Revealing the black hole at the heart of the galaxy

**Revealing the black hole at the heart of the galaxy
Top left: simulation of Sgr A* at 86 GHz. Top right: simulation with added effects of scattering. Bottom right: scattered image from the observations, how Sgr A* appears in the sky. Bottom left: the unscattered image, after removing the effects of scattering in our line of sight, revealing how Sgr A* actually looks. Credit: S. Issaoun, M. Mościbrodzka, Radboud University/ M. D. Johnson, CfA

Including the powerful ALMA into an array of telescopes for the first time, astronomers have found that the emission from the supermassive black hole Sagittarius A* at the center of the galaxy comes from a smaller region than previously thought. This may indicate that a radio jet from Sagittarius A* is pointed almost directly toward us. The paper, led by the Nijmegen Ph.D. student Sara Issaoun, is published in The Astrophysical Journal.

A foggy cloud of hot gas has prevented astronomers from making sharp images of the supermassive black hole Sagittarius A*, casting doubt on its true nature. Astronomers have now incorporated the powerful ALMA telescope in northern Chile into a global network of radio telescopes to peer through this fog, but the source keeps surprising them—its emission region is so small that the source may actually point directly at Earth.

Using the observation technique of very long baseline interferometry (VLBI) at a frequency of 86 GHz, which combines many telescopes to form a virtual telescope the size of the Earth, the team succeeded in mapping out the exact properties of the light scattering blocking our view of Sagittarius A*. The removal of most of the scattering effects has produced a first image of the surroundings of the black hole.

The high quality of the unscattered image has allowed the team to constrain theoretical models for the gas around Sagittarius A*. The bulk of the radio emission is coming from a mere 300 millionth of a degree, and the source has a symmetrical morphology. "This may indicate that the radio emission is produced in a disk of infalling gas rather than by a radio jet," explains Issaoun, who has tested several computer models against the data. "However, that would make Sagittarius A* an exception compared to other radio-emitting black holes. The alternative could be that the is pointing almost at us."

Issaoun's supervisor Heino Falcke, professor of radio astronomy at Radboud University, calls this very unusual, but he also no longer rules it out. Last year, Falcke would have considered this a contrived model, but recently the GRAVITY team came to a similar conclusion using ESO's Very Large Telescope Interferometer of optical telescopes and an independent technique. "Maybe this is true after all," concludes Falcke, "and we are looking at this beast from a very special vantage point."

**Revealing the black hole at the heart of the galaxy
The Global Millimeter VLBI Array, joined by ALMA. Credit: S. Issaoun, Radboud University/ D. Pesce, CfA

Supermassive black holes are common in the centers of galaxies and may generate the most energetic phenomena in the known universe. It is believed that, around these black holes, matter falls in a rotating disk and part of this matter is expelled in opposite directions along two narrow beams, called jets, at speeds close to the speed of light, which typically produces a lot of radio emissions. Whether the radio emission we see from Sagittarius A* comes from the infalling gas or the outflowing jet is a matter of intense debate.

Sagittarius A* is the nearest and weighs about 4 million solar masses. Its apparent size in the sky is less than 100 millionth of a degree, which corresponds to the size of a tennis ball on the moon as seen from the Earth. The technique of VLBI is required to measure it. The resolution achieved with VLBI is further increased by the observation frequency. The highest frequency to date to use VLBI is 230 GHz. "The first observations of Sagittarius A* at 86 GHz date from 26 years ago, with only a handful of telescopes. Over the years, the quality of the data has improved steadily as more telescopes joined," says J. Anton Zensus, director of the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy.

The research of Issaoun and international colleagues describes the first observations at 86 GHz in which ALMA also participated, by far the most sensitive at this frequency. ALMA became part of the Global Millimeter VLBI Array (GMVA) in April 2017. The participation of ALMA, made possible by the ALMA Phasing Project effort, has been decisive for the success of this project.

"Sagittarius A* is located in the southern sky, thus the participation of ALMA is important not only because of its sensitivity, but also because of its location in the southern hemisphere," says Ciriaco Goddi, from the European ALMA Regional Center node in the Netherlands (ALLEGRO, Leiden Observatory). In addition to ALMA, twelve telescopes in North America and Europe also participated in the network. The resolution achieved was twice as high as in previous observations at this frequency, and produced the first image of Sagittarius A* that is completely free of interstellar scattering, an effect caused by density irregularities in the ionized material along the line of sight between Sagittarius A* and the Earth.

To remove the scattering and obtain the image, the team used a technique developed by Michael Johnson of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA). "Even though scattering blurs and distorts the image of Sagittarius A*, the incredible resolution of these observations allowed us to pin down the exact properties of the scattering,"says Johnson."We could then remove most of the effects from scattering and begin to see what things look like near the black hole. The great news is that these observations show that scattering will not prevent the Event Horizon Telescope from seeing a black hole shadow at 230 GHz, if there's one to be seen."

Future studies at different wavelengths will provide complementary information and further observational constraints for this source, which holds the key to a better understanding of black holes, the most exotic objects in the known universe.


Explore further

Image: Cloudlets swarm around our local supermassive black hole

More information: S. Issaoun et al. The Size, Shape, and Scattering of Sagittarius A* at 86 GHz: First VLBI with ALMA, The Astrophysical Journal (2019). DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf732
Journal information: Astrophysical Journal

Citation: Revealing the black hole at the heart of the galaxy (2019, January 22) retrieved 25 April 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-01-revealing-black-hole-heart-galaxy.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.
1280 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

RNP
Jan 22, 2019
For those that have been claiming there is no images of the black hole in the center of our galaxy: Will you now accept that you are wrong?

Jan 22, 2019
I'm going with "no," since they'll still be denying it's a black hole.

They'll do the same with EHT images.

All that said, another impressive achievement for ALMA, and a tip-o-the-hat to the VLTI.

Jan 22, 2019
It is possible that multiple lensing and aspects of the physical degeneracy of the source BH region and its measurement produce an illusion that resolved emission is pinpointed directly toward Earth. Regardless, we have no stronger evidence of the ordinary existence of BHs.

Jan 22, 2019
"these observations show that scattering will not prevent the Event Horizon Telescope from seeing a black hole shadow at 230 GHz, if there's one to be seen."

Mister freelance journalist, you didn't read the second paragraph from the bottom of the page: "if there's one to be seen", this after all the hoopla they created over this:

".......coming from a mere 300 millionth of a degree, and the source has a symmetrical morphology. "This may indicate that the radio emission is produced in a disk of infalling gas rather than by a radio jet," explains Issaoun, who has tested several computer models against the data. "However, that would make Sagittarius A* an exception compared to other radio-emitting black holes. The alternative could be that the radio jet is pointing almost at us."

,,,,,,and all they detected was a low emission spectra of radio waves which out of almost all possibility of statistical probability is aimed right at planet Earth.


Jan 22, 2019
It is possible that multiple lensing and aspects of the physical degeneracy of the source BH region and its measurement produce an illusion that resolved emission is pinpointed directly toward Earth.
How?

Jan 22, 2019
The evidence for black holes is so great that I will put most of those people who deny their existence into the same kind of category as flatEathers; OK, not QUITE as bad as flateathers but, still, similar enough to them especially as just like them they deny any evidence that contradicts their delusional beliefs no matter how good that evidence. I don't know what explanation they have for the observed gravitational effects and the event horizons etc.

Jan 22, 2019
If the diameters of a galactical central object are estimated to be a few tens of thousands of light-years, the nature of the Milky Way's bar is actively debated, with estimates for its half-length and orientation spanning from 1 to 5 kpc (3,000-16,000 ly [26] or 40 thousand ly on the equator and 30 thousands ly (according to some other sources [27] ) from a pole to the other one. It's diameter: the size of a super-massive black hole is ~ 0,001-400 AU [28] – there is a disparity between a central point (a black hole should be there) and a pole of the central structure of a galaxy (different occurrences and the beginning of different radiation emissions are measured there).
doi=10.11648/j.ajaa.20180603.13

Jan 22, 2019
there is a disparity between a central point (a black hole should be there) and a pole of the central structure of a galaxy
You mean they are not at EXACTLY the same point?
But why should they be? -no blackhole theory I have heard of says they must be EXACTLY at the same point, only merely approximately, and I think it would be surprising if they were EXACTLY at the same point. So them not being at EXACTLY at the same point would appear to not contradict any of the theories.

Jan 22, 2019
t is possible that multiple lensing and aspects of the physical degeneracy of the source BH region and its measurement produce an illusion that resolved emission is pinpointed directly toward Earth.


How?
.......a statistical improbability called LUCK.

Jan 22, 2019
The evidence for black holes is so great

Except, as noted in article above, that few if any observations actually match predictions. The religiousness on display by the darkists is somewhat amusing.

Jan 22, 2019
The religiousness on display by the darkists is somewhat amusing.


Says the Thunderdolt zealot.

Jan 22, 2019
Hey, RealityCheck, don't bother with this group. They have never even tried to talk to one another.

Deniers: There is something there with a lot of gravity and a very small diameter. That picture up there is a picture of whatever you call that thing. I don't care about the failings of the math in the standard model. That's just math. Get an arithmetic that doesn't allow division by zero, if you want it to correspond to natural systems. I know it's unfortunate, but it's true that you have to come up with a much better option in order to sway the opinion of the crowd.

Jan 22, 2019
Cold lcdm-ers: They are not saying there is nothing there with strong gravitational effects. They are not even objecting to most of the parts of your theory. They're objecting to the failings of your math. Singularities are nonsensical. Division by zero is undefined, it doesn't happen in the real world. Things that you call "infinite" are not infinite. The gravity is not infinite, and the surface area and volume are not zero. They're just approaching those values from our perspective.

But mostly they're objecting to your seemingly blind faith in the leaps of logic that are needed to choose dark matter and dark energy as the only solution for pulling the pieces of your theory together, when the observations are open to interpretation and the math is known (a) to produce errors like division by zero and (b) to allow any solution at all if you add enough dimensions. That's not explanation, it's approximation.

Jan 22, 2019
If the jet is indeed pointing almost directly at earth, that means that the jet and thus the holes rotational axis is pointing into the galactic plane rather than perpendicular to it. I always imagined that the black hole would rotate so that the axis of the hole was perpendicular to the rotation plane because that is the way the solar system is organized (not that it has a jet, but that the solar equator corresponds roughly to the equatorial plane containing planetary orbits).

But heck, you learn something every day if your lucky!

Jan 22, 2019
Was there a gamma ray burst when it became a black hole? If there was, could that event have caused a mass extinction?

Jan 22, 2019
The evidence for black holes is so great

Except, as noted in article above, that few if any observations actually match predictions. .


Which is a lie. The orbits of the stars tell us that there is a massive object there. This predicts that we should see gravitational redshift when S2 made its closest approach to the BH. We did. The occasional flares are perfectly in line with accretion.
On the other hand, you have nothing.

Jan 22, 2019
Note how the "unscattered" observation appears to be nothing like the unscattered simulation. But who cares about predictions and science when discussing astrophysics.

