Simultaneous X-ray and infrared observations of the galactic center

February 25, 2019, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
A visualization of simulated flaring activity and clouds of material around the supermassive black hole in the galactic center. Astronomers observing these events at X-ray and infrared wavelengths simultaneously report evidence that the X-ray emission often precedes the infrared by ten to twenty minutes, consistent with one class of theoretical models. Credit: ESO, Gfycat

The supermassive black hole (SMBH) at the center of our Milky Way galaxy, Sagittarius A*, is by far the closest such object to us, only about 25 thousand light-years away. Although not nearly as active or luminous as other SMBHs, its relative proximity provides astronomers with a unique opportunity to probe what happens close to the "edge" of a black hole. Monitored in the radio since its discovery and more recently in the infrared and the X-ray, Sgr A* appears to be accreting material at a very low rate, only a few hundredths of an Earth-mass per year. Its X-ray emission is persistent, probably resulting from the rapid motions of electrons in the hot accretion flow associated with the black hole. Once a day there are also flares of emission that are highly variable; they appear more often in the infrared than in X-rays. Some submillimeter wavelength flares have also been tentatively linked to IR flares, although their timing seems to be delayed with respect to infrared events. Despite these intensive observational efforts, the physical mechanisms producing flaring around this SMBH are still unknown and are the topic of intense theoretical modeling.

CfA astronomers Steve Willner, Joe Hora, Giovanni Fazio, and Howard Smith joined their colleagues in undertaking a systematic campaign of simultaneous multiwavelength observations of flaring in SagA* using the Spitzer and Chandra observatories (the Submillimeter Array was also used in some of the series). In over one hundred hours of data taken over four years (the longest such dataset ever obtained), the team observed four events in both X-ray and infrared in which the X-ray event appears to lead the infrared by ten to twenty minutes. The correlation between the observed peaks implies there is some physical connection between them, and the slight timing difference is in agreement with models that describe the flares as coming from magnetically driven particle acceleration and shocks. Exactly simultaneous events can't be completely ruled out, however, but the results are nevertheless inconsistent with some of the more exotic models that involve the relativistic motion of electrons. If future simultaneous observations planned for the summer of 2019 also see flaring, they can provide new constraints on the time lag and on associated physical models.

Explore further: Remarkable flares from the galactic center

More information: H. Boyce et al. Simultaneous X-Ray and Infrared Observations of Sagittarius A*'s Variability, The Astrophysical Journal (2019). DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf71f

Related Stories

Remarkable flares from the galactic center

October 8, 2018

Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), the supermassive black hole at the center of our Milky Way Galaxy, is 100 times closer to us than any other SMBH and therefore a prime candidate for studies of how matter radiates as it accretes onto ...

Active galactic nuclei and star formation

October 15, 2018

Most galaxies host a supermassive black hole (SMBH) at their nucleus. (A supermassive black hole is one whose mass exceeds a million solar-masses.) A key unresolved issue in galaxy formation and evolution is the role these ...

Astronomers shed surprising light on our galaxy's black hole

January 10, 2006

In the most comprehensive study of Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), the enigmatic supermassive black hole in the center of the Milky Way Galaxy, astronomers -- using nine ground and space-based telescopes including the Hubble Space ...

Recommended for you

A decade on, smartphone-like software finally heads to space

March 20, 2019

Once a traditional satellite is launched into space, its physical hardware and computer software stay mostly immutable for the rest of its existence as it orbits the Earth, even as the technology it serves on the ground continues ...

Tiny 'water bears' can teach us about survival

March 20, 2019

Earth's ultimate survivors can weather extreme heat, cold, radiation and even the vacuum of space. Now the U.S. military hopes these tiny critters called tardigrades can teach us about true toughness.

Researchers find hidden proteins in bacteria

March 20, 2019

Scientists at the University of Illinois at Chicago have developed a way to identify the beginning of every gene—known as a translation start site or a start codon—in bacterial cell DNA with a single experiment and, through ...

106 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Benni
2.1 / 5 (18) Feb 25, 2019
"Once a day there are also flares of emission that are highly variable; they appear more often in the infrared than in X-rays. Some submillimeter wavelength flares have also been tentatively linked to IR flares, although their timing seems to be delayed with respect to infrared events. Despite these intensive observational efforts, the physical mechanisms producing flaring around this SMBH are still unknown and are the topic of intense theoretical modeling."

Our Sun does exactly this as well, the flares it gives off are always accompanied by x-rays & infrared as well as other wavelengths of electro-magnetic waves that can stretch for millions of miles beyond it's surface. Does this make our Sun a black hole? Can't wait to read those responses.
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (17) Feb 25, 2019
We can't see things as small as solar flares from 25,000 light years away. So, no, our Sun doesn't do anything even remotely like "exactly this," and if it did it wouldn't have any planets by now.

You're lying again, @Benni.

chauffeurkp
4.3 / 5 (7) Feb 25, 2019
I'd like to know why there's a delay between the X-ray and infrared wavelengths. If the speed of light is constant, and a single event causes these emissions, the waves should arrive here at the same time.
rrwillsj
2.7 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2019
chauffeurkp,
I think you are confusing two different phenomena.
X-Rays are a high-energy radiation. They don't lollygag, waiting for permission to cross the street. Or, Space.

