Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

How much energy would it take to escape a true black hole ?
An infinite amount ? more ?  Where does this energy come from ? !

There's ZERO evidence that a true black hole exists;
in fact, Stephen Hawking says Quantum Mechanics rules it out.
Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, for example.

To update your "knowledge" of "Black Holes" ( past the classical ),
please read:  WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Black_star_%28semiclassical_gravity%29

[JanPB]

On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 3:37:07 PM UTC-7, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>
> There's ZERO evidence that a true black hole exists;

There is SOME. For example one can predict certain features of the spectrum
emitted by the infalling matter in the case the attracting body has a surface
or when it doesn't. These features AFAIK are observed in bodies which
according to GR should not collapse or collapse, resp. Something to do
with the spreading of the accreting matter over the surface but I don't
know much about it.

--
Jan

[Tom Roberts]

On 8/18/17 8/18/17 5:37 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> How much energy would it take to escape a true black hole ?

That depends on what you mean.

> There's ZERO evidence that a true black hole exists;

Not true. There is considerable evidence that supermassive black holes lie near
the center of most galaxies. This evidence has convinced most astrophysicists
that these are indeed black holes, so it is not at all "zero".

The supermassive object at the center of the Milky Way exhibits several key
aspects that are explained by it being a black hole, and which are not explained
by any other known object:
* X-rays characteristic of infalling matter, without the resulting
collision with a surface.
* the cutoff and redshift of emissions from that infalling matter are
consistent with it being a black hole.
* stars orbiting it come closer than the radius of any other known type
of object with comparable mass (~ 4.1E6 solar masses).

In addition, the gravitational waves observed by LIGO are not consistent with
any known hypothesis other than that they were generated by collisions between
black holes.

Attempting to argue from your own ignorance is never a good plan.

Tom Roberts

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

You ( Tom Roberts ) replied:
> > There's ZERO evidence that a true black hole exists;
> 
> Not true. There is considerable evidence that supermassive black holes
> lie near the center of most galaxies.

A very dense objects, yes.
TRUE black holes, no.

Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

> Attempting to argue from your own ignorance is never a good plan.

Hopefully, if you repeat this enough,
you'll take your own advice one day.

To update your "knowledge" of "Black Holes" ( past the classical ),
please read:  WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Black_star_%28semiclassical_gravity%29

[JanPB]

This is semiclassical gravity though. IOW, a tentative approximation.

--
Jan

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu sobota, 19 sierpnia 2017 00:54:38 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 3:37:07 PM UTC-7, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> >
> > There's ZERO evidence that a true black hole exists;
>
> There is SOME. For example one can predict certain features of the spectrum

The same way - angels pushing planets on crystal rings are
confirmed: using them I can predict planets will move,
and planets really move.

[Séverin Thibault]

JanPB wrote:

> On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 3:37:07 PM UTC-7, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>>
>> There's ZERO evidence that a true black hole exists;
>
> There is SOME.

That's the same as no evidence.

> For example one can predict certain features of the
> spectrum emitted by the infalling matter in the case the attracting body
> has a surface or when it doesn't.

doubledygoock.

> These features AFAIK are observed in
> bodies which according to GR should not collapse or collapse, resp.
> Something to do with the spreading of the accreting matter over the
> surface but I don't know much about it.

You don't even know whether they collapse.

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

You ( Takuya Saitoh ) replied:
> > There's ZERO evidence that a true black hole exists;
> > in fact, Stephen Hawking says Quantum Mechanics rules it out.
> > Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, for example.
> 
> "Quantum Mechanics is a Quantum Statistics", didn't you say ?

Yes, quantum events are statistical, not mechanical;
so: There's ZERO evidence that a true black hole exists.

[NobelPrize.ORG]

You ( Odd Bodkin ) replied:
> > Very dense objects, yes.
> > TRUE black holes, no.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by this. How are you distinguishing a "true"
> black hole from something that looks and behaves like a black hole?

Google "SemiClassical Black Star".

