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

Groups > sci.physics > #536492 > unrolled thread

How massive can black holes get?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  How massive can black holes get? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 09:25 -0600
    Re: How massive can black holes get? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 09:49 -0800
      Re: How massive can black holes get? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 11:57 -0600
        Re: How massive can black holes get? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 10:14 -0800
          Re: How massive can black holes get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-11-30 19:02 +0000
            Re: How massive can black holes get? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 14:39 -0800
              Re: How massive can black holes get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-11-30 23:08 +0000
                Re: How massive can black holes get? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 15:26 -0800
                  Re: How massive can black holes get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-01 03:31 +0000
                    Re: How massive can black holes get? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 06:58 -0800
                      Re: How massive can black holes get? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 07:08 -0800
                        Re: How massive can black holes get? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 08:11 -0800
                          Re: How massive can black holes get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 10:17 -0600
                        Re: How massive can black holes get? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 08:21 -0800
                        Re: How massive can black holes get? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 18:20 -0500
                      Re: How massive can black holes get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-01 16:43 +0000
                        Re: How massive can black holes get? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 08:52 -0800
                          Re: How massive can black holes get? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 14:20 -0800
                            Re: How massive can black holes get? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 17:17 -0800
                        Re: How massive can black holes get? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 09:08 -0800
                          Re: How massive can black holes get? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 09:21 -0800
                          Re: How massive can black holes get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-01 18:13 +0000
                            Re: How massive can black holes get? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 13:47 -0800
                              Re: How massive can black holes get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-01 22:07 +0000
                                Re: How massive can black holes get? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 14:18 -0800
                                  Re: How massive can black holes get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 16:32 -0600
                                    Re: How massive can black holes get? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 14:49 -0800
                                      Re: How massive can black holes get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 16:58 -0600
                                  Re: How massive can black holes get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 16:33 -0600
                                  Re: How massive can black holes get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-01 23:38 +0000
                  Re: How massive can black holes get? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 10:05 -0600
          Re: How massive can black holes get? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 10:01 -0800
        Re: How massive can black holes get? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 09:58 -0800
          Re: How massive can black holes get? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 12:06 -0600
            Re: How massive can black holes get? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 15:44 -0800
              Re: How massive can black holes get? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 17:55 -0600
              Re: How massive can black holes get? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 23:15 -0500
          Re: How massive can black holes get? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 10:10 -0800
            Re: How massive can black holes get? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 18:28 -0500
    Re: How massive can black holes get? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 14:18 -0800
      Re: How massive can black holes get? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 16:49 -0600
        Re: How massive can black holes get? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 15:33 -0800
          Re: How massive can black holes get? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 18:00 -0600
            Re: How massive can black holes get? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 16:14 -0800
              Re: How massive can black holes get? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 18:21 -0600
                Re: How massive can black holes get? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 17:53 -0800
                  Re: How massive can black holes get? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 20:34 -0600
                    Re: How massive can black holes get? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 11:24 -0800
                      Re: How massive can black holes get? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 13:40 -0600
                        Re: How massive can black holes get? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 17:22 -0800
                          Re: How massive can black holes get? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-04 01:49 +0000
                        Re: How massive can black holes get? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-04 14:54 -0800
                          Re: How massive can black holes get? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-04 17:09 -0600
          Re: How massive can black holes get? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 23:13 -0500

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#536492 — How massive can black holes get?

How massive can black holes get?
> http://phys.org/news/2015-08-massive-black-holes.html#nRlv


> Terrifyingly, there's no limit to much material a black hole can
> consume, if it's given enough time. The most massive are ones found
> at the hearts of galaxies. These are the supermassive black holes,
> such as the 4.1 million mass nugget at the center of the Milky Way.
> Astronomers figured its mass by watching the movements of stars
> zipping around the center of the Milky Way, like comets going around
> the sun.
>
> There seems to be supermassive black holes at the heart of every
> galaxy we can find, and our Milky Way's black hole is actually puny
> in comparison. Interstellar depicted a black hole with 100 million
> times the mass of the sun. And we're just getting started.
>
> The giant elliptical galaxy M87 has a black hole with 6.2 billion
> times the mass of the sun. How can astronomers possibly know that?
> They've spotted a jet of material 4,300 light-years long, blasting
> out of the center of M87 at relativistic speeds, and only black holes
> that massive generate jets like that.
>
> Most recently, astronomers announced in the journal Nature that they
> have found a black hole with about 12 billion times the mass of the
> sun. The accretion disk here generates 429 trillion times more light
> than the sun, and it shines clear across the Universe. We see the
> light from this region from when the Universe was only 6% into its
> current age.

