Astronomers discover 83 supermassive black holes in the early universe

Astronomers discover 83 supermassive black holes in the early universe
Astronomers from Japan, Taiwan and Princeton University have discovered 83 quasars powered by supermassive black holes that were formed when the universe was only 5 percent of its current age. Here, see an artist's impression of a quasar. A supermassive black hole sits at the center, and the gravitational energy of material accreting onto it is released as light. Credit: Yoshiki Matsuoka

Astronomers from Japan, Taiwan and Princeton University have discovered 83 quasars powered by supermassive black holes in the distant universe, from a time when the universe was less than 10 percent of its present age.

"It is remarkable that such massive dense objects were able to form so soon after the Big Bang," said Michael Strauss, a professor of astrophysical sciences at Princeton University who is one of the co-authors of the study. "Understanding how can form in the early universe, and just how common they are, is a challenge for our cosmological models."

This finding increases the number of black holes known at that epoch considerably, and reveals, for the first time, how common they are early in the universe's history. In addition, it provides new insight into the effect of black holes on the physical state of gas in the early universe in its first billion years. The research appears in a series of five papers published in The Astrophysical Journal and the Publications of the Astronomical Observatory of Japan.

Supermassive black holes, found at the centers of galaxies, can be millions or even billions of times more massive than the sun. While they are prevalent today, it is unclear when they first formed, and how many existed in the distant early universe. A supermassive black hole becomes visible when gas accretes onto it, causing it to shine as a "quasar."  Previous studies have been sensitive only to the very rare, most luminous quasars, and thus the most . The new discoveries probe the population of fainter quasars, powered by black holes with masses comparable to most black holes seen in the present-day universe.

Astronomers discover 83 supermassive black holes in the early universe
If the history of the universe from the Big Bang to the present were laid out on a football field, Earth and our solar system would not appear until our own 33-yard line. Life appeared just inside the 28-yard line and dinosaurs went extinct halfway between the 1-yard line and the goal. All of human history, since hominids first climbed out of trees, takes place within an inch of the goal line. On this timeline, the 83 supermassive black holes discovered by Princeton astrophysicist Michael Strauss and his international team of colleagues would appear back on the universe's 6-yard line, very shortly after the Big Bang itself. Credit: Kyle McKernan, Princeton University Office of Communications

The research team used data taken with a cutting-edge instrument, "Hyper Suprime-Cam" (HSC), mounted on the Subaru Telescope of the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, which is located on the summit of Maunakea in Hawaii. HSC has a gigantic field-of-view—1.77 degrees across, or seven times the area of the full moon—mounted on one of the largest telescopes in the world. The HSC team is surveying the sky over the course of 300 nights of telescope time, spread over five years.

The team selected distant quasar candidates from the sensitive HSC survey data. They then carried out an intensive observational campaign to obtain spectra of those candidates, using three telescopes: the Subaru Telescope; the Gran Telescopio Canarias on the island of La Palma in the Canaries, Spain; and the Gemini South Telescope in Chile. The survey has revealed 83 previously unknown very distant quasars. Together with 17 quasars already known in the survey region, the researchers found that there is roughly one supermassive black hole per cubic giga-light-year—in other words, if you chunked the universe into imaginary cubes that are a billion light-years on a side, each would hold one supermassive black hole.

The sample of quasars in this study are about 13 billion light-years away from the Earth; in other words, we are seeing them as they existed 13 billion years ago. As the Big Bang took place 13.8 billion years ago, we are effectively looking back in time, seeing these quasars and supermassive black holes as they appeared only about 800 million years after the creation of the (known) universe.

It is widely accepted that the hydrogen in the universe was once neutral, but was "reionized"—split into its component protons and electrons—around the time when the first generation of stars, galaxies and supermassive black holes were born, in the first few hundred million years after the Big Bang. This is a milestone of cosmic history, but astronomers still don't know what provided the incredible amount of energy required to cause the reionization. A compelling hypothesis suggests that there were many more quasars in the than detected previously, and it is their integrated radiation that reionized the universe.

Astronomers discover 83 supermassive black holes in the early universe
Astronomers from Japan, Taiwan and Princeton University have discovered 83 quasars powered by supermassive black holes in the distant universe, from a time when the universe was less than 10 percent of its present age. In this photograph taken by the Hyper-Suprime Camera on the Subaru Telescope on Maunakea, light shines from one of the most distant quasars known, powered by a supermassive black hole lying 13.05 billion light-years away from Earth. The other objects in the field are mostly stars in our Milky Way or galaxies along the line of sight. Credit: the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan

"However, the number of quasars we observed shows that this is not the case," explained Robert Lupton, a 1985 Princeton Ph.D. alumnus who is a senior research scientist in astrophysical sciences. "The number of quasars seen is significantly less than needed to explain the reionization." Reionization was therefore caused by another energy source, most likely numerous galaxies that started to form in the young universe.

The present study was made possible by the world-leading survey ability of Subaru and HSC. "The quasars we discovered will be an interesting subject for further follow-up observations with current and future facilities," said Yoshiki Matsuoka, a former Princeton postdoctoral researcher now at Ehime University in Japan, who led the study. "We will also learn about the formation and early evolution of supermassive black holes, by comparing the measured number density and luminosity distribution with predictions from theoretical models."

Based on the results achieved so far, the team is looking forward to finding yet more distant black holes and discovering when the first appeared in the .


Explore further

Black hole spin cranks-up radio volume

More information: The results of the present study are published in the following five papers—the second paper in particular.

Yoshiki Matsuoka et al, Discovery of the First Low-luminosity Quasar at z > 7, The Astrophysical Journal (2019). DOI: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0216

Yoshiki Matsuoka et al, Subaru High-z Exploration of Low-luminosity Quasars (SHELLQs). V. Quasar Luminosity Function and Contribution to Cosmic Reionization at z = 6, The Astrophysical Journal (2018). DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaee7a

Yoshiki Matsuoka et al. Subaru High-z Exploration of Low-luminosity Quasars (SHELLQs). IV. Discovery of 41 Quasars and Luminous Galaxies at 5.7 ≤ z ≤ 6.9, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series (2018). DOI: 10.3847/1538-4365/aac724

Yoshiki Matsuoka et al. Subaru High-z Exploration of Low-Luminosity Quasars (SHELLQs). II. Discovery of 32 quasars and luminous galaxies at 5.7 < z ≤ 6.8, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan (2017). DOI: 10.1093/pasj/psx046

Yoshiki Matsuoka et al. SUBARU HIGH-zEXPLORATION OF LOW-LUMINOSITY QUASARS (SHELLQs). I. DISCOVERY OF 15 QUASARS AND BRIGHT GALAXIES AT 5.7 The Astrophysical Journal (2016). DOI: 10.3847/0004-637X/828/1/26

Journal information: Astrophysical Journal

Citation: Astronomers discover 83 supermassive black holes in the early universe (2019, March 13) retrieved 24 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-03-astronomers-supermassive-black-holes-early.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.
1964 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Mar 13, 2019
And in other news, astronomers also discover 83 vending machines in the early universe with 83 unicorns passing out change in case you only have bills.

Mar 13, 2019
@theredpill continues to publicly display his lack of any scientific knowledge

Mar 13, 2019
Thank the gods for the american football field diagram. My tiny brain would have been unable to grasp but a single yard of the article had not been for such a relateable analogy.

Now that we are back on the first yard line I await for the next big bang and next universe. Mayhaps a universe where black holes don't exist and magic streams of electricity layer up and pinch around moving planets too and fro between orbits!

But in all honesty I realize it's just as arbitrary but Sagan's Cosmos calendar at least sticks to comparing time to time rather than distance to time.

Mar 13, 2019
Fascinating read, now to go look over the original publication in the Astrophysical Journal.

I liked how the researchers called the quasars = gas shells.
All that squabbling over halos, is ridiculous.
Only the stuporstitious would call Sol's corona a halo. Because the holey babble insists that at nightfall, the Sun's shining is turned off until the next morning.

Whatever mechanism or series of actions that result in the aggregation of enough mass to form a Super-Massive Black Hole? i.e. Stygian Oubliette.
It is implausible if we could develop a technology sophisticated enough to enable us to observe past the edge of Event Horizon into the actual Phenomena.
Everything goes in,
all Matter & all Energy gets disintegrated right down to Planck Foundational gravitrons.

& all that comes out is the amalgamated gravitational attraction.

I favor the accuracy of Stygian Oubliette, However, it is very anusing how much the term Black Hole enrages tantrums from bigots!

Mar 13, 2019
@theredpill has it pegged. Some guys created a computer model to produce the magic number 83 for 12 billion years ago. Seriously? Science facts require experimental proofs. Anything less is simply an educated guess. I consider it JUNK SCIENCE to post article headlines like this that contain such scientific certitude.

Mar 13, 2019
"Hyper Suprime Cam" superlative much?

It would be interesting to apply this new data to our model of the universe then roll it all forward to present day and see how many of the old surrounding stars would have been 'eaten' by these black holes now, and how this simulation compares with present space around our own Sag A black hole.

Mar 13, 2019
"@theredpill continues to publicly display his lack of any scientific knowledge"

Since our definitions of "scientific knowledge" differ so vastly.... thank you. Interesting that people somehow think that creating a mathematical construct and expounding upon it with more constructs translates into scientific knowledge. You must also be an authority on phasers and warp coils....they also fit in with what you appear to define as "scientific knowledge".

Mar 13, 2019
@theredpill has it pegged. Some guys created a computer model to produce the magic number 83 for 12 billion years ago. Seriously? Science facts require experimental proofs. Anything less is simply an educated guess. I consider it JUNK SCIENCE to post article headlines like this that contain such scientific certitude.


Exactly 83 new supermassive black holes were detected according to the article. As explained there quite clearly, these new discoveries are in addition to the existing ones already found.

How can you claim that actual observations have anything to do with models? Direct observations of phenomena are not produced from models. Your position is so odd it isn't any surprise the rest of us here think you are an idiot.

Mar 13, 2019
@theredpill has it pegged. Some guys created a computer model to produce the magic number 83 for 12 billion years ago. Seriously? Science facts require experimental proofs. Anything less is simply an educated guess. I consider it JUNK SCIENCE to post article headlines like this that contain such scientific certitude.

What part of
The research team used data taken with a cutting-edge instrument, "Hyper Suprime-Cam" (HSC), mounted on the Subaru Telescope of the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, which is located on the summit of Maunakea in Hawaii. HSC has a gigantic field-of-view—1.77 degrees across, or seven times the area of the full moon—mounted on one of the largest telescopes in the world. The HSC team is surveying the sky over the course of 300 nights of telescope time, spread over five years.

...from the article is a computer model?

Mar 13, 2019
@nekengren.
@theredpill has it pegged. Some guys created a computer model to produce the magic number 83 for 12 billion years ago....
Please note that these detected features were results of observation, not of simulations or modelling; as explicitly stated in the above article:
The HSC team is surveying the sky over the course of 300 nights of telescope time, spread over five years. The team selected distant quasar candidates from the sensitive HSC survey data. They then carried out an intensive observational campaign to obtain spectra of those candidates,...
Effectively, two 'layers' of observation were involved: candidates from the initial observation in the general survey were then chosen for the specific further intensive observation.

So, in future, please try harder to base your skepticism and assertions on objective facts, not on your own subjective biases/misunderstandings. Thanks. :)

Mar 13, 2019
How can you claim that actual observations have anything to do with models? Direct observations of phenomena are not produced from models.


Bad news for you Parsec, pictures of actual BHs do not exist, such stellar mass is merely INFERRED from the presence of dust clouds, always the same excuse from the fantasyland of Pop-Cosmology, too much other stuff in the way.

Ever hear of the Event Horizon Telescope? It was supposed to take pics of BHs, it's been shut down because it couldn't even get a pic of the SMBH supposedly nearest planet Earth at the center of our own galaxy.

Yeah, I know, next we're gonna start hearing that the antennae system is still being calibrated, or that the data is so voluminous that it requires years to develop a measly PHOTOGRAPH, all just so much coverup noise from the Pop-Cosmology sector who are unable to cope with the imminent loss of their greatest fantasy, BHs.

Mar 13, 2019
Bad news for you Parsec, pictures of actual BHs do not exist, such stellar mass is merely INFERRED from the presence of dust clouds, always the same excuse from the fantasyland of Pop-Cosmology, too much other stuff in the way...PHOTOGRAPH...


Who would have thought.... electrons and atoms were out there in the fantasyland of pop-physics and pop-chemistry until we were able to photograph them.

Thank God we developed the necessary technology to bring them into the land of reality.

Dumbass.

Mar 13, 2019
Bad news for you Parsec, pictures of actual BHs do not exist, such stellar mass is merely INFERRED from the presence of dust clouds, always the same excuse from the fantasyland of Pop-Cosmology, too much other stuff in the way...PHOTOGRAPH...


