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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #368539 > unrolled thread

How doess "experimental evidence" work

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

Contents

  How doess "experimental evidence" work mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-30 04:54 -0700
    Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-10-30 23:06 +1100
      Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-30 05:20 -0700
      Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-30 09:08 -0400
        Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-30 06:38 -0700
          Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-30 11:54 -0400
        Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-30 10:59 -0700
          Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-30 14:13 -0400
            Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-30 11:31 -0700
          Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-11-07 12:43 +1100
            Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-06 21:05 -0500
              Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-06 18:48 -0800
                Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-06 23:10 -0500
                  Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-06 20:35 -0800
                    Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-07 01:06 -0500
                      Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-06 22:27 -0800
                        Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-07 02:02 -0500
                  Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org> - 2015-11-07 12:37 +0000
                Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-07 16:44 +0100
                  Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-07 09:24 -0800
                    Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-07 18:57 +0100
                      Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-07 10:21 -0800
                        Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-07 20:41 +0100
                      Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 20:23 -0800
                        Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-08 08:34 +0100
                    Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 00:08 -0800
                      Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-08 14:08 -0800
    Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 05:24 -0700
      Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-30 05:47 -0700
        Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-30 11:05 -0700
          Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-30 19:47 +0100
          Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-30 12:53 -0700
            Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-30 15:03 -0700
              Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 15:13 -0700
                Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-30 18:23 -0400
                  Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-30 15:29 -0700
                    Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-30 19:31 -0400
                      Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work ktalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-30 19:29 -0700
                Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-30 15:26 -0700
    Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-10-30 06:34 -0700
      Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-30 06:42 -0700
    Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-30 15:47 +0100
      Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-30 17:06 +0100
        Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-30 17:40 +0100
          Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-30 17:55 +0100
            Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-30 18:40 +0100
    Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 12:56 -0700
      Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-30 21:14 +0100
        Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 15:04 -0700
          Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-30 23:35 +0100
        Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 16:03 -0700
          Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-02 01:17 -0800
            Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 14:10 -0800
              Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-03 01:13 -0800
                Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-11-03 04:50 -0800
                  Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 23:08 +0100
                    Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-11-03 14:37 -0800
    Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 15:28 -0700
      Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 23:43 +0100
        Re: How doess "experimental evidence" work fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-11-03 04:47 -0800

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#369326

Użytkownik  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:5f77ad21-3e68-4ad3-a174-e793a695943e@googlegroups.com...

On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 7:44:33 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik  napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:7caabf01-bdf5-4609-95c0-0a4031fd353d@googlegroups.com...
>
> |Ken, your claim is almost certainly invalid. There is overwhelming 
> evidence
> for black holes, no matter what you think. Too bad you can't follow the
> math.
>
> Yes!!! We see a shining object!!!! An obvious black hole!!!!!!!!!!!!
> And those, who don't believe, are
> STUPID!!!!!
> C'est la vie

|We can't see a black hole

So this shining object we see is an obvious blackhole!!!
It has a 4.7 billions of Sun mass!!!! So it's an obvious
black hole!!!!! The fact we can see it won't trick us!!!
It's surely unseen, as it's obvious black hole and all
black holes are unseen!!!
And those, who don't believe, are
STUPID!!!!!


|but that doesn't invalidate the observations and the subsequent modern 
theories.

Of course it doesn't!!!! It's an obvious black hole!!!!
And those, who don't believe, are
STUPID!!!!!
C'est la vie.

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

#369329

On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 9:57:58 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:5f77ad21-3e68-4ad3-a174-e793a695943e@googlegroups.com...
> 
> On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 7:44:33 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > Użytkownik  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > dyskusyjnych:7caabf01-bdf5-4609-95c0-0a4031fd353d@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > |Ken, your claim is almost certainly invalid. There is overwhelming 
> > evidence
> > for black holes, no matter what you think. Too bad you can't follow the
> > math.
> >
> > Yes!!! We see a shining object!!!! An obvious black hole!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > And those, who don't believe, are
> > STUPID!!!!!
> > C'est la vie
> 
> |We can't see a black hole
> 
> So this shining object we see is an obvious blackhole!!!
> It has a 4.7 billions of Sun mass!!!! So it's an obvious
> black hole!!!!! The fact we can see it won't trick us!!!
> It's surely unseen, as it's obvious black hole and all
> black holes are unseen!!!
> And those, who don't believe, are
> STUPID!!!!!
> 
> 
> |but that doesn't invalidate the observations and the subsequent modern 
> theories.
> 
> Of course it doesn't!!!! It's an obvious black hole!!!!
> And those, who don't believe, are
> STUPID!!!!!
> C'est la vie.

