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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #429917

Re: A TRUE singularity has infinite precision, not +/- 45 AU.

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Jeff-Relf.Me  @. writes:

>Martin Brown wrote:
>> Star S14 must be getting awfully close to grazing the event horizon.

>A TRUE singularity has infinite precision, not +/- 45 AU.

The 45 AU is the maximum radius of the object, not the precision of
any singularity.  They know the center of mass of the object (the
singularity, if there is one) to better than that, just from S14's orbit.

Regardless, the defining characteristic of a black hole is having an
event horizon, not a singularity.  Who knows, perhaps there is physics,
unknown to us, that prevents formation of a singularity in a black hole.
Doesn't matter, as long as there is an event horizon, it's a black hole.

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