Supersonic gas streams left over from the Big Bang drive massive black hole formation

September 28, 2017, Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe
Projected density distributions of dark matter (background and top panel) and gas (bottom three panels) components when the massive star forms. The stellar cradle is extremely assymmetry as a wide wedge-shaped structure (middle panel) due to the initial supersonic gas motions left over from the Big Bang. The circle in the right panel indicates the gravitationally unstable region with mass of 26,000 solar-masses. Credit: Shingo Hirano

An international team of researchers has successfully used a supercomputer simulation to recreate the formation of a massive black hole from supersonic gas streams left over from the Big Bang. Their study, published in this week's Science, shows this black hole could be the source of the birth and development of the largest and oldest super-massive black holes recorded in our universe.

"This is significant progress. The origin of the monstrous has been a long-standing mystery and now we have a solution to it," said author and Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the universe (Kavli IPMU) principal investigator Naoki Yoshida.

Recent discoveries of these located 13 billion light years away, corresponding to when the universe was just five per cent of its present age, pose a serious challenge to the theory of black hole formation and evolution. The physical mechanisms that form black holes and drive their growth are poorly understood.

Time evolution of the projected density distributions of dark matter (left panel) and gas (right panel) components from redshift z = 90 to 30.5 when the massive star forms. Because of the initial supersonic gas motions left over from the Big Bang, the large-scale density structure of gas component is out of dark matter's and cannot be collected at the bottom of the dark matter gravitational potential. The rapid gas condensation is firstly triggered in a proto-galactic halo. Credit: Shingo Hirano

Theoretical studies have suggested these black holes formed from remnants of the first generation of stars, or from a direct gravitational collapse of a massive primordial gas cloud. However, these theories either have difficulty in forming super-massive black holes fast enough, or require very particular conditions.

Yoshida and JSPS Overseas Research Fellow Shingo Hirano, currently at the University of Texas at Austin, identified a promising physical process through which a could form fast enough. The key was incorporating the effect of supersonic gas motions with respect to dark matter. The team's supercomputer simulations showed a massive clump of dark matter had formed when the universe was 100 million years old. Supersonic gas streams generated by the Big Bang were caught by dark matter to form a dense, turbulent gas cloud. Inside, a protostar started to form, and because the surrounding gas provided more than enough material for it to feed on, the star was able to grow extremely large in a short amount of time without releasing a lot of radiation.

Supersonic gas streams left over from the Big Bang drive massive black hole formation
The gas density distribution around the new-born protostar. The left-to-right supersonic gas motion results in the non-spherical, compressed density structure. The collapsed inner cloud also shows the turbulated object, which can rapidly accrete onto the central protostar and cause a fast mass growth of it. Credit: Shingo Hirano

"Once reaching the mass of 34,000 times that of our sun, the star collapsed by its own gravity, leaving a massive black hole. These massive black holes born in the early universe continued to grow and merge together to become a ," said Yoshida.

"The number density of massive black holes is derived to be approximately one per a volume of three billion light-years on a side—remarkably close to the observed number density of supermassive black holes," said Hirano.

The evolution of the temperature and density structure in the protostellar accretion phase after the protostar formation. The rapid accretion of dense gas cloud (white contour) constricts an expansion of the photoionized region (red) which is possible to shut off the gas accretion. Credit: Takashi Hosokawa

The result from this study will be important for future research into the growth of massive black holes. Especially with the increased number of black hole observations in the far that are expected to be made when NASA's James Webb Space Telescope is launched next year.

This research was published in Science on September 28.

Explore further: How much of the universe is black holes?

More information: S. Hirano el al., "Supersonic gas streams enhance the formation of massive black holes in the early universe," Science (2017). science.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi … 1126/science.aai9119

Related Stories

How much of the universe is black holes?

June 17, 2014

We all fear black holes, but how many of them are there out there, really? Between the stellar mass black holes and the supermassive ones, just how much of our Universe is black holes?

New way to form close double black holes

June 27, 2017

A team of three Dutch astronomers from the University of Amsterdam and Leiden University found a new way to form two black holes that orbit each other for quite a while and then merge. Their publication with computer simulations ...

How massive can black holes get?

August 11, 2015

Without the light pressure from nuclear fusion to hold back the mass of the star, the outer layers compress inward in an instant. The star dies, exploding violently as a supernova.

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 ...

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. ...