Previously I stated that "you may or may not be stupid...".

I think now that you have made the choice quite obvious for all to see.

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

#369331

Użytkownik  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:d496e859-f53d-46d2-bfa4-486e98cc9a12@googlegroups.com...

On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 9:57:58 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik  napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:5f77ad21-3e68-4ad3-a174-e793a695943e@googlegroups.com...
>
> On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 7:44:33 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > Użytkownik  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > dyskusyjnych:7caabf01-bdf5-4609-95c0-0a4031fd353d@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > |Ken, your claim is almost certainly invalid. There is overwhelming
> > evidence
> > for black holes, no matter what you think. Too bad you can't follow the
> > math.
> >
> > Yes!!! We see a shining object!!!! An obvious black hole!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > And those, who don't believe, are
> > STUPID!!!!!
> > C'est la vie
>
> |We can't see a black hole
>
> So this shining object we see is an obvious blackhole!!!
> It has a 4.7 billions of Sun mass!!!! So it's an obvious
> black hole!!!!! The fact we can see it won't trick us!!!
> It's surely unseen, as it's obvious black hole and all
> black holes are unseen!!!
> And those, who don't believe, are
> STUPID!!!!!
>
>
> |but that doesn't invalidate the observations and the subsequent modern
> theories.
>
> Of course it doesn't!!!! It's an obvious black hole!!!!
> And those, who don't believe, are
> STUPID!!!!!
> C'est la vie.

|Previously I stated that "you may or may not be stupid...".

But, unfortunately, those, who don't believe, are
STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So you can be sure.

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

#369355

On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 9:57:58 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:5f77ad21-3e68-4ad3-a174-e793a695943e@googlegroups.com...
> 
> On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 7:44:33 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > Użytkownik  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > dyskusyjnych:7caabf01-bdf5-4609-95c0-0a4031fd353d@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > |Ken, your claim is almost certainly invalid. There is overwhelming 
> > evidence
> > for black holes, no matter what you think. Too bad you can't follow the
> > math.
> >
> > Yes!!! We see a shining object!!!! An obvious black hole!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > And those, who don't believe, are
> > STUPID!!!!!
> > C'est la vie
> 
> |We can't see a black hole
> 
> So this shining object we see is an obvious blackhole!!!
> It has a 4.7 billions of Sun mass!!!! So it's an obvious
> black hole!!!!! The fact we can see it won't trick us!!!
> It's surely unseen, as it's obvious black hole and all
> black holes are unseen!!!
> And those, who don't believe, are
> STUPID!!!!!
> 
> 
> |but that doesn't invalidate the observations and the subsequent modern 
> theories.
> 
> Of course it doesn't!!!! It's an obvious black hole!!!!
> And those, who don't believe, are
> STUPID!!!!!

The readers probably have noticed that Maciej omitted an important part when quoting.
The  original poster did not simply say "We can't see a black hole", he added:
"We can only see the very high energy activity around the black hole". This of course
invalidates Maciej's entire (idiotic as usual) post.

> C'est la vie.

C'esl la Wozniaque.

--
Jan

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

#369366

Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:23624a23-a9f0-471a-8c2a-95cacceeb1c5@googlegroups.com...

