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


Groups > sci.physics > #536492 > unrolled thread

How massive can black holes get?

Started bySam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
First post2015-11-30 09:25 -0600
Last post2015-12-01 23:13 -0500
Articles 14 on this page of 54 — 8 participants

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 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]


#536589

FromSam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date2015-11-30 16:49 -0600
Message-ID<G8qdnTDvbojjT8HLnZ2dnUU7-R-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#536570
On 11/30/15 4:18 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> 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.
>
> BH Goes with my "Critical Mass Density Theory".TreBert
>

   You have no "Critical Mass Density Theory" -- no documentation,
   no mathematics, no theory, no nothing.  Try being honest.



-- 

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]


#536844

From"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com>
Date2015-12-01 15:33 -0800
Message-ID<a8223303-e985-4dd6-9327-66aed54c505f@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#536589
On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 2:49:40 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 11/30/15 4:18 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> > BH Goes with my "Critical Mass Density Theory".TreBert
> >
> 
>    You have no "Critical Mass Density Theory" -- no documentation,
>    no mathematics, no theory, no nothing.  Try being honest.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

Sam I am honest.I explained my mass density to a bar maid.She understood it.Why can;t you TreBert

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


#536852

FromSam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date2015-12-01 18:00 -0600
Message-ID<3dmdne7fTL4lqcPLnZ2dnUU7-fOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#536844
On 12/1/15 5:33 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
>
> Sam I am honest.I explained my mass density to a bar maid.She
> understood it.Why can;t you TreBert
>

   No, reber, you said words at a bar maid, and she was being polite.
   Nothing more. The fact is, you have no "Critical Mass Density Theory".
   No documentation, no mathematics, no theory, nothing. You are either
   fooling yourself, or being dishonest.

   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]


#536857

From"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com>
Date2015-12-01 16:14 -0800
Message-ID<1303ebed-6d40-4b50-a7e6-e7b4e30dbf0b@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#536852
On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 4:00:59 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 12/1/15 5:33 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> >
> > Sam I am honest.I explained my mass density to a bar maid.She
> > understood it.Why can;t you TreBert
> >
> 
>    No, reber, you said words at a bar maid, and she was being polite.
>    Nothing more. The fact is, you have no "Critical Mass Density Theory".
>    No documentation, no mathematics, no theory, nothing. You are either
>    fooling yourself, or being dishonest.
> 
>    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.

My MDT gives the reason BHs explode.TreBert

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


#536861

FromSam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date2015-12-01 18:21 -0600
Message-ID<3dmdnevfTL4FpMPLnZ2dnUU7-fOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#536857
On 12/1/15 6:14 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 4:00:59 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 12/1/15 5:33 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
>>>
>>> Sam I am honest.I explained my mass density to a bar maid.She
>>> understood it.Why can;t you TreBert
>>>
>>
>>     No, reber, you said words at a bar maid, and she was being polite.
>>     Nothing more. The fact is, you have no "Critical Mass Density Theory".
>>     No documentation, no mathematics, no theory, nothing. You are either
>>     fooling yourself, or being dishonest.
>>
>>     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.
>
> My MDT gives the reason BHs explode.TreBert
>

   No reber, you have no mass density theory, no mathematics, no
   documentation and no prediction. The reason small BH pop is due
   to quantum mechanical effects and is mathematically characterized
   by Hawking and other physicists and is consistent with the laws of
   thermodynamics.







-- 

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]


#537055

From"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com>
Date2015-12-02 17:53 -0800
Message-ID<1efb3527-3f44-4753-9245-275ddde4c52e@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#536861
On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 4:21:47 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 12/1/15 6:14 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 4:00:59 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> On 12/1/15 5:33 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Sam I am honest.I explained my mass density to a bar maid.She
> >>> understood it.Why can;t you TreBert
> >>>
> >>
> >>     No, reber, you said words at a bar maid, and she was being polite.
> >>     Nothing more. The fact is, you have no "Critical Mass Density Theory".
> >>     No documentation, no mathematics, no theory, nothing. You are either
> >>     fooling yourself, or being dishonest.
> >>
> >>     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.
> >
> > My MDT gives the reason BHs explode.TreBert
> >
> 
>    No reber, you have no mass density theory, no mathematics, no
>    documentation and no prediction. The reason small BH pop is due
>    to quantum mechanical effects and is mathematically characterized
>    by Hawking and other physicists and is consistent with the laws of
>    thermodynamics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