When a kerfuffle of random crashing matter is intense enough? That wreckage produces a wide spectrum of energetic sparklers. Including X-Rays.

"Aaaannd... Their off!
Grand Champion X-Ray is in the lead!"

Meanwhile at the back of the pack among the pluggers is Heat.
just starting to wake-up.
All those rocks & dust rubbing so lasciviously together build up heat, comparatively slowly. When the disk of flotsam & jetsam gets hot enough? The material glows with low-energy infra-red radiation.

Chasing fruitlessly behind the relativisticly long-gone x-rays.

A common error is to confuse Astronomic temperatures with Human experienced temperatures.
The Stellar temps are actually energy-rates or states.
flashgordon
4.6 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2019
I still expect the magnetic fields to show up pretty brightly in the EHT images. Well, I'd expect to see some of the accretion disk.

There's already good images of light year in length magnetic fields around Sag A.
rrwillsj
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2019
I could be wrong but I do not believe that we yet have a level of technology advanced enough to visually see in the visible wavelengths of light Sag*a.

Through all the dust & debris. Or to be able to differentiate it from all the background noise? Especially at 25thou LY's.

If I am wrong? Please post links. I'd luv to see the images!
valeriy_polulyakh
1.8 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 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
Benni
1.8 / 5 (15) Feb 25, 2019
I could be wrong but I do not believe that we yet have a level of technology advanced enough to visually see in the visible wavelengths of light Sag*a.

If I am wrong? Please post links. I'd luv to see the images!
.....sure we have a level of technology, telescopes, and by the way there exist no images for ANYTHING at SgrA*.
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (13) Feb 25, 2019
Other than in infrared, millimeter, radio. and X-ray.

You're lying again, @Benni.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (13) Feb 26, 2019
I could be wrong but I do not believe that we yet have a level of technology advanced enough to visually see in the visible wavelengths of light Sag*a.

If I am wrong? Please post links. I'd luv to see the images!
.....sure we have a level of technology, telescopes, and by the way there exist no images for ANYTHING at SgrA*.
says Benni

As they say in Iraq, By the prophet's beard, you are correct, Benni. They STILL haven't produced ANY optical images of that alleged BH and its alleged EH in the vicinity of Sgr A. You know, something that we could look at, examine carefully, and determine that YES - there it is. Eureka.
So all we get are lines and squiggles and inference that there's something there, which still only amounts to faerie dust, woo and fluffy unicorns. Oh, and simulations.
I suppose that we are expected to look at all those lines and squiggles and exclaim loudly, "BY GEORGE, I SEE A BLACK HOLE. IT'S THERE.....IT'S REALLY THERE.
LOL :)
Da Schneib
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 26, 2019
EHT scares the shit out of you, doesn't it? Just like all the women.
humy
3.9 / 5 (11) Feb 26, 2019
Our Sun does exactly this as well, the flares it gives off are always accompanied by x-rays & infrared as well as other wavelengths of electro-magnetic waves that can stretch for millions of miles beyond it's surface. Does this make our Sun a black hole? Can't wait to read those responses.
Benni

What are you implying Benni? That the said black hole is a star? If so, you are a moron. If it was a star then, given it clearly gigantic mass, physics tells us that would be too unstable and wouldn't last for a single day as a star. It would be a mystery if it didn't become a black hole.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 26, 2019
Other than in infrared, millimeter, radio. and X-ray. You're lying again, @Benni.
......and we can go there too:

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."
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 26, 2019
They STILL haven't produced ANY optical images of that alleged BH and its alleged EH in the vicinity of Sgr A. You know, something that we could look at, examine carefully, and determine that YES - there it is. Eureka.
> Egg.......right above in my last post.

Da Schneib
4 / 5 (12) Feb 26, 2019
Except for this one, right, @Benni? You shouldn't keep trying to lie, it's obvious.

http://ircamera.a...lare.gif
Benni
2.1 / 5 (11) Feb 26, 2019
Except for this one, right, @Benni? You shouldn't keep trying to lie, it's obvious.

http://ircamera.a...lare.gif


The image I linked to above is from the Gemini Project, your beef is with them not me, I'm not the one who created the 7th photo frame from the top of the page at:

http://ircamera.a...nter.htm
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (12) Feb 26, 2019
Yes, you're the one who posted the seventh image and ignored the eighth.

Cheaters never prosper.
Benni
2 / 5 (12) Feb 26, 2019
Yes, you're the one who posted the seventh image and ignored the eighth.

Cheaters never prosper.


If you are such a glutton for punishment, we can go there too & I quote the cpation next to that pic:

"Here is a very deep, high resolution (1 arcsec) X-ray image of the Galactic Center -- the source elongated up and down just above and to the right of the center is Sgr A*, but it doesn't stand out at all. Even in X-rays, where we look to find stellar black holes, there is nothing to draw our attention to a supermassive black hole here!(from NASA/CXC/MIT/F.K.Baganoff et al. http://chandra.ha...x.html)"

.......no supermassive BH, or do you remain hard of reading?
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (11) Feb 26, 2019
I'm not the one lying about the link and trying to hide the infrared picture of it eating a Mercury-sized bite.

Stop lying @Benni.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (11) Feb 26, 2019
I'm not the one lying about the link and trying to hide the infrared picture of it eating a Mercury-sized bite.

Stop lying @Benni.


