Astronomers find pairs of black holes at the centers of merging galaxies

November 7, 2018, University of Maryland
These images reveal the final stage of a union between two galactic nuclei in the messy core of the merging galaxy NGC 6240. The image at left shows the entire galaxy. At right is a close-up of the two brilliant cores of this galactic union. This view, taken in infrared light, pierces the dense cloud of dust and gas encasing the two colliding galaxies and uncovers the active cores. The hefty black holes in these cores are growing quickly as they feast on gas kicked up by the galaxy merger. Credit: NASA, ESA, W. M. Keck Observatory, Pan-STARRS and M. Koss (Eureka Scientific, Inc.)

For the first time, a team of astronomers has observed several pairs of galaxies in the final stages of merging together into single, larger galaxies. Peering through thick walls of gas and dust surrounding the merging galaxies' messy cores, the research team captured pairs of supermassive black holes—each of which once occupied the center of one of the two original smaller galaxies—drawing closer together before they coalescence into one giant black hole.

Led by University of Maryland alumnus Michael Koss (M.S. '07, Ph.D. '11, astronomy), a research scientist at Eureka Scientific, Inc., with contributions from UMD astronomers, the team surveyed hundreds of nearby using imagery from the W.M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii and NASA's Hubble Space Telescope. The Hubble observations represent more than 20 years' worth of images from the telescope's lengthy archive. The team described their findings in a research paper published on November 8, 2018, in the journal Nature.

"Seeing the pairs of merging galaxy nuclei associated with these huge black holes so close together was pretty amazing," Koss said. "In our study, we see two galaxy nuclei right when the images were taken. You can't argue with it; it's a very 'clean' result, which doesn't rely on interpretation."

The high-resolution images also provide a close-up preview of a phenomenon that astronomers suspect was more common in the early universe, when galaxy mergers were more frequent. When the black holes finally do collide, they will unleash powerful energy in the form of gravitational waves—ripples in space-time recently detected for the first time by the twin Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) detectors.

The images also presage what will likely happen in a few billion years, when our Milky Way galaxy merges with the neighboring Andromeda galaxy. Both galaxies host at their center, which will eventually smash together and merge into one larger black hole.

The team was inspired by a Hubble image of two interacting galaxies collectively called NGC 6240, which later served as a prototype for the study. The team first searched for visually obscured, active black holes by sifting through 10 years' worth of X-ray data from the Burst Alert Telescope (BAT) aboard NASA's Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory.

These images reveal the final stage of a union between pairs of galactic nuclei in the messy cores of colliding galaxies.The image at top left, taken by Hubble's Wide Field Camera 3, shows the merging galaxy NGC 6240. A close-up of the two brilliant cores of this galactic union is shown at top right. This view, taken in infrared light, pierces the dense cloud of dust and gas encasing the two colliding galaxies and uncovers the active cores. The hefty black holes in these cores are growing quickly as they feast on gas kicked up by the galaxy merger. The black holes' speedy growth occurs during the last 10 million to 20 million years of the merger.Images of four other colliding galaxies, along with close-up views of their coalescing nuclei in the bright cores, are shown beneath the snapshots of NGC 6240. The images of the bright cores were taken in near-infrared light by the W. M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii, using adaptive optics to sharpen the view. The reference images (left) of the merging galaxies were taken by the Panoramic Survey Telescope and Rapid Response System (Pan-STARRS). The two nuclei in the Hubble and Keck Observatory photos are only about 3,000 light-years apart -- a near-embrace in cosmic terms. If there are pairs of black holes, they will likely merge within the next 10 million years to form a more massive black hole. These observations are part of the largest-ever survey of the cores of nearby galaxies using high-resolution images in near-infrared light taken by the Hubble and Keck observatories. The survey galaxies' average distance is 330 million light-years from Earth. Credit: NASA, ESA, and M. Koss (Eureka Scientific, Inc.); Keck images: W. M. Keck Observatory and M. Koss (Eureka Scientific, Inc.); Pan-STARRS images: Panoramic Survey Telescope and Rapid Response System and M. Koss (Eureka Scientific, Inc.)
"The advantage to using Swift's BAT is that it observes high-energy, 'hard' X-rays," said study co-author Richard Mushotzky, a professor of astronomy at UMD and a fellow of the Joint Space-Science Institute (JSI). "These X-rays penetrate through the thick clouds of dust and gas that surround , allowing the BAT to see things that are literally invisible in other wavelengths."

The researchers then combed through the Hubble archive, zeroing in on the they spotted in the X-ray data. They then used the Keck telescope's super-sharp, near-infrared vision to observe a larger sample of the X-ray-producing black holes not found in the Hubble archive.

The team targeted galaxies located an average of 330 million light-years from Earth—relatively close by in cosmic terms. Many of the galaxies are similar in size to the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies. In total, the team analyzed 96 galaxies observed with the Keck telescope and 385 galaxies from the Hubble archive.

Their results suggest that more than 17 percent of these galaxies host a pair of black holes at their center, which are locked in the late stages of spiraling ever closer together before merging into a single, ultra-massive black hole. The researchers were surprised to find such a high fraction of late-stage mergers, because most simulations suggest that black hole pairs spend very little time in this phase.

To check their results, the researchers compared the survey galaxies with a control group of 176 other galaxies from the Hubble archive that lack actively growing black holes. In this group, only about one percent of the surveyed galaxies were suspected to host pairs of black holes in the later stages of merging together.

This last step helped the researchers confirm that the luminous galactic cores found in their census of dusty interacting galaxies are indeed a signature of rapidly-growing black hole pairs headed for a collision. According to the researchers, this finding is consistent with theoretical predictions, but until now, had not been verified by direct observations.

"People had conducted studies to look for these close interacting black holes before, but what really enabled this particular study were the X-rays that can break through the cocoon of dust," explained Koss. "We also looked a bit farther in the universe so that we could survey a larger volume of space, giving us a greater chance of finding more luminous, rapidly-growing black holes."

It is not easy to find galactic nuclei so close together. Most prior observations of merging galaxies have caught the coalescing black holes at earlier stages, when they were about 10 times farther away. The late stage of the merger process is so elusive because the interacting galaxies are encased in dense dust and gas, requiring very high-resolution observations that can see through the clouds and pinpoint the two merging nuclei.

"Computer simulations of galaxy smashups show us that black holes grow fastest during the final stages of mergers, near the time when the black holes interact, and that's what we have found in our survey," said Laura Blecha, an assistant professor of physics at the University of Florida and a co-author of the study. Blecha was a JSI Prize Postdoctoral Fellow in the UMD Department of Astronomy prior to joining UF's faculty in 2017. "The fact that grow faster and faster as mergers progress tells us galaxy encounters are really important for our understanding of how these objects got to be so monstrously big."

