Gravitational waves from merging supermassive black holes will be spotted within 10 years, study predicts

November 13, 2017
Galaxies of similar size to the Sombrero Galaxy may offer astronomers their first glimpse of a pair of supermassive black holes merging. This hat-shaped galaxy is large enough that its merging black holes would yield detectable gravitational waves, but not so large that the black holes would merge too quickly. Credit: NASA/Hubble Heritage Team

Astronomers won't have to wait much longer for their first glimpse of one of the biggest types of unions in the cosmos. New research published November 13 in Nature Astronomy predicts that gravitational waves generated by the merger of two supermassive black holes will be detected within 10 years. The study is the first to use real data, rather than computer simulations, to predict when such an observation will be made.

"The from these supermassive black hole binary mergers are the most powerful in the universe," says study lead author Chiara Mingarelli, a research fellow at the Center for Computational Astrophysics at the Flatiron Institute in New York City. "They absolutely dwarf the detected by LIGO," or the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory, which first detected gravitational waves from colliding black holes in February 2016.

The detection of a supermassive black hole would offer new insights into how massive and black holes evolve, Mingarelli says. A lack of any such a sighting within the 10-year timeframe, on the other hand, would necessitate a rethink of whether and how supermassive black holes merge, she says.

Supermassive black holes live in the heart of large galaxies, including our own Milky Way, and can be millions or even billions of times the mass of the sun. For comparison, the merging black holes detected so far by gravitational wave detectors have been only a few dozen times the sun's mass.

When two galaxies collide and combine, their supermassive black holes drift to the center of the newly unified galaxy. Scientists predict that the supermassive black holes will then close in together and merge over time. That get-together produces intense gravitational waves that ripple through the fabric of space and time.

While those gravitational waves are strong, they lie outside the wavelengths currently observable by ongoing experiments such as LIGO and Virgo. The new hunt for gravitational waves formed by merging supermassive black holes will instead leverage stars called pulsars that act like cosmic metronomes. The rapidly spinning stars send out a steady rhythm of radio wave pulses. As passing gravitational waves stretch and compress the space between Earth and the , the rhythm slightly changes. Those changes are then monitored by pulsar-watching projects on Earth.

Three projects currently read the timing of radio waves arriving from nearby pulsars: the Parkes Pulsar Timing Array in Australia, North American Nanohertz Observatory for Gravitational Waves and the European Pulsar Timing Array. Together, the trio forms the International Pulsar Timing Array.

Mingarelli and colleagues estimated how long those projects will take to spot their first supermassive black hole merger. The team cataloged nearby galaxies that may host pairs of . The researchers then combined that information with a map of nearby pulsars to find—for the first time—the probability of a definitive detection over time.

"If you take into account the positions of the pulsars in the sky, you basically have a 100 percent chance of detecting something in 10 years," Mingarelli says. "The bottom line is that you're guaranteed to select at least one local supermassive black hole binary."

One surprise from the results was which galaxies are most likely to offer the first glimpse of supermassive black hole merger. Bigger galaxies mean bigger black holes and therefore stronger gravitational waves. But bigger black holes also merge faster, reducing the window during which gravitational waves may be detected. A black hole merger in a massive galaxy like M87 would yield detectable gravitational waves for 4 million years, for instance, while a more modest galaxy such as the Sombrero Galaxy would offer a 160-million-year window.

A successful detection would give astrophysicists a better understanding of the astrophysics at the hearts of galaxy mergers, Mingarelli says, and provide a new avenue to study fundamental physics not accessible by any other means. The number of individual supermassive black hole binaries seen also offers a measure of how often galaxies merge, which is an important measure of how the universe evolved over time.

If a supermassive black hole merger isn't seen, it could be because the black holes stall at around three light-years (or one parsec) of separation. This conundrum is known as the Final Parsec Problem. The two close together gradually over time as their orbits degrade as energy is lost generating gravitational waves, but the process can take longer than the current age of the universe.

As to whether astronomers will detect a supermassive black hole merger, "it'll be interesting either way," Mingarelli says.

Explore further: When radio galaxies collide, supermassive black holes form tightly bound pairs

More information: Chiara M. F. Mingarelli et al, The local nanohertz gravitational-wave landscape from supermassive black hole binaries, Nature Astronomy (2017). DOI: 10.1038/s41550-017-0299-6

Related Stories

Black holes and measuring gravitational waves

June 16, 2016

The supermassive black holes found at the centre of every galaxy, including our own Milky Way, may, on average, be smaller than we thought, according to work led by University of Southampton astronomer Dr Francesco Shankar.

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 ...

What happens when black holes collide?

October 5, 2016

The sign of a truly great scientific theory is by the outcomes it predicts when you run experiments or perform observations. And one of the greatest theories ever proposed was the concept of Relativity, described by Albert ...

Recommended for you

Major space mystery solved using data from student satellite

December 13, 2017

A 60-year-old mystery regarding the source of some energetic and potentially damaging particles in Earth's radiation belts is now solved using data from a shoebox-sized satellite built and operated by University of Colorado ...

Spanning disciplines in the search for life beyond Earth

December 13, 2017

The search for life beyond Earth is riding a surge of creativity and innovation. Following a gold rush of exoplanet discovery over the past two decades, it is time to tackle the next step: determining which of the known exoplanets ...

171 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (10) Nov 13, 2017
If dark matter does not exist, then these results are obviously erroneous. People might want to think about that.
RNP
4.8 / 5 (16) Nov 13, 2017
@Chris_Reeve
If dark matter does not exist, then these results are obviously erroneous. People might want to think about that.


What in the name of all reason are you talking about? The detection of gravitational waves has nothing to do with dark matter. You clearly do not understand either phenomenon, so why are you embarrassing yourself by make such a silly comment?
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 13, 2017
@Chris_Reeve.
If dark matter does not exist, then these results are obviously erroneous. People might want to think about that.
Have you confused this topic with some other and posted to the wrong thread, mate? If not, then can you please explain what you think may be the connections/logics of your observation re gravitational waves and possibly non-existent DM?

PS: I was about to log out when I glanced though PO once more and saw your above post; logging out now; will be back later/tomorrow. Bye for now, CR.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (14) Nov 13, 2017
If dark matter does not exist, then these results are obviously erroneous. People might want to think about that.

I thought about it....
Absolutely zilch results, Chris.
Dark whatever must be clouding your vision...
Even RC is scratching his head.
Chris_Reeve
2 / 5 (8) Nov 14, 2017
You guys have completely lost touch with reality. The sensitivity of the dark matter instrumentation has increased by a factor of a million, but there is none to be found.

That failure points to a problem at the level of the original hypothesis. If there is no dark matter, then a very serious mistake has been made: It would plainly suggest that gravity does not dominate at larger scales and that Relativity cannot be correct.

Everything we are seeing, to date, has indicated that gravity does not dominate at the largest cosmological scales. Cosmologists have simply decided to push off the acknowledgement of this problem by suggesting that dark matter will eventually be discovered.

There is no reason at this point to believe this anymore. The search should have produced results by now.

To carry on with the elaboration of this framework without identifying such a large chunk of the universe's matter is sheer madness.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (12) Nov 14, 2017
As you have been repeatedly told here this has nothing to do with dark matter or dark energy. It has only to do with black holes and pulsars and gravitational waves.

That is all.
RogueParticle
4.1 / 5 (14) Nov 14, 2017
If there is no dark matter, then a very serious mistake has been made
No mistake has been made; instead scientists, constrained to work within the scientific method, are patiently eliminating zero- or negative results in the hope of finally finding what they have tentatively labeled as dark matter. Situation normal, if a little cockamamy when viewed from outside of the scientific perspective. Is that where you find yourself?
It would plainly suggest that gravity does not dominate at larger scales and that Relativity cannot be correct.
It suggests no such thing, even if it may actually be the case that GR may need to be extended or altered. Again, situation normal.
Everything we are seeing, to date, has indicated that gravity does not dominate at the largest cosmological scales
Again, no: observations MAY indicate that our present understanding of gravity needs to be altered to accommodate what we learn from those observations. That will take some time yet...
RogueParticle
4 / 5 (12) Nov 14, 2017
@RC - you appear to be mightily peeved at the way the sciences, or the "astro-sciences" in particular, conduct their affairs, and you seem to wish to alter this state of affairs by sounding off so brashly and so often in the hope of attracting enough attention to effect change.

That's all well and good, and probably makes you happy in some perverse manner, but it's ultimately a forlorn hope, since - as has been pointed out to you so VERY often here - you're doing it in the wrong place. PO is a scientific backwater, where nothing written here will effect any change at all in the way science conducts itself.

So why do you persist in such a boisterous manner where the outcome is precisely nothing? Is it that you are naturally a combative type, or you have so little in your life that you need some kind of recognition - even if it's negative - to give you the will to go on? Or perhaps you want to be on record as THE ONE who first brought science's shortcomings to public scrutiny?
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (13) Nov 14, 2017
So why do you persist in such a boisterous manner where the outcome is precisely nothing?

At this point I think he's a masochist that likes to shout "I am dumb" at the top of his lungs. If he can't even find the right place to voice his 'criticisms' (not even after many, many years) then that's already an indication how well thought out his ideas are.

Benni
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 14, 2017
you appear to be mightily peeved at the way the sciences, or the "astro-sciences" in particular, conduct their affairs, and you seem to wish to alter this state of affairs by sounding off so brashly and so often in the hope of attracting enough attention to effect change.


Roguey, you're the guy who doesn't get it, these astro-sciences experts you hold in such esteem don't know the basics of nuclear physics like some of the rest of us do. I spent 6 years in engineering school studying Nuclear/Electrical Engineering & I can design a nuclear power plant, so just maybe you can explain why I should imagine these "astro" experts are smarter than I am?

I laugh at these perpetual motion mechanics & their preposterous Perpetual Motion theories about Cosmic Fairy Dust & infinite gravity wells at the surface of a finite stellar mass & substituting dark energy for the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Zzzzzzzz
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 14, 2017
PO is a scientific backwater, where nothing written here will effect any change at all in the way science conducts itself.So why do you persist in such a boisterous manner where the outcome is precisely nothing? Is it that you are naturally a combative type, or you have so little in your life that you need some kind of recognition - even if it's negative - to give you the will to go on? Or perhaps you want to be on record as THE ONE who first brought science's shortcomings to public scrutiny?


It is only in such a backwater place a psycho like this can persist, and even get a response. Responses may have a validating effect on the delusions behind the psychosis. You only encourage him.
Chris_Reeve
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 14, 2017
If the distance between the Sun and the Earth was an inch, then the distance between the Sun and the next nearest star would be 4 MILES away!

The strength of that attraction over that distance between those two stars is equivalent to just 1.5 x 10^-14 Earth gee's.

These distances and these very small forces cannot be used to construct a cosmology unless there is some sort of invisible matter which is placed at just the right locations to bridge those forces at the intergalactic scale. We can plainly see that this is already a challenge to get the math right at the interstellar scale.

But, common sense suggests that we would have already seen this matter by now.

