to troll and insult on the net despite being so wrong on so many fronts. It's not healthy, DS. Take a break to rethink it all. Don't keep digging your hole, DS. Come back when you are capable of being objective/honest as good science and humanity discourse ethics demands. Good luck. :)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (5) Jun 17, 2017
@ Da Schneib-Skippy. How you are? Glad to know it, I'm good too.

We're waiting for all twelve of them.


Maybe if you go ahead and apologize to Zeph-Skippy for making fun with his """electron-ducks bobbing up and down on the superluminal longitudinal waves trying to dodge the water spiders stuck in the dense aether vacuum""", he will at least tell us one of them.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
@ Da Schneib-Skippy. How you are? Glad to know it, I'm good too.

We're waiting for all twelve of them.


Maybe if you go ahead and apologize to Zeph-Skippy for making fun with his """electron-ducks bobbing up and down on the superluminal longitudinal waves trying to dodge the water spiders stuck in the dense aether vacuum""", he will at least tell us one of them.
There should be no conditions attached to honest apology from DS/gang/you to Zephir, else it would defeat the honest intent of such an apology due to Zephir from you/DS/gang. Anyway, UI, I have posted on many of the relevant flaws, as explained to others already. You/DS/Gang ignoring/missing them is your own fault. Just apologize to Zephir as discussed, because it's the right thing for you to do, DS/UI/gang. :)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (5) Jun 17, 2017
Just apologize to Zephir as discussed, because it's the right thing for you to do, UI


Why do I have to apologize? I liked the electron-ducks riding the superluminal waves of dense vacuum and aether too with spiders walking on the foamy waters. I am the only Skippy here who actually likes Zeph-Skippy. Or are you just mad because I give the 5 karma points sometimes and never him give the 1 karma points.

The reason I never give Zeph-Skippy a 1 and always give you the 1 is because, yeah Zeph-Skippy is bat-doo-doo crazy, but at least he actually knows about science stuffs.

You get the 1's because you are bat-doo-doo crazy and won't ever know a tenth of what Zeph does.

How you like me now Skippy?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2017
@Ira, not doing bad; playing with Microsoft SharePoint over here. Then again, heh, not so good either. Bet your engines are less trouble.

@BouncedRealityCheck-skippy seems to be doing the same lying, the same insidious disrespect, and the same general couyon capers as always; guess you and I will have some fun this weekend to play with this purblind fool him.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
Just apologize to Zephir as discussed, because it's the right thing for you to do, UI


Why do I have to apologize? I liked the electron-ducks riding the superluminal waves of dense vacuum and aether too with spiders walking on the foamy waters. I am the only Skippy here who actually likes Zeph-Skippy. Or are you just mad because I give the 5 karma points sometimes and never him give the 1 karma points.

The reason I never give Zeph-Skippy a 1 and always give you the 1 is because, yeah Zeph-Skippy is bat-doo-doo crazy, but at least he actually knows about science stuffs.

You get the 1's because you are bat-doo-doo crazy and won't ever know a tenth of what Zeph does.
Do you even 'listen' to yourself when you type your drivel, UI? It's your disparaging characterizations/trolling of him/his posts, and your bot-voting '5' to those who have insulted him unfairly re use of water surface/body analogy, that you should apologize to him for. Go on. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2017
@Da Schneib.

Stop digging! Just apologize to Zephir for disrespecting his water surface/body analogies which Einstein also used. Especially seeing as how the above article's researchers are using same without any complaints from you, just because it's not Zephir! Go on, do the right thing on that at least; apologize to Zephir and be done with it, DS. :)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (5) Jun 17, 2017
Do you even 'listen' to yourself when you type your drivel
Non, I am usually listening to the MSNBC while I am typing. Now I am not because they are just doing old re-runs about Nixon-Skippy. Now I am listening to music. Listening to me typing would be a waste of time because I already know what I am typing. Do you listen while you type? Never mind, you probable do.

your bot-voting '5' to those who have insulted him unfairly re use of water surface/body analogy, that you should apologize to him for.
Why you care who I give 5's to? All you need to worry about is the 1's I give for you.

You are not going to start your complaining about my votes again are you? We been down this road over and over and some more overs. The nice peoples at physorg gives everybody a chance to vote, and let everybody decide how to use it. You don't get to help me with that, you just got to take your !'s and get over it.

I got work to do so I will fool around with you later.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 17, 2017
@Uncle Ira.

But you missed the point, again, Ira. You bot-voting '5' to those who HAVE been insulting Zephir's use of the water surface/body analogies (despite Einstein and others in mainstream using same) is YOU TACITLY engaging in the same insults to Zephir. This on top of your own posts characterizing him/his posts in disparaging terms you again used above. You have an apology to make to Zephir for your own actions/trolling. Leave the others to apologize for their own actions/trolling of Zephir on that water analogy score. As for my 'caring' about your bot-votes to me, I don't care at all. I merely pointed out your bot-voting '5' to those who DID insult Zephir re his water analogy use. Keep it straight, Ira. So apologize to Zephir for your own actions/trolls as pointed out already.

And don't forget to 'listen' to yourself when typing your drivel, Ira; as it may help you drivel 'less drivelly' than your usual bot-voting ignoramus crap.

Yeah, later. Take care, Ira. :)
Dingbone
Jun 18, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Jun 18, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Jun 19, 2017
The analogy is only good to a point. There is no "drain" happening. Only gravitational "excitation"

Dingbone
Jun 19, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Jun 19, 2017
black hole jets in form of dark matter
This is meaningless in terms of real observations. No one has ever proposed that strong gravity objects "emit" "dark matter" "as jets."

Strawman detected. Meteor shields engaged. Romulans detected. Raise deflector shields and arm photon torpedoes.
Dingbone
Jun 19, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Jun 19, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Jun 19, 2017
The astronomers already know, that the black holes don't interact with dark matter - so that they cannot swallow it.
And how do they know this?

Please present papers that support your assertion. Please do not link weird science sites using non-peer-reviewed claims that cannot stand up to rigorous analysis.
Dingbone
Jun 19, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Jun 19, 2017
#Dingbat you have failed to present any evidence of dark matter or for that matter dark energy being involved. You are speculating and proposing that your speculations are fact. This is a basic fault and the reason I don't generally choose to respond to your maundering disorganized speculations.
Dingbone
Jun 19, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Jun 19, 2017
Your speculations deny observed fact, @Dingbat. I see no reason to give them creedence. At least try to stick to reality. We do after all have telescopes. You might want to pay attention to what they tell us. Just sayin'.

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.