Is dark matter made of primordial black holes?

April 20, 2018, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Is dark matter made of primordial black holes?
The dwarf irregular galaxy IC1613. Astronomers wondering whether primordial black holes might compose the dark matter in the universe suggest that the shapes of faint dwarf galaxies with dark matter halos might reveal the answer. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/SSC

Astronomers studying the motions of galaxies and the character of the cosmic microwave background radiation came to realize in the last century that most of the matter in the universe was not visible. About 84 percent of the matter in the cosmos is dark matter, much of it located in halos around galaxies. It was dubbed dark matter because it does not emit light, but it is also mysterious: it is not composed of atoms or their usual constituents like electrons and protons.

Meanwhile, astronomers have observed the effects of black holes and recently even detected gravitational waves from a pair of merging black holes. Black holes usually are formed in the explosive death of massive stars, a process that can take many hundreds of millions of years as a star coalesces from ambient gas, evolves and finally dies. Some black holes are inferred to exist in the early universe, but there is probably is not enough time in the for the normal formation process to occur. Some alternative methods have been proposed, like the direct collapse of primordial gas or processes associated with cosmic inflation, and many of these primordial black holes could have been made.

CfA astronomer Qirong Zhu led a group of four scientists investigating the possibility that today's dark is composed of primordial black holes, following up on previously published suggestions. If galaxy halos are made of black holes, they should have a different density distribution than halos made of exotic particles. There are some other differences as well—black hole halos are expected to form earlier in a galaxy's evolution than do some other kinds of halos.

The scientists suggest that looking at the stars in the halos of faint dwarf galaxies can probe these effects because dwarf galaxies are small and faint (they shine with a mere few thousand solar luminosities) where slight effects can be more easily spotted.

The team ran a set of computer simulations to test whether dwarf galaxy halos might reveal the presence of , and they find that they could: interactions between stars and primordial black holes should slightly alter the sizes of the stellar distributions.

The astronomers also conclude that such black holes would need to have masses between about two and fourteen solar masses, right in the expected range for these exotic objects (although smaller than the recently spotted by gravitational wave detectors) and comparable to the conclusions of other studies.

The team emphasizes, however, that all the models are still inconclusive and the nature of remains elusive.

Explore further: A new look at the nature of dark matter

More information: Qirong Zhu et al. Primordial black holes as dark matter: constraints from compact ultra-faint dwarfs, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (2018). DOI: 10.1093/mnras/sty079

Related Stories

A new look at the nature of dark matter

March 6, 2017

The nature of the dark matter which apparently makes up 80% of the mass of the particles in the universe is still one of the great unsolved mysteries of present day sciences. The lack of experimental evidence, which could ...

How a star cluster ruled out MACHOs

August 10, 2016

Are massive black holes hiding in the halos of galaxies, making up the majority of the universe's mysterious dark matter? This possibility may have been ruled out by a star cluster in a small galaxy recently discovered orbiting ...

'Ultramassive' black holes discovered in far-off galaxies

February 20, 2018

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

How much of the universe is black holes?

June 17, 2014

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

Recommended for you

SpaceX gets nod to put 12,000 satellites in orbit

November 16, 2018

SpaceX got the green light this week from US authorities to put a constellation of nearly 12,000 satellites into orbit in order to boost cheap, wireless internet access by the 2020s.

Overflowing crater lakes carved canyons across Mars

November 16, 2018

Today, most of the water on Mars is locked away in frozen ice caps. But billions of years ago it flowed freely across the surface, forming rushing rivers that emptied into craters, forming lakes and seas. New research led ...

Electric blue thrusters propelling BepiColombo to Mercury

November 16, 2018

In mid-December, twin discs will begin glowing blue on the underside of a minibus-sized spacecraft in deep space. At that moment Europe and Japan's BepiColombo mission will have just come a crucial step closer to Mercury.

161 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
2.4 / 5 (23) Apr 20, 2018
It's got the be made of something and every test has failed, so they break out the dart board to develop new "hypotheses".
I've got a secret, there is no dark matter, it's unnecessary faerie dust used to prop up a dead guess.
IwinUlose
3.9 / 5 (15) Apr 20, 2018
tiresome.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (18) Apr 20, 2018
The primordial black hole dark matter hypothesis is gathering momentum, it would seem.

One thing I'm not clear on is how the microlensing evidence (we looked and don't see it) that killed MACHOs doesn't do much the same for PBHs. I saw @IMP-9 commenting on this on another thread and didn't get an answer there either.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (19) Apr 20, 2018
tiresome

So is the constant barrage of dark matter pseudoscience, big difference being I get to participate in DM pseudoscience via my tax dollars, and I can't click an ignore tab and not pay. You however can do so and not see my comments.
Mark Thomas
4.1 / 5 (13) Apr 20, 2018
A beautiful hypothesis that does not require new physics, but the question is whether it has the added benefit of actually being correct. Time will time I suppose. :-)

Da Schneib, you raise an excellent point regarding microlensing and I would have to believe this is a very serious issue considering how many of these things would have to around to account for DM. If DM is about 5 times as abundant as regular matter, there should be ton of microlensing going on. Is there some way we could be missing that much?
rrwillsj
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 20, 2018
otto, don't sweat it buddy. Your tax money and mine are well spent on building sport palaces, paying coaches exorbitant salaries and paying off coaches excessive scandals.

You know, the most important functions of every educational institution.

The funding for the trivial needs of teaching and research come from foundations. Trying to spend as little as possible of the loot from their patron robber-barons and war profiteers. Too mask all the pillage and taxes unpaid by the benefactors.

Well, it's a system... Not much of a system. But, hey! It's what we are stuck with. Like bugs trapped in pitch.
Da Schneib
3.6 / 5 (14) Apr 20, 2018
I inadvertently did @IMP-9 wrong by implying that I had asked about the microlensing data re: primordial black holes on the other thread; I had not when I made the post above in this thread. I only meant I had looked to his post for an answer and not found one.

I have now asked there. Fair's fair.
Benni
2 / 5 (16) Apr 20, 2018
The pseudo-science of Cosmic Fairy Dust being chased down the proverbial black hole of the other pseudo-science.............pictures please, just one.
jimmybobber
4.3 / 5 (16) Apr 20, 2018
Benni your comment adds nothing to the discussion. Do you think there is missing matter? If so where do you think it is? If not why do you think the scientists calculations are incorrect? Any links to support your views would be much appreciated.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (14) Apr 20, 2018
Benni your comment adds nothing to the discussion
.....certainly not to the occult of believers who live on the plantation of this kind of funny farm pseudo-science.

Do you think there is missing matter?
Yes, gray matter

If so where do you think it is?
It is missing in the brain of the BELIEVERS.

If not why do you think the scientists calculations are incorrect?
Cosmologists barely make the cut for being called "scientists", most of them have never seen a Differential Equation they could solve.

Any links to support your views would be much appreciated.
I am my own link, I've studied way more nuclear physics than you could ever imagine any one person could possibly accomplish. I can design a working nuclear reactor system.

Having spent six years in Engineering School studying Nuclear/Electrical Engineering + almost two years continuing ed credits beyond that.

What makes you so smart?

granville583762
2.7 / 5 (12) Apr 20, 2018
Darkmatter blackholes makes Leprechauns with their crocks of gold all the more believable

If you talk about fairies and fairy dust long enough people start believing that they have leprechauns hiding their crocks of gold they found where rainbows ends meets earths horizon At least theirs solidity about gold and it is a valuable currency especially if you have a crocks full of gold, there must be some hallucinogenic properties of darkmatter as now blackholes are spewing out darkmatter despite the fact we have to keep say blackholes only suck in normal matter because 5% of matter makes up 100% the mass the universe contains. All in all it makes leprechauns with their crocks of gold all the more believable.
IMP-9
4 / 5 (12) Apr 20, 2018
One thing I'm not clear on is how the microlensing evidence (we looked and don't see it) that killed MACHOs doesn't do much the same for PBHs.


Microlensing experiments wouldn't depend on whether or not the black holes are primordial or not, but what they do depend on is the mass of the objects. The big microlensing experiments were most sensitive to MACHOs with masses ranging from a few solar masses to a million times less. This ruled out a significant contribution from MACHOs in this mass range to the total Milky Way dark matter halo, this covers stellar remnant black holes. Some work has been done to extend these constraints to lower masses. However with PBHs you can seemingly place them at any mass range you like, there are however many other constraints besides microlensing like the CMB...
IMP-9
4.3 / 5 (11) Apr 20, 2018
Some argue that at higher mass (30 Msun, driven by LIGO) or much lower mass (10^-12 Msun) you could get around the microlensing constraints. Here though their best estimate is between 2 and 14 solar masses, which is a mass range which seems to have been excluded by microlensing from EROS. The authors don't seem to comment on this. Some of the major constants are shown in figure 2 here, it doesn't look good for PBH dark matter.

https://arxiv.org....06129v2
dusty55art
1 / 5 (6) Apr 20, 2018
The idea of primordial black holes being dark matter make perfect sense. The universe was filled with elementary particles in the beginning. The clouds collapsed into primordal black holes that filled the universe. The PBH's combined togather over time and formed gigantic black holes that produced quasars. The quasars produced the first hydrogen atoms of both hydrogen with one jet, and antihydrogen with the other. Each form of matter spewed lightyears apart and are still traveling in opposite directions close to the speed of light.
infinitestructure.com
Benni
2.1 / 5 (11) Apr 20, 2018
The idea of primordial black holes being dark matter make perfect sense
......must be true for contemporary BHs as well, we can't even find the one that is supposedly at the center of our galaxy at Sgr A*. Here, go look show us where it is:

http://ircamera.a...ter.htm, 7th pic from top of page.....

"Ever increasing resolution in infrared images showed a black hole is not the energy source. Any black hole must be invisible. (image from Gemini Project). If the black hole dominated the energy of the Galactic Center, it would be the second brightest source in the infrared image."

