[Bored chemist]

2

Do you agree that Science must be based on real measurements and observation?

Yes, it should be.
Here's the observation
https://physicsworld.com/a/black-holes-merging-with-neutron-stars-have-been-spotted-by-ligo-virgo-for-the-first-time/

They have seen a neutron star spiraling into a black hole.
Similar observations with two black holes have already been made.
The signature of the events is the rising chirp in the gravity waves as the two objects get closer together (and gravity becomes stronger).
If you managed to fling something out from near the BH the pitch would fall with time.

So we know, from direct  observation, that this signal is from something falling in.

And then we have Dave who still says

In orbital system the orbital object would NEVER EVER spiral inwards.

even though we have repeated proof that it does.

So, only one question remains, is Dave deluded, or dishonest?
In a way, it hardly matters. Neither option is consistent with him making a useful contribution, so he should be prevented from making further counterproductive posts.

[The Spoon]

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

Given that Dave, some random on the Internet, thinks that thousands of scientists are lying and he is the soil possessor of the truth, I think we can class this as somebody delusional promoting conspiracy theories.

[Bored chemist]

It could be that he's a really determined troll.

[Origin]

Glad to see this train wreck was moved to It can't be true, to bad there isn't a section called It's not true to put it in...

[The Spoon]

Glad to see this train wreck was moved to It can't be true, to bad there isn't a section called It's not true to put it in...

Likewise.
Cant understand why this nonsense thread has not been moved:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=82016.100

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Yes, it should be.
Here's the observation
https://physicsworld.com/a/black-holes-merging-with-neutron-stars-have-been-spotted-by-ligo-virgo-for-the-first-time/
They have seen a neutron star spiraling into a black hole.

In the article it is stated:
"Gravitational waves from two separate mergers of a black hole with a neutron star have been seen by the LIGO observatories in the US and the Virgo observatory in Italy."
"Gravitational waves are ripples in space–time that are generated when pairs of massive objects such as black holes and neutron stars orbit each other in a rapid inspiral before merging."
In order to understand what causes gravitational waves?
https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/gravitational-waves/en/
"What causes gravitational waves?
The most powerful gravitational waves are created when objects move at very high speeds. Some examples of events that could cause a gravitational wave are:
when a star explodes asymmetrically (called a supernova)
when two big stars orbit each other
when two black holes orbit each other and merge"

Based on that information, I have several questions:
1. why those scientists offer a misleading information?
Why they claim: Gravitational waves are ripples in space–time that are generated when pairs of massive objects such as black holes and neutron stars orbit each other in a rapid inspiral before merging", while we know that the cause for gravitational wave could also be when a star explodes asymmetrically (called a supernova) or when two big stars orbit each other?
2. How those scientists know for sure that the gravitational wave that they have detected is due to the mergers of a black hole with a neutron star and not due to supernova (for example)?
3. As the gravitational wave is created at the moment of collision/final merge between those two objects, how do they know that they were spiraling inwards before the moment of collision and not just falling inwards?
In other words, spiraling inwards means (for me) that Newton gravity formula works at every moment. Hence, there is a perfect balance between the radius to the orbital velocity. Therefore, those objects could orbit around each other for years at ultra high orbital velocity before the final merge.
Falling inwards means that there is no balance. Therefore, they could set just few orbital cycles before the final merge.
4. How this observation could support the idea that matter from the Bulge could fall/spiral inwards into the SMBH' accretion disc and STAY there for quite long time (as we see at the M87 accretion disc)?
In this article they give an example for merge or collision between the two objects.
So, once it falls in - it falls to stay there forever.
However, our main task is to prove how matter from outside could spiral inwards and stay at the accretion disc (in order to be ejected outwards later on).
This is the most critical issue of our discussion!
So, do you agree that this article can't be used as an observation/evidence for matter that falls at the accretion disc and stay there (to be ejected later on)?

[Bored chemist]

Why do you ignore the actual data?
Here  is what it looks like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_observation_of_gravitational_waves#/media/File:LIGO_measurement_of_gravitational_waves.svg

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

[Kryptid]

Likewise.
Cant understand why this nonsense thread has not been moved:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=82016.100

I brought this issue up with the other moderators recently and the problem is that we can't move just any thread with nonsense in it to "That CAN'T be true!" because then we'd have to move just about all of them there. The reason I've moved this one is in part because of just how long it has gone on with continual science denialism. How extreme a thread needs to be in order to move it is apparently a matter of opinion based on individual moderators.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Why do you ignore the actual data?
Here  is what it looks like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_observation_of_gravitational_waves#/media/File:LIGO_measurement_of_gravitational_waves.svg

Well, it is stated that they comparison the gravitational wave signals to the signals expected due to a black hole merger event.
Based on that I have few questions:
1. Why they don't try to compare it to the signals expected due to star explodes asymmetrically (called a supernova) or to two big stars orbit each other?
2. As it is stated specifically "a black hole merger event" why they claim in the article for a Neutron star with a BH merger event? Why just not two BHs?
3. How can they distinguish between mergers due to falling-in/collision to a merger due to spiraling in?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I brought this issue up with the other moderators recently and the problem is that we can't move just any thread with nonsense in it to "That CAN'T be true!" because then we'd have to move just about all of them there. The reason I've moved this one is in part because of just how long it has gone on with continual science denialism. How extreme a thread needs to be in order to move it is apparently a matter of opinion based on individual moderators.

