Remarkable flares from the galactic center

October 8, 2018, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
A multiwavelength view of the field around the Milky Way's galactic center seen from the X-ray (blue) through the infrared (red). Astronomers have measured flaring events at multiple wavelengths coming from the supermassive black hole at the very center. Credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/UMass/D. Wang et al.; Optical: NASA/ESA/STScI/D.Wang et al.; IR: NASA/JPL-Caltech/SSC/S.Stolovy

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 black holes. SgrA* has been observed for decades and rapid fluctuations reported from X-ray to the near infrared wavelengths (intervening dust reduces optical light signals by a factor of over a trillion) and at submillimeter and radio wavelengths. Modeling the mechanisms of light variability is a direct challenge to our understanding of accretion onto SMBHs, but it is thought that correlations between flare timing at different wavelengths could reveal information about the spatial structure, for example if hotter material is located in a smaller zone closer to the black hole. One of the chief barriers to progress is the paucity of simultaneous multi-wavelength observations.

CfA astronomers Giovanni Fazio, Joe Hora, Steve Willner, Matt Ashby, Mark Gurwell and Howard Smith and a team of colleagues carried out a series of multiwavelength monitoring campaigns that included the IRAC camera onboard the Spitzer Space Telescope and the Chandra X-ray Observatory as well as the ground-based Keck telescope and the Submillimeter Array. Spitzer was able to monitor the black hole fluctuations continuously for 23.4 hours during each session, something that no ground-based observatory is capable of doing, and something that reliably enables scientists to spot slow trends (as distinct from short bursts).

Computational modeling of the emission from the vicinity of a black hole is a complex undertaking that among other things requires simulating how the material accretes, how it is heated and radiates, and (since all this happens close to a possibly rotating black hole) how general relativity predicts the radiation will appear to distant observers. Theorists suspect that shorter wavelength emission arises closer in and cooler emission farther out, with the former produced first and the latter subsequently. A time delay therefore might reflect the distance between these zones, and indeed previous sets of observations, some by this same team, did find evidence that hot, near-infrared flaring preceded the submillimeter flares seen by the SMA. In their new paper, the scientists report on two flares that apparently violate these and other previous patterns: the first event occurred simultaneously at all wavelengths; in the second event the X-ray, near-infrared and submillimeter flares all turned on within one hour of each other, not quite simultaneous but still unexpectedly close. The new observations will be extended with future simultaneous campaigns, and will help theorists refine their still quite speculative set of choices.

Explore further: Astronomers shed surprising light on our galaxy's black hole

More information: G. G. Fazio et al. Multiwavelength Light Curves of Two Remarkable Sagittarius A* Flares, The Astrophysical Journal (2018). DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad4a2

Related Stories

Astronomers shed surprising light on our galaxy's black hole

January 10, 2006

In the most comprehensive study of Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), the enigmatic supermassive black hole in the center of the Milky Way Galaxy, astronomers -- using nine ground and space-based telescopes including the Hubble Space ...

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 ...

Finding galaxies with active nuclei

April 27, 2018

The nuclei of most galaxies host supermassive black holes with millions or even billions of solar-masses of material. Material in the vicinity of such black holes can accrete onto a torus of dust and gas around the black ...

Measuring the shape of the Milky Way's black hole

June 24, 2016

At the heart of our galaxy's center is SagA*, a supermassive black hole containing about four million solar-masses of material. SgrA* is relatively faint, unlike the supermassive black holes in some other galaxies. This is ...

Recommended for you

Mars InSight lander seen in first images from space

December 14, 2018

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

Video: Enjoying the Geminids from above and below

December 14, 2018

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

Preparing for discovery with NASA's Parker Solar Probe

December 13, 2018

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

768 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

RNP
4 / 5 (27) Oct 08, 2018
Open access copy of paper here: https://arxiv.org...7599.pdf
Benni
1.8 / 5 (21) Oct 08, 2018


"Computational modeling of the emission from the vicinity of a black hole is a complex undertaking that among other things requires simulating how the material accretes, how it is heated and radiates."

.......and we don't need to know anymore from the article beyond this, do we?
RNP
3.8 / 5 (21) Oct 08, 2018
@Benni
Your downvoting of my post linking the paper shows you to be a malevolent troll (who else would downvote such a post?).

Keep it up, becuase my ONLY reason for posting here is to demonstrate to inocent new-comers what people like you are. It makes it easier when you do the job for me.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (25) Oct 08, 2018
For anybody interested in the real science of BHs, rather than Benni's uneducated ramblings, then there was a lecture yesterday from the Perimeter Institute, regarding the Event Horizon Telescope, and its search for the EH of the SMBH at the galactic centre. Sounds like it'll be early 2019 before all the cranks have to eat humble pie. Or, more likely, make up more uneducated rubbish, as they always do when observation contradicts their dogma;

https://insidethe...=twitter

Full video = 85 mins.
RNP
3.8 / 5 (20) Oct 08, 2018
@jonesdave
Great link!

Thanks a lot.

I am going to put aside some time to watch and appreciate this one.
Benni
2 / 5 (24) Oct 08, 2018
@Benni
Your downvoting of my post linking the paper shows you to be a malevolent troll (who else would downvote such a post?).

Keep it up, becuase my ONLY reason for posting here is to demonstrate to inocent new-comers what people like you are. It makes it easier when you do the job for me.


"Computational modeling of the emission from the vicinity of a black hole is a complex undertaking that among other things requires simulating how the material accretes, how it is heated and radiates."

.......and we don't need to know anymore from the article beyond this, do we?


In your fantasy world of Pop-Cosmology, "computational modeling" is the source of everything you believe, a fantasy universe of funny farm Pop-Cosmology that denies most of the immutable laws of physics. Your entire life revolves around a keyboard instead of real science.

rrwillsj
3.3 / 5 (21) Oct 08, 2018
yes benni, you and the rest of the antiscience trolls are the victims of a vast conspiracy to prevent public awareness of how awesomely ridiculous your clown-car of cultists, hucksters and shills are.

Look out for those flying thundermugs of cream pies!
dsylvan
3.6 / 5 (20) Oct 08, 2018
@Benni


In your fantasy world of Pop-Cosmology, "computational modeling" is the source of everything you believe, a fantasy universe of funny farm Pop-Cosmology that denies most of the immutable laws of physics. Your entire life revolves around a keyboard instead of real science.

In your fantasy world of Personal-Cosmology, "self-justifying cognitive modeling" is the source of everything you believe, a fantasy universe of funny farm Pop-Cosmology that ignores most of the immutable laws of physics. Your entire life revolves around a keyboard instead of real science.

See? You're so close to the truth--if only you were capable of introspection.
rossim22
1.7 / 5 (15) Oct 08, 2018
regarding the Event Horizon Telescope, and its search for the EH of the SMBH at the galactic centre. Sounds like it'll be early 2019 before all the cranks have to eat humble pie.


What do you think the Event Horizon Telescope will show that will falsify any and all other possible explanations of the extreme luminosity at the galactic center?
jonesdave
3.1 / 5 (21) Oct 08, 2018
What do you think the Event Horizon Telescope will show that will falsify any and all other possible explanations of the extreme luminosity at the galactic center?


Errrrr, the event horizon? Just a guess.
And what other possible explanations? Links, please.
RNP
3.3 / 5 (16) Oct 08, 2018
@rossim22
What do you think the Event Horizon Telescope will show that will falsify any and all other possible explanations of the extreme luminosity at the galactic center?


If you really want an answer to this question and are actually interested in the science (explained for a non-specialist) you only have to look at the Event Horizon Telescope website:

https://eventhori.../science
RNP
3.3 / 5 (14) Oct 08, 2018
@rossim22
P.S. For fastest results, click on "Imaging a Black Hole" where yiu will find answers to your question.
rossim22
2.4 / 5 (14) Oct 08, 2018

And what other possible explanations? Links, please.


There you go again pretending like everything you think you know is concrete.
Why experiment any further? The answers are all there. No alternatives to investigate, ever.

@rossim22
If you really want an answer to this question and are actually interested in the science (explained for a non-specialist) you only have to look at the Event Horizon Telescope website:

https://eventhori.../science


Thanks, that had the reconstructions of the images expected to be produced I was looking for.

I'm excited, hope we get to see exactly what they predict.
jonesdave
2.9 / 5 (19) Oct 08, 2018
There you go again pretending like everything you think you know is concrete.
Why experiment any further? The answers are all there. No alternatives to investigate, ever.


Which is a non-answer. I was under the impression you were suggesting something other than a BH might be responsible for the observations of Sgr A*. Personally, I cannot think of any valid scientific alternative, and am not aware of any. That's all I was asking about - if you know of any. I'll take your answer to mean that you don't.

cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (15) Oct 08, 2018
https://insidethe...=twitter

Full video = 85 mins.

Awesome, some of that YouTube science, eh jonesdumb?
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (19) Oct 08, 2018
https://insidethe...=twitter

Full video = 85 mins.

Awesome, some of that YouTube science, eh jonesdumb?


Nope. Everything he said in that lecture is backed up by observations reported in the peer reviewed scientific literature.
SkyLight
3 / 5 (16) Oct 08, 2018
@jd - thanks for the link, I just watched the presentation, which was fascinating.
rrwillsj
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 08, 2018
RNP, an issue I have been brooding over for some time. Is about the whole voting scene.

Maybe back in the late eighties and early nineties when there was a relatively small community of "voters". Their opinions gad some value and could usually be relied upon for making decisions or sharing reliable information.

However, with the present inundation of opinions and un-reliable self-serving information? The entire online voting system is corrupted by a multiple of scams to manipulate public opinion and purchasing decisions.

That is why I refuse to participate. Either by up or down voting others or pumping up the stars on my own posts.

If enough people still believe that the star/voting system is worth salvaging? For a start, commentators should be disabled from pumping up stars and votes for their own postings.

Anybody have a better idea. Or just want to advance a suggestion?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (15) Oct 09, 2018
@rrwilliejoe
You can't give yourself any stars unless you slide into and out of sox the way that SpookyOtto and his gangraters rating each others' post are known to do. If you look at their posts from years ago, you will often see that their posts have 50 or more stars even when nothing to do with science. That's a lot of sliding in and out of sox. It must be of great importance to them to have 5 star ratings. Perhaps it is a status symbol that puffs up their ego.
Who knows? But it is weird.
SkyLight
3 / 5 (21) Oct 09, 2018
That is why I refuse to participate. Either by up or down voting others or pumping up the stars on my own posts
My 2 cents' worth: I hardly bother to come here any more, let alone vote, since the place is so infested with people pushing pseudoscience, or scientifically worthless theories, or their own pettiness and downright ignorance of science.

I'm talking here of people like Benni, Tuxford, cantThink, S_E_U, RealityCheck, granville and all the other self-serving maniacs here whose monickers I don't remember. Trying to participate here is like wading knee-deep through sh*t.

Old_C_Code
2.3 / 5 (16) Oct 09, 2018
Sky: oh you're so smart.
SkyLight
3.2 / 5 (18) Oct 09, 2018
Sky: oh you're so smart.
Why, thank you!
Ojorf
3.6 / 5 (15) Oct 09, 2018
Sky: oh you're so smart.


That's why Sky gets the good ratings, also why you don't.
cantdrive85
2.5 / 5 (11) Oct 09, 2018
Another day, another observation, another failure of the guesswork.
theredpill
1.8 / 5 (15) Oct 09, 2018
" and will help theorists refine their still quite speculative set of choices. "

You are not a proponent of pseudoscience if you support the above statement. You have no clue what's going on....but that's science.

".......and we don't need to know anymore from the article beyond this, do we? "

Hey Benni, that's a pseudoscientific statement. What do you mean programming a simulation using all of your own interpretations isn't science? C'mon...science is about belief that what you know is right whether it exists or not, it's about telling people who believe other than you why they're wrong...despite the lack of evidence for most of your own beliefs. Science is about starting with a preconception and fitting your observations into it no matter how impossible a fit it may be. Matter moving faster than light, infinite density/gravity, invisible matter everywhere, photons "echoing" despite the laws of their motion...it's an amazing universe....when you fabricate it.
rossim22
2 / 5 (12) Oct 09, 2018

I'm talking here of people like Benni, Tuxford, cantThink, S_E_U, RealityCheck, granville and all the other self-serving maniacs here whose monickers I don't remember. Trying to participate here is like wading knee-deep through sh*t.


So, what exactly do you think you're participating in? An open and intellectual discussion?

No. Yourself, jonesdave (especially), cantdrive, old c code, and all the others just endlessly bash each other over nothing.

You just insult and call the ideas of 'plasma cosmology' supporters pseudoscience. And that's fine, I guess, but you're not making an argument or rationalizing your thoughts at all.

You're trolling no less than you believe the EU supporters are.

P.S. It could be worse. At least supporters of the EU aren't just ripping on the author of the article like I see so often; nagging about the use of Imperial system or spelling errors.
Ojorf
3.2 / 5 (18) Oct 09, 2018
Rossim22, this is a science site.
Pseudoscience is called that for a reason, it masquerades as science without conforming to what is known as fact.
Pseudoscience should not be tolerated here and if we still had moderators, posters like "Benni, Tuxford, cantThink, S_E_U, RealityCheck, granville" would have long been banned.

People who cal them out on their nonsense are doing everyone a huge favor.
rossim22
2.3 / 5 (14) Oct 09, 2018
Ojorf, that is one of the most unscientific posts I've read on this site.

What about dissenting opinions? And I see commonly accepted inferences here, such as dark matter, black holes, etc., that are called facts. Are you regarding those as facts?

If you think that's true, then you are WRONG. Dark matter may exist due to many observations, models, and reasoning used in the current dogma, but it is certainly not FACT at this point in time.

If commenters can only agree with what's written in these articles, or face charges of spreading pseudoscience, then why have comments at all?

I suppose so viewers can scroll down and read, "oh, golly... this is some great, real science here" or "I agree with everything said above ^^^ ".
SkyLight
3 / 5 (20) Oct 09, 2018
You just insult and call the ideas of 'plasma cosmology' supporters pseudoscience. And that's fine, I guess, but you're not making an argument or rationalizing your thoughts at all
I don't need to rationalize anything - it's all in the scientific literature, for anybody to read.

And yes - I do call "plasma cosmology" pseudoscience, since that is what it is. It's a collection of hearsay and make-believe science-sounding stuff dreamed up by a few guys and swallowed by a small army of poorly-trained and -educated people for whom it sounds just right.

PC/EU publishes no peer-reviewed literature, makes its' claims only on pop-science websites, or on forums like this one, or tedious, and very expensive Youtube videos making ridiculous statements supported by nothing but edict. It has no math and makes no quantitative predictions at all - only easily-duped fools would argue that all that constitutes a science. Those properly trained in science know it for what it is... hogwash.
rossim22
1.8 / 5 (16) Oct 09, 2018
I don't need to rationalize anything - it's all in the scientific literature, for anybody to read.


Awesome, then don't comment.

And yes - I do call "plasma cosmology" pseudoscience, since that is what it is. It's a collection of hearsay and make-believe science-sounding stuff dreamed up by a few guys and swallowed by a small army of poorly-trained and -educated people for whom it sounds just right.


You can be poorly educated and still believe black holes exist. That doesn't have any affect on validity of some of the ideas.

PC/EU publishes no peer-reviewed literature... Those properly trained in science know it for what it is... hogwash.

The peers have a foot in the game. They have their own papers written which represents their own ideas and life's work. They aren't going to support a dissenting perspective.

And to correct you, those properly trained in science know it for what it is... that it might be hogwash.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (20) Oct 09, 2018
If commenters can only agree with what's written in these articles, or face charges of spreading pseudoscience, then why have comments at all?


Because the people commenting are bloody clueless. And when pressed for alternatives, they either have none, or the crap they believe is so totally unscientific that it doesn't merit a second's contemplation. Why do you think all these wooists end up on places like this? Because they don't have the scientific knowledge, nor qualifications, to make a coherent argument on a physics forum or, heaven forfend, in an actual scientific paper.
And don't give me this crap about vested interests - that is just more of the EU dogma via the idiot Thornhill. Eric Lerner was recently published in MNRAS, and MOND papers get published regularly. EU/PC wouldn't get published purely because it is totally unscientific nonsense.
SkyLight
2.7 / 5 (17) Oct 09, 2018
And to correct you, those properly trained in science know it for what it is... that it might be hogwash
It's indisputably hogwash if it cannot be disproved.

BH's, DM, DE, also might be hogwash, but at some point in the future, they will either be proven or disproved by rigorous scientific investigation based on quantitative analysis of measurements - numbers - that's what science does.

PC/EU can make no quantitative predictions, since it has no math at all, and hence can neither be proven or disproved. It's not science, it's Disneyland with a lot of myth and hot air thrown in to impress the impressionable.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (16) Oct 09, 2018
.....that it might be hogwash.


No, it is most definitely hogwash. Ask a real scientist if you don't believe me.
Ojorf
3.2 / 5 (18) Oct 09, 2018
What about dissenting opinions?

Dissenting opinions are great, as long as one of the opinions does not contradict known science.
If it contradicts known science it's pseudoscience.
There is plenty of unsettled science to discuss, pseudoscience detracts from that when the comments get flooded by nonsense.
And I see commonly accepted inferences here, such as dark matter, black holes, etc., that are called facts. Are you regarding those as facts?

Yes, they are indeed facts, even if not directly observed.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, flies like a duck, eats like a duck...
You can be poorly educated and still believe black holes exist. That doesn't have any affect on validity of some of the ideas.

Sure, but some posters here refuse to be educated, even when repeatedly pointed in the right direction.
They aren't going to support a dissenting perspective.

It's not a perspective if it contradicts known science, it's BS.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (16) Oct 09, 2018
No. Yourself, jonesdave (especially), cantdrive, old c code, and all the others just endlessly bash each other over nothing.


Wrong. I will back up anything I say with reference to the scientific literature. That is something EUists never do. Somebody wants to claim the Sun is powered by electric woo? I'll tell them why that is wrong and, if necessary, link to the science to back it up. Ditto with Venus flying out of Jupiter. Or the solar wind not being quasi-neutral. Or arguments that GR isn't necessary for GPS. All that happens when I do that, is that some moron, with no qualifications, calls the authors of those papers ignoramuses, or pop cosmologists.. Given what said moron/s actually believe/s, this is somewhat ironic, don't you think?
Do you not see why scientifically qualified and/ or literate people get fed up with untutored, posing wannabes like them?

rossim22
2.8 / 5 (12) Oct 09, 2018
then why have comments at all?


Because the people commenting are bloody clueless. And when pressed for alternatives, they either have none, or the crap they believe is so totally unscientific that it doesn't merit a second's contemplation.


I agree. Many of the EU supporters are layman science enthusiasts that merely spew what they think they have heard or read any time they see the word 'electric'. And a lot of it is wrong.

A lot of the EU's model I don't agree with at this time. But bits and pieces of it do seem more accurate or less ad hoc than the more standard interpretations.
IwinUlose
3.2 / 5 (13) Oct 09, 2018
It's not a perspective if it contradicts known science, it's BS.

Having read your comments I'm sure you know this and just left out the phrasing:
It's not a perspective if it contradicts known science without a proof, it's BS.

Known science tends to welcome verification, but, aforementioned pseudoscience posters will jump on a minor point like that to decry their 'woe and victimhood' with much waving of arms and nouns and verbs in ALL CAPS.
rossim22
2.3 / 5 (13) Oct 09, 2018
It's indisputably hogwash if it cannot be disproved.

BH's, DM, DE, also might be hogwash, but at some point in the future, they will either be proven or disproved by rigorous scientific investigation

You are severely contradicting yourself here.

You're saying that the EU (which I myself do not agree entirely with) is 'hogwash' because it cannot be disproved.

Please tell me how anyone could ever disprove dark matter. I'll wait.

That's my biggest gripe. As I've said before, I'm less of an EU supporter and more of a standard model skeptic. If a theory is not falsifiable it's not a theory.


Dissenting opinions are great, as long as one of the opinions does not contradict known science.
If it contradicts known science it's pseudoscience.

Every published theory has been "known science" at one point. Check out the Ptolemaic model.

https://www.khana...picycles
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (18) Oct 09, 2018
But bits and pieces of it do seem more accurate or less ad hoc than the more standard interpretations.


I'm fairly conversant with their neo-Velikovskian, mythology-based woo. I've yet to see anything that made me think..."oooh, that might be possible."
Perhaps you can elaborate. Forget the scientifically impossible Velikovskian crap, and other nonsense that is also impossible, such as electric comets, electric stars, electric cratering, etc. What is left?

SkyLight
2.8 / 5 (18) Oct 09, 2018
Please tell me how anyone could ever disprove dark matter
Not my job, that's what the cosmologists, astrophysicists and particle physicists are trying to do right now. Read the literature, follow the arguments, follow the steady elimination of "what it's not" to hopefully reveal what it is. Or not, since it may just be that GR needs to be expanded in scope, or replaced by something else, and there are a whole bunch of scientists trying that approach right now as I write.

I'm frankly sick and tired of hearing the same old gripes about these topics from people who have read somewhere that BHs, DM and DE ARE hogwash, and just don't bother to read the literature, or are too dim to understand it even if they do. I myself, personally, have doubts about DM and DE also, but until they're finally disproved, or shown to be unnecessary by better math or scientific models or theories, I'll defend the efforts of all the scientists working on these problems to the last. So there.
rossim22
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 09, 2018
Not my job, that's what the cosmologists, astrophysicists and particle physicists are trying to do right now.

Again, if you feel like you're only here to 'participate' in the bashing of others, then just keep your fingers off of the keyboard. Since it's never your job to do any thinking, just regurgitation.

From your stance, there should be zero comments on any scientific forum outside of "Yeah, go figure it out Dr. So-and-so" or "Ugh! Why is the author reporting in lbs and not kg?!"
I myself, personally, have doubts about DM and DE also, but until they're finally disproved.. I'll defend the efforts of all the scientists working on these problems to the last. So there.

This is a meaningless, backwards statement.

So, you and I both have our doubts about DM and DE. I choose to just comment here and invite dissenting rebuttals (from the standard model) while you elect to go into hiding until scientists 'do their job.'

That's a fine (but meaningless) strategy.
cantdrive85
2.7 / 5 (12) Oct 09, 2018
I'm fairly conversant with their neo-Velikovskian

Far from the truth, you need half the words of the English language to have an additional 'jonesdumb definition' in order to 'prove' you right.
rossim22
3 / 5 (10) Oct 09, 2018
^^^
*facepalm*
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (15) Oct 09, 2018
I'm fairly conversant with their neo-Velikovskian

Far from the truth, you need half the words of the English language to have an additional 'jonesdumb definition' in order to 'prove' you right.


I don't need to prove anything, woo boy. That is up to the unpublished, unqualified cranks. How long has EU been going now? Achieved the square root of sod all, hasn't it?
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (16) Oct 09, 2018
So, you and I both have our doubts about DM and DE. I choose to just comment here and invite dissenting ***rebuttals**** (from the standard model)...


And now we are back to what I mentioned previously - there is nothing to rebut. Nothing is presented, nothing is linked to. How can you diss DM, yet present no scientifically viable alternative? Are you batting for MOND? In which case there may be a discussion to be had. However, various flavours of that have been killed stone dead by the neutron star merger proving that the speed of light and the 'speed' of gravity are the same. As far as I understand it, the remaining, remotely feasible models, require DM! Just not as much as standard theory.
It sounds like far more of a fudge than DM. And Peratt's nonsense is not worthy of consideration. I don't know what else there is.

jonesdave
2.4 / 5 (17) Oct 09, 2018
From your stance, there should be zero comments on any scientific forum outside of "Yeah, go figure it out Dr. So-and-so" or "Ugh! Why is the author reporting in lbs and not kg?!"


Wrong. There are (or were, before the crank infestation) a number of scientifically literate people here. Some stuff is very speculative, and within mainstream science there will be those in favour and those against. A scientific discussion can easily be had. Although this is not the ideal place, given the post limits.
This is not what we get, however. When evidence is pointed to to refute simplistic nonsense, such as "it's electric", all we get back is that the authors of all the contrary evidence are ignorant! That is not a scientific discussion. It is cultism, dogma and, as even Anthony Peratt called it, anti-science.
Cosmoquest (aka BAUT) got it right in my opinion. Sure, post your alternative 'theories', but be prepared to defend them with science. Otherwise, toodle-oo

jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (14) Oct 09, 2018
But bits and pieces of it do seem more accurate or less ad hoc than the more standard interpretations.


I'm fairly conversant with their neo-Velikovskian, mythology-based woo. I've yet to see anything that made me think..."oooh, that might be possible."
Perhaps you can elaborate. Forget the scientifically impossible Velikovskian crap, and other nonsense that is also impossible, such as electric comets, electric stars, electric cratering, etc. What is left?



I guess the answer to this question will remain a mystery! To summarise - there is nothing remotely scientific about EU woo. On any subject. It is the domain of fruitcakes and mythologists. There is nobody within the cult worth listening to. Which is why nobody does. Listen, that is. Whatever EU is, it is not science.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 09, 2018
@rossim22

"What do you think the Event Horizon Telescope will show that will falsify any and all other possible explanations of the extreme luminosity at the galactic center?"
rossim22 asked

P.S. For fastest results, click on "Imaging a Black Hole" where yiu will find answers to your question.
says RNP

That "Imaging a Black Hole" page is a big disappointment, where a large part of it is an analogy to music notes on a keyboard, as though it explains how the "gaps in an image" of a Black Hole with an interpretation through music notes should be sufficient to satisfy the expectations that an ACTUAL IMAGE of a Black Hole has been gotten by the EHV, when no such thing has occurred.

Perhaps a few dozen more EHV's should be built forthwith so that the blackened areas in images will finally be reevaluated and made true.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (15) Oct 09, 2018
@rossim22

"What do you think the Event Horizon Telescope will show that will falsify any and all other possible explanations of the extreme luminosity at the galactic center?"
rossim22 asked

P.S. For fastest results, click on "Imaging a Black Hole" where yiu will find answers to your question.
says RNP

That "Imaging a Black Hole" page is a big disappointment, where a large part of it is an analogy to music notes on a keyboard, as though it explains how the "gaps in an image" of a Black Hole with an interpretation through music notes should be sufficient to satisfy the expectations that an ACTUAL IMAGE of a Black Hole has been gotten by the EHV, when no such thing has occurred.

Perhaps a few dozen more EHV's should be built forthwith so that the blackened areas in images will finally be reevaluated and made true.


Dafuq?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 09, 2018


"Computational modeling of the emission from the vicinity of a black hole is a complex undertaking that among other things requires simulating how the material accretes, how it is heated and radiates."

.......and we don't need to know anymore from the article beyond this, do we?

says Benni

More computer modeling - more artists' impressions in other articles - more simulations - more newly conceived algorithms = they might as well produce a photo of a roaring fire within a stone fireplace or as a .gif to show how it is heated and radiates = ad nauseam.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 09, 2018
@rossim22

"What do you think the Event Horizon Telescope will show that will falsify any and all other possible explanations of the extreme luminosity at the galactic center?"
rossim22 asked

P.S. For fastest results, click on "Imaging a Black Hole" where yiu will find answers to your question.
says RNP

That "Imaging a Black Hole" page is a big disappointment, where a large part of it is an analogy to music notes on a keyboard, as though it explains how the "gaps in an image" of a Black Hole with an interpretation through music notes should be sufficient to satisfy the expectations that an ACTUAL IMAGE of a Black Hole has been gotten by the EHV, when no such thing has occurred.

Perhaps a few dozen more EHV's should be built forthwith so that the blackened areas in images will finally be reevaluated and made true.


Dafuq?
says jones

Yet another example of jones' brilliance.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (15) Oct 09, 2018
^^^^^^No, another example of some eejit talking shite. About a subject in which he is untutored. Correct? Stick to clay men, creationist boy. Yes, thicko?
valeriy_polulyakh
2.4 / 5 (10) Oct 09, 2018
In search of black holes and dark matter astrophysicists are relying on indirect observations. It would seem that the measurement of the event horizon of a black hole directly would be a direct evidence. However, by the nature of a horizon, any real measurement of the event horizon will be indirect. The Event Horizon Telescope will get picture of the silhouette of the Sgr A* which is due to optical effects of spacetime outside of the event horizon. The result will be determined by the simple quality of the resulting image that does not depend on the properties of the spacetime within the image. So, it will be also indirect and an existence of BH is a hypothesis.
https://www.acade...ilky_Way
jonesdave
1.9 / 5 (13) Oct 09, 2018
In search of black holes and dark matter astrophysicists are relying on indirect observations. It would seem that the measurement of the event horizon of a black hole directly would be a direct evidence. However, by the nature of a horizon, any real measurement of the event horizon will be indirect. The Event Horizon Telescope will get picture of the silhouette of the Sgr A* which is due to optical effects of spacetime outside of the event horizon. The result will be determined by the simple quality of the resulting image that does not depend on the properties of the spacetime within the image. So, it will be also indirect and an existence of BH is a hypothesis.
https://www.acade...ilky_Way


Where was that crap published?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 09, 2018
^^^^^^No, another example of some eejit talking shite. About a subject in which he is untutored. Correct? Stick to clay men, creationist boy. Yes, thicko?
says jones

Oh DO continue giving us more examples of your brilliance, as a graduate of the U of Auckland Astronomy (based) Club.
Unlike jones, I can do two or more things at once. Whereas, jones finds it difficult to rub his tummy while patting his head and walking in a straight line. Poor jones.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (12) Oct 09, 2018
Hmmpf It seems that jones has taken a break to practice rubbing his tummy while patting his head and walking in a straight line. I'll bet that he still can't do it. Nor can he provide us with proof of the existence of Dark Matter/Energy and Black Holes.
cantdrive85
2.7 / 5 (11) Oct 09, 2018
Dark matter, the evidence free zone. The black hole, yet another evidence free zone. Dark energy, ditto on the evidence. 96% of the Universe is an evidence free zone, but just trust us and send billions more.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 09, 2018
Yes, and we absolutely must have thousands, if not millions more Physicists, Astronomers and pub keepers (bar tenders in the US) to keep us all up to date on their theorem of how invisible Matter can remain invisible when they say that sometimes the invisibility of Dark Matter interacts with normal Matter, and sometimes it won't - all due to gravity that isn't there.

Mindboggling, it is.
Old_C_Code
3 / 5 (8) Oct 10, 2018
"And what other possible explanations? Links, please."

JonesDav; why does the (very very weak) galactic magnetic field exist?
Ojorf
3 / 5 (12) Oct 10, 2018
Please tell me how anyone could ever disprove dark matter. I'll wait.
That's my biggest gripe.

Easy.
Imagine if there was some invisible matter in the universe, what would it's effects be?
It might affect galaxy rotation curves.
Stars in bound systems might not follow the virial theorem.
It's gravity might bend light and produce lensing.
It would have affected the CMB.
It would have affected the formation of large structures in the early universe.
etc. etc.
It should not be too difficult to disprove the existence of DM. Think of a visible effect it might have on the universe and see what the data implies. If the data implies DM does exist, see if there might be a way to explain it without invoking the existence of invisible matter.
No single theory can explain (or even get close) all the observations, EXCEPT postulating the existence of DM.
So yes, DM is a fact and has a very visible impact on the evolution/behaviour of the universe.
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 10, 2018
@rossim
Please tell me how anyone could ever disprove dark matter. I'll wait.
That's my biggest gripe.

Easy.

of course, to piggy back on the @Ojorf post...
https://arxiv.org...1783.pdf

https://arxiv.org...4175.pdf

https://arxiv.org...0003.pdf

https://arxiv.org...3201.pdf

search the scholar database for "Constraints dark matter" and get "About 1,840,000 results (0.15 sec)"

SkyLight
2.5 / 5 (16) Oct 10, 2018
So, you and I both have our doubts about DM and DE. I choose to just comment here and invite dissenting rebuttals (from the standard model) while you elect to go into hiding until scientists 'do their job'
I really don't care what you choose to do, although I note that you're exceedingly proud of whatever it is that you 'do' here.

If you go through the record of what I've written in this forum, you'll see that I don't just 'go into hiding' until scientists do something. My beef is that so many of the commentators here are not trained scientists and push pulp fiction masquerading as science. And that makes visiting this forum a chore at times.

I'm all for alternative theories, as long as they're couched in the language and methodologies of science, and their proponents publish in peer-reviewed journals. So, I'm certainly open to new ideas, but the shiploads of crap spewed by the Benni's and the Tuxford's and the EUdiots just don't qualify.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (15) Oct 10, 2018
So who died and left YOU with the keys to this website? Where do you get off to badmouth the people who come to this public science website to read the comments and submit their own opinions also. It is those people like Captain Chickenshit and SpookyOtto and their asinine demands who have given a bad name to physorg that makes it impossible for new people to feel good about commenting in these forums lest they be badmouthed too.

