One black hole or two? Dust clouds can explain puzzling features of active galactic nuclei

September 28, 2018, Royal Astronomical Society
One black hole or two? Dust clouds can explain puzzling features of active galactic nuclei
An artist’s impression of what an active galactic nucleus might look like at close quarters. The accretion disk produces the brilliant light in the centre. The broad-line region is just above the accretion disk and lost in the glare. Dust clouds are being driven upwards by the intense radiation. Credit: Peter Z. Harrington

Researchers at the University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC), believe clouds of dust, rather than twin black holes, can explain the features found in active galactic nuclei (AGNs). The team publish their results today (14 June) in a paper in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

Many large galaxies have an AGN, a small bright central region powered by matter spiralling into a . When these are vigorously swallowing matter, they are surrounded by hot, rapidly-moving gas known as the "broad-line region" (so-called because the spectral lines from this region are broadened by the rapid motion of the gas).

The emission from this gas is one of the best sources of information about the mass of the central black hole and how it is growing. The nature of this gas is however poorly understood; in particular there is less emission than expected from gas moving at certain velocities. The breakdown of simple models has led some astrophysicists to think that many AGNs might have not one but two black holes in them.

The new analysis is led by Martin Gaskell, a research associate in astronomy and astrophysics at UCSC. Rather than invoking two black holes, it explains much of the apparent complexity and variability of the emissions from the broad-line region as the results of small clouds of dust that can partially obscure the innermost regions of AGNs.

Gaskell comments: "We've shown that a lot of mysterious properties of can be explained by these small dusty clouds causing changes in what we see."

Co-author Peter Harrington, a UCSC graduate student who began work on the project as an undergraduate, explained that gas spiralling towards a galaxy's central black hole forms a flat "", and the superheated gas in the accretion disk emits intense thermal radiation. Some of that light is "reprocessed" (absorbed and re-emitted) by hydrogen and other gases swirling above the accretion disk in the broad-line region. Above and beyond this is a region of dust.

"Once the dust crosses a certain threshold it is subjected to the strong radiation from the accretion disk", said Harrington. The authors believe this radiation is so intense that it blows the dust away from the disk, resulting in a clumpy outflow of dust clouds starting at the outer edge of the broad-line region.

The effect of the dust clouds on the light emitted is to make the light coming from behind them look fainter and redder, just as the earth's atmosphere makes the sun look fainter and redder at sunset. Gaskell and Harrington developed a computer code to model the effects of these dust clouds on observations of the broad-line region.

The two scientists also show that by including dust clouds in their model, it can replicate many features of emission from the broad-line region that have long puzzled astrophysicists. Rather than the gas having a changing, asymmetrical distribution that is hard to explain, the gas is simply in a uniform, symmetric, turbulent around the black hole. The apparent asymmetries and changes are due to passing in front of the broad-line and making the regions behind them look fainter and redder.

"We think it is a much more natural explanation of the asymmetries and changes than other more exotic theories, such as binary black holes, that have been invoked to explain them," Gaskell said. "Our explanation lets us retain the simplicity of the standard AGN model of matter spiralling onto a single black hole."

Explore further: One black hole or two? Dust clouds can explain puzzling features of active galactic nuclei

More information: C Martin Gaskell et al. Partial dust obscuration in active galactic nuclei as a cause of broad-line profile and lag variability, and apparent accretion disc inhomogeneities, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (2018). DOI: 10.1093/mnras/sty848

Related Stories

the geometry of nuclear black hole accretion disks

January 3, 2018

Supermassive black holes with millions or even billions of solar-masses of material are found at the nuclei of most galaxies, including our Milky Way. A torus of dust and gas orbits around the black hole (at least according ...

New model to research activity around quasars, black holes

October 31, 2017

A University of Wyoming researcher played a key role in a study that suggests a newly developed computer model can more accurately explain the diversity of quasar broad emission line regions, which are the clouds of hot, ...

Black hole hidden within its own exhaust

September 15, 2016

Supermassive black holes, millions to billions of times the mass of our Sun, are found at the centers of galaxies. Many of these galactic behemoths are hidden within a thick doughnut-shape ring of dust and gas known as a ...

Recommended for you

Mars InSight lander seen in first images from space

December 14, 2018

On Nov. 26, NASA's InSight mission knew the spacecraft touched down within an 81-mile-long (130-kilometer-long) landing ellipse on Mars. Now, the team has pinpointed InSight's exact location using images from HiRISE, a powerful ...

Video: Enjoying the Geminids from above and below

December 14, 2018

On the night of December 13, into the morning of December 14, 2018, tune into the night sky for a dazzling display of fireballs. Thanks to the International Space Station, this sky show – the Geminids meteor shower—will ...

Preparing for discovery with NASA's Parker Solar Probe

December 13, 2018

Weeks after Parker Solar Probe made the closest-ever approach to a star, the science data from the first solar encounter is just making its way into the hands of the mission's scientists. It's a moment many in the field have ...

109 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (12) Sep 28, 2018
Again just another model, along with just another artist's impression.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (15) Sep 28, 2018
Again just another model, along with just another artist's impression.


........and have you ever noticed when they put up these artist's impressions everything is ALWAYS so DUSTY?

Now, when there is an actual picture involved, no dust is present, you see this In photo frame 7th from the top of the page at: http://ircamera.a...nter.htm

"The blue-appearing ones in the center of the image are a unique clustering of very luminous, massive stars. 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."

Odd isn't it, strip away the dust from a location where an SMBH is supposed to exist at Sgr A*, & nothing can be seen. No substitute for real pics adding to the reasons for putting Pop-Cosmology's greatest myth into the ashbin of funny farm science. Why does Pop-Cosmology feel it needs to hide stuff?

jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (18) Sep 28, 2018
Odd isn't it, strip away the dust from a location where an SMBH is supposed to exist at Sgr A*, & nothing can be seen. No substitute for real pics adding to the reasons for putting Pop-Cosmology's greatest myth into the ashbin of funny farm science.


Odd, isn't it, that scientifically illiterate nobodies want to keep commenting on things they don't understand! As well as linking to a webpage that lists its key points as:

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

Makes you wonder what makes some people tick.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (15) Sep 28, 2018
Odd isn't it, strip away the dust from a location where an SMBH is supposed to exist at Sgr A*, & nothing can be seen. No substitute for real pics adding to the reasons for putting Pop-Cosmology's greatest myth into the ashbin of funny farm science.


Odd, isn't it, that scientifically illiterate nobodies want to keep commenting on things they don't understand


.......or even more odd, the criticism of others coming from the likes of you who came here not too long ago claiming to have received an Astronomy degree from the University of Auckland, NZ which has never offered such a degree. But you think you should be taken seriously anyway because.........?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 29, 2018
@Benni
Yes. It is very odd that all other photos provided by physorg of the Sgr A region is too indistinct due to a dusty appearance. And also, in your link:

"The lack of energy from the Galactic Center black hole has turned out to be a major challenge to our theories of black holes. We think that the matter surrounding the black hole in the Galactic Center is very hot and in a sphere rather than a disk, and virtually transparent to its own radiation so it does not heat up efficiently. The energy is not emitted in the X-ray, but is carried inward by the flow of matter toward the event horizon."

Trying to process this, I think that the Black Hole may not be large enough to have a very strong grip and gravitational attraction to draw in the young stars that are in its sphere of influence and vicinity. Otherwise, the BH would be emitting jets more often if it were bigger than I think it is, and consuming faster. A more massive size would be easily detected, I would think.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 29, 2018
So I did a google search for sgr a and one of the links was this:

https://phys.org/...ole.html

that offers a nice video which I found interesting, as most YT videos are.

