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 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#368539 — How doess "experimental evidence" work

W dniu piątek, 30 października 2015 12:08:24 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał:
> On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 9:57:57 PM UTC-3, kefischer wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 15:40:36 -0700 (PDT), pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > >
> > >What is extraordinary is that the orbital calculations
> > >show that the mass of the unseen object that all of
> > >these stars are orbiting has a mass of 4.3 million suns!
> >
> >        I would like to see a technical paper on
> > the matter before thinking about it.
> >
>
> 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!!!!

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#368543

On 30/10/2015 10:54 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu piątek, 30 października 2015 12:08:24 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał:
>> On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 9:57:57 PM UTC-3, kefischer wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 15:40:36 -0700 (PDT), pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> What is extraordinary is that the orbital calculations
>>>> show that the mass of the unseen object that all of
>>>> these stars are orbiting has a mass of 4.3 million suns!
>>>
>>>         I would like to see a technical paper on
>>> the matter before thinking about it.
>>>
>>
>> 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!!!!
>
>

That comment appears to relate to something else. Certainly, it doesn't 
relate to the cited paper.

Sylvia.

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

#368545

W dniu piątek, 30 października 2015 13:06:57 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
> On 30/10/2015 10:54 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu piątek, 30 października 2015 12:08:24 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał:
> >> On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 9:57:57 PM UTC-3, kefischer wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 15:40:36 -0700 (PDT), pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> What is extraordinary is that the orbital calculations
> >>>> show that the mass of the unseen object that all of
> >>>> these stars are orbiting has a mass of 4.3 million suns!
> >>>
> >>>         I would like to see a technical paper on
> >>> the matter before thinking about it.
> >>>
> >>
> >> 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!!!!
> >
> >
> 
> That comment appears to relate to something else. Certainly, it doesn't 
> relate to the cited paper.

Certainly. Aren't You bright? 
It relates to  cited post of pnalsing and
paparios instead.

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

#368554

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 23:06:51 +1100, Sylvia Else
<sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

>On 30/10/2015 10:54 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
>> W dniu piatek, 30 pazdziernika 2015 12:08:24 UTC+1 uzytkownik paparios napisal:
>>> On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 9:57:57 PM UTC-3, kefischer wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 15:40:36 -0700 (PDT), pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What is extraordinary is that the orbital calculations
>>>>> show that the mass of the unseen object that all of
>>>>> these stars are orbiting has a mass of 4.3 million suns!
>>>>
>>>>         I would like to see a technical paper on
>>>> the matter before thinking about it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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!!!!
>>
>>
>
>That comment appears to relate to something else. Certainly, it doesn't 
>relate to the cited paper.
>
>Sylvia.

         Are you sure?     I read the popular versions
that Paul posted first, and they say something about
the "black hole" having a brightness many orders
of magnitude greater than a normal star (I think),
so now I need to read the Nature paper in more
detail and try to purge the popular version inaccuracies
out of my mind, who said what has become confused.

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

#368557

W dniu piątek, 30 października 2015 14:08:13 UTC+1 użytkownik kefischer napisał:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 23:06:51 +1100, Sylvia Else
> <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
> 
> >On 30/10/2015 10:54 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> >> W dniu piatek, 30 pazdziernika 2015 12:08:24 UTC+1 uzytkownik paparios napisal:
> >>> On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 9:57:57 PM UTC-3, kefischer wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 15:40:36 -0700 (PDT), pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What is extraordinary is that the orbital calculations
> >>>>> show that the mass of the unseen object that all of
> >>>>> these stars are orbiting has a mass of 4.3 million suns!
> >>>>
> >>>>         I would like to see a technical paper on
> >>>> the matter before thinking about it.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> 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!!!!
> >>
> >>
> >
> >That comment appears to relate to something else. Certainly, it doesn't 
> >relate to the cited paper.
> >
> >Sylvia.
> 
>          Are you sure?     I read the popular versions
> that Paul posted first, and they say something about
> the "black hole" having a brightness many orders
> of magnitude greater than a normal star 

Of course, he is sure. All black holes are invisible.
So said The Shit!!!! Who doesn't believe, is a stupid
troll!!!
As they are invisible, their invisibility confirms 
The Shit experimentally, even if they are visible.

