Chandra detection of a circumnuclear torus

Chandra detection of a circumnuclear torus
A false-color image of the central region of the active galaxy NGC 5643 as seen with the ALMA millimeter array. The spiral disk is seen in the light of molecular gas in red, and the outflowing hot gas in blue-orange. The emission shows a circumnuclear disk and torus at the core. Astronomers have used the Chandra X-ray Observatory to image the X-ray emission from the nuclear region and, together with ALMA results, confirm that the structure is the circumnuclear disk and torus. Credit: ESO/A. Alonso-Herrero et al.; ALMA (ESO/NAOJ/NRAO)

Most galaxies host supermassive black holes at their nuclei, each with millions or billions of solar-masses of material. There is thought to be a torus of dust and gas around the black holes, and an accreting disk that becomes very hot as material falls onto it, in turn heating the torus and circumnuclear gas and dust. Such an active galactic nucleus (AGN) radiates across the spectrum while the dust often blocks the innermost regions from view. Powerful bipolar jets of charged particles are often ejected as well. Radiation from the torus can be seen directly at infrared wavelengths and, when it scatters off the fast moving particles, at X-ray energies.

Active galactic nuclei (AGN) are among the most dramatic and interesting phenomena in extragalactic astronomy. All of the standard AGN models predict the presence of a torus and but the details of the region have been difficult to study directly because the torus is thought to be relatively small, only hundreds of light-years in size. The ALMA millimeter array, however, has recently enabled detection of nearby AGN structures in both continuum and molecular line emission. NGC5643 is a face-on spiral galaxy that hosts an AGN and bipolar jets. Last year ALMA spotted an elongated structure in its nucleus about eighty light-years across (about 200 light-years across in emission from the cooler molecular gas component). Scientists had proposed that the structure was the expected AGN torus and the related molecular material responsible for the obscuration of the AGN and the collimation of the jets.

CfA astronomers Pepi Fabbiano, Aneta Siemiginowska, and Martin Elvis and a colleague have now used the Chandra X-ray Observatory to image the region and its torus in X-rays. Looking at the energy of a bright X-ray line of iron, the team finds a structure about 200 light-years in extent that coincides quite well with the molecular . It appears to be clumpy, and that feature together with its size and the estimated density from the ALMA observations suggest that it is the circumnuclear disk. This is the first object for which both Chandra and ALMA have identified the critical torus; of added significance is the fact that the two observations span the range from X-ray to millimeter wavelengths. Normally these very different bands sample respectively extremely hot or extremely cold material arising from very different regions, but AGN make for a very complex neighborhood.


Explore further

Extended hard X-ray emission from a galactic nucleus

More information: G. Fabbiano et al. Chandra Detection of the Circumnuclear Molecular Torus of the Compton-thick Active Galactic Nucleus in NGC 5643, The Astrophysical Journal (2018). DOI: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf73e
Journal information: Astrophysical Journal

Citation: Chandra detection of a circumnuclear torus (2019, January 7) retrieved 15 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-01-chandra-circumnuclear-torus.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.
235 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jan 07, 2019
Another confirmation of the existence of a plasmoid at the center of AGN's. All of these observations are a predicted consequence of plasmoids.

Jan 07, 2019
I'm sorry everybody, but I can't help myself...

@cantdrive85, what's a plasmoid?

In your own words please--no links.
I'm a plasmoid ignoramus and I'm trying to figure out if this is a bad thing.

Jan 07, 2019
cantcope is one of the badly programmed woobots that infest this site. An artificial stupid trying to take credit for other peoples work.

Jan 07, 2019
cantcope is one of the badly programmed woobots that infest this site. An artificial stupid trying to take credit for other peoples work.

Must you comment on everything?
I'm trying to do a study here, and your stumbling around is scaring off the specimen.
;)

Jan 07, 2019
Your best bet, @dsylvan, (which will save me a lot of typing) is the Wikipedia article on plasmoids. You'll get a bunch of woo from @cantthink69 who thinks everything is made of plasmoids.

Update: heh, sorry man, we crossposted, didn't mean to spit in your petri dish.

Jan 07, 2019
Da Schneib---that's quite all right. You might have enriched the culture.

