Neutrino produced in a cosmic collider far away

Neutrino produced in a cosmic collider far away
TXS 0506+056. The neutrino event IceCube 170922A appears to originate in the interaction zone of the two jets. Credit: IceCube Collaboration, MOJAVE, S. Britzen, & M. Zajaček

The neutrino event IceCube 170922A, detected at the IceCube Neutrino Observatory at the South Pole, appears to originate from the distant active galaxy TXS 0506+056, at a light travel distance of 3.8 billion light years. TXS 0506+056 is one of many active galaxies and it remained a mystery why and how only this particular galaxy generated neutrinos so far.

An international team of researchers led by Silke Britzen from the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy in Bonn, Germany, studied high-resolution radio observations of the source between 2009 and 2018, before and after the neutrino event. The team proposes that the enhanced neutrino activity during an earlier neutrino flare and the single neutrino could have been generated by a cosmic within TXS 0506+056. The clash of jet material close to a seems to have produced the .

The results are published in Astronomy & Astrophysics, October 02, 2019.

On July 12, 2018, the IceCube collaboration announced the detection of the first high-energy neutrino, IceCube-170922A, which could be traced back to a distant cosmic origin. While the cosmic origin of neutrinos had been suspected for quite some time, this was the first neutrino from outer space whose origin could be confirmed. The 'home' of this neutrino is an Active Galactic Nucleus (AGN)—a galaxy with a supermassive black hole as central engine. An international team could now clarify the production mechanism of the neutrino and found an equivalent to a collider on Earth: a cosmic collision of jetted material.

AGNs are the most energetic objects in our Universe. Powered by a supermassive black hole, matter is being accreted and streams of plasma (so-called jets) are launched into intergalactic space. BL Lac objects form a special class of these AGNs, where the jet is directly pointing at us and dominating the observed radiation. The neutrino event IceCube-170922A appears to originate from the BL Lac object TXS 0506+056, a galaxy at a redshift of z=0.34, corresponding to a light travel distance of 3.8 billion light years. An analysis of archival IceCube data by the IceCube Collaboration had revealed evidence of an enhanced neutrino acitvity earlier, between September 2014 and March 2015.

Other BL Lac Objects show properties quite similar to those of TXS 0506+056. "It was a bit of a mystery, however, why only TXS 0506+056 has been identified as a neutrino emitter," explains Silke Britzen from the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy (MPIfR), the lead author of the paper. "We wanted to unravel what makes TXS 0506+056 special, to understand the neutrino creation process and to localize the emission site and studied a series of high resolution radio images of the jet."

Much to their surprise, the researchers found an unexpected interaction between jet material in TXS 0506+056. While jet plasma is usually assumed to flow undisturbed in a kind of channel, the situation seems different in TXS 0506+056. The team proposes that the enhanced neutrino activity during the neutrino flare in 2014–2015 and the single EHE neutrino. IceCube-170922A could have been generated by a cosmic collision within the source.

This can be explained by new jet material crashing into older jet material. A strongly curved jet structure provides the proper set up for such a scenario. Another explanation involves the collision of two jets in the same source. In both scenarios, it is the collision of jetted material which generates the neutrino. Markus Böttcher from the North-West University in Potchefstroom (South Africa), a co-author of the paper, performed the calculations with regard to the radiation and particle emission. "This collision of jetted material is currently the only viable mechanism which can explain the neutrino detection from this source. It also provides us with important insight into the jet material and solves a long-standing question whether jets are leptonic, consisting of electrons and positrons; or hadronic, consisting of electrons and protons; or a combination of both. At least part of the jet material has to be hadronic—otherwise, we would not have detected the neutrino."

In the course of the cosmic evolution of our Universe, collisions of galaxies seem to be a frequent phenomenon. Assuming that both galaxies contain central supermassive black holes, the galactic collision can result in a black hole pair at the centre. This black hole pair might eventually merge and produce the supermassive equivalent to stellar black hole mergers as detected in gravitational waves by the LIGO/Virgo collaboration.

AGNs with double black holes at a small separation of only light years have been pursued for many years. However, they seem to be rare and difficult to identify. In addition to the collision of jetted material, the team also found evidence for a precession of the central jet of TXS 0506+056. According to Michal Zajaček from the Center for Theoretical Physics, Warsaw: "This precession can in general be explained by the presence of a supermassive black hole binary or the Lense-Thirring precession effect as predicted by Einstein's theory of general relativity. The latter could also be triggered by a second, more distant black hole in the centre. Both scenarios lead to a wandering of the jet direction, which we observe."

Christian Fendt from the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Heidelberg is amazed: "The closer we look at the jet sources the more complicated the internal structure and jet dynamics appears. While binary black holes produce a more complex outflow structure, their existence is naturally expected from the cosmological models of galaxy formation by galaxy mergers."

Silke Britzen stresses the scientific potential of the findings: "It's fantastic to understand the neutrino generation by studying the insides of jets. And it would be a breakthrough if our analysis had provided another candidate for a binary black hole jet source with two jets."

It seems to be the first time that a potential collision of two jets on scales of a few light years has been reported and that the detection of a cosmic neutrino might be traced back to a cosmic jet-collision.

While TXS 0506+056 might not be representative of the class of BL Lac objects, this source could provide the proper setup for a repeated interaction of jetted material and the generation of neutrinos.


Explore further

VERITAS supplies critical piece to neutrino discovery puzzle

More information: S. Britzen et al. A cosmic collider: Was the IceCube neutrino generated in a precessing jet-jet interaction in TXS 0506+056?, Astronomy & Astrophysics (2019). DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935422
Journal information: Astronomy & Astrophysics

Provided by Max Planck Society
Citation: Neutrino produced in a cosmic collider far away (2019, October 2) retrieved 15 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-10-neutrino-cosmic-collider.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.
918 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Oct 02, 2019
Our system seems to be in the right place at the right time, dead center in the focus of a quasar but far enough away to not be destroyed.
Bring it on, knowledge is power.

Oct 03, 2019
Wow! I cannot emphasize enough how hot this is, seeing cosmic collider physics and how it tests our current jet models. AGN jets likely being ambipolar and pulsed as well as sourced from black hole accretion disks it is easy to derive mixed hadronic components as well as collisions. All too easy, so I'm not sure it tells us much, but tests are always welcome!

Oct 03, 2019
@RNP
@Castrogiovanni et al.

So, now will you finally admit that I was correct all along re AGNs/Polar Jets effectively acting like extremely powerful 'particle colliders'? You have it straight from the above mainstream source...
AGNs are the most energetic objects in our Universe. Powered by a supermassive black hole, matter is being accreted and streams of plasma (so-called jets) are launched into intergalactic space.....This cosmic collision can be explained by new jet material crashing into older jet material. A strongly curved jet structure provides the proper set up for such a scenario. Another explanation involves the collision of two jets in the same source.

...effectively and unambiguously confirming what I have been saying has been correct all along regarding AGNs/Polar Jets: ie, BOTH "deconstructing material" AND "sending it to deep space (where it eventually reforms into 'pristine looking' protons/electrons/nebulae/stars/dwarf galaxies etc". :)

Oct 03, 2019
^^^Nope. You haven't got a clue what you are talking about, you utter clown. Now do everybody a favour, and p!ss off. Eejit. You are a complete gobsh!te, you loon. Stop polluting this place with your inanities. Weirdo.

Oct 03, 2019
@Castrogiovanni.
^^^Nope. You haven't got a clue what you are talking about, you utter clown. Now do everybody a favour, and p!ss off. Eejit. You are a complete gobsh!te, you loon. Stop polluting this place with your inanities. Weirdo.
The forum will note that you didn't actually address the FACTS already in evidence about MY longstanding posts saying the SAME thing that the above mainstream researcher just said. Didn't you even tread the article or my post. mate? Obviously not, if your usual insulting knee-jerk-from-prejudice is any indication. Mate, do yourself a favour and stop being such a tiresome heedless insults troll, and actually read/understand what is being said to you by me AND by mainstream researcher above. Then please try to contain your frustration/anger, and be objective and polite and actually address the scientific points I made all along. Thanks. :)

Oct 03, 2019
#RealityCheck

Are you expecting some sort of miracle to happen in the life of Castrogiovanni? He is not about to change his style just to please you or anyone else who posts legitimate concerns in P.O.
As long as I have been reading this doofus character's comments, there has never been any change in him, personality-wise or improvements in his BS laden language. Both of you, and some others, have tremendous ego problems.

