Could Ghost-Like Object Found by Chandra Be Another ‘Voorwerp’?

Article written: 29 May , 2009
Updated: 24 Dec , 2015
by

[/caption]
The Chandra X-ray Observatory has found a cosmic “ghost” lurking around a distant supermassive black hole. Astronomers think this high-energy apparition is evidence of a huge eruption produced by the black hole. But this blue blob looks eerily similar to another cosmic blob of gas found by Galaxy Zoo member Hanny Van Arkel, the famous object called Hanny’s Voorwerp. Could the two objects be similar?

Astronomers say the “ghost” found by Chandra is the remains of a diffuse X-ray source, lingering after other radiation from the black hole’s outburst died away. The object, HDF 130 is over 10 billion light years away and existed at a time 3 billion years after the Big Bang, when galaxies and black holes were forming at a high rate.

Hanny's Voorwerp.  Credit:  Galaxy Zoo

Hanny's Voorwerp. Credit: Galaxy Zoo


Hanny’s Voorwerp has been a mystery ever since it was found in 2007 as part of the Galaxy Zoo project. Recent research on the object reveals that the Voorwerp is also likely to be a remnant from a black hole outburst. In the original Sloan Digital Sky Survey images of Hanny’s Voorwerp, the object showed up as blue, however further spectral analysis showed it is actually green. The Voorwerp was studied by the Swift gamma-ray satellite, which also can pick up ultraviolet and X-ray emissions, but the satellite didn’t come up with anything conclusive. However, the Westerbork Synthesis Radio Telescope (WSRT) took a look at Hanny’s Voorwerp and determined that indeed, black hole jets were allowing beams of intense optical and ultraviolet emissions from the black hole to heat and illuminate a small part of a large gas cloud that partially surrounds the nearby galaxy, IC 2497.

But Galaxy Zoo astronomers suspect X-rays might play a role in the Voorwerp, too. It was recently imaged by the Suzaku X-ray telescopes to see if is visible in that part of the spectrum, as well as to probe the current activity of the supermassive black hole. The results of that observation are still being analyzed. Yale astronomer Kevin Schawinski recently wrote in the Galaxy Zoo Blog that detecting hard X-ray photons would provide evidence of an active supermassive black hole in IC 2497, which would be illuminating the Voorwerp. “If on the other hand we don’t pick up anything, then we can be sure that the black hole has stopped feeding, i.e. it has genuinely shut down,” Schawinski wrote.

So are the two objects, the “ghost” of HDF 130 and Hanny’s Voorwerp similar? Yes – and no – said Chandra scientist Dr. Peter Edmonds.

“There are indeed some basic similarities between these two objects, in that both were generated by eruptions from a supermassive black hole, either in the form of bright radiation or jets, Edmonds told Universe Today.”Also, in both cases the eruption from the black hole seems to have died down.”

The details of the two objects, however, are very different, Edmonds said. “Hanny’s Voorwerp involves a light echo while the X-ray ghost was thought to form by an interaction between the comic background radiation and particles in a jet. They’re obviously seen at very different wavelengths. Also, the ghost is found in the early Universe at much greater distances than Hanny’s Voorwerp and is physically much larger.”

Additionally, the Chandra team suspects a very powerful and large eruption was responsible for the formation of the ghost, much more powerful than the one for Hanny’s Voorwerp.

Andy Fabian of the Cambridge University in the United Kingdom, lead author on the paper on the ghost of HDF 130, thinks the object’s X-ray glow is evidence of an outburst equivalent to about a billion supernovas, which blasted particles at almost the speed of light. When the eruption was ongoing, it produced prodigious amounts of radio and X-radiation, but after several million years, the radio signal faded from view as the electrons radiated away their energy.

This is the first X-ray ghost ever seen after the demise of radio-bright jets. Astronomers have observed extensive X-ray emission with a similar origin, but only from galaxies with radio emission on large scales, signifying continued eruptions. In HDF 130, only a point source is detected in radio images, coinciding with the massive elliptical galaxy seen in its optical image.

This radio source indicates that HDF 130’s supermassive black hole may be growing.

With Hanny’s Voorwerp, however, astronomers are still searching for any sign of activity from the black hole.

Another argument that the two objects are different is their shape. The linear shape of the HDF 130’s X-ray source is consistent with the shape of radio jets and not with that of a galaxy cluster, which is expected to be circular. The energy distribution of the X-rays is also consistent with the interpretation of an X-ray ghost.

WSRT observations of Hanny's Voorwerp.  Credit: ASTRON

WSRT observations of Hanny's Voorwerp. Credit: ASTRON


Hanny’s Voorwerp has all the hallmarks of an interacting system. “The gas probably arises from a tidal interaction between IC 2497 and another galaxy, which occurred several hundred million years ago,” said Dr. Tom Oosterloo, part of the team that studied the Voorwerp with WSRT.

There are more differences between the two objects, primarily that ghosts like the one from HDF 130 may be prevalent in the universe, while the Voorwerp might just be a one-time occurance. “The stream of gas ends three hundred thousand light years westwards of IC2497, and all the evidence points towards a group of galaxies at the tip of the stream being responsible for this freak cosmic accident,” said Oosterloo.

Chandra astronomer Caitlin Casey, also of Cambridge said, “This result hints that the X-ray sky should be littered with such ghosts, especially if black hole eruptions are as common as we think they are in the early Universe.”

So now that astronomers know where and now to look for X-ray objects like the one by HDF 130, we’re likely to hear about more cosmic X-ray ghosts in the future. But Hanny’s Voorwerp appears to be unique.

Sources: Chandra, previous UT article, email exchange with Dr. Peter Edmonds, Galaxy Zoo


71 Responses

  1. Anaconda says

    ” Astronomers think this high-energy apparition is evidence of a huge eruption produced by the black hole.”

    This is a long way away from an object that “not even light” can escape from.

    Of course, this “eruption” is not quantified in any meaninful way.

    Sadly, an open-minded analysis & interpretation of the “object” from observation & measurement has already been compromised because of the assumption of the unquantified “black hole”.

    Here is an example where “modern” astronomy could have stood back and let observation & measurement build over time and then attempt to come to conclusions.

    Instead, the “ghosts of past ‘black hole’ eruptions” is assumed.

    The “black hole” is the Rorschach test of “modern” astronomy.

    You see what you want to.

    Not sure what it is — call it a “black hole something” and the “community” will gladly nod their heads in assent.

    The “black hole” explosion will be the denouncement of “modern” astronomy.

  2. Nereid says

    You really don’t like the idea of black holes at all, do you Anaconda?

    I’m really puzzled as to why this should be.

    I mean, GR (the theory of General Relativity) has been around for almost a century, and has been subject to rather a lot of tests (it has passed all tests, with flying colours), and black holes are entirely consistent with GR.

    Further, SgrA* seems to be an object with a mass of several million sols, in a volume about the size of our solar system; it emits very little, if any, light (electromagnetic radiation/photons) … just what you’d expect if there were a black hole of mass several million sols there.

    Then there are all those high-mass x-ray binaries, whose light emissions have been intensively studied for decades now; again, what is observed is just what you’d expect if one member of the binary were a stellar-mass black hole.

    And to top this off, there are no competing explanations for these many sets of independent observations, of many different objects (in the sense of an explanation which can account for all the relevant observations, quantitatively).

    To date, your objections seem to be two: first, that black holes require (or imply) ‘infinity’, which can’t be ‘quantified’; second, that Crothers has written some stuff which he says shows black holes are inconsistent with GR.

    Yet you have declared, at least once, that you do not understand the math of GR sufficiently well to be able to independently assess either Crothers’ work or that of those who rebut his claims.

    Further, your understanding of ‘infinity’ seems limited to ‘high school’ ideas, and you have, repeatedly, refused to try to learn something about how mathematicians have refined the understanding of this thing, over many centuries.

    Do you see that you have presented critical readers (of your words) with a great deal of objective evidence to doubt your credibility?

  3. star-grazer west coast says

    Anaconda
    Various detectors have recorded incredible energy coming from the main subject of this feed-HDF130– what is your answer what the incredible energy HDF130 is producing?
    Thank you in advance

  4. Torbjorn Larsson OM says

    “This is a long way away from an object that “not even light” can escape from.”

    The emission region is not inside the event horizon of the black hole. The only one who can be seen claiming so is you.

    This isn’t any different from the normal light emission from atoms, which doesn’t emanate from within the nucleus.

    “black holes are entirely consistent with GR”

    True, but I would go one further and claim that black holes are natural consequences of GR. They aren’t any different from the similar object of a charged particle, which also looks like singularities in its effective classical EM theory.

    Anyone who denies a black hole must obviously also deny all matter and all interactions to be consistent in their denial.

  5. ND says

    Anaconda, you’re back with your empty rhetoric, pretending that the previous discussion at another thread never happened. Another UT posting and another opportunity to start the game over once again. And it’s going to happen yet again even after your mistakes have been corrected.

    Anaconda says: “This is a long way away from an object that “not even light” can escape from.”

    You have a very simplistic view of black holes, just like OIM’s “understanding” of gravity. Please take some courses in physics and astronomy so that at least you’ll understand what exactly astronomers are saying before you criticize them.

  6. DrFlimmer says

    Anaconda can’t go to a university. Don’t you get it? Behind the walls of the institutes you get brain washed and learn only to accept what everyone is telling you.
    I wonder that human beings have achieved such things as computers and space probes, when we didn’t change anything since the Middle Age…..

