Will we ever see a black hole?

Will we ever see a black hole?
The shadow of a black hole surrounded by a ring of fire in a generic simulation. Credit: T. Bronzwaer, M. Moscibrodzka, H. Falcke Radboud University

In the shadowy regions of black holes two fundamental theories describing our world collide. Can these problems be resolved and do black holes really exist? First, we may have to see one and scientists are trying to do just this.

Of all the forces in physics there is one that we still do not understand at all: Gravity.

Gravity is where fundamental physics and astronomy meet, and where the two most fundamental theories describing our world—quantum theory and Einstein's theory of spacetime and gravity (aka. the theory of general relativity) – clash head on.

The two theories are seemingly incompatible. And for the most part this isn't a problem. They both live in distinct worlds, where quantum physics describes the very small, and general relativity describes the very largest scales.

Only when you get to very small scales and extreme gravity, do the two theories collide, and somehow, one of them gets it wrong. At least in theory.

But there is once place in the universe where we could actually witness this problem occurring in real life and perhaps even solve it: the edge of a black hole. Here, we find the most extreme gravity. There's just one issue – nobody has ever actually 'seen' a black hole.

So, what is a black hole?

Imagine that the entire drama of the physical world unfolds in the theatre of spacetime, but gravity is the only 'force' that actually modifies the theatre in which it plays.

The force of gravity rules the universe, but it may not even be a force in the traditional sense. Einstein described it as a consequence of the deformation of spacetime. And perhaps it simply does not fit the standard model of particle physics.

When a very big star explodes at the end of its lifetime, its innermost part will collapse under its own gravity, since there is no longer enough fuel to sustain the pressure working against the force of gravity (yes, gravity feels like a force after all, doesn't it!).

The matter collapses and no force in nature is known to be able to stop that collapse, ever.

In an infinite time, the star will have collapsed into an infinitely small point: a singularity – or to give it another name, a black hole.

Of course, in a finite time the stellar core will have collapsed into something of a finite size and this would still be a huge amount of mass in an insanely small region and it still is called a black hole!

Black holes do not suck in everything around them

Interestingly, it is not true that a black hole will inevitably draw everything in.

In fact, whether you are orbiting a star or a black hole that formed from a star, it does not make a difference, so long as the mass is the same. The good old centrifugal force and your angular momentum will keep you safe and stop you from falling in.

Only when you fire your giant rocket thrusters to brake your rotation, will you start falling inwards.

However, once you fall towards a black hole you will be accelerated to higher and higher speeds, until you eventually reach the speed of light.

Will we ever see a black hole?
Simulated image as predicted for the supermassive black in the galaxy M87 at the frequencies observed with the Event Horizon Telescope (230 GHz). Credit: Moscibrodzka, Falcke, Shiokawa, Astronomy & Astrophysics, V. 586, p. 15, 2016, reproduced with permission © ESO

Why are quantum theory and general relativity incompatible?

At this point everything goes wrong as, according to general relativity, nothing should move faster than the speed of light.

Light is the substrate used in the quantum world to exchange forces and to transport information in the macro world. Light determines how fast you can connect cause and consequences.

If you go faster than light, you could see events and change things before they happen. This has two consequences:

  1. At the point where you reach the speed of light while falling inwards, you would also need to fly out at the to escape that point, which seems impossible. Hence, conventional physical wisdom will tell you that nothing can escape a black hole, once it has passed that point, which we call the "."
  2. It also means that suddenly basic principles of quantum information preservation are brutally violated – conserved quantum quantities can simply disappear behind a wall of silence.

Whether that is true and whether and how the theory of gravity (or of quantum physics) needs to be modified is a question of intense debate among physicists, and none of us can say which way the argument will lead in the end.

Do black holes even exist?

Of course, all this excitement would only be justified, if black holes really existed in this universe. So, do they?

In the last century strong evidence has mounted that certain binary stars with intense X-ray emissions are in fact stars collapsed into black holes.

Moreover, in the centres of galaxies we often find evidence for huge, dark concentrations of mass. These might be supermassive versions of black holes, possibly formed through the merger of many stars and gas clouds that have sunk into the centre of a galaxy.

The evidence is convincing, but circumstantial. At least have let us 'hear' the merger of black holes, but the signature of the event horizon is still elusive and so far, we have never actually 'seen' a black hole – they simply tend to be too small and too far and, in most cases, yes, black...

So, what would a black hole actually look like?

If you could look straight into a black hole you would see the darkest dark, you can imagine.

But, the immediate surroundings of a black hole could be bright as gasses spiral inwards –slowed down by the drag of magnetic fields they carry along.

Due to the magnetic friction the gas will heat up to enormous temperatures of up to several tens of billion degrees and start to radiate UV-light and X-rays.

Ultra-hot electrons interacting with the magnetic field in the gas will start producing intense radio emission. Thus, black holes can glow and could be surrounded by a ring of fire that radiates at many different wavelengths.

A ring of fire with a dark, dark centre

In their very centre, however, the event horizon still lurks and like a bird of prey it catches every photon that gets too close.

Will we ever see a black hole?
Radio images of the jet in the radio galaxy M87 – observed at lower resolution. The left frame is roughly 250,000 light years across. Magnetic fields threading the supermassive black holes lead to the formation of a highly collimated jet that spits out hot plasma with speeds close to the speed of light . Credit: H. Falcke, Radboud university, with images from LOFAR/NRAO/MPIfR Bonn

Since space is bent by the enormous mass of a black hole, light paths will also be bent and even form into almost concentric circles around the black hole, like serpentines around a deep valley. This effect of circling light was calculated already in 1916 by the famous Mathematician David Hilbert only a few months after Albert Einstein finalised his theory of general relativity.

After orbiting the black hole multiple times, some of the light rays might escape while others will end up in the event horizon. Along this complicated light path, you can literally look into the black hole. The nothingness you see is the event horizon.

If you were to take a photo of a black hole, what you would see would be akin to a dark shadow in the middle of a glowing fog of light. Hence, we called this feature the shadow of a black hole .

Interestingly, the shadow appears larger than you might expect by simply taking the diameter of the event horizon. The reason is simply, that the black hole acts as a giant lens, amplifying itself.

Surrounding the shadow will be a thin 'photon ring' due to light circling the black hole almost forever. Further out, you would see more rings of light that arise from near the event horizon, but tend to be concentrated around the black hole shadow due to the lensing effect.

Fantasy or reality?

Is this pure fantasy that can only be simulated in a computer? Or can it actually be seen in practice? The answer is that it probably can.

There are two relatively nearby supermassive black holes in the universe which are so large and close, that their shadows could be resolved with modern technology.

These are the black holes in the center of our own Milky Way at a distance of 26,000 lightyears with a mass of 4 million times the mass of the sun, and the black hole in the giant elliptical galaxy M87 (Messier 87) with a mass of 3 to 6 billion solar masses.

M87 is a thousand times further away, but also a thousand times more massive and a thousand times larger, so that both objects are expected to have roughly the same shadow diameter projected onto the sky.

Like seeing a grain of mustard in New York from Europe

Coincidentally, simple theories of radiation also predict that for both objects the emission generated near the event horizon would be emitted at the same radio frequencies of 230 GHz and above.

Most of us come across these frequencies only when we have to pass through a modern airport scanner but some black holes are continuously bathed in them.

The radiation has a very short wavelength of about one millimetre and is easily absorbed by water. For a telescope to observe cosmic millimetre waves it will therefore have to be placed high up, on a dry mountain, to avoid absorption of the radiation in the Earth's troposphere.

Effectively, you need a millimetre-wave telescope that can see an object the size of a mustard seed in New York from as far away as Nijmegen in the Netherlands. That is a telescope a thousand times sharper than the Hubble Space Telescope and for millimetre-waves this requires a telescope the size of the Atlantic Ocean or larger.

A virtual Earth-sized telescope

Fortunately, we do not need to cover the Earth with a single radio dish, but we can build a virtual with the same resolution by combining data from telescopes on different mountains across the Earth.

The technique is called Earth rotation synthesis and very long baseline interferometry (VLBI). The idea is old and has been tested for decades already, but it is only now possible at high radio frequencies.

Will we ever see a black hole?
Layout of the Event Horizon Telescope connecting radio telescopes around the world (JCMT & SMA in Hawaii, AMTO in Arizona, LMT in Mexico, ALMA &APEX in Chile, SPT on the South Pole, IRAM 30m in Spain). The red lines are to a proposed telescope on the Gamsberg in Namibia that is still being planned. Credit: ScienceNordic / Forskerzonen. Compiled from images provided by the author

The first successful experiments have already shown that event horizon structures can be probed at these frequencies. Now high-bandwidth digital equipment and large telescopes are available to do this experiment on a large scale.

Work is already underway

I am one of the three Principal Investigators of the BlackHoleCam project. BlackHoleCam is an EU-funded project to finally image, measure and understand astrophysical black holes. Our European project is part of a global collaboration known as the Event Horizon Telescope consortium – a collaboration of over 200 scientists from Europe, the Americas, Asia, and Africa. Together we want to take the first picture of a black hole.

In April 2017 we observed the Galactic Center and M87 with eight telescopes on six different mountains in Spain, Arizona, Hawaii, Mexico, Chile, and the South Pole.

All telescopes were equipped with precise atomic clocks to accurately synchronise their data. We recorded multiple petabytes of raw data, thanks to surprisingly good weather conditions around the globe at the time.

We are all excited about working with this data. Of course, even in the best of all cases, the images will never look as pretty as the computer simulations. But, at least they will be real and whatever we see will be interesting in its own right.

To get even better images telescopes in Greenland and France are being added. Moreover, we have started raising funds for additional telescopes in Africa and perhaps elsewhere and we are even thinking about telescopes in space.

A 'photo' of a black hole

If we actually succeed in seeing an event horizon, we will know that the problems we have in rhyming and general relativity are not abstract problems, but are very real. And we can point to them in the very real shadowy regions of black holes in a clearly marked region of our universe.

This is perhaps also the place where these problems will eventually be solved.

We could do this by obtaining sharper images of the shadow, or maybe by tracing stars and pulsars as they orbit around black holes, through measuring spacetime ripples as black holes merge, or as is most likely, by using all of the techniques that we now have, together, to probe black holes.

A once exotic concept is now a real working laboratory

As a student, I wondered what to study: particle physics or astrophysics? After reading many popular science articles, my impression was that particle physics had already reached its peak. This field had established an impressive standard model and was able to explain most of the forces and the particles governing our world.

Astronomy though, had just started to explore the depths of a fascinating universe. There was still a lot to be discovered. And I wanted to discover something.

In the end, I chose astrophysics as I wanted to understand gravity. And since you find the most extreme gravity near , I decided to stay as close to them as possible.

Today, what used to be an exotic concept when I started my studies, promises to become a very real and very much visible physics laboratory in the not too distant future.


Explore further

Most detailed observations of material orbiting close to a black hole

Provided by ScienceNordic

This story is republished courtesy of ScienceNordic, the trusted source for English-language science news from the Nordic countries. Read the original story here.

Citation: Will we ever see a black hole? (2018, November 22) retrieved 18 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2018-11-black-hole.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
287 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Nov 22, 2018
through measuring spacetime ripples as black holes merge
yup, the "chirp" waveform, but more can be learned by also measuring any ripples _after_ they merge, referred to as "ringdown" -- anyone know if there are any papers yet on that from the recently detected mergers? Quite a few newer theories would either be supported or ruled out based on those measurements. That wouldn't be like 'seeing' the black holes, depending on how you 'see' things of course...

Nov 22, 2018
It depends how you define 'see'.

Nov 23, 2018
@Proto, here is the article on the Chirp and it talks about the linear ringdown to form, they believe, a heavier Neutron Star, rather than BH, but it shows the Chirp then the linear ringdown signal.:

https://phys.org/...tar.html

Nov 23, 2018
referred to as "ringdown" -- anyone know if there are any papers yet on that from the recently detected mergers

Google scholar links quite a few papers on this
https://scholar.g...mp;btnG=

Nov 23, 2018
I want picture. Send me picture.

Nov 23, 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
https://www.acade...and_Jets

Nov 23, 2018
Through the keyhole

beyond the light radius
a light radius is the correct descriptive to the event horizon
it operates at the vacuums maximum velocity C
from this radii's point to its centre of mass it gravity diminishes to zero
its escape velocity fall to zero at centre of mass
to date no BH has been seen except in artist imaginative simulation
it is entirely possible
given the decreasing escape velocity either side of the event horizon
that any variation of a fraction of a mm/s of the escape velocity of the event horizon
light will have sufficient energy to pass through the event horizon
allowing a possible window through the event horizon
from the formula R=2GM/C* by calculation the density drops by R* as the BHs mass doubles
by calculation its escape velocity remains the same at C
as is gravity drops to zero so does its escape velocity towards its centre of mass
the formula proves a BH as a singularity does not exist


Nov 23, 2018
Ain't no gravity, it is all an effect of expansion, i.e. time, and the so-called chirp is a "time-quake" not "gravity waves".