The article tells us about a star called S2 that orbits the BH Sgr A. Oddly, in the latter part of the article, it is referred to as R2.
If the star S2 is able to swing by the BH and use the gravitational pull of Sgr A as a centrifugal force to escape the gravity of the BH, might there be other stars able to do the same and gain escape velocity? But to use the BH to its advantage, the star could only escape if the BH had a lesser volume/Mass, lest the star be pulled into it forthwith.

As I haven't seen anything that implies/proves that the BH is supermassive, I'm more inclined to think that it is not as huge as it is claimed to be.
The dust/gas should be further proof that the BH isn't massive at all, or it would have been consumed again even if it had just been released.

jonesdave
3 / 5 (16) Sep 29, 2018
Odd isn't it, strip away the dust from a location where an SMBH is supposed to exist at Sgr A*, & nothing can be seen. No substitute for real pics adding to the reasons for putting Pop-Cosmology's greatest myth into the ashbin of funny farm science.


Odd, isn't it, that scientifically illiterate nobodies want to keep commenting on things they don't understand


.......or even more odd, the criticism of others coming from the likes of you who came here not too long ago claiming to have received an Astronomy degree from the University of Auckland, NZ which has never offered such a degree. But you think you should be taken seriously anyway because.........?


And the liar carries on lying. This from a deranged loon who claims to have spent 6 years studying nuclear engineering, yet can't even do basic maths, and doesn't know what a half-life is! Irony, much? Never did those courses, did you liar?
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (13) Sep 29, 2018
As I haven't seen anything that implies/proves that the BH is supermassive, I'm more inclined to think that it is not as huge as it is claimed to be.


It doesn't matter what you are inclined to think - you don't even come close to understanding the science, just like Benni the Burke. The orbits of numerous stars have been plotted over more than two decades. The result? There is an object there with a mass of ~ 4m solar masses. What do you think it is? Not that anybody cares.

http://www.galact...ole.html

omatwankr
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 29, 2018
when in doubt add an epicycle (B.H.) and see what happens... rinse and repeat
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 29, 2018
Yes. It is very odd that all other photos provided by physorg of the Sgr A region is too indistinct due to a dusty appearance.
........and this is the reason for using infrared imaging, to cut through all the DUST, the very thing that the 7th photo frame from the top of the page does so well. Here we have, almost perfect imaging of Sgr A* and absolutely zero hint an SMBH exists there.

The article tells us about a star called S2 that orbits the BH Sgr A


So what about these stars that seem to move in an orbit about Sgr A*? It's not just S2, but several others. Sgr A* is the center of the galactic mass of the galaxy. When there is no obvious mass about which other mass orbits, then we're talking about a BARYCENTER of orbital mechanics, very common, this is exactly how multiple star systems function.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2018
So more black hole physics explained, excellent!

But the buffoon thread that somehow takes the increased understanding and - hard to imagine I have to note this, but there you go, some readers have a playground vision of the world - *evidence* as basis to claim problems is "not excellent".
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
3.4 / 5 (10) Sep 29, 2018
So what about these stars that seem to move in an orbit about Sgr A*? It's not just S2, but several others. Sgr A* is the center of the galactic mass of the galaxy. When there is no obvious mass about which other mass orbits, then we're talking about a BARYCENTER of orbital mechanics


Except that we don't since that is not the explanation for the orbits, you are just making stuff up as you go. By noting the difference between the virial mass and its barycenter and what is observed, people observe the black hole (there are other ways) and its mass. Read the papers.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2018
As I haven't seen anything that implies/proves that the BH is supermassive, I'm more inclined to think that it is not as huge as it is claimed to be.


It doesn't matter what you are inclined to think - you don't even come close to understanding the science, just like Benni the Burke. The orbits of numerous stars have been plotted over more than two decades. The result? There is an object there with a mass of ~ 4m solar masses. What do you think it is? Not that anybody cares.

http://www.galact...ole.html

says jones

The orbits of stars is not the orbit of a Black Hole - you are conflating the two since the orbits of stars were tracked, therefore the Black Hole must be supermassive. That kind of logic is totally illogical.

IF there is a BH in the centre, then it would have to be a medium to small size, otherwise a supermassive sized BH would be like a vacuum cleaner - sucking in, anything that came too close, including gas/dust.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2018
It is a well-known fact that scientists copy from each other's scientific conclusions, whether or not those conclusions have been repeated many times by individuals who were not connected to the original team of scientists. This is a form of Plagiarism which results in people like YOU being a "good little Nazi" and believing what you are told to believe. Also much like a religion.

The Milky Way galaxy is not young, but the alleged Black Hole in the centre is still very young and not supermassive as you are led to believe. A supermassive BH would have had to be the result of a supermassive star exploding as a supermassive supernovae that retained most of its Mass.
So far, there is NO evidence for such a supermassive Black Hole in that location.
And the dusty cover in artist's impressions are further proof that the real small size of the BH has to be hidden to preserve the credibilities of the original teams of scientists who pushed this story on the public.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2018
So what about these stars that seem to move in an orbit about Sgr A*? It's not just S2, but several others. Sgr A* is the center of the galactic mass of the galaxy. When there is no obvious mass about which other mass orbits, then we're talking about a BARYCENTER of orbital mechanics


Except that we don't since that is not the explanation for the orbits, you are just making stuff up as you go. By noting the difference between the virial mass and its barycenter and what is observed, people observe the black hole (there are other ways) and its mass. Read the papers.

says t.b.g.l.

You said, "people observe the black hole (..) and its mass."

Since you claim that people have observed that Black Hole and its mass, would you please provide a clear photo of that Black Hole? Thanks.
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Sep 29, 2018
Our 15billion year old Milky Way has misplaced its billion solar mass blackhole
SEU>The Milky Way galaxy is not young, but the alleged Black Hole in the centre is still very young and not supermassive as you are led to believe. A supermassive BH would have had to be the result of a supermassive star exploding as a supermassive supernovae that retained most of its Mass.
So far, there is NO evidence for such a supermassive Black Hole in that location.

What happened to our billion solar mass blackhole, did it fizzle out to be replaced by a blackhole not much bigger than our sun
While our Milky Way makes do with its blackhole not much bigger than a thumb, the search is on for our misplaced billion solar mass blackhole, maybe it took a wrong turn and got lost in the dust clouds
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2018
@granville
Almost anything is possible. But the age of the Milky Way is unlikely to be as old as the first galaxies that formed in the beginning of the Universe. In fact, those early galaxies no longer exist and all of their Stars had gone superdupernova long before the Milky Way's primordial gas and dust had compressed/coalesced to form the Stars that we now see.

Matter in the form of dust and gas doesn't happen automatically. It has to come from somewhere. So that it was the Matter from the first Stars in the early Universe that exploded and which kicked out much of their Mass into the wild black yonder where that stray gas and dust coalesced into a disk, and then compressed to become New Stars. The new Stars formed a Cluster, then the cluster formed a galaxy.

The same process happened over and over again in many directions. The destruction of old Stars made it possible for new ones to form far away, and then cluster within new galaxies/habitats.
Recycled Matter.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 29, 2018
The orbits of stars is not the orbit of a Black Hole - you are conflating the two since the orbits of stars were tracked, therefore the Black Hole must be supermassive. That kind of logic is totally illogical.

IF there is a BH in the centre, then it would have to be a medium to small size, otherwise a supermassive sized BH would be like a vacuum cleaner - sucking in, anything that came too close, including gas/dust.


