Most detailed observations of material orbiting close to a black hole

October 31, 2018, ESO
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

Related Stories

Remarkable flares from the galactic center

October 8, 2018

Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), the supermassive black hole at the center of our Milky Way Galaxy, is 100 times closer to us than any other SMBH and therefore a prime candidate for studies of how matter radiates as it accretes onto ...

Astronomers detect matter torn apart by black hole

November 18, 2008

The team of European and US astronomers used ESO's Very Large Telescope (VLT) and the Atacama Pathfinder Experiment (APEX) telescope, both in Chile, to study light from Sagittarius A* at near-infrared wavelengths and the ...

Milky Way's black hole shows signs of increased chatter

September 23, 2015

Three orbiting X-ray space telescopes have detected an increased rate of X-ray flares from the usually quiet giant black hole at the center of our Milky Way galaxy after new long-term monitoring. Scientists are trying to ...

Recommended for you

Exoplanet stepping stones

November 20, 2018

Astronomers have gleaned some of the best data yet on the composition of a planet known as HR 8799c—a young giant gas planet about 7 times the mass of Jupiter that orbits its star every 200 years.

Encouraging prospects for moon hunters

November 20, 2018

Astrophysicists of the University of Zürich, ETH Zürich and the NCCR PlanetS show how the icy moons of Uranus were born. Their result suggests that such potentially habitable worlds are much more abundant in the Universe ...

Gravitationally lensed quasars

November 19, 2018

The path of light is bent by mass, an effect predicted by Einstein's theory of gravity, and when a massive galaxy or cluster lies along our line-of-sight to a more distant galaxy its matter will act as a lens to image the ...

440 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Azrael
4.2 / 5 (21) 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).

theredpill
2.4 / 5 (25) 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...
Benni
1.9 / 5 (18) 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?
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (22) 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.
cortezz
4.1 / 5 (14) 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?

Scroofinator
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 31, 2018
Are they showing this as a top down image?
theredpill
3 / 5 (16) 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.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (20) 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?
IwinUlose
4.6 / 5 (11) Oct 31, 2018
Are they showing this as a top down image?


If this was a joke about perspective, well done!
MrBojangles
3.5 / 5 (19) 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.
theredpill
3 / 5 (18) 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.

Protoplasmix
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 31, 2018
Absolutely phenomenal image, general relativity and the standard model writ large...
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (18) 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?

theredpill
3 / 5 (16) 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
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (16) 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?

MrBojangles
3.6 / 5 (17) 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 :)
Scroofinator
4.5 / 5 (2) 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.
theredpill
3.3 / 5 (14) 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.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (17) 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.
MrBojangles
3.8 / 5 (17) 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.
theredpill
3.3 / 5 (12) 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.
barakn
4.4 / 5 (9) 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.
rossim22
3 / 5 (4) Oct 31, 2018
Anyone have a link to the paper?
MrBojangles
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 31, 2018
https://www.eso.o...835a.pdf

It's at the bottom of the article under more information.
Scroofinator
2.8 / 5 (4) 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
Solon
1.9 / 5 (14) 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?

theredpill
3.3 / 5 (16) 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.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (19) 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.
jonesdave
3.6 / 5 (20) 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.

jonesdave
3.6 / 5 (20) 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.
theredpill
3.4 / 5 (10) 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.
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (15) 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
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (16) 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.

jonesdave
3.6 / 5 (17) 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.
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (12) 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.
jonesdave
3.6 / 5 (18) 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.

jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (16) 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.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (16) 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!

cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (14) 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.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (16) 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.
hat1208
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 31, 2018
@jonesdave

I think they require a picture of gravity
theredpill
3.6 / 5 (14) 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.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (17) 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.
cantdrive85
2.5 / 5 (13) 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.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (16) 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.

jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (15) 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.
cantdrive85
2.5 / 5 (13) 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.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (15) 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?
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (12) 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
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (11) 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
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (8) 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.
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (11) 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
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (11) 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."
Benni
2.4 / 5 (11) 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/

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) 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

:)

Benni
2.3 / 5 (11) 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?
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (12) 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.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) 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
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (10) 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?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (10) 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.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) 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.
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (10) 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?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.8 / 5 (9) 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.
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (10) 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.
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 31, 2018
So, show of hands, who here has used a spectrograph?
Second question, who here has interpreted the spectral lines it shows?
Benni
2.3 / 5 (12) 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.

Da Schneib
3.6 / 5 (9) 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.
Whydening Gyre
3.8 / 5 (8) 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...
Benni
2 / 5 (11) 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.
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (10) 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.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (9) 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.
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (10) 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?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (9) 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"
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (11) 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.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (11) 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.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 31, 2018
For lurkerz, confusing spectrographs and spectrograms is like confusing cameras with the pictures they take.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 31, 2018
The thing about science is, you can't vote on the truth.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (12) 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!
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (10) 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.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (9) 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?
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (11) 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?
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (10) 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'.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (9) 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.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) 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?
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (10) 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.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (9) 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.
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (10) 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.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) 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
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (11) 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!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) 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.
MrBojangles
4.1 / 5 (13) 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?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) 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.
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (11) 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
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (9) 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.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) 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
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (12) 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/
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (8) 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.
cantdrive85
2.2 / 5 (10) 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.
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (11) 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?
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (11) 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.
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (12) 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.
granville583762
2.8 / 5 (11) 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.
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (13) 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'.
cantdrive85
2.7 / 5 (12) 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.

Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (12) 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.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (12) 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.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (11) 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.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (11) 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?
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (11) 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.
cantdrive85
2.4 / 5 (13) 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'....
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 01, 2018
And you define physical properties and phenomena without numbers?

Really?
Ojorf
3.3 / 5 (16) 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?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (12) Nov 01, 2018
Preliterate physics.

Neato. Maybe you can get studied by anthropologists.
Enthusiastic Fool
4.1 / 5 (17) 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"
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (14) 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.
granville583762
3.8 / 5 (10) 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
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (11) 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
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (11) 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!
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) 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.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) 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.
Benni
2.7 / 5 (12) 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.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) 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.
hat1208
4.2 / 5 (10) 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?
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (11) 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
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (13) 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.
Scroofinator
5 / 5 (5) 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.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (11) 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.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (14) 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.
hat1208
3.5 / 5 (11) 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.
hat1208
3.6 / 5 (9) 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.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
3.4 / 5 (14) 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.
jonesdave
3.6 / 5 (14) 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.
Scroofinator
4.3 / 5 (6) 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.
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (10) 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

Scroofinator
3.2 / 5 (6) 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.
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (11) 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

granville583762
3.4 / 5 (10) 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
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (10) Nov 01, 2018
this is where
The Ponderomotive force
muscled ts way in
Scroofinator
Scroofinator
4.3 / 5 (3) 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.
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 01, 2018
Better 19th century than 15th like you, @Lenni_The_Liar.
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 01, 2018
Scroofinator
This is directly related to Sagittarius A*
Because synchrotron radiation
Is emitted
From
The accretion disk
granville583762
3.1 / 5 (10) Nov 01, 2018
Because synchrotron radiation
is an indicative indication
of BH activity
Ojorf
3.2 / 5 (13) 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...

Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) 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?
Benni
2.7 / 5 (11) 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.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (12) 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
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (13) 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.
Ojorf
2.8 / 5 (13) 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.
granville583762
3.6 / 5 (9) 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*
Phyllis Harmonic
4.1 / 5 (13) 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?
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (10) 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
hat1208
3.9 / 5 (11) 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.
granville583762
4 / 5 (8) 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?
Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) 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?
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (10) 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
hat1208
4 / 5 (12) 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!
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (9) Nov 01, 2018
Better 19th century than 15th like you

Let's try 21st century plasma physics, eh poopsie.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) 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
3.9 / 5 (14) 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 ?
Phyllis Harmonic
4.1 / 5 (13) Nov 01, 2018
Now do you comprehend it where the S came from?


OMG- what a profoundly maladapted creature you are!
granville583762
3 / 5 (10) 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
Benni
2.1 / 5 (11) 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.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) 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.

Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) 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.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 01, 2018
@Lenni_The_Liar_And_Plagiarist makes up another lie and gets caught again.

Pitiful.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (11) 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.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) 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."
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) 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.......
Hyperfuzzy
2.1 / 5 (7) 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!
Hyperfuzzy
1.7 / 5 (6) 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.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) 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
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) 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
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 01, 2018
Got science? Apparently not, so GTFO.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) 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.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) 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?
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (10) 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.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (9) 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.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 01, 2018
AFAIK - The Event Horizon lies outside of the Accretion Disk,


Lol. Wrong.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) 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.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) 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
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 01, 2018
AFAIK - The Event Horizon lies outside of the Accretion Disk,


Lol. Wrong.
says jonesybonesy

And YOUR most learned position is.......?
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) 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.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) 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
Hyperfuzzy
1.4 / 5 (7) 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!
Hyperfuzzy
1.4 / 5 (7) 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?
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (9) 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
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 01, 2018
@Hyperfuzzy
What? Is this Ackhenaten one of the members of your Choom Gang?
Hyperfuzzy
2.1 / 5 (7) 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!
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) 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
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (9) 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
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) 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.....?
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (12) 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?
granville583762
4 / 5 (8) 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
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (9) 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.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) 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.
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (10) 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
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (10) 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.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) 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.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) 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.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) 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.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) 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?"
cantdrive85
2.4 / 5 (11) 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.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) 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?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) 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.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) 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
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) 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.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (9) 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!
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) 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.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (9) 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!
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) 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.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) 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.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) 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.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) 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.
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (10) 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...
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) 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.
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (10) 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.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) 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.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) 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?
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) 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.
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (10) Nov 01, 2018
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.

He must have made a schoolboy error in that paper he wrote...

Impossibility of gravitational collapse
https://link.spri...3-0022-4
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 01, 2018
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.

He must have made a schoolboy error in that paper he wrote...

Impossibility of gravitational collapse
https://link.spri...3-0022-4


He didn't write that paper.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Nov 01, 2018
The Einstein paper remains uncited. Maybe you didn't notice, witch doctor.

And as @Jones notes,
[Einstein] didn't write that paper.
So the witch doctor is lying again.
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 01, 2018
Electronic engineering deals in real objects, BH maths doesn't.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Nov 01, 2018
You were the one arguing 19th century physics is irrelevant. Maybe you forgot again, or maybe you're lying again. In any case 19th century physics generated the theories that make the very computer you are typing on, witch doctor.
cantdrive85
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 01, 2018
He didn't write that paper.

You didn't bother to read it, didya...

The paper remains uncited. Maybe you didn't notice, witch doctor.

Oh right, I forgot science was a democratic process.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 01, 2018
An intellectual conundrum
Benni> The BH they claim exist at SgrA* would reach to somewhere near the orbit of Earth or maybe even beyond Mars.

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

Benni, this BH
Is hiding its accretion disk in plain sight
It is simply another star amongst all the other stars
Indistinguishable
As all the other stars
Don't have accretion discs either
As this is the Milkyway's centre
There are a lot of stars condensed in a small region of space
As stars do not require accretion discs
Not even tidal forces are present
Even with a lot of stars condensed in a small region of space
We are talking about a multimillion BH?

Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 01, 2018
The paper remains uncited. Maybe you didn't notice, witch doctor.

Oh right, I forgot science was a democratic process.
No, no one cited it because it was wrong and obviously so. He hadn't taken supernovae into account. Pretty much like you don't take computers into account, witch doctor.

Meanwhile, since the paper you cited wasn't written by Einstein, you're still lying, witch doctor.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 01, 2018

You didn't bother to read it, didya...


I know that he didn't write it.

Here is your link again.

https://link.spri...3-0022-4
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 01, 2018
You were the one arguing 19th century physics is irrelevant.

Nope, always clear to distinguish between real applied experimental science and hypothetical abstract pseudoscience. You're the one who confuses the two.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 01, 2018
You were the one arguing 19th century physics is irrelevant.

Nope, always clear to distinguish between real applied experimental science and hypothetical abstract pseudoscience. You're the one who confuses the two.


So show the error in Kepler's third law, idiot.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Nov 01, 2018
You were the one arguing 19th century physics is irrelevant.

Nope, always clear to distinguish between real applied experimental science and hypothetical abstract pseudoscience. You're the one who confuses the two.
Maxwell's equations are "hypothetical abstract pseudosciece," according to you, because they're from the 19th century. Nobody knew how to make a computer in its modern form in the 19th century. The closest they came was adding machines. They couldn't even make radios.

Now stop lying, witch doctor.
cantdrive85
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 01, 2018
I know that he didn't write it.

Here is your link again.

https://link.spri...3-0022-4

Well I'll be! Being the paper was published in 2013 it would be quite a feat for Einstein to have written it. Like I said, you obviously didn't read the paper.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 01, 2018
I know that he didn't write it.

Here is your link again.

https://link.spri...3-0022-4

Well I'll be! Being the paper was published in 2013 it would be quite a feat for Einstein to have written it. Like I said, you obviously didn't read the paper.


