that means about three solar masses were converted into gravitational-wave energy during the coalescence
Every time I read something like this it just boggles the mind.
Ordinarily nothing could escape a black hole
Every time I read something like this it just boggles the mind.
Indeed. Ordinarily nothing could escape a black hole, and I'm wondering how this happens. Do the two black holes stretch towards each other so that for a moment some portion of them extends beyond the event horizon? Three solar masses is a not inconsiderable percentage of the original two objects to have disappear into energy.
It is a misnomer to believe that anything is actually escaping. What is happening is that the spacetime between the black holes is emitting the energy. Emission stops when the black holes are fully merged.@Parsec this is actually pretty interesting because the energy comes out of the mass of the merging BHs. This strongly indicates that mass is being transmuted into energy during these mergers. This in turn argues that the contents of a BH are no longer representative of the things that fell into it, and that entropy is consumed by BHs as mass and energy are consumed by the BH. The entropy cannot be retrieved since matter has been converted into GW energy and the energy is randomized.
there are questions as to whether these are events caused by two black holes being created by a binary pair of core collapse supernovae, or black holes from SNe that later formed a pair. Polarization will tell us this.
Ordinarily nothing could escape a black hole
It's gravity (i.e. warping of spacetime)..not a 'substance' that escapes.
and that entropy is consumed by BHs
The entropy cannot be retrieved.....because it was NEVER a consumable commodity to begin with, you absolutely don't know what ENTROPY is, but why should we be surprised, you've never taken a Thermodynamics course.
since matter has been converted into GW energy
I'm not going to waste my time or others' arguing with #physicscranks like @Lenni and @anadish who don't "believe in" BHs. I suggest they get a clue and study GRT.
I'm not going to waste my time or others' arguing with #physicscranks like @Lenni and @anadish who don't "believe in" BHs. I suggest they get a clue and study GRT. Good luck with that, particularly for @Lenni who doesn't understand simultaneous PDEs.
As more and more BH mergers are detected the #physicscranks will be increasingly marginalized. Evidence always trumps #physicscranks.
and that entropy is consumed by BHs
Schneibo, ENTROPY is not a consumable commodity. ...
since matter has been converted into GW energy
The Laws of Conservation of Energy make no allusions to your assertion that "matter" can be converted into "GW energy", matter can only be TRANSFORMED to ELECTRO-MAGNETIC ENERGY but not to gravity.
The detected gravitational waves—ripples in space and time—were emitted during the final moments of the merger of two black holes, one with a mass about 31 times that of our sun, the other about 25 times the mass of the sun. The event, located about 1.8 billion light-years away resulted in a spinning black hole with about 53 times the mass of our sun—that means about three solar masses were converted into gravitational-wave energy during the coalescence.
Above description is that of first wave detected by the LIGO people in February 2016 OR the one detected by LIGO and Virgo people in this week? Please clarify.
Are the gravity waves created by gravitons *outside* the event horizon of the merging black holes
That the mass-energy contained by the two black holes is lessened once they merge, would seem to imply that the "missing" mass-energy of the merged black holes is converted into these force-carriers, but that mass-energy, occurs only within the event horizon and therefore the gravitons shouldn't be able to escape?
I'm sorry, I see little point in arguing the characteristics of black holes with a #physicscrank who claims not to "believe in" them.
Here's the deal with gravitons:...oh, won't this just be so much fun, a freelance journalist entertaining us with another one of his hypothethicals,..OK Shavo, let the entertainment begin:
You know how photons, in large numbers, form classical electric and magnetic fields? Same thing with 'gravitons.' Gravitons,
do a potential-free Lagrangian in a curved spacetime (Schwarzschild metric) you will see a fictitious force appear in an equation that doesn't have a force,Yeah, "fictitious" alright, no surprise there.
I'm sorry, I see little point in arguing the characteristics of black holes with a #physicscrank who claims not to "believe in" them.
Benni, as a friend of mine likes to say when he sees me posting here: "You are arguing with blind people about the color of the rainbow that you can see"........I mean, just look at the content of this Schneibo clown about ENTROPY, and how would you like to make a bet Shavo 5 Starred it?