    About the article: Thank you, Nancy. THIS is a ghost story I like to listen to 😉

  7. Member
    IVAN3MAN says

    I think that Anaconda want to the same school as Calvin’s father.

    😉

  8. Member
    IVAN3MAN says

    ERRATUM: That should be went, not “want”. Damn typo! 😐

  9. ND says

    Calvin&Hobbes++ 🙂

    Relativity only works if you’re going west.

    thanks IVAN3MAN

  10. Member
    IVAN3MAN says

    ND, you’re welcome!

    Speaking of Anaconda, he has been conversing recently with OilIsMastery, at OIM’s blog, about pyramids and — get this — ‘advanced’ ancient civilisations — what… Atlantis or aliens? WTF?

  11. Member
    IVAN3MAN says

    Nereid:

    You really don’t like the idea of black holes at all, do you Anaconda?

    I’m really puzzled as to why this should be.

    I think that it is because of this.
    😉

  12. Surak says

    hahahahaha!!!

    Anaconda is back! … He must have thought that a brief absense would somehow make us forget his bizarre and totally unsubstantiated ideas.

    Took awhile for him to lick his wounds and regain his total disconnection with the unreality of his ideas.

    As expected, Anaconda erects a strawman, brutally implying things that are not at all indicated by the article or by the theories that the article is based on … and smacks it out of the park with his great bat of ignorance!

    Way to go Anaconda!!

    Now go away again … preferably to a library. But try reading some of the books from the non-fiction section.

  13. DrFlimmer says

    Now I know, why I missed your contributions to our discussions, lately, Ivan3man 😀

  14. Anaconda says

    @ Nereid:

    Why am I not surprised to find your comment?

    It’s not that I don’t like “black holes”, rather, I find insufficient scientific evidence for their existence. This profiled report short-circuits the scientific process by jumping to the conclusion this is the “ghost” of a “black hole” eruption.

    Using the descriptive word “eruption” only highlights the contradiction: What is an eruption? It is an emission from inside of some object, usually a volcano, of course, we know that an “eruption” from inside a “black hole” is theoretically impossible since not even light can escape.

    Nereid states: “[GR] has been subject to rather a lot of tests (it has passed all tests, with flying colours), and black holes are entirely consistent with GR.

    False.

    One of the prime “tests” would be the detection of “gravitational waves” the prediction of which was made by Einstein as a resulting physical phenomena of GR theory. Yet, these “waves” have never been detected despite the deployment and operation of sensitive detection equipment.

    Nereid states: ” Further, SgrA* seems to be an object with a mass of several million sols, in a volume about the size of our solar system; it emits very little, if any, light (electromagnetic radiation/photons) … just what you’d expect if there were a black hole of mass several million sols there.”

    “…seems to be an object with a mass of several million sols…”

    This assumption rests upon the prime assumption of “modern” astronomy that gravity is the only fundamental force that effects galaxy formation and motion.

    Actually, the galactic center of the Milky Way produces a lot of “light” as any telescopic image of the Milky Way’s Active Galactic nucleus will show, as I’ve linked to in previous posts.

    Nereid states: “Then there are all those high-mass x-ray binaries, whose light emissions have been intensively studied for decades now; again, what is observed is just what you’d expect if one member of the binary were a stellar-mass black hole.

    Again, the assumption is that they are “high mass”, but do we know that? What we know is that binary stars will have an x-ray emitter and a visible light emitter, not that there is a “black hole”.

    As pointed out BY previous posts, Science’s grasp of gravity may not be complete. Science likely doesn’t understand the full dynamics of gravity and the effect of electromagnetism in that dynamic. Assumptions of ultra-high levels of matter are unwarranted.

    Nereid states: “And to top this off, there are no competing explanations for these many sets of independent observations, of many different objects (in the sense of an explanation which can account for all the relevant observations, quantitatively).”

    Again, false.

    You may not agree with Dr. Anthony Peratt’s simulations using electromagnetism or Bostwick’s laboratory experiments with plasmoids that take the form of galaxies, but Peratt’s particle-in-cell simulations are quantified.

    Nereid states: “To date, your objections seem to be two: first, that black holes require (or imply) ‘infinity’, which can’t be ‘quantified’; second, that Crothers has written some stuff which he says shows black holes are inconsistent with GR.”

    Stephen Crothers “stuff” is very detailed and I’ve seen no reasoned refutation.

    But as you point out, one doesn’t have to get to his work to know “black holes” have no foundation of reality because, no matter how many times you try to escape it, “infinity” can’t be quantified by definition. Speaking of “high school”, even high schoolers know it improper to divide by zero which is exactly what “modern” astronomy does to get to their “black hole” assumption — apparently Nereid missed that lesson in high school.

    Nereid states: “Yet you have declared, at least once, that you do not understand the math of GR sufficiently well to be able to independently assess either Crothers’ work or that of those who rebut his claims.”

    Yes, that’s true, but I also haven’t seen ANY detailed, reasoned rebuttal. Nereid, please link a serious scientific paper that refutes Crother’s assessment, not some internet chatter.

    And, again, as stated above, you don’t even have to get to Crothers level of detail to know an object that relies on “infinity” is not a quantified object.

    Nereid states: “Further, your understanding of ‘infinity’ seems limited to ‘high school’ ideas, and you have, repeatedly, refused to try to learn something about how mathematicians have refined the understanding of this thing, over many centuries.”

    Nice try, Nereid, you are in the uncomfortable spot of being the emperors adviser telling spectators, the emperor really does have clothes on.

    Infinity can’t be quantified by definition: That’s the definition.

    You got a definition for infinity that doesn’t mean (paraphrase), “goes on forever”?

    Actually, Nereid, it is you who have little credibility because you defend ANY “black hole” hypothesis no matter how improbable and fanciful. (See post on mini black holes everywhere.)

    star-grazer west coast asks: ‘Various detectors have recorded incredible energy coming from the main subject of this feed-HDF130– what is your answer what the incredible energy HDF130 is producing?”

    My original comment on this thread was clear:

    “Sadly, an open-minded analysis & interpretation of the “object” from observation & measurement has already been compromised because of the assumption of the unquantified “black hole”.

    Here is an example where “modern” astronomy could have stood back and let observation & measurement build over time and then attempt to come to conclusions.”

    So my answer to you is “I don’t know.”

    Science needs more evidence, but if you want me to speculate, I will:

    Possibly, this is the result of electromagnetic currents coming together, possibly even the first tell-tale signs of Birkeland currents coming together to form a very small galaxy, like a “small eddie in a stream”.

    The second image in the post suggests there is a spiral shape in the white “cloud”.

    Torbjorn Larsson OM states: “black holes are entirely consistent with GR.”

    That’s not what Albert Einstein said!

    Torbjorn Larsson OM states: “The emission region is not inside the event horizon of the black hole. The only one who can be seen claiming so is you.”

    But this isn’t even a “black hole”, this is the “ghost” of a “black hole”.

    Whatever “ghost” means???

    Torbjorn Larsson OM states: “True, but I would go one further and claim that black holes are natural consequences of GR.”

    That is simply a “truism” because “black holes” only have their theoretical foundation as a result of GR. It’s circular reasoning in the extreme.

    So-called “black holes”, at this point anyway, are a creature of GR so no surprise.

    You statement is almost meaningless.

    Torbjorn Larsson OM states: “Anyone who denies a black hole must obviously also deny all matter and all interactions to be consistent in their denial.”

    Complete rubbish.

    Larsson states, in other words, “Everybody must believe in “black holes” or they are nuts!

    Larsson, I got to tell you, your comment was perhaps the weakest of them all.

    There are a whole series of scientific objections to “black holes”.

    Certainly, one can object to “black holes” which have never been observed or their ‘event horizon’ and subscribe to physics.

    ND presents my [Anaconda’s] statement: “This is a long way away from an object that “not even light” can escape from.”

    And then ND responds: “You have a very simplistic view of black holes…”

    No, I’m just stating the classical definition. it is “black hole” proponents that keep “moving the goal posts” as new observations come in that directly contradict the classical definition.

    It is rather like Orwell’s book, “Animal Farm” where the definition keeps shifting as the pigs “standing” changes: Until it ends up being “four legs good, two legs better.”

  15. Nereid says

    C’mon everyone, be nice.

    Anaconda seems sincere in his (her?) comments, and has apparently thought a lot about this topic.

    That there’s a huge disconnect between the way he (she?) views science (astronomy, physics) and the way (most of) the rest of us do is certain. It would also seem that this disconnect is somehow related to his view of the relationship between reality and science.

    But what’s curious is from whence do his views come? What is the basis for these views, given that he has only a simple understanding of math, and little concrete knowledge of astronomy?

    You see, unlike davesmith_au, gmirkin, and even solrey, Anaconda seems willing to engage in a discussion (albeit a frustrating one, no doubt for both sides, given how often we talk past each other).

  16. Nereid says

    Wow! What better demonstration of what I just wrote than the May 30th, 2009 at 5:55 am comment by Anaconda?!

    I’ll try once again, Anaconda: are you willing to try to establish a mutually agreed set of basics, on which we can build, with the aim of having a meaningful discussion?

    If so, then I’m willing to continue where we left off in an earlier thread; namely, agreeing on what we mean by ‘observation’, ‘detection’, ‘measurement’, ‘inference’, and so on, and when and where it is appropriate to use modifiers like ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’.

    If not, then please say so explicitly.

    Thank you in advance.

  17. Nereid says

    OK, I’ll also try, in parallel, a slightly different approach to getting to the basis for starting to have a meaningful discussion (I have tried this approach several times before, but to no avail)

    It’s not that I don’t like “black holes”, rather, I find insufficient scientific evidence for their existence.

