Heart of lonesome galaxy is brimming with dark matter

Heart of lonesome galaxy is brimming with dark matter
Credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/Univ. of CA Irvine/D. Buote; Optical: NASA/STScI

Isolated for billions of years, a galaxy with more dark matter packed into its core than expected has been identified by astronomers using data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory.

The galaxy, known as Markarian 1216 (abbreviated as Mrk 1216), contains stars that are within 10% the age of the universe—that is, almost as old as the universe itself. Scientists have found that it has gone through a different evolution than typical galaxies, both in terms of its stars and the invisible dark that, through gravity, holds the galaxy together. Dark matter accounts for about 85% of the matter in the universe, although it has only been detected indirectly.

Mrk 1216 belongs to a family of elliptically shaped galaxies that are more densely packed with stars in their centers than most other galaxies. Astronomers think they have descended from reddish, compact galaxies called "red nuggets" that formed about a billion years after the big bang, but then stalled in their growth about 10 billion years ago.

If this explanation is correct, then the dark matter in Mark 1216 and its galactic cousins should also be tightly packed. To test this idea for the first time, a pair of astronomers studied the X-ray brightness and temperature of hot gas at different distances from Mrk 1216's center, so they could "weigh" how much dark matter exists in the middle of the galaxy.

"When we compared the Chandra data to our computer models, we found a much stronger concentration of dark matter was required than we find in other galaxies of similar total mass," said David Buote of the University of California at Irvine. "This tells us the history of Mrk 1216 is very different from the typical galaxy. Essentially all of its stars and dark matter was assembled long ago with little added in the past 10 billion years."

According to the new study, a halo, or fuzzy sphere, of dark matter formed around the center of Mrk 1216 about 3 or 4 billion years after the big bang. This halo is expected to have extended over a larger region than the stars in the galaxy. The formation of such a red nugget galaxy was typical for a wide range of elliptical galaxies seen today. However, unlike Mrk 1216, most giant elliptical galaxies continued to gradually grow in size when smaller galaxies merged with them over cosmic time.

"The old ages and dense concentration of the stars in compact elliptical galaxies like Mrk 1216 seen relatively nearby provided the first key evidence that they are the descendants of the red nuggets seen at great distances," said co-author Aaron Barth, also of the University of California at Irvine. "We think the compact size of the dark matter halo seen here clinches the case."

Previously, astronomers estimated that the in Mrk 1216 is more massive than expected for a galaxy of its mass. This most recent study, however, concluded that the black hole is likely to weigh less than about 4 billion times the mass of the Sun. That sounds like a lot, but it may not be unusually massive for a galaxy as large as Mrk 1216.

The authors also searched for signs of outbursts from the supermassive black hole in the center of the galaxy. They saw hints of cavities in the hot gas similar to those observed in other massive galaxies and galaxy clusters like Perseus, but more data are needed to confirm their presence.

The Mrk 1216 data also provide useful information about dark matter. Because dark matter has never been directly observed, some scientists question whether it exists at all. In the study, Buote and Barth interpreted the Chandra data using both standard, "Newtonian" models of gravity and an alternative theory known as modified Newtonian dynamics, or "MOND" designed to remove the need for dark matter in typical . The results showed that both theories of gravity required about the same extraordinary amount of dark matter in the center of Mrk 1216, effectively removing the need for the MOND explanation.

"In the future we hope to go a step further and study the nature of dark matter," said Buote. "The dense accumulation of dark matter in the middle of Mrk 1216 may provide an interesting test for non-standard theories that predict less centrally concentrated dark matter, such as for particles that interact with each other by an additional means other than gravity."

A paper describing these results appeared in the June 1st, 2019 issue of The Astrophysical Journal.


Explore further

Elliptical galaxies shed new light on dark matter

More information: David A. Buote et al. The Extremely High Dark Matter Halo Concentration of the Relic Compact Elliptical Galaxy Mrk 1216, The Astrophysical Journal (2019). DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1008 , https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.02938
Journal information: Astrophysical Journal

Citation: Heart of lonesome galaxy is brimming with dark matter (2019, June 3) retrieved 17 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-06-heart-lonesome-galaxy-brimming-dark.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.
1435 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jun 03, 2019
Another instance of the dark matter content being in proportion to the amount of time the galaxy has been relatively isolated.

Jun 03, 2019
I despair at this article. Again, 'dark matter' studies keep showing us that it can not be found. It's after all only an hypothesis of what going on that can not yet be fully explained, not in fact explained by the 'standard model' at all.
Everything that is 'detected is by inference only.
It total insanity this dark matter and dark energy nonsense, the 'missing matter is not missing at all, it's just spread out extremely diffuse plasma occupying all of what we call space. In places it's more prominent and clustered, not by gravitational forces but by electric fields and magnetism.

https://journals....98527efb

Jun 03, 2019
I despair at this article. Again, 'dark matter' studies keep showing us that it can not be found. It's after all only an hypothesis of what going on that can not yet be fully explained, not in fact explained by the 'standard model' at all.
Everything that is 'detected is by inference only.
It total insanity this dark matter and dark energy nonsense, the 'missing matter is not missing at all, it's just spread out extremely diffuse plasma occupying all of what we call space. In places it's more prominent and clustered, not by gravitational forces but by electric fields and magnetism.


Total nonsense.

Jun 03, 2019
That's no argument. Read this https://arxiv.org...1426.pdf an weep about dark matter

Another study showing no dark matter can be found https://journals....c0d851d0

30 years or more looking, hundreds of billions spent, and NOTHING to show for it...

Jun 03, 2019
Oh yes, and another study that shows nothing found,
https://arxiv.org...8477.pdf

Jun 03, 2019
well, archy. when you can point at gravity or air or vacuum? Your quarrel with the mathematics defining BHs, might have a better chance of gaining a professional hearing.

If you can show your math is more correct?
Than the SR/GR/QM math that insists that DM exists as is being confirmed by astrophysicists observations.

You don't like what they see & you hate the conclusions they draw from their accumulating evidence?

Are meaningless tantrums without corroborative evidence.

If all peer-reviewed work is wrong?
Now you need to show what "true" & how you intend to support your conclusions.
Just keep in mind, we will be judging your efforts.

If the BH supporting sciences are all wrong?
So is all the technology producing fraudulent data based on bogus sciences.

In other words archy,
to gain our respect?
You will need to show us working technology
based on your belief system!

Jun 03, 2019
If the BH supporting sciences are all wrong?
....the basic underlying BH theory is thatinfinite gravity can exist on a finite stellar mass, a violation of one of the most immutable laws of Physics that gravity is MASS DEPENDENT.

So is all the technology producing fraudulent data based on bogus sciences.
...... right off the bat you generate a "bogus science" that infinite gravity can exist on a finite mass then challenge rational thinking people to prove your bogus science is wrong.

Ever seen a Differential Equation you could solve?

Jun 03, 2019
That's no argument. Read this https://arxiv.org...1426.pdf

30 years or more looking, hundreds of billions spent, and NOTHING to show for it...


The physics community only wishes that they had hundreds of billions to spend on researching a single topic.