Who would have thought.... electrons and atoms were out there in the fantasyland of pop-physics and pop-chemistry until we were able to photograph them.
.......but Pop-Cosmology tells us SMBHs are a tad bigger........now you're telling us they're even smaller than "electrons & atoms"? Well, who woulda thunk, no wonder that EHT telescope doesn't work

Thank God we developed the necessary technology to bring them into the land of reality.
Black holes? So where are the pics? "Dumbass".

Mar 13, 2019
but Pop-Cosmology tells us SMBHs are a tad bigger

The American flag is bigger than electrons and atoms as well. And it's planted on our closest neighbor. Can to send me a picture of it? Otherwise it doesn't exist. Are you one of these guys that thinks we faked the moon landing too?

........now you're telling us they're even smaller than "electrons & atoms"?

Where did you read that? Your reading skills are on par with your physics and math skills it would seem.

Black holes? So where are the pics?

Who would have thought.... electrons and atoms were out there in the fantasyland of pop-physics and pop-chemistry until we were able to photograph them.

Thank God we developed the necessary technology to bring them into the land of reality.

Dumbass.

Mar 13, 2019
Why benni, the Black Holes are photographs of the inside of your empty noggin & the that of the other looneyticks you infest with!

Since none of you are any sort of scientist or educator?
You are all dependent on your Ouija boards for your research data.
& hows it going with using Tarot Cards to calculating the Math?

I'm sure all the other snake-charmers & tablerappers are impressed by your skill at...?

No, no sign of competency there.
Uhmm, what about your innate skills at being a ventriloquist dummy?
Oh, the tradeunion kicked you out for being so incompetent at moving your lips in tome with the voices in your head.
I hadn't heard.
Sorry I brought up tour sordid abuse of novocaine.
Me Bad!

Mar 13, 2019
Halton Arp showed beyond a shadow of the doubt that red-shift is an intrinsic property of matter. As such, nothing about any of these "papers" is science or research. It is fantasyland faerie tale nonsense for the trekkie sci-fi groupies who are too stupid to see the obvious. The interpretations of the observations are meaningless blather not worth the paper or wasted ink.

Mar 13, 2019
Halton Arp showed beyond a shadow of the doubt that red-shift is an intrinsic property of matter. As such, nothing about any of these "papers" is science or research. It is fantasyland faerie tale nonsense for the trekkie sci-fi groupies who are too stupid to see the obvious. The interpretations of the observations are meaningless blather not worth the paper or wasted ink.

says CD

I thought the article was quite clever - to extend the existence of SMBH all the way back to the beginning of the Universe. How can one argue with that?
So I will now offer my 2 farthings worth of what will soon be denounced as woo by those who already know all the answers.
Each alleged SMBH is a BATTERY that puts out Energy back into the Cosmos. Car batteries need to have an occasional addition of liquid whatever to top off each cell. And alleged SMBH are topped off with stellar matter and gases. Then it produces Energy which is shot out from its poles.
No cables needed.
:)

Mar 13, 2019
Bad news for you Parsec, pictures of actual BHs do not exist, such stellar mass is merely INFERRED from the presence of dust clouds, always the same excuse from the fantasyland of Pop-Cosmology, too much other stuff in the way...PHOTOGRAPH...


Who would have thought.... electrons and atoms were out there in the fantasyland of pop-physics and pop-chemistry until we were able to photograph them.

Thank God we developed the necessary technology to bring them into the land of reality.

Dumbass.
says jingles

Benni is right. We all impatiently await the concrete photographic evidence that BHs exist. Even a wee picture of one might suffice. We are not too picky. Or, at least, I'm not. heheheh

The 'necessary technology' did not bring electrons and atoms into "the land of reality", as they all existed in reality already. They were already there - which even the ancient Greeks knew this. They did not magically pop up out of nothing.

Mar 13, 2019
"Please note that these detected features were results of observation, not of simulations or modelling; as explicitly stated in the above article:"

Yes, the instruments are detecting something out there, but these are not photos. It is the interpretation of what is being detected that raises questions, and the interpretations are based on the ASSumption that these objects must be infinitely dense barryonic matter, which of course can never be proven. The Kaluza–Klein theory should be considered perhaps.


Mar 13, 2019
"Please note that these detected features were results of observation, not of simulations or modelling; as explicitly stated in the above article:"

Yes, the instruments are detecting something out there, but these are not photos. It is the interpretation of what is being detected that raises questions, and the interpretations are based on the ASSumption that these objects must be infinitely dense barryonic matter, which of course can never be proven. The Kaluza–Klein theory should be considered perhaps.


......so then how about you being the one to explain how the supposedly most massive stellar objects can exist in huge abundance & we can't get pics of them? Dust huh?

Or maybe you'd like to infer they exist as SINGULARITIES, a size so small they can't be viewed through a telescope because they are infinitely small?

You know what all BHs have 100% in common with one another? They can't be observed.


Mar 13, 2019
@Benni hasn't got anything else to explain quasars, but is sure it can't be black holes.

Mar 13, 2019
'Magnetic self-compression in laboratory plasmas, quasars and radio galaxies.'

https://www.cambr...7522FF57

Mar 13, 2019
Since Black hole are defined as having a singularity at its center, and I don't believe that matter can be compressed beyond a lower Planck limit or it would cease to exist in this universe, these are Gavitars.

Mar 13, 2019
Since Black hole are defined as having a singularity at its center
Nope. Try again.

Mar 13, 2019
Since black holes are defined as having a singularity at its center, and I don't believe that a singularity can exist as it would not retain a less than infinite gravity or even still exist in this universe as "time would stop", then there is a Planck limit of compression in which matter can not be compressed further. Therefore, these are all gravitars.

Mar 14, 2019
Since black holes are defined as having a singularity at its center, and I don't believe that a singularity can exist as it would not retain a less than infinite gravity or even still exist in this universe as "time would stop", then there is a Planck limit of compression in which matter can not be compressed further. Therefore, these are all gravitars.

This is a mis-understanding of Planck units...
However, I like "Gravitar"... :-)

Mar 14, 2019
"It is remarkable that such massive dense objects were able to form so soon after the Big Bang,"

What this really means is that according to the basics of the big bang theory, these items should NOT be there at all. Hence the surprise. So here we once again have items (whether inferred or not) that completely contradict the theory and nobody is running around raising the alarm bells. Instead they are simply accommodating the new finding as just another anomaly in their wonder theory of complete non-science anyway.
There is no observational evidence so far that everything can come from nothing, that stars can form all by themselves from clouds of GAS in defiance of the Jeans Mass limit without theoretically resorting to the unknown dark matter ( and energy ) or that planets can form all by themselves from clouds of dust whilst every planet in the solar system has prominent features which contradict that nebulous(or core accretion) theory. This is real science fiction.

Mar 14, 2019
Had to delete the duplicate.

Mar 14, 2019
How can you claim that actual observations have anything to do with models? Direct observations of phenomena are not produced from models.


Bad news for you Parsec, pictures of actual BHs do not exist, such stellar mass is merely INFERRED from the presence of dust clouds, always the same excuse from the fantasyland of Pop-Cosmology, too much other stuff in the way.

If you want to be technically specific, Benni, even YOU exist only by inference...

Mar 14, 2019
Had to delete the duplicate.

why? It wasn't any more wrong than the original...
Please explain how/why collating gas clouds of hydrogen would be in defiance of the Jeans limit...

Mar 14, 2019
Since black holes are defined as having a singularity at its center, and I don't believe that a singularity can exist as it would not retain a less than infinite gravity or even still exist in this universe as "time would stop", then there is a Planck limit of compression in which matter can not be compressed further. Therefore, these are all gravitars.


Nonsense. Black holes are defined as places where the gravity pushes the escape velocity above the speed of light. What is actually inside the event horizon is a matter of controversy. String theory for example dictates that the inside of a black hole doesn't contain a singularity, as does theories of quantum gravity. Other theories dictate a singularity despite a lack of clear understanding exactly what that means.

All we know absolutely for sure is that these are areas with an event horizon beyond which ordinary matter and energy cannot return.

Mar 14, 2019
Since Black hole are defined as having a singularity at its center
Nope. Try again.
.......sure schneibo, below is copied from your favorite textbook:

"Singularity

Main article: Gravitational singularity"

"At the center of a black hole, as described by general relativity, lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature {gravity) becomes infinite. For a non-rotating black hole, this region takes the shape of a single point and for a rotating black hole, it is smeared out to form a ring singularity that lies in the plane of rotation. In both cases, the singular region has zero volume. It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution. The singular region can thus be thought of as having infinite density."

https://en.wikipe...ack_hole

Oh, but that's right, you have a 19th Century TUGMath BH theory that was concocted by the same bunch that gave us Aether Theory.

Mar 14, 2019
"as described by general relativity"

Did you miss that you dummy? I already explained this to you and as usual you learned nothing. Just because a singularity is in the black hole according to GR, does not mean it has to be there in reality. GR breaks down at such high energy densities so something else may be there, described by some theory of quantum gravity.

Black holes are really defined by event horizon, escape velocity above the speed of light. And there is no way to avoid that according to GR, even in low energy limit.

Mar 14, 2019
All we know absolutely for sure
.......you know for sure WHAT?

these are areas with an event horizon
So you have a picture?

Not a single BH has been OBSERVED by photography & failure of the Event Horizon Radio Telescope has proven a picture will never be obtained.

You neophytes who continually prattle onward & endlessly about EVIDENCE exempt yourselves from proferring that which YOU (Parsec) demand from others. In essence YOU demand that others prove your dumbass theories are NOT evidence, as if your string of a salad of psycho-babble semantics must be falsified.

But wait Parsec, you have Schneibo to your rescue, he has PROOF BHs do not have a SINGULARITY, he can even link you to a vid showing how this 19th Century BH TUGMath works, all brought to us by the same 19th Century Cosmologists who brought us Aether Theory.

Mar 14, 2019
"as described by general relativity"
.....OK, Copy & Paste the lead-in to the section of GR in which all this is described just as I Copied above the section of Wiki for Singularity.

Did you miss that you dummy?
......the "dummy" is none other than yourself because you can't produce anything from GR backing up your claim to a stellar body with an event horizon or a singularity.

I already explained this to you and as usual you learned nothing
.....Yeah, the usual semantics of psycho-babble.

Just because a singularity is in the black hole according to GR
What section? Copy & paste a lead-in for the section.

GR breaks down at such high energy densities so something else may be there, described by some theory of quantum gravity.
Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble.

Black holes are really defined by event horizon, escape velocity above the speed of light.
Escape Velocity is confined to Kinetic Energy of accelerating particles, not EM Waves.

Mar 14, 2019
Here, we see an artist's impression of a quasar
a supermassive black hole sits at the centre, and the gravitational energy of material accreting onto it is released as light

Have we no shame
have we become immune to the realities of realities?
this in the month of the Picci
The Black portrait
this is technically not a blackhole
so technically
we are allowed to see in Picci format
a digital photograph of this Quasars Picci
because
Quasars technically have no event horizon
Quasars are visible
because
if truth be told
Quasars are visible all the way across this Universe
but
not
when
it
comes
to
Quasars in Piccies apparently

Mar 14, 2019
Escape Velocity is confined to Kinetic Energy of accelerating particles, not EM Waves.


Trivially false. I'm afraid you have no knowledge of the relevant science. Not sure why you are commenting. Care to back up your stupid assertion with a link to some science?

Mar 14, 2019
Blackholes only exist in galaxies

The Gran Telescopio Canarias
with its 409inch telescope
reveals galaxies at 13billion Lys
resolves galaxies at 13billion Lys
as a photograph released
https://3c1703fe8...ersd.jpg
is not the high resolution
the Gran Telescopio Canarias is capable of resolving
the Gran Telescopio Canarias is capable of resolving the distinctive structure of these 13billion Lyr distant galaxies
as the even a picci provided is not of the full resolution of the Gran Telescopio Canarias telescope
as nice as it is to keep these full resolution galaxies piccies safe and secure from prying eyes

There are trillion upon trillion of galaxies in this universe
there is no earthly point in hiding these high resolution piccies from public view
They are just going to decay on dusty shelves, unseen otherwise!

Mar 14, 2019
......so then how about you being the one to explain how the supposedly most massive stellar objects can exist in huge abundance & we can't get pics of them?


Benni, here's a link I found to some books with nice colorful pictures:
https://www.the-b...ans.html

There is some good reading material here which might help you understand the difference between mass and volume (this might be a bit tricky, so let me know if you need any help.)

Another thing that is difficult to understand is the relationship between size and distance and how they affect our ability to see things that are faaaaar away.

For example, we can take pictures of galaxies billions of light years away (billion is a really really big number), but it's very hard to see planets that are only a few light years away. Let's not get ahead of ourselves though, start with some of those books, and we'll work our way up from there. I'm here for you Benni boy!