Neither did you idiot. It is paywalled.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Nov 01, 2018
Well I'll be! Being the paper was published in 2013 it would be quite a feat for Einstein to have written it. Like I said, you obviously didn't read the paper.
Didn't need to to find out you're lying. The author list at the top doesn't include Albert Einstein and that's enough to prove you're lying again, witch doctor. Go back to the 15th century where they didn't use math.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 01, 2018
Well, even


Yeah,

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

Very pretty picture, that. However, what is referred to as an accretion disk is far too large that encompasses both the reddish-brown and the yellow areas of the illustration, quite resembling the results of a mixmaster that has incorporated something yellow near the centre. The big square points to the smaller square in the centre, presumably that is the location of an Event Horizon, which is much too small to be worthy of the name in comparison. For if those two colored areas were the actual accretion disk of a Black Hole, and at the alleged speed of its contents, I estimate that the Milky Way, as big as it is, has not very long to exist, according to that illustration.
Of course, it is still all conjecture and, as you god-haters say, where's the evidence?
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Nov 01, 2018
Your buttbuddy @Lenni_The_Liar says you lied about accretion disks being inside the event horizons of black holes, @SEU liar troll fake physicist.

Maybe you forgot.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 01, 2018

Of course, it is still all conjecture and, as you god-haters say, where's the evidence?


Still being thick, I see.. Still commenting on subjects that you don't understand. Still completely clueless. Still a total irrelevance.
cantdrive85
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 01, 2018
Well I'll be! Being the paper was published in 2013 it would be quite a feat for Einstein to have written it. Like I said, you obviously didn't read the paper.

Neither did you idiot. It is paywalled.

You have a translator? Here is your PDF.
http://m.mathnet.ru/php/archive.phtml?wshow=paper&jrnid=tmf&paperid=8347&option_lang=eng
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Nov 01, 2018
Authors' names are at the top. Still lying, witch doctor. And I'm not clicking on any link you provide since you tried to extort @hat with demands for bitcoin.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 01, 2018
Well I'll be! Being the paper was published in 2013 it would be quite a feat for Einstein to have written it. Like I said, you obviously didn't read the paper.

Neither did you idiot. It is paywalled.

You have a translator? Here is your PDF.
http://m.mathnet.ru/php/archive.phtml?wshow=paper&jrnid=tmf&paperid=8347&option_lang=eng


Which is not written by Einstein, you clown.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 01, 2018
Interesting

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!
says granville

jones' illustration of an accretion disk far from the alleged Black Hole does not make any sense. Its form resembles arms of a spiral galaxy while the "arms" revolve in one direction like a pinwheel, and there is no barrier or wall to prevent the "arms" from flying outward through centrifugal force.
Centrifugal Force from Wiki
In Newtonian mechanics, the centrifugal force is an inertial force (also called a "fictitious" or "pseudo" force) directed away from the axis of rotation that appears to act on all objects when viewed in a rotating frame of reference.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 01, 2018


jones' illustration of an accretion disk far from the alleged Black Hole does not make any sense. Its form resembles arms of a spiral galaxy while the "arms" revolve in one direction like a pinwheel, and there is no barrier or wall to prevent the "arms" from flying outward through centrifugal force.
Centrifugal Force from Wiki
In Newtonian mechanics, the centrifugal force is an inertial force (also called a "fictitious" or "pseudo" force) directed away from the axis of rotation that appears to act on all objects when viewed in a rotating frame of reference.


Still clueless. Stop commenting on things that are well beyond you. i.e. science.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 01, 2018

Of course, it is still all conjecture and, as you god-haters say, where's the evidence?


Still being thick, I see.. Still commenting on subjects that you don't understand. Still completely clueless. Still a total irrelevance.
says jones

No matter. Thick or thin - it is still ALL conjecture - and at this time, it is faerie dust at Sgr A* until convincing evidence, not woo, is produced.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Nov 01, 2018
Your own partisan said you lied, @SEU.
the accretion disc is five times that of the BH.


Nice easy search on this thread. How does something five times larger fit inside?

jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2018


No matter. Thick or thin - it is still ALL conjecture - and at this time, it is faerie dust at Sgr A* until convincing evidence, not woo, is produced.


Yep, like a 4 million solar mass object that has to be there. Care to suggest what it is?
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 02, 2018
@Forum
Here is your PDF
I don't recommend anyone opening any PDF from cd or any of the others in the pseudoscience crowd

this simple warning from the makers of TOR should suffice as a clear warning against it
You should be very careful when downloading documents via Tor (especially DOC and PDF files, unless you use the PDF viewer that's built into Tor Browser) as these documents can contain Internet resources that will be downloaded outside of Tor by the application that opens them. This will reveal your non-Tor IP address. If you must work with DOC and/or PDF files, we strongly recommend either using a disconnected computer, downloading the free VirtualBox and using it with a virtual machine image with networking disabled, or using Tails. Under no circumstances is it safe to use BitTorrent and Tor together, however
https://www.torpr...#Warning

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2018


jones' illustration of an accretion disk far from the alleged Black Hole does not make any sense. Its form resembles arms of a spiral galaxy while the "arms" revolve in one direction like a pinwheel, and there is no barrier or wall to prevent the "arms" from flying outward through centrifugal force.
Centrifugal Force from Wiki
In Newtonian mechanics, the centrifugal force is an inertial force (also called a "fictitious" or "pseudo" force) directed away from the axis of rotation...


Still clueless. Stop commenting on things that are well beyond you. i.e. science.
says jones

How quaint. You and DaJerk STILL haven't provided any REAL SUBSTANTIATED PEER REVIEWED VALIDATED EVIDENCE that Black Holes exist - specifically the one that is supposedly in the centre of Sgr A*
When you and your, (as DaJerk puts it) buttbuddies are finally able to PRODUCE 100% evidence that BH exist, we will be here
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2018
[No matter. Thick or thin - it is still ALL conjecture - and at this time, it is faerie dust at Sgr A* until convincing evidence, not woo, is produced.
Not conjecture any more. The inside edge of the accretion disk just outside the event horizon is moving at 30% of the speed of light, and disappearing. In orbital lock-sync with its rotation shown by the rotating polarization. That's not conjecture, it's fact, measured by the GRAVITY spectrograph on the biggest telescope we've got. Which is the subject of this very article. And published in the peer reviewed literature.

You're lying again, @SEU.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2018
REAL SUBSTANTIATED PEER REVIEWED VALIDATED EVIDENCE that Black Holes exist - specifically the one that is supposedly in the centre of Sgr A*


There is loads. Google Scholar is your friend. And, quite frankly, I couldn't give a toss what a scientifically illiterate creationist thinks. Go play with the god boys.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2018
[No matter. Thick or thin - it is still ALL conjecture - and at this time, it is faerie dust at Sgr A* until convincing evidence, not woo, is produced.
Not conjecture any more. The inside edge of the accretion disk just outside the event horizon is moving at 30% of the speed of light, and disappearing. In orbital lock-sync with its rotation shown by the rotating polarization. That's not conjecture, it's fact, measured by the GRAVITY spectrograph on the biggest telescope we've got. Which is the subject of this very article. And published in the peer reviewed literature.

You're lying again, @SEU.
says DaJerk

Links? High resolution photos? Do you have them? No? Then it is YOU that is the liar.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2018
Link is at the bottom of this very article. Here you go since you don't seem able to read and understand the article:

http://www.eso.or...835a.pdf

You're still trying to lie, @SEU. It's not working.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2018
REAL SUBSTANTIATED PEER REVIEWED VALIDATED EVIDENCE that Black Holes exist - specifically the one that is supposedly in the centre of Sgr A*


There is loads. Google Scholar is your friend. And, quite frankly, I couldn't give a toss what a scientifically illiterate creationist thinks. Go play with the god boys.

If there are "loads", then you should be able to link to them and produce them HERE.
Still bringing up religion in a science site, I see.
LOL
Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 02, 2018
The link is at the bottom of the very article you are commenting on. Didn't you read it? It's open access, not paywalled. Anyone can read it.

http://www.eso.or...835a.pdf

You're still trying to lie, @SEU, and failing miserably. Go suck your jebus' diick, you fake christianoid.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2018
REAL SUBSTANTIATED PEER REVIEWED VALIDATED EVIDENCE that Black Holes exist - specifically the one that is supposedly in the centre of Sgr A*


There is loads. Google Scholar is your friend. And, quite frankly, I couldn't give a toss what a scientifically illiterate creationist thinks. Go play with the god boys.

If there are "loads", then you should be able to link to them and produce them HERE.
Still bringing up religion in a science site, I see.
LOL


Not up to me to link thousands of papers that you are too incompetent to find, you arse.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2018
Link is at the bottom of this very article. Here you go since you don't seem able to read and understand the article:

http://www.eso.or...835a.pdf

You're still trying to lie, @SEU. It's not working.
says DaJerk

LOL Your link is broken
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Nov 02, 2018
Works fine for me even in your quote.

Here it is again, bend over: http://www.eso.or...835a.pdf

And if you don't like that one go up to the end of the article, which like all physorg articles has a link to the science paper.

You're lying again, @SEU. The real Jesus (if he ever existed, which is questionable) would never lie, which is why I call you a christianoid, your idol jebus, and point you out as lying for your jebus.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2018
REAL SUBSTANTIATED PEER REVIEWED VALIDATED EVIDENCE that Black Holes exist - specifically the one that is supposedly in the centre of Sgr A*


There is loads. Google Scholar is your friend. And, quite frankly, I couldn't give a toss what a scientifically illiterate creationist thinks. Go play with the god boys.

If there are "loads", then you should be able to link to them and produce them HERE.
Still bringing up religion in a science site, I see.
LOL


Not up to me to link thousands of papers that you are too incompetent to find, you arse.
says jones

Yes, it IS up to you since YOU and your buttbuddies are the ones making the assertions.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Nov 02, 2018
Yes, it IS up to you since YOU and your buttbuddies are the ones making the assertions.
Not really since the link to the article is provided in the article. At the end like in all physorg articles.

You're lying for your fake idol jebus again, christianoid @SEU.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2018
Papers mean nothing. Anyone can say anything and be peer reviewed. And they ALL fall into line. Absolute proof will show up in high resolution photos. Since YOU can't produce those photos, you are full of shlt
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2018
REAL SUBSTANTIATED PEER REVIEWED VALIDATED EVIDENCE that Black Holes exist
About 962,000 results (0.11 sec)
https://scholar.g...mp;btnG=

specifically the one that is supposedly in the centre of Sgr A*
About 11,500 results (0.45 sec)
https://scholar.g...mp;btnG=

If there are "loads", then you should be able to link to them
Done

so... where is your refute?

it must also be peer-reviewed journal references that are validated like the above links
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2018
You said they did. Here's you:
You and DaJerk STILL haven't provided any REAL SUBSTANTIATED PEER REVIEWED VALIDATED EVIDENCE


You lied. Despite the link in this article to the [sic]REAL SUBSTANTIATED PEER REVIEWED VALIDATED EVIDENCE[sic] you claim doesn't exist.

You make the real Jesus cry. You are a jebus idol worshipping anti-Jesus lying trolling christianoid. Proven in your own words.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2018
Papers mean nothing. Anyone can say anything and be peer reviewed. And they ALL fall into line. Absolute proof will show up in high resolution photos. Since YOU can't produce those photos, you are full of shlt


Tosser! Photos of something that doesn't emit light, you braindead loon? Get real. The likelihood is that the images of the EH already have been taken, and are currently being assessed and written up. Who gives a toss what a thick bugger like you thinks?
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2018
REAL SUBSTANTIATED PEER REVIEWED VALIDATED EVIDENCE that Black Holes exist
About 962,000 results (0.11 sec)
https://scholar.g...mp;btnG=

If there are "loads", then you should be able to link to them
Done

so... where is your refute?

it must also be peer-reviewed journal references that are validated like the above links


I got 17 200 for 'black hole; sgr a*'

https://scholar.g...amp;btnG

:)
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2018
@Jones
About 962,000 results (0.11 sec)
https://scholar.g...mp;btnG=

:)
yeah, just different search parameters: I specifically searched for "evidence for black holes Sgr A" whereas you didn't include the word "evidence", so there are a few more
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2018
LOL
https://www.eso.o...le/blog/

Oh absolutely positively unequivocal proof of a Black Hole at Sgr A.

To make it possible to image the shadow of the event horizon of Sagittarius A*, many researchers and cutting-edge technologies have been mobilised — because obtaining an image of a black hole is not as easy as snapping a photo with an ordinary camera.


Nothing but artists' illustrations, simulations, lies, imaginings, conjecture and woo. Oh and the promise of a shadow of the event horizon. NOT a true IMAGE - a shadow, and that is good enough for the denizens at physorg and the masses of humanity who couldn't care less.
Beautiful work, those shadows.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2018
So, no answers for lying?

I figured. So did everyone else. You're just a sorry troll.

Sad.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2018
LOL
https://www.eso.o...le/blog/

Oh absolutely positively unequivocal proof of a Black Hole at Sgr A.