Recommended for you

HESS J1943+213 is an extreme blazar, study finds

June 21, 2018

An international group of astronomers have carried out multi-wavelength observations of HESS J1943+213 and found evidence supporting the hypothesis that this gamma-ray source is an extreme blazar. The finding is reported ...

64 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

wduckss
1 / 5 (7) Sep 28, 2017
https://www.ijser...eory.pdf
"If the official science claims, "The universe is spreading", then there should be a small universe (with a small diameter) 300-400 thousand years after the so-called Big Bang, and a big universe, in which "...the most distant objects in the universe are the galaxies GN-z11 13,39 bn ly ..
Then, these two universes in the picture should be placed in such a way they could meet the need for the light from the edges of universe to be the light from the small universe inside the present-day universe (since it is claimed the universe is expanding). Our Earth can be placed in any place of the big universe."
Chris_Reeve
Sep 28, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (10) Sep 28, 2017
@bschott, @wduckss, @Chris_Reeve.

The obvious question: If the latest version (in Standard Model) of that Hypothesized Big Bang was an expansion-Inflation etc OF space, and NOT an explosion IN space, then HOW did their above-simulated/hypothesized "supersonic gas streams left over from the Big Bang" arise?

The above article's "international team of researchers' are being 'hacks'; riding along with discredited BigBang/DM etc fantasies; in order to 'fit' their unphysical 'simulations' into the same 'peer review' biases that for DECADES ensured passing/publication/funding for now-falsified Big Bang CRAP. This 'team' (like the 'hack' Bicep2 'team' before them) is just going through the motions and hoping to get away with it. Their trouble is that there have been so many BB 'reality-inconsistent versions', necessitating so many 'ad hoc fixes', that they obviously have 'lost the plot(s) altogether' and are finding it impossible to even get their CURRENT BB story' straight!
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2017
Wow! This is a big deal. This is the first time someone has come up with an explanation that accounts for early formation of supermassive black holes from basic physics theory. Now what we need is a testable prediction so we can check it. And the JWST will be up shortly, and then comes the testing. We could have an explanation by 2020 if we're lucky. This will be very important going forward with astrophysics.

Congratulations to Hirano, Hosokawa, Yoshida, and Kuiper on very nice work.
RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (10) Sep 28, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Wow! This is a big deal. This is the first time someone has come up with an explanation that accounts for early formation of supermassive black holes from basic physics theory. Now what we need is a testable prediction so we can check it. And the JWST will be up shortly, and then comes the testing. We could have an explanation by 2020 if we're lucky. This will be very important going forward with astrophysics.

Congratulations to Hirano, Hosokawa, Yoshida, and Kuiper on very nice work.
Careful, mate; I advise more critical objective consideration, of the many inconsistencies and assumptions involved, before getting over-excited /mesmerized by obviously many-flawed 'hack work/claims'.

I remind you of the Bicep2 case; where many got overexcited and failed to see the OBVIOUS flaws in both their assumptions and their 'exercise'.

I suggest you read my post above addressed to @bschott etc.

Consider implications of hypothesized 'big bang' OF SPACE.

Cheers. :)
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2017
@RC, data trumps speculation. Always. Every single time. BICEP2 is a perfect example of this, and the fact you keep whining about it without ever acknowledging that they found their error and admitted it themselves makes you a #physicscrank.

I advise you leaven your speculations with real data. Without that everything you say is BS, and if you have the courage to admit it I won't post your lies any more. On the other hand, if you keep ignoring data, be prepared for me to post your lies again.

Your call. Ante up or be kicked out of the game. Again as ever was.
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2017

@Da Schneib.
@RC, data trumps speculation. Always. Every single time. BICEP2 is a perfect example of this, and the fact you keep whining about it without ever acknowledging that they found their error and admitted it themselves makes you a #physicscrank.

I advise you leaven your speculations with real data. Without that everything you say is BS, and if you have the courage to admit it I won't post your lies any more. On the other hand, if you keep ignoring data, be prepared for me to post your lies again.

Your call. Ante up or be kicked out of the game. Again as ever was.
See? It's just that sort of blinkered/egotistical ignoring of the obvious flaws that makes your commentary worse than useless and outright silly.

What "data" are you alluding to, DS? The above 'work' is a simulation exercise programmed with assumptions dependent on Big Bang contextual pre-determined starting point.