Mar 14, 2019
Yes, the instruments are detecting something out there, but these are not photos

Soooo...sound also doesn't exist for you? 'Cause: no photos.
Or heat? 'Cause: no photos
How about smell? No? 'Cause: no photos.
....and the list could go on and on.

Have to agree with Mr. MrBojangles on this one: Dumbass.

Mar 14, 2019
Since Black hole are defined as having a singularity at its center

No they are not. They are *thought* to have one at the center because currently we have no indication that there is a force great enough to stop the collapse that happens inside the event horizon.

This does not mean that such a force cannot exist. It just means that if it exists we currently aren't aware of it.
It would have to be a truly exotic force, since forces are dependent on force carriers with some energy value...and those are limited to the speed of light. No such force carrier could push anything outward, because that would mean it would have to be able to move against a gravity gradient/spacetime curvature that precludes anything at c (or slower) from moving that way.

Black holes are *defined* as masses of sufficient density that an event horizon will form. (Note that the event horizon itself is not the black hole. The mass of a certain density is).

Mar 14, 2019
"Understanding how black holes can form in the early universe, and just how common they are, is a challenge for our cosmological models."

So question your models already! Clearly merger maniacs are maniacs, without a capacity for self-criticism. Long live the Huge Bang Fantasy! Publish or perish! This is the problem. A self-sustaining ignorance by design.

Mar 14, 2019
"All we know absolutely for sure is that these are areas with an event horizon beyond which ordinary matter and energy cannot return."

How do we "know for sure"? Since math cannot guarantee they exist, what is the irrefutable EVIDENCE that all of these brightly lit areas with no discernable boundaries which indicate the presence of an event horizon actually house one?

"Since Black hole are defined as having a singularity at its center

No they are not. They are *thought* to have one "

Responding to the posted definition of a BH flat out stating not only a singularity is there but also what it is "shaped" like depending. Same guy doesn't understand human senses very well either....photos must not exist because we can't hear them...
The massive lack of coherence is amusing, as are the definitive statements that things are known for sure. In September of 1929 the world knew for sure the stock market would boom for 10 more years.


Mar 14, 2019
How do we "know for sure"? Since math cannot guarantee they exist, what is the irrefutable EVIDENCE that all of these brightly lit areas with no discernable boundaries which indicate the presence of an event horizon actually house one?

"Since Black hole are defined as having a singularity at its center

No they are not. They are *thought* to have one "

Responding to the posted definition of a BH flat out stating not only a singularity is there but also what it is "shaped" like depending. Same guy doesn't understand human senses very well either....photos must not exist because we can't hear them...
The massive lack of coherence is amusing, as are the definitive statements that things are known for sure. In September of 1929 the world knew for sure the stock market would boom for 10 more years.



Another pile of science-free fail.

Mar 14, 2019
@Benni:
Next time you go in the spectroscopy lab to empty the trash and gather the dust bunnies, look around for a picture of a photon, could ya? Thanks!

Mar 14, 2019
Yes, the instruments are detecting something out there, but these are not photos

Soooo...sound also doesn't exist for you? 'Cause: no photos.
Or heat? 'Cause: no photos
How about smell? No? 'Cause: no photos.
....and the list could go on and on.

Have to agree with Mr. MrBojangles on this one: Dumbass.


I mean by benni's logic, the only thing that can possibly exist are photons because that is all an image represents are photons. It's not like our images of mars are big clay tablets we've physically pressed the planet into to create an image.

Yet they will make exceptions in that they can deduce that objects exist because of the way they interact with or emit photons. Yet if we deduce that objects exist because of the way nearby objects interact with them gravitationally (via their well observed motions) then that's an evil conspiracy by "pop cosmology". Epistemology is a real pain for some people, or "dumb asses" as many would say.

Mar 14, 2019
Why do people keep asking Benni for pictures of things you cannot take pictures of? Do they not see the difference between taking a picture of a spot in space and claiming something is in the picture that we can't see, vs. the inability to optically represent certain things?

Then again, we will have a picture of all of things that we cannot take pictures of before there is ever one of an event horizon.

Mar 14, 2019
This is a change of heart
Black hole are defined as having a singularity at its centre

antialias_physorg> They are thought to have one at the centre because we have no indication there is a force great enough to stop the collapse happening inside the event horizon.
This does not mean such a force cannot exist It means if it exists we currently aren't aware of it
forces are dependent on force carriers with some energy value those are limited to the speed of light No such force carrier could push anything outward, because that would mean it would have to be able to move against a gravity gradient spacetime curvature that precludes anything at c or slower from moving that way
Black holes are defined as masses of sufficient density that an event horizon will form the event horizon itself is not the black hole The mass of a certain density is

A Blackhole without a Singularity
Sounds as if this Blackhole is beginning to mirror R = 2GM/C²

Mar 14, 2019
A BLACKHOLE

R = 2GM/C²
where R = Gravities Light Radius the speed of light
where Gravity is zero at this blackholes centre of mass
where this blackholes minimum radius R = 3km
Where its minimum mass is an average star weighing 2x10+30kg
A BLACKHOLE

Mar 14, 2019
@theredpill:
Why does Benni keep asking for a picture of something that by its own definition can not be seen? The fact that he thinks the EHT will image the black hole is proof of his misconceptions.

Mar 14, 2019
Why does Benni keep asking for a picture of something that by its own definition can not be seen? The fact that he thinks the EHT will image the black hole is proof of his misconceptions.

The convenience of unfalsifiable faerie tales, by definition.

Mar 14, 2019
Why does Benni keep asking for a picture of something that by its own definition can not be seen? The fact that he thinks the EHT will image the black hole is proof of his misconceptions.

The convenience of unfalsifiable faerie tales, by definition.


No BH = no EH. EH = BH. Do you happen to have advance information on the EHT findings? Can you explain the stellar orbits without recourse to a BH? Can you explain the gravitational redshift without a BH?
Point me to the peer-reviewed science explaining those observations, via some alternative, viable method. You can't. The subject is way beyond you. Not sure why you comment.

Mar 14, 2019
The convenience of unfalsifiable faerie tales, by definition.


Earth orbiting Saturn.
Venus shooting out of Jupiter.
Electric Sun.
Electric comet.

All falsified. All impossible. Zero evidence.

Hypocrisy much?

Mar 14, 2019
Why a Blackhole has no singularity

Gravity cannot exert a force greater than gravities light radius the velocity of light
Protons are held together by forces that travel at the speed of light
no matter how many protons are piled one on top another
the total force is not greater than greater than gravities light radius the velocity of light
and
taking into consideration gravity is zero at the centre of mass
when gravities force equals the velocity of light
this black hole cannot shrink any smaller
according to the formula
R = 2GM/C²

Mar 14, 2019
Why a Blackhole has no singularity

Gravity cannot exert a force greater than gravities light radius the velocity of light
Protons are held together by forces that travel at the speed of light
no matter how many protons are piled one on top another
the total force is not greater than greater than gravities light radius the velocity of light
and
taking into consideration gravity is zero at the centre of mass
when gravities force equals the velocity of light
this black hole cannot shrink any smaller
according to the formula
R = 2GM/C²


Why don't you go and get an education? You really haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Mar 14, 2019

Earth orbiting Saturn.
Venus shooting out of Jupiter.
Electric Sun.
Electric comet.

All falsified. All impossible. Zero evidence.

Hypocrisy much?

None of which have been tested, let alone falsified.

Change the subject much?

Mar 14, 2019
TrollianCastroGiovanni
Why a Blackhole has no singularity
Gravity cannot exert a force greater than gravities light radius the velocity of light
Protons held together by forces that travel at the speed of light
no matter how many protons pile on top another
the total force is not greater than greater than gravities light radius the velocity of light
and
taking into consideration gravity is zero at the centre of mass
when gravities force equals the velocity of light
this black hole cannot shrink any smaller
according to the formula
R = 2GM/C²
Castrogiovanni> Why don't you go and get an education You really haven't a clue what you're talking about

TrollianCastroGiovanni, as you ponder on the mysteries of life
As your finrot festers
You do not need to shout your bridge amplifies your frustration
You need to pay more attention to your finrot
Why don't you go and get an education You really haven't a clue what you're talking about

Mar 14, 2019
"@theredpill:
Why does Benni keep asking for a picture of something that by its own definition can not be seen? The fact that he thinks the EHT will image the black hole is proof of his misconceptions.

Perhaps it was the hype...it was mentioned in a few press releases that it could potentially image an event horizon...which if it does I will be the first to apologize for my fuckery when it comes to these things and the claims around them. I doubt the opposite is true if it doesn't image one....it will just simply not be sensitive enough to see it, the usual tagline.

Mar 14, 2019

Earth orbiting Saturn.
Venus shooting out of Jupiter.
Electric Sun.
Electric comet.

All falsified. All impossible. Zero evidence.

Hypocrisy much?

None of which have been tested, let alone falsified.

Change the subject much?


Of course they have. They fail totally. They are impossible. Observation lacks any of the necessary evidence, and a couple of them (at least) break the laws of physics. It is pure nonsense.

Mar 14, 2019
"@theredpill:
Why does Benni keep asking for a picture of something that by its own definition can not be seen? The fact that he thinks the EHT will image the black hole is proof of his misconceptions.

Perhaps it was the hype...it was mentioned in a few press releases that it could potentially image an event horizon...which if it does I will be the first to apologize for my fuckery when it comes to these things and the claims around them. I doubt the opposite is true if it doesn't image one....it will just simply not be sensitive enough to see it, the usual tagline.


Prepare to apologise, based on the mood music I'm hearing. And whatever they see (or don't) , more telescopes are being added to the network.

Mar 14, 2019
The Black Canvas

Theredpill
"@theredpill:
Why does Benni keep asking for a picture of something that by its own definition can not be seen? The fact that he thinks the EHT will image the black hole is proof of his misconceptions.
Perhaps it was the hype...it was mentioned in a few press releases that it could potentially image an event horizon...which if it does I will be the first to when it comes to these things and the claims around them. I doubt the opposite is true if it doesn't image one....it will just simply not be sensitive enough to see it, the usual tagline.

It was TrollianJonesDave who fore told of Blackholes Picci in March
The Black Canvas
as now TrollianJonesDave is under new ownership
all previous correspondence Theredpill
has to go to the new proprietor
TrollianCastroGiovanni

Mar 14, 2019

It was TrollianJonesDave who fore told of Blackholes Picci in March



They just presented at SXSW, a couple of days ago. The announcement will be this year. Get a life.

https://schedule..../PP83510

Science does not happen to a deadline imposed by ignorant cranks. This will be a huge announcement, much like the gravitational wave announcements. Two independent teams are/ have looked at the data, this will be checked, and then the paper written, and then there will be peer review, and possible alterations based on that. That is how science works. They don't just dream up some impossible crap up over breakfast, and have it on Youtube by lunchtime, unlike the crank brigade.

Mar 14, 2019
It took 26 years after neutrinos were first postulated to detect them.
It took 48 years to confirm the existence of the Higgs boson.

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

We draw the line somewhere I suppose, but I'm not giving up on their existence quite yet.

Mar 14, 2019
Of course they have.

Well then jonesdumb, please provide the relevant scientific publications that specifically falsify any of what you claim.

Mar 14, 2019
It took 26 years after neutrinos were first postulated to detect them.
It took 48 years to confirm the existence of the Higgs boson.

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

We draw the line somewhere I suppose, but I'm not giving up on their existence quite yet.


Quite. We had two options when the amount of neutrinos came up short by ~ 65%; either our theory of how the Sun was powered was wrong; or we were wrong about neutrinos. The latter would be the obvious thing to check first, given that (iirc) it had been proposed as early as 1967 that neutrinos may not be massless. Had subsequent experiments not confirmed this to be so, then that would be the time to look again at solar theories. They now match beautifully, and the confirmation of the hardest to detect neutrinos on the energy spectrum - those from the initial p-p fusion - are now seen. There is no room for alternate solar hypotheses. The same will soon happen with BHs.

Mar 14, 2019
Of course they have.

Well then jonesdumb, please provide the relevant scientific publications that specifically falsify any of what you claim.


Sorry? Please provide links to these idiotic proposals within the scientific literature. Why would anyone write a paper to dismiss something that is a) scientifically impossible, and b) does not exist within the scientific literature? Why do you think these clowns do not publish in respected scientific journals? It is faith-based crap, followed only by the scientifically illiterate, brainwashed believers.