The CalTech link doesn't mention any such thing, yours is a Pop-Cosmology fantasy that attributes a flareup from a star, too small to be imaged, interpreted to mean a planet fell into a BH. The last time our Sun put out a flare over a million miles long, what was the Mercury sized planet that fell into the Sun? (By the way, that flare from the Sun was just a few months ago).
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (11) Feb 26, 2019
All anyone has to do is follow your link and search on Mercury.

Here's the link again: http://ircamera.a...nter.htm
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 26, 2019
All anyone has to do is follow your link and search on Mercury.

Here's the link again: http://ircamera.a...nter.htm


....and this explains flares from our Sun that can be millions of miles long?
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (11) Feb 26, 2019
Nope. And it's not supposed to.

You're lying again, @Benni. Not to mention getting scales wrong by orders of magnitude. That's because you're innumerate.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 26, 2019
Nope. And it's not supposed to.
.......yeah schneibo, the exact same kinds of flares emanating from our Sun doesn't fit fantasy Pop-Cosmology narratives, therefore those flares don't count because they're easily explained.

Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 26, 2019
You couldn't see them at 25,000 light years.

You're lying again, @Benni.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 26, 2019
Cool test, seems a whole set of models for the mechanism behind the flares. The SMBH is a messy environment, so anything that cuts through that fog is a boon!

Pop-Cosmology


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Specifically, SMBHs are primarily astronomical phenomena and that is how this one is studied (albeit they have implications for the behavior of the galaxies they live in and so on up to cosmological implications)..

If anything if you connect your obviously (see the article) erroneous idea of no black holes, which I think you are trying to troll us with (you are not asking, you are claiming - and without evidence), with cosmology *you* are peddling in pseudo-cosmology.

Your comments have zero merits and is of decreasing Pop-Trollogy popularity, as you can see by the consistent down voting lately. Or haven't you noticed? If you are even a bit actually interested in science, why not try to learn it instead?
rrwillsj
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2019
My dearest Da Schneib, Please don't go hating my gravitational waves!
"... Other than in infrared, millimeter, radio. and X-ray."

"You're lying again, @Benni."

As for benni & seu & the other wooloons?
Close observation presents proof positve of the existence of Black Holes.
Where their brains are suppose to be located.
The knowledge falls in & disappears forever.
All that comes out are thunderous farts!

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2019
All anyone has to do is follow your link and search on Mercury.

Here's the link again: http://ircamera.a...nter.htm


....and this explains flares from our Sun that can be millions of miles long?
says Benni

The Sun, our local Star has the POTENTIAL to reach at least most planets in the Solar System with flares. That will occur when the Sun begins to expand and has the power/energy to send many flares out, possibly reaching the orbits of Neptune and Pluto. And, as you have said:
"the flares it gives off are always accompanied by x-rays & infrared as well as other wavelengths of electro-magnetic waves that can stretch for millions of miles beyond it's surface."

which is happening to a smaller degree even now. This is why manned spacecraft to Mars will have to be well-protected from the radiation energies coming from the Sun - as well as Cosmic radiation. This is why Earth's magnetic field is there to protect the Earth
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2019
Cool test, seems a whole set of models for the mechanism behind the flares. The SMBH is a messy environment, so anything that cuts through that fog is a boon!

Pop-Cosmology


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. If anything if you connect your obviously (see the article) erroneous idea of no black holes, which I think you are trying to troll us with (you are not asking, you are claiming - and without evidence), with cosmology *you* are peddling in pseudo-cosmology.

Your comments have zero merits and is of decreasing Pop-Trollogy popularity, as you can see by the consistent down voting lately. Or haven't you noticed? If you are even a bit actually interested in science, why not try to learn it instead?
says tbgl

Perhaps you are not aware of the right to take "science" to task for, as Carl Sagan said - "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence". Benni is doing just that, where he requires extraordinary evidence
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 26, 2019
@tbgl
The rating system in the physorg phorums have been overpowered by bot-voting and/or those who consistently disagree with any salient points made by those who require extraordinary evidence (such as Benni) FROM those whose preference is to "accept" the science and never question it.
It doesn't work that way. Scientists often make mistakes. It is those mistakes that such as Benni and others are making the effort to DISCOVER and UNCOVER those mistakes/errors and bring them into the light so as to try to prevent any further errors by the scientific community.
It is a hard, arduous task, especially when the opposition is so disagreeable - but somebody has to do it.
MrBojangles
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 26, 2019
Perhaps you are not aware of the right to take "science" to task for, as Carl Sagan said - "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence". Benni is doing just that, where he requires extraordinary evidence


The irony of you invoking that quote while espousing your beliefs in your creator in other articles. You're such a troll.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 26, 2019
It is a hard, arduous task, especially when the opposition is so disagreeable - but somebody has to do it.


> Egg

Cut my teeth on this stuff as far back as the days when physics class many of us would sit in the classroom & we would have debates about this BH stuff, & about that clown over there in England trying to pass himself off as a nuclear physicist, when in fact all he ever was is a Pop-Cosmology Psycho-Babbler.
MrBojangles
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 26, 2019
Cut my teeth on this stuff as far back as the days when physics class many of us would sit in the classroom & we would have debates about this BH stuff, & about that clown over there in England trying to pass himself off as a nuclear physicist, when in fact all he ever was is a Pop-Cosmology Psycho-Babbler.


