Trans-galactic streamers feeding most luminous galaxy in the universe

November 15, 2018, National Radio Astronomy Observatory
ALMA image reveals how W2246-0526 is being fed by three companion galaxies through trans-galactic streamers of gas. The main galaxy and one of its companions are in the center. To the lower left is another companion and its large tidal tail that connects it to the main galaxy. The upper left concentration is the third such companion galaxy. Credit: ALMA (ESO/NAOJ/NRAO),T. Díaz-Santos et al.; S. Dagnello (NRAO/AUI/NSF)

The most luminous galaxy ever discovered is cannibalizing not one, not two, but at least three of its smaller neighbors, according to a new study published today (Nov. 15) in the journal Science and coauthored by scientists from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. The material that the galaxy is stealing from its neighbors is likely contributing to its uber-brightness, the study shows.

Discovered by NASA's space-based Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) in 2015, the galaxy, called WISE J224607.55-052634.9, is by no means the largest or most massive galaxy we know of, but it radiates at 350 trillion times the luminosity of the Sun. If all galaxies were positioned an equal distance from us, WISE J224607.55-052634.9 (or W2246-0526 for short) would be the brightest.

New observations using the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) in Chile reveal distinct trails of dust being pulled from three smaller galaxies into W2246-0526. The trails contain about as much material as the smaller galaxies themselves, and it's unclear whether those galaxies will escape their current fate or will be completely consumed by their luminous neighbor.

Most of W2246-0526's record-breaking luminosity comes not only from stars, but also a collection of hot gas and dust concentrated around the center of the galaxy. At the heart of this cloud is a supermassive black hole, recently determined to be 4 billion times more massive than the Sun. In the intense gravity, matter falls toward the black hole at high speeds, crashing together and heating up to millions of degrees, causing the material to shine with incredible brilliance. Galaxies that contain these types of luminous, black-hole-fueled structures are known as quasars.

Artist impression of W2246-0526, the most luminous known galaxy, and three companion galaxies. Credit: NRAO/AUI/NSF, S. Dagnello

Like any engine on Earth, W2246-0526's enormous energy output requires an equally high fuel input. In this case, that means gas and dust to form stars and to replenish the cloud around the central black hole. The new study shows that the amount of material being accreted by WJ2246-0526 from its neighbors is enough to replenish what is being consumed, thereby sustaining the galaxy's tremendous luminosity.

"It is possible that this feeding frenzy has already been ongoing for some time, and we expect the galactic feast to continue for at least a few hundred million years," said Tanio Diaz-Santos of the Universidad Diego Portales in Santiago, Chile, lead author of the study.

In the new study, the scientists used images from ALMA—a collection of individual radio antennas that work together as single telescope—to identify the dusty trails of material. The position of the accretion trails strongly suggests they contain material flowing between W2246-0526 and the other galaxies. In addition, the trails exhibit the right morphology—that is, the shape of the trails is consistent with how the material should flow if it is being pulled from one galaxy into another.

This kind of galactic cannibalism is not uncommon. Astronomers have previously observed galaxies merging with or accreting matter from their neighbors in the nearby universe. For example, the pair of galaxies collectively known as "the Mice" are so named because each has a long, thin tail of accreting material stretching away from it.

Composite image of W2246-0526 and its three companion galaxies shown in the ALMA portion of the image (orange). The blue background is an optical image of the same region from Hubble. Credit: ALMA (ESO/NAOJ/NRAO);T. Díaz-Santos et al.; N. Lira

W2246-0526 is the most distant galaxy ever found to be accreting material from multiple sources. The light from W2246-0526 took 12.4 billion years to reach us, so astronomers are seeing the object as it was when our universe was only a tenth of its present age of 13.8 billion years. At that distance, the streams of material falling into W2246-0526 are particularly faint and difficult to detect. The study relies on 2.5 hours of observation time using 40 of ALMA's 12-meter radio dishes.

"We knew from previous data that there were three companion galaxies, but there was no evidence of interactions between these neighbors and the central source," said Diaz-Santos. "We weren't looking for cannibalistic behavior and weren't expecting it, but this deep dive with the ALMA observatory makes it very clear."

W2246-0526 falls into a special category of particularly luminous quasars known as hot, dust-obscured galaxies, or Hot DOGs. Astronomers think that most quasars get some of their fuel from external sources. One possibility is that these objects receive a slow trickle of material from the space between galaxies. Another is that they feed in bursts by eating up other galaxies, which appears to be occurring with W2246-0526. It's unclear whether W2246-0526 is representative of other obscured quasars (those with their central engines obscured by thick clouds of dust) or if it is a special case.

"This galaxy may be one of a kind, because it's nearly twice as luminous as any other galaxy we've found with WISE and it formed very early in the universe's history," said Peter Eisenhardt, JPL project scientist for WISE and a coauthor on the new paper. "But we've discovered many other galaxies with WISE that are similar to this one: distant, dusty and thousands of times more luminous than typical galaxies are today. So with W2246-0526, we may be seeing what goes on during a key stage in the evolution of galaxies and obscured quasars."

This animation shows in blue the Hubble Space Telescopes Observations in the same area of the Sky as ALMA observations (in red and yellow) of W2246-0526. The big blue galaxy observed by Hubble is located much closer to Earth than the studied system, hence it is not part of this study. The animation clearly shows how ALMA can observe and reveal these stream-structures where the optics telescopes can’t. Credit: T. Diaz-Santos et al;/Hubble Space Telescope/N. Lira – ALMA (ESO/NAOJ/NRAO)

Ultimately, the galaxy's gluttony may only lead to self-destruction. Scientists hypothesize that obscured quasars that gather too much material around them end up vomiting gas and dust back out through the galaxy. This onslaught of material halts the formation of new stars, essentially pushing the galaxy into retirement while other galaxies continue to renew themselves with the birth of new stars.

A companion study about W2246-0526, published on Nov. 14 in the Astrophysical Journal, provided the mass measurement for the supermassive black hole at the galaxy's center—4 billion times the mass of the Sun. This mass is large, but the extreme luminosity of W2246-0526 was thought to require a supermassive black hole with a mass at least three times larger, according to the paper authors. Solving this apparent contradiction will require more observations.

Explore further: Extreme turbulence roiling 'most luminous galaxy' in the universe

More information: T. Díaz-Santos et al, The multiple merger assembly of a hyperluminous obscured quasar at redshift 4.6, Science (2018). DOI: 10.1126/science.aap7605

Chao-Wei Tsai et al. Super-Eddington Accretion in the WISE-selected Extremely Luminous Infrared Galaxy W2246−0526, The Astrophysical Journal (2018). DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae698 , iopscience.iop.org/article/10. … 847/1538-4357/aae698

Related Stories

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 ...

Hubble sees a galaxy with a glowing heart

July 14, 2014

(Phys.org) —This view, captured by the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, shows a nearby spiral galaxy known as NGC 1433. At about 32 million light-years from Earth, it is a type of very active galaxy known as a Seyfert galaxy—a ...

Recommended for you

InSight lander 'hears' Martian winds

December 7, 2018

NASA's Interior Exploration using Seismic Investigations, Geodesy and Heat Transport InSight lander, which touched down on Mars just 10 days ago, has provided the first ever "sounds" of Martian winds on the Red Planet. A ...

An exoplanet loses its atmosphere in the form of a tail

December 6, 2018

A new study led by scientists from the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias (IAC) reveals that the giant exoplanet WASP-69b carries a comet-like tail made up of helium particles escaping from its gravitational field and ...

257 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Spacebaby2001
5 / 5 (7) Nov 15, 2018
Epic!
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 15, 2018
Well I dont know, but this sounds a lot like that electroplasma stuff. Let's say it another way - if I didnt know better I would have to say that this sounds a lot like this electroplasma stuff. Cosmic power cords. Black gold. Texas tea. Concrete ponds in the backyard.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (19) Nov 15, 2018
Well I dont know, but this sounds a lot like that electroplasma stuff. Let's say it another way - if I didnt know better I would have to say that this sounds a lot like this electroplasma stuff. Cosmic power cords. Black gold. Texas tea. Concrete ponds in the backyard.


I'm bloody astonished that cd and his coterie of EU loons haven't crapped all over this already! 3......2......1.......
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (15) Nov 15, 2018
At the heart of this cloud is a supermassive black hole, recently determined to be 4 billion times more massive than the Sun.


Where's Benni the Burke? Surely he'll want a picture of this?!

Da Schneib
3.6 / 5 (10) Nov 15, 2018
@Blotto drinks the EUdiot kool-aid.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Nov 15, 2018
@Blotto drinks the EUdiot kool-aid.


I wasn't sure whether it was sarcasm or not, so refrained from rating!
Psilly_T
4 / 5 (4) Nov 15, 2018
is this sucker an elliptical? with a 4bil solar mass SMBH i'm assuming so but the article didn't clarify
MrBojangles
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 15, 2018
@Blotto drinks the EUdiot kool-aid.


I wasn't sure whether it was sarcasm or not, so refrained from rating!


It was sarcasm. I've seen Benni and his lackeys deride Otto in several articles where Otto didn't even contribute anything.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Nov 15, 2018
It was sarcasm. I've seen Benni and his lackeys deride Otto in several articles where Otto didn't even contribute anything.


Thought so. You never know with our colonial cousins. Irony/ sarcasm sometimes seem to pass them by:) Having said that, I wouldn't want to upset our North American cousins.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 15, 2018
The first photo is the ALMA image.
Second photo is an artist's impression
Third photo is a composite image

I am almost certain that Benni would favour the ALMA image at the top. Don't you think so, jonesybonesy?

At the heart of this cloud is a supermassive black hole, recently determined to be 4 billion times more massive than the Sun.


Where's Benni the Burke? Surely he'll want a picture of this?!

says jonesy
Anonym262722
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 15, 2018
Another proof of the highly energized state of Dynamic Universe at the optical distance of 12.4B ly or at intergalactic distances where standard cosmology fails. See DU literature since 1995 as detailed e,g, in side-by-side comparisons to explain 1998 SN1a data without any auxiliary or epicycle terms such as DE. The expansion rate C4(=C) of the total mass M in universe was then k=sqrt (13.8/1.4) times faster than today and the ticking (decay and other atomic processes) rate k^3 times faster than today.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (12) Nov 15, 2018
Galaxies in collision......quite a picture:

"This kind of galactic cannibalism is not uncommon. Astronomers have previously observed galaxies merging with or accreting matter from their neighbors in the nearby universe."

Naughty, these galaxies are. Don't they read the textbooks Pop-Cosmologists write on planet Earth? How can the Universe be expanding with "not uncommon" occurances like this happening all over the place?

The Riot Act needs to be read to these unwieldy creatures so they can finally get the message to knock it off with the collision stuff in an expanding universe. These things have had 14 billion years to get it right & damn it they keep screwing it up.

I nominate JONESDAVE as planet Earth's emissary to these rogue galaxies to knock it off & get in sync with our Pop-Cosmology science fiction writers. The message must not only be stern, but carry consequences, those consequences being that jonesy will pick a full moon night & start howling at them.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 15, 2018
>granDy.........I need you here to give my above post some poetic tenor, I tried but I'm sure you could rewrite it & do a better job.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (17) Nov 15, 2018
LOL! Tidal dusty bridges! Trans-galactic gas streamers...The plasma ignoramuses at it again with their pseudoscientific claptrap.

A "stream" of dusty plasma is undoubtedly an electric current, in fact it is unequivocal. And that quasar is likely nearby (relatively) as the red-shift is an inherent property of young galaxies, which quasars are in reality. One of these days the plasma ignoramuses should get a clue, but if history is any guide several more decades before they do. Unfortunately, long after jonesdumb and his ilk are dead and gone.
valeriy_polulyakh
2.2 / 5 (5) Nov 15, 2018
Normally astronomers ascribe these cases to colliding galaxies but I think they are galaxies diverging after creation.
https://www.acade...rvations
https://www.acade...ome_From
Anonym262722
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 15, 2018
The galaxies are diverging by spreading their energy momentum from the decelerating expansion direction toward its orthogonal 3-D space direction while balancing the local motion and global gravitational energy components. The total mass M in DU has existed from -infinity of contraction phase to the bounce T4=0 (BB of standard cosmology) of maximum motion and gravitational energy level to the beginning and end of + infinity of the present decelerating expansion stage as the energy level goes back to zero. This energy balance law connects the variable expansion speed C4 and local speed C of light in 3-D space to the expansion radius R4 (today 13.8B ly) and dynamic Newtonian time T4 (today 9.2B yrs) and its decelerating ticking rate F4. This makes the locally observable C to appear constant - fooling the starting points of GRT/QM by distorting the time and distance concepts needed in luminosity and other measures of SN1a, GW etc, data where GR fails at large optical distances.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (12) Nov 15, 2018

The most luminous galaxy ever discovered is cannibalizing not one, not two, but at least three of its smaller neighbors,


What I don't understand is why the article refers to the transference of Matter toward and into the largest Star from the 3 others as "Cannibalising" It seems quite silly to use such a term that denotes a form of violence and ugliness in human society,
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (12) Nov 15, 2018
Galaxies in collision......quite a picture:

"This kind of galactic cannibalism is not uncommon. Astronomers have previously observed galaxies merging with or accreting matter from their neighbors in the nearby universe."

Naughty, these galaxies are. Don't they read the textbooks Pop-Cosmologists write on planet Earth? How can...
The Riot Act needs to be read to these unwieldy creatures so they can finally get the message to knock it off with the collision stuff in an expanding universe. These things have had 14 billion years to get it right & damn it they keep screwing it up.

I nominate JONESDAVE as planet Earth's emissary to these rogue galaxies to knock it off & get in sync with our Pop-Cosmology science fiction writers. The message must not only be stern, but carry consequences, those consequences being that jonesy will pick a full moon night & start howling at them.
says Benni

And I second the nomination.
:)
Ojorf
3.8 / 5 (13) Nov 16, 2018
Says Benni, the cowardly Pop-anti-science troll:
Naughty, these galaxies are. Don't they read the textbooks Pop-Cosmologists write on planet Earth? How can the Universe be expanding with "not uncommon" occurances like this happening all over the place?


LOL, you should read a text book!

Naughty you, not understanding gravity and Relativity, never mind the expansion of space.
You really think everything should be flying away from each other??
Don't understand much do you?
That explains why you are soooo scared to start a thread and have a real discussion?

Big mouth, all talk, no action...
Ojorf
3.7 / 5 (12) Nov 16, 2018
Says SEU:
And I second the nomination.
:)


No surprise.
True to form you are.
With the dark side you side.
To mush your brain has turned.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (13) Nov 16, 2018
A "stream" of dusty plasma is undoubtedly an electric current, in fact it is unequivocal. And that quasar is likely nearby (relatively) as the red-shift is an inherent property of young galaxies, which quasars are in reality. One of these days the plasma ignoramuses should get a clue, but if history is any guide several more decades before they do. Unfortunately, long after jonesdumb and his ilk are dead and gone.