Nov 23, 2018
I want picture. Send me picture.


So here's a REAL picture:

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

Photo frame #7 from the top of the 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."

Nov 23, 2018
^^^^^^Thick idiot.

Nov 23, 2018
^^^^^^Thick idiot.


Real pictures bother you for some reason?

Nov 23, 2018
^^^^^^Thick idiot.


Real pictures bother you for some reason?


WTF are you on about, you imbecile? Just tell us what the 4m solar mass object is at the galactic centre, sh!tforbrains.

Nov 23, 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


In the meantime this one already does everything you want for it to do:

http://ircamera.a...nter.htm , 7th photoframe from the top of the page.

Nov 23, 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.../1246818


Unpublished crap from a crank. What is the 4m solar mass object at the centre of the galaxy?

Nov 23, 2018
^^^^^^Thick idiot.


Real pictures bother you for some reason?


WTF are you on about, you imbecile? Just tell us what the 4m solar mass object is at the galactic centre, sh!tforbrains.


Don't see it in the realtime pic at: http://ircamera.a...ter.htm, perhaps you could show us the object's image you claim is there, this is a real time pic you know.


Nov 23, 2018
^^^^^^Thick idiot.


Real pictures bother you for some reason?


WTF are you on about, you imbecile? Just tell us what the 4m solar mass object is at the galactic centre, sh!tforbrains.


Don't see it in the realtime pic at: http://ircamera.a...ter.htm, perhaps you could show us the object's image you claim is there, this is a real time pic you know.



What is the 4m solar mass proven to be there? Or do you not accept Newton and Kepler. Answer, f**U*wit.

Nov 23, 2018
It depends how you define 'see'.

This may very well be the smartest comment on the thread so far.

Nov 23, 2018
^^^^^^Thick idiot.


Real pictures bother you for some reason?


WTF are you on about, you imbecile? Just tell us what the 4m solar mass object is at the galactic centre, sh!tforbrains.


Don't see it in the realtime pic at: http://ircamera.a...ter.htm,]http://ircamera.a...ter.htm,[/url] perhaps you could show us the object's image you claim is there, this is a real time pic you know.


What is the 4m solar mass proven to be there? Or do you not accept Newton and Kepler. Answer, f**U*wit.


"Answer" is that no such image can be viewed in the realtime picture at:

http://ircamera.a...ter.htm,]http://ircamera.a...ter.htm,[/url] 7th photoframe from the top of the page, or do you just not accept PICTURES?

Nov 23, 2018
Your link doesn't work, @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist. In fact, your last two don't; the second one isn't even recognized as a valid address by the browser, and the first one gives a "404" for a nonexistent page.

Seems you're no better at the intertubes than you are at astrophysics.

Nov 23, 2018
Your link doesn't work, @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist. In fact, your last two don't; the second one isn't even recognized as a valid address by the browser, and the first one gives a "404" for a nonexistent page.

Seems you're no better at the intertubes than you are at astrophysics.
.....it's the decrepit google not meshing well with physorg whose editor is even worse:

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

Sometimes Nuclear/Electrical Engineers like me just need to be an awfully lot smarter than the software guys like you don't properly create, so I followup with the fix when I have time.

Nov 23, 2018
@Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist is incompetent in all regimes. Can't figure out the intertubes. Can't figure out fractions. Doesn't know what a limit is. Can't say why a barycenter orbit is different from an orbit of an object. Can't even look further down the page and see the black hole winking at it (yes, really; that's the 11th picture in its link).

Not merely lies; stupid lies. Toilet-sweeping janitor lies.

Nov 23, 2018
Don't see it in the realtime pic at: http://http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/Astr2016/lectures/galcenter.htm, 7th photoframe from the top of the page, or do you just not accept PICTURES?


What are you, a bloody 10 year old? Don't be such a sodding moron. You don't have to see it you cretin, the orbits of the stars mean that it is 100% there.
So, what is the 4m solar mass object at the galactic centre? Answer.

Nov 24, 2018
The stellar orbits are in picture 10.

Nov 24, 2018
Oh, and before we get there, orbits around a barycenter don't speed up when they get close to the barycenter, because there's nothing at a barycenter. Only orbits around an object do that, and by the amount of speed change you can calculate the mass of the object. As @Jones says, this one is four million solar masses. Now what do you suppose that could be?

Nov 24, 2018
Oh, and before we get there, orbits around a barycenter don't speed up when they get close to the barycenter, because there's nothing at a barycenter. Only orbits around an object do that, and by the amount of speed change you can calculate the mass of the object. As @Jones says, this one is four million solar masses. Now what do you suppose that could be?


I'm not sure you even need to take the increase in speed to calculate the mass. I have the equation (from Kepler's 3rd law, iirc), as;

M(bh) = (4 x pi^2 x a^3)/(G x P^2), where M(bh) = mass of black hole, a = semi-major axis, G = the gravitational constant and P = the period of the orbit.

Nov 24, 2018
Maybe not to get the mass, but to get the angles swept out you need Kepler's Second Law:
A line segment joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time.
It's this law that increases the orbital velocity when the orbiting body is close to the major focus of the ellipse of the orbit.

Nov 24, 2018
Maybe not to get the mass, but to get the angles swept out you need Kepler's Second Law:
A line segment joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time.
It's this law that increases the orbital velocity when the orbiting body is close to the major focus of the ellipse of the orbit.


Indeed. I had to explain it to an EU nut on the Rosetta Blog, a few years ago! Ended up having to link him to a picture!

Nov 24, 2018
It's this law that makes so-called "slingshot" orbits work to accelerate spacecraft, something we've done in several famous instances.

Nov 24, 2018
Hubble Uncovers the Farthest Star Ever Seen

More than halfway across the universe, an enormous blue star nicknamed Icarus is the farthest individual star ever seen
The star, in its spiral galaxy, is 9billion Lys from Earth
Icarus's discovery is through gravitational lensing
gravitational lensing
that little known property
of massive bodies
such as galaxies
and BHs
at 9billion Lys we can see individual stars
https://www.nasa....ver-seen
but when the BH hole is 26,000Lys away
we cannot see this black hole
nor can we see this light year accretion disk
where even at the radius of earth's orbit
the earth has to orbit at 14% of light
to prevent it instant demise
as we observe this at 26,000Lys distant
we cannot see anything at all
not a smidgen of gravitational lensed star or accretion disc
all we can see
is Icarus at 9billion Lys

Nov 24, 2018
Centric Binary Orbit

At the galactic centre
where billions of stars are in barycentric orbital orbital's
their collective mass
is the mass that drives their orbital's
as at their centre
there is no massive body
there is no Sagittarius A* BH
as none is required
instead the billions of stars
retain their mass
and simply orbit barycentrically
as at 26,000Lys it is the collective starry centric mass that we measure
of the collective individual stars
as their gravitational force multiplies billionth fold
as though there is a central mass
as there is no central mass
just simply
the collective
starry mass of billions of stars
in centric starry binary orbit

Nov 24, 2018
The stellar orbits are in picture 10.


"This series of images shows the positions of individual stars moving very rapidly (~1000 km/sec) in their orbits around Sgr A* (the yellow star symbol). On this scale, its motion would be imperceptibly small, so these measurements demonstrate that it is truly undetected - there is no source to be seen under the yellow star. (from Andrea Ghez et al., http://www.astro....h.html)"

"there is no source to be seen under the yellow star"

Keep making it up as you go along schneibo, "no source" so they had to make up a drawing & insert it into the picture. You like made up stuff don't you? Why is that?






Nov 24, 2018

Oh, and before we get there, orbits around a barycenter don't speed up when they get close to the barycenter,
........wrong as usual schneibo, this gif depicting the variable speeds of barycenter orbiting bodies state exactly the OPPOSITE of what you made up:

"Two bodies with the same mass orbiting a common barycenter, external to both bodies, with eccentric elliptic orbits (a common situation for binary stars)"

https://en.wikipe...bit5.gif


Nov 24, 2018
Oh, and before we get there, orbits around a barycenter don't speed up when they get close to the barycenter,


>schneibo......before you make up creating your own fantasies, you should at least try a search engine for the subject material in question assuming the fact you know how easily you can be caught.

Nov 24, 2018

Oh, and before we get there, orbits around a barycenter don't speed up when they get close to the barycenter,
........wrong as usual schneibo, this gif depicting the variable speeds of barycenter orbiting bodies state exactly the OPPOSITE of what you made up:

"Two bodies with the same mass orbiting a common barycenter, external to both bodies, with eccentric elliptic orbits (a common situation for binary stars)"

https://en.wikipe...bit5.gif



That is for two bodies, you moron. You are claiming that the BH doesn't exist, so star S2 is orbiting nothing! Christ you are thick. Just point us to the paper in the scientific literature that describes the orbits of these stars as being around a barycentre, you cretin. Nobody is taking anything you say seriously, so let's see some support for your idiotic views.

Nov 24, 2018
Oh, and before we get there, orbits around a barycenter don't speed up when they get close to the barycenter,


>schneibo......before you make up creating your own fantasies, you should at least try a search engine for the subject material in question assuming the fact you know how easily you can be caught.


Bloody moron. Makes a twat of himself again, due to being scientifically illiterate, and has the cheek to lecture someone else! Whatever is at the centre of the galaxy has a huge mass, as confirmed by the gravitation redshift of the light from the star as it passed closest to the BH. Barycentres don't do that, you moron.

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

Nov 24, 2018
Oh, and before we get there, orbits around a barycenter don't speed up when they get close to the barycenter,
........wrong as usual schneibo, this gif depicting the variable speeds of barycenter orbiting bodies state exactly the OPPOSITE of what you made up:

"Two bodies with the same mass orbiting a common barycenter, external to both bodies, with eccentric elliptic orbits (a common situation for binary stars)"

https://en.wikipe...bit5.gif

That is for two bodies,
......or more, I had to keep it simple for aAnthropologists like you to be able to follow even the basic concept, read & weep:

"The barycenter is the center of mass of two or more bodies that orbit each other and is the point about which the bodies orbit. It is an important concept in fields such as astronomy and astrophysics. The distance from a body's center of mass to the barycenter can be calculated as a two-body problem". Wikipedia

Nov 24, 2018
"The barycenter is the center of mass of two or more bodies that orbit each other and is the point about which the bodies orbit. It is an important concept in fields such as astronomy and astrophysics. The distance from a body's center of mass to the barycenter can be calculated as a two-body problem". Wikipedia


Christ, you are a dense twat! "two or more bodies that orbit each other." Where is the body the stars are orbiting, if the BH doesn't exist, you f***wit? What is causing the gravitational redshift, you imbecile? Stick to mopping floors, you uneducated moron.

Nov 24, 2018
......or more, I had to keep it simple for aAnthropologists


Quit with the lying, you uneducated tosspot. I know more about physics than you ever will, you f***ing dense prick. What is a half-life, again? Twat.

Nov 24, 2018
.....or more, I had to keep it simple for aAnthropologists


Quit with the lying, you uneducated tosspot. I know more about physics than you ever will, you f***ing dense prick. What is a half-life, again? Twat.


You're an Anthropologist, meaning you've never studied ANYTHING about science.

Nov 24, 2018
.....or more, I had to keep it simple for aAnthropologists


Quit with the lying, you uneducated tosspot. I know more about physics than you ever will, you f***ing dense prick. What is a half-life, again? Twat.


You're an Anthropologist, meaning you've never studied ANYTHING about science.


Listen, you lying f***wit - for the umpteenth time, I studied physics, you cretin. I have never studied anthropology formally. I have an interest in PALAEO- anthropoiogy, which IS a science, and is another subject where I know a sh!t load more than you do. So, that is the whole of physics, including astrophysics and nuclear physics, as well as palaeoanthropology, where I can run rings around you, you f***ing imbecile. And there are no doubt many other subjects, including maths, where I'd kick your janitorial arse. Now f*** off. and go find something more on your level. Try a grade school homework forum.

Nov 24, 2018
I'm not going to try to explain orbital mechanics to this baboon.

Nov 24, 2018
Just so folks can understand this, the Wikipedia image has the two stars rotating at equal angles. What if they weren't? This idiot doesn't even see why that would make a difference. Not surprising since it can't do fractions, can't check intertubes links, doesn't understand the difference between half-life and average lifetime, can't figure out why no light comes out of black holes, can't see the thing winking at it in a link it posted, and lies in every post. Totally incompetent. This is a complete waste of time. It will always make up an excuse. And excuses are like azzholes; everybody can make one up, and they all stink.

Go dump some more toilet sweepings into the reactor sump, baboon janitor.