Mar 14, 2019
The Black Canvas

Its official, the Picci has been postponed

It was TrollianJonesDave who fore told of Blackholes Picci in March

Castrogiovanni> They just presented at SXSW, a couple of days ago The announcement will be this year Get a life.
https://schedule..../PP83510
Science does not happen to a deadline imposed by ignorant cranks This will be a huge announcement much like the gravitational wave announcements Two independent teams are have looked at the data this will be checked and then the paper written and then there will be peer review and possible alterations based on that That is how science works They don't just dream up some impossible crap up over breakfast and have it on Youtube by lunchtime unlike the crank brigade

Who'd have thought it
The Picci
The Black Canvas
The Picci of the millennia
Has been cancelled
Just one more time
This once
Till next Time, the Picci

The Black Canvas

Mar 14, 2019
Who'd have thought it
The Picci
The Black Canvas
The Picci of the millennia
Has been cancelled
Just one more time
This once
Till next Time, the Picci
The Black Canvas


Shut up you fool. Nothing has been canceled, you ignorant troll. Go away. Get an education. Learn science. Learn English.

Mar 14, 2019
@theredpill:
Why does Benni keep asking for a picture of something that by its own definition can not be seen? The fact that he thinks the EHT will image the black hole is proof of his misconceptions.


The Event Horizon Radio Telescope has been shut down, it has been down for almost two years. They collected all the data by mid-2017, but had to do it again because there wasn't enough to resolve SgrA*.

They got the REST of the data by Dec'17 & looked at those results & the EHT team went dumb & silent claiming it would require a few weeks or months of TIME & CALIBRATION work to resolve the data, we haven't heard directly from them since & the antennae have been shut down since Dec 17.

Then in Oct '18 a European team member went public about the BH project stating that the IMAGING issue has yet to be resolved because the team needs a radio telescope TWICE the size of the first EHT, now what does that tell you? It tells me they never found a BH at SgrA*.

Mar 14, 2019
If it was shut down in 2017, how did they gather more data?

Not to mention, these telescopes worth millions were "shut down?" WTF are you talking about?

@Benni is lying again.

This is fantasy. Not the least slightest connection to reality. There aren't any of these telescopes shut down and left to rot. One might as well claim freeways were shut down and no cars run on them any more. Delusional.

Mar 14, 2019
The Event Horizon Radio Telescope has been shut down, it has been down for almost two years. They collected all the data by mid-2017, but had to do it again because there wasn't enough to resolve SgrA*.


Complete and utter lie. Stop lying, you weirdo.


Mar 14, 2019
It tells me they never found a BH at SgrA*.


You wouldn't know your arse from your elbow, you clown. Go get an education.

Mar 14, 2019
Please see next post. Thanks.

Mar 14, 2019
@Benni
@ShotmanMaslo.

@Benni, as @ShotmanMaslo said:
Just because a singularity is in the black hole according to GR, does not mean it has to be there in reality.
Yes; CENTRAL 'BH singularity' was a SPECULATIVE EXTRAPOLATION from Equations; NEVER treated as 'real' (EXCEPT by science popularisers, 'hack science' paper/book writers and SCI-FI writers). So please drop your unnecessary 'BH singularity' provocations; no-one NOW seriously claims CENTRAL 'BH singularities' actually 'exist'. As for 'escape velocity', that is solely a function of the outgoing speed needed by any energy-space feature (be it matter or photon) to 'travel indefinitely' upwards AGAINST surrounding energy-space 'gravity effect' GRADIENT. That's all. :)

@ShotmanMaslo, "Black HOLE" term was 'hyperbole' used for 'dramatic effect' by 'popular-science/science-fiction' to evoke images of 'tears in 'spacetime fabric'. The term "Black STAR" is better; implying NO 'tear' in energy-space continuum. :)

Cheers.

Mar 14, 2019
Postponed, Cancelled it means the same
Who'd have thought it
The Picci
The Black Canvas
The Picci of the millennia
Has been cancelled
Just one more time
This once
Till next Time, the Picci
The Black Canvas


Castrogiovanni> Shut up you fool. Nothing has been cancelled, you ignorant troll. Go away. Get an education. Learn science. Learn English.

It is all the same
as long as there is no Picci
this Picci is cancelled
because
this will be a huge announcement
much like the gravitational wave announcements
two independent teams are to looked at the data
this will be checked
papers written
then there will be peer review and alterations based on that

Even as, TrollianCastroGiovanni
we wait in anticipation
even as no one has seen this Picci
you talk of alterations to this Picci based on peer review
Repainting, The Black Canvas

Mar 14, 2019
After @RC has been seen lying on hundreds of threads, I see no reason why anything this troll says should be even responded to other than to note it lies like a rug.

Mar 14, 2019
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good and thanks for asking.

What you mean with,,,,,,

Please see next post.

,,,,,, you are afraid somebody might miss him?

Thanks.

De rien Cher, even though it is weird it really is no trouble.

Mar 14, 2019
TrollianCastroGiovanni

Even as you talk of repainting this Black Canvas
even as you talk of postponing this Black Canvas
apparently
this
Event Horizon Telescope
has been shut down
so
TrollianCastroGiovanni
despite rebranding your product
rebranding your name
your Obfuscation
is still as it was
As slippery as this Black Canvas

Mar 14, 2019
@Da Schneib.
After @RC has been seen lying on hundreds of threads, I see no reason why anything this troll says should be even responded to other than to note it lies like a rug.
Again with your silly faux pas, mate? Did you even READ and UNDERSTAND properly what I posted? If you had, you would have seen I agreed with @ShotmanMaslo and asked @Benni to cease and desist his unnecessary "central BH singularity" provocations because it is silly (just like you are being now, DS). Please stop knee jerking to your own personal prejudices and agendas, and start actually reading/understanding fairly/objectively. Thanks. :)

Mar 14, 2019
Black holes are really defined by event horizon, escape velocity above the speed of light.
Escape Velocity is confined to Kinetic Energy of accelerating particles, not EM Waves.

Aren't EM waves just photon packets of varying Frequencies?

Mar 14, 2019
If it was shut down in 2017, how did they gather more data?
Hard of reading, it was all taken before Dec'17, no data has been taken since. The data they took in two separate runs in '17 has not been published

these telescopes worth millions were "shut down?"
They're radio antennae, they are no longer connected to form a single dish.


Mar 14, 2019
You said they were
shut down
. Your own words. They aren't.

Thanks for admitting you lied again, @Benni.

Mar 14, 2019
As for 'escape velocity', that is solely a function of the outgoing speed needed by any energy-space feature (be it matter or photon)
.........wrong RC.

Escape Velocity is calculated from: KE=1/2mv²................. v=√2gr. This for PARTICLE acceleration ONLY.

An electro.magnetic wave is not a particle of MASS, therefore is not subject to the laws of motion in kinetic energy calculations. thus no calculable Escape Velocity.


Mar 14, 2019
Black holes are really defined by event horizon, escape velocity above the speed of light.


Escape Velocity is confined to Kinetic Energy of accelerating particles, not EM Waves.


Aren't EM waves just photon packets of varying Frequencies?
......so what's that got to do with KINETIC ENERGY, KE=1/2mv² ? Don't see any EM Wave photons in this formula. do you?

Mar 14, 2019
You said they were
shut down
. Your own words. They aren't.
.......if they are no longer connected forming the same antennae grid, it is shut down & no future plans to take more data ever again, unless they can somehow DOUBLE the size of the original antennae.


Mar 14, 2019


So you have a picture?

Not a single BH has been OBSERVED by photography & failure of the Event Horizon Radio Telescope has proven a picture will never be obtained.


Just today I was at the VLA, took few pictures, and forwarded them to a friend who's the director of a major observatory. He replied, and I quote, "Anticipate a major announcement made by another interferometer (bigger than [VLA]) next month..."

So, we wait.

Mar 14, 2019
@Benni.
As for 'escape velocity', that is solely a function of the outgoing speed needed by any energy-space feature (be it matter or photon)
.........wrong RC.

Escape Velocity is calculated from: KE=1/2mv²................. v=ď��Ĺ�2gr. This for PARTICLE acceleration ONLY.

An electro.magnetic wave is not a particle of MASS, therefore is not subject to the laws of motion in kinetic energy calculations. thus no calculable Escape Velocity.
You all need to discern 'calculation method' from actual dynamics of 'escape velocity' situation, regardless of the objects under study (matter or energy forms). That you all are NOT making this discernment, is why your mutual exchanges keep going round and round in futile cross-misunderstandings re salient point; ie: gravity-effect-well gradients, and applicable 'escape speeds/limits' for ANYTHING attempting to translate indefinitely across affected energy-space (against inwards directed effects of said gradients). :)

Mar 14, 2019
You know my hypothesis, that there is nothing but gravitrons inside an Event Horizon,.
There is not enough information or a working Quantum Gravity Theory available to explain what little we do know right now at this Time..
About whatever phenomena is occurring within a BH=SO?
Maybe, eventually, perhaps, it will be determined to be a Singularity as we define the possibility? Or, maybe a variation of wormholes?

We need to separate the photographic pinups of accretion disks?/englobement?
Surrounding the BH_EH.
From the unphotographiable void inside.

Here is where in my ignorance? Egotism? Hubris? Any real difference? From Hawking's Radiation prediction.
It is possible, perhaps, we will develop technology sophisticated enough to "photograph" quantum particles at a distance?

- cont'd -

Mar 14, 2019
Can you explain the stellar orbits without recourse to a BH?


Here ya go;

https://www.resea...ophysics

Mar 14, 2019
- cont'd -
That whay is pictured will only occur along the edge of an Event Horizon. When infalling Matter & Energy is disintegrated into Planck Foundational gravitrons.

That is why all that comes out of BH=SO is Gravitational Attraction. Cause all that is inside is Gravity.

There is where I have the temerity? childish enthusiasm? rolling the dice, here. From Hawking. As the HR he predicts does not come from inside the EH but from the outside edge od shredded material rejected from "For Every action, there is a reaction. Not all the infall, falls in but gets kicked away?

Therefore the speculated quanta radiation IS NOT, WILL NOT cause the BH to evaporate.

That the aggregate of gravitrons will never lessen but rather continue to accumulate forever.
There is no "Fabric" of SpaceTime to be torn or tunneled. No Macro-Universe to burst into. .

Maybe, trillions of years from now, the engorged BHs will cause weird results in Local Space-Time?

Mar 14, 2019
You said they were
shut down
. Your own words. They aren't.
.......if they are no longer connected forming the same antennae grid, it is shut down & no future plans to take more data ever again, unless they can somehow DOUBLE the size of the original antennae.

You haven't got the slightest clue what this even means. And you're lying again; there're other targets. M31 and M33. And the data haven't even been processed yet and you're already lying about that too.

Mar 14, 2019
You all need to discern 'calculation method' from actual dynamics of 'escape velocity' situation, regardless of the objects under study (matter or energy forms). That you all are NOT making this discernment, is why your mutual exchanges keep going round and round in futile cross-misunderstandings re salient point; ie: gravity-effect-well gradients, and applicable 'escape speeds/limits' for ANYTHING attempting to translate indefinitely across affected energy-space (against inwards directed effects of said gradients). :)
........pure unadulterated psycho-babble from you RC.


Mar 14, 2019
And the data haven't even been processed yet and you're already lying about that too
.....it's been processed, that's why the announcement came out last October from a European team member that the number of DISHES must be doubled, he had a doubtful tone to his voice this would ever happen......the kiss of death for your precious pathway to get a pic of the fabled SMBH at SgrA*.

Mar 14, 2019
@Benni.
You all need to discern 'calculation method' from actual dynamics of 'escape velocity' situation, regardless of the objects under study (matter or energy forms). That you all are NOT making this discernment, is why your mutual exchanges keep going round and round in futile cross-misunderstandings re salient point; ie: gravity-effect-well gradients, and applicable 'escape speeds/limits' for ANYTHING attempting to translate indefinitely across affected energy-space (against inwards directed effects of said gradients). :)
........pure unadulterated psycho-babble from you RC.
In similar vein as "The territory is NOT the map", the Dynamics itself is NOT the 'calculation construct' we may use to analyse/predict etc that dynamics. Please try to understand this very crucial EFFECTIVE distinction, Benni; else you'll be in the same 'misunderstandings boat' as those who believe that 'time is space' etc. :)

Mar 14, 2019
In similar vein as "The territory is NOT the map", the Dynamics itself is NOT the 'calculation construct' we may use to analyse/predict etc that dynamics. Please try to understand this very crucial EFFECTIVE distinction, Benni; else you'll be in the same 'misunderstandings boat' as those who believe that 'time is space' etc. :)
......you & Schneibo both,move on to the 21st Century, the 1900's are never coming back.


Mar 14, 2019
@Benni.
In similar vein as "The territory is NOT the map", the Dynamics itself is NOT the 'calculation construct' we may use to analyse/predict etc that dynamics. Please try to understand this very crucial EFFECTIVE distinction, Benni; else you'll be in the same 'misunderstandings boat' as those who believe that 'time is space' etc. :)
......you & Schneibo both,move on to the 21st Century, the 1900's are never coming back.

Is that 'response' a DS-like tactic to distract from the fact that you do not understand the effective distinction I just pointed out for you/everyone, mate? Sounds like it. Please don't go all 'DS' on me now, Benni. :)

Mar 14, 2019
Yes, the instruments are detecting something out there, but these are not photos

Soooo...sound also doesn't exist for you? 'Cause: no photos.
Or heat? 'Cause: no photos
How about smell? No? 'Cause: no photos.
....and the list could go on and on.

