Scientists set to unveil first picture of a black hole

Of all the forces or objects in the Universe that we cannot see—dark energy and dark matter—none has frustrated human curiosity
Of all the forces or objects in the Universe that we cannot see—dark energy and dark matter—none has frustrated human curiosity so much as the invisible maws that shred and swallow entire stars like so many specks of dust, known as black holes

The world, it seems, is soon to see the first picture of a black hole.

On Wednesday, astronomers across the globe will hold "six major press conferences" simultaneously to announce the first results of the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT), which was designed precisely for that purpose.

It has been a long wait.

Of all the forces or objects in the Universe that we cannot see—including and —none has frustrated human curiosity so much as the invisible maws that shred and swallow stars like so many specks of dust.

Astronomers began speculating about these omnivorous "dark stars" in the 1700s, and since then indirect evidence has slowly accumulated.

"More than 50 years ago, scientists saw that there was something very bright at the centre of our galaxy," Paul McNamara, an astrophysicist at the European Space Agency and an expert on , told AFP.

"It has a strong enough to make stars orbit around it very quickly—as fast as 20 years."

To put that in perspective, our Solar System takes about 230 million years to circle the centre of the Milky Way.

Eventually, astronomers speculated that these bright spots were in fact "black holes"—a term coined by American physicist John Archibald Wheeler in the mid-1960s—surrounded by a swirling band of white-hot gas and plasma.

At the inner edge of these luminous accretion disks, things abruptly go dark.

"The event horizon"—a.k.a. the point-of-no-return—"is not a physical barrier, you couldn't stand on it," McNamara explained.

"If you're on the inside of it, you can't escape because you would need infinite energy. And if you are on the other side, you can—in principle."

A golf ball on the moon

At its centre, the mass of a black hole is compressed into a single, zero-dimensional point.

The distance between this so-called "singularity" and the event horizon is the radius, or half the width, of a black hole.

The EHT that collected the data for the first-ever image is unlike any ever devised.

"Instead of constructing a giant telescope—which would collapse under its own weight—we combined several observatories as if they were fragments of a giant mirror," Michael Bremer, an astronomer at the Institute for Millimetric Radio Astronomy in Grenoble, told AFP.

At its center, the mass of a black hole is compressed into a single, zero-dimensional point. The distance between this so-called
At its center, the mass of a black hole is compressed into a single, zero-dimensional point. The distance between this so-called "singularity" and the event horizon is the radius, or half the width, of the black hole

In April 2017, eight such radio telescopes scattered across the globe—in Hawaii, Arizona, Spain, Mexico, Chile, and the South Pole—were trained on two black holes in very different corners of the Universe to collect data.

Studies that could be unveiled next week are likely to zoom in on one or the other.

Oddsmakers favour Sagittarius A*, the black hole at the centre of our own elliptical galaxy that first caught the eye of astronomers.

Sag A* has four million times the mass of our sun, which means that the black hole is generates is about 44 million kilometres across.

That may sound like a big target, but for the telescope array on Earth some 26,000 light-years (or 245 trillion kilometres) away, it's like trying to photograph a golf ball on the Moon.

Testing Einstein

The other candidate is a monster black hole—1,500 times more massive even than Sag A*—in an elliptical galaxy known as M87.

It's also a lot farther from Earth, but distance and size balance out, making it roughly as easy (or difficult) to pinpoint.

One reason this dark horse might be the one revealed next week is light smog within the Milky Way.

"We are sitting in the plain of our galaxy—you have to look through all the stars and dust to get to the centre," said McNamara.

The data collected by the far-flung telescope array still had to be collected and collated.

"The imaging algorithms we developed fill the gaps of data we are missing in order to reconstruct a picture of a black hole," the team said on their website.

Astrophysicists not involved in the project, including McNamara, are eagerly—perhaps anxiously—waiting to see if the findings challenge Einstein's theory of general relativity, which has never been tested on this scale.

Breakthrough observations in 2015 that earned the scientists involved a Nobel Prize used gravitational wave detectors to track two black holes smashing together.

As they merged, ripples in the curvatures of time-space creating a unique, and detectable, signature.

"Einstein's theory of general relativity says that this is exactly what should happen," said McNamara.

But those were tiny black holes—only 60 times more massive than the Sun—compared to either of the ones under the gaze of the EHT.

"Maybe the ones that are millions of times more massive are different—we just don't know yet."


Explore further

Hiding black hole found

© 2019 AFP

Citation: Scientists set to unveil first picture of a black hole (2019, April 6) retrieved 16 September 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-04-scientists-unveil-picture-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.
17670 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Apr 06, 2019
Oddsmakers favour Sagittarius A*, the black hole at the centre of our own ***elliptical galaxy*** that first caught the eye of astronomers.


Might want to change that to 'spiral galaxy'.

Apr 06, 2019
Sceptics in the Shadows

Who would have thought
the first critical comment
would
come from the one and only, dear old jonesy
but
Considering all the world is agog
with
Blackhole in Shadow
making
his Brexit
that these science journalists
would
ascertain which galaxy Sagittarius A* resides
because
Blackhole is sourly miffed
that
his primary residence
in
our Milkyway
is
a spiral galaxy
in point of fact
according to our favourite scientific reference, Wikipedia
our Milkyway
is
a
Barred Spiral Galaxy

p.s. well spotted jonesy, till Wednesday, in the mean time one and all till Blackhole reveals his Shadow, yet another simulation from our favourite Blackhole Artists
https://3c1703fe8...forc.jpg

Apr 06, 2019
Close inspection of this Simulation

Reveals
a bright dense stellar object
this
bright high speed stellar star
is
Blackhole
making an escape
searching for this barred spiral galaxy
where
Blackholes residence, Sagittarius A* is in this vacuous vacuum of space
because
all the photographers
are a waiting on planet Earth
with
their cameras pointing at Sagittarius A*
hopefully one and all
Blackhole
will
arrive on time
for
Blackholes debut in the limelight

Apr 06, 2019
"Sag A* has four million times the mass of our sun, which means that the black hole is generates is about 44 million kilometres across."

.........at 44 million, that's 2.7 million miles in diameter, an easy target to see in: http://ircamera.a...ter.htm, 7th photo frame from the top of the page, but nothing shows up there, da, da, da, da, da,da dum schneibo.

Hey, this thing has a capacity requiring infinite gravity: "you can't escape because you would need infinite energy"......see that everyone?

"At its centre, the mass of a black hole is compressed into a single, zero-dimensional point.

The distance between this so-called singularity"

......... hey Pop_Cosmology aficionados, they declare it has a "singularity", you know, that region where even more infinity stuff exists, DENSITY.

Well, so much for schneibo's 19th Century TUGMath fanstasy, right Obervicist?

Apr 06, 2019
"Sag A* has four million times the mass of our sun, which means that the black hole is generates is about 44 million kilometres across."

.........at 44 million, that's 2.7 million miles in diameter, an easy target to see in: http://ircamera.a...ter.htm, 7th photo frame from the top of the page, but nothing shows up there, da, da, da, da, da,da dum schneibo.

Hey, this thing has a capacity requiring infinite gravity: "you can't escape because you would need infinite energy"......see that everyone?

"At its centre, the mass of a black hole is compressed into a single, zero-dimensional point.

The distance between this so-called singularity"

......... hey Pop_Cosmology aficionados, they declare it has a "singularity", you know, that region where even more infinity stuff exists, DENSITY.

Well, so much for schneibo's 19th Century TUGMath fanstasy, right Obervicist?


Stop talking crap about things you don't understand.

Apr 06, 2019
Hey, this thing has a capacity requiring infinite gravity: "you can't escape because you would need infinite energy"......see that everyone?


Idiot. Learn relativity, yes? The escape velocity is c at the EH, by definition . To accelerate any thing to c requires infinite energy. It is not possible. And it is not infinite gravity, you clown.

Apr 06, 2019
The latest contrivance of the Darkists is but a few days away. It is so exciting, I can hardly wait to see what their pseudoscientific algorithmic maths claptrap has conjured up. Of course, BH's are physics defying infinite gravity monsters yet it doesn't stop these Darkists from producing the latest in CGI sci-fi action flicks. The head plasma ignoramuses such as the movie producer Kip or Rip Thorne must be so proud.

Apr 06, 2019
The latest contrivance of the Darkists is but a few days away. It is so exciting, I can hardly wait to see what their pseudoscientific algorithmic maths claptrap has conjured up. Of course, BH's are physics defying infinite gravity monsters yet it doesn't stop these Darkists from producing the latest in CGI sci-fi action flicks. The head plasma ignoramuses such as the movie producer Kip or Rip Thorne must be so proud.


Another clueless EU idiot. Given the garbage you believe in, you'd be better off keeping quiet. Earth orbiting Saturn, anyone? Lol.

Apr 06, 2019
Describing a BH from the drawing in the article:

1. The first thing we encounter is ACCRETION DISC- 5 times the diameter of the 2.7 million mile diameter BH.

2. The second thing is the brilliant Photon Sphere Ring that sits just ABOVE the so-called Event Horizon. Odd we never see anything so "bright" that has not been pulled onto the surface of the BH because the Event Horizon gets in the way? These bright photons should light up every BH in existence because they are ESCAPING, otherwise how could it be known the Photon Sphere actually exists?

3.Event Horizon is the next layer where gravity is so great that at this point light cannot ESCAPE, this is a point beneath the so-called Photon Sphere from which light is escaping.

4. The Surface of the BH, whatever that is composed of (neutrons?).

5. Finally, that vaunted SINGULARITY with it's INFINITE DENSITY, yet another 19th Century TUGMath calculation gone wrong, right guys?

Apr 06, 2019
The latest contrivance of the Darkists is but a few days away. It is so exciting, I can hardly wait to see what their pseudoscientific algorithmic maths claptrap has conjured up. Of course, BH's are physics defying infinite gravity monsters yet it doesn't stop these Darkists from producing the latest in CGI sci-fi action flicks. The head plasma ignoramuses such as the movie producer Kip or Rip Thorne must be so proud.


Another clueless EU idiot. Given the garbage you believe in, you'd be better off keeping quiet. Earth orbiting Saturn, anyone? Lol.

Change the subject again? The article is about the contrived algorithmic maths gymnastics to create a picture of an infinite gravity monster. What has Saturn got to do with it?

Apr 06, 2019
In These Post Truths

There appear scientific truths
these scientific journalists
appear
to have used R = 2GM/C²
so
despite
the fact
Blackhole has gone missing
and if not readily found in this infinite vacuum of space
Blackhole will miss his debut
because
at 44miilion km in diameter
is a 4million solar mass blackhole
where
its event horizon
its Light radius has a radius of 22million km
meaning
Blackhole is not a singularity, but a 44million km diameter sphere where gravity is zero at its centre of mass

Apr 06, 2019
Change the subject again? The article is about the contrived algorithmic maths gymnastics to create a picture of an infinite gravity monster. What has Saturn got to do with it?


No, the article is about the observation of a black hole silhouette observed on the event horizon. Just because you are scientifically illiterate, and cannot understand the square root of zero about astrophysics is not our fault. I merely point out some of the crap you believe in to put your objections in context.
Sun powered by invisible currents, anyone? Lol.

Apr 06, 2019
Two very simple exercises for the hard of thinking;

Use Kepler's third law to calculate the mass being orbited by the stars around Sgr A*;

Explain the gravitational redshift of star S0-2 around said object.

Having done that, point to the scientific literature, and show anybody who is claiming that this is not a black hole, with regard to those results. Simples.

Apr 06, 2019
Algorithms in the Mists of Shadow

< The data collected by the far-flung telescope array still had to be collected and collated
The imaging algorithms developed to fill the gaps of data we are missing in order to reconstruct a picture of a black hole
the team said on their website >

If and When Blackhole is found and relocated to his spiral galaxy
in time for his debut
Blackhole
when he realises
in all reality, he was always only imaging algorithms
Blackhole
is going to be a Shadow of his former self
his green scales
will fall like rain when he finds
that
He is just imaging algorithms on a simulated computational program

Apr 06, 2019
He is just imaging algorithms on a simulated computational program


Wrong, you uneducated simpleton.

Apr 06, 2019
Change the subject again? The article is about the contrived algorithmic maths gymnastics to create a picture of an infinite gravity monster. What has Saturn got to do with it?


No, the article is about the observation of a black hole silhouette observed on the event horizon. Just because you are scientifically illiterate, and cannot understand the square root of zero about astrophysics is not our fault. I merely point out some of the crap you believe in to put your objections in context.
Sun powered by invisible currents, anyone? Lol.

Still changing the subject. And as it states on the EHT website, any observation is merely an inference which is expounded upon by algorithmic maths gymnastics.

Apr 06, 2019
Still changing the subject. And as it states on the EHT website, any observation is merely an inference which is expounded upon by algorithmic maths gymnastics.


Nope. They will see the silhouette of the BH on the event horizon. Hence the title of the article. Nobody will go into print questioning it. Only dullard cranks like you, in places like this. It will be a fait accompli, just as the GW detections are. Not my fault that your mythology-based quasi-religion is falling apart around you. Get another religion.

Apr 06, 2019
Sun powered by invisible currents, anyone?

So what is more likely, an invisible infinite gravity monster or a flow of plasma which in turn creates magnetic fields as is observed? LOL indeed!

Apr 06, 2019
@Castrogiovanni-- I don't know whether you are familiar with the old Monty Python classic film, in which King Arthur has an encounter with the Black Knight, but I see your exchanges with Benni et al as being very much in the vein of that epic battle. In the end, Arthur and his band leave the Black Knight with no arms and no legs, torso sliced in half, and the poor critter is still claiming that he is in the fight. Obviously, you are King Arthur in this battle.