Thus, the original hypothesis is in error -- a very possible binary (yes/no) situation which academics tend to consistently forget is even on the table. You've latched onto the wrong hypothesis (matter bends space-time), and are now aggressively denying all of the signs that are pointing to this realization.
ShotmanMaslo
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 14, 2017
But, common sense suggests that we would have already seen this matter by now.


Common sense suggests no such thing. If this matter interacts only gravitationally and maybe through weak interaction then it will be very hard to detect.

There is no deep reason why most matter in the universe ought to be easily detectable at all.

You've latched onto the wrong hypothesis (matter bends space-time)


Matter bends space-time and gravitational waves exist even if there is no dark matter, they do not depend on dark matter. You are comparing apples and oranges here and you are too ignorant to even realize it.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 14, 2017
But, common sense suggests that we would have already seen this matter by now.

OK, here is something you may not know:

'Common sense' is something humans developed based on experiences under 1g, a blue sky and at the scale at which our senses can discern stuff - which is a tiny slice of the electromagnetic spectrum, a tiny slice of the audible spectrum and a super-tiny slice of the scale spectrum from about a millimeter to a few kilometers...oh, and on zero part of the spectrum of all the other forces.
The universe plays on a vastly, vastly, VASTYL wider scale outside of what we base our 'common sense' on.
If you think common sense is enough to explain the universe you're dumber than rocks.

Sometimes we just need to calculate (e.g. neutrinos. There's a trilion of these passing through every square centimeter of you every second...but we only first 'saw' one - iindirectly - about 60 years ago.
And no, they were not discovered by the 'common sense' approach.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 14, 2017
Responses may have a validating effect on the delusions behind the psychosis.


......so now you imagine you can be an expert on what is delusional & psychotic. So why isn't it YOUR "delusions" to believe infinite gravity can actually exist at the surface of a FINITE stellar mass called BHs? There are no Laws of Physics to support such a concept, yet you believe it.

And what is the greatest witness as to whom may or may not be suffering a "psychosis" around here is the propensity for all the BH, DM, DE, & BH enthusiasts who spend more time here advancing name calling routines simply because you are challenged to prove you are not promoting Perpetual Motion.

It is not 'Common sense' to expect others to prove your Perpetual Motion Cosmology cannot exist, but that is your frame of reference which never has a basis for it found within the Laws of Conservation of Energy & specifically within the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, ENTROPY.
jonesdave
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 14, 2017
And what is the greatest witness as to whom may or may not be suffering a "psychosis" around here is the propensity for all the BH, DM, DE, & BH enthusiasts who spend more time here advancing name calling routines simply because ***you are challenged to prove you are not promoting Perpetual Motion***


Yet another example of the delusions of the physics cranks who post on here. Nobody here is under any obligation to prove anything. The people on here are not (presumably) the people who are producing scientific papers on BHs. Those are the people you need to be challenging, but you are wimping out, because you know that you are incapable of writing a scientific paper to challenge them.
As has been mentioned, nothing that takes place on here is of any interest or relevance to real science.

RogueParticle
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 14, 2017
nothing that takes place on here is of any interest or relevance to real science
...excepting perhaps psychology or sociology, but the jury is still out on whether those disciplines are truly scientific.

However, and as has often been pointed out in this forum, it's important for visitors to the forum, whose knowledge of scientific matters may not be particularly extensive or robust, to be made aware of what constitutes scientific reasoning, and what does not.

So, the shouters and doubters should be put in their place for all to see.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 14, 2017
Yet another example of the delusions of the physics cranks who post on here
.........eg, those who push Perpetual Motion theories that infinite gravity wells can exist on the surface of a finite stellar mass.

The people on here are not (presumably) the people who are producing scientific papers on BHs.
True, but what they do produce for me is the source of ENTERTAINMENT I thrive on when I read their convoluted nonsense.

As has been mentioned, nothing that takes place on here is of any interest or relevance to real science.
........yes, we know this, all your name calling & profanity routines are self-evident of that.

So we know by your own admission you don't come here for anything of "relevance to real science", so why do you come here? To hone your profanity & name calling skills?

RogueParticle
3.7 / 5 (12) Nov 14, 2017
...and then there's poor little B****, who cries himself to sleep every single night, curled up with his rag-doll and blanket comforter, because nobody listens to him, nor even cares, when he blubbers his sorry tale of being just a mere Nucular Electrickle Enjineer. B****, who can design nucular power plants, and in fact does so every morning before eating his Honey Nut Crunch breakfast. With a big spoon, no less.
Chris_Reeve
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 14, 2017
Re: "Yet another example of the delusions of the physics cranks who post on here."

The irony is that the masses of physics cranks only come at the mainstream due to their observable, persistent dysfunction. If the mainstream actually had its house in order, there would be nothing to critique. And if the cranks were to anyways stop, the mainstream would feel even more comfortable than they already act.

It takes a real academic to wonder at where all of these "crazies" are coming from. Your first mistake was to surround yourself with people who believed the same nonsense. Your last mistake will be that you kept arguing with everybody that came at you. A perfectly rational reaction to what is happening today in this domain is that a mistake has been made at the point of hypothesis -- which suggests that at least some of these people coming at you have a way out of this mess.

The definition of madness is to nevertheless call them all cranks.
RogueParticle
3.7 / 5 (12) Nov 14, 2017
these astro-sciences experts you hold in such esteem don't know the basics of nuclear physics like some of the rest of us do
Wrong again, Oh Great One - astrophysicists study nuclear physics in quite some detail, since it's nuclear fusion which powers the stars, and the various p-, r- and s- nuclear synthesis processes which are responsible for creating the elements which constitute the planets, oceans, fireflies - and your brain. And these processes, plus a whole host of others, (QM, SR, GR, etc.) have to be understood in order to get anywhere in the subject.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 14, 2017
And if the cranks were to anyways stop, the mainstream would feel even more comfortable than they already act.


Seriously? You believe that posting on here and similar places is in any way causing a problem for mainstream scientists? You really are delusional. The vast majority probably aren't aware of it, and those that are probably just shake their heads and laugh, before going back to performing real science.

RogueParticle
3.3 / 5 (14) Nov 14, 2017
the masses of physics cranks only come at the mainstream due to their observable, persistent dysfunction. If the mainstream actually had its house in order, there would be nothing to critique
Arrant nonsense! the "mainstream" is what it is. It's their party, and their rules (use the scientific method and known facts to try to explain new situations, viz DM) apply: if you don't like the music at the party, then go and have your own party somewhere else.

Don't you get it? You're trying to bring down the granite walls of a scientific Jericho with a kiddy's bent tin trumpet, you utter chump. What a complete waste of your life to come here, blow that pathetic instrument as hard as you can, and not a crack will ever show in those walls. Won't you ever learn a lesson from all of this? Are you really that dense and so incapable of comprehending how utterly pointless your efforts here are?

There are surely signs of madness there - for all to see. All, it would seem, except you.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2017
...and then there's poor little B****, who cries himself to sleep every single night, curled up with his rag-doll and blanket comforter, because nobody listens to him, nor even cares, when he blubbers his sorry tale of being just a mere Nucular Electrickle Enjineer. B****, who can design nucular power plants, and in fact does so every morning before eating his Honey Nut Crunch breakfast. With a big spoon, no less.


Right, You, the perfect example for why I come here, the ENTERTAINMENT value of reading about those with little or no skills in science based education, or spelling & other simple grammar.
RogueParticle
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 14, 2017
You, the perfect example for why I come here, the ENTERTAINMENT value of reading about those with little or no skills in science based education, or spelling & other simple grammar
Right, while the level-headed visitors come here to learn about the latest in scientific endeavors, you're here for the entertainment value. Horses for courses...

Mind you don't drop that radioactive wrench on your toe.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2017
Won't you ever learn a lesson from all of this? Are you really that dense and so incapable of comprehending how utterly pointless your efforts here are?
........so then explain why YOU are here if not doing the same thing?

Why are you also not "dense and so incapable of comprehending how utterly pointless your efforts here are?"

I frankly admit why I'm here, the ENTERTAINMENT value of demonstrating in simplistic grammar why Perpetual Motion does not work, and all you do is get your nose all out of joint about it because you actually see the common sense in my approach for which YOU have no response except for embarking on the usual profanity laced name calling routines.

Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 14, 2017
@RogueParticle
...excepting perhaps psychology or sociology, but the jury is still out on whether those disciplines are truly scientific.
Ouch!
LMFAO

.

@chris/hannes the pseudoscience eu idiot cult member
The definition of madness is to nevertheless call them all cranks
but they're not all cranks: some, like you, are just religious zealots who can't comprehend science and therefore attack with ignorance because something sounds plausible in their minds

you can't comprehend the science so you choose to argue from the point of view of a faith that is based upon your belief in it, not the evidence that has directly proven it wrong repeatedly

that is the definition of religion, BTW...

RogueParticle
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 14, 2017
Benni, I must admit there is a certain entertainment value in winding you up occasionally, since it's SO easy to do. But the novelty quickly wears off, and then I go away and get on with much more interesting stuff, to leave you to continue with your pathetic bragging and shouting inanities. Which you ARE very good at.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Nov 14, 2017
Benni, I must admit there is a certain entertainment value in winding you up occasionally, since it's SO easy to do. But the novelty quickly wears off, and then I go away and get on with much more interesting stuff, to leave you to continue with your pathetic bragging and shouting inanities. Which you ARE very good at.


"leave you to continue with your pathetic bragging and shouting inanities. Which you ARE very good at."

.........yes, "very good at", thank you for the compliment. And if you've noticed I have not used a single foul mouthed word of profanity OR even hinted at such language.......Oh, by the way Roguey, I can solve Differential Equations.......maybe you had some of those in your high school algebra class? Please, don't think I would stoop to asking you trick questions.
RogueParticle
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 14, 2017
.Oh, by the way Roguey, I can solve Differential Equations.......maybe you had some of those in your high school algebra class?
Bragging again - well, yes, we covered those in our first couple of years at Uni, along with a whole lot of other stuff. So did DS and jonesdave and rnp and others here, but none would stoop to bore others with it, since it's SUCH bad form. Not a concern of yours, we see...
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2017
Bragging again - well, yes, we covered those in our first couple of years at Uni
......I see, you mean during the first couple of years in Algebra Class at Uni?
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 14, 2017
Bragging again - well, yes, we covered those in our first couple of years at Uni,

Yah...it's sorta cute how he thinks that some kind of rare skill.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2017
Bragging again - well, yes, we covered those in our first couple of years at Uni,

Yah...it's sorta cute how he thinks that some kind of rare skill.


.....for someone with your degree in Biology, it would be a rare skill.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 14, 2017
Human biology (different field - it's not biology)..and it's a PhD. My masters is in biomedical electrical engineering...which has all the electrical engineering courses...and of course the math....which - as RogueParticle quite rightly points out - includes differential equations in the first two years (among many other fields).

...and my first job - even before going for my PhD - was coding a finite element simulator for biomechanics. Guess what finite elements are based on: Differential equations. Duh.

So, no...your caims don't really impress me (or anyone) much.
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2017
Human biology (different field - it's not biology)..and it's a PhD. My masters is in biomedical electrical engineering...which has all the electrical engineering courses...and of course the math....which - as RogueParticle quite rightly points out - includes differential equations in the first two years (among many other fields).