But, but, if the BH is made of DM then that would explain why it doesn't appear in the above pic, right? And all those stars orbiting point Sgr A* are not orbiting a barycenter, but rather a DMBH. Oh, this is just so much fun!!!!

Hey dusty, just maybe you're onto to something? A DM Primordial BH is what sits at point Sgr A* of our galaxy?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Apr 20, 2018
Thanks, @IMP-9! That does explain a lot more. I'll look at that paper shortly.
AllStBob
5 / 5 (6) Apr 20, 2018
The clouds collapsed into primordal black holes that filled the universe.


Not so fast. For the clouds to collapse they must lose kinetic energy. Either through collisions which statistically just spread it around or by emitting EM radiation or neutrinos. If it is EM then chances are it will hit another particle whose KE will increase, again it just gets spread around. This is why you usually need a massive star to start with so the EM, neutrinos and mass that gets ejected (the supernova) leaves enough collapsing matter behind to form a BH.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Apr 20, 2018
I'll have to dig up some data on the expected Hawking radiation lifetimes of BHs as small as 10^-13 solar masses. And double inflation? Dearie me. This is gonna be an interesting paper, so thanks again!
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2018
Yeah, I was right, this is a pretty interesting paper. The lifetimes even for BHs as small as 10^-13 solar masses are far beyond the age of the universe (~2x10^28 y) so that's not a barrier. It's a little hard to follow as the authors have some language trouble, so it's going to take me a while to dig through it.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (11) Apr 20, 2018
Worth mentioning that although @IMP-9 was nice enough to give an arXiv reference, the article was published in Physical Review D on 14FEB2018. So it's passed peer review.
someone11235813
5 / 5 (4) Apr 21, 2018
Just when the wimps have gained the ascendency, the machos are fighting back. Who said the meek shall inherit the earth.
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 21, 2018
Darkmatter latest whammy! The ultimate in invisibility
It was dubbed dark matter because it does not emit light, but it is also mysterious: it is not composed of atoms or their usual constituents like electrons and protons.

Just when everyone thought darkmatter could not get any darker, more invisible and more elusive it comes out of the primordial soup with properties that make any self respecting stealth bomber green with envy, because now it is not composed of matter at all. The ultimate in invisibility!
A challenge to any darkmatter physicist to make a form of darkmatter that is formed with less matter than nothing at all is worth a Nobel Prize just for just for theory it's self because how can you prove it. Less than nothing does not exist!

granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 21, 2018
Its invisibility properties just keep growing and growing like Pinocchio's nose
It was dubbed dark matter because it does not emit light

Well, seeing as darkmatter does not emit light how does it becomes visible in gravitational lensing?
Darkmatter emitting light, the hypocrisy of it all, it is enough to make any self respecting darkmatter blush!
tallenglish
2 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2018
This statement in the article bugs me:

"It was dubbed dark matter because it does not emit light, but it is also mysterious: it is not composed of atoms or their usual constituents like electrons and protons."

How can they dismiss it when they can't measure it, they are both assuming time can only flow in one direction for all matter at that point. What if it was normal matter that was flowing backwards in time relative to us, that would be dark and only affect gravity. I think it is a huge mistake of science to assume time only goes one way - rather than saying the matter we see is all going the same way.

Why can't time be complex like every other dimension - so it can be both positive and negative as well as imaginary - i.e. what we see (all matter and light) is no more than 25% of everything and the fact our visible universe is expanding is because the dark matter half is collapsing - i.e. overall the universe is oscilating.
Anonym807721
2.2 / 5 (6) Apr 21, 2018
"Black Holes are Dark Matter"
Adrian Ferent

"Information is lost in black holes"
Adrian Ferent

"Gravitons change Matter in Dark Matter, inside a Black Hole"
Adrian Ferent
Wrong things what you learned about Black Holes, because Gravitons are not present in Einstein's wrong Gravitation theory!

That is why in my view Gerard 't Hooft, Leonard Susskind, Stephen Hawking, Jacob Bekenstein… are wrong regarding Black Holes

Gerard 't Hooft and Leonard Susskind are wrong regarding Alice and Bob thought experiments, because the Gravitons will break the atoms of Alice and Bob, before they get to the event horizon.

You learned from your professors, from your books about the temperature of Black Holes!

"Because Black Holes are Dark Matter, Black Holes do not have temperature"
Adrian Ferent

54. I am the first who discovered that Black holes are Dark Matter
Gigel
4.3 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2018
A beautiful hypothesis that does not require new physics, but the question is whether it has the added benefit of actually being correct.

Yes, beautiful theory, 5 times more black hole matter than gas and star and planet matter...

Is it just me who sees the dangerous Universe we may live in? What if one of those black holes zips through the Solar System?
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 21, 2018
Its invisibility properties just keep growing and growing like Pinocchio's nose

It was dubbed dark matter because it does not emit light

Well, seeing as darkmatter does not emit light how does it becomes visible in gravitational lensing?
Darkmatter emitting light, the hypocrisy of it all, it is enough to make any self respecting darkmatter blush!


EVERYTHING that has ANYTHING to do with the pseudo-science of BHs is INVISIBLE, this is classic OCCULTISM.

We have REAL pictures of the absence of a 3-4 million SM BH here:

http://ircamera.a...ter.htm, 8th frame from the top of the page. Plainly visible OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE there is not a BH at point Sgr A* at the center of our galaxy.

When the Schneibos & Imps are so deeply involved in the practices of occultism, should it be any wonder they can never produce IMAGES for what they claim about all this exotic stuff that permeates the (their) Universe?

granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 21, 2018
It has no gravity, Pinocchio's nose has just grown another inch

As it is not composed of gravitational mass how does it attract light?
The article is correct darkmatter does not emit light, its darkmatters gravitational attraction that bends light This all seems fine and dandy until further reading reveals darkmatter is not composed of atoms or their usual constituents like electrons and protons.

As darkmatter is not composed of gravitational mass how does it attract light, it is only normal-matter that emits light and gravity, darkmatter is not composed of matter at all. The ultimate in invisibility! Now we can add to the growing list of darkmatters properties - it has no mass and has no gravity!
ThereIsNoDarkMatter
4 / 5 (4) Apr 21, 2018
"The team emphasizes, however, that all the models are still inconclusive and the nature of dark matter remains elusive."
I like it! all dark matter articles should come with such disclaimers.
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 21, 2018
The Walter Mitty world of darkmatter

Darkmatter - has no mass and has no gravity, is not composed of quarks electrons and neutrinos, does not emit light, does not emit gravity, no electric fields, no magnetic fields, surprisingly it cannot be seen and with its nonexistent gravity is the cause of gravitational lensing of normal light which by the way normalmatter being gravitational mass has gravity which does bend light, even though only darkmatter bends light even though it has no gravity. In point of fact, darkmatter has so much of nonexistent matter and nonexistent properties it's debatable as darkmatter has absolutely less than zero it's not darkmatter that's living in the Walter Mitty world of darkmatter!
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 21, 2018
The logic of a darkmatter glowing halo's,

As the Halo is darkmatter being dark not emit light, Darkmatter halos don't glow
[q[About 84 percent of the matter in the cosmos is dark matter, much of it located in halos around galaxies. It was dubbed dark matter because it does not emit light
Galactic Halos presumably they glow in normalmatter light, the halo's consist of 84% of the mass of the universe as darkmatter which being dark does not glow, darkmatter does not emit light. Galaxy do not have glowing halo's!
kurtstocklmeir
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2018
for years I have talked about this - gravity gets stronger as it travels - there is not any dark matter - all forces get stronger as they travel - magnetic fields associated with galaxies do the same thing as gravity associated with galaxies - it is simple to find a galaxy where the magnetic field of the galaxy increases as distance from center of the galaxy increases - magnetic field of a galaxy decreases a lot less fast than 1/rrr through galaxy for some galaxies - magnetic fields between galaxies decrease a lot less fast than 1/rrr - magnetic field of a cluster of galaxies is extreme strong at a big distance from cluster of galaxies Kurt Stocklmeir
granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Apr 21, 2018
The cluster strength of gravitons
kurtstocklmeir> for years I have talked about this - gravity gets stronger as it travels - there is not any dark matter - all forces get stronger as they travel - magnetic fields associated with galaxies do the same thing as gravity associated with galaxies - it is simple to find a galaxy where the magnetic field of the galaxy increases as distance from centre of the galaxy increases - magnetic field of a galaxy decreases a lot less fast than 1/rrr through galaxy for some galaxies - magnetic fields between galaxies decrease a lot less fast than 1/rrr - magnetic field of a cluster of galaxies is extreme strong at a big distance from cluster of galaxies Kurt Stocklmeir

Gravitons stay the same strength throughout space as a single graviton; cluster several together travelling through space its total gravity gets stronger or weaker but the individual graviton stays the same strength.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Apr 21, 2018
I like it! all dark matter articles should come with such disclaimers.


Boy, isn't that ever the truth, maybe even hazardous to your health warnings as well, who knows how many people have been calculating their BMI based on what they see when they turn sideways in a mirror, they could be 80% off in their number & not even know it.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (11) Apr 21, 2018
Yes, a very interesting paper. Also, I found a cool toy: http://xaonon.dyn...hawking/ Calculates a bunch of very useful parameters for a BH when you put in one (I only tested mass).

They make a couple pretty good points:
1. The calculations for expected lensing by sub lunar mass PBHs failed to take into account the fact that such small BHs would not act on all waves the same. The lensing effect would be weak on longer wavelengths, and the MACHO search used a short wavelength, so they didn't check for this. They call it "the wave effect." I used the calculator to check the EH size for holes of the mass they were talking about and found it to be about 300 nanometers. This is about 30% lower than the longest red in the visible spectrum, so their argument is plausible. MACHO lensing searches in THz and tens to hundreds of GHz should be done to check this; by matching the results with earlier visible light searches we should get results.
[contd]
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (10) Apr 21, 2018
[contd]
2. Double inflation turns out to be a "slow roll" inflation, followed by a "plateau," followed by a "cliff." In other words the vacuum decays twice with a pause, once slowly, then a pause, then an abrupt decay. This fits within the ΛCDM model without any conflicts known so far (I'd like to see a bit more work on it before I started advocating it).

