et pet

    ...see : https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/114217-multiple-black-holes-at-the-center-of-our-galaxy/?tab=comments#comment-1046315

    Have y

6 hours ago, TheScienceCat said:

I was wondering what gas I should use on one of my projects. It needs to be denser than air, somewhat flammable, non toxic to humans in small amounts and preferably easy to see, like chlorine or bromine (But neither of these work, as they are less dense than air). I got this idea from a game character Scorch from Titanfall 2. He is able to shoot/launch out a gas canister and the ignite them, and I would like to do something like that. The gas can't be too expensive or hard to find.

This may help : https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gas-density-d_158.html

54 minutes ago, Mordred said:

... I am specifically applying a blanket statement to take any non peer reviewed resource with a hesitation. Any resource that is not peer reviewed is questionable.

Got to agree wholeheartedly with you there, Mordred.

14 minutes ago, beecee said:

That's your problem, but the evidence overwhelmingly says the opposite.

The space age is only 60 years old friend, and obviously the near infinite extent of the universe, and the vast distances between likeley habitats, makes discovery and meetings rather difficult.

 

    Wow. I have never ever been told before that being thoroughly appreciative of not only life, but having the ability to truly enjoy this life was in some way a problem. Just, WOW.

    Yet, the evidence overwhelmingly says the opposite, you say?

     So, just WOW.

    And all the rest you go on about space age, infinite extent,etc., is just one tiny smidgen of all of the reasons that this earth is in a special spot in the cosmos! 

37 minutes ago, beecee said:

The "It" he obviously has a problem with, is the "it" that is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence so far, that the Earth has no special place in the universe, and is most certainly most definitely not the center of the universe, other then the 'observable universe" The "It" is the fact that cosmology and science in general, has gradually done away with the ancient age old mythical nonsense that spacetime, the stars, planets and universe in general need some form of magic spaghetti monster to explain it. The "It" he purports to argue against, is simply based on areas where there are gaps in science, and the almost fanatical efforts then to cover those gaps with what is known as "the god of the gaps" 

Any scientific paper is far more likely to have more accurate observational data and facts, then some u tube video that any Tom Dick or Harry can make.

    Could be.  

    Though he strongly implied in a previous post that he didn't care too much for being labeled a religious person and that that isn't the angle he was coming from here. So?

    But. Could be.

    I kind of see what you say about u tube videos that any Tom Dick or Harry can make.

   So, surely it follows that any scientific paper is also far more likely to have more accurate observational data and facts, than some post on a site that any Tom Dick or Harry can post on. 

    Besides, I do honestly believe that the earth is in a special spot in the cosmos! 

   After all, earth is the only known spot in the cosmos that science can unequivocally declare harbors not only life, but life that is self aware.

    from reading the "Moderator Note" 's, it seems that New Posters(?) must pony up or back up claims, so :  

   " ...figures for just The Milky Way Galaxy.

   about 100 billion to 200 billion stars 

   about 3,700 or thereabouts exoplanets

   about 2,700 or so solar systems "

            https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/other-solar-systems/en/

            https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/solar-system/beyond/overview/

5 hours ago, Scotty99 said:

I am up against it more than i realized, heh.

    I have yet to gleen what this "it" is that you purport to be "up against", but as far as "the earth is in a special spot in the cosmos", well here are some figures for just The Milky Way Galaxy.

   about 100 billion to 200 billion stars 

   about 3,700 or thereabouts exoplanets

   about 2,700 or so solar systems

   So, "Scotty99", I hope that the "it" you allude to is not such easily confirmed current information.

7 hours ago, Strange said:

I think you are taking this too literally. I said it was "news". That implies it is new. Hence it can be described as a discovery. That's all.

What beecee said was an indirect quotation; he used his own words to paraphrase my comment (and then added his own thoughts).

    Thank you, Strange.

      I must apologize(constantly, it seems!), I am new to this type of site. It is different than http://forum.gibson.com

    I do not even know what the Green Cube and Red Cube highlighted numbers signify, nor the Yellow Circles, nor the "+" and "-" numbers under the "Members".

    We do not have them at http://forum.gibson.com .