...and my first job - even before going for my PhD - was coding a finite element simulator for biomechanics. Guess what finite elements are based on: Differential equations. Duh.

So, no...your caims don't really impress me (or anyone) much.


Well said. The bloke is a tosser. If he knew anything, he'd be published. But isn't. Lol.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2017
Human biology (different field - it's not biology)..and it's a PhD. My masters is in biomedical electrical engineering...which has all the electrical engineering courses...and of course the math....which - as RogueParticle quite rightly points out - includes differential equations in the first two years (among many other fields).

...and my first job - even before going for my PhD - was coding a finite element simulator for biomechanics. Guess what finite elements are based on: Differential equations. Duh.

So, no...your caims don't really impress me (or anyone) much.


Well said. The bloke is a tosser. If he knew anything, he'd be published. But isn't. Lol.


Jeepers Jonesy, you haven't even made any claims.........Why?
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2017

Jeepers Jonesy, you haven't even made any claims.........Why?


Because I'm not one of the D-K tossers who thinks they know more than real scientists, dear. Get over yourself. Nobody gives a toss what a janitor in a power station thinks. Got it?
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2017
Jeepers Jonesy, you haven't even made any claims.........Why?


Because I'm not one of the D-K tossers who thinks they know more than real scientists, dear. Get over yourself. Nobody gives a toss what a janitor in a power station thinks. Got it?


Yeah, I "got it"......so now does antialias_physorg, what with all that resume material he just entertained us with.

Now that's two of us you've accused of D-K Syndrome, by default or otherwise. Who wants to be next to overate themselves here?
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2017
Human biology (different field - it's not biology)..and it's a PhD. My masters is in biomedical electrical engineering...which has all the electrical engineering courses...and of course the math....which - as RogueParticle quite rightly points out - includes differential equations in the first two years (among many other fields).

So, no...your caims don't really impress me (or anyone) much.


So why then should your claim to fame impress & overwhelm me (or anyone) much?
jonesdave
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 14, 2017
Hey Benni. Do you understand what Dunning-Kruger syndrome is? As you are pushing your mop around the power station tonight, think on it, dear. Nobody gives a toss what you think, mate. You are an irrelevance. Science has neither heard of you, nor gives a toss what you think. Nighty night, dear.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (9) Nov 14, 2017
Roguey, you're the guy who doesn't get it, these astro-sciences experts you hold in such esteem don't know the basics of nuclear physics like some of the rest of us do. I spent 6 years in engineering school studying Nuclear/Electrical Engineering & I can design a nuclear power plant, so just maybe you can explain why I should imagine these "astro" experts are smarter than I am?

I'm curious... Isn't the study of Physics a lifetime undertaking, not just 6 years?
I laugh at these perpetual motion mechanics & their preposterous Perpetual Motion theories about Cosmic Fairy Dust & infinite gravity wells at the surface of a finite stellar mass & substituting dark energy for the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Again, your use of infinite gravity wells... Not to mention, the mis-understanding of dark energy and therefore, thermodynamics...
The ONLY thing infinite is the Universe.
YOU have built and crammed yourself into a very, very finite one...
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2017
Nobody gives a toss what you think
.......so it's all about who "gives a toss" as to whether one is afflicted with D-K. Why then are you doing so much TOSSING?
jonesdave
5 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2017
Nobody gives a toss what you think
.......so it's all about who "gives a toss" as to whether one is afflicted with D-K. Why then are you doing so much TOSSING?


I'm not, dear. It is only you who thinks anybody gives a toss about your irrelevant rantings. The world of ***real*** science will carry on without you tomorrow. And every day after that. Live with it. Nobody cares what a janitor in a power station writes on a science news comment stream. Again, have a good night, dear.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2017
Again, your use of infinite gravity wells... Not to mention, the mis-understanding of dark energy and therefore, thermodynamics...
The ONLY thing infinite is the Universe.
YOU have built and crammed yourself into a very, very finite one.


Hey, WhyGuy, so you're gonna "toss" your hat into the rink & do some TOSSING yourself.

Oh, by the way, based on the concepts of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, the Universe cannot possibly be infinite.

If there is a dark energy that is presently causing it to expand, it will cease expanding at the very instant there is no more mass available for transformation to energy, dark or otherwise......Entropy reaches unity, heat death results.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2017
The ONLY thing infinite is the Universe.

I beg to differ: "Two things are infinite..." according to Einstein ;-)
jonesdave
5 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2017
After Benni gets done cleaning the toilets, I'm sure that he'll write his crap up. Not. Like I said; an irrelevance.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Nov 14, 2017
After Benni gets done cleaning the toilets, I'm sure that he'll write his crap up. Not. Like I said; an irrelevance.


Climbing your ego & jumping to your IQ would be a leap of death for anyone...........try not to spend all day tomorrow figuring that out.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (3) Nov 15, 2017
Re: "Don't you get it? You're trying to bring down the granite walls of a scientific Jericho with a kiddy's bent tin trumpet, you utter chump."

Check out the upcoming December issue of EdgeScience magazine.

https://www.scien...escience
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (3) Nov 15, 2017
Re: "you can't comprehend the science so you choose to argue from the point of view of a faith that is based upon your belief in it, not the evidence that has directly proven it wrong repeatedly"

I put forward the arguments to observe peoples' reactions. That is what I have done for the past decade. Whether or not you agree with the arguments put forward means far less to me than what I gain from observing your reaction.

Each person should formulate their own personal meanings and conclusions on the debates of science. This is the basis of constructivism, which is hardly new in the science education world. It simply proves more useful in times of theoretical turmoil -- when theories become routinely challenged.

When science becomes contested, we must switch from treating it as a body of knowledge to a way of thinking.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (8) Nov 15, 2017
The ONLY thing infinite is the Universe.

I beg to differ: "Two things are infinite..." according to Einstein ;-)

My bad...:-)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Nov 15, 2017
So why then should your claim to fame impress & overwhelm me (or anyone) much?

It shouldn't. Similarly you shouldn't expect anyone to be impressed by 'skills' that are totally common.
Basically everyone in these comment sections has a lot more skills than you. The sooner you realize this the better (because you can then stop making a fool of yourself by effectively continually shouting "look, I can go potty, too!")
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 15, 2017
@benji the TROLL
.....for someone with your degree in Biology, it would be a rare skill.
LMFAO
the funniest thing about this idiotic comment is that if you read the very first paragraph of the wiki article on differential equations, it includes the following:
differential equations play a prominent role in many disciplines including engineering, physics, economics, and biology.
https://en.wikipe...equation

I put forward the arguments to observe peoples' reactions. That is what I have done for the past decade
@chris/hannes the idiot eu sock pseudoscience troll

not according to your own blog: you're a true believer in pseudoscience
that is not only given by your own comments here and defense of the indefensible, but by your own admissions on your own blog

that makes you not only a fanatical religious fundie, but now a blatant liar

Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 15, 2017
@chris/hannes the pseudoscience religious acolyte cont'd
Check out the upcoming December issue of EdgeScience magazine.

https://www.scien...escience
1- being able to publish your opinion in a magazine is not the same thing as science

2- you have no scientific publications, whereas most of the people you argue against are not only published scientists, but also presenting evidence that directly contradicts your beliefs

3- most importantly, and unfortunately for you: opinion, be it published or otherwise presented, is not equivalent to science or the scientific method

epic fail for your eu religion

.

you can then stop making a fool of yourself by effectively continually shouting "look, I can go potty, too!")
@AAP
100 stars worthy!
you definitely won the internets today!
LMFAO
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Nov 15, 2017
Oh, by the way, based on the concepts of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, the Universe cannot possibly be infinite.

Only if you can't imagine the whole Universe in motion.
All depends on your perspective of order and disorder...

If there is a dark energy that is presently causing it to expand, it will cease expanding at the very instant there is no more mass available for transformation to energy, dark or otherwise......Entropy reaches unity, heat death results.

Er... wouldn't that be Cold Death? Anyway, your last sentence makes no sense as far as entropy goes.
As to "no more mass available" -
pshaw...
Spacetime CREATES mass by BEING in motion... Every single Planck space (or smaller) of it.
You see collections of mass as entropic"order".
I don't.
I see it as the "disorder" of spacetime entropy.
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 15, 2017
Re: "Don't you get it? You're trying to bring down the granite walls of a scientific Jericho with a kiddy's bent tin trumpet, you utter chump."

Check out the upcoming December issue of EdgeScience magazine.

https://www.scien...escience

I tried. But doesn't seem to be an entry point for the Dec. Issue...
Only the Sept. one.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Nov 15, 2017
Re: "Don't you get it? You're trying to bring down the granite walls of a scientific Jericho with a kiddy's bent tin trumpet, you utter chump."

Check out the upcoming December issue of EdgeScience magazine.

https://www.scien...escience


Yep, more woo, from wooists. Published by the Society for Scientific Exploration:

https://en.wikipe...loration

Like I said - woo.
RogueParticle
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 15, 2017
Ahh, the Society for Scientific Exploration:
The society's magazine, the Journal of Scientific Exploration, was established to provide a scientific forum for ufology, parapsychology and cryptozoology
and it has been said about the Society's publications that
Pretty much anything that might have shown up on The X-Files or in the National Enquirer shows up first here
I'd love to know how ufology can be treated in a scientific manner, maybe you can give us some insight into that, but what the hell; next time I need to know about UFOs, or what the National Enquirer might be saying about science, I can get a condensed version from the SSE's scribblings.

I hear that when you take out a subscription, you get a free toilet-roll holder to stack their mags in - that's a must-have.

Meanwhile, back to the science...
RogueParticle
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 15, 2017
@CR
I put forward the arguments to observe peoples' reactions. That is what I have done for the past decade
So, you're not trying to change the way science is conducted: you're just interested in messing around with people in this forum to elicit some kind of reaction from them. Like Benni basically - you're just here for the entertainment value: now we know...

The others here - by that I mean those who have studied science in depth and lay great store in the scientific method - actually come here to learn about developments in science. Which is what this PO site is dedicated to, and what this forum is about; and not as a place for some pseudoscience fanatic to spend a good part of an entire decade of his life f**king with people's heads. Shame on you, @RC.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 15, 2017
to spend a good part of an entire decade of his life f**king with people's heads.

Is he, though? All he's really doing is providing a baseline for how dumb people can be.
(Which, could even be argued, is important, because one otherwise tends to forget that there are people who don't know jack about anything while living in our 'science bubble')
RogueParticle
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 15, 2017
@ap
because one otherwise tends to forget that there are people who don't know jack about anything while living in our 'science bubble'
I have a friend who lives in the next big city who fits that bill to a tee. He's a nice enough chap to have the occasional beer with, but I'm constantly amazed at how anybody can exist within the tiny box that represents the limits of his purview in all things.
RogueParticle
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 15, 2017
Anyway, amusing as the above excursions may be, back to the science: the paper referenced in the article is fascinating (arxiv: https://arxiv.org...491.pdf) and really does present a novel way of doing GW research. I was unaware of how much work has already been done in this direction, with three pulsar timing arrays (PTAs, not to be confused with the PITAs on this forum) having so far been established in Europe, US and Australia, and the paper points to forthcoming collaborations with planned observatories as they come online (Meerkat, SKA).