    What, for you Anaconda, would constitute “sufficient scientific evidence for their [black holes] existence”?

    This is an “in principle” question.

    One reason why I’m particularly interested is that I have concluded that such scientific evidence cannot exist, ever, even in principle (according to what I infer are your criteria, Anaconda, for ‘scientific evidence’).

    You see, you believe that black holes involve “infinity”, which you have stated, many times, is inconsistent with what you understand to be science, so black holes cannot ever have sufficient scientific evidence for their existence, because they cannot exist, by (your) definition.

    This is one area where communication breaks down; your comments seem to contain intolerable internal contradictions (yet you seem unwilling to explore them).

    (That your belief is entirely misplaced – black holes do not involve the ‘infinity’ of your comments – is beside the point here; to understand why you are wrong in your belief requires maths far beyond that which you can grok, as Lawrence B. Crowell has demonstrated, several times.)

  18. Anaconda says

    @ Nereid:

    I don’t mind the “ribbing” I receive, here, I’m a big boy (hint) and can take a little personal abuse (humor at my expense), it’s the repetitive abuse, i.e., Salacious B. Crumb’s style that does get wearisome (as it’s intended to be).

    Yes, I do try and respond to comments, although, occasional I get interrupted.

    Nereid states: “I’ll try once again, Anaconda: are you willing to try to establish a mutually agreed set of basics, on which we can build, with the aim of having a meaningful discussion?”

    This is a distraction and a diversion from my rejoinder to your broadside (which in itself was a distraction from my orginal comment).

    Where is your response to my statement(s) about the poor word choic of “eruption” in the post?

    Where your response to my criticism of the concept of “ghost”?

    What is “ghost” or “apparition” supposed to mean? Nereid, you failed to answer my criticism that “ghost” is unquantified.

    Would you be willing to offer what you think the quantified definition of “ghost” is?

    The best way to engage in a definitional discussion is to relate it to the post at hand (to stay on ‘topic’ if nothing else).

    Nereid asks: “What, for you Anaconda, would constitute “sufficient scientific evidence for their [black holes] existence“?”

    That’s hard to answer because so far, it would appear that the so-called “black hole” hypothesis is non-falsifiable. Kind of like proving that pink unicorns don’t exist out in the yard under the bushes.

    Do you have a test that would falsify “black holes”?

    The best falsification I can come up with is the constantly “evolving” ad hoc layers that are added to the “black hole” hypothesis as new and seemingly contradictory observations are made.

    It seems by definition “black holes” and their “event horizon” can’t be observed (how convenient).

    Nereid states: “One reason why I’m particularly interested is that I have concluded that such scientific evidence cannot exist, ever, even in principle [from Anaconda’s viewpoint].

    Well, that is a reasonable question. But the basic test in Science as Carl Popper stated (correctly in my opinion) is falsifiability.

    And given your defense of “mini black holes everywhere” I don’t believe you have a test that would falsify “black holes”.

    I’ll have to think about your question.

    Nereid, the burden of evidence is on the proponents of “black holes” to show they exist and establish a test that would falsify “black holes” existence.

    You would have me “prove a negative” that’s hard to do.

    Nereid states: “This is one area where communication breaks down; your comments seem to contain intolerable internal contradictions.”

    Nereid, you haven’t looked in the mirror lately.

    Nereid states: “That your belief is entirely misplaced – black holes do not involve the ‘infinity’ of your comments – is beside the point here; to understand why you are wrong in your belief requires maths far beyond that which you can grok, as Lawrence B. Crowell has demonstrated, several times.”

    Then why do ALL the sites that state what a “black hole” is and define it use “infinity”?

    Yes, I saw Crowell’s response and at least he tried to answer the question while most others ignored the argument (even you, by trying to get away with the idea that “infinity” doesn’t really mean infinity), but this “duality” proposed by Wheeler (the person who coined the term “black hole”) seems like “double talk” designed to distract and pacify the few who have the insight to raise the “infinity” question, while the rest of “modern” astronomy keep on using the “infinity” definition.

    Why keep using the “infinity” definition of a singularity if it doesn’t correspond to a physical reality? Because Wheeler’s “duality” substitution is even less satisfying and can’t be sold as easily as the “infinity” defnition.

    Wheeler’s “duality” argument is clearly an ad hoc cover-up.

    I’d be more open to this “duality” principle if all references to “infinity” were deleted from the definitions given for “black holes”.

    A “singularity” is a mathematical fiction.

    Yes, mathematics can provide fiction as well as defined relationships between objects.

    Mathematics is a two edged sword: It’s very precise, but because of that precision, it can also be precisely wrong as well.

  19. Nereid says

    One more attempt at “infinity”.

    Earlier I introduced the idea that if the electron is a point particle, then its mass density is infinite, as is its charge density.

    Anaconda responded along the lines of “science doesn’t know what the electron is, so cannot say it’s a point particle, hence infinite charge density is irrelevant.”

    OK, so what happens when we apply the same logic to black holes?

    Could we say that “science doesn’t know anything about what’s inside the event horizon of a black hole, hence singularity (infinity) is irrelevant”?

    After all, the logic is identical (at this level), isn’t it?

  20. Nereid says

    I thought we’d long since address the following, but apparently not …

    This is a distraction and a diversion from my rejoinder to your broadside (which in itself was a distraction from my orginal comment).

    Where is your response to my statement(s) about the poor word choic of “eruption” in the post?

    Where your response to my criticism of the concept of “ghost”?

    What is “ghost” or “apparition” supposed to mean? Nereid, you failed to answer my criticism that “ghost” is unquantified.

    Would you be willing to offer what you think the quantified definition of “ghost” is?

    Anaconda, the primary source material for science is papers which are published in relevant peer-reviewed journals, is it not?

    (Or, if you prefer, the raw data that are output from various instruments, together with the equations and definitions that comprise theories and models.)

    What is written in UT stories, Press Releases from NASA or a university, and so on is not, and never can be, the primary materials; agreed?

    If so, then it follows that to discuss “eruption”, “ghost”, “apparition”, etc, as science, we would need to refer to the relevant papers, wouldn’t we?

    Is that what you’d like to do?

    Then why do ALL the sites that state what a “black hole” is and define it use “infinity”?

    I don’t know (taking your word, for now, that ALL of “the sites” do).

    But who cares?

    What counts, in the end, is what the relevant theory says, whether the derivations are accurate, etc.

    Or have I glimpsed part of the reason for the huge disconnect here? Do you honestly think that what you read on websites is the actual science?!?! :O

    (Except, of course, where those websites give you the actual, peer-reviewed, published papers)

    Do you have a test that would falsify “black holes”?

    Sure, lots.

    For example, detailed observations of the immediate regions around an object whose mass and density should make it a black hole (per theory), with sufficient resolution: if such observations (repeated by independent teams, preferably using different methods) were inconsistent with what GR predicts, then ‘black holes’ would be falsified (at least those of this mass).

    Another example: same class of object observed where lots of mass is ‘falling’ onto it (i.e. crossing, or getting asymptomatically close to, the event horizon); the observational signature of such events is well-defined, so if not found (at the many sigma level) then ‘black holes’ would be falsified (at least those of this mass).

  21. Nereid says

    Now here’s another possible insight …

    Yes, I saw Crowell’s response and at least he tried to answer the question while most others ignored the argument (even you, by trying to get away with the idea that “infinity” doesn’t really mean infinity), but this “duality” proposed by Wheeler (the person who coined the term “black hole”) seems like “double talk” designed to distract and pacify the few who have the insight to raise the “infinity” question, while the rest of “modern” astronomy keep on using the “infinity” definition.

    Why keep using the “infinity” definition of a singularity if it doesn’t correspond to a physical reality? Because Wheeler’s “duality” substitution is even less satisfying and can’t be sold as easily as the “infinity” defnition.

    Wheeler’s “duality” argument is clearly an ad hoc cover-up.

    I’d be more open to this “duality” principle if all references to “infinity” were deleted from the definitions given for “black holes”.

    (I added some bold)

    wrt the bold part: yes, I’ve recognised for some time that, deep down, you view the relationship between science and ‘reality’ quite differently to most of the scientists I know (and most of those who’ve written comments or posts on this topic, in internet discussion fora I have hung out in). And one day, maybe, we’ll get to try to discuss it (but not now, not here).

    For the rest, have you considered the possibility that your views may be mistaken? And that some of the errors may be traced to an inadequate grasp of the relevant mathematics (the math which underlies the physics)?

    It would seem, for example, that the only person who doesn’t recognise just how sketchy and flawed your view of “infinity” is is yourself (at least wrt those who have written comments).

    And a major reason for that is surely that your grasp of math is very limited … which you yourself have stated, but also said (IIRC) that you have no interest in investing time and mental effort to improve that grasp!

  22. Nereid says

    This one is classic!

    Anaconda, “three” is a mathematical fiction! 🙂

    A “singularity” is a mathematical fiction.

    and so is 0, pi, -1, … even 1 is a mathematical fiction.

  23. DrFlimmer says

    @ Anaconda:

    Only a few notes about the Galactic Center (I said much about black holes and Nereid sumed it all up in her last post (from 8:34am)):

    Actually, the galactic center of the Milky Way produces a lot of “light” as any telescopic image of the Milky Way’s Active Galactic nucleus will show, as I’ve linked to in previous posts.