19 hours ago, beecee said:

 

19 hours ago, beecee said:

Science is a discipline in continued progress. As Strange has said, this is a discovery, although other interpretations may be possible, the likelyhood is that they are correct. If in the future, evidence turns up showing that they are/were mistaken, the new model will then be accepted. 

The interpretations are obviously from credentialed professional cosmologists and scientists in general, through the proper channels and via the scientific methodology. That is far removed from adhoc, unevidenced and unprofessional  ideas and claims from any Joe Blow with access to a public forum.

Nice article...thanks.

So far on my times on science forums, that 99.9% is far closer to 100% in actual fact. 

But your point is well made. 

 

   1.)  is it because I am new to this site that I cannot read the Post in this discussion where "Strange" has said : " As Strange has said, this is a discovery, although other interpretations may be possible, the likelyhood is that they are correct. If in the future, evidence turns up showing that they are/were mistaken, the new model will then be accepted."

    In my Browser, I can only Read Three(3) Posts from "Strange" : 1.) says "I saw this too. Very interesting. I was going to post about it but you beat me to it!" ; 2.) says "Nothing to apologise for and no reason to have the post deleted. It is an interesting news story." and "There is nothing speculative in this post. (Which is why it has been moved to Science News. Because it is news. About science.)" ; 3.) says "No need to apologise. The "Speculations" section of the forum is for people to present their own "personal" theories for an informal review and feedback. (99.9% of the time it is full of nonsense.)" and "If you are not actively advocating a speculative theory or hypothesis it is OK to post it in the appropriate part of the forum (New, Physics, etc) for discussion."

   so again, may I ask, am I unable to view the Post in this discussion where "Strange" has said : " As Strange has said, this is a discovery, although other interpretations may be possible, the likelyhood is that they are correct. If in the future, evidence turns up showing that they are/were mistaken, the new model will then be accepted.", because I am new to this site?

   or is it a problem with my Browser?

   or is there another discussion about this article that I am either not able to view, or simply unaware of?

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Nothing to apologise for and no reason to have the post deleted. It is an interesting news story.

There is nothing speculative in this post. (Which is why it has been moved to Science News. Because it is news. About science.)

   1.)  Please excuse my naivete in the Rules or Proper Conduct in Posting on your site. I have only been a member of a Guitar Forum before - so it seems that I have much to learn about this site. 

    Many people might see what is claimed to be an "Original 1959 Gibson Les Paul" guitar - but until that Guitar can be "Professionally Authenticated" as "Real" - any claim about what it actually is remains purely "Speculative".

   2.)  I could only Link to the "Abstract" of the Letter on nature.com, : https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25029 , it will be up to each individual reading that "Abstract" to do further study.

   That being said, it clearly states in the "Abstract" - I added the "Bolding(?)" : " The existence of a ‘density cusp’1,2—a localized increase in number—of stellar-mass black holes near a supermassive black hole is a fundamental prediction of galactic stellar dynamics3. The best place to detect such a cusp is in the Galactic Centre, where the nearest supermassive black hole, Sagittarius A*, resides. As many as 20,000 black holes are predicted to settle into the central parsec of the Galaxy as a result of dynamical friction3,4,5; however, so far no density cusp of black holes has been detected. Low-mass X-ray binary systems that contain a stellar-mass black hole are natural tracers of isolated black holes. Here we report observations of a dozen quiescent X-ray binaries in a density cusp within one parsec of Sagittarius A*. The lower-energy emission spectra that we observed in these binaries is distinct from the higher-energy spectra associated with the population of accreting white dwarfs that dominates the central eight parsecs of the Galaxy6. The properties of these X-ray binaries, in particular their spatial distribution and luminosity function, suggest the existence of hundreds of binary systems in the central parsec of the Galaxy and many more isolated black holes. We cannot rule out a contribution to the observed emission from a population (of up to about one-half the number of X-ray binaries) of rotationally powered, millisecond pulsars. The spatial distribution of the binary systems is a relic of their formation history, either in the stellar disk around Sagittarius A* (ref. 7) or through in-fall from globular clusters, and constrains the number density of sources in the modelling of gravitational waves from massive stellar remnants8,9, such as neutron stars and black holes. "  https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25029

   and from the Editorial Summary @ that same Link : https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25029  " Many black holes in the Galactic Centre

