Scientists penetrate mystery of raging black hole beams

Re: "Extreme gravity within the disc twists and stretches magnetic fields, squeezing hot, magnetised disc material called plasma until it erupts in the form of oppositely directed magnetic pillars along the black hole's rotational axis."

This is stated very factually, but it takes some effort to completely ignore the fact that the electrical force is considerably stronger than the gravitational.

This'll be entertaining to watch: If Chris outposts Schneibo, or vice versa.

OK, to get it started: Schneibo, again explain to us that black hole math whereby Infinite Gravity & Infinite Density can exist on the surface of a Finite Stellar Mass. And please, don't put up that silly algebra you think are Differential Equations.

This is stated very factually, but it takes some effort to completely ignore the fact that the electrical force is considerably stronger than the gravitational.

It takes some effort to completely ignore the fact that unlike gravity, electromagnetic forces are subject to charge screening whereby nearby opposite charges effectively cancel out the charge as seen by a third, further object.

How about this Benni?

r=(2MG)/(c^2)

Try it, take the mass of the earth as an example (M) , make the radius 8mm, then 9mm, then 10mm see what G works out as.

Think about the implications in terms of GR.

Get it?

This is stated very factually, but it takes some effort to completely ignore the fact that the electrical force is considerably stronger than the gravitational.

It takes some effort to completely ignore the fact that unlike gravity, electromagnetic forces are subject to charge screening whereby nearby opposite charges effectively cancel out the charge as seen by a third, further object.

It takes complete ignorance to post this answer....charge screening in a hot plasma, well done. It also takes complete and utter stupidity to state that " Extreme gravity within the disc twists and stretches magnetic fields"...
Gravity now has an effect on non material forces...as in no matter present....as in a gravitational field "pulls" on a magnetic one. I swear these guys all discovered crack at the same time to posit theories this completely devoid of physics...period. Imagine how fried your brain has to be to blindly follow it....Any insights on that Baraknjorf?

Re: "This'll be entertaining to watch: If Chris outposts Schneibo, or vice versa."

The idea is being pitched in the article as though it's a fact, but to accept it as proposed requires that a person is fully asleep. There are obviously two different ways to explain what we see -- the second, completely unmentioned possibility being that these VERY LONG filaments which they admit to exhibit the stronger force (EM) is spinning the "black hole".

To just ignore all of that and focus upon me is an invitation for people to please stop thinking and instead think of the whole thing as a sort of soap opera.

E. R. Dobbs, Electricity and Magnetism, (1984), p.2-3

"Although both the gravitational and electrical force obey an inverse square law, their size differs enormously. For the proton-electron pair which comprises the hydrogen atom, the electrical force is about 10^39 or one thousand million million million million million million times as strong as the gravitational force ... So we can nearly always neglect gravitational effects in the presence of electrical forces."

Also, as most here probably already know, the proton has a mass that is 1836 times that of the electron -- so if gravity has any effect at all in this VERY long filament, one has to imagine that the protons and electrons are going to separate.

No?

A very small Neutron star as the singularity I wonder ... ok off to do the math ...

Heh, the EUdiots are arguing against data again.

This isn't theory, fools. We saw this. There is nowhere to run. There is nowhere to hide.

The Twilight of the Scientific Age

"Science is not a direct means for reaching the truth. Science works with hypotheses rather than with truths. This fact, although recognized, is usually forgotten. It gives rise to the creation of certain key groups within science which think that their hypotheses are indubitably solid truths, and think that the hypotheses of other minority groups are just extravagant or crackpot ideas ...

all through history, and even now, there have been many instances of discussion about how to interpret aspects of nature, with various possible options without a clear answer, in which a group of scientists have opted to claim their position is the good or orthodox one while other positions are heresies."

"You can get into a habit of thought in which you enjoy making fun of all those other people who don't see things as clearly as you do. We have to guard carefully against it."

- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP meeting

"It is very rare for men to relate an event simply as it happened, without adding any element of their own judgment. When they see or hear anything new, they are, unless strictly on their guard, so occupied with their own preconceived opinions that they perceive something quite different from the plain facts seen or heard ... for most people think they sufficiently understand a thing when they have ceased to wonder at it."

- A Theologico-Political Treatise, 1670 (Pub Anon.), Benedict de Spinoza (1632-1677)

Heh, the EUdiots are arguing against data again.