    Ever thought about that those pictures cover a large area? That the pictures cover many dozen light-years from “left to right”?
    When we talked about the galactic center we literally meant the specific point that marks the “center” of the galaxy and not the whole region around it. And this specific point is dark in every frequency-band but radio. And in the radio-band we see a point-like source that is really close to the center (the specific center!).
    So: We have a point-like radio source in the very center of the Milky Way that is almost dark in any other frequency-band. And we see stars on Keplerian orbits orbiting the point where the radio-source sits. So the point-like radio source is on the same spot as the foci of the Keplerian orbits of the stars.
    According to Kepler’s first law (applied to any gravitational system) the center of mass has to be in this spot. And the orbits result in a mass of about 10^6 M_sol.
    Again: A point-like source that is almost dark in every frequence-band (beside radio) that should have a mass of about 10^6 solar masses and that is smaller than the solar system – what can it be?

    A plasmoid is ruled out, because otherwise we should detect infrared or X-ray radiation depending of the temperature of the thing, but the source is dark in that frequency-bands. So it’s not a “stellar” source, nothing that shines.

    Then tell me: What can it be? And it must explain all the details I gave above (almost no radiation, Keplerian orbits that lead to 10^6 M_sol of enclosed mass, a point-like radio source at the very center of the galaxy, no “shining thing”).

    I’ll be waiting curiously for your explanation……

  24. Nereid says

    @DrFlimmer: I tried to help Anaconda grasp some simple basics about scale, wrt the relationship between angular size (on the sky, from here on Earth) and linear size (of things in the region of SgrA*), given the estimated distance between us and SgrA*, but he either didn’t read what I wrote (unlikely), chose to ignore it, or actually attempted the simple calculations himself.

    If the last of these three, then the comment of his that you quoted shows that he got the sums wrong, didn’t understand the results, couldn’t do the calculations, or is being cynically disingenuous.

    So, care to try again, Anaconda?

    What is the estimated distance to SgrA*?

    What is the size of the event horizon of a black hole of mass 1 million sols?

    What angle does such a linear size subtend at the SgrA* distance?

    What is the pixel size, in arcminutes, in each of the images (not photos) you referred to before?

    If you need help with any of these, just ask … I would be only to happy to help, as would several others (no doubt).

  25. Anaconda says

    @ Nereid:

    Nereid states: “One more attempt at “infinity”. Earlier I introduced the idea that if the electron is a point particle, then its mass density is infinite, as is its charge density.”

    Nereid goes on to state: “Anaconda responded along the lines of “science doesn’t know what the electron is, so cannot say it’s a point particle, hence infinite charge density is irrelevant.”

    No. That is a distortion of what I said. That’s a strawman argument. You should be more careful, rather than putting out a strawman argument, of course, your strawman avoids the real problem with QED’s definition of an electron.

    A summary of my argument is below:

    Yes, you did bring up QED’s definition of an electron and it made my point about “infinity” and the limits to QED because of QED’s definition of an electron: Point particle that is zero dimensional with no volume. This is a non-sensical definition.

    Zero dimensional with no volume brings up all kinds of problems: That’s how we get into discussions about “how many electrons fit on the head of a pin.” Answer: An infinite amount because it doesn’t take up any volume.

    An object has volume and location.

    What I did state is that when “infinity” is imposed on a supposed scientific definition, what they are saying in effect is “we don’t know.”

    Nothing wrong about that: “We don’t know” is a reasonable position for Science to take. But it is wrong to state, “we don’t know” and then proceed to work out the mathematical equations from there as “IF” Science does “know”.

    The QED definition is a mathematical construct that attempts to forward the equations over an apparent GAP in understanding.

    Of course, all this discussion basically avoids my original criticism that by concluding AT THE OUTSET that this phenomena is a “ghost” of an “eruption” from a “black hole”, whatever that means, contaminates the quest for understanding the phenomena.

    For which you, Nereid, never responded.

    Your response suggested it was impossible that this wasn’t as stated (my paraphrase): “A ‘ghost’ of an ‘eruption’ from a ‘black hole’.”

    Also, as a footnote, the reason Wheeler’s “duality” ad hoc substitution for “infinity” isn’t more broadly disseminated in the “modern” astronomy “community” is because “modern” astronomy would prefer to avoid having the spotlight put on this basic fallacy surrounding the two bedrock hypothesis of “modern” astronomy: The so-called “big bang” and “black hole” constructs.

    You see the “high-priests” don’t want the acolytes to know there is a serious fundamental problem with their construct (doctrine).

    So, when you peel off the layers from “modern” astronomy’s hierarchy, that’s basically all it has to explain all the various phenomenon in deep-space, plus throw in a few “neutron” stars and their varients (another dubious proposition in itself).

    In a sense it is very one-dimensional and limited in its approach because it would seem electromagnetism, a Fundamental Force, is rejected from the outset, regardless of the scientific evidence observed & measured.

    That’s not the right approach to Science.

    The right approach is to be open to all the possibilities, including electromagnetism as one of the possibilities.

    That was the original point of my first comment on this thread and has been my ongoing overarching point since I started commenting on this website.

  26. Member
    IVAN3MAN says

    Anaconda:

    In a sense it is very one-dimensional and limited in its approach because it would seem electromagnetism, a Fundamental Force, is rejected from the outset, regardless of the scientific evidence observed & measured.

    Really? If that was the case with “modern” astronomy, NASA, ESA, et al., would not be going to all that trouble of launching space-based observatories — Hubble Space Telescope; COsmic Background Explorer (COBE); Chandra X-ray Observatory; XMM Newton; Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope, GLAST; Herschel, FIRST; Planck, COBRAS/SAMBA; etc. — in order to observe and study electromagnetic phenomena: microwaves; Infra-Red light; optical light; Ultra-Violet light; X-rays, and Gamma-rays.

    In fact, if “modern” astronomers rejected electromagnetism, as you claim, then they would not even bother to peer into ground-based optical telescopes because their own eyes would be detecting this electromagnetic force known as light, and they would be plucking their own eyes out in disgust.

  27. Member
    IVAN3MAN says

    ERRATUM: At the first line, it should read: If that was the case with “modern” astronomy, then NASA, ESA, et al., would not be going to all that trouble of launching space-based observatories…

  28. Nereid says

    Yet another example of talking past each other … and, once again, why I think it would be A GOOD IDEA to spend time working on an agreed basis (a mutually understood and accepted foundation) on which to build, so we may have a meaningful discussion.

    No. That is a distortion of what I said. That’s a strawman argument. You should be more careful, rather than putting out a strawman argument, of course, your strawman avoids the real problem with QED’s definition of an electron.

    A summary of my argument is below:

    Yes, you did bring up QED’s definition of an electron and it made my point about “infinity” and the limits to QED because of QED’s definition of an electron: Point particle that is zero dimensional with no volume. This is a non-sensical definition.

    Zero dimensional with no volume brings up all kinds of problems: That’s how we get into discussions about “how many electrons fit on the head of a pin.” Answer: An infinite amount because it doesn’t take up any volume.

    An object has volume and location.

    What I did state is that when “infinity” is imposed on a supposed scientific definition, what they are saying in effect is “we don’t know.”

    Nothing wrong about that: “We don’t know” is a reasonable position for Science to take. But it is wrong to state, “we don’t know” and then proceed to work out the mathematical equations from there as “IF” Science does “know”.

    The QED definition is a mathematical construct that attempts to forward the equations over an apparent GAP in understanding.

    Dude, this reminds me of the line from Alice’s Restaurant (“”Kids, this-piece-of-paper’s-got-47-words-37-sentences-58-words-we-wanna-
    know-details […]” and talked for
    forty-five minutes and nobody understood a word that he said”).

    Sorry, Anaconda, I didn’t respond because I have no clue what it means (not least because you seem to have hopelessly misunderstood QED; may I ask what source you relied upon for your understanding of QED?).

    So, perhaps it’s time to grasp the ‘science and reality’ nettle?

    Let’s try this.

    What is an electron, really?

    What, in reality, is the electron?

    Is it:
    a) a wave?
    b) a particle?
    c) neither a wave nor a particle?
    d) both a wave and a particle?
    e) all of the above?
    f) none of the above?

    Or, if we reverse the last two choices; is it:
    a) a wave?
    b) a particle?
    c) neither a wave nor a particle?
    d) both a wave and a particle?
    e) none of the above?
    f) all of the above?

    Should be fun 🙂

    Of course, all this discussion basically avoids my original criticism that by concluding AT THE OUTSET that this phenomena is a “ghost” of an “eruption” from a “black hole”, whatever that means, contaminates the quest for understanding the phenomena.

    It turns out that “ghost” is a perfectly legit term in contemporary astrophysics.

    For example, I found six papers which use the word in the title of a paper, from the astro-ph section of arXiv. Four of these are from HEP or GR-QC, one is an acronym (Galaxy Halos, Outer disks, Substructure, Thick disks, and Star clusters), and one seems to use the term in a way similar to how it’s used in the UT story (“The extended X-ray emission around HDF130 at z=1.99: an inverse Compton ghost of a giant radio source in the Chandra Deep Field North”; source: http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.3117); I wonder why? 😉

    (If you extend the search to use of “ghost” in the abstract, there are apparently 24 preprints, several of which use the term in a manner similar to Fabian et al.)

  29. Surak says

    Anaconda

    “That is a distortion of what I said. That’s a strawman argument. You should be more careful, rather than putting out a strawman argument”

    Interesting how you, the King of the Strawmen would make this statement after unleashing an army of your own strawmen in these discussions.