Dear Kryptid
So far you couldn't offer even one real observation that contradicts my explanation!
If you monitor all the billions stars/BHs/Planets/moons in the MW galaxy, you won't find even one that is spiraling inwards.
In our solar system for example - there are quite many planets and moons.
Surprisingly - all of them (without exception) are spiraling outwards. (Yes, even Triton).
In the same token - matter from the Bulge NEVER and EVER spirals inwards into the accretion disc.

Therefore, our scientists are looking to protect their imagination by looking at orbital systems that are located millions or even billions LY away from us.
How many years it would take you all to understand that the BBT is the biggest mistake ever.
Just to remind you that 500 years ago our scientists we pretty sure that our planet is located at the center of the Universe.
So, maybe 500 years from now, the next generation would find that the BBT is nonsense and after all my explanation/theory is fully correct!

It's better for you to set the BBT theory at  "That CAN'T be true!" ?
Actually, if you evaluate my thread based on true - you should put it on the highest level of real science!

[Bored chemist]

Why they don't try to compare it to

They did

How can they distinguish between mergers due to falling-in/collision to a merger due to spiraling in?

Learn to read.
I already answered that.

Quote from: Bored chemist on 05/07/2021 08:26:29
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/07/2021 20:07:06
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/07/2021 17:34:15
Why can't you promise not to lie about this?

[Kryptid]

Surprisingly - all of them (without exception) are spiraling outwards.

Funny, that contradicts what you admitted to me a while back, but I'll just leave this here:

I won't even bother to explain why this video proves you wrong, as I'm sure someone else will do it.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Surprisingly - all of them (without exception) are spiraling outwards.

Funny, that contradicts what you admitted to me a while back, but I'll just leave this here:
I won't even bother to explain why this video proves you wrong, as I'm sure someone else will do it.

Sorry – no one can twist the reality!
My message is correct by 100%!
You, BC and all the other 100,000 BBT scientists know by 100% that so far we have NEVER EVER observed any matter as it spirals inwards into the SMBH' accretion disc.
You all also know that all of those articles which you have offered so far, including this video clip, ca't be used as a confirmation for your wrong assumption.
Somehow all of you wish that one day you would find it.

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

You are the one that fully confirmed that so far we didn't find any observation to confirm the idea of matter that spiral inwards into the SMBH' accretion disc.
However, as you and all the other scientists continue to claim that this is real (without any evidence or observation for that) - then you all do not speak in the name of true.

Sorry - if you dare to claim again that we have an approval for matter that falls/spirals inwards into the SMBH' accretion disc from outside without real observation - then you would be considered as a liar.
How can you ask me about lie while you lie in this issue?
Why is it so difficult for you to accept the reality that without real observation – the idea that matter from the bulge falls into the accretion disc might be wrong?

[Bored chemist]

You, BC and all the other 100,000 BBT scientists know by 100% that so far we have NEVER EVER observed any matter as it spirals inwards into the SMBH' accretion disc.

yes we have, most notably, recently, that  data from LIGO and VIRGO.

You seem very determined to ignore reality here.

Those results really happened.
Are you able to put foreword a credible alternative explanation?

Also why won't you promise not to lie?

Quote from: Bored chemist on 06/07/2021 21:32:20
Quote from: Bored chemist on 05/07/2021 08:26:29
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/07/2021 20:07:06
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/07/2021 17:34:15
Why can't you promise not to lie about this?

Are you so dishonest that you can not be sure you will not deliberately say something which you know is untrue?

I'm beginning to wonder if this thread is good for your mental health.
You seem to be deluded- in your belief that all the scientists are liars, and you seem to not know fact from fiction- hence your inability to say you won't lie.

That, taken together with the fact that you say things that are not true leads me to wonder how you cope in real life.

[Bored chemist]

Sorry – no one can twist the reality!

Then why do you keep trying to twist it?

[The Spoon]

Likewise.
Cant understand why this nonsense thread has not been moved:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=82016.100

I brought this issue up with the other moderators recently and the problem is that we can't move just any thread with nonsense in it to "That CAN'T be true!" because then we'd have to move just about all of them there. The reason I've moved this one is in part because of just how long it has gone on with continual science denialism. How extreme a thread needs to be in order to move it is apparently a matter of opinion based on individual moderators.

The issue isn't just that it is nonsense, but it is factually incorrect. The OP on that thread is also not interacting with other forum members when they try to point out the errors in what he is stating. This to me is purely trolling for the hell of it.

If it is  accepted that just about all of the threads in that section are nonsense, would it not be useful to have some kind of sub header pointing this out? Is there not a danger of people reading it and mistaking it for valid scientific fact?

[Origin]

If it is  accepted that just about all of the threads in that section are nonsense, would it not be useful to have some kind of sub header pointing this out? Is there not a danger of people reading it and mistaking it for valid scientific fact?

