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 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 15:33 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. |
| Message-ID | <aabbcc01-3df6-40e0-805e-f926071d0af9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #632655 |
On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 2:24:18 PM UTC-7, john wrote: > pnal > "- show quoted text - > You did not say stars, you said 'stardust'... and so now you say 'stars'... fine... but I asked for SPECIFIC details. How do stars produce atoms, John? It is like pulling teeth with you. There is no shame if you don't know, John, but this is very basic first-year physics/astronomy, and if you can't easily explain this without the need to research it first, well, you have no business pontificating here about your vast physics knowledge, which, as far as I can see, is essentially nonexistent. > > Understand beforehand that your answer, assuming you get it even partially correct, will generate a bunch of follow-up questions, which will get progressively more difficult... there is really no place to hide, either you know this stuff or you don't... " > > Where does stardust come from? > Fusion. Fusion. You call this being specific? A one-word answer? What causes the fusion to begin with, John? What material is being fused? And what material is it being fused into? Is there fusion in all stars, John? What is the by-product of fusion, John, and why is it important? > You answer me this: AGNs have two > oppositely-moving jets. At right angles to > their galactic discs. Why are you changing the subject, John. The whole AGN discussion is *way* more complicated than the 'atoms in your body source' discussion, John, and you can't run until you can walk, and you can't walk until you can crawl, and when it comes to physics/astronomy, John, you can't even turn over yet, let alone sit up! > Why right angles? > Any difference between the jets? > Understand this: those events are admitted > by physicists to be "poorly-understood". > What does "poorly-understood " mean to you? Poorly understood means that there is much speculation being bandied about and there is no one theory that dominates... yet. The folks who are doing research in this area are *way* further down the road than either you or I, and neither one of us has any business pushing our own pet theories concerning AGNs, we don't stand a chance of getting it right. All we can do is study what the Big Boys are making available to us and perhaps start a dialogue as to which one seems to be 'in the lead' in our own humble opinions... and that's about it. Locating interesting articles about AGNs is not all that hard and they are quite educational, even if we know before reading them that they are mostly just speculation at this point in time. Try reading a few of these... https://www.one-tab.com/page/GufZ1eB5TuCsOBMwAI6epA ... some are easy, some are more difficult, all are interesting in their own way, and you should learn something that you don't already know, just like virtually everyone here, for no one knows it all...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 15:37 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. |
| Message-ID | <30567e16-042f-48a2-aab1-e1c7557df9d8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #632702 |
pnal " > You answer me this: AGNs have two > oppositely-moving jets. At right angles to > their galactic discs. Why are you changing the subject, John. The whole AGN discussion is *way* more complicated than the 'atoms in your body source' discussion, John, and you can't run until you can walk, and you can't walk until you can crawl, and when it comes to physics/astronomy, John, you can't even turn over yet, let alone sit up! " Jets produce new stars.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 15:51 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. |
| Message-ID | <84354f8f-19fa-4b63-a849-b5e8f38d41be@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #632704 |
On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 3:37:17 PM UTC-7, john wrote: > pnal > " > > You answer me this: AGNs have two > > oppositely-moving jets. At right angles to > > their galactic discs. > > Why are you changing the subject, John. The whole AGN discussion is *way* more complicated than the 'atoms in your body source' discussion, John, and you can't run until you can walk, and you can't walk until you can crawl, and when it comes to physics/astronomy, John, you can't even turn over yet, let alone sit up! " > > Jets produce new stars. Says who? Just you, I'll bet, John, just you. I doubt very much that jets produce new stars 'directly', John, and I defy you to show any source that says otherwise. It makes no sense at all to anyone who has actually studied stellar evolution. Stars are formed in superhuge volumes of initially cold dust, John, which was just sitting there quietly, an environment that is vastly different than the environment in an AGN's jet, where material is moving along at relativistic speeds. What are you thinking? This is *exactly* what I am referring to when I claim that you are 'making it up as you go along'. You really don't have a clue, and you never will if you refuse to read the research that has gone on and which continues to be performed daily by actual scientists.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 15:58 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. |
| Message-ID | <ee872bd4-9891-4de0-9178-a571ac72090c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #632704 |
pnal No. Magnetic fields in the form of poles at right angles were what I was looking for in order to confirm my "galactic arms are like electrons moving in a circle and should therefore produce magnetic poles at right angles to their acceleration". This was confirmed for me by VLA observations in 1987. The article at that time said astronomers thought magnetic fields in galaxies were much different. So, pnal- just, No. ur wrong
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 16:34 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. |