What a load of misinformed, incoherent sh!t! Get an education, you loon.

granville583762
3.1 / 5 (12) Nov 16, 2018
The Druids Alter of Science

Gravitational attraction
Of Milkyway proportions
In the infinite vacuous vacuum that is space
Where these luminous clouds
Of electrically active Clouds of gas
Which make up these galaxies
Host a little known star
That's luminous output
Exceeds the luminosity of our earthly sun
Here science meets science fiction
As the priestly scientific druids
Foretell of fictitious entities
Powering luminous quasars
The druid's foretell a luminosity quasar
With a singularity of heart
Even though these scientific druids
Tell of this singularity
Even though it is forbidden
As it breaks dear Albert's golden rule
The absolute velocity of the vacuum
Singularities exists only in the scientific druids imagination
Require Superluminal velocity
In an expanding galactic universe
These galaxies are collapsing
Into a humongous galaxy
Druids foretell gravitationally expanding galaxies
Collapsing under gravitational attraction
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (12) Nov 16, 2018
In the Yorkshire moors
In times of old
In the country lanes of Bronte country side
Where the ghost of Bolling hall
Haunts those ancient rooms
In the dead of night
Muttering those immortal words
Pity poor Bradford
Hosts an art school
Made famous by one of its students
Has part of its curriculum
Alongside the lithography
In Thornton road
Lies the photography of art department
Students take their cameras
To the ancient thousand year old woodlands
Of English bluebells of Clara drive
These students are taught
How to graphically
Manipulate their photographic art work
As the photographer tutors
Are there to teach
How to create allusions
In photographs
Those that are not actually there
So in the grim Badfordian laden skies
Where just up the moorland road
Haworth where the Bronte's lie
These astronomical photographs
Have the familiarity
Of Bradford college of art in their imagination
That Astronomy photographs
Now requires art student manipulation
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (6) Nov 16, 2018
Thought so. You never know with our colonial cousins. Irony/ sarcasm sometimes seem to pass them by:) Having said that, I wouldn't want to upset our North American cousins
Well who knows? I'm just saying trans-galactic streamers of gas/plasma? Hmmm hmmm hmmm.

"Brilliant Light Power has developed a new commercially competitive, non-polluting, plasma-based primary source of massive power from the conversion of hydrogen atoms of water molecules to dark matter..."

"21 Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?"

-Who can answer these things? Why do 2D tribalists like de scheide and marky mark and greenonions need answers so much? That just compels them to make them up to suit their preconceptions, which is not very helpful.
Benni
3 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2018
^^^^^^^^Poetry in motion, thank you granDy, at least there are a few of us who know how to bring sanity to a chatroom so filled with nothing but partisan chatterboxes.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (6) Nov 16, 2018
The Druids Alter of Science

Gravitational attraction
Of Milkyway proportions
In the infinite vacuous toiletry
In the Yorkshire moors
In times of old
In the country lanes of Bronte country side
Where the ghost of otto
-What a load of misinformed, incoherent sh!t! Get an education, you loon.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 16, 2018
Who can answer these things? Why do 2D tribalists like de scheide and marky mark and greenonions need answers so much? That just compels them to make them up to suit their preconceptions, which is not very helpful.


If they are so convinced no higher power exists above humanity, why do they find the need to make so much noise about ti?

You'd think they'd be so much at peace with their IMMUTABLE convictions that all they would do is just quietly snicker at those who do not share those convictions? But instead what do they do, they embark on screeching rampages here, continuously finding the NEED for reminding us of their beliefs, as if they need these daily reminders to themselves that they are truly on the right track in life. In common to one another these are the same ones unceasingly on the same page of foul mouthed rantings Comment after Comment.
SCVGoodToGo
5 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2018
I can't help but read granville's posts in the voice of William Shatner...
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (11) Nov 16, 2018
Get an education, you loon.

I am not interested in your indoctrination of ignorance.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Nov 16, 2018
Get an education, you loon.

I am not interested in your indoctrination of ignorance.


Sorry? I'm indoctrinated? I'm not the one that believes in a bunch of evidence-free Velikovskian crap, peddled by a handful of unqualified cultists, am I?
Benni
2.3 / 5 (12) Nov 16, 2018
Get an education, you loon.

I am not interested in your indoctrination of ignorance.


Sorry? I'm indoctrinated? I'm not the one that believes in a bunch of evidence-free Velikovskian crap, peddled by a handful of unqualified cultists, am I?


....and by the same token, a lot of us here are not interested "in a bunch of evidence-free" Black Hole Math by a handful of unqualified cultists" like you who can't show us the pictures of what YOU claim to be the most massive stellar bodies in the Universe.
theredpill
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2018
"a lot of us here are not interested "in a bunch of evidence-free" Black Hole Math by a handful of unqualified cultists" like you "

Ahhh the dreaded "reality card"...almost feels like you are cheating whenever you play it doesn't it? The only response possible...lemme guess, an attack on your personal credibility (because that makes the fantasy objects created by math "real"), a bunch of curse words and inflammatory rhetoric (because that makes the fantasy objects created by math real) An appeal to authority (because...well you know how it ends) .

Queue the response in 3...2...1
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 16, 2018
....and by the same token, a lot of us here are not interested "in a bunch of evidence-free" Black Hole Math by a handful of unqualified cultists" like you who can't show us the pictures of what YOU claim to be the most massive stellar bodies in the Universe.


Then WTF are you doing here, you uneducated idiot? You know nothing about the science, do you, as proven? Trolling, yes? A pointless waste of time, when you can't even understand the basics of what you comment on.

jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 16, 2018
"a lot of us here are not interested "in a bunch of evidence-free" Black Hole Math by a handful of unqualified cultists" like you "

Ahhh the dreaded "reality card"...almost feels like you are cheating whenever you play it doesn't it? The only response possible...lemme guess, an attack on your personal credibility (because that makes the fantasy objects created by math "real"), a bunch of curse words and inflammatory rhetoric (because that makes the fantasy objects created by math real) An appeal to authority (because...well you know how it ends) .

Queue the response in 3...2...1


Listen,l sh!tforbrains, just explain the orbits of the stars around Sgr A* without recourse to a 4m solar mass object. Nobody else has managed it, so you could be up for a Nobel. Far more likely that you are just another uneducated cultist. Correct?
theredpill
3.6 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2018
I rated you a five on that one: You got one for predictability, one for dedication to your beliefs, one your constant repetition of the demand for a physics paper from a guy on a message board and 2 because I can't stop laughing at you. The only thing missing seems to be the object you believe is there....perpetually missing....I can just see you carrying the stack of papers and a stapler and light standards all over town riddled with posters " wanted: lost black hole...last seen never"... but we know it's out there. Question is what photo do you put on it? Gotta be an artists rendering because a big blob of light might confuse people....
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (12) Nov 16, 2018
I rated you a five on that one: You got one for predictability, one for dedication to your beliefs, one your constant repetition of the demand for a physics paper from a guy on a message board and 2 because I can't stop laughing at you. The only thing missing seems to be the object you believe is there....perpetually missing....I can just see you carrying the stack of papers and a stapler and light standards all over town riddled with posters " wanted: lost black hole...last seen never"... but we know it's out there. Question is what photo do you put on it? Gotta be an artists rendering because a big blob of light might confuse people....


And another bunch of science-free word salad from a scientifically illiterate cultist. What a surprise! Don't understand science, do you? Got a chip on your shoulder about it, don't you? Mentally scarred by being the dumb kid at school, weren't you? Joined in with a bunch of Velikovskian idiots to make yourself feel better, yes?
theredpill
3.3 / 5 (9) Nov 16, 2018
"And another bunch of science-free word salad ....."

Just following your example numbnuts.

"Then WTF are you doing here, you uneducated idiot? You know nothing about the science, do you, as proven? Trolling, yes? A pointless waste of time, when you can't even understand the basics of what you comment on."

"What a load of misinformed, incoherent sh!t! Get an education, you loon"

"Where's Benni the Burke? Surely he'll want a picture of this?!"

Oh the irony: " Got a chip on your shoulder about it, "

You have a chip factory on your shoulder, understandable as your belief system crumbles a bit more every time an astrophysicist is forced to recognize EM phenomenon where gravity used to be....

jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 16, 2018
Just following your example numbnuts.


No, you have no science to offer, thicko, which is why you hang out with the Saturnist loons. I'll show you the maths that proves there must be a 4m solar mass object at the galactic centre, and a host of papers to back that up. You have nothing other than word salad.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 16, 2018
You have a chip factory on your shoulder, understandable as your belief system crumbles a bit more every time an astrophysicist is forced to recognize EM phenomenon where gravity used to be....


Lol. When did this happen, thicko? Lying again, aren't you, woo boy? Got no science, so have to lie. Pathetic. When was Earth orbiting Saturn, you thick POS? Lol.

theredpill
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 16, 2018
"I'll show you the maths that proves there must be a 4m solar mass object at the galactic centre, and a host of papers to back that up. You have nothing other than word salad."

I already ate lunch, you can keep your "number salad" for you and your like minded friends to enjoy.

"Lol. When did this happen, thicko? "

That would be the article from earlier in the week where observation suggested that "not only do EM forces contribute to the star forming process, but likely even dominate it"... yes as usual you made a complete ass of yourself in that thread too.

"When was Earth orbiting Saturn, you thick POS? Lol."

You have asked me that like I said it about 12 times, you'd have to believe in something as foolish as black holes to believe earth ever orbited Saturn....
Benni
2.5 / 5 (11) Nov 16, 2018
......and by the same token, a lot of us here are not interested "in a bunch of evidence-free" Black Hole Math by a handful of unqualified cultists" like you who can't show us the pictures of what YOU claim to be the most massive stellar bodies in the Universe.


Then WTF are you doing here, you uneducated idiot? You know nothing about the science,


Well then, let's do some comparison. You have been here to tell us your degree from the University of Auckland, NZ was in Anthropology. I spent six years in Engineering school majoring in Nuclear/Electrical Engineering. Now, explain to us why you are so much better educated than I am?

I could plunk a Differential Equation down in front of your eyeballs & you wouldn't even know what your looking at much less have any capability to solve, this in spite of your claim to having taken them in high school Algebra class, & you come here persistently screeching about others being an "uneducated idiot".
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2018
Well then, let's do some comparison. You have been here to tell us your degree from the University of Auckland, NZ was in Anthropology


No, you lying piece of shit, I have never said anything of the sort. Why don't you sort out your mental problems, instead of making up stories about other people? Useless, uneducated prick.

jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2018
I could plunk a Differential Equation down in front of your eyeballs & you wouldn't even know what your looking at much less have any capability to solve, this in spite of your claim to having taken them in high school Algebra class, & you come here persistently screeching about others being an "uneducated idiot".


You are an uneducated idiot, as well as a liar. And you have been proven to not understand even basic maths, and couldn't recognise a differential equation when you were asked about it by DaSchneid or RNP, iirc. You are a complete fraud, with zero scientific qualifications, nor knowledge. A blowhard. A gobshite. A Dunning-Kruger affected tosspot.

jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2018
That would be the article from earlier in the week where observation suggested that "not only do EM forces contribute to the star forming process, but likely even dominate it"... yes as usual you made a complete ass of yourself in that thread too.


Errrm, we know EM forces are involved in star formation. They kind of have to be. However, once particles get above a certain size, gravity dominates. You probably didn't understand the paper, as usual, being thick, and all.

jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2018
You have asked me that like I said it about 12 times, you'd have to believe in something as foolish as black holes to believe earth ever orbited Saturn....


So you are agreeing that the electric universe is pure woo? And that cantthink, Thornhill and Talbott are all idiots? Good, glad we got that sorted out. And you still haven't explained the orbits of the stars in the galactic centre sans a 4m solar mass object. When can we expect a sensible, quantitative description for that? I need to keep the Nobel committee on standby.

theredpill
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 16, 2018
" I need to keep the Nobel committee on standby."

For you I would imagine this means there is a 3 stooges DVD queued up and ready to play.

"So you are agreeing that the electric universe is pure woo?"

It's closer to describing reality than gravity equations are.

" And that cantthink, Thornhill and Talbott are all idiots?"

Don't know Talbot, Cantdrive has good days here and bad ones but I wouldn't go so far as to call him an idiot, he's never said anything offensive to me. Thornhill, I had 2 conversations with the man, he's either as set in his beliefs as you or he's making money from somewhere, somehow, for saying what he does.

" And you still haven't explained the orbits of the stars in the galactic centre sans a 4m solar mass object. "

That's because I refuse to invent an object (albeit physically impossible to form), and then give it the properties it mathematically needs to have to explain motion , and then state it is real as though the math proves it.

Benni
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 16, 2018
And you still haven't explained the orbits of the stars in the galactic centre sans a 4m solar mass object


Because a barycenter cluster of stars do not have a MASS around which they orbit, it's called a center of mass, an educational level of comprehension in science that cannot be taught to Anthropology students.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 16, 2018
>theredpill

And you still haven't explained the orbits of the stars in the galactic centre sans a 4m solar mass object


That's because I refuse to invent an object (albeit physically impossible to form), and then give it the properties it mathematically needs to have to explain motion , and then state it is real as though the math proves it.


Because a barycenter cluster of stars do not have a MASS around which they orbit, it's called "center of mass", a very common feature of orbital mechanics OBSERVED all over the Universe & at SgrA*
(so there jonesy, now you have no argument for saying NO ONE has ever come up with an explanation, this is about the 100th time I've done it, and you just keep saying NO ONE has EVER done it)

RNP
4 / 5 (11) Nov 16, 2018
@Benni
Because a barycenter cluster of stars do not have a MASS around which they orbit, it's called a center of mass, an educational level of comprehension in science that cannot be taught to Anthropology students.


Because a barycenter cluster of stars do not have a MASS around which they orbit, it's called "center of mass", a very common feature of orbital mechanics OBSERVED all over the Universe


What you do not seem to understand is that the center of mass that stars orbit is that of masses **within their orbits**. Masses outside their orbits have relatively little influence (and none in a spherically symmetric or disc-like mass distribution).

For a mathematical treatment proving this point see here; http://astro.utor...ons.html
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2018
And you still haven't explained the orbits of the stars in the galactic centre sans a 4m solar mass object


Because a barycenter cluster of stars do not have a MASS around which they orbit, it's called a center of mass, an educational level of comprehension in science that cannot be taught to Anthropology students.


Nope, those orbits cannot be explained by a barycentre, you moron.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2018
That's because I refuse to invent an object (albeit physically impossible to form), and then give it the properties it mathematically needs to have to explain motion , and then state it is real as though the math proves it.


Who gives a toss what you think? You are not a scientist, nor are you scientifically literate. Not a single scientist is explaining those orbits as being caused by anything other than a 4m solar mass object. What some loon on a comments section believes is neither here nor there. Go read Newton and Kepler and Einstein. I suppose you believe that you are smarter than them? Idiot.

jonesdave
2.9 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2018
Don't know Talbot, Cantdrive has good days here and bad ones but I wouldn't go so far as to call him an idiot, he's never said anything offensive to me. Thornhill, I had 2 conversations with the man, he's either as set in his beliefs as you or he's making money from somewhere, somehow, for saying what he does.


All three of them idiots believe Earth used to orbit Saturn, and that Venus was ejected fron Jupiter. Two of them are the founding fathers of EU. Ergo, you have just declared EU to be a cult started by idiots. For once, we do not disagree. And as for;

It's closer to describing reality than gravity equations are.


Hahahahaha. When did this happen? Show me their working.

jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2018
So, can we ask why theredpill associates himself with these EU loons if he thinks they are idiots? I assume he also thinks Velikovski was a crank. Not a lot of EU left if you take that out, is there? Perhaps you could point to the work they've done (lol) that you DO agree with.
theredpill
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 16, 2018
"What you do not seem to understand is that the center of mass that stars orbit is that of masses **within their orbits**. Masses outside their orbits have relatively little influence (and none in a spherically symmetric or disc-like mass distribution)."

