Another way for stellar-mass black holes to grow larger

August 17, 2018 by Bob Yirka, Phys.org report
This artist's impression shows a binary system containing a stellar-mass black hole called IGR J17091-3624, or IGR J17091 for short. The strong gravity of the black hole, on the left, is pulling gas away from a companion star on the right. This gas forms a disk of hot gas around the black hole, and the wind is driven off this disk. Credit: NASA/CXC/M.Weiss

A trio of researchers with The University of Hong Kong, Academia Sinica Institute of Astronomy and Astrophysics in Taiwan and Northwestern University in the U.S., has come up with an alternative theory to explain how some stellar-mass black holes can grow bigger than others. In their paper published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, Shu-Xu Yi, K.S. Cheng and Ronald Taam describe their theory and how it might work.

Since the initial detection of gravitational waves three years ago, five more detections have been observed—and five of the total have been traced back to emissions created by two stellar-mass black holes merging. The sixth was attributed to neutron stars merging. As part of their studies of such detections, space researchers have been surprised by the size of the stellar-mass black holes producing the gravity waves—they were bigger than other stellar-mass black holes. Their larger size has thus far been explained by the that they grew larger because they began their lives as stars that contained very small amounts of metal—stars with traces of metals would retain most of their mass because they produce weaker solar winds. In this new effort, the researchers suggest another possible way for stellar-mass black holes to grow larger than normal.

The new theory starts out by noting that some at the hearts of galaxies are surrounded by a disk of gas and dust. In such galaxies, there are often stars lying just outside the disk—stars that could evolve to become stellar-mass black holes. The researchers suggest that it is possible that sometimes, pairs of these stars wind up in the disk as they evolve into black holes. Such stellar-mass black holes would pull in material from the disk, causing them to grow larger. The researchers note that if such a scenario were to play out, it is also possible that the two merging could wind up with a synchronized spin resulting in a stellar-mass black hole that produces more gravity waves than if the spins had not been synchronized, making them easier for researchers to spot.

Explore further: Image: Black hole bounty captured in the center of the Milky Way

More information: Shu-Xu Yi et al. The Growth of Stellar Mass Black Hole Binaries Trapped in the Accretion Disks of Active Galactic Nuclei, The Astrophysical Journal (2018). DOI: 10.3847/2041-8213/aac649 , On Arxiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.07026

Abstract
Among the four black hole (BH) binary merger events detected by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO), six progenitor BHs have masses greater than 20 M ⊙. The existence of such massive BHs suggests that extreme metal-poor stars are the progenitors. An alternative possibility, that a pair of stellar mass BHs each with mass ~7 M ⊙ increases to >20 M ⊙ via accretion from a disk surrounding a supermassive BH (SMBH) in an active galactic nucleus (AGN), is considered. The growth of mass of the binary and the transfer of orbital angular momentum to the disk accelerates the merger. Based on the recent numerical work of Tang et al., it is found that, in the disk of a low-mass AGN with mass ~106 M ⊙ and Eddington ratio >0.01, the mass of an individual BH in the binary can grow to >20 M ⊙ before coalescence, provided that accretion takes place at a rate more than 10 times the Eddington value. This mechanism predicts a new class of gravitational wave (GW) sources involving the merger of two extreme Kerr black holes associated with AGNs and a possible electromagnetic wave counterpart.

Related Stories

How much of the universe is black holes?

June 17, 2014

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

Recommended for you

EPA adviser is promoting harmful ideas, scientists say

March 22, 2019

The Trump administration's reliance on industry-funded environmental specialists is again coming under fire, this time by researchers who say that Louis Anthony "Tony" Cox Jr., who leads a key Environmental Protection Agency ...

Coffee-based colloids for direct solar absorption

March 22, 2019

Solar energy is one of the most promising resources to help reduce fossil fuel consumption and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions to power a sustainable future. Devices presently in use to convert solar energy into thermal ...

72 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (14) Aug 17, 2018
Synchronized twirling unicorns as the progenitors of Leprechaun's rainbow waves...
Unlikely, but the astrophysicists can believe what they want.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.1 / 5 (17) Aug 17, 2018
astrophysicists can believe what they want.


Astrophysicists are forced to accept what the data tells them.

On the other hand, we can see that science trolls can believe what they want.
yep
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 18, 2018
Astrophysicists believing in an assumed priori accept what the data tells them.

Fixed it.
A science troll does not question dogma and ridicules those who do.
Ojorf
3.4 / 5 (15) Aug 18, 2018
@Can'tYap

If you have lots data and you have lots of theories and all the data agrees perfectly with a certain theory and not well at all with the other theories you must be an idiot not to accept the former.

yep
1 / 5 (4) Aug 19, 2018
@Can'tYap

If you have lots data and you have lots of theories and all the data agrees perfectly with a certain theory and not well at all with the other theories you must be an idiot not to accept the former.


yep
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 19, 2018
Every other week there are multiple stories on how data does not support accepted theory. Sometimes even suggesting a new physics must be invented. Who's an idiot?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (12) Aug 19, 2018
Every other week there are multiple stories on how data does not support accepted theory. Sometimes even suggesting a new physics must be invented. Who's an idiot?
says yep

I agree. There are small upheavals to accepted theory now and then, and scientists get into a snit when they have to start over again, with what they have already known and backtracked.
Such backtracking appears to cause a lot of hairs to be pulled out amongst physorg commenters who have accepted the scientific method as Gospel truth. To be told that "it ain't so" is often seen as an attack ON the scientific method by those who cannot accept that SCIENTISTS can make mistakes now and again.
Ojorf
3.4 / 5 (15) Aug 20, 2018
Every other week there are multiple stories on how data does not support accepted theory. Sometimes even suggesting a new physics must be invented. Who's an idiot?


