Early black holes may have grown in fits and spurts

June 1, 2017
Credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/Univ. of Rome/E.Pezzulli et al. Illustration: NASA/CXC/M.Weiss

A long-standing question in astrophysics is: how and when did supermassive black holes appear and grow in the early universe? New research using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) suggests that an answer to this question lies with the intermittent way giant black holes may consume material in the first billion years after the Big Bang.

Astronomers have determined the Big Bang occurred about 13.8 billion years ago and have evidence from the SDSS that supermassive with masses of about a billion times that of the sun existed by about 12.8 billion years ago. This implies that supermassive black holes grew rapidly in the first billion years after the Big Bang. Yet, scientists have struggled to find signs of these growing giant black holes.

"Supermassive black holes are not spontaneously born—they need to ingest vast amounts of material and that takes time," said lead author Edwige Pezzulli, PhD student of the University of Rome in Italy and member of the project "FIRST", funded by the European Research Council. "We are trying to figure out how they have done this without giving off many telltale signs of this growth."

When material is falling toward a black hole, it becomes heated, and produces large amounts of electromagnetic radiation, including copious X-ray emission. Rapidly growing black holes in the very early Universe should be detectable with Chandra. However, these growing supermassive black holes have proved to be elusive, with only a few, yet to be confirmed candidates found in very long Chandra observations such as the Chandra Deep Field-South, the deepest X-ray image ever taken.

To address this conundrum, Pezzulli and her colleagues examined different theoretical models and tested them against optical data from the SDSS and X-ray data from Chandra. Their findings indicate that black hole feeding during this era may turn on abruptly and last for short periods of time, which means this growth may be difficult to spot.

"In our model only about a third of black holes were actively consuming material and growing 13 billion years ago" said co-author Rosa Valiante of the National Institute for Astrophysics (INAF) in Italy and member of the FIRST team. "About 200 million years earlier only 3% of the black holes were actively eating. Timing, it appears, may be everything."

The researchers reached their conclusions after testing multiple hypotheses, all of which assumed that the black hole growth could exceed the so-called Eddington limit, where the outward pressure of radiation from the hot gas balances the inward pull of the gravity of the black hole.

The authors' results argued against the possibility that only a small fraction of galaxies during the first billion years after the Big Bang contain . Also, although these early black holes were likely obscured by thick clouds of material, the authors found that most of the X-rays would have been able to penetrate these clouds.

The study is based on the idea that when they were born, the first black holes weighed only about a hundred suns. "These "light" black holes seeds could be the remnants of the first generation of massive stars formed only a few hundred million years after the Big Bang" said co-author Maria Orofino, PhD student of the Scuola Normale Superiore in Italy.

The researchers, a team of female scientists, including Simona Gallerani of Scuola Normale Superiore in Pisa and Tullia Sbarrato of Bicocca University of Milan, in Italy, found that black holes can bulk up so much in their relatively rare bursts of intense growth that light seeds can reach a billion times the mass of the Sun when the universe is only a billion years old.

"In order to know if we are ultimately correct, we will need to look at larger swaths of the sky in X-rays to see if we can find the early, feasting black holes that our models have predicted," said Raffaella Schneider, of Sapienza University in Italy and leader of the ERC project FIRST. "Our results certainly show promise."

Explore further: Hubble finds clues to the birth of supermassive black holes

More information: Edwige Pezzulli et al. Faint progenitors of luminous ∼ 6 quasars: Why do not we see them?, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (2017). DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stw3243 , https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.04188

Related Stories

Hubble finds clues to the birth of supermassive black holes

May 24, 2016

Astrophysicists have taken a major step forward in understanding how supermassive black holes formed. Using data from Hubble and two other space telescopes, Italian researchers have found the best evidence yet for the seeds ...

Astronomers pursue renegade supermassive black hole

May 11, 2017

Supermassive holes are generally stationary objects, sitting at the centers of most galaxies. However, using data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and other telescopes, astronomers recently hunted down what could be ...

Oxymoronic black hole RGG 118 provides clues to growth

August 12, 2015

Astronomers using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and the 6.5-meter Clay Telescope in Chile have identified the smallest supermassive black hole ever detected in the center of a galaxy, as described in our latest press release. ...