99% of the people who comment in these forums are not "rocket scientists", physicists, career astronomers or theorists. If that's the kind of people you're looking for, then you are in the wrong place. Some of those here, like Ojorf, and the two mentioned above, are only here to cause trouble, and they are very good at that.

You have the option to click the IGNORE button if you are offended by any person or their comment. Use it. Otherwise, don't keep bitching about what you read from others. You are no longer in kindergarten.
Ojorf
3 / 5 (14) Oct 10, 2018
^^^
Like I said, you ignoramus, educated opinions are valued.
Uneducated opinions are fine as well, as long as the person is willing to have a rational discussion about the subject and is willing to fill in the gaps in their education to reach a greater understanding.

It is only when a poster repeatedly refuses to have a rational discussion or to learn anything new about the subject that people get pissed off at them. How many times must different posters explain the same thing to the same person before they realize this individual is not here because of a passion and interest in science, but rather to stoke argument and discourse?

It is after only a few posts blatantly obvious which posters are lacking in knowledge on a particular subject, but willing to learn and which are here for .....

I don't even know why they are here, you tell me.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (14) Oct 10, 2018

SkyLight said:
I'm all for alternative theories, as long as they're couched in the language and methodologies of science, and their proponents publish in peer-reviewed journals. So, I'm certainly open to new ideas, but the shiploads of crap spewed by the Benni's and the Tuxford's and the EUdiots just don't qualify.


and then Ojorf says:

Like I said, you ignoramus, educated opinions are valued.
Uneducated opinions are fine as well, as long as the person is willing to have a rational discussion about the subject and is willing to fill in the gaps in their education to reach a greater understanding.


It looks like we have a match -==- Ojorf and SkyLight are one and the same person!!!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (14) Oct 10, 2018
Oh wait.
I omitted these 3 little cat's ears that jonesdave always seem to preface his comments with, more or less, before unleashing his ad hominem.

"^^^
Like I said, you ignoramus, educated opinions are valued."

My oh my - could it be that Ojorf and SkyLight are manifestations of jonesdave's alter egos?
You decide.
granville583762
2.3 / 5 (15) Oct 10, 2018
Skylight waxing lyrical, reminiscing in starry clubs of fives
Skylight> My 2 cents' worth: I hardly bother to come here anymore, let alone vote, since the place is so infested with people pushing pseudoscience, or scientifically worthless theories, or their own pettiness and downright ignorance of science.
I'm talking here of people like Benni, Tuxford, cantThink, S_E_U, RealityCheck, granville and all the other self-serving maniacs here whose monickers I don't remember. Trying to participate here is like wading knee-deep through sh*t.

The source of all the evil spiteful hatred of a well intentioned starry cub of fives, as all well intentioned systems of rating of quality, in the end their paths always end in evil hatred of intentions as were never envisaged nor were intended, but reality always rears its ugly head Skylight, your perception is physic in its absolute truth
p.s. Skylight, you forgot the master of obscenities that is JD.
Ojorf
3.1 / 5 (13) Oct 10, 2018
It looks like we have a match -==- Ojorf and SkyLight are one and the same person!!!


Still waiting for you to get something correct in your posts.

My oh my - could it be that Ojorf and SkyLight are manifestations of jonesdave's alter egos?
You decide.


OMG you got something right!
Oops, no, my mistake.
Still as far off the track as ever.

Do things just pop into your mind at random?
SkyLight
2.8 / 5 (13) Oct 10, 2018
Doesn't matter how many times people say evil, or ignoramus here, it's all water off the back of a person - me - with two decades of hands-on engineering experience, a University degree in Applied Mathematics and Physics, three decades of experience in programming, database administration and website design, creation and maintenance, two decades of rock-climbing and mountaineering and a first-class ham-radio license.

I've been around, and seen things and done stuff the like of which some of you can only dream. So, bring it on, pissy-pants.

And I'll have you know that The Captain is worth ten of you, S_E_U, any day, since he's careful with the truth, does his research, and is a good and decent person all round.

The fact that you cannot recognize that says *volumes* about you, S_E_U. So, do us all a favor, tone down the invective, and actually go and get yourself a decent education in science, not a rag-bag of ideas scraped from popularized science books and dubious websites.
SkyLight
2.7 / 5 (14) Oct 10, 2018
you forgot the master of obscenities that is JD
Now, here's a thing, SEU - @jd is a trained scientist, coming in to this website looking for news and sensible comments on science, perhaps with a particular interest in astronomy-based science, since that's what he has a degree in.

He's a scientist - a *person* who comes here hoping to find reasoned discussion, not necessarily by or amongst scientists themselves, but discussion based at least on a decent understanding of science - real science.

What does he find? - He finds people like you SEU, and the Benni's etc., screaming at the top of their voices that this or that person is a scumbag, or is evil, and so on.

Now, some people can take that kind of thing all day long, and just shrug it off. Others, however, have a shorter fuse, and maybe write a lot of stuff they later regret, including obscenities. Been there, done that.

So, people are people, they're fallible, and we should understand that and be more forgiving...
granville583762
2.5 / 5 (13) Oct 10, 2018
Interesting
you forgot the master of obscenities that is JD

SkyLight> Now, here's a thing, SEU - @jd is a trained scientist, coming in to this website looking for news and sensible comments on science, perhaps with a particular interest in astronomy-based science, since that's what he has a degree in...

A knight's move transgression
SkyLight
2.8 / 5 (8) Oct 10, 2018
Ever the artist with words, granville...
granville583762
2.5 / 5 (13) Oct 10, 2018
When a golden girl can win
Prayer from out the lips of sin,
When the barren almond bears,
And a little child gives away its tears,
Then shall all the house be still
And peace come to Canterville.
And little children flock to hear JD wax lyrical in scientific words.
SkyLight> Ever the artist with words, granville...

Thank you Skylight, when all the world is falling round, no matter what occurs in the vacuum around, I'm always here reassuring, inquisitive, questioning and as you put it so eloquently, Skylight, as ever the artist with words, as coming from your good self is praise indeed, as one day in time that day will come when from the lips of sin that is JD, will little children flock to hear JD wax lyrical in scientific words as we all know only JD can!
SkyLight
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 10, 2018
When a golden girl can win
Prayer from out the lips of sin...
I shall weep for you for your sins, @granville...
granville583762
2.8 / 5 (13) Oct 10, 2018
This deluge of tears is siege in its torrents
When a golden girl can win
Prayer from out the lips of sin...
I shall weep for you for your sins, @granville...

Be you prepaid of copious weeping Oh Skylight, as this deluge of tears is siege in its torrents, driven by irrepressible force from the lips of sin that once we knew not of this sin as it grew out of not what we knew into its present apparition, that now apparently knows no bounds
This deluge of tears is siege in its torrents, is by its floods of H2O, is driving from the lips of sin before it to oceans of vastness of wastes to dilution as to oblivion to be no more.

As only a golden girl can win, and then the silence will be truly golden!
SkyLight
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 10, 2018
You are one of those online robots which trip out nonsense at the drop of a hat, @granville, and I claim my $10!
granville583762
2.8 / 5 (13) Oct 10, 2018
Those gilded autumn colours of enumeration
You are one of those online robots which trip out nonsense at the drop of a hat, @granville, and I claim my $10!

Oh, that glittering golden stars of that baseity of enumeration does not come cheap Skylight, as only benefactors have the where with means at their disposal in those golden flakes that glitter in the fairy dust fading sunbeams of autumn evenings, as to enumeration is beyond my means as you will have to turn to your benefactor who is showering your baseity of enumeration as we speak in golden words as though benefactor and enumerated are one
SkyLight
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 10, 2018
Here: anybody can play the game of quoting some other person's work without being gracious enough to acknowledge the debt:
...and the duncledames have countered with the hellish fel-lows: Who ails tongue coddeau, aspace of dumbillsilly? And they fell upong one another: and themselves they have fallen.
SkyLight
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 10, 2018
that glittering golden stars of that baseity of enumeration does not come cheap
Yes, I can well imagine those psychotropic substances you're taking like M&M's would cost a pretty penny...
granville583762
2.8 / 5 (13) Oct 10, 2018
Oh, the power of Golden Words Skylight, and the club of starry fives.

Not long did it take in those torrents of tears that there was not even time for a single tear to pass between those trembling lashes for those starry stars of the club of fives to rear its ugly head once again!
granville583762
2.8 / 5 (13) Oct 10, 2018
As examples are to be set Skylight

You must have noticed Skylight, the benefit of the doubt being placed by not one single singular star in its isolation being warded of prize, as the general consensus is their starry existence has passed its sensibility of purpose, as examples are to be set Skylight, which was beholden to you to explain this to your benefactor!
granville583762
3 / 5 (12) Oct 10, 2018
Skylight waxing lyrical, reminiscing in starry clubs of fives
Skylight> My 2 cents' worth: I hardly bother to come here anymore, let alone vote, since the place is so infested with people pushing pseudoscience, or scientifically worthless theories, or their own pettiness and downright ignorance of science.
I'm talking here of people like Benni, Tuxford, cantThink, S_E_U, RealityCheck, granville and all the other self-serving maniacs here whose monickers I don't remember. Trying to participate here is like wading knee-deep through sh*t

The source of all the evil spiteful hatred of a well intentioned starry cub of fives, as all well intentioned systems of rating of quality, in the end their paths always end in evil hatred of intentions as were never envisaged nor were intended, but reality always rears its ugly head Skylight, your perception is physic in its absolute truth
p.s. Skylight, you forgot the master of obscenities that is JD

Where we began Skylight
SkyLight
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 10, 2018
You care about the "stars", or the votes given? - this is actually important to you?
granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Oct 10, 2018
Remaining in the quantum fluctuations
Skylight > You care about the "stars", or the votes given? - this is actually important to you?

On first entering this starry club of fives I knew not of its existence as the the golden word was all that was only required, as no ratings of system existed, as no one could act as benefactor, to berate was as only in inky textural form and no more and no less was required with spectacular calming effects.
You appear to be agreeing it would be better if like days of old it remained where it belongs in the quantum fluctuations!
I believe JD, without those glittering stars that day will would all ways have been, that little children always flock to hear JD wax lyrical in scientific words.
But you know sadly, that all though no filters exist on this site, JDs melodious tones are not for gentle ears!
IwinUlose
3.1 / 5 (11) Oct 10, 2018
So who died and left YOU with the keys to this website? Where do you get off to badmouth the people who come to this public science website to read the comments and submit their own opinions also. It is those people like Captain Chickenshit and SpookyOtto and their asinine demands who have given a bad name to physorg that makes it impossible for new people to feel good about commenting in these forums lest they be badmouthed too.

99% of the people who comment in these forums are not "rocket scientists", physicists, career astronomers or theorists. If that's the kind of people you're looking for, then you are in the wrong place. Some of those here, like Ojorf, and the two mentioned above, are only here to cause trouble, and they are very good at that.

You have the option to click the IGNORE button if you are offended by any person or their comment. Use it. Otherwise, don't keep bitching about what you read from others. You are no longer in kindergarten.

Comment guidelines
SkyLight
2.7 / 5 (12) Oct 10, 2018
JDs melodious tones are not for gentle ears!
Cut the guy some slack, it's no wonder he loses it when faced with the mountains of crap shovelled his way by the way-more-than-five 'roaches infesting this place. And as IWinULose implies, grow a pair...
IwinUlose
2.8 / 5 (11) Oct 10, 2018
@SEU

It's like you've never read them. Everything in the comment from SEU that I quoted above is like a checklist running counter to the rules of posting in the comments section here.
IwinUlose
2.8 / 5 (11) Oct 10, 2018
If someone wants to opine about demons and creationism and all the crazy things science won't touch with a 10 foot pole there's a whole great big internet out there with many forums dedicated to just that.
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (13) Oct 10, 2018
Every one holds the keys to this site
IwinUlose> So who died and left YOU with the keys to this website? Where do you get off to badmouth the people who come to this public science website to read the comments and submit their own opinions

Unless you want this to an X Rated Site IwinUlose, where you have to use your credit card details of age verification, it is beholden to you as a member of a very exclusive scientific club to respectfully consider there is no age limit, you point out "99% of the people who comment in these forums are not "rocket scientists""they are also children, school children, pupils, why should they be banned from this site because melodious tones are not for gentle ears! This site is for every ones perusal, IwinUlose!
theredpill
2.9 / 5 (14) Oct 10, 2018
"Cut the guy some slack, it's no wonder he loses it when faced with the mountains of crap shovelled his way by the way-more-than-five 'roaches infesting this place."

"The guy" loses it when anyone disagrees with him and won't acknowledge when he has made a mistake, and like most mainstream supporters can't handle the naked truth about the "science" they support. You guys react to perfectly warranted skepticism of mainstream theories as though you have a personal stake in their success.

" And as IWinULose implies, grow a pair..."

Growing a pair would be acknowledging the cause of others skepticism, having a pair is voicing the skepticism...you are requesting he castrate himself (just go along Jerry, go along....)

Benni
2.1 / 5 (15) Oct 10, 2018
> Skyhigh
Doesn't matter how many times people say evil, or ignoramus here, it's all water off the back of a person - me - with two decades of hands-on engineering experience, a University degree in Applied Mathematics and Physics, three decades of experience in programming, database administration and website design, creation and maintenance, two decades of rock-climbing and mountaineering and a first-class ham-radio license.


So, does this mean you are well educated enough to comprehend that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is not Earthbound & that it extends to the entirety of the closed boundary Universe?

During my six years in Engineering School studying Nuclear/Electrical Engineering plus almost 2 years of Continuing Education credits beyond that, I learned a lot about what makes the Universe function. I can design a nuclear reactor system or put together a Gamma Spectroscopy Lab & design myriads of electronic circuitry.

rossim22
2.3 / 5 (12) Oct 10, 2018
Please tell me how anyone could ever disprove dark matter. I'll wait.
That's my biggest gripe.

Easy.
Imagine if there was some invisible matter in the universe, what would it's effects be?
It might affect galaxy rotation curves.
Stars in bound systems might not follow the virial theorem.
It's gravity might bend light and produce lensing.
It would have affected the CMB.
etc...


LOL

It's obvious you aren't clear on what 'disprove' means.

Mentioning all the ways in which dark matter is inferred based upon indirect observations only proves my point.

I'll try to ask again... is dark matter falsifiable?

If a theory is unfalsifiable then you are left with pseudoscience.

Dark matter was conjured as an ad hoc theory to solve the galaxy rotation problem.
The glorious element of DM is that it is not only invisible, it cannot be directly observed in any way. It can only be inferred from how scientists observe 'real matter' moving against GR predictions.
theredpill
2.8 / 5 (13) Oct 10, 2018
" It can only be inferred from how scientists observe 'real matter' moving against GR predictions."

GR has no provision for matter accelerating away from a gravitational source. Watching a CME detach from the surface of the sun, THEN accelerate through the corona, is an indication that gravity is overcome by the only other force present. The equations of GR do not account for this, hence why they have to place mass in a cloud or "halo" outside the galaxy. To put it simply they have to balance an attractive force in one direction with an attractive force in the opposite. The percentage of DM they came up with is a direct result of the volume of space they are forced to use for the math. Completely ad hoc way of doing it.
Ojorf
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 10, 2018


LOL

It's obvious you aren't clear on what 'disprove' means.

Mentioning all the ways in which dark matter is inferred based upon indirect observations only proves my point.

I'll try to ask again... is dark matter falsifiable?


LOL, and you don't seem to understand that DM cannot be falsified in the way you want it to be, since we have way too many indirect observations of it's effects.
Something is causing those effects.

It's either DM or GR is seriously wrong (and GR is not seriously wrong no matter what Benni or theredpill says).

;-)

Benni
2.1 / 5 (14) Oct 10, 2018
LOL, and you don't seem to understand that DM cannot be falsified in the way you want it to be


......of course not, Pop-Cosmology has it's rules of fantasy funny farm science on which plantation you live, then there's the rest of us.
rossim22
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 10, 2018
No... the problem is DM cannot be falsified in any way.
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (11) Oct 10, 2018
@rossim
No... the problem is DM cannot be falsified in any way.
wrong
perhaps you missed the additional data I provided?

DM is falsifiable - science has taken observational evidence in addition to known physics, properties and experimental data from places like CERN and presented a means to eliminate regular baryonic matter as well as limit the possibilities of what DM could be

that means, by definition, that it is falsifiable

see also: definition of "Constraint"

Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (10) Oct 10, 2018
@rossim cont'd
What about dissenting opinions? And I see commonly accepted inferences here, such as dark matter, black holes, etc., that are called facts. Are you regarding those as facts?
dissenting opinions are only valid in science when they're supported by evidence, and usually that depends upon the users ability to comprehend said evidence

When cantdrive uses lab tests of metal scarring to justify cratering on the moon, that is a failure of the reader to comprehend scale, evidence, and so much more as there is absolutely no mechanism or observation that validates his claim. Moreover, there would be easily identifiable evidence left over for scientists to examine

See also: http://www.auburn...ion.html

as to the latter: those facts are supported by observation, prediction, scientific theory (which is different than colloquial theory) as well as the ability to make predictions which are subsequently observed
theredpill
2.6 / 5 (13) Oct 10, 2018
"(and GR is not seriously wrong no matter what Benni or theredpill says)."

An opinion...but it does come down to one of two possibilities. DM exists or GR is wrong. This is why I cited the example I did and referred to GR's shortcoming in describing motion in that it has no way of dealing with a repulsive force. The most gravitationally influential body in the solar system cannot hold onto a portion of it's own mass that separates from it's surface, and not only can it not hold it, but said mass is then accelerated away due to the only other force possible. This is observational evidence of gravity being overwhelmed at close range by another force, if BH's do exist as theorized, their jets would be another example.

So Ojorf, your statement that there is nothing wrong with a theory of motion when said theory cannot deal with countless observations of phenomenon that it can't describe is obviously incorrect. But we model the universe with it...and need DM so it works.
granville583762
2.8 / 5 (13) Oct 10, 2018
Our 4million solar mass blackhole in battle with its asteroid snack, of mere kilograms.

Sagittarius A* at 26,000 Lys at the central galactic centre, hidden by untold billions of solar mass in the form of dust and stars
Observations of the star showed the mass of the object to be 4.1 million solar masses within a volume with radius no larger than about 6.7 billion kilometres
On January 5, 2015, NASA reported observing an X-ray flare 400 times brighter than usual, a record-breaker, from Sagittarius A* caused by the breaking apart of an asteroid falling into the black hole.

From statements like these, it's difficult to fathom the star being discussed is 4.1 million solar masses of blackhole, where the mass of spectacular prominence is a asteroid snack, of all the stars falling in the blackhole, mere kilograms are the deciding factor even as our 4million solar mass blackholes snacks on its stars, it is orbited by black holes of 1,300 solar masses within clusters of stars
barakn
2.4 / 5 (14) Oct 10, 2018
During my six years in Engineering School studying Nuclear/Electrical Engineering plus almost 2 years of Continuing Education credits beyond that, I learned a lot about what makes the Universe function. I can design a nuclear reactor system or put together a Gamma Spectroscopy Lab & design myriads of electronic circuitry. -Benni
Despite your lack of understanding of fundamentals like neutron decay? No, you're a liar.
IwinUlose
2.8 / 5 (10) Oct 10, 2018
Every one holds the keys to this site
IwinUlose> So who died and left YOU with the keys to this website? Where do you get off to badmouth the people who come to this public science website to read the comments and submit their own opinions

Unless you want this to an X Rated Site IwinUlose, where you have to use your credit card details of age verification, it is beholden to you as a member of a very exclusive scientific club to respectfully consider there is no age limit, you point out "99% of the people who comment in these forums are not "rocket scientists""they are also children, school children, pupils, why should they be banned from this site because melodious tones are not for gentle ears! This site is for every ones perusal, IwinUlose!

That was actually a quote from SEU to which I was responding. I think we agree in a general sense; but I think pseudoscience is more damaging than melodious tones.
IwinUlose
2.9 / 5 (11) Oct 10, 2018
If a student were to read and believe some of the pseudoscience posted here in the comments, they're understanding has to be rehabilitated before it can be educated.
granville583762
2.8 / 5 (13) Oct 10, 2018
Without the swearing; delicate ears are able to stay and listen
IwinUlose> but I think pseudoscience is more damaging than melodious tones.

If only they were melodious tones IwinUlose, but there not, without the swearing; delicate ears are able to stay and listen to your force of argument IwinUlose, right is might and always perseveres!
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (10) Oct 10, 2018
If a student were to read and believe some of the pseudoscience posted here in the comments, they're understanding has to be rehabilitated before it can be educated.

This is most certainly true, but the thing is much of what needs to be unlearned involves DM, BH, and much of the pseudoscientific claptrap taught about the standard guesswork.
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 10, 2018
If a student were to read and believe some of the pseudoscience posted here in the comments, they're understanding has to be rehabilitated before it can be educated.

This is most certainly true, but the thing is much of what needs to be unlearned involves DM, BH, and much of the pseudoscientific claptrap taught about the standard guesswork.


What would you know, cult boy? You don't have anybody within your cult who is capable of coming up with a scientifically valid alternative. And you sure as hell have never proposed one.
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 10, 2018
If only they were melodious tones IwinUlose, but ***there*** not....................


'They are', or 'they're'. Wouldn't want non-English lurkers to get the impression that native speakers are all illiterate. Scientifically, or otherwise.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (12) Oct 10, 2018
You care about the "stars", or the votes given? - this is actually important to you?

says SkyLight

Ahhh but that is the whole purpose of the resident Physorg 5-Star Club, consisting of Captain Chickenshit, SpookyOtto and their band of merry sox, and a few acolytes who hang on in the hopes of being awarded 5 Stars for their efforts in promoting the members and leaders of that infamous physorg 5-Star Club.

It is to those who wish to be awarded 5 stars with every post that the star rating system seems to be tantamount to having been awarded the 'Congressional Medal of Honor' in the US.
If I ever get a 5 star rating, it is only given by those who have the clear understanding of the value of scientific discourse and exploration, of which myself, granville, Benni and a few others are well attuned into - although when each of us are awarded 5 stars, we already are aware that the 5-Star Club will soon come along to lower our 5-star ratings, as it is their duty to do so.
IwinUlose
3.1 / 5 (9) Oct 10, 2018
Yeah mine should have said 'their understanding..'
jonesdave
2.4 / 5 (14) Oct 10, 2018
Yeah mine should have said 'their understanding..'


Whoops! Didn't notice you'd (ewed?) messed up too (to?). Still, at least you have more of a clue about the science than the cretinous cranks who infest this place. :)
jonesdave
2.4 / 5 (14) Oct 10, 2018
If I ever get a 5 star rating, it is only given by those who have the clear understanding of the value of scientific discourse and exploration, of which ***myself, granville, Benni*** and a few others are well attuned into....


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
One of that bunch of clueless cretins thinks a half-life is defined as the amount of time it takes for an atom (or neutron) to lose half its mass!
One of the other cretins thinks humans were created by something or other combining clay and chimpanzee sh!t. As for Granville.......................lol.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 10, 2018
No... the problem is DM cannot be falsified in any way.
says rossim22

Well, you are only partially right. Dark Matter has been proven to be a placeholder initiated by the hangers-on of Astrophysics to bring the purported and invisible DM and DE into line with the maths/equations in General Relativity/Special Relativity for the sake of not having to PROVE that DM/DE exists or is vital to all of the other Physics at work in our Universe.

Matter/Mass is always visible, not merely its effects on other Matter, but simply due to the fact that many other forces are able to affect normal Matter/Mass such as gravity, whose by-product is gravitational lensing - as well as the ability of Matter/Mass to transform into Energy.

ANY form of Matter/Mass is dependent on the Quantum Particles from which the Matter/Mass is created. Quantum Particles do NOT exude - emit - impart ANY form of INVISIBILITY to any form of Matter/Mass. Such Particles carry Energy and that IS in Matter/Mass
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (12) Oct 10, 2018
-contd- @rossim22
IF Dark Matter really existed, rather than only in the minds of those who wish it so, its Particles would have had to have been created from Quantum Particles nevertheless, just as everything else in any form. Any such idea that Quantum Particles within invisible Dark Matter are also invisible, can only be the brainchild of an insane fool.
jonesdave
2.4 / 5 (14) Oct 10, 2018
-contd- @rossim22
IF Dark Matter really existed, rather than only in the minds of those who wish it so, its Particles would have had to have been created from Quantum Particles nevertheless, just as everything else in any form. Any such idea that Quantum Particles within invisible Dark Matter are also invisible, can only be the brainchild of an insane fool.


Dafuq?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 10, 2018
Yeah mine should have said 'their understanding..'
says IloseUwin

Why do you apologise and explain such a slip as though your English teacher would grade your spelling? Ignore those who are here to make sure that you dot every " i " and cross every " t " as though it matters to him/them. Don't grovel before jones or anyone else, as he has made plenty of spelling errors in the past also.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (11) Oct 10, 2018
-contd- @rossim22
IF Dark Matter really existed, rather than only in the minds of those who wish it so, its Particles would have had to have been created from Quantum Particles nevertheless, just as everything else in any form. Any such idea that Quantum Particles within invisible Dark Matter are also invisible, can only be the brainchild of an insane fool.


Dafuq?


Yes jones, you seem to have read it correctly, judging by your disguised expletive.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 10, 2018
If I ever get a 5 star rating, it is only given by those who have the clear understanding of the value of scientific discourse and exploration, of which ***myself, granville, Benni*** and a few others are well attuned into....


Haha
One of that bunch.....
One of the other cretins thinks humans were created by something or other combining clay and chimpanzee sh!t.

says jones

Are you suffering from AUTISM, jones? It does seem so.
I have already explained to you a number of times that the Clay from which man was created had come from a pristine river delta, and which only had been infused with SKIN CELLS from passing animals which accounts for the DNA in human cells.
YOUR preference for having descended from chimps and monkeys (who are known to sit in their own apeshit) and all male Primates who have that which no man has ever had, says a lot about you and your poor self-esteem.
IwinUlose
3.1 / 5 (13) Oct 10, 2018
Seeing owning up to one's mistakes as groveling is kind of sad :/

Saluté
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (10) Oct 10, 2018
You don't have anybody within your cult who is capable of coming up with a scientifically valid alternative.

You are likely correct jonesdumb given you think faerie dust is "scientifically valid".
Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 10, 2018
I hate to say it but @RNP's comment at the beginning of the thread is one of the only ones here discussing the actual content of the article. If you haven't seen me around much lately that's why.

Maybe we can discuss the science now? Soon?
Benni
1.8 / 5 (13) Oct 10, 2018
I hate to say it but @RNP's comment at the beginning of the thread is one of the only ones here discussing the actual content of the article. If you haven't seen me around much lately that's why.

Maybe we can discuss the science now? Soon?


You never discuss THE ARTICLE until you've first completed a long & windy profanity laced rant or defending the a foul mouthed profanity rant of someone of someone like stumpo. But you imagine yourself in a position for bragging rights? To what? All your past foul mouthed behavior because you get called out on your funny farm Pop-Cosmology?

How many are the times I've tried to engage you in a discussion of ENTROPY? And your responses? Just horrendous foul mouthed name calling rants, no different than trying to hold jonesy or stumpo in the same kinds of discussions. Birds of a feather flock together, don't they schneibo?



Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 10, 2018
Seeing owning up to one's mistakes as groveling is kind of sad :/

Saluté
says IloseUwin

I believe that another word for it is: sucking up - according to my American friends here in the US.

But you're right - groveling was a tad bit harsh, and sucking up to jones is far more descriptive.

Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2018
Apparently not.
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 11, 2018
Grovelling versus Sucking Up
Seeing owning up to one's mistakes as grovelling is kind of sad :/
Saluté
says IloseUwin
I believe that another word for it is: sucking up - according to my American friends here in the US.
But you're right - grovelling was a tad bit harsh, and sucking up to jones is far more descriptive.

What a choice, grovelling on hand and knee or sucking up - Grovelling sounds the healthy alternative, there's not knowlng what one might catch Sucking Up!
SkyLight
3 / 5 (12) Oct 11, 2018
@DS
Maybe we can discuss the science now? Soon?
Yep! - I read the paper and I think the most interesting part of it is how important it is to get observations from a number of platforms operating at different frequencies and at the same time. The paper references observations made in 2014 by Spitzer, SMA, Keck and Chandra. I'm pretty sure that ALMA could be included right now, or in the very near future at sub-mm, and SKA, when it comes online, will add vastly more data than at present available. JWT, if it ever gets launched, will also add data in the IR.

Until then, time-correlation between flares or peaks at sub-mm, NIR and X-Ray, and hence possible identification of source-regions or -mechanisms remains uncertain. As is usual in science of this nature, "more work is needed".

Over to the SANE and MAD for comments ;-)
theredpill
2.6 / 5 (13) Oct 11, 2018
"Maybe we can discuss the science now?"

Guys, and @Jones especially because he's always asking for the alternative to DM, the answer is far too simple to be appreciated by those who want it to be complicated. In space everything is weightless, so if you take two permanent magnets and try to push them together but leave one floating...it shoots away. This principle of magnetic repulsion applies to ALL BODIES. All stars have an external field of flux, voyager flew into our suns. That increase in flux density is the only way to explain the increase in particle velocity and density it measured where it did. At that distance, the flux density indicates the field extends deep into interstellar space... just like every stars field must. So we have a bunch of bodies with external fields that push against each other, that are weightless... but not totally because they are also gravitationally attracted to each other... now, isn't it pretty clear why nobody can find DM?
Benni
1.8 / 5 (13) Oct 11, 2018
JWT, if it ever gets launched, will also add data in the IR.


Here is IR data, no need to wait for JWT:

http://ircamera.a........7th photo frame from top of page:

"Ever increasing resolution in infrared images showed the black hole is not the energy source. The brightest source in the very high resolution near infrared image to the right is IRS 7, a red supergiant that puts out most of its energy in the near infrared. The other bright stars are also very young and massive. The blue-appearing ones in the center of the image are a unique clustering of very luminous, massive stars. Any black hole must be invisible. (image from Gemini Project). If the black hole dominated the energy of the Galactic Center, it would be the second brightest source in the infrared image."

You look at that pic right dead on SgrA* & no image of a BH, yet EVERYTHING else all around that point within light minutes of time is clearly visible.

theredpill
2.5 / 5 (13) Oct 11, 2018
Weightless bodies with external magnetic fields "attached" to them folks...think about it. Flux density is secondary because of the sizes of the fields we are talking about, but those fields interacting will, by default of physics move the bodies they are connected to. Yes they are extremely weak, but they don't need to be strong because of the distances we are talking about. Yes the gravitational fields of these bodies also interact and work to try to bring the objects together, but the "weight" these bodies have relative to the distance apart they are is easily offset by the "pushing" pressure their fields exert upon each other. It really is this simple whether any of you like it or not....sorry.
jimmybobber
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2018
@theredpill Are you confusing weight and mass thinking objects in space have no mass????
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 11, 2018
Weightless bodies with external magnetic fields "attached" to them folks...think about it. Flux density is secondary because of the sizes of the fields we are talking about, but those fields interacting will, by default of physics move the bodies they are connected to. Yes they are extremely weak, but they don't need to be strong because of the distances we are talking about. Yes the gravitational fields of these bodies also interact and work to try to bring the objects together, but the "weight" these bodies have relative to the distance apart they are is easily offset by the "pushing" pressure their fields exert upon each other. It really is this simple whether any of you like it or not....sorry.


Total and utter bollocks.
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 11, 2018
You look at that pic right dead on SgrA* & no image of a BH, yet EVERYTHING else all around that point within light minutes of time is clearly visible.


Lol. What an idiot!
theredpill
2.5 / 5 (11) Oct 11, 2018
"@theredpill Are you confusing weight and mass thinking objects in space have no mass????"

LOL...no....GR is confusing the relationship. a single particle has "mass" but until a particle or a planet or a star interact gravitationally with another mass...it is weightless in space.... this is very simple to understand and even easier to prove...I can't believe how hard this is for some people to grasp. Jones is a lost cause....but anyone who has watched any video taken of objects in space gets the whole weightless concept...and anyone who has held 2 magnets at the same time gets how they interact. A star is a magnet in space. Too simple for Jones to grasp, despite all of the literature describing how external magnetic fields interact, but again, playing with 2 magnets for 10 seconds demonstrates it pretty clearly. Put them in space where they are weightless and the mass of the magnets is meaningless because of the strength of the field interaction.
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 11, 2018
A star is a magnet in space.


Jesus, what a loon! Where are you getting this crap from, woo boy? Thunderdolts? Not from any physicist, that's for sure! Prawn.
theredpill
2.9 / 5 (12) Oct 11, 2018
"Where are you getting this crap from, woo boy"

Not from any "physicist" Jones? There are volumes of papers on the suns external magnetic field. There are volumes of papers on the nature of charged particle acceleration and the requirement for their "travel" through space along magnetic field lines, the ones that seem to go out into space are called "open" ones. For Voyager to detect an increase by a factor in both the particle density and velocity where it did means it entered a region where the flux density increased, that is the only way to account for the change in the particle count and their "speed". There is ample evidence for the concept of weightlessness in space and we do understand why this happens...except for you...you do not understand a lick of the concept being presented to you here...given the simplicity of it, you really should if you are half the physics guy you tout yourself as. I do not and I get it, why cant you?
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 11, 2018
you do not understand a lick of the concept being presented to you here...given the simplicity of it, you really should if you are half the physics guy you tout yourself as. I do not and I get it, why cant you?


