Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #630096 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-04-22 07:42 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-04-24 08:07 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 101 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
There is no black hole in Sgr A * Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2017-04-22 07:42 -0700
There is no black hole in Sgr A * john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-22 08:22 -0700
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2017-04-22 11:49 -0700
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-04-22 12:43 -0700
There is no black hole in Sgr A * HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-04-23 10:06 -0700
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2017-04-23 12:39 -0700
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-04-23 13:05 -0700
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2017-04-23 13:29 -0700
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-04-23 13:50 -0700
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2017-04-23 14:29 -0700
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-04-23 16:30 -0700
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2017-04-24 02:12 -0700
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 09:01 -0700
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2017-04-24 13:17 -0700
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-04-25 14:57 -0700
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2017-04-26 12:42 -0700
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 13:15 -0700
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2017-04-27 05:53 -0700
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-04-27 09:47 -0700
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2017-05-08 13:56 -0700
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-05-08 15:37 -0700
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 20:03 -0700
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-05-08 20:11 -0700
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 06:18 -0700
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 08:27 -0500
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 06:32 -0700
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-05-09 06:34 -0700
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 13:24 -0500
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 15:19 -0700
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 08:51 -0500
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 08:21 -0700
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 08:30 -0700
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 08:33 -0700
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 12:08 -0500
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 10:55 -0700
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 13:14 -0500
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-05-09 06:32 -0700
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 06:36 -0700
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 09:11 -0500
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 07:31 -0700
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-05-09 08:37 -0700
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 15:21 -0500
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 13:43 -0700
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-05-09 14:05 -0700
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 14:24 -0700
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 16:45 -0500
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 15:22 -0700
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-05-09 15:36 -0700
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 05:26 -0700
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 08:14 -0700
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 10:21 -0700
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 10:52 -0700
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 10:57 -0700
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 13:44 -0700
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-12 01:08 +0000
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 05:24 -0700
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-12 16:27 +0000
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 05:44 -0700
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-13 14:24 +0000
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 06:54 -0700
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-05-09 15:33 -0700
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 15:37 -0700
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-05-09 15:51 -0700
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 15:58 -0700
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-05-09 16:34 -0700
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 19:31 -0700
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-10 17:17 +0000
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2017-05-10 03:57 -0700
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 16:43 -0500
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-05-09 14:21 -0700
Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-13 14:02 +0000
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-27 10:59 -0700
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-28 02:15 +0000
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 07:21 -0700
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-28 16:09 +0000
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 16:03 -0700
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-29 06:06 +0000
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 05:50 -0700
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-29 18:52 +0000
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 06:18 -0700
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 06:28 -0700
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-01 02:58 +0000
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 08:33 -0500
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 20:23 -0700