Oct 03, 2019
@Troll_Terminator.
#RealityCheck

Are you expecting some sort of miracle to happen in the life of Castrogiovanni? He is not about to change his style just to please you or anyone else who posts legitimate concerns in P.O.
As long as I have been reading this doofus character's comments, there has never been any change in him, personality-wise or improvements in his BS laden language. Both of you, and some others, have tremendous ego problems.
Where there's life there's hope! as the saying goes, mate. :)

ps: It's hardly "ego problem" on my part to remind/point out @Castro etc that what he trolled/insulted me about (for years now) has just been confirmed correct all along by above mainstream researcher. It's only fair debate, isn't it? Just because @Castro has "ego problems" and can't admit when he was wrong, and me correct all along, it doesn't mean both parties have "ego problems". Anyhow, good luck and enjoy the science/logics discourse here wherever it may occur. :)

Oct 04, 2019
#RealityCheck

Are you expecting some sort of miracle to happen in the life of Castrogiovanni? He is not about to change his style just to please you or anyone else who posts legitimate concerns in P.O.
As long as I have been reading this doofus character's comments, there has never been any change in him, personality-wise or improvements in his BS laden language. Both of you, and some others, have tremendous ego problems.


Just another loudmouth with no science to offer. What are you doing here? Want to talk science? Post some. If you think people have legitimate points, then highlight them, and I'll tell you why you are talking out of your arse. Otherwise, do one.

Oct 04, 2019
RealityCheck, your ego problem is bit different. To me it seems that you are commenting to almost every article that it confirms what you posted previously and shows how great of a mind you are. "I've been correct all time and saying this for years but finally the main stream science is catching up with me" all over and all over again.

I'm not saying that you are wrong or lying, I'm just saying it is bit egoistic.

Oct 04, 2019
So do we get to discuss the neutrinos now, or are we doing more trolling?

Oct 04, 2019
RealityCheck, your ego problem is bit different. To me it seems that you are commenting to almost every article that it confirms what you posted previously and shows how great of a mind you are. "I've been correct all time and saying this for years but finally the main stream science is catching up with me" all over and all over again.

I'm not saying that you are wrong or lying, I'm just saying it is bit egoistic.


I will say that he is wrong. As has been pointed out numerous times. Whether it is lying is hard to say. If it isn't, then it shows a total inability to understand the reasons why he has been shown to be wrong.

Oct 04, 2019
I will say that he is wrong. As has been pointed out numerous times. Whether it is lying is hard to say. If it isn't, then it shows a total inability to understand the reasons why he has been shown to be wrong.

Anyways, it does not contribute anything to the conversation if you're just calling people with names and saying their wrong. You could at least say how they are wrong.

Similarly to RealityCheck, it doesn't contribute anything to the conversation saying that I was correct all the time.

Oct 04, 2019
Repeating how @RC is wrong all the time would be spamming; no one is going to bother typing a new post a hundred times. After a while, you stop caring.

Would you like to see the over 100 posts @RC has lied on and never admitted to a single one of them? I have that. @RC won't like it much though.

Oct 04, 2019
After a while, you stop caring.

I sure hope it will work like this one day.

Would you like to see the over 100 posts @RC has lied on and never admitted to a single one of them? I have that. @RC won't like it much though.

I've seen these threads and it is as pointless.

Oct 04, 2019
It shuts @RC up pretty effectively. Seems like it works to me. Though I hate to make @RC live through it when he hasn't earned it. There is such a thing as mercy.

RNP
Oct 04, 2019
@cortezz
RC is most certainly wrong.

He has, or some time, been trying to tell everyone that the hydrogen content of the universe
is constantly being replenished by interactions between jets and the surrounding material.

What he has refused to accept is that he does not understand the particle physics
involved in such a process.

In fact, the interactions he refers to would generate the same number of anti-protons as protons.
The anti-protons would then promptly annihilate the first proton with which it interacts, leaving
the overall proton count of the universe the same.

RC refuses to accept this, and insists that his knowledge of particle physics is greater
than that of people who have actually studied the subject (which he has not), and, as is his wont, flatly refuses to give up his ridiculous claim.

Oct 04, 2019
So, another thread reduced to shite by the usual suspects, who, between them, couldn't conjure up a thought, far less a scientific one, far less one relevant to the article.
Congratulations.

Oct 04, 2019
So, another thread reduced to shite by the usual suspects, who, between them, couldn't conjure up a thought, far less a scientific one, far less one relevant to the article.
Congratulations.


Lol. Says the scientifically illiterate troll!

Oct 04, 2019
@RNP
@Castro
@Da Schneib.

The forum notes that none of you have actually conceded the longstanding points I made regarding AGN/Polar Jet systems; to wit:

- they are effectively the most powerful 'particle accelerators' which, like in our LHC, collide baryonic matter, 'deconstructing' same to Quark-Gluon Plasma;

- that Quark-Gluon Plasma REFORMS into 'pristine looking' Protons and Electrons which eventually cool down and reform into Hydrogen Atoms;

- those Protons/Atoms are sent by Polar Jets into deep Intergalactic Space where they aggregate into 'pristine looking' Nebulae which eventually collapse into 'pristine looking' collections of Stars such as Globular Clusters and Dwarf Galaxies.

You denied, insulted, trolled me when I pointed out those things.

But NOW above MAINSTREAM work EXPLICITLY CONFIRMS AGNs ARE powerful colliders deconstructing matter and sending it to deep intergalactic space via Polar Jets.

Who was correct...me or you, RNP, @Castro, @DS? :)

Oct 04, 2019
^^^^Polar jets do no such thing. You made that up. Stop doing that.

Oct 04, 2019
@Castrogiovanni?
^^^^Polar jets do no such thing. You made that up. Stop doing that.
You still haven't read/understood the full import/implications of the above article, have you? Do so now, before again making such a fool of yourself, mate. :)

Oct 04, 2019
@Cortezz.
....Similarly to RealityCheck, it doesn't contribute anything to the conversation saying that I was correct all the time.
Anyone who had been saying attention over the years would have noted that those trolls unscrupulously attacked, insulted and denied every time I pointed out something they did not know that was important to the science-based discourse here/elsewhere. Why have you not mentioned that in your comments? How can it be fair for them to unceasingly, stupidly and malicious attack, deny and insult me without ever admitting I was correct; or apologising to the forum for their abominable unscientific and ungentlemanly atrocities here and in other forums in the past?

When recommending solutions for a troll problem, please don't throw out the (innocent/correct) 'baby' with the (guilty/nasty) 'bathwater'.

Anyhow, I have made my (longstanding) points, as per above mainstream article.

The onus now is on @RNP, @Castro, @Da Schneib to concede said points. :)

Oct 04, 2019
@Castrogiovanni?
^^^^Polar jets do no such thing. You made that up. Stop doing that.
You still haven't read/understood the full import/implications of the above article, have you? Do so now, before again making such a fool of yourself, mate. :)


Yep. Read the article, read the paper. You are talking bollocks. As usual.

Oct 04, 2019


The onus now is on @RNP, @Castro, @Da Schneib to concede said points. :)


Nothing to concede. As mentioned, you are talking out of your arse. No gluons. Quarks. Any other nonsense. This is baryonic matter, already existing, pulled from an accretion disk and, in this case (but far from all) is colliding in such a way that neutrinos are produced. Do you know how neutrinos are produced?

