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

Groups > sci.physics > #646446 > unrolled thread

For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 14:54 -0500
    Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 13:01 -0700
      Re: Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-18 20:26 -0500
        Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 23:07 -0700
          Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-08-19 03:26 -0400
            Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 06:05 -0700
            Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-21 09:26 -0500
              Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-21 09:34 -0500
          Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 08:18 -0500
            Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 06:53 -0700
              Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 15:50 -0500
                Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 14:50 -0700
                  Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-21 15:39 -0700
                Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 15:50 -0700
                  Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 15:59 -0700
                  Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 23:42 +0000
                    Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 17:16 -0700
                      Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 18:04 -0700
                        Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-22 02:24 +0000
                      Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 01:18 +0000
                        Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 19:09 -0700
                          Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-22 02:39 +0000
                            Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 20:00 -0700
                              Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 20:40 -0700
                                Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 20:49 -0700
                                  Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-22 13:49 +0000
                                    Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 14:58 -0700
                                      Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 23:35 +0000
                                        Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 17:06 -0700
                                          Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-23 00:43 +0000
                                            Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 18:03 -0700
                                          Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 01:34 +0000
                                            Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 19:32 -0700
                                              Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 19:50 -0700
                                              Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 09:02 -0500
                                                Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 13:20 -0700
                                                  Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 16:38 -0500
                                              Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 13:46 -0700
                                                Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 13:54 -0700
                                                  Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 14:38 -0700
                                                    Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 15:32 -0700
                                                      Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 15:54 -0700
                                                        Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 10:24 -0500
                                                          Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 09:10 -0700
                                                            Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-24 17:09 +0000
                                                            Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 12:14 -0500
                                                              Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 11:41 -0700
                                                                Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 15:05 -0700
                                                                  Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 22:10 +0000
                                                                Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 22:07 +0000
                                                                  Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 08:31 -0700
                                                  Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 16:39 -0500
                                Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-22 13:47 +0000
                              Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-22 13:53 +0000
                                Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 07:51 -0700
                                  Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-22 15:35 +0000
                          Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 08:25 -0500
                        Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-22 17:58 -0400
                    Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 21:05 -0400
                      Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 01:18 +0000
                        Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-22 18:00 -0400
                          Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 23:35 +0000
              Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 02:34 -0700
                Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 13:51 -0700
        Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 23:15 -0700
          Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 23:22 -0700
          Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-19 11:16 +0000
            Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. NobelPrize.ORG  @. - 2017-08-19 07:45 -0700
              Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-19 08:32 -0700
                Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-19 17:46 +0000
                  Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-19 14:08 -0500
                    Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-19 17:20 -0700
                      Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 00:34 +0000
                        Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 00:36 +0000
                      Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-20 01:33 +0000
                        Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-19 21:04 -0700
                        Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 10:07 -0700
                          Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 10:57 -0700
                            Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-20 11:17 -0700
                            Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-20 11:19 -0700
                          Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 11:00 -0700
                            Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-20 18:29 +0000
                          Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-20 18:26 +0000
                            Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 11:58 -0700
                              Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-21 16:39 +0000
                                Black Holes are math kook babble john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 11:46 -0700
                                  Re: Retarded precessing spinny things are kook babble moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-21 20:07 +0000
                            Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 15:09 -0500
                              Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 14:13 -0700
                        Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-20 18:07 -0500
                          Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 16:31 -0700
                            Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-21 08:33 -0500
                              Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 07:00 -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. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-23 10:41 -0500
            Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly. "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 11:55 -0700
              Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-24 00:03 -0700
            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. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 14:32 -0700
                Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 16:48 -0500
                Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-23 22:12 +0000
              Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 16:46 -0500
              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. 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. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-08-24 15:40 -0700
                      Re: There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 20:04 +0200
                      Re: Slowing lased photons to near ZERO meters/second. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 20:05 +0200
                        Re: Starting/Stopping light. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 21:45 +0200
                          Posting an email address to Usenet is just wrong. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2017-08-25 17:55 -0700
                            Re: Posting an email address to Usenet is just wrong. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-26 03:23 +0200
                              Give it your best shot, Thomas Lahn. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2017-08-25 19:08 -0700
                                Re: Give it your best shot, ****** ****. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-26 14:15 +0200
                                  Thomas Lahn would ban URL's. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2017-08-26 13:36 -0700
                                    Re: ****** **** would ban URL's. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-27 01:46 +0200
                                    Re: Thomas Lahn's GoogleGroups Spam Remover. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-08-28 15:55 -0700
                                      Google Groups spam filter (was: Thomas Lahn's GoogleGroups Spam Remover.) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-31 18:04 +0200
                          If this Wikipedia article is wrong, please fix it. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2017-08-25 18:39 -0700
                            Slow light (was: If this Wikipedia article is wrong, please fix it.) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-26 03:55 +0200
                              Viewed from earth, everything near an ideal event horizon appears frozen. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2017-08-25 19:47 -0700
                            Re: If this Wikipedia article is wrong, please fix it. benj <nobody@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-26 01:52 -0400
                          Re: kNode hasn't heard of MIME/HTML ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-26 03:47 +0200
                            The DEFAULT "Subject:" line is NEITHER mandatory or desirable. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2017-08-25 19:29 -0700
                              Re: The DEFAULT "Subject:" line is NEITHER mandatory or desirable. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-26 15:36 +0000
                                Usenet isn't Wikipedia; threads branch and morph, topics change. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2017-08-26 11:56 -0700
                                  Re: Usenet isn't Wikipedia; threads branch and morph, topics change. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-27 04:31 +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: There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 12:44 -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. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 06:22 -0700
                      Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 16:14 +0200
                      Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 07:18 -0700
                        Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 07:49 -0700
                        Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 18:25 +0200
                        Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 10:44 -0700
                        Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 13:05 -0500
                      Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-25 16:09 +0000
                    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. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 08:51 -0700
                        Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 13:01 -0500
                      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. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 12:22 -0700
                          Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 12:25 -0700
                          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: 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
      Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-19 00:00 -0700
        Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 08:18 -0500
      Re: Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-08-20 16:01 -0700
      Re: Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2017-08-21 12:54 -0700
    For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 14:44 -0700
      Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 22:15 +0000
    Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 15:26 -0700
      Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-18 18:54 -0700
    Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 21:06 -0500
    Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 10:25 -0700
      Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-25 10:55 -0700
      Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-08-25 14:17 -0700
        Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-25 15:27 -0700
          Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-08-25 15:37 -0700
            Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-25 15:50 -0700
    For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 16:29 -0700
      For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 17:03 -0700
        Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 01:53 +0000
      Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 01:53 +0000