Future infrared telescopes such as NASA's highly anticipated James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), slated for launch in 2021, will provide an even better view of mergers in dusty, heavily obscured galaxies. For nearby black hole pairs, JWST should also be capable of measuring the masses, growth rates and other physical parameters for each black hole.

"There might be other objects that we missed. Even with Hubble, many at low redshift cannot be resolved—the two nuclei just merge into one," said study co-author Sylvain Veilleux, a professor of astronomy at UMD and a JSI Fellow. "With JWST's higher angular resolution and sensitivity to the infrared, which can pass through the dusty cores of these galaxies, searches for these nearby objects should be easy to do. Also with JWST, we will be able to push toward larger distances, to see objects at higher redshift. With these observations, we can begin to explore the fraction of objects that are merging in the youngest, most distant regions of the universe—which should be fairly frequent."

Explore further: Tumultuous galaxy mergers better at switching on black holes

More information: A population of luminous accreting black holes with hidden mergers, Nature (2018). DOI: 10.1038/s41586-018-0652-7 , https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0652-7

Related Stories

Merging galaxies have enshrouded black holes

May 10, 2017

Black holes get a bad rap in popular culture for swallowing everything in their environments. In reality, stars, gas and dust can orbit black holes for long periods of time, until a major disruption pushes the material in.

Finding galaxies with active nuclei

April 27, 2018

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

Recommended for you

Astronomers find possible elusive star behind supernova

November 15, 2018

Astronomers may have finally uncovered the long-sought progenitor to a specific type of exploding star by sifting through NASA Hubble Space Telescope archival data and conducting follow-up observations using W. M. Keck Observatory ...

Gravitational waves from a merged hyper-massive neutron star

November 14, 2018

For the first time astronomers have detected gravitational waves from a merged, hyper-massive neutron star. The scientists, Maurice van Putten of Sejong University in South Korea, and Massimo della Valle of the Osservatorio ...

The dance of the small galaxies that surround the Milky Way

November 14, 2018

An international team led by researchers from the IAC used data from the ESA satellite Gaia to measure the motion of 39 dwarf galaxies. This data gives information on the dynamics of these galaxies, their histories and their ...

97 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (12) Nov 07, 2018
The researchers were surprised to find such a high fraction of late-stage mergers, because most simulations suggest that black hole pairs spend very little time in this phase.


Simulations doing the suggesting - and scientists depend on those suggestions?
The merger already occurred, given the timeframe and distance of it.

When the black holes finally do collide, they will unleash powerful energy in the form of gravitational waves—ripples in space-time recently detected for the first time by the twin Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) detectors.


Ripples may occur in Space itself - but ripples do not affect Time - since Time does not flow backward or stand still - and it certainly cannot be found to have ripples in or on it. WHY do they continue to use Time as though it were something tangible, rather than only a manmade measuring tool of distance and duration?? It isn't Time that has produced gravitational waves, but the event itself.
valeriy_polulyakh
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 07, 2018
There are some very complicated issues of galaxy formation. Unfortunately, here is the same problem as with the stars. The origin of galaxies remains unclear, in spite of huge activity in the field. What the "formation" means? It means that we have the material that is assembling into galaxies.
https://www.acade...ome_From
https://www.acade...rvations
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 07, 2018
These are two interacting Birkeland currents, it has nothing to do with colliding infinite gravity monsters or faerie dust.
Ojorf
3.9 / 5 (21) Nov 07, 2018
Simulations doing the suggesting - and scientists depend on those suggestions?
You misunderstood, as usual.
The evil 'simulation' is nothing but the laws of relativity applied to matter under these conditions to predict how it evolves. Now a direct observation has confirmed the prediction, exactly as science is supposed to work.
WHY do they continue to use Time as though it were something tangible, rather than only a manmade measuring tool of distance and duration?? It isn't Time that has produced gravitational waves, but the event itself.
So wrong, as usual.
Why not familiarize yourself with relativity? It's more than a hundred years old already, you should catch up and save yourself the embarrassment. You know, it's not as if you have not been explained this before. SPACETIME!

I can't wait for the JWST, it's been so excruciatingly long.
Can't believe it was originally supposed to be launched in 2007.
theredpill
2.1 / 5 (14) Nov 08, 2018
" Now a direct observation has confirmed the prediction, exactly as science is supposed to work."

Yes, a direct observation of 2 blobs of light. Observing 2 blobs of light does not confirm that they are supermassive physically impossible objects that swallow light.

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

Funny thing is the comments section under the above article...where half the fantasy promoters that still lurk here had to acknowledge the validity of this physicists work and even defend her....small minds...short memories I guess.

jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (17) Nov 08, 2018
These are two interacting Birkeland currents, it has nothing to do with colliding infinite gravity monsters or faerie dust.


Lol.
Ojorf
3.7 / 5 (18) Nov 08, 2018
theredpill:
supermassive physically impossible objects that swallow light


You and SEU should both have a look at something called "Relativity". You both seem unaware of the concept. I am astounded, since it's not exactly new. You can google it if you don't believe me.
Tuxford
1.6 / 5 (13) Nov 08, 2018
Their results suggest that more than 17 percent of these galaxies host a pair of black holes at their center, which are locked in the late stages of spiraling ever closer together before merging into a single, ultra-massive black hole. The researchers were surprised to find such a high fraction of late-stage mergers, because most simulations suggest that black hole pairs spend very little time in this phase.

Surprised? What did they expect? 1 % or less? Apply a bit of logic then. The assumed merger process is then not accurate.

The process is far more common, since the cores are diverging, not converging. For details of how, see my comments for similar divergent core in Arp 220.

https://phys.org/...arp.html

But merger maniacs are a persistent bunch, lacking technical insight and logical deduction. Apparently, logic is not taught in school. Follow your elders...don't rock the boat. Conform.
theredpill
2.1 / 5 (14) Nov 08, 2018
"You and SEU should both have a look at something called "Relativity".

LOL...You should do a bit more in depth research before you associate Einstein and Black holes. And no, they are not a product of relativity, they are a product of Swartzchilds math...that is all. But I guess the physicist that I linked isn't a "good one" because her math proves the impossibility of BH's right? Although one shouldn't need a mathematical proof that matter cannot self compress itself out of existence...but if it is the only language you speak then I suppose it's the only one you'll listen to.