Where is all the theoretical DM located again?

"So, can we ask why theredpill associates himself with these EU loons if he thinks they are idiots?"

I am beginning to understand something...you can't actually read.

"Don't know Talbot, Cantdrive has good days here and bad ones but I wouldn't go so far as to call him an idiot, he's never said anything offensive to me. Thornhill, I had 2 conversations with the man, he's either as set in his beliefs as you or he's making money from somewhere, somehow, for saying what he does."

Or you just can't comprehend anything...more likely of the two.



jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2018
Barycentre;

https://www.quora...e-galaxy

Which followed on from;

https://www.quora...t-Borkar

And this is the ***REAL*** scientist providing the answers;

https://www.resea...t_Borkar
RNP
3.4 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2018
@theredpill
Where is all the theoretical DM located again?


The dark matter is distributed throughout the galaxy and beyond the baryonic matter. It is most concentrated in the center of the galaxy.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 16, 2018
I am beginning to understand something...you can't actually read.

"Don't know Talbot, Cantdrive has good days here and bad ones but I wouldn't go so far as to call him an idiot, he's never said anything offensive to me. Thornhill, I had 2 conversations with the man, he's either as set in his beliefs as you or he's making money from somewhere, somehow, for saying what he does."

Or you just can't comprehend anything...more likely of the two.


But, you said;

you'd have to believe in something as foolish as black holes to believe earth ever orbited Saturn....


And I pointed out that all three of them believe that. So they are idiots, yes? As well as Velikovsky. Take that away, and there is no EU.

Here is the idiot Thornhill explaining the raison d'etre of EU;

https://web.archi...rse.html

Quite obviously a deluded idiot, yes? As is anybody else who believes that crap.
Tuxford
2.1 / 5 (10) Nov 16, 2018
W2246-0526 falls into a special category of particularly luminous quasars known as hot, dust-obscured galaxies, or Hot DOGs. Astronomers think that most quasars get some of their fuel from external sources.

Because Astronomers are committed merger maniacs, unable to believe their own observations without substantial hand-waving explanations. It makes more sense that the cores are the source of the material, not the sink. That the galaxies are diverging, not converging. But this is too much for a merger maniac to consider. They dare not even think it, for fear of permanent banishment from their close-minded community. The intellectual vice grip of science! LOL.
Tuxford
2 / 5 (10) Nov 16, 2018
provided the mass measurement for the supermassive black hole at the galaxy's center—4 billion times the mass of the Sun. This mass is large, but the extreme luminosity of W2246-0526 was thought to require a supermassive black hole with a mass at least three times larger, according to the paper authors. Solving this apparent contradiction will require more observations.

It will likely require a revolution in merger mania thinking, which is not at all likely. Merger maniacs are...maniacs, with extremely dense brains. Creative thinking is simply too challenging for them. So watch them mock instead.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2018
And just as I check my email, this pops up from A & A;

Magnetic fields in massive spirals: The role of feedback and initial conditions
Ntormousi, E.
https://www.aanda...18-11-16
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2018
provided the mass measurement for the supermassive black hole at the galaxy's center—4 billion times the mass of the Sun. This mass is large, but the extreme luminosity of W2246-0526 was thought to require a supermassive black hole with a mass at least three times larger, according to the paper authors. Solving this apparent contradiction will require more observations.

It will likely require a revolution in merger mania thinking, which is not at all likely. Merger maniacs are...maniacs, with extremely dense brains. Creative thinking is simply too challenging for them. So watch them mock instead.


Go away you deluded idiot. Why don't you go crawl up LaViolette's sphincter stargate?
This is the loon Tuxford's hero;

http://etheric.com/
theredpill
3 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2018
Because a barycenter cluster of stars do not have a MASS around which they orbit, it's called "center of mass", a very common feature of orbital mechanics OBSERVED all over the Universe & at SgrA*

And most notably in Binary systems housing stars of equal mass. They orbit a massless point in space. But just because we observe it doesn't mean that is what is happening here (it just makes it far more plausible than what math says is there)...even though however many times it has been observed is that many more times than a BH has been.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 16, 2018
Here is the idiot Thornhill explaining the raison d'etre of EU;

https://web.archi...rse.html

Quite obviously a deluded idiot, yes? As is anybody else who believes that crap.


So, to all those EUists who like to think they are following some sort of rational challenge to Einstein, Newton et al, you aren't. You are following the deluded ravings of the unqualified idiots Thornhill and Talbott, trying to justify the lunatic misinterpretations of mythology by Talbott re Earth orbiting Saturn! Lol. And Thornhill's love for Velikovsky. Pure woo.
Real physics doesn't let Earth orbit Saturn, or Venus come flying out of Jupiter. So, what does this unqualified tosspot try to do? Rewrite the whole of physics to make it match his mentally deranged beliefs!
That is EU in a nutshell. Complete and utter woo, based purely on mythology. Nothing more, nothing less.

jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2018
Because a barycenter cluster of stars do not have a MASS around which they orbit, it's called "center of mass", a very common feature of orbital mechanics OBSERVED all over the Universe & at SgrA*

And most notably in Binary systems housing stars of equal mass. They orbit a massless point in space. But just because we observe it doesn't mean that is what is happening here (it just makes it far more plausible than what math says is there)...even though however many times it has been observed is that many more times than a BH has been.


Nope, nobody is claiming that Sgr A* is a barycentre. Nobody scientifically literate, anyway. It is a non-starter. Go post the question on a physics forum if you don't believe me. Orbits are all wrong, velocities are all wrong, and we know that there is something at the centre, because we can see it.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (11) Nov 16, 2018
What you do not seem to understand is that the center of mass that stars orbit is that of masses **within their orbits**. Masses outside their orbits have relatively little influence (and none in a spherically symmetric or disc-like mass distribution).


......and describes the SgrA* barycenter perfectly. All those stars moving in, out, over, & across SgrA* are "little influenced" outside the orbital patterns they have established around SgrA*. Duhhhhh, go look at it again mister freelance journalist.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2018
What you do not seem to understand is that the center of mass that stars orbit is that of masses **within their orbits**. Masses outside their orbits have relatively little influence (and none in a spherically symmetric or disc-like mass distribution).


......and describes the SgrA* barycenter perfectly. All those stars moving in, out, over, & across SgrA* are "little influenced" outside the orbital patterns they have established around SgrA*. Duhhhhh, go look at it again mister freelance journalist.


You go look at it mister janitor; those orbits and velocities are not consistent with a barycentre. As shown. Now sod off you uneducated loon.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (11) Nov 16, 2018
@theredpill

Where is all the theoretical DM located again?


The dark matter is distributed throughout the galaxy and beyond the baryonic matter. It is most concentrated in the center of the galaxy.


Well then let's sort through through your statement:

"The dark matter is distributed throughout the galaxy and beyond the baryonic matter."

but

" It is most concentrated in the center of the galaxy."

Now, go look at this pic at SgrA* : http://ircamera.a...ter.htm, 7th photo frame from the top of the page & explain where in this crowded field of stars your precious cosmic fairy dust can be so heavily concentrated but yet magically avoids contact with a crowded field of stars whose distances between one another can be measured in light days, or even hours.

Another big foible one could expect from a guy who has never sat in a college classroom physics class.

jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2018
Another big foible one could expect from a guy who has never sat in a college classroom physics class.


More deluded crap from the Dunning-Kruger retard. If the above is true, how come he knows more about the physics than you do? Hmmm? What is a half-life, Mr. toilet cleaner?

Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 16, 2018

and we know that there is something at the centre, because we can see it.
.......ok, here's a REAL PICTURE of the center of the galaxy, and the picture defies what you say.

http://ircamera.a...ter.htm, 7th photoframe from the top of the page.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2018

and we know that there is something at the centre, because we can see it.
.......ok, here's a REAL PICTURE of the center of the galaxy, and the picture defies what you say.

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


Lol, the idiot's off again! Bloody idiot links to a page that has as one of its key points - "evidence for a black hole ."!
Pillock.
MrBojangles
3 / 5 (6) Nov 16, 2018
Now, go look at this pic at SgrA* : http://ircamera.a...ter.htm, 7th photo frame from the top of the page & explain where in this crowded field of stars your precious cosmic fairy dust can be so heavily concentrated but yet magically avoids contact with a crowded field of stars whose distances between one another can be measured in light days, or even hours.

Another big foible one could expect from a guy who has never sat in a college classroom physics class.


What would prevent a mass amount of WIMPs from occupying a dense star field?
granville583762
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2018
At the Druids Altar

In the Druids imagination
Lies a 8x10+39kg singularity
Even though singularities
Exist in Druidism imagination only
According to mathematical calculation
There mass is 8x10+39kg
With a Light Radius of 12billion km
With such ginormous mass
The Druids blind their followers
With their scientific Druidism
That all would think this singularity
Would with its infinite density
Without infinite gravity
Would be enormously dense
But this is the Druid's magic
The Druids ply their guile on their disciples
That these disciples are blinded with Druidism
That in all actuality this singularity
Can only collapse
To Gravities Light Radius
Such that its density
Like the stars
It's alleged to snack and swallow
Is the same density as the stars it swallows
This 4billion singularity
Is the density of water
As it its enormous density
Equates to 1.144kg/m3
The same density as amber nectar
The drink the Druids drown their sorrows

granville583762
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2018
phys.org and its hyperlinks
Now, go look at this pic at SgrA* : http://ircamera.a...ter.htm,

Benni, never take the internet for granted
as phys.org is having wobblies
the black art of links and hyperlinks

phys.org has had a fatal wobbly on your favourite link
granville583762
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2018
Benni
After struggling to get Google to find your link
http //ircamera.as.arizona.edu/Astr2016/lectures/galcenter htm
Removing its operators shows it in all its glory

Repeated as a true hyperlink
You have to give phys.org plenty of room with their hyperlinks
http://ircamera.a...nter.htm
granville583762
4 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2018
Benni
Without your link
http://ircamera.a...nter.htm
All the Druid's disciples will get drunk
With ecstasy
On the Druids amber nectar
Falling into its
Hallucinogenic spell
And start seeing
Pink singularities
Floating before their eyes
Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 16, 2018
Benni
After struggling to get Google to find your link
http //ircamera.as.arizona.edu/Astr2016/lectures/galcenter htm
Removing its operators shows it in all its glory

Repeated as a true hyperlink
You have to give phys.org plenty of room with their hyperlinks
http://ircamera.a...nter.htm


Thanks granDy, I didn't realize that a science site could wobble so much. Just think all those poor guys above who are wondering what is so wrong with poor CalTech that they can't even figure out it was liks from the chatroom.

Tell you something else granDy, this editor software they use sucks as well, you'd think for a science site they could upgrade to something that handles equations better. It does OK over on the Forums site where I chip in from time to time providing solutions for electronic circuit analyses, but hey use different software over there.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2018
@cantdrive85
@theredpill
@Benni.

Earth is aggregation of molten/solid matter. Ever-larger-aggregation planets along the 'spectrum' of increasing matter-aggregation quantity are 'more massive' planets producing correspondingly stronger gravity effects.

Then we get to stage of stellar-mass-aggregation; which, too, range on upwards from 'solar mass'; obviously gravity strength increasing commensurately.

Then we come to cases where matter/mass aggregation becomes so extreme that Gravity too must become extreme!

Such EXTREME Gravitational DILATION (SLOWING) of 'frequency' of cyclic processes means that photons being generated/emitted by EXTREMELY SLOWED/DILATED cyclic processes would leave their source at EXTREMELY LONGER 'wavelengths' as wave FRONTS 'try to leave' source while wave REARS are STILL FORMING!

- so, EVENTUALLY, it's NOT photonic 'speed' that's 'slowed' to a 'stop' at 'BH' EH; but RATHER, photon FORMATION/EMISSION that's effectively 'stopped/trapped'!

Ok? :)
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2018
.......upgrade to something that handles equations better.


Equations? You? Lol. Which equation is this?

t 1/2 = (0.693)/(lambda).
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2018
Such EXTREME Gravitational DILATION (SLOWING) of 'frequency' of cyclic processes means that photons being generated/emitted by EXTREMELY SLOWED/DILATED cyclic processes would leave their source at EXTREMELY LONGER 'wavelengths' as wave FRONTS 'try to leave' source while wave REARS are STILL FORMING!


........but this has nothing to do with VELOCITY.

The only math that exists for slowing the velocity of EM comes from 19th Century BH Math that schneibo likes to fall back on, that's the old kinetic energy stuff that Einstein came along in Special Relativity & blew out of the water in 1905.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2018
Such EXTREME Gravitational DILATION (SLOWING) of 'frequency' of cyclic processes means that photons being generated/emitted by EXTREMELY SLOWED/DILATED cyclic processes would leave their source at EXTREMELY LONGER 'wavelengths' as wave FRONTS 'try to leave' source while wave REARS are STILL FORMING!


........but this has nothing to do with VELOCITY.

The only math that exists for slowing the velocity of EM comes from 19th Century BH Math that schneibo likes to fall back on, that's the old kinetic energy stuff that Einstein came along in Special Relativity & blew out of the water in 1905.


Lol. You really have to laugh at the ignorance of this poser! Dear me. Nothing to do with velocity you idiot.
cantdrive85
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 16, 2018
Sorry? I'm indoctrinated?

Absolutely! You are the epitome of an indoctrinated tool of all things dark and infinitely monstrous, jonesdumb. If it is based on pseudoscientific maths based claptrap laced with faerie dust you eat it up like a Tom Cruise groupie at a Scientology convention.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2018
Sorry? I'm indoctrinated?

Absolutely! You are the epitome of an indoctrinated tool of all things dark and infinitely monstrous, jonesdumb. If it is based on pseudoscientific maths based claptrap laced with faerie dust you eat it up like a Tom Cruise groupie at a Scientology convention.


Tosspot! I'm not the one that believes that Earth used to orbit Saturn, or that Venus came shooting out of Jupiter, defying the laws of physics, and based on nothing more than a quasi-religious faith in idiots like Talbott and Velikovsky. Now, that is indoctrination, you prat.

RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2018
@Benni.
........but this has nothing to do with VELOCITY. The only math that exists for slowing the velocity of EM comes from 19th Century BH Math that schneibo likes to fall back on, that's the old kinetic energy stuff that Einstein came along in Special Relativity & blew out of the water in 1905.
That's right, mate. Like I said. The photon wavelength 'generated' become effectively longer and longer, due to greater and greater gravitational dilation/slowing of the emission process frequency itself; that's the crucial factor. If the processes/wavelengths get dilated/lengthened to 'extremal', the photonic wavelength will be so long that we cannot detect them or the emission process ITSELF is 'stopped', and NO photon CAN BE generated/emitted outwards at ANY 'velocity' in the first place once its (would-be) source/emitter 'frequency' is affected (reduced to effectively zero) by the 'BH' EH's 'maximal' gravitational dilation. I trust it's more clear now, mate? :)
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2018
Sorry? I'm indoctrinated?

Absolutely! You are the epitome of an indoctrinated tool of all things dark and infinitely monstrous, jonesdumb. If it is based on pseudoscientific maths based claptrap laced with faerie dust you eat it up like a Tom Cruise groupie at a Scientology convention.