Nov 24, 2018
Multiplicative of Stars in Binary Orbitals
jonesdave> two or more bodies that orbit each other Where is the body the stars are orbiting if the BH doesn't exist What is causing the gravitational redshift

The whole point concerning stars in binary orbit
is the have no starry centre
they have no BH centre
because
they do not require a starry centre, BH or otherwise
it is the very point concerning binary orbital's
they orbit a vacuous vacuum
in the space between the binary orbiting stars is the empty vacuous vacuum of space
the whole point of binary orbits is they require no central mass
it is irrelevant how many stars are close centrally packed
they orbit in binary orbit
concerning gravitational redshift
when billions of stars at the galactic centre are in binary orbit
their collective mass collectively combines their gravitational field
as it is gravity that causes redshift
is the collective starry orbital's gravity that is the redshift

Nov 24, 2018
@Benni.
https://en.wikipe...bit5.gif
Benni, the DOMINANT body shown in your referenced gif moves around too, cyclically varying location relative to the LESSER body orbiting IT AND their mutual barycenter. BUT SUPERMASSIVE gravitational 'black hole' body at center of MW galaxy has NO such motion; because the barycenter of it AND the closest stars around it, effectively FALLS WITHIN THE REGION OCCUPIED by the BH body/mass and its Event Horizon. Else, as I explained before, orbits of those closest stars would be essentially CIRCULAR or GENTLE OSCILLATORY, not extremely elliptical/slingshot as seen. Hence, that dominant body in your referenced gif ALSO CONTRADICTS your insistence that MW center is EMPTY 'barycenter' region instead of supermassive BH! Time to drop your (multiply) FALSIFIED 'barycenter as alternative explanation' for what clearly MUST BE a 'BH' gravitationally active DOMINANT body/mass at center of MW galaxy. Ok? :)

Nov 24, 2018
@100LiarRC was last noted claiming zero and infinity are the same thing on another thread.

Nov 24, 2018
@Da Schneib.
@100LiarRC was last noted claiming zero and infinity are the same thing on another thread.
Mate, please READ and UNDERSTAND properly. In physics, any equations involving fractional terms containing '0' gives UNDEFINED, and hence NON-physical, 'results'. Also, any equations outputting 'infinities' also have no real physical meaning in reality. Thanks. :)

Nov 24, 2018
@100LiarRC, you don't understand limits. And you've demonstrated it conclusively.

LEARN MATH.

That is all.

Nov 24, 2018
@Da Schneib.
@100LiarRC, you don't understand limits. And you've demonstrated it conclusively.

LEARN MATH.

That is all.
Mate, your assertions are erroneous and worthless IF YOU DON'T READ and UNDERSTAND PROPERLY before posting.

DS, did you not see the point I made to you already in that other thread, re LIMITS approach in STATIC situations where freq=0?....ie, a STATIC system CANNOT be treated via CALCULUS....because IF there is NO CHANGE steps involved, by definition for ANY system/process ascribed a '0' frequency (ie, NON-action or NON-operation) is a NON-EVENT...and hence beyond maths treatments applicable only to CHANGE situations? Please read and understand all that and try not to post drunk again, DS. :)

Nov 24, 2018
@100LiarRC your assertions are erroneous and worthless if you don't know math.

Nov 24, 2018
@Da Schneib.
@100LiarRC your assertions are erroneous and worthless if you don't know math.
How could such an otherwise intelligent person be so obtuse/blind to the STATIC situation effectively being described whenever "freq=0" is attempted to be input to the equations, DS?

Go on, DS, try doing that here in this referenced page that may get the point through to you:

https://answers.y...9AAPdmBg

It starts off:
The energy E of a photon is

E = hf

where h is Planck's Constant and f is the FREQUENCY
Now, DS, try to INPUT '0' for 'frequency' and see what 'value' you get EVEN BEFORE you go any further.

See? The hf term makes right hand side equal ZERO.

Hence the left hand side term E is ALSO effectively ZERO....EVEN BEFORE you start trying to ascribe a 'wavelength' to that NON-EVENT where freq=0 from the outset!

NOW do you understand, DS? :)

Nov 24, 2018
The energy E of a photon is

E = hf

where h is Planck's Constant and f is the FREQUENCY
Now, DS, try to INPUT '0' for 'frequency' and see what 'value' you get EVEN BEFORE you go any further.

See? The hf term makes right hand side equal ZERO.

Hence the left hand side term E is ALSO effectively ZERO....EVEN BEFORE you start trying to ascribe a 'wavelength' to that NON-EVENT where freq=0 from the outset!

NOW do you understand, DS?
........you have no idea how far over his head you went.

He doesn't know HOW to read the EM Energy Spectrum. He thinks he knows something about it that I don't but he doesn't realize a specific parameter of area under the curve of a wave relates to INTENSITY in the EM Energy Spectrum, not it's energy, the spectrum is not set up for the configuration he thinks exists.


Nov 24, 2018
He doesn't know HOW to read the EM Energy Spectrum. He thinks he knows something about it that I don't but he doesn't realize a specific parameter of area under the curve of a wave relates to INTENSITY in the EM Energy Spectrum, not it's energy, the spectrum is not set up for the configuration he thinks exists.


From the f***wit who doesn't know what a half-life is, and cannot figure out what a barycentre is!!! Unbelievable! What a tosser.

Nov 24, 2018
He doesn't know HOW to read the EM Energy Spectrum. He thinks he knows something about it that I don't...


Does visible light cause heating, you uneducated imbecile? Another of your unbelievable f*** ups, you moron. What is a half-life, janitor-boy? Lol.


Nov 24, 2018
Just a quick question: what's "read the EM Energy Spectrum" mean, anyway?

And a quick note: @100LiarRC has now changed from wavelength to frequency but continued as if it was the same argument, like no one will notice.

Nov 24, 2018
Just a quick question: what's "read the EM Energy Spectrum" mean, anyway?


He has no idea. Just word salad from an uneducated janitor. I wonder which part of said EM spectrum is in the visible, and whether it causes heating? (rhetorical). He sure as hell has no idea. Spectroscopy is as alien to him as nuclear physics.

Nov 24, 2018
Just a quick question: what's "read the EM Energy Spectrum" mean, anyway?
It figures you'd ask a novice question like that, it's why you interpret zero wavelength of an EM wave as infinite energy.

And a quick note: @100LiarRC has now changed from wavelength to frequency but continued as if it was the same argument, like no one will notice.


More than likely he too has it figured out that it doesn't matter that it's inverse, if the wavelength is 0 the inverse of that is also 0, capiche? Probably you don't

Nov 24, 2018
Just a quick question: what's "read the EM Energy Spectrum" mean, anyway?
It figures you'd ask a novice question like that, it's why you interpret zero wavelength of an EM wave as infinite energy.

And a quick note: @100LiarRC has now changed from wavelength to frequency but continued as if it was the same argument, like no one will notice.


More than likely he too has it figured out that it doesn't matter that it's inverse, if the wavelength is 0 the inverse of that is also 0, capiche? Probably you don't


And what would you know, janitor boy? Lol.

Nov 24, 2018
It figures you'd ask a novice question like that
Produce a scientific paper that talks about "read[ing] the EM Energy Spectrum." One of the things about science trolls that always identifies them is their use of made-up terminology.

Nov 24, 2018
I will also point out that zero frequency (as opposed to zero wavelength) has a definite and specific meaning: it means there is nothing there. Which is perfectly valid and physically meaningful. And which @100LiarRC seems to have finally figured out after a week or so, but @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist hasn't yet. Prolly take @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist another couple years.

Nov 24, 2018
It figures you'd ask a novice question like that
Produce a scientific paper that talks about "read[ing] the EM Energy Spectrum." One of the things about science trolls that always identifies them is their use of made-up terminology.
........yeah, with you being the epitome of your own trolling identification, the concept you keep pushing that zero wavelength can be traced to infinite energy on the Em Energy Spectrum.

Nov 24, 2018
Still waiting for the scientific paper that talks about "read[ing] the EM Energy Spectrum." Looks like that was a lie.

Here's another one:
the concept you keep pushing that zero wavelength can be traced to infinite energy
I ain't pushin' it. You did. There's no such thing as zero wavelength EM radiation, which was what neither of you two clowns ever figured out despite me pointing out repeatedly that it means infinite energy.

Been fun trolling you.

Nov 24, 2018
You know what's the matter with you two idiots?

Neither of you can admit you were wrong or said something dumb or got something backwards. Even when you obviously did.

arrogant: adjective /ˈær·ə·ɡənt/
​proud in an unpleasant way and behaving as if you are better or more important than other people.

Nov 24, 2018
Me, I make about one trivial mistake a week, and a big one every month or two. And I hope I find out about most of them. I don't know anyone who doesn't.

Nov 24, 2018
There's no such thing as zero wavelength EM radiation,
.......finally I've gotten you to figure that out.

despite me pointing out repeatedly that it means infinite energy.
......and you still have never figured out infinite energy cannot exist except from an equivalent quantity of mass from which to transform it......I'll bet you can't figure out what that quantity of mass is and what it's wavelength & frequency are?


Nov 24, 2018
And, predictably, shamelessly, and with no sense of irony, @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist says:
finally I've gotten you to figure that out.

Nov 24, 2018
( ( ( ( ( ● ● ) ) ) ) )

Look, two BH's orbiting each other and their GW....

Nov 24, 2018
Just as a reminder: @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist said:

It's really very simple, electro-magnetic waves do not exist at zero wavelength & thus at zero energy, but I guess you want to insist the opposite, that there are EMWaves that exist at zero wavelength & zero energy even though you can't prove there is such a creature on the EM Energy Spectrum. It's physics you have never had.
I repeat: "there are EMWaves that exist at zero wavelength & zero energy"

From this thread: https://phys.org/...rse.html

Search on "wavelength" and it's the 16th hit.

Nov 24, 2018
@Da Schneib.
I will also point out that zero frequency (as opposed to zero wavelength) has a definite and specific meaning: it means there is nothing there. Which is perfectly valid and physically meaningful. And which @100LiarRC seems to have finally figured out after a week..
No no no, mate! I was the one who explained it to YOU and Benni that '0' frequency means NON-EVENT (ie, NO PHOTON generated/emitted); and HENCE NO 'WAVELENGTH' parameter applies AT ALL...because NO PHOTON was generated/emitted.
And a quick note: @100LiarRC has now changed from wavelength to frequency but continued as if it was the same argument, like no one will notice.
Again, no no no, mate! I have ALWAYS made the GENERAL MATHEMATICAL point STRESSING the UNPHYSICAL/UNDEFINED/SINGULARITY 'results' whenever ZERO and/or INFINITY are INPUTS and/or OUTPUTS in equations. That's why, in the other thread, I ended a post to YOU with:
With '0', 'infinite', all 'maths bets' are off. :)
OK? :)

Nov 24, 2018
No no no, mate! I was the one who explained it to YOU and Benni that '0' frequency means NON-EVENT (ie, NO PHOTON generated/emitted); and HENCE NO 'WAVELENGTH' parameter applies AT ALL...because NO PHOTON was generated/emitted.
And no photon was transmitted, either. You did manage to get this one right.

But it's not a singularity. It's just a statement that there's no EM wave there, nothing more. Zero *wavelength* however is something completely different.

You did however complicate the conversation in an apparent arrogant attempt to "prove me wrong." This was a mistake and has led to your bad experience. And I'm not sure whether you made the same error as @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist somewhere along the line; I'm still looking that up.

Nov 24, 2018
@Da Schneib.
No no no, mate! I was the one who explained it to YOU and Benni that '0' frequency means NON-EVENT (ie, NO PHOTON generated/emitted); and HENCE NO 'WAVELENGTH' parameter applies AT ALL...because NO PHOTON was generated/emitted.
And no photon was transmitted, either. You did manage to get this one right.
What? I pointed that out to YOU and Benni when I pointed out that 'freq=0' EFFECTIVELY means a STATIC (unchanging) system; and hence NO PHOTON generated OR EMITTED (ie, which also effectively means nothing is 'transmitted' AT ALL). So I already well covered/explained all the salient 'unphysical maths' issues, as stated already. Ok? :)
But it's not a singularity. It's just a statement that there's no EM wave there, nothing more. Zero *wavelength* however is something completely different.
The 'singularity' case I alluded to was ONLY to ALSO highlight the UNDEFINED 'result' which ALSO arises in the BH 'radius=0' maths case. Ok? :)

Nov 24, 2018
You're being arrogant again, @RC. Zero doesn't mean "undefined" either. It means zero. Zero is a valid state of a field. It means there's no field there.

Nov 25, 2018
Now, just to mess with your head, the wavelength of a zero frequency wave is infinity. But nobody bothers with this since its energy is also zero. This is called a degenerate solution, and it's perfectly valid.

Nov 25, 2018
@Da Schneib.
Zero doesn't mean "undefined" either. It means zero. Zero is a valid state of a field. It means there's no field there.
It's NOT the '0' that is 'undefined'; it is the 'result' from using a '0' term in maths fractions; and/or as a multiplier/divider.....as in the example I suggested YOU try for the E=hf equation example in my earlier post to you....I trust you now have got the point of that? :)

ps: Please try to leave out the running personal commentary/insults/mischaracterization and other irrelevant distractions/feuds, mate. Just stick to the physics/maths points. Thanks. :)

Nov 25, 2018
A zero is perfectly valid in the numerator. It's only in the denominator that it's a problem. It's also not a problem in a multiplicand.