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#536520

On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 7:25:50 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> How massive can black holes get?
> > http://phys.org/news/2015-08-massive-black-holes.html#nRlv
> 
> 
> > Terrifyingly, there's no limit to much material a black hole can
> > consume, if it's given enough time. The most massive are ones found
> > at the hearts of galaxies. These are the supermassive black holes,
> > such as the 4.1 million mass nugget at the center of the Milky Way.
> > Astronomers figured its mass by watching the movements of stars
> > zipping around the center of the Milky Way, like comets going around
> > the sun.
> >
> > There seems to be supermassive black holes at the heart of every
> > galaxy we can find, and our Milky Way's black hole is actually puny
> > in comparison. Interstellar depicted a black hole with 100 million
> > times the mass of the sun. And we're just getting started.
> >
> > The giant elliptical galaxy M87 has a black hole with 6.2 billion
> > times the mass of the sun. How can astronomers possibly know that?
> > They've spotted a jet of material 4,300 light-years long, blasting
> > out of the center of M87 at relativistic speeds, and only black holes
> > that massive generate jets like that.
> >
> > Most recently, astronomers announced in the journal Nature that they
> > have found a black hole with about 12 billion times the mass of the
> > sun. The accretion disk here generates 429 trillion times more light
> > than the sun, and it shines clear across the Universe. We see the
> > light from this region from when the Universe was only 6% into its
> > current age.
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

I know the mass density limite of a BH.It comes out of my "Critical  mass theory" It answers hard questions.It explains all explosions that take plaqce in the universe.Its one of my great theories thyat I have worked on for 65 years  Noit braging just talking straight TreBert

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

#536523

On 11/30/15 11:49 AM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> I know the mass density limite of a BH

   This article is about mass, not density, Herb. Do you confuse the
   two concepts, mass and density?

   How massive can black holes get?
 > http://phys.org/news/2015-08-massive-black-holes.html#nRlv

 > Terrifyingly, there's no limit to much material a black hole can
 > consume, if it's given enough time. The most massive are ones found
 > at the hearts of galaxies. These are the supermassive black holes,
 > such as the 4.1 million mass nugget at the center of the Milky Way.
 > Astronomers figured its mass by watching the movements of stars
 > zipping around the center of the Milky Way, like comets going around
 > the sun.
 >
 > There seems to be supermassive black holes at the heart of every
 > galaxy we can find, and our Milky Way's black hole is actually puny
 > in comparison. Interstellar depicted a black hole with 100 million
 > times the mass of the sun. And we're just getting started.
 >
 > The giant elliptical galaxy M87 has a black hole with 6.2 billion
 > times the mass of the sun. How can astronomers possibly know that?
 > They've spotted a jet of material 4,300 light-years long, blasting
 > out of the center of M87 at relativistic speeds, and only black holes
 > that massive generate jets like that.
 >
 > Most recently, astronomers announced in the journal Nature that they
 > have found a black hole with about 12 billion times the mass of the
 > sun. The accretion disk here generates 429 trillion times more light
 > than the sun, and it shines clear across the Universe. We see the
 > light from this region from when the Universe was only 6% into its
 > current age.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#536526

Black Hole bullshit.
Those are vortices in subspace.
Their acceleration is greater than
our matter can survive. It shreds
and is ejected. Nothing stays in
a "BH"

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

#536530

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Black Hole bullshit.
>Those are vortices in subspace.
>Their acceleration is greater than
>our matter can survive. It shreds
>and is ejected. Nothing stays in
>a "BH"

So tell us, what powers those jets?  What accelerates matter to nearly
the speed of light?

The black hole theory has no problem with that.  The enormous
gravitational potential energy released by some of the mass in the
accretion disk as it gets sucked into the black hole gets transferred
to other mass in the jets, energetically expelling it.

What is it in the center of our galaxy?  We know by Kepler's Law and the
motion of certain stars that whatever is there has a mass of 4.1 million
suns. One of those stars reaches 1% of c as it zips closely by.  We know
whatever it is is not at all bright, it's invisible.   We know it's very
small, otherwise those stars I mentioned would collide with it.  Can you
come up with a better explanation of what can be so massive yet so small,
besides a black hole?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S2_%28star%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S0%E2%80%93102

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

#536583

Black Holes contain nothing.
Of OUR matter.
But the matter that makes up our
matter is moving in a vortex right
there. Much faster than our matter
can go.
And our matter-when it gets sucked in-
experiences acceleration so intense
that the magnetic repulsion between
opposite charges shoots them away
from each other
at right-angles to the disc.
So there is NEVER any of OUR
matter in there- at least not for long.
It blasts straight out, carrying all that
energy.

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

#536597

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

<snip>

Word salad.

But none of that babbling appeared to try to answer my question:  What has
a mass of 4.1 million suns, yet is dark and small enough so that the
orbiting stars don't collide with it?

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

#536601

NOTHING.
A volume with NO MATTER because
the spin is too extreme

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

#536638

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>NOTHING.
>A volume with NO MATTER because
>the spin is too extreme

If it's NOTHING, NO MATTER, how can it have a mass of 4.1 million suns?  
Whatever is there has gravity so strong a star whips by it at 1% of c in
its orbit. The only things we know of that have gravity is mass and
energy, and it takes 4.1 million suns of mass to have that much gravity.

