Researchers have created a virtual reality simulation of a supermassive black hole

November 19, 2018, BioMed Central
The black hole at the center of our galaxy, Sagittarius A*, has been visualized in virtual reality for the first time. The details are described in an article published in the open access journal Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology. Credit: J.Davelaar 2018

The black hole at the centre of our galaxy, Sagittarius A*, has been visualised in virtual reality for the first time. The details are described in an article published in the open access journal Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology.

Scientists at Radboud University, The Netherlands and Goethe University, Germany used recent astrophysical models of Sagittarius A* to create a series of images that were then put together to create a 360 degree simulation of the black hole, that can be viewed on widely available VR consoles. The authors suggest that this virtual reality simulation could be useful for studying .

Jordy Davelaar, corresponding author, said: "Our virtual reality simulation creates one of the most realistic views of the direct surroundings of the black hole and will help us to learn more about how black holes behave. Traveling to a black hole in our lifetime is impossible, so immersive visualizations like this can help us understand more about these systems from where we are."

The authors also suggest that the virtual reality could help encourage the general public, including children, to take an interest in astrophysics.

Davelaar said: "The visualisations that we produced have a great potential for outreach. We used them to introduce children to the phenomenon of black holes, and they really learned something from it. This suggests that immersive virtual reality visualizations are a great tool to show our work to a broader audience, even when it involves very complicated systems like black holes."

Heino Falcke, Professor at Radboud University adds: "We all have a picture in our head of how black holes supposedly look, but science has progressed and we can now make much more accurate renderings—and these black holes look quite different from what we are used to. These new visualisations are just the start, more to come in the future."

The black hole at the center of our galaxy, Sagittarius A*, has been visualized in virtual reality for the first time. The details are described in an article published in the open access journal Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology. Credit: J.Davelaar 2018
The black hole at the center of our galaxy, Sagittarius A*, has been visualized in virtual reality for the first time. The details are described in an article published in the open access journal Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology. Credit: J.Davelaar 2018

Explore further: Image: Black hole bounty captured in the center of the Milky Way

More information: Jordy Davelaar et al, Observing supermassive black holes in virtual reality, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology (2018). DOI: 10.1186/s40668-018-0023-7

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Mystery of coronae around supermassive black holes deepens

December 18, 2018

Researchers from RIKEN and JAXA have used observations from the ALMA radio observatory located in northern Chile and managed by an international consortium including the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan (NAOJ) to ...

New bright high-redshift quasar discovered using VISTA

December 18, 2018

Using the Visible and Infrared Survey Telescope for Astronomy (VISTA), astronomers have detected a new bright quasar at a redshift of about 6.8. The newly identified quasar, designated VHS J0411-0907, is the brightest object ...

NASA's 1st flight to moon, Apollo 8, marks 50th anniversary

December 18, 2018

Fifty years ago on Christmas Eve, a tumultuous year of assassinations, riots and war drew to a close in heroic and hopeful fashion with the three Apollo 8 astronauts reading from the Book of Genesis on live TV as they orbited ...

171 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

d3bug
5 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2018
Muse did it better...
Benni
1.5 / 5 (16) Nov 19, 2018
The simulators used the wrong colors, they should have used invisible ink so that we can't see it. I mean after all, Pop-Cosmology keeps telling us the reason we can't see the most massive body in the galaxy that supposedly exists at SgrA* is because it is BLACK.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (18) Nov 19, 2018
The simulators used the wrong colors, they should have used invisible ink so that we can't see it. I mean after all, Pop-Cosmology keeps telling us the reason we can't see the most massive body in the galaxy that supposedly exists at SgrA* is because it is BLACK.


Another puerile comment from a scientifically illiterate nutjob.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (16) Nov 19, 2018
It's pretty safe to say, there is very little that is virtual about this "reality". Just more computer games by the plasma ignoramuses.
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (16) Nov 19, 2018
It's pretty safe to say, there is very little that is virtual about this "reality". Just more computer games by the plasma ignoramuses.


Another puerile comment from a scientifically illiterate nutjob.
Anonym458810
1.6 / 5 (13) Nov 19, 2018
How can we run a simulation of something we don't have an equation for?
theredpill
2.3 / 5 (12) Nov 19, 2018
"How can we run a simulation of something we don't have an equation for?"

The same way we can model a particle distribution without knowing the physical properties of the particle, and claim it is there en masse, where it is needed, with the properties WE assigned to it even though it can't be observed.

Math and belief will get you by. Reality be damned.

And now for something totally original from an all around good guy, logical thinker and humanitarian...or Jones.
SongDog
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2018
The paper is interesting reading. It considers a limited set of camera trajectories. I'd like to have seen near-tangential trajectories: what might happen when a camera on (e.g.) a Bussard ramjet boosts through a near-tangential pass inside the event horizon (assuming it could survive the event)?
rrwillsj
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 19, 2018
The same way, when you fold a piece of paper correctly? You have simulated a glider. And when you toss it into the air? It will glide away. Whee!

Of course that can'r be real, cause the woomongers deny the existence of sciemtific modeling aerodynamic forces.

They have working devices based on antigrav/EU/aether/plasma/perpetual nonsense magic.

They just refuse to share their toys with the rest of us. Out of spite that we deny their genius.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 19, 2018
And now for something totally original from an all around good guy, logical thinker and humanitarian...or Jones.


It's not my simulation, f***wit. Go tell the authors. Go post your objections on a physics forum. Whoops, sorry, you're too chicken, eh? Forgot.

theredpill
2 / 5 (8) Nov 19, 2018
"It's not my simulation, f***wit."

Then why defend it like it is you goof?

" Go tell the authors."

They can read the comments .

"Go post your objections on a physics forum."

No, but if you want to leave here and never come back I am sure this forum could use a break from your never ending shit talk and abuse.
" Whoops, sorry, you're too chicken, eh?"
Why would I want to talk to a bunch of indoctrinated morons who all believe the same things you do for the same reasons? You are quite enough...and I am sure a perfect representation of what one can expect there.
" Forgot."
If only it was your password for your account here.

The garbage posts you spew when presented with the incongruities of your belief system only solidify the fact that if any mainstream believer is questioned about the lack of physics supporting their "physics"...their only answer is math says so.

Are you ever going to physically verify anything you say?

I was hoping for the other guy...
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 19, 2018
Then why defend it like it is you goof?


I haven't said a word about it you stupid twat.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (13) Nov 19, 2018
The garbage posts you spew when presented with the incongruities of your belief system only solidify the fact that if any mainstream believer is questioned about the lack of physics supporting their "physics"...their only answer is math says so.


Really got a chip on your shoulder about being scientifically illiterate, haven't you? Why don't you go join your intellectual equals on Thunderdolts, and discuss when Earth was orbiting Saturn?

Benni
2.1 / 5 (9) Nov 19, 2018
It's pretty safe to say, there is very little that is virtual about this "reality". Just more computer games by the plasma ignoramuses.


Another puerile comment from a scientifically illiterate nutjob.



......that black holes are black?
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Nov 19, 2018
Why would I want to talk to a bunch of indoctrinated morons


I have no idea. Do please tell us why you follow the EU cult, with their neo-Velikovskian, mythology-based non-science?
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 19, 2018
The simulators used the wrong colors, they should have used invisible ink so that we can't see it. I mean after all, Pop-Cosmology keeps telling us the reason we can't see the most massive body in the galaxy that supposedly exists at SgrA* is because it is BLACK.


I know, to be true to the descriptors of BH fantasy, they could have used ink other than "invisible", they could have just as well put up a pure black page, and black would be all we see. I mean like, what is with all these pretty colors for something that emits no such photons?
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 19, 2018
The simulators used the wrong colors, they should have used invisible ink so that we can't see it. I mean after all, Pop-Cosmology keeps telling us the reason we can't see the most massive body in the galaxy that supposedly exists at SgrA* is because it is BLACK.


I know, to be true to the descriptors of BH fantasy, they could have used ink other than "invisible", they could have just as well put up a pure black page, and black would be all we see. I mean like, what is with all these pretty colors for something that emits no such photons?


Idiot. Get back to mopping out the toilets.
theredpill
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 19, 2018
"Really got a chip on your shoulder about being scientifically illiterate, haven't you?"

Only complete idiots think math and science are the same thing, reasonable people understand one is a language that describes the other.

" Why don't you go join your intellectual equals on Thunderdolts, and discuss when Earth was orbiting Saturn?"

You are the only one I ever see here claiming the earth orbits Saturn... I guess in the mainstream anything is possible if you can say it in the language of math.

"Idiot. Get back to mopping out the toilets."

Now that's funny, with your potty mouth I would have bet this was your career...and you have been using your tongue to do it for the entire span of it.

"I haven't said a word about it you stupid twat."

No but you sure take it personally when anyone points out valid reasons to question it.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (12) Nov 19, 2018
Only complete idiots think math and science are the same thing, reasonable people understand one is a language that describes the other.


And you can't do, nor understand, physics without maths. End of story. Go ask a physicist. Whoops, sorry, I forgot - EU doesn't have any, does it?

You are the only one I ever see here claiming the earth orbits Saturn... I guess in the mainstream anything is possible if you can say it in the language of math.


Nope, it is one of the core beliefs of EU, dreamed up by two f***wits by the names of Thornhill & Talbott. I guess you agree with me that they are total f***wits, in that case?

No but you sure take it personally when anyone points out valid reasons to question it.


You haven't pointed out any reason to question it. That would be impossible, given that you are a scientifically illiterate cultist, posting crap on a comments section..
theredpill
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 19, 2018
"You haven't pointed out any reason to question it. "

So, the lack of their presence is no reason to question whether they exist from a mainstream supporters POV...

"And you can't do, nor understand, physics without maths."