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

#368569

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 06:38:53 -0700 (PDT), mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:

>W dniu piatek, 30 pazdziernika 2015 14:08:13 UTC+1 uzytkownik kefischer napisal:
>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 23:06:51 +1100, Sylvia Else
>> <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>> 
>> >On 30/10/2015 10:54 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
>> >> W dniu piatek, 30 pazdziernika 2015 12:08:24 UTC+1 uzytkownik paparios napisal:
>> >>> On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 9:57:57 PM UTC-3, kefischer wrote:
>> >>>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 15:40:36 -0700 (PDT), pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> What is extraordinary is that the orbital calculations
>> >>>>> show that the mass of the unseen object that all of
>> >>>>> these stars are orbiting has a mass of 4.3 million suns!
>> >>>>
>> >>>>         I would like to see a technical paper on
>> >>>> the matter before thinking about it.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> 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!!!!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >That comment appears to relate to something else. Certainly, it doesn't 
>> >relate to the cited paper.
>> >
>> >Sylvia.
>> 
>>          Are you sure?     I read the popular versions
>> that Paul posted first, and they say something about
>> the "black hole" having a brightness many orders
>> of magnitude greater than a normal star 
>
>Of course, he is sure. All black holes are invisible.
>So said The Shit!!!! Who doesn't believe, is a stupid
>troll!!!
>As they are invisible, their invisibility confirms 
>The Shit experimentally, even if they are visible.

       Now you are back to that gutter talk,
screw you, Einstein never accepted that
nonsense/

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

#368582

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 6:08:13 AM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 23:06:51 +1100, Sylvia Else
> <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

> >That comment appears to relate to something else. Certainly, it doesn't 
> >relate to the cited paper.
> >
> >Sylvia.
> 
>          Are you sure?     I read the popular versions
> that Paul posted first, and they say something about
> the "black hole" having a brightness many orders
> of magnitude greater than a normal star (I think),
> so now I need to read the Nature paper in more
> detail and try to purge the popular version inaccuracies
> out of my mind, who said what has become confused.

Ken, you apparently didn't read that article very closely, because you got it completely backwards...

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/best-evidence-yet-that-black-holes-really-exist-0505201523/

"If there's a [star] surface, then the stuff that falls in will splash onto the surface," says co-author John Kormendy (University of Texas at Austin). And this splash will cause the material to glow even hotter and brighter. But if there isn't a surface -- like in the case of an event horizon [black hole] -- then from our perspective, the material eventually vanishes and therefore can't keep boosting the glow."

Good grief, Ken, if you can't read an article meant for the general population and understand what it is saying, how are you ever going to digest the information presented in a technical paper? You are obviously easily confused.

\Paul A

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

#368586

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 10:59:03 -0700 (PDT), pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:

>On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 6:08:13 AM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 23:06:51 +1100, Sylvia Else
>> <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>
>> >That comment appears to relate to something else. Certainly, it doesn't 
>> >relate to the cited paper.
>> >
>> >Sylvia.
>> 
>>          Are you sure?     I read the popular versions
>> that Paul posted first, and they say something about
>> the "black hole" having a brightness many orders
>> of magnitude greater than a normal star (I think),
>> so now I need to read the Nature paper in more
>> detail and try to purge the popular version inaccuracies
>> out of my mind, who said what has become confused.
>
>Ken, you apparently didn't read that article very closely, because you got it completely backwards...
>
>http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/best-evidence-yet-that-black-holes-really-exist-0505201523/
>
>"If there's a [star] surface, then the stuff that falls in will splash onto the surface," says co-author John Kormendy (University of Texas at Austin). And this splash will cause the material to glow even hotter and brighter. But if there isn't a surface -- like in the case of an event horizon [black hole] -- then from our
perspective, the material eventually vanishes and therefore can't keep boosting the glow."
>
>Good grief, Ken, if you can't read an article meant for the general population and understand what it is saying, how are you ever going to digest the information presented in a technical paper? You are obviously easily confused.
>
>\Paul A

        I can read, why is it the difference between
100 Billion, and "an order of magnitude" is thought
to be a small difference in the discussion of the
supposed black hole at the center of M87?

