Researchers discover black hole in our galaxy spinning rapidly around itself

Researchers discover black hole in our galaxy spinning rapidly around itself
The Chandra images show pairs of huge bubbles, or cavities, in the hot gaseous atmospheres of the galaxies, created in each case by jets produced by a central supermassive black hole. Credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC Illustration: CXC/M. Weiss.

A University of Southampton-led project has shown a black hole spinning near its maximum possible rate around its axis.

The study, funded by the Royal Society and published in the Astrophysical Journal, comprised an international team of astronomers led by the University and sheds more light on the characteristics of black holes and the environment surrounding them.

Using observations from state-of-the-art technology, the team of researchers found evidence that a stellar-mass black hole in our galaxy (known as 4U 1630-472) is rotating rapidly (at a speed of 92-95 per cent of the theoretically-allowed rotational speed) around its axis while sucking in falling material. It is subject to gravitational stresses and temperatures so high that it begins to shine brightly in X-rays, which were seen by astronomers using telescopes.

According to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (GR), if a black hole is rotating rapidly, then it will modify the space and time around it in a way which is different than that for a black hole which is not rotating.

Such modifications from high spin rates leave an impression on the shape of the radiation from the material rotating very close to the black hole before disappearing. Therefore, if the change in shape of the emitting spectra can be determined somehow, then the GR can be used to measure the black hole spin.

The findings from this study are significant as previously high spin rates of approximately five black holes have been quantified accurately.

Dr. Mayukh Pahari, from the University of Southampton and lead author, said: "Detecting signatures that allow us to measure spin is extremely difficult. The signature is embedded in the spectral information which is very specific to the rate at which matter falls into the black hole. The spectra, however, are often very complex mostly due to the radiation from the environment around the black hole.

"During our observations we were lucky enough to obtain a spectrum directly from the radiation of the matter falling into the black hole and simple enough to measure the distortion caused by the rotating black hole."

A black hole is created when a massive star dies and the matter gets squeezed into a tiny space under a heavy force of gravity, trapping in the light. The is so strong that the entire mass of the stellar core is crushed into a theoretical point. This point, however, cannot be directly seen, because nothing, not even light, can escape from a region around it, thus justifying the name of the object.

Astronomical can be fully characterised by only two properties: mass and spin rate. Therefore, measurements of these two properties are uniquely important to probe some extreme aspects of the universe and the fundamental physics related to them.


Explore further

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

More information: Mayukh Pahari et al. AstroSat and Chandra View of the High Soft State of 4U 1630–47 (4U 1630–472): Evidence of the Disk Wind and a Rapidly Spinning Black Hole, The Astrophysical Journal (2018). DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae53b
Journal information: Astrophysical Journal

Citation: Researchers discover black hole in our galaxy spinning rapidly around itself (2019, January 16) retrieved 25 May 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-01-black-hole-galaxy-rapidly.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
1805 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jan 16, 2019
"According to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (GR), if a black hole is rotating rapidly, then it will modify the space and time around it in a way which is different than that for a black hole which is not rotating."

There is no such reference to "a black hole" in Einstein's GR.

Jan 16, 2019
@Benni, 'Strawman Argument'. There's no reference to cell-phones in Maxwell's equations but, as you may have noticed, they still work...

Jan 16, 2019
@ Benni - What's a "reference" in a series of math equations?

As I think we all know, GR fails at some point inside the event horizon, but it certainly predicts/incorporates the possibility of black holes.

Jan 16, 2019
It is subject to gravitational stresses and temperatures so high that it begins to shine brightly in X-rays, which were seen by astronomers using telescopes.


So in essence, no BH detected, only X-rays. Everything else conjectured is pure speculation based on that one observation. The X-rays could very well be evidence of a plasma discharge, no BH needed.

Jan 16, 2019
It is subject to gravitational stresses and temperatures so high that it begins to shine brightly in X-rays, which were seen by astronomers using telescopes.


So in essence, no BH detected, only X-rays. Everything else conjectured is pure speculation based on that one observation. The X-rays could very well be evidence of a plasma discharge, no BH needed.


Lol.

Jan 16, 2019
So in essence, no BH detected, only X-rays. Everything else conjectured is pure speculation based on that one observation. The X-rays could very well be evidence of a plasma discharge, no BH needed.


There's evidence for black holes between your ears.
Honestly though, why not just hang out at the Thunderbolts forums where you might actually be taken seriously?

Jan 16, 2019
I prefer to mock morons who believe in unicorns and faerie dust.

Jan 16, 2019
No mention of it's distance from us, what a lousy article.

Jan 16, 2019
Methinks '@Benni....has some 'fiends....naww 'friends' (sorry ..typo) here of the dubious duplicate doppelganger signins type. Put out some drivel and then two with different names parrot the post and slavishly agree with him/her. Heyyy @Benni...how many of 'you' are out there at this time, not having been put back into your dark closet yet.

Jan 16, 2019
It is subject to gravitational stresses and temperatures so high that it begins to shine brightly in X-rays, which were seen by astronomers using telescopes.


So in essence, no BH detected, only X-rays. Everything else conjectured is pure speculation based on that one observation. The X-rays could very well be evidence of a plasma discharge, no BH needed.


Or it could be aliens operating xray hospital equipment, or maybe a nuclear power plant on some planet deep inside the galaxy that has melted down.

Jan 16, 2019
@Osiris1

There are many many derivatives of Benni the butt hurt plagiarist.

Jan 16, 2019
@Forum.

The 'feuding trolls exchange' above reminds me of the old speculative 'supersymmetry' concept.

You know, wherein: Every 'standard model particle' allegedly had its supersymmetric 's' counterpart....as in Electron and 'sElectron'; Muon and 'sMuon' etc.

Only here it's: Every 'standard feuding troll' has its supersymmetric counterpart....as in Troll and 'sTroll'. :)

Trolls and sTrolls happy rolling around mudslinging together in their respective versions of Bliss and 'sBliss'.

What symmetry! Almost beautiful, in a way. A perpetual feuding exercise in Futility and 'sFutility'. :)


Jan 16, 2019
unicorns and faerie dust.


Are those codenames for Velikovsky?

Jan 16, 2019
@Benni,

I'm sure the reporter meant to write Einstein's SPECIAL theory of relativity, not the general one.

It's not the only mistake:

The reporter also writes: "Astronomical black holes can be fully characterised by only two properties: mass and spin rate. "

If I remember correctly there is a third: charge.

It's still a cool discovery though.

Jan 16, 2019
There exist in our galaxy, and astronomers have found and cataloged them, neutron stars, and recently quark stars. The next step after these is posited the black holes. Once, before quark stars were discovered, the same was said as the next step after neutron stars.

In physics discussions among the 'pro's in the past couple of decades or so, the subject of next levels of smallness was posited and proposed to be 'preons' with even more fractional charges and less masses. Just like the quarks were dreamt of before that. We proved the quarks and then found the stars made of them.

I think the same will be attendant to proving 'preons'...and then better telescopes like China's FAST will find the preons if they have not already in classified research. First finding of these will certainly be classified as they may lead to military uses. This family of particles may just include gravitons!! And others that have capacities for mass western mayhem. We BETTER get busy!!

Jan 16, 2019
@Benni,

I'm sure the reporter meant to write Einstein's SPECIAL theory of relativity, not the general one.

It's not the only mistake:

The reporter also writes: "Astronomical black holes can be fully characterised by only two properties: mass and spin rate. "

If I remember correctly there is a third: charge.

It's still a cool discovery though.

I thought I read something bout magnetic fields, as well...

Jan 16, 2019
I'm sure the reporter meant to write Einstein's SPECIAL theory of relativity, not the general one.


Maybe he's confusing the two, I don't actually know because it's hard to get inside the brain of a person who imagines infinite gravity can exist at the surface & center of a finite stellar mass.

The biggest obstacle he's dealing with is his bias of the Pop Cosmology War against Science in which well known immutable laws of physics just because a bunch of overage Trekkies can't give up an old television series.


Jan 16, 2019
There exist in our galaxy, and astronomers have found and cataloged them, neutron stars
.....no they haven't........got a pic? Do you even know that the hypothetically largest N-star is? 2-5 miles in case you didn't. We don't have optics with resolution to observe the closest so-called Nstar 500 light years away.

and recently quark stars.
A quark has never been isolated to prove it even exists, How do you know something exists for which there is no evidence it can be REAL, more Pop-Cosmology fantasy, like dark matter.

Jan 16, 2019
Magnetars, Pulsars and BHs

According to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (GR), if a black hole is rotating rapidly, then it will modify the space and time around it in a way which is different than that for a black hole which is not rotating.

A BH is an ex-pulsar
as yet no non spinning pulsar star has been detected
untill a non spinning pulsar is detected
as BHs are pulsar stars
the probabilities of a non spinning ex-pulsar blackhole
existing in this vacuum are 100% zero
as with 100% certainty
all blackholes spin
and by virtue of their reduced diameter
spin more rapidly than when they existed as pulsar stars

All blackholes spin faster than their pulsar stars

Jan 16, 2019
There yet may be more to be learnt about black holes. Like classes of them for all are not perfectly black, as the late Steven Hawking posited. Some new particle discoveries may have their associated stars be appear as black holes, as escape from any body that forces speeds in excess of 'c' must needs be called 'black' Decreasing size leads to greater matter density in the associated star, and increasing activation energy needed to prove their partical's existence...orders of magnitude greater. This puts limits on discovery pending enabling technologies to provide the activation energy for their proofs of existence.

The gaining of these enabling technologies will unlock technologies associated with each level we gain....like a video game run by the mad Red Queen in a Lewis Carroll book. I would really like to see some of these. However, much of the new tech will require hot labs in space on the other side of the sun or beyond neptune. Unbound energies close by quite deadly

Jan 16, 2019
So how fast is it spinning?

Jan 16, 2019
RealityCheck's joyous Trollians

< Trolls and sTrolls happy rolling together >

Dancing a spiral we sing unaware
On fairy night wings our songs fill the air
Making a circle of magic and light
Watched silently by the Fey of the night

The songs in the night
As we dance round the flame
The Fairy Nightsongs are never the same
The words from our lips as we sing for the night
Impart to the Fey our hearts truest sight

The feuding troll's exchange
Only here
it's
every standard feuding troll has its super symmetric counterpart
as in Troll and sTroll
Trolls and sTrolls happy rolling around mudslinging together
in their respective versions of Bliss and sBliss
What symmetry!
Almost beautiful, in a way
A perpetual feuding exercise
in Futility and sFutility

In memory of TrollianRealityCheck
whose ghost haunts
The real trollians under their bridges contemplating fin rot

Jan 16, 2019
The cranks are kinda fuzzy on how the whole spectroscope thing works.

Found the paper on arXiv: https://arxiv.org...10.01275

I'll look it over for you, @CAMason, and see if I can get enough information to figure it out. For starters, it's 92-95% of the maximum speed allowed for a Kerr black hole; since the Kerr equations are general relativity, it probably depends on the mass of the hole and the size of its event horizon, which, I will warn you, I am far too lazy to work out.

Jan 16, 2019
There exist in our galaxy, and astronomers have found and cataloged them, neutron stars
.....no they haven't........got a pic? Do you even know that the hypothetically largest N-star is? 2-5 miles in case you didn't. We don't have optics with resolution to observe the closest so-called Nstar 500 light years away.

Not to nit pick, but...
the typical N-star runs at about 12m in diameter...
prob'ly better to use mass limits to be more exact....

Jan 16, 2019
Bad news, @CAMason. I was right; it depends upon the mass of the hole and the size of the event horizon, and although they can see spectral features that give them the spin rate in those terms, this particular hole is in the galactic disk and is obscured by its gas and dust. Those are the best figures you're gonna get. The best answer to your question is, 92-95% of the maximum possible for a black hole of its mass. The mass is unknown, though it's known to be stellar mass, that is, less than 500% of the mass of our Sun.

Jan 16, 2019
There exist in our galaxy, and astronomers have found and cataloged them, neutron stars
.....no they haven't........got a pic? Do you even know that the hypothetically largest N-star is? 2-5 miles in case you didn't. We don't have optics with resolution to observe the closest so-called Nstar 500 light years away.

