Discussion:
Many smaller BHs
john
2018-04-07 22:39:16 UTC
Raw Message
They have found many smaller BHs around the Center. Like tornados around a hurricane
m***@gmail.com
2018-04-07 22:50:41 UTC
Raw Message
On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 3:39:20 PM UTC-7, john wrote:
> They have found many smaller BHs around the Center. Like tornados around a hurricane

How do we find a black hole?
if we can't see it?

Mitchell Raemsch
Steve BH
2018-04-07 23:44:16 UTC
Raw Message
On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 3:50:45 PM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 3:39:20 PM UTC-7, john wrote:
> > They have found many smaller BHs around the Center. Like tornados around a hurricane
>
> How do we find a black hole?
> if we can't see it?
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

Things you CAN see, like ordinary stars, are in long, thin, "hairpin loop" orbits around the black hole. Something makes them go incredibly fast at the end and reverse course. You can calculate that mass and it's millions of stars, but nothing is there, and nothing can be seen. That's a black hole.
m***@gmail.com
2018-04-07 23:51:53 UTC
Raw Message
On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 4:44:20 PM UTC-7, Steve BH wrote:
> On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 3:50:45 PM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 3:39:20 PM UTC-7, john wrote:
> > > They have found many smaller BHs around the Center. Like tornados around a hurricane
> >
> > How do we find a black hole?
> > if we can't see it?
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
>
> Things you CAN see, like ordinary stars, are in long, thin, "hairpin loop" orbits around the black hole. Something makes them go incredibly fast at the end and reverse course. You can calculate that mass and it's millions of stars, but nothing is there, and nothing can be seen. That's a black hole.

We see redshifts of stars light orbiting these maximum gravities.
They don't have to be black holes. Only by what orbits them can
we determine gravity strength by redshifts.

You are wrong about orbital "reversals." That is not real Steve.
That is something like why Quantum Mechanics is wrong... reversing
particle paths in time... not to be believed...

Mitchell Raemsch
p***@gmail.com
2018-04-08 02:42:48 UTC
Raw Message
On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 4:51:56 PM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 4:44:20 PM UTC-7, Steve BH wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 3:50:45 PM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 3:39:20 PM UTC-7, john wrote:
> > > > They have found many smaller BHs around the Center. Like tornados around a hurricane
> > >
> > > How do we find a black hole?
> > > if we can't see it?
> > >
> > > Mitchell Raemsch
> >
> > Things you CAN see, like ordinary stars, are in long, thin, "hairpin loop" orbits around the black hole. Something makes them go incredibly fast at the end and reverse course. You can calculate that mass and it's millions of stars, but nothing is there, and nothing can be seen. That's a black hole.
>
> We see redshifts of stars light orbiting these maximum gravities.
> They don't have to be black holes. Only by what orbits them can
> we determine gravity strength by redshifts.
>
> You are wrong about orbital "reversals." That is not real Steve.
> That is something like why Quantum Mechanics is wrong... reversing
> particle paths in time... not to be believed...

Mitch, you incredible dimwit, Steve didn't mean these stars literally reverse course along their orbit, he just means that nearer the black hole these stars move very, very fast, swing around the BH, and leave in just as big a hurry, in highly elliptical orbits.

Looky here...

https://tinyurl.com/y9cg6rk9

... all you could ever want to know about star S2...
m***@gmail.com
2018-04-08 03:18:30 UTC
Raw Message
On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 7:42:51 PM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 4:51:56 PM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 4:44:20 PM UTC-7, Steve BH wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 3:50:45 PM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 3:39:20 PM UTC-7, john wrote:
> > > > > They have found many smaller BHs around the Center. Like tornados around a hurricane
> > > >
> > > > How do we find a black hole?
> > > > if we can't see it?
> > > >
> > > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > >
> > > Things you CAN see, like ordinary stars, are in long, thin, "hairpin loop" orbits around the black hole. Something makes them go incredibly fast at the end and reverse course. You can calculate that mass and it's millions of stars, but nothing is there, and nothing can be seen. That's a black hole.
> >
> > We see redshifts of stars light orbiting these maximum gravities.
> > They don't have to be black holes. Only by what orbits them can
> > we determine gravity strength by redshifts.
> >
> > You are wrong about orbital "reversals." That is not real Steve.
> > That is something like why Quantum Mechanics is wrong... reversing
> > particle paths in time... not to be believed...
>
> Mitch, you incredible dimwit, Steve didn't mean these stars literally reverse course along their orbit, he just means that nearer the black hole these stars move very, very fast, swing around the BH, and leave in just as big a hurry, in highly elliptical orbits.
>
> Looky here...

