Blackholes: Accretion Vs Expulsion

[BDanielMayfield]

Douglas, when the Subr et. al. paper predicting an IMBH in Orion was reported by S&T's website I too was quite skeptical. My reasons were some of the same issues you have raised. However, now that I've considered what professional astronomers have written I can see how a non-accreting black hole could easily be lurking below the threshold of current dectability somewhere within the Trapezium.

Once we know the precise proper motions of these stars the need for an unseen 200 Sun's worth of extra invisible mass might become obvious. Or, the motions could kill this IMBH notion once and for all. Seems like it is too soon to tell for sure though.

Why is this so important to you?

Bruce

[douglas]

Remember this APOD, where Subr worked up his fantasy of an Intermediate Black Hole in the Trapezium?

Thanks, but I'm going to go with the respected researchers who have a peer-reviewed paper in a respected journal.

If you disagree with their conclusions, prepare a technical paper and publish it in a high quality peer-reviewed journal. Then your opinion might be worth considering.

We are asked to consider many things theoretical in astronomy. The Razor of Occam forbids us to do the lemming thing, however.

He forgot his qualifier of "ultimately", as if others would not be aware the essence of his results were reflective of the software's requirements for a user's choice of parameters, "input", for the generation of model output.
Similarly, "contributors" are enjoined to consider available data for postulated scenarios. "Opinions" as to likelihood was the required "input" to generate meaningful contributions meant to "survive peer review", of other "contributors", that is.

Therefore, omitting qualifier of one's opinion is a placing of oneself .. exactly where?

[Chris Peterson]

Remember this APOD, where Subr worked up his fantasy of an Intermediate Black Hole in the Trapezium?

Thanks, but I'm going to go with the respected researchers who have a peer-reviewed paper in a respected journal.

If you disagree with their conclusions, prepare a technical paper and publish it in a high quality peer-reviewed journal. Then your opinion might be worth considering.

We are asked to consider many things theoretical in astronomy. The Razor of Occam forbids us to do the lemming thing, however.

The Razor of Occam is a guideline that we can use to help us come to reasonable assumptions in the face of a shortage of evidence. It forbids nothing. Its application is frequently misunderstood and misused.

[Guest]

Douglas, when the Subr et. al. paper predicting an IMBH in Orion was reported by S&T's website I too was quite skeptical.
My reasons were some of the same issues you have raised. However, now that I've considered what professional astronomers have written I can see how a non-accreting black hole could easily be lurking below the threshold of current dectability somewhere within the Trapezium.

Once we know the precise proper motions of these stars the need for an unseen 200 Sun's worth of extra invisible mass might become obvious. Or, the motions could kill this IMBH notion once and for all. Seems like it is too soon to tell for sure though.

Why is this so important to you?

Bruce

It is "important" to me because his assertions are totally lacking in observational support. His modeling generates a 70% chance of a binary, a binary which would surely indicate a very massive object in its surroundings, yet the binary is invisible. So he and yourself are down to 30%, early-on. That should trouble you for supporting his assertion. Simply asserting survival of peer review as sufficient is weak.

A professional astronomer would take great pains to include the qualifier of "ultimately" possible. How that omission got past Mr. Kroupa, a much-more known publisher and co-author, is beyond me.

So, yes, modeling software will give some quite interesting results, but the user is required to sift the likelihoods. Perhaps it was 'Celebrate Astronomy Software Day' at the peer-reviewed? /sarc

In the end, it would be much more gratifying to see an admission that the modeling dynamics were performed upon data which was honestly insufficient to render the results as likely.

Thanks.

Bruce, why is it so important to you that I flip that version to its non-functioning chimer?

[BDanielMayfield]

Douglas, when the Subr et. al. paper predicting an IMBH in Orion was reported by S&T's website I too was quite skeptical.
My reasons were some of the same issues you have raised. However, now that I've considered what professional astronomers have written I can see how a non-accreting black hole could easily be lurking below the threshold of current dectability somewhere within the Trapezium.

Once we know the precise proper motions of these stars the need for an unseen 200 Sun's worth of extra invisible mass might become obvious. Or, the motions could kill this IMBH notion once and for all. Seems like it is too soon to tell for sure though.

Why is this so important to you?