Not to nit pick, but...
the typical N-star runs at about 12m in diameter...
prob'ly better to use mass limits to be more exact....
The correct answer is "yes, we have spectrograms."

Spectrograms are pictures.

Jan 16, 2019
Bad news, @CAMason. I was right; it depends upon the mass of the hole and the size of the event horizon, and although they can see spectral features that give them the spin rate in those terms, this particular hole is in the galactic disk and is obscured by its gas and dust. Those are the best figures you're gonna get. The best answer to your question is, 92-95% of the maximum possible for a black hole of its mass. The mass is unknown, though it's known to be stellar mass, that is, less than 500% of the mass of our Sun.

In addition, I found a reasonable explanation and methodology here;
https://astronomy...ack-hole

Jan 16, 2019
There exist in our galaxy, and astronomers have found and cataloged them, neutron stars
.....no they haven't........got a pic? Do you even know that the hypothetically largest N-star is? 2-5 miles in case you didn't. We don't have optics with resolution to observe the closest so-called Nstar 500 light years away.

Not to nit pick, but...
the typical N-star runs at about 12m in diameter...
prob'ly better to use mass limits to be more exact....


OK, so if YOU want to nit pik like you say you don't want to do, I can give you an exact dimension, 0 miles. In other words they don't exist if you find you too are unable, like schneibo, to decipher what zero means.


Jan 16, 2019
@Osiris1

There are many many derivatives of Benni the butt hurt plagiarist.
says hat1208

Prove it or STFU

Jan 16, 2019
I can't imagine the arrogance and foolishness it takes to fail to understand radioactive decay, in front of a bunch of people who do understand it, while claiming to be a nuclear physicist.

As for nutjobs who claim to be telepathic aliens, that isn't even foolishness, it's psychosis.

Jan 16, 2019
@Forum.

The 'feuding trolls exchange' above reminds me of the old speculative 'supersymmetry' concept.

You know, wherein: Every 'standard model particle' allegedly had its supersymmetric 's' counterpart....as in Electron and 'sElectron'; Muon and 'sMuon' etc.

Only here it's: Every 'standard feuding troll' has its supersymmetric counterpart....as in Troll and 'sTroll'. :)

Trolls and sTrolls happy rolling around mudslinging together in their respective versions of Bliss and 'sBliss'.

What symmetry! Almost beautiful, in a way. A perpetual feuding exercise in Futility and 'sFutility'. :)

says RealityCheck

Yes. I've noticed since I've been posting that certain regular posters in physorg phorums just positively HATE IT when someone comes along with new ideas that seem highly probabilistic AND scientific - so that these persons just HAVE TO shoot down not only what was said, but also denigrate, insult and vilify the person himself in their fit of jealousy & worry

Jan 16, 2019
There seems to be a titch of brolls on this site who don't like science and are incapable of understanding it. Some of them are literally insane, while others are just trollish, looking for some kind of acknowledgement without really understanding what's required to get anything but mockery.

The common characteristics are arrogance and lack of scientific knowledge, and most of this appears to be motivated by jealousy and envy because they're not smart enough to figure it out even when it's explained to them in terms adapted to the smallest mentality. One has to wonder whether they're really this stupid or simply so desperate to be acknowledged that they cannot stop themselves.

It's quite pitiful, actually. But do we really need to continue to interact with these individuals? Just put them on ignore and they can troll each other. Nobody really cares what they say, nor should they.

A simple statement of this on every thread where they appear should be sufficient.

Jan 17, 2019
The correct answer is "yes, we have spectrograms."

Spectrograms are pictures.
says Da Pussyman

Pictures? Well, according to Wikipaedia:

"A spectrogram is a visual representation of the spectrum of frequencies of sound or other signal as they vary with time. Spectrograms are sometimes called sonographs, voiceprints, or voicegrams. When the data is represented in a 3D plot they may be called waterfalls.

Spectrograms are used extensively in the fields of music, sonar, radar, and speech processing,[1] seismology, and others. Spectrograms of audio can be used to identify spoken words phonetically, and to analyse the various calls of animals."

IOW it's a Graph - NOT a picture.

Jan 17, 2019
-contd-
Whereas, a SpectroGRAPH is, according to Wiki:

"Not to be confused with Spectrogram.
A spectrograph is an instrument that separates light by its wavelengths and records this data.[2] A spectrograph typically has a multi-channel detector system or camera that detects and records the spectrum of light.[2][3]
The term was first used in 1876 by Dr. Henry Draper when he invented the earliest version of this device, and which he used to take several photographs of the spectrum of Vega. This earliest version of the spectrograph was cumbersome to use and difficult to manage.[4]"

This instrument is also not producing a "picture" per se, but still only a Graph.

Jan 17, 2019
It's just a picture rendered in terms your eyes are not fully adapted to.

We see color; that's frequency. Red is low, green is middle, blue is high. Those are the receptors you have in your eyes; you can't see anything else, for example, radio, microwave, terahertz, infrared, ultraviolet, X-ray, or gamma rays.

But instruments can detect them, and they do. And they are presented in pictures comprised of their detection portrayed in various colors so your limited eyes can see them.

That this was not obvious indicates your ignorance, and if you refuse to learn it, your stupidity. Your limitations are not the limitations of the universe. Get over it.

Jan 17, 2019
"Jealousy and envy" says Da Pussyman who describes himself very accurately and, as I said to RealityCheck - that certain regular posters in physorg phorums just positively HATE IT when someone comes along with new ideas that seem highly probabilistic AND scientific - so that these persons (like Da Pussyman Schneibo) just HAVE TO shoot down not only what was said, but also denigrate, insult and vilify the person himself in his/their fit of jealousy & worry about keeping his/their place as "top dog" in the physorg echelons of posting pecking order.

Jan 17, 2019
And on the other hand, spectrographs are able to separate light to a degree human eyes cannot; spectral lines are visible in the crudest spectrogram, that are invisible to the human eye unless they are so revealed. The frequency discriminating retinae are not capable of this fine discrimination.

And BTW I used the terms correctly; you're simply incapable of understanding what I said (or unwilling to acknowledge it) because of your fantasy-driven psychotic delusions. For example this one: https://pbs.twimg...pg:large

I am totally serious, @SEU: go to a mental health professional, tell them this stuff you believe about being an alien and there being aliens controlling the government or populace, and take the medicine they give you. It will make you feel better.

Jan 17, 2019
It's just a picture rendered in terms your eyes are not fully adapted to.

We see color; that's frequency. Red is low, green is middle, blue is high. Those are the receptors you have in your eyes; you can't see anything else, for example, radio, microwave, terahertz, infrared, ultraviolet, X-ray, or gamma rays.

But instruments can detect them, and they do. And they are presented in pictures comprised of their detection portrayed in various colors so your limited eyes can see them.

That this was not obvious indicates your ignorance, and if you refuse to learn it, your stupidity. Your limitations are not the limitations of the universe.
says DaPussyman Schneibo

Colourised graphs is all they are - with descriptions of what each colour represents. They are not pictures of Black Holes or Neutron Stars. These graphs are easily read and the descriptions well understood - but they are still not pictures of actual images such as Black Holes and Neutron Stars.

Jan 17, 2019
No, "colorized graphs" is not all they are. This was discovered by William Hyde Wollaston and Joseph Frauhofer, when they used lenses to focus the light through a prism to a screen. At the highest resolution they could achieve with nineteenth century lenscraft, Fraunhofer was able to detect over 600 spectral lines in light from the Sun, lines no human eye could see. That's a picture.

You really ought to study this stuff if you're going to bloviate on the science site. It's been known for two and a half centuries. And it is taught in every basic textbook and class.

Jan 17, 2019
I am totally serious, @SEU: go to a mental health professional, tell them this stuff you believe about being an alien and there being aliens controlling the government or populace, and take the medicine they give you. It will make you feel better.
says Pussyman Schneibo

Provide the link to where I ever said that I'm and "alien" or that I ever said that "aliens" are CONTROLLING the government or populace - and I will believe you. Until you can produce the evidence without changing the wording - YOU ARE A DAMNED LIAR.
LOL You always repeat yourself in almost every physorg phorum - word for word - which is a clear indication that it is YOU that requires psychiatric care and drugs.
Why are you commenting in physorg when you clearly have severe mental issues, as well as happily copying the words/ideas of others like myself?
You should find another science website where they will treat you far better than you are treated here. Now get lost, loser.
ROFLMAO

Jan 17, 2019
The links have been provided by me and others.

Like all trolls, you deny what you said.

And I keep repeating it because you keep denying it. I simply don't care enough to bother with you.

Noted you have no response to real assertions about spectrographs, and spectrograms, that you obviously either don't understand or are lying about in order to troll for your imaginary super magic sky daddy:https://pbs.twimg...pg:large

Jan 17, 2019
No, "colorized graphs" is not all they are. This was discovered by William Hyde Wollaston and Joseph Frauhofer, when they used lenses to focus the light through a prism to a screen. At the highest resolution they could achieve with nineteenth century lenscraft, Fraunhofer was able to detect over 600 spectral lines in light from the Sun, lines no human eye could see. That's a picture.

You really ought to study this stuff if you're going to bloviate on the science site. It's been known for two and a half centuries. And it is taught in every basic textbook and class.

says the bloviating Pussyman Schneibo

Nope. Still not a picture/image of a Black Hole or Neutron Star. Spectral lines are spectral LINES. The only instrument that RECORDS those lines is a camera. But that doesn't make it a PICTURE.

Jan 17, 2019
LOL

"Cameras don't make pictures"

We done here?

Jan 17, 2019
The links have been provided by me and others.

Like all trolls, you deny what you said.

And I keep repeating it because you keep denying it. I simply don't care enough to bother with you.

Noted you have no response to real assertions about spectrographs, and spectrograms, that you obviously either don't understand or are lying about.
says Pussyman Schneibo

So where is your proof? If there is PROOF, I would not be able to deny it.
Show me/us or STFU, loser

I see that you are probably working on 2 computers, since you are posting in less than the 3 minute waiting period for each post.

Jan 17, 2019
LOL

You said, "Cameras don't make pictures."

If that's not trolling what is it? You're either psychotic and experiencing delusions, or trolling.

What further point is there in this conversation?

Now go try to cover it up with fifteen irrelevant posts.

Jan 17, 2019
LOL

You said, "Cameras don't make pictures."

If that's not trolling what is it? You're either psychotic and experiencing delusions, or trolling.

What further point is there in this conversation?

Now go try to cover it up with fifteen irrelevant posts.
says Pussyman Schneibo

LIAR. HOW did you manage to think that "The only instrument that RECORDS those lines is a camera. But that doesn't make it a PICTURE." translates into "cameras don't make pictures"?
You should lay off all that booze, loser. Your brain is shrinking.

Jan 17, 2019
LOL

You know nothing of astronomy not to mention astrophysics.

I have held in my hands plates made at the largest telescopes in the world, made by a man who made a hypothesis about T-Tauri stars and turned it into a theory with his data at the AAS meeting in a year I will not specify to avoid you trolling him too. They show both stars and offset spectrograms for those stars on the same emulsion. I have examined these with a microscope.

You have absolutely not the slightest idea what you are talking about.

Jan 17, 2019
A spectrogram is a data set concerning a single or small set of pixels based on refraction and impact of the light from those small areas in a spectrograpic comb sorting by photon energy and showing the constituent levels of light (and breaks) from each frequency across the spectrum. It is not a picture per se, but a data reading about a subset of the picture. Taking several spectrographic shots at different areas of the same target object can give various readings allowing one to build up a representative graph of corresponding brightness and materials as well as relative proportions of materials, but it is still not a 'picture' but a representative graph that would require artist assist.

You can have a picture of a spectrogram, as we get here on Physorg, we see data from spectrographs in articles a lot of times so there should be little question about this.

DS, your knee is jerking again over petty definitions, proving yer trollsomeness, yet again.

Jan 17, 2019
Ummm, apparently @Steel doesn't know anything about astronomy or astrophysics before the invention of CCDs.

Sorry you're ignorant.

Jan 17, 2019
LOL

You know nothing of astronomy not to mention astrophysics.

