Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

All I can say in reply to that is I've disagreed with Sisu many times in fact I've very rarely agreed with him but he's never made me feel like an idiot for having an opposing view. We all have a way of presenting ourselves on here and the only ones I have problems with are those who's default setting is personal abuse [those spouting hate about tragedies etc. aside]. Sisu, much like astro, are the characters of the board and I say more power to them.

 

It just keeps mounting.. the evidence that is.

Tory energy and climate change minister Matthew Hancock accepted £18,000 from a key supporter of Britain’s most prolific climate skeptic lobby, not the first "donation".

Chris Huhne Britain's energy and climate change secretary in 2011 attended the meeting and blessed a deal between Russia's Rosneft and BP project to drill in the arctic.

Even the Gates foundation, one of hte biggest AGW moaners, owns shares in Peabody, the biggest coal producer in the world

Yep, it seems Britain's Climate change ministers and secretaries are totally scared of CO2 and AGW, so much so that they are taking money from skeptic orgs and allowing the arctic, the poster boy for the IPCC, to be destroyed, plus it produces far more carbon to drill and obtain oil from the arctic and pollution is unavoidable.

Throw that in with the US China deal of crank up your emissions for the next decade and a half and it's pretty ****ing clear that NO government is taking AGW and MMCC seriously.

Oil Gas and Fossil fuel subsidies in the UK and everywhere else are 10 times the amount of subsidies green and renewable energy gets, plus!!!.. green and renewable subsidies are actually paid by you through energy bills while the billions for Oil Gas and Fossil fuels comes straight from your taxes.

So while this fantasy of AGW goes on the truth is laid bare in the actions of the governments who are publicly screaming "MMCC" whilst at the same time behaving in a manner that denotes the truth, that AGW is horseshit.

 

That proves nothing more that politicians are often bent.

It adds **** all to the climate change debate.

In the UK fossil fuel subsidies aren't 10x the level of the renewable subsidies, you're miles off, and the taxation raised from fossil fuels is over 30x the subsidy level for exploration, which is viewed as an investment anyway, as the view is that they'll get it back in tax revenue from fields found with subsidised exploration costs. As usual you've taken headline straplines and applied them across the board as 'fact'.

 

Over the next 24 hours, beams of protons should collide in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at the record-breaking energy of 13 teraelectronvolts (TeV) for the first time. This is one of the many steps required to prepare the machine before the LHC's second physics run can begin. The LHC Operations team plans to declare "stable beams" in the coming weeks – the signal for the LHCexperiments to start taking physics data at this new energy frontier.

"We begin by bringing the beams into collision at 13 TeV, and adjusting their orbits to collide them head-on," says Ronaldus SuykerBuyk of the Operations team.

Last month proton beams were back in the accelerator for the first time after two years of intense maintenance and consolidation. Thefirst beam at the record energy of 6.5 TeV circulated on 10 April, and the first collisions – at the lower beam energy of 450 gigaelectronvolts (GeV) – followed.

The team has already checked and fine-tuned all the beam instruments, magnets and collimators along the 27-kilometre accelerator for collisions at 900 GeV. But when beam energy increases to 6.5 TeV, the beam parameters and orbits change significantly as compared to 450 GeV. In addition, the beams are focused down to a much smaller spot size within the experiments and as a consequence the location of collisions changes.

"When we start to bring the beams into collision at a new energy, they often miss each other," says Jorg Wenninger of the LHC Operations team. "The beams are tiny – only about 20 microns in diameter at 6.5 TeV; more than 10 times smaller than at 450 GeV. So we have to scan around – adjusting the orbit of each beam until collision rates provided by the experiments tell us that they are colliding properly."

The design of the LHC allows more than 2800 bunches of protons to circulate in each beam at a time. But the LHC Operations team will start collision tests with just one or two bunches per beam at the nominal intensity of 1011 particles per bunch to ensure that all is running smoothly.

Once they have found the points at which the beams interact optimally to give the most physics data, collimators have to be positioned accurately around the beam orbits to intercept particles that stray from the beam before they can hit magnets or detectors. "When the positioning of all collimators has been validated the LHC will switch over to production mode," says Wenninger, "and become a 'collision factory', delivering data to experiments." At this point, the experiments will switch on fully, and LHC Run 2 will begin.

In the meantime, the large LHC experiments ALICE,ATLAS, CMSand LHCbwill use the test data to check specific parts of their detectors for the upcoming physics run.