Deepest X-ray image ever reveals black hole treasure trove

January 5, 2017

An unparalleled image from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory is giving an international team of astronomers the best look yet at the growth of black holes over billions of years beginning soon after the Big Bang. This is the ...

Breaking the supermassive black hole speed limit

March 21, 2017

A new computer simulation helps explain the existence of puzzling supermassive black holes observed in the early universe. The simulation is based on a computer code used to understand the coupling of radiation and certain ...

Recommended for you

Mars rover Opportunity on walkabout near rim

June 23, 2017

NASA's senior Mars rover, Opportunity, is examining rocks at the edge of Endeavour Crater for signs that they may have been either transported by a flood or eroded in place by wind.

CHESS mission will check out the space between stars

June 23, 2017

Deep in space between distant stars, space is not empty. Instead, there drifts vast clouds of neutral atoms and molecules, as well as charged plasma particles called the interstellar medium—that may, over millions of years, ...

Dutch astronomers discover recipe to make cosmic glycerol

June 23, 2017

A team of laboratory astrophysicists from Leiden University (the Netherlands) managed to make glycerol under conditions comparable to those in dark interstellar clouds. They allowed carbon monoxide ice to react with hydrogen ...

Scientists uncover origins of the Sun's swirling spicules

June 22, 2017

At any given moment, as many as 10 million wild jets of solar material burst from the sun's surface. They erupt as fast as 60 miles per second, and can reach lengths of 6,000 miles before collapsing. These are spicules, and ...

38 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

wduckss
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 01, 2017
"Astronomers have determined the Big Bang occurred about 13.8 billion years ago" from article

Evidence versus obsolete hypotheses.
http://www.svemir...g-theory
Dingbone
2.7 / 5 (12) Jun 01, 2017
the idea that when they were born, the first black holes weighed only about a hundred suns. "These "light" black holes seeds could be the remnants of the first generation of massive stars formed only a few hundred million years after the Big Bang"
According to Big Bang theory the matter has been formed in sparse state diluted with inflation. The occasional formation of first stars from such a matter would require way more time than the few hundred million years. The physicists just refuse to admit, that the Hubble red shift is the result of scattering of light with quantum fluctuations of vacuum and it's not directly related to any physical history of our Universe.
Tuxford
2.1 / 5 (11) Jun 01, 2017
This implies that supermassive black holes grew rapidly in the first billion years after the Big Bang. Yet, scientists have struggled to find signs of these growing giant black holes.

Yep, they just keep pounding away. Eventually that square peg will fit the round hole. Merger Maniacs are indeed, maniacs. Kinda sounds like the definition of crazy, refusing to consider an alternative.
Hat1208
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 01, 2017
Three EU apostles respond and I have them all on ignore. I love it when a plan comes together.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Jun 01, 2017
@Hat1208.
Three EU apostles respond and I have them all on ignore. I love it when a plan comes together.
Just out of curiosity, mate, can you point out these "Three EU apostles" which you claim have responded above? I am intrigued by your claim because I know that @Dingbone at least is not a "EU" guy as far as I have seen from his posts. And as far as @wduckss is concerned, I didn't see any "EU" related comment from him either. So can you clarify your above statement, Hat1208? Thanks.

PS: And before you are tempted to include me in your "EU" listing, DON'T: because I am not a "EU" guy either. Thanks. :)
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 01, 2017
An interesting hypothesis, and eminently testable. We'll have to wait for more and deeper X-ray astronomy to find out.

@Hat and that makes four. Your plan is still working. ;)
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 01, 2017
@Da Schneib.
DS, you just confirmed for the forum that you also don't read posts before you opine. So you only compound @Hat1208's "plan" is not very well thought out or tested. Why do this sort of thing, DS? You should be using your time/intellect for better than just trolling/insulting. Go over to thread...

https://phys.org/...les.html

...and actually do something useful with your time/intellect, by doing/posting some calculations which actually supports the latest "grav-wave signal from 3 Billion lightyears away" claim by LHC. Thanks. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (9) Jun 02, 2017
@Da Schneib.
DS, you just confirmed for the forum that you also don't read posts before you opine. So you only compound @Hat1208's "plan" is not very well thought out or tested. Why do this sort of thing, DS? You should be using your time/intellect for better than just trolling/insulting. Go over to thread...

https://phys.org/...les.html

...and actually do something useful with your time/intellect, by doing/posting some calculations which actually supports the latest "grav-wave signal from 3 Billion lightyears away" claim by LHC. Thanks. :)

Like you do(n't)?
I've yet to see a "calculation" from you.
Oh - and "/"s don't count...
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 02, 2017
I can't imagine being interested in any comment a proven pathological liar makes. There's simply no point to it. If you try to argue with them they just lie, as egregiously as necessary to "prove" whatever lie they already told. I don't care to waste my time on it; I've got far better things to do.

