Black Holes Are An Optical Effect
M.MichaelMusatov
were to approach one it would be the same as a heat mirage that looks
like water. The 'black hole' would give way to par equal visual space
and stars would be visual past and through it (or where it is seen to
have been by the human brain). You see much like microwaves there is a
lot to the world and the universe that is invisible we can explain but
we stumble over to absurdity trying to explain what we see but cannot
comprehend.
M.Michael Musatov
beejewel
wrote:
> Black holes are visual effects. They do not physically exist as if you
> were to approach one it would be the same as a heat mirage"
How do you know this, have you seen one?
Steven Sesselmann
Stamenin
wrote:
In reality black halls exist in the minds of the scientist that are
doing mind experiments.
AP Lead for MeAmI.org
Quite obviously you read as I type but not post. Big deal. You do not
spook me in the slightest. It is not magic what you do. It is science.
--Musatov
AP Lead for MeAmI.org
Yes.
Dave
wrote:
Actually, they only appear to be visual effects.
Dave
dlzc
On Sep 22, 12:33 am, "M.MichaelMusatov" <marty.musa...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Black holes are visual effects.
Anything we measure are "visual effects", since somehow light is
involved.
> They do not physically exist
... neglecting the extensive evidence accumulating showing a lack of
surface interactions.
> as if you were to approach one it would
> be the same as a heat mirage that looks
> like water.
No surface interactions, even though stuff is falling in.
> The 'black hole' would give way to par
> equal visual space and stars would be
> visual past and through it (or where it
> is seen to have been by the human brain).
When you grow said brain...
> You see much like microwaves there is a
> lot to the world and the universe that
> is invisible we can explain but we
> stumble over to absurdity
... like what you post here?
> trying to explain what we see but cannot
> comprehend.
Should anyone actually be interested in visualizations related to the
black holes that MMM cannot accept on religious grounds:
http://jilawww.colorado.edu/~pja/black_hole.html
http://ccrg.rit.edu/movies/visualization
David A. Smith
xxein
wrote:
xxein: Explain that again. This time, use the part of your brain
that is still physically attached. Not the part in your penis either.
Michael
> On Sep 22, 3:33 am, "M.MichaelMusatov" <marty.musa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Black holes are visual effects. They do not physically exist as if you
> > were to approach one it would be the same as a heat mirage that looks
> > like water. The 'black hole' would give way to par equal visual space
> > and stars would be visual past and through it (or where it is seen to
> > have been by the human brain). You see much like microwaves there is a
> > lot to the world and the universe that is invisible we can explain but
> > we stumble over to absurdity trying to explain what we see but cannot
> > comprehend.
> > M.Michael Musatov
>
-xxein:==
- that is
Michael
Michael
Have you touched one?
Tom Roberts
> Black holes are visual effects. [...]
Not true.
Black holes are theoretical solutions to the equations of GR. They are
highly idealized, and originally nobody expected such solutions to apply
to the real world. Since then a large number of compact and
extraordinarily massive objects have been observed, for which no other
theoretical model explains all the observations, but the black holes of
GR do. These objects are now routinely called black holes.
In particular, the black holes of GR, and the OBSERVED black holes, have
major gravitational effects. They are not "visual effects" at all.
Tom Roberts
Juan R.
> M.MichaelMusatov wrote:
>> Black holes are visual effects. [...]
>
> Not true.
You are right.
> Black holes are theoretical solutions to the equations of GR. They are
> highly idealized, and originally nobody expected such solutions to apply
> to the real world.
You are right. Maybe you would like to explain why :-D
> Since then a large number of compact and
> extraordinarily massive objects have been observed, for which no other
> theoretical model explains all the observations,
This, is of course, plain wrong.
> but the black holes of
> GR do.
Don't true.
> These objects are now routinely called black holes.
False, they are named "candidates to black holes" by rigorous and
knowledeable people. There is also "black hole mimickers" explaining the same
observations.
Maybe you would take a look to literature before doing so
misguided claims.
(...)
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
Autymn D. C.
> > They do not physically exist
>
> ... neglecting the extensive evidence accumulating showing a lack of
> surface interactions.
>
> > as if you were to approach one it would
> > be the same as a heat mirage that looks
> > like water.
>
> No surface interactions, even though stuff is falling in.
Musatov is for one'es wriht. The optical effect is they are out of
band. http://google.com/search?q=site:blogs.discovermagazine.com+Autymn.
-Aut
Miguel
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote on Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:47:26 -0500:
>
> > Since then a large number of compact and
> > extraordinarily massive objects have been observed, for which no other
> > theoretical model explains all the observations,
>
> This, is of course, plain wrong.
>
The following ESO video, resulting from a 16 year star tracking study
of the Galactic Center stars, clearly shows the star S2 orbiting a
huge object with a mass of about 3.7 million suns, which is compatible
with a black hole.
http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2002/video/vid-02-02.mpg
Miguel Rios
Autymn D. C.
> M.MichaelMusatov wrote:
> > Black holes are visual effects. [...]
>
> Not true.
not true = fake
> Black holes are theoretical solutions to the equations of GR. They are
> highly idealized, and originally nobody expected such solutions to apply
> to the real world. Since then a large number of compact and
> extraordinarily massive objects have been observed, for which no other
> theoretical model explains all the observations, but the black holes of
> GR do. These objects are now routinely called black holes.
You mean, black holes are hýpothetical solutions. My theoretical
model does: http://google.com/search?q=site:blogs.discovermagazine.com+Autymn.
I will reiter my moot. Black holes suffer severe breaches of other
scientific laws ye believe:
0. Every description of a black hole matches thet of a unicorn.
1. Conservation of momentum of self-body and test-body under the event
horizòn.
2. Arrow of time or entropy of end-state is compromised by lack of
infinite work.
3. Singularities and static event horizòns also take infinite
potential, when there had been none.
4. Singularities are flaws in the mathematic model, and are good for
nothing when renormalised.
5. Chandrasekhar's bogus essay about the top limit for white dwarfs'
weiht foretald black holes, but they were neutròn stars instead. The
limit didn't work for neutròn stars either as there are always
intermediate nuclear states whose excitations indefinitely reach
celerity.
6. Chandrasekhar's bogus essay was full of baffly junk, mistakes of
dimensional analýsis, irrelevant equations, and his hýdrostatic Emden
function which was to allow for a singularity did not even look
relativistic.
7. There'v already been bodies leihter than Chandrasekhar's limit
which were reported to be black holes.
8. Every time scientists call a new heavenly body a black hole, it's a
sheepl guess.
9. If black holes spin much swifter than neutròn stars, then
Chandrasekhar's limit doesn't apply either for every new heavy body
found, and they would not hav event horizòns--even thouh they are
still dark.
10. Another naïve cinetic energhy formula (Bohr's) for a wildass event
horizòn in a elèctric black hole for element 137 faild to take
relativity into reckenth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extension_of_the_periodic_table_beyond_the_seventh_period#End_of_the_periodic_table.
So the black hole was dismissed, but later on they still used a naïve
potential energhy formula (Dirac's) and had the gall to claim it had a
imaginary solution and was relativistic--it was only half-
relativistic, which was why I hade to put the correction in
Wikipedia. Meseems the same problem with both formulæ is the lack of
relativistic alfa. alfa should shrink as speed reaches celerity. If
not, then the element no longer becomes a bound state but hovers so as
to make no black hole. The same should be true for gravital bodies.
-Aut
Autymn D. C.
tadchem
Saw your post there - back in June. Have you seen your optometrist
lately? The "map" you commented on is from here:
http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2009/mwrotate/
where the caption says quite clearly "Artist's Conception of our Milky
Way Galaxy: Blue, green dots indicate distance measurements."
The artist *DREW* four arms. You *think* you see five arms in his
drawing, and take that as authoritative data on the structure on the
Milky Way?
Your thinking is as fuzzy as your spelling (is "one'es wriht" supposed
to mean "once is right"?)
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
tadchem
> On Sep 22, 6:47 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > M.MichaelMusatov wrote:
> > > Black holes are visual effects. [...]
>
> > Not true.
>
> not true = fake
>
> > Black holes are theoretical solutions to the equations of GR. They are
> > highly idealized, and originally nobody expected such solutions to apply
> > to the real world. Since then a large number of compact and
> > extraordinarily massive objects have been observed, for which no other
> > theoretical model explains all the observations, but the black holes of
> > GR do. These objects are now routinely called black holes.
>
> You mean, black holes are hýpothetical solutions. My theoretical
> model does:http://google.com/search?q=site:blogs.discovermagazine.com+Autymn.
>
> I will reiter my moot. Black holes suffer severe breaches of other
> scientific laws ye believe:
>
> 0. Every description of a black hole matches thet of a unicorn.
Straw-man argument. Please elucidate to establish the credibility of
thhis claim.
> 1. Conservation of momentum of self-body and test-body under the event
> horizòn.
