Most detailed observations of material orbiting close to a black hole

Most detailed observations of material orbiting close to a black hole
ESO's exquisitely sensitive GRAVITY instrument has added further evidence to the long-standing assumption that a supermassive black hole lurks in the centre of the Milky Way. New observations show clumps of gas swirling around at about 30 percent of the speed of light on a circular orbit just outside a four million solar mass black hole -- the first time material has been observed orbiting close to the point of no return, and the most detailed observations yet of material orbiting this close to a black hole. This visualisation uses data from simulations of orbital motions of gas swirling around at about 30% of the speed of light on a circular orbit around the black hole. Credit: ESO/Gravity Consortium/L. Calçada

ESO's exquisitely sensitive GRAVITY instrument has added further evidence to the long-standing assumption that a supermassive black hole lurks in the centre of the Milky Way. New observations show clumps of gas swirling around at about 30% of the speed of light on a circular orbit just outside its event horizon—the first time material has been observed orbiting close to the point of no return, and the most detailed observations yet of material orbiting this close to a black hole.

ESO's GRAVITY instrument on the Very Large Telescope (VLT) Interferometer has been used by scientists from a consortium of European institutions, including ESO, to observe flares of infrared radiation coming from the accretion disc around Sagittarius A*, the massive object at the heart of the Milky Way. The observed flares provide long-awaited confirmation that the object in the centre of our galaxy is, as has long been assumed, a supermassive black hole. The flares originate from material orbiting very close to the black hole's event horizon—making these the most detailed observations yet of material orbiting this close to a black hole.

While some matter in the accretion disc—the belt of gas orbiting Sagittarius A* at relativistic speeds—can orbit the black hole safely, anything that gets too close is doomed to be pulled beyond the event horizon. The closest point to a black hole that material can orbit without being irresistibly drawn inwards by the immense mass is known as the innermost stable orbit, and it is from here that the observed flares originate.

"It's mind-boggling to actually witness material orbiting a massive black hole at 30% of the speed of light," marvelled Oliver Pfuhl, a scientist at the MPE. "GRAVITY's tremendous sensitivity has allowed us to observe the accretion processes in real time in unprecedented detail."

These measurements were only possible thanks to international collaboration and state-of-the-art instrumentation. The GRAVITY instrument which made this work possible combines the light from four telescopes of ESO's VLT to create a virtual super-telescope 130 metres in diameter, and has already been used to probe the nature of Sagittarius A*.

Earlier this year, GRAVITY and SINFONI, another instrument on the VLT, allowed the same team to accurately measure the close fly-by of the star S2 as it passed through the extreme gravitational field near Sagittarius A*, and for the first time revealed the effects predicted by Einstein's general relativity in such an extreme environment. During S2's close fly-by, strong infrared emission was also observed.

"We were closely monitoring S2, and of course we always keep an eye on Sagittarius A*," explained Pfuhl. "During our observations, we were lucky enough to notice three bright flares from around the black hole—it was a lucky coincidence!"

This emission, from highly energetic electrons very close to the black hole, was visible as three prominent bright flares, and exactly matches theoretical predictions for hot spots orbiting close to a black hole of four million solar masses. The flares are thought to originate from magnetic interactions in the very hot gas orbiting very close to Sagittarius A*.

Reinhard Genzel, of the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics (MPE) in Garching, Germany, who led the study, explained: "This always was one of our dream projects but we did not dare to hope that it would become possible so soon." Referring to the long-standing assumption that Sagittarius A* is a , Genzel concluded that "the result is a resounding confirmation of the massive black hole paradigm."


Explore further

Image: Cloudlets swarm around our local supermassive black hole

More information: "Detection of Orbital Motions Near the Last Stable Circular Orbit of the Massive Black Hole SgrA*", by the GRAVITY Collaboration, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 31 October 2018. www.eso.org/public/archives/re … eso1835/eso1835a.pdf. DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834294
Journal information: Astronomy & Astrophysics

Provided by ESO
Citation: Most detailed observations of material orbiting close to a black hole (2018, October 31) retrieved 19 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2018-10-material-orbiting-black-hole.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
1042 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Oct 31, 2018
I'm sure some EU cultists will chime in with something about Birkland currents soon, and Benni will say something about infinite mass on the surface of a finite stellar body, and then pretend to be superior to everyone because he can solve differential equations (in spite of some evidence to the contrary).


Oct 31, 2018
"I'm sure some EU cultists will chime in with something about Birkland currents soon, and Benni will say something about infinite mass on the surface of a finite stellar body, and then pretend to be superior to everyone because he can solve differential equations (in spite of some evidence to the contrary)."

Don't worry, Jones will be along to set everyone straight...that combined with your ability to peer into the future should be enough to dodge the facts that in the history of observation we have only ever seen matter circulate around a central region and never vanish into a "blackhole", or be propelled away from the infinite gravity at relativistic velocities...ahhh mainstream physics, where the impossible becomes possible by saying it mathematically. And saying it mathematically proves it is real beyond a doubt.

It's all bang on as soon the 90% of the missing stuff decides to show itself...next article "Is dark matter consciously dodging detection?" Stay tuned...

Oct 31, 2018
Benni will say something about infinite mass on the surface of a finite stellar body, and then pretend to be superior to everyone because he can solve differential equations (in spite of some evidence to the contrary).


All I do is quote Pop-Cosmology theories like this: https://en.wikipe...ack_hole

Singularity

Main article: Gravitational singularity

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

What's your problem with this?

Oct 31, 2018
All I do is quote Pop-Cosmology theories like this:


Who cares what you quote? You are a scientifically illiterate loon on a comments section.

Oct 31, 2018
Don't worry, Jones will be along to set everyone straight...that combined with your ability to peer into the future should be enough to dodge the facts that in the history of observation we have only ever seen matter circulate around a central region and never vanish into a "blackhole", or be propelled away from the infinite gravity at relativistic velocities...ahhh mainstream physics, where the impossible becomes possible by saying it mathematically. And saying it mathematically proves it is real beyond a doubt.

Yes we have: https://phys.org/...ght.html
https://phys.org/...ars.html
https://phys.org/...ray.html

That's just a very quick look up. Why are you saying we have not?


Oct 31, 2018
Are they showing this as a top down image?

Oct 31, 2018
"Why are you saying we have not?"

Well for starters...artists conceptions do not classify as observations, secondly...because there is an increase in radiation from a region doesn't mean that there is a black hole there swallowing matter, lastly, because there is no photographic image of this happening, just the claim that it is because of increased light output.

What is it about belief in mainstream theories that makes people forget what actual evidence is? I mean, even the math only describes something theorists imagine is happening if they are correct, which a complete lack of physical evidence ( an interpretation is not evidence for those of you confused about what evidence is ) says they are wrong.

Oct 31, 2018
What is it about belief in mainstream theories that makes people forget what actual evidence is?


You mean the 4m solar mass object that must be there to explain the stellar orbits of the close-in stars? Start with that, and show us a quantitative alternative. If you can't do that............................well, you know the pack drill, eh?

Oct 31, 2018
Are they showing this as a top down image?


If this was a joke about perspective, well done!

Oct 31, 2018
I mean, even the math only describes something theorists imagine is happening if they are correct, which a complete lack of physical evidence ( an interpretation is not evidence for those of you confused about what evidence is ) says they are wrong.


Can you prove with 100% certainty that you do not suffer schizophrenia? Can you know without any doubt that everyone, and perhaps everything you've interacted with is nothing but a figment of your imagination? The ludicrousness of this line of questioning is on par with a statement like "a lack of physical evidence says they are wrong." It's also akin to saying we know for certain there is no life in the universe because we have no physical evidence of any.

Pull your head out of your ass.

Oct 31, 2018
"You mean the 4m solar mass object that must be there to explain the stellar orbits of the close-in stars? Start with that, and show us a quantitative alternative. "

How about you show me the object...if you can't do that....well you know the pack drill eh? That would be EVIDENCE. Claiming something is moving in a certain way because something else "must be there" leads to crazy notions such as electromagnetically invisible matter constituting the bulk of the universal mass and as Benni points out above... a point in space that supposedly contains 4 million solar masses.

As usual, the only response possible from a supporter of antiquated theories is a demand for an alternative to the insanity. Nothing will satiate the insane except insanity and apparently mainstream theories on astrophysics.


Oct 31, 2018
Absolutely phenomenal image, general relativity and the standard model writ large...

Oct 31, 2018
How about you show me the object...if you can't do that....well you know the pack drill eh? That would be EVIDENCE. Claiming something is moving in a certain way because something else "must be there


There is no other explanation known for the orbits of those stars. It MUST be a 4m solar mass object. So, what is it, dummy?


Oct 31, 2018
"Can you prove with 100% certainty that you do not suffer schizophrenia?"
Yes.
" Can you know without any doubt that everyone, and perhaps everything you've interacted with is nothing but a figment of your imagination?"
Yes.
" The ludicrousness of this line of questioning is on par with a statement like "a lack of physical evidence says they are wrong."
That you think a lack of physical evidence for the objects claimed to exist in these theories isn't a problem shows how ludicrous people who support the theories actually are in their thinking.

"It's also akin to saying we know for certain there is no life in the universe because we have no physical evidence of any."

LMAO...so what do you consider yourself??? dead? Happy Halloween I guess. The above statement is actually dumber than anything Jones has said that I have seen...and that is a monumental feat. (ya see, life is all around us, BH's and DM are not)

Pull your head out of your ass

Oct 31, 2018
Nothing will satiate the insane except insanity and apparently mainstream theories on astrophysics.


And WTF would you know about science? You have been indoctrinated by unqualified Velikovskian idiots into believing all sorts of scientifically impossible sh!te. Why would anybody listen to the uneducated rantings of such a loon?


Oct 31, 2018
LMAO...so what do you consider yourself??? dead? Happy Halloween I guess. The above statement is actually dumber than anything Jones has said that I have seen...and that is a monumental feat. (ya see, life is all around us, BH's and DM are not)


Oh Lord, I didn't think I had to qualify that with life beyond Earth, but given the lunacy you subscribe to, and how incoherent your ramblings are, shame on me. The fact that every retort you give is literally a copy paste of what was directed at you is further evidence of how inane you are. You're the exact kind of jamoke that would gladly believe in crap like flat Earth theory because you're so desperate to be contrary to the "mainstream" culture that has rejected you in every facet. Enjoy eating Cheetos and drinking Mountain Dew in your mother's basement.