Jan 07, 2019
In search of black holes and dark matter astrophysicists are relying on indirect observations. It would seem that the measurement of the event horizon of a black hole directly would be a direct evidence. However, by the nature of a horizon, any real measurement of the event horizon will be indirect. The Event Horizon Telescope will get picture of the silhouette of the Sgr A* which is due to optical effects of spacetime outside of the event horizon. The result will be determined by the simple quality of the resulting image that does not depend on the properties of the spacetime within the image. So, it will be also indirect and an existence of BH is a hypothesis.
https://www.acade...ilky_Way

Jan 08, 2019
@cantdrive85, what's a plasmoid?

A plasmoid is a magnetic structure in plasma. In other words, it's a real thing unlike the purely maths based constructs of BH guesswork.

https://lppfusion...esearch/

Jan 08, 2019
A plasmoid is a magnetic structure in plasma. In other words, it's a real thing unlike the purely maths based constructs of BH guesswork.

@cantdrive85, how do you know that a plasmoid is a real thing at the center of AGNs?

Your answer is very important. I'm excited by the prospect that you might dispel my ignorance.

Jan 08, 2019

"@cantdrive85, how do you know that a plasmoid is a real thing at the center of AGNs?"

@Cantdrive85

Show him a picture of what is there, at the center of an active galactic nucleus...perhaps reference the one provided for this article since it is right above the article. Everything that is not a BH is a plasma structure of some kind...(including the stars, which means everything there ). You need special glasses to see the BH....they are called fantasy conversion glasses as you can also see Asgard, all the DM in the universe and interestingly enough Davey Jones locker with them. The locker is where God keeps all of the information about the stuff that can only be seen with the glasses.

Jan 08, 2019
@theredpill, Thank you--I've already looked at the picture. And thank you for letting us know how you've decided from looking at pictures that plasmoids are real things at the center of AGNs.

But I've asked the question of cantdrive85 and I'm patiently awaiting a response. Maybe, unlike you and I, he/she's relying on more than pictures. Maybe even predictive mathematical constructs.

Jan 08, 2019
"Maybe even predictive mathematical constructs."

But those tell people that objects are present in images when they are not. So we debate about the non-presence of what math tells those who believe in it's predictability claim is there. I guess all the math guys forgot that if the math leads to a solution that we do not observe, it's wrong.

"And thank you for letting us know how you've decided from looking at pictures that plasmoids are real things at the center of AGNs."

LOL...that and every magnetically confined plasma formation ever made...some I have even witnessed their formation...science is cool that way. Physical reproduction to test a mathematical hypothesis. So we know a "plasmoid" is a real thing...one up on black holes right out of the gate eh? So back to our picture....math says a BH is there...must be behind the plasmoid....as usual


Jan 08, 2019
oh dyslvan, you're going to make me blush. I'll have to try that blushing thing one of these days?

& yes, yes I have to comment on everything that inveigles my "drunkards walk" brain.

Sorry about spooking the game. I always hated that when someone did it to me during a time-limited hunting season.

As for cantmatter? he/she/it just cant spell plasmodium as a accurate self-description of it's woobot status.

Jan 08, 2019
rrwillsj--all is well. And you're right, it's hard to gather any meaningful results in a laboratory so unconstrained as human behavior. ;)

Jan 08, 2019
@theredpill (though I suspect you chose the blue one)

OK, as cantdrive seems to be busy with life or doesn't care to respond, and you're so eager to interact, I'll shift my inquiry to you.
But those tell people that objects are present in images when they are not. So we debate about the non-presence of what math tells those who believe in it's predictability claim is there. I guess all the math guys forgot that if the math leads to a solution that we do not observe, it's wrong.
Do you know anybody that actually behaves this way? Or is this your projection?
........So back to our picture....math says a BH is there...must be behind the plasmoid....as usual
So it might actually be there? How will you know?

How do you decide what's real or not? Be it plasmoids, black holes, or the life you wish you had? These are serious questions. Do you have a serious answer?

Jan 08, 2019
"How do you decide what's real or not?"
Evidence.
"Do you know anybody that actually behaves this way?"
Do you know anyone who trusts mainstream math who doesn't?
"Or is this your projection?"
Projection of what?
"So it might actually be there? "
No.
"How will you know?"
Observation verifies it is not. Just like experimental observation verifies there is no quantum gravity (required to create the theoretical singularity), the finite limit on the compressibility of matter (QGP and the various heavy ION runs at the LHC) and of course the structures that can be created by altering magnetic field geometries in plasma experiments.

I understand the necessity to question Cantdrive, some of the EU stuff is as far out there as BH's, DM the like. I only chimed in because you asked about something there was a picture of above the article....why he didn't answer...not my business.

