Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #646446 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-08-18 14:54 -0500 |
| Last post | 2017-08-26 01:53 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 173 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 14:54 -0500
Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 13:01 -0700
Re: Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-18 20:26 -0500
Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 23:07 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-08-19 03:26 -0400
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 06:05 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-21 09:26 -0500
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-21 09:34 -0500
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 08:18 -0500
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 06:53 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 15:50 -0500
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 14:50 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-21 15:39 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 15:50 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 15:59 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 23:42 +0000
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 17:16 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 18:04 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-22 02:24 +0000
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 01:18 +0000
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 19:09 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-22 02:39 +0000
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 20:00 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 20:40 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 20:49 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-22 13:49 +0000
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 14:58 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 23:35 +0000
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 17:06 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-23 00:43 +0000
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 18:03 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 01:34 +0000
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 19:32 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 19:50 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 09:02 -0500
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 13:20 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 16:38 -0500
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 13:46 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 13:54 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 14:38 -0700
Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 15:32 -0700
Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 15:54 -0700
Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 10:24 -0500
Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 09:10 -0700
Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-24 17:09 +0000
Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 12:14 -0500
Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 11:41 -0700
Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 15:05 -0700
Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 22:10 +0000
Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 22:07 +0000
Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 08:31 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 16:39 -0500
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-22 13:47 +0000
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-22 13:53 +0000
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 07:51 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-22 15:35 +0000
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 08:25 -0500
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-22 17:58 -0400
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 21:05 -0400
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 01:18 +0000
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-22 18:00 -0400
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 23:35 +0000
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 02:34 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 13:51 -0700
Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 23:15 -0700
Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 23:22 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-19 11:16 +0000
Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. NobelPrize.ORG @. - 2017-08-19 07:45 -0700
Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-19 08:32 -0700
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-19 17:46 +0000
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-19 14:08 -0500
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-19 17:20 -0700
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 00:34 +0000
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 00:36 +0000
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-20 01:33 +0000
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-19 21:04 -0700
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 10:07 -0700
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 10:57 -0700
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-20 11:17 -0700
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-20 11:19 -0700
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 11:00 -0700
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-20 18:29 +0000
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-20 18:26 +0000
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 11:58 -0700
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-21 16:39 +0000
Black Holes are math kook babble john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 11:46 -0700
Re: Retarded precessing spinny things are kook babble moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-21 20:07 +0000
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 15:09 -0500
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 14:13 -0700
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-20 18:07 -0500
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 16:31 -0700
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-21 08:33 -0500
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 07:00 -0700
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2017-08-19 12:45 -0400
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-08-21 07:04 -0500
Re: Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-21 18:00 -0500
Re: More data, from more observers, is needed. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-23 10:41 -0500
Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly. "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 11:55 -0700
Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-24 00:03 -0700
Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-23 21:26 +0000
Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 14:32 -0700
Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 16:48 -0500
Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-23 22:12 +0000
Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 16:46 -0500
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-23 23:01 +0000
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-08-24 10:14 +0100
Re: A TRUE singularity has infinite precision, not +/- 45 AU. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-24 17:04 +0000
Re: There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-08-24 15:40 -0700
Re: There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 20:04 +0200
Re: Slowing lased photons to near ZERO meters/second. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 20:05 +0200
Re: Starting/Stopping light. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 21:45 +0200