I agree with this.  The section called "That CAN'T Be True", has the sub heading of, "Heard an unbelievable science or medicine fact? Post it here".  I think this can be a source of confusion.  The section seems to be for Strange But True topics.  But it is actually a Goofy Pseudoscience section.  Simply changing the word 'fact' to 'claim' would be a much better description of this section.

[Bored chemist]

Originally the area was for genuine true but "unbelievable" stories.
Unfortunately this forum hasn't got a "trashcan"  thread, so "That can't be true" is the least bad option.

Just a  thought, but can anyone think of a good reason why there's no "Debris" section for nonsense like Dave's?
I think it would be doubly helpful- it would discourage the trolls as well as  cleaning up the real topics.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 14:03:55
You, BC and all the other 100,000 BBT scientists know by 100% that so far we have NEVER EVER observed any matter as it spirals inwards into the SMBH' accretion disc.

yes we have, most notably, recently, that  data from LIGO and VIRGO.

Dear BC
You have a severe mistake.
The gravity waves can't be used as an indication for the activity at the SMBH' accretion disc.
In order to prove this statement, let me use the articles that you and Kryptid have offered:

Here's the observation
https://physicsworld.com/a/black-holes-merging-with-neutron-stars-have-been-spotted-by-ligo-virgo-for-the-first-time/
They have seen a neutron star spiraling into a black hole.
Similar observations with two black holes have already been made.
The signature of the events is the rising chirp in the gravity waves as the two objects get closer together (and gravity becomes stronger).
If you managed to fling something out from near the BH the pitch would fall with time.

Surprisingly - all of them (without exception) are spiraling outwards.

Funny, that contradicts what you admitted to me a while back, but I'll just leave this here:

I won't even bother to explain why this video proves you wrong, as I'm sure someone else will do it.

The key differences between the SMBH' accretion disc (system A) to the BH (or Pulsar) to Neutron star (System B) are as follow:

1. The objects in each system.
In system A the main mass is a SMBH while the orbital matter is not a solid object but molecular ring.
The ratio between the mass of the objects is about 1,000,000 to 1.
In system B both objects are solid and have similar mass
Hence, the ratio between the two objects is about 1 to 1.
2. Orbital shape
System A - Circular shape (eccentricity close to zero).
System B -  Elliptical shape. (eccentricity = 0.617). Hence, although at the periastron/periapsis the distance between the objects is less than the radius of the Sun, both objects are still solid. None of them brakes out.

3. Orbital velocity
System A - close to the speed of light (0.3c)
System B - about 300 Km/s (0.0001 c)

4. Gravitational wave
System A - No gravitational wave had ever been detected at this kind of system.
System B -  Gravitational wave had been detected.
The gravitational wave is a key element for the Orbital_decay
In order to understand that key issue let me offer the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_decay
"In orbital mechanics, orbital decay is a gradual decrease of the distance between two orbiting bodies at their closest approach (the periapsis) over many orbital periods. These orbiting bodies can be a planet and its satellite, a star and any object orbiting it, or components of any binary system. Orbits do not decay without some friction-like mechanism which transfers energy from the orbital motion. This can be any of a number of mechanical, gravitational, or electromagnetic effects. For bodies in low Earth orbit, the most significant effect is atmospheric drag"
Hence, in order for the orbital system to decay it is requested to have some friction-like mechanism which transfers energy from the orbital motion.
Therefore, system B have has the ability to generate gravity wave that force the orbital system to decay. This decay ends with a merger between the two objects. They are locked in a death orbital system that must end with a merger/collision!
However, in system A there is no gravitational wave. Therefore, there is no way to transfers energy from the orbital motion. Therefore, there is no possibility for the orbital system to decay. Hence, there is no way for the accretion disc to merge with the SMBH. Hence, we clearly observe the UFO (Ultra fast outflow) from the accretion disc.

However, you can believe that s2 star that orbits around the SMBH generate gravity waves - but so far we didn't find that wave.
My answer for that is as follow:
If S2 star or any orbital atom decay and transfer energy from its orbital motion it can't gain it back. Therefore, any gravitational wave must end with a merger.
Therefore, if S2 orbital motion would decay – it must end with a collision/merger with the SMBH.
Nothing would be ejected back from the accretion disc.
Hence, if your theory of gravity wave is applicable also for S2 star that orbits around the SMBH, then this must fall all the way into the SMBH. There is no way for it to hold at the accretion disc and then be ejected back as a UFO to the bulge.
As we clearly observe the UFO that is ejected from the accretion disc, it proves that this matter doesn't come from any falling star.

[Bored chemist]

And again, you are claiming that, because we have not seen the black cat in the coal cellar, it can not be there.
But I still want to know why you refuse to say that you will not tell lies.

Quote from: Bored chemist on 07/07/2021 18:59:07
Quote from: Bored chemist on 06/07/2021 21:32:20
Quote from: Bored chemist on 05/07/2021 08:26:29
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/07/2021 20:07:06
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/07/2021 17:34:15
Why can't you promise not to lie about this?

Are you so dishonest that you can not be sure you will not deliberately say something which you know is untrue?