Gas clouds whirling around black hole form heart of extremely distant luminous astronomical object

November 29, 2018, Tel Aviv University
Optical image of the quasar 3C 273 (the bright stellar-like object in the center) obtained with the Hubble Space Telescope. It was the first quasar ever to be identified. Credit: NASA.

In 1963, astronomer Maarten Schmidt identified the first quasi-stellar object or "quasar," an extremely bright but distant object. He found the single quasar, the active nucleus of a far-away galaxy known to astronomers as 3C 273, to be 100 times more luminous than all the stars in our Milky Way combined.

Now, the GRAVITY international team of astronomers, including Prof. Hagai Netzer of Tel Aviv University's School of Physics and Astronomy, have concluded that gas clouds rapidly moving around a central black hole form the very heart of this quasar. The results of the new research were published in Nature on November 29.

The first measurement of the mass of the black hole inside 3C 273, using an older method, was conducted at the TAU's Florence and George Wise Observatory in 2000, as part of Ph.D. research conducted by TAU's Dr. Shai Kaspi, then a student in Prof. Netzer's group. This result has now been corroborated by GRAVITY's observations.

The research is the first detailed observation outside of our galaxy of gas clouds whirling around a central black hole. According to the researchers, GRAVITY's measurements will become the benchmark for measuring black hole masses in thousands of other quasars.

Taking a closer look at a black hole

The GRAVITY instrument, situated in Paranal, Chile, has unprecedented capabilities. It combines the collective area of four telescopes to form a virtual telescope, called an interferometer, 130 meters across. The instrument can detect distant astronomical objects at an extremely high resolution.

"Quasars are among the most distant astronomical objects that can be observed," Prof. Netzer says. "They also play a fundamental role in the history of the universe, as their evolution is intricately tied to galaxy growth. While almost all large galaxies harbor a massive black hole at their centers, so far only one in our Milky Way has been accessible for such detailed studies."

"GRAVITY allowed us to resolve, for the first time ever, the motion of around a central black hole," says Eckhard Sturm of Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics (MPE), who co-led the research for the study. "Our observations can follow the motion of the gas and reveal that the clouds do whirl around the central black hole."

So far, such observations had not been possible due to the small angular size of a quasar's inner region—roughly the size of our solar system, but some 2.5 billion light years distant from us.

"Broad emission lines created by gas in the vicinity of the black hole are observational hallmarks of quasars. Until now, the distance of the gas from the black hole, and occasionally the pattern of the motion, could only be measured by an older method that made use of light variations in the quasars," Prof. Netzer says. "With the GRAVITY instrument, we can distinguish structures at the level of 10 micro-arc seconds, which corresponds to observing, for example, a 1-Euro coin on the Moon."

"Information about the motion and distance of the gas immediately around the black hole is crucial to measuring the mass of the black hole," explains Jason Dexter, also of MPE, who co-led the research. "For the first time, the old method was tested experimentally and passed its test with flying colors, confirming previous estimates of about 300 million solar masses for the black hole."

"This is the first time that we can study the immediate environs of a massive black hole outside our home galaxy, the Milky Way," concludes Reinhard Genzel, head of the infrared research group at MPE. "Black holes are intriguing objects, allowing us to probe physics under —and with GRAVITY we can now probe them both near and far."

Explore further: Most detailed observations of material orbiting close to a black hole

More information: Spatially resolved rotation of the broad-line region of a quasar at sub-parsec scale, Nature (2018). DOI: 10.1038/s41586-018-0731-9

Related Stories

Astronomers discover two bright high-redshift quasars

March 12, 2018

Using VST ATLAS and WISE surveys astronomers have identified two new bright high-redshift quasars. The newly found quasi-stellar objects, designated VST-ATLAS J158.6938-14.4211 and VST-ATLAS J332.8017-32.1036, could be helpful ...

Hubble gazes into a black hole of puzzling lightness

January 13, 2017

The beautiful spiral galaxy visible in the center of the image is known as RX J1140.1+0307, a galaxy in the Virgo constellation imaged by the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, and it presents an interesting puzzle. At first ...

Recommended for you

NASA's Voyager 2 probe enters interstellar space

December 10, 2018

For the second time in history, a human-made object has reached the space between the stars. NASA's Voyager 2 probe now has exited the heliosphere – the protective bubble of particles and magnetic fields created by the ...

Team finds evidence for carbon-rich surface on Ceres

December 10, 2018

A team led by Southwest Research Institute has concluded that the surface of dwarf planet Ceres is rich in organic matter. Data from NASA's Dawn spacecraft indicate that Ceres's surface may contain several times the concentration ...

163 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Tuxford
1.7 / 5 (15) Nov 29, 2018
"Quasars are among the most distant astronomical objects that can be observed,"

Or more accurately stated, 'Quasars only appear to be among the most distant astronomical objects that can be observed based on the faulty assumption that tire light does not exist. But if light is red-shifted while climbing out of a deep gravity well, then most all of these supermassive cores would appear much more distant than they actually are.'
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Nov 29, 2018
The Sky at Night

A point Sir Patrick Moore pointed out last century, Tuxford
that quasars that he thought were the most distant stellar objects
as he had discovered
being in the privileged circles he was invited to all the excusive major telescopes of the world
an exclusive club if you like
what he became privy to
was quasars are associated with galaxies
so on his Sky at Night he discussed this important point
that quasars being associated with galactic centres
were no longer the furthest objects in the night sky
as Sir Patrick Moore pointed out
it is quite conceivable the Milkyway or the Andromeda galaxy could have a quasar at its heart
to quote one of Sir Patrick Moore favourite phrases when he no longer believes quasars are the most distant
he used to say "frankly I don't believe it" as he was the fastest vocaliser in vocabulary
the BBC has ever had on their airwaves before or since
Sir Patrick Moore is sorely missed and so his nightly program
rrwillsj
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 29, 2018
"tired light" How tiresome. The usual childish prattle from the tux. Repetitious twaddle is not rendered more palatable by you whining your woo all the time!

Try this thought experiment.
If the speed of light, the photons we observe & measure.
Are actually slowed by gravity?

How is it possible that by the time the senile light reaches our telescopes? It is till moving at the acknowledged, proven & verified speed of light. Exactly the same as the speed of the photons produced right now by your desk lamp?

A mere 13+billion years would not be long enough span of time to see across even a billion light years.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (15) Nov 29, 2018
"Quasars are among the most distant astronomical objects that can be observed,"

Or more accurately stated, 'Quasars only appear to be among the most distant astronomical objects that can be observed based on the faulty assumption that tire light does not exist. But if light is red-shifted while climbing out of a deep gravity well, then most all of these supermassive cores would appear much more distant than they actually are.'


Tired light is idiotic woo.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (12) Nov 29, 2018
Errors in Tired Light Cosmology
http://www.astro....dlit.htm
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (15) Nov 29, 2018
"Quasars are among the most distant astronomical objects that can be observed,"

As has been shown by observations, this is complete bupkis. Red-shift as distance metric has been falsified on several levels.
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Nov 29, 2018
Quasars, its power source

It is not a debatable point as to a BH having sufficient capability to power the light emitted by quasars
Because theoretically not 26.000Lyrs from Earth
there is a proposed BH
which has no accretion disc
its power output is insignificant compared to an adjacent red giant power who's output is in the near infrared
As this no ordinary run of the mill ex-pulsar BH
This a 4million BH
it not only shows no willingness to power a quasar
including it accretion disc
its totally invisible at 26,000Lyrs
certainly not the ideal recipe to power the most luminous stellar star in the universe
as conclusions are made from observations
taking an unusually large BH, Sagittarius A*
that from extremely close observation
as it is surrounded by millions of stars it is not short of fuel
As this a typically large BH
This implies BHs are not the quasars power source
Quasars power source is obviously not to be found in BHs
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (13) Nov 29, 2018
"Tired light" is a standard YEC contention. No one should miss this key indicator of another nutjob YEC lying for jebus. Which is why I call it "@cantthink69."
Benni
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 29, 2018
"Tired light" is a standard YEC contention. No one should miss this key indicator of another nutjob YEC lying for jebus. Which is why I call it "@cantthink69."


Tired light is idiotic woo.


......concocted by none other than your iconic godfather of Dark Matter, zany Fritz Zwicky.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 29, 2018
This is actually a pretty important finding. It confirms that enormous intense gravity fields predominate in quasars. Nothing else can account for the motion of these gas clouds, determined by high resolution spectroscopy. There is only one thing that can account for such enormous intense gravity fields. Black holes.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (12) Nov 29, 2018
I find it very interesting that @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist is trolling for YEC cosmology.

I also find it interesting that @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist hates Zwicky. I will leave research into why a YEC might hate Zwicky to the curious. I think @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist is an infestation on this science site.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (14) Nov 29, 2018
There is only one thing that can account for such enormous intense gravity fields. Black holes.


......well then, you're such a big guy demanding pictures & observational evidence for stuff, show us a picture of one.

Do I hear "spectroscopy" is a picture? Well I do spectroscopy as 50% of my job description, and spectroscopy is not a picture.
Solon
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 29, 2018
Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists
https://rense.com...bbng.htm
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (12) Nov 29, 2018
and spectroscopy is not a picture.
This is maybe the most brain-dead thing @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist has ever said.

A spectrogram is made from light; all that's done is to break it up into its constituent frequencies.