"So an object with an event horizon should appear darker than an equally
massive object with a surface. Under this assumption, the next few steps
are relatively straightforward (but far from simple). First, the team
measured the amount of material falling onto M87’s supermassive black
hole. Second, the team calculated the expected brightness for an object
with a surface. That number came in at roughly 100 billion times
brighter than the Sun. Third, the team checked to see if their
observations matched the expected brightness. If so, then the object has
a surface. If not, then the object likely has an event horizon. The team
found an object that appeared darker than expected (by at least an order
of magnitude) for an object with a surface. “So we conclude that the
stuff is falling through an event horizon and giving out a lot less
light than it would if it was bashing into a surface,” says Kormendy.
Black Holes Proven? Not Quite Yet. - See more at:
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/best-evidence-yet-that-black-holes-really-exist-0505201523/#sthash.ueeyOYxF.dpuf
"

        Doesn't that mean the thing shines in some
wavelength 10 Billion times as bright as the Sun?

       Does that sound "black"?

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

#368590

On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 11:13:54 AM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 10:59:03 -0700 (PDT), pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> >On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 6:08:13 AM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:
> >> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 23:06:51 +1100, Sylvia Else
> >> <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
> >
> >> >That comment appears to relate to something else. Certainly, it doesn't 
> >> >relate to the cited paper.
> >> >
> >> >Sylvia.
> >> 
> >>          Are you sure?     I read the popular versions
> >> that Paul posted first, and they say something about
> >> the "black hole" having a brightness many orders
> >> of magnitude greater than a normal star (I think),
> >> so now I need to read the Nature paper in more
> >> detail and try to purge the popular version inaccuracies
> >> out of my mind, who said what has become confused.
> >
> >Ken, you apparently didn't read that article very closely, because you got it completely backwards...
> >
> >http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/best-evidence-yet-that-black-holes-really-exist-0505201523/
> >
> >"If there's a [star] surface, then the stuff that falls in will splash onto the surface," says co-author John Kormendy (University of Texas at Austin). And this splash will cause the material to glow even hotter and brighter. But if there isn't a surface -- like in the case of an event horizon [black hole] -- then from our
> perspective, the material eventually vanishes and therefore can't keep boosting the glow."
> >
> >Good grief, Ken, if you can't read an article meant for the general population and understand what it is saying, how are you ever going to digest the information presented in a technical paper? You are obviously easily confused.
> >
> >\Paul A
> 
>         I can read, why is it the difference between
> 100 Billion, and "an order of magnitude" is thought
> to be a small difference in the discussion of the
> supposed black hole at the center of M87?
> 
> "So an object with an event horizon should appear darker than an equally
> massive object with a surface. Under this assumption, the next few steps
> are relatively straightforward (but far from simple). First, the team
> measured the amount of material falling onto M87's supermassive black
> hole. Second, the team calculated the expected brightness for an object
> with a surface. That number came in at roughly 100 billion times
> brighter than the Sun. Third, the team checked to see if their
> observations matched the expected brightness. If so, then the object has
> a surface. If not, then the object likely has an event horizon. The team
> found an object that appeared darker than expected (by at least an order
> of magnitude) for an object with a surface. "So we conclude that the
> stuff is falling through an event horizon and giving out a lot less
> light than it would if it was bashing into a surface," says Kormendy.
> Black Holes Proven? Not Quite Yet. - See more at:
> http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/best-evidence-yet-that-black-holes-really-exist-0505201523/#sthash.ueeyOYxF.dpuf
> "
> 
>         Doesn't that mean the thing shines in some
> wavelength 10 Billion times as bright as the Sun?
> 
>        Does that sound "black"?