This isn't theory, fools. We saw this. There is nowhere to run. There is nowhere to hide.

We did not see any gravitational field twisting and stretching a magnetic one...anywhere...ever. That actually is a theory fool, never witnessed...there is only nowhere to run if you think it is actually physics. And yes, you should probably try to find somewhere to hide because reality is going to frighten you.

@DaSchneib, I could not invent a better Simplicio if I tried. You are the prototypical anti-pattern of modern science, the perfect enemy of progress in science, and the perfect representation of why modern science is stalled right now. It is so much easier to just point to your behaviors than it would otherwise be to conceptualize, without a demonstration, the problem.

If your group was smart enough to realize how problematic you are, they'd turn against you. Probably a good number of them actually agree with what you're saying -- which is why we need to go through this process.

We did not see any gravitational field twisting and stretching a magnetic one...anywhere...ever.

I didn't read that;

Extreme gravity within the disc twists and stretches magnetic fields, squeezing hot, magnetised disc material called plasma until it erupts in the form of oppositely
directed magnetic pillars along the black hole's rotational axis.

It's saying the plasma, that is the source of the EM field, is twisted by the gravitational field, ergo the EM field becomes twisted.
I really don't understand the point of misrepresenting something that is plainly there for everyone to read.

"You can get into a habit of thought in which you enjoy making fun of all those other people who don't see things as clearly as you do. We have to guard carefully against it."

- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP meeting

I used to believe this, tried to live by it....then I spent enough time here. Not one of the bunch will attempt to address the concept of gravitationally influencing a magnetic field...how the hell can you? Every single article or paper written about BH's has to say something completely ridiculous from a physics standpoint that cannot be addressed using physics as we know it. The only out for supporters is to direct the conversation away from said buffoonery via any means they can. Ojorf posts a non relevant equation to the post he was replying to and Schneib comes in with his opinion about people and a statement so inaccurate it's laughable. You can pretend not to read it...or make fun of it, as someone who doesn't support MS theories, I don't play pretend.

I didn't read that;

It is the first line of what you quoted....what the hell is wrong with you?

It's saying the plasma, that is the source of the EM field, is twisted by the gravitational field,

No it does not say that, it flat out said and you also posted it, that gravity effects the magnetic fields which results in:

squeezing hot, magnetised disc material called plasma until it erupts in the form of oppositely directed magnetic pillars along the black hole's rotational axis

You can't re-arrange what was said...nice try.

I really don't understand the point of misrepresenting something that is plainly there for everyone to read.

So....you need to reinterpret scientific text to what it really means in order to understand it...gotcha. Now I see why the mainstream appear so freaking confused about pretty much everything...they never actually mean what they write and one of the followers has to translate it.
Not even a nice try.

How about this Benni?

r=(2MG)/(c^2)

Try it, take the mass of the earth as an example (M) , make the radius 8mm, then 9mm, then 10mm see what G works out as.

.........if you had any concept of the Laws of Physics as exposited by Einstein in GR you would know that total gravity, hence gravitational attraction of one body to another, cannot change as long as MASS remains CONSTANT. You're just trying to re-invent 19th black hole math like Schneibo also keeps trying to throwback to. Get it? No, probably not, you're too in love with your Perpetual Motion Math & Machines to give it up.

To just ignore all of that and focus upon me is an invitation for people to please stop thinking and instead think of the whole thing as a sort of soap opera.

Hey Chris, when there is no science supporting the Schneibo & Ojo sides of the BH issue, the only thing they have left is to focus on the person rebutting their perpetual motion math.

Hell's bells man, look at Ojo, reaching all the way back to 19th century science with an irrelevant equation to produce a math model for the existence of a BH. He & Schneibo have finally given up trying to make us believe that the basis for BHs are found in GR, so they're trying to put over the 19th century math model instead.

So....you need to reinterpret scientific text to what it really means in order to understand it...gotcha. Now I see why the mainstream appear so freaking confused about pretty much everything...they never actually mean what they write and one of the followers has to translate it.
Not even a nice try.