Bruce

It is "important" to me because his assertions are totally lacking in observational support. His modeling generates a 70% chance of a binary, a binary which would surely indicate a very massive object in its surroundings, yet the binary is invisible. So he and yourself are down to 30%, early-on. That should trouble you for supporting his assertion. Simply asserting survival of peer review as sufficient is weak.

A professional astronomer would take great pains to include the qualifier of "ultimately" possible. How that omission got past Mr. Kroupa, a much-more known publisher and co-author, is beyond me.

So, yes, modeling software will give some quite interesting results, but the user is required to sift the likelihoods. Perhaps it was 'Celebrate Astronomy Software Day' at the peer-reviewed? /sarc

In the end, it would be much more gratifying to see an admission that the modeling dynamics were performed upon data which was honestly insufficient to render the results as likely.

Thanks.

Bruce, why is it so important to you that I flip that version to its non-functioning chimer?

Thank you for that understandable answer douglas. Your opinion is as valid as anyone's. I don't seek to change your opinion, I seek to test mine against the relative information so that what I think is ever more likely to be accurate.

Bruce

[douglas]

Douglas, when the Subr et. al. paper predicting an IMBH in Orion was reported by S&T's website I too was quite skeptical.
My reasons were some of the same issues you have raised. However, now that I've considered what professional astronomers have written I can see how a non-accreting black hole could easily be lurking below the threshold of current dectability somewhere within the Trapezium.

Once we know the precise proper motions of these stars the need for an unseen 200 Sun's worth of extra invisible mass might become obvious. Or, the motions could kill this IMBH notion once and for all. Seems like it is too soon to tell for sure though.

Why is this so important to you?

Bruce

It is "important" to me because his assertions are totally lacking in observational support. His modeling generates a 70% chance of a binary, a binary which would surely indicate a very massive object in its surroundings, yet the binary is invisible. So he and yourself are down to 30%, early-on. That should trouble you for supporting his assertion. Simply asserting survival of peer review as sufficient is weak.

A professional astronomer would take great pains to include the qualifier of "ultimately" possible. How that omission got past Mr. Kroupa, a much-more known publisher and co-author, is beyond me.

So, yes, modeling software will give some quite interesting results, but the user is required to sift the likelihoods. Perhaps it was 'Celebrate Astronomy Software Day' at the peer-reviewed? /sarc

In the end, it would be much more gratifying to see an admission that the modeling dynamics were performed upon data which was honestly insufficient to render the results as likely.

Thanks.

Bruce, why is it so important to you that I flip that version to its non-functioning chimer?

Thank you for that understandable answer douglas. Your opinion is as valid as anyone's. I don't seek to change your opinion, I seek to test mine against the relative information so that what I think is ever more likely to be accurate.

Bruce

Of course it is. This 'chimer' seeks to constantly improve its understanding. I also understand the peer review journal is more than invited to chime in here and defend its decision making. True chivalry in defending others is in the asking of 'Why don't they/haven't they?'.

I've enjoyed astronomy for decades and feel it's important to have standards that encourage total respect for others' intelligence.

Black holes will give away their presence in some way. Greater resolution is the real answer to their elusiveness, not the granting of they special statuses due to a lack of resolution.
Precision and discipline can have their own rewards, so whether one has published a technical paper in a peer review is quite irrelevant to "functioning chirality".

[Chris Peterson]

Thank you for that understandable answer douglas. Your opinion is as valid as anyone's.

No, it most certainly is not. Everyone has a right to an opinion. Everyone has a right to express an opinion. But it is a logical fallacy of the highest order to treat all opinions as equally valid, and in no place is this more so than science. Expert opinion is most certainly of higher value than non-expert opinion.

[neufer]

opinion (n.) c. 1300, from Old French opinion "opinion, view, judgements founded upon probabilities" (12c.), from Latin opinionem (nominative opinio) "opinion, conjecture, fancy, belief, what one thinks; appreciation, esteem," from stem of opinari "think, judge, suppose, opine," from PIE *op- (2) "to choose" (see option).

• Where there is much desire to learn, there of necessity will be much arguing, much writing, many opinions;
  for opinion in good men is but knowledge in the making. [Milton, "Areopagitica"]

valid (adj.) 1570s, "having force in law, legally binding," from Middle French valide (16c.), from Latin validus "strong, effective, powerful, active," from valere "be strong".

The [valid] meaning "sufficiently supported by facts or authority, well-grounded" is first recorded 1640s.

