Hiding black hole found

Hiding black hole found
Artist's impression of a gas cloud swirling around a black hole. Credit: NAOJ

Astronomers have detected a stealthy black hole from its effects on an interstellar gas cloud. This intermediate-mass black hole is one of over 100 million quiet black holes expected to be lurking in the galaxy. These results provide a new method to search for other hidden black holes and help us understand the growth and evolution of black holes.

Black holes are objects with such strong gravity that nothing, including light, can escape once it falls beyond the event horizon. Because do not emit light, astronomers must infer their existence from the effects of their gravity on other objects. Black holes range in from about five times the mass of the sun to supermassive black holes millions of times the mass of the sun. Astronomers think that small black holes merge and gradually grow into large ones, but no one had ever found an intermediate-mass black hole weighing hundreds or thousands of times the mass of the sun.

A research team led by Shunya Takekawa at the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan noticed HCN-0.009-0.044, a gas cloud moving strangely near the center of the galaxy 25,000 light-years away from Earth in the constellation Sagittarius. They used ALMA (Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array) to perform high-resolution observations of the cloud and found that it is swirling around a massive invisible object.

Takekawa says, "Detailed kinematic analyses revealed that an enormous mass, 30,000 times that of the sun, was concentrated in a region much smaller than our solar system. This and the lack of any observed object at that location strongly suggests an intermediate-mass black hole. By analyzing other anomalous , we hope to expose other quiet black holes."

Tomoharu Oka, a professor at Keio University and coleader of the team, adds, "It is significant that this intermediate mass black hole was found only 20 light-years from the supermassive black hole at the . In the future, it will fall into the , much like gas is currently falling into it. This supports the merger model of black hole growth."

These results were published as Takekawa et al. "Indication of Another Intermediate-mass Black Hole in the Galactic Center" in The Astrophysical Journal Letters on January 20, 2019.


Explore further

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

More information: Shunya Takekawa et al, Indication of Another Intermediate-mass Black Hole in the Galactic Center, The Astrophysical Journal (2019). DOI: 10.3847/2041-8213/aafb07
Provided by National Institutes of Natural Sciences
Citation: Hiding black hole found (2019, March 1) retrieved 17 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-03-black-hole.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.
485 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Mar 01, 2019
The plasma ignoramuses don't understand plasma physics and when there is motion indescribable by gravitational effects leprechaunian unicorns are invoked, see above article.

Mar 01, 2019
When a man has no social life, and has been outcast by the rest of society, he has a tendency to become paranoid and adversarial. See above post.

Mar 01, 2019
They've been looking for intermediate mass black holes for a while. This is quite a find.

Chalk up another big find for ALMA!

Mar 01, 2019
"It is significant that this intermediate mass black hole was found only 20 light-years from the supermassive black hole at the galactic center. In the future, it will fall into the supermassive black hole, much like gas is currently falling into it. This supports the merger model of black hole growth."

Merger maniacs desperate for any good news!

OR it supports LaViolette's SQK which predicts accelerated internal growth of objects in the vicinity of supermassive objects. Other observations show twin supermassive holes only a few thousand LYrs apart, one spawned from the other and having grown internally all the while drifting apart. Just a matter of perspective!

Mar 01, 2019
It's amazing that everywhere they find a black hole, there's an artists impression to show us what it looks like. I tried buying lunch with an artists impression of a 20$ bill....no go.

Mar 01, 2019
It's amazing that everywhere they find a black hole, there's an artists impression to show us what it looks like. I tried buying lunch with an artists impression of a 20$ bill....no go.


I'm sorry to hear that. Depending on where you live, and your particular circumstances, you may qualify for financial aid. If you provide me with some general details, such as what city and state you live in, as well as your household income, I'd be glad to assist you in contacting the proper establishments.

In the meantime, If you're artistically endowed, you may even consider drawing black holes and selling your work.

Mar 01, 2019
It's worth noting that if you are close enough to a black hole to see the event horizon, and there is any appreciable accretion by it, you are in deadly danger and in any event shouldn't try to have children any more even if you live.

Mar 01, 2019
" you may even consider drawing black holes"

If I didn't only own a chalkboard....dammit.

Mar 01, 2019
They've been looking for intermediate mass black holes for a while. This is quite a find.

Chalk up another big find for ALMA!

Stop lying da schnied, they said "may" have found via indirect means.

Mar 01, 2019
So propose something that can make the gas do exactly that which doesn't involve GRT. And it ain't the EU.

See the thing is,
Detailed kinematic analyses revealed that an enormous mass, 30,000 times that of the sun, was concentrated in a region much smaller than our solar system. This and the lack of any observed object at that location strongly suggests an intermediate-mass black hole.
Guess you missed that part.

Mar 01, 2019
They've been looking for intermediate mass black holes for a while. This is quite a find.

Chalk up another big find for ALMA!


Stop lying da schnied, they said "may" have found via indirect means.
.......Yep, to quote the article: "Because black holes do not emit light, astronomers must infer their existence.....", schneibo should look up the definition of "infer", guess he missed that part.

Mar 01, 2019
And @Benni missed the fact that it only infers gravity. It's never seen it.

Mar 01, 2019
Guess you missed that part.

You mean the part where they say "strongly suggests..."
Kinda along the lines of infer and may.

Mar 01, 2019
And @Benni missed the fact that it only infers gravity. It's never seen it.


There's not one mention in the article about INFERRING gravity, only BHs. I guess you missed that too.

I see you're still not up to speed on definitions schneibo: INFER is to make an educated guess that someone else's conclusions are correct when they IMPLY something.


Mar 01, 2019
In search of black holes and dark matter astrophysicists are relying on indirect observations. It would seem that the measurement of the event horizon of a black hole directly would be a direct evidence. However, by the nature of a horizon, any real measurement of the event horizon will be indirect. The Event Horizon Telescope will get picture of the silhouette of the Sgr A* which is due to optical effects of spacetime outside of the event horizon. The result will be determined by the simple quality of the resulting image that does not depend on the properties of the spacetime within the image. So, it will be also indirect and an existence of BH is a hypothesis.
https://www.acade...ilky_Way

Mar 01, 2019
In the meantime, If you're artistically endowed, you may even consider drawing black holes and selling your work.

My impression of a BH;

● or is it ○ or is it ♧ or .. for two orbiting BH's.

Mar 01, 2019
Ever seen gravity, @Benni?

Mar 01, 2019
"... over 100 million quiet black holes expected to be lurking in the galaxy. ..."
Damn! Talk about your speedtraps.
These suckers are going to bring a whole new level of meaning to terms like "pothole" & "pitfall".

Okay Tux. I usually wouldn't bother with any more effort than ridiculing your woomongering.
However "LaViolette's SQK" has me monkey curious.

Yeah, I already regret asking..

So tux, II doubt if you are discussing syphilitic whores, Albanian sign language, feetball strykers, Quebec villages or French Cinema.

So give us a clue. What is the link to a peer reviewed publication of this mysterious ?LaViolette's SQK?

What?
Nothing in print that was not "Pay to Publish"?

& you think that will i,press anybody here?

Well, anyone but your usual useless fellow looneytoons,
cant, benni.& flattire,

Mar 01, 2019
Ever seen gravity, @Benni?


I can measure it, but I can't measure an inferred BH.

Mar 01, 2019
@Benni,

Ever seen gravity, @Benni?


I can measure it, but I can't measure an inferred BH.


Tell me, then, why they think it's there if they didn't measure its influence, just like you measure gravity's influence?

Mar 01, 2019
@Benni,

Ever seen gravity, @Benni?


I can measure it, but I can't measure an inferred BH.


Tell me, then, why they think it's there if they didn't measure its influence, just like you measure gravity's influence?
.......then tell us about the device you used sitting next to a BH with your BH meter in hand & measured it as can be done with a gravimeter? Probably think it's a trick question don't you?

So tell us all about how INFERRED BHs are measured.

Mar 02, 2019
@Benni's multimeter is showing...

Mar 02, 2019
When a man has no social life, and has been outcast by the rest of society, he has a tendency to become paranoid and adversarial. See above post.

LMAO.
MrBojangles aka Da Schitts, is at it again.
Well, it was inevitable that phys org would spawn its first supermassive asshole. Most unfortunate, however, is that despite being so dense, its gravity cannot contain the shite between its ears and so the forum must suffer his persistent soiling.

Mar 02, 2019
Calm down, @ag - @DS is a trained scientist commenting on a new scientific discovery in a forum dedicated to science.

If you have a problem with that, you're probably in the wrong place.

Mar 02, 2019
The plasma ignoramuses don't understand plasma physics


Like you, who doesn't understand plasma physics either. You fraud.

Mar 02, 2019
Watching @Benni prove it's been trolling for years.

Classic stuff. Comedy gold.

Seen any gravities today, @Benni?

Mar 02, 2019
@Benni's multimeter is showing...


Don't mind the anti-scientists - which these never-try-to-learn-something-but-perhaps-post-irrelevant-texts-and-ideas trolls effectively are - they would not observe an observation (experiment) even if stood next to it.

It is trivially boring trying to explain basic science - such as observation - and basic accepted results such as black holes, and RTFA - over and over when such help is also not accepted.

Which no doubt is the goal, get a reaction and steer people away from those that are curious about science and the world. The internet has its problems ... as do the crackpots. But at least we are here for the laughs!

Mar 02, 2019
Calm down, @ag - @DS is a trained scientist commenting on a new scientific discovery in a forum dedicated to science.
........really? In what?

He has trouble comprehending that the lifetime Beta Decay Rate of a neutron is 14.7 minutes, or that there is an electron shell of orbital electrons that gain & lose energy in accordance with the Pauli Exclusion Principle in making transitions within the orbital shell structure of an atom.......and to top it off these days, he's been trying to advance 19th Century Black Hole math as HIS foundational structure for BHs as it was advanced back in the days by the same Cosmologists who were pushing AETHER THEORY.

If you have a problem with that, you're probably in the wrong place.
.......No, you & schneibo belong on a Trekkie site where all your Pop-Cosmology fantasies are realized.

Hey, I'll betcha schneibo sells BH meters & you've bought one.

Mar 02, 2019
LOL

@Benni lies some more. You have no idea what half-life means, @Benni, and no idea what an orbital is. This has already been established.

Mar 02, 2019
Watching @Benni prove it's been trolling for years.

Classic stuff. Comedy gold.

Seen any gravities today, @Benni?
........has your BH meter measured any BHs today schneibo? My gravimeter works just fine.......at least it's REAL, that's more than you can say for your 19th Century Pop-Cosmology concept as YOUR evidence that BHs exist.


Mar 02, 2019
The evidence for black holes is just as good as the evidence you'll go splat if you jump out a tenth story window.

Meanwhile, care to tell us how a shape that looks like a bunch of flower petals is "farther out" than one that looks like a bunch of nested toruses?

And you didn't answer my question, @Benni: seen any gravities today?

Oh, and BTW you just undercut your butt buddy from the Russian troll farm. I got a time meter. I guess that's as good as your gravity meter. Most people call it a clock.

Caper, troll. Amuse us.

Mar 02, 2019

Tell me, then, why they think it's there if they didn't measure its influence, just like you measure gravity's influence?
.......then tell us about the device you used sitting next to a BH with your BH meter in hand & measured it as can be done with a gravimeter? Probably think it's a trick question don't you?

So tell us all about how INFERRED BHs are measured.


It's called a telescope, @Benni. You look at what everything around it is doing.

That should be simple enough for you to understand. If not, I can't help you.

