beecee

That to me says he did not know, or was not sure, of her age. 🙄 You did then of course move the goal posts when a reasonable answer was given re who the victim was. Either way, yes as an adult, he needs to shoulder some responsibility, part of which would include drinking in moderation, although essentially he still is the victim, and the girl a coniving little criminal. Then you went on to argue about who can know all the facts and who has the right to judge. Which was wisely answered by Intoscience along the lines of who elects our officials. Nothing to do with credulity or incredulity for that matter. The cases I present that invalidate your dream (just within my own region) are real examples of crime, rehabilitation attempts, cruelty, violence, victims, and justice, where sometimes locking them up and throwing away the key is the only option. Sadly I don't see that scenario changing anytime soon.I +1 and therein lies the meat of this debate. Colour me also as not strictly aligning with all new age political correctness. IMO, though, in time, it will settle down....the extremes of political correctness will rightly fade into oblivion and the reasonable aspects will become the norm, and much thankfully already has.

I hope you have not misunderstood me...I was in no way inferring you doubted the existence of BH's. I also see the evidence for them as conclusive. Question/s I put to any doubters, is to explain the observational data another way. Thatnks for an informative post and your answers to questions I asked.

Yet this was the first effect showing GR to be correct, in the well known Eddington experiment. "According to Einstein's theory, light traveling past a massive object like the sun should bend due to the object's immense gravity. With the sun's light blotted, Eddington measured the positions of distant stars made visible in the background". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_experiment Because the universal expansion applies only over the largest scales....over smaller scales, the effects of gravity take over and those galaxies are "decoupled"from the overall expansion rate. eg: our local group of galaxies and even beyond. Or imagine a fish swimming at 5kms/hr, upstream against a current (expansion) of 10kms/hr..... And of course the galaxies that are moving farther and farter away, certainly do appear smaller and smaller. Why would you believe differently? Ever heard of the Hubble deep field? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field https://phys.org/news/2015-10-galaxies-faster.html https://www.space.com/33306-how-does-the-universe-expand-faster-than-light.html Denying, and/or not knowing and/or not understanding some of the stuff above that I have referenced for you, makes me have zero confidence whatsoever in the rest of your unsupported claims. re non baryonic DM. In other words before you criticise or deny accepted mainstream science, first understand and know what accepted mainstream science entails. I suggest you can forget about Stockholm for the forseeable future.

Viagra is now being added in tea bags and is available now. It doesn't enhance your sexual performance but it does stop your biscuit going soft.

And that would be a favourable outcome?

Ahhha thanks for that. I am not qualified to review your estimates nor the methodology you are using, its just that on many occasions, we do have others that even dispute their existence. I hope you get your answer. My only question would be, if your estimates are correct and there are far more BH's then thought, could that constitute the Dark Matter problem? ( or part thereof) MACHO's come to mind. How many BH's out there may not have accretion disks? (having been around long enough to consume all matter/energy within its region) is another consideration I think. PS: If this is detracting from your posts and thread orion1, then ignore it and perhaps a mod may even move.

If he was alive today, and was aware of the evidence available, is what I said, here....

You gave us the facts with your example. Going on those facts you put, the girl should have been jailed. The bloke was the victim in more ways then one. Most societies are always looking for a better way. I have yet to see one, from anyone on this forum so far, or anywhere else.

The same reasonable mebers would I believe see it as I have....He is of course the vicitm, and the girl totally wrong. But just as obviously if he presented the same facts to the court, he should be given some compassion, and perhaps escape jail. It is in many ways similar to the other case (a real life case again) that I presented re a woman falsely claiming a man who stopped for 2 hrs to help her with her car, had sexually assaulted her. She later confessed that she lied and was rightfully jailed. The vicitm ( the bloke) lost his job, his marriage and spent a couple of weeks in jail. No sympathy for her in my estimate. Here's another, again a reallife case.....https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-17/canberra-woman-jailed-for-false-rape-claim/10723908 A former prison guard who spent months behind bars for a fake rape has told a court how his ex-partner's crime nearly drove him to suicide, changed who he was and "shattered" his faith in the legal system. Sarah-Jane Parkinson, 28, was on Thursday sentenced to more than three years in jail in the ACT Magistrates Court for the false claim made in 2014, in which she went as far as to stage a crime scene. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Again, I believe most reasonable people would certainly know who the true vicitm are in those cases. Nothing really difficult about either. Now you may go on about your "pretend" example, and possibly make some excuse for the young girl. Whether or not their is or isn't an excuse is beside the point. The bloke was the obvious vicitm, although it could be raised that he still should have controlled himself. Sadly, sometimes justice isn't always done. Sometimes the courts do not have all the facts. And sometimes injustices are the outcome, when the victim becomes the vicitm twice over. Over to you and your caveats and/or excuses. You have my answer and reasonings.