The idea of measuring the differences in timing of pulsars as GW's sweep past them is a new one on me, and it would seem not only a good way of eliciting information on SMBHBs at great distances, but also to provide a means of establishing deltas in radial distances between such pulsars as are used in the survey.

Good piece of work, and with more and better results in the pipeline.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Nov 15, 2017
I was unaware of how much work has already been done in this direction


in timing of pulsars as GW's sweep past them is a new one on me,


......it's obvious that a lot of things old to me are very new or unawares to you. I guess you don't know much about science. Here, try this paper for some real science:

Albert Einstein- Oct 1939

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

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

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

RogueParticle
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 15, 2017
Interesting that I get marked down for making positive remarks about the scientific endeavor behind this article. Doesn't bother me a whit, but it does show the depths to which disturbed people infesting this forum will sink.

Have a nice day, folks!
RogueParticle
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 15, 2017
Benni, GR-based science has moved on a lot since 1939 (78 YEARS ago!!!); so has the world, and science in general. It's just old sticks-in-the-mud like yourself who can't move on, learn or grow.

Hope you've got somebody there to pick up all those toys you chuck out of your perambulator...
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Nov 15, 2017
Benni, GR-based science has moved on a lot since 1939 (78 YEARS ago!!!); so has the world, and science in general. It's just old sticks-in-the-mud like yourself who can't move on, learn or grow.

Hope you've got somebody there to pick up all those toys you chuck out of your perambulator...


.......I guess you didn't know that Einstein wrote General Relativity in 1916. Let's see here if we can do this math without using Differential Equations found in the 1939 paper, aw yes, here we go:

1939 - 1916 = 23.

Yep, 23 years later Einstein wrote that paper trashing Schwarzschild's Black Hole Math.

Maybe you would like to pull a D-K on Einstein?
RogueParticle
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 15, 2017
Which part of "GR-based science has moved on a lot since 1939 (78 YEARS ago!!!)" are you having difficulty with?
Ojorf
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 15, 2017
Which part of "GR-based science has moved on a lot since 1939 (78 YEARS ago!!!)" are you having difficulty with?

ALL of it.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Nov 15, 2017
Which part of "GR-based science has moved on a lot since 1939 (78 YEARS ago!!!)" are you having difficulty with?


Supposing you tell us what has changed in GR since 1916, after all you're the one making the claim. Only two that I know about that Einstein himself corrected, the cosmological constant & gravitational waves.

Maybe you & Jonesy have collaborated & come up with some additional GR corrections? Let's see your publications. Try to include the Differential Equations you learned in your algebra class during your first two years at Uni? (careful, this could be a trick question).
RogueParticle
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 15, 2017
Supposing you tell us what has changed in GR since 1916
You're not only bone-headed, but downright lazy - there are literally thousands of papers out there on GR-related topics published since 1939. But don't bother trying to read them, Benni - they require an understanding of mathematics well in advance of DE's.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Nov 15, 2017
Supposing you tell us what has changed in GR since 1916
You're not only bone-headed, but downright lazy - there are literally thousands of papers out there on GR-related topics published since 1939.


I didn't ask you about "thousands of papers out there on GR-related topics published since 1939", I asked you specifically about "what has changed in GR since 1916". I followed up my question citing two examples of the cosmological constant & gravitational waves that were changed since the 1916 publication. So again, what other examples of CHANGES can you cite?
RogueParticle
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 15, 2017
what has changed in GR since 1916
If you mean what has changed in the original paper since 1916, then the answer is obviously nothing. If you mean what has changed in the field of GR-related studies, then quite a lot.

This is obvious to so many people who have bothered to get off their arses and studied, or at least familiarized themselves with, the subject. It's only lackluster halfwits like yourself, utterly convinced that they're the brightest bulb on the christmas tree because they've been crammed with a bit more math than the guys they meet in the bar-room, who get half-way down page one, get stuck there, and can't move forward.

Your fail, you just can't face up to the facts of the matter, so you attack anybody who claims to have more understanding than you do of these matters. Which, BTW, is entirely *your* problem.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Nov 15, 2017
@RogueP
and not as a place for some pseudoscience fanatic to spend a good part of an entire decade of his life f**king with people's heads
@A_P
Is he, though? All he's really doing is providing a baseline for how dumb people can be...
to add in some of the "non-science" or undisciplined science of psychology (LMFAO):

there are some folks here who are also studying the temperament, behaviour, beliefs, delusions and tactics of the pseudoscience crowd

it requires stimulus to elicit response for the sake of clarity
note that CR uses gish gallop, russels teapot and strawman a lot, whereas some, like rc or cantdrive, use pure delusional beliefs and argument from ignorance, and benni is flat out dunning-kruger wrapped in geriatric dementia

there is a clear difference in how they respond (one way of tracking their socks, like the chris_reeve/hannesAlfven combo)

there is a hypothesis being tested here with said pseudoscience crowd
Chris_Reeve
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 15, 2017
I said: "I put forward the arguments to observe peoples' reactions. That is what I have done for the past decade"

Response: "So, you're not trying to change the way science is conducted: you're just interested in messing around with people in this forum to elicit some kind of reaction from them."

No, not at all. What I do is I run the same arguments by hundreds of people online. The point is to study how people interact with scientific controversies. There are many patterns and anti-patterns which over time reveal themselves in the reactions once a person understands the basics of the debate.

I then convert those anti-patterns into software design features which can help people to cross the subject-object transition. What you are subject to defines the level of your thinking; many people here, e.g., are subject to mainstream science. Thinking at a higher level involves learning to treat mainstream science as an object.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (4) Nov 15, 2017
Re: "Yep, more woo, from wooists. Published by ..."

What we know for a fact is that either Relativity or quantum mechanics must be fatally flawed (and just as likely, it will prove to be both).

So, what is academia doing about this? Observably nothing at all. Yet they've certainly had more than enough time to fix the situation.

It stands to reason that when problems evade solution for many decades that the processes and cultural norms instituted by the universities are causing the problem. When such situations emerge, the practice of filtering publications according to which journal is the most prestigious will very obviously carry forward the unresolved problem to the next generation.

What is needed is NEW IDEAS. Yet, what people are doing is aggressively destroying all new ideas that come at them using the same criteria which led us to the paradox of Relativity and quantum mechanics.

At what point are you actually going to try something new?
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 15, 2017
@idiot illiterate eu pseudoscience cult moron chris/hannes
The point is to study how people interact with scientific controversies
false claim
if your point was to present scientific controversies you would focus on actual science and their controversies and not present arguments from known repeatedly debunked pseudoscience

what you're doing is attempting to deflect from your known delusional and religious fanatical attraction to a known pseudoscience while appealing to an intellectual crowd familiar with testing, observation and the scientific method by claiming a study of controversy

unfortunately for you, your own links recently and repeatedly presented here demonstrate your real life identity which allows for a "forensic study" (so to speak) of your real world beliefs and claims

and again, unfortunately for you, said study also reveals a historical advocacy for known pseudoscience and debunked claims

IOW - you're a liar
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 15, 2017
@idiot illiterate eu pseudoscience cult moron chris/hannes cont'd
So, what is academia doing about this? Observably nothing at all. Yet they've certainly had more than enough time to fix the situation
and again, just because you, specifically, don't know about how the scientific method works doesn't mean no one else does

more to the point: not all scientific experiments are preceded by mass media attention like CERN was, otherwise you would be familiar with MRX experiments at PPPL, which you proved you are not familiar with

lastly: science doesn't advance per your personal timetable. technology is important (see LIGO, CERN, Hubble). also, just because something isn't known now doesn't mean it won't be known later (IOW- god of the gaps argument fail for you). case in point is newton vrs relativity (important note: we still use newtonian physics despite the "fix")

IOW - you're still lying and attempting to deflect from your D-K religious beliefs
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 15, 2017
what has changed in GR since 1916


If you mean what has changed in the original paper since 1916
......what else could I be talking about? Then you come up with this wrong answer:
then the answer is obviously nothing.
after I already cited two specifics.

If you mean what has changed in the field of GR-related studies, then quite a lot.
Like what? And don't give me that black hole stuff, because there is nothing within the text of General Relativity about BHs. Einstein didn't believe in them. But you think he wrote about something he didn't believe could exist? Alright, what section of GR do I find his dissertation on BHs,

It's only lackluster halfwits like yourself, utterly convinced that they're the brightest bulb on the christmas tree
.......and then when you're unable to give specific answers to specific questions, you pull a Stumpo & go on a name calling spree.

RNP
4 / 5 (8) Nov 15, 2017
@Benni
The fact that you refer to a nonexistent "text of General Relativity" not only shows that you have not studied it but also you do not understand what a theory is.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 15, 2017
@Benni
The fact that you refer to a nonexistent "text of General Relativity" not only shows that you have not studied it but also you do not understand what a theory is.


Uh, oh, it's the guy who once told us he took an introductory course in Thermodynamics in Journalism grad school.

Ok, then you be the one to tell us where in Einstein's GR we can find his dissertations, discussions, math, words, phrases, paraphrases, idioms, text, calculations, etc, on BHs.......or will you simply pull a roguey & go on a name calling binge? Of course stumpo could help the two of you with this, he always has a good repertoire of foul mouthed profanity laced opinions not found in any science books.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 15, 2017
@banjiTROLL
Of course stumpo could help the two of you with this
wow... you're still pissed off that you've been proven to be a liar regarding your self professed differential equation ability, as demonstrated here:
http://phys.org/n...ood.html

http://phys.org/n...s_1.html

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

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

an epic basic math fail of benjiTROLL
the wobble cycle of Earth's rotational axis seems to correlate closely with the time required for our solar system to complete a full orbital passage around the galactic core of the Milky Way.
http://phys.org/n...als.html
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 15, 2017
Re: "Yep, more woo, from wooists. Published by ..."

What we know ..., it will prove to be both).

So, what is academia doing about this? Observably nothing at all. Yet they've certainly had more than enough time to fix the situation.

It stands to reason that when problems evade solution for many decades that the processes and cultural norms instituted by the universities are causing the problem. When such situations emerge, the practice of filtering publications according to which journal is the most prestigious will very obviously carry forward the unresolved problem to the next generation.

What is needed is NEW IDEAS. Yet, what people are doing is aggressively destroying all new ideas that come at them using the same criteria which led us to the paradox of Relativity and quantum mechanics.

At what point are you actually going to try something new?

Armchair quarterbacking.
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 15, 2017
...
Like what? And don't give me that black hole stuff, because there is nothing within the text of General Relativity about BHs. Einstein didn't believe in them. But you think he wrote about something he didn't believe could exist? Alright, what section of GR do I find his dissertation on BHs?

