Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #723584 > unrolled thread

Black holes surprisingly cool

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Black holes surprisingly cool john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-16 10:41 -0800
    Re: Black holes surprisingly cool Woe <woe_is_me@the_bar.room> - 2019-01-16 15:11 -0500
      Re: Black holes surprisingly cool Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2019-01-16 21:49 +0100
        Re: Black holes surprisingly cool "Chris M. Thomasson " <ahh_f_it@crap.nothing> - 2019-01-16 20:26 -0800
          Re: Black holes surprisingly cool Sergi o <invaliid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-17 14:43 -0600
            Re: Black holes surprisingly cool mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-01-17 13:26 -0800
              Re: Black holes surprisingly cool "Chris M. Thomasson " <ahh_f_it@crap.nothing> - 2019-01-17 13:34 -0800
                Re: Black holes surprisingly cool mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-01-17 15:27 -0800
                  Re: Black holes surprisingly cool "Chris M. Thomasson" <ahh_f_it@crap.nothing> - 2019-01-17 16:49 -0800
                Re: Black holes surprisingly cool Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2019-01-18 15:08 +0100
                  Re: Black holes surprisingly cool Sergi o <invaliid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-18 10:29 -0600
                    Re: Black holes surprisingly cool john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-18 09:31 -0800
                      Re: Black holes surprisingly cool Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2019-01-25 14:10 +0100
                        Re: Black holes surprisingly cool john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-25 05:22 -0800
      Re: Black holes surprisingly cool john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-16 16:20 -0800
        Re: Black holes surprisingly cool "Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2019-01-16 20:39 -0500
        Re: Black holes surprisingly cool moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-17 19:37 +0000
    Re: Black holes surprisingly cool Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-17 12:50 +1100
      Re: Black holes surprisingly cool john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-16 18:12 -0800
        Re: Black holes surprisingly cool Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-17 13:20 +1100
          Re: Black holes surprisingly cool john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-16 20:13 -0800
            Re: Black holes surprisingly cool Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-17 16:43 +1100
              Re: Black holes surprisingly cool john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-17 02:24 -0800
                Re: Black holes surprisingly cool Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-01-18 00:12 +1100
                  Re: Black holes surprisingly cool "Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2019-01-17 09:54 -0500
                    Re: Black holes surprisingly cool john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-17 07:03 -0800
                      Re: Black holes surprisingly cool Sergi o <invaliid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-17 09:48 -0600
                      Re: Black holes surprisingly cool moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-17 19:54 +0000
                        Re: Black holes surprisingly cool Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2019-01-18 15:28 +0100
                  Re: Black holes surprisingly cool Sergi o <invaliid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-17 09:08 -0600
                Re: Black holes surprisingly cool moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-17 19:46 +0000
            Re: Black holes surprisingly cool Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-17 16:24 +0000
          Re: Black holes surprisingly cool Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2019-01-17 16:38 -0800
      Re: Black holes surprisingly cool "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2019-01-17 09:47 -0800
      Re: Black holes surprisingly cool "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2019-01-18 10:22 -0800
    Re: Black holes surprisingly cool mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-01-17 15:55 -0800
    Re: Black holes surprisingly cool "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2019-01-18 10:11 -0800

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#723644

Sylvia
“So when people seek to attack a theory without having observations that 
are inconsistent with it, ”
Jets coming away from BHs are inconsistent with your theory.
So you say it’s “splash” collimated by a magnetic field that is suddenly directed and powerful when a few years ago it was diffuse and spread out through the galaxy. (It is directed and powerful)
Heat coming away from the BH doesn’t fit either so you say it can’t be coming from the hole?
That’s 2 observations denied.
Painting yourself into a corner.
Crank

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#723651

On 17/01/2019 3:13 pm, john wrote:
> Sylvia
> “So when people seek to attack a theory without having observations that
> are inconsistent with it, ”
> Jets coming away from BHs are inconsistent with your theory.

Where's your evidence that jets are coming from black holes, rather than 
from their vicinity?