[Ann]

Douglas, I must admit I was thinking of you when I made this post. Please read it. I think you behave somewhat like the characters described in the post. You are adamant that the professional astronomers are wrong, that they are doing sloppy science, that many peer-reviewed papers are of little value or downright wrong, and that a lot of questions would be resolved if astronomers would only listen to you.

Ann

[BDanielMayfield]

Thank you for that understandable answer douglas. Your opinion is as valid as anyone's.

No, it most certainly is not. Everyone has a right to an opinion. Everyone has a right to express an opinion. But it is a logical fallacy of the highest order to treat all opinions as equally valid, and in no place is this more so than science. Expert opinion is most certainly of higher value than non-expert opinion.

Yeah, I figured I'd get slammed for that "your opinion is as valid as anyone's" line. Rightfully so, I admit. Chris nailed what I should have said with "everyone has a right to express an opinion."

Bruce

[Guest]

Douglas, I must admit I was thinking of you when I made this post. Please read it. I think you behave somewhat like the characters described in the post. You are adamant that the professional astronomers are wrong, that they are doing sloppy science, that many peer-reviewed papers are of little value or downright wrong, and that a lot of questions would be resolved if astronomers would only listen to you.

Ann

Sorry, Ann, but you're expressing a type of reactionary fatigue. I will take peer-reviewed papers one-at-a-time, thank you, and your claiming a "many" is artistic license.
You then devolved into absurdity with the "only listen to you".

Peer-review has a somewhat storied history, as do modeling controversies. They existed before Douglas arrived, yet some have suspended their awareness of them. Interesting, and possibly gives insight into the presence of that "reactionary" mentioned above.

Rather than set up a form of interaction in which you and others pretend you're defending the professional integrity of Ladislav, why not pull some strings and secure his presence here, to explain himself?

Odds are quite good his paper expresses only his choice of modeling parameters. Peer review may be shown to have patron effects, as well.

[douglas]

Thank you for that understandable answer douglas. Your opinion is as valid as anyone's.

No, it most certainly is not. Everyone has a right to an opinion. Everyone has a right to express an opinion. But it is a logical fallacy of the highest order to treat all opinions as equally valid, and in no place is this more so than science. Expert opinion is most certainly of higher value than non-expert opinion.

Thank you, Chris, for that almost-perfected expression of 'What went wrong with peer review?' in "Catch Me If You Can". /sarc

Science wherein 30% is preferable to 70%? An increasingly curious assertion ...

Perhaps a simile applies: in this corner of the country there's a type of flying insect, triangular curious shape to its body, that likes to torture mammals with flying around the mammal's head. Doesn't bite, just pesters. It is observant-enough to watch the mammal for responses, apparently wondering to itself why the mammal does not strike it away effectively & early, and so grows enthused if not exuberant when the mammal does attempt to swat it away. The insect literally flies away from the mammals face, abruptly changes direction and bounces off of the mammals forehead. Repeatedly. And appears to rather enjoy the process, proud-like. Prowess-demonstrating. Should not mammals take effort to not appear in any way similar to this said insect?

[BDanielMayfield]

douglas' bringing up the BH in Orion question is not off topic in this thread though, since it is about both accretion and explulsion from black holes. When a binary star system has a very close encounter with a BH, won't a common outcome be the accretion of much of one of the pair and the rapid expulsion of the other star? If so, then the existence of stars flying rapidly away from the center of the Orion Nebula could be indirect evidence of the presence of an unseen BH.

Bruce

[douglas]

douglas' bringing up the BH in Orion question is not off topic in this thread though, since it is about both accretion and explulsion from black holes. When a binary star system has a very close encounter with a BH, won't a common outcome be the accretion of much of one of the pair and the rapid expulsion of the other star? If so, then the existence of stars flying rapidly away from the center of the Orion Nebula could be indirect evidence of the presence of an unseen BH.

Bruce

Don't forget the BH in Orion is theorized to be part of a binary, itself. Neither can be observed

[BDanielMayfield]

Don't forget the BH in Orion is theorized to be part of a binary, itself. Neither can be observed

How bright is this possible binary companion expected to be? Aren't there likely to be numerous lesser stars within the Trapezium that we simply can't see due to dust extinction?

Bruce

[Ann]

Thank you for that understandable answer douglas. Your opinion is as valid as anyone's.