I have held in my hands plates made at the largest telescopes in the world, made by a man who made a hypothesis about T-Tauri stars and turned it into a theory with his data at the AAS meeting in a year I will not specify to avoid you trolling him too. They show both stars and offset spectrograms for those stars on the same emulsion. I have examined these with a microscope.

You have absolutely not the slightest idea what you are talking about.
says Da Pussyman

You have held in your hands dirty dishes that needed washing, you mean. What emulsion? So, he used film-based photography that required developing the images onto photographic paper, eh? So what? You had to use a microscope to see stars? You don't need a microscope to see stars. You only need to enlarge the image on the photographic paper to see any stars. Who do you think you're fooling anyway?

Jan 17, 2019
Another one who doesn't know anything about astronomy or astrophysics, in this case either before or after the invention of CCDs, or at any other time either. No paper, no film. Plates. Photographic plates. Google it.

You know, from back in the day.

Jan 17, 2019
Now tell the truth for once, Schnieb. How did a humongous turd like YOU get to pretend to this hypothesist/theorist that you were capable of interpreting what was on the "plates" or the spectrograph that was on photographic paper? Did you slip him a fiver? Or did you tell him a story that you had to get your hands on plates so that you could go back to physorg and brag that you "held in my hands" plates made at the largest telescopes in the world?
You DO love to tell lies and you DO a lot of bragging in physorg phorums for someone who spends so much time on physorg phorums trying to get a lot of praise and accolades from those whom you want most to impress. And they know who they are.

Jan 17, 2019
Using observations from state-of-the-art technology, the team of researchers found evidence that a stellar-mass black hole in our galaxy (known as 4U 1630-472) is rotating rapidly
So, "observations" and "evidence". If you want the evidence to come in the form of a nice picture of this BH, you're definitely in the wrong place. This the "Astronomy & Space" section of phys.org, a site dedicated to presenting news of physics.

To an astronomer, a picture - an image caught by a camera - which shows details of the morphology of an object, is just as useful as a spectrum showing details of continuum emission and line-emission and -absorption features of an object, or part of an extended object. Just as useful, but for different reasons

The paper states that "X-ray spectral and timing analysis" of a transient black hole X-ray binary observed with the AstroSat, Chandra and MAXI space missions during its soft X-ray outburst in
2016.

[TBC]

Jan 17, 2019
[continued]

The paper states that
Separate spectral fits of Chandra/HEG, AstroSat/SXT+LAXPC and Chandra/HEG+AstroSat/SXT+LAXPC data show that the broadband continuum can be well described with a relativistic disk-blackbody model
and that
Our conclusion of a rapidly-spinning black hole in 4U 1630–47 using the continuum spectrum method is in agreement with a previous finding applying the reflection spectral fitting method.
which is just a way of saying that the data and analysis of the data are in agreement with previous findings. Nothing more than that: they're claiming no earth-shattering great discovery. Just data acquisition, data analysis and conclusion; all clearly laid out for anybody to read or to re-analyze if they so wished.

This is how science progresses: mostly in small, careful steps into the unknown. The sum total of all such steps is known as scientific progress. If you want nice color pictures to gaze and drool at, try elsewhere!

Jan 17, 2019
BTW, there are excellent reasons why plates continued to be used by astronomers prior to the invention of CCDs. Primary among them, film can crinkle or deform in the camera; a plate cannot. It's a solid piece of glass, in astronomy use generally quartz because of its low thermal coefficient. The glass is covered with emulsion, placed in the holder in the telescope, and exposed, generally for hours. Once CCDs came along, of course, all this went away for lots of obvious reasons. But there are archives full of plates still around.

Jan 17, 2019
The "transient Black Hole" is still only a hypothesis. The same with the alleged Dark Matter. Until they can produce an image/picture that has a visible Black Hole in it - it is not a fact. Since the Black Hole is allegedly at the centre of the Milky Way galaxy, it should be readily seen, for in comparison, there are galaxies much farther away whose Stars, even some planets, are seen quite well. Why the big discrepancy when Sgr A is in our own backyard?

Jan 17, 2019
So, no more smartass remarks about plates?

Thought not.

Jan 17, 2019
@SEU - why do you bother? Your every statement in this forum - by virtue of the woolly thinking you display and your habit of haphazardly stringing together of scientific terms - mark you out as a person who has received no formal scientific training.

You appear to have collected a poor notion of science, and of how science is conducted, from popularized accounts of science where the authors are careful not to tax their readers with any details of the math or methodologies which underpin all scientific enquiry.

Then, armed with a hazy recollection of what you have gleaned from such text-based accounts of science, you arrive at a place like this forum, where you imagine that all the others here have likewise gained their scientific knowledge in a similar fashion.

Imagine your surprise and consternation then, when you discover that some of the people here have spent years earning degrees in science subjects, and who can very easily spot ill-informed frauds like you.

Jan 17, 2019
It's probably best not to argue about astrophotography with an astrophotographer.

I own a Nikon F3 which I bought specifically to do low-stop astrophotography. I tried it a couple times on my SCT but the focus is too critical at F10; lowering the focal ratio to under 5 seemed to be good enough, though.

Jan 17, 2019
there are excellent reasons why plates continued to be used by astronomers prior to the invention of CCDs
True, but plates could also have their problems.

I well remember the so-called "gold spot" problem where many plate-exposures taken at the UK Schmidt Telescope in the 1980's displayed small spots of a golden color at random positions in the plates. The solution was arrived at by trial and error - one idea was to flush the plates before exposure in a liquid gas (I don't remember which!), and finally by rapid fix and selenium toning.

This was just before the advent of the first CCDs, which went on to revolutionize optical astronomy.

Jan 17, 2019
Man, I'd forgotten about that for decades! I didn't deal with any of them, so I have no idea about it, nor about what procedures were eventually used to deal with it.

Jan 17, 2019
@SEU
Until they can produce an image/picture that has a visible Black Hole in it - it is not a fact.
Just try that kind of argument with a geologist/seismologist and try to convince him/her that, since their seismograms don't actually display an image or picture of the Earth's inner core, then it does not exist. Same for the outer core and asthenosphere and mantle. Try telling him/her that the Moho doesn't exist!

See how far your childish attempts to teach the grown-ups their jobs gets you. A sound boxing of the ears would be appropriate IMHO.

It's a truism that stupid people will remain stupid no matter what is done to try to educate them, enlighten them, or to show them the errors of their ways. And you @SEU, for all your shouting and posing, by virtue of your holding fast to pseudoscientific theories and the latest internet memes, you prove yourself to be a stupid person. Same goes for the likes of Benni and @cd, ...

Jan 17, 2019

There is no such reference to "a black hole" in Einstein's GR.


As you would have to be able to read with understanding, but no worries mate, I'll help you out. :)

Oh, I thought you understood differential equations, as GR predicts BH through these equations...

In 1915, Albert Einstein developed his theory of general relativity, having earlier shown that gravity does influence light's motion. Only a few months later, Karl Schwarzschild found a solution to the Einstein field equations, which describes the gravitational field of a point mass and a spherical mass.[16] A few months after Schwarzschild, Johannes Droste, a student of Hendrik Lorentz, independently gave the same solution for the point mass and wrote more extensively about its properties.

So GR, indeed, did predict black holes, but I doubt Einstein had references to a term that was coined in 1967 by American astronomer John Wheeler.

It seems I got in late here,hehe.

Jan 17, 2019
says RealityCheck

Yes. I've noticed since I've been posting that certain regular posters in physorg phorums just positively HATE IT when someone comes along with new ideas that seem highly probabilistic AND scientific - so that these persons just HAVE TO shoot down not only what was said, but also denigrate, insult and vilify the person himself in their fit of jealousy & worry


This is the DK effect in a closed loop reinforcement.

I've seen the same type of arguments coming from anti-vaxxers and flat-earthers, haha.

New ideas that seem scientific ! Muahahahaha - SEEM -

You are correct in that they 'seem to be' what you claim them to be, if only there weren't all these crazy scientists pushing their 'agenda' of false physics and also proving the crazy science with math and experiments that are reproducible and repeatable...

Jan 17, 2019
The "transient Black Hole" is still only a hypothesis. The same with the alleged Dark Matter. Until they can produce an image/picture that has a visible Black Hole in it - it is not a fact. Since the Black Hole is allegedly at the centre of the Milky Way galaxy, it should be readily seen, for in comparison, there are galaxies much farther away whose Stars, even some planets, are seen quite well. Why the big discrepancy when Sgr A is in our own backyard?


So you are saying that protons, neutrons and electrons don't exist because we have not produced a 'classic' photo(photograph in the visible spectrum) of the mentioned particles ?

The logic is sound. :)

Jan 17, 2019
unicorns and faerie dust.


Are those codenames for Velikovsky?

Unicorns = BH's
Faerie dust = DM
Faerie Tales = nearly the whole of the standard guesswork and BB nonsense that involves the previously mentioned fictional characters.

Morons = you and all the others who believe these fictional characters are real.

Jan 17, 2019
Morons = you and all the others who believe these fictional characters are real.


Nope. Morons are those who believe Earth used to orbit Saturn, and Venus came hurtling out of Jupiter, and then started doing physics defying handbrake turns around the solar system. Among a bunch of other impossible woo.

Jan 17, 2019
unicorns and faerie dust.


Are those codenames for Velikovsky?

Unicorns = BH's
Faerie dust = DM
Faerie Tales = nearly the whole of the standard guesswork and BB nonsense that involves the previously mentioned fictional characters.

Morons = you and all the others who believe these fictional characters are real.


Can you provide any scientific research that would support your views please ?


Jan 17, 2019
@kl31415

I think they would like it everyone took it on faith as they have.

Jan 17, 2019
I can't imagine the arrogance and foolishness it takes to fail to understand radioactive decay, in front of a bunch of people who do understand it, while claiming to be a nuclear physicist.

As for nutjobs who claim to be telepathic aliens, that isn't even foolishness, it's psychosis.


.......especially when it's the complaining & guilty party making the charge.

Jan 17, 2019
@SEU - why do you bother? Your every statement in this forum - by virtue of the woolly thinking you display and your habit of haphazardly stringing together of scientific terms - mark you out as a person who has received no formal scientific training.


.....and so on & on goes your claim he's "haphazardly stringing together of scientific terms", but that's far better than what you or schneibo have been doing, you've been constantly stringing together terms of Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble that are NOT scientific terms, like BLACK HOLE, NEUTRON STAR, others too numerous to list.

You imagine you're such a SCIENTIFIC moniker, so explain for us the IMMUTABLE LAW of Physics that allows for the existence of INFINITE gravity at the surface of a FINITE stellar mass? Can't do, but you do have IMMUTABLE FANTASIES of the Pop-Cosmology culture that you substitute & try to pass off as "scientific terms". Maybe you have a bottle full of "eternal neutrons" ?

Jan 17, 2019
.....and so on & on goes your claim he's "haphazardly stringing together of scientific terms", but that's far better than what you or schneibo have been doing, you've been constantly stringing together terms of Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble that are NOT scientific terms, like BLACK HOLE, NEUTRON STAR, others too numerous to list.

You imagine you're such a SCIENTIFIC moniker, so explain for us the IMMUTABLE LAW of Physics that allows for the existence of INFINITE gravity at the surface of a FINITE stellar mass? Can't do, but you do have IMMUTABLE FANTASIES of the Pop-Cosmology culture that you substitute & try to pass off as "scientific terms". Maybe you have a bottle full of "eternal neutrons" ?


Who hurt you, little man? Again, I ask why is it that only the cranks on here cannot communicate a point without randomly capitalizing words? You keep repeating the same lines, and nobody cares any more this time than before. Your new name is Charlie Gordon.

Jan 17, 2019
You imagine you're such a SCIENTIFIC moniker


People are not "monikers"; people (and other things) *have* monikers. For instance, in your case, your moniker is "cosmology-ignorant troll."

Jan 17, 2019
People are not "monikers"; people (and other things) *have* monikers. For instance, in your case, your moniker is "cosmology-ignorant troll."


His vocabulary mostly consists of the words immutable, infinite, pop, finite, cosmology, square, and inverse. It'll take some practice to bring in some new ones like moniker, just be patient.

Jan 17, 2019
It is not a picture per se, but a data reading about a subset of the picture.