Posting an email address to Usenet is just wrong. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-08-25 17:55 -0700
Re: Posting an email address to Usenet is just wrong. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-26 03:23 +0200
Give it your best shot, Thomas Lahn. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-08-25 19:08 -0700
Re: Give it your best shot, ****** ****. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-26 14:15 +0200
Thomas Lahn would ban URL's. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-08-26 13:36 -0700
Re: ****** **** would ban URL's. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-27 01:46 +0200
Re: Thomas Lahn's GoogleGroups Spam Remover. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-08-28 15:55 -0700
Google Groups spam filter (was: Thomas Lahn's GoogleGroups Spam Remover.) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-31 18:04 +0200
If this Wikipedia article is wrong, please fix it. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-08-25 18:39 -0700
Slow light (was: If this Wikipedia article is wrong, please fix it.) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-26 03:55 +0200
Viewed from earth, everything near an ideal event horizon appears frozen. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-08-25 19:47 -0700
Re: If this Wikipedia article is wrong, please fix it. benj <nobody@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-26 01:52 -0400
Re: kNode hasn't heard of MIME/HTML ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-26 03:47 +0200
The DEFAULT "Subject:" line is NEITHER mandatory or desirable. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-08-25 19:29 -0700
Re: The DEFAULT "Subject:" line is NEITHER mandatory or desirable. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-26 15:36 +0000
Usenet isn't Wikipedia; threads branch and morph, topics change. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-08-26 11:56 -0700
Re: Usenet isn't Wikipedia; threads branch and morph, topics change. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-27 04:31 +0000
Re: There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-25 12:28 -0700
Re: There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 12:44 -0700
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 14:34 +0200
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 06:22 -0700
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 16:14 +0200
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 07:18 -0700
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 07:49 -0700
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 18:25 +0200
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 10:44 -0700
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 13:05 -0500
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-25 16:09 +0000
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-25 15:37 +0000
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 08:51 -0700
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 13:01 -0500
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 19:22 +0200
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-25 18:48 +0000
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 12:22 -0700
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 12:25 -0700
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 21:27 +0200
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-25 21:54 +0000
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-26 03:01 +0200
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-26 03:31 +0000
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 21:52 +0200
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2017-09-04 14:34 -0400
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Ethel Ocallaghan <unlgclo@awlwaac.ag> - 2017-09-05 11:40 +0000
Re: "Black Holes" are forever a notion, never measured. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-05 14:04 +0000
Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-19 00:00 -0700
Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 08:18 -0500
Re: Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-08-20 16:01 -0700
Re: Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2017-08-21 12:54 -0700
For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 14:44 -0700
Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 22:15 +0000
Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 15:26 -0700
Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-18 18:54 -0700
Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 21:06 -0500
Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 10:25 -0700
Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-25 10:55 -0700
Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-08-25 14:17 -0700
Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-25 15:27 -0700
Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-08-25 15:37 -0700
Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-25 15:50 -0700
For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 16:29 -0700
For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 17:03 -0700
Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 01:53 +0000
Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 01:53 +0000
Page 8 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 Next page →
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-25 08:51 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. |
| Message-ID | <0fe8795e-7c66-4f01-8bd1-c20cddb07fa5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647172 |
PointedEars " really booking. " Black Holes (at least one) are rotating at 84%c Matter can't do that. No matter is in there. When that star gets closer, it will shred and become two jets of outgoing HEPs. Have a good day
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-25 13:01 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. |
| Message-ID | <onpome$fo6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647173 |
On 8/25/17 10:51 AM, john wrote: > Black Holes (at least one) are rotating at 84%c > Matter can't do that. On what basis do you say that, John? Neutron stars are matter, right? There's a neutron star in Sagittarius that rotates at 700 Hz. The radius of this object is known from the mass and the density of neutronic matter. Therefore the tangential speed is known. Do you know what it is? Don't make assumptions about what matter can and cannot do on the basis of what a watermelon would do. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-25 19:22 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. |
| Message-ID | <100252402.nniJfEyVGO@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #647172 |
[Since I have temporarily disengaged my killfile anyway …]
Michael Moroney amok-crossposted to 3 newsgroups, *despite* F’up2 being
already set:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes:
>>Martin Brown wrote:
>>> (although the page on Sgr A itself says 4.1M sun and about 45AU)
>>You are confusing the radius of the region surrounding the assumed black
>>hole with the Schwarzschild radius of the black hole, whereas the former
>>is much larger. Note that for such a BH, the Schwarzschild radius is the
>>radius beyond which we can have *no* information instead (as it *is* the
>>radius of the *event horizon*).
>
> The "45AU" size is the maximum radius of whatever "it" is, if it was any
> larger, Star S14 would collide with it.
No, if the "central" body’s radius would be _that size or larger_, the
"orbiting" S14 would collide with it, assuming that the description that S14
comes as close to that body’s *center of mass* as 45 AU is correct.
> So "it" must be smaller than 45 AU radius.
That much is true. And I have just *calculated* how small or large "it"
*really* must be if it is a black hole, given this mass: about 0.08 AU,
which is *much* smaller than 45 AU. (Can you not read?)