Sam Its compression of hydrogen increasing its mass density till it creates a heavier gas (helium) and gives us stars.It took BH to create hydrogen and that means my mass density came into play from the very start.  TreBert

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


#537069

FromSam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date2015-12-02 20:34 -0600
Message-ID<8Pydnd8vLqGvN8LLnZ2dnUU7-IkAAAAA@giganews.com>
In reply to#537055
On 12/2/15 7:53 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> It took BH to create hydrogen...

               ##                                      #
               ##                                      #
               #########################################
               #########################################
               ##                                 ######
               ##                             ##########
                                            ############
                                         ##############
                                       #############
                                    #############
                                ##############
                              #############
                           ##############
                         #############
                      ##############
                  #############                        #
                #############                          #
               #########################################
               #########################################
                                                       #

                       ########
                    ###############
                  ##################
                 #####################
                ####               ####
                ##                   ##
               ##                     ##
               ##                     ##
               ##                    ###
                ##                   ##
                ####               ####
                 #####################
                  ##################
                    ###############
                       ########


   Black holes don't create hydrogen. Hydrogen was created 13.7+ billion
   years ago in the first three minutes.  DuckDuckGo is your friend,




-- 

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]


#537189

From"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com>
Date2015-12-03 11:24 -0800
Message-ID<beb7b4ef-9c82-4cd1-83bf-e81816141f08@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#537069
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 6:34:39 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 12/2/15 7:53 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> > It took BH to create hydrogen...
> 
>                ##                                      #
>                ##                                      #
>                #########################################
>                #########################################
>                ##                                 ######
>                ##                             ##########
>                                             ############
>                                          ##############
>                                        #############
>                                     #############
>                                 ##############
>                               #############
>                            ##############
>                          #############
>                       ##############
>                   #############                        #
>                 #############                          #
>                #########################################
>                #########################################
>                                                        #
> 
>                        ########
>                     ###############
>                   ##################
>                  #####################
>                 ####               ####
>                 ##                   ##
>                ##                     ##
>                ##                     ##
>                ##                    ###
>                 ##                   ##
>                 ####               ####
>                  #####################
>                   ##################
>                     ###############
>                        ########
> 
> 
>    Black holes don't create hydrogen. Hydrogen was created 13.7+ billion
>    years ago in the first three minutes.  DuckDuckGo is your friend,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

BH that goes critical is a BB and BB creates all that is.Hydrogen was on top of the list.TreBert

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


#537192

FromSam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date2015-12-03 13:40 -0600
Message-ID<ur2dnYN60pY-B_3LnZ2dnUU7-N2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#537189
On 12/3/15 1:24 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> BH that goes critical is a BB and BB creates all that is.


   No -- Black holes don't go critical.

   Possible BB Trigger:
> http://edu-observatory.org/RaySociety/tobbc/Week4.html




-- 

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]


#537261

Fromjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date2015-12-03 17:22 -0800
Message-ID<8fab562e-31af-4551-9a19-53b2890c95da@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#537192
Pffft!
Black Holes, the Big Bang, and every
stupid thing emanating from supposing
reality to do what math does- like
singularity, tipping point, hockey stick,
and supposing that matter can just
SUCK things to it, somehow 
Tards
All of em 

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


#537270

Frommoroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date2015-12-04 01:49 +0000
Message-ID<n3qrg5$d6n$1@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to#537261
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Pffft!
>Black Holes, the Big Bang, and every
>stupid thing emanating from supposing
>reality to do what math does- like
>singularity, tipping point, hockey stick,
>and supposing that matter can just
>SUCK things to it, somehow 
>Tards
>All of em 

Is that all you have, name calling?  I want to know what it is at the 
center of our galaxy.  It's enormous in mass (4.1 million solar masses)
yet it's very small in physical size and very dark.  What is it?