As has been pointed out to you before, a child pushing around one magnet on a table with another is "doing physics"...no math required to understand the nature of field interaction. And if you only understand it mathematically, you aren't "doing" or understanding the physics. You clearly have no understanding of physics....and so far claim to understand the math without demonstrating you have the ability to marry the two as science requires.

You and your trash talk are reminiscent of WWF wrestling, LMAO...you probably thought that crap was real too.
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2018
Sagittarius A* in virtual reality

phy.org Sagittarius A*, has been visualised in virtual reality for the first time
neither hide nor hair of Sagittarius A* has been seen
at 26,000Lys this has a hair of truth about this 4million BH
galactic BHs are conceled in galactic dust
untill you discover BHs
at not 26,000Lys
not even a million Lys
but when they are billions of Lys
they are strangely not obscured by galactic dust
and are visible
in this metaphysical world that science inhabits
when it is said a BH is visible
it is no more visible at billions of Lys than 26,000Lys
if you were circling Sagittarius A* accretion disc
waiting to fall in
BHs are still not visible
this metaphysical world science inhabits visible means invisible
concerning Sagittarius A*s accretion disc
like Sagittarius A*BH neither hide nor hair has been seen
not one tidally stretched star
as the proof has always been in virtual reality
or in the world of virtual reality
the very first time
IwinUlose
4.3 / 5 (12) Nov 19, 2018
As has been pointed out to you before, a child pushing around one magnet on a table with another is "doing physics"...no math required to understand the nature of field interaction. And if you only understand it mathematically, you aren't "doing" or understanding the physics. You clearly have no understanding of physics....and so far claim to understand the math without demonstrating you have the ability to marry the two as science requires.


This is adorable. I liked the part about the kid gleaning field interaction without any foreknowledge of positive and negative values; and the part where pushing magnets around is 'doing physics'.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Nov 19, 2018
So, the lack of their presence is no reason to question whether they exist from a mainstream supporters POV...


4m solar mass object, that is visible as a radio source, and occasionally flares in other wavelengths. So, what lack of presence, woo boy?

As has been pointed out to you before......................


No, it hasn't. At least, not by anyone scientifically literate. You are an EUist loon, and they hate maths, for the simple reason that they can't do it. Hence, chip on shoulder, and scientific illiteracy.

IwinUlose
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 19, 2018
I did physics to post this comment.

https://www.youtu...KjFvKnBs
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2018
Sagittarius A* virtual reality or actual reality

JD 4m solar mass object that is visible as a radio source and occasionally flares in other wavelengths
an existing accretion disc
provides ample opportunities
for electromagnetic radiation
as dust
as plasma
from stars that Sagittarius A*
plasmaticly tidely drags
within its compass
where within this accretion disc
electric currents flow
magnetic fields flow
where electrons undergoing acceleration
create even gamma-radiation
all this energy coming
from the millions of stars
surrounding Sagittarius A*
as Sagittarius A* an ex-pulsar
Sagittarius A* a 4million rapidly spinning star
so it has to be surrounded by millions of stars
to have acquired it 8x10+36g plasma
from the stars it has tidally stretched
until Sagittarius A* observed telescopically
observed right up to within a hairs breadth of it light radius
then the physical reality of a true accretion disc
is nowhere to be found
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 19, 2018
"The visualisations that we produced have a great potential for outreach. We used them to introduce children to the phenomenon of black holes, and they really learned something from it. This suggests that immersive virtual reality visualizations are a great tool to show our work to a broader audience, even when it involves very complicated systems like black holes."

Cartoons for children, and all they are doing is lying about their non-existent gravity maths monsters. What a waste of resources not to mention the fact they are trying to ruin another generation with their faerie tales.
Benni
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 19, 2018
they are strangely not obscured by galactic dust
and are visible
......and they glow so brilliantly as to be the most luminous bodies of the galaxy..

Lately I've begun to just feel so depressed knowing our SgrA* BH is so wimpy it can't delight us with even the smallest of an accretion disc, I guess it just never gets hungry.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Nov 19, 2018
they are strangely not obscured by galactic dust
and are visible
......and they glow so brilliantly as to be the most luminous bodies of the galaxy..

Lately I've begun to just feel so depressed knowing our SgrA* BH is so wimpy it can't delight us with even the smallest of an accretion disc, I guess it just never gets hungry.


Wrong. As usual.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Nov 19, 2018
"The visualisations that we produced have a great potential for outreach. We used them to introduce children to the phenomenon of black holes, and they really learned something from it. This suggests that immersive virtual reality visualizations are a great tool to show our work to a broader audience, even when it involves very complicated systems like black holes."

Cartoons for children, and all they are doing is lying about their non-existent gravity maths monsters. What a waste of resources not to mention the fact they are trying to ruin another generation with their faerie tales.


Lol. When was Earth orbiting Saturn? You think we should teach that to children? Or any other of the scientifically impossible nonsense believed by your fellow braindead cultists? Maybe in religious education classes, but certainly not in the science curriculum.
theredpill
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 19, 2018
"that is visible as a radio source, and occasionally flares in other wavelengths. So, what lack of presence, woo boy?"

Yeah...that's where REAL physics enters the picture. You see, the radiation above is produced by ions either being accelerated ( which is done with a magnetic/electric field) or by them changing direction which again happens because of interaction with said fields. But I wouldn't expect a hostile, certifiable nutjob with zero understanding of how physics works other than the claim you get the math to be able to fathom such things.

The fact that you have to continuously attempt to strawman my understanding into something you can berate by flat out lying about things I have said here speaks volumes about the kind of mental instability you have, likely why you have so much time to post...no life...just anger and a keyboard, and a brain cell with out of date files for coping with an electromagnetic world.
No wonder the "woo" frightens you so.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 19, 2018
Yeah...that's where REAL physics enters the picture. You see, the radiation above is produced by ions either being accelerated ( which is done with a magnetic/electric field) or by them changing direction which again happens because of interaction with said fields. But I wouldn't expect a hostile, certifiable nutjob with zero understanding of how physics works other than the claim you get the math to be able to fathom such things


Science really isn't your thing, is it? It is not me saying this is due to an accretion disk - it is actual scientists. You seem to think you are arguing with me, you moron. You are arguing with the whole of established science, despite being as thick as pigsh!t on the subject. The same goes for the rest of your Saturnist cult.
Please explain what the 4m solar mass object is at the galactic centre. Using science and maths. You can't, because you are illiterate in both disciplines. Correct? (rhetorical).

Ojorf
4.3 / 5 (11) Nov 20, 2018
Lately I've begun to just feel so depressed knowing our SgrA* BH is so wimpy it can't delight us with even the smallest of an accretion disc, I guess it just never gets hungry.


I'm so sorry about your depression. You too theredpill!
It's your own fault though, because you long for something that just does not fit in with reality, you are always disappointed.
Every time a new article concerning BH's appears and the data solidly aligns with the GR models used to predict what it should look like, you take another heavy blow. You are starting to sound a bit punch-drunk.
How about stepping out of the ring and educating yourself instead of fighting a futile battle against reality?

Start a thread on BH's in the forum section. People will patiently explain it to you. I't moderated, no insults, no off-topic rants, just discussion. It's what you said you wanted in the other thread, theredpill.
How about it?
I predict both of you are too cowardly to do it.
theredpill
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 20, 2018


This is adorable. I liked the part about the kid gleaning field interaction without any foreknowledge of positive and negative values; and the part where pushing magnets around is 'doing physics'.

I like the tone of this, the poster appears to feel there is no physics going on there...indicating why he is completely clueless as to how the rest of physics works, he doesn't even comprehend the most basic of the basic...probably meant to log into facebook.

"Every time a new article concerning BH's appears and the data solidly aligns with the GR models used to predict what it should look like, you take another heavy blow."

I sure do, but it is just my nose....I snot when I laugh really, really hard.
" You are starting to sound a bit punch-drunk."
Hmmm, had a few punch drunk physics professors to compare to?
"How about stepping out of the ring and educating yourself instead of fighting a futile battle against reality?"

The reality of the above simulation? LMAO

jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 20, 2018
^^^^And all the above from a scientifically illiterate clown! Lol.
theredpill
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 20, 2018
"It is not me saying this is due to an accretion disk - it is actual scientists. You seem to think you are arguing with me, you moron."
Pssst, Hey dumbass...you are the one typing.
" You are arguing with the whole of established science, "
The only thing "established" about how space works in your belief system is that gravity causes all motion. Of course this isn't "established" in reality, just mathematically. But not really mathematically because enormous fudge factors had to be added, now you think those are real too...very sad.
"Please explain what the 4m solar mass object is at the galactic centre."
A product of mass delusion - that you have been "educated" (so funny) to believe can A) form because mass can compress itself under it's own weight to a point B) suck light in C) shoot matter out...
Educated into mental retardation, must have been worth every penny.

Read more at: https://phys.org/...html#jCp
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Nov 20, 2018
The only thing "established" about how space works in your belief system is that gravity causes all motion. Of course this isn't "established" in reality, just mathematically. But not really mathematically because enormous fudge factors had to be added, now you think those are real too...very sad.


Gravity is the only force causing motion on large scales. Not a single decent scientist would tell you otherwise. There is no alternative explanation, despite asking for one numerous times. We just get the same old dogmatic, science-free word salad from a Velikovskian cultist.

jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 20, 2018
A product of mass delusion - that you have been "educated" (so funny) to believe can A) form because mass can compress itself under it's own weight to a point B) suck light in C) shoot matter out...
Educated into mental retardation, must have been worth every penny.


Christ, what a tool! So, how are you explaining the orbits of those stars, you moron? Jesus you people are thick! No wonder you fell for the EU anti-science, Velikovskian dogma.

jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 20, 2018
The only thing "established" about how space works in your belief system is that gravity causes all motion. Of course this isn't "established" in reality, just mathematically.