"The collisions at 13 TeV will allow us to further test all improvements that have been made to the trigger and reconstruction systems, and check the synchronisation of all the components of our detector," says CMS spokesperson Tiziano Camporesi.

“These data are precious to complete the fine tuning of the preparation for the run,” says ALICE spokesperson Paolo Giubellino. “ALICE has installed new detectors during the shutdown, and has significantly upgraded the trigger and readout. The validation of the new hardware will greatly benefit from the first data.”

"Although these collisions are not used for physics studies, they are useful for refining the synchronization of the readout time of different parts of the calorimeters and muon detectors," says LHCb spokesperson Guy Wilkinson.

"These 13 TeV data allow us to work on further improving the ATLAS detector readiness, following the recent 900 GeV collisions," says ATLAS spokesperson Dave Charlton. "The higher energies mean that we expect more active and energetic events, which will let us probe more deeply into the detector, for example."

Declaring "stable beams" will be only the beginning for the LHC Operations team. "We’re still working on the injection chain to the LHC, and finalising the collimators," says Wenninger. “And the machine evolves around you. There are little changes over the months. There’s the alignment of the machine, which moves a little with the slow-changing geology of the area. So we keep adjusting every day."

This week's collisions at 13 TeV are to check that CERN's flagship – the LHC – is sea-worthy. But we haven't yet begun the voyage to new frontiers.

 

Di anyone watch Horizon on Wednesday. It was about the effects of binge drinking as opposed to regular drinking. It featured a world-renowned liver scientist who is the founder of my newest client company. Given my predilection for alcohol, I'm not sure they should be doing business with me

Seriously, it's an interesting edition and there's some good science in it

 

Does binge drinking turn out to be so bad it's good?

#whatevershouldkillyouactuallygivesyousuperpowers

 

I suggest you catch it on i player., Well worth it and parts are very funny

 

I didn't see it but I've seen those twin doctors before doing health experiments. There was one Sugar v Fat were one of them gave up sugar and one gave up fat and compared things like weight loss, brain function and diabetes risk. Very interesting.

 

I read a book by Brian Greene last year about superstring theory, and in it he says we'd need a collider the size of the solar system to uncover strings. In terms of scale, if the whole UNIVERSE was the size of an atom, a string in the centre would be the size of a tree. Hmmm.

Does rather resemble the medieval argument of cloistered monks about angels dancing on the heads of pins, doesn't it?

 

Another more believeable theory of what are in the centres of galaxies rather than black holes that required dividing by 0, a ridiculous thing that has led directly to black hole theory.

Plasmoid. Immense energy stored in electromagnetic force and where the lines overlap is where there is most density and ejection of material. Hence the jets we see comng from "black holes". Plasmoids are also scalable, from one a few MMs in size can contain the same energy as a large room full of capacitors. They are also the result of empirical science, not mathematical fantasy. They are reproduced in the lab.
These are the in the realm of science not theoritical science fiction like black holes and the big bang.

please log in to view this image

Additional proof that black holes don't exist is the alleged supermassive black hole in the centre of our own galaxy, stars obit it and there is 0 light scatter, proving either one of two things, that black holes are not real or that gravity does not actually bend light at all, which would question the very foundation of general relativity and our understanding of gravity itself.
There is no light scattering from any data that has been retrieved this far, which would be impossible given how close these stars orbit this super massive "black hole" considering the claims of "lensing" of light by gravity.

Note one or two stars orbit extremely close to this "supermassive black hole" yet there is no light scattering at all. More evidence black holes are just mathematically constructed nonsense that exist in models and nothing else. General relativity and current mainstream theory DEMANDS that there be much evident light scattering, rather than call the lack of light scattering a "mystery" maybe these nuts can admit they are just wrong.

please log in to view this image

At the galactic core Maxwell's laws are in effect, not Newton's laws..

And more evidence, gas clouds pass close by our "supermassive black hole" and are not consumed tho they make up completely nonsense reasons for this. This cloud was watched and anticipated to give a light show as it was consumed by the SMBH but it never happened, obviously because there is no immense gravitational force to such it into the black hole that does not exist.