Yep, you just confirmed what I wrote above; you don't even come close to understanding the science. Thanks for confirming it. The orbits of the stars confirm that what they are orbiting must be ~ 4m solar masses. Plenty of papers on this, as Torbjorn stated. Go read them. You won't understand them, but hey ho. Be assured that far brighter people than you have confirmed this. And they didn't do it on a comments section.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2018
-contd-
All of the Matter/Energy in the Universe is simply Recycled Matter. Nothing goes to waste.
The place where the Milky Way now resides was once empty Space similar to going into a dark, empty room from a previous well-lit room at a party. And it is the same for all of the galaxies, big and small, in our neighborhood and far away. At one time, they were not there.

So, what was to become the Milky Way was empty space. Then a sudden explosion of a massive star from a faraway galaxy, then another, and another - and the Matter from those Stars came flying through the blackness of empty Space, slowed down and settled in where the MW is now. The gas and dust, as it settled and floated toward other gas and dust, began to coalesce into a disk. The compression gave off heat and new Stars began to form from the gas/dust within the disk.
As more Stars formed into clusters, they used up most of the gas/dust. The leftovers became planetary bodies in orbit around each Star.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2018
Be assured that far brighter people than you have confirmed this. And they didn't do it on a comments section.

You're right, they did it in pop-sci-fi movies and other such faerie tales. See the pseudoscientific maths hack Kip Thorne.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2018
Be assured that far brighter people than you have confirmed this. And they didn't do it on a comments section.

You're right, they did it in pop-sci-fi movies and other such faerie tales. See the pseudoscientific maths hack Kip Thorne.


Still got nothing other than jealousy and bile have you, woo boy? How does it feel to not only be scientifically illiterate, but also to be totally ignored?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (7) Sep 29, 2018
-contd-
And that is how the Milky Way was created - out of recycled material from a Star system in a galaxy far away.
The alleged Black Holes, which are not optically visible because of the dusty cover that appears to be deliberately placed into optical images, could be, if they are real, a natural recycling bin that pulls in Matter and then shoots it out again through polar jets. They don't grow massive or supermassive. They throw out much of the Matter that they consume. If they do indeed grow to massive sizes, they might be considered as predators of Matter - similar to an AMOEBA that preys on other microscopic animals. I'm not trying to imply that Black Holes are alive in any way, but there are similarities nevertheless.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.4 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2018
-contd-
IMO, there are Neutron Stars and Pulsars that emit Energy. But as for Black Holes of supermassive or any other size, it is simply a faerie tale that has gone to the heads of Astrophysicists, simply because they needed an answer to the end result of Star death and what happens to the physical remains of the Star. So they decided that the physical remains of a Star has to become a predatory mass to account for the imagined disappearance of Stars that have wandered too closely to the alleged Black Hole and was swallowed, never to be seen again.

However, there seems to have never been a study to see what happens to the alleged Black Hole itself - whether or not it dissipates; explodes; implodes; turns inside out; reduces/increases in size; can be squeezed or squashed; is geometrically dimensionless; or is able to move around to another location at will. They know virtually nothing of real importance about the alleged Black Hole, and yet expect us to believe it exists.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 29, 2018
Be assured that far brighter people than you have confirmed this. And they didn't do it on a comments section.

You're right, they did it in pop-sci-fi movies and other such faerie tales. See the pseudoscientific maths hack Kip Thorne.


Still got nothing other than jealousy and bile have you, woo boy? How does it feel to not only be scientifically illiterate, but also to be totally ignored?
says jones

So what are YOU doing here in a comments forum? Are you unemployed? Unemployable? Fully retired and on a pension?
When you had a job, did you fight with your employer and coworkers much? On the other hand, if you know as much as you THINK you do, then why aren't you a famous scientist/researcher/Engineer who is on his way to a Nobel Prize?
Instead, you are here in physorg, attempting to impress everyone with what you THINK you know, while behaving verbally like a highly inebriated loyal customer at a dirty low-class pub in a London ghetto.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2018
IMO, there are Neutron Stars and Pulsars that emit Energy. But as for Black Holes of supermassive or any other size, it is simply a faerie tale that has gone to the heads of Astrophysicists, simply because they needed an answer to the end result of Star death and what happens to the physical remains of the Star.


As I said, your opinion is neither wanted nor relevant. You don't understand the science, anyway. I thought you were only here to learn? Seems to me that you are just another anti-science troll, who wants to tell far more qualified people than himself, i.e. the scientists, that they are wrong. We have a word for that; gobsh1te. It probably best translates as blowhard.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2018
attempting to impress everyone with what you THINK you know, while behaving verbally like a highly inebriated loyal customer at a dirty low-class pub in a London ghetto.


Wrong, thicko. I am merely pointing out how little the more vociferous trolls around here don't know. I am not saying anything that isn't backed up by science. You, on the other hand, are talking bollocks. As is cantthink, Benni, Granville, et al.
I am not the one, with zero understanding of a subject, telling scientists that they are wrong. That would be you and your ilk. Correct? So why the hell are you not doing science if you think you are so bloody smart? Because you don't know Jack about science, but like to pretend that you do. Correct?

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2018
IMO, there are Neutron Stars and Pulsars that emit Energy. But as for Black Holes of supermassive or any other size, it is simply a faerie tale that has gone to the heads of Astrophysicists, simply because they needed an answer to the end result of Star death and what happens to the physical remains of the Star.


As I said, your opinion is neither wanted nor relevant. You don't understand the science, anyway. I thought you were only here to learn? Seems to me that you are just another anti-science troll, who wants to tell far more qualified people than himself, i.e. the scientists, that they are wrong. We have a word for that; gobsh1te. It probably best translates as blowhard.
says jones

And you are free to put my comments in ignore. Just hit the Ignore button. Easy enough if you have the will.
These forum are to discuss the science and give opinions, where YOU are expecting every one who comments to be a bona fide scientist/researcher with no imagination.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 29, 2018
I fully expect you to IGNORE my comments and I shall ignore yours. This is a website designed for the public and whoever else may want to be 'heard', whether it agrees with YOUR views or not.
Although I am a scholar and an interested observer, I am free to inform of my own thoughts, opinions on the subject matter.

Perhaps you are one of those who agree with the owners of such as Twitter and Facebook, that opinions that are regarded as disagreeable should be shut out and prevented. That is the totalitarian way of which you may be a partisan.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 29, 2018
And the dusty cover in artist's impressions are further proof that the real small size of the BH has to be hidden to preserve the credibilities of the original teams of scientists who pushed this story on the public.


Direct hit!!!!!!!!!!!!
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2018
I fully expect you to IGNORE my comments and I shall ignore yours. This is a website designed for the public and whoever else may want to be 'heard', whether it agrees with YOUR views or not.
Although I am a scholar and an interested observer, I am free to inform of my own thoughts, opinions on the subject matter.

Perhaps you are one of those who agree with the owners of such as Twitter and Facebook, that opinions that are regarded as disagreeable should be shut out and prevented. That is the totalitarian way of which you may be a partisan.


Errr, you seem to misunderstand. You are NOT being heard, and that is why you are here, and not on a physics forum. Because you don't have the cojones to confront real scientists with your idiotic, ill-thought out, untutored opinions.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 29, 2018
These forum are to discuss the science and give opinions,...


How can you have an opinion about things you don't understand? This isn't about discussing the latest Turner Prize winner. You can have opinions on art or literature. Science is based on fact, and if you don't understand that science, then your 'opinion' is worthless.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 29, 2018
And the dusty cover in artist's impressions are further proof that the real small size of the BH has to be hidden to preserve the credibilities of the original teams of scientists who pushed this story on the public.