'Inside' the event horizon all discussions of 'self-body" and "test
body" are moot. See "No-Hair Theorem".
> 2. Arrow of time or entropy of end-state is compromised by lack of
> infinite work.
The entropy of a quantum black hole should be a strictly finite A/4,
where A is the area of the black hole in Planck units.
No-Hair Theorem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_hair_theorem
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/BlackHoleNoHairTheorem.html
http://psroc.phys.ntu.edu.tw/cjp/download.php?d=1&pid=1046
Autymn D. C.
> > 0. Every description of a black hole matches thet of a unicorn.
>
> Straw-man argument. Please elucidate to establish the credibility of
> thhis claim.
Half-joke. But I'll humor you:
0. The unicorn is a taleling/mýthical/legendary wiht of mistaken
identity, a kimera of a hrinoceròs or
monoceròs fossil horn or headsocket and maybe a horse's body. The
black hole is the same, a kluge of
general relativistic properties and classical-statistical boundary
conditions. Where in the former two
disparate limbs became one body, in the latter two domains and
degrees.
1. Nobody has ever seen a unicorn outside a sketch or sculpture.
Nobody has ever seen a black hole
outside a narrowband telegram or equation.
2. A unicorn has one black horn whereas other deers hav two horns,
other than the two above. A black hole
has one lihthorn (or as you say light cone) whereas other bodies hav
two, toward and froward.
3. Man cannot tame a unicorn, unless it's a maiden. Matter cannot
ring a black hole, unless it's liht.
4. Unicorns were drawn as bulls, the strongest and mihtiest deers
Mediterreaneans knew of. Black holes
are drawn as giant collapsars, the strongest and mihtiest stars
scientists know of.
5. They can eat anything and everything (so I guess).
6. Today unicorns may sprout wings and fly over rainbows, cure atter,
disappear or be invisibil. Today black
holes may spin wormholes and Doppler shift backgrounds, hide breaches
of conservation laws, and spit out orbital debris and froth until they
blow up.
7. They are both make-believe heavenly bodies (especially when unicorn
was Krist) and wishful thinking.
> > 1. Conservation of momentum of self-body and test-body under the event
> > horizòn.
>
> 'Inside' the event horizon all discussions of 'self-body" and "test
> body" are moot. See "No-Hair Theorem".
Moot is a good thing, as in not empty, but not all discussions are.
> > 2. Arrow of time or entropy of end-state is compromised by lack of
> > infinite work.
>
> The entropy of a quantum black hole should be a strictly finite A/4,
> where A is the area of the black hole in Planck units.
The Planck units are only good if their bodies are coherent. A black
hole is not a condensvum, neither Einstein-Bose nor Fermi-Dirac.
(Wherefore also textbook claims of a macroscopic body's de Broglie
wavelength (which they mean wavespan) are bullshit.) So almost none
of its population reaches Planck widths.
> No-Hair
Theorem:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_hair_theoremhttp://
scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/BlackHol
eNoHairTheorem.htmlhttp://psroc.phys.ntu.edu.tw/cjp/download.php?
d=1&pid=1046
Theorem by fiat? "I said so; that's why." And this has nothing to do
with my objections about the actuality of a black hole.
-Aut
dlzc
On Sep 23, 2:43 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Sep 23, 1:22 pm, tadchem <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > 0. Every description of a black hole matches thet
> > > of a unicorn.
>
> > Straw-man argument. Please elucidate to establish
> > the credibility of thhis claim.
>
> Half-joke. But I'll humor you:
>
> 0. The unicorn is a taleling/mýthical/legendary wiht
> of mistaken identity, a kimera of a hrinoceròs or
>
> monoceròs fossil horn or headsocket and maybe
> a horse's body. The black hole is the same, a kluge
> of
>
> general relativistic properties and classical-statistical
> boundary conditions. Where in the former two
>
> disparate limbs became one body, in the latter two
> domains and degrees.
>
> 1. Nobody has ever seen a unicorn outside a sketch
> or sculpture. Nobody has ever seen a black hole
Nobody has ever seen an electron either. But we have data from black
hole candidates, and we have data from experiments with electrons.
David A. Smith
john
Black holes are a direct result of our faulty
understanding of gravity.
Because we perceive matter to be *originating* the
gravitational sink using some sort of outgoing/
inward-thrusting 'particle', which is
in itself a HUGE contradiction, this makes
it possible to reach a situation where there is
incredible amounts of gravitational force.
In fact, matter ABSORBS an omni-directional
flow of energy a la Lesage, and the negative shadow
that can possibly be created by a body of matter
has an upper limit dictated by the intensity of that
flow.
The matter absorbs from this flow of energy to
run its electrons, which are constantly radiating, as
they must since they are travelling at very high speed
in very small circles which means they are always
ACCELERATING.
Current teachings say the electron needs NO energy to
travel (accelerate) around the atom.
Teach this miraculous travel-for-free to Ford or Chevrolet,
maybe save their ass. Another huge contradiction.
So Black Holes originate from a very
flawed piece of work, indeed.
I wouldn't worry about them. They don't exist.
john
galaxy atomic model
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john
Autymn D. C.
> On Sep 23, 2:41 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 22, 1:44 pm, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > They do not physically exist
>
> > > ... neglecting the extensive evidence accumulating showing a lack of
> > > surface interactions.
>
> > > > as if you were to approach one it would
> > > > be the same as a heat mirage that looks
> > > > like water.
>
> > > No surface interactions, even though stuff is falling in.
>
> > Musatov is for one'es wriht. The optical effect is they are out of
> > band.http://google.com/search?q=site:blogs.discovermagazine.com+Autymn.
>
> Saw your post there - back in June. Have you seen your optometrist
> lately? The "map" you commented on is from here:http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2009/mwrotate/
> where the caption says quite clearly "Artist's Conception of our Milky
> Way Galaxy: Blue, green dots indicate distance measurements."
Phil's word was "map". Where did the artist get the drawing from, his
bottom?
> The artist *DREW* four arms. You *think* you see five arms in his
> drawing, and take that as authoritative data on the structure on the
> Milky Way?
The artist drew a mapload of stars too. I not only think but see the
fifth arm, where we are! But it's more commonly called a spur.
> Your thinking is as fuzzy as your spelling (is "one'es wriht" supposed
> to mean "once is right"?)
I'm not the one who writes once but speaks wunss.
-Aut
Autymn D. C.
Elèctròns are but all you see, unless you tally protòns. You can even
see one elèctròn if it's amplified.
Autymn D. C.
[snip babble]
> The matter absorbs from this flow of energy to
> run its electrons, which are constantly radiating, as
> they must since they are travelling at very high speed
> in very small circles which means they are always
> ACCELERATING.
> Current teachings say the electron needs NO energy to
> travel (accelerate) around the atom.
> Teach this miraculous travel-for-free to Ford or Chevrolet,
> maybe save their ass. Another huge contradiction.
Ahm, elèctròns in atoms only radiare when other elèctròns in other
atoms can tune in or be antennas for the former. Otherwise, they are
oscillators and don't fall in yet. Which is how some radio nebulæ
stay ionic.
-Aut
Jens Stuckelberger
> Black holes are visual effects.
You should know. After all, you spend your life with your head
deeply stuck in one.
Juan R.
Let us ignoring now the internal inconsistencies of the black hole model [#].
Those observations are compatible with other models, sometimes named black hole
mimickers:
http://www.google.es/search?q=%22black+hole+mimickers%22
Moreover, maintain in mind that no known observation has showed the
existence of black holes, this is why rigorous and knowledeable people uses the
term "black hole candidate" "the presumed black hole" and so on:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7209/abs/nature07245.html
Moreover, from a theoretical point of view we *know* that the black hole model
of GR breaks down near horizon due to quantum effects, just as classical
electrodynamics breaks down for scales near electrons, where quantum effects
become important.
Saying that massive objects are GR black holes is much as saying that electrons
are tiny classical balls and that QED is not needed...
[#] The famous problem of singularities is the most know but there is others.
Tom Roberts
> Moreover, maintain in mind that no known observation has showed the
> existence of black holes, this is why rigorous and knowledeable people uses the
> term "black hole candidate" "the presumed black hole"
In recent years, knowledgeable people have been simply calling them
black holes in the literature.
> Moreover, from a theoretical point of view we *know* that the black hole model
> of GR breaks down near horizon due to quantum effects,
Not true. The horizon of a super-massive black hole can have a curvature
smaller than here on earth. "Quantum effects" do not invalidate GR here
on earth :-).
It is near the internal singularity that we know GR must break down --
there the curvature increases without bound as one approaches the
singularity, and THAT implies that GR must cease to be valid. It also
implies that if quantum gravity behaves at all like one expects, it must
become important there.
Tom Roberts
Miguel
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Miguel wrote on Wed, 23 Sep 2009 12:22:14 -0700:
>
> > The following ESO video, resulting from a 16 year star tracking study of
> > the Galactic Center stars, clearly shows the star S2 orbiting a huge
> > object with a mass of about 3.7 million suns, which is compatible with a
> > black hole.