So no we shouldn't...look at what you believe because you did....
RNP
4.5 / 5 (16) Nov 08, 2018
@theredpill
LOL...You should do a bit more in depth research before you associate Einstein and Black holes. And no, they are not a product of relativity, they are a product of Swartzchilds math...that is all.


Hilarious!

You are the one that should do a bit more in-depth research before you comment on things you clearly do not understand.

The "Swartzchilds math" that you refer to is a solution (or if you prefer, product) of Einsteins theory of general relativity. So, Einstein's theory is fundamental to the description of black holes.

P.S. It is Schwarzschild not Swartzchild.
theredpill
2 / 5 (12) Nov 08, 2018
So..I need to provide Einsteins quotes on the subject then? I don't care how the guy who made up black holes spells his name but thanks.

A theory is fundamental to describing an object that cannot physically exist....( was Einsteins problem with that part of it as well) that is truly hilarious!

I am perfectly comfortable "not understanding things" that only pertain to fictional objects. It's like not understanding how pokemon evolve or live inside a ball. What I don't understand is how seemingly intelligent people allow math to convince them that certain types of "physics" are possible....what I do understand is the people who just want to believe they are.
RNP
4.5 / 5 (17) Nov 08, 2018
@theredpill

You understand nothing and are unwilling to learn. So, I terminate this conversation here and now.
Ojorf
3.8 / 5 (17) Nov 08, 2018
So..I need to provide Einsteins quotes on the subject then?


No, of course not. That would not prove anything.

We are not talking about Einstein, but about the theory he discovered. The theory you don't understand. The one you and SEU need to brush up on.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 08, 2018
GR precludes BH's. As a matter of fact, both Newtonian and GR preclude BH. BH's are fanciful faerie tales conjured up using bad maths gymnastics proffered by plasma ignoramuses.
RNP
4.4 / 5 (14) Nov 08, 2018
@cantdrive85
GR precludes BH's. As a matter of fact, both Newtonian and GR preclude BH.


This is a blatant lie.

You should be ashamed of yourself!

Do you have NO honour?
theredpill
2.5 / 5 (13) Nov 08, 2018
"We are not talking about Einstein, but about the theory he discovered."

One does not "discover" a theory, one postulates it. The parts of the theory where math leads to fantasy were the exact problems the guy who postulated it had with what people were doing with it. "

" The theory you don't understand. The one you and SEU need to brush up on."

I understand it very well, I have the same reservations as the guy who postulated it...except I live in a much more scientifically advanced time...where none of the observations on a galactic scale support the theory without "creative additions" (to phrase bullshit politely).

"You understand nothing and are unwilling to learn."

Why would I make myself dumber by learning what you "know"? The things you "understand" do not exist so the above is a compliment if you are stacking my "understanding" against yours.

"So, I terminate this conversation here and now."

LMAO...k bye.
jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (13) Nov 08, 2018
The things you "understand" do not exist .....


So, in the science-free world of EU idiocy, what is the 4m solar mass object at the centre of our galaxy? Where has it been explained and quantified?
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 08, 2018
The things you "understand" do not exist .....


So, in the science-free world of EU idiocy, what is the 4m solar mass object at the centre of our galaxy? Where has it been explained and quantified?


I guess I was over optimistic expecting an answer to this!
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 08, 2018
You guys wanted pictures of black holes.

There they are.

Next?
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (11) Nov 08, 2018
You guys wanted pictures of black holes.

There they are.

Next?


And when the EHT observations come out, they'll still be whinging like the uneducated loons that they are. It is easy to dismiss science when one doesn't even understand it. And have a chip on one's shoulder about being sh!t at it. Hence why these crank loons attract so many uneducated idiots - it makes them feel better that they can just say things like, "it's electric woo! Yippee!" No need to attend school - just make sh!t up.
RealityCheck
2.4 / 5 (8) Nov 08, 2018
@theredpill
@cantdrive85.

Both Newtonian and Einsteinian 'maths' allow for sufficiently dense concentration of mass-energy to induce sufficiently strong (cumulative) gravity strength/gradient effects; which in turn would produce a surrounding Event Horizon region whereby any photons emitted outwards from very close to (outside) horizon would be EMITTED with LONGER and LONGER wavelengths, due to FREQUENCY states of emitters/processes being GRAVITATIONALLY DILATED MORE AND MORE EXTREMELY the nearer they are to event horizon.

Moreover, NEITHER Newtonian NOR Einsteinian maths 'predict' a BH feature would have all its mass-energy concentrated into some DIMENSIONLESS a point/ring 'SINGULARITY feature' of so-called 'infinite density/gravity', as said 'maths' SIMPLY BREAKS DOWN at r=0.

ALSO, re your respective 'arguments' against Milky Way's BH feature, please read my post to you on Nov 06, 2018, in:

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

Cheers. :)
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (14) Nov 08, 2018
So, in the science-free world of EU idiocy, what is the 4m solar mass object at the centre of our galaxy? Where has it been explained and quantified?

That is your only comment, but it has already been explained gravity doesn't operate at this scale nor does it determine the orbit of said stars. Quoted from an educational website;

"Experiments have shown that the electric force between two objects is proportional to the inverse square of the distance between the two objects. The electric force between two electrons is the same as the electric force between two protons when they are placed as the same distance. This implies that the electric force does not depend on the mass of the particle. Instead, it depends on a new quantity: the electric charge."

So your claim of a 4m solar mass is based purely on the assumption that these objects are neutral. Given the evidence, you rely on a false assumption.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (8) Nov 08, 2018
You guys said you wanted pictures of black holes.

There they are.

Next?
Ojorf
3.9 / 5 (14) Nov 08, 2018
Theredpill:
I understand it very well, I have the same reservations as the guy who postulated it...except I live in a much more scientifically advanced time...where none of the observations on a galactic scale support the theory without "creative additions" (to phrase bullshit politely).


You sound very happy, laughing your arse off all the time. Enjoy your delusion.

If you really understood the theory we would not be having this conversation! You say you understand, while displaying your ignorance. The fact that you dispute undisputed facts, should have given you a clue that something is wrong. Not understanding how to spell "Swartzchilds math" or how it fits into the picture should have given you another clue.

As I have done with Benni multiple times, I'll ask you now:
How about starting a thread on your all confusions regarding Relativity and BHs on the forum here?
https://www.physicsforums.com
Or are you as scared as that coward Benni?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (12) Nov 09, 2018
That is your only comment, but it has already been explained gravity doesn't operate at this scale nor does it determine the orbit of said stars.