Can't you let go of your biases/ego long enough to see that, mate? Try. :)
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2017
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
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (10) Sep 28, 2017
Thread where @RC claims his "non math" approach is both abstract and non-abstract, and both is and is not math: https://phys.org/...ure.html
Thread where @RC lies about how long it takes a shockwave to move through a giant molecular cloud: https://phys.org/...cal.html
Thread where @RC lies fifteen times in ten posts and still can't stop, even when told he's being baited into lying: https://phys.org/...h_1.html

This @RC guy lies so much the lies won't even fit in one post.

Pitiful.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2017
@Da Schneib.

Tch, tch, DS; you're spamming again to distract from your mounting errors of bias and lack of comprehension of the implications which the hypothesized expansion OF space has for the above claims re "supersonic streams of gas" arising from alleged big bang expansion OF space. Mate, stop your usual tactics to deny and evade, and just spend your efforts on actual understanding/facing of the reality situation involved. How can you possibly garner any meaningful comprehension if all your efforts subsist of ego-tripping and concocting your own reality? Your spamming is no substitute for actual honest engagement and consideration of actual points raised. So, DS, have you stopped to consider the implications of 'expansion OF space' insofar as their claims of supersonic streams supposedly left over from Big Bang are concerned? If you can't explain that then it's all just BB-biased conjecture which tries to 'fix' all the already-falsified BB/DM etc crap.

Try, mate. :)
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2017
@RC, you've been caught lying so many times you can't even keep track. There is no point in talking to you; if you're disagreed with you just make up another lie. It's pointless, and your own disgusting behavior makes it so. It's one thing to be stupid; it's another to be stupid and a liar. You've made your bed now lie in it.
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2017
@bschott, @wduckss, @Chris_Reeve.

The obvious question: If the latest version (in Standard Model) of that Hypothesized Big Bang was an expansion-Inflation etc OF space, and NOT an explosion IN space, then HOW did their above-simulated/hypothesized "supersonic gas streams left over from the Big Bang" arise?

Well, if SPACE expanded (rapidly) it most assuredly would create a variety of fluctuations in any matter that might be a part of it...
As to the 2nd part of your post -
NO one is sure of BB. it is speculative. A "best guess", derived from where the data appears to point, so far.
I'm waitin' on some real observations from JWT, to refine my "UniverseView"...
In the meantime, where is your "science civil discourse" parlance when you call other researchers "Hacks"?

RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, you've been caught lying so many times you can't even keep track. There is no point in talking to you; if you're disagreed with you just make up another lie. It's pointless, and your own disgusting behavior makes it so. It's one thing to be stupid; it's another to be stupid and a liar. You've made your bed now lie in it.
Your credibility is in tatters, DS; even @Whyde is more honest and comprehending than you so far; he at least attempts to address the question/point raised in my observations on the above article's assumptions/claims. All you have done is kneejerk, deny and evade while spamming irrelevant half-truths which attempt to hide your own errors therein. Not good, mate! Try. :)
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2017
@Whyde.

First I will note, Whyde, that you have engaged honestly with the raised question/point; while DS has not, defaulting instead to spam and evasions tactic. You are by far the better man/scientist of you two, Whyde. Kudos.

Re your response/points, in respective order:
Well, if SPACE expanded (rapidly) it most assuredly would create a variety of fluctuations in any matter that might be a part of it.
But there has been no space-to-matter coupling mechanism provided/explained that would cause any 'primordial' dispersed EM-Gas and/or alleged non-EM-DM to either clump/stream (because BB expansion/inflation allegedly 'happened everywhere at once').
NO one is sure of BB. it is speculative. A "best guess", derived from where the data appears to point, so far.
True; because there is NO scientifically tenable 'data interpretation' supporting Big Bang/Inflation (as Penrose/Steinhardt admit).

Hence above teamwork/claims self-identify as 'hack'. Not personal. :)

Whydening Gyre
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 29, 2017
Re your response/points, in respective order:
Well, if SPACE expanded (rapidly) it most assuredly would create a variety of fluctuations in any matter that might be a part of it.
But there has been no space-to-matter coupling mechanism provided/explained that would cause any 'primordial' dispersed EM-Gas and/or alleged non-EM-DM to either clump/stream (because BB expansion/inflation allegedly 'happened everywhere at once').