Only a scientifically illiterate cultist could have said that! See the Moon? Orbits Earth purely due to gravity. Ditto the Earth around the Sun, as well as all the other planets. Watched a weather forecast lately? Based on satellites that orbit purely due to gravity. Those orbits are worked out mathematically before launch. Ditto when we send spacecraft to other planets, or comets. Trajectory is based purely on the mathematics of gravity. Want to put a spacecraft in a bound orbit around a comet? Do the maths. No electric woo accounted for whatsoever.

theredpill
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 20, 2018
Jones, you are so f**kin stooopid I seriously can't imagine how you actually function from day to day.

"Gravity is the only force causing motion on large scales. Not a single decent scientist would tell you otherwise."

Hence why, as you pointed out, I am arguing with (LMAO) established "science" (in the form of an idiot that is you)...yet the math only works inside the solar system without fudge factors...and no observed examples of the "things" your science claims are there so that the rest of your math works out.
" There is no alternative explanation, despite asking for one numerous times"

Provided numerous times, you just don't believe it, almost as vehemently as I don't believe the total garbage you and your "scientists" try to push. Funny these trash talk fests always occur under articles where the "simulation" reveals something or the "model" passes a mathematical test that can never be physically verified, because what is modelled is still invisible.
theredpill
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 20, 2018
Despite all the claims, the bluster, and all the math... still no DM, still no image indicating there is a 4 million mass object where you claim it is....just you and a bunch of slightly more polite versions of you telling all of us we are fools for not believing the math that you do, that if we "educated" ourselves we would understand. But I was wrong above about the articles the trash talks occur after, they also occur when yet another observation shows something other than gravity drives a process. You get even more pathetic under those articles because you either claim that what is reported as a discovery is already known or that it is insignificant (like you).

I'll sit here and trade shade with you all day Jones (and your slightly less moronic peers), because you are, to put it politely, a blowhard asshole who doesn't know jack "shite" but thinks he knows it all because of math consensus. Show us DM, or a BH...not more WOO, so far that's all you have.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 20, 2018
Hence why, as you pointed out, I am arguing with (LMAO) established "science" (in the form of an idiot that is you)...yet the math only works inside the solar system without fudge factors...


What fudge factors you moron? Gravity works the same everywhere, dipstick. If I can work out the mass of the Sun from the orbit of Earth, I (and many others) can work out the mass at the galactic centre from the orbit of the stars around it you retard. There is no other explanation.

Provided numerous times, you just don't believe it, ...


No, it hasn't been. Let's see the mechanism, and let's see the maths. Because I will happily show you (again) that you are talking unmitigated, unscientific sh!t. As usual. Now, sh!tforbrains, let's see the science.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 20, 2018
Despite all the claims, the bluster, and all the math... still no DM, still no image indicating there is a 4 million mass object where you claim it is....just you and a bunch of slightly more polite versions of you telling all of us we are fools for not believing the math that you do


DM is seen from gravitational lensing, and the 4m solar mass object has to be there, as we see it in radio and other wavelengths, and the stellar orbits 100% indicate a 4m solar mass object. Unless you've got an alternative to gravity? Spell it out if so, because not a single scientist has suggested anything. Given that you are scientifically illiterate, I'm not holding my breath that you'll come up with anything that is scientifically viable.

jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Nov 20, 2018
I'll sit here and trade shade with you all day Jones (and your slightly less moronic peers) because you are, to put it politely, a blowhard asshole who doesn't know jack "shite" but thinks he knows it all because of math consensus. Show us DM, or a BH...not more WOO, so far that's all you have.


Hahahahaha. This from a scientifically illiterate retard! And what have you got, you moronic f***wit? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Just a belief in sh!t peddled by a bunch of f***wits who believe Earth used to orbit Saturn! Show us some science, you useless twat, instead of dogmatic word salad. Tosser.

Benni
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 20, 2018
Hence why, as you pointed out, I am arguing with (LMAO) established "science".
......no, you are not arguing with "established science", you are arguing with the established cult of Pop-Cosmology as exemplified by jonesy, their adherents believe things like infinite gravity and infinite density can exist within finite stellar structures.

They do not believe in the concept that gravity is MASS DEPENDENT, and when they are cornered to explain why they don't believe such an Immutable Law of Physics, they just go on a foul mouthed name calling binge & claim YOU are the one who doesn't believe in the Laws of Physics,
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Nov 20, 2018
They do not believe in the concept that gravity is MASS DEPENDENT, and when they are cornered to explain why they don't believe such an Immutable Law of Physics, they just go on a foul mouthed name calling binge & claim YOU are the one who doesn't believe in the Laws of Physics,


What is a half-life, you uneducated moron? Lol. Why would anybody listen to a retarded mop pusher? Hmmm?

jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Nov 20, 2018
they also occur when yet another observation shows something other than gravity drives a process.


These 'something others' don't drive galaxy rotation curves, nor stellar orbits around BHs. And nobody is claiming otherwise. So, write up your woo, and let's see it. Yes? Otherwise, you are still batting zero.
theredpill
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 20, 2018
"What fudge factors you moron? Gravity works the same everywhere, dipstick."

Really, then why do equations which supposedly describe the motion of the galaxy require the addition of 5 X more matter placed in spots where it should be observable yet isn't in order for the math to work? Get it through your head and into your brain cell, that is a fudge factor you useless waste of skin.
"DM is seen from gravitational lensing,"
Show me the picture of DM...not the effect you claim represents it, the actual stuff loser.
"I (and many others) can work out the mass at the galactic centre from the orbit of the stars around it you retard."
Except we do not see what you claim is there idiot, there is no object with the mass your calcs need that we can see...so STFU until we can. Got anything besides math "woo" that supports your preconceptions, got anything other than untestable claims? Got anything at all besides confusion and a bad attitude? Moron.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 20, 2018
Except we do not see what you claim is there idiot, there is no object with the mass your calcs need that we can see...so STFU until we can. Got anything besides math "woo" that supports your preconceptions, got anything other than untestable claims? Got anything at all besides confusion and a bad attitude? Moron


And I keep telling you, you f***ing ignorant moron, that we do see it. We see it in radio, and sometimes other wavelengths when it flares. So, there is something there. And that something is 4m solar masses, you retarded cretin. Unless you are saying gravity works differently there? Lol.

Show me the picture of DM...not the effect you claim represents it, the actual stuff loser.


Jesus, what a w**ker! If I had a f***ing picture of it, I'd have the Nobel prize, you twat! 'Show me a picture'! Jesus H. Christ! Are you Benni in disguise.? Ever seen an electron? Or a neutrino? We infer their existence from their effects, dumbo.

jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 20, 2018
And I'm still waiting for a certain moron to explain galaxy rotation curves, and stellar orbits without recourse to mass, and therefore gravity. A link to whatever woo you believe will be fine. If you have nothing other than unscientific word salad, then why not p!ss off, and post your crap on Thunderdolts, with the rest of the clueless cretins.
theredpill
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 20, 2018
"And I keep telling you, you f***ing ignorant moron, that we do see it. We see it in radio, and sometimes other wavelengths when it flares.

And I cited the REAL PHYSICAL MECHANISMS that produce photon emission, your response to that post just confirmed how little you understand about physics.
" If I had a f***ing picture of it, I'd have the Nobel prize, you twat!"
And a leg to stand on when you, or the entire delusional math based science crowd claim something exists that you cannot verify physically.
" Unless you are saying gravity works differently there? "
The galaxy SHOWED you the mechanics work differently, remember, multiply the mass by five and put it where you need it so the gravity calcs still work?? It's the other non existent mass hallucination (math induced) you and "all of established science" suffer from. PHYSICAL verification Jones...it's why all you have is a shitty theory dying a slow death.
MrBojangles
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 20, 2018
The Red Pill is a movie that highlights the struggles men go through which are swept under the rug by society at large. It's also a red flag when someone chooses that as their forum name. It suggests to me that you've been unsuccessful with women, and are grasping on to this movie as a defense mechanism as to why you're soul-crushingly lonely. Or it's an allusion to being "awake" while the rest of the "sheeple" are spoon-fed truths, a la The Matrix. Either way, he's the tinfoil hat type of guy that thinks all of society is out to get him. Alex Jones has corrupted his mind into thinking these goofy baseless theories because being counter to pop-culture makes him feel somehow above others and superior to them. You will NEVER win an argument against someone like that. These are the folks that ruin Thanksgiving dinner with their paranoid drivel.

The Earth is an oblate spheroid, gravity exists, and the sun is powered by thermonuclear fusion. Quit being an involuntary celibate.
MrBojangles
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 20, 2018
Seriously though, think of how pathetic and unloved an individual must be, that they feel the constant need to go to a place of discussion and insist that everyone else is wrong and they are right. I promise redpill, Benni, etc. that nobody wants you here. Why continue your lame and fruitless crusade? Are you just hoping that someone will come along and validate your misguided views, or are you so bitter about being societal rejects that you fill your spare time by trolling honest folks on the internet who come to learn and discuss in earnest?

Create your own website and discuss with like-minded people the theories you believe in. Stop corrupting everyone else's time with your egotistical rantings. Please know that you are not wanted here.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Nov 20, 2018
And I cited the REAL PHYSICAL MECHANISMS that produce photon emission, your response to that post just confirmed how little you understand about physics.


I couldn't give a toss what crap you have dreamed up. Show me this explanation in the scientific literature, with the mechanism and the predictions.

And a leg to stand on when you, or the entire delusional math based science crowd claim something exists that you cannot verify physically.


Sorry, what is the alternative to the 'math based crowd'? Not your Velikovskian idiots, surely? Show me their science in this area. Lol.

The galaxy SHOWED you the mechanics work differently, remember, multiply the mass by five and put it where you need it so the gravity calcs still work?