Mar 02, 2019
...he has trouble comprehending that the lifetime Beta Decay Rate of a neutron is 14.7 minutes
Poor @Benni, it pains me to say that you are so congenitally retarded that you very evidently do not have the ability to learn what kids in high school easily learn about half-lives, and the probability that a certain free neutron will decay in time t. High school stuff, standard physics, and you flunk out every time.
there is an electron shell of orbital electrons
This is the kind of thing that 11-year-olds are taught in a first primer on atomic structure. Later, they will go on to learn that there are no shells, but rather 3-D regions with complicated shapes surrounding the nucleus, and which describe the probability of finding an electron with a certain energy. Shells went out with the Bohr atom,@Benni, a hundred years ago and counting. But I'm betting your RadioShack multimeter probably doesn't have a setting for that.

Mar 02, 2019
benni doesn't have any time to spare doing his schoolwork & learning the science of half-life.

He's too busy sucking on a bong, playing the game!

Well, at least that's an honest appraisal of his learning potential.

Mar 02, 2019
It's called a telescope, @Benni. You look at what everything around it is doing.

That should be simple enough for you to understand. If not, I can't help you.
.....then take a pic of one & link us to where we can see it.

This is the kind of thing that 11-year-olds are taught in a first primer on atomic structure.
......did you skip being 11 yo or the first primer? You don't know Beta Decay is not measured in units of half-life, nor does schneibo, or rw.

benni doesn't have any time to spare doing his schoolwork & learning the science of half-life.

He's too busy sucking on a bong, playing the game
......then you can be the one tell us?


Mar 02, 2019
Okay Tux. I usually wouldn't bother with any more effort than ridiculing your woomongering.
However "LaViolette's SQK" has me monkey curious.

So give us a clue. What is the link to a peer reviewed publication of this mysterious ?LaViolette's SQK?

What? Need to scratch an itch in the brain? Try through the nose!

Find his list here:

https://starburst...archive/

Including references to:

https://starburst...leon.pdf

https://www.starb...enic.pdf

https://www.tandf...#preview

https://www.tandf...#preview

https://www.tandf...#preview


Mar 02, 2019
You don't know Beta Decay is not measured in units of half-life
"An example of electron emission (β− decay) is the decay of carbon-14 into nitrogen-14 with a half-life of about 5,730 years", and "An example of positron emission (β+ decay) is the decay of magnesium-23 into sodium-23 with a half-life of about 11.3 s." (both Wiki)

Beta-decay half-lives for the r-process nuclei - https://www.scien...15002833

β-decay half-lives of neutron-rich nuclei and matter flow in the r-process - https://www.scien...13003377

Calculations of the β-decay half-lives of neutron-deficient nuclei - https://iopscienc...5/054103

94 β-Decay Half-Lives of Neutron-Rich _{55}Cs to _{67}Ho: Experimental Feedback and Evaluation...etc. - https://www.ncbi....28256889

Looks like Benni's favourite search engine needs an oil check.

Mar 02, 2019
@Benni,

I do wish you would learn to read.

I didn't say we could see the black hole. I said we could use telescopes to see what was going on around it an infer a black hole, thereby. Just like you can infer the existence of gravity by dropping something heavy on your foot.

I'm not going to do for you what you can do for yourself, but I'll give you a hint. Look up Sagittarius A*. Somewhere you'll find information about stars whipping around something very small, yet extremely massive -- millions of stellar masses kind of massive. The only thing that can possibly be is a black hole, unless you wish to invoke magic (which wouldn't surprise me in the least, because you won't believe evidence). There is as much evidence for neutron stars and black holes as there is for gravity. Why do you doubt the first two yet not the third?

You're still wrong about neutron decay.

You know nothing, and I am weary of you.

Mar 02, 2019
the decay of carbon-14 into nitrogen-14 with a half-life of about 5,730 years", and "An example of positron emission (β+ decay) is the decay of magnesium-23 into sodium-23 with a half-life of about 11.3 s."


You just quoted an example of GAMMA RADIATION DECAY, this is not NEUTRON BETA PARTICLE DECAY.

Your problem lies in fundamental knowledge of knowing the difference between the half-life decay rate of elements (atoms) that are radio-isotopes.

A neutron is NOT an ATOM that forms a radio-isotope, it is a sub-atomic PARTICLE with it's own specific decay rate which is 14.7 minutes, it's in Wiki, go look it up.

Mar 02, 2019
There is as much evidence for neutron stars and black holes as there is for gravity.
......oh really? I presume then that you have a BH meter, or a Neutron Star meter by which we can measure these things like we do with a Gravimeter for measuring gravity?

Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble is having yet another bad day here.

Mar 02, 2019
@Benni

@observicist to @Benni:
I didn't say we could see the black hole. I said we could use telescopes to see what was going on around it an infer a black hole, thereby. Just like you can infer the existence of gravity by dropping..
@Benni to @observicist:
I presume then that you have a BH meter, or a Neutron Star meter by which we can measure these things like we do with a Gravimeter for measuring gravity?

@Benni, both telescope and gravimeter are 'measuring devices'. One (gravimeter) is 'in situ immersed' in (eg, Earth's) local gravitational field and 'tells' the strength/variations of the gravitational effect on gravimeter's components/processes.

Whereas the other (telescope) is a 'remotely located' device, for 'telling' (via optical tracking/analysis of the components/processes of target system, ie, stars closely orbiting BH) the local (there) strength/variations of gravitational effects at/within BH location/system (think: 'theodolite').

Cheers. :)

Mar 02, 2019
They've been looking for intermediate mass black holes for a while. This is quite a find.

Chalk up another big find for ALMA!

Stop lying da schnied, they said "may" have found via indirect means.
cantdrive85

No, they didn't say "may". And you accuse HIM of lying?
They ACTUALLY said;
"Astronomers HAVE detected a stealthy black hole from its effects on an interstellar gas cloud. " (my emphasis)
"have" doesn't mean "may".


Mar 02, 2019
@SkyLight.
@DS is a trained scientist....
Not so, mate; @DS himself has on more than one occasion admitted he is not a scientist.

Just an FYI to help avoid misunderstandings on that score in further exchanges between the interlocutors in question. :)

Mar 02, 2019
.......Yep, to quote the article: "Because black holes do not emit light, astronomers must infer their existence.....", schneibo should look up the definition of "infer", guess he missed that part.
Benni

"infer" does NOT mean "may", moron.

If he did look up the definition of "infer", he will see it does NOT mean "may" and he will also have conformation that you are a moron.

Infer means deduce or conclude (something) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements. -where is the word "may" implied there?
Try learning ENGLISH.

Mar 02, 2019
So propose something that can make the gas do exactly that which doesn't involve GRT. And it ain't the EU.

It is two interacting Birkeland currents, they will "orbit" around one another in just the observed fashion. No invisible gravity monsters needed.

Mar 02, 2019
"infer" does NOT mean "may", moron.
......the "moron" is you looking in a mirror, here's what I wrote:

".......Yep, to quote the article: "Because black holes do not emit light, astronomers must infer their existence.....", schneibo should look up the definition of "infer", guess he missed that part."

.......I don't see "may" in there anywhere, just more Pop Cosmology delusion on your part.

Hey, ever seen a Differential Equation you could solve?

Mar 02, 2019
@cantdrive85.

@Da Schneib to @cantdrive85:
So propose something that can make the gas do exactly that which doesn't involve GRT. And it ain't the EU.

@cantdrive85 to @Da Schneib:
It is two interacting Birkeland currents, they will "orbit" around one another in just the observed fashion. No invisible gravity monsters needed.
If that is as you claim, @cd, the obvious question needing answering is: "How long would such a system in 'free space' (ie, not part of any containment system involving solid materials/structures to maintain the morphology/dynamics of the current-flow 'structure) remain stable before exploding"; and why, what physical processes/features would/could be responsible for keeping your claimed "Birkeland currents" feature stable for as long as a (so-labeled) BH feature?

Have you the answers, @cd? If so, please post them for us all to know. Thanks. :)

Mar 02, 2019
Well tux my boy, you've managed to live down to your lack of reputable sources.

Taylor & Francis are a notorious purveyor of pay to print gibberish.
Not only do they target the wooloon market but are themselves regular consumers of deliberate hoaxes.

Hilarious that you claim Starburst Magazine, a British science fiction magazine, as a source for your scientific knowledge.

Your ignorance of peer review of empirical evidence utilizing the Scientific Method?
Is as wretchedly sour as the alleged candy.

Mar 02, 2019
says observatrist
@Benni,

I didn't say we could see the black hole. I said we could use telescopes to see what was going on around it an infer a black hole, thereby...

..Look up Sagittarius A*. Somewhere you'll find information about stars whipping around something very small, yet extremely massive -- millions of stellar masses kind of massive. The only thing that can possibly be is a black hole,
says observicist

"Detailed kinematic analyses revealed that an enormous mass, 30,000 times that of the sun, was concentrated in a region much smaller than our solar system. This and the lack of any observed object at that location strongly suggests an intermediate-mass black hole. By analyzing other anomalous clouds, we hope to expose other quiet black holes."

In the case of THIS 'object', there is a lack of 'observed objects' AT THAT LOCATION. Therefor, they had to come up with an explanation for it - resulting in guesswork of an unobserved "intermediate-mass BH"

Mar 02, 2019
-contd-
@observerist
In effect, this object that can't be observed directly, and with no available direct effect on any objects due to the lack of any other objects in its vicinity, just HAS TO MEAN that a Black Hole lingers there within a CLOUD, the BH being of intermediate size at a certain distance from the alleged BH at the centre of Sgr A. These astronomers refuse to consider the possibility that this "mass" could be something else, rather than their beloved Black Hole of intermediate size.

"Because black holes do not emit light, astronomers must infer their existence from the effects of their gravity on other objects."

But lo and behold, there are no objects around it for its "gravity" to have any effect on. And yet, the science is settled - in spite of not enough evidence to prove it.

"Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence" - Carl Sagan

Mar 02, 2019
Watching @Benni prove it's been trolling for years.

Classic stuff. Comedy gold.

Seen any gravities today, @Benni?
........has your BH meter measured any BHs today schneibo? My gravimeter works just fine.......at least it's REAL, that's more than you can say for your 19th Century Pop-Cosmology concept as YOUR evidence that BHs exist.

Your gravimeter doesn't measure gravity directly - it measures gravity's effect...

Mar 02, 2019
"Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence" - Carl Sagan

No, ordinary evidence is just fine.

Mar 02, 2019
@SEU,


@observerist
"Because black holes do not emit light, astronomers must infer their existence from the effects of their gravity on other objects."


But lo and behold, there are no objects around it for its "gravity" to have any effect on. And yet, the science is settled - in spite of not enough evidence to prove it.

"Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence" - Carl Sagan


Except for a bunch of stars whipping around Sag A* at orbital velocities with eccentricities that speak of a very small several-million stellar mass something, and the only thing it can be is a black hole. It's not an overweight unicorn.

People who do not accept that evidence are totally uneducated to the point that their opinions are worthless. There are decades of education behind my opinion; there's no education behind yours. This is not an extraordinary claim.

Ask the star being for which you're the host, but don't listen too much to what it says.

Mar 02, 2019
These astronomers refuse to consider the possibility that this "mass" could be something else, rather than their beloved Black Hole of intermediate size.
......it's pretty dusty in that part of the galaxy they tell us. So I would imagine 30k stars, smaller even than that so-called 4 million mass BH, could just as easily make up the difference.