Translation:" I just made this sh!t up."
Link me to this oh so easy to understand woo that does away with the need for DM. Where is it? Made it up, didn't you, thicko?
.
theredpill
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 11, 2018
"Link me to this oh so easy to understand woo that does away with the need for DM. Where is it? Made it up, didn't you, thicko?

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

How about an Astronaut describing it...if you watch the whole thing he even tells you how the earth's field extends into space. He's using bar magnets...not the same thing a globe. with a magnetic field attached but that one is for the paper you are requesting.

https://www.youtu...crGlzGAg

Now Jones, rather than banter with you about something I was shown by another and try to help you understand it, I have explained it how it was explained to me and I understand how it works and why. You will see the papers written about this by the people qualified to write them because despite what you may think, this concept is well understood by the people working on it. They are just not interested in "these" kinds of debate with "your" kind of people.
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 11, 2018
^^^^^^^^The video has nothing to do with the idiotic claims you are making, you idiot! It's a nice little bit of public outreach science by the ISS crew. It has nothing to do with the Sun being a fecking magnet, nor explaining away DM. Like I said, you made that up.
theredpill
2.8 / 5 (13) Oct 11, 2018
I am going to take immense pleasure in watching you choke on your thoughtless words Jones. And I like everybody...but you, you are a special kind of ass. Like a dog that shits on the floor and won't stop no matter how many times his nose gets rubbed in it.

Keep shitting on the floor Jones, you are better at that than understanding physics.

jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 11, 2018
I am going to take immense pleasure in watching you choke on your thoughtless words Jones. And I like everybody...but you, you are a special kind of ass. Like a dog that shits on the floor and won't stop no matter how many times his nose gets rubbed in it.

Keep shitting on the floor Jones, you are better at that than understanding physics.



Hahahahahaha! Tell us, badger brain, when is this tripe going to be published? And where? My guess is that it will only appear on Thunderdolts, correct? Now, go spam your crap elsewhere, you uneducated troll.
theredpill
2.8 / 5 (13) Oct 11, 2018
Another pile of useless shit from the dog...one wonders why the owners keep feeding the worthless POS...the epitomy of garbage in garbage out right here ladies and gentlemen.

jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 11, 2018
Another pile of useless shit from the dog...one wonders why the owners keep feeding the worthless POS...the epitomy of garbage in garbage out right here ladies and gentlemen.



Sorry,? And what is your brilliant contribution to these pages, you uneducated posing tosser? Please do tell us, woo boy. You are just a spam merchant for the electric idiots. Who have never been right about anything.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2018
Weightless bodies with external magnetic fields "attached" to them folks...think about it. Flux density is secondary because of the sizes of the fields we are talking about, but (**)Yes they are extremely weak, but they don't need to be strong because of the distances we are talking about. Yes the gravitational fields of these bodies also interact and work to try to bring the objects together, but the "weight" these bodies have relative to the distance apart they are is easily offset by the "pushing" pressure their fields exert upon each other. It really is this simple whether any of you like it or not....sorry.
says the red pill

Bodies of Mass are essentially weightless in Space in which they "float", similar to a many-tonne cargo ship floating in water. The ship has both Mass and weight and displacement, but the water renders it buoyant as though it were weightless. Although the ship does displace water.

The same principle holds for bodies in Space.
-contd-
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2018
-contd-
The bodies in Space float in spite of Mass, weight and displacement. They can't sink or fall due to the Quantum particles that makes up Space itself that are enabling the body (such as Stars, galaxies, planets) to essentially "float". The bodies, however, are endowed with gravitational attraction due to their Mass. but weight is negligible because it is in Space. If it were possible to take a planet and place it on a flat surface, then its weight would certainly be of enormous consideration. But while it floats in Space BY ITSELF, weight is of not much importance.

And when another body draws near to it, the second body would have a gravitational attraction according to its Mass. If the attraction is great enough in one or the other or both, there would be a possibility that both bodies will either orbit each other first and then collide, OR collide with each other outright.

-contd-
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2018
-contd-
@the red pill

There is very little "repulsion" in Space, although Stars that emit Solar Flares oftentimes don't have enough attraction to pull the flares back into itself, thus causing such flare to leave the Sun's vicinity to travel toward the gas giants in the Solar System. But the majority of Solar Flares DO return to the Sun's corona.

The "external magnetic fields" could mean Filamentary Ribbons, or you might have meant the Magnetic Fields such as that which surrounds the Earth?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2018
A couple of photos of the Filamentary Ribbons

The second photo can be zoomed into.

http://hubblesite.../gallery

https://astropix....opo0429l

jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 11, 2018
A couple of photos of the Filamentary Ribbons

The second photo can be zoomed into.

http://hubblesite.../gallery



Caused by the shockwave of a supernova. The relevance of which is..........................?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 11, 2018
"@theredpill Are you confusing weight and mass thinking objects in space have no mass????"

LOL...no....GR is confusing the relationship. a single particle has "mass" but until a particle or a planet or a star interact gravitationally with another mass...it is weightless in space.... this is very simple to understand and even easier to prove...I can't believe how hard this is for some people to grasp. Jones is a lost cause....but anyone who has watched any video taken of objects in space gets the whole weightless concept...and anyone who has held 2 magnets at the same time gets how they interact. A star is a magnet in space. Too simple for Jones to grasp, despite all of the literature describing how external magnetic fields interact(**) .

says the red pill

LOL It appears that I failed to read this, your post, before I went to explain what you had basically explained already - but without the cargo ship analogy.

:)
Da Schneib
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2018
@DS
Maybe we can discuss the science now? Soon?
Yep! - I read the paper and I think the most interesting part of it is how important it is to get observations from a number of platforms operating at different frequencies and at the same time.
We did that. GW20170817. It didn't make any difference to the deniers. It's kind of like seeing and hearing the train go by, the whistle drop in pitch, and someone taking a video of it, and a bunch of idiots denying there was a train.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 11, 2018
@jones
While I am not a proponent of the EU, if only because of certain conclusions of which I disagree, I would be interested in, (other than your anguish that "electric currents" might be found to be highly probable), your vehement opposition to "electric currents" existing in the Cosmos where such currents may have an, as yet unknown, vast influence on Stars, clouds of gas and planetary bodies, as those currents move through the Cosmos.
Whether such electric currents exist or not - I am curious as to why you reject the theorem outright, as though you have some insider information that requires you to negate any possibility of their existence. Whether or not they exist, I am certain that Einstein's offerings will forever prevail with very little backtracking.

But, your taking any such talk of "electric currents" in the Cosmos as, it seems, a direct personal insult to your very being is an oddity. That is strange behaviour, coming from a freelance science buff like you.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2018
@SEU, you can't make positive (or negative) electric charges without violating conservation of charge. There isn't any current without separation of charge and there isn't any evidence of it. If you're going to posit currents then you must give an explanation of the charge separation that explains the currents. Do you have one? No astrophysicist does.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (13) Oct 11, 2018
But, your taking any such talk of "electric currents" in the Cosmos as, it seems, a direct personal insult to your very being is an oddity. That is strange behaviour, coming from a freelance science buff like you.


Look up Debye length. Look up quasi-neutral. Nobody is saying that currents don't exist. However, at the scales proposed by EU/ PC nutters, they are impossible and unobserved. It is idiocy of the highest order.

Da Schneib
2.8 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2018
Another pile of useless shit from the dog...one wonders why the owners keep feeding the worthless POS...the epitomy of garbage in garbage out right here ladies and gentlemen.
So the detections in multiple frequency ranges of GW20170817 was "garbage?"

Really?

Really?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (11) Oct 11, 2018
A couple of photos of the Filamentary Ribbons

The second photo can be zoomed into.

http://hubblesite.../gallery



Caused by the shockwave of a supernova. The relevance of which is..........................?

says jones

No sense of wonder left, have you, jones?

I enjoyed the photos of the Filamentary Ribbons, and I suspect that those ribbons may have some significance in moving Matter/Mass further away from the exploding SN, so as to eventually become the "building blocks" of new Stars and planets. A veritable "flying carpet" of sorts.

Since there is no telling exactly WHAT that SN will become - a Neutron Star or Black Hole, all according to its Mass, it is of great importance for the Filaments to get as far away from it as possible - or be drawn back into its gravitational pull/attraction.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (12) Oct 11, 2018
No sense of wonder left, have you, jones?


Errrr, I might have actually studied such things. The reason I decided to study them was the sense of awe and wonder when looking through a pair of binoculars, or a telescope as a kid. However, supernovae have nothing to do with the woo that theredpillock was talking about. It is a well known hypothesis that nearby supernovae might initiate the collapse of a molecular cloud to form a star. Not as close as the ones you linked, however. That is just the shockwave interacting with the gas from the deceased star.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2018
Currently, (pun not intended) I am exploring the possibility that electrical charge/currents that are available on the Earth are also available in very much the same intensity but on a much larger scale out in the Cosmos, whether in Alternating Current or Direct Current modes. The lack of an atmosphere could be offset by clouds of particulate Matter such as Electrons, Protons, and the usual accompaniment of lesser atomic particles that may provide Charge.

I will post my findings after consulting with knowledgable E.E.s at my local University to see if my theorem has merit.
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 11, 2018
.......your vehement opposition to "electric currents" existing in the Cosmos where such currents may have an, as yet unknown, vast influence on Stars, clouds of gas and planetary bodies, as those currents move through the Cosmos.


How does an electric current affect a star, which is essentially charge neutral? Why would such currents exist? What is the evidence for them? How would these non-existent currents affect a planet?
Sorry, but this is pure woo. Nobody in their right mind takes such nonsense seriously.

jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 11, 2018
I will post my findings after consulting with knowledgable E.E.s at my local University to see if my theorem has merit.


Trust me, it doesn't. Too many EEs think they can explain astrophysical phenomena based on what they study. Their problem is that they don't understand the stuff that they don't study. Such as plasma astrophysics, astrophysics, etc.
Back in Alfven's day there was no such thing as plasma astrophysicists. Alfven was an EE. However, in the many intervening decades, our knowledge of astrophysical plasmas has increased exponentially. People now study plasma physics, or plasma astrophysics. EEs don't, as a rule.
In summary, you will be asking the wrong people. Try a plasma astro/physicist.

P.S. I can recommend one on a couple of physics forums, if you have the cojones.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2018
You are correct, in that a Star of any Mass that has achieved its Fusion process is unlikely to require electric currents. But while it is still in the process of becoming hot enough to achieve Fusion, there may be some electric current that is created by particles in motion (work) to help ignite, trigger Hydrogen gas to hot enough temps to begin the Fusion process.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2018
As I said, I will consult with the proper scientists to compare "notes" and then post my theorem in physorg once it has been completed.
Thanks for the advice.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (12) Oct 11, 2018
You are correct, in that a Star of any Mass that has achieved its Fusion process is unlikely to require electric currents. But while it is still in the process of becoming hot enough to achieve Fusion, there may be some electric current that is created by particles in motion (work) to help ignite, trigger Hydrogen gas to hot enough temps to begin the Fusion process.


Nope. Gravitational collapse will do that. P-P fusion. No currents required. That is not to say that currents are not created in stars. See dynamo theory. However, it has nothing to do with the fusion occurring.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 11, 2018
No. Gravitational collapse and density does not produce hot enough temperatures to begin the process of Fusion in Hydrogen gas. In that way it is limited. My theorem that I discussed with Benni is that fissionable material within the disk is what is ignited by the heat of the collapse, which in turn produces hot enough temperatures to begin the ignition of Hydrogen gas for Fusion to form a Star. It is a three-fold process and makes far more sense than heat from collapsing dust and gas only as the trigger.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (12) Oct 11, 2018
As I said, I will consult with the proper scientists to compare "notes" and then post my theorem in physorg once it has been completed.
Thanks for the advice.


No point posting a theorem here! Try the scientific literature. A & A, Ap J, MNRAS would be good places o start. If it ain't peer reviewed, it ain't worth sh!t.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (12) Oct 11, 2018
No. Gravitational collapse and density does not produce hot enough temperatures to begin the process of Fusion in Hydrogen gas. In that way it is limited. My theorem that I discussed with Benni is that fissionable material within the disk is what is ignited by the heat of the collapse, which in turn produces hot enough temperatures to begin the ignition of Hydrogen gas to form a Star. It is a three-fold process and makes far more sense than heat from collapsing dust and gas.


In which case you are talking through your arse. P-P fusion is well evidenced, predicted and seen. It is how we can predict the expected number of neutrinos from stellar nucleosynthesis. Show me an alternate hypothesis. That works. You can't.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2018
As I am a mere scholar and interested observer, I would need to share my theorems with such as you offered above. In that way, the scientists will show it to each other for peer reviewing.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2018
No. Gravitational collapse and density does not produce hot enough temperatures to begin the process of Fusion in Hydrogen gas. In that way it is limited. My theorem that I discussed with Benni is that fissionable material within the disk is what is ignited by the heat of the collapse, which in turn produces hot enough temperatures to begin the ignition of Hydrogen gas to form a Star. It is a three-fold process and makes far more sense than heat from collapsing dust and gas.


In which case you are talking through your arse. P-P fusion is well evidenced, predicted and seen. It is how we can predict the expected number of neutrinos from stellar nucleosynthesis. Show me an alternate hypothesis. That works. You can't.


You are talking about the finished product - the Star has achieved full Fusion.
What I am talking about are the preliminaries that must come BEFORE that achievement of Fusion.
As I said, collapse/density of Mass does not give off enough energy/heat
Benni
2 / 5 (12) Oct 11, 2018
I am exploring the possibility that electrical charge/currents that are available on the Earth are also available in very much the same intensity but on a much larger scale out in the Cosmos


Egg, there are several caveats involved studying how the Birkeland Currents & such can flow. Then you will be reading about current flows in the millions of amperes as current flows within a conducting medium.

You don't want millions of amperes at the receptacle you plug your computer into because the thin wires cannot carry such a density of electrons crammed into such a small space, but make that wire thousands of miles wide & millions of amperes of electron flow can be spread out across a sheet so thin as to be barely measurable. What I'm getting at here, a million amperes at your thin wire receptacle will have different density characteristics for use as power than within a huge conducting medium such as the Birkelands where electron density is low.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2018
I am exploring the possibility that electrical charge/currents that are available on the Earth are also available in very much the same intensity but on a much larger scale out in the Cosmos


Egg, there are several caveats involved studying how the Birkeland Currents & such can flow. Then you will be reading about current flows in the millions of amperes as current flows within a conducting medium.

You don't want millions of amperes at the receptacle you plug your computer into because the thin wires cannot carry such a density of electrons crammed into such a small space, but make that wire thousands of miles wide & millions of amperes of electron flow can be spread out across a sheet so thin as to be barely measurable. What I'm getting at here, a million amperes at your thin wire receptacle will have different density characteristics for use as power than within a huge conducting medium such as the Birkelands where electron density is low.
says Benni

Thanks
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2018
@Benni

I believe that it is the 'conducting medium' that is the Crux of the Biscuit. But whatever it is, it must be readily available. And your reference to a "sheet" that is spread out as the conductor may BE that biscuit. LOL
Nevertheless, Quantum particles are the heavy hitters, IMO, whose Energy would create that sheet in the first place.

OK be right back
Da Schneib
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 11, 2018
@SEU runs away and hides.

Smell ya later. 'Cuz it sure will be before I see ya.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (12) Oct 11, 2018
@Benni

I believe that it is the 'conducting medium' that is the Crux of the Biscuit. But whatever it is, it must be readily available. And your reference to a "sheet" that is spread out as the conductor may BE that biscuit.


Oh, you bet it's all about the conducting medium. In outer space the medium is magnetic field lines of flux, wheres on Earth we use wires for the same purpose. However using wires we can put electron flow exactly to the point where electron density is more efficiently utilized, like I said before, we don't want a million amperes of electricity showing up in our house receptacle, everything would melt.

In space, magnetic field lines are spread so wide that a million amperes within such a widespread system can will result in such low power output that your body could pass through such a field & you wouldn't even notice it, much less be electrocuted.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 11, 2018
OK here I am.
Hmmm I see that Da is talking like a fool in my absence. But what else is new.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (10) Oct 11, 2018
@Benni

I believe that it is the 'conducting medium' that is the Crux of the Biscuit. But whatever it is, it must be readily available. And your reference to a "sheet" that is spread out as the conductor may BE that biscuit


Oh, you bet it's all about the conducting medium. In outer space the medium is magnetic field lines of flux, wheres on Earth we use wires for the same purpose. However using wires we can put electron flow exactly to the point where electron density is more efficiently utilized, like I said before, we don't want a million amperes of electricity showing up in our house receptacle, everything would melt.

In space, magnetic field lines are spread so wide that a million amperes within such a widespread system can will result in such low power output that your body could pass through such a field & you wouldn't even notice it, much less be electrocuted.
Benni

I just had a funny idea. Could it be that that conducting medium is DM?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2018
The much vaunted Dark Matter might actually BE the much maligned "conducting medium" sheet. After all, DM is said to be an invisible mass of unknown substance that has emerged from an unknown invisible source - magickally pulling Faerie Dust out of its bag of tricks to sprinkle over the eyes of those who believe in it without question - thus providing Birkeland Currents with as much legitimacy as Dark Matter is said to have.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (12) Oct 11, 2018
In space, magnetic field lines are spread so wide


Thought I would make this point clearer by use of the term CROSS SECTIONAL AREA rather than "wide".

The Birkeland currents are spread across a large cross sectional area. This creates a low density of electron flow due to innumerable conducting pathways of magnetic lines of flux within the Magnetosphere, no single pathway of a magnetic line of flux will contain enough electrons that it would be dangerous for a human body to pass through such a low density of electronst & be zapped like a bug in one of those outdoor bug zappers.

Benni

I just had a funny idea. Could it be that that conducting medium is DM?
...........yeah, funny idea, right off the same farm jonesy & schneibo live on.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2018
I found this YT video submitted by one Karen Smith whose friend had photoed the Crab Nebula for 10 years on his backyard telescope. Karen filtered it and submitted it to YT. Very nice work.

https://www.astro...?nc=user
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2018
In space, magnetic field lines are spread so wide


Thought I would make this point clearer by use of the term CROSS SECTIONAL AREA rather than "wide".

The Birkeland currents are spread across a large cross sectional area. This creates a low density of electron flow due to innumerable conducting pathways of magnetic lines of flux within the Magnetosphere, no single pathway of a magnetic line of flux will contain enough electrons that it would be dangerous for a human body to pass through such a low density of electronst & be zapped like a bug in one of those outdoor bug zappers.

Benni

I just had a funny idea. Could it be that that conducting medium is DM?
...........yeah, funny idea, right off the same farm jonesy & schneibo live on.


I was discussing the prospect with some of my housemates who said that there seem to be a few similarities. I know as much about DM as I do of EU. One disturbing thing is the Earth orbiting Jupiter story
SkyLight
2.8 / 5 (11) Oct 11, 2018
My theorem that I discussed with Benni is that fissionable material within the disk is what is ignited by the heat of the collapse
Fissionable material? Or do you mean fissile material? - in any case, you're talking about isotopes of certain heavy elements like U235 or Pu239, and you have a problem there, since they are exceedingly rare in the ISM. Also, they need to be concentrated in order to have any effect, and you're mistaken: heat will not "ignite" them. So, fail + fail!

The EU sometimes claims erroneously, and in-off-hand comments, that the Sun is filled with "heavy elements", with not a hint as to how these are supposed to have been generated and collected in one place. Basically ideas like these are "what-if's" to be jotted on a beer-mat and then discarded, since They. Can't. Work. Period.

And beware: engaging in "discussion" with Benni will result in him reducing everything to the only stuff he does understand: wires, resistors, volt-meters - grade 6 sci-unce.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 12, 2018
Pssst, hey @SkyLight, I don't think the individual you quoted knows the difference between fission and fusion.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
My theorem that I discussed with Benni is that fissionable material within the disk is what is ignited by the heat of the collapse
Fissionable material? Or do you mean fissile material? - in any case, you're talking about isotopes of certain heavy elements like U235 or Pu239, and you have a problem there, since they are exceedingly rare in the ISM. Also, they need to be concentrated in order to have any effect, and you're mistaken: heat will not "ignite" them. So, fail + fail!

And beware: engaging in "discussion" with Benni will result in him reducing everything to the only stuff he does understand: wires, resistors, volt-meters


Fissile and Fissionable are both adjectives that mean the same thing.
No, there is no problem at all. A proto-Star cannot ignite its Hydrogen gas to extremely hot temps to trigger the Fusion process, unless the fissionable material is present to start a chain reaction. Only that chain reaction produces such high temps.
Ojorf
3 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2018
A proto-Star cannot ignite its Hydrogen gas to extremely hot temps to trigger the Fusion process, unless the fissionable material is present to start a chain reaction. Only that chain reaction produces such high temps.


Where do you get this?
That is not at all how stars work.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2018
-contd-
As I have said earlier, the collapsing/compression/density of dust/gas in the disk cannot increase to the temperature needed to trigger the ignition of the Hydrogen gas. There is an "intermediary" in the form of fissionable material that is heated to combustion by the earlier process of collapsing/compression/density of dust/gas. Once the fissionable heats to the correct temps and ignites, the heat from it then triggers the heating of the Hydrogen gas to Fusion temps.
Whether or not fissionable material is present will determine if the Hydrogen starts to burn hot enough for Fusion. If there is no fissionables present together with Hydrogen gas, then there is no Star-making.
If there were only 2 stages to the process, then you would see Stars being created no matter where you look in the Cosmos. But luckily, there are 3 stages.

I don't have any quarrel with Benni. But if you do, then you may need to take it up with him. I am not involved.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2018
"The EU sometimes claims erroneously, and in-off-hand comments, that the Sun is filled with "heavy elements", with not a hint as to how these are supposed to have been generated and collected in one place."

Stars are the furnaces where all heavy elements are CREATED, such as iron, copper, tin, gold, silver, platinum, etc.
granville583762
3.1 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
Inertial Mass occupying the vacuum

An object remains at rest or in motion unless acted on by a force
This means an object of inertial mass remains at rest in its coordinates without moving up, down, left, right
When acted on by a force it accelerates until that force cease

When that force is gravity, inertial mass experiences no force as inertial mass is weightless under the acceleration of gravity as it is free falling

There are 2 LAWS concerning inertial mass occupying the vacuum
1, inertial mass is weightless at rest and in continuous motion occupying the vacuum
2, inertial mass is weightless under acceleration of gravity occupying the vacuum
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
Inertial Mass occupying the vacuum in its atomic form as dust grains!
SEU> the collapsing/compression/density of dust/gas in the disk cannot increase to the temperature needed to trigger the ignition of the Hydrogen gas

The dust clouds occupying the vacuum as a cloud in totality is weightless, but a single grain of dust has weight due to the gravity g of the cloud, where gravity is zero at the centre of mass
This tenuous cloud is infinitely far less dense than an asteroid where fusion temperatures are not seen, shows conclusively the gravitationally collapsing dust cloud equally has no fusion temperatures. Stars are seen forming in the clouds of dust fingers in Orion's belt of equally infinitely less density than a typical asteroid
Gravity, while the main driving force in initiating the collapsing dust grains, the temperatures required are not solely provided by gravity!
granville583762
2.8 / 5 (12) Oct 12, 2018
The Sun is 1.4kg a cubic metre

To further demonstrate the density required for collapsing dust grains reaching fusion density, the present density of our star, the Sun is 1.4kg a cubic metre, which further demonstrates the point that gravity is not responsible for fusion temperatures required, as 1.4kg a cubic metre is the density of a comet which is a ball of trillions of ice covered dust grains.

The vacuum the cloud of dust grains are occupying is 1/100 of a degree K above absolute zero, so the trillion upon trillion of dust grains in this tenuous cloud are at the same temperature of the Cometary ice covered dust grains in the Kuiper belt.

Left to solely to gravity, this collapsing dust cloud would consist solely of ice covered dust grains, in other words a typical proto-star dust cloud left solely to gravity at 1.4kg a cubic metre would not be out of place in the Kuiper belt!
jimmybobber
2.9 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2018
@Surveillance Regarding fissile and fissionable.
From wikipedia: https://en.wikipe...sionable

""Fissile" is distinct from "fissionable." A nuclide capable of undergoing fission (even with a low probability) after capturing a high energy neutron is referred to as "fissionable." A fissionable nuclide that can be induced to fission with low-energy thermal neutrons with a high probability is referred to as "fissile."[4] Although the terms were formerly synonymous, fissionable materials include also those (such as uranium-238) that can be fissioned only with high-energy neutrons. As a result, fissile materials (such as uranium-235) are a subset of fissionable materials. "
Benni
2 / 5 (12) Oct 12, 2018
>skyhigh:

Fissionable material? Or do you mean fissile material?


fis·sile
ˈfisəl,ˈfiˌsīl/Submit
adjective
(of an atom or element) able to undergo nuclear fission.
"a fissile isotope"
https://www.googl...e&ie

fis·sion·a·ble
ˈfiSH(ə)nəbəl/Submit
adjective
another term for fissile.

https://www.googl...rceid=ch

I see you have ZERO (0) experience in nuclear science.
TrollBane
2.8 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
Benni: ".......and we don't need to know anymore from the article beyond this, do we?"
Well, it's clear that you don't add anything.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2018
A fissionable nuclide that can be induced to fission with low-energy thermal neutrons with a high probability is referred to as "fissile."[4] Although the terms were formerly synonymous, fissionable materials include also those (such as uranium-238) that can be fissioned only with high-energy neutrons. As a result, fissile materials (such as uranium-235) are a subset of fissionable materials.


........this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the definitions of the two words. All you are attempting to do is create a class of materials, heavier than helium, that are the most commonly used materials in the MANMADE fission process & assigned them a label of FISSILE, only because because using this word is doesn't tie the tongue up in knots trying to pronounce it, short abbreviated pronunciations are easier to move from the brain to the tongue.

It sounds like you don't think anything other than uranium is FISSIBLE . Anything heavier than helium is fissible.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2018
Benni: ".......and we don't need to know anymore from the article beyond this, do we?"
Well, it's clear that you don't add anything.


I know.......anything that brings reality to the distortions of Pop-Cosmology should be banned.
SkyLight
3 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2018
I see you have ZERO (0) experience in nuclear science
Says the Nukular Enjineer who does not accept that quarks exist, nor that they are the constituent particles of protons and neutrons, despite many results showing indisputably that they indeed do exist.

I'll see your "zero experience in nuclear science" and I'll raise you "you don't have the wit to do some simple research" and consult some literature before quoting an internet search engine's "another term for fissile" phrase to find out whether that's true, or partly true, or false, or whatever.

A quote from the Wiki article on "Fissile material" https://en.wikipe...material :
"Fissile" is distinct from "fissionable." A nuclide capable of undergoing fission (even with a low probability) after capturing a high energy neutron is referred to as "fissionable." A fissionable nuclide that can be induced to fission with low-energy thermal neutrons with a high probability is referred tto as "fissile."
SkyLight
3 / 5 (12) Oct 12, 2018
You see, Benni, this nuclear science stuff is tricky - it ain't like a DC circuit or some nice simple spectroscopy - yah gotta lurn some real complex sh*t - particle physics, strong- and weak- nuclear force physics, quantum mechanics, quantum chromodynamics, and what-not; all the math and theory behind them. Which, to put it mildly, ain't a walk in the park.

And you, Benni, despite the crap you try to shove down people's throats about how much of a Nukular Enjineer you are, you haven't even made the first step toward becoming scientist conversant with the subject. It's WAY more complex than you can even imagine.
SkyLight
2.8 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
It sounds like you don't think anything other than uranium is FISSIBLE . Anything heavier than helium is fissible
Yeah, that's how come Dr Emmett Brown's DeLorean time-machine car can be powered by garbage - very much like the 17 1/2 molecules of brain matter in your head!
Benni
1.9 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2018
You see, Benni, this nuclear science stuff is tricky
.......only for you, not me.

When neophytes like you are called out for getting themselves caught up in a conundrum is when your profanity laced name calling rants start up again.

you haven't even made the first step toward becoming scientist conversant with the subject.


You mean like discerning "fissionable" or "fissile"? Definitely you have a problem there.
Ojorf
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
You see, Benni, this nuclear science stuff is tricky
.......only for you, not me.


LOL

Then why do you get the elementary stuff so wildly wrong all the time?

You do realize people can go back and see everything you have posted here.

OMG you didn't!
SkyLight
3 / 5 (12) Oct 12, 2018
You mean like discerning "fissionable" or "fissile"? Definitely you have a problem there
Not at all - I know the difference between the two, unlike the guy (you!) who quoted above "fissionable - another term for fissile" which is false - "fissionable" and "fissile" are not synonyms for the same process.

We have the same problem with the guy (you again) who simply cannot comprehend that the sentence
Ever increasing resolution in infrared images showed the black hole is not the energy source.
has to do with the INFRARED brightness of Sgr A*. Get it? - the I_N_F_R_A_R_E_D brightness as energy source in the I_N_F_R_A_R_E_D part of the spectrum. Do you get that, Spectroscopy Boy? The infrared! Did I mention the infrared? The BH is not bright in the INFRARED.

But it's there, as can easily be inferred from orbits of the stars in the immediate vicinity of Sgr A* which are totally unlike orbits around a barycenter (as you claim without a shred of supporting evidence).
Benni
1.9 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2018
Not at all - I know the difference between the two, unlike the guy (you!) who quoted above "fissionable - another term for fissile" which is false - "fissionable" and "fissile" are not synonyms for the same process.


.....even copying & pasting quotes directly from the dictionary is beyond your comprehension, here, give it another try:

fis·sile
ˈfisəl,ˈfiˌsīl/Submit
adjective
(of an atom or element) able to undergo nuclear fission.
"a fissile isotope"
https://www.googl...e&ie

fis·sion·a·ble
ˈfiSH(ə)nəbəl/Submit
adjective
another term for fissile.

https://www.googl...rceid=ch.

Da Schneib
2.8 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2018
It sounds like you don't think anything other than uranium is FISSIBLE . Anything heavier than helium is fissible
What's a "Fissible[sic]?"

Is this like the neutrons that turn halfway into a proton?
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2018
But it's there, as can easily be inferred from orbits of the stars in the immediate vicinity of Sgr A* which are totally unlike orbits around a barycenter (as you claim without a shred of supporting evidence).

I_N_F_E_R_R_E_D is not evidence, it's an I_N_F_E_R_R_E_N_C_E. Get it?
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2018
But it's there, as can easily be inferred from orbits of the stars in the immediate vicinity of Sgr A* which are totally unlike orbits around a barycenter (as you claim without a shred of supporting evidence).

I_N_F_E_R_R_E_D is not evidence, it's an I_N_F_E_R_R_E_N_C_E. Get it?


Yes it is evidence. There is no way to explain those orbits without a ~ 4m solar mass object. What do you think it is, woo boy?
barakn
2.6 / 5 (15) Oct 12, 2018
Although formerly used as a synonym for fissile material, fissionable materials also include those (such as uranium-238) that can be fissioned only with high-energy neutrons. As a result, fissile materials (such as uranium-235) are a subset of fissionable materials.
Source: United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission https://www.nrc.g...ial.html
Benni wrong again.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2018
Inertial Mass occupying the vacuum in its atomic form as dust grains!
SEU> the collapsing/compression/density of dust/gas in the disk cannot increase to the temperature needed to trigger the ignition of the Hydrogen gas

The dust clouds occupying the vacuum as a cloud in totality is weightless, but a single grain of dust has weight due to the gravity g of the cloud, where gravity is zero at the centre of mass
This tenuous cloud is infinitely far less dense than an asteroid where fusion temperatures are not seen, shows conclusively the gravitationally collapsing dust cloud equally has no fusion temperatures. Stars are seen forming in the clouds of dust fingers in Orion's belt of equally infinitely less density than a typical asteroid
Gravity, while the main driving force in initiating the collapsing dust grains, the temperatures required are not solely provided by gravity!
says granville

Precisely. And once again you have proven my point. Thank you, Sir.
Da Schneib
3.1 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2018
Regarding inference vs. evidence, if I walk into my dark bedroom and trip over my black cat and she meows, I don't conclude it was dark matter.