> So you say it’s “splash” collimated by a magnetic field that is suddenly directed and powerful when a few years ago it was diffuse and spread out through the galaxy. (It is directed and powerful)
> Heat coming away from the BH doesn’t fit either so you say it can’t be coming from the hole?
  That’s 2 observations denied.

Where's your evidence that heat is coming from a black hole?

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#723666

Sylvia
“Where's your evidence that jets are coming from black holes, rather than 
from their vicinity? 

> So you say it’s “splash” collimated by a magnetic field that is suddenly directed and powerful when a few years ago it was diffuse and spread out through the galaxy. (It is directed and powerful) 
> Heat coming away from the BH doesn’t fit either so you say it can’t be coming from the hole? 
  That’s 2 observations denied. 

Where's your evidence that heat is coming from a black hole? ”

When it walks like a duck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#723671

On 17/01/2019 9:24 pm, john wrote:
> Sylvia
> “Where's your evidence that jets are coming from black holes, rather than
> from their vicinity?
> 
>> So you say it’s “splash” collimated by a magnetic field that is suddenly directed and powerful when a few years ago it was diffuse and spread out through the galaxy. (It is directed and powerful)
>> Heat coming away from the BH doesn’t fit either so you say it can’t be coming from the hole?
>    That’s 2 observations denied.
> 
> Where's your evidence that heat is coming from a black hole? ”
> 
> When it walks like a duck
> 

Black holes are a theoretical construct. The theory says that they don't 
radiate. An object that radiates cannot be a black hole. Calling it a 
black hole makes as much sense as calling a dry depression a puddle 
without water.

Faced with strong evidence that some object is a black hole, but with 
heat coming from its direction, the most likely explanation is that the 
heat is coming from something between us and the black hole.

As for the beams - the thing about them is that they look bright when 
they're pointed at you, and dim, or invisible, when they're not. So a 
beam can be of constant strength, but still appear to vary.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#723672

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 00:12:08 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:
>On 17/01/2019 9:24 pm, john wrote:
>> Sylvia
>> “Where's your evidence that jets are coming from black holes, rather than
>> from their vicinity?
>> 
>>> So you say it’s “splash” collimated by a magnetic field that is suddenly directed and powerful when a few years ago it was diffuse and spread out through the galaxy. (It is directed and powerful)
>>> Heat coming away from the BH doesn’t fit either so you say it can’t be coming from the hole?
>>    That’s 2 observations denied.
>> 
>> Where's your evidence that heat is coming from a black hole? ”
>> 
>> When it walks like a duck
>> 
>
>Black holes are a theoretical construct. The theory says that they don't 
>radiate. An object that radiates cannot be a black hole. Calling it a 
>black hole makes as much sense as calling a dry depression a puddle 
>without water.
>
>Faced with strong evidence that some object is a black hole, but with 
>heat coming from its direction, the most likely explanation is that the 
>heat is coming from something between us and the black hole.
>
>As for the beams - the thing about them is that they look bright when 
>they're pointed at you, and dim, or invisible, when they're not. So a 
>beam can be of constant strength, but still appear to vary.
>
>Sylvia.

Logical thinking on display.  I like that. 

There is generally a dearth of it in here. 

-- 

Everybody here likes Yours Truly, 
Gregøry Hall - Bombastic Loudmouth of the South

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#723673

Sylvia
“>Faced with strong evidence that some object is a black hole, but with 
>heat coming from its direction, the most likely explanation is that the 
>heat is coming from something between us and the black hole. 
> ”
Or.
The ‘theoretical construct’ is based on a wrong interpretation of gravity, and there ARE no black holes.
There are, instead, these vortices at the centers of galaxies that are simply spinning Space, where Space is understood NOT to be empty but rather composed of smaller and smaller versions of matter.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#723676

On 1/17/2019 9:03 AM, john wrote:
> Sylvia
> “>Faced with strong evidence that some object is a black hole, but with 
>> heat coming from its direction, the most likely explanation is that the 
>> heat is coming from something between us and the black hole. 
>> ”
> Or.
> The ‘theoretical construct’ is based on a wrong interpretation of gravity, and there ARE no black holes.
> There are, instead, these vortices at the centers of galaxies that are simply spinning Space, where Space is understood NOT to be empty but rather composed of smaller and smaller versions of matter.
> 

the 'theoretical construct' is in depth complicated mathematics mostly
completed about 1976.