Tosspot! I'm not the one that believes that Earth used to orbit Saturn, or that Venus came shooting out of Jupiter, defying the laws of physics, and based on nothing more than a quasi-religious faith Now, that is indoctrination, you prat.


....but you do believe infinite gravity can exist on the surface of a finite mass defying the laws of physics that gravity is mass dependent. And you believe that infinite density exists at the center of that finite mass also defying the laws of physics and based on nothing more than a quasi-religious faith called Pop-Cosmology Culture.
Da Schneib
3.6 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2018
....but you do believe infinite gravity can exist on the surface of a finite mass defying the laws of physics that gravity is mass dependent.
What's "infinite gravity" mean? It only has to be large enough to make the escape velocity greater than c. c is not infinite. @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Plagiarist is lying again.

Benni
2 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2018
If the processes/wavelengths get dilated/lengthened to 'extremal', the photonic wavelength will be so long that we cannot detect them or the emission process ITSELF is 'stopped', and NO photon CAN BE generated/emitted outwards at ANY 'velocity' in the first place once its (would-be) source/emitter 'frequency' is affected (reduced to effectively zero) by the 'BH' EH's 'maximal' gravitational dilation. I trust it's more clear now, mate?


Are you trying to suggest there is a field of gravity so strong that it can reduce the wavelength of a photon to zero energy? I can already tell you what the strength that gravity field must be, INFINITY. Now where you gonna go in the Universe to find INFINITE gravity, that requires the existence of an infinite mass, capiche?
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Nov 16, 2018
No, it only has to reduce c to zero, and c is not infinite. It's 2.997925 x10^8 m/s.

You're lying again, @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Plagiarist.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2018
What's "infinite gravity" mean? It only has to be large enough to make the escape velocity greater than c. c is not infinite.


No, it only has to reduce c to zero, and c is not infinite. It's 2.997925 x10^8 m/s.


Yeah schneibo, we know, more of your 19th Century BH TUG Math. How old are you, really?

jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2018
Yeah schneibo, we know, more of your 19th Century BH TUG Math. How old are you, really?


No, thicko, it is the same maths used by every scientist in this field of study. Nobody seems to be questioning it. Which maths are you using?
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2018
it is the same maths used by every scientist in this field of study


No, just Pop-Cosmology Enthusiasts who've never seen the inside of a physics classroom in college.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 16, 2018
it is the same maths used by every scientist in this field of study


No, just Pop-Cosmology Enthusiasts who've never seen the inside of a physics classroom in college.


Well, you certainly haven't. And I'm sure I can prove that these hundreds or thousands of authors most certainly have, So I'll believe them over a mathematically illiterate retard like you.
Da Schneib
3.6 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2018
Yeah schneibo, we know, more of your 19th Century BH TUG Math. How old are you, really?
Still telling that lie, @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Plagiarist?

We exposed that about you last night. Maybe you forgot.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2018
@Benni.
Are you trying to suggest there is a field of gravity so strong that it can reduce the wavelength of a photon to zero energy?
No, mate. I said that the photonic emission process at source may be so gravitationally affected (slowed/dilated) that its frequency is effectively zero and any notion of wavelength (ie, subsumed by quantum vacuum energy dynamics/uncertainty etc) becomes meaningless (since a WHOLE wave photon is never actually generated/produced due to its emission/source 'matter' processes being effectively 'frozen' in dimensional freedom motions....EXCEPT in downwards direction going further below 'BH' EH).

PS: DS obviously misspoke replying to you thusly:
No, it only has to reduce c to zero, and c is not in infinite
To be clear: Gravity NEVER actually changes the speed of light as such. It may affect the path it follows through space; and operating frequency of matter/processes which may emit/absorb photons of matching frequencies. That's all.

Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2018
Another 5:

Thread where @100LiarRC claims unspecified "recent research" shows there's no need for DM but when challenged can't produce any of the "recent research:" https://phys.org/...pse.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about its supposed ToE again: https://phys.org/...ght.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims engineering was invented in the 1950s: https://phys.org/...dio.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims there haven't been any lab experiments in plasma physics before 2015: https://phys.org/...lds.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims both DM and the BB are denied by unspecified "recent discoveries" again, and again without any evidence of these "recent discoveries:" https://phys.org/...ark.html

Bugspray.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 16, 2018
@Da Schneib.
...Bugspray.
Careful, mate; you're spraying against the wind of recorded reality; your stream is weak, and missing your intended target; and the blowback to your face is obviously affecting your nervous system adversely, DS, making you insensible to the dangers of spraying without thinking.

But thanks anyway for your listings, DS. Your insensible errors and cavalier misattributions aside, you're doing a great job of directing readers to posts of mine which you and that gang have been trying to bury for years with your bot-voting '1' campaign. Your retrieval/publicizing of same now is very much appreciated. Keep it up, DS! You're an (albeit unwitting) pal. lol :)
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
In honour RealityCheck

Along those mysteries rooms
Full of youth in its entirety
In awe at this mysteries world
Where at that blank dusty board
Magic with its coloured chalk abounds
As the sunbeams dappling through the trees
Flicker their illuminating magic amongst the desks and walls
Creating that magical eternal feeling of eternity
As the youth of chatter fills the air
The enthusiastic learning that only a teacher
Who has that magic touch
That comes with expert knowledge
Children in their youth respect
Enables them to learn
In full flush of youth
Their questions abound
In purity of thought
They apply Albert's velocity of the vacuum
To Schwarzschild radius
Known as Gravities Light Radius
Inertial mass cannot exceed
Albert's velocity in the vacuous vacuum
Children in purity of thought
See through manipulation of thought
Once children grasp the realities
No one can manipulate their purity of thought
As
Mass stops at Gravities Light Radius
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
To be clear: Gravity NEVER actually changes the speed of light as such. It may affect the path it follows through space; and operating frequency of matter/processes which may emit/absorb photons of matching frequencies. That's all


.......OK, I follow you better, but this "emit/absorb photons of matching frequencies" is still a foggy concept of wandering into the fantasy arena of Pop-Cosmology.

I thought you were suggesting there can exist a field of gravity so intense that the frequency of an EM wave could be reduced to zero thus making it invisible for detection, thus creating the basis to form a BH, and I still think this is where you're trying to go without actually saying it.

I should apprise you of the fact EM Waves at almost zero frequency do exist & we easily detect them. Those EM Waves are found between the dipoles of a magnet, alias magnetic lines of the field flux between the dipoles.

RNP
4 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2018
@Benni
I thought you were suggesting there can exist a field of gravity so intense that the frequency of an EM wave could be reduced to zero thus making it invisible for detection, thus creating the basis to form a BH, and I still think this is where you're trying to go without actually saying it.


Ooooh Benni! You are getting closer! And with RealityCheck's still far from perfect posts as a teacher! I never thought I would see the day!

I should apprise you of the fact EM Waves at almost zero frequency do exist & we easily detect them.


OK, but what about photons that ARE emitted with LESS than the energy needed to escape the potential well? Considering the conservation of energy, what do you think happens to them? If they reach zero energy they would be undetectable, right?

I am not saying that this is exactly what is happening, but how do you answer the question with your (faulty) understanding of the physics?
Anonym262722
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 17, 2018
The DU book and several publications posted at physicsfoundations.org site show the derivations of perihelion advance and BH capture of surrounding material using both GR and DU based energy laws (with and without equivalence principle, modified critical radius, stable orbits near BH maintaining its mass) as an example of extreme local gravitational state. The present article of quasars diverging is an example of the global factor connecting C4 and C to R4 and T4 and F4=f(1/T4) that undermines the DE use of GR/QM assumptions C=constant as basis for luminosity estimates at emitting vs. receival times T4 in modeling SN1a, GW etc intergalactic data.
Benni
2 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2018
I should apprise you of the fact EM Waves at almost zero frequency do exist & we easily detect them. Those EM Waves are found between the dipoles of a magnet, alias magnetic lines of the field flux between the dipoles.


but what about photons that ARE emitted with LESS than the energy needed to escape the potential well?
......no such premise exists within the immutable laws of physics, it's a Pop-Cosmology fantasy that there exists a field of gravity that can prevent an electro-magnetic wave from traveling at lightspeed velocity. All the ridiculous math those of you in the Pop-Cosmology culture produce for such a fantasy comes from 19th Century BH TUG Math calculations.

f they reach zero energy they would be undetectable,


There is no such thing as an electro-magnetic wave at ZERO ENERGY. Why would you think such a thing?
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
.....no such premise exists within the immutable laws of physics, it's a Pop-Cosmology fantasy that there exists a field of gravity that can prevent an electro-magnetic wave from traveling at lightspeed velocity. All the ridiculous math those of you in the Pop-Cosmology culture produce for such a fantasy comes from 19th Century BH TUG Math calculations.


Oh, p!ss off you repetitive, ignorant clown. It doesn't prevent it travelling at c, you numpty. However, inside the EH the escape velocity is > c. Therefore not even light can escape.

RNP
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 17, 2018
@Benni
......no such premise exists within the immutable laws of physics, it's a Pop-Cosmology fantasy that there exists a field of gravity that can prevent an electro-magnetic wave from traveling at lightspeed velocity.


For God's sake! Pay attention!
I did NOT say that their velocity changes!
I KNOW that they don't!
ONLY their wavelengths change!
THAT is how they lose energy!.

Do try to read the posts that you are arguing with.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
Now, we worked out the Schwarzschild radius for a 4m solar mass BH some while back. Well, I did - Benni screwed it up! We are looking at ~ 12m km. So a little word picture for the hard of maths; take a photon heading towards the BH. Its path gets bent towards the BH. This is how gravitational lensing happens. If it then passes the BH at 13m km, its path gets bent to hell, but it carries on going. If it is pulled to within 12m km, it keeps bending, round and round, down and down. Imagine a Wall of Death motorcycle rider. It can never go fast enough to climb the wall back out.
How did we get 12m km? Rs = 2 GM/ c^2.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2018
I did NOT say that their velocity changes!
I KNOW that they don't!
ONLY their wavelengths change!
......and I included wavelength, you just weren't paying enough attention to read it, so here it is again prefaced by your silly statement:

If they reach zero energy they would be undetectable


There is no such thing as an electro-magnetic wave at ZERO ENERGY. Why would you think such a thing?


So tell o'master of freelance journalism, where on the Electro-magnetic Energy Spectrum is there found an EM Wave of ZERO energy? And thus ZERO wavelength? And you don't wonder why you can't find it?

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.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
@Benni
......no such premise exists within the immutable laws of physics, it's a Pop-Cosmology fantasy that there exists a field of gravity that can prevent an electro-magnetic wave from traveling at lightspeed velocity.


For God's sake! Pay attention!
I did NOT say that their velocity changes!
I KNOW that they don't!
ONLY their wavelengths change!
THAT is how they lose energy!.

Do try to read the posts that you are arguing with.


And therein lies the problem of discussing physics with people that have a vanishingly small understanding of it. There are physics forums where these things can be asked, and people will happily explain it. However, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
And therein lies the problem of discussing physics with people that have a vanishingly small understanding of it.


......and you being the perfect example.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
And therein lies the problem of discussing physics with people that have a vanishingly small understanding of it.


......and you being the perfect example.


Sorry? Which part of physics do you think I'm struggling with, toilet cleaner? Certainly not the definition of a half-life. Eh? Or maths. Or visible light heating matter. Want the links to your horrendous screw ups again, thicko?
DarkHorse66
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBMP5pd0-hY

Best Regards, DH66


Perhaps you have the best tactic. In this day and age there seems to be little to be gained from linking to scientific papers when one is dealing with these loons. They need pretty pictures and videos. 'Tis a sad state. It is why they likely keep walking into lampposts in broad daylight (which I saw today - hilarious!). I was going to warn the guy, but thought, "Nah, this could be funny!" It was. I did it once myself, in the early 80s, ogling a young lady in a mini skirt. Better than doing it because you are staring at Fuckbook or text messages!
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2018
There is no such thing as an electro-magnetic wave at ZERO ENERGY.
Precisely! That's why black holes are black! This is the entire point you are missing.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
There is no such thing as an electro-magnetic wave at ZERO ENERGY.
Precisely! That's why black holes are black! This is the entire point you are missing.


No, the over riding point you keep missing is that reducing an electro-magnetic to ZERO wavelength requires INFINITE GRAVITY, and you still haven't come up with the answer for an infinite source.

Gravity is mass dependent, an immutable Law of Physics, I know this is new to you but it's a fact that can't be falsified. Therefore gravity being mass dependent requires infinite mass to generate an infinite gravity field & there is no law of physics you can quote that falsifies that statement.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2018
No, the over riding point you keep missing is that reducing an electro-magnetic to ZERO wavelength requires INFINITE GRAVITY
No, it doesn't. The speed of light is not infinite.

You're lying again, @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Plagiarist. The speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s, not infinity.

You always lie and plagiarize, @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Plagiarist. Everyone can see it. If you had the capacity to feel shame you would kill yourself, but you don't.

Go mop some more toilets and dump the results into the reactor sump.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
No, the over riding point you keep missing is that reducing an electro-magnetic to ZERO wavelength requires INFINITE GRAVITY
No, it doesn't. The speed of light is not infinite.


The speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s, not infinity.


Like RNP you confuse "speed of light" with "wavelength".

I keep reminding you two that you're getting this all wrong because of your lack of education in physics. Instead of at least checking WikiPedia for what I'm stating you just go on name calling rants.

Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2018
@Lenni_The_Liar_And_Plagiarist, you are the one confounding speed with wavelength.

Lying again, @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Plagiarist.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2018
This is @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Plagiarist's standard trolling tactic: claim someone said something they didn't and then repeat it over and over.

Your shiit is weak, @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Plagiarist.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
Schneibo........know what you should do? Apply some of that 19th Century BH TUG Math to EM wavelength & see what answer you get to reduce an EM wave to ZERO wavelength/energy.

C'mon we know you can do this, you're an expert 19th Century Pseudo-ScienceGuy, expert in all things TUG Math.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
Says SEU:
And I second the nomination.
:)


No surprise.
True to form you are.
With the dark side you side.
To mush your brain has turned.
says jorfo

C3PO, is it?
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2018
see what answer you get to reduce an EM wave to ZERO wavelength/energy
Ummmm, the limit approached as wavelength approaches zero is not zero energy.

Hint: you got it backwards. You just failed at math again. Snicker.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
Says Benni, the cowardly Pop-anti-science troll:
Naughty, these galaxies are. Don't they read the textbooks Pop-Cosmologists write on planet Earth? How can the Universe be expanding with "not uncommon" occurances like this happening all over the place?


LOL

Naughty you, not understanding gravity and Relativity, never mind the expansion of space.
You really think everything should be flying away from each other??
says ojorf

According to scientists, at the spin velocity that galaxies undergo, the arms of spiral galaxies should have separated and flown off - but they don't.
That is why scientists came up with the idea that Dark Matter is what is preventing those arms from flying off spiral galaxies.
But gravity is weak and depends on Mass to show its powers - the closer the better.
And yet, Dark Matter is STILL "the undiscovered country", so to speak. Scientists are still looking for it everywhere. It's some magical stuff, it is.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2018
According to scientists, at the spin velocity that galaxies undergo, the arms of spiral galaxies should have separated and flown off
LOL

This idiot thinks galaxies are solid objects. "The arms fly off." What a fool. You have not the slightest idea what you are talking about. There aren't any scientists who think "the arms fly off" of spiral galaxies or ever could.