Er... gravity...? Which more than likely gave rise to momentums a variety of masses have...
...
, because there is NO scientifically tenable 'data interpretation' supporting Big Bang/Inflation (as Penrose/Steinhardt admit).
Hence above teamwork/claims self-identify as 'hack'. Not personal. :)

Subjective perception. Actually, they simply proposed a possibility that MIGHT be tenable - given the rules that govern our Universe. NOT "Hack"
wduckss
1 / 5 (4) Sep 29, 2017
@Whydening Gyre
"Well, if SPACE expanded (rapidly) it most assuredly would create a variety of fluctuations in any matter that might be a part of it..."

Instead "if", please prove that confirms this. I hope it is not
"It goes similar with the devices for measuring background radiation, which estimate the distance from the source to the device, i.e. Earth.
Let's assume it originates from the Big Bang. If a background radiation from 13 billion of years ago travels at the speed of light, while matter at its best travels 10% slower, with taking the same starting place into account – how is it possible for them to meet now? What is the calculation that explains it?"
http://www.ijser.....pdf.pdf
Chris_Reeve
Sep 29, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 29, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Sep 29, 2017
The irony is rich that these plasma ignoramuses require electric currents (supersonic gas streams) to "fuel" their pseudoscientific black holes.
J Doug
1 / 5 (5) Sep 29, 2017
@Whyde.

First I will note, Whyde, that you have engaged honestly with the raised question/point; while DS has not, defaulting instead to spam and evasions tactic. You are by far the better man/scientist of you two, Whyde. Kudos.

Re your response/points, in respective order:
Well, if SPACE expanded (rapidly) it most assuredly would create a variety of fluctuations in any matter that might be a part of it.




How can we ever imagine that this idiot dumb fuck, RealityCheck, could possibly have a clue about this subject when the fool believes that carbon dioxide drives the earth's climate?
Chris_Reeve
Sep 29, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 29, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 29, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 29, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 29, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Sep 29, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 29, 2017
@J Doug.
How can we ever imagine that this idiot dumb fuck, RealityCheck, could possibly have a clue about this subject when the fool believes that carbon dioxide drives the earth's climate?
Hey, J Doug, have you lost your Russian/Trump/GOP/Fossil/Nuclear lobbies Troll Factory spamming/lying job because I pointed out how woefully incompetent and counterproductive your shilling has been so far in the Climate Change threads? Oh, and have you lost your bearings altogether? This is a Cosmology discussion thread, mate. To find your way back to the Cimate Change threads, just look for the blood money 'pieces of silver' you dropped on your way here through the hole in your pocket; 'thirty pieces' in all, Judas.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2017
@Whyde.
Er... gravity...?
They can't have it both/all ways, mate. The latest version of Big Bang fantasy is that the 'spacetime METRIC' that 'banged/inflated/expanded', NOT 'space' per se. So the initial homogeneously dispersed atoms would NOT be 'accelerated' anywhere; they would just have their 'spacetime metric' distances 'extended' between their existing relative locations they were at when the 'bang' supposedly occurred. In that BB hypothesis, no THROUGH SPACE motions occurred until gravity arose long time afterwards due to SLOW accumulation/aggregation of atoms/gas via 'proper motion' THROUGH space.
Subjective perception. Actually, they simply proposed a possibility that MIGHT be tenable - given the rules that govern our Universe. NOT "Hack"
But they assume that 'streaming' THROUGH space was due to DM 'clumping'. Yet NO mechanism to cause alleged Ordinary/Dark 'gas' "streaming/clumping from BB".

Since no BB etc, this is 'publish-or-perish' hack 'work'. :)
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2017
Er... gravity...? Which more than likely gave rise to momentums a variety of masses have

If all of the matter in the universe started in one spot,

I didn't say it did, but since that is your supposition, lets go with it...
name any observed physical mechanism that could manage to separate it.

since we don't know the limits, I suppose enuff heat and pressure, along with centripetal force could possibly build to a point of separation...
You believe in the math that produces a BH,

I believe I can see how a BH is possible. Not necessarily in the math. However it is a pretty good representative descriptor of things, so far...
how did all of the mass in the universe being in the same spot NOT collapse into one?