Perhaps it doesn't think that matter is made from atoms. YEC. Lying for jebus. And calling people it doesn't like "gay."
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (16) Nov 29, 2018
There is only one thing that can account for such enormous intense gravity fields. Black holes.


......well then, you're such a big guy demanding pictures & observational evidence for stuff, show us a picture of one.

Do I hear "spectroscopy" is a picture? Well I do spectroscopy as 50% of my job description, and spectroscopy is not a picture.


They let janitors use spectroscopes? Is this to determine what the brown stuff is that you are about to clean from the men's room floor is?
jonesdave
3.6 / 5 (17) Nov 29, 2018
"Quasars are among the most distant astronomical objects that can be observed,"

As has been shown by observations, this is complete bupkis. Red-shift as distance metric has been falsified on several levels.


Nope. Hasn't happened. You made that up.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (15) Nov 29, 2018
and spectroscopy is not a picture.
This is maybe the most brain-dead thing

A spectrogram is made from light; all that's done is to break it up into its constituent frequencies.


A spectrogram is a visual way of representing the signal strength of a signal over time at various frequencies of a particular waveform, it is not a picture any more than than refracted lightwaves through a prism is a picture of the original light.

granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Nov 29, 2018
The tired light is a psychological fix

The original assessment was based on the quasars red shift
as from its red shift it recession velocity was determined
and from that moment
it was a lost cause
despite the fact observation showed quasars occupy galaxies
the recession gave distances to the edge of the known universe
the mind-set was set to use an Americanism
common sense could no longer prevail
as the Hubble Constant was at stake
As even today
there is resistance to accepting quasars existing in galaxies all around us

The next mind-set
linking quasars with BHs
even as we observe within arm's length of the most humongous BHs in the universe
that is still invisible at arm's length
the mind-set cannot break free
that there is no connection with BHs
jonesdave
3.6 / 5 (14) Nov 29, 2018
Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists
https://rense.com...bbng.htm


And who is the first of these scientists mentioned in the article? Eric Lerner. Bit of a fruitloop. Never got his PhD. Plasma Cosmology wooist.

Errors in the "The Big Bang Never Happened"
Ned Wright
http://www.astro....ors.html

Errors in Tired Light Cosmology
Ned Wright
http://www.astro....dlit.htm

Think we can safely ignore that Rense article. And that applies to most Rense articles.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 29, 2018
and spectroscopy is not a picture.
This is maybe the most brain-dead thing

A spectrogram is made from light; all that's done is to break it up into its constituent frequencies.


A spectrogram is a visual way of representing the signal strength of a signal over time at various frequencies of a particular waveform, it is not a picture any more than than refracted lightwaves through a prism is a picture of the original light.



It is used to measure the signals at various frequencies produced by certain molecular and atomic species. If I want to detect water vapour at a comet I know, from lab experiment, at what frequencies it should occur. This is due to the ro-vibrational transitions of the molecule. If I detect those frequencies I know I have detected water vapour. Ditto with the gas around this BH. It is a sure-fire detection of the gas around the BH., The breadth of those lines is a measure of its velocity.
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 29, 2018
the mind-set cannot break free
that there is no connection with BHs


Errrr, yes there is. As shown by this study.And others. Stop commenting on things that are beyond your pay grade. In other words, everything that follows Primary School science.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Nov 29, 2018
and spectroscopy is not a picture.
This is maybe the most brain-dead thing

A spectrogram is made from light; all that's done is to break it up into its constituent frequencies.


A spectrogram is a visual way of representing the signal strength of a signal over time at various frequencies of a particular waveform, it is not a picture any more than than refracted lightwaves through a prism is a picture of the original light.
So where did the "original light" the prism (or, more in the 20th century and stuff, the grating), come from?

Janitor spectrography indeed.
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 29, 2018
So where did the "original light" the prism (or, more in the 20th century and stuff, the grating), come from?

Janitor spectrography indeed.


Give him a chance! He's still looking up ro-vibrational :)
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 29, 2018
As a special treat for those that might understand it;

Spatially resolved rotation of the broad-line region of a quasar at sub-parsec scale
GRAVITY collaboration
http://sci-hub.tw...8-0731-9
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Nov 29, 2018
Having actually switched back and forth between an Echelle spectrograph and a Nagler eyepiece on a telescope myself, and seen plates from 20 years ago I was not allowed to touch that had spectrograms right on the plate next to the normal images of the objects they were spectrograms of, specifically T-Tauri star systems, I personally know from my own observations and experience that a spectrogram is merely another way of organizing the same light you can see with your eye. It looks different but it's the same light.

Anyone with a brain knows that Newton saw the same thing himself and documented it. He was the first spectrographer.
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Nov 29, 2018
3C273 optically brightest quasar in the sky

At 2.4billion Lyrs visible tiny speck of light
Prof. Hagai Netzer of Tel Aviv University's School of Physics and Astronomy
conclude gas clouds rapidly moving around a BH
form the heart of this quasar
Given these facts
a star of such intensity the distance of Pollux
would shine in the sky with same intensity as our sun
we would see two suns in our sky
this star is almost invisible
but millions of times more intensely brighter that the rapidly moving clouds of dust
Concerning these rapidly moving clouds of dust
this intensely bright quasar obscures its host galaxy
without this quasar this galaxy is a mere smudge on the photographic plate
definitely 100,000 Lyrs larger than the rapidly moving clouds of dust
at 2.4billion Lyrs It is not possible to determine these clouds of dust
the distances are to vast
the dust is to tenuous for even the remotest possibility of being seen
The dust is a smoke screen to distant to be seen
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 29, 2018
the dust is to tenuous for even the remotest possibility of being seen
The dust is a smoke screen to distant to be seen


Do you know the difference between gas and dust? Do you know the difference between 'to', 'too' & 'two'? Go away. Get an education.

Tuxford
2 / 5 (11) Nov 29, 2018
Errors in the "The Big Bang Never Happened"
Ned Wright
http://www.astro....ors.html

Errors in Tired Light Cosmology
Ned Wright
http://www.astro....dlit.htm


Quoting Ned Wright are we, Jonesy. You are really lost in time. He is a very Big Banger, for life. Guess you can't think either.

https://phys.org/...ies.html

See my comments more than six years ago under:

https://phys.org/...ies.html

https://phys.org/...ays.html

Don't think. Pray to the alter of science, and their revered leaders.
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Nov 29, 2018
The 1000character limit
the dust is to tenuous for even the remotest possibility of being seen
The dust is a smoke screen to distant to be seen

jonesdave> Do you know the difference between gas and dust? Do you know the difference between 'to', 'too' & 'two'? Go away. Get an education.

This is beyond the 1000character limit JD
In fact JD, with continuous pruning
the 1000 character limit it now receding to a 957 character limit
so for all of you complaining of the 1000character limit
obviously each full stop and comma is a premium
which is why I do not include them
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 29, 2018
See my comments more than six years ago under:

Don't think. Pray to the alter of science, and their revered leaders.


Your comments are irrelevant. You are an unqualified loon.
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 29, 2018
This is beyond the 1000character limit JD


Nope, you are obviously illiterate, as well as being scientifically illiterate. Who is surprised? Piss poor excuse. Try again.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Nov 29, 2018
Watch out @Jones! Next it will tell you you're a troll and put you on ignore! /s
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 29, 2018
Watch out @Jones! Next it will tell you you're a troll and put you on ignore! /s


One can only hope!
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Nov 29, 2018
1000 to 900 characters is still sufficient

In point of fact JD
A capital character counts more than a lower case character
A hyperlink, forget it JD
Every operative has to go
A hyperlink costs 100s of characters
But even so JD
Since my evolving commentary style
Which originaly knocked 18 characters of
Is now knocking 43
Certainly a far cry from a 1000 words
But I can see why phys.org has chosen a 1000 characters
As a 1000 characters is the right amount
even if in practise with no full stops no hyperlinks
and only lower case in all reality
it only achieves 900 characters
1000 down to 900 characters is still sufficient
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 29, 2018
1000 to 900 characters is still sufficient


Does not explain why you can't spell English words properly. I would forgive a non-native speaker, as English can be difficult. There, their, they're, etc. However, you are English. Whoops, forgot - Yorkshire! Lol.
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 29, 2018
Never a truer word spoken, One can only hope!!
Watch out @Jones! Next it will tell you you're a troll and put you on ignore! /s

One can only hope!

Even when you supposedly put a granville on ignore
granville was still there
and granville did not reciprocate
as what is the point
on a commentary site
putting every one on ignore
It would be like talking to your self
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 29, 2018
Ha! I have enjoyed several evenings in Yorkshire pubs! Theakston's Old Peculier is one of my favorite tipples.
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 29, 2018
Apostrophe costs several characters
1000 to 900 characters is still sufficient

Does not explain why you can't spell English words properly. I would forgive a non-native speaker, as English can be difficult. There, their, they're, etc. However, you are English. Whoops, forgot - Yorkshire! Lol.

: They are, or they're, is the same and in theory JD
It gives you an extra character
Except an apostrophe costs several characters
so in practise they're takes up more of the 1000 characters than they are
This is knocking a 1000 down to fewer than 950 characters
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 29, 2018
The Yorkshire Pub Crawl
https://www.theakstons.co.uk/
Into this jar
https://i2-prod.d...-bar.jpg
For to make merry
In preparation
As soon in a few weeks
Christmas Eve will be soon upon us
rrwillsj
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 29, 2018
I'm still waiting for tux ir redpill or benni pr any of the other woo hucksters to explain how the "tired" redlight. the senile-photons, received in our telescopes from distant quasars? Can be measured to be traveling at the same speed of light as fresh, vigorous photons produced here on Earth.