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 06:17 -0700
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 08:40 -0500
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 09:53 -0700
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 12:07 -0500
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-01 02:55 +0000
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 10:23 -0500
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 08:28 -0700
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 10:31 -0500
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-29 17:40 +0000
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 13:19 -0700
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-04-27 09:18 -0700
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2017-04-26 13:39 -0700
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-04-27 09:22 -0700
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2017-04-28 00:52 -0700
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2017-04-24 03:47 -0700
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 00:47 -0400
Re: There is no black hole in Sgr A * Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 08:07 -0700
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 06:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <134073ef-73c8-4385-9f06-51f3695a17e9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #631359 |
MM Come on, now. You can think a little? Do you see how "invisible heavy stuff " and "if you sail too far, you fall off the edge" are alike? (Now Odd cues in, "well, just because it's never been seen before doesn't mean it's not a candidate worthy of IMMEDIATE INVESTIGATION!!) You could make a comedy show :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-01 02:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oe687v$iq0$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #631360 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >MM >Come on, now. >You can think a little? >Do you see how >"invisible heavy stuff " >and >"if you sail too far, you fall off the edge" >are alike? No, I see no connection whatsoever. >(Now Odd cues in, "well, just because it's > never been seen before doesn't mean >it's not a candidate worthy of IMMEDIATE INVESTIGATION!!) >You could make a comedy show >:) Yeah, we can show the audience all your retarded precessing spinny things and really get them laughing at the stupidity of all of that!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-01 08:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oe7del$msg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #631360 |
On 4/30/17 8:28 AM, john wrote: > (Now Odd cues in, "well, just because it's > never been seen before doesn't mean > it's not a candidate worthy of IMMEDIATE INVESTIGATION!!) So tell me John: Do you think that anything that has not been seen ever before should be presumed to be idiotic and not investigated? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 20:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d78c6e7e-340a-4f28-9910-96561a55505b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #631552 |
Odd "So tell me John: Do you think that anything that has not been seen ever before should be presumed to be idiotic and not investigated? " Like what? Aliens? Dead alien with human friend and spirit alien in a picture shown by Boyd Bushmann? Maybe, but I wouldn't base my whole theory on it like you have with point particles.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-08 06:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8fe41b22-92ac-49eb-97a2-8c9293fcc33d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #632334 |
Poor John says Odd "So tell me John: Do you think that anything that has not been seen ever before should be presumed to be idiotic and not investigated? " Like what? Aliens? Dead alien with human friend and spirit alien in a picture shown by Boyd Bushmann? Maybe -------------- John can you hear yourself? A dead alien with a ghost popping out of him? Seriously? You *seriously* believe that? I mean BJ is bad enough with his beliefs in ghosts and aliens, but he's got nothing on you! You catch them both in one picture! John. Honestly. Please tell me that you've been trolling all this time. It would be easier for me to believe that you're trolling than to believe that you actually think that alien and ghost picture is real.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-08 08:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oepsfl$lgb$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #632334 |
On 5/7/17 10:23 PM, john wrote: > Odd > "So tell me John: Do you think that anything that has not been seen ever > before should be presumed to be idiotic and not investigated? " Yes or no, John? > > Like what? Aliens? > Dead alien with human friend and spirit alien > in a picture shown by Boyd Bushmann? Boyd Bushman was careful to qualify everything that he said was hearsay. And if you believe that things that haven't been seen before should be presumed to be idiotic, then why do you not thing that about aliens? > Maybe, > but I wouldn't base my whole theory on it > like you have with point particles. > Or spinny things, or fractal universes, right? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-08 09:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bf86f15d-778a-4b73-8f15-28affecbde26@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #632389 |
Odd "Or spinny things, or fractal universes, right? " Never seen things spin, Odd? What do you and the Mouse have against spinning? Or fractals? You only consider one-offs? Man only intelligence. Earth only Life. We are the Center and the beginning. That about your speed?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-08 12:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oeq8l6$1co6$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #632409 |
