Discussion:
There is no black hole in Sgr A *, there is only a globular cluster ...
Add Reply
Enes Richard
2019-04-11 09:29:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
...with thousands of stars circling around the "empty" center
of mass, as before, about 200 other clusters ejected from the
center of the Galaxy.

The intricate system of black holes can be in the gas ring,
just like in the picture from M 87:

https://www.urania.edu.pl/wiadomosci/uzyskano-pierwsze-w-historii-zdjecie-czarnej-dziury

I wonder if the astrophysics dealing with the subject will succumb
to the temptation of juggling and will generate a picture of the
black hole in Sgr A * by targeted data processing ???

Such were the arrogant announcements resulting from naive mass
calculations based on the movement of only the star S2 ...
Enes Richard
2019-04-12 11:27:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Enes Richard
...with thousands of stars circling around the "empty" center
of mass, as before, about 200 other clusters ejected from the
center of the Galaxy.
The intricate system of black holes can be in the gas ring,
https://www.urania.edu.pl/wiadomosci/uzyskano-pierwsze-w-historii-zdjecie-czarnej-dziury
I wonder if the astrophysics dealing with the subject will succumb
to the temptation of juggling and will generate a picture of the
black hole in Sgr A * by targeted data processing ???
Such were the arrogant announcements resulting from naive mass
calculations based on the movement of only the star S2 ...
Continued:

With the black hole in Sgr A * it is worse than predicted, it should
be on the main axes and in the outbreaks of elliptical orbits circling
the stars.
Below is the image of the orbits of the nearest stars,
please pay attention to the orbit of the S 24 stars and how
far is allegedly c.d. from the main axis of this ellipse, similar
to S 1, and at S 14 is directly in orbit:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/left-Orbits-of-individual-stars-near-the-Galactic-center-right-Orbit-of-star-S2_fig1_236456058

A black hole with such a large mass can not be
sounstable in location. However, it's perfect
fits the changing "empty" mass of this more and
more probable dwarf globular cluster there.
m***@gmail.com
2019-04-15 03:45:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Enes Richard
...with thousands of stars circling around the "empty" center
It is not empty. It is supermassive Neutronium gravity
keeping those stars in orbit.

Mitchell Raemsch
Post by Enes Richard
of mass, as before, about 200 other clusters ejected from the
center of the Galaxy.
The intricate system of black holes can be in the gas ring,
https://www.urania.edu.pl/wiadomosci/uzyskano-pierwsze-w-historii-zdjecie-czarnej-dziury
I wonder if the astrophysics dealing with the subject will succumb
to the temptation of juggling and will generate a picture of the
black hole in Sgr A * by targeted data processing ???
Such were the arrogant announcements resulting from naive mass
calculations based on the movement of only the star S2 ...
p***@gmail.com
2019-04-15 04:36:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Enes Richard
...with thousands of stars circling around the "empty" center
It is not empty. It is supermassive Neutronium gravity
keeping those stars in orbit.
Mitchell Raemsch
Post by Enes Richard
of mass, as before, about 200 other clusters ejected from the
center of the Galaxy.
The intricate system of black holes can be in the gas ring,
https://www.urania.edu.pl/wiadomosci/uzyskano-pierwsze-w-historii-zdjecie-czarnej-dziury
I wonder if the astrophysics dealing with the subject will succumb
to the temptation of juggling and will generate a picture of the
black hole in Sgr A * by targeted data processing ???
Such were the arrogant announcements resulting from naive mass
calculations based on the movement of only the star S2 ...
Mitch, I keep telling you...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutronium

"Neutronium (sometimes shortened to neutrium,[1] also referred to as neutrite[2]) is a hypothetical substance composed purely of neutrons."

Read again... "a hypothetical substance..." that means, Mitch, there IS NO SUCH THING!
'
Libor Striz
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Read again... "a hypothetical substance..." that means, Mitch, there IS NO SUCH THING!'
It rather means supposed substance, which existence is not verified.
--
Poutnik ( the Wanderer )



----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
m***@gmail.com
2019-04-17 19:38:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Libor Striz
Read again... "a hypothetical substance..." that means, Mitch, there IS NO SUCH THING!'
It rather means supposed substance, which existence is not verified.
Pulsars demonstrate neutronium...
When atoms collapse protons and electrons combine
making more Neutrons.

Mitchell Raemsch
Post by Libor Striz
--
Poutnik ( the Wanderer )
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
m***@gmail.com
2019-04-17 19:36:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Enes Richard
...with thousands of stars circling around the "empty" center
It is not empty. It is supermassive Neutronium gravity
keeping those stars in orbit.
Mitchell Raemsch
Post by Enes Richard
of mass, as before, about 200 other clusters ejected from the
center of the Galaxy.
The intricate system of black holes can be in the gas ring,
https://www.urania.edu.pl/wiadomosci/uzyskano-pierwsze-w-historii-zdjecie-czarnej-dziury
I wonder if the astrophysics dealing with the subject will succumb
to the temptation of juggling and will generate a picture of the
black hole in Sgr A * by targeted data processing ???
Such were the arrogant announcements resulting from naive mass
calculations based on the movement of only the star S2 ...
Mitch, I keep telling you...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutronium
"Neutronium (sometimes shortened to neutrium,[1] also referred to as neutrite[2]) is a hypothetical substance composed purely of neutrons."
Read again... "a hypothetical substance..." that means, Mitch, there IS NO SUCH THING!
'
Neutron stars exist. Pulsars reveal that end category of star.
Who is going to win in the end pnut?
If you have to deny neutron stars you have a problem...

Mitchell Raemsch
p***@gmail.com
2019-04-18 06:53:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Mitch wrote...

"Neutron stars exist. Pulsars reveal that end category of star.
Who is going to win in the end pnut?
If you have to deny neutron stars you have a problem... "

I'm not denying that neutron stars exist, Mitch, I've even observed several with my telescope. All pulsars are neutron stars, but not all neutron stars are pulsars.

What I am denying is that neutron stars are composed of your mythical neutronium... unless,as always, you have evidence to indicate otherwise...
m***@gmail.com
2019-04-21 01:41:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Mitch wrote...
"Neutron stars exist. Pulsars reveal that end category of star.
Who is going to win in the end pnut?
If you have to deny neutron stars you have a problem... "
I'm not denying that neutron stars exist, Mitch, I've even observed several with my telescope. All pulsars are neutron stars, but not all neutron stars are pulsars.
What I am denying is that neutron stars are composed of your mythical neutronium... unless,as always, you have evidence to indicate otherwise...
So you doubt that Neutronium is for a Neutron star?
When protons and electrons combine you get a neutron star pnut.
You get more neutrons. Show me otherwise. What then is the role
of neutronium in the neutron star? and what is different?
Bet you can't answer.

Mitchell Raemsch
Michael Moroney
2019-04-21 02:05:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
Mitch wrote...
"Neutron stars exist. Pulsars reveal that end category of star.
Who is going to win in the end pnut?
If you have to deny neutron stars you have a problem... "
I'm not denying that neutron stars exist, Mitch, I've even observed several with my telescope. All pulsars are neutron stars, but not all neutron stars are pulsars.
What I am denying is that neutron stars are composed of your mythical neutronium... unless,as always, you have evidence to indicate otherwise...
So you doubt that Neutronium is for a Neutron star?
When protons and electrons combine you get a neutron star pnut.
You get more neutrons. Show me otherwise. What then is the role
of neutronium in the neutron star? and what is different?
Bet you can't answer.
"Neutronium" is from Star Trek/Hollywood for the most part, Mitch. Real
scientists don't use that word.
m***@gmail.com
2019-04-21 02:27:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
Mitch wrote...
"Neutron stars exist. Pulsars reveal that end category of star.
Who is going to win in the end pnut?
If you have to deny neutron stars you have a problem... "
I'm not denying that neutron stars exist, Mitch, I've even observed several with my telescope. All pulsars are neutron stars, but not all neutron stars are pulsars.
What I am denying is that neutron stars are composed of your mythical neutronium... unless,as always, you have evidence to indicate otherwise...
So you doubt that Neutronium is for a Neutron star?
When protons and electrons combine you get a neutron star pnut.
You get more neutrons. Show me otherwise. What then is the role
of neutronium in the neutron star? and what is different?
Bet you can't answer.
"Neutronium" is from Star Trek/Hollywood for the most part, Mitch. Real
scientists don't use that word.
But you ain't a scientist Michael Bologna...
If you are prove it...
Where are these scientists you get your authority
from?

Neutrons make up neutronium forms.

Mitchell Raemsch
Michael Moroney
2019-04-21 03:30:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Does one have to be a scientist to recognize Star Trek "physics"?
p***@gmail.com
2019-04-21 03:29:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
Mitch wrote...
"Neutron stars exist. Pulsars reveal that end category of star.
Who is going to win in the end pnut?
If you have to deny neutron stars you have a problem... "
I'm not denying that neutron stars exist, Mitch, I've even observed several with my telescope. All pulsars are neutron stars, but not all neutron stars are pulsars.
What I am denying is that neutron stars are composed of your mythical neutronium... unless,as always, you have evidence to indicate otherwise...
So you doubt that Neutronium is for a Neutron star?
When protons and electrons combine you get a neutron star pnut.
You get more neutrons. Show me otherwise. What then is the role
of neutronium in the neutron star? and what is different?
Bet you can't answer.
Mitchell Raemsch
Mitch, you dumbfuck, there is no such thing as neutronium, it is a made-up word by science-fiction writers and does not exist in the scientific community. Deal with it.
m***@gmail.com
2019-04-21 02:30:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Mitch wrote...
"Neutron stars exist. Pulsars reveal that end category of star.
Who is going to win in the end pnut?
If you have to deny neutron stars you have a problem... "
I'm not denying that neutron stars exist, Mitch, I've even observed several with my telescope. All pulsars are neutron stars, but not all neutron stars are pulsars.
What I am denying is that neutron stars are composed of your mythical neutronium... unless,as always, you have evidence to indicate otherwise...
I define Neutronium forms as being made of neutrons.
What evidence do you have otherwise?