What scientific text? The above is an interpretation of a paper. Read the paper and find within it where is says that the MF is squeezed by gravity. You won't. 'Science' by press release, as per usual. Does Thornhill present courses on that? If you read the paper, you will find that it references the following paper for the mechanism:
Magnetohydrodynamic Production of Relativistic Jets (2001) (cited 405 times)
Meier, D.L. et al
http://user.astro...jets.pdf

This is why EU is a constant failure; they never read the papers, and they never reply to the papers. You can't blame people for ignoring something that doesn't exist.

Re: "This is why EU is a constant failure; they never read the papers, and they never reply to the papers. You can't blame people for ignoring something that doesn't exist."

The paper is presenting an ad hoc extension of a worldview which was abandoned by its creator and even argued against in his 1970 Nobel acceptance speech (for this very creation). I'm familiar with the situation sufficient to understand that there is more than one option available for interpreting the observations -- and the historical pattern is to pretend as though the framework which is being taught in the universities is the only valid approach.

The irony is that what is being taught in the universities must IN SOME MANNER be incorrect. You already know that because there is no TOE. So, the anti-pattern here is that you dismiss alternatives without really understanding where the mistake is in the textbook theory.

The irony is that what is being taught in the universities must IN SOME MANNER be incorrect. You already know that because there is no TOE. So, the anti-pattern here is that you dismiss alternatives without really understanding where the mistake is in the textbook theory.

And the ONLY way of challenging those findings is to do so within the scientific literature. As any scientist worth his salt would do, if he thought he saw an error, or misinterpretation. By failing to do this, EU is implicitly backing the standard model :)

you will find that it references the following paper for the mechanism:

I have watched these jets produced in a plasma chamber vegetable Jones. There was no BH in there with it. A 2001 paper referencing theoretical objects (using the word "likely") is your proof of validity??? And you called Thornhill dim...LMAO!

What scientific text? The above is an interpretation of a paper.

Regardless Vegetable, the poster I was responding to actually tried to re-arrange the wording of the article in an attempt to validate what was said.

You can't blame people for ignoring something that doesn't exist.

But then we have to listen to useless tools who say really stupid things because they believe said things do exist...this is why mainstream and supporters are a constant failure, they reference papers about theories and then think a theory that isn't proven proves another one valid. After a conversation with Thornhill you'd be in the fetal position sucking your thumb

And the ONLY way of challenging those findings is to do so within the scientific literature.

Clearly not, being as we witness several challenges to what is said here every day. Is your perspective so narrow as to think only yours exists? Based on your posts that is a clear "yes". Go back to the crisper with your like minded vegetables and let time do what it does to vegetables. The theories you support have mostly rotted already...can't wait til you join them.

Re: "And the ONLY way of challenging those findings is to do so within the scientific literature."

And the obvious mistake you make here is in assuming that the peer reviewers are more fair than yourself. All we have to do is to observe your own behaviors to appreciate the larger context.

"But what happens when the peer review system itself becomes corrupt? Ruling theories can gain such a hold on both journals and funding bodies that freedom of speech is threatened, and contrary views may struggle to get an airing, even when they are well-founded. Paradoxically, when that happens, the only way out for beleaguered scientists is to gain coverage for their heresy in the otherwise despised 'grey' literature, where the trammels of peer review do not apply."

- Ted Nield, Geoscientist 17.8 August 2007

they never read the papers, and they never reply to the papers.

So...when we read an article here it is your contention that it inaccurately depicts what is presented in the papers...and thus debating what an article here says is pointless. (actually it is at this point here in the age of lost physics) We've had that one thrown out numerous times as a defense of the "science" as well..."the physorg writer got it wrong"...
Do you have a wheel you spin with excuses on it or something? Where ever it stops, that's what we'll go with.....

"You could write the entire history of science in the last 50 years in terms of papers rejected by Science or Nature."

- Paul C. Lauterbur, winner of the Nobel Prize for medicine, whose seminal paper on magnetic resonance imaging was originally rejected by Nature

in order to understand the nature of the denier of science, one must examine the evidence of their beliefs by examining their statements

consider the following by @bschitthead

That actually is a theory fool, never witnessed...there is only nowhere to run if you think it is actually physics

a literate person knows the following:

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge
https://www.nap.e...pter/2#2
https://plato.sta...heories/

whereas the pseudoscience crowd assumes a completely separate definition out of ignorance

'nuff said?

thank you for demonstrating your lack of science literacy yet again

Re: "A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested"

C. E. R. Bruce, Electric Fields in Space, Penguin Science Survey, 1968, p.170

"Perhaps in no scientific discipline other than cosmology have so many theories got by on so little positive evidence; imagination has had free reign, often at the expense of common sense."

