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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #430024

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

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Followups directed to: alt.stupidity

Show all headers | View raw

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.

>  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?

>>>> 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. Quibble over nothing. I did state the maximum size was
and what happens if the thing was larger. Besides, do we even know the size
to the 2 digits given?

>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. Perhaps there is
more stuff orbiting it, perhaps not, but irrelevant to my point, which is,
there's a black hole there.

Your point is the one on top of your head.

>You still have no clue what you are talking about, despite my patient 
>explanations of where you went wrong.

>Are you stupid?

It appears you are.

Followup-To: set appropriately.

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