You've now also been added to the comment ignore list. The comments section is getting more pleasant every day :)

Oct 31, 2018
If this was a joke about perspective


Genuinely curious. You can see a tornado like funnel heading back so I wanted to know what direction it was.

Oct 31, 2018
"Oh Lord,"
Careful...they frown upon "godders" here...
"I didn't think I had to qualify that with life beyond Earth"...
There was no way to qualify the absurdity of your remark...you compared theoretical objects to life.
"You're the exact kind of jamoke that would gladly believe in crap like flat Earth theory because you're so desperate to be contrary "
Nope, observations definitely prove the shape of the earth, but the strawman tactic is strong on the mainstream...
"You've now also been added to the comment ignore list."
Perfect! Having to respond to one hapless moron here is enough...speaking of:
"And WTF would you know about science?"
A lot more than you.

Oct 31, 2018
A lot more than you.


Obviously not, otherwise you wouldn't believe in the pseudoscientific Velikovskian crap of EU. By definition, you are scientifically illiterate, as is anyone else who believes that garbage.

Oct 31, 2018
jones, I would suggest adding him to your ignore list as well. Going back and forth with someone that has an ego the size of Texas, that has been rejected by the rest of society, is only going to end in frustration for you. Why engage? You don't entertain a child throwing a tantrum, so I wouldn't recommend engaging these weirdo zealots either.

Oct 31, 2018
"jones, I would suggest adding him to your ignore list as well. Going back and forth with someone that has an ego the size of Texas, that has been rejected by the rest of society, is only going to end in frustration for you. Why engage?"

Please, for the love of God take this advice.

Oct 31, 2018
If this was a joke about perspective


Genuinely curious. You can see a tornado like funnel heading back so I wanted to know what direction it was.

It's an artist's impression, not an actual image.

Oct 31, 2018
Anyone have a link to the paper?

Oct 31, 2018
https://www.eso.o...835a.pdf

It's at the bottom of the article under more information.

Oct 31, 2018
It's an artist's impression, not an actual image.

Doesn't state that in the caption. I thought it was a composite

Oct 31, 2018
"There is no other explanation known for the orbits of those stars. It MUST be a 4m solar mass object. So, what is it, dummy?"

Please enlighten me JD, what is gravity and how does it work?


Oct 31, 2018
"There is no other explanation known for the orbits of those stars. It MUST be a 4m solar mass object. So, what is it, dummy?"

Please enlighten me JD, what is gravity and how does it work?

By his logic, in a Hydrogen atom an electron orbits a proton at relativistic velocity due to the immense gravity of the Proton....what other explanation can there be???

Oh yeah, the one we discovered through measurement and experimentation. Which is science. Not beginning with a postulate that it is gravity, then stating the calculated mass of the proton based on that and telling everyone "there can be no other explanation".

BTW, he will likely regurgitate something from relativity that dances around the direct question because not only was it a great question...but yet another one "they" cannot answer.

Oct 31, 2018
Please enlighten me JD, what is gravity and how does it work?


See Newton. Then see Einstein. Then read up on Kepler. Then look at the orbits of those stars, and do a fairly straightforward calculation.

Oct 31, 2018
By his logic, in a Hydrogen atom an electron orbits a proton at relativistic velocity due to the immense gravity of the Proton....what other explanation can there be???


It's not my logic, you dense f***wit, it is the logic of many, many scientists who have studied those orbits, and concluded that the object must have a mass of ~ 4m solar masses. You aren't arguing with me, you cretin, you are arguing against them.In a comments section! Lol. Nobody is doubting their conclusions. Check the citations to the numerous papers that have been published on the subject. The only naysayers are scientifically illiterate Velikovskian loons, and they publish nothing, and have no alternative to explain those orbits. They are idiots who can be safely ignored. And are.


Oct 31, 2018
By the way, their paper mentions another of their observations;

Detection of the gravitational redshift in the orbit of the star S2 near the Galactic centre massive black hole
GRAVITY Collaboration
https://www.aanda...8-18.pdf

The S2 data are inconsistent with pure Newtonian dynamics.


Ergo, the massive gravitational presence of the BH requires, as expected, GR to explain it. Another tick for GR, and rules out any non-gravity based woo that one might care to make up based on being indoctrinated into Thornhill's science-free dogma.

Oct 31, 2018
". Nobody is doubting their conclusions."

Well, a lot of people here (and in the scientific community that you do not want to believe exists) are...so you mean nobody whose opinion you care about, that's fine. It is also fine that you refer to people who don't buy into the invisible objects math created as "scientifically illiterate". Because what you call science isn't actually science, it's creative math that starts with a preconception and makes claims that cannot be substantiated by anything other the same math and the same preconceptions . If it was right, we would have proven it experimentally and with direct observation by now. Your opinion of me matters as much to me as you matter to the rest of the world Jones, zero. It is you who I am arguing with, no physicist would attempt to say what you do here because if their colleagues saw it they would be jobless...as I suspect you are given the hours you put in here.

Redshift...do I even want to....no.

Oct 31, 2018
Please enlighten me JD, what is gravity and how does it work?


See Newton. Then see Einstein

And neither proposed an actual mechanism to describe gravity, only maths equations to describe the effects. As Newton stated;
"But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses." Isaac Newton

Oct 31, 2018
Well, a lot of people here (and in the scientific community that you do not want to believe exists) are...so you mean nobody whose opinion you care about, that's fine


Nope, you made that up. The people here, such as yourself, are scientifically illiterate laymen, so don't count. Nobody in the field is questioning these irrefutable observations. If you believe there are, then link to their refutations. And no idiots like Thornhill, thank you. Real scientists.


Oct 31, 2018
Please enlighten me JD, what is gravity and how does it work?


See Newton. Then see Einstein

And neither proposed an actual mechanism to describe gravity, only maths equations to describe the effects. As Newton stated;
"But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses." Isaac Newton


Indeed. And so what? We know it exists, and we know its value. We can rule out certain things being the cause of gravity. Such as EM, for instance.

Oct 31, 2018
And still to this day, there is no physical explanation of how gravity works. Just maths equations to explain the effects. So we are all expected to trust the darkists that regardless of the fact that there is no mechanism to explain gravity on any scale it must still work on all scales.

Oct 31, 2018
Because what you call science isn't actually science, it's creative math that starts with a preconception and makes claims that cannot be substantiated by anything other the same math and the same preconceptions


Yes, it is. It does not start with a preconception, you idiot - it starts with observation and measurement. Hence the need for DM. You really don't get this science lark, do you? A preconception would be the evidence-free assumption that the Sun is a giant light bulb, and then trying to justify it with idiotic suggestions from fruitloops. That most definitely is not science.


Oct 31, 2018
And still to this day, there is no physical explanation of how gravity works. Just maths equations to explain the effects. So we are all expected to trust the darkists that regardless of the fact that there is no mechanism to explain gravity on any scale it must still work on all scales.


Of course it works on all scales. Why the hell wouldn't it? Which part of the countless verifications of GR did you miss? Including the gravitational redshift of S2 around Sgr A*. Sorry, you are just an anti-science nutjob, who has been conned by the loons Thornhill & Talbott. None of your cult are of any relevance, nor make any contribution to real science.

Oct 31, 2018
.....and makes claims that cannot be substantiated by anything other the same math and the same preconceptions . If it was right, we would have proven it experimentally and with direct observation by now.


Errr, those stellar orbits are observations, dumbo. As was the confirmation of the gravitational redshift. And the observations in the article above. You, on the other hand, have nothing to contribute, do you? And keep your eye on the Event Horizon Telescope. More grief coming your way!


Oct 31, 2018
Of course it works on all scales.

What works? You have no mechanism. You may as well claim magic causes gravity, along with faerie dust.

Oct 31, 2018
If it was right, we would have proven it experimentally


Lol. What an idiot! Good luck getting 4 million solar masses in a laboratory! Pillock.

Oct 31, 2018
@jonesdave

I think they require a picture of gravity

Oct 31, 2018
Jones, the preconception...because you don't appear to understand what one is....is that gravity causes the motion based on mass. Observing a body orbit another one doesn't tell you that it is doing so because of gravity you mindless piece of what was my breakfast, hence why I fired the hydrogen atom example at you and as usual something you really needed to pay attention to cruised right over your head like anything appears to that requires thought. The gravity preconception is the crux of the entire issue. It's why you have DM and Bh's when reality actually does not. It's why, despite your violent denial, people including actual physicists have been looking more intently at how magnetic fields work and it is why you have had to defend your dogma in an ever increasing amount of comment sections here...because the articles do not fall in line with established dogma. They are "new" observations. Something a dinosaur from a fading era is ill equipped to understand.

Oct 31, 2018
Of course it works on all scales.

What works? You have no mechanism. You may as well claim magic causes gravity, along with faerie dust.


Neither do you, loony tunes. However, it is seen to work on all scales investigated. Google 'confirmations of GR'. It won't allow Venus to do handbrake turns around the solar system, nor Earth to orbit Saturn, but perhaps that is why your unscientific cult wants to do away with it! Armed only with the idiot Thornhill as your chief scientist! Lol. What a sad situation. Wal needs to justify the fruitloop Velikovski, so needs to overthrow GR and gravity. Not going to happen, woo boy.

Oct 31, 2018
@jonesdave

I think they require a picture of gravity

No pictures needed, just a realistic mechanism that involves no magic or invented faerie dust when the non-mechanism fails miserably.

Oct 31, 2018
Observing a body orbit another one doesn't tell you that it is doing so because of gravity


Yes it does, you f***wit. Show me anyone saying that anything above the atomic scale isn't orbiting due to gravity. Come on sh!tforbrains, we are getting sick of your idiotic assertions - back it up with science, you idiot.

hence why I fired the hydrogen atom example at you


What a twat! Lol. Not at the scales we are discussing, you idiot.