To make it possible to image the shadow of the event horizon of Sagittarius A*, many researchers and cutting-edge technologies have been mobilised — because obtaining an image of a black hole is not as easy as snapping a photo with an ordinary camera.


Nothing but artists' illustrations, simulations, lies, imaginings, conjecture and woo. Oh and the promise of a shadow of the event horizon. NOT a true IMAGE - a shadow, and that is good enough for the denizens at physorg and the masses of humanity who couldn't care less.
Beautiful work, those shadows.


I'll say again - who gives a toss what a dimwit like you thinks? You know the square root of zero about science, do you?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2018
LOL
https://www.eso.o...le/blog/

Oh absolutely positively unequivocal proof of a Black Hole at Sgr A.

To make it possible to image the shadow of the event horizon of Sagittarius A*, many researchers and cutting-edge technologies have been mobilised — because obtaining an image of a black hole is not as easy as snapping a photo with an ordinary camera.


Nothing but artists' illustrations, simulations, lies, imaginings, conjecture and woo. Oh and the promise of a shadow of the event horizon. NOT a true IMAGE - a shadow, and that is good enough for the denizens at physorg and the masses of humanity who couldn't care less.
Beautiful work, those shadows.


I'll say again - who gives a toss what a dimwit like you thinks? You know the square root of zero about science, do you?
says jones

Like I said already. NOT a true IMAGE - ONLY A SHADOW. Good enough for you, jones?
Of course it is.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2018
Nothing but artists' illustrations, simulations, lies, imaginings, conjecture and woo.
Except for the spectrograms.

From the [sic]REAL SUBSTANTIATED PEER REVIEWED VALIDATED EVIDENCE[sic] you are lying about.

Published here: http://www.eso.or...835a.pdf

Looks like all you've got is lies. You are going to hell.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2018
......and that is good enough for the denizens at physorg and the masses of humanity who couldn't care less.


No, it is good enough for highly qualified scientists, with probably double your IQ, and a real understanding of the science. You, on the other hand, are just an uneducated troll on a comments section and, as such, are of no interest nor relevance.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2018
Nothing but artists' illustrations, simulations, lies, imaginings, conjecture and woo.
Except for the spectrograms.

From the [sic]REAL SUBSTANTIATED PEER REVIEWED VALIDATED EVIDENCE[sic] you are lying about.

Published here: http://www.eso.or...835a.pdf

Looks like all you've got is lies. You are going to hell.
says DaJerk

ROFLMYAO
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2018
Nothing but artists' illustrations, simulations, lies, imaginings, conjecture and woo.
Except for the spectrograms.

From the [sic]REAL SUBSTANTIATED PEER REVIEWED VALIDATED EVIDENCE[sic] you are lying about.

Published here: http://www.eso.or...835a.pdf

Looks like all you've got is lies. You are going to hell.
says DaJerk

ROFLMYAO
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2018
One More Time LOL

Nothing but artists' illustrations, simulations, lies, imaginings, conjecture and woo.
Except for the spectrograms.

From the [sic]REAL SUBSTANTIATED PEER REVIEWED VALIDATED EVIDENCE[sic] you are lying about.

Published here: http://www.eso.or...835a.pdf

Looks like all you've got is lies. You are going to hell.

says DaJerk

ROFLMYAO

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2018
......and that is good enough for the denizens at physorg and the masses of humanity who couldn't care less.


No, it is good enough for highly qualified scientists, with probably double your IQ, and a real understanding of the science. You, on the other hand, are just an uneducated troll on a comments section and, as such, are of no interest nor relevance.

says jones

And yet, you keep talking to me. It appears that you somehow find me relevant and interesting, else you would place me on Ignore. I would welcome you and your butt buddies here putting my posts on Ignore. It's the only way, jones.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2018
......
you somehow find me relevant and interesting


Nope. Irrelevant and stupid. I reply merely to point these things out to you and others.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Nov 02, 2018
Getting back to the science, there appears to be a paper upcoming in ApJ, reporting the first detection of Sgr A* in the far infrared;

A Detection of Sgr A* in the far infrared
von Fellenberg, S. D. et al.
https://arxiv.org...06.07395
cantdrive85
2.8 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2018
Which is not written by Einstein, you clown.

It's hard to believe anyone could be any more of a moron than you jonesdumb.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2018
Which is not written by Einstein, you clown.

It's hard to believe anyone could be any more of a moron than you jonesdumb.
says CD

Ain't that the truth.

LOL
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2018
Submitted on 19 Jun 2018)
We report the first detection of the Galactic Centre massive black hole, Sgr~A*, in the far infrared. Our measurements were obtained with PACS on board the \emph{Herschel} satellite at 100 μm and 160 μm. While the warm dust in the Galactic Centre is too bright to allow for a direct detection of Sgr~A*, we measure a significant and simultaneous variation of its flux of ΔFν=ˆ160 μm=(0.27±0.06) Jy and ΔFν=ˆ100 μm=(0.16±0.10) Jy during one observation. The significance level of the 160 μm band variability is 4.5σ and the corresponding 100 μm band variability is significant at 1.6σ. We find no example of an equally significant false positive detection. Conservatively assuming a variability of 25% in the FIR, we can provide upper limits to the flux. Comparing the latter with theoretical models we find that 1D RIAF models have difficulties explaining the observed faintness. However, the upper limits are consistent with modern ALMA....

/face-palm\
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2018

First they say: "We report the first detection of the Galactic Centre massive black hole, Sgr~A*,"

Then they say: "While the warm dust in the Galactic Centre is too bright to allow for a direct detection of Sgr~A*, "

Somebody has been into the liquor cabinet once too often, it seems.

:D
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2018
Repetitive spam reported.
Da Schneib
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2018
Meanwhile pitiful troll can't even spell ROFLMAO right.
granville583762
3.6 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2018
Sagittarius A*
A million solar mass BH
With an accretion disc
Orbiting at 30% C
Where
G=6.673x10-11
Where
One solar mass = 2x10+30kg
Is more than sufficient
With the infamous escape velocity formula
R=2GM/C*
Where R
Theoretically
Can reach
The orbital radius of earth
By transposing C* for 1/3C*
Will give an idea
For the theoretical
Sagittarius A*
Radius of accretion disc
Which = 26,692,000km
Where the orbit
Of earth = 149.6 million km
Where as
At the orbit of earth
The velocity of the accretion disc
Equals 42,2million m/s
So at the orbital radius of earth
The accretion disc
That was travelling
30% the speed of light
Is now travelling at
14% the speed of light
A velocity that certainly cannot be missed
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2018
As if anyone enquires most deeply
Will find from R=2GM/C*
Will realise
These radius figures
Are for velocity of escape radius only
As for orbital radius
As these give some idea of the dimensions involved
But be that as these figures may
It makes no never mind
Neither hide nor tail
Of Sagittarius A*s
Accretion disc
Has been seen!
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2018
A BH, an Alternate Universe

At a radius of the earth's orbital
This invisible accretion disc
Has the velocity of 14%C
Material travelling at 14%C
Certainly have some possibilities
Some atomic possibilities
Some relativistic electron possibilities
Some relativistic collision of possibilities
If nothing else some tidal forces of possibilities
But being an allusive BH
It has none of these possibilities
Almost
As if
BHs exist
In some alternate universe
The gravitational force at the solar orbital of earth is 14%C
And yet within this radius of this alternate universe
There is no apparent gravitational tidal force
Tearing the stars apart
With the escape velocity
Of 14%C
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2018
INTERESTING

[The gravitational force at the solar orbital of earth is 14%C]

As of in the orbital radius of earth
Sagittarius A*
Has the gravitation force
To accelerate stars to 14% the speed of light
And this acceleration increases to 30%C at 27million km
And as the stars get closer, this acceleration increases
To the maximum, the velocity of light
This coincidently is the event horizon
Where any stars or material, gravity has the power to accelerate up to the speed of light

Where as in Sagittarius A*
None of this acceleration is apparent
Benni
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2018
I know that he didn't write it. Here is your link again.https://link.spri...3-0022-4


Well I'll be! Being the paper was published in 2013 it would be quite a feat for Einstein to have written it. Like I said, you obviously didn't read the paper.
Here's the paper Einstein wrote:

Albert Einstein- Oct 1939

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

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

The quote in the Conclusion section is:

"The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light."

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

hat1208
3 / 5 (6) Nov 02, 2018
@Da Schneib

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.

I've always wondered about this one aspect, the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light, I thought that anything with mass could not be accelerated past the speed of light. How am I misinterpreting these two laws. Does it mean that the matter/mass cannot be accelerated enough to escape the black hole or that it is accelerated past the speed of light and that is why we cannot see the contents of a black hole. Chicken and egg?
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2018
Stars are the density of water
Benni> Albert Einstein: The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light

Even the density of water resists the gravity of Sagittarius A*
That is practically atoms floating freely round Sagittarius A*
Well atoms are floating freely in the Milkyway's core as that is where the stars
Are creating themselves in the nebulas clouds of dust
In theory Sagittarius A*s BH would hovering up this dust
Which is hiding Sagittarius A*
So as the concealing dust defines
The existence of Sagittarius A*s BH
As this dust would not be there
And then we would
Obtain
Photographic
Evidence
Which we don't
MrBojangles
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2018
"Papers mean nothing. Anyone can say anything and be peer reviewed. And they ALL fall into line. Absolute proof will show up in high resolution photos. Since YOU can't produce those photos, you are full of shlt" - SEU

Alien life forms cannot exist because we do not have hi-res photos to prove they do.
The Earth's molten core does not exist because we do not have hi-res photos.

Jesus does not exist because we do not have hi-res photos of him. You just killed your own God, you MURDERER!!!
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2018
Which is not written by Einstein, you clown.

It's hard to believe anyone could be any more of a moron than you jonesdumb.


What is your problem thicko? You referred to Einstein's maths, and then linked to a paper by two Russian nobodies. That is dumb, thicko.You haven't even read the English translation of it, you stupid arse.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 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.


Electro-magnetic Waves are not subject to the Kinetic Energy from which Escape Velocity equations are derived. Escape Velocity equations are derived from KE= 1/2 mv² not from E=mc².

If people like yourself, jonsy, schneibo, etc, had ever sat in a physics college classroom you would know better than to confuse KINETIC ENERGY EQUATIONS with those for ELECTRO-MAGNETIC ENERGY, But because you never have had such an education, it is clear why Pop-Cosmology is such an attraction for the lot of you, it's a lot easier than sorting out the differences of one verses the other.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2018

First they say: "We report the first detection of the Galactic Centre massive black hole, Sgr~A*,"

Then they say: "While the warm dust in the Galactic Centre is too bright to allow for a direct detection of Sgr~A*, "

Somebody has been into the liquor cabinet once too often, it seems.

:D


Yes you, you thick b!stard! Stop trying to understand things that are beyond your ability to understand. Idiot. You are an unqualified nobody on a comments section. You think humans were created from clay and chimpanzee sh!t! Nobody cares what you think. Learn to read, moron;

In the optical and UV regime, dust extinction makes observations of Sgr A* impossible


Are they looking in the optical or UV? No, you imbecile, they are looking in the FIR! Comprehension not your strong point, is it? Along with science.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2018
The truth according to St Jones

No papers are true and worthy of reference
Unless handed
Down
In tablets
Of stone
From the one and only
Disciple of truth
Jonesdave esquire
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2018
.....If people like yourself, jonsy, schneibo, etc, had ever sat in a physics college classroom


Which you have quite obviously never done, you loon.
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2018
You referred to Einstein's maths, and then linked to a paper by two Russian nobodies. That is dumb, thicko.You haven't even read the English translation of it, you stupid arse.


Well then, Here's Einstein's:

Albert Einstein- Oct 1939

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

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

The quote in the Conclusion section is:

"The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light."

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

Probably you don't like Einstein's paper clearly written English either?
hat1208
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 02, 2018
@Forum
Here is your PDF
I don't recommend anyone opening any PDF from cd or any of the others in the pseudoscience crowd

this simple warning from the makers of TOR should suffice as a clear warning against it
You should be very careful when downloading documents via Tor (especially DOC and PDF files, unless you use the PDF viewer that's built into Tor Browser) as these documents can contain Internet resources that will be downloaded outside of Tor by the application that opens them. This will reveal your non-Tor IP address. If you must work with DOC and/or PDF files, we strongly recommend either using a disconnected computer, downloading the free VirtualBox and using it with a virtual machine image with networking disabled, or using Tails. Under no circumstances is it safe to use BitTorrent and Tor together, however
https://www.torpr...#Warning


jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (12) Nov 02, 2018
Einstein's essentially ignored 1939 paper was wrong. Read the history of Einstein's biggest blunders. Read Oppenheimer's paper from the same year. Fact is, pretty much nobody agreed with Einstein's reasoning in that paper.

https://www.scien...2007-04/
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2018
Einstein's essentially ignored 1939 paper was wrong. Read the history of Einstein's biggest blunders. Read Oppenheimer's paper from the same year. Fact is, pretty much nobody agreed with Einstein's reasoning in that paper.