Jan 08, 2019
@DSylvan

I am off for the night but let me ask you for some serious answers: Why do you care what cantdrive, mine, or anyone's opinion is if you are tied to yours? Why do you believe what you do?

As to the "predictability of math": When math that is based on an assumption that one force causes all motion and it is supposed to describe reality, fails to match the observed reality, is it logical, or remotely scientific, to alter a mathematical variable increasing it by 5X and then claim it is distributed exactly as it must be in reality so that the equations describe the observations.... without first confirming the existence of the variable. And, is it logical to claim scientifically that the matter does not conform to any physical laws that ALL other matter we have discovered does?


Jan 08, 2019
@theredpill

Thank you for the serious effort to answer my questions. I appreciate it.
I'm interested in how the human mind determines what's real, and you're a good study. For example:
"How will you know?"
Observation verifies it is not. Just like experimental observation verifies there is no quantum gravity...

You do understand that observation, no matter how astute, never has and never will establish the non-existence of something? Do you see the absurdity of the idea that it can?

Can you see that I'm asking you how you establish what's real to find out if you can answer that question for yourself? Your postings indicate you haven't given this much thought.

Jan 08, 2019
theredpill---
I am off for the night but let me ask you for some serious answers: Why do you care what cantdrive, mine, or anyone's opinion is if you are tied to yours? Why do you believe what you do?

My serious answer: The best informed opinions can be interesting, but I actually don't care much about opinions in general--your's, mine, or anybody's, because opinions are always conjectural--often just pretending to knowledge. I also don't give belief much consideration because the more firmly held a belief, the more suspect it is. I respect science because it's a method whereby we don't have to rely on opinion and belief to establish what's true. I care about inquiry--for its own sake. It's much more useful than opining, so I'm glad you asked. Seriously.

Jan 09, 2019
"How do you decide what's real or not?"

You're so existential. Are unicorns real? How about faerie dust? If you believe the mathematicians faerie dust is perfectly acceptable.

Maybe even predictive mathematical constructs

Such as this;
http://lppfusion....No-1.pdf
To which the following also agrees;
https://arxiv.org...04.02198

Jan 09, 2019
@cantthink69, since you deny accretion disks your second reference seems flawed by your own beliefs.

Jan 09, 2019
since you deny accretion disks your second reference seems flawed by your own beliefs.

The donut shaped magnetic object that the Darkists call an accretion disk is in fact the plasmoid. The second paper then shows the agreement of the jet formation with said plasmoid. It all works very nicely contrary to your ignorant nonsense.

Jan 09, 2019
LOL

Plasmoids don't form jets.

If you disagree post scientific literature that says they do.

Jan 09, 2019
da schnied prefers to wallow in her own ignorance instead of actually reading a paper. The first paper I linked describes the jets that form from a plasmoid. BTW, who dresses you ?

Jan 09, 2019
So, no science, huh? Just ginormous plasmoid jet unicorns.

Jan 09, 2019
Had a look at that first paper. The references are all from the IEEE journal, which is notoriously incompetent to judge astrophysics, and the original publication is in Laser and Particle Beams, which is also incompetent to judge astrophysics.

This looks like a vanity paper.

Jan 09, 2019
cantdrive85---
"How do you decide what's real or not?"

You're so existential. Are unicorns real? How about faerie dust? If you believe the mathematicians faerie dust is perfectly acceptable....

Ah! There you are. Wonderful.

I'm interested not in what you believe, but how you believe--and how that results in such low ratings on your comments. So never mind plasmoids, black holes, mathematics, unicorns, or faerie dust for the moment--how do you establish whether anything is real? How do you believe that you can determine these things all by yourself using only your mind?

I'm assuming of course that you're a serious thinker and not commenting here simply because you need negative feedback. In any case your reply will be appreciated.


Jan 09, 2019
"You do understand that observation, no matter how astute, never has and never will establish the non-existence of something?"

OK...the problem with that statement in this context is that we are being given a specific location to look and a specific thing to look for. Adding these variables with their purported properties narrows the search field drastically. Simply put, we are being told there is a can of magic beans in the cupboard, we open the cupboard....no beans. It doesn't mean beans do not exist...but they aren't in the cupboard and nobody has ever seen the kind of beans claimed to be in the can...so until we find the can of beans, AND confirm they are magic....we have to accept that they are at most, theoretical....so we don't start inventing recipes around magic beans. That would make no sense to any sane person.