You wouldn't know a science if it jumped up and bit you on the azz. And that's if you could find your azz with both hands and a mirror.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2018
"Teh siensetis think teh dark matter keeps the little armses from falling off teh galixies."

That is a classic. I'll remember that a long time. This thread is bookmarked in case anyone ever questions if there is someone this stupid.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2018
^^^^^^^^Poetry in motion, thank you granDy, at least there are a few of us who know how to bring sanity to a chatroom so filled with nothing but partisan chatterboxes.
says Benni

I, too, appreciate granville's most welcome expressions of feelings and ideas in his amazing rendition of poetry in the style of Colloquial Country English of the Shires. The wee folk of Yorkshire would be proud!
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 18, 2018
Why don't you go back to pulling teh little armses off teh galuxies, troll?

I still can't believe you said that.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 18, 2018
Where did you learn your astrophysics, @SEU, Men In Black? The Babble? Breitbart.com? My Little Pony?
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 18, 2018
So, @SEU, any more My Little Pony astrophysics to share with us?

I suppose it's better than toilet-sweeping janitor nuclear engineering. Not much though.

Not much better than manic depressive cosmology either.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Nov 18, 2018
You wouldn't know a science if it jumped up and bit you on the azz. And that's if you could find your azz with both hands and a mirror.


Lol. As my Dad would say, "He couldn't find his arse with an extra pair of hands!"
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Nov 18, 2018
I keep reminding you two that you're getting this all wrong because of your lack of education in physics. Instead of at least checking WikiPedia for what I'm stating you just go on name calling rants.


So, Wiki doesn't have a page on half-life? Pity you didn't check it before lying about knowing anything about physics.

granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Nov 18, 2018
Jonesdave an honouree sequestery

As day fade to night
JD wanes and waxes
In deepest thoughts
No one except jd can fathom
His thought is not for mortal ears
Rooted Manchurian tradition
Of echelons of life
In this English country side
For thousands of years
Has been our born birth right to be free
Free to roam our countryside with no restrictions
With great power comes responsibilities
As has always been the English tradition
Civility and politeness are our trade mark as a race
And so the same is expected where ever we inhabit
So as we jd sequester our thoughts
We think before we utterance
And from that utterance jd
Comes purity of thought
In the traditional vocalisms
Of polite society of our peers
As we ply our conversance of idea's
We singelise our thoughts
That only the purist's scientism's vocalise
And are ideas emerge freely and purely
Free of old parchment
Only of parchment of newest investigation
Then we forever remain in our youth
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2018
see what answer you get to reduce an EM wave to ZERO wavelength/energy


Ummmm, the limit approached as wavelength approaches zero is not zero energy.


Hint: you got it backwards. You just failed at math again. Snicker.


Here's more than just a "hint" o'19th Century BH TUG Math magician, "wavelength" can never reach ZERO under any conditions of gravity & you can't falsify that.

In the meantime you have been thinking how clever you were to come here with your 19th Century BH TUG Math calculations via which 19th Century Cosmology applied Kinetic Energy Escape velocity equations of gravity to an EM Wave, and all you did was to create a huge conundrum for yourself.

The 21st Century BH theory holds that INFINITE GRAVITY exists within the BH Model, this is a contradiction of the 19th Century Cosmology Model using your kinetic energy based TUG Math calculations. So now your conundrum is squaring 21st Century BH models with 19th Century models.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2018
Where did you learn your astrophysics, @SEU, Men In Black? The Babble? Breitbart.com? My Little Pony?


We know where you learned yours, from studying 19th Century Cosmology TUG Math for black holes.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Nov 18, 2018
So now your conundrum is squaring 21st Century BH models with 19th Century models.


No, your conundrum, thicko, is explaining why BHs exist when you say they can't. Not that anybody is bothered what a janitor on a comments section thinks.
Start with the 4m solar mass object shown to be there.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Nov 18, 2018
Where did you learn your astrophysics, @SEU, Men In Black? The Babble? Breitbart.com? My Little Pony?


We know where you learned yours, from studying 19th Century Cosmology TUG Math for black holes.


From somebody who demonstrably is crap at even basic maths! What a tosser!
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2018
Start with the 4m solar mass object shown to be there.
Pic?
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 18, 2018
Start with the 4m solar mass object shown to be there.
Pic?


Jesus, what a puerile f***wit! Based on the orbits of the stars, you cretin.
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Nov 18, 2018
Gravitational Conundrum of Aberration

As photons sped their vacuous path
They leave the sun
As they reflect from earth
Apparently they remain unaffected by gravitation
As are you sure in this thought
Have you not heard
Of aberration of starlight
As light travels finitely in one second
And in that one second
The earth has moved
So as the photon leaves the sun
And travels 93millions to earth
Equals 500seconds
Because the earth rotates on its axis
In 180degrees or 12hours
By aligning a laser on an earthly fixed target
In 12 hours time when the laser is reversed
Due to aberration of starlight
The laser originally so targeted aligned
That in 12hours it is angularly incorrectly aligned
And so to aberration of starlight
Misses its target
We have now two choices
If it is not aligned photons travel independently in the vacuum
If it is still so aligned we have a problem
Because it means photons travel on gravity
Because where the earth goes
So does gravity
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 18, 2018
@Lenni_The_Liar_And_Plagiarist, if you can't get fractions right who do you expect is going to believe anything you have to say about physics? Not to mention the whole nuclear engineering lie. Prolly why you failed so badly on the half-life thing, too.

Zero wavelength, since you don't seem to have noticed it so far, isn't zero energy. It's infinite energy. Dumb da dumb dumb. Dumb da dumb dumb duuuhhhhh.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Nov 18, 2018
Heres some EU woo for ya

"SAFIRE Project's Montgomery Childs Presentation on Recent Experiments, Claims Energy Densities Comparable to the Sun in Plasma Engine"
https://www.youtu...ZhWoz9Lk

-Most of his talk is about sailboats (?)
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2018
Zero wavelength, since you don't seem to have noticed it so far, isn't zero energy. It's infinite energy.


The energy of an electro-magnetic with wavelength λ is given by:

E = hc/λ

As the wavelength of light gets shorter, the energy of the photon gets greater, thus higher energy at the shortest wavelength & less energy at longer wavelength.

The greater the energy, the larger the frequency and the shorter (smaller) the wavelength. Given the relationship between wavelength and frequency — the higher the frequency, the shorter the wavelength — it follows that short wavelengths are more energetic than long wavelengths.

What is the relationship between wavelength, frequency and energy?
http://hubblesite...at=light

>Schneibo.........good job getting it perfectly backwards.
Dumb da dumb dumb. Dumb da dumb dumb duuuhhhhh, learn how to read the EM Energy Spectrum.

Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2018
Well, you got your analysis of the equations right, but if the wave is losing energy due to moving upward through the gravity field it will be getting longer, not shorter. So you still got it wrong.

Just sayin'.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2018
Well, you got your analysis of the equations right,


Well of course I got it right, coming from me you already know nothing better could be expected.

but if the wave is losing energy due to moving upward through the gravity field it will be getting longer, not shorter. So you still got it wrong.
........you make up this rant (lie?) about something I never stated, so hey, if you're not lying, go back up & find it then come back with a Copy & Paste of the Comment you claim i made........you won't follow up & do it because your rant was a lie in the first place.

Uh, oh, I feel another you know what about to be deposited by none other than granDy.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2018
Benni states:

The 21st Century BH theory holds that INFINITE GRAVITY exists within the BH Model, this is a contradiction of the 19th Century Cosmology Model using your kinetic energy based TUG Math calculations. So now your conundrum is squaring 21st Century BH models with 19th Century models.


>schneibo......so which is the correct Pop-Cosmology model?

Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2018
I never said you said it. But it's how gravity works, and we have experiments to back it up. We can easily see the wavelength and frequency shifts using satellites and lasers or microwave cavity resonators from the ground to high Earth orbit. It's even part of engineering practice for high-precision time and frequency applications using satellites and earth stations.

None of this is particularly surprising; to get the best accuracy, GPS corrects for both Doppler shift and gravitational shift.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2018
Here's an engineering reference that talks about gravitational frequency shift: http://braddye.co...ions.pdf

Just search in the document for "gravitational frequency shift" and you will see there is a section on it.

Note that this document is for a company, not a university. They make money if this is correct and lose it if not.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2018
I should emphasize here that the corrections for Doppler and gravity shift are implemented at the GPS receiver; the embedded controller code implements them, since only the receiver knows which direction the GPS satellites are moving in and where they are on the visible sky from its viewpoint. Without this we could not get GPS accurate enough to guide artillery fire or missiles. And that is, after all, what GPS was originally designed for.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2018
I have a GPS receiver attached to the robot mount for my telescope. It is sufficiently accurate that I can perform five-star alignment without any star being out of the field of view after the system boots up, but you do have to wait a bit after turning the GPS receiver on before starting the robot mount. They're about US$50 each and recommended not only for my mount but many other brands. It's a nice convenience.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2018
When the engineering works, you look like a typical denier.

And it works. @Benni_The_Butthurt.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2018
Here's an engineering reference that talks about gravitational frequency shift: http://braddye.co...ions.pdf


....and you should have read it BEFORE making this silly statement:

Zero wavelength, since you don't seem to have noticed it so far, isn't zero energy. It's infinite energy. Dumb da dumb dumb. Dumb da dumb dumb duuuhhhhh.


Now, do you better see why I have an engineering degree while you have only spent your life slogging around in the computer information world as a computer programmer? Your love for models is only exceeded by your propensity for getting them wrong.

By the way:

Benni states:

The 21st Century BH theory holds that INFINITE GRAVITY exists within the BH Model, this is a contradiction of the 19th Century Cosmology Model using your kinetic energy based TUG Math calculations. So now your conundrum is squaring 21st Century BH models with 19th Century models.

>schneibo......so which is the correct Pop-Cosmology model?


Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 18, 2018
If you're just going to lie about gravitational frequency shift, @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist, there's little point in trying to explain it to you.

You always lie. Stop lying or I'll leave you to @Jones.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2018
When the engineering works, you look like a typical denier.

And it works. @Benni_The_Butthurt.


I know, I kick & hurt a lot of Pop-Cosmology butt around here don't I schneibo? Here's another butt hurt for you:

Benni states:

The 21st Century BH theory holds that INFINITE GRAVITY exists within the BH Model, this is a contradiction of the 19th Century Cosmology Model using your kinetic energy based TUG Math calculations. So now your conundrum is squaring 21st Century BH models with 19th Century models.

>schneibo......so which is the correct Pop-Cosmology model?


C'mon schneibo, one or the other............? Why am I getting the feeling you don't want to pick one? Feels like too much of a hurting from a butt kick?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 18, 2018
@Benni.
OK, I follow you better, but this "emit/absorb photons of matching frequencies" is still a foggy..
Consider 'real life' matching/mismatching emitter/receiver situation:

- TWO IDENTICAL TRANSCEIVERS, INITIALLY CO-LOCATED HALF-WAY UP THE HIMALAYAS 'TUNED' TO IDENTICAL (ie, matched) FREQUENCY.

- keeping both at same temperature, slowly separate them, taking ONE DOWN to sea level, the OTHER UP to highest peak.

- note BOTH transceivers need to be RE-TUNED at their new locations for each to again receive perfectly its 'twin' transceiver's signal!

WHY?....because the lower 'twin' transceiver's CLOCK RATE (for signal emitting/receiving process) SLOWED due to GREATER Gravitational DILATION...while the upper 'twin' transceiver's CLOCK RATE (etc) ACCELERATED due to LESSENED Gravitational DILATION.

See? Gravity ONLY affected 'initial' signal EMISSION/RECEPTION FREQUENCIES (clock rates)....while (signal) PHOTON SPEED upwards/downwards ITSELF is UNAFFECTED.

Ok? :)
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 18, 2018
note BOTH transceivers need to be RE-TUNED at their new locations for each to again receive perfectly its 'twin' transceiver's signal!

WHY?....because the lower 'twin' transceiver's CLOCK RATE (for signal emitting/receiving process) SLOWED due to GREATER Gravitational DILATION...while the upper 'twin' transceiver's CLOCK RATE (etc) ACCELERATED due to LESSENED Gravitational DILATION.


How does time dilation have anything to do with frequency shift of an EM Wave caused by gravity? Time dilation is an effect of VELOCITY & Gravity field strength, but FREQUENCY shift due to velocity?
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2018
Frequency is 1/time. That's how.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 18, 2018
Frequency is 1/time. That's how.
....so?
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Nov 18, 2018
@Benni.

Since people conflate signal EMITTING/RECEIVING 'aspect' with signal PROPAGATION/SPEED 'aspect', I EXPLICITLY SEPARATED those TWO distinctly DIFFERENT 'aspects' via my example above.

The point is: (PERCEIVED) 'loss' or 'gain' in 'energy' of signal 'photon' was ALREADY PRE-DETERMINED BY TRANSMISSION/RECEPTION clock-rate 'MISMATCH' between emitter receiver in different Gravitational potentials which pre-determine which frequency/wavelength they DO emit/receive!

I again STRESS: There in NO LOSS/GAIN in 'photon energy' ITSELF during free-space PROPAGATION!....since there is NO CHANGE in SPEED of photon ITSELF between emission/reception...because the 'emission process' AT SOURCE has ALREADY DETERMINED the ENERGY/ frequency/wavelength that WILL BE IN TRANSIT to wherever it may be received LATER by some DETECTOR having a RECEIVING PROCESS 'clock rate/frequency' that can MATCH that incoming photon's frequency (which photon frequency was determined AT SOURCE).

Ok? :)
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 18, 2018
Frequency is 1/time. That's how.
....so?

You asked how frequency could be affected by time dilation.

I told you.

So?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 18, 2018
PS @Benni.

Note: EVEN in INERTIAL (distinct from Gravitational) situations, where DOPPLER aspects come into play (ie, velocity MISMATCH between non-co-moving emitters/receivers), the freq/wavelength and ''energy' of EMITTED 'photon' ALSO remains UNCHANGED from what it was given AT SOURCE, since the photon ITSELF always travels at lightspeed during free space propagation....so any (PERCEIVED) changes in freq/w-length and any PERCEIVED 'energy gain/loss' by 'photon' is DEPENDENT on the CONTRIBUTION (additive/subtractive) of the RECEIVER MOTIONAL (ie, Doppler effect) energy, IMPARTED to OR TAKEN away from, the total energy which would apply in various non-co-moving 'Doppler event' impact between photon and detector. In ther words, any extra/less 'energy' is result of more/less energy brought to said 'Doppler event' impact by RECEIVING body's approaching/receding 'kinetic energy' and/or 'receptor freq mismatch' etc.

IN any case: Photon SPEED/FREQ in TRANSIT is UNCHANGED. :)
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2018
I again STRESS: There in NO LOSS/GAIN in 'photon energy' ITSELF during free-space PROPAGATION!....since there is NO CHANGE in SPEED of photon


Photons do not change speed, they have no acceleration variables as would be dictated by kinetic energy for mass, therefore there is ZERO connection of SPEED versus FREQUENCY of a photon.

Don't try to think like schneibo with his 19th Century TUG Math foible, that gravity can change the velocity of a photon, it can change ONLY it's frequency. Beyond this, I don't know what you're talking about in the paragraph I quoted you above.