Fortunately nobody of repute gives a fig how you feel.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2019
Cut my teeth on this stuff as far back as the days when physics class many of us would sit in the classroom & we would have debates about this BH stuff, & about that clown over there in England trying to pass himself off as a nuclear physicist, when in fact all he ever was is a Pop-Cosmology Psycho-Babbler.


Fortunately nobody of repute gives a fig how you feel. ......then why are you responding to it? Same with schneibo, etc. I guess you might be one of those"nobody of repute"s?
rrwillsj
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 26, 2019
Well, my challenge is still up for sillyegghead, bennifactless, missy666 & all the other wooloons skulking about.

Show one single, working device, based on your bogus claims, that is available for third-party inspection & evaluation.

No, you cannot bring in a stage illusionist ringer as an expert.
No. you have no credibility.
No. I'm not going to keep passing out hankies as you twats bellyhoohoo with tears & tantrums.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2019
There's plenty of evidence for black holes. Trolls just don't want to believe it.

1. Direct observation of gravitational waves multiple times
2. Many quasars
3. Many X-ray binaries
4. Direct observation of accretion disks in multiple galaxies
5. Direct observation of stellar orbits in multiple galaxies

This amounts to at least hundreds of thousands of observations. The evidence is comprehensive and detailed.

There is also the fact that general relativity predicts them generically and hasn't been wrong yet.

All of this put together explains why thousands of astrophysicists accept black hole physics.

Now, the question is, can you accept the evidence, or do you go on trolling?
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 26, 2019
There's plenty of evidence for black holes. Trolls just don't want to believe it.

1. Direct observation of gravitational waves multiple times
2. Many quasars
3. Many X-ray binaries
4. Direct observation of accretion disks in multiple galaxies
5. Direct observation of stellar orbits in multiple galaxies


......all this INFERRED EVIDENCE, but no pics.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2019
As for why you find it so difficult here, that would be due to claiming to be a mind-reading space alien and to @Benni's claim to be a "nuclear physicist" when he has no math. You just can't do physics without it. Neither of you even understands half-life, nor can you figure out that time dilation is a pervasive prediction of special relativity theory, despite its being shown to you in Einstein's 1905 paper On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.

Then there's the constant flow of science mythology, for example not accepting gravitational time dilation despite numerous experiments that show it, for example weird conjectures about barycenters, for example claiming time doesn't exist when we can measure it, just for some recent examples.

If you want to have people accept demands for evidence, you have to admit it when it's shown to you. If you don't, then you can expect ridicule and downvoting, which you then whine about.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2019
......all this INFERRED EVIDENCE, but no pics.
It's not inferred evidence. It's evidence by direct observation.

You're lying again, @Benni.

There's actually not much point in waiting for the EHT evidence; you'll just deny that too, like you deny everything else except your Electric Universe cult.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 26, 2019
......all this INFERRED EVIDENCE, but no pics.


It's not inferred evidence. It's evidence by direct observation
....then where's the BH pic?

There's actually not much point in waiting for the EHT evidence; you'll just deny that too, like you deny everything else except your Electric Universe cult.
.......it's already almost two years overdue. And do you have any idea why? It's because they didn't get the data, now they want to double the size of the telescope & start over. Happy dreaming those of you living in the Fantasyland of Pop-Cosmology.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2019
The EHT should show the gravitational distortions introduced by the Milky Way's SMBH. Why are you arguing in advance of the evidence? Could it be that in fact, you intend to dispute it with more "evidence" like your recent espousal of electron quantum states in atoms that no one has ever observed?
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2019
I'd be much more hopeful if there was any sign you know how much bigger a thousand light years is than a billion miles. It's like comparing inches with billions of miles. And you don't have enough math to even begin to understand the Rayleigh criterion, so it's impossible that you should understand how far away everything is.

Your universe is very small, @Benni. And that's because you are innumerate.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 26, 2019
The EHT should show the gravitational distortions introduced by the Milky Way's SMBH. Why are you arguing in advance of the evidence?
......they have NEVER YET produced "the evidence" because they discovered they haven't got it.

Could it be that in fact, you intend to dispute it with more "evidence" like your recent espousal of electron quantum states in atoms that no one has ever observed?
.......you're the one who denies the electron shell structure of paired orbital electrons in accordance with the Pauli Exclusion Principle, so good luck with that one along with that flunkie EHT test.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2019
.......it's already almost two years overdue. And do you have any idea why? It's because they didn't get the data, now they want to double the size of the telescope & start over. Happy dreaming those of you living in the Fantasyland of Pop-Cosmology.

No, @Benni, it's not "two years overdue." You're lying again, @Benni.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2019
.......you're the one who denies the electron shell structure of paired orbital electrons in accordance with the Pauli Exclusion Principle, so good luck with that one along with that flunkie EHT test.

I never said anything of the kind and challenge you to produce a quote where I did.

Not only that but you make up more mythology: you claim that orbitals are orbits, as previously documented here: https://phys.org/...ass.html

You're lying again, @Benni. I told you I bookmarked that thread. Run away and hide little @Benni. Deny some more evidence. It's comedy gold.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2019
See, it's when @Benni is challenged and fails miserably that the inevitable downvotes and criticism sting it.