The gravity preconception is the crux of the entire issue. It's why you have DM and Bh's when reality actually does not. It's why, despite your violent denial, people including actual physicists have been looking more intently at how magnetic fields work


Pure bullsh!t. Nobody is looking at piss weak magnetic fields to explain rotation curves. You are lying, you sad piece of crap. Go make up your stories on Blunderdolts - you are easily shown up for a clueless loon on here.


Oct 31, 2018
@jonesdave

I think they require a picture of gravity

No pictures needed, just a realistic mechanism that involves no magic or invented faerie dust when the non-mechanism fails miserably.


It doesn't fail. And you have no alternative, other than idiotic, unscientific woo.

Oct 31, 2018
It doesn't fail

Nope, never does so long as you sprinkle in 5 times the amount of faerie dust.
My truck is the same way, always works so long as I have my bottle of faerie dust.

Oct 31, 2018
It doesn't fail

Nope, never does so long as you sprinkle in 5 times the amount of faerie dust.
My truck is the same way, always works so long as I have my bottle of faerie dust.


Sorry,but you are a scientifically illiterate cultist. What does your opinion count for? You do not have a valid alternative. eh? So what are you prattling about?

Oct 31, 2018
A startling new property of blackholes
jonesdave> Pure bullsh!t. Nobody is looking at piss weak magnetic fields to explain rotation curves. You are lying, you sad piece of crap. Go make up your stories on Blunderdolts

So not only is a blackhole
Of infinite density
In of singularity
Without infinite gravity
With rotation curves
A blackhole
With rotational curves
The magical properties
Doth grow
On this Halloween night
As witches broomsticking
Creating their magic
In rotational curves
In blackholes

Oct 31, 2018
This startling news on this Halloween night
Of rotational curves
As of BHs in orbital spin
As the witches spin
Rotationally broomsticking the full moon
In multimillion mass BHs
In orbit
What do'eth they need rotational curves
This interesting unheard of property of BHs
Needs further investigation
As to what exactly are the rotational curves
Why are they required
What is their purpose
And why rotationally emerge
On this Halloween night

Oct 31, 2018
Now THAT photo from ESO's Gravity instrument is far more convincing evidence, in my opinion, of the existence of the alleged Black Hole. They are getting closer and closer to providing much better resolution and unassailable evidence that cannot any longer be denied by such as I.
Keep up the good work, ESO. And no simulations, please.

Oct 31, 2018
BHs in resolution
SEU> Now THAT photo from ESO's Gravity instrument is far more convincing evidence

SEU, have you the hyperlink to the imaging BH

Oct 31, 2018
If this was a joke about perspective


Genuinely curious. You can see a tornado like funnel heading back so I wanted to know what direction it was.

It's an artist's impression, not an actual image.
Huh. Think physorg shoulda maybe said so in the caption to the image? I sure do. That was what I thought when I saw it but the caption says "Credit: ESO."

Oct 31, 2018
Now THAT photo from ESO's Gravity instrument is far more convincing evidence, in my opinion, of the existence of the alleged Black Hole. They are getting closer and closer to providing much better resolution and unassailable evidence that cannot any longer be denied by such as I.
Keep up the good work, ESO. And no simulations, please.


Then where was the disc? BH or Accretion? Do you realize that pic is a partial simulation? Yep, go here to the wbsite: "Simulation of Material Orbiting close to a Black Hole"

https://www.eso.o...so1835a/


Oct 31, 2018
Happy Hallowe'en, granville. Thanks for making those queries.

My 10th greatgrandmother thanks you too
Her witchy potions a wicked brew
Her penance I doth simulate
Her absolution I create
Adopting her traits my Mum doth try
To emulate our ancestress' gifts and cry
To Heaven to save her Soul
From the evil one whose stench most foul
Reaches the gates of Heav'n's store
And cannot enter he gives a roar
Of anger creating much remorse and horror
He blames these humans for all his sorrows

I have heard that:
Men in clown costumes on this eve
Around the children they must leave
Else they may find their arse in gaol
Where other clowns might not be so nice and, instead show little care for what they wear

:)


Oct 31, 2018
It's an artist's impression, not an actual image.


Huh. Think physorg shoulda maybe said so in the caption to the image? I sure do. That was what I thought when I saw it but the caption says "Credit: ESO."


"Simulation of Material Orbiting close to a Black Hole", https://www.eso.o...so1835a/

Schneibo, because you couldn't figure how to do I did it for you as well as including the ORIGINAL title for the information they were putting out.

The question is, why did Physorg rewrite the TITLE?

Oct 31, 2018
And still to this day, there is no physical explanation of how gravity works. Just maths equations to explain the effects. So we are all expected to trust the darkists that regardless of the fact that there is no mechanism to explain gravity on any scale it must still work on all scales.
Sure there is. We've had one since 1915, and it made its first confirmed prediction in 1919 when Sir Arthur Eddington observed the position of a star close to the position of the Sun by observing during an eclipse and found that its light had been bent. This confirmed Einstein's GRT prediction of curved space, and that's the best physical explanation of gravity we have.

And BTW the mathematical explanation *is* the physical explanation. The math is the physics; the supposed "explanation" you're looking for is something for the innumerate like you.

Oct 31, 2018
BHs in resolution
SEU> Now THAT photo from ESO's Gravity instrument is far more convincing evidence

SEU, have you the hyperlink to the imaging BH
says granville

Sorry, but I don't at the moment

Oct 31, 2018
Now THAT photo from ESO's Gravity instrument is far more convincing evidence, in my opinion, of the existence of the alleged Black Hole. They are getting closer and closer to providing much better resolution and unassailable evidence that cannot any longer be denied by such as I.
Keep up the good work, ESO. And no simulations, please.
Hate to tell ya but that appears to be an artist's conception rather than an actual image.

Keep in mind that GRAVITY is a spectrograph. Would you like a picture of the spectral lines?

Oct 31, 2018


If the photo is only a simulation, then it is FAKE NEWS as simulations don't matter AND don't reflect reality.
Give us the REAL THING, ES0 - not artwork.

Oct 31, 2018
I can't believe plagiarist @Lenni_The_Liar is still posting here. You'd think it would at least change its handle.

Oct 31, 2018
If the photo is only a simulation, then it is FAKE NEWS as simulations don't matter AND don't reflect reality.
Give us the REAL THING, ES0 - not artwork.
So you want the little lines from the spectroscope which you don't have the physics or math to understand.

Good luck with that. You might try the paper; they should have either the spectral lines or a graph interpreting them.

Do you even understand why astrophysicists use spectrographs?

Oct 31, 2018
Now THAT photo from ESO's Gravity instrument is far more convincing evidence, in my opinion, of the existence of the alleged Black Hole. They are getting closer and closer to providing much better resolution and unassailable evidence that cannot any longer be denied by such as I.
Keep up the good work, ESO. And no simulations, please.


Then where was the disc? BH or Accretion? Do you realize that pic is a partial simulation? Yep, go here to the wbsite: "Simulation of Material Orbiting close to a Black Hole"

https://www.eso.o...so1835a/

says Benni

Thanks for the link.
ESO certainly had me fooled. The caption in the article here said: "the first time material has been observed orbiting close to the point of no return, and the most detailed observations yet of material orbiting this close to a black hole."

observed and observations are certainly leading verbiage to throw interested observers off the trail, making one think that, THIS IS IT.

Oct 31, 2018
The really interesting thing here is that gas moving at 30% of the speed of light definitively identifies this as a black hole. Nothing else has strong enough gravity to create such a gravity well.

Oct 31, 2018
So, show of hands, who here has used a spectrograph?
Second question, who here has interpreted the spectral lines it shows?

Oct 31, 2018
If the photo is only a simulation, then it is FAKE NEWS as simulations don't matter AND don't reflect reality.
Give us the REAL THING, ES0 - not artwork.


The problem was with THIS website's title: "Most detailed observations of material orbiting close to a black hole" versus what PhysOrg should have written: "Simulation of Material Orbiting close to a Black Hole".

Tell me this is not indicative of a bias? In fact bias so blatant, it's FAKE.


Oct 31, 2018
What "simulation?" This is not a simulation. It's an observation with a spectrograph. Unless you're talking about the image on this article, which isn't the data the paper is based on; it's a pretty picture for the stupids like you.

You're lying again, @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Plagiarist.

Oct 31, 2018


If the photo is only a simulation, then it is FAKE NEWS as simulations don't matter AND don't reflect reality.
Give us the REAL THING, ES0 - not artwork.

Doesn't actually say "artwork"...
Only that it is a simulation based on ESO data...
Good find, Benni. However it is not a "fake"... it is a simulation of data.
A translation, if you will...

Oct 31, 2018
The really interesting thing here is that gas moving at 30% of the speed of light definitively identifies this as a black hole. Nothing else has strong enough gravity to create such a gravity well.


Wrong schneibo, many binary star systems have orbital periods that are measured in minutes, some as little as 4-5.

Oct 31, 2018
Also, a bit late, but worth noting that the link to the paper is open source. It's posted by the ESO consortium on their web site, presumably by prior arrangement with Astronomy & Astrophysics, a reputable and respected scholarly journal where the paper was printed for the record.

And it does not have the spectrograms. Instead it has their data in charts that show positions and error bars.

Oct 31, 2018

And BTW the mathematical explanation *is* the physical explanation. The math is the physics; the supposed "explanation" you're looking for is something for the innumerate like you.

says DaJerk

Mathematics as an explanation is simply Speculation when used in place of an absolute and clearly resolute OBSERVATION. Maths is NOT observable in the realistic terms, but merely as a TOOL to explain the, as yet, UNEXPLAINABLE - a placeholder only until the unexplainable is rendered explainable by Unassailable Observation and not by simulation. And not by False Flags.

Oct 31, 2018
Bwahahaha, you are innumerate. It's like being illiterate only with numbers.

Spectrograms are observations. Were you born this stupid or did you have to practice?

Oct 31, 2018
Bwahahaha, you are innumerate. It's like being illiterate only with numbers.
says DaJerk

And your evidence for that is.....?