Page 7 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9  Next page →

#647262 — Slow light (was: If this Wikipedia article is wrong, please fix it.)

 wrote:

> […]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_light
> If this Wikipedia article is wrong, please fix it.

To me, there is nothing obviously wrong with that article.  In fact, it 
explicitly states:

“Slow light is a dramatic reduction in the group velocity of light, not the 
phase velocity.”

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#647275 — Viewed from earth, everything near an ideal event horizon appears frozen.

Viewed from earth, everything near an ideal event horizon appears frozen,
including humans, clocks and laser beams; so, yes, light can be slowed.

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

#647286 — Re: If this Wikipedia article is wrong, please fix it.

On 08/25/2017 09:39 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> You ( Thomas Lahn ) replied to me:
>>> Harvard Professor Lene Hau uses LaserCooled sodium to Stop/ReStart light.
>>>
>>> Quoting " Light Changed to Matter, Then Stopped and Moved " ＜＜
>>>
>>>   CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Feb. 8, 2007 -- By converting light
>>>   into matter and then back again, physicists have for
>>>   the first time stopped a light pulse and then
>>>   restarted it a small distance away.
>>> […]
>>> https://www.photonics.com/Article.aspx?AID=28520
>>
>> even if true, it is not the same light that is being “restarted”
>> that was “stopped” before.
>
> The ReStarted/ReLocated light has the same signal, with the same data;
> hence its usefulness; see:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_light
> If this Wikipedia article is wrong, please fix it.
>

Sorry Rolf, but wikipedia, like the TV and printed news is not ever 
"wrong", It is propaganda and cannot be fixed. Trust me, I've tried.

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

#647258 — Re: kNode hasn't heard of MIME/HTML ?

 wrote:

> You ( Thomas Lahn ) replied to me:
>> > <PRE Style='Font-Family: OCR A, monospace !important;'>
>> For crying out loud, get yourself a proper newsreader.
> 
> kNode hasn't heard of MIME/HTML ?

JFTR: _KNode_ *is* able to display messages in HTML; presently a warning is 
displayed that your message is a “HTML message”, and that *for security 
reasons* it is only displayed as plain text.  I am given the option, by 
hyperlink, of displaying the original, but for the same reasons I choose not 
to.