But does he know what you mean pnal?

>
> https://tinyurl.com/y9cg6rk9
>
> ... all you could ever want to know about star S2...

If we can't see a black hole... there is an alternative there
creating the orbit. Light constant speed does not respond to gravity
so light has never been trapped by any gravity.

Black holes have been ruled out entirely if any at all light
can leave so it has all been stupid because all light bubbles could...
Light's parabolic motion curve in gravity doesn't trap it.
And the curve itself is limited.

Mitchell Raemsch
p***@gmail.com
2018-04-08 03:52:14 UTC
Raw Message
On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 8:18:35 PM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 7:42:51 PM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 4:51:56 PM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 4:44:20 PM UTC-7, Steve BH wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 3:50:45 PM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 3:39:20 PM UTC-7, john wrote:
> > > > > > They have found many smaller BHs around the Center. Like tornados around a hurricane
> > > > >
> > > > > How do we find a black hole?
> > > > > if we can't see it?
> > > > >
> > > > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > > >
> > > > Things you CAN see, like ordinary stars, are in long, thin, "hairpin loop" orbits around the black hole. Something makes them go incredibly fast at the end and reverse course. You can calculate that mass and it's millions of stars, but nothing is there, and nothing can be seen. That's a black hole.
> > >
> > > We see redshifts of stars light orbiting these maximum gravities.
> > > They don't have to be black holes. Only by what orbits them can
> > > we determine gravity strength by redshifts.
> > >
> > > You are wrong about orbital "reversals." That is not real Steve.
> > > That is something like why Quantum Mechanics is wrong... reversing
> > > particle paths in time... not to be believed...
> >
> > Mitch, you incredible dimwit, Steve didn't mean these stars literally reverse course along their orbit, he just means that nearer the black hole these stars move very, very fast, swing around the BH, and leave in just as big a hurry, in highly elliptical orbits.
> >
> > Looky here...
>
> But does he know what you mean pnal?

Of course he does, as does anyone with 2 functioning braian cells...
>
> >
> > https://tinyurl.com/y9cg6rk9
> >
> > ... all you could ever want to know about star S2...
>
> If we can't see a black hole... there is an alternative there
> creating the orbit. Light constant speed does not respond to gravity
> so light has never been trapped by any gravity.
>
> Black holes have been ruled out entirely if any at all light
> can leave so it has all been stupid because all light bubbles could...
> Light's parabolic motion curve in gravity doesn't trap it.
> And the curve itself is limited.

Gobbledegook, all of it, meaningless.
m***@gmail.com
2018-04-08 18:44:12 UTC
Raw Message
On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 8:52:18 PM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 8:18:35 PM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 7:42:51 PM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 4:51:56 PM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 4:44:20 PM UTC-7, Steve BH wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 3:50:45 PM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 3:39:20 PM UTC-7, john wrote:
> > > > > > > They have found many smaller BHs around the Center. Like tornados around a hurricane
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How do we find a black hole?
> > > > > > if we can't see it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > > > >
> > > > > Things you CAN see, like ordinary stars, are in long, thin, "hairpin loop" orbits around the black hole. Something makes them go incredibly fast at the end and reverse course. You can calculate that mass and it's millions of stars, but nothing is there, and nothing can be seen. That's a black hole.
> > > >
> > > > We see redshifts of stars light orbiting these maximum gravities.
> > > > They don't have to be black holes. Only by what orbits them can
> > > > we determine gravity strength by redshifts.
> > > >
> > > > You are wrong about orbital "reversals." That is not real Steve.
> > > > That is something like why Quantum Mechanics is wrong... reversing
> > > > particle paths in time... not to be believed...
> > >
> > > Mitch, you incredible dimwit, Steve didn't mean these stars literally reverse course along their orbit, he just means that nearer the black hole these stars move very, very fast, swing around the BH, and leave in just as big a hurry, in highly elliptical orbits.
> > >
> > > Looky here...
> >
> > But does he know what you mean pnal?
>
> Of course he does, as does anyone with 2 functioning braian cells...

Why are you insulting him at the same time?