Jan 22, 2019
Note how the "unscattered" observation appears to be nothing like the unscattered simulation. But who cares about predictions and science when discussing astrophysics.


Notice how a scientifically illiterate believer in mythology-based woo, feels the need to comment on things that he doesn't understand?

Jan 22, 2019
".......coming from a mere 300 millionth of a degree, and the source has a symmetrical morphology. "This may indicate that the radio emission is produced in a disk of infalling gas rather than by a radio jet," explains Issaoun, who has tested several computer models against the data. "However, that would make Sagittarius A* an exception compared to other radio-emitting black holes. The alternative could be that the radio jet is pointing almost at us."

,,,,,,and all they detected was a low emission spectra of radio waves which out of almost all possibility of statistical probability is aimed right at planet Earth.

Probability states it has to be pointed SOMEWHERE...
Here is as good as any place else...

Jan 22, 2019
@humy
Do you understand the order of magnitude of ~ 0,001 -400 AU and 3.000 -16.000 ly?
Sirius is away 8.60 ± 0.04 ly!
Jupiter has a radius of 69,911 km and technology can not see what's under the atmosphere. The satellites can not be seen through the Titan moon atmosphere, you are explaining fairy tales about watching through 3,000 -16,000 ly.
You must also understand, that the article was accepted by the judges and has a DOI tag (doi=10.11648/j.ajaa.20180603.13).

Jan 22, 2019
If the diameters of a galactical central object are estimated to be a few tens of thousands of light-years, are measured there
...


They are not. Since WE are only 26k lightyears from the center, your estimate would have US as part of the Central object.

Jan 22, 2019
The one place we can be certain where all intelligence in the galaxy will want to get close enough to study eventually is Sagittarius A*.

Thus it follows that it is also the meeting ground for all intelligence in the galaxy.

Jan 22, 2019
The biggest power source for potential beacons in the galaxy. . . maybe SETI should give it the once over, just in case?

Jan 22, 2019
Was there a gamma ray burst when it became a black hole? If there was, could that event have caused a mass extinction?

Probably not. Stars move. Millions of years ago, the axis of this black hole was likely not pointed at us.

Jan 22, 2019
Unlike the hundreds of billions of stars and black holes in the rest of the galaxy, this jet is coming from the one, single supermassive black hole at the center. So, one in 300 million is as unlikely as winning the lottery.

Jan 22, 2019
Does the axis of the rotation of the Sag A* help us better understand the orbits of the stars around it? Would the orbits of these stars or the accretion disk be different than if the axis was perpendicular to the galactic plane? Lastly, if the jet is pointing in our direction will that limit our ability to observe and study the BH?

Jan 22, 2019
My understanding is stars rotate roughly perpendicular to their ecliptic plane. What's more, anything orbiting close enough to the star either rotates perpendicular to the ecliptic as well, or else eventually stops rotating relative to the central body (due to tidal forces).

Jan 22, 2019
Probability states it has to be pointed SOMEWHERE...
Here is as good as any place else...

Geocentrism has a long history in "science", such as epicycles.

Jan 22, 2019
correction: my math was wrong, the odds are actually one in 300 million squared, assuming it is symmetric. Forgot about the whole sphere thing.

or 1 in 9 X 10^16

90,000,000,000,000,000

one in 90 quadrillion.

How's that for geocentrism?

lol.


Jan 22, 2019
but wait it gets worse, that was one in a three hundred millionth of A DEGREE.

so the 90 quadrillion has to be multiplied by 360 squared.

leaving one in 11,664,000,000,000,000,000,000

one in 11.6 septillion?

lol

With those odds it's more likely an alien is skipping rocks off the thing to send jet beacons to blue planets.

Jan 22, 2019
or is that 11.6 sextillion; so many zeros?

Jan 22, 2019
Our million mass BH

At this galactic centre of mass
this galactic galaxies rotational axis
where this BH rotates with its stars
as
its axis
are pointing perpendicular to the plane of this galaxy
this BHs axis is in line with this galaxies axis of rotation
this BHs radiative radiation
is emanating from its spin-axis
as nice as it is to think this radiation is in line of sight
it's not to be
this BH is to big
it contains millions of stars
it is rotating with this Milkyway
where its arms containing our earth
are as spokes extending from this BHs equator
We are not in line of sight of this blackholes spin-axis

Jan 22, 2019
Does the axis of the rotation of the Sag A* help us better understand the orbits of the stars around it? Would the orbits of these stars or the accretion disk be different than if the axis was perpendicular to the galactic plane?
Probably not. It's unlikely that they were formed together, and even more unlikely that any gravitomagnetic effects would extend so far.

Lastly, if the jet is pointing in our direction will that limit our ability to observe and study the BH?
It shouldn't. It hasn't stopped us seeing the stars orbiting it. Keep in mind also that this was all done with 86GHz, whereas the EHT observes at 230GHz, which is kind of like the difference between infrared and ultraviolet, which are at opposite ends of the visible spectrum.

Jan 22, 2019
Was there a gamma ray burst when it became a black hole? If there was, could that event have caused a mass extinction?
There wasn't likely even an Earth when this black hole got started. They don't get this big that quickly in a sparse environment like the Milky Way Galactic Center.

Probably not. Stars move. Millions of years ago, the axis of this black hole was likely not pointed at us.
You shouldn't think of the axis as static. It's bound to precess, as all spinning objects do.

Jan 22, 2019
The fact it is not symmetric tends to militate toward the conclusion that we're not seeing an accretion disk face-on, which would further militate toward the conclusion that the jet, if any, is not pointed directly at us.

Jan 22, 2019
Precession in blackhole spin-axis
Da Schneib> You shouldn't think of the axis as static. It's bound to precess, as all spinning objects do

As this million mass blackhole spins
as it precesses
its wobble increases its observable radiation
so
Da Schneib
this
blackhole
as it wobbles
as Jocelyn Bell Burnell discovered, these pulsar stars precess
from your analysis
of this blackholes rotational precessional axis of spin
is identical
to Jocelyn Bell Burnell's Pulsar star
Da Schneib, this highly intuitive observation
you are saying Sagittarius A*
Is a Pulsar Star

Jan 22, 2019
The fact it is not symmetric tends to militate toward the conclusion that we're not seeing an accretion disk face-on, which would further militate toward the conclusion that the jet, if any, is not pointed directly at us.


It's never dawned upon you that first of all you need to get a picture before ANY of your fantasy conclusions can be proven in the affimative?

Schneibo, ever notice that EVERY explanation you posit for almost any Pop-Cosmology fantasy is an explanation for why it can't be seen?

Jan 22, 2019
I have no idea what you expect to be "seen," @Benni. So far you're rejecting everything without any scientific basis, no links, no quotes, nothing but horseshit. All you seem to do is troll.

Jealous much? Just askin' the dude who can't figure out half-life and uses "gay" as an insult. Wanna see the link and quote again?

Jan 22, 2019
@Benni

If I recall correctly you have a fantasy that a free neutron will decay in exactly 14 minutes and 42 seconds because it's an immutable law of physics. Am I wrong?

Jan 22, 2019
I have no idea what you expect to be "seen," @Benni.
........how about a pic of the most MASSIVE object in the ENTIRE galaxy? You know, a 4 million solar mass object?

So far you're rejecting everything without any scientific basis, no links, no quotes, nothing but horseshit.


Schneibo, the immutable fantasies of Pop-Cosmology are not a "scientific basis" for ANYTHING. So where's the pic?

Jan 22, 2019
Da Schneib

I do not need a picci of this blackhole-pulsar star
this is not the question I asked
but you answered my question
the question was this radiation from the spin axis
which you answered
from its spin axis
as you went further
demonstrating the mechanics of a pulsar star
where we are actually observing radiation from a precessing spin-axis
Which is Jocelyn Bell Burnell's Pulsar Star

Jan 22, 2019
@Benni tries the standard troll tactic of reversing the ground, well known to all Trump giant orange anus worshippers.

No, @Benni, you make the assertion you support it with scholarly links and quotes or you're lying again. Simple as that. You say it you support it.

Jan 22, 2019
We did not see that coming

Da Schneib
with the help of JD
nailing the final nails in this blackholes coffin
as JD removes all blackholes credibility of its event horizons invisibility
now Da Schneib, defines this blackhole as a pulsar star
who needs enemies
when this blackhole has friends like DS and JD
Sagittarius A* was a self respecting blackhole
before DS and JD emerged from under their bridge
now
Sagittarius A* is a mere shadow of its former self
Contemplating fin rot under its bridge!

p.s. no one should ever have mentioned those furry animals to granville's delicate ears

Jan 22, 2019
You got anything you'd like to ask me to provide links and quotes for, @Benni? Or are you sure I'd be able to and trying to hide from it?

Jan 22, 2019
This article is incoherent and almost completely uninformative.

Rewrite or delete.

Jan 22, 2019
"its emission region is so small that the source may actually point directly at Earth."

The person who wrote this sentence is scientifically illiterate.


Jan 22, 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 22, 2019
"Top left: simulation of Sgr A* at 86 GHz. Top right: simulation with added effects of scattering. Bottom right: scattered image from the observations, how Sgr A* appears in the sky. Bottom left: the unscattered image, after removing the effects of scattering in our line of sight, revealing how Sgr A* actually looks."

LOL Still no proof positive that there is a Black Hole there in the middle. SIMULATIONS SIMULATIONS and MORE SIMULATIONS!!!

Jan 22, 2019
For those that have been claiming there is no images of the black hole in the center of our galaxy: Will you now accept that you are wrong?
says RNP

YOU ARE CORRECT!! There is NO images of the Black Hole that is supposedly in the centre of our galaxy. SIMULATIONS of a Black Hole are UNACCEPTABLE to us purists. Good of you to point that out. Artists, Simulators and modelers have no place in Astrophysics.

Jan 22, 2019
For those that have been claiming there is no images of the black hole in the center of our galaxy: Will you now accept that you are wrong?
says RNP

YOU ARE CORRECT!! There is NO images of the Black Hole that is supposedly in the centre of our galaxy. SIMULATIONS of a Black Hole are UNACCEPTABLE to us purists. Good of you to point that out. Artists, Simulators and modelers have no place in Astrophysics.


> Egg:

Bingo: "no images"...........even RNP admits it by witness of his own words !!!!!!!

I wonder if that embedded Physorg Moderator Da Schneibo might hack RNP's Comment & change it? Keep an eye out for that.

Jan 22, 2019
I wonder if instead of the radio jet-pole we are looking down if they have not detected the blue-shift bright spot of synchrotron radiation from the edge of the accretion disc coming Towards us. Or even blue shift of the x-rays from the matter infalling, boosting the light to higher value due to the fact that the matter creating the light is moving a good chunk of lightspeed towards us itself as it infalls.

That should give a similar effect as what they state they are seeing and would be a lot safer for us, in the long run, than looking down a radio jet's throat.