There's literally no meaning in "conservation of gravity" as I have often said.... yeah, like after you got one damned hard lecture from me when you were trying to twist words within one of my posts about TRANSFER of gravity when TRANSFORMATION of Mass/Energy occurs, you tried to twist that into CONSERVATION OF GRAVITY when I made no allusions to the effect that gravity has transformative properties.
the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a bit like Godwin's Law, an argument pulled out of the drawer when the poster really has no argument left. doubly true when the poster is claiming that another poster "doesn't understand" how the 2nd Law works while they themselves try to apply it to systems smaller than the universe.
since you never actually define what you mean by CONSERVATION OF GRAVITY,
without telling us what gravity can TRANSFORM to?
It's ok little buddy. I already told you you won.......but I'm still curious about that introductory thermodynamics course you took in Grad School.......did it have any math content to it? Did ENTROPY ever come up? Enthalpy? C'mon here, don't leave me out on the same limb you & Schneibo are standing on, I don't believe in Perpetual Motion & I know sooner or later it will break & I don't want that happening with you two clowns for company.
without telling us what gravity can TRANSFORM to?
Well, apparently around 3 solar masses can transform into gravity waves so it's likely that the process works both ways, doncha think?
1) The black hole entropy question has several proposed resolutions, but obviously we don't have the data to distinguish yet which one may yet be right...........sure we do, all the math & equations you could ever hope to see, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics......! Capiche? Probably not.
2) what law: Mass is the Lorentz invariant quantity of 4-momentum. So obviously energy can be lorentz-boosted to momentum, so long as the mass of the system stays the same.........and you are totally clueless about the meaning of what you just wrote here.
I don't have the foggiest clue what you're talking about 'conservation of gravity.'.......then why did you ever concoct such a terminology in the first place?
There's no 'conservation of light' even though light is made of particles.Really? Now you're telling us that the visible portion of the Electro-Magnetic Energy Spectrum is made up of "particles", particles in case you never knew it is MASS.
[Really? Now you're telling us that the visible portion of the Electro-Magnetic Energy Spectrum is made up of "particles", particles in case you never knew it is MASS.
In particle physics, a massless particle is an elementary particle whose invariant mass is zero. The two known massless particles are both gauge bosons: the photon (carrier of electromagnetism) and the gluon (carrier of the strong force).
and you are totally clueless about the meaning
.then why did you ever concoct such a terminology
particles in case you never knew it is MASS.
Again, if you want to invent new meanings for words beyond what physicists mean, please feel free to. A particle, in physics, is a quantized excitation of a field. Some of these particles couple to the Higgs field and gain mass, but not all do.
Look, in a few years, after you've had some introductory undergrad physics classes, you'll understand and just look back on this as a whole bunch of silliness.
There's no 'conservation of light' even though light is made of particles.........how is it you brag about taking Physics courses yet don't know that no part of the Electro-Magnetic Energy Spectrum is made of "particles, MASS? Huh, Shavo? Explain how this works? Explain for us overeducated science professionals why your view of science is so superior to the known Fundamental Laws of Physics that you can't even get the definition of light energy right?
Your mistake, @shavera, was accepting @Lenni, who lies about being a nuclear engineer when it is actually not even a technician, as a physicist. This individual is a #physicscrank and should be dismissed as such. I have tried addressing it and educating it and all it does is make up specious lies to try to deny reality. Don't waste your time, is my advice.
and that entropy is consumed by BHs
The entropy cannot be retrieved
since matter has been converted into GW energy
This strongly indicates that mass is being transmuted into energy during these mergers. This in turn argues that the contents of a BH are no longer representative of things that fell into it, and that entropy is consumed by BHs as mass and energy are consumed by the BH. The entropy cannot be retrieved since matter has been converted into GW energy
In particle physics, a massless particle is an elementary particle whose invariant mass is zero. The two known massless particles are both gauge bosons:......and referred to as VIRTUAL PARTICLES.