On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 9:57:58 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik  napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:5f77ad21-3e68-4ad3-a174-e793a695943e@googlegroups.com...
>
> On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 7:44:33 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > Użytkownik  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > dyskusyjnych:7caabf01-bdf5-4609-95c0-0a4031fd353d@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > |Ken, your claim is almost certainly invalid. There is overwhelming
> > evidence
> > for black holes, no matter what you think. Too bad you can't follow the
> > math.
> >
> > Yes!!! We see a shining object!!!! An obvious black hole!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > And those, who don't believe, are
> > STUPID!!!!!
> > C'est la vie
>
> |We can't see a black hole
>
> So this shining object we see is an obvious blackhole!!!
> It has a 4.7 billions of Sun mass!!!! So it's an obvious
> black hole!!!!! The fact we can see it won't trick us!!!
> It's surely unseen, as it's obvious black hole and all
> black holes are unseen!!!
> And those, who don't believe, are
> STUPID!!!!!
>
>
> |but that doesn't invalidate the observations and the subsequent modern
> theories.
>
> Of course it doesn't!!!! It's an obvious black hole!!!!
> And those, who don't believe, are
> STUPID!!!!!

|The readers probably have noticed that Maciej omitted an important part 
when quoting.
|The  original poster did not simply say "We can't see a black hole", he 
added:
|"We can only see the very high energy activity around the black hole".

Surely!!! The fact we can see it won't trick us!!!
It's surely unseen, as it's obvious black hole and all
black holes are unseen!!!
And those, who don't believe, are
STUPID!!!!! 

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

#369368

On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 9:24:36 AM, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 7:44:33 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:

> > Yes!!! We see a shining object!!!! An obvious black hole!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > And those, who don't believe, are STUPID!!!!! C'est la vie
> 
> We can't see a black hole, as per its very definition.

Science 101: All experimental results are subject to interpretations.  <shrug>

> We can only see the very high energy activity around the black hole,

Thanks for pointing out where observations can possibly go.  <shrug>

> which, although circumstantial, is exceedingly good evidence for its
> existence.

That is called very liberal interpretation favoring black holes.  <shrug>

> You have the right not to believe it, but that doesn't invalidate
> the observations and the subsequent modern theories.

That does not validate the hypothesis of the Schwarzschild metric under GR as well.  It helps if one would try to think outside of the shit-hole box known as GR.  If the curvature (although not supported by the field equations) follows an exponential function, what we have observed would not have been construed as a black hole.  <shrug>

> If you actually knew any physics you would have a tough time poking
> holes in the incumbent model,

Oh, the incumbent model (namely GR) is fully of fvcking holes.  However, almost no self-styled physicists have been able to understand the mathematics involved, and this is what is perpetuating the mysticism.  These buffoons due to peer pressure would have to admit seeing the emperor’s lack of clothing.  <shrug>

> [rest of farce comments snipped]

GR is a religion where the patron stupid god of GR, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar keeping whispering into the ears of the believers of GR on nonsense after nonsense.  It is fvcking sickening for the name of science.  <shrug>

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

#369405

On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 12:08:28 AM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 9:24:36 AM, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 7:44:33 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> 
> > > Yes!!! We see a shining object!!!! An obvious black hole!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > > And those, who don't believe, are STUPID!!!!! C'est la vie
> > 
> > We can't see a black hole, as per its very definition.
> 
> Science 101: All experimental results are subject to interpretations.  <shrug>
> 
> > We can only see the very high energy activity around the black hole,
> 
> Thanks for pointing out where observations can possibly go.  <shrug>
> 
> > which, although circumstantial, is exceedingly good evidence for its
> > existence.
> 
> That is called very liberal interpretation favoring black holes.  <shrug>
> 
> > You have the right not to believe it, but that doesn't invalidate
> > the observations and the subsequent modern theories.
> 
> That does not validate the hypothesis of the Schwarzschild metric under GR as well.  It helps if one would try to think outside of the shit-hole box known as GR.  If the curvature (although not supported by the field equations) follows an exponential function, what we have observed would not have been construed as a black hole.  <shrug>
> 
> > If you actually knew any physics you would have a tough time poking
> > holes in the incumbent model,
> 
> Oh, the incumbent model (namely GR) is fully of fvcking holes.  However, almost no self-styled physicists have been able to understand the mathematics involved, and this is what is perpetuating the mysticism.  These buffoons due to peer pressure would have to admit seeing the emperor’s lack of clothing.  <shrug>

KW the Shrugster once again makes the same claims that he has never been unable to substantiate. The shrugster itself is one of the biggest buffoons on this forum, and has been handed his hat on uncountable occasions, but it just too stupid to realize it.
> 
> > [rest of farce comments snipped]
> 
> GR is a religion where the patron stupid god of GR, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar keeping whispering into the ears of the believers of GR on nonsense after nonsense.  It is fvcking sickening for the name of science.  <shrug>

If the Shrugster had even half a brain he would take it out and play with it. Someone with a lot of time on their hands could almost certainly prove that KW has long ago set a record for points on the Crackpot Index...