Mar 02, 2019
Your gravimeter doesn't measure gravity directly - it measures gravity's effect...


You don't know my gravimeter.

Mar 02, 2019
"How long would such a system in 'free space' (ie, not part of any containment system involving solid materials/structures to maintain the morphology/dynamics of the current-flow 'structure) remain stable before exploding

You are unaware of the properties of plasmas? I thought you considered ALL conditions/dynamics/physics RELEVANT to the properties of the systems in question. Ruh rho, when you get up to speed on plasmas it might require an edit to your BigTOE.

Mar 02, 2019
@Benni,

We know how gravimeters work. So, we know your gravimeter. Unless you've been given one by your very own star being.

Mar 02, 2019
To all those of you who have accused Benni of saying "may" rather than "inferred" - the following bears the Truth:
"cantdrive85

2.2 / 5 (10)
Mar 01, 2019
They've been looking for intermediate mass black holes for a while. This is quite a find.
Chalk up another big find for ALMA!
Stop lying da schnied, they said "may" have found via indirect means."
====
That was CD85 who said it.

Mar 02, 2019
-contd-
Benni actually said:

Benni

1.9 / 5 (13)
Mar 01, 2019
They've been looking for intermediate mass black holes for a while. This is quite a find.
Chalk up another big find for ALMA!
Stop lying da schnied, they said "may" have found via indirect means.
.......Yep, to quote the article: "Because black holes do not emit light, astronomers must infer their existence.....", schneibo should look up the definition of "infer", guess he missed that part.

Benni used "iNFERRED", not "may".
Kindly get your facts straight before making accusations. Try not to imitate the liar, Da Scheide, who goes into physorg phorums for the purpose of attacking, misrepresenting and lying.

Mar 02, 2019
@SEU,


@observerist
"Because black holes do not emit light, astronomers must infer their existence from the effects of their gravity on other objects."


But lo and behold, there are no objects around it for its "gravity" to have any effect on. And yet, the science is settled - in spite of not enough evidence to prove it.

"Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence" - Carl Sagan


-contd-

Mar 02, 2019
-contd-

Except for a bunch of stars whipping around Sag A* at orbital velocities with eccentricities that speak of a very small several-million stellar mass something, and the only thing it can be is a black hole. It's not an overweight unicorn.

People who do not accept that evidence are totally uneducated to the point that their opinions are worthless. There are decades of education behind my opinion; there's no education behind yours. This is not an extraordinary claim.

Ask the star being for which you're the host, but don't listen too much to what it says.

says observarest

Perhaps you fell asleep and are not aware that the topic of the article and this phorum is the "mass" within the interstellar Cloud (with no visible objects in its vicinity) that is being referred to as "an intermediate Black Hole", that happens to be at quite a distance from the alleged BH that is claimed to be at Sgr A.
The "mass" is yet to be confirmed as a BH of said size/mass.

Mar 02, 2019
-contd-

The "mass" is yet to be confirmed as a BH of said size/mass.


Sorry? Show me your credentisls, otherwise be quiet, because you haven't a clue what you are talking about. You appear to be a loony, who doesn't undersdand any science. Just like this idiot Benni that keeps posting. Please post links to your paspers. I will destroy them.

Mar 02, 2019
@SEU,

Sometimes discussion of black holes in general seems advisable, as some who post here don't seem to believe they exist at all.

I am well aware of the topic. I'm also well aware you have no scientific credibility, whatsoever. You've admitted that.

Yes, everything in the article is "may" -- but the evidence is pretty strong, and not to be tossed away as meaningless. "May" is a good thing.

Scientists generally don't publish unless they have most, if not all, their facts and observations lined up. I never once published anything that turned out to be wrong. Often others added stuff I hadn't discovered or realized -- which pleased me no end, as it meant I published on a good topic. Sometimes I was able to put the proof on something. Any paper that generates interest, discussion, and research by others is a good paper.

I'm betting they're right.

Mar 02, 2019
-contd-

The "mass" is yet to be confirmed as a BH of said size/mass.


Sorry? Show me your credentisls, otherwise be quiet, because you haven't a clue what you are talking about. You appear to be a loony, who doesn't undersdand any science. Just like this idiot Benni that keeps posting. Please post links to your paspers. I will destroy them.


LOL Sure, it's right there in the DOI at the bottom of the article

https://iopscienc...b07/meta

Mar 02, 2019
All they have is "circumstantial evidence", as it says in the DOI

"Abstract
We report the discovery of molecular gas streams orbiting around an invisible massive object in the central region of our Galaxy, based on the high-resolution molecular line observations with the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array. The morphology and kinematics of these streams can be reproduced well through two Keplerian orbits around a single point mass of (3.2 ± 0.6) × 104 M ⊙. We also found ionized gas toward the inner part of the orbiting gas, indicating dissociative shock and/or photoionization. Our results provide new circumstantial evidences for a wandering intermediate-mass black hole in the Galactic center, suggesting also that high-velocity compact clouds can be probes of quiescent black holes that abound in our Galaxy."

Circumstantial evidence would not hold up in a Court of Law. Neither will it hold up in Astronomy until the evidence is 100% that the "mass" is an "inter BH

Mar 02, 2019
Now for some real science.
https://www.youtu...6GTY9eVc

Mar 02, 2019
@SEU,

Sometimes discussion of black holes in general seems advisable, as some who post here don't seem to believe they exist at all.

I am well aware of the topic. I'm also well aware you have no scientific credibility, whatsoever. You've admitted that.

Yes, everything in the article is "may" -- but the evidence is pretty strong, and not to be tossed away as meaningless. "May" is a good thing.

Scientists generally don't publish unless they have most, if not all, their facts and observations lined up.

I'm betting they're right.
says observatory

Well, good for you.
But as the evidence isn't forthcoming at this time, I prefer to wait until they have come up with something that's tangible and observable. I am not into faerie dust and unicorn farts, as you and some others seem to be. I want proof; I want full evidence; otherwise there is nothing to accept/believe.
I am here to FALSIFY SCIENCE, and to get at the whole Truth and nothing but the whole Truth.

Mar 02, 2019
All they have is "circumstantial evidence", as it says in the DOI
...
Circumstantial evidence would not hold up in a Court of Law.

That depends on the "circumstances" …

I am here to FALSIFY SCIENCE, and to get at the whole Truth and nothing but the whole Truth.

And... what if Science is TELLING you the truth?
You don't falsify science by just denying it...

Mar 02, 2019
@SEU,

Circumstantial evidence has been used successfully to convict people of first degree premeditated murder, which, in the US, frequently results in a needle in one's arm that is removed only when the punctured one is dead.

You can't falsify science; I doubt you can falsify your tax return.

You have no scientific competence.

You wouldn't know scientific truth if it hit you over the head hard enough to crack your skull, which is probably of double thickness.

You can't understand scientific truth.

Mar 02, 2019
Now for some real science.
https://www.youtu...6GTY9eVc
from antigoracle

Funny video, gor. thanks. I'll pass it on

Mar 02, 2019
benniflunker, auntieoral & sillyegghead.

A menagerie du triage in the primate cage at the looneytunes zoo.

Mar 02, 2019
@SEU,

Circumstantial evidence has been used successfully to convict people of first degree premeditated murder, which, in the US, frequently results in a needle in one's arm that is removed only when the punctured one is dead.

You can't falsify science; I doubt you can falsify your tax return.

You have no scientific competence.

You wouldn't know scientific truth if it hit you over the head hard enough to crack your skull, which is probably.

You can't understand scien.


You have no idea how much competency I have in science. You are only conjecturing as to who I am and the level of my skills/knowledge. You are too full of yourself and by your words, you prove that you are egotistical and crave as much attention as does Da Schnitzophrenic. Two peas in a pod, you are. This site lures many weirdos into the comments, and you appear to be just as weird and moronic as any or all of them. As you age further, perhaps you will learn humility and modesty, but I doubt it

Mar 02, 2019
Sorry? Show me your credentisls, otherwise be quiet, because you haven't a clue what you are talking about. You appear to be a loony, who doesn't undersdand any science. Just like this idiot Benni that keeps posting. Please post links to your paspers. I will destroy them.


Follow your own advice, Show me your credentials (at least I spelled the word correctly), otherwise be quiet. Oh, we get it being quiet is for other people who make cogent arguments against the fantasies of Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble, & because you can't compete in the same realm of intellectual thought, out comes the SHUTUP demand.

I want Comments like yours never to cease, bouncing off your insensible pseudo-science narratives is a form of entertainment I can't get anywhere else, the reason being that you wouldn't be allowed to post your kinds of Comments anywhere else, so I need to come here.

Mar 02, 2019
https://en.wikipe...evidence

Circumstantial evidence as evidence for a Black Hole is merely an inference that is of no real value. The "mass" that is being referred to as an intermediate Black Hole is only ASSUMED TO BE THAT. The DOI clearly states that it is still only an assumption, and a search for more of such "objects" must be done.
It is most likely a gas/dust cloud that is in the process of accretion in its most early stage.

Mar 02, 2019
And... what if Science is TELLING you the truth?
You don't falsify science by just denying it...
..........that wasn't what he said:

I want full evidence; otherwise there is nothing to accept/believe.
I am here to FALSIFY SCIENCE
.....he didn't say he was here to FALSIFY SCIENCE, he was pointing to those who would twist his words to say that he was here falsifying science.

Just like you bend metal with that blowtorch of yours in your artworks studio, you also try to bend other people's words to make them look just as low in cogent thought as you are.


Mar 02, 2019
@Benni
This "Castrogiovanni" person is obviously a sock belonging to Da Scheide or one of its nasty cohorts to impersonate a newbie who has just joined physorg - according to its profile. It has commented in only 2 phorums so far.
Captain Beelzebub and company cannot stand any opposing views against anything about Black Holes and Dark Matter/Dark Energy. Those 3 topics are sacred to them and any opposition to them will be summarily hounded.
AGW is also dear to their hearts.

Mar 02, 2019
Captain Beelzebub and company cannot stand any opposing views against anything about Black Holes and Dark Matter/Dark Energy. Those 3 topics are sacred to them and any opposition to them will be summarily hounded.


That's for sure, it's their 3 Holy Grails, without which they would have no reason for being in this chatroom.

AGW is also dear to their hearts.
.......anything that can't be quantified is dear & precious to them, & the darker the better. I've read a little about the occult, black & dark are their two favorite words, religious nutcases that they are.

Mar 02, 2019
To falsify science doesn't mean to try to eliminate science. It means to demand the Truth be in the Scientific Method and the conclusions which follow the research. I require complete Honesty and Relevancy before I'm prepared to believe that the science methods and their results are sound.
Anyone in the scientific community can come up with an idea; give it some tests, and declare that they have found something extraordinary. Without honest evidence, it's only an assumption at best; and fake at worst.

Mar 02, 2019
And... what if Science is TELLING you the truth?
You don't falsify science by just denying it...
..........that wasn't what he said:

I want full evidence; otherwise there is nothing to accept/believe.
I am here to FALSIFY SCIENCE
.....he didn't say he was here to FALSIFY SCIENCE, he was pointing to those who would twist his words to say that he was here falsifying science.

Just like you bend metal with that blowtorch of yours in your artworks studio, you also try to bend other people's words to make them look just as low in cogent thought

says Benni

There were certain commenters who gave so much of their personal and public info (especially their business info) to Captain S that they were obligated to CS to not do or say anything that could bring ruin to them. In return, such people would be rated "5" as long as they complied with what CS and the "club members" were adhering to, such as DM, BHs, and AGW. Otherwise, they could face ruin

Mar 02, 2019
@SEU,

You, yourself, have stated you know nothing about mathematics. Knowing nothing about mathematics means you know nothing about science, as mathematics is the language of science.