> Since we know of no physics that allows for an object of 45 AU radius
> and a mass of 4.1M sun, other than a black hole or something rapidly
> collapsing into a black hole, this is excellent evidence of a black hole
> there.
Not even wrong. Rather, *any* object can have a radius of *45 AU* and a
total mass of about 4.1 million solar masses. (Homework assignment: Look up
statistics of celestial objects to find at least one such object.)
And an object that has either a mass of 4.1 million solar masses *and* a
radius of about 0.08 AU or less, or a radius of 45 AU and a mass of
rₛ = 2 G M∕c²
M = c² rₛ∕(2 G)
M(r = 45 AU) ≈ 4.533 × 10³⁹ kg ≈ 2.28 × 10⁹ M☉ [thanks, Wolfram|Alpha]
(2.28 *billion* solar masses, short scale) or *more*, must be a black hole.
>> For a Schwarzschild BH, the outer event horizon is the surface of a
>> sphere that has the Schwarzschild radius as its radius. 45 AU, the
>> radius of the space in which S14 is described to be orbiting, is not
>> anywhere near 0.08 AU.
>
> About 560 times the event horizon radius.
You don’t say!
> However it is close enough to likely have interesting relativistic
> effects.
You probably mean “cause”, not “have”.
> Another star (S0-102) gets within 260 AU and reaches over 1% of
> the speed of light.
The *special*-relativistic effects (and *those* are concerned when it comes
to relative speeds) at 0.01 c (≈ 30'000 km∕s; according to Wolfram|Alpha,
the typical CRT electron speed) are *negligibly small*:
γ(0.01 c) ≈ 1∕√(1 − 0.01²) ≈ 1.00005 ∎
As a rule of thumb, as far as relative speeds are concerned, things get
interesting at and over about 0.42 c (42 % c), where γ makes a difference
in lengths and times of 10 % or more of the rest frame values.
> S14 must be really booking.
I do not know that idiom, but I presume it refers to high (orbital) speed
(as in bets on horse racing). If so, you would probably be correct _in the
≤ 45 AU vicinity of Sgr A*_.
However, sadly, you have no clue what you are talking about.
F’up2 <news:sci.astro>
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-25 18:48 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. |
| Message-ID | <onprdr$5pk$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #647177 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes: >Michael Moroney amok-crossposted to 3 newsgroups, *despite* F’up2 being >already set: So why did you crosspost to 3 newsgroups, if you feel it's so wrong? >> The "45AU" size is the maximum radius of whatever "it" is, if it was any >> larger, Star S14 would collide with it. >No, if the "central" body’s radius would be _that size or larger_, the >"orbiting" S14 would collide with it, assuming that the description that S14 >comes as close to that body’s *center of mass* as 45 AU is correct. Which is what I said. >> So "it" must be smaller than 45 AU radius. >That much is true. And I have just *calculated* how small or large "it" >*really* must be if it is a black hole, given this mass: about 0.08 AU, >which is *much* smaller than 45 AU. (Can you not read?) Yes. Can you? >> Since we know of no physics that allows for an object of 45 AU radius >> and a mass of 4.1M sun, other than a black hole or something rapidly >> collapsing into a black hole, this is excellent evidence of a black hole >> there. >Not even wrong. Rather, *any* object can have a radius of *45 AU* and a >total mass of about 4.1 million solar masses. (Homework assignment: Look up >statistics of celestial objects to find at least one such object.) Wrong. If it had both characteristics, no known physics allows such a thing to exist, except temporarily as it collapses into a black hole. OK, a black hole plus a bunch of stuff orbiting it (out to a radius of 45 AU) could exist, but since my point was this was excellent evidence of a black hole, this is foolish quibbling. >However, sadly, you have no clue what you are talking about. As if you did.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-25 12:22 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. |
| Message-ID | <dcd5395f-e7b8-4d73-94eb-304977f14d69@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647193 |
PE "avity is just an observable effect of curved spacetime on " Describe your "curved spacetime". You can't. It's Fudge. I admire your computer-like knowledge capabilities. However, being able to regurgitate perfectly is only as pretty as what went in. Let me re-phrase that for you English second language types: garbage in/garbage out
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-25 12:25 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. |
| Message-ID | <7ce8b74d-49cc-4096-aef3-a67ec12ced72@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647193 |
PE Oh no, I think I got that backwards! Thomas won't understand!! Here it is: Garbage in, garbage out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-25 21:27 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. |
| Message-ID | <751851469.0ifERbkFSE@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #647193 |