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

#368546

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 8:54:23 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu piątek, 30 października 2015 12:08:24 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał:

> > http://www2011.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC/papers/nature2002.pdf
> 
> So, we have a theory. It's saying "a huge mass
> will be invisible".
> And we have a huge mass - visible.
> What a perfect experimental evidence of the theory!!!
> There is a huge mass!!!!!! And, as all huge masses
> are invisible, it's obviously invisible!!!! So it
> confirms the theory!!!!
> What? it's visible? Doesn't matter, we can explain 
> it!!!!  There must be an explaination!!! What matters,
> it's that it's obviously invisible, as all huge masses 
> are  invisible, so it confirms the theory!!!!

Are you on drugs?

The moron troll considers that the only way of measuring the mass is by seeing it. Read the paper stupid troll.

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

#368552

W dniu piątek, 30 października 2015 13:24:17 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał:
> On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 8:54:23 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu piątek, 30 października 2015 12:08:24 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał:
> 
> > > http://www2011.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC/papers/nature2002.pdf
> > 
> > So, we have a theory. It's saying "a huge mass
> > will be invisible".
> > And we have a huge mass - visible.
> > What a perfect experimental evidence of the theory!!!
> > There is a huge mass!!!!!! And, as all huge masses
> > are invisible, it's obviously invisible!!!! So it
> > confirms the theory!!!!
> > What? it's visible? Doesn't matter, we can explain 
> > it!!!!  There must be an explaination!!! What matters,
> > it's that it's obviously invisible, as all huge masses 
> > are  invisible, so it confirms the theory!!!!
> 
> Are you on drugs?
> 
> The moron troll considers that the only way of measuring the mass is by seeing it. Read the paper stupid troll.

Read it yourself, relativistic moron.
"compact source of radio waves". 

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

#368585

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 5:47:06 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> W dniu piątek, 30 października 2015 13:24:17 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał:
> > On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 8:54:23 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > > W dniu piątek, 30 października 2015 12:08:24 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał:
> > 
> > > > http://www2011.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC/papers/nature2002.pdf
> > > 
> > > So, we have a theory. It's saying "a huge mass
> > > will be invisible".
> > > And we have a huge mass - visible.
> > > What a perfect experimental evidence of the theory!!!
> > > There is a huge mass!!!!!! And, as all huge masses
> > > are invisible, it's obviously invisible!!!! So it
> > > confirms the theory!!!!
> > > What? it's visible? Doesn't matter, we can explain 
> > > it!!!!  There must be an explaination!!! What matters,
> > > it's that it's obviously invisible, as all huge masses 
> > > are  invisible, so it confirms the theory!!!!
> > 
> > Are you on drugs?
> > 
> > The moron troll considers that the only way of measuring the mass is by seeing it. Read the paper stupid troll.
> 
> Read it yourself, relativistic moron.
> "compact source of radio waves".

Of course there are radio waves, as expected, from the area around a black hole...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*#Central_black_hole

"Sagittarius A* (pronounced "Sagittarius A-star", standard abbreviation Sgr A*) is a bright and very compact astronomical radio source at the center of the Milky Way, near the border of the constellations Sagittarius and Scorpius. It is part of a larger astronomical feature known as Sagittarius A. Sagittarius A* is believed to be the location of a supermassive black hole, like those that are now generally accepted to be at the centers of most spiral and elliptical galaxies. Observations of the star S2 in orbit around Sagittarius A* have been used to show the presence of, and produce data about, the Milky Way's central supermassive black hole, and have led to the conclusion that Sagittarius A* is the site of that black hole."

If you have a problem with this, take it up with the Chaplin...

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

#368592

Użytkownik  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:28bb9c31-6569-461d-bc89-2c5d04de1886@googlegroups.com...