On 5/8/17 11:53 AM, john wrote: > Odd > "Or spinny things, or fractal universes, right?" > > Never seen things spin, Odd? Galaxies precess? No. Never seen them precess. > What do you and the Mouse have against > spinning? Or fractals? > You only consider one-offs? Not enough to base your whole theory on, John. > > Man only intelligence. > Earth only Life. > We are the Center and the beginning. > > That about your speed? > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-01 02:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oe682b$iq0$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #631359 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >MM >DM is fantasy. >You know it. >I know it. >Everyone knows it. So tell me, *why* you believe DM is a fantasy. You won't or can't. >It's a red herring. >When the Ship of Physics hit galactic >rotation curves, it sank. Nope. It works out fine with a proper mass distribution (adding Dark Matter to what we can see). Plus, DM is independently confirmed by the amount of gravitational lens bending in Einstein galaxies. So tell me, if we can see/detect a mass of X in a particular galaxy, but its rotational curve is as if its mass was Y (with Y>X), and gravitational lensing is as if its mass was also Y, what do you think the mass of the galaxy is? No fair asking a six year old for any hints! >And you, MM, proclaim "INVISIBLE HEAVY STUFF!!!" >and if I don't, I'm a kook? >Really? No, you are a kook because you don't follow logic or the scientific method, yet for some reason you believe you somehow have come up with a bunch of answers to many questions of science. If you actually had reasons for believing what you believe, maybe we may get somewhere, but no.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-29 10:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oe2b63$rl9$7@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #630910 |
On 4/27/17 12:59 PM, john wrote: > In Reality, the maximum density is the density of the electron / positron. Which is what? I'm looking for a number with units, plus some idea of how you arrived at it. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-29 08:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7934ffa3-897b-4a90-b264-c83f2c9ad940@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #631243 |
Odd "> In Reality, the maximum density is the density of the electron / positron. Which is what? I'm looking for a number with units, plus some idea of how you arrived at it. -- " He used logic. Structured thinking. It involves ruling out things based on stupidity quotient. You don't do that. The density of the Universe must average the same at all scales. The electron/positron represents our scale.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-29 10:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oe2bjj$rl9$8@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #631244 |
On 4/29/17 10:28 AM, john wrote: > Odd > "> In Reality, the maximum density is the density of the electron / positron. > > Which is what? > I'm looking for a number with units, plus some idea of how you arrived > at it. > > -- " > He used logic. Structured thinking. It involves > ruling out things based on stupidity quotient. > You don't do that. > The density of the Universe must average the > same at all scales. The electron/positron > represents our scale. > What about "a number with units" did you not understand? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-29 17:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oe2j6g$ujv$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #631244 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Odd >"> In Reality, the maximum density is the density of the electron / positron. >Which is what? >I'm looking for a number with units, plus some idea of how you arrived >at it. >-- " >He used logic. Structured thinking. It involves >ruling out things based on stupidity quotient. >You don't do that. >The density of the Universe must average the >same at all scales. The electron/positron >represents our scale. You're babbling nonsense again, John. And you didn't answer the question, of course. What is that maximum density (w/units), and how was it calculated?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-26 13:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <17d56f13-6f39-487f-b98b-c3f5656091a3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #630766 |
Nothing will be seen at the Center because nothing is there except Space spinning. No matter can survive that spin. It gets shredded and shot out the magnetic poles at right angles to the galactic centre.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 09:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bc203137-87e5-4aac-8542-a226d3eb8470@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #630766 |
On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 3:42:21 PM UTC-4, Enes Richard wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 25 kwietnia 2017 23:57:09 UTC+2 użytkownik Edward Prochak napisał: > > On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 4:17:58 PM UTC-4, Enes Richard wrote: > ... > > > If the black hole is not there, then you should use this > > > technology to study the torus. > > > > Like I said, the only explanation for the orbits of the > > stars near the center of the Milky Way galaxy is the > > presence of a massive black hole. IIRC, a couple of those > > stars gain speeds that are a significant percentage of > > the speed of light. I do not think we have stellar orbit > > data for SagA, so we will have to wait until the data > > comes from Antarctica. > > > > ed > > Do you work professionally using Sgr A * observation data? No, I only know that they cannot transport the data due to the seasons. (It's winter in Antarctica, and not internet.) ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-26 13:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a4f16eaf-c0d3-4a87-a8ac-e2d135236ea7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #630637 |