Michael Moroney wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes: >> Michael Moroney amok-crossposted to 3 newsgroups, *despite* F’up2 being >> already set: > > So why did you crosspost to 3 newsgroups, if you feel it's so wrong? Because *you* did. I then set and announced Followup-To so that the crosspost would _not_ be continued by anyone after me. But despite what I told you, you did it *again*. Are you stupid? >>> The "45AU" size is the maximum radius of whatever "it" is, if it was any >>> larger, Star S14 would collide with it. > >>No, if the "central" body’s radius would be _that size or larger_, the >>"orbiting" S14 would collide with it, assuming that the description that >>S14 comes as close to that body’s *center of mass* as 45 AU is correct. > > Which is what I said. No. To begin with, you said that S14 would only collide with "it" if "it" were “any *larger*” (emphasis mine). Do you know the difference between a greater-than and a greater-than-or- equals operation? >>> So "it" must be smaller than 45 AU radius. >> >> That much is true. And I have just *calculated* how small or large "it" >> *really* must be if it is a black hole, given this mass: about 0.08 AU, >> which is *much* smaller than 45 AU. (Can you not read?) > > Yes. Can you? I can. Evidently you cannot. >>Not even wrong. Rather, *any* object can have a radius of *45 AU* and a >>total mass of about 4.1 million solar masses. (Homework assignment: Look >>up statistics of celestial objects to find at least one such object.) > > Wrong. If it had both characteristics, no known physics allows such a > thing to exist, except temporarily as it collapses into a black hole. Nonsense. Even if we consider that there are no stable orbits below 1.5 Schwarzschild radii (the radius of the photon sphere), that is still less than 0.12 AU for a black hole of this mass. Nowhere near 45 AU. You still have no clue what you are talking about, despite my patient explanations of where you went wrong. Are you stupid? F’up2 <news:sci.astro> -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-25 21:54 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. |
| Message-ID | <onq6a9$rut$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #647198 |
Thomas "Pointed Ears or Pointy Head?" Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes: >Michael Moroney wrote: >> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes: >>> Michael Moroney amok-crossposted to 3 newsgroups, *despite* F’up2 being >>> already set: >> >> So why did you crosspost to 3 newsgroups, if you feel it's so wrong? >Because *you* did. So apparently your 'rule' applies to me, but not to you. Gotcha. > I then set and announced Followup-To so that the >crosspost would _not_ be continued by anyone after me. Oh, your 'rule' applies to everyone else as well, but not to you. Gotcha. >But despite what I told you, you did it *again*. Are you stupid? Who died and made you God? If I agree with a Followup-To I may go along, if not, I won't. But why would I post only to a group which I don't read? >>>> The "45AU" size is the maximum radius of whatever "it" is, if it was any >>>> larger, Star S14 would collide with it. >> >>>No, if the "central" body’s radius would be _that size or larger_, the >>>"orbiting" S14 would collide with it, assuming that the description that >>>S14 comes as close to that body’s *center of mass* as 45 AU is correct. >> >> Which is what I said. >No. To begin with, you said that S14 would only collide with "it" if "it" >were “any *larger*” (emphasis mine). >Do you know the difference between a greater-than and a greater-than-or- >equals operation? I do but not relevant. Quibble over nothing. I did state the maximum size was and what happens if the thing was larger. Besides, do we even know the size to the 2 digits given? >Nonsense. Even if we consider that there are no stable orbits below 1.5 >Schwarzschild radii (the radius of the photon sphere), that is still less >than 0.12 AU for a black hole of this mass. Nowhere near 45 AU. Once again, my point was there must be a black hole there. Perhaps there is more stuff orbiting it, perhaps not, but irrelevant to my point, which is, there's a black hole there. Your point is the one on top of your head. >You still have no clue what you are talking about, despite my patient >explanations of where you went wrong. >Are you stupid? It appears you are. Followup-To: set appropriately.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-26 03:01 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. |
| Message-ID | <1886811.OBFZWjSADL@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #647223 |