Simulations predict that the supermassive black holes near the centres of all large galaxies are surrounded by a concentration of stellar-mass black holes. Such black holes, however, have not previously been detected at the centre of our galaxy. Low-mass X-ray binary systems containing black holes are proxies for single black holes. Charles Hailey and collaborators report finding a dozen such binary systems in the central parsec of the Milky Way. By extrapolating these observations they conclude that the total population of such binary systems in the central parsec of the Galaxy is in the hundreds, with a much greater number of isolated black holes. They cannot, however, rule out the contribution of a sub-dominant population of rotating neutron stars that have become millisecond pulsars through the accretion of gas from close companion stars "  https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25029

   3.) again, sorry, but since this claimed "Original 1959 Gibson Les Paul" (Analogous!) has yet to be "Authenticated", I was under the evidently mistaken idea that it should be considered "Speculative".

46 minutes ago, Strange said:

I saw this too. Very interesting. I was going to post about it but you beat me to it!

   Sorry for beating you "to it".

  If you want, you are more than welcome to have my "Post" deleted.

   Again, sorry.

1 minute ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Moved to Science News

 

    Okay, ?

    I had just replied to "Strange" that my Post could be deleted. 

   It appears that it was done before I could actually hit "Submit Reply".

   In the future, I will try to make it a point not to Post anything for at least a month or so after reading.

   Again, sorry to Post Speculative or Theoretical articles on your Site.

   I came across this, recently published in Nature : https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25029

    " A density cusp of quiescent X-ray binaries in the central parsec of the Galaxy "  by Charles J. Hailey, Kaya Mori, Franz E. Bauer, Michael E. Berkowitz, Jaesub Hong & Benjamin J. Hord

     Partial Quote of the  Editorial Summary  : "Many black holes in the Galactic Centre

   Simulations predict that the supermassive black holes near the centres of all large galaxies are surrounded by a concentration of stellar-mass black holes. Such black holes, however, have not previously been detected at the centre of our galaxy. Low-mass X-ray binary systems containing black holes are proxies for single black holes. Charles Hailey and collaborators report finding a dozen such binary systems in the central parsec of the Milky Way. "   https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25029 

   References to and Articles about the Letter have been Published @ : https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/04/black-hole-stellar-binary-stars-milky-way-galaxy/    -  " Thousands of Black Holes May Lurk at the Galaxy's Center

  The discovery could help scientists better understand the space-time ripples called gravitational waves.

By Sarah Gibbens

PUBLISHED APRIL 4, 2018

A gaggle of black holes has been found clustered around the center of our home galaxy, the Milky Way—and the discovery hints at a much larger population of black holes hidden across the galaxy. The discover offers a new test bed for understanding the ripples in space-time known as gravitational waves.

For years, scientists have known that a monster black hole sits in the middle of the galaxy. Called Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), the compact object is more than four million times as massive as our sun, but it's packed into a region of space no bigger than the distance between Earth and our star.

Scientists had long suspected that as many as 20,000 smaller black holes were orbiting the galactic center. But as the name suggests, black holes are not easy to see directly. (Find out how astronomers are trying to take the first picture of a black hole.) "           https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/04/black-hole-stellar-binary-stars-milky-way-galaxy/

   and @ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2165505-the-centre-of-our-galaxy-may-be-swarming-with-10000-black-holes/ -  DAILY NEWS 4 April 2018

   " The centre of our galaxy may be swarming with 10,000 black holes  By Adam Mann

   As many as 10,000 new black holes have been discovered buzzing around in the centre of the Milky Way galaxy.

The galactic centre is already known to teem with stars, supernovae, pulsars, gas and dust, and the humongous black hole called Sagittarius A*, whose mass is equivalent to four million suns. Simulations have long suggested that many smaller black holes – those with masses around the same as our sun – also exist in the Milky Way’s centre and the middles of other galaxies, though only a single one has ever been spotted.

Combing through archival data from NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory, Charles Hailey at Columbia University in New York and his colleagues were able to finally tease out a signal that appears to be coming from 12 stellar-mass black holes that have sun-sized stars orbiting them. "   https://www.newscientist.com/article/2165505-the-centre-of-our-galaxy-may-be-swarming-with-10000-black-holes/

     I found the nature article and subsequent Science site articles very interesting on many levels, to say the least.

