Are all dissenting voices cranky ?

[Daecon]

Well they're evidence of something, so what do you think they're evidence of? You keep pretending to be an expert, so let's hear your "expert" opinion.

 

[paddoboy]

He can be saved. Learning cosmology takes time and it is tempting to want to write your own, heck I have fallen into that trap, but the key is to realise othersmay know more.
Alex

I don't share your confidence Alex.
While there are isolated parts of cosmology that different folk may not be attracted to in the first instant, may be a reasonable scenario, to have some one totally against all of it, from doubt and questions on our unitary stellar system, to orbiting the galactic center, and onto refusal to accept the near certain aspects that GR presents including BH's, and then wallowing in the cesspool and claiming that reputable notable experiments such as GP-B, and aLIGO are fraudulent, speaks of a mind totally brainwashed in his magical spaghetti monster of choice and the overlords that he works for, probably begun in his young school days.

 

[paddoboy]

Is it necessary for me to give the alternative ?;/QUOTE]
Sure it is, if one stands and preaches nonsense re the incumbent model.

Let us talk about G2 cloud. We have an Xray source at/near Galactic Center Sgr*, supposed be a massive BH. Then G2 cloud was detected and based on our BH thinking certain predictions were made about G2. These predictions failed.

Should that not call for a rethink on BHs ?
Secondly there is no fully accpeted and firm opinion about AGN, it is just in the realms of hypos only.

No rethink on BH's necessary. A mystery of sorts certainly, and the professionals are working on that. With open minds btw.
One line of reasoning I heard was they think it may have had a star imbedded withing the cloud.
But most sensible people are not jumping to agenda driven conclusions like you and immediatly questioning BH's.
Perhaps you have heard of the Pioneer anomaly and whether we would need to re model gravity?
Of course more mundane reasons were found.
Are you into many conspiracies my friend?

 

[paddoboy]

Is it necessary for me to give the alternative ?
Let us talk about G2 cloud. We have an Xray source at/near Galactic Center Sgr*, supposed be a massive BH. Then G2 cloud was detected and based on our BH thinking certain predictions were made about G2. These predictions failed.

Should that not call for a rethink on BHs ?
Secondly there is no fully accpeted and firm opinion about AGN, it is just in the realms of hypos only.

Yes, lets......
No rethink on BH's necessary. A mystery of sorts certainly, and the professionals are working on that. With open minds btw.
One line of reasoning I heard was they think it may have had a star imbedded withing the cloud.
But most sensible people are not jumping to agenda driven conclusions like you and immediatly questioning BH's.
Perhaps you have heard of the Pioneer anomaly and whether we would need to re model gravity?
Of course more mundane reasons were found.
Are you into many conspiracies my friend?

 

[James R]

Is it necessary for me to give the alternative ?

Yes. The evidence for black holes is overwhelming. You need a very massive, very compact source of gravity. Nothing else fits the bill, as far as I am aware.

Also, in many other respects, the general theory of relativity is phenomenally successful. Unless you have an alternative that does the job better, then GR remains our best theory of what is out there.

 

[paddoboy]

Its very simple, because most of the people (barring a few, pl see Daecon's last post) feel that mainstream cannot be wrong. This kind of blind faith leads to tremendous heart burning when some one talks opposite.

No, that's nonsense on both counts.
The mainstream certainly can be wrong, and I'm posting threads every day on how models/theories, are constantly being revised.
But they are being done by expert professionals.
It wasn't our few foolish trolls on this forum that debunked scientifically the BICEP2 experiment...Sure we had some that said they didn't accept the results, but the law of averages tells us that if some are inclined to deride new results and interpretations constantly, and at every opportunity, that in time, they will jag a winner.
It was of course mainstream science itself that showed the result to be faulty.

The heart burn of course has been evident in your threads constantly being shifted out of science, and then you starting threads to attempt to castigate our evil mods and express your indignation as to all us Idiots that have actually just all been trying to remove your total blinkered view on 21st century cosmology.
Certainly no heart burn on my part, since every claim I have made in recent times, has the backing and support of observational and experimental data, as conducted according to the scientific method and peer review, which you also seem to reject and then fabricate some nonsensical conspiracy.

 

[Ophiolite]

I thought you were getting to the point. The current point highlights what are the physical laws which get violated by the existence of Black Holes.


And please note Buchdahl limit is in the mainframe phyisics.

So my case is that if a stable star cannot exist bellow 9/8Rs, then where is the possibility of Black Hole formation. Rpenner too agrees to the instability aspect below these limits.

So now the argument should boiled down to a simple English word ...stable star...what I am saying is are we required to play with the word 'stable' to keep the concept of BH alive.

Stable stars don't collapse. What do you imagine unstable stars do? Please answer without your usual bile.

 

[paddoboy]

Secondly there is no fully accpeted and firm opinion about AGN, it is just in the realms of hypos only.