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
Hat1208
5 / 5 (7) Jun 02, 2017
@DaSchneib

You are spot on mate. It is now four. I have tried to read RC's posts for years and would as Cap'n suggests use the MIT website to educate myself as to what he could have possibly be trying to intimate through his use of the comments section of a web blog to no avail. It is always I'm right because I say I'm right and every person should be thankful that he has taken the time and effort to elucidate.

Thanks to yourself and AA and Cap'n and Ira, Whyde for the effort.
Steelwolf
1 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2017
I can imagine the orbiting traffic signs about black holes:

Warning, Singularity Ahead No Outlet, No U-Turn, No Exit Ever.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2017
@Whyde.
Like you do(n't)?
I've yet to see a "calculation" from you.
Why troll like that, Whyde? I had you pegged as someone who is more objective and not 'in denial' of reality like those others who attack the messenger while being incorrect themselves are. And what's the good of 'calculations' based on WRONG assumptions/interpretations due to UNREAL 'models' and 'hypotheses', Whyde? They only produce GIGO (a la Bicep2, remember?).

Which is why I just asked those who MAKE/ACCEPT this latest LIGO 'detection' claim to produce the maths in support of said claims.

So why make it about me again, Whyde?

Why haven't you ALSO asked to see THEIR maths in support of the LIGO claim outlined above. Is it because NO maths has been done to actually check to see if the quadrupolar components of 'grav-waves' CAN EFFsurvive a 3 Billion lightyear transit through (either) Non-expanding/Expanding universe?

Don't 'just believe' claims without actually checking (a la Bicep2), Whyde! :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2017
@Forum.

Note Da Schneib, Hat1208, et al, always attack others, demanding they 'prove/support' THEIR claims; but whenever the same standards/demands are applied to DS/Hat, et al, they pretend it's not a fair request for them to do likewise!

Moreover, notice they immediately start 'troll-to-troll conversation', disparaging/lying re person/messenger, in attempt to EVADE perfectly valid scientific scrutiny/request re supporting THEIR acceptance of LIGO 'detection' claim.

How double-standard, dishonest and LAME troll-tactic is that, folks!

So, again...

@DS, @Hat1208, et al-------I ask you/anyone again:

Where is the maths calculations which show that such 'grav-wave' effectiveness (as for claimed LIGO 'detection') can ACTUALLY 'survive and arrive' HERE in sufficient 'effective strength' to be discerned above 'noise' from closer myriad 'grav-wave' sources/motions which would be stronger signals than those travelled 3 BILLION LIGHTYEARS via non-expanding/expanding space? :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2017
My recommendation is that everyone ignore @RC and never, ever respond or mention its existence. It does not need to be amputated; it will eventually turn dark, wither away, shrivel up, die, and fall off.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2017
@ Forum-Skippys&Skippettes.

Note Really-Skippy is starting to talk to him self because nobody else will talk to him? Well maybe you don't note it because of the service I provide to humans and scientists. Just set your karma slider to 2.5 (or 3 in case one of the crankpots is giving him extra karma points) and you won't ever have to note him again.
Uncle Ira
4.8 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2017
My recommendation is that everyone ignore @RC and never, ever respond or mention its existence. It does not need to be amputated; it will eventually turn dark, wither away, shrivel up, die, and fall off.


@ DaSchneib-Skippy. How you are? I am as good as anybody can be without feeling guilty. Cher that is a wonderful idea you have there. Because I know he hates it, I'm in.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2017
@Forum.

