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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #430042

Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity.

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Followups directed to: alt.1d

Show key headers only | View raw

</killfile>

Michael Moroney wrote:

> Thomas "Pointed Ears or Pointy Head?" Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes:
>> Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes:
>>>> Michael Moroney amok-crossposted to 3 newsgroups, *despite* F’up2 being
>>>> already set:
>>> So why did you crosspost to 3 newsgroups, if you feel it's so wrong?
>> Because *you* did.
> 
> So apparently your 'rule' applies to me, but not to you. Gotcha.

No, instead it is the one who posts the follow-up who is to observe the set 
Followup-To, if it is appropriate (see below).  It does not make sense 
otherwise: the discussion would abruptly end in those newsgroups where it is 
no longer being posted to, without any information whether it continued and 
if so, where that is.

But I know now that you know that.  You are just playing stupid, and I have 
wasted my time with you again – except that I now know that that the 
killfile entry for you is still justified.
 
>>  I then set and announced Followup-To so that the
>>crosspost would _not_ be continued by anyone after me.
> 
> Oh, your 'rule' applies to everyone else as well, but not to you. Gotcha.
> 
>>But despite what I told you, you did it *again*.  Are you stupid?
> 
> Who died and made you God?  If I agree with a Followup-To I may go along,
> if not, I won't. But why would I post only to a group which I don't read?

Because the topic of the discussion defines the newsgroup where one should 
post to.

So by now we have determined that you really are stupid.  Or you are just 
playing stupid, which is even worse as demonstrates malicious intent.
 
>>>>> The "45AU" size is the maximum radius of whatever "it" is, if it was
>>>>> any larger, Star S14 would collide with it.
>>> 
>>>>No, if the "central" body’s radius would be _that size or larger_, the
>>>>"orbiting" S14 would collide with it, assuming that the description that
>>>>S14 comes as close to that body’s *center of mass* as 45 AU is correct.
>>> 
>>> Which is what I said.
> 
>>No.  To begin with, you said that S14 would only collide with "it" if "it"
>>were “any *larger*” (emphasis mine).
> 
>>Do you know the difference between a greater-than and a greater-than-or-
>>equals operation?
> 
> I do but not relevant.

It *is* relevant.

> Quibble over nothing. I did state the maximum size was and what happens if
> the thing was larger.

You said that S14 would only collide with "it" if "its" radius was larger 
than the mentioned one, which is simply wrong.

> Besides, do we even know the size to the 2 digits given?

Do your own homework.
 
>>Nonsense.  Even if we consider that there are no stable orbits below 1.5
>>Schwarzschild radii (the radius of the photon sphere), that is still less
>>than 0.12 AU for a black hole of this mass.  Nowhere near 45 AU.
> 
> Once again, my point was there must be a black hole there.

No, you said *several times* that a body with a mass of 4.1 million solar 
masses and a radius of 45 AU could not become or be anything else but a 
black hole.

Which is simply wrong.  (A body or system does not become a black hole until 
*all* of its mass is concentrated within its Schwarzschild radius.)

Now you are lying so that you do not have to admit that you were wrong.  
Typical.

> Followup-To: set appropriately.

If only you did.

<killfile>

-- 
PointedEars

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

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-18 20:26 -0500
  Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 19:41 -0700
  Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. NobelPrize.ORG  @. - 2017-08-19 07:45 -0700
    Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2017-08-19 12:45 -0400
      Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-08-21 07:04 -0500
  Re: Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-21 18:00 -0500
    Re: More data, from more observers, is needed. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 12:28 -0700
      Re: More data, from more observers, is needed. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-22 23:25 -0700
      Re: More data, from more observers, is needed. Séverin Thibault <ruud@bwiu.ei> - 2017-08-23 09:34 +0000
    Re: More data, from more observers, is needed. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-23 10:41 -0500
      Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-23 21:26 +0000
        Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 16:46 -0500
          Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-23 23:24 -0700
        Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-23 23:01 +0000
          Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-23 23:26 -0700
          Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-08-24 10:14 +0100
            Re: A TRUE singularity has infinite precision, not +/- 45 AU. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-24 17:04 +0000
              Re: There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-25 12:28 -0700
            Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 14:34 +0200
              Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-25 15:37 +0000
                Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 19:22 +0200
                Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-25 18:48 +0000
                Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 21:27 +0200
                Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-25 21:54 +0000
                Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-26 03:01 +0200
                Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-26 03:31 +0000
              Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 21:52 +0200
                Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Youko Ganchiku <uckyoku@ghnwohwkwu.gi> - 2017-08-25 21:20 +0000
                Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Youko Ganchiku <uckyoku@ghnwohwkwu.gi> - 2017-08-25 21:26 +0000
          Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-24 02:31 -0700
  Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2017-09-04 14:34 -0400
    Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Ethel Ocallaghan <unlgclo@awlwaac.ag> - 2017-09-05 11:40 +0000
    Re: "Black Holes" are forever a notion, never measured. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-05 14:04 +0000

csiph-web