>
> >http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2002/video/vid-02-02.mpg
>
>
> existence of black holes, this is why rigorous and knowledeable people uses the
> term "black hole candidate" "the presumed black hole" and so on:
>
Well, I consider these people quite rigorous and very knowledgeable,
and they wrote in the following paper:
Monitoring Stellar Orbits Around the Massive Black Hole in the
Galactic Center
Gillessen, S.; Eisenhauer, F.; Trippe, S.; Alexander, T.; Genzel, R.;
Martins, F.; Ott, T.
The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 692, Issue 2, pp. 1075-1109 (2009).
"We present the results of 16 years of monitoring stellar orbits
around the massive black hole in the center of the Milky Way, using
high-resolution near-infrared techniques. This work refines our
previous analysis mainly by greatly improving the definition of the
coordinate system, which reaches a long-term astrometric accuracy of
≈300 μas, and by investigating in detail the individual systematic
error contributions. The combination of a long-time baseline and the
excellent astrometric accuracy of adaptive optics data allows us to
determine orbits of 28 stars, including the star S2, which has
completed a full revolution since our monitoring began. Our main
results are: all stellar orbits are fit extremely well by a single-
point-mass potential to within the astrometric uncertainties, which
are now ≈6× better than in previous studies."
They report a mass of 4.31 millions suns for the object. Largest
observed stars have masses on the order of 110 suns and are clearly
visible. This object, of mass 4.31 millions suns is invisible and has
a very close star (S2) orbiting, which in 2002 passed about 17 light
hours from the object. It looks as a black hole, it smells as a black
hole, it performs as a black hole, so it is most probably....a black
hole.
Miguel Rios
Albertito
Sure, why not? You look as a dumbo, you smells as a dumbo, you
perform
as a dumbo, so you are most probably....a dumbo.
>
> Miguel Rios
Miguel
>
> Sure, why not? You look as a dumbo, you smells as a dumbo, you
> perform
> as a dumbo, so you are most probably....a dumbo.
>
For sure a very accurate description of yourself in your bathroom
every morning.
Miguel Rios
Albertito
Sorry, I didn't know you were really a dumbo.
Juan R.
Since "monitoring stellar orbits" does not show that the central object was
a black hole, the term "black hole candidate" would be preferable as in the
Nature article, whose link was sniped by you but reintroduced now
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7209/abs/nature07245.html
> They report a mass of 4.31 millions suns for the object. Largest
> observed stars have masses on the order of 110 suns and are clearly
> visible. This object, of mass 4.31 millions suns is invisible and has a
> very close star (S2) orbiting, which in 2002 passed about 17 light hours
> from the object. It looks as a black hole, it smells as a black hole, it
> performs as a black hole, so it is most probably....a black hole.
Since nothing of that is specific of a black hole, but is also explained by
other models (those whose links you sniped again), naming it a black hole
is either an act of faith or a gross misunderstanding of the scientific
method.
This is why more rigorous people publish in more rigorous journals as Nature...
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>> Moreover, maintain in mind that no known observation has showed the
>> existence of black holes, this is why rigorous and knowledeable people
>> uses the term "black hole candidate" "the presumed black hole"
>
> In recent years, knowledgeable people have been simply calling them
> black holes in the literature.
Of course to maintain this lie you were obligated to snip the link to Nature
given by me
REINTRODUCING SNIPED LINK
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7209/abs/nature07245.html
>> Moreover, from a theoretical point of view we *know* that the black
>> hole model of GR breaks down near horizon due to quantum effects,
>
> Not true. The horizon of a super-massive black hole can have a curvature
> smaller than here on earth.
You are not serious since computations say otherwise. But
> "Quantum effects" do not invalidate GR here
> on earth :-).
Only a nut would wait Hawking radiation here on earth :-D
> It is near the internal singularity that we know GR must break down --
Which is, of course, causally connected with the horizon. Maybe you believe
that quantum corrections may eliminate the central singularity whereas the
horizon remains intact and well-described by GR, but that is *your*
misunderstanding.
Michael Stemper
>Tom Roberts wrote on Thu, 24 Sep 2009 08:59:58 -0500:
>> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>>> Moreover, maintain in mind that no known observation has showed the
>>> existence of black holes, this is why rigorous and knowledeable people
>>> uses the term "black hole candidate" "the presumed black hole"
>>
>> In recent years, knowledgeable people have been simply calling them
>> black holes in the literature.
>
>Of course to maintain this lie you were obligated to snip the link to Nature
>given by me
>
>REINTRODUCING SNIPED LINK
>
>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7209/abs/nature07245.html
When I go to that link, I find the following text:
"[...] Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), the compact source of radio, infrared
and X-ray emission at the centre of the Milky Way, is the closest example
of this phenomenon, with an estimated black hole mass that is 4,000,000
times that of the Sun2, 3. A long-standing astronomical goal is to resolve
structures in the innermost accretion flow surrounding Sgr A*, where strong
gravitational fields will distort the appearance of radiation emitted near
the black hole. [...]"
Two uses of "black hole" and none of "candidate".
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Life's too important to take seriously.
john
And that leads directly to the black hole, because
in allowing something to emit (an infinite amount of)
something
in the opposite direction
to which it acts, presumably at the same speed
it is emitted (why, how does it work?),
one is immediately in la-la land.
Which is where you are. With the black hole.
john
P = N - P + P = 02eNtroPy
This is my thread and I claim it is true and challenge any prove me
wrong. Black holes are optical effects.
Musatov
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
paid an adequate attention to the fact, that a definitely nothing comes from
nothing...
However, as along that matter as along a black holes, which a simply a
points marking an end living of a stars, as they cab indicate the
nothingness...
However, as a depending on their placements would also only indicates the
time along the light years of their placements and their existence as
already are used mathematically to indicate the emptiness all along, and
this is what is all about, a definitely as a matter a fact...
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
"P = N - P + P = 02eNtroPy" <scri...@aol.com> kirjoitti
viestiss�:27ec18e8-862a-4f39...@p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Musatov wrote:
john wrote:
> On Sep 23, 5:47 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > On Sep 23, 3:31 pm, john <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
> > [snip babble]
> >
> > > The matter absorbs from this flow of energy to
> > > run its electrons, which are constantly radiating, as
> > > they must since they are travelling at very high speed
> > > in very small circles which means they are always
> > > ACCELERATING.
> > > Current teachings say the electron needs NO energy to
> > > travel (accelerate) around the atom.
> > > Teach this miraculous travel-for-free to Ford or Chevrolet,
> > > maybe save their ass. Another huge contradiction.
> >
> > Ahm, el�ctr�ns in atoms only radiare when other el�ctr�ns in other
> > atoms can tune in or be antennas for the former. Otherwise, they are
> > oscillators and don't fall in yet. Which is how some radio nebul�
Juan R.
Oh I can see now all of you are trolling me with your selective snipping...
Event-horizon-scale structure in the supermassive black hole candidate
at the Galactic Centre.
The cores of most galaxies are thought to harbour supermassive black
holes, which power galactic nuclei by converting the gravitational
energy of accreting matter into radiation1. Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*),
the compact source of radio, infrared and X-ray emission at the centre
of the Milky Way, is the closest example of this phenomenon, with an
estimated black hole mass that is 4,000,000 times that of the Sun2, 3.
A long-standing astronomical goal is to resolve structures in the
innermost accretion flow surrounding Sgr A*, where strong gravitational
fields will distort the appearance of radiation emitted near the black
hole. Radio observations at wavelengths of 3.5 mm and 7 mm have detected
intrinsic structure in Sgr A*, but the spatial resolution of observations
at these wavelengths is limited by interstellar scattering4, 5, 6, 7.
Here we report observations at a wavelength of 1.3 mm that set a size of
microarcseconds on the intrinsic diameter of Sgr A*. This is less than
the expected apparent size of the event horizon of the presumed black
hole, suggesting that the bulk of Sgr A* emission may not be centred on
the black hole, but arises in the surrounding accretion flow.
Rigorous people writes "supermassive black hole candidate", "are thought
to harbour supermassive black holes", "the presumed black hole"
But more rigorous people knows the fallacies behind the black hole model
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0909/0909.3426v1.pdf
Albertito
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Michael Stemper wrote on Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:18:19 +0000:
>
>
>
> > =?iso-8859-1?q?Gonz=E1lez-=C1lvarez?= <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com>
Why don't you write a draft proving that GR
is wrong because black holes are fallacies
(i.e. they can't exist in Nature)?
:-D
>
> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/
>
> BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...
Juan R.
Because *evidently* GR is not wrong. I think I explained this to you about
a half dozen of times before, but unfortunately you are too sloooooow :-D
>
>> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/
>>
>> BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...
--
Miguel
It is interesting that you refer to professor Hooft, naming him as if
he "knows the fallacies behind the black hole model". I wonder what he
would comment about your assertion of his work.