Mitchell Raemsch
p***@gmail.com
2019-04-21 03:32:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
Mitch wrote...
"Neutron stars exist. Pulsars reveal that end category of star.
Who is going to win in the end pnut?
If you have to deny neutron stars you have a problem... "
I'm not denying that neutron stars exist, Mitch, I've even observed several with my telescope. All pulsars are neutron stars, but not all neutron stars are pulsars.
What I am denying is that neutron stars are composed of your mythical neutronium... unless,as always, you have evidence to indicate otherwise...
I define Neutronium forms as being made of neutrons.
What evidence do you have otherwise?
Mitchell Raemsch
Your definition holds no power in the scientific community. You have just admitted that you are no scientist...
m***@gmail.com
2019-04-21 18:11:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
Mitch wrote...
"Neutron stars exist. Pulsars reveal that end category of star.
Who is going to win in the end pnut?
If you have to deny neutron stars you have a problem... "
I'm not denying that neutron stars exist, Mitch, I've even observed several with my telescope. All pulsars are neutron stars, but not all neutron stars are pulsars.
What I am denying is that neutron stars are composed of your mythical neutronium... unless,as always, you have evidence to indicate otherwise...
I define Neutronium forms as being made of neutrons.
What evidence do you have otherwise?
Mitchell Raemsch
Your definition holds no power in the scientific community. You have just admitted that you are no scientist...
Neutronium isn't a collection of Neutrons?
You are going to have to disprove Neutronium stars...

Mitchell Raemsch
Michael Moroney
2019-04-21 18:43:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by p***@gmail.com
Your definition holds no power in the scientific community. You have just admitted that you are no scientist...
Neutronium isn't a collection of Neutrons?
It is a science fiction term, not used by actual scientists.
Post by m***@gmail.com
You are going to have to disprove Neutronium stars...
They may exist in science fiction. Neutron stars, however, are most likely quite
real.
m***@gmail.com
2019-04-27 04:33:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Mitch wrote...
"Neutron stars exist. Pulsars reveal that end category of star.
Who is going to win in the end pnut?
If you have to deny neutron stars you have a problem... "
I'm not denying that neutron stars exist, Mitch, I've even observed several with my telescope. All pulsars are neutron stars, but not all neutron stars are pulsars.
What I am denying is that neutron stars are composed of your mythical neutronium... unless,as always, you have evidence to indicate otherwise...
Neutronium exists and we have some validation by neutron stars...
with other particles mixed in with the neutrons...

What is your proof of singularities instead?
singularities are your myth Pnut...
God is creating gravity.

Mitchell Raemsch
p***@gmail.com
2019-04-27 05:59:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Neutronium exists and we have some validation by neutron stars...
with other particles mixed in with the neutrons...
Neutronium only exists in your little pea-brain, Mitch, and in the science-fiction community. It does NOT exist in the actual scientific community, so we don't use it. Perhaps someday it will be accepted, but probably not. Neutron stars, after all, are composed of, well, neutrons! How quaint!
Post by m***@gmail.com
What is your proof of singularities instead?
There is no proof of singularities, Mitch, there are only theories of singularities. If you had any scientific chops, Mitch, you would already know that theories can never be 'proven', they can only be proven to be false. Singularities are predicted by the math, Mitch, and if you, or anyone else, can prove that they don't exist, you would become quite famous. Go ahead, give it your best shot...
Post by m***@gmail.com
singularities are your myth Pnut...
Not my myth, Mitch, I had absolutely nothing to do with it, honest...
Post by m***@gmail.com
God is creating gravity.
OK... but who created god? Was it you, Mitch?
m***@gmail.com
2019-04-17 19:42:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Enes Richard
...with thousands of stars circling around the "empty" center
It is not empty. It is supermassive Neutronium gravity
keeping those stars in orbit.
Mitchell Raemsch
Post by Enes Richard
of mass, as before, about 200 other clusters ejected from the
center of the Galaxy.
The intricate system of black holes can be in the gas ring,
https://www.urania.edu.pl/wiadomosci/uzyskano-pierwsze-w-historii-zdjecie-czarnej-dziury
I wonder if the astrophysics dealing with the subject will succumb
to the temptation of juggling and will generate a picture of the
black hole in Sgr A * by targeted data processing ???
Such were the arrogant announcements resulting from naive mass
calculations based on the movement of only the star S2 ...
Mitch, I keep telling you...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutronium
"Neutronium (sometimes shortened to neutrium,[1] also referred to as neutrite[2]) is a hypothetical substance composed purely of neutrons."
Read again... "a hypothetical substance..." that means, Mitch, there IS NO SUCH THING!
'
Singularities are just hypothetical. Just Prove how we have
observed them.

Mitchell Raemsch
Enes Richard
2019-04-15 12:48:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Enes Richard
...with thousands of stars circling around the "empty" center
It is not empty. It is supermassive Neutronium gravity
keeping those stars in orbit.
Mitchell Raemsch
In globular clusters, stars orbit around an "empty" and variable center
of mass. There is neither a black hole nor a neutronium.

Rather, the occurrence of netronium is impossible because neutron can
only exist as single. Even in atomic nuclei there are no complete
neutrons, only hybrids (mass defect).

Neutrons have hole structure, and this is not the maximum possible
mass density, which can be compressed to components and the density
of the electron. Objects with such density are dark holes.
p***@gmail.com
2019-04-15 16:21:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
You don't know much about globular clusters or you would not be making such silly assertions. The calculated mass of the black hole in the center of our galaxy is 4 million solar masses and it has a calculated diameter of about 8 light minutes, about the distance from Earth to the Sun.

Omega Centauri is the largest globular cluster in the Milky Way, and it, too has a mass of 4 million solar masses... except that it has a diameter if 172 light years, making incredibly larger than the black hole...

You can't just make stuff up as you go along, no one will EVER believe a thing you say... just ask Mitch about that...
Enes Richard
2019-04-15 17:32:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
You don't know much about globular clusters or you would not be making such silly assertions. The calculated mass of the black hole in the center of our galaxy is 4 million solar masses and it has a calculated diameter of about 8 light minutes, about the distance from Earth to the Sun.
Omega Centauri is the largest globular cluster in the Milky Way, and it, too has a mass of 4 million solar masses... except that it has a diameter if 172 light years, making incredibly larger than the black hole...
You can't just make stuff up as you go along, no one will EVER believe a thing you say... just ask Mitch about that...
Try to use your own mind, not Mitch ... and do not take hasty
conclusions and assessments.

Globular clusters are different, from several thousand stars and
several hundred million years ... to clusters of several million
stars and over a dozen billion years.

Everything probably depends on what stage of the evolution of the
galaxy has been produced in its center ...

In addition, there may be errors in the classification of objects,
eg they are incorrectly classified or not included in globular clusters.
Enes Richard
2019-04-16 09:22:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Enes Richard
Post by p***@gmail.com
You don't know much about globular clusters or you would not be making such silly assertions. The calculated mass of the black hole in the center of our galaxy is 4 million solar masses and it has a calculated diameter of about 8 light minutes, about the distance from Earth to the Sun.
Omega Centauri is the largest globular cluster in the Milky Way, and it, too has a mass of 4 million solar masses... except that it has a diameter if 172 light years, making incredibly larger than the black hole...
You can't just make stuff up as you go along, no one will EVER believe a thing you say... just ask Mitch about that...
Try to use your own mind, not Mitch ... and do not take hasty
conclusions and assessments.
Globular clusters are different, from several thousand stars and
several hundred million years ... to clusters of several million
stars and over a dozen billion years.
Everything probably depends on what stage of the evolution of the
galaxy has been produced in its center ...
In addition, there may be errors in the classification of objects,
eg they are incorrectly classified or not included in globular clusters.
Continuation:

"Recently, however, it turned out that globular clusters are also formed now, because such a cluster W 49 has been discovered and it has only a few hundred thousand years. It contains about 100 stars of the spectral type O, i.e. very hot stars with a temperature in this case, 30,000 K, mass 15 solar masses and the brightness of 10,000 brightness of the sun. "

source:
http://fizyka.net.pl/astronomia/astronomia_oa6.html#1

So... perhaps Sgr A * will turn out to be the youngest globular cluster of tens of thousands of years ...
reber G=emc^2
2019-04-15 18:43:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Enes Richard
...with thousands of stars circling around the "empty" center
of mass, as before, about 200 other clusters ejected from the
center of the Galaxy.
The intricate system of black holes can be in the gas ring,
https://www.urania.edu.pl/wiadomosci/uzyskano-pierwsze-w-historii-zdjecie-czarnej-dziury
I wonder if the astrophysics dealing with the subject will succumb
to the temptation of juggling and will generate a picture of the
black hole in Sgr A * by targeted data processing ???
Such were the arrogant announcements resulting from naive mass
calculations based on the movement of only the star S2 ...
Reality is global clusters are where BHs lurk.They created these nest of stars,and eat them up.Bert
hanson
2019-04-16 04:27:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Bert, for you there is a simple Rhyme:
"Bert, you are one STUPID Swine"..."Why not". "it's a given"
as I am <http://tinyurl.com/The-Chosen-Graveyard-Vandal> w
with an IQ of 1-point-22, and I am NOT CLEVER to hide
<http://tinyurl.com/Swine-Glazier-s-REAL-intent> which is very
different from Bert's phony, wrong & sanctimonious posts". Bert.
Kinky SwineBert has a Fetish to shit into other posters mouth
<Loading Image...> & say
"open wide" ... & have them murdered, for SwineBert to piss
onto their graves, which proves that SwineBert has always-
ONLY-ONE-thing-on his twisted, filthy mind, namely to do
all those items-from-(1)-to-item-(5):
(1)
On 07Feb 2015 & on 08Feb2015, Face-Shitter Glazier wrote:
Harlow Campbell HVAC, ***@gmail.com,
& Saul Levy <***@cox.net
& Jacoby Benj, <***@gmail.com>:
"I'll be sitting on your faces to take a shit & say: "Open wide".
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
(2)
On 06Dec2014, when the Christian-Hater, JewPigBert Glazier
said to "benj" ***@gmail.com:
"Reality is you always post under me for you are an ass kisser.
For Christmas I'll shit on your kisser."
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
"Benj, you can thank me in advance". - TreBert. ... addinng
(3)
On 03Aug2017:
"benj, you eat shit and your shitty brain is coming out your ears."
On 20Jul2018:
Benj, my posts are way over your head.Reality is your head
is up your ass.So fart it out before you get constipated.Bert
(4)
On 25Mar2008, the criminal Graveyard Vandal Glazier wrote in:
<https://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3ffe7b2257cf8a9a>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.physics/uYtpFTRnW4k/morPVyJ7_j8J>
"Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And have a good laugh
when it seeps down on your face". -- Bert
(5)
On 24Jun2018 SwineBert Glazier said to
Mark Earnest <***@att.net> "your nose is
in a shit bucket all the time. Eat shit and you fit" -- Bert
"Being Jewish I know this is so very true". Bert. "O ya",
"That is a given", "Go figure","Get the picture", Bert
__________ "I'm very depressed". Bert _____________
______ "Why am I not loved by all?". Bert. ______
Enes Richard
2019-04-16 08:25:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by hanson
"Bert, you are one STUPID Swine"..."Why not". "it's a given"
as I am <http://tinyurl.com/The-Chosen-Graveyard-Vandal> w
with an IQ of 1-point-22, and I am NOT CLEVER to hide
<http://tinyurl.com/Swine-Glazier-s-REAL-intent> which is very
different from Bert's phony, wrong & sanctimonious posts". Bert.
Kinky SwineBert has a Fetish to shit into other posters mouth
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg> & say
"open wide" ... & have them murdered, for SwineBert to piss
onto their graves, which proves that SwineBert has always-
ONLY-ONE-thing-on his twisted, filthy mind, namely to do
(1)
"I'll be sitting on your faces to take a shit & say: "Open wide".
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
(2)
On 06Dec2014, when the Christian-Hater, JewPigBert Glazier
"Reality is you always post under me for you are an ass kisser.
For Christmas I'll shit on your kisser."
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
"Benj, you can thank me in advance". - TreBert. ... addinng
(3)
"benj, you eat shit and your shitty brain is coming out your ears."
Benj, my posts are way over your head.Reality is your head
is up your ass.So fart it out before you get constipated.Bert
(4)
<https://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3ffe7b2257cf8a9a>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.physics/uYtpFTRnW4k/morPVyJ7_j8J>
"Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And have a good laugh
when it seeps down on your face". -- Bert
(5)
On 24Jun2018 SwineBert Glazier said to
in a shit bucket all the time. Eat shit and you fit" -- Bert
"Being Jewish I know this is so very true". Bert. "O ya",
"That is a given", "Go figure","Get the picture", Bert
__________ "I'm very depressed". Bert _____________
______ "Why am I not loved by all?". Bert. ______
I have a request for substantive inclusion in the
discussion and avoiding discussions about personal issues.
Null
2019-04-16 14:56:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Enes Richard
I have a request for substantive inclusion in the
discussion and avoiding discussions about personal issues.
That's Haha Hanson. He's obsessed with Bert (and not in a good way), and is
probably mentally ill as well. Ignore him.
Enes Richard
2019-04-17 11:27:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Null
Post by Enes Richard
I have a request for substantive inclusion in the
discussion and avoiding discussions about personal issues.
That's Haha Hanson. He's obsessed with Bert (and not in a good way), and is
probably mentally ill as well. Ignore him.
What is your opinion about the probably incorrect assumption
regarding the massive black hole in Sgr A *?
p***@gmail.com
2019-04-17 15:19:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Enes Richard asked...

"What is your opinion about the probably incorrect assumption regarding the massive black hole in Sgr A *?"

There is no room for opinion in science, only evidence. The evidence shows that there is a 4 million solar mass object at the center of our galaxy, and the math is irrefutable and very simple, based on observations of the star S2. That mass being there is not an assumption, it is a fact. For reference it is called a black hole.

You, on the other hand, only present guesses, assertions and opinions, and no evidence whatsoever. Your claim the the mass at the center of the galaxy is a globular cluster is just wild-ass speculation and I have already shown you why it is not possible, but you still insist that you are correct, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Either come up with observations and/or experiments to support your position or go home empty handed...
john
2019-04-17 17:25:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
pnal

Either come up with observations and/or experiments to support..”

So.....Dark Matter? Your gravity model- Nay, your whole Science- is hanging on it. Still ‘hypothetical’, I believe. What were you saying about hypothetical?
Michael Moroney
2019-04-17 19:00:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
pnal
"
Either come up with observations and/or experiments to support.."
So.....Dark Matter? Your gravity model- Nay, your whole Science- is hanging
on it.
"Hanging on it" ? It is a possible answer to one set of inconsistent results.
Besides, "invisible heavy stuff" is not much of a reach, as you would know if
you asked a 6 year old about "invisible heavy stuff". Too bad that they always
run away from you.
Still 'hypothetical', I believe. What were you saying about hypothetical?
Yes, until they can make and detect dark matter here and prove it is in the
galaxies with anomalous rotation curves, it remains hypothetical.
That's how science works, you know.
Enes Richard
2019-04-18 13:03:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Enes Richard asked...
"What is your opinion about the probably incorrect assumption regarding the massive black hole in Sgr A *?"
There is no room for opinion in science, only evidence.
There is room for both evidence and opinion in science. The evidence
is the raw results of the experiments. Opinions may relate to accepted
theoretical assumptions that, after evidence or excluding, cease to
be assumptions.

Similarly, opinions may refer to the interpretation of raw results
of observation / measurement experiments, which may be overinterpreted
for the validation of accepted theories. The opinion is also
counter-interpreted.
Post by p***@gmail.com
The evidence shows that there is a 4 million solar mass object at the center of our galaxy, and the math is irrefutable and very simple, based on observations of the star S2. That mass being there is not an assumption, it is a fact. For reference it is called a black hole.
(...)
I think you are wrong. There is no evidence for a black hole with a mass
of over 4 million suns. There is, however, evidence of the lack of professional reliability of people dealing with the subject.

Raw results are observations of the movement of dozens of stars around
a certain area and data about their orbits ... and that's all.

Two alternatives had to be considered, bearing in mind the fact that
bodies may orbit the central body, such as the planets around the Sun,
or around an empty mass, like multiple star systems and globular clusters.

Only one option has been taken, which is ruthlessly maintained,
contrary to many negative facts ...
p***@gmail.com
2019-04-18 19:00:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Enes Richard
Post by p***@gmail.com
Enes Richard asked...
"What is your opinion about the probably incorrect assumption regarding the massive black hole in Sgr A *?"
There is no room for opinion in science, only evidence.
There is room for both evidence and opinion in science.
Bullshit. Read this...

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/opinions-vs-scientific-facts-telling-it-like-i-think-it-is/
Post by Enes Richard
Post by p***@gmail.com
The evidence shows that there is a 4 million solar mass object at the center of our galaxy, and the math is irrefutable and very simple, based on observations of the star S2. That mass being there is not an assumption, it is a fact. For reference it is called a black hole.
(...)
I think you are wrong. There is no evidence for a black hole with a mass
of over 4 million suns. There is, however, evidence of the lack of professional reliability of people dealing with the subject.
Bullshit again. Read this...