> Or are you saying that you believe in things that behave just like
> black holes but want to believe they are something else instead?

"Somewhat like", not "just like".
Stephen Hawking has been saying it since 2004, 13 years ago,
long after you stopped learning about it ( due to dementia, I assume ).

> > Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
>

> What? Try to explain that.

Quantum events are statistical, not mechanical;
so: There's ZERO evidence that a true black hole exists.

If you have REAL DATA to the contrary,
you get the Nobel prize, along with Bert.

Quantum Correlations are acausal, like a series of dice tosses.
The Correlations say nothing about the next roll of the dice,
but they _can_ tell you that, in 100 tosses,
2 ( snake eyes ) happens less often than 7 ( 3 + 4, 1 + 6, etc. ).

Intrinsically, each toss is fully causal, not random.
SemiRandomness is SemiIgnorance, nothing more.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

NobelPrize.ORG @. wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

>

Idiot

--
Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of
Congress. But I repeat myself.
-- Mark Twain

[JanPB]

No, not ZERO. Tom and I have just pointed you to studies of accretion
spectra approaching a surface vs. not approaching a surface. This
is still not very convincing but it's more than ZERO.

--
Jan

[Ned Latham]

JanPB wrote:
> NobelPrize.ORG wrote:
> > You ( Takuya Saitoh ) replied:

> > > NobelPrize.ORG wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There's ZERO evidence that a true black hole exists;
> > > > in fact, Stephen Hawking says Quantum Mechanics rules
> > > > it out.

If he really said that, he's wrong.

> > > > Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle,
> > > > for example.

False. But saying that we know the mass of a black hole midway between
your ears does.

> > > "Quantum Mechanics is a Quantum Statistics", didn't you say ?
> >
> > Yes, quantum events are statistical, not mechanical;

False. Events are mechnical (including electrics). Their statistical
aspect is the probability of their occurrence, or their occurrence
in some particular way (including time and place).

> > so: There's ZERO evidence that a true black hole exists.

We don't need it. We see material objects from the very tiny to the
humungous every day. Since a black hole is nothing more than a super
big object, the probabilty that black holes exist is non-zero.

[chrisv]

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

>NobelPrize.ORG @. wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>>
>
>Idiot

Don't you "love" people who, because of their own stupidity and
ignorance, think that they know better than everyone else?

--
"Only Linux shitware is so braindead as to use case-sensitivity." -
DumFSck

[Tom Roberts]

On 8/18/17 9:30 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:

> Tom Roberts wrote: >> Jeff-Relf wrote:
>>> There's ZERO evidence that a true black hole exists;
>> Not true. There is considerable evidence that supermassive black holes lie
>> near the center of most galaxies.
>
> A very dense objects, yes. TRUE black holes, no. Black Holes violate the
> Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

That theoretical prejudice does not invalidate the observational evidence that
black holes exist. For Sgr A* to not be a black hole requires violating other
theoretical prejudices of comparable stature.

Moreover, I believe that the violation of the HUP occurs deep inside the
horizon, not outside where the observational evidence is. Nobody expects the GR
model to remain valid deep inside the horizon, because we expect quantum effects
to become significant there, and we don't know how to reconcile GR with QM.

And you completely ignored the other evidence:

> In addition, the gravitational waves observed by LIGO are not consistent with
> any known hypothesis other than that they were generated by collisions
> between black holes.

Tom Roberts

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

You ( Tom Roberts ) replied ( to me ):
> the gravitational waves observed by LIGO are not consistent with
> any known hypothesis other than that they were generated by
> collisions between black holes.

They could've been similar to black holes, but not quite;
more data, from more observers, is needed.

> > A very dense objects, yes. TRUE black holes, no.
> > Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
> 
> That theoretical prejudice does not invalidate
> the observational evidence that black holes exist. 

There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none.

> For Sgr A* to not be a black hole requires violating other
> theoretical prejudices of comparable stature.

Like what ?  It could be a "SemiClassical Black Star".