Just sayin'.
barakn
2.7 / 5 (14) Oct 12, 2018
If Benni was actually a nuclear engineer in the US, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission is the regulatory agency that would provide the rules Benni would have to follow, and Benni would be familiar with the terminology used in those rules. Conclusion: Benni is either not an American or not a nuclear engineer.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2018
Although formerly used as a synonym for fissile material, fissionable materials also include those (such as uranium-238) that can be fissioned only with high-energy neutrons. As a result, fissile materials (such as uranium-235) are a subset of fissionable materials.
Source: United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission https://www.nrc.g...ial.html
Benni wrong again.
says barakn

LOL WHY do you people quibble, seemingly on cue, as to the differences or similarities between two or more words in the English language, when the two words, "fissile" and "fissionable" material means the exact same thing in computer Dictionary?

fissile | ˈfisəl, ˈfiˌsīl
adjective
(of an atom or element) able to undergo nuclear fission: a fissile isotope.

fissionable | ˈfiSH(ə)nəbəl |
adjective
another term for fissile.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2018
If Benni was actually a nuclear engineer in the US, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission is the regulatory agency that would provide the rules Benni would have to follow, and Benni would be familiar with the terminology used in those rules. Conclusion: Benni is either not an American or not a nuclear engineer.
Most here think he was a janitor at Three Mile Island.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2018
@barakn
Conclusion: Benni is either not an American or not a nuclear engineer
well, we can take that a mite further:
Considering his(her) syntax and choice of key phrases, (s)he is definitely american

(s)he may well have worked *with* nuclear materials in certain areas (like say, on an air craft carrier), but definitely wasn't part of the reactor crew (specific terms and the ability to differentiate between them is required)

moreover, (s)he has a serious problem with basic research, so that in and of itself rules out a STEM higher education degree (though perhaps not an associate)

lastly, as Ira and so many others have pointed out, (s)he is incredibly deficient in mathematics and has yet to demonstrate any proficiency, with failures in basic maths, let alone higher maths like calc or algebra

IOW - it's far more likely this is an attention whore troll than an actual engineer, let alone any other claim made to date (and there have been many)
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2018
This tenuous cloud is infinitely far less dense than an asteroid where fusion temperatures are not seen, shows conclusively the gravitationally collapsing dust cloud equally has no fusion temperatures. Stars are seen forming in the clouds of dust fingers in Orion's belt of equally infinitely less density than a typical asteroid


Another waste of pixels! You really don't have a clue, do you? It doesn't matter much about the surrounding gas cloud, it is the part of the cloud that is collapsing to form the stars. The pressures and temperatures at the centre of those protostars is enough to start fusion.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2018
But it's there, as can easily be inferred from orbits of the stars in the immediate vicinity of Sgr A* which are totally unlike orbits around a barycenter (as you claim without a shred of supporting evidence).

I_N_F_E_R_R_E_D is not evidence, it's an I_N_F_E_R_R_E_N_C_E. Get it?


Yes it is evidence. There is no way to explain those orbits without a ~ 4m solar mass object. What do you think it is, woo boy?
says jones

LOL Wrong again, jones. FYI, something that has been 'inferred' is NOT evidence of something. The term INFER, INFERRED, INFERENCE are merely SUGGESTIONS or hypothesis which has yet to be proven. And nothing as yet has been proven of your particular brand of WOO.
SkyLight
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2018
Most here think he was a janitor at Three Mile Island
...and dropped his wrench into the reactor core while he was adjusting it.
Da Schneib
2.8 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2018
This tenuous cloud is infinitely far less dense than an asteroid where fusion temperatures are not seen, shows conclusively the gravitationally collapsing dust cloud equally has no fusion temperatures. Stars are seen forming in the clouds of dust fingers in Orion's belt of equally infinitely less density than a typical asteroid


Another waste of pixels! You really don't have a clue, do you? It doesn't matter much about the surrounding gas cloud, it is the part of the cloud that is collapsing to form the stars. The pressures and temperatures at the centre of those protostars is enough to start fusion.
One of the misconceptions the uneducated cling to is that the startup of fusion is "sudden" in human terms. It takes at least tens of thousands of years for fusion to start up. It's not a bang but a whimper.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2018
Most here think he was a janitor at Three Mile Island
...and dropped his wrench into the reactor core while he was adjusting it.
More like squeezed the toilet mops into the reactor sump.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (12) Oct 12, 2018

If Benni was actually a nuclear engineer in the US, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission is the regulatory agency that would provide the rules Benni would have to follow, and Benni would be familiar with the terminology used in those rules. Conclusion: Benni is either not an American or not a nuclear engineer.
barakn

Benni is an anonymous commenter in these physorg forums. He is not obligated to prove anything. He could be the President of Australia for all we know, but he still isn't obligated to prove his identity or qualifications so that you and others can track him down for the purpose of harassment. What Benni is inclined to say in this website is determined by him alone, just as what YOU say is yours also.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2018
And speaking of toilet mops, here's @SEU.
Benni
2 / 5 (12) Oct 12, 2018
One of the misconceptions the uneducated cling to is that the startup of fusion is "sudden" in human terms. It takes at least tens of thousands of years for fusion to start up. It's not a bang but a whimper.


After a fission bomb trigger goes off in an H-bomb, fusion will occur within fractions of a second. I guess you don't think this also happens in stars as well?
SkyLight
2.7 / 5 (12) Oct 12, 2018
the two words, "fissile" and "fissionable" material means the exact same thing in computer Dictionary?
Maybe they do mean the same thing to whoever wrote that part of the dictionary since, as far as he is concerned, they're close enough in meaning.

But they certainly don't mean the same thing to a physicist! They're *close* in meaning, but not equivalent. Again, from the Wiki
A nuclide capable of undergoing fission (even with a low probability) after capturing a high energy neutron is referred to as "fissionable." A fissionable nuclide that can be induced to fission with low-energy thermal neutrons with a high probability is referred to as "fissile."
So, high-energy neutron capture -> fissionable, low-energy neutron capture -> fissile.

These distinctions become important when designing or controlling nuclear devices or experiments, as good ol' Benni should have been able to point out to us - if, that is, he actually knew anything about this stuff. Quarks? Pshaw!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
@Surveillance Regarding fissile and fissionable.
From wikipedia: https://en.wikipe...sionable

""Fissile" is distinct from "fissionable." A nuclide capable of undergoing fission (even with a low probability) after capturing a high energy neutron is referred to as "fissionable." A fissionable nuclide that can be induced to fission with low-energy thermal neutrons with a high probability is referred to as "fissile."[4] Although the terms were formerly synonymous, fissionable materials include also those (such as uranium-238) that can be fissioned only with high-energy neutrons. As a result, fissile materials (such as uranium-235) are a subset of fissionable materials. "

says jimmy bobber

U-235 and U-238 have similar properties and yet differ also. I used "fissionable" to express the workable quality of the fissionable material as to its ability to gain high temps to trigger Fusion in Hydrogen gas.
barakn
3.1 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2018
The Sun is 1.4kg a cubic metre

To further demonstrate the density required for collapsing dust grains reaching fusion density, the present density of our star, the Sun is 1.4kg a cubic metre, which further demonstrates the point that gravity is not responsible for fusion temperatures required, as 1.4kg a cubic metre is the density of a comet which is a ball of trillions of ice covered dust grains. -granville583762

No, average solar density is 1.41 grams per cubic centimeter, which works out to 1,410 kg/cubic meter. Gosh, you were only off by three orders of magnitude. And keep in mind that this is an average density. The surface is less dense and the core is much denser. Whatever your day job is, please return to it.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
And speaking of toilet mops, here's @SEU.
says Da Schithead

Speaking about yourself again?
But you haven't revealed that you are a roll of used toilet paper, and smell just as bad.
SkyLight
2.7 / 5 (12) Oct 12, 2018
After a fission bomb trigger goes off in an H-bomb, fusion will occur within fractions of a second. I guess you don't think this also happens in stars as well?
Different materials, different scales, different scenario, one is human-made from machined metal parts on a time-scale of months or years, the other self-assembles from extremely tenuous H and He gas over time-scales of thousands to millions of years.

But otherwise, Benni - uh-huh - they're just the same to a guy who wields a No. 10 floor-mop all day long.
Da Schneib
2.8 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2018
The Sun is 1.4kg a cubic metre

To further demonstrate the density required for collapsing dust grains reaching fusion density, the present density of our star, the Sun is 1.4kg a cubic metre, which further demonstrates the point that gravity is not responsible for fusion temperatures required, as 1.4kg a cubic metre is the density of a comet which is a ball of trillions of ice covered dust grains. -granville583762

No, average solar density is 1.41 grams per cubic centimeter, which works out to 1,410 kg/cubic meter. Gosh, you were only off by three orders of magnitude. And keep in mind that this is an average density. The surface is less dense and the core is much denser. Whatever your day job is, please return to it.
Its "day job" is squeezing toilet mops into the nuclear reactor sump.
SkyLight
2.7 / 5 (12) Oct 12, 2018
...a roll of used toilet paper...
Ouch! - what a give-away!!! He uses the toilet paper... and then he rolls it back up again!!!! Heh, SEU - save up all those pennies to buy some decent books on physics. But please don't use them to wipe your a*s...
granville583762
2.8 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2018
Occupying the vacuum in tenuous plasmatic form

The density required for collapsing dust grains reaching fusion density, the present density of our star, the Sun is 1.4kg a cubic metre, which further demonstrates the point that gravity, is not responsible for fusion temperatures
SEU> Precisely. And once again you have proven my point. Thank you, Sir.

Proto-star dust clouds are actually more of a plasma, as having lost their electrons which automatically implies as this is a gravitationally bound ionic plasmatic proto-star cloud, the positive ions in the cloud are counterbalancing the gravitational force coupled with the ionic magnetic field with electrons spiralling along the field lines, so separating Sir Isaac Newton's gravitation attraction of the Ionics inertial mass, this tenuous plasmatic cloud is operating in the world of electric-fields, magnetic-fields and electric-currents to enable the proton with the help of the neutron to cross the coulomb barrier!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
@Benni

You see, Benni, this nuclear science stuff is tricky - it ain't like a DC circuit or some nice simple spectroscopy - yah gotta lurn some real complex sh*t - particle physics, strong- and weak- nuclear force physics, quantum mechanics, quantum chromodynamics, and what-not; all the math and theory behind them. Which, to put it mildly, ain't a walk in the park.

And you, Benni, despite the crap you try to shove down people's throats about how much of a Nukular Enjineer you are, you haven't even made the first step toward becoming scientist conversant with the subject. It's WAY more complex than you can even imagine.
says SkyLight aka Captain Chickenshit

Benni, I was wrong that SkyLight is aka jonesdave.
The above paragraphs clearly indicate that SkyLight is one of Captain Stumpy's sox. No one else uses the improper "ain't" like Captain Chickenshit is wont to do in a good majority of his posts. He will refute the evidence but it is proof of his deceit.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
...a roll of used toilet paper...
Ouch! - what a give-away!!! He uses the toilet paper... and then he rolls it back up again!!!! Heh, SEU - save up all those pennies to buy some decent books on physics. But please don't use them to wipe your a*s...
says Captain Chickenshit's clone
which is obviously YOUR mode of wiping YOUR arse.
SkyLight
2.5 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
which further demonstrates the point that gravity is not responsible for fusion temperatures required
Ever seen a comet up against the Sun? One is small, and the other is gigantic. Huge differences of scale, differences of materials, here we go again...

The temperatures reached at the center of stars like the Sun, due to the gravitational force exerted by material in the star, are sufficient that pairs of protons achieve the necessary velocities to overcome Coulomb repulsion between them, and get close enough to allow the strong force to do its' work. But that's just a small part of the fusion process...

Do some homework, and stop daydreaming that you can just wave a magic wand and think up alternative, weird and oh-so-simple ways to make these things happen the way you imagine they should. It doesn't work that way - didn't your Momma tell you that?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2018
Regarding inference vs. evidence, if I walk into my dark bedroom and trip over my black cat and she meows, I don't conclude it was dark matter.

Just sayin'.
says Da Schithead
Why in the world would you conclude "dark Matter" if you tripped on your cat in a darkened room? HOW would you INFER Dark Matter.
You make no sense whatsoever - even in such a stupid analogy as you have given.

SkyLight
2.7 / 5 (12) Oct 12, 2018
SEU - there are physicists here. Real physicists, University-educated scientists. And then there's you and Benni and granville, and the other people who prove with every utterance they - you - make here, that you don't know shit from shine-ola when it comes to science.

Now, it's long past my bedtime. so I'm off up the wooden hills. Goodnight all!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
This tenuous cloud is infinitely far less dense than an asteroid where fusion temperatures are not seen, shows conclusively the gravitationally collapsing dust cloud equally has no fusion temperatures. Stars are seen forming in the clouds of dust fingers in Orion's belt of equally infinitely less density than a typical asteroid


Another waste of pixels! You really don't have a clue, do you? It doesn't matter much about the surrounding gas cloud, it is the part of the cloud that is collapsing to form the stars. The pressures and temperatures at the centre of those protostars is enough to start fusion.
One of the mi to is that the startup of fusion is "sudden" in human terms. It takes at least tens of thousands of years for fusion to start up. It's not a bang but a whimper.
says Da Schnithead

That is all in your imagination. No one has claimed that the startup of Fusion in Star-making is 'sudden'. Learn to read better.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
And speaking of toilet mops, here's @SEU.
says Da Schithead

Da Schniebo seems to be affected with a love of toilet and toilet paper, perhaps having had a traumatic experience in his teens when his parent insisted that he be toilet trained at last, instead of having to wear diapers or which his parent or teachers would have to change very often.
Da Schithead also cannot provide us with cogent answers without reverting to his remorse at having had his diapers taken away, and finally being given an ultimatum to use the toilet or get out. And so, Da Schithead has come to physorg, not only to attempt to Write Code so that those posters which disagrees with his views on science, will suddenly disappear, never able to sign onto physorg again.
Yes, Schniebo - we know ALL about your stupid tricks of writing code to remove commenters.
And so do the physorg moderators and owners of this site.
hat1208
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
@Da Schneib

It's so nice to have you back and SkyLight I am also appreciating you oyasumi. Jonesdave keep up the good fight. Hope to read all of you on Monday.

Thanks to all
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2018
@idiot religious fanatical eggy the pseudoscience f*ckwit
says SkyLight aka Captain
Sky isn't me, ya moron

just because you can't read doesn't mean no one else here can
No one else uses the improper "ain't" like Captain
what, exactly, is so improper?

Although widely disapproved as nonstandard, and more common in the habitual speech of the less educated, ain't is flourishing in American English. It is used in both speech and writing to catch attention and to gain emphasis. The term is quite popular colloquially and is common in rural informal speech

given that you're blatantly anti-science and incapable of differentiating between facts and your religion or pseudoscience beliefs, this makes any conversation with you informal and not subject to basic rules of etiquitte, especially as you specifically claim people here are "not obligated to prove anything", despite the guidelines and basic rules of science
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2018
But it's there, as can easily be inferred from orbits of the stars in the immediate vicinity of Sgr A* which are totally unlike orbits around a barycenter (as you claim without a shred of supporting evidence).

I_N_F_E_R_R_E_D is not evidence, it's an I_N_F_E_R_R_E_N_C_E. Get it?


Yes it is evidence. There is no way to explain those orbits without a ~ 4m solar mass object. What do you think it is, woo boy?

jonesdumb putting his head where it doesn't shine again. I tell you what moron, if you can infer faerie dust from a dreadfully wrong interpretation of gravity and the scale at which it operates, then I can infer that all the magnetic fields throughout the Universe are created by electric currents given the volumes of real world evidence over the last 200years of applied science of EM theory.
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2018

jonesdumb putting his head where it doesn't shine again. I tell you what moron, if you can infer faerie dust from a dreadfully wrong interpretation of gravity and the scale at which it operates, then I can infer that all the magnetic fields throughout the Universe are created by electric currents given the volumes of real world evidence over the last 200years of applied science of EM theory.


So, you cannot answer the question, thicko? Why didn't you just say; "I cannot answer that question, and I have no scientifically feasible mechanism to explain it."?
cantdrive85
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2018
says SkyLight aka Captain Chickenshit

Nah, dimlight is da schnied's cockpuppet. Cap'n Stoopid is far too stoopid to have a cockpuppet, he just relies on his apish style of repeating the stoopid crap that comes from the morons who upvote him.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
This tenuous cloud is infinitely far less dense than an asteroid where fusion temperatures are not seen, shows conclusively the gravitationally collapsing dust cloud(**)


Another waste of pixels! You really don't have a clue, do you? It doesn't matter much about the surrounding gas cloud, it is the part of the cloud that is collapsing to form the stars. The pressures and temperatures at the centre of those protostars is enough to start fusion.
One of the misconceptions the uneducated cling to is that the startup of fusion is "sudden" in human terms. It takes at least tens of thousands of years for fusion to start up. It's not a bang but a whimper.
says Da Schithead

"The pressures and temperatures at the centre of those protostars is enough to start fusion."
You are not specifying in which medium the pressures & temps have started fusion. Within the dust/gas there is no protostar. Fusion is not triggered by the collapse/compression of dust/gas.

jonesdave
2 / 5 (12) Oct 12, 2018
jonesdumb putting his head where it doesn't shine again.


Nope, just repeating what any scientist qualified in the relevant area is telling you, if you bothered to read the scientific literature. The fact that you are incapable of understanding the pretty basic maths of Keplerian orbits, and prefer to hang on the every word of unqualified f***wits like Thornhill, is not my problem.
cantdrive85
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2018
So, you cannot answer the question, thicko?

Already told ya moron, it's a plasmoid.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (12) Oct 12, 2018
Fusion is not triggered by the collapse/compression of dust/gas.


Yes it is.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (12) Oct 12, 2018
So, you cannot answer the question, thicko?

Already told ya moron, it's a plasmoid.


So link me to the paper, idiot. I want to see who the cretin is that is suggesting this, and take a look at how they a making essentially charge neutral stars orbit in a way that mimics a 4m solar mass object.
Can't do that, can you? Because, as usual, you thick idiot, you just pulled it out of your uneducated arse. Didn't you, woo boy?

Plasmoid!!!! Christ, what a cretin.
cantdrive85
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2018
if you bothered to read the scientific literature.

There is exactly zero legitimate science in the literature on black holes, it is nothing but pseudoscientific claptrap put forth by plasma ignoramuses.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
SEU - there are physicists here. Real physicists, University-educated scientists. And then there's you and Benni and granville, and the other people who prove with every utterance they - you - make here, that you don't know shit from shine-ola when it comes to science.

Now, it's long past my bedtime. so I'm off up the wooden hills. Goodnight all!
says SkyLight aka Captain Chickenshit (most presumably)

LOL No Physicist worth his/her salt would set computer fingers in this website while your gang of pseudoscientists who are unwilling to acknowledge that evidence will be forthcoming wrt Physics/Astrophysics that will forever change the setup for denying that alternative science could topple the current views with hard evidence and its replication.

But dream on.

We have time in our favour.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (12) Oct 12, 2018
if you bothered to read the scientific literature.

There is exactly zero legitimate science in the literature on black holes, it is nothing but pseudoscientific claptrap put forth by plasma ignoramuses.


Wrong. That is just your view, and you are a scientifically illiterate tosser. So, your views are irrelevant.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
says SkyLight aka Captain Chickenshit

Nah, dimlight is da schnied's cockpuppet. Cap'n Stoopid is far too stoopid to have a cockpuppet, he just relies on his apish style of repeating the stoopid crap that comes from the morons who upvote him.
says CD

Perhaps you are right. But time will tell as I search for more evidence that, I suspect, will be abundant. Captain Chickenshit's liberal use of improper English such as "ain't" in a science site belies his true reason for appearing in physorg. And that's only to learn about commenters, not so much the science.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2018
jonesdumb putting his head where it doesn't shine again.


Nope, just repeating what any scientist qualified in the relevant area is telling you, if you bothered to read the scientific literature. The fact that you are incapable of understanding the pretty basic maths of Keplerian orbits, and prefer to hang on the every word of unqualified f***wits like Thornhill, is not my problem.
says jones

Oh come on, jones. You KNOW that's where you're hiding it. Else you would be much smarter than you really are and, instead, take the stance of a "wait and see" attitude, rather than putting all of your chickens in one basket. We know how you love to be popular amongst the pseudoscience denizens of this site - like Captain Chickenshit, Ojorf, Da Schithead, and several more - too many to name here.

But you are, jones, (as my American friends would say) - cruising for a bruising. Particularly when you insist that there are only 2 stages for Hydrogen to attain Fusion in Stars
jonesdave
2 / 5 (12) Oct 12, 2018
But you are, jones, (as my American friends would say) - cruising for a bruising. Particularly when you insist that there are only 2 stages for Hydrogen to attain Fusion in Stars


Sod off, thicko. If you've got a point, then just link to the relevant paper, yes? Otherwise, STFU, as you have no idea about the relevant science. Or any science, for that matter.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2018
Fusion is not triggered by the collapse/compression of dust/gas.


Yes it is.
says jones

See!! That is what I mean, jones, that you are a thick-headed mule who can't see the forest - and so on.
There will always be an intermediary (Fission) to light up that candle, jones.
Gravitation, collapsing of dust/gas, and compression just don't have the Energy/Power to create the high temperatures that are required to ignite Hydrogen gas into committing to the Fusion process. It just cannot be done, jones, without the heat from FISSION as an intermediary. And fissionable materials MUST be present in the mixture of dust and gas, otherwise it just remains dust and gas. We are talking about EXTREMELY HOT TEMPERATURES here, jones. Not your piddling little firecracker that you think will start Fusion.

THINK, jones. Use your brain - whatever is left of it.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (12) Oct 12, 2018
Fusion is not triggered by the collapse/compression of dust/gas.


Yes it is.
says jones

See!! That is what I mean, jones, that you are a thick-headed mule who can't see the forest - and so on.
There will always be an intermediary (Fission) to light up that candle, jones.
Gravitation, collapsing of dust/gas, and compression just don't have the Energy/Power to create the high temperatures that are required to ignite Hydrogen gas into committing to the Fusion process. It just cannot be done, jones, without the heat from FISSION as an intermediary. And fissionable materials MUST be present in the mixture of dust and gas, otherwise it just remains dust and gas. We are talking about EXTREMELY HOT TEMPERATURES here, jones. Not your piddling little firecracker that you think will start Fusion.

THINK, jones. Use your brain - whatever is left of it.


Link me to the paper, you dense f***wit.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
But you are, jones, (as my American friends would say) - cruising for a bruising. Particularly when you insist that there are only 2 stages for Hydrogen to attain Fusion in Stars


Sod off, thicko. If you've got a point, then just link to the relevant paper, yes? Otherwise, STFU, as you have no idea about the relevant science. Or any science, for that matter.

says jones

Once again, jones. The evidence is forthcoming however long it takes for scientists to recognise the power of Truth and Evidence and the American Way.

My advice for you to THINK, and more clearly, seems to have gone on deaf eyes. But you will one day see the bright light of Truth in science as the scientists themselves do a 180 and admit their error of only a 2 stage Fusion process in Star-making.

Perhaps they will also realise their error in rejecting the Plasmoid at Sgr* A. Foolishness is hard to remove from the psyche of fools such as Captain Chickenshit and Da Schithead and SpookyOtto
jonesdave
2 / 5 (12) Oct 12, 2018
^^^^So, you've got nothing, you thick b*stard? Correct? Just pulling sh!t out of your arse, like cantthink, Benni, Granville and all the other scientifically illiterate nutjobs on here. Dickhead.
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (14) Oct 12, 2018
As gravity is zero at the solar core density is zero

Solar average density at 1.4kg/m3, where as at the core gravity is zero implying the hydrogen nuclei are travelling at velocity in zero gravity, the hydrogen nuclei are weightless at the solar core so it is irrelevant what the theorised theoretical density at the solar core theoretically is, because the atoms are moving freely weightless in zero gravity and what is more in their plasmatic positively charged state they are weightlessly crossing the coulomb barrier

At the solar core as anywhere else density is the amount of mass gravity has squeezed into a cubic metre, where density is proportional to gravity - As gravity is zero at the solar core density is zero as there is no longer any force exerted on the fusion plasma, it is in a free fluid state as weightless as a water floating in the space station!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
So, you cannot answer the question, thicko?

Already told ya moron, it's a plasmoid.


So link me to the paper, idiot. I want to see who the cretin is that is suggesting this, and take a look at how they a making essentially charge neutral stars orbit in a way that mimics a 4m solar mass object.
Can't do that, can you? Because, as usual, you thick idiot, you just pulled it out of your uneducated arse. Didn't you, woo boy?

Plasmoid!!!! Christ, what a cretin.
says jones

LOL Perhaps there will come a day when you will have to eat your words, jones. I see that if the paper was indeed presented for your perusal, you would reject it outright as the work of a cretin. So, you seem to be saying that: if it isn't a Black Hole, you will have none of it. Is that correct?
I will be here to monitor the site for a couple more hundred years, unless I am given another assignment. But it will be a pleasure to watch you and the others eat crow, jones.
:)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
So, you cannot answer the question, thicko?

Already told ya moron, it's a plasmoid.


So link me to the paper, idiot. I want to see who the cretin is that is suggesting this, and take a look at how they a making essentially charge neutral stars orbit in a way that mimics a 4m solar mass object.
Can't do that, can you? Because, as usual, you thick idiot, you just pulled it out of your uneducated arse. Didn't you, woo boy?

Plasmoid!!!! Christ, what a cretin.
says jones

LOL Perhaps there will come a day when you will have to eat your words, jones. I see that if the paper was indeed presented for your perusal, you would reject it outright as the work of a cretin. So, you seem to be saying that: if it isn't a Black Hole, you will have none of it. Is that correct?
I will be here to monitor the site for a couple more hundred years, unless I am given another assignment. But it will be a pleasure to watch you and the others eat crow, jones.
:)
jonesdave
2 / 5 (12) Oct 12, 2018
^^^^Jesus, what a f***wit!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (12) Oct 12, 2018
^^^^So, you've got nothing, you thick b*stard? Correct? Just pulling sh!t out of your arse, like cantthink, Benni, Granville and all the other scientifically illiterate nutjobs on here. Dickhead.

says jones

LOL Poor jones. I have ALL the evidence that I need to have, jonesybonesy.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
the two words, "fissile" and "fissionable" material means the exact same thing


Maybe they do mean the same thing to whoever wrote that part of the dictionary since, as far as he is concerned, they're close enough in meaning


.........."fissile" is a contraction of "fissionable", this being the reason they carry the SAME definition in spite of your psycho-babble effort trying to create a separation between the two.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (12) Oct 12, 2018
^^^^So, you've got nothing, you thick b*stard? Correct? Just pulling sh!t out of your arse, like cantthink, Benni, Granville and all the other scientifically illiterate nutjobs on here. Dickhead.

says jones

LOL Poor jones. I have ALL the evidence that I need to have, jonesybonesy.


Then link to it you f****ing fraud.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
@Benni
LOL It seems that at least SOME of the denizens of physorg believe themselves to be English majors also, possibly with 2 degrees in perpetual motion (based).
The two terms are interchangeable with the same basic meaning. I prefer 'fissionable' material.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
Benni, I was wrong that SkyLight is aka jonesdave.
The above paragraphs clearly indicate that SkyLight is one of Captain Stumpy's sox. No one else uses the improper "ain't" like Captain Chickenshit is wont to do in a good majority of his posts. He will refute the evidence but it is proof of his deceit.


The first time I noticed it a few months ago it was right under a schneibo post with one answering the other in linguistic syntax so closely resembling one another that I deemed it indisputable one was a moniker of the other. But of course the psycho-babble of the Pop-Cosmology rant brigade sounds so much alike sometimes that they are often indistinguishable.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
^^^^So, you've got nothing, you thick b*stard? Correct? Just pulling sh!t out of your arse, like cantthink, Benni, Granville and all the other scientifically illiterate nutjobs on here. Dickhead.

says jones

LOL Poor jones. I have ALL the evidence that I need to have, jonesybonesy.


Then link to it you f****ing fraud.
says jonesybonesy

You would only label it as the work of a cretin, just as you have admitted that you would consider any paper submitted for your perusal from CD85 as written by a cretin. These thoughts of yours make it impossible to share with you any evidence whatsoever, with the kind of rot within your brain that you exhibit in this website. It is YOUR loss, not ours/mine, jonesybonesy
jonesdave
2.4 / 5 (14) Oct 12, 2018
^^^^So, you've got nothing, you thick b*stard? Correct? Just pulling sh!t out of your arse, like cantthink, Benni, Granville and all the other scientifically illiterate nutjobs on here. Dickhead.

says jones

LOL Poor jones. I have ALL the evidence that I need to have, jonesybonesy.


Then link to it you f****ing fraud.
says jonesybonesy

You would only label it as the work of a cretin, just as you have admitted that you would consider any paper submitted for your perusal from CD85 as written by a cretin. These thoughts of yours make it impossible to share with you any evidence whatsoever, with the kind of rot within your brain that you exhibit in this website. It is YOUR loss, not ours/mine, jonesybonesy


Listen, f***wit, if it is in the scientific literature, then I'll read it. Simple as that. If, as I suspect, you are just making sh!t up, then that would be reason why you won't link to it. Correct? Because you are lying, yes?
Benni
2 / 5 (12) Oct 12, 2018
says Da Schithead

"The pressures and temperatures at the centre of those protostars is enough to start fusion."
You are not specifying in which medium the pressures & temps have started fusion. Within the dust/gas there is no protostar. Fusion is not triggered by the collapse/compression of dust/gas.


Yeah, the gravitational collapse theory was abandoned by nuclear physicists back in the late 1930's when it was theorized what the temperatures would reach with a fission bomb. Prior to this it had been assumed the fusion process on the Sun was driven by gravitational collapse, only Pop-Cosmology clings to such a rag.
jonesdave
2.4 / 5 (14) Oct 12, 2018
Yeah, the gravitational collapse theory was abandoned by nuclear physicists back in the late 1930's....


Link, or you're lying. Again.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
Benni, I was wrong that SkyLight is aka jonesdave.
The above paragraphs clearly indicate that SkyLight is one of Captain Stumpy's sox. No one else uses the improper "ain't" like Captain Chickenshit is wont to do in a good majority of his posts. He will refute the evidence but it is proof of his deceit.


The first time I noticed it a few months ago it was right under a schneibo post with one answering the other in linguistic syntax so closely resembling one another that I deemed it indisputable one was a moniker of the other. But of course the psycho-babble of the Pop-Cosmology rant brigade sounds so much alike sometimes that they are often indistinguishable.
says Benni

Your estimate that SkyLight is actually a sock of Da SchnikerSchnee LOL could be spot on, Benni. Da Schithead does have a tendency to use syntax that is remarkably similar, if not the same, as the SkyLight sock.
LOL I wouldn't waste my valuable time on forming new accounts and all that bother.
Benni
2 / 5 (12) Oct 12, 2018
As gravity is zero at the solar core density is zero as there is no longer any force exerted on the fusion plasma, it is in a free fluid state as weightless as a water floating in the space station!


Yep, it's ALL about the temperature generated.
jonesdave
2.4 / 5 (14) Oct 12, 2018
says Da Schithead

"The pressures and temperatures at the centre of those protostars is enough to start fusion."
You are not specifying in which medium the pressures & temps have started fusion. Within the dust/gas there is no protostar. Fusion is not triggered by the collapse/compression of dust/gas.


Yeah, the gravitational collapse theory was abandoned by nuclear physicists back in the late 1930's when it was theorized what the temperatures would reach with a fission bomb. Prior to this it had been assumed the fusion process on the Sun was driven by gravitational collapse, only Pop-Cosmology clings to such a rag.


Just to show what a lying tosspot Benni is - guess when the nuclear fusion model of stars was first detailed? 1938. And by whom? Hans Bethe. And what was he qualified as? A nuclear physicist!

https://en.wikipe...ns_Bethe

He also did work on neutron stars, among other things.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (12) Oct 12, 2018
^^^^So, you've got nothing, you thick b*stard? Correct? Just pulling sh!t out of my arse.

says jones

LOL Poor jones. I have ALL the evidence that I need to have, jonesybonesy.


Then
says jonesybonesy

You would only label it as the work of a cretin, just as you have admitted that you would consider any paper submitted for your perusal from CD85 as written by a cretin. These thoughts of yours make it impossible to share with you any evidence whatsoever, with the kind of rot within your brain that you exhibit in this website. It is YOUR loss, not ours/mine, jonesybonesy


Listen, f***wit, if it is in the scientific literature, then I'll read it. Simple as that. If, as I suspect, you are just making sh!t up, then that would be reason why you won't link to it. Correct? Because you are lying, yes?
jones

Yes, the evidence has been written up, jones, but you would not understand it. Too complicated for you, jonesybonesy
granville583762
2.8 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2018
"Link me to the paper"
SEU> - cruising for a bruising. to attain Fusion in Stars

Jjonesdave> Sod off, thicko. If you've got a point, then just link to the relevant paper, yes? Otherwise, STFU, as you have no idea about the relevant science. Or any science, for that matter.