@Lenni feel free to solve the PDEs you lie about understanding:
-m'' + m'n' - m'² - 2m'/r = 0
m'' + m'² - m'n' - 2m'/r = 0
e⁻²ⁿ (1 + m'r - n'r) - 1 = 0
R₂₂ sin² Ď� = 0
Source: http://www.etsu.e...esis.pdf
Anytime at all, sport. We are all watching you lie.
Yeah, Shavo, this little lecture coming from someone who concocted this:There's no 'conservation of light' even though light is made of particles.........how is it you brag about taking Physics courses yet don't know that no part of the Electro-Magnetic Energy Spectrum is made of "particles, MASS? Huh, Shavo? Explain how this works? Explain for us overeducated science professionals why your view of science is so superior to the known Fundamental Laws of Physics that you can't even get the definition of light energy right?
Photon's have MASS?!?........that's what Shavo says with this statement:
There's no 'conservation of light' even though light is made of particles.........then he & jonesy start talking about VIRTUAL PARTICLES as if VIRTUAL does not mean what the definition of the word plainly states that it is with synonyms such as: simulated, artificial, imitation, make-believe.
So far, neither antialias nor Da Schneib have provided the necessary maths to support the claim that the quadrupole component of said waves from so far away would persist/posses sufficient 'signal strength' to be detected 'here' as claimed by the LIGO team.
Since when has a place like this become the proving ground for science?........and you are one who is the epitome of this statement.
Since when has a place like this become the proving ground for science?........and you are one who is the epitome of this statement.
Nobody gives a rat's arse what is posted on a place such as this. It has zero impact.
Nobody gives a rat's arse what is posted on a place such as this. It has zero impact.
So why then are you such a zealot for posting here? If it's such a rest stop for "saddos", that must include yourself.......Right?
Double standards, mate (how many times have you/DS etc 'demanded the maths' from 'the cranks'?So far, neither antialias nor Da Schneib have provided the necessary maths to support the claim that the quadrupole component of said waves from so far away would persist/posses sufficient 'signal strength' to be detected 'here' as claimed by the LIGO team.Since when has a place like this become the proving ground for science? Why should commenters here have to provide the maths?
Try this, for instance:
https://arxiv.org...2502.pdf
Where is the maths that proves a DISTANT source gravitational wave signal will actually reach 'here' in sufficient 'signal strength' to be discerned above the MANY MORE nearer-sourced gravitational waves; especially from previously claimed BH 'merger' 3 BILLION LYs away?
You miss the point of discussion/comment section, mate. Since you/etc argue FOR the LIGO claims, it is incumbent on you/etc to support your argument; in this case by linking the maths as requested. Otherwise you prove your presence here is to troll/insult/evade rather than engage fairly on the science being discussed/commented upon here.Where is the maths that proves a DISTANT source gravitational wave signal will actually reach 'here' in sufficient 'signal strength' to be discerned above the MANY MORE nearer-sourced gravitational waves; especially from previously claimed BH 'merger' 3 BILLION LYs away?
!!!ASK THE LIGO TEAM!!! Get it? It's of no relevance whatsoever what people post on here, in case you haven't noticed. Go find the maths yourself. There are oodles of papers out there.Or just email the lead author on one of them and ask for guidance of where to find it. Nothing, repeat nothing, is going to be settled in a bloody comments section.
You miss the point of discussion/comment section, mate. Since you/etc argue FOR the LIGO claims, it is incumbent on you/etc to support your argument; in this case by linking the maths as requested. Otherwise you prove your presence here is to troll/insult/evade rather than engage fairly on the science being discussed/commented upon here.
Why the double standards again, mate? And why then keep kneejerking/insulting etc when PO members voice their concerns re possible errors of logics/physics with the reported claims by LIGO?You miss the point of discussion/comment section, mate. Since you/etc argue FOR the LIGO claims, it is incumbent on you/etc to support your argument; in this case by linking the maths as requested.Utter nonsense. The LIGO team are making the claims. If you, or anybody else, think they're wrong, then publish it. It is certainly not incumbent on me, DS or anybody else, who aren't part of the LIGO team, to justify their claims. Those claims are within the scientific literature. As should be any questioning of them. I'm not aware of any. Anything written on here by outsiders is of no relevance.