Have to agree with Mr. MrBojangles on this one: Dumbass.
says a_p

Your short list of sound, heat and smell are some of the 5 senses that are processed by the mind/brain of humans and animals and certain plant-life. But it still remains that no actual photos are forthcoming to provide clearcut evidence that the alleged BHs or their alleged Event Horizons exist.
IIRC the EHT was supposed to provide a photo of a "shadow" of the Black Hole or its EH. Until such evidence of a "shadow", at the very least is provided - there is still not evidence that Black Hole exists, and that there may be something else there that isn't a BH. We can only wait and see.

Mar 14, 2019
EHT- Hypothetical interpretations using maths based faerie tales leads to a contrived photo of a ghostly silhouette.

Mar 15, 2019
See, here's the problem, @SRU.

You ask us all to disbelieve in our senses.

This is classical solipsism. Navel-gazing. Fantasy. Philosopy for psychotics and exactly the reason scientists don't pay any attention to philosophers.


Mar 15, 2019
And see, this is why you always find the self-styled philosophers denying basic stuff like space, time, and math. Otherwise they look like what they are: idiot trolls.

This has been clear since the Sokal Affair.

Mar 15, 2019
EHT- Hypothetical interpretations using maths based faerie tales leads to a contrived photo of a ghostly silhouette.


Another clueless comment. Please explain what the cause of the stellar orbits are around Sgr A*. And what is causing the gravitational redshift? Hint; mass. Please give a scientifically viable explanation for these things, instead of displaying your faith-based, unscientific ignorance. Just for a change.

Mar 15, 2019


"Singularity

Main article: Gravitational singularity"

"At the center of a black hole, as described by general relativity, lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature {gravity) becomes infinite. For a non-rotating black hole, this region takes the shape of a single point and for a rotating black hole, it is smeared out to form a ring singularity that lies in the plane of rotation. In both cases, the singular region has zero volume. It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution. The singular region can thus be thought of as having infinite density."

https://en.wikipe...ack_hole


Everyone should observe that Benni edited the paragraph to his own liking and the text doesn't match the text on Wikipedia. :)
This is how badly Benni wants to prove he is right :D

And still miserably failing to do so, muahahaha :D

Mar 15, 2019
And the data haven't even been processed yet and you're already lying about that too
.....it's been processed, that's why the announcement came out last October from a European team member that the number of DISHES must be doubled, he had a doubtful tone to his voice this would ever happen......the kiss of death for your precious pathway to get a pic of the fabled SMBH at SgrA*.


Liar. What is it with these clueless cranks? No science to offer, so let's just lie about stuff.

Mar 15, 2019
Is that 'response' a DS-like tactic to distract from the fact that you do not understand the effective distinction I just pointed out for you/everyone, mate? Sounds like it. Please don't go all 'DS' on me now, Benni. :)
..........then don't descend into a DS cycle of psycho-babble by refusing to distinguish between KINETIC ENERGY & ELECTRO-MAGNETIC ENERGY as if by treating a PHOTON like it was a PARTICLE somehow makes it subject to the Laws of Kinetic Energy which is what Schneibo's 19th Century TUGMath problem is all about.

So far I haven't seen evidence from anything either you or Schneibo have written that either one of you know what ESCAPE VELOCITY is & why it DOES NOT apply to an EM Wave Photon. So, if you think you've finally figured it out as Benni has been explaining it to those of YOU in the hard of reading crowd, then you're welcome, but first you can put up a "THANK YOU Benni for the reality check".


Mar 15, 2019
So far I haven't seen evidence from anything either you or Schneibo have written that either one of you know what ESCAPE VELOCITY is & why it DOES NOT apply to an EM Wave Photon.


Wrong. Stick to a subject you understand. Whatever that might be.


Mar 15, 2019
So far I haven't seen evidence from anything either you or Schneibo have written that either one of you know what ESCAPE VELOCITY is & why it DOES NOT apply to an EM Wave Photon.


Wrong. Stick to a subject you understand. Whatever that might be.
......for you it's Anthropology & being an Oncology Physical Therapist, beyond that jonesy you're lost in a sea of self imposed psycho-babble & fantasy from which you will never be able to extricate yourself, at least I have hope for RealityCheck.

Mar 15, 2019
So far I haven't seen evidence from anything either you or Schneibo have written that either one of you know what ESCAPE VELOCITY is & why it DOES NOT apply to an EM Wave Photon.


Wrong. Stick to a subject you understand. Whatever that might be.
......for you it's Anthropology & being an Oncology Physical Therapist, beyond that jonesy you're lost in a sea of self imposed psycho-babble & fantasy from which you will never be able to extricate yourself, at least I have hope for RealityCheck.


You are clueless on this subject. Why are you here?

Mar 15, 2019
So far I haven't seen evidence from anything either you or Schneibo have written that either one of you know what ESCAPE VELOCITY is & why it DOES NOT apply to an EM Wave Photon.


Wrong. Stick to a subject you understand. Whatever that might be.
......for you it's Anthropology & being an Oncology Physical Therapist, beyond that jonesy you're lost in a sea of self imposed psycho-babble & fantasy from which you will never be able to extricate yourself, at least I have hope for RealityCheck.


You are clueless on this subject. Why are you here?
........for the entertainment clowns like you provide.

Mar 15, 2019
So far I haven't seen evidence from anything either you or Schneibo have written that either one of you know what ESCAPE VELOCITY is & why it DOES NOT apply to an EM Wave Photon.


Wrong. Stick to a subject you understand. Whatever that might be.
......for you it's Anthropology & being an Oncology Physical Therapist, beyond that jonesy you're lost in a sea of self imposed psycho-babble & fantasy from which you will never be able to extricate yourself, at least I have hope for RealityCheck.


You are clueless on this subject. Why are you here?
........for the entertainment clowns like you provide.


But you don't know anything about the relevant science, and you have no science to back you up. You just make things up. I say again - why are you here?

Mar 15, 2019
So far I haven't seen evidence from anything either you or Schneibo have written that either one of you know what ESCAPE VELOCITY is & why it DOES NOT apply to an EM Wave Photon.


Wrong. Stick to a subject you understand. Whatever that might be.
......for you it's Anthropology & being an Oncology Physical Therapist, beyond that jonesy you're lost in a sea of self imposed psycho-babble & fantasy from which you will never be able to extricate yourself, at least I have hope for RealityCheck.


LMAO

You are brilliant ! Doesn't really matter what you think you know, but jonesdave and I are two different people.

Wtf is an Oncology Physical therapist ??? hahahaha

Radiotherapist/radiographer, now that is a real thing.

At least I don' have to pretend to be a nuclear engineer who doesn't understand radioactive decay hahahah.


Mar 15, 2019
Dear Benni, the uneducated uber-crank;

"Black holes cannot exist, as EM radiation is not affected by gravity."

Insert name of scientist claiming this here:

Provide link to the paper here:

Get on with it, and stop commenting on things that are way beyond your ability to understand.

Mar 15, 2019

But you don't know anything about the relevant science, and you have no science to back you up. You just make things up. I say again - why are you here?


@Castrogiovanni

He is here to spread his "knowledge" and expose the lies of today's science fraudsters...

Cause mean lifetime is not what it is, it is something else - as defined by the great brilliant mind of the differential equasionist Benni, who also, could not provide an answer to the simple, yet so complex equation of 2+2/2=?


Mar 15, 2019
KINETIC ENERGY & ELECTRO-MAGNETIC ENERGY PHOTON PARTICLE TUGMath
ESCAPE VELOCITY


Whoa, easy there, stop confusing yourself with all of these big words!

Did you read those nice books with the pretty pictures yet?
First, you need to learn the difference between mass and volume, then we can move on to more complex stuff.

One step at a time Benni boy.

Mar 15, 2019
KINETIC ENERGY & ELECTRO-MAGNETIC ENERGY PHOTON PARTICLE TUGMath
ESCAPE VELOCITY


Whoa, easy there, stop confusing yourself with all of these big words!

Did you read those nice books with the pretty pictures yet?
First, you need to learn the difference between mass and volume, then we can move on to more complex stuff.

One step at a time Benni boy.


Do any of those books explain the meaning of words 'mean' and 'average' by any chance ?

(I've not checked the link :D)

Mar 15, 2019
@kl31415
Wtf is an Oncology Physical therapist ???
Long answer:
physical therapists and physical therapist assistants managing the musculoskeletal, neuromuscular, integumentary and cardiopulmonary rehabilitative needs of patients resulting from the treatment of active cancer disease. This encompasses acute secondary sequelae of cancer treatments such as surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy as well as long-term secondary sequelae of treatments and palliative care

short answer:
oncology rehab
https://oncologypt.org/

Mar 15, 2019
benni has nothing to say
& he/she/it says it a lot!

The gravity of benni's singular situation is such, that the rest of us are burdened with the after effects of his self-administered electro-shock treatments.

I'm sure he/she/it makes a modest living selling to the suckers, he/she/its (not really) Patented Electro-Shock Gaurrunteeed Cure for the Scourge of Terminal Dandruff!

Mar 15, 2019
@kl31415
Wtf is an Oncology Physical therapist ???


short answer:
oncology rehab
https://oncologypt.org/


@Captain Stumpy
Yeah, I know about physical therapy, was one of the courses at my uni.
Benni was trying to make a joke about my work, I am a nurse and a radiotherapist.

Besides this one 'academy', a quick search on Google Scholar shows no results for Oncology physical therapist, but physical therapy will be a part of rehabilitation always if there is a need for it, so seems like an unnecessary addition to the title, a physical therapist can provide physical therapy for all patients.


Mar 15, 2019
Although everything is becoming so specialised these days, so not too surprised with this naming convention, just never seen it before for physical therapy, tbh.

Happy Friday all you science lovers and have a good weekend ! :)

Mar 15, 2019
Benni was trying to make a joke about my work, I am a nurse and a radiotherapist
benji is an idiot

I'm curious: RN, BSN or higher?

I am not sure how that works for the nurse part, but I know that most places require a baccalaureate degree or postgraduate for radiation therapy, so I thought I would ask
shows no results for Oncology physical therapist... so seems like an unnecessary addition to the title
agreed
they don't have them around here, but I've seen the odd person from Canada and the UK use the term

around here it's all just PT
the weird thing is the Alexandria, VA address

VA physical therapists only recognize 8 specialising in oncology and I don't see a medical license for the org (Current as of 03/15/2019 13:01)

trying to find accreditation, but nothing so far...

perhaps this is a new specialist academy trying to flex its muscles?

:-)

Mar 15, 2019
It is refreshing to read,
that the Ontological specialists,
based on accredited Real Science,
are achieving results fighting Stochastic Biology.
Where the patents survive to need physiotherapy!

Mar 15, 2019
@Benni.
..know what ESCAPE VELOCITY is & why it DOES NOT apply to an EM Wave Photon.
Did you understand the distinction I made between analysis/calculation abstract construct and energy-space real dynamics under analysis/calculation?

If so, now please understand also that GRAVITY EFFECT is a consequence of real energy-space 'conditioning' by a mass/energy 'feature' that establishes an 'inwards acceleration gradient' within the surrounding energy-space per se; which AFFECTS ANY subsidiary mass/energy 'feature' occurring/moving within that surrounding energy-space (be they atom, body or photon).

Hence 'escape velocity' is just an 'indicative term' for the necessary 'propagation rate' that such atom, body or photon must achieve if they are to propagate out of and away (from the applicable gravitational field GRADIENT) on a NON-RETURNING TRAJECTORY/PATH.

So no matter HOW WE 'calculate' applicable escape velocities, its GRAVITY EFFECT that determines what escapes or not.

Mar 15, 2019
Hence 'escape velocity' is just an 'indicative term' for the necessary 'propagation rate' that such atom, body or photon must achieve if they are to propagate out of and away (from the applicable gravitational field GRADIENT) on a NON-RETURNING TRAJECTORY/PATH.
......you don't know what you're talking about as soon as you include "photon".

Gravity has absolutely ZERO effect on the speed of light. That's Schneibo's 19th Century TUGMath pseudo-science brought to that century by EXACTLY the same bunch who concocted Aether Theory.

It was popular vogue in Schneibo's favorite century that the speed of light depended on the strength of the gravitational field through which the "light particle" was traveling. Then be damned, some smartass over in Germany came along in 1905 & spoiled the party proving light was actually a WAVE & not a PARTICLE & under no conditions was it's velocity governed by the STRENGTH of any gravitational field, and that has NEVER been FALSIFIED.


Mar 15, 2019
@Benni, Eddington 1919.

You're lying again @Benni.

Mar 15, 2019
@Benni, Eddington 1919.
.........what?