> Nobody expects the GR model to remain valid deep inside the horizon, 
> because we expect quantum effects to become significant there, 
> and we don't know how to reconcile GR with QM.

Exactly, we don't know.

[JanPB]

On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 4:46:42 PM UTC-7, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> You ( Tom Roberts ) replied ( to me ):
> > the gravitational waves observed by LIGO are not consistent with
> > any known hypothesis other than that they were generated by
> > collisions between black holes.
>
> They could've been similar to black holes, but not quite;
> more data, from more observers, is needed.
>
> > > A very dense objects, yes. TRUE black holes, no.
> > > Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
> >
> > That theoretical prejudice does not invalidate
> > the observational evidence that black holes exist.
>
> There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none.

You keep saying NONE and keep ignoring the surface/no-surface issue.

This alone invalidates the "NONE" claim. There is SOME evidence
is what an honest person can say.

--
Jan

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

There is also some evidence for angels pushing
planets on crystal rings: the planets move, nobody
is denying.

[Séverin Thibault]

JanPB wrote:

>> > That theoretical prejudice does not invalidate the observational
>> > evidence that black holes exist.
>>
>> There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none.
>
> You keep saying NONE and keep ignoring the surface/no-surface issue.
> This alone invalidates the "NONE" claim. There is SOME evidence is what
> an honest person can say.

"SOME evidence"?? You are just great, you cant have it this way, since if
you would, then that is NOT an evidence. EVIDENCES are characterize by
existent or not existent. Either you have an evidence or you dont have it
at all. You are just great, lol.

[Tom Roberts]

On 8/21/17 6:46 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> You ( Tom Roberts ) replied ( to me ):
>> the gravitational waves observed by LIGO are not consistent with
>> any known hypothesis other than that they were generated by
>> collisions between black holes.
>
> They could've been similar to black holes, but not quite;

No. They merged in a ways consistent with black holes in GR, and inconsistent
with any known type of material objects.

>> > A very dense objects, yes. TRUE black holes, no.
>> > Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
>>
>> That theoretical prejudice does not invalidate
>> the observational evidence that black holes exist.
>
> There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none.

Yes, there is. Your "none" is WRONG. YOU may not be convinced by it, but a
majority of the astrophysics community is.

>> For Sgr A* to not be a black hole requires violating other
>> theoretical prejudices of comparable stature.
>
> Like what ? It could be a "SemiClassical Black Star".

No, because we don't see the radiation that would come from the infalling matter
hitting the surface of such an object.

>> Nobody expects the GR model to remain valid deep inside the horizon,
>> because we expect quantum effects to become significant there,
>> and we don't know how to reconcile GR with QM.
>
> Exactly, we don't know.

There are things we do know, and things we don't know. We DO know that there are
objects in the universe which are MUCH better described as black holes than as
any other type of object.

HERE'S MY KEY POINT:
Until some better model is developed, scientists will model them as black holes.
You seem to be seeking some sort of "complete and absolutely true knowledge" --
that simply is not possible for humans in the world we inhabit.

> more data, from more observers, is needed.

Always true, and this is no different from essentially any other field.

Tom Roberts

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

You ( Tom Roberts ) replied ( to me ):
> > > For Sgr A* to not be a black hole requires violating other
> > > theoretical prejudices of comparable stature.
> > 
> > Like what ?  It could be a "SemiClassical Black Star".
> 
> No, because we don't see the radiation that would come from
> the infalling matter hitting the surface of such an object.

We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly, and you need 
INFINITE precision to measure a TRUE singularity.

Quoting " Black  Stars, not Holes ", 2009: ＜＜

  Quantum effects may prevent true black holes from forming
  and give rise instead to dense entities called black stars.
            [...]
  Deeper shells would have higher temperatures, 
  just like smaller ­mass black holes do. ＞＞
  https://physics.ucf.edu/~britt/AST2002/R9-Barcelo-Black%20stars,%20not%20holes.pdf

[Michael Moroney]

Jeff-Relf.Me @. writes:

>We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly, and you need
>INFINITE precision to measure a TRUE singularity.