For all the interested ones, http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/ contains a
detailed description of his work, including a nice Introduction to the
Theory of Black Holes, where he hardly describes these alleged
"fallacies" of black holes.
Miguel Rios
Albertito
No, I'm not slow, I'm faster than light :-D
If GR is not wrong, why is it that GR can't
unify gravity and electromagnetism? Even a
guy like you could guess that electromagnetism
is a special case of gravitation. IOW, EM
waves arise from matter waves. IOW, EM waves
are just the expression of a collision at a
distance (non local) of material systems.
Juan R.
sloooooow and wrooooong :-D
>>
>>
>> >> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/
>>
>> >> BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...
>>
>> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/
>>
>> BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...
--
Albertito
Then, let me recommend this book to you,
"The Relativity of Wrong" - Isaac Asimov -
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Wrong-Isaac-Asimov/dp/1575660083
Saludos
PD
Because GR is not a theory of electromagnetism.
This is akin to you saying, "If evolution is right, then how come it
hasn't explained schizophrenia?"
GR makes predictions and the predictions appear to be right.
One doesn't fault a theory about predictions it doesn't make about an
subject where it doesn't apply.
> Even a
> guy like you could guess that electromagnetism
> is a special case of gravitation.
Sure, but what good is a guess?
Juan R.
Noooooooooooo (y me espatarro)
> Saludos
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> >> >> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/
>>
>> >> >> BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...
>>
>> >> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/
>>
>> >> BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...
>>
>> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/
>>
>> BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...
--
Jerome Walsh
spatarrarse
* do the splits (Full Translation)
* Gerund: espatarrando
* Participle: espatarrado
Indicative
Presente
* me espatarro
* te espatarras
* se espatarra
* nos espatarramos
* os espatarráis
* se espatarran
Pretérito
* me espatarré
* te espatarraste
* se espatarró
* nos espatarramos
* os espatarrasteis
* se espatarraron
Pretérito imperfecto
* me espatarraba
* te espatarrabas
* se espatarraba
* nos espatarrábamos
* os espatarrabais
* se espatarraban
Condicional
* me espatarraría
* te espatarrarías
* se espatarraría
* nos espatarraríamos
* os espatarraríais
* se espatarrarían
Futuro
* me espatarraré
* te espatarrarás
* se espatarrará
* nos espatarraremos
* os espatarraréis
* se espatarrarán
Subjunctive
Subjuntivo presente
* me espatarre
* te espatarres
* se espatarre
* nos espatarremos
* os espatarréis
* se espatarren
Subjuntivo futuro
* me espatarrare
* te espatarrares
* se espatarrare
* nos espatarráremos
* os espatarrareis
* se espatarraren
Subjuntivo pretérito
* me espatarrara
* te espatarraras
* se espatarrara
* nos espatarráramos
* os espatarrarais
* se espatarraran
Subjuntivo pretérito #2
* me espatarrase
* te espatarrases
* se espatarrase
* nos espatarrásemos
* os espatarraseis
* se espatarrasen
Perfect
Presente perfecto
* me he espatarrado
* te has espatarrado
* se ha espatarrado
* nos hemos espatarrado
* os habéis espatarrado
* se han espatarrado
Pasado perfecto
* me había espatarrado
* te habías espatarrado
* se había espatarrado
* nos habíamos espatarrado
* os habíais espatarrado
* se habían espatarrado
Pretérito perfecto
* me hube espatarrado
* te hubiste espatarrado
* se hubo espatarrado
* nos hubimos espatarrado
* os hubisteis espatarrado
* se hubieron espatarrado
Futuro perfecto
* me habré espatarrado
* te habrás espatarrado
* se habrá espatarrado
* nos habremos espatarrado
* os habréis espatarrado
* se habrán espatarrado
Condicional perfecto
* me habría espatarrado
* te habrías espatarrado
* se habría espatarrado
* nos habríamos espatarrado
* os habríais espatarrado
* se habrían espatarrado
Perfect Subjunctive
Presente perfecto subjuntivo
* me haya espatarrado
* te hayas espatarrado
* se haya espatarrado
* nos hayamos espatarrado
* os hayáis espatarrado
* se hayan espatarrado
Pasado perfecto subjuntivo
* me hubiera espatarrado
* te hubieras espatarrado
* se hubiera espatarrado
* nos hubiéramos espatarrado
* os hubierais espatarrado
* se hubieran espatarrado
Futuro perfecto subjuntivo
* me hubiere espatarrado
* te hubieres espatarrado
* se hubiere espatarrado
* nos hubiéremos espatarrado
* os hubiereis espatarrado
* se hubieren espatarrado
mmm
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts wrote on Thu, 24 Sep 2009 08:59:58 -0500:
>> In recent years, knowledgeable people have been simply calling them
>> black holes in the literature.
>
> Of course to maintain this lie you were obligated to snip the link to Nature
> given by me
It's no lie. A single article does not display what terms other people
in the field are using. Yes, some say "black hole candidate" and others
simply say "black hole". People active in the field know what they mean.
>>> Moreover, from a theoretical point of view we *know* that the black
>>> hole model of GR breaks down near horizon due to quantum effects,
>> Not true. The horizon of a super-massive black hole can have a curvature
>> smaller than here on earth.
>
> You are not serious since computations say otherwise.
Show the computation! You are wrong.
>> "Quantum effects" do not invalidate GR here
>> on earth :-).
>
> Only a nut would wait Hawking radiation here on earth :-D
Physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. For a supermassive black hole,
Hawking radiation does not come close to "breaking down" GR near the
horizon. Radiation of ~10^-42 Watts for a few million solar-mass object
is completely negligible! -- that's negligible in any lab here on earth.
BTW the fact that the curvature is so small near the horizon of such a
black hole is basically why the Hawking radiation is so negligible (in
QFT on a curved manifold, Hawking radiation is due to a coupling of the
photon to the curvature). So your confusions are correlated. The HR
lifetime of such black holes can be 10^70 times longer than the current
age of the universe! In practice, the CMBR influx GREATLY exceeds the HR
outflux and such a black hole GROWS even if completely isolated from all
other inflows.
>> It is near the internal singularity that we know GR must break down --
>
> Which is, of course, causally connected with the horizon.
Again not true. In GR no point in the interior of a black hole is inside
or on the past lightcone of any point on its horizon.
You have a lot of misinformation in your head about GR. You need to
LEARN what the theory actually says.
You could also stand to grow up. You seem to be interested
in physics and have some knowledge about it. But nobody
takes you seriously when you act like a child.
Tom Roberts
Juan R.
Juan R.
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote on Thu, 24 Sep 2009 08:59:58 -0500:
>>> In recent years, knowledgeable people have been simply calling them
>>> black holes in the literature.
>>
>> Of course to maintain this lie you were obligated to snip the link to
>> Nature given by me
>
> It's no lie. A single article does not display what terms other people
> in the field are using.
A single citation was enough to show how unfounded your comment was.
Of course, again you sniping the link to recent Nature article and once
again you use your known tactic of sniping without giving explicit
indication of the snip.
> Yes, some say "black hole candidate" and others
> simply say "black hole".
This is not the point, when talking about the theoretical model of GR we use
the term "black hole", but when refering to those observed massive objects
we refer to "black hole candidate" or "pressumed black hole".
Yes, some people as you confound both practices.
> People active in the field know what they mean.
Exactly,
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7209/abs/nature07245.html
>>>> Moreover, from a theoretical point of view we *know* that the black
>>>> hole model of GR breaks down near horizon due to quantum effects,
>>> Not true. The horizon of a super-massive black hole can have a
>>> curvature smaller than here on earth.
>>
>> You are not serious since computations say otherwise.
>
> Show the computation! You are wrong.
Are in the literature cited in a recent and large sci.physics.research thread!
It is not my fault if you are again totally disconected from modern physics.
>>> "Quantum effects" do not invalidate GR here on earth :-).
>>
>> Only a nut would wait Hawking radiation here on earth :-D
>
> Physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. For a supermassive black hole,
> Hawking radiation does not come close to "breaking down" GR near the
> horizon.
This is another very stupid comment. Of course, the model of Hawking radiation
is based in an entirely classical model for gravity where the Hilbert-Einstein
equations are maintained.
Since physics is a quantitative science, nobody *serious* wait quantum
effects to "invalidate GR here on earth :-)", just as nobody wait
"wait Hawking radiation here on earth :-D". We do the computations and see.
Whereas quantum corrections show that GR is a very good approx. for many
celestial objects as stars, it is not so good near horizons.
(...)
>>> It is near the internal singularity that we know GR must break down --
>>
>> Which is, of course, causally connected with the horizon.
>
> Again not true. In GR no point in the interior of a black hole is inside
> or on the past lightcone of any point on its horizon.
Of course, I did not say the idiocy that you are saying.
And of course, that I said "the singularity is causally connected with the
horizon" continue being true in GR.