..... just because YOU don't want to support your assertions?
The majority of comments I make are in reply to the aforementioned tripe. If there was no tripe, I wouldn't comment,
since matter has been converted into GW energythen do an about face denying they said it, right Schneibo? Yeah, great entertainment here.
can someone calculate how much our bodies shifted in size when this gravity wave passed through us? are we talking microns, nanometers?Actually there's no need to calculate it. What you need to know is how much the mirrors in the LIGO and VIRGO sites moved. You'll need to multiply by 2 to get the size change, unless you meant volume which is a little more complicated (not much more). If you look it up on Wikipedia, you'll find the mirrors shift about 10⁻¹⁸ m, which is less than a thousandth the size of a proton. That will get you to your best answer to this question with a minimum of fuss.
Actually there's no need to calculate it. What you need to know is how much the mirrors in the LIGO and VIRGO sites moved. You'll need to multiply by 2 to get the size change, unless you meant volume which is a little more complicated (not much more). If you look it up on Wikipedia, you'll find the mirrors shift about 10⁻¹⁸ m, which is less than a thousandth the size of a proton. That will get you to your best answer to this question with a minimum of fuss.
They are not, for the final time, MY assertions. They are made by the LIGO team. If you think they're wrong, tell THEM. They have published their work. It is subject to scrutiny and peer review.....ASK LIGO. Do a search. You are arguing against them, not us. I didn't write the papers, nor anybody else here.There are THREE issues, mate.
Do you now understand the reason why peer reviewed scientific literature exists?
@Lenni, entropy isn't conserved; it can increase. You don't even know what "conservation" means in physics. What it supposedly can't do is decrease; this is not "conservation."
and that entropy is consumed by BHs
The entropy cannot be retrieved,....... then pull a Shavo & give me credit for it, then to boot you start foaming at mouth something about CONSERVATION OF ENTROPY as if anybody here but you ever brought it up.
since matter has been converted into GW energy.......tell us more about what this transformation concept is that converts (transforms) matter into GW energy. I'll bet you'd like to give Einstein credit for this? Even though he never stated it? Yeah, you & Shavo working out the same playbook here.
... Now followup & explain to ussince matter has been converted into GW energy.......tell us more about what this transformation concept is that converts (transforms) matter into GW energy.
SECOND is LIGO claims themselves; which I have been trying to scrutinize but cannot get anyone to produce THEIR maths to prove said grav-wave from 3 BILLION LYrs away can reach 'here', let alone be discernible over NEARER sourced g-ws 'signals'.
@RealityCheck & JonesDaveSECOND is LIGO claims themselves; which I have been trying to scrutinize but cannot get anyone to produce THEIR maths to prove said grav-wave from 3 BILLION LYrs away can reach 'here', let alone be discernible over NEARER sourced g-ws 'signals'.
Not that I pretend to understand any of the math involved but this appears to be what you're looking for.
https://dcc.ligo....urve.pdf
Ok, stevo, the below copied from: https://dcc.ligo....urve.pdf
"2.3. Power spectral density
A ... density
6. Concluding remarks:
When quantifying the ... spectral energy density.
You need to learn what "density" is about & how it is derived from General Relativity as the basis of irradiation of all thing Electro-Magnetic & Gravity. It's better know as application of the Inverse Square Law, which if you don't know what that is, then you will never understand why these LIGO detectors simply picked a change of INTENSITY over stable electro-magnetic background noise & a stable gravity field, only to watch the detectors return to previous levels once the so-called WAVE passed after a few nanosecs.
General Relativity is not where density is derived from, for starters.First Schneibo, you need to read it to find out.
quoted parts don't talk about matter density, which is all one can think when someone talks about deriving density from GRT......like your'e unable to figure out that the author already knows gravity is not derived from density of matter but rather from accumulated quantity of matter, you know, MASS DEPENDENT GRAVITY versus your loony concept of DENSITY DEPENDENT GRAVITY.