Oct 04, 2019
@Castrogiovanni.
@Castrogiovanni?
^^^^Polar jets do no such thing. You made that up. Stop doing that.
You still haven't read/understood the full import/implications of the above article, have you? ... :)

Yep. Read the article, read the paper. You are talking bollocks. As usual.
You should have your eyesight tested asap, @Castro; you missed these bits:
…matter is being accreted and streams of plasma (so-called jets) are LAUNCHED INTO INTERGALACTIC SPACE. .... This cosmic COLLISION can be explained by new jet material CRASHING INTO older jet material. … Another explanation involves the COLLISION of two jets in the same source. …solves a long-standing question whether jets are leptonic, consisting of electrons and positrons; or hadronic, consisting of ELECTRONS AND PROTONS; or a combination of both. At least part of the jet material HAS TO BE HADRONIC—otherwise, we would not have detected the neutrino.
I trust your eyesight will be improved soon. :)

Oct 04, 2019
^^^^Nope, still talking crap. No new material being created. For the hard of thinking, who cannot understand a relatively straightforward letter to A & A;

'New' matter refers to matter recently accreted from the disk. Comprende, dumbo? It already existed. It is colliding with 'old' matter. That is, matter that had previously been ejected from the accretion disk by the jets. Idiot.

Summary: matter is jetted out from accretion disk. Hangs around in the general vicinity. Further matter from the accretion disk is jetted out, collides with previously ejected matter. Neutrinos are produced.
I could get a 12 year old I know to understand that. Why can't you, you poser?

Oct 04, 2019
@Castrogiovanni.


The onus now is on @RNP, @Castro, @Da Schneib to concede said points. :)


Nothing to concede. As mentioned, you are talking out of your arse. No gluons. Quarks. Any other nonsense. This is baryonic matter, already existing, pulled from an accretion disk and, in this case (but far from all) is colliding in such a way that neutrinos are produced. Do you know how neutrinos are produced?
Please read my last post to you before again kneejerking from your own misunderstandings, mate.

Anyhow, answer these questions for yourself (and then rethink your counter-arguments according to the implications of your answers):

1) Does our LHC collide particles that produce Quark-Gluon plasma? YES/NO.

2) Does that Quark-Gluon plasma reform Protons/Electrons etc? YES/NO.

3) Are AGN/Jet processes more powerful than our LHC collider? YES/NO.

4) Do the Polar Jets from AGNs reach out into Intergalactic Space? YES/NO.

Good luck, mate. :)

Oct 04, 2019
^^^^Lol. Mental health problems, methinks.

Oct 04, 2019
@Castrogiovanni.
^^^^Nope, still talking crap. No new material being created. For the hard of thinking, who cannot understand a relatively straightforward letter to A & A;

'New' matter refers to matter recently accreted from the disk. Comprende, dumbo? It already existed. It is colliding with 'old' matter. That is, matter that had previously been ejected from the accretion disk by the jets. Idiot.

Summary: matter is jetted out from accretion disk. Hangs around in the general vicinity. Further matter from the accretion disk is jetted out, collides with previously ejected matter. Neutrinos are produced.
I could get a 12 year old I know to understand that. Why can't you, you poser?
That's exactly what I have been telling you for years now, @Castro! And where on Earth did you get the impression I said "new matter"?

I ONLY EVER SAID "pristine-looking matter" REFORMED FROM PREVIOUSLY DECONSTRUCTED MATTER which AGN/JETS PROCESSES sent to deep space!

Clear now? :)

Oct 04, 2019


Clear now? :)


Nope. No idea which woo you are talking about now! What relevance has this to do with any of the nonsense you are peddling? Two frigging hadrons collide. Neutrino is produced. Just as in beta decay. Your claim is.........? Stop talking crap. Please.

Oct 04, 2019
@Castrogiovanni.
Clear now? :)
Nope. No idea which woo you are talking about now! What relevance has this to do with any of the nonsense you are peddling? Two frigging hadrons collide. Neutrino is produced. Just as in beta decay. Your claim is.........? Stop talking crap. Please.
The point was that AGNs are powerful colliders. That deconstructed matter f all sorts is sent into deep space to reform into 'pristine-looking' (NOT NEW) matter there. How hard can to be to get that straight in your mind, mate? :)

Oct 04, 2019
@RNP
@Castrogiovanni
@Da Scheib.

It appears you all have been basing your attacks on your own misunderstandings. It is NOT "new matter appearing in deep space" as you seem to have mistakenly inferred; it's "previously deconstructed matter being sent to deep space via AGNs/Jets where that previous deconstructed matter REFORMS into PRISTINE-LOOKING protons/hydrogen nebulae/stars/globular-clusters/dwarf-galaxies etc".

I trust you now have it straight as to what have been trying to tell you all along; and that what I have tried to tell you all along is now confirmed correct by mainstream work as published above. Cheers. :)


Lol. What an idiot!

Oct 04, 2019
@RNP
@Castrogiovanni
@Da Scheib.

It appears you all have been basing your attacks on your own misunderstandings. It is NOT "new matter appearing in deep space" as you seem to have mistakenly inferred; it's "previously deconstructed matter being sent to deep space via AGNs/Jets where that previous deconstructed matter REFORMS into PRISTINE-LOOKING protons/hydrogen nebulae/stars/globular-clusters/dwarf-galaxies etc".

I trust you now have it straight as to what have been trying to tell you all along; and that what I have tried to tell you all along is now confirmed correct by mainstream work as published above. Cheers. :)

Oct 04, 2019
@Castrogiovanni.
Clear now? :)
Nope. No idea which woo you are talking about now! What relevance has this to do with any of the nonsense you are peddling? Two frigging hadrons collide. Neutrino is produced. Just as in beta decay. Your claim is.........? Stop talking crap. Please.
The point was that AGNs are powerful colliders. That deconstructed matter of all sorts is sent into deep space to reform into 'pristine-looking' (NOT NEW) matter there. How hard can it be to get that straight in your mind, mate? :)

Oct 04, 2019
@RNP
@Castrogiovanni
@Da Scheib.

It appears you all have been basing your attacks on your own misunderstandings. It is NOT "new matter appearing in deep space" as you seem to have mistakenly inferred; it's "previously deconstructed matter being sent to deep space via AGNs/Jets where that previous deconstructed matter REFORMS into PRISTINE-LOOKING protons/hydrogen nebulae/stars/globular-clusters/dwarf-galaxies etc".

I trust you now have it straight as to what have been trying to tell you all along; and that what I have tried to tell you all along is now confirmed correct by mainstream work as published above. Cheers. :)


Lol. What an idiot. Part deux.

Oct 04, 2019
@Castro, what is it exactly that you do not understand about the straightforward aspects of AGNs/Jets deconstructing matter and sending it into deep space to reform into 'pristine looking' (NOT NEW) matter there? The above mainstream article confirms that is happening. Why do you still deny it? :)

Oct 04, 2019
@Castro, what is it exactly that you do not understand about the straightforward aspects of AGNs/Jets deconstructing matter and sending it into deep space to reform into 'pristine looking' (NOT NEW) matter there? The above mainstream article confirms that is happening. Why do you still deny it? :)


Dafuq are you talking about? What has this got to do with your idiotic claims that DM doesn't exist? Where TF do you think this stuff is colliding? Close to the AGN, or megaparsecs away? Stop being an idiot. Just for a while. How far do you think this s*** is getting before the collision occurs? Do you need help to tie your shoe laces? Strewth!

Oct 04, 2019
@Castro
@Castro, what is it exactly that you do not understand about the straightforward aspects of AGNs/Jets deconstructing matter and sending it into deep space to reform into 'pristine looking' (NOT NEW) matter there? The above mainstream article confirms that is happening. Why do you still deny it? :)


Dafuq are you talking about? What has this got to do with your idiotic claims that DM doesn't exist? Where TF do you think this stuff is colliding? Close to the AGN, or megaparsecs away? Stop being an idiot. Just for a while. How far do you think this s*** is getting before the collision occurs?
What are you on about yourself, mate. There are TWO different issues...

ONE: AGNs/Jets DO send deconstructed matter into deep space.

TWO: a LOT of deconstructed matter (protons/electrons plasma) has been sent FOR BILLIONS of YEARS via TRILLIONS of AGNs/Polar-Jets (as per above article) into Deep Space.

Now, where do you think all that ORDINARY 'dark' matter is? :)

Oct 04, 2019
What's "deconstructed matter?" And why do you think AGN jets have enough velocity to generally escape the gravitation of galaxies, much less galaxy clusters?