This is why one cannot simply take some small region around the central
singularity and cut-off it from the rest of the spacetime pretending this
solve the problem of singularities. but this is very far beyond your
comprension.
> You have a lot of misinformation in your head about GR. You need to
> LEARN what the theory actually says.
>
> You could also stand to grow up. You seem to be interested in physics
> and have some knowledge about it. But nobody takes you seriously when
> you act like a child.
If you want to present us your ideas (even those very wrong), it is fine.
Not everyone is right in physics tom.
But when you snip references to top-journals as Nature to maintain your
points, when you show a complete ignorance of last advances in the topic,
when you focus on childish personal attacks, and specially when you use unmoderated
forums populated by students and amateurs to post your ideas, whereas totally
ignoring related threads in moderated forums as sci.physics.research [#] you
will continue to look as you look :-D
>
> Tom Roberts
[#] One where I offered detailed computations of why GR breaks down near
horizons, for instance.
Miguel
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote on Sun, 27 Sep 2009 08:41:23 -0500:
>
> > Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
> >> Tom Roberts wrote on Thu, 24 Sep 2009 08:59:58 -0500:
> >>> In recent years, knowledgeable people have been simply calling them
> >>> black holes in the literature.
>
> >> Of course to maintain this lie you were obligated to snip the link to
> >> Nature given by me
>
> > It's no lie. A single article does not display what terms other people
> > in the field are using.
>
> A single citation was enough to show how unfounded your comment was.
>
> Of course, again you sniping the link to recent Nature article and once
> again you use your known tactic of sniping without giving explicit
> indication of the snip.
>
> > Yes, some say "black hole candidate" and others
> > simply say "black hole".
>
> This is not the point, when talking about the theoretical model of GR we use
> the term "black hole", but when refering to those observed massive objects
> we refer to "black hole candidate" or "pressumed black hole".
>
> Yes, some people as you confound both practices.
>
> > People active in the field know what they mean.
>
> Exactly,
>
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7209/abs/nature07245.html
>
This link of yours refers to a letter to Nature (two pages long),
which describes preliminary results of two days of radio observations
performed by Doeleman's research team. The Astrophysical Journal
regular paper of Gillessen, is 35 pages long and describes results
from 16 years of observations.
The Doeleman letter reports, referring to figure 1, "This density
lower limit and central mass would rule out most alternatives to a
black hole for Sgr A* because other concentrations of matter would
have collapsed or evaporated on timescales that are short compared
with the age of the Milky Way".
They conclude the letter by stating: "Detection of the event-horizon-
scale structure reported here indicates that future VLBI observations
at 1.3 mm will open a new window onto fundamental black hole physics
through observations of our Galactic Centre. Plans to increase the
sensitivity of the VLBI array described here by factors of up to 10
are under way, and the addition of more VLBI stations will increase
baseline coverage and the ability to model increasingly complex
structures".
Both these teams are clearly working now and will continue to work to
make more evident how these stellar objects look.
Miguel Rios
Michael Stemper
>Michael Stemper wrote on Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:18:19 +0000:
>>>> In recent years, knowledgeable people have been simply calling them
>>>> black holes in the literature.
>>>
>>>Of course to maintain this lie you were obligated to snip the link to
>>>Nature given by me
>>>
>>>REINTRODUCING SNIPED LINK
>>>
>>>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7209/abs/nature07245.html
>>
>> When I go to that link, I find the following text:
>>
>> "[...] Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), the compact source of radio, infrared
>> and X-ray emission at the centre of the Milky Way, is the closest
>> example of this phenomenon, with an estimated black hole mass that is
>> 4,000,000 times that of the Sun2, 3. A long-standing astronomical goal
>> is to resolve structures in the innermost accretion flow surrounding
>> Sgr A*, where strong gravitational fields will distort the appearance
>> of radiation emitted near the black hole. [...]"
>>
>> Two uses of "black hole" and none of "candidate".
>
>Oh I can see now all of you are trolling me with your selective snipping...
>
> Event-horizon-scale structure in the supermassive black hole candidate
> at the Galactic Centre.
My mistake; I only looked at the body of the article, not the headline.
The headline does use the term "black hole candidate", unlike the body.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Indians scattered on dawn's highway bleeding;
Ghosts crowd the young child's fragile eggshell mind.
Juan R.
It was clearly not a mistake since the body contains similar
phrases like "are thought to harbour supermassive black holes", and
"the presumed black hole". *Relevant phrases* which you sniped earlier
in your selective misquoting and now *also* from my message.
Juan R.
i)
Appealing to old work by the same author is rather idiotic. New work
supersedes the old. It does not matter that he wrote ten years ago, but
that write today.
ii)
Those lecture notes describe the theory of black holes. Black holes are a
consequence of GR.
iii)
What is a fallacy is to consider that those black holes are real as done in
GR. This is why he says in the cited work that when the things are better
done "black holes, space-time singularities, and horizons disappear".
Of course, he does not mean that disappear from GR but from real world.
Miguel
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Miguel wrote on Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:18:02 -0700:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 25 sep, 11:21, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> > <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> >> Michael Stemper wrote on Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:18:19 +0000:
>
> >> Rigorous people writes "supermassive black hole candidate", "are
> >> thought to harbour supermassive black holes", "the presumed black hole"
>
> >> But more rigorous people knows the fallacies behind the black hole
> >> model
>
> >>http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0909/0909.3426v1.pdf
>
> > It is interesting that you refer to professor Hooft, naming him as if he
> > "knows the fallacies behind the black hole model". I wonder what he
> > would comment about your assertion of his work. For all the interested
> > his work, including a nice Introduction to the Theory of Black Holes,
> > where he hardly describes these alleged "fallacies" of black holes.
>
> > Miguel Rios
>
> i)
> Appealing to old work by the same author is rather idiotic. New work
> supersedes the old. It does not matter that he wrote ten years ago, but
> that write today.
>
Well, I do not consider his personal page as old material (for sure he
knows better his work than you or me). All his papers and books are
for sure there (see http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/gthpub.html). On the
other hand he is hardly a black hole "basher" as you seem to imply
with your use of the word "fallacies".
Miguel Rios
Miguel
>
> Well, I do not consider his personal page as old material (for sure he
> knows better his work than you or me). All his papers and books are
> other hand he is hardly a black hole "basher" as you seem to imply
> with your use of the word "fallacies".
>
> Miguel Rios
For example in his paper: The fundamental nature of space and time, in
Approaches to Quantum Gravity, Toward a New Understanding of Space,
Time and Matter, D. Oriti Ed., Cambridge Univ. Press 2009, ISBN
978-0-521-86045-1, pp. 13-25, he writes the following:
"Clearly, black holes will be an essential element in any quantum
gravity theory. We must understand how to deal with the requirement
that the situation obtained after some gravitational collapse can be
either described as some superdense blob of mass and energy, or as a
geometric region of space-time itself where ingoing observers should
be allowed to apply conventional laws of physics to describe what they
see. One can go a long way to deduce the consequences of this
requirement.
Particles going into a black hole will interact with all particles
going out. Of all these interactions, the gravitational one happens to
play a most crucial role. Only by taking this interaction into
account, can one understand how black holes can play the role of
resonances in a unitary scattering process where ingoing particles
form black holes and outgoing particles are the ones generated by the
Hawking process".
Miguel Rios
Juan R.
i)
Appealing to old work by the same author is rather idiotic. New work
supersedes the old. It does not matter that he wrote ten years ago, but
that he writes today when knows more and better. Science *evolves* and
mistakes are corrected.
The reference that you cite above is numbered #225 in
http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/gthpub.html
However the preprint
http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.3426
is his *last work* listed in the same page
http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/gthpub.html
Titled "Quantum gravity without space-time singularities or horizons"
he writes in it
[...] we find [...] an essential new ingredient for such a theory.
[...] dynamics in a way that appears to be fundamentally different [...]
If we add these to our set of symmetry transformations, black holes,
space-time singularities, and horizons disappear [...]
Your idiotic claim is that we would ignore the "essential new ingredient",
just as crackpots in spr like to ignore modern science and still pretend
that Newtonian mechanics is all we need :-D
ii)
I re-read that I wrote about fallacies and I want to explain I really mean.
I do not mean that the GR theoretical model was a fallacy. BHs are clearly
a consequence of GR. I mean that the claim that Sgr A* and others objects
are BH with horizons is a fallacy.
All those claims are misguided about black holes being real or even observed
are based in ignoring the details and corrections to a pure GR model.
Juan R.
Of course, my comment was not about the rigor of the observations but about
the pretension that those indirect observations prove the existence of a
black hole.
Moreover, the referring process is Nature is much more rigorous than in the
other journal, and part of this rigorous referring process includes the
selection of titles. This is why the title includes the term
"black hole candidate" [#]
> The Doeleman letter reports, referring to figure 1, "This density lower
> limit and central mass would rule out most alternatives to a black hole
> for Sgr A* because other concentrations of matter would have collapsed
> or evaporated on timescales that are short compared with the age of the
> Milky Way".