Like what, where?

There are very often unexpected results but these are not because any accepted theory was violated, rather because things get complicated in the real word (where the rest of us reside).
Even a small bunch of elementary particles following relatively simple rules can lead to very complicated and unexpected behavior that supercomputers have difficulty in untangling (ever heard of the "three body problem"?).

So link us to an article where "data does not support accepted theory", show us data where GR or the standard model was violated.

I think we know who the idiot is.
theredpill
2.8 / 5 (11) Aug 20, 2018
"So link us to an article where "data does not support accepted theory",

Ever read about the solar corona? Galactic rotation curves (yes, I am aware that the math has a 75% DM factor that is now part of the equation which had to be added when the math failed to predict the observation, now the math works....just the matter represented by the math cannot be found) Now we have one on here about magnetic accretion around a black hole (not part of the SM). 6 months ago was the magnetic confinement of star forming filaments (not part of the SM). What is the standard models explanation of the solar cycle and the polarity flips? Is there a portion dedicated to "collisionless shocks"? Is the BB part of the standard model? Equations describing FTL expansion please....

Perhaps if you take the time to research observations which do not support your own perspective ( favored theory) you can learn something new?
theredpill
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2018
Something that any true purveyor of science and all of the disciplines it entails will tell anyone, is that scientific observation and experimentation is devoid of emotion. Scientists do not get angry when observations contradict what they thought was knowledge, they get excited at the prospect of finding something new ( good ones anyways). The name calling and personal insults thrown around here have no place in scientific discussion.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Aug 20, 2018
Perhaps if you take the time to research observations which do not support your own perspective ( favored theory) you can learn something new?


So, tell us what any alternative theories suggest to explain the items you listed, and then we can research them.

theredpill
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2018
"So, tell us what any alternative theories suggest to explain the items you listed, and then we can research them."

I have seen what you folks do to people who attempt to present "alternate theories" here...you specifically. The request was for examples of observations not supported by the accepted theory...I named a few things that I think are cool mysteries that apply. Are you suggesting there is no recourse but to accept the SM as correct in all instances until something else has mass consensus?

One place to start is the article about magnetic accretion, assuming the polarizations are interpreted correctly and assuming what they observe is magnetic accretion, do you think the observation is the only example of it occurring, or does the model need to be re-tweeked due to the likelihood this is the case for most galactic cores? Could this explain other features we currently cannot? Time will tell as it always does. I am curious, and not worried about my beliefs.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (12) Aug 20, 2018
I have seen what you folks do to people who attempt to present "alternate theories" here...you specifically.


Nope - only if those alternatives are unscientific nonsense, such as EU rubbish.
And I see nothing particularly non-SM about magnetic accretion at black holes.

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (12) Aug 20, 2018
And I see nothing particularly non-SM about magnetic accretion at black holes.


As I thought - nothing new or mysterious about this, other than the quality of the data.

Magnetic fields in astrophysics (1983)
Zeldovich, Ia. B.; Ruzmaikin, A. A.; Sokolov, D. D.
http://adsabs.har....3.....Z

The origin of magnetic fields is considered along with dynamos, the conditions for magnetic field generation, the topology of flows, magnetic fields in stationary flows, kinematic turbulent dynamos, the turbulent dynamo in a disk, topics in nonlinear turbulent dynamo theory, stellar cycles, the galaxy and its magnetic field, the galactic dynamo, the role of magnetic fields in star formation, magnetic fields in cosmology, ***accretion on black holes***, and strong magnetic fields.


jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2018
......do you think the observation is the only example of it occurring, or does the model need to be re-tweeked due to the likelihood this is the case for most galactic cores?


I don't think anything needs tweaking, particularly. And it must apply to all SMBHs, otherwise we are singling ours out as being exceptional, and there is no reason to think that.

theredpill
4 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2018
"And I see nothing particularly non-SM about magnetic accretion at black holes.

As I thought - nothing new or mysterious about this, other than the quality of the data."

Did you read the actual paper? I am curious as to what they knew in 1983 about magnetic accretion, given the technique used in the current article wasn't able to be used then, but thank you for the link ( I would love to read the actual paper). I didn't know it (magnetism) was given consideration as a source of accretive force...I have only ever read of gravitational accretion. If I am misguided regarding any of the other examples I gave please, show me. I would rather learn from being wrong the assume I am correct when I am not.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Aug 20, 2018
Did you read the actual paper?


Of course.

I am curious as to what they knew in 1983 about magnetic accretion, given the technique used in the current article wasn't able to be used then,....


As I'm sure I posted elsewhere, the authors of the recent paper reference previous work, such as;

Infrared spectropolarimetry of the Galactic Centre: magnetic alignment in the discrete sources (1986)
Aitken, D. K. et al.
http://adsabs.har...18..363A

And that work references previous observations of polarisation at the GC going back to 1974.

RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (16) Aug 20, 2018
@jonesdave, @theredpill.

From @jonesdave to @theredpill:
As I'm sure I posted elsewhere, the authors of the recent paper reference previous work, such as;

Infrared spectropolarimetry of the Galactic Centre: magnetic alignment in the discrete sources (1986)
Aitken, D. K. et al.
http://adsabs.har...18..363A

And that work references previous observations of polarisation at the GC going back to 1974.
The question arises, jd/trp: If all these magnetic-Electric factors/dynamics were being studied/acknowledged way back then, why haven't the Standard Model orbits/motions/accretion models/simulations etc been corrected/improved accordingly to reflect the HYBRID PHENOMENA actually at play?

ps: I've long pointed this out, but all I ever got was denials, insults. Are you now agreeing with me, jd? :)
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (12) Aug 20, 2018
ps: I've long pointed this out, but all I ever got was denials, insults. Are you now agreeing with me, jd? :


I'm not agreeing with you. I was pointing out to another poster what has long been known. If you were claiming to have come up with this, then you are lying.