Direct hit!!!!!!!!!!!!
says Benni

I have placed jones on IGNORE and now regard the jones creature as a non-person who cannot help himself but have disrespect and only presents invective-filled garbage toward others as though opinions from others are threats to life and limb. Such bad behaviour in a forum clearly demands a reasonable probability of mental issues of which jones suffers.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 29, 2018
And the dusty cover in artist's impressions are further proof that the real small size of the BH has to be hidden to preserve the credibilities of the original teams of scientists who pushed this story on the public.


Direct hit!!!!!!!!!!!!
says Benni

I have placed jones on IGNORE and now regard the jones creature as a non-person who cannot help himself but have disrespect and only presents invective-filled garbage toward others as though opinions from others are threats to life and limb. Such bad behaviour in a forum clearly demands a reasonable probability of mental issues of which jones suffers.


Translation: 'I can't understand the science, but I am going to criticise it anyway.' Loon.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 29, 2018
IF there is a BH in the centre, then it would have to be a medium to small size, otherwise a supermassive sized BH would be like a vacuum cleaner - sucking in, anything that came too close, including gas/dust.
.......and when you look at the 7th photo frame in that pic, it's pretty darn crowded in there.

There's a star in that pic, IRS7, whose disc reaches beyond the orbit of Mars. The accretion disc of the supposed SMBH would be 5 times the size of the BH disc, which disc if it existed would reach beyond Venus. Then apply the 5 times criteria cosmologists apply to the size of the accretion disc & it would just about encompass the orbit of Mars.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 29, 2018
IF there is a BH in the centre, then it would have to be a medium to small size, otherwise a supermassive sized BH would be like a vacuum cleaner - sucking in, anything that came too close, including gas/dust.
.......and when you look at the 7th photo frame in that pic, it's pretty darn crowded in there.

There's a star in that pic, IRS7, whose disc reaches beyond the orbit of Mars. The accretion disc of the supposed SMBH would be 5 times the size of the BH disc, which disc if it existed would reach beyond Venus. Then apply the 5 times criteria cosmologists apply to the size of the accretion disc & it would just about encompass the orbit of Mars.


So why don't you go write up your disproof of black holes, bozo? Run out of crayons?
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 29, 2018
Translation: 'I can't understand the science, but I am going to criticise it anyway.' Loon.


We know, you think real pictures can actually lie. Conversely you do not think an artist's cosmology paintings can ever misrepresent the truth.

I am just picturing a painting of your Astronomy degree you once told us you got from U of A, NZ that offers no such degree.

Maybe if torbjorn_b_g_larsson were to see a painting of your Astronomy sheepskin from U of A, he would undoubtedly believe you actually received such a degree from U of A simply because he saw an artist's rendition with your name on it.

jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 29, 2018
I am just picturing a painting of your Astronomy degree you once told us you got from U of A, NZ that offers no such degree.


Why do you need to keep lying, dickhead? Does it make you feel better about not having a degree yourself, bonehead? Hmmm? Bit insecure, are we? Thick idiot. Get back to sweeping floors, you scientifically illiterate joke.

Read more at: https://phys.org/...html#jCp
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2018
I am just picturing a painting of your Astronomy degree you once told us you got from U of A, NZ that offers no such degree.


Why do you need to keep lying, dickhead? Does it make you feel better about not having a degree yourself, bonehead? Hmmm? Bit insecure, are we? Thick idiot. Get back to sweeping floors, you scientifically illiterate joke.


My, my, getting a bit touchy aren't we?

Has it not yet dawned on you, that if you think the chatroom talk is a bit too challenging & boisterous for you, just remember it is not anyone here forcing you to be here. As for me, I enjoy your presence, you make great sport & entertainment for jesting.

jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2018
I am just picturing a painting of your Astronomy degree you once told us you got from U of A, NZ that offers no such degree.


Why do you need to keep lying, dickhead? Does it make you feel better about not having a degree yourself, bonehead? Hmmm? Bit insecure, are we? Thick idiot. Get back to sweeping floors, you scientifically illiterate joke.


My, my, getting a bit touchy aren't we?

Has it not yet dawned on you, that if you think the chatroom talk is a bit too challenging & boisterous for you, just remember it is not anyone here forcing you to be here. As for me, I enjoy your presence, you make great sport & entertainment for jesting.



And you are as thick as pigsh!t, and have no scientific knowledge. What are you doing here, D-K boy? What is a half-life, again, Mr nuclear engineer? Lol.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Sep 30, 2018

This looks good:

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

no black holes and no dust
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 30, 2018
So why don't you go write up your disproof of black holes, bozo? Run out of crayons?


Better than a pop-cosmology crayon is an immutable law of physics called the INVERSE SQUARE LAW.

This law REQUIRES that gravitational forces of a gravitating body changes with the square of the distance from the perimeter of that body, THUS for any stellar body gravity is exactly ZERO at it's center & MAXIMUM at it's surface.

Because it is KNOWN gravity is zero at the center of EVERY KNOWN stellar body, it therefore must be impossible for ANYTHING to exist that can have INFINITE GRAVITY at it's center, this the #1 hypothesis for the structure of a BH. I won't put in for a Nobel Prize Award for this because it has already been well known & studied for over a century.
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 30, 2018
^^^^Yup, ran out of crayons! Lol! What an imbecile.
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (6) Sep 30, 2018
So why don't you go write up your disproof of black holes, bozo?

BH's have been disproved numerous times, here is another example;

https://principia...ativity/
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Sep 30, 2018
^^^^Yup, ran out of crayons! Lol! What an imbecile.


Crayons are about all those of you living in the fantasy world of Pop-Cosmology have.

Just look at how this article opens up the discussion here, with an artists impression:

"An artist's impression of what an active galactic nucleus might look like at close quarters. The accretion disk produces the brilliant light in the centre."

.......yeah, lots of brilliantly colored Pop-Cosmology crayons at work here.

jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 30, 2018
So why don't you go write up your disproof of black holes, bozo?

BH's have been disproved numerous times, here is another example;

https://principia...ativity/


Crothers? Lol. He's another idiotic crank.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 30, 2018
^^^^Yup, ran out of crayons! Lol! What an imbecile.


Crayons are about all those of you living in the fantasy world of Pop-Cosmology have.

Just look at how this article opens up the discussion here, with an artists impression:

"An artist's impression of what an active galactic nucleus might look like at close quarters. The accretion disk produces the brilliant light in the centre."

.......yeah, lots of brilliantly colored Pop-Cosmology crayons at work here.



Give up Benni. Like I've said, you are a scientifically illiterate imbecile.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 30, 2018
up, ran out of crayons! Lol! What an imbecile.


Crayons are about all those of you living in the fantasy world of Pop-Cosmology have.

Just look at how this article opens up the discussion here, with an artists impression:

"An artist's impression of what an active galactic nucleus might look like at close quarters. The accretion disk produces the brilliant light in the centre."

.......yeah, lots of brilliantly colored Pop-Cosmology crayons at work here.]/q]

Give up Benni. Like I've said, you are a scientifically illiterate imbecile.


Oh no, never give up, neither should you with all your Pop-Cosmology crayons such as what this article is all about, artistic impressionism.

Here's how you can get instant Pop-Cosmology credibility & maybe a nomination for a Nobel Prize: Create an artist's impression of your Astronomy Based Degree from U of A, publish the drawing at a blogsite & tell us where to go for viewing it, and bingo, INSTANT CREDIBILITY.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Sep 30, 2018
@CD85
Thanks for the timely offering of your link.

I was quite impressed with the erudite reasoning that Crothers presents, such as:

"Crothers and others say there is increasing evidence to believe there are no isolated islands in the universe. They say all objects in space, from subatomic particles to galactic clusters, are connected by manifestations of the electric force acting in real time."

No isolated islands. And electrical filaments connecting all of those islands in Space. I like the idea as it gives the concept of universal togetherness, simply put.