You cannot change the universe JD, as all your comments consist of "Link me to the paper" you must not be able to move with all these overflowing scrolls, journals, links, papers - all this junk is cluttering your little house JD.
You make no reference into all these linked journals we keep supplying you in abundance JD
In short JD, you are simply hording these linked journals and making no referencing comment JD

Your epitaph in memoriam reads JD
"So I jonesdave for in eternity request; "Link me to the paper" link me, link me then as I JD will forever haunt these quantum fluctuations forever asking, O please, please link me till the angels cometh"
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (12) Oct 12, 2018
@jones
Isn't it time for you to join all of your friends, like Da Schnee and SpookyOtto, etc. in the dining hall of the mental institution in which all of you reside and receive psychiatric care? We can wait for your return.
jonesdave
2.4 / 5 (14) Oct 12, 2018


Yes, the evidence has been written up, jones, but you would not understand it. Too complicated for you, jonesybonesy


In which case there is no chance of a loon like you understanding it. You are lying, and are now looking for any excuse not to have to provide a link to something that doesn't exist. I couldn't give a toss whether an idiot like you thinks I won't understand it. Just link to it you f***ing liar.
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2018
"Link me to the paper"
SEU> - cruising for a bruising. to attain Fusion in Stars

Jjonesdave> Sod off, thicko. If you've got a point, then just link to the relevant paper, yes? Otherwise, STFU, as you have no idea about the relevant science. Or any science, for that matter.

You cannot change the universe JD, as all your comments consist of "Link me to the paper" you must not be able to move with all these overflowing scrolls, journals, links, papers - all this junk is cluttering your little house JD.
You make no reference into all these linked journals we keep supplying you in abundance JD
In short JD, you are simply hording these linked journals and making no referencing comment JD



Sod off you braindead twat.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2018
Watching someone try to claim scientific papers they never posted links to and then claim "you cannot change the universe" is perhaps the stupidest and most deeply dishonest thing I've seen on this site to date.

@SEU, provide links or STFU.
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2018
If it ain't peer reviewed, it ain't worth sh!t.

You heard it here first folks, every word uttered or written by jonesdumb, ever, "ain't worth sh!t."
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2018
If it ain't peer reviewed, it ain't worth sh!t.

You heard it here first folks, every word uttered or written by jonesdumb, ever, "ain't worth sh!t."


Really? What would you like me to link to in the peer reviewed literature? The ~4m solar mass object at the galactic centre? The total lack of electric discharge woo at comets? The total lack of evidence for Peratt's idiotic gigaparsec currents? Just name it. I'm sure there is plenty out there, woo boy. Stick to mythology, eh?
cantdrive85
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2018
Really? What would you like me to link to in the peer reviewed literature?

That statement "ain't worth sh!t." It's not peer-reviewed.
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2018
Really? What would you like me to link to in the peer reviewed literature?

That statement "ain't worth sh!t." It's not peer-reviewed.


Dickhead. Where is this plasmoid bollocks? We're still waiting.
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
@Surveillance_Egg_Unit
@granville583762
@cantdrive85
@Benni.

If aggregating material is Hydrogen-Helium mixture (NO 'heavier' fissile/fissionable atoms yet produced/contained in grav-collapsing/plasma-pinched cloud), star will still achieve fusion once internal pressures, temps reach criticality for fusion to trigger. Note: Despite gravitation at center being 'balanced', the overlaying BURDEN of stellar material layers DO have weight, so impart GRAVITATIONALLY based COMPRESSIN/CONTAINMENT 'force' from 'total weight' of mass between core and star's surface layers. So NO fissile/fissionable material need be involved in 'early population' star fusion. As for Black Holes, we are now realizing that Quark-Gluon-PLASMA STATE may be the final 'degenerate matter state' resisting/preventing collapse to 'point singularity'; so 'BHs' are merely extreme-massed 'extended objects' with self-induced 'event horizons', above which is e-m/plasma phenomena, including plasmoids/jets features. :)
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2018
Dickhead. Where is this plasmoid bollocks? We're still waiting.

I'll give this credence once it is peer-reviewed... Doesn't even have to be APJ or AGU.
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2018
Dickhead. Where is this plasmoid bollocks? We're still waiting.

I'll give this credence once it is peer-reviewed... Doesn't even have to be APJ or AGU.


And another crank with every excuse to avoid linking to something that doesn't exist. Well, not in the scientific literature, anyway. So, we can take it as read the cantthink's plasmoid woo was pulled out of his arse, and appears nowhere in the literature. Mind you, you don't need to be a genius to figure that out.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2018
@RC, you encouraged these fools so it's perhaps appropriate that you're now trying to rein them in. But pretty much too late. Tolja.
RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2018
@Da Schneib.
@RC, you encouraged these fools so it's perhaps appropriate that you're now trying to rein them in. But pretty much too late. Tolja.
I encouraged polite/correct science discourse. BOTH 'sides' were simplistic/naive and correct/incorrect in parts, which I pointed out IMPARTIALLY accordingly as indicated. If it hadn't been for the decades long personal nastiness, bot-voting 'gang wars' and intentional obfuscation/sabotage from BOTH 'sides', then BOTH 'sides' would have been further along towards a mutual correct scientific understanding of the reality being discovered more recently by mainstream using improved telescopes/instruments and more objective interpretations/reviews of the observational data; without previous naive/simplistic assumptions/interpretations that led to all the 'furphies' which created all these futile, nasty, time-wasting misunderstandings/arguments between the 'one-eyed' camps on BOTH 'sides'. Always look for the gems among the dross. :)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2018
LOL The squids like jonesbonesy and Da Shrieko, et al expect evidences to be forthcoming from me, (as well as Benni, granville and CD) into a chatroom full of hostilities, invectives, and mockery, as if by doing so, these squid could pass judgment on said evidences that would enable the awarding of the Nobel Prize or, at least, a t-shirt saying that we had won. LOL That is too funny.

Yes, the evidences have been written up and awaiting peer review at University. But since physorg is not anywhere near being a University or even college (maybe high school dropouts), I don't throw Pearls before swine, which refers to the lot in these forums.

I am also surprised that RC has catered to the Standard Model of Astrophysics wherein a newer theorem of Fission being required for Fusion to begin in Star-making is now a part of RC's repertoire of a 2 stage process of Star ignition. Collapse/compression/density IS a part of the Star-making process - but only in the beginning.
cantdrive85
2.8 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2018
For all y'all still clinging to the internal combustion of stars (ICS) conjured up by Eddington way back in the Gaslight Era, just take a look at the temperature profile of the Sun. It's opposite world, it get cooler as you go deeper. Claims it gets hotter below sunspots is pure conjecture, only because it "has to" due to the standard guesswork. There are zero successful predictions of ICS, there exists several major "problems" that are intractable per the ICS.
It's a dead guesswork, as shown by the total dearth of successful predictions.
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2018
Yes, the evidences have been written up and awaiting peer review at University.


Liar.
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2018
It's a dead guesswork, as shown by the total dearth of successful predictions.


Liar. And do please tell us the evidence for the idiotic electric sun woo. Another bunch of crap that has never seen the light of day outside of crank sites.
cantdrive85
3.3 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2018
Where is this plasmoid bollocks? We're still waiting.

jonesdumb claims to have a high school equivalency diploma yet cannot figure out how to do an interweb search.

http://lppfusion....No-1.pdf

Lerner is actually applying his theory, it is a real applied science which could potentially be the most ground breaking energy development in the history of man. And he is as close to the goal of fusion energy in a much shorter time span and with far fewer resources than any other research group.
https://lppfusion...-papers/
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2018
Yes, the evidences have been written up and awaiting peer review at University.


Which just shows that you don't even know what peer review is, you idiot. Universities don't peer review papers, badger brain. Other scientists do so anonymously. A paper is submitted to a journal, and the editorial team will send it to a number of peer reviewers, who are conversant with the relevant science.
So, do please tell us which journal it has been submitted to.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 12, 2018
I encouraged polite/correct
You did not. I showed you lying 100 times. Apparently you haven't stopped lying yet.
RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2018
@Surveillance_Egg_Unit
@granville583762
@cantdrive85
@Benni.

To expand further on my previous comments re stellar fusion in Hydrogen-Helium 'early population' stars situations, I'll first refer you to a thread wherein I pointed out to Da Schneib that, above and beyond the core-temp/pressure fusion dynamics, other, more 'distributed', fusion events can occur via PLASMOID SELF-COMPRESSION phenomena at NON-core locations in our own sun to this day. Here:

https://phys.org/...per.html

Note Da Schneib eventually said:
However, you are correct; I was wrong, there may be plasmoids.
Anyhow, be it full blown star, failed star, or even giant gas planets with large Hydrogen atmosphere, wherever e-m/plasma dynamics exists, there is SOME plasmoid-generated FUSION occurring. So even in proto-stars this may contribute FUSION-HEATING that raise the 'core' temps/pressures to initiate major fusion there! Again, no 'fission-heating' needed. :)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2018
Furthermore, it appears to have been an important feature in physorg that the Squids rule the site, where anyone who comes to comment in the site is automatically condemned if that commenter doesn't immediately turn into an arse-kisser anytime one or more of the Squid mob bends over. Any opposition to the Standards of modern Cosmology by a non-Squid who offers an alternative to said Standards has to be shunned and/or vilified with as much vigour and hate as any who refuses to be said arse-kisser for the Squids of physorg.
There should be a sign in the first page of the site that would say: "All future Arse-kissers sign up here >< so that the Squid mob consisting of jones, CaptainChickenshit, Da Schriek, SpookyOtto, Ojorf and some others can readily identify their next acolytes. Captain Chickenshit will be interested in acquiring their personal information such as name, address, education, and other pertinent stuff that only Law Enforcement should have.
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2018
Where is this plasmoid bollocks? We're still waiting.

jonesdumb claims to have a high school equivalency diploma yet cannot figure out how to do an interweb search.

http://lppfusion....No-1.pdf


Sorry, but that is pure sh!t by Lerner. And has been shown to be wrong. Still, it was 33 years ago. Maybe he can be forgiven. And I see nothing about BHs being a frigging plasmoid, nor any maths to explain the stellar orbits around the BH. Which weren't known about 33 years ago.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
Yes, the evidences have been written up and awaiting peer review at University.


Liar.
says jones Squid

And your evidence for that is....?

My oh my - it's Deja Vu
I asked Captain Chickenshit the same question to which I never received an answer. LOL
Da Schneib
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2018
@RC, you lied a hundred times and wouldn't admit a single one of them.

I was not aware of one thing and admitted it.

You're enough of a luser to claim those are equivalent.

Fcck u in the heart with a baseball bat.

Stop lying you piece of feces.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (12) Oct 12, 2018
@Da Schneib.
I encouraged polite/correct
You did not. I showed you lying 100 times. Apparently you haven't stopped lying yet.
Seriously, mate? My post above to SEU et al just linked to a thread/discussion where your accusations of "liar" were PROVEN FALSE. You eventually admitted I was correct and you wrong. In the past I also linked to other instances where your insults/accusations were shown to be falsely based due to your own ignorance and/or failure to properly read/understand what I posted that was correct/true before you kneejerked to bias and insult etc that was WRONG all along. About time you learned the lesson and stopped trying that silly tactic again, hey DS? Surely you can be better than this by now? :)
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2018
Yes, the evidences have been written up and awaiting peer review at University.


Liar.
says jones Squid

And your evidence for that is....?



The fact that you didn't even know what peer review is, and made up an idiotic lie about a university doing it! That evidence, you deranged liar.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2018
Yes, the evidences have been written up and awaiting peer review at University.


Which just shows that you don't even know what peer review is, you idiot. Universities don't peer review papers, badger brain. Other scientists do so anonymously. A paper is submitted to a journal, and the editorial team will send it to a number of peer reviewers, who are conversant with the relevant science.
So, do please tell us which journal it has been submitted to.
says jones Da Squid

Read my previous posts. I am not familiar with how peer review works. But I do know that it is in the offing as University professors are deciding on its merits and probabilities. It is out of my hands.
Da Schneib
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2018
Seriously, mate?
Yes, seriously, you disgusting pathologically lying piece of feces. Admit the 100 times you lied and apologize and we'll see.

Go ahead and pizz me off and see what happens to you. I still got the links.
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2018
Yes, the evidences have been written up and awaiting peer review at University.


Which just shows that you don't even know what peer review is, you idiot. Universities don't peer review papers, badger brain. Other scientists do so anonymously. A paper is submitted to a journal, and the editorial team will send it to a number of peer reviewers, who are conversant with the relevant science.
So, do please tell us which journal it has been submitted to.
says jones Da Squid

Read my previous posts. I am not familiar with how peer review works. But I do know that it is in the offing as University professors are deciding on its merits and probabilities. It is out of my hands.


No, university professors do not do peer review. You send the paper to a journal. The journal editor/s decide who to send it to for review. Those reviewers are anonymous. You are lying.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
Yes, the evidences have been written up and awaiting peer review at University.


Liar.
says jones Squid

And your evidence for that is....?



The fact that you didn't even know what peer review is, and made up an idiotic lie about a university doing it! That evidence, you deranged liar.


A copy of the paper is at University. What they have done with it to enact peer review is up to them. As I already have said, it is out of my hands.
I ask you again: And your evidence is....?
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (12) Oct 12, 2018
@Da Schneib.
Seriously, mate?
Yes, seriously, you disgusting pathologically lying piece of feces. Admit the 100 times you lied and apologize and we'll see.

Go ahead and pizz me off and see what happens to you. I still got the links.

You tried all that silly tactics before, and it backfired badly on you when I linked/pointed out all those instances where your accusations of 'liar' etc were demonstrably due to your own failure to read up/catch up with KNOWN mainstream science which I pointed out but you called all sorts of names because of unheeding juvenile and 'emotional' ego-kneejerking tactics like you are trying on again now! Don't you ever learn, mate? Get it straight: I'm NOT the enemy. Stop digging! :)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
@RC

Da Schriek has been known to write code to rid the site of certain posters in the past so that those commenters could no longer sign on to physorg to comment again.
This person is a treacherous scumbag with dishonest intent and inclination, so beware, RC
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2018


A copy of the paper is at University. What they have done with it to enact peer review is up to them. As I already have said, it is out of my hands.
I ask you again: And your evidence is....?


And your evidence is..................? A crackpot idea is sitting in some unnamed university awaiting peer review by people who don't do peer review???? You are lying. You said you already had the evidence, and were not linking to it because I wouldn't understand it! Now, that has changed, due to my insistence on providing the link anyway, to some tall tale about it sitting on a desk somewhere, so cannot be linked? Sorry, you are a liar.
Da Schneib
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2018
You daring me, @RC?

Thread where @100LiarRC claims relativity is not a mathematical theory: https://phys.org/...nal.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims gravitational radiation is EM: https://phys.org/...tar.html
Thread where @100LiarRC denies DM exerts gravity despite that being its signature: https://phys.org/...ack.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims yet again without evidence that "recent discovery" denies DM, again without evidence: https://phys.org/...los.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims yet one more time that DM doesn't exist due to "recent discoveries" that it has no documentation to support: https://phys.org/...ark.html
100

Da Schneib
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2018
Here's another 5 lies by RC:

Thread where @100LiarRC claims both DM and the BB are denied by unspecified "recent discoveries" again, and again without any evidence of these "recent discoveries:" https://phys.org/...ark.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims the Big Bang is "pretend:" https://phys.org/...les.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims LISA GW detections are "noise" despite the fact they are thousands of miles apart and the ringdown sequence is predicted by GRT: https://phys.org/...ime.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims peer review is contaminated because the reviewers use math: https://phys.org/...big.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims there are no lab experiments in magnetic reconnection before 2016, despite the PPPL experiments: https://phys.org/...its.html

I got 'em all, @RC. Bring it.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2018


A copy of the paper is at University. What they have done with it to enact peer review is up to them. As I already have said, it is out of my hands.
I ask you again: And your evidence is....?


And your evidence is..................? A crackpot idea is sitting in some unnamed university awaiting peer review by people who don't do peer review???? You are lying. You said you already had the evidence, and were not linking to it because I wouldn't understand it! Now, that has changed, due to my insistence on providing the link anyway, to some tall tale about it sitting on a desk somewhere, so cannot be linked? Sorry, you are a liar.


Of course I have the evidence, you fool. Why wouldn't I if I had been talking about it here? You haven't made any refutation as evidence that it could be false. I will say it once again, moron. They have a copy of it at University and what they have since done with it is up to them. If they sent it to a journal, that't their call
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
Do you understand the meaning of "a copy"?
jonesdave
2 / 5 (12) Oct 12, 2018


Of course I have the evidence, you fool. Why wouldn't I if I had been talking about it here? You haven't made any refutation as evidence that it could be false. I will say it once again, moron. They have a copy of it at University and what they have since done with it is up to them. If they sent it to a journal, that't their call


Liar. Why were you claiming the evidence couldn't be linked because I wouldn't understand it? And then come up with another lie as to why you can't link it? You are a liar, you ignorasnt cretin. How the hell would a scientifically illiterate tosspot like you know about papers before they had even been submitted? You are lying, woo boy.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
@RC

Da Schriek has been known to write code to rid the site of certain posters in the past so that those commenters could no longer sign on to physorg to comment again.
This person is a treacherous scumbag with dishonest intent and inclination, so beware, RC


Now I know why he's so mad at me, my firewalls are insurmountable, right schneibo? My computer skills surpass yours, not hard for me to imagine that. You've been here in the past telling us you have some kind of Computer Science Degree. No wonder you're so bad at Physics.

jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2018
Do you understand the meaning of "a copy"?


So, tell us the title of this non-existent paper, liar.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2018
LOL jonesdummy thinks that papers can be linked to long before they have been peer reviewed and published in journals with links.
jones, you're an idiotic moron. You belong in a mental institution for halfwits. I have MY copy and I choose to not share with you because you are too stupid to understand good science unless it has already been in print.
And some of the worst science imaginable has been in print and has been lauded by other halfwits like jones.
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2018
@RC

Da Schriek has been known to write code to rid the site of certain posters in the past so that those commenters could no longer sign on to physorg to comment again.
This person is a treacherous scumbag with dishonest intent and inclination, so beware, RC


Now I know why he's so mad at me, my firewalls are insurmountable, right schneibo? My computer skills surpass yours, not hard for me to imagine that. You've been here in the past telling us you have some kind of Computer Science Degree. No wonder you're so bad at Physics.



Come on sh!t for brains, please tell us which nuclear physicists rejected fusion in stars in the 30's. Or admit that you were lying, also. Idiot.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (12) Oct 12, 2018
@Da Schneib.
You daring me, @RC?
No, I don't "dare" anybody these days; as I'm 68, and not a ten-year-old schoolboy on the playground like you are sounding (again). Are you drunk again, mate? :)

Oh, and again, DS, your attempts at putting your own delusional self-serving 'spin' on what I actually said all along is not a good look. It always backfired on you before, and will do so again now, as the readers find that your ego-spin and insulting accusations are worthless face-saving attempts to cover your own ignorance and malice all along; as amply demonstrated in the thread I linked to for my posts to SEU et al earlier; ie:

https://phys.org/...per.html

How you can keep doing this to yourself is a pity, DS. Why? Are you drunk/stoned again? Please stop posting until you're sober/recovered from whatever it is that's making you behave so foolishly/childishly again, mate. :)

jonesdave
2 / 5 (12) Oct 12, 2018
LOL jonesdummy thinks that papers can be linked to long before they have been peer reviewed and published in journals with links.
jones, you're an idiotic moron. You belong in a mental institution for halfwits. I have MY copy and I choose to not share with you because you are too stupid to understand good science unless it has already been in print.


Liar. Why would anybody give an advance copy of a paper to a deranged f***wit like you? Sorry, you are lying. Going to have to start calling you Walter, after Walter Mitty. Bloody weirdo.
Da Schneib
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2018
Dumbshizz doesn't know the difference between CS and EE.

Teh stoopit it burnz.
cantdrive85
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2018
Sorry, but that is pure sh!t by Lerner. And has been shown to be wrong.

Where has this been written up? Otherwise your opinions "ain't worth sh!t."

And I see nothing about BHs being a frigging plasmoid

You are the Apex Moron! There is no BH, he does however describe the plasmoid in detail. Just like BH pseudoscience doesn't discuss plasmoids because they aren't relevant to BH pseudoscience, real plasma physics papers don't discuss the pseudoscientific claptrap of BH's.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2018
And jones changes the subject, now barking at Benni. What's the matter, jones, can you not give me evidence for your claim that I lied about the paper?
Da Schneib
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 12, 2018
Black holes making plasma:

https://www.newsw...e-699435

So, @cantthink69, lie much?

Just askin'.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (12) Oct 12, 2018
Sorry, but that is pure sh!t by Lerner. And has been shown to be wrong.

Where has this been written up? Otherwise your opinions "ain't worth sh!t."

And I see nothing about BHs being a frigging plasmoid

You are the Apex Moron! There is no BH, he does however describe the plasmoid in detail. Just like BH pseudoscience doesn't discuss plasmoids because they aren't relevant to BH pseudoscience, real plasma physics papers don't discuss the pseudoscientific claptrap of BH's.


So, where are the orbits of the stars explained? Dumb arse, they weren't even known about when he wrote that trash 33 years ago in an irrelevant journal. Those observations show him to be wrong, and he has never addressed the orbits of those stars in his junk model. It is dead. Actually, it was never alive.
Da Schneib
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2018
can you not give me evidence for your claim that I lied about the paper?
It's up to you to provide evidence you're not lying. Otherwise you are using a logical fallacy, requiring your interlocutor to prove a negative.

In other words, lying.

Where's your link? No link, it never happened and you're lying again.

This is like fishing in a barrel with M-80s. Do try to do something original if you want any cred.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2018
LOL jonesdummy thinks that papers can be linked to long before they have been peer reviewed and published in journals with links.
jones, you're an idiotic moron. You belong in a mental institution for halfwits. I have MY copy and I choose to not share with you because you are too stupid to understand good science unless it has already been in print.


Liar. Why would anybody give an advance copy of a paper to a deranged f***wit like you? Sorry, you are lying. Going to have to start calling you Walter, after Walter Mitty. Bloody weirdo.
jones

You jackass. I'm the one who wrote the paper in the first place and then submitted it at University for a comparative analysis. I GAVE them their copy to do with as they thought appropriate, you asinine swine.
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2018
And jones changes the subject, now barking at Benni. What's the matter, jones, can you not give me evidence for your claim that I lied about the paper?


No such paper exists. It is a figment of your imagination. You lied. Simple. Liar. I don't need to prove anything. You are being called out for the liar that you are. Defend yourself, you cretin. Post the paper. Otherwise, STFU and accept that you are a liar.
Da Schneib
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2018
Five more @RC lies:

Thread where @Thread where @100LiarRC claims unspecified "recent research" shows there's no need for DM but when challenged can't produce any of the "recent research:" https://phys.org/...pse.html
claims engineering was invented in the 1950s: https://phys.org/...dio.html
Thread where @100LiarRC defends @Zeph, who has been kicked off physorg more times than anyone: https://phys.org/...ark.html
Thread where @100LiarRC goes paranoid (this is not unusual for @100LiarRC) and starts accusing other posters of being "bots:" https://phys.org/...ace.html
Thread where @100LiarRC denies math works again: https://phys.org/...low.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims energy in space can somehow create charge from nothing: https://phys.org/...cle.html

Bring it, @RC.
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2018
I'm the one who wrote the paper in the first place.......


Hahahahaha. In which case it is shit, isn't it. You are scientifically illiterate, and have likely never been near a university in your life. Remember, you know nothing about science, and are only here to learn?
Tosspot, you are a grade A liar and fantasist. Pillock.
Da Schneib
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2018
Oh, and @RC, you haven't seen the second 100 lies you told.

Dare me? I only stopped after the first 100 because I had made my point, pwnt you, and humiliated you sufficiently, but that doesn't mean I don't have them.
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2018
as I'm 68,


Cher, how long you are going to be 68 or 67? You been using that as part of your routine for at least 8 or 7 years now. First time is when I accused you of being a 30 year old dude living his mother's basement,,,,, that was back in 2010 at the physics forum. Huh?

Oh yeah I almost forget. It was in the same tussle we had going where you said you were a genius 9 year old too who did you civic service and volunteered for the doctors in the hospital used to call in to interpret for the patients who did not know how to speak English.
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2018
I GAVE them their copy to do with as they thought appropriate...


I'm sure it came in handy when they ran out of toilet paper. Lol. Was it written in crayon?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
Of course I am here to learn as a scholar and an interested observer. Why else would I be commenting in a site such as this where moderators haven't been able to throw your arse out and ban you from soiling their website ever again.
Perhaps you aren't aware that education is a never ending process - for life - and your only reason for talking shlt here is to stroke your ego.
Da Schneib
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2018
Here's another five lies @RC told:

Thread where @100LiarRC claims unspecified "recent research" shows there's no need for DM but when challenged can't produce any of the "recent research:" https://phys.org/...pse.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims that GRT is "only a theory" despite extensive experimental evidence: https://phys.org/...ory.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims yet again that there's no need for DM due to "discoveries over the last few years:" https://phys.org/...les.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about its supposed ToE again: https://phys.org/...ght.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims science can be done by non-scientists, ignoring all the training real scientists receive: https://phys.org/...per.html

Dude you are toast.
Da Schneib
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 12, 2018
And jones changes the subject, now barking at Benni. What's the matter, jones, can you not give me evidence for your claim that I lied about the paper?


No such paper exists. It is a figment of your imagination. You lied. Simple. Liar. I don't need to prove anything. You are being called out for the liar that you are. Defend yourself, you cretin. Post the paper. Otherwise, STFU and accept that you are a liar.
What's really amusing is that it could be published on arXiv unless it's totally whacko. Where's the arXiv link? Couldn't even pass their minimal peer review which keeps out the total nutjobs?
jonesdave
2 / 5 (12) Oct 12, 2018
Why else would I be commenting in a site such as this where moderators haven't been able to throw your arse out and ban you from soiling their website ever again.


Because you are a scientifically illiterate gobsh!te, just like Benni and cantthink and Granny. I suspect Dunning-Kruger syndrome is the reason you are here. Or you are just a nutjob creationist who is anti all mainstream science. Take your pick.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (12) Oct 12, 2018
Of course I am here to learn as a scholar and an interested observer. Why else would I be commenting in a site such as this where moderators haven't been able to throw your arse out and ban you from soiling their website ever again.
Perhaps you aren't aware that education is a never ending process - for life - and your only reason for talking shlt here is to stroke your ego.


Yes, well, at least you learned where Voyager is, and where the Oort cloud is. And that they are nowhere even close to each other.
And I finished my second degree in 2010. Nothing like keeping up to date.
Da Schneib
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2018
Here's what happens when I get a 1 for posting @RC's lies. Another five:

Thread where @100LiarRC lies about its supposed ToE again: https://phys.org/...cal.html]https://phys.org/...cal.html[/url]
Thread where @100LiarRC claims not to have an agenda: https://phys.org/...cal.html]https://phys.org/...cal.html[/url]
No one can possibly look at all these lies and believe that.
Thread where @100LiarRC claims again to have been "right all along:" https://phys.org/...ies.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims BICEP2's first findings were "bogus" (i.e. a conspiracy by degreed credentialed professional scientists): https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims gravity and EM can engage in "feedback loops" with no evidence: https://phys.org/...tar.html
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
I will make a point of sending this particular forum to the owners of this website so that they will see how their property is being abused and misused by such as the posters above who are indulging in spamming with repetitious garbage.
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2018
@ Egg-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good, thanks for asking.

I'm the one who wrote the paper in the first place and then submitted it at University for a comparative analysis.


What sort of analyzing they were going to do on him? Choot, if you wanted to see if it was bat-doo-doo crazy you should have posted him up here and have Richie the Black Psychiatrist have a look at him or his nurse Pussycat-Skippette.

Oh yeah, I almost forget,,,,, when you send in a paper for the university to analyze, do they charge for that or do it for free? If they do it for free maybe the Really-Skippy could type up his stuffs from the Earthman Club and get them to analyze that for him too.

I GAVE them their copy to do with as they thought appropriate, you asinine swine.

So you don't know if the secretary throwed him the trash or give him to one of the professor-Skippys, eh? Makes it hard to find out the results of having analyzed, eh?
Da Schneib
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2018
@SEU:
I will make a point of sending this particular forum to the owners of this website so that they will see how their property is being abused and misused by such as the posters above who are indulging in spamming with repetitious garbage.
Feel free. Maybe they'll have a link.

Heh, uh-oh, @Ira's on SEU. Have fun.

Hey, @Ira, them hurricanes mess you up? My cousin in North Carolina had to take my aunt up a 100 foot bluff.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
as I'm 68,


Cher, how long you are going to be 68 or 67? You been using that as part of your routine for at least 8 or 7 years now. First time is when I accused you of being a 30 year old dude living his mother's basement,,,,, that was back in 2010 at the physics forum. Huh?

Oh yeah I almost forget. It was in the same tussle we had going where you said you were a genius 9 year old too who did you civic service and volunteered for the doctors in the hospital used to call in to interpret for the patients who did not know how to speak English.
says Aunt Irene

Uhhh don't you have anything better going for you - such as cleaning boat decks for the Cajun Navy? LOL
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2018
I will make a point of sending this particular forum to the owners of this website so that they will see how their property is being abused and misused by such as the posters above who are indulging in spamming with repetitious garbage.


Good luck with that Skippy. You (all 20 of you) been selling that wolf ticket for years and years now. If a Black-Psychiatrist-Richie-Skippy or a Registered-Nurse-Pussycat-Eyes-Skippette could not get them to listen, how you think you can get them to listen to you?
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Oct 12, 2018
Hey @SEU, didn't you scck enough of their dixx to get them to post your BS on arXiv? You can get almost anything on there, you know. But nobody bothers to read it if you're a nutjob.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2018
Why else would I be commenting in a site such as this where moderators haven't been able to throw your arse out and ban you from soiling their website ever again.


Because you are a scientifically illiterate gobsh!te, just like Benni and cantthink and Granny. I suspect Dunning-Kruger syndrome is the reason you are here. Or you are just a nutjob creationist who is anti all mainstream science. Take your pick.
says jones

LOL you are still a halfwit. And you have prove it already many times over just in THIS forum.
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
@Da Schneib.

Some of your 'examples' had nothing to do with me, but were your own misattributions to me of what was said by others. So much for your 'list', DS. :)

As for the rest, your own self-serving juvenile 'spin' on what was said/transpired in those threads is disturbing, as it shows just how low you will stoop (again) in your manic attempts to save face, DS.

You still keep ignoring the elephant in the room that proves just how manic and misplaced all your accusations of 'liar' etc really are. That 'elephant in the room' is the thread I linked earlier that clearly demonstrates your (drunken?) propensity for unheeding and/or kneejerking to insults and unwarranted accusations , DS; for all to read, even though you want it to 'go away' and 'pretend it never happened':

https://phys.org/...per.html

Why do you keep doing this to yourself, DS? Stop drinking that home brew, it's rotting your character and your objectivity. Stop! :)
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 12, 2018
@SEU:
I will make a point of sending this particular forum to the owners of this website so that they will see how their property is being abused and misused by such as the posters above who are indulging in spamming with repetitious garbage.
Feel free. Maybe they'll have a link.

Heh, uh-oh, @Ira's on SEU. Have fun.

Hey, @Ira, them hurricanes mess you up? My cousin in North Carolina had to take my aunt up a 100 foot bluff.


The poor peoples in North and South Carolina took a drubbing hard,,, but they was blessed compared the the hit the Florida panhandle just got. I get chills and such just looking at the pictures and videos. But thanks for asking, all good here.
Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2018
Uhhh don't you have anything better going for you - such as cleaning boat decks for the Cajun Navy? LOL
Even if one of them did ask me to clean his boat deck, I would be glad to do it for him. They ain't asked yet, though they have asked to borrow one of my boats twice this year.

Cher, if you want to try to insult me you need to get your insults university analyzed first, you know, just to make sure the insult is not a compliment.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
@ Egg-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good, thanks for asking.

I'm the one who wrote the paper in the first place and then submitted it at University for a comparative analysis.


What sort of analyzing they were going to do on him? Choot, if you wanted to see if it was bat-doo-doo crazy you should have posted him up here and have Richie the Black Psychiatrist have a look at him or his nurse Pussycat-Skippette.

Oh yeah when you send in a paper for the university to analyze, do they charge for that or do it for free? If they do it for free maybe the Really-Skippy could type up his stuffs from the Earthman Club and get them to analyze that for him too.

you asinine swine.

So you don't know if the secretary throwed him the trash or give him to one of the professor-Skippys, eh? Makes it hard to find out the results of having analyzed, eh?
says Aunti Irene
Like I said already, it's out of my hands, Auntie
Da Schneib
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2018
Glad to hear that @Ira. My cousin and aunt are OK as far as I know now. My cousins have my aunt safe; they're large impressive competent people.