   1.) I was not, and I am still not, aware that Dark Matter has ever been directly observed.

   2.) I evidently was, and still am, completely mistaken that I read the word "contention" in beecee's First Post. 

   3.) It seems that I am Not one of this forums  "genuine members without  any axe to grind".

   So, I must therefore extend my sincerest apologies to beecee, Strange and any other person(s) that has read this discussion.

   I am sorry that I am currently not aware that Scientists have indeed been able to observe where Dark Matter does not exist, nor of their ability to observe where Dark Matter does exist.

   Please forgive my ignorance that Dark Matter has been directly observed.

   I am sorry that I mistakenly claimed that beecee used the word "contention" in his first post.

   I can only hope that my extreme contrition may someday allow me to become one of this forums  "genuine members without  any axe to grind".

   Again, I extend my deepest apologies to beecee, Strange and any other reader(s) of my Postings.

56 minutes ago, beecee said:

Obviously whatever you are trying to claim is full of holes my friend. You do recognise the question marks? three of them...The "statement" after [2]? was simply a clarification on the question. "But of course I welcome you to put whatever it is you are claiming to the mods and admins...I'll stand and/or fall on that judgement...as will you of course.

   That's OK, that's why I asked the question.

ps: You do though sound like a long lost friend of mine on another forum.  I just need to remind you that the nonsense that this long lost friend of mine got away with there, will not be tolerated here. Take it easy! 

     I am NOT trying to claim anything. 

     I am simply asking, Is it your contention for "galaxies starting their lives as blobs of normal baryonic matter"?

     It appears that you have chosen not to answer that question.

    -  in reference to : "ps: You do though sound like a long lost friend of mine on another forum.  I just need to remind you that the nonsense that this long lost friend of mine got away with there, will not be tolerated here. Take it easy! "

    What? How does that have anything to do with : "More evidence for Dark Matter:"?

4 hours ago, beecee said:

Hmmmm, not real sure how you can interpret this as personal speculation when I  specifically asked as a question.

 and touched on in my third question......

I certainly accept the "mainstream view" and it clears up my mistaken assumption expressed and highlighted at question [2] The question though still stands.

Thanks muchly Strange....

Perhaps he will answer it in his next post?

   To repeat my response to Strange, in case you did not read it : 

   beecee, I am fairly certain that you clearly stated in your Post, in your "third question......" : "Wouldn't this observation and data support my contention/question at [2]? that is, this being what one would term as a "pristine" galaxy  in its early formation era, could mean that galaxies forms from conglomerations of baryonic matter, that later attracts the dispersed DM...afterall our knowledge of this DM, tells us it only interacts gravitationally."

   Note beecee, that you did not end that statement with a "question mark (?)", but rather a period (.).

  My understanding of the definition of the word "contention", is 1.) - a strong disagreement, or 2.) - an emphatic assertion utilized in an argument.

 : https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/contention , https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/contention or https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contention

   in reference to : "Perhaps he will answer it in his next post?"

      I posed that question to you, beecee. It is NOT for me to answer.

      It is for you to answer, if you choose to.

      Is it your contention for "galaxies starting their lives as blobs of normal baryonic matter"? 

5 hours ago, Strange said:

I think you will find it was a question, not a "speculation, proposal, theory or contention".

I don't know the answer. Do you?

 

   I am fairly certain that beecee clearly stated in the Post : "Wouldn't this observation and data support my contention/question at [2]? that is, this being what one would term as a "pristine" galaxy  in its early formation era, could mean that galaxies forms from conglomerations of baryonic matter, that later attracts the dispersed DM...afterall our knowledge of this DM, tells us it only interacts gravitationally."

   Note that beecee did not end that statement with a "question mark (?)", but rather a period (.).

  My understanding of the definition of the word "contention", is 1.) - a strong disagreement, or 2.) - an emphatic assertion utilized in an argument.

 : https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/contention , https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/contention or https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contention

   so, on to..." I don't know the answer. Do you?"

   No, Strange, I do not  "know the answer".