Apr 06, 2019
@Castrogiovanni-- I don't know whether you are familiar with the old Monty Python classic film, in which King Arthur has an encounter with the Black Knight, but I see your exchanges with Benni et al as being very much in the vein of that epic battle. In the end, Arthur and his band leave the Black Knight with no arms and no legs, torso sliced in half, and the poor critter is still claiming that he is in the fight. Obviously, you are King Arthur in this battle.


"'Tis but a scratch!" Yep, I actually have that clip on my lappy. :)

Apr 06, 2019
Stars orbiting in Shadow

Stars orbiting their star
Castrogiovanni> Use Kepler's third law to calculate the mass being orbited by the stars around Sgr A*

How come it is possible to calculate
conventialy
these orbits of stars orbiting a 4million mass star
when
said 4million mass star cannot be observed
where as
said solar mass stars are observed
in fact
said solar mass stars are not observed being tidally torn apart
by
said 4million mass star
when
tidal orbital transference of plasma from one star to the other of a few solar mass apiece is common place
How come all this tidal activity is absent
from
these solar mass stars orbiting this 4million solar mass star
when
the claim is that the reason
said 4million solar mass star is invisible
is
the surrounding dust
which can only come from orbiting stars
that are being tidally stretched
may be
This dust is emerging from the quantum fluctuations

Apr 06, 2019
In 1990 my 8th grade class got to visit the VLA in New Mexico for a field trip. Since they get lonely and few visitors we received a extensive tour by the science team. The team that was currently allocated time on the VLA were exclusively looking to prove that Supermassive BH existed at the center of most galaxies. Which at the time was not a widely accepted view in astrophysics. Now we are about to image the silhouette of one is incredibly exciting, can't wait.

Apr 06, 2019
The second thing is the brilliant Photon Sphere Ring that sits just ABOVE the so-called Event Horizon. Odd we never see anything so "bright" that has not been pulled onto the surface of the BH because the Event Horizon gets in the way? These bright photons should light up every BH in existence because they are ESCAPING, otherwise how could it be known the Photon Sphere actually exists?
The photon sphere is not necessarily 'brilliant'. It is merely the the place where EXACTLY-circular orbiting photons cannot escape. If they cannot escape, the sphere is not going to be particularly brilliant. All other photon orbits--elliptical--can escape and they will gradually leak out, or be permanently captured if they transgress the event horizon. The photons--non-photon-sphere-ones--are not going to be particularly visible either as their contribution will be competing with all the other light-producing phenomena surrounding the BH.

Apr 06, 2019
@Granville,

All those questions are easily answered by researching on Google. Why are you asking them here?
Kepler's third law simplifies to: a^3 = Mbh P^2;
where a = semimajor axis (in AU);
Mbh = mass of black hole (in solar masses);
and P = the orbital period of the star (in yrs).

Rearranging gives; Mbh = a^3/ P^2.

a = ~1000 AU, and P = ~16 yrs.

Therefore Mbh = ~10^9/ ~250 = 4 x 10^6 solar masses (4 million).

We do not need to see the mass being orbited.

Apr 06, 2019
No, the article is about the observation of a black hole silhouette observed on the event horizon.

I see a little silhouetto of a man
Scaramouche, Scaramouche will you do the Fandango

Is this the real life?
Is this just fantasy?
Caught in a landslide
No escape from reality
Open your eyes

Apr 06, 2019
The photon sphere is not necessarily 'brilliant'.

I'm not really sold on the idea of the photon sphere (other than as a mathematical entity). Considering that
a) any photon that enters it is not on the proper trajectory to remain in it (i.e. only photons that are emitted from something EXACTLY in the moment it's passing the photon sphere have even any chance to be on a correct trajectory)
b) The distance of the photon sphere varies with every miniscule amount of matter/energy that falls past it. Any photons that were on the previous path should immediately start spiralling inwards if even a single atom passes it. Given the speed of photons this should denude the photon sphere almost instantly (and constantly).

The solution for a photon sphere also does not exists for a rotating black hole (and all BH's should rotate at a fair clip). A rotating black hole would - at most - have two "photon equator lines" (prograde/retrograde).

Apr 06, 2019
The photon sphere is not necessarily 'brilliant'.

I'm not really sold on the idea of the photon sphere (other than as a mathematical entity). Considering that
a) any photon that enters it is not on the proper trajectory to remain in it (i.e. only photons that are emitted from something EXACTLY in the moment it's passing the photon sphere have even any chance to be on a correct trajectory)...
I agree with you, and I used the adverb 'necessarily' out of an abundance of caution. It is a theoretically necessary ZONE (under the further constraint of a BH w/o angular momentum), and not a likely visible phenomenon. Benni used the phrase "brilliant photon sphere..." and I was tempted to demand a citation (from a legitimate authority) that stated or implied that a/the PS was brilliant.

Apr 06, 2019
No, the article is about the observation of a black hole silhouette observed on the event horizon.

I see a little silhouetto of a man
Scaramouche, Scaramouche will you do the Fandango

Is this the real life?
Is this just fantasy?
Caught in a landslide
No escape from reality
Open your eyes

Thunderbolt and lightning very very frightening me (and astros)
Gallileo, Gallileo, Gallileo, Gallileo, Gallileo, figaro, magnifico

Apr 06, 2019
I see a little silhouetto of a man
Scaramouche, Scaramouche will you do the Fandango

Is this the real life?
Is this just fantasy?
Caught in a landslide
No escape from reality
Open your eyes


Another pointless comment from a scientific illiterate.

Apr 06, 2019
Benni used the phrase "brilliant photon sphere..." and I was tempted to demand a citation (from a legitimate authority) that stated or implied that a/the PS was brilliant.
......you didn't look in the drawing? I told you where it was so stated, now go back & look.

Apr 06, 2019
The data collected by the far-flung telescope array still had to be collected and collated
The imaging algorithms developed to fill the gaps of data we are missing in order to reconstruct a picture of a black hole
the team said on their website >
........you got it granDy, a lot of gaps & cracks & even wide open chasms they're gonna fill in with all that software caulk. Maybe they have expanding algorithmic software foam they can invoke that automatically fills in unanswered questions that comes later, you know like where is the bright Photon Sphere layer they show in their ONION PEELING.

Aw, just so much fun here today.

Apr 06, 2019
No, the article is about the observation of a black hole silhouette observed on the event horizon
..........aw jonesy, what is it with you that you can't plainly see why the so-called Event Horizon is never in view? It is completely surrounded by the bright Photon Sphere for which schneibo has a 19th Century TUGMath solution, and I presume you believe that, right?

So if the Event Horizon is completely obscured by the bright Photon Sphere, how could we expect to see a "shadow"or "silhouette" on it? The brilliance of the Photon Sphere will outshine the shadow so as to prevent a shadow from making an appearance, right danR?

Apr 06, 2019
Benni used the phrase "brilliant photon sphere..."

Benni uses all kinds of words he doesn't understand.

In any case if there is a photon sphere (or even just a photon equator) then nothing would emit from it. You'd only see it while passing through.

That is:
IF there is a non rotating black hole (which is nigh impossible due to conservation of angular momentum)
and
IF said hole hasn't feasted on any matter/energy for along time (which is impossible due to CMBR)
and
IF you were massless (because your approach would distort/destabilize the photon sphere before you reach it)
and
IF somehow photons were present in the photonsphere (which could only happen if at some past point a perfectly symmetric mass had impacted the black hole from all sides at once like a collapsing dyson sphere centered on the black hole...an unlikely scenario)

...then MAYBE you'd see a bit of light if you passed it.

That's about the size of visible effect I'd give a photon sphere.


Apr 06, 2019
No, the article is about the observation of a black hole silhouette observed on the event horizon
..........aw jonesy, what is it with you that you can't plainly see why the so-called Event Horizon is never in view? It is completely surrounded by the bright Photon Sphere for which schneibo has a 19th Century TUGMath solution, and I presume you believe that, right?

So if the Event Horizon is completely obscured by the bright Photon Sphere, how could we expect to see a "shadow"or "silhouette" on it? The brilliance of the Photon Sphere will outshine the shadow so as to prevent a shadow from making an appearance, right danR?


As I've said previously - stop commenting on things that are way beyond your understanding. You only make yourself look even more stupid. If that is possible.

Apr 06, 2019
Benni used the phrase "brilliant photon sphere..." and I was tempted to demand a citation (from a legitimate authority) that stated or implied that a/the PS was brilliant.
......you didn't look in the drawing? I told you where it was so stated, now go back & look.


Lol. What an idiot.

Apr 06, 2019
I see a little silhouetto of a man
Scaramouche, Scaramouche will you do the Fandango

Is this the real life?
Is this just fantasy?
Caught in a landslide
No escape from reality
Open your eyes


Another pointless comment from a scientific illiterate.

LMAO.
Actually your response, so precisely confirm my point and is further substantiated by the fact that you're incapable of realizing it.
All your comments are regurgitated words you have seen and show a total lack of comprehension far less independent thought.

Apr 06, 2019
LMAO.
Actually your response, so precisely confirm my point and is further substantiated by the fact that you're incapable of realizing it.
All your comments are regurgitated words you have seen and show a total lack of comprehension far less independent thought.


Another science-free post from a scientifically illiterate poster.

Apr 06, 2019
.....far less independent thought.


Translation: being so scientifically illiterate that you are capable of making up any old crap and believing it.

Apr 06, 2019
benni, cant, antigo, granvile, all are lowest-bidder circuitry in a the bowels of a Dark Web site. russian or saudi, doesn't really matter.

Those pitiful incompetent examples of mediocre technology, are trapped in a feed-back loop.

That will repetitiously repeat the incompetent coding of their DUI programmers.

Until their ruling regimes fall.
The sites shut down as embarrassing detritus of an elderly KGB/Wahhabi plot.
& finally, the circuits containing benni, cant, antigo, granvile, tux & all the rest of the automated wootrolls?
The cheapass circuits will be yanked & tossed into the trash bin of a sordid historical nightmare.

Buh bye, bois!

Apr 06, 2019
Blackholes Orbital Photon Sphere

Photon Sphere of this Light Radius
a photon sphere is a spherical region of space where gravity is strong enough that photons travel in orbits The radius of the photon sphere for a Schwarzschild black hole
Where Rs = the Schwarzschild radius
R = 3GM/C ² = 3Rs/2
it is accepted electromagnetic photons bend in the presence of Sir Isaac Newton's gravity
that
when gravities force equals the escape velocity of light
it
is reasonable to assume photons capable of orbiting at the Schwarzschild radius
as gravity cannot exceed the speed of light
means
this event horizon does not exist
instead
these photons simply orbit at the velocity of light around the radius of R = 3GM/C the Schwarzschild radius
because
either side of this radius gravity fall to zero as the escape velocity falls to zero
so
Blackholes radius is its Photon Sphere
Blackhole has no event horizon
as
Blackhole has an Orbital Photon Sphere

2. ... brilliant Photon Sphere Ring that sits just ABOVE the so-called Event Horizon...

--Beano failure
To me, that's the most interesting thing you said. In physics class it occurred to me that maybe there would be a region where light would orbit a black hole. I asked my prof and he thought it sounded plausible but hand't heard mention of it before. Since it is orbiting, it would be invisible unless you were in it. Debris falling into the hole would scatter some of the light in our direction though, but I guess it might be hard to detect since the debris would already be glowing white hot. Also the inverse square law says it would be hard to see. The sun is about 1000 watts per meter^2 here. At the distance from here to galaxy center it would be about 380 trillionths of a watt per meter^2 and appear to be about 6 nanometers in diameter which is much smaller than the wavelength of light being used, if my quick and dirty math is right. I don't think they could see it.

Apr 06, 2019
Another science-free post from a scientifically illiterate poster.


Why do you almost ALWAYS repeat yourself? Can't you just say it two or three times & we get it?

You could do something like explain how the Event Horizon can be viewed past a bright Photon Sphere so that we will be able to see this "shadow"..........how 'bout that? Give it a try so that you're not almost ALWAYS sayng the same thing every post u make, name calling rants are not SCIENCE, we realize you have a hard time figuring that out.

Apr 06, 2019
Since it is orbiting, it would be invisible unless you were in it.


Why should Photon Sphere be invisible? We can see orbiting satellites whether we are on Earth's surface or beyond the orbit of one circling the Earth. Why should POSITION have anything to do with it's visibility?

Ok, so presume it exists, how then will these EHT guys see a shadow at the Event Horizon with the Photon Sphere occluding it? Oh, now you're gonna suggest the Photon Sphere is not opaque? OK, how do you know that it is CLEAR if the so-called experts of Pop-Cosmology say it is "bright"? It's one or the other, or the third alternative is it doesn't exist.....clue us in when you've got it figured out.

Apr 06, 2019
I do not believe in theories
as
they come back and bite you
when
your theories fall flat!
but
I like this theory, Blackhole has an Orbital Photon Sphere
that
is until this theory falls flat
then
I will backtrack on this theory
as
It is a most refreshing experience!

Apr 06, 2019
Since it is orbiting, it would be invisible unless you were in it.


Why should Photon Sphere be invisible? We can see orbiting satellites whether we are on Earth's surface or beyond the orbit of one circling the Earth. Why should POSITION have anything to do with it's visibility?