And you have no alternative explanation, do you? If you do, link to it. The fact remains that you are an ignorant, EU anti-science troll, who understands nothing about science. Stick to mythology.

Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 20, 2018
The Red Pill is a movie that highlights the struggles men go through which are swept under the rug by society at large. It's also a red flag when someone chooses that as their forum name. It suggests to me that you've been unsuccessful with women,


....and Mr Bojangles was the name of a dancer back in the last century, and we know about acclaimed dancers don't we?
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Nov 20, 2018
Create your own website and discuss with like-minded people the theories you believe in.


Already exists;

https://www.thund...ndex.php

You should have a read. It is bloody hilarious! Not a scrap of science, of course, just deluded nutjobs like theredpillock discussing Earth orbiting Saturn, and various other impossible woo.

theredpill
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 20, 2018
"....and Mr Bojangles was the name of a dancer back in the last century, and we know about acclaimed dancers don't we?"

I remember a cat named Mr. Bojangles, it knew more about physics than the one we have here, but then again, so does anyone not "educated" to hallucinate objects into existence.

"I promise redpill, Benni, etc. that nobody wants you here."

LMAO...guess I'll stay even longer then...want some skritchens girl?

" Why continue your lame and fruitless crusade? "

Well for starters, not believing in made up objects is the first step on the path towards adulthood...which is a path anyone "educated" to falsely believe math and physics are synonymous or to believe in fantasy should follow if only they could. But alas, we will just sit here while the guys who mathematically invent things convince idiots they are real, and laugh at, belittle and mock the idiots....now dance on over to your bowl of temptations and take a break girl.

MrBojangles
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 20, 2018
Or continue to be an Alex Jones loving celibate. That works too.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Nov 20, 2018
Well for starters, not believing in made up objects is the first step on the path towards adulthood...which is a path anyone "educated" to falsely believe math and physics are synonymous or to believe in fantasy should follow if only they could. But alas, we will just sit here while the guys who mathematically invent things convince idiots they are real, and laugh at, belittle and mock the idiots....


But you are an idiot, as proven. You have no explanation for the 4m solar mass object known to exist at the galactic centre. You cannot explain the stellar orbits. You essentially deny gravity. Ergo, you are an uneducated, scientifically inept troll.

theredpill
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 20, 2018
"Or continue to be an Alex Jones loving celibate. That works too."

Ooohhh...MEEEOOWWWW.

"Ergo, you are an uneducated, scientifically inept troll."

Until your math is physically verified the above opinion is from a know nothing loser who thinks math makes objects real and knows absolutely nothing about physics.

Example: "Show me this explanation in the scientific literature, with the mechanism and the predictions."

All from WIKI:Photons from astrophysical sources that carry energy in the gamma radiation range are often explicitly called gamma-radiation, they are often produced by sub-atomic particle and particle-photon interactions. bremsstrahlung or braking radiation is any radiation produced due to the deceleration (negative acceleration) of a charged particle. Maxwell's equations, described light waves and radio waves as waves of electromagnetism that travel in space, radiated by a charged particle as it undergoes acceleration.

None of which involve gravity
SkyLight
3.7 / 5 (12) Nov 20, 2018
So, we have a bunch of scientists who have used their skills and ingenuity to make a fun VR simulation which may help others to take an interest in science.

And then we have another bunch of people - degenerates and losers all - who are not scientists, who never will be scientists, and whose only claim to fame is incessant whining. In a science forum, of all places...

Here's looking at you: the cretinous mopping Benni, the dire argumentative twat theredpill, the EU dolt and plasma fetishist cantthink, the utterly insane, drivelling granville: bleat as long and as hard as you like. You'll never escape the prison bars of your own pitiful inadequacies.

Meanwhile, folks, over here in science land, it's business as usual.
SkyLight
3.7 / 5 (12) Nov 20, 2018
@redpill, you've taken quotes from separate Wiki pages and then combined them seamlessly as if that's how they appear in some imaginary Wiki article you appear to have ripped them from.

Any fool can do that to pitch an argument in any direction they will.

Here are the 3 Wiki articles:

https://en.wikipe...ve_decay

https://en.wikipe...trahlung

https://en.wikipe...oitation

Neither these articles, nor your made-up quote support your view that gravity is NOT involved. It's a measure of your stupidity, and your ignorance of well-established science, that leads you to make such an untenable statement.

Gravity powers processes which themselves power and influence other processes which lead to phenomena like the ones you mention. This is complex stuff, and very obviously way above your pay-grade. You should stick to baseball and guzzling pizza.

jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Nov 20, 2018
Until your math is physically verified the above opinion is from a know nothing loser who thinks math makes objects real and knows absolutely nothing about physics.


Given that I have studied both maths and physics, that is patently false. You on the other hand have shown no aptitude in either, and are still in a science-free zone. There is a 4m solar mass object at the galactic centre. What do your high priests suggest it is? Show me the science.

None of which involve gravity


And cannot explain stellar orbits. So, you strike out again. Show us some science, woo boy. Got any? I very much doubt it, eh? Just another puffed up EU anti-science troll. All talk, no science. Thick as pigsh!t. Spouting Thornhill's unscientific dogma, based on his Velikovskian beliefs. Not science, woo boy. What you have there is faith.

theredpill
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 20, 2018
"taken quotes from separate Wiki pages and then combined them seamlessly as if that's how they appear"

1000 words genius...for the sake of efficiency I pulled the direct quotes which apply to Jones lack of understanding, that he needed clarification on.
"Gravity powers processes which themselves power and influence other processes which lead to phenomena like the ones you mention. "
This statement has as little physical verification as most of the other crap you guys believe.
"This is complex stuff, and very obviously way above your pay-grade."
Well, the math is complex. Fantasy can be as complex or as simple as one chooses to make it.
" You should stick to baseball and guzzling pizza."
Baseball is fun to play and pizza is delicious, feels nice to comment about real things doesn't it?
Meanwhile Jones et al will be getting groceries and gassing up their cars with math, no need for physical reality as math will produce these things whenever needed.
SkyLight
3.7 / 5 (12) Nov 20, 2018
@redpill, you have nothing substantive to offer - nothing at all. You just whine. A lot.
theredpill
2.7 / 5 (9) Nov 20, 2018
"@redpill, you have nothing substantive to offer - nothing at all. You just whine. A lot."

Your brand of astrophysics has less to offer than I do. If it was just plain nothing, that would be fine, but instead we get mountains of bullshit.

You perceive it as whining because you actually believe the math, that's OK. You feel whatever you do reading my verbal beat downs of Jones, and then feel the need to come in and state your opinion, that's fine too. As noted previously, I started commenting here politely and in earnest... found maintaining that to be pointless here. Just because the "science" you support is so bad you cannot defend it's conclusions with anything but personal insults and attacks is telling of what kind of mentality is required to buy into it.

Please, keep telling me how real your math reality is, I will keep looking at physical reality and pointing out where the math is just plain wrong, and doing this little verbal dance.
theredpill
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 20, 2018
"Just because the "science" you support is so bad you cannot defend it's conclusions with anything but personal insults and attacks "

Woops, forgot appeals to authority. You can always site a paper or math that supports your POV. Or an "inferred" observation that math supports, which supports your POV. What you cannot, and never will be able to provide is a physical example of what you claim exists because math tells you it does. Until mainstream astrophysics can physically verify the assumptions the math is based on, they, and you, are all just woo merchants of a slightly different kind...but woo none the less.

If all of you are so sure of your math, why respond at all to one guy on whom you think is just an ignorant toss who is just whining? Use the ignore function and continue about your merry way, unfettered by the words of a non-believer. But to engage is to have to face the fact that you have no physical observations of your beliefs shoved in your face.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 20, 2018
1000 words genius...for the sake of efficiency I pulled the direct quotes which apply to Jones lack of understanding, that he needed clarification on.


I need clarification on nothing. I may not be a plasma physicist, but I know a hell of a lot more about it than you do. You still haven't explained what is causing this EM radiation, and has a mass on 4m suns. Still waiting. Still expecting word salad, and no science. as usual.

Please, keep telling me how real your math reality is, I will keep looking at physical reality and pointing out where the math is just plain wrong, and doing this little verbal dance.


You haven't even attempted to show that the maths is wrong, you lying cretin! You can't do maths. Show us where Kepler, Newton & Einstein got it wrong, thicko. And then give a scientifically viable, quantitative alternative. Or STFU.

jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 20, 2018
Until mainstream astrophysics can physically verify the assumptions the math is based on, they, and you, are all just woo merchants of a slightly different kind...but woo none the less.


What do you mean. 'mainstream'? There is only one kind astrophysics, and there is plenty to back it up. There are no viable alternatives to gravity, for instance. And observation and evidence tell us that a 4m solar mass object HAS to be at the galactic centre. Unless you have an alternative to gravity. Given how totally unschooled you are in any kind of physics, then that isn't happening, is it, thicko?

jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Nov 20, 2018
Woops, forgot appeals to authority. You can always site a paper or math that supports your POV. Or an "inferred" observation that math supports, which supports your POV. What you cannot, and never will be able to provide is a physical example of what you claim exists


Which is pure bullsh!t, from an admitted crank. And let us see, redpillock, what alternatives have you offered? Hmmm? Zilch. Nada. Nowt. F*** all. Because you don't have one, and don't understand science. You have no hypothesis, no model, no observations. Nothing. You are just a butt hurt failure, with a chip on his shoulder due to being crap at science and maths. So, you signed up to a cult that believes Earth used to orbit Saturn! Lol. And you expect people to take you seriously, you deluded clown?

SkyLight
3.7 / 5 (12) Nov 20, 2018
Please, keep telling me how real your math reality is
The onus is on you, not me, to disprove whatever it is you're beefing about.But all you do is whinge.