IN any case: Photon SPEED/FREQ in TRANSIT is UNCHANGED.
.....so long as the gravity fields it passes through are consistent, the frequency won't change in a free space.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2018
@RC, try to restrain your enthusiasm, but you appear to have gotten this one right.

Be careful though; energy is relative between some frames. Thus, if my frame is moving relative to the frame of the object that originally emitted the photons, it is true that the photons "always had" the energy I see in my frame, this isn't the way standard physics treats it.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 18, 2018
@Benni.
Photons do not change speed
Yes, merely 'perceived', not actual; due to gravitational AND 'doppler' mismatch.
Don't try to think like schneibo with his 19th Century TUG Math foible, that gravity can change the velocity of a photon, it can change ONLY it's frequency.
No mate. As I just explained to you in my relevant posts: gravitatinal effect changed NEITHER 'speed' NOR 'frequency' of photon IN TRANSIT. Only photon SOURCE's clock-rate determines frequency at start of that photon's transit across free space. It's subtle, but crucial point. Re-read my relevant posts until the subtleties become fully clear to you. :)
IN any case: Photon SPEED/FREQ in TRANSIT is UNCHANGED.
.....so long as the gravity fields it passes through are consistent, the frequency won't change in a free space. Whether across 'flat' OR 'curved' free-space, photon TRANSIT 'speed' is unaffected; only Grav/Doppler 'mismacthes' between emitter/receiver give 'PERCEIVED changes'. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (8) Nov 18, 2018
@Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist,

f = v/λ

For the special case of light, which cannot change speed,

f = c/λ

And

E = hf

Thus, energy decreases as frequency decreases, and from the first equation, as wavelength increases. Now, from relativity, we get gravitational redshift: https://en.wikipe...redshift

The equations involved are given there.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Nov 18, 2018
@Da Schneib.
@RC, try to restrain your enthusiasm, but you appear to have gotten this one right.
I'll try to contain myself, mate. :) I promise not get 'giddy' at this polite and complementary post from you to me re the science/logics in question. All joking aside, though, I assure you I do appreciate the time/trouble you took to confirm my correct understanding of these very subtle/crucial aspects of the known science in the field. Thanks.

Be careful though; energy is relative between some frames. Thus, if my frame is moving relative to the frame of the object that originally emitted the photons, it is true that the photons "always had" the energy I see in my frame, this isn't the way standard physics treats it.
No problem. I also already covered that very point in my PS to Benni above, re the Inertial/Doppler event/impact cases.

Again, thanks for your polite, on-science post to me. Much appreciated. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 18, 2018
@Benni.
Photons do not change speed
Yes, merely 'perceived', not actual; due to 'gravitational' AND 'doppler' mismatch.
Don't try to think like schneibo with his 19th Century TUG Math foible, that gravity can change the velocity of a photon, it can change ONLY it's frequency.
No mate. As I just explained to you in my relevant posts: gravitatinal effect changed NEITHER 'speed' NOR 'frequency' of photon IN TRANSIT. Only photon SOURCE's clock-rate determines frequency at start of that photon's transit across free space. It's subtle, but crucial point. Re-read my relevant posts until the subtleties become fully clear to you. :)
IN any case: Photon SPEED/FREQ in TRANSIT is UNCHANGED.
so long as the gravity fields it passes through are consistent, the frequency won't change in a free space.
Whether across 'flat' OR 'curved' free-space, photon TRANSIT 'speed' is unaffected; only Grav/Doppler 'mismacthes' between emitter/receiver give 'PERCEIVED changes'. :)
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2018
>.schneibo.......Ten hours ago you said:

Zero wavelength, since you don't seem to have noticed it so far, isn't zero energy. It's infinite energy.


Four hours ago I followed correcting you with:

The energy of an electro-magnetic with wavelength λ is given by:

E = hc/λ

As the wavelength of light gets shorter, the energy of the photon gets greater, thus higher energy at the shortest wavelength & less energy at longer wavelength.


I see you're finally getting it straight, at least for the most part.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 18, 2018
Apologies for double-post. Apparently my edit submission for that one didn't get through in time, so I had to repost edited one anew as above. Thanks.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (5) Nov 18, 2018
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I'm doing pretty good me, thanks for asking.

Apologies for double-post.


Apology accepted Skippy. But you do not need to apologize for the doubling up on postums,,,, they are all exactly like all the other ones so nobody even noticed.

Thanks.
De rien Cher,,,, not the problem.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 18, 2018
Yes, merely 'perceived', not actual; due to gravitational AND 'doppler' mismatch.
Err, @RC, no. Photons have the same speed in all frames. They change frequency and wavelength in different frames because they cannot change speed.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 18, 2018
@Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist,

I said,
Zero wavelength, since you don't seem to have noticed it so far, isn't zero energy. It's infinite energy.


You said,
The energy of an electro-magnetic with wavelength λ is given by:

E = hc/λ

As the wavelength of light gets shorter, the energy of the photon gets greater, thus higher energy at the shortest wavelength & less energy at longer wavelength.


Then you claim you "corrected me."

You're lying again, @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist. The two statements are equivalent. You corrected nothing. This is just more of your butthurt trolling by making up lies about what people said. It's pretty pitiful.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 18, 2018
@Da Schneib.
Yes, merely 'perceived', not actual; due to gravitational AND 'doppler' mismatch.
Err, @RC, no. Photons have the same speed in all frames. They change frequency and wavelength in different frames because they cannot change speed.
Perhaps I wasn't clear, due to limited text for that sentence in reply to Benni.

To be clearer, it was the 'transiting photon frequency' increase/decrease aspect that is the 'perceived change' at 'reception', and NOT the 'transiting photon speed' as such...which is unchanged during free space transit, regardless of what 'perceived' energy/frequency 'determinations' are made by respective observers upon receipt in/by non-co-moving frames/receivers.

Thanks for reading/responding politely, mate. Again, much appreciated. :)
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 18, 2018
@RC, OK, so you were referring to the frequency and left the frequency part out of your quote of @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist. That makes sense.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Nov 18, 2018
@Uncle Ira.
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I'm doing pretty good me, thanks for asking.
Glad to hear it, mate. Long time no 'see'! I was getting a little worried that some hurricane/flood or whatever in your part of the world had wiped you off the map and nobody bothered to tell me about it! Good to know you're alive and kicking. I'm OK, thanks. :)

Apologies for double-post.


Apology accepted Skippy. But you do not need to apologize for the doubling up on postums,,,, they are all exactly like all the other ones so nobody even noticed.
Actually, mate, others do notice; and one worthy in particular even politely read and politely replied to it. Maybe you need new glasses, Ira. :)
Thanks.
De rien Cher,,,, not the problem.
Never a problem....between friends. Stay safe, mate! :)
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Nov 18, 2018


The energy of an electro-magnetic with wavelength λ is given by:

E = hc/λ

As the wavelength of light gets shorter, the energy of the photon gets greater, thus higher energy at the shortest wavelength & less energy at longer wavelength.


I see you're finally getting it straight, at least for the most part.


So... It LOOKS like infinite at either end.... hmmm....
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2018
Singularity of Wave a Wave of Infinite Energy

With starlight aberration and its wave diminishing
what do we have evolving
because apparently when earth is a moving target
aberration so occurs
but measure the same aberration on earthly fixed targets
it is strangely absent on the earth travelling at the same velocity
in effect now you see it but now you may not
as to this aberration is lights other property
its wavelength without which abberation would never occur
its energy dependant on its frequency and the speed of the vacuous vacuum
gives a diminishing wave increasing in energy
that just like a singularity
of infinite density
without infinite gravity
diminishing wave with increasing energy
does not mean an infinitely small wave
is a wave of singularity
as a singularity of wave
means a wave of infinite energy
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 19, 2018
The energy of an electro-magnetic with wavelength λ is given by:

E = hc/λ

As the wavelength of light gets shorter, the energy of the photon gets greater, thus higher energy at the shortest wavelength & less energy at longer wavelength.


So... It LOOKS like infinite at either end.... hmmm....


With zero energy at zero wavelength on the EM Energy Spectrum, I'd like to hear your psycho-babble explanation for an INFINITE ZERO?

Meanwhile, at the other end of the Em Energy Spectrum maybe you could also give us your best psycho-babble explanation for an EM Wave that is INFINITELY SHORT so that it contains infinite energy?

In a finite Universe how can anything INFINITE exist? Short answer, it can't, it's simply your slavish descent into the cultic world of Pop-Cosmology that leads you into believing this nutty stuff.
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2018
The evolution of Infinity

In the begging there was nothing
then there was infinity
which presumably was without end
then Georges Lemaitre
fortold a religious infinity
that was not infinity
but a blackhole
that appeared out of nowhere
expanded from a singularity
that singularity a definition is a space so small
it is too small to exist
out of this infinite singularity of zero
as any ordained priest knows well
came infinite energy
into a space of expanding singularity
because
out of expanding singularities
in the vacuous vacuum
as an religeious scientific scholar in his singular singularity
applies it to the infinite energy of the singularity
to the wave lenght of light
as the scriptures fore tell
out of nothing comes absolute infinite energy
even though zero wave equals zero frequency
somehow the thought is of infinite energy
in this world where when matter and energy shrink to zero
zero equals infinity
of infinite energy
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2018
granDy sez it best:

"out of nothing comes absolute infinite energy
even though zero wave equals zero frequency
somehow the thought is of infinite energy
in this world where when matter and energy shrink to zero
zero equals infinity"


granDy, if you ever write a book of prose, I want a signed copy.

granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2018
granDy sez it best:

"out of nothing comes absolute infinite energy
even though zero wave equals zero frequency
somehow the thought is of infinite energy
in this world where when matter and energy shrink to zero
zero equals infinity"


granDy, if you ever write a book of prose, I want a signed copy.

thanks Benni
I will have to write them all down and publish them, then Heffers in Trinity Street in Cambridge is the bookshop that attracts attention
Anonym262722
1 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2018
@RC
Thank you for the explanations of the Planck energy equation on the EM frequencies, C and BH for DS, Benni and other debaters. Your point is getting close to Suntola Dynamic Universe (DU) expansion of GR and QM foundations. The dilation (slowing down) of atomic clock frequency F4=1/T4 is due to the 0-balance of motion and gravitational energies in the expanding universe along the Riemann 4-radius R4 (orthogonal to the 3-D space direction). The dilation of R4 expansion is compensated by F4 - the locally observed C is constant although the TRUE value of C4 is slowing down and the constant b in Planck energy equation becomes VARIABLE. This caused 5-10 more blunders in other postulates of GR/QM that agree with DU in local energy frames but fail in cosmic modeling and near BH etc. These cosmology blunders even fooled 2011 and 2017 Nobel committees and are at the root of these repeated 'Word Wars' of phys.org street fights....see Suntola DU book. JD, rrMousie have some youghoort!
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 19, 2018
With zero energy at zero wavelength on the EM Energy Spectrum,
It's not, and you've been presented with proof.

You're lying again, @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist. It's zero energy at infinite wavelength. Wanna see the math again?
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2018
@Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist is still having trouble with fractions.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 19, 2018
@Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist is still having trouble with fractions.


Which will surprise nobody who has seen his attempts at mathematics previously. Link available.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 19, 2018
With zero energy at zero wavelength on the EM Energy Spectrum,


It's not, and you've been presented with proof. It's zero energy at infinite wavelength. Wanna see the math again?


There is no such thing as "infinite wavelength", that's another Pop-Cosmology fantasy.

Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2018
There is no such thing as "infinite wavelength".
Heh, there is no such thing as an EM wave with zero wavelength, which is exactly what we've been trying to tell you. That's why they can't get out of the black hole. Duh.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2018
@Benni.

The issue re 'zero frequency' in 'e-m photon' context, is redolent of the well-known issue re 'zero radius' in 'bh-singularity' context.

In both cases, '0' causes the maths to 'break down' and give 'undefined' results having no physical meaning EXCEPT to 'indicate' that the physical states/dynamics is no longer describable by said maths using '0' in fraction expressions.

To understand the problems which such '0' usage brings with it in present 'em-photon' case, we need only consider the 'real' physical QUANTUM of energy aspect.

Realizing that IF the 'quantum' is related to frequency, then 'zero frequency' cannot ever represent/relate-to an actual photonic QUANTUM particle/package of energy in reality, because, even in mathematical constructs using said '0', it merely 'outputs' an UNDEFINED term...and NEVER an actual physically meaningful quantity in real terms/physical units.

Hence beware '0' or 'infinity' in fraction terms when discussing real physics/units. :)
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2018
To be absolutely pedantically correct, a wave with zero wavelength is unphysical. Anything that reduces a wave to zero wavelength therefore cancels it. "Zero wavelength" equals zero energy. That's what happens when the gravity at a particular point exceeds the escape velocity of light. Some energy cannot equal zero energy. This is conservation of energy. Therefore the wave must be contained within any surface that has an escape velocity greater than the speed of light cannot escape, which is the definition of a black hole. Duh.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2018
Everybody else looks at this and goes, "OK, zero energy means there's no EM wave there."

@Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist goes, "there's no such thing!!!11!!ONEONE!!"

No shiit @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist. Dumb again.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2018
'0' causes the maths to 'break down'


No, there's no math breaking down here. On the Em Energy Spectrum at zero energy there is zero wavelength, therefore no EM Wave. I understand this is a tough concept for Pop-Cosmology, but it's simply a fact of Special Relativity.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2018
So, @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist, how does "some EM wave" become "no EM wave?"
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2018
Anything that reduces a wave to zero wavelength therefore cancels it. That's what happens when the gravity at a particular point exceeds the escape velocity of light.


And you've been somewhere to witness this actually happening?

Some energy cannot equal zero energy. This is conservation of energy.
Really? You should take a Thermodynamics course.

Therefore the wave must be contained within any surface that has an escape velocity greater than the speed of light cannot escape, which is the definition of a black hole. Duh.
"Duh"? You couldn't have come up with a better answer to your own unscientific 19th Century TUG Math Pop-Cosmology solution.

You can't prove there is a field of gravity so strong that it prevents an EM Wave from traveling at light speed, Put up your post 19 Century TUG math for it. C'mon cough it up, I already hear you gagging as you begin your frenzied search.

Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2018
Maybe @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist forgot about the GPS stuff.

Maybe not.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2018
Just for consideration: Does anyone suppose we can't see gravitational redshift in solar spectra from our own Sun? Or wouldn't notice it if we didn't?
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2018
Anything that reduces a wave to zero wavelength therefore cancels it. That's what happens when the gravity at a particular point exceeds the escape velocity of light.


And you've been somewhere to witness this actually happening?
Yes, I've done spectroscopy with my telescope.

Next?

You can't prove there is a field of gravity so strong that it prevents an EM Wave from traveling at light speed,
Sure I can, all I need is escape velocity greater than the speed of light, and since the speed of light isn't infinite, neither is the needed escape velocity.

See how easy that was?
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2018
You can't prove there is a field of gravity so strong that it prevents an EM Wave from traveling at light speed,


Oh Jeebus, please can somebody make these thick 12 year olds go away?
Hint; you do not understand the relevant science, you f****wad. You are an idiot. Now bugger off, there's a good chap. Yes, thicko? Lol.

Benni
1 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2018
Anything that reduces a wave to zero wavelength therefore cancels it. That's what happens when the gravity at a particular point exceeds the escape velocity of light.