Maybe it did. And maybe all the universe's matter is what it TOOK to build the heat and pressure and kinetic energy to where it could attract ALL of the Universe's energy to release all that matter back.
That would be 1 BIG bang.
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2017
... a possibility that MIGHT be tenable - given the rules that govern our Universe. NOT "Hack"

But they assume that 'streaming' THROUGH space was due to DM 'clumping'. Yet NO mechanism to cause alleged Ordinary/Dark 'gas' "streaming/clumping from BB".
Since no BB etc, this is 'publish-or-perish' hack 'work'. :)

Let's call DM a Gravitational Anomaly...
With that you can just use - gravitational attraction - as a mechanism.
And they didn't "assume" their mechanism, they postulated it as a possibility...
They are prob'ly very competent (and prob'ly already tenured) scientists, who had an opportunity to let their imaginations out for a - spin...:-)
(I'm imagining the Ferrari flying scene in Ferris Bueler's Day Off...)

RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 30, 2017
@Whyde.
... a possibility that MIGHT be tenable - given the rules that govern our Universe. NOT "Hack"

But they assume that 'streaming' THROUGH space was due to DM 'clumping'. Yet NO mechanism to cause alleged Ordinary/Dark 'gas' "streaming/clumping from BB".
Since no BB etc, this is 'publish-or-perish' hack 'work'. :)

Let's call DM a Gravitational Anomaly...
With that you can just use - gravitational attraction - as a mechanism.
And they didn't "assume" their mechanism, they postulated it as a possibility...
They are prob'ly very competent (and prob'ly already tenured) scientists, who had an opportunity to let their imaginations out for a - spin...:-)
(I'm imagining the Ferrari flying scene in Ferris Bueler's Day Off...)
There never was an 'gravitational anomaly' (just as there never was a Big Bang); it was just naive/simplistic/incorrect interpretation/application of incomplete data/theory. So it's 'hack' crap-----and 'spin'...;-).

Cheers. :)
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Sep 30, 2017
There never was an 'gravitational anomaly' (just as there never was a Big Bang);

So ... you are in the camp that denies a BH's gravitational effect, too?
And... are you saying a 50 parsec diameter chunk of space has the same gravity as a 1km diameter chunk of space?
it was just naive/simplistic/incorrect interpretation/application of incomplete data/theory.

Then you should re-examine your understanding of what a theory is - an idea subject to constant refinement... until such point it defies refinement (falsification) and becomes a law.
Then we inevitably get - lawyers to tell us how to interpret it...
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 01, 2017

Then we inevitably get - lawyers to tell us how to interpret it...
And you know what you call 10,000 lawyers in a black hole.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2017

Then we inevitably get - lawyers to tell us how to interpret it...
And you know what you call 10,000 lawyers in a black hole.

A start...?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Oct 01, 2017
@Whyde.
There never was an 'gravitational anomaly' (just as there never was a Big Bang);
So ... you are in the camp that denies a BH's gravitational effect, too?
And... are you saying a 50 parsec diameter chunk of space has the same gravity as a 1km diameter chunk of space?
You have me mixed up with some other posters, mate!

A Black Hole's gravitational effect gradient/profile is NOT 'an anomaly' at all! It is an 'observable' effect consistent with GR applied to Event Horizon but not beyond; because, as even DS knows, GR therein gives 'unphysical' results (like 'point singularity' at r=0).
it was just naive/simplistic/incorrect interpretation/application of incomplete data/theory.
Then you should re-examine your understanding of what a theory is - an idea subject to constant refinement...
I already know. Do you, Whyde? Penrose/Steinhardt and other professional cosmologists increasingly admit there never was any tenable BB/Inflation 'theory'. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 01, 2017
And there's a lawyer.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2017
@Da Schneib.
And there's a lawyer.
And there's you, DS; an evasive trolling ignoramus whose response to the points made (especially their implications for all these hack BB etc 'exercises/claims') is to evade and insult and troll.

ps: At least @Whyde addressed/discussed the points/implications made; while you dishonestly post evasive trolling/insulting comments blithely ignoring the points/implications and the latest reviews/discoveries I allude to.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Oct 01, 2017
A Black Hole's gravitational effect gradient/profile is NOT 'an anomaly' at all! It is an 'observable' effect consistent with GR applied to Event Horizon but not beyond; because, ... GR therein gives 'unphysical' results (like 'point singularity' at r=0).

Actually, I believe it's Swartzchild math that does that...
Anyway, It's why Einstein called it GENERAL Relativity. it generally works in most cases (not extremes)
it was just naive/simplistic/incorrect interpretation/application of incomplete data/theory.