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~ghezgroup/gc/journey/smbh.html
Post by Enes Richard
Raw results are observations of the movement of dozens of stars around
a certain area and data about their orbits ... and that's all.
And that's enough. The science is solid, there is lots of evidence, no opinion needed...
Post by Enes Richard
Two alternatives had to be considered, bearing in mind the fact that
bodies may orbit the central body, such as the planets around the Sun,
or around an empty mass, like multiple star systems and globular clusters.
A globular cluster at the center of the galaxy has never been considered, you are making that up. The fact of the matter is, several globular clusters themselves harbor black holes at their centers...

https://www.space.com/35624-hidden-midsize-black-hole-in-globular-cluster.html

http://astronomy.com/news/2018/01/black-hole-found-hiding-in-a-globular-cluster

https://phys.org/news/2013-11-physicists-black-holes-globular-star.html
Post by Enes Richard
Only one option has been taken, which is ruthlessly maintained,
contrary to many negative facts ...
And just which negative *facts* would those be?
Chris M. Thomasson
2019-04-19 03:50:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Enes Richard
Post by p***@gmail.com
Enes Richard asked...
"What is your opinion about the probably incorrect assumption regarding the massive black hole in Sgr A *?"
There is no room for opinion in science, only evidence.
There is room for both evidence and opinion in science.
Bullshit. Read this...
https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/opinions-vs-scientific-facts-telling-it-like-i-think-it-is/
Post by Enes Richard
Post by p***@gmail.com
The evidence shows that there is a 4 million solar mass object at the center of our galaxy, and the math is irrefutable and very simple, based on observations of the star S2. That mass being there is not an assumption, it is a fact. For reference it is called a black hole.
(...)
I think you are wrong. There is no evidence for a black hole with a mass
of over 4 million suns. There is, however, evidence of the lack of professional reliability of people dealing with the subject.
Bullshit again. Read this...
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~ghezgroup/gc/journey/smbh.html
Post by Enes Richard
Raw results are observations of the movement of dozens of stars around
a certain area and data about their orbits ... and that's all.
And that's enough. The science is solid, there is lots of evidence, no opinion needed...
Post by Enes Richard
Two alternatives had to be considered, bearing in mind the fact that
bodies may orbit the central body, such as the planets around the Sun,
or around an empty mass, like multiple star systems and globular clusters.
A globular cluster at the center of the galaxy has never been considered, you are making that up. The fact of the matter is, several globular clusters themselves harbor black holes at their centers...
https://www.space.com/35624-hidden-midsize-black-hole-in-globular-cluster.html
http://astronomy.com/news/2018/01/black-hole-found-hiding-in-a-globular-cluster
https://phys.org/news/2013-11-physicists-black-holes-globular-star.html
Post by Enes Richard
Only one option has been taken, which is ruthlessly maintained,
contrary to many negative facts ...
And just which negative *facts* would those be?
How many smaller black holes are wandering around within the dust lanes
of our own Milky Way galaxy?
Enes Richard
2019-04-24 07:49:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
(...)
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Enes Richard
Only one option has been taken, which is ruthlessly maintained,
contrary to many negative facts ...
And just which negative *facts* would those be?
1) There is no X radiation suitable for such a large
black hole.
2) Traffic prediction and expected fireworks for the
G2 gas cloud have completely failed.
3) The place of the expected black hole was against
the background of G2, there were no effects of gravitational
lensing and image deformation.

Is that enough?

P.S.
I hope that the problem of point 3 was monitored by EHT
and from these data an "image of a black hole" is created ...
Enes Richard
2019-04-19 08:12:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
W dniu środa, 17 kwietnia 2019 17:19:25 UTC+2 użytkownik ***@gmail.com napisał:
(...)
Post by p***@gmail.com
You, on the other hand, only present guesses, assertions and opinions, and no evidence whatsoever. Your claim the the mass at the center of the galaxy is a globular cluster is just wild-ass speculation and I have already shown you why it is not possible, but you still insist that you are correct, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Either come up with observations and/or experiments to support your position or go home empty handed...
I have written many times (also in the discussion with you) how you
can confirm experimentally / observation / measurement or reject
the presented hypothesis about the lack of a black hole in Sgr A *
(4 million S) and the formation of a dwarf globular cluster.

Globular clusters form in the centers of spiral galaxies and are
removed from there. From the geometrical model and the mathematical
formula it follows that after leaving the center, the globular cluster
(and all other objects created there) get an increasing
radial acceleration, because the radial force is growing almost with
the square of the distance from the center of the galaxy (at a
certain distance). A similar mechanism works in NS 1987 A (which
we have already fruitfully discussed).

Sgr A * is not in the very center of the Galaxy, so it should
probably have a measurable radial velocity relative to the G. center.
Large relative increments of this speed should be monitored.

An apprehensive case of this mechanism is probably the case of
the HVGC-1 globular cluster:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVGC-1

The astrophysics theorists are on the right track, allowing two
supermassive b. holes at the center of the galaxy to begin with. Maybe
someday they will come to the fact that there are many more b.h. in the
wreath surrounding the center and periodically produce a simple mass
and radiation. I guess.
p***@gmail.com
2019-04-21 08:03:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Null
Post by Enes Richard
I have a request for substantive inclusion in the
discussion and avoiding discussions about personal issues.
That's Haha Hanson. He's obsessed with Bert (and not in a good way), and is
probably mentally ill as well. Ignore him.
====================
!!!!
seems obliviously like that
======================
reber G=emc^2
2019-04-22 16:47:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Null
Post by Enes Richard
I have a request for substantive inclusion in the
discussion and avoiding discussions about personal issues.
That's Haha Hanson. He's obsessed with Bert (and not in a good way), and is
probably mentally ill as well. Ignore him.
Null After so many years I don't mind Hanson.Bert
hanson
2019-04-22 19:46:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"Swinereber G=emc^2" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
Both, Mental Patient "Null_Brain" & Enes Richard, the Polak,
with his useless <***@vp.pl> laid themselves
under SwineBert's Sphincter & greedily feasted on Glazier's
Turds, not grasping <http://tinyurl.com/Swine-Glazier-s-REAL-intent>
which is very different from Bert's phony, wrong & sanctimonious
posts". Bert. ((((((((( LOL )))))))
Kinky SwineBert has a Fetish to shit into other posters mouth
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg> & say
"open wide" ... & have them murdered, for SwineBert to piss
onto their graves, which proves that SwineBert has always-
ONLY-ONE-thing-on his twisted, filthy mind, namely to do
all those items-from-(1)-to-item-(5):
(1)
On 07Feb 2015 & on 08Feb2015, Face-Shitter Glazier wrote:
Harlow Campbell HVAC, ***@gmail.com,
& Saul Levy <***@cox.net
& Jacoby Benj, <***@gmail.com>:
"I'll be sitting on your faces to take a shit & say: "Open wide".
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
(2)
On 06Dec2014, when the Christian-Hater, JewPigBert Glazier
said to "benj" ***@gmail.com:
"Reality is you always post under me for you are an ass kisser.
For Christmas I'll shit on your kisser."
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
"Benj, you can thank me in advance". - TreBert. ... addinng
(3)
On 03Aug2017:
"benj, you eat shit and your shitty brain is coming out your ears."
On 20Jul2018:
Benj, my posts are way over your head.Reality is your head
is up your ass.So fart it out before you get constipated.Bert
(4)
On 25Mar2008, the criminal Graveyard Vandal Glazier wrote in:
<https://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3ffe7b2257cf8a9a>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.physics/uYtpFTRnW4k/morPVyJ7_j8J>
"Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And have a good laugh
when it seeps down on your face". -- Bert
(5)
On 24Jun2018 SwineBert Glazier said to
Mark Earnest <***@att.net> "your nose is
in a shit bucket all the time. Eat shit and you fit" -- Bert
"Being Jewish I know this is so very true". Bert. "O ya",
"That is a given", "Go figure","Get the picture", Bert
__________ "I'm very depressed". Bert _____________
______ "Why am I not loved by all?". Bert. _________
hanson
2019-04-22 20:14:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"Swinereber G=emc^2" <***@gmail.com> posts as
<http://tinyurl.com/The-Chosen-Graveyard-Vandal> for whom
both, Mental Patient "Null_Brain" & Enes Richard, the Polak,
with his useless <***@vp.pl> laid themselves
under SwineBert's Sphincter & greedily feasted on Glazier's
Turds, not grasping <http://tinyurl.com/Swine-Glazier-s-REAL-intent>
which is very different from Bert's phony, wrong & sanctimonious
posts". Bert. ((((((((( LOL )))))))
SwineBert, the Face-Shitter wrote:
"Null_Brain, after so many years I don't mind Hanson reminding
me that SwineBert has a Fetish to shit into other posters mouth
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg> & say
"open wide" ... & have them murdered, for SwineBert to piss
onto their graves, which proves that SwineBert has always-
ONLY-ONE-thing-on his twisted, filthy mind, namely to do
all those items-from-(1)-to-item-(5):
(1)
On 07Feb 2015 & on 08Feb2015, Face-Shitter Glazier wrote:
Harlow Campbell HVAC, ***@gmail.com,
& Saul Levy <***@cox.net
& Jacoby Benj, <***@gmail.com>:
"I'll be sitting on your faces to take a shit & say: "Open wide".
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
(2)
On 06Dec2014, when the Christian-Hater, JewPigBert Glazier
said to "benj" ***@gmail.com:
"Reality is you always post under me for you are an ass kisser.
For Christmas I'll shit on your kisser."
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
"Benj, you can thank me in advance". - TreBert. ... addinng
(3)
On 03Aug2017:
"benj, you eat shit and your shitty brain is coming out your ears."
On 20Jul2018:
Benj, my posts are way over your head.Reality is your head
is up your ass.So fart it out before you get constipated.Bert
(4)
On 25Mar2008, the criminal Graveyard Vandal Glazier wrote in:
<https://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3ffe7b2257cf8a9a>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.physics/uYtpFTRnW4k/morPVyJ7_j8J>
"Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And have a good laugh
when it seeps down on your face". -- Bert
(5)
On 24Jun2018 SwineBert Glazier said to
Mark Earnest <***@att.net> "your nose is
in a shit bucket all the time. Eat shit and you fit" -- Bert
"Being Jewish I know this is so very true". Bert. "O ya",
"That is a given", "Go figure","Get the picture", Bert
__________ "I'm very depressed". Bert _____________
______ "Why am I not loved by all?". Bert. _________