Ok, so presume it exists, how then will these EHT guys see a shadow at the Event Horizon with the Photon Sphere occluding it? Oh, now you're gonna suggest the Photon Sphere is not opaque? OK, how do you know that it is CLEAR if the so-called experts of Pop-Cosmology say it is "bright"? It's one or the other, or the third alternative is it doesn't exist.....clue us in when you've got it figured out.


Why don't you go ask one of the well qualified scientists who expect to see the BH silhouette? Maybe they are too dumb to figure things out that a scientifically illiterate troll has proposed on a comments section.

Apr 06, 2019
I can't believe they'd hold a world wide press conference if they weren't going to reveal their first image of Sag A. They'll probably show M87 as well. Question is how good the image quality; Event Horizon Telescope astronomers have been trying to keep excitement levels down thinking the image quality probably won't be that high. Saying that we probably need to do this with space telescopes to get the sexy pictures; yet, they're holding a world wide press conference.

Either Einstein's General Relativity has finally shown a blemish, or the Sag A(and possibly M87) pictures are sexy.

Apr 06, 2019
Blackholes audition for his chameleon act

By the time blackhole makes it home in time for his audition
Benni> Why should Photon Sphere be invisible

Blackhole is changing
before our very eyes
Benni, when Wednesday arrives
Blackhole will have mastered his chameleon act
no one will recognise him
Keep slowly leaking these secrets of Blackhole
Blackhole is having a whale of a time
by the time Benni, he arrive from that elliptical galaxy
he will be completely changed from all recognition from the Blackhole we knew
that
he will simply slip in the stage backdoor
on the his audition day
to enjoy
The lime light in complete anonymity, as he has done for the past 13.8 billion years

Apr 06, 2019
I can't believe they'd hold a world wide press conference if they weren't going to reveal their first image of Sag A. They'll probably show M87 as well. Question is how good the image quality; Event Horizon Telescope astronomers have been trying to keep excitement levels down thinking the image quality probably won't be that high. Saying that we probably need to do this with space telescopes to get the sexy pictures; yet, they're holding a world wide press conference.

Either Einstein's General Relativity has finally shown a blemish, or the Sag A(and possibly M87) pictures are sexy.


I, for one, will be glued to the live stream.

Apr 06, 2019
Question is how good the image quality

Since it seems to be a question between Sag A* and M87 I'll hazard that we'll get about the resolution we get when looking at a star in Messier 87 (i.e. something rather grainy a few pixels wide).

If anyone thinks this would be disappointing then you don't really appreciate the enormous distances we're dealing with, here.

It's going to be absolutely exciting to watch (bit miffed I won't be able to catch it live, tho....couldn't they have scheduled it 2 or 3 hours later?)

Apr 06, 2019
Is Light Invisible in this Photon Sphere

In this Photon Sphere
Benni> Why should Photon Sphere be invisible

When
The wave length of light
As a photon is viewed orbiting this Photon Sphere
Light in not affected by the speed of the emitter
All photons are simply doing is moving at their velocity, the speed of light
As
It makes no never mind, that this photon is moving in a circular path or a linear path
As long as this photon is viewed linearly or circularly such that it enters the human eye
The human eye will detect this photon as it detects all photons in the frequency range of the human eye

p.s. for those familiar with Ground Force, will recognise Alan Titchmarsh, from Ilkley, West Riding of Yorkshire
as those from the Shires
will recognise
Alan Titchmarsh's catch phrase < It makes no never mind >

Apr 06, 2019
Question is how good the image quality

Since it seems to be a question between Sag A* and M87 I'll hazard that we'll get about the resolution we get when looking at a star in Messier 87 (i.e. something rather grainy a few pixels wide).

If anyone thinks this would be disappointing then you don't really appreciate the enormous distances we're dealing with, here.

It's going to be absolutely exciting to watch (bit miffed I won't be able to catch it live, tho....couldn't they have scheduled it 2 or 3 hours later?)


Even I'm a bit skeptical that they'll get much of an image of M87. But, SagA should be too bad. Maybe not some kind of colorful shiny image; but, they're talking about imaging the event horizon; they can't do that with one pixel.

There was recently an image of Sag A from a South African telescope; it should some striking streaks; this was at optical. The radio wavelenghts are longer, but you're talking about a global interferometer.

Apr 06, 2019
Orbital Milkyway Stars
@Granville,
Castrogiovanni> Kepler's third law simplifies to: a^3 = Mbh P^2;
where a = semimajor axis (in AU);
Mbh = mass of black hole (in solar masses);
and P = the orbital period of the star (in yrs).
Rearranging gives; Mbh = a^3/ P^2.
a = ~1000 AU, and P = ~16 yrs.
Therefore Mbh = ~10^9/ ~250 = 4 x 10^6 solar masses (4 million)

This is the undisputed fact jonsey
observe your orbital star then calculate the mass of the star being orbited!
The point of contention
is what exactly is the mass or masses being orbited at Sagittarius A*
these orbiting stars do not appear to be undergoing tidal stretching
it is also a possibility that it could be a collection of 4million Milkyway stars in close orbit at the centre of our Milkyway, orbited by Milkyway stars further out from our galactic centre
as rough estimate
There at least 2,000,000,000 stars in our Milkyway, a number beyond human comprehension!

Apr 06, 2019
The Event Horizon Telescope took more data than the Large Hadron Collider did to discover the Higgs; i'm expecting a bit of a picture.

Apr 06, 2019
the point of contention
is what exactly is the mass or masses being orbited at Sagittarius A*


I just told you - the mass being orbited is 4m solar masses. Pay attention. And to be tidally stretched they would have to get a lot closer. And even if they did, we would not be able to resolve it.

it is also a possibility that it could be a collection of 4million stars in close orbit at the centre of our Milkyway


Wrong. If we can see individual stars getting within ~ 120 AU of Sgr A*, then 4m of them in that area would stand out like a sore thumb! Really dumb idea.

Apr 06, 2019
"The world, it seems, is soon to see the first picture of a black hole."

This is somewhat confusing as to this terminology being used to describe the first picture to be shown on Wednesday. The use of 'silhouette' and 'shadow' certainly doesn't deduce that an actual image of the much vaunted "Black Hole" is to be clearly presented to the world as positive evidence of the existence of black holes in the Universe.
The 'first picture of a Black Hole' gives the inference that an actual image/picture/photo of a Black Hole has been obtained and its release to the public has not been altered in any way to enhance its presentation as the long-sought evidence for which scientists have implied their analysis.
The public has a right to know the true logistics of the image - is it a shadow, a silhouette, or a clearly defined Black Hole...or something else altogether.

Apr 06, 2019
Taking the picture of the Black Holes "Event Horizon" is like taking the picture of the sun's surface. The Sun's surface that we see is actually just the upper atmosphere of the radiative zone. The core, where all the heavy elements are fusing is way down at the center.

Like there's many different parts of the sun, the core, the radiative zone, and the corona, the black hole has an inside(which physics can't really describe yet), and then the Event horizon which is just where the photons can't escape. There's also a photosphere around that which Astronomers may have already detected as a toroidal shape. Then, there's the accretions disk with the magnetic fields generated by the black hole itself. I mean the photosphere should more or less give us a picture of actual spacetime dragging!

Apr 06, 2019
I can't believe they'd hold a world wide press conference if they weren't going to reveal their first image of Sag A. They'll probably show M87 as well. Question is how good the image quality; Event Horizon Telescope astronomers have been trying to keep excitement levels down thinking the image quality probably won't be that high. Saying that we probably need to do this with space telescopes to get the sexy pictures; yet, they're holding a world wide press conference.

Either Einstein's General Relativity has finally shown a blemish, or the Sag A(and possibly M87) pictures are sexy.


I, for one, will be glued to the live stream.

With a BH pennant, a giant foamy No. 1 finger, while chanting "Go Einstein!", rah rah cripple guy....

Apr 06, 2019
@ Castrogiovanni
I see you're smart and savvy to others. The center galaxy diameter is from 3,000 ly to more than 30,000 ly.
Galaxy Center: Supermassive black hole 105-1010 MSun 0.001-400 AU
Stars (I hope you know their diameter (if you do not know how to use the diameter of the Sun)
Stellar black hole 10 MSun 30 km
Show math and name technology that can measure and say what's under 600,000 km of thick layer of matter?

Apr 06, 2019
@Forum.

From above article:

1)
The imaging algorithms we developed fill the gaps of data we are missing in order to reconstruct a picture of a black hole,
I hope and trust they will fully divulge both the nature and number of all their "gaps of data we are missing"; and also, both the nature and number of all the assumptions/interpretations/modelling pre-analysis 'inputs' when creating their "imaging algorithms", and how many such algorithms have to work flawlessly-in-series/parallel in order to give the 'imagery outputs' that their 'analysis construct' effectively determines will 'output' based on all their modelling/assumptive etc 'inputs' and 'interpretational post processing'.

2)
At its centre, the mass of a black hole is compressed into a single, ZERO-DIMENSIONAL POINT.
Competent physics writers/journalists would NOT still parrot that (long-dropped by mainstream) unphysical 'maths-artefact'.

I too can't wait to see what their algorithms 'portray'. :)

Apr 06, 2019
Taking the picture of the Black Holes "Event Horizon" is like taking the picture of the sun's surface. The Sun's surface that we see is actually just the upper atmosphere of the radiative zone. The core, where all the heavy elements are fusing is way down at the center.

Like there's many different parts of the sun, the core, the radiative zone, and the corona, the black hole has an inside(which physics can't really describe yet), and then the Event horizon which is just where the photons can't escape. There's also a photosphere around that which Astronomers may have already detected as a toroidal shape. Then, there's the accretions disk with the magnetic fields generated by the black hole itself. I mean the photosphere should more or less give us a picture of actual spacetime dragging!
says flashgordon

Please don't insult our intelligence by comparing our familiar Sun to a mysterious unseeable object that allegedly resides at the centre of the MW. Thanks

Apr 06, 2019
@ Castrogiovanni
I see you're smart and savvy to others. The center galaxy diameter is from 3,000 ly to more than 30,000 ly.
Galaxy Center: Supermassive black hole 105-1010 MSun 0.001-400 AU
Stars (I hope you know their diameter (if you do not know how to use the diameter of the Sun)
Stellar black hole 10 MSun 30 km
Show math and name technology that can measure and say what's under 600,000 km of thick layer of matter?


Gibberish. Go complain to the scientists who have multiply reported the mass of the BH by using the same technique as I used. And then go away.

Apr 06, 2019
With a BH pennant, a giant foamy No. 1 finger, while chanting "Go Einstein!", rah rah cripple guy....


Another science-free, pointless, idiotic post.

Apr 06, 2019
....that allegedly resides at the centre of the MW.


No 'allegedly' about it. I've asked before; use Kepler's third law to derive the mass at the galactic centre, and then explain the gravitational redshift of one of those stars orbiting it. And then show us an alternative that does not involve a BH, based on real science. You can't. Neither can the idiot Benni, nor any of the other scientifically illiterate trolls on here.

Apr 06, 2019
@Forum.

From above article:

1)
The imaging algorithms we developed fill the gaps of data we are missing in order to reconstruct a picture of a black hole,
I hope and trust they will fully divulge both the nature and number of all their "gaps of data we are missing"; and also, both the nature and number of all the assumptions/interpretations/modelling pre-analysis 'inputs' when creating their "imaging algorithms", and how many such algorithms have to work flawlessly-in-series/parallel in order to give the 'imagery outputs' that their 'analysis construct' effectively determines will 'output' based on all their modelling/assumptive etc 'inputs' and 'interpretational post processing'.

I too can't wait to see what their algorithms 'portray'. :)
says RealityCheck

Computer programs are amazing, aren't they? But when they try to enhance and modify what is expected by most to be the 'real nitty-gritty' and pass it off as a genuine and true rendering - I am displeased

Apr 06, 2019
Perhaps the best tell of Sag A* is the spectral shift and intensity difference between the receding and advancing sides of the accretion disk

Apr 06, 2019
....that allegedly resides at the centre of the MW.


No 'allegedly' about it. I've asked before; use Kepler's third law to derive the mass at the galactic centre, and then explain the gravitational redshift of one of those stars orbiting it. And then show us an alternative that does not involve a BH, based on real science. You can't. Neither can the idiot Benni, nor any of the other scientifically illiterate trolls on here.
says Castrivagina

Certain asteroids within the SS have orbited the vicinity of the Sun only to be 'shot out' at a rather fast clip into a new trajectory. I seem to recall that Oumuamua was such an asteroid that is well on its way out of our SS at high velocity after having been 'ejected' by the Sun. It is possible that S2 is similarly being ejected at high velocity from the vicinity of a massive Star, which has S2 slowing and then speeding up and away from the object. The object doesn't necessarily need to BE a Black Hole.

Apr 06, 2019
Since it is orbiting, it would be invisible unless you were in it.


Why should Photon Sphere be invisible? We can see orbiting satellites whether we are on Earth's surface or beyond the orbit of one circling the Earth. Why should POSITION have anything to do with it's visibility?

Ok, so presume it exists, how then will these EHT guys see a shadow at the Event Horizon with the Photon Sphere occluding it? Oh, now you're gonna suggest the Photon Sphere is not opaque? OK, how do you know that it is CLEAR if the so-called experts of Pop-Cosmology say it is "bright"? It's one or the other, or the third alternative is it doesn't exist.....clue us in when you've got it figured out.


Why don't you go ask one of the well qualified scientists . Maybe they are too dumb to figure things out that a scientifically illiterate troll has proposed on a comments section.
.......you can be sure they will do everything possible to avoid responding to a question like that.

Apr 06, 2019
The object doesn't necessarily need to BE a Black Hole.