RealityCheck
2.4 / 5 (14) Aug 20, 2018
@jonesdave.
ps: I've long pointed this out, but all I ever got was denials, insults. Are you now agreeing with me, jd? :
I'm not agreeing with you. I was pointing out to another poster what has long been known. If you were claiming to have come up with this, then you are lying.
No, mate, I never claimed to have "come up with this"; I have always tried to point it out to 'both sides' that the mainstream data/observations already makes my observations non-controversial, and that BOTH sides need to FULLY consider the HYBRID nature of the phenomena at whatever scales, so that your respective arguments can be 'brought onto the same page' as what mainstream has long suspected/observed but had NOT YET fully reflected in the STANDARD model SIMULATIONS, 'explanations' etc.

That is why I alluded to the obvious question in my previous post. Can you offer an answer to that question, jd?

Either way, thanks for your polite response so far. Much appreciated. Cheers. :)
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (13) Aug 20, 2018
.....but had NOT YET fully reflected in the STANDARD model SIMULATIONS.


Frankly, you wouldn't have a clue what they have or have not included in simulations. I suspect your 'observations' are nothing of the kind, and are merely the result of Dunning-Kruger syndrome.
Why they hell wouldn't you simulate the magnetic field in models of BHs? Given that we have observed them for over 4 decades? Where do you think a black hole comes from? Does its progenitor/ s have magnetic fields?
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (16) Aug 20, 2018
@jonesdave.
but had NOT YET fully reflected in the STANDARD model SIMULATIONS.
Frankly, you wouldn't have a clue what they have or have not included in simulations. I suspect your 'observations' are nothing of the kind, and are merely the result of Dunning-Kruger syndrome.
Why they hell wouldn't you simulate the magnetic field in models of BHs? Given that we have observed them for over 4 decades? Where do you think a black hole comes from? Does its progenitor/ s have magnetic fields?
I was thinking about the overall Standard Cosmology model/simulations; like the ones Prof. Carlos Frenk and his colleagues work on. If they keep inputing 'exotic' DM that allegedly only interacts gravitationally with normal matter, then they cannot be using the COMPLETE electro-magnetic phenomena as input factors; and hence cannot actually be reflecting the HYBRID phenomena affecting all that 'ordinary' DM that would otherwise give different results in simulations.

Chill, mate. :)
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Aug 20, 2018
......like the ones Prof. Carlos Frenk and his colleagues work on.


Yeah, Carlos Frenk! WTF would he know? Why don't you email him, and tell him how he's got it all wrong? Instead of boring us on here to death with your nonsense?
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (16) Aug 20, 2018
@jonesdave.
..like the ones Prof. Carlos Frenk and his colleagues work on.
Yeah, Carlos Frenk! WTF would he know? Why don't you email him, and tell him how he's got it all wrong? Instead of boring us on here to death with your nonsense?
If they were working on the premise of 'exotic' DM (ie, NON-electro-magnetically interacting behavior), then they are necessarily NOT working with the 'ordinary' DM now being found everywhere we look. So YU tell me, @jd, what is the problem with NT using the full electro-magnetic phenomena commensurate with all that DM being 'normal' baryonic etc stuff? Anyhow, @jd, you apparently have great faith in any mainstream source/scientist/theorist, irrespective that they TOO, and (by extension) their hypotheses and simulations as well, can only be as 'reliable' at any one time as the data/inputs allows them to be...and as mainstream is NOW finally confirming, they've been missing/leaving out a LOT of important stuff. Rethinkit. Chill. :)
Ojorf
3.9 / 5 (14) Aug 21, 2018
Ever read about the solar corona? Galactic rotation curves (yes, I am aware that the math has a 75% DM factor that is now part of the equation which had to be added when the math failed to predict the observation, now the math works....just the matter represented by the math cannot be found) Now we have one on here about magnetic accretion around a black hole (not part of the SM). 6 months ago was the magnetic confinement of star forming filaments ........

OK, I got it. It works like this.
You have to ignore all data that confirms relativity and the standard model.
Then ignore all the diverse data from vastly different fields that points to the effects DM has on the visible universe.
Then deny the possible existence of any particles that only interact via gravity.
The rest is as I said, complex systems.

So you got nothing?
RealityCheck
2.4 / 5 (14) Aug 21, 2018
@Ojorf.

Re yours to @theredpill:
OK, I got it. It works like this.
You have to ignore all data that confirms relativity and the standard model.
No-one is actually 'denying' GR; rather, it's that relativity is NOT being applied properly for NON-Keplerian mass/orbital distributions/dynamics (such as 'dense' galactic discs/orbits vs 'sparse' solar system planets distributions/orbits).
Then ignore all the diverse data from vastly different fields that points to the effects DM has on the visible universe.
We are increasingly finding that (formerly 'dark') DM is actually 'ordinary' stuff, not 'exotic'.
Then deny the possible existence of any particles that only interact via gravity.
We see formerly 'dark' matter is BOTH Electro-Magnetic (ionized/plasma) AND Gravitationally interacting 'ordinary' stuff.
The rest is as I said, complex systems.
Understatement! Isn't that what @theredpill, I and others keep reminding? :)
So you got nothing?
Non sequitur. :)
Ojorf
3.8 / 5 (13) Aug 22, 2018
We are increasingly finding that (formerly 'dark') DM is actually 'ordinary' stuff, not 'exotic'.