A zero merely means there were none there; "I didn't find any chickens in the barnyard" is a perfectly valid physical finding. The farmer might not like it much, either because a fox got in the henhouse and killed them all, or because Junior forgot to open the henhouse door before taking off to school this morning. But that's neither here nor there.

"The result of using a zero" is not "undefined." It has a definite meaning in physics; it's a valid quantifier. We looked and found none.

Nov 25, 2018
And if you dislike personal comments, then stop being arrogant. It is an irresistible temptation to me. I will always prong you when you do it.

Nov 25, 2018
@Da Schneib.
A zero is perfectly valid in the numerator. It's only in the denominator that it's a problem. It's also not a problem in a multiplicand.
We are discussing algebraic/calculus contexts and the effect of 'zero' in the relevant equations. Moreover, one can 'ignore' the '0' effects ONLY when IF the term interacting with the '0' is NOT crucial to the whole.

Example, in the E=hf case, there cannt appear '0' anywhere, else the whole equation becomes nonsense, since the '0' that results ON BOTH SIDES effective identify a STATIC or NON-EVENT case which is beyond treatment by said equation if '0' is involved.

ps: Re your chicken-farmer usage, it shuld be realized that counting/arithmetic CONVENTIONS CAN and DO use ZERO BY DESIGN of said convention; BUT ONLY as the 'empty' positin in the 'arithmetic string' which represents his/her chicken numbers after some actual 'action' or 'operation'. :)

Nov 25, 2018
No, we're discussing physical contexts. And you're still being arrogant.

Nov 25, 2018
@Da Schneib.
And if you dislike personal comments, then stop being arrogant. It is an irresistible temptation to me. I will always prong you when you do it.
When the alleged arrogance is only an 'artifact' of your own mistaken perception/mischaracterization, then it's demonstrably a case of "Arrogance is in the eyes of the beholder", mate. :)

Especially if you keep kneejerking instead of taking MORE care and time to read/understand properly in all the relevant context. And do try to resist temptation to be personal/insulting. Try harder to just stick to the physics/logics issues in discussion. Thanks. :)

No, we're discussing physical contexts. And you're still being arrogant.
We were discussing BTH physical AND maths issues, as I already well outlined and explained to both you and Benni. Try to focus and not go off on tangents generated by your own confusins/misunderstandings, mate. :)

Nov 25, 2018
It's not an artifact of anything when you say things like
It's NOT the '0' that is 'undefined'; it is the 'result' from using a '0' term in maths fractions; and/or as a multiplier/divider
That's stupid. And arrogant.

Prong. Just say it, @100LiarRC: "I said something dumb and I was wrong."

Nov 25, 2018
@Da Schneib.
It's not an artifact of anything when you say things like
It's NOT the '0' that is 'undefined'; it is the 'result' from using a '0' term in maths fractions; and/or as a multiplier/divider
That's stupid. And arrogant.

Prong. Just say it, @100LiarRC: "I said something dumb and I was wrong."
What on earth are you trying to do here, mate? Just ask ANY mathematical physicist and they will tell you that when 'freq=0' OR 'radius=0' appears in a crucial term in the relevant equations, then the 'output' is undefined or singularity, as the case may be (ie, photon or BH, as I already highlighted) OR even a NON-event which cannot be even treated by any maths at all because it is non-existent case. Try to leave out your opinion/mischaracterization of "arrogance" when someone is merely pointing out to you the KNOWN mainstream maths/physics understandings, as above. Ok? :)

Nov 25, 2018
Trying to get you to stop being arrogant, @100LiarRC. You're not good enough at this to be arrogant.

Nov 25, 2018
@Da Schneib.
Trying to get you to stop being arrogant, @100LiarRC. You're not good enough at this to be arrogant.
You should instead try to apply your energies and brainpower to reading and understanding properly when someone is trying to convey to you the correct known physics/maths understandings regarding the appearance of zero in the equations that give undefined/singularity etc, as I have been explaining to you, mate. There is no "arrogance'' in merely explaining to you the correct mainstream maths/physics understandings, DS. :)

Nov 25, 2018
Never mind, @100LiarRC. You just don't get it.

Thread where @100LiarRC claims there is "REAL/PHYSICAL UNIVERSAL 'infinity'" and gets caught: https://phys.org/...rgy.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies fifteen times in ten posts and still can't stop, even when told he's being baited into lying: https://phys.org/...h_1.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about what Penrose and Steinhardt said about the Big Bang: https://phys.org/...ark.html
Thread where @100LiarRC insults a user by lying about what that user said: https://phys.org/...ter.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about Standard Model cosmologies "confirming [it] all along:" https://phys.org/...les.html

Nov 25, 2018
Thanks, DS! Keep listing links to my posts. Your cavalier errors and mischaracterizations aside, you're doing a great 'job' for me. I really do appreciate your (albeit unintended) 'discovering' of my posts thereby; posts which would otherwise be 'hidden' to the readers due to the '1' bot-voting by those who don't want readers to see my posts. Thanks for so effectively countering the effects of the '1' bot-voting campaigns against me by some trolls here, mate! You're (unwittingly) a 'useful' pal, DS! :)

Nov 25, 2018
That's not gonna work either, @100LiarRC.

Thread where @100LiarRC lies about the current SM of cosmology by equating it to the original LeMaitre hypothesis: https://phys.org/...big.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims yet again that currents can exist without sources and sinks: https://phys.org/...web.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims the Big Bang never happened then tries to equate it to the BICEP2 situation, which it never justifies: https://phys.org/...ate.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims universal expansion is supported by a circular argument: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims inflation is "blown" by one astrophysicist denying it: https://phys.org/...rgy.html

I don't care what *you* think. I just want to be sure everyone knows you lie.

Nov 25, 2018
Go go go, DS! Never mind the lies you keep perpetrating; just keep linking those posts of mine so everyone can read them for themselves to see what's what in fact, mate! Thanks a bunch, pal! :)

Nov 25, 2018
I'm fed up with DS and RC arguing over how many angels fit on the head of a pin, so I'm switching this thread off. There ain't no gravity in any case, its all an effect of expansion.... Black holes are when time fails, and matter effectively "drops out" of our "universe" (i.e. no longer obeys the laws of physics which dictate our path thru the chaos.)

Nov 25, 2018
( ( ( ( ( ● ● ) ) ) ) )

Look, two BH's orbiting each other and their GW....


No, that's schneibo & jonesy, two small brains inside a much larger almost empty shell

Nov 25, 2018
I'm fed up with DS and RC arguing over how many angels fit on the head of a pin, so I'm switching this thread off.


.......schneibo is trying to convince us that 0/0=1

Nov 25, 2018


I'm fed up with DS and RC arguing over how many angels fit on the head of a pin, so I'm switching this thread off.


.......schneibo is trying to convince us that 0/0=1 ............or maybe 0/0=∞

Nov 25, 2018
GW170817 are Two Pulsars in Binary Orbit
( ( ( ( ( ● ● ) ) ) ) )
cantdrive85> Look, two BH's orbiting each other and their GW

Is this what GW170817 looks like
two pulsars in binary elliptical orbit
but where is there massive central star
the 4million equivalent of Sagittarius A*
or is it the rule
that when it is two pulsars in binary orbit
they require no central mass
it is perfectly legitimate
for pulsars to binary orbit
with just the vacuous vacuum for their centricities centre
as had we all forgotten
that it is neutron stars
that are theorised
to be the entity
that is the star behind a pulsar
there is no evidence a pulsar is a neutron star
in fact has a neutron star actually been observed
pulsars are observed
pulsars are detected
their mass is calculated when in binary orbit
as in GW170817
But a neutron star has not been detected
because GW170817 are two pulsars in binary orbit

Nov 25, 2018
I really do appreciate your (albeit unintended) 'discovering' of my posts thereby; posts which would otherwise be 'hidden' to the readers due to the '1' bot-voting by those who don't want readers to see my posts.


They are still 'hidden',,,,,, a low karma score is a low karma score and if it is low enough, it won't show up to the humans and scientists who have their karma score slider thing set to 2.5 or 3. It's a service I provide to the humans and scientists that do not want to be bothered with your "blah, BLAH, blah/BLAH"s.

What? You think you can trick DS-Skippy into stopping tell about your lies? Or did you really did not know that the same karma score works even if it comes from a link? Either way it was pretty stupid.

Nov 25, 2018
.......schneibo is trying to convince us that 0/0=1 ...........or maybe 0/0=∞
Reduced to lying again, are you, @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist? Good. You need to feel humiliated enough for that. Daily.

Nov 25, 2018
A pulsar is star – Pulsar star

The first pulsar star with planets, PSR B1257+12
https://en.wikipe...257%2B12
A Pulsar star located 2,300 light years from the Sun in the constellation of Virgo
The Pulsar star has a planetary system with three known extrasolar planets, named Draugr, Poltergeist and Phobetor
For a Pulsar star to have planets clearly demonstrates it is a star
That has not gone through a cataclysmic expansion or collapse
As it would have literally blown any planets out their orbits and burnt them to cinders
Obviously a Pulsar star is star radiating electromagnetic energy
As our Sun is radiating electromagnetic energy

Nov 25, 2018
Whatever next -

You may well ask
a Pulsar is a star, a Pulsar-star
as pulsar-stars have planets
planets have life
as earthlings can testify
so if pulsar-stars have planets
and presumably life
as a planet only needs gravity
to circumnavigate orbitly
as when a star
becomes a pulsar-star
then becomes a light radius-star
its orbital radius
that its planetaries
orbit their star
remain the same
as it is gravity the planet is orbiting its star
so as planets orbit their pulsar-star
will equaly orbit their light radius-star
so by definition as planets orbit
a BH is a light radius-star
BHs have orbital planets

Nov 25, 2018
@spamville69 posts ignoring the difference between pulsars and black holes.

Nov 25, 2018
@Reg Mundy.
I'm fed up with DS and RC arguing over how many angels fit on the head of a pin, so I'm switching this thread off. There ain't no gravity in any case, its all an effect of expansion.... Black holes are when time fails, and matter effectively "drops out" of our "universe" (i.e. no longer obeys the laws of physics which dictate our path thru the chaos.)
No, mate; it's DS and Benni doing that. I have merely been pointing out salient maths/physics aspects whose implications for their argument BOTH of them should be fully appraised of before either of them claims 'victory' over the other. :)

ps: Anyway, long time no 'see', mate. How have you been? Well I hope? :)

Nov 25, 2018
@Uncle Ira.
I really do appreciate your (albeit unintended) 'discovering' of my posts thereby; posts which would otherwise be 'hidden' to the readers due to the '1' bot-voting by those who don't want readers to see my posts.
They are still 'hidden',,, a low karma score is a low karma score and if it is low enough, it won't show up to the humans and scientists who have their karma score slider thing set to 2.5 or 3.
And what will the intelligent reader do when they go to threads DS linked indicating posts from me therein, Ira? They will of course note immediately those posts may be 'hidden' by their filter setting, and so immediately ADJUST their ratings-filter accordingly so they DO see my posts. The fact that you missed even THAT obvious point, Ira, is just more proof that even the dumb bot-voting program you have attached to your PO account is way more intelligent than you. Hell, as we proved long ago, even your dog is smarter and more ethical than you, Ira. :)

Nov 25, 2018
And what will the intelligent reader do when they go to threads DS linked indicating posts from me therein, Ira? They will of course note immediately those posts may be 'hidden' by their filter setting, and so immediately ADJUST their ratings-filter accordingly so they DO see my posts.


Not if they are a really intelligent reader.


Nov 25, 2018
@100LiarRC doesn't believe there's a reader more intelligent than it is.

arrogant: adjective /ˈær·ə·ɡənt/
​proud in an unpleasant way and behaving as if you are better or more important than other people without justification.

Nov 25, 2018
@jonesdave.
And what will the intelligent reader do when they go to threads DS linked indicating posts from me therein, Ira? They will of course note immediately those posts may be 'hidden' by their filter setting, and so immediately ADJUST their ratings-filter accordingly so they DO see my posts.
Not if they are a really intelligent reader.
Any reader curious enough to actually follow DS's links in order to see what's what for themselves, is obviously an intelligent reader who doesn't 'just believe' things without checking for themselves (you know, like those 'just believe' types who fell hook-line-and-sinker for the bicep2 crap which I cautioned them to check out for themselves before 'bashing cranks' with that GIGO 'work/claim'). Only dumb lazy readers would just take DS's word for anything at all, let alone what's what re my posts in those threads linked by DS. The fact that you, jd, made such a trite and ill-advised joke of that point is just sad, mate. :)

Nov 25, 2018
And what will the intelligent reader do when they go to threads DS linked indicating posts from me therein, Ira? They will of course note immediately those posts may be 'hidden' by their filter setting, and so immediately ADJUST their ratings-filter accordingly so they DO see my posts

You left out the part about,,,, immediately after they DO see your post, they then immediately send me some emails to thank for me for my service to humans and scientists. Then they realize what a good thing I am volunteering my time for.