Mar 15, 2019
If you don't know why 1919 was important nor who Eddington was you are not competent to talk about gravity. And you're lying about it. It's like claiming to be a nuclear engineer and not knowing what half-life is. Or like claiming to be able to solve differential equations and trolling when faced with real ones. Or like not being able to solve

2 + 2 / 2 = ?

Mar 15, 2019
If you don't know why 1919 was important nor who Eddington was you are not competent to talk about gravity.
......I'm talking about the velocity of light, it's you who wants to talk about something else that has ZERO to do with the velocity of light.

So why don't you want to talk about your 19th Century TUGMath math solution as it was applied to the speed of light & got fixed by Einstein in 1905, Eddington changed nothing about light velocity in 1919, looks like you're the liar if you claim he did.

So tell us old man, what did Eddington due to prove anything about the velocity of light, that it never changes within the strength of any field of gravity, that it is a never changing CONSTANT ? You can't quote it can you? Or if you can, then quote it.......waiting

Mar 15, 2019
@Benni, what do you think happens to light when it curves around a significant gravitational anomaly?

Mar 15, 2019
@Benni
Hence 'escape velocity' is just an 'indicative term' for the necessary 'propagation rate' that such atom, body or photon must achieve if they are to propagate out of and away (from the applicable gravitational field GRADIENT) on a NON-RETURNING TRAJECTORY/PATH.
... Gravity has absolutely ZERO effect on the speed of light.
I know what you're saying. And I would agree that a photon's speed going up/down Earth's gravity gradient is neither decreased nor increased; ie, only the frequency differences show up between emitters/detectors in the relevant experiments, no speed change is evident.

But that's not the whole story, mate. There is a SUBTLE FACTOR ALSO to be taken into account in EXTREME gradients such as those around 'Black STAR' features. I cannot say much more at this time, since this further subtlety will be explained as part of my complete ToE.

I will give you a hint though: Going 'up/down', ALL things lose/gain energy of one sort or another. :)

Mar 15, 2019
@Benni, what do you think happens to light when it curves around a significant gravitational anomaly?

......just like when I put one of my trucks on a cruise control setting out on the highway, it doesn't change.

So what do YOU think an EM Wave Photon does? Changes to move at half it's cruise control speed?

Mar 15, 2019
I will give you a hint though: Going 'up/down', ALL things lose/gain energy of one sort or another.


Well then, let Benni be the one to help you out here. An EM Wave Photon has ONLY one speed at ANY wavelength, and neither you nor schneibo can prove differently except to use the farce of schneibo's 19th Century TUGMath that was concocted by exactly the same 19th Century cosmologists that brought us Aether Theory.

Look at what schniebo just tried to pull off, the same thing you are, just by a different means.

Here's a new moniker for the chatroom: RealityCheck/Schneibo

Mar 15, 2019
@Benni.
I will give you a hint though: Going 'up/down', ALL things lose/gain energy of one sort or another.
An EM Wave Photon has ONLY one speed at ANY wavelength, and neither you nor schneibo can prove differently...
I just posted the agreement with that, even alluding to experiments which have already long proved same, didn't I? :)

Anyhow, the speed value is not the only factor in the context of escaping/not escaping the Black STAR extreme gravity gradient, as I already hinted at. :)
Look at what schniebo just tried to pull off, the same thing you are, just by a different means
No I didn't. :)
Here's a new moniker for the chatroom: RealityCheck/Schneibo
Now that's a 'low blow', mate, equating me with DS. Not sporting, old chap. :)

ps: So if you have further beef with DS that's your affair, Benni, but please leave me out of your mutual loathings. Ta. :)

Mar 15, 2019
I think it changes direction, and how much depends upon how much mass.

BTW, the correct answer is, "it changes velocity."

Mar 15, 2019
...
Gravity has absolutely ZERO effect on the speed of light. That's Schneibo's 19th Century TUGMath pseudo-science brought to that century by EXACTLY the same bunch who concocted Aether Theory.
It was popular vogue in Schneibo's favorite century that the speed of light depended on the strength of the gravitational field through which the "light particle" was traveling. Then be damned, some smartass over in Germany came along in 1905 & spoiled the party proving light was actually a WAVE & not a PARTICLE & under no conditions was it's velocity governed by the STRENGTH of any gravitational field, and that has NEVER been FALSIFIED.

While gravity may not be able to change the speed of light, it CAN change the curvature (direction of travel)...

Mar 16, 2019
@Benni
Hence 'escape velocity' is just an 'indicative term' for the necessary 'propagation rate' that such atom, body or photon must achieve if they are to propagate out of and away (from the applicable gravitational field GRADIENT) on a NON-RETURNING TRAJECTORY/PATH.
... Gravity has absolutely ZERO effect on the speed of light.
I know what you're saying. And I would agree that a photon's speed going up/down Earth's gravity gradient is neither decreased nor increased; ie, only the frequency differences show up between emitters/detectors in the relevant xperiments, no speed change is evident.

But that's not the whole story, mate. There is a SUBTLE FACTOR ALSO to be taken into account in EXTREME gradients such as those around 'Black STAR' features. I cannot say much more at this time, since this further subtlety will be explained as part of my complete ToE.

I'm waiting with (un)bated breath for it...

Mar 16, 2019
So far I haven't seen evidence from anything either you or Schneibo have written that either one of you know what ESCAPE VELOCITY is & why it DOES NOT apply to an EM Wave Photon.


Wrong. Stick to a subject you understand. Whatever that might be.
......for you it's Anthropology & being an Oncology Physical Therapist, beyond that jonesy you're lost in a sea of self imposed psycho-babble & fantasy from which you will never be able to extricate yourself, at least I have hope for RealityCheck.

I believe that is ON-CALL Physical Therapist...

Mar 16, 2019
anyhow, the speed value is not the only factor in the context of escaping/not escaping the Black STAR extreme gravity gradient, as I already hinted at.
.......there is NOTHING ELSE other than SPEED, this because that is what determines ESCAPE VELOCITY as derived form KE=1/2mv².

Neither you or schneibo comprehend the difference between SPEED or ACCELERATION. The SPEED of light is not an ACCELERATION factor in E=mc², but it is for a particle in KE=1/2mv², but neither you nor schneibo know enough about either equation that you comprehend the difference between the two,

What other than changing the speed of anything via 1/2mv² will change this: "the speed value is not the only factor in the context of escaping/not escaping the Black STAR" ???? What are you, pregnant with a brainchild? Probably something that will look like Schneibo's 19th Century Cosmology TUGMath solution?




Mar 16, 2019
anyhow, the speed value is not the only factor in the context of escaping/not escaping the Black STAR extreme gravity gradient, as I already hinted at.
.......there is NOTHING ELSE other than SPEED, this because that is what determines ESCAPE VELOCITY as derived form KE=1/2mv².

Neither you or schneibo comprehend the difference between SPEED or ACCELERATION. The SPEED of light is not an ACCELERATION factor in E=mc², but it is for a particle in KE=1/2mv², but neither you nor schneibo know enough about either equation that you comprehend the difference between the two,

What other than changing the speed of anything via 1/2mv² will change this: "the speed value is not the only factor in the context of escaping/not escaping the Black STAR" ???? What are you, pregnant with a brainchild? Probably something that will look like Schneibo's 19th Century Cosmology TUGMath solution?





Shut up. You know nothing about the subject. Why are you here?

Mar 16, 2019
I think it changes direction, and how much depends upon how much mass.


Yeah, we know old man.......your 19th Century TUGMath solution subjecting as EM Wave Photon to the kinetic energy laws of physics for a particle of mass. Go ahead, "think" any pseudo-science dumbass thing you want about applying the laws of kinetic energy to an EM Wave Photon, but just remember, all you are is a Schneibo who would be laughed right out of ANY physics college classroom by trying to make this kind of a presentation.

BTW, the correct answer is, "it changes velocity."


No, because "velocity" INCLUDES SPEED, drop the vector & speed will not change. All you did was make it directionless by using SPEED as opposed to using VELOCITY , therefore no field of gravity exists that changes the SPEED part of VELOCITY, drop the vector from VELOCITY & you're still left with SPEED which for an EM Wave Photon will ALWAYS remain the same.

Mar 16, 2019
Shut up. You know nothing about the subject. Why are you here?
........ONLY because classless neophytes like you are here promoting 19th Century Cosmology because you're unable to comprehend the difference between Kinetic Energy & Electro-Magnetic Energy.

Within the units by which SPEED is measured within the laws of kinetic energy I have my doubts you know the difference between ACCELERATION or VELOCITY which are measured in exactly the same units, that of SPEED.


Mar 16, 2019
Shut up. You know nothing about the subject. Why are you here?
........ONLY because classless neophytes like you are here promoting 19th Century Cosmology because you're unable to comprehend the difference between Kinetic Energy & Electro-Magnetic Energy.

Within the units by which SPEED is measured within the laws of kinetic energy I have my doubts you know the difference between ACCELERATION or VELOCITY which are measured in exactly the same units, that of SPEED.



Be quiet, you fool. You know nothing about the subject. I have already asked you to provide the papers which deny that light cannot be trapped by a BH. Let's see them. We are not interested in listening to clueless idiots like you.

Mar 16, 2019
Eddington, 1919, @Benni.

You're lying again.

Mar 16, 2019
Shut up. You know nothing about the subject. Why are you here?
........ONLY because classless neophytes like you are here promoting 19th Century Cosmology because you're unable to comprehend the difference between Kinetic Energy & Electro-Magnetic Energy.

Within the units by which SPEED is measured within the laws of kinetic energy I have my doubts you know the difference between ACCELERATION or VELOCITY which are measured in exactly the same units, that of SPEED.


I have already asked you to provide the papers which deny that light cannot be trapped by a BH. Let's see them. We are not interested in listening to clueless idiots like you.
......you put yours up FALSIFYING my claim according to the laws of kinetic energy that light CAN BE TRAPPED without resorting to schneibo's 19th century TUGMath which has zero scientific value in the 21st century.

Mar 16, 2019
Shut up. You know nothing about the subject. Why are you here?
........ONLY because classless neophytes like you are here promoting 19th Century Cosmology because you're unable to comprehend the difference between Kinetic Energy & Electro-Magnetic Energy.

Within the units by which SPEED is measured within the laws of kinetic energy I have my doubts you know the difference between ACCELERATION or VELOCITY which are measured in exactly the same units, that of SPEED.


I have already asked you to provide the papers which deny that light cannot be trapped by a BH. Let's see them. We are not interested in listening to clueless idiots like you.
......you put yours up FALSIFYING my claim according to the laws of kinetic energy that light CAN BE TRAPPED without resorting to schneibo's 19th century TUGMath which has zero scientific value in the 21st century.


Go look in the scientific literature, dumbo.

Mar 16, 2019
TUG isn't from the 19th century. It's Newton.

And it was used to fly to the Moon.

You're lying again, @Benni.

Mar 16, 2019
TUG isn't from the 19th century. It's Newton.

And it was used to fly to the Moon.

You're lying again, @Benni.


.....but you've been using it's 19th Century application to prove the speed "light particles" are subject to is the gravitational fields in which "light particles" are traveling, all brought to us by the same bunch of cosmologists that brought us 19th Century Aether Theory.

Mar 16, 2019
TUG isn't from the 19th century. It's Newton.

And it was used to fly to the Moon.

You're lying again, @Benni.


.....but you've been using it's 19th Century application to prove the speed "light particles" are subject to the gravitational fields in which "light particles" are traveling, all brought to us by the same bunch of cosmologists that brought us 19th Century Aether Theory.


Stop talking nonsense you untutored fool.

Mar 16, 2019
No, @Benni. I've been using it to show that the prediction of velocity change seen in light by gravity is a prediction of every gravity theory we have, which would be TUG and GRT. Newton and Einstein both.

You're lying again, @Benni.

Mar 16, 2019
benni, you lying slut!
you deliberately twisted RC's comment about velocity in a gravity well.
Obfuscating your own ignorance by claiming RC had said anything about Gravity slowing the Speed of Light.

You bennidiota, are bleating one of your fabulous strawman arguments.
To, futilely, try too conceal your ignorance of Physics,

Mar 16, 2019
No, @Benni. I've been using it to show that the prediction of velocity change seen in light by gravity is a prediction of every gravity theory we have
......except that your "prediction of velocity change" is meaningless.

You are falsely trying to imply a vector is a force by which you can subject a EM Wave Photon into reversing direction by 180° thereby trapping it into orbit or onto the surface making it immobile to Escape Velocity.

The SPEED of light has nothing to do with DIRECTION & cannot be trapped to prevent it from moving at any SPEED other than that set forth in E=mc².......bet you don't know how to transpose the equation to solve for SPEED.


Mar 16, 2019
No, @Benni. I've been using it to show that the prediction of velocity change seen in light by gravity is a prediction of every gravity theory we have
......except that your "prediction of velocity change" is meaningless.