So stop whining about how "robo-voted" yuo are, especially when yuo are using fake IDs to make votes. And trying to justify it because yuo're "persecuted." This is a standard meme of the climate deniers, too.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2019
Maybe if you didn't lie so much you wouldn't be so butthurt.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2019
Perhaps you are not aware of the right to take "science" to task for, as Carl Sagan said - "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence". Benni is doing just that, where he requires extraordinary evidence


The irony of you invoking that quote while espousing your beliefs in your creator in other articles. You're such a troll.
says Bo

As it was my intention to provide tbglarsson with the pertinent facts, it is ironic that YOU have decided to troll my one-on-one comment, apparently for the purpose of injecting your OWN views to oppose mine. By the way, I do have an enormous amount of extraordinary evidence to warrant my beliefs in the Creator God. Apparently, YOU don't. Perhaps you just don't rate, for whatever reason(s).
And I'm quite certain that Mr. Sagan has seen the light, and now knows the error of his ways while he was walking this Earth.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2019
says rrwillisj
Well, my challenge is still up for sillyegghead, bennifactless, missy666 & all the other wooloons skulking about.

Show one single, working device, based on your bogus claims, that is available for third-party inspection & evaluation.

No, you cannot bring in a stage illusionist ringer as an expert.
No. you have no credibility.
No. I'm not going to keep passing out hankies as you twats bellyhoohoo with tears & tantrums.


...do you always guzzle from your cache of Jack Daniels on weekdays, rrwilliejoe? You're drunk again. Go sleep it off.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2019
Maybe if you didn't lie so much you wouldn't be so butthurt.
says Da Schnitzophrenic

Pot...meet Kettle.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2019
Sorry, sonny, I don't lie, I don't have to. I'm not the one denying science. You are.

How's that whole "there's no such thing as time" working out for you?

You sound pretty butthurt and you keep dodging questions about it.

Just askin'.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2019
How about the whole "electron spiralling" thing? Guess that's workin' out pretty badly too.

Maybe you can tell us all how you're a mind-reading space alien again. Not that that's worked out any better than the rest of your lies.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2019
So, got no responses for the "there's no such thing as time" and "electron spiraliling" stuff so you downvote.

What a troll. Go pick your nose under a bridge.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2019
Sorry, sonny, I don't lie, I don't have to. I'm not the one denying science. You are.

How's that whole "there's no such thing as time" working out for you?

You sound pretty butthurt and you keep dodging questions about it.

Just askin'.
says Da Liar

Still telling lies, eh Da Scheide? SpookyOtto calls you Da Scheide too. He thinks you're a pussy.
Same as before - Time doesn't exist except in your mind. Get used to it, Pussyman
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2019
We can measure time. Next you'll claim there is no distance since we can measure that too. Idiot.

You're lying again. Have you no pride or shame?

As for @Blotto, we don't get along. It's a racist troll like you. Go suck your swastika.

Just as a reminder, here's your jebus: https://pbs.twimg...pg:large
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2019
Noted also you have no response to the evidence. Apparently evidence doesn't mean anything to you.

Which is precisely what one would expect of a jebus troll. You think the book about the magic super sky daddy by the drunken stone age sheep herders is better than evidence. That's because you're an innumerate jebus troll.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2019
Maybe you can call me gay again.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2019
Noted also you have no response to the evidence. Apparently evidence doesn't mean anything to you.

Which is precisely what one would expect of a jebus troll. You think the book about the magic super sky daddy by the drunken stone age sheep herders is better than evidence. That's because you're an innumerate jebus troll.
says Da Pussyman

Who is this jebus you keep referring to? Is that your brother or your mother? Why is your mother trolling? Has to be someone in your family since you keep referring to him/her/it.
Response to what evidence, Da Pussyman?
Since Time is intangible and can't be sensed by the 5 senses, it doesn't exist. Air/atmosphere has weight.Space can fold or dilate. What does Time have? Nothing, nada, zilch, and a big fat zero.
You are evidently unable to take in or accept any new information so you cling to the fallacy of spacetime like your life depended on it. How stupid of you.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2019
Maybe you can call me gay again.


OK, you're gay again. Nothing new.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2019
https://pbs.twimg...pg:large

You asked. remember. Your super magic sky daddy.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2019
Dimensions are intangible too unless you think there's measuring tape strung all over the universe. I should say "*other* dimensions are too." We can't measure them any better than we can time; nor any worse either.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2019
LOL, and the troll dances to my tune.

Thanks troll. Your mother pleasures syphilitic goats. And you rape dead babies and eat them when you're done.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2019
And not a word about orbitals.

Wuss.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2019
Go ahead, hide behind votes.

Wuss.
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2019
I still expect the magnetic fields to show up pretty brightly in the EHT images. Well, I'd expect to see some of the accretion disk. There's already good images of light year in length magnetic fields around Sag A.


The EHT data for any of this does not exist, except in the negative. The compilation of data was complete in May of 2017, then rerun again in Dec 2017 with the same evaluation, that there exists no significant radio emissions found at SgrA*, just the usual stuff you'd find from focusing the antennae ANYWHERE else in the sky.

In Oct 2018 a spokesman for some European investigative group that was assisting the EHT announced that the radio telescope needed to be doubled in size because the present radio antennae are not sensitive enough........this is where the EHT project stands today, dead in the water & probably no hope it can be resuscitated.
MrBojangles
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2019
it is ironic that YOU have decided to troll my one-on-one comment,

I'm not sure you understand what irony is. Nor do you understand how an open forum works (though you must, because you've inserted your opinion in "one-on-one" conversation numerous times.)
apparently for the purpose of injecting your OWN views to oppose mine.