And you've been somewhere to witness this actually happening?


Yes, I've done spectroscopy with my telescope.


So, you have witnessed "gravity at a particular point exceeding the escape velocity of light" ? How did you see it if it could never reach you in the first place because it's trapped to the surface of the mass!

You can't prove there is a field of gravity so strong that it prevents an EM Wave from traveling at light speed,


I can, all I need is escape velocity greater than the speed of light, and since the speed of light isn't infinite, neither is the needed escape velocity.


Escape velocity equations are derived from KINETIC ENERGY equations for calculating ACCELERATION of matter, not velocity of EM Waves. You forgot, right?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 19, 2018
Yes, I've done spectroscopy with my telescope
No little scheide, a kaleidoscope is not a telescope.
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2018
BHs are zero energy

DS, there is no such thing as EM wave of zero wavelength its why it can't get out the black hole
gravity is zero at the centre of radius of the light radius
and the velocity of the vacuum at its circumference
for an electromagnetic wave
entering the light radius
can no longer escape outside its radius
it follows it must have zero energy
and zero energy implies zero frequency
and so by intuitive manipulation
it follow as night following day
it has zero energy
when this zero energy photon
inside the light radius
amongst the plasma from this light radius star
it follows the plasma also cannot escape this light radius
by further integration on zero energy in the vacuum
this plasma also has zero energy
so now the reason why matter and photon can no longer escape
has been determined by DS intuitive calculation
there is no such thing as an EM wave with zero wavelength
BHs are zero energy
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2018
there is no such thing as an EM wave with zero wavelength
BHs are zero energy


Pop-Cosmology according to schneibo this must be the case. Not only is gravity at the surface of a so-called black so strong that it prevents an EM Wave from escaping the surface, but it also reduces the wavelength to zero thus canceling the EM Wave out of existence.

Gosh, these 19th Century BH TUG Math magicians were such a clever bunch 200 years ago, I guess schneibo is the only one left? No, wait, there's jonesy, but he can't be that old, he was majoring in Anthropology at Uni of Auckland from 1979-81.
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2018
So... It LOOKS like infinite at either end.... hmmm....


With zero energy at zero wavelength on the EM Energy Spectrum, I'd like to hear your psycho-babble explanation for an INFINITE ZERO?

I have none. I said it LOOKS like. As in - appears to...
Meanwhile, at the other end of the Em Energy Spectrum maybe you could also give us your best psycho-babble explanation for an EM Wave that is INFINITELY SHORT so that it contains infinite energy?

See my response immediately above.
In a finite Universe how can anything INFINITE exist? Short answer, it can't, it's simply your slavish descent into the cultic world of Pop-Cosmology that leads you into believing this nutty stuff.

So... by your calculations, we live in a finite Universe?
Anonym262722
not rated yet Nov 19, 2018
See DU book sections 2.2.1 Mass and 5.1.3 'Wavelength equivalence of mass' to convert the Planck energy equation E=bf to rest energy equation of Compton wavelength mass m_compton by E=m_compton C4 C corresponding to mC^2 of GR in a special case of local energy frame. It starts by scaling the 'old' Planck constant b with variable C4=f(R4) to get the 'truly constant' b0.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2018
Anything that reduces a wave to zero wavelength therefore cancels it. That's what happens when the gravity at a particular point exceeds the escape velocity of light.


And you've been somewhere to witness this actually happening?


Yes, I've done spectroscopy with my telescope.


So, you have witnessed "gravity at a particular point exceeding the escape velocity of light" ? How did you see it if it could never reach you in the first place because it's trapped to the surface of the mass!
No, even better: I have taken the spectra of light with infinite wavelength. You leave the cap on the telescope. It's called a "dark frame."

You're lying about what people said again, @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist. Must be butthurt again.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2018
Yes, I've done spectroscopy with my telescope
No little scheide, a kaleidoscope is not a telescope.
Nor is a proctoscope one, @Blotto. You'd have more experience with those.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2018
So, you have witnessed "gravity at a particular point exceeding the escape velocity of light" ? How did you see it if it could never reach you in the first place because it's trapped to the surface of the mass!


No, even better: I have taken the spectra of light with infinite wavelength. You leave the cap on the telescope. It's called a "dark frame."
........you'e starting to confirm my suspicions about your age & how aptly you live in that 19th Century world of TUG Math. Or, maybe you're already time dilated? From an even earlier century? I'll bet you've had personal conversations with Galileo?

Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2018
I'm guessing you have never used a CCD camera to take astrophotos before, much less seen a spectrograph, @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist. Much less a nuclear reactor.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 19, 2018
In a finite Universe how can anything INFINITE exist? Short answer, it can't, it's simply your slavish descent into the cultic world of Pop-Cosmology that leads you into believing this nutty stuff.


So... by your calculations, we live in a finite Universe?


Entropy is calculable. It cannot be calculated for anything other than a finite space, and that is the proof by which the immutable 2nd Law of Thermodynamics establishes the the Universe is finite.

Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2018
In a finite Universe how can anything INFINITE exist? Short answer, it can't, it's simply your slavish descent into the cultic world of Pop-Cosmology that leads you into believing this nutty stuff.


So... by your calculations, we live in a finite Universe?


Entropy is calculable. It cannot be calculated for anything other than a finite space, and that is the proof by which the immutable 2nd Law of Thermodynamics establishes the the Universe is finite.

Interesting, but...
Haven't we only experimented "locally" and only "assumed" it's applicability to the Universe as a whole?
Anonym262722
5 / 5 (1) Nov 19, 2018
DS, Benni - time-out. Feel lucky to be chosen by Nature and fooled as an example of over 100 yr Dark Ages of physics foundations about GR/QM along the lines of Nobel committees and other 'papal power' authorities since the Galileo and Kepler times of the epicycle period of Sun vs. Earth centered Universe. It does not help to repeat the tribal 'Word Wars' between Newton and Leibnitz or GR vs. QM debates of Einstein era and their more recent String/M- theory debates with DE/DM/GW data and other 'proofs' that Einstein, Planck or Newton was right or wrong. We need to learn understanding the intergalactic data of new image, range, time and other cosmological remote sensing technologies to eventually connect mankind to the intellectual cosmic life community. DU, photogrammetry and 4/5-D cosmic GPS concepts are a good starting point with array (unified matrix/tensor) calculus. I hope I am done, amen.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 20, 2018
In a finite Universe how can anything INFINITE exist? Short answer, it can't, it's simply your slavish descent into the cultic world of Pop-Cosmology that leads you into believing this nutty stuff.


So... by your calculations, we live in a finite Universe?


Entropy is calculable. It cannot be calculated for anything other than a finite space, and that is the proof by which the immutable 2nd Law of Thermodynamics establishes the the Universe is finite.


Interesting, but...Haven't we only experimented "locally" and only "assumed" it's applicability to the Universe as a whole?


It appears you have never observed telescopic pictures of distant galaxies extending as far out as 13.5 billion light years. So let me get you up to speed. Inside all those galaxies are stars, many of which are the size & type as our Sun which we by OBSERVATION establish as distributing energy via the immutable 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, ENTROPY. Capiche?
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Nov 20, 2018
A Photon is a Particle

and subject to gravitation
a particle travels an infinitely long distance through its escape velocity before gravity brings it to a halt.
the photon is travelling through its escape velocity
out of the light radius star
it travels an infinitely long distance
till it has zero energy
then gravity accelerates the photon
back to its original energy
if the photon had no mass
gravity would have no effect on the photon passing through its light radius
and the photon would pass through this light radius as it is a BH
as though the BH were not there
but as a photon has mass
gravity effects it in the same way as inertial mass
therefore light pass's freely through the light radius
either way
as gravity is zero at the centre of mass
a light radius and event horizon are one of the same
in any case these gravitational Isaac Newton facts
all though true are academic
because no event horizon or accompanying BH
has been seen
except in simulation
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 20, 2018
It appears you have never observed telescopic pictures of distant galaxies extending as far out as 13.5 billion light years. So let me get you up to speed. Inside all those galaxies are stars, many of which are the size & type as our Sun which we by OBSERVATION establish as distributing energy via the immutable 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, ENTROPY. Capiche?


Complete and utter shite. Get an education you moron. All that the 2nd law tells us is that heat cannot flow from cold things to hot things, and that entropy will remain the same or increase over time. We know this as the 'heat death' of the universe. It is f*** all to do with a finite universe.

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 20, 2018
We know this as the 'heat death' of the universe. It is f*** all to do with a finite universe.


And what is Benni's definition of 'finite'? Of course the universe is finite. It had a beginning, and is expanding, so the universe has a boundary. It increases in volume with time, but it is still an isolated system.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 20, 2018
It increases in volume with time, but it is still an isolated system.
........not if the volume is constantly increasing. In a system where volume keeps increasing ENTROPY can never be established.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 20, 2018
It increases in volume with time, but it is still an isolated system.
........not if the volume is constantly increasing. In a system where volume keeps increasing ENTROPY can never be established.


WTF do you mean, 'established'? I told you; the universe is an isolated system. Over time it will have increased entropy, which will eventually lead to its heat death.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 20, 2018
https://en.wikipe...universe

For the interested reader.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 20, 2018
It increases in volume with time, but it is still an isolated system.
........not if the volume is constantly increasing. In a system where volume keeps increasing ENTROPY can never be established.


WTF do you mean, 'established'? I told you; the universe is an isolated system. Over time it will have increased entropy, which will eventually lead to its heat death.
......it won't have increased ENTROPY if the volume continually expands, to believe otherwise is simply more of you slavish descent into the cult of Pop-Cosmology fantasy, but as we know, Anthropologists like you cannot be expected to have the math skills to solve Related Rate Calculus that would establish the fact your premise cannot exist.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 20, 2018
it won't have increased ENTROPY if the volume continually expands, to believe otherwise is simply more of you slavish descent into the cult of Pop-Cosmology fantasy, but as we know, Anthropologists like you cannot be expected to have the math skills to solve Related Rate Calculus that would establish the fact your premise cannot exist.


Nope, wrong again, and nobody is saying otherwise. Apart from you. And you are provably scientifically illiterate, as well as being sh!t at maths. As proven.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 20, 2018
I'm confused, Benni. First you say that the Universe is finite or the 2nd law couldn't be established. It appears now you are arguing it is increasing volume and therefore entropy CAN'T be established...
Which is it?
Steelwolf
2 / 5 (2) Nov 20, 2018
So, a couple of conditions to consider:

How would one detect the energy of a high amplitude photon with an infinite length, such that the photon never makes it's complete 'spin'?

And Cherenkov Radiation, that fun thing about particles of all sorts having the ENERGY to break light speed, yet being forced to bleed it off into the surrounding matter/magnetic fields?

Considering that one of the descriptors in the definition of a photon is that it make a full 'spin' or full 'wave'. This should give rise to partial spin portions of photons, as we know they can be stretched, as via gravity and red-shift, and can be compressed in various forms, as in blue shift. And that is just the frequency, nothing to do with speed.

Makes one wonder if the CBR is actually Cherenkov Radiation just red-shifted down even further?
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Nov 20, 2018
Makes one wonder............................................


No it doesn't.
granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Nov 20, 2018
Zero Temperature is Unobtainable

JD, the universe is an isolated system over time it will have increased entropy which leads to its heat death
How can a isolated system that is a fixed volume
or a expanding volume achieve heat death
in a fixed non expanding universe
heat cannot escape outside our universe
the heat is retained within the radius of the universe
because theory theoriser's
outside our universe does not exist
so by the expanding theory of space
there is no space outside our universe to escape
so all the heat is contained within our universe
therefore cannot escape
in a fixed non expanding universe
the heat fills the available space
the temperature never reaches zero
and the same
in an expanding universe
the temperature can never reach zero
it can get closer and closer
but just like a fixed universe
neither fixed nor expanding universe
neither one or the other
can ever reach absolute zero temperature
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 20, 2018
I have never come to any satisfactory conclusion on these extremely speculative arguments either way. It does seem to me that if the universe continues to expand and no new mass comes into being some way, then ultimately the hydrogen must run out, which means no more stars. Eventually black holes will vacuum up all the stellar remnants, Then after a very long time, the black holes will all evaporate by Hawking radiation. At that point, there's nothing left but an extremely tenuous gas of leptons and photons. So this seems to be the ultimate fate of the universe. But it's a very, very long way off; and it's speculative to say whether anything else might affect this before then.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Nov 20, 2018
In other words, it seems like we're looking at a baby that can't even crawl and decide whether it will be President, or get a heroin habit and die of AIDS.
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Nov 20, 2018
Heat Death versus Gravity

which comes to that other little entropy solution
gravity
gravity takes an infinitely long distance to bring the universe to a halt
so even if the temperature got so close to zero
that to all and tents and purposes
effectively heat death
by this time
gravity has brought the universe to a halt
then gravity starts accelerating the universe
to its next fate
the big crunch
so it matters not that the universe is a billionth degree K
above absolute zero
gravity is still here
and will by collapsing the universe
and all the heat energy light and matter
it contains
till the universe will again by being as it is today
in a smaller
space
full of galaxies and stars
as the energy is neither created nor destroyed
just spread out in varying degrees
which
if we have our theories correct
yet again all these stars that we see
will yet again collapse and expand
yet one more time
in the vacuous vacuum of space
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 20, 2018
I'm confused, Benni. First you say that the Universe is finite or the 2nd law couldn't be established. It appears now you are arguing it is increasing volume and therefore entropy CAN'T be established...
Which is it?


And what is Benni's definition of 'finite'? Of course the universe is finite. It had a beginning, and is expanding, so the universe has a boundary. It increases in volume with time, but it is still an isolated system.


WhyGuy, pay attention as to whom it is making that suggestion, jonesy, copied it above for you.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 20, 2018
How would one detect the energy of a high amplitude photon with an infinite length, such that the photon never makes it's complete 'spin'?


Infinity cannot exist in a finite universe, therefore there can't be an infinitely long wavelength thus nullifying the concept that an infinite photon of 1/2 spin has a one half wavelength, one half of infinity cannot not exist & is still infinity.

Amplitude of a wavelength is simply intensity, It's how bright or dim a beam of light is.
hat1208
4 / 5 (4) Nov 20, 2018
@Da Schneib

Once again, epic. I learn more reading your responses to Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist than any of the multitude of wiki pages I read. Now I know that is not the way to learn, ya know reading and stuff, but I like it.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Nov 20, 2018
Heh, everything I talk about here is not just stuff I read but stuff I read and then researched. I recommend the technique!

To put my point even plangently, it's not just which fate awaits (President or heroin addict), but how (or whether) it will be remembered in ten thousand years.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Nov 21, 2018
Infinity cannot exist in a finite universe, …

Well... except for stupid shit...
Anonym262722
1 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2018
@Gran, DS
Keep going on the right direction and research what happens in a closed energy system of Riemann 4-sphere by expanding the notion of Feynman that at T4 (BB or DU bounce) the rest energy of the mass M in 3-D space equals its gravitational energy. This connects the contraction/expansion speed C4 and C to its metric R4 dimension and dynamic 'global' time T4..
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2018
@Benni.
On the Em Energy Spectrum at zero energy there is zero wavelength, therefore no EM Wave.
Of course, mate. But the point remains: ANY 'mathematical' treatment/argument involving '0' in fraction terms is a NON-argument. Period. Hence it is irrelevant to the reality; ie: ANY 'potential source/radiation mathematically ascribed a '0' frequency' is THEREBY EFFECTIVELY describing a STATIC system/process which THEREFORE CANNOT generate/emit radiation at all, of ANY frequency/wavelength!