He also didn't believe in "uncertainty".
But he still found it a useful tool...
Now, he didn't believe in black holes exactly, but he did believe in gravitational effect strong enough to bend light. Even to the point of light appearing to not reach an escape velocity.
And Swartzchild did not define a "singularity" as a physical phenomena. It was what happened if you EXTENDED his derivation of a required radius of mass at a given density... A reference point.
If you've ever done a derivation on that, you'd have found out why they call it the "Swartzchild RADIUS" instead of the "Swartzchild Singularity"...
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 15, 2017
Even to the point of light appearing to not reach an escape velocity.
......Oh, really WhyGuy? Tell us everything you know, or link us to the section in GR, where Einstein discussed ANYTHING about an electro-magnetic wave unable to reach ESCAPE VELOCITY if gravity were strong enough.

Hey, Guy, from my position working as a science professional, I can sort this kind of slop & swill pseudo-science from real science. You've been reading too much of the slop & swill Schneibo puts up, you should learn that Electro-magnetism is not subject to KE= 1/2 mv² from which calculations are made to compute ESCAPE VELOCITY..........betcha didn't know that did ya?
jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 15, 2017
Even to the point of light appearing to not reach an escape velocity.
......Oh, really WhyGuy? Tell us everything you know, or link us to the section in GR, where Einstein discussed ANYTHING about an electro-magnetic wave unable to reach ESCAPE VELOCITY if gravity were strong enough.

Hey, Guy, from my position working as a science professional, I can sort this kind of slop & swill pseudo-science from real science. You've been reading too much of the slop & swill Schneibo puts up, you should learn that Electro-magnetism is not subject to KE= 1/2 mv² from which calculations are made to compute ESCAPE VELOCITY..........betcha didn't know that did ya?


Benni....give up you moron. Nobody gives a sh*t. Yes? You are talking to yourself, you burke. Write it up, or STFU. Yes? Have I said before that you are a total irrelevance? If not, consider it done.
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 15, 2017
Even to the point of light appearing to not reach an escape velocity.
......Oh, really WhyGuy? Tell us everything you know, or link us to the section in GR, where Einstein discussed ANYTHING about an electro-magnetic wave unable to reach ESCAPE VELOCITY if gravity were strong enough.

Who said anything about a wave? We're talking single photons, here. With momentum, ergo - relativistic mass. Somehow, you must be misapplying your covariant terms...

Hey, Guy, from my position working as a science professional, I can sort this kind of slop & swill pseudo-science from real science. ..., you should learn that Electro-magnetism is not subject to KE= 1/2 mv² from which calculations are made to compute ESCAPE VELOCITY..........betcha didn't know that did ya?

EM is a force. It isn't subject to that formula. Ergo, making your formula application TO it sound kinda stupid...
Photons (as a result of their relative mass) ARE...
You should learn the difference...
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Nov 15, 2017
EM is a force. It isn't subject to that formula
.......there is only one ESCAPE VELOCITY formula, as follows:

1/2mv²=GMm/r

v{escape}=√2GM/r

So if you want to be smarter than Einstein & those who send rockets to the moon & back here's your chance to prove what a genius an artist with a blowtorch can be. The people at NASA will laugh at your calculation if you try fitting an Elecro-magnetic wave (photon) into that formula, yeah you'll "sound kinda stupid".

There is no escape velocity formula for Electro-magnetic waves (photon). If you think there is one, put it up right here just like I did for MASS, then you won't be coming off "sounding kinda stupid".
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 16, 2017
We're talking single photons, here. With momentum, ergo - relativistic mass.

While photons have momentum they do not have relativistic mass. Relativistic mass only becomes relevant if something has a mass to begin with and is then accelerated close to c.
Photons have zero mass and are never accelerated (they always are at c...which is actually a *must* as soon as something has no mass. Being "at speed of c" and "having no mass" are not properties that something can have separately - they always occur together. The moniker 'speed of light' should actually be 'speed of anything with zero mass').

Photons have an "equivalent mass" - which would be the mass if their energy were converted into a massive particle.
...which can't happen for a single photon because of conservation of momentum - but which can happen e.g. for a pair of photons in colliders, where they can create electron-positron pairs.
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2017
...

There is no escape velocity formula for Electro-magnetic waves (photon). If you think there is one, put it up right here just like I did for MASS, then you won't be coming off "sounding kinda stupid".

Because, as I said, it is not applicable as a "wave"(force). You even did, too...
However, escape velocity applies to "mass" and it doesn't appear to be selective as to whether it's "actual" or equivalent (Thanks for that correction, AA). As per Einstein's comments on photons being affected by another mass...
Otherwise, wouldn't see lensing...

antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 16, 2017
Photons have zero mass and are never accelerated

To add a bit more to this part: This is actually the part where one can understand that space has to be warped. If space were euclidian and photons were to follow a truly curved path in such an euclidian space (e.g. because we observe lensing) then such photons would have to radiate energy away during their 'curved path' because of conservation of momentum since momentum is a vector quantity.
(Note that *massive particles* which are forced (i.e. radially accelerated) into a curved path in a basically euclidian space (e.g. in a circular accelerator) do radiate...viz. synchrotron radiation)

From this we see that photons *must* actually be moving straight at all times - and that it is only the warped nature of space that makes it appear to us as if photons follow a bend during lensing (because our brains evolved only to be able to interpret what they see in terms of having originated in an euclidian space.)
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2017
Because, as I said, it is not applicable as a "wave"(force). You even did, too


........of course I did it, just to show you I know what the formula for an ESCAPE VELOCITY calculation looks like.

There is no other ESCAPE VELOCITY calculation within the fundamental laws of physics IN SPITE of your muddled argument that an Electro-Magnetic Wave is also subject to an ESCAPE VELOCITY calculation, if you still think this is the case then put up the calculable formula by which such a computation can be made.

You seem to think that if an electro-magnetic wave can BEND in the presence of a gravity field such as the Sun which will bend an EM Wave at 1.75 arcsecs, then it stands to reason that an even stronger gravity field can change the velocity of an EM Wave, ultimately reducing it to zero: SO GIVE US THE FORMULA for such an ESCAPE VELOCITY concept.

You & the rest of the Schneibos keep telling us that gravity can change EM velocity, but I have yet to see that formula.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Nov 16, 2017
Photons have an "equivalent mass" - which would be the mass if their energy were converted into a massive particle


Well, what do you know, you've been learning something from reading my Commentary on this site, I must have been a better teacher for you than I thought, something finally sunk in, however it looks suspiciously like a Copy & Paste job from WikiPedia.

Not only does EM have equivalent mass, it has inherent gravity which creates the attraction with the Sun causing EM Waves passing the peripheral disc of the Sun to bend at 1.75 arcsecs.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2017
Gravitational waves from merging supermassive black holes will be spotted within 10 years, study predicts November 16, 2017, 8:54 am 1 jonesdave

Jonesy babe, I see you don't like lessons in REAL SCIENCE.

So tell us, how's life going for you in the world of perpetual motion? I see It gets you all bent out of shape when hard science comes along & strips away that world of fantasy you live in.
jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 16, 2017
Jonesy babe, I see you don't like lessons in REAL SCIENCE.


Real science? You mean like predicting the phenomenon of GWs? And neutron stars? And then, lo and behold, detecting the GWs from a merging of two NSs? At three different facilities; allowing them to triangulate to the co-ordinates of the event? And then pointing instruments at that locality, allowing the detection of precisely what was predicted for such an event?

THAT is science. What you produce is just a waste of pixels. You aren't doing science. Merely indulging in Dunning-Kruger fuelled rants on an irrelevant comments section.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2017
Jonesy babe, I see you don't like lessons in REAL SCIENCE.


THAT is science. What you produce is just a waste of pixels. You aren't doing science. Merely indulging in Dunning-Kruger fuelled rants on an irrelevant comments section.


Oh Jonesy, get off the psycho-babble. Go spend the remainder of the day familiarizing yourself with what Differential Equations look like even though you know you can never come up with the intellectual capacity to solve one.
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2017
Jonesy babe, I see you don't like lessons in REAL SCIENCE.


THAT is science. What you produce is just a waste of pixels. You aren't doing science. Merely indulging in Dunning-Kruger fuelled rants on an irrelevant comments section.


Oh Jonesy, get off the psycho-babble. Go spend the remainder of the day familiarizing yourself with what Differential Equations look like even though you know you can never come up with the intellectual capacity to solve one.


You lost. Get over it.
http://iopscience...05c/meta

Your D-K ramblings are an irrelevance.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2017
I must have been a better teacher for you than I thought

Erm..whut? Since I have you generally on ignore - what are you talking about?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 16, 2017
Erm..whut? Since I have you generally on ignore - what are you talking about?
methinks she got that all caddy-whompus & turned around !! LOL

likely it's just her "trollish illiterati" way of saying you've been a great teacher to her
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2017
I must have been a better teacher for you than I thought

Erm..whut? Since I have you generally on ignore - what are you talking about?


When you have someone on the Ignore, you can neither Read what they write & consequently you cannot Vote. You do a lot of 1 Stars on me, so how do you think I can figure it out? Stumpo says the same thing, and he has your resume that you've been here having bragged about sending to him.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 16, 2017
@idiot benjiTROLL
Stumpo says the same thing, and he has your resume that you've been here having bragged about sending to him
i don't say the same thing as you, dork

and he didn't brag about sending me his resume: he stated that i can validate his claims

I've never received his resume from him - but you can find it (CV) on line, and you can track his education and publication history on line as well, should you be aware of his identity

which is something no one can do for you

moreover, your own comments are the evidence that shows that you've been blatantly lying about your qualifications given that you can't even do basic math or research, and that you don't comprehend basics about nuclear physics, let alone the basics of physics applied to GR/SR etc

jonesdave
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2017
Aaaaaaaaaaaaand they found another one!

Announcement: https://www.ligo....20171115

Preprint: https://arxiv.org...11.05578
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2017
You do a lot of 1 Stars on me

That's a silly lie. I don't vote on you at all. I just checked. This year I haven't voted on a single of your posts. (you get enough 1 stars as it is, you don't need mine)

As a rule I
1) Never downvote someone whom I have on ignore (because what's the point?).
2) Never downvote anyone I'm currently addressing within a particular thread (because I feel content speaks for itself. That I disagree is implicit. I feel there's no need to give it 'added force' with a vote. I'll leave the voting to others to see if my arguments are better than those of the other guy. Adding my own vote would skew that indicator.

he has your resume that you've been here having bragged about sending

Bragged about? Really? Where?
I sent it to him because he was interested after we chatted about some project I was involved in. The side effect is that it's now a way that people can verify that I have the qualifications I claim to have.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2017
The side effect is that it's now a way that people can verify that I have the qualifications I claim to have.


Why do you think you need a retired fireman like Stumpo to cover for you? I never feel a compelling need to send a resume to somebody whose job skills are far below mine as a Nuclear/Electrical Engineer.

Look, I know someone with a degree in Human Biology is someone who has trained to be an Undertaker in this country, but apparently where you live on the dark dank continent of the EU, a Human Biology degree is equal to skills by which I earned my degrees in Engineering.......no wonder you are so easily fooled into believing perpetual motion machinery actually exists.