Remember Kepler and Newton who laid the mathematical basis for explaining the Galilean model? Remember Maxwell? - his equations pointed to the existence of radio waves years before people actually discovered them. Remember Einstein? - his equations have led to so many predictions, many of which have been shown to be true, or at the very least not yet disproved (a big deal in science). Remember Planck and Schrödinger and Dirac and Feynman and all the other theoretical physicists who laid the foundations of quantum mechanics and QCD. and so on...

Math is the backbone of science, without which it founders and fails. And foundering and failing is an apt description of your pathetic, no-wheels-on-the-wagon notion of "physical reality".

Math got man to the moon - here's your attempt: www.youtube.com/w...dVdKlxUk
IwinUlose
4.3 / 5 (11) Nov 20, 2018
Woops, forgot appeals to authority. You can always claim math is not real; or reference *two* unresolved aspects of the Standard Model while ignoring that all the other aspects you reference aside were all either predicted or discerned by mathematical proof, which supports your POV. What you cannot, and never will be able to provide is a mathematical proof of what you claim exists because you'll find any excuse not to do the work and learn the maths. Until mainstream astrophysics can be broken down into a coloring book, they, and you, are all just whine merchants of a slightly different kind...
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Nov 20, 2018
@redpill, you have nothing substantive to offer - nothing at all. You just whine. A lot.


This! He's just another thick EUist, with zero maths or physics knowledge. And cannot even link to whatever sh!t he believes, because it either doesn't exist, or he is too embarrassed. Just another uneducated, anti-science troll, fuelled by bitterness about being too bereft of the necessary IQ points to understand the relevant science.
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 20, 2018
The same way, when you fold a piece of paper correctly? You have simulated a glider. And when you toss it into the air? It will glide away. Whee!
I have a book given to me when I was nine years old. It is the record of the First International Paper Airplane Contest. It has pages you can tear out and make into paper airplanes but I used regular paper because I couldn't bear to tear pages out of books. My favorite is one I call the "Manta;" after several folds, it has a weight in the center and broad spreading wings. I can still make one fifty-some-odd years later. Various versions turn left or right or perform loop-the-loops vertically. I admit bias; I preferentially avoided the ones that went down.
theredpill
2.1 / 5 (11) Nov 20, 2018
"The onus is on you, not me, to disprove whatever it is you're beefing about."

And here we have the pathetic crux of it all. The statement that I have to disprove something someone believes is real when NOBODY can physically verify it is.

"Math is the backbone of science,"

OK, show me the definition of math which defines it as the backbone of science. Or do you need me to repost for the 11th time here the definition of math?

"Math got man to the moon "

Actually, that was called a "rocket". But I am sure while you and Jones are dining on your mathematical groceries you can discuss how it was math that did this. BTW, just in case you didn't know, the math was tested physically...ask the Apollo one crew, oh wait, the math that was supposed to get them into space burned them to a crisp instead. The results of a miscalculation I suppose. Do you have any idea how much real science you discount by saying something as ridiculous as "math did this"?
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Nov 20, 2018
What you cannot, and never will be able to provide is a physical example of what you claim exists because math tells you it does.


Don't count on that, moron. I saw a rumour that the EHT people may have a presentation at the next AAS meeting, in January. Willing to bet on what they found?
And one thing is for certain - you and your Velikovskian friends have no explanation whatsoever. Do you? All you do is whine. It gets boring. Whine, whine, whine. Grow up, get a life. More to the point, get an education.

jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (13) Nov 20, 2018
And here we have the pathetic crux of it all. The statement that I have to disprove something someone believes is real when NOBODY can physically verify it is.


No, thicko, you have to explain what the 4m solar mass object at the centre of the galaxy is, if it isn't a BH.

OK, show me the definition of math which defines it as the backbone of science. Or do you need me to repost for the 11th time here the definition of math?


Show me how to derive the mass of the Sun from the orbit of the Earth without maths. Tell me how you calculate the orbit to insert a satellite into, without maths. You cannot, you imbecile. Just because Thornhill and his tosspot followers are crap at maths does not alter the fact that physics is impossible without maths.

jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (13) Nov 20, 2018
Actually, that was called a "rocket". But I am sure while you and Jones are dining on your mathematical groceries you can discuss how it was math that did this.


How much fuel did they need? How do you work this out? How much thrust to achieve escape velocity? How do you work this out? What about trajectory, and time of launch? Try doing that without maths, you imbecile. What about the thrust to leave the Moon? A body we had never been on before? What was its gravity? How did we work it out? What about the previous missions that merely orbited it? Figure those orbits out without maths. What about your GPS? Where would that be without the maths of SR and GR?

Christ you people are thick. By definition.

Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (9) Nov 20, 2018
What amazes me is that no one else challenges @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist's assertion that it could be a barycenter with no mass there. The acceleration of the orbits at closest approach makes this obviously ridiculous.
SkyLight
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 20, 2018
Christ you people are thick.
Heck, that's worth quoting again...
Christ you people are thick.
Stupidity of the order shown by these sorts just could not be made up. Nobody would believe it. And yet, folks, "physical reality" shows us that, yes: folks really can be that stupid.
Christ you people are thick.
MrBojangles
4 / 5 (12) Nov 20, 2018
OK, show me the definition of math which defines it as the backbone of science. Or do you need me to repost for the 11th time here the definition of math?


It's called the scientific method:
a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 20, 2018
How much fuel did they need? How do you work this out? How much thrust to achieve escape velocity? How do you work this out? What about trajectory, and time of launch? Try doing that without maths, you imbecile. What about the thrust to leave the Moon? A body we had never been on before? What was its gravity? How did we work it out? What about the previous missions that merely orbited it? Figure those orbits out without maths. What about your GPS? Where would that be without the maths of SR and GR?
@Jones, if you really want to ask a hard question, try asking them when Max-Q happens. For each stage. The astronauts watched those periods very closely because if the math was wrong they were going to die by being turned into tomato sauce.
SkyLight
4 / 5 (12) Nov 20, 2018
@ds
What amazes me is that no one else challenges @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist's assertion that it could be a barycenter with no mass there
That's been attempted on several occasions, but the guy simply does not, and very evidently cannot, comprehend what's said to him. Er ist einfach zu dumm!
theredpill
2.3 / 5 (12) Nov 20, 2018
Here moron brigade, the logic that all of your knowledge was born from:

How do you know BH's and DM exist?
Because we did math that everything moves because of gravity.

But how do you know?
Because earth has gravity and sucks things towards it...so that is how everything works, we can even figure out the mass of anything because of this.
Oh cool! How did you test that everything in the universe moves because of gravity?
We did the math.
No...how did you TEST that?
We did the math.
Ummm...OK. So, no confirmation available...but all the math works out right?
Of course!!! We even added 5 X more mass to the universe because of it.
You did, why?
Well...the math didn't work out when the scales changed so we added a variable to make the math work out.
Ahhhh, makes sense. And you confirmed the existence of the variable?
YES!!
How?
Mathematically.
LMAO...morons
Phyllis Harmonic
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 20, 2018
Do you have any idea how much real science you discount by saying something as ridiculous as "math did this"?


This level of stupid is frightening.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 20, 2018
OK, show me the definition of math which defines it as the backbone of science. Or do you need me to repost for the 11th time here the definition of math?
It's called the scientific method: a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
We can start with Galileo, who risked burning at the stake with his "eppur si muove" comment at the end of his religious trial. Newton is the best known and is rightly hailed as a founding figure of modern physics. When physics became mathematically rigorous it became a science rather than speculations.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 20, 2018
@ds
What amazes me is that no one else challenges @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist's assertion that it could be a barycenter with no mass there
That's been attempted on several occasions, but the guy simply does not, and very evidently cannot, comprehend what's said to him. Er ist einfach zu dumm!
The key is repetition. Keep saying it. It helps find out who is just dumb and who is trolling.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Nov 20, 2018


Mathematically.
LMAO...morons

F***wit, what else could it be, you bleeding clown? Show me the alternative, you f***ing blowhard.
theredpill
2.1 / 5 (11) Nov 20, 2018
"F***wit, what else could it be, you bleeding clown? Show me the alternative, you f***ing blowhard."

LMAO...Gasket blown.
"consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

Exactly, so if you want to discuss BH's existing and created as theorized, get back to me when any experiment verifies quantum gravity, and if you want to discuss what DM does, get back to me when the experiments verify it's properties, because until then you have a predetermination that cannot be verified and over a hundred years of worthless math based on the predetermination. Until astrophysics can apply the scientific method to verify it's claims...it's Woo....Woo Jones et al....Woo.

Woohoo!!!!

Benni
2 / 5 (12) Nov 20, 2018
because until then you have a predetermination that cannot be verified and over a hundred years of worthless math based on the predetermination. Until astrophysics can apply the scientific method to verify it's claims...it's Woo....Woo Jones et al....Woo.


In the meantime they have been thinking how clever they are to come here with 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 it did was to create a huge conundrum for the 21st century model.

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 kinetic energy based TUG Math calculations. So now there's a conundrum is squaring 21st Century BH models with 19th Century models.

Benni
2 / 5 (12) Nov 20, 2018
because until then you have a predetermination that cannot be verified and over a hundred years of worthless math based on the predetermination. Until astrophysics can apply the scientific method to verify it's claims...it's Woo....Woo Jones et al....Woo.


In the meantime they have been thinking how clever they are to come here with 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 it did was to create a huge conundrum for the 21st century model.

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 kinetic energy based TUG Math calculations. So now there's a conundrum is squaring 21st Century BH models with 19th Century models.


......so tell us schneibo, how do you do it?
Benni
2 / 5 (12) Nov 20, 2018
The key is repetition. Keep saying it. It helps find out who is just dumb and who is trolling.

In the meantime they have been thinking how clever they are to come here with 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 it did was to create a huge conundrum for the 21st century model.