What world do you live in?

Jun 03, 2019


Ever seen a Differential Equation you could solve?


You can't. As proven. Even simple arithmetic is beyond you. Why would anybody listen to a clown like you?

Jun 03, 2019
one of the most immutable laws


Most? A law is either immutable or it isn't.

Differential Equation....


Lol.

Jun 03, 2019
Oh yes, and another study that shows nothing found,
https://arxiv.org...8477.pdf


Wrong. You obviously have comprehension issues, as neither paper is claiming that DM is missing.

Jun 03, 2019
It is interesting to note that two papers concurrently clarify the early "red nuggets" galaxies [ https://phys.org/...ark.html ; https://arxiv.org...2938.pdf ] and the seeming "dark matter free" galaxies [ https://phys.org/...ark.html ; https://arxiv.org...0141.pdf ] while ending up with the usual need for LCDM dark matter at ~ 80 % matter content in both cases.

The "red nugget" fossil show a very calm AGN feedback and equilibrated dynamics with the classic dark matter cusp fitting the gravity profile best. The low surface brightness galaxy threw the earlier suggested distance indicator off, but using 5 more robust indicators show a consistent distance for the galaxy, its globular clusters and their survival outside the galaxy and the rest of the Local Group galaxies; it too show a good fit to a classic dark matter profile.

Jun 03, 2019
Another instance of the dark matter content being in proportion to the amount of time the galaxy has been relatively isolated.


That does not make sense, see my precious comment, the dark matter proportions are constant between isolated objects (so no, say, Bullet Cluster collisions stripping out baryon matter). But the dark matter distributions within galaxies, as we look at here, differ depending on galaxy normal gas behavior ("hot" vs "cold" core, and its gas feedback circulation into the intergalactic volume).

The physics community only wishes that they had hundreds of billions to spend on researching a single topic.


That paper research a topic based on the observed existence of dark matter. It is exploring how to do a relatively cheap test of WIMP candidates in comparison with the dedicated experiments (SKA is already built, and exploring radio emissions gives data for astronomers).

But rather irrelevant for the observations in the article.


Jun 03, 2019
well. of DM/BH do mot exist?
No matter the math that insists those phenomena are common in this Universe?
No matter the physical evidence accumulating?

Then benni & archy, you woomongers have wrecked the visionary ideal of a coherent. rationally progressing cosmos.

That can be understood by our limited monkey brains using the scientific methods of empirical evidence.

Yet you absolutely have failed to make available for peer-review any math supporting your bogus claims.

Or display any original, creative ideas to replace those agreeably held by most scientists.
You have totally failed to produce any working technology based on your claims.

Thus & Thereuponforthwith,
you two putzes have proven
my Theory of Stupid Design.

"Grovel you foolish mortals!"

"All Hail the Glory of the
Coyote Trickster Goddess!!"

"Cower in Awe!"
"As She wields the ultimate power of Gravitrons."

She does any damn thing she wants from the Planck Foundation!

ignoring the wails
from you worms

Jun 03, 2019
Then benni & archy, you woomongers have wrecked the visionary ideal of a coherent. rationally progressing cosmos.
......well of course Benni has had his part in this, after all he knows how to solve Differential Equations & all you KNOW is Name Calling Rants.

Tell you what, the next time you're tempted to go out on another name calling rant you should just hold your breath & ask yourself, "Is there a differential equation for this rant?"

Jun 03, 2019
Recently two papers have been published. The first one [1] deals with the measurement of the speed of rotation of galaxies and, in our view, closes the issue of the existence of dark matter. The second one [2] argues that the expansion of the universe is not accelerating. However, this fact does not answer the question as to what in general is the cause of the universe's expansion and does not address the widespread opinion that 70% of the universe consists of dark energy. The central idea of a new paradigm [3, 4] is an existence of a certain entity – the elaston, which can give rise to the physical Euclidean space, matter and energy all the way along its evolution.
https://www.acade...k_Energy
https://www.acade...ilky_Way

Jun 03, 2019
That can be understood by our limited monkey brains using the scientific methods of empirical evidence.
..........."our monkey brains"? Speak for yourself, monkeys can't solve Differential Equations & I can, I presume you can't & that being the reason you refer to your segment of humankind who have monkey brains.

Jun 03, 2019
You have totally failed to produce any working technology based on your claims.
......then how about you give us a "working technology" based upon the predicated claim that infinite gravity can exist on a finite stellar mass in total violation of the immutable law of physics that gravity is mass dependent.

Give us a "working technology" example that proves gravity is not mass dependent? And if you're thinking "Name Calling Rants", I have a comeback for that.


Jun 03, 2019
I despair at this article. Again, 'dark matter' studies keep showing us that it can not be found. It's after all only an hypothesis of what going on that can not yet be fully explained, not in fact explained by the 'standard model' at all.
Everything that is 'detected is by inference only.
It total insanity this dark matter and dark energy nonsense, the 'missing matter is not missing at all, it's just spread out extremely diffuse plasma occupying all of what we call space. In places it's more prominent and clustered, not by gravitational forces but by electric fields and magnetism.


Total nonsense.
says Castrovagina

You're right, jonesy. This pretense that Dark Matter exists just because they say it does IS total nonsense. They claim that the mythical DM interacts with Gravity. Well, there are many things that interact with Gravity including Magnetic Fields.....and Mass. They never seem to explain what it is that makes Dark Matter dark. Sounds spooky.

Jun 03, 2019
They never seem to explain what it is that makes Dark Matter dark. Sounds spooky.
.......and always at a distance too, it's never local.

Jun 03, 2019
well benni. your childish boast that you can solve differential equations? (from Cliff Notes ans. sheet)

While time & time again, other commentators proved you answered the DE problems, incorrectly.

As to your simian whining that I am too honest describing your lack of character?
You have a long history benni. of abusing scientists in articles & commentators on this site who refused to be intimidated by your ape-shit flinging abuse of others.

After all these years of behaving like a rabid primate?
Now?
Now, you are weeping crocodile tears because you are being treated as a perpetually unruly child?

& you wonder why so many people laugh at you, in your life?

Oops! Benni your badly-steered karma just got bit by your own dogma of intolerant entitlement.

Jun 03, 2019
They never seem to explain what it is that makes Dark Matter dark. Sounds spooky.
.......and always at a distance too, it's never local.
says Benni

These Dark Matter/Dark Energy w00ists always refer to DM as being so far away from our Solar System that one has to wonder if there is something about our SS that prevents DM from entering into our local group of planetary bodies and 'interacting enough' so that we can SEE/DETECT this mysterious "matter". Are we somehow being segregated and disregarded? Have we been bad?
There has to BE a good reason why only guessing games wrt DM's interactions with Gravity can explain WHY Dark Matter refuses to come alongside Earth or our Moon so that we can view DM up close and personal. Everywhere else but here just isn't convincing enough to believe in its existence. Just another human frailty is the belief in the unseeable as long as that belief is coming out of the halls of ASStrophysics.

