Blog

Apr 30, 2012

Einstein’s Miracle

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

Einstein realized in the last decade of his life that only a world government can overcome war and hatred on the planet. And he believed he had acquired the right to demand this acutely – in view of the nuclear winter being a real threat in the wake of his own contributions to physics.

His main discovery, however, is the “twin clocks paradox,” overlooked by even his greatest competitor. It describes, not just a physical discovery but much more. The travelled twin got transported along the time axis at a different (reduced) rate. So he will be standing younger-in-age beside his twin brother upon return. This is an ontological change which no one else would have dared consider possible: Interfering with the inexorable fist that pushes us all forward along the time axis!

This is Einstein’s deepest discovery. He topped it only once: when he discovered, two years later in 1907, that clocks “downstairs” are rate-reduced, too. The “second twins paradox” in effect.

The word “paradox” is a misnomer: “Miracle” is the correct word. Imagine staying the hands of time! So everybody sees that what you worked is a miracle (a Western Shaman presenting a tangible feat – a Grimms’ brothers’ fairy tale brought to life – a Jewish miracle revived: “the Lord can be seen”).

Why do I point you to Einstein, the sorcerer? It is because we’d better listen to him. Presently, the whole planet denies his legacy as once before. Deliberately to overlook his second twins paradox amounts to consciously risking the planet for the second time in a row.

The ontologically slowed clocks (downstairs) are not just slower-ticking: they also are proportionally mass-reduced, size increased and charge-reduced. This corollary to Einstein’s 1907 result, called Telemach (since T, L, M, Ch are involved), stays uncontested.

Unfortunately – or rather fortunately –, a famous nuclear experiment turns out to be planet-threatening in time I hope. Technically speaking the second twins paradox implies that CERN’s presently attempted to be produced artificial black holes, # 1) cannot be detected at CERN, # 2) are more likely to arise, #3) will, owing to quantum mechanics, electromagnetism and chaos theory, eat the planet inside-out in a few years’ time so that only a 1.8 cm black residue remains.

So dangerous is Einstein still, 57 years after his passing away? This time around, he is imploring us again while taking off his glasses and smiling into the camera: “please, dear children, do not continue a nuclear experiment that you cannot monitor while ontological implications stand on the list.”

The safety conference,rejected by the Cologne Administrative Court on January 27, 2011, is number 1 on Einstein’s agenda:

The nuclear experiment must be stopped immediately!

The nascent world government is openly asking for this today: This is “Einstein’s miracle.”

114

Comments — comments are now closed.

  • Tom Kerwick on May 10, 2012 4:33 pm

    PassingByAgain — yes I considered an NS companion in that previous comment — so stand corrected there would be no 10^(−3) screening on initial production in such binary cases. If I may I would also like to state that I find it refreshing that critical debate has rationalized somewhat here — discussing the nuts and bolts of the G&M analysis.

    For the passing reader the relevant comments started around here: http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/04/einsteins-miracle/comment-page-1#comment-107513

  • PassingByAgain on May 10, 2012 5:30 pm

    Kerwick, I haven’t seen a “critical debate” here. What I have seen is you and Tottoli going on for pages and pages about so-called errors in the GM tables without even having grasped the basic idea (let alone the maths) behind the “binary” argument…

  • Tom Kerwick on May 10, 2012 5:51 pm

    Well if got as far as the mis-interpretation of the scattering of MBH onto the neutron star of distant binary pairs we’ve gone a long way from two mosquitoes.

  • hdc on May 11, 2012 1:48 am

    @passingby: as I mentioned before, I think Tottoli has created a private strawman that has nothing to do with the numbers in the table at all…

    I therefore suggest again that he should contact the authors of the paper.

    Another point is that there are no similar responses/objections from other experts in the field. As science is normally highly competitive it would look rather strange if no one would have written an objection against “misleadings” that “obvious”. Ok, I think Tottoli has no problem to explain even this as he is implicitly assuming that scientists all over the world were bribed by CERN.…

  • hdc on May 11, 2012 1:52 am

    I therefore suggest again that he should contact the authors of the paper.

    He should then also present their answer here in public, of course.

  • Otto E. Rössler on May 11, 2012 1:58 am

    The whole planet knows that Giddings and Mangano never answer to criticism or update their paper from the first draft since they never were serious from the beginning.

    Proof: They do not themselves believe in the formal assumption made by themselves that “Hawking radiation does not exist.”

  • hdc on May 11, 2012 2:07 am

    You have never criticized them in a scientific manner so there is in fact no critique from you, scientifically speaking.