SwinBert, not all, but the 2 pigs: Mental Patient "Null_Brain"
& Enes Richard, the idiotic Polak, do love you and happily
laid themselves freely under SwineBert's Sphincter & greedily
feasted, wityh great gusto on SwineGlazier's Turds.
"Being Jewish I know this is so very true". Bert. "O ya",
"That is a given", "Go figure","Get the picture", Bert
<snicker>-<chuckle>-<chortle>- ROTFLMAO
Chris M. Thomasson
2019-04-18 07:16:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by reber G=emc^2
Post by Enes Richard
...with thousands of stars circling around the "empty" center
of mass, as before, about 200 other clusters ejected from the
center of the Galaxy.
The intricate system of black holes can be in the gas ring,
https://www.urania.edu.pl/wiadomosci/uzyskano-pierwsze-w-historii-zdjecie-czarnej-dziury
I wonder if the astrophysics dealing with the subject will succumb
to the temptation of juggling and will generate a picture of the
black hole in Sgr A * by targeted data processing ???
Such were the arrogant announcements resulting from naive mass
calculations based on the movement of only the star S2 ...
Reality is global clusters are where BHs lurk.They created these nest of stars,and eat them up.Bert
There can be thousands of galaxies orbiting a giant central galaxy.
Black holes orbiting black holes. Fractal? ;^)
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2019-04-18 13:39:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
There can be thousands of galaxies orbiting a giant central galaxy.
No.
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
Chris M. Thomasson
2019-04-19 00:00:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
There can be thousands of galaxies orbiting a giant central galaxy.
No.
Smaller galaxies can orbit a giant center galaxy. A dense cluster of
galaxies.
p***@gmail.com
2019-04-19 02:13:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
There can be thousands of galaxies orbiting a giant central galaxy.
No.
Smaller galaxies can orbit a giant center galaxy. A dense cluster of
galaxies.
Sure... just not thousands... not ever observed...
Chris M. Thomasson
2019-04-19 03:45:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
There can be thousands of galaxies orbiting a giant central galaxy.
No.
Smaller galaxies can orbit a giant center galaxy. A dense cluster of
galaxies.
Sure... just not thousands... not ever observed...
Do you happen to know the largest number of observed galaxies in a
supercluster? Clusters, of clusters of galaxies orbiting hyper strong
central galaxies...
Chris M. Thomasson
2019-04-19 03:46:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
There can be thousands of galaxies orbiting a giant central galaxy.
No.
Smaller galaxies can orbit a giant center galaxy. A dense cluster of
galaxies.
Sure... just not thousands... not ever observed...
Do you happen to know the largest number of observed galaxies in a
supercluster? Clusters, of clusters of galaxies orbiting hyper strong
central galaxies...
Is it like, 50'ish per local group?
Chris M. Thomasson
2019-04-20 06:57:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
There can be thousands of galaxies orbiting a giant central galaxy.
No.
Smaller galaxies can orbit a giant center galaxy. A dense cluster of
galaxies.
Sure... just not thousands... not ever observed...
Do you happen to know the largest number of observed galaxies in a
supercluster? Clusters, of clusters of galaxies orbiting hyper strong
central galaxies...
Is it like, 50'ish per local group?
Fwiw, here is a little rendering of a field inside of any escape time
fractal. This one creates some interesting attractors. Visually, they
appear to be merging. Actually, they do end up merging. Working on
several animations right now. Wondering, can you see any images here:

https://www.facebook.com/chris.thomasson.31/posts/130971178061889
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2019-04-18 19:20:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Your full statement belongs in the text of the posting, not in the Subject
header field. Restored here.
[There is no black hole in Sgr A *, there is only a globular cluster]
First of all, a black hole is NOT "contained" in Sgr A* (no space),
but the well-founded assumption is that Sgr A* *itself* *is* a black hole.
with thousands of stars circling around the "empty" center
of mass, as before, about 200 other clusters ejected from the
center of the Galaxy.
Shut up and read:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*>
The intricate system of black holes
A globular cluster is not a system of black holes, but of *stars*.
(No, black holes are NOT stars.)

Shut up and read.
The picture *of* M87_*_ is *further* evidence that there is a supermassive
black holes in the center of M87, and indeed in the centers of spiral
galaxies in general. And if you think about it, it is only logical that
this is so.
I wonder if the astrophysics dealing with the subject will succumb
to the temptation of juggling and will generate a picture of the
black hole in Sgr A * by targeted data processing ???
Such were the arrogant announcements resulting from naive mass
calculations
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect>

,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)>
|
| Common characteristics
|
| According to these authors, virtually universal characteristics of cranks
| include:
|
| 1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate
| that of acknowledged experts.
| […]
based on the movement of only the star S2 ...
No, NOT only.

,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*>
|
| […]
|
| Observations of a number of stars, most notably the star S2, […]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| and have led to the conclusion that Sagittarius A* is the site of
| that black hole.[8]

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*#/media/File:Galactic_centre_orbits.svg>

So you *are* merely arguing from your own ignorance.

Shut up and read.
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
Enes Richard
2019-04-19 08:28:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Your full statement belongs in the text of the posting, not in the Subject
header field. Restored here.
[There is no black hole in Sgr A *, there is only a globular cluster]
First of all, a black hole is NOT "contained" in Sgr A* (no space),
but the well-founded assumption is that Sgr A* *itself* *is* a black hole.
with thousands of stars circling around the "empty" center
of mass, as before, about 200 other clusters ejected from the
center of the Galaxy.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*>
The intricate system of black holes
A globular cluster is not a system of black holes, but of *stars*.
(No, black holes are NOT stars.)
Shut up and read.
The picture *of* M87_*_ is *further* evidence that there is a supermassive
black holes in the center of M87, and indeed in the centers of spiral
galaxies in general. And if you think about it, it is only logical that
this is so.
I wonder if the astrophysics dealing with the subject will succumb
to the temptation of juggling and will generate a picture of the
black hole in Sgr A * by targeted data processing ???
Such were the arrogant announcements resulting from naive mass
calculations
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect>
,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)>
|
| Common characteristics
|
| According to these authors, virtually universal characteristics of cranks
|
| 1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate
| that of acknowledged experts.
| […]
based on the movement of only the star S2 ...
No, NOT only.
,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*>
|
| […]
|
| Observations of a number of stars, most notably the star S2, […]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| and have led to the conclusion that Sagittarius A* is the site of
| that black hole.[8]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*#/media/File:Galactic_centre_orbits.svg>
So you *are* merely arguing from your own ignorance.
Shut up and read.
--
PointedEars
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
I have a lot of empathy and I'm trying to understand your
frustration.

The lack of a massive (4 million S.) black black hole in
Sgr A * would mean the collapse of all astrophysics and
cosmology in the current edition.

Are you afraid of collapsing this house from the cards
from which you've learned all your life? Or maybe you
are afraid of remorse that others taught you poor
knowledge? I hit?
p***@gmail.com
2019-04-19 15:59:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I am not the least bit frustrated. I can only tell you what the science says. You do not need to believe me, you can read the books and the papers and learn this stuff for yourself, but instead you choose to believe only your own fantasies without offering a single shred of evidence to support them. You have nothing! You have proven the old adage... "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing". You take some random fact, like a globular cluster being ejected from a galaxy, and base a crazy theory about what this must mean, rather than learn why and how it happened in the first place.

You are not educated enough about physics (and I rather doubt you have any physics education at all) to formulate a new theory. I have degrees in both physics and astronomy and *I* am not educated enough to present a new theory, either! You have zero chance of success.
Enes Richard
2019-04-19 18:57:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
I am not the least bit frustrated. I can only tell you what the science says. You do not need to believe me, you can read the books and the papers and learn this stuff for yourself, but instead you choose to believe only your own fantasies without offering a single shred of evidence to support them. You have nothing! You have proven the old adage... "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing". You take some random fact, like a globular cluster being ejected from a galaxy, and base a crazy theory about what this must mean, rather than learn why and how it happened in the first place.
It's not like you write. At first there was an idea / hypothesis, and
then I accidentally hit various facts that are confirmations. I also
give ways to verify the hypothesis. The theory is still a lot missing:
models, equations, descriptions - this requires transferring
information from the head to the media. Currently, the hypothesis is
at the testing stage, if it could be verified negatively at this
stage, further work would be unnecessary.
Post by p***@gmail.com
You are not educated enough about physics (and I rather doubt you have any physics education at all) to formulate a new theory. I have degrees in both physics and astronomy and *I* am not educated enough to present a new theory, either! You have zero chance of success.
Instead of repeating the same thing (self-boiling by the way), maybe
write something about these Sgr A * speed ejection measurements. There
were measurements? It can be done? Who is competent to be interested
in this?
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2019-04-19 16:09:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Enes Richard
I have a lot of empathy and I'm trying to understand your
frustration.
The lack of a massive (4 million S.) black black hole in -
Sgr A * would mean the collapse of all astrophysics and
cosmology in the current edition.
Oh, the hubris.