- crickets chirping -
Solon
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 29, 2018
JD
"And who is the first of these scientists mentioned in the article? Eric Lerner. Bit of a fruitloop. Never got his PhD. Plasma Cosmology wooist."

Hows about Paul Steinhardt then?
Inflationary paradigm in trouble after Planck2013
http://physics.pr...9407.pdf

Benni
2 / 5 (12) Nov 29, 2018
the other woo huckster
......of course you must be talking about Zany Zwicky who came up with the concept, you remember him, the iconic godfather of your beloved Dark Matter Cosmic Fairy Dust.
dsylvan
5 / 5 (6) Nov 29, 2018
..... Theakston's Old Peculier is one of my favorite tipples.

Cheers!
Hard to find here in the US.
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 30, 2018
Quasars are among the most distant astronomical objects that can be observed,"


As has been shown by observations, this is complete bupkis. Red-shift as distance metric has been falsified on several levels.


Nope. Hasn't happened. You made that up


"Get the mustard!"
https://www.halto...erse.pdf
granville583762
2 / 5 (4) Nov 30, 2018
THE REDSHIFT ANOMALY
Quasars are among the most distant astronomical objects that can be observed,"

As has been shown by observations, this is complete bupkis. Red-shift as distance metric has been falsified on several levels.

Nope. Hasn't happened. You made that up

cantdrive85> "Get the mustard!"
https://www.halto...erse.pdf

The 3Billion Lyr Conundrum in the Shapley Super Cluster
For 40 years evidence has been building bright parent galaxies are surrounded by younger companion galaxies which have higher redshift
It is remarkable authoritative astronomers and physicists can measure galaxies in a well
defined clusters and accept without question that some of the members are 1,000 Mpc from other members
granville583762
3 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2018
THE REDSHIFT ANOMALY

This redshift anomaly ties in with Sir Patricks Moore's observation
That despite quasars red shift
Quasars are associated with galaxies
The red shift anomaly needs further investigation
As it has become a smoke screen
It has become a mind set
It has become a red herring
I ask you a red shift has become a red herring
A perfect smoke screen

Now where's that smoked kipper
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2018
Get the Mustard

Thanks cantdrive85
The red shift anomaly is synonymous with smoked kippers
A perfect smoke screen
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 30, 2018
Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists

There is no such thing as a 'top scientist'. Some of the "signatures" aren't even names but just webpage links...what is this supposed to be?
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 30, 2018
This redshift anomaly ties in with Sir Patricks Moore's observation
That despite quasars red shift
Quasars are associated with galaxies
The red shift anomaly needs further investigation


Only one thing causes REDSHIFT, the change in FREQUENCY of an electro-magnetic wave from higher to lower frequency, it occurs ONLY as it exits the vicinity of a gravitating body.

Gravity will also cause BLUESHIFT of an EM wave when the EM wave is entrancing the vicinity of a gravitating body.

Compton Scattering is totally different concept of EM frequency shift created by gravitational effects. It is not a frequency shift of the ORIGINAL EM Wave. There is first an encounter by a photon within the electron shell of an atom which ABSORBS the ORIGINAL photon creating recoiling kinetic energy to move an electron to a higher orbital position. When the electron gives up the absorbed energy it is ONLY at a LOWER frequency than the incident photon which no longer exists.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Nov 30, 2018
Quasars are among the most distant astronomical objects that can be observed,"


As has been shown by observations, this is complete bupkis. Red-shift as distance metric has been falsified on several levels.


Nope. Hasn't happened. You made that up


"Get the mustard!"
https://www.halto...erse.pdf


Nope, Arp was wrong and has been shown to be wrong. He is not a credible source.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Nov 30, 2018
JD
"And who is the first of these scientists mentioned in the article? Eric Lerner. Bit of a fruitloop. Never got his PhD. Plasma Cosmology wooist."

Hows about Paul Steinhardt then?
Inflationary paradigm in trouble after Planck2013
http://physics.pr...9407.pdf



They haven't proved anything wrong. It would be big news if they had, rather than an article on a crank website.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Nov 30, 2018
Only one thing causes REDSHIFT, the change in FREQUENCY of an electro-magnetic wave from higher to lower frequency, it occurs ONLY as it exits the vicinity of a gravitating body.


Wrong. I can take a torch, strap it to the back of a spacecraft, and observe the light as the s/c moves away from me. It will be redshited. If I strap it to the front, and the s/c is coming towards me, it'll be blueshifted. Simple really. Gravitational redshift, as predicted by Einstein, is a different thing, and only occurs around massive objects. Which is why we see it around the SMBH at the galactic centre. Proving, along with stellar orbits, that there is a massive object there.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 30, 2018
I can take a torch, strap it to the back of a spacecraft, and observe the light as the s/c moves away from me. It will be redshited. If I strap it to the front, and the s/c is coming towards me, it'll be blueshifted


......that's Doppler Effect, not the same thing as gravitational shift.

If you took a ride along with your torch you would never OBSERVE the light from that torch change frequency, it would ALWAYS remain the same because there is no Doppler Effect relative to position. Such is not the case if you were riding an EM Wave through the gravity field of a gravitating body, the frequency shift is real to the wavelength, it is not a Doppler Effect frequency shift.

They didn't teach you this in your Anthropology course at Uni of Auckland, NZ did they?
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 30, 2018
......that's Doppler Effect, not the same thing as gravitational shift.


It is redshift. Doppler effect causes it, red and blueshift are the outcomes, you idiot. And I know that gravitational redshift is not the same thing, you idiot, that was the point of my post. The wavelength in the case of gravitation redshift has been lengthened due to the influence of a massive body. That is, the 4m solar mass object at the galactic centre. Moron. Guess they don't teach that in janitor school, eh? Bloody imbecile.

https://en.wikipe...Redshift
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 30, 2018
They didn't teach you this in your Anthropology course at Uni of Auckland, NZ did they?


Lying piece of shit. Is that all you've got, moron? Continually lying about what other people have said, you sad prick? Uneducated arsehole. What is a half-life, thicko?
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 30, 2018
......that's Doppler Effect, not the same thing as gravitational shift.


It is redshift. Doppler effect causes it, red and blueshift are the outcomes,


Your "torch" is the INCIDENT EM Wave which NEVER changes frequency, red or blue, as you travel with it. In the case of an INCIDENT EM Wave entering the field of gravitating bodies the incident frequency is shifted, your torch never shifts frequency. I know how to explain this, you don't.

Your problem is still the same as it has always been, PHYSICS, you never leaned it in your Anthropology classes so you trot out WikiPedia many of whom's authors have your problem.

Did you actually get a degree from Uni Of Auckland, or did you flunk out before finishing that Anthropology course? Gosh, flunking out of Anthropology, what an embarrassment.

jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 30, 2018
Your "torch" is the INCIDENT EM Wave which NEVER changes frequency, red or blue, as you travel with it. In the case of an INCIDENT EM Wave entering the field of gravitating bodies the incident frequency is shifted, your torch never shifts frequency. I know how to explain this, you don't.


You are a complete f***ing moron! We are not talking about anybody travelling with it, you f***wit, we are talking about the wavelength increasing as light travels away from an observer. It is high school physics, you idiot.

There are three main causes of red and blue shifts in astronomy and cosmology: 1) Objects move apart or closer together in space. These shifts are an example of the Doppler effect, familiar in the change of apparent pitches of sirens and frequency of the sound waves emitted by speeding vehicles, or whenever a light source moves away from an observer.


jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 30, 2018
Your problem is still the same as it has always been, PHYSICS, you never leaned it in your Anthropology classes so you trot out WikiPedia many of whom's authors have your problem.

Did you actually get a degree from Uni Of Auckland, or did you flunk out before finishing that Anthropology course? Gosh, flunking out of Anthropology, what an embarrassment.


I know more about physics than you ever will. As proven. The fact that you continually have to make up stories about people just proves your inadequacy. You are a f***ing lying piece of shit. As proven. Now, f*** off you brainless, Dunning-Kruger affected twat.
rrwillsj
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2018
Uhh granny, you might want to recheck your facts om Pop I. {p[ II & Pop III star's ages.

The satellite galaxies being discovered, that surround the major galaxies? Mostly consist of older, Pop III low-metallic stars from the Primordial Age of the Early Universe.

When, what would become the major galaxies began to amalgamate. In basic Newtonian reaction. A whole lot of primitive stellar objects were ejected from the chaotic furball of ruthless galactic gravitational threshing machine.

Eventually, over billions of years, some of those rejects became loosely organized into primitive dwarf galaxies. A lot of their contemporaries never even achieved that much & just hobo around the cosmos.

A significant demograph of stellar objects in the Major galaxies have evolved into the Pop II & then Pop I high-metallic stellar stages.

- cont'd -
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (8) Nov 30, 2018
Nope, Arp was wrong and has been shown to be wrong. He is not a credible source.

I'm sure you have an explanation of these cosmic sausages? It's a straight forward observation, and no he is not wrong.
rrwillsj
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 30, 2018
- cont'd -
granny, if your speculation that the dwarf galaxies are recent birthings popped out of the galactic uterus? Then the stars observed in the satellites should also consist of Pop I & II stars. Sorry to have to be the one to break it to you... They mostly don't.