Jan 22, 2019
Pitiful -
"Even though scattering blurs and distorts the image of Sagittarius A*, the incredible resolution of these observations allowed us to pin down the exact properties of the scattering,"says Johnson."We could then remove most of the effects from scattering and begin to see what things look like near the black hole. The great news is that these observations show that scattering will not prevent the Event Horizon Telescope from seeing a black hole shadow at 230 GHz, if there's one to be seen."

A BLACK HOLE SHADOW - IF THERE'S ONE TO BE SEEN, said Michael Johnson.

In a Court of Law, such "evidence" would be deemed as inadmissible due to it being so indeterminable.

Jan 22, 2019
The great news is that these observations show that scattering will not prevent the Event Horizon Telescope from seeing a black hole shadow at 230 GHz, if there's one to be seen."


This is micro-wave range at 230 GHz, still talking radio wavelengths & nothing in VISIBLE wavelength even with the EHT !!!!!!

Jan 22, 2019
@Benni
They will want to build and send off bigger and more powerful telescopes (enormously expensive) to get closer to the "target" - perhaps to the edge of the Solar System - and then rehire the Simulator to again simulate more images so that all we will be able to see are simulations - rather than the "real Black Hole".
I ask you - Will doing the same thing over and over and over again - while expecting a different outcome make sense to you? Not to me it doesn't.

Jan 22, 2019
Just wait two hours and look again; if it isn't gone it's following us.

The solar system travels one 300 millionth of a degree around the center of the galaxy every 1.825 hours. If the beam is only one 300 millionth of a degree wide, then it has been tracking us for 26 years between observations?

(assuming the sun goes round once every 225 million years)

and the odds of this happening even once are one in 11,664,000,000,000,000,000,000

[(300,000,000)(360)]^2

And, that assumes all galactic core supermassive black holes randomly spin around without regard for their galactic plane. The odds get even slimmer if they tend to have axis of rotation perpendicular to their galactic planes.

In short, if that figure (three hundred millionths of a degree) is accurate to describe the width of this jet, then this is almost certainly some type of beacon.

Just wait 2 hours and look again, if it isn't gone it's following us.


Jan 23, 2019
We can be certain any intelligence in the galaxy will want to travel near the center to study the only Supermassive black hole in the galaxy. Thus, the center is the meeting spot for all intelligence.

Jan 23, 2019
We can be certain any intelligence in the galaxy will want to travel near the center to study the only Supermassive black hole in the galaxy. Thus, the center is the meeting spot for all intelligence.


...providing that they don't get sucked into the alleged Black Hole...which would cause one to question their intelligence and technology. Of course, with their powerful telescopes they could observe the alleged Black Hole from a great enough distance that their ship would be movable to a safer location.
If, however, their home planet is within the "danger zone" of the alleged Black Hole that is threatening and their tech is still too much like ours - they may be sending out "distress" signals to anyone in the vicinity to come to their rescue.

Jan 23, 2019
Put another way, this jet is only about 120 times as wide as the earth. Somehow, it's been tracking us for 26 years? All while the sun is moving further than that round the center every two hours?

Jan 23, 2019
If that 300 millionth of a degree figure is accurate, the most likely conclusion is that aliens are skipping rocks (or something) off the thing to make beacon jets of radio waves pointed at blue planets. Hitting the earth, a planet 25,700 light years away with a beacon only 120 times as wide as the planet for 26 years is darn good aim.

Jan 23, 2019
The great news is that these observations show that scattering will not prevent the Event Horizon Telescope from seeing a black hole shadow at 230 GHz, if there's one to be seen."


This is micro-wave range at 230 GHz, still talking radio wavelengths & nothing in VISIBLE wavelength even with the EHT !!!!!!
Tolja.

Jan 23, 2019
Still waiting for links and quotes.

Jan 23, 2019
@Whydening Gyre
You are trying to picking up points on the way: deny official evidence. These are quotes from Wikipedie. Do you have some of your evidence? Correct it in Wikipedia etc.

Jan 23, 2019
@Whydening Gyre
You are trying to picking up points on the way: deny official evidence. These are quotes from Wikipedie. Do you have some of your evidence? Correct it in Wikipedia etc.

Just telling you what my input has been... We are 26kly from galactic center.. The "galactic central object" is not "a few 10s of thousands of years..." in diameter....
That's all.

Jan 23, 2019
There are none so blind as those who will not see. . . what three hundred millionths of a degree really means.

Jan 23, 2019
Cranks can't count.

Jan 23, 2019
Pitiful -
"Even though scattering blurs and distorts the image of Sagittarius A*, the incredible resolution of these observations allowed us to pin down the exact properties of the scattering,"says Johnson."We could then remove most of the effects from scattering and begin to see what things look like near the black hole. The great news is that these observations show that scattering will not prevent the Event Horizon Telescope from seeing a black hole shadow at 230 GHz, if there's one to be seen."

A BLACK HOLE SHADOW - IF THERE'S ONE TO BE SEEN, said Michael Johnson.

In a Court of Law, such "evidence" would be deemed as inadmissible due to it being so indeterminable.

By your rule, DNA would be inadmissible...

Jan 23, 2019
We can be certain any intelligence in the galaxy will want to travel near the center to study the only Supermassive black hole in the galaxy. Thus, the center is the meeting spot for all intelligence.

EVERYTHING can be found in the middle...

Jan 23, 2019
Punxsutawney Phil's blackhole sees his shadow
SEU> A BLACK HOLE SHADOW - IF THERE'S ONE TO BE SEEN

North America will have six more weeks of winter
says Punxsutawney Phil
the most famous groundhog in the United States.
Phil's keepers
reported his weather prediction Friday morning on the U.S. observance of Groundhog Day
Every year, on February 2, a groundhog leaves his home
a hole in the ground in the small community
of
Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania
On a sunny morning
his body will create a shadow on nearby objects
tradition says
that if the animal sees his shadow
there will be six more weeks of winter weather
but if skies are cloudy
and
no dark shape appears
Americans can expect spring to arrive early

This Punxsutawney Phil's Blackhole came out its Hole and saw its Shadow
Were in for six weeks of winter

Jan 23, 2019
This blackhole pulsar star Sagittarius A*

A rotating pulsar star
pulsars rotate in synch with their pulse
pulsar stars rotate faster than galactic rotation
even as this blackhole forms in this galactic centre
as telescopic evidence proves
is emanating radiation
from its spin-axis
Stars in this galactic centre rotate faster than this galaxy
as this Sagittarius A* rotates faster than our Milkyway
we have a pulsar in rotation emanating radiation in gyroscopic precessional precession
as we count Sagittarius A* rate of spin
it matters not how this matter falls into Sagittarius A* spin-axis
it matters not how this matter emanates Sagittarius A* spin-axis
all that matter is this matter is from Sagittarius A* spin-axis
because
we will be in line of sight of Sagittarius A* at some time in precession
Concerning Sagittarius A*lack of accretion disc
as in Jocelyn Bell Burnell's pulsar star
Pulsar stars require no accretion disc, this blackhole is a pulsar star

Jan 23, 2019
@Whydening Gyre
"If the diameters of a galactical central … or 40 thousand ly on the equator and 30 thousands ly (according to some other sources)"
"( Estimates for the diameter of the Milky Way galaxy range from 100,000 light years up to 120,000 light years.)"

"As to the size of the galactic bulge that makes up the core of the galaxy, it's diameter is estimated at around 30,000 light years in the north-south direction. The diameter in the equatorial plane is estimated to be 40,000 light years."
http://www.astrod...axy.html
Evidence, evid… Quotes..

Jan 23, 2019
Thanks for the response Da Schneib, it's appreciated.

Jan 23, 2019
The solar system travels one 300 millionth of a degree around the center of the galaxy every 1.825 hours. If the beam is only one 300 millionth of a degree wide, then it has been tracking us for 26 years between observations?


A MASER beam..........by the time that beam reaches planet Earth what would the spread of that beam be by the time it reaches us if it starts it's journey one 300 millionth of a degree wide at the instant it leaves the source? Anybody?

Jan 23, 2019
Cranks can't count.
.....with you being the perfect example when you concoct an excess beta decay rate lasting many years into the lifetime decay rate of ALL free unbound neutrons known by nuclear physicists to be 14.7 minutes.


Jan 23, 2019
@humy
Do you understand the order of magnitude of ~ 0,001 -400 AU and 3.000 -16.000 ly?
Sirius is away 8.60 ± 0.04 ly!
wduckss

Yes, I understand all that. So what?

Jupiter has a radius of 69,911 km and technology can not see what's under the atmosphere. The satellites can not be seen through the Titan moon atmosphere, you are explaining fairy tales about watching through 3,000 -16,000 ly.

So your 'logic' here is that if our technology cannot see through the massively thick atmosphere of a planet or moon then 'therefore' none of our technology via radio and infrared astronomy can see through the dust clouds of space because of those dust clouds being MUCH further away and being many light-years across? Flawed reasoning. How do you explain the well known fact that the science of astronomy has CLEARLY done just that i.e. detected objects through dust clouds being vary far away and being many light-years across?


Jan 23, 2019
(continued)

-and this is confirmed by the link I show below that says:

"...What we know of it comes from data collected in infrared and radio wavelengths. These wavelengths can pass through the dust and gas and reach Earth-based telescopes. ..."

Do you deny that above?
The above is just common science knowledge.
And how far away it is or how wide it is doesn't stop those wavelengths passing through those dust clouds. Thus this science is NOT fairy tales!

http://blogs.disc...HZ82nw2w

Jan 23, 2019
"I ask you - Will doing the same thing over and over and over again - while expecting a different outcome make sense to you? Not to me it doesn't."

Einsteins theory of insanity applies to almost every poster here. Does arguing with belief driven people on a science agglomeration site about the same crank theories make sense? Left upper panel, artificial simulation, lower right panel...truth. How messed up does your thinking have to be to obtain all information via photon frequency/theory of production yet ignore what the pictures show in favour of artificial simulation?

Let's find out.....


Jan 23, 2019
how about a pic of the most MASSIVE object in the ENTIRE galaxy? You know, a 4 million solar mass object?


Your accentuation of the word massive shows your ignorance of the concept of density.
No surprise there given your inability to comprehend half life.

Joined by the "pictures or it's not real" crowd whose minds stopped developing at the age of 12. These are the type of folks who don't believe we landed on the moon and say dumb crap like "show us a picture of the flag if we really landed there and planted it!"

Jan 23, 2019
Cranks can't count.
.....with you being the perfect example when you concoct an excess beta decay rate lasting many years into the lifetime decay rate of ALL free unbound neutrons known by nuclear physicists to be 14.7 minutes.



Sod off you cretin. You have been shown the papers where detections are made long after 14.7 minutes, you brainless clown.

Jan 23, 2019
@humy
If I understand your science well. Technology that can not be measured there in the Sun system, does the god right behind the leg excellently work?
Satellites in orbits around the planet and telescopes from the earth give results, only where it suits someone to tell the story.
You can do better than stupidity. The radio wave technology must work at small distances equally and better of larger distances.