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 5:47:06 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> W dniu piątek, 30 października 2015 13:24:17 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios 
> napisał:
> > On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 8:54:23 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > > W dniu piątek, 30 października 2015 12:08:24 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios 
> > > napisał:
> >
> > > > http://www2011.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC/papers/nature2002.pdf
> > >
> > > So, we have a theory. It's saying "a huge mass
> > > will be invisible".
> > > And we have a huge mass - visible.
> > > What a perfect experimental evidence of the theory!!!
> > > There is a huge mass!!!!!! And, as all huge masses
> > > are invisible, it's obviously invisible!!!! So it
> > > confirms the theory!!!!
> > > What? it's visible? Doesn't matter, we can explain
> > > it!!!!  There must be an explaination!!! What matters,
> > > it's that it's obviously invisible, as all huge masses
> > > are  invisible, so it confirms the theory!!!!
> >
> > Are you on drugs?
> >
> > The moron troll considers that the only way of measuring the mass is by 
> > seeing it. Read the paper stupid troll.
>
> Read it yourself, relativistic moron.
> "compact source of radio waves".

|Of course there are radio waves, as expected, from the area around a black 
hole...

Of course.
What? It's visible? Doesn't matter, we can explain
it!!!!  There must be an explaination!!! What matters,
it's that it's obviously invisible, as all huge masses
are  invisible, so it confirms the theory!!!! 

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

#368598

On October 30, 2015 pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> "Sagittarius A* is a bright and very compact astronomical radio 
> source at the center of the Milky Way, near the border of the 
> constellations Sagittarius and Scorpius. Sagittarius A* is believed 
> to be the location of a supermassive black hole, like those that 
> are now generally accepted to be at the centers of most spiral 
> and elliptical galaxies. 

Do we have a theory of galaxy formation, which accounts 
for a black hole at the center of every galaxy?

--
Rich

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

#368610

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 12:54:01 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
> On October 30, 2015 pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > "Sagittarius A* is a bright and very compact astronomical radio 
> > source at the center of the Milky Way, near the border of the 
> > constellations Sagittarius and Scorpius. Sagittarius A* is believed 
> > to be the location of a supermassive black hole, like those that 
> > are now generally accepted to be at the centers of most spiral 
> > and elliptical galaxies. 
> 
> Do we have a theory of galaxy formation, which accounts 
> for a black hole at the center of every galaxy?

I'm no expert, but as far as I know... no, we don't. There are lots of competing theories that have yet to be unified. We DO know, or strongly suspect, that almost all large galaxies have supermassive black holes (SMBH) in their centers...

http://astronomy.com/news-observing/ask%20astro/2012/08/black%20hole%20leap

http://phys.org/news/2011-09-small-distant-galaxies-host-supermassive.html

... while the same thing can't be said for dwarf galaxies, where some do and some don't appear to have SMBH in their centers.

There is still much to learn regarding black holes in general and SMBH's specifically, and the 'final answers' will probably not be settled for quite a while, almost certainly not in my lifetime :>(

\Paul A

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

#368612

El viernes, 30 de octubre de 2015, 19:03:26 (UTC-3), pnal...@gmail.com  escribió:
> On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 12:54:01 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
> > On October 30, 2015 pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > "Sagittarius A* is a bright and very compact astronomical radio 
> > > source at the center of the Milky Way, near the border of the 
> > > constellations Sagittarius and Scorpius. Sagittarius A* is believed 
> > > to be the location of a supermassive black hole, like those that 
> > > are now generally accepted to be at the centers of most spiral 
> > > and elliptical galaxies. 
> > 
> > Do we have a theory of galaxy formation, which accounts 
> > for a black hole at the center of every galaxy?
> 
> I'm no expert, but as far as I know... no, we don't. There are lots of competing theories that have yet to be unified. We DO know, or strongly suspect, that almost all large galaxies have supermassive black holes (SMBH) in their centers...
> 
> http://astronomy.com/news-observing/ask%20astro/2012/08/black%20hole%20leap
> 
> http://phys.org/news/2011-09-small-distant-galaxies-host-supermassive.html
> 
> ... while the same thing can't be said for dwarf galaxies, where some do and some don't appear to have SMBH in their centers.
> 
> There is still much to learn regarding black holes in general and SMBH's specifically, and the 'final answers' will probably not be settled for quite a while, almost certainly not in my lifetime :>(
> 
> \Paul A

Actually, in our galaxy case, the required mean of building the supermassive black hole may be just happening. In November 2004 a team of astronomers reported the discovery of a potential intermediate-mass black hole, referred to as GCIRS 13E, orbiting three light-years from Sagittarius A*. This black hole of 1,300 solar masses is within a cluster of seven stars. This observation may add support to the idea that supermassive black holes grow by absorbing nearby smaller black holes and stars.