Per who?
Quoted from an educational website;

Which one?
"Experiments have shown that the electric force between two objects is proportional to the inverse square of the distance between the two objects. The electric force between two electrons is the same as the electric force between two protons when they are placed as the same distance. This implies that the electric force does not depend on the mass of the particle. Instead, it depends on a new quantity: the electric charge."

So... your saying an electron has an equivalent (opposite) charge to a proton?
No kidding.
So your claim of a 4m solar mass is based purely on the assumption that these objects are neutral. Given the evidence, you rely on a false assumption.

Where did you pull that "assumption" from?
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 09, 2018
That is your only comment, but it has already been explained gravity doesn't operate at this scale nor does it determine the orbit of said stars.


Per who?

Observation
Quoted from an educational website;


Which one?

Google it.
"Experiments have shown that the electric force between two objects...


So... your saying an electron has an equivalent (opposite) charge to a proton?
No kidding.

Nice try at a diversion. What I am saying;
"This implies that the electric force does not depend on the mass of the particle. Instead, it depends on a new quantity: the electric charge."
So your claim of a 4m solar mass is based purely on the assumption that these objects are neutral. Given the evidence, you rely on a false assumption.


Where did you pull that "assumption" from?

That is the assumption of the gravity only cosmologists. It's why mass is only ever considered.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (10) Nov 09, 2018
So your claim of a 4m solar mass is based purely on the assumption that these objects are neutral. Given the evidence, you rely on a false assumption.


So work out the charges necessary. Stars cannot have a large charge for obvious reasons. Now, show us where this 4m solar mass object is coming from in EU idiocy. With the relevant maths. Surely one of the idiots have attempted this? (rhetorical). As usual, you are talking out of your arse, and not a single scientist would agree with you. Just more woo from unqualified Velikovskian idiots.

jonesdave
5 / 5 (10) Nov 09, 2018
Quoted from an educational website;


And from the same website;

This table shows clearly that the electric force dominates the motion of electrons in atoms. However, on a macroscopic scale, the gravitational force dominates. Since most macroscopic objects are neutral, they have an equal number of protons and electrons. The attractive force between the electrons in one body and the protons in the other body is exactly canceled by the repulsive force between the electrons in the two bodies.


http://teacher.ns...r22.html
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 09, 2018
Now, show us where this 4m solar mass object is coming from

Wow, there is that BH density again. We have moved on to electric charge.
Stars cannot have a large charge for obvious reasons.

Do explain your skewed reasoning. I bet it is terribly flawed and irrelevant to the proposal.
And from the same website;

You knowing the Google! Goes to show even morons can Google, doesn't mean they can think though.
Since most macroscopic objects are neutral,

There is that assumption again.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (12) Nov 09, 2018
Wow, there is that BH density again. We have moved on to electric charge.


No we haven't. You just made it up, and have failed to explain the observed orbits based on this non-existent charge.

Do explain your skewed reasoning. I bet it is terribly flawed and irrelevant to the proposal.


What is the solar wind, idiot, and why is it relevant?

There is that assumption again.


Nope, from the same webpage you linked.

Also;

On the global electrostatic charge of stars
L. Neslusan
https://www.aanda...2649.pdf

77 Coulombs per solar mass. And;

We can also demonstrate that the electrostatic interaction between two idealized stars charged with the electrostatic charges, derived here, is extremely weak compared to gravity. The magnitude of electrostatic force represents only about 10^−36 of the magnitude of gravity.


So, let's see the EU maths (lol).
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 09, 2018
So now stars are charged? Which is it jonesdumb?
jonesdave
5 / 5 (11) Nov 09, 2018
So now stars are charged? Which is it jonesdumb?


I said that they can have no significant charge. What is the solar wind, and why is that relevant?
Which part of;

The magnitude of electrostatic force represents only about 10^−36 of the magnitude of gravity.


are you not understanding?
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 09, 2018
@cantdrive85.

IF your above assertions to @jonesey were correct, then we should by now be able to flit around the solar system by manipulating the overall charge on our 'space yachts'; being repelled/attracted (as required) by whichever is the nearest body (sun or planet)!

In reality, though our artificial Earth satellites already experience fluctuating vehicle-charge loads due to solar wind, they do NOT get wildly 'flung about' willy-nilly away/towards the Earth, but follow the GRAVITATIONALLY determined orbital trajectories we initially inserted them into (as subsequently adjusted by ONBOARD THRUSTERS to keep them on-track and/or on-station).

So please 'adjust your understandings' accordingly, and drop those obviously untenable/illogical parts of your PU/EU views on these matters. Thanks. :)

PS: Did you read my post to @theredpill and yourself above?...and ALSO in thread?...

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

Rethinkit, mate. :)

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (7) Nov 09, 2018
That is your only comment, but it has already been explained gravity doesn't operate at this scale nor does it determine the orbit of said stars.


Per who?

Observation

Whose?

Quoted from an educational website;


Which one?

Google it.

Which one of the 1000s of results?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (7) Nov 09, 2018
"Experiments have shown that the electric force between two objects...


So... your saying an electron has an equivalent (opposite) charge to a proton?
No kidding.

Nice try at a diversion. What I am saying;
"This implies that the electric force does not depend on the mass of the particle. Instead, it depends on a new quantity: the electric charge."

Only if you're talking down at the single particle level. Cumulatively it works different.
So your claim of a 4m solar mass is based purely on the assumption that these objects are neutral. Given the evidence, you rely on a false assumption.


Where did you pull that "assumption" from?

That is the assumption of the gravity only cosmologists. It's why mass is only ever considered.

It's about scale, CD...
jonesdave
5 / 5 (7) Nov 09, 2018
Which one of the 1000s of results?


This one that I linked to upthread;

http://teacher.ns...r22.html

And I also quoted from the above page that cd was reluctant to link;

This table shows clearly that the electric force dominates the motion of electrons in atoms. However, on a macroscopic scale, the gravitational force dominates. Since most macroscopic objects are neutral, they have an equal number of protons and electrons. The attractive force between the electrons in one body and the protons in the other body is exactly canceled by the repulsive force between the electrons in the two bodies.


cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Nov 09, 2018
We can also demonstrate that the electrostatic interaction between two **idealized** stars charged with the electrostatic charges, **derived here**


And what exactly do the "idealized" stars "derived there" have to do with the stars orbiting near the central plasmoid. Those conditions are nothing like your idealized faerie tale.
I said that they can have no significant charge.

You have been railing against stars having any charge whatsoever, now you claim they have "no significant charge". Nice attempted slight of hand.
We know significant charge occurs, x-rays, gamma rays, supernovas, GRB's and any other such high energy phenomena in a universe of 99.999% plasma are evidence of this fact.