W dniu wtorek, 25 kwietnia 2017 23:57:09 UTC+2 użytkownik Edward Prochak napisał: > On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 4:17:58 PM UTC-4, Enes Richard wrote: > > W dniu poniedziałek, 24 kwietnia 2017 18:01:45 UTC+2 użytkownik Edward Prochak napisał: > > > On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 5:12:14 AM UTC-4, Enes Richard wrote: > > > > W dniu poniedziałek, 24 kwietnia 2017 01:30:30 UTC+2 użytkownik pnal...@gmail.com napisał: > > > [] > > > > > > > > > > Uh... "the empty center of mass"? What the heck is THAT supposed to mean? > > > > > > > > > It's nothing new, simple unconventional model is below. > > > > If two objects can orbit like this, they can also be > > > > thousands and millions: > > > > > > > > http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/psr1913.htm > > > > > > > > > > Possible but unlikely. Your theory would have to explain how > > > the center was empty with clouds and stars only forming outside > > > the center. > > > > > Clouds of gas and stars form in the center, while gas (hydrogen > > and helium) is supplied from the outside of the torus during the > > mass production phase. Torus turns around the center, the gas > > takes not only mass but also the moment of momentum, which is > > then equal to the moment of mass momentum in the center. > > > > > It would be VERY difficult (i.e., unlikely) for > > > multiple stars (let alone millions) to form orbits around > > > a common empty center of gravity. > > > > > It is easier to understand by looking at the gravitational > > field of the torus, and even easier to simplify the field > > of the gravitational circle (massive rim). > > It seems VERY unlikely to me, but I haven't tried > to simulate galaxy formation. Have you > run the calculations for this? > In my opinion, the calculations should be at the end. At the beginning there must be an idea taking all into account Available physical and mathematical circumstances ... and even philosophical aspects. Next, there must be a three dimensional geometry model (E3), Which must be in line with observations and experiences. I'm afraid of the wrong approach as in the mechanics Quantum. There began with mathematical calculation and correctness (And that's not enough). And how does the geometric model of the nucleus look after it? ... three colored balls inside the sphere, connected by springs. And what is the idea? ... nobody understands how it works ... but it works. This is not even dreamed of by philosophers ... because mathematical abstractions are unlimited. > None of the simulations I have seen (not many) > develop a hollow center. > I will try to find a simplified study on torus's gravitation, and present a model of the problem similar to the situation in Sgr A * - to the common analysis.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 09:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b79abe09-5e5f-48c8-964b-52e31c95a134@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #630771 |
On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 4:39:15 PM UTC-4, Enes Richard wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 25 kwietnia 2017 23:57:09 UTC+2 użytkownik Edward Prochak napisał: > > On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 4:17:58 PM UTC-4, Enes Richard wrote: > > > W dniu poniedziałek, 24 kwietnia 2017 18:01:45 UTC+2 użytkownik Edward Prochak napisał: > > > > On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 5:12:14 AM UTC-4, Enes Richard wrote: > > > > > W dniu poniedziałek, 24 kwietnia 2017 01:30:30 UTC+2 użytkownik pnal...@gmail.com napisał: > > > > [] > > > > > > > > > > > > Uh... "the empty center of mass"? What the heck is THAT supposed to mean? > > > > > > > > > > > It's nothing new, simple unconventional model is below. > > > > > If two objects can orbit like this, they can also be > > > > > thousands and millions: > > > > > > > > > > http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/psr1913.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > Possible but unlikely. Your theory would have to explain how > > > > the center was empty with clouds and stars only forming outside > > > > the center. > > > > > > > Clouds of gas and stars form in the center, while gas (hydrogen > > > and helium) is supplied from the outside of the torus during the > > > mass production phase. Torus turns around the center, the gas > > > takes not only mass but also the moment of momentum, which is > > > then equal to the moment of mass momentum in the center. > > > > > > > It would be VERY difficult (i.e., unlikely) for > > > > multiple stars (let alone millions) to form orbits around > > > > a common empty center of gravity. > > > > > > > It is easier to understand by looking at the gravitational > > > field of the torus, and even easier to simplify the field > > > of the gravitational circle (massive rim). > > > > It seems VERY unlikely to me, but I haven't tried > > to simulate galaxy formation. Have you > > run the calculations for this? > > > In my opinion, the calculations should be at the end. > > At the beginning there must be an idea taking all into account > Available physical and mathematical circumstances > ... and even philosophical aspects. > > Next, there must be a three dimensional geometry model (E3), > Which must be in line with observations and experiences. > > I'm afraid of the wrong approach as in the mechanics > Quantum. There began with mathematical calculation and correctness > (And that's not enough). And how does the geometric model of the > nucleus look after it? ... three colored balls inside the sphere, > connected by springs. So from discussion hollow galaxies, how did you leap to quantum mechanics? > > And what is the idea? ... nobody understands how it works ... but it works. > This is not even dreamed of by philosophers ... because > mathematical abstractions are unlimited. Not sure what your point is here. > > > None of the simulations I have seen (not many) > > develop a hollow center. > > > I will try to find a simplified study on torus's gravitation, > and present a model of the problem similar to the situation > in Sgr A * - to the common analysis. I'll be waiting. ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-28 00:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e4063c9a-8bb1-40c5-942c-bf2cff0e8010@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #630894 |