Jan 09, 2019

"Can you see that I'm asking you how you establish what's real to find out if you can answer that question for yourself?"

If that is your motivation, I can accept that...it is the same reason I asked you what your beliefs are as ones beliefs directly correlate to what they define as real. You said you don't think belief is relied upon in science....interesting as you appear to support the notion of BH's and where they are despite never having seen one no matter where we look...
" Your postings indicate you haven't given this much thought."

Interesting, I am speaking from the standpoint that theoretical objects (DM,BH) and the conclusions based upon math as far as astrophysics are concerned have no real world verification...so I am not sure how you arrive at the above statement, unless you BELIEVE that which cannot be verified scientifically or observationally exists because math told you it did...the opposite of your statement regarding belief

Jan 09, 2019
" I care about inquiry--for its own sake. It's much more useful than opining,"

Opining, no matter how complicated the manner in which it is stated, is still opining. I care about evidence, physical verification of a theory, application of correct physics to a scenario. If something is a "truth" , it can have ONE interpretation from any perspective. It doesn't result in debates in which each side thinks the other is cookoo....

Jan 09, 2019
OK...the problem with that statement in this context is that we are being given a specific location to look and a specific thing to look for. Adding these variables with their purported properties narrows the search field drastically. Simply put, we are being told there is a can of magic beans in the cupboard, we open the cupboard....no beans. It doesn't mean beans do not exist...but they aren't in the cupboard and nobody has ever seen the kind of beans claimed to be in the can...so until we find the can of beans, AND confirm they are magic....we have to accept that they are at most, theoretical....

Very good metaphor! And you got it right except for this--"we are being told there is a can of magic beans in the cupboard." No we aren't. There's evidence of the can and speculation about what may or may not be in the can, but nobody knows yet. You're simply preemptively claiming there's no magic beans.

Jan 09, 2019
Opining, no matter how complicated the manner in which it is stated, is still opining. I care about evidence, physical verification of a theory, application of correct physics to a scenario. If something is a "truth" , it can have ONE interpretation from any perspective. It doesn't result in debates in which each side thinks the other is cookoo....

Common ground. I'm just making the point that if there's ONE interpretation from any perspective, than you, me, or anybody, having a singular perspective, can't claim all by ourselves to have the correct one. The best we can do is together identify the best candidate perspectives. Thus--science.

Jan 09, 2019
"Very good metaphor! And you got it right except for this--"we are being told there is a can of magic beans in the cupboard." No we aren't. There's evidence of the can and speculation about what may or may not be in the can, but nobody knows yet."

Accepted...but here's the problem. The whole statement that there is a can of magic beans in the cupboard is based upon the premise, the predetermination, that all cupboards have cans of beans in them.
No matter how we have opened the cupboard and changed how we have looked in, for the last 100 years...we still can't see the can.
Add to this all of the regular beans we have found, not in cans inside cupboards,but still beans and strangely enough always attached to vines, one starts to think maybe that is how nature gives us beans, so we stop assuming they are only in cans inside cupboards...unless that is the only way we have ever thought of beans of course, then the whole vine thing sounds like madness, right?


Jan 09, 2019
"The best we can do is together identify the best candidate perspectives. Thus--science."

Also common ground. I have enjoyed this back and forth more than any other I have had here, thank you. I have appreciated your straight forward questions, answers and the fact that you appear to think about what you are saying, that has not been my experience here when opposing someone's views, beliefs, "trusted science" , and I have admittedly adapted the comment "style" I have encountered most here, so my apologies if I came off a bit chippy.

To continue the metaphor, I have been wandering around the beanfields for so long I forgot that they even come in manmade cans sometimes.

Jan 09, 2019
Accepted...but here's the problem. The whole statement that there is a can of magic beans in the cupboard is based upon the premise, the predetermination, that all cupboards have cans of beans in them.
No matter how we have opened the cupboard and changed how we have looked in, for the last 100 years...we still can't see the can.
Add to this all of the regular beans we have found, not in cans inside cupboards,but still beans and strangely enough always attached to vines, one starts to think maybe that is how nature gives us beans, so we stop assuming they are only in cans inside cupboards...unless that is the only way we have ever thought of beans of course, then the whole vine thing sounds like madness, right?

Again nicely said. But again what predetermination? You're using the claim that you're being told what's real as permission to claim that your perspective is correct. Sorry if this sounds harsh. I respect what you have to say.