    You have apparently not even read the paper as you nonsense about string theoretical calculations and so on has revealed.

    Your “proof” in the above comment is ridiculous — for a scientific discussion of worst case scenarios it does not matter whether the authors believe something else…It is again the only kind of argument you are able to formulate: infamous attacks on personal level. Scientific arguments of the GM-quality (falsifiable precise mathematical models etc) cannot be found in any of your pseudoscientific text clouds.

  • Otto E. Rössler on May 11, 2012 2:22 am

    Thank you for replying even though anonymous.
    Quote: “for a scientific discussion of worst case scenarios it does not matter whether the authors believe something else.”

    This is correct. But if they never upodate for 4 years despite important counter-results offered to them, the lack of seriousness present from the beginning starts showing — or does it not?

    My revealing to have asked G&M for 4 years in vain to offer a scientific counterargument you call “infamous attacks on personal level.“
    This is something only your anonymity allows you to do. Hiding and shooting is not honorable, especially if the author obviously is a high-ranking scientist. Can we talk?

  • hdc on May 11, 2012 3:35 am

    You have disproved or revealed nothing about the GM paper. You have apparently never read it, as it is obvious from your few statements about it.

    if it is indeed correct, that the personal “belief” of a scientist does not matter, why did you mention it then? did you really think this would be an “argument”?

    No, we can not talk. No one needs to talk to an old enemy of reason who can not manage to formulate at least one scientific sentence about a paper like GM while attacking the authors purely on personal grounds.

  • Otto E. Rössler on May 11, 2012 4:47 am

    You pretend not to have understood what I said.
    Your only argument is that you are clairvoyant. This is very reassuring to yourself, but not necessarily to others.

    By the way, no one knows better how stupid am than me. That is why I am asking to be shown my mistake in Telemach. Maybe you know someone who can do that?
    Or could you put in the work to formulate a counter-theorem yourself?

  • hdc on May 11, 2012 5:33 am

    I understood clearly, it was your next try to avoid any scientific argument. But speculations about intentions and conclusions about the “seriousness” does not replace a scientific counteragrument which you never delivered. Even if GM are not convinced of the non-existence of hawking radiation, even if they personally think that the whole paper is in principle useless and irrelevant it does not disprove the arguments presented in the precise formulated worst case scenarios.

    So again this nonsense about the seriousness is no argument against the GM paper but a proof of your strange avoidance to formulate something like that for 4 years now.

  • Niccolò Tottoli on May 11, 2012 6:59 am

    Dear PassingByAgain

    Thank you that you do not tell I would have made an error (like hdc told).
    But please be honest and precise and do not try to trash my detailed comment (it was quite hard to investigate it for a layman like me). To say it like this: I do not understand why you do not understand me.
    You say “…so what?“
    I am sure that you know the purpose of such a treatise like GM‘s.
    So please read my given points one more time (I am not going to repeat them).
    LSAG uses similar phrases like “Nature has already completed about 1031 LHC experimental programmes since the beginning of the Universe.“
    And: “Thus, the continued existence of the Earth and other astronomical bodies can be used to constrain or exclude speculations about possible new particles that might be produced by the LHC.” about 15 times in one report (I think only on page 4 there are 4 or 5 of such phrases).
    Such sentences just lead to a wrong opinion and are untrue in this context. The differences between nature and the LHC will be told somewhere else but only a few people have time to carefully read on every page. And if one does know the whole report, then it becomes obvious that some important points have even not been considered.
    You say: “This is a technical paper aimed at experts, who normally should be able to read (and understand) the whole text.“
    But as you have seen in some comments above, even experts (or even LSAG) seem to have difficulties to understand it…
    And there are real errors.
    Don‘t you think that such an important paper which handles the worst man made risk ever discussed should be held as easy understandable and as straight as possible?
    I think my long comment above has enough important points to be written here.
    Neutron stars have been discussed since a long time but now it is hopefully clear for ever that the numbers of captured MBH (mostly higher masses) are insufficient (according to GM).
    But only to give the link to Alam Rahman´s great paper would not be enough, because only very few people would read it or even klick on it.

    Anyway I am quite happy that the issue is discussed more deeply now, which was one of my aims.

    Thank you (and thanks to Tom too).