Doesn't matter, it's the size of the event horizon that counts, not
the singularity. As long as there is enough mass inside an event horizon
there is a black hole, even if there is weird physics unknown to us
inside that prevents formation of a singularity. We can never know what
happens inside an event horizon.

We see that Sgr A* is there, not by seeing it, but by tracking stars
that are orbiting it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S0%E2%80%93102
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S2_(star)
amongst others

[Odd Bodkin]

And to emphasize this, the "true" black hole is NOT the singularity. The
defining feature is the event horizon.

There's no point in demanding proof in terms of something unobservable.

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

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity.
Wikipedia says: ＜＜

  Sagittarius A* is a bright and very compact astronomical radio source
  at the center of the Milky Way.   [...]

  Sagittarius A* is THOUGHT to be the location of a supermassive black hole ＞＞
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*

"Thought", not "known".

[Michael Moroney]

Jeff-Relf.Me @. writes:

> Sagittarius A* is THOUGHT to be the location of a supermassive black hole
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*

>"Thought", not "known".

"Thought" to a rather high degree of certainty.

Orbits of multiple stars are tracked orbiting "something"
with a mass of about 4.1 million solar masses but a radius of less than 45 AU
(otherwise the star S14 would collide with it).

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Galactic_centre_orbits.svg

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

Surely, there is no point in demanding proof from a
bunch of brainwashed morons producing some mystical
mumble.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu czwartek, 24 sierpnia 2017 01:01:55 UTC+2 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał:
> Jeff-Relf.Me @. writes:
>
> > Sagittarius A* is THOUGHT to be the location of a supermassive black hole
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*
>
> >"Thought", not "known".
>
> "Thought" to a rather high degree of certainty.

High enough for some halfbrains, at least.

[Martin Brown]

Wiki claims Sgr A has Rs ~ 1.3x10^10 M which I make to be about 80AU
(in the section on Schwarzchild radii - which is suspect is out of date)

(although the page on Sgr A itself says 4.1M sun and about 45AU)

Star S14 must be getting awfully close to grazing the event horizon.

Is it possible to see and interpret gravitational and Doppler spectral
shifts for it as well as positional measurements?

Presumably we have to wait patiently for something chunky to go down the
gravitational plughole and then we will get to find out the period of
the last stable orbit more precisely.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu czwartek, 24 sierpnia 2017 01:01:55 UTC+2 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał:

> Jeff-Relf.Me @. writes:
>
> > Sagittarius A* is THOUGHT to be the location of a supermassive black hole
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*
>
> >"Thought", not "known".
>
> "Thought" to a rather high degree of certainty.
>
> Orbits of multiple stars are tracked orbiting "something"
> with a mass of about 4.1 million solar masses but a radius of less than 45 AU
> (otherwise the star S14 would collide with it).

It shines. That gives us no doubts - the theory such objects
can't shine has another brilliant observational confirmation.

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

Martin Brown wrote:
> Star S14 must be getting awfully close to grazing the event horizon.

Quoting WikiPedia: ＜＜

  [ Some think Sgr* is ] 4.1 million solar masses.
  ( The corresponding Schwarzschild radius is .08 AU [...]
  the American group found 3.7 ± 0.2 million solar masses.
         [...]
  [S14] came within 45 AU without colliding.  ＞＞
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*#Central_black_hole

A TRUE singularity has infinite precision, not +/- 45 AU.
A TRUE singularity defies quantum statistics/correlations.
More likely, Sgr* is a black star; to wit:
  https://physics.ucf.edu/~britt/AST2002/R9-Barcelo-Black%20stars,%20not%20holes.pdf

[Michael Moroney]

Jeff-Relf.Me @. writes:

>Martin Brown wrote:
>> Star S14 must be getting awfully close to grazing the event horizon.