Multi-part messages do not belong into non-binary newsgroups such as this.

HTML-*only* messages such as yours, or HTML multi-part messages, even less 
so: Usenet is a *plain-text* communications medium.  (Don’t you know 
*anything* about where you are posting to?)

> Mozilla Thunderbird knows MIME and HTML, […]

Mozilla Thunderbird is a *hybrid* e-mail and NetNews (and whatnot) client, 
*therefore* it supports HTML-only messages and HTML in multi-part messages.

The factory setting for newsgroups in Thunderbird is “plain text”, and that 
is good so.  You can post to a test newsgroup with active test bots to find 
out more.

Also, contrary to what you did repeatedly, the Subject header field value is 
not to be changed arbitrarily; a proper Subject change looks as follows.

Original posting:
| Subject: foo

First follow-up:
| Subject: Re: foo

Second follow-up, initiating the change:
| Subject: bar (was: foo)

Third follow-up, completing the change:
| Subject: Re: bar

Several newsreaders support this by automatically removing the “(was: …)” 
part when posting a follow-up.

(You could have been spared the repeated public embarrassment if you had 
provided a valid “From” or “Reply-To” e-mail address as mandated by RFC 
5536, §§ 3.1.2 and 3.2.)

F’up2 poster

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#647273 — The DEFAULT "Subject:" line is NEITHER mandatory or desirable.

The DEFAULT "Subject:" line is NEITHER mandatory or desirable.

  Quoting 
  " rfc1036: Standard for Interchange of USENET Messages " ＜＜

    The "Subject:" line tells what the message is about.

    It  SHOULD be suggestive enough of the contents of the message
    to enable a reader to make a decision whether to read 
    the message  BASED, ON, THE, SUBJECT, ALONE. 

    If the message is submitted in response to another message 
    ( e.g., is a follow-up ) the  DEFAULT subject should 
    begin with the four characters "Re:"  ＞＞

  https://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc1036/rfc1036.html#z4

To find the prior "Subject:" line, go to the parent post;
if your newsreader can do that, upgrade; don't complain to me.

You ( Thomas Lahn ) replied ( to me ):
> You could have been spared the repeated public embarrassment 
> if you had provided a valid “From” or “Reply-To” e-mail address

Posting an email address to Usenet is just wrong.
It will get spammed, making it useless; so I post a URL instead.
You have URL access, I know; so I'm far from anonymous.  

Big Brother's spam filters do more harm than good.

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

#647304 — Re: The DEFAULT "Subject:" line is NEITHER mandatory or desirable.

Jeff-Relf.Me  @. writes:

>  Quoting 
>  " rfc1036:

Of course RFC 1036 is *ancient* and obsolete, first unofficially
superseded by Son of 1036 and now by RFC 5536 and 5537.

>    The "Subject:" line tells what the message is about.

>    It  SHOULD be suggestive enough of the contents of the message
>    to enable a reader to make a decision whether to read 
>    the message  BASED, ON, THE, SUBJECT, ALONE. 

Even if one agrees with how you think the Subject: should work,
YOUR subjects are completely useless. 80% of them are a repeat or
restatement of your last sentence, and your last sentence is often
completely unrelated to what's being discussed as you jump around from
one stupid thought to another stupid thought.

Meanwhile, I find it great entertainment to see two Usenet-obsessed kooks
climb into the boxing ring to duke it out. Grabbing popcorn. This should
be much better than that other boxing event.  I've even given Pointed Head
a temporary stay of his killfile sentence.

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

#647333 — Usenet isn't Wikipedia; threads branch and morph, topics change.

You ( MichaelMoroney ) replied ( to me ):
> >   Quoting " rfc1036: Standard for Interchange of USENET Messages " ＜＜
> > 
> >     The "Subject:" line tells what the message is about.
> > 
> >     It  SHOULD be suggestive enough of the contents of the message
> >     to enable a reader to make a decision whether to read 
> >     the message  BASED, ON, THE, SUBJECT, ALONE.  ＞＞
> 
> Of course RFC 1036 is *ancient* and obsolete, first unofficially
> superseded by Son of 1036 and now by RFC 5536 and 5537.