Oh really? So, what's this:
http://quarknet.f...tra.html

or this:
https://history.n...p12a.htm

?

Jan 17, 2019
@Phyllis Harmonic

The quarknet is very interesting reading. Thanks for the link.

Jan 17, 2019
@Phyllis Harmonic

The quarknet is very interesting reading. Thanks for the link.

You bet!

For those interested in stellar spectra, it's a great bit of out-reach by Fermilab and U-Chicago.

Jan 17, 2019
SEU> The "transient Black Hole" is still only a hypothesis. The same with the alleged Dark Matter. Until they can produce an image/picture that has a visible Black Hole in it - it is not a fact.
Since the Black Hole is allegedly at the centre of the Milky Way galaxy, it should be readily seen, Why the big discrepancy when Sgr A is in our own backyard?

The reason there are no photographs
Is, although theoretically a BH is conveniently invisible
its spin-axis and accompanying accretion disk is highly visible
transient activty is highly active
therefore as it lunches on a fresh supply of stars
it is highly visible
just as our Sagittarius A* is highly visible, especially being 26,000Lyr present
the fact Sagittarius A* is highly invisible speaks volumes for highly visible accretion disk activity
as 1000 of stars fall into this billion solar mass BH
as a typical accretion disk, spin-axis gamma-ray emitting blackhole

Jan 17, 2019
Morons = you and all the others who believe these fictional characters are real.


Nope. Morons are those who believe Earth used to orbit Saturn, and Venus came hurtling out of Jupiter, and then started doing physics defying handbrake turns around the solar system. Among a bunch of other impossible woo.
says jonesybonesy

There was only ONE person who suggested those things, and AFAIK, he is not very popular in EU circles after spouting such (to us) nonsense.
But OTOH, jonesy - there are many many things that happened during the early formation of the Solar System that neither you nor I (nor anyone else who pretends to know) could honestly justify either a Yes or No in regard to the situations present in that early time.
Think of it, jonesy. It is heresy to say that Earth used to orbit Saturn or Jupiter - and it is heresy to say that it did not. Simply because there is NO EVIDENCE for it or against it.
Gravitational attraction is a funny thing at times.

Jan 17, 2019
he is not very popular in EU circles after spouting such (to us) nonsense
@SEU claims allegiance with the EU trolls.

Jan 17, 2019
Startrek says:
Until they can produce an image/picture that has a visible Black Hole in it - it is not a fact.

says I - Lines in or on a spectrograph are still just lines, just like the HockeyStick graphs that are supposed to represent Climate Change are just lines.
Just try that kind of argument with a geologist/seismologist and try to convince him/her that, since their seismograms don't actually display an image or picture of the Earth's inner core, then it does not exist.
- whether it truly exists or not, it is the evidence that does not exist. Lines are not clearcut evidence.
Same for the outer core and asthenosphere and mantle. Try telling him/her that the Moho doesn't exist!
- straw man argument. Earth is highly visible and evidence is readily available for its existence. Even the blind know that.
See how far your childish attempts to teach the grown-ups their jobs gets you. A sound boxing of the ears would be appropriate IMHO.
- ROFLOL

Jan 17, 2019
he is not very popular in EU circles after spouting such (to us) nonsense
@SEU claims allegiance with the EU trolls.
says Da Scheide

Still hard of reading, are you? And still telling lies to win popular support from idiots like yourself, I see. Go back and reread what I had said, and do try to comprehend my words this time, yes? I refrain from using difficult-to-understand verbiage in my posts so that there is no chance of your having such a mental meltdown that you have to quickly reference your dictionary.

Jan 17, 2019
cantdrive85 said:

"Unicorns = BH's
Faerie dust = DM"

@cantdrive85
Since Black Holes and Dark Matter do exist are you saying you believe in Unicorns and Fairy dust?

Jan 17, 2019
Since Black Holes and Dark Matter do exist are you saying you believe in Unicorns and Fairy dust?
There are no pics of such...............you maybe got equations for this? Here, let me introduce you to some equations that Einstein wrote about BHs:

Albert Einstein- Oct 1939

On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses

Author(s): Albert Einstein Reviewed work(s): Source: The Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Oct., 1939), pp. 922-936 Published by: Annals of Mathematics Stable URL:.
http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

The problem quite naturally leads to the question, answered by this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of exhibiting such a singularity.

This is for the hard of knowing how to write equations.

Jan 17, 2019
The "transient Black Hole" is still only a hypothesis. The same with the alleged Dark Matter. Until they can produce an image/picture that has a visible Black Hole in it - it is not a fact. Since the Black Hole is allegedly at the centre of the Milky Way galaxy, it should be readily seen, for in comparison, there are galaxies much farther away whose Stars, even some planets, are seen quite well. Why the big discrepancy when Sgr A is in our own backyard?


So you are saying that protons, neutrons and electrons don't exist because we have not produced a 'classic' photo(photograph in the visible spectrum) of the mentioned particles ?

The logic is sound. :)
says k131415

No, I was not saying in reference to protons, neutrons and electrons. It is already known that such particles reside in atoms, and molecules are made up of atoms, etc etc. Why you included atomic particles in your argument? Caesium clocks run on the element Caesium with nothing to do with Black Holes

Jan 17, 2019
Gravitational attraction is a funny thing at times
Yeah, hilarious!

Jan 17, 2019
cantdrive85 said:

"Unicorns = BH's
Faerie dust = DM"

@cantdrive85
Since Black Holes and Dark Matter do exist are you saying you believe in Unicorns and Fairy dust?
says jimmybobberino

Dear James
When you were a baby, didn't your Mum teach you not to tell lies in the future about the recently hypothesised Black Holes and the even more recently hypothesised Dark Matter's existence until there was proof positive with clearcut visible evidence of their existence? Without such clearcut and unequivocal evidence of the existence of BHs and DMs, it would be far easier to believe in Faerie dust and Unicorns than it is to believe in spooky unseen objects that swallow whole Stars and an unseeable "curtain of an unknowable spreading substance that supposedly drapes around each galaxy and also intermingles with planetary bodies and other material objects still without detection.
Would you trust your life to an airplane pilot who was blind and couldn't see the runway to land?

Jan 18, 2019
it would be far easier to believe in Faerie dust and Unicorns than it is to believe in spooky unseen objects
...like your omnipotent Sky Wizard, for instance, which features so heavily in the book of fiction called the bible, and which has never been seen anywhere by anybody, let alone having his picture taken.

Or like the gigantic flows of electrons which your EU overlords state without any hint of evidence are supposed to power the Sun and of which there are also precisely zero pictures.

Spooky indeed.

Jan 18, 2019
LOL You have your wires crossed. I am NOT a proponent of the EU Theory. I have no problem with it since in the event that, at least SOME of it is verified and validated as true, then at least I will know that I did not reject it outright as YOU have.
I don't know of any SKY WIZARD. As a Creationist, I believe that there is a Deity who created the Universe - including mankind, animals, plants, the Earth and other planets, and the Stars/galaxies. There are no coincidences in the Creation process.
You are free to make your own choices - and I grant that you have done just that - as many ungodly humans have also. But that is fine. We are not allowed to interfere in the choices of humans. We are only here to observe, learn and record.
Dark Matter doesn't exist. Perhaps the Black Hole does to some extent. But if it does - then it is the BH that will consume you and all living things - eventually.

Jan 18, 2019
Uhhh one more thing before I leave - the Creator God is not of flesh, blood and bone as you are. And your eyes are not configured to SEE Him. But He sees YOU. And WE see you.
Believe or don't believe - it is none of my concern. Didn't you ever wonder why it is that you are unable to see radio waves, X-rays, and all the others without instruments? Your vision is poor even if it is 20-20

Jan 18, 2019
Looks to me like @SkyLight has you nailed, @SEU. Sorry, your jebus and super magic sky daddy had nothing to do with "creating the universe," which you obviously think is about 10 billion km wide. No, the "Stars/galaxies" aren't funny stuff painted on the cellophane covering the Solar System.

Jan 18, 2019
This invisible BH, You were seen

4U 1630-472 is rotating rapidly
At a speed
of
93 per cent of the theoretically-allowed rotational speed
around its axis
while sucking in falling material.
It is subject to gravitational stresses
and temperatures
so high
it shines brightly in X-rays, which were seen by astronomers using telescopes.
WHY
why is this BH accelerating
as this mass is gravitationally accelerated
orbitaly
its angular momentum angularly imparts accelerating angular momentum
on this BH
This means this BH is not a singularity, as the mass is falling on the surface of this BH
Where its surface radius R = 2M/C²
which comes to this blackhole remaining credibility
its invisibility
its seen in x-rays
an invisible blackhole visible in x-rays
as we mend are invisible broken bones
visible in x-rays
this blackhole is visible in x-rays
how coincidental
This invisible BH, You were seen!

Jan 18, 2019
This invisible 3minute rule means R = 2GM/C² became R = 2M/C² as its a BH, its only visible in x-rays

Jan 18, 2019
Or like the gigantic flows of electrons which your EU overlords state without any hint of evidence are supposed to power the Sun and of which there are also precisely zero pictures.

Spooky indeed.


Actually what is spooky is the Event Horizon Telescope that was supposed to provide us with pictures of a BH in 2017 by which time it had been declared all the data was in to present the "picture". We're still waiting almost two years later for that "picture", spooky indeed we still don't have it.

Then in a spooky press release a couple months ago, it was announced by one of those European investigation team members that it would be necessary to double the size of the current radio telescope to gain the capability of producing the picture that Event Horizon was supposed to produce almost two years before...........guess what Pop-Cosmology aficionados living here, the Event Horizon Telescope FAILED & the excuse is that it wasn't BIG ENOUGH.

Jan 18, 2019
@Benni "spooky"
Really?
Look up the definition of spooky. Without using spooky re-write your last post using that definition.
Then you will see how ridiculous you sound.

Jan 18, 2019
@Benni And while you are doing that try this as well.

Here is a half life calculator
https://www.omnic...alf-life

Use these values:
Initial quantity: 40000 (neutrons)
Half Life time: 10.2 minutes
Total time: 14.7 minutes

Note the results:
Remaining Quantity: 14730.67 (neutrons)
Decay Constant: 0.0679556/minute
Mean Lifetime: 14.7155 minutes)

So you see there are still 14730.67 neutrons at 14.7 minutes!!!

Read more at: https://phys.org/...html#jCp

Jan 18, 2019
Note the results:
Remaining Quantity: 14730.67 (neutrons)
Decay Constant: 0.0679556/minute
Mean Lifetime: 14.7155 minutes)

So you see there are still 14730.67 neutrons at 14.7 minutes


Spooky math presented by the chicken scratcher who has never learned how to write an equation.


Jan 18, 2019
Why this BH is visible

4U 1630-472 i
Albert Einstein's absolute velocity, the speed of light
gravity travels at the speed of light
this BH radius is defined by R = 2GM/C²
a BH requires 2x10+30kg
its minimum radius 3km
as it increases its angular momentum
its mass increases
accordingly R = 2GM/C², its radius increases
its escape velocity match's the velocity gravity travels in this vacuum, the speed of light
according to the formula R = 2GM/C², this BH, no matter how, massive cannot exceed the speed of light
on the surface of this BH, gravity = C
where gravity falls to zero towards this BHs centre of mass
mm above the surface radii of this BH, gravity is below the velocity of light
In falling mass giving of electromagnetic radiation
allows radiation to escapes this BH, within a mm of this BHs surface radii
because
gravities acceleration falls below gravities velocity the speed of light
above the surface of this BH
Is why this BH is visible

Jan 18, 2019
@Benni
"In mathematics, the caret represents an exponent, such as a square, cube, or another exponential power. For example, 6^3, which may also be represented as 6³ or 6 * 6 * 6."
https://www.compu...aret.htm

You moron.
You've been saying I can't write equations for a while now because I use the caret symbol for exponents.

I could easily use the alt codes as well. Everyone else on this site knows exactly what I mean when I type something like x^2. Here you go x² so you can read it.

