Remarkable flares from the galactic center

Remarkable flares from the galactic center
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
Journal information: Astrophysical Journal

Citation: Remarkable flares from the galactic center (2018, October 8) retrieved 16 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2018-10-remarkable-flares-galactic-center.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
97 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

RNP
Oct 08, 2018
Open access copy of paper here: https://arxiv.org...7599.pdf

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
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.

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
Oct 08, 2018
@jonesdave
Great link!

Thanks a lot.

I am going to put aside some time to watch and appreciate this one.

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.


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!

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.

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?

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
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
Oct 08, 2018
@rossim22
P.S. For fastest results, click on "Imaging a Black Hole" where yiu will find answers to your question.

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.

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.


Oct 08, 2018
https://insidethe...=twitter

Full video = 85 mins.

Awesome, some of that YouTube science, eh jonesdumb?

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.

Oct 08, 2018
@jd - thanks for the link, I just watched the presentation, which was fascinating.

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?

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.

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.


Oct 09, 2018
Sky: oh you're so smart.

Oct 09, 2018
Sky: oh you're so smart.
Why, thank you!

Oct 09, 2018
Sky: oh you're so smart.


That's why Sky gets the good ratings, also why you don't.

Oct 09, 2018
Another day, another observation, another failure of the guesswork.

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.

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.

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.

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 ^^^ ".

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.

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.

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.

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.

Oct 09, 2018
.....that it might be hogwash.


No, it is most definitely hogwash. Ask a real scientist if you don't believe me.

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.

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?


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.

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.

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

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?


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.

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.

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.

Oct 09, 2018
^^^
*facepalm*

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?

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.


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


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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Oct 10, 2018
"And what other possible explanations? Links, please."

JonesDav; why does the (very very weak) galactic magnetic field exist?

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.

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)"


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.

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.

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.

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!!!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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...

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

Oct 10, 2018
Ever the artist with words, granville...

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!

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...

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!

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!

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

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.

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...

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!

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!

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

Oct 10, 2018
You care about the "stars", or the votes given? - this is actually important to you?

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!

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

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...

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.

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.

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!

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....)


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.


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.

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.

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).

;-)


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.

Oct 10, 2018
No... the problem is DM cannot be falsified in any way.

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"


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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

Oct 10, 2018
Yeah mine should have said 'their understanding..'

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. :)

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.


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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

Saluté

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".

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?

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?




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.


Oct 10, 2018
Apparently not.

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!

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 ;-)

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?

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.


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.

Oct 11, 2018
@theredpill Are you confusing weight and mass thinking objects in space have no mass????

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.

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!

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.

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.

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?

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?
.

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.


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.

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-

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-

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?

Oct 11, 2018
A couple of photos of the Filamentary Ribbons

The second photo can be zoomed into.

http://hubblesite.../gallery

https://astropix....opo0429l


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..........................?

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.

:)

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.

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.

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.

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.


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?

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.

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

Oct 11, 2018
@SEU runs away and hides.

Smell ya later. 'Cuz it sure will be before I see ya.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Oct 12, 2018
Pssst, hey @SkyLight, I don't think the individual you quoted knows the difference between fission and fusion.

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.

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.

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.


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.

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

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!

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!

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. "

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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!

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.

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!

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).

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.


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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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'.

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.

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.

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.

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)