@Da Schneib just posted this:
My recommendation is that everyone ignore @RC and never, ever respond or mention its existence. It does not need to be amputated; it will eventually turn dark, wither away, shrivel up, die, and fall off.
And there you have it, folks! The 'chant of the hypocritical dodger of fair, valid scientific scrutiny. That is the last resort of the scoundrel, folks! To urge unfair tactics against his interlocutor, just because DS cannot support his claims/acceptance of LIGO claims! Now you know why he spams lies, half-truths about the person instead of actually facing reality, fairly answering challenges to his arrogant but ignorant pretense he 'knows' what's what. He just trolls, attacks and evades when cornered; because he and his bot-voting ignoramus (cue @Uncle Ira) liars and scientific incompetent 'mates' support each others' TRASHING of all the good ethics of science and humanity principles of objectivity and fair play. They're sad cases.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2017
Hey, @Ira, after they shipped the big magnet for the muon experiment up the Ten-Tom I was thinking of you, but you prolly operate southwest of that. Hope every little thing on your pirogue is goin' fine!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
From Da Schneib: My recommendation is that everyone ignore @RC and never, ever respond or mention its existence. It does not need to be amputated; it will eventually turn dark, wither away, shrivel up, die, and fall off.
@ DaSchneib-Skippy.....Cher that is a wonderful idea you have there. Because I know he hates it, I'm in.
No skin off my nose if you 'ignore' me. :) That's what's been you/his/their modus operandi for some time now. And that modus operandi was responsible for you/their 'losing face', 'damaged egos' in your BICEP2 fiasco! When you ignored/attacked me instead of taking note and learning scientific objectivity. How you bot-voting ignoramuses can 'congratulate' each other with '5' for being so patently anti-science, and so blatantly biased while being so EASILY DUPED by false claims which were so obviously false to me all along, is a major phychology study/thesis waiting to be done by anyone intrigued by 'bot-voting ignoramus syndrome'!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2017
@Forum.
From @Da Schneib to @Uncle Ira: Hey, @Ira, after they shipped the big magnet for the muon experiment up the Ten-Tom I was thinking of you, but you prolly operate southwest of that. Hope every little thing on your pirogue is goin' fine!
There it goes again, folks. More irrelevant/evasive tactics in the form of all too obvious and lame 'bot-voting ignoramus trolls chit-chat' trying to pretend that they have anything to offer PO discussions other than trolling and personal ego-tripping malignant poison which sabotages the science discourse for their own anti-science agendas. Not a pretty sight, is it folks, that such unconscionable wastes of space and time can be so insensible to their own hypocrisy, malice and ignorance that they STILL have NOT LEARNED their lesson from their BICEP2 fiasco. Too bad and too insensible with it. Pity them, folks.
Da Schneib
4.8 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2017
@RC, old wisdom says cheaters never prosper.

You should learn from old wisdom. But you're not smart enough.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2017
Hey, @Ira, after they shipped the big magnet for the muon experiment up the Ten-Tom I was thinking of you, but you prolly operate southwest of that. Hope every little thing on your pirogue is goin' fine!


Yeah, our run is just the lower Mississippi. Out tows would not fit on the Ten-Tom because our tows are anywhere from 36 (5 x 7 or 6 x 6) to 42 (6 x 7) barges (over a 1000 foot not counting the towboat). We work a line-haul from just above St Louis to just below New Orleans. But I would like to traverse him once just for the seeing it.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2017
@Ira, just whuppin' up some jambalaya wit' deh garlic n artichoke snausages we got in dese parts. Prolly pretty mild for your palate, but good stuff for over here on deh Lef' Coast. I'se be addin' deh Pepper Plant sauce to mak' her deh bomb.

I'se be startin' wit' deh Kunamotos an' deh garlic horseradish. I t'ink you like her.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, old wisdom says cheaters never prosper.

You should learn from old wisdom. But you're not smart enough.
What happened to 'ignoring me', mate? More lying and hypocrisy from you, hey. Anyway, you're not only in denial but also lying to yourself and others when you cast me as the 'cheater', DS. Because you/your ego cannot bring yourself to admit/realize that mainstream is confirming ME correct all along on many scientific insights/issues which YOU were arrogantly and ignorantly attacking me for all these years. You are the one needing to learn wisdom, DS....but there is now diminishing chance of that since your ego will not easily let you admit just how wrong on the science and how maliciously 'personal' you have been all along where I am concerned. Never mind, DS; whatever your 'motivation' for being such a loser bot-voting ignoramus supporter for your own ends, it will all be over soon enough. Despite all, DS, no hard feelings personally. Take care. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2017
Fo' deh appatizah, I'se habin deh @RealitySchmuck wit' deh habaneros; amazin' how he squirm, him.

