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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #429994

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

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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?

>> 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.

>> So "it" must be smaller than 45 AU radius.

>That much is true.  And I have just *calculated* how small or large "it" 
>*really* must be if it is a black hole, given this mass: about 0.08 AU, 
>which is *much* smaller than 45 AU.  (Can you not read?)

Yes. Can you?

>> Since we know of no physics that allows for an object of 45 AU radius
>> and a mass of 4.1M sun, other than a black hole or something rapidly
>> collapsing into a black hole, this is excellent evidence of a black hole
>> there.

>Not even wrong.  Rather, *any* object can have a radius of *45 AU* and a 
>total mass of about 4.1 million solar masses.  (Homework assignment: Look up 
>statistics of celestial objects to find at least one such object.)

Wrong. If it had both characteristics, no known physics allows such a thing
to exist, except temporarily as it collapses into a black hole.

OK, a black hole plus a bunch of stuff orbiting it (out to a radius of 45 AU)
could exist, but since my point was this was excellent evidence of a black
hole, this is foolish quibbling.

>However, sadly, you have no clue what you are talking about.

As if you did.

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