    Or do you really truly think that somehow the article, and the theories behind it actually state that the eruption caused by the black hole has somehow come from within it’s event horizon?

    You’re the only one here who has made this mistake.

    @IVAN3MAN

    In a previous discussion, I pointed out to Anaconda that Astronomy is totally based in the acceptance and observation of electromagnism’s effects.

    The fact that he’s still making the argument that Astronomers have rejected electromagnetism makes It pretty clear that Anaconda has his own High-Priests he follows without any deep thought of his own.

    The High-Priests of Ignorance, Close-Mindedness, and Denialism.

    I seem to recall that the last time Anaconda disappeared from these comments, it was because he was unable to explain why the broken theory he worships fails to correctly explain or predict common local effects within our own solar system.

  30. Nereid says

    @ IVAN3MAN: I tried that approach with Anaconda before too, and got nowhere (he completely ignored everything that I wrote).

    What’s quite amusing – or frustrating, depending on how seriously you take him – is that not only does Anaconda use “electromagnetism” in a highly idiosyncratic way, not only is his use of the term pseudo-scientific (at best), but he has not, even once, bothered to explain what he means when he uses this word! (where’s the smilie for ‘gobsmacked’?)

    And then gets all snarky when people misunderstand him!

  31. Nereid says

    Quoting myself …

    Or have I glimpsed part of the reason for the huge disconnect here? Do you [Anaconda] honestly think that what you read on websites is the actual science?!?!

    I think I may be onto something here …

    IIRC, there is a really crackpot website – Thundercraps of the Dogs, or something similar – where members of the EU cult hang out. On that site Snott and Dunghill (I may have the names wrong) deliver broadsides against mainstream astronomy (and astrophysics and cosmology and …), and present their own versions of what sundry images from the likes of the HST, Suzaku, Spitzer, WMAP, and Fermi really (truly, in reality, cross one’s heart and hope to die) show.

    IIRC, it’s all ‘picture science’ (‘looks like a duck, therefore is a duck’); there are no theories, no models, no equations, no data, … and no references to papers published in relevant peer-reviewed journals, certainly none by Snott or Dunghill (of course, I could be quite wrong; I’m going entirely from what I remember from my casual skimming of the site).

    Could it be that Anaconda thinks that what’s presented on that website represents science in action?!?!?

  32. DrFlimmer says

    An object has volume and location.

    -Let’s see what the guy behind the next door has to say about it. *open-the-door* Ah, welcome, what is your name?
    -Quantum mechanic.
    -What do you say about volume and location?
    -About what? Never heard of this terms…..

  33. the_nthian says

    Anaconda states “…Speaking of “high school”, even high schoolers know it improper to divide by zero which is exactly …”.

    Another thing highschoolers “know” is that there is no solution to the square root of a negative number…yet it is accepted in electromagnetics that all you have to do is multiply it by i (imaginary number by name) for it to all work out.

    Somewhat of a disconnect in acceptable definitions, no?

  34. star-grazer west coast says

    Anaconda
    Thank you for your reply and your answer of which a lot of thought and speculation was involved.

  35. GekkoNZ says

    Sigh…yet another UT article comments section hijacked by the same people who have plagued us before.

    How can we talk about the article when it is buried in essay length posts from the vocal minority of people who refuse to believe a certain aspect of science?

    It seems we are back to the flame wars of old…

    Wasnt the new moderation system supposed to fix the problems caused by people like Anaconda and his friends?

    UT EDITORS: MODERATION PLEASE!!!!!

  36. star-grazer west coast says

    GekkoNZ Says
    I go through this site and comment on items that may be of use to observational amateur astronomy and will comment and ask for someones input on something I consider incomplete. I’ve offically retired 7 years ago as a Network Administrator but was requested to work as a retired annuitant until July2008 when the budget shut down this program , so therefore, I’ve nothing to prove!!!!
    I’ve read your post, -after reading all posts per this feed, it appears there was only Anaconda against a group who’ve ganged up on him and ridiculed him, your comment ” who refuse to believe a certain aspect of science’ shows me you want no one else to comment on this site if they don’t believe in your scientific ideas- or “others need not comment”. I am independent from Anaconda and others here,although I am a Einstein GR
    believer although there are applications like comets tails,etc where gravity can not answer why comet tails like McNaught or the hexagon
    pattern of S Polar Saturn has to be caused by strange electrical charges, in the overall sceam of things in our Universe, Gravity rules while electrical energy is a minor but still important aspect that runs the Universe,
    Because there are no other persons with Anaconda, it appears to me you believe I am one of his friends!!!!! You may be the type that sucks on your bosses butt to kept your job and is a ‘yes bossman’ type of person without a mind of your own, but, although you agree on what your boss says, don’t think I ever did the same thing because I was always independent of what my boss said when I worked and still got ahead. I am being very calm about this ‘slight’ that was done to me, but, your reply will where I go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  37. ND says

    Nereid,

    Every new black hole article on UT is an opportunity for Anaconda to start over again and ignore previous points that were made about his “science”. This has happened before and it will happen again. Perhaps it’s time to just ignore him. He fits the technical definition of a crank.

  38. Matt S. says

    Star-grazer west cost writes:: “I’ve read your post, -after reading all posts per this feed, it appears there was only Anaconda against a group who’ve ganged up on him and ridiculed him, your comment ” who refuse to believe a certain aspect of science’ shows me you want no one else to comment on this site if they don’t believe in your scientific ideas- or “others need not comment”.”

    I don’t know whether we’ve read the same comment section here. I saw many members trying to engage in constructive discourse with one person who isn’t willing to make any clearly defined statements as to what he actually believes, allowing for establishing a common ground and who consistently demonstrating a superficial view informed only by popular science. Not to mention the insistence of arguing about semantics (ie. “eruption”, “ghosts”) instead of substance.

    Making this sound like a “freedom of speech” issue where the “mainstream” is ganging up on the brave “lone fighter” is just plain silly, the same way as “teaching the controversy” in respect to evolution is.

    Science, as you may know, is not a democracy, it is a meritocracy. If you want to whine about how “The mainstream is ganging up on me! Helpz!” then please take your time to submit your complains to a peer-reviewed journal. Now you might say: “but wait, they won’t accept my proposals!” or “but they won’t accept people without years of formal training.”… then this only shows the root of Anaconda’s problem.

    The thing that bothers me most is when people, who may have read a few websites or popular science books on a topic, think that they are “qualified” in the same way astronomers, astrophysicists and cosmologists are. Forget the years of rigorous training in calculus and complex mathematics! No! They are free from this year long study, they don’t need to do it because “all the others are forced to adhere to their “modern” paradigm, while I, standing outside of the scientific community am unbiased”.

    Where does the confidence come from? Why is it that most lay people (AND of course, the experts themselves) realize that there is always a deeper layer of knowledge beyond what they currently know, but some jump to the conclusion, that BECAUSE they are lay people they are more qualified to comment on a subject than those who went through great lengths and hardship to study the subject?

    Star-grazer writes: “I am independent from Anaconda and others here,although I am a Einstein GR
    believer although there are applications like comets tails,etc where gravity can not answer why comet tails like McNaught or the hexagon
    pattern of S Polar Saturn has to be caused by strange electrical charges, in the overall sceam of things in our Universe, Gravity rules while electrical energy is a minor but still important aspect that runs the Universe,”

    It is generally accepted in the scientific community that comet tails are cause by the solar wind, which is completely unrelated to GR.

    I’m not a planetary scientist so I don’t know about what causes the hexagon on Saturn, but others here may know more about it. It certainly is possible that EM plays a part in it, but again, I doubt any serious scientist would a priori reject a hypothesis like that. What they reject is when people use EM to try to explain large scale structures, which:

    a) is unnecessary, because gravity describes them just fine.
    b) contradicts basic physics (ie. EM has a short range and large objects are neutral in charge) etc.

    star-grazer writes: “You may be the type that sucks on your bosses butt to kept your job and is a ‘yes bossman’ type of person without a mind of your own, but, although you agree on what your boss says, don’t think I ever did the same thing because I was always independent of what my boss said when I worked and still got ahead.”

    Yeah, the United Earth Coalition of Scientists (UECS) forces scientists to only publish papers that support the status quo… anyone who goes against them…. aw, let’s not talk about what happens to dissenters, I still want to have a future in the scientific community and once they identify you as a “critic” you’ll have a tough time finding work at ANY scientific institution in the world, regardless of country.

  39. DrFlimmer says

    @ Matt S.

    Only a short note:

    EM has a short range

    Be careful with this one. The EM force “reaches” until infinity. For example in the electrostatic case: The Coulomb force law is just an inverse-square-law, much alike Newton’s law about gravity (indeed, apart from constants they have the same appearance).
    But unlike gravity EM can be shielded quite easily. You just need the same amount of charge, just with the opposite sign, and the force drops to zero immediately. And due to the conservation of charge, there is always “enough” charge to counter another one. That is the reason why EM is typically of “short range” – whatever this means; there are magnetic fields across the whole galaxy (but this is probably another story, and I wanted to write a short note 😉 ).

    Summary: As I said, be careful. EM reaches to infinity per definition; the only thing that differs from gravity is the point that it can be shielded!

  40. GekkoNZ says

    Stargrazer: What on earth are you talking about? I am not talking about you, im talking about the small minority who have been peddling their theories on UT, which was the cause of the regression of the old comments section into massive flamewars. Names like Anaconda, OilIsMastery ( now known as Total Science ) etc. Regular readers of UT article comments will know exactly what i mean.