> >
> > >
> > > https://tinyurl.com/y9cg6rk9
> > >
> > > ... all you could ever want to know about star S2...
> >
> > If we can't see a black hole... there is an alternative there
> > creating the orbit. Light constant speed does not respond to gravity
> > so light has never been trapped by any gravity.
> >
> > Black holes have been ruled out entirely if any at all light
> > can leave so it has all been stupid because all light bubbles could...
> > Light's parabolic motion curve in gravity doesn't trap it.
> > And the curve itself is limited.
>
> Gobbledegook, all of it, meaningless.
Michael Moroney
2018-04-08 16:05:47 UTC
Raw Message
john <***@gmail.com> writes:

>They have found many smaller BHs around the Center. Like tornados around
>a hurricane

Or more like lots of dead stellar corpses around the center. Like if the
BH at the center has attracted lots of stuff over time.
john
2018-04-08 16:13:08 UTC
Raw Message
MM
"Or more like lots of dead stellar corpses around the center. Like if the
BH at the center has attracted lots of stuff over time. "
But they splashed?
Or the BH is full?
Why didn't they fall in and disappear?
Michael Moroney
2018-04-08 17:42:11 UTC
Raw Message
john <***@gmail.com> writes:

>MM
>"Or more like lots of dead stellar corpses around the center. Like if the
>BH at the center has attracted lots of stuff over time. "
>But they splashed?
>Or the BH is full?
>Why didn't they fall in and disappear?

Because the smaller black holes are in a stable orbit around the galactic
black hole? Or at least a long term stable orbit? (Look at star S2 again.
Some day it will go supernova and form a black hole or neutron star)

Nobody ever mentioned anything about any "splashing" (whatever that is) or
a BH somehow getting "full" (impossible, since they get as large as there
is matter that has fallin in)
Odd Bodkin
2018-04-08 20:36:34 UTC
Raw Message
john <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> MM
> "Or more like lots of dead stellar corpses around the center. Like if the
> BH at the center has attracted lots of stuff over time. "
> But they splashed?
> Or the BH is full?
> Why didn't they fall in and disappear?
>

Because they are still orbiting.
Same reason all the planets have not fallen into the sun.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
m***@gmail.com
2018-04-08 20:45:56 UTC
Raw Message
On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 1:36:39 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> john <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > MM
> > "Or more like lots of dead stellar corpses around the center. Like if the
> > BH at the center has attracted lots of stuff over time. "
> > But they splashed?
> > Or the BH is full?
> > Why didn't they fall in and disappear?

That is a wormhole that drains into a white hole "Hypernova"
on the other side.

It means Hawkings black holes wouldn't be around. They drained
at formation.

Mitchell Raemsch

> >
>
> Because they are still orbiting.

> Same reason all the planets have not fallen into the sun.
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Chris M. Thomasson
2018-04-08 22:03:21 UTC
Raw Message
On 4/8/2018 1:45 PM, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 1:36:39 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> john <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> MM
>>> "Or more like lots of dead stellar corpses around the center. Like if the
>>> BH at the center has attracted lots of stuff over time. "
>>> But they splashed?
>>> Or the BH is full?
>>> Why didn't they fall in and disappear?
>
> That is a wormhole that drains into a white hole "Hypernova"
> on the other side.

Imvvho, there seems to be orbital characteristics that can actually
prevent things from being committed "into" the internals of a black hole.

>
> It means Hawkings black holes wouldn't be around. They drained
> at formation.
[...]
m***@gmail.com
2018-04-08 22:18:16 UTC
Raw Message
On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 3:03:23 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 4/8/2018 1:45 PM, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 1:36:39 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> john <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> MM
> >>> "Or more like lots of dead stellar corpses around the center. Like if the
> >>> BH at the center has attracted lots of stuff over time. "
> >>> But they splashed?
> >>> Or the BH is full?
> >>> Why didn't they fall in and disappear?
> >
> > That is a wormhole that drains into a white hole "Hypernova"
> > on the other side.
>
> Imvvho, there seems to be orbital characteristics that can actually
> prevent things from being committed "into" the internals of a black hole.

Do accretion discs become jets?
How can matter be ejected from a black hole
that came from an accretion disc when the
two are at an angle?