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

#368614

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:13:21 -0700 (PDT), paparios <paparios@gmail.com>
wrote:

>El viernes, 30 de octubre de 2015, 19:03:26 (UTC-3), pnal...@gmail.com  escribió:
>> On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 12:54:01 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
>> > On October 30, 2015 pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > "Sagittarius A* is a bright and very compact astronomical radio 
>> > > source at the center of the Milky Way, near the border of the 
>> > > constellations Sagittarius and Scorpius. Sagittarius A* is believed 
>> > > to be the location of a supermassive black hole, like those that 
>> > > are now generally accepted to be at the centers of most spiral 
>> > > and elliptical galaxies. 
>> > 
>> > Do we have a theory of galaxy formation, which accounts 
>> > for a black hole at the center of every galaxy?
>> 
>> I'm no expert, but as far as I know... no, we don't. There are lots of competing theories that have yet to be unified. We DO know, or strongly suspect, that almost all large galaxies have supermassive black holes (SMBH) in their centers...
>> 
>> http://astronomy.com/news-observing/ask%20astro/2012/08/black%20hole%20leap
>> 
>> http://phys.org/news/2011-09-small-distant-galaxies-host-supermassive.html
>> 
>> ... while the same thing can't be said for dwarf galaxies, where some do and some don't appear to have SMBH in their centers.
>> 
>> There is still much to learn regarding black holes in general and SMBH's specifically, and the 'final answers' will probably not be settled for quite a while, almost certainly not in my lifetime :>(
>> 
>> \Paul A
>
>Actually, in our galaxy case, the required mean of building the supermassive black hole may be just happening. In November 2004 a team of astronomers reported the discovery of a potential intermediate-mass black hole, referred to as GCIRS 13E, orbiting three light-years from Sagittarius A*. This black hole of 1,300 solar masses is
within a cluster of seven stars. This observation may add support to the idea that supermassive black holes grow by absorbing nearby smaller black holes and stars.

          Gee, they are all over the place.  :-)

http://www.space.com/533-surprising-black-hole-milky-center.html

Thanks.

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

#368619

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 3:23:38 PM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:13:21 -0700 (PDT), paparios <paparios@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >El viernes, 30 de octubre de 2015, 19:03:26 (UTC-3), pnal...@gmail.com  escribió:
> >> On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 12:54:01 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
> >> > On October 30, 2015 pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > > "Sagittarius A* is a bright and very compact astronomical radio 
> >> > > source at the center of the Milky Way, near the border of the 
> >> > > constellations Sagittarius and Scorpius. Sagittarius A* is believed 
> >> > > to be the location of a supermassive black hole, like those that 
> >> > > are now generally accepted to be at the centers of most spiral 
> >> > > and elliptical galaxies. 
> >> > 
> >> > Do we have a theory of galaxy formation, which accounts 
> >> > for a black hole at the center of every galaxy?
> >> 
> >> I'm no expert, but as far as I know... no, we don't. There are lots of competing theories that have yet to be unified. We DO know, or strongly suspect, that almost all large galaxies have supermassive black holes (SMBH) in their centers...
> >> 
> >> http://astronomy.com/news-observing/ask%20astro/2012/08/black%20hole%20leap
> >> 
> >> http://phys.org/news/2011-09-small-distant-galaxies-host-supermassive.html
> >> 
> >> ... while the same thing can't be said for dwarf galaxies, where some do and some don't appear to have SMBH in their centers.
> >> 
> >> There is still much to learn regarding black holes in general and SMBH's specifically, and the 'final answers' will probably not be settled for quite a while, almost certainly not in my lifetime :>(
> >> 
> >> \Paul A
> >
> >Actually, in our galaxy case, the required mean of building the supermassive black hole may be just happening. In November 2004 a team of astronomers reported the discovery of a potential intermediate-mass black hole, referred to as GCIRS 13E, orbiting three light-years from Sagittarius A*. This black hole of 1,300 solar masses is
> within a cluster of seven stars. This observation may add support to the idea that supermassive black holes grow by absorbing nearby smaller black holes and stars.
> 
>           Gee, they are all over the place.  :-)
> 
> http://www.space.com/533-surprising-black-hole-milky-center.html
> 
> Thanks.