It was where the observational data pointed, at the time...
... Penrose/Steinhardt and other professional cosmologists increasingly admit there never was any tenable BB/Inflation 'theory'.

Given what we know now... However, do they admit it was flat-out WRONG? Or just not totally right? (more observational refinement required)
Zzzzzzzz
4 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2017
Since I've stopped paying attention to fecal regurgitating delusional fools, I only see two posters here.....
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 02, 2017
@RC, I see no point in argument when my opponent lies. And you've been proven to have lied repeatedly. I can post the links again if you like.
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 02, 2017
Hey, J Doug, have you lost your Russian/Trump/GOP/Fossil/Nuclear lobbies Troll Factory spamming/lying job because I pointed out how woefully incompetent and counterproductive your shilling has been so far in the Climate Change threads? .

It is no wonder that this stupid fuck, RealityCheck, has never heard about Hillary and how she gave the Russians the US nuclear reserves.
"At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 02, 2017
Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton's wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton."
https://www.intel...-russia/

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 02, 2017
@J Doug.

If you are American, please accept my and my fellow Australians' condolences for your and your fellow compatriots' terrible loss overnight. My thoughts and good wishes are especially for the families of the victims of that latest mass shooting tragedy to hit your nation. Good luck to you all.

ps: I don't feel it right to continue our spat for now, JD; as it seems so petty when considering what is happening in reality to all those suffering over there and all over the globe from insane and senseless gun violence and greed for power. Again, good luck to you, mate. Peace.
J Doug
1 / 5 (2) Oct 02, 2017

....reality to all those suffering over there and all over the globe from insane and senseless gun violence and greed for power. Again, good luck to you, mate. Peace.


Your "well wishes" turn into a meaningless bunch of total political bull shit when you come up with this stupid comment:
"from insane and senseless gun violence and greed for power." One evil person with guns is now to be construed by some stupid asshole like you as a reason to indict all who own guns, which you fuckers in Australia probably should not have because of being so fucking stupid, as being potential mass murders like your heroes, Stalin and Mao, who were Socialist, were. In short, RealityCheck, fuck you AND YOUR MEANINGLES "SYMPATHY".
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2017
@J Doug.
....reality to all those suffering over there and all over the globe from insane and senseless gun violence and greed for power. Again, good luck to you, mate. Peace.


Your "well wishes" turn into a meaningless bunch of total political bull shit when you come up with this stupid comment:
"from insane and senseless gun violence and greed for power." One evil person with guns is now to be construed by some stupid asshole like you as a reason to indict all who own guns, which you fuckers in Australia probably should not have because of being so fucking stupid, as being potential mass murders like your heroes, Stalin and Mao, who were Socialist, were. In short, RealityCheck, fuck you AND YOUR MEANINGLES "SYMPATHY".
Again, take it as you will, mate. I will leave your insensitive/insulting rant unanswered so that the readers can make up their own minds as to which of us two is the, as you put it, "stupid asshole". Good luck anyway, JD; you'll need it.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 03, 2017
I see supersonic gas streams being emitted here, but they have nothing to do with astrophysics.

Just sayin'.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2017
@Da Schneib.
I see supersonic gas streams being emitted here, but they have nothing to do with astrophysics.

Just sayin'.
Again your ego is too strong for your intellect, objectivity and manners, DS. Why do you need to make such cheap shot trolling noise like that, instead of addressing the science/logic points raised in article/discussion? Try.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 03, 2017
More supersonic gas streams detected. A Romulan. Raise deflector shields and arm photon torpedoes.

You are being mocked, @RC. I don't see any point in doing anything but mocking you since you see no point in doing anything but lying.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2017
@Da Schneib.
More supersonic gas streams detected. A Romulan. Raise deflector shields and arm photon torpedoes.

You are being mocked, @RC. I don't see any point in doing anything but mocking you since you see no point in doing anything but lying.
Your mocking based on unheeding ego-tripping is even more objectionable (because you should know better!) to science method/discourse than any mocking of you by cantdrive, Benni et al.

Don't you see, DS, that you are being the one mocked BY YOUR OWN WORDS/ACTIONS when trolling and ego-tripping like that while pretending you are any better than they?

Wise up; reduce the ego; stick to the science points/discourse; remain objective/dispassionate; as the scientific method requires. Forget the personal tactics/feuds, DS. Ok? :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Oct 03, 2017
@RC, until you admit you lied and commit to stop lying, and do so for long enough to be credible (which is currently about a year), I will continue to mock you and will not respond except to the most idiotic posts you make with ridicule.