Florida is pretty bad, all right.

Be good, man. There's more comin'.
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2018


LOL you are still a halfwit. And you have prove it already many times over just in THIS forum.


Really? And where would that be, oh thick one? Another lie, yes?
Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2018
Be good, man. There's more comin'.
Thanks Cher, I hate to bail on you when the fun is just starting but I am working and got to run for now.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2018
I will make a point of sending this particular forum to the owners of this website so that they will see how their property is being abused and misused by such as the posters above who are indulging in spamming with repetitious garbage.


Good luck with that Skippy. You (all 20 of you) been selling that wolf ticket for years and years now. If a Black-Psychiatrist-Richie-Skippy or a Registered-Nurse-Pussycat-Eyes-Skippette could not get them to listen, how you think you can get them to listen to you?
says Auntie Irene

My oh my, Auntie - you do have quite a menagerie there with all your sox. How in the world do you juggle all of them? A Black psychiatrist - isn't that a bit racist of you? I would think so. Have you heard from the NAACP yet. I'm sure they would love to hear about your racist views. And a psychiatrist at that.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (12) Oct 12, 2018
@Forum.

This from @Da Schneib to SEU:
Hey @SEU, didn't you scck enough of their dixx to get them to post your BS on arXiv? You can get almost anything on there, you know. But nobody bothers to read it if you're a nutjob.
Oh dear, and there we have the proof from his own (foul) mouth, that @Da Schneib is DRUNK-POSTING (again). Not good when drunkards and egotistical insults-merchants like that get together and try to sabotage a site for their own nasty agendas. What a disgrace to science and humanity they are. Shame. Shame.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2018
@RC asks for another five lies. Here they are:

Thread where @100LiarRC forgets that doppler shift is not visible to the human eye then denies forgetting it: https://phys.org/...axy.html
Thread where @100LiarRC tells the Steinhard-doesn't-believe-in-the-BB lie again: https://phys.org/...rby.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims that dark matter should visibly influence Solar System dynamics: https://phys.org/...ong.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims math doesn't work: https://phys.org/...nal.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims plasma is a "force:" https://phys.org/...ism.html

Stick around folks, there's another 165 lies where those came from.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
Uhhh don't you have anything better going for you - such as cleaning boat decks for the Cajun Navy? LOL
Even if one of them did ask me to clean his boat deck, I would be glad to do it for him. They ain't asked yet, though they have asked to borrow one of my boats twice this year.

Cher, if you want to try to insult me you need to get your insults university analyzed first, you know, just to make sure the insult is not a compliment.
says Auntie Irene

Me insult YOU? Now why would you think I would want to do a thing like that, Auntie?
Why, I even LIKE you. I think you are the most amusing in the bunch of the squids in this site.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (12) Oct 12, 2018
@Forum. This from @Da Schneib to SEU:
Hey @SEU, didn't you scck enough of their dixx to get them to post your BS on arXiv? You can get almost anything on there, you know. But nobody bothers to read it if you're a nutjob.
Oh dear, and there we have the proof from his own (foul) mouth, that @Da Schneib is DRUNK-POSTING (again). Not good when drunkards and egotistical insults-merchants like that get together and try to sabotage a site for their own nasty agendas. What a disgrace to science and humanity they are. Shame. Shame.
Da Schneib
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2018
@RC, when you lie 200 times on this forum, you are done brown. Go away liar.

You were only the beginning. Wait until I start on @Lenni and @cantthink69 and @SEU. How many lies do you suppose they've told?

Fertile field.
Da Schneib
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2018
@RC asks for another five:
Thread where @100LiarRC claims a "cloud" of ions is not a plasma: https://phys.org/...gas.html
Thread where @100LiarRC makes numerous erroneous claims including that the EM force can change the path of light and the Sun is held from collapsing by e-e degeneracy: https://phys.org/...lar.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims that galaxy dynamics can be explained without dark matter, and claims "the latest research: shows it: https://phys.org/...ole.html
When pressed to provide this research of course it can't.
Thread where @100LiarRC makes the same claim about galaxy dynamics and "the latest research" and still can't produce any of this "latest research:" https://phys.org/...ght.html
The fifth one will be in the next post.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
@SEU:
I will make a point of sending this particular forum to the owners of this website so that they will see how their property is being abused and misused by such as the posters above who are indulging in spamming with repetitious garbage.
Feel free. Maybe they'll have a link.

Heh, uh-oh, @Ira's on SEU. Have fun.

Hey, @Ira, them hurricanes mess you up? My cousin in North Carolina had to take my aunt up a 100 foot bluff.


The poor peoples in North and South Carolina took a drubbing hard,,, but they was blessed compared the the hit the Florida panhandle just got. I get chills and such just looking at the pictures and videos. But thanks for asking, all good here.
says Auntie Irene

Blessed? Did I read you saying BLESSED?? Why, you sound like those Religionists that your friends here on this site are so dead against. You know - those godlovers.
Auntie, are you saying that you are one of those dreaded godlovers? Oh My.
Da Schneib
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2018
The fifth lie. Some of these are too long to fit in a single post.

Thread where @100liarRC claimes magnetism makes radiation by some unspecified means: https://phys.org/...axy.html
Da Schneib
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2018
Got another 1. Five more:

Thread where @100LiarRC repeats the BICEP2 lie yet again: https://phys.org/...oon.html
Thread where @100LiarRC repeats the Steinhardt lie yet again: https://phys.org/...ics.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about the possibility of the Sun having an electric charge: https://phys.org/...ets.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about the ISW effect and insults an actual scientist posting on this forum: https://phys.org/...eor.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies again about the Big Bang and supports LaViolett, a known crank: https://phys.org/...tar.html
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
@Da Schneib.
@RC, when you lie 200 times on this forum, you are done brown. Go away liar. You were only the beginning. Wait until I start on @Lenni and @cantthink69 and @SEU. How many lies do you suppose they've told? Fertile field.
Have at them, mate. :) As for your above drunk-posting of your own misattributed/misconstruings where I am concerned, you have failed miserably because your 'spin' is obvious to the fair reader in the relevant threads; especially when they read how your 'liar' accusations and other nastiness in the thread I linked earlier is a perfect example of just how worthless your 'list' and drunken-ego 'spinning' is in reality. Here is that thread again:
https://phys.org/...per.html

Wherein DS, you lied, accused, mocked KNOWN mainstream science which I was trying to point out for YOUR education; while you were (drunkenly) trolling me for doing that. You're an ungrateful drunken lying wretch of a troll, DS. Pity.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
The fifth lie. Some of these are too long to fit in a single post.

Thread where @100liarRC claimes magnetism makes radiation by some unspecified means: https://phys.org/...axy.html


My oh my - such relevant places to look at, they are. I suppose we should all thank Da Schriek for setting up his table to help us to be able to read all of his hundreds of old comments - very relevant indeed.
And jonesybonesy complains of Pixels used? LOL
Da Schneib
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2018
Now we're up to 40 lies @RC told. My searches for others who will be pilloried here have already been done. I still have to tell what the lie was for each one. I'm working on that.

Go away trolls or be shamed pwnt and humiliated on this very thread.
Da Schneib
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2018
@RC asks for another 5, and gets them:

Thread where @100LiarRC reveals its Young Earth Cretinist credentials: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Wasn't it claiming the Big Bang is a religion somewhere on here? Looks like it's the real religionist.
Thread where @100LiarRC claims universal expansion in GRT is an "a priori assumption" despite the fact it is empirically observed: https://phys.org/...ant.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims math is philosophy: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims universal expansion is "the same everywhere" ignoring the fact that it obviously isn't the same between the Milky Way and M31: https://phys.org/...rgy.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims there's enough baryonic matter to explain dark matter: https://phys.org/...ies.html
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
@RC
LOL I will enjoy reading Da Shriek's old comments just to see what he is really like. In this one forum, it is hard to tell much about Da Shriek's true nature. But old forums have most of the answers.
;)
Da Schneib
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2018
Now we're up to 45 lies @RC has told. Lots of room on this thread.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
Now we're up to 40 lies @RC told. My searches for others who will be pilloried here have already been done. I still have to tell what the lie was for each one. I'm working on that.

Go away trolls or be shamed pwnt and humiliated on this very thread.
says Da Shriek

Oh that should be lots of fun. Do go on. Your table of links runneth over. It's good of you to offer evidence of your thoughtless shrill comments of the past. That will be your legacy for after you have died, which is not too far off - so I'm told.
Da Schneib
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2018
Gee, @SEU, thought you were ignoring me. Guess you don't have much self-discipline. But we all knew that.

What's the matter, don't they let you masquerade as a moderator without any supervision here?
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2018
Those observations show him to be wrong, and he has never addressed the orbits of those stars in his junk model.

You are wrong as usual. A single observation that hasn't been vetted doesn't falsify a theory.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2018
Gee, @SEU, thought you were ignoring me. Guess you don't have much self-discipline. But we all knew that.


Who me? Not in THIS forum, Shriek. I am enjoying reading your pigswill. It is very entertaining.
Please, do keep them coming, Shriek
Da Schneib
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2018
@cantthink69:

It's not a single observation. You're lying again.

https://www.youtu...ecnh7yqc

@SEU, sorry your all buttthurt and stuff. Try to get over it so you can take some more.
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
@Forum.

From Da Schneib:
Now we're up to 40 lies @RC told. My searches for others who will be pilloried here have already been done. I still have to tell what the lie was for each one. I'm working on that. Go away trolls or be shamed pwnt and humiliated on this very thread.
The obviously drunk lying troll warning others off this site! LOL :)

Note how DS still doesn't acknowledge his own nasty failings in both science and humanity discourse on this site; as amply demonstrated in thread:

https://phys.org/...per.html

Wherein DS's TROLL TACTICS of crying 'liar' and other insults, based on his own ignorance and malicious kneejerking unheeding of what was actually being posted by me, which he eventually had to admit was correct all along while he drunkenly tried to sabotage me and the discussion therein.

Ask yourselves, folks: What drives DS to such self-destructive trolling? Drink, Drugs and Ego? Probably. Pity.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2018
Ohhhh how I love this site. Cannot get enough of it and the squids who populate it.
Da Schneib
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2018
@RC wants another 5. Here they are:

Thread where @100LiarRC claims there are "humongous amounts of stuff" in empty space: https://phys.org/...ack.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims scientists are engaged in a giant conspiracy to hide the fact that the Big Bang isn't real: https://phys.org/...ion.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims inflation is "blown" by one astrophysicist denying it: https://phys.org/...rgy.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims matter turns into gravity and vice versa: https://phys.org/...ard.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims LIGO gravitational wave detections are due to coincidences: https://phys.org/...les.html
Da Schneib
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2018
@SEU, bet I find a hundred lies even though you've only been posting here for less than a year.

Care to bet? Oh, never mind, you'll cheat or welsh.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
@cantthink69:

It's not a single observation. You're lying again.

https://www.youtu...ecnh7yqc

@SEU, sorry your all buttthurt and stuff. Try to get over it so you can take some more.

says Da Shriek

Define buttthurt and stuff, Shriek. I am not familiar with such a concept. I am certain that you have much experience in it, so do tell us all about your experiences with buttts and how much it hurt, won't you?
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2018
Those observations show him to be wrong, and he has never addressed the orbits of those stars in his junk model.

You are wrong as usual. A single observation that hasn't been vetted doesn't falsify a theory.


What single observation, you dunce? Multiple observations of multiple stars. Lerner never had a theory, just a bunch of junk in an irrelevant journal. And he has never addressed those observations. His ancient paper is total rubbish. And is rightly ignored.
Da Schneib
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2018
Cannot get enough of it
Great. Got plenty more here for ya. Many inches left. Bend over. Baseball bats are generally 30 inches long.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
@SEU, bet I find a hundred lies even though you've only been posting here for less than a year.

Care to bet? Oh, never mind, you'll cheat or welsh.
says Da Shriek

I am impressed that you thought I was so important to you that you followed my posting history in this site. Have you been paid to do it?
I am not allowed to cheat or welsh, whatever that is.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
Cannot get enough of it
Great. Got plenty more here for ya. Many inches left. Bend over. Baseball bats are generally 30 inches long.
says Da Shriek

That's correct. I cannot get enough of this site and the squids do make me laugh, especially you and jones right now.
Why would you have me bend over? Could you explain that in detail?
cantdrive85
2.8 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2018
Black holes making plasma:

https://www.newsw...e-699435

So, @cantthink69, lie much?

Just askin

Where do they mention plasmoids? Of course it's plasma.
Obfuscation is as good as a lie da schnied. You should stop.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2018
Da Schriek seems to have gone shy of a few brain cells. I have made a request to be further enlightened as to Shriek's definitions and experiences in being buttthurt - and so far, crickets.

ROFLOL
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2018
@Forum.

And the heedless drunken DS goes on with yet another self-serving drunken 'spin' of the facts any reader can see support me; and not the drunken DS who employed his drunken troll ego-games of 'cry liar' once too often for it to work any more.

Anyone wanting to get the full 'whiff' of DS's drunken trolling tactics and nastiness need only read thread:

https://phys.org/...per.html

That exemplar thread/discussion sadly shows DS in full belligerent-ignorant troll 'mode' while I was trying to educate him. DS eventually sobered up and realized I was correct and he incorrect.

But, apparently, he didn't learn the lesson: NOT to get all drunk, doped and egotistical and try to convince himself that it's a 'good idea' at ANY stage to troll and insult one who is correct all along and himself incorrect all along.

I wonder how long it will take for that lesson to sink in for DS? We'll see what happens when he eventually sobers up. :)
Da Schneib
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2018
Done 50 @RC lies. Gettin' lazy. The rest tomorrow.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2018
Hmmmm Perhaps Da Shriek is contemplating writing code to eliminate his most fearsome opponents - for whatever reason in his dull mentality.
OR Shriek is gathering/collecting more links for his table full of his past comments.

What? Suddenly Shriek has gone tired and will resume filling his table tomorrow? Not fair. I protest.
cantdrive85
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2018
What single observation, you dunce? Multiple observations of multiple stars

Same phenomenon, i.e. single observation.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2018
@idiot illiterate eggy
No Physicist worth his/her salt would set computer fingers in this website
actually, there are at least two professors (MS and PhD) from very reputable colleges, and a couple of undergrads
I am not allowed to cheat or welsh, whatever that is
except that your syntax and terms are way too similar or the same as other religious socks, including pirouette/jeanie/obama_socks and the whole "clay" religious BS

.

Benji-the mop slinging liar
my firewalls are insurmountable
epic!
until you started posting to this site you didn't know that Admin could PM you when they disabled PM's for the users!

now you're saying you're some kind of computer juunyous with mad anti-hack skillz? LMFAO

methinks this is a job for the /b/ro's to look into...
Oh wait! You don't even know what that means... LOL
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 13, 2018
What single observation, you dunce? Multiple observations of multiple stars

Same phenomenon, i.e. single observation.


No it isn't a single observation, you thick prick. It is multiple observations of multiple stars over many years. And it proves that there is a ~ 4m solar mass object at the galactic centre. And nobody, as far as I can see, has questioned that finding. It is fact, not conjecture, you stupid idiot. Christ you people are thick. Is it a pre-requisite of being an EU cultist that you have to be scientifically illiterate?
Da Schneib
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2018
Maybe if someone says something smart here this evening I'll respond. But not paying attention to anyone who's on mute.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2018
@ RC

Ever the positive one, are you? Don't worry, Shriek will be back with his smelly bag of tricks to mesmerise every commenter into acclaiming him as the witless wonder. And jones will be there, at his side, doing their kicks together like the Rockettes of yesteryear.

Ahaaa I see that Da Shriek has returned. ROFLOL
Da Schneib
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2018
. duplicate
Da Schneib
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2018
@jonesy, I posted a YouTube of the orbits and they voted it 1. These people don't believe telescopes. What do you do with that? They'll deny their own toenails to support their jebus and the babble about the super magic sky daddy by the drunken stone age sheep herders.
cantdrive85
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2018
It is multiple observations of multiple stars over many years.

Ok, you are right, the multiple observations of the multiple stars over many years which hasn't been vetted doesn't falsify a theory.

And it proves that there is a ~ 4m solar mass object at the galactic centre.

No, not in the least as it is only I_N_F_E_R_R_E_D_....
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 13, 2018
It is multiple observations of multiple stars over many years.

Ok, you are right, the multiple observations of the multiple stars over many years which hasn't been vetted doesn't falsify a theory.

And it proves that there is a ~ 4m solar mass object at the galactic centre.

No, not in the least as it is only I_N_F_E_R_R_E_D_....


What do you mean, it hasn't been vetted, you ignorant prat? And a ~ 4m solar mass object is not inferred, you f***wit, it is real, if we are still using Kepler and Newton and GR. And we are./
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2018
@jonesy, I posted a YouTube of the orbits and they voted it 1. These people don't believe telescopes. What do you do with that? They'll deny their own toenails to support their jebus and the babble about the super magic sky daddy by the drunken stone age sheep herders.

says Da Shriek

My oh my - now Shriek is talking about toenails and someone named jebus and a babble. Perhaps Schriek is referring to a babbling brook?
What's more, Da Shriek is talking about a magic sky daddy and drunken stone age sheep herders.

That is definitely a sign of a mental disorder.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2018
It is multiple observations of multiple stars over many years.

Ok, you are right, the multiple observations of the multiple stars over many years which hasn't been vetted doesn't falsify a theory.

And it proves that there is a ~ 4m solar mass object at the galactic centre.

No, not in the least as it is only I_N_F_E_R_R_E_D_....
says CD85

The definition of INFERRED shows that it is ONLY a SUGGESTION such as MAYBE or PERHAPS, and not an evidence of something.
IF I have INFERRED something, I have only made a suggestion of a POSSIBILITY, not an actuality.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2018
It is multiple observations of multiple stars over many years.

Ok, you are right, the multiple observations of the multiple stars over many years which hasn't been vetted doesn't falsify a theory.

And it proves that there is a ~ 4m solar mass object at the galactic centre.

No, not in the least as it is only I_N_F_E_R_R_E_D_....


What do you mean, it hasn't been vetted, you ignorant prat? And a ~ 4m solar mass object is not inferred, you f***wit, it is real, if we are still using Kepler and Newton and GR. And we are./

says jones

A ~4m solar mass object doesn't necessarily require that object to be a Black Hole, jones. At this point, telescopic instruments are not able, at any wavelength, to show details of the object. Therefore, it remains undefined until the instruments are able to define the object with the utmost CLARITY, jones.
Perhaps you will know the answer in your lifetime - but perhaps not.
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 13, 2018


A ~4m solar mass object doesn't necessarily require that object to be a Black Hole, jones. At this point, telescopic instruments are not able, at any wavelength, to show details of the object. Therefore, it remains undefined until the instruments are able to define the object with the utmost CLARITY, jones.
Perhaps you will know the answer in your lifetime - but perhaps not.


Sorry? And what else would a 4m solar mass object be, Einstein?
As for my lifetime? Try early next year. The likelihood is that the EHT has already imaged the event horizon. and that is when it is hinted that the results will be published.
jimmybobber
3 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2018
@Surveillance Actually, an inference is based on evidence.and reasoning. It is not a "Suggestion such as maybe or perhaps" as you put it. Where did you get that idea?

You don't seem to care about the strict definition of words. This makes it obvious your not a scientist or engineer.

cantdrive85
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2018
What do you mean, it hasn't been vetted

So this is obviously beyond your double GED degree, but here we are discussing definitions. Now remember jonesdumb, we're discussing the word vetted, not "vetted".

vet

verb
past tense: vetted; past participle: vetted
make a careful and critical examination of (something).
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2018
Now, if we can ignore further 'kindergarten antics', perhaps we can get back to the science/logics stuff I was trying to get across before being so rudely interrupted. Where was I? Oh yes...

@Surveillance_Egg_Unit
@granville583762
@cantdrive85
@Benni.

Further to my earlier two posts addressed to yourselves, it may now be timely to point out that GR is OK; and works well when applied correctly allowing for ALL relevant factors/inputs to equations/calculations. Egs:

1) The increasing realization that a BH is extended extreme mass-dense object made of 'degenerate state' Quark-Gluon Plasma within an 'event horizon', means GR maths application does NOT need to proceed to R=0 situation; as NO 'point-mass-singularity' involved.

2) The proper inclusion of NON-Keplerian mass/orbit motions//distributions of ALL 'visible' AND 'previously dark' matter (now being found as ORDINARY stuff which interacts via E-M *and* Gravity) will make all the alleged "GR anomalies' MOOT.

Cheers.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2018
What do you mean, it hasn't been vetted

So this is obviously beyond your double GED degree, but here we are discussing definitions. Now remember jonesdumb, we're discussing the word vetted, not "vetted".

vet

verb
past tense: vetted; past participle: vetted
make a careful and critical examination of (something).


Yes, you dumb f***. That is what peer review is, you clown. And that is what those papers have been through, dummy. Understand? So, to use your stupid terminology, they have been vetted. There is no doubt what the data tells us. Now, STFU, as you don't seem to have a clue what you're talking about.

http://iopscience.../17/meta

And references therein.
cantdrive85
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2018
Hey moron, nobody has addressed it from the POV of the plasmoid, as such has not been vetted you stupid moron.
jimmybobber
3 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2018
@cantdrive85 what do you mean "nobody has addressed it from the POV of the plasmoid"
jonesdave
2 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2018
Hey moron, nobody has addressed it from the POV of the plasmoid, as such has not been vetted you stupid moron.


Nobody needs to you cretin. Nobody in their right mind is suggesting a f***ing plasmoid could cause those orbits. Only a complete tit would believe such a thing. Which is why nobody is suggesting it. There is nothing to assess. Nobody has submitted a paper suggesting a f***ing plasmoid could cause those orbits. It is a non-existent hypothesis. Scientists cannot respond to something that doesn't exist.
cantdrive85
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2018
@cantrive85 what do you mean "nobody has addressed it from the POV of the plasmoid"


http://lppfusion....No-1.pdf
cantdrive85
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2018
Nobody needs to you cretin. Nobody in their right mind is suggesting a f***ing plasmoid could cause those orbits.

Because astrophysics is rife with plasma ignoramuses. They are stuck playing their computer games using their pseudoscientific maths claptrap.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2018
@cantrive85 what do you mean "nobody has addressed it from the POV of the plasmoid"


http://lppfusion....No-1.pdf


An idiotic paper in a completely inappropriate journal, where no astrophysicist was ever going to see it. Which is likely why Lerner chose that journal, and how it made it past peer review. And it doesn't address stellar orbits. Why don't you email the clown, and ask him to explain the stellar orbits around Sgr A*? He'll probably tell you that you are loopy, and it is obviously a black hole.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2018
Nobody needs to you cretin. Nobody in their right mind is suggesting a f***ing plasmoid could cause those orbits.

Because astrophysics is rife with plasma ignoramuses. They are stuck playing their computer games using their pseudoscientific maths claptrap.


So show us the maths, gobsh!te. How is a plasmoid causing those orbits? And who is suggesting such idiocy? Other than you?
And EU is bereft of anyone with a clue about plasma physics, isn't it, woo boy? Just a bunch of Velikovskian idiots, eh?
jonesdave
2 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2018
Nobody needs to you cretin. Nobody in their right mind is suggesting a f***ing plasmoid could cause those orbits.

Because astrophysics is rife with plasma ignoramuses. They are stuck playing their computer games using their pseudoscientific maths claptrap.


Jesus, what a cretin. So, scientists are at fault for not assessing something that doesn't exist? Typical crank sh!t! Lol. Unless you can show us the paper where somebody has suggested that Sgr A* is a plasmoid. Which you can't.
jimmybobber
3 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2018
@Cantdrive85 You've posted a paper by Eric Lerner. A person with a BA in Physics.
cantdrive85
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2018
You've posted a paper by Eric Lerner. A person with a BA in Physics.


Ah yes, the appeal to authority. You get with jonesdumb on the logical fallacy front?
jonesdave
2 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2018
You've posted a paper by Eric Lerner. A person with a BA in Physics.


Ah yes, the appeal to authority. You get with jonesdumb on the logical fallacy front?


There is no logical fallacy. Lerner is a crackpot. And even he has never suggested that Sgr A* is a bloody plasmoid. It would take a cretin of your proportions to do that. Or any of the idiots Thornhill, Scott and Talbott, a.k.a the illiterati.
cantdrive85
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2018
Lerner is a crackpot. And even he has never suggested that Sgr A* is a bloody plasmoid

You really are a moron, if you had read the paper he explains it is the plasmoid which generates the jets. Hence, there is no BH as it is a plasmoid.
From Lerner's 'The Big Bang Never Happened'
Quasars and Black Holes
"The central radio source and emerging jets looked exactly like quasars and active galactic nuclei that emit such jets- which has long been observed, and which Alfven had theorized plasma processes can generate. Evidently there is no need for a black hole at the galactic center to generate such energy, because trapped magnetic energy, squeezed by the pinch effect, can do the trick even better."

No maths fantasy BH exists.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2018
Lerner is a crackpot. And even he has never suggested that Sgr A* is a bloody plasmoid

You really are a moron, if you had read the paper he explains it is the plasmoid which generates the jets. Hence, there is no BH as it is a plasmoid.
From Lerner's 'The Big Bang Never Happened'
Quasars and Black Holes
"The central radio source and emerging jets looked exactly like quasars and active galactic nuclei that emit such jets- which has long been observed, and which Alfven had theorized plasma processes can generate. Evidently there is no need for a black hole at the galactic center to generate such energy, because trapped magnetic energy, squeezed by the pinch effect, can do the trick even better."

No maths fantasy BH exists.


And he cannot explain the stellar orbits, can he? So, it is junk. And there have been a hell of a lot more observations of AGNs since 1985 or 1991 when his trashy book was published.. There is no doubt that they are BHs.
RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2018
@cantdrive85.

Please read the three posts I addressed to:

@Surveillance_Egg_Unit
@granville583762
@cantdrive85
@Benni.

The last one was less than an hour ago; the preceding one to that was about 4 hours ago; and the first one of the three was about 5 hours ago.

Also, I can't recall when it was, but some months back I posted to someone, explaining that plasmoids are dynamically unstable by their very nature, and hence cannot remain stable/contained without the involvement of STRONG CUMULATIVE GRAVITATIONAL CONTAINMENT effects.

These phenomena are HYBRID features involving BOTH e-m *and* grav 'forces/effects' dominating 'in turn' and at various stages, depending on scale and 'evolutionary trajectory' they are on.

So BHs are NOT 'just a plasmoid' internally; they are extremely massed/dense 'degenerate' material (probably Quark-Gluon Plasma) which is prevented (by extreme grav containment) from exploding in the manner usual for plasmoids not so contained. Ok?
Ojorf
3.3 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2018
@ThePseudoCrowd
And SEU & RC & Cant & Benni & Granville & redpill & YouKnowWhoYouAre will be here pedaling your pseudo scientific BS, swamping the site with comments that have nothing to do with science.
No matter how many times you bunch are shown to be as wrong as it's possible to be, you keep coming back with the exact same crap and dumping it here, over and over and over.
What are you trying to achieve?
Every time you are proven wrong with solid science, yet it does not seem to stick in your minds.
Repeating the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome next time is ... silly. Reality is not going to change to suit your fantasies. Just accept reality the way it is and let it be.

Learn to LOVE reality!
Don't knock it till you've tried it!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2018
@Surveillance Actually, an inference is based on evidence.and reasoning. It is not a "Suggestion such as maybe or perhaps" as you put it. Where did you get that idea?

You don't seem to care about the strict definition of words. This makes it obvious your not a scientist or engineer.

jimmy bobber

Correct

inference | ˈinf(ə)rəns |
noun
a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.
• the process of inferring something: his emphasis on order and health, and by inference cleanliness.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2018
@ThePseudoCrowd
And SEU & RC & Cant & Benni & Granville & redpill & YouKnowWhoYouAre will be here pedaling your pseudo scientific BS, swamping the site with comments that have nothing to do with science.
No matter how many times you bunch are shown to be as wrong as it's possible to be, you keep coming back with the exact same crap and dumping it here, over and over and over.
What are you trying to achieve?
Every time you are proven wrong with solid science, yet it does not seem to stick in your minds.
Repeating the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome next time is ... silly. Reality is not going to change to suit your fantasies. Just accept reality the way it is and let it be.

Learn to LOVE reality!
Don't knock it till you've tried it!
says Ojorf

I see that you are still preaching and accusing, but never expressing any scientific observations of your own. Hmmm I wonder why.
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2018
*Ahem*

@Ojorf.

Before again lumping me in with anyone else, please read my last post to cantdrive85.

And then please (finally) realize I am a scrupulously independent objective scientific researcher acting/commenting impartially for the good of real science not the 'one-eyed' camps (on both 'sides') which have been cluttering the site discussions with personal insults and oft-times incorrect and/or naive simplistic 'science' as well as 'pseudscience'. I always call it as I see it, dispassionately and with respect for all the finer aspects of science and humanity principles and ethics. Please try to dispel your 'image' of me which has been deliberately framed/promulgated unfairly by troll gangs on various 'sides' who over the years have been properly and conscientiously confronted/corrected as indicated by me without fear or favor.

Try to read/think for yourselves always; and don't let old 'gang' propaganda/bullying adversely influence your intellectual objectivity. :)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2018
@cantdrive85 what do you mean "nobody has addressed it from the POV of the plasmoid"
jimmybobber

The "point of view" of which CD refers to, obviously means that the "Plasmoid question" has not been talked about extensively within the mainstream science community. Instead, the big elephant in the room is, none other, than the Black Hole Theory, at the exclusion of the alternative of which Plasmoid is one.
It is not unusual for mainstream science to reject any legitimacy of such as Plasma/Plasmoid because the bitter clingers are all so enthralled with the alleged Black Hole, that they can't think of or even tolerate anything else.This site is a microcosm
So they all flock to the altar to worship the alleged BH and the other altar to worship Dark Matter, all to the exclusion of their less favorite stepchild, so to speak.
Science is not democratic at all even though there are two sides to the coin.
Either you're with them, or you're against them. No middle ground.
Ojorf
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2018
Well RC & SEU, you two might not be active peddlers of woo, but you are the enablers and encouragers of the fanatics.
You are incapable of distinguishing science from pseudoscience, as is obvious from your comments.
You also never seem to gain any ground in your understanding.

SkyLight
2.5 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2018
Cher, if you want to try to insult me you need to get your insults university analyzed first, you know, just to make sure the insult is not a compliment
Priceless! Uncle Ira - you is da man. Who is da man?
jonesdave
2 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2018
....at the exclusion of the alternative of which Plasmoid is one.


No, it isn't. A plasmoid cannot explain the orbits of the stars around Sgr A*. And nobody is claiming that it can. It is a non-hypothesis. It doesn't exist. It was a piece of trash written over 30 years ago, by a crackpot, long before we knew about the stellar orbits around our own SMBH.
Ojorf
3 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2018
Instead, the big elephant in the room is, none other, than the Black Hole Theory, at the exclusion of the alternative of which Plasmoid is one.
It is not unusual for mainstream science to reject any legitimacy of such as Plasma/Plasmoid because the bitter clingers are all so enthralled with the alleged Black Hole, that they can't think of or even tolerate anything else.This site is a microcosm
So they all flock to the altar to worship the alleged BH and the other altar to worship Dark Matter, all to the exclusion of their less favorite stepchild, so to speak.
Science is not democratic at all even though there are two sides to the coin.

See what I mean?
You make a ridiculous comment like this and you want to be taken seriously? Then don't pedal pseudoscience.
There is no alternative to BH theory.
See what I mean when I say you deny relativity?
Does your mind go:
"BH's either exist or they don't, so it must be 50:50"
That's not reality!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2018


A ~4m solar mass object doesn't necessarily require that object to be a Black Hole, jones. At this point, telescopic instruments are not able, at any wavelength, to show details of the object. Therefore, it remains undefined until the instruments are able to define the object with the utmost CLARITY, jones.
Perhaps you will know the answer in your lifetime - but perhaps not.


Sorry? And what else would a 4m solar mass object be, Einstein?
As for my lifetime? Try early next year. The likelihood is that the EHT has already imaged the event horizon. and that is when it is hinted that the results will be published.
says jones

Comparing me to Einstein will get you nowhere.
IF the EHT clearly defines the "object" and it is delineated as a true BH. then you have cause to celebrate. In the meantime, you are talking out of your arse, as usual, as though the evidence leaves no doubt, when there is, as yet, no clear evidence. Blurry images are unacceptable.
SkyLight
2.5 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2018
I will make a point of sending this particular forum to the owners of this website so that they will see how their property is being abused and misused by such as the posters above who are indulging in spamming with repetitious garbage
You do realize this is a website with adverts - you know, those funny colored boxes with writing in 'em and all, trying to get you to buy stuff?