| Message-ID | <88f8a768-5723-4c2e-a293-b44f9729c629@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #632708 |
On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 3:58:34 PM UTC-7, john wrote: > pnal > No. > Magnetic fields in the form of > poles at right angles > were what I was looking for in order > to confirm my "galactic arms are like electrons > moving in a circle and should therefore produce > magnetic poles at right angles to their > acceleration". This was confirmed for me > by VLA observations in 1987. The article > at that time said astronomers thought > magnetic fields in galaxies were much > different. > So, pnal- just, No. ur wrong John, I'm not wrong. You, on the other hand... well, there is simply too much wrong with what you have put forth, above, to even start a response. "galactic arms are like electrons > moving in a circle and should therefore produce > magnetic poles at right angles to their > acceleration". Really? Once you start comparing galactic arms to electrons, well, you have certainly lost any chance at being taken seriously. Where do you get this crap? Show me even a single reference that says electrons move in a circle, if you can. Sheesh, you have some really bizarre things come out of your keyboard. Obviously, there is nothing I can do for you, you are determined to dance to your own drum.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 19:31 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. |
| Message-ID | <2338c2ed-b40a-47e2-a78c-4a59ab873c04@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #632710 |
Whatever. I was LOOKING for a magnetic pole at right angles to galactic discs- for whatever reason- and in 1987 the VLA observed it. They're doing better than that.They are showing that spiral arms are contained within a helical magnetic field. https://public.nrao.edu/news/galaxy-magnetic-field/ This confirms that the arms are STRUCTURED and must move as a piece. You knew all this.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-10 17:17 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. |
| Message-ID | <oevhvb$ivd$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #632734 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Whatever. I was LOOKING for a >magnetic pole at right angles to >galactic discs- for whatever reason- >and in 1987 the VLA observed it. >They're doing better than that.They are >showing that spiral arms are contained >within a helical magnetic field. >https://public.nrao.edu/news/galaxy-magnetic-field/ >This confirms that the arms are STRUCTURED and >must move as a piece. How the hell did you ever come up with that crap? Why would a magnetic field confirm structure, and why would it force anything to move as a piece? Besides, we already know that galactic arms don't move as a piece.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-10 03:57 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. |
| Message-ID | <22347bf0-57c8-4379-942a-1d35f1252241@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #632704 |
W dniu środa, 10 maja 2017 00:37:17 UTC+2 użytkownik john napisał: ... > Jets produce new stars. Yes, primary stars are made up of jets, but not from those out of the middle of the galaxy and perpendicular to its equatorial plane.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 16:43 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. |
| Message-ID | <oetd5o$1bp6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #632633 |
On 5/9/17 3:43 PM, john wrote: > Odd > " > So, John, when you were asked about where the atoms of your body came > from, your answer was atoms. " > No. It was stars. Stardust was your answer. Stardust is made of atoms. Your atoms come from the atoms of stars. True but that's like saying a Toyota import car comes from a car place in Japan. Doesn't tell you anything about where the atoms themselves came from does it? > You don't read > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 14:21 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. |
| Message-ID | <12c0372f-0e48-4956-acaa-e06a5eeeecbd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #632512 |
On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 8:03:49 PM UTC-7, john wrote: > Matter doesn't collapse gravitationally. > Gravity doesn't get strong enough. The do keep saying it is the weakest force. Double-A
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-13 14:02 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Not even Stephen Hawking believes in (true) black/worm holes anymore. |
| Message-ID | <of73lv$bd6$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #632512 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Matter doesn't collapse gravitationally. >Gravity doesn't get strong enough. No, John, that is very wrong. Gravity follows the inverse square law and that means the force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. And what that means is that when the distance is very, very small, you are dividing by a very very very very small number, and that produces an enormously large number for the force. Don't you understand simple math?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 10:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <419247c3-57ef-4398-b5c6-dd9a52204c7e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #630873 |