You have earned that.

Meanwhile, let's review @RC's lies:

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
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Oct 03, 2017
[contd]
Thread where @RC claims his "non math" approach is both abstract and non-abstract, and both is and is not math: https://phys.org/...ure.html
Thread where @RC lies about how long it takes a shockwave to move through a giant molecular cloud: https://phys.org/...cal.html
Thread where @RC lies fifteen times in ten posts and still can't stop, even when told he's being baited into lying: https://phys.org/...h_1.html
Thread where @RC lies that defining a black hole is "calling it black." https://phys.org/...ole.html

The last one has been added in the past couple of days. @RC is apparently trying to lie enough times to increase this list to three posts. I'll be here.

You are a bully, @RC, and I'm taking you down.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Oct 03, 2017
BTW, @RC, you should understand that you will not be the first bully I have taken down.

The others all died.

Just so you know. I'm here I'm alive and I'm old. They aren't. I did nothing but oppose them. Try not to have an aneurism because you find it so hard to deal with that someone would oppose you to the death because you're an azznozzle.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2017
@Da Schneib.
You are a bully, @RC, and I'm taking you down.
All indications are that you're inexorably becoming irretrievably delusional, mate! Stop! So, how am I being a "bully", DS? Is it because:

- I ask you/everyone to drop personal feuds/tactics and concentrate on science points/discussion as the scientific method requires?

or

- I make objective observations on flaws/claims etc based on scientific grounds which you/others are free to address honestly instead of attacking/insulting as usual?

or

- I'm the one YOU just admitted YOU are MOCKING instead of reading/engaging fairly and objectively?

or

- I've for years been the victim of bullying by gangs of bullies who boast about not reading before personally attacking in ignorance of the science/logics points made?

Go on, DS; tell @Forum how it is you 'rationalize' PO posting record reality, to arrive at your patently erroneous, dishonestly self-serving 'version' as to who has been the "bully" here. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2017
@Da Schneib.
BTW, @RC, you should understand that you will not be the first bully I have taken down.

The others all died.

Just so you know. I'm here I'm alive and I'm old. They aren't. I did nothing but oppose them. Try not to have an aneurism because you find it so hard to deal with that someone would oppose you to the death because you're an azznozzle.
Your 'violent' terminology and 'speech' patterns indicate you are POSTING DRUNK now, DS. Go sober up before again approaching keyboard, mate. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Oct 03, 2017
Sorry [not really], @RC, I don't see any reason to respond with anything but mockery to someone who can't think. All you do is make up lies, and they are well documented. All you do is pretend all claims are equal no matter how credible-- the liar's fallacy.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Sorry [not really], @RC, I don't see any reason to respond with anything but mockery to someone who can't think. All you do is make up lies, and they are well documented. All you do is pretend all claims are equal no matter how credible-- the liar's fallacy.
The day you actually pay attention and not lie due to not paying attention, will be the day your posts make any sense to sober readers. Go sober up, mate; then return to the keyboard and try to pay attention instead of making up your own 'drunk poster's reality'. :)
J Doug
1 / 5 (1) Oct 04, 2017
Again, take it as you will, mate. I will leave your insensitive/insulting rant unanswered so that the readers can make up their own minds as to which of us two is the, as you put it, "stupid asshole". Good luck anyway, JD; you'll need it.


Any one who waste their time to read your corrupted, by the ignorance of actually believing that a trace gas, carbon dioxide, controls the earth's climate, commencements, well knows that you never have anything of importance to report without trying to turn it into something like this insincere comment on the Las Vegas tragedy where all of the gun laws put on the books by liberals were adhered to. I do not operate on "luck" but on logic and knowledge.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Oct 04, 2017
@J Doug.
Again, take it as you will, mate. I will leave your insensitive/insulting rant unanswered so that the readers can make up their own minds as to which of us two is the, as you put it, "stupid asshole". Good luck anyway, JD; you'll need it.
Any one who waste their time to read your corrupted, by the ignorance of actually believing that a trace gas, carbon dioxide, controls the earth's climate, commencements, well knows that you never have anything of importance to report without trying to turn it into something like this insincere comment on the Las Vegas tragedy where all of the gun laws put on the books by liberals were adhered to. I do not operate on "luck" but on logic and knowledge.
Again, that, coming from an obvious shill-spammer for Troll Factory funded by crooked/irresponsible political/business/religious vested interests, drips with denial and projection. Get a real honest job, JD; you're lousy at shilling-spamming so far. Good luck, JD.
J Doug
not rated yet Oct 06, 2017
Again, that, coming from an obvious shill-spammer for Troll Factory funded by crooked/irresponsible political/business/religious vested interests, drips with denial and projection. Get a real honest job, JD; you're lousy at shilling-spamming so far. Good luck, JD.