    Now the comments about Boss ass kissing are completely out of line…there is no need to stoop to the level of personal insults. It just makes you look bad and adds nothing to the discussion.

    The rules for comments in UT include the rule to PLAY NICE.

    So again, can we pleeeeease have some moderation? Pretty please?

  41. Nereid says

    ND has a point; here’s his last comment:

    Every new black hole article on UT is an opportunity for Anaconda to start over again and ignore previous points that were made about his “science”. This has happened before and it will happen again. Perhaps it’s time to just ignore him. He fits the technical definition of a crank.

    Here’s Anaconda in his second comment on this story:

    This profiled report short-circuits the scientific process by jumping to the conclusion this is the “ghost” of a “black hole” eruption.

    Using the descriptive word “eruption” only highlights the contradiction: What is an eruption? It is an emission from inside of some object, usually a volcano, of course, we know that an “eruption” from inside a “black hole” is theoretically impossible since not even light can escape.

    And later:

    Where is your response to my statement(s) about the poor word choic of “eruption” in the post?

    Where your response to my criticism of the concept of “ghost”?

    What is “ghost” or “apparition” supposed to mean? Nereid, you failed to answer my criticism that “ghost” is unquantified.

    Would you be willing to offer what you think the quantified definition of “ghost” is?

    The best way to engage in a definitional discussion is to relate it to the post at hand (to stay on ‘topic’ if nothing else).

    This looks very much like a cynical debating tactic; connect “ghosts”, “eruption”, etc to “black holes”, declare “black holes” to be invalid, and conclude that astronomy is broken.

    The logic here is clear; the central point being made is about “black holes”.

    When that central point is later examined, the cynical debating tactic is to declare that he (Anaconda) has been misunderstood, and that his comment was about “ghosts” etc.

    Now we (or I) can test this, by repeating my comments about what constitutes the primary source materials for science, the published papers or write-ups like UT stories, and waiting to see if Anaconda responds.

    If he does, and agrees that it’s papers, then as I’ve already provided a link to the Fabian et al. paper (on which the UT story is ultimately based), we can move on to discuss the criticisms Anaconda makes in his first comment, by reference to the paper. (I would welcome this).

    Sigh…yet another UT article comments section hijacked by the same people who have plagued us before.

    How can we talk about the article when it is buried in essay length posts from the vocal minority of people who refuse to believe a certain aspect of science?

    That’s a comment by GekkoNZ.

    I don’t know too much about before (I only started commenting after the new policy came in), but my impression is that there’s only one “same people” now – Anaconda.

    @star-grazer west coast: if you’re interested, I could go through the Fabian et al. preprint and compare it with what’s in the UT story, highlighting any significant mismatches. I could also give a quick summary of the logic chain that lead Fabian et al. to their conclusions, focussing on the physical mechanisms associated with black holes which may produce the observed (electromagnetic) signatures (i.e. what Chandra ‘saw’).

  42. Hon. Salacious B. Crumb says

    Anaconda,
    Up to the usual tricks eh?
    You obviously have no idea what your talking about nor comprehend what any gravitational astronomical source does, behaves nor what observational signatures are required to identify one. You still have absolutely no fundamental concept of angular momentum, behaviour of electromagnetism nor magnetic field, and yet you believe something is fundamentally wrong with phenomena like (black holes) in astrophysics.
    Science (or even black holes) have absolutely nothing to do with belief or faith systems, but they have something to do with evidence or logical deduction.
    If you claim otherwise, you must also do so with evidence and logical though instead of proclaiming something is wrong. Time and again you point out that something is wrong without even the simplest inkling of why science holds some theory of investigation, scientific view or other proof.
    Complexity is some theory also doesn’t mean it is wrong nor leading unqualified folk up the garden path for some hidden purpose. It just means some ideas have to be condensed to portray the idea or knowledge so unqualified novices can grasp the discovery or implications of some observation. I.e. “ghosts” – something that is not implied in this article as being real nor accurate – but instead as a signature of some unusual phenomena.
    Frankly evidence from previous months viewing your comments shows that what you say is merely delusion. The central delusion that mainstream astronomy and astrophysics is somehow wrong, and that through you apparent intuition or foresightedness are plainly intuitively and absolutely right. You motive is to raised doubt for some supporters so you will be listened too and be avenged for the wrongs science is inflicting on the astronomical and cosmological community. (Hence your own modus operandi and obsessive and quite pathological behaviour.)
    if a final point is to be made, if you must sprout alternative views. you must learn two basic things. That you have to know the current reasons why so study is held by science, the for and against arguments historically made for some idea to be held by science, and finally draw conclusions in terms of for and against some idea with the whole means of proving it. (A tall order, but that is how science works.)
    Insight is not sufficient for a scientific argument to explain phenomena (like black holes). It requires both proof and evidence to support alternative views.

    Black holes exist because the gravitation signature of their mass and size are provable. As light is bend by gravitational sources , there must be a physical limit to describe what some black hole is – a field strength that claws back to escape of a photon from a dense closed gravitational source. Infinity real has nothing to do with it – as black holes are finite in size and finite in mass.
    Cosmologist have only speculated on the nature of the behaviour of black holes, which lead to new theories on how this can be tested observationally. Seeing material around a intense gravitational source is one of those means. It s not voodoo, it is not mysticism, it is how science works.
    If you don’t like it, show us the real and decent proof why is wrong – else you will continue to be torn pieces by others who really know what they are talking about.

    From your repeated ignorant discourse here in this thread – you clearly have no insight nor an comprehension of the real implications of modern theory. Please stop wasting you and everyone else’s valuable time here, else get some professional help.

  43. Nereid says

    For me, perhaps another penny has dropped, in terms of trying to work out where Anaconda is coming from?
    Here’s what I wrote:

    Nereid states: “[GR] has been subject to rather a lot of tests (it has passed all tests, with flying colours), and black holes are entirely consistent with GR.

    And here’s Anaconda’s response:

    False.

    One of the prime “tests” would be the detection of “gravitational waves” the prediction of which was made by Einstein as a resulting physical phenomena of GR theory. Yet, these “waves” have never been detected despite the deployment and operation of sensitive detection equipment.

    Now on its own this wouldn’t seem particularly noteworthy.

    However, combine it with
    -> Anaconda’s confusion over scale wrt SgrA*, the size (‘on the sky’) of the event horizon of a SMBH at the estimated distance of SgrA*,
    -> his non-response to my attempts to walk him through that confusion (twice now!),
    -> his repeated mis-statements concerning “infinity”,
    -> his non-response to my attempt to think about the amazingly precise agreement between theory and observation wrt QED (the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron),

    and a consistent pattern begins to emerge; namely, that Anaconda has great difficulty with numbers and quantities!

    His comment about the (to date) non-detection of gravitational wave radiation (GWR) fits this pattern perfectly; such radiation has not yet been directly detected, but then the known sources of such radiation (binary pulsars such as the one Hulse and Taylor studied) could not be detected with LIGO etc, and there are no known events which should give rise to GWR that LIGO could detect (e.g. binary neutron star inspiral).

  44. DrFlimmer says

    @ Nereid:

    You could have mentioned the fact that the Hulse-Taylor-pulsar behaves in total agreement with GR. Hence it should emit gravitational waves, otherwise their would be differences between theory and observation (I mean, the oberservation indicates that its motion and loss of angular momentum is only possible if it’s radiating away GWs). It should also be noted that these double pulsars have been studied with extream accuracy.

    I wonder if we will see Anaconda again on this thread. If so, he could address my points about the galactic center. Otherwise we will see him again in another thread where all this will happen again…..
    I also wonder where solrey is. I thought he would jump in to save Anaconda as he has tried before….

  45. Hon. Salacious B. Crumb says

    Sorry here Nereid and Dr Flimmer
    Anaconda true obsession is not based on science but distrust – and he just can’t see it.
    Gravity waves are one thing – they haven’t been observed – so theory must be wrong. However, the ]signatureof mass and size have, concluding that black holes exist purely of standard relativity and NOT gravity waves.
    The misnomer is proof of gravity waves are confirmation of black holes. THEY ARE NOT. Hence Anaconda’s failure of comprehending this article (or others)..

  46. Lawrence B. Crowell says

    I liked the Calvin & Hobbes commentary on this.

    A black hole has a large gravity field in a local region. if a lot of material implodes on it quickly it will rapidly heat up and some or even most of the material will explode back out before falling to the point of no return. Trying to flush too much down the toilet or filling your dog’s water bowl with too much pressure from the hose are approximate ways of thinking about it. Solrey and Anaconda poo-poo the idea of a black hole, because they can explode. Yet a lot of stuff outside them sure can explode.

    Lawrence B. Crowell

  47. Member
    IVAN3MAN says

    Well stated Hon. Salacious B. Crumb. The more I read of Anaconda’s rantings, the more I am convinced that he fits this description of a Sophist according to Wikipedia:

    In modern usage, sophism, sophist, and sophistry are derogatory terms, due the influence of many philosophers in the past (sophism and Platonism were enemy schools).

    A sophism is taken as a specious argument used for deceiving someone. It might be crafted to seem logical while actually being wrong, or it might use difficult words and complicated sentences to intimidate the audience into agreeing, or it might appeal to the audience’s prejudices and emotions rather than logic; i.e., raising doubts towards the one asserting, rather than his assertion. The goal of a sophism is often to make the audience believe the writer or speaker to be smarter than he or she actually is; e.g., accusing another of sophistry for using persuasion techniques. An argument Ad Hominem is an example of Sophistry.