Jun 03, 2019
oh sillyegghead... if you can't see DM but only feel it's effects?
you need to lite the candle in your cell again.

by the by. Where are your math proofs disapproving Dark Matter?
& whom has peer-reviewed it?

Considering how often over the years, that you have proven yourself to be a woomongering fraud?
As well as an incompetent plagiarist of real scientist's work?
Then displaying childish tantrums when called out for being such a scoundrel?

Why do you delude yourself that any honest person would ever believe you?
Or, ever find your "work" acceptable?

Jun 03, 2019
But seriously, Benni. I am beginning to feel "put upon", disconcerted and discriminated against by this Dark Matter who can't seem to give us the evidence that he/she/it is, indeed, a good 85% of the Universe by sidling along our planet so that we may fully stare at it and know that it's there.
We are told of Neutrinos striking a vat of Xenon underground where each particle is counted. But not even a small piece of Dark Matter will show its face anywhere near our Solar System. T'hat is a sad state of affairs, and I resent it.
WE are just as good as any other system in the Cosmos, so why doesn't this DM come here also?
Are we not men?

Jun 03, 2019
oh sillyegghead... if you can't see DM but only feel it's effects?
you need to lite the candle in your cell again.

by the by. Where are your math proofs disapproving Dark Matter?
& whom has peer-reviewed it?

Considering how often over the years, that you have proven yourself to be a woomongering fraud?
As well as an incompetent plagiarist of real scientist's work?
Then displaying childish tantrums when called out for being such a scoundrel?

Why do you delude yourself that any honest person would ever believe you?
Or, ever find your "work" acceptable?
says the prone-to-insanity rrwillsj

Why do you continue to tell lies about me, Benni and all the others that your daily mind-numbing prevarications spill forth without ceasing. Just because you can?

There you go again - lying about me plagiarising a scientist's work. Which scientist is that and what work is it? Do you do these lies for laughs or do you have a brain tumour that causes you to copy/imitate Otto?

Jun 03, 2019
WE are just as good as any other system in the Cosmos, so why doesn't this DM come here also?
Are we not men?
.......maybe not Egg, maybe we're being mysteriously protected from it? If we were exposed to it our demise might sudden? Therefore we are in the only small corner of the Universe where our kind can exist because spookily enough we are being specially protected? Ghosty would know.......hey Ghosty, yoo hoo we need you.

Jun 03, 2019

You're right, jonesy. This pretense that Dark Matter exists just because they say it does IS total nonsense. They claim that the mythical DM interacts with Gravity. Well, there are many things that interact with Gravity including Magnetic Fields.....and Mass. They never seem to explain what it is that makes Dark Matter dark. Sounds spooky.


Shut up you idiot. You haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

Jun 03, 2019
You're right, jonesy. This pretense that Dark Matter exists just because they say it does IS total nonsense. They claim that the mythical DM interacts with Gravity. Well, there are many things that interact with Gravity including Magnetic Fields.....and Mass. They never seem to explain what it is that makes Dark Matter dark. Sounds spooky.

Magnetic fields do NOT interact with gravity, only magnetic oriented mass...
DM is the evidentiary indication of mass in MOTION. Primarily helical.

Jun 03, 2019
Magnetic fields do NOT interact with gravity
.....they most certainly do. What do you think they are but "photon" EM Waves. Never knew that did you? And Einstein proved in GR that EM Wave "photons" are bent as they pass the peripheral disc of the Sun.

Your problem is that you still don't even know what a photon is, right? Hey, question.....how many years is it now that you've been 65 yo? At my last count since the first time you told the chatroom at that time, it's been about ten years.......spooky if you ask me.

Jun 03, 2019
Tantruming about the evidence is evidence of immaturity.

Jun 03, 2019
Magnetic fields do NOT interact with gravity
.....they most certainly do. What do you think they are but "photon" EM Waves. Never knew that did you? And Einstein proved in GR that EM Wave "photons" are bent as they pass the peripheral disc of the Sun.

Your problem is that you still don't even know what a photon is, right? Hey, question.....how many years is it now that you've been 65 yo? At my last count since the first time you told the chatroom at that time, it's been about ten years.......spooky if you ask me.


Christ you're dumb!

Jun 04, 2019
You're right, jonesy. This pretense that Dark Matter exists just because they say it does IS total nonsense. They claim that the mythical DM interacts with Gravity. Well, there are many things that interact with Gravity including Magnetic Fields.....and Mass. They never seem to explain what it is that makes Dark Matter dark. Sounds spooky.

Magnetic fields do NOT interact with gravity, only magnetic oriented mass...
DM is the evidentiary indication of mass in MOTION. Primarily helical.
says Whyde

I know that, Whyde. Just spoofing Castro's vagina

LOL

Jun 04, 2019
You're right, jonesy. This pretense that Dark Matter exists just because they say it does IS total nonsense. They claim that the mythical DM interacts with Gravity. Well, there are many things that interact with Gravity including Magnetic Fields.....and Mass. They never seem to explain what it is that makes Dark Matter dark. Sounds spooky.

Magnetic fields do NOT interact with gravity, only magnetic oriented mass...
DM is the evidentiary indication of mass in MOTION. Primarily helical.
says Whyde

I know that, Whyde. Just spoofing Castro's vagina

LOL


No, you didn't know that, you uneducated idiot.

Jun 04, 2019
WE are just as good as any other system in the Cosmos, so why doesn't this DM come here also?
Are we not men?
.......maybe not Egg, maybe we're being mysteriously protected from it? If we were exposed to it our demise might sudden? Therefore we are in the only small corner of the Universe where our kind can exist because spookily enough we are being specially protected? Ghosty would know.......hey Ghosty, yoo hoo we need you.
says Benni

OK There is a chance that our Solar System could be a "cage" of sorts, that doesn't allow the mysterious Dark Matter to enter and destroy all life on planet Earth.
There has to be a reason for our SS being under-represented to house just a tiny bit of that 85% Dark Matter that is seen everywhere else - but not really seen.
Oh, perhaps that is the problem. We could see it, but we can't really see it. A new pair of glasses may help to see it if it's all around us and we just can't see where it is. I am still disconcerted over it.

Jun 04, 2019
You're right, jonesy. This pretense that Dark Matter exists just because they say it does IS total nonsense. They claim that the mythical DM interacts with Gravity. Well, there are many things that interact with Gravity including Magnetic Fields.....and Mass. They never seem to explain what it is that makes Dark Matter dark. Sounds spooky.

Magnetic fields do NOT interact with gravity, only magnetic oriented mass...
DM is the evidentiary indication of mass in MOTION. Primarily helical.
says Whyde

I know that, Whyde. Just spoofing Castro's vagina

LOL


No, you didn't know that, you uneducated idiot.
says the mind-reading alien lizard, Castrovayjay

Of course I knew it, bozo. Since I am talking to YOU, I could say anything and get away with it, just as you do.

Jun 04, 2019
Magnetic fields do NOT interact with gravity
.....they most certainly do. What do you think they are but "photon" EM Waves. Never knew that did you? And Einstein proved in GR that EM Wave "photons" are bent as they pass the peripheral disc of the Sun.
You are subsuming photons, which are the quanta of the EM field, and possess momentum--a property of mass-- which does fall under the sway of gravitational fields, under Magnetic Fields.