*If* I am frustrated *with you* then it is because are ignoring the facts
and making up fantasies instead, and pretending to understand things you
have not the slightest clue about.
Post by Enes Richard
Are you afraid of collapsing this house from the cards
from which you've learned all your life? Or maybe you
are afraid of remorse that others taught you poor
knowledge? I hit?
LOL. You poor lunatic.

,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)#Common_characteristics>
|
| According to these authors, virtually universal characteristics of cranks
| include:
|
| - Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate
| that of acknowledged experts.
| - Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
| - Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
| - Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate
| social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, being uninterested
| in anyone else's experience or opinions.

I am not going to waste more free time on you.
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
Michael Moroney
2019-04-19 17:08:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Enes Richard
I have a lot of empathy and I'm trying to understand your
frustration.
The lack of a massive (4 million S.) black black hole in
Sgr A * would mean the collapse of all astrophysics and
cosmology in the current edition.
The sky being yellow would mean the collapse of all optics
and atmospheric chemistry in the current edition.
Post by Enes Richard
Are you afraid of collapsing this house from the cards
from which you've learned all your life? Or maybe you
are afraid of remorse that others taught you poor
knowledge? I hit?
Huh? By admitting something that isn't true?
Enes Richard
2019-04-19 20:18:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Enes Richard
I have a lot of empathy and I'm trying to understand your
frustration.
The lack of a massive (4 million S.) black black hole in
Sgr A * would mean the collapse of all astrophysics and
cosmology in the current edition.
The sky being yellow would mean the collapse of all optics
and atmospheric chemistry in the current edition.
Do these areas of science predict the yellow sky?

What is the prediction of a massive black hole in Sgr A* from?
It is not the result of astrophysical and cosmological theories?
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Enes Richard
Are you afraid of collapsing this house from the cards
from which you've learned all your life? Or maybe you
are afraid of remorse that others taught you poor
knowledge? I hit?
Huh? By admitting something that isn't true?
Where do you get that confidence?
Michael Moroney
2019-04-19 23:00:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Enes Richard
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Enes Richard
I have a lot of empathy and I'm trying to understand your
frustration.
The lack of a massive (4 million S.) black black hole in
Sgr A * would mean the collapse of all astrophysics and
cosmology in the current edition.
The sky being yellow would mean the collapse of all optics
and atmospheric chemistry in the current edition.
Do these areas of science predict the yellow sky?
I know of no non-crackpot theories that predict a yellow sky.
I know of no non-crackpot theories that predict no black hole at SGR A*.
Or at least something very small in diameter, but with the mass of about 4 million
suns.

Heck, nothing unusual or controvertial is needed to predict that, Kepler's formulas
and Newtonian mechanics etc. all predict something matching the description of
something with that mass and a maximum diameter (any larger and the stars S2 and
another star would have collided with it)
Post by Enes Richard
What is the prediction of a massive black hole in Sgr A* from?
It is not the result of astrophysical and cosmological theories?
Ordinary Keplerian and Newtonian mechanics predicts "something" that has
a mass of about 4 million suns, but a small diameter. Theories hundreds of
years old. What could it be, if it's not a black hole?
Post by Enes Richard
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Enes Richard
Are you afraid of collapsing this house from the cards
from which you've learned all your life? Or maybe you
are afraid of remorse that others taught you poor
knowledge? I hit?
Huh? By admitting something that isn't true?
Where do you get that confidence?
I believe firmly in Keplerian and Newtonian mechanics, within their realm.
Even if minor SR/GR corrections are needed for the high speeds of the stars
and being so near the maw of that thing. Hundreds of years of experience!
Enes Richard
2019-04-20 18:01:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Enes Richard
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Enes Richard
I have a lot of empathy and I'm trying to understand your
frustration.
The lack of a massive (4 million S.) black black hole in
Sgr A * would mean the collapse of all astrophysics and
cosmology in the current edition.
The sky being yellow would mean the collapse of all optics
and atmospheric chemistry in the current edition.
Do these areas of science predict the yellow sky?
I know of no non-crackpot theories that predict a yellow sky.
I know of no non-crackpot theories that predict no black hole at SGR A*.
Or at least something very small in diameter, but with the mass of about 4 million
suns.
Heck, nothing unusual or controvertial is needed to predict that, Kepler's formulas
and Newtonian mechanics etc. all predict something matching the description of
something with that mass and a maximum diameter (any larger and the stars S2 and
another star would have collided with it)
Post by Enes Richard
What is the prediction of a massive black hole in Sgr A* from?
It is not the result of astrophysical and cosmological theories?
Ordinary Keplerian and Newtonian mechanics predicts "something" that has
a mass of about 4 million suns, but a small diameter. Theories hundreds of
years old. What could it be, if it's not a black hole?
Neither Kepler nor Newton predicted the black hole (the central body) in
Sgr A *, it was invented in modern times (by Hawking or another
fabulist) and Kepler's Third Law was adapted to calculate the mass.
It is possible that this prophecy will turn out to be true ... but
not necessarily.

It's not like that, maybe the equations were used in the wrong circumstances. Rather, Kepler and Newton should not be used when moving stars in globular clusters ...

Let me use an analogy to explain the essence of the problem. Imagine
that we are observing the movement of an object on the length of the
segment and it looks like a harmonic oscillator, so we use the
appropriate equation, which gives us results consistent with
observations, so we fall into a state of bliss. Suddenly, from another
point of view, it turns out, however, that this is a monotonous
motion around the circle, and early on we saw it just in the plane of
this circle. Does this mean the error of the oscillator equations?
Of course, that does not mean taking the wrong assumption and misusing
the formula, simply. Btw. the opposite situation took place in the case
of the Bohr atom model, and the consequences we have to this day in
quantum mechanics ... (everything works according to equations but we
do not understand how it works).
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Enes Richard
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Enes Richard
Are you afraid of collapsing this house from the cards
from which you've learned all your life? Or maybe you
are afraid of remorse that others taught you poor
knowledge? I hit?
Huh? By admitting something that isn't true?
Where do you get that confidence?
I believe firmly in Keplerian and Newtonian mechanics, within their realm.
Even if minor SR/GR corrections are needed for the high speeds of the stars
and being so near the maw of that thing. Hundreds of years of experience!
I also consider Kepler's laws and Newton's mechanics as very
solid foundations. As a curiosity, I can say that Newton's
rules are perfectly applicable to the mobile part of the Universe,
while locally there are slight discrepancies ...
p***@gmail.com
2019-04-20 21:49:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Enes Richard
Neither Kepler nor Newton predicted the black hole (the central body) in
Sgr A *, it was invented in modern times (by Hawking or another
fabulist) and Kepler's Third Law was adapted to calculate the mass.
It is possible that this prophecy will turn out to be true ... but
not necessarily.
See, right from the start, you have it wrong...

https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_blackholes.html

"... the idea of a black hole was proposed as early as 1783 by the amateur British astronomer John Michell (and independently by the Frenchman Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1795)... The term "black hole" was coined in 1967 by American astronomer John Wheeler, and the first one was discovered in 1971."

The problem for you is simple; you don't know what you don't know, and you will never know it without understanding the current mainstream theories. Whether they are correct or not isn't the point, because if you don't understand modern theories then you are not equipped to dispute them, and right now you know virtually nothing about physics.
J***@.
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
No one knows the physics of " black holes " ( Black Stars ).

Quoting Scientific American's " Portrait of a Black Hole ", May 21, 2013
<<

we do not even know for certain
whether black holes really exist.

Astronomers have detected objects in the sky that are
sufficiently massive and compact that,
if Einstein's general theory of relativity is correct,
[[ -- and "vacuum polarization" doesn't occur -- ]]
they must be black holes, and it is customary to talk of them
as if they were ( as we do in this article ). >>

Quoting WikiPedia's " Black Star, SemiClassical Gravity "
WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Black_star_%28semiclassical_gravity%29
<<

A black star is a gravitational object composed of matter.
It is a theoretical alternative to
the black hole concept from general relativity.
[....]
A black star need not have an event horizon,
and may or may not be a transitional phase between
a collapsing star and a singularity.

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,
because 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 vacuum energy is theoretically unlimited,
and if built up quickly enough,
will stop gravitational collapse from creating a singularity.

This may entail an ever-decreasing rate of collapse,
leading to an infinite collapse time,
or asymptotically approaching a radius less than zero.
[....]
It will appear almost exactly like a black hole.
[....]
Temperatures increase with depth towards the centre. >>
p***@gmail.com
2019-04-21 00:38:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J***@.
Quoting WikiPedia's " Black Star, SemiClassical Gravity "
WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Black_star_%28semiclassical_gravity%29
Note that this article contains the following statement...

"This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations...."

Also, note that this article is now 10 years old, so it is pretty clear that this theory is going nowhere...
J***@.
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by J***@.
WikiPedia's " Black Star, SemiClassical Gravity "
this article is now 10 years old,
so it is pretty clear that this theory is going nowhere...
Doesn't matter; my point is:

No one knows the physics of " black holes ".

Black Holes anger me because the science-fiction community
uses them to pass off bullshit as if it were settled science.
They do the same with quantum mechanics.

Lots of people I know, including astrophysicists,
invent incredible amounts of bullshit and try to pass it off as science.
p***@gmail.com
2019-04-21 03:27:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J***@.
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by J***@.
WikiPedia's " Black Star, SemiClassical Gravity "
this article is now 10 years old,
so it is pretty clear that this theory is going nowhere...
No one knows the physics of " black holes ".
Well, you are several decades behind the times because the physics of black holes is well understood...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

Sure, you are going to tell me that this is 'just' Wikipedia, but this article is very up to date and provides 197 reference articles in its bibliography, and there is a lot of evidence presented in the article itself. You have a lot of reading to do before *you* can declare that "no one knows the physics of black holes". That is a statement made only by someone who has no clue about the subject matter.