The good news out of this? Over the next few hundred billion years, much of that primordial debris will be pulled back into the Major Galaxies. To be voraciously processed & consumed. The materials ripped from those dying ancients will finally undergo transmutation. Resulting in new stars as candles on the Milkomeda trillion-year birthday cake!

Another interesting point I am observing. None of the woo merchants, their alleged "scientific" sources or their sockpuppets gobbling the gibberish? None of them have access to major telescopes or other advanced technology.

Instead, they plagiarize the work of real scientists and run it through the woo-grinder into an incoherent slew of utter nonsense.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 30, 2018
Nope, Arp was wrong and has been shown to be wrong. He is not a credible source.

I'm sure you have an explanation of these cosmic sausages? It's a straight forward observation, and no he is not wrong.


Not up to me to explain them. That is an unpublished piece. It is of no relevance. If he wasn't prepared to publish it in a peer-reviewed journal, what does that tell you?

https://scholar.g...mp;btnG=
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Nov 30, 2018
Doppler shift
I can take a torch, strap it to the back of a spacecraft and observe the light as the s/c moves away from me It will be redshited If I strap it to the front, and the s/c is coming towards me it'll be blueshifted

that's Doppler Effect, not the same thing as gravitational shift.
If you took a ride along with your torch you would never OBSERVE the light from that torch change frequency it would ALWAYS remain the same because there is no Doppler Effect relative to position
Such is not the case if you were riding an EM Wave through the gravity field of a gravitating body the frequency shift is real to the wavelength it is not a Doppler Effect frequency shift.
They didn't teach you this in your Anthropology course at Uni of Auckland NZ did they

In the space shuttle astronauts cannot see Doppler shift
Light is nor effected by the speed of the emitter
astronauts observes light coming towards red shifted
are blue shifting by moving towards light
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2018
In gravitationally shifted light

The Shapley Super cluster
A group of galaxies slowly
Increasing its influence
becoming famous in name
as the Great Attracter
as it is now attracting our Milkyway
giving rise to even more witch's brew
as being known as the Great Repeller
in this fantastical galactical world
of galaxy clusters and super clusters
a little obscured detail lie's below the surface
as the Milkyway is inexorably attracted
to the Shapley super cluster
the gravitationally shifted light
that we observe the Shapley super cluster
as it passes through our Milkyway
it is gravitationally blue shifted
with the immensity of the Milkyway's gravity
so even as we are attracted to Shapley
even as Shapley recedes at velocity
we do not see the true redshift of Shapley's light
as Shapley and our Milkyway
has hidden its redshift
in competing gravitational forces
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 30, 2018
We are not talking about anybody travelling with it, we are talking about the wavelength increasing as light travels away from an observer.
......no, YOU are the one talking about Doppler shift which an observational shift in the wavelength/frequency of the incident EM Wave depending on the approach of an EM Wave to an OBSERVER.

Just because an OBSERVER detects a wavelength shift of an approaching or receding EM Wave, does not mean THAT WAVE has suddenly changed the content of it's energy just because the OBSERVER decided to look at it.

Maybe you could give us your best anthropological explanation how an incident EM Wave approaching from 10 billion light years away can change Energy (wavelength) just because you happened to look at it?

Maybe you'd better figure out what an incident EM Wave is.

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 30, 2018
Maybe you'd better figure out what an incident EM Wave is.


Maybe you should read some science. Doppler is an EFFECT. Redshift (or blueshift) is the result. I don't care about the rest frame wavelength, I am talking about REDSHIFT. It is a real effect, and allows us to know whether or not an object is moving away from, or towards us.
Your problem is that you have been arguing against yourself. You say BHs don't exist, yet you accept the reality of gravitational redshift. So, what is causing that around Sgr A*, as S2 makes closest approach to it?

http://curious.as...advanced
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 30, 2018
Your problem is that you have been arguing against yourself. You say BHs don't exist, yet you accept the reality of gravitational redshift. So, what is causing that around Sgr A*, as S2 makes closest approach to it?


Benji possibly taking time to extract its foot from its mouth, and its brains from its arse?

Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Nov 30, 2018
The thing to understand about @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist is that it always looks for a lie it can tell to "win." This is its trolling technique. Break this and you break its cred.

But always remember that it will never acknowledge it; it has no integrity and no pride and will always lie. You can see this from its buttbuddies @104LiarRC and Trump. Mafia dons and other criminals act the same way.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 30, 2018
Only one thing causes REDSHIFT, the change in FREQUENCY of an electro-magnetic wave from higher to lower frequency, it occurs ONLY as it exits the vicinity of a gravitating body.


And, as shown, that is BS. Doppler causes redshift, as does the expansion of space. However, we agree that gravity causes redshift, as predicted by Einstein, and confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment. So, what is the massive gravitational object known as Sgr A*?

Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 30, 2018
Doppler is an EFFECT


.....and you forgot the rest, it is an OBSERVATIONAL EFFECT only, it is not an "EFFECT" that changes the actual energy content (wavelength) of the Incident Photon just because you happened by chance to look at it at a specific moment in time.

I know jonesy, nuclear physics is tough for Anthropologists like you & old technology computer programmers like schneibo. Two old technology novices still looking for a claim to fame.

And, as shown, that is BS. Doppler causes redshift, as does the expansion of space.
....that is the Tired Light Theory concocted by Zany Zwicky.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 30, 2018
....and you forgot the rest, it is an OBSERVATIONAL EFFECT only, it is not an "EFFECT" that changes the actual energy content (wavelength) of the Incident Photon just because you happened by chance to look at it at a specific moment in time.


I never said it was, you cretin. I said it causes redshift. And it does. As observed. As does cosmological redshift. Due to the expansion of space. As does a massive gravitational body. Such as the SMBH known as Sgr A*. As shown. You lost. Bye bye.

Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 30, 2018
And what exactly is the *cause* of the optical Doppler effect?

Hmmmm, going with Special Relativity Theory. You know, Einstein and stuff. And you know, like, not gravity and stuff. Gravity is General Relativity Theory. SRT doesn't talk about it.

You were the one who was stressing "OBSERVATIONS[sic]." Are you now repudiating them?

@Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist fails and flails again.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Nov 30, 2018
....and you forgot the rest, it is an OBSERVATIONAL EFFECT only, it is not an "EFFECT" that changes the actual energy content (wavelength) of the Incident Photon just because you happened by chance to look at it at a specific moment in time.
I never said it was, you cretin. I said it causes redshift. And it does. As observed. As does cosmological redshift. Due to the expansion of space. As does a massive gravitational body. Such as the SMBH known as Sgr A*. As shown. You lost. Bye bye.
@Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist has stuck its foot into another hole. "Actual energy content" only applies in a single frame and those that can be transformed into it directly by Galilean transforms. In different Lorentz and Einstein transforms, which apply to frames with different velocities, and frames with different gravity, respectively, the energy isn't the same in different frames.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 30, 2018

And, as shown, that is BS. Doppler causes redshift, as does the expansion of space. [/q
..that is the Tired Light Theory concocted by Zany Zwicky.


No, it is not.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Nov 30, 2018
Folks may note that this doesn't seem to support energy conservation.

The thing is, energy conservation only makes sense in a single frame and all frames that are equivalent under *Galilean* transforms. Lorentz transforms make it apparent that the locally and globally perceived energy/mass is different in different frames of reference, and Einstein transforms that gravity fields also change locally vs. globally perceived energy.

This is probably a pretty interesting conversation if someone wants to learn some relativity.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 30, 2018
It is good to see that Benji the Janitor dismisses tired light theories, and therefore agrees with cosmological redshift. In other words, he agrees that the universe is expanding. Or does he? Methinks the loon doesn't know what he thinks. Due to being completely bloody clueless in the relevant science.
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2018
Is This True
Benni> Just because an OBSERVER detects a wavelength shift of an approaching or receding EM Wave, does not mean THAT WAVE has suddenly changed the content of it's energy just because the OBSERVER decided to look at it.

Maybe you could give us your best anthropological explanation how an incident EM Wave approaching from 10 billion light years away can change Energy (wavelength) just because you happened to look at it

This is a good one Benni
"THAT WAVE has suddenly changed the content of it's energy just because the OBSERVER decided to look at it"
I am going round the house seeing all these wave-shifts and I am getting checks from the electric board
from all the energy the house is inputting into the national grid

Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 30, 2018
@Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist hasn't figured out that Lorentz and Einstein transforms are different.

Janitor college, no doubt. Handle on side of mop bucket attachment. After sweeping toilet, place mop in attachment and pull handle. Mop next toilet.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 30, 2018
@granny totally misses the fact that energy conservation is only valid in a consistent frame.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 30, 2018
I am going round the house seeing all these wave-shifts and I am getting checks from the electric board
from all the energy the house is inputting into the national grid


You are in Yorkshire. Just go outside and listen to the police sirens as they chase sheep molesters. That should give you the idea.

jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 30, 2018
I am going round the house seeing all these wave-shifts and I am getting checks from the electric board
from all the energy the house is inputting into the national grid


You are in Yorkshire. Just go outside and listen to the police sirens as they chase sheep molesters. That should give you the idea.



P.S. If the Doppler shift indicates that the police cars are coming towards you, run like f***!
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 30, 2018
@Da Schneib.
The thing to understand about @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist is that it always looks for a lie it can tell to "win." This is its trolling technique. Break this and you break its cred.