I could count the number of lice on your head and write it down as a math equation. But that won't get rid of the lice on your head. Neither will a spectrograph.
I prefer actual photos of the alleged Black Holes, not simulations or spectrography. I will leave those for the researchers who have the time for it.

"A picture is worth a thousand words, simulations, mathematical equations, and spectrographs"

Oct 31, 2018
I could point out that I have collected data with an Echelle spectrograph on a 30 inch Classical Cassegrain and done the interpretation with a published astrophysicist looking over my shoulder, but that wouldn't be verifiable by anyone here so I don't insist on it, and I don't intend on giving enough personal information to help hacker trolls.

This same astrophysicist told me that most of the science that gets done is based on spectrograms. He expected me to be surprised but I wasn't. That's why I got observing time on his telescope.

Oct 31, 2018
Bwahahaha, you are innumerate. It's like being illiterate only with numbers.
says DaJerk

And your evidence for that is.....?
You never post any math.

And you don't know the difference between a spectrograph (the instrument that shows the spectrum by the same method Newton used in the 17th century) and a spectrogram (the image the spectrograph makes).

This is what innumerate and scientifically illiterate persons say when they are trying to play politics.

Oct 31, 2018
For lurkerz, confusing spectrographs and spectrograms is like confusing cameras with the pictures they take.

Oct 31, 2018
The thing about science is, you can't vote on the truth.

Oct 31, 2018
And BTW the mathematical explanation *is* the physical explanation. The math is the physics; the supposed "explanation" you're looking for is something for the innumerate like you.

Bwahahahaha! What a moron!

Oct 31, 2018
Why, because you are innumerate?

Works fine for me. Apparently you can't figure math out. I bet you don't speak Swahili either. Though math is considerably easier than Swahili.

Oct 31, 2018
For lurkerz, confusing spectrographs and spectrograms is like confusing cameras with the pictures they take.
says DaJerk

As I am not interested in either one, the spelling of each is of no importance. I have no access to big telescopes as you seem to be boasting that you do, and if so, why are you spending enormous amounts of time on a second-class science site instead of bribing your way into bigger and better telescope time schedules?

Perhaps you are lying to impress all the commenters here? Name-dropping, kinda sorta, eh?

Oct 31, 2018
Most detailed observations of material orbiting close to a black hole
phys.org? New observations show clumps of gas swirling around at about 30% of the speed of light on a circular orbit just outside its event horizon—the first time material has been observed orbiting close to the point of no return, and the most detailed observations yet of material orbiting this close to a black hole

The Very Large Telescope Interferometer has been used by scientists to observe flares of infrared radiation coming from the accretion disc around Sagittarius A*

Is This True
These flares only come from a BH?

Oct 31, 2018
As I am not interested in either one
Then why are you posting on an astrophysics article on a physics web site?

Just askin'.

Oct 31, 2018
Flares coming from a Black Hole might indicate that the gravitational pull is weak enough to allow Matter to leave, other than through the Poles of the BH. That would be a serious flaw in the BH's ability to prevent even Light from escaping it.

Sound more like the flares are emanating from old Stars.

Oct 31, 2018
I didn't think anyone could get through high school without knowing the origins of Greek roots used in American English.

Apparently I was wrong. What did you do, get stoned before physics class every day?

Oct 31, 2018
The flares aren't "coming from the black hole."

Read the article, innumerate and scientifically illiterate twerp.

Now you're starting to lie just like @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Plagiarist and @cantthink69.

Oct 31, 2018
The flares aren't "coming from the black hole."

Read the article, innumerate and scientifically illiterate twerp.

Now you're starting to lie just like @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Plagiarist and @cantthink69.

says DaJerk

You're drunk. Go sleep it off.

Oct 31, 2018
just outside its event horizon
Second sentence in the article.

Now, who's drunk?

Just askin'.

Duhhmmm dah duhhhmmm duhhhmmm. Duhhhmmm dah duhhhmmm duhhhmmm duhhhh.

Oct 31, 2018
just outside its event horizon
Second sentence in the article.

Now, who's drunk?

Just askin'.

Duhhmmm dah duhhhmmm duhhhmmm. Duhhhmmm dah duhhhmmm duhhhmmm duhhhh.


Yet another drunken slurring of words from DaJerk

And I was responding to granville's query

Oct 31, 2018
Blackholes have accretion disks, only blackholes are the discussed source
phys.org> to observe flares of infrared radiation coming from the accretion disc around Sagittarius A*, the massive object at the heart of the Milky Way

Da Schneib> The flares aren't "coming from the black hole."
Read the article, innumerate and scientifically illiterate twerp.
Now you're starting to lie just like @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Plagiarist and @cantthink69.

Phys.org is clearly saying these flare are coming from the blackholes accretion disk
Therefore they are coming from the blackhole!

Oct 31, 2018
Correct, since it is the accretion disk that is feeding the Black Hole and is part of it. The question now is, are the flares coming from the BH, or are they coming from Stars outside of the accretion disk. I vote for the latter.

Oct 31, 2018
And still to this day, there is no physical explanation of how gravity works. Just maths equations to explain the effects. So we are all expected to trust the darkists that regardless of the fact that there is no mechanism to explain gravity on any scale it must still work on all scales.


Irony at its best. You've proclaimed you believe in God, right? Where is the physical evidence?

Oct 31, 2018
Yes, but if that is the case, then the BH myth is wrong, and that forms of Energy can escape the BH and not everything is consumed never to be seen again. The cosmic trash can is leaking.

Oct 31, 2018
Obfuscation in BHs

As much as BHs have an integrity problem
There is one thing certain
When discussing BHs
They have accretion disks
They have event horizon
They eject flares, presumably this side of the event horizon
It is ludicrous to say
The BH is not ejecting the flares
As without the BH
There would be no accretion disc
With no accretion disk
There would be no flares
And with no flares
There would be
No BH
End of discussion
So why are we discussing the article

Oct 31, 2018
And still to this day, there is no physical explanation of how gravity works. Just maths equations to explain the effects. So we are all expected to trust the darkists that regardless of the fact that there is no mechanism to explain gravity on any scale it must still work on all scales.


Irony at its best. You've proclaimed you believe in God, right? Where is the physical evidence?


As I did not make that remark, I don't feel obligated to defend it.
But since YOU have referenced belief in G-d, I will tell you to look around you, particularly outdoors, outer space, and the Universe. Look upon Nature. G-d and His Holy Angels are here on Earth, as well as everywhere else in the Universe - which is under their control.
If you don't care for the concept/idea, then perhaps you should never have been born if it is irritating you that much.

Oct 31, 2018
Obfuscation in BHs

As much as BHs have an integrity problem
There is one thing certain
When discussing BHs
They have accretion disks
They have event horizon
They eject flares, presumably this side of the event horizon
It is ludicrous to say
The BH is not ejecting the flares
As without the BH
There would be no accretion disc
With no accretion disk
There would be no flares
And with no flares
There would be
No BH
End of discussion
So why are we discussing the article
says granville

LOL Perhaps the article was written in such a way as to draw a crowd, thereby providing potential customers for the many ads in each page. A little nip here - a dot or dash there - and the article is changed to make it much more interesting and to give cause to argue over it.
Physorg is soooo transparent, as is the Dark Matter aficionados

Oct 31, 2018
And BTW the mathematical explanation *is* the physical explanation...
Why?

Nope, because you're a moron for saying making such a remarkably stupid claim. What did Einstein say?

"To the extent that the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not true; and to the extent that they are true, they do not refer to reality."

And a dictionary definition of physics?
phys•ics
/ˈfiziks/
the physical properties and phenomena of something.
And maths?
math·e·mat·ics
/maTH(ə)ˈmadiks/
the abstract science of number, quantity, and space.

So, according to da schnied's obfuscation, physical characteristics is an abstract quality. Me thinks you and WG are both artists, with your abstract beliefs.

Again, there is no physical mechanism to explain how gravity works according to the standard guesswork.

Others do in fact have a physical mechanism which describes how gravity works;
https://www.holos...niverse/

Oct 31, 2018
Dog needs to go out for a walk. Perhaps a good witch or two will be out by the light of the Moon, granville.

Oct 31, 2018
Irony at its best. You've proclaimed you believe in God, right? Where is the physical evidence?

You have confused me with someone else, as far as I am concerned the belief in god and the dark sciences requires the same level of faith.

Oct 31, 2018
Softly, softly catch you're tiger
Correct, since it is the accretion disk that is feeding the Black Hole and is part of it. The question now is, are the flares coming from the BH, or are they coming from Stars outside of the accretion disk. I vote for the latter.

Since there is no observational evidence
And stars give the same observed flares in the interferometer
Until direct visual observation up to the event horizon
BH theory has to be put on hold
And a more realistic starry observable observation
That matches the observed flares
Those that are observed in stellar outbursts

Is it actually possible to match these flare to existing stellar outburst?

Oct 31, 2018
Another trainwreck thread.

If you don't know the difference between a spectrogram and a spectrograph, and don't know what an event horizon is, why are you arguing about black holes? It's like a horse arguing about the orbit of Mars.

Oct 31, 2018
If you don't know the difference between a spectrogram and a spectrograph, and don't know what an event horizon is, why are you arguing about black holes? It's like a horse arguing about the orbit of Mars.

LOL! Coming from the guy who is claiming flawed abstract maths gymnastics is physical reality. It's like a broken doorknob arguing he is smarter than a 2 pound rock that can't use gravity to fight it's way out of a wet paper sack hanging on a flagpole in a westerly gale.

Oct 31, 2018
Spectre of spectrogram
Da Schneib> Another trainwreck thread.
If you don't know the difference between a spectrogram and a spectrograph, and don't know what an event horizon is, why are you arguing about black holes? It's like a horse arguing about the orbit of Mars.

Spectre of spectrogram and spectrograph
On the night that is Halloween
The spectre of ghost and witches
Nice pun, Da Schneib.

Oct 31, 2018
flawed abstract maths
Seems to work fine for navigation and jet aircraft and refrigerators and the computer you just typed that on.

Just sayin'.