No, it most certainly is not. Everyone has a right to an opinion. Everyone has a right to express an opinion. But it is a logical fallacy of the highest order to treat all opinions as equally valid, and in no place is this more so than science. Expert opinion is most certainly of higher value than non-expert opinion.

Thank you, Chris, for that almost-perfected expression of 'What went wrong with peer review?' in "Catch Me If You Can". /sarc

Science wherein 30% is preferable to 70%? An increasingly curious assertion ...

Perhaps a simile applies: in this corner of the country there's a type of flying insect, triangular curious shape to its body, that likes to torture mammals with flying around the mammal's head. Doesn't bite, just pesters. It is observant-enough to watch the mammal for responses, apparently wondering to itself why the mammal does not strike it away effectively & early, and so grows enthused if not exuberant when the mammal does attempt to swat it away. The insect literally flies away from the mammals face, abruptly changes direction and bounces off of the mammals forehead. Repeatedly. And appears to rather enjoy the process, proud-like. Prowess-demonstrating. Should not mammals take effort to not appear in any way similar to this said insect?

I have just reported this post. The way I read it, the insect you describe is a description of yourself, flying in the face of the "mammals" of this forum, just to cause irritation.

I have also reported this post. In that post, you objected to my explanation of the cause of the outflows of galaxy M82. You told me I was wrong to think that the outflows were caused by a central supermassive black holes and jets. Indeed, such a claim would have been very wrong, because M82 is definitely not known to have jets, and in my post I said nothing about a black hole or jets. You found fault with my saying something that I definitely hadn't said.

You also told me I was wrong to believe that a central starburst caused the outflows of M82, even though the core starburst model as the cause of the outflows is the consensus view of professional astronomers. The Hubble Space Telescope has even photographed several monstrous clusters near the core of M82.

You also told me that the outflows of M82 must be caused by a merger, even though M82 displays none of the classic signs of a merger. There is a gaseous outflow, but no stellar tidal streams, which are typical of mergers. The disk of M82 is also very regular and undisturbed.

In my opinion, all the objections you made to my claim that a central starburst cause the outflows of M82 were extremely ill-informed, and one of your claims, that I suggested that a black hole and jets cause the outflows, made me question your ability or willingness to understand what you are reading.

Ore else, indeed, your intent may just have been to cause irritation.

Ann

[douglas]

No, it most certainly is not. Everyone has a right to an opinion. Everyone has a right to express an opinion. But it is a logical fallacy of the highest order to treat all opinions as equally valid, and in no place is this more so than science. Expert opinion is most certainly of higher value than non-expert opinion.

Thank you, Chris, for that almost-perfected expression of 'What went wrong with peer review?' in "Catch Me If You Can". /sarc

Science wherein 30% is preferable to 70%? An increasingly curious assertion ...

Perhaps a simile applies: in this corner of the country there's a type of flying insect, triangular curious shape to its body, that likes to torture mammals with flying around the mammal's head. Doesn't bite, just pesters. It is observant-enough to watch the mammal for responses, apparently wondering to itself why the mammal does not strike it away effectively & early, and so grows enthused if not exuberant when the mammal does attempt to swat it away. The insect literally flies away from the mammals face, abruptly changes direction and bounces off of the mammals forehead. Repeatedly. And appears to rather enjoy the process, proud-like. Prowess-demonstrating. Should not mammals take effort to not appear in any way similar to this said insect?

I have just reported this post. The way I read it, the insect you describe is a description of yourself, flying in the face of the "mammals" of this forum, just to cause irritation.

I have also reported this post. In that post, you objected to my explanation of the cause of the outflows of galaxy M82. You told me I was wrong to think that the outflows were caused by a central supermassive black holes and jets. Indeed, such a claim would have been very wrong, because M82 is definitely not known to have jets, and in my post I said nothing about a black hole or jets. You found fault with my saying something that I definitely hadn't said.

You also told me I was wrong to believe that a central starburst caused the outflows of M82, even though the core starburst model as the cause of the outflows is the consensus view of professional astronomers. The Hubble Space Telescope has even photographed several monstrous clusters near the core of M82.

You also told me that the outflows of M82 must be caused by a merger, even though M82 displays none of the classic signs of a merger. There is a gaseous outflow, but no stellar tidal streams, which are typical of mergers. The disk of M82 is also very regular and undisturbed.