your "smaller versions" of matter may be what a neutron star is composed of.


event horizon is that pesky (-1)^(0.5)  problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#723694

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Sylvia
>">Faced with strong evidence that some object is a black hole, but with
>>heat coming from its direction, the most likely explanation is that the
>>heat is coming from something between us and the black hole.
>> "
>Or.
>The 'theoretical construct' is based on a wrong interpretation of gravity,

Your evidence? Standard gravity works VERY well, there's no need to change
anything other than someday connecting it to quantum theory (a holy grail of
physics for a long time).

>and there ARE no black holes.

Again evidence? GR predicts them, there are many observations of things that
really cannot be anything other than black holes, in particular SGR A*.

>There are, instead, these vortices at the centers of galaxies that are 
>simply spinning Space,

Babbling nonsense. How can nothing spin?

> where Space is understood NOT to be empty but rather composed of smaller
>and smaller versions of matter.

So not "spinning space" but your mythical smaller levels. Of course no
evidencevwhatsoever for any smaller (or larger) levels of anything.  It's
nothingvmore than a Little Phama induced hallucination or something.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#723789

Michael Moroney wrote:
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:
>> and there ARE no black holes.
> 
> Again evidence? GR predicts them, there are many observations of things that
> really cannot be anything other than black holes, in particular SGR A*.

_Sgr_ A*.  “Sgr” is the abbreviation for the constellation “Sagittarius”,
and those abbreviations are at most written in CamelCase (like “UMa” for
«Ursa Maior» “the Great Bear”, containing the asterism “the Big Dipper”).
 --
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#723674

On 1/17/2019 7:12 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 17/01/2019 9:24 pm, john wrote:
>> Sylvia
>> “Where's your evidence that jets are coming from black holes, rather than
>> from their vicinity?
>>
>>> So you say it’s “splash” collimated by a magnetic field that is
>>> suddenly directed and powerful when a few years ago it was diffuse
>>> and spread out through the galaxy. (It is directed and powerful)
>>> Heat coming away from the BH doesn’t fit either so you say it can’t
>>> be coming from the hole?
>>    That’s 2 observations denied.
>>
>> Where's your evidence that heat is coming from a black hole? ”
>>
>> When it walks like a duck
>>
> 
> Black holes are a theoretical construct. The theory says that they don't
> radiate. An object that radiates cannot be a black hole. 

True.

> Calling it a
> black hole makes as much sense as calling a dry depression a puddle
> without water.
> 
> Faced with strong evidence that some object is a black hole, but with
> heat coming from its direction, the most likely explanation is that the
> heat is coming from something between us and the black hole.

such as matter spinning around the black hole

> 
> As for the beams - the thing about them is that they look bright when
> they're pointed at you, and dim, or invisible, when they're not. So a
> beam can be of constant strength, but still appear to vary.

these were called Quasars in the past, the beams are redirected
matter/energy sprayed out the ends of s spinning black hole, none of
that matter/energy went into the black hole, just gathered up near the
surface and spun on out the ends.

> 
> Sylvia.
> 
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#723693

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Sylvia
>"Where's your evidence that jets are coming from black holes, rather than
>from their vicinity?

>  That's 2 observations denied.

How? Magnetic fields can be very strong in one place and weak
somewhere else. Think of the nearest hospital with a MRI machine.
Magnetic field there is strong, magnetic field at your house not so much.

And what's wrong with hot things being near the black hole? Especially
if the hole's gravity is what's doing the heating, as stuff starts to fall
in?

>Where's your evidence that heat is coming from a black hole? "

>When it walks like a duck

That's your evidence? Walking ducks? Science would want observations of
where the heat is coming from.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#723678

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sylvia
> “So when people seek to attack a theory without having observations that 
> are inconsistent with it, ”
> Jets coming away from BHs are inconsistent with your theory.

??? What part of the theory is inconsistent with jets?