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 kinetic energy based TUG Math calculations. So now there's a conundrum is squaring 21st Century BH models with 19th Century models.

Thanks schneibo for the lead-in.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 20, 2018
Poor @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist is butthurt and lying about what people say again.

Pitiful.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (9) Nov 20, 2018
Actually, the Maxwell-Boltzmann equations use KE. Introduced in 1872. Maybe you forgot.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 20, 2018
Oh and worth noting photons have no KE because they have no mass. They have momentum though. And momentum is what matters.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (11) Nov 20, 2018
Oh and worth noting photons have no KE because they have no mass. They have momentum though. And momentum is what matters.


.....then why do you believe they can be trapped into orbit around a stellar mass?

Orbiting satellites have mass & thus subject to laws for kinetic energy & you are proposing the same thing for an electro-magnetic wave which has no mass therefore can have no kinetic energy. Dare I repeat your usual response..........Duhhh?

Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 20, 2018
Oh and worth noting photons have no KE because they have no mass. They have momentum though. And momentum is what matters.


In Newtonian mechanics, linear momentum, or simply momentum is the product of the mass and velocity of an object. It is a vector quantity, possessing a magnitude and a direction in three-dimensional space. If m is an object's mass and v is the velocity (also a vector), then the momentum is: p =mv

https://en.wikipe...Momentum

No mass for a photon means no momentum: 0 mass x velocity = 0, thus being the case means gravity has no effect for trapping a photon into an orbit around any stellar mass.

The key is repetition. Keep saying it. It helps find out who is just dumb and who is trolling.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Nov 20, 2018
Oh and worth noting photons have no KE because they have no mass. They have momentum though. And momentum is what matters.


.....then why do you believe they can be trapped into orbit around a stellar mass?
Because their momentum can be altered by gravity?

You know, like in 1919 when Eddington went and checked.

In Newtonian mechanics
Which is of no importance.

@Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist is butthurt and lying about what people say again.

Pitiful.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 20, 2018
Illustration of pitiful:

https://www.youtu...Z8LmwTds

This is like watching @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist argue about physics.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 20, 2018
.....then why do you believe they can be trapped into orbit around a stellar mass?


Because their momentum can be altered by gravity?
.......why the question mark at the end of your response? That a sure signal to others you're just not sure.

So explain how gravity does all this orbital trapping stuff on something that has no mass? Maybe apply this equation: F = G m1m2/r²............so we have the gravity of mass m1 as the product of mass m2, & if one of those two is zero as you have stated for a photon, then everything goes to zero. Hmmmmm, dumdedum duhhhhhh.

Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 20, 2018
The one I'll always remember is going down to San Diego to support a printed circuit design system.

I won't name the company, but they have an Atlas rocket configured into a childrens' slide in the little park they have for the kids to wait for Dad to get off work.

I walk into this guy's cubicle, and he's got a cartoon of a B-1 flying away from a mushroom cloud captioned, "And now it's Miller time!"
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 20, 2018
So explain how gravity does all this orbital trapping stuff on something that has no mass?
Because gravity works on momentum just like every other force. Which you'd know if you were a nuclear engineer and not a janitor.
IwinUlose
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 20, 2018
He's just going to get bent out of shape again; a completely warped perspective.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 20, 2018
Momentum is a vector quantity that is the product of the mass and the velocity of an object or particle. As a vector quantity it has both magnitude and direction. Or you can read it at:
https://www.brita...momentum

So explain how gravity does all this orbital trapping stuff on something that has no mass?


Sez schneibo:
Because gravity works on momentum just like every other force.
No, MOMENTUM alone is a VECTOR,, it requires MASS x velocity to make it a QUANTITY upon which gravity acts. Think 3rd semester Calculus.

Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (11) Nov 20, 2018
Momentum is a basic conserved quantity that is dual under Noether's Theorem to the symmetry of results across space. Again, as a nuclear engineer would know and a janitor would not.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 21, 2018
Until astrophysics can apply the scientific method to verify it's claims...it's Woo....Woo Jones et al....Woo.


They can, you f**wit, they are called Kepler's laws. It tells us that there is a 4m solar mass object at the galactic centre, sh!tforbrains. And you have no way to explain it. However, this is not a surprise, given that your cult believe Earth used to orbit Saturn. Lol. Haven't got any science, have you, woo boy? (rhetorical).

RNP
4.3 / 5 (11) Nov 21, 2018
@Benni
No mass for a photon means no momentum: 0 mass x velocity = 0, thus being the case means gravity has no effect for trapping a photon into an orbit around any stellar mass.

This is completely false, as any high-school student should know!.

Here is some simple high-school physics for you from a nuclear physics site; https://www.nucle...-photon/

This lays out exactly what the (non-zero) momentum of a photon is and explains that it was derived by Einstein in 1916.

No, MOMENTUM alone is a VECTOR,, it requires MASS x velocity to make it a QUANTITY upon which gravity acts. Think 3rd semester Calculus.

Again, completely false. Indeed, Eddington's 1919 observation of light being bent by the Sun's gravity that was the first proof that Einstein's theory is correct.

Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 21, 2018
Very nice, @RNP. Good page.
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2018
Classically theredpill
theredpill> How do you know BH's and DM exist
jd> we did math that everything moves because of gravity.

But how do you know
Because earth has gravity and sucks things towards it so that is how everything works we can even figure out the mass of anything because of this
Oh cool how did you test that everything in the universe moves because of gravity
We did the math.
No how did you TEST that
We did the math.
OK so no confirmation available but all the math works out right
Of course we even added 5x more mass to the universe because of it
You did why
Well the math didn't work out when the scales changed so we added a variable to make the math work out
Ahhhh makes sense and you confirmed the existence of the variable
YES
How
Mathematically

In a Nutshell
DM + BHs
mathematicaly speaking
We even added 5x more mass to the universe
to make sure there was plenty of
masss
so
the
mathematics
correctly calculated
the theorised BH
and DM
Enthusiastic Fool
4 / 5 (12) Nov 21, 2018
Man, the smooth brained crew in here getting walloped by DaS, Skylight, MrBoj, RNP, and Jonesy. Thanks guys.

Someone was claiming no tidally stretched stars but we have observed gas clouds getting disrupted.
https://www.eso.o...1151.pdf
Just recently they measured the redshift changes as the star S2 approach SgrA*.
https://arxiv.org...07.09409

Someone was also claiming there's no detection of SMBH in SgrA*. Right now this is the best image I know of the SgrA*. The picture is 1000ly x 500ly and in radio. Now if this is all "ions and the electric field" how much mass would be required to create a field that strong and that many ions? What mechanism would cause such density outside gravity? Present maths to support that.
https://newatlas....e/55474/
I would also accept any math using Coulomb's law or Maxwell equations which shows that the motion of Pluto or Jupiter is due to electric effects.
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2018
Again, completely false. Indeed, Eddington's 1919 observation of light being bent by the Sun's gravity that was the first proof that Einstein's theory is correct.


Ahhh, but this is not what schneibo's argument is for his 19th Century TUG Math solution. You bunch of novice 19th Century TUG Math guys keep putting forth the concept from 19th century cosmology that an EM Wave can be trapped by gravity into an inescapable orbit around a body of finite mass by stringing together a bunch of made up numbers. What you can't do is come up with the OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE to prove your NUMBERS exist in reality, witness the fake drawing at the lead in for this article.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (12) Nov 21, 2018
Again, completely false. Indeed, Eddington's 1919 observation of light being bent by the Sun's gravity that was the first proof that Einstein's theory is correct.


Ahhh, but this is not what schneibo's argument is for his 19th Century TUG Math solution. You bunch of novice 19th Century TUG Math guys keep putting forth the concept from 19th century cosmology that an EM Wave can be trapped by gravity into an inescapable orbit around a body of finite mass by stringing together a bunch of made up numbers. What you can't do is come up with the OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE to prove your NUMBERS exist in reality, witness the fake drawing at the lead in for this article.


Don't be such a twat. Observation shows gravitational lensing, you arse. That is light being bent by bodies of finite mass. Try to keep up.
SkyLight
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 21, 2018
Oh Jonesy - you do have a way with words! ;-)
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 21, 2018
Oh Jonesy - you do have a way with words! ;-)


One tries one's best. :)
SkyLight
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 21, 2018
@EF
Someone was claiming no tidally stretched stars but we have observed gas clouds getting disrupted
Nice paper, an easy read, good observations of the gas cloud dynamics and some predictions to follow up on. It doesn't get much better than that.

Benni, you'd do well to read the paper - there's an opportunity here to actually learn something. Go on, step out of your comfort zone and grow a little. Here's the link again: https://www.eso.o...1151.pdf
SkyLight
4 / 5 (9) Nov 21, 2018
So, Benni - bless his cotton socks - keeps obsessing - as is his wont - about something called "19th Century BH TUG Math" or similar. Could somebody with a brain please bring me up to speed here - what in tarnation is "TUG" supposed to mean?
SkyLight
4.4 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2018
...aaannd, as is his wont, Benni down-votes me and doesn't have the good grace to help me out here. Way to go, Benni!

"TUG", anybody?
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2018
Again, completely false. Indeed, Eddington's 1919 observation of light being bent by the Sun's gravity that was the first proof that Einstein's theory is correct.


Ahhh, but this is not what schneibo's argument is for his 19th Century TUG Math solution. You bunch of novice 19th Century TUG Math guys keep putting forth the concept from 19th century cosmology that an EM Wave can be trapped by gravity into an inescapable orbit around a body of finite mass by stringing together a bunch of made up numbers. What you can't do is come up with the OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE to prove your NUMBERS exist in reality, witness the fake drawing at the lead in for this article.


Observation shows gravitational lensing, That is light being bent by bodies of finite mass. Try to keep up.