What views of mine have I injected?
By the way, I do have an enormous amount of extraordinary evidence to warrant my beliefs in the Creator God.

And what evidence would that be? This ought to be good.
Apparently, YOU don't.

Apparently you cannot present a cogent argument without randomly capitalizing words.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2019
@Benni found something else to lie about, this time the EHT.

Stop lying, @Benni.
rrwillsj
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2019
sillyegghead, tut, tut, tut,,,

Your specious claim to be secretly hoarding the existence of a creator critter.
Evidence that no one else has?

Is quite insulting to an omniscient, omnipotent deity. Even if you are too stupid to realize the errors you are making.

A creator deity exists or does not exist, period.
No obfuscation possible.

If such a being exists?
It deliberately created the Universe into this cattywampus wreck on purpose.
To force "Free Will" sophonts to try & figure out the "How" of the "Why"

sillyegghead, what a pity.
You have failed the entrance exam to Sophont University.
What a disappointment for your creator.
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2019
Consider:

Q1: How do we measure 'time' values for analysis purposes?
A1: By noting the motion/change across energy-space of the body/system under study as compared to motion/change over space/dial etc.

Q2: How do we measure energy-space values for analysis purposes?
A2: By noting the energy-space traversed/affected by the body under study's linear/cyclic motion/change over the 'path length' or 'distance' which the body has moved/changed within the energy-space extent.

Note:

TIME/TIMING concept/value ABSTRACTLY DERIVED....from the motion/change of the body WITHIN THE UNDERLYING REAL PHYSICALLY EFFECTIVE UNIVERSAL ENERGY-SPACE REFERENT; whereas,

ENERGY-SPACE DISTANCE concept/value DIRECTLY OBTAINED....from the motion/change of the body within the real physically EFFECTIVE ENERGY-SPACE REFERENT ITSELF, which is a fundamental physically effective entity in its own right (unlike 'time').

So 'time exists' ABSTRACTLY, NOT FUNDAMENTALLY. That's the EFFECTIVE difference. :)
rrwillsj
5 / 5 (2) Feb 27, 2019
Huh... & here I thought it was the railroads that were telling us what time it is?
Consistently late, never on time!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (4) Feb 28, 2019
it is ironic that YOU have decided to troll my one-on-one comment,

I'm not sure you understand what irony is. Nor do you understand how an open forum works (though you must, because you've inserted your opinion in "one-on-one" conversation numerous times.)
apparently for the purpose of injecting your OWN views to oppose mine.

What views of mine have I?
By the way, I do have an enormous amount of extraordinary evidence to warrant my beliefs in the Creator God.

And what evidence would that be? This ought to be good.
Apparently, YOU don't.

Apparently you cannot present a cogent argument without randomly capitalizing words.

says Bo

Was I addressing YOU in my comments, Bo? I don't think so. Someone else was answering for you.
Now really, Bo. Do you honestly believe that you deserve to be told the reasons for my beliefs? My evidence is none of your business. Go find your OWN evidence if that is your proclivities
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (4) Feb 28, 2019
Huh... & here I thought it was the railroads that were telling us what time it is?
Consistently late, never on time!
says rrwilliejoe

Yep, trains are very seldom on schedule.
MrBojangles
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 28, 2019
Now really, Bo. Do you honestly believe that you deserve to be told the reasons for my beliefs? My evidence is none of your business. Go find your OWN evidence if that is your proclivities


No, I expect you to use discretion. For example, not foisting your lame beliefs, and then hypocritically telling people they need extraordinary evidence when making extraordinary claims. How are you incapable of understanding the irony here?
hat1208
3 / 5 (4) Feb 28, 2019
Now really, Bo. Do you honestly believe that you deserve to be told the reasons for my beliefs? My evidence is none of your business. Go find your OWN evidence if that is your proclivities


No, I expect you to use discretion. For example, not foisting your lame beliefs, and then hypocritically telling people they need extraordinary evidence when making extraordinary claims. How are you incapable of understanding the irony here?


That's what trolls do.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 28, 2019
Now really, Bo. Do you honestly believe that you deserve to be told the reasons for my beliefs? My evidence is none of your business. Go find your OWN evidence if that is your proclivities


No, I expect you to use discretion. For example, not foisting your lame beliefs, and then hypocritically telling people they need extraordinary evidence when making extraordinary claims. How are you incapable of understanding the irony here?


....then how about you doing the same?

The extra-ordinary claims you Pop-Cosmology aficionados make about the existence of infinite gravity & density on a stellar body of finite mass is as EXTRA-ORDINARY a claim as anybody can make, especially in the face of immutable laws of Physics that speak volumes against it, like the Inverse Square Law of Gravity.

I guess with the Pop-Cosmology culture living in this chatroom, your fantasies are what's IMMUTABLE, right? Yeah, right.
MrBojangles
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 28, 2019
Demands evidence when it has already been provided countless times from numerous sources?
Check

Unable to communicate without random capitalization?
Check

Squawking the same phrases over and over like a parrot?
Check

Yep, it's SEU.... err Benni.
Benni
3 / 5 (4) Feb 28, 2019
Squawking the same phrases over and over like a parrot?
.......yep, that's what you've been doing, post after post, after post, after post.......in the meanwhile submitting nothing that proves the existence of your holy grail of fantasies, BLACK HOLES.