In my opinion, all the objections you made to my claim that a central starburst cause the outflows of M82 were extremely ill-informed, and one of your claims, that I suggested that a black hole and jets cause the outflows, made me question your ability or willingness to understand what you are reading.

Ore else, indeed, your intent may just have been to cause irritation.

Ann

You place posts suggesting the content is explanatory. When others question it, you fail to answer. You then come back later and tell you've "reported" others. Let's just say you've exceeded your 'prerogative'. "Report" what you feel to, I feel you have portrayed yourself in a way which reflects poorly on yourself, and are now 'reacting' to the dilemma you find yourself in.

Rather a poor showing, and tellingly it seems to not trouble you in the slightest that others may see it as such.

If you're going to post links from Wikipedia you really should read all the links in those links for the fullest of appreciation of the topics. You should at least acknowledge all aspects, or admit you do not feel to do so.

M82 is one of the very few galaxies that outflow has been observed in so is representative of M82, largely. Your inclusion suggested it may be the rule.

[Ann]

douglas wrote:

You place posts suggesting the content is explanatory. When others question it, you fail to answer.

douglas, I'm a teacher. I pride myself on making my posts as clear and easy to understand as possible.

I am, however, not a scientist. Whatever knowledge I have stems from the fact that I have taken an interest is astronomy since 1969. For many years, I have been particularly interested in galaxies. A favorite book of mine is "The Color Atlas of Galaxies" by James D Wray. The book contains probably a thousand UBV color pictures of galaxies and comments on the color and morphology of the galaxies by James D Wray. I have studied all the pictures and comments carefully. Another favorite book of mine is Sky Catalogue 2000.0, Volume 1, which lists properties of some 44,000 stars in the sky. I have studied both these books carefully, to get a grip on the properties of stars and galaxies. I have also compared the information about circa 1,000 stars in Sky Catalogue 2000.0 with the information provided on the same stars by the Hipparcos Catalogue.

For years and years, I have also carefully studied pictures of galaxies and read captions on them on Hubblesite and similar pages.

I have, generally speaking, spent years trying to understand stars and galaxies. I have done it in my own, amateur way. I don't claim to be a scientist in any sense of the word.

I do claim to have a good amateur knowledge of stars and galaxies. Nothing else. But I don't feel obliged to answer you, when you attack my description of nearby galaxy M82, accuse me of having said things about it that I most definitely haven't said, deny the astronomical consensus on why the galaxy looks the way it does, and offer a ridiculous explanation that doesn't fit any of the data.

I don't feel obliged to answer you, since you have given me ample proof that you are not interested in truly understanding the behavior of galaxies. As long as you can pick a good fight and tell everyone that you are right, you seem to be happy.

Ann

[Chris Peterson]

I am, however, not a scientist. Whatever knowledge I have stems from the fact that I have taken an interest is astronomy since 1969.

Your knowledge is the product of looking closely at the work of experts. One need not be a scientist to do that (and to do it very effectively). You know a great deal about galaxies, and while that helps you speculate about things nobody knows a lot about, it doesn't seem to require you to go out on a limb with an excess of support for ideas that lack much evidence.

It's worth noting that the situation is not much different for scientists, either. I have my narrow area of specialization, where I do feel competent to offer some original content. But by far, my knowledge of the vast majority of scientific information comes from the same place yours does: the work of people expert in those areas. I feel no more competent to challenge the work of say, a galaxy morphologist, than a non-scientist should feel (which isn't to say I wouldn't ask questions). If I'm outside my area of expertise, I look for consensus and generally respect it where it exists.

One thing that does come from good scientific training, however, is a degree of skill in reading technical papers. That frequently makes it possible to be a good judge as to the basic quality of a paper even while lacking a deep understanding of the content. In the case of Šubr et al., we see a common type of astronomical paper. A process we can't directly observe (the evolution of the ONC) is mathematically simulated, and the output compared to what we can directly observe. If they match, it offers evidence that certain empirical inputs (such as initial mass) represent reality. In this case, there is a suggestion (not a demand) that the dynamics of the nebula could be explained by an undetected black hole, and- very important- mechanisms of observational confirmation are proposed. It appears to be a solid paper, backed by solid work, and I can't find anything to criticize. Maybe there's a black hole in the Orion nebula, maybe not. The paper doesn't say there is, only that it offers a plausible explanation for some observations, and opens up lines of investigation for other scientists.