Yes it does. 4m solar masses. What is it? Please refer to the scientific literature for your answer. I am not interested in your uneducated beliefs.

Apr 06, 2019
.......you can be sure they will do everything possible to avoid responding to a question like that.


No they won't. You will chicken out from asking, as usual, due to a lack of cojones, and fear of even more people calling you an idiot. Eh, chicken boy?

Apr 06, 2019
The object doesn't necessarily need to BE a Black Hole.


Yes it does. 4m solar masses. What is it? Please refer to the scientific literature for your answer. I am not interested in your uneducated beliefs.


I did not state my belief on the subject. I was referring to an Event not long ago here in our own Solar System that involved an interstellar asteroid. A star such as S2 could also come close to another much larger Star and be ejected from orbit at a higher velocity. The question of how close does an orbiting body have to be to such an object for it to be pulled in gravitationally. If S2 continues such an orbit around the object, what are the odds that it will never get pulled in, or will it? There are many other Stars that come close to the object, but their orbits are not altered. Will they continue the same also? Only continued observation will reveal the truth.

Apr 06, 2019
The Earth itself, as well as the other planets, could all be pulled INTO the Sun if, and when the orbits get too close to the Sun's 'sphere of influence' and get pulled in. The Sun doesn't have to be a Black Hole for that to happen. Merely a change of orbital conditions could bring planet Earth to destruction.

Apr 06, 2019
I did not state my belief on the subject. I was referring to an Event not long ago here in our own Solar System that involved an interstellar asteroid. A star such as S2 could also come close to another much larger Star and be ejected from orbit at a higher velocity. The question of how close does an orbiting body have to be to such an object for it to be pulled in gravitationally. If S2 continues such an orbit around the object, what are the odds that it will never get pulled in, or will it? There are many other Stars that come close to the object, but their orbits are not altered. Will they continue the same also? Only continued observation will reveal the truth.


Utter nonsense. I've told you - they use Kepler's third law to obtain the mass. It is 4m solar masses. End of story. Nobody is claiming differently. Unqualified cranks on comments sections do not count.

Apr 06, 2019
The Earth itself, as well as the other planets, could all be pulled INTO the Sun if, and when the orbits get too close to the Sun's 'sphere of influence' and get pulled in. The Sun doesn't have to be a Black Hole for that to happen. Merely a change of orbital conditions could bring planet Earth to destruction.


And what the hell has that to do with the mass of a black hole? Just admit that you haven't got a clue what Kepler's third law means, and then be quiet. I repeat; there is no other mass it can be. The mass of the Sun will still be the same whether you are using Mercury's orbit to calculate it, or Earth's. Or any other object at whatever distance and orbital parameters it may have. You simply do not understand the subject. Best not to comment in that case.

Apr 06, 2019
I did not state my belief on the subject. I was referring to an Event not long ago here in our own Solar System that involved an interstellar asteroid. A star such as S2 could also come close to another much larger Star and be ejected from orbit at a higher velocity. The question of how close does an orbiting body have to be to such an object for it to be pulled in gravitationally. If S2 continues such an orbit around the object, what are the odds that it will never get pulled in, or will it? There are many other Stars that come close to the object, but their orbits are not altered. Will they continue the same also? Only continued observation will reveal the truth.


Utter nonsense. I've told you - they use Kepler's third law to obtain the mass. It is 4m solar masses. End of story. Nobody is claiming differently. Unqualified cranks on comments sections do not count.


Its mass and density is not as important as its gravitational strength to influence a Star.

Apr 06, 2019
https://news.nati...minutes/

TWO EXTREMELY DENSE stars in an intimate dance are spinning around each other in just 5.4 minutes—making them the fastest known stellar partners in the galaxy, astronomers have confirmed.

To have such a speedy orbit, the stars must be moving at about 310 miles (500 kilometers) a second, the team calculates

Apr 06, 2019
Its mass and density is not as important as its gravitational strength to influence a Star.


Oh for........................... what the hell do you think gravity is derived from, you untutored poser? Mass and radius. Obviously the density of an object of mass X, will be different for different values of the radius. If you squish the Earth down to the size of a tennis ball, will its surface gravity be less, more or the same?
Quantum mechanics and chimpanzees comes to mind again!

Apr 06, 2019
Its mass and density is not as important as its gravitational strength to influence a Star.


The fact that there is not only S2 that is orbiting the object, there are several other Stars that come close, but somehow are not pulled in either. The object may have the mass/density, but the much smaller Stars don't seem very affected by it. In fact, if S2 draws too close to the object, S2 could conceivably do an Oumuamua and be ejected OUT of its orbit into a different trajectory.

Apr 06, 2019
Its mass and density is not as important as its gravitational strength to influence a Star.


The fact that there is not only S2 that is orbiting the object, there are several other Stars that come close, but somehow are not pulled in either. The object may have the mass/density, but the much smaller Stars don't seem very affected by it. In fact, if S2 draws too close to the object, S2 could conceivably do an Oumuamua and be ejected OUT of its orbit into a different trajectory.


No it could not you fool. It would need its orbit significantly altered. You really haven't got a clue. Worse than high school level. I'd say. And Oumuamua was given an infinitesimal boost, which was nothing to do with the Sun. Unless it was outgassing, which is obviously due to the Sun. Just give up, you are making a fool of yourself. Not for the first time.

Apr 06, 2019
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100312-fastest-stars-white-dwarfs-orbit-5-minutes/

TWO EXTREMELY DENSE stars in an intimate dance are spinning around each other in just 5.4 minutes—making them the fastest known stellar partners in the galaxy, astronomers have confirmed.

To have such a speedy orbit, the stars must be moving at about 310 miles (500 kilometers) a second, the team calculates


And............................................?????

Apr 06, 2019
Its mass and density is not as important as its gravitational strength to influence a Star.


Oh for........................... what the hell do you think gravity is derived from, you untutored poser? Mass and radius. Obviously the density of an object of mass X, will be different for different values of the radius. If you squish the Earth down to the size of a tennis ball, will its surface gravity be less, more or the same?
Quantum mechanics and chimpanzees comes to mind again!


Surface gravity still doesn't have enough strength to pull in Stars in orbit until the orbits are in closer proximity to the object. It is the same principle as with the Sun and inner planets of our SS. The Sun also has Mass/Density and gravitational pull, but the inner planets are at a safe distance from the Sun and are not under its sphere of influence as if the planets were much closer.
It is all about DISTANCE, not so much Mass/Density/Gravity of the object.

Apr 06, 2019
It is all about DISTANCE, not so much Mass/Dansity/Gravity of the object.


What the hell are you talking about now, you clown? You are clueless. S2 gets to ~ 120 AU of the BH at pericentre. That is 4 x the Sun-Neptune distance. About the same distance as the heliopause.

Apr 06, 2019
And none of this has got anything to do with the measured mass of the SMBH being ~ 4m solar masses. Find me something in the scientific literature that disputes that, or give up.

Apr 06, 2019
It is all about DISTANCE, not so much Mass/Dansity/Gravity of the object.


What the hell are you talking about now, you clown? You are clueless. S2 gets to ~ 120 AU of the BH at pericentre. That is 4 x the Sun-Neptune distance. About the same distance as the heliopause.


And yet, S2 is still merrily orbiting the object and escaping the object's sphere of influence. It still hasn't been gravitationally pulled in. What is your explanation for that, genius?
Does S2 have some magickal powers to avoid getting ripped apart and pulled in? Do tell us.

Apr 06, 2019
And yet, S2 is still merrily orbiting the object and escaping the object's sphere of influence. It still hasn't been gravitationally pulled in. What is your explanation for that, genius?
Does S2 have some magickal powers to avoid getting ripped apart and pulled in? Do tell us.


Jesus H. Christ. It's in orbit, you idiot. A stable orbit. Just like Earth is in a stable orbit around the Sun. Stop talking crap. Get an education, and stop commenting on things you plainly have no grasp of.

Apr 06, 2019
And none of this has got anything to do with the measured mass of the SMBH being ~ 4m solar masses. Find me something in the scientific literature that disputes that, or give up.


And no, it has nothing to do with the alleged SMBH's ~4m solar masses. As I said before, it is ALL about the DISTANCE between the Star and the object. Even if the object had a mass of 2 billion solar masses, any Stars/planets BEYOND its sphere of influence are not subjected to its gravitational pull and are rendered safe.

Apr 06, 2019
Taking the picture of the Black Holes "Event Horizon" is like taking the picture of the sun's surface. The Sun's surface that we see is actually just the upper atmosphere of the radiative zone. The core, where all the heavy elements are fusing is way down at the center.

Like tpe. Then, there's the accretions disk with the magnetic fields generated by the black hole itself. I mean the photosphere should more or less give us a picture of actual spacetime dragging!
says flashgordon

Please don't insult our intelligence by comparing our familiar Sun to a mysterious unseeable object that allegedly resides at the centre of the MW. Thanks


you're getting ruffled feathers over that? Jesus christ!

Apr 06, 2019
And no, it has nothing to do with the alleged SMBH's ~4m solar masses. As I said before, it is ALL about the DISTANCE between the Star and the object. Even if the object had a mass of 2 billion solar masses, any Stars/planets BEYOND its sphere of influence are not subjected to its gravitational pull and are rendered safe.


They are subjected to its gravitation pull, for chrissake. That is why they orbit it. They do not orbit it close enough to get sucked into the bloody thing. Get it? However, as they are orbiting it, we can use Kepler's third law to work out the mass of the BH. You seem to have no comprehension at all of the subject area. And it is not 'alleged'. It is 4m solar masses, and that can only be one thing. Unless you've got scientific papers that say otherwise.

Apr 06, 2019
And yet, S2 is still merrily orbiting the object and escaping the object's sphere of influence. It still hasn't been gravitationally pulled in. What is your explanation for that, genius?
Does S2 have some magickal powers to avoid getting ripped apart and pulled in? Do tell us.


Jesus H. Christ. It's in orbit, you idiot. A stable orbit. Just like Earth is in a stable orbit around the Sun. Stop talking crap. Get an education, and stop commenting on things you plainly have no grasp of.


Of course it's in orbit - who said otherwise. Not I.
It is also at a remote enough distance FROM the object to prevent it from infalling. And that is why it has not been affected by the object's sphere of influence, if any. It ALL depends on DISTANCE, whether it be from the Sun or from the "object". The closer to the object, the better the chance of being pulled in.

Apr 06, 2019
Of course it's in orbit - who said otherwise. Not I.
It is also at a remote enough distance FROM the object to prevent it from infalling. And that is why it has not been affected by the object's sphere of influence, if any. It ALL depends on DISTANCE, whether it be from the Sun or from the "object". The closer to the object, the better the chance of being pulled in.


Of course it is affected! Jesus, how thick can a person be? If it's not affected, why the **** is it orbiting it? For the fun of it? God made it do so? Seriously, go and get an education.

Apr 06, 2019
Of course it's in orbit - who said otherwise. Not I.
It is also at a remote enough distance FROM the object to prevent it from infalling. And that is why it has not been affected by the object's sphere of influence, if any. It ALL depends on DISTANCE, whether it be from the Sun or from the "object". The closer to the object, the better the chance of being pulled in.


Of course it is affected! Jesus, how thick can a person be? If it's not affected, why the **** is it orbiting it? For the fun of it? God made it do so? Seriously, go and get an education.


Wow, when did YOU suddenly get religion? It is orbiting because it was orbiting probably even BEFORE the object became what it allegedly is. It is a Star that has an orbit. Do you think that a Star has to stop orbiting in the presence of the alleged object? Think again. It is also possible that S2 has planets. All the more reason for orbiting. Our SS orbits the MW once in how many Earth years?

Apr 06, 2019
Wow, when did YOU suddenly get religion? It is orbiting because it was orbiting probably even BEFORE the object became what it allegedly is. It is a Star that has an orbit. Do you think that a Star has to stop orbiting in the presence of the alleged object? Think again. It is also possible that S2 has planets. All the more reason for orbiting. Out SS orbits the MW once in how many Earth years?


What are you prattling on about now? What have planets got to do with anything? Who cares what its orbit was in the past? I keep telling you, and you keep avoiding, that the orbit tells us that the object has a mass of 4m suns. End of story.

Apr 06, 2019
I did not state my belief on the subject. I was referring to an Event not long ago here in our own Solar System that involved an interstellar asteroid. A star such as S2 could also come close to another much larger Star and be ejected from orbit at a higher velocity. The question of how close does an orbiting body have to be to such an object for it to be pulled in gravitationally. If S2 continues such an orbit around the object, what are the odds that it will never get pulled in, or will it?


Utter nonsense. I've told you - they use Kepler's third law to obtain the mass. It is 4m solar masses. End of story. Nobody is claiming differently. Unqualified cranks on comments sections do not count.

Clouded over glaucoma eyes squeezed shut, fingers plugging his hearing aids, while loudly mumbling "it can only be gravity, it can only be gravity...."
You argue like a second grader in the schoolyard.

Apr 06, 2019
Precious has to go out. Be back later.

Apr 06, 2019
Clouded over glaucoma eyes squeezed shut, fingers plugging his hearing aids, while loudly mumbling "it can only be gravity, it can only be gravity...."
You argue like a second grader in the schoolyard.


There is no other explanation. Please point to the scientific literature if you think otherwise. 'Stellar orbits are affected by..............' . Looking forward to reading the paper. Lol. More Velikovskian crap incoming in 3.........2.........1...........

Apr 06, 2019
Clouded over glaucoma eyes squeezed shut, fingers plugging his hearing aids, while loudly mumbling "it can only be gravity, it can only be gravity...."
You argue like a second grader in the schoolyard.