What are you talking about? Nothing remotely like this has been found. Where do you get this nonsense?
RealityCheck
2.4 / 5 (14) Aug 22, 2018
@Ojrf.
We are increasingly finding that (formerly 'dark') DM is actually 'ordinary' stuff, not 'exotic'.


What are you talking about? Nothing remotely like this has been found. Where do you get this nonsense?
Why're you calling the direct implications of recent mainstream astro discovery/review reports "nonsense"?

Where have you been the last few years/months/weeks (even days), Ojorf!

PO articles been reporting findings of (previously missed) Ordinary matter everywhere we look with better telescopes/instruments.

From vast clouds of Hydrogen (now seen/traced via Oxygen emissions; which in turn are tracers/indicators of even more mass in the forms of much-heavier-than-Hydrogen stuff like Organic/Inorganic/water molecules; and even-more-massive dust grains we are finding more of everywhere).

Not to mention WHOLE GALAXIES and GALAXY CLUSTERS previously missed by simplistic expectations/estimates/observations.

No 'exotic' DM needed anymore, Ojorf. Read up. :)
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Aug 22, 2018
No 'exotic' DM needed anymore, Ojorf. Read up. :)


And the twat manages to post that without linking a single paper to read! Typical Dunning-Kruger nutjob behaviour.
Mate - grow up and get an education. Yes?
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 22, 2018
....'ordinary' DM now being found everywhere we look. So YU tell me, @jd, what is the problem with NT using the full electro-magnetic phenomena commensurate with all that DM being 'normal' baryonic etc stuff? Anyhow, @jd, you apparently have great faith in any mainstream source/scientist/theorist, irrespective that they TOO, and (by extension) their hypotheses and simulations as well, can only be as 'reliable' at any one time as the data/inputs allows them to be...and as mainstream is NOW finally confirming, they've been missing/leaving out a LOT of important stuff. Rethinkit. Chill. :)


Do that in English, woo boy, and I might answer you. Otherwise, as they say in these parts - do one. Yes?
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (13) Aug 22, 2018
@jonesdave.
No 'exotic' DM needed anymore, Ojorf. Read up.
And the twat manages to post that without linking a single paper to read!
And the 'hapless baby' still begs to be 'spoonfed'. What's the matter with you? Don't you even try to read latest mainstream astro reports, attempt connect the dots for yourself? Here:
https://phys.org/...ary.html
So much for the ld/naive/simplistic "missing baryons problem", hey? And as for 'exotic' DM:
https://phys.org/...leo.html
https://phys.org/...oud.html
https://phys.org/...ght.html

Mainstream efforts to get a better handle on dust particle masses being missed as part of vast 'dirty plasma' clouds:
https://phys.org/...mas.html
https://phys.org/...rse.html

And the rest!

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 22, 2018
^^^Lol. That is just your idiotic take on things. Anybody with an IQ above that of a brain damaged sea urchin can see that this has nothing to do with your idiotic fantasies. Why not email the lead authors of the papers from those articles, and see what they say? Hmmmm? I'll tell you what they'll say;
"Mate, you are a f***wit." Or words to that effect. Now, p*ss off, and write your sh*t up, or quit coming on here pretending that you have the slightest idea about any scientific subject. You are a waste of space, and rival Benni for this years Dunning-Kruger prize. And I'll be nominating you! Idiot.
RealityCheck
2.4 / 5 (14) Aug 22, 2018
@jonesdave.
That is just your idiotic take on things. Anybody with an IQ above that of a brain damaged sea urchin can see that this has nothing to do with your idiotic fantasies. Why not email the lead authors of the papers from those articles, and see what they say? Hmmmm? I'll tell you what they'll say;
"Mate, you are a f***wit." Or words to that effect. Now, p*ss off, and write your sh*t up, or quit coming on here pretending that you have the slightest idea about any scientific subject. You are a waste of space, and rival Benni for this years Dunning-Kruger prize. And I'll be nominating you! Idiot.
All these 'piecemeal' discoveries/reviews are not yet being digested in toto across the board yet, jd. It takes time for mainstream as a whole to realize what they've been finding that, taken together and extrapolated according to indications present and new telescopes/instruments for more discovery, will give a total picture of what's going on. Connect the dots. :)
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Aug 22, 2018
All these 'piecemeal' discoveries/reviews are not yet being digested in toto across the board yet, jd. It takes time for mainstream as a whole to realize what they've been finding that, taken together and extrapolated according to indications present and new telescopes/instruments for more discovery, will give a total picture of what's going on. Connect the dots. :)


Maybe there is an award for incomprehensible word salad, too. I'll look into it.

RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (13) Aug 22, 2018
@jonesdave.
All these 'piecemeal' discoveries/reviews are not yet being digested in toto across the board yet, jd. It takes time for mainstream as a whole to realize what they've been finding that, taken together and extrapolated according to indications present and new telescopes/instruments for more discovery, will give a total picture of what's going on. Connect the dots. :)


Maybe there is an award for incomprehensible word salad, too. I'll look into it.

You would do better to spend time and energy actually reading up to date and thinking calmly and unbiasedly for yourself instead of wasting your time and energy coming up with kneejerked insults and lame excuses for not doing so, jd. Good luck.
Ojorf
3.5 / 5 (11) Aug 23, 2018
OK, RC then answer me this:
What would the universe look like if all DM was ordinary matter and not "dark"?
Why is it physically impossible for DM to actually be missing ordinary matter (in our real universe)?

RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (12) Aug 23, 2018
@Ojorf.

I get the impression you (and many others) may not be aware that, originally, Zwicky postulated 'unseen' (ie too 'dark' for their crude telescopes to 'see' at the time) ORDINARY matter to explain the movements of/within galaxy clusters whose movements did not square with the calculated gravitational effects of the then observed 'bright' ordinary matter visible at that time. :)

THEN came Ruben with galactic Rotation Curve that was different from what was expected at that time. :)

So it was ALWAYS ORDINARY DM that was then too 'dark' to see that was being sought!

Only LATER when theoretical/mathematical theorists/fantasists got involved that 'EXOTIC (ie, non-baryonic/non-E-M-interacting) matter 'meme' arose!

So in reality, it was initially ORDINARY E-M-interacting DM; then it was fantasized into EXOTIC only-Gravitationally-interacting DM!

NOW we finding ORDINARY e-m-AND-grav-interacting matter previously 'dark' to our instruments.

So Zwicky was right! :)
Ojorf
3.8 / 5 (10) Aug 24, 2018
Just as I thought, ignorant of GR and science in general you cannot answer the questions.

Would you like to try again?
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (12) Aug 24, 2018
@Ojorf.
Would you like to try again?
Did you read the background re Ordinary DM originally posited by Zwicky? If you did, then you can deduce the answers to your questions therefrom. But since you also need to be 'spoonfed' with the obvious implications like certain others, then here you go:
What would the universe look like if all DM was ordinary matter and not "dark"?
That question misses the point already made to you, ie: that PREVIOUSLY 'dark' matter being NOW found all over IS 'ordinary' stuff that is NO LONGER 'dark' for the newer telescopes which were not available when all the 'exotic' DM furphies were concocted from incomplete data. Got it?
Why is it physically impossible for DM to actually be missing ordinary matter....
Who said it was "impossible"? Not me! I linked observations indicating that the 'previously missing' being found IS 'ordinary stuff'. Catch up.

ps: I have a lot better grasp of the subtleties of GR applications than you. :)
Ojorf
3.4 / 5 (10) Aug 24, 2018
Who said it was "impossible"? Not me! I linked observations indicating that the 'previously missing' being found IS 'ordinary stuff'. Catch up.


I said it was impossible, since it is.
I asked you if you knew why and you still have not managed an answer. Even if you knew only the basics of GR it would not a difficult question.

Can you answer?
RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (13) Aug 24, 2018
@Ojorf.
Who said it was "impossible"? Not me! I linked observations indicating that the 'previously missing' being found IS 'ordinary stuff'. Catch up.


I said it was impossible, since it is.
I asked you if you knew why and you still have not managed an answer. Even if you knew only the basics of GR it would not a difficult question.

Can you answer?
Let's get that straight. It was YOU who claimed it is impossible? And now you want ME to explain WHY YOU claim it is impossible?
Ojorf
3.4 / 5 (10) Aug 24, 2018
Yes you are correct!
In fact, I am relying on you NOT being able to answer, thereby proving you don't know the first thing about the science.
Whart1984
Aug 24, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 24, 2018
Blackholes and their Gravitational angular momentum accretion disks

Accretion disks surrounding blackholes: Blackholes provide the gravity to pull in the spirally orbitally spinning stars and galactic dust. Gravity is the source of the angular-momentum not the rotation of the blackhole.
The only substance the blackhole loses is when matter is converted to energy E=MC* to provide the energy to allow Gravity to accelerate mass as in attracting and accelerating the stars and galactic dust into the accretion disk

Where the blackhole grows by the formula: R=2GM/C* proportionally to its intake of mass!
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Aug 24, 2018
@Ojorf
Yes you are correct!
In fact, I am relying on you NOT being able to answer, thereby proving you don't know the first thing about the science
note the silence?
7 hours ago and he can't find the information with his google because he doesn't understand GR

now comes the tap-dance where he will avoid any specific answer while he links irrelevant articles which contain studies that directly contradict his point because he doesn't understand the implications

I see another 7,938 posts of avoidance for this topic alone

the absolutely funniest part: The MODS/ADMIN have deleted *thousands* of his posts that were pseudoscience or blatantly trolling false claims (back when they actually did something. occasionally)

SciForums ban-hammered him (twice) for that crap ( http://www.scifor.../banlist )
so did Sapo's Joint
You would think PO would have done the same
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (14) Aug 24, 2018
@Ojorf.
Yes you are correct!
In fact, I am relying on you NOT being able to answer, thereby proving you don't know the first thing about the science.
So the dictum that those making the claim must be the ones to scientifically/logically explain and support their claim with tenable evidence is not part of the 'scientific method' anymore, Ojorf?

Have you cleared that 'amendment' with Captain Stumpy who keeps demanding evidence of claims from others? You two should get together and make up your minds on that, hey?

Speaking of Captain Stumpy. Note how he still peddles his lies to anyone that will be fooled by his lies? I hope and trust you aren't so gullible as to swallow what CS 'excretes' all over this and other forums, Ojorf.

Now, back to your claim, Ojorf. That is being contradicted/falsified by recent mainstream astro/cosmo discoveries/reviews finding ORDINARY 'previousy dark' matter everywhere.

Implying NO MATTER WAS "MISSING". Which makes your 'questions' moot. :)
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (15) Aug 24, 2018
@Forum.