Mitchell Raemsch

>
> >
> > It means Hawkings black holes wouldn't be around. They drained
> > at formation.
> [...]
Chris M. Thomasson
2018-04-08 23:22:58 UTC
Raw Message
On 4/8/2018 3:18 PM, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 3:03:23 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 4/8/2018 1:45 PM, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 1:36:39 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> john <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> MM
>>>>> "Or more like lots of dead stellar corpses around the center. Like if the
>>>>> BH at the center has attracted lots of stuff over time. "
>>>>> But they splashed?
>>>>> Or the BH is full?
>>>>> Why didn't they fall in and disappear?
>>>
>>> That is a wormhole that drains into a white hole "Hypernova"
>>> on the other side.
>>
>> Imvvho, there seems to be orbital characteristics that can actually
>> prevent things from being committed "into" the internals of a black hole.
>
> Do accretion discs become jets?

The jets from, say a quasar, seem to be created from a hard core feeding
frenzy. The material from the the jets do not seem to be emanating from
"inside" the black hole.

> How can matter be ejected from a black hole
> that came from an accretion disc when the
> two are at an angle?

Some matter falls in, some does not.

[...]
m***@gmail.com
2018-04-08 23:28:45 UTC
Raw Message
On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 4:23:01 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 4/8/2018 3:18 PM, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 3:03:23 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >> On 4/8/2018 1:45 PM, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 1:36:39 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> john <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> MM
> >>>>> "Or more like lots of dead stellar corpses around the center. Like if the
> >>>>> BH at the center has attracted lots of stuff over time. "
> >>>>> But they splashed?
> >>>>> Or the BH is full?
> >>>>> Why didn't they fall in and disappear?
> >>>
> >>> That is a wormhole that drains into a white hole "Hypernova"
> >>> on the other side.
> >>
> >> Imvvho, there seems to be orbital characteristics that can actually
> >> prevent things from being committed "into" the internals of a black hole.
> >
> > Do accretion discs become jets?
>
> The jets from, say a quasar, seem to be created from a hard core feeding
> frenzy. The material from the the jets do not seem to be emanating from
> "inside" the black hole.

The matter floats out at 90 degrees to the jets.
Matter slows down in gravity. Light leaves
gravity at its constant speed.
How can matter defy maximum gravity if it
always slows down at the maximum?

>
>
> > How can matter be ejected from a black hole
> > that came from an accretion disc when the
> > two are at an angle?
>
> Some matter falls in, some does not.

What determines a stable orbit?

Mitchell Raemsch
Chris M. Thomasson
2018-04-08 23:37:10 UTC
Raw Message
On 4/8/2018 4:28 PM, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 4:23:01 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 4/8/2018 3:18 PM, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 3:03:23 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>> On 4/8/2018 1:45 PM, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 1:36:39 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> john <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> MM
>>>>>>> "Or more like lots of dead stellar corpses around the center. Like if the
>>>>>>> BH at the center has attracted lots of stuff over time. "
>>>>>>> But they splashed?
>>>>>>> Or the BH is full?
>>>>>>> Why didn't they fall in and disappear?
>>>>>
>>>>> That is a wormhole that drains into a white hole "Hypernova"
>>>>> on the other side.
>>>>
>>>> Imvvho, there seems to be orbital characteristics that can actually
>>>> prevent things from being committed "into" the internals of a black hole.
>>>
>>> Do accretion discs become jets?
>>
>> The jets from, say a quasar, seem to be created from a hard core feeding
>> frenzy. The material from the the jets do not seem to be emanating from
>> "inside" the black hole.
>
> The matter floats out at 90 degrees to the jets.
> Matter slows down in gravity. Light leaves
> gravity at its constant speed.
> How can matter defy maximum gravity if it
> always slows down at the maximum?

Are you trying to suggest that it slows down to the point where it is
sort of "locked" in space time? This reminds me of an observer never
being able to actually witness an object fully crossing an event horizon...

>>> How can matter be ejected from a black hole
>>> that came from an accretion disc when the
>>> two are at an angle?
>>
>> Some matter falls in, some does not.
>
> What determines a stable orbit?

Sometimes, an object can find its way into a "sweet spot", or island of
stability so to speak wrt its orbit and gravitational community? A
satellite orbiting around a large source of gravity, say, the Earth?
Chris M. Thomasson
2018-04-08 20:56:32 UTC
Raw Message
On 4/8/2018 9:13 AM, john wrote:
> MM
> "Or more like lots of dead stellar corpses around the center. Like if the
> BH at the center has attracted lots of stuff over time. "
> But they splashed?
> Or the BH is full?