You are falsely trying to imply a vector is a force by which you can subject a EM Wave Photon into reversing direction by 180° thereby trapping it into orbit or onto the surface making it immobile to Escape Velocity.

The SPEED of light has nothing to do with DIRECTION & cannot be trapped to prevent it from moving at any SPEED other than that set forth in E=mc².......bet you don't know how to transpose the equation to solve for SPEED.



So show us the scientist who is saying this, you ignorant clown. How difficult can it be? Just post a link, or shut up, you fool.

Mar 16, 2019
The 1919 Eddington results are incontrovertible.

You're lying again, @Benni.

And for the record, velocity is a vector. It's not speed alone but also direction. So a velocity change doesn't necessarily imply a change in speed, but it does imply an acceleration, in this case an acceleration imposed on light by gravity. That's what Eddington proved in 1919.

Mar 16, 2019
So a velocity change doesn't necessarily imply a change in speed, but it does imply an acceleration, in this case an acceleration imposed on light by gravity.
......19th Century TUGMath calculation for calculating "particles of light" in a gravity field. You don't mind tripping all over yourself do you?

You don't even know what "acceleration" is. It's the change in speed of a mass caused by a change of the kinetic energy to the MASS. An EM Wave Photon is not MASS, therefore is not subject to laws of kinetic energy be they inputting or outputting energy to the system, but you will never figure this out, you're too stuck in the 19th Century with the same guys who brought us Aether Therory as well as "an acceleration imposed on light by gravity" theory that has no basis in Einstein's SR or GR.

Old man, you're way over the hill, cash it in & find a different retirement career, being a chatroom Moderator isn't it.

Mar 16, 2019
Go around a corner at 30 MPH in a car. Your velocity has changed, but your speed hasn't. And you can feel the acceleration; that's what pushes you to the side as you turn.

And acceleration acts not on speed or KE or any of the other bullshit you're talking about, but on momentum, which if you will recall is a property of matter moving in space; that's why symmetry of experiment across distance is dual under Noether's theorem to conservation of momentum. And momentum is another of those nasty math thingies you can't deal with: a vector, with both magnitude and direction.

This is simple stuff, figured out hundreds of years ago and just as valid today as it was then. Engineers use this math to design a lot of things.

And gee, guess what? Photons may not have mass, but they do have momentum. We can discuss the experiments that prove it if anyone wants to see them, too.

If you're going to argue about physics, it would probably be a good idea to learn some first.

Mar 16, 2019
If you're going to argue about physics, it would probably be a good idea to learn some first.


The height of optimism! :)

Mar 16, 2019
With regard to E=mc², it's actually more properly E² = p²c² + m²c⁴

See that p in there? That's momentum. Note that the fact this has both momentum in it, which is a vectors. Therefore, analysis of this equation requires the use of 4-vectors, and since vectors are scary math and you are innumerate you don't even have a clue what that means.

Mar 16, 2019
So for a photon, since they don't have mass, and the second term has a zero in it, that means it drops out. Therefore, for photons, E² = p²c². There's that nasty mathematical 4-vector in there again.

The full equation applies to matter; the one where the mass term drops out applies to energy. That's how our universe works.

And since gravity acts on momentum, as does acceleration, then gravity can act on photons, and in fact it does, and Eddington proved it in 1919.

Gotta know physics, and if you're gonna know physics, gotta know math. Tossing buzzwords around without understanding what they mean won't help you; everyone will know you're lying.

Mar 16, 2019
With regard to E=mc², it's actually more properly E² = p²c² + m²c⁴

See that p in there? That's momentum. Note that the fact this has both momentum in it, which is a vectors. Therefore, analysis of this equation requires the use of 4-vectors, and since vectors are scary math and you are innumerate you don't even have a clue what that means.

says Da Schniebo

See that p in there? That's Da Pussyman who is all excited to ASSUME that nobody else has learnt all that he thinks he knows, so that he MUST explain what he knows from doing an internet Search to the dummies whom he believes to not know as much as he thinks he knows.
Da Pussyman would be innumerate and lost without the internet Search engines.
Isn't that right, Da S?

Mar 16, 2019
With regard to E=mc², it's actually more properly E² = p²c² + m²c⁴

See that p in there? That's momentum. Note that the fact this has both momentum in it, which is a vectors. Therefore, analysis of this equation requires the use of 4-vectors, and since vectors are scary math and you are innumerate you don't even have a clue what that means.

says Da Schniebo

See that p in there? That's Da Pussyman who is all excited to ASSUME that nobody else has learnt all that he thinks he knows, so that he MUST explain what he knows from doing an internet Search to the dummies whom he believes to not know as much as he thinks he knows.
Da Pussyman would be innumerate and lost without the internet Search engines.
Isn't that right, Da S?


We don't have to ASSUME anything. It is obvious to all and sundry that the likes of you and Benni haven't got a scooby about physics.

Mar 16, 2019
No, @Benni. I've been using it to show that the prediction of velocity change seen in light by gravity is a prediction of every gravity theory we have
......except that your "prediction of velocity change" is meaningless.

You are falsely trying to imply a vector is a force by which you can subject a EM Wave Photon into reversing direction by 180° thereby trapping it into orbit or onto the surface making it immobile to Escape Velocity.

The SPEED of light has nothing to do with DIRECTION & cannot be trapped to prevent it from moving at any SPEED other than that set forth in E=mc².......bet you don't know how to transpose the equation to solve for SPEED.
So show us the scientist. How difficult can it be? Just post a link, or shut up, you fool.
says jonesy

Benni IS CORRECT in that the speed of light is constant and cannot change direction of its initial trajectory, UNLESS it is REDIRECTED by a Mass into another direction but maintains same speed

Mar 16, 2019
With regard to E=mc², it's actually more E² = p²c² + m²c⁴

See that p in there? That's momentum. Note that the fact this has both momentum in it, which is a vectors. Therefore, analysis of this equation requires the use of 4-vectors, and since vectors are scary math and you are innumerate you don't even have a clue what that means.

says Da Schniebo

See that p in there? That's Da Pussyman who is all excited to ASSUME that nobody else has learnt all that he thinks he knows, so that he MUST explain what he knows from doing an internet Search to the dummies whom he believes to not know as much as he thinks he knows.
Da Pussyman would be innumerate and lost without the internet Search engines.
Isn't that right, Da S?


We don't have to ASSUME anything. It is obvious to all and sundry that the likes of you and Benni
says jonesy

There you go, ASSUMING AGAIN. Benni's qualifications are above yours, jonesy. But don't be so jealous about it.

Mar 16, 2019
Benni IS CORRECT in that the speed of light is constant and cannot change direction of its initial trajectory, UNLESS it is REDIRECTED by a Mass into another direction but maintains same speed


And when that mass is sufficient, the light cannot escape. It will go round in ever decreasing circles, never to escape. The distance at which this happens is defined by;

Rs = 2GM/ c^2

Which is the Schwarzschild metric, and defines the event horizon. G = gravitational constant, M = mass of the object, and c = speed of light.
You'll notice that the mass of the object being affected is not part of the equation. Plug in 4m solar masses, and see what you get. If you can do that, you are one step ahead of Benni, who couldn't do it.


Mar 16, 2019


There you go, ASSUMING AGAIN. Benni's qualifications are above yours, jonesy. But don't be so jealous about it.


He has no qualifications, as is obvious from his scientific illiteracy. Certainly not in physics.

Mar 16, 2019
Benni IS CORRECT in that the speed of light is constant and cannot change direction of its initial trajectory, UNLESS it is REDIRECTED by a Mass into another direction but maintains same speed


And when that mass is sufficient, the light cannot escape. It will go round in ever decreasing circles, never to escape. The distance at which this happens is defined by;

Rs = 2GM/ c^2

Which is the Schwarzschild metric, and defines the event horizon. G = gravitational constant, M = mass of the object, and c = speed of light.
You'll notice that the mass of the object being affected is not part of the equation. Plug in 4m solar masses, and see what you get. If you can do that, you are one step ahead of Benni, who couldn't do it.
says jonesy

Sorry, but unless the c photon is on a direct trajectory into an alleged BH, it is NOT going round and round an alleged BH due to its initial and constant speed, where it will just continue on its way into its initial direction

Mar 16, 2019
There you go, ASSUMING AGAIN. Benni's qualifications are above yours, jonesy. But don't be so jealous about it.


In which case he should have no problem finding the scientists who agree with him, and linking to their papers. We are still waiting.

Mar 16, 2019

Sorry, but unless the c photon is on a direct trajectory into an alleged BH, it is NOT going round and round an alleged BH due to its initial and constant speed, where it will just continue on its way into its initial direction
says I

IF however, its initial trajectory TAKES IT into the path of an alleged BH, it will have no choice but to enter, and possibly go through and emerge from the other side of the BH, without losing speed. Since it is massless, the photon is capable of entering and emerging without being halted or stopped by Mass and Gravity.

Mar 16, 2019
Sorry, but unless the c photon is on a direct trajectory into an alleged BH, it is NOT going round and round an alleged BH due to its initial and constant speed, where it will just continue on its way into its initial direction


Stupid fool. What do you think we are talking about? I just showed how close it can get. It is called the event horizon, you stupid boy.


Mar 16, 2019

Sorry, but unless the c photon is on a direct trajectory into an alleged BH, it is NOT going round and round an alleged BH due to its initial and constant speed, where it will just continue on its way into its initial direction
says I

IF however, its initial trajectory TAKES IT into the path of an alleged BH, it will have no choice but to enter, and possibly go through and emerge from the other side of the BH, without losing speed. Since it is massless, the photon is capable of entering and emerging without being halted or stopped by Mass and Gravity.


What a load of junk. Just link to the scientific work saying that that can happen. Otherwise, stop lying. It is tiresome.

Mar 16, 2019
Sorry, but unless the c photon is on a direct trajectory into an alleged BH, it is NOT going round and round an alleged BH due to its initial and constant speed, where it will just continue on its way into its initial direction


Stupid fool. What do you think we are talking about? I just showed how close it can get. It is called the event horizon, you stupid boy.
says jonesy

Wrong again. The alleged EH has no effect on photons at c, even at 3 million Sun masses. IF you were correct and photons were ALL subjected to capture by alleged Black Holes, the Universe would have gone dark after 13 billion cosmic years. Photons are different from Mass such as Stars, planets, etc.
You continue to equate photons with Mass, for some reason.


Mar 16, 2019

Sorry, but unless the c photon is on a direct trajectory into an alleged BH, it is NOT going round and round an alleged BH due to its initial and constant speed, where it will just continue on its way into its initial direction
says I

IF however, its initial trajectory TAKES IT into the path of an alleged BH, it will have no choice but to enter, and possibly go through and emerge from the other side of the BH, without losing speed. Since it is massless, the photon is capable of entering and emerging without being halted or stopped by Mass and Gravity.


What a load of junk. Just link to the scientific work saying that that can happen. Otherwise, stop lying. It is tiresome.


The alleged BH's gravity ends at or near its surface, so that its centre has to be hollow. Which is why there are 2 jets of Matter/Energy emerging from its poles. Photons are able to enter and emerge from the alleged BH due to that hollow within the alleged BH.

Mar 16, 2019

The alleged BH's gravity ends at or near its surface, so that its centre has to be hollow. Which is why there are 2 jets of Matter/Energy emerging from its poles. Photons are able to enter and emerge from the alleged BH due to that hollow within the alleged BH.
says I

The problem with the BH theory is that its Gravity is soooo strong that even light can't escape from it. The error in the math is that gravity hasn't much power over photons in flight. Otherwise, all the Stars would have gone dark by now, logically.

Mar 16, 2019
Which is the Schwarzschild metric, and defines the event horizon. G = gravitational constant, M = mass of the object, and c = speed of light.


About which Einstein wrote:

Albert Einstein- Oct 1939
On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses
Author(s): Albert Einstein Reviewed work(s): Source URL:
http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

"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.
This investigation arose out of discussions the author conducted with Professor H. P. Robertson and with Drs. V. Bargmann and P. Bergmann on the mathematical and physical significance of the Schwarzschild singularity. The problem quite naturally leads to the question, answered by this paper in the negative."


Mar 16, 2019

The alleged BH's gravity ends at or near its surface, so that its centre has to be hollow. Which is why there are 2 jets of Matter/Energy emerging from its poles. Photons are able to enter and emerge from the alleged BH due to that hollow within the alleged BH.
says I

The problem with the BH theory is that its Gravity is soooo strong that even light can't escape from it. The error in the math is that gravity hasn't much power over photons in flight. Otherwise, all the Stars would have gone dark by now, logically.
says I

Ooops. I meant to say: "The error in the math is that gravity has power over photons in flight."
Sorry for my error.

Mar 16, 2019
One star- the Sun- has enough gravity to bend starlight enough that we can see it.

Eddington, 1919.