    Sincerely yours, Niccolò
    ——-

  • Niccolò Tottoli on May 11, 2012 7:03 am

    Sorry it was the answer to “PassingByAgain on May 10, 2012 3:37 pm”.
    I should have checked first, whether the discussion was on page two already…
    Perhaps later more. Thanks to all, Niccolò

  • Niccolò Tottoli on May 11, 2012 7:14 am

    And dear hdc
    Where is the strawman, where is it exactly? Show me the page and the line and tell it to me directly and specifically, as I told you once already, ok?
    Thank you.

  • Niccolò Tottoli on May 11, 2012 7:23 am

    Paper of Alam Rahman:
    http://www.lhcsafetyreview.org/docs/BlackHoleReview.pdf
    Paper of Giddings and Mangano:
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/0806.3381v1.pdf

  • PassingByAgain on May 11, 2012 7:57 am

    Tottoli, if you can’t read the GM paper at least read my comment in full. In the part addressed to Kerwick, I explained why the neutron star magnetic screening that gets you so excited is completely irrelevant in the scenario considered in the paper. In short, the companion is NOT a neutron star, and hence has no magnetic screening. The protons in the cosmic rays hit the companion and produce black holes, some of which are then captured by the neutron star (indeed, if the black holes are neutral, they don’t feel the magnetic field). If you don’t even understand this much, it’s useless for you to pick on the details of the tables.

  • Otto E. Rössler on May 11, 2012 9:15 am

    Quote from anonymous 3-letter author above: “But speculations about intentions and conclusions about the ‘seriousness’ does not replace a scientific counteragrument which you never delivered.”

    This is what I am saying every day after having published a theorem in a peer-reviewed math journal.

    Please, be so kind and try to give the counter-theorem the planet is waiting for. It will then be called “the hdc theorem” and make you famous despite your tactful anonymity.

  • eq on May 11, 2012 9:40 am

    Tottoli, haven’t you read passingby? He has shown you the strawman already that hdc has mentioned.

    Rössler, the “peer review” of your journal must be the poorest review in history of science if you have not even been asked the most obvious questions about the derivations of your wrong equations, the missing definitions of variables and so on. All the stuff you were asked before here and at other places which was never answered by you.

    Therefore your publication is worthless. The same applies for your “paper” published in the fraudulent journal of your friend El Naschie (everyone can inform himself about the real fraudulent character of this guy, its not that difficult )

  • eq on May 11, 2012 9:43 am

    Tottoli, how do you explain the fact that no one of the experts who are for sure deeper in the field than you never objected to the GM paper if the errors are that obvious that even a layman like you can find them?

    a big conspirancy? All scientist bribed? or what?

  • eq on May 11, 2012 9:44 am

    (Rössler has not objected against the paper, he tries desparately to hide even the fact that he has read less of the paper than you, Tottoli)

  • Tom Kerwick on May 11, 2012 10:13 am

    In section 8.1 if one assumes the uncorrected rates of Appendix E in calculating the scattering on a NS in a binary pair are not the uncorrected rates summarised in Table 3 on that same page — as this would infer an NS companion — this would contradict why they refer back to the neutron star production rates in table 9 in the following sentance. Also regardless they should not be using uncorrected rates with the the FCE for the binary case, though I accept the suppression rate of a non-NS partner would be a lot less than 10^(−3). Regardless, it does looks like Nicollo is correct in that Table 3 should state the values are uncorrected, or else be reduced by a multiplier of 10^(−3), as are quite misleading as is. To answer EQ — I can only suspect this section of the G&M paper was not reviewed in as great detail as earlier sections, or else I have missed something here…

  • Otto E. Rössler on May 11, 2012 10:26 am

    I ask Lifeboat to make an official remark before every appearance of eq because he anonymously slanders a leading senior scientist on the planet because he is my friend.

  • PassingByAgain on May 11, 2012 10:28 am

    Kerwick (and Tottoli), stop clutching at straws. The table is not misleading at all if one bothers reading the paper. On the other hand, the table would have been useless if the authors had introduced the correction factor due to the magnetic screening. Indeed, it is the uncorrected rates — not the corrected ones — that must be multiplied by the “FCE” in order to determine the number of black holes captured by the NS. A sentence such as “regardless they should not be using uncorrected rates with the the FCE for the binary case” makes me suspect that Kerwick still doesn’t get the basic picture…

  • eq on May 11, 2012 10:37 am

    El Nashie is a numerology –crackpot, he is not a leading scientist.

  • eq on May 11, 2012 10:38 am

    And I would say the very same as evry ludic person even if he would not be you friend. Nice try again, Rössler.