Jan 23, 2019

Satellites in orbits around the planet and telescopes from the earth give results, only where it suits someone to tell the story.
wduckss

What? Are you actually saying here that what we observe through our telescopes is caused in some way only by what we want to see i.e. is purely subjective? If so, I say that's false. For example, if our telescopes tell us (indirectly via use and observations and then scientific deductions) the story of the universe being very old, I for one would think it's very old.

Jan 23, 2019
"What we know of it comes from data collected in infrared and radio wavelengths. These wavelengths can pass through the dust and gas and reach Earth-based telescopes."
And how far away it is or how wide it is doesn't stop those wavelengths passing through those dust clouds.
Then you agree with :

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

"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 23, 2019
^^^^^Idiot. It is seen infrequently in infrared, as you have been told countless times, you braindead moron. It is an inactive BH, so there is not a permanent IR feature.

Jan 23, 2019
As the day draws closer

As the nights get shorter
the warmth of the sun brings these spring flowers closer to flowering
time waits for no man
as March march's forward
that most feared day is arriving
there is no going back
it is a sad day
as
Steven hawking
due to unnecessary delays and barracking
this day
of
The Picci
Steven hawking waited all his life to see
will sorely miss
but
he will be consoled and dismayed by this Picci
because
when this Picci arrives
arrives in the cold light of day
the eyes of the world will be on this Picci
it will be more famous than that enigmatic smile
this Picci
is going to be the most almighty flop
the world has experienced in photography of simulation
as
everyone
will
say
but where is this photograph of this blackhole
This is not a blackhole

Jan 23, 2019
^^^^^^^Clueless moron.

Jan 23, 2019
In memory of Stephen William Hawking

Stephen William Hawking (1942 - 2018) was the former Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge
Where Stephen is concerned, we have to get our spelling under control

Jan 23, 2019
Judgement Day
jonesdave> ^^^^^^^Clueless moron.

You have to reserve your judgement on judgement day, JD

Jan 23, 2019
@humy
The measurements are fine. The problem is the presentation of the measurements made. "Scientists" (for money) talk idiotaria.
We do not need to be idiots and smoke their pranks and ridicule readers. If astronomers can not know (technology does not measure) what's inside Jupiter, then nobody can talk about fictional black holes.
Each frog prophesies from coffee grounds in the cup.
Please do not take nothing, from my comments, personally. In the discussion I always turn to the authors of the article. I comment exclusively articles that do not have connections with physics and cleverness.

Jan 23, 2019
How do you explain the well known fact that the science of astronomy has CLEARLY done just that i.e. detected objects through dust clouds being vary far away and being many light-years across?


>humy.....do you see & believe:

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

7th photo frame from the top of the page:

"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 23, 2019
Pulsar emissions in dust clouds

A foggy cloud of hot gas
has prevented astronomers
from
making sharp images
of
the supermassive black hole Sagittarius A*
casting doubt on its true nature

Take an average pulsar surrounded by dust
as Sagittarius A* is surrounded by dust
what is the outcome
how does its emissions compare
to the emissions
Emanating from Sagittarius A*

Jan 23, 2019
Benni

Your OWN link THEN gives the explanation of that of:

"We think that the matter surrounding the black hole in the Galactic Center is ... virtually transparent to its own radiation so it does not heat up efficiently. "

and it also goes on to say:

"...Sagittarius A*, or Sgr A* for short, turns out to be a unique radio source and its characteristics clearly suggest it is the supermassive black hole.
...
We have measured enough velocities of stars to measure the gravitational field accurately. Even if it doesn't make much energy, and is virtually invisible, it turns out there is a very massive (more than 3 million sun masses) black hole right in the center.
..."
Thus your OWN link clearly implies the science clearly says there IS a black hole there! Just as I said all along.

Also see:

https://en.wikipe...arius_A*

"Sagittarius A* is the location of a supermassive black hole "

To deny all this is to deny the known scientific facts.


Jan 23, 2019
@humy
The measurements are fine. The problem is the presentation of the measurements made.
wduckss

I take that to mean if what the measurements show don't agree with your beliefs then the problem is that those measurements are presented.

Jan 23, 2019

>humy...........I was specifically addressing the 7th photo frame from the top of the page within the context of:

How do you explain the well known fact that the science of astronomy has CLEARLY done just that i.e. detected objects through dust clouds being vary far away and being many light-years across?


and:

What we know of it comes from data collected in infrared and radio wavelengths. These wavelengths can pass through the dust and gas and reach Earth-based telescopes."
And how far away it is or how wide it is doesn't stop those wavelengths passing through those dust clouds.


...........that 7th photo frame did ALL the things for filtering dust & the results of the PICTURE showed no evidence of a BH at SgrA* and so states in the caption "it must be invisible" The most massive stellar object in the galaxy is so big that it's "invisible" even after all that infrared filtering you were touting?

Jan 23, 2019
@Benni

I'm starting to believe you have no reading compression skills at all and rely on pictures alone to learn.

Jan 23, 2019
"Sagittarius A* is the location of a supermassive black hole "

To deny all this is to deny the known scientific facts.


Then let's again return to:

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

Below from photo frame 10 from the top of the page:

"This series of images shows the positions of individual stars moving very rapidly (~1000 km/sec) in their orbits around Sgr A* (the yellow star symbol). On this scale, its motion would be imperceptibly small, so these measurements demonstrate that it is truly undetected - there is no source to be seen under the yellow star. (from Andrea Ghez et al., http://www.astro....h.html)"

Because "there is no source to be seen under the yellow star" guess what they had to do to indicate the point of the center of the galaxy, yeah, they put a fake 5 point star in the empty space there so readers would know where SgrA* being the center of the galaxy is located.


Jan 23, 2019
IR is EM wavelength - light.
How could we see IR of a BH?

Jan 23, 2019
The most massive stellar object in the galaxy is so big that it's "invisible" even after all that infrared filtering you were touting?


First of all, it is not a "stellar object"- it's what becomes of one or more stellar objects above a certain size after they gravitationally collapse.

Secondly, you can't see anything that isn't either radiating or reflecting light, regardless of its size. A black hole is such an object. It's not able to reflect light as it absorbs any light that impinges on it. And it's not radiating light of any wavelength because no light can escape from it. The only light that's visible in the immediate region of a black hole is that that's generated from in-falling, hot matter.

Jan 23, 2019
The most massive stellar object in the galaxy is so big that it's "invisible" even after all that infrared filtering you were touting?


First of all, it is not a "stellar object"- it's what becomes of one or more stellar objects above a certain size after they gravitationally collapse.
Standard Pop-Cosmology redefinition, just like redefining radio-active half life of Gamma Radiation Decay & re-applying it to Beta Particle Decay.

Secondly, you can't see anything that isn't either radiating or reflecting light
.....that's for sure, empty space shown in the pictures are quite evident this is the case.

Jan 23, 2019
just like redefining radio-active half life of Gamma Radiation Decay & re-applying it to Beta Particle Decay.


No one has redefined anything, you impertinent twat. You just keep shitting the same turds expecting them to magically turn into "real science." Science is doing great without you and there's nothing that you can say that will have any positive impact on science.

Fuck your inane nonsense. I'm done suffering your foolishness.


Jan 23, 2019
The solar system travels one 300 millionth of a degree around the center of the galaxy every 1.825 hours. If the beam is only one 300 millionth of a degree wide, then it has been tracking us for 26 years between observations?


A MASER beam..........by the time that beam reaches planet Earth what would the spread of that beam be by the time it reaches us if it starts it's journey one 300 millionth of a degree wide at the instant it leaves the source? Anybody?

Scroll back and se what Jax Pavan has told you...

Jan 23, 2019
just like redefining radio-active half life of Gamma Radiation Decay & re-applying it to Beta Particle Decay.


No one has redefined anything, you impertinent twat. You just keep shitting the same turds expecting them to magically turn into "real science." Science is doing great without you and there's nothing that you can say that will have any positive impact on science.

Fuck your inane nonsense. I'm done suffering your foolishness.
.....I take it you're an avid reader of science fiction novels.

Jan 23, 2019
We can be certain any intelligence in the galaxy will want to travel near the center to study the only Supermassive black hole in the galaxy. Thus, the center is the meeting spot for all intelligence.
says JaxPavan (posted ~19 hours ago)

It seemed to me, from the very first week that I/we began posting comments in physorg phorums, that very few, if any of the other commenters, particularly certain ones, had any interest in actually learning that other intelligent life forms exist on exoplanets ANYWHERE in the Universe. There seems to be an aversion amongst these certain humans who frequent this website - that any evidence of intelligent life forms on other planets and in either the Milky Way or other galaxies is a threat against them personally - as humans. Anthropocentrists to the core, they are - and quite possibly dangerous to any visitors from another world who identify themselves as such.
There would be such intolerant behaviours and madness amongst them.


Jan 23, 2019
'The Black Hole at the Heart of Astronomy'
https://www.holos...tronomy/


Jan 23, 2019
just like redefining radio-active half life of Gamma Radiation Decay & re-applying it to Beta Particle Decay.


No one has redefined anything, you impertinent twat. You just keep shitting the same turds expecting them to magically turn into "real science." Science is doing great without you and there's nothing that you can say that will have any positive impact on science.

Fuck your inane nonsense. I'm done suffering your foolishness.

says Phil Harmonica

If you are suffering, then what is keeping you here? Why do you keep coming back to physorg phorums if it pains you so? Are you a masochist? Do you enjoy reading your own tripe in your obvious loneliness for companionship - even if only typing your BS on a keyboard?
Somehow you seem like jonesdave's doppelgänger. Are you he?

Jan 23, 2019
@SEU

Are you spokesperson for intelligent life forms from exoplanets?

I have no doubt that life exists beyond earth but we have no proof yet.

Are you from an exoplanet?

Are you the proof?

Jan 23, 2019
IR is EM wavelength - light.
How could we see IR of a BH?
says Whyde

Infrared lamps emit light and heat. In the 20th Century there were those individuals who laid under an IR lamp to warm their aching muscles. Too long under the lamp and skin could become burnt. But IR does emit a reddish glow.

infrared | ˌinfrəˈred |
adjective
(of electromagnetic radiation) having a wavelength just greater than that of the red end of the visible light spectrum but less than that of microwaves. Infrared radiation has a wavelength from about 800 nm to 1 mm, and is emitted particularly by heated objects.
• (of equipment or techniques) using or concerned with this radiation: infrared cameras.
noun
the infrared region of the spectrum; infrared radiation.

IR waves should be emitted by Black Holes also even if only slightly - which would render the BH visible - if it exists.

Jan 23, 2019
@SEU

you said:

"IR waves should be emitted by Black Holes also even if only slightly - which would render the BH visible - if it exists"

Are you serious?


Jan 23, 2019
@SEU

Are you spokesperson for intelligent life forms from exoplanets?

I have no doubt that life exists beyond earth but we have no proof yet.

Are you from an exoplanet?