Jan 18, 2019
Actually what is spooky is the Event Horizon Telescope that was supposed to provide us with pictures of a BH in 2017 by which time it had been declared all the data was in to present the "picture". We're still waiting almost two years later for that "picture"
Well, if you bothered to look at the EHT website, you'd be able to read that
while the EHT has had data for many months from most of the dishes we used in 2017, disks from the South Pole arrived only in mid December 2017, and have since been properly combined with data from other telescopes. So there has been a long and unavoidable wait to assemble the full data set for one of our primary supermassive black hole targets
Then, they've had to calibrate the system and use the calibrations to refine techniques for processing the combined data into images.

This isn't like pointing your Instamatic up at the sky and getting a snapshot, Benni. It takes time and patience... So STFU and stop throwing your toys around.

Jan 18, 2019
Then, they've had to calibrate the system and use the calibrations to refine techniques for processing the combined data into images.

This isn't like pointing your Instamatic up at the sky and getting a snapshot, Benni. It takes time and patience... So STFU and stop throwing your toys around.


........excuses, excuses, excuses, that's all we ever get.

Look, I can calibrate our Gamma Radiation Spectroscopy lab within half an hour, but it takes over two years to calibrate a RADIO?

Skyhigh on something, you don't even know the procedure for doing calibration on anything, I have serious doubts you even know how to read a multi-meter much less use one.

Jan 18, 2019
........excuses, excuses, excuses, that's all we ever get.

Look, I can calibrate our Gamma Radiation Spectroscopy lab within half an hour, but it takes over two years to calibrate a RADIO?

Skyhigh on something, you don't even know the procedure for doing calibration on anything, I have serious doubts you even know how to read a multi-meter much less use one.


Clueless cretin. This will be one of the biggest scientific announcements for years. They need to get it right. The raw data has been given to two separate teams, who will have no contact with each other, and then we can see if what they are seeing is indeed the EH.
It was said a while back that the results will likely be announced early this year.

Jan 18, 2019
Benni, you couldn't even calibrate a six-inch ruler. Fact!

Jan 18, 2019
I hear the guys where Benni works played a trick on him when he got the job of janitor. They pointed out a mysterious hunk of equipment with levers and lights and all in the corner which they called a "Gamma Radiation Spectroscopy Lab" and asked him to calibrate it: they even gave him a shiny new quarter dollar to do the job with.

It took him a solid hour to find the coin slot in the machine and a further half-day to figure out how to make the machine "work". Boy, did the guys do a number on poor old Benni!

He's still convinced that this Coca-Cola drinks dispenser - for that's what it is - is the fabled Speck Tro Scopee Lab, and that he calibrates it with his coin: he's got the whole process down to a half-hour now.

So he goes home every evening with a big grin on his idiotic drooling face and tells his long-suffering Mom he's a Lab Cally-Brator as she shovels grits and gravy on his plate.

Jan 18, 2019
Show me pictures or it doesn't exist


Followed by

the Creator God is not of flesh, blood and bone as you are. And your eyes are not configured to SEE Him.


Right. Move along, nothing to see here.

Jan 18, 2019
I hear the guys where Benni works played a trick on him when he got the job of janitor. They pointed out a mysterious hunk of equipment with levers and lights and all in the corner which they called a "Gamma Radiation Spectroscopy Lab" and asked him to calibrate it: they even gave him a shiny new quarter dollar to do the job with.

So he goes home every evening with a big grin on his idiotic drooling face and tells his long-suffering Mom he's a Lab Cally-Brator as she shovels grits and gravy on his plate.


I prefer the Flowers for Algernon theory. I think Benni, at one point, had some semblance of intelligence. He may even have attended some of the college courses that he claims to have attended. Somewhere along the way, however, he suffered some cognitive degeneracy disease, or the "smart drugs" wore off, and now he's a shadow of his former self grasping at things he once understood.

Jan 18, 2019
Yeah, the Flowers for Algernon theory has been floated a couple of times now in connection with Benni. It's a nice idea, but my favorite theory is that he joined the Navy, which tried to educate him but just had to give up since nothing but the simplest of ideas could get through the inch-and-a-half of solid bone surrounding his undeveloped brain. So he was handed a mop and told to swab - errmmm "calibrate"- the decks.

Jan 18, 2019
Theoretically allowed rotational speed

This blackhole
this ex-pulsar
spins
and in orbitaly accretion angular momentum is in acceleration of spin
up to the speed of light
the question
the maximum angular velocity in terms of C = 299792458m/s
The velocity of this vacuum relative to this stationary vacuum

Jan 18, 2019
I prefer the Flowers for Algernon theory
It's a nice idea, but my favorite theory is that he joined the Navy, which tried to educate him but just had to give up
@MrBojangles
@SkyLight
It's likely a combination of both.

we know he was never actually a nuclear engineer (based on observation, his own posts, lack of mathematical ability and the lack of a license) so if we consider that the Navy attempted to educate him using college curriculum and military schools and that education is now being degraded by a neurodegenerative disorder or similar cognitive degeneracy disease, then we are likely closer to the truth than just one or the other hypothesis.

of course, we also can't rule out mental afflictions or physical injury, be it traumatic impact or stroke

Jan 18, 2019
How fast do black holes spin

Astronomers have actually detected supermassive black holes spinning at the limits predicted by these theories. One black hole, at the heart of galaxy NGC 1365 is turning at 84% the speed of light. It has reached the cosmic speed limit, and can't spin any faster without revealing its singularity.14 Feb 2014

A start in the right direction
as the mass falling on this BH
is obviously moving faster than 84%C
velocity is proportional to the energy in the in falling mass
the mass falling onto this BH
is considerally less than this BH
as this BH cannot spin faster than the matter falling on this BHs surface
but
This all by the way
because
In galaxy NGC 1365
Is there sufficient energy in the in falling matter to accelerate this total BHs mass to 84%C

Jan 18, 2019
We are not allowed to interfere in the choices of humans. We are only here to observe, learn and record.. . . But He sees YOU. And WE see you.


Anyone who really thinks they aren't human is clearly disturbed. Temporal lobe epilepsy can induce these kinds of delusions, and often induce feelings of divine agency as they seem to be here in SEU. It's hard to imagine what it must be like to live with or close to someone suffering this sort of debilitation.

Jan 18, 2019
BHs in 84% C

NGC 1365, located about 56 million light-years from Earth in the constellation Fornax, several million suns. blasting out enormous quantities of energy as it gobbles up gas and other nearby matter
As the facts in their spin
a million mass BH
its radius is now know
as its angular spin is now known
as its radius = 3,000,000,000m
its rotates 3169 rpm = 84% C

< In memorable figures >
A million mass BH
3million km radius
3000 rpm
Equals 84% C

Jan 18, 2019
@Phyllis Harmonic

The quarknet is very interesting reading. Thanks for the link.

You bet!

For those interested in stellar spectra, it's a great bit of out-reach by Fermilab and U-Chicago.

Any one else find it funny that Benni says he uses Spectography in his line of work, but refuses to accept it as valid when applied to Cosmology?

Jan 18, 2019
@Phyllis Harmonic

The quarknet is very interesting reading. Thanks for the link.

You bet!

For those interested in stellar spectra, it's a great bit of out-reach by Fermilab and U-Chicago.

Any one else find it funny that Benni says he uses Spectography in his line of work, but refuses to accept it as valid when applied to Cosmology?


Indeed! He's really quite the intellectual clown!

Jan 18, 2019


Indeed! He's really quite the UNintellectual clown!


FTFY.

Jan 18, 2019
Any one else find it funny that Benni says he uses Spectography


......the spelling is: "spectroscopy".

Jan 18, 2019
@jimmybobber and @cantdrive85.

@cantdrive85
Since Black Holes and Dark Matter do exist are you saying you believe in Unicorns and Fairy dust?
According to recent scientific advances we NOW know:

- Black Holes are extreme mass/density Gravitational 'astronomical features' WITHOUT Point/Ring-singularity; and their internal energy-mass content is in a dense but extended-distribution degenerate energy-matter feature within an Event Horizon' effect created by its 'steep' Gravitational 'gradient' effect on the immediately surrounding energy-space; and

- DM is being increasingly found by newer scopes etc; so DM is and always has been NOT 'EXOTIC' but ORDINARY MATTER (ie, BOTH e-m interacting AND gravitationally interacting) which PREVIOUSLY was too far/faint to 'see' (hence "DARK" label) but NOW increasingly detected everywhere we look, near and far, with better scopes etc.

So you can all STOP FEUDING over SEMANTICS. Thanks. :)


Jan 18, 2019
DM is being increasingly found by newer scopes etc; so DM is and always has been NOT 'EXOTIC' but ORDINARY MATTER


Wrong. And there is zero scientific support for that lie. Sorry, statement.


Jan 18, 2019
@jonesdave.
DM is being increasingly found by newer scopes etc; so DM is and always has been NOT 'EXOTIC' but ORDINARY MATTER


Wrong. And there is zero scientific support for that lie. Sorry, statement.

Your opinion based in denial and self-imposed ignorance and/or misreading/non-comprehension of all that is being more recently discovered/reviewed by mainstream itself as we speak, jd. Not good, mate.

Jan 18, 2019
@jonesdave.
DM is being increasingly found by newer scopes etc; so DM is and always has been NOT 'EXOTIC' but ORDINARY MATTER


Wrong. And there is zero scientific support for that lie. Sorry, statement.

Your opinion based in denial and self-imposed ignorance and/or misreading/non-comprehension of all that is being more recently discovered/reviewed by mainstream itself as we speak, jd. Not good, mate.


So link the papers, you loon. They have managed to find the predicted, but missing, baryonic matter. As shown. You are just too bloody stupid to understand that.

Jan 18, 2019
@jonesdave.
DM is being increasingly found by newer scopes etc; so DM is and always has been NOT 'EXOTIC' but ORDINARY MATTER
Wrong. And there is zero scientific support for that lie. Sorry, statement.
Your opinion based in denial and self-imposed ignorance and/or misreading/non-comprehension of all that is being more recently discovered/reviewed by mainstream itself as we speak, jd. Not good, mate.
So link the papers, you loon. They have managed to find the predicted, but missing, baryonic matter....
It's gone far far beyond the 'missing baryons quotient' normal matter finds, jd. Get up to speed, mate. Go back and actually read all the past few years relevant reports without blinkers; then try to keep up by 'connecting all the old/new dots' for yourself; instead of waiting like a hapless child for fully-reworked mainstream model (which will be a long time coming due to mainstream latency in publishing overarching implications/paradigm shifts). :)

Jan 18, 2019
It's gone far far beyond the 'missing baryons quotient' normal matter finds, jd. Get up to speed, mate. Go back and actually read all the past few years relevant reports without blinkers;


What reports, you liar? Link to these papers. For the 2nd time. Stop lying.


Jan 18, 2019
@jonesdave.
It's gone far far beyond the 'missing baryons quotient' normal matter finds, jd. Get up to speed, mate. Go back and actually read all the past few years relevant reports without blinkers;
What reports, you liar? Link to these papers. For the 2nd time. Stop lying.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to pander to laziness, bias, denial and just plain blinkered/ignorant repetitions of insults while ignoring all the past few years of mainstream reports which when combined and extrapolated from would give any genuine objective scientific researcher the fuller picture which you are apparently incapable of working out for yourself, jd. You have only yourself to blame for being more quick to deny, troll, insult and feud rather than quietly keeping up and thinking through all the various data/implications for yourself. I'm not here to do all the work for you, mate. I've given you plenty of pointers and heads ups. Time to do your own due diligence, jd.

Jan 18, 2019
No links no truth.

Jan 18, 2019
Any one else find it funny that Benni says he uses Spectography


......the spelling is: "spectroscopy".

oops...

Jan 18, 2019
Actually, @Whyde, you weren't wrong. "Spectrograpy" [spelling corrected] is the creation of spectrographs, and the study of them; "Spectroscopy" is the use of a spectroscope to create spectrographs [AKA spectrograms]. It's like making a big deal out of the difference between fly fishing and tying flies.

Jan 18, 2019
@RealityCheck I honestly wish you would take the time to link some papers.