Mar 02, 2019
-contd-
@Benni
These humans, who had come to physorg to offer their comments/opinions on the articles, began to enthusiastically provide much of their personal and business information to CS and, thinking that they were forming possible friendships in the phorums with Beelzebub, eventually found that they were being threatened with exposition of their information. The fact that anyone can come into the site and read all of the comments make it extremely important to realise that, with the info that CS & company could reveal to unsavory characters, that those who were so free with their info would be very much AT RISK of physical and economic harm. So they complied with what was required of them. Some of them have gone and no longer are seen commenting. Others are still commenting.
There is something else involved, but I will not reveal it as yet.

Mar 02, 2019
@SEU,

You, yourself, have stated you know nothing about mathematics. Knowing nothing about mathematics means you know nothing about science, as mathematics is the language of science.
says observatory

I have admitted that I am but a mere scholar and an interested observer. I have never said that I don't know mathematics. Please show me in which link I said it.
It is not my duty to prove my proficiency in math, or in any other discipline in these phorums. All that you need to know about me, I have mentioned already, including that I am a Creationist. Some Creationists believe in a young Earth because they have been misdirected into it. I have seen evidence of an ancient Earth, and that suits me just fine.

Mar 02, 2019
There is as much evidence for neutron stars and black holes as there is for gravity.
......oh really? I presume then that you have a BH meter, or a Neutron Star meter by which we can measure these things like we do with a Gravimeter for measuring gravity?
Yep, sure do. Accretion disks, X-rays, radio waves, light, and infrared all measure gravity. So do the orbits of normal stars (i.e. main sequence stars) and neutron stars. They measure it by their behavior, just as instrumentation devised by people does. If gravity is real then so are neutron stars and black holes. Are you now going to reverse course and say measurement doesn't mean anything?

Love getting these trolls to tangle their feet up and do faceplants.

Mar 02, 2019
@cantdrive85.
How long would such a system in 'free space' (ie, not part of any containment system involving solid materials/structures to maintain the morphology/dynamics of the current-flow 'structure) remain stable before exploding
You are unaware of the properties of plasmas? I thought you considered ALL conditions/dynamics/physics RELEVANT to the properties of the systems in question. ...when you get up to speed on plasmas it might require an edit to your BigTOE.
Come, mate, don't start making evasive/insulting posts in the vein of DS when faced with a poster who actually KNOWS the science (as I already well proved in many exchanges with DS etc to which you were also witness). So it's beneath you now to pretend I do not know the relevant science (like DS has done all too many times with me, to his reputational cost, such as it was to begin with). The fact I do know, is why I asked you the question(s). Are you going to answer; or will you 'do-a-DS' again? :)

Mar 03, 2019
I got this thing called a "chrono-meter." It measures time. Most people call it a clock.

If I can measure it, according to @Benni, then I am not inferring it.

Guess time actually exists and isn't "a product of the human mind."

We done here, or would you trolls like to tangle your feet some more?

Mar 03, 2019
And... what if Science is TELLING you the truth?
You don't falsify science by just denying it...
..........that wasn't what he said:

I want full evidence; otherwise there is nothing to accept/believe.
I am here to FALSIFY SCIENCE
.....he didn't say he was here to FALSIFY SCIENCE, he was pointing to those who would twist his words to say that he was here falsifying science.

Just like you bend metal with that blowtorch of yours in your artworks studio, you also try to bend other people's words to make them look just as low in cogent thought as you are.

Since I quoted from his comment just previous to mine, It was most definitely what he said.


Mar 03, 2019
For Benni and SEU.
The "club" downvotes boastful arrogance and pomposity...
It ain't what you say, it's how you say it.
Or maybe it's ME that has something on all those "club" members so that they give me a 5...
(Except for TBGL and DS... They downvote me on occasion, too..)


Mar 03, 2019
So, guys, a couple of points need clearing up. Firstly, none of the scientific clowns and loons here - y'all know who you are - have the slightest effect on the current theories, conduct and progress of science. You're like rocks in the path of the scientific stream - there's a lot of commotion and chatter as science rolls over you, and then it continues along in its' path undisturbed and unabated. How does it feel to be so ineffectual?

Secondly, chronometers do not measure time (pace @DS), they're devices containing very stable oscillators which are so constructed and tuned that they almost perfectly mimic what we call the passage of time down here on the surface of Earth.

Thirdly, gravimeters do not measure gravity, they measure accelerations or displacements of test masses (or the current required to hold a spherical mass at a given point in a magnetic field) due to gravitational acceleration.

Neither time nor gravity can be directly measured.

Mar 03, 2019
@Benni
You just quoted an example of GAMMA RADIATION DECAY
For your edification @Benni (and boy, do you ever need it), here are the two quotes again:

1) An example of electron emission (β− decay) is the decay of carbon-14 into nitrogen-14 with a half-life of about 5,730 years:

(14, 6)C → (14, 7)N + e− + ν(e) = BETA MINUS DECAY, with emission of an electron and an electron neutrino.

2) An example of positron emission (β+ decay) is the decay of magnesium-23 into sodium-23 with a half-life of about 11.3 s:

(23, 12)Mg → (23, 11)Na + e+ + ν(e) = BETA PLUS DECAY, with emission of a positron and an electron neutrino.

No gamma radiation emitted, Benni. Not gamma radiation decay. Beta decay: B, E, T, A, BETA decay.

Not gamma radiation decay.

Beta decay.

Got that now?


Mar 03, 2019
@Sky, you are of course correct.

Except one thing: time doesn't "pass." Mass moves in time. That's what Einstein told us. We, being made of mass, can measure this movement, by various means.

Mar 03, 2019
Except one thing: time doesn't "pass"
- correct! We "pass" in spacetime. I simply said "what we call the passage of time" 'cos that's what most folks would think or say.

Mar 03, 2019
And to my mind, it's no more unreasonable that matter should spontaneously move in time than that light should spontaneously move in space. And they do.

Mar 03, 2019
And... what if Science is TELLING you the truth?
You don't falsify science by just denying it...
..........that wasn't what he said:

I want full evidence; otherwise there is nothing to accept/believe.
I am here to FALSIFY SCIENCE
.....he didn't say he was here to FALSIFY SCIENCE, he was pointing to those who would twist his words to say that he was here falsifying science.

Just like you bend metal... you also try to bend other people's words to make them look just as low in cogent thought as you are.

Since I quoted from his comment just previous to mine, It was most definitely what he said.

says Whyde

Of course I said that I'm here to falsify science - as defined by Wiki - to wit:
"falsify | ˈfôlsəˌfī |
verb (falsifies, falsifying, falsified) [with object]

2 prove (a statement or theory) to be false: the hypothesis is falsified by the evidence."

I should have said that I'm here to falsify INCORRECT science

Mar 03, 2019
Only problem is you haven't falsified anything yet.

Mar 03, 2019
Except one thing: time doesn't "pass"
- correct! We "pass" in spacetime. I simply said "what we call the passage of time" 'cos that's what most folks would think or say.

says Skylight

There is no such thing as "Spacetime". Einstein was wrong in equating time with Space as though the 2 are equal/same. As Benni mentioned, Minkowski talked Einstein into including "time" in his "Spacetime", postulating that Space and Time were inseparable - which they are not. One is real and the other isn't. Time is not a dimension and is nothing but a concept/product of the human mind that was translated into the building of clocks.

Mar 03, 2019
I will refer you to the 1905 Einstein paper in which the time transform appears first in section 3. This is the key idea in the paper.

Do you need the link?

Mar 03, 2019
I should have said that I'm here to falsify INCORRECT science
Since your many posts in this "chatroom" (as @Benni calls this science forum) make abundantly clear, you are evidently untrained in science, and hence unqualified to falsify any kind of science, "correct" or not.

Or perhaps you are in possession of a "science correctness meter"? Or maybe you're in regular contact with your "Creator" who gives you the low-down on the "correctness" of this or that scientific theory?

In any case, and completely independent of ragged-trousered observers like yourself, science itself continually seeks to disprove its' own hypotheses and theories by conducting experiments. Any time observed behavior contradicts theoretical prediction, alarm bells will ring.

But knock yourself out @SEU - we need a few laughs around here from time to time.

Mar 03, 2019
This fable about Minkowski influencing Einstein before the 1905 paper is easily quashed by noting that Minkowski's paper didn't appear until 1908.

Just sayin'.

Mar 03, 2019
-contd-
Dark Matter/Dark Energy = have yet to be proven
Black Holes = still theory
Time = intangible - no effect on Matter/Energy. Time is only the title/name of an insubstantial and imaginary 'qualifier' that is used to describe the passage and duration/length of Events through Space

Mar 03, 2019
How long you gonna keep denying Einstein? You got something better? SRT seems to work fine.

Just askin'.

Mar 03, 2019
I should have said that I'm here to falsify INCORRECT science
Since your many posts in this "chatroom" (as @Benni calls this science forum) make abundantly clear, you are evidently untrained in science, and hence unqualified to falsify any kind of science, "correct" or not.

Or perhaps you are in possession of a "science correctness meter"? Or maybe you're in regular contact with your "Creator" who gives you the low-down on the "correctness" of this or that scientific theory?

In any case, and completely independent of ragged-trousered observers like yourself, science itself continually seeks to disprove its' own hypotheses and theories by conducting experiments. Any time observed behavior contradicts theoretical prediction, alarm bells will ring.

But knock yourself out @SEU - we need a few laughs around here from time to time.
You seem to be saying that only scientists/researchers have the right to comment in these phorums. Are you now the dictator here?
LOL

Mar 03, 2019
This fable about Minkowski influencing Einstein before the 1905 paper is easily quashed by noting that Minkowski's paper didn't appear until 1908.

Just sayin'.
says the physorg village idiot

What Minkowski's paper are you talking about, FOOL? All references were about Einstein - not his peers.

Mar 03, 2019
Minkowski talked Einstein into including "time" in his "Spacetime"
As if Minkowski had visited the deeply stupid Einstein and talked him into this! That's not what happened.

Both you and our resident buffoon @Benni could benefit from reading the history of the development of special relativity, paying particular attention to the timelines - i.e. WHEN certain developments took place. SR was first proposed in September 1905 by Einstein; in 1905-06 Henri Poincaré introduced the idea of time as an imaginary 4th spacetime coordinate (actually Lagrange in the 1700's and Riemann in 1854 also introduced/reworked these ideas; also Hamilton's quaternions of 1843 dealt with 4 dimensions).

Minkowski, in his 1908 paper on Space and Time - i.e. a couple of years AFTER Einstein had proposed SR - elaborated on these ideas to restate the Maxwell equations in four dimensions, showing directly their invariance under the Lorentz transformation.

@DS - read your post after this

[TBC]

Mar 03, 2019
The Day Of The Picci has arrived

Gone are the days of artiste's artistic imaginative simulations
It's amazing that everywhere they find a black hole, there's an artist's impression to show us what it looks like. I tried buying lunch with an artist's impression of a 20$ bill....no go.