What is the solar wind, and why is that relevant?

Already explained that stars are part of a circuit, not isolated hot gas balls like you imagine.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Nov 10, 2018
but follow the GRAVITATIONALLY determined orbital trajectories

They follow an INVERSE SQUARE LAW determined orbital trajectory. Coulomb's Law is an inverse square law too. But you are comparing apples and oranges, our solar system is nothing like the galactic center.

"Gravitational systems are the 'ashes' of prior electrical systems." Hannes Alfven

So please 'adjust your understandings' accordingly, and drop those obviously misunderstood/preconceived notions of your PU/EU views on these matters. Thanks. :O~:
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Nov 10, 2018
Observation


Whose?

The missing BH, the missing matter, the list goes on and on.
Only if you're talking down at the single particle level. Cumulatively it works different.

The plasmoid is a 'single' charge, the star is a 'single' charge in the galactic electric field.

It's about scale, CD

Yep, and has been shown by observation gravity isn't the primary driver at these scales.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2018
We can also demonstrate that the electrostatic interaction between two **idealized** stars charged with the electrostatic charges, **derived here**


And what exactly do the "idealized" stars "derived there" have to do with the stars orbiting near the central plasmoid. Those conditions are nothing like your idealized faerie tale.
I said that they can have no significant charge.

You have been railing against stars having any charge whatsoever, now you claim they have "no significant charge". Nice attempted slight of hand.
We know significant charge occurs, x-rays, gamma rays, supernovas, GRB's and any other such high energy phenomena in a universe of 99.999% plasma are evidence of this fact.

What is the solar wind, and why is that relevant?

Already explained that stars are part of a circuit, not isolated hot gas balls like you imagine.


Talking sh!t again, I see. Do you get this crap straight from the idiot Thornhill?
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 10, 2018
And what exactly do the "idealized" stars "derived there" have to do with the stars orbiting near the central plasmoid. Those conditions are nothing like your idealized faerie tale.


No plasmoid, and nobody has suggested such idiocy. Show the maths for a plasmoid (lol) cauisng those stellar orbits, or STFU.

You have been railing against stars having any charge whatsoever, now you claim they have "no significant charge". Nice attempted slight of hand.


Stop lying, f***wit. Read upthread a few posts, you blind prick. I said;

Stars cannot have a large charge for obvious reasons.


So quit the lying, you useless piece of crap.

We know significant charge occurs, x-rays, gamma rays, supernovas, GRB's and any other such high energy phenomena in a universe of 99.999% plasma are evidence of this fact.


And WTF has that got to do with stellar orbits, you uneducated tosser?

jonesdave
5 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2018
What is the solar wind, and why is that relevant?

Already explained that stars are part of a circuit, not isolated hot gas balls like you imagine.


What circuit dumbo? And WTF has that got to do with electrons and ions leaving the Sun in the same quantities at the same velocity? If a star had a large charge, you dumb piece of turd, then one of those would not be f***ing leaving, would it thicko?

So, let's see where some semi-educated cretin has done this idiotic plasmoid (lol) calculation, yes? Otherwise you are just making up more sh!t to go with the piles of previous unscientific sh!t that you regularly post.

jonesdave
5 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2018
The plasmoid is a 'single' charge, the star is a 'single' charge in the galactic electric field.


Hahahahaha. You couldn't make this sh!t up. Except that the idiot has done! Show us the maths you dense idiot, instead of talking out of your uneducated arse.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2018
And what exactly do the "idealized" stars "derived there" have to do with the stars orbiting near the central plasmoid. Those conditions are nothing like your idealized faerie tale.


They show, you badger brained imbecile, that EM effects are 10^-36 times less than gravitational forces on those scales. And not a single scientist will disagree. If you think one has, then link to the paper where this EM orbit woo has been calculated for stars. Good luck with that. Go back to your Velikovskian fairy tales, and have dreams of Venus shooting out of Jupiter, and Earth orbiting Saturn, you gullible moron.

jonesdave
5 / 5 (7) Nov 10, 2018
Yep, and has been shown by observation gravity isn't the primary driver at these scales.


Total lie. It has never been shown, and only a moron would believe such idiocy. Hence why you believe it. And probably the idiot Thornhill, no doubt.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2018
Let's try educating the EU loons;

3. Large Grains. If the size of the particle is so large that the electromagnetic term is negligible, we have an intermediate case dominated by viscosity and gravity. The particles in this regime are referred to as grains. Their equation of motion is
mvcv = mg
Under conditions in interstellar clouds this may be valid for particles of the order of 10 microns.


And;

4. Large solid bodies. For "particles" of the size of kilometers or more, the inertia and gravitational terms dominate. Electromagnetic forces are negligible, and viscous forces can be considered as perturbations which may change the orbit slowly. Depending on the properties of the cosmic cloud, viscous forces become important for meter or centimeter sizes. The equation of motion is then,
m dv/dt = mg − mvcv .


So, G is dominating above 10 microns! Know how 'big' 10 microns is? That is 10^-6 m!

Plasmoid! Lol, what a bloody fruitcake.

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2018
Still haven't seen a response from @cantthink69 regarding us seeing paired black holes in merging galaxies.

The nutjobs always avoid evidence they can't answer.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2018
Of course, the above quotes were regarding star formation. However, it just shows the sort of sizes of particles needed for G to dominate.
Oh yeah, the link; paywalled, I'm afraid, but;

Physics of the Plasma Universe, Second Edition.
Peratt, A. L.
https://link.spri...4-7819-5

Now, he came up with some pretty strange sh!t, but I'm pretty sure he's right on this count.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (7) Nov 10, 2018
From Peratt;
Countering the growth of faster computers, better diagnostics, and nuclear research facilities has been the encroachment of those not schooled in plasma science, computer science, physics, astrophysics, or high-power electrical, pulsed energy, and nuclear engineering. Without exception they rail at barriers placed to insure sound scientific technique and methodology. In times past, their 'achievements' were limited to hand-written, mimeographed, or in-house notes. Peer-reviewed papers in print in archived journals or even short letters in their town OpEd page were beyond their reach. However, now the internet or World Wide Web allows anyone, even cults, to present their cacaphony to the world, often citing unsuspecting researchers as 'colleagues' for false endorsement. As Hannes Alfven, Harold Urey, and myself, during our tenure at the New Astrophysics lectures at the University of California, San Diego said, 'they deserve no attention'.


cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2018
Stop lying, f***wit. Read upthread a few posts, you blind prick. I said;
You just made it up, and have failed to explain the observed orbits based on this non-existent charge.