Jun 04, 2019
You're right, jonesy. This pretense that Dark Matter exists just because they say it does IS total nonsense. They claim that the mythical DM interacts with Gravity. Well, there are many things that interact with Gravity including Magnetic Fields.....and Mass. They never seem to explain what it is that makes Dark Matter dark. Sounds spooky.

Magnetic fields do NOT interact with gravity, only magnetic oriented mass...
DM is the evidentiary indication of mass in MOTION. Primarily helical.
says Whyde

Mass in Motion doesn't require DarkMatter, as Mass is governed by Gravity and that Gravity is sufficient to keep Mass in Motion as in orbiting the Sun. Our Solar System has plenty of Mass in Motion but no Dark Matter. Where is this mysterious Dark Mass that we can't see?

Jun 04, 2019
If the BH supporting sciences are all wrong? ...the basic underlying BH theory is that infinite gravity can exist on a finite stellar mass, a violation of one of the most immutable laws of Physics that gravity is MASS DEPENDENT.
Noone said that the gravity of black holes is "infinite". Black holes simply have a high enough gravity that even light cannot escape them. The gravity required for that is quite extreme but it's still finite. Neutron stars are already halfway there, since their very high gravity bends light quite significantly.

Infinities exists only in pure math. Even the core of a black hole, with its supposed "infinite density", is something that requires a working and rigorous theory of quantum gravity to be explained, which is why it is called a "singularity" (code word for "we have no clue about its properties"). Singularities also exist only in pure math, and they're also code for "our math breaks down" in physics.

Jun 04, 2019
These scientists have a model that "proves" something only when it shows them what they want to see. Whenever it doesn't then the model needs tweaking.

Absent real empirical evidence, this is tautology, not science. In other words, until they actually find this "dark stuff" and can hold it or at least describe its physical properties in detail, then it is at best a good guess, and at worst mental masturbation by professionals patting each other on the back in a peer review circle, swayed by the politics of results-oriented grant-funding sources. Unfortunately, given that "dark stuff" is now one of the few politicized theories no longer presented as theory but as irrefutable fact, it seems the latter.

Jun 04, 2019
These scientists have a model that "proves" something only when it shows them what they want to see. Whenever it doesn't then the model needs tweaking.

Absent real empirical evidence, this is tautology, not science. In other words, until they actually find this "dark stuff" and can hold it or at least describe its physical properties in detail, .
......better labeled as "Spooky action at a distance", the old phrase Einstein used when putting down advocates proposing inferred gravitational anomalies.

Jun 04, 2019
Even the core of a black hole, with its supposed "infinite density", is something that requires a working and rigorous theory of quantum gravity to be explained
......no such "rigorous theory" apart from the Inverse Square Law of Gravity is necessary, you just don't know why.

So here, let Benni explain for you the Inverse Square Law of real Physics:

The strength of a gravity field varies with the square of the distance from the surface of the source. At the center of any gravitating mass the gravitational flux density is therefore ZERO in accordance with calculations of the inviolable ISL. Didn't know this did you?


RNP
Jun 04, 2019
@Benni
Mainainting your 100% record, you have got it wrong again. Einstein's comment regarding "spooky action at a distance" was in relation to the quantum mechanical effect of entanglement. Nothing to do with " inferred gravitational anomalies".

Jun 04, 2019
Nothing to do with " inferred gravitational anomalies
.....and here is the rest of it from your favorite textbook:

"In physics, action at a distance is the concept that an object can be moved, changed, or otherwise affected without being physically touched (as in mechanical contact) by another object. That is, it is the nonlocal interaction of objects that are separated in space."

"This term was used most often in the context of early theories of gravity and electromagnetism to describe how an object responds to the influence of distant objects. For example, Coulomb's law and Newton's law of universal gravitation are such early theories."
https://en.wikipe...distance

...........what's the problem with you not putting up the history of the origin of the quote?

Jun 04, 2019
The strength of a gravity field varies with the square of the distance from the surface of the source. At the center of any gravitating mass the gravitational flux density is therefore ZERO in accordance with calculations of the inviolable ISL. Didn't know this did you?
Of course I knew it you smart ass (though "inviolable ISL" sounds like bollocks to me..), but that's the definition of purely *Newtonian* gravity, which is inadequate to describe black holes.

Even general relativity alone is not enough to describe black holes, since quantum mechanics also plays an important role. Black holes are the objects where the physics of the small (QM) and the physics of the large (GR) converge, and like I said before that convergence is still problematic.

Jun 04, 2019
Even general relativity alone is not enough to describe black holes, since quantum mechanics also plays an important role. Black holes are the objects where the physics of the small (QM) and the physics of the large (GR) converge, not enough to describe black holes, since quantum mechanics also plays an important role. Black holes are the objects where the physics of the small (QM) and the physics of the large (GR) converge, and like I said before that convergence is still problematic


......luv that quip you made:"convergence is still problematic."

Hell's bells man, it's pure Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble rendering the entire BH Theory as problematic because you bunch of neophytes can't explain how INFINITE gravity, or density, can exist within a FINITE Mass. So what do you do when trying to explain it? You throwback to 19th Century Cosmology when the speed of light was treated as being dependent on the strength of the gravity field through which the particles were traveling.


RNP
Jun 04, 2019
@Benni
....what's the problem with you not putting up the history of the origin of the quote?

OK. So you want the details;
In 1927 (I believe) Einstein wrote a letter to Niels Bohr about the notion of entanglement which he called a "spukhafte Fernwirkung": a "spooky remote effect".

You could look it up for yourself if you were actually interested in the truth, but here is one easily found reference for you; https://www.natur...-03793-2

Jun 04, 2019
@RNP

Yeah Lenni is not interested in truth or facts that just confuses his diatribe.

Jun 04, 2019
You could look it up for yourself if you were actually interested in the truth, but here is one easily found reference for you; https://www.natur...-03793-2


But can you solve differential equations?

RNP
Jun 04, 2019
@MrBojangles
But can you solve differential equations?


LOL. I hope so, because I taught the subject for many years!

Jun 04, 2019
If the BH ...
Noone said that the gravity of black holes is "infinite". Black holes simply have a high enough...

Infinities exists only in pure math. Even the core of a black hole, with its supposed "infinite density", is something that requires a working and rigorous theory of quantum gravity to be explained, which is why it is called a "singularity" (code word for "we have no clue about its properties"). Singularities also exist only in pure math, and they're also code for "our math breaks down" in physics.
says Sahstar

The core of a BH becomes too compressed inward toward the very centre due to extreme Gravity. There are 2 possibilities to explain what happens within that core to the contents thereof.
1) Jets of plasma are extruded from the poles of the BH itself, or
2) The compressed Mass within the Black Hole's centre is forced into another Dimension. IOW, that Mass becomes too heavy and another Dimension opens up as a tunnel into that Dimension.