  • Tom Kerwick on May 11, 2012 10:49 am

    PassingByAgain — no straw clutching, I am just passing my opinion on the figures being discussed here. I merely agreed that the table should state ‘uncorrected’ at a minimum, as otherwise it misrepresents the real figures for production rates.

    As for the binary case the initial production which results in MBH scattering should be corrected values, as you need to use real figures for actual produced MBH. It is the secondary scattering onto the NS does not require such correcting as neutral. As stated in an earlier comment, one would have to apply a correcting twice if the MBH scattering was not neutral. It looks to me at this stage that it is you who do not get the basic picture here. Maybe you read over it all too quickly again… Anyway, these are more questions for LSAG than messageboards. Best of luck in formulating your concerns Niccolo.

  • Otto E. Rössler on May 11, 2012 10:54 am

    This high-level discussion on neutron stars gains pepper if I briefly interject a fact all of the discussants know: That neutron star cores are “most likely” protected by quantum mechanics. The Giddings and Mangano paper is so sadly outdated because this element of the literature was refused to be quoted (or contradicted) 4 years ago up to this day.

  • eq on May 11, 2012 11:00 am

    Again this unfounded pseudoargument.

    Rössler, that was already shown to be insufficient. Shut up ;)

  • eq on May 11, 2012 11:03 am

    And there is also no reference from you presenting this fantastic mechanism that would prevent neutron star matter against accretion.

    Where is your fantastic model of gravitational/ strong force-superfluidity? :D

  • Otto E. Rössler on May 11, 2012 11:10 am

    I accept any bad word by someone who dares not show his face — if directed against myself. For he says at the same time that he is not to be taken seriously.

    But I insist on an excuse on this blog for the breach of other person’s rights occurring under the label “eq”.

  • PassingByAgain on May 11, 2012 11:11 am

    Kerwick: “As for the binary case the initial production which results in MBH scattering should be corrected values”.

    OMG, you still don’t get it: the initial production occurs on the companion, which is NOT a neutron star and therefore has NO magnetic screening. It would then be WRONG to apply the 10^−3 correction factor, which accounts for the fact that — in a neutron star — only cosmic rays coming near the magnetic poles can pass through. Come back only when you have understood this basic point.

  • Tom Kerwick on May 11, 2012 11:29 am

    PassingByAgain — I was not referring to an initial 10(−3) correction factor. I was referring to the (lesser) correction factor applicable to the companion. Read back over my earlier comments. It seems you missed my point.

  • PassingByAgain on May 11, 2012 11:41 am

    Yes, I don’t know which earlier comments of yours you are referring to. What “(lesser) correction factor applicable to the companion” do you have in mind?

  • Niccolò Tottoli on May 11, 2012 12:12 pm

    Dear all
    Sorry, it is so that I cannot be 24 hours at my pc, so I read and reply later in some cases but I‘ll try tonight or not more late than tomorrow.
    Thanks to all for discussion on a high level.
    Best regards to all, Niccolò

  • Tom Kerwick on May 11, 2012 12:14 pm

    PassingByAgain — well that would depend on the companion, if you take example of a WD companion it would be a correction for WD though I don’t see a value calculated for this in the appendix (they only calculate for NS case), and G&M do state they use ‘uncorrected’ values here. Should be a lot less significant than the NS correction values of course…

  • PassingByAgain on May 11, 2012 12:53 pm

    Kerwick: why don’t you just take the formulae in Appendix G and plug in the numbers for the white dwarf? I guess you will find that in that case the suppression is negligible, justifying GM’s use of “uncorrected” values.

  • Tom Kerwick on May 11, 2012 3:59 pm

    PassingBy — one would think I was questioning your Koran. EM deflecting effects in white dwarfs are far from negligible. You’re showing yourself up here a bit…

  • Niccolò Tottoli on May 11, 2012 7:58 pm

    Dear all
    At the moment it seems that Tom has understood the most. No error in my long comment on page 1 here.
    Again: the second-last paragraph on page 76 in GM states “The production rates on a neutron star (neglecting the magnetic screening) can be obtained from the white dwarf’s ones by rescaling by the surface area. Assuming a 10 km radius, the proton rates in Table 4 are reduced by a factor of 3.4 x 10^−6, leading to the numbers in Table 9.”
    Table 3 has numbers of table 9.
    So I have done what is told and made two examples in my long comment on page 1 and calculated ‘my own‘ numbers, starting with table 4.
    My results do match the numbers of table 9.
    And later I have applied the reduction factor, to show ‘real‘ numbers for single ns.
    Please compare the numbers and titles of table 4 on page 73 and table 2 on page 40. The titles of table 2 and 4 are correct.