Do you want more articles that provide evidence in support of black holes?

https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/black-holes

Again, be sure to read all the reference article at the end...

https://physics.aps.org/articles/v11/127

"Black holes... have now become familiar astrophysical objects that have been observed in large numbers and in many ways: we have evidence of stellar-mass holes dancing around with a companion star, of gigantic holes at the center of galaxies pulling in spiraling disks of matter, and of black hole pairs merging in a spray of gravitational waves. All of this is beautifully accounted for by Einstein’s century-old theory of general relativity."

Do you understand the terms "observed" and "evidence" as used in this article?

There are tons more and a clever person can find them with just a few keystrokes.
Post by J***@.
Black Holes anger me because the science-fiction community
uses them to pass off bullshit as if it were settled science.
They do the same with quantum mechanics.
Well, the science fiction community can say whatever they want to say in their pursuit of entertainment, and in the end, it is still *fiction*.
Post by J***@.
Lots of people I know, including astrophysicists,
invent incredible amounts of bullshit and try to pass it off as science.
Really? Name 2 of those astrophysicists that you know who invent bullshit, I would like to read their work. I'll bet you can't.

You have made brazen claims here about black holes but you have provided ZERO evidence to support your position. Your assertions are not proof of anything, so save your breath and get busy finding actual evidence to show that black holes do not exist... if you can.
J***@.
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
LIGO first decided what it wanted to see, then saw it.
The Event Horizon Telescope did the same thing.
If I wanted to see faces on Mars, I'd see them.

The science isn't nearly as settled as you think it is, Paul Alsing.
Post by p***@gmail.com
Well, you are several decades behind the times
because the physics of black holes is well understood...
wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
Stop projecting. You're the one that's decades behind, not me.

Quoting from your link, above: <<

Although general relativity can be used to perform a
semi-classical calculation of black hole entropy,
this situation is theoretically unsatisfying.

In statistical mechanics, entropy is understood as
counting the number of microscopic configurations of
a system that have the same macroscopic qualities
( such as mass, charge, pressure, etc. ).

Without a satisfactory theory of quantum gravity,
one cannot perform such a computation for black holes. >>

"TON 618" is the most massive black hole known to man;
we see it as it was 10.4 billion years ago.

12.5 billion years ago, quasar J2157-3602 had
the luminosity of 695 trillion suns ( 2.66×10^41 Watts ).

695 trillion suns.

As entropy increases, our universe gets less "dense/hot/powerful".

In physics, entropy is how evenly heat/matter are distributed.
The hot/dense sun is dissipating into the cold/sparse void;
i.e. "entropy" (uniformity) is increasing, the sun is evaporating.

Lambda, the cosmological "constant", is growing.

Compared to the concordance model ( Lambda-CDM ), the Big Rip
now seems more likely, given recent evidence from "the quasar era"
that shows that the (growing) Hubble "Constant" was then LESS (72.5)
than one at the ( cosmologically older ) "Type Ia supernova era" (73.24),
and MORE than the one at the CMBR (67.66), near the start of the Big Bang.

" Is Dark Energy Getting Stronger ? ", by PBS Space Time, Mar 20, 2019:

Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by J***@.
Lots of people I know, including astrophysicists,
invent incredible amounts of bullshit and try to pass it off as science.
Really? Name 2 of those astrophysicists that you know who invent bullshit,
I would like to read their work. I'll bet you can't.
Stephen Hawking (RIP) and Brian Greene talk about " Many (random) Worlds "
as if it were plausible.

The Copenhagen interpretation, " Shut up and calculate ", is still mainstream;
yet pop sci-fi fan boys, such as yourself,
transformed it into " Many (random) Worlds ".

This is your " subatomic God " ( your God of shadows );
tiny little particles, flexing their muscles,
like Mighty Mouse, to spit out entire universes, one after another.
Post by p***@gmail.com
You have made brazen claims here about black holes
but you have provided ZERO evidence to support your position.
I said "we don't know"; nothing "brazen".
Post by p***@gmail.com
Your assertions are not proof of anything,
so save your breath and get busy finding
actual evidence to show that black holes do not exist... if you can.
I'll do that right after you prove that
the " flying spaghetti monster " doesn't exist.
m***@gmail.com
2019-04-21 18:39:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by J***@.
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by J***@.
WikiPedia's " Black Star, SemiClassical Gravity "
this article is now 10 years old,
so it is pretty clear that this theory is going nowhere...
No one knows the physics of " black holes ".
Well, you are several decades behind the times because the physics of black holes is well understood...
Singularities are only hypothetical.
We have never observed an event horizon.
God is creating gravity.

Mitchell Raemsch
Double-A
2019-04-21 20:58:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J***@.
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by J***@.
WikiPedia's " Black Star, SemiClassical Gravity "
this article is now 10 years old,
so it is pretty clear that this theory is going nowhere...
No one knows the physics of " black holes ".
Black Holes anger me because the science-fiction community
uses them to pass off bullshit as if it were settled science.
They do the same with quantum mechanics.
Lots of people I know, including astrophysicists,
invent incredible amounts of bullshit and try to pass it off as science.
Because that's where the bucks are. Some scientist have completely made the transition from true science to science-fiction!

Double-A
Enes Richard
2019-04-21 16:17:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Enes Richard
Neither Kepler nor Newton predicted the black hole (the central body) in
Sgr A *, it was invented in modern times (by Hawking or another
fabulist) and Kepler's Third Law was adapted to calculate the mass.
It is possible that this prophecy will turn out to be true ... but
not necessarily.
See, right from the start, you have it wrong...
https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_blackholes.html
"... the idea of a black hole was proposed as early as 1783 by the amateur British astronomer John Michell (and independently by the Frenchman Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1795)... The term "black hole" was coined in 1967 by American astronomer John Wheeler, and the first one was discovered in 1971."
We're writing here about the hypothetical black hole in Sgr A *. Who
invented that there is a central b. H. Who later adopted such an
assumption and calculated by abusing the third law of Kepler?
Post by p***@gmail.com
The problem for you is simple; you don't know what you don't know, and you will never know it without understanding the current mainstream theories. Whether they are correct or not isn't the point, because if you don't understand modern theories then you are not equipped to dispute them, and right now you know virtually nothing about physics.
It seems to me that your problem (and tens of thousands of similar
people with scientific titles) is contaminating with wrong
theoretical knowledge about astrophysics and cosmology (like
a scientific syphilis). The swamp of discrepancies between the
mainstream theories and the results of observations / measurements
is increasing. None of you has a chance to come up with
something revolutionary and get out of this swamp. No one can
pull himself or herself out. Only someone from outside can give
you a hand through the emergency board ...
Michael Moroney
2019-04-21 17:19:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Enes Richard
We're writing here about the hypothetical black hole in Sgr A *. Who
invented that there is a central b. H. Who later adopted such an
assumption and calculated by abusing the third law of Kepler?
What "abuse" is that?

Kepler's laws state only that there is "something" there with a mass of about
4 million solar masses. Its maximum diameter ia also known from the orbits
of several stars.

I'll ask again, if it's not a black hole, what is it?
Enes Richard
2019-04-22 20:16:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Enes Richard
We're writing here about the hypothetical black hole in Sgr A *. Who
invented that there is a central b. H. Who later adopted such an
assumption and calculated by abusing the third law of Kepler?
What "abuse" is that?
Kepler's laws state only that there is "something" there with a mass of about
4 million solar masses. Its maximum diameter ia also known from the orbits
of several stars.
"No one can make a right of use contrary to the purpose of
this law, or rules of logical thinking. Such abuse of law
does not benefit from protection."

Kepler's third law can be applied to objects that actually
exist, for example, the Sun and the planet. If we assume
the presence of the central body, which is not certain
(like the Sun), then a proper reservation should
be honestly added.

It is an unacceptable lie that Kepler's law shows the
black hole in Sgr A*. It should be: If there is a black
hole and it is acceptable to calculate its mass application
of Kepler's laws as for the Solar System - its mass is
about 4 million Suns.
Post by Michael Moroney
I'll ask again, if it's not a black hole, what is it?
It can be a globular cluster with stars moving around
an empty center of mass. Many black holes are probably
in the gas and dust ring around Sgr A*, as in many
galaxies and other objects ...
Michael Moroney
2019-04-22 20:50:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Enes Richard
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Enes Richard
We're writing here about the hypothetical black hole in Sgr A *. Who
invented that there is a central b. H. Who later adopted such an
assumption and calculated by abusing the third law of Kepler?
What "abuse" is that?
Kepler's laws state only that there is "something" there with a mass of about
4 million solar masses. Its maximum diameter ia also known from the orbits
of several stars.
"No one can make a right of use contrary to the purpose of
this law, or rules of logical thinking. Such abuse of law
does not benefit from protection."
What is that?
Post by Enes Richard
Kepler's third law can be applied to objects that actually
exist, for example, the Sun and the planet. If we assume
the presence of the central body, which is not certain
(like the Sun), then a proper reservation should
be honestly added.
I already said Kepler's Laws simply state that "something" is there
with 4 million solar masses. Kepler's Laws don't say what it is.
Post by Enes Richard
It is an unacceptable lie that Kepler's law shows the
black hole in Sgr A*. It should be: If there is a black
hole and it is acceptable to calculate its mass application
of Kepler's laws as for the Solar System - its mass is
about 4 million Suns.
Which is pretty much what I said.
I even asked you what is it if it's not a black hole.
Post by Enes Richard
Post by Michael Moroney
I'll ask again, if it's not a black hole, what is it?
It can be a globular cluster with stars moving around
an empty center of mass.
You won't see stars like S2 behave like that when orbiting "an empty center of
mass"! Big violation of Kepler's Laws!