As you know, GR predicts black holes and this thing fits nicely into
being a black hole.  You whine about singularities and attractive gravity
yet you have no alternative that can explain this thing at the center of
our galaxy.  All you have is discredited LeSage gravitation and spinny
things, and you don't even seem to want to try to use LeSage gravitation
to explain its enormous gravity.

So, I'm waiting.  What is it?

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


#537446

From"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com>
Date2015-12-04 14:54 -0800
Message-ID<520bc09b-53c7-4f58-a3a4-57cbea029518@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#537192
On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 11:40:24 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 12/3/15 1:24 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> > BH that goes critical is a BB and BB creates all that is.
> 
> 
>    No -- Black holes don't go critical.
> 
>    Possible BB Trigger:
> > http://edu-observatory.org/RaySociety/tobbc/Week4.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.
How was space proven to be exspanding at an accelerated rate to give these guys Nobels? I have a theory on local universe gravity being compression and very far out universe space flipping and the flip creates space expanding at an accelerating rate.I like to give answers to hard far out questions.Why not  TreBert

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


#537451

FromSam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date2015-12-04 17:09 -0600
Message-ID<cdudnbCe2dnagP_LnZ2dnUU7-bUAAAAA@giganews.com>
In reply to#537446
On 12/4/15 4:54 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> How was space proven to be exspanding at an accelerated rate to give these guys Nobels?


   Type Ia supernovae -- measurements of maximum brightness to estimate
   inverse square law distance and spectra red shift to measure recession
   velocity.

   Here is a more detailed explanation:
> http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/popular-physicsprize2011.pdf

> The two research teams raced each other to map the Universe by  nding
> the most distant supernovae, star explosions in space. By
> establishing the distance to the supernovae and the speed at which
> they are moving away from us, scientists hoped to reveal our cosmic
> fate. They expected to  nd signs that the expansion of the Universe
> was slowing down, which would lead to equilibrium between  re and
> ice. What they found was the opposite – the expansion was
> accelerating.

> The researchers had many other problems to deal with. Type Ia
> supernovae are not quite as reliable as they ini- tially appeared –
> the brightest explosions fade more slowly. Furthermore, the light of
> the supernovae needed to be extracted from the background light of
> their host galaxies. Another important task was to obtain the correct
> brightness. The intergalactic dust between us and the stars changes
> starlight. This affects the results when calculating the maximum
> brightness of supernovae.

> The potential pitfalls had been numerous, and the scientists actually
> were reassured by the fact that they had reached the same amazing
> results: all in all, they found some 50 distant supernovae whose
> light seemed weaker than expected. This was contrary to what they had
> envisioned. If cosmic expansion had been losing speed, the supernovae
> should appear brighter. However, the supernovae were fading as they
> were carried faster and faster away, embedded in their galaxies. The
> surprising conclusion was that the expansion of the Universe is not
> slowing down – quite to the contrary, it is accelerating.


-- 

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]


#536911

Frombenj <none@gmail.com>
Date2015-12-01 23:13 -0500
Message-ID<Idu7y.145063$TJ2.53312@fx21.iad>
In reply to#536844
On 12/01/2015 06:33 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 2:49:40 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 11/30/15 4:18 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> BH Goes with my "Critical Mass Density Theory".TreBert
>>>
>>
>>     You have no "Critical Mass Density Theory" -- no documentation,
>>     no mathematics, no theory, no nothing.  Try being honest.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
>> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
>> community, and physics-related social issues.
>
> Sam I am honest.I explained my mass density to a bar maid.She understood it.Why can;t you TreBert
>
Bert, even the tinyiest black hole inadvertently created by CERN could 
suck in the entire earth just as happened to Vulcan! I don't know why 
Sam isn't frightened.

-- 

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

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics


csiph-web