Are you the proof?
says jimmy booboo

No. I am not a spokesperson for them. They have their own "League of Planets" I believe it's called. I am stationed on planet Earth and stuck here for a long while, along with my compatriots - to observe, learn and record. Humans have a long track record of violence, bigotry, intolerance, ignorance, madness, aggressiveness (which is apparent in this website), suspiciousness of things they don't comprehend or accept, and other equally traits that render them too dangerous to be dealt with.
No proof. Just in the Vela system alone, there are, I believe, 100 TRILLION galaxies. And yet, it is believed by most that alien life forms cannot possibly exist.

Jan 23, 2019
@SEU

So you are not human and you have been stationed here by the "League of Planets" to observe, learn and record humans.


Jan 23, 2019
@SEU

you said:

"IR waves should be emitted by Black Holes also even if only slightly - which would render the BH visible - if it exists"

Are you serious?



Why not? Gravity is a weak force. They are telling you that absolutely NOTHING can escape the weak force of a Black Hole. LOL
Just because Matter is seen to be infalling into the Black Hole doesn't necessarily mean that nothing can come out of it. You've been told that there are jets of Matter emitting out of the poles, and yet they can't make an ACTUAL IMAGE/PICTURE OF THOSE JETS/EJECTA?

Jan 23, 2019
There seems to be an aversion amongst these certain humans who frequent this website


>Egg:.......... I think it's more about that it carries the tone of something concerning religion. How many thousands of years has mankind been entranced about things in the sky, and watching things fall out of it, worshipped the Sun & all that stuff? Then we found out in only the last few hundred years all those heavenly bodies are just other bodies of mass little different than the ground we walk on, so nix worshipping that stuff anymore.

People for the most part are entranced only by that which they view as being bigger than themselves, that is unless you're Benni, nothing BIG impresses me because I know there's a way anything can be taken apart & revealed for what it is, not so with religion.

I have no idea why the Universe is as big as it is, or if it even needs to be as big as it is in order to sustain stability for our habitation & whatever else may be out there.


Jan 23, 2019
@SEU

So you are not human and you have been stationed here by the "League of Planets" to observe, learn and record humans.



Your reading comprehension is off today. Try reading what I've said again, yes?

Jan 23, 2019
@SEU

So you are human but you have been stationed here by the "League of Planets" to observe, learn and record other humans.

Jan 23, 2019
There seems to be an aversion amongst these certain humans who frequent this website

says I

>Egg:.......... I think it's more about that it carries the tone of something concerning religion. How many thousands of years has mankind been entranced about things in the sky, and watching things fall out of it, worshipped the Sun & all that stuff? Then we found out in only the last few hundred years all those heavenly bodies are just other bodies of mass little different than the ground we walk on, so nix worshipping that stuff anymore.
says Benni

Manmade religions were created by men out of fear of the unknown. They developed doctrines and divinations such as gods/goddesses to keep their populace in line and to maintain command and control. It worked well for a very long time; but what they did not know/understand was that there is/was only ONE Creator - not more than one. All their idols have now been replaced by governmental bodies, movie stars, and media.


Jan 23, 2019
says Benni
People for the most part are entranced only by that which they view as being bigger than themselves, that is unless you're Benni, nothing BIG impresses me because I know there's a way anything can be taken apart & revealed for what it is, not so with religion.


They are entranced by that which they think will save them from starvation, homelessness, boredom, bad health, and ultimately - death. Atheists are not keen on dying since they don't believe in an Afterlife unless they see evidence of it. LOL But if they see evidence of it, that would mean that they're already dead. Or at least, their bodies are dead or dying. So they have no use for religions or the religious such as Christians and Jews. Islamic leaders are liars, telling of 72 virgins if a man dies in battle. Religions are still fear of the unknown, but not so much fear anymore as a willingness to "toe the line" for the sake of one's own conscience and self-satisfaction.


Jan 23, 2019
says Benni
I have no idea why the Universe is as big as it is, or if it even needs to be as big as it is in order to sustain stability for our habitation & whatever else may be out there.


The Universe was necessarily the size that it is as that was the Decision that was made. It makes pretty good sense to me. It is Space itself that is BIG - the Matter/Energy within it is more like an afterthought. No, not really an afterthought. There had to be stuff to fill the Space - otherwise what would be the sense in making all of that Space. There's a good reason for everything, and ours is not to question why or what the reason is. It is there for all to enjoy. When you look up at the Stars at night in all their glory - don't you feel humble and a sense of happiness comes over you that you're alive to see these wonderful things/sights? I still do. You may question WHY but the answer is when you look in the mirror and when you see puppy or kitten playing or children laughing

Jan 24, 2019
@humy
"HD 93250…………….83,3 M Sun………15,9R Sun……46.000°K………speed130km/s
BI 253 ……………….. 84…………………..10,7…………50.100…………….200
HD 5980 B…………...66 ………………… 22……………45.000…………<400
HD 5980 A……………61………………….24……………45.000……………250
HD 5980 C……………34………………….24……………34.000…………….120

RSGC1-F04…………..19………………….. 1553….………. 2.858
R Leporis……………… 2,5-5………………400±90………2.290
CW Leonis……………..0,7-0,9…………… 390-500…….2.200 (1.915-2.105)
R Doradus…………….1,2…………………. 370±50………2.740±190
La Superba…………….3…………………….307-390…… 2.750-3.200"

...

Jan 24, 2019
@humy
"Fast-rotating galaxies
RX J1131-1231..........quasar.................half the speed of light
Spindle galaxy.......elliptical galaxy.......significant amount of rotation around axis"
NGC 6109………..Lenticular Galaxy……..40 ± 8 rad m−2

Contrary to: Slow Rotation
Andromeda………….spiral galaxy…………..225 km/s
UGC 12591…………..spiral galaxy…………..500 km/s,
Milky Way……………spiral galaxy……………210 ± 10 (220 km/s Sun)
galaxies....................type galaxies................Speed of galaxies" etc

Jan 24, 2019
Aldebaran…………...1,5…….44,2……..3.910……634 day
Hamal………………..1,5……14,9………4.480…….3,44 km/s
Iota Draconis………..1,82….11,99……..4.545……..1,5
Pollux…………………2,04….8.8………..4.666……2,8
Beta Andromedae......3-4……100………3.842…….7,2
Betelgeuse…………..11,6….887 ±203…3.590…….5

Jan 24, 2019
A blackhole a self proving theory

The most massive object in the galaxy so big it's invisible, after all that infrared filtering
you can't see anything that isn't either radiating or reflecting light A black hole is such an object
light visible in the region of a black hole is generated from in-falling hot matter
light visible in the immediate region is filtered out as extraneous obscuring light
impacts on, A blackhole a self proving theory!
A blackhole a self proving theory - no light is emitted or reflected

This theory, A blackhole a self proving theory is a blackhole obscured by light emitted in-falling matter
where this light is filtered out as extraneous obscuring light
which in theory will reveal this blackhole, A blackhole a self proving theory-no light is emitted or reflected

As we ask for The Picci
we ask for light filtered out as extraneous obscuring light to this blackhole
revealing
A blackhole a self proving theory

Jan 24, 2019
A Circular Argument - A Blackhole a Self Proving Theory

As we at phys.org, specialise in circular arguments
this blackhole has got to be the circular arguments of circular arguments
in the history of circular arguments
as
the boffins work night and day
to
produce The Picci
they can take heart
that whatever happens
to this photographic simulation of reality
their reputation is safe
because
this blackhole
is
A Circular Argument

Jan 24, 2019
So they have no use for religions or the religious such as Christians and Jews. Islamic leaders are liars, telling of 72 virgins if a man dies in battle. Religions are still fear of the unknown, but not so much fear anymore as a willingness to "toe the line" for the sake of one's own conscience and self-satisfaction.


>Egg........I suppose all these things may be true, but I kind of don't care what motivates someone to hold to some tenet of religious lifestyle.

I personally do not look up into the sky through a telescope & feel humbled by what I see, I do feel awed by the existence of what I see.

I have spent the entirety of my life fully comprehending the Immutable Laws of Physics by which all that MASS out there can exist, I'm only saying I don't know what the point of it is all about, so I leave it there & read nothing else into it, no bigo bango & all that other religious roots crap for me.

Jan 24, 2019
'The Black Hole at the Heart of Astronomy'
https://www.holos...tronomy/



Lol. A link to a cretin who believes in Velikovky's tripe!

Jan 24, 2019
Atheists are not keen on dying since they don't believe in an Afterlife unless they see evidence of it.
.....so what is the "evidence of it"? Somebody wrote a book?

I hear lots of stories about near-death experiences, etc, but what else is there that reveals what is beyond? Words from books? Anybody can write a book, that's what goes on here in this chatroom. No beings from beyond have ever showed up & sat down beside me to explain ANYTHING.

My greatest criticism against Atheists is the intellectual superiority binge most of them are prone to. I know what my IQ is but it never leaves me with feelings of superiority, it does leave me with a sense of awe that I have a deep capacity for learning skills that few walking the face of the planet share with me, but I don't beat people over the head with it until they start in on me first & go on name calling binges like what goes on in this chatroom.


Jan 24, 2019
The Black Canvas in the Tate

As the boffins reveal their master piece
as it hangs on the Tate wall
as the artisans flock in their 1000s
as the streets are packed
London is grid locked
at the momentum of revealing
everyone is trembling with excitement
are they going to be sucked to infinity
when the curtain is drawn
as
when this masterpiece is revealed
The Black Canvas
the excitement
will turn into disbelief
will turn into shock
on
realising the reality
this is a blackhole
it is black
as
every fine artist knows
black is not a colour
black reflects no light
so
as this disgruntled crowd quietly spills out on the street
the realisation will dawn
they have just had that rare privilege
of
being the first to view Blackholes self portrait
The Black Canvas

Jan 24, 2019
it does leave me with a sense of awe that I have a deep capacity for learning skills that few walking the face of the planet share with me,....


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

This from the cretin that said;

The decay rates of 100 free unbound neutrons created at the same moment in time, all 100 of them will decay at exactly the same precise instant, about 14.7 minutes later. You don't like this immutable law of physics because it kicks the legs out from under the formation of neutron stars.


Lolworthy stuff, indeed.

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


Jan 24, 2019
In nature there is no such word as none

14.7minutes
as this is finality
given 1000 neutrons
how many neutrons
are left
after
1.47minutes
2.94minutes
to
14.7minutes
so
at this 14.7 minute
there are ten data sets
with final 1/10
at 14.7minutes revealing the total left
because
no
has
said
how many at the 14.7minute deadline, how many are left
all
that has been said
is either none, or it follows the exponential curve
because
in nature there is no such word as none
as at the deadline there is a in a sample of 1000, there is always two of three left
At the 14.7minute deadline

Jan 24, 2019
as at the deadline there is a in a sample of 1000, there is always two of three left
At the 14.7minute deadline


Wrong, thicko. Read the papers, and look at the figures. How difficult can it be?


Jan 24, 2019
Please read the question, JD
as at the deadline there is a in a sample of 1000, there is always two of three left
At the 14.7minute deadline

Wrong, thicko. Read the papers, and look at the figures. How difficult can it be?