[Ann]

Using my little Ipad here from London, it is time for me to concede that I lack any training or insight necessary to have an opinion on a possible intermediate black hole in the Trapezium. You, Chris, have the scientific training and mathematical ability to say that the paper suggesting an intermediate black hole in the Trapezium is sound. I trust you, and I am going to shut my mouth on this subject now.

Ann

[BDMayfield]

Pulling this thread completely back onto the topic of accretion vs expulsion in the environment of black holes, intermediate mass black holes are kind of of a missing link in the black hole family tree. We've confirmed the existence of both stellar and super massive BHs, so it makes sense to think that IMBHs must exist also, even if they are very elusive. For a BH to have grown to SM size it must have passed through at least a brief intermediate stage, right? The most efficient way for a BH to grow is by swallowing whole other BHs. When lesser massed objects encounter BHs much of the potential meal can be expelled rather than accreted.

To me the potential ONC IMBH makes sense, once the missing light from an accretion disk and jets are explained by their non-continuous nature. All that was suggested is that several stellar massed BHs have merged there. Gravitational wave detectors are now starting to find that BH mergers are a regular universal occurance, as expected by theory. When BHs merge there will be no light show, no explosion, no disk, and no jets. In this case, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Bruce

[neufer]

When BHs merge there will be no light show, no explosion, no disk, and no jets.

In this case, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Clarence: You have no papers, no cards, no driver's license, no 4F card, no insurance policy.

[George finally searches his watch pocket for the rose petals from Zuzu]

Clarence: They're not there either.

George Bailey: What?

Clarence: Zuzu's petals...

[Chris Peterson]

Using my little Ipad here from London, it is time for me to concede that I lack any training or insight necessary to have an opinion on a possible intermediate black hole in the Trapezium. You, Chris, have the scientific training and mathematical ability to say that the paper suggesting an intermediate black hole in the Trapezium is sound.

To be clear, I have no firm opinion on the matter, either. Nor does the paper under discussion, which merely provides what seems to be a plausible suggestion along with suggestions for further observation.

[douglas]

Don't forget the BH in Orion is theorized to be part of a binary, itself. Neither can be observed

How bright is this possible binary companion expected to be? Aren't there likely to be numerous lesser stars within the Trapezium that we simply can't see due to dust extinction?

Bruce

Bruce, in the Heart of Orion APOD I posted a link that described Subr claiming the BH would be in the exact center point of the 4 Trapezium stars, so your binary component would be there. You would have no dust extinction there.

His analysis speaks of his software's inability to correlate results with detected objects. This is why he should have included "ultimately possible" in his descriptors. It's only ultimate, and of the purest of theoretical.

I also posted a link or two of Chandra's imaging of the Trapezium. No stressed stars were found in it, emitting, in the center of the 4. Nothing at any wavelength is emitting as a point source in the middle of the Trapezium.

Subr needs his feet held to the fire, as do his peer review reviewers.

/end

[geckzilla]

Don't forget the BH in Orion is theorized to be part of a binary, itself. Neither can be observed

How bright is this possible binary companion expected to be? Aren't there likely to be numerous lesser stars within the Trapezium that we simply can't see due to dust extinction?

Bruce

Bruce, in the Heart of Orion APOD I posted a link that described Subr claiming the BH would be in the exact center point of the 4 Trapezium stars, so your binary component would be there. You would have no dust extinction there.

His analysis speaks of his software's inability to correlate results with detected objects. This is why he should have included "ultimately possible" in his descriptors. It's only ultimate, and of the purest of theoretical.

I also posted a link or two of Chandra's imaging of the Trapezium. No stressed stars were found in it, emitting, in the center of the 4. Nothing at any wavelength is emitting as a point source in the middle of the Trapezium.

Subr needs his feet held to the fire, as do his peer review reviewers.

/end

You do know that Subr and his peers aren't here? Do you realize that this is a forum primarily for novices and that the presence of any experts is simply a welcome coincidence? Very few (by that I mean 1, perhaps 2) are actively doing science? Rarely, someone who is also actively publishing visits. You aren't just barking up the wrong tree by hijacking a thread for what seems to be some kind of personal vendetta—you're not even in the right forest.