Afaict, a black hole can never be "full".

> Why didn't they fall in and disappear?
>

They are still locked into an orbit sufficient enough to prevent them
from falling in?
Alan Folmsbee
2018-04-08 19:51:22 UTC
Raw Message
On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 6:05:50 AM UTC-10, Michael Moroney wrote:
> john <johnsefmail.com> writes:
>
> >They have found many smaller BHs around the Center. Like tornados around
> >a hurricane
>
> Or more like lots of dead stellar corpses around the center. Like if the
> BH at the center has attracted lots of stuff over time.

Maybe the center of the galaxy has been shrinking, relative to the
expansion at the fringes of the observable universe. Miniature clusters
and black holes can stay there forever, hidden in their small spaces.
A law of viscosity needs to be written that applies to the galactic
size limit and the stretching of space time during pre-history,
stretching outwards and inwards with gravity.
Chris M. Thomasson
2018-04-08 19:40:36 UTC
Raw Message
On 4/7/2018 3:39 PM, john wrote:
> They have found many smaller BHs around the Center. Like tornados around a hurricane
>

Afaict, there should be smaller black holes wandering the dust lanes of
a galaxy.
Chris M. Thomasson
2018-04-08 19:44:41 UTC
Raw Message
On 4/8/2018 12:40 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 4/7/2018 3:39 PM, john wrote:
>> They have found many smaller BHs around the Center. Like tornados
>> around a hurricane
>>
>
> Afaict, there should be smaller black holes wandering the dust lanes of
> a galaxy.

Sci-fi:

I wonder if these smaller black holes are somehow connected with the
super massive one in the center of a galaxy. Dark matter just might use
a bunch of black holes holding hands within a single galaxy, creating a
network...
m***@gmail.com
2018-04-08 19:46:50 UTC
Raw Message
On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 12:40:38 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 4/7/2018 3:39 PM, john wrote:
> > They have found many smaller BHs around the Center. Like tornados around a hurricane
> >
>
> Afaict, there should be smaller black holes wandering the dust lanes of
> a galaxy.

Black holes are as unreal as tornadoes around a hurricane...

Mitchell Raemsch
Chris M. Thomasson
2018-04-08 19:55:01 UTC
Raw Message
On 4/8/2018 12:46 PM, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 12:40:38 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 4/7/2018 3:39 PM, john wrote:
>>> They have found many smaller BHs around the Center. Like tornados around a hurricane
>>>
>>
>> Afaict, there should be smaller black holes wandering the dust lanes of
>> a galaxy.
>
> Black holes are as unreal as tornadoes around a hurricane...

You do not think something like a black hole can exist?
m***@gmail.com
2018-04-08 20:32:42 UTC
Raw Message
On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 12:55:04 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 4/8/2018 12:46 PM, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 12:40:38 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >> On 4/7/2018 3:39 PM, john wrote:
> >>> They have found many smaller BHs around the Center. Like tornados around a hurricane
> >>>
> >>
> >> Afaict, there should be smaller black holes wandering the dust lanes of
> >> a galaxy.
> >
> > Black holes are as unreal as tornadoes around a hurricane...
>
>
>
> You do not think something like a black hole can exist?

So did the tornadoes come afterword?
Yes. I believe there is something that behaves
like a same maximum gravity redshift look alike.

Mitchell Raemsch
Chris M. Thomasson
2018-04-08 23:28:58 UTC
Raw Message
On 4/8/2018 1:32 PM, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 12:55:04 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 4/8/2018 12:46 PM, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 12:40:38 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>> On 4/7/2018 3:39 PM, john wrote:
>>>>> They have found many smaller BHs around the Center. Like tornados around a hurricane
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Afaict, there should be smaller black holes wandering the dust lanes of
>>>> a galaxy.
>>>
>>> Black holes are as unreal as tornadoes around a hurricane...
>>
>>
>>
>> You do not think something like a black hole can exist?
>
> So did the tornadoes come afterword?

I think so. Afaict, the massive hurricane created the conditions for
many tornadoes of various degrees of strength to form.

> Yes. I believe there is something that behaves
> like a same maximum gravity redshift look alike.

Not exactly sure what to make of that.
Double-A
2018-04-08 22:54:03 UTC