There is no other explanation. Please point to the scientific literature if you think otherwise. 'Stellar orbits are affected by.gravity on the Star's mass, as if you didn't know.............' . Looking forward to reading the paper. Lol. More Velikovskian crap incoming in 3.........2.........1...........

Apr 06, 2019
The electric force is 270,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times stronger than the gravity force. If there was significant electric force operating at the galactic center we'd be able to detect it from here. We don't.

This has always been the problem with the EUdiots. They can't do math so they don't understand what 270,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 even means.

This is often represented as 2.7 x 10^43.

Cranks can't count.

Apr 06, 2019
Worth mentioning that this ratio is why a little teeny magnet can pick up a bolt against all of the Earth's gravity force.

Cranks can't count.

Apr 06, 2019
It's kinda hard to argue against 270,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

It will be interesting to watch the EUdiot and "christian" and YEC trolls argue against 270,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Good luck with that, boiz.

Cranks can't count.

Apr 06, 2019
On the other hand, the magnetic force is only dominant at very small distances. So, we then find that;

We can also demonstrate that the electrostatic interaction between two idealized stars charged with the electrostatic charges, derived here, is extremely weak compared to gravity. The magnitude of electrostatic force represents only about 10^-36 of the magnitude of gravity.


On the global electrostatic charge of stars
Neslusan, L.
https://www.aanda...2649.pdf

In other words, if you want something to appreciably affect the orbit of a star by EM forces, you are going to need one hell of a charge!

Apr 06, 2019
@Castro, the magnetic force is the relativistic correction for the speed of light delay in the electric force. Be very careful with this. In places like the galactic center it can take decades or centuries to act.

Apr 06, 2019
@Castro, the magnetic force is the relativistic correction for the speed of light delay in the electric force. Be very careful with this. In places like the galactic center it can take decades or centuries to act.


I was more thinking about the crazy ideas that are proffered by certain people, such as Peratt and Scott, that galaxy rotation curves can be explained by humongous Birkeland currents. I've yet to see a calculation of how this could cause stars to rotate at the same velocity as gas.

Apr 06, 2019
Why do you almost ALWAYS repeat yourself? Can't you just say it two or three times & we get it...


lol

Apr 06, 2019
The point isn't galaxy rotation curves; the point is that if galaxy rotation curves were made by electromagnetism, they wouldn't have time to act. And we'd be able to detect them, and we don't, and they don't.

Apr 06, 2019
Why do you almost ALWAYS repeat yourself? Can't you just say it two or three times & we get it...


lol
They don't even know why you're laughing, @Turing. We've said it about ten thousand times and they don't get it. They're trolls; they're never gonna get it. They don't want to.

They don't even get 270,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Apr 06, 2019
The point isn't galaxy rotation curves; the point is that if galaxy rotation curves were made by electromagnetism, they wouldn't have time to act. And we'd be able to detect them, and we don't, and they don't.


Here is one of Peratt's nonsense papers to show what the crazies still believe;

http://adsbit.har...000.html

However, at no stage did Peratt ever state, or calculate, how his 'model' could move stars around. It's a moot point, as we now know double-lobed radio galaxies are just jets from an AGN hosted in an elliptical galaxy.

Apr 06, 2019
One can quite see why Peratt went into administration instead of keeping on with science. And now denies any connection with the EUdiocy.

Apr 07, 2019
@ Castrogiovanni "Go complain to the scientists.."
I understand, you have no opinion (do not use your head). Your knowledge is copy - paste. You are not responsible for your comments. Why are you setting them up? We know without you open Internet and originals.
Star…………………….Type………………Mass Sun=1……Temperature °K
EZ Canis Majoris..WN3-hv………….19…………………..89.100
Centaurus X-3………O……………….20.5 ± 0.7………….39.000
η Canis Majores…..B…………………19,19……………….15.000
HD 21389…………….A…………………19,3………………….9.730
Kappa Pavonis……..F………………..19 – 25…………..5,250 - 6,350
V382 Carinae……….G…………………20…………………5,866
S Persei……………….M…………………20……………….3.000-3.600
DH Tauri b..Planet; dist. 330 AU..12 M Jupiter….2.750
HIP 78530 b..Planet; dist. 740 AU..24 M Jup…….2.700 (2.800)
Table 5. Stars, similar mass (except No 8, 9, ), different classes (type) and temperatures.

yep
Apr 07, 2019
One can quite see why Peratt went into administration instead of keeping on with science. And now denies any connection with the EUdiocy.

I just heard him talk you are a liar like Jones Dumb.

Apr 07, 2019
What do you even say to a bunch of numbskulls who are wrong by 270,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000?

I mean, seriously.

Apr 07, 2019
Collective Orbital Milkyway Stars
@Granville,
Castrogiovanni> Kepler's third law simplifies to: a^3 = Mbh P^2;
where a = semimajor axis (in AU);
Mbh = mass of black hole (in solar masses);
and P = the orbital period of the star (in yrs).
Rearranging gives; Mbh = a^3/ P^2.
a = ~1000 AU, and P = ~16 yrs.
Therefore Mbh = ~10^9/ ~250 = 4 x 10^6 solar masses

This is the undisputed fact jonsey
observe your orbital star then calculate the mass of the star being orbited!
120AU radii from any individual star to a central single point
gives
a central mass of 8x10+36kg
this does not mean this mass 8x10+36kg
is a centrally compact singular mass
as
the Galaxy as a whole shows
stand back in the vacuum our milky way is billions of stars
all with the same 250million yr orbital
but
spread out over a radii
of
50thousand Lys
so
at our Galactic centre
there are millions of stars orbiting in close packed orbits
that when collectively in addition
amount
To 8x10+36kg

Apr 07, 2019
If there was significant electric force operating at the galactic center we'd be able to detect it from here. We don't.

We do see the effects, the orbits of the stars that which jonesdumb has a gravitational fetish, for example. We see it in the rotation curves of galaxies. It is why DM is unnecessary in the real world.

Apr 07, 2019
You missed the point, @cantthink270,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

If there were that much electric force in the galactic center we'd be able to detect it from here.

Cranks can't count.

Apr 07, 2019
Close Packed Orbital Galactic Stars in Synchronous Orbit

Our Milkyway
has
shown stars orbiting in close packed orbital's
they do not tear themselves apart
they do not collide
they orbit for billions of yrs
till they explode in supernova
where
the implosion creates dead heat death stars
where these dead stars continue to orbit for billions of years
in point of fact
our Milkyway is 13.8billion yrs old
as these dead stars have been orbiting for 13.8billion yrs
and
will continues to orbit for another 13.8billion yrs
the point is
these close packed Galactic orbits are stable
as
these close packed orbital's are stable at our Galactic centre
as our Galaxy has shown
it
is made up of close packed orbital stars
in
Synchronous orbit
because
at our Galactic centre
there
exists
4million stars in close packed Synchronous orbit

Apr 07, 2019
Close Packed Orbital Galactic Stars

Has anyone calculated
stars
in close packed orbital's
because
when stars are in close orbital's their mass accumulates
such
that when strung out in long radii
as
can be visualised
there is constant gravitational attraction over Lys
which
effects their orbital's
their gravitational attraction
is
greater than the same number of stars in the space of one single star
so
one and all
this is what we are observing at our galactic centre
each star
is
adding its force over a short distance
and
collectively multiplying its force from its close by neighbour
which
these stars oppose their neighbouring stars
by
Increasing their orbital velocities
in point of fact
due
to this spatial addition of gravitational close packed orbital's
it
is not necessary to have 8x10+36kg
of
Mass to achieve these orbital velocities we are observing

Apr 07, 2019
Sitting with bated breath for this one.

The article is nice - actual interviews - up to the point when it starts to ramble on the theoretical concept of a singularity, which may or may not exist depending on high energy/small scale new physics or not. It is not even technical correct as a mass description for small black holes, where you could have significant infalling mass at some time or other, or BH mergers.

The Event Horizon Telescope took more data than the Large Hadron Collider did to discover the Higgs; i'm expecting a bit of a picture.


They would not hold a press conference if they had not resolved a black hole event horizon, however it looks.

Images are powerful and would go into the "see, yet another evidence of black holes and that we get their physics somewhat" bin. Anything added - confirmation or new physics - would be a bonus indeed.

Apr 07, 2019
If there was significant electric force operating at the galactic center we'd be able to detect it from here. We don't.

We do see the effects, the orbits of the stars that which jonesdumb has a gravitational fetish, for example. We see it in the rotation curves of galaxies. It is why DM is unnecessary in the real world.


Liar. You have been asked multiple times to explain how these invisible currents are supposed to be moving stars around. You have never been able to explain it, and nor has anyone else, within or without the scientific literature. Stop making crap up.

Apr 07, 2019
@ Castrogiovanni "Go complain to the scientists.."
I understand, you have no opinion (do not use your head). Your knowledge is copy - paste. You are not responsible for your comments. Why are you setting them up? We know without you open Internet and originals.
Star…………………….Type………………Mass Sun=1……Temperature °K
EZ Canis Majoris..WN3-hv………….19…………………..89.100
Centaurus X-3………O……………….20.5 ± 0.7………….39.000
η Canis Majores…..B…………………19,19……………….15.000
HD 21389…………….A…………………19,3………………….9.730
Kappa Pavonis……..F………………..19 – 25…………..5,250 - 6,350
V382 Carinae……….G…………………20…………………5,866
S Persei……………….M…………………20……………….3.000-3.600
DH Tauri b..Planet; dist. 330 AU..12 M Jupiter….2.750
HIP 78530 b..Planet; dist. 740 AU..24 M Jup…….2.700 (2.800)
Table 5. Stars, similar mass (except No 8, 9, ), different classes (type) and temperatures.


Complete gibberish. Means zilch to me. Link to the scientific literature to back up whatever nonsense you are prattling on about.

Apr 07, 2019
One can quite see why Peratt went into administration instead of keeping on with science. And now denies any connection with the EUdiocy.

I just heard him talk you are a liar like Jones Dumb.


https://plasmauniverse.info/

The Plasma Universe and Plasma
Cosmology have no ties to the anti-
science blogsites of the holoscience
'electric universe'.


That is Peratt's site, is it not?

Apr 07, 2019
Further from Peratt, in the preface to the 2015 2nd edition of 'Physics of the Plasma Universe';

Countering the growth of faster computers, better diagnostics, and nuclear research facilities has been the encroachment of those not schooled in plasma science, computer science, physics, astrophysics, or high-power electrical, pulsed energy, and nuclear engineering. Without exception they rail at barriers placed to insure sound scientific technique and methodology. In times past, their 'achievements' were limited to hand-written, mimeographed, or in-house notes. Peer-reviewed papers in print in archived journals or even short letters in their town [sic] OpEd page were beyond their reach. However, now the internet or World Wide Web allows anyone, even cults, to present their cacaphony [sic] to the world, often citing unsuspecting researchers as 'colleagues' for false endorsement.


cont.......


Apr 07, 2019
...cont

As Hannes Alfven, Harold Urey, and myself, during our tenure at the New Astrophysics lectures at the University of California, San Diego, 1979-1981, said, 'they deserve no attention'. Indeed, as if a topic of psuedoscience [sic], the subject was never even raised.


Now, who do we suspect he was aiming that little tirade at? Certainly not mainstream (i.e. real) scientists, as they don't cite his work looking for 'false endorsement'. The loons Scott and Thornhill spring immediately to mind.


Apr 07, 2019
Clouded over glaucoma eyes squeezed shut, fingers plugging his hearing aids, while loudly mumbling "it can only be gravity, it can only be gravity...."
You argue like a second grader in the schoolyard.


There is no other explanation. Please point to the scientific literature if you think otherwise. 'Stellar orbits are affected by..............' . Looking forward to reading the paper. Lol. More Velikovskian crap incoming in 3.........2.........1...........


Still waiting.................

Apr 07, 2019
This has always been the problem with the EUdiots. They can't do math so they don't understand what 270,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 even means.

This is often represented as 2.7 x 10^43.

Cranks can't count.

Da Schitts the arrogant, know it all, jackass brays.
LMAO.
That's 2.7 x 10^44, to those who can count.

Apr 07, 2019
Close Packed Orbital Galactic Stars
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100312-fastest-stars-white-dwarfs-orbit-5-minutes/
Benni> TWO EXTREMELY DENSE stars in an intimate dance are spinning around each other in just 5.4 minutes—making them the fastest known stellar partners in the galaxy, astronomers have confirmed.
To have such a speedy orbit, the stars must be moving at about 310 miles (500 kilometers) a second, the team calculates

While it does not appear to say
how far these stars are apart
they have to be in the order of a million miles of radii or closer
when you consider
Sagittarius* is discussing a radii of 120AU
at these close radii
in this research
Indicates the possibility that billions of stars
Can orbitaly exist in a 15billion miles in diameter sphere!in this research
Indicates the possibility that billions of stars
Can orbitaly exist in a 15billion miles in diameter sphere!

Apr 07, 2019
Indicates the possibility that billions of stars
Can orbitaly exist in a 15billion miles in diameter sphere


No it does not. Lern to scienz. If we can see S2 and other stars as single point sources, what the hell would 4 million of them look like in IR in the images of the galactic centre? Stupid post, yet again. Tell us Granville - why are these 4 millions stars not shining? And then go and get an education.