It's ordinary neutrons and protons. We don't see these highly energetic neutrinos from most AGNs. This one must, therefore, be unusual because it's emitting them. That's one we've found so far, out of literally billions of AGNs we've seen. How is this one object going to make enough (and that's assuming your weird ideas even mean anything) matter to account for 4/5 of the mass we can measure by its gravity effects, but we can't see it?

Not even wrong.

Oct 04, 2019
@Da Schneib.
What's "deconstructed matter?"
I explained that to you before, the last time you asked that. :)

And why do you think AGN jets have enough velocity to generally escape the gravitation of galaxies, much less galaxy clusters?
The above article just told you the same thing I have been telling you for years now. I even quoted the relevant bits to @Castro earlier. Didn't you read the article or my post to @Castro?

It's ordinary neutrons and protons.
Yes, that is what they reform into after the collisions create the Quark-Gluon plasma (as in LHC).

How is this one object going to make enough (and that's assuming your weird ideas even mean anything) matter to account for 4/5 of the mass we can measure by its gravity effects, but we can't see it?
It's ordinary protons/electrons being sent to deep space (as per article) by trillions of AGNs/Jets over billions of years all over the universe; adds up to plenty enough; increasingly being detected. :)

Oct 04, 2019
And why do you think AGN jets have enough velocity to generally escape the gravitation of galaxies, much less galaxy clusters?

The above article just told you the same thing I have been telling you for years now.
No, it didn't. Please quote where the article says the jet materials are escaping galaxy clusters.

You're lying again. Maybe I'll have to show your hundred plus lies again, and add this thread to the list.

Oct 04, 2019
Gotta go now. See y'all again tomorrow. :)

ps: @DS, just caught your last before logging out. Haven't time now; will reply tomorrow (meantime you should check your past posts for when you last asked that "deconstruction" question).

Oct 04, 2019
LOL

Run away little troll. Go pick your nose or whatever.

Oct 04, 2019
@ RealityCheck, why do you post so many of things like this
Gotta go now. See y'all again tomorrow. :)

After you spend a day telling everyone how uninformed, dishonest, and blind,,, you double down on every post by telling them that you have been right and they wrong for years.

Why would you say
Gotta go now. See y'all again tomorrow. :)
Are you trolling them? I am pretty sure they would rather you go now and not come back tomorrow. Just an observation.

RNP
Oct 05, 2019
@RealityCheck
You have had all this explained to you before, but let's try one more time your way.

1) Does our LHC collide particles that produce Quark-Gluon plasma? YES/NO.
Yes.

2) Does that Quark-Gluon plasma reform Protons/Electrons etc? YES/NO.
Yes, but it produces just as many anti-protons/positrons because the QM rules of conservation of baryon and lepton numbers means that the net production of baryons and leptons MUST be zero. Thus, your claim that these jets add "new" material to the universe is clearly completely false.

3) Are AGN/Jet processes more powerful than our LHC collider? YES/NO.
No. Black hole jets achieve Lorentz factors of 100-1000 ( https://arxiv.org.../0506368 )
while the LHC has two counter-rotating beams each with a Lorentz factor of ~7,500 ( www.lhc-closer.es...lativity
4) Do the Polar Jets from AGNs reach out into Intergalactic Space? YES/NO.
Yes, but irrelevant.

Oct 05, 2019
@Da Schneib.
The above article just told you the same thing I have been telling you for years now.
No, it didn't. Please quote where the article says the jet materials are escaping galaxy clusters.
I was referring to INTER-galactic space; and that's what the article referred to also. :)

Gotta go now. See y'all again tomorrow. :) ps: @DS, just caught your last before logging out. Haven't time now; will reply tomorrow (meantime you should check your past posts for when you last asked that "deconstruction" question).
LOL Run away little troll. Go pick your nose or whatever.
What's is the matter with you, mate? I was being courteous, advising my off-line work/life called me away (instead of just disappearing without a word until whenever). Why must you keep intruding personal/nasty tone into your on-line conversations? Don't you have a life/work off-line that calls you away; or do you have no such life/work and just post on forums here/elsewhere 24/7? Chill. :)

Oct 05, 2019
@Arthur McBride.
@ RealityCheck, why do you post so many of things like this
Gotta go now. See y'all again tomorrow. :)
Perhaps you, like too many others, have allowed the Internet Age to make you forget your manners and other considerations of courtesy to interlocutors. Maybe you should ask yourself the question: Why should one NOT advise their interlocutor that one will be going off-line to attend to pressing personal/work/family etc matters but will be coming back to reply next day? Don't you have work/personal matters off-line? Don't you show courtesy/consideration for your interlocutors anymore just because it's "on the Internet"? :)

ps: I have only ever replied in kind to those who have trolled me without due cause, especially when I have been correct and they not. Reality is what it is; if a troll insults/trolls me, then they get the responses they deserve, along with a reminder of who has been correct and who not. Fair is fair, mate. :)

Oct 05, 2019
@RNP.
1) Does our LHC collide particles that produce Quark-Gluon plasma? YES/NO.
Yes.
Good. :)

2) Does that Quark-Gluon plasma reform Protons/Electrons etc? YES/NO.
Yes, but it produces just as many anti-protons/positrons because the QM rules of conservation of baryon and lepton numbers means that the net production of baryons and leptons MUST be zero. Thus, your claim that these jets add "new" material to the universe is clearly completely false.
Please read carefully: I NEVER said "New matter"; only "pristine-looking' matter REFORMED from PREVIOUSLY EXISTING material 'deconstructed to more fundamental particle states via AGNs/Jets sending same to deep space.

3)Are AGN/Jet processes more powerful than our LHC collider? YES/NO.
No. Black hole jets achieve Lorentz factors of 100-1000 ( https://arxiv.org.../0506368 )
They are COMPLEX and VAST and POWERFUL accelerator systems, not puny little man-made LHC. Rethink it.

[cont]

Oct 05, 2019
@RNP [cont]

4) Do the Polar Jets from AGNs reach out into Intergalactic Space?
YES/NO.
Yes, but irrelevant.
So, you think that Trillions of AGNs/Jets over Billions of years sending 'deconstructed' PRE-EXISTING (NOT "new") matter) into deep space between galaxies is "not relevant" to cosmology observations/interpretations/theory? I urge you to rethink on that as well, mate. :)

Oct 05, 2019
@RNP [cont]

4) Do the Polar Jets from AGNs reach out into Intergalactic Space?
YES/NO.
Yes, but irrelevant.
So, you think that Trillions of AGNs/Jets over Billions of years sending 'deconstructed' PRE-EXISTING (NOT "new") matter) into deep space between galaxies is "not relevant" to cosmology observations/interpretations/theory? I urge you to rethink on that as well, mate. :)


Nothing to think about. Where is the scientist claiming this in a published paper? It doesn't exist. And we have no reason to take anything you say seriously.

Oct 05, 2019
@Castrogiovanni.
@RNP [cont]

4) Do the Polar Jets from AGNs reach out into Intergalactic Space?
YES/NO.
Yes, but irrelevant.
So, you think that Trillions of AGNs/Jets over Billions of years sending 'deconstructed' PRE-EXISTING (NOT "new") matter) into deep space between galaxies is "not relevant" to cosmology observations/interpretations/theory? I urge you to rethink on that as well, mate. :)


Nothing to think about. Where is the scientist claiming this in a published paper? It doesn't exist. And we have no reason to take anything you say seriously.
*Sigh* Mate, can't you ever look/think for yourself? Go read up on the relevant subject in mainstream cosmology/astrophysics science/literature and then answer this questions for yourself:

- Have mainstream papers acknowledged/observed galactic AGNs/Polar-Jets/Winds sending material into intergalactic space? YES/NO.

Then come and tell what you found/learned. :)

Oct 05, 2019
*Sigh* Mate, can't you ever look/think for yourself? Go read up on the relevant subject in mainstream cosmology/astrophysics science/literature and then answer this questions for yourself:


Yes I can, and I have relevant qualifications, you arse. That is why I know you are talking crap, you poser.