Jan 09, 2019
To continue the metaphor, I have been wandering around the beanfields for so long I forgot that they even come in manmade cans sometimes.

Beautiful!! And thank you.

Jan 09, 2019
To continue the metaphor, I have been wandering around the beanfields for so long I forgot that they even come in manmade cans sometimes.

Beautiful!! And thank you.

And sorry for my snark. Looks like you indeed took the red pill.

Jan 09, 2019
"Again nicely said. But again what predetermination?"

As far as this physics goes, that gravity is the primary force which drives the structure of the universe. Your thought exercise (regarding why people believe what they do, what they think is "real") was exactly what I applied to this issue, it is easy to see why things went the way they did starting with Newton. Unfortunately it's also easy to see why things have continued they way they have, despite what we have learned. But it is nice to see more people checking out the beans on the vines instead of searching for a mystical can.

Thank you again for the polite discourse. For the record, it feels more like the red pill was force fed than voluntarily ingested and I am just trying to make the best after the fact.

Jan 09, 2019
For the record, it feels more like the red pill was force fed than voluntarily ingested and I am just trying to make the best after the fact.

My guess is the can is full of red pills...

Jan 09, 2019
"My guess is the can is full of red pills..."

Time will tell as it always does. Happy new year and the best for 2019 to you.


Jan 09, 2019
Hey benni--

Why are you just lurking around giving me 1 star ratings? Why not weigh in with your thoughts? Afraid to engage?

Jan 09, 2019
@dysylvan;

Ask them how a plasmoid causes the observed orbits of the stars around our own SNBH!
You'll only get silence. Thatr's because nobody in there right mind thinks an SMBH is a plasmoid.

Jan 09, 2019
Interesting, I am speaking from the standpoint that theoretical objects (DM,BH) and the conclusions based upon math as far as astrophysics are concerned have no real world verification...so I am not sure how you arrive at the above statement, unless you BELIEVE that which cannot be verified scientifically or observationally exists because math told you it did...the opposite of your statement regarding belief


Nope. Unless you want to throw Newton and Einstein in the bin. The orbits of the stars tell us that there is a 4m solar mass object there. These are the same laws that allow us to determine the mass of the Sun from the orbits of the planets around it. When you measure each of those orbits, and they all come to the same answer, then that is proof. Not necessarily of a BH, but of a 4m solar mass object confined in a very small area. You'll likely have to wait a few months for the confirmation from the Event Horizon Telescope. At which point you'll still deny it.

Jan 09, 2019
On the other hand, we have EUists and PCists who can offer no explanation of the observed orbits. None of them can offer a quantitative model of how a plasmoid (lol), or any other woo could cause those orbits. In my experience these people are hopeless at maths, and have a chip on their shoulders about it.

Jan 09, 2019
Jones, I regrettably took you off ignore. You are back on it now. As far as your inquiry about an object "having" to be there to explain the orbits....keep hoping and praying one day science finds your can of magic beans. Observations indicate the galaxy moves as a single structure with internal motions in various resonances. Equal mass binaries orbit an "empty" point space, so again, the only need for an object to be there is if you mathematically calculate the orbits of the most central objects based on one being there.

My exchange with DSylvan did make me realize there is no need to placate one such as you as there are people willing to discuss things rationally and politely here who actually read and think about what the other person is saying instead of just chomping at the bit to say their next piece.

I'd recommend a walk in the bean patch to you, but I know you are just waiting for the day the cupboard opens and the magic can appears, goodbye and happy hoping.

Jan 10, 2019
As far as your inquiry about an object "having" to be there to explain the orbits....keep hoping and praying one day science finds your can of magic beans.


It does have to be there, thicko. And you have given no explanation to account for it. Due to not understanding the science. Show me where anyone has offered an alternative, viable explanation for those orbits. You can't. You are just blowing hot air. As usual.


Jan 10, 2019
there are people willing to discuss things rationally


Rational? You? Lol. So give us a rational explanation for those orbits.

Jan 10, 2019
Orbits around a barycenter cannot duplicate orbits around a central mass. But you'd have to know the math to understand why.