In this month
this month, march on this day of our Lord is the day of the picci
the picci of a piccies
a picci so famouse
no explanation is required
as
this, this piccies name, The Picci
is
all that is required
to fully describe a humongous billion mass star
not
25,000Lys hence
so massive
it is totally invisible
except
the surrounding stellar mass stars
so
we have
THE PICCI - an artists simulation
https://3c1703fe8...ackh.jpg

Mar 03, 2019
From Space.com
"n 1905, Albert Einstein determined that the laws of physics are the same for all non-accelerating observers, and that the speed of light in a vacuum was independent of the motion of all observers. This was the theory of special relativity. It introduced a new framework for all of physics and proposed new concepts of space and time.

Einstein then spent 10 years trying to include acceleration in the theory and published his theory of general relativity in 1915. In it, he determined that massive objects cause a distortion in space-time, which is felt as gravity."

Massive objects don't cause a distortion in Time - only in Space as gravity. He made an error by including time with Space. FALSIFIED

Mar 03, 2019
The Day Of The Picci has arrived

Gone are the days of artiste's artistic imaginative simulations
It's amazing that everywhere they find a black hole, there's an artist's impression to show us what it looks like. I tried buying lunch with an artist's impression of a 20$ bill....no go.

In this month
this month, march on this day of our Lord is the day of the picci
the picci of a piccies
a picci so famouse
no explanation is required
as
this, this piccies name, The Picci
is
all that is required
to fully describe a humongous billion mass star
not
25,000Lys hence
so massive
it is totally invisible
except
the surrounding stellar mass stars
so
we have
THE PICCI - an artists simulation
https://3c1703fe8...ackh.jpg
says granville

Disappointing, isn't it. The very same picci as the one in the article. LOL
Is that all there really is?

Mar 03, 2019
[continued]

None of this history of who did what and when, nor indeed your flatulent comments, have any bearing on the spectacular success of Einstein's SR in explaining and/or predicting many phenomena - including length contraction, time dilation, relativistic mass, mass–energy equivalence, a universal speed limit and relativity of simultaneity - observed countless times every day.

Bashing Einstein is a popular sport amongst people singularly unqualified to do so and who, instead of getting down to the difficult and exacting process of actually learning science, and thereby becoming qualified to speak on such matters, seem quite content to stay blissfully ignorant of what science is, and of what makes science tick.

See what I did there?

Mar 03, 2019
Minkowski talked Einstein into including "time" in his "Spacetime"
As if Minkowski had visited the deeply stupid Einstein and talked him into this! That's not what happened.

Both you and our resident buffoon @Benni could benefit from reading the history of the development of special relativity, paying particular attention to the timelines - i.e. WHEN certain developments took place. SR was first proposed in September 1905 by Einstein; in 1905-06 Henri Poincaré introduced the idea of time as an imaginary 4th spacetime coordinate (actually Lagrange in the 1700's and Riemann in 1854 also introduced/reworked these ideas; also Hamilton's quaternions of 1843 dealt with 4 dimensions).


etc etc etc
And as I have already said many times - there is no time dimension. It doesn't exist. There is only the first 3 dimensions, and Space - no such thing as time involved.
Thanks for the information


Mar 03, 2019
Oh good God above, can't you please inject some extra functioning brain-matter into @SEU's head???

The poor sap evidently believes that if he writes something, or says something - regardless of what that might be - it becomes objective fact. So, he opines
Massive objects don't cause a distortion in Time - only in Space as gravity. He made an error by including time with Space. FALSIFIED
without a shred of proof. In his world of biblical conjecture, that's AOK.

By that same token, I could posit some nonsensical notion that Einstein made a mistake when he came up with the mass-energy equivalence E=mc² : WRONG, I say! it should be E=Mc³ any fool can see that, Einstein was a complete idiot. NOW - observe how the entire body of post-1905 science is brought crashing to the ground by my utterances (Ozymandias, anybody?), and is replaced by Scientific Cubism? - NOT!

How can anybody BE so stupid as to engage in a fist-fight with a speeding locomotive?

Mar 03, 2019
@SRU, tell us where SRT is wrong. Not "there is no time dimension." But where the mathematical errors are.

Mar 03, 2019
You seem to be saying that only scientists/researchers have the right to comment in these phorums
Not at all, all are welcome to comment here.

Just be aware that if anybody makes unscientific claims, they should be prepared to provide evidence and learned papers to back up their claims or - failing that - to be brought to task, invited to actually learn some science, and to be shot down in flames if they refuse to.

This isn't Disney World, sonny.

Mar 03, 2019
And trolling to avoid admitting it after you're shot down in flames is dishonest and dishonorable. And you can expect after that to be viciously ridiculed at every turn.

Mar 03, 2019
Man... don't you people ever sleep?

Mar 03, 2019
Just be aware that if anybody makes unscientific claims, they should be prepared to provide evidence and learned papers to back up their claims or - failing that - to be brought to task, invited to actually learn some science, and to be shot down in flames if they refuse to.


> Skyhigh .........you mean like learning the difference between Beta Particle Decay & Gamma Radiation Decay when making mistakes like this:

"An example of electron emission (β− decay) is the decay of carbon-14 into nitrogen-14 with a half-life of about 5,730 years", and "An example of positron emission (β+ decay) is the decay of magnesium-23 into sodium-23 with a half-life of about 11.3 s"

.........you don't even know if what you put up in this quote is Gamma Radiation Decay or if it's Beta Particle Decay. Must have something to do with what YOU know about science & making "unscientific claims" that you infer upon others but for which you are among the most glaring examples.


Mar 03, 2019
says Benni

There were certain commenters who gave so much of their personal and public info (especially their business info) to Captain S that they were obligated to CS to not do or say anything that could bring ruin to them. In return, such people would be rated "5" as long as they complied with what CS and the "club members" were adhering to, such as DM, BHs, and AGW. Otherwise, they could face ruin


..........don't I already know, I was appalled that the anti-alias guy came on here a couple years ago bragging about having sent his resume to Stumpo, Ira same thing. There are a couple others whose monikers I don't recall who were cloistering at a blog account that Stumpo set up for the express purpose of putting their tiny brains together solely for the purpose of creating counter Comments on Benni. Stumpo set that up about 4 years ago at a time when he was threatening me with bodily harm if I didn't cease my Comments.

Mar 03, 2019
@SEU,

And as I have already said many times - there is no time dimension. It doesn't exist. There is only the first 3 dimensions, and Space - no such thing as time involved.
Thanks for the information



You would appear to be a non-scientist, with no scientific knowledge or qualifications. Would you mind backing up your assertions with some references to the scientific literature, please? As per the comments guidelines;

Keep science: Include references to the published scientific literature to support your statements. Pseudoscience comments (including non-mainstream theories) will be deleted (see pseudoscience).

Mar 03, 2019
Bashing Einstein is a popular sport amongst people singularly unqualified to do so and who, instead of getting down to the difficult and exacting process of actually learning science, and thereby becoming qualified to speak on such matters, seem quite content to stay blissfully ignorant of what science is, and of what makes science tick.


Sure Skyhigh, follow you're own advice with evaluating this:

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

The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality. The problem quite naturally leads to the question, answered by this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of exhibiting such a singularity.

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

Schneibo claims this paper is "erroneous".


Mar 03, 2019
Einstein then spent 10 years trying to include acceleration in the theory and published his theory of general relativity in 1915. In it, he determined that massive objects cause a distortion in space-time, which is felt as gravity."

Massive objects don't cause a distortion in Time - only in Space as gravity. He made an error by including time with Space. FALSIFIED


Einstein did this at the behesting of his teacher Minkowski with whom he was competing at the time for the bragging rights to publishing a General Theory of Gravity.

Minkowski was a threatening presence causing Einstein to cave on definitions of words that were Minkowski's pet phrases just so Minkowski could have certain bragging rights to being the real source for Einstein's GRT & thereby should have been the person to whom credit should have been given for GR & not Einstein.

Mar 03, 2019


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

Schneibo claims this paper is "erroneous".



That paper is erroneous. As is well known in the scientific community. Dear old Einstein did not like the fact that his math was shown to lead to a singularity. He tried a thought experiment to avoid it. It was wrong. This was shown by Oppenheimer et al in 1939.

Mar 03, 2019
Sometimes discussion of black holes in general seems advisable, as some who post here don't seem to believe they exist at all.

Scientific viewpoints have zero to do with belief, although the question of black holes is no doubt a question of beliefs. From wikistupidia;
"Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case regardless of empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty."
Being there is zero empirical evidence or factual certainty regarding BH's it is entirely about beliefs, which shows it ain't science.

Mar 03, 2019
From Space.com
"n 1905, Albert Einstein determined that the laws of physics are the same for all non-accelerating observers, and that the speed of light in a vacuum was independent of the motion of all observers. This was the theory of special relativity. It introduced a new framework for all of physics and proposed new concepts of space and time.

Einstein then spent 10 years trying to include acceleration in the theory and published his theory of general relativity in 1915. In it, he determined that massive objects cause a distortion in space-time, which is felt as gravity."

Massive objects don't cause a distortion in Time - only in Space as gravity. He made an error by including time with Space. FALSIFIED


Again, you would appear to be untutored in this area. Why don't you read what you just quoted?

massive objects cause a distortion in space-time


If you cannot understand a simple concept, then why would you comment upon it?

Mar 03, 2019
If you cannot understand a simple concept, then why would you comment upon it?

Amusing! Simply explain the concept of "space-time".

Mar 03, 2019
Sometimes discussion of black holes in general seems advisable, as some who post here don't seem to believe they exist at all.

Scientific viewpoints have zero to do with belief, although the question of black holes is no doubt a question of beliefs. From wikistupidia;
"Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case regardless of empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty."
Being there is zero empirical evidence or factual certainty regarding BH's it is entirely about beliefs, which shows it ain't science.


Complete nonsense. You also appear to be one of the posters with no knowledge of this subject area. There is plenty of evidence for the existence of black holes. Have a look in the scientific literature. Google Scholar is your friend. Why do you feel the need to comment upon things of which you clearly have no knowledge?

Mar 03, 2019
If you cannot understand a simple concept, then why would you comment upon it?

Amusing! Simply explain the concept of "space-time".


Go and read Einstein. Nobody is doubting it, until we get to singularities, and it is one of the most tested scientific theories of all time. It always passes. Unless you know otherwise. In which case, please link to the relevant scientific literature.

Mar 03, 2019


You just quoted an example of GAMMA RADIATION DECAY, this is not NEUTRON BETA PARTICLE DECAY.

Your problem lies in fundamental knowledge of knowing the difference between the half-life decay rate of elements (atoms) that are radio-isotopes.

A neutron is NOT an ATOM that forms a radio-isotope, it is a sub-atomic PARTICLE with it's own specific decay rate which is 14.7 minutes, it's in Wiki, go look it up.


Possibly the stupidest thing posted on this thread. And that is saying something. The poster Benni is clearly uintutored in this area. The example quoted is of beta-decay. If you need a definition of beta decay, I'll happily give one. Otherwise, it would be the smart thing to do to stop commenting on subjects until you have at least a basic understanding of them.

Mar 03, 2019
Complete nonsense. You also appear to be one of the posters with no knowledge of this subject area. There is plenty of evidence for the existence of black holes. Have a look in the scientific literature. Google Scholar is your friend. Why do you feel the need to comment upon things of which you clearly have no knowledge?
......so why then did you write this about Einstein:

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

Schneibo claims this paper is "erroneous".

That paper is erroneous. As is well known in the scientific community. Dear old Einstein did not like the fact that his math was shown to lead to a singularity. He tried a thought experiment to avoid it. It was wrong. This was shown by Oppenheimer et al in 1939.