I will speculate that in the future such small black holes near SMBH in galactic centers will turn out to be not so rare after all. The better out instruments become the more we will learn...

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

#368626

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:29:22 -0700 (PDT), pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:

>On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 3:23:38 PM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:13:21 -0700 (PDT), paparios <paparios@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >El viernes, 30 de octubre de 2015, 19:03:26 (UTC-3), pnal...@gmail.com  escribió:
>> >> On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 12:54:01 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
>> >> > On October 30, 2015 pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> > > "Sagittarius A* is a bright and very compact astronomical radio 
>> >> > > source at the center of the Milky Way, near the border of the 
>> >> > > constellations Sagittarius and Scorpius. Sagittarius A* is believed 
>> >> > > to be the location of a supermassive black hole, like those that 
>> >> > > are now generally accepted to be at the centers of most spiral 
>> >> > > and elliptical galaxies. 
>> >> > 
>> >> > Do we have a theory of galaxy formation, which accounts 
>> >> > for a black hole at the center of every galaxy?
>> >> 
>> >> I'm no expert, but as far as I know... no, we don't. There are lots of competing theories that have yet to be unified. We DO know, or strongly suspect, that almost all large galaxies have supermassive black holes (SMBH) in their centers...
>> >> 
>> >> http://astronomy.com/news-observing/ask%20astro/2012/08/black%20hole%20leap
>> >> 
>> >> http://phys.org/news/2011-09-small-distant-galaxies-host-supermassive.html
>> >> 
>> >> ... while the same thing can't be said for dwarf galaxies, where some do and some don't appear to have SMBH in their centers.
>> >> 
>> >> There is still much to learn regarding black holes in general and SMBH's specifically, and the 'final answers' will probably not be settled for quite a while, almost certainly not in my lifetime :>(
>> >> 
>> >> \Paul A
>> >
>> >Actually, in our galaxy case, the required mean of building the supermassive black hole may be just happening. In November 2004 a team of astronomers reported the discovery of a potential intermediate-mass black hole, referred to as GCIRS 13E, orbiting three light-years from Sagittarius A*. This black hole of 1,300 solar masses
is
>> within a cluster of seven stars. This observation may add support to the idea that supermassive black holes grow by absorbing nearby smaller black holes and stars.
>> 
>>           Gee, they are all over the place.  :-)
>> 
>> http://www.space.com/533-surprising-black-hole-milky-center.html
>> 
>> Thanks.
>
>I will speculate that in the future such small black holes near SMBH in galactic centers will turn out to be not so rare after all. The better out instruments become the more we will learn...

        I thought the center of the Milky Way was so
ablaze with star light that seeing was impossible.