Jan 10, 2019
The Wikipedia article has a pretty good graphic if you have good geometric sense.

https://en.wikipe...rycenter

Jan 10, 2019
And a couple of decent short explanations by an astrophysicist who works on BHs;

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

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

Jan 10, 2019
Circular nuclear torus

There is thought to be
a torus of dust and gas
around these black holes
and an accreting disk
that becomes very hot
as material falls onto it
heating this circular nuclear torus of dust and gas

< A torus of dust and gas around BHs is an accretion disk>
So now it is only thought a BH has an accretion disk

Jan 10, 2019
Wellp, neither plasmoids nor barycenters do.

Just sayin'.

Meanwhile accretion disks appear to be ubiquitous without black holes. Newborn stars have them, old stars have them, and even Saturn has them.

Again, just sayin'.

Jan 10, 2019
Matryoshka accretion disks

This accretion disk
is
surrounded by a larger equivalent accretion disk
in the form
of
a torus of dust and gas
A Matryoshka of nesting accretion disks

Jan 10, 2019
Reminder, Saturn.

Jan 10, 2019
Encircling distinctions

Whatever this true definition of a torus, as a Matryoshka of accretion disks
A plasmoid is a coherent structure of plasma and magnetic fields
it is not infalling of dust and gas onto stars or BHs
because
then the distinction in naming structures is lost
as
a star becomes a plasmoid
dust and gas becomes a plasmoid
stars, BHs encircled by dust and gas are encirculed by plasmoids
a star and its accretion disk
becomes
A plasmoid encircled by a plasmoid

Jan 10, 2019
Ain't no plasmoids at Saturn.

Just sayin'.

Jan 10, 2019
TrollianCantdrive85

Your definitions in dust and gas
Cantdrive85> Another confirmation of the existence of a plasmoid at the center of AGN's. All of these observations are a predicted consequence of plasmoids

Even though in this vacuum
these electrons and protons
are electrically charged
and by their oscillation of frequency of spin
have by virtue of their motion
acquired magnetic fields
when dust and gas
that occupies this vacuum
is described
as
plasmoids
as you sit and breathe
as you inkly texturally put your plasmoid thoughts to parchment
the air that you are presently breathing
this atmosphere
of dust
of gas
of diesel soot
according to your definition, TrollianCantdrive85
could
be
equally described as a plasmoid
as
all of us who have listened to your plasmoids
for as long as August 14, 2012
by further plasmoid integration
applied to the human body
we could
be
Described as Human Plasmoids

Jan 10, 2019
@Da Schneib or jonesdave or anybody

Sorry to be off topic, but I'm relatively new to this comment thing, and wanted to ask about something.
Someone with the nick name "thompson50" (I don't think it was Mr. Zevon) went to all the trouble to retroactively give almost all my comments a 1 rating. Is this a thing here?
I'm wondering if it's benni because I called him out.
I don't care so much about the rating, but---how sad!

Jan 10, 2019
Ain't no plasmoids at Saturn

As usual, da schnied stating lies as facts.
https://arxiv.org...02.01579

And no, nobody claimed Saturn's rings are form by a plasmoid however as was shown by Cassini the rings are indeed an electromagnetic structure which gravity is of little effect.

Jan 10, 2019
Ain't no plasmoids at Saturn

As usual, da schnied stating lies as facts.
https://arxiv.org...02.01579

And no, nobody claimed Saturn's rings are form by a plasmoid however as was shown by Cassini the rings are indeed an electromagnetic structure which gravity is of little effect.


Nonsense. That paper is reporting about transient dust clouds. The rings of Saturn are ice, and gravitationally bound. Ice is not going to be affected by electrical anything.

Jan 10, 2019
Hi Benni---
It is you isn't it.
I'm not sad about you down rating me--I'm sad that you have suffering in your life. And I'm not being sarcastic or condescending.

Jan 10, 2019
never mind plasmoids, black holes, mathematics, unicorns, or faerie dust -how do you establish whether anything is real? How do you believe that you can determine these things all by yourself using only your mind?
Start with OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE, for example as with black holes:

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

7th photo frame:

"Ever increasing resolution in infrared images showed the black hole is not the energy source. The brightest source in the very high resolution near infrared image to the right is IRS 7, a red supergiant that puts out most of its energy in the near infrared. The other bright stars are also very young and massive. The blue-appearing ones in the center of the image are a unique clustering of very luminous, massive stars. Any black hole must be invisible. (image from Gemini Project). If the black hole dominated the energy of the Galactic Center, it would be the second brightest source in the infrared image"

Jan 10, 2019
Hi Benni---
It is you isn't it.
I'm not sad about you down rating me--I'm sad that you have suffering in your life. And I'm not being sarcastic or condescending.