The reasonable members of this forum, and in society in general, will most certainly know who the real vicitm is, particularly in the main true to life case, I presented

The extra matter needed is from non baryoinic and unseen normal baryonic matter the last time I looked. https://m.scirp.org/papers/110084 Experimental Evidence of Non-Baryonic Dark Matter in High Energy Physics Abstract: If most of the universe is made of baryons, we encounter a serious contradiction in explaining the observed structure formulation. Therefore, we need non-baryonic dark matter to comprise the universe. In a previous paper, the present author proposed an infinite sub-layer quark model in which there exists an infinite number of up quark qu (∞) and down quark qd (∞) at an infinite sub-layer level. These quarks have non-baryon quantum number with one-half electric charge. Thus, qu (∞) and qd (∞) quarks are candidates for the non-baryonic dark matter. It is then shown that CP is violated only in the doublet of qu (∞) and qd (∞) quarks to account for the asymmetry of the number of particles and anti-particles in the present universe. It should be emphasized that if the internal space of qu (∞) and qd (∞) quarks in the first generation is a noncommutative geometry, CP violation can be explained without increasing the number of particles and generations. Thus, a pair of an infinite number of qu (∞) and qd (∞) quarks would be produced in the first moments after the Big Bang and form the hadrons including the nucleons and remain as the non-baryonic cold dark matter for all time. From the qf (∞) quarks with the flavors f = u, d, s, c, t, and b, we compared our prediction value of the cross-section ratio R with the experimental values. We obtained the theoretical branching ratio R = 15/4 = 3.75 which is in good agreement with the experimental values from 12.00 GeV to 46.47 GeV in electron-positron annihilation into muon pairs and quark pairs. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Zwicky was an otherwise good scientist/astronomer when he correctly theorised the gas streams between galaxies, but it does not fill in anywhere near the amount needed...If he was alive today, he would more than likely agree with the evidenced backed mainstream. Which would leave you and your historionics way out on a limb somewhere. I find you amusing with your unsupported historionics and claims. Much of your other claims have been shown to be wrong including gravitational lensing and large scale expansion. Even MOND needs non baryonic DM...... https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/382/1/29/983268 extract: "An analysis of the Bullet Cluster 1E0657-558 surface density Σ-map and convergence κ-map data by Angus, Famaey & Zhao (2006) and Angus et al. (2007) based on Milgrom's Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) model (Milgrom 1983; Sanders & McGaugh 2002) and Bekenstein's relativistic version of MOND (Bekenstein 2004) failed to fit the data without dark matter. More recently, further evidence that MOND needs dark matter in weak lensing of clusters has been obtained by Takahashi & Chiba (2007). Problems with fitting X-ray temperature profiles with Milgrom's MOND model without dark matter were shown in Aguirre, Schaye & Quataert (2001), Sanders (2006), Pointecouteau & Silk (2005) and Brownstein & Moffat (2006b). Neutrino matter with an electron neutrino mass mν∼ 2 eV can fit the Bullet Cluster data (Angus et al. 2006, 2007; Sanders 2006)." ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: https://viewspace.org/interactives/unveiling_invisible_universe/dark_matter/bullet_cluster DARK MATTER: BULLET CLUSTER Multiple wavelengths shed light on the dark universe. Dark matter is an enigma; scientists know more about what it is not than what it is. The mystery makes it one of the most exciting areas of astronomy. Though dark matter has not been detected with telescopes, we know it exists because of its effect on objects we do see—objects that emit or reflect light. When space is warped by dark matter’s gravity, the light of distant galaxies appears distorted. Using this and other methods, astronomers calculate that there is much more undetectable dark matter in the universe than detectable, “normal” matter. The Bullet Cluster is composed of two clusters of galaxies that collided and moved past each other, though this is not clear when viewing the region solely in visible light. Multi-wavelength observations of the Bullet Cluster provided the first strong observational evidence that dark matter does not interact with normal matter, or with itself, and holds the majority of mass in a galaxy cluster. Astronomers use visible-light images to map the location of the clusters’ mass, based on how the light of background galaxies is warped. Most of that mass is dark matter. X-rays show that the majority of normal matter, in this case gas, is in a different location than the dark matter of each cluster—it lags behind. This is because the normal matter of the two galaxy clusters collided, while the dark matter sailed through and kept going without interacting at all. Many mysteries remain as to the nature of dark matter, and the Bullet Cluster provides key evidence in the scientific investigation. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: In summing and understanding that Zwicky as a scientist, would probably align with today's current scientific data on non baryonic DM, one can only hope that you yourself may also see the light, and recognise the evidence for non baryonic DM.