Oct 31, 2018
Seems to work fine for navigation and jet aircraft and refrigerators and the computer you just typed that on.

Weren't we discussing BH pseudoscience? When did my fridge become relevant to the black hole monster? Sure, we use maths to describe aspects of physics. However, just as a spectrograph is not a spectrogram neither will physics be maths.


Oct 31, 2018
It's all the same math.

You'd know that if you knew any math.

Are you telling us you trust multiplication and don't trust powers?

And yes, I'm telling you all physics is math. Ever heard of Sir Isaac Newton? I know you haven't read the Principia Mathematica because otherwise you couldn't possibly be this stupid.

Oct 31, 2018
How about quadratic equations? Do you trust them?

How about trigonometric functions? Sine, cosine, tangent, cotangent, secant, cosecant? Do you trust those?

Differential equations? Is that where your trust stops?

What a nutjob.

Oct 31, 2018
And BTW the mathematical explanation *is* the physical explanation. The math is the physics; the supposed "explanation" you're looking for is something for the innumerate like you.


Schneibo......you don't even know the derivation of the word, PHYSICS. It is a contraction of two words: PHYSICAL SCIENCE.

Ok, try to follow this: PHYSIC + S => PHYSICS

So now what you should do is embark on a 50 year study of how these two words became enjoined to form a single word. Capiche? No, probably it's beyond your comprehension, which is why you got it confused with mathematical simulations.

Oct 31, 2018
Yes, it's the quantitative study of physical science.

For quantities you need math.

Maybe you forgot. Or maybe you're lying again. Plagiarize anything lately?

Oct 31, 2018
What I'm trying to figure out is how people who can't even do 15th century math hope to do 21st century physics. If that's hard for you, you have no chance of figuring modern physics out. You can't even figure out physics that's 600 years old.

Oct 31, 2018
And a dictionary definition of physics?
phys•ics
/ˈfiziks/
the physical properties and phenomena of something.
And maths?
math·e·mat·ics
/maTH(ə)ˈmadiks/
the abstract science of number, quantity, and space.

Just sayin'....

Nov 01, 2018
And you define physical properties and phenomena without numbers?

Really?

Nov 01, 2018
Schneibo......you don't even know the derivation of the word, PHYSICS. It is a contraction of two words: PHYSICAL SCIENCE.


Says Benni, who does not understand half-life, gravity, relativity, anything to do with quantum or BH's, DM or the Big Bang.

Yes, you cowardly rat, I once again dare you to start a thread in the forums with your insanely ignorant vies.
Come on, put you money where your big mouth is.
Or will you once again quietly disappear from this thread as you have from the others?

Does this link terrify you?

https://www.physicsforums.com

Start a thread on Black Holes Benni... are you man enough?

Nov 01, 2018
Preliterate physics.

Neato. Maybe you can get studied by anthropologists.

Nov 01, 2018
DaS and JonesD,

I don't know how you guys have the energy to keep refuting these loons. Bullsh Benni, Eggman, and Can'tthink could all be exhausting individually but here together with the addition of Granville the partially-brained partial poet it is truly a monumental effort you are undertaking. Thanks.

These guys asserting the accretion disk is part of the black hole is like asserting the asteroid belt is part of the Sun.

These guys denying the observational nature of a spectrogram is like denying the reading on a voltmeter. "Show me a picture of the voltage" they scream. "Voltage measurements are based on fake maths," they prattle. "Show me a picture of radio emissions taken with a camera! I don't want no image created using some parabolic antenna." Idiots... "Show me a photo of the black hole which emits no photons"

Nov 01, 2018
@Enthusiast, thanks for that. Seen you around here before.

Your summation is pretty accurate, I'd say. They seem most pernicious. Maybe if more join us they can be driven off.

Nov 01, 2018
In familiar of syntax - IT IS TRULY –
Enthusiastic Fool > it is truly a monumental effort you are undertaking

Thank you Enthusiastic Fool
it is a privilege to have one's own syntax imitated

It is truly a monumental effort you are undertaking!

It is truly
A Monumental
Effort
You're undertaking!

We will make a poet
Out of you yet
Enthusiastic Fool
You have that
Gift of the gab
Enthusiastic Fool
That comes with
Celticism inside'th of you
Thanks again Enthusiastic Fool
For copying my syntax
Complements in deed
When coming from
The inimitable
The fantastical
The one and only
Enthusiastic Fool

Nov 01, 2018
Why do you not put everyone on ignore jonesdave, and have done with it
theredpill> Observing a body orbit another one doesn't tell you that it is doing so because of gravity

JD> Yes it does, you f***wit. Show me anyone saying that anything above the atomic scale isn't orbiting due to gravity. sh!tforbrains, we are getting sick of your idiotic assertions - back it up with science, you idiot.
hence why I fired the hydrogen atom example at you

What a twat! Lol. you idiot.
The gravity preconception is the crux of the entire issue why you have DM and Bh's when reality actually does not why, despite your violent denial, people including actual physicists have been looking more intently at how magnetic fields work

Pure bullsh!t piss weak magnetic fields to explain rotation curves You are lying, you sad piece of crap Go make up your stories on Blunderdolts you are easily shown up for a clueless loon on here.

Then no more swearing and cursing

Nov 01, 2018
Ignore in a comments section

Why do you not put everyone on ignore jonesdave, and have done with it
Then no more swearing and cursing
Since you put a gran on ignore, the swearing and cursing ceased from your good self JD
As regards towards a gran
And I am eternally grateful JD, Thank you JD

So this proves JD
Putting commentators on ignore
Regarding
Fowl language to that commentator
From yourself, ceases regards that commentator
With immediate effect
So there you have your proof JD
By putting all the commentators
In a comments section
On ignore JD
Is an effective solution
To your cursing and swearing
As it ceases from immediate effect
The ignore is implemented
As this will do wonders
For your aneurysms!

Nov 01, 2018
Seems to work fine for navigation and jet aircraft and refrigerators and the computer you just typed that on.

Weren't we discussing BH pseudoscience? When did my fridge become relevant to the black hole monster? Sure, we use maths to describe aspects of physics. However, just as a spectrograph is not a spectrogram neither will physics be maths.



Yes it will be dumbo. If you can't do maths you can't do physics. It is as simple as that. You can still make sh!t up, like the EU loons do, but a teeny bit of maths shows such fantasies to be impossible. The main reason that the idiots Thornhill and Talbott are so anti-maths, is because it shows Velikovski up to be a complete tool. And they believe Velikovski. That in itself is sufficient reason to dismiss them as non-scientists. Just like yourself.

Nov 01, 2018
LOL! Coming from the guy who is claiming flawed abstract maths gymnastics is physical reality.


Where are the flaws, woo boy? Please point them out for those of us who are only above average mathematically speaking. We need a real expert to explain these flaws. I'm all ears.

Nov 01, 2018
What I'm trying to figure out is how people who can't even do 15th century math hope to do 21st century physics. If that's hard for you, you have no chance of figuring modern physics out. You can't even figure out physics that's 600 years old.


Schneibo.......It's because this is the 21st Century, and those of us employed in the fields of Real Science have no interest in your 200 year old 19th Century concepts of Black Hole Math whereby it was thought gravity governed the velocity of an electro-magnetic wave, and you're still there, you've been here in the recent past posting the math for it.

Nov 01, 2018
Schneibo.......It's because this is the 21st Century, and those of us employed in the fields of Real Science have no interest in your 200 year old 19th Century concepts of Black Hole Math whereby it was thought gravity governed the velocity of an electro-magnetic wave, and you're still there, you've been here in the recent past posting the math for it.


Sorry? Please show us where any respected scientist is claiming that light will escape a BH. Just one. Obviously you don't count as you know pretty much nothing about the relevant science, nor any other science, for that matter. Instead of posting your ludicrous crap on here interminably, just link us to whichever scientist is claiming this. If you are the only idiot claiming it, it can be safely, and rightly, ignored.

Nov 01, 2018
@Da Schneib

So, show of hands, who here has used a spectrograph?

I had a spirograph when I was a kid does that count?

Nov 01, 2018
Extracting electromagnetic energy in orbit
Charged particles in orbit around lines of magnetic field
jonesdave> Show me anyone saying that anything above the atomic scale isn't orbiting due to gravity.

Ions electric field accelerating electrons to orbit around lines of the ions magnetic field
Does the energy of accelerating electrons equal the synchrotron energy released?

An interesting conundrum

Nov 01, 2018
However, just as a spectrograph is not a spectrogram neither will physics be maths.


Go tell Kepler, thicko.
Star S2:
Semi-major axis (SMA) = ~ 970 AU.
Period = ~ 16 years.

From Kepler's 3rd law;

M (mass of central object) + m (mass of orbiting object) = SMA^3 / P^2.

Call the SMA 10^3 AU for convenience;

= (10^3)^3 / 256 = ~ 3.9m solar masses. As the mass of S2 is negligible compared to the BH, then that is the mass of the BH. Simples. Now, show us how you are doing that with a plasmoid! Lol.

Nov 01, 2018
Ions electric field accelerating electrons

Well that acceleration is from the ponderomotive force, and it's due to the oscillating nature of the electric fields.

Nov 01, 2018
Case in point, another believer in 19th Century Cosmology who believes GRAVITY governs the speed at which electro-magnetic waves travel through the Universe:

Please show us where any respected scientist is claiming that light will escape a BH.


.............and to do this gravity is somehow capable of reducing the velocity of an electro-magnetic wave to ZERO, only 19th Century Black Hole Math fulfills this Pop-Cosmology fantasy.

Go back to Anthropology, no math required.

Nov 01, 2018
Case in point, another believer in 19th Century Cosmology who believes GRAVITY governs the speed at which electro-magnetic waves travel through the Universe:

Please show us where any respected scientist is claiming that light will escape a BH.


.............and to do this gravity is somehow capable of reducing the velocity of an electro-magnetic wave to ZERO, only 19th Century Black Hole Math fulfills this Pop-Cosmology fantasy.

Go back to Anthropology, no math required.


So, thicko, you have no support for your uneducated ramblings? Just made it up, yes? Thanks for the admission. Now go back to mopping those floors. Retard.