It is a true thing I am telling you Cher, I get lots of fan mails in my email because of you.

Nov 25, 2018
I said every time what you lied about @100LiarRC. Think anyone's gonna miss it? If you do that's because you're

arrogant: adjective /ˈær·ə·ɡənt/
​proud in an unpleasant way and behaving as if you are better or more important than other people without justification.

Nov 25, 2018
@Da Schneib.
@100LiarRC doesn't believe there's a reader more intelligent than it is.

arrogant: adjective /......
​proud in an unpleasant way and behaving as if you are better or more important than other people without justification.
Putting your own 'spin' on others' posts, I see, DS. Nothing new there, then! :)

Anyway, DS, the fact that YOU (and others who bot-vote you '5' regardless of whether you were correct or incorrect) are OBVIOUSLY NOT INTELLIGENT enough to ACTUALLY READ and UNDERSTAND PROPERLY before opening your arrogant foul mouth and put your big feet in same. :)

ps: How many times now have you been shown to be INCORRECT on the known maths/science understandings, and arrogantly and UNHEEDINGLY trolling/insulting while being wrong all along, DS? TOO MANY times, DS, for you to now insensibly accuse others of arrogance etc. You never learn, it seems; so 'intelligence' and 'ethics' are obviously NOT things you hold dear, DS. Sad. :)

Nov 25, 2018
@Uncle Ira.
immediately after they DO see your post,
Thanks for admitting that your earlier claim (that those readers will still not be able to see my posts) was wrong. Apology accepted, Ira. :)
they then immediately send me some emails to thank for me for my service to humans and scientists.
I said they were INTELLIGENT readers, Ira; NOT TROLL members of your gang who bot-vote without actually properly and objectively checking things out for themselves. As such, neither you nor any of that 'gang' is in any position to judge/assert anything about what an INTELLIGENT reader will do once they actually read and understand properly as to who was correct all along (ie, me) and who was arrogantly incorrect/trolling therein (ie, DS et al). :)
It is a true thing I am telling you Cher, I get lots of fan mails in my email because of you.
We long ago established that your dog has a better sense of what's "true" than the bot-voting ignoramus to whom it belongs, Ira. :)

Nov 25, 2018
@Da Schneib.
I said..
Only gullible uncritical 'believers', lazy nincompoops, would 'care' what YOU "said", DS. The INTELLIGENT reader will check it all out for themselves; and so find that YOU were incorrect and/or misattributing/misconstruing and/or outright lying to the reader about my posts, DS. All to the good as far as I am concerned , DS. Thanks. Now, get back to that listing of links to all my posts, 'pal'....much appreciated! :)
every time what you lied about @100LiarRC.
Only bot-voting/trolling nincompoops would 'just believe' what you "say", DS. When INTELLIGENT readers DO check it all out for themselves they will see for themselves that you, DS, have been the arrogant/incorrect troll all along. :)
Think anyone's gonna miss it? If you do that's because you're

arrogant: adjective /...
​proud in an unpleasant way and behaving as if you are better or more important than other people without justification.
That applies to YOU, DS (insensible still). :)

Nov 25, 2018
The endless whining sound.

Nov 25, 2018
Can't you just admit you screwed up, even once? Instead of going off into yet another arrogant bombastic rant?

Nov 25, 2018
Pulsar-stars

Now we know pulsar-stars have planets
as Sagittarius A* has clearly shown that by its absence
Sagittarius A* has no accretion disc
and why should it have an accretion disc
because as the planetary star
the pulsar-star does not have an accretion disc
because when stars collapse
they do they suddenly require accretion discs
when they did not before
as we have a blackhole-star that when it was before
did not have an accretion disc
Sagittarius A* does not have an accretion disc
an accretion disc is visible
as Sagittarius A* accretion disc is invisible
proves the point at 26,000Lyrs
stars as Sagittarius A* does not have accretion disc
Sagittarius A* is simply a star
all on its own
in the vacuous vacuum
with its orbital planets
in orbital rotation
as any binary stars
in binary orbit with their motley collection of planets
in orbital rotation
as Sagittarius A* has never been seen
it does not exist
Except binary pulsar-stars GW170817

Nov 25, 2018
stars as Sagittarius A* does not have accretion disc
Sagittarius A* is simply a star
all on its own
in the vacuous vacuum
........and granDy you should have added that they inserted their own nice neat 5-point star, here looky see:

"This series of images shows the positions of individual stars moving very rapidly (~1000 km/sec) in their orbits around Sgr A* (the yellow star symbol). On this scale, its motion would be imperceptibly small, so these measurements demonstrate that it is truly undetected - there is no source to be seen under the yellow star."

http://ircamera.a...nter.htm .....10th Composite frame from top of page.

Nov 25, 2018
Worth noting that unless there is significant matter in the Galactic Center, there will be no continuous accretion disk around a black hole at that location. Instead, one can expect occasional flashes as matter gets sucked in every so often. One would then expect to see nothing most of the time except the orbits of the stars around the mass.

You know, like picture 11 in the reference. Asssssuming @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist didn't screw the link up again.

Nov 25, 2018
Must really hurt to be pwnt every day, @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist. Got some lie you'd like to tell us about your reference, other than the one you just told?

Just askin'.

Nov 25, 2018
Worth noting that unless there is significant matter in the Galactic Center, there will be no continuous accretion disk around a black hole at that location
.......no schneibo, this is not the reason. The reason is because a BARYCENTER never has an accompanying accretion disc.


Nov 25, 2018
Then what's winking in picture 11?

Nov 25, 2018
Then what's winking in picture 11?
...........you're gay.


Nov 25, 2018
Wow. Just wow. To have reduced @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist so far that all it's got are schoolyard insults from 4-year-old kids is a triumph. Pwnt to the bone.

Nov 26, 2018
@Da Schneib.

Intelligent readers won't 'just believe' your trolls anymore, DS; because you keep jumping in half-cocked and insulting, WITHOUT reading/understanding properly; kneejerking to accusations of all sorts having NO basis in FACT. The intelligent reader can read for themselves and see YOUR recorded history of posts/threads, DS; where you have often asserted I was "wrong/lying" etc, ONLY to find it was YOU wrong/lying all along; and trolling insensibly/arrogantly until you are forced by the facts to eventually admit YOU WERE the one WRONG/LYING (as I have previously highlighted by linked examples over the years and even lately). It remains a mystery how it can be that you, DS, who is ostensibly intelligent, can be so insensibly stupid as to NOT LEARN FROM YOUR MANY MISTAKES, DS. This has now happened all too often, DS, for you now to try and pretend otherwise to the intelligent readers, by 'projecting' your own failings onto the one (me) who WAS CORRECT ALL ALONG. :)

Nov 26, 2018
Here's @100LiarRC claiming zero frequency is some sort of "singularity:"

https://phys.org/...rse.html

Last post on the thread.

I would have thought you would have learned lying doesn't work here by now, but it seems you're too stupid. So here's another lesson. Bad puppy! Don't widdle on the floor!

Nov 26, 2018
@Da Schneib.
Here's @100LiarRC claiming zero frequency is some sort of "singularity:"

https://phys.org/...rse.html

Last post on the thread.

I would have thought you would have learned lying doesn't work here by now, but it seems you're too stupid. So here's another lesson. Bad puppy! Don't widdle on the floor!
And again you DON'T READ and UNDERSTAND PROPERLY before you make such absurdly stupid assertions/posts, DS. You are even worse than Benni/cantdrive; because they may not know better but YOU SHOULD, DS....IF you WERE actually any sort of objective scientist/discourser. What a disappointing waste of intellect you have turned out to be, DS. I at one time had high hopes that you would mature, learn from your many mistakes, and become objective and polite, and curb your drink-drug habit which shows its effects clearly in your stupid, juvenile, malignant trolling, insulting posting/behavior, DS. Too bad. :(

Nov 26, 2018
Once you lied, @100LiarRC, it doesn't matter what else you post.

Zero frequency is not a "singularity." It just means there's no electromagnetic wave there.

Nov 26, 2018
@Da Schneib.
Once you lied, @100LiarRC, it doesn't matter what else you post. Zero frequency is not a "singularity." It just means there's no electromagnetic wave there.
CONTEXT, DS. Try paying attention to it sometime, DS; it may avert your disastrous embarrassments. I explained it all in context, DS, yet you still twist/isolate my explanations/comments from their context in order to delude yourself that you are in any way smart/objective/lucid. Pitiful, DS. Never mind, DS, your malignant trolling nevertheless has a 'silver lining' as far as I am concerned! Your listing/linking my posts (thanks!) is a great way to keep highlighting for intelligent readers just who was correct all along on known mainstream maths/physics understandings (me), and who has been rabidly trolling insensible to his own failings (you). The more you troll me like that, DS, the more opportunities/ammunition for self-defense responses from me which the intelligent readers will see. Thanks! :)

Nov 26, 2018
There ain't no context to frequency equals zero. It means no energy, and no EM there. Period. In any context.

Looks like you're trying to lie again, @100LiarRC.

Nov 26, 2018
@Da Schneib.
There ain't no context to frequency equals zero. It means no energy, and no EM there. Period. In any context.
I was the one who explained that to YOU and Benni, DS. Why do you do that sort of thing, DS? Because you DON'T READ or UNDERSTAND PROPERLY, that's why, DS. If you HAD paid proper attention, you wouldn't be embarrassing yourself again by telling ME things which I ALREADY TOLD YOU (and Benni) in the first place, DS. Do you always drink/drug while online, DS? Bad, mate; not only for your grey matter but also to your character and behavior. Go sleep it off and apologize to the forum on your (hopefully more sober) return, DS. Go on, mate, for your own sake if not for the sake of the forum. :)

Nov 26, 2018
Worth noting that unless there is significant matter in the Galactic Center, there will be no continuous accretion disk around a black hole at that location
.......no schneibo, this is not the reason. The reason is because a BARYCENTER never has an accompanying accretion disc.



And there is no barycentre, you clown. Except for that between the centre of mass (the BH) and the orbiting stars. And we see the accretion disc. End of story. Go away, and learn some science, you useless cretin.

Nov 26, 2018
stars as Sagittarius A* does not have accretion disc
Sagittarius A* is simply a star
all on its own
in the vacuous vacuum
........and granDy you should have added that they inserted their own nice neat 5-point star, here looky see:

"This series of images shows the positions of individual stars moving very rapidly (~1000 km/sec) in their orbits around Sgr A* (the yellow star symbol). On this scale, its motion would be imperceptibly small, so these measurements demonstrate that it is truly undetected - there is no source to be seen under the yellow star."

http://ircamera.a...nter.htm .....10th Composite frame from top of page.


So what are they orbiting, you thick prick? We are still waiting. Please point to anybody suggesting that it is a barycentre (lol). Stop making sh!t up, you uneducated poser.

Nov 26, 2018
@jonesdave.

Mate, I already clearly explained to Benni why it must be a supermassive 'BH' body and NOT an 'empty' barycenter phenomenon. I suggested he drop that 'barycenter' argument, so he now must just be 'having fun' baiting you with that falsified 'barycenter' gag. So why keep 'giving' him 'fun' by taking his obvious 'baits' and blowing up at him like that all the time? Why not just calmly and politely link to posts where you/me/others previously refuted his claim each time he attempts his baiting of you? Try it and see; it can't hurt; and it may save your blood pressure while denying Benni his 'fun' baiting you into apoplexy. Good luck, mate. :)

Nov 26, 2018
I was the one who explained that to YOU
You idiot, I'm an EE. You explained nothing to me about EM I didn't already know and you never will.

You're lying again, @100LiarRC. That's five on this thread alone.

Nov 26, 2018
@Da Schneib.
I was the one who explained that to YOU
You idiot, I'm an EE. You explained nothing to me about EM I didn't already know and you never will. You're lying again, @100LiarRC. That's five on this thread alone.
You give EE's a bad name, DS. You demonstrably can't/won't read/understand properly in context; you keep kneejerking and insulting from your own ignorance and misunderstandings; you repeat back at me what I originally explained to you and Benni; you even failed to acknowledge that '0' in that equation I asked you to consider would produce nonsense because it would effectively be a non-event (static system where no photon could ever be emitted from); and you still try and pretend I was wrong re the known mainstream maths/physics understandings re '0' and 'infinity' in in the relevant equations producing undefined etc 'results' which have no physical meaning in reality. Why do you do this to yourself, DS? Your ego is out of control. Curb it! :)

Nov 26, 2018
So you know I read your posts to the first lie. That's usually the first sentence, like this time.

Shall I start posting more threads where you lied again, @100LiarRC?