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

#368633

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 4:31:49 PM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:29:22 -0700 (PDT), pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> >On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 3:23:38 PM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:
> >> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:13:21 -0700 (PDT), paparios <paparios@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> 
> >> >El viernes, 30 de octubre de 2015, 19:03:26 (UTC-3), pnal...@gmail.com  escribió:
> >> >> On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 12:54:01 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
> >> >> > On October 30, 2015 pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> > > "Sagittarius A* is a bright and very compact astronomical radio 
> >> >> > > source at the center of the Milky Way, near the border of the 
> >> >> > > constellations Sagittarius and Scorpius. Sagittarius A* is believed 
> >> >> > > to be the location of a supermassive black hole, like those that 
> >> >> > > are now generally accepted to be at the centers of most spiral 
> >> >> > > and elliptical galaxies. 
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > Do we have a theory of galaxy formation, which accounts 
> >> >> > for a black hole at the center of every galaxy?
> >> >> 
> >> >> I'm no expert, but as far as I know... no, we don't. There are lots of competing theories that have yet to be unified. We DO know, or strongly suspect, that almost all large galaxies have supermassive black holes (SMBH) in their centers...
> >> >> 
> >> >> http://astronomy.com/news-observing/ask%20astro/2012/08/black%20hole%20leap
> >> >> 
> >> >> http://phys.org/news/2011-09-small-distant-galaxies-host-supermassive.html
> >> >> 
> >> >> ... while the same thing can't be said for dwarf galaxies, where some do and some don't appear to have SMBH in their centers.
> >> >> 
> >> >> There is still much to learn regarding black holes in general and SMBH's specifically, and the 'final answers' will probably not be settled for quite a while, almost certainly not in my lifetime :>(
> >> >> 
> >> >> \Paul A
> >> >
> >> >Actually, in our galaxy case, the required mean of building the supermassive black hole may be just happening. In November 2004 a team of astronomers reported the discovery of a potential intermediate-mass black hole, referred to as GCIRS 13E, orbiting three light-years from Sagittarius A*. This black hole of 1,300 solar masses
> is
> >> within a cluster of seven stars. This observation may add support to the idea that supermassive black holes grow by absorbing nearby smaller black holes and stars.
> >> 
> >>           Gee, they are all over the place.  :-)
> >> 
> >> http://www.space.com/533-surprising-black-hole-milky-center.html
> >> 
> >> Thanks.
> >
> >I will speculate that in the future such small black holes near SMBH in galactic centers will turn out to be not so rare after all. The better out instruments become the more we will learn...
> 
>         I thought the center of the Milky Way was so
> ablaze with star light that seeing was impossible.

You thought wrong, sort of... but it IS true that the details we see in the exact center of the galaxy is NOT in the visible portion of the spectrum, but rather in the infrared. In visible light there is just a huge indistinguishable blob.

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

#368616

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 3:13:24 PM UTC-7, paparios wrote:
> El viernes, 30 de octubre de 2015, 19:03:26 (UTC-3), pnal...@gmail.com  escribió:
> > On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 12:54:01 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
> > > On October 30, 2015 pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > "Sagittarius A* is a bright and very compact astronomical radio 
> > > > source at the center of the Milky Way, near the border of the 
> > > > constellations Sagittarius and Scorpius. Sagittarius A* is believed 
> > > > to be the location of a supermassive black hole, like those that 
> > > > are now generally accepted to be at the centers of most spiral 
> > > > and elliptical galaxies. 
> > > 
> > > Do we have a theory of galaxy formation, which accounts 
> > > for a black hole at the center of every galaxy?
> > 
> > I'm no expert, but as far as I know... no, we don't. There are lots of competing theories that have yet to be unified. We DO know, or strongly suspect, that almost all large galaxies have supermassive black holes (SMBH) in their centers...
> > 
> > http://astronomy.com/news-observing/ask%20astro/2012/08/black%20hole%20leap
> > 
> > http://phys.org/news/2011-09-small-distant-galaxies-host-supermassive.html
> > 
> > ... while the same thing can't be said for dwarf galaxies, where some do and some don't appear to have SMBH in their centers.
> > 
> > There is still much to learn regarding black holes in general and SMBH's specifically, and the 'final answers' will probably not be settled for quite a while, almost certainly not in my lifetime :>(
> > 
> > \Paul A
> 
> Actually, in our galaxy case, the required mean of building the supermassive black hole may be just happening. In November 2004 a team of astronomers reported the discovery of a potential intermediate-mass black hole, referred to as GCIRS 13E, orbiting three light-years from Sagittarius A*. This black hole of 1,300 solar masses is within a cluster of seven stars. This observation may add support to the idea that supermassive black holes grow by absorbing nearby smaller black holes and stars.

Makes perfect sense to me. It makes almost no sense at all that a 4.3 million solar-mass object was created all at once. It has also been observed that the bigger the galaxy, the bigger the SMBH in its core, that is, the ratio of the galaxy mass to the SMBH mass is about the same for all large galaxies.

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

#368556

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 4:54:23 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
>snip imbecilities< !

What makes you, polacks, so stupid? 

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web