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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #429354 > unrolled thread

Re: Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#429987 — Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity.

    [Since I have temporarily disengaged my killfile anyway …]

Michael Moroney amok-crossposted to 3 newsgroups, *despite* F’up2 being 
already set:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes:
>>Martin Brown wrote:
>>> (although the page on Sgr A itself says 4.1M sun and about 45AU)
>>You are confusing the radius of the region surrounding the assumed black
>>hole with the Schwarzschild radius of the black hole, whereas the former
>>is much larger.  Note that for such a BH, the Schwarzschild radius is the
>>radius beyond which we can have *no* information instead (as it *is* the
>>radius of the *event horizon*).
> 
> 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.

> 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?)

> 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.)

And an object that has either a mass of 4.1 million solar masses *and* a 
radius of about 0.08 AU or less, or a radius of 45 AU and a mass of

            rₛ = 2 G M∕c²

            M  = c² rₛ∕(2 G)

  M(r = 45 AU) ≈ 4.533 × 10³⁹ kg ≈ 2.28 × 10⁹ M☉    [thanks, Wolfram|Alpha]

(2.28 *billion* solar masses, short scale) or *more*, must be a black hole.
 
>> For a Schwarzschild BH, the outer event horizon is the surface of a 
>> sphere that has the Schwarzschild radius as its radius.  45 AU, the
>> radius of the space in which S14 is described to be orbiting, is not
>> anywhere near 0.08 AU.
> 
> About 560 times the event horizon radius. 

You don’t say!

> However it is close enough to likely have interesting relativistic
> effects.

You probably mean “cause”, not “have”.

> Another star (S0-102) gets within 260 AU and reaches over 1% of
> the speed of light.

The *special*-relativistic effects (and *those* are concerned when it comes 
to relative speeds) at 0.01 c (≈ 30'000 km∕s; according to Wolfram|Alpha, 
the typical CRT electron speed) are *negligibly small*:

  γ(0.01 c) ≈ 1∕√(1 − 0.01²) ≈ 1.00005 ∎

As a rule of thumb, as far as relative speeds are concerned, things get 
interesting at and over about 0.42 c (42 % c), where γ makes a difference
in lengths and times of 10 % or more of the rest frame values.

> S14 must be really booking.

I do not know that idiom, but I presume it refers to high (orbital) speed 
(as in bets on horse racing).  If so, you would probably be correct _in the 
≤ 45 AU vicinity of Sgr A*_.

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


F’up2 <news:sci.astro>

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#429994 — Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity.

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.

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

#429997 — Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity.

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.  I then set and announced Followup-To so that the 
crosspost would _not_ be continued by anyone after me.

But despite what I told you, you did it *again*.  Are you stupid?
 
>>> 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?
 
>>> 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?

I can.  Evidently you cannot.
 
>>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.

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.

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

Are you stupid?
 
F’up2 <news:sci.astro>

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#430024 — Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity.

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.

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

#430042 — Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity.

</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.

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

#430044 — Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity.

Thomas Pointed Ears Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes:

>Michael Moroney wrote:

>> 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).

I am here (sci.physics/sci.physics.relativity) mostly for k00kwatching,
although I do like it when actual science (like the earlier posts) 
actually appear.  I am amazed somewhat about the wide variety of k00ks
and the things they kook about sometimes.  Quite a few of them seem to 
have delusions of authority and feel justified at trying to boss others
around, and get nasty when their 'authority' is disregarded. Pointed Ears
is definitely one of these. 

I don't know what job he may have, but a good career suggestion may be
micromanager. Or perhaps picomanager.

As a black hole is very much a GR thing, sci.physics.relativity makes as
much sense to discuss a very likely black hole candidate as an astronomy
group.

Anyway, while I do entertain myself here by poking k00ks with pointy 
sticks often, snarling nasty k00ks aren't particularly entertaining, so
the killfile entries will be mutual.

*plonk*

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

#430004 — Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity.

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> So
> 
>   1.3 × 10¹⁰ m = 1.3 × 10⁷ km
> 
> which is *much less* than
> 
>   1 AU ≈ 150'000'000 km = 150 × 10⁸ km = 1.5 × 10¹⁰ km.

Correction of the obvious:

  1 AU ≈ 150'000'000 km = 150 × 10⁶ km = 1.5 × 10⁸ km.
 
> (1 AU is the average distance Terra–Sol.)

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#430016 — Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity.

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
>> So
>> 
>>   1.3 × 10¹⁰ m = 1.3 × 10⁷ km
>> 
>> which is *much less* than
>> 
>>   1 AU ≈ 150'000'000 km = 150 × 10⁸ km = 1.5 × 10¹⁰ km.
> 
> Correction of the obvious:
> 
>   1 AU ≈ 150'000'000 km = 150 × 10⁶ km = 1.5 × 10⁸ km.

Then you admit you are an imbecile, uneducated and inexperienced, not 
confident in scientific notation.

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

#430017 — Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity.

Youko Ganchiku wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> 
>>> So  1.3 × 10¹⁰ m = 1.3 × 10⁷ km which is *much less* than
>>> 
>>>   1 AU ≈ 150'000'000 km = 150 × 10⁸ km = 1.5 × 10¹⁰ km.
>> 
>> Correction of the obvious:
>> 
>>   1 AU ≈ 150'000'000 km = 150 × 10⁶ km = 1.5 × 10⁸ km.
> 
> Then you admit you are an imbecile, uneducated and inexperienced, not
> confident in scientific notation.

Also, this pointedshit is unable to see that it is NOT "much less", but 
rather juat a magnitude 10 higher.

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

#429891 — Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity.

W dniu czwartek, 24 sierpnia 2017 01:01:55 UTC+2 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał:
> Jeff-Relf.Me  @. writes:
> 
> >  Sagittarius A* is THOUGHT to be the location of a supermassive black hole
> >    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*
> 
> >"Thought", not "known".
> 
> "Thought" to a rather high degree of certainty. 
> 
> Orbits of multiple stars are tracked orbiting "something"
> with a mass of about 4.1 million solar masses but a radius of less than 45 AU
> (otherwise the star S14 would collide with it).

It shines. That gives us no doubts - the theory such objects
can't shine has another brilliant observational confirmation.

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

#431074 — Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts.

On 18/08/2017 10:30 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> A very dense objects, yes.
> TRUE black holes, no.
> 
> Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle wavelength would be extremely tiny 
for a black hole, way less than a Planck Length. The larger an object 
is, the smaller its uncertainty is. So try another principle of physics 
which you don't understand, maybe that one will stick?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/uncer.html

	Yousuf Khan

-- 
Sent from Giganews on Thunderbird on my Toshiba laptop

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

#431151 — Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts.

Yousuf Khan wrote:

>> Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
> 
> The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle wavelength would be extremely tiny
> for a black hole, way less than a Planck Length. The larger an object
> is, the smaller its uncertainty is. So try another principle of physics
> which you don't understand, maybe that one will stick?

Another excellent post. What it says essentially is, that The Black Holes 
Theory is obsolete and deprecated. Once even the plank length gets 
refutable, so many weird things gonne happen. It stays actually described 
in the Bible. Something people can read, but not understand. Thank you, 
making this thing obvious. We are full of respect.

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

#431185 — Re: "Black Holes" are forever a notion, never measured.

Jeff-Relf.Me  @. writes:

>If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it,
>even if he, and everyone else, knows it's a delusion.

Certainly sounds like many of your posts.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web