Jun 04, 2019
—contd-
@Sahstar

With Gravity compressing on Space from the extreme weight of the Black Hole's contents, Space opens up and a tunnel is formed in which the Black Hole's contents are poured. The Tunnel may be closed or open. If open, then the contents will flow into the other Dimension through the tunnel.
Without such a process, Black Holes would become so massive after 13 billions of Earth years, that the Cosmos would be filled with Black Holes, with little room for Stars and galaxies. The extrusion of BH materiel is necessary. It is similar to a heated gas that is contained, where a means of escape for the gas/plasma must be provided to avoid an explosion or destruction of the container walls.
Massive Black Holes such as M87 may not have such an opening into another Dimension, as yet. Its containment may not have sufficient weight to open a tunnel in Space.

Jun 04, 2019
These scientists have a model that "proves" something only when it shows them what they want to see. Whenever it doesn't then the model needs tweaking.

Absent real empirical evidence, this is tautology, not science. In other words, until they actually find this "dark stuff" and can hold it or at least describe its physical properties in detail, then it is at best a good guess, and at worst mental masturbation by professionals patting each other on the back in a peer review circle, swayed by the politics of results-oriented grant-funding sources. Unfortunately, given that "dark stuff" is now one of the few politicized theories no longer presented as theory but as irrefutable fact, it seems the latter.
says JaxPavan

That's the problem with science nowadays. Arrive at a consensus, distribute it for peer-review; convince all in any way that the consensus is correct; publish it and get more funding and reject all other alternative hypotheses without warrant for rejection.

Jun 04, 2019
....what's the problem with you not putting up the history of the origin of the quote?


In 1927 (I believe) Einstein wrote a letter to Niels Bohr about the notion of entanglement which he called a "spukhafte Fernwirkung": a "spooky remote effect".

You could look it up for yourself if you were actually interested in the truth, but here is one easily found reference for you; https://www.natur...-03793-2
......so what was the matter with the quote I linked you to for the origin of the term at:

https://en.wikipe...distance

Didn't like the use of the word "gravity" did you? So you convolute it into a different context than Einstein's original intent. You don't even know the details of what the "gravity" argument was about. It was about the speed of gravity, many thought it was instantaneous, that a change in one location of the Universe could be felt instantaneously everywhere else in the Universe.

Jun 04, 2019
@RNP

Yeah Lenni is not interested in truth or facts that just confuses his diatribe.
......then you be the one to explain the Inverse Square Law within the context of forming BHs, none of your other aficionados here in this chatroom have thus far been up to the task, they've punted in deference for going on name calling rants like this one of yours.

Jun 04, 2019
@Benni.
.....better labeled as "Spooky action at a distance", the old phrase Einstein used when putting down advocates proposing inferred gravitational anomalies.
Careful, @Benni; you have conflated/confused TWO separate things there. :)

The first is the longstanding CLASSICAL "action at a distance" term used since Newtonian Gravity etc theories; and THEN there is the LATER-used term re the QUANTUM theories introducing the ENTANGLEMENT aspect, and hence Einstein's extended "SPOOKY action at a distance" term SPECIFICALLY for that Quantum Mechanics 'entanglement' aspect and NOT the prior-applicable Classical Gravity theories/effects. Please be more careful in future. Thanks. :)

Jun 04, 2019
Careful, @Benni; you have conflated/confused TWO separate things there.
.....all the confusion is on your part. Einstein was addressing both the issues of Gravity & QM at the same time, that there can be no such thing as "instantaneous" transfer of information to any point anywhere in the Universe from it's origin.


Jun 04, 2019
Magnetic fields do NOT interact with gravity
.....they most certainly do. What do you think they are but "photon" EM Waves. Never knew that did you?

Which hole did you pull that crap out of?

Jun 04, 2019
You're right, jonesy. This pretense that Dark Matter exists just because they say it does IS total nonsense. They claim that the mythical DM interacts with Gravity. Well, there are many things that interact with Gravity including Magnetic Fields.....and Mass. They never seem to explain what it is that makes Dark Matter dark. Sounds spooky.

Magnetic fields do NOT interact with gravity, only magnetic oriented mass...
DM is the evidentiary indication of mass in MOTION. Primarily helical.
says Whyde
I know that, Whyde. Just spoofing Castro's vagina
LOL

3 Streets in Chicago that rhyme with vagina - Paulina, Regina and Lunt...

Jun 05, 2019
@Benni.
Careful, @Benni; you have conflated/confused TWO separate things there.
.....all the confusion is on your part. Einstein was addressing both the issues of Gravity & QM at the same time, that there can be no such thing as "instantaneous" transfer of information to any point anywhere in the Universe from it's origin.
Again, please be careful not to conflate/confuse the two scenarios. The gravitational aspect was NOT "instantaneous transfer of information", but merely "effect at a distance" between gravitating masses. The "spooky" part was added specifically by Einstein to highlight his disapproval of the Quantum "entanglement" aspect which was claimed by experimentalists to (apparently) act "instantaneously" between two quantum-entangled particles: hence the "Spooky" action-at-a-distance differentiation from the old plain classical "action at a distance" that only acted "at the speed of light" between gravitating bodies. Ok? :)

Jun 05, 2019
The gravitational aspect was NOT "instantaneous transfer of information"
.......just what the hell do you think GRAVITY does if it's not the transfer of information? You don't even know what physicists are talking about when they use the term TRANSFER of INFORMATION. Such "transfer" occurs at lightspeed, and just what do you think gravity is doing at lightspeed, waiting for YOUR APPROVAL before gravitating bodies are permitted to act on one another? Gravitating bodies acting on one another is TRANSFER of INFORMATION.

RNP
Jun 05, 2019
@Benni
I suggest that you actually try to read and understand the responses people post to you instead of just giving knee-jerk responses. You have completely missed the point of the "spooky" effect that Einstein was referring to. Just as RealityCheck has repeatedly tried to tell you, it is the INSTANTANEOUS information transfer that entanglement seems to imply that Einstein was complaining about. It had NOTHING to do with gravity.

Jun 05, 2019
@Benni
I suggest that you actually try to read and understand the responses people post to you instead of just giving knee-jerk responses. You have completely missed the point of the "spooky" effect that Einstein was referring to. Just as RealityCheck has repeatedly tried to tell you, it is the INSTANTANEOUS information transfer that entanglement seems to imply that Einstein was complaining about. It had NOTHING to do with gravity.

Yeah, but...
What is the nature of the info being transferred, if not about gravity?

Jun 05, 2019
it is the INSTANTANEOUS information transfer that entanglement seems to imply that Einstein was complaining about. It had NOTHING to do with gravity.
......his "spooky" response had EVERYTHING to do with 19th Century gravity hypothesis of some that gravity "acts instantaneously at a distance". It was then the "spooky" word crept into the mix when Einstein had to point out the fallacy that 1930's emerging QM hypothesis was making the same fallacious claim of "Action at a Distance", so he added a word calling it "spooky".

RNP
Jun 05, 2019
@Benni
.....his "spooky" response had EVERYTHING to do with 19th Century gravity hypothesis of some that gravity "acts instantaneously at a distance"

What utter BS. Nobody ever suggested that " gravity "acts instantaneously at a distance"".