Well, guess what - the owners of this site are as pleased as Punch when commentators keep returning to this site - regardless of their intentions - since those owners are making money every time one of us refreshes the page. But, go ahead, and do your thing of whining and squealing "it ain't fair - they're ganging up on us" every time somebody with a decent training and education in science - real science - tries to show you just how unfounded and ridiculous your pseudoscientific claims are.

Do it: I for one would love to hear what kind of a reply you'll get.
Ojorf
3 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2018
Comparing me to Einstein will get you nowhere.

He was being sarcastic.
IF the EHT clearly defines the "object" and it is delineated as a true BH. then you have cause to celebrate. In the meantime, you are talking out of your arse, as usual, as though the evidence leaves no doubt, when there is, as yet, no clear evidence. Blurry images are unacceptable.


Oh come on, do you actually agree with Benni? His absurd notions about BHs and total misunderstanding of relativity and science in general?

Fess up, do you think Benni has ever had a valid point in any of his interactions here?

RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2018
@Ojorf.
Well RC & SEU, you two might not be active peddlers of woo, but you are the enablers and encouragers of the fanatics.
Mate, didn't I just ask you please to NOT to lump me in with anyone else, for reasons stated? :)

If you have disparaging remarks re SEU, then please don't conflate/confuse two such obviously different posters when it comes to scientific knowledge/understanding.

Eg, SEU admits to not being up to scratch in the sciences/understandings. He also respects corrections from me.

Whereas I do NOT engage in, NOR do I enable, simplistic/naive/incorrect 'pseudscience' or gratuitous insults. On the contrary, I have demonstrably always encouraged real/good scientific work; and try to convey as best I can (given the limited time available to me) the correct/logical understandings which have regard for the whole picture/reality. I've even had occasionally to 'gently' inform YOU of evolving scientific situation/understandings re DM etc for your benefit. :)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2018
Well RC & SEU, you two might not be active peddlers of woo, but you are the enablers and encouragers of the fanatics.
You are incapable of distinguishing science from pseudoscience, as is obvious from your comments.
You also never seem to gain any ground in your understanding.

says Ojorf

And YOU are STILL preaching and accusing rather than bringing to the table any vestige of scientific observation of your own to discuss with others.
Almost everyone else has their own observations to discuss and to clarify with others, but not YOU. Why? Are you here on physorg only to find fault and behave like the kid with the broken eyeglass frame that is taped together who is constantly bullied in the schoolyard and only seeks revenge? Don't you have any opinions wrt the Black Hole Theory or the Dark Matter fiasco?
Speak about science matters - not personalities.
SkyLight
3 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2018
as though the evidence leaves no doubt, when there is, as yet, no clear evidence
There are some very bright, massive stars in the immediate vicinity of *something* at the GC, whose orbits are so extreme around that *something*, that the mass of that *something* can easily be found by applying simple Kepler's laws. That mass turns out to be around 4 million solar masses.

And that massive object cannot yet be resolved by even our most powerful arrays of telescopes. So it's SMALL, and it doesn't "shine" in any frequency band of EM, except intermittently by emitting flares (this latter point is the subject of this article, BTW). So, it - we'll call it Sgr A* for short - is very, very massive, and isn't some kind of visible star.

The only thing that fits the bill even remotely is a BH. Which is kinda bad noos for the BH deniers, since they get so worked up when their pet peeve keeps refusing to die when they try to beat it with their Dumbledoor wands. Boo-hoo!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2018
Instead, the big elephant in the room is, none other, than the Black Hole Theory, at the exclusion of the alternative of which Plasmoid is one.
It is not unusual for mainstream science to reject any legitimacy of such as Plasma/Plasmoid because the bitter clingers are all so enthralled with the alleged Black Hole, that they can't think of or even tolerate anything else.This site is a microcosm
So they all flock to the altar to worship the alleged BH and the other altar to worship Dark Matter, all to the exclusion of their less favorite stepchild, so to speak.
Science is not democratic at all even though there are two sides to the coin.

See what I mean?
You make a ridiculous comment like this and you want to be taken seriously? Then don't pedal pseudoscience.
There is no alternative to BH theory.
See what I mean when I say you deny relativity?
Does your mind go:
"BH's either exist or they don't, so it must be 50:50"
That's not reality!


You're nuts, Ojorf.
Ojorf
3 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2018
@Ojorf.
Well RC & SEU, you two might not be active peddlers of woo, but you are the enablers and encouragers of the fanatics.
Mate, didn't I just ask you please to NOT to lump me in with anyone else, for reasons stated? :)


You long ago lumped yourself in there.
If you don't want to be in the PseudoScienceCrowd, don't associate with them.
SkyLight
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2018
preaching and accusing rather than bringing to the table any vestige of scientific observation of your own to discuss with others
This raises a point which I'm always amazed that people like you don't seem to comprehend.

@Ojorf doesn't NEED to bring anything to the table. It's all out there in the form of established scientific theories, experimental results, etc. Most of the people on Earth have access to the entire set of scientific endeavor.

The onus here is on YOU to acquaint yourself with established science - which you very evidently have not done - and the onus is again on YOU to bring your evidence and your theories here, or to some other public forum, for those trained in science to evaluate them in a scientific manner and context.

Saying things like "I discussed it with Benni", or "I sent it to [unnamed] University for appraisal" doesn't cut any ice. Making sh*t up based on how you feel the world should be, rather than how it is, just ain't science.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2018
....at the exclusion of the alternative of which Plasmoid is one.


No, it isn't. A plasmoid cannot explain the orbits of the stars around Sgr A*. And nobody is claiming that it can. It is a non-hypothesis. It doesn't exist. It was a piece of trash written over 30 years ago, by a crackpot, long before we knew about the stellar orbits around our own SMBH.

says jones

It all really depends on what constitutes a Plasmoid. Do you know? Is it something like invisible Dark Matter? And if YOU don't know and scientists don't know, then how can you say that the object in Sgr*A isn't a Plasmoid? IMO there are still too many unknowns to make even an educated guess. So why not just wait until all the data comes in before making a determination.
Right now, I'm sitting on the fence, not knowing which side is right.
Watching the video of the Stars orbiting near the alleged BH and yet not being pulled into it didn't help either. Too fake.
Ojorf
3 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2018
Thank you SkyLight.

And YOU are STILL preaching and accusing rather than bringing to the table any vestige of scientific observation of your own to discuss with others.
Almost everyone else has their own observations to discuss and to clarify with others, but not YOU. Why?
...
Don't you have any opinions wrt the Black Hole Theory or the Dark Matter fiasco?
Speak about science matters - not personalities.

@SEU
In my opinion accepted science has it close to right, as close as we can get with current technology and knowledge. I accept relativity with all it's consequences and repercussions.
Benni or Cantdrive have never had a valid point in any of their discussions here. Why would you give their opinions any value?
Why do you think there is any doubt about BHs?
Why do you have a problem with the concept of DM?
Why do you disagree with accepted science?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2018
@Ojorf.
Well RC & SEU, you two might not be active peddlers of woo, but you are the enablers and encouragers of the fanatics.
Mate, didn't I just ask you please to NOT to lump me in with anyone else, for reasons stated? :)

If you have disparaging remarks re SEU, then please don't conflate/confuse two such obviously different posters when it comes to scientific knowledge/understanding.

Eg, SEU admits to not being up to scratch in the sciences/understandings. He also respects corrections from me.

Whereas I do NOT engage in, NOR do I enable, simplistic/naive/incorrect 'pseudscience' or gratuitous insults. On the contrary, I have demonstrably always encouraged real/good scientific work; and try to convey as best I can (given the limited time available to me) the correct/logical understandings which have regard for the whole picture/reality. I've even had occasionally to 'gently' inform YOU of evolving scientific

says RC

Thanks for the vote of confidence
Ojorf
3 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2018
Watching the video of the Stars orbiting near the alleged BH and yet not being pulled into it didn't help either. Too fake.


[srcsm]Your grasp of science is staggering.

Your opinion carries imminence weight.[/srcsm]

What is your beef with relativity?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2018
Watching the video of the Stars orbiting near the alleged BH and yet not being pulled into it didn't help either. Too fake.


[srcsm]Your grasp of science is staggering.

Your opinion carries imminence weight.[/srcsm]

What is your beef with relativity?


ROFLOL You're STILL nucking futs
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2018
@Ojorf.
Mate, didn't I just ask you please to NOT to lump me in with anyone else, for reasons stated? :)
You long ago lumped yourself in there.
If you don't want to be in the PseudoScienceCrowd, don't associate with them.
Mate,it's precisely because I am NOT in ANY 'crowd', that I can dispassionately engage anyone, from any 'side', in polite scientific discourse without prejudice or malice. That is the Scientific Method tenet of OBJECTIVITY in practice. And as another evidence of my scientific impartiality, here is an excerpt from my post to @Benni earlier this year re his "galactic Barycenter" argument in lieu of gravitational mass feature (BH) at center of galaxy:
...
Hence 'Galactic barycenter' would NOT be LOCALLY TRAPPING/RE-DIRECTING near-'BH'-orbiting core stars into such 'slingshot' trajectories/orbits (they would be 'oscillating' from one 'side' to the other equidistantly from 'center'.

See? It must be a 'locally active feature'. :)
See, Ojorf?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2018
@RC
How's it going 'down under'? Everything peachy?
Ojorf
2.8 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2018
ROFLOL You're STILL nucking futs


How many direct questions about your opinion on science have I asked in my last few posts?

How many have you answered?

Not a single one!

RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2018
@Surveillance_Egg_Unit.
@RC
How's it going 'down under'? Everything peachy?
Nearly time for dinner. How are things where you are, mate? :)

ps: I was just about to log out for the day when I recalled seeing this at the end of a post from you (to @jonesey?):
Watching the video of the Stars orbiting near the alleged BH and yet not being pulled into it didn't help either. Too fake.
I couldn't go to dinner without first telling you that few years back there was a cloud/feature (labeled G2, or some such) which was observed to be ELONGATED as it was made to follow a curved trajectory around the location where BH is in our galaxy. Look it up. Anyhow, it shows that only when approach is close enough for tidal forces/effects to be significant will you see anything being 'shredded' (and if nearer, then made to join the BH accretion disc). So its not strange that stars orbiting NOT too close at 'perigee' do still survive intact as observed with those other stars. G'night! :)
granville583762
2.8 / 5 (13) Oct 13, 2018
When a pristine proton shares its orbital
@Surveillance_Egg_Unit
@granville583762
@cantdrive85
@Benni.
RealityCheck> If aggregating material is Hydrogen-Helium mixture (NO 'heavier' fissile/fissionable atoms yet produced/contained in grav-collapsing/plasma-pinched cloud), star will still achieve fusion once internal pressures, temps reach criticality for fusion to trigger.

When a pristine proton shares its orbital
A pristine electron sheds a tear
And in that tear it occupies that orbital
When in the process of happy union
Electromagnetic radiation is released
And so into the vacuum the tears flow

RealityCheck, are we to assume weightless pristine protons occupying the vacuum readily accept pristine electrons into their orbitals with no coercion!
Ojorf
2.8 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2018
Mate,it's precisely because I am NOT in ANY 'crowd', that I can dispassionately engage anyone, from any 'side', in polite scientific discourse without prejudice or malice. That is the Scientific Method tenet of OBJECTIVITY in practice.


You are polite and dispassionate, thank you.

But you are also TOO objective and TOO impartial and you give pseudoscientific concepts credence with your posts.
You encourage the loony posters.

It's neither objective nor impartial (nor productive) to discuss concepts that are ruled out by verified science, apart from pointing out that they are obviously BS.
granville583762
2.8 / 5 (13) Oct 13, 2018
Originality in scriptural style
Ojorf> @ThePseudoCrowd
And SEU & RC & Cant & Benni & Granville & redpill & YouKnowWhoYouAre will be here pedaling your pseudo scientific BS, swamping the site with comments that have nothing to do with science.
Every time you are proven wrong with solid science, yet it does not seem to stick in your minds.
Don't knock it till you've tried it!

And to Ojorf's foibles
As Stump's so eloquently in utterance states, "you are proven wrong" in Stumps uniqueness of style!
granville583762
2.8 / 5 (13) Oct 13, 2018
Our uniqueness of scriptural texts

Ojorf, when in your scriptural style for unique of character to emerge, immortal as uniquely Ojorf, as no one else.
When in a darkened room of only scriptural texts, we wish only to recognise your utterances as only Ojorf, not stumps, rnp, shnied, jd or whoever familiarises with your textural scripts!

In short Ojorf, it's your unique texts we crave and no one else's!
Ojorf
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2018
Thanks Granville, your posts as always, are crammed with fascinating science, insights and revelations.
What we cannot learn, from reading your posts, concerning the intimate secret thoughts of macadamias, is really not worth knowing.
granville583762
3 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2018
When a pristine proton shares its orbital
A pristine electron sheds a tear
And in that tear it occupies that orbital
When in the process of happy union
Electromagnetic radiation is released
And so into the vacuum the tears flow
In the vacuum no coercion is required
And so in the cloudless infiniteness
There is no density required
In that first union in hydrogen's creation
And so the first radioactivity begins
As Electromagnetic radiation is released

Electromagnetic radiation released by protons and electrons do not require huge clouds of protons and electrons to form hydrogen, only requiring the union of a proton and electron alone in the infinite vacuum!
SkyLight
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2018
how can you say that the object in Sgr*A isn't a Plasmoid?
Don't knee-jerk, SEU, try to think this one through, it isn't hard.

A plasmoid is basically a magnetically-confined bunch of plasma, or "a coherent structure of plasma and magnetic fields" as the Wiki puts it. So, it's ionized gas - a plasma - plus magnetic field structures, and hence has pretty low density compared to, say, solid matter as seen in rocky planets.

In order to have the mass of the object causing the orbits of stars in the immediate vicinity of the GC, the plasmoid would have to be large. Very large. An estimation of its' size can be got by taking the mass needed to sustain the orbits around the object, assuming a plasma density, and calculating the radius of a spherical distribution of plasma. Turns out, for a plasma density equal to the particle density in dense molecular clouds (I'm being very generous here) of ~10^6, the plasmoid would have to be ~13 lightyears in radius.

[TBC]
SkyLight
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2018
[continued]

However, the stars orbiting the massive object at the GC make closest approaches to that object at distances measured in light-hours or light-days. So, you would have a plasmoid about 13 light-YEARS in radius, and the nearest approach (of the star S2) is on the order of light-HOURS or light-DAYS. Meaning that S2, and the other stars in orbit "around" such a plasmoid would in fact spend much, if not all, of their time WELL INSIDE the putative plasmoid. And things don't orbit inside of other things.

Taking a less-generous plasma density, more in line with densities observed in the interstellar medium, for instance, would result in a much larger radius for the plasmoid, so an even worse result would ensue.

In addition, no such extended structure is observed. Such calculations, easily done on the back of an envelope if one is conversant with basic physics, coupled with observations, provide simple constraints on what kind of object could exist at the GC. It's a BH.
SkyLight
2.8 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2018
Electromagnetic radiation released by protons and electrons do not require huge clouds of protons and electrons to form hydrogen, only requiring the union of a proton and electron alone in the infinite vacuum!
and a priest to join them in holy matrimony. Let's hope each of the happy couples can find a quiet, secluded, place to consummate their union in peace. Sweet!
jonesdave
2 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2018
It all really depends on what constitutes a Plasmoid. Do you know? Is it something like invisible Dark Matter? And if YOU don't know and scientists don't know, then how can you say that the object in Sgr*A isn't a Plasmoid? IMO there are still too many unknowns to make even an educated guess. So why not just wait until all the data comes in before making a determination.
Right now, I'm sitting on the fence, not knowing which side is right.
Watching the video of the Stars orbiting near the alleged BH and yet not being pulled into it didn't help either. Too fake.


We knowe precisely what a plasmoid is. And it is impossible as the ~ 4m solar mass object at the galactic centre. End of story. And the video, you burke, is an animation of many years worth of actual observations of the orbits of those stars.There is nothing fake about it. It is the equivalent of taking a photo of a racing car every 10 secs as it goes around an oval track. It happened.
granville583762
3 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2018
Textural morphing
q]Ojorf> Thanks Granville, your posts as always, are crammed with fascinating science, insights and revelations.
What we cannot learn, from reading your posts, concerning the intimate secret thoughts of macadamias, is really not worth knowing.
And thanks Ojorf in realising how others see our textural scripting, when befalling into obscurity of sameness, by textural morphing till it's difficult to tell apart.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2018
In the meantime, you are talking out of your arse, as usual, as though the evidence leaves no doubt, when there is, as yet, no clear evidence. Blurry images are unacceptable.


Sorry, you loon, but there is nothing else it can be. Is there? You are the one talking out of your arse, as somebody who admits he knows sod all of the science, which is bloody obvious to anyone reading your drivel.

granville583762
3 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2018
Sweetness
Electromagnetic radiation released by protons and electrons do not require huge clouds of protons and electrons to form hydrogen, only requiring the union of a proton and electron alone in the infinite vacuum!

Skylight> and a priest to join them in holy matrimony. Let's hope each of the happy couples can find a quiet, secluded, place to consummate their union in peace. Sweet!

And the priest to provide consummation is when the neutron forms, sweetness in half's!
jonesdave
2 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2018
I think I've found where Cantthink gets his plasmoid woo from. Not unexpectedly, it is from the unqualified Velikovskian loon, Thornhill;

https://www.holos...tronomy/

His explanation for the stellar orbital parameters? G is not a constant! And mass is an electromagnetic variant! Lol. No maths to work out the orbits using his woo. Just unqualified, baseless assertion, relying on complete crap that he's made up himself.
So, here is a quick test of his woo; is G a constant? And does it apply at the galactic centre? Well, G is one of the terms in the Schwarzschild radius calculation. That term, Rs, is also included in the equation for calculating Einstein's predicted gravitational redshift. Do we see this redshift from the stars in this immense field? Yes, we do. Proving that G is indeed constant.

https://en.wikipe...redshift

https://phys.org/...ive.html

cantdrive85
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2018
And he cannot explain the stellar orbits, can he? So, it is junk. And there have been a hell of a lot more observations of AGNs since 1985 or 1991 when his trashy book was published.. There is no doubt that they are BHs.

You haven't pointed to the scientific literature where this has been shown to be wrong. None of the plasma ignoramuses dare attempt model this as one they only know fantasyland maths and two they would not appreciate the conclusions and what it would mean to the entire edifice of the standard guesswork. The plasma ignoramuses don't have the balls to attempt to falsify the model.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2018
And he cannot explain the stellar orbits, can he? So, it is junk. And there have been a hell of a lot more observations of AGNs since 1985 or 1991 when his trashy book was published.. There is no doubt that they are BHs.

You haven't pointed to the scientific literature where this has been shown to be wrong. None of the plasma ignoramuses dare attempt model this as one they only know fantasyland maths and two they would not appreciate the conclusions and what it would mean to the entire edifice of the standard guesswork. The plasma ignoramuses don't have the balls to attempt to falsify the model.


There is no model. It was a piece of junk published in a journal that no astrophysicist would see. Besides, observation proves him wrong. It is most definitely, beyond any shadow of a doubt, a mass/ gravity phenomenon, and not an EM phenomenon. I am not aware of anybody claiming otherwise in the more recent scientific literature. Including the loon Lerner.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2018
You haven't pointed to the scientific literature where this has been shown to be wrong.


I don't need to. Go to Google Scholar, and search on papers that measure the mass of the SMBH based on the stellar orbital parameters. They've been doing it for years. Andrea Ghez (iirc) is one author you might check out. Also see the paper related to the phys.org article I linked above. Again, it proves beyond any doubt that this is a gravitational effect, as well as proving G is a constant. A plasmoid cannot explain those observations, measurements and predictions. It is a non-hypothesis.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2018
The plasma ignoramuses don't have the balls to attempt to falsify the model.


Once again, there is no model. If you think stellar orbital parameters in the central parsec have been modelled by Lerner or anybody else, based on a non-existent plasmoid, then show me where it is. It doesn't exist. These stars were not observed 33 years ago when he wrote that junk.
Benni
2 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2018
Such calculations, easily done on the back of an envelope if one is conversant with basic physics, coupled with observations, provide simple constraints on what kind of object could exist at the GC. It's a BH.
.......so why doesn't it show up in this clear & precise picture?

http://ircamera.a........7th pic from top:

"Ever increasing resolution in infrared images showed the black hole is not the energy source. The brightest source in the very high resolution near infrared image to the right is IRS 7, a red supergiant that puts out most of its energy in the near infrared. The other bright stars are also very young and massive. The blue-appearing ones in the center of the image are a unique clustering of very luminous, massive stars. Any black hole must be invisible. (image from Gemini Project). If the black hole dominated the energy of the Galactic Center, it would be the second brightest source in the infrared image
cantdrive85
3.1 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2018
Also, I can't recall when it was, but some months back I posted to someone, explaining that plasmoids are dynamically unstable by their very nature, and hence cannot remain stable/contained without the involvement of STRONG CUMULATIVE GRAVITATIONAL CONTAINMENT effects.

Regardless of your attempt to mimic CAP'N CAPSLOCK, the physics of plasmoids is fairly well established. And contrary to your claim, plasma physicist such as Alfvén and Lerner always considered gravity it just isn't very relevant given EM forces are up to 39 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity in plasma. And you obviously didn't read the paper where it said;
"By this point in the process, the self-pinching of the filaments has already considerably concentrated the magnetic energy, and the magnetic self-compression process now produces far more energy concentration than does the continuing gravitational contraction."
So as it is RC, you are being naive to assume this is one sided thinking.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2018

http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/Astr2016/lectures/galcenter.htm......7th pic from top:


Oh sod off off with this childish crap, you uneducated tosser. It has been explained to you numerous times, you thick swine.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2018
Regardless of your attempt to mimic CAP'N CAPSLOCK, the physics of plasmoids is fairly well established.


Yes, and not a single person believes that Sgr A* can be a fecking plasmoid. Only you and the uber-idiot Thornhill.

cantdrive85
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2018
If you think stellar orbital parameters in the central parsec have been modelled by Lerner or anybody else, based on a non-existent plasmoid, then show me where it is. It doesn't exist.

His stupidity knows no bounds, it is galactic in scope. That is what I have been saying, it hasn't been modeled and until it has been shown to be invalid by test then it is still a valid concept. Show me in the literature where it has failed, until then your opinion "ain't worth sh!t."
cantdrive85
2.8 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2018
Andrea Ghez (iirc) is one author you might check out.

I have no need to read the idle ramblings and faerie tales of a plasma ignoramus.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2018
it is galactic in scope. That is what I have been saying, it hasn't been modeled and until it has been shown to be invalid by test then it is still a valid concept. Show me in the literature where it has failed, until then your opinion "ain't worth sh!t."


It doesn't predict the stellar orbits, you f***wit! How many f***ing times you dense b*stard? It is shown to be wrong through observation you idiot. Nobody has ever heard of his stupid model. It was (deliberately, probably) in an obscure and irrelevant journal. Nobody needs to prove the f***wit wrong; he needs to prove it right. He can't. It is a gravitational effect, 100% proven. His model was sh!t. Which is why it is totally unknown, and fails to match observation.
cantdrive85
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2018
Yes, and not a single person believes that Sgr A* can be a fecking plasmoid.

Lerner wrote a paper about it moron. And plasma astrophysicists are plasma ignoramuses, they don't even understand basic plasma processes let alone complex ones such as this.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2018
Andrea Ghez (iirc) is one author you might check out.

I have no need to read the idle ramblings and faerie tales of a plasma ignoramus.


Christ you are such an ignorant wanker. You don't know sh!t about plasma physics, you clown, and neither does anybody else in your mythology cult. Why do you think you are a total irrelevance to the world of real science? Huh? Because you are thick. And what the f*** has plasma got to do with Kepler, you stupid pr*ck?
jonesdave
2 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2018
Yes, and not a single person believes that Sgr A* can be a fecking plasmoid.

Lerner wrote a paper about it moron. And plasma astrophysicists are plasma ignoramuses, they don't even understand basic plasma processes let alone complex ones such as this.


Oh f*** off, you idiot. Lerner wrote nothing on Sgr A* you f***ing lying prick. And he never worked out how a plasmoid could produce those orbits. Hint for the mentally retarded; it can't. Christ you people are stupid. And nobody in your cult understands plasma processes, idiot. Lerner is a crank.
cantdrive85
3.3 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2018
It doesn't predict the stellar orbits

Show me a single correct prediction of Eddington's The Internal Constitution of the Stars. Yet you still cling to that failed science. Lerner's paper didn't consider the scale with which you keep harping about. And BTW, show me in the standard guesswork where these stars orbits were predicited. Not explained, but explicitly predicted.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2018
And plasma astrophysicists are plasma ignoramuses


Wanker. Coming from somebody who is so thick that he believes Earth used to orbit Saturn! What a f***ing fraud.
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 13, 2018
It doesn't predict the stellar orbits

Show me a single correct prediction of Eddington's The Internal Constitution of the Stars. Yet you still cling to that failed science. Lerner's paper didn't consider the scale with which you keep harping about. And BTW, show me in the standard guesswork where these stars orbits were predicited. Not explained, but explicitly predicted.


WTF are you on about, you dense prick? How can you predict the orbits of stars before they are f***ing obseved? Dickhead. You need to observe the stars for years. Once you get a reasonable picture, you can start constraining the mass of the object they are orbiting. Which will help in predicting the future orbits. Yes? Science really isn't your thing, is it woo boy?
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 13, 2018
Lerner's paper didn't consider the scale with which you keep harping about.


We weren't even totally sure what quasars were then. He went for a stupid EM explanation. Pretty much everyone else considered them to be BHs. Lerner was wrong, they were right.
And a plasmoid cannot affect the orbits of stars. End of story. It is stupidity to suggest it can, and only a moron would do so.

cantdrive85
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2018
How can you predict the orbits of stars before they are f***ing obseved?

The standard guesswork didn't predict these stars, what an utter failure.
The double standard is as galactic as your stupidity. Who dresses you? Does your senile 90-year-old mother still comb your hair and tie your shoes?
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 13, 2018
Let's try this for the mathematically illiterate EU loons;
We see stars orbiting an empty space as if there were a massive object there. We watch those orbits for many years, allowing a mass estimate to be more and more tightly constrained. It is ~ 4m solar masses.
From that we can work out the Schwarzschild radius (Rs) to be expected. It is ~ 12m kilometres. Using the Rs, we can then make a prediction of the gravitational redshift to be expected under GR. If we are wrong, the prediction fails. The prediction is pretty much spot on. What does this tell us? That there is a ~ 4m solar mass object in the galactic centre. Nothing else can explain it.
Short version; orbits give mass of BH. Mass of BH gives Rs. Rs can be used to predict gravitational redshift. Prediction is correct. End of plasmoid woo.
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 13, 2018
How can you predict the orbits of stars before they are f***ing obseved?

The standard guesswork didn't predict these stars, what an utter failure.
The double standard is as galactic as your stupidity. Who dresses you? Does your senile 90-year-old mother still comb your hair and tie your shoes?


WTF are you on about, you idiot? What f***ing stars? We couldn't see any until 1995! Christ you are thick. We can't predict the mass of the BH until we observe the stars. Without the mass of the BH, you f***ing idiot, we cannot predict the orbits. Jesus you people are seriously f***Ing thick. No wonder you fell for all that Velikovskian crap. Deranged swines. Stick to mythology, you uneducated tosser.
Benni
2 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2018
Show me a single correct prediction of Eddington's The Internal Constitution of the Stars.


It does seem his characterization of hydrogen fusing to helium was correct, of course this does not account for all the energy generation processes in stars, but it was an excellent start.
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2018
Let's try this for the mathematically illiterate EU loons;
We see stars orbiting an empty space as if there were a massive object there. Blah, blah, blah...

It is an empty space, just like the one between your ears. Maxwell's laws explain the orbits of stars in the galactic center, not Newton's nor GR claptrap.
cantdrive85
2.7 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2018
It does seem his characterization of hydrogen fusing to helium was correct,

Although fusion is obviously occurring, there is zero confirmation this is occurring internally.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (13) Oct 13, 2018
It does seem his characterization of hydrogen fusing to helium was correct,

Although fusion is obviously occurring, there is zero confirmation this is occurring internally.


Yes there is, you idiot. They are called neutrinos. Pillock.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (13) Oct 13, 2018
Maxwell's laws explain the orbits of stars in the galactic center, not Newton's nor GR claptrap.


Jesus, what a complete f***wit! Lol. No they don't and not a single scientist is claiming that they do. Just a mentally deranged, uneducated tosspot on a comments section. Go on, sh!t for brains - show us how Maxwell's laws come out precisely the same as GR. Get to it, woo boy. Or link to it. Or STFU.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2018
It is an empty space, just like the one between your ears. Maxwell's laws explain the orbits of stars in the galactic center, not Newton's nor GR claptrap.


Listen to this mentally challenged idiot, who thinks he's smarter than Newton and Einstein! What a complete tosser. I guess the explanation was beyond your understanding, eh? IQ of a frigging badger. Stick to mythology, thicko, as you know crap about science.

jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2018
It does seem his characterization of hydrogen fusing to helium was correct,

Although fusion is obviously occurring, there is zero confirmation this is occurring internally.


Where else would it be occurring dumbo? You know what fusion produces, apart from neutrinos? Gamma rays! If it were occurring on the surface, or in the chromosphere, where the idiot Scott suggested, we would be frigging fried! The fact that we have evolved, shows that the fusion must be occurring in the core. By the time the Gammas have travelled through the Sun, they are at a different wavelength. Not to mention the fact that conditions elsewhere are not conducive to fusion. Is there any area of science in which you are not totally inept? Nope, thought not.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2018
It does seem his characterization of hydrogen fusing to helium was correct,

Although fusion is obviously occurring, there is zero confirmation this is occurring internally.


Yeah, this is a possibility in light of the fact that as the core gets smaller as you approach the center, there is far less probability that gravitational collapse under the Inverse Square Law could be occurring to create the temperature required for fusion.

It is well known that gravitational collapse is not presently occurring on the Sun or we could OBSERVE it since it would start at the perimeter of the surface where gravity is at the highest level for any planet or star. So if gravitational collapse is not observed as occurring on the surface of the Sun than it can't be occurring below the surface either because gravity becomes weaker the closer you get to the core.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (14) Oct 13, 2018
So if gravitational collapse is not observed as occurring on the surface of the Sun than it can't be occurring below the surface either because gravity becomes weaker the closer you get to the core.


Density and temperature, you bloody dope! Nuclear engineer, my arse! Hydrostatic equilibrium stops the Sun from collapsing. Look it up. And the gravity may drop to zero at the very centre, but due to the massive increase in density with depth, the gravitational force rises as you get further inside the Sun.

Try understanding this:

https://www.physi....698121/
Benni
2 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2018
the gravitational force rises as you get further inside the Sun.


.....a typical Pop-Cosmology response because you have zero comprehension of the Inverse Square Law.

What's this you've been telling us you received an Astronomy Related degree from the Uni of Auckland, NZ that offers no such degree? And Schneibo likes to rampage on about who the liars are around here.
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 13, 2018
the gravitational force rises as you get further inside the Sun.


.....a typical Pop-Cosmology response because you have zero comprehension of the Inverse Square Law.

What's this you've been telling us you received an Astronomy Related degree from the Uni of Auckland, NZ that offers no such degree? And Schneibo likes to rampage on about who the liars are around here.


And he's off with the lies again. Listen you thick sh!t, you don't know the first thing about science, and nuclear science in particular. You are a complete moron, suffering from Dunning-Kruger syndrome, who is constantly lying and screwing up even basic science and maths. In short, you are a waste of space. Go away, imbecile.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2018
Oy. "483 comments" indicates a senseless comment thread with little to no science, no need to read. / goes to the science articles instead
jonesdave
2.4 / 5 (14) Oct 13, 2018
Let's have a game of 'Guess who the f***wit was that said this.'

Let's start with this one;

You don't even know what the decay rate of a free neutron in beta decay is do you? It's 15 minutes.

If a free neutron ACTUALLY had a half-life decay rate it would be exactly HALF of 15 minutes, 7.5 and half it's mass would be gone, but that never happens because free neutrons do not have a half-life decay rate.


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

Not difficult, I'd have thought.
cantdrive85
2.8 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2018
show us how Maxwell's laws come out precisely the same as GR. Get to it, woo boy. Or link to it.

Take a pseudoscientific non-physical maths claptrap (GR) and sprinkle in faerie dust and viola, the GR explanation works.
On the other hand we can apply experimentally confirmed concepts of charges moving in electromagnetic fields. No faerie dust needed.
jonesdave
2.4 / 5 (14) Oct 13, 2018
show us how Maxwell's laws come out precisely the same as GR. Get to it, woo boy. Or link to it.

Take a pseudoscientific non-physical maths claptrap (GR) and sprinkle in faerie dust and viola, the GR explanation works.
On the other hand we can apply experimentally confirmed concepts of charges moving in electromagnetic fields. No faerie dust needed.