Who is lying?

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2018
As Hannes Alfven, Harold Urey, and myself, during our tenure at the New Astrophysics lectures at the University of California, San Diego said, 'they deserve no attention'.

Amusingly, he is referring to the plasma ignoramuses.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2018
Stop lying, f***wit. Read upthread a few posts, you blind prick. I said;
You just made it up, and have failed to explain the observed orbits based on this non-existent charge.

Who is lying?



You are you idiot. Read what I wrote, you lying prick.

Amusingly, he is referring to the plasma ignoramuses.


No, he isn't, as is made plain in the passage I quoted, you ignorant, lying cultist.
RNP
5 / 5 (8) Nov 10, 2018
@cantdrive85
Amusingly, he is referring to the plasma ignoramuses.


Either this is another outright lie on your behalf, or we must must add reading comprehension to the growing list of learning deficiencies that you have exhibited.

The quote from Perratt that jonesdave took the time to find for you says;
" ...now the internet or World Wide Web allows anyone, even cults, to present their cacaphony to the world, often citing unsuspecting researchers as 'colleagues' for false endorsement. As Hannes Alfven, Harold Urey, and myself, ...."

He is clearly bemoaning people like you hijacking some of his ideas for your "cult".
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (7) Nov 10, 2018
Wow, that's about as direct a statement of the situation from Peratt as I can imagine. Great find, @Jones!
jonesdave
5 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2018
You just made it up, and have failed to explain the observed orbits based on this non-existent charge.


For the hard of thinking, I was talking about the non-existent charge from the non-existent plasmoid (lol). Not a single person, let alone a scientist, has ever tried to explain the orbits of the stars at the galactic centre using electric woo. Nobody would be dumb enough to even suggest it. Well, I say nobody, however................................

jonesdave
5 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2018
And if there was any doubt about what Peratt is referring to, we have;

The Plasma Universe and Plasma
Cosmology have no ties to the anti-
science blogsites of the holoscience
'electric universe'.


https://plasmauniverse.info/
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Nov 10, 2018
Stop lying, f***wit. Read upthread a few posts, you blind prick. I said;
You just made it up, and have failed to explain the observed orbits based on this non-existent charge.


Who is lying?


You are you idiot. Read what I wrote, you lying prick.


So you mean "non-existent" charge ILO non-existent charge...
jonesdave
5 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2018
So you mean "non-existent" charge ILO non-existent charge...


Have you got anything of scientific value to say, you tosser? The star has a very small charge, the plasmoid is a figment of your imagination. Therefore there is no charge acting upon the star. Zero. As in non-existent. Understand? You have made an idiotic claim, not backed up by any scientists, and when called out to justify it, you just obfuscate. Typical EUist. All talk, no science.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2018
@cantdrive85.
but follow the GRAVITATIONALLY determined orbital trajectories
They follow an INVERSE SQUARE LAW determined orbital trajectory. Coulomb's Law is an inverse square law too. But you are comparing apples and oranges, our solar system is nothing like the galactic center.
The point is WHAT SOURCE is that inverse square effect FROM, that affects stars swinging/accelerating in so curved/fast trajectories/speeds when PASSING so close to the central feature?

The scientific/logical ELIMINATION of WHAT that source CAN NOT BE was effectively identified to you/@theredpill in my post earlier above/in other thread linked therein.

"Gravitational systems are the 'ashes' of prior electrical systems." Hannes Alfven
Mate, that's exactly what I have been pointing out to ALL 'SIDES' regarding the evolutionary trajectory of the HYBRID-forces dynamics/features! Please READ/UNDERSTAND my posts to avoid such misunderstandings/futility on your part, cd85. :)
jonesdave
5 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2018
Alfven was very fond of hyperbole. In which context did he make this pronouncement which must be obeyed? Cosmology wasn't his strong point.


In all fairness, it isn't Peratt's, either. Both of them were beyond their pay grade when speculating on such matters. Peratt had his galaxy simulations, formed by Birkeland currents! Lol. Nice sim, pity that he never explained how this was moving stars around. Alfven & Klein had their matter-antimatter universe, which was also nonsense. Scott is nowhere near their level, and can't even do his maths properly. And still can't explain how his messed up nonsense explains stellar orbits in galaxies.
PC was, and still is, an irrelevance.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Nov 10, 2018
The star has a very small charge, the plasmoid is a figment of your imagination

Yet we see donut shaped ring which is exactly what one would expect to see with a plasmoid. No BH in sight though.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2018
donut shaped ring
Ummmwut?

Is this like the giant electrical currents flowing into the Sun because fusion doesn't work?
jonesdave
5 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2018
The star has a very small charge, the plasmoid is a figment of your imagination

Yet we see donut shaped ring which is exactly what one would expect to see with a plasmoid. No BH in sight though.


Yes there is. Nothing else could cause those orbits. And nobody in their right mind is suggesting a plasmoid (lol) as the cause of them. Only you, and you are an ignorant cultist on a comments section, so what should we care about your faith-based beliefs?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2018
donut shaped ring

Ummmwut?

Mmmmmm...donuts! Milky Way donuts...

https://phys.org/...ack.html

cantdrive85
1.1 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2018
Yes there is. Nothing else could cause those orbits.

Where? Oh right, it's invisible by definition. Isn't that convenient. Just trust 'em, their magical maths derived infinite gravity monsters exist. The fact that they're unfalsifiable by design is only more evidence that everyone should just trust the plasma ignoramuses.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (8) Nov 11, 2018
Yes there is. Nothing else could cause those orbits.

Where? Oh right, it's invisible by definition. Isn't that convenient. Just trust 'em, their magical maths derived infinite gravity monsters exist. The fact that they're unfalsifiable by design is only more evidence that everyone should just trust the plasma ignoramuses.


Idiot. Everyone except you is a plasma ignoramus by your assertions. However, it is obvious that you know nothing about the subject, and cannot even tell us how this non-existent plasmoid causes those orbits. So, no hypothesis to deal with, is there? BHs, on the other hand, should have a very large mass. Which we observe. They should have an accretion disk, which we observe occasionally. Plasmoids have no way of creating what we see, and nobody is suggesting otherwise. A faith-based non-hypothesis, in other words.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2018
Plasmoids have no way of creating what we see

You like to lie, don't ya.
http://www.plasma...ormation
jonesdave
5 / 5 (8) Nov 11, 2018
Plasmoids have no way of creating what we see

You like to lie, don't ya.
http://www.plasma...ormation


Which is woo. And still does not explain the orbits of stars around Sgr A*. Perhaps you could explain it mathematically, given a small charge on the star, and whatever charge you are ascribing to this plasmoid, which nobody else on the planet has posited?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2018
Which is woo.