\NOTE: the scientific reasoning, "somehow managed to escape" instead of "we were wrong", as usual astrophysics tries to say there is something happening that doesn't totally refute their theories. Instead "mysterious" or "unexplained" things happen, even if they are in total contradiction to predictions and models, they refuse to look objectively at evidence in abundance showing theory is wrong, instead they desperately try shoehorn the new findings into existing dogma. It's tragically stupid from such intelligent people, but I guess they have built their careers on these theories.

Here they again do a "dark matter" and invoke some magical invisible gravitational force to keep the cloud together instead of work with what they are actually seeing, dogma rules.


http://phys.org/news/2014-11-black-hole-appetite-gassy-cloud.html

This set of images is the science fiction perpetrated on science, every image you've ever seen of a black hole or a black hole doing something is an artists illustration and nothing more. Still not one tiny fraction of empirical evidence or lab replicated result to back up black hole theory. Plasma physics is returning empirical data constantly and replicating what we can see with our telescopes.

please log in to view this image

 

Proof you don't understand black holes. Stopped reading here.

 

Go easy with me on this but I read the link that sisu provided and i understood it a bit differently but this could be down to my lack of expertise, am i safe to say the following.

1, Some scientists prediction was that G2 would survive the near miss but massively damaged and in the end it survived with only slight damage.
2. they did not mention dark matter as a way of explanation but did offer the explanation that there is a small star at the centre of G2.

 

"Show Ignorant Content"? Nope. I know who it is. I guess Astro, with a non scientific reply? Your ignorance is epic Astrodouche, but I choose not to read it any more, good luck with that

aaaaaanyway
Mars, Dogma now tries to say this was three asteroids impacting at once instead of the clearly evidence electrical scarring that created this feature, yes Planetologists claims three asteroids struck this point at the same time, "triple asteroid strike" . Cos if gravity is your only answer to everything then Asteroids coming in 3s are the only answer to something like this, Dogma doesn't allow for another accepted theory..
http://phys.org/news/2015-01-amazing-impact-crater-triple-asteroid.html#nRlv

please log in to view this image

They call these "impact crators"

please log in to view this image

A wider view of the last show where the immense electrical excavation of Mars surface took place in the past where these two crators can be found near, note none of these "impacts" were at angles of any kind but straight on as obviously electrial arcs impact directly and not at angles.
This is not the result of water or impacts.

please log in to view this image

Crators? Looks like electrical machining to me

please log in to view this image

 

Electrical machining? Or EDM

Sounds like you are trying to fit a theory around what has been proven to be impact craters here and on the moon

 

However I like your stance, keep going away and evaluating and questioning/testing is a sound way forward for you

 

I guess the media were pretty quiet on this, only the telegraph picked up on it to any real degree.
The IPCC have been editing temperature data all over the world for a decade to make it look like the trand has been a warming trend.

Caught committing outright fraud and this is not enough for the religious zealot. Call the Telegraph a conspiracy site some just might
So that's the US caught doing this, Australia UK and South America, pretty much the world, the whole thing is a ****ing fraud.
The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

not bad science, it is an intentional fraud.

 

Roy Warren Spencer is a climatologist,[1] Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. He has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.

He was the guy who worked on assessing global temperatures for NASA.
Another "denier" on the list of scientists who call Bullshit on IPCC

Spencer

Bottom line, if IPCC models are usng CO2 to produce temperature increases that are far far above reality, then the CO2 is not causing the temp increases. Search as they may for ridicuously convoluted theories as to why they are wrong, they are still wrong the CO2 is not causing the increases their models produce ergo the science is wrong.

The IPCC have decided to go with their models instead of what is actually happening.

I can't remember a science being so wrong in its conclusions ever being portrayed as so correct

Spencer is more credible than any railroad engineer from the IPCC leadership.
Watch the video.

Alarmist climate sceintists have repeatedly refused to have TV debates with Spencer on the man made global warming, the Union of Concerned Scientists when as many as 12 different scientists were asked to debate Spencer but refused, the union said "Debating Roy Spencer would be doing the public a disservice" and "it would give his extreme ideas credability" even though they were offered a chance to prove him wrong in front of millions of viewers!. Smell the fear

 

Ronaldus

That is literally all I've taken from this whole page

 

Global "greening" as in more plant life because of more CO2. #plantfood not pollution.
Global crop yield has grown steadily since the 50s, IPCC say "MMCC" is having a detrimental effect, yet the yield data proves the IPCC is lying yet again.

please log in to view this image

please log in to view this image

Study paper.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50563/abstract