"A problem with alternative hypotheses is that the observational evidence for dark matter comes from so many independent approaches (see the "observational evidence" section above). Explaining any individual observation is possible but explaining all of them is very difficult. Nonetheless, there have been some scattered successes for alternative hypotheses, such as a 2016 test of gravitational lensing in entropic gravity.[154][155][156]

The prevailing opinion among most astrophysicists is that while modifications to general relativity can conceivably explain part of the observational evidence, there is probably enough data to conclude there must be some form of dark matter.[157] "
https://en.wikipe...potheses

I must admit Entropic Gravity is intriguing but it still can't explain all observations.

Jan 18, 2019
Actually, @Whyde, you weren't wrong. "Spectrograpy" [spelling corrected] is the creation of spectrographs, and the study of them; "Spectroscopy" is the use of a spectroscope to create spectrographs [AKA spectrograms].


As is frequently the case mister embedded Physorg Moderator Da Schneibo, you are wrong. Our gamma radiation spectroscopy is done in our SPECTROSCOPY lab, there is no such thing as a "spectrograpy" lab, or for that matter "spectrography lab".

I guess I better see why you think the definition of the term AVERAGE, or MEAN, is that of "half-life".

Obviously anything dealing with nuclear physics is not something about which you know much.


Jan 19, 2019
excuses ... that's all we ever get ... it takes over two years to calibrate a RADIO?
Benni seems to imagine that the Event Horizon Telescope is nothing more than a big radio, and that the scientists behind the project are just dragging their heels while living the life of Riley on all that moolah they've been given to build the thing.

Well Benni, the EHT is a PHENOMENALLY complex endeavor and they're attempting to do something nobody has ever done before. The delay is down to many factors, among which are data collection from single dishes or arrays of dishes of different sizes and designs around the world, where the demands of this particular project imposes tighter constraints on their performance than usual.

Then there's the problem of time-stamping the data, collecting the data on physical disks and shipping them to data centers where custom-built correlators and data reduction supercomputers have to be programmed to try to make sense of the data.

[TBC]

Jan 19, 2019
[continued]

Then, hopefully, images will be created from the data. But, as @jd has pointed out, there won't just be one set of results: two separate teams working independently from each other will take the data and run their own set of data-reduction schemes and their own programs to produce images.

Once the images and other data products have been created, the results from both teams' work will be compared. If they agree to a substantial degree, the results will be published; otherwise, the teams will each have to try to see where they could improve their data reduction and analysis schemes.

This all takes time and the work of dozens, hundreds of scientists and technicians to try to achieve something groundbreaking and frankly breathtaking: it ain't like switching on a radio, or taking the odd half-hour to calibrate your "lab", Benni !

Jan 19, 2019
anything dealing with nuclear physics is not something about which you know much
That's rich coming from a guy who has gone down on record as stating that quarks, which make up the nucleons in an atomic nucleus, do not exist. Countless millions of experiments using high-energy colliders have shown unequivocally that quarks do exist: even if ya can't take a holiday snap of 'em on the beach, Benni!

You're wilfully blind to anything which contradicts the dumbed-down stuff you tried to learn decades ago and which gets inside your really small comfort zone. Your knowledge of nuclear physics is sketchy, to say the least; you should stick to playing with your multi-meter, and leave the physics to those qualified to do it.

Jan 19, 2019
The HEAT is on in 2018

The Event Horizon Telescope Array (HEAT)
with up to 20 telescopes round the globe
This HIGHLY visible BH
will
be
as
early
as
2018 produce its very first picci
Bennies little cupeth of joyeth will over floweth with joyeth
just think
as early as 2018
we will see our first picci of Sagittarius A*
we
can hardly wait
Roll on, 2018

Jan 19, 2019


So you are saying that protons, neutrons and electrons don't exist because we have not produced a 'classic' photo(photograph in the visible spectrum) of the mentioned particles ?

The logic is sound. :)
says k131415

No, I was not saying in reference to protons, neutrons and electrons. It is already known that such particles reside in atoms, and molecules are made up of atoms, etc etc. Why you included atomic particles in your argument? Caesium clocks run on the element Caesium with nothing to do with Black Hole


Ugh... such genius

You said, no photo no evidence.

Why do you need a photo of a BH as evidence then ?

Why do you believe protons and neutrons and electrons exist then, but quarks don't ?

Where is the photo of these particles, you parasitic fungal infection ?


Jan 19, 2019
@RealityCheck

You really only have one link don't you?

https://www.thund...p/about/


Jan 19, 2019
Well, we are all aware that @granville is a total basket-case, but this little sentence of his is a real gem:
Bennies little cupeth of joyeth will over floweth with joyeth
which has me ROTFLMAO.

Just goes to show that, if the brain-cell soup in his head can come up with this, then it gives us hope that an infinite number of monkeys might just conceivably, given enough time, be able to type out the works of Shakespeare.

Sadly, however, even given an infinite amount of time, poor Benni would not be able to show any sign of scientific literacy, typewriter or not.

Jan 19, 2019
@klpi
Where is the photo of these particles, you parasitic fungal infection ?
Now, that's the worst slur on parasitic fungal infections I've read today. ;-)

Jan 19, 2019

As is frequently the case mister embedded Physorg Moderator Da Schneibo, you are wrong. Our gamma radiation spectroscopy is done in our SPECTROSCOPY lab, there is no such thing as a "spectrograpy" lab, or for that matter "spectrography lab".

I guess I better see why you think the definition of the term AVERAGE, or MEAN, is that of "half-life".

Obviously anything dealing with nuclear physics is not something about which you know much.



Benni, mate, you really should know this by now.

Mean life or lifetime

Half-life

https://www.brita...ean-life
http://hyperphysi...lif.html
https://en.wikipe...lifetime


Jan 19, 2019
@jimmyb
You really only have one link don't you?
Well, actually, there is this also the following link to a website @RC put together with duct-tape, and which sets out his earlier attempt to derive a Theory Of Everything ("the only real, complete and non-mathematical perspective on the Universe's nature, origin, structure and mechanics.") from scraps of verbal garbage gleaned from the chaotic jumble of voices in his head: http://earthlingclub.com/.

He calls it a "club", but is terrified of admitting anybody else, such is his fear and disgust of the hoi-polloi, so it's a club consisting of one very disturbed narcissist trying to convince anybody who comes within earshot that he, and he alone, can see the truth. Reminds me in a way of the words of Ozymandias, "whose frown, and wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command" said volumes about his haughty self-importance : "Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!'".

An idea: we could call him Ozzy-Mandias to really piss him off!

Jan 19, 2019
Then there's the problem of time-stamping the data, collecting the data on physical disks and shipping them to data centers where custom-built correlators and data reduction supercomputers have to be programmed to try to make sense of the data.


All the input of DATA was 100% completed in Dec 2017. The delay in presenting the results is the lack of collected data to present the picture. In October 2018 the announcement was made that the Event Horizon project may join in collaboration with a separate European project that was already in progress when the Event Horizon data came in & nothing was coming from it to resolve a BH at SgrA*, the announcement was made that a radio telescope of twice the present size as Event Horizon will be required.

Poor Pop-Cosmology, still in the hunt for it's first black hole is as far away as it's ever been.


Jan 19, 2019
Benni, no surprises at all in what you have said, at this time or any other time. You have no understanding of these matters, a complete lack of depth in your appreciation of the complexities in this or other scientific endeavors, an almost personal outrage that the people involved in this scientific inquiry seem to be going back on their word and moving the goalposts in order to get the job done.

Do you think their original words were promises aimed personally at you? And that they're all cheats and liars when they say they need more time and maybe more instruments??

Astronomer Heino Falcke, chair of the Scientific council of EHT, said in an article dated April 3, 2017:
If everything works as expected and the weather is fair on all telescope locations we might have a chance to get a first glimpse of the event horizon. However, I think we need more observation campaigns and eventually more telescopes in the network to make a really good image.
April 2017, Benni !

Jan 19, 2019
@Benni
"The images will become available once the EHT collaboration is confident that the data is fully calibrated and that all procedures have been robustly tested. With the data collected in April 2017, the exciting task of processing and analyzing these data is underway within a number of focused working groups. EHT members are actively working on understanding instrumental effects and formatting the output for imaging and science analyses that will look for the black hole "silhouette". Each of these working groups is vitally important for ultimately reaching the EHT science goals. Before the results are publicly announced, they will be reviewed and further vetted by scientists who are not members of the EHT collaboration, as a part of the standard process of peer-review required for any scientific publication. "
https://eventhori...vailable

Jan 19, 2019
...and Benni, in a childish fit of pique, votes me down within minutes of me posting the above.

Way to go, Benni! Keep chucking your toys and comforter out of the perambulator - we're all going to be deeply impressed by your Trumpian temper tantrums.

Jan 19, 2019
Benni, no surprises at all in what you have said, at this time or any other time. You have no understanding of these matters


I know how to calibrate a Gamma Radiation Lab. What can you calibrate as complex as such a facility?

a complete lack of depth in your appreciation of the complexities in this or other scientific endeavors


It is no more complex than calibrating a Gamma Radiation Lab, the problem is not the calibration of their data collection facility, it's the fact they DON"T HAVE THE DATA !!!!!!!!!

the people involved in this scientific inquiry seem to be going back on their word and moving the goalposts in order to get the job done.
.......no, the problem is worse than that, they never knew what they were doing in the first place which is why they have NO DATA !!!!

And that they're all cheats and liars when they say they need more time and maybe more instruments?
.......no kidding, they've already made this clear.


Jan 19, 2019
...and Benni, in a childish fit of pique, votes me down within minutes of me posting the above.

Way to go, Benni! Keep chucking your toys and comforter out of the perambulator - we're all going to be deeply impressed by your Trumpian temper tantrums.


You bet mister novice Pop-Cosmology aficionado. Always coming up with excuses why the holiest grail of your fantasies can't be proven through scientific studies, so you go on yet another name calling rant.

Unlike jimbo & jonesy/k131415, schneibo, Whyguy, etc.........do you know the difference between Beta Particle Decay & Gamma Radiation Decay, or do I just add you to the list of these who don't?

Tell me, what is the most complex feature of instrumentation used in nuclear physics research that you have ever calibrated?

Jan 19, 2019
it's the fact they DON"T HAVE THE DATA! ... they never knew what they were doing in the first place which is why they have NO DATA!
Benni's arrogance and boneheaded stupidity literally knows no bounds.

Coming from a guy who thinks proficiency in the use of a multi-meter is something to brag about, this latest set of idiotic burblings is a real peach.

So, all these highly-educated scientists are not only lying to us all, they actually "have no data at all" ... and are just hoping everybody will go way so they can slink off home and hope nobody notices.

No, Benni, that's what you do when you clock out in the evening from your janitor's job and hope nobody notices you haven't mopped out the restrooms. Bad Boy Benni !

Jan 19, 2019
Unlike jimbo & jonesy/k131415, schneibo, Whyguy, etc.........do you know the difference between Beta Particle Decay & Gamma Radiation Decay, or do I just add you to the list of these who don't?
Hey, good news guys: Benni now knows you DO have knowledge of these matters!

Way to go, Benni !

Jan 19, 2019
Unlike jimbo & jonesy/k131415, schneibo, Whyguy, etc.........do you know the difference between Beta Particle Decay & Gamma Radiation Decay, or do I just add you to the list of these who don't?
Hey, good news guys: Benni now knows you DO have knowledge of these matters!

!

Well then, if you can't be "unlike" them then I guess you are LIKE them & you don't know the difference between Beta Particle Decay & Gamma Radiation Decay

Jan 19, 2019
you don't know the difference between Beta Particle Decay & Gamma Radiation Decay
Benni, I was fully aware of the difference between those two decay schemes four decades ago. Try harder...

Jan 19, 2019
you don't know the difference between Beta Particle Decay & Gamma Radiation Decay
Benni, I was fully aware of the difference between those two decay schemes four decades ago. Try harder... ........so far you haven't shown evidence of it when you have yet to get above rants like this:
No, Benni, that's what you do when you clock out in the evening from your janitor's job and hope nobody notices you haven't mopped out the restrooms. Bad Boy Benni !


So tell us, what was the last type of nuclear data collection instrumentation you've calibrated during the past "four decades"?

Jan 19, 2019
@Benni Are you bragging about calibrating instruments?

Jan 19, 2019
@Benni Are you bragging about calibrating instruments?


If you can do it like I can, it ain't braggin', it's kind of like knowing how to solve Differential Equations. You only think it's bragging on my part because you can't do it.