You Einstein basher, what are your credentials for the bragging rights in declaring "On Stationary Systems with Spherical Symmetry consisting of many Gravitating Masses" is "erroneous"?

You don't even know the differences between Beta & Gamma decay.


Mar 03, 2019
You don't even know the differences between Beta & Gamma decay.


Yes I do. You do not, however. You referred to an example of beta-decay, provided by another poster, as gamma decay. That shows an appalling lack of knowledge in the relevant area. Might I suggest attending a university? There are even online courses you can take these days.

Mar 03, 2019
You Einstein basher, what are your credentials for the bragging rights in declaring "On Stationary Systems with Spherical Symmetry consisting of many Gravitating Masses" is "erroneous"?


You may have heard of Robert Oppenheimer. He, along with colleagues, showed it to be wrong in 1939. Nobody since has given any credence to Einstein's erroneous paper. The fact that black holes exist shows him to be wrong.


Mar 03, 2019
Come, mate, don't start making evasive/insulting posts in the vein of DS when faced with a poster who actually KNOWS the science

You asked a very rudimentary question regarding plasms and Birkeland currents;
"How long would such a system in 'free space' (ie, not part of any containment system involving solid materials/structures to maintain the morphology/dynamics of the current-flow 'structure) remain stable...


Plasma has its own "containment system" in 'free space', they are called double layers and field-aligned electric and magnetic fields.

https://plasmauni...smic.pdf
And structures in the plasma, due to the electrodynamical properties of the plasma;
https://plasmauni...2007.pdf
https://plasmauni...sTPS.pdf

If you are unaware of these facts, it shows you don't KNOW the science as you claim

Mar 03, 2019
The Vacuous Vacuum that is Space
massive objects cause a distortion in space-time

Vacuums definition of a 3-dimensional spatial dimension
devoid of energy, gravity, inertial-mass
protons, electrons occupy the vacuum
and pass through the vacuum
To the nitty-gritty
Distortion in space-time
how does one distort vacuum
can you have half a vacuum
you cannot have half a vacuum
time is ethereal, existing only in the mind
time, just like vacuum is not physical
you cannot compress, stretch, bend, Vacuum
you cannot bend, stretch, Time
the statement is a misnomer, an Impossibility
gravity is not vacuum
the quantum particle of gravity is the graviton
gravitons occupy the vacuum
gravitons pass through the vacuum at the speed of light
gravitons accelerate inertial mass
protons, electrons are inertial mass
Gravitons curve the path of protons as they pass through the vacuum
The Vacuous Vacuum that is Space

Mar 03, 2019
Come, mate, don't start making evasive/insulting posts in the vein of DS when faced with a poster who actually KNOWS the science

You asked a very rudimentary question regarding plasms and Birkeland currents;
"How long would such a system in 'free space' (ie, not part of any containment system involving solid materials/structures to maintain the morphology/dynamics of the current-flow 'structure) remain stable...


Plasma has its own "containment system" in 'free space', they are called double layers and field-aligned electric and magnetic fields.

https://plasmauni...smic.pdf

If you are unaware of these facts, it shows you don't KNOW the science as you claim


And where is the evidence for the claim that these unobserved currents have anything to do with the above article? Please link to the actual science.

Mar 03, 2019
There is plenty of evidence for the existence of black holes. Have a look in the scientific literature. Google Scholar is your friend. Why do you feel the need to comment upon things of which you clearly have no knowledge?

I would prefer to read Jules Verne if I wanted to read pop-sci-fi stories such as you suggest, he is much more interesting than the pseudoscientific claptrap of BH's.

Mar 03, 2019
And where is the evidence for the claim that these unobserved currents have anything to do with the above article? Please link to the actual science.

You obviously didn't read the paper above where they described the "streams" of constrained charged particles. They are only "unobserved" due to willful ignorance.

Mar 03, 2019
There is plenty of evidence for the existence of black holes. Have a look in the scientific literature. Google Scholar is your friend. Why do you feel the need to comment upon things of which you clearly have no knowledge?

I would prefer to read Jules Verne if I wanted to read pop-sci-fi stories such as you suggest, he is much more interesting than the pseudoscientific claptrap of BH's.


So, you have no science to call upon? As expected. You simply don't understand the science, do you? Which is why you rail against it. This is a typical response of those with feelings of inadequacy, low self esteem, and a jealousy of others are far more informed than themselves. All too common, I'm afraid, in places such as this. People who would be laughed off science forums feel the need to vent their frustrations in comments sections, such as this. When pushed to provide actual science to back up their wrongheaded belief systems, they run a mile.

Mar 03, 2019
Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler discuss this paper's findings in Section 31.2 of the standard textbook Gravitation (1973). The section is titled "The Nonsingularity of the Gravitational Radius." This is a direct reference to Einstein (1939); the authors decline to state that Einstein was wrong, but show conclusively that he was.

Most importantly, they show that the singularity that Einstein claimed existed at the Schwarzchild radius is a coordinate singularity, not a physical singularity.

I should note that Gravitation is *the* standard textbook on gravity. If you don't have it and haven't seen it, anything you say about gravity is meaningless.

Mar 03, 2019
And where is the evidence for the claim that these unobserved currents have anything to do with the above article? Please link to the actual science.

You obviously didn't read the paper above where they described the "streams" of constrained charged particles. They are only "unobserved" due to willful ignorance.


And you obviously do not understand the paper, and have resorted to making things up. Please show where anybody, in the scientific literature, has equated Birkeland currents with black holes.
As per the comments guidelines;

Keep science: Include references to the published scientific literature to support your statements. Pseudoscience comments (including non-mainstream theories) will be deleted (see pseudoscience).


https://sciencex....omments/

Mar 03, 2019
'Are Black Holes Necessary?'

https://plasmauni...sCLR.pdf

So, you have no science to call upon?

The irony being you do not have an iota of science to call upon regarding BH's, just volumes of pseudoscientific claptrap in the so called "scientific" literature. Maths gymnastics does not make science.

Mar 03, 2019
I seriously doubt @Benni has a copy of Gravitation, or would understand it if it did considering it can't do 4th grade math.

Mar 03, 2019
'Are Black Holes Necessary?'

https://plasmauni...sCLR.pdf

So, you have no science to call upon?

The irony being you do not have an iota of science to call upon regarding BH's, just volumes of pseudoscientific claptrap in the so called "scientific" literature. Maths gymnastics does not make science.


Complete nonsense from a psedoscience site. Reported.
What is the cause of the orbit of this mostly neutral gas in the article?
What is the cause of the orbits around the SMBH in the galactic centre?
Do you know what Kepler's third law is?
Do you, in fact, understand anything about science?

Ity sounds to me as if you have a huge chip on your shoulder about being totally inadequate in both science and mathematics. Am I right?

Mar 03, 2019
'Are Black Holes Necessary?'

https://plasmauni...sCLR.pdf

So, you have no science to call upon?

The irony being you do not have an iota of science to call upon regarding BH's, just volumes of pseudoscientific claptrap in the so called "scientific" literature. Maths gymnastics does not make science.


You may also want to consider that the awful article from Peratt is over 30 years old. Please link to where any scientist is proposing such utter nonsense for the observations of the stellar orbits as mentioned around Sgr A*. From the scientific literature, please.

Mar 03, 2019
It's not even a paper; it's an article. It doesn't give references and instead refers the reader to the paper.

Peratt was a maverick when he was young. He now has a disclaimer on his web site as follows:
The Plasma Universe and Plasma Cosmology have no ties to the anti-science blogsites of the holoscience 'electric universe'.
Apparently he finds it embarrassing to be associated with the EU crowd.

Mar 03, 2019
Complete nonsense from a psedoscience site. Reported.

So, 'Sky and Telescope' magazine is pseudoscientific? A website hosted by Los Alamos National Laboratory is pseudoscientific? Nice double standard.

Mar 03, 2019
S&T isn't a journal of record.

And since you're part of the EU crowd, Peratt's disclaimer applies directly to you; he finds you embarrassing.

You just got pissed on. Hope you like the aroma.

@Castro, @cantthink tries that one on every user it's never seen before.

Mar 03, 2019
Complete nonsense from a psedoscience site. Reported.

So, 'Sky and Telescope' magazine is pseudoscientific? A website hosted by Los Alamos National Laboratory is pseudoscientific? Nice double standard.


It may be hosted by LANL, but it is Peratt's site. You will find very little support amongst his peers for some of his strange beliefs. And, as pointed out, the article is ancient. Perhaps it was a reasonable, if fringe, idea at the time. However it is no longer tenable.

Mar 03, 2019
Do you know what Kepler's third law is?

Kepler's laws are valid for electric charges too.

Mar 03, 2019
Castrogiovanni - The ghosts are haunting
Castrogiovanni> What is the cause of the orbit of this mostly neutral gas in the article?

Who else would say, mostly neutral gas
if not
Quasi-neutral

Mar 03, 2019
Peratt's disclaimer applies directly to you; he finds you embarrassing.

The really amusing part, Peratt didn't pen the disclaimer, nor did he add it. It was forced upon him in order to keep his webpage active, but who cares about truth and accuracy when discussing scientific matters.

Mar 03, 2019
Just FYI @Castro, @cantthink thinks there is no gravity and the motions of planets are driven by electric charges.

I wouldn't bother attempting to engage with this crank. It's a waste of your time and it will always have a million excuses about why you are "wrong" because you "believe in" gravitation.

Mar 03, 2019
Peratt's disclaimer applies directly to you; he finds you embarrassing.

The really amusing part, Peratt didn't pen the disclaimer, nor did he add it. It was forced upon him in order to keep his webpage active, but who cares about truth and accuracy when discussing scientific matters.


Which tells you precisely what LANL think of such pseudoscience.

Mar 03, 2019
Castrogiovanni - The ghosts are haunting

The ghost of jonesdumb perhaps? A cockpuppet buried in his fleshy backside? The hints abound, and if true he risks a permanent ban as have others who have resorted to contrive phys.orgs click counts.

Mar 03, 2019
@CG
Possibly the stupidest thing posted on this thread. And that is saying something. The poster Benni is clearly untutored in this area. The example quoted is of beta-decay
It gets better - he has claimed, on numerous occasions in other threads, to be a Nuclear Electrical Engineer, with six years of college education, and to be an expert in Partial Differential Equations (he very often throws that last one in people's faces).

And he claims to be currently employed in - wait for it - a Gamma Ray Spectroscopy Lab, where he considers a multimeter to be a really high-tech, groovy instrument.

There are claims, and there are preposterous claims - take your pick!

Mar 03, 2019
Castrogiovanni - The ghosts are haunting
Castrogiovanni> What is the cause of the orbit of this mostly neutral gas in the article?

Who else would say, mostly neutral gas
if not
Quasi-neutral


I have no idea what you are talking about. Read the paper to see what I meant. They are observing HCN. This is nothing to do with quasi-neutrality. That can refer to a plasma that has no neutral content at all. It merely states that the number of positive and negative charges balance within a certain distance.

Mar 03, 2019
Just FYI @Castro, @cantthink thinks there is no gravity and the motions of planets are driven by electric charges.

As always, da schnied resorts to outright lies and obfuscation. He has not an iota of dignity and wears it as badge of pride.

Mar 03, 2019
You don't even know the differences between Beta & Gamma decay.


Yes I do. You do not, however. You referred to an example of beta-decay, provided by another poster, as gamma decay.


