[Kryptid]

I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears, but...

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/29/1011047410/city-sized-neutron-star-massive-black-hole-collide-gulps-universe-gravitational

[Dave Lev (OP)]

You even apologised for it

Let's make it clear.
I have never lied.
However, I have agreed to apologies.
This isn't good enough for you as you have no answer to my key question.
You were requested to answer by yes or no.
You know by 100% that the answer must be yes.
However, you know that if you say yes, you kill the BBT.
If you say no - you lie.
Therefore, in order to avoid yourself again from lies, you prefer to focus on "lies".
So, instead of answering my technical question, you prefer to stay at the comfort zone of "lies".
Hence, please stay there as you wish.

In any case, I have proved that so far our scientists have no real observation for any matter that falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.
The idea that matter from the Bulge falls into that accretion disc is just pure imagination!
Hence, any one form the 10,000 BBT scientists that claim differently without real observation (by real article and by real observation) is liar by definition!!!

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears, but...

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/29/1011047410/city-sized-neutron-star-massive-black-hole-collide-gulps-universe-gravitational

Thanks for this article.
In this article our scientists claim that:
"A black hole swallowing a neutron star — a star more massive than our sun but only about the size of a city — has been observed for the first time ever."
Those objects are located at a distance of one BLY away:
However, they don't offer any real measurements in order to justify that statement.
All they say is:
"We are pretty sure, based on what we do know, that for these particular systems, the neutron star would have just plunged into the black hole without emitting any light, without being ripped to pieces," Fishbach agrees.
Is it real?
How could they base science or "pretty sure"

Is it pretty sure - "yes" or "no"
Sorry - science must be based on real measurements and not on "pretty sure".

In any case, this kind of collision between those two objects doesn't contradict my statement that nothing from outside falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.
In this article, they do not claim that the neutron star falls into the BH' accretion disc.
They just claim that: " the neutron star would have just plunged into the black hole without emitting any light, without being ripped to pieces".
So, if this neutron star falls into the BH and stay there forever and ever - that does not contradict my statement that:

Nothing from outside falls into the SMBH' accretion disc. - Never and ever!
Hence, if something falls into the BH it falls to stay there forever!

Nothing from the Bulge would fall into the SMBH' accretion disc.
Nothing from outside would increase its orbital velocity to almost the speed of light and its temp to 10^9 as it falls into the accretion disc, stay there for some time just in order to be ejected outwards later on!
NEVER & EVER!!!

Any scientist that claims against it without clear observation is LIAR!!!

[Bored chemist]

How could they base science or "pretty sure"

When scientists in fields like this talk about "pretty sure" they typically mean something like a 6 sigma result.
And this is how they have described the accretion disk on this occasion.
"we expect that the two bodies circle each other in a spiral. Eventually the black hole would just swallow the neutron star like Pac-Man." You just didn't understand it.

So, yes, there's an accretion disk. An unusual one because of what's falling in, but an accretion disc nonetheless.

Now, have you made up your mind whether you are a liar or not?

If I answer your question, do you promise not to lie about what the answer means?

Why can't you promise not to lie about this?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 08:47:09
How could they base science or "pretty sure"

When scientists in fields like this talk about "pretty sure" they typically mean something like a 6 sigma result.
And this is how they have described the accretion disk on this occasion.
"we expect that the two bodies circle each other in a spiral. Eventually the black hole would just swallow the neutron star like Pac-Man." You just didn't understand it.
So, yes, there's an accretion disk. An unusual one because of what's falling in, but an accretion disc nonetheless.
Now, have you made up your mind whether you are a liar or not?

They say: "we expect that the two bodies circle each other in a spiral."
Based on that message, we can understand that they only observe this orbital system. However, they don't see that the Neutron star is spiraling inwards.
They just EXPACT that it will spiral inwards.
So, again - they don't have any valid measurement for that expectation of spiraling inwards.
They just expect or assume or imagine that somehow the neutron star would spiral inwards.
As I have stated, I don't care about their expectations/imagination or "pretty sure" wish.
I only care about real measurements.
As they didn't offer any valid measurements then their exaction is useless!
As you claim that their  "pretty sure" mean something like a 6 sigma result without any real measurements to backup that statement, then you have a fatal error.
Science can't be base on "pretty sure" or expectation!
You need to prove your expectation.
Without it - any expectation is just imagination!