I have no idea what you're talking about when you say, "...your loony concept of DENSITY DEPENDENT GRAVITY."
I have no idea what you're talking about when you say, "...your loony concept of DENSITY DEPENDENT GRAVITY." First, it's not my concept, and second, it's obvious from Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation that density has an effect on surface gravity. If you want to tell us all you think Newton was wrong, feel free but don't be surprised when you are met with derision.Do you have a response to it, or not?
@Whyde, they did. That's what the ringdown sequence is. Every one of the ripples in the ringdown is a single orbit, and as the BHs get closer and closer together, the orbits come faster and faster, until they coalesce.
Have you seen the waveform? You should take a look at it.
You can see the waveforms, and hear them, here: https://www.ligo....160211v2
If you're not going to respond to what I say without editing it, you're lying and there's no point in talking to you.
I said, I have no idea what you're talking about when you say, "...your loony concept of DENSITY DEPENDENT GRAVITY." First, it's not my concept, and second, it's obvious from Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation that density has an effect on surface gravity. If you want to tell us all you think Newton was wrong, feel free but don't be surprised when you are met with derision.
Do you have a response to it, or not?
Sorry, I'm going with Newton rather than some nutjob #physicscrank on the Internets.
The higher the density, the smaller the radius. The smaller the radius, the shorter the distance. The shorter the distance, the stronger the gravity. It's all right here:
F(g) = Gmm'/r²
If you can do math.
No, it's not an interpretation. That's exactly what it says. Sorry if you don't understand what a variable in the denominator means because you can't do fractions. BTW this also means you have no idea what the meaning of an inverse square law is, despite your lying about it a couple posts ago.
I kinda thought it would look more equal on either side of the peak...
I kinda thought it would look more equal on either side of the peak...
The peak is the point in time when the event horizons touch.
At first the centers of the black holes are getting closer to one another and the oribital period rapidly decreases (which is the 'chirp'). After the event horizons touch the orbital period still decreases but the signal strenght drops off because for all intents and purposes its now one black hole that quickly loses its asymmetric shape (that's the ringdown).
There's a good movie of this on wikipedia that shows which part sof the signal correspond to which state
https://en.wikipe...nal_wave
(movie on the right side)
Sorry, dude, the higher the density, the smaller the radius.
the force changes as the radius goes up and down..........but TOTAL GRAVITY within the system does not change by varying the FORCE via: "as the radius goes up and down". But this won't matter with you, you'll just come right back & say your Perpetual Motion pseudo-science of CONSERVATION OF GRAVITY is found in General Relativity even though Einstein trashed the entire concept of it in his 1939 paper, "On Stationary Systems with Spherical Symmetry consisting of many Gravitating Masses"
It's not the amount of mass that makes a black hole; it's the amount of mass *within a certain radius* that does. And all from that simple equation:
F(g) = Gmm'/r²
Last but not least, of course, is density. If you have the same mass in a smaller radius, then you have a higher density. So it's also obvious that it's the density of a mass that determines whether it is a black hole or not.It is that type of simplistic-maths 'thinking' that has led so many 'mathematical-theoretical' cosmologists/astrophysicists to 'believe' in un-physical objects/concepts instead of following reality-physical evidence/logics.
How many times are you going to ignore this, DS?Is that a trick question? I guess it would depend on how many times you Blah, Blah, and Blah the same old stuffs.
If 'density' alone, rather than a 'critical cumulative quantity' of energy-mass) was the determinant of forming a black hole, then the densities achieved during collisions in LHC (not to mention orders of magnitude greater at alleged big bang 'beginning') should produce 'micro' black holes in LHC; but it doesn't, hence NO 'density determinant' as such for BH feature!
OK, DS?
RC,Yes; a MINIMUM 'critical mass' QUANTITY. :) But DS is baldly stating that 'density' determines if a feature becomes 'black' or not. He has often attacked/insulted OTHERS for not being precise/clear in their terms/claims, yet he keeps making just as bad statements himself and just ignores corrections of HIS understandings etc. If only DS could lose some of his ego and malice, and actually PAY ATTENTION instead of ignoring/denying/insulting etc, he might actually learn rather than pretending he is correct when he isn't.