Totally false. AGN, are well accepted on evidence available and current knowledge, to simply be BH's in a feeding frenzy.

 

[Ophiolite]

Because being the crank you are, you will dismiss all references and papers as "pop science"
Like I said, I posted at least a dozen papers in the aLIGO thread.
You are not worth the time or effort to link to them here.
As a nobody, you remain a nobody.

It might be worth posting the link for the lurkers. I don't entertain the view that The God can be turned towards sanity, but I do think lurkers can be educated away from any risk of believing his inarticulate nonsense.

 

[Ophiolite]

You have understood by now that we know nothing about what happens inside EH, so you name it spaghettifcation or noodlefication or soupification or roastification.

You generally either ignore or fail to understand many posts, so I shall repeat an observation I made earlier. Point of information:I am an ignorant bastard. My understanding was that spaghettification occurred as one made a close approach to the event horizon, not after one had passed it. Will you now educate me and correct this misunderstanding?

 

[Ophiolite]

Two stars in binary composition cannot become binary BHs.

Why not? And I expect proper citation from reputable, peer reviewed journals, or a tightly argued case based upon accepted astrophysics and with all appropriate maths. On the face of it this is the dumbest thing you have said so far.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

THE GOD is on a short holiday it seems back less than 24hours.
Alex

 

[paddoboy]

It might be worth posting the link for the lurkers. I don't entertain the view that The God can be turned towards sanity, but I do think lurkers can be educated away from any risk of believing his inarticulate nonsense.

I agree actually......

 

[paddoboy]

http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102

https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P1500213/public/main (comparing event GW150914 to General Relativity)

https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P1500217/public/main (how often do pairs of black holes merge?)

https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P1500218/public/main (more details of analysis)

https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P1500222/public/main (GW background noise and black hole mergers)

https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P1500227/public/main (coming next week, search in space for origin of signal)

https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P1500229/public/main (alternate analysis)

https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P1500237/public/main (design details of LIGO)

https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P1500238/public/main (comparing event GW150914 to noise)

https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P1500248/public/main (calibration details of LIGO)

https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P1500262/public/main (how event GW150914 demonstrates binary black holes and thoughts about how they form)

https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P1500269/public/main (statistics on search for merger of black holes)


http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102 (open access PDF of paper available) → http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.03837

Other LIGO publications referenced in the above.
https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P1500213/public/main (comparing event GW150914 to General Relativity) → http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.03841
https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P1500217/public/main (how often do pairs of black holes merge?) → http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.03842
https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P1500218/public/main (more details of analysis) →http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.03840
https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P1500222/public/main (GW background noise and black hole mergers) → http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.03847
https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P1500227/public/main (coming next week, search in space for origin of signal)
https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P1500229/public/main (alternate analysis) →http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.03843
https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P1500237/public/main (design details of LIGO) →http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.03838
https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P1500238/public/main (comparing event GW150914 to noise) → http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.03844
https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P1500248/public/main (calibration details of LIGO) →http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.03845
https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P1500262/public/main (how event GW150914 demonstrates binary black holes and thoughts about how they form) →http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.03846
https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P1500269/public/main (statistics on search for merger of black holes) → http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.03839

From http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.03837 (The PRL paper)

Here's another angle on the news......
http://www.nature.com/news/einstein-s-gravitational-waves-found-at-last-1.19361

http://www.nature.com/news/gravitational-waves-6-cosmic-questions-they-can-tackle-1.19337

One of the important scientific consequences of LIGO’s detection of a black-hole merger is, quite simply, that it confirms that black holes really do exist — at least as the perfectly round objects made of pure, empty, warped space-time that are predicted by general relativity.



http://www.nature.com/news/the-black-hole-collision-that-reshaped-physics-1.19612
"The LIGO and Virgo teams soon went to work extracting every bit of information possible. At the most fundamental level, the signal gave them an existence proof:the fact that the objects came so close to each other before merging meant that they had to be black holes, because ordinary stars would need to be much bigger. “It is, I think, the clearest indication that black holes are really there,” says Penrose".



https://www.spacetelescope.org/news/heic1116/

Hubble directly observes the disc around a black hole
4 November 2011




A team of scientists has used the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope to observe a quasar accretion disc — a brightly glowing disc of matter that is slowly being sucked into its galaxy’s central black hole. Their study makes use of a novel technique that uses gravitational lensing to give an immense boost to the power of the telescope. The incredible precision of the method has allowed astronomers to directly measure the disc’s size and plot the temperature across different parts of the disc.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...ONS&db_key=PRE
GRB_ 2016ApJ...821L..18P,2016arXiv160302848M, 2016ApJ...819L..21L.


http://arxiv.org/abs/1606.00314
GRB linked to GW150914 was just noise...


Most of those papers were linked by rpenner and a few by myself.