Thanks...I do understand that sometimes, these journalists, can go somewhat astray with the language they use and plain old simple errors. Great to see two at least, not missing that error.

I was sort of thinking along those lines, thanks anyway. So really not something essentially opposed/alternative to the mainstream picture re BH's? (except perhaps estimate numbers)

As a poor old soul, who is not into the complicated mathematics of BH's, could someone tell me, what Orion1 is concluding, and if or how that conclusion differs from the mainstream conclusion. much appreciated.

And then there's me! don't forget me! 😁 that is, I'm really not that concerned, as long as science keeps giving us answers/explanations.

Thanks for the correction fellas.

Discussion you say???? Good...quite with the cryptic double talk and nonsense. My first post to this thread..... Justice for all! particularly including justice for victims and criminal justice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice Justice, in its broadest sense, is the principle that people receive that which they deserve, with the interpretation of what then constitutes "deserving" being impacted upon by numerous fields, with many differing viewpoints and perspectives, including the concepts of moral correctness based on ethics, rationality, law, religion, equity and fairness.

https://phys.org/news/2021-11-physicists-neutrinos-large-hadron-collider.html Physicists detect signs of neutrinos at Large Hadron Collider: The FASER particle detector that received CERN approval to be installed at the Large Hadron Collider in 2019 has recently been augmented with an instrument to detect neutrinos. The UCI-led FASER team used a smaller detector of the same type in 2018 to make the first observations of the elusive particles generated at a collider. The new instrument will be able to detect thousands of neutrino interactions over the next three years, the researchers say. Credit: CERN The international Forward Search Experiment team, led by physicists at the University of California, Irvine, has achieved the first-ever detection of neutrino candidates produced by the Large Hadron Collider at the CERN facility near Geneva, Switzerland. In a paper published today in the journal Physical Review D, the researchers describe how they observed six neutrino interactions during a pilot run of a compact emulsion detector installed at the LHC in 2018. "Prior to this project, no sign of neutrinos has ever been seen at a particle collider," said co-author Jonathan Feng, UCI Distinguished Professor of physics & astronomy and co-leader of the FASER Collaboration. "This significant breakthrough is a step toward developing a deeper understanding of these elusive particles and the role they play in the universe." more at link.............. the paper: https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.104.L091101 First neutrino interaction candidates at the LHC ABSTRACT FASERν at the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is designed to directly detect collider neutrinos for the first time and study their cross sections at TeV energies, where no such measurements currently exist. In 2018, a pilot detector employing emulsion films was installed in the far-forward region of ATLAS, 480 m from the interaction point, and collected 12.2  fb−1 of proton-proton collision data at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. We describe the analysis of this pilot run data and the observation of the first neutrino interaction candidates at the LHC. This milestone paves the way for high-energy neutrino measurements at current and future colliders.