You didn't/couldn't quote RFC 5536 or 5537, 
because they have nothing to say about this topic ( above ).

rfc5322 ( which includes emails too, not just Usenet )
says the "Subject:" line must be "UnStructured", with 
NOTHING BUT HUMAN-READABLE CONTENT; it says: ＜＜

  The "Subject:" field contains a short string 
  identifying THE TOPIC OF THE MESSAGE [ NOT THE THREAD ]. ＞＞

> you jump around from one stupid thought to another.

Usenet isn't Wikipedia; threads branch and morph, topics change.

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

#647392 — Re: Usenet isn't Wikipedia; threads branch and morph, topics change.

Jeff-Relf.Me  @. writes:

>You ( MichaelMoroney ) replied ( to me ):

>> Of course RFC 1036 is *ancient* and obsolete, first unofficially
>> superseded by Son of 1036 and now by RFC 5536 and 5537.

>You didn't/couldn't quote RFC 5536 or 5537, 
>because they have nothing to say about this topic ( above ).

If they don't mention it, then the RFC 1036 statement is obsolete, as all
of 1036 is obsolete.

>rfc5322 ( which includes emails too, not just Usenet )
>says the "Subject:" line must be "UnStructured", with 
>NOTHING BUT HUMAN-READABLE CONTENT; it says:

Yeah, so what? Nobody contends that the subject is for humans.

>> you jump around from one stupid thought to another.

>Usenet isn't Wikipedia; threads branch and morph, topics change.

Not what I am talking about, you jump around between multiple unrelated
thoughts _in a single posting_.  (ADHD?)

BTW your (changed) subject is a classic example of what I said:

:Even if one agrees with how you think the Subject: should work,
:YOUR subjects are completely useless. 80% of them are a repeat or
:restatement of your last sentence, and your last sentence is often
:completely unrelated to what's being discussed as you jump around from
:one stupid thought to another stupid thought.

Your post was mostly about the RFCs and the subject line but your subject
was about the topic morphing, which doesn't really help a potential reader
decide whether to read the post based on the subject alone.  They'd expect
a post about how topics morph over time.

I guess you already lost the train of thought.

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

#647199 — Re: There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none.

Jeff-Relf.Me, @. wrote:
> 
> There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none.
> 
> Quoting WikiPedia: ＜＜
> 
>   [ Some think Sgr* is ] 4.1 million solar masses.
> 
>   The corresponding Schwarzschild radius is .08 AU [...]
> 
>   the American group found 3.7 ± 0.2 million solar masses.
>          [...]
>   [S14] came within 45 AU without colliding.  ＞＞
> 
>      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*#Central_black_hole
> 
> The corresponding Schwarzschild radius is .08 AU.
> The corresponding Schwarzschild radius is .08 AU.
> The corresponding Schwarzschild radius is .08 AU.
> 
> It could be anything, something unknown, maybe a black star.


Densil Washington is not an unknown black star...

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

#647203 — Re: There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none.

OJ

He's out

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

#647155 — Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity.

Martin Brown wrote:

> On 24/08/2017 00:01, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> 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).
>> 
>> 
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Galactic_centre_orbits.svg
> 
> Wiki

The name is of the source is _Wikipedia_.  Instead, “wiki” is now an 
umbrella term for a live-editable community-maintained online source
(from “wiki”, the Hawaiian word for “quick”).

> claims Sgr A

The name of the astronomical object is obviously S(a)g(itta)r(ius) A_*_ 
(emphasis mine).

> has Rs ~ 1.3x10^10 M which I make to be about 80AU

What are you talking about?

The symbol for radius is usually a lowercase “r”.

The symbol for the SI unit of metre (or meter) is “m”, not “M”.  [“M” is 
reserved as the unit prefix for “mega”, from greek «μέγας» /megas/ „great“, 
meaning one million times the unit.]

The SI unit prefix “k” (for “kilo”, from Greek «χίλιοι» /khílioi/ „a 
thousand“) means 1000 times the unit:

  1 km = 1000 m.

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.

(1 AU is the average distance Terra–Sol.)