I don't believe DS is saying density alone is the determinant.
That said, I believe it kinda goes like this;
X amount of mass get's packed tighter together due to gravity, reducing the volume of a body, causing a smaller radius, subsequently changing he curvature of the body. Which, in turn, changes the curvature of space/time.
And so on and so on... to the point of matching escape velocity of C.
Pretty easy to visualize if you think on it...
I don't believe DS is saying density alone is the determinant.And THAT said:
That said, I believe it kinda goes like this;
X amount of mass get's packed tighter together due to gravity, reducing the volume of a body, causing a smaller radius, subsequently changing he curvature of the body. Which, in turn, changes the curvature of space/time.
And so on and so on... to the point of matching escape velocity of C.
Pretty easy to visualize if you think on it...
But DS is baldly stating that 'density' determines if a feature becomes 'black' or not.I think you are getting that part wrong Cher.
@Whyde.RC,Yes; a MINIMUM 'critical mass' QUANTITY. :)
I don't believe DS is saying density alone is the determinant.
...
Pretty easy to visualize if you think on it...
But DS is baldly stating that 'density' determines if a feature becomes 'black' or not.
If only DS could lose some of his ego and malice, and actually PAY ATTENTION instead of ignoring/denying/insulting etc, he might actually learn rather than pretending he is correct when he isn't.
X amount of mass get's packed tighter together due to gravity,
@RC, you said "calling it black." You were lying again. I'll just go ahead and add this thread to the list. Are you trying for three posts in order to show all your lies?What are you on about now, mate? Here is the relavant sentence in your post of just 4 hours ago:
...It was YOUR words, saying: "So it's also obvious that it's the density of a mass that determines whether it is a black hole or not."
If you have the same mass in a smaller radius, then you have a higher density. So it's also obvious that it's the density of a mass that determines whether it is a black hole or not.
...
It's not a matter of "calling it black." It's a matter of the definition of "black hole," which is that the escape velocity from the surface is greater than or equal to the speed of light. If it is, then light cannot escape. If you have some better name for that,
@Lenni, I am surprised you have what it takes to post here again considering how thoroughly you were pwnt.
The only remaining question is whether you have no pride, or are too stupid to do the math.
@SteveS.
Here SOME flaws I saw then:
- 'space-time' construct is NOT real space construct per se, so all such models/analyses and interpretations/patterns are NOT REAL things, just 'artifact' of 'abstract construct' assumptions.
- they admit their approach/techniques stem from GENERAL lab/naive procedures/assumptions/contexts wherein 'source signal', 'system/background noise' and 'intentional test signal inputs' CAN BE 'isolated/evaluated' for respective contribution/effect in a 'run' analysis; whereas in REAL WORLD LIGO context can NOT so 'isolate' g-w SOURCES SIGNAL/NOISE while testing!
- etc.
Thanks. :)
If you are familiar with my postings here at PO and elsewhere, you will be aware that I don't have the time/energy/health/inclination for such 'piecemeal' publish-or-perish publications which cannot treat the whole. I'll publish my reality-based ToE physics/maths work complete/consistent in due course. :)'space-time' construct is NOT real space construct per se, so all such models/analyses and interpretations/patterns are NOT REAL things, just 'artifact' of 'abstract construct' assumptions.You should write a paper on your observations and submit it for publication. Could you show me your math?
they admit their approach/techniques stem from GENERAL lab/naive procedures/assumptions/contexts wherein 'source signal', 'system/background noise' and 'intentional test signal inputs' CAN BE 'isolated/evaluated' for respective contribution/effect in a 'run' analysis; whereas in REAL WORLD LIGO context can NOT so 'isolate' g-w SOURCES SIGNAL/NOISE while testing!