Nov 01, 2018
@Enthusiast, thanks for that. Seen you around here before.

Your summation is pretty accurate, I'd say. They seem most pernicious. Maybe if more join us they can be driven off.


I believe that is the best course of action. Hope other see this post.

Nov 01, 2018
Ions electric field accelerating electrons

Well that acceleration is from the ponderomotive force, and it's due to the oscillating nature of the electric fields.


Ponderomotive? Had to look that one up. Very interesting read and leads to many other aspects as well. Could it be an accumulative force.

Nov 01, 2018
To add to the article, Science reports that the gas shows up in IR, orbits at the smallest predicted radius fitting the observed black hole mass, and is polarized with the axis moving corresponding to the orbit (i.e. polarization axis making 360 degree twist for every whole orbit).

I see the very second comment claiming that we have not seen infalling matter, but that is exactly why the IR radiation shows up, so we have. And there have been similar observations of less IR than expected from infalling gas in these regions, showing there was no star surface they fall onto, so this is rather only a new way to see that black holes suck.

As do the science denialists here. It is quite okay to be skeptical, but as for black holes the rational skeptic train has left the station, there is no credible skepticism on black holes anymore.

Nov 01, 2018
.......who believes GRAVITY governs the speed at which electro-magnetic waves travel through the Universe:


And who claimed that? Nobody. You don't even understand what you are trying, pathetically, to criticise. Back to the mopping.

Nov 01, 2018
Could it be an accumulative force.

I've had the same thought, and have been working on trying to create an analogous set of equations based on an oscillating magnetic field.

Nov 01, 2018
Ponderomotive force
granville> Ions electric field accelerating electrons

Scroofinator> Well that acceleration is from the ponderomotive force, and it's due to the oscillating nature of the electric fields.

Scroofinator
In physics, a ponderomotive force is a nonlinear force that a charged particle experiences in an inhomogeneous oscillating electromagnetic field https://en.wikipe...ve_force
This implies the electric field accelerating the electron
The electric field is an oscillating field
An interesting electric field

Ions electric field accelerating electrons to orbit around lines of the ions magnetic field
Does the energy of accelerating electrons equal the synchrotron energy released?
A new line of research into fusion in the vacuum
Without collision of fusion


Nov 01, 2018
orbit around lines of the ions magnetic field

And that's where you get off track. They don't orbit anything, the ions simply follow established field lines which may or not be in an orbital configuration.

Nov 01, 2018
And that's where you get off track. They don't orbit anything, the ions simply follow established field lines which may or not be in an orbital configuration.
Scroofinator, the ion has a magnetic field


Nov 01, 2018
Electrons in motion

The ion is the proton
With its magnetic field
Of +charge
Attracts the electron
Where the electron
Spirally orbits
The protons
Magnetic field lines

Nov 01, 2018
this is where
The Ponderomotive force
muscled ts way in
Scroofinator

Nov 01, 2018
the ion has a magnetic field

I misunderstood your whole point from the earlier post. I thought you were talking about the ions in SagA* accretion disk that this article is about, not a subatomic level discussion.

Nov 01, 2018
Better 19th century than 15th like you, @Lenni_The_Liar.

Nov 01, 2018
Scroofinator
This is directly related to Sagittarius A*
Because synchrotron radiation
Is emitted
From
The accretion disk

Nov 01, 2018
Because synchrotron radiation
is an indicative indication
of BH activity

Nov 01, 2018
.............and to do this gravity is somehow capable of reducing the velocity of an electro-magnetic wave to ZERO, only 19th Century Black Hole Math fulfills this Pop-Cosmology fantasy.


LOL, you have misunderstood Einstein, Relativity and SpaceTime!

What a big mouth you have for an ignorant idiot. How about starting a thread in the forums Benni?

Not man enough are you? Nothing more than a big mouth spouting hot air.

Prove my wrong, just do it!

https://www.physicsforums.com

Dare you, again...


Nov 01, 2018
@Torbjorn, troo dat. And observations at the EHT will be completed next month. Then comes the data processing, which will take 6 months or a year. And after that, M87. In a couple of years we'll have images of two supermassive black holes. It's an interesting time to be alive, isn't it?

Nov 01, 2018
@Torbjorn, troo dat. And observations at the EHT will be completed next month. Then comes the data processing, which will take 6 months or a year. And after that, M87. In a couple of years we'll have images of two supermassive black holes. It's an interesting time to be alive, isn't it?


Wrongo again Schneibo, you don't know how this EHT works. There will be no "observations" of "images of two supermassive black holes", the EHT hopes to capture SHADOW IMAGES of the so-called accretion disc. Look it up for yourself.

Nov 01, 2018
And observations at the EHT will be completed next month.


That is probably the 2018 run. The 2017 run was completed in April 2017, and the data finally got together when the Antarctic data was delivered in December. That is the data that is expected/ hoped to show the EH. My understanding from watching a lecture from Avery Broderick, is that we should probably expect the results in early 2019. Not long to wait!

https://cosmicsha...pacetime

Nov 01, 2018
......the EHT hopes to capture SHADOW IMAGES of the so-called accretion disc. Look it up for yourself.


Wrong. As usual. It will capture the silhouette of the event horizon. Hence the name.

Nov 01, 2018
Wrongo again Schneibo, you don't know how this EHT works. There will be no "observations" of "images of two supermassive black holes", the EHT hopes to capture SHADOW IMAGES of the so-called accretion disc. Look it up for yourself.


Hey Dumbo, how is your thread in the forums coming along?

No-one believes a word you write anymore and now it seem you don't either.
Must be awkward not to believe in yourself.

Nov 01, 2018
So thats that, synchrotron radiation
Does not occur in the accretion disk
Another property blackholes do not posses
Well it's debatable there's even not another property
As Sagittarius A*
Accretion disc
Has not been seen
That makes two more properties
BHs do not posses in the same instant

Accretion disks
In angular momententum
Of 30% of light
In ionic plasma
With protonic electric fields
With protonic magnetic fields
Within this soup
Electrons' in velocity of momentum
Interacting in protonic magnetic field lines
Similar to thunderous electrons in clouds
In production of sprites
Ball lightning
And of all things
Gamma radiation

But not in of all that is mighty
Not Sagittarius A*

Nov 01, 2018
PHYSICS. It is a contraction of two words: PHYSICAL SCIENCE.


No, it's not, it's from the Latin 'physica', and Greek 'phusika' meaning 'natural things,' . . . phusis 'nature.'

Why do you persistently post stuff you just make up?

Nov 01, 2018
And now a third property

The Ponderomotive force
By its definition is also in doubt
As this force needs some clarification
In physics, a ponderomotive force is a nonlinear force that a charged particle experiences in an inhomogeneous oscillating electromagnetic field https://en.wikipe...ve_force
This implies the electric field accelerating the electron
The electric field is an oscillating field
An interesting electric field
Is starting to look shaky

Nov 01, 2018
PHYSICS. It is a contraction of two words: PHYSICAL SCIENCE.


No, it's not, it's from the Latin 'physica', and Greek 'phusika' meaning 'natural things,' . . . phusis 'nature.'

Why do you persistently post stuff you just make up?


All they have is stuff they make up.

Nov 01, 2018
The Three Problem definitions

The accretion disc
In synchrotron radiation
In ponderomotive force

The three were raised today?
What is the problem?

Nov 01, 2018
PHYSICS. It is a contraction of two words: PHYSICAL SCIENCE.


No, it's not, it's from the Latin 'physica', and Greek 'phusika' meaning 'natural things,' . . . phusis 'nature.'

Why do you persistently post stuff you just make up?


I was never hinting back to the etymology of the term PHYSICS as it is spelled in modern English, I was pointing out how the singular Latin & Greek words became pluralized as we pronounce it in present day English. PHYSIC is a real word in case you didn't know that, yeah, look it up.

What you missed is to account for the ending of S, in the word PHYSICS, that comes from the first letter of the word SCIENCE which originally came from the Latin word scientia which meant knowledge. Now do you comprehend it where the S came from?

Nov 01, 2018
There and back again
How this started in the beginning
Extracting electromagnetic energy in orbit
Charged particles in orbit around lines of magnetic field
jonesdave> Show me anyone saying that anything above the atomic scale isn't orbiting due to gravity.

Ions electric field accelerating electrons to orbit around lines of the ions magnetic field
Does the energy of accelerating electrons equal the synchrotron energy released?

An interesting conundrum
The answer to the balance of energy still remains
After more BH debacles
Which had more properties before the conundrum?
As the BH appears to get even less properties the more this conundrum is delved

It's some time now since I've back tracked, it is a refreshing experience

Nov 01, 2018
PHYSICS. It is a contraction of two words: PHYSICAL SCIENCE.


No, it's not, it's from the Latin 'physica', and Greek 'phusika' meaning 'natural things,' . . . phusis 'nature.'

Why do you persistently post stuff you just make up?


I was never hinting back to the etymology of the term PHYSICS as it is spelled in modern English, I was pointing out how the singular Latin & Greek words became pluralized as we pronounce it in present day English. PHYSIC is a real word in case you didn't know that, yeah, look it up.

What you missed is to account for the ending of S, in the word PHYSICS, that comes from the first letter of the word SCIENCE which originally came from the Latin word scientia which meant knowledge. Now do you comprehend it where the S came from?


Talk about making shit up. Wow!

Nov 01, 2018
Better 19th century than 15th like you

Let's try 21st century plasma physics, eh poopsie.

Nov 01, 2018
Better 19th century than 15th like you

Let's try 21st century plasma physics, eh poopsie.


And what would you, or any of your fellow cultists, know about that? And how are you using plasma physics to describe stellar orbits around BHs, or galaxy rotation curves?

RNP
Nov 01, 2018
@Benni
..........What you missed is to account for the ending of S, in the word PHYSICS, that comes from the first letter of the word SCIENCE which originally came from the Latin word scientia which meant knowledge. Now do you comprehend it where the S came from?

Benni now shows that he is willing to tell easily disproved lies about the English language.

How does he expect anybody to take him seriously? Are there no depths to which this fool will not go ?