But it also gives a best guess for the idea that "Portals" and "wormholes" exist that are connected to the filaments that connect all of the 'islands' or galaxies in Space. What better way for travel?

Why, it almost reminds one of the innards and workings within a brain, human or otherwise.
I am not about to go into the possible manifestations in a spiritual sense, although it is hard not to try.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 30, 2018
Here's how you can get instant Pop-Cosmology credibility & maybe a nomination for a Nobel Prize: Create an artist's impression of your Astronomy Based Degree from U of A, publish the drawing at a blogsite & tell us where to go for viewing it, and bingo, INSTANT CREDIBILITY


Only after you post a scan of this non-existent nuclear engineering degree that you lied about doing. The one that failed to teach you what a half-life is. That one. Credibility? You don't have any, D-K boy.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 30, 2018
I was quite impressed with the erudite reasoning that Crothers presents, such as:


You would be, given that you don't understand the science. The guy is a complete crank;

https://rationalw...Crothers
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 30, 2018
@Benni
It is too late for jonesdave. He has already swallowed the Kool-Aid, just as the acolytes of Jim Jones had done - with irreversible results. Hmm any relation, I wonder.

There is a saying: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me".
jones continues to get fooled over and over by, as you say, Pop-Cosmology, and jones keeps a closed mind, lest his brain falls out.
But seriously, jones will not be bothered with new possibilities unless it has already been written up and a Nobel Prize awarded. Poor jones.

Perhaps the brain of jonesdave is becoming calcified, where even a tad could prevent him from considering possible new scientific discoveries such as all bodies of Matter/Energy in Space being interconnected. "My goodness - that can't BE"
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 30, 2018
I was quite impressed with the erudite reasoning that Crothers presents, such as:


You would be, given that you don't understand the science. The guy is a complete crank;

https://rationalw...Crothers
say jones

Oh, I see. jones is the ONLY one in the physorg site that understands science, other than the true scientists who come down from their lairs to make some comments and then go away laughing at jones, leaving poor jones to his inevitable daily rendezvous with such as we.
With jones admonishing them to "Take me with you".
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 30, 2018
I was quite impressed with the erudite reasoning that Crothers presents, such as:


You would be, given that you don't understand the science. The guy is a complete crank;

https://rationalw...Crothers
say jones

Oh, I see. jones is the ONLY one in the physorg site that understands science, other than the true scientists who come down from their lairs to make some comments and then go away laughing at jones, leaving poor jones to his inevitable daily rendezvous with such as we.
With jones admonishing them to "Take me with you".


What are you smoking, thicko? I am saying nothing to you that real scientists wouldn't say, if you had the balls to confront them. So, that is just another part of your anatomy that is missing, along with your brain, yes? You know sh!t about science. Why do you feel the need to comment on it? Mental disorder?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Sep 30, 2018
LOL copying much, jones? Is your vocabulary thus far lacking in original material that you feel compelled to copy what we have said, changed ever so slightly, and making it your own?
You have veered so far off the mark wrt the title and gist of the article and, instead, cannot help but run full force into ad hominem and accusations where you THINK that you know us, but have no idea who we are and anything of our qualifications and friendships with scientists/researchers.

You do assume too much, but that's YOU.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 30, 2018
LOL copying much, jones? Is your vocabulary thus far lacking in original material that you feel compelled to copy what we have said, changed ever so slightly, and making it your own?
You have veered so far off the mark wrt the title and gist of the article and, instead, cannot help but run full force into ad hominem and accusations where you THINK that you know us, but have no idea who we are and anything of our qualifications and friendships with scientists/researchers.

You do assume too much, but that's YOU.


Again, WTF are you talking about, thicko? Go to a physics forum. Prove me wrong. You haven't got the balls, have you? Just like Benni and cantthink. You just spout idiotic crap on here because you are allowed to get away with it. You are scientifically illiterate. Like I said, we have a word for people like you in my part of the world; gobsh!tes.

https://en.wiktio...gobshite
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 30, 2018
What are you smoking, thicko? I am saying nothing to you that real scientists wouldn't say, if you had the balls to confront them. So, that is just another part of your anatomy that is missing, along with your brain, yes? You know sh!t about science. Why do you feel the need to comment on it? Mental disorder?


Do you really believe, even in your wildest dreams, that the way I speak in this website is the same way that I communicate with and exchange ideas on science with bona fide Physicists? I have many friends in the fields of Physics and they know all about this website and those who live in it while pretending to have great knowledge of science topics, such as you do.
You seem to forget that this is a public website where comments are soon forgotten and many of the article's topics are only for perusal and questioning - with some knowledge of science thrown in. Real scientists don't take most science sites seriously. Least of all this one.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 30, 2018
In any case, I had been addressing cantdrive85 to thank him for the link and to give him my views on the subject, when my comment was violently set upon by jones who seems to believe that suppressing new information, whether favorable or not, must not be allowed to happen (in a public website).
But that is the kind of violent reaction one should expect from a mind that is totalitarian in nature, and who might have been welcomed to be a part of Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler; or who might have been considered as a glorious hero in the Soviet Union under Stalin.

Suppression of ideas now, and in the future - Thought - seems to be the shape of things to come. It is true that scientists are working on technology that will reveal what the human is thinking - whether individually or collectively. Such technology will be best used for the violent elimination of those whose thoughts are not properly inclined, according to the principles of totalitarianism and Communism.
granville583762
3 / 5 (8) Sep 30, 2018
There's a hole in our galaxy dear Eliza, with what shall we fix it.

All the fuss made over blackhole singularities, hawking-radiation, once entered nothing leaves, Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose on blackhole-radiation, of hypothetical particles, he was not in his wildest dreams talking of so many hypothetical particle it's possible to lose a billion solar mass's all inside a blackhole of no escape
There's either the a hole in our galaxies blackhole, as from all the fuss physicsworld has made over these blackhole and that what happens inside a blackhole cannot be discussed, its coming to something when this overhyped singularity of a hole is not so much a blackhole star, but a sieve.

But then, Sir Isaac Newton said in regards to escape velocities that matter travels an infinitely long distance before the force of gravity brings the matter including that has escaped this billion solar mass blackhole to a halt. https://en.wikipe...y_Bucket
IwinUlose
1 / 5 (5) Sep 30, 2018
It is true that scientists are working on technology that will reveal what the human is thinking - whether individually or collectively. Such technology will be best used for the violent elimination of those whose thoughts are not properly inclined, according to the principles of totalitarianism and Communism.


I'm really hoping for something like the Hound from Fahrenheit 451. A tireless stalking automaton with hypodermic needles for teeth.. and then, with the added ability to read minds so that none of the 'others' can masquerade as The Chosen? Yes sir.

granville - apologies for the downvote
IwinUlose
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 30, 2018
Be wary downvoter! When the Communist Mind Reading Kill-A-Majig is complete, we'll know who you are, and what you did, and..what you had for breakfast.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2018
Be wary downvoter! When the Communist Mind Reading Kill-A-Majig is complete, we'll know who you are, and what you did, and..what you had for breakfast.