Enes "It is highe time to change the definition of a black hole and to represent a geometric 3D model. In Reality there are no massive points and objects of infinite density. In Reality, the maximum density is the density of the electron / positron. The New Black Hole (NBH) is an object consisting of the basic components of the masses of which electrons and positrons are built. The shape at low self rotation is close to the ball when the rotation is increasing, it changes into a disk, and then into a torus. During change, constant (maximum) density is maintained! BTW: Using the new definition for the hypothetical black hole in Sgr A * (4 million Sm): - what is the shape? - what size? - what is the volume? " What is the shape and volume of a whirlpool? That's all BHs are; spinning sub-Space which contains NO matter, because the spin is too intense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-28 02:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <odu8ke$1gt$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #630910 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >That's all BHs are; spinning sub-Space which >contains NO matter, because the spin >is too intense. How can there be spin if there isn't anything there to spin? That's really silly, even for you. And what about non-rotating black holes? Anyway, you can find the size and volume of black holes based on their mass on the web. Non-rotating black holes will have a spherical event horizon, one with significant rotation is more complicated as there is an inner and outer horizon.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-28 07:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <92b386d5-f96f-40ac-abc4-eaaf7c4035a5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #631010 |
MM " How can there be spin if there isn't anything there to spin? That's really silly, even for you. And what about non-rotating black holes? Anyway, you can find the size and volume of black holes based on their mass on the web. Non-rotating black holes will have a spherical event horizon, one with significant rotation is more complicated as there is an inner and outer horizon" . Black Holes are Rotation of all the fractal layers below this one. Matter from this one precipitates out because of the spin. Why can you not process information? Are you a bot?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-28 16:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <odvpgi$jio$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #631068 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >MM >" >How can there be spin if there isn't anything there to spin? That's really >silly, even for you. >And what about non-rotating black holes? >Why can you not process information? >Are you a bot? Sorry, but I don't understand kꙭkese. Nor do I have a telepathic connection with you that could let me try to understand crazy thoughts. Which is probably a good thing, since my brain would likely get fried. Simply put, if there's nothing there, there's nothing to spin. Spin is just a form of motion of matter, after all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-28 16:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <89e383e1-9056-46dd-8ef8-4c1c3fd49d82@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #631080 |
MM " Simply put, if there's nothing there, there's nothing to spin. Spin is just a form of motion of matter, after all. " You think if all the matter as we know it is taken away there will be nothing? Yet you defend DM?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-29 06:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oe1ahg$1r5$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #631161 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >MM >" >Simply put, if there's nothing there, there's nothing to spin. Spin is just >a form of motion of matter, after all. " >You think if all the matter as we know it is >taken away there will be nothing? >Yet you defend DM? You are more confused than I thought. First you say there is no dark matter (you never did offer a reason why not) and you say that no matter could be in the nothing spinning, so there's nothing there spinning. Now you suggest there's dark matter in there?? You never did answer "what about non-rotating black holes". Also explain the orbits of stars that are orbiting SGR A*. If there is nothing there, why are the stars orbiting as if there were a couple million solar masses there????
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-29 05:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8e65db00-7361-4eef-a78b-780b5894547e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #631216 |
MM "You are more confused than I thought. First you say there is no dark matter (you never d" You are the confused one. You insist in the existence of DM, but then insist that in the absence of regular matter, 'there is nothing to spin'. Which is it? Is there DM which then could be spinning or not?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-29 18:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oe2ncg$4n7$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #631236 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >MM >"You are more confused than I thought. First you say there is no dark >matter (you never d" >You are the confused one. >You insist in the existence of DM, but then >insist that in the absence of regular matter, >'there is nothing to spin'. >Which is it? Unlike you, the concept of "invisible heavy stuff" isn't baffling to me. Even if it was, I'm willing to ask a 6 year old to explain "invisible heavy stuff" to me. Also, since one of the properties of dark matter is that it interacts gravitationally only, so its "spin" won't affect anything else unless we have extreme GR conditions. (And what holds the dark matter into a spinning object? Gravity? So now we're back to black hole conditions) >Is there DM which then could be spinning >or not? In a black hole it's just mass. "Black holes have no hair." >Is there DM which then could be spinning >or not? DM interacts gravitationally only so "spin" is irrelevant, other than to beg the question what's holding it together instead of flying apart.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 06:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1de7bf5c-ca3d-42e5-b56d-f8c45bcd49be@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #631263 |
MM DM is fantasy. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it. It's a red herring. When the Ship of Physics hit galactic rotation curves, it sank. Purely to save face, physicists are pointing OVER THERE!!! Maybe the invisible heavy stuff did it? Sure! Could be invisible heavy stuff!! And you, MM, proclaim "INVISIBLE HEAVY STUFF!!!" and if I don't, I'm a kook? Really?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web