So, yes, there's an accretion disk. An unusual one because of what's falling in, but an accretion disc nonetheless.

Now, have you made up your mind whether you are a liar or not?

No, there is not even one word about accretion disc in this article.
Therefore, how do you dare to claim that there is one?
If you claim that the matter of the Newton star would fall in and set the BH' accretion disc without any backup for that - then you prove who is the real liar!

[Kryptid]

Yep, deaf ears, just like I thought.

[Bored chemist]

No, there is not even one word about accretion disc in this article.

Do you realise that it is possible to talk about something without using the name?
That inbound spiral of stuff is an accretion disk.
It doesn't matter if they use those words or not.

As you claim that their  "pretty sure" mean something like a 6 sigma result without any real measurements to backup that statement, then you have a fatal error.
Science can't be base on "pretty sure" or expectation!
You need to prove your expectation.

You just showed your ignorance again.

OK, here's what the signal looks like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_observation_of_gravitational_waves#/media/File:LIGO_measurement_of_gravitational_waves.svg
You can see the waves get quicker and more intense as time moves on.
That's because the nearer the two things are to eachother, the stronger the gravitational pull, and the faster they orbit.

So we do know, from that signal, that the things are moving together, not apart.
So we do know that the stuff is falling in not out.

The only problem is that you don't understand this fact.
Why is that?

Now, have you made up your mind whether you are a liar or not?

Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/06/2021 23:53:58
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/06/2021 19:55:49
If I answer your question, do you promise not to lie about what the answer means?

Why can't you promise not to lie about this?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:09:08
No, there is not even one word about accretion disc in this article.

Do you realise that it is possible to talk about something without using the name?
That inbound spiral of stuff is an accretion disk.
It doesn't matter if they use those words or not.

You and all the 10,000 scientists don't have a basic knowledge in orbital system.
Orbital object NEVER EVER spiral inwards and increasing their orbital velocity during that process.
OUR scientists have NEVER EVER observed any orbital system that spiraling inwards (reducing the radius) and increasing its velocity over time.

When we look at the solar system we don't see even one moon or planet that spiral inwards.
On the contrary, all the moons and all the planets in the solar system are spiraling outwards and losing velocity in this process.
Our scientists estimate that some moons are spiraling inwards (as triton).
They are wrong!
Newton formula is:
F= G M m / r^2
However, the real formula with reference to time must be:
F(t) = G M m / (r(t))
r(t) = r+Δr(t)
So, the radius of the orbital object is increasing over time, while the gravity force and the orbital velocity is reducing over time.

Hence, any orbital object in the entire universe is spiraling outwards!!!

Not inwards - but outwards.

This is real science!

You can't offer any real observation for spiraling inwards.
Therefore, those scientists that claim that the Neutron star is spiraling inwards - without real measurements - are LIAR!
Yes, all of them are liars!

There is no difference between our current mainstream to those "scientists" that 500 Years ago claimed that the Earth is the center of the Universe.
Just to remind you that those 500 years ago "scientists" were pretty sure that they know how the universe works.
However, we know today that all of them were wrong.
In the same token, our current scientists are pretty sure that the orbital object can spiral inwards.

The new generation in the next 500 Year would know that all our current scientists are wrong.

Sooner or later, students will learn my theory in the University!

[Bored chemist]

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:20:44
Now, have you made up your mind whether you are a liar or not?

Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/06/2021 23:53:58
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/06/2021 19:55:49
If I answer your question, do you promise not to lie about what the answer means?

Why can't you promise not to lie about this?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I have proved that so far our scientists have no real observation for any matter that falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.
The idea that matter from the Bulge falls into that accretion disc is just pure imagination!
Hence, any one form the 10,000 BBT scientists that claim differently without real observation (by real article and by real observation) is liar by definition!!!