W dniu czwartek, 27 kwietnia 2017 18:22:28 UTC+2 użytkownik Edward Prochak napisał: > On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 4:39:15 PM UTC-4, Enes Richard wrote: > > W dniu wtorek, 25 kwietnia 2017 23:57:09 UTC+2 użytkownik Edward Prochak napisał: > > > On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 4:17:58 PM UTC-4, Enes Richard wrote: > > > > W dniu poniedziałek, 24 kwietnia 2017 18:01:45 UTC+2 użytkownik Edward Prochak napisał: > > > > > On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 5:12:14 AM UTC-4, Enes Richard wrote: > > > > > > W dniu poniedziałek, 24 kwietnia 2017 01:30:30 UTC+2 użytkownik pnal...@gmail.com napisał: > > > > > [] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Uh... "the empty center of mass"? What the heck is THAT supposed to mean? > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's nothing new, simple unconventional model is below. > > > > > > If two objects can orbit like this, they can also be > > > > > > thousands and millions: > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/psr1913.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Possible but unlikely. Your theory would have to explain how > > > > > the center was empty with clouds and stars only forming outside > > > > > the center. > > > > > > > > > Clouds of gas and stars form in the center, while gas (hydrogen > > > > and helium) is supplied from the outside of the torus during the > > > > mass production phase. Torus turns around the center, the gas > > > > takes not only mass but also the moment of momentum, which is > > > > then equal to the moment of mass momentum in the center. > > > > > > > > > It would be VERY difficult (i.e., unlikely) for > > > > > multiple stars (let alone millions) to form orbits around > > > > > a common empty center of gravity. > > > > > > > > > It is easier to understand by looking at the gravitational > > > > field of the torus, and even easier to simplify the field > > > > of the gravitational circle (massive rim). > > > > > > It seems VERY unlikely to me, but I haven't tried > > > to simulate galaxy formation. Have you > > > run the calculations for this? > > > > > In my opinion, the calculations should be at the end. > > > > At the beginning there must be an idea taking all into account > > Available physical and mathematical circumstances > > ... and even philosophical aspects. > > > > Next, there must be a three dimensional geometry model (E3), > > Which must be in line with observations and experiences. > > > > I'm afraid of the wrong approach as in the mechanics > > Quantum. There began with mathematical calculation and correctness > > (And that's not enough). And how does the geometric model of the > > nucleus look after it? ... three colored balls inside the sphere, > > connected by springs. > > So from discussion hollow galaxies, how did you leap > to quantum mechanics? Theoretically there are two universes - micron and macro, in Reality there is one. So there must be one theory, not different and mutually contradictory. Quantum mechanics unnecessarily complicates the description of Reality and has wrong models, especially quarks. It is impossible to explain the operation and construction of NBH and the formation of mass using quarks and the rest of the quantum menagerie ... and mass (mainly hydrogen) is still produced in the galaxy for 14 billion years. The component of all mass can be only one, it follows from the observations of Nature and Logic
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-24 03:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <811137cf-82ac-4914-81ad-62c45f0252a7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #630304 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 24 kwietnia 2017 01:30:30 UTC+2 użytkownik pnal...@gmail.com napisał: > On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 2:30:04 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote: [...] > > > > This gas should also properly shine, falling into black holes inside the torus. > > > > > > At a distance of 4 light years, the gas in that torus is almost certainly *orbiting* SgrA*, and NOT falling into it. > > > One does not deny one. If the gas falls on the torus (and the black holes in it), then the hydrogen lines should be shifted appropriately. Are not? > > As far as I can tell, the gas is not falling on the torus, the gas *IS* the torus... You do not know if torus is only gas. My theoretical prediction is that it contains many black holes with a mass of much greater than 4 million Solar masses and correctly circulates around Sgr A * (or rather around the center of mass that is near). Turus should have periods of activity when it produces hydrogen and some helium, which is sent to the center. Therefore, part of spiral galaxies we see with an active center and part of the passive phase. > and there are no hydrogen lines to see, the only way we can view this area is in the gamma ray, hard X-ray, infrared, sub-millimetre and radio wavelengths.... Therefore, You have to pick up the radio waves with a length of several (dozen) meters. The internal structure of the torus should then be shown. It should be similar to the "3C 196" pulsar using the LOFAR system.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-24 00:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <58fd8364$0$60220$c3e8da3$66d3cc2f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #630237 |
On 04/23/2017 01:06 PM, HVAC wrote: > Poor John says > but you can't have a galaxy with no black hole. > ----------- > > Given that stellar mass black holes are ubiquitous, you are probably correct. However since you meant CENTRAL supermassive black hole, you're wrong. While almost every galaxy has a smbh, some appear not to. Abell 2261 holds one of these galaxies. A2261-BCG . > > Due to its diffuse central bulge, some theorize that interactions between two black holes has sent each one speeding away from the center. Such interactions must be fairly common give the size of the universe > Kook babble. Nobody has ever seen a black hole. Cosmology it total fantasy...in other words a PERFECT match to HVAC.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web