OK mister faux nuclear physics expert, put YOUR "credentials" on the line & YOU be the one to explain the difference between Beta Particle Decay & Gamma radiation Decay if you think YOU know so much about it.........bet you won't do it because you know I'm gonna come right in behind you explaining why Gamma Radiation Decay applies only to radio-active atomic isotopes & not to the beta sub-atomic particle decay of neutrons.

Go, your turn..................Benni is waiting.

Mar 03, 2019
Then why did you post

Kepler's laws are valid for electric charges too.


I mean, just askin'.

Mar 03, 2019
explain the difference between Beta Particle Decay & Gamma radiation Decay
Beta decay involves a charged particle, the electron. Gamma decay does not.

We done here?

Mar 03, 2019
The Ghosts are haunting to night

This highlights a problem of preference
who do you settle with
who's hat takes your liking
all those years imbedded in only one, and only one psyche
there are so many to choose from
it is impossible to settle down ever again
with just one Avatar
Is it not
Oh, Multitudes of Avatars

Mar 03, 2019
YOU be the one to explain the difference between Beta Particle Decay & Gamma radiation Decay if you think YPOU know so much about it


In a nutshell, beta decay is so named because a beta particle is emitted. That is, an electron or positron, depending on whether it is B- or B+ decay. An example would be C-14 decay.
Gamma decay does not involve the emission of such particles. Gamma ray emission can follow beta-decay, as the excited atom relaxes to the ground state causing the release of gamma rays.

I can only assume that you have little to no knowledge of the subject area.


Mar 03, 2019
Which tells you precisely what LANL think of such pseudoscience.

Yet the very science the EU relies upon is just that which Peratt himself promotes on that very webpage. And what does Peratt say about the science the EU offers up? A comment on Don Scott's electric sun proposal;

"It is gratifying to see the work of my mentor, Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfvén enumerated with such clarity. I am also pleased to see that Dr. Scott has given general readers such a lucid and understandable summary of my own work."
~ Anthony L. Peratt, PhD, USC, Fellow of the IEEE (1999), former scientific advisor to theU.S. Department of Energy and member of the Associate Laboratory Directorate of the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Mar 03, 2019
@Castro: tolja. We been dealing with this bitch of trolls for years now.

Mar 03, 2019
explain the difference between Beta Particle Decay & Gamma radiation Decay
Beta decay involves a charged particle, the electron. Gamma decay does not.

We done here?
.......didn't ask what it "involved", I asked what it actually is. You have the same comprehension level of nuclear physics as castro......

Mar 03, 2019
Castrogiovanni in halves
Castrogiovanni> beta decay is so named because a beta particle is emitted

The anticipation is tantalising, Castrogiovanni
before any realises
you will be getting to grips with that infamous neutron
the infamous half a neutron
apparently
it was never Bennies idea
Was it not, Castrogiovanni

Mar 03, 2019

Yet the very science the EU relies upon is just that which Peratt himself promotes on that very webpage. And what does Peratt say about the science the EU offers up? A comment on Don Scott's electric sun proposal;


EU has no science. It is pseudoscience. Reported.

Keep science: Include references to the published scientific literature to support your statements. Pseudoscience comments (including non-mainstream theories) will be deleted (see pseudoscience).


https://sciencex....omments/

Mar 03, 2019
@Benni, beta decay is the emission of a beta particle, a charged particle whether it is an electron (B-) or positron (B+). Gamma decay is the emission of an uncharged particle, a gamma ray.

Again, we done here?

Mar 03, 2019
Castrogiovanni in halves
Castrogiovanni> beta decay is so named because a beta particle is emitted

The anticipation is tantalising, Castrogiovanni
before any realises
you will be getting to grips with that infamous neutron
the infamous half a neutron
apparently
it was never Bennies idea
Was it not, Castrogiovanni


No idea what you are talking about. You seem to struggle with English.

Mar 03, 2019
Anything the EU says is unbelievable. Because their very basic premise of the Sun being powered by the galaxy has zero evidence. A bunch of non-EE's telling people electricity is magic and can span across light years of pure electrical insulation. Complete nonsense.

Mar 03, 2019
Then why did you post

Kepler's laws are valid for electric charges too.

I mean, just askin'.


"Gravitational systems are the 'ashes' of prior electrical systems." Hannes Alfven

I never claimed gravity doesn't exist, gravity is valid on the scale of the solar system yet fails miserably when applied to larger scales.

Mar 03, 2019
explain the difference between Beta Particle Decay & Gamma radiation Decay
Beta decay involves a charged particle, the electron. Gamma decay does not.

We done here?
.......didn't ask what it "involved", I asked what it actually is. You have the same comprehension level of nuclear physics as castro......


I told you what it is. You were clearly wrong.

https://en.wikipe...ta_decay

https://en.wikive...ma_decay

Mar 03, 2019
YOU be the one to explain the difference between Beta Particle Decay & Gamma radiation Decay if you think YPOU know so much about it


In a nutshell, beta decay is so named because a beta particle is emitted. That is, an electron or positron, depending on whether it is B- or B+ decay.
......beta particle decay is not measured in half-life, until you get that straightened out you will never comprehend the 14.7 minute Beta Decay process of free unbound neutron,


Mar 03, 2019


I never claimed gravity doesn't exist, gravity is valid on the scale of the solar system yet fails miserably when applied to larger scales.


Evidence please.

Keep science: Include references to the published scientific literature to support your statements. Pseudoscience comments (including non-mainstream theories) will be deleted (see pseudoscience).


https://sciencex....omments/

Mar 03, 2019
.....beta particle decay is not measured in half-life, until you get that straightened out you will never comprehend the 14.7 minute Beta Decay process of free unbound neutron,


Yes it is. The decay of C-14 to N-14 is beta-decay, for example. That has a half-life of 5730 years. The free neutron has a measured half-life of around 10 minutes.
Quite clearly, you are untutored in this subject. I would suggest studying it before commenting further.


Mar 03, 2019
I think I'm beginning to see just how Benni's understanding works of this whole subject of decay of nuclei, and of free neutrons (@castro, FYI, Benni in many other posts has often given us his views on free neutron decay).

It would appear that Benni believes that free neutron decay to be the only example of beta decay to be found in nature, and that decay of atomic nuclei do not occur via beta decay, but rather by gamma ray decay. (He never mentions alpha decay)

Would that be a fair comment, Benni?

Mar 03, 2019
A free neutron will decay with a half-life of about 10.3 minutes but it is stable if combined into a nucleus. This decay is an example of beta decay with the emission of an electron and an electron antineutrino.


http://hyperphysi...ton.html

Mar 03, 2019
The Ghosts are haunting to night

Its Uncanny
Castrogiovanni> No idea what you are talking about. You seem to struggle with English

We all thought it was just a pretence
just the wrong kind of Norse
but
no, the words are so identical
everyone does not struggle to understand
except
< No idea what you are talking about. You seem to struggle with English >

Mar 03, 2019
A bunch of non-EE's telling people electricity is magic and can span across light years of pure electrical insulation. Complete nonsense.

Alfvén was an EE, he stated the opposite.
"Space is filled with a network of currents which transfer energy and momentum over large or very large distances. The currents often pinch to filamentary or surface currents. The latter are likely to give space, as also interstellar and intergalactic space, a cellular structure"
Peratt is an EE, and he wrote a paper about it;
https://plasmauni...smic.pdf
It would seem the non-EE is you.

Mar 03, 2019
The Ghosts are haunting to night

Its Uncanny
Castrogiovanni> No idea what you are talking about. You seem to struggle with English

We all thought it was just a pretence
just the wrong kind of Norse
but
no, the words are so identical
everyone does not struggle to understand
except
< No idea what you are talking about. You seem to struggle with English >


Reported.

Stay on topic: Acceptable comments include those that add to the discussion in a meaningful and thought-provoking manner or provide an intelligent counterpoint to our articles.

Avoid pointless verbiage: Try not to post comments such as e.g. "this is great", "useless" or "this is wrong". Say what you think is wrong, useful or useless about the article. Our readers are an articulate group. We want to know what you think.


https://sciencex....omments/

However, it seems that not all of their readers are articulate.

Mar 03, 2019
Evidence please

Dark matter. Galactic rotation curves. Orbits of stars at galactic center in absence of 4m solar mass object. There are many others but the point is made.

< No idea what you are talking about. You seem to struggle with English >

jonesdumb being as transparent as glass with the intelligence of a meat cleaver. It will only be a matter of time before the vulgarities return. I have sneaking suspicions of the observicist as well. If so, it will only be a matter of time before we are done with them all together, phys.org doesn't like it when folks tinker with their clicks.

Mar 03, 2019
Ghosts of a feather flock together
The Ghosts are haunting to night
Its Uncanny
Castrogiovanni> No idea what you are talking about. You seem to struggle with English

We all thought it was just a pretence
just the wrong kind of Norse
but
no, the words are so identical
everyone does not struggle to understand
except
< No idea what you are talking about. You seem to struggle with English >

We want to know what you think.

However, it seems that not all of their readers are articulate.

Ghosts of a feather flock together
You too quick to down vote, Castrogiovanni
For, someone you apparently did not know

Mar 03, 2019
Dark matter. Galactic rotation curves. Orbits of stars at galactic center in absence of 4m solar mass object. There are many others but the point is made.


How does that have any relevance to what I asked for? The orbits of the stars around Sgr A* prove conclusively that Kepler, Newton and Eintein were correct. The 4 million solar mass object is a proven fact. There is no other explanation for those orbits.


Mar 03, 2019

You too quick to down vote, Castrogiovanni
For, someone you apparently did not know


I downvoted and reported you for posting irrelevant, off-topic gibberish. Stick to the science please.

Mar 03, 2019
The orbits of the stars around Sgr A* prove conclusively that Kepler, Newton and Eintein were correct. The 4 million solar mass object is a proven fact.

Yet, there is nothing there. Kepler is correct, but Newton and Einstein don't operate there. The stars act as electric charges, no massive object required.

Mar 03, 2019
Dark matter. Galactic rotation curves. Orbits of stars at galactic center in absence of 4m solar mass object. There are many others but the point is made.


How does that have any relevance to what I asked for?


The need for the invention of faerie dust proves conclusively GR fails beyond the scale of the solar system. It's not a complex idea.

Mar 03, 2019
The orbits of the stars around Sgr A* prove conclusively that Kepler, Newton and Eintein were correct. The 4 million solar mass object is a proven fact.

Yet, there is nothing there. Kepler is correct, but Newton and Einstein don't operate there. The stars act as electric charges, no massive object required.


Pure nonsense. Please link to the evidence for this before I report the post as pseudoscience.

Mar 03, 2019
Ghosts of a feather flock together

You too quick to down vote, Castrogiovanni
For, someone you apparently did not know

< The Vacuous Vacuum that is Space >

Rather than down vote
as you say, Castrogiovanni - thought-provoking
did you comment
or
down vote
no, Castrogiovanni
not a peep
just
simply a down vote
which
apparently, Castrogiovanni
Is against your ethos

Mar 03, 2019
Dark matter. Galactic rotation curves. Orbits of stars at galactic center in absence of 4m solar mass object. There are many others but the point is made.


How does that have any relevance to what I asked for?


The need for the invention of faerie dust proves conclusively GR fails beyond the scale of the solar system. It's not a complex idea.


Sorry, but you appear to have no idea what you are talking about. Let's see the alternatives that you believe in. And the evidence for them. In the scientific literature. Otherwise, another reported post.