> (in the section on Schwarzchild radii

(Karl) _Schwarzschild_

> - which is suspect is out of date)

It is not.  The Schwarzschild radius of a non-rotating, uncharged 
(Schwarzschild) black hole (BH) is

  rₛ = 2 G M∕c²,

where G is Newton’s gravitational constant, and M is the mass of the black 
hole.  A mass of

  M = 4.1 × 10⁶ M☉ ≈ 8.153 × 10³⁶ kg,

where the mass of Sol (or solar masses) is

  M☉ ≈ 1.988435 × 10³⁰ kg,

corresponds to a Schwarzschild radius of

  rₛ ≈ 1.211 × 10¹⁰ m = 1.211 × 10⁷ km ≈ 0.08094 AU

The is very close to the aforementioned 1.3 × 10¹⁰ m.

See also: 
<http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Schwarzschild+radius&dataset=>
 
> (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*).

> Star S14 must be getting awfully close to grazing the event horizon.

That is possible, but not based on your argument, but based on the diagram.

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.
 
-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#647161 — Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity.

Pointed Ears
Why would you talk about non-rotating Black Holes? Have you seen one? How do you think BHs work? Just by "being there" (and presumably sending some kind of 'Gravity message'?
You guys are SO confused!!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/03/130301-black-hole-speed-of-light-einstein-science-astronomy-space/

Black Holes work by RAPID ROTATION.

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

#647163 — Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity.

John Doe wrote:

> Pointed Ears

Without the space, please.

> Why would you talk about non-rotating Black Holes?

Because a non-rotating, uncharged black hole (BH) is the simplest case for 
which the Schwarzschild radius can be easily calculated in one or two lines.  
If you want to calculate the Schwarzschild radius (or rather, the semi-minor 
axis of the volume) of a rotating black hole, please go ahead.  I have given 
you all the hints.

> Have you seen one?

No.  Why do you ask?

> How do you think BHs work?

As always in general relativity, the curvature of spacetime in an around a 
BH, too, corresponds to its mass–energy–momentum, too.  There is a distance 
from a body or point of mass–energy–momentum where the curvature of 
spacetime becomes so great that all geodesics lead only further inside the 
black hole, towards the same area or point (*that* is the [spacetime] 
singularity).

In terms of gravity, there is a radius for every body, the Schwarzschild 
radius, which is proportional to the body’s mass (among other factors), 
below which the escape velocity from that body would have to be greater than 
the speed of light.  As the speed of light is the speed limit for 
information in our universe, no information beyond that distance from the 
center of mass of the body can reach the outside observer if it lies outside 
of the body.

> Just by "being there"

Yes, that is sufficient.

> (and presumably sending some kind of 'Gravity message'?

No, gravity is just an observable effect of the curvature of spacetime.  The 
apparent gravitational attraction between massive bodies is a projection 
into three-dimensional space of their motion along curved spacetime 
geodesics.

> You guys are SO confused!!

No, you are.  To begin with, you are posting to sci.physics in a follow-up 
to a posting which had “Followup-To: sci.astro” set (but, granted, 
accidentally not announced).

> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/03/130301-black-hole-speed-of-light-einstein-science-astronomy-space/

So there is an example of a rotating black hole.  That does not exclude the 
possibility of a non-rotating one.

> Black Holes work by RAPID ROTATION.

Nonsense.  Black holes are _not_ maelstroms in space.  (They just create the 
appearance of that because matter is spiraling in.)

Black holes can rotate, and I think (for reasons that I have given recently 
in <news:sci.astro>) that most of them do rotate.  But they do not have to 
do that in order to “work”.

I strongly suggest that you read, among other sources, 

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole> pp.

and

<http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/> pp.


F’up2 <news:sci.physics.relativity>

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#647164 — Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity.

Odd
If you read a little, you will find that the debate these days is not whether or not SOME stuff is ejected from Black Holes; the debate is whether ALL of it may not be being ejected.
And, like I've been saying since I got here- 1995- the answer is 'yes'. All of the matter of OUR GAUGE is ejected. All of THE SMALLER GAUGE MATTER- the aether, the sub-aether, the sub-sub-aether is still in there, and it is SPINNING.

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

#647165 — Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity.

PointedEars
"..gravitational attraction between massive bodies is a projection .."

Of. What.
And. How?

La La land thinking.

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

#647176 — Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity.

John Doe wrote:

> If you read a little, you will find that the debate these days is not
> whether or not SOME stuff is ejected from Black Holes; the debate is
> whether ALL of it may not be being ejected.