Because
no
has
said
how many at the 14.7minute deadline, how many are left

the question
because
no
has
said
this means, JD
in your own words
you type it out by hand so we can read it
so
that JD, there is no confusion and interpretation
as yourself JD type it out as exactly how many neutron are left at 14.7minutes
even if you have to work out from the experiment with your calculator
how many are left at 14.7minutes
it has to be in your own hand
because
you have to say of the original sample how many left at 14.7minutes
in your own handwriting

JD, it a long time since I have had encourage commentators to comment

Jan 24, 2019
Because
no
has
said
how many at the 14.7minute deadline, how many are left


Complete crap. The papers have figures detailing the counts. Are you blind? And there is no deadline, you idiot.

Jan 24, 2019
Because
no
has
said
how many at the 14.7minute deadline, how many are left


Complete crap. The papers have figures detailing the counts. Are you blind? And there is no deadline, you idiot.

JD, swearing is not commentating
as
You have still not said, how many are left at 14.7minutes, in your own handwriting
It has to be in your own handwriting

Jan 24, 2019
JD, swearing is not commentating
as
You have still not said, how many are left at 14.7minutes, in your own handwriting
It has to be in your own hadwriting


Read the papers and look at the figures you moron.


Jan 24, 2019
I know what my IQ is but it never leaves me with feelings of superiority


I don't think a double digit score has ever left anyone feeling superior.


Jan 24, 2019
So, here we go again. Here is Fig. 2 from;

Neutron lifetime measurement with the UCN trap-in-trap MAMBO II
Pichlmaier, A. et al.
http://hermes.ihe.../221.pdf

http://www.imageb...02117504

So, for the hard of thinking, they took measurements at 100, 400, 700, 1000, 1300, 2000 & 3000 seconds. The counts are plotted on an exponential decay curve.
What is the total number of neutrons introduced to the trap? Looks like 40 000 to me. By which stage have half of them disappeared? Well, look on the y-axis for 20 000, which is one tick above '10^4'. Follow across to the curve, and read the number of seconds on the x-axis. Looks very much like ~ 600 s to me. What a surprise! Does anything dramatic happen at ~ 880s (14.7 mins)? Errr, no. Are they still detecting neutrons at 3000s? Yes they are. How many? Looks to be ~ 700.
So, can we stop this idiotic nonsense about all neutrons decaying at, or by, 14.7 mins?

Jan 24, 2019
JDs transposition from a graph – neutrons in a twist

So, for the hard of thinking
they took measurements
at
100, 400, 700, 1000, 1300, 2000 & 3000 seconds
The counts are plotted on an exponential decay curve.
What is the total number of neutrons introduced to the trap
Looks like 40 000 to me
By which stage have half of them disappeared
Well
look on the y-axis for 20 000
which is one tick above '10^4
Follow across to the curve
and
read the number of seconds on the x-axis
Looks very much like ~ 600 s to me
What a surprise!
Does anything dramatic happen at ~ 880s (14.7 mins)
Errr
No
Are they still detecting neutrons at 3000s
Yes they are
How many
Looks to be ~ 700.
So
can we stop this idiotic nonsense about all neutrons decaying at
or by
14.7 mins

Jan 24, 2019
JDs transposition from a graph – neutrons in a twist


WTF are you on about now? Even a 10 year old could understand those figures with the description I gave.

Jan 24, 2019
JDs transposition from a graph – neutrons in a twist

WTF are you on about now? Even a 10 year old could understand those figures with the description I gave.

What are you upset about
these figures you have typed out are correct are they not
if you typed out figures from a graph that is correct
Effectively these facts are the person who constructed the graph, not yours

If you felt uneasy typing these facts out
you should have said so
before typing them out
it is because nobody wanted to be the first one to put their money where their mouth is
that this free neutron has resisted decay, for years in fact
if you are feeling uneasy over these facts, there is a problem some where
which is why there now easier to see where the problem is
Obviously there is a problem – what as yet I do not know

Jan 24, 2019
Are they still detecting neutrons at 3000s
Yes they are
.....and yes they are still detecting neutrons, just not any of the neutrons that were part of the original aggregate that was input from the neutron generator. The nuclear physicists did not count that which was part of the original input of neutrons, which is why they stopped the count at ~14.7 minutes & not 50, to do otherwise would have skewed the data creating a count of more neutrons OUT than what was put IN the scintillation detector to be counted. But poor jonesy with only an Anthropology degree does not understand this & I understand that he doesn't comprehend what nuclear physics is about after all he's not the one who knows how to solve Differential Equations, I do.

Jan 24, 2019
@Benni

The whole point of the experiment was to calculate the mean lifetime.
Why on earth would they stop at 14.7 minutes to calculate the mean lifetime of 14.7 minutes?

They started with 40000 neutrons. At 14.7 minutes they did not count 40000 neutron decays.
Look at the graph jonesdave linked.

Fail.

Jan 24, 2019
Benni, in looking for the source of JDs unease

This fact off counting in and counting out neutrons
that were not part of the original 40,000 neutrons
has not surfaced in any search
if neutrons in this UNC trap
are
from the moment
the
40,000 neutrons are inserted
are also being created
firstly
an accurate life time cannot be ascertained
and
the number of neutrons left at each decay measurement
cannot be relied upon
it is starting to sound
as
if
JDs unease is well founded

Jan 24, 2019
Are they still detecting neutrons at 3000s
Yes they are
.....and yes they are still detecting neutrons, just not any of the neutrons that were part of the original aggregate that was input from the neutron generator. The nuclear physicists did not count that which was part of the original input of neutrons, which is why they stopped the count at ~14.7 minutes & not 50, to do otherwise would have skewed the data creating a count of more neutrons OUT than what was put IN the scintillation detector to be counted. But poor jonesy with only an Anthropology degree does not understand this & I understand that he doesn't comprehend what nuclear physics is about after all he's not the one who knows how to solve Differential Equations, I do.


Tosser. The timings of the collections are the black dots on the exponential curve, you blind idiot. They are also shown an on the line above the x-axis at the relevant timings. You are a cretin and a liar.

Jan 24, 2019
I'll say this again, you braindead twat; WTF are you on about? Are they, or are they not detecting an exponentially decaying neutron count long after 14.7 minutes? Yes, they are, therefore you, and the idiot Benni, are wrong, and not a single scientist on the planet agrees with you, you tosspot. Go away and get an education you hopeless pain in the arse.

Jan 24, 2019
The above post was obviously meant to be addressed to Granville.

Jan 24, 2019
it is starting to sound
as
if
JDs unease is well founded
.......no because a short burst count 50 minutes after the test was concluded is known not to be a decay from the original input of neutrons sourced from the neutron generator. They know this because it occurred well beyond the expected measurement of about 14.7 minutes of the original input, it's just anomalous decay of the materials from which the apparatus was fabricated.

They could have run the scintillation detectors for another 50 minutes & gotten another decay burst, or 50 hours, or 50 years, so what? Everything decays, some things faster than others, same for the materials from which the measurement apparatus was fabricated.


Jan 24, 2019
Ultra cold neutrons reflection of coherent neutrons with atomic nuclei

Coherent scattering of slow neutrons results in an effective interaction for neutrons travelling through matter, results in the total reflection of slow neutrons incident on a surface at a glancing angle
UCN traps allow slowly moving neutrons storage time
It all depends on your view point of storage
Out of 40,000 neutrons, in 3000s is 700 neutrons
by one method of storage 98% of these neutrons have gone
but in this time it is possible to observe quantum gravity in neutrons
neutrons moving in a gravitational field
do not move smoothly
but jump from one height to another

This heighlights the point raised by UCN storage
the slowly moving neutrons are interacting
as
it
also highlights - UCN traps allow slowly moving neutrons storage time
if
as it appears
neutrons are interacting
creating neutrons
This would make it seem as though there is longer storage time

Jan 24, 2019
....which is why they stopped the count at ~14.7 minutes & not 50,


Please point out on the graph, or in the text of the paper, where they say they stopped the count at 14.7 minutes, you lying POS. Here is the text that you are too thick to understand, janitor-boy;

In the next step the multishutter was closed, the shutter opened to the monitor detector and in the main storage trap the UCN were held for the ***chosen storage time*** ranging for the large trap length of 75 cm ***from 100 to 3000 s***.


F***ing lying, incompetent tosspot.

Jan 24, 2019
.no because a short burst count 50 minutes after the test was concluded is known not to be a decay from the original input of neutrons sourced from the neutron generator.


There is no burst, you f***wit. The detections all fall on an exponential decay curve, you brainless clown. Look at the figure, you idiot. Christ, some people are thick! And this phoney claims to be a nuclear engineer! Lol. That is scary, if true.


Jan 24, 2019
They could have run the scintillation detectors for another 50 minutes & gotten another decay burst, or 50 hours, or 50 years, so what? Everything decays, some things faster than others, same for the materials from which the measurement apparatus was fabricated.


F*** me, this clown is thick! Why does the decay at 1000, 1300, 2000 & 3000s, all lie on the same curve, you tosspot?


Jan 24, 2019
When conducting an experiment

Counting the life time of a neutron
whatever its known life time is
the experiment has to continue long past its life time
especially dealing with exponential life time
as each measurement to the next measurement is of interest
because
the experiment is dealing with neutrons that have not decayed
as
also of interest is how long individual neutrons can exist before they decay
as the last neutron to decay
technically was one of the first neutron in the group of 40,000 neutrons inserted
but if neutrons
are being created during the process of counting
an
experiment
is
devised to eliminate the possibility of neutrons being created during the 3000s
as
3000s allows 40,000 neutrons to reach 700 neutrons
this UCN trap is a device to store neutrons for as long as possible
The longer the better

Jan 24, 2019
Benni said

"They know this because it occurred well beyond the expected measurement of about 14.7 minutes of the original input, it's just anomalous decay of the materials from which the apparatus was fabricated."

Really???
The neutrons inside the nuclei of the atoms comprising the material are decaying as well during the whole experiment????


Jan 24, 2019
Benni said

"They know this because it occurred well beyond the expected measurement of about 14.7 minutes of the original input, it's just anomalous decay of the materials from which the apparatus was fabricated."

Really???
The neutrons inside the nuclei of the atoms comprising the material are decaying as well during the whole experiment????



Like i said; thick as pigsh!t!

Jan 24, 2019
The neutrons inside the nuclei of the atoms comprising the material are decaying as well during the whole experiment?
.......yep and they recorded it, but did not include it in the final measurement count of 14.7 minutes because they knew it was beta decay not inherent to generation of neutrons from the neutron generator,


Jan 24, 2019
3000s allows 40,000 neutrons to reach 700 neutrons
this UCN trap is a device to store neutrons for as long as possible
The longer the better


And, according to you two cretins, there should be no neutrons after ~880s. So the paper, and many others, shows, not surprisingly, that you haven't got a bloody clue what you are talking about, you moron.


Jan 24, 2019
The neutrons inside the nuclei of the atoms comprising the material are decaying as well during the whole experiment?
.......yep.



Nope, f***wit. Read the paper, you clueless tosspot.