But always remember that it will never acknowledge it; it has no integrity and no pride and will always lie. You can see this from its buttbuddies @104LiarRC and Trump. Mafia dons and other criminals act the same way.
What next, DS, are you going to associate me with Hitler and Nazis? Why do you do this to yourself, DS? You just made ANOTHER BLUNDER at....

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

...wherein your own misconstruing has even @jonesdave perplexed!

DS, take a break; you seem 'stuck' in a world of your own making, based on mis-construing, mis-attributing and mis-associating me and my (actual) posts. Good luck.
granville583762
3 / 5 (4) Nov 30, 2018
RealityCheck

One day RC, we will say welcome back
In the meantime
Reading yours and DS's transcripts, as your latest RealityCheck, is the pits
RealityCheck, yourself and DS are two peas in a pod
will get on like a house on fire
under your bridge together
in the mean time and for the foreseeable future
good luck with your venture together under your bridge

p.s. RealityCheck, your latest comment has gone to far, as millions of souls in heaven bear witness!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Nov 30, 2018
@granville583762.
p.s. RealityCheck, your latest comment has gone to far, as millions of souls in heaven bear witness!
Can you please point out which post of mine you are referring to, mate? Thanks. :)
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 30, 2018
@granville583762.
yourself and DS are two peas in a pod
...
...
good luck with your venture together under your bridge


Just for your info, granville, I have been defending against, exposing and neutralizing individual trolls and gangs of trolls under their bridges since 2005. By necessity that involves venturing into dangerous troll territory and under their bridges. The task is hard, not very glamorous, and at times 'dirty in kind' in self-defense; but someone had to do it, if we are not to be overrun and overruled by trolls using 'Bot 5 gang' protection racket coercion and lies to lead forum 'newbies' and younger readers astray and eventually under their troll-gang bridge. :)
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 30, 2018
As does cosmological redshift. Due to the expansion of space.


Tell us that you've come across with a way to FALSIFY the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, ENTROPY.

therefore agrees with cosmological redshift. In other words, he agrees that the universe is expanding


I have never contemplated a methodology that FALSIFIES the 2nd Law of Thermodynamic, ENTROPY.

You see jonesy & schneibo, because neither of you ever sat in a classroom where Thermodynamics was taught, neither of you will ever comprehend this Immutable Law of Physics, that ENTROPY cannot exist but what the boundaries for the Distribution of Energy be FIXED. Therefore the Universe is not expanding, this of course in stark contrast to the Pop-Cosmology Fantasy that ENTROPY & DARK ENERGY can co-exist within the same parameters.

And because the Universe CANNOT EXPAND as dictated by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Doppler redshifting due to expansion of space cannot exist. Or can you FALSIFY entropy.?

Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 30, 2018
Reading yours and DS's transcripts, as your latest RealityCheck, is the pits
RealityCheck, yourself and DS are two peas in a pod


For sure, the psycho-babble that has gone on between the two of them leaves all their posts practically unreadable, so why bother?
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Nov 30, 2018
You just made ANOTHER BLUNDER at....

https://phys.org/...tar.html
Perhaps you, too, should have actually read the article. @Jones will figure it out pretty quick. Likely be embarrassed, but you won't be. Nor will you admit you just lied again.

As far as associating you, when you use the same Twitter memes Trump uses, it's kinda obvious.

So, lie much, @105LiarRC? Just askin'.

SAD. /sarcasm
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 01, 2018
You see jonesy & schneibo, because neither of you ever sat in a classroom where Thermodynamics was taught,


Well, you certainly haven't, you cretin. Otherwise you wouldn't be so thick. Eh? Find me a scientist that agrees with your crap, yes?

Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2018
No nuclear engineer ever sat through school and thinks electronics engineers don't have to take thermodynamics.

A janitor might though. They only get Mop Squeezing 101.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 01, 2018
@Da Schneib.
You just made ANOTHER BLUNDER at....

https://phys.org/...tar.html]https://phys.org/...tar.html[/url]
Perhaps you, too, should have actually read the article. @Jones will figure it out pretty quick. Likely be embarrassed, but you won't be. Nor will you admit you just lied again.

As far as associating you, when you use the same Twitter memes Trump uses, it's kinda obvious.

So, lie much, @105LiarRC? Just askin'.

SAD. /sarcasm
As everyone (except you) can see, DS, my comment in that thread was directly addressing the GENERAL SIDE-argument between @jonesdave and @theredpill regarding supermassive BLACK HOLES in GALAXY CORES.

It was NOT INTENDED to be about that article's subject matter, as you mistakenly ASSUMED because YOU WON'T READ and understand properly in CONTEXT. So your asinine snide remark in that thread...

https://phys.org/...tar.html]https://phys.org/...tar.html[/url]

...was yet ONE MORE of your litany of BLUNDERS, DS.

Learn.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 01, 2018
@Benni.
Reading yours and DS's transcripts, as your latest RealityCheck, is the pits
RealityCheck, yourself and DS are two peas in a pod


For sure, the psycho-babble that has gone on between the two of them leaves all their posts practically unreadable, so why bother?
You're exhibiting symptoms of a serious case of "Pot calling Kettle black". As for babble; the interminable 'mirror-idiot-exchange' posts between you and jonesy is painfully "practically unreadable" to the max, mate. By the way, Benni, your transparent attempts at trying to ride on others' coattails to curry some semblance of 'legitimacy and support' for your own baits and babbles against jonesy and DS is become tiresome to more than just myself. Learn more; and then try to stand on your own two feet instead of playing games like the 'Bot 5 gang' trolls do....else you're just yet another troll on the obverse side of the same troll 'badge' worn by the 'Bot 5 gang' here. Good luck. :)
granville583762
5 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2018
The ugly troll's bridge

RealityCheck
.....................As my comment was directly under yours
it would be thought obvious
concerning all the millions of innocent souls in heaven
the historical nature of your comment
putting all these points in context
your actual particular comment RealityCheck
if you still do not know which comment is being referred to
maybe you need more quiet reflection under your bridge
but as under your bridge, quiet reflection is coming to be a rarity
as several prominent trollian's are making their presence felt
and they are becoming a nuisance as they are not making comments of their own
they appear on the latest comments and make snarky trollian remarks
The saying do not feed the trollian's
They are feeding of our very comments RealityCheck!
granville583762
5 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2018
The ugly troll's bridge

As the trollians multipy
under their bridge's
playing in the babbling streams
jocularising in trollian
as trolls oft in their strange vocabulary vocalise
as they make their fun and mischief
to innocents who tread unawares
over their trollian bridge
as they stop and admire the view
and marvel at the scenic view
as writers get their inspiration
these trollians under foot
under their bridge
make fun
make snarky remarks
and ruin textural scripting
just as several prominent trollians
as this week bears witness
these trollians being illiterate
cannot make
any comments of their own
so have their evil fun
as innocent commentator
make their comments
these trollians
make rude words
make abusive comments
as trollians do
as the saying goes
do not feed the trolls
These trolls are feeding of our very comments!
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 01, 2018
You see jonesy & schneibo, because neither of you ever sat in a classroom where Thermodynamics was taught,


Well, you certainly haven't, Otherwise you wouldn't be so thick. Eh? Find me a scientist that agrees with your crap, yes?


Yes, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, ENTROPY,

Not a single credible scientist would disagree with me that this immutable law pf physics requires a FIXED CLOSED BOUNDARY, it's in the math, go take a look in WikiPedia sometime when you're not too busy swooning over what words to use in your next name calling rant.

It is ONLY in the fantasyland of Pop-Cosmology, where you live, that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is NEVER a topic brought up for discussion, EVER, and the reason being the fantasy of Dark Energy postulating an endless expansion of a Universe with NO BOUNDARY.

The big obstacle Pop-Cosmology has is that it can't FALSIFY the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, but how would you as an Anthropologist know that?
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2018
No nuclear engineer ever sat through school and thinks electronics engineers don't have to take thermodynamics.


Well in fact I do have an Electrical Engineering degree & I took Thermodynamics, two semesters of it but specifically in application for the minor in Nuclear Engineering.

Odd about you schneibo, lately you've been getting off your previous narrative about having an educational background in computer programming & now have started a new narrative about yourself, trying to lead the chatroom into believing you were an electrical engineer before you retired. But you have NEVER used the language of one who has such professional experience, it has all been Copy & Paste stuff directly from WikiPedia that you try passing off as coming from a storehouse of education for which you never sat in a classroom.

Oh, by the way, from time to time I post electronic circuit solution responses over on the Forum, not under Benni of course.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 01, 2018
> RC:

By the way, Benni, your transparent attempts at trying to ride on others' coattails to curry some semblance of 'legitimacy and support
......then for sure the "coattails" couldn't be yours, you don't have any, but let me think here for a minute,.........hmmmmm, nope, can't think of anyone else, maybe you can come up with a moniker as an example? Let me guess, Ira?

jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Dec 01, 2018
Well in fact I do have an Electrical Engineering degree & I took Thermodynamics, two semesters of it but specifically in application for the minor in Nuclear Engineering.


And still don't know what a half-life is.

jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2018
The big obstacle Pop-Cosmology has is that it can't FALSIFY the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, but how would you as an Anthropologist know that?