3. They also made the somewhat premature assumption (though again plausible) that the mass spectrum of the BH mergers we've seen so far represents a data set that has a peak in PBHs around tens of solar masses. They figured out how to tweak inflation, namely the double inflation above, to give a peak around this mass, as well as the sub lunar mass needed to explain the MACHO lensing search results. In this scenario, the light PBHs are formed during the "slow roll" inflation and the heavy ones during the vacuum collapse at the end.
[contd]
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (11) Apr 21, 2018
[contd]
So, overall, PBHs remain a viable hypothesis for DM. Some work on how often we could see them here in the solar system would be a good avenue for us to follow, though I suspect you could find out among the references to this paper. And I suspect it would be rarely. I think this was done early in the formulation of the MACHO hypothesis.

Interested in any comments by others reading the papers.
Da Schneib
2.9 / 5 (8) Apr 21, 2018
Oh, and I hope I didn't reverse wavelengths and frequencies in the analysis in #1 above; I do that sometimes.
somefingguy
5 / 5 (5) Apr 21, 2018
The pseudo-science of Cosmic Fairy Dust being chased down the proverbial black hole of the other pseudo-science.............pictures please, just one.


... What do you want a picture of exactly? DM, which doesn't interact with light, which is what a picture captures; or do you want a picture of a black hole, which does not let light escape so that once again you necessarily can't get a picture of it.

I am confused as to why you have such a strong opinion on something that you clearly do not understand on its most basic level.
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (8) Apr 21, 2018
@IMP-9, @Da Schneib.

The above exercise is fundamentally 'mathturbation' by ill-informed hacks. Because:

- A few years ago (in old, now defunct, Physorg-Physforum) there was heated exchange between @ubavontuba and @rpenner re 'danger of Micro-BHs created by LHC; where I had to point out, to BOTH of them, that, due to 'much-stronger-than-gravity' QUANTUM forces/processes, BHs CANNOT EVEN FORM (let alone stably-persist) at mini-micro levels of CUMULATIVE energy-mass/gravity; ie, it's NOT ONLY 'density', but ALSO sufficient cumulative gravity 'containment' that facilitates BHs to form/persist against Quantum forces/processes.

- Why haven't our newer telescopes/instruments detected Ultra-violet, X-ray, Gamma-ray 'cosmic background radiation' microlensing by all those supposed 'primordial' mini-micro-BHs?

- Profs. Paul Steinhardt/Roger Penrose ADMIT BigBang/Inflation NEVER had TENABLE scientific evidence in support.

Yet another 'publish-or-perish' HACK 'fantasy work'. *sigh*.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (10) Apr 21, 2018
@RC, the equations to form the PBHs during inflation are in the paper @IMP-9 linked. They're correct (and have been peer reviewed). So it is incorrect to say that they can't form.

Microlensing surveys, as stated in the paper, have been done for visible light. Nobody's done a microlensing survey for UV, X-ray, or gamma CMBR, or for that matter any CMBR surveys at all at those wavelengths, because the CMBR is microwave. Spot checks for higher frequencies than microwave have been done on empty spots and nothing was seen; there's no need to do a survey because there's nothing there.

Two scientists who are both known iconoclasts is an argument from a bad authority considering thousands of them have found copious evidence to support the Big Bang.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Please take the time to at least read the Wikipedia articles relevant to these subjects, and at least some of the scholarly literature.
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (8) Apr 21, 2018
@Da Schneib.
...equations to form the PBHs during inflation are in the paper @IMP-9 linked. They're correct (and have been peer reviewed)....
N 'maths equations' have yet proven that quantum forces can be overcome/resisted by INSUFFICIENT CUMULATIVE gravitational energy-mass CONTAINMENT effect. Hence that maths and that peer review of same is WORTHLESS misleading conjecture/assumption/claim by INCESTUOUS 'publish-or-perish' HACK mathturbating circle. Get REAL, mate. :)

...Nobody's done a microlensing survey for UV, X-ray, or gamma CMBR, or for that matter any CMBR surveys at all at those wavelengths, because the CMBR is microwave....
There is a COSMIC BACKGROUND of ALL wavelengths, not just Microwave (look it up); including higher frequencies I mentioned AND visible light.

Basically, mate, IF SO MANY 'sub-lunar massed' BHs existed, they should be OBVIOUS; due to thus-inescapably UBIQUITOUS microlensing of ALL higher-frequency 'cosmic background radiation.

cont
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 21, 2018
Yes, a very interesting paper. Also, I found a cool toy: http://xaonon.dyn...hawking/ Calculates a bunch of very useful parameters for a BH when you put in one (I only tested mass).


Well good for you schneibo, now calculate the parameters for the one at Sgr A* 8th frame from the top of the page at:

http://ircamera.a...nter.htm

.........a picture is worth many hundreds of thousands of words, in the case of your words, billions. In fact when you can't find a black hole there, not even billions of words will suffice, right schneibo?
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Apr 21, 2018
@Da Schneib, cont
Two scientists who are both known iconoclasts is an argument from a bad authority considering thousands of them have found copious evidence to support the Big Bang.
So, two of the profs who helped establish the Big Bang/Inflation idea in the first place are not qualified to judge THEIR OWN WORK and Hypotheses they helped promulgate for decades until finally admitting they were WRONG? You overreach/overestimate your own 'qualification' to judge, DS.

And FYI, all the so-called "copious evidence to support the Big Bang", is based on increasingly falsified simplistic/erroneous assumptions/interpretations of observations which have OTHER explanation/interpretation which do NOT support BB/Inflation. I have even mentioned a few of them in my posts here at PO; eg:

- CMBR is produced ALL THE TIME for EONS at every near-BH/Neutron Star 'surface' region (and more);

- Standard-Candle/Distance-Ladder assumptions/interpretations NOW being found naive/unreliable.
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (10) Apr 21, 2018
@RC, are you not embarrassed to be caught using a known fallacy, the argument from authority? Not to mention denigrating math you are incapable of understanding.

Looks like your bipolar is on the manic side again. I think it's time to put you back on ignore.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 21, 2018
@Da Schneib.

@RC, are you not embarrassed to be caught using a known fallacy, the argument from authority? Not to mention denigrating math you are incapable of understanding.

Looks like your bipolar is on the manic side again. I think it's time to put you back on ignore.
Oh Oh, there you go again, DS; defaulting to spurious accusations and personal/diversionary tactics to avoid addressing the actual points made which confirm me correct all along. Please, DS, stop that now. Just address yourself to the points made; and leave out the personal/diversionary 'tactics'. Thanks. :)
Mimath224
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 21, 2018
@Da Schneib have to thank you for posting your points...very interesting, I must have a look at said paper. Like to ask you a couple of (genuine) questions. If, and I do say 'if', Hawking Radiation is in play would not such micro PBH's have 'evaporated' by now (or vanished in GRB)? Secondly, how would PBH"s avoid possible capture by say, Neutron stars? Really think I'm out of my depth here in strict scientific terms but I can follow nonetheless.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 21, 2018
@RC when you go manic and start lying you're gonna get put on ignore. When you come on the site about once a month and start posting bullshit again, it's pretty obvious what your problem is. It's not an insult; it's obvious from your behavior.

Take your meds. And do some homework so you don't say weird stuff on the science site. Or get ignored. That's how it is. Get over it.
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (10) Apr 21, 2018
@Mimath, I posted a link to a calculator that shows the Hawking radiation lifetimes for BHs of the size the authors of the paper are talking about. They're in the range of septillions of years or some such for the smallest ones at around 10^-13 solar masses. So no, they wouldn't have evaporated by now.

Capture depends on their density in the universe. That's one of the things I think should be looked at, but as I said I expect this was done before the MACHO searches already completed. Maybe someone will look it up or calculate it. Maybe I will if I get bored enough.
jimmybobber
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 21, 2018
Benni you keep posting a link that deduces a black hole exists.
"The Galactic Center -- Nucleus of the Milky Way

Key points: How the Galactic Center was hidden; evidence for a black hole AND for recent star formation; the circumnuclear ring"

and from your link

"Even if it doesn't make much energy, there might be a black hole. After 20 years of controversy, we finally managed to measure enough velocities of stars to measure the gravitational field accurately. We can now say: "Certainly! There is a 3 million solar mass black hole."

"Certainly! There is a 3 million solar mass black hole."

Yet you keep using this link to disprove a black hole there.
This is insane. How do you do this?

jimmybobber
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 21, 2018
Benni you cherry pick things out of your link that support your view but fail to comprehend it as a whole.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Apr 21, 2018
evidence for a black hole AND for recent star formation; the circumnuclear ring"
.....Hey, jimbo, how about like the captions at the website, maybe you would like to address those? No, because it goes right to the heart of your dimwitted argument, to avoid discussing the absence of an image of a BH:

http://ircamera.a...nter.htm

"Any black hole must be invisible. (image from Gemini Project). If the black hole dominated the energy of the Galactic Center, it would be the second brightest source in the infrared image."

"Here is a very deep, high resolution (1 arcsec) X-ray image of the Galactic Center -- the source elongated up and down just above and to the right of the center is Sgr A*, but it doesn't stand out at all. Even in X-rays, where we look to find stellar black holes, there is nothing to draw our attention to a supermassive black hole here!"
jimmybobber
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 21, 2018
And Realitycheck. Nothing personal but you do not present yourself as educated or a scientist. What the heck is this gibberish of yours"

"N 'maths equations' have yet proven that quantum forces can be overcome/resisted by INSUFFICIENT CUMULATIVE gravitational energy-mass CONTAINMENT effect. Hence that maths and that peer review of same is WORTHLESS misleading conjecture/assumption/claim by INCESTUOUS 'publish-or-perish' HACK mathturbating circle. Get REAL, mate. :)"
jimmybobber
4 / 5 (8) Apr 21, 2018
You are cherry picking again.
From this time forward it will be now known as "Benni Picking"
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 21, 2018
And Realitycheck. Nothing personal but you do not present yourself as educated or a scientist. What the heck is this gibberish of yours"


And you are the supreme example of your own presentation of yourself as educated or a scientist. You can't even look at a REAL live picture & locate what the captions clearly call out zero imagery of the 2nd largest object in the PICTURE.