</killfile> Michael Moroney wrote: > Thomas "Pointed Ears or Pointy Head?" Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes: >> Michael Moroney wrote: >>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes: >>>> Michael Moroney amok-crossposted to 3 newsgroups, *despite* F’up2 being >>>> already set: >>> So why did you crosspost to 3 newsgroups, if you feel it's so wrong? >> Because *you* did. > > So apparently your 'rule' applies to me, but not to you. Gotcha. No, instead it is the one who posts the follow-up who is to observe the set Followup-To, if it is appropriate (see below). It does not make sense otherwise: the discussion would abruptly end in those newsgroups where it is no longer being posted to, without any information whether it continued and if so, where that is. But I know now that you know that. You are just playing stupid, and I have wasted my time with you again – except that I now know that that the killfile entry for you is still justified. >> I then set and announced Followup-To so that the >>crosspost would _not_ be continued by anyone after me. > > Oh, your 'rule' applies to everyone else as well, but not to you. Gotcha. > >>But despite what I told you, you did it *again*. Are you stupid? > > Who died and made you God? If I agree with a Followup-To I may go along, > if not, I won't. But why would I post only to a group which I don't read? Because the topic of the discussion defines the newsgroup where one should post to. So by now we have determined that you really are stupid. Or you are just playing stupid, which is even worse as demonstrates malicious intent. >>>>> The "45AU" size is the maximum radius of whatever "it" is, if it was >>>>> any larger, Star S14 would collide with it. >>> >>>>No, if the "central" body’s radius would be _that size or larger_, the >>>>"orbiting" S14 would collide with it, assuming that the description that >>>>S14 comes as close to that body’s *center of mass* as 45 AU is correct. >>> >>> Which is what I said. > >>No. To begin with, you said that S14 would only collide with "it" if "it" >>were “any *larger*” (emphasis mine). > >>Do you know the difference between a greater-than and a greater-than-or- >>equals operation? > > I do but not relevant. It *is* relevant. > Quibble over nothing. I did state the maximum size was and what happens if > the thing was larger. You said that S14 would only collide with "it" if "its" radius was larger than the mentioned one, which is simply wrong. > Besides, do we even know the size to the 2 digits given? Do your own homework. >>Nonsense. Even if we consider that there are no stable orbits below 1.5 >>Schwarzschild radii (the radius of the photon sphere), that is still less >>than 0.12 AU for a black hole of this mass. Nowhere near 45 AU. > > Once again, my point was there must be a black hole there. No, you said *several times* that a body with a mass of 4.1 million solar masses and a radius of 45 AU could not become or be anything else but a black hole. Which is simply wrong. (A body or system does not become a black hole until *all* of its mass is concentrated within its Schwarzschild radius.) Now you are lying so that you do not have to admit that you were wrong. Typical. > Followup-To: set appropriately. If only you did. <killfile> -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-26 03:31 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. |
| Message-ID | <onqq2u$lpj$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #647254 |
Thomas Pointed Ears Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes: >Michael Moroney wrote: >> So apparently your 'rule' applies to me, but not to you. Gotcha. >No, instead it is the one who posts the follow-up who is to observe the set >Followup-To, if it is appropriate (see below). I am here (sci.physics/sci.physics.relativity) mostly for k00kwatching, although I do like it when actual science (like the earlier posts) actually appear. I am amazed somewhat about the wide variety of k00ks and the things they kook about sometimes. Quite a few of them seem to have delusions of authority and feel justified at trying to boss others around, and get nasty when their 'authority' is disregarded. Pointed Ears is definitely one of these. I don't know what job he may have, but a good career suggestion may be micromanager. Or perhaps picomanager. As a black hole is very much a GR thing, sci.physics.relativity makes as much sense to discuss a very likely black hole candidate as an astronomy group. Anyway, while I do entertain myself here by poking k00ks with pointy sticks often, snarling nasty k00ks aren't particularly entertaining, so the killfile entries will be mutual. *plonk*
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-25 21:52 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. |
| Message-ID | <1737544.yKVeVyVuyW@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #647155 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > So > > 1.3 × 10¹⁰ m = 1.3 × 10⁷ km > > which is *much less* than > > 1 AU ≈ 150'000'000 km = 150 × 10⁸ km = 1.5 × 10¹⁰ km. Correction of the obvious: 1 AU ≈ 150'000'000 km = 150 × 10⁶ km = 1.5 × 10⁸ km. > (1 AU is the average distance Terra–Sol.) -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-04 14:34 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <Y9qdnXYxVpsbATDEnZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #646480 |
On 18/08/2017 10:30 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: > A very dense objects, yes. > TRUE black holes, no. > > Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle wavelength would be extremely tiny for a black hole, way less than a Planck Length. The larger an object is, the smaller its uncertainty is. So try another principle of physics which you don't understand, maybe that one will stick? http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/uncer.html Yousuf Khan -- Sent from Giganews on Thunderbird on my Toshiba laptop