Yes, indeed, it shines at "only" 10 billion times brighter than the Sun, rather than the 100 billion times brighter than it would if it were NOT a black hole. In other words, the object at the center of M-87 is NOT a star-like object! You must understand that we cannot see a black hole directly, since light cannot escape its surface, but rather we are seeing the radiation from the gas being highly accelerated near the surface of the black hole, gas that is either in the immediate vicinity or has been ripped from tidally disrupted stars in the vicinity of the black hole. It is really not that hard to comprehend.

Like the article concludes, this in and of itself does not 'prove' that there is a black hole there, but it certainly implies that there is a BH there.

\Paul A

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

#369251

On 31/10/2015 4:59 AM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 6:08:13 AM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 23:06:51 +1100, Sylvia Else
>> <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>
>>> That comment appears to relate to something else. Certainly, it doesn't
>>> relate to the cited paper.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>>           Are you sure?     I read the popular versions
>> that Paul posted first, and they say something about
>> the "black hole" having a brightness many orders
>> of magnitude greater than a normal star (I think),
>> so now I need to read the Nature paper in more
>> detail and try to purge the popular version inaccuracies
>> out of my mind, who said what has become confused.
>
> Ken, you apparently didn't read that article very closely, because you got it completely backwards...

He read between the lines, but neglected to read the lines themselves.

Sylvia.

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

#369254

On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 12:43:18 +1100, Sylvia Else
<sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

>On 31/10/2015 4:59 AM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 6:08:13 AM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 23:06:51 +1100, Sylvia Else
>>> <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>>
>>>> That comment appears to relate to something else. Certainly, it doesn't
>>>> relate to the cited paper.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>>           Are you sure?     I read the popular versions
>>> that Paul posted first, and they say something about
>>> the "black hole" having a brightness many orders
>>> of magnitude greater than a normal star (I think),
>>> so now I need to read the Nature paper in more
>>> detail and try to purge the popular version inaccuracies
>>> out of my mind, who said what has become confused.
>>
>> Ken, you apparently didn't read that article very closely, because you got it completely backwards...
>
>He read between the lines, but neglected to read the lines themselves.
>
>Sylvia.

         No, I read the lines, and while it is interesting,
it is a mistake to think any particular conclusion 
about the indirect data meaning that it is a black
hole.

         Note that I said that I think black holes
existing is unlikely, but some process that
appears to have a lot of energy is going on,
but that is happening in a lot of places, not
just at the center of the galaxy.

         So, I do not claim anything other than
black holes are unlikely.

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

#369259

On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 6:05:26 PM UTC-8, kefischer wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 12:43:18 +1100, Sylvia Else
> <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
> 
> >On 31/10/2015 4:59 AM, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 6:08:13 AM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 23:06:51 +1100, Sylvia Else
> >>> <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> That comment appears to relate to something else. Certainly, it doesn't
> >>>> relate to the cited paper.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sylvia.
> >>>
> >>>           Are you sure?     I read the popular versions
> >>> that Paul posted first, and they say something about
> >>> the "black hole" having a brightness many orders
> >>> of magnitude greater than a normal star (I think),
> >>> so now I need to read the Nature paper in more
> >>> detail and try to purge the popular version inaccuracies
> >>> out of my mind, who said what has become confused.
> >>
> >> Ken, you apparently didn't read that article very closely, because you got it completely backwards...
> >
> >He read between the lines, but neglected to read the lines themselves.
> >
> >Sylvia.
> 
>          No, I read the lines, and while it is interesting,
> it is a mistake to think any particular conclusion 
> about the indirect data meaning that it is a black
> hole.
> 
>          Note that I said that I think black holes
> existing is unlikely, but some process that
> appears to have a lot of energy is going on,
> but that is happening in a lot of places, not
> just at the center of the galaxy.
> 
>          So, I do not claim anything other than
> black holes are unlikely.