Hey, jimbo, do you even know what a PICTURE is? Or is your educational level at such a diminutive state that such a concept is so far over your head that it's out of sight?
jimmybobber
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 21, 2018
Others have pointed out that the resolution of the pictures you are referring to isn't good enough to see the black hole. You expect to see it blocking out the stars behind it but the resolution isn't good enough.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 21, 2018
Others have pointed out that the resolution of the pictures you are referring to isn't good enough to see the black hole. You expect to see it blocking out the stars behind it but the resolution isn't good enough.


.....but schneibo, jonesy, RNP, yourself, aren't scientists. They shut their claptraps real fast when I produced this website http://ircamera.a...nter.htm which absolutely devastated their novice "resolution" arguments, it's the same problem you're having. This website CLEARLY rebuts any concept by neophytes, such as yourself, that the galactic center can't be imaged, it clearly is IMAGED, you just don't like what you don't see, a BH you were so certain was there.
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (8) Apr 21, 2018
@Da Schneib.
@RC when you go manic and start lying you're gonna get put on ignore. When you come on the site about once a month and start posting bullshit again, it's pretty obvious what your problem is. It's not an insult; it's obvious from your behavior. ....
It's again obvious to the readers that you are again employing your old tactics of insult and evasion in order to avoid addressing the scientific/logic points made. Every time in the past you used those spurious "lying" etc accusations you have ended up with egg on your face because it turned out I was not "lying" and in fact was correct on objective science/logics facts/points. Why keep reverting to such failed/embarrassing tactics, DS? Please stop it and address the points made objectively and fairly, ok? Unless you do that, all your 'on ignore' and 'lying' etc tactics are lame; and only let your intellect and science principles down. How many times do you have to learn the lesson that I do not lie. Stop. :)
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (13) Apr 21, 2018
Others have pointed out that the resolution of the pictures you are referring to isn't good enough to see the black hole. You expect to see it blocking out the stars behind it but the resolution isn't good enough.


.....but schneibo, jonesy, RNP, yourself, aren't scientists. They shut their claptraps real fast when I produced this website http://ircamera.a...nter.htm which absolutely devastated their novice "resolution" arguments, it's the same problem you're having. This website CLEARLY rebuts any concept by neophytes, such as yourself, that the galactic center can't be imaged, it clearly is IMAGED, you just don't like what you don't see, a BH you were so certain was there.


Still too thick to understand it? Why am I not surprised? IQ of a brain damaged trilobite.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (12) Apr 21, 2018
You can't even look at a REAL live picture & locate what the captions clearly call out zero imagery of the 2nd largest object in the PICTURE.


Wrong. As has been explained in very simple language, numerous times. See what I mean about the mentally challenged trilobite?

Mimath224
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 21, 2018
@Mimath, I posted a link to a calculator that shows the Hawking radiation lifetimes for BHs of the size the authors of the paper are talking about. They're in the range of septillions of years or some such for the smallest ones at around 10^-13 solar masses. So no,

Da Schneib Thanks, I'll have a look later.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 21, 2018
@jimmybobber.
And Realitycheck. Nothing personal but you do not present yourself as educated or a scientist.
It's ok, mate; n personal offense taken. I am allowing for the obvious fact that you are not familiar with the past history/context involved.
What the heck is this gibberish of yours:

"N 'maths equations' have yet proven that quantum forces can be overcome/resisted by INSUFFICIENT CUMULATIVE gravitational energy-mass CONTAINMENT effect. Hence that maths and that peer review of same is WORTHLESS misleading conjecture/assumption/claim by INCESTUOUS 'publish-or-perish' HACK mathturbating circle. Get REAL, mate. :)"
If you had read in context, you would have spotted the obvious TYPO in the very first word. :) It should have been "NO". Please re-read in context: I was responding to @Da Schneib's comment
equations to form the PBHs during inflation


Re education/science level/credibility, the record will show mine is more objective/better than others. :)
jimmybobber
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 21, 2018
The N wasn't the issue it was the rest of what you said and the crazy caps.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 21, 2018
@jimmybobber.
The N wasn't the issue it was the rest of what you said and the crazy caps.
Again, the rest should be read in full context, else you will be reading/misreading based on partial information and consequential failure to understand a response which forms part of an ongoing exchange. As for the "CAPS", it is an unfortunate necessity due to certain posters IGNORING and/or MISREADING pints made if placed in lower case. So understand that when I DO USE CAPS, it is to deprive the ignoring/dishonest interlocutor involved the 'out' of claiming he 'didn't see it'.

Anyhow, if you are as earnest/objective as you have come across so far, why don't you ask yourself (and DS) WHY @Da Schneib avoiding addressing the science/logic points I made; and WHY is he again trying to divert attention from that by again employing SPURIOUS claims and personal insults and accusations.

Take care to appraise yourself of all the facts/context before again making opinion about me. :)
jimmybobber
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 21, 2018
"WORTHLESS misleading conjecture/assumption/claim by INCESTUOUS 'publish-or-perish' HACK mathturbating circle."

You are insane. Which is ok. You just need the right meds.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 21, 2018
@jimmybobber.
"WORTHLESS misleading conjecture/assumption/claim by INCESTUOUS 'publish-or-perish' HACK mathturbating circle."

You are insane. Which is ok. You just need the right meds.
See? You just confirmed that some things need to be put in ALL CAPS so that even the most biased/inattentive interlocutor won't miss it. So I will write out my last line of my last post so that even a 'one-eyed opiner' can't miss it again:
TAKE CARE TO APPRISE YOURSELF OF ALL THE FACTS/CONTEXT BEFORE AGAIN MAKING OPINION ABOUT ME. :)
There, now there is no excuse for you next time. :)

FYI:

- I was the one who cautioned others to check Bicep2 claims for themselves before accepting; but did they (whom you now apparently personally favor) listen? No.

- I am the one pointing out the correct science/logics re CMB produced NOW all over, for Eons (hence CMB NOT from big bang/Inflation etc (Steinhardt/Penrose admit BB/Inflation NOT tenable)...but will you/they listen? No.

Pity.
krizo888
1 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2018
sigh -- you 21 century humans are so off.

before the 'big bang' all was dark matter -- the universe bubbled out from it in a manner similar to the way helium is created on earth by alpha decay. the universe is expanding out within it - dark matter is denser than the universe and so it squeezes it out -

also -- the universe doesn't expand and then collapse over and over --- it bubbles
granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Apr 22, 2018
Darkmatter and blackholes and their common denominators

Darkmatter and blackholes are Invisible, both consist of darkmatter; where darkmatter does not consist of quarks, electrons and neutrinos and does emit visible light proved by blackholes not emiting visible light.

Darkmatter and blackholes do not emit visible light.
Darkmatter does not consist of matter and has no gravity
Blackholes require gravity but consisting of darkmatter which has no inertial mass has no gravity.

The implications of blackholes consiting of darkmatter are blackholes do not exist.
In summary Darkmatter and blackholes do not exist.
granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Apr 22, 2018
The 3minute dilemma - (Darkmatter and blackholes are Invisible, both consist of darkmatter; where darkmatter does not consist of quarks, electrons and neutrinos and does emit visible light proved by blackholes not emiting visible light.) should read (Darkmatter and blackholes are Invisible, both consist of darkmatter; where darkmatter does not consist of quarks, electrons and neutrinos and does not emit visible light proved by blackholes not emiting visible light.)

The difference a simple word (not) can make in the universe.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Apr 22, 2018

.........."but schneibo, jonesy, RNP, yourself, aren't scientists. They shut their claptraps real fast when I produced this website http://ircamera.a...nter.htm which absolutely devastated their novice "resolution" arguments, it's the same problem you're having. This website CLEARLY rebuts any concept by neophytes, such as yourself, that the galactic center can't be imaged, it clearly is IMAGED, you just don't like what you don't see, a BH you were so certain was there."

Still too thick to understand it? Why am I not surprised? IQ of a brain damaged trilobite.


Wrong. As has been explained in very simple language, numerous times. See what I mean about the mentally challenged trilobite?


Would you like to repeat your past claim that you took Differential Equations in an Algebra course you took in High School?

Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2018
"WORTHLESS misleading conjecture/assumption/claim by INCESTUOUS 'publish-or-perish' HACK mathturbating circle."

You are insane. Which is ok. You just need the right meds.


So, what then is your big claim to fame?

Maybe you took Differential Equations in the same Algebra class as jonesy claims he took them?

So far, your demonstrable literacy in math & science skills remains at zero because you can't even accept the IMAGERY of OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE that there is no BH at Sgr A*, as pointed out at http://ircamera.a...ter.htm.

So let's figure this out Jimbo, all the IMAGES of OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE that do not comport with your DM & BH fantasies is all about your eyes lying to you, right? This being the case, it's not about "meds", it's making an appointment with an eye doctor & getting the proper prescription eyeglasses so you are better able to SEE what is plainly NOT VISIBLE rather than inserting a fantasy.

jimmybobber
4.7 / 5 (12) Apr 22, 2018
Benni. I took Differential Equations in college after I took three calculus courses. This does not make me an expert and it's nothing to brag about.
What is your obsession with Differential Equations?
And by the way most differential equations do not have closed form solutions and need to be solved numerically. That is not a bad thing.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2018
This does not make me an expert and it's nothing to brag about.
........well this certainly is obvious.

What is your obsession with Differential Equations?
Better question, what is your aversion? Jonesy's, Schneibo's, RNP's, etc.?

most differential equations do not have closed form solutions. That is not a bad thing.