Therefore, those scientists that claim that the Neutron star is spiraling inwards - without real measurements - are LIAR!
Yes, all of them are liars!

Why can't you promise not to lie about this?

If you support them, then you are part of this liar' gang

[Bored chemist]

Why can't you promise not to lie about this?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Why can't you promise not to lie about this?

Dear BC
When we discuss about "lies" it's better for you to grab all those 10,000 liars and run into the nearest shelter.
They claim that they are "pretty sure" / "expect" that the Neutron star is spiraling into the main BH without any measurement to backup this expectation.
So far, with all the articles that you and Kryptid have offered, there is no clear measurement that matter from the bulge is spiraling inwards into the SMBH' accretion disc or even that an orbital object can spiral inwards.

Therefore - From now on any scientist that claim that:
1. Matter from the bulge is spiraling into the SMBH' accretion disc - is LIAR!
2. In orbital system the orbital object is spiraling inwards - is LIAR!

In our galaxy, all the stars & Planets & Moons are spiraling outwards over time.
All the mass for our solar system had been created in the MW SMBH' accretion disc.
The solar system had been formed in one of those G gas cloud that orbit around the SMBH.
Sooner or later the solar system would be ejected from the MW galaxy.
The mass for all the Billion stars at the Milky Way had been created there at the SMBH' accretion disc.
Not even a single star comes into the galaxy from outside.

Therefore
As long as you and all the 10,000 BBT scientists can't prove by real measurements that you have found an orbital object (even if it is a single Planet or moon) that is spiraling inwards - then don't dare to claim that you are "pretty sure" that this Neutron star is spiraling inwards!!!
However - be aware that we discuss about spiraling inwards - not falling inwards.
In other words - spiraling inwards means that the orbital object decreases its average radius and increases its orbital velocity over time.
In the meantime - Please keep your "pretty sure" and BBT expectation - deep in the garbage.

[Bored chemist]

Why can't you promise not to lie about this?

[Kryptid]

Would all these accusations of scientists being liars count as libel?

[Bored chemist]

It depends; you might need to prove  that it damaged their reputation and this thread is only making the OP look bad.
He doesn't seem to understand that the scientists idea of "pretty sure" are typically six sigma results i.e.  99.99966% probability of being real, rather than statistical glitches.


Also, since he thinks there are only 10,000 scientists who disagree with him, but the real figure is thousands of times more, it's impossible to work out who he might be libeling.

[Kryptid]

Question for both of you: do you think that this current argument is going to accomplish anything useful?

[Origin]

Question for both of you: do you think that this current argument is going to accomplish anything useful?

Heck no, Dave is completely anti-science and refuses to learn anything.  He believes himself to be a genius who cannot be wrong.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Dave is completely anti-science and refuses to learn anything.  He believes himself to be a genius who cannot be wrong.

No
You miss the whole point.
I'm not anti real science, I'm only anti science fiction.
I claim that:
1. Matter from the bulge would NEVER EVER spiral into the SMBH' accretion disc.
2. In orbital system the orbital object would NEVER EVER spiral inwards.

This is real science as our scientists have NEVER EVER observed those activities.
Do you agree that Science must be based on real measurements and observation?

Hence, without real measurements and observations, even if all our 10,000 (or 100,000) scientists are pretty sure that those understanding are incorrect - their "pretty sure" is still irrelevant.

Therefore, I hope that you confirm that our science community has two options:
1. Offer real observations/measurements that contradict my statement/understanding.
2. Accept those understanding.

[Kryptid]

Well, that's two people who think this current argument is pointless. Anyone else?

[Bored chemist]

Question for both of you: do you think that this current argument is going to accomplish anything useful?

I'm trying to achieve something useful; I'm trying to make sure that anyone looking casually at this web page doesn't get the mistaken impression that Dave might be right in any way.

But Dave can't even promise not to lie, so it's very hard to imagine that he thinks he's doing something "good".