You are as thick as pigsh!t, as proven. Not a single scientist would agree with you that the universe cannot expand due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If you believe otherwise, then link me to where they have said this. And I didn't study anthropology, you f***ing lying cretin. That is how I happen to know more about physics than you. What is a half-life?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Dec 01, 2018
@benji
I do have an Electrical Engineering degree & I took Thermodynamics, two semesters of it but specifically in application for the minor in Nuclear Engineering
1- Rule 37
2- blatantly false claim by benji

direct evidence

doesn't know maths
http://phys.org/n...ood.html

http://phys.org/n...s_1.html

http://phys.org/n...ity.html

http://phys.org/n...and.html

https://phys.org/...ing.html

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

(more links upon request)

doesn't know thermodynamics
https://phys.org/...ial.html

plagiarist
http://phys.org/n...dio.html

the conclusion from evidence:
Benni is a liar, fraud and troll or in jail
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2018
Not a single scientist would agree with you that the universe cannot expand due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics


Most scientists with a background in Calculus based studies in fact do agree with the fact that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics cannot be established in an ambient for which the boundaries are NOT FIXED, that is closed & IMMOVABLE.

The problem in your fantasyland of Pop-Cosmology is that by making everything INFINITE you never need to have any comprehension of Calculus leading to REAL math solutions, such as computations for ENTROPY.

At the level of scientific endeavor, Pop-Cosmology is only one rung on the ladder right above Astrology, it's also the reason this chatroom is so heavily populated by the foul mouthed likes of YOU, a flunky anthropologist who has never seen a Differential Equation he could solve, you wouldn't even recognize one.
granville583762
5 / 5 (1) Dec 01, 2018
Incorporating MS Word formula
Benni> At the level of scientific endeavor, Pop-Cosmology is only one rung on the ladder right above Astrology, it's also the reason this chatroom is so heavily populated by the foul mouthed likes of YOU, a flunky anthropologist who has never seen a Differential Equation he could solve, you wouldn't even recognize one.dy

Benni
For those who are proficient in differential calculus
how easy in the text box
where we enter our comments
incorporating
a version of ms words formula input box
on this existing webpage
it is after all
phys.org
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2018
@Lenni_The_LIar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist has been presented with DEs and couldn't solve them. DEs specifically for the Schwarzschild metric.

Can't even tell what they mean.

Lying again.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Dec 01, 2018
And the useless prick is back to lying again, as he has no science to back him up. If I studied anthropology (which I have never claimed, you lying cnut), then how come I keep having to correct your appalling f*** ups in physics? The 2nd Law is not broken by space expanding, and not a single scientist is saying otherwise. What is a half-life, tosser? What causes gravitational redshift around Sgr A*?
Cretin.

https://www.physl...e261.cfm
https://en.wikipe...universe

jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2018
Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists
https://rense.com...bbng.htm


Forgot to post this;

http://prepostero...ted.html
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Dec 01, 2018
Are people actually posting links to Rense here? I figured they had more pride. Rense will say anything to get more listeners.

Next they'll be posting Edgar Cayce from 1945.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Dec 01, 2018
Are people actually posting links to Rense here? I figured they had more pride. Rense will say anything to get more listeners.

Next they'll be posting Edgar Cayce from 1945.


Lol. I had to Google that. Kind of a latter day American version of Psychic Sally;

https://en.wikipe...psychic)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Dec 01, 2018
I had a professor in college who insisted on pushing Cayce; I got a private conference and told him I'd reveal he was teaching Cayce instead of digital electronic theory to the accreditation authorities. He hated me but had no choice but to give me an A. I made sure not to take another class with him.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2018
I had a professor in college who insisted on pushing Cayce; I got a private conference and told him I'd reveal he was teaching Cayce instead of digital electronic theory to the accreditation authorities. He hated me but had no choice but to give me an A. I made sure not to take another class with him.


Believe it or not, while I was in High School in NZ, our physics teacher, who was also a Christian, somehow managed to mention that Jesus fasted for forty days and forty nights! I was strapped for laughing out loud! This is in a country where there is no religious education in school, effectively (unlike Britain). My father went ballistic, and I was issued an apology. Bit late. Dad wanted him sacked. He never mentioned Jeebus in class again.

EDIT;
Mr. Terry Jones, if you are still alive, and reading this, you are a cnut.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2018
@Benni.
By the way, Benni, your transparent attempts at trying to ride on others' coattails to curry some semblance of 'legitimacy and support
...then for sure the "coattails" couldn't be yours, you don't have any, but let me think here for a minute,.hmmmmm, nope, can't think of anyone else, maybe you can come up with a moniker as an example? Let me guess, Ira?
Please don't be so intentionally obtuse. You and everyone here sees/knows perfectly well that continuing to bait @jonesy/DS et al (with your already falsified "empty barycenter in lieu of gravitationally active 'BH' body" gag) has reached its use-by-date insofar as your long-admitted "self-entertainment" agenda is concerned. That 'gag' has long passed beyond the tiresome stage. Ok? Oh, and your attempts to quote/allude to, or otherwise 'co-opt and exploit', my critiques of others' erroneous claims, in order to 'set up' your further tiresome baiting comments @ same, have also passed their use-by-date. :)
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Dec 01, 2018
then how come I keep having to correct your appalling f*** ups in physics? The 2nd Law is not broken by space expanding, and not a single scientist is saying otherwise.


OK, then it must easy to FALSIFY, so get off the name calling rants & do it:
"Not a single credible scientist would disagree with me that this immutable law pf physics requires a FIXED CLOSED BOUNDARY, it's in the math


jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2018
then how come I keep having to correct your appalling f*** ups in physics? The 2nd Law is not broken by space expanding, and not a single scientist is saying otherwise.


OK, then it must easy to FALSIFY, so get off the name calling rants & do it:
"Not a single credible scientist would disagree with me that this immutable law pf physics requires a FIXED CLOSED BOUNDARY, it's in the math




Sorry? Try that in English and I might reply. Preferably with some actual evidence from the scientific literature to back up whatever woo you are pushing.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2018
@Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist_Who_Calls_People_Gay has failed to note that we can't see a, quote, FIXED CLOSED BOUNDARY[sic] out there in the universe. And by claiming there is one has assumed the burden of proof.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Dec 02, 2018

Not a single credible scientist would disagree with me that ENTROPY as an immutable law pf physics requires a FIXED CLOSED BOUNDARY, it's in the math,

Sorry? Try that in English and I might reply. Preferably with some actual evidence from the scientific literature to back up


...............so here are some FIXED facts from YOUR favorite source

Function of state:

"a quantity of gas at a particular temperature and pressure has its state fixed by those values and thus has a specific volume that is determined by those values. As another instance, a system composed of a pure substance of a single phase at a particular uniform temperature and pressure is determined (and is thus a particular state) and is at not only a particular volume but also at a particular entropy."

https://en.wikipe.../Entropy
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 02, 2018
so here are some FIXED facts from YOUR favorite source


Nope, I want a real scientist specifically saying that the observed expansion of space violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I am not interested in your flawed interpretations. You know sh!t.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Dec 02, 2018
so here are some FIXED facts from YOUR favorite source


Nope, I want a real scientist specifically saying that the observed expansion of space violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I am not interested in your flawed interpretations. You know sh!t.


.....then go buy a textbook, that's the source all of US experts learned it from in college, otherwise you won't believe anything ANYBODY says. But you won't buy a textbook because the math is so far beyond your education in Anthropology that you'd be lost starting on page one.

Face it jonesy, you're doomed to live out the remains of your life within the fantasyland of Pop-Cosmology because you have never had the intellectual capacity to function within a professional culture requiring the skills of high level proficiency in Calculus, not to speak of Differential Equations. So, go buy the textbook & you can prove to yourself what I mean by this if you don't believe me.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 02, 2018
.....then go buy a textbook, that's the source all of US experts learned it from in college, otherwise you won't believe anything ANYBODY says. But you won't buy a textbook because the math is so far beyond your education in Anthropology that you'd be lost starting on page one.


So there are no scientists saying that the observed expansion of space breaks the 2nd law? Just as I thought. You lied. It is your belief, and not that of anybody intelligent. That's all we wanted to know.

skills of high level proficiency in Calculus, not to speak of Differential Equations


Well, I don't know why you bring that up, as I have shown myself to be mathematically superior to you, as have a number of other posters. You cannot do DEs, as proven. You cannot even solve basic equations. As proven. You are a liar, and a fraud, who suffer's from D-K syndrome. What is a half-life?

Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 02, 2018
then go buy a textbook, that's the source all of US experts learned it from in college, otherwise you won't believe anything ANYBODY says. But you won't buy a textbook because the math is so far beyond your education in Anthropology you'd be lost starting on page one.


So there are no scientists saying that the observed expansion of space breaks the 2nd law?


skills of high level proficiency in Calculus, not to speak of Differential Equations
Well, I don't know why you bring that up, as I have shown myself to be mathematically superior to you, as have a number of other posters.


Well then, why have you never taken a Thermodynamics course whereby you could at least compete on an equal level of science with those of us who have?

The fact you demand "a real scientist specifically saying" & quoting things that are clearly written in a textbook makes it self-evident that you never studied thermodynamics in the first place. Keep stepping in it.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 02, 2018
Well then, why have you never taken a Thermodynamics course whereby you could at least compete on an equal level of science with those of us who have?