Please note the repeated lies by Captain Stumpy. He twists and omits recorded history to suit his delusional campaign against those he has been stalking/insulting without cause for years now. He omits that I have been confirmed correct many times despite his/gang's trolling/insulting/sabotaging discussions. He omits that the same mods/admin who banned me included those same mods-trolls gang who ADMITTED COLLUSION against me and improperly banned me due to their framing/baiting/trolling etc, then used as an excuse to close threads/ban etc. Those same trolls/mods have since been banned themselves or forced to leave after I proved their abuse of mod powers! And so this Captain Stumpy (part of a gang) still peddles his lies across forums because he can't accept he is a BAD ACTOR ON THE NET for years now, masquerading as some sort of 'troll basher'...while being the worst kind of troll himself! I have been correct on many fronts and he incorrect, yet he still LIES. Sad.
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (10) Aug 24, 2018
@idiot fraudulent pseudoscience sam
@Ojorf
@Forum
LMFAO

lets see who is a liar?

hypothesis: rc is a liar, fraud, and doesn't know basic science

prediction: the tap-dance where he will avoid any specific answer (etc)

can it be falsified? Yes, if rc answers with evidence, links, references and explains in detail the following -
"What would the universe look like if all DM was ordinary matter and not "dark"?
Why is it physically impossible for DM to actually be missing ordinary matter (in our real universe)?"

results:
rc does a tap dance, hand-wavey explanation with no evidence and demonstrates he knows nothing
no evidence
no real comprehension of the questions by Ojorf even
no maths
no GR

nothing but a cry-baby rant about being outed as a liar, projection of his inadequacies onto others and a narcissistic attempt to present the image of being a victim

and now a proven liar

again

(or is that still?)
Ojorf
3.3 / 5 (14) Aug 24, 2018
You called it Captain!
Ojorf
3.2 / 5 (13) Aug 25, 2018
So the dictum that those making the claim must be the ones to scientifically/logically explain and support their claim with tenable evidence is not part of the 'scientific method' anymore, Ojorf?


No RC, we are not doing science here.

Burden of proof does not apply when asking someone a general knowledge question.
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (13) Aug 25, 2018
@Ojorf.
You called it Captain!
So, you ARE 'that gullible'; accepting CS's 'lying words' with gusto! Sad.

Listen, mate, an FYI for you: your Captain is LYING BY OMISSION. He KNOWS (but doesn't tell you!) I answered all relevant questions re DM/GR for @Da Schneib LONG before you came along asking your lame 'questions'. So past/present info and GR make your 'questions' now moot: eg...

Re Galaxy Rotation Curves:

- Galactic disc NON-Keplerian mass distribution/orbits (to which GR applies quite well when it is recalled that INWARDS-directed gravitational acceleration is STRONGER near the OUTER LAYERS of symmetric bodies than inside....look up "Shell Theorem");

- Non Keplerian INSPIRAL-directed VELOCITIES COMPONENT means that stars 'orbital velocities' measured as greater than they actually if ONLY their Keplerian orbital speed is properly measured.

- a LOT of ORDINARY (previously 'dark') clouds/bodies found in galaxies.

Taken together, GR explains it all! Catch up.
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (13) Aug 25, 2018
@Ojorf.
So the dictum that those making the claim must be the ones to scientifically/logically explain and support their claim with tenable evidence is not part of the 'scientific method' anymore, Ojorf? No RC, we are not doing science here.
Burden of proof does not apply when asking someone a general knowledge question.

No mate, you asked SPECIFIC questions asking explanations for YOUR claim that it was "impossible". So it was NOT "general knowledge questions".

What you SHOULD have asked was "Do you know basis of 'exotic' DM claims?" :)

And THEN I would have itemized same; and given the answers as to why they are baseless (as I just did in my previous post above...and also long since for @Da Schneib).

I trust you noted how Captain LIED to you by omission, Ojrf? CS KNEW I answered all relevant questions for Da Schneib, and Captain was well aware of said answers long before you came along for him to USE YOU as a 'stalking horse' for his stalking/lying. Sad.
Ojorf
3.2 / 5 (11) Aug 25, 2018
Are you not tap-dancing around the issue?
Are you not avoiding answering the question?
Is that not what the Captain predicted you would do?
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (13) Aug 25, 2018
@Ojorf.
Are you not tap-dancing around the issue?
Are you not avoiding answering the question?
Is that not what the Captain predicted you would do?
What are you on, mate? :)

Since there is NO BASIS for your 'questions', how can one answer FR that lack of basis for your claims?

Anyhow, I just pointed out WHY your claims/questions are nonsense/moot. So how is that 'tap dancing'?

Do you know what Nn-Keplerian means? Do you know what Inspiralling velocities means? Do you understand what lots more ordinary matter found showing ld "missing matter" 'problems' and/or hypotheses are solved/falsified now?

What is your astronomy/cosmology knowledge (if any)? How can you not know these things, Ojorf?

ps: Again, I answered all relevant questions for Da Schneib and all relevant claims re 'exotic' DM were covered, long ago. Captain was privy to that exchange BUT @CS has NOT TOLD YOU while he lies pretending I am avoiding something. @CS LIES to YOU by OMISSION, Ojorf. Beware!
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2018
You called it Captain!
@Ojorf
it's a compulsion he has
another compulsion is that he has to have the last word

(do I need to predict that one here? LOL)

he actually believes that, somehow, this makes his argument more valid, or somehow makes him "right"

part of it is martyr complex ( https://en.wikipe..._complex )

read this and you'll see a lot of him in it
https://www.icrc....ndar.pdf

notice the absolute refusal to actually provide evidence for his claims?

and the tap dance that I should be supplying you the information to prove his claims?

prediction: he will not be able to produce that link with DS
any link conversation he does produce will not answer the questions above

rant in 3
2
1
...
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (13) Aug 25, 2018
@Forum, esp. @Ojorf.