Are we going to get anything regarding the article Stumpid? Or, as usual, just your personal views about a poster? You may need to collaborate with the other vegetables if you care to post anything dealing with the article. Now, as per usual the requisite call out about your own idiotic post:

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge

The line in dispute:

Extreme gravity within the disc twists and stretches magnetic fields,

Awaiting anything that supports this theory.....as per your definition of "theory".
In order to understand the nature of stupidity, one must examine pretty much everything posted by Captain Stumpy. On the surface it may appear he has a clue, but examining his statements refutes any such notion.

After a conversation with Thornhill you'd be in the fetal position sucking your thumb

Seriously? Lol. This is the cretin who thinks Velikovsky was right! Who thinks comets are rocks! That electric discharges cause the jets! That solar wind H+ will combine with non-existent O- to form OH! And that instruments will confuse this with H2O! Who thinks that gravity is an electromagnetic effect! Hint: change the charge on one body orbiting another, and see what happens. Clue: it's been done, and nothing happens. Who thinks the Sun is powered by an invisible Z-pinch just 1 AU away!
I've told you, the bloke is a cretin. And a fraud. That's why nobody takes him seriously (or, indeed, has ever heard of him), and why he attracts such scientifically illiterate followers. Anybody that takes Velikovsky seriously needs their head read. Whatever that crap is, it isn't science. And he isn't a scientist.

Extreme gravity within the disc twists and stretches magnetic fields,

Please point out in the paper where that is stated.

It's really not clear how Stumpy's scientific method argument makes some sort of case against "pseudoscientists".

In fact, it is instead surprising that somebody would even raise the topic of methodology in the midst of any discussion of cosmology or astrophysics -- which cannot usually claim to follow the scientific method in the manner of more traditional domains.

We should rightly ask, by his own definition, if cosmology is a pseudoscience since it routinely accepts claims without any experimental aspect at all.

We should rightly ask, by his own definition, if cosmology is a pseudoscience since it routinely accepts claims without any experimental aspect at all.

Which is obviously nonsense, otherwise PC and the Alfven-Klein model would be accepted. They aren't, due to evidence showing them to be inconsistent with observation.

Actually, in speaking with him....one of the revelatory things that was immediately apparent is that he isn't CD85. So if you want to take things posted here and apply them to Thornhill go ahead....it fits in with the remarks about physorg writers and your cycloptic view of challenging (non) scientific findings. For the record, it was Don Scott who came up the charge stacking as a mechanism for generating gravity...which is actually more valid than it being a fucking depression in a human construct (spacetime). Likely why Thornhill agrees. Meanwhile we have the above diatribe from a guy who doesn't know that more photons means brighter (in any spectrum) as a personal critique of the guy. Are you trying to "out-retard" Stump or something?

they never read the papers, and they never reply to the papers.

So...when we read an article here it is your contention that it inaccurately depicts what is presented in the papers...and thus debating what an article here says is pointless. (actually it is at this point here in the age of lost physics) We've had that one thrown out numerous times as a defense of the "science" as well..."the physorg writer got it wrong"...
Do you have a wheel you spin with excuses on it or something? Where ever it stops, that's what we'll go with.....

A press release is just that. Somebody, who may have no qualifications in the relevant area, presents a precis of the paper. It is pointless criticising based on a press release. You absolutely have to read the paper. Otherwise it's just so much pointless noise. Pointless anyway, unless you address the paper within the scientific literature. Because nobody who matters is actually listening.

Extreme gravity within the disc twists and stretches magnetic fields,

Please point out in the paper where that is stated.

You're the one who says it isn't, the article we all read said the above...you go pull the part of the paper out that this refers to and show us why it was presented incorrectly. We aren't defending it numbnuts...you are.

Actually, in speaking with him....one of the revelatory things that was immediately apparent is that he isn't CD85. So if you want to take things posted here and apply them to Thornhill go ahead.

http://www.thunde...omet.pdf

Is the Wallace Thornhill who wrote that junk the same one that you are talking about? He said all those things I attributed to him. He's a loon.