 

[paddoboy]

Why not? And I expect proper citation from reputable, peer reviewed journals, or a tightly argued case based upon accepted astrophysics and with all appropriate maths. On the face of it this is the dumbest thing you have said so far.

Not real sure if that's the dumbest thing he has said.....we have had some recent clangers! One that had me spurting coffee on the computer screen, was not recognising the "BH has no hair" theorem.

 

[paddoboy]

James R sparkled a bit but could not hold on.

While I have some disagreement with James on the way that nuts and cranks are given relatively free hand on this forum, James is treating you with kid gloves, and in reality would play you off a break.
Your arrogance in not yet recognising that fact is mind boggling to say the least.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Well... Since, The God, is on a short vacation...

Einstein was wrong! Black holes do exist but they're too damned confusing. My thought would be that Einstein was wrong in the same fashion Newton was wrong - we lack the knowledge for anything better.

 

[paddoboy]

So you see, barring Rpenner, almost all the posts by others lacks the deeper understanding of the subject in hand.

That of course also means you. The difference being of course is that you deride that which you do not fully understand, nor have any deeper understanding of.

Most vociferous of all, Paddoboy, he dismissed Smoller etc, because he did not understand what they were saying.

Obviously again, nether did you, as pointed out by rpenner. All I said was that they were not in anyway invalidating BH's and I was correct.

I too have used some bad words, but mostly I do not cross the limit on abuses.

When in fact you have been the only one to have ever crossed those limitations in abuse and disgusting inferences.

I started at the age of 23 or so after my post graduation, worked with someone till 27, resigned and started my business thereafter and at the age of 43 I handed over my business to others and since then keeping myself out of day today business scenario. I make lot of money through them and I spend a good fraction on charity. You find my mention of charity as bad, because you think that charity etc should be done secretive or discrete. Why ? I have a different opinion, by my being open about charity, I could get many associates into charity and number is increasing, a very big advantage for underpriviledged.

That's highly admirable....If true. Do I doubt your word? I most certainly do.
I see someone who has come here berating not just some of cosmology, but all of it, with an obvious religious agenda, and that has been rightly crucified because of the incorrect and mistaken views he has posted.
All your admirable claims are designed now to take you down from the cross...or at least quench your thirst some.

This spaghetification nonsense is being spread by Paddoboy for quite sometime, along with his Hamilton river model. It is nothing but popscience nonsense.

That is simply a revelation of your ignorance. The term spaghettification, with regards to BH's has been used ever since GR was formulated and the BH prediction was known. Just as the term "BH's have no hair" or even the term BH itself, which was coined by John Wheeler, simply to avoid the actual tongue twisting correct title of a "Gravitationally Completely Collapsed Object".
Not sure who coined "spaghetticiation but it has even been used in reputable scientific papers, and is in common use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghettification
"spaghettification (sometimes referred to as the noodle effect[1]) is the vertical stretching and horizontal compression of objects into long thin shapes (rather like spaghetti) in a very strong non-homogeneous gravitational field;
Stephen Hawking[2] describes the flight of a fictional astronaut who, passing within a black hole's event horizon, is "stretched like spaghetti" by the gravitational gradient (difference in strength) from head to toe. However, the term "spaghettification" was established well before this".

You have understood by now that we know nothing about what happens inside EH, so you name it spaghettifcation or noodlefication or soupification or roastification. Does it matter ? Its a lollypop for Paddoboy, he wags it time and again. You innocently tagged on this nonsense and got burnt.

I have understood for quite a while now that most of what you claim is total inane rubbish as dictated by your religious agenda and as directed by your overlords.
While information from inside BH's can never be seen or received, we are allowed to make reasonable logical assumptions as has been continually pointed out to you and as agreed by at least three professional replies in a past thread, Professor Hamilton being one of those and from memory, Professor Carlip another.
eg: [1]As per GR, any mass reaching its Schwarzchild radius, will continue to collapse and no known force can stop it, at least up to the quantum/Planck level, where GR is not applicable.[2] If we observe an ergosphere [frame dragging] we can logically assume that we have a spinning, rotating BH.[3] Any object/mass approaching a BH and/or crossing its EH, will be affected by tidal gravitational effects we call spaghettification, and eventual complete disassembling and the overcoming of all forces including the strong nuclear.
These effects could even possibly happen this side of the EH, depending on the size of the BH.

As per usual, when you are cornered and taken to task re your unsupported claims, you quickly then reveal the clown aspect of your nature.

 

[paddoboy]

Well... Since, The God, is on a short vacation...

I missed that. Did he say that?
If so, I predict a return of rajesh, or the reappearance of another less frequent anti cosmology pusher.

 

[Ophiolite]

I missed that. Did he say that?
If so, I predict a return of rajesh, or the reappearance of another less frequent anti cosmology pusher.

One day suspension following my report of his pedophile accusations.