Apr 07, 2019
The same reason Sagittarius A* and its accretion disk is invisible
Indicates the possibility that billions of stars
Can orbitaly exist in a 15billion miles in diameter sphere


No it does not. Lern to scienz. If we can see S2 and other stars as single point sources, what the hell would 4 million of them look like in IR in the images of the galactic centre? Stupid post, yet again. Tell us Granville - why are these 4 millions stars not shining? And then go and get an education.

It is Dust dear jonesy, dust
there is still a hole in our bucket dear jonesy
just because these millions of stars are in close orbit
does not mitigate all that dust
that is presently obscuring Sagittarius A*
because
whatever is orbiting at Sagittarius A*
Is Obscured By Dust

Apr 07, 2019
"Reader input is particularly important to Science X. Each article appearing on the site has a comment section for readers. This feature is designed to allow readers to 'speak up' about content appearing on Science X, from which we can rectify errors and oversights. If we miss something or overstate a scientific principle, for example, our readers let us know very quickly. These readers keep the Science X community vibrant and lively."

So Castro can kill it and suck it dry, I guess. For his favorite children, I imagine.

Apr 07, 2019
I agree with Castro on this: We should continue here to strive mainly to capture that slice of readers existing between those not smart enough to know the shape of our galaxy and those smart enough to know our galaxy does not have a "plain."

Apr 07, 2019
You missed the point, @cantthink270,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

If there were that much electric force in the galactic center we'd be able to detect it from here.

Cranks can't count.

I guess da schnied thinks one can "see" the electric force. We can't see the electric force da schnied, however we can see the effects such as the orbits of the stars and the rotation curves of galaxies.

Apr 07, 2019
One can quite see why Peratt went into administration instead of keeping on with science. And now denies any connection with the EUdiocy.

I just heard him talk you are a liar like Jones Dumb.


https://plasmauniverse.info/

The Plasma Universe and Plasma
Cosmology have no ties to the anti-
science blogsites of the holoscience
'electric universe'.


That is Peratt's site, is it not?

I already explained he did not add that to his site, it was people like you that added it to the site and told him if it was going to continue to be hosted by LANL it would have to stay there.

Apr 07, 2019
...cont

As Hannes Alfven, Harold Urey, and myself, during our tenure at the New Astrophysics lectures at the University of California, San Diego, 1979-1981, said, 'they deserve no attention'. Indeed, as if a topic of psuedoscience [sic], the subject was never even raised.


Now, who do we suspect he was aiming that little tirade at? Certainly not mainstream (i.e. real) scientists, as they don't cite his work looking for 'false endorsement'. The loons Scott and Thornhill spring immediately to mind.


Why exactly did Peratt invite these two to a conference that he organized? Why did he endorse the papers they produced and presented at said conference? Why did he co-author dozens of papers with other EU individuals? 1980 was nearly 20-years earlier than the proposals put forth by Scott and Thornhill, how do you expect he was addressing them? Other than projecting your own skewed views.

Apr 07, 2019
'Stellar orbits are affected by..............' .

Electromagnetic forces jonesdumb. Your "old mind" just isn't capable of thinking, you only know what the authorities have told you.

Apr 07, 2019
Seriously, from everything I've read on this topic I'm thinking the center of the picture have a lot of infra-red to delete. Almost time to place your bets.

Apr 07, 2019
"The magnitude of electrostatic force represents only about 10^-36 of the magnitude of gravity."

I would uprate that, but that poster is too often a dense ratings thug.

The figure there is based on proton-to-proton force ratio using a figure for proton radius around 10^-15m.
Interesting thing - if I multiply proton radius by 10^36 the result is around 100,000 light-years which is on the same scale as the size of a typical galaxy spiral around these parts. That's an argument that gravity shapes the galaxy like electricity shapes the proton, it's a sort of energy balance F(g)d=F(e)d working on two widely different scales.

Apr 07, 2019
'Stellar orbits are affected by..............' .

Electromagnetic forces jonesdumb. Your "old mind" just isn't capable of thinking, you only know what the authorities have told you.


So get on with it and link to where this has been shown in the scientific literature. How many times do I need to ask, before you admit that you are lying, and nobody has ever even suggested such idiocy?

tl;dr? Cantdrive is a pathological liar.

Apr 07, 2019
One can quite see why Peratt went into administration instead of keeping on with science. And now denies any connection with the EUdiocy.

I just heard him talk you are a liar like Jones Dumb.


https://plasmauniverse.info/

The Plasma Universe and Plasma
Cosmology have no ties to the anti-
science blogsites of the holoscience
'electric universe'.


That is Peratt's site, is it not?

I already explained he did not add that to his site, it was people like you that added it to the site and told him if it was going to continue to be hosted by LANL it would have to stay there.


BS woo boy. He shat all over your cult in the preface I quoted from.

Apr 07, 2019
It's like poor little Castro always needs a secretly friendly gang of butt-boys to hang around here endlessly and make him look smart. Do electric universe types exist for anything except making insecure intellectually-inbred lame-butt gravity theorists look much smarter than they are? Must cost a lot somehow other than in lowered historic readership here.

Apr 07, 2019


Why exactly did Peratt invite these two to a conference that he organized? Why did he endorse the papers they produced and presented at said conference? Why did he co-author dozens of papers with other EU individuals? 1980 was nearly 20-years earlier than the proposals put forth by Scott and Thornhill, how do you expect he was addressing them? Other than projecting your own skewed views.

Errrm, 'cult'? Who else would that refer to woo boy? 'False endorsement'? Who else is using Peratt's stuff in the junk to try to legitimise their woo? 'Without exception they rail at barriers placed to insure sound scientific technique and methodology'? In other words, peer-review. Describes the idiot Thornhill and his cult perfectly. And this is from 2015. He has dumped any ties to your stupid, mythology-based cult.

Apr 07, 2019
It's like poor little Castro always needs a secretly friendly gang of butt-boys to hang around here endlessly and make him look smart. Do electric universe type exist for anything except making insecure intellectually-inbred lame-butt gravity theorist look much smarter than they are? Must cost a lot somehow other than historic readership here.


What are you on about, thicko? Got some science to peddle? Who shat on your parade, you clown? Just make sure you read the comments guidelines before you post any crap;

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

Apr 07, 2019
"thicko"

Straight out of the laconic oaf's keyboard, or whatever else cripples use. You need peer-review for that too?

Apr 07, 2019
"thicko"

Laconic oaf. You need peer-review for that too?


Yes. Go away unless you can show us this crap you are on about in the scientific literature. Hell, even MOND made it that far. Where is your fiction hosted? Vixra? Lol.

Apr 07, 2019
Dear special needs douchebag relativity fan:

You need a peer reviewed cite on an approximate figure for the theoretical size of a proton or an approximate figure for the radius of the Milky way? Force time distance is energy needs peer review needed? Nice peer-reviewed energy balance cite needed? What if some relativity supremacist notices? Oh, wait.....

Signed - you, and your fight-club boring gang, should go away, you thuggish pig of a douchebag.

Apr 07, 2019
Clue for the hard of thinking, and various other physics cranks;

A scientific hypothesis outlines its claims. It outlines how it is distinguished from current theories. It attempts to show where current theories are wrong, and it makes predictions that can be falsified, that will then allow people to see whether it has any merit compared to current theories. That is what MOND did, and why it is currently getting its arse kicked.
Where does your impenetrable word salad do that?

Apr 07, 2019
Dear special needs douchebag relativity fan:

You need a peer reviewed cite on an approximate figure for the theoretical size of a proton or an approximate figure for the radius of the Milky way?

Signed - you, and your fight-club boring gang, should go away, you thuggish pig of a douchebag.


Awww diddums! Lol. Got nothing, have you, woo boy? And I am only quoting the site guidelines. Go try posting your crap on a physics forum, if you've got the cojones (doubtful). Might I suggest here;

https://forum.cos...instream

Trust me, you will get your backside kicked by actual scientists. There is a reason that people like you end up here. I don't need to spell it out.

Apr 07, 2019
Yes, go goo goo here, like a good butt-boy fan. Wait, I see a typo or two.... fetch!

Signed - scheme along with your lame constantly-repropped pseudo-science dark matter relativity job-keeping fans without me.

Apr 07, 2019
Yes, go goo goo here, like a good butt-boy fan. Wait, I see a typo or two.... fetch!


So, you have absolutely nothing to add to the discussion, correct? So, why are you here? To promote pseudoscientific woo, yes?

Apr 07, 2019
You missed all of my last "Castro"-esque critique, you anonymous-to-me clown.

Apr 07, 2019
You missed all of my last Casto-esque critique, you clown.


WTF are you talking about, woo boy?

Apr 07, 2019
You're a lazy douche.

When are you going to stop being dishonest about your galaxy-dominating GR crap-gravity supremacism? Peer-reviewed by gravity supremacists? That is for warpig supremacists only.

signed- I predict you'll never admit it true, you zuper-douchbag.

Apr 07, 2019
You're a lazy douche.


Sorry? Because I haven't read your woo, which appears to not exist? Link to it. Just remember the site guidelines. Wouldn't want to have to report you.

Apr 07, 2019
You should think about just dropping it or something. Go complain and grease some more palms, self-tanning-boy. Do that, you warpig supremacist butt-boy gang lover. Insult someone else for no good reason.

Apr 07, 2019
You should think about just dropping it or something. Go complain and grease some more palms, self-tanning-boy. Do that, you warpig supremacist butt-boy gang lover. Insult someone else for no good reason.


Lol. Got nothing, have you? (rhetorical)

Apr 07, 2019
Galaxy formation using electromagnetic forces;
https://www.plasm...ormation
No DM faerie dust or physics defying infinite gravity monsters needed.

Apr 07, 2019
If the image they produce is anything like the second rendering above, then you can be sure it's a biased fabrication. In that rendering, they specify a photon SPHERE and then claim it manifests as a bright RING. I would expect that photons are emitted in all directions and that the gravity of the BH would bend them, such that they completely obscure it, thus any actual silhouette of it would be impossible.

Apr 07, 2019
Galaxy formation using electromagnetic forces;
https://www.plasm...ormation
No DM faerie dust or physics defying infinite gravity monsters needed.


Nope, a failed model, that never addressed how it could shift stars around. Published in an irrelevant and inappropriate journal. It is long dead. And those imaginary Birkeland currents are just radio lobes from an AGN hosted by an elliptical galaxy. Even Peratt has given up on that. Like I said - show me where anyone has suggested how stellar orbits can be explained by anything other than gravity. You can't, because such nonsense does not exist.

Apr 07, 2019
If the image they produce is anything like the second rendering above, then you can be sure it's a biased fabrication. In that rendering, they specify a photon SPHERE and then claim it manifests as a bright RING. I would expect that photons are emitted in all directions and that the gravity of the BH would bend them, such that they completely obscure it, thus any actual silhouette of it would be impossible.


In which case you haven't got a clue what you are talking about. However, we already knew that. Go tell it to the scientists who expected to be able to see the silhouette and have, in all likelihood, found it. Guess they're all just dummies, eh?

Apr 07, 2019
"The magnitude of electrostatic force represents only about 10^-36 of the magnitude of gravity."

Dear Castleninny: you have it backwards F(e) is 10^36 stronger than F(g). This is supposedly not distance-dependent but who knows.

There are also two other figures to consider - electron to proton based, around 10*39, and electron to electron based, around 10^42.

Apr 07, 2019
As we await the Saturnists to come up with more impossible woo, here is a (hopefully) interesting potted history of early (late 80s - early 90s) attempts to explain galactic rotation curves through magnetic fields, rather

than DM, and the rebuttals thereof.
There were a handful of scientists who had a go at this. I don't include Peratt, as his model was unphysical, and never appeared in a relevant journal, and so was never addressed. Others took a less bizarre route, and

suggested the possibility without invoking physics defying, gigaparsec electric currents.
Chiefly, these were;

On the influence of galaxy magnetic fields on the rotation curves in the outer discs of galaxies
Nelson, A. H (1988)
http://adsabs.har...33..115N

Magnetic fields as an alternative explanation for the rotation curves of spiral galaxies
Battaner, E. et al. (1992)
http://adsabs.har...60..652B

Dark matter versus magnetism
Binney, J. (1992)
https://www.nature.com

Apr 07, 2019
If the image they produce is anything like the second rendering above, then you can be sure it's a biased fabrication. In that rendering, they specify a photon SPHERE and then claim it manifests as a bright RING. I would expect that photons are emitted in all directions and that the gravity of the BH would bend them, such that they completely obscure it, thus any actual silhouette of it would be impossible.


In which case you haven't got a clue what you are talking about. However, we already knew that. Go tell it to the scientists who expected to be able to see the silhouette and have, in all likelihood, found it. Guess they're all just dummies, eh? HAWW...HEE...HAWWW...

My apologies. I neglected to specify that ignorant jackasses, who are incapable of independent thought, should not bray, in response. Then again, that would not have stopped you, after all jackasses must bray.

Apr 07, 2019
[cont...]
......Suffice it to say that due to those articles actually being published in respected and relevant journals, they drew some attention. And rebuttal, which I shall go into later. I have full copies of all those papers, should anyone be interested.

Apr 07, 2019
My apologies. I neglected to specify that ignorant jackasses, who are incapable of independent thought, should not bray, in response. Then again, that would not have stopped you, after all jackasses must bray.


You are the jackass, you uneducated clown. Independent thought? You? Lol. I bet you never studied science beyond primary school. As I've said before - it is easy to fool yourself into believing any old crap when you are too scientifically illiterate to realise how scientifically illiterate you are.