If you had read the paper I posted you would see it discussed Einstein's 1939 paper in detail, and it discussed the historical aspect that you insist on revising with your revisionist views. And the Oppenheimer paper stated (mistakenly) that the BH was possible only after an infinite amount of time. Fact is, Einstein was more knowledgeable than most regarding GR as it is his theory.
Funny thing, going through the wikistupidia page on Einstein's bibliography one cannot even find this paper. Basically his challenge to the infinite gravity monster seems to be actively suppressed by the astrophysical elitists.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2018
If you had read the paper I posted you would see it discussed Einstein's 1939 paper in detail, and it discussed the historical aspect that you insist on revising with your revisionist views.


It's in Russian. Please point to the relevant part. It is a non-event paper in a low impact Russian journal, and has also been ignored. Nor does it even attempt to describe the orbits of stars around Sgr A*.

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (12) Nov 02, 2018
Funny thing, going through the wikistupidia page on Einstein's bibliography one cannot even find this paper. Basically his challenge to the infinite gravity monster seems to be actively suppressed by the astrophysical elitists.


And another lie;

https://en.wikipe...Einstein

Phyllis Harmonic
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2018
.......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.


Ohhh- advice from an idiot. Pass.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2018
For anybody interested in where Einstein went wrong in his 1939 paper, and how Oppenheimer and Snyder didn't, then there is a pretty straightforward description here;

On the Limitations of Thought Experiments in Physics and the Consequences for Physics Education (2003)
Reiner, M. & Burko, L. M.
https://www.resea...0000.pdf

The whole paper is worth a read, but the relevant section is 2.4.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2018
@hat,
I've always wondered about this one aspect, the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light, I thought that anything with mass could not be accelerated past the speed of light.
That's correct but incomplete. Nothing with mass can be accelerated *to* the speed of light; but *nothing whatsoever* can be accelerated *past* the speed of light, including light. If something could be, it would disappear, and that would explicitly violate mass-energy conservation.

How am I misinterpreting these two laws. Does it mean that the matter/mass cannot be accelerated enough to escape the black hole
Yes.
or that it is accelerated past the speed of light and that is why we cannot see the contents of a black hole. Chicken and egg?
No and no.

Going into the event horizon doesn't take anything special. But nothing comes out.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2018
Electro-magnetic Waves are not subject to the Kinetic Energy from which Escape Velocity equations are derived. Escape Velocity equations are derived from KE= 1/2 mv² not from E=mc².
Gravity bends light. We know that since Eddington observed it in 1919.

The event horizon is just the place where light is bent in a circle so it can't escape. If you knew any math, I could show you why that means light inside that place can't get out no matter what angle it's moving at. But you don't know enough math.
hat1208
2.7 / 5 (6) Nov 02, 2018
@Da Schneib

If something could be, it would disappear, and that would explicitly violate mass-energy conservation.

Doesn't that describe what is happening at the event horizon, matter/mass is disappearing. Also is that what is meant when it is stated that the laws of physics break down at a black hole.

Thanks,
dsylvan
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2018
@physorg

Holy mother-forkin' shirtballs!
I figured it out.
This isn't the good place--it's the BAD place!
We're supposed to believe this comment world was created for our enlightenment, but it's actually meant to torture us. And the Architect's recruited all the unwitting shirt-for-brains trolls as part of the plan.
It's all a sinister DESIGN!
Fooork mee!

Now that I'm on to you--is this where I get rebooted?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Nov 02, 2018
"Papers mean nothing. Anyone can say anything and be peer reviewed. And they ALL fall into line. Absolute proof will show up in high resolution photos. Since YOU can't produce those photos, you are full of shlt" - SEU

Alien life forms cannot exist because we do not have hi-res photos to prove they do.
The Earth's molten core does not exist because we do not have hi-res photos.

Jesus does not exist because we do not have hi-res photos of him. You just killed your own God, you MURDERER!!!
says MrB

That is correct. Except for the fact that there are actual low and high resolution photos of alien spacecraft in the sky which have been seen and recorded by humans on the ground, as well as recorded by satellites, and those flying structures on and around the ISS recorded by interested observers.
Likely molten core is still conjecture.
According to theghostofotto1923 (aka SpookyOtto) Jesus never existed. G-d cannot be killed, so have been raising False Flags in your post.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Nov 02, 2018
@Da Schneib

If something could be, it would disappear, and that would explicitly violate mass-energy conservation.

Doesn't that describe what is happening at the event horizon, matter/mass is disappearing. Also is that what is meant when it is stated that the laws of physics break down at a black hole.

Thanks,
No. The black hole gets more massive. Nothing is being destroyed; it's just not visible any more. But its mass is still there.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Nov 02, 2018
@hat, as far as the laws of physics "breaking down," that's a speculation, and not a very valid one. It appears they may be different, but we don't know how. We know nothing about what happens inside the event horizon. The supposed singularity at the middle of a black hole is speculation too; we don't know that. GRT says so, but the fact that a singularity is indicated means that the theory is not valid there. That's what's meant by the laws of physics "breaking down." It's hyperbole based on predictions by GRT that make no sense. GRT isn't the "laws of physics;" it's a theory. The laws of physics are how things behave, not how our theories say they behave- and especially not when our theories predict singularities.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2018
INTERESTING

[The gravitational force at the solar orbital of earth is 14%C]

As of in the orbital radius of earth
Sagittarius A*
Has the gravitation force
To accelerate stars to 14% the speed of light
And this acceleration increases to 30%C at 27million km
And as the stars get closer, this acceleration increases
To the maximum, the velocity of light
This coincidently is the event horizon
Where any stars or material, gravity has the power to accelerate up to the speed of light

Where as in Sagittarius A*
None of this acceleration is apparent
says granville

Exactly. You have nailed it. Your posts are Brilliant, I might add.
Nothing there is yet apparent. And, we have been promised a photo (and a spectrogram) of a Shadow of the "Event Horizon" encircling the alleged Black Hole at Sgr A*.
To that end, ESO could use any dark area or void and call it a "shadow", and jones & company will rely on it heavily to show that he was right all along.

:D>
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2018
.....to that end, ESO could use any dark area or void and call it a "shadow", and jones & company will rely on it heavily to show that he was right all along.


It's not ESO, it is the EHT group. And the data will be very carefully checked. The fact that it won't convince scientifically illiterate tosspots like you is of no consequence. You are an irrelevance.
hat1208
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 02, 2018
@Da Schneib

GRT isn't the "laws of physics;" it's a theory. The laws of physics are how things behave, not how our theories say they behave- and especially not when our theories predict singularities.

Is this when the Einstein field equations solve to infinity, and that's what we are calling a singularity.

Again thanks, don't mean to try to take too much of your time.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2018
@granville

Additionally, if the Event Horizon was, as has been put forth by the 5 Star Club, closest to the alleged Black Hole instead of encircling the Accretion Disk, it would be impossible for ESO to make a photo of jones' Event Horizon at such a close proximity to the alleged Black Hole. The "Even Horizon" would have to be on the OUTSIDE of the Accretion Disk to show a shadow that could be recognised as a bona fide shadow. Where would the Light be coming from if a shadow could be cast of the Event Horizon? From the alleged Black Hole? Impossible since no Light/Energy/Matter can escape from it.
A shadow NEEDS Light for the shadow to be cast. If the Light comes from the Accretion Disk, the shadow would be a shadow of something else, not the EH, as the EH would cast no shadow.
If the Accretion Disk were outside of the EH, its Lights would be competing with the Lights from the Stars that are orbiting that Disk. Therefore, no shadow.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2018
^^^^Lol. The stupidity of scientifically illiterate loons! If the accretion disk, you cretinous imbecile, were inside the EH there would be nothing for a f***ing shadow to fall onto. Idiot. Everything inside the EH is invisible! Give up you clueless idiot.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2018
Right, let us try to explain this in terms that even 10 year olds might understand;

Imagine a fried egg. The central yolk is hemispherical. That is the EH. The white of the egg is the accretion disk. If you are looking at your fried egg from anywhere other than directly face on, then the yolk (EH) will obscure part of the white (AD). Simplistically, this is what the EHT is looking for.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.9 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2018
^^^^Lol. The stupidity of scientifically illiterate loons! If the accretion disk, you cretinous imbecile, were inside the EH there would be nothing for a f***ing shadow to fall onto. Idiot. Everything inside the EH is invisible! Give up you clueless idiot.
says jones

LOL You just said that "everything inside the Event Horizon is invisible. What do you mean "inside" the Event Horizon, dumbo?

If the outer flattened circle is the Accretion Disk that surrounds the EH, and the inner flattened circle is the Event Horizon closest to the alleged Black Hole, there could be no "shadow" produced due to all surfaces being flattened (with no hills or pits).
IOW, the surfaces of both EH and AD have become flattened, which makes it possible for the velocities close to C.
There would be NO shadow since there are no high areas to cast a shadow.
The Event Horizon is not a wall that is perpendicular to the flat disk, therefore, no shadow.
MrBojangles
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2018
"That is correct. Except for the fact that there are actual low and high resolution photos of alien spacecraft in the sky which have been seen and recorded by humans on the ground, as well as recorded by satellites, and those flying structures on and around the ISS recorded by interested observers.
Likely molten core is still conjecture.
According to theghostofotto1923 (aka SpookyOtto) Jesus never existed. G-d cannot be killed, so have been raising False Flags in your post."

Please post high-res pic of what is definitively an alien spaceship. Pics now or it's not real.
I'm not talking to "SpookyOtto", I'm talking to you. You claim you believe in God, but that God clearly doesn't exist without high-res photos. In fact, nothing beyond our observable world existed until we had the equipment to view it for that matter.

See how this silly line of thinking breaks down in the face of logic?
Hyperfuzzy
2.6 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2018
No one uses Logic! No stated axiomatic structure. No Premise. Coulomb described charge that gave you the ability to see! Yet all of you are still blind. I don't know wither I should laugh or cry. This is the nonsense from the best minds! Unbelievable. There are no particles. There are no Black Holes. The Universe is not Expanding. There is no speed limit.

There are only an infinite number of infinite diametrical fields within an infinite space. If you cannot see how these fields cluster; then you are idiots! Where are we within this massive eternal Fractal!
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2018
LOL You just said that "everything inside the Event Horizon is invisible. What do you mean "inside" the Event Horizon, dumbo?


By definition, you oaf, the EH is the radius at which the escape velocity is greater than c. Ergo, nothing within it can be seen. Have you never heard of Google?

If the outer flattened circle is the Accretion Disk that surrounds the EH, and the inner flattened circle is the Event Horizon closest to the alleged Black Hole, there could be no "shadow" produced due to all surfaces being flattened (with no hills or pits).


Christ, I was being optimistic when I posted an analogy for ten year olds! The EH is not a flattened disk, dumbass. The fried egg analogy isn't perfect, as the yolk is hemispherical. In realty the EH is spherical. Think of Saturn as being the EH and the rings as being the accretion disk. I cannot make this any bloody simpler. If you still don't understand, I would suggest you desist from making a fool of yourself further.

hat1208
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 02, 2018
@Hyperfuzzy

Clasp your hands above your head and step away from the computing device. Walk backwards toward the sound of my voice.
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2018
The only BH is St Jones

Albert has been dispelling this mythical BH since 1939 and it is 2018
If Albert were here today he would not be suppressed at the inactivity
At Sagittarius A*

Mind you Albert would have to stand and take an ear bashing from St Jones
You can just see St Jones cursing and swearing calling him cretinous fool
And then
St Jones
Would explain his BH to Albert
Imagine a fried egg. The central yolk is hemispherical
There would be NO shadow since there are no high areas to cast a shadow
Can you imagine it

Albert would
Create a BH
To specifically stuff St Jones
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2018
Scientists believe art students BH interpretation!
SEU> @granville
A shadow NEEDS Light for the shadow to be cast. If the Light comes from the Accretion Disk, the shadow would be a shadow of something else, not the EH, as the EH would cast no shadow.
If the Accretion Disk were outside of the EH, its Lights would be competing with the Lights from the Stars that are orbiting that Disk. Therefore, no shadow.

These so called scientists have been relying on art students to come up with their own visualisation as an art student, exactly how a BH is visualised
Where the cretinism St Jones's have taken an art students interpretation of what a BH looks like
And now scientists believe art students interpretation!
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2018
Albert has been dispelling this mythical BH since 1939 and it is 2018
If Albert were here today he would not be suppressed at the inactivity
At Sagittarius A*


The word is 'surprised' you illiterate f***wit. And he wouldn't have to say anything to me. He would have to take on the thousands of physicists who accept the existence of BHs, you tosser. I keep telling you, moron, you are not arguing against me, you thick piece of sh!t - you are taking on the whole of physics. On a comments section! Lol. Go find something useful to do, you cretin. Go have a bath. If the water starts getting cold, throw in an electric heater to warm it up. Always works.

Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2018
Gravity bends light. We know that since Eddington observed it in 1919.


........and the fact that gravity creates photon deflection does not mean it can change the VELOCITY of light. Gravitational lensing has absolutely NOTHING to do with VELOCITY & you can't prove differently as many times as I've challenged you to do it.