>A TRUE singularity has infinite precision, not +/- 45 AU.

The 45 AU is the maximum radius of the object, not the precision of
any singularity. They know the center of mass of the object (the
singularity, if there is one) to better than that, just from S14's orbit.

Regardless, the defining characteristic of a black hole is having an
event horizon, not a singularity. Who knows, perhaps there is physics,
unknown to us, that prevents formation of a singularity in a black hole.
Doesn't matter, as long as there is an event horizon, it's a black hole.

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none.

Quoting WikiPedia: ＜＜

  [ Some think Sgr* is ] 4.1 million solar masses.

  The corresponding Schwarzschild radius is .08 AU [...]

  the American group found 3.7 ± 0.2 million solar masses.
         [...]
  [S14] came within 45 AU without colliding.  ＞＞

     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*#Central_black_hole

The corresponding Schwarzschild radius is .08 AU.
The corresponding Schwarzschild radius is .08 AU.
The corresponding Schwarzschild radius is .08 AU.

It could be anything, something unknown, maybe a black star.

A _TRUE_ black hole has inifnite precision.
This, above, shows nothing close to that.

There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Martin Brown wrote:

> On 24/08/2017 00:01, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Jeff-Relf.Me @. writes:
>>> Sagittarius A* is THOUGHT to be the location of a supermassive black
>>> hole
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*
>>
>>> "Thought", not "known".
>>
>> "Thought" to a rather high degree of certainty.
>>
>> Orbits of multiple stars are tracked orbiting "something"
>> with a mass of about 4.1 million solar masses but a radius of less than
>> 45 AU (otherwise the star S14 would collide with it).
>>
>>
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Galactic_centre_orbits.svg
>
> Wiki

The name is of the source is _Wikipedia_. Instead, “wiki” is now an
umbrella term for a live-editable community-maintained online source
(from “wiki”, the Hawaiian word for “quick”).

> claims Sgr A

The name of the astronomical object is obviously S(a)g(itta)r(ius) A_*_
(emphasis mine).

> has Rs ~ 1.3x10^10 M which I make to be about 80AU

What are you talking about?

The symbol for radius is usually a lowercase “r”.

The symbol for the SI unit of metre (or meter) is “m”, not “M”. [“M” is
reserved as the unit prefix for “mega”, from greek «μέγας» /megas/ „great“,
meaning one million times the unit.]

The SI unit prefix “k” (for “kilo”, from Greek «χίλιοι» /khílioi/ „a
thousand“) means 1000 times the unit:

1 km = 1000 m.

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.

(1 AU is the average distance Terra–Sol.)

> (in the section on Schwarzchild radii

(Karl) _Schwarzschild_

> - which is suspect is out of date)

It is not. The Schwarzschild radius of a non-rotating, uncharged
(Schwarzschild) black hole (BH) is

rₛ = 2 G M∕c²,

where G is Newton’s gravitational constant, and M is the mass of the black
hole. A mass of

M = 4.1 × 10⁶ M☉ ≈ 8.153 × 10³⁶ kg,

where the mass of Sol (or solar masses) is

M☉ ≈ 1.988435 × 10³⁰ kg,

corresponds to a Schwarzschild radius of

rₛ ≈ 1.211 × 10¹⁰ m = 1.211 × 10⁷ km ≈ 0.08094 AU

The is very close to the aforementioned 1.3 × 10¹⁰ m.

See also:
<http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Schwarzschild+radius&dataset=>

> (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*).

> Star S14 must be getting awfully close to grazing the event horizon.

That is possible, but not based on your argument, but based on the diagram.

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.

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[Michael Moroney]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Point...@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. So "it" must be smaller than 45
AU radius.

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.

>> Star S14 must be getting awfully close to grazing the event horizon.

>That is possible, but not based on your argument, but based on the diagram.