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. 

c'est la vie

\Paul A

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

#369265

On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 18:48:30 -0800 (PST), pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:

>On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 6:05:26 PM UTC-8, kefischer wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 12:43:18 +1100, Sylvia Else
>> <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>> 
>> >On 31/10/2015 4:59 AM, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 6:08:13 AM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:
>> >>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 23:06:51 +1100, Sylvia Else
>> >>> <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>> That comment appears to relate to something else. Certainly, it doesn't
>> >>>> relate to the cited paper.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Sylvia.
>> >>>
>> >>>           Are you sure?     I read the popular versions
>> >>> that Paul posted first, and they say something about
>> >>> the "black hole" having a brightness many orders
>> >>> of magnitude greater than a normal star (I think),
>> >>> so now I need to read the Nature paper in more
>> >>> detail and try to purge the popular version inaccuracies
>> >>> out of my mind, who said what has become confused.
>> >>
>> >> Ken, you apparently didn't read that article very closely, because you got it completely backwards...
>> >
>> >He read between the lines, but neglected to read the lines themselves.
>> >
>> >Sylvia.
>> 
>>          No, I read the lines, and while it is interesting,
>> it is a mistake to think any particular conclusion 
>> about the indirect data meaning that it is a black
>> hole.
>> 
>>          Note that I said that I think black holes
>> existing is unlikely, but some process that
>> appears to have a lot of energy is going on,
>> but that is happening in a lot of places, not
>> just at the center of the galaxy.
>> 
>>          So, I do not claim anything other than
>> black holes are unlikely.
>
>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. 
>
>c'est la vie
>
>\Paul A

         All indirect, just like dark matter
and dark energy.

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

#369267

On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 8:10:18 PM UTC-8, kefischer wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 18:48:30 -0800 (PST), pnal...@gmail.com wrote:

> >>          So, I do not claim anything other than
> >> black holes are unlikely.
> >
> >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. 
> >
> >c'est la vie
> >
> >\Paul A
> 
>          All indirect, just like dark matter
> and dark energy.

No, Ken, not exactly indirect...

http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.id=64&cat=exotic

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

#369269

On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 20:35:23 -0800 (PST), pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:

>On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 8:10:18 PM UTC-8, kefischer wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 18:48:30 -0800 (PST), pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> >>          So, I do not claim anything other than
>> >> black holes are unlikely.
>> >
>> >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. 
>> >
>> >c'est la vie
>> >
>> >\Paul A
>> 
>>          All indirect, just like dark matter
>> and dark energy.
>
>No, Ken, not exactly indirect...
>
>http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.id=64&cat=exotic

        Spectral line displacements across the
diameter of a galaxy  _is_  indirect evidence,
rotation or orbital speed inferences are
indirect evidence.

         And I do not see 400km/s rotational
velocity or orbital speed inference as an
impossible "measurement", as I have
stated, in the model, objects in orbit
have a very high outward radial velocity 
that is not measurable directly, but
might be inferred indirectly.


       There could be an explanation for
all the exceptionally extraordinary high
energy events in the universe, a lot
being thousands or millions of times
greater than seen locally.

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

#369270

On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 10:06:47 PM UTC-8, kefischer wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 20:35:23 -0800 (PST), pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> >On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 8:10:18 PM UTC-8, kefischer wrote:
> >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 18:48:30 -0800 (PST), pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> >>          So, I do not claim anything other than
> >> >> black holes are unlikely.
> >> >
> >> >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. 
> >> >
> >> >c'est la vie
> >> >
> >> >\Paul A
> >> 
> >>          All indirect, just like dark matter
> >> and dark energy.
> >
> >No, Ken, not exactly indirect...
> >
> >http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.id=64&cat=exotic
> 
>         Spectral line displacements across the
> diameter of a galaxy  _is_  indirect evidence,
> rotation or orbital speed inferences are
> indirect evidence.
> 
>          And I do not see 400km/s rotational
> velocity or orbital speed inference as an
> impossible "measurement", as I have
> stated, in the model, objects in orbit
> have a very high outward radial velocity 
> that is not measurable directly, but
> might be inferred indirectly.
> 
> 
>        There could be an explanation for
> all the exceptionally extraordinary high
> energy events in the universe, a lot
> being thousands or millions of times
> greater than seen locally.

Like what, for example?

What a pile of gobbledygook you spout!

What part of "convincing evidence", "Scientists verified the existence of the black holes...", "convinced many astronomers that the system contains a black hole", and  the evidence for a black hole in Cygnus X-1 -- and about a dozen other systems -- is very strong." don't you comprehend?