What will four million stars' worth of mass do? Or is your innumeracy problem so bad you don't know what millions are?

Mar 16, 2019
And since gravity acts on momentum, as does acceleration, then gravity can act on photons, and in fact it does,
....... E² = p²c² + m²c⁴, don't see anything in this equation with units of gravity in it or units for affecting change in SPEED alias ACCELERATION. There is no acceleration in this equation, only c which is a fixed value.


Mar 16, 2019
Momentum, @Benni. Old man mo'. Gravity acts on momentum. That's why satellites can stay in orbit.

And what's "SPEED[sic] alias ACCELERATION[sic]" mean? Speed is a scalar; acceleration is a vector. You might as well say "ostriches alias elephants." It would make as much sense.

To put it in more technical terms, velocity is the first derivative of position with respect to time, and acceleration is the second derivative. Newton showed this in the seventeenth century, and no one has disproved it since.

Mar 16, 2019
And since gravity acts on momentum, as does acceleration, then gravity can act on photons, and in fact it does,
....... E² = p²c² + m²c⁴, don't see anything in this equation with units of gravity in it or units for affecting change in SPEED alias ACCELERATION. There is no acceleration in this equation, only c which is a fixed value.

says Benni

Perhaps the "units of gravity" are only inferred, and the reader is required to know what is meant by the lack of such units and place such units of gravity anywhere in the equation, such as where one FEELS is most appropriate, without knowing beforehand where it belongs. ROFLOL

Mar 16, 2019
And just to drive the stake home, that same equation (as I said above) also holds for mass; so now you're claiming satellites can't orbit the Earth. Which is beyond stupid.

Mar 16, 2019
:D What "units of gravity?" You mean units of mass, like kilograms?

That would be the "m" in the second term.

F = Gmm'/r²

That's Newton's formula for gravity. It turns out what you get is force.

Here, let me translate that for your teeny tiny brain: The force of gravity is equal to the gravitational constant times the product of the two masses divided by the square of the distance between them.

Halley proved it by predicting the return of Halley's Comet, which is why the comet has that name. That was in 1705, and the apparition of his comet occurred as predicted in 1758 (unfortunately after he had died).

Mar 16, 2019
Incidentally, it's worth noting that Halley funded Newton's publication of the famous "Principia," the full title being, Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, or "The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy." It really is a very famous work, and a fit representation of Newton's genius. I own a copy, translated this decade from the original written in Latin.

Mar 16, 2019
Momentum, @Benni. Old man mo'. Gravity acts on momentum. That's why satellites can stay in orbit.
- Momentum is Mass in Action. Gravity acts on MASS, depending on Velocity, Altitude, Direction and Orientation.

And what's "SPEED[sic] alias ACCELERATION[sic]" mean? Speed is a scalar; acceleration is a vector. You might as well say "ostriches alias elephants." It would make as much sense.
- Speed (velocity) is established, while Acceleration is the force that brings the object up to Speed (velocity).

To put it in more technical terms, velocity is the first derivative of position with respect to time, and acceleration is the second derivative. Newton showed this in the seventeenth century, and no one has disproved it since.
- Velocity is Speed and has nothing to do with the concept of "time" except as a measurement by instruments of the Duration and Distance of that Speed/Velocity wrt the Duration/Distance for which Velocity is measured.

Mar 16, 2019
@Benni.
speed value is not the only factor in the context of escaping/not escaping the Black STAR extreme gravity gradient, as I already hinted
there is NOTHING ELSE other than SPEED, this because that is what determines ESCAPE VELOCITY as derived form KE=1/2mv²
I gave you a hint, mate; ie:
Going 'up/down', ALL things lose/gain energy of one sort or another. :)
Now, if you calmly follow the logical/physical implications of that hint, it should lead you to the FULLER explanation of the REAL energy-space dynamics involved in all phenomena being analysed/described via those ABSTRACT maths etc terms/labels you're all obsessed with, and hence MISS, the REAL energy-space entities/processes (which FUNDAMENTALLY are ALL energy-space 'perturbation features' having more or less inherent/translational degrees of freedom/directional impulse, ie, directed energy-flow-structure/content).
19th Century Cosmology TUGMath
No. Mine is REALITY-BASED-AXIOMATIC maths. Ok? :)

Mar 16, 2019
Which is the Schwarzschild metric, and defines the event horizon. G = gravitational constant, M = mass of the object, and c = speed of light.


And not a single scientist agrees with that paper. It was a cock-up. Light is affected by gravity. End of story. Einstein was arguing against singularities and BHs. He was wrong, as Oppenheimer showed in '39. And observation has since confirmed. It was nothing to do with light. Get an education, you fool.


Mar 16, 2019
Speed (velocity)
Speed is not velocity. Speed is a scalar; velocity is a vector. Speed has no direction; velocity is speed plus direction.

The more you bloviate the stupider you look.

And you can't even define speed unless you have time; it's the first derivative of distance with respect to time, which is why it's always in distance per time, like miles per hour, or kilometers per second, or some other distance measurement per a time measurement. Furlongs per fortnight, perhaps.

See, if you had the slightest idea what you were talking about, you'd already know this. That you don't makes it obvious you're an idiot. Look at the fucking speedometer in your car, idiot. WTF do you think it's measuring if there is no time?

Mar 16, 2019
Velocity is Speed and has nothing to do with the concept of "time" except as a measurement by instruments of the Duration and Distance of that Speed/Velocity wrt the Duration/Distance for which Velocity is measured.


What the hell are you prattling on about, you untutored fool?

Mar 16, 2019
Sweet jebus, they're now downvoting the history of science.

What kind of idiot do you have to be to do that?

Who's next, Galileo? Da Vinci? Maybe you want to burn them at the stake. Like Giordano Bruno was by their church, with his tongue nailed to the roof of his mouth so he couldn't shout the truth as he died.

These are the same stupid anti-science idiots who have whined about every physics discovery ever.

And who are innumerate. And who worship this: https://pbs.twimg...pg:large

Mar 16, 2019
Which is the Schwarzschild metric, and defines the event horizon. G = gravitational constant, M = mass of the object, and c = speed of light.


And not a single scientist agrees with that paper. It was a cock-up. Light is affected by gravity. End of story. Einstein was arguing against singularities and BHs. He was wrong, as Oppenheimer showed in '39. And observation has since confirmed. It was nothing to do with light. Get an education, you fool.

says jonesy

You says "light is affected by gravity"? Why, in that case - all light should have been halted by gravitation pull on photons so that they (photons) slow down from their c velocity and can go no further. is that what you're implying?
Singularities/Black Holes are still theoretical, until credible images such as "shadows' are forthcoming. No images - no credibility.

Mar 16, 2019
In this hypothetical blackhole

This Event horizon
this Schwarzschild radius
this Light radius
is only momentarily at a point, differential calculus at a point
in an atomic width
at the speed of light
as
either side of this atomic width
the speed of light diminishes
because
gravity is zero at the centre of mass
so
the speed of light drops to zero at the centre of this blackhole
and
only exist at the speed of light over a femto-metre distance
where
over this miniscule femto-metre distance
this blackholes escape velocity
will in all reality
only reach 299792457m/s
because nature is not perfect
nature is not 100% efficient
in reality
This event horizon will never reach the speed of light

Mar 16, 2019
When you apologize for burning Giordano Bruno alive with his tongue nailed in his mouth, I will consider whether I wish to forgive. Until you do I will consider you Satan, the enemy of life.

Mar 16, 2019
Speed (velocity)
Speed is not velocity. Speed is a scalar; velocity is a vector. Speed has no direction; velocity is speed plus direction.

And you can't even define speed unless you have time; it's the first derivative of distance with respect to time, which is why it's always in distance per time, like miles per hour, or kilometers per second, or some other distance measurement per a time measurement. Furlongs per fortnight, perhaps.

See, if you had the slightest idea what you were talking about, you'd already know this. That you don't makes it obvious you're an idiot. Look at the fucking speedometer in your car, idiot. WTF do you think it's measuring if there is no time?


Speedometers are all manmade instruments to MEASURE THE DISTANCE/DURATION from Point A to B. Time is still only a concept produced by the human mind as an explanation for observed Events/Actions.
WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?
CLUE: It's not the same as Space

Mar 16, 2019
You says "light is affected by gravity"? Why, in that case - all light should have been halted by gravitation pull on photons so that they (photons) slow down from their c velocity and can go no further. is that what you're implying?
Singularities/Black Holes are still theoretical, until credible images such as "shadows' are forthcoming. No images - no credibility.


It is nothing to do with gravitational pull on photons, you fool. Mass warps space-time. Light takes the shortest route through what is a geodesic. Hence gravitational lensing. At extreme masses, such as black holes, the shortest path never leaves the event horizon. It spirals ever inwards. Why don't you go to college, instead of making an ass of yourself on here?


Mar 16, 2019
Light is affected by gravity.

Eddington, 1919.

Did you forget, Satan Egg Unit?

Go try to burn someone at the stake with their tongue nailed down so they can't denounce you, Satan.

For an encore you can go lick your dog's vagina again in your basement.

Mar 16, 2019
...
The alleged BH's gravity ends at or near its surface, so that its centre has to be hollow. Which is why there are 2 jets of Matter/Energy emerging from its poles. Photons are able to enter and emerge from the alleged BH due to that hollow within the alleged BH.

This is SO stupid it HAS to be intentionally meant to be so...

Mar 16, 2019
Quadruplicate. Dafuq is wrong with this site?

Mar 16, 2019
Triplicate.

Mar 16, 2019
Duplicate.

Mar 16, 2019
Quadruplicate. Dafuq is wrong with this site?

Nothing that a little patience can't cure... :-)
And they shouldn't put the "quote" button right next to the "edit" button....

Mar 16, 2019
Quadruplicate. Dafuq is wrong with this site?

Nothing that a little patience can't cure... :-)


That's a card game isn't it?

Mar 16, 2019
When you apologize for burning Giordano Bruno alive with his tongue nailed in his mouth, I will consider whether I wish to forgive. Until you do I will consider you Satan, the enemy of life.

says Da Schniebo

It is such as YOU who were guilty of burning Giordano Bruno alive for the crime of revealing his own scientific logic to those, such as YOU, who could not accept such logic and condemned him to death. It is such as YOU who are here in this phorum condemning hypotheses such as the nonexistence of "time" and the heresy of new alternative science.
As you are already a worshipper/acolyte of Satan/Lucifer/Beelzebub, you will join those others as their flesh begins to rot for all of your sins against the Creator God.
And it is YOU who has invoked the name of your god, Satan.

Mar 16, 2019
Get thee behind me, @Satan_Egg_Unit. I am for life and truth and you are for death and lies.

And for licking your dog's vagina in your basement.

Mar 16, 2019
You says "light is affected by gravity"? Why, in that case - all light should have been halted by gravitation pull on photons so that they (photons) slow down from their c velocity and can go no further. is that what you're implying?
Singularities/Black Holes are still theoretical, until credible images such as "shadows' are forthcoming. No images - no credibility.


It is nothing to do with gravitational pull on photons, you fool. Mass warps space-time. Light takes the shortest route through what is a geodesic. Hence gravitational lensing. At extreme masses, such as black holes, the shortest path never leaves the event horizon. It spirals ever inwards. Why don't you go to college, instead of making an ass of yourself on here?

says jonesy

Mass warps Space, you idiot. Mass can't warp time since time does not exist except in the minds of the observers. Gravitational lensing only occurs when photons encounter Mass and is redirected toward another trajectory.

Mar 16, 2019
@Satan_Egg_Unit demonstrates its ignorance again.

1919, Eddington. The time for the photons to arrive was affected by gravity.

You're lying again, @Satan.

Mar 16, 2019
@Satan_Egg_Unit demonstrates its ignorance again.

1919, Eddington. The time for the photons to arrive was affected by gravity.

You're lying again, @Satan.
says Da Esh

Too late, Da Schnibo

Everyone already knows that you worship the Evil One, which is how you are allowed to remain in physorg to spill your rotting feces all over these phorums in your foul need to gain attention and adulation from your friends here and from newcomers. You are well known for your sick innuendos and are laughed at by many. Keep on, Da S. we need more comedy from you.

Mar 16, 2019
@Satan tempts again. Get thee behind me, @Satan.

Go lick yuor dog's vagina some more.

Now yuo know what I view yuo as. Enemy of life and truth.

Go nail some more peoples' tongues into their mouths and burn them alive.

You are a piece of shit on my shoe.

Mar 16, 2019
@Satan_Egg_Unit demonstrates its ignorance again.

1919, Eddington. The time for the photons to arrive was affected by gravity.

You're lying again, @Satan.


Eddington of 1919 is a joke. You like jokes? Keep believing Eddington.

Mar 16, 2019
You deny all science. You are @Satan_Egg_Unit, against all life and truth.

Get thee behind me @Satan.

Go hide in your basement dweller hole.

And lick your dog's vagina some more.