Again you pretend to misinterpret that the authors are saying. Of course,
the observations ruled out several alternatives but not *all*. This is why
they use the terms:
- "black hole candidate"
- "are thought to harbour supermassive black holes"
- "the presumed black hole"
They know what they observed and what not. Referees and editor also.
You don't.
Moreover, rigorous theoretical analysis proves that those objects are not
GR black holes, horizons, and singularities dissapear when one consider the
details. You do not like this but is neither my problem nor that by Hooft.
> They conclude the letter by stating: "Detection of the event-horizon-
> scale structure reported here indicates that future VLBI observations at
> 1.3 mm will open a new window onto fundamental black hole physics
> through observations of our Galactic Centre. Plans to increase the
> sensitivity of the VLBI array described here by factors of up to 10 are
> under way, and the addition of more VLBI stations will increase baseline
> coverage and the ability to model increasingly complex structures".
>
> Both these teams are clearly working now and will continue to work to
> make more evident how these stellar objects look.
Sure. Never said the contrary. More observations of those objects are
welcomed.
> Miguel Rios
[#] I cannot know if this was original author's title or a referee/editor
suggestion. But the fact is that they use the rigorous term "black
hole candidate" because they know that no black hole has been showed
to exists.
I understand that sci-fi writes have generated the idea that black holes
are real, but science is more serious.
Albertito
[snip all nonsenses]
Both Miguel and Juan are "arse hole candidates"
:-D
Michael
@echo:: Localise environment.setlocal enableextensions
enabledelayedexpansion:: Specify directories. Your current working
directory is used:: to create temporary files tmp_*.*set wkdir=
%~dp0%set wkdir=%wkdir:~0,-1%:: First pass, 10-second task with 20-
second timeout.del "%wkdir%\tmp_*.*" 2>nulecho >>"%wkdir%
\tmp_payload.cmd" ping 127.0.0.1 -n 11 ^>nulecho >>"%wkdir%
\tmp_payload.cmd" del "%wkdir%\tmp_payload.flg"call :monitor "%wkdir%
\tmp_payload.cmd" "%wkdir%\tmp_payload.flg" 20:: Second pass, 15-
second task with 10-second timeout.del "%wkdir%\tmp_*.*" 2>nul:echo
>>"%wkdir%\tmp_payload.cmd" ping 127.0.0.1 -n 16 ^>nulecho >>"%wkdir%
\tmp_payload.cmd" del "%wkdir%\tmp_payload.flg"call :monitor "%wkdir%
\tmp_payload.cmd" "%wkdir%\tmp_payload.flg"
10goto :final:monitor :: Create flag file and start the payload
minimized. echo >>%2 dummy start /min cmd.exe /c "%1" ::
Start monitoring. :: i is the indicator (0=|,1=/,2=-,3=
\). :: m is the number of seconds left before timeout. set
i=0 set m=%3 <nul (set /p z=Waiting for child to finish:
^|) :: Loop here awaiting completion. :loop :: Wait one
second. ping 127.0.0.1 -n 2 >nul :: Update counters and
output progress indicator. set /a "i = i + 1" set /a "m
= m - 1" if %i% equ 4 set i=0 if %i% equ 0 <nul (set /p
z=^H^|) if %i% equ 1 <nul (set /p z=^H/) if %i% equ 2
<nul (set /p z=^H-) if %i% equ 3 <nul (set /p z=^H\) ::
End conditions, complete or timeout. if not exist %2
( echo. echo. Complete.
goto :final ) if %m% leq 0 ( echo.
echo. *** ERROR: Timed-out waiting for child.
goto :final ) goto :loop:finalendlocal
http://meami.org
Miguel
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Miguel wrote on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:19:40 -0700:
>
> i)
> Appealing to old work by the same author is rather idiotic. New work
> supersedes the old. It does not matter that he wrote ten years ago, but
> that he writes today when knows more and better. Science *evolves* and
> mistakes are corrected.
>
> The reference that you cite above is numbered #225 in
>
> http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/gthpub.html
>
> However the preprint
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.3426
>
> is his *last work* listed in the same page
>
> http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/gthpub.html
>
> Titled "Quantum gravity without space-time singularities or horizons"
>
> he writes in it
>
> [...] we find [...] an essential new ingredient for such a theory.
> [...] dynamics in a way that appears to be fundamentally different [...]
> If we add these to our set of symmetry transformations, black holes,
> space-time singularities, and horizons disappear [...]
>
> Your idiotic claim is that we would ignore the "essential new ingredient",
> just as crackpots in spr like to ignore modern science and still pretend
> that Newtonian mechanics is all we need :-D
>
You are implying that a scientist, which has written 225 papers on his
career, is jumping from one subject to another, without following a
research line....that is what it is really idiotic and clearly shows
how little you know of performing a serious research.
> ii)
> I re-read that I wrote about fallacies and I want to explain I really mean.
>
> I do not mean that the GR theoretical model was a fallacy. BHs are clearly
> a consequence of GR. I mean that the claim that Sgr A* and others objects
> are BH with horizons is a fallacy.
>
> All those claims are misguided about black holes being real or even observed
> are based in ignoring the details and corrections to a pure GR model.
>
The observations are there and they are unquestionable: an object of a
mass of around 4.1 million suns is at the center of the galaxy and
that mass is concentrated in a very small volume. Whether it is a
black hole or a donut, it appears will only be resolved to your
satisfaction when you see it by your own eyes. More serious people in
science are confident the case for a black hole is looking remarkable
good.
Miguel Rios
Juan R.
I will not even reply this mixture of ad hominem plus straw man argument.
>> ii)
>> I re-read that I wrote about fallacies and I want to explain I really
>> mean.
>>
>> I do not mean that the GR theoretical model was a fallacy. BHs are
>> clearly a consequence of GR. I mean that the claim that Sgr A* and
>> others objects are BH with horizons is a fallacy.
>>
>> All those claims are misguided about black holes being real or even
>> observed are based in ignoring the details and corrections to a pure GR
>> model.
>>
>>
> The observations are there and they are unquestionable: an object of a
> mass of around 4.1 million suns is at the center of the galaxy and that
> mass is concentrated in a very small volume.
Exact that is all that has been scientifically stated. Nothing more. If
you want go from here to sci.fi or to metaphysics, you are free but do
not pretend to give scientific existence.
> Whether it is a black hole
> or a donut, it appears will only be resolved to your satisfaction when
> you see it by your own eyes.
I do not know any scientist believing that is a donuts.
> More serious people in science are
> confident the case for a black hole is looking remarkable good.
But I know that serious researchers use the terms "black hole candidate",
"pressumed black hole" and still more serious researchers (as the Nobel
winner) have papers on why those objects cannot be black holes.
You want them to be black holes and for that you go beyond what has
been scientifically observed, snip the literature you do not like
and ignore the theoretical works showing why you are plain wrong.
Miguel
Well it is clear that it was you who wrote: "i) Appealing to old work
by the same author is rather idiotic."
And, then, it was you again who wrote: "Your idiotic claim is that we
would ignore the "essential new ingredient"". So who is on the ad
hominem game here?
A simple search on Scopus, using the word "black hole", returned 22344
documents, including 19166 journal papers. The top 10 journals on this
subject (and the numbers of papers) are:
Astrophysical Journal (3,085)
Physical Review D Particles Fields Gravitation and Cosmology
(2,151)
Physical Review D (1,605)
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (1,245)
Classical and Quantum Gravity (1,229)
Journal of High Energy Physics (939)
Astronomy and Astrophysics (794)
Physics Letters Section B Nuclear Elementary Particle and High
Energy Physics (783)
General Relativity and Gravitation (462)
Nuclear Physics B (436)
Nature is behind at number 12 with 384 papers on the topic. The top 10
publishing researchers are:
Fabian, A.C. (146)
Shapiro, S.L. (102)
Ho, L.C. (99)
Belloni, T. (96)
Mineshige, S. (93)
Narayan, R. (89)
Chakrabarti, S.K. (85)
Van Der Klis, M. (80)
Mann, R.B. (76)
Ruffini, R. (76)
So as you are so interested in the correct use of terms such as "black
hole candidate" or "pressumed black hole", you may do your statistical
research with these journals and researchers and report your findings
to us.
Miguel Rios
Juan R.
> On 29 sep, 14:07, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>> Miguel wrote on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 06:48:43 -0700:
(...)
>> > You are implying that a scientist, which has written 225 papers on
>> > his career, is jumping from one subject to another, without following
>> > a research line....that is what it is really idiotic and clearly
>> > shows how little you know of performing a serious research.
>>
>> I will not even reply this mixture of ad hominem plus straw man
>> argument.
>
> Well it is clear that it was you who wrote: "i) Appealing to old work by
> the same author is rather idiotic."
>
> And, then, it was you again who wrote: "Your idiotic claim is that we
> would ignore the "essential new ingredient"". So who is on the ad
> hominem game here?