Well if you have, then you failed to understand it. Which is why not a single scientist, in a journal, textbook, or anywhere else, agrees with you, and why you continue to lie, and fail to find any support for your simple misunderstanding. If the expansion of space could be shown to be impossible due to breaking that law, it would be huge news, and be the subject of much debate in the scientific literature. It isn't. Proving that you just made it up.

https://www.physl...e261.cfm

https://en.wikipe...universe

https://arxiv.org...03.09241

https://kaisersci...ynamics/

The argument saying BB breaks the 2nd law, appears to be a creationist one. Outed.

jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 02, 2018
things that are clearly written in a textbook


Liar. Show me this textbook that says an expanding universe is forbidden due to the 2nd law, and I'll buy it (if I can't get it through other means). Heck, Google books might even have it. Just give me the title of the book.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Dec 02, 2018
Cosmological horizons and the generalised second law of thermodynamics
Davies, P. C. W.
http://iopscience...006/meta

The author investigates the change in event-horizon area in cosmological models that depart slightly from de Sitter space. If the gravitational source is a perfect inviscid fluid satisfying the dominant energy condition, the area is proved to be non-decreasing. If the fluid is viscous, the area can decrease, but the attendant generation of entropy ensures that the generalised second law of thermodynamics remains unviolated.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Dec 02, 2018
Entropy Generation and the Survival of Protogalaxies in an Expanding Universe
Weinberg, S.
http://adsabs.har...68..175W

https://en.wikipe...Weinberg
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Dec 02, 2018
Entropy in an Expanding Universe
Frautschi, S.
http://www.inform...1982.pdf
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Dec 02, 2018
I could go on, but I'll wait for Benni to post something from the literature to counter the above. Which is not going to happen, of course. Because he made it up.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Dec 02, 2018
The primary flaw in @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist_Who_Calls_People_Gay's argument is that there doesn't appear to be any edge of the universe. This is fatal; if there is no edge, then classical entropy cannot apply. Good job, @Jones, in pointing out that there is considerable scientific literature that deals with entropy and the universe; it's worthwhile I think to cover the generalized law of entropy mentioned in your P. C. W. Davies paper. Not that @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist_Who_Calls_People_Gay will understand it, but others might gain some understanding.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 02, 2018
@Jones, in pointing out that there is considerable scientific literature that deals with entropy and the universe


Textbooks, rather than your selective Pop-Cosmology acolytes you've been quoting, have always been the source those of us working as Professional Engineers depend on.

You ddn't like the online WikiPedia reference? Your online P. C. W. Davies paper is no better, just another online reference that supports the selective fantasies of Pop-Cosmology, it's even worse source than Wiki.
Ojorf
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 03, 2018
Benni:
Textbooks, rather than your selective Pop-Cosmology acolytes you've been quoting, have always been the source those of us working as Professional Engineers depend on.


But you've never read a textbook! That is clear from the "scientific" (LOL) content of your comments.

Also, if you had, it would be easy for you supply a reference form your textbook to show how an expanding universe violates thermodynamics.
Like everything anyone else has ever asked you to justify, you fail.
What can you do?
Can't supply a reference.
Can't even supply a rational argument.
Can't understand physics, chemistry, biology.
Can't start a thread in a forum.
Can repeatedly write "Pop-Cosmology" as a reply to any question, there is that at least - ha ha...
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 03, 2018
Benni:

Textbooks, rather than your selective Pop-Cosmology acolytes you've been quoting, have always been the source those of us working as Professional Engineers depend on.


But you've never read a textbook! That is clear from the "scientific" (LOL) content of your comments.

Also, if you had, it would be easy for you supply a reference form your textbook to show how an expanding universe violates thermodynamics.
Like everything anyone else has ever asked you to justify, you fail.
What can you do?
Can't supply a reference.
Can't even supply a rational argument.
Can't understand physics, chemistry, biology.
Can't start a thread in a forum.
Can repeatedly write "Pop-Cosmology" as a reply to any question, there is that at least - ha ha...


.......and just more Pop-Cosmology.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 03, 2018
Benni:

Textbooks, rather than your selective Pop-Cosmology acolytes you've been quoting, have always been the source those of us working as Professional Engineers depend on.


But you've never read a textbook! That is clear from the "scientific" (LOL) content of your comments.

Also, if you had, it would be easy for you supply a reference form your textbook to show how an expanding universe violates thermodynamics.
Like everything anyone else has ever asked you to justify, you fail.
What can you do?
Can't supply a reference.
Can't even supply a rational argument.
Can't understand physics, chemistry, biology.
Can't start a thread in a forum.
Can repeatedly write "Pop-Cosmology" as a reply to any question, there is that at least - ha ha...


.......and just more Pop-Cosmology.


No - actual science, idiot. And you have none. As proven by your inability to provide any references for your lies.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 03, 2018
@Jones, in pointing out that there is considerable scientific literature that deals with entropy and the universe


Textbooks, rather than your selective Pop-Cosmology acolytes you've been quoting, have always been the source those of us working as Professional Engineers depend on.

You ddn't like the online WikiPedia reference? Your online P. C. W. Davies paper is no better, just another online reference that supports the selective fantasies of Pop-Cosmology, it's even worse source than Wiki.


Oh, there are plenty more. And none in favour of the lies that you are coming out with. And you cannot find a single piece of support for those lies, can you, woo boy? You are thick, that is your problem. A Dunning-Kruger afflicted, scientifically illiterate retard. And where is this textbook. Give us the name, or you are lying.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 03, 2018
Oh, there are plenty more.


Yes, they're called TEXTBOOKS, you just don't like them because there's nothing about Dark Energy in them & they're filled with Differential Equations & other Calculus far beyond your intellectual capacity.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Dec 03, 2018
@benji
they're filled with Differential Equations & other Calculus far beyond your intellectual capacity
and they're well beyond your "intellectual capacity" as *demonstrated* here on PO alone (disregarding your plagiarism for the moment)
http://phys.org/n...s_1.html

http://phys.org/n...ity.html

http://phys.org/n...and.html

http://phys.org/n...ood.html

https://phys.org/...ing.html

of course, you've also demonstrated an epic inability to comprehend basic math as well
http://phys.org/n...als.html

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 03, 2018
Oh, there are plenty more.


Yes, they're called TEXTBOOKS, you just don't like them because there's nothing about Dark Energy in them & they're filled with Differential Equations & other Calculus far beyond your intellectual capacity.


And simple maths is beyond your capability. As proven. And there are no textbooks saying that the expansion of space break the 2nd law of TD. You made that up. You lied. You have been caught out. Again. Pathetic creature.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Dec 03, 2018
Oh, there are plenty more.


Yes, they're called TEXTBOOKS, you just don't like them because there's nothing about Dark Energy in them & they're filled with Differential Equations & other Calculus far beyond your intellectual capacity.

...... there are no textbooks saying that the expansion of space break the 2nd law of TD. You made that up.
..........thermodynamic textbooks are not written with the intent of FALSIFYING someone's self-indulgent fantasies, you know, most of the stuff you as a Pop-Cosmology buff believe in.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 03, 2018
Oh, there are plenty more.


Yes, they're called TEXTBOOKS, you just don't like them because there's nothing about Dark Energy in them & they're filled with Differential Equations & other Calculus far beyond your intellectual capacity.

...... there are no textbooks saying that the expansion of space break the 2nd law of TD. You made that up.
..........thermodynamic textbooks are not written with the intent of FALSIFYING someone's self-indulgent fantasies, you know, most of the stuff you as a Pop-Cosmology buff believe in.


Cretin! Nobody is claiming anywhere that the expansion of space breaks the 2nd law. Nobody. Other than an uneducated f***wit on a comments section. Therefore we can safely ignore that. And, as if we need to remind you, you cannot do basic maths, let alone calculus. As proven. You are just a D-K afflicted liar.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 03, 2018
@Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist_Who_Calls_People_Gay lies again.

Show us at least an Amazon link to the textbooks you claim say that the expansion of the universe violates the 2LOT. Or admit (whether tacitly or openly) that you lied.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 03, 2018
Show us at least an Amazon link to the textbooks you claim say that the expansion of the universe violates the 2LOT. Or admit (whether tacitly or openly) that you lied.


.....thermodynamic textbooks don't discuss it,

Why should the authors bother with it, they're not into falsifying Pop-Cosmology fantasies?
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 03, 2018
Cosmology textbooks don't either, according to you. Meanwhile @Jones has provided multiple references to textbooks and papers that in fact do discuss the 2LOT and cosmology.

You're lying again, @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist_Who_Calls_People_Gay.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 03, 2018
Cosmology textbooks don't either, according to you. Meanwhile @Jones has provided multiple references to textbooks and papers that in fact do discuss the 2LOT and cosmology.
......position papers are not textbooks.

I have two thermodynamic textbooks from college, nothing in either of them about Dark Energy or expansion of Space. So why did they ignore what Pop Cosmology textbooks include? Must have something to do with SCIENCE.

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Dec 03, 2018
Thermodynamics textbooks won't discuss cosmology. Make up another one, @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist_Who_Calls_People_Gay.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Dec 03, 2018
Here's a challenge for you, @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist_Who_Calls_People_Gay: define "entropy" in a manner that works in an unbounded universe, since you haven't shown there is any edge to the universe.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 04, 2018
Cosmology textbooks don't either, according to you. Meanwhile @Jones has provided multiple references to textbooks and papers that in fact do discuss the 2LOT and cosmology.
......position papers are not textbooks.

I have two thermodynamic textbooks from college, nothing in either of them about Dark Energy or expansion of Space. So why did they ignore what Pop Cosmology textbooks include? Must have something to do with SCIENCE.



Stupid prick.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 04, 2018
Show us at least an Amazon link to the textbooks you claim say that the expansion of the universe violates the 2LOT. Or admit (whether tacitly or openly) that you lied.