    Binary systems are all different and would lead to different numbers for each case.
    Also the FCE (full coverage equivalent) is different for each binary case, because it does NOT just mean that the neutron star is exposed to MBH all its lifespan equally like a hypothetical neutron star without the magnetic screening (-reducing factor).
    But it is true anyway that only SOME kind of binaries would have similar ‘real‘ (corrected) numbers of MBH as in table 3 and 9.
    The numbers in table 3 and 9 are absolutely sound for single neutron stars, except that the reduction factor is not applied yet. But the titles of 3 and 9 are misleading. Please tell me if something special is unclear again.
    I will take a look sometimes.
    Thanks to all, Niccolò
    ——-

  • Niccolò Tottoli on May 11, 2012 8:04 pm

    Clarification:
    “But it is true anyway that only SOME kind of binaries would have similar ‘real‘ (corrected) numbers of MBH as in table 3 and 9.” means that the numbers would be ‘real‘ for some binaries but I did not mean the numbers of table 3 and 9 are ‘real‘ (corrected) numbers.

  • Niccolò Tottoli on May 11, 2012 8:27 pm

    Dear all
    To be clear about FCE and so on please read on page 61 in the paper of Rahman. Or to be absolutely clear, please start on page 59. GM is perhaps too tricky to read without the help of Rahman‘s paper.
    Have a good day, Niccolò
    ——-

  • Niccolò Tottoli on May 11, 2012 8:47 pm

    Edit:
    I have told: “But it is true anyway that only SOME kind of binaries would have similar ‘real‘ (corrected) numbers of MBH as in table 3 and 9.“
    So I have to add: …if table 3 and 9 would refer to “per million years of FCE”, naturally!
    (Sorry people, I am tired)…

  • PassingByAgain on May 12, 2012 4:17 am

    Tottoli: so your whole point seems to be that the captions of the tables 3 and 9 in the GM paper should contain the word “uncorrected”. Who cares? It is absolutely clear from the text of the paper that the numbers in the tables do not include the correction for magnetic screening. And — as I wrote above — it is indeed the uncorrected numbers (not the corrected ones) that must be multiplied by the FCE when considering the binary system. Showing the corrected numbers in the tables would have been useless and confusing in this context.

    Kerwick: quantify your “far from negligible”. A correction of order one is indeed negligible in a reasoning about orders of magnitudes. And I suspect that in binary systems in which the companion is not a white dwarf the effect would be even smaller.

  • Niccolò Tottoli on May 12, 2012 11:17 am

    Dear PassingByAgain

    Oh yes: “Who cares” — a good question!
    It is true that “…it is absolutely clear from the text..” that the numbers of table 3 have to be reduced at least 100 times.
    But anyway it seems (even you) have not got the whole picture yet.

    It is not only one point in my detailed comment on page 1 here and I still have the same points.
    I told that the paper of GM is tricky and misleading and you have not got it yet. But please read now my entire comment here, the solution for you comes at the end.
    GM, page 45, 2nd paragraph states:
    “In order to compute the actual production rate on the neutron star, we use the uncorrected rates of Appendix E, times the number of years of FCE.“
    So one goes to appendix E.
    In the appendix are many tables but table 9 refers to neutron stars.

    I have shown in my two examples that these numbers are uncorrected and have to be 1000 times smaller, to be sound with the title of the tables which states “Table 9: Black hole production rates, per million years, induced by proton cosmic rays impinging on a R = 10 km neutron star. MD = Mmin/3 and y = max(0:5;Mmin/14 TeV).“
    Now we know that “per million years” is simply wrong, because these numbers are NOT the MBH production rates PER MILLION YEARS on A neutron star!

    Now we all know and agree too that the title of table 3 (which is not in the section of binaries) is simply wrong, because it states: “Table 3: Summary of black hole production rates, per million years, induced by proton cosmic rays impinging on a R = 10 km neutron star. MD = Mmin=3 and y = Mmin=14 TeV.”, because the table is NOT a summary of MBH production rates PER MILLION YEARS on A neutron star!

    Now it should be clear too for all that the claim in the LSAG report (1st paragraph, page 9) that cosmic rays hitting neutron stars “would have produced black holes copiously during their lifetimes” is wrong too, because the ‘real‘ numbers for single neutron stars are too small (as GM states): “These numbers are too small to allow sufficient rate for all cases, and specially those at the highest black hole masses.”