Patently untrue.  Of course, black holes would not eject *all* matter that 
falls towards them.  That is why they are *black* holes.

> And, like I've been saying since I got here- 1995- the answer is 'yes'.
> All of the matter of OUR GAUGE is ejected.

What gauge?

> All of THE SMALLER GAUGE MATTER- the aether, the
> sub-aether, the sub-sub-aether is still in there, and it is SPINNING.

There is no aether, much less sub-aether.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

F’up2 <news:sci.physics.relativity>

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#647182 — Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity.

On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 10:19:02 AM UTC-4, john wrote:
> Odd
> If you read a little, you will find that the debate these days
> is not whether or not SOME stuff is ejected from Black Holes;
> the debate is whether ALL of it may not be being ejected.

because of the crappy grammar, and not just the double negative,
this doesn't make sense.


> And, like I've been saying since I got here- 1995- the answer
> is 'yes'. All of the matter of OUR GAUGE is ejected.

I think you meant earlier to say that the question is:
How much in falling matter is absorbed by a Black Hole,
and how much is ejected in the jets? and that your answer
is all of it. Care to give evidence? (PS Your opinion doesn't
count as evidence. Some measurements published somewhere,
and hopefully a respected peer review journal.)


> All of THE SMALLER GAUGE MATTER- the aether,
> the sub-aether, the sub-sub-aether is still
> in there, and it is SPINNING.

There is ZERO evidence for aether anywhere,
and even less so in black holes.
Given there is no aether, there is no sub-aether either.

Wake up john!
ed

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

#647191 — Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity.

On 8/25/17 9:18 AM, john wrote:
> Odd
> If you read a little, you will find that the debate these days is not whether or not SOME stuff is ejected from Black Holes; the debate is whether ALL of it may not be being ejected.

John, I don't know where you're reading this "debate". Certainly the 
article you cited doesn't say anything like that.

I think if you look carefully, you will see that any articles you can 
find will say that NO matter is being ejected from inside the event 
horizon (that is what defines the outer boundary of a black hole) and 
that some of the matter that is lying OUTSIDE the black hole gets 
ejected, and some of the matter that is lying OUTSIDE the black hole 
does not get ejected.

Please come off your high and sit with some of the articles you think 
you've read, and read them again for what they REALLY say.

> And, like I've been saying since I got here- 1995- the answer is 'yes'. All of the matter of OUR GAUGE is ejected. All of THE SMALLER GAUGE MATTER- the aether, the sub-aether, the sub-sub-aether is still in there, and it is SPINNING.
> 


-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#647175 — Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity.

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Pointed Ears
>Why would you talk about non-rotating Black Holes?

The Schwartzchild black hole (non-rotating) is the simplest case, and
the easiest to understand. The Kerr black hole (rapidly rotating) is
much more complicated, with all kinds of GR math, frame dragging, etc.

While no black hole is likely to be absolutely non-rotating, there may
be several which rotate at a rate low enough so that the Schwartzchild
solution is a good approximation.

> Have you seen one? 

Have you ever seen a rotating one?

>How do you think BHs work? Just by "being there"

Yes. All they are is gravitation, gravitation so extreme that there is
an event horizon formed, and all kinds of GR effects.

The earth tries to draw you toward its center just by "being there",
you know.

Far enough away, BHs act as a simple mass, with the standard effects of
gravity on nearby masses.  The orbits of stars orbiting close to the
(presumed) black hole at the center of the Milky Way will tell us much.

>You guys are SO confused!!

It is you who is confused, you don't even understand what a black hole
is and you create your own bizarre concepts and call that a "black hole"
when it is not.  You are projecting your confusion onto everyone else.

>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/03/130301-black-hole-speed-of-light-einstein-science-astronomy-space/

Rapidly rotating black holes don't exclude the existence of non-rotating black
holes.

>Black Holes work by RAPID ROTATION.

Black Holes work by intense gravity.
Any rapid rotation they may have adds to the effects.

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

#647172 — Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity.

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

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.

>> Star S14 must be getting awfully close to grazing the event horizon.

>That is possible, but not based on your argument, but based on the diagram.

>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.  However it is close enough to
likely have interesting relativistic effects.  Another star (S0-102) gets
within 260 AU and reaches over 1% of the speed of light. S14 must be
really booking.

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

Page 7 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web