LOL! According to jonesdumb plasmoids are "woo". Yet here is an MIT physicist who created them in a lab 60-years-ago.
https://journals.....104.292
jonesdave
5 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2018
Which is woo.

LOL! According to jonesdumb plasmoids are "woo". Yet here is an MIT physicist who created them in a lab 60-years-ago.
https://journals.....104.292


No, you lying idiot. The proposal that galaxies formed in that manner is woo. The proposal that BHs are plasmoids is woo. Show us how the orbits can be described without a 4m solar mass object. You'll get a Nobel, because nobody else has even attempted it.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2018
The proposal that galaxies formed in that manner is woo.

Yet, there is the experiment and simulation which shows just that, from the evolution of the interaction of the Birkeland currents (which above article describes part of) through to the creation of galaxy clusters. It explains galactic rotation curves, quasar evolution, galactic jets, radiation profiles, HI clouds laced throughout, radio galaxies, and numerous other observations. Yet all this reproducible plasma phenomena is "woo" compared to your maths based faerie dust and infinite gravity monsters. Gotcha!

The proposal that BHs are plasmoids is woo.

You are correct about that, because your infinite gravity monsters are woo. The proposal is it is a plasmoid, there are no maths based faerie tales involved.
Show us how the orbits can be described without a 4m solar mass object.

Charge jonesdumb. These stars are orbiting in a strong electric field near the galactic center.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2018
Yet, there is the experiment and simulation which shows just that, from the evolution of the interaction of the Birkeland currents


Which was a load of crap, and simulated f*** all, and has rightly been ignored in an irrelevant journal.

The proposal is it is a plasmoid, there are no maths based faerie tales involved.


There is no such proposal. Nobody has EVER suggested Sgr A* was a plasmoid. Only a moron could believe such idiocy.

Charge jonesdumb. These stars are orbiting in a strong electric field near the galactic center.


Nope, you are making it up. Nobody has ever suggested such sh!te. And for good reason. It is impossible. Show us the maths. Stars don't behave like for no reason.

Where is this crap written up? Nowhere, because it is scientifically impossible woo.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Nov 11, 2018
@cantdrive85
@jonesdave.

From @jonesey:
Plasmoids have no way of creating what we see
Response by @cantdrive:
You like to lie, don't ya. http://www.plasma...ormation
@cantdrive, isn't it hypocritical of you to default to SIMULATIONS when you've always RIDICULED 'opponents' for citing 'simulations' as 'proof'? Please play fair, or your 'opponents' will be justified in RIDICULING your 'simulation as proof' default. Ok? :)

From @jonesey:
Which is woo.
Response by @cantdrive:
LOL! According to jonesdumb plasmoids are "woo". Yet here is an MIT physicist who created them in a lab 60-years-ago. https://journals.....104.292
@cantdrive, from your own reference:
Plasmoids can interact with each other, seemingly by reflecting off one another.....can also be made to smash each other into fragments...
So, @cantdrive, DO YOU 'see' Stars/BHs REFLECTING OFF EACH OTHER; or SMASH EACH OTHER INTO FRAGMENTS? No? :)
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2018
The accretion discs of these BHs should be the brightest glow in the pic, Yet I see no ultra-bright DISC that should clearly be in evidence if these were BHs. In fact, I have yet to see evidence of an ACCRETION DISC in any photo where a supposed BH is located. All we ever see is this bright GLOBULAR structure of material none of which in these photos is in the form of a disc, and I remind you a DISC does not look like a GLOBULAR structure which is the ONLY structure we ever see in any of these pics.

Maybe Pop-Cosmology does not know how to discern the difference between a DISC & a GLOBE?

Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Nov 11, 2018
Because spectrographs don't work.

@Lenni_The_Liar_And_Plagiarist is lying again.

Globes have material crossing the front. Maybe you forgot.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2018
Because spectrographs don't work.

@Lenni_The_Liar_And_Plagiarist is lying again.

Globes have material crossing the front. Maybe you forgot.


......always another excuse why pop-cosmology will ALWAYS fail to show up with OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE.

What is the material crossing the front of the "Globes"?

Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Nov 11, 2018
LOL

Spectroscopy is not an "excuse."

The material crossing in front would be the globes. It's kinda like the Earth globe changing from Africa to South America when you spin it, duhhh ummm.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2018
LOL

Spectroscopy is not an "excuse."

The material crossing in front would be the globes. It's kinda like the Earth globe changing from Africa to South America when you spin it, duhhh ummm.


Yep, as expected, the next duck dodge & weave explanation for why we can never have OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for ALL the vaunted features of a BH.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2018
LOL

Spectroscopy is not an "excuse."

The material crossing in front would be the globes. It's kinda like the Earth globe changing from Africa to South America when you spin it, duhhh ummm.


Yep, as expected, the next duck dodge & weave explanation for why we can never have OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for ALL the vaunted features of a BH.


Hey Schneibo, you like putting up links to pics of black holes that have yet to show the image of one. Maybe you could do something real unique & send us to a pic of a BH that shows also shows an image of it's 5 times larger accretion disc? Huh? Got one of those links in your repertoire of Pop-Cosmology fantasy sites?
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Nov 11, 2018
LOL

@Lenni_The_Liar_And_Plagiarist lies again. There's no "duck dodge and weave" involved in simply spinning a globe. The results are intuitively obvious to the most casual observer, and so is your latest lie.

You're now claiming different continents don't come up when you spin a globe of the Earth. Anyone who owns or has ever seen a globe knows you're wrong. What are you going to lie about next, that there's no such thing as gravity? Oh, wait, you already did that.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2018
LOL

There's no "duck dodge and weave" involved in simply spinning a globe. The results are intuitively obvious to the most casual observer, and so is your latest lie.

You're now claiming different continents don't come up when you spin a globe of the Earth. Anyone who owns or has ever seen a globe knows you're wrong. What are you going to lie about next, that there's no such thing as gravity? Oh, wait, you already did that.


.....or maybe you should simply come up with the magical telescope that can see right through your cosmic globe, penetrating all that stuff all the way to the accretion disc? Oh, wait there is one:

http://ircamera.a...nter.htm

..........7th photo framwe from the top of the page. Yep, no accretion disc.

Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Nov 11, 2018
@Lenni_The_Liar_And_Plagiarist lies again.