What is a "bad thing" is your willful aversion to the IMAGERY of OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE at http://ircamera.a...ter.htm.

"Here is a very deep, high resolution (1 arcsec) xray image of the Galactic Center -- the source elongated up and down just above and to the right of the center is Sgr A*, but it doesn't stand out at all. Even in X-rays, where we look to find stellar black holes, there is nothing to draw our attention to the supermassive black hole here!(from NASA/CXC/MIT/F.K.Baganoff et al. http://chandra.ha...ex.html) "

Got your your glasses on yet?
jimmybobber
5 / 5 (10) Apr 22, 2018
Benni you need a shirt that says "I know differential equations therefore I'm smart"
Your links aren't working.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 22, 2018
Benni you need a shirt that says "I know differential equations therefore I'm smart"
Your links aren't working.

Your ability to discern the imagery of real pictures is what is not working, Inserting fantasies into real pics is no substitute for simply believing what IS NOT in the REAL pics. Get new glasses old man.
jimmybobber
5 / 5 (7) Apr 22, 2018
Your links aren't working for me.
DarkHorse66
5 / 5 (7) Apr 22, 2018
@Benni:

Your links aren't working for me.

He's right. I just tried it too.
I got this:

"Missing Page!

We're sorry! The page you are looking for does not exist. Please make sure you have entered the URL correctly.

Would you like to search for it?

Main Chandra Home Page"

It it is always a good idea to check a link before posting :)

Best Regards, DH66
jimmybobber
5 / 5 (9) Apr 22, 2018
Benni an actual image with good resolution is forthcoming.

http://earthsky.o...lescope.

"What the @ehtelescope expects to find in 2018 - a silhouette in the glow of radiation at the center of the Milky Way Galaxy. Simulation by 2017 Jansky Fellow Kazunori Akiyama."
DarkHorse66
5 / 5 (5) Apr 22, 2018
@JB: Nice site, very interesting clip. Have you been able to find out any more precise info as to when they are going to release this new, composite and direct image? I'll be looking forward to it!!!

Cheers, DH66
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 22, 2018
@JB: Nice site, very interesting clip. Have you been able to find out any more precise info as to when they are going to release this new, composite and direct image? I'll be looking forward to it!!!

Cheers, DH66


I haven't heard anything specific, but I did sign up to their Twitter thingy so that I receive notifications from them. If it's anything like the first GW detection, I suspect it may leak only shortly before publication.
https://twitter.c...?lang=en
doogsnova
1 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2018
https://gregdouga...avidson/
PIOOSR
The universe is 46 trillion years old and has 7 layers.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (11) Apr 22, 2018
Benni you need a shirt that says "I know differential equations therefore I'm smart"
Your links aren't working.

Your ability to discern the imagery of real pictures is what is not working, Inserting fantasies into real pics is no substitute for simply believing what IS NOT in the REAL pics. Get new glasses old man.


What is the size of the BH? Oh, yeah, you screwed this up previously, eh? Maths isn't your thing, is it? However, smarter people, who can do the maths, worked it out for you, dear. Now, what is the angular size of that blob of blackness on the sky at ~8kpc? Easy, Benni boy; r = 8 kpc, therefore you can work out the size, yes? What is the resolution of the telescopes being used? Why do you think all these clever scientist chappies have had to assemble a globe spanning VLBI telescope to see it?
Why didn't they just look at an IR piccy, like you?
Because they aren't scientifically illiterate morons, would be the answer to that.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (11) Apr 22, 2018
Maybe you took Differential Equations in the same Algebra class as jonesy claims he took them?


This from the nutjob who can't even do the simple maths to work out a Schwarzschild radius! Had to Google an answer, and picked the wrong one! Lol. Asked to provide working - never did.
Cannot work out the angular size of a BH of ~ 11m km radius at ~ 8 kpc!
The only differentiation going on here, is those with the ability to do basic maths recognising a Dunning-Kruger affected know-nothing who cannot.
jimmybobber
5 / 5 (7) Apr 22, 2018
jonesdave spot on. I had a boss afflicted by this years back. It was a nightmare.

"In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein people of low ability have illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority derives from the metacognitive inability of low-ability persons to recognize their own ineptitude; without the self-awareness of metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their actual competence or incompetence"

I imagine if Benni realizes he is wrong then it will be devastating for him personally. I kinda feel bad. That will be a rough wake up call.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (12) Apr 22, 2018
Your links aren't working for me.


No, he left a parentheses on the end of it. Should be this:
http://chandra.ha...dex.html

The image (as worked out previously on here, by people who understand maths) is about 60 light years on a side. And the resolution of 1 arcsec is nowhere near enough to see a pinprick of blackness. Benni knows all this, but just keeps spamming his ignorance on different threads, in the hope of catching somebody who hasn't already seen his ignorance exposed.
I, and others, already did the maths, but it isn't rocket science to work out 8.4 arcmins (or 1 arcsec) at ~ 26 000 ly. Radius and Pi are about all you need. Too much for Benni, though, bless 'im!
jimmybobber
5 / 5 (8) Apr 22, 2018
and the calculation doesn't require a differential equation!
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (12) Apr 22, 2018
and the calculation doesn't require a differential equation!


Doesn't even need a calculator! Just did it again on paper. 1 arcsec in that image = ~ 1.2 x 10^15m. Which is ~ 1/8th of a light year, or ~ 8 000 AU. The BH has a diameter of ~ 22m km, = ~ 1/7th of an AU!
So, by my calculations, we need something that has a resolution of ~ 1/60 000th of an arcsec (7 x 8 000) to see the EH. That is ~ 15 microarcsecs (i.e. 15 millionths of an arcsec).

Just had a check on the web, and they say ~ 10 microarcsecs radius (so 20 microarcsecs diameter). So, not bad without a calculator!
https://eventhori...er-array
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (11) Apr 22, 2018
Your links aren't working for me.


Here is the most recent one for the Arizona Uni site:
http://ircamera.a...nter.htm

For some reason, Benni wants to keep linking to the 2012 version.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (11) Apr 22, 2018
...differential equation!
@jimmybobber
Benni says he is a "Nuclear & Electrical: engineer: http://phys.org/n...les.html

but can't even do basic math: http://phys.org/n...ood.html

he Plagiarized here: http://phys.org/n...dio.html

cant do differential equations either (even after being educated by posters like DaS, Jones and RNP): http://phys.org/n...ate.html

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

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

https://phys.org/...ing.html

Benni is just wanting attention and is no different than cantdrive85, zephir (now mackita) or the other religious fanatics promoting their delusion
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 22, 2018
Your links aren't working for me.


Here is the most recent one for the Arizona Uni site:
http://ircamera.a...nter.htm

For some reason, Benni wants to keep linking to the 2012 version.


For some reason YOU prefer the one with the animation of the blinking red spot., makes perfect sense. In the meantime the REAL pic is retained & it shows nothing like what is seen in the animation. Why do you BH Enthusiasts prefer animation fantasies over REAL pics?
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 22, 2018
What's really amusing about @Lenni changing the link to the old one (yes it really did that) is that next year the professors will probably update the page to contain the EHT results.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 22, 2018
There's still question, who is actually deluded here and who just seeks the money for futile projects despite the experimental results already published. At any case, I'm not getting any money from tax payers for it.
@zeph
not really a question at all

and if you were even partially aware of funding constraints or how hard it is to obtain, you would be cognizant of the stupidity of your statement

if it is so obviously easy to obtain the reams of cash falling like snow in universities, surely you can obtain just a tiny fraction that would keep you in your aether research for a hundred years: https://www.grant...ome.html

[sarc/hyperbole - just in case you didn't get it]
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (11) Apr 22, 2018
Your links aren't working for me.


Here is the most recent one for the Arizona Uni site:
http://ircamera.a...nter.htm

For some reason, Benni wants to keep linking to the 2012 version.


For some reason YOU prefer the one with the animation of the blinking red spot., makes perfect sense. In the meantime the REAL pic is retained & it shows nothing like what is seen in the animation. Why do you BH Enthusiasts prefer animation fantasies over REAL pics?


Benni:- has anyone ever told you that you are a complete f*ckwit? If not, consider it done. Dick.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (11) Apr 22, 2018
There's still question, who is actually deluded here and who just seeks the money for futile projects despite the experimental results already published. At any case, I'm not getting any money from tax payers for it.
@zeph
not really a question at all

and if you were even partially aware of funding constraints or how hard it is to obtain, you would be cognizant of the stupidity of your statement

if it is so obviously easy to obtain the reams of cash falling like snow in universities, surely you can obtain just a tiny fraction that would keep you in your aether research for a hundred years: https://www.grant...ome.html

[sarc/hyperbole - just in case you didn't get it]


Aether? Lol. Surely nobody takes that sh*t seriously any more Captain? Only loons, yes? Aether? Lol. I guess you were joking (in fact I know you were).
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Apr 22, 2018
Worth mentioning at this point that the "blinking red dot" is the BH eating a gas cloud the mass of Mercury, according to the linked page. @LenniTheLiar is lying again.
jimmybobber
5 / 5 (8) Apr 22, 2018
Also regarding the animation

"Sgr A*-IR

This three color animation, centered on Sgr A*-IR shows, for the first time ever, the broadband color of Sgr A*-IR throughout an outburst. The image is 1 arcsec on a side and covers about two hours of observations. For this false color animation, H (1.8 microns) = blue, K' (2.1 microns) = green, and L' (3.8 microns) = red. The animation was created from data obtained at the W. M. Keck Observatory using the Laser Guide Star Adaptive Optics System."

http://www.galact...ons.html
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 22, 2018
For some reason YOU prefer the one with the animation of the blinking red spot., makes perfect sense. In the meantime the REAL pic is retained & it shows nothing like what is seen in the animation. Why do you BH Enthusiasts prefer animation fantasies over REAL pics?