And, more importantly, who are you planning to vote for in coming elections.
granville583762
3.1 / 5 (9) Oct 01, 2018
Holes within Holes, Blackhole Size equals R=2GM/C*

A star capable of breaking matter apart to quark-gluon plasma into pristine protons reverses the death knell concerning matter, far from being a monster, without blackholes it's difficult to recycle matter, but now it seems the very action of ejecting the matter they take inside their light-radius is the cause of their demise

Blackholes cannot compress matter greater than the speed of light where the blackholes light-radius grows in radius proportionally to its mass, R=2GM/C* where gravity is zero at the centre of mass

This reality of blackholes is a far cry from the over hyped singularities of hole that can ever have been envisaged in the darker regions of the singularities that inhabit the relativistic corners of imagination, what is interesting is to what hole in which theory was being filled with these singularities of a hole with as many holes as the atoms and stars they eject out their spin-axis
dsylvan
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 01, 2018
@ jonesdave

I admire your tenacity in fighting the forces of ignorance simultaneously on 3 fronts. But I worry about the futility of it. These are not rational people, though in their own minds they are. You're up against insanity--the inability to let reality, in this case via science, inform one's subjective view of the world. Sadly, no amount of persuasion from you or anybody is going to fix that.
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 01, 2018
Do you really believe, even in your wildest dreams, that the way I speak in this website is the same way that I communicate with and exchange ideas on science with bona fide Physicists?


Total nonsense. Not a single physicist would agree with any of the crap that you, Benni or cantthink come out with. If you believe otherwise, then link me to said physicists. Otherwise you are making it up.

jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 01, 2018
@ jonesdave

I admire your tenacity in fighting the forces of ignorance simultaneously on 3 fronts. But I worry about the futility of it. These are not rational people, though in their own minds they are. You're up against insanity--the inability to let reality, in this case via science, inform one's subjective view of the world. Sadly, no amount of persuasion from you or anybody is going to fix that.


Agreed. It isn't really about the loons in question. It is more about pointing out the idiocy of their arguments for any lurkers that might get drawn into such unscientific nonsense as electric universe, for example. I guess there are two options; ignore them, and let them spam the site with their crap unchallenged, or point out how idiotic said crap actually is, lest anyone be taken in by it. I choose the latter, others likely choose the former.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2018
@ jonesdave

I admire your tenacity in fighting the forces of ignorance
......by lying about his 2 four year degrees for Uni of Auckland, NZ that he attended 1979-81? Now this is some interesting math if you ask me.

But I worry about the futility of it.


These are not rational people, though in their own minds they are. You're up against insanity--the inability to let reality, in this case via science, inform one's subjective view of the world.
..... but I can solve Differential Equations, jonesy is so irrational that he's been on here stating he took them in a high school Algebra class. Supposing you be the one to tell us then, how is it "rational" for ANYONE to EVER imagine jonesy. or ANYONE ELSE, ever took Differential Equations in a high school Algebra class? Maybe you don't know the answer to that yourself?

Sadly, no amount of persuasion from you or anybody is going to fix that.
........his foul mouthed ranting isn't "Sadly"?

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
4 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2018
@ jonesdave

I admire your tenacity in fighting the forces of ignorance simultaneously on 3 fronts. But I worry about the futility of it. These are not rational people, though in their own minds they are. You're up against insanity--the inability to let reality, in this case via science, inform one's subjective view of the world. Sadly, no amount of persuasion from you or anybody is going to fix that.

says dsylvan

You needn't worry about jones. He is enjoying these conversations and is being schooled without realising it. Otherwise, jones would just ignore us and get close with SpookyOtto or someone like auntiealice who will tell him what for.

Which brings me to the fact that while you were giving advice to jones, you had said nothing wrt the topic of the article. Strange bedfellows, perhaps?
jonesdave
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2018
by lying about his 2 four year degrees for Uni of Auckland, NZ that he attended 1979-81? Now this is some interesting math if you ask me.


I said no such thing, liar. And, as I will have to point out again, you thick sod, 79 + 80 + 81 = 3 years. Stay away from maths, thicko, it is provably not your strong point, is it, D-K boy?

And who is lying? You DID NOT do a nuclear engineering degree. Fact. Nobody could do that and be as thick as you. Straight out lie. F***ing hypocrite.

jonesdave
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2018
He is enjoying these conversations and is being schooled without realising it.


Hahahahahaha. When did this happen Creation Boy? Idiot. You are demonstrably scientifically illiterate, aren't you? One stuff up after another, and yet you still see the need to make an even bigger tit of yourself by continuing to post and show your ignorance on here. Another D-K sufferer.
jonesdave
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2018
....but I can solve Differential Equations


Aaaaannnnddddd, another lie. You can't even do basic maths. As proven. Why do you lie so much? Is the D-K getting worse?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
4 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2018
Do you really believe, even in your wildest dreams, that the way I speak in this website is the same way that I communicate with and exchange ideas on science with bona fide Physicists?


Total nonsense. Not a single physicist would agree with any of the crap that you, Benni or cantthink come out with. If you believe otherwise, then link me to said physicists. Otherwise you are making it up.

says jones

It may be total nonsense to YOU, but many physicists are looking at other possibilities besides the physics that they have learnt at University. A bona fide scientist knows that at least some of what they have learnt has come from other sources than only those who have already received their Ph.Ds, and that simulations and artists' impressions are only, as Reality Check puts it - GIGO.
Ever hear the term, "citizen scientists"? As my American friends say, "the proof is in the pudding".
jonesdave
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2018
It may be total nonsense to YOU, but many physicists are looking at other possibilities besides the physics that they have learnt at University. A bona fide scientist knows that at least some of what they have learnt has come from other sources than only those who have already received their Ph.Ds, and that simulations and artists' impressions are only, as Reality Check puts it - GIGO.
Ever hear the term, "citizen scientists"? As my American friends say, "the proof is in the pudding".


It is total nonsense to anyone with half a brain. And you wouldn't understand the first thing about citizen science, nor have ever taken part in it. It does not involve posting idiotic nonsense in places like this.
Cut the crappy word salad, and post links to anything you think that you, cantthink or Benni are right about.

Here is a real citizen science project:

https://www.zooni...axy-zoo/

It doesn't include idiots like the aforementioned.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
4 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2018
by lying about his 2 four year degrees for Uni of Auckland, NZ that he attended 1979-81? Now this is some interesting math if you ask me.


I said no such thing, liar. And, as I will have to point out again, you thick sod, 79 + 80 + 81 = 3 years.

says jones

Now if you began your first year at University of Auckland, let's say, in September of 1979, in the Spring of 1980 would make 1 year; and let's say that you returned to classes again in September 1980 and then received your doctorate in the Spring of 1981, that comes to only 2 years. Where did the third year come from, jones? Did you have to go to Summer school with the inattentive boys? Partying much?

In any case, from '79 to '81 is only 2 years, not 3 as you claimed.
jonesdave
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2018
In any case, from '79 to '81 is only 2 years, not 3 as you claimed.


Another thick swine who can't do maths! School year in NZ starts in Feb, and ends in Dec. Do the maths, you idiot.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 01, 2018
As I have already stated:


Do you really believe, even in your wildest dreams, that the way I speak in this website is the same way that I communicate with and exchange ideas on science with bona fide Physicists? I have many friends in the fields of Physics and they know all about this website and those who live in it while pretending to have great knowledge of science topics, such as you do.
You seem to forget that this is a public website where comments are soon forgotten and many of the article's topics are only for perusal and questioning - with some knowledge of science thrown in. Real scientists don't take most science sites seriously. Least of all this one.


The real question is: why do you still carry on 'conversations' with the 3 of us if you are in total disagreement with our views on science? That is quite abnormal and indicates that you are suffering from "obsessive-compulsive", and possibly a hint of dementia. Do you imbibe much with the hard stuff?
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 01, 2018
The real question is: why do you still carry on 'conversations' with the 3 of us if you are in total disagreement with our views on science? That is quite abnormal and indicates that you are suffering from "obsessive-compulsive", and possibly a hint of dementia. Do you imbibe much with the hard stuff?