Everytime I challenge you to prove gravity can prevent light from escaping the surface of any gravitating mass you always fall back to the same escape velocity equations for kinetic energy, yeah, 19th Century Black Hole Math disproven by Einstein.

granville583762
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2018
SEU, as you keep pointing out
BHs are always simulated graphic design
Drawn by art student
As they need no academic qualifications
just that innate artistic ability
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2018
19th Century Black Hole Math disproven by Einstein.


No it wasn't thicko. He did nothing with the maths, just come up with an errored thought experiment.

........and the fact that gravity creates photon deflection does not mean it can change the VELOCITY of light.


And for the umpteenth time, you thick b*stard, nobody is saying that it does, you moron.

granville583762
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2018
Albert has been dispelling this mythical BH since 1939 and it is 2018
If Albert were here today he would not be suppressed at the inactivity
At Sagittarius A*


The word is 'surprised' you illiterate f***wit. And he wouldn't have to say anything to me. He would have to take on the thousands of physicists who accept the existence of BHs, you tosser. I keep telling you, moron, you are not arguing against me, you thick piece of sh!t - you are taking on the whole of physics. On a comments section! Lol. Go find something useful to do, you cretin. Go have a bath. If the water starts getting cold, throw in an electric heater to warm it up. Always works.

That would not worry Albert, he would relish the cut and thrust
and by the way JD, welcome back.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2018
LOL You just said that "everything inside the Event Horizon is invisible. What do you mean "inside" the Event Horizon, dumbo?


By d

If the outer flattened circle is the Accretion Disk that surrounds the EH, and the inner flattened circle is the Event Horizon closest to the alleged Black Hole, there could be no "shadow" produced due to all surfaces being flattened (with no hills or pits).


The EH is not a flattened disk, dumbass. The fried egg analogy isn't perfect, as the yolk is hemispherical. In realty the EH is spherical. Think of Saturn as being the EH and the rings as being the accretion disk. I cannot make this any bloody simpler. If you still don't understand, I would suggest you desist from making a fool of yourself further.


Nope. The Event Horizon is not spherical, otherwise nothing would fall into the Black Hole from the EH. It would go back to the Accretion Disk. It is all flattened.

granville583762
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2018
The supporting evidence is not being supplied

JD, I'm the only one standing up for this BH
I'm defending it to the hilt
Just look at all my comments on this mythical BH, JD
And you will see they are supporting every aspect
Of this BH that does not exist
This BH is not invisible JD
It is invisible because
The supporting evidence is not being supplied
That is why this BH does not exist
Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2018
The event horizon is just the place where light is bent in a circle so it can't escape. If you knew any math, I could show you why that means light inside that place can't get out no matter what angle it's moving at. But you don't know enough math.


You of course wouldn't have a picture proving such a structure exists would you? How many photons must agglomerate in such a case as to form this special captive layer of photons that somehow can travel only in eternal circles never escaping the clutches of Event horizon gravity.

Hey, how about a pic of the Milky Way BH accretion disc, you have that pic as well?

Why does Pop-Cosmology have so much trouble with OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE? Always impossible math models to create not only the biggest physical stellar structures in the Universe, but the ONLY ones that can't be observed?
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2018


Nope. The Event Horizon is not spherical, otherwise nothing would fall into the Black Hole from the EH. It would go back to the Accretion Disk. It is all flattened.



Don't talk crap, you idiot. Show me where any scientist is saying the EH is flat! Jesus, what a prat! Leave science alone you bloody clown; it is obvious that you are completely clueless.

https://www.quora...rstellar
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2018
Why does Pop-Cosmology have so much trouble with OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE? Always impossible math models to create not only the biggest physical stellar structures in the Universe, but the ONLY ones that can't be observed?


And why is an uneducated f***wit like you commenting on stuff that is waaaaay beyond him?
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2018


Nope. The Event Horizon is not spherical, otherwise nothing would fall into the Black Hole from the EH. It would go back to the Accretion Disk. It is all flattened.



Don't talk crap, you idiot. Show me where any scientist is saying the EH is flat! Jesus, what a prat! Leave science alone you bloody clown; it is obvious that you are completely clueless.
..........how do you know this? Got pics? No pics huh? Maybe a math model, probably lots of those?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2018
- another contradiction
"The event horizon is (more or less) spherical. But you can't see the event horizon. You can see stuff that's near the event horizon and about to fall in. It tends to spin around the black hole, forming a disc.
In addition, there's a severe gravitational lensing effect, which means that the light emitted by the "far" side of the accretion disc "bends" around the event horizon and arrives at your eye as if emitted near the edge of the event horizon. (You'd actually see two copies of the far side: the top face and the bottom face, simultaneously.)
There's even a second-level effect: some photons leave "your" side of the disc heading towards the event horizon, circumnavigate it entirely, and arrive back to you."

"The event horizon is (more or less) spherical. But you can't see the event horizon. "
You can't SEE an Event Horizon, and yet they are telling us that it is spherical.
Pure Magick Faerie Dust out of the woo closet.
Hyperfuzzy
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2018
No one uses Logic! No stated axiomatic structure. No Premise. Coulomb described charge that gave you the ability to see! Yet all of you are still blind. I don't know wither I should laugh or cry. This is the nonsense from the best minds! Unbelievable. There are no particles. There are no Black Holes. The Universe is not Expanding. There is no speed limit.

There are only an infinite number of infinite diametrical fields within an infinite space. If you cannot see how these fields cluster; then you are idiots! Where are we within this massive eternal Fractal!

Clarity does not exist within the minds of fools and idiots!
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2018
Art Students do observational Art and BH visualisations
Benni> Why does Pop-Cosmology have so much trouble with OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE?

Benni, because Art Students only have degrees in art and mostly the history of art
They specialise in mixing plaster of Paris and layering it with paper on balloons which are then cut up to create sculptures for their degrees, the same in silk-screen printing starting with cardboard egg cartons creating graphic design which are cut out of tracing paper with scalpels and used as silk screen templates in colour printing
And they specialise in photography, lithography, lino-cut and wood-cut and transposition of light in colour
They create brick structure in the Tate
They are Artists not scientists
MrBojangles
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2018
"You of course wouldn't have a picture proving such a structure exists would you? How many photons must agglomerate in such a case as to form this special captive layer of photons that somehow can travel only in eternal circles never escaping the clutches of Event horizon gravity.

Hey, how about a pic of the Milky Way BH accretion disc, you have that pic as well?

Why does Pop-Cosmology have so much trouble with OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE? Always impossible math models to create not only the biggest physical stellar structures in the Universe, but the ONLY ones that can't be observed?"


Poor child. Did nothing exist in the universe prior to man's ability to take a picture of it? What a bass ackwards way of thinking.
MrBojangles
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2018
"The event horizon is (more or less) spherical. But you can't see the event horizon. "
You can't SEE an Event Horizon, and yet they are telling us that it is spherical.
Pure Magick Faerie Dust out of the woo closet.


You can't see radio waves, yet we can describe how they propagate. Can't see atoms. We cannot see conscious thought, therefore it doesn't exist (that might not be too far off the mark for you.)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2018
No one uses Logic! No stated axiomatic structure. No Premise. Coulomb described charge that gave you the ability to see! Yet all of you are still blind. I don't know wither I should laugh or cry. This is the nonsense from the best minds! Unbelievable. There are no particles. There are no Black Holes. The Universe is not Expanding. There is no speed limit.

There are only an infinite number of infinite diametrical fields within an infinite space. If you cannot see how these fields cluster; then you are idiots! Where are we within this massive eternal Fractal!
states Hyperfuzzball

WE - you included - are trying to use Logic and Reason in this site, but the belief in woo and magickal Holes is strong in jones and the rest of his 5 Star-rating Club. They offer contradictory "evidence" that have never even been confirmed by DIRECT OBSERVATIONS, rather than graphs, simulations, conjectures and impossibilities. They grow apoplectic at any counter reasoning
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2018
The event horizon is (more or less) spherical. But you can't see the event horizon. "
You can't SEE an Event Horizon, and yet they are telling us that it is spherical.


Jesus, this is like trying to explain QM to a chipmunk! Of course it is f***ing spherical, you idiot. It came into existence through the collapse of spherical objects. At its boundary the escape velocity is > c. That applies to a radius from the centre in all directions, not just in 2 dimensions, you complete fool. Strewth! Talk about dumb!

MrBojangles
4 / 5 (12) Nov 02, 2018
WE - you included - are trying to use Logic and Reason in this site, but the belief in woo and magickal Holes is strong in jones and the rest of his 5 Star-rating Club. They offer contradictory "evidence" that have never even been confirmed by DIRECT OBSERVATIONS, rather than graphs, simulations, conjectures and impossibilities. They grow apoplectic at any counter reasoning


Direct observation of radio waves please, direct observation of atoms please. Direct observation of conscious thought and emotion please. Direct observation of your God please. What kind of broken parrot are you, that you keep spouting the same crap and ignoring the obvious counterpoint? Direct observation please. Direct observation please. Direct observation please.

Moron.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2018
"The event horizon is (more or less) spherical. But you can't see the event horizon. "
You can't SEE an Event Horizon, and yet they are telling us that it is spherical.
Pure Magick Faerie Dust out of the woo closet.


You can't see radio waves, yet we can describe how they propagate. Can't see atoms. We cannot see conscious thought, therefore it doesn't exist (that might not be too far off the mark for you.)
says Bojingles

You can't see G-d either, and yet we can see all that He has created - yet you deny His existence.
Phyllis Harmonic
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2018
Everytime I challenge you to prove gravity can prevent light from escaping the surface of any gravitating mass you always fall back to the same escape velocity equations for kinetic energy, yeah, 19th Century Black Hole Math disproven by Einstein.


ds2=−(1−rsr)c2 dt2+dr2(1−rsr)+r2(dθ2+sin2θ dϕ2)

In this equation r is the distance to the black hole (the radius) and t is time (what you measure on your wristwatch). θ and ϕ are basically longitude and latitude measurements. The quantity ds is called the interval. rs is the radius of the event horizon. The co-ordinate system strictly speaking is the one used by an observer at infinity, but it's a good approximation as long as you are well outside the event horizon.

For light rays ds is always zero, so can use this to calculate the velocity of the light ray. For simplicity let's take a ray headed directly towards the black hole, so the longitude and latitude are constant i.e. dθ and dϕ are both zero. TBC-
MrBojangles
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2018
You can't see G-d either, and yet we can see all that He has created - yet you deny His existence.


Sort of like how you can't see a black hole, but you can observe gravitational lensing.
OR
Can't see God, therefore God doesn't exist. Got it.

Either way, you lose and logic wins.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2018
The event horizon is (more or less) spherical. But you can't see the event horizon. "
You can't SEE an Event Horizon, and yet they are telling us that it is spherical.


Jesus, this is like trying to explain QM to a chipmunk! Of course it is f***ing spherical, you idiot. It came into existence through the collapse of spherical objects. At its boundary the escape velocity is > c. That applies to a radius from the centre in all directions, not just in 2 dimensions, you complete fool. Strewth! Talk about dumb!

says jones

The Event Horizon may SEEM spherical to you, but only due to the fact that other disks contain a spherical object in its centre. Other disks don't have their contents circling the centre at the velocity of close to C. The alleged Black Hole does. Its alleged Event Horizon is flattened also, as well as the Accretion Disk. There is no spherical EH near the alleged Black Hole, else the EH would also be pulled into the BH
MrBojangles
4 / 5 (12) Nov 02, 2018
There is no spherical EH near the alleged Black Hole, else the EH would also be pulled into the BH


The shape of the event horizon of a black hole is always approximately spherical
hawking & ellis 1973, Ch. 9.3

though I could be wrong, because I'm frankly not sure what I'm talking about

Finally you're making some sense, SEU (spherical egg unit)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2018
The event horizon is (more or less) spherical. But you can't see the event horizon. "
You can't SEE an Event Horizon, and yet they are telling us that it is spherical.


Jesus, this is like trying to explain QM to a chipmunk! Of course it is f***ing spherical, you idiot. It came into existence through the collapse of spherical objects. At its boundary the escape velocity is > c. That applies to a radius from the centre in all directions, not just in 2 dimensions, you complete fool. Strewth! Talk about dumb!

says jones dumb

A spherical object like a Star that has collapsed into a Black Hole is NOT going to make ANOTHER spherical object (the Event Horizon) right next to it - not even further away, otherwise you will have TWO spherical objects within close distance to each other. The Event Horizon has to BE FLAT for the flattened material to fall INTO the alleged Black Hole. That quote from Quora is obviously stupid.
Phyllis Harmonic
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2018
CTD
The velocity of the light, v, is just the rate of change of radius with time, dr/dt,
dr/dt=v=c(1−r/sr)

Given you're the genius with differential equations, this should be child's play for you!

Errata: In the previous post, I forgot the carets for the ^2 exponents. But again, you're the maths wiz so you probably had that figured out.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2018
You can't see G-d either, and yet we can see all that He has created - yet you deny His existence.