Just because you don't have the background to understand the mechanisms involved doesn't mean it isn't true. The odds that black holes do not exist are extremely long.

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

#369272

On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 22:27:13 -0800 (PST), pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:

>On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 10:06:47 PM UTC-8, kefischer wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 20:35:23 -0800 (PST), pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> 
>> >On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 8:10:18 PM UTC-8, kefischer wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 18:48:30 -0800 (PST), pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> >>          So, I do not claim anything other than
>> >> >> black holes are unlikely.
>> >> >
>> >> >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. 
>> >> >
>> >> >c'est la vie
>> >> >
>> >> >\Paul A
>> >> 
>> >>          All indirect, just like dark matter
>> >> and dark energy.
>> >
>> >No, Ken, not exactly indirect...
>> >
>> >http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.id=64&cat=exotic
>> 
>>         Spectral line displacements across the
>> diameter of a galaxy  _is_  indirect evidence,
>> rotation or orbital speed inferences are
>> indirect evidence.
>> 
>>          And I do not see 400km/s rotational
>> velocity or orbital speed inference as an
>> impossible "measurement", as I have
>> stated, in the model, objects in orbit
>> have a very high outward radial velocity 
>> that is not measurable directly, but
>> might be inferred indirectly.
>> 
>> 
>>        There could be an explanation for
>> all the exceptionally extraordinary high
>> energy events in the universe, a lot
>> being thousands or millions of times
>> greater than seen locally.
>
>Like what, for example?

         Anything.     Absurdly high energy events 
are common, all mentioned possible explanations
are _wild_ guesses.

         Do you actually think all these wild energy
guesses are correct;

:"It had the optical brightness of 10 million billion Suns, 
:which was only one-thousandth of its gamma-ray brightness!"

          Doesn't that make the "perceived" gamma ray 
burst equal to 10,000 million Billion Suns?

http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question47.html
         

:"Today, these gamma-ray bursts, which happen at least once a day, 
:are seen to last for fractions of a second to minutes, popping off like 
:cosmic flashbulbs from unexpected directions, flickering, and then 
:fading after briefly dominating the gamma-ray sky."

http://science.hq.nasa.gov/kids/imagers/ems/gamma.html

         How many stars are there?    The energy release
of these events would seem to exceed mass of all
stars in the universe in a few thousand years.
        
         I think that means there is something that
causes the measured values to be exaggerated.


>What a pile of gobbledygook you spout!

         What a pile of wild observations that
nature throws at us.


>What part of "convincing evidence", 
>"Scientists verified the existence of the black holes...", 
>"convinced many astronomers that the system contains 
>a black hole", and  the evidence for a black hole in 
>Cygnus X-1 -- and about a dozen other systems -- 
>
>is very strong." don't you comprehend?

         Yes, but the word "verified" there is
not certain.


>Just because you don't have the background to 
>understand the mechanisms involved doesn't mean it isn't true. 

        Oh, come on, nobody "understands" them.


>The odds that black holes do not exist are extremely long.

       Right, but not a million to one.

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

#369282

W dniu Fri, 06 Nov 2015 23:10:11 -0500 użytkownik kefischer napisał:

>>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. c'est la vie \Paul A
> 
> All indirect, just like dark matter and dark energy.

panalising is just as much stupid as you are. There is no such animal as 
"dark matter", but divergent dark matter. Which is also consistent with 
little theory of Divergent Matter.

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

#369314

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

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

#369321

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, as per its very definition. We can only see the very high energy activity around the black hole, which, although circumstantial, is exceedingly good evidence for its existence. You have the right not to believe it, but that doesn't invalidate the observations and the subsequent modern theories. If you actually knew any physics you would have a tough time poking holes in the incumbent model, as opposed to your current habit of simply shouting vituperative conjectures in capitol letters and strewing repetitive exclamation points willy-nilly.

Relate to us your best scientific argument as to why the current theories regarding black holes are flawed, if you are able... but you will undoubtedly fail, just as Ken Fischer would fail. You may or may not be stupid, but for certain, you don't know what you don't know.

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web