You keep up, photon deflection has nothing to do with ESCAPE VELOCITY equations derived from kinetic energy equations, yet you Pop-Cosmology aficionados continue the fiction.
MrBojangles
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 21, 2018
Why do I get the feeling that Flowers for Algernon is a true story based on Benni?
It makes perfect sense, really. The main character was a janitor with an IQ of 68. Perhaps some of the intelligence gained through his surgery is still accessible, which is why he's able to type out occasionally complex sentences, despite them never being fully intelligible.
RNP
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 21, 2018
@SkyLight
I think that he uses it as an acronym for "Theory of Universal Gravitation", as in "Newton's theory of universal gravitation", but I haven't seen it used anywhere else.
SkyLight
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 21, 2018
@RNP - ahh, you're probably right - he does have a fixation on Newtonian gravity, since it's nice and simple 7th/8th grade stuff which he can handle. Anything more complicated and he's lost.

I was thinking he might have meant "Totally Useless Gravity" :)

RNP
4.3 / 5 (11) Nov 21, 2018
@Benni
photon deflection has nothing to do with ESCAPE VELOCITY equations derived from kinetic energy equations,

You are right. That is why your comments are so completely wrong.

Particles with mass behave differently than mass-less particles such as the photon.

For massive particles the easiest way to think about their behaviour is terms of escape velocity.

BUT, for mass-less particles (e.g. photons) one has to think about about redshift and deflection.

You must learn to discriminate between the two cases.

All this was shown by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.

P.S. General relativity also showed that one could achieve enough deflection to create a circular orbit.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 21, 2018
For massive particles the easiest way to think about their behaviour is terms of escape velocity.


In 1783 John Michell (1724-1793), an English clergyman and amateur astronomer considered the implications of Newton's corpuscular theory of light. Considering that such a stream of particles should be affected by gravity, he speculated that for a sufficiently massive body, light would not be able to escape.

.....and this is the old trapped light theory that an EM Wave is subject to what is now known as kinetic energy ESCAPE VELOCITY equations, the theory Pop-Cosmology aficionados bitterly cling to even while they cannot reconcile how to make a massless EM Wave orbit a gravitating body.
RNP
4.3 / 5 (11) Nov 21, 2018
@Benni
In 1783 John Michell (1724-1793), an English clergyman and amateur astronomer considered the implications of Newton's corpuscular theory of light. Considering that such a stream of particles should be affected by gravity, he speculated that for a sufficiently massive body, light would not be able to escape.

.....and this is the old trapped light theory that an EM Wave is subject to what is now known as kinetic energy ESCAPE VELOCITY equations, the theory Pop-Cosmology aficionados bitterly cling to even while they cannot reconcile how to make a massless EM Wave orbit a gravitating body.

No, no, no ,no ,no!

It is YOU that seems wedded to this antiquated theory.

Those of us arguing with you here have REJECTED it.

We are quoting the results Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, and I have already told you how the theory shows that mass-less photons can orbit a mass.
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2018
We are quoting the results Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, and I have already told you how the theory shows that mass-less photons can orbit a mass.


No, you are NOT QUOTING ANYTHING as the results of GR.

You are falsely equating the Photon Deflection section of GR with the kinetic energy equation of 1/2mv² by your persistent use of the term ESCAPE VELOCITY.

You Pop-Cosmology aficionados always give away how little you comprehend the chasm of difference between EM Energy & Kinetic Energy every time you put up the term ESCAPE VELOCITY in the context of EM Energy, it's a dead giveaway as to what you're trying to do.

Escape Velocity equations cannot be derived from E=mc², but they are derived from KE=1/2mv². Don't believe me? Then go back to your Pop-Cosmology & math class try it, in the meantime give up this foolishness of mixing up John Mitchell's 19th Century TUG Math with that section of Einstein's GR known as Photon Deflection.

RNP
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 21, 2018
@Benni
Uneducated and uneducatable.

Good night. Sweet delusions.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 21, 2018
@Benni
Uneducated and uneducatable.

Good night. Sweet delusions.


Yep, I just gave you ANOTHER educational moment & you don't know how to dodge it.
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 21, 2018
@Benni
Uneducated and uneducatable.

Good night. Sweet delusions.


Yep, I just gave you ANOTHER educational moment & you don't know how to dodge it.


No you didn't you uneducated moron. As usual you posted a load of bollocks, with which not a single physicist would agree. Therefore we can ignore your deluded ramblings.
MrBojangles
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 21, 2018
...ESCAPE VELOCITY...ESCAPE VELOCITY...


What are you smoking, you fruitcake?
The reason light cannot escape a black hole is because of gravity's effects on the curvature of space time.

The only thing you seem capable of doing is squawking like a parrot:
"ESCAPE VELOCITY, ESCAPE VELOCITY"
"INFINITE MASS INFINITE DENSITY"
"Pop-Cosmology"

The only mass you need to concern yourself with is that of the mop you're currently neglecting.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 21, 2018
Perhaps Benni should read this, posted by infinitely more intelligent people than him;

https://physics.s...-gravity

Or this;

http://hubblesite...t=exotic

Or he can stick to Newton's 17th century maths.

granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2018
Light
or electro-magnetic radiation
an oscillating electro-magnetic field
or a photon
as a particle
that is subject to gravitation
where gravity is proportional to inertial mass
that only inertial mass is what gravity attracts
where the unproven theory that only massless particles
travel at the velocity of light
but therein lies the conundrum
BHs, light radii gravitational lensing
is where photons conundrum lies
as gravity only exerts a force on inertial mass
and theory says only massless particles travel at velocity C
and yet even though mass less particles
are not affected by gravity
as a photon supposedly is not effected by electric nor magnetic fields
as a photon is composed of electric and magnetic fields
and gravity also has no effect on electric and magnetic fields
the photon is a conundrum
it is not effected by gravity as it is massless
it is massless to travel at velocity C
as all the facts state
gravity cannot bend light
because it is massless
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2018
So, Benni - bless his cotton socks - keeps obsessing - as is his wont - about something called "19th Century BH TUG Math" or similar. Could somebody with a brain please bring me up to speed here - what in tarnation is "TUG" supposed to mean?
Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation. Which, BTW, is still used by NASA for most purposes; perturbations at the third and even higher orders are still greater than corrections for relativity, and that's good enough to get pretty much anywhere in the Solar System. Relativity is an awful lot of calculating for not much difference unless you're in strong gravity or going some substantial fraction of lightspeed. TUG's much simpler, calculation wise.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2018
@RNP, maybe you can answer this for me: if you calculate the Schwarzchild radius for a black hole, is there a difference between escape velocity being c and the point at which the path of light just grazing the radius puts the light in an orbit? My understanding has always been they are the same, but you seem to hint here that this is not necessarily so:
For massive particles the easiest way to think about their behaviour is terms of escape velocity.

BUT, for mass-less particles (e.g. photons) one has to think about about redshift and deflection.

You must learn to discriminate between the two cases.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2018
In other words, for a non-rotating uncharged BH, is the EH the same size for both light and mass? I know there are a lot of complications to this for even Kerr BHs, and certainly for Reissner-Nordstrom and Kerr-Newman BHs.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2018
@Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist is lying about what people said again. Must be butthurt again.

Pitiful.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2018
@RNP, maybe you can answer this for me: if you calculate the Schwarzchild radius for a black hole, is there a difference between escape velocity being c and the point at which the path of light just grazing the radius puts the light in an orbit? My understanding has always been they are the same, but you seem to hint here that this is not necessarily so:


You're asking a freelance journalist a question like this? Hell's bells man, he doesn't even know what TUG Math is.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2018
BTW, worth noting where this all came from: I once told @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist that black holes had been predicted using TUG. It's been lying about it ever since.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2018
Oh, and Noether's Theorem is firmly 20th century and is not derived from relativity. So much for your lies about 18th century math.

And I note you haven't responded about it. You can't, of course; can't do the vector calculus.

So what about it, @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist? You got a response to being thoroughly pwnt for claiming momentum is composite when Noether's Theorem says it's fundamental and determined by the existence of space?
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2018
And there does seem to be some progress: @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist doesn't seem to be claiming relativity is wrong any more. In fact it seems to be trying to use it to prove points, though it doesn't know enough about it to do it very well.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2018
....is there a difference between escape velocity being c and the point at which the path of light just grazing the radius puts the light in an orbit?


.....and there you go schneibo, invoking gravitational Escape Velocity math derived solely from from Kinetic Energy to come up with solutions to an Electro-magnetic Wave.

Hey, schneibo, and you still wonder why astronomers have yet to snap a pic of all this trapped light phenomena?

Huge, massive, some claimed to be billions times of solar mass, and we just can't get a pic of the outline of such an image as it blocks out the field of stars behind it.

I see why they feel the need to draw artist's renderings of them like the one at the top of this page.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2018
....is there a difference between escape velocity being c and the point at which the path of light just grazing the radius puts the light in an orbit?


.....and there you go schneibo, invoking gravitational Escape Velocity math derived solely from from Kinetic Energy to come up with solutions to an Electro-magnetic Wave.
@Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist is lying again. I'm asking, @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist, not stating. You, on the other hand, are about halfway (oh, sorry, that's a fraction, isn't it? Guess you won't get that) up your shin stuffing that foot in your mouth again.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2018
Here's some more 20th century math for you: the Chandrasekhar limit. That's the limit above which a stellar remnant becomes a neutron star. It's derived from both quantum mechanics and relativity. And there's another limit, the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit, above which a stellar remnant becomes a black hole.

Chandra won a Nobel Prize for the limit and in decades of observation, no one has shown it to be wrong.

But you wouldn't know anything about those.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2018
But you wouldn't know anything about those.