.....thermodynamic textbooks don't discuss it,

Why should the authors bother with it, they're not into falsifying Pop-Cosmology fantasies?


Just link to them, you lying POS. I want the authors names, and I'll email them. Do it, you lying POS.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 04, 2018
define "entropy" in a manner that works in an unbounded universe,
......it can't be defined without a fixed boundary, Entropy can never be established within the premise of your Pop-Cosmology fantasy of "an unbounded universe". Try again rereading your favorite goto source:

Function of state:

"a quantity of gas at a particular temperature and pressure has its state fixed by those values and thus has a specific volume that is determined by those values. As another instance, a system composed of a pure substance of a single phase at a particular uniform temperature and pressure is determined (and is thus a particular state) and is at not only a particular volume but also at a particular entropy".

https://en.wikipe.../Entropy
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 04, 2018
define "entropy" in a manner that works in an unbounded universe,
......it can't be defined without a fixed boundary, Entropy can never be established within the premise of your Pop-Cosmology fantasy of "an unbounded universe". Try again rereading your favorite goto source:

Function of state:

"a quantity of gas at a particular temperature and pressure has its state fixed by those values and thus has a specific volume that is determined by those values. As another instance, a system composed of a pure substance of a single phase at a particular uniform temperature and pressure is determined (and is thus a particular state) and is at not only a particular volume but also at a particular entropy".

https://en.wikipe.../Entropy


Irrelevant. Who is saying the universe cannot expand due to the 2nd law? How many times do we have to ask? You made it up, you idiot.

Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 04, 2018
Show us at least an Amazon link to the textbooks you claim say that the expansion of the universe violates the 2LOT. Or admit (whether tacitly or openly) that you lied.


.....thermodynamic textbooks don't discuss it,

Why should the authors bother with it, they're not into falsifying Pop-Cosmology fantasies?


Just link to them, you lying POS. I want the authors names, and I'll email them. Do it, you lying POS.


Why bother, I'm not into the fantasyland of Pop-Cosmology. Two semesters of classroom studies in Thermodynamics is all I need to know better than you that your your Pop-Cosmology fantasies can never be realized.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 04, 2018
Thermodynamics is all I need to know better than you that your your Pop-Cosmology fantasies can never be realized.


Lying again, huh? You don't understand sh!t about any science, as proven. You are a lying idiot, and have nothing to back up your stupid claim. You are worthless.

jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 04, 2018
Two semesters of classroom studies in Thermodynamics is all I need to know better than you that your your Pop-Cosmology fantasies can never be realized.


Even if that were true, which is highly unlikely, do you think you are the only person to have studied thermodynamics, you dense twat? So how come you are the only one claiming that the expansion of the universe violates the 2nd law? Why is nobody else saying it? Because you made it up, you useless, lying idiot.

Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 04, 2018
So how come you are the only one claiming that the expansion of the universe violates the 2nd law? Why is nobody else saying it?


.......then FALSIFY it if you think this is just MY OPINION. Put up the Differential Equations that can establish ENTROPY without a fixed boundary.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 04, 2018
.......then FALSIFY it if you think this is just MY OPINION


Wrong way round, dickhead. You are the one making a claim that nobody else on the planet is making. It doesn't exist. You write it up. You prove it. Stop lying.
Ojorf
5 / 5 (4) Dec 04, 2018
Benni:
.....it can't be defined without a fixed boundary, Entropy can never be established within the premise of your Pop-Cosmology fantasy of "an unbounded universe".


What crap. Proving again you search the web for words without understanding the concept behind what is being discussed. Your link to wiki does not say what you think it does.
Missing the basics as usual.
Come on Benni, just admit it you don't know what homogeneous and isotropic means in relation to the universe and therefore don't believe in it.
Something for you to google.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Dec 04, 2018
Have been observing the interminable mutually insulting 'personal-animosity-engendered' exchanges between @Benni and @jonesdave re "Entropy" and "Universal Extent". So...

@Benni &
@jonesdave.

Guys, at the risk of getting dragged into your mutual loathe-fest, can you each answer the following question so that I can at least get a handle on the CONTEXT in which your respective 'arguments' and 'perspectives' are being put?

Question: Can you SPECIFICALLY state WHICH UNIVERSE Spatio-Temporal-Extent/Process do you actually 'have in mind' when attacking each other's perspective re the subject of 'Entropy-in-the-Universe-as-a-Whole'?

If you each could clarify that respective contextual basis for me, I (and any other interested readers of your exchange) can then better follow the respective arguments/logics being put by you two. Thanks.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Dec 04, 2018
@14YORapist105LiarRC, what's "which universe" mean? In case you didn't notice we're only in one, and finding more and more about it every day.

You don't get a blankey, you're not insane just narcissistic.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Dec 04, 2018
@Da Schneib.
@14YORapist105LiarRC, what's "which universe" mean? In case you didn't notice we're only in one, and finding more and more about it every day.

You don't get a blankey, you're not insane just narcissistic.
That's PRECISELY why I asked THEM to answer that question I asked of THEM, DS.

So as to get an idea of what THEY 'have in mind' regarding WHAT kind/extent etc of 'universal' CONTEXT they are framing their respective arguments in.

As I explained CLEARLY was my INTENT in ASKING THEM that question for THEIR respective answers to same, DS.

Now,DS....BUTT OUT; you insane ego-driven dunderhead troll; and LET @Benni and @jonesdave answer without you cluttering/derailing with your usual idiotic misconstruings-and-insults DEBACLE in this thread like in all those other threads. Thankyou!
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Dec 04, 2018
Question: Can you SPECIFICALLY state WHICH UNIVERSE Spatio-Temporal-Extent/Process do you actually 'have in mind'
......the one all of us are living in.

Benni
2 / 5 (4) Dec 04, 2018


Question: Can you SPECIFICALLY state WHICH UNIVERSE Spatio-Temporal-Extent/Process do you actually 'have in mind' ......the one all of us are living in....
rated by Captain Stumpy
1.0

Well , I guess the stub is living in a different one.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 04, 2018
@14YORapist105LiarRC, you butt out. It's a free Internet in case you didn't notice. And you're being arrogant again.
granville583762
5 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2018
reguarding state laws
Da Schneib> you butt out. It's a free Internet in case you didn't notice. And you're being arrogant again.

the lowest state reference appears to be sixteen, commonly eighteen is common state reference, a date as you know as early as 2003 with no break to this present day hath he spent by calc98 calculation makes sixteen year under his bridge Da Schneib
it is irrelevant why you are making this reference, twelve or fourteen are under sixteen which is still irrelevant as to what ever purpose you have in mind
as what possed you Da Schneib to even mention this never mind engaging discussion with your nemesis RealityCheck, Da Schneib only your good self knows the reason why
Da Schneib do not join RealityCheck under his bridge
leave RealityCheck to suffer the indignities of fin rot alone under his bridge
fin rot is not a pretty sight
just look at the state is has on RealityCheck
granville583762
5 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2018
The ugly troll's bridge
because Da Schneib, at any time of RealityCheck's pleasing RealityCheck can vacate this ugly troll's bridge
as though he was never there and change his whole demeanour and commentary style
but not so your good self Da Schneib as your bridge is not a free and open bridge as there is no troll that has been evicted to the grassy riverbank
Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 05, 2018
>granDy, notice the Pop-Cosmology crowd here does not want to have a rational discussion about ENTROPY except from a Cosmology textbook in lieu of a Thermodynamics textbook.
granville583762
5 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2018
Entropy back to pristine protons
>granDy, notice the Pop-Cosmology crowd here does not want to have a rational discussion about ENTROPY except from a Cosmology textbook in lieu of a Thermodynamics textbook.

As I'm just starting to follow this theme
entropy lives in two worlds
in a petrol engine the released heat is in the classical sense
where as in the vacuum
the heat in the form of molecules is recycled and converted back to its original constituents
pristine protons and electrons
these process's cannot occur in lecture halls and laboratories down on earth
all though this not entirely true
because electrons in thunder clouds in Bremsstrahlung radiation in synchrotron radiation produce gamma-rays as these are the process's leading to pristine protons
granville583762
5 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2018
The black art of commenting
what's "which universe" You don't get a blankey, you're not insane just narcissistic.

RealityCheck> That's PRECISELY why I asked THEM to answer that question I asked of THEM, DS.
So as to get an idea of what THEY 'have in mind' regarding WHAT kind/extent etc of 'universal' CONTEXT they are framing their respective arguments in.
As I explained CLEARLY was my INTENT in ASKING THEM that question for THEIR respective answers to same, DS.
LET @Benni and @jonesdave answer without you cluttering/derailing with your usual idiotic misconstruings-and-insults DEBACLE in this thread like in all those other threads. Thankyou!

An improvement
but
more
pruning is required
you do not have to name things specifically
as we all know who said what
Especially sensitive descritives RealityCheck
as in this world of ours
know one is right
and no one is wrong
its how you word it
Diplomatically RealityCheck
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Dec 07, 2018
@Da Schneib.
@14YORapist105LiarRC, you butt out.
You first, you lying-stupid mindless troll, DS. :)
It's a free Internet in case you didn't notice.

Yes, and I am the one been telling YOU and CS-bot-voting-troll-gang that for a long time now, DS. Glad you finally 'got' it, DS....almost. :)
And you're being arrogant again.
And you delude yourself that you are 'not' arrogant (and hypocritical-stupid with it), DS? Pull the other one, DS. Wise up, DS, you insensible trolling twerp. :)

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

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