Hence '0 frequency photon' is a NON-EVENT; hence it is meaningless to ascribe ANY physical 'energy level' or 'wavelength' characteristics/parameters at all.

HOWEVER, extremely lengthened 'WAVELENGTHS' which ARE generated/emitted from close-to EH, by gravitationally-dilated (but still NON-STATIC) sources/processes, CAN reach such lengths that they (and any energy they contain) is EFFECTIVELY SUBSUMED into quantum vacuum fluctuation/uncertainty...and hence EFFECTIVELY UNDETECTABLE. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Nov 23, 2018
@RC, zero wavelength is not zero energy; quite the opposite. It's infinite energy.

Do try to keep up.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 23, 2018
@Da Schneib.
@RC, zero wavelength is not zero energy; quite the opposite. It's infinite energy.

Do try to keep up.
Keeping to that sort of 'purely math' logic/treatment, then you effectively would also claim that there IS infinite density of matter-energy at a BH's 'r=0' point/location? I have explicitly tried to make the obvious distinction between 'maths treatment' and physical reality. If you don't make such distinction, you will inadvertently be 'justifying' @Benni's ridiculing/criticizing of your maths etc which claim "infinite gravity/density inside BHs"....which physicists (and even yourself/jonesy et al) have recently made clear to @Benni that it is NOT a 'physically meaningful/realistic' claim, and so he should stop citing that as if it was a claim by real physicists/yourselves. Hence why I explained as I did to @Benni above, so as to hopefully FORESTALL any further derision/baiting of you/jonesy et al by Benni on that issue. Ok? :)
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (3) Nov 23, 2018
No, @RC, it's just the limits. You should learn about limits.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 23, 2018

See my next post below. Thanks.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Nov 23, 2018
Just so you don't go trying to figure out what "limits" means using colloquial language, I am referring to limits as defined in calculus. It's a technical term.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Nov 23, 2018
And it's notable that gamma rays have much smaller wavelengths than any other EM radiation, like X-rays, ultraviolet, visible light, infrared, terahertz radiation, microwaves, or radio. And much higher energy. This is a clue about as subtle as a sledgehammer.

See, this is why I say you're a fool. You always make up some explanation of why you're right even though every piece of physical evidence says you're wrong. If you were smart you'd just accept you learned something. Instead you pose.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2018
@Da Schneib.
No, @RC, it's just the limits. You should learn about limits.
Relax, mate, I know all about 'limits' math argument/technique for terminating a series. However, the point was that reality intrudes when the '0' appears in any fraction term which causes the output of an equation to be MATHEMATICALLY UNDEFINED...which in mathematics construct/lexicon means that the said maths/equation was INHERENTLY INCAPABLE of physically meaningful conclusions in such cases. I suspect you already know this; which is why I am non-plussed by your above reaction.
Just so you don't go trying to figure out what "limits" means using colloquial language, I am referring to limits as defined in calculus. It's a technical term.
If one separates maths from reality in such cases, the 'undefined problem' does not arise at all in the physical context under discussion. Ok? :)

RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2018
@Da Schneib.
And it's notable that gamma rays have much smaller wavelengths than any other EM radiation, like X-rays, ultraviolet, visible light, infrared, terahertz radiation, microwaves, or radio. And much higher energy. This is a clue about as subtle as a sledgehammer.
I already long knew all that, mate. Do you understand what is meant by NON-EVENT (or in other words: non-action; non-operation)? The point was that anything mathematically/physically ascribed '0' frequency' is a NON-EVENT or STATIC system, and hence NOO CALCULUS CAN BE APPLIED TO THAT system (please see my earlier explanation of that point to @Benni). Ok? :)

PS; Yu were ding s well until now, mate. Please keep the personal dismissal/insults out of it. Just stick to the objective maths/physics points being politely discussed/clarified for both @Benni's and your benefit. Thanks. :)
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2018
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? Everything here is good, thanks for asking.

Cher, I got to know where you learned your science discussing skills, they are truly remarkable. The Trump University critical thinking class would have done more good for you.

Why you don't just go ahead and steal the Trump-Skippy's technique and declare your self to be "A very stable genius". Or maybe what the Trump-Skippy said about about the calculus limits "I know words, I have the best words".

Oh yeah, I almost forget. The Trump-Skippy likes to use the Great Big Beautiful Capital Letters when he tweeters too, and the funny punctuating like you. Did you go to the Trump University with the Trump-Skippy teaching?
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2018
@Uncle Ira.
How you are Cher? Everything here is good, thanks for asking.
Glad to hear it.
Cher, I got to know where you learned your science discussing skills, they are truly remarkable. The Trump University critical thinking class would have done more good for you. Why you don't just go ahead and steal the Trump-Skippy's technique and declare your self to be "A very stable genius". Or maybe what the Trump-Skippy said about about the calculus limits "I know words, I have the best words".
You seem confused, Ira. The discussion involves real physics; and the sometimes inadequate maths/calculus extrapolations/limits to 'undefined' outputs; which does not help especially when '0' is input to the equations, in such cases as 'freq=0' and 'radius=0'. You will have heard many a physicist admit that GR maths equations 'break down' at 'r=0' (eg, in BHs where a 'singularity' arises that physicists now admit is not a physically meaningful maths output). :)
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 23, 2018
@Uncle Ira.
How you are Cher? Everything here is good, thanks for asking.
Glad to hear it.

I am glad you are glad to hear that.
Yu appear confused, Ira.

You are the one confused Cher,,,, I was asking you if you was the honor roll student at the Trump's University.

He also never answers questions like you don't either. And he is all the time telling peoples that everybody is says he is right about this or that. He's always giving him self the A+. And he is always telling us he has a plan, and soon he will tell us what it is but not right now.

You must have either learned all that from the Trump's University, or you guys have the same mental conditions.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2018
@Uncle Ira.
Everything here is good, thanks...
Glad to hear it.
I am glad you are glad to hear that.
And I am glad to hear that you are glad to hear that I am glad to hear it, Ira.
You appear confused, Ira.
You are the one confused Cher, I was asking you if you was the honor roll student at the Trump's University. He also never answers questions like you don't either. And he is all the time telling peoples that everybody is says he is right about this or that. He's always giving him self the A+. And he is always telling us he has a plan, and soon he will tell us what it is but not right now. You must have either learned all that from the Trump's University, or you guys have the same mental conditions.
It seems you're still confused, Ira. Since when did Trump ever actually explain any science? Never. Hence anything you are "asking" in your Trump-confused way, Ira, is just your usual bot-babbling, not science. Get un-confused soon, Ira. :)
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 23, 2018
It seems you're still confused, Ira. Since when did Trump ever actually explain any science?
About as often as you do.

Never.
That is sorta what I was hinting at Cher, I was trying to nice about it.

Hence anything you are "asking" in your Trump-confused way, Ira, is just your usual bot-babbling, not science.
At least I am not the bat-bobbling-poo-crazy like you are. How you like me now Skippy?

Laissez les bons temps rouler. (That's coonass for: "The Trump-Skippy is better at it than you are and that is not something I would brag about.")
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 23, 2018
You know who you remind me of, @RC? Charles Emerson Winchester III.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Nov 23, 2018
Look, @RC, when photons of lower and lower wavelengths have higher and higher energy, what's your prediction for photons with zero wavelength?

A sixth-grader could answer that correctly. You can't. Think about it.
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 23, 2018
Look, @RC, when photons of lower and lower wavelengths have higher and higher energy, what's your prediction for photons with zero wavelength?

A sixth-grader could answer that correctly. You can't. Think about it.

Even I know the answer to that one, it would look really bad if Really-Skippy missed a question like that.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Nov 23, 2018
Now let's put that in nice rigorous mathematical terminology: the limit of photon energy as photon wavelength approaches zero is infinity.

The equation is, E=hc/λ.
Steelwolf
1 / 5 (1) Nov 23, 2018
At this point, if you have to go as far as using the Drumpha Loompa as an example and his Underversity Paper Diplomae he sells, then it is about like having to drop back and compare to Hitler...You automatically Lose if you go there.

Such a nice day, cher, why make yourself comparable to the Drumpha Loompa in such a manner against RC, who may be more right than you are and find out he gets the Nobel if/when his paper comes out.

Rabbit, President or Putz, ya never just know what is under the hat. But until you can provide Solid mathematical Proofs against what he, and I, tend to propose is that the combined effect of turbulence, shear and thus the strengthening of magnetic fields at galactic and cluster as well as at filament scale and works With gravity in some cases, against in others. It can modify expansion.

Anywhere there is a plasma field with Any sort of differential there Will be current, it does not need to produce light to be a current. Basic physics laws.

Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 23, 2018
Look, @RC, when photons of lower and lower wavelengths have higher and higher energy, what's your prediction for photons with zero wavelength?

A sixth-grader could answer that correctly. You can't. Think about it.


If a 6th grader could answer that correctly, what then has been your problem with learning how to read the Electro-Magnetic Energy Spectrum clearly depicting decreasing energy content of an EM Wave as it approaches zero wavelength & at zero wavelength exists zero energy?

RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2018
@Uncle Ira.
Since when did Trump ever actually explain any science
About as often as you do.
I explained science above to @Benni/DS; and on many other occasions, which you apparently missed/didn't realize was science because you're a self-admitted bot-voting ignoramus, Ira. Also, just like Trump, you're hardly in any position to state anything about actual science explanations, Ira.
Never
That is sorta what I was hinting at Cher, I was trying to nice about it.
No, you were just being as nasty Trump-confused as before, Ira.
At least I am not the bat-bobbling-poo-crazy....How you like me now Skippy?
That's funny!...the self-diagnosis from the bot-babbling, Trump-confused ignoramus called "Ira". And can anyone "like" you as a Trump-confused, bot-babbling ignoramus, Ira? Possibly...in the way that one might "like" a babbling pet parrot called "Ira".
The Trump-Skippy is better at it than you
And you're even better at it than Trump, Ira. Bad. :)
Steelwolf
not rated yet Nov 23, 2018
Similarly DS, a photon with an infinite wavelength Approaches zero energy. Easy inversion. Neither actually Reach zero, nor infinity, yet they both proceed infinitely.
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 23, 2018
The Trump-Skippy is better at it than you
And you're even better at it than Trump, Ira. :)


Choot Cher, being better at something than the Trump-Skippy ain't no claim to fame,,,,,, him being better than you,,,,, well that is just plain sad Skippy.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (2) Nov 23, 2018
At this point, if you have to go as far as using the Drumpha Loompa as an example and his Underversity Paper Diplomae he sells, then it is about like having to drop back and compare to Hitler...You automatically Lose if you go there.
Who the the heck said anything about Hitler?

RC, who may be more right than you are and find out he gets the Nobel if/when his paper comes out.
Cher, you must be as bat-poo-crazy as Really-Skippy.

Rabbit, President or Putz, ya never just know what is under the hat.
What? You want a silly looking point cap like the one the Trump-Skippy and the Really-Skippy are so proud of?

what he, and I, tend to propose is that the combined effect of turbulence, shear and thus the strengthening of magnetic fields at galactic and cluster as well as at filament scale and works With gravity in some cases, against in others
Tending to propose something the Really-Skippy proposes is not something I would attract attention to Cher.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 23, 2018
@Da Schneib.
when photons of lower and lower wavelengths have higher and higher energy, what's your prediction for photons with zero wavelength? A sixth-grader could answer that correctly. You can't. Think about it.
Why do you keep missing the point? When maths gives 'infinity', then a mathematical SINGULARITY is indicated by the maths, telling you that it does NOT 'work' anymore at that point/limit...ie, NO 'photon' exists 'there' AS SUCH. Try to approach the problem from the other end, DS. START at '0' frequency and try to identify WHEN that value becomes non-zero? See? there is NO physically identifiable CONTINUUM step FROM infinity BACK to finite. The 'limit' PREDICTION of 'INFINITE' is OUTSIDE OF RANGE of the reality range SET of frequencies.
Now let's put that in nice rigorous mathematical terminology: the limit of photon energy as photon wavelength approaches zero is infinity.

The equation is, E=hc/λ.
With '0', 'infinite', all 'maths bets' are off. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 23, 2018
@Uncle Ira.
The Trump-Skippy is better at it than you
And you're even better at it than Trump, Ira.
Choot Cher, being better at something than the Trump-Skippy ain't no claim to fame,, him being better than you,,,well that is just plain sad Skippy.
So, Ira, you're admitting that you are even more of a Trump-confused bot-babbling anti-science ignoramus than Trump is himself? Man, that's some claim to fame, Ira! Makes me glad to admit that I am not anywhere near as 'good' as YOU or Trump at that, Ira. Wear your new Trump-PLUS 'rating' on that score with pride, Ira. After all, even if it is demeaning to be even more Trump-confused than Trump himself is, you at last have something which you can finally boast about, however ridiculous your 'achievement' there, Ira. Will you be campaigning for Trump now because you're 'better' at being Trump-confused than Trump is himself, Ira? He can always use an infinitely Trump-confused bot-babbling ignoramus like you, Ira. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Nov 23, 2018
Sigh, @100LiarRC doesn't get limits, and @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist can't do math at all.

The equation is right there. Do the math.

The equation is, E=hc/λ.
Anonym262722
not rated yet Nov 23, 2018
E=hf=h0 C4 f=C4 h0/lamda c= m_lamda C4 C where m_lamda is the unit mass equivalence of a cycle of radiation of a Planck emitter, see DU book equation (5.1.1:15) and luminosity model of SN1a where Planck constant h=f(C4) and C4,C are decelerating as function of R4 and/or T4. I cannot understand why anyone is attacking the sound arguments of RC. It would also help to understand the foundations of general inverse matrices (Rao, Bjerhammar, Penrose etc) and their loop inverse expansion of Gaussian estimation theory and C.R. Rao math statistics. Your discussion has not identified the basic math problem of epicycle vs. physical math model that has caused the 'Word Wars' in physics foundations for the past 400-500 yrs until Suntola found the DU solution.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Nov 24, 2018
@Da Schneib.
@100LiarRC doesn't get limits,...The equation is right there. Do the math. The equation is, E=hc/λ.
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!

Do you understand, DS? :)

ps: Please keep me out of your feud with Benni. :)
Anonym262722
not rated yet Nov 24, 2018
The roots of 'singularity problem' are profound and more general than the scalar 0-D case of physics foundations - in my mind it is the 'curse of nature' to test if mankind is mature enough to join the intelligent cosmic life community after 400-500 years of brutal World vs Word Wars to settle some stupid tribal disputes and egoistic politicking. The 1-D case of matrix calculus with more than ONE unknown modeling parameter in n-element vector X of over-determined Gauss-Markov observation equations A X=L+V for observed values L of random residuals V with E(V)=0 has to solve for the n normal equations N' X=U by inverting the n,n matrix N'. The gaussian, Cholesky etc elimination of the symmetric pos.def. system of linear equations breaks down at 'singularity' when the reduced N' main diagonal element is NaN or too close to 0 implying 'ill-poised' problem as resolved by 1972-4 loop inverses and array calculus or extended (n>3 up to Bs) Einstein summation convention of tensor contraction.

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.