Uh, don't forget that Ignore.............
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Nov 16, 2017
@banjiTROLL
Why do you think you need a retired fireman like Stumpo to cover for you?
1- not a fireman. never worked on a steam train or with a wood boiler engine in my life

2- i don't have to cover for anyone

3- validation isn't the same thing as "covering", you idiot
...somebody whose job skills are far below mine as a Nuclear/Electrical Engineer
then why do you keep getting outed as a fraud, liar and pseudoscience idiot by said person who's "job skills are far below" yours?

kinda makes you look like a complete idiot, don't you think?
LMFAO
Uh, don't forget that Ignore
being ignored and using the "ignore" function are two separate things

typically i ignore your posts because they're stupid, wrong, pseudoscience, and you're a liar
that and everyone else proves you're all the above mentioned

LMFAO
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2017
Here's the long and short of it, Ben:

I try hard to back up everything I post by being able to cite references if asked for it - because I don't like the way a lot of posters (you included) just make stuff up and think that that gives anything any merit. An opinion is not the same as an argument.

I learned this during my career as a scientist: You must be able to suppy a source for everything - and what you invent yourself you have to back up with experiment (or you have to make it *very* clear that it's unfounded speculation - but that has no part in scientific publications in any case)

On something as anonymous as an internet comment section: If I make a claim about what I am I have to be able to back that up, too. I'm certainly not going to post my name openly - even though I hate the anonymity which is why I picked the moniker *anti*alias in the first place.
But I realize it is necessary because there's no shortage of nutcases (again, you included)
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2017
there's no shortage of nutcase
.......anyone who believes INFINITE GRAVITY can exist at the surface of a FINITE STELLAR MASS is someone who is everything you describe as a "nutcase", yourself.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2017
.anyone who believes INFINITE GRAVITY can exist at the surface of a FINITE STELLAR MASS

Who has made such a claim anywhere?
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2017
.anyone who believes INFINITE GRAVITY can exist at the surface of a FINITE STELLAR MASS

Who has made such a claim anywhere?


So, you no longer believe BHs exist? I see I've been getting through even to you? Or do I read a sleight of the tongue here?

Back to WhyGuy physics right? That Escape Velocity also applies to electro-magnetic waves? Just askin'.
jonesdave
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 16, 2017
.anyone who believes INFINITE GRAVITY can exist at the surface of a FINITE STELLAR MASS

Who has made such a claim anywhere?


In my limited reading on this subject, I was of the impression that scientists don't actually believe there is a singularity, and certainly not infinite gravity. They accept that the maths breaks down there, and will need to be described by something else. Possibly quantum gravity. Apologies if I've got that wrong. I'm guessing it is just a strawman that Benni likes to drag out knock down to make himself feel good, now and again.
http://www.physli...e251.cfm
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Nov 16, 2017
@jonesdave.
In my limited reading on this subject, I was of the impression that scientists don't actually believe there is a singularity, and certainly not infinite gravity. They accept that the maths breaks down there, and will need to be described by something else. Possibly quantum gravity. Apologies if I've got that wrong. I'm guessing it is just a strawman that Benni likes to drag out knock down to make himself feel good, now and again.
http://www.physli...e251.cfm
Yes, that's now the more realistic and logical 'take' from reasonable cosmologists. It's a pity it took so many decades to come round to the realization that it is not a 'black hole in space/spacetime' but just another form of stellar mass/supermassive 'object' which was always (since Mitchell's time) known as a 'dark star' with an 'event horizon' but no 'singularity or 'infinite density' at its center (just some form of 'extremely degenerate' energy-matter). Science lives! :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Nov 16, 2017
Re the above article's grav-waves topic, I would again point out the obvious alternative explanation which has never really been treated/calculated exhaustively because earliest naive/simplistic assumptions/models went straight to pure, detached, 'gravitational waves' as the preferred fit/interpretation while ignoring the actual energy-mass 'radiation losses' in the form of Neutrinos and EM radiation from Radio to Gamma-Rays which we NOW have detected from such 'merger events' of compact-body Binaries having EXTREME MAGNETIC FIELDS which must be interacting greatly when the bodies are so closely orbiting about each other: for this newly confirmed Radio-to-Gamma Radiation (and inevitably also Neutrinos 'flood') losses from such binary systems/dynamics, please also read my comment in threads):
https://phys.org/...eld.html
https://phys.org/...ray.html

Anyhow, you get the gist I trust. :)
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2017
I was of the impression that scientists don't actually believe there is a singularity, and certainly not infinite gravity. They accept that the maths breaks down there, and will need to be described by something else.

Exactly. You get a *mathematical* singularity IF you postulate that nothing new happens while density increases and gravity intensifies.
Now, the thing is: We really don't know what goes on inside a black hole. There could be some new physics. There could be spatial dilation that means that the path to the 'center' is infinitely long (i.e. stuff never reaches a singularity state until the BH eventually evaporates from Hawking radiation). There could be a change in spacetime where more or less dimensions come into play.
All of that (and much, much more) is just pure speculation - so until there's any data the null hypothesis is: nothing new happens
(Note: In any case the notion of space smaller than the Planck length makes no sense)
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2017
So, you no longer believe BHs exist?

They exist (and they have been measured - so there's really no doubt about that whatsoever).
A black hole is just an object that produces an event horizon. The 'singularities' are a result of applying GR and ignoring quantum mechanics.
But at the scale of such a singularity we're dealing with scales where quantum effects play a major role - so we can't just ignore this. Here we need a unified theory of quantum gravity to make any headway (which no one has yet managed to formulate).

So you see: That GR predicts a singularity isn't a problem - because using only GR ignores half the picture.
.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2017
I was of the impression that scientists don't actually believe there is a singularity, and certainly not infinite gravity


We really don't know what goes on inside a black hole.


"Singularity"

"At the center of a black hole, as described by general relativity, lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature becomes infinite. For a non-rotating black hole, this region takes the shape of a single point and for a rotating black hole, it is smeared out to form a ring singularity that lies in the plane of rotation. In both cases, the singular region has zero volume. It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution.The singular region can thus be thought of as having infinite density." https://en.wikipe...ack_hole

Well you two guys, here it, the quintessential definition of a BH: infinite gravity (spacetime curvature), infinite density. Nothing in there about Escape Velocity.

Benni
1 / 5 (6) Nov 16, 2017
So, you no longer believe BHs exist?


They exist (and they have been measured
......Really? Been measured huh? How do you go about measuring something that's never been seen?

so there's really no doubt about that whatsoever
.....talk about someone having a leap of faith. You believe in the unseen.

jonesdave
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2017
Really? Been measured huh? How do you go about measuring something that's never been seen?


You observe its effects on other objects.

https://www.e-edu..._p7.html
http://www.astro....ons.html
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Nov 16, 2017
I would again point out the obvious alternative explanation which has never really been treated/calculated exhaustively because earliest naive/simplistic assumptions/models went straight to pure, detached, 'gravitational waves' as the preferred fit/interpretation


What the LIGO bunch won't talk about is really a much different issue: Is gravity a WAVE?

What are the tentacles emanating from MASS that reaches out & try to grab things drawing them unto itself.

This LIGO team knows for PR reasons it must always talk about GRAVITATIONAL WAVES, that sudden changes in Electro-magnetic & Gravity field conditions when tremendously massive bodies pass near or collide with one another. So far in the detections have not resulted in an observation by which a picture can be made.....I'm still trying to figure that out. We can take pics of individual stars blowing up or merging, so why not the resultant impacts of other objects supposedly many times more massive? Fishy.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Nov 16, 2017
Really? Been measured huh? How do you go about measuring something that's never been seen?

You observe its effects on other objects.


Effects of one thing on another does not define what is causing the "effects", only that there exists an effect.
jonesdave
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2017
Really? Been measured huh? How do you go about measuring something that's never been seen?

You observe its effects on other objects.


Effects of one thing on another does not define what is causing the "effects", only that there exists an effect.


And it is possible, after many years of observations, to calculate the mass of the unseen object due to its effects.
jonesdave
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2017
So far in the detections have not resulted in an observation by which a picture can be made.....I'm still trying to figure that out. We can take pics of individual stars blowing up or merging, so why not the resultant impacts of other objects supposedly many times more massive? Fishy.


A neutron star is roughly 20 km in diameter! You aren't going to see it from 40 Mpc. under most circumstances;
https://en.wikipe...ron_star

And, of course, they did 'see' this one, after the merger:
http://iopscience...GW170817

And the signatures were pretty much precisely what was expected and predicted.

Benni
1 / 5 (6) Nov 16, 2017
And it is possible, after many years of observations, to calculate the mass of the unseen object due to its effects.
......and that's all, it defines nothing about what that mass is that may be having observational effects on something else.

A neutron star is roughly 20 km in diameter! You aren't going to see it from 40 Mpc. under most circumstances;
....you will if it can go biggo bango. Usually N-Stars don't
jonesdave
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2017
you will if it can go biggo bango. Usually N-Stars don't


And they did, or didn't you bother looking at the paper? You aren't likely to see them in visible light at that distance (until they merge). They could possibly be detected in other wavelengths. The area of the sky that has been surveyed for these signatures is, I would imagine, pretty small. It is not surprising that this binary pair were not known about prior to the merger.
jonesdave
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2017
...and that's all, it defines nothing about what that mass is that may be having observational effects on something else.


I refer back to the Wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipe...arius_A*

Observation estimates a mass of 4 million solar masses, within 44m km. The scientists who did the research see no other option than a SMBH:

http://iopscience...075/meta

Benni
1 / 5 (6) Nov 16, 2017
scientists who did the research see no other option than a SMBH:
.....no, they didn't "see" a thing, only an EFFECT created by a gravitating body................stop fantasizing about things that were not seen.
jonesdave
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2017
scientists who did the research see no other option than a SMBH:
.....no, they didn't "see" a thing, only an EFFECT created by a gravitating body................stop fantasizing about things that were not seen.


Invisible body with a mass of 4m Suns. In a small area. Think I'll call that a black hole. Got any better ideas?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Nov 16, 2017
Got any better ideas?
@Jonesdave
obviously she doesn't, otherwise, she would have published in a study decades ago.

that is why she is here: because there is no moderation and she can produce all the pseudoscience stupidity she wants with impunity, much like the eu and the others

Benni
1 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2017
scientists who did the research see no other option than a SMBH:


.....no, they didn't "see" a thing, only an EFFECT created by a gravitating body................stop fantasizing about things that were not seen.


Invisible body with a mass of 4m Suns. In a small area. Think I'll call that a black hole. Got any better ideas?


If it has the mass of four million Suns, how could it be "invisible"?
jonesdave
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2017
scientists who did the research see no other option than a SMBH:


.....no, they didn't "see" a thing, only an EFFECT created by a gravitating body................stop fantasizing about things that were not seen.


Invisible body with a mass of 4m Suns. In a small area. Think I'll call that a black hole. Got any better ideas?


If it has the mass of four million Suns, how could it be "invisible"?