And how can something spin if it has NO MATTER? That makes no sense.

Never mind, don't answer.  I realize now that you're just babbling again.

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

#536717

Michael
It's amazing how stupid you are!

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

#536719

John wants to invent an entirely new and fictional set of physical laws which govern the universe.

His evidence for this?

Nothing. 

Like Bert and BJ, this is just the way he wishes the universe to be. 

Therefore that's the way it is.

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

#536725

The Universe is layered.
As we observe smaller and smaller,
the same patterns go by.
There are Galaxies at 10^22 meters.
Then atoms at 10^-09 meters.
Then what makes atoms- mini atoms -
at 10^-40 meters.

A black hole is a perfect standing wave
in the mini atom layer and below.
It is forever.
It cannot admit of OUR atoms because 
it's acceleration is too extreme.
A proton is a perfect standing wave in
the layer below that. It is forever.

There is no such thing as NOTHING,
Michael. There is "none of THAT", but
not nothing.

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

#536728

On 12/1/2015 10:11 AM, john wrote:
> The Universe is layered.
> As we observe smaller and smaller,
> the same patterns go by.
> There are Galaxies at 10^22 meters.
> Then atoms at 10^-09 meters.
> Then what makes atoms- mini atoms -
> at 10^-40 meters.
>
> A black hole is a perfect standing wave
> in the mini atom layer and below.
> It is forever.
> It cannot admit of OUR atoms because
> it's acceleration is too extreme.
> A proton is a perfect standing wave in
> the layer below that. It is forever.

Then why do stars orbit it?

>
> There is no such thing as NOTHING,
> Michael. There is "none of THAT", but
> not nothing.
>


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

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

#536729

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 10:08:54 AM UTC-5, HVAC wrote:
> John wants to invent an entirely new and fictional set of physical
> laws which govern the universe.

It's got to be way better than the old and existing fictional set.

> His evidence for this?
> 
> Nothing. 

Zero. Nada. Nil. 0. |0|. ||0||. While 0!=1. Do your own Math.
 
> Like Bert and BJ, this is just the way he wishes the universe to be. 

Your wishes HVAC are gay Gay GAY.
 
> Therefore that's the way it is.

Walter walter WALTER?! Having your daily yet another ...news... epiphany?!

-- Mahipal "IPMM... That's the way why it is... Sikhs wear beards/turbans!"

                          /\  "If the line between science fiction and
                            /   science fact doesn't drive you crazy,
 /\                         \   then you're just not tr(y)ing!"
 \           /\/\  /  \   \/                    Mahipal Virdy
 /   ==    \  /  \/\/                         The |meforce> Paradox
 \/                            http://mahipal7638.files.wordpress.com/

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

#536837

On 12/01/2015 10:08 AM, HVAC wrote:
> John wants to invent an entirely new and fictional set of physical laws which govern the universe.
>
> His evidence for this?
>
> Nothing.
>
> Like Bert and BJ, this is just the way he wishes the universe to be.
>
> Therefore that's the way it is.

Actually H&V, unlike you I'm a scientist. I only rely on data and facts. 
You and Bert go with your fantasy and imagination and call it 
"thinking". Are you "moderator" today or "Napoleon"?



-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

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

#536736

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Michael
>It's amazing how stupid you are!

Why do you say that?  I ask how the hell "NOTHING", "A volume with NO 
MATTER" (your words) can have a mass of 4.1 million suns, and what could
possibly have that enormous mass yet be so small (about solar system
sized).  Asking questions in science is never stupid.

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

#536740

It's just how John wishes the universe was. 

If wishes were fishes, we'd all be Harlow

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

#536814

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 11:53:01 AM UTC-5, HVAC wrote:
> It's just how John wishes the universe was. 
> 
> If wishes were fishes, we'd all be Harlow

If rhymes were dimes, we'd all be a pair of dimes?!

HVAC you waste more Usenet time than there can possibly exist.

-- Mahipal "IPMM... And I am not even a native English Writer!"

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

#536882

HVAC you waste more Usenet time than there can possibly exist. 
------

Time is what it is. It cannot be wasted nor conserved. It lasts until the day I die, and that's when the universe ends.

BONG

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

#536743

john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes: 

>Michael 
>It's amazing how stupid you are! 

-Why do you say that?  I ask how the hell -"NOTHING", "A volume with NO 
-MATTER" (your words) can have a mass of 4.1 --million suns, and what could 
-possibly have that enormous mass yet be so -small (about solar system 
-sized).  Asking questions in science is never -stupid. 

Well!
Since you put it THAT way....
I'll repeat:
the Universe repeats its structure
at smaller and smaller sizes.
NO MATTER simply means none of OUR
sized matter. ALL the smaller-sized
layers are inside the Hole, and- since
you are so focussed on curved Spacetime-
they curve Spacetime right there far
more than our matter can survive.
Got it?

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web