Nov 26, 2018
@Da Schneib.
So you know I read your posts to the first lie. That's usually the first sentence, like this time.
Yeah, you 'misread' to the first self-confused kneejerking 'trigger', then arrogantly proceed to drunkenly blow smoke up your own ass and that of any reader unfortunate to come across your embarrassingly juvenile, foulmouthed stupidity which ignores the full context and so leads you into these self-inflicted stains on both your knowledge and your character, DS. Not good, DS.
Shall I start posting more threads where you lied again, @100LiarRC?
Go right ahead, mate! You're doing me and scientific discourse/understanding a great favor by directing intelligent readers to my posts to check out for themselves to see what's what, all the while probably shaking their heads at how you can so wantonly sacrifice your intellect and character to your malignant out-of-control ego, DS. Never mind, there is a silver lining for me/science in your trolling, DS. Thanks. :)

Nov 26, 2018
Sagisttarius A* an exercise in simulation

The most simulated star
since stars were simulated
as real live singing and dancing stars
who live a life of imagination
on the celebratory of life
their real and imaginary lives are not simulations
as they are real
Not so with Sagittarius A*
every aspect of Sagittarius A* liife is simulated
even its theorised accretion disc
a visible mass of orbiting plasma
as visible as stars at our galactic centre
is simulated because its visible accretion is invisible
then we come to Sagittarius A* theorised identity
is a theorised light radius star a formulaic descriptive R=2GM/C* for BHs
Its final defining theory
its light radius
swallowing matter from its invisible accretion disc
no star has ever collided with our sun
are existence testifies this fact
at our galactic centre no stars are colliding
as a star becoming a BH
does not have stars colliding
as stars continue obliviously in binary orbit

Nov 26, 2018
It's how I always deal with trolls.

Nov 26, 2018
@Da Schneib.
It's how I always deal with trolls.
Yeah, by getting drunk and then trolling based on your own drunken self-confusions, DS. That's the problem, DS. Get sober, wise up, DS. :)

Nov 26, 2018
It seems to be working on you. You sound upset.

Nov 26, 2018
@Da Schneib.
It seems to be working on you. You sound upset.
Really? That's going to be your next delusional gambit in your desperate attempt to deny your serious problems, DS? Try instead just sobering up and start being honest with yourself, DS. Good luck. :)

Nov 26, 2018
A formulaic descriptive R=2GM/C* for BHs

As stars are not colliding at our galactic centre
because our galaxies stars are in galactic binary orbit
as when star in transformation
collapse and form stars of new identity
their gravitational field remains the same
so as they orbit in binary orbital's before their collaspe
on transformation anew
their gravitation remains
the exact same strength
identical before as it is after collapse
so as it emerges a star anew
its gravitational force
natures most jealously guarded secret
remains constant and true
in the vacuous vacuum of space
the only consistence entity in the changing stars identity
as stars are not colliding in their millions at our galactic centre
as the supernova explosive outburst testify by their absence
a star as a theorised BH.
in binary orbit
does not have stars colliding
so by definition
no stars fall into its interior
as no stars are present
They are in Binary Centric Orbit

Nov 26, 2018
Whatcha gonna do next, troll, try to tell me I'm gay?

Nov 26, 2018
The Galactic Centre the Nucleus of the Milky Way

Benni This series of images shows the positions of individual stars moving 1000 km/s around Sgr A* there is no source to be seen under the yellow star
ircamera arizona edu Astr2016 lectures galcenter

This series of digital imaginary of our galactic centre
supplied courtesy of arizona.edu from their astronomy 2016 lectures
shows the billions of stars in binary orbit at our galactic centre
as it concentrates our focus
on a tiny region in our galactic centre
where the stars as large as our sun
in centric binary orbit
are in the region of the theorised 4million BH
so as we observe stars 1/4millionth our BH
we cannot observe stars 4million times our sun
so amongst the stars allegedly falling in this 4million BH
where we observe these orbital stars
we do not see them fall
we do not see this Lyr accretion disk
so to make it visible to students attending this lecture
It is highlighted with a golden five pointed star

Nov 26, 2018
@Da Schneib.
Whatcha gonna do next, troll, try to tell me I'm gay?
Why would I want to do that, mate? Your sexual orientation is none of my business. I post here for the science discourse; so as far as I am concerned, you can please keep your sexual orientation to yourself, DS. Thanks. :)

Nov 26, 2018
It is highlighted with a golden five pointed star

How this starry club of golden stars
gaily trips the light fantastic
as RealityCheck feathers his nest
in this golden fleece
of gay abandon
one day
in a more enlightened age
RealityCheck will reveal his secret
to one and all
on his secret code
that requires a reality check on RealityCheck
on his nocturnal nuptials
RealityCheck can reveal to one and all
what has RealityCheck nuptials
have any bearing on visualising a BH

Nov 26, 2018
Will we ever see a black hole?
The author muses,
What is their role,
is it galactic sized hoovers?
Or do they just exist in the text, the mathematical equations,
which leave sane people perplexed
How can we image that which doesn't exist?
So far we can't, ya, Jonsey is pissed
The math says they're out there, the images do not,
So with a tongue full of harshness, and a brain full of rot
The supporters continue to wait for a sign,
While the naysayers know
it's a complete waste of time

Nov 26, 2018
Will we ever see a black hole?
The author muses,
What is their role,
is it galactic sized hoovers?
Or do they just exist in the text, the mathematical equations,
which leave sane people perplexed
How can we image that which doesn't exist?
So far we can't, ya, Jonsey is pissed
The math says they're out there, the images do not,
So with a tongue full of harshness, and a brain full of rot
The supporters continue to wait for a sign,
While the naysayers know
it's a complete waste of time


You don't know sh!t because you don't understand science. What is the 4m solar mass object at the galactic centre?

Nov 26, 2018
Gravity is the collective gravity of the mass of stars

It makes no never mind whether that mass is a single source of 4million stars or the collective gravity of 4million stars
jonesdave> You don't know because you don't understand science. What is the 4m solar mass object at the galactic centre?

What is the 4m solar mass object at the galactic centre?
It is 4million stars in binary orbit
The red shift is the collective gravity of 4million stars in close packed binary orbit

Nov 26, 2018
What is the 4m solar mass object at the galactic centre?
It is 4million stars in binary orbit
The red shift is the collective gravity of 4million stars in close packed binary orbit


Hahahahahaha. Stupid twat. What would be the luminosity of 4m stars, you complete tosser?


Nov 26, 2018
Well you said it JD, 4million stars in a stellar object
jonesdave> What would be the luminosity of 4m stars

Before these 4million stars existed in this theoretical 4million stellar star
They existed as 4million stars in close packed centric binary orbit
Unless of course the fairies magical powers magically materialised them from the vacuous galactic centric vacuum

Nov 26, 2018
Before these 4million stars existed in this theoretical 4million stellar star
They existed as 4million stars in close packed centric binary orbit


Really, sh!tforbrains? Says who? Link, please, or you made it up.


Nov 26, 2018
Concerning the luminosity of 4million stars
jonesdave> What would be the luminosity of 4m stars

As you have pointed out JD
The collective luminosity of stars in close orbit
This theoretical 4million stellar star
Theoretically has a theoretical accretion disc
Theoretically, this accretion disc has destroyed 4million stars
Theoretically is continuing destroying millions of stars
All with the luminosity of 4million stars
Which by the way JD
As you demonstrably point out "What would be the luminosity of 4m stars"
Exactly the main contentious point
Is the point under discussion
Where is this accretion disc that is destroying these stars
With the luminosity of 4million stars

Nov 26, 2018
@Da Schneib.
Whatcha gonna do next, troll, try to tell me I'm gay?
Why would I want to do that, mate? Your sexual orientation is none of my business. I post here for the science discourse; so as far as I am concerned, you can please keep your sexual orientation to yourself, DS. Thanks. :)
Because it's what trolls like you do. Just like @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist up there.

Nov 26, 2018
Where is this accretion disc that is destroying these stars
With the luminosity of 4million stars


WTF are you talking about, you moron? There is NOTHING with a luminosity of 4m stars there, you f***ing cretin. That is why it is called a 'black' hole, and not a f***ing bright hole! And the accretion disk, and others, are seen. Now f*** off and quit commenting on sh!t you don't understand, you imbecile.

Nov 26, 2018
" What would be the luminosity of 4m stars, you complete tosser?"

LMAO...the poor shmuck doesn't get that "his" answer is Z-E-R-O because he thinks it's black. But he's going to ask you as though what you posited is ridiculous because it isn't bright enough....Oh man that one was too much....

"What do we see when we observe the galactic core?"

We see light in all wavelengths.

"Could that be from a bunch of stars?"

No you complete tosser....it's from the black hole!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"The one swallowing light?"

Yes, that is correct.

"I love these little Q & A's...I learn so much, sorry I didn't understand how ridiculous an area of light not housing a body that swallows light was."

As long as you don't say anything about electromagnetism were cool....but you're still f**kwit tosser because math!


Nov 26, 2018
LMAO...the poor shmuck doesn't get that "his" answer is Z-E-R-O because he thinks it's black. But he's going to ask you as though what you posited is ridiculous because it isn't bright enough....Oh man that one was too much....


What was too much for you, sh!tforbrains? Do you see a luminous object corresponding to 4m closely packed stars? And yet we have an object that has a mass of 4m suns. What is it, woo boy?


Nov 26, 2018
@Da Schneib.
Whatcha gonna do next, troll, try to tell me I'm gay?
Why would I want to do that, mate? Your sexual orientation is none of my business. I post here for the science discourse; so as far as I am concerned, you can please keep your sexual orientation to yourself, DS. Thanks. :)
Because it's what trolls like you do. Just like @Lenni_The_......up there.
DS, you just (unwittingly) FALSIFIED your own characterization of me as "troll"? Since you just said trolls WOULD be interested in your sexual orientation...DESPITE the FACT I clearly stated in my previous post (that you JUST QUOTED!) that I WAS NOT interested in your sexual orientation. My clearly expressed DISINTEREST in your sexual orientation ALREADY falsifies your repeated characterizations of me as "troll like Benni". So, DS, if you keep making these insensible ego-driven faux pas about me, you will only suffer more self-inflicted embarrassment. DS, for your own sake, please stop trolling me. :)

Nov 26, 2018
As long as you don't say anything about electromagnetism were cool....but you're still f**kwit tosser because math!


So, show us how EM is creating a 4m solar mass object at the galactic centre, imbecile. You haven't got any science have you woo boy? Just faith in Velikovslian cretins who have no more knowledge of the relevant science than you do. Basically a religious belief. Can't do physics without maths, woo boy. And that is why you are an EUist. They are all mathematically, as well as scientifically, illiterate. When was Earth orbiting Saturn, moron? Lol.


Nov 26, 2018
Sagittarius A* a simulation
Where is this accretion disc that is destroying these stars
With the luminosity of 4million stars

jonesdave> There is NOTHING with a luminosity of 4m stars there That is why it is called a black hole and not a bright hole the accretion disk are seen

Sagittarius*s accretion disc does not exist
Nobody puts it with such force of language as your good self JD
You simply state the invisible "the accretion disk, and others, are seen"
No evidence to prove this invisible accretion disc glowing with the plasma of millions of stars
Can actually be seen
If there is an entity more invisible than a BH
It is a BHs accretion disc
It contains all the matter that it transfers to its BH
And in the process extracts half the energy of the millions upon millions of suns passing through
That light up the Milkyway galactic centre visible half way across the universe
Only it is invisible at 26,000Lys on planet earth

Nov 26, 2018
"What was too much for you, sh!tforbrains? Do you see a luminous object corresponding to 4m closely packed stars? And yet we have an object that has a mass of 4m suns. What is it, woo boy?"

So, let me get it straight. We do not see enough luminosity for there to be 4million stars there, which is why there can't possibly be...gotcha.
We see light, so that means there is a black hole there swallowing it....gotcha.
But we don't see a black hole there....just like we don't see 4M suns worth of luminosity, but it IS there because math...gotcha.

You Jones, you are too much.


Nov 26, 2018
It's not about sexual orientation; I don't care about that. It's about arrogance, insults, trolls, not admitting to mistakes, and falsifying math and science. And it always will be. And I will always mock you when you do it.

Zero frequency equals zero energy equals there's no EM wave there. Noted that you haven't cited any evidence that this is not so, or if you did I never paid attention to it since you lied first. Perhaps you have some evidence to present to contradict this. If you want me to respond to that try not starting with a lie every single time.

Having posted a link to where you claimed "zero is a singularity," that's gonna be a long walk to the top of the mountain so bring high hard boots and a lunch.

Nov 26, 2018
RealityCheck

Last time everyone looked
everyone is pulling this BH and its accretion disc
theoretical fantasy world it inhabits to shreds
whereas RealityCheck, you have to keep your nuptial instincts to your self
Phys.org is not a dating agency
there are plenty of agencies that specifically cater for your pleasures of your flesh
they are there specifically to find yourself RealityCheck, your perfect partner
we all on phys.org wish you good look in your perfect partner

Nov 26, 2018
"What was too much for you, sh!tforbrains? Do you see a luminous object corresponding to 4m closely packed stars? And yet we have an object that has a mass of 4m suns. What is it, woo boy?"

So, let me get it straight. We do not see enough luminosity for there to be 4million stars there, which is why there can't possibly be...gotcha.
We see light, so that means there is a black hole there swallowing it....gotcha.
But we don't see a black hole there....just like we don't see 4M suns worth of luminosity, but it IS there because math...gotcha.