Sort of like how you can't see a black hole, but you can observe gravitational lensing.
OR
Can't see God, therefore God doesn't exist. Got it.

Either way, you lose and logic wins.


Wrong. There is NO LOGIC to Black Holes. Otherwise, after ~13.8 billion years, the Universe would have been fully consumed already
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2018
Is this when the Einstein field equations solve to infinity, and that's what we are calling a singularity.
Yeah, pretty much. Basically when the math of your theory tells you this, it's telling you that you've gone outside its area of competence. You've attempted to use the theory outside where it's applicable and can give good answers.

In this case GRT tells us the right things until it gets to the event horizon, but after that we just don't know because we can't see past it. We know there's stuff in there because of the gravity, but we don't know what it is because of the event horizon.

Hawking and Beckenstein showed that gravity isn't the only thing we can find out; black holes also have entropy. They can also have rotation, and can be electrically charged.

Again thanks, don't mean to try to take too much of your time.
That's OK; it's much more pleasant than dealing with trolls!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2018
There is no spherical EH near the alleged Black Hole, else the EH would also be pulled into the BH


The shape of the event horizon of a black hole is always approximately spherical
hawking & ellis 1973, Ch. 9.3

though I could be wrong, because I'm frankly not sure what I'm talking about

Finally you're making some sense, SEU (spherical egg unit)
said Jingles

Changing words to suit your stance is pure dishonesty. That makes you a LIAR.
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2018
INTERESTING

On a comments section!
jonesdave> you are not arguing against me, you thick piece of sh!t - you are taking on the whole of physics. On a comments section!

An interesting observation JD
that's very perceptive of you
You are taking on the whole of physics. On a comments section!
I never even thought the thought
on a comment section
I will have to read my comments a second time
Are they that effective, JD
Thanks for the complement
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2018
Its alleged Event Horizon is flattened also, as well as the Accretion Disk. There is no spherical EH near the alleged Black Hole, else the EH would also be pulled into the BH


Jesus H. Christ. You have the IQ of a f***ing badger, you thick b*astard! It cannot be flattened, you f***wit. And NOBODY is saying it is, apart from a scientifically illiterate tosser on a comments section. Get over yourself, FFS! How would the EH be pulled into the BH? IT IS THE F***ING BH, you total moron! It defines its boundary.
What is a radius, you idiot? If the escape velocity at r = x, then that applies in 3 dimensions you bloody loon. If you are getting pulled into a BH at 12m km, it doesn't bloody matter whether you are 'above', 'below' or to the 'sides' of the sodding thing.
Christ, how can somebody so stupid comment on things that they are completely clueless about? Seriously, a 12 year old could have got this by now. Did you ever attend school?

MrBojangles
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2018
Who are you, Donald Trump? Just saying WRONG like a child doesn't make it so. You refuse to address facts when they are brought up, instead deflecting or using childish tactics like "WRONG!"

You can't see electrons, therefore the EU theory and everything it's founded upon is false. Man, that was so easy.

Thanks for explaining this all to me so that it makes more sense. I'll try not to be such a dillweed anymore.


Thank you, and I'm happy to help as always.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2018
Its alleged Event Horizon


Jesus H. Christ. You have the IQ of a f***ing badger, you thick b*astard! It cannot be flattened, you f***wit. And NOBODY is saying it is, apart from a scientifically illiterate tosser on a comments section. Get over yourself, FFS! How would the EH be pulled into the BH? IT IS THE F***ING BH, you total moron! It defines its boundary.
What is a radius, you idiot? If the escape velocity at r = x, then that applies in 3 dimensions you bloody loon. If you are getting pulled into a BH at 12m km, it doesn't bloody matter whether you are 'above', 'below' or to the 'sides' of the sodding thing.
Christ, how can somebody so stupid comment on things that they are completely clueless about? Seriously, a 12 year old could have got this by now. Did you ever attend school?

says jones

You have contradicted yourself yet again. "How would the EH be pulled into the BH? IT IS THE F***ING BH, "
So now you're saying that the BH is the EH.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2018
Just a little more on singularities.

A good example that everyone knows of a singularity is the singularity of division with respect to zero. You can't divide by zero; you can't tell if you get zero or infinity or even the number in the numerator. So teaching mathematicians say it's undefined, and research mathematicians say it's a singularity.

Another good example of a singularity is the North or South Poles on Earth; they are singularities in the latitude and longitude coordinate systems we use for navigation. You can't define your longitude at these points; it has no meaning. This is a special type of singularity called a "coordinate singularity." It doesn't mean the poles can't be defined; it just means they can't be defined in the coordinate system you're using. Obviously you can go stand on either one; there's nothing special about them from that standpoint.

The singularity supposedly in a black hole is not a coordinate singularity, obviously.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2018
You have contradicted yourself yet again. "How would the EH be pulled into the BH? IT IS THE F***ING BH, "
So now you're saying that the BH is the EH.


Yes, you idiot. The EH defines the boundary of the BH. High school science. Go read some, you moron. Everything within the EH has an escape velocity of > c. It is therefore not emitting light. It is black. Therefore, black hole. Did they not do science at your school? Was it run by creationist nutjobs, or something?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2018
INTERESTING

On a comments section!
jonesdave> you are not arguing against me, you thick piece of sh!t - you are taking on the whole of physics. On a comments section!

An interesting observation JD
that's very perceptive of you
You are taking on the whole of physics. On a comments section!
I never even thought the thought
on a comment section
I will have to read my comments a second time
Are they that effective, JD
Thanks for the complement
says granville

jones mistakes the alleged Black Hole for the WHOLE OF PHYSICS. What a wonder child, that jones.
The rest of Physics is safe from our prying eyes and searching out unTruths - mainly.
But the alleged Black Hole who has a companion spherical Event Horizon in close proximity to said BH is, by far, one of the most egregious forms of woo in this century. And it is Astrophysicists who are guilty of describing this woo with unreasoning non-descriptions
These are jones' worshipful masters.
Phyllis Harmonic
4 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2018
I wish this commenting system would implement MathJax!
MrBojangles
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2018
Sucking my thumb helps me fall asleep at night.


says SEU

Have you tried warm milk? I've read it's a good sleep aid.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2018
These are jones' worshipful masters.


And yours are a bunch of creationist f***wits. And you obviously have zero knowledge of science, nor can you call on any scientist to back up your idiotic contentions, so why don't you just f*** off to a creationist forum, as you are making a complete twat of yourself here?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2018
jones DID SAY that the Event Horizon is spherical. And now he says that the Event Horizon IS the Black Hole. What will he say next - other than the usual trash.
The Event Horizon is said to encircle the alleged Black Hole from whence flattened material is FED INTO the BH, and yet, the EH is supposedly a SPHERE. And this sphere IS the alleged Black Hole, according to jones.
The alleged Black Hole must be all things to all men and beasts such as jones. But we cannot have the EH turning into a Black Hole if it is a separate sphere separate from the Black Hole.
Therefore, if the Event Horizon and the Black Hole are one and the same, and the EH is allegedly feeding the Black Hole, then how can the BH and the EH be the same entity?

Ahaaa Magick must be involved, and all these astrophysicists have become wizards. Else how could one spherical object be the same as another spherical object. As the EH is supposedly feeding the BH, who is feeding the spherical EH?
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2018
I wish this commenting system would implement MathJax!
You can actually do quite well using the List of Unicode Characters on Wikipedia, once you learn your way around it. You find your symbol and copy it and paste it here. That's not complete, but it's about as good as it gets.

LaTeX would work as well, but they aren't implementing it and I don't blame them seeing the problems with the implementation on many other web sites.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2018
Therefore, if the Event Horizon and the Black Hole are one and the same, and the EH is allegedly feeding the Black Hole, then how can the BH and the EH be the same entity?


F*** you are thick, eh? The EH is not feeding anything you twat. That will come from the accretion disk. Get it? Once you are within the EH you are in the BH, dumbo,
Where are you getting this uneducated sh!te from? Just making it up aren't you? Like Voyager reaching the Oort cloud? You are so stupid that you don't realise how stupid you are. Bloody clueless cretin.

http://curious.as...ediate-2
MrBojangles
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2018
And now he says that the Event Horizon IS the Black Hole. What will he say next - other than the usual trash.


The event horizon is a consequence of the gravitational pull of a black hole. It is not an entity that exists separate from a black hole.

I think we have proof of black holes finally. There seems to be one occupying the void in your cranium.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2018
Sigh. @SEU claims
Therefore, if the Event Horizon and the Black Hole are one and the same, and the EH is allegedly feeding the Black Hole, then how can the BH and the EH be the same entity?


The event horizon of a black hole, to an object moving through it, is like the point of no return on an aircraft voyage. That's the point at which you don't have enough gas to get back to where you came from. It's not like signs light up in the sky when you pass it. If you're not looking you might not even notice it. But you can't go back any more.

The same is true with a black hole; unless you get spaghettified by the tides (which only happens to small objects with small black holes or large massive objects near a large black hole) then you'll never know. But you'll never get back.

It's not like there's giant signs in the sky that say "Now entering the black hole."
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2018
The event horizon of a black hole is just the point below which nothing (including light) can emerge. In case you haven't studied rocket physics, the impulse needed to escape varies with altitude. But of course @SEU wouldn't understand that since it doesn't know any math.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2018
Nowhere does the descriptions of Black Holes state unequivocally that the Black Hole and the Event Horizon are one and the same, and nowhere does it state that the Event Horizon is spherical because IT IS the Black Hole.
In every article, every paper, the two are described separately as though they are two separate and different entities. If true that the two are the same object, then it should have been stated early on that that is the case.
Schoolchildren have been led to believe that the Event Horizon is at the very EDGE of the Accretion Disk and not the Black Hole itself. I will seek out these books that have been teaching these dishonesties if, as said in this forum, Black Hole and EH are the same.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2018
Schoolchildren have been led to believe that the Event Horizon is at the very EDGE of the Accretion Disk and not the Black Hole itself. I will seek out these books that have been teaching these dishonesties if, as said in this forum, Black Hole and EH are the same.


Nope. This is just you showing how thick you are. I expect a 12 year old would have gotten this by now. The fact that you haven't tells us everything we need to know. You are either < 12 yo, or you are extremely thick. Either works for me.

Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2018
Nowhere does the descriptions of Black Holes state unequivocally that the Black Hole and the Event Horizon are one and the same, and nowhere does it state that the Event Horizon is spherical because IT IS the Black Hole.
Nowhere does it state that the point of no return for an aircraft is a characteristic of the aircraft.

Feel free to turn around and crash because you ran out of gas.

Teh stoopit, it burnz.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2018
More pretty pictures for the hard of thinking;

https://www.eso.o...phic-v2/
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2018
Nowhere does the descriptions of Black Holes state unequivocally that the Black Hole and the Event Horizon are one and the same, and nowhere does it state that the Event Horizon is spherical because IT IS the Black Hole.
Nowhere does it state that the point of no return for an aircraft is a characteristic of the aircraft.

Feel free to turn around and crash because you ran out of gas.

Teh stoopit, it burnz.


So who asked YOU? And why do you feel the need/desire to butt in? My discussion was with jones.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2018
You posted on the science forum without any knowledge of science. You are a useless troll. I feel free to troll trolls. Get over it. Or go post someplace else, christianoid.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2018
@jones
I have checked Wiki and many other sites where it could possible tell that the Black Hole and the Event Horizon were attached and the same. I could not find it. Do you have any sites that would explain your assertions?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2018
You posted on the science forum without any knowledge of science. You are a useless troll. I feel free to troll trolls. Get over it. Or go post someplace else, christianoid.
says DaJerk

Why don't YOU go post somewhere else - like at a mental institution where you obviously belong.
I am here to learn as a scholar and interested observer. jones already knows this. I am not here to learn any of your idiocy that you spew freely in these forums. Go away and don't come back.
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2018
@jones
I have checked Wiki and many other sites where it could possible tell that the Black Hole and the Event Horizon were attached and the same. I could not find it. Do you have any sites that would explain your assertions?


A knowledge of basic science would be a start. Let's posit the 'singularity', without getting into the problems of that. It is a point source, to all intents and purposes. All the matter that falls into a BH is concentrated there. Therefore the gravity provided by that mass has to be acting in all directions toward that point source. The point where the escape velocity is just slightly above or equal to c, is defined as the EH. It is ~ 12m km at Sgr A*. That is the extent of the BH. It has a radius in all directions of ~ 12m km. You cannot get sucked into it at 12m km in the equatorial plane, but then expect to get within a lesser distance over the poles. That would be dumb. I would suggest looking at the infographic I posted above

MrBojangles
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2018
@jones
I have checked Wiki and many other sites where it could possible tell that the Black Hole and the Event Horizon were attached and the same. I could not find it. Do you have any sites that would explain your assertions?


The event horizon is a point in space beyond which escape velocity is greater than the speed of light. You know how the gravity of the Sun causes Earth to orbit the way it does? We don't describe the gravity well as a separate entity because it's not. It's a function of the sun. The event horizon is a function of the black hole - it's part of the gravity well beyond which light does not escape. It is not an entity.