The truth is that you have realised that you have been shown to not understand the subject that you are commenting on, and you are now trying to cover your ignorance by distorting Einstein's comments.

You must realise that everyone is laughing at you. Why do you continue with these pathetic pretenses?

Jun 05, 2019
@Whyde, it's about momentum. The most convincing evidence of entanglement is about spin angular momentum. It was discovered in the 1960s after Bell told everyone to look for it.

And as usual @Benni gets caught lying and tries doubling down with another lie. Why do you even bother, @Benni? You think everyone is as stupid as you are?

Jun 05, 2019
@Whyde, it's about momentum. The most convincing evidence of entanglement is about spin angular momentum. It was discovered in the 1960s after Bell told everyone to look for it.

And as usual @Benni gets caught lying and tries doubling down with another lie. Why do you even bother, @Benni? You think everyone is as stupid as you are?


Yes he does.

Jun 05, 2019
yes benni. yes everyone who has had the misfortune to encounter your lunacy,
is definitely, defiantly
laughing at you!

at you & all the other simian loonetricks in the primate cage at the bedlam zoo.

laughing...

Jun 05, 2019
@RNP

Yeah Lenni is not interested in truth or facts that just confuses his diatribe.
......then you be the one to explain the Inverse Square Law within the context of forming BHs, none of your other aficionados here in this chatroom have thus far been up to the task, they've punted in deference for going on name calling rants like this one of yours.


What in the F*** is a chatroom?

Jun 05, 2019
@Benni.
The gravitational aspect was NOT "instantaneous transfer of information"
.......just what the hell do you think GRAVITY does if it's not the transfer of information? You don't even know what physicists are talking about when they use the term TRANSFER of INFORMATION. Such "transfer" occurs at lightspeed,....
No @Benni; I did NOT say that no information was transferred, said that it wasn't transferred "instantaneously". Understand the subtlety now? Please try to read/understand properly before again going off half-cocked and misfiring like that, mate. As for the 'spooky' part, that was not introduced into the mix until the quantum 'entanglement' claims arose and Einstein did not agree with "instantaneous" effects at distance between entangled particles. And as for the Newtonian's abstract mathematical theory, he EXPLICITLY stressed that it was a strictly abstract mathematical theory making NO claims OR explanations as to HOW that effect was manifested. Ok? :)

Jun 05, 2019
No @Benni; I did NOT say that no information was transferred, said that it wasn't transferred "instantaneously". Understand the subtlety now?
......then use better wording.

As for the 'spooky' part, that was not introduced into the mix until the quantum 'entanglement' claims arose and Einstein did not agree with "instantaneous" effects at distance
......that's what I said before you agreed with me this is the case, all you did was repeat & ride my coat tails as a means of denying you learned it from Benni.

Jun 05, 2019
@Benni.
No @Benni; I did NOT say that no information was transferred, said that it wasn't transferred "instantaneously". Understand the subtlety now?
then use better wording.
My words/meaning were clear in the relevant ongoing context; it was your comprehension that was wanting, mate. Please don't try to pretend otherwise now after the fact, as it will confirm you as being less than careful with the facts and less than forthcoming with the honesty.
As for the 'spooky' part, that was not introduced into the mix until the quantum 'entanglement' claims arose and Einstein did not agree with "instantaneous" effects at distance
that's what I said before you agreed with me this is the case, all you did was repeat & ride my coat tails as a means of denying you learned it from Benni.
Please don't try to pretend your conflation/confusion of two things never happened, mate; it was YOU that was confused and therefore mistaken. Please stop 'weaselling', @Benni. :)

Jun 05, 2019
Please don't try to pretend your conflation/confusion of two things never happened, mate; it was YOU that was confused and therefore mistaken. Please stop 'weaselling',
....the weasel words are yours, you just don't know the history of "action at a distance", I straightened it out for you & you claim the credit for getting it right AFTER I explained it to you, schneibo, etc.

Jun 06, 2019
Please don't try to pretend your conflation/confusion of two things never happened, mate; it was YOU that was confused and therefore mistaken. Please stop 'weaselling',
....the weasel words are yours, you just don't know the history of "action at a distance", I straightened it out for you & you claim the credit for getting it right AFTER I explained it to you, schneibo, etc.

says Benni

Benni, haven't you noticed the transformation that has come over RC. Where he once was an independent 'thinker' and deducer, he now is in complete agreement with CaptainDumpy's attack dog, Schneib et al, as well as with Schneib & green onions wrt AGW.
After reading perhaps thousands of physorg articles and the comments going back ~10 years, i saw a transformation in the thinking of a number of commentators after they had been 'asked' for verifiable evidence to their opinions, beliefs, scientific hypotheses by CaptainSumpy or else be called a "liar". Plus private information.

Jun 06, 2019
-contd-
@Benni

You are aware that that who is called Satan and Lucifer is using the internet, don't you? He is on a collecting mission, and I believe that it is possible that he is either in the process of, or has already collected RC. I understand that you are an atheist, and physorg and other science sites are the best places to come in contact with avowed atheists. It is apparent that physorg had removed the Messaging feature from this site so that everything would have to be said 'out in the open'. So I have to tell you this; to be careful lest you also become a part of Satan's collection. I asked him once if he was finished collecting souls, and he replied - "not yet". I copied that exchange, by the way. Schneib is Satan's attack dog while Satan reads the comments. S0 beware, Benni, and be aware.

Jun 06, 2019
@Benni.
Please don't try to pretend your conflation/confusion of two things never happened, mate; it was YOU that was confused and therefore mistaken. Please stop 'weaselling',
....the weasel words are yours, you just don't know the history of "action at a distance", I straightened it out for you & you claim the credit for getting it right AFTER I explained it to you, schneibo, etc.
Don't be such an ass, mate. The gravitational "action at a distance" term was already well known by all scientifically/historically knowledgeable forum members long before you alluded to it while making your own earlier conflation/confusion of it with the extended "Spooky action at a distance" term applied by Einstein to claimed "instantaneous" Quantum entanglement "action at a distance" effect. Please stop your juvenile and self-delusional pretence that you "taught" anyone here about that; because you didn't. You only confused it all in your own mind. Take greater care, mate. :)

Jun 06, 2019
@S_E_U.
Benni, haven't you noticed the transformation that has come over RC. Where he once was an independent 'thinker' and deducer, he now is in complete agreement with CaptainDumpy's attack dog, Schneib et al, as well as with Schneib & green onions wrt AGW....
You cut me to the quick! :)

Seriously though, mate, I'm just being strictly impartial, independent, objective researcher and commenter on all subjects I post on, regardless of which person or 'side' I happen to agree/disagree with. Surely you haven't missed all those times when I defended @cantdrive etc on those instances when he was correct? And I often point out to RNP, DS, Torbjorn et al how mainstream astro/cosmo discovery/review is increasingly confirming me correct (and they not) re old/simplistic/incorrect claims/interpretations for CMB source/age, 'exotic' DM, Distance Ladder assumptions, Supernova misclassification/misapplication, Alleged Inflation/Expansion and Big Bang. So don't be so silly, S_E_U. :)

RNP
Jun 07, 2019
@RealityCheck
And I often point out to RNP, DS, Torbjorn et al how mainstream astro/cosmo discovery/review is increasingly confirming me correct (and they not) re old/simplistic/incorrect claims/interpretations for CMB source/age, 'exotic' DM, Distance Ladder assumptions, Supernova misclassification/misapplication, Alleged Inflation/Expansion and Big Bang.