Apr 07, 2019
[cont...]
......Suffice it to say that due to those articles actually being published in respected and relevant journals, they drew some attention. And rebuttal, which I shall go into later. I have full copies of all those papers, should anyone be interested.

jonesdumb trying to falsify Peratt's model using only half the equation, it's an electromagnetic field and not just magnetic fields jonesdumb.
I don't include Peratt, as his model was unphysical, and never appeared in a relevant journal,

More lies by a pro obfuscist, jonesdumb. Peratt's model is based on Winston Bostick's interacting plasmoids which he produced by lab experiment in the '50's at MIT.

Apr 07, 2019
More lies by a pro obfuscist, jonesdumb. Peratt's model is based on Winston Bostick's interacting plasmoids which he produced by lab experiment in the '50's at MIT.


And nowhere do they propose this as a method to describe stellar orbits. This is...... what? The 5th or 6th time? Where is your model? It does not exist. They were only modelling gas. We didn't have velocities for stars in outer spirals then. We do now. The models fail. Hence nobody bothering with them any more. It is ancient history. Who cares what Bostick did in the 50s? He was wrong. Ditto Peratt. Ditto all the others.

Apr 07, 2019
jonesdumb trying to falsify Peratt's model using only half the equation, it's an electromagnetic field and not just magnetic fields jonesdumb.


Clown, the model is falsified by observation, long since. Even he has given up on it, and I see no-one updating it with more up to date software, and better computers. Which tells you that it is an ex-model. R.I.P.

Apr 07, 2019
I do have one prediction regarding the release of said contrived algorithmic maths gymnastics which is claimed to be a picture of a silhouette of the shadow of the hypothesized point of no return.

The prediction is the article posted here will exceed 1000 comments, half of which will be jonesdumb calling people names and exclaiming "it can on be gravity, it's the only possibility!"

Apr 07, 2019
"it can on be gravity, it's the only possibility!"


Correct. And no scientist is saying any differently. Otherwise you'd have linked it by now. And you will still be talking crap about things which you cannot provide a model for. Usual crap from the Saturnists.

Apr 07, 2019
maths gymnastics which is claimed to be a picture of a silhouette of the shadow of the hypothesized point of no return.


Had any joy figuring out Kepler's third law? Or gravitational redshift? Got a model yet? Seems to me that you are the one believing in evidence-free fairy tales. Like the ones about Earth orbiting Saturn. Or Venus shooting out of Jupiter. Or invisible currents powering the Sun. Or comets being electric rocky woo. No mechanisms, no evidence, no science. What you have there is a religion.

Apr 07, 2019
If the image they produce is anything like the second rendering above, then you can be sure it's a biased fabrication. In that rendering, they specify a photon SPHERE and then claim it manifests as a bright RING. I would expect that photons are emitted in all directions and that the gravity of the BH would bend them, such that they completely obscure it, thus any actual silhouette of it would be impossible.
says antigoracle

I agree that it could BE a biased fabrication, even if only because of this:
"The imaging algorithms we developed fill the gaps of data we are missing in order to reconstruct a picture of a black hole," the team said on their website.

That they were required to "FILL THE GAPS OF DATA THEY ARE MISSING" seems quite deceitful and doesn't bring about much, or any confidence that they have, indeed, found a creditable image of a Black Hole and an associated explanation of HOW they managed its acquisition. A mere silhouette or shadow of a BH is suspect.

Apr 07, 2019
That they were required to "FILL THE GAPS OF DATA THEY ARE MISSING" seems quite deceitful and doesn't bring about much, or any confidence that they have, indeed, found a creditable image of a Black Hole and an associated explanation of HOW they managed its acquisition. A mere silhouette or shadow of a BH is suspect.


Really? Says whom? Your opinion is worthless, as you know Jack about the subject. Ditto the idiot antiwomble. Just link to the science, yes? How many of their papers have you read? How many of the lectures have you watched? How much do you know about imaging algorithms? How much do you know about physics? Or science in general? Or anything, really? Sod all, I would say. Leave it to experts to peer review their findings, and comment on the paper. Cranks don't count.

Apr 07, 2019
That they were required to "FILL THE GAPS OF DATA THEY ARE MISSING" seems quite deceitful and doesn't bring about much, or any confidence that they have, indeed, found a creditable image of a Black Hole and an associated explanation of HOW they managed its acquisition. A mere silhouette or shadow of a BH is suspect.


Really? Says whom? Your opinion is worthless, as you know Jack about the subject. Ditto the idiot antiwomble. Just link to the science, yes? How many of their papers have you read? How many of the lectures have you watched? How much do you know about imaging algorithms? How much do you know about physics? Or science in general? Or anything, really? Sod all, I would say. Leave it to experts to peer review their findings, and comment on the paper. Cranks don't count.
says CV

So you don't believe that part of the article where they admit to having 'filled the GAPS of Data they are missing with Imaging Algorithms? Are you calling them liars?

Apr 07, 2019
Close Packed Orbital Galactic Stars in Synchronous Orbit

Our Milkyway
has
shown stars orbiting in close packed orbital's
they do not tear themselves apart
they do not collide
they orbit for billions of yrs
till they explode in supernova
where
the implosion creates dead heat death stars
where these dead stars continue to orbit for billions of years
in point of fact
our Milkyway is 13.8billion yrs old
as these dead stars have been orbiting for 13.8billion yrs
and
will continues to orbit for another 13.8billion yrs
the point is
these close packed Galactic orbits are stable
as
these close packed orbital's are stable at our Galactic centre
as our Galaxy has shown
it
is made up of close packed orbital stars
in
Synchronous orbit
because
at our Galactic centre
there
exists
4million stars in close packed Synchronous orbit
says granville

The Stars in the centre of the MW are, indeed, closely packed, which would account for the strange orbit of S2

Apr 07, 2019
Close Packed Orbital Galactic Stars

Has anyone calculated stars in close packed orbital's
because when stars are in close orbital's their mass accumulates
such that when strung out in long radii as can be visualised
there is constant gravitational attraction over Lys
which effects their orbital's
their gravitational attraction
is greater than the same number of stars in the space of one single star
so one and all this is what we are observing at our galactic centre
each star is adding its force over a short distance and
collectively multiplying its force from its close by neighbour
which these stars oppose their neighbouring stars by
Increasing their orbital velocities in point of fact
due to this spatial addition of gravitational close packed orbital's it
is not necessary to have 8x10+36kg of Mass to achieve these orbital velocities we are observing
says granville

Again the emphasis is on closely packed Stars whose orbitals are influenced by close proximit

Apr 07, 2019
Link to the scientific literature to back up whatever nonsense you are prattling on about.

@Castrogiovanni
The article has more than 9,000 visits (11/07.2018 - 2/28.2019.)
The Processes Which Cause the Appearance of Objects and Systems
Published in American Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics.
http://www.scienc...80603.13
Author, Weitter Duckss

Apr 07, 2019
the aforesaid article was written by the duck, who used a notorious pay-to-print publication to pretend that this represents scientific work.

the duck is just another woomonger,.
Using the comments section on this site to advertise for suckers.

I'm sure if the duck suckers enough of the other looneytoons?
They will sucker for him.

It amazes me how the looneyticks & trollbots delude themselves.
With endless, obsessive prattling their infantile cant?

Will, by some miraculous process affirm that their charcoal as a diamond!

Apr 07, 2019
This highly eccentric orbit of S2

This designation S0-2
indicates a star within one arc-second of Sagittarius A*
S0–2, is a star orbiting with an orbital period of 16years, a semi-major axis of 970 au,
and
a pericentre distance of 120AU
S2 is useful for detecting the presence of objects near to Sagittarius A*
because
there are thousands of stars
dark stellar remnants, neutron stars, white dwarfs
distributed in the volume
through which S2 moves
where
these objects perturb S2's orbit, causing it to deviate from its Keplerian ellipse
so
our favourite source, Wikipedia
is
pointing to the close packed
orbital stars
Influencing orbital stars
such
as S2
At Sagittarius A*

Apr 07, 2019
If the image they produce is anything like the second rendering above, then you can be sure it's a biased fabrication. In that rendering, they specify a photon SPHERE and then claim it manifests as a bright RING. I would expect that photons are emitted in all directions and that the gravity of the BH would bend them, such that they completely obscure it, thus any actual silhouette of it would be impossible.
......if the Photon Sphere is "bright" as they say it is, then it is opaque & can't be seen through, kind of like looking at a clear glass light bulb when it is turned ON, the brilliance of the output of photons will cause the once clear glass to become opaque & impossible to see through and the brilliance of the Photon Sphere would light up any so-called BH.

These Cosmologists who come up with all these horrendously sloppy characteristics of their favorite fantasy are just so caught up in those fantasies that they are unable to think things through clearly.

Apr 07, 2019
.... Scientists set to unveil first picture of a black hole ....

Did anyone determine who wrote this clickbait headline? & inserted it into publication?

Cause they sure gotour flock of pestilent looneyticks all wound up into a frenzy of hysterical bleating!

I suspect that editor has a great future ahead of them.
In advertising.
Writing /editing for the tobacco industry
& the carbon lobby...

Apr 07, 2019
@cantdrive85
@antigoracle
@Anonym324154
@granville583762.

@cantdrive85. If such strong electric forces at play (instead of a black gravitational feature), stars' plasma bodies would be 'spun up' and 'spun down' periodically as they go closer/further away from the central feature, hence causing polar jets to issue from the spurs-up stars during their closest approach. Such periodic polar jets are not observed, hence Sagittarius A* is NOT an 'electric' feature but an EXTREME massed Gravitational feature surrounded by/generating all sorts of 'hybrid forces' interplays. Nor is it an 'empty' barycentre.

@granville583762. That many stars in that relatively small volume would be so bright in all EM wavelengths that we couldn't observe anything else orbiting close around that central volume.

@antigoracle
@Anonym324154. Please try harder to resist baiting the animals in this zoo. If you have some relevant science/logics point/observation/comment to make please do so. :)

Apr 07, 2019
Realitycheck - thank you. I spent about a quarter-century as a primary examining authority at the best patent office in the world, I handled cases in quantum error correction, superconducting neural net satellite-borne logic, comm systems for gravity-probe B and civilian GPS, business method software, electro-optical devices for measuring electrical quantities, EM multiband radiation hazard detectors and too many other things to mention. Thousands of patents have my name on the first page. I busted my butt to work there. I kicked butt there. Should I get abused here I will do as I wish to discourage it.

Apr 07, 2019
@Anonym324154.
I spent about a quarter-century as a primary examining authority at the best patent office in the world, I handled cases in quantum error correction, superconducting neural net satellite-borne logic, comm systems for gravity-probe B and civilian GPS, business method software, electro-optical devices for measuring electrical quantities, EM multiband radiation hazard detectors and too many other things to mention. Thousands of patents have my name on the first page. I busted my butt to work there. I kicked butt there. Should I get abused here I will do as I wish to discourage it.
Understood, mate. And fair enough. My plea was for minimising unnecessary clutter/animus developing in any one thread that will make such a thread problematic for readers to find the substantive/relevant science/logics discourse posts. To this end, I again implore all to make whatever 'in kind' response they see fit if abused, but keep it to a minimum/not bait gratuitously. :)

Apr 07, 2019
OK Unreal, while you're so much in the chat mode, I want you to make clear what you think about the Photon Sphere in that fantasy drawing.

That PS is nothing less than than Schneibo's 19th Century TUGMath solution & there's no way if it were REAL that it wouldn't be a brilliant opaque image. You've been here many times lecturing about your DARKSTAR, which has never sounded like anything different than Schneibo's non-singularity BH. Why is your darkstar different?

Apr 07, 2019

@granville583762. That many stars in that relatively small volume would be so bright in all EM wavelengths that we couldn't observe anything else orbiting close around that central volume

says RC

http://www.astro....tro.html

And indeed the galactic centre IS very bright. The only objects that could possibly be responsible for such extreme brightness are massive Stars that are in close proximity to each other, and where each Star's orbit is affected by those Stars nearby as they close their distance as they follow the path of their orbit. The distances of many Stars to and away from each other may increase the brightness as they come closer to each other and then the brightness diminishes as they move away. Similar to placing 2 candles together on a table and then taking 1 away. But all photos of the galactic centre illustrate that the centre is very bright. Which means that there are many more Stars there clustered.


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

Apr 07, 2019
@Benni.
OK Unreal, while you're so much in the chat mode, I want you to make clear what you think about the Photon Sphere in that fantasy drawing.
First, please use my proper username or its abbreviation RC. Else you betray personal animosity/biases which compromise any arguments/claims you make.

As for what I think re the depicted "Photon Sphere", I have no opinion on that either way; as it is still a hypothetical/mathematical 'region' which may/may not be drastically perturbed to the point of being physically unstable by Quantum/Gravitational/EM 'turbulence' which must be extreme so close to Black Feature's EH.
Why is your darkstar different?
You already know why. :) An EXTREME Mass 'Black Star' Gravitational Feature involves NO "infinite collapse to a point/ring singularity" as BHs were (previously) hypothesised to involve. Now everyone agrees: NO 'infinite' mass/density/collapse to (unphysical) 'dimensionless' point/ring 'mathematical singularity' :)

Apr 07, 2019
RealityCheck, have you forgotten Sagittarius A* is invisible
RealityCheck> @granville583762. That many stars in that relatively small volume would be so bright in all EM wavelengths that we couldn't observe anything else orbiting close around that central volume

It is Dust dear RealityCheck, dust
there is still a hole in our bucket dear RealityCheck
just because these millions of stars are in close orbit
does not mitigate all this dust
RealityCheck, You are obviously not taking note of all this DUST
because
whatever is orbiting at Sagittarius A*
is Obscured By Dust
apart from the fact
as SEU has pointed out
this region is occupied by bright stars
the universal cry by one and all
RealityCheck
is
Dust, dust glorious dust
we
can not emphasise this dust
how many times has one to say
Hide nor hair of Blackhole has been seen
as
the universal reason RealityCheck, is Dust, dust and even more dust
One would even say Blackhole is obscured by DUST

Apr 07, 2019
If it has a black circle in the center then people will think it's really a "hole," like it's an extra-dimensional passage to another place, and that would be a serious win for Hollywood and time travel fiction in general. I mean let's not be naive here.