I have no desire to have any conversations with any of you loons. You are not talking science. I am, as previously pointed out, merely showing how idiotic this non-science is. Nothing to do with my opinions of the subject - just the take of real scientists in the scientific literature.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2018
In any case, from '79 to '81 is only 2 years, not 3 as you claimed.


Another thick swine who can't do maths! School year in NZ starts in Feb, and ends in Dec. Do the maths, you idiot.
says jones

Well, since the school year doesn't start in September in NZ, then let's go from February 1979. So Feb. '79 to the end of the school year in December 1979; then 2 months off, and then February 1980 to December 1980 is only 2 years. So how do you get 3 years?
You did 2 semesters in '79 and 2 semesters in '80 = 2 years and that's because your school year starts in February, as you say. In the States. the school year begins in September in most states.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 01, 2018
Now if you say that you went to University for 3 years only, from Feb. '79 to 'Dec. '81, that would be 3 full years of 6 semesters. But Universities don't offer any degrees for only 3 years. At least 4 years in Physics is required, even if you specialise in Astronomy, which I believe, is only a 2 year course.
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 01, 2018
Well, since the school year doesn't start in September in NZ, then let's go from February 1979. So Feb. '79 to the end of the school year in December 1979; then 2 months off, and then February 1980 to December 1980 is only 2 years. So how do you get 3 years?


Jesus, what an idiot! First of all the Yanks are in the northern hemisphere. NZ isn't. Check out an atlas. They usually supply one in primary school geography lessons.
How do I get three years? By not being an incompetent buffoon; Feb 79 - Dec 79 = 1 yr. Yes? Feb 80 - Dec 80 = 2 yrs. Yes? Feb 81 - Dec 81 = 3 yrs. Strewth, no wonder they never let you near a university! Lol.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 01, 2018
your school year starts in February, as you say. In the States. the school year begins in September in most states.
........they have September graduation:

https://www.auckl...ion.html

jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 01, 2018
Now if you say that you went to University for 3 years only, from Feb. '79 to 'Dec. '81, that would be 3 full years of 6 semesters. But Universities don't offer any degrees for only 3 years. At least 4 years in Physics is required, even if you specialise in Astronomy, which I believe, is only a 2 year course.


Wrong. And why are you so creepily obsessed with my background, you weirdo? Care to tell us where you failed to understand a single thing about science? What was your university? Didn't go, did you?
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2018
your school year starts in February, as you say. In the States. the school year begins in September in most states.
........they have September graduation:

https://www.auckl...ion.html



I don't know when they have graduation, you creepy f***. The school, and university year is from ~ Feb to Dec. I think I might have noticed if it weren't.

https://www.unive...2018.pdf
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 01, 2018
Well, since the school year doesn't start in September in NZ, then let's go from February 1979. So Feb. '79 to the end of the school year in December 1979; then 2 months off, and then February 1980 to December 1980 is only 2 years. So how do you get 3 years?


Jesus, what an idiot! First of all the Yanks are in the northern hemisphere. NZ isn't. Check out an atlas. They usually supply one in primary school geography lessons.
How do I get three years? By not being an incompetent buffoon; Feb 79 - Dec 79 = 1 yr. Yes? Feb 80 - Dec 80 = 2 yrs. Yes? Feb 81 - Dec 81 = 3 yrs. Strewth, no wonder they never let you near a university! Lol.


I have already said that in my post above. If you only went to University of Auckland for 3 years, you would have missed out on much of the Physics curriculum, and therefore you did not graduate with a Physics degree. And it is a Physics degree that is required if you intended a career in Astronomy.
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 01, 2018
your school year starts in February, as you say. In the States. the school year begins in September in most states.
........they have September graduation:

https://www.auckl...ion.html



And WTF would you know about graduation? You never went to university. Unless Fat Joe's Diner did a degree in burger flipping. Moron.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 01, 2018
The real question is: why do you still carry on 'conversations' with the 3 of us if you are in total disagreement with our views on science? That is quite abnormal and indicates that you are suffering from "obsessive-compulsive", and possibly a hint of dementia. Do you imbibe much with the hard stuff?


He's here because no one else in real life wants anything to do with him. Look at the quantity of time he spends here? It's not just this Cosmology stuff, it's half of almost everything else it seems like. I don't have time to take a tally of his posts, but you know every post anybody puts up takes just about ten minutes of reading/writing time per post & I don't think anyone equals this guy.
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 01, 2018
I have already said that in my post above. If you only went to University of Auckland for 3 years, you would have missed out on much of the Physics curriculum, and therefore you did not graduate with a Physics degree. And it is a Physics degree that is required if you intended a career in Astronomy.


No you didn't you liar. You said I only did two years, you f***ing creep. I quote, for the terminally stupid;

Well, since the school year doesn't start in September in NZ, then let's go from February 1979. So Feb. '79 to the end of the school year in December 1979; then 2 months off, and then February 1980 to December 1980 ***is only 2 years***. So how do you get 3 years?


Lying Idiot.

And you are basing your beliefs on the US system. Not everybody in the world uses your dumb system.
https://www.physi...bsc.html
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 01, 2018
He's here because no one else in real life wants anything to do with him. Look at the quantity of time he spends here? It's not just this Cosmology stuff, it's half of almost everything else it seems like. I don't have time to take a tally of his posts, but you know every post anybody puts up takes just about ten minutes of reading/writing time per post & I don't think anyone equals this guy.


Lol. What a hypocrite. At least I'm not the one making a complete tit of myself by claiming 6 years study in a subject that you obviously haven't got a clue about! Want some links to your idiotic misconceptions about very basic physics.? Again? Or your inability to do basic maths? And no, it might take you 10 minutes to type a message. Not everyone is as stupid as you, though.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2018
your school year starts in February, as you say. In the States. the school year begins in September in most states.
........they have September graduation:

https://www.auckl...ion.html


Huh? You claim that you received a degree in Astronomy (based) from University of Auckland, but you have no idea when they have graduation commencement day?

Hmm for some strange reason, your comment that you don't know when is graduation is not showing up. OK, I will just copy it and move it here:

"I don't know when they have graduation, you creepy f***. The school, and university year is from ~ Feb to Dec. I think I might have noticed if it weren't.

https://www.unive...2018.pdf
"

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2018
OK. I will copy my post and paste it here. Read it and weep, jones

"Now if you say that you went to University for 3 years only, from Feb. '79 to 'Dec. '81, that would be 3 full years of 6 semesters. But Universities don't offer any degrees for only 3 years. At least 4 years in Physics is required, even if you specialise in Astronomy, which I believe, is only a 2 year course."

jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 01, 2018
WTF are you talking about? Learn to format. The university year finishes in December. WTF is the matter with you, you creepy f***? I didn't even attend a graduation ceremony. Your final exam won't even be marked until well into the new year. When the degree is confirmed I cannot remember. It was a long time ago. And why are you so obsessed with what I did, when you are demonstrably scientifically illiterate? Care to explain, weirdo? Are all creationists as creepy as you?
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2018
OK. I will copy my post and paste it here. Read it and weep, jones

"Now if you say that you went to University for 3 years only, from Feb. '79 to 'Dec. '81, that would be 3 full years of 6 semesters. But Universities don't offer any degrees for only 3 years. At least 4 years in Physics is required, even if you specialise in Astronomy, which I believe, is only a 2 year course."