Nov 01, 2018
Now do you comprehend it where the S came from?


OMG- what a profoundly maladapted creature you are!

Nov 01, 2018
In honour of RNP
Witch Finder General

In Name Of Physics
So now the witch finder general
From the 14th century arrives
With implements complete
Gathering evidence
Of scientific nature
To weasal out
The tormented accused
Accused of deeds most fowl
Of blasphemous deeds
In the name of science
Not of proclaiming the earth is flat
Not for proclaiming the earth's centricity in universe
None of these blasphemous things
Oh no
Even worse
The integrity of science it's self
The very name it's self
On the exact wording
The very text
On how science is worded
And how it's spelt
And for this sin
The punishment beckons

Nov 01, 2018
Now do you comprehend it where the S came from?


OMG- what a profoundly maladapted creature you are!
.......you need to learn the use of a dictionary for starters, then do better than you have on word etymology, RNP too. Get out of that fantasy world of Pop-Cosmology & take a physics course inside a real college classroom, you'll get a real awakening.

Nov 01, 2018
Get out of that fantasy world of Pop-Cosmology & take a physics course inside a real college classroom, you'll get a real awakening.


You're the only one in a fantasy world, D-K boy.


Nov 01, 2018
Better 19th century than 15th like you

Let's try 21st century plasma physics, eh poopsie.
Right now we're talking about black holes.

Try to keep up.

Nov 01, 2018
@Lenni_The_Liar_And_Plagiarist makes up another lie and gets caught again.

Pitiful.

Nov 01, 2018
@Lenni_The_Liar_And_Plagiarist makes up another lie and gets caught again.

Pitiful.

You're the one pushing 19th Century Black Hole Math here, not me.

Nov 01, 2018
And you're the one pushing 15th century physics without math, @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Plagiarist.

I'll take 19th century over 15th anytime.

Preliterate physics. Be sure and tell the anthropologists how anything after the 15th century is "wrong."

Nov 01, 2018
@Lenni_The_Liar_And_Plagiarist makes up another lie and gets caught again.

Pitiful.

You're the one pushing 19th Century Black Hole Math here, not me.


No he isn't. You don't have any maths, do you? You can work out the mass of the BH from either Kepler or Newton's laws. I don't see any scientist claiming that maths to be in error. So, if you've got some peer reviwed material to say otherwise, link to it. If not, ST.......

Nov 01, 2018
If a Black Hole does exists, no charge could exist within; problem is, then center of an E field, i.e. charge only chooses to cluster about the center of the whole gathering. It's a Charge Fest! Singularity? What's a singularity? Mathematics!

Nov 01, 2018
If a Black Hole does exists, no charge could exist within; problem is, then center of an E field, i.e. charge only chooses to cluster about the center of the whole gathering. It's a Charge Fest! Singularity? What's a singularity? Mathematics!

Check your Multiple Object Focus and Time, circles or the edge of elispe and the surfaces of strange particle distribution. Do you have a spatial and temporal object motion per freq.spatial.temporal domain and analysis? You don't believe in magic do you?

P.S. Charge is an infinite field; the field is unaffected by other fields, the center is only affected at each point of time by the cumulative field felt at the moment.

Nov 01, 2018
@Enthusiast, thanks for that. Seen you around here before.

Your summation is pretty accurate, I'd say. They seem most pernicious. Maybe if more join us they can be driven off.
says DaJerk

Just FYI - Enthusiastic Fool is one of the sox that SpookyOtto slides into and out of. SpookyOtto had you completely fooled, eh?

ROFLOL
theghostofotto1923 has been using, perhaps hundreds of his socks throughout the years when he wasn't to hide his presence in any given forum, to fool those of you members of the 5 Star Club into thinking that he is agreeing with you.

"What fools these mortals be" -- Puck

Nov 01, 2018
EDIT:
wasn't = wants

Spooky Otto is such a jokester - even to those of you who love and worship him so much

Nov 01, 2018
Got science? Apparently not, so GTFO.

Nov 01, 2018
Got science? Apparently not, so GTFO.


Mine is grounded in the 21st Century, yours in the 19th of Black Hole hypothesis subjecting the speed of light to the gravity fields about the EM wave.

Nov 01, 2018
Got science? Apparently not, so GTFO.


Mine is grounded in the 21st Century, yours in the 19th of Black Hole hypothesis subjecting the speed of light to the gravity fields about the EM wave.


WTF are you talking about, you idiot?

Nov 01, 2018
Got science? Apparently not, so GTFO.


Benni> Mine is grounded in the 21st Century, yours in the 19th of Black Hole hypothesis subjecting the speed of light to the gravity fields about the EM wave.


WTF are you talking about, you idiot?

You would not understand JD.

Nov 01, 2018
......the EHT hopes to capture SHADOW IMAGES of the so-called accretion disc. Look it up for yourself.


Wrong. As usual. It will capture the silhouette of the event horizon. Hence the name.

says jonesy

Benni is also correct. According to Thesaurus, shadow and silhouette are synonymous .

silhouette
noun
the silhouette of the dome: outline, contour(s), profile, form, shape, figure, shadow.

AFAIK - The Event Horizon lies outside of the Accretion Disk, where the Accretion Disk itself is closer to the alleged Black Hole. The Event Horizon is that into which Stars and other Matter and Gas are elongated and pulled into - finally riding on/in the Accretion Disk until that Matter/Gas reaches the edge to cross into the alleged Black Hole.
Matter/gas is not pulled into the Accretion Disk directly. It has first to pass through the Event Horizon.

Nov 01, 2018
AFAIK - The Event Horizon lies outside of the Accretion Disk,


Lol. Wrong.

Nov 01, 2018
If a Black Hole does exists, no charge could exist within; problem is, then center of an E field, i.e. charge only chooses to cluster about the center of the whole gathering. It's a Charge Fest! Singularity? What's a singularity? Mathematics!
says Hyperfuzzball

In an alleged Black Hole, not only Light, Matter and Energy is consumed and collapsed/compressed,densified, but every Particle of every molecule would also lose their Charge due to the loss of Motion in a Black Hole. Without that Motion - Energy is lost.

Nov 01, 2018
Got science? Apparently not, so GTFO.


Benni> Mine is grounded in the 21st Century, yours in the 19th of Black Hole hypothesis subjecting the speed of light to the gravity fields about the EM wave.


WTF are you talking about, you idiot?

You would not understand JD.


Yeah, he like schneibo still do not realize this is not the 19th Century

Nov 01, 2018
AFAIK - The Event Horizon lies outside of the Accretion Disk,


Lol. Wrong.
says jonesybonesy

And YOUR most learned position is.......?

Nov 01, 2018


Yeah, he like schneibo still do not realize this is not the 19th Century


WTF has that got to do with anything, sh!tforbrains? Just link me to one scientist who agrees with your uneducated crap.

Nov 01, 2018
AFAIK - The Event Horizon lies outside of the Accretion Disk,


Lol. Wrong.
says jonesybonesy

And YOUR most learned position is.......?


It's not my position, you idiot, it is the actual science.

https://www.physi...ent.html

Nov 01, 2018
AFAIK - The Event Horizon lies outside of the Accretion Disk,


Lol. Wrong.
says jonesybonesy

And YOUR most learned position is.......?

Oh, mind? Juz the center of the massive E fields. The only way to get an update! Or is it mine or Coulomb's? Not even of this millennia, LOL!

Nov 01, 2018
AFAIK - The Event Horizon lies outside of the Accretion Disk,


Lol. Wrong.
says jonesybonesy

And YOUR most learned position is.......?

Oh, mind? Juz the center of the massive E fields. The only way to get an update! Or is it mine or Coulomb's? Not even of this millennia, LOL!

Or does it date back to Ackhenaten?

Nov 01, 2018
So now to find out why Sagittarius A*
Does not have a visible accretion disc
Which implies, also other BHs
Which by implication as Sagittarius A*
Accretion disc not being visible
Theoretically accretion discs
Are so dominant
No BH can hide its accretion
Implies BHs do not have accretion discs
So how do BHs Feed?
You may well ask
As ask Sagittarius A*
Neither hide nor hair
Of Sagittarius A*s
Accretion disc
Has been seen
Even though
It is impossible to miss
Being theoretically so large
Orbiting a multimillion
Sagittarius A* BH

Nov 01, 2018
@Hyperfuzzy
What? Is this Ackhenaten one of the members of your Choom Gang?

Nov 01, 2018
AFAIK - The Event Horizon lies outside of the Accretion Disk,


Lol. Wrong.
says jonesybonesy

And YOUR most learned position is.......?


It's not my position, you idiot, it is the actual science.

https://www.physi...ent.html

Sorry, this is mostly nonsense. Ignore everything that don't include Coulomb!

Nov 01, 2018
So now to find out why Sagittarius A*
Does not have a visible accretion disc
Which implies, also other BHs
Which by implication as Sagittarius A*
Accretion disc not being visible
Theoretically accretion discs
Are so dominant
No BH can hide its accretion disc
Implies BHs do not have accretion discs
So how do BHs Feed?
You may well ask
As ask Sagittarius A*
Neither hide nor hair
Of Sagittarius A*s
Accretion disc
Has been seen
Even though
It is impossible to miss
Being theoretically so large
Orbiting a multimillion
Sagittarius A* BH

Nov 01, 2018
How is he wrong, JD

AFAIK - The Event Horizon lies outside of the Accretion Disk,


Lol. Wrong.

Neither hide nor hair
Of Sagittarius A*s
Accretion disc
Has been seen

Nov 01, 2018
AFAIK - The Event Horizon lies outside of the Accretion Disk,


Lol. Wrong.
says jonesybonesy

And YOUR most learned position is.......?


It's not my position, you idiot, it is the actual science.

https://www.physi...ent.html
says jonesy

I had looked at that site before you posted it. It was indeterminate as to which is closer to the alleged Black Hole - the Accretion Disk or the Event Horizon. The descriptions of each are not specific as to the location of either one.

So, what is YOUR most learned position.....?

Nov 01, 2018
So, what is YOUR most learned position.....?