@Ira I'm runnin out of Deep South idiom; take it as respect, my friend. I hope you're eating as well as I am!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2017
@Forum.
From Uncle Ira to Da Schneib:Yeah, our run is just the lower Mississippi. Out tows would not fit on the Ten-Tom because our tows are anywhere from 36 (5 x 7 or 6 x 6) to 42 (6 x 7) barges (over a 1000 foot not counting the towboat). We work a line-haul from just above St Louis to just below New Orleans. But I would like to traverse him once just for the seeing it.
From Da Schneib to Uncle Ira: @Ira, just whuppin' up some jambalaya wit' deh garlic n artichoke snausages we got in dese parts. Prolly pretty mild for your palate, but good stuff for over here on deh Lef' Coast. I'se be addin' deh Pepper Plant sauce to mak' her deh bomb. I'se be startin' wit' deh Kunamotos an' deh garlic horseradish. I t'ink you like her.
And there you have it folks, the highest level of 'scientific discourse' presented on PO by driveling 'chit-chat trolls' evading scientific scrutiny of their 'just believe' LIGO 'detection' claims which have yet no maths to back them up. Sad.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Fo' deh appatizah, I'se habin deh @RealitySchmuck wit' deh habaneros; amazin' how he squirm, him.

@Ira I'm runnin out of Deep South idiom; take it as respect, my friend. I hope you're eating as well as I am!
No, DS, what you are REALLY "runnin out' of is lame distraction tactics while evading YOUR responsibility to produce the maths as requested earlier. You were ever eager to produce maths/equations to Benni when it suited your 'tactics' against him, but NOW are too 'shy' to do so when it really counts in the issue of latest claimed LIGO 'detection'. DS, the forum has enough 'bot-voting cajun drivel to last for many years, what we need from you now is actual supporting maths for what you 'believe' re latest LIGO 'detection' claim. If you can't produce that maths in support as required by scientific scrutiny, you will again be 'just believing' like in BICEP2 fiasco....and you know where that sort of hypocritical non-objective 'method' led you then! :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2017
I don' be t'inkin' deh @RealitySchmuck habin' deh bon temps, cher. Mo' likin' deh temps mal, him.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (5) Jun 02, 2017
I don' be t'inkin' deh @RealitySchmuck habin' deh bon temps, cher. Mo' likin' deh temps mal, him.


Non, he is just the garden variety couyon. I have never seen him having a good day as long as I know him.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2017
@Da Schneib.
I don' be t'inkin' deh @RealitySchmuck habin' deh bon temps, cher. Mo' likin' deh temps mal, him.
The forum can almost 'smell' your desperation now, @Da Schneib. Why else would you be engaging in 'conversation' with a bot-voting ignoramus 'cajun' who just AGAIN ADMITTED he is GAMING the PO ratings system in order to "help you" AVOID proper scientific scrutiny from me (and others UI 'targets'). How can you ever hold up your face to public scrutiny while blatantly enabling/exploiting such a weak-minded simpleton who goes on the internet to intentionally game/skew the ratings metrics on a science site, DS? If you were any sort of objective, honest scientist/poster you would DEPLORE such @Uncle Ira metrics skewing/gaming, especially on a science site! So, DS, whatever you now try on as 'tactics', the STIGMA of your HYPOCRISY, DISHONESTY and MALICE (in exploiting/condoning and "respecting" the @Uncle Ira bot-voting ignoramus) is NOW INDELIBLE. Such a Pity.
yep
1 / 5 (3) Jun 03, 2017
Schneib is just mad he is not the brightest pupil in his elementary school anymore even though he memorized everything they taught him, so he has a chip on his shoulder because times change.
Hat is another consensus stooge and his faith in the impossible is so strong in this non falsifiable belief system it puts religious zealots to shame. So he attacks what he is unable to comprehend.
The most amazing thing is how much our concepts of what a black hole is and how it has changed over the years that it is still called a black hole. I guess that is a natural result of believing in miracles because authority told you it was true.
Dingbone
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 03, 2017
Three EU apostles respond and I have them all on ignore
Why just the EU apostles would oppose the idea, promoted with European scientists, funded by the European Research Council? Such an attempt for politicization of solely technical problem doesn't work even at the rudimentary logical level.
Dingbone
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 03, 2017
The steady state Universe model can be indeed argued in many ways, but try to think about this: when you come to black hole, then the space-time will expand with distance from you in similar way, like we observe in our Universe. This similarity isn't accidental: the FLRW metric describing the inflationary Big Bang model is just inverted Schwarzchild metric, which is describing the simplistic case of black hole. But this object is perfectly stationary, nothing actually expands there - so from where the scientists got the idea, that such trend has something to do with Universe history? It doesn't work so even at the trivial logical level.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2017
@Whyde.
Like you do(n't)?
I've yet to see a "calculation" from you.