Wrong, you f***wit! Stop basing your sh1t on American degrees. From what I understand the first two years of their degrees don't even focus on a major, and are comparable to A level studies in the UK. In other words, high school level. You didn't even do a science degree, you numpty. Why are you so obsessed with what I did, you weird f***er?

https://www.physi...bsc.html
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2018
I would add that the majority of atheists are creepy as you. But that goes without saying.
In any case, you have made statements alluding to having received a degree or 2 for only 3 years at University, and did not receive your test scores until many months after graduation commencement. That would have made it impossible for you to have graduated or attended a graduating commencement if you hadn't already received your passing grades.
Sorry, but I think you are a liar
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 01, 2018

In any case, you have made statements alluding to having received a degree or 2 for only 3 years at University, and did not receive your test scores until many months after graduation commencement. That would have made it impossible for you to have graduated or attended a graduating commencement if you hadn't already received your passing grades.
Sorry, but I think you are a liar


And I think you are a creepy f*ckwit. I think I'm closer to the truth. I did one f***ing degree in 3 years idiot.

You will need a total of 360 points, the equivalent of three years' fulltime study, to qualify for a BSc. There are also requirements for the Physics and Geophysics majors.


https://www.physi...bsc.html

I did a second degree many years later with the Open University in the UK. BSc (Hons), Open.
That took 6 years as it was part-time. What have you got, thicko? Zilch, correct?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2018
The only University that you felt compelled to mention previously was the University of Auckland (Astronomy-based). And now you are expecting us to believe that you also graduated from Open University in UK? And because you have all these degrees, you are now specialising in many hours per day in the physorg website to impress everyone with degrees with which you obviously haven't done much, otherwise you would have been a famous Physicist and have no time to comment in a science article site.
You are still a liar.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2018
"American degrees. From what I understand the first two years of their degrees don't even focus on a major, and are comparable to A level studies in the UK. In other words, high school level."

After having said the above statement, you have the gall to tell us that you received a degree from Open University in the UK, as though you haven't just insulted the fine institutes of learning in the UK?
You are still a liar, and forever will be
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 01, 2018
After having said the above statement, you have the gall to tell us that you received a degree from Open University in the UK, as though you haven't just insulted the fine institutes of learning in the UK?
You are still a liar, and forever will be


Sorry? Where did I insult the UK education system? Let's add comprehension to the list of things that you aren't any good at. I am not lying about anything. You are the idiot who is taken in by liars like Benni. Basically down to your lack of a decent education, yes? What was that sh1t about clay, again? Lol.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2018
You will find out when the time comes. I guarantee it.
jonesdave
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2018
You will find out when the time comes. I guarantee it.


Find what out, you weird f***er?
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 01, 2018
From what I understand the first two years of their degrees don't even focus on a major,
.......not so if you plan to be an Engineering or Physics major, your first math course in your very first semester of your freshman year will be Calculus 1 & you need this before taking your first course in Physics, or sometimes the two can be taken contemporaneously.

You sound like someone who tried some kind of physics courses & became hopelessly lost just trying to keep up remedial math courses & never made it to Calculus 1.

I remember one of the acclaimed team members on that LIGO gravity wave detection scheme about a year ago had flunked out of an Engineering/Physics curriculum & dropped DOWN into Astronomy just to salvage his educational endeavors, you sound like one of those kinds of people. I'm gonna look up & find out who that loud mouthed clown was, he sounded just like you do.

jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 01, 2018
You sound like someone who tried some kind of physics courses & became hopelessly lost just trying to keep up remedial math courses & never made it to Calculus 1.


Lol. This from someone who never attended university, and can't do either maths or physics for sh!t! That D-K is getting worse. I check into a clinic, if I were you.

jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 01, 2018
......not so if you plan to be an Engineering or Physics major, your first math course in your very first semester of your freshman year will be Calculus 1


Calculus is high school 'A' level maths in the UK. Like I said, you waste uni time doing stuff you should have done at high school.

https://revisionm...calculus
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2018
......not so if you plan to be an Engineering or Physics major, your first math course in your very first semester of your freshman year will be Calculus 1


Calculus is high school 'A' level maths in the UK. Like I said, you waste uni time doing stuff you should have done at high school.
..........just like the Differential Equations you once told us you took in high school Algebra.

Oh, yeah, Calculus is offered in high school here in the U.S. but have been in many cases is watered down & may not be acceptable in an Engineering/Physics curriculum, depends on the high school.

jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 01, 2018
.........just like the Differential Equations you once told us you took in high school Algebra.


Well NZ is very much based on the UK education system. And A level students in the UK are doing differential equations;

https://revisionm...quations

Maybe American high schools just aren't very good.
dsylvan
3 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2018
@ jonesdave

Still going? Thought I'd keep you some company--and share a joke...
3 internet cranks march into a bar chanting "Eighty four days! Eighty four days! Eighty four days!"
Bartender says "What's all the excitement about?"
One of the cranks says "We got together and did a jigsaw puzzle in only eighty four days!"
Bartender says "Yeah, so?"
Crank says "Well on the box it said 2 to 4 years!"
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 02, 2018
@ jonesdave

Still going? Thought I'd keep you some company--and share a joke...
3 internet cranks march into a bar chanting "Eighty four days! Eighty four days! Eighty four days!"
Bartender says "What's all the excitement about?"
One of the cranks says "We got together and did a jigsaw puzzle in only eighty four days!"
Bartender says "Yeah, so?"
Crank says "Well on the box it said 2 to 4 years!"


Lol. Nice one!
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2018
.........just like the Differential Equations you once told us you took in high school Algebra.


Well NZ is very much based on the UK education system. And A level students in the UK are doing differential equations;

https://revisionm...quations

Maybe American high schools just aren't very good.


There isn't a high school on the planet that teaches a course in Differential Equations. Your problem with comprehending this is you still imagine that DEs are taught as part of high school Algebra, you don't know they're not, in the meantime you continue living in an alternate world of fantasy because reality has passed you by, & you don't have the intellectual capacity to catch up because you are so mathematically challenged.

Ok, tell us, how long did it take you to get that Anthropology degree at U of A?
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 02, 2018
There isn't a high school on the planet that teaches a course in Differential Equations.


Yes there is, thicko. I just linked to the A level revision topics;

https://revisionm...quations

When do you think A levels are taken, dumbo? In high school. By 16-18 year olds. Just because you can't do them, doesn't mean others can't.


Ok, tell us, how long did it take you to get that Anthropology degree at U of A


Why do you keep lying about what I claimed? Got a wee bit of an inferiority complex? You are right to. You are scientifically inferior to the vast majority of the human race. Demonstrably. Now, go away and sweep some floors, or flip some burgers, or whatever it is you do.

Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2018
There isn't a high school on the planet that teaches a course in Differential Equations.


Yes there is, thicko. I just linked to the A level revision topics;

https://revisionm...quations

When do you think A levels are taken, dumbo? In high school. By 16-18 year olds. Just because you can't do them, doesn't mean others can't.


Ok, tell us, how long did it take you to get that Anthropology degree at U of A


Why do you keep lying about what I claimed? Got a wee bit of an inferiority complex? You are right to. You are scientifically inferior to the vast majority of the human race. Demonstrably. Now, go away and sweep some floors, or flip some burgers, or whatever it is you do.


So tell us again, when did you take Differential Equations? In high school? Be careful how you answer this because I have just set up a trap for you that I already know the answer to.....
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Oct 02, 2018
@ jonesdave

Still going? Thought I'd keep you some company--and share a joke...
3 internet cranks march into a bar chanting "Eighty four days! Eighty four days! Eighty four days!"
Bartender says "What's all the excitement about?"
One of the cranks says "We got together and did a jigsaw puzzle in only eighty four days!"
Bartender says "Yeah, so?"
Crank says "Well on the box it said 2 to 4 years!"
says dsylvan

LOL
So that is the extent of your sense of humour? It's not even amusing. It might bring a chuckle to a Democrat Party cretin.
You would not even qualify as second banana to Stephen Colbert on Saturday Night Live - who is also no longer funny and who now only specialises in political pseudo-humour.

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.