Hey, dance boy, what's happened to that EHT thing that was supposed to take pics of Pop-Cosmology's HOLY GRAIL? I'll tell you, as dead in the water as the most recent run of that device that was supposed to prove dark matter exists.

You lash out against others who cannot produce pictures of their FANTASIES, but neither can you, and you just continue on & on & on saying the same things post after post, you haven't noticed this about your own Comments have you?

TuringTest
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 28, 2019
The more you say "Pop-Cosmology" the more you sound like a flat earther.

You are an epistemological lack wit.
MrBojangles
3 / 5 (4) Feb 28, 2019
BLACK HOLES EHT HOLY GRAIL FANTASIES


This is all I've taken away from what you typed since capitalizing random words makes them jump out and diminishes everything else. Try again maybe?

Benni
3 / 5 (4) Feb 28, 2019
BLACK HOLES EHT HOLY GRAIL FANTASIES


This is all I've taken away from what you typed since capitalizing random words makes them jump out and diminishes everything else. Try again maybe?
.......your single most repeated mantra, "capitalizing random words".

How about if you put up a MANTRA of links to pics of black holes? Or maybe having a cogent discussion about the failure of the EHT having failed to do it's job & has been all but shut down. Oh, not fair to bring up such issues? Yeah, smack your FANTASIES dead on & it's time for you to go on another name calling rant.

Benni
3 / 5 (4) Feb 28, 2019
The more you say "Pop-Cosmology" the more you sound like a flat earther.

You are an epistemological lack wit.
"Pop-Cosmology".....it carries a ring you don't like is that it? I'm not surprised, you are probably also one of those who believes infinite gravity exists on a finite stellar mass called black holes for which there are no pics for proof of their existence in total violation of the Inverse Square Law for gravity.

Next.........you go on another name calling rant, right?

Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 28, 2019
The extra-ordinary claims you Pop-Cosmology aficionados make about the existence of infinite gravity & density
No, @Benni. You're lying about what people are saying again. It's your signature maneuver.

People have told you repeatedly that no one really believes there are real physical singularities or infinities in black holes. You just keep repeating it without ever actually believing it yourself; otherwise you'd accept it when people told you that and move on. You are obsessed and it's not healthy.
Benni
3 / 5 (4) Feb 28, 2019
The extra-ordinary claims you Pop-Cosmology aficionados make about the existence of infinite gravity & density

People have told you repeatedly that no one really believes there are real physical singularities or infinities in black holes. You just keep repeating it without ever actually believing it yourself;


.......amazing it is schneibo, all these people who don't believe in this Hoily Grail of Pop-Cosmology, all of whom go into apoplexy whenever I put up this link:

Albert Einstein- Oct 1939
On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses
Author(s): Albert Einstein Reviewed work(s): Source: The Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Oct., 1939), pp. 922-936 Published by: Annals of Mathematics Stable URL:

http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

Hey, schneibo, you in apoplexy again?

Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 28, 2019
@Benni, no they don't. The paper was shown to be erroneous within a few years of publication and you've lied about this before. Furthermore, even if it were correct, the paper would not show there are no black holes; it only shows there are no singularities, which as we discussed above nobody claims anyway.

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat the lie and ignore proof it's a lie; you just keep telling them anyway.

You haven't shown any evidence that anyone here is claiming singularities exist. Ever. Not even once. You always change the subject when this is pointed out. It's extremely dishonest.
Benni
3 / 5 (4) Feb 28, 2019
The extra-ordinary claims you Pop-Cosmology aficionados make about the existence of infinite gravity & density

People have told you repeatedly that no one really believes there are real physical singularities or infinities in black holes. You just keep repeating it without ever actually believing it yourself;


.......amazing it is schneibo, all these people who don't believe in this Hoily Grail of Pop-Cosmology, all of whom go into apoplexy whenever I put up this link:

Albert Einstein- Oct 1939
On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses
Author(s): Albert Einstein Reviewed work(s): Source: The Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Oct., 1939), pp. 922-936 Published by: Annals of Mathematics Stable URL:

http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

Hey, schneibo, you in apoplexy again?
.......you are, look how fast you toggled that 1 Star
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 28, 2019
Still waiting for you to show someone here claims singularities exist.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 28, 2019
Still waiting, @Benni. It's obvious you got nothing.

Trolling and lying are not effective means of communication.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Feb 28, 2019
Still waiting for you to show someone says singularities exist.

You're still failing.
Benni
3 / 5 (4) Feb 28, 2019
Benni, no they don't. The paper was shown to be erroneous within a few years of publication


You haven't shown any evidence that anyone here is claiming singularities exist
......then you agree with:

Albert Einstein- Oct 1939
"On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses"

"The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters whose particles move along circular paths it does not seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that most general cases will have analogous results. The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light"

.......and then you turn around & DISAGREE with none other than YOURSELF.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 28, 2019
Still waiting for you to show links and quotes that show anyone here has claimed singularities exist.

Repeating the same claim still without evidence is dishonest.

You are a troll.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 28, 2019
So no links or quotes, and you downvote.

Transparent as a three-year-old with cookie crumbs on its shirt.