Because the gravity caused by such a mass would mean that light could not escape from such an object. Hence the term 'black hole'. Riddle me this - if you take your spaceship to another planet and park it in orbit, then you use a high powered camera to look at the surface, and you see leaves and dust being moved around - what would you conclude? Did you actually see the wind? Or just the effects from which you can conclude its existence?
wailuku1943
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2017
I keep coming back to this discussion because my partner was for 30 years fooled by (and married to) an untrained guy who was going to "shake the foundations of physics" yet had no math, no scientific training, refused to take his ideas to the faculty at any near-by university (of which there were many, this being in Los Angeles) because they would "steal his ideas." According to him, the entire foundation of physics was wrong, and he alone was capable of working out an entirely new physics. (Which, incidentally, would also solve many of the world's problems.) It didn't take my partner long to work out that she had married a narcissistic fraud but for various reasons she couldn't shake loose for a long time.

Reading the comments from Benni and Chris Reeves, I'm beginning to understand what her ex-husband must have been like. (She, understandably, prefers not to revisit those days.) Thanks for the insights, you two.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2017
Reading the comments from Benni and Chris Reeves, I'm beginning to understand what her ex-husband must have been like. (She, understandably, prefers not to revisit those days.) Thanks for the insights, you two.
@wailuku1943
her ex doesn't live in Australia now, eh?

we have one of those, described exactly as you wrote above!
has been working on their "ToE" for decades...
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2017
Because the gravity caused by such a mass would mean that light could not escape from such an object.


OK, then give us some math to prove this can happen........put up your ESCAPE VELOCITY EQUATION for an Electro-Magnetic Wave like I did for MASS.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2017
Because the gravity caused by such a mass would mean that light could not escape from such an object.


OK, then give us some math to prove this can happen........put up your ESCAPE VELOCITY EQUATION for an Electro-Magnetic Wave like I did for MASS.


Try this:
http://www.thesta...les.html

Escape velocity = sqrt (2GM/r)
Schwarzschild radius = 2GM/c^2

Benni
1 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2017
Because the gravity caused by such a mass would mean that light could not escape from such an object.


OK, then give us some math to prove this can happen........put up your ESCAPE VELOCITY EQUATION for an Electro-Magnetic Wave like I did for MASS.


Try this:
Escape velocity = sqrt (2GM/r)


That's the same Escape Velocity equation I put up for WhyGuy a couple dozen posts above this one, here look at it::

1/2mv²=GMm/r

v{escape}=�š2GM/r

I specifically challenged you to put up an escape velocity equation for an Electro-Magnetic Wave, and what did you do? You came back at me with the same equation I gave WhyGuy, the Escape Velocity formula for MASS. Why did you make that mistake? Maybe you think there's no difference between MASS & ENERGY?

You don't know what KINETIC ENERGY is do you?
jonesdave
5 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2017
That's the same Escape Velocity equation I put up for WhyGuy a couple dozen posts above this one, here look at it::

1/2mv²=GMm/r

v{escape}=��2GM/r

I specifically challenged you to put up an escape velocity equation for an Electro-Magnetic Wave, and what did you do? You came back at me with the same equation I gave WhyGuy, the Escape Velocity formula for MASS. Why did you make that mistake? Maybe you think there's no difference between MASS & ENERGY?

You don't know what KINETIC ENERGY is do you?


What the hell do you think the escape velocity equation is for light, you idiot? It's the bloody same!
Try this: http://www.school...hole.htm
Perhaps the last link was too complicated for you.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2017
This equation means that when the values of M and R for a celestial object are such that sqrt(2GM/R) is greater than the speed of light, nothing can escape the body—not even light.


Getting it yet?
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2017
What the hell do you think the escape velocity equation is for light, you idiot? It's the bloody same!


I can see you've never had even so much as a 1st Semester course in college level physics. You, like Schneibo, anti-physics, a few more living here, do not comprehend the differences in the Fundamental Laws of Physics of Kinetic Energy versus the Fundamental Laws of Physics of Electro-Magnetic Energy.

I know what you're reading on those sites about the topic of ESCAPE VELOCITY, it is Kinetic Energy & not Electro-magnetic Energy. You simply don't know how to parse your way through the fundamental differences between the two.

An atom is subject to kinetic energy laws, an Electro-Magnetic Wave (photon) is subject to electro-magnetic energy laws. You don't know there's a difference between those vastly different fundamental laws of physics because you need at least two semesters of college level physics after you've had at least two semesters of Calculus.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2017
^^^^Hey D-K, why not write it up, because that is the equation that people who are far smarter than you are using. We know you won't. Hell, you wouldn't even dream of going on a physics forum and proposing your nonsense. That's why you do it on here.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2017
why not write it up, because that is the equation that people who are far smarter than you are using. We know you won't.
.........I did "write it up", twice, once to WhyGuy & once to you, I copied it from the Physics textbook I had in Engineering School in 1st & 2nd semester Physics classes.

Jonesy babe, keep posting, I just love the endless entertainment you provide.

jonesdave
5 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2017
why not write it up, because that is the equation that people who are far smarter than you are using. We know you won't.
.........I did "write it up", twice, once to WhyGuy & once to you, I copied it from the Physics textbook I had in Engineering School in 1st & 2nd semester Physics classes.

Jonesy babe, keep posting, I just love the endless entertainment you provide.



Write your nonsense up in a paper, D-K, instead of wimping out on here.. Where it'll be subject to review. By smarter people than you. Who use the equation I gave you. Perhaps you could point to where they are using any other equation? So, why don't you write it up? Cowardice? Only capable of posting on places like this? An incessant need to fuel your D-K syndrome? A psychiatrist could get a lifetime's work from you! Lol. Sad.
TechnoCreed
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2017
@jonesdave
1/2mv²=GMm/r=Gravitational Potential Energie: It tells you the amount of energy you have to deploy to bring an object of a given mass at escape velocity. Notwithstanding this, nothing can escape a place where escape velocity is c... not even a photon.

Note: You do not need any kinetic energy to bring a photon to c... it always is.

jonesdave
5 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2017
@jonesdave
1/2mv²=GMm/r=Gravitational Potential Energie: It tells you the amount of energy you have to deploy to bring an object of a given mass at escape velocity. Notwithstanding this, nothing can escape a place where escape velocity is c... not even a photon.

Note: You do not need any kinetic energy to bring a photon to c... it always is.



Agreed. As I linked to here: http://www.thesta...les.html
See section 1.1.
However, what I posted was: Vesc = SQRT(2GM/r)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Nov 17, 2017
@TC, you need to be telling @Benni, not @jones.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2017
Just to clarify further from above: we do not know r. That would be the Schwarzschild radius. So we have to obtain that first, as I also posted: = 2GM/c^2. We can then determine Rsch. Not surprisingly, when we put that value into the Vesc equation above, we get c! By definition, that what the Rsch is. The place where Vesc = c.
I have no idea what Benni is on about.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2017
1/2mv²=GMm/r=Gravitational Potential Energie: It tells you the amount of energy you have to deploy to bring an object of a given mass at escape velocity.


Notwithstanding this, nothing can escape a place where escape velocity is c....
Correct to this point

... not even a photon.


....and this is where you go wrong. If you think differently, then quote for us the Law of Physics whereby an Electro-Magnetic Wave (photon) is subject to the equation we keep talking about, 1/2mv²=GMm/r, then finishing the equation:

v{escape}= √2GM/r

........notice there is no EM (photon) in this equation,ONLY MASS. If you want to apply this equation to a photon then you need to plug into this equation the mass & gravity properties of EM (photon), try that & you will discover it can't be done.

TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2017
@TC, you need to be telling @Benni, not @jones.


Sorry I do not discuss with carpet crawlers... I know they are there and that I cannot do anything about it, except vacuum regularly to control their population. But one shure thing, I do not feel any urge to acknowledge their presence.

Meanwhile here there are, at last check, 142 crappy comments of you guys whacking at them.
Not one produced any interresting exchange about this article.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2017
I have no idea what Benni is on about.
.....then take 1st & 2nd Semester Physics courses & learn the difference between Kinetic Energy & Electro-Magnetic Energy. Pre-requisites will be 1st & 2nd Semester Calculus.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2017
I have no idea what Benni is on about.
.....then take 1st & 2nd Semester Physics courses & learn the difference between Kinetic Energy & Electro-Magnetic Energy. Pre-requisites will be 1st & 2nd Semester Calculus.


All of which is irrelevant. Try taking a course on GR.
http://curious.as...rmediate

If you disagree, take it up with him, and thousands of other scientists who agree with him, and stop wasting pixels on here. Nobody is really interested.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2017
I have no idea what Benni is on about.


.....then take 1st & 2nd Semester Physics courses & learn the difference between Kinetic Energy & Electro-Magnetic Energy. Pre-requisites will be 1st & 2nd Semester Calculus.


All of which is irrelevant. Try taking a course on GR.
.....or you could do that as well, did you?

You'll find the courses I mentioned above will be pre-requisites if you want to take a course specific to General Relativity, most specifically Differential Equations, unless Jonesy you may have already had those in one of your Algebra classes at Uni? Careful, could be a trick question here.

jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2017
^^^^^Yawn, get over yourself Benni. You really are a bore of epic proportions.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2017
get over yourself Benni
......that would be a vertical leap well over 6 feet, I'm athletic but not enough to do that. I guess tomorrow I'll just finish up taking apart that old maple tree with the chainsaw, it's sure to be boring in this chatroom tomorrow, what with everyone but me already having exhausted their supply of the knowledge of ENERGY.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2017
@Benni.

The "Black Hole" claim is now much more REALISTIC than it was earlier (as is now the case for many things compared to when early naive/simplistic/uninformed 'guesses' and assumptions/interpretations and 'labels' etc were first made). Once formed (by whatever route), the" BH" is now understood logically/realistically to be a GRAVITATIONALLY STABILIZED astrophysical object of extremely COMPACT compressed/degenerate energy/matter forms/states whose cumulative gravitational effect on its surroundings has accelerative effect which can quickly overwhelm the velocity of LIGHT energy-space perturbation propagation across the fundamental energy-space which ALL energy-matter forms/perturbations propagate (at their respective velocities/rates depending on their configurational/motional states/speeds resulting from the accelerative/formation forces/processes which produced/moved them. Moreover the old SINGULARITY 'furphie' is no longer claimed: ie a BHs are Dark Stars. OK? :)
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2017
PS @Benni.

Re your opinion that ENERGY (photon) cannot be stopped from escaping the event horizon of the DARK STAR (previously mislabeled "Black Hole"). I give you a HINT as to what is the actual cause/process of GRAVITY EFFECT: It's 'what that energy-matter is doing' that creates the gravitational effect on surrounding energy-space!....Sorry, can't say more until my ToE published!

So energy (photons) AND matter (mass) BOTH SUBJECT to ACCELERATIVE RETARDATION caused by cumulative energy-matter content within Event Horizon 'surface'. Hence even photons can BE 'trapped/retained', adding to accumulating effects once created/entering below EH of ULTRA COMPACT energy-mass DARK STAR of whatever total mass (from stellar to hypermassive many-stellar equivalent).