Mar 03, 2019
@Castrogiovanni
There is no other explanation
Otherwise, another reported post.
welcome to the world of delusional behaviour

the electric universe (eu - always lowercase, IMHO) will always refuse to accept science, especially if it's validated or it goes against their dogma

case in point: they refuse to accept that magnetic reconnection is real despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary

keep posting the real science for the sake of the layman who wishes to follow the steps as to how [x] is derived, but for sanity's sake, just report the idiots like benni and cantdrive

unless, of course, you're studying them and need them to open up
then, by all means, poke away so we can all learn their processes

Mar 03, 2019
Ghosts of a feather flock together

You too quick to down vote, Castrogiovanni
For, someone you apparently did not know

< The Vacuous Vacuum that is Space >

Rather than down vote
as you say, Castrogiovanni - thought-provoking
did you comment
or
down vote
no, Castrogiovanni
not a peep
just
simply a down vote
which
apparently, Castrogiovanni
Is against your ethos


Reported. You posted gibberish. I downvoted it.

Mar 03, 2019
Sorry, but you appear to have no idea what you are talking about. Let's see the alternatives that you believe in. And the evidence for them...

Alternatives are meaningless in the discussion, they have no bearing on the validity of GR. GR has failed every test on scales beyond the solar system. Gravity doesn't operate there, EM does.

Mar 03, 2019
The decay of C-14 to N-14 is beta-decay, for example. That has a half-life of 5730 years.


The free neutron has a measured half-life of around 10 minutes.
.....wrong.

The time required for HALF of the Carbon-14 atoms to change into Nitrogen is called the Half Life of Carbon14. In the process C-14 emits a neutron often referred to as a beta particle, which then undergoes Beta Particle Decay of 14.7 minutes. A free unbound neutron does not undergo half life decay, it just decays in 14.7 minutes exclusive to anything else that is going on inside the atomic isotope it left behind 14.7 minutes previously........didn't know any of this did you?

Mar 03, 2019
Sorry, but you appear to have no idea what you are talking about. Let's see the alternatives that you believe in. And the evidence for them...

Alternatives are meaningless in the discussion, they have no bearing on the validity of GR. GR has failed every test on scales beyond the solar system. Gravity doesn't operate there, EM does.


Incorrect. Please show where GR has failed. From the scientific literature. Otherwise, reported. Explain the orbits around Sgr A* with published science. Explain the gravitational redshift observed around said SMBH. And at AGNs. Show us the science. I'm afraid you don't have any, do you?

Mar 03, 2019
Castrogiovanni and potentially Observicist should be reported as being jonesdumb cockpuppets. Cockpuppetry is not tolerated by phys.org, we could be done with it once and for all...

Mar 03, 2019
Please show where GR has failed.

Faerie dust, invented to salvage GR on galactic scales. Fail.

Mar 03, 2019
The time required for HALF of the Carbon-14 atoms to change into Nitrogen is called the Half Life of Carbon14. In the process C-14 emits a neutron often referred to as a beta particle, which then undergoes Beta Particle Decay of 14.7 minutes. A free unbound neutron does not undergo half life decay, it just decays in 14.7 minutes exclusive to anything else that is going on inside the atomic isotope it left behind 14.7 minutes previously........didn't know any of this did you?


Total nonsense. You really do not have a grasp of this subject, do you? Carbon-14 does not emit a neutron. That is a ridiculous statement. One of its neutrons decays to a proton, with the emission of an electron and an electron antineutrino. And the 14.7 minutes is a mean lifetime. And the half-life of 10 minutes is an irrefutable, measured, scientific fact.

Mar 03, 2019
Please show where GR has failed.

Faerie dust, invented to salvage GR on galactic scales. Fail.


So where is your science? Explain the orbits around Sgr A*. I'll be waiting. You appear to have nothing, other than a total ignorance of the subject matter. No science. No maths. Just baseless assertions. Start backing it up, or more reported posts.

Mar 03, 2019
The time required for HALF of the Carbon-14 atoms to change into Nitrogen is called the Half Life of Carbon14. In the process C-14 emits a neutron often referred to as a beta particle, which then undergoes Beta Particle Decay of 14.7 minutes. A free unbound neutron does not undergo half life decay, it just decays in 14.7 minutes exclusive to anything else that is going on inside the atomic isotope it left behind 14.7 minutes previously........didn't know any of this did you?
Wow. Thanks for the explanation, Benni, it clears up a lot of misunderstanding.

So we now can see just how mind-bogglingly ill-informed on this whole subject of beta decay/free neutron decay you are. Just for the record, no: it doesn't work like that. You would need to go back to school and learn how these things actually work. But we know that that is beyond your capabilities.

Mar 03, 2019
Anything the EU says is unbelievable. Because their very basic premise of the Sun being powered by the galaxy has zero evidence.


Nobody sane could possibly believe that!

Mar 03, 2019
@Castrogiovanni
Nobody sane could possibly believe that!
correct - cantdrive [cd] has strong conspiracist ideation and delusional beliefs about reality. he displays behaviour more akin to a fanatical religious sect than rational or literate educated persons

for a glimpse into the delusional mind of cd, I recommend you go to this thread and read the interactions with Tim Thompson: https://phys.org/...ggs.html

you will have others chime in who support eu as well, but cd is the grand poobah of the phys.org sect

Mar 03, 2019
@Castrogiovanni
Nobody sane could possibly believe that!
correct - cantdrive [cd] has strong conspiracist ideation and delusional beliefs about reality. he displays behaviour more akin to a fanatical religious sect than rational or literate educated persons

for a glimpse into the delusional mind of cd, I recommend you go to this thread and read the interactions with Tim Thompson: https://phys.org/...ggs.html

you will have others chime in who support eu as well, but cd is the grand poobah of the phys.org sect


Surprising they are still here, as per the comments guidelines;

Keep science: Include references to the published scientific literature to support your statements. Pseudoscience comments (including non-mainstream theories) will be deleted (see pseudoscience).



Mar 03, 2019
Total nonsense. You really do not have a grasp of this subject, do you? Carbon-14 does not emit a neutron
....the nonsense is yours, if a neutron is not shed nitrogen cannot be created.

C-14 → N-14 + β−

The carbon-14 atoms undergo beta-minus decay (electron emission) by first shedding a neutron & thus producing a beta particle and a nitrogen-14 atom. The beta particle neutron shed from the atom undergoes beta decay and will produce a proton, electron and an electron antineutrino.

Mar 03, 2019
There is only one who describes so eloquently - Gibberish
Ghosts of a feather flock together
You too quick to down vote, Castrogiovanni
For, someone you apparently did not know
< The Vacuous Vacuum that is Space >
Rather than down vote
as you say, Castrogiovanni - thought-provoking
did you comment
or
down vote
no, Castrogiovanni
not a peep
just
simply a down vote
which
apparently, Castrogiovanni
Is against your ethos

Reported. You posted gibberish. I downvoted it.

You down voted my gibberish
And then what did you do
You reported my gibberish
Why did you report my gibberish
They read my gibberish
As you always read my gibberish
Not that you can understand it, as you oft openly admit

Mar 03, 2019
@Castrog
Surprising they are still here, as per the comments guidelines
I and others have felt the same - and we've lost some incredible posters here, including physicists, astrophysicists, engineers and other scientists

personally, I think that it's because Phys.org wants volume and the ability to sell "activity" on the site, so the prolific trolls get to keep their coveted profile and status. some religious posters are also allowed to stay, and (worst yet) the denier camp is growing

moderation doesn't usually happen, but sometimes you'll get deletions, though rarely the pseudoscience crowd

plans have been presented to the site to moderate with minimal changes using existing educated posters, but it's come to nought

the one thing that the site is good for: studying the deniers and pseudoscience crowd


Mar 03, 2019
Total nonsense. You really do not have a grasp of this subject, do you? Carbon-14 does not emit a neutron
....the nonsense is yours, if a neutron is not shed nitrogen cannot be created.

C-14 → N-14 + β−

The carbon-14 atoms undergo beta-minus decay (electron emission) by first shedding a neutron & thus producing a beta particle and a nitrogen-14 atom. The beta particle neutron shed from the atom undergoes beta decay and will produce a proton, electron and an electron antineutrino.


Total nonsense. No neutron is emitted! It decays into a proton. As explained. Go read about it. You really are out of your depth here.

Mar 03, 2019
@Benni typically fails to note that ejecting a neutron will not turn a carbon atom with six protons into a nitrogen atom with seven protons. Only gaining a proton can do that.

More troll fairy tales.

Mar 03, 2019
Thank you Captain for reaffirming my opinions of this site.
Though, to be honest, I am as guilty of enjoying the confrontations with the looneytoons & denierbots, as anyone else who responds to their agitprop.

However, I like to kid myself that I manage to do bellicose with a flair of artistic humor.
Which does seem to irritate people whose opinions I do respect.

The struggle against ignorance goes on. The resulting deaths instigated by the anti-vaxxer wing of the the ant-science & anti-0democracy campaigns, show the importance of our public stance for Science & Humanity.

If we do not stand up to the fascist quislings & copperheads? Who will?

Mar 03, 2019
Wordy Semantics
Total nonsense. You really do not have a grasp of this subject, do you? Carbon-14 does not emit a neutron
....the nonsense is yours, if a neutron is not shed nitrogen cannot be created.

C-14 → N-14 + β−

The carbon-14 atoms undergo beta-minus decay (electron emission) by first shedding a neutron & thus producing a beta particle and a nitrogen-14 atom. The beta particle neutron shed from the atom undergoes beta decay and will produce a proton, electron and an electron antineutrino.

As you quibble in your familiar style, Castrogiovanni
it is quite clear in Bennies descriptive, C-14 → N-14 + β−
that a neutron has to be shed
for a proton to emerge from the ashes
or are you going to report this as gibberish, Castrogiovanni
along with everyone's else's comments
if you keep this up, Castrogiovanni
you are going to be one lonely soul
On this phys.org, till you report yourself

Mar 03, 2019
@Benni typically fails to note that ejecting a neutron will not turn a carbon atom with six protons into a nitrogen atom with seven protons. Only gaining a proton can do that.

More troll fairy tales.


Precisely. This is the level of stupid we are dealing with here! How can 14/6 carbon become 14/7 nitrogen by expelling a neutron? If it magically expelled a neutron, it would be 13/6 carbon! It rather appears to me that the people challenging real science are those that have very little to no knowledge of it.

Mar 03, 2019
@granville - I've reported your post for what it is - a sorry turgid mess of unscientific claptrap.

Mar 03, 2019
It is quite clear in Bennies descriptive, C-14 → N-14 + β−
that a neutron has to be shed


Utter nonsense. The carbon and nitrogen have the same number of baryons! C-14 has 8 neutrons and 6 protons. One of the neutrons decays to a proton, leaving 7 neutrons and 7 protons.
Yourself and Benni need to go back to school

Mar 03, 2019
@castro - do not expect the likes of @Benni to worry themselves with such piffling concerns as conservation of mass, energy or charge in nuclear decay schemes, or anything else for that matter.

Same with the orbits of stars very close to Sag A* - Benni and his chums argue that their motions are typical of stars orbiting a barycenter of mass to be found at the galactic center, and ignore the shapes of the orbits, the very high velocities of the stars in those orbits, and most certainly ignore the precessions of those orbits, all indications of a nearby, very massive, but unseen object at the GC and at the foci of those orbits.

As with the GC, so now with the object mentioned in the article here. The maniacal obsession shown by these people that BH's do not - cannot - exist is far stronger than any desire they might once have had to learn some science. Their minds are shut tight as clams to ward off any possibility that objective knowledge might enter and enlighten them.