Obviously the people of the world are lucky that there are people like you around, and we at physorg should be grateful that you have decided to share your wisdom with us. All scientists everywhere must be very worried that there is an intellect of such calibre scrutinizing their work.Twas ever thus! [humor :)]
@RealityCheckMy self-imposed scientific task (embarked on at age nine) was to satisfy MY curiosity about 'the universe' before I died. Having already noted by age nine that the usual 'grown ups' were easily influenced/sidetracked by personal/religious/social/mercenary interests and group affiliations/dynamics/beliefs, I made a conscious decision to be and remain always an INDEPENDENT and OBJECTIVE scientific researcher in order to minimize the detrimental effects/influences by the now-well-recognized subjective and external 'pitfalls' which many scientists so easily fall into (eg, specific 'publish or perish' imperatives; and/or general 'personal respect/glory/wealth/power' seeking; etc). So I do not 'seek' respect/other self-seeking 'rewards'; and only wish to 'convince' others to THINK and UNDERSTAND for THEMSELVES, objectively and fairly, as best they can, before THEY die.
You are wasted here, you will never get the respect you deserve.
only wish to 'convince' others,,,,,,,,,,,,,,that I was correct all along.
@ Really-Skippy.Please note, Ira: recent mainstream cosmo/quantum/astro discoveries/reviews are doing that whether I 'wished it' or not. :) I only ever point out that fact to you/others whenever you/others need your own claims/lies about science/me reality-checked to reflect the actual reality and not your/others' own 'version' based on prejudices/feuds and otherwise irrelevant/malicious opinions/motives. Not bad, hey, Ira; that I am the one being so confirmed correct all along on many fronts, while you/others still persist in trolling/chopping/deriding.
...
Fixed him for you, eh Cher?
So I do not 'seek' respect/other self-seeking 'rewards'; and only wish to 'convince' others to THINK and UNDERSTAND for THEMSELVES, objectively and fairly, as best they can, before THEY die.Which obviously held no meaning for you, Ira; since you prefer to 'joke', not 'think'? :)
@RealityCheck@SteveS
You are wasted here, you will never get the respect you deserve. Even if you do convince anybody here what difference would it make? These people are without influence in academia, their opinions carry no weight, educating them is pointless.
Yours is the superior intellect, you should quit Physorg and take it to a forum where you will be appreciate by people fit to be your students.
I've taken the trouble to find a couple for you.
https://www.quant...archive/
Don't hesitate, don't look back, just go now.
Godspeed
@SteveSAnd there it is for all @Forum readers to see, again; your juvenile preoccupation with your personal insulting and trolling agenda placed above courteous, objective science discourse and comprehension of the important things at stake for science and humanity's future. The phrase "Casting Pearls before Swine" fits your mindless snuffling and wallowing in the mud while you miss the whole point and purpose of open science discourse on its objective merits not the person/source presenting it; like casting pearls before a 'swine mentality' it would seem insofar as your lack of appreciation of its implications for science is concerned, CS....as your above quoted trolling stupidity and malice unambiguously demonstrates for all to see yet again. My apologies to actual pigs; they can't help being swine.
you, sir, have won the internetz today!
you just made me spit coffee all over the dog!
i don't know what was better: your comments or her replies
LMFAO
@Captain Stumpy.@lying POS delusional fanatic sam fodera the pseudoscience queen
@lying POS delusional fanatic sam fodera the pseudoscience queenDon't you just 'hate it'!...I'm the one being confirmed correct all along on many fronts by more recent astro/cosmo/quantum physics discovery/review; while you/'gang' of bot-voting deniers and insult trolls are being shown up as ignorant ego-tripping trolls in DENIAL of REAL OBJECTIVE SCIENCE; as you/gang cleave to increasingly falsified 'beliefs'!
others who have checked:And just WHO would these "others" be? The bot-voting gang of trolls who've been proven WRONG all along; and so just evade, insult, lie to distract from that recorded pattern of FAILURE of your ego-tripping ignorance and lies campaigns? Yeah, those "others" (your TROLL gang) are 'reliable witnesses' (NOT). You're dishonest, deluded, as is the rest of your nasty little 'gang', CS.
still no evidence at all whatsoever for your claims.You BOASTED you DID NOT READ/UNDERSTAND, so how would you KNOW, you nasty troll.
anadish
Sep 27, 2017