You are either completely delusional or an inveterate liar. You have provided no evidence for these ridiculous claims and have completely ignored evidence that has been provided to you proving you are wrong. So don't be so silly.

Jun 07, 2019
says Benni

Benni, haven't you noticed the transformation that has come over RC. Where he once was an independent 'thinker' and deducer, he now is in complete agreement with CaptainDumpy's attack dog, Schneib et al, as well as with Schneib & green onions wrt AGW.
After reading perhaps thousands of physorg articles and the comments going back ~10 years, i saw a transformation in the thinking of a number of commentators after they had been 'asked' for verifiable evidence to their opinions, beliefs, scientific hypotheses by CaptainSumpy or else be called a "liar". Plus private information.
......he's ALWAYS been like this, t's just getting worse with old age. The only difference between him & schneibo is the issue of DARK MATTER & the foul mouthed filth that pours from the mouth of that Physorg Moderator.

Jun 07, 2019
@Benni

You are aware that that who is called Satan and Lucifer is using the internet, don't you? He is on a collecting mission, and I believe that it is possible that he is either in the process of, or has already collected RC. I understand that you are an atheist, and physorg and other science sites are the best places to come in contact with avowed atheists. So I have to tell you this; to be careful lest you also become a part of Satan's collection. I asked him once if he was finished collecting souls, and he replied - "not yet". I copied that exchange, by the way. Schneib is Satan's attack dog while Satan reads the comments. .... be aware.


I'm aware of this stuff, I'm just not fixated on it. I've come across a few people who told me they could do MIND READING, I challenged them to do it on me. I wrote down on a piece of paper what my mind was focused on at the moment, I challenged them to read it & suddenly they became visibly shaken, I didn't wonder why.


Jun 07, 2019
@RNP.
And I often point out to RNP, DS, Torbjorn et al how mainstream astro/cosmo discovery/review is increasingly confirming me correct (and they not) re old/simplistic/incorrect claims/interpretations for CMB source/age, 'exotic' DM, Distance Ladder assumptions, Supernova misclassification/misapplication, Alleged Inflation/Expansion and Big Bang.
You are either completely delusional or an inveterate liar. You have provided no evidence for these ridiculous claims and have completely ignored evidence that has been provided to you proving you are wrong. So don't be so silly.
Don't you read the PO reports, mate? Lately they have been highlighting the problems re Supernovae, CMB, Cosmic Distance Ladder due to observational data that had been misinterpreted due to previously simplistic/erroneous assumptions. Please try to catch up with what's been going on in the astronomy/cosmology discovery/review efforts/results being increasingly reported of late. Good luck. :)

Jun 07, 2019
@RNP.
And I often point out to RNP, DS, Torbjorn et al how mainstream astro/cosmo discovery/review is increasingly confirming me correct (and they not) re old/simplistic/incorrect claims/interpretations for CMB source/age, 'exotic' DM, Distance Ladder assumptions, Supernova misclassification/misapplication, Alleged Inflation/Expansion and Big Bang.
You are either completely...You have provided no evidence for these ridiculous claims and have completely ignored evidence that has been provided to you proving you are wrong
Lately they have been highlighting the problems re Supernovae, CMB, Cosmic Distance Ladder due to observational data that had been misinterpreted due to previously simplistic/erroneous assumptions. Please try to catch up with what's been going on in the astronomy/cosmology discovery/review efforts/results being increasingly reported of late. Good luck. :)
says RC

You need to be much more specific in detailing what you were correct in all along

Jun 08, 2019
@S_E_U.
You need to be much more specific in detailing what you were correct in all along
I've been putting the arguments and alluding to the PO articles all along. Even the last few days have seen more PO articles re the same subject matter that I have been pointing out that is flawed due to simplistic assumptions. I am not here to give full classes to those who don't bother to keep abreast of the developments being reported on by PO for years and in the last few weeks as well. If @RNP et al aren't bothered to keep up with recent developments that increasingly confirm I've been correct all along then that's their problem not mine, @S_E_U. :)

RNP
Jun 08, 2019
@RealityCheck
Don't you read the PO reports, mate? Lately they have been highlighting the problems re Supernovae, CMB, Cosmic Distance Ladder due to observational data that had been misinterpreted due to previously simplistic/erroneous assumptions. Please try to catch up with what's been going on in the astronomy/cosmology discovery/review efforts/results being increasingly reported of late. Good luck. :)


You really are a complete plonker, aren't you?

While I do read PO articles, I get the vaste majority of my information from the actual peer reviewed papers that I read every day. I am therefore WAY more up to date on the subject than you.

Your pretense of understanding the astrophysics better than me ( or any of the other people that you regularly argue with here) is ridiculous.

You are nothing more or less than a pretentious troll.

Jun 08, 2019
Your pretense of understanding the astrophysics better than me ( or any of the other people that you regularly argue with here) is ridiculous.
......and I remember you as the guy who said pictures like this didn't exist, 7th photo frame from the top of the page:

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

......remember mister freelance journalist trying to pretend you're some kind of a scientist who never saw a Differential Equation YOU could solve?

So YOU read up on astrophysics "every day"? Still want to go off on that past rant from a couple years ago when you agreed with schneibo & jonesy that telescopes don't exist with resolution enough that astronomers can get these kinds of images of the galactic center of the MW? Pics that show the absence of a BH.


Jun 08, 2019
Your pretense of understanding the astrophysics better than me ( or any of the other people that you regularly argue with here) is ridiculous.
......and I remember you as the guy who said pictures like this didn't exist, 7th photo frame from the top of the page:

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

......remember mister freelance journalist trying to pretend you're some kind of a scientist who never saw a Differential Equation YOU could solve?

So YOU read up on astrophysics "every day"? Still want to go off on that past rant from a couple years ago when you agreed with schneibo & jonesy that telescopes don't exist with resolution enough that astronomers can get these kinds of images of the galactic center of the MW? Pics that show the absence of a BH.



Lol. Stick to cleaning toilets, janitor boy.

RNP
Jun 08, 2019
@Benni
So YOU read up on astrophysics "every day"?


Yes. It is part of my job.