I also know how to play acoustic guitar, how about you?

I built the almost 4000 ft² house I live in, how about you?

Still think it's "bragging" on my part don't you?

Jan 19, 2019
@Benni Are you bragging about calibrating instruments?
Well ... why not? The poor guy doesn't have anything else to brag about, unless it's the size of his mop.

Jan 19, 2019
@Benni Are you bragging about calibrating instruments?


If you can do it like I can, it ain't braggin', it's kind of like knowing how to solve Differential Equations. You only think it's bragging on my part because you can't do it.

I also know how to play acoustic guitar, how about you?

I built the almost 4000 ft² house I live in, how about you?

Still think it's "bragging" on my part don't you?


Hahahahaha..facepalm...

Guys, have you met Benni ? https://www.urban...rm=Benni
His ego is bigger than Sagittarius A* ! LOL

Yes, it is bragging, no one asked about your ability to build houses or to play musical instruments.

I doubt anything you write is true, as being a nuclear engineer who doesn't understand the meaning of radioactive decay, 'mean life' and 'half-life'...


Jan 19, 2019
@Benni

Yes I play acoustic guitar.
I'm a Software Engineer. Over twenty (20) years.
I have a BS in Physics.

And I never brag about any of those things because I am modest.

Jan 19, 2019
"The images will become available once the EHT collaboration is confident that the data is fully calibrated and that all procedures have been robustly tested..."

IOW, apply whatever maths/data gymnastics are needed to fit "predictions".

Jan 19, 2019
@Benni Are you bragging about calibrating instruments?
Well ... why not? The poor guy doesn't have anything else to brag about, unless it's the size of his mop.

Then brag & you or Skyhigh answer the question:
So tell us, what was the last type of nuclear data collection instrumentation you've calibrated during the past "four decades"?



Jan 19, 2019
"The images will become available once the EHT collaboration is confident that the data is fully calibrated and that all procedures have been robustly tested..."

IOW, apply whatever maths/data gymnastics are needed to fit "predictions".


Lol. What a prat.

Jan 19, 2019
So tell us, what was the last type of nuclear data collection instrumentation you've calibrated during the past "four decades"?


What the hell has that got to do with the demonstrated fact that you know Jack about nuclear physics?


Jan 19, 2019
@BenniYes I play acoustic guitar.
I'm a Software Engineer. Over twenty (20) years.
I have a BS in Physics.And I never brag about any of those things because I am modest.


"Software"?.

Then I see the gravity of your problem comprehending instrumentation used in Beta Particle Decay & all those leftover neutrons those less smarter than you nuclear physicists threw away at the conclusion of a neutron decay measurement run.

So you play acoustic guitar as well?

What are some of the selections of music styles you most enjoy doing?

I grew up cutting my skills on John Denver music, I consider "Rocky Mountain High" the holy grail of John Denver's unique style of guitar composition, I can pick right through it so fluently that you couldn't tell if it was me or John Denver doing the guitar work. Unfortunately I need to demonstrate a unique moment of humility here, unlike JD my tenor range cannot be used for tuning 77 of the 88 keys of my wife's piano, but I'm close.

Jan 19, 2019
Then I see the gravity of your problem comprehending instrumentation used in Beta Particle Decay & all those leftover neutrons those less smarter than you nuclear physicists threw away at the conclusion of a neutron decay measurement run.


Idiot. You haven't got a clue, have you? You were wrong, you thick swine. Stop digging. 'Lose half its mass'! Lol. What a tosser!

Jan 19, 2019
@Benni
Yes I'm a Software Engineer. Do you have a problem with that?
You do realize Software Engineers work with hardware as well don't you?

Jan 19, 2019
@Benni
Yes I'm a Software Engineer. Do you have a problem with that?
You do realize Software Engineers work with hardware as well don't you?
@Jimmybobber

No, he doesn't
he's a delusional neurodegenerative-afflicted geriatric with the internet competence of a comatose frog...

edit:correction
he's a delusional neurodegenerative-afflicted geriatric with the internet, computer, engineering, mathematical and nuclear competence of a comatose frog...

Jan 19, 2019
This HIGHLY visible BH

There never has been a picci ever!
because
the first image
of Sagittarius A*
was expected to be produced in April 2017
owing to the South Pole Telescope being closed during winter (April to October)
the data shipment delayed the processing to December 2017
when the shipment arrived
a date for the release of the image has not yet been announced
Well what an admission to make!
as EHTA admits
Its simulation algorithms
producing a simulated algorithm
that when sufficient simulation of simulated tweaking has been simulated
as yet no simulated date has been simulated
to produce this simulated picci
So That
Bennies little cupeth of joyeth will over floweth with joyeth
AS WE MARVEL AT BENNIES PRIDE AND JOY
A PICCI, OF SAGITTARIUS A*, IN SIMULATION

Jan 19, 2019
I should have said I'm humble. I actually have a low view of my own abilities.

I do know I'm competent however. My peer reviewed software is always accepted, works, and is finished in a reasonable amount of time. Also I typically get offers to go direct at the end of contract periods.

I am thankful everyday that I don't suffer from the Dunning-Kruger Effect.


Jan 19, 2019
This HIGHLY visible BH

There never has been a picci ever!
because
the first image
of Sagittarius A*
was expected to be produced in April 2017
owing to the South Pole Telescope being closed during winter (April to October)
the data shipment delayed the processing to December 2017
when the shipment arrived
a date for the release of the image has not yet been announced
Well what an admission to make!
as EHTA admits
Its simulation algorithms
producing a simulated algorithm
that when sufficient simulation of simulated tweaking has been simulated
as yet no simulated date has been simulated
to produce this simulated picci
So That
Bennies little cupeth of joyeth will over floweth with joyeth
AS WE MARVEL AT BENNIES PRIDE AND JOY
A PICCI, OF SAGITTARIUS A*, IN SIMULATION


Oh boy ! :)


Jan 19, 2019
This HIGHLY visible BH

There never has been a picci ever!
because
the first image
of Sagittarius A*
was expected to be produced in April 2017
owing to the South Pole Telescope being closed during winter (April to October)
the data shipment delayed the processing to December 2017
when the shipment arrived
a date for the release of the image has not yet been announced
Well what an admission to make!
as EHTA admits
Its simulation algorithms
producing a simulated algorithm
that when sufficient simulation of simulated tweaking has been simulated
as yet no simulated date has been simulated
to produce this simulated picci
So That
Bennies little cupeth of joyeth will over floweth with joyeth
AS WE MARVEL AT BENNIES PRIDE AND JOY
A PICCI, OF SAGITTARIUS A*, IN SIMULATION


Oh boy ! :)

Oh boy !

Jan 19, 2019
This overhyped HIGHLY visible BH

There never has been a picci ever!
as yet no simulated date has been simulated
to produce this simulated picci
So That
Bennies little cupeth of joyeth will over floweth with joyeth
AS WE MARVEL AT BENNIES PRIDE AND JOY
A PICCI, OF SAGITTARIUS A*, IN SIMULATION


Oh boy ! :)

Oh boy !

Oh boy !, after all the hype
Is spot on, in triplicate does not do it sufficient favours

Jan 19, 2019
When this Sagittarius A* picci finally arrives

There has in its production
so much computer time
infinite calculation
untold erroneous interference removal
programming tweaking
to produce
a life like image
that has been
hard wired
in to our subconscious
that the division between reality
the division between simulation
the division between how artists have convinced us, how BHs are perceived
there is no other way possible
but
that Bennies pride and joy
is non other
Than a simulation

Jan 19, 2019
This erroneous perception

How artists have convinced us, how BHs are perceived
as we only have artists graphic artwork
on how a BH would look in the flesh
these computer programmers
are tweaking an infinite maze of lines of code
to produce
what we can immediately recognise
as what we have been led to believe is a BH
Through no fault of their own
they have to produce an image of a BH
so
they are in the position of the present artists
they have to produce a convincing image
of
a billion mass BH
if they produce a mundane star like image
while telling everyone, this is a billion mass BH with an accretion disk stretching light years
with all this BH hype, no one will believe them
so
as they are between a rock and a hard place
WE WILL RECIEVE THE SIMULATION WE CRAVE

Jan 19, 2019
WE WILL RECIEVE THE SIMULATION WE CRAVE


WTF are you talking about, you clueless cretin? These are observations. Just have a bit of patience, you bloody clown. It could be undergoing peer review as we speak. Stop commenting on things you don't understand.

Jan 19, 2019
Jonesdave, we do not have the foggiest idea

What a blackhole looks like in the flesh

The only images we are used to seeing

Are artists impressions

Artist graphic simulation

Just as The Blue Boy, by Thomas Gainsborough

He could be green with pink spots

Only Thomas Gainsborough knows
https://upload.wi..._Boy.jpg

Jan 19, 2019
Jonesdave, we do not have the foggiest idea What a blackhole looks like in the flesh


Yes we do. By definition, they are bloody black, you clown. We can never 'see' a BH. However, theory predicts the existence of an event horizon. That we can just about see. And possibly already have done. Be patient. Maybe March?
https://eventhori...ack-hole

Jan 19, 2019
@jimmybobber.
I honestly wish you would take the time to link some papers.
Been there. Done that. Futile. No more time to waste doing that for links stretching back years just to pander to trolls/hacks who won't/can't read/think for themselves while parroting mindlessly the old/naive/simplistic conclusions based on hack assumptions/interpretations which mainstream itself is slowly (finally) correcting/reviewing bit bit bit, thereby effectively confirming bit by bit the correctness of what I have been pointing out.

eg, that mainstream itself is finally becoming increasingly cognizant that the near-black-body radiations from ubiquitous sources/processes include the MICROWAVE spectrum which forms the CMB; hence NO BB/Inflation/Expansion interpretation/explanation necessary for CMB observed!

ps: I haven't time for 'links game' now, as I'm spending more time on completing my reality-based ToE maths/physics work for publication in full as soon as I finish it all.

cont.


Jan 19, 2019
Been there. Done that.


Wrong.

Jan 19, 2019
@Benni
Yes I'm a Software Engineer. Do you have a problem with that?
You do realize Software Engineers work with hardware as well don't you?
......and did you know hardware engineers work with software? You & schneibo being software guys never did think about that before you started shooting off your claptraps did you?

You have no idea what manner of software is involved calibrating & operating our lab equipment. That seemed so obvious when you were totally befuddled by all the unused/uncounted neutrons at the conclusion of that Beta Particle Decay measurement run over there on the Magnetar thing.

The last time I asked one of our software engineers to design a hardware package me, I had to be the one to patch up his mistakes. I did cut him some slack when I went back to him to explain why the hardware couldn't accept the software & showed him the software corrections he needed to make.

Jan 19, 2019
^^^^^^^^^Lol. From a cretin who doesn't even understand mean lifetimes and half-lives! Joke.

Jan 19, 2019
......and did you know hardware engineers work with software?


Really? What software controls Henry the vacuum cleaner that you push around all day?

Jan 19, 2019
The last time I asked one of our software engineers to design a hardware package me


Ooops jimbo, made a mistake in this sentence: "hardware" should read "software package for me"

A rare dose of humility I'll need to suffer with I guess.

Jan 19, 2019
cont @jimmybobber.
@RealityCheck

You really only have one link don't you?

https://www.thund...p/about/
You have me mixed up with somebody else, mate; I have my own reality-based ToE work/insights, and have nothing to do with PU/EU groups (or any other alternative OR mainstream group of failed cosmology theorists)!

Please try to read and understand and better discern between your interlocutors in future, @jimmybobber. Thanks. :)

ps: re the DM issue. Please try to 'get it' that I am the one who acknowledges the increasing mainstream finds of ORDINARY (NOT 'exotic') DM. So I am NOT a DM 'denier', but a DM 'clarifier'.....ie, it's ordinary stuff; and when treated properly with the GR equations allowing for the NON-Keplerian distributions/motions of same, it will explain all the galactic motions/lensings etc. NO 'exotic' mysterious unreal DM needed! Cheers. :)

Jan 19, 2019
@jonesdave.
Been there. Done that.