Please note @Captain Stumpy's continuing stalking/lying/trolling campaign and trying to fool @Ojorf that he, CS, is in any way competent in mind or character. To wit:

From @Captain Stumpy to @Ojorf:
prediction: he will not be able to produce that link with DS
I now link that discussion with @Da Schneib re Non-keplerian etc aspects which make old 'exotic' DM claims/interpretations etc unnecessary now.

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

And note that @Captain Stumpy was TROLLING/LYING therein as well! His only 'contribution' was NOISE based on his "TL;DR" (ie, Too Long; Didn't Read) method of 'scientific/discourse"!

Again, CS is LYING to you, @Ojorf/@Forum. CS is still 'using' newbies/gullibles for his own nefarious delusional stalking campaigns on the net. A dangerous 'internet bad actor' is CS, folks. Beware!

It is a further demonstration of how insensible this CS troll is, that he discounts/ridicules VICTIMS of his lunacy! Sad.
flueninsky
3 / 5 (10) Aug 25, 2018
RealityCheck in Whack a Mole
@Forum, esp. @Ojorf.

Please note @Captain Stumpy's continuing stalking/lying/trolling campaign and trying to fool @Ojorf that he, CS, is in any way competent in mind or character. To wit:

From @Captain Stumpy to @Ojorf:
prediction: he will not be able to produce that link with DS
I now link that discussion with @Da Schneib re Non-keplerian
And note that @Captain Stumpy was TROLLING/LYING therein as well! His only 'contribution' was NOISE based on his "TL;DR" (ie, Too Long; Didn't Read) method of 'scientific/discourse"!
Again, CS is LYING to you, @Ojorf/@Forum. CS is still 'using' newbies/gullibles for his own nefarious delusional stalking campaigns on the net. A dangerous 'internet bad actor' is CS, folks. Beware!
It is a further demonstration of how insensible this CS troll is, that he discounts/ridicules VICTIMS of his lunacy! Sad.

Welcome to the club RealityCheck, you've become the mole in whack a mole!
flueninsky
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2018
a reality check on RealityCheck
comparing your comments to captainstumpies, your a delusional mole in flight, fearful of being whacked, take a cue from Fagin's last words in Oliver "I think I will have to think this out again" ….
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (11) Aug 25, 2018
@flueninsky.
a reality check on RealityCheck
comparing your comments to captainstumpies, your a delusional mole in flight, fearful of being whacked, take a cue from Fagin's last words in Oliver "I think I will have to think this out again" ….
Wow, every time @Captain Stumpy shoots himself in the foot like the malignant D-K serial stalking/lying loser on the net that he has made himself into, along comes a new flunky of his, this one called @flueninsky. to lie even more!

Is he a newbie flunky? Or yet another sad 'sock' of CS or his gang of losers?

In any case, @Forum (and especially @Ojorf), note that this new CS-gang flunky/sock, @flueninsky, ignores the fact that @Captain Stumpy LIED to you ALL just above! @CS claimed I wouldn't link to the discussion with @Da Schneib in which I covered the questions re DM and GR etc. But I DID. And now this new CS-internet-loser-gang flunky/sock 'prefers' @CS's LIES and IGNORANCE to my correctness and truthfulness! Sad, hey?
flueninsky
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2018
RealityCheck - read my comment - a reality check on RealityCheck - comparing your comments to captainstumpies and now your present outburst – "Stumpy LIED, CS-internet-loser-gang flunky/sock, CS's LIES and IGNORANCE to my correctness and truthfulness – looks delusional. Then "CS's LIES and IGNORANCE to my correctness and truthfulness" are delusional in their arrogance - your right and every one else isn't, and I was only comparing texts in their wording, it's just one outburst after another.
flueninsky
3 / 5 (8) Aug 25, 2018
Chill out RealityCheck, just keep the science in check, let sleeping dogs lie.
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (11) Aug 26, 2018
@Forum.

As you can see, this latest CS-gang flunky is trolling to distract from his Captain's own stalking/trolling stupidities....and is even more silly than his CS-gang Captain, which is really saying something!
RealityCheck - read my comment - a reality check on RealityCheck - comparing your comments to captainstumpies and now your present outburst – "Stumpy LIED, CS-internet-loser-gang flunky/sock, CS's LIES and IGNORANCE to my correctness and truthfulness – looks delusional. Then "CS's LIES and IGNORANCE to my correctness and truthfulness" are delusional in their arrogance - your right and every one else isn't, and I was only comparing texts in their wording, it's just one outburst after another.
Funny how pointing out I was correct, and my stalkers/trollers incorrect, is so 'inconvenient' for said stalkers'/trollers' lying campaign. Poor snookums!
just keep the science in check, let sleeping dogs lie.
I check the science and the stalkers/trolls as necessary.
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 27, 2018
@idiot f*ckwad sam fodera the pseudoscience lying criminal
Funny how pointing out I was correct, and my stalkers/trollers incorrect, is so 'inconvenient'
except you didn't point out anything
in point of fact, you demonstrated that I was correct

heck, I even predicted what you would do and you just couldn't help but do it anyway

LOL
I check the science and the stalkers/trolls as necessary
sorry, but NO
that is Ira's Job
it's what he was hired for, it's what we built his supercomputer for, and the Personnel dept. already put his name on the business cards, so you can't call it now
CS or his gang
what gang?
so... because no one likes your BS, they're all in my gang?

LOL

hey guys, can we talk about gang colours and cool hand signs?
do we need to have a meeting for that or just adopt whatever looks good?
let me know so I can put it in some minutes and trademark it all... Don't forget to read up on Robert's Rules!
thanks!
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (11) Aug 27, 2018
@Forum.