My comments were on the "idiotic claim" and the idiotic appealing, i.e.
on what was said.
Being unable to understand why rigorous people use those terms and being
unable to accept why Hoof point that (in his own words in his last work):
"black holes, space-time singularities, and horizons disappear"
after *new* developments in the field, you pretend to focus on more straw-man
arguments. Ok, let us continue this funny show.
i)
A simple search by "black hole" will return items containing black hole
candidate and presumed black hole and black hole mimicker and alternative
to black hole and works as those by the nobel winner on why black holes
are not real...
ii)
Science is not a democracy. Concepts are not more right or better because
more people think on them. Thus using an argument of X people think so
and Y people think so is sorry to say this again rather idiotic
iii)
Some of us know that none observation has showed that those massive objects
are black holes, less still GR black holes.
Some of us also know that the model of black holes *ignores* the details.
It has the same validity to say that massive objects are black holes as
ignoring the details and claiming that electrons are tiny balls described
by classical electrodynamics.
iv)
Some of us also know that sci-fi oriented people never will change his
mind about black holes.
papa...@gmail.com
Well...you are the one adamantly asserting that knowledgeable people
use "black hole candidate" or "pressumed black hole" in their
writings. Tom and I have been telling you that that is not the case.
From the list I provided, if you select the top ten listed researchers
and check the top 100 papers of the set the results are clear:
a) All of the 100 papers are from this year (2009), so they are
reflecting the current output of their research.
b) 38% of the papers have the words "black hole" in the title of the
paper.
c) None, that is 0%, of the papers have thae words "black hole
candidate" or "pressumed black hole" on the title.
Miguel Rios
Juan R.
Well... it seems rather reasonable that the same people who writes
"black hole candidate" or "pressumed black hole" does because knows what
has been measured/observed and what not. This same people also knows what
are the theoretical simplifications/assumptions of the black hole model
and how the model looks irreal when details are taken into account.
> Tom
> and I have been telling you that that is not the case. From the list I
> provided, if you select the top ten listed researchers and check the top
> 100 papers of the set the results are clear:
>
> a) All of the 100 papers are from this year (2009), so they are
> reflecting the current output of their research. b) 38% of the papers
> have the words "black hole" in the title of the paper.
> c) None, that is 0%, of the papers have thae words "black hole
> candidate" or "pressumed black hole" on the title.
First, there is more rigorous people than normal in science, just like there
is more geniouses than normal. Playing statistics about how many people think
or write so was answered in ii) above.
It does not matter if 100 articles say so and one or two say the contrary.
The paper I cited is much more rigorous than many others (this is specially
true in the case of Tom who cited ZERO references).
Your argument is so amazing as saying me "oh in 1905 so many people wrote
this about aether, therefore they may be correct," still a pair of papers
from Poincaré and Einstein said the contrary and founded special relativity.
Another example of popularity saying little in SCIENCE...
Second, your 0% looks strange, very strange. Looks as Tom usual tactic
of sniping references contradicting him and even not noticing the snip!
Emphasizing again I do not care about how many people say so, I did a
search by "black hole candidate" and 2009 and I do not get zero results:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=es&scoring=r&q=%22black+hole+candidate%22+2009
And I find works published in 2009 with the term "black hole candidate" in
the title. E.g. next is the third in the list
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0004-637X/703/1/930
The fact you found "none" either implies you are sniping literature
contradicting you or you cannot search, which would explain
your ignorance of the field.
papa...@gmail.com
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> papar...@gmail.com wrote on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 04:56:55 -0700:
>
> > Well...you are the one adamantly asserting that knowledgeable people use
> > "black hole candidate" or "pressumed black hole" in their writings.
>
> Well... it seems rather reasonable that the same people who writes
> "black hole candidate" or "pressumed black hole" does because knows what
> has been measured/observed and what not. This same people also knows what
> are the theoretical simplifications/assumptions of the black hole model
> and how the model looks irreal when details are taken into account.
>
That is your personal opinion and, clearly, it is not shared by the
editors and reviewers of the top science journals publishing about
these objects.
> > Tom
> > and I have been telling you that that is not the case. From the list I
> > provided, if you select the top ten listed researchers and check the top
> > 100 papers of the set the results are clear:
>
> > a) All of the 100 papers are from this year (2009), so they are
> > reflecting the current output of their research. b) 38% of the papers
> > have the words "black hole" in the title of the paper.
> > c) None, that is 0%, of the papers have thae words "black hole
> > candidate" or "pressumed black hole" on the title.
>
> First, there is more rigorous people than normal in science, just like there
> is more geniouses than normal. Playing statistics about how many people think
> or write so was answered in ii) above.
>
> It does not matter if 100 articles say so and one or two say the contrary.
> The paper I cited is much more rigorous than many others (this is specially
> true in the case of Tom who cited ZERO references).
>
Again, you are putting yourself in the position of a guy who judges
who is rigorous and who is not in these subjects or it is just a
personal opinion?. Are you perhaps a reviewer of some of these
journals? What are your qualifications on this respect?
> Second, your 0% looks strange, very strange. Looks as Tom usual tactic
> of sniping references contradicting him and even not noticing the snip!
>
> Emphasizing again I do not care about how many people say so, I did a
> search by "black hole candidate" and 2009 and I do not get zero results:
>
> http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=es&scoring=r&q=%22black+hole+can...
>
> And I find works published in 2009 with the term "black hole candidate" in
> the title. E.g. next is the third in the list
>
> http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0004-637X/703/1/930
>
> The fact you found "none" either implies you are sniping literature
> contradicting you or you cannot search, which would explain
> your ignorance of the field.
>
Well, it appears that you only have access to public databases such as
Google or Wikipedia and not Scopus. That is OK. Scopus is a database
which is provided to journal reviewers (which is a must when you are
reviewing a submitted paper) and, for sure, it is more selective than
Academic Google. But, again, even if we use your search tool, we can
easily get the following results:
i) Search in Academic Google for "black hole candidate" 2009, as you
did, delivers 600 documents.
ii) Search in Academic Google for "black hole" 2009, delivers 42200
documents.
iii) The ratio of "black hole candidate" 2009/"black hole" 2009 hits
is of 1.4%, which is consistent with the results provided by Scopus.
Miguel Rios
Juan R.
All this is ridiculous. No I am not a reviewer of those journals. But neither
are you or Tom. But wait we may take your ill-informed opinions about Nature
as Gospel.
>> Second, your 0% looks strange, very strange. Looks as Tom usual tactic
>> of sniping references contradicting him and even not noticing the snip!
>>
>> Emphasizing again I do not care about how many people say so, I did a
>> search by "black hole candidate" and 2009 and I do not get zero
>> results:
>>
>> http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=es&scoring=r&q=%22black+hole+can...
>>
>> And I find works published in 2009 with the term "black hole candidate"
>> in the title. E.g. next is the third in the list
>>
>> http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0004-637X/703/1/930
>>
>> The fact you found "none" either implies you are sniping literature
>> contradicting you or you cannot search, which would explain your
>> ignorance of the field.
>>
>>
> Well, it appears that you only have access to public databases such as
> Google or Wikipedia and not Scopus. That is OK.
I do not regularly use Elsevier databases (I prefer richer and older
databases from ACS and other societies). The reason which I prefered
Scholar, (Wikipedia is not a database but an enciclopedia) is
because is open everyone. And in fact everyone could check how wrong or liar
you are.
> Scopus is a database
> which is provided to journal reviewers (which is a must when you are
> reviewing a submitted paper) and, for sure, it is more selective than
> Academic Google.
Your claim was that none article published in 2009 used candidate in the title
but using Scholar I find some few in a pair of minutes.
I gave above the link to Astrophysical Journal, a journal published by the
American Astrophisical Journal. This is the presentation of the journal
http://www.iop.org/EJ/journal/0004-637X
"The Astrophysical Journal is the leading international research journal
in its field and publishes papers across the breadth of astronomy and
astrophysics."
But wait did not you said us that NONE had been published? :-D
I am so sorry that your Scopus was so selective... that leaved out
the leading journal in the field.
Does Scopus give lots of links to low-quality journals published by Elsevier?
> But, again, even if we use your search tool, we can
> easily get the following results:
>
> i) Search in Academic Google for "black hole candidate" 2009, as you
> did, delivers 600 documents.
> ii) Search in Academic Google for "black hole" 2009, delivers 42200
> documents.
> iii) The ratio of "black hole candidate" 2009/"black hole" 2009 hits is
> of 1.4%, which is consistent with the results provided by Scopus.
This kind of scary argument was given before. The response is the same. Copy
it from my previous messages.
papa...@gmail.com
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> papar...@gmail.com wrote on Thu, 01 Oct 2009 07:13:46 -0700:
>
> > Again, you are putting yourself in the position of a guy who judges who
> > is rigorous and who is not in these subjects or it is just a personal
> > opinion?. Are you perhaps a reviewer of some of these journals? What are
> > your qualifications on this respect?