Jun 08, 2019
@RNP.
Don't you read the PO reports, mate? Lately they have been highlighting the problems re Supernovae, CMB, Cosmic Distance Ladder due to observational data that had been misinterpreted due to previously simplistic/erroneous assumptions.
While I do read PO articles, I get the vast majority of my information from the actual peer reviewed papers that I read every day. I am therefore WAY more up to date on the subject than you.
Whenever I ponder why you keep missing the ramifications of all those recent discoveries/reviews for CMB, Supernovae, Distance Ladder etc previously based on simplistic/erroneous assumptions/interpretations, the following sayings keep coming to mind:
"Cant see the wood for the tress."
...and:
"Bias makes the best blinkers"
...and:
"Empty vessels make great echo chambers"
Meaning that you are so engrossed/impressed by 'papers', that you miss the import of the more subtle unintended/unstated implications. You're missing it all, @RNP. :)

Jun 08, 2019
A supposedly massive dark matter distribution that is so lumpy while the luminous matter distribution remains so smooth seems strange.

Jun 08, 2019
@Benni
So YOU read up on astrophysics "every day"?


Yes. It is part of my job.
......being a freelance journalist hasn't taught you much about science has it? Or Differential Equations.

Jun 10, 2019
A supposedly massive dark matter distribution that is so lumpy while the luminous matter distribution remains so smooth seems strange.


Another Benni sock puppet with a set up for his own response.

Jun 10, 2019
@hat1208
@Anonym324154.
A supposedly massive dark matter distribution that is so lumpy while the luminous matter distribution remains so smooth seems strange.
Another Benni sock puppet with a set up for his own response.
If the post/observation is logically/scientifically valid/on-topic, then the source/person of that post/comment deserves a polite response addressing the science/logic point raised. Once we 'pick and choose' who/what we will address based on one's own unscientific obsession with who posted it, then it's not fair science discourse but rather unfair personal prejudice-based evasion. In short: the best approach is to (if you have the science/logic necessary to enable you to) answer the tacit but valid science/logic point raised by the poster you responded to above. If not, then it is unwise and counter-productive to default to personal speculation about the source/person instead of addressing (or at least acknowledging the validity of) the point raised. :)

Jun 11, 2019
I don't share the arguable fixation of "Benni" on the singularity concept. I could be wrong, but I believe the singularity is widely acknowledged to be a point where GR is supposed to not work and I have no issue with that. I do have an issue with the notion that GR works everywhere except around singularities.

Jun 11, 2019
Where do you think GRT doesn't work?

Jun 11, 2019
Where do you think GRT doesn't work?
.......it doesn't work to create infinite gravity & you can't come up with a testable means whereby it can't be proven that it does.

Jun 11, 2019
"a pair of astronomers studied the X-ray brightness and temperature of hot gas at different distances from Mrk 1216's center, so they could "weigh" how much dark matter exists in the middle of the galaxy."

This seems more like a way to find some black holes. Anyway, I guess the red image is x-ray only and not supposed to represent the distribution of any dark matter effect. I was only aware of the rotational velocity method and lensing method for finding dark matter until now. Maybe I'm not understanding this very well yet.

Jun 11, 2019
There is something else you should be aware of: galaxy cluster dynamics. The galaxies in the clusters we have studied (and there are many, and I mean hundreds or thousands) can't be explained without dark matter. This is something you can check on yourself. I can suggest search terms if you like.

So, anywhere else?

Jun 11, 2019
Dark Matter effects suggest to me that concentrated sources of gravity generate what resembles a radiated static-type wave in gravitational potential peaking in frequency at the galactic scale and the cluster scale. It's like multiplying GR by a sparse low-end spatial spectrum, treating gravity like radiated ultra-slowly rotating vectors in balanced counter-rotating pairs.

It's also conceivable to me that GR may show another failure at ultra-low energies wherein a symmetry-braking retroreflective tendency toward conserving gravitational binding energy among masses is shown.

Jun 11, 2019
These conjectures have been rejected by the evidence. Trivially, gravity is an inverse-square force, which means it falls off as the square of the distance. There is no known mechanism for it to increase with distance and this has never been observed. And we looked.

So now?

Jun 11, 2019
"These conjectures have been rejected by the evidence."

No, the math's fine and fits the published maps of dark matter. You are telling me you're more of a propagandist than anything.

"There is no known mechanism"

Funny. I have to laugh at that one, curved space defender.

Jun 11, 2019
If you're going to deny evidence, we're done here.

Just so it's clear, I can smell trolls from when they start being nasty. "Propagandist" was your downfall.

Jun 11, 2019
Do questions scare you so much? Objecting to questions is a sure sign of a troll. Unless they're of the type of "have you stopped raping your wife yet?" Yes, we've seen that here before.

Jun 11, 2019
These conjectures have been rejected by the evidence. Trivially, gravity is an inverse-square force, which means it falls off as the square of the distance. There is no known mechanism for it to increase with distance and this has never been observed. And we looked.

So now?
........"so now" it is impossible by invoking the Inverse Square Law as a viable explanation means for generating infinite gravity that you Pop-Cosmology aficionados claims exists in BHs. If so, how? ( this is a question mister troll).

Jun 11, 2019
Works fine for EM , @Benni. Maybe you forgot, because you never knew why.

It's because of how volume increases with diameter. Since you don't know any math, this won't make any sense to you, but that's your problem. Because you're a janitor and don't know any math.

Jun 11, 2019
As far as I can tell GR fans pretend MOND, which is an inertia effect only in play at the perimeter of a galaxy and not really a modified gravity at all, was the only thing that could eliminate galactic dark matter. Notice the MOND effect was strongest at the periphery. Of course it fails at the boundary between galaxies. MONDs cluster-scale failure is treated as the end of the line for "gravity modification" even though it is not truly gravity modification but it is a modification of a tenet of relativity. Where they partly cancel out in pairs the net effect appears non-monotonic.

I suggested using radiated rotating vectors as gravity "force carriers" in my previous comment, radiated vector density thins out with distance and therefore vectors cannot be individually responsible for any gravity effect that increases with radiated distance.

Jun 11, 2019
"If you're going to deny evidence, we're done here.

Just so it's clear, I can smell trolls from when they start being nasty. "Propagandist" was your downfall."

The quality of your arguments is invariably blustery and thuggish. Propagandists do that.

Jun 11, 2019
"It's because of how volume increases with diameter."

If only Einstein's gravity had a curve based on flux density, this could be relevant. But it's not based on flux, so it lacks a fundamental carrier particle and that lack of a fundamental carrier particle lacks any sort of possibility of any wave-aspect.

Jun 11, 2019
"that lack of a fundamental carrier particle lacks any sort of possibility of any wave-aspect"

… I mean as far as quantum-type waves are concerned.

Jun 11, 2019
The so called "virtual" photons of E-fields and M-fields could have ultra-slow field oscillations, it depends on how slow you want to make the oscillations before they seem to disappear. Great thing about making the field oscillate to fully reverse themselves periodically is it's a great excuse to say the field carriers are massless. Also it's always renormalizable.

Jun 11, 2019
"It's because of how volume increases with diameter."

If only Einstein's gravity had a curve based on flux density, this could be relevant. But it's not based on flux, so it lacks a fundamental carrier particle and that lack of a fundamental carrier particle lacks any sort of possibility of any wave-aspect.


That is a lot of sciency words.

Jun 11, 2019
"That is a lot of sciency words."

Go ahead, say it -- What I said was like defecating over every theory on time travel and/or wormholes ever written.

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