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ethel Ocallaghan <unlgclo@awlwaac.ag> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-05 11:40 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <oom2fa$16l$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #648621 |
Yousuf Khan wrote: >> Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. > > The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle wavelength would be extremely tiny > for a black hole, way less than a Planck Length. The larger an object > is, the smaller its uncertainty is. So try another principle of physics > which you don't understand, maybe that one will stick? Another excellent post. What it says essentially is, that The Black Holes Theory is obsolete and deprecated. Once even the plank length gets refutable, so many weird things gonne happen. It stays actually described in the Bible. Something people can read, but not understand. Thank you, making this thing obvious. We are full of respect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-05 14:04 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: "Black Holes" are forever a notion, never measured. |
| Message-ID | <oomatf$bop$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #648621 |
Jeff-Relf.Me @. writes: >If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it, >even if he, and everyone else, knows it's a delusion. Certainly sounds like many of your posts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty350@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-19 00:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e155bae7-ca89-4d44-9400-cc16b789f387@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646447 |
On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 11:01:14 PM UTC+3, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 3:54:19 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > John Sefton is incensed about the idea of a black hole, because he read > > somewhere that the central idea of a black hole is infinite gravity, and > > he will insist that gravity has to be finite (even though he believes > > the size of the universe is infinite). And because he believes this is > > the central lynchpin of black holes, then a belief in finite gravity > > means to him that black holes are denied. > > > > But John is kinda missing the boat on what makes a black hole. > > > > First of all, let's get straight what a black hole is. A black hole > > happens when a sufficiently large but FINITE amount of matter falls > > inside a sufficiently small but FINITE radius. This radius is called the > > Schwarzchild radius. That radius is r = 2GM/c^2. All you have to do is > > get more mass than M inside that radius r, and you will have a black > > hole. A black hole simply means that ANYTHING that falls inside this > > radius will never get out or send anything out. Things outside of this > > radius can be perfectly happy, orbiting around and never falling in. The > > idea of a black hole swallowing everything on the OUTSIDE of this radius > > is just bullshit, gradeschool bullshit. Some stuff will fall in, sure, > > just like some stuff falls into the sun, but the planets have not fallen > > into the sun for billions of years. > > > > So far, there is absolutely nothing about infinite anything here. > > > > So now the question is, why don't ALL stars compress under gravity and > > become black holes. The reason is that there are sources of outward > > pressure, obviously, and if the outward pressure equals the inward pull > > of gravity, then collapse doesn't proceed. > > > > In ordinary burning stars, what provides the outward pressure is heat > > from nuclear fusion. Heat pushes matter outward, as anyone who has > > watched a firecracker knows. If gravity is enough to pull it in (more > > than a firecracker's gravity, for sure), then there can be a balance, > > which is like our sun. > > > > When the fuel for fusion is gone, then there is no fusion to provide > > heat to push things outward, and the star starts to collapse, until a > > new outward force pushes it out. That outward force is almost exactly > > the same thing that makes a metal solid. It's called electron > > degeneracy, and it's basically the Pauli exclusion principle at work. > > Electrons in the same state cannot get too close to each other, because > > they are fermions. It's this repulsion, not from electrostatics, but > > from Fermi statistics and the Pauli principle, that makes metal solid, > > and it also makes burnt-out stars resist gravitational collapse. > > > > But if you get enough gravitational pressure coming from the further > > collapse, then you can introduce something that only happens extremely > > rarely in solid materials, and that's the electron being squeezed into > > the nucleus for long enough periods of time that it interacts with a > > proton and generates a neutron. Do this enough, and all of the atoms > > collapse into the size of their nuclei, which is a trillion times > > smaller and more dense. Since there are equal numbers of protons