https://phys.org/news/2021-11-social-scientists-replication-capable-beliefs.html Testing social scientists with replication studies shows them capable of changing their beliefs: A team of researchers from the University of Alabama, the University of Melbourne and the University of California has found that social scientists are able to change their beliefs regarding the outcome of an experiment when given the chance. In a paper published in the journal Nature Human Behavior, the group describes how they tested the ability of scientists to change their beliefs about a scientific idea when shown evidence of replicability. Michael Gordon and Thomas Pfeifer with Massey University have published a News & Views piece in the same journal issue explaining why scientists must be able to update their beliefs. more at link........... the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01220-7 Psychologists update their beliefs about effect sizes after replication studies Abstract: Self-correction—a key feature distinguishing science from pseudoscience—requires that scientists update their beliefs in light of new evidence. However, people are often reluctant to change their beliefs. We examined belief updating in action by tracking research psychologists’ beliefs in psychological effects before and after the completion of four large-scale replication projects. We found that psychologists did update their beliefs; they updated as much as they predicted they would, but not as much as our Bayesian model suggests they should if they trust the results. We found no evidence that psychologists became more critical of replications when it would have preserved their pre-existing beliefs. We also found no evidence that personal investment or lack of expertise discouraged belief updating, but people higher on intellectual humility updated their beliefs slightly more. Overall, our results suggest that replication studies can contribute to self-correction within psychology, but psychologists may underweight their evidentiary value.

A photon has no rest mass.

Pantomine?? And you are Pinocciho? 🤣

I'll leave you to it appears you are arguing in bad faith as the above highlights. Your philosophy over more then 800 posts, from your denial of sport/s, to your crocodile tears re criminals and jails etc, to your sympathies to those same criminals as opposed to society and the vicitms of crime, to your comments in this thread. I'm happy enough to leave you to your philosophical preaching, as it is unworkable and has zero, zilch, nada chance of ever being implemented in any reasonable society. I may make the odd comment once in a while when I see fit, otherwise my point has been made with relation to atheism....not some mish mash of philosophical comedy.

Yes for the reasons I have given, and which you seem blinkered to. I simply follow the scientific methodology as much as possible; what you want to label me and others as, is your choice. Most Atheists anyway, along with most agnostics and most theists are able to live their life without too much persecution. So? That detracts nothing from the fact that we cannot live without science ( not withstanding your silly argumentive stance for the sake of arguing) and spirituality, supernatural and paranormal beliefs are unscientific. One is based on reason, the other comforting myth. I'm not jumping through your fabricated hoops my friend...but perhaps you need to cast your mind back before the days of the discoveries of virus'and bacteria and beliefs in miasmas and or or this maybe more familar.... How does your philosophy explain such superstitious nonsense? 🤣 The nonsensical philosophy you have been pushing an dragging into near every subject over more than 800 posts. Aa wise old Owl earlier in this thread did say, I would add that perhaps the tools can never exist to measure gods, and if they did exist and become observable, predictable and consistent, would they still be gods? And you can bet your short n curlies that it would be a Philosopher! 😄

I understand how hard it is to admit, but guess what? you did. Stop playing dumb...please! Many....My pitch is science, no more, no less....your's is pushing a particular philosophy. Because I recognise correctly, that it is people using science for evil intent. Science isn't essentially evil. Science is knowledge which is essentially good. Well you need to express yourself better. And they also believed in all sorts of unscientific myth, which you are so intent on ignoring...badly I might add. It was part of their culture. I've presented pandemics. Your inability to recognise that, does not invalidate my claim...and is rather poor to boot...poor acting that is, as I don't believe you are really ignorant of that. I'm really not that interested in more of your philosophical banter. And I won't elaborate anymore on something that stands out like dog's balls. I remember hearing somewhere sometime about the fact that no matter how logical any argument is, there will always be someone that will present an argument against.

Don't be so dishonest! Unlike you, I (my family) use far more then rhetorical philosophy (like you) to help those less privileged then me. I reluctantly mentioned that earlier (to emphasise a point) which you cunningly ignored. You are the one using some ancient philosophical banter and excuses to support your position. At least I have shown real life examples where your philosophy just doesn't work. That position re the need for jails, and the fact that incorridgible evil people will always exist, is simply fact. If me recognising that position, and the obvious philosophy that it entails makes me right, then so be it. The facts are that all our disagreements, all relate to politics and justice, so your empty claim re always needing to be right, is just that...an empty claim. Perhaps if you were not so fanatically involved in this religion/philosophy of yours, you would see that.