You're still posting stale links. That one's from two years ago. Apparently you don't understand that science makes progress.

And the SMBH in the Milky Way doesn't have a strong accretion disk, that's why it's not a quasar.

Dumb da dumb dumb. Dumb da dumb dumb duuhh.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 11, 2018
Oh, and noticed you have no reply to the difference between a disk and a globe, @Lenni_The_Liar_And Plagiarist. Now you're changing the subject. Because everyone knows that when you turn the globe, you get Europe and not 'Murica.

Why not admit you lied and move on? What's the matter with you?
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2018
You're still posting stale links. That one's from two years ago. Apparently you don't understand that science makes progress.

And the SMBH in the Milky Way doesn't have a strong accretion disk, that's why it's not a quasar.


Hey, 19th century black hole math that you have posited here in the past is what? Progress? Progress to what? That your 19th century black hole math solution is science in progress? Or do you simply have a habit of counting backwards?
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2018
In the 19th century they knew that if you turn the globe you get a different continent.

That's not merely a lie, @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Plagiarist, it's a stupid lie. Which is about all you're capable of. Go mop some toilets into the reactor sump.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2018
In the 19th century they knew that if you turn the globe you get a different continent.

That's not merely a lie,, it's a stupid lie. Which is about all you're capable of. Go mop some toilets into the reactor sump.


It's the "Schneibo Dance" : Duck, Dodge & Weave & then onto a name calling rant. In the meantime maybe you would like to treat us to a picture of an accretion disc around a BH? You know, not that globe thing you keep ranting about, or the disc or maybe inside the globe?

Please, tell us more about how we find accretion discs on YOUR GLOBE ? We just keep spinning it, is that it? And what image do we look for on YOUR GLOBE? A bright spot, a dark spot, a pic of YOU?
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2018
In the 19th century they knew that if you turn the globe you get a different continent.

That's not merely a lie,, it's a stupid lie. Which is about all you're capable of. Go mop some toilets into the reactor sump.


It's the "Schneibo Dance" : Duck, Dodge & Weave & then onto a name calling rant. In the meantime maybe you would like to treat us to a picture of an accretion disc around a BH? You know, not that globe thing you keep ranting about, or the disc or maybe inside the globe?

Please, tell us more about how we find accretion discs on YOUR GLOBE ? We just keep spinning it, is that it? And what image do we look for on YOUR GLOBE? A bright spot, a dark spot, a pic of YOU?


Why are you still posting here, you thick twat? Not embarrassed by not even knowing what a half-life is, cretin? Lol. P!ss off, you uneducated imbecile.
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2018
LOL

Spectroscopy is not an "excuse."

The material crossing in front would be the globes. It's kinda like the Earth globe changing from Africa to South America when you spin it, duhhh ummm.


Yep, as expected, the next duck dodge & weave explanation for why we can never have OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for ALL the vaunted features of a BH.


We have, dickhead. Just keep your eyes on the scientific literature. Oh, sorry - that would involve you having to understand it, eh? Never going to happen for a janitor, is it, thicko?
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2018
Just when we thought this thread couldn't get any more idiotic, the f***wit Benni turns up! Must have finished cleaning the toilets, I suppose.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 11, 2018
Must have finished cleaning the toilets, I suppose.
Yep, licked 'em spick-n-span.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2018
Please, tell us more about how we find accretion discs on YOUR GLOBE
It's not my globe. You were the one who claimed it was a globe.

@Lenni_The_Liar_And_Plagiarist lies again.

You just can't help yourself, can you?
cantdrive85
1.2 / 5 (9) Nov 12, 2018
@cantdrive, isn't it hypocritical of you to default to SIMULATIONS when you've always RIDICULED 'opponents' for citing 'simulations' as 'proof'?

Bostick created his plasmoids in a lab in the 50's, Peratt created the simulations in the 80's based on Bostick's plasmoids. These are simulations based on real phenomena and using relevant physics, this is a fine application of a simulation. Most simulations based on the Darkist's claptrap is just pie in the sky speculation, not valid to simulate and claim as anything other than speculation.
Enthusiastic Fool
5 / 5 (3) Nov 12, 2018
@Cantthink
Just remember Bostick's plasmoids were very transient and off in density to cosmological phenomenon by 10^15. His spiral galaxy plates required an external magnetic field of 4000 - 6000 gauss and shooting 4 to 8 sources in a ring or spiral orientation. These also lost coherent shape inside of 15 microseconds. They could get a ring to survive up to 100 microseconds.
This really sounds like they are right on the path to creating 105k ly wide structures that persist for 13.5B years. The data showing the spontaneous creation of tiny transient plasma "cosmologists" seems to have been omitted. The data on where to find a giant solenoid in space is also absent. Bostick says they'll have to build a solenoid longer than 44cm so I assume the first ancient plasma loon built the bar magnet the Milky Way was founded upon. /s
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2018

Bostick created his plasmoids in a lab in the 50's, Peratt created the simulations in the 80's based on Bostick's plasmoids. These are simulations based on real phenomena and using relevant physics, this is a fine application of a simulation. Most simulations based on the Darkist's claptrap is just pie in the sky speculation, not valid to simulate and claim as anything other than speculation.


Except that Peratt's sims were rubbish, and didn't recreate what we see. For instance, his spirals evolved with nothing between the arms, yet those regions are only a little less dense than the brighter arms. He had double lobed radio galaxies morphing into spirals! Lol. He didn't know it then, but DLRGs are hosted by elliptical galaxies. There is a reason that Peratt has not touched this stuff in two decades, despite the increase in computer power, and more sophisticated software. It is dead, and nobody took it seriously anyway.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2018
Darkist's claptrap is just pie in the sky speculation, not valid to simulate and claim as anything other than speculation.


Lol. Read Scott's p!ss poor, erroneous paper again. He references a couple of papers regarding filamentary structures seen in simulations as support for his woo. Yet those simulations only came out the way they did because the authors included DM! He really is thick.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Nov 12, 2018
There is a reason that Peratt has not touched this stuff in two decades,

You really must enjoy lying, Peratt republished 'Physics of a Plasma Universe' just two to three years ago. And you quoted it above in this thread.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 12, 2018
There is a reason that Peratt has not touched this stuff in two decades,

You really must enjoy lying, Peratt republished 'Physics of a Plasma Universe' just two to three years ago. And you quoted it above in this thread.


And all he did in that was add a few extra bits about his plasma rock art woo. The section on galaxy formation was no different, as far as I can see, from the 1990s edition. It hasn't been updated, or worked upon for ~ 2 decades, and was dead in the water long before the second edition.

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

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