...
So why make it about me again, Whyde?

...

I didn't - you did.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jun 06, 2017
@Whyde.
@Whyde.
Like you do(n't)?
I've yet to see a "calculation" from you.

...
So why make it about me again, Whyde?

...

I didn't - you did.
Let's see.

1) I asked DS not to troll/insult, and instead to provide/link certain calculations for supporting HIS tacit 'acceptance' of the assumption that gravitational waves quadrupole components, spreading/attenuation over space travel for 3 billion years in non-expanding or expanding spacetime, can 'survive' in sufficient effective strength to be discernible via LIGO despite closer grav-wave sources/noise and/or Quantum vacuum fluctuations noise.

2) Then I got trolled and insulted while the usual 'gang' proceed to evade the question of supporting their beliefs/assumptions re above LIGO 'detection' claims.

Pk, Whyde, please show where I was the one who 'made it about me', and not the trollers/insulters/evader who did in order to distract from the point in question. Thanks. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jun 06, 2017
I asked DS not to troll/insult, and instead to provide/link certain calculations for supporting HIS tacit 'acceptance' of the assumption that gravitational waves ...to be discernible via LIGO despite closer closer grav-wave sources/noise and/or Quantum vacuum fluctuations noise.

Well, let's see...
From your 2nd post;
@Da Schneib.
DS, you just confirmed for the forum that you also don't read posts before you opine. So you only compound @Hat1208's "plan" is not very well thought out or tested. Why do this sort of thing, DS? You should be using your time/intellect for better than just trolling/insulting. Go over to thread...
"..."
...and actually do something useful with your time/intellect, by doing/posting some calculations which actually supports the latest "grav-wave signal from 3 Billion lightyears away" claim by LHC.

It doesn't appear you did anything but whine and insult.
(Just my objective perspective...)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jun 06, 2017
@Whyde.
Just my objective perspective
Let's see.

1) Hat1208 makes totally unwarranted claim, trolling/insulting/baiting etc.

2) I ask Hat1208 to point out those he is referring to that he claims posted.

3)Hat1208 cannot; so confirming his post was just trolling/insulting and mistaken in fact as well.

4) Da Schneib doesn't realize what is going on (as usual) before he pipes up with his own contribution/support for the original trolling/insulting post by Hat1208; ie, DS posted immediately after my post requesting clarification from Hat1208, DS making mistaken/lying troll allusion to me as 'fourth' etc, to wit:
@Hat and that makes four. Your plan is still working. ;)
So, Whyde, how is requesting clarification and asking for posters not to troll/insult so unconscionably, be construed as "whining" by your (self-alleged) "objective perspective"?

Apparently, your (self-alleged) "objective perspective" doesn't apply to troll/insult posts from your 'mates'? :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jun 06, 2017
PS @Whyde.

So, mate, are you now prepared to actually BE "objective" and ask DS et al for their calculations in that gravity-waves thread which I asked for if they insist on accepting the LIGO 'detection' claim? Or does your "objective perspective" not see the hypocrisy and double standards in DS et al demanding equations/calculations from Benni, but now being all shy and reticent/unable themselves to to what they demand of others when it suits them? Or does your "objective perspective" have an "on-off switch" which you set to "off" when you want to be biased in favor of your 'mates'? It seems so, Whyde. Anyhow, you will note that they have effectively buried the discussion/request and not provided what was asked. Does not "objective perspective" have to conclude that they cannot support the LIGO 'detection' claim if they cannot provide the necessary supporting calculations asked for? Or is your "objective perspective" still on "OFF" setting for your 'mates', Whyde. :)

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.