On 3/28/2018 at 3:29 PM, beecee said:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I find this article quite interesting to say the least. Questions I am asking, is as follows....[1] I see this as paradoxically firm evidence supporting the DM concept and up there with the Bullet cluster observation. But is it reason for revising the 24% accepted content that is thought to make up the universe? [2] It says that it is thought that galaxies start their lives as blobs of DM...I was not really aware of this, and my question is why not galaxies starting their lives as blobs of normal baryonic matter? [3] My third question arises from the following extract from the article, "To peer even deeper into this unique galaxy, the team used the Gemini Multi Object Spectrograph (GMOS) to capture detailed images of NGC1052-DF2, assess its structure, and confirm that the galaxy had no signs of interactions with other galaxies". Wouldn't this observation and data support my contention/question at [2]? that is, this being what one would term as a "pristine" galaxy  in its early formation era, could mean that galaxies forms from conglomerations of baryonic matter, that later attracts the dispersed DM...afterall our knowledge of this DM, tells us it only interacts gravitationally.

The paper for this article at nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/nature25676 is not opening for me and says "cannot be found"

 

   1.)  your Post seems to be your own Personal Subjective Speculation  of a "contention/question" or Hypothetical Theory that goes Against the Mainstream "thought that galaxies start their lives as blobs of DM."

    - Is it your  speculation, proposal, theory or contention for "galaxies starting their lives as blobs of normal baryonic matter"? 

   2.)  An actual working Link to the nature.com article (Abstract) "A galaxy lacking dark matter"  :  https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25767   

   - Mentions in Scientific Articles, Blogs, etc of "A galaxy lacking dark matter" :  https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25767/metrics

   3.)  At the bottom of the Article/Page you Linked in your Post : https://phys.org/news/2018-03-dark-galaxy.html , under Related Stories is an article Titled "Scientists discover a 'dark' Milky Way: Massive galaxy consists almost entirely of dark matter".  Link : https://phys.org/news/2016-08-scientists-dark-milky-massive-galaxy.html#nRlv

   4.)  After reading "Scientists discover a 'dark' Milky Way: Massive galaxy consists almost entirely of dark matter", at the Link, how does that information affect your speculation, proposal, theory or contention for "galaxies starting their lives as blobs of normal baryonic matter"? 

    Of Note : Both of these discoveries were the result of Observations and Data amassed from the the Gemini North and W. M. Keck Observatories, both on Maunakea, Hawai'i 

39 minutes ago, Strange said:

   

I present the following Quote : 

"One of the great commandments of science is, 'Mistrust arguments from authority'. (Scientists, being primates, and thus given to dominance hierarchies, of course do not always follow this commandment.) Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else. This independence of science, its occasional unwillingness to accept conventional wisdom, makes it dangerous to doctrines less self-critical, or with pretensions to certitude."

The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

By Carl Sagan

That is pretty much what people have been trying to tell NortonH.

    My apologies then, I was under the impression that NortonH did NOT accept argument from authority as proof : 

"Please only speak for yourself. I do not accept argument from authority as proof." - NortonH

"Anyway, thank you for your answers. I find it odd that on a forum named "Science Forums" some people advocate for junking the scientific method and accepting the fallacy of argument from authority but that is your prerogative." - NortonH.

"BeeCee - be clear - I am NOT arguing from authority. I am the one opposing that tactic. OK? - NortonH.

"Final attempt - argument from authority has no value ever." - NortonH.

"er no. Any reputable scientist will argue against the fallacy of argument from authority because it is contrary to the SM." - NortonH.

   Again, my apologies, I may have misread or misunderstood these Posts by NortonH.

It appears that what seemed to begin as an effort to engage in a discussion about "Scientific Method in climate science", has been derailed.

For whatever reason, some Members (whether by choice or the simple inability to participate in real scientific discussions?) seem to NOT want THAT discussion to take place.

As for this "Argument from Authority" issue - in relation to Science - I present the following Quote : 

"One of the great commandments of science is, 'Mistrust arguments from authority'. (Scientists, being primates, and thus given to dominance hierarchies, of course do not always follow this commandment.) Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else. This independence of science, its occasional unwillingness to accept conventional wisdom, makes it dangerous to doctrines less self-critical, or with pretensions to certitude."

The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

By Carl Sagan