Oct 05, 2019
@Castrogiovanni.
*Sigh* Mate, can't you ever look/think for yourself? Go read up on the relevant subject in mainstream cosmology/astrophysics science/literature and then answer this questions for yourself:


Yes I can, and I have relevant qualifications, you arse. That is why I know you are talking crap, you poser.
So, you are claiming that NO mainstream papers acknowledged/observed galactic AGNs/Polar-Jets/Winds sending material into intergalactic space? Are you sure? Check again; this time without allowing your usual demonstrable personal/emotional 'subjectivity' compromise what should (for true scientists) be objective reading/comprehending. Good luck. :)

ps: Did you correct your misimpression re "new matter"; ie, I never said "new matter", only 'pristine-looking' matter reformed from previously existing matter deconstructed via AGNs/Jets etc. Ok? :)

Oct 05, 2019
@Castrogiovanni.
*Sigh* Mate, can't you ever look/think for yourself? Go read up on the relevant subject in mainstream cosmology/astrophysics science/literature and then answer this questions for yourself:


Yes I can, and I have relevant qualifications, you arse. That is why I know you are talking crap, you poser.
So, you are claiming that NO mainstream papers acknowledged/observed galactic AGNs/Polar-Jets/Winds sending material into intergalactic space? Are you sure? Check again; this time without allowing your usual demonstrable personal/emotional 'subjectivity' compromise what should (for true scientists) be objective reading/comprehending. Good luck. :)

ps: Did you correct your misimpression re "new matter"; ie, I never said "new matter", only 'pristine-looking' matter reformed from previously existing matter deconstructed via AGNs/Jets etc. Ok? :)


I couldn't care less whether it ends up in the IGM. It is of little relevance to anything.

Oct 05, 2019
@RealityCheck
You keep on saying "pristine matter"
What is "pristine matter"?
What is "pristine looking matter"?
How does one determine if matter is "pristine", "pristine looking", or not?

Oct 05, 2019
@Castrogiovanni.
So, you are claiming that NO mainstream papers acknowledged/observed galactic AGNs/Polar-Jets/Winds sending material into intergalactic space? Are you sure? Check again; this time without allowing your usual demonstrable personal/emotional 'subjectivity' compromise what should (for true scientists) be objective reading/comprehending. Good luck. :)
ps: Did you correct your misimpression re "new matter"; ie, I never said "new matter", only 'pristine-looking' matter reformed from previously existing matter deconstructed via AGNs/Jets etc. Ok? :)
I couldn't care less whether it ends up in the IGM. It is of little relevance to anything.
Don' you realise how silly that sounds? Don't you realise that INTERGALACTIC space means INTRA-CLUSTER space as well when galaxies are within a cluster? Mate, please calm down, take a deep breath, let your personal prejudices/anger/frustrations go, engage anew with the OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC METHOD PRINCIPLES. Good luck. :)

Oct 05, 2019
@jimmybobber.
@RealityCheck
You keep on saying "pristine matter"
What is "pristine matter"?
What is "pristine looking matter"?
How does one determine if matter is "pristine", "pristine looking", or not?
NO "pristine matter" but pristine-LOOKING-matter". There is an effective distinction between the two.

Astrophysicists use 'pristine' per se to indicate observed Hydrogen/Helium nebulae/stars etc whose properties they 'interpret' as being 'primordial/unchanged' by any significant interactions/evolutions since (alleged) Big Bang created same. Ok?

Whereas MY terminology, ie, "pristine-LOOKING' is clearly meant to convey that matter may NOT BE 'primordial/pristine', but only LOOKS 'pristine/primordial' because it has been RE-FORMED ANEW from EXISTING COMPLEX/EVOLVED MATERIAL previously 'deconstructed' via AGNs/Jets etc, and send to deep space where it may be interpreted as 'pristine/primordial' but IS NOT SO because it is RECYCLED STUFF sent there by AGNs/Jets. :)

Oct 05, 2019
Again, for those who have previously got the wrong end of the stick, I am NOT talking of "NEW" matter being created, but of RECYCLED matter being sent to deep space where it later forms nebulae/stars etc which may LOOK 'pristine/primordial' but IN FACT only LOOK like that because it is matter that was deconstructed into subatomic particles which RE-FORMED 'pristine-LOOKING' Hydrogen/Helium nebulae/stars once more....but which are NOT in fact 'pristine/primordial' from (alleged) Big Bang 'Baryogenesis' epoch. I trust that no further misunderstandings will arise on that very important point of distinction. Thanks. :)

Oct 05, 2019
@RealityCheck

Why does it matter then if it's "pristine looking" or not?
Is there some significance to it being "pristine looking"?

Again how do you determine if it's "pristine looking matter" in this case?

Oct 05, 2019
Don' you realise how silly that sounds? Don't you realise that INTERGALACTIC space means INTRA-CLUSTER space as well when galaxies are within a cluster? Mate, please calm down, take a deep breath, let your personal prejudices/anger/frustrations go, engage anew with the OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC METHOD PRINCIPLES. Good luck. :)


Nope. It is of no significance whatsoever.

Oct 05, 2019
@RealityCheck

From what I've read you've been saying "all along" that these jets act like particle colliders.
What a profound statement. Things moving, colliding. Who would have thought it!?

Where is your data and research on this? Or was this just an amazing hunch you had one day and decided to offer it as fact with no proof.

Thank god we have you here to tell us what you already knew all along.

Oct 05, 2019
@jimmybobber.
@RealityCheck

Why does it matter then if it's "pristine looking" or not?
Is there some significance to it being "pristine looking"?

Again how do you determine if it's "pristine looking matter" in this case?
First please read my previous post to you which was submitted while you were composing yours. :)

I now draw your attention to the crucial matter of cosmology hypotheses/theories, which depend on observations to make assumptions/interpretations etc when constructing/testing such. Here is the crux: IF the nebulae/stars/clusters observed around galaxies and in deep intergalactic space are NOT actually 'Big Bang epoch' material, THEN the hypotheses/theories and claimed 'supporting evidence' INTERPRETATIONS may NOT BE so supportive of Big Bang-based models after all; including also hypotheses for 'exotic' DM, which may in fact just be ORDINARY 'dark' matter previously sent to deep space over billions of years and only now increasingly detected).

Ok? :)

Oct 05, 2019
@RealityCheck

We are talking about jets. Why is it important to label "pristine looking matter" in these galactic jets???

I think you just like writing overly complicated paragraphs using odd words to try to appear smart. I notice most of your posts can actually be shrunk down to about 5 or 6 words. But that doesn't make you look smart does it? You have to go all thesaurus on it. Thankfully your screen name isn't Joey. You might accidentally call yourself "Baby Kangaroo".

In fact I'm going to start calling you Baby Kangaroo.

eg:
"IN FACT only LOOK like that because it is matter that was deconstructed into subatomic particles which RE-FORMED 'pristine-LOOKING' Hydrogen/Helium nebulae/stars once more....but which are NOT in fact 'pristine/primordial' from (alleged) Big Bang 'Baryogenesis' epoch. "

Oct 05, 2019
@jimmybobber.
Thank god we have you here to tell us what you already knew all along
That sort of attitude/simplistic sarcasm is beneath you, mate. Ditch it. Try to gather ALL the context and then think about the many relevant sub-issues within that fuller context, not just the bits you have been privy to 'piecemeal' so far, as prejudiced by other's misunderstandings and trolling which you may have been influenced by. Ok?

The point was longstanding: matter has been deconstructed/recycled and sent to deep space over billions of years by trillions of AGNs/Jets/Winds systems all over the observable universe. The question naturally arises: Why has all that matter not been allowed for in the various hypotheses and interpretations of galaxy motions? and why do we require 'exotic' DM to explain the observed motions when all that ORDINARY DM stuff is obviously out there all over and being increasingly found via newer/better scopes/reviews? That's all I have been pointing out. OK? :)

Oct 05, 2019
Answer my questions.

Why do you feel the need to refer "pristine looking matter" when speaking about the jets?
How do you determine this matter is "pristine looking"?