Wrong, woo boy. Not a sane person on the planet thinks stars orbit due to Maxwell's laws. Only an idiot would suggest such a thing. And you are an idiot.

Whereas real scientists can observe stellar orbits, infer a mass for the central object, work out the Rs from that, and then plug it into the gravitational redshift equation, and get a prediction. And then find that prediction to be correct. You think that's a fluke? Lol.
And what have you got? Earth orbiting Saturn! Lol. Venus shooting out of Jupiter! Deary me. Whatever you idiots are doing, it most certainly isn't science, is it?
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2018
Whereas real scientists can observe stellar orbits, infer a mass for the central object,

A maths gymnast is not a scientist. They are mathematicians.
You said yourself there is nothing there, so per that observational fact you require faerie dust. And because your non-physical maths tricks say it needs to be there I must believe it. That isn't science, BH concepts are pseudoscience.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (14) Oct 13, 2018
Whereas real scientists can observe stellar orbits, infer a mass for the central object,

A maths gymnast is not a scientist. They are mathematicians.
You said yourself there is nothing there, so per that observational fact you require faerie dust. And because your non-physical maths tricks say it needs to be there I must believe it. That isn't science, BH concepts are pseudoscience.


Wrong. And the science and observations say you are wrong. How can you make accurate predictions that relies on knowing the mass of the central object, in order to obtain its Rs? And then see those predictions fulfilled? The maths isn't that horrendous. You can check it yourself . As can anybody else. Just because you are mathematically illiterate doesn't mean everyone is.
You've got nothing, woo boy. Nor has your cult. You're just butthurt that EU non-science keeps being proven wrong. Which is hardly surprising, is it? It isn't science.
jonesdave
2.4 / 5 (14) Oct 13, 2018
BH concepts are pseudoscience.


Nope, only according to a scientifically illiterate mythologist on a comments section. I think you lost that battle years ago. EH detection likely coming up early next year. Happy days! Neutron stars confirmed, gravitational waves confirmed, BHs confirmed, electric comets debunked. Again.
Tell me - have you got a painless way out planned? Might I suggest electrocution? It would be fitting.
Da Schneib
2.8 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2018
Speaking objectively, @SkyLight and @Ojorf have got it mostly right, but the reality is no matter how good the evidence is, nutjobs like @RC, @cantthink69, and @Lenni won't accept it.

I provided a video that shows the stellar orbits in the Galactic Center. Any astrophysicist who studies the GC can check it. No one has disputed it, other than the aforementioned nutjobs.

It was posted by the ESO; here is the link on their site: https://www.eso.o...so1825g/

The ESO is an organization of astronomers and astrophysicists from fifteen member states with founding members from 1964. They are well enough respected that they got hundreds of millions, if not billions, of $US equivalents, in order to build one of the most capable optical observatories on the planet Earth.

Curiously, the nutjobs don't seem to be able to build any observatories.
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2018
JD - And the gravity may drop to zero at the very centre!
Benni> So if gravitational collapse is not observed as occurring on the surface of the Sun than it can't be occurring below the surface either because gravity becomes weaker the closer you get to the core

jonesdave> Density and temperature, you bloody dope! Nuclear engineer, my arse! Hydrostatic equilibrium stops the Sun from collapsing. Look it up. And the gravity may drop to zero at the very centre, but due to the massive increase in density with depth, the gravitational force rises as you get further inside the Sun. Try understanding this:

And the gravity may drop to zero at the very centre, this is closest I have got jonesdave to acknowledge what I've been saying for years "And gravity is zero at the centre of mass – Sir Isaac Newton"

First Class JD, and unbelievably! disreguarding the relatively harmless "you bloody dope!" not a swearword in earshot!
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2018
Here's how it is: every major observatory that has studied the Galactic Center has concluded that there is something around 4 million solar masses that cannot be seen with any telescope, including those with resolution down to light seconds, where the central object must be according to both Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity. Even according to Newtonian Theory of Universal Gravitation, the predecessor to relativity, this must be what Pierre-Simon Laplace and John Mitchell going back to 1784 called a "dark star," in modern parlance a black hole.

Black holes are not some modern 20th century thing; their provenance goes back to the 18th century. And if you don't know who Laplace was, you don't know jack squat about science.
Da Schneib
3.1 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2018
And given all of that, claims that black holes are "pseudo-science" is an outright stinking lie.

And lies need to be opposed, and when data doesn't do it, ridicule must be applied. It is being, and they're whining. What you're seeing here is the person who confessed to whatever heinous act you care to name trying to appeal a sentence. You can't blame them, but giving them succor is also a heinous act. Ignore it and move on. But don't expect they'll ever admit you're right.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2018
And the gravity may drop to zero at the very centre, this is closest I have got jonesdave to acknowledge what I've been saying for years "And gravity is zero at the centre of mass – Sir Isaac Newton"
@granville, if you look at the video from the ESO here: https://www.eso.o...so1825g/

you will note that S2 speeds up enormously at closest approach. Doesn't look like "zero" to me.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2018
@jonesy, you are even more persistent than I am, and that's saying a lot. 5s for all your posts.

It's amazing that people can look at things with a telescope and deny what anyone can see.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2018
I provided a video that shows the stellar orbits in the Galactic Center. Any astrophysicist who studies the GC can check it. No one has disputed it, other than the aforementioned nutjobs.
......and you imagine they must be orbiting a central object is that it?

.....and you are the inverse of your rant about who the nutjobs are.

Those orbits are a classic BARYCENTER, this is obvious because there is no central object in view by which those orbits can be otherwise substantiated, YOU only think they're something else because that is the fantasyland of Pop-Cosmology you daydream about all day long.
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2018
I provided a video that shows the stellar orbits in the Galactic Center. Any astrophysicist who studies the GC can check it. No one has disputed it, other than the aforementioned nutjobs.
......and you imagine they must be orbiting something is that it?

.....and you are the inverse of all this, those orbits are a classic BARYCENTER, this is obvious because there is no central object in view by which those orbits can be otherwise substantiated, YOU only think they're something else because that is the fantasyland of Pop-Cosmology you daydream about all day long.

No center mass for them to orbit IN VIEW...
Guess that's why thay call it a black hole. Have you not read any of the myriad descriptions of them? Where it says "gravity so strong, light cannot escape"?
IwinUlose
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2018
comment #500

No center mass for them to orbit in view...
Guess that's why thay call it a black hole. Have you not read any of the myriad descriptions of them? Where it says "gravity so strong, light cannot escape"?


edit - foiled!
Da Schneib
2.8 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2018
Those orbits are a classic BARYCENTER
@Lenni, if you knew some physics you'd be dangerous. As it is you're just a janitor squeezing toilet mops into the reactor sump.
Whydening Gyre
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2018
comment #500

Nope.. beat ya... :-)
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2018
Just so we're clear, the ESO's VLT confirmed using 26 years' observations the orbit of S2 and the mass of the SMBH at the Galactic Center, and the redshift of S2 according to General Relativity Theory. In May of this year.

https://www.eso.o...eso1825/
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2018
Every particle attracts every other particle proportionally to its inertial mass - Sir Isaac Newton!
And the gravity may drop to zero at the very centre, this is closest I have got jonesdave to acknowledge what I've been saying for years "And gravity is zero at the centre of mass – Sir Isaac Newton"

Da Schneib> @granville, if you look at the video from the ESO here: https://www.eso.o...so1825g/
you will note that S2 speeds up enormously at closest approach. Doesn't look like "zero" to me.

Da Schneib, JD understands the concept - And gravity is zero at the centre of mass -
It starts from the planet's surface extending to its central core where every particle attracts every other particle proportionally to its inertial mass - Sir Isaac Newton! With the result Da Schneib, gravity is zero at its centre of mass – it is a phenomena that only occurs internally in inertial mass, from circumference to its central core Da Schneib!
Whydening Gyre
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2018
Every particle attracts every other particle proportionally to its inertial mass - Sir Isaac Newton!
...
Da Schneib, JD understands the concept - And gravity is zero at the centre of mass -
It starts from the planet's surface extending to its central core where every particle attracts every other particle proportionally to its inertial mass - Sir Isaac Newton! With the result Da Schneib, gravity is zero at its centre of mass – it is a phenomena that only occurs internally in inertial mass, from circumference to its central core Da Schneib!

Are you sure you don't mean gravitational mass?
Da Schneib
2.9 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2018
@granville, this is called the Shell Theorem and was discovered by Newton in 1687. In the 17th century.

The second result of the Shell Theorem is:

2. If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e., a hollow ball), no net gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object's location within the shell.

https://en.wikipe..._theorem

Now, note that corrections are necessary for a non-hollow shell. Like a black hole. Or even a star. The inter-particle interactions, however, are not all attractive; they can also be repulsive, by the EM force and the weak and color forces. Gravity doesn't repel on the inter-particle interactions' scale.
Da Schneib
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2018
Another important thing to keep in mind is that the color and weak interactions only operate at nuclear scales; that is, in or near the atomic nucleus size scale. As a result, only EM and gravity can operate at galactic scales. Now, the thing here is that EM is conserved; so you can't create a charge. Unless we posit that the universe was EM charged before it began, only by separation of charges can you create a net local charge; and given that's so then positing EM charges of the necessary magnitude in the GC is ridiculous.
granville583762
3 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2018
Every particle attracts every other particle proportionally to its inertial mass - Sir Isaac Newton! ...
Da Schneib, JD understands the concept - And gravity is zero at the centre of mass -
It starts from the planet's surface extending to its central core where every particle attracts every other particle proportionally to its inertial mass - Sir Isaac Newton! With the result Da Schneib, gravity is zero at its centre of mass – it is a phenomena that only occurs internally in inertial mass, from circumference to its central core Da Schneib!

Whydening Gyre> Are you sure you don't mean gravitational mass?

Whydening Gyre, Only Inertial Mass has Gravitation!
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2018
Only Inertial Mass has Gravitation!

Inertial mass is distinct from relativistic mass, that is the relativistic increase of inertial mass's kinetic energy by virtue of its velocity, where due to units involved, it is a convenient unit of measure in terms of mass.

Staffordshire University, relativistic mass is not inertial mass, it is kinetic energy!
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2018
Only Inertial Mass has Gravitation!

Inertial mass is distinct from relativistic mass, that is the relativistic increase of inertial mass's kinetic energy by virtue of its velocity, where due to units involved, it is a convenient unit of measure in terms of mass.

Staffordshire University, relativistic mass is not inertial mass, it is kinetic energy!

I didn't say relativistic. Or infer kinetics.
I was merely questioning if gravitational mass might not be a better descriptor in this particular circumstance...
granville583762
2.9 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2018
Da Schneib, it makes no difference if the planets mass is contained in a spherical outer shell, a particle of inertial mass experiences zero gravity at the centre of the spherical shell.
It is gravity accelerating on a particle in the centre in opposition resulting in that particle experiencing weightlessness which is derived from - every particle attracts every other particle proportionally to its inertial mass
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 13, 2018
Those orbits are a classic BARYCENTER,


Only if you are a scientifically illiterate cretin.
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2018
Only inertial mass has gravity and inertia in momentum
Only Inertial Mass has Gravitation!
Inertial mass is distinct from relativistic mass, that is the relativistic increase of inertial mass's kinetic energy by virtue of its velocity, where due to units involved, it is a convenient unit of measure in terms of mass.
Staffordshire University, relativistic mass is not inertial mass, it is kinetic energy!

I didn't say relativistic. Or infer kinetics.
I merely questioned if gravitational mass wasn't a better descriptor in this particular circumstance

Because of the confusion of relativistic mass, I use inertial mass as it is distinct and real, as only inertial mass has gravity and inertia in momentum as it experience force, which is why it is called inertial mass
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2018
Whydening Gyre, once it's obvious gravity and inertial mass are proportional to one another it is more correct descriptive gravitational mass is better descriptor in this particular circumstance Whydening Gyre.

But this is the first time you or come to that any one has thought to ask me any questions of this nature, it's just how I see these concepts clearly without the possible confusion of other aspects
And the professor in Staffordshire University was saying the same as the answers he knew I expected
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2018
As far as we can tell inertial and gravitational mass are identical in all particles we've been able to measure them for. So far that's protons, electrons, and nuclei (or if you prefer ions). This includes mass gain due to velocity per the Special Relativity Theory.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2018
.......... this is obvious because there is no central object in view by which those orbits can be otherwise substantiated,....


Wrong. There is a very bright radio source. And that radio source is the focus of those stellar orbits. Now, go away, this stuff is well beyond your pay grade (Janitor).

Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Oct 13, 2018
@jonesy, don't forget the IR flares that all come from the same place as the radio source. Nor that the resolution of radio telescopes is much higher than optical telescopes, and that both radio and IR make it through the dust that envelops the Galactic Center.
Benni
2 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2018
Sir Isaac Newton! With the result Da Schneib, gravity is zero at its centre of mass – it is a phenomena that only occurs internally in inertial mass, from circumference to its central core Da Schneib!


granDy.......this is way too deep science for someone living in the land of Pop-Cosmology, you've lost him.
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2018
Inertial Mass does not increase with velocity, it is kinetic energy

Da Schneib, mass does not increase with velocity it is an increase in kinetic energy, this is what the professor in Staffordshire University was saying, in particle accelerators the technicians do not increase the magnetic fields as the professor said - relativistic mass is not inertial mass, it is kinetic energy - Da Schneib, he was being quite clear Da Schneib, as you know how these fellows word their answers as he carefully explained the electrons do not gain inertial mass and do not increase their weight and consequently experience no increase of gravity so the technicians do not increase the field strength of the containing field in the particle accelerator Da Schneib.
This professor Da Schneib was clear, to the point, extremely graphically scientifically descriptive Da Schneib, there was no mistaking because he had before him 50 odd students in the lecture hall Da Schneib!
jonesdave
2 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2018
Sir Isaac Newton! With the result Da Schneib, gravity is zero at its centre of mass – it is a phenomena that only occurs internally in inertial mass, from circumference to its central core Da Schneib!


granDy.......this is way too deep science for someone living in the land of Pop-Cosmology, you've lost him.


It is of no relevance to anything being discussed.
Benni
2 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2018
As far as we can tell inertial and gravitational mass are identical in all particles we've been able to measure them for. So far that's protons, electrons, and nuclei (or if you prefer ions). This includes mass gain due to velocity per the Special Relativity Theory.


Everybody here already knows this, I've been giving this lecture series here on a repeated basis while explaining Time Dilation effects.
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2018
As far as we can tell inertial and gravitational mass are identical in all particles we've been able to measure them for. So far that's protons, electrons, and nuclei (or if you prefer ions). This includes mass gain due to velocity per the Special Relativity Theory.


Everybody here already knows this, I've been giving this lecture series here on a repeated basis while explaining Time Dilation effects.


You aren't qualified to lecture on anything, other than mopping shithouse floors.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2018
......... this is obvious because there is no central object in view by which those orbits can be otherwise substantiated,....


Wrong. There is a very bright radio source. And that radio source is the focus of those stellar orbits.


No, you don't look for radio wavelengths as an indicator, you look for gamma & x-rays as an indicator of rapidly falling matter onto such a disc. The reason these wavelengths are not present is because there is nothing there for particles of mass to fall on, thus when stars orbiting in a barycenter of motion make a turn they lose a little bit of energy & give off lower frequency radio waves, you know, like what your microwave oven generates.
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2018
Sir Isaac Newton! With the result Da Schneib, gravity is zero at its centre of mass – it is a phenomena that only occurs internally in inertial mass, from circumference to its central core Da Schneib!

granDy.......this is way too deep science for someone living in the land of Pop-Cosmology, you've lost him.

I am not here Benni, its like talking on the mobile, it's as though I'm back in the potteries - you have just brought me down to earth with a bump I'm dreading reading JDs replies
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2018
@Lenni can't do enough gradeschool algebra to know that the mass gain and time dilation are by the same factor.

It's kinda like your toilet mops and the stuff you squeeze out of them into the reactor sump being the same weight. Just by random chance.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2018
......... this is obvious because there is no central object in view by which those orbits can be otherwise substantiated,....


Wrong. There is a very bright radio source. And that radio source is the focus of those stellar orbits.


No, you don't look for radio wavelengths as an indicator, you look for gamma & x-rays as an indicator of rapidly falling matter onto such a disc. The reason these wavelengths are not present is because there is nothing there for particles of mass to fall on, thus when stars orbiting in a barycenter of motion make a turn they lose a little bit of energy & give off lower frequency radio waves, you know, like what your microwave oven generates.


Wrong. And what would you know about it, thicko? Like I said, you don't have the requisite scientific knowledge to tell anyone what they should be looking for. And it isn't a barycentre, you ignorant fool.
Benni
2 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2018
@Lenni can't do enough gradeschool algebra to know that the mass gain and time dilation are by the same factor.

It's kinda like your toilet mops and the stuff you squeeze out of them into the reactor sump being the same weight. Just by random chance.


Well there you go again Schneibo, the guy who's told us he has a Computer Science degree & these days in retirement thinks bygone days of computer programming qualifies him to be what? Not a physicist, astro or otherwise, certainly not an engineer because you comprehend zero about Thermodynamics.

So what is your retirement career ambition? Just coming here & going on unending foul mouthed name calling rants as jonesy's mentor?
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2018
I must be psychic
jonesdave> You aren't qualified to lecture on anything, other than mopping shithouse floors.

And I had only been away for a few minutes and JD out with his mop and bucket again!
Surely he can't have made that much mess, he's handing out mop and buckets to everyone to help him clear up his mess.

What do they feed him, that he makes such a mess!
Da Schneib
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2018
A barycenter is a mathematical artifact. And it only applies in 2-body problems.

Just so we're clear on why @Lenni is being ridiculed.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2018
And I had only been away for a few minutes and JD out with his mop and bucket again!
Surely he can't have made that much mess, he's handing out mop and buckets to everyone to help him clear up his mess.


What do they feed him, that he makes such a mess!
.......lessons in Pop-Cosmology.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2018
And I had only been away for a few minutes and JD out with his mop and bucket again!
Surely he can't have made that much mess, he's handing out mop and buckets to everyone to help him clear up his mess.


What do they feed him, that he makes such a mess!
.......lessons in Pop-Cosmology.


Says the thick janitor who doesn't even understand what a half-life is! Lol.
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2018
Two or more bodies centre of mass
A barycenter is a mathematical artifact. And it only applies in 2-body problems.
Just so we're clear on why @Lenni is being ridiculed.

Da Schneib, the barycentre is the centre of mass of two or more bodies that orbit each other and is the point about which the bodies orbit https://en.wikipe...rycenter
Benni
1.8 / 5 (13) Oct 13, 2018
A barycenter is a mathematical artifact. And it only applies in 2-body problems.

Just so we're clear on why @Lenni is being ridiculed.


Ridicule, yeah, coming from those who are totally steeped in a fantasyland of Pop-Cosmology where immutable laws of physics are beyond the comprehension among it's adherents. Somehow I don't feel my career in science has failed me when perpetual motion advocates like you are here generating the ridicule.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2018
A barycenter is a mathematical artifact. And it only applies in 2-body problems.

Just so we're clear on why @Lenni is being ridiculed.


Ridicule, yeah, coming from those who are totally steeped in a fantasyland of Pop-Cosmology where immutable laws of physics are beyond the comprehension among it's adherents. Somehow I don't feel my career in science has failed me when perpetual motion advocates like you are here generating the ridicule.


You haven't got a career in science, you lying f***wit. You are scientifically and mathematically illiterate. As proven. Multiple times. You are a Dunning-Kruger affected fantasist and liar. You are a nobody, and no scientist agrees with your puerile crap. Get back to mopping the floor, you uneducated oaf.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2018
I see no point in arguing about math with someone who can't do algebra.
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2018
Two or more bodies centre of mass
A barycenter is a mathematical artifact. And it only applies in 2-body problems.
Just so we're clear on why @Lenni is being ridiculed.

Da Schneib, the barycentre is the centre of mass of two or more bodies that orbit each other and is the point about which the bodies orbit https://en.wikipe...rycenter


And? Those orbits are not caused by a frigging barycentre, are they? The vast majority of the mass, and therefore the force acting on those stars, would be external to their position in the galactic centre. There would be little to perturb them. Now, what is needed to throw a bunch of them into highly elliptical orbits, one of them at 0.025 c? Answers on a postcard. Or just look in the scientific literature, where people far smarter and better qualified than you have worked it out. Yes? This is a dead argument. The only people questioning this are fruitloops on a comments section.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2018
I see no point in arguing about math with someone who can't do algebra.


Never mind algebra, couldn't even do the very basic maths of working out the Schwarzschild radius, even when I'd given him the mass!
granville583762
2.8 / 5 (13) Oct 13, 2018
JD - fruit loops on a comments section
jonesdave> And? Those orbits are not caused by a frigging barycentre, are they? The vast majority of the mass, and therefore the force acting on those stars, would be external to their position in the galactic centre. There would be little to perturb them. Now, what is needed to throw a bunch of them into highly elliptical orbits, one of them at 0.025 c? Answers on a postcard. Or just look in the scientific literature, where people far smarter and better qualified than you have worked it out. Yes? This is a dead argument. The only people questioning this are fruitloops on a comments section.

But you are in the comments section JD, you are a fruit loop, you said it yourself JD.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2018
@Ojorf.
Mate,it's precisely because I am NOT in ANY 'crowd', that I can dispassionately engage anyone, from any 'side', in polite scientific discourse without prejudice or malice. That is the Scientific Method tenet of OBJECTIVITY in practice.
You are polite and dispassionate, thank you.
Thank the atheistic/scientific nature/principles by which I conduct research/discourse. Without the Scientific Method and Humane Principles I bring to my research/dealings, subjectivity and bias would soon compromise both.
But you are also TOO objective and TOO impartial and you give pseudoscientific concepts credence with your posts. You encourage the loony posters.
In Scientific Method/Discourse there can BE no such thing as "TOO objective". NOR can there BE such a thing as "TOO impartial" in Human Dealings/Discourse. If subjectivity/bias gets even the slightest 'foothold', a 'slippery slope' leads to subjective confusions/partisan wars that betray science/humanity.

Ok? :)
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2018
But you are in the comments section JD, you are a fruit loop, you said it yourself JD.


No, thicko - I said the only people questioning it are in a comments section. I am not questioning it. Understand? Or would you prefer it in Old Norse?
Benni
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2018
You haven't got a career in science, you lying f***wit. You are scientifically and mathematically illiterate. As proven. Multiple times. You are a Dunning-Kruger affected fantasist and liar. You are a nobody, and no scientist agrees with your puerile crap. Get back to mopping the floor, you uneducated oaf.


For sure your career is obvious, Foul Mouthed Ranting.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2018
You haven't got a career in science, you lying f***wit. You are scientifically and mathematically illiterate. As proven. Multiple times. You are a Dunning-Kruger affected fantasist and liar. You are a nobody, and no scientist agrees with your puerile crap. Get back to mopping the floor, you uneducated oaf.


For sure your career is obvious, Foul Mouthed Ranting.


And I still understand physics far better than you do. Eh? Back to mopping the floors, bozo.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2018
You haven't got a career in science, you lying f***wit. You are scientifically and mathematically illiterate. As proven. Multiple times. You are a Dunning-Kruger affected fantasist and liar. You are a nobody, and no scientist agrees with your puerile crap. Get back to mopping the floor, you uneducated oaf.


For sure your career is obvious, Foul Mouthed Ranting.


And I still understand physics far better than you do. Eh? Back to mopping the floors, bozo.
.........just adding more of the same to your resume.
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2018
@Ojorf.
It's neither objective nor impartial (nor productive) to discuss concepts that are ruled out by verified science, apart from pointing out that they are obviously BS.
I would agree with you wholeheartedly! BUT the decades-long demonstrably greater counterproductivity of foulmouthed 'internet gangs' subjectivity/bias-based personal insults/unheeding kneejerking, especially when a poster was correct/proper all along on science/behavior, makes a mockery of such hubris. Indiscriminate 'gang' bot-voting and trolling, heedless of what was actually posted/explained, is what undermines respect/trust in real true science/scientists.

In short, how can one ever hope to 'get through to the other person', if BOTH 'sides' bring BS? Hence insult-troll-gangs and herd-mentality-biases must be scrupulously avoided at all costs, else any claim to 'authority and respect' is lost and science/scientists brought into disrepute thereby. With friends like that, who needs enemies?

Ok? :)
jonesdave
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 13, 2018
In short, how can one ever hope to 'get through to the other person',


Irrelevant. This is a comments section. If you disagree with the science being reported, then take it up with the scientists, instead of posting crap on here. Convincing anyone on here of anything is a total irrelevance, and has no influence on the scientists doing the real work, does it?

RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2018
@jonesdave.
In short, how can one ever hope to 'get through to the other person',
Irrelevant. This is a comments section. If you disagree with the science being reported, then take it up with the scientists, instead of posting crap on here. Convincing anyone on here of anything is a total irrelevance, and has no influence on the scientists doing the real work, does it?
The relevant post should be read in full, strictly in context of my ongoing discussion with @Ojorf. He made comment to me, which I quoted, and I replied to that point/issue. No more, no less, than that should be inferred in your reading of that; and certainly it should not be taken out of full discussion context it was part of. That sort of 'orphan/partial' excerpting, and kneejerking to one's own 'reading bias' inferences/responses, does no good to anyone or anything; especially not to objective understanding and fair discourse. Please try not to do that with my posts in future. Thanks. :)
Benni
2 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2018
In short, how can one ever hope to 'get through to the other person',


Irrelevant. This is a comments section. If you disagree with the science being reported, then take it up with the scientists, instead of posting crap on here. Convincing anyone on here of anything is a total irrelevance, and has no influence on the scientists doing the real work, does it?
......well then, we should expect this is the last time you will ever post a Comment.

jonesdave
2 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2018
In short, how can one ever hope to 'get through to the other person',


Irrelevant. This is a comments section. If you disagree with the science being reported, then take it up with the scientists, instead of posting crap on here. Convincing anyone on here of anything is a total irrelevance, and has no influence on the scientists doing the real work, does it?
......well then, we should expect this is the last time you will ever post a Comment.



It was aimed at prats like you, dumbo. Those without the cojones to actually confront scientists, but happy to slag them off on places like this. In other words, blowhards and cowards.
Da Schneib
2.8 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2018
I don't see any point in trying to explain orbital mechanics to someone who can't do algebra either.

How much mass at what distance does it take for part of something's orbit to accelerate to 3% of the speed of light when the rest is slower? Take your time now.
Da Schneib
2.8 / 5 (9) Oct 14, 2018
Guess the 1 means you can't do the math. Still waiting for the orbital mechanics.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 14, 2018
@ojorf
re:
@ThePseudoCrowd
...

What are you trying to achieve?
well, they desire attention and validation (of their existence) because they're incapable of learning the requisite maths or science and they're insignificant and pathetic in reality

If you consider their actions as fanatical religious acolytes of a belief, it makes more sense why they are here (victim-martyr complex)

now, one of the big things is this: because the site lists "guidelines" that state pseudoscience will be deleted, they can point to their beliefs existence in the comments and claim it can't be pseudoscience becuase the site hasn't deleted it

lastly, there is validation by proxy - they belong to a "special" group who all believe the same conspiracist bullsh*t... the "MS science denies them their "papers" because [insert claim here]" crowd

those who can't comply with the basics of science push pseudoscience because D-K
SkyLight
2.7 / 5 (12) Oct 14, 2018
Those orbits are a classic BARYCENTER, this is obvious because there is no central object in view by which those orbits can be otherwise substantiated
I remember chiding you about this some while ago in another thread. Firstly, what you say is wrong: barycentric orbits are very well understood and are the typical orbit OBSERVED to be taken by stars in globular clusters, where the barycenter is the center of mass of the cluster.

Taking fast, tight swings about some hidden object is very much what stars in GlobCs do NOT do. Their orbits involve random walks within the cluster, much like gas molecules do in a body of gas.

Note that simple, observed fact: the stars orbiting a barycenter are in random walk orbits.

The stars in the immediate vicinity of the GC are in orbits which are OBSERVED to be identical to Keplerian orbits around a massive, but unseen, object at the GC. Not random walk orbits; Keplerian orbits. Not barycentric orbits; orbits around a massive body.

SkyLight
2.7 / 5 (12) Oct 14, 2018
And it gets better: scientists are now making very precise, high resolution observations of the path of the star S2 as it orbits the unseen, very massive object at the GC. Within the next few months, they will be able to measure the orbit of S2 about the GC to a degree sufficient to be able to say that any observed precession in that orbit is in agreement with GR.

Much like astronomers were able to say, way back in the early years of the last century, that the precession of the orbit of the planet Mercury around the Sun was in very good agreement with predictions of GR.
SkyLight
2.7 / 5 (12) Oct 14, 2018
You see, Benni, there are many scientists - bright fellows all - who are building very powerful observatories situated on earth and in space, conducting observations, and doing science at a level, and the like of which you could only dream - if, that is, you had the imagination to dream at such a level.

And then there's you Benni - a lonely, sad, failed enjineer who - despite six years of college education which you claim to have made, plus the extra two years on top of that - still could not manage to get a degree of any kind in any subject. My guess is you were in the services - maybe the navy - and they tried to educate the slack jaw out of you and eventually gave up and instead handed you a mop.

And this sad guy comes in here and tries to bluff his way into acceptance since he gets none anywhere else - except maybe in the locker room with the other janitors.

Keep riding that tricycle in circles Benni, and see where it gets you.
granville583762
2.8 / 5 (11) Oct 14, 2018
Scientific terms

Computational modelling of emission from vicinity of a black hole requires simulating how the material accretes, is heated, radiates, and close to a possibly rotating black hole, how GR predicts radiation will appear to distant observers, theorists suspect that shorter wavelength emission arises closer in and cooler emission farther out

Key scientific terms - Computational modelling, simulating how the material accretes, GR predicts radiation appears, possibly rotating, and possibly rotating blackhole
Further reduction – modelling, simulating, predicts, possibly

A possible rotating blackhole is Obfuscation, the consistent theme being Barycentre's, a Neutron Star by definition as to its detection as a pulsar, define a blackhole as a Spinning Blackhole!
In conclusion, a collection of possible and maybe's leading to possibilities whether pulsars spin, because pulsars are precursors to the fact blackholes spin

A master piece of textural Obfuscation
SkyLight
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 14, 2018
A master piece of textural Obfuscation
Follow the science, not the textual (not textu-R-al, that has to do with textures) analysis.
granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Oct 14, 2018
Follow the science
granville583762> A master piece of textural Obfuscation

SkyLight> Follow the science, not the textual (not textu-R-al, that has to do with textures) analysis.

In the context of pulsars and barycentre's possibly in rotation

To be or not be, a rotating blackhole
Is not to be a pulsar in rotation
As pulsars are to be blackholes
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 14, 2018
Thanks for pointing out the textual spelling mistake Skylight
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 14, 2018
A master piece of textural Obfuscation


Nope. Perfectly well known science. Conservation of angular momentum. The Sun rotates. We can expect other stars to rotate. Those that are somewhat larger than the Sun will go supernova, and become white dwarves. Much smaller diameter. Therefore, to conserve AM, the rotation rate will increase. As the WD becomes an even smaller neutron star, the spin rate will increase further. We see this with pulsars. So, it is reasonable to expect that as neutron stars are the progenitors of BHs, that BHs will also rotate.

https://www.quora...-to-mass
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 14, 2018
The stars in the immediate vicinity of the GC are in orbits which are OBSERVED to be identical to Keplerian orbits around a massive, but unseen, object at the GC


Nice, "massive, but unseen, object": How does something that is the most massive object in the galaxy manage to be so "unseen"?

Everything you Pop-Cosmology aficionados believe to be your most sacred holy gails are ALL "unseen". All the excuses you bunch of neophytes come up with for removing every shroud of doubt just makes you more of a laughingstock for those of us far better educated than you can ever hope to be.

You even believe the silliness that there is something called "gravitational collapse" at the cores of stellar mass that creates the heat for fusion on the Sun, yet Inverse Square Law calculations prove gravity at the center of the Sun is zero therefore cannot be the source of heat for thermonuclear fusion, but you believe it anyway, no surprise.

jonesdave
2 / 5 (12) Oct 14, 2018
Nice, "massive, but unseen, object": How does something that is the most massive object in the galaxy manage to be so "unseen"?


It isn't unseen, you idiot. It is a very bright radio source, and is occasionally visible in x-ray and IR, doofus. Stick to mopping floors.
And the only person calling this pop cosmology is an unqualified tosser on a comments section on the internet. Such idiots can safely be ignored, given their proven scientific and mathematical illiteracy.

jonesdave
2 / 5 (12) Oct 14, 2018
........ yet Inverse Square Law calculations prove gravity at the center of the Sun is zero therefore cannot be the source of heat for thermonuclear fusion, but you believe it anyway, no surprise.


Another perfect example of the scientific illiteracy of the aforementioned tosser who can be safely ignored! Lol. One wonders how it gets itself out of bed in the morning.