>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. However it is close enough to
likely have interesting relativistic effects. Another star (S0-102) gets
within 260 AU and reaches over 1% of the speed of light. S14 must be
really booking.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

[Since I have temporarily disengaged my killfile anyway …]

Michael Moroney amok-crossposted to 3 newsgroups, *despite* F’up2 being
already set:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Point...@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>

[Michael Moroney]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Point...@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.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Michael Moroney wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Point...@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?

[The Starmaker]

Jeff-Relf.Me, @. wrote:
>
> There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none.
>
> Quoting WikiPedia: ＜＜
>
> [ Some think Sgr* is ] 4.1 million solar masses.
>
> The corresponding Schwarzschild radius is .08 AU [...]
>
> the American group found 3.7 ± 0.2 million solar masses.
> [...]
> [S14] came within 45 AU without colliding. ＞＞
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*#Central_black_hole
>
> The corresponding Schwarzschild radius is .08 AU.
> The corresponding Schwarzschild radius is .08 AU.
> The corresponding Schwarzschild radius is .08 AU.
>
> It could be anything, something unknown, maybe a black star.

Densil Washington is not an unknown black star...

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

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.)

[Youko Ganchiku]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> 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.

Then you admit you are an imbecile, uneducated and inexperienced, not
confident in scientific notation.

[Youko Ganchiku]

Also, this pointedshit is unable to see that it is NOT "much less", but
rather juat a magnitude 10 higher.

[Michael Moroney]

Thomas "Pointed Ears or Pointy Head?" Lahn <Point...@web.de> writes:

>Michael Moroney wrote:

>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Point...@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.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

</killfile>

Michael Moroney wrote:

> Thomas "Pointed Ears or Pointy Head?" Lahn <Point...@web.de> writes:
>> Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Point...@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>

[Michael Moroney]

Thomas Pointed Ears Lahn <Point...@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*

[Dirk Van de moortel]

On 19-aug-2017 at 13:08 Severe Baldhead wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
>
>> On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 3:37:07 PM UTC-7, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>>>
>>> There's ZERO evidence that a true black hole exists;
>>
>> There is SOME.
>
> That's the same as no evidence.

A truly brilliant comment.

Dirk Vdm

[Bídníkùm Laterá]

Another wannabe mathematician not knowing terminology. AN evidence makes a
thing evident. It comes from the term "event". Consequently, having an
evidence makes it true, it happened. Saying "some evidences" is absurd or
makes that thing improbable. Your input to the above discussion is futile.

[Michael Moroney]

The nymshifting troll once again proudly shows off his lack of
understanding of English language usage.

[Bídníkùm Laterá]

True enough, I understand the English language, not its various usage. You
are an extremely bad crisis actor. Stop bothering about logic and
mathematics, seemingly not your territory.

[Yousuf Khan]

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

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

Speaking of Zero length singularities, Yousuf Khan replied:
> > Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
> 
> > The larger an object is, the smaller its uncertainty is.

Right, "Black Holes" are forever a notion, never measured;
an ideal singularity has _infinite uncertainty.

> So try another principle of physics which you don't understand,
> maybe that one will stick?

Take your own advice, Yousuf Khan.

P.S. Despite your "ideal black hole" delusions,
you are a very good writer; I like your posts.

If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it,
even if he, and everyone else, knows it's a delusion.

[Ethel Ocallaghan]

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.

[Michael Moroney]

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.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Yousuf Khan wrote:

> 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

JFTR:

There is no such thing. You have just invented that term.

> would be extremely tiny for a black hole, way less than a Planck Length.
> The larger an object is, the smaller its uncertainty is.

Such a nonsense, it is not even wrong.

> So try another principle of physics which you don't understand, maybe that
> one will stick?

Pot calling the kettle black.

> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/uncer.html

You cannot have read this, or you are lacking the competence to understand
it.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

Light unlike matter doesn't obey escape velocity law.
No trapping it. It could curve back and be absorbed
instead.

Mitchell Raemsch

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

5.15500785e+96 kilograms * (the speed of light^2) = 4.63309e+113 joules/m^3