Oct 05, 2019
@jimmybobber.
@RealityCheck

We are talking about jets. Why is it important to label "pristine looking matter" in these galactic jets???
The point is WHERE THAT MATERIAL ENDS UP. Please excuse the capitalisations there...but sometimes it seems that people do not actually read/understand properly otherwise. :)

Why do you feel the need to refer "pristine looking matter" when speaking about the jets?
How do you determine this matter is "pristine looking"?
The Jets/Winds are INCIDENTAL, as the 'vehicle/process' that SENDS recycled matter to deep space which then reforms into 'pristine looking' stuff NOT from (alleged) Big Bang genesis epoch. Understand?
The material in DEEP SPACE is what matters to cosmological theory because it's this material that determines what we 'interpret' the observations as being, ordinary or exotic matter etc; or pristine/primordial or recycled matter. Think out it for a while now you have that fuller context. :)

Oct 05, 2019
Christ almighty! What the hell is pristine matter?????? How are you distinguishing the age of a bloody proton? Has it formed from neutron decay 10 minutes ago, or has it been hanging around for gigayears?

Oct 05, 2019
So where does this matter end up and how does one determine whether its recycled?

Wait. What does the where the jet matter end up have to do with neutrinos and jets in this article?


Oct 05, 2019
@Castrogiovanni.
Christ almighty! What the hell is pristine matter?????? How are you distinguishing the age of a bloody proton? Has it formed from neutron decay 10 minutes ago, or has it been hanging around for gigayears?
I have been patient with you, mate; but there is a limit. Can't you get it straight? It's NOT 'pristine', but 'pristine-looking' that is the crucial distinction that affects the interpretations of what we observe in deep space as nebulae/stars clusters etc because IF they are NOT 'pristine' from alleged Big Bang baryogenesis epoch, then they are NOT as have been interpreted as supporting Big Bang hypotheses/timelines etc. And moreover, once one realises all that recycled ORDINARY stuff has been going to deep space for billions of years from trillions of galaxies all over the universe, then the 'exotic' DM hypotheses/interpretations are also compromised. Get it yet? :)

Oct 05, 2019
And wtf does any of that have to do with this article.

"Pristine looking matter" lol

Oct 05, 2019
@jimmybobber.
So where does this matter end up and how does one determine whether its recycled?

Wait. What does the where the jet matter end up have to do with neutrinos and jets in this article?

And wtf does any of that have to do with this article.
*Sigh* Doesn't anyone actually read/understand in fuller context anymore? Mate, the article spoke of material being sent to inter-galactic space. That is the part I was commenting on and reminding @RNP et al about; because they have for a long time been rude and denialist when I tried to point out THAT part of the process involving recycling material and sending it to deep space to reform into pristine-looking (again NOT "new") Hydrogen/Helium nebulae/stars/clusters which may be MISTAKENLY interpreted as being 'primordial' material/structures which have not been significantly evolved/interacted since (alleged) Big Bang epoch Baryogenesis. It's subtle/complex issue, and requires more deep thinking. Stop and think about it. :)

Oct 05, 2019
@realitycheck
It seems like your saying that scientists are fooled by this "pristine looking matter" into thinking stars/nebulae/clusters are younger than they appear.

Do you know how scientists determine the generation stars belong to?

You still haven't answered how you determine if matter is "pristine looking"

Oct 05, 2019
@jimmybobber.
@realitycheck
It seems like your saying that scientists are fooled by this "pristine looking matter" into thinking stars/nebulae/clusters are younger than they appear.
No, it's the exact opposite! The more 'primordial' nebulae/stars look to astrophysicists, the MORE UN-EVOLVED they are interpreted as being since their material (Hydrogen) first formed in the EARLIEST Big Bang 'baryogenesis' epoch. That is the point: IF they looked 'primordial' because they are mainly Hydrogen (hardly any 'metals' as they term it) THEN we don't actually know which they are made of: actual primordial/pristine Hydrogen OR merely recycled/pristine-looking Hydrogen. I trust you understand the point now? :)

Oct 05, 2019
I meant younger as earlier. The younger universe. My bad for not being specific enough.

Oct 05, 2019
I have been patient with you, mate; but there is a limit. Can't you get it straight? It's NOT 'pristine', but 'pristine-looking' that is the crucial distinction that affects the interpretations of what we observe in deep space as nebulae/stars clusters etc because IF they are NOT 'pristine' from alleged Big Bang baryogenesis epoch, then they are NOT as have been interpreted as supporting Big Bang hypotheses/timelines etc. And moreover, once one realises all that recycled ORDINARY stuff has been going to deep space for billions of years from trillions of galaxies all over the universe, then the 'exotic' DM hypotheses/interpretations are also compromised. Get it yet? :)


What look 'pristine'? What the hell are you talking about?

Oct 05, 2019
@jimmybobber.
I meant younger as earlier.
I trust you also got the point about mistaken interpretations of observed nebulae/stars etc as to their 'age' and 'provenance' can mislead hypotheses/theories based on such unreliable interpretations? :)

Oct 05, 2019
*Sigh* Doesn't anyone actually read/understand in fuller context anymore? Mate, the article spoke of material being sent to inter-galactic space. That is the part I was commenting on and reminding @RNP et al about; because they have for a long time been rude and denialist when I tried to point out THAT part of the process involving recycling material and sending it to deep space to reform into pristine-looking (again NOT "new") Hydrogen/Helium nebulae/stars/clusters which may be MISTAKENLY interpreted as being 'primordial' material/structures which have not been significantly evolved/interacted since (alleged) Big Bang epoch Baryogenesis. It's subtle/complex issue, and requires more deep thinking. Stop and think about it. :)


Total gibberish.

Oct 05, 2019
I'm pretty sure scientists can figure out the proper generation of stars.
Any data to back up your claim that they are incorrect?

Oct 05, 2019
@jimmybobber.
I meant younger as earlier.
I trust you also got the point about mistaken interpretations of observed nebulae/stars etc as to their 'age' and 'provenance' can mislead hypotheses/theories based on such unreliable interpretations? :)


Nope. Complete and utter nonsense.

Oct 05, 2019
I'm pretty sure scientists can figure out the proper generation of stars.
Any data to back up your claim that they are incorrect?


Of course he hasn't! He's making it up. We see low metallicity star formation at high redshift. So, somehow these stars impossibly formed from relativistic cosmic rays, have also learned how to mimic high z! Complete bollocks, of course, but it passes away a crap night on TV!

Oct 05, 2019
@Castrogiovanni.

Mate, if you're going to be so obtuse and/or not read/understand all that has already been said to you and @jimmybobber in context, then why should anyone bother with you at all. Have tried to be patient and polite and stuck to the points made, but you keep being either rude and/or just plain lazy about your own responsibilities re your side of the conversation. It has all been explained, but you seem as usual emotional/personal rather than objective and fair. Please do better; as these matters are important to advancing cosmological interpretations/theory. Don't demean the subject or the science by knee jerking/insulting instead of objectively and fairly doing your bit to try and understand what has been posted already. Thanks. Good luck. :)

Oct 05, 2019
@Castrogiovanni.

Mate, if you're going to be so obtuse and/or not read/understand all that has already been said to you and @jimmybobber in context, then why should anyone bother with you at all. Have tried to be patient and polite and stuck to the points made, but you keep being either rude and/or just plain lazy about your own responsibilities re your side of the conversation. It has all been explained, but you seem as usual emotional/personal rather than objective and fair. Please do better; as these matters are important to advancing cosmological interpretations/theory. Don't demean the subject or the science by knee jerking/insulting instead of objectively and fairly doing your bit to try and understand what has been posted already. Thanks. Good luck. :)


Nothing has been explained, other than your scientific illiteracy.

Oct 05, 2019
@Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good me and the family is good too, thanks for asking.

I trust you also got the point
You are a very trusting couyon Cher. I mistrust anybody who did get the point from you.

about mistaken interpretations of observed nebulae/stars etc as to their 'age' and 'provenance' can mislead hypotheses/theories based on such unreliable interpretations?
I would not be drawing too much attention to the unreliable interpreting Cher. You can't even tell how to tell us which stuff is pristine and which stuff is pristine looking. Until you know how to tell them apart, you might want to hold off on the crankpot interpreting, eh?