Use your brains you bloody idiot. How can you accrete something beyond an horizon where everything disappears, never to be seen again? Even a 10 year old could understand that. Why can't you?

Nov 01, 2018
What is this startling new BH NEWS?

The Event Horizon lies outside of the Accretion Disk
As BHs accretion discs
Apparently do not exist
In a twisted logical sort of way
This is true
Being no accretion disc actually exists

Who would have thought?
BHs are so fluid
In their
Nonexistent properties
These wondrous
Holes
Never fail to impress

Nov 01, 2018
Like I said, your article is not specific.
The Event Horizon is the boundary through which passes Matter/gas, etc. that then become a part of the Accretion Disk where the speeds are almost in excess of C. Therefore, the Accretion Disk is on the inside, closer to the BH.

Nov 01, 2018
The Event Horizon lies outside of the Accretion Disk, where the Accretion Disk itself is closer to the alleged Black Hole.
Nope. You can't see anything inside the EH; light can't pass it and we wouldn't be able to see it. The accretion disk (if there is one- depends on whether the BH is accreting matter or not, in other words whether there's matter around it to accrete) surrounds the BH's EH.

Why are you arguing on a physics site about astrophysics when you don't know anything about it? You are an obvious troll.

Nov 01, 2018
Wrong
So, what is YOUR most learned position.....?


jonesdave> Use your brains you bloody idiot. How can you accrete something beyond an horizon where everything disappears, never to be seen again? Even a 10 year old could understand that. Why can't you?

It does not accrete beyond an accretion disc
Neither hide nor hair
Of Sagittarius A*s
Accretion disc
Has been seen

Nov 01, 2018
IF the Event Horizon were to be on the inside, closest to the Black Hole, it would no longer be a boundary, and the Accretion Disk would have nothing outside of it to attract and pull Matter/gas in, thus, the outer edge of the Accretion Disk itself would become the boundary.

Nov 01, 2018
So now to find out why Sagittarius A*
Does not have a visible accretion disc
Which implies, also other BHs
Which by implication as Sagittarius A*
Accretion disc not being visible
Theoretically accretion discs
Are so dominant
No BH can hide its accretion disc
Implies BHs do not have accretion discs
So how do BHs Feed?
You may well ask
As ask Sagittarius A*
Neither hide nor hair
Of Sagittarius A*s
Accretion disc
Has been seen
Even though
It is impossible to miss
Being theoretically so large
Orbiting a multimillion
Sagittarius A* BH


.....it's ok granDy, once is enough. I know you're going for the record on 5 Star votes in competition with jonesy, but I see through it, no more close doubling up with the same Comment, leave some space next time so we won't become suspicious as to your intent.

Nov 01, 2018
IF the Event Horizon were to be on the inside, closest to the Black Hole, it would no longer be a boundary, and the Accretion Disk would have nothing outside of it to attract and pull Matter/gas in, thus, the outer edge of the Accretion Disk itself would become the boundary.


Jesus H. Christ you are stupid! Lol.

Nov 01, 2018
Well, even though I know that my position on the alleged Black Hole's EH and AD are correct, I have to take the dog for a walk and to chase rabbits in the park. Carry on.

Nov 01, 2018
The event horizon of a black hole is the limit beyond which nothing can be seen because at that point the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light. That's why it's black, duhhh ummm.

We have images of accretion disks around black holes; therefore light can escape them. Therefore they are not inside the event horizon.

In fact, accretion disks are a general phenomenon around massive objects, not just black holes. They occur around some neutron stars, and among most protostars and young stars.

I cannot believe someone who is arguing about black holes doesn't understand that no light emerges from them and nothing inside the event horizon is visible. Why do you think they call them "black holes?"

Nov 01, 2018
Why use 21st century plasma physics when you can pontificate fanciful about 19th century pseudoscience. All things dark and invented (all 96% of it), strange matter, stars spinning more than 20,000rpm, infinite gravity monsters, magic collimated jets from comets and moons to stars and galaxies pervades the Darkists beliefs, none of which are needed when plasma is considered. The Darkists will be mocked no differently than the Flatearthers and astrologists, and deservedly so.

Nov 01, 2018
So, what is YOUR most learned position.....?


Use your brains you bloody idiot. How can you accrete something beyond an horizon where everything disappears, never to be seen again? Even a 10 year old could understand that. Why can't you?


A 10 yo understands that when there is no image within a picture to work with, that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to sort it out.

Maybe IF your precious EHT starts spitting out all those shadows & silhouettes there'll be more than just fantasy to work with? But then thinking about it, there is no substance to shadowy silhouettes is there?

Nov 01, 2018
IF the Event Horizon were to be on the inside, closest to the Black Hole, it would no longer be a boundary, and the Accretion Disk would have nothing outside of it to attract and pull Matter/gas in, thus, the outer edge of the Accretion Disk itself would become the boundary.


Jesus H. Christ you are stupid! Lol.


You have two choices. And your great allegedly learned position on this matter is.....? Do tell Benni and granville while I take the dog for a walk.

Nov 01, 2018
Well, even though I know that my position on the alleged Black Hole's EH and AD are correct, I have to take the dog for a walk and to chase rabbits in the park. Carry on.


Yeah, well have a look at this when you get back, you dense bugger;

https://www.physi...k%20hole

Nov 01, 2018
So, what is YOUR most learned position.....?


Use your brains you bloody idiot. How can you accrete something beyond an horizon where everything disappears, never to be seen again? Even a 10 year old could understand that. Why can't you?


A 10 yo understands that when there is no image within a picture to work with, that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to sort it out.

Maybe IF your precious EHT starts spitting out all those shadows & silhouettes there'll be more than just fantasy to work with? But then thinking about it, there is no substance to shadowy silhouettes is there?


And the thickest of the lot is back again! Yippee.

Nov 01, 2018
Interesting

It does not accrete beyond an accretion disc
Neither hide nor hair
Of Sagittarius A*s
Accretion disc
Has been seen

There is mass inside the event horizon
And outside the event horizon
There is no accretion disc

So effectively
The accretion disc
Is inside the event horizon
As
There is mass inside the event horizon

Do not think on JD
These BHs
Give intellectual head aches!

Nov 01, 2018
......none of which are needed when plasma is considered


Wrong, you idiot, and not a plasma physicist on the face of the planet would argue otherwise. Pillock.

Nov 01, 2018
So now to find out why Sagittarius A*

.....it's ok granDy, once is enough. I.

Benni, that mistake occured editing and I did not see it till to late
I am used to an hour for editing, not 3minutes!

Nov 01, 2018
"19th century pseudoscience" includes Maxwell's equations. Maybe you think all of electronics engineering is "pseudoscience" too.

More 15th century preliterate physics. Because dudebro is too stupid to do math.

This is like arguing with witch doctors. They can't do math either.

Nov 01, 2018
IF the Event Horizon were to be on the inside, closest to the Black Hole, it would no longer be a boundary, and the Accretion Disk would have nothing outside of it to attract and pull Matter/gas in, thus, the outer edge of the Accretion Disk itself would become the boundary.


You have two choices. And your great allegedly learned position on this matter is.....? Do tell Benni and granville while I take the dog for a walk.


It is standard Pop-Cosmology criteria that the accretion disc is five times that of the BH. The BH they claim exist at SgrA* would reach to somewhere near the orbit of Earth or maybe even beyond Mars.

The BH they claim that exists at SgrA* is the ONLY exception to this criteria of all galaxies in existence, this because they wouldn't be able to keep such a massive structure from being observed, so they say "it isn't feeding". What a lamebrained explanation just to keep Pop-Cosmology's holy grail of a fairytale propped up.

Nov 01, 2018
It is standard Pop-Cosmology criteria that the accretion disc is five times that of the BH.
So your buttbuddy @SEU was lying again. And you admit it.

Next?

C'mon, people, show up and hand this troll its azz. Accretion disks inside the event horizon? No one who knows anything about black holes would say that. And if it doesn't know anything about black holes, why is is arguing on this thread? Even @Lenni_The_Liar knows better.

Nov 01, 2018
It is standard Pop-Cosmology criteria that the accretion disc is five times that of the BH. The BH they claim exist at SgrA* would reach to somewhere near the orbit of Earth or maybe even beyond Mars.

The BH they claim that exists at SgrA* is the ONLY exception to this criteria of all galaxies in existence, this because they wouldn't be able to keep such a massive structure from being observed, so they say "it isn't feeding". What a lamebrained explanation just to keep Pop-Cosmology's holy grail of a fairytale propped up.


Says a f***wit who doesn't even know what a half-life is! Real scientists must be quaking in their boots about the things being written in a comments section by somebody with a sub-human IQ! Lol.

Nov 01, 2018
Wrong, you idiot, and not a plasma physicist on the face of the planet would argue otherwise.

'Einstein said there were no black holes'

https://lppfusion...k-holes/

It's in the literature...

Nov 01, 2018
Wrong, you idiot, and not a plasma physicist on the face of the planet would argue otherwise.

'Einstein said there were no black holes'

https://lppfusion...k-holes/

It's in the literature...


And he was wrong. As I'm sure he'd admit, if he were still alive and privy to the observations we have now, that we didn't have then.

Nov 01, 2018
"19th century pseudoscience" includes Maxwell's equations. Maybe you think all of electronics engineering is "pseudoscience" too.

There you go confusing what is abstract and what is real, again.

Nov 01, 2018
Wrong, you idiot, and not a plasma physicist on the face of the planet would argue otherwise.

'Einstein said there were no black holes'

https://lppfusion...k-holes/

It's in the literature...
And he was proven wrong in the end. Maybe you forgot that part.

With, you know, math and stuff. Witch doctor.

Nov 01, 2018
"19th century pseudoscience" includes Maxwell's equations. Maybe you think all of electronics engineering is "pseudoscience" too.

There you go confusing what is abstract and what is real, again.


And what is abstract about Kepler's third law, woo boy? Care to explain?

Nov 01, 2018
"19th century pseudoscience" includes Maxwell's equations. Maybe you think all of electronics engineering is "pseudoscience" too.

There you go confusing what is abstract and what is real, again.
Electronics engineering is abstract, says the witch doctor typing on a computer.