Jan 24, 2019
The neutrons inside the nuclei of the atoms comprising the material are decaying as well during the whole experiment?
.......yep and they recorded it, but did not include it in the final measurement count of 14.7 minutes because they knew it was beta decay not inherent to generation of neutrons from the neutron generator,



Jesus, what a lying, conceited, f***wit this specimen is! Want me to e-mail the author, sh!tforbrains? Post a screenshot of the reply here? Really? F*** off, you useless tosser. You know sh!t about science. You are a mentally disturbed clown, with the IQ of a brain damaged hamster. Take a hike, you preposterous fraud.

Jan 24, 2019
Benni said:

".......yep and they recorded it, but did not include it in the final measurement count of 14.7 minutes because they knew it was beta decay not inherent to generation of neutrons from the neutron generator,"

That's amazing that those neutrons in the atoms decayed so quickly. Almost as quickly as the free neutrons according to you. That's amazing Benni.

You'd think the experimenters would have built their apparatus out of a more stable material.

Jan 24, 2019
Benni said:

".......yep and they recorded it, but did not include it in the final measurement count of 14.7 minutes because they knew it was beta decay not inherent to generation of neutrons from the neutron generator,"

That's amazing that those neutrons in the atoms decayed so quickly. Almost as quickly as the free neutrons according to you. That's amazing Benni.

You'd think the experimenters would have built their apparatus out of a more stable material.


Being brainwashed is one thing, but being brainwashed by oneself, as in Benn's case, is truly sad!

Jan 24, 2019
3000s allows 40,000 neutrons to reach 700 neutrons
this UCN trap is a device to store neutrons for as long as possible
The longer the better


And, according to you two , there should be no neutrons after ~880s.
.....certainly no neutrons generated by the neutron generator.

So the paper, and many others, shows
.....about 15 minute cutoff time which would include counts from ALL sources that could have included a beta decay from the materials from which the measurement device was fabricated.

Jan 24, 2019
Benni said:

".......yep and they recorded it, but did not include it in the final measurement count of 14.7 minutes because they knew it was beta decay not inherent to generation of neutrons from the neutron generator,"

That's amazing that those neutrons in the atoms decayed so quickly. Almost as quickly as the free neutrons according to you. That's amazing Benni.

You'd think the experimenters would have built their apparatus out of a more stable material.
.........OK, you get in touch with those nuclear physicists and tell them you're the expert who can fix it.

Jan 24, 2019
That's amazing that those neutrons in the atoms decayed so quickly. Almost as quickly as the free neutrons according to you. That's amazing Benni.


What is even more amazing is the the walls of the trap are covered by a sort of grease called fomblin. It prevents the injected neutrons striking the walls of the vessel. Yet, somehow, we are getting neutron emission from the walls that is managing to travel through that fomblin! And producing a decay curve totally as expected for free neutron decay! Bloody amazing.
Or Benni is making sh!t up. Which is far more likely.


Jan 24, 2019
@Benni

The UCN trap was a glass box with it's inner surface coated with Fomblin Oil to reflect the neutrons.


Jan 24, 2019
Benni said:

".......yep and they recorded it, but did not include it in the final measurement count of 14.7 minutes because they knew it was beta decay not inherent to generation of neutrons from the neutron generator,"

That's amazing that those neutrons in the atoms decayed so quickly. Almost as quickly as the free neutrons according to you. That's amazing Benni.

You'd think the experimenters would have built their apparatus out of a more stable material.
.........OK, you get in touch with those nuclear physicists and tell them you're the expert who can fix it.


Stop lying, you f***wit. I have already asked - want me to email the author and see if he confirms your fairy story, you cretin? Where in the paper do they spell this out, you clown. Come on, janitor-boy, spell it out, you lying POS.

Jan 24, 2019
....certainly no neutrons generated by the neutron generator.


Says who, sh!tforbrains? Why does this random scatter fall on the exact same decay curve as that seen prior to 1000s? Come on idiot - let's hear the science, you gormless tosser. Bloody clown.

Jan 24, 2019
it is starting to sound
as
if
JDs unease is well founded
.......no because a short burst count 50 minutes after the test was concluded is known not to be a decay from the original input of neutrons sourced from the neutron generator. They know this because it occurred well beyond the expected measurement of about 14.7 minutes of the original input, it's just anomalous decay of the materials from which the apparatus was fabricated.

They could have run the scintillation detectors for another 50 minutes & gotten another decay burst, or 50 hours, or 50 years, so what? Everything decays, some things faster than others, same for the materials from which the measurement apparatus was fabricated.

This means well before the 3000s
this UCN trap has been empty for some time
The question now is
how long has this neutron trap been completely empty
because
If we believe JDs graph, there's still 700 neutrons knocking around

Jan 24, 2019
@Granville

Read the paper and all your questions will be answered.

Jan 24, 2019
how long has this neutron trap been completely empty
because
If we believe JDs graph, there's still 700 neutrons knocking around


Are you blind, thick, or both? They did numerous runs, and did counts at varying times, including 3000s. As shown in the figure I posted. What is it that is failing to penetrate the thickness of your sub-human skull? Spell it out, you idiot.


Jan 24, 2019
What is even more amazing is the the walls of the trap are covered by a sort of grease called fomblin


.....there's more to the apparatus than this. Put any of this stuff on the scintillation detectors & the COUNT will be so screwed up as to make the run time useless.

Done, not wasting anymore time with neophytes.

Jan 24, 2019
What is even more amazing is the the walls of the trap are covered by a sort of grease called fomblin


.....there's more to the apparatus than this. Put any of this stuff on the scintillation detectors & the COUNT will be so screwed up as to make the run time useless.


No it won't you clueless cretin. Stop talking crap, and stop commenting on subjects that are well beyond you, you posing moron.

Jan 24, 2019
Done, not wasting anymore time with neophytes.


Wanker. Shown up big style, and runs away. What a f***ing tosspot! Shall we email the authors, shitforbrains? Nah, too chicken, aren't you? (rhetorical). Total poser. Uneducated loon.

Jan 24, 2019
Right, for thick pricks like Benni and his doppelgänger, Granville;
look at the counts on that decay curve. Start at the top left of the curve. See how long it takes for the count to keep halving. Woooo, ~ 600s. Weird, isn't it? 40 000 to 20 000. 20 000 to 10 000, and so on. Try it, thickos.

Jan 24, 2019
And the vulgar meathead thinks he "won". Name calling, vulgarity, logical fallacy and a dreadfully acute display of wilfull ignorance is how he "wins", in his feeble mind.

Jan 24, 2019
@Benni You said:

".....there's more to the apparatus than this. Put any of this stuff on the scintillation detectors & the COUNT will be so screwed up as to make the run time useless."

They are using a microstrip detector.

Clearly you haven't read the paper jonesdave linked.

Jan 24, 2019
These questions are not being answered correctly

Anomalous reading of 700 neutrons at 3000s
this UNC trap then gives anomalous readings of 700 neutrons in an empty UNC trap

If this UNC trap is gives consistent anomalous readings in an empty UNC trap
this 700 neutrons are above the existing readings
as the existing readings are 700 neutrons at 3000s
means by mathematical subtraction 700-700 = 0 at 3000s

The Relevant Question
in an empty UNC trap
how many neutrons recorded in 3000s
The total is _ _ _ _ _ _?
then this can be added to the total injected into the UNC trap
This 40,000 + _ _ _ _ _ _? = actual total of injected neutrons
so although these anomalous neutrons might be occurring over 3000s
it gives an idea of what is being dealt with

Neutron-sensitive scintillating glass fibre detectors
are types of scintillators that absorb neutrons
they can only be counted
at one of these periods
100 400 700 1000 1300 2000 3000 seconds

Jan 24, 2019
@Benni

Using the microstrip detector they are actually counting neutrons passing through, not neutron beta decay products.

Major fail there guy man dude Benni.

https://www.ias.a...471-0475

Jan 24, 2019
@Benni

Using the microstrip detector they are actually counting neutrons passing through, not neutron beta decay products.

Major fail there guy man dude Benni.

https://www.ias.a...471-0475

It works both ways jimmybobber

Jan 24, 2019
@granville

No poem for me? I noticed whenever you are proven wrong you stop with the nonsense poetry.

Jan 24, 2019
@granville

No poem for me? I noticed whenever you are proven wrong you stop with the nonsense poetry.

This is not a poem jimmybobber

Jan 24, 2019
@Granville you said

"This is not a poem jimmybobber"

I think that's the best poem you've ever written. I'm actually flattered.

Jan 24, 2019
@Granville you said

"This is not a poem jimmybobber"

I think that's the best poem you've ever written. I'm actually flattered.

Were all glad your flattered, jimmybobber
This poem gets better with every telling

Jan 24, 2019
@Benni

Using the microstrip detector they are actually counting neutrons passing through, not neutron beta decay products.


It works both ways jimmybobber


Here's the thing granDy, why should anyone think the nuclear physicists who performed the test run are so stupid as to make no adjustments of the final outcome of their data in the manner jimbo & jonesy prattle on about? It's because they don't like the 14.7 minute outcome results of the test, so what these two should be doing is taking the attending physicists to task because they have an opinion the physicists screwed up the test run. They have the names of the attending physicists.........

Jan 24, 2019
What's an "attending physicist?"

Jan 25, 2019
Just curious here. If the "mean lifetime" of a free neutron is 14.7 minutes or 882 seconds before it decays - why is the wording used to describe the 10.6 minute "half-life" used when the term "HALF" should indicate exactly HALF of 14.7 minutes? Half-life is confusing and a better term should have been chosen to describe it - since it seems illogical when dividing 14.7 minutes by half, I suppose it's too late to change it since it is already in the literature/books, etc. It doesn't seem to have been well thought out.

Jan 25, 2019
So this mystery decay deepens
Just curious here. If the "mean lifetime" of a free neutron is 14.7 minutes or 882 seconds before it decays - why is the wording used to describe the 10.6 minute "half-life" used when the term "HALF" should indicate exactly HALF of 14.7 minutes? Half-life is confusing and a better term should have been chosen to describe it - since it seems illogical when dividing 14.7 minutes by half, I suppose it's too late to change it since it is already in the literature/books, etc. It doesn't seem to have been well thought out.

Good point, SEU
Just as I was going to dig out the half-life formula
mean-life is not half-life, Ln2.mean-life is half-life
as this not radioactive-decay
but beta-decay
because
in radioactive-decay the mass of the sample is counted
as
in neutron beta-decay the number of neutrons are counted

So this decay mystery deepens!