    A sophist is a user of sophisms; i.e., an insincere person trying to confuse or deceive people. A sophist tries to persuade the audience while paying little attention to whether his argument is logical and factual.

    Sophistry means making heavy use of sophisms. The word may be applied to a particular text or speech riddled with sophisms.

  48. ND says

    Nereid,

    I understand the urge to correct Anaconda’s misunderstanding of various scientific concepts and theories. It’s a strong urge. An more so to those of you have a greater understanding of the science being discussed.

    The difficulties of detecting GW and the Hulse-Taylor-pulsar has been pointed out to him several times over the past months and yet he continues to try and discredit GR in this manner. This is no longer ignorance of the topic he’s talking about. It’s just deliberate dishonesty. He needs to discredit GR in order to undermine black holes. But he only ends up showing his ignorance and bias.

    Anaconda wants and needs an audience and to point out how wrong people are. To be honest, those of us who debate Anaconda seem to have a need to point out his errors as well. He will show up here at UT as long as long as his psychological needs are met.

    Sincerely, a fellow gatekeeper of the faith … oops did I say that out loud? 🙂

  49. DrFlimmer says

    You are porbably right, ND.
    Once I compared the “urge of correcting Anaconda (and other mates)” with an addiction to drugs – you know it’s bad, but you can’t stop. 😉
    But I think it is not only important to correct Anaconda for himself (although this is impossible, he will never accept any corrections), but it is also important for possible “silent” readers here. Those who are interested but do not have the background (and do not participate in the comments, probably). It is important that they realise that Anaconda is wrong – otherwise the aim of the thunder**** people could become real. I think one should not forget about it.

  50. Hon. Salacious B. Crumb says

    “To be honest, those of us who debate Anaconda seem to have a need to point out his errors as well.”

    Sorry no, not exactly. We debate Anaconda so no one falls under his deluded spell.
    Bottom line – science isn’t wrong, nor is the evidence to support it. Anaconda is wrong because he uses fallacies based on unfounded or unknowing within his own mind.
    Science is based on observation to confirm a reality based on evidence. Anaconda believes flaws in science’s reality are based on deception, whose minor quiver of doubt means our built up knowledge is therefore totally wrong.
    In the end, our scientific knowledge isn’t perfect, but if we knew it all we would have nothing to learn. After all, if some god actually left us with the a capacity to think and reason to some logical conclusion. It is not faith based but draws on the observation we have of the world. Science is a ideological ridged methodology – total EU is a real hope and faith that an alternative view of the world just happens to be right. Let’s not mince words.
    Clearly from the emptiness and weaknesses of their non-existent proofs, especially towards their carte blanche broad assumptions offer, they offer no better views to explain the universe in which we live. Immediately this tells us something is wrong and there is an hidden agenda at hand.
    EU should ADD to our knowledge and NOT replace it !
    This is where Anoconda, etc. fail completely, and why no one with a scientific background believes them. Who really believes in false prophets anyway?

  51. Hon. Salacious B. Crumb says

    If science was an ideological crusade, Anaconda might br right. Pity science isn’t ideological, but it is a crusade – a crusade to find truth via observational evidence that explains all facets of the world and our universe.
    Sadly only believing (or convincing others) that something is, doesn’t make that something true or right. Evidence must match the observations. Just hoping it does, is the real definition of a closed and delusional mind.

  52. ND says

    Salacious and DrFlimmer,

    I understand your points. It’s just that we and Anaconda/solrey/others have also become a vicious circle that probably should be broken.

    Salacious, I don’t need a lecture on what science is about, thanks 🙂

  53. Surak says

    We must continue to correct Anaconda and others like him, even if he is only posting here to make us dance for him.

    Not responding properly to people with broken thought processes like Anaconda is why the world today is faced with the problems and scams of Anti-vaxxers, homeopathy, ‘natural health’ or ‘herbal’ remedies, psychics, chiropractors, acupuncturists, ID / Creationists, religion in general, and on and on.

    If we can keep a few people from falling into Anaconda’s Pit of Willful Ignorance ™, then there’s a few less people that can be separated from their money, their health, and their freedom of thought by the above groups.

  54. Hon. Salacious B. Crumb says

    ND said;
    “Salacious, I don’t need a lecture on what science is about, thanks.”

    No you don’t, but Anaconda sure does!

  55. Nereid says

    ND, this comment is most disconcerting (bold added):

    The difficulties of detecting GW and the Hulse-Taylor-pulsar has been pointed out to him several times over the past months and yet he continues to try and discredit GR in this manner. This is no longer ignorance of the topic he’s talking about.

    Ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of; willful ignorance is a different kettle of fish entirely.

    Are you being disingenuous, Anaconda?

    Cynically so?

    I certainly appreciate that you have a very different view of the nature of science (astronomy, physics), and of the relationship between science and ‘reality’, Anaconda, but how GR predicts GWR, what LIGO’s GWR detectability is, the observations of PSR 1913+16 (and other binary pulsars), etc, etc, etc are objective and independently verifiable.

    But perhaps there’s an entirely different explanation; your inputs, Anaconda?

  56. Nereid says

    @Hon. Salacious B. Crumb, Surak, DrFlimmer, ND, IVAN3MAN (and others): if the comments of Anaconda – or anyone else – are solely EU/PC marketing, then they should be deleted ASAP (just like any other spam).

    However, questions are always welcome (as long as they are pertinent!), and should be answered appropriately, considering both the questioner and the general readership as audience. For example, davesmith_au recently asked a very good question (and I hope I answered it satisfactorily).

    That Anaconda is both ignorant and confused is very clear, wrt astronomy and physics (and maths, and …); but I suspect some of his confusions are not solely his own, so by addressing them a wider range of readers hopefully learns something too.

    What puzzles me is where Anaconda’s sense of certainty comes from; I mean, it must be clear even to him that he cannot realistically assess papers published in relevant peer-reviewed astronomy journals, yet he shows no hesitation in declaring whole swathes of such primary materials non-science or bad science. And when asked, politely, about the basis of his sweeping claims, he writes stuff about ‘electromagnetism’ and ‘infinity’ that is impenetrable gobbledygook (to me, at least).

    Even more curious: Anaconda claims he is hewing closely to the true nature of science! Yet, to take just one example, when offered the opportunity to show how his ideas – expressed in comments on UT stories – are consistent with (classical) electromagnetism or plasma physics, he is silent.

    What’s going on?

  57. Lawrence B. Crowell says

    Showing where Anaconda and related folks are wrong is important not to change their minds, but to reach others who are not familiar with these issues. Anaconda, Solrey and Oils are not going to be pursuaded. They will carry pseudo-science with them to their graves. What is important are those who read this site who have minimal working knowledge of the facts.

    Lawrence B. Crowell

  58. Lawrence B. Crowell says

    Nerid: your comments are spot on, and one might be flummixed by the behavior of Anaconda et al here. Why would somebody want to embrace pure rubbish and pump out persiflage on its behalf? It makes no sense. I think what is at work here is the authoritarian personality, as classified by Theodor W. Adorno. This can be marked by at least of the following: The adherence to some doctrine of rigid thought or belief, the identification with some cnventionalism, an idolizing of authoritaries, or a ritualistic tendency to identify oneself as an authoritarian type. In the case of these PU guys the first is primarily at work, which is easily seen in their refusal to actually talk the physics (they never answer direct electromagnetic questions) and a continual repetition of the same quasi-scientific arguments.

    The authoritarian personality type of the last sort of the most dangerous, for they often enter into the political arena, and are often marked by narrcisistic mental/personality disorders. Anaconda are comparatively harmless by comparison, but are in line with a rich tradition of people determined to patent perpetual motion machines or to show how their electromagnetic dumaflatchie device is an anti-gravity levitator. Such people to to their graves convinced they are the true unsung Galileo.

    It is sad to see this, and it can often reflect a sort of disordered thinking, if not a psychiatric disorder of one sort or the other. About 25% of humanity is afflicted by these problems. It is worth noting that in the nadir days of the Bush administration his approval rating ran about 25% — he was down to his true believing authoritarian mindset core.

    Lawrence B. Crowell

  59. ND says

    I have had been refraining from describing Anaconda and solrey with
    “… narrcisistic mental/personality disorders. …”. I’ve had this view of them for a while though. I think they are borderline narcissistic. I thought the comment that solrey made in the last UT thread was, at least for me, revealing:

    solrey: “Plus, for me personally, I have a broad range of interests and a diverse skillset that makes most peoples heads spin. All that keeps me pretty busy.”

    I mean wow! This is behind their drive that has them posting on UT the way they do.

  60. Dear Anaconda,
    What, in your words, is the object science calls a black hole? In all your posts (i just read all attached to this story) you have failed to state what your belief is.You happily refute claims of respected and peer reviewed scientists, but offer no solutions to the very claim you are making, that being, black holes do not exist and our understanding of gravity is floored? If you have little understanding of the maths explaining these objects, how are you able to refute thses ideas when you dont even comprehend what they are? I am not a mathmetical person and i am no scientist but i rely on the fact that all science is the seeking of knowledge, knowledge that is repeatedly peer reviewed, tested and revised. Until you are able to bring forth your own theory on what these objects are and show that your theory can be tested with quantifiable results, you will always come across as a crank with no baee for you claims. I await your (tongue in cheek) informative relpy.

  61. Member
    IVAN3MAN says

    @ Lawrence B. Crowell,

    Now that you’ve mentioned “disordered thinking”, Wikipedia has an excellent description of…

    Common Characteristics of Cranks:

    * 1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
    * 2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
    * 3. Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
    * 4. Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, and often appear to be uninterested in anyone else’s experience or opinions.