@chris/hannes the pseudoscience eu cult troll

1968,

yeah, and nothing ever changes or advances in science, eh?
LMFAO

We should rightly ask, by his own definition, if cosmology is a pseudoscience since

stopped there because you don't know how science works, therefore you can't comprehend how one can build accurate experimental based models and then extrapolate data

until you actually learn what science is, you should stop posting about how science is wrong about anything

it makes you look stupider than bschitthead

.

The line in dispute

]@bschitthead
so, you're saying that your own lack of literacy is ok?

if you were even semi-scientifically literate you would not only know how to classify evidence, but you would know how to utilise the lexicon for accurate representation or speech

given you you're obviously not scientifically literate, one can then dismiss your comments as argument from ignorance

Extreme gravity within the disc twists and stretches magnetic fields,

Please point out in the paper where that is stated.

You're the one who says it isn't, the article we all read said the above...you go pull the part of the paper out that this refers to and show us why it was presented incorrectly. We aren't defending it numbnuts...you are.

Read the frigging paper. It isn't in there. How can I point out something which doesn't exist? Jesus H. Christ, it's on Arxiv. Read it.

Once again, one side says "Just change the radius, and see what happens to the equation!" That's playing with algebra, not an observation of any physical phenomenon.

So the other side says, not very clearly I'm afraid, "You can't arbitrarily change the radius in a formula and call that proof. Proof would be if you found a real object actually having its radius changed by some physical process in the real world, and if your math and only your math perfectly explained that phenomenon."

Then everybody calls each other names. Yay.

The fundamental problem between you guys (and yes, I'm sure every one of you is a guy; women are different when they're vicious) is you don't want to entertain new ideas. Obviously one side is more right than the other, but you're both necessarily wrong about a lot of things. Have some humility, open your ears, and drop the slurs.

I'm on the side of real world data and "all other options have been disproved." Nobody's there yet.

We aren't defending it numbnuts...you are.

@bschitthead cont'd
wrong
you are assuming that the article is equivalent to the study

this is due to your inability to comprehend what constitutes science, as demonstrated above multiple times, like the following

the article we all read said the above...

the article and study also used the words "jet" and the study used the term "emission from the jet", but no one here assumed there was a 747 involved...

this is where science literacy comes in: you can't assume that colloquial terminology applies (as in: theory)
nor can you assume that the article written by an author is factually representative of the study

articles are not equivalent to studies
ever

the failing here is yours, not ours
you can learn more here: https://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

Re: "For the record, it was Don Scott who came up the charge stacking as a mechanism for generating gravity...which is actually more valid than it being a fucking depression in a human construct (spacetime)."

It's important to note that the original suggestion came from Immanuel Velikovsky, who in turn pointed to a book which mentioned it (not sure which book that is though) -- and this information was actually received by Wal Thornhill while he was still working for IBM. He goes through the story in his presentations.

It's important to note that the original suggestion came from Immanuel Velikovsky,

Well that figures!!!! Like I said, anybody that takes that crap seriously is in urgent need of a lobotomy.

"But what happens when the peer review system itself becomes corrupt? Ruling theories can gain such a hold on both journals and funding bodies that freedom of speech is threatened, and contrary views may struggle to get an airing, even when they are well-founded. Paradoxically, when that happens, the only way out for beleaguered scientists is to gain coverage for their heresy in the otherwise despised 'grey' literature, where the trammels of peer review do not apply."

- Ted Nield, Geoscientist 17.8 August 2007

......and this is not a recent occurrence either. After Einstein wrote his 1936-38 paper on the non-existence of Gravitational Waves, the Physical Review soundly trounced him specifically for that viewpoint.

We should rightly ask, by his own definition, if cosmology is a pseudoscience since it routinely accepts claims without any experimental aspect at all.

.....in addition to the fact that pop-sci cosmology routinely rejects the proven Laws of Thermodynamics as the modus operandi for energy distribution throughout the Universe.

Just try to talk to any of the pop-sci culture who live in the Commentary here & you can never get them to explain in a discernible fashion why Dark Energy IS NOT a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, ENTROPY, except that Schneibo has been here to posit the concept that "entropy is consumable" (whatever that means).