Jan 25, 2019
Beta-decaying Neutron

In beta-decay
in this neutron
in a UNC trap, the neutrino has to be detected
this neutrino is just one of the products of beta-decay
is one of the signs of beta-decay
this fleeting neutrino has to be detected
so
if this UNC trap cannot detect the emission products of beta-decay
it is incorrectly measuring beta-decay
because
next on the list is the emission of an electron
which in its own right is a product a product of beta-decay
as
this is now two products of this neutron
that have to be detected
to properly measure this beta-decay
then this proton that is released is another product of beta-decay
that has to be detected
in all so far three independent products of beta-decay
are there to be detected
in
this
Beta-decaying Neutron

Jan 25, 2019
Escaping to infinity and beyond

In radio-active decay
the radio-active sample is emitting particles
as the sample mass diminishes with each emitted particle
as
all that is required is to count the emitted particles
then compare the loss of mass of the radio-active sample
but
with free neutrons
is not the same
they
are as the name suggests, free
because
the
instant this free neutron emits a neutrino
this neutron is dead in the water
there is no going back
so
even if this neutron takes an eternity to complete the process to a pristine proton
beta-decay starts when this neutron releases its first product of beta-decay
as
this means
you cannot put neutrons in a UNC trap, release them, then simply count them
because
in this crowd of 40,000 neutrons
are neutrons undergoing beta-decay before they are released and counted
because
in this crowd of 40,000 neutrons
are the fleeting presence of 1000s of neutrinos
Escaping to infinity and beyond

Jan 25, 2019
Measuring Beta-decay in Neutrons

As it extremely unlikely this UNC trap
Is capable of counting neutrinos
it is highly probable
with
a 100% certainty
that
this UNC trap cannot count the fleeting presence of neutrinos
because
if the process of beta-decay starts with the release of neutrinos
this is how you measure beta-decay in neutrons
given a sample of 40,000 neutrons
you
simply
Count neutrinos - an antineutrino

Jan 25, 2019
Measuring Beta-decay in Neutrons

As conversely
if the electron is the first product of beta-decay
given a sample of 40,000 neutrons
you
simply
Count electrons

Jan 25, 2019
Measuring Beta-decay in Neutrons

This approach
is
treating this crowd of 40,000 neutrons
as a radio-active sample emitting particles
where
you simply count the emitted particles
either antineutrinos or electrons
as
each particle is a neutron that has decayed
To be deducted from the sample of the 40,000 neutrons

Jan 25, 2019
"Then the detector shutter was opened and the surviving UCN were counted in the
stored neutron detector. Finally all shutters were opened for 200 to 400 s to allow the whole installation to be drained of all remaining UCN and for vacuum pumping. The typical initial UCN density in the main storage trap was 0.5 UCN/cm3. The recorded number of UCN in the stored neutron detector was typically 40 000 after 100s storage time with 75 cm trap length and 90 cm height of the ab-sorbing roof (seeFig. 2)."
http://hermes.ihe.../221.pdf

Jan 25, 2019
Jimmybobber, you did not read it did you

The instant this free neutron emits a neutrino
this neutron is dead in the water
there is no going back
so
even if this neutron takes an eternity to complete the process to a pristine proton
beta-decay starts when this neutron releases its first product of beta-decay

open this trap, jimmybobber, there could be 40,0000 neutrons left after 15minutes
beta-decay starts when this neutron releases its first product of beta-decay
Even if this neutron takes an eternity to complete the process to a pristine proton

Jan 25, 2019
@Granville and Benni

They are using a microstrip detector to detect how many neutrons are left over after a certain storage time.

"After the storage the remaining UCN are emptied through the exit shutter (7) and neutron guide (9) into the stored neutron detector (10)"
http://hermes.ihe.../221.pdf

Jan 25, 2019
@Granville and Benni

In this experiment they are counting neutrons left after different storage time.

They are not detecting protons, electrons, or antineutrinos from the free neutron decay in this experiment.

http://hermes.ihe.../221.pdf

Jan 25, 2019
Jimmybobber, you are still not reading beta-decay

It is irrelevant how many neutrons are in the trap
when the trap is opened
because
you are observing neutrons presently undergoing beta-decay
you cannot count currently decaying neutrons
because
they are no longer neutrons
they have undergone an irreversible process
and
consequently cannot be counted
Even though you might be observing them undergoing beta-decay

Jan 25, 2019
@Granville

Dude the neutrons at the end of the experiment are still neutrons. They haven't decayed. They aren't undergoing the process of decay.
What you just wrote is nonsense.

Jan 25, 2019
double post.

Jan 25, 2019
Jimmybobber, when these 40,000 neutrons are counted into the trap

At the instant of insertion
antineutrinos and electrons are emitted
beta-decay starts instantly
but
the neutron could be a still recognisable as a neutron if the trap is opened
but
any neutrons currently undergoing beta-decay cannot be physically counted as neutrons
which
essentially jimmybobber, is all the 40,000 neutrons in the trap
you have to count the particles of decay
as
each particle is neutron undergoing beta-decay
you cannot count neutrons coming out the trap as these are decaying neutrons
so
do not count
Only particle emission counts, jimmybobber

Jan 25, 2019
@Granville you said

"At the instant of insertion
antineutrinos and electrons are emitted
beta-decay starts instantly"

That's ridiculous. And so is the rest of your post.

Jan 25, 2019
,when these 40,000 neutrons are counted into the trap

At the instant of insertion
antineutrinos and electrons are emitted
beta-decay starts instantly
but
the neutron could be a still recognisable as a neutron if the trap is opened
but
any neutrons currently undergoing beta-decay cannot be physically counted as neutrons
which
essentially jimmybobber,is all the 40,000 neutrons in the trap
you have to count the particles of decay
as
each particle is neutron undergoing beta-decay
you cannot count neutrons coming out the trap as these are decaying neutrons
so
do not count
Only particle emission counts, jimmybobber


The scintillation detectors detect & count the protons that are emitted at the instant beta decay occurs. One proton is emitted for every neutron that decays.The reason protons are counted is due to their positive charge & large mass size compared to the other decay byproducts, and by the way, this decay is not counted in half life units.


Jan 25, 2019
All this trap does is count neutrons not beta-decay

jimmybobber> neutrons at the end of the experiment are still neutrons. They haven't decayed

This UNC trap is constantly creating an anomalous number of neutrons which obviously being constantly created are being counted as neutrons
but
jimmybobber, as this trap is not counting products of beta-decay
this UNC trap cannot tell whether these anomalous neutrons are decaying

In point of fact, jimmybobber
this UNC trap
cannot
tell
if any neutrons are undergoing beta-decay
All this trap does is count neutrons

Jan 25, 2019

Here's the thing granDy, why should anyone think the nuclear physicists who performed the test run are so stupid as to make no adjustments of the final outcome of their data in the manner jimbo & jonesy prattle on about? It's because they don't like the 14.7 minute outcome results of the test, so what these two should be doing is taking the attending physicists to task because they have an opinion the physicists screwed up the test run. They have the names of the attending physicists.........


F***wit. Can't even understand the paper or the figure can you, you cretin? Free neutrons have a half-life. Get over it, thicko.

Jan 25, 2019
An irreversible process
The scintillation detectors detect & count the protons that are emitted at the instant beta decay occurs. One proton is emitted for every neutron that decays.The reason protons are counted is due to their positive charge & large mass size compared to the other decay byproducts, and by the way, this decay is not counted in half life units

There you are jimmybobber
the proton is as massive as the neutron
the proton is the last stage of beta-decay
the beta-decay started long ago
when the 40,000 neutrons were inserted in the trap
the count starts when the first product of beta-starts
because
It is irreversible

Jan 25, 2019
Just curious here. If the "mean lifetime" of a free neutron is 14.7 minutes or 882 seconds before it decays - why is the wording used to describe the 10.6 minute "half-life" used when the term "HALF" should indicate exactly HALF of 14.7 minutes? Half-life is confusing and a better term should have been chosen to describe it - since it seems illogical when dividing 14.7 minutes by half, I suppose it's too late to change it since it is already in the literature/books, etc. It doesn't seem to have been well thought out.


Of course it wasn't "well thought out", it was worded in just that fashion to be DELIBERATELY vague, to allow a pathway to one of Pop-Cosmology's holy grails, an eternal neutron for the vaunted neutron star that has no basis in nuclear physics for it's hypothetical existence.

Jan 25, 2019
this decay is not counted in half life units.


Yes it is. Liar. And that is why you are running scared from emailing the authors, or posting your inane crap on a physics forum. You are a dickhead.

Jan 25, 2019
Jimmybobber, concerning protons

The remaining neutrons at 3000 seconds
by your own reckoning, jimmybobber
are
not actually neutrons at all, are they
according to you
the are actually protons
because
The scintillation detectors detect & count the protons

Jan 25, 2019
the are actually protons
because
The scintillation detectors detect & count the protons


Clueless idiot. Have you even read the papers, you retard? Looked at the figures? They are counting neutrons, you cretin.

Jan 25, 2019
@Granville

They used a microstrip detector to detect neutrons not a scintillation detector. Do you even read what people post.

http://hermes.ihe.../221.pdf

" The detector is a microstrip detector[17]..."

"[17] A. Oed, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 263 (1988) 351."
https://inspirehe...73?ln=en

Jan 25, 2019
Cloud-Chamber Measurement of the Half-Life of the Neutron
https://journals.....114.285

The Lives & Times of Neutrons
Los Alamos National Laboratory (2016)

Officially, the neutron half-life is quoted at 611.0 ± 1.0 seconds. This level of precision is not atypical among particle-physics lifetimes, but it is far from the best.


And the only people saying it doesn't have a half-life, are a couple of uneducated, scientifically illiterate tossers on a comments section. Tough luck, losers - you lost. Now go and crawl back under whichever stones you slithered out from.

Jan 25, 2019
Here's the thing granDy, why should anyone think the nuclear physicists who performed the test run are so stupid as to make no adjustments of the final outcome of their data in the manner jimbo & jonesy prattle on about? It's because they don't like the 14.7 minute outcome results of the test, so what these two should be doing is taking the attending physicists to task because they have an opinion the physicists screwed up the test run. They have the names of the attending physicists.........


Can't even understand the paper or the figure can you, you cretin? Free neutrons have a half-life.
.......half life units are not used in the resultant beta decay counts of this lifetime measurement run , or for that matter anywhere else in this measurement run is the subject of "half-life" even mentioned, it's just another one of your Pop-Cosmology fantasies trying to INSERT words that have no useful basis for Beta Particle Decay measurements.

Jan 25, 2019
Can't even understand the paper or the figure can you, you cretin? Free neutrons have a half-life.
.......half life units are not used in the resultant beta decay counts of this lifetime measurement run , or for that matter anywhere else in this measurement run is the subject of "half-life" even mentioned, it's just another one of your Pop-Cosmology fantasies trying to INSERT words that have no useful basis for Beta Particle Decay measurements.


Wrong, moron. Look at the figure you clueless cretin. The number of counts halves every ~ 600s.

Jan 25, 2019
The Lives & Times of Neutrons
Los Alamos National Laboratory (2016)
https://www.lanl....sure.pdf

Left out the link last time. And a couple more;

Free-Neutron Beta-Decay Half-Life
Christensen, C. J. et al
https://journals....D.5.1628

Measurement of the neutron half-life
Bondarenko, L . N. et al.
http://www.jetple...4154.pdf

Jan 25, 2019
And here is the National Nuclear Data Center reporting a half-life of 613.9 s.

https://www.nndc....&n=1