and > > electrons, you're going to end up with something like a solid again, but > > now made up entirely of neutrons. The good news is that neutrons are > > also fermions, and the Pauli exclusion principle also applies to them, > > and so you can't just squeeze neutrons together forever, before they > > want to push each other away and you now have outward pressure. When > > that balances gravity, then you have a stable neutron star, of which > > we've seen plenty. > > > > But if this neutron star collapse brings enough mass close enough > > together that you're inside the Schwarzchild radius, then gravity is > > strong enough to not be balanced by neutron degeneracy. So then another > > collapse happens just like the previous ones. The difference here is > > that we're not aware of any other layer of degeneracy pressure that > > might cause another balance with gravity. So AS FAR AS WE KNOW, there is > > nothing to stop the collapse from gravity and it is ASSUMED that it will > > just continue unstopped. However, as this all happens inside the > > Schwarzchild radius, we WILL NEVER KNOW anyway, because we can't see > > anything coming out to tell us what's going on. > > > > All of this is to point out that infinite gravity is NOT a logical > > must-have for black-holes. All that is needed is enough FINITE gravity > > to overcome the FINITE neutron degeneracy pressure, and you'll have a > > black hole, and what happens inside after that is moot. > > > > So John .... get over it. The crap comic book stuff you read about black > > holes is cheapo, sloppy, popularization nonsense. > > > > > > -- > > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Very nice exposition there Odd. Good work. > ed ==================== yes indeed good detailed explanation now I am not sure that odd indicate that some energy **does** go out the back hole ie EM WAVES ARE EMITTED FROM SOME center OF BLACKHOLE and me Y.Porat proved that EM WAVE HAS MASS !! THE ONLY MASS !!! ----- TIA Y.Porat ==========================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-21 08:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <onemjj$1mhl$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #646495 |
On 8/19/17 2:00 AM, poraty350@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 11:01:14 PM UTC+3, Edward Prochak wrote: >> On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 3:54:19 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> John Sefton is incensed about the idea of a black hole, because he read >>> somewhere that the central idea of a black hole is infinite gravity, and >>> he will insist that gravity has to be finite (even though he believes >>> the size of the universe is infinite). And because he believes this is >>> the central lynchpin of black holes, then a belief in finite gravity >>> means to him that black holes are denied. >>> >>> But John is kinda missing the boat on what makes a black hole. >>> >>> First of all, let's get straight what a black hole is. A black hole >>> happens when a sufficiently large but FINITE amount of matter falls >>> inside a sufficiently small but FINITE radius. This radius is called the >>> Schwarzchild radius. That radius is r = 2GM/c^2. All you have to do is >>> get more mass than M inside that radius r, and you will have a black >>> hole. A black hole simply means that ANYTHING that falls inside this >>> radius will never get out or send anything out. Things outside of this >>> radius can be perfectly happy, orbiting around and never falling in. The >>> idea of a black hole swallowing everything on the OUTSIDE of this radius >>> is just bullshit, gradeschool bullshit. Some stuff will fall in, sure, >>> just like some stuff falls into the sun, but the planets have not fallen >>> into the sun for billions of years. >>> >>> So far, there is absolutely nothing about infinite anything here. >>> >>> So now the question is, why don't ALL stars compress under gravity and >>> become black holes. The reason is that there are sources of outward >>> pressure, obviously, and if the outward pressure equals the inward pull >>> of gravity, then collapse doesn't proceed. >>> >>> In ordinary burning stars, what provides the outward pressure is heat >>> from nuclear fusion. Heat pushes matter outward, as anyone who has >>> watched a firecracker knows. If gravity is enough to pull it in (more >>> than a firecracker's gravity, for sure), then there can be a balance, >>> which is like our sun. >>> >>> When the fuel for fusion is gone, then there is no fusion to provide >>> heat to push things outward, and the star starts to collapse, until a >>> new outward force pushes it out. That outward force is almost exactly >>> the same thing that makes a metal solid. It's called electron >>> degeneracy, and it's basically the Pauli exclusion principle at work. >>> Electrons in the same state cannot get too close to each other, because >>> they are fermions. It's this repulsion, not from electrostatics, but >>> from Fermi statistics and the Pauli principle, that makes metal solid, >>> and it also makes burnt-out stars resist gravitational collapse. >>> >>> But if you get enough gravitational