If we're talking about the same pics, the "animation" vid is simply a colorized version laid over the actual observed orbital paths of stars in proximity... (So simple folks like me can actually get it...)
Mimath224
5 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2018
@Whydening Gyre Thanks for that I thought 'blinking red spot' = '[mild profanity] red spot', Ha!
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (7) Apr 22, 2018
For some reason YOU prefer the one with the animation of the blinking red spot., makes perfect sense. In the meantime the REAL pic is retained & it shows nothing like what is seen in the animation. Why do you BH Enthusiasts prefer animation fantasies over REAL pics?

If we're talking about the same pics, the "animation" vid is simply a colorized version laid over the actual observed orbital paths of stars in proximity... (So simple folks like me can actually get it...)

And if you're talking bout the 6 sec Youtube one, the "blinking red dot" is derived from ACTUAL Keck data. Obviously time lapsed...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2018
@Whydening Gyre Thanks for that I thought 'blinking red spot' = '[mild profanity] red spot', Ha!

You can just call it an FRS...
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2018
For some reason YOU prefer the one with the animation of the blinking red spot, makes perfect sense. In the meantime the REAL pic is retained & it shows nothing like what is seen in the animation. Why do BH Enthusiasts prefer animation fantasies over REAL pics?


If we're talking about the same pics, the "animation" vid is simply a colorized version laid over the actual observed orbital paths of stars in proximity... (So simple folks like me can actually get it


No WhyGuy, you don't get it, it's called a BARYCENTER, a very common pattern of ORBITAL MECHANICS found in ALL multiple star clusters exactly like the one shown even in their animation as well as the time lapse photo.

Odd isn't it? All the foul mouthed name callers showing up were only a couple of months ago counter claiming me the telescopic images you see at the Galactic Center Site actually existed. All the lectures I got about lack of "resolution due to extinction". I'm still laughing.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (8) Apr 23, 2018
No WhyGuy, you don't get it, it's called a BARYCENTER, a very common pattern of ORBITAL MECHANICS found in ALL multiple star clusters exactly like the one shown even in their animation as well as the time lapse photo.

Sorry, no. those time lapsed stars are orbiting something besides themselves.
I'm thinkin' I'm just gonna wait it out and see for myself what they come up with...
And I'm bettin' it's gonna be pretty much what they describe...
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 23, 2018
Apparently @Lenni still believes in the tooth fairy and in magical barycenters that make gravity with no mass.
TopCat22
not rated yet Apr 23, 2018
why not give space-time the property of viscosity?

As mater density increases the space time around it get more viscous. Kind of like molasses.

The change in viscosity results in the speed of galaxy rotation becoming more homogeneous.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 23, 2018
Apparently @Lenni still believes in the tooth fairy and in magical barycenters that make gravity with no mass


Coming from one of the neophytes who a couple of months ago went on a berating rant that the pics at http://ircamera.a...nter.htm could not exist because there existed no telescopic imaging technology for imaging individual stellar bodies at the Galactic Center.

You, RNP, jonesy, others, still haven't recovered from being embarrassed to learn how wrong you were. I sucked the bunch of you into committing yourselves into an unresolvable position, that every stellar mass at the galactic core is easily imaged, that caused the usual suspects of neophytes to go off on another one of your usual foul mouthed name calling rants about how there did not exist telescopic imagery to take pics of the galactic core at Sgr A*, then after trapping you bunch of clowns into the corner I wanted you in I sprung the pics, nice of me huh?
Mimath224
5 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2018
@Da Schneib
Apparently @Lenni still believes in the tooth fairy and in magical barycenters that make gravity with no mass.

Maybe Benni should try this one;https://www.youtu...ex=1228.
Really IS a load of balls.
I must be having one of my 'funny' days, Ha!
milnik
1 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2018
Is it possible that you have so many options to answer to something that does not belong to this universe at all, which is the only, infinite, and filled with the substance Aether from which matter is formed, and the matter is again transformed into Aether. It is a closed cycle in which all processes of matter formation take place, going from subatomic particles to clusters of galaxies. It is only an insurmountable problem of science in that no one from this bunch of researchers understands and does not want to accept the structure of a universe that is two entity. The basic creator entity is the Spiritual Entity of the Universe (SEU), which is the unlimited power of forming everything that belongs to the long entity, which is the material energy entity of the universe (MEEU).
milnik
1 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2018
It is a science that has so much astounded and wandered through madly fake and unnatural and imaginary theories, which in no way correspond to the natural laws and what constitutes the SEU. WHAT IS SCIENCE, ONE? And it ignores many who have "trodden" into the network of unconscious conclusions about phenomena. Science should deal with the explanation of the cause of the phenomenon and to respect the laws of the one who formed these learned scientists. You ignore yourself, your abilities and abilities you need to use with the understanding that your conclusions must match what you have formed.
Today's science has fallen into a "black hole with darkness and unconsciousness," and this hole was made by Einstein and Lorenz with their theories and transformations, and all those who believe in BB, where everything came from nothing !!
milnik
1 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2018
Whether they are human beings, or are they only robots without consciousness, and consciousness is the power of understanding the true causes of the phenomenon, with the help of an intuition that connects us with the SEU and the ACU (Absolute consciousness of the universe)
All those who do not respect the existence of ACU and SEU, they are now at the level of instinct, without awareness and think that what it serves is their merit.
Which fool can claim that in the universe there are, for example, 74% of dark matter, and the notion has neither how much and what is the universe, nor can he see, nor can he measure the darkness he sees. Such, as urgent, need to be prepared for clinics to get the "anti-pill" pill and become normal.
milnik
1 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2018
Understand, like normal people: NO EXISTS: BB, dark matter, dark energy, universe expansion, virtual particles, gravitons and GW, inflation and similar nonsense.
Science and its followers make conclusions about many phenomena related to matter, energy, gravity, magnetization, light, and they have no idea what and how all these factors are formed.
COME TO GROWING WISE AND GET READY !!!
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2018
@Da Schneib
Apparently @Lenni still believes in the tooth fairy and in magical barycenters that make gravity with no mass.

Maybe Benni should try this one;https://www.youtu...ex=1228.
Really IS a load of balls.
I must be having one of my 'funny' days, Ha!
Yeah, you are, but what is normal for you.

Wasn't it just so nice of me to get all this started? Stay tuned guys, more coming, I'm just parsing out measured quantities so that your disabled fantasies do not cause you to fall into an unrecoverable state of depression.
RNP
3.8 / 5 (13) Apr 23, 2018
@Benni
The fact that you think the ill-educated nonsense that you post here has any impact on anybody that reads it just goes to show the depth of your delusions. Everything you post is pure BS and EVERYBODY knows it.

The people that you are sneering at actually do have scientific educations and therefore recognize the drivel that you post for what it is. You really should try to get at least a little of the education you purport to possess or you will continue to look like a complete idiot.
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 23, 2018
The fact that you think the ill-educated nonsense that you post
....Remember?

" @Benni
So, here we have it, an object at the very center of our galaxy that is the biggest object in the galaxy & we can't even see it's dusty semi-luminescent accretion disc.

The distance to the center of the galaxy of ~25,000 light years (8 kpc) is more than 2.5 BILLION times the 90 million km you estimate for the size of accretion disk. As such, it would subtend less than 100 micro-arcseconds and would therefore be completely un-resolvable by even the highest resolution telescopes (with the exception of the the VLA-like interferometers that are just now trying to image the region). This coupled with the enormous amounts of extinction towards the centre due to dust in the disc make it necessary to use technology only now becoming available to get "images" of the BH and its environs."

Read more at: https://phys.org/...html#jCp
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 23, 2018
@Benni
The fact that you think the ill-educated nonsense that you post here has any impact on anybody that reads it just goes to show the depth of your delusions. Everything you post is pure BS and EVERYBODY knows it.


Rguy, you should have been a bit more adept at fact checking before you shot off your mouth: "... would therefore be completely un-resolvable by even the highest resolution telescopes (with the exception of the the VLA-like interferometers that are just now trying to image the region)"

What you didn't know back on Feb 15th is that I already knew of: http://ircamera.a...ter.htm.

You got sucked in by your own arrogant attitude that this website proved how wrong you were because you didn't know what I already knew. So, your turn mister freelance journalist who never saw a Differential Equation you could solve, walk & talk it back explaining to us you didn't say what you said.

This is a real hoot!!!!!

Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 23, 2018
Rguy, you should have been a bit more adept at fact checking before you shot off your mouth: "... would therefore be completely un-resolvable by even the highest resolution telescopes (with the exception of the the VLA-like interferometers that are just now trying to image the region)"

What you didn't know back on Feb 15th is that I already knew of: http://ircamera.a...ter.htm.

You got sucked in by your own arrogant attitude that this website proved how wrong you were because you didn't know what I already knew. So, your turn mister freelance journalist who never saw a Differential Equation you could solve, walk & talk it back explaining to us you didn't say what you said.

This is a real hoot!!!!!

Geez, Benni. Now you sound like RC...
Takin' lessons?
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2018
What you didn't know back on Feb 15th is that I already knew of: http://ircamera.a...ter.htm.

This is a real hoot!!!!!

The real hoot is - your link STILL doesn't work...
And does the "Nucular Engineer" know why?
jimmybobber
5 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2018
Benni fix your links man!
RNP
4 / 5 (12) Apr 24, 2018
@Benni
Everything in your post above is just plain wrong, while everything I said in the post you reference is true.
The problem is that you seem incapable of understanding even this basic maths and clearly do not understand what "resolution" means, You really should learn some physics and maths before you accuse others of not understanding.

With regards your repeated silly assertion that I am a "freelance journalist", this is another symptom of your poor grasp of reality. In fact, I have, amongst other things, taught the differential equations that you are so fond of bragging about at university level. That is how I can be certain that you know NOTHING about them.

jimmybobber
5 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2018
I still don't understand why Benni is so fixated on differential equations. There is much more mathematics beyond that. He didn't even know what ODE stood for in a previous thread.
In college I was studying solutions for Maxwell's Equations in a conical fiber optic. Any thoughts on that Benni? Do you have a simple solution for that? Do you even understand the problem?
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 24, 2018
why not give space-time the property of viscosity?
Because we'd be able to measure it unambiguously right here on Earth and also it would affect the orbits of spacecraft we send to other planets. Otherwise it wouldn't be strong enough.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 24, 2018
He didn't even know what ODE stood for in a previous thread.
And that's having had it explained, and PDEs too, more than a year ago and again four or six months ago.