Your own quotes say "singularities do not exist." No one is disagreeing, but you're lying and say they do; but you can't quote or link evidence.

You're a liar @Benni. You lie over and over and over, and you don't even bother to change the lies; you just keep telling the same ones. Disgusting.
Benni
3 / 5 (4) Feb 28, 2019
Still waiting for you to show links and quotes that show anyone here has claimed singularities exist.

Repeating the same claim still without evidence is dishonest.
......if as you claim that "On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses" is so erroneous,
The paper was shown to be erroneous within a few years of publication
...... why then do you now attest to agreement with it that Singularities do not exist?

I get it, you like arguing with yourself. Maybe you'd better go back & rewrite your disagreement with yourself so you can show us that you didn't say what you said. As an embedded Physorg Moderator you've done this many times in the past after you've screwed up & contradicted yourself, so why should this be any different? I'll just repost your Comments to show the deletions however.

Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 28, 2019
why then do you now attest to agreement with it that Singularities do not exist?
I always did. You lied about what I said. That's how trolls roll and you are a troll.

If you deny it produce a link and quote. Still waiting.
TuringTest
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 01, 2019
It doesn't matter what any of us believe, in regards to Sag A*. What is, is. I do believe that global scientific community, with all its successes and failures, is not some evil fiction to trick the unknowing population into believing in black holes. I do believe it strives to accurately and dynamically describe what is, even if it has to admit to being wrong sometimes. You clearly don't

Naming things is how we come to understand things, and communicate knowledge between ourselves. Words, and definitions are important. You either don't know or reject the definition of "rant", so yes I name you a fool benni, deal with it.
Benni
3 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2019
Words, and definitions are important.
......as are the Immutable Laws of Physics such as the Inverse Square Law for Gravity.

You BH Enthusiasts continually have such difficulty coming to terms with immutable laws of physics when you start invoking SINGULARITIES as your premise for black hole math. Here, go read it & weep: "On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses" , try not to let the Differential Equations get in your way, that's already been schneibo's problem:

http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

MrBojangles
3 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2019
MANTRA EHT FANTASIES


I'm not sure what this means, Benni. Try again?
Martinchen
3 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2019
Hello Mr Shneib.If you are proposing that nobody seriously believes in singularities, where does that leave the equations, for all possible black holes,rotating, charged etc.Do they still hold true? And what of the big bang? If there were no singularity, then surely time must have already existed? Field equations are not my strong point,nor maths in general.I know there's lots of bovine excretement bandied around in popular science articles,but if the singularity doesn't exist,how does everything else stand up? Looking forward to a layman's explanation
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 01, 2019
where does that leave the equations, for all possible black holes,rotating, charged etc.Do they still hold true?
Oh definitely that's what the equations say. But what this is telling us is that we don't have a gravity theory that works inside black holes. We think there is such a theory; and we think that this will resolve the singularities. But despite a great deal of work, we still don't have that theory.

I should also emphasize that these equations correctly describe the physics outside the event horizon; we know about that and we can observe its effects. And we have. It's equivocal inside the event horizon, though. That's where General Relativity Theory breaks down. That's where the quantum gravity takes over. And that's, I will remind you, the theory we don't have. Mathematicians don't solve things like this tomorrow. Sometimes it takes centuries.

5 stars for a good honest question.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 01, 2019
Just so it's clear, we have many times seen singularities in various theories; good examples include thermodynamics (the Violet Catastrophe, the self-interaction of electrons resolved by Schwinger, Feynman, and Tomonaga, and the various Yang-Mills gauge theories come immediately to mind). Generally speaking, over a few hundred years of physics, if you find singularities your theory is incomplete.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 01, 2019
One of the subtle points @Benni and the trolls will never get is that Einstein was trying to show that *singularities are not possible*, not that *black holes are not possible*. This distinction constantly eludes these trolls; that's if you think avoiding admitting it isn't part of the trolling, and I hate to say it but it sure looks like trolling to me.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 01, 2019
5 stars for a good honest question.
.....1 for an incogent answer.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Mar 02, 2019
Still waiting to hear if you seen any gravities today.
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2019
Still waiting to hear if you seen any gravities today.

The gravimeter is working just fine........how's your BH meter doin'?
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2019
Well, my chronometer works fine too. Guess you just undermined your Russian troll farmer butt buddy.

C'est la vie.

Meanwhile, now you claim to have seen gravity. We see it too; that's how we know there are black holes and dark matter.

So you've now conclusively admitted you were wrong.

You lose.
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2019
One of the subtle points @Benni and the trolls will never get is that Einstein was trying to show that *singularities are not possible*, not that *black holes are not possible*. This distinction constantly eludes these trolls; that's if you think avoiding admitting it isn't part of the trolling, and I hate to say it but it sure looks like trolling to me.


I know you are living under an illusion that you think your 2+2/2 solution means your IQ is greater than even that of Einstein's, and now you imagine your IQ math solution means you are the one person on the planet uniquely qualified to infer Einstein's "On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses".

Hey, is "On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses" erroneous as you've been claiming, or are you suddenly seeing a new light?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Mar 02, 2019
Hey, you've already admitted to lying; you say you've seen gravity. With your gravity meter, more commonly known as a "scale." We can see it too, in the motions of stars and dust and gas. So you've already admitted we've seen a black hole.

You lose.

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

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.