Just yesterday I posted the following, addressed to @Forum, esp. @Ojorf, as a demonstration of CS's self-deluding mania for stalking/lying on the net:
From @Captain Stumpy to @Ojorf:
prediction: he (RC) will not be able to produce that link with DS
I now link that discussion with @Da Schneib re Non-keplerian etc aspects which make old 'exotic' DM claims/interpretations etc unnecessary now.

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

And note that @Captain Stumpy was TROLLING/LYING therein as well! His only 'contribution' was NOISE based on his "TL;DR" (ie, Too Long; Didn't Read) method of 'scientific/discourse"!

Again, CS is LYING to you, @Ojorf/@Forum. CS is still 'using' newbies/gullibles for his own nefarious delusional stalking campaigns on the net. A dangerous 'internet bad actor' is CS, folks. Beware!

It is further demonstration of how insensible this CS troll is, that he discounts/ridicules VICTIMS of his lunacy! Sad.
CS ignores reality and lies to you all.

flueninsky
3 / 5 (8) Aug 27, 2018
A reality check on RealityCheck
@RealityCheck In any case, @Forum (and especially @Ojorf), note that this new CS-gang flunky/sock, @flueninsky, ignores the fact that @Captain Stumpy LIED to you ALL just above! @CS claimed I wouldn't link to the discussion with @Da Schneib in which I covered the questions re DM and GR etc. But I DID. And now this new CS-internet-loser-gang flunky/sock 'prefers' @CS's LIES and IGNORANCE to my correctness.

The more you elaborate RealityCheck, the more you struggle in you're quick sand of your own making, the more your language sounds delusional and since you typed it, it looks delusional.

I only have to turn my back for a few moments RealityCheck, and you're at it hammer and tong on your delusional outbursts.
Chill out RealityCheck, just keep the science in check, there are no evil monsters hiding under every rock!
flueninsky
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 27, 2018
A reality check on RealityCheck - Looking for Monsters under Rocks

There are no evil monsters hiding under every rock RealityCheck, so for your own sanity please stop looking under these rocks because what you have found, you did not expect RealityCheck.

Because you were looking for monsters you did not expect what you found, you are treating what you found as a monster, what you found is not a monster RealityCheck, as you are finding out!
flueninsky
2 / 5 (8) Aug 27, 2018
RealityCheck we all like your regular flybys on your magic carpet with your words of wisdom, we will miss that carpet flapping in the wind RealityCheck, tell all those monsters of the mind to be gone and return refreshed so we can see that magic carpet flapping in the wind once more RealityCheck!
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (10) Aug 27, 2018
@flueninsky.
The more you elaborate RealityCheck, the more you struggle in you're quick sand of your own making, the more your language sounds delusional and since you typed it, it looks delusional. I only have to turn my back for a few moments RealityCheck, and you're at it hammer and tong on your delusional outbursts.
Chill out RealityCheck, just keep the science in check, there are no evil monsters hiding under every rock!
So my posting in self-defense against 'internet bad actors' attacks, and my explaining evidence against ignorant delusional stalkers/trollers is "delusional" in your stalkers/trollers 'rule book', mate? Now THAT must be 'doubly delusional! Wise up, mate. :)
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (10) Aug 27, 2018
@flueninsky.
Because you were looking for monsters you did not expect what you found, you are treating what you found as a monster, what you found is not a monster RealityCheck, as you are finding out!
What I found was you, an ignoramus stalking/trolling me while 'approving' of that 'captain' of stalkers/trolls. You 'made your own (monster) bed', mate; now you either get out of it by apologizing to @Forum and stopping your silly stalking/trolling campaign...OR...you can continue to lie in it, and be 'monster-checked' as necessary. Your choice, mate. :)
....tell all those monsters of the mind to be gone and return refreshed so we can see that magic carpet flapping in the wind once more RealityCheck!
The monsters are real; they post maniacally-addressed, stalking/trolling posts on a SCIENCE site. Whether you/they take the hint and actually stick to science instead of stalking/trolling those who do so, correctly, is your/their choice. :)
flueninsky
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 27, 2018
This is an imaginary world and everyone should never forget this!

Well RealityCheck, if you want to believe in imaginary monsters existing under imaginary stones can exist in the imaginary world of the internet, and come to that a rare highly intellectual site such as phys.org, it is your derogative, I am not your keeper, it is your own right to believe whatever you choose.

But it is a fact there are no monsters hiding under stones especially on an intellectual site such as this, as all the commentators are playing with everyone else's minds in this imaginary world of phys.org.

This is an important point to remember RealityCheck, this is an imaginary world and everyone should never forget this!
flueninsky
2 / 5 (8) Aug 28, 2018
RealityCheck the words chosen are specifically chosen so they are clean and free from those dreaded expletives, Little children can read this site!
we all like your regular flybys on your magic carpet with your words of wisdom, we will miss that carpet flapping in the wind RealityCheck tell all those monsters of the mind to be gone and return refreshed so we can see that magic carpet flapping in the wind once more RealityCheck

RealityCheck, look at what we have written from a solely observational perspective RealityCheck, this is a campaign RealityCheck, the first rule of this black-art RealityCheck is keeping it clean and no swearword or anything that sounds delusion RealityCheck, to prove the point, look who is the only person were conversing to the exclusion of your nemesis's, have you not noticed a change in expletives of late RealityCheck, you must have done on your magic carpet flyby's, you're not alone RealityCheck there's strength in numbers and we're growing
RealityCheck
3.7 / 5 (7) Aug 28, 2018
Hehehe. Who are you? And what have you done with granville583762? :)

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.