The gravity well of our Sun is spherical just like the gravitational warping of space around a black hole is spherical.

Edit: link as you've requested explaining the features of a black hole
http://hyperphysi...hol.html
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2018
More pretty pictures for the hard of thinking;

https://www.eso.o...phic-v2/
says jones

Yes, that is a very nice picture/illustration. However, the wording should say something like: the Event Horizon is the part of the Black Hole that ..........
and in that way, there would have been no mistaking that either part is only half of the whole.
And yet, neither has ever been directly observed, much less photographed - only implied that it exists. An implication is still not unequivocal and insurmountable evidence. So I will reserve my judgement until I see further evidence, and not just a shadow of the Event Horizon that is another aspect of the alleged Black Hole.
Sorry for my skepticism.
MrBojangles
4.3 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2018
Yes, that is a very nice picture/illustration. However, the wording should say something like: the Event Horizon is the part of the Black Hole that ..........


It's spelled out exactly in the picture he sent.
"this is the "black" part of the black hole.
It's part of the black hole.
part of the black hole.

And yet, neither has ever been directly observed

Many things that exist in the universe have not been directly observed. It wasn't always known there's water on Mars, that doesn't make it any less true. We haven't directly observed electrons, do you deny their existence?
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2018
It's spelled out exactly in the picture he sent.
"this is the "black" part of the black hole.


Precisely. And we know at what distance it will be, which is the Schwarzschild radius (Rs);
https://en.wikipe...d_radius

And the Rs is defined as the radius at which even light cannot escape the gravitation of the BH. It is, very simply, (unless you are Benni), Rs = 2GM/ c^2. Where G = the gravitational constant;
https://en.wikipe...constant

M = the BH mass, and c = the speed of light.

We know the approx. mass to be 4 x 10^6 solar masses. 1 solar mass = 2 x ~ 10^30 kg. So the BH mass = ~ 8 x 10^36 kg. c and G are constants. Plug it all in, and (unless you're Benni) you get Rs = ~ 12m km. It can be easily worked out how many micro arcseconds that will cover in the sky, and we can then work out whether we can image it. We can. And quite probably have. Stay tuned.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2018
@jones
I cannot have two or more "instructors" as this is not a physical classroom, so that I will prefer to learn lessons from YOU, Benni and granville, ok?
I have already understood that a supernova or Neutron Star may become a BH, and the infalling material/Light/Energy is compressed so that even Quantum Particles cannot move as before. But what I would like to know about this alleged Black Hole is: as it collapses/compresses/densifies all the matter within it, is there a possibility that the Black Hole might fall into another Dimension when its limitations are met wrt its bulk? I have read that there is a lot of weird science in that location going on. Quantum Particles without Motion inside the Black Hole may also collapse the Universe and not just nearby Stars/disks. Your opinions?
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2018
I cannot have two or more "instructors" as this is not a physical classroom, so that I will prefer to learn lessons from YOU, Benni and granville, ok?


If you are relying on Granville and Benni, you are, as they say in the trade, f***ed!

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2018
Your opinions?


Most of that is unknown to me, and so beyond my pay grade. However, the quantum part of the collapse is to do with the Pauli exclusion principle, which applies in white dwarves and neutron stars. No two fermions can occupy the same quantum state. Hence why the neutrons do not decay, as would free neutrons, despite what Benni might tell you.

http://hyperphysi...uli.html
Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2018
the quantum part of the collapse is to do with the Pauli exclusion principle, which applies in white dwarves and neutron stars.


.......so just move to the next step in this process & try explaining HOW it is Pauli Exclusion applies to neutrons for the formation of neutron stars?
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2018
the quantum part of the collapse is to do with the Pauli exclusion principle, which applies in white dwarves and neutron stars.


.......so just move to the next step in this process & try explaining HOW it is Pauli Exclusion applies to neutrons for the formation of neutron stars?


It's on the same page I linked;

http://hyperphysi....html#c3
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2018
@jones
Thanks for the Pauli link. Your opinion of Benni and granville as good instructors are only a product of your bias towards them. You should get over it.
I have read Pauli before and found it very useful. But my concerns go beyond that to the alleged Black Holes' effects on the possibility of universal destruction of Space and Matter/Energy.
Since neither Matter nor Energy can be created or destroyed, but only change form - I would like to know into what form those infinitely compressed Quantum Particles might be changed, and will they be able to bounce back into their former selves prior to being crushed. If they cannot, and the BH continues consuming, will all Particles of Matter/Energy one day wind up in Black Holes and Space would become empty. And if that occurred, would the bulk/weight of the Black Hole cause it to fall out of the gravity well in which it floats - and go through into another Dimension, where the same may happen again and again.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 02, 2018
You posted on the science forum without any knowledge of science. You are a useless troll. I feel free to troll trolls. Get over it. Or go post someplace else, christianoid.
says DaJerk

Why don't YOU go post somewhere else - like at a mental institution where you obviously belong.
I am here to learn as a scholar and interested observer. jones already knows this. I am not here to learn any of your idiocy that you spew freely in these forums. Go away and don't come back.
Then learn instead of trolling.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2018
Your opinion of Benni and granville as good instructors are only a product of your bias towards them. You should get over it.


No, it is based on the words they write, and the science that they consistently fail to understand.

Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2018
the quantum part of the collapse is to do with the Pauli exclusion principle, which applies in white dwarves and neutron stars.


.......so just move to the next step in this process & try explaining HOW it is Pauli Exclusion applies to neutrons for the formation of neutron stars?


It's on the same page I linked;

http://hyperphysi....html#c3

No, you explain in your own words, I want to see if you really comprehend what you're reading or if you're just being a parrot.
Phyllis Harmonic
4.3 / 5 (12) Nov 02, 2018
. . . try explaining HOW it is Pauli Exclusion applies to neutrons for the formation of neutron stars?

We would but you're not worth the effort; the answer is easily found if you really wanted to know.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 02, 2018
Thanks jones and Benni and granville
I will be doing a lot of traveling for the next few days and will not have time for the fun here. But I suppose that my concerns explained above will not be solved anytime soon. So I will make the best of it and do as most scientists do - project and conjecture.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2018
. . . try explaining HOW it is Pauli Exclusion applies to neutrons for the formation of neutron stars?


We would but you're not worth the effort; the answer is easily found if you really wanted to know.


......you don't try explaining it because you don't know how.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2018
No, you explain in your own words


Why? You aren't arguing with me doofus. You are arguing with the entire astrophysics community. Armed with a mop! Go read Pauli, Bade & Zwicky, Oppenheimer & Volkoff, etc etc.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2018
@jones
I cannot have two or more "instructors" as this is not a physical classroom, so that I will prefer to learn lessons from YOU, Benni and granville, ok?
If everybody tells you the same thing, what's your problem? The best teaching incorporates many different views of the same thing.

I have already understood that a supernova or Neutron Star may become a BH, and the infalling material/Light/Energy is compressed so that even Quantum Particles cannot move as before.
Mmmmm, a supernova does not "become" a black hole. A neutron star results if the pressure of the supernova explosion drives the core of the star beyond electron degeneracy; a black hole results if it's still higher, high enough to drive the core beyond quark degeneracy. Once quark degeneracy is surpassed, there is nothing to stop gravity collapsing it into a black hole.
Phyllis Harmonic
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2018
The event horizon is a point in space beyond which escape velocity is greater than the speed of light.


That's one way to describe it. Another is that the EH is the boundary at which the light cone of any in-falling particles are wholly contained within the EH. All possible futures for the matter are inside the EH and so escape is impossible- all routes out of the EH are outside the light cone. IOW (and more poetically), black holes capture futures.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2018
Thanks jones and Benni and granville
I will be doing a lot of traveling for the next few days and will not have time for the fun here. But I suppose that my concerns explained above will not be solved anytime soon. So I will make the best of it and do as most scientists do - project and conjecture.


I have to take off on some travels next week as well, gonna be in & out of a dozen different airports, maybe we'll brush shoulders in some airport along the way & not even know it. Stay safe.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2018
. . . try explaining HOW it is Pauli Exclusion applies to neutrons for the formation of neutron stars?


We would but you're not worth the effort; the answer is easily found if you really wanted to know.


......you don't try explaining it because you don't know how.


It's not rocket science, dumbo. Go have a read, or ask on a physics forum. Nobody is doubting the existence of neutron degeneracy, nor the existence of neutron stars within the Ap community. Why do you need us to do your homework for you? If you want to overturn the accepted science (lol, as if!), then you need to show where the people I mentioned above went wrong. And why we can detect neutron star mergers, etc, etc. And the only place you could do that is in the scientific literature. You couldn't actually, as it is game over. You are many decades too late to be questioning it.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2018
@SEU,
But what I would like to know about this alleged Black Hole is: as it collapses/compresses/densifies all the matter within it, is there a possibility that the Black Hole might fall into another Dimension when its limitations are met wrt its bulk?
No. That would violate mass-energy conservation. A black hole does not destroy mass-energy; the mass is still there which is why it has gravity. Mass and energy make gravity.

I have read that there is a lot of weird science in that location going on. Quantum Particles without Motion inside the Black Hole may also collapse the Universe and not just nearby Stars/disks. Your opinions?
You haven't read anything about what happens inside a black hole that is substantive. We don't know. All we know is there's mass in there, it can rotate, it can have an electric charge, and it can have entropy.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Nov 02, 2018
Thanks Benni - you too. Benni and granville Take care.
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2018
No, you explain in your own words


Why? You aren't arguing with me doofus. You are arguing with the entire astrophysics community. Armed with a mop! Go read Pauli, Bade & Zwicky, Oppenheimer & Volkoff, etc etc.


.....then you don't know how to validate Pauli Exclusion for anything other than the electron shell of an atom. There, I just explained half your problem.
Phyllis Harmonic
4.3 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2018
. . .you don't try explaining it because you don't know how.


LOL, OK Mr. Mathless.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2018
the quantum part of the collapse is to do with the Pauli exclusion principle, which applies in white dwarves and neutron stars.


.......so just move to the next step in this process & try explaining HOW it is Pauli Exclusion applies to neutrons for the formation of neutron stars?
Pauli exclusion is the statement that two half-integer spin particles cannot occupy the same space at the same time. This is due to the laws of spin and statistics, which for half-integer spin particles dictate that the probability for it is zero, according to the Fermi-Dirac statistics which describe half-integer spin particles' interactions. These statistics are due in turn to the fact that half-integer spin particles' probability functions under the Schroedinger equations are squared to determine their probability density, after being added together.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2018
The laws of spin and statistics are far more important than is popularly discussed. They divide everything we can see or detect into two moieties: half-integer spin particles, commonly called "matter," and integer-spin particles, commonly called "energy." This is because their laws of spin and statistics are opposite: half-integer spin particles are excluded by Pauli exclusion from occupying the same space at the same time, whereas integer-spin particles are more likely to be in the same place at the same time, due to coherence. In the case of half-integer spins, their wavefunctions add to zero, meaning when the wavefunction is squared that the probability function is zero, meaning zero probability; whereas when integer-spin particles' wavefunctions are added, they come out at least one, which when squared gives at least one as their probability of existence.

This is enormously simplified for people who can't do math, but essentially correct.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2018
No, you explain in your own words


Why? You aren't arguing with me doofus. You are arguing with the entire astrophysics community. Armed with a mop! Go read Pauli, Bade & Zwicky, Oppenheimer & Volkoff, etc etc.


.....then you don't know how to validate Pauli Exclusion for anything other than the electron shell of an atom. There, I just explained half your problem.


Christ you are thick. It doesn't matter what I can explain or not. I am not the Grand Poobah of All Science, you dummy. You do not understand the PEP, and want to argue it with me. I'm telling you to f*** off to a physics forum, and argue it with the physicists who accept it, and know far more about it than I do. You will not do that, as you lack both the knowledge and the cojones. Correct? You just want to pose on here, like the blowhard that you are. You are not debating me, boy. Go tell actual physicists that they are wrong.
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2018
Worth mentioning that half-integer spin particles' laws of spin and statistics are the Fermi-Dirac statistics, worked out by Enrico Fermi and Paul Dirac, and therefore called "fermions," whereas the integer-spin particles' laws of spin and statistics are the Bose-Einstein statistics, worked out by Satyendra Nath Bose and Albert Einstein, and they are therefore called "bosons." For common examples, quarks are fermions, and photons are bosons.
Old_C_Code
2.2 / 5 (6) Nov 02, 2018
We haven't directly observed electrons


Of course we have, see an electric arc, or lightning. Unless you are getting precise and saying the electron generates a photon. But photons are just electrons detected by the human eye.
jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (13) Nov 02, 2018
We haven't directly observed electrons


Of course we have, see an electric arc, or lightning. Unless you are getting precise and saying the electron generates a photon. But photons are just electrons detected by the human eye.


Nope. You are not seeing electrons. You are seeing their effects. Nobody has ever seen an electron.
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2018
Electrons and photons are not interchangeable. Nor does the human eye detect electrons directly except by destruction of the retina.