You Jones, you are too much.



You really are a f***wit, aren't you? What is the 4m solar mass object causing those stars to orbit as they do? Answer the f***ing question, you tosser.

Nov 26, 2018
You Jones, you are too much


Yes, obviously far too much for an uneducated Velikovskian loon. Eh? When was Earth orbiting Saturn? When did Venus fly out of Jupiter? How are impact craters formed? What are comets made of? What is the Sun powered by? Etc. You may be thick enough and gullible enough to believe that sh!t, but some of the rest of us have actually had an education.

Nov 26, 2018
If you want to stop being a troll, here are written instructions:

1. Stop being arrogant.
2. Stop being arrogant.
3. Stop lying.
4. Stop lying.
5. Stop lying.
6. Stop lying about science.
7. Stop lying about me or others you wish to demean.
8. Stop trying to demean people.
9. Stop seeking advantage.
10. Try to learn without it taking years during which you are arrogant, arrogant, lie about people, lie about what people said, post lying insults, troll, and post ridiculous things like zero frequency being a "singularity."
11. Stop saying you were "always right."
12. Admit errors when you make them.
13. Don't try to squirm out of admitting errors by lying.

Clear indications someone is a troll:
1. Arrogance.
2. Never admitting to any mistake ever.
3. Posting weird unscientific stuff.
4. Never admitting weird accusations and weird scientific stuff could be wrong.
5. Lying to cover up errors.
6. Insults.

Nov 26, 2018
Zero frequency equals zero energy equals there's no EM wave there
......finally, after so much prodding from me you gotten around to learning to read & interpret the EM Energy Spectrum, meaning you recant zero wavelength does not mean infinite energy.

Nov 26, 2018
@Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist now tries to change its tune with the "I was always right" meme despite clear statements about *wavelength*- not *frequency*, and ridiculous statements about my statements documented above. Still squirming like a worm, I see.

Nice try @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist. Say, how're those things you wrote in this thread about how I'm "gay" and about how I said 0/0 equals something or other going for you?

Just askin'.

Nov 26, 2018
Zero frequency equals zero energy equals there's no EM wave there
......finally, after so much prodding from me you gotten around to learning to read & interpret the EM Energy Spectrum, meaning you recant zero wavelength does not mean infinite energy.


Lol, this is the cretin who thought visible light doesn't cause heating! It must have a skin thicker than that of a rhinoceros!

Nov 26, 2018
Unintended duplicate erased. Thanks.

Nov 26, 2018
@granville583762.
has RealityCheck nuptials
have any bearing on visualising a BH
My 'nocturnal nuptials' (as you call it) is boringly 'straight', mate. If you are interested in 'non-straight nocturnal nuptials', perhaps you should discuss same with @Benni and @Da Schneib; as they seem to have 'something going on' between them re 'non-straight' sexual orientation. Then again, this is a physics/maths discussion thread, so you may be better advised to keep such personal matters out of your contributions to this thread altogether, mate! :)

PS: MAIN 'settled' DISC stars of MW galaxy ARE orbiting THEIR mutual (ie, WHOLE GALAXY) barycenter (because main-disc MASS constitutes APPROX. 80%(?) of MW galaxy mass). HOWEVER, that GALACTIC barycenter ALSO happens to coincide with the location of MW's "BH" MASS and ITS OWN gravitationally influenced 'system' of CORE CLUSTER stars; including the lesser number of PERI-BH stars in HIGHLY ELLIPTICAL ORBITS around BH MASS. Its complex. :)

Nov 26, 2018
Oh, and @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist if you want to stop lying you'll admit you were wrong and what I said was, "the limit of energy as wavelength approaches zero is infinity." But since you don't know what a limit is, I doubt you will. Janitors don't do well at math.

And I'm not sure why you think I'd accept anything less than an abject apology after you called me "gay," not only for your trolling insult but for disrespect for people with alternate sexuality some of whom are my friends- not to mention a sibling. I should note for the record that my female wife laughed at your trolling and agreed you'd been pwnt to the bone for posting that.

Nov 26, 2018
Janitors don't do well at math.


You've obviously never heard of 'mop maths'! It approaches QM for complexity. Very few people understand it.

Nov 26, 2018
@Da Schneib.
It's about arrogance, insults, trolls, not admitting to mistakes, and falsifying math and science. ..... And I will always mock you when you do it.
But you do that WHEN I AM CORRECT ALL ALONG on the KNOWM mainstream understandings of the relevant science/maths/logics, DS! That's YOUR problem, not mine, DS. :)
Zero frequency equals zero energy equals there's no EM wave there. Noted that you haven't cited any evidence that this is not so,...
BUT is was ME that TOLD YOU and BENNI that was the case, DS. I even pointed out that '0' in that case would effectively describe a NON-EVENT; so NO MATHS applies AT ALL, because it is NOT A VALID 'case'. Go back and READ/UNDERSTAND PROPERLY what I actually said, DS. :)
Having posted a link to where you claimed "zero is a singularity,"...
You MISREAD and THEN quoted/asserted OUT OF CONTEXT; hence making your attacks on me MISPLACED, mate!

So please, DS, try to disabuse yourself of self-confusions about me. :)

Nov 26, 2018
FTR, I'm male, heterosexual, married, and happy with that. I get all the sex I can handle; women are much better than men at orgasms, and it's quite gratifying. Everyone gets happy.

Nov 26, 2018
WHEN I AM CORRECT ALL ALONG
You just can't stop, can you?

See the list above. This is arrogant, arrogant, lying, lying, and lying. You switched from wavelength to frequency when you realized your error and hoped no-one would notice. You're expecting an EE not to know what the frequency-wavelength relation- something I have not posted in order to troll you in response to your trolling me- means. And you still don't understand limits.

I don't care if you're gay. It doesn't matter to me one bit. What irritates me is you're a troll. You're arrogant, you lie, you never admit error, and you descend first to lies, then to insults when challenged.

Nov 26, 2018
RealityCheck

You just do not give up, do you RealityCheck
you have just included a growing list of your preferred partners.
You really need to make a bee line to your nearest dating agency
Then come back when you can talk without your mind wondering of the subjects,
phys.org specifically puts in print to comment on without discussing body parts RealityCheck.

Nov 26, 2018
@Da Schneib.
...a troll,..:
1. being arrogant.
2. being arrogant.
3. lying.
4. lying.
5. lying.
6. lying about science.
7. lying about me or others you wish to demean.
8. trying to demean people.
9. seeking advantage.
10. Try to learn without it taking years during which you are arrogant, arrogant, lie about people, lie about what people said, post lying insults, troll.
11. Start leaning before opening mouth to insult.
12. Don't admit errors when you make them.
13. try to squirm out of admitting errors by lying.

Clear indications someone is a troll:
1. Arrogance.
2. Never admitting to any mistake ever.
3. Posting weird unscientific stuff.
4. Never admitting weird accusations and weird scientific stuff could be wrong.
5. Lying to cover up errors.
6. Insults.
Perfectly describes/summarizes YOUR exhibited characteristics/behavior, DS. Uncanny! :)

Nov 26, 2018
This is standard trolling. Another characteristic of a troll: when accused try to turn it backwards. Totally transparent and as obvious as a 3-year-old with cookie crumbs on its shirt.

Nov 26, 2018
@Da Schneib.
This is standard trolling. Another characteristic of a troll: when accused try to turn it backwards. Totally transparent and as obvious as a 3-year-old with cookie crumbs on its shirt.
That's exactly what YOU have been doing and coming across as so far, DS. Uncanny! :)

Nov 26, 2018
Youi're the one who keeps lying, @100LiarRC. Proven a hundred times. Links and detailed accusations you cannot answer, and cannot deny.

Pardon me, now 102 threads on which you've lied. Including this one.

Nov 26, 2018
Just had to listen to Bowie singing "Fame." Good stuff. Now for some Genesis.

If you want some cred, @102LiarRC, try arguing science without trying to pretend it's what you said
WHEN I AM CORRECT ALL ALONG
Lose the arrogance and the lies.

Nov 26, 2018
@Da Schneib.
Youi're the one who keeps lying, @100LiarRC. Proven a hundred times. Links and detailed accusations you cannot answer, and cannot deny.
The intelligent reader is by now fully cognizant of your trolling, DS, founded on YOU NOT reading/understanding properly, and then proceeding to kneejerk/drunk posts of 'tactical' misattributions and outright juvenile lying misconstruing of what WAS said by me. You patently don't have what it takes to be objective fair and knowledgeable where it counts in science/logics, DS...because your malignant EGO and DRINK/DRUGS have taken over and undermined your character, intellect and ethics. Not good, DS. Stop it now before your self-destructive compulsions become irrevocable. Good luck, DS. :)

Nov 26, 2018
Bwahaha, what a joke. Bring some science instead of all your process BS when you get exposed.

Zero is not a "singularity." You lied and got caught. Admit it. Try not to lie first since I won't see it if you do.

Nov 26, 2018
@Da Schneib.
I don't care if you're gay. It doesn't matter to me one bit. What irritates me is you're a troll. You're arrogant, you lie, you never admit error, and you descend first to lies, then to insults when challenged.
So NOW it's YOU being the "troll like Benni"...which trolls YOU said would BE interested in others' sexual orientation. So, by YOUR OWN CRITERIA previously posted by YOU, YOUR NOW obvious interest in others' sexual orientations effectively makes YOU the "troll like Benni", DS! MOREOVER, you obviously did not read/understand properly when I said that I'm "straight", DS. So many faux pas by you, DS. Not good, DS. :)

Nov 26, 2018
RealityCheck

In days of yore
when in your youth
as once you told
that was your trade
a teacher was your trade
as everyone who's faced a teachers wrath
knows too well
that despite the fact a teacher is oft wrong
has a tendency to forget his trade
as this is where another fault of teachers emergeths
is in arrogance which gets teachers their name
is teachers are always right and students wrong
even when teachers wrong and student right
teacher is always right
but this is where the teacher skill, his charm
that indivisible entity that maketh a teacher
students respect even when the student knows
teacher is wrong when student is right
as when the student knows the teacher has this special gift
the student is happy to accept teachers always right
when secretly its is known teacher is wrong

Nov 26, 2018
@Da Schneib.
Bring some science instead of all your process BS when you get exposed.
Still you keep trying that tactic, DS; blithely and intentionally ignoring that it was I who "brought" to YOU and Benni the KNOWN mainstream understandings re the physics/maths/logics relating to the UNDEFINED etc problems which '0' and 'infinity bring to the relevant equations already pointed out to you and Benni. Meanwhile YOU have been trolling and insulting AS USUAL to derail threads/discussions like the "troll like Benni" that you have just betrayed yourself to be to the intelligent readers who saw your most recent posts. Not good for you, DS. :)
Zero is not a "singularity." You lied and got caught. Admit it. Try not to lie first since I won't see it if you do.
The intelligent reader will note immediately that that was YOUR misconstruing/misattributing of what I actually said in context, DS. You're self-destructing in front of intelligent readers, DS; stop drunk/ego-posting.

Nov 26, 2018
So NOW it's YOU being the "troll like Benni"
Now seven lies on this article. Keep digging, fool.

"Zero is a singularity" is neither science nor math.

You're lying again, @102LiarRC. And your drunken insults are the surest proof of it.

Nov 26, 2018
@Forum. Speaking of problem with '0' and 'infinity' in maths/physics equations/axioms etc, there is a current discussion over at Sciforums re these very matters; here... http://www.scifor...7/page-3 One pst in particular, by @uhClem is effectively making some of the very points which I have been making here for years now...especially regarding 'Infinity' Axiom as currently assumed/input to SET THEORY and other relevant maths/equation constructs which are inevitably therefore badly affected by same...ie, resulting in UNDEFINED, SINGULAR non-sense 'results' etc which make no sense in reality physical terms. I will point to @uhClem's Post (No 42) in that thread, as it is especially relevant to my exchange with DS here. So, as you all can see, my points made to DS were perfectly valid mainstream issues being debated and reviewed. :)

Nov 26, 2018
RealityCheck in holy matrimony with his reluctant bride Da Schneib

What are we going to do
How are we to face the morrow
When reluctant bride Da Schneib, falls for the charms of his persistent suitor RealityCheck
How are we going to look at Da Schneib insults in the face again
Da Schneib insults are backed up with aeons of honed venom to back them up
We do not want Da Schneib venom in watered form
It has to have a devilish intent behind its intent
But now with this imminent marriage of RealityCheck and Da Schneib
Just how are we to face the morrow again

Nov 26, 2018
@Da Schneib.