    Some cranks exhibit a lack of academic achievement, in which case they typically assert that academic training in the subject of their crank belief is not only unnecessary for discovering “the truth”, but actively harmful because they believe it “poisons” the minds by teaching falsehoods. Others greatly exaggerate their personal achievements, and may insist that some alleged achievement in some entirely unrelated area of human endeavor implies that their cranky opinion should be taken seriously.

    Some cranks claim vast knowledge of any relevant literature, while others claim that familiarity with previous work is entirely unnecessary; regardless, cranks inevitably reveal that whether or not they believe themselves to be knowledgeable concerning relevant matters of fact, mainstream opinion, or previous work, they are not in fact well-informed concerning the topic of their belief.

    In addition, many cranks:
    * 1. Seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe that they are objecting.
    * 2. Stress that they have been working out their ideas for many decades, and claim that this fact alone entails that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error.
    * 3. Compare themselves with Galileo or Copernicus, implying that the mere unpopularity of some belief is in itself evidence of plausibility.
    * 4. Claim that their ideas are being suppressed by secret intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their allegedly revolutionary insights becoming widely known.
    * 5. Appear to regard themselves as persons of unique historical importance.

    Cranks who contradict some mainstream opinion in some highly technical field, such as mathematics or physics, almost always:
    * 1.Exhibit a marked lack of technical ability.
    * 2. Misunderstand or fail to use standard notation and terminology.
    * 3. Ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understanding mainstream belief.

    That is, cranks tend to ignore any previous insights which have been proven by experience to facilitate discussion and analysis of the topic of their cranky claims; indeed, they often assert that these innovations obscure rather than clarify the situation.

    In addition, cranky scientific ‘theories’ do not in fact qualify as theories as this term is commonly understood within science. For example, crank ‘theories’ in physics typically fail to result in testable predictions, which makes them unfalsifiable and hence unscientific.

    The term “crank” (or “krank”) was once the favoured term for spectators at sporting events, a term later supplanted by “fans”. By implication, the “cranks in the bleaching boards” think they know more about the sport than do its participants.

    😎

  62. solrey says

    “Fly on the wall” transcript of the ‘gatekeepers’ thoughts and tactics:

    I…I think it’s finally over. Our reactionary emotional response seems to have stopped it dead in its tracks. If I’m right, all we have to do now is smugly reiterate our half-formed thesis and—oh, no! For the love of God, no! It’s thoughtfully mulling things over!

    Run! Run! It’s making reasonable, fact-based arguments!

    Quickly! Hide behind self-righteousness! The ad hominem rejoinders—ready the ad hominem rejoinders! Watch out! Dodge the issue at hand! Question its character and keep moving haphazardly from one flawed point to the next!

    All together now! Put every bit of secondhand conjecture into it you’ve got!

    Goddamn it, nothing’s working! It’s trapped us in our own unsubstantiated claims! We need to switch fundamentally unsound tactics. Hurry, throw up the straw man! Look, I think it’s going for it. C’mon…c’mon…yes, it’s going for it! Now hit it with the thing that one guy told us once while it’s distracted by our ludicrous rationalizations!

    Gah! It’s calmly and evenhandedly deflecting everything we’re throwing at it. Our deductive fallacies are only making it stronger! Wait…what on earth is it doing now? Oh, no, it has sources! My God, it’s defending itself with ironclad sources! Someone stop the citing! Please, please stop the citing!

    The language is impenetrable! For all that is good and holy, backpedal with all your might!

    Where are the children? Someone overprotect the children! They cannot be exposed to this kind of illuminative reasoning. Their young, open minds are much too vulnerable to independent thought. We have to shield them behind our unshakeable intolerance for critical thinking.

    What?!? Noooooooooo! Richard! For the love of God, it’s convinced Richard!

    No time for tears now. Richard’s mind has been changed forever. But we mustn’t let it weaken our resolve. Mark my words, our ignorance will hold, no matter the cost. Now, more than ever, we have to keep floundering ahead with blind faith in our increasingly fallacious worldview.

    For Richard’s sake.

    What’s that? Now it’s making an appeal to reason? Never! Do you hear me, you eloquent, well-read behemoth? Never! We’ll die before we recognize what we secretly know to be true! The cognitive dissonance only makes our denial stronger!

    We have but one hope left: passive-aggressive slights disguised as impersonal discourse.† Okay, everyone, careful now…careful…if this is going to work, we have to arrogantly assume that it won’t be smart enough to catch on to our attempt to salvage some feeling of superiority and—oh, God, it’s calling us out! Quick, avoid eye contact and stammer an apology! Tell it we were just joking! Tell it we were joking!

    Arrgh! Our pride! Oh, Lord, our pride! It burns!

    All is lost. We don’t stand a chance against its relentless onslaught of exhaustive research and immaculate rhetoric. We may as well lie down and—Christ, how it pains me to say it—admit that it’s right. My friends, I would like to take these last few moments of stubborn close-mindedness to say that it’s been an honor to dig myself into this hole with you.

    Unless…wait, of course! Why didn’t we think of it before? Volume! Sheer volume! It’s so simple. Quickly now, we don’t have much time! Don’t let it get a word in edgewise! Derisively cut it off mid-sentence! Now, launch the sophomoric personal attacks! Louder, yes, that’s it, louder! Be repetitive, juvenile, and obstinate! It’s working! It’s working!

    We’ve done it! It’s walking away and shaking its head in disgust! Huzzah! Finally—defeated with a single three-minute volley of irrelevant, off-topic shouting!

    Ironic, really, isn’t it?

    Credit to “The Onion”, Matthew Barnes 5-28-09. 😉

  63. Nereid says

    Some readers may be interested in why Fabian et al. use the word ‘ghost’. Here’s an extract from the Introduction section of the preprint:

    We investigate here the possibility that the double-lobed structure of the extended X-ray source is not then due to a surrounding merging cluster, as suggested by Bauer et al (2002), but instead to inverse Compton (IC) emission from a past outburst of the galaxy. The object would in the past have appeared as a giant radio galaxy, but inverse Compton losses have downshifted the high energy electrons responsible for radio emission so what remains is X-ray IC emission produced by Lorentz factor ? ? 1000 electrons scattering on the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB).

    That’s pretty darn cool, isn’t it! 🙂

  64. Nereid says

    The “? ?” in the original is ‘gamma tilde’ (is approximately equal to); the Greek letter gamma represents the Lorentz factor.

  65. Hon. Salacious B. Crumb says

    Typical of solrey saying…

    Credit to “The Onion”, Matthew Barnes 5-28-09.

    Typical EU’er – always someone else’s work and nothing original.

  66. DrFlimmer says

    @ Nereid:

    Do you have a link to the paper? (I don’t want to search on my own 😛 😉 )

    @ Hon. Salacious B. Crumb

    Typical EU’er – always someone else’s work and nothing original.

    The question is, if “we” (the non-EU’ers) aren’t using someone else’s work as well. It depends on what you mean.
    If you mean with “original” really things one made oneself (researching, publishing, etc), then the majority of what we are talking about here is “not self-made”. Me, e.g., am just at the beginning of a scientific “career” (hopefully it becomes something like this 😉 ). I have one published paper already (happy I am 🙂 ) and I am beginning to work on my master’s thesis. But everything we are talking about here is not made by me. I have heard about it, read about it and probably made some exercises about it – but the primary calculations have been done by others (Einstein, Planck, Heisenberg, etc.). So we are just “quoting” as well.
    I don’t know if this is the way you meant it – but it could be understood that way and hence used against you.

  67. Nereid says

    @DrFlimmer:

    Here you are: http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.3117

    I also provided a link in my comment on May 30th, 2009 at 1:43 pm, though I didn’t make it clear that that is what it was! 😉

  68. DrFlimmer says

    Thanks, Nereid 🙂

  69. Anaconda says

    “When the flak gets heaviest, you know you are over the target” — anonymous Air Force pilot

  70. Nereid says

    Now that I’ve quoted from the Fabian et al. preprint – the primary source, as I’m sure even Anaconda would agree – on what the ‘ghost’ is, perhaps it’s time to look again at this comment, by Anaconda (May 30th, 2009 at 9:48 am):

    In a sense it is very one-dimensional and limited in its approach because it would seem electromagnetism, a Fundamental Force, is rejected from the outset, regardless of the scientific evidence observed & measured.

    That’s not the right approach to Science.

    The right approach is to be open to all the possibilities, including electromagnetism as one of the possibilities.

    That was the original point of my first comment on this thread and has been my ongoing overarching point since I started commenting on this website.

    Hmm … perhaps you’d be so kind to tell us all, Anaconda, in what way the following is a rejection of “electromagnetism” “from the outset”?

    I mean, it seems to me that not only do Fabian et al. take “electromagnetism as one of the possibilities”, but it is the ONLY possibility!

    The object would in the past have appeared as a giant radio galaxy, but inverse Compton losses have downshifted the high energy electrons responsible for radio emission so what remains is X-ray IC emission produced by Lorentz factor [gamma, approx equal to] 1000 electrons scattering on the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB).

  71. Nereid says

    EDIT: “I mean, it seems to me that not only do Fabian et al. take “electromagnetism as one of the possibilities“, but it is the ONLY possibility!”

    ->

    “I mean, it seems to me that not only do Fabian et al. take “electromagnetism [as defined by Anaconda himself!] as one of the possibilities“, but it is the ONLY possibility!”

Comments are closed.