But electrons can be observed; on a scintillation screen they can be observed directly. They also make unmistakeable tracks in cloud and bubble chambers.
Protoplasmix
4.7 / 5 (7) Nov 03, 2018
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.
Ahh, no wonder it looks so crisp/clean. Still an impressive image; but knowing ahead of time that it's possible to make physically _perfect_ lenses (out of materials as abstract as the proper maths encoded in software) keeps the expectations pretty high for seeing what the real deal looks like...
Phyllis Harmonic
5 / 5 (8) Nov 03, 2018
But photons are just electrons detected by the human eye.


That is so wrong. Photons are photons. The eye does not detect electrons. The proteins responsible for sight are sensitive to photons and photons only.
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 03, 2018
But electrons can be observed; on a scintillation screen they can be observed directly.


Surely that is an effect of the electrons? To the best of my knowledge, an electron has never been directly observed. Only its effects. Ditto neutrinos.
Phyllis Harmonic
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 03, 2018
Where is Mathless Boogie? I was hoping I'd find his wimpy-brained attempt to subvert accepted science with his remarkable powers of intellect and mathematical prowess (all two differential equations worth)! But he's nowhere to be seen. : (
Anonym262722
2 / 5 (4) Nov 04, 2018
The article fails to mention the significance of these renewed observations of material orbiting BH in our own galaxy as reported in the literature posted by Physics Foundations Society. The unified and extended GR/QM theory of Dynamic Universe (DU) agrees locally with GR based cosmology to explain observables within 18 decimals while the extreme gravitational state of BH predicts the minimum orbital period for DU to be 14 min vs 28 min for GR, with actual observed value of 16 min.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 04, 2018
But electrons can be observed; on a scintillation screen they can be observed directly.


Surely that is an effect of the electrons? To the best of my knowledge, an electron has never been directly observed. Only its effects. Ditto neutrinos.
By this criterion we don't "directly observe" broken bones on X-ray images. Considering we reduce the fractures and provide casts and other medical procedures, looks like it works to me. Don't bend to the bullsh!tters.
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 05, 2018
But electrons can be observed; on a scintillation screen they can be observed directly.


Surely that is an effect of the electrons? To the best of my knowledge, an electron has never been directly observed. Only its effects. Ditto neutrinos.
By this criterion we don't "directly observe" broken bones on X-ray images. Considering we reduce the fractures and provide casts and other medical procedures, looks like it works to me. Don't bend to the bullsh!tters.


I'm not doubting the existence of electrons, obviously, just making a point to idiots like Benni who require a picture of something before it is real. I'll still say that nobody has ever seen an electron, only its/ their effects.

https://www.quora...observed
MrBojangles
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 05, 2018
@jones
I cannot have two or more "instructors" as this is not a physical classroom, so that I will prefer to learn lessons from YOU, Benni and granville, ok?


You say you cannot have two or more, and then immediately list three people.

But electrons can be observed; on a scintillation screen they can be observed directly. They also make unmistakeable tracks in cloud and bubble chambers.


I've had the pleasure of viewing a cloud chamber before many years ago!
My point was to highlight the inanity of saying "if we don't have a high-res picture of it, it doesn't exist" that had been going on relentlessly in this thread. We don't need to "see" something to observe it and infer its existence.

Phyllis Harmonic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2018
But electrons can be observed; on a scintillation screen they can be observed directly.


The scintillation screen I own emits photons when ionizing radiation impinges on the material coating the pellicle. Photons, not electrons (or any other particles) are what I directly observe.
MrBojangles
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 05, 2018
Correct me in I'm wrong, but the direct observation of an electron should not be possible, because any photons that interact with an electron will necessarily change its location.

Also, and again correct me if I'm wrong here, but the smallest wavelength of EMR we've discovered is 10^-15m, whereas the diameter of an electron is <10^-18m.
MrBojangles
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2018
And apologies, it occurred to me after-the-fact that this is not the same case as in X-ray bone diagnostics. Reason being - the X-rays images use photons in the X-ray wavelength which are absorbed in varying rates by bone and tissue to determine where a fracture might be. We are directly observing photon emission in that case, though I also do agree with your sentiment that we shouldn't "bend to the BSers" that demand imaging of something to prove its existence.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 05, 2018
I also do agree with your sentiment that we shouldn't "bend to the BSers" that demand imaging of something to prove its existence.


Precisely. Which was my point. Nobody has seen an electron. Or a neutrino. Etc. Do they exist? Of course they do.

Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2018
Correct me in I'm wrong, but the direct observation of an electron should not be possible, because any photons that interact with an electron will necessarily change its location.
You know where it was when. You don't know what momentum it had. This is the nature of quantum physics: the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Also, and again correct me if I'm wrong here, but the smallest wavelength of EMR we've discovered is 10^-15m, whereas the diameter of an electron is <10^-18m.
I would say we've observed gamma rays in bubble chambers that were a lot shorter than that.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2018
This is the nature of quantum physics: the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.


Are you certain? :)
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Nov 05, 2018
This is the nature of quantum physics: the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.


Are you certain? :)
Yep. :D
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2018
This is the nature of quantum physics: the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.


Are you certain? :)
Yep. :D


I'm not. I thought I was, but then uncertainty crept in, and I thought......why am I uncertain? And then I thought....how can one be certain about anything? What is the point of anything? I invested in some razor blades. When I got up in the morning, they weren't there. And then they were! I started drinking. Haven't stopped since. I think. I can't be certain.
MrBojangles
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 05, 2018
You know where it was when. You don't know what momentum it had. This is the nature of quantum physics: the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.


I'm familiar with the uncertainty principle, but knowing where something was, and observing it through photon emission are separate questions. What I'm talking about is more akin to the photoelectric effect or Compton scattering. As a result, I don't think we can ever observe an electron directly.

I would say we've observed gamma rays in bubble chambers that were a lot shorter than that.


The smallest possible wavelength would be on the Planck scale, though the shortest wavelength I was able to find that we've measured was 10^-15 meters
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 05, 2018
You know where it was when. You don't know what momentum it had. This is the nature of quantum physics: the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.


I'm familiar with the uncertainty principle, but knowing where something was, and observing it through photon emission are separate questions. What I'm talking about is more akin to the photoelectric effect or Compton scattering. As a result, I don't think we can ever observe an electron directly.
Define "directly."

I would say we've observed gamma rays in bubble chambers that were a lot shorter than that.


The smallest possible wavelength would be on the Planck scale, though the shortest wavelength I was able to find that we've measured was 10^-15 meters
Hmmm, that doesn't sound right. https://en.wikipe...amma_ray

10^-20 meters according to that. Five orders of magnitude smaller than you claim and two orders of magnitude smaller than your claimed electron size.
MrBojangles
3.8 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2018
Hmmm, that doesn't sound right. https://en.wikipe...amma_ray
10^-20 meters according to that. Five orders of magnitude smaller than you claim and two orders of magnitude smaller than your claimed electron size.


That states that as of 2014 they are theoretical only (I'd read that prior to posting.)
The diameter I used for the electron was obtained from the World Book Encyclopedia. Chicago: World Book. The exact diameter is not known is far as I can find.

In regards to defining directly, I feel as though we've already done that - the detection of an emitted photon (since that was what had spurred the conversation originally - needing to have a "hi-res" image of something to prove its existence. That is touched upon again in my post wherein I state "observing it through photon emission.")
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Nov 05, 2018
You might want to read the other article. https://en.wikipe...amma_ray

These have been detected to 10^-20 m.
MrBojangles
3.8 / 5 (5) Nov 06, 2018
So we measure the Cherenkov radiation as a byproduct of those very high energy gamma rays,

Given the energy levels of photons at that wavelength, I think we can conclusively say we cannot directly observe an electron.
Phyllis Harmonic
5 / 5 (3) Nov 06, 2018
And then I thought....how can one be certain about anything?


Depends on just how certain is "certain." Our awareness exists as either speculation (future) or confirmation (history). While it has been argued that we exist in a "specious present", there is no actual biological evidence that such a thing exists.
https://en.wikipe..._present

(I detect a large rabbit hole approaching!)
Enthusiastic Fool
5 / 5 (5) Nov 06, 2018
Eggman,
I gotta say I find it amusing you think I'm Otto. I remember one of if not my first post our cajun Uncle Ira thought I was Zephyr or someone because I didnt understand how the paper ruled out double degenerate collisions causing a SN by measuring the impact on a 2nd star. Ira was fun. I'm a contractor for a large defense company and I spent 12.5 years between late 2001 and early 2014 in the US Air Force. I had 3 deployments to Iraq. Add that to whatever file you're tracking socks on if you like. I've been lurking here since the days of Oliver Manuel and his black hole inside the sun non-sense and only registered to post a question I was curious about. Work is busier now and I've learned to find a lot of my own answers in the paper now so I dont need to post as often.

Now lets hypothetically say I'm a sock. If I'm pro-standard model, don't post psuedo science, ask legit questions, and RTFA or paper does it matter if I was a sock?
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 06, 2018
Given the energy levels of photons at that wavelength, I think we can conclusively say we cannot directly observe an electron.
What do you mean by "observe?" You mean it destroys a retinal cell and you see the flash?

C'mon. man, you cannot possibly have watched TV for years and not think you have observed electrons. It's like saying you believe in races but don't believe in horses.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 06, 2018
@Enthusiast, I consider these attacks against you to be trolling. I might disagree with some of your views, but you certainly have not asked loaded questions that I've ever seen. I hope you will stay here. As always, if you ask a serious question you will get a serious answer.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 06, 2018
@Bojangles, the fact you keep vacillating between the human eye being capable of detecting electrons and only being capable of detecting photons makes me wonder whether you're sincere. Defining "observation" under your conditions seems impossible since you deny what you last said every time a definition is proposed.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 06, 2018
@theredpill
@cantdrive85
@Benni.

Consider:

- IF MW central 'BH' feature was merely "persistent stable PLASMOID"---THEN we should have observed a PATTERN of 'streamers' of continuous plasma/currents spiraling into that alleged BH-plasmoid. But we DON'T. Instead the 'galaxy arms' end way out from the central feature, and no streaming pattern is observed going all the way 'down' to the central feature. SO MW 'BH' feature IS NOT "A PLASMOID".

- IF MW central 'BH' feature was merely "BARYCENTER effect", THEN we should have observed stars going around that central region with gentle accelerations and gently curved trajectories, basically 'oscillating' INSTEAD OF of the observed 'orbiting' in extremely curved trajectories/accelerations as they pass so close-by the central region. SO MW 'BH' feature IS NOT A BARYCENTER effect.

SO IT MUST BE extreme (no point/ring 'singularity') concentration of mass-energy having extreme CUMULATIVE GRAVITY strength/gradient and Event Horizon. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Nov 06, 2018
...
C'mon. man, you cannot possibly have watched TV for years and not think you have observed electrons. It's like saying you believe in races but don't believe in horses.

Technically...
Weren't we just seeing the photons produced as a result of the hitting a positively charged, photoluminescent substance?
However, you DO observe electrons when you wear thick wool socks and touch a door knob...
(It's all about setting up the experiment correctly)
:-)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Nov 06, 2018
And then I thought....how can one be certain about anything?


Depends on just how certain is "certain." Our awareness exists as either speculation (future) or confirmation (history). While it has been argued that we exist in a "specious present", there is no actual biological evidence that such a thing exists.
https://en.wikipe..._present

(I detect a large rabbit hole approaching!)

(Rubbing hands and cackling maniacally...)

"Welcome to my home. Come on in, Deary, and meet my little friend, Noumenon..."
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
5 / 5 (1) Nov 09, 2018
Eggman,
I gotta say I find it amusing you think I'm Otto. I remember one of if not my first post our cajun Uncle Ira thought I was Zephyr or someone because I didnt understand how the paper ruled out double degenerate collisions causing a SN by measuring the impact on a 2nd star. Ira was fun. I'm a contractor for a large defense company and I spent 12.5 years between late 2001 and early 2014 in the US Air Force. I had 3 deployments to Iraq. Add that to whatever file you're tracking socks on if you like. I've been lurking here since the days of Oliver Manuel and his black hole inside the sun non-sense and only registered to post a question I was curious about. Work is busier now and I've learned to find a lot of my own answers in the paper now so I dont need to post as often.

Now lets...I'm pro-standard model, don't post psuedo science, ask legit questions, and RTFA or paper does it matter if I was a sock?
says Enthusiastic Fool

My apologies, sir.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Nov 09, 2018
No one uses Logic! No stated axiomatic structure. No Premise. Coulomb described charge that gave you the ability to see! Yet all of you are still blind. I don't know wither I should laugh or cry. This is the nonsense from the best minds! Unbelievable. There are no particles. There are no Black Holes. The Universe is not Expanding. There is no speed limit.

There are only an infinite number of infinite diametrical fields within an infinite space. If you cannot see how these fields cluster; then you are idiots! Where are we within this massive eternal Fractal!

Why are PhD'd treating garbage theory as Truth? Think school has gone to the dogs.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.