Oh, you're quite welcome, nice to see you take it in such a nonchalant manner, in the meantime, can you prove black holes exist as is presupposed by the author of this article?

I point you to my Comment just above this, that the best telescopic images to date cannot find a black hole at the center of our galaxy that is supposed to be 4 million solar masses. Physorg Moderator Da Schneibo has in the past claimed to have pics of one but put up utter resistance producing such a pic. Maybe you can find what the link I gave you above fails to produce evidence of?

Jan 10, 2019
Start with OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE, for example as with black holes:


Yep, the observed orbits of the stars, which prove that a 4m solar mass object is there.

Jan 10, 2019
Oh, you're quite welcome, nice to see you take it in such a nonchalant manner, in the meantime, can you prove black holes exist as is presupposed by the author of this article?

Benni---
I'm glad you engaged!
I have to go do life stuff now, but I'll be back later to answer your question.

Jan 10, 2019
Wishful thinking in the bean patch
theredpill> I'd recommend a walk in the bean patch to you, but I know you are just waiting for the day the cupboard opens and the magic can appears, goodbye and happy hoping

In this bean patch
With this magic bean can
You have wished far more than you intended, theredpill
As in Jones and the beanstalk

Jan 10, 2019
...in the meantime, can you prove black holes exist as is presupposed by the author of this article?...

Benni--

No of course I can't, but you already know this. I also don't think the author of this article cares much for the debate. Your question is really about presupposition isn't it? You have a problem with someone presupposing something you don't support?

Jan 10, 2019
...in the meantime, can you prove black holes exist as is presupposed by the author of this article?...

Benni--

No of course I can't, but you already know this. I also don't think the author of this article cares much for the debate. Your question is really about presupposition isn't it? You have a problem with someone presupposing something you don't support?


Quote me an immutable law of physics for anything you "support" under discussion here and I'll agree with you every time. Problems arise here when Pop-Cosmology aficionados go off on name calling rants because I take them to task demanding evidence for their immutable fantasies that have no basis in science, for example the untenable concept that infinite gravity can exist on the surface & center of a finite stellar mass.


Jan 10, 2019
Quote me an immutable law of physics for anything you "support" under discussion here and I'll agree with you every time. Problems arise here when Pop-Cosmology aficionados go off on name calling rants because I take them to task demanding evidence for their immutable fantasies that have no basis in science, for example the untenable concept that infinite gravity can exist on the surface & center of a finite stellar mass.

What I find interesting about your response is that it sounds very much like the posts that take you to task. Some details may be different about what's being speculated, but debating has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual efforts to determine what's really going on out there in the vicinity of what pretty much everybody is calling a black hole.

So setting all opinion and speculation aside, what evidence would it take to convince you what a "black hole" actually is?

Jan 10, 2019
What I find interesting about your response is that it sounds very much like the posts that take you to task
.....well of course, except the role is reversed as they try masquerading fantasyland Pop-Cosmology as SCIENCE.

There is no SCIENCE supporting the concept of infinite gravity at the surface & center of a finite stellar mass, the immutable Inverse Square Law of Physics for gravity as elucidated by Einstein in General Relativity is the SCIENCE, the Schwarzschild Singularity Theory of Black Hole Math is the contradiction to that SCIENCE & is the all time beloved fantasy of Pop-Cosmology aficionados.

So setting all opinion and speculation aside, what evidence would it take to convince you what a "black hole" actually is?
.....as I pointed out above, OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE, a picture. Go back & click on that link I put up & see what's NOT in that close-up pic of the center of the Milky Way, the 7th photo frame from the top of the page.


Jan 10, 2019
@Benni doesn't "believe in" gravity.

Jan 10, 2019
....as I pointed out above, OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE, a picture...

But Benni--
What is a "picture"? Who is qualified to best understand and interpret what data the "picture" represents? Not me. You--above anybody else?
Do you see what I'm getting at? A picture or any other representation is worthless in the absence of the actual context that gives it meaning. In the case of black holes and the like, there's very few that are qualified to understand what they're looking at. You and I or anyone else commenting here are not among them.

Jan 10, 2019
....as I pointed out above, OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE, a picture...


But Benni--

What is a "picture"? Who is qualified to best understand and interpret what data the "picture" represents? Not me. You--above anybody else? Do you see what I'm getting at? A picture or any other representation is worthless in the absence of the actual context that gives it meaning.
......then what appears as a pic at the top of this page is just illusory, right? There's no active galaxy NGC 5643 as seen with the ALMA millimeter array.