The intelligent readers will immediately note that it was YOUR OWN stated CRITERION...for BEING a "troll like Benni"...that came back to bite YOU when you demonstrated it was YOU that was interested in others' sexual orientation not me, DS. And you're still misattributing/misconstruing what I said in context re '0' and 'infinity' and UNDEFINED/SINGULAR 'resuts' from relevant equations involving same. Stop digging yourself ever deeper, DS. :)

PS: Go to Sciforums thread...

http://www.scifor...7/page-3

...and read @uhClem post No. 42. You will then (I hope) understand properly what I have been pointing out to you re the valid KNOWN mainstream understandings and problems re 'infinity', '0' etc related Axioms/Maths and UNDEFINED/SINGULAR 'outputs'. :)

Nov 26, 2018
@102LiarRC, zero is neither infinity nor a "singularity."

As far as sexual orientation, I simply don't care. It's trolls like you and @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist who care about it.

And that's lie number eight.

Can't you stop lying?

Nov 26, 2018
@Da Schneib.
@102LiarRC, zero is neither infinity nor a "singularity."

Can't you stop lying?
YOU are the one saying that, DS, not me. Your insensible 'troll tactic' of INTENTIONALLY misunderstanding/misconstruing OUT OF CONTEXT has long been the root of your slow, relentless degeneration into being the "troll like Benni" that you supposedly despise. Not good, DS. Bad.

PS: Did you read that Sciforum thread/post I PS'd to you in my previous post to you, DS? :)

Nov 26, 2018
Meanwhile, if the arguments being presented on some other forum are so good, why aren't you bringing them here? If they're "zero is infinity" or "zero is a singularity" it's pretty obvious why not.

And your post claiming "zero is a singularity" is a matter of record here. So you're lying again. That's nine.

Nov 26, 2018
@Da Schneib.
Meanwhile, if the arguments being presented on some other forum are so good, why aren't you bringing them here? If they're "zero is infinity" or "zero is a singularity" it's pretty obvious why not.

And your post claiming "zero is a singularity" is a matter of record here. So you're lying again. That's nine.
I only just came across that thread/post because I was getting bored with your insensible silliness and decided to take a break and read-only at Sciforums to see what's been happening there lately. And besides, that @uhClem post only appeared AFTER I made my relevant points to YOU and Benni earlier in this thread; so I could NOT have 'brought that from there to here' before now. Obviously. :)

Anyhow, mate, did you read that Sciforum thread and @uhClem's post N. 42 therein? If so, are you NOW straight regarding the the points I originally likewise made YOU and Benni aware of earlier here?

PS: Now stop misattributing/misconstruing what I said, DS. :)

Nov 26, 2018
@102LiarRC, I sure as hell ain't goin' chasin' after arguments you are afraid to bring here. If you got it bring it. If you don't you are lying again.

As for what you said, it's a matter of record here and you're still lying about it. Zero is neither infinity nor a "singularity." It's just zero, as in none.

Nov 26, 2018
@Da Schneib.
@102LiarRC, I sure as hell ain't goin' chasin' after arguments you are afraid to bring here. If you got it bring it. If you don't you are lying again.
What the hell is wrong with your head, mate? You always DEMANDING LINKS....now I GAVE YOU a LINK and directed attention to the post you should read so as to see the points I already made to you and Benni were VALID and MAINSTREAM....and so I WAS NOT LYING, as you keep dementedly trying to delude yourself/readers that I 'was'.

If you WON'T read/understand the points I LINKED to in that Sciforums thread and @uhClem post N 42, then what the HELL are you HERE for, DS....just to troll and display YOUR drunkenness/insanity for ALL to see for themselves?

Get sane/sober and wise up, DS. Good luck.

PS: @FORUM and intelligent readers looking on: By refusing to engage with the linked material, DS effectively CONFIRMS HE WAS WRONG and I CORRECT ALL ALONG as I kept trying to get him to understand, to no avail. Sad.

Nov 26, 2018
Not to other discussion forums. To scientific papers. You're lying again, @102LiarRC. That's ten lies in this thread alone.

Nov 26, 2018
And what you said here is not in question no matter how many discussion forum posts you link to. It's a matter of documented fact.

Nov 26, 2018
@Da Schneib.
Not to other discussion forums. To scientific papers. You're lying again, @102LiarRC.
Why so 'precious', DS? I was demonstrating that the points I made for you and Benni are IN DISCUSSION even as we speak...and that these are MAINSTREAM considerations/understandings which any mainstream physicist/mathematician will tell you are the 'problems' because UNDEFINED etc 'result' from using '0', 'infinity' and associated problematic Axioms and Assumptions. Just because YU, DS, are NOT UP TO SPEED with mainstream maths/physics issues such as the ones I alerted YOU and Benni, it is NO EXCUSE for YOU to troll people who ARE UP TO SPEED re same. Go away and get yourself dried/sorted out, DS....because whatever you are 'taking' is evidently SERIOUSLY IMPAIRING your judgement/comprehension/behavior; as the intelligent readers will by now have amply confirmed for themselves is the sad case with you. Go, DS; take time off to 'heal' yourself. Good luck, mate. :)

Nov 26, 2018
And what you said here is not in question no matter how many discussion forum posts you link to. It's a matter of documented fact.


I got to put my two cents in here. Really-Skippy gave you Clem-Skippy's blah to prove he was CORRECT ALL ALONG.

So I am going to post up the link that proves that I WAS CORRECT ALL ALONG when I said Really-Skippy is Bat-Crap-Crazy.

http://earthlingclub.com/

How you like me now Skippy?

Nov 26, 2018
Duplicate erased.

Nov 26, 2018
these are MAINSTREAM considerations/understandings
From forum discussions? No. You're lying again @102LiarRC. That's eleven on this thread alone.

"Mainstream" means it's getting published in journals of record. You know, like anthropogenic global climate change. I won't accept forum posts from those denier idiots, and I won't from you either. Think about that a little while.

@Ira, sweet.

Nov 26, 2018
@Da Schneib.
And what you said here is not in question no matter how many discussion forum posts you link to. It's a matter of documented fact.
So, DS, you STILL claim that NO PROBLEMS EVER ARISE when using '0' and/or 'infinity' in certain equations?......Ok, let's try it YOUR way, DS; to wit:

I now ask YOU, DS, to please LINK to any real scientist and/or mathematician and/or Physicist and/or mathematical-physicist who agrees with YOUR above claim...ie, that NO PROBLEMS EVER ARISE WHEN '0' and/or 'infinity' are involved in the relevant equations, one of which we have already discussed. Thanks. :)

Nov 26, 2018
NO PROBLEMS EVER ARISE WHEN USING '0'
In the numerator or multiplicands? Sure, I'll agree with that. But "EVER[sic]?" No. That I never claimed. Put zero in the denominator and you have to use limits, which you still don't understand, to analyze it. And since you never asked me, but instead arrogantly bloviated a bunch of crap about zero being a "singularity," whatever your lonely brain cell thinks that means, what you got was my views piecemeal, and you've been lying about them ever since.

So you just tried to characterize me as saying something I never said. You're lying again, @102LiarRC. That's twelve on this thread.

Why do you always lie? Do you think people won't notice? Aren't you glad I'm paying attention to you? Maybe you'd be happier if I'd ignore you, but I saw you getting away with lying without being challenged so now you have me. Enjoy.

Nov 26, 2018
@Da Schneib.
In the numerator or multiplicands? Sure, I'll agree with that. But "EVER[sic]?" No. That I never claimed. Put zero in the denominator and you have to use limits,.......
All of which we already discussed, DS. And I ALREADY EXPLAINED (but you dememtedly ignore it) that LIMITS techniques are IRRELEVANT if the system is a STATIC CASE due to 'f=0', remember?

Get IT, DS?

NO MATHS can validly BE brought to bear AT ALL; since the STATIC (NON-EVENT) case is NOT VALID in the context you and Benni have been arguing over...since THAT case is EFFECTIVELY OUTSIDE the DOMAIN of APPLICABILITY of the maths....HENCE the UNDEFINED and/or SINGULAR and/or INFINITIES nonsense that 'results' from the relevant equations whenever that '0' is input, as I have been explaining but you haven't been listening/understanding.

Ok, DS? Can you now calm down and start listening/understanding properly, in context of 'freq-0' (STATIC) case you and Benni have been unwittingly discussing? :)

Nov 26, 2018
Actually the limit of energy as frequency approaches zero is zero. Like I said, you don't understand limits.

And note I don't call this a lie. It's simple ignorance; unfortunately it's also stupidity because you refuse to learn.

And denying you can apply math to zero is also stupid. It means "there aren't any." Perfectly obvious. You might as well deny you can say "there aren't any chickens in the farmyard." Stoopit.

Nov 26, 2018
Until you abandon these weird ideas about math and physics you simply will not learn. This is reality. Today I have cantaloupe and pears. I have zero apples (and I was not happy- we had Comte to eat them with). See? Do you suppose my apples disappeared into a black hole? No. My wife just didn't buy any. Prolly not her fault, though- she said they were shiity so she didn't buy any. Oh well. The cheese was pretty good with pears and cantaloupe anyway.

Nov 26, 2018
And I most especially don't need to "calm down." You are a minor irritation in the scheme of things. You're the one posting huge long posts to try and deflect attention from your lies.

Nov 26, 2018
@Da Schneib.
Actually the limit of energy as frequency approaches zero is zero.....
Please try to drop your pre-programmed spiel and LISTEN. LIMITS can ONLY APPLY to DYNAMIC/CHANGING state/systems cases. THEY ARE USELESS when the case is effectively STATIC TO START WITH....as in the 'freq=0' case for the E=hf situation I already asked you to consider before, remember? That situation is DEAD IN THE WATER BEFORE ANY MATHS 'treatment' via 'limits' is attempted. IT DOES NOT APPLY.
Today I have cantaloupe and pears. I have zero apples (and I was not happy- we had Comte to eat them with). See? Do you suppose my apples disappeared...
"Sigh* Didn't I ALREADY explain to YOU that COUNTING/ARITHMETIC CONVENTIONS employ ZERO as PASSIVE 'placeholders' ONLY....at EMPTY VALUE POSITIONS along a NUMBER STRING context. That's IT. That counting/arithmetic 'number string' context IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from the calculus LIMITS context.

Understand that subtle but crucial difference now, DS? :)

Nov 26, 2018
@102LiarRC, limits apply to functions.

For example E = hc/λ, or E = hf.

Like I said, you know nothing about limits. I can show you an equation for an easily understood piece of math where the interesting limit is 4. The function never reaches 4, but it approaches it.

Nov 26, 2018
@Da Schneib.
@102LiarRC, limits apply to functions.

For example E = hc/λ, or E = hf.

Like I said, you know nothing about limits. I can show you an equation for an easily understood piece of math where the interesting limit is 4. The function never reaches 4, but it approaches it.
Please recall the original context/case where I explained to Benni that any system/process whose internal clock/processes was GRAVITATIONALLY DILATED MAXIMALLY will effectively be 'frozen' (ie, STATIC) insofar as internal photon-producing dynamics are concerned; and hence NOT BE CAPABLE of generating/emitting a photon of ANY 'wavelength' IN THE FIRST PLACE. That is why I was trying to get you BOTH on the SAME PAGE so as to FORESTALL further misunderstandings and mutual-insults-fests between you two. The point was that you two were arguing across each other and not seeing the salient physical (as distinct from purely mathematical) situation which applies regardless of 'maths' attempts. :)

Nov 26, 2018
@102LiarRC, but you got all weird and start spouting about zero being a "singularity." There isn't a singularity; there just isn't any photon there. It doesn't take a black hole; you can find a place there isn't any photon without a black hole.

This is what I mean when I say context doesn't matter.

Nov 26, 2018
@Da Schneib.
but you got all weird and start spouting about zero being a "singularity." There isn't a singularity; there just isn't any photon there. It doesn't take a black hole; you can find a place there isn't any photon without a black hole.
You failed to understand in context. The character limits in this forum necessitate contractions in phrases and sentences/associations appearing in previous posts, as well as in other sections/paragraphs in the same post. That is why you need to WORK HARD to try and understand in all the 'overall' original and later-connected context. Otherwise you will always be doomed to misunderstandings and the kneejerking/frustration etc which inevitably ensues. That is why everyone should calm down and be more careful to read/understand properly in order to try as best as you can to avoid needless antagonism and personal feuds which demean not only the forum but science discourse itself...and no-one here 'wants' THAT, right? :)

Nov 27, 2018
There is no context. If the frequency is zero there's no photon there. Try sitting in a room with no windows and turning out the lights. There ya go! No photons. We done here?

Nov 27, 2018
@Da Schneib.
It doesn't take a black hole; you can find a place there isn't any photon without a black hole.

This is what I mean when I say context doesn't matter.
Sure, mate; but what's the POINT in arbitrarily 'identifying places there isn't any photn' unless yu specify the context/reason WHY you would even consider such a NON-event situation in the first place. For example, I also can 'find places' (everywhere I look) where there is NO PINK UNICORN. See? Better to FIRST understand that PINK UNICORNS are a NON-starter (non-event) in the first place...and so save yourself the time and energy trying to apply maths/limits based 'treatment' for that NON-starter situation which is already determined by reality to BE a non-event. So context DOES matter, mate...else all devolves into 'contextless' NON-sense. Ok? :)

Nov 27, 2018
But you stopped arguing in context and started in with this