So I advise you drop your "can't stop a photon escaping" opinion; and just acknowledge such a gravitational feature/effect EXISTS as NOW described: A DARK STAR of STELLARMASS/SUPERMASSIVE INTERIOR with EVENT HORIZON. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Nov 17, 2017
Sorry, very busy offline again, gotta go....til tomorrow/next. Cheers all. :)
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Nov 18, 2017
So I advise you drop your "can't stop a photon escaping" opinion; and just acknowledge such a gravitational feature/effect EXISTS as NOW described


Well then, put up the equation via which your claim can be computed & thus verified.

So far, the only thing anyone has done is misapply the Kinetic Energy formula ( 1/2mv²) to an Electro-magnetic Wave & imagined they've outsmarted not only me but Einstein and all of NASA scientists computing rocket trajectory used to compute sending rockets all over the solar system, all the while doing nothing more than demonstrating their own abysmal lack of education in 1st & 2nd Semester Physics.

There is absolutely no evidence that gravity has any effect on the velocity of an EM Wave (photon). If you think DARK STARS exist then why is the center of every galaxy more luminous than any other part? If there are BHs at a galaxy's center millions times more massive than the Sun then it's accretion disc would be clearly obvious.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Nov 18, 2017
@Benni.
So I advise you drop your "can't stop a photon escaping" opinion; and just acknowledge such a gravitational feature/effect EXISTS as NOW described
Well then, put up the equation via which your claim can be computed & thus verified.
That's precisely what I shall be doing when I publish my complete and consistent reality-postulates-based Physical ToE AND my reality-axioms-based Mathematical treatments/equations which are capable of modeling the Universal Reality Phenomena without 'blowing up' into 'singularities' and 'undefined' and other UNREAL results which the conventional Unreality-axioms-based maths/equations currently lead to. Hence the longstanding confusions/unreliability of efforts to characterize both Gravity and Black holes (ie, Dark Stars) phenomena/features. Meantime, please take a friendly word of advice: drop your opinion that photonic-energy type EM forms/perturbations "can escape" EH; because the reality-based ToE/Maths will show it can NOT. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Nov 18, 2017
PS @Benni. Still very busy offline, mate; only had a few minutes to spare after reading-through PO this morning: just time enough to post the above to you. I have to log out now. Cheers until next time. :)
ShotmanMaslo
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 18, 2017
There is absolutely no evidence that gravity has any effect on the velocity of an EM Wave (photon).


Photons always travel at the speed of light. However gravity has an effect on energy of a photon. Photons coming from a gravity well are redshifted, their energy is lowered by the amount needed to climb out of the well. For photons coming from a black hole this energy needed to climb out is infinite and so they are redshifted into nothing.

If you think DARK STARS exist then why is the center of every galaxy more luminous than any other part?


Because of matter around black hole, including lots of stars and accretion disk. The hole itself is indeed dark.

All this is elementary stuff. Benni, your claims that undergraduate differential equations are the pinnacle of human knowledge is truly comical. Also rest assured that your precious NASA scientists computing rocket trajectories accept the existence of black holes.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2017
Photons always travel at the speed of light
......then by default logic of this statement BHs can't exist if they "always travel at the speed of light".

However gravity has an effect on energy of a photon. Photons coming from a gravity well are redshifted,
......and they are also gravitationally lensed (bent, deflected), this however has absolutely ZERO to do with VELOCITY.

It's the likes of the armchair Perpetual Motion Mechanics living here who keep trying to apply the KINETiC ENERGY equation 1/2mv² to an EM Wave who have no idea how absolutely preposterous such a concept is. Have you ever heard of Special Relativity?

Maybe you could locate some Einstein calculations showing some examples of applying Kinetic Energy math to an EM Wave (photon)? I'll save you the trouble, there aren't any even though you're likely to come back & suggest hints there are such examples, thereby proving your abysmal ignorance of 2nd Semester Physics...... Elementary stuff.

Benni
1 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2017
thereby proving your abysmal ignorance of 2nd Semester Physics...... Elementary stuff.
.....at the end of which I should have added: "for me"..........."Elementary stuff for me", Einstein too, and the rocket scientists at NASA who plot rocket & satellite trajectories all over the solar system who know the difference between kinetic energy & electro-magnetic energy.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2017
Because, as I said, it is not applicable as a "wave"(force). You even did, too


........of course I did it, just to show you I know what the formula for an ESCAPE VELOCITY calculation looks like.

A little secret? You show'd only that you don't understand the actual process..

You seem to think that if an electro-magnetic wave can BEND in the presence of a gravity field such as the Sun which will bend an EM Wave at 1.75 arcsecs, then it stands to reason that an even stronger gravity field can change the velocity of an EM Wave, ultimately reducing it to zero: SO GIVE US THE FORMULA for such an ESCAPE VELOCITY concept.

You & the rest of the Schneibos keep telling us that gravity can change EM velocity, but I have yet to see that formula.

This is the part of what you don't get - It doesn't change the velocity, only the curvature profile. You just made my point twice...
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2017
Stanford has a nice web page that shows how to calculate escape velocity. It's right here: http://nova.stanf...vel.html

It says the escape velocity is:

v = √(2GM/r)

That means that escape velocity increases as the square root of the mass, and decreases as the square root of the radius, which is what I have been saying all along. Bigger mass, more surface gravity; smaller radius, more surface gravity.

As noted in the page this assumes the body for which escape velocity is being calculated is spherical; for irregular bodies you will get different values for v depending on how far the particular point you're calculating v for is from the center of gravity.

It's obvious that if the mass is big enough and the radius small enough, then v = c. It's also obvious that for any given mass, there is some radius below which v >= c.
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2017
[contd]
A body that has enough mass within a small enough radius meets these requirements and its escape velocity is greater than the speed of light. What's that mean, exactly?

When light is sent straight upward from the surface of a body, the body's gravity causes the light to redshift. This is gravitational redshift; it must not be confused with Doppler redshift. This is a long known and long measured effect and is accounted for in satellite communications from ground stations based on Earth if the need for precise frequency is required (as it is in, for example, GPS).

Now, what if the light doesn't come straight up? In this case, the gravity field *bends the path of the light*. It has to; otherwise we wouldn't see the redshift when it's straight up. This is because the speed of light is a constant, one of the postulates that leads to Special Relativity Theory (SRT or SR).
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2017
[contd]
Since all observers measure the same speed of light, and since energy is conserved, *something* has to happen to the light when it changes from one potential energy level in a gravity field to another, and what happens is, it changes frequency. This is obvious since anything that changes from one potential energy level in a gravity field to another changes energy. The sum of kinetic and potential energy is a constant for any test object that is in a gravity field and is not self-propelled. This also has been long known and long measured, for example in the paths of artillery shells.

So just as an artillery shell, or a baseball, or a football, or a rock, or a bullet, or whatever test object, follows a curved path when sent in a path that is not straight up in a gravity field, so does light, and for the same reasons.
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2017
[contd]
And the closer the direction of the original impulse is to the horizon, the more the path curves and the less energy is lost. And this is just as true for light as it is for a bullet, or a rock, or a satellite, or a planet.

Thus, we should expect that if we shoot a laser beam from the surface of a body, its path should be curved by gravity, just as the path of a rock, or a ball, or a satellite is curved, and for the same reasons. As we increase the angle of altitude, we should see a mixture of curvature and loss of energy for both a test object and for light, and for the same reasons. If the angle of altitude is straight up, then we should see pure loss of energy with no curvature of the path, yet again for the same reasons.

Arthur Eddington showed this in 1919 during a solar eclipse he viewed from Principe, off the coast of Africa. It's often said that he gave the first astronomical proof of GRT; but it's important to understand exactly what he showed.
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2017
[contd]
In fact, Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation had the expectation that light would be bent by gravity in Eddington's observation, as I have shown above. However, as with the precession of the major axis of the orbit of Mercury, *both* TUG and GRT predicted curvature; but GRT predicted *more*. And in both the Mercury orbital precession, and the Eddington observation, the result was what GRT predicted, not what TUG predicted.

So when we say that gravity curves space, it's important to understand that this is true in all theories of gravity; it's not a unique prediction of General Relativity Theory. Newtonian TUG predicts it too. And it's not theory; it's been measured, and gets measured again every time someone uses a GPS to find out where they are and gets the right answer.
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Nov 21, 2017
[contd]
And no complicated math is required for any of this; you can predict curvature of the path of light using simple algebra. One simple easy equation:

v = √(2GM/r)

So if you want to understand gravity, start with Newton and the easy equations, and then move on to Einstein and GRT and tensors. But note that they say the same thing about gravity and light: gravity curves light.
Ojorf
5 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2017
Benni

......and they are also gravitationally lensed (bent, deflected), this however has absolutely ZERO to do with VELOCITY.


So you at least agree that mass bends light towards itself, that's good, Einstein would be proud of you.
Now, can you see how, if the mass is large enough and the light gets bent enough, there comes a point at which it will begin to spiral into the mass and the light won't be able to escape, regardless of how fast it goes?

Can you calculate that point for us, using Einstein's formulae?
Pick a reasonable mass and calculate the radius it would have to be for that to happen (or pick a radius and calculate the mass).
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2017
Now, what's this got to do with black holes?

A black hole is simply an object that has enough mass within a small enough radius that its escape velocity is greater than the speed of light. And this is true for both Newtonian gravity and GRT. I showed this above.

And to understand this nothing more is needed than gravitational redshift, which comes from conservation of energy, and the formula for escape velocity. TUG and one of the four postulates of Special Relativity. Both of which have been extensively experimentally and observationally tested.

As I often say, nowhere to run, nowhere to hide. Simple stuff. Doesn't require a college degree, just a little logic and a little easy algebra.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2017
@Ojorf, note that you don't need GRT to know this. Only TUG and SRT. To exactly calculate it, you need GRT, but the prediction is always that sufficient gravity will bend light, and once it's bent it can be bent back on itself. This has been known since the 17th century.

Note as well that @Lenni has confounded velocity with speed. Velocity is a vector, having both speed and direction; speed is a scalar, not having direction. This is typical of the sophomoric errors this troll tries to use to discredit science and math by misunderstanding them both.
Ojorf
5 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2017
@Ojorf, note that you don't need GRT to know this. Only TUG and SRT. To exactly calculate it, you need GRT, but the prediction is always that sufficient gravity will bend light, and once it's bent it can be bent back on itself. This has been known since the 17th century.


Yes, thanks. I'm just trying baby steps with Benni, if you don't make it as simple as possible, he will latch onto the wrong thing and run with it sideways.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Nov 21, 2017
@Ojorf, note that you don't need GRT to know this. Only TUG and SRT. To exactly calculate it, you need GRT, but the prediction is always that sufficient gravity will bend light, and once it's bent it can be bent back on itself. This has been known since the 17th century.


Yes, thanks. I'm just trying baby steps with Benni, if you don't make it as simple as possible, he will latch onto the wrong thing and run with it sideways.

I think he just does it on purpose to try and make other's jump thru hoops...
Thanks for the thorough explanation, DS.
I get the big picture, but it's always cool to get more details as to how that big picture got big...:-)
Da Schneib
not rated yet Nov 23, 2017
I even oversimplified it, @Whyde. There are a couple questions yet to ask, and I've left them for you to find.

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.