Just try to talk to any of the pop-sci culture who live in the Commentary here & you can never get them to explain in a discernible fashion why Dark Energy IS NOT a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, ENTROPY, except that Schneibo has been here to posit the concept that "entropy is consumable" (whatever that means).

There was an article here, maybe last week, positing that inflation was due to the formation of knots in 3D spacetime as the universe cooled. It was all about topology; they said you can only have knots in three dimensions, among other things.

Anyway, that reduced inflation to the expenditure of potential energy in the system, and it put a starting point and an endpoint on it. So it didn't necessarily violate thermodynamics, which is nice.

Read the frigging paper. It isn't in there. How can I point out something which doesn't exist? Jesus H. Christ, it's on Arxiv. Read it.

I didn't say to point out where it didn't say it there looney tunes, I asked you to point out the part of the paper that the statement was supposed to represent, being as you are the one saying that the paper doesn't say what the article does. I don't need to read a peer reviewed pile of theoretical excrement so I can decipher what fairy tale was meant vs. the translation in the article above...the paper is about how a non existent object creates an observed phenomenon...IOW...not worth anyones time except those interested in furthering their understanding of fantasies. As to whatever Stump said....I am sure it is as insightful as everything else he has to say here. That ignore feature is awesome, never tried it before....bet his parents wish they had it too.

Anyway, that reduced inflation to the expenditure of potential energy in the system, and it put a starting point and an endpoint on it. So it didn't necessarily violate thermodynamics, which is nice.

I saw that. Couldn't quite figure out how the knots were supposed to work. I thought the author was alluding to a concept that density of mass throughout the Universe is not precisely EVENLY distributed as would be expected by the entropic process of Conservation of Energy & the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Well, now. Let's see what happens if a magnetic field is generated by a spinning disk of ionized gas.

The magnetic field extends upward and downward from the disk parallel to the axis, because magnetism acts orthogonally to electric current, and the ionized matter in the disk acts parallel to its axis. Magnetism acts at the speed of light. The disk is spinning, so the magnetic field's lines of equipotential flow out from the disk in a helix. The disk is moving inward because the black hole sucks at the disk, and the helix of magnetic equipotential lines compresses toward the axis of the disk.

I think it's a pretty good conjecture that the magnetic field from the accretion disk is "...[twisted and stretched] magnetic fields, squeezing hot, magnetised disc material called plasma until it erupts in the form of oppositely directed magnetic pillars along the black hole's rotational axis."
[contd]

[contd]
Note however that without any evidence other than theory to support it, this remains a conjecture until we can propose a testable hypothesis. The simple fact of the matter is that these "jets" emerge from black holes, and we're still figuring out why.

This observation (note, not a theory, not even a hypothesis, the former requires a fulfilled prediction and the latter some prediction that can be fulfilled, we currently don't have telescopes powerful enough to observe helical confinement of the jets by any force much less magnetism even in relatively nearby black holes) shows that there is a delay between the emission of X-rays and the emission of visible light. This in turn indicates that whatever process emits the X-rays a) happens closer to the black hole since radiation, you know, radiates, and stuff, b) causes the light pulse from the X-rays, and c) happens about half a light-second away from the X-ray emissions.

Just sayin'.

So that's what we know about and can see, and that's what we conjecture about where it comes from. There's a fair bit of further observation with progressively more powerful instruments yet to come; science isn't like religions, it has no holy texts. Science is about observation and experiment, not about supposedly holy books written by individuals. Its revealed truths are observations, not the conjectures or even hypotheses of fallible individuals.

That's how science is different from religion. And that's why EUdiocy is a religion, not science.

Now, does *this paper* talk about this conjecture? No. It's a report of observations. The light pulse happens a tenth of a second after the X-ray pulse. That's significant, because it constrains what conjectures can be made into hypotheses. Whatever makes the X-ray pulse has to happen a tenth of a second before whatever makes the light pulse. That's what this paper says.

That, to quote Radar O'Reilly, is all.

Uh, oh. It's a footrace.......Will it be Chris or will it be Schneibo taking the cyberspace honors?

I'm pulling for you Chris.

Read the frigging paper. It isn't in there. How can I point out something which doesn't exist? Jesus H. Christ, it's on Arxiv. Read it.