Certain folks think he's a janitor at a nuclear plant. I am gradually concluding they're right.
jimmybobber
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 24, 2018
He was probably the janitor in the Physics building at the university I attended.
Indagator
4 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2018
@BENNI! Did you shit in the sandbox again? Little dude! You've gotta learn to control your sphincter!

Let's take a couple minutes to revisit your continuing IRCamera FAILURE! Remember, Benni, the page you keep citing is part of a first year astronomy course that you seem to be failing AGAIN! This constant failure is all the evidence the rest of us need, to know that you are not an educated individual, nor an engineer ... of any description!

For informational purposes, and the good of the community, there are three galcenter webpages available on the Rieke's lecture website. The oldest page (Benni's new favourite) is nearly 15 years old.
The original: http://ircamera.a...nter.htm
The revised: http://ircamera.a...nter.htm
The current: http://ircamera.a...nter.htm
Indagator
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 24, 2018
(Cont...)

All three of the galcenter webpages share some things in common!

1) At the top of the page, there is a green square with a blue question mark that links you to another lecture page on the IRCamera website. On this page the Rieke's state with absolutely no reservation, "There is a supermassive black hole ... in the center of the Milky Way ...."

Benni! Why do you constantly ignore this text from the IRCam website? Will you also ignore my question? Do you suffer from religious delusions that render you blind? You do know the electric universe is a religion? Right?

Indagator
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 24, 2018
(Cont...)

2) In the "Key Points" Benni, the Rieke's want you, the first year astronomy student, to be aware of what's going to be on the midterm exam. Some questions may have to do with "How the Galactic Center was hidden" ... Any thoughts on where this is going? Not effing likely, eh, Benni? SO ...

Benni? Why is Sgr A* invisible at x-ray wavelengths?
Benni? Why is Sgr A* invisible at ultraviolet wavelengths?
Benni? Why is Sgr A* invisible at visible wavelengths?
Benni? Why is Sgr A* invisible at infrared wavelengths?
Benni? Why is Sgr A* VISIBLE at radio wavelengths? Any valid thoughts? No?

So, Benni? Given this list, what does Sgr A* being a "radio" object tell us about its temperature? Will you answer my questions, or will you ...?

Benni, do you know what an advection dominated accretion flow is? No?
Indagator
4 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2018
(Cont...)

3) Image No. 8 - Well, Benni! Let's look at your OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE! Given your obsession with this particular image, I thought I would do some digging. Here's what I found ...

This image is a small part of a larger mozaic that was acquired by Gemini North in July and August of 2000. Some additional FACTS
- Gemini North saw first light in late 1999!
- Your favourite image of record was acquired using Hokupa'a-36/QUIRC!
- Hokupa'a-36 is a natural guide star (NGS), curvature-sensing adaptive optics system (AOS)!
- Hokupa'a-36 was built in 1997 for use on the CFHT!
- Hokupa'a-36 was transfered to Gemini North in May of 1999, just before the telescope's dedication!
- The image you cite as evidence was acquired using technology designed and built in THE LAST CENTURY!
- Hokupa'a was retired as obsolete and replaced by ALTAIR in 2003!
Indagator
4 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2018
(Cont...)

And still more FACTS ...

- QUIRC is the QUick InfRared Camera!
- QUIRC employed a 1024 x 1024 pixel HgCdTe Astronomical Wide Area Infrared Imaging (HAWAII) array!
- QUIRC was designed and built using technology from THE LAST CENTURY!
- QUIRC has also been retired as obsolete!

Can anyone tell me who's stuck in the last century? Benni?

I also took some time to dig through the Gemini Program archive! Guess what i discovered, Benni? This mosaic was not part of any scientific research program!

Restated, Image 8 was not acquired for scientific purposes!

That means that this image cannot be used as evidence for the existence of a black hole at the center of our galaxy!

Guess what else, Benni?

This image CANNOT BE USED TO CLAIM THERE IS NO BLACK HOLE AT THE CENTER OF OUR GALAXY! It's just a pretty picture of stars near the center of our galaxy! Essentially, Image 8 represents a showcase of what Gemini North was capable of 18 years ago!

Indagator
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 24, 2018
(Cont...)

And that big red supergiant star? That's GCIRS 7! It has a measured radius of 980 solar radii! Now, given an estimated mass of 4E+06 solar masses, the Schwarzschild radius for our SMBH is only 17 solar radii! That means that GCIRS 7 is 58 times larger than our SMBH! Think about that!

Fifty-eight times larger, Benni!

And Benni? Could you even show us where Sgr A* and the center of our galaxy is in Image 8? Would you be so kind as to provide a description of where to look! Is Sgr A* above, or below the arc of four blue stars? Is it closer to the left star, or the right? I know where the center of our galaxy is! Do you? Hint: You'll find a supermassive black hole there!

Are you still laughing, Benni?
Indagator
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 24, 2018
(Cont...)

And that big red supergiant star? That's GCIRS 7! It has a measured radius of 980 solar radii! Now, given an estimated mass of 4E+06 solar masses, the Schwarzschild radius for our SMBH is only 17 solar radii! That means that GCIRS 7 is 58 times larger than our SMBH! Think about that!

Fifty-eight times larger, Benni!

And Benni? Could you even show us where Sgr A* and the center of our galaxy is in Image 8? Would you be so kind as to provide a description of where to look! Is Sgr A* above, or below the arc of four blue stars? Is it closer to the left star, or the right? I know where the center of our galaxy is! Do you? Hint: You'll find a supermassive black hole there!

Are you still laughing, Benni?
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2018
Do you think about it, are the measurements and seeing by the telescope real?
Consider: If the telescope is fixed on Earth, it rotates around the Earth's axis for 15 arc sec, during rotation in just one second. If you observe the point on the moon, which is about a minute away from us, you will not see this point in the established direction, because that direction or that point of the month has escaped 27 km. This consequence is only due to the rotation of the Earth around its axis. And what will happen to all other movements of the celestial bodies, especially if we look at something distant for hundreds of millions of light-years. Calculate the size of the galaxy at a distance of one million light years, if you see this galaxy as a circle of one centimeter, and how do you see billions of stars in that circle?
Indagator
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2018
Apologies for the double post above!

(Cont...)

4) Images 9 and 10! These images are produced from NIR data acquired by the Keck telescopes! These are real stars, visible in infrared, following Keplerian orbits around a massive "radio source" that does not move!

Now Benni, why do you ignore these images and the associated descriptions? Why did the Rieke's include evidence of a SMBH in their first year astronomy course lecture notes? Benni?

And before you get bent out of shape thinking you understand barycenters and orbital mechanics, let's look at a massive object being perturbed by another massive object ....

https://upload.wi...nter.svg

Note that the barycenter (or center of mass) between the Sun and Jupiter wanders inside and outside the limb of the Sun!
Indagator
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2018
(Cont...)

Of course, we don't see this kind of wobble with Sgr A* because Sgr A* has an estimated mass of 4E+06 solar masses and the S-stars are not massive enough to induce a wobble! The Rieke's, in two of the three galcenter webpages use the phrase, "... but just sits stolidly in the center" to describe the Sgr A* radio source! Why do you ignore this text, Benni? Is your religious agenda showing again?
Indagator
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2018
(Cont...)

5) Image 12! Let's use some good ol' "Benni Logic" on this image, shall we? Now, according to your logic, Benni, because we cannot see the black hole in the infrared of Image 8, then the black hole does not exist! That's what you keep telling us, Right?

That same "Benni Logic" must also apply to Image 12! Here, the Rieke's state, "... in the Galactic Center the frame is filled with millions of stars (none of which can be seen in the radio image)."

DAMN! Millions of stars that can't be seen at radio wavelengths!

According to "Benni Logic" applied to Image 12, because they can't be seen at radio wavelengths, there are absolutely no stars in the center of our galaxy! AND that means there are absolutely no stars in Image 8! WTF! "Benni Logic" sucks, eh! Benni?

I could go on for hours!

Are you still laughing, Benni?
Indagator
3.7 / 5 (9) Apr 24, 2018
Hey Benni!

Remember that first year astronomy course that you're constantly failing? Check out these other lectures taken from the Rieke's IRCam website! Ya! The same website!

BLACK HOLES EXIST: http://ircamera.a...hole.htm
MAINSTREAM SOLAR MODEL: http://ircamera.a...rior.htm
MAINSTREAM COMET MODEL: http://ircamera.a...bris.htm

And not one word about your electric religion!

Are you still laughing, Benni?
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2018
@indagator,
What is that ignorant, who has drawn the path of the center of the mass of the ounce and Jupiter? The center of the mass of the solar system, together with the sun, is a point around which all planetary systems (planets with their companions) are rotated and located in the sun itself. This shows that neither you nor science know the true path of heavenly bodies in general. Kepler's laws are not correct and should be corrected. Call the Nobel Committee to show you all about moving celestial bodies, but many theories would be rejected.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 24, 2018
Just so much fun, all the hate & discontent showing up here, and all because the fantasy of a 3-4 million SMBH fails to show up in pics taken at point Sgr A* at: http://ircamera.a...nter.htm 8th frame from the top of the page.

Keep it goin' guys because in short enough time there is more data on the way from new observational data using even more advanced imaging. Hey Indagator (Schneibo), real science is tough isn't it? Get studied up on BARYCENTER, you're gonna need it, well maybe even that is over your head.
jimmybobber
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2018
So much fun? So you do this for attention and fun. You just keep repeating the same gibberish until people get frustrated with you. You should be banned from commenting Benni.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 24, 2018
So much fun? So you do this for attention and fun. You just keep repeating the same gibberish until people get frustrated with you. You should be banned from commenting Benni.