    But I have given some other important points, for example that all other hypothetical cases for other particles and most important those which would lead to the smallest numbers of MBH produced on a neutron star should be considered, which is not the case in GM.

    xxxxx Here is the answer to your new comment: xxxxx
    It seems that you have not read the paper of Alam Rahman, which (as I told) helps much to understand the quite tricky paper of GM.
    Therefore you have shown trhat you have made perfectly the same error in your new comment which most of the ‘normal‘ readers (and probably even most experts — and I would call you an expert) would make:

    It is wrong to just multiply the uncorrected numbers of table 9 or 3 by the number of years of FCE!

    The paper of Rahman (page 61) gives you the solution:
    To arrive at the rates per real million years one would have to multiply by the fraction of the sky covered by the neutron star’s companion. This fraction would vary
    depending on the size of the companion and its distance from the neutron star. Appendix H.1 gives a range from 0.002 up to 0.06 [GM p. 86], which implies that the rates in table 3 are actually the number of black holes expected during a time period ranging from 500 million years down to about 17 million years.” (see page 61 in the link of “LHC safety review” (Alam Rahman), which I have given several times.

    I hope now everything will be clear and I hope you will see that I was absolutely right with all.
    It is better to first read all carefully. Otherwise much time is lost with a discussion and rumours which will never lead to an end.

    Thank you.
    ——-

  • Niccolò Tottoli on May 12, 2012 11:19 am

    Correction for my first paragraph:
    Not “at least 100 times” but “1000 times”, sorry.

  • PassingByAgain on May 12, 2012 11:54 am

    Tottoli, please, read again what you just wrote:

    “To arrive at the rates per real million years one would have to multiply by the fraction of the sky covered by the neutron star’s companion. This fraction would vary depending on the size of the companion and its distance from the neutron star.”

    This is PRECISELY the reduction encoded in the “FCE”, see eq.(8.1) of the GM paper and the text immediately below it. Due to this reduction, over a typical lifetime of a billion years a neutron star in a binary system receives the number of black holes that a solitary neutron star without magnetic screening would receive in the FCE, i.e. in just two million years. In other words, the relevant number of black holes is given by the FCE times the numbers in table 3. Do you get it now?

    Note BTW that Kerwick’s objection is different: he argues that one should also take into account the effect of the magnetic screening of the companion (which is not a neutron star). However, he still has to show that this effect can qualitatively change the result.

  • PassingByAgain on May 12, 2012 1:12 pm

    P.S. just curious: why do you keep saying that table 3 is not in the section on the binaries?

  • Niccolò Tottoli on May 12, 2012 6:45 pm

    Dear PassingByAgain
    Yes, at the moment I think that we both got it! I thought you would think something else, sorry.
    To say it in other words one more time:
    If one does multiply the numbers in table 3 or 9 by the numbers of years of FCE then one does not get the real numbers of MBH per million years, but you get only the number of the total integrated MBH exposure over the entire lifetime of the neutron star.
    If you like to calculate the number of MBH per ‘real‘ million years (naturally not million years FCE), produced on the binary neutron star then you must divide the result of the FCE-calculation 8.1 (on page 46) by the estimated age of the neutron star.
    Right?

    About your P.S.: Table 3 is ABOVE the binary section, on page 46 in GM and it is mentioned in the binary section (same page) but it isn‘t IN the binary section on page 46.
    Would you agree so far?
    I wish you a good day, Niccolò
    ——-
    BTW: I would generally agree with Tom, that the magnetic screening of the binary companion depends on the density and type of the companion. But I have not investigated it yet.

  • Niccolò Tottoli on May 12, 2012 6:54 pm

    About the magnetic screening of the companion I do not know how much it would make but as we have seen the magnetic screening of a neutron star does vary quite much too.
    Good day to all!

  • PassingByAgain on May 13, 2012 2:12 am

    Tottoli, you wrote: “you get ONLY the number of the total integrated MBH exposure over the entire lifetime of the neutron star”.

    But this is the only number that matters for the safety argument!!! It is the number of black holes that the systems we observe may have accumulated so far without being destroyed. How comes you still don’t understand???

    As to the table: scientific papers are usually written with LaTeX, which treats pictures and tables as floating objects and places them wherever it’s more convenient to optimize the page layout. All that matters is where the object is mentioned first in the text (in this case, section 8.1.1: “is shown HERE in table 3″). Nobody who is even vaguely used to reading such papers would doubt that the table is in section 8.1.1.