I didn't say to point out where it didn't say it there looney tunes, I asked you to point out the part of the paper that the statement was supposed to represent, being as you are the one saying that the paper doesn't say what the article does. I don't need to read a peer reviewed pile of theoretical excrement so I can decipher what fairy tale was meant vs. the translation in the article above...the paper is about how a non existent object creates an observed phenomenon...IOW...not worth anyones time except those interested in furthering their understanding of fantasies. As to whatever Stump said....I am sure it is as insightful as everything else he has to say here. That ignore feature is awesome, never tried it before....bet his parents wish they had it too.

Try that in English.

Uh, oh. It's a footrace.......Will it be Chris or will it be Schneibo taking the cyberspace honors?

I'm pulling for you Chris.

Shut up Benni; you are thick and irrelevant. Yes?

Read the frigging paper. It isn't in there. How can I point out something which doesn't exist? Jesus H. Christ, it's on Arxiv. Read it.

I didn't say to point out where it didn't say it there looney tunes, I asked you to point out the part of the paper that the statement was supposed to represent, being as you are the one saying that the paper doesn't say what the article does. I don't need to read a peer reviewed pile of theoretical excrement so I can decipher what fairy tale was meant vs. the translation in the article above...the paper is about how a non existent object creates an observed phenomenon...IOW...not worth anyones time except those interested in furthering their understanding of fantasies. As to whatever Stump said....I am sure it is as insightful as everything else he has to say here. That ignore feature is awesome, never tried it before....bet his parents wish they had it too.

Jeez, thick, eh?

Bschitt seems to have glossed over Thornhill's lies and deceptions. Wonder when he will actually address the lying pr*ck? Let's be honest; he is scientifically illiterate. Yes? Any chance of dealing with those lies, Bshitt? No, thought not. Coward.

As previously noted, EUdiots argue against data. This is foolish to say the least. Data are data. EUdiots argue that the Sun never sets and the Moon doesn't change phase in 28 days. This is the basic nature of EUdiocy.

Hey da schnied, where are the "open field lines" in that conjecture of yours? Where is the data?

@cantthink69, if you don't want to be made to look stupid, just a Pro Tip, don't say stupid stuff and deny reality.

Looks like the open field lines are coming out the jets. Maybe you didn't notice.

Open field lines result from the fact that we don't (and often can't) model the entire universe when investigating an object or system of interest. An "open" field is merely one that penetrates the surface of our volume of interest (the "box"). Generally the box has been carefully chosen so that the strongest fields are in it, so there aren't that many field lines that go in/out of it, but mathematicians and physicists automatically know that the "open" field lines don't just magically end at the box's surface. Each "open" field line extends from the box, loops around and connects to the end of another "open" field line on the box. It's just that we don't care where the field lines are outside of the box. We're always here to help you sort out your confusion about open field lines, cantdrive85.

Well da schnied, now you have competition for that magnetic monopole Nobel prize.

........if you had any concept of the Laws of Physics as exposited by Einstein in GR you would know that total gravity, hence gravitational attraction of one body to another, cannot change as long as MASS remains CONSTANT.

Oh boy, Benni, you are so confused!
We are not talking about gravitational attraction between 2 bodies, just the surface gravity of a single body, which of course is dependent on density.
Do you understand now?

@Lenni thinks that an object the size of a pea with the mass of the Earth would have "the same gravity field" as the Earth. In every detail. This is obviously ridiculous even given a knowledge only of Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation, never mind relativity. @Lenni can't think any better than @cantthink69. This is the price of trying to do physics without understanding any math: being a fool.

if you had any concept of the Laws of Physics as exposited by Einstein in GR you would know that total gravity, hence gravitational attraction of one body to another, cannot change as long as MASS remains CONSTANT.

We are not talking about gravitational attraction between 2 bodies, just the surface gravity of a single body, which of course is dependent on density.

Ojo,

Finally, after I have explained it to you so many times, it has finally gotten through to you that increasing the density of a constant mass body does not change it's gravity, that the only change is in the concentration of gravity per unit area of the mass at it's surface, a change that can never go to infinity in accordance with Einstein Field Equations in GR, but you probably still don't believe even this, right?

Schneibo doesn't believe this:

an object the size of a pea with the mass of the Earth would have "the same gravity field" as the Earth, This is obviously ridiculous.