Whoops, losing the argument of trying to apply kinetic energy Escape Velocity math to an electro-magnetic wave and it's time to change the subject.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2018
You better get used to it, @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist. Every time you lie about what I say I'm gonna point it out, refute it, and watch you squirm. And I'm gonna be stuffing that "18th century math" bullshit up your nose forever.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2018
Oh, and BTW again, Mitchell based his analysis on Newton's "corpuscular" theory of light. In the late 19th century, light was believed to be wavelike; but nowadays, we know it's made of photons, which Einstein proved (and for which he won a Nobel Prize). The "corpuscular" theory of light won out after all. We call the "corpuscles" photons these days.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2018
Meanwhile, seems like you lost the thread. I'm not changing the subject; you're the one who keeps lying about "18th century math."

Get over it.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2018
So, anything to say about Noether's Theorem and your idiotic assertion that momentum is not a fundamental quantity? I'll just point out at this juncture that your assertion appears to be based on 17th century math.

Just askin'.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2018
In the late 19th century, light was believed to be wavelike; but nowadays, we know it's made of photons


So in the schneibo world of Pop-Cosmology fantasy, "photons" are a preferable use of a word than "wavelike" when it comes to electro-magnetism. Why is that schneibo? Actually I can explain it for you, it's a semantical concept of saying one thing but implying something else altogether different.

You like "photons" because in your fantasy world that word carries a connotation of PARTICLES, you know little tiny packets of tangible material. Then on to the next step, little tiny packets of other kinds of material are subject to the laws of Kinetic Energy & thus Escape Velocity calculations.

With the wavelike function of electro-magnetism deleted, what is it you intend to accomplish that I may have missed in the previous paragraph?

Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2018
@Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist is lying again. It it has nothing to do with what I like. It doesn't matter what I like or don't like. It's how things are.

See Einstein's paper on the photoelectric effect which firmly and finally showed that light is emitted, as well as absorbed (which Planck had already shown) in individual packets; photons. This was one of the three papers Einstein published that year, and it's a famous one and one he won a Nobel Prize for.

Do you have some sort of problem with Einstein's Nobel Prize?
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2018
that light is emitted, as well as absorbed (which Planck had already shown) in individual packets; photons


Yeah schneibo,, but what you mean is a far different animal than how Einstein characterized PHOTONS.

You bitterly cling to John Mitchell's TUG Math calculations using "corpuscles" so that EM velocity can be manipulated by the strength of a gravity field. His "corpuscles" are your "packets of photons", but not those of Einstein who denied BHs can exist & wrote a 1939 paper on it: "On Stationary Systems with Spherical Symmetry consisting of many Gravitating Masses"

So while you continue to be ambiguous about your preferred description for electro-magnetism , the end result for which you seek does not change, that being for electro-magnetism be subject to the Kinetic Energy principles of Escape Velocity, it is the reason you keep associating that term with electro-magnetism for which there is no mathematical derivation for EM in the Laws of physics.

Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2018
@Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist is lying again.
Yeah schneibo,, but what you mean is a far different animal than how Einstein characterized PHOTONS.
No, @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist. Physicists went back and forth several times between waves and particles during the centuries since Newton. This is a matter of historical fact.

And again:
You bitterly cling to John Mitchell's TUG Math calculations using "corpuscles" so that EM velocity can be manipulated by the strength of a gravity field.
No, @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist. I don't care how TUG affects photons; we have relativity for that. You know, Eddington and stuff. Maybe you forgot.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2018
@Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist is scared to talk relativity with me. It knows I know far more about it than it does. And it's still butthurt from having to admit relativity is right.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2018
And another interesting little point: in 1801 Johann von Soldner showed that TUG predicted deflection of light; however, the predicted deflection was about half what was observed, and is predicted by GRT. https://en.wikiso...r_Motion

This was well known throughout the 19th century. But telescopic equipment of sufficient precision was not available to test it.

What Eddington showed in 1919 was that the TUG prediction was only half what was observed.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2018
scared to talk relativity with me. It knows I know far more about it than it does. And it's still butthurt from having to admit relativity is right.


.......and the problem is with how you twist the Photon Deflection section of GR into an argument for subjecting a photon to the Escape Velocity principles of Kinetic Energy. You've spent too much time watching that dumb video trying to further such half-assed pseudo-science.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Nov 21, 2018
C'mon, @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist. Bring some misunderstood relativity so I can pwn you some more. Let's have some more butthurt janitor physics to mock.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2018
@Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist lies again.
and the problem is with how you twist the Photon Deflection section of GR into an argument for subjecting a photon to the Escape Velocity principles of Kinetic Energy.
Von Soldner did it in 1801. https://en.wikiso...r_Motion

More butthurt janitor physics. Go mop some toilets, @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Butthurt_Plagiarist.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2018
Bring some misunderstood relativity
.....I just did right above in my last post & somehow you managed to read right over it, here, give it another try:
the problem is with how you twist the Photon Deflection section of GR into an argument for subjecting a photon to the Escape Velocity principles of Kinetic Energy.


Care to respond? Probably just another name calling rant?
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2018
Von Soldner, 1801. For the third time.

https://en.wikiso...r_Motion

You must be really busy with those toilets.
Phyllis Harmonic
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2018
Holy shit, do you guys have any idea how totally bizarre ya'll sound?! This is like some sort of weird hell where you guys are trapped in this eternal volley of epithets and invective!
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 22, 2018
It's the only thing that gets janitor-boi's attention.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 22, 2018
Oh, and worth mentioning Einstein had read von Soldner's work and referenced it; in 1911 he got the same result, but after fully developing the General Relativity Theory in 1915 he found that the deflection was twice what TUG predicted. This is why Eddington did his experiment, and the results were what Einstein predicted using GRT, not what von Soldner predicted using TUG.
RNP
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 22, 2018
@Da Schneib
@RNP, maybe you can answer this for me: if you calculate the Schwarzchild radius for a black hole, is there a difference between escape velocity being c and the point at which the path of light just grazing the radius puts the light in an orbit?


If I have understood your question correctly then, yes, there is.

A photon's lowest orbit (which is unstable) is the "photon sphere", which is 1.5 times the Schwarzchild radius. ( https://en.wikipe...n_sphere

I'm not sure if I have answered your question. If not, let me know.
RNP
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 22, 2018
@Da Schneib
Bloody site truncated my previous response. Here is the missing part;

N.B. You have to be very careful when considering BHs in terms of escape velocity within GR. This is why it took a mathematically talented physicist such as Schwarzchild to solve the GR fiekd eqns. There is a discussion of these considerations here;

https://www.reddi..._radius/
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 22, 2018
@RNP, thanks. I now find I've been confusing the photon sphere with the event horizon. Those two links were most useful.
RNP
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 22, 2018
@Da Schneib
@RNP, thanks. I now find I've been confusing the photon sphere with the event horizon.


Yep, we have all done it! Things nearly always get complicated when you apply GR. This is part of the reason it is so difficult trying to explain it to people like Benni. You find yourself constantly having to (over-)simplify things.
Enthusiastic Fool
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 22, 2018
DaS, RNP,

About the Photon Sphere according to APOD:
"A photon could leave the back of your head, go once around the black hole, and be seen by your eye - you can see the back of your head.
At the photon sphere, no light emitted outside can reach you from below - you look into the vast emptiness of the black hole. The sky you once knew is now behind you, compacted to occupy only half its original area."

I think this is also the point where you get roasted by photons as you pass and die. Not sure at what point your feet redshift out of visibility. The language though is no light "emitted outside". So if Hawking Radiation is a real phenomenon you could see or feel that heat. WRT conflating PS w/ the EH you might be thinking of the hypothesized "Black Hole Firewall".
https://en.wikipe...physics)
RNP
5 / 5 (5) Nov 22, 2018
@Enthusiastic Fool
Actually, the putative "firewall" is on (or very near) the event horizon, although assuming a significant irradience of the BH, one would expect a dramatic rise in flux as one enters the photon sphere.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Nov 22, 2018
@RNP
Bloody site truncated my previous response. Here is the missing part;

N.B. You have to be very careful when considering BHs in terms of escape velocity within GR. This is why it took a mathematically talented physicist such as Schwarzchild to solve the GR fiekd eqns. There is a discussion of these considerations here;

https://www.reddi..._radius/
Thanks for the reddit link
awesome!
granville583762
3 / 5 (4) Nov 22, 2018
Rotational Stars in the Vacuum
Da Schneib> In other words, for a non-rotating uncharged BH, is the EH the same size for both light and mass? I know there are a lot of complications to this for even Kerr BHs, and certainly for Reissner-Nordstrom and Kerr-Newman BHs.

Is there any star that does not orbit
As to orbit is to spin
There is no object in the vacuous vacuum
That does not spin
All stars spin
As spin is what a pulsar makes
In theory a neutron star makes a pulsar
Theory predicts a massive collapsing star makes a neutron star
All collapsing stars spin
As does our sun
All theory predicts
A neutron star makes a pulsar which makes a BH
So by definition of all that spins in the vacuum
Theoretical or actual BH
Is only one thing and one thing only
A spinning BH
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Nov 22, 2018
Well! A most fruitful question it would seem. Thanks!
Enthusiastic Fool
5 / 5 (4) Nov 22, 2018
@Enthusiastic Fool
Actually, the putative "firewall" is on (or very near) the event horizon, although assuming a significant irradience of the BH, one would expect a dramatic rise in flux as one enters the photon sphere.


Yessir, I was trying to get across that perhaps he was thinking the photon sphere and the firewall were the same. One is approximately collocated with with the event horizon and the other is 3/2 the schwarzchild radius(for non spinning non charged BH). Crossing either one of them is likely to be uncomfortable.

I was also reading that Kerr BH have 2 photon spheres and they move in retrograde and prograde to one another. Pretty wild stuff.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Nov 22, 2018
Getting fried by the image of the accretion disk inside the photon sphere would be ignominious.

"Yes, yes, we can see the event horizon now... sssssssssssssssssssssssssss"

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.