Hey, jimbo, if you think SCIENCE is tough, you should try Differential Equations.
RNP
3.3 / 5 (7) Apr 24, 2018
@Benni
OK. Come on then Mister Nuclear Engineer, lets try this one again.

What is this differential equation and what is its solution?

dN/dt = -N/T
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2018
otto, don't sweat it buddy. Your tax money and mine are well spent on building sport palaces, paying coaches exorbitant salaries and paying off coaches excessive scandals.

You know, the most important functions of every educational institution.

The funding for the trivial needs of teaching and research come from foundations. Trying to spend as little as possible of the loot from their patron robber-barons and war profiteers. Too mask all the pillage and taxes unpaid by the benefactors.

Well, it's a system... Not much of a system. But, hey! It's what we are stuck with. Like bugs trapped in pitch.
Ahaahaaaa willis got (8) 5/5s for posting in the wrong thread.

Who said AGWites werent bright?
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2018
@Benni
OK. Come on then Mister Nuclear Engineer, lets try this one again.What is this differential equation and what is its solution?dN/dt = -N/T


The distance to the center of the galaxy of ~25,000 light years (8 kpc) is more than 2.5 BILLION times the 90 million km you estimate for the size of accretion disk. As such, it would subtend less than 100 micro-arcseconds and would therefore be completely un-resolvable by even the highest resolution telescopes (with the exception of the the VLA-like interferometers that are just now trying to image the region). This coupled with the enormous amounts of extinction towards the centre due to dust in the disc make it necessary to use technology only now becoming available to get "images" of the BH and its environs.
............are you first gonna walk this back?

Read more at: https://phys.org/...html#jCp

milnik
1 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2018
Science invents nebulous phenomena, because it is not understood in the structure of the universe and does not know the processes of the formation of celestial bodies. What science sees is dust, it's a sign that it's not clear to them what it is and what it creates. Behind the explosion of the supernova, this cloud of dust forms from the clouds, and stellar systems will form.
Indagator
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2018
Oh, Benni! I don't hate you. I like you! You make me laugh! Every time you open your mouth ....

Listening to you is like witnessing the "scientific" machinations of a two year old! No logic! No genuine knowledge of the subject matter! And a "belief" that your story or fantasy is correct and inerrant! Benni, absolute certainty in your "beliefs" is the first sign that we are dealing with a religion!

Tell me Benni, could you ever be wrong? Don't worry, little one, I already know your answer!

A good scientist or engineer loves solving problems! I have asked you dozens of questions, and just like a true religious zealot, you ignore each and every one!

Benni? Why do the Rieke's (two mainstream scientists) provide so much evidence for the EXISTENCE of a SMBH at the center of our galaxy in lecture notes for a first year astronomy course?

Benni? Could any part of the electric universe be wrong? Apologies! Trick question!
Indagator
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2018
(Cont...)

Further to my comments regarding the Gemini Program archive ....

A quick inspection shows more than 200 observational campaigns have been conducted over the last 15 years investigating black holes of all descriptions! These studies include SMBHs in the MW and other galaxies, IMBHs in globular clusters, and binary BHs close to home!

Thousands of scientists must be crazy, eh? Benni?

And you're the only one with the truth! Sound like a religion to me!

FYI! I am a skeptic by trade and training! When introduced to the electric universe, it took me 15 minutes to realize the 'eu' was nothing more than a scam religion! One day, Benni, you may wake up and open your eyes! I won't hold my breathe, though!
Indagator
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2018
@Da Schneib, @jimmybobber, et al.

Evidence (provided by Benni) indicates Benni suffers from a learning disability and, as such, is not smart enough to be a janitor. I recommend ye pity the fool!

Given Benni's failures with a simple first year astronomy course, I don't think Benni could read and comprehend an MSDS dealing with cleaning chemicals or solvents! As a janitor, Benni would be a disaster waiting to happen!

And, if you've the patience, try to educate the misguided fool! I know that seems an impossible task, as Benni is consumed by a false religion, but we should try! Others are watching and, of course, laughing right along with us!
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 24, 2018
And, if you've the patience, try to educate the misguided fool!


.....and they could start first with RNP, the guy who made this fraudulent statement:

The distance to the center of the galaxy of ~25,000 light years (8 kpc) is more than 2.5 BILLION times the 90 million km you estimate for the size of accretion disk. As such, it would subtend less than 100 micro-arcseconds and would therefore be completely un-resolvable by even the highest resolution telescopes (with the exception of the the VLA-like interferometers that are just now trying to image the region). This coupled with the enormous amounts of extinction towards the centre due to dust in the disc make it necessary to use technology only now becoming available to get "images" of the BH and its environs.
....http://ircamera.a...ter.htm, 8th photo frame from the top of the page. Everything RNP says can't be imaged is PLAINLY there.

jimmybobber
5 / 5 (6) Apr 24, 2018
@Benni please explain what is incorrect with RNP's post.
And then after that can you stop deflecting.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2018
@Benni please explain what is incorrect with RNP's post.
And then after that can you stop deflecting.


.....just look at the picture.
jimmybobber
5 / 5 (5) Apr 24, 2018
What about "the picture"?
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2018
What about "the picture"?


The distance to the center of the galaxy of ~25,000 light years (8 kpc) is more than 2.5 BILLION times the 90 million km you estimate for the size of accretion disk. As such, it would subtend less than 100 micro-arcseconds and would therefore be completely un-resolvable by even the highest resolution telescopes (with the exception of the the VLA-like interferometers that are just now trying to image the region). This coupled with the enormous amounts of extinction towards the centre due to dust in the disc make it necessary to use technology only now becoming available to get "images" of the BH and its environs.

....http://ircamera.a...ter.htm, 8th photo frame from the top of the page. Everything RNP says can't be imaged is PLAINLY there.

jimmybobber
5 / 5 (7) Apr 24, 2018
@Benni RNP already responded to you what he meant and you can't seem to understand

"Hubble has a resolution of 0.05 arcsec. At a distance of 25,000 light years that corresponds to 60 BILLION kilometres. So Hubble may be able to detect individual stars at that distance, but it can NOT resolve them."

Can we move on now?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Apr 24, 2018
Science invents nebulous phenomena, because it is not understood in the structure of the universe and does not know the processes of the formation of celestial bodies. What science sees is dust, it's a sign that it's not clear to them what it is and what it creates. Behind the explosion of the supernova, this cloud of dust forms from the clouds, and stellar systems will form.

Why do you continually state that nobody in the science community knows the true nature of the Universe when you won't say what you think it is yourself?
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 24, 2018
@Benni RNP already responded to you what he meant and you can't seem to understand

"Hubble has a resolution of 0.05 arcsec. At a distance of 25,000 light years that corresponds to 60 BILLION kilometres. So Hubble may be able to detect individual stars at that distance, but it can NOT resolve them."

Can we move on now?


Sure, go to http://ircamera.a...nter.htm 8th frame from the top of the page and tell us where to find the BH. RNP still doesn't know these pics exist, this is not about the Hubble, this website is different.
jimmybobber
5 / 5 (5) Apr 24, 2018
@mackita Benny doesn't believe in any kind of black holes.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 24, 2018
Thousands of scientists must be crazy, eh? Benni? Before fifty years only few of thousands of scientists doubted that black holes in classical Schwarzschild sense really exist. Today many alternative models of black holes were developed which are way more close to real stars (with firewall) and/or they don't contain well defined event horizon at all (fuzzballs).


.....any of these "Thousands" ever shown us a picture of an "event horizon"? Maybe try here:

http://ircamera.a...nter.htm 8th frame from the top of the page is very clear imagery of point Sgr A*, maybe you can point out "an event horizon"?

........
jimmybobber
5 / 5 (7) Apr 24, 2018
Benni you combined a quote from Indagator's post and combined it with a quote from mackita's post to make it look like a single quote from mackita.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (6) Apr 24, 2018
@Indagator Oh well if you want to be kind to Benni here's another chance for;

Thousands of scientists must be crazy, eh? Benni? Before fifty years only few of thousands of scientists doubted that black holes in classical Schwarzschild sense really exist. Today many alternative models of black holes were developed which are way more close to real stars (with firewall) and/or they don't contain well defined event horizon at all (fuzzballs).


.....any of these "Thousands" ever shown us a picture of an "event horizon"? Maybe try here:

http://ircamera.a...nter.htm 8th frame from the top of the page is very clear imagery of point Sgr A*, maybe you can point out "an event horizon"?

........

Benni wants a picture of a EH. perhaps you might tell him why he can't have one, Ha!
jimmybobber
5 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2018
He has told him. Benni wants a polaroid or it didn't happen.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 24, 2018
Benni wants a picture of a EH. perhaps you might tell him why he can't have one, Ha!


You need a BH. Ha! Wasn't at all hard to figure out. So show us one at Sgr A*. Maybe it has wandered away? Joined some of those other wandering BHs over there on that other BH article I just started Comments.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (5) Apr 24, 2018
He has told him. Benni wants a polaroid or it didn't happen.

Ha, okay...must have missed that one. I don't understand Benni...must be a juvenile. I am a layman and I don't see any shame in people knowing that. What I don't know I ask, or read about about (got quite a good small library on physics/maths). If I want to argue a point I always say " understood that....' and take it from there. I don't comment here to be obtrusive etc. I come hear to hear peoples 'take', on particular articles...it's a way of keeping up to date. I do my best to refrain from engaging with people like Benni, RC etc. Have a nice day or evening, Ha!
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2018
I am a layman and I don't see any shame in people knowing that.


We already know this, it's the reason the only thing you're any good at are your foul mouthed name calling rants, and jonesy, and schneibo, and RNP, a few more, you know as well as I do who they are.......oh, I see there's a new one the Indignator guy, he too sees things in pictures that don't exist just like you do, such things are called fantasies.

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.