Apr 07, 2019
@S_E_U
@granville.

@granville583762. That many stars in that relatively small volume would be so bright in all EM wavelengths that we couldn't observe anything else orbiting close around that central volume.

http://www.astro....tro.html

And indeed the galactic centre IS very bright.
The brightness I speak of would be different in both quantity and quality/distribution in the two cases.

In the case we now observe, it is diffuse light from the whole core cluster that is diffuse and transits much dust/gas/plasma between 'there and here'.

Whereas IF there were actually ORDINARY STARS equivalent to 4 MILLION solar masses radiating from their hot surfaces in that small volume, their COMBINED STELLAR WINDS would have cleared out all the core dust/plasma clouds long ago; and leaving the central (alleged) cluster of 4 MILLION stars NAKED and SHINING UNMISTAKABLY BRIGHT TOGETHER and seem like a 'local blazar' beam. :)

Apr 07, 2019
@cantdrive85. If such strong electric forces at play (instead of a black gravitational feature), stars' plasma bodies would be 'spun up' and 'spun down' periodically as they go closer/further away from the central feature, hence causing polar jets to issue from the spurs-up stars during their closest approach. Such periodic polar jets are not observed, hence Sagittarius A* is NOT an 'electric' feature but an EXTREME massed Gravitational feature surrounded by/generating all sorts of 'hybrid forces' interplays. Nor is it an 'empty' barycentre.

Your spun-up/spun-down jet conjecture is ill-informed, and no, there is no infinite gravity monsters to be found.

Apr 07, 2019
@cantdrive85.
@cantdrive85. If such strong electric forces at play (instead of a black gravitational feature), stars' plasma bodies would be 'spun up' and 'spun down' periodically as they go closer/further away from the central feature, hence causing polar jets to issue from the spurs-up stars during their closest approach. Such periodic polar jets are not observed, hence Sagittarius A* is NOT an 'electric' feature but an EXTREME massed Gravitational feature surrounded by/generating all sorts of 'hybrid forces' interplays. Nor is it an 'empty' barycentre.

Your spun-up/spun-down jet conjecture is ill-informed,
Please explain exactly how so. Thanks.

and no, there is no infinite gravity monsters to be found.
Everyone has long agreed that NO 'infinite' ANYTHING is involved with even the most extreme-massed gravitational features. So please try harder/sooner to disabuse yourself of any impression which you may still have to the contrary. Thanks.

Apr 07, 2019
Close Packed Orbital Galactic Stars

RealityCheck
when stars are in close orbital's their mass accumulates
such
that when strung out in long radii
as
can be visualised
there is constant gravitational attraction over Lys
which
effects their orbital's
their gravitational attraction
is
greater than the same number of stars in the space of one single star
this is what we are observing at our galactic centre
each star
is
adding its force over a short distance
and
collectively multiplying its force from its close by neighbour
which
these stars oppose their neighbouring stars
by
Increasing their orbital velocities
in point of fact
due
to this spatial addition of gravitational close packed orbital's
it
is not necessary to have 8x10+36kg
of
Mass to achieve these orbital velocities we are observing

RealityCheck if you read my comment
you will note 4million stars are not required

Apr 07, 2019
@granville583762.
due
to this spatial addition of gravitational close packed orbital's
it
is not necessary to have 8x10+36kg
of
Mass to achieve these orbital velocities we are observing

RealityCheck if you read my comment
you will note 4million stars are not required
I long ago explained to@Benni that IF it was as you also now claim, then the orbitals of the stars going nearest to the exact centre of such a conglomeration of stars would NOT be so eccentric; nor would they move so fast nearer the centre (and being 'whipped around" that central position) nor slow so much further from the centre. That is, they would have more gentle variations of orbits like in any normal cluster of stars we observe further out in the MW disc and galaxy northern/southern hemispheric halo regions. Ok?

ps: That's all I have time for now/today, guys. Be back later/tomorrow if I can. Cheers all.

Apr 07, 2019
RealityCheck's New Broom Sweeps Clean

Your claim the Stellar winds would blow the dust away
RealityCheck> Whereas IF there were actually ORDINARY STARS equivalent to 4 MILLION solar masses radiating from their hot surfaces in that small volume, their COMBINED STELLAR WINDS would have cleared out all the core dust/plasma clouds long ago; and leaving the central (alleged) cluster of 4 MILLION stars NAKED and SHINING UNMISTAKABLY BRIGHT TOGETHER and seem like a 'local blazar' beam. :)

But
RealityCheck, you're happy a 4million Blackhole cannot clear its orbit of the same dust

Apr 07, 2019
@granville583762.
Whereas IF there were actually ORDINARY STARS equivalent to 4 MILLION solar masses radiating from their hot surfaces in that small volume, their COMBINED STELLAR WINDS would have cleared out all the core dust/plasma clouds long ago; and leaving the central (alleged) cluster of 4 MILLION stars NAKED and SHINING UNMISTAKABLY BRIGHT TOGETHER and seem like a 'local blazar' beam. :)
But RealityCheck, you're happy a 4million Blackhole cannot clear its orbit of the same dust
The behaviour of a COMPACT cluster of 4 Million stars, versus even MORE EXTREMELY compact Black Star feature, would be entirely different; ie: ONE extremely dense 4-million-equivalent 'black feature would NOT have ANY 'stellar wind', but Polar Jets/Accretion-disc 'winds'...and ONLY WHEN 'disrupting/swallowing' a star/cloud. Whereas compact cluster of 4 Million stars shining brightly would ALWAYS be pushing dust OUTWARDS from central location and clear whole 'core region' of dust. :)

Apr 07, 2019
ps @granville.

You caught me just as I was about to log out. See you later/tomorrow as I can. Cheers.

Apr 07, 2019
Watching all the trolls bob, duck, and weave to try to discredit the results even before they're released is delicious.

The more you maneuver, the more you look guilty. You're lying. You been caught. Whatcha gonna do now, keep denying? Everyone who's got an intellect over the age of 10 will see it.

What interests me is how many of these trolls actually know the truth and will never admit it because their pride wouldn't survive. Pride goeth before a fall.

Apr 07, 2019
Now everyone agrees: NO 'infinite' mass/density/collapse to (unphysical) 'dimensionless' point/ring 'mathematical singularity'
.....and you're just being Unreal again, the moniker fits, wear it.

You & schneibo are the two biggest mouthpieces here for the non-singularity BH.

As for what I think re the depicted "Photon Sphere", I have no opinion on that either way
......sure you do, it's EXACTLY the same opinion of mathematical calculation both you & schneibo fantasize about in subjecting an electro-magnetic wave to the laws of physics for kinetic energy, subjecting EM Waves to the calculations of Escape Velocity for particles of MASS.

What is this tip-toeing around the tulip bed just because you like to pretend you're on to some new breakthrough in the evolution of all this pathetic BH psycho-babble? It's 19th Century garbage brought to us by exactly the same bunch that brought of Aether Theory & Particle Light Theory, and neither you or schneibo can let go of it.

Apr 07, 2019
There is no place to hide, @Benni. You are denying results you haven't even seen yet.

It's the height of hypocrisy. But you can't stop yourself, can you? You're obsessed. You should get medication from a psychiatric professional for that; physorg can't help you.

Apr 07, 2019
But all photos of the galactic centre illustrate that the centre is very bright. Which means that there are many more Stars there clustered.
.....sez Egg

Yeah, like in this photo: http://ircamera.a...ter.htm, 7th photo frame from the top of the page, a lot of very bright & ultra-massive stars in there, but no black orb in there blocking out background light.

Apr 07, 2019
Even if there is a true singularity at the center of a black hole, infinite density implies neither infinite mass nor infinite gravity.

A photon sphere will appear as a ring encircling the event horizon in the plane normal to the line from the observer to the black hole when viewed from a point not in it.

The stronger the force, the more quickly it decays with distance. That's why gravity dominates at long distances.

How a person enters data on a computer has no effect on his or her intelligence, nor does whether a person need a wheelchair, crutches, or walking cane.

Be glad nature has come up with algorithms in the brain to clean up the field of view people have when using their eyes. Using algorithms to clean up an image is no strike against it; your brain does the same thing. They are not lying; they are being honest about it.

Apr 07, 2019
Watching all the trolls bob, duck, and weave to try to discredit the results even before they're released is delicious.

The more you maneuver, the more you look guilty. You're lying. You been caught. Whatcha gonna do now, keep denying? Everyone who's got an intellect over the age of 10 will see it.

What interests me is how many of these trolls actually know the truth and will never admit it because their pride wouldn't survive. Pride goeth before a fall.
says Da Schniebo, the lying troll of trolls

ROFLOL 'even before they're released is delicious" is something that a demon would say. Delicious is one of the favourite words most often said by humans who are demonically possessed. Nothing to do with food either.

Apr 07, 2019
They detected you misusing their old lessons, and removed your link, @Benni. Good one. Only problem is, they're deleting the old stuff and aren't giving you a clue what the new stuff is. It makes you angry, I'm sure. Considering you ignored and tried to discredit other images from the same venue, that makes you look dishonest. I don't think it's just a look.

Apr 07, 2019
@SEU,

Please keep your supernatural musings in your own head where they belong, and out of posts on a science site.

Note that I began with the word, "please."

Apr 07, 2019
Tolja, @Satan_Egg_Unit is a troll. Now it's accusing me of being a supernatural being. It believes in lots of supernatural things. And can't do math. Looks like a connection to me.

Apr 07, 2019
But all photos of the galactic centre illustrate that the centre is very bright. Which means that there are many more Stars there clustered.
.....sez Egg

Yeah, like in this photo: http://ircamera.a...ter.htm, 7th photo frame from the top of the page, a lot of very bright & ultra-massive stars in there, but no black orb in there blocking out background light.
says Benni

It is also possible that the massive Star cluster in the galactic centre are so comparatively close together that (gravitationally speaking) they are all locked in a 'pushing and pulling' action/activity that are, or have been, skewing their normal orbital paths that is causing each Star to wobble as each one approaches another. And so on down the line. In spite of the wobble effect on each Star, or because of it, their brightness still shines through in the galactic centre.

Apr 07, 2019
@SEU,

Please keep your supernatural musings in your own head where they belong, and out of posts on a science site.

Note that I began with the word, "please."
says observers

Yes, I have noticed that you've taken the side of evil as though you have never read all of the LIES that Da Schniebo spouts in almost every phorum. You ignore that which is in front of your eyes, that DS and his master CS are demonic, for the chance to show them how democratic and liberal you are. Have fun with that, as you are slowly being possessed also.

Apr 07, 2019
But all photos of the galactic centre illustrate that the centre is very bright. Which means that there are many more Stars there clustered.
.....sez Egg

Yeah, like in this photo: http://ircamera.a...ter.htm, 7th photo frame from the top of the page, a lot of very bright & ultra-massive stars in there, but no black orb in there blocking out background light.
says Benni

I am unable to access your link. The page says: "Not Found". Please try again

Apr 07, 2019
Be glad nature has come up with algorithms in the brain to clean up the field of view people have when using their eyes.

And people see Yeti, ufos, and ghosts all the time. Sometimes the algorithm is misleading.

Apr 07, 2019
Be glad nature has come up with algorithms in the brain to clean up the field of view people have when using their eyes.

And people see Yeti, ufos, and ghosts all the time. Sometimes the algorithm is misleading.

says CD85

LOL the only ghost I've seen is SpookyOtto and only in physorg. But human eyes are limited in being able to SEE everything that is actually there. And the human mind is also limited in its capacity to understand that their human eyes are limited to see ONLY what their minds are able to absorb and accept as fact. Everything else (to the human mind) cannot possibly exist.

Apr 07, 2019
@SEU,

@SEU,

Please keep your supernatural musings in your own head where they belong, and out of posts on a science site.

Note that I began with the word, "please."
says observers

Yes, I have noticed that you've taken the side of evil as though you have never read all of the LIES that Da Schniebo spouts in almost every phorum. You ignore that which is in front of your eyes, that DS and his master CS are demonic, for the chance to show them how democratic and liberal you are. Have fun with that, as you are slowly being possessed also.


Please shut up about your supernatural musings.

Apr 08, 2019
@SEU,

@SEU,

Please keep your supernatural musings in your own head where they belong, and out of posts on a science site.

Note that I began with the word, "please."
says observers

Yes, I have noticed that you've taken the side of evil as though you have never read all of the LIES that Da Schniebo spouts in almost every phorum. You ignore that which is in front of your eyes, that DS and his master CS are demonic, for the chance to show them how democratic and liberal you are. Have fun with that, as you are slowly being possessed also.


Please shut up about your supernatural musings.[/q

Why? Have you become the "thought police" in this website with the power to muzzle anyone who says something that you don't like? Are you attempting to turn physorg into a one-trick-phorum where only those with whom you agree are allowed to say something? Are you a Nazi?

Apr 08, 2019
And the compulsive obsessive worming and squirming and lying and denying in advance of the data keeps on. This is like arguing with 10-year-old kids.