RealityCheck; Really! Is that the best that you can do? I have had enough of dealing with some fool like you who actually believes that socialism is the desired economic system that the world should adopt which would lead one to believe that you would be comfortable with living your miserable life out in North Korea, Venezuela or in the stuck in the nineteen fifties Cuba. Here is something that you NEVER submit and that is facts & it for sure wasn't socialism or communism that got what follows acconplished:
J Doug
not rated yet Oct 06, 2017
June, 19 2013 "One of the most remarkable feats in the world has been the lifting of about a billion people out of abject poverty in the past couple of decades. If the industrialisation trend continues, then this century could witness some of the rapid improvements in living standards seen in the West during the 19th Century. […] The prize, which many will hope is in reach, is that global poverty is eliminated entirely within another couple of decades. It is the reason why the Nobel Laureate Robert Lucas said that once you start thinking about economic growth and the improvements in standards of living, it is hard to stop." http://www.bbc.co...22956470

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Oct 07, 2017
@J Doug.

I have have answered your above posts (identical to the ones you posted also) in the thread where your Troll-Factory employer's client-funded shill-spam trolling campaign in denial of GW started, ie...

https://phys.org/...ery.html

If you can spare a moment from your shill-spam 'duties', JD, can you stop and note what I long predicted re back-to-back-GW climate disasters; which even a wealthy/developed 'first world' nation/economy like USA is finding it very painful/unaffordable to 'adapt' to or recover from now, let alone when it gets even worse.

Oh, and please add "NATE" to that list of back-to-back GW disasters I long predicted for you, JD.

Then spare a thought/conscience for all your familiy, friends and future generations which you are betraying by taking Troll Factory 'blood money' provided by their ideologue/profiteer 'clients', JD. Wake up and think of present/future humanity as well as your own selfish life and profit, JD. Try. :)
J Doug
not rated yet Oct 08, 2017
Oh, and please add "NATE" to that list of back-to-back GW disasters I long predicted for you, JD.


RealityCheck; I have been subjected to all of your mindless bullshit and seen no solution that is applicable to deal with your devil in the sky, CO₂, that ignorant fools such as yourself will not admit that, because it makes up only .04% of the total atmosphere, is a trace gas that is absolutely essential for all life on earth. Now, to your predicting something. Why didn't you predict this 140 straight months ago?
It actual appears that these stupid bastards, to include RealityCheck, forget, conveniently, that "Saturday, June 24 marked the completion of a record 140 straight months since the last major hurricane made landfall in the continental United States, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA).
J Doug
not rated yet Oct 08, 2017
The last major hurricane to hit the continental U.S. was Hurricane Wilma, which struck Florida on Oct. 24, 2005. According to NOAA, four major hurricanes hit the continental United States that year. They included Wilma, Rita, Katrina, and Dennis.
But since Wilma, no Category 3 or above hurricane has made landfall in the continental United States, making June 24, 2017 the end of a record 140 months without a major hurricane strike.
Prior to this 140-month stretch without a major hurricane strike, the longest major hurricane drought was the 96 months between September 1860 and August 1869.
http://www.cnsnew...trike-us
Got that! You idiot.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Oct 08, 2017
@J Doug.

Oh-oh....you're selfishness/bias/propaganda etc is showing, mate. You forget that the world is bigger than just the local patch you concentrate on. The increased heat/energy moves around within the whole Earth climate system, so added heat/energy effects/consequences are distributed over time and geography. That is why it's called GLOBAL Climate Change; extremes happen all over more frequently/back-to-back etc, just as I predicted for you long since. Give it up, JD; you're a lousy scientist and/or commentator (not to mention a lousy spammer-shiller).

PS: Mate, I will post my above response in the relevant thread:

https://phys.org/...ery.html

Please in future post your AGW-related topic/issues in that thread instead of this cosmology thread. Thanks. :)

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.