pressure coming from the further >>> collapse, then you can introduce something that only happens extremely >>> rarely in solid materials, and that's the electron being squeezed into >>> the nucleus for long enough periods of time that it interacts with a >>> proton and generates a neutron. Do this enough, and all of the atoms >>> collapse into the size of their nuclei, which is a trillion times >>> smaller and more dense. Since there are equal numbers of protons and >>> electrons, you're going to end up with something like a solid again, but >>> now made up entirely of neutrons. The good news is that neutrons are >>> also fermions, and the Pauli exclusion principle also applies to them, >>> and so you can't just squeeze neutrons together forever, before they >>> want to push each other away and you now have outward pressure. When >>> that balances gravity, then you have a stable neutron star, of which >>> we've seen plenty. >>> >>> But if this neutron star collapse brings enough mass close enough >>> together that you're inside the Schwarzchild radius, then gravity is >>> strong enough to not be balanced by neutron degeneracy. So then another >>> collapse happens just like the previous ones. The difference here is >>> that we're not aware of any other layer of degeneracy pressure that >>> might cause another balance with gravity. So AS FAR AS WE KNOW, there is >>> nothing to stop the collapse from gravity and it is ASSUMED that it will >>> just continue unstopped. However, as this all happens inside the >>> Schwarzchild radius, we WILL NEVER KNOW anyway, because we can't see >>> anything coming out to tell us what's going on. >>> >>> All of this is to point out that infinite gravity is NOT a logical >>> must-have for black-holes. All that is needed is enough FINITE gravity >>> to overcome the FINITE neutron degeneracy pressure, and you'll have a >>> black hole, and what happens inside after that is moot. >>> >>> So John .... get over it. The crap comic book stuff you read about black >>> holes is cheapo, sloppy, popularization nonsense. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >> >> Very nice exposition there Odd. Good work. >> ed > ==================== > yes indeed good detailed explanation > now > I am not sure that odd indicate that > some energy **does** go out the back hole > ie > EM WAVES ARE EMITTED FROM SOME center OF BLACKHOLE Nope. There is no EM wave emitted from inside the event horizon. Zero. Nada. > > and me > Y.Porat > proved that > EM WAVE HAS MASS !! THE ONLY MASS !!! > ----- > TIA > Y.Porat > ========================== > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-20 16:01 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. |
| Message-ID | <cbd4bcce-5206-4c5d-b474-7cdac176f128@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646447 |
On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 3:37:09 PM UTC-7, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > How much energy would it take to escape a true black hole ? > An infinite amount ? more ? Where does this energy come from ? ! Seems like I calculated one time that the energy for an object to escape a black hole would be exactly equal to the total energy it's mass could contain (E=mc^2). Not a hopeful prospect. Double-A
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pcardinale@volcanomail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-21 12:54 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. |
| Message-ID | <18402911-7a54-48c7-8b3a-092ce6e696a4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646447 |
On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 3:37:09 PM UTC-7, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > How much energy would it take to escape a true black hole ? > An infinite amount ? more ? Where does this energy come from ? ! > What an absurd question. A theory says 'X can't happen', and you ask 'where does the energy come from to do X?' Your head must contain a lot of high-pressure stupidity, because it's leaking out and making a mess.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-18 14:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5cc65239-c632-45f5-8a9f-19eb4e41ad68@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646446 |
Odd "All of this is to point out that infinite gravity is NOT a logical must-have for black-holes. All that is needed is enough FINITE gravity to overcome the FINITE neutron degeneracy pressure, and you'll have a " I think the limit precludes that, Odd.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-18 22:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <on7oud$1qdj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #646459 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > "All of this is to point out that infinite gravity is NOT a logical > must-have for black-holes. All that is needed is enough FINITE gravity > to overcome the FINITE neutron degeneracy pressure, and you'll have a " > I think the limit precludes that, Odd. > Calculate the limit, John. You make a quantitative claim, and you will need to demonstrate your rationale. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web