Laissez les bons temps rouler Skippy. (That's coonass for: You are the most Pristine Looking Couyon like I never did see before.)

Oct 05, 2019
@jimmybobber.
I'm pretty sure scientists can figure out the proper generation of stars.
Any data to back up your claim that they are incorrect?
That is exactly the problem, mate; they can already determine what 'category' of stars the observed features fall under....BUT they cannot be sure of whether a particular categorisation is the real thing (ie, dating from earliest Big Bang epoch OR dating from SUBSEQUENT epochs but 'looking like' they were from earliest BB epoch) Do you understand? Unless they actually know the 'provenance' of whatever they are looking at, then just because it is 'low-metals' Hydrogen nebulae/stars, it MAY NOT MEAN that they're early-BB stars/nebulae, but more recent nebulae/stars made from more relatively-recently 'recycled material' from existing material deconstructed into protons etc and reformed into Hydrogen in deep space to which the recycling AGNs/Jets etc SENT it long after earliest (alleged) BB epoch. Ok? :)

Oct 05, 2019
@jimmybobber.
I'm pretty sure scientists can figure out the proper generation of stars.
Any data to back up your claim that they are incorrect?
That is exactly the problem, mate; they can already determine what 'category' of stars the observed features fall under....BUT they cannot be sure of whether a particular categorisation is the real thing (ie, dating from earliest Big Bang epoch OR dating from SUBSEQUENT epochs but 'looking like' they were from earliest BB epoch) Do you understand? Unless they actually know the 'provenance' of whatever they are looking at, then just because it is 'low-metals' Hydrogen nebulae/stars, it MAY NOT MEAN that they're early-BB stars/nebulae, but more recent nebulae/stars made from more relatively-recently 'recycled material' which was previously deconstructed into protons etc and reformed into Hydrogen in deep space to which the recycling AGNs/Jets etc SENT it long after earliest (alleged) BB epoch. Ok? :)


Redshift. Look it up.

Oct 05, 2019
@RealityCheck

Come on dude. It's clear what your trying to do. Your trying to discount data by introducing the possibility it may not be 100 percent accurate. This is because the data doesnt support your own beliefs.

Oct 05, 2019
@Uncle Ira.
You can't even tell how to tell us which stuff is pristine and which stuff is pristine looking. Until you know how to tell them apart, you might want to hold off on the crankpot interpreting, eh?
You got it, Ira! Congratulations on your comprehension breakthrough. :)

Yes, that was my point: NO ONE can be certain of their interpretation UNLESS they actually KNOW the 'provenance' of the Hydrogen nebulae/stars they are looking at and interpreting as to 'age'. The problem now is to find ways to check whether the nebulae/stars were the result of recycled material more recently OR actually were very old material which has had no significant evolution/interaction since their material was first formed in the earliest (alleged) Big Bang Baryogenesis epoch. Well done, Ira! :)

@Forum: See that, folks, it's just like the old saying goes: Sometimes there does come wisdom from babes and Uncle Ira-fools. (paraphrased for present context). :)

Oct 05, 2019
You see, here's the thing; scientists aren't dumb. They can look at a star and, regardless of its metallicity, tell how far away it is. This is due to redshift. So, if they see a low metallicity 'B' type star at z = bugger all, then they know that its low metallicity is not due to primordial formation, and will not claim that it is. This is not rocket science.

Oct 05, 2019
@Castrogiovanni.
Redshift. Look it up. You see, here's the thing; scientists aren't dumb. They can look at a star and, regardless of its metallicity, tell how far away it is. This is due to redshift. So, if they see a low metallicity 'B' type star at z = bugger all, then they know that its low metallicity is not due to primordial formation, and will not claim that it is. This is not rocket science.
Have you forgotten the problems which are now increasingly being found with the "Cosmic Distance Ladder' techniques/standard SN candles etc? And the distance estimates/interpretations based on Redshift can also mislead; as that shift can be due to distance and/or mass parameters which may not be known beforehand; so any conclusions are based on unknowns in the first place. Mate, you should have been paying more attention all these years to the evolving reality re the relevant science rather than spend your valuable time/intellect on trolling/insulting me indiscriminately. :)

Oct 05, 2019
estimates/interpretations based on Redshift can also mislead; as that shift can be due to distance and/or mass parameters which may not be known beforehand; so any conclusions are based on unknowns in the first place. Mate, you should have been paying more attention all these years to the evolving reality re the relevant science rather than spend your valuable time/intellect on trolling/insulting me indiscriminately. :)


Nope. You are talking out of your arse again, because you have just been pwned. Again. So now you have to make something else up to cover your embarrassment. Sad.

Oct 05, 2019
@jimmybobber.
@RealityCheck: Come on dude. It's clear what your trying to do. Your trying to discount data by introducing the possibility it may not be 100 percent accurate. This is because the data doesnt support your own beliefs.
Not so; as my posting history will show I follow the objective science not 'beliefs'. Please don't try that blatant mischaracterisation based on your own 'beliefs' and 'prejudices' again. If you aren't fully read up as I am on the whole cosmology science, then try to at least retain some semblance of objectivity and fairness, without using misattributions/mischaracterisations to cover for your own lack of understanding of the full point made in the fuller context and not just the 'piecemeal' bits of context you may have gathered that has also been influenced/tainted by others' misunderstandings/insults. Do better. Thanks. :)

Oct 05, 2019
@RC got lonely again and wants someone to talk to. It hasn't got anything worth talking about because it won't listen to real science, so it trolls.

Simple as that.

Oct 05, 2019
@Castrogiovanni.

Are you seriously admitting to the forum that you haven't been keeping up to date re the many variations to the Supernovae categories which recent discoveries have resulted in? And that you haven't connected the dots for yourself to realise how these new discoveries put in doubt the earlier naive/simplistic interpretations/assumptions/conclusions re Accelerating Expansion, Redshift, etc etc that are part of the supposed 'supporting evidence' for the current BB/Inflation/Expansion etc etc hypotheses? Not good. :)


Oct 05, 2019
estimates/interpretations based on Redshift can also mislead; as that shift can be due to distance and/or mass parameters which may not be known beforehand
@RC, how does distance affect redshift if it's not by expansion? And where are all these masses careening around that no one can see? You reject one hypothesis by making five ridiculous conjectures that are denied by the evidence. It's ludicrous.

Oct 05, 2019
@Castrogiovanni.

Are you seriously admitting to the forum that you haven't been keeping up to date re the many variations to the Supernovae categories which recent discoveries have resulted in? And that you haven't connected the dots for yourself to realise how these new discoveries put in doubt the earlier naive/simplistic interpretations/assumptions/conclusions re Accelerating Expansion, Redshift, etc etc that are part of the supposed 'supporting evidence' for the current BB/Inflation/Expansion etc etc hypotheses? Not good. :)



Stop talking crap. We are talking about redshift you idiot.

Oct 05, 2019
@Castrogiovanni?
Are you seriously admitting to the forum that you haven't been keeping up to date re the many variations to the Supernovae categories which recent discoveries have resulted in? And that you haven't connected the dots for yourself to realise how these new discoveries put in doubt the earlier naive/simplistic interpretations/assumptions/conclusions re Accelerating Expansion, Redshift, etc etc that are part of the supposed 'supporting evidence' for the current BB/Inflation/Expansion etc etc hypotheses? Not good. :)
Stop talking crap. We are talking about redshift you idiot.
Have you always been this restricted in your contextual understanding/discussions, mate? The overall context is that all the current hypotheses depend on all the current assumptions which underlie the whole BB etc hypotheses; which includes the redshift as part of the supposed 'supporting evidence'. Just try and widen your scope to encompass ALL that is being said in context. :)

Oct 05, 2019
Have you always been this restricted in your contextual understanding/discussions, mate? The overall context is that all the current hypotheses depend on all the current assumptions which underlie the whole BB etc hypotheses; which includes the redshift as part of the supposed 'supporting evidence'. Just try and widen your scope to encompass ALL that is being said in context. :)

What the hell would you know? You are clueless. I do not need to listen to idiots like you about astrophysics. You are just another crank.