In the case of black holes and the like, there's very few that are qualified to understand what they're looking at.
then post a pic of yourself where we can find it & you will see who is qualified to believe it's really YOU.

You and I or anyone else commenting here are not among them.
.....no, you don't know I'm not "qualified", you ONLY KNOW you're not "qualified" based on the fact you just admitted it about yourself.

Jan 10, 2019
What's your deal, @Benni? You appear to be trying to prove you're smarter than everyone.

Jan 10, 2019
....no, you don't know I'm not "qualified", you ONLY KNOW you're not "qualified" based on the fact you just admitted it about yourself.

You're right Benni, I don't know that you're not qualified, but it sure seems that you aren't from your remarks because you don't seem to understand the difference between a picture and the data it represents. Can you demonstrate that you do with a simple explanation?

You're also presenting a confused understanding of science. In one remark you talk about SCIENCE as if were inviolate, and in the next you debase all who actually practice it. So are you a proponent of science or merely a critic?

Jan 10, 2019
@Da Schneib or jonesdave or anybody

Sorry to be off topic, but I'm relatively new to this comment thing, and wanted to ask about something.
Someone with the nick name "thompson50" (I don't think it was Mr. Zevon) went to all the trouble to retroactively give almost all my comments a 1 rating. Is this a thing here?
I'm wondering if it's benni because I called him out.
I don't care so much about the rating, but---how sad!

This happened to me a number of years ago. It was other screen names, tho.
I never considered that it might be Benni having an OCD moment.......

Jan 10, 2019
Hi Benni---
It is you isn't it.
I'm not sad about you down rating me--I'm sad that you have suffering in your life. And I'm not being sarcastic or condescending.


Oh, you're quite welcome, nice to see you take it in such a nonchalant manner, in the meantime, can you prove black holes exist as is presupposed by the author of this article?


Of course, Benni cherry-picked and re-contextualized the caption that goes with the graphic...

Jan 10, 2019
This happened to me a number of years ago. It was other screen names, tho.
I never considered that it might be Benni having an OCD moment.......

Thanks Whydening Gyre. To be fair I don't know for sure it was Benni. And I wouldn't expect him(?) to admit it if it was. But the things some people will do under cover of anonymity---saddening. And to think that's the goal---just awful.

Jan 10, 2019
You're right Benni, I don't know that you're not qualified,
At least one statement of truism that you've been able to come up with.

but it sure seems that you aren't from your remarks because you don't seem to understand the difference between a picture and the data it represents. Can you demonstrate that you do with a simple explanation?
.....just psycho-babble entrapment on your part. You majored in Philosophy, right?

You're also presenting a confused understanding of science.
.....really, a confused understanding of science? What was that? Maybe you don't know there are proven immutable laws of physics.....or are you about to go on another binge of psycho-babble?

Jan 10, 2019
This happened to me a number of years ago. It was other screen names, tho.
I never considered that it might be Benni having an OCD moment.......


Thanks Whydening Gyre. To be fair I don't know for sure it was Benni. And I wouldn't expect him(?) to admit it if it was. But the things some people will do under cover of anonymity---saddening. And to think that's the goal---just awful.
.......then do a gkam so we can find your front yard as a repository for our trash, I'll despatch a drone over to your place & do survey to see..........

Jan 10, 2019
[....then do a gkam so we can find your front yard as a repository for our trash, I'll despatch a drone over to your place & do survey to see..........

Well that didn't take long. Sorry to have so frightened you. I'm not the threat you imagine.

Jan 11, 2019
This happened to me a number of years ago. It was other screen names, tho.
I never considered that it might be Benni having an OCD moment.......

Thanks Whydening Gyre. To be fair I don't know for sure it was Benni. And I wouldn't expect him(?) to admit it if it was. But the things some people will do under cover of anonymity---saddening. And to think that's the goal---just awful.

Was just being tongue in cheek....I don't think Benni would pull the sock puppet down vote stuff...
But - I've been wrong before....

Jan 11, 2019
But - I've been wrong before....
......and that's saying a mouthful when making an honest admission about yourself.

Jan 11, 2019
But - I've been wrong before....
......and that's saying a mouthful when making an honest admission about yourself.

Benni---you seem incapable of making any honest admission about yourself.

Whydening Gyre---I for one very much appreciate your self-honesty, and empathy for others.

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