Wrong.
Denial from self-imposed ignorance. Not good, jd.

ps: mate, why don't you do your intellect/character a great favor and just stop your denial-in-ignorance kneejerking for moment to think about the ubiquitous sources/processes all over the universe which produce near-black-body E-M radiations....which include Radiowave spectrum...which in turn INCLUDES ALL the MICROWAVE spectrum going to make up the CMB (implication being that NO BB/Inflation/Expansion 'needed' for CMB observed). Can you at least comprehend that, jd?

Jan 19, 2019
Please try to 'get it' that I am the one who acknowledges the increasing mainstream finds of ORDINARY (NOT 'exotic')


And not a single scientist is claiming that those discoveries are anything other than the ***predicted*** missing baryonic matter that was previously undetected. Nobody is claiming that this has anything to do with DM. Stop lying.


Jan 19, 2019
D-K at it's most delusional
Been there. Done that. Futile
translation: rc's been proven wrong so many times by the evidence, he refuses to keep proving he's the idiot and a chronic liar
just to pander to...won't/can't read/think for themselves
you mean like when you once claimed
I am trying to get my solutions into 'presentation' shape in time for the next major International Climate Change Conference ... this GW solutions project has now become too urgent for me to leave it on the backburner any longer in all good conscience. Hang in there, guys! In both cases. The Reality-cavalry is coming to the rescue
http://phys.org/n...fic.html

yet, there was no mention of ol' sam in *any* "major International Climate Change Conference"

sam is a chronic liar

that is proven with "evidence" and anyone can validate it

PS - that is now 8,513 posts and still no evidence from you, rc

Jan 19, 2019
@Forum.

Yet again the Cap proves he doesn't read. It was explained to him many times before now that political/technical developments overtook the plans I had to go to that climate conference with my solutions. That Cap still dredges that up displays clearly to the intelligent reader that Cap is only interested in trolling his personal nastiness; since he got egg all over his face when falling for the bicep2 crap claims despite me cautioning him/others that it was an obviously fatally flawed 'exercise'. He/others didn't heed my caution to check the bicep2 'work' and 'claims' for themselves BEFORE continuing 'bashing cranks' with it, so they got egg on their face and have been personally hating/trolling me ever since, even when I have been obviously correct all along. Sad.

Jan 19, 2019
Free Neutron Decay is a quantum phenomenon.
At the quantum level everything is probabilistic.
There is no definite time a free neutron will decay.
Only probable times.

Saying you know exactly when a free neutron will decay is like saying you know exactly when an electron will tunnel or when an electron will jump to a lower energy level in an atom.

Jan 19, 2019
even when I have been obviously correct all along.


Nope. Never happened. Lol.

Jan 19, 2019
@Benni
"Quantum indeterminacy can be quantitatively characterized by a probability distribution on the set of outcomes of measurements of an observable. The distribution is uniquely determined by the system state, and moreover quantum mechanics provides a recipe for calculating this probability distribution."
https://en.wikipe...erminacy

Jan 19, 2019
@illiterate chronic liar, fraud, delusional D-K idiot and criminal rc
It was explained to him many times before now that political/technical developments overtook the plans I had to go to that climate conference with my solutions
is that what happened to your ToE too?

so why were you never listed as any guest speaker, presenter, demonstration, or in any way mentioned in any "major International Climate Change Conference" anywhere?

the reason you keep saying you were thwarted, for whatever reason, be it on your ToE, the "major International Climate Change Conference", BICEP2 or anything else is simple:

you're a chronic liar

that is now 8,514 posts and still no evidence from you

reported for being a fraud, liar and chronic baiting troll

you will now reply with some sob story, explanation, appeal to the forum and various other bullsh*t tactics to distract from the fact that you've never been able to provide evidence

I'll just report it and move on

Jan 19, 2019
@RealityCheck
I would actually like to hear about your Theory of Everything.
Where can I read about it besides sporadic posts on Physorg?

Jan 19, 2019
@jonesdave.
even when I have been obviously correct all along.


Nope. Never happened. Lol.
Denial from self-imposed ignorance. Not good, jd.

Please try to 'get it' that I am the one who acknowledges the increasing mainstream finds of ORDINARY (NOT 'exotic')


And not a single scientist is claiming that those discoveries are anything other than the ***predicted*** missing baryonic matter that was previously undetected. Nobody is claiming that this has anything to do with DM. Stop lying.

How brave do you think impecunious 'hacks' are, mate, when coming out with that claim will ostracize them and end their careers (such as they are now)?

Or how stupid do you think the 'cosmology experts' (whose flawed work/claims are being increasingly falsified) are, if making such admissions will make them lose face and 'past honors' (they are hoping they will be dead before the new mainstream paradigm is finally brought together).

Get real, jd! :)

Jan 19, 2019
In honour of jonesdave

More on blackholes
We can never see a BH, we can just about see

We do not have the foggiest idea
Yes we do
they are bloody black
We can never see a BH
However
Theory predicts the existence of an event horizon
That we can just about see, maybe March?

A blackholes remaining credibility, its invisibility, just a simulation
An event horizon, just about seen

Jan 19, 2019
@RealityCheck
Here is an article about scientists finding the expecting missing baryonic matter in the universe.

https://www.wired...-matter/

"They had a pretty good idea of how much should be out there, based on theoretical studies of how matter was created during the Big Bang."

"Now, in a series of three recent papers, astronomers have identified the final chunks of all the ordinary matter in the universe. (They are still deeply perplexed as to what makes up dark matter.)"

Jan 19, 2019
@Forum.

And the Cap continues to debase himself before the internet/posterity, with his nastiness campaign just because he got egg all over his face when he fell hook-line-and-sinker for that bicep2 crap despite my cautions against believing it all instead of checking it all for himself.

ps: Any and all intelligent readers are welcome to go through @Captain Stumpy's posting history/ratings page; and note that he is entirely bereft of any scientific contributions of even the most modest originality that will in any way advance the objective cosmology science discourse. However, you may find Cap's posting history to be replete with personal trolling malice and ignorance of subtle but important science ideas/develpments being discussed by me and others. Sad.

Jan 19, 2019
@jimmybobber
@RealityCheck
I would actually like to hear about your Theory of Everything.
Where can I read about it besides sporadic posts on Physorg?
start here, where he forgot he posted his personal information that allows you to not only see where he lives but also track his movements because in Oz, the gov't loves paperwork, and especially when you attempt to elicit funds for delusional and dangerous texts that can lead to physical injury while claiming it's revolutionary science (called fraud in Aus)
http://earthlingclub.com/

use protection dealing with his personal site - you know the drill

good luck deciphering the idiocy though - I hear dropping acid makes it all sensible, but only while under the influence


Jan 19, 2019
@RealityCheck
I'd rather not go through your whole posting history to search for things you linked. Can you please give me some links to your theory or links to papers or articles suggesting that all dark matter is baryonic matter?

Jan 19, 2019
Get real, jd! :)


Get some science and evidence, woo boy.

Jan 19, 2019
@RealityCheck

I found an article on The Thunderbolts Project site!

"2016 may be remembered as the year that the hypothesis of dark matter was finally, officially falsified. Two recent scientific studies report findings that may raise fatal objections to dark matter's existence."

https://www.thund...ce-news/

Jan 19, 2019
Nobody saw that coming

That jonesdave
would be nailing the last nail in this blackholes coffin
no self respecting blackhole can ever show its face in public ever again
its only remaining credibility blown out the water
its event horizon
the only claim to fame
the only reason this blackhole is invisible
the only reason this blackhole got its name
An event horizon, just about seen
Oh! the shame
the humiliation
it makes any self respecting blackhole
Crawl under its bridge and contemplate fin rot

Jan 19, 2019
@Captain Stumpy
Thank You. You posted that before and I visited the site but couldn't get past

"<1> 'Scalar' Direction
Direction as such is the a priori Source and Substance of the Universe, since undifferentiated direction is the one, sole, natural attribute that is absolutely independent of any and all other entities, concepts and considerations. "

Jan 19, 2019
@jimmybobber.

Note this from @Captain Stumpy.
@jimmybobber, start here, where he forgot he posted his personal information that allows you to not only see where he lives but also track his movements because in Oz, the gov't loves paperwork, and especially when you attempt to elicit funds for delusional and dangerous texts that can lead to physical injury while claiming it's revolutionary science (called fraud in Aus)
http://earthlingclub.com/

use protection dealing with his personal site - you know the drill

good luck deciphering the idiocy though - I hear dropping acid makes it all sensible, but only while under the influence

Note Cap's calculated LIES:
...attempt to elicit funds for delusional and dangerous texts that can lead to physical injury while claiming it's revolutionary science (called fraud in Aus)
The Caps doesn't specify exactly what "dangerous texts" etc "can lead to injury" etc or what "fraud" etc...because there is none except in Cap's LIES.

Jan 19, 2019
@RealityCheck
I think this is pretty dangerous. This actually injured my brain a little. Hopefully one day I'll get those neurons back.

""<1> 'Scalar' Direction
Direction as such is the a priori Source and Substance of the Universe, since undifferentiated direction is the one, sole, natural attribute that is absolutely independent of any and all other entities, concepts and considerations. "

Jan 19, 2019
ps: @jimmybobber.

My initial book/papers were 'in house' Earthling Club publication as 'a progress report' to members re my ToE work. Please note that only my detractors push that link when they are trolling me; as I have not pushed that link for years because I will be publishing the full complete work, including the reality-based axiomatic maths for modeling the reality-based physics ToE already completed.
...I visited the site but couldn't get past

"<1> 'Scalar' Direction
Direction as such is the a priori Source and Substance of the Universe, since undifferentiated direction is the one, sole, natural attribute that is absolutely independent of any and all other entities, concepts and considerations. "
Compare that to all the other mainstream/alternative 'starting points' for THEIR respective theorizing/claims, mate! You'll find all other attempts at 'starting' entities/contexts' unreal/missing altogether; eg, String/Brane Theory, Big Bang etc! Read all of it.

Jan 19, 2019
Realy, all dark matter is baryonic matter, after all these neutron lectures concerning beta-decay

Baryonic Matter.
By definition, baryonic matter should only include matter composed of baryons
Include protons, neutrons and all the objects composed of them
but exclude electrons and neutrinos which are leptons
In this darkmatter world
Neutrons do not transform into electrons and neutrinos

Jan 19, 2019
@jimmy, @RC doesn't know the difference between a scalar and a vector. Never mind a tensor.

Jan 19, 2019
@RealityCheck
You lost me on Scalar Direction.

Jan 19, 2019
@jimmybobber.
I think this is pretty dangerous. This actually injured my brain a little. Hopefully one day I'll get those neurons back.

""<1> 'Scalar' Direction
Direction as such is the a priori Source and Substance of the Universe, since undifferentiated direction is the one, sole, natural attribute that is absolutely independent of any and all other entities, concepts and considerations. "
Now you're just trolling your biases and prejudices, mate. If you started like that with String Theory or Big Bang, and didn't read the rest of those theories/hypotheses, then how much more "damged" would your brain be, hey?

Let's face it, you're just another time-wasting nincompoop with biased inculcated crap which is even worse for your brain that what you say mine was. You don't want to read properly in context, opine from self-imposed ignrance; just like the trolls who 'just believed' in bicep2 and attacked my correct cautions against such uncritial belief. Your problem. :)

Jan 19, 2019
@Reality
Call me crazy but I prefer this definition of a scalar.

"A scalar or scalar quantity in physics is a physical quantity that can be described by a single element of a number field such as a real number, often accompanied by units of measurement. A scalar is usually said to be a physical quantity that only has magnitude and no other characteristics. This is in contrast to vectors, tensors, etc. which are described by several numbers that characterize their magnitude, direction, and so on."
https://en.wikipe...physics)

Jan 19, 2019
No, @RC, @jimmy is working from the definitions of scalar and vector.

Scalars don't have any direction.

Jan 19, 2019
@Da Schneib.
No, @RC, @jimmy is working from the definitions of scalar and vector.

Scalars don't have any direction.
Hence the further explication down the page, DS. One would expect an intelligent reader to proceed in context and follow the FULL argument as laid out; and not to just kneejerk from semantical aspects which are explained further as to 'new' usage in context given. But if you don't read and understand properly in context, you won't know about such things, will you mate? :)