>
> All this is ridiculous. No I am not a reviewer of those journals. But neither
> are you or Tom. But wait we may take your ill-informed opinions about Nature
> as Gospel.
>
Well...you are wrong! I am a reviewer of several journals, on my
expertise area which is not, for sure, black holes.
Now regarding your next assertion, what ill-informed opinions are
those? I just pointed out to you that, as in several journals is the
case, there are published regular papers (such as the Astrophysical
Journal, where the 16 year study of the S2 star orbiting the
supermassive black hole of our galaxy was reported in 35 pages) and
also correspondence (such as the 2 pages letter of Nature you pointed
out). You indicated that the Nature letter had your own assigned level
of being more rigorous than the regular paper of the Astrophysical
Journal, which clearly is not the case. Both Nature and the
Astrophysical Journal are highly respected publications and both
regular papers and correspondence are also equally valid (a
correspondence reporting more recent results and also with a shorter
reviewing process). Of course Nature (as well as Science) are more
general journals including subjects as biology, medicine, chemistry
and physics, while AJ main target is obvious from its title.
As a final conclusion, your point of view is that the use of the words
"black hole" is wrong and it should follow the guidance of more
knowledgeable people (according to your own rating) and use instead
"black hole candidate" or "presumed black hole". My point of view, on
the other hand, is that long term observations, and new measurement
techniques (including larger optical and radio telescopes with proper
instrumentation) are making possible to view more and more detail on
what is going on in our galactic center, and that those studies are
making the case, for the existence of a super massive black hole
there, highly probable.
We agree to disagree. Let the knowledgeable people find the answers.
Miguel Rios
Juan R.
> On 1 oct, 12:52, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>> papar...@gmail.com wrote on Thu, 01 Oct 2009 07:13:46 -0700:
>>
>> > Again, you are putting yourself in the position of a guy who judges
>> > who is rigorous and who is not in these subjects or it is just a
>> > personal opinion?. Are you perhaps a reviewer of some of these
>> > journals? What are your qualifications on this respect?
>>
>> All this is ridiculous. No I am not a reviewer of those journals. But
>> neither are you or Tom. But wait we may take your ill-informed opinions
>> about Nature as Gospel.
>>
>>
> Well...you are wrong! I am a reviewer of several journals, on my
> expertise area which is not, for sure, black holes.
If you are a reviewer of AJ or Nature then I was wrong.
> Now regarding your
> next assertion, what ill-informed opinions are those? I just pointed out
> to you that, as in several journals is the case, there are published
> regular papers (such as the Astrophysical Journal, where the 16 year
> study of the S2 star orbiting the supermassive black hole of our galaxy
> was reported in 35 pages)
This is one of them: "the supermassive black hole of our galaxy" is
an ill-informed opinion because nobody has showed such one thing.
> and also correspondence (such as the 2 pages
> letter of Nature you pointed out).
The letter is not correspondence. "Correspondence" is a different section in
the journal Nature.
> You indicated that the Nature letter
> had your own assigned level of being more rigorous than the regular
> paper of the Astrophysical Journal, which clearly is not the case.
It is well-known that Nature has one of most rigorous (if not the most)
refeering processes, where even titles are reviewed.
The title "black hole candidate" is by far more rigorus and exact because
reflect the knowledge.
> Both
> Nature and the Astrophysical Journal are highly respected publications
> and both regular papers and correspondence are also equally valid (a
> correspondence reporting more recent results and also with a shorter
> reviewing process).
No, again letters are not Correspondence in Nature.
> Of course Nature (as well as Science) are more
> general journals including subjects as biology, medicine, chemistry and
> physics, while AJ main target is obvious from its title.
The definition of Letter from Nature editorial board is:
short reports of original research focused on an outstanding finding
whose importance means that it will be of interest to scientists in
other fields.
AJ is not specifically devoted to "outstanding findings".
> As a final conclusion, your point of view is that the use of the words
> "black hole" is wrong
This is a complete misunderstanding of what I really said and is
archived in this thread.
> and it should follow the guidance of more
> knowledgeable people (according to your own rating) and use instead
> "black hole candidate" or "presumed black hole".
I am comfortable that I am on good company.
> My point of view, on
> the other hand, is that long term observations, and new measurement
> techniques (including larger optical and radio telescopes with proper
> instrumentation) are making possible to view more and more detail on
> what is going on in our galactic center, and that those studies are
> making the case, for the existence of a super massive black hole there,
> highly probable.
You are a liar.
Above you said "the supermassive black hole of our galaxy" instead
the "PRESSUMED supermassive black hole of our galaxy".
Moreover, you are been critizing my suggestion to use the terms
"black hole candidate" and "pressumed black hole". Still now you state
that new techniques will make the existence of a super massive black
hole in our galactic center highly probable.
But even ignoring those lies you show again absolutely no idea.
First those indirect observations are compatible with the so named black
hole mimickers, objects looking like but not being black holes.
Pretending that the indirect observations show the existence of black holes
is another ill-informed comment.
Second, the black hole model is based in the assumptions that GR works
at any scale. This unphysical assumption is not different from assuming
that classical electrodynamics works for any scale (which is plain wrong).
> We agree to disagree. Let the knowledgeable people find the answers.
Sure we disagree. In my point iv) in a previous message I wrote:
Some of us also know that sci-fi oriented people never will change
his mind about black holes.
I am confortable seeing more and more people is starting to understand
how idealized and irreal the model of black holes is.
The latter guy I know is the Nobel tHoof who in a last work accepts that
black holes do not exist in Nature when one consider the details.
Of course BH will continue to exist in the ideal world of mathematics.
Autymn D. C.
> As a final conclusion, your point of view is that the use of the words
> "black hole" is wrong and it should follow the guidance of more
> knowledgeable people (according to your own rating) and use instead
> "black hole candidate" or "presumed black hole". My point of view, on
> the other hand, is that long term observations, and new measurement
> techniques (including larger optical and radio telescopes with proper
> instrumentation) are making possible to view more and more detail on
> what is going on in our galactic center, and that those studies are
> making the case, for the existence of a super massive black hole
> there, highly probable.
You are wrong; the black hole is a strawman. Such bodies are nuclear
collapsars, relativistic dark stars.
-Aut
http://meami.org
You may only consent fort=1 -(t)~ime.
http://meami.org
A@ @e
[Light fills->f[ox
]<-black holes]e^pi
s
t
h e
I s
t
No.
Autymn D. C.
A few fysysysts agree with me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_star
"A Q-Star, also known as a gray hole, is hypothetical type of a
compact, heavy neutron star with an exotic state of matter."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Star_(semiclassical_gravity)
"A black star is created when matter compresses at a rate
significantly less than the freefall velocity of a hypothetical
particle falling to the center of its star, due to the fact that
quantum processes create vacuum polarization, which creates a form of
degeneracy pressure, preventing spacetime (and the particles held
within it) from occupying the same space at the same time. This energy
is theoretically unlimited..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy_star
"In March 2005, physicist George Chapline claimed that quantum
mechanics makes it a "near certainty", that black holes do not exist
and are instead dark energy stars. The dark energy star is a different
concept than that of a gravastar."
-Aut
Autymn D. C.
> -Aut
I will also take bodies with a virtval event horizòn; that is, over a
thick heavy background medium for Chèrèncov and evanescent waves. But
event horizòns don't work if their fields aren't at ground.
-Aut
Peter Webb
"Autymn D. C." <lysd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:7a62b9c4-42d5-4065...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Occam's razor.
The trouble with all these theories is that the objects require GR +
something else. The standard theory of black holes seems perfectly fine just
using GR, at least as far as we can determine experimentally.
Autymn D. C.
> On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 19:16:56 -0700 (PDT), "Autymn D. C."> No.
> #
> How about phühsigg?
http://google.com/groups?q=Dohiwtsch
> >-Aut
>
> Hello, Alexia Cameron.
I don't know of http://google.com/search?q=%22Alexia+Cameron%22.
-Aut
Autymn D. C.
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in messagenews:7a62b9c4-42d5-4065...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
No it doesn't. A black hole takes mass (GR--oh wait, GR doesn't even
take "mass".), charge (EM), spin (C), and must speed, freedom, and
temperature (C, SR, ThD, QED). Scientists want to forget the latter,
along with charge, as charge already makes their fantasy impossibil.
-Aut
eric gisse
[...]
> We agree to disagree. Let the knowledgeable people find the answers.
>
> Miguel Rios
Already have.
Juan is so full of shit that it is coming out his ears, as per usual. He
tries to use English as a weapon by claiming the occasional use of 'black
hole candidate' means no serious researchers think black holes exist.
He deliberately ignores literature he can't discount, and gets very very
butthurt when called upon it.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_frm/thread/4208ba309b56b6f0
I summarize the best evidence for him, and explain it in baby steps. He
didn't get it, but I imagine you would. The stuff related to orbital motion
of stars near Sgr. A* by Ghez is only the tip of the iceberg.