> So you say it’s “splash” collimated by a magnetic field that is suddenly
> directed and powerful when a few years ago it was diffuse and spread out
> through the galaxy. (It is directed and powerful)
> Heat coming away from the BH doesn’t fit either so you say it can’t be
> coming from the hole?
> That’s 2 observations denied.
> Painting yourself into a corner.
> Crank
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#723734

On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 9:20:55 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 17/01/2019 1:12 pm, john wrote:
> > Sylvia
> > “The temperature of a super-massive black hole, at least as seen from
> > outside the event horizon, is as near to absolute zero as makes no
> > difference.
> > 
> > So whatever's being detected with a temperature of a million degrees is
> > not a black hole, but something outside it. ”
> > This is from theory. Right?
> > And that nothing comes out is also theory, right?
> > So jets must be ‘splash’ from the accretion disc and temperature
> > measured must also be from the accretion disc?
> > Painting yourself into quite the corner, it seems.
> 
> It's all theory - every bit of it. No matter how hard you try to pin 
> down concrete observations, you always come back to theory. Even the 
> things you think you're perceiving with your own eyes are just 
> theoretical extrapolations that your brain is making based on the 
> electrical impulses that appear in your optic nerve.

They TheThem had just started sharing information regards newly
discovered objects that were spewing jet streams, in opposite
directions, from unknown what in deep deeper deepest space. It was
early in the 1980s. Your eyes and ears and...

> So when people seek to attack a theory without having observations that 
> are inconsistent with it, what they really mean is that they want to 
> keep those theories that fit their world view, and reject those that don't.

Well, one can't have, or one doesn't need any theory until something
is first observed.

> Such people are indistinguishable from cranks.

Ergo, we're all cranks? Deep down, where it really matters to the heart?

> Sylvia.

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes...”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#723685

On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 5:50:15 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 17/01/2019 5:41 am, john wrote:
> > https://www.facebook.com/786979014989046/posts/790343211319293/
> > Chandra shows that while stars orbiting it are hot, the galactic center is much cooler.
> > If it were ‘crushed matter’, that would definitely NOT be the case.
> > Everyone can comment on this except Odd
> > 
> 
> The temperature of a super-massive black hole, at least as seen from 
> outside the event horizon, is as near to absolute zero as makes no 
> difference.
> 
> So whatever's being detected with a temperature of a million degrees is 
> not a black hole, but something outside it.
> 
> Sylvia.                Outside a BH is great activity.Photons of every type are interfering with each other.Spiral rings are created around a BH.Reality is this is showing a BH is in the middle Bert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#723804

On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 5:50:15 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 17/01/2019 5:41 am, john wrote:
> > https://www.facebook.com/786979014989046/posts/790343211319293/
> > Chandra shows that while stars orbiting it are hot, the galactic center is much cooler.
> > If it were ‘crushed matter’, that would definitely NOT be the case.
> > Everyone can comment on this except Odd
> > 
> 
> The temperature of a super-massive black hole, at least as seen from 
> outside the event horizon, is as near to absolute zero as makes no 
> difference.
> 
> So whatever's being detected with a temperature of a million degrees is 
> not a black hole, but something outside it.
> 
> Sylvia.

Its stars,and other matter that is being moved faster and faster by getting to close to black holes gravity.Keep in mind these objects are accelerating in and they too are gaining more weight(gravity force) All that enters the event horizon has now reached the structure inside a black hole.The event horizen is constantly enlarging because there is no inner space.Bert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#723730

No. What isn't real should be uncool...

Science is psychotic over the strength
of gravity. Einstein was the first one
to solve his equations and completely
rejected the collapsar.

Mathematical God creates gravitation.

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#723799

On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 10:41:46 AM UTC-8, john wrote:
> https://www.facebook.com/786979014989046/posts/790343211319293/
> Chandra shows that while stars orbiting it are hot, the galactic center is much cooler.
> If it were ‘crushed matter’, that would definitely NOT be the case.
> Everyone can comment on this except Odd

BHs are black because photons can not get out.Space is close to absolute zero.Good reason why.Bert

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web