Oct 05, 2019
@RC, then explain the CMBR without a Big Bang. And explain why older, farther stars have low metallicity when newer, closer stars don't. And explain why older, farther galaxies have higher redshifts. And explain why the abundance of hydrogen and helium and lithium has been predicted by the Big Bang theory. All you have is a bunch of ad-hoc conjectures that aren't supported by the evidence.

Oct 05, 2019
@Da Schneib.
@RC got lonely again and wants someone to talk to. It hasn't got anything worth talking about because it won't listen to real science, so it trolls. Simple as that.
Wasn't it YOU, @DS, that complained (yesterday) when I had to go off-line until next day because I had a busy life off-line? Yes it was, @DS. :)

estimates/interpretations based on Redshift can also mislead; as that shift can be due to distance and/or mass parameters which may not be known beforehand
@RC, how does distance affect redshift if it's not by expansion?
The Objective Scientific Method only requires that falsification is done by observations/logics; there is no need for alternative to be presented during such falsification by observations/logics. :)

And where are all these masses careening around that no one can see?
Where have you been, mate? We are finding a lot of 'previously dark' material everywhere; even whole unsuspected galaxy clusters in voids! Read up. :)

Oct 05, 2019
Four questions you can't answer.

Let's start with the first: the CMBR. Where did that come from, @RC?

Oct 05, 2019
@Castrogiovanni.
Have you always been this restricted in your contextual understanding/discussions, mate? The overall context is that all the current hypotheses depend on all the current assumptions which underlie the whole BB etc hypotheses; which includes the redshift as part of the supposed 'supporting evidence'. Just try and widen your scope to encompass ALL that is being said in context. :)


What the hell would you know? You are clueless. I do not need to listen to idiots like you about astrophysics. You are just another crank.
Come on, mate, stop your hyperventilating and insulting to cover your own lack of knowledge/thinking abilities; as highlighted by your refusal to answer the post I made to you in the thread...

https://phys.org/...kes.html

...in which I made a valid scientific/logical point re 'exotic' DM; which you have been afraid to address lest you will be forced to see your own failings. Chill. :)

Oct 05, 2019
@Da Schneib.
@RC, then explain the CMBR without a Big Bang. And explain why older, farther stars have low metallicity when newer, closer stars don't. And explain why older, farther galaxies have higher redshifts. And explain why the abundance of hydrogen and helium and lithium has been predicted by the Big Bang theory. All you have is a bunch of ad-hoc conjectures that aren't supported by the evidence.

Four questions you can't answer.

Let's start with the first: the CMBR. Where did that come from, @RC?
Where have you been for the last few weeks and months, mate? I answered that already, more than once. Have you had me on 'ignore' again? See, that is what happens when you have the wrong people on 'ignore'. :)

I explained that the CMB radiation is being produced all over the universe all the time by many and diverse processes in deep space and around BHs and AGNs/Jets etc. If you're really interested you will search my posts for said explanations (to Castro, RNP et al).

Oct 05, 2019
ps @Da Schneib.

I now have to go out again today; be back tomorrow to see what has transpired.

pps: Try not to miss me again like you did yesterday, mate. :)

Oct 05, 2019

...in which I made a valid scientific/logical point re 'exotic' DM; which you have been afraid to address lest you will be forced to see your own failings. Chill. :)


You have never made a valid scientific point. You don't understand science.

Oct 05, 2019
You have an unrealistic idea of how many galaxies there are, @RC. They're actually quite rare, overall. There are huge voids with no galaxies in them, and thin filaments surrounding them. Where is this radiation coming from? Not from the voids, that's for sure. There aren't any BHs or AGNs or jets in a void.

Cranks can't count.

Oct 05, 2019
I explained that the CMB radiation is being produced all over the universe all the time by many and diverse processes in deep space and around BHs and AGNs/Jets etc. If you're really interested you will search my posts for said explanations (to Castro, RNP et al).


Diverse processes? With a perfect blackbody spectrum over the whole sky? Stop talking crap.

Oct 05, 2019
Excellent point, @Castro. How do diverse processes create a uniform background? And we're talking uniform to a very high degree. I'll look it up if @RC keeps lying.

Oct 05, 2019
@RealityCheck

You are not objective at all.

Not one bit.


Oct 06, 2019
ps @Da Schneib.

I now have to go out again today; be back tomorrow to see what has transpired.

pps: TRY NOT TO MISS ME AGAIN LIKE YOU DID YESTERDAY, mate. :)

@RC
Fair warning mate, the knob gobbler's aim is off, probably due to him not getting any, since his butt-buddy dumped him, months ago. So, you just might want to invest in a bullet-proof vest and practice your ducking, mate. :)

Oct 14, 2019
@Castrogiovanni.
You have never made a valid scientific point. You don't understand science.
In thread:

https://phys.org/...kes.html

...I made a valid scientific/logical point which you haven't refuted scientifically or logically. Until you do so, my point stands as made therein:
I only have to point to the direct-accretion/collapse scenarios in these articles; then point out that massive BHs and galaxies have been observed in the early universe only a few hundred million years after (alleged) Big Bang; and that IF there were 'exotic' DM (ie, non-EM-interacting; as opposed to the 'ordinary' EM-interacting matter we are increasingly finding all over the place now) THEN LOGICALLY and PHYSICALLY ALL of that 'exotic' DM should have gone straight into those BHs which formed when density was high and no EM-backreaction etc dynamics would be available to delay/eject that 'exotic' DM away from those BHs.
Refute or Concede. :)

Oct 14, 2019
@Da Schneib.
You have an unrealistic idea of how many galaxies there are, @RC. They're actually quite rare, overall. There are huge voids with no galaxies in them, and thin filaments surrounding them. Where is this radiation coming from? Not from the voids, that's for sure. There aren't any BHs or AGNs or jets in a void.
Haven't you been seeing the PO articles reporting discoveries of *whole galaxy clusters* in the so-called 'empty voids' (which were previously labeled so due to our having no telescopes/instruments capable of detecting them until now)?

As for the deep space in all directions (including 'voids'), recent PO reports also confirm that there is a *lot* of *ordinary* matter in various states (gas/plasma, dust, pebbles and so on up the scale) everywhere we look. Hence, along any line-of-sight 'radial' to the edges of the observable universe, there is a lot of materials/processes attenuating/producing CMB wavelengths which 'arrive here' as a Cosmic 'background'. :)

Oct 14, 2019
@Castrogiovanni.
I explained that the CMB radiation is being produced all over the universe all the time by many and diverse processes in deep space and around BHs and AGNs/Jets etc. If you're really interested you will search my posts for said explanations (to Castro, RNP et al).


Diverse processes? With a perfect blackbody spectrum over the whole sky? Stop talking crap.
That has all been explained to you more than once now, mate. Haven't you been reading? The radio telescopes are finding more and more sources all over the universe, practically forming a 'wall' when we look far enough and to the edges of the observable universe; so the sources all 'blend together' once resolvable 'foreground sources' are allowed for. Then there is all that newly discovered dust and gas/plasma everywhere we look, even in so-called voids (which are now known to contain whole galaxy clusters and the usual intergalactic dust/gas/plasma they imply).

ps: Also see my post to DS. :)

Oct 14, 2019
@jimmybobber.
@RealityCheck

You are not objective at all.

Not one bit.

Your unsubstantiated opinion duly noted. Perhaps it might help you form a more informed and correct opinion if you actually researched my posting history and compared it to the posting histories of yourself and other detractors. You will find that I have maintained my strictly independent and scrupulously objective/fairminded policy and commentary despite the most egregious provocations from 'any and all sides' of any issue discussed. I follow the objective scientific method principles and practices, while my detractors all too often not so much. In any case, I am the one being increasingly confirmed correct while my detractors trolled me while they were not correct. That should tell the readers who is objective; and who is merely making unsubstantiated opinion. I also do not play the ratings game because I do impartial 'reality checks'. Good luck in your future research/discussions, mate. :)

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