An entire globular cluster is too big (and too bright) to be the 4 million
solar mass thing.
Post by Enes Richard
Many black holes are probably
in the gas and dust ring around Sgr A*, as in many
galaxies and other objects ...
Probably, but the question here is what is that 4 million solar mass
"thing" that S2 and the other stars are orbiting?
Enes Richard
2019-04-24 07:28:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Enes Richard
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Enes Richard
We're writing here about the hypothetical black hole in Sgr A *. Who
invented that there is a central b. H. Who later adopted such an
assumption and calculated by abusing the third law of Kepler?
What "abuse" is that?
Kepler's laws state only that there is "something" there with a mass of about
4 million solar masses. Its maximum diameter ia also known from the orbits
of several stars.
"No one can make a right of use contrary to the purpose of
this law, or rules of logical thinking. Such abuse of law
does not benefit from protection."
What is that?
This is a civil law provision adapted for the needs of physics.
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Enes Richard
Kepler's third law can be applied to objects that actually
exist, for example, the Sun and the planet. If we assume
the presence of the central body, which is not certain
(like the Sun), then a proper reservation should
be honestly added.
I already said Kepler's Laws simply state that "something" is there
with 4 million solar masses. Kepler's Laws don't say what it is.
That's not true. First, the assumption was made that there is
a very massive central body, at which the mass of each circulating
around the star is negligibly small. Then Kepler's third law was
used to calculate this large mass (in the modern version).
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Enes Richard
It is an unacceptable lie that Kepler's law shows the
black hole in Sgr A*. It should be: If there is a black
hole and it is acceptable to calculate its mass application
of Kepler's laws as for the Solar System - its mass is
about 4 million Suns.
Which is pretty much what I said.
I even asked you what is it if it's not a black hole.
Post by Enes Richard
Post by Michael Moroney
I'll ask again, if it's not a black hole, what is it?
It can be a globular cluster with stars moving around
an empty center of mass.
You won't see stars like S2 behave like that when orbiting "an empty center of
mass"! Big violation of Kepler's Laws!
An entire globular cluster is too big (and too bright) to be the 4 million
solar mass thing.
Post by Enes Richard
Many black holes are probably
in the gas and dust ring around Sgr A*, as in many
galaxies and other objects ...
Probably, but the question here is what is that 4 million solar mass
"thing" that S2 and the other stars are orbiting?
4 million masses of the Sun is due to the mistaken assumption.
The whole globular cluster consists of at most a few thousand
very young stars, probably in the age of several dozen thousand
years. In typical globular clusters, stars circle the "empty"
and "moving" center of mass, similarly in Sgr A * ...It's all
simple and there is nothing extraordinary there.
Michael Moroney
2019-04-24 14:30:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Enes Richard
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Enes Richard
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Enes Richard
We're writing here about the hypothetical black hole in Sgr A *. Who
invented that there is a central b. H. Who later adopted such an
assumption and calculated by abusing the third law of Kepler?
What "abuse" is that?
Kepler's laws state only that there is "something" there with a mass of about
4 million solar masses. Its maximum diameter ia also known from the orbits
of several stars.
"No one can make a right of use contrary to the purpose of
this law, or rules of logical thinking. Such abuse of law
does not benefit from protection."
What is that?
This is a civil law provision adapted for the needs of physics.
What does civil law have to do with physics?

Also I mentioned the application of Newton's laws, although for orbiting
bodies Kepler's and Newton's laws come up with the same conclusions.
Post by Enes Richard
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Enes Richard
Kepler's third law can be applied to objects that actually
exist, for example, the Sun and the planet.
And they show that "something" with 4 million solar masses exists there.
Post by Enes Richard
If we assume
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Enes Richard
the presence of the central body, which is not certain
(like the Sun), then a proper reservation should
be honestly added.
I already said Kepler's Laws simply state that "something" is there
with 4 million solar masses. Kepler's Laws don't say what it is.
That's not true. First, the assumption was made that there is
a very massive central body, at which the mass of each circulating
around the star is negligibly small. Then Kepler's third law was
used to calculate this large mass (in the modern version).
Newton's and Kepler's Laws can be used to determine the mass of the thing
that S2 is orbiting. Ignoring some errors from the fact that GR effects
become relevant and things we don't know such as other masses in the area.
But neither of these change the fact that there is "something" there that
S2 is orbiting, with about 4 million solar masses.
Post by Enes Richard
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Enes Richard
It is an unacceptable lie that Kepler's law shows the
black hole in Sgr A*. It should be: If there is a black
hole and it is acceptable to calculate its mass application
of Kepler's laws as for the Solar System - its mass is
about 4 million Suns.
It should be (and is) stated Newton's and Kepler's laws shows that star S2 and
others are orbiting something that must have a mass of about 4 million Suns.

Other theories state things like it can only be a black hole, but that does not
change the prediction of Newton's and Kepler's laws about a 4 million sun mass.
Post by Enes Richard
Post by Michael Moroney
Which is pretty much what I said.
I even asked you what is it if it's not a black hole.
Post by Enes Richard
Post by Michael Moroney
I'll ask again, if it's not a black hole, what is it?
It can be a globular cluster with stars moving around
an empty center of mass.
You won't see stars like S2 behave like that when orbiting "an empty center of
mass"! Big violation of Kepler's Laws!
An entire globular cluster is too big (and too bright) to be the 4 million
solar mass thing.
Post by Enes Richard
Many black holes are probably
in the gas and dust ring around Sgr A*, as in many
galaxies and other objects ...
Probably, but the question here is what is that 4 million solar mass
"thing" that S2 and the other stars are orbiting?
4 million masses of the Sun is due to the mistaken assumption.
What mistaken assumption? That Newton's and Kepler's laws are valid?
Or are at least close when we factor in GR?
Post by Enes Richard
The whole globular cluster consists of at most a few thousand
very young stars, probably in the age of several dozen thousand
years.
Typically globular clusters have old stars, but go on...
Post by Enes Richard
In typical globular clusters, stars circle the "empty"
and "moving" center of mass,
A globular cluster is a very complicated multi body problem. However,
a star near the center, which has all the other stars distributed approximately
evenly in all directions, will experience about zero net gravitational force
and move in a straight line. (Similar to the hollow shell problem. Something
inside a uniform hollow shell won't experience any gravitational force toward
any part of the shell. If moving relative to the shell, it will continue in a
straight line until it intersects the shell)

A star near an edge of the cluster, however, would be attracted to the direction
which most of the stars lie. It's sometimes described as being like a swarm of
flying bees.

Meanwhile, S2 described a very unusual path, very high speed (2% of the speed of
light or so) and extreme acceleration as it whipped around "something" at a very
small distance. This is VERY different from what happens in a globular cluster.

(and besides, if this was a globular cluster, where are all its stars??)
Post by Enes Richard
similarly in Sgr A * ...It's all
simple and there is nothing extraordinary there.
An extremely large mass like that is rather extraordinary.
Enes Richard
2019-04-25 13:51:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
(...)
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Enes Richard
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Enes Richard
"No one can make a right of use contrary to the purpose of
this law, or rules of logical thinking. Such abuse of law
does not benefit from protection."
What is that?
This is a civil law provision adapted for the needs of physics.
What does civil law have to do with physics?
Everything that occurs realistically is physical. This applies
in particular to massive three-dimensional objects and relations
between them, so ...
Post by Michael Moroney
Also I mentioned the application of Newton's laws, although for orbiting
bodies Kepler's and Newton's laws come up with the same conclusions.
Post by Enes Richard
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Enes Richard
Kepler's third law can be applied to objects that actually
exist, for example, the Sun and the planet.
And they show that "something" with 4 million solar masses exists there.
Post by Enes Richard
If we assume
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Enes Richard
the presence of the central body, which is not certain
(like the Sun), then a proper reservation should
be honestly added.
I already said Kepler's Laws simply state that "something" is there
with 4 million solar masses. Kepler's Laws don't say what it is.
That's not true. First, the assumption was made that there is
a very massive central body, at which the mass of each circulating
around the star is negligibly small. Then Kepler's third law was
used to calculate this large mass (in the modern version).
Newton's and Kepler's Laws can be used to determine the mass of the thing
that S2 is orbiting. Ignoring some errors from the fact that GR effects
become relevant and things we don't know such as other masses in the area.
But neither of these change the fact that there is "something" there that
S2 is orbiting, with about 4 million solar masses.
Post by Enes Richard
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Enes Richard
It is an unacceptable lie that Kepler's law shows the
black hole in Sgr A*. It should be: If there is a black
hole and it is acceptable to calculate its mass application
of Kepler's laws as for the Solar System - its mass is
about 4 million Suns.
It should be (and is) stated Newton's and Kepler's laws shows that star S2 and
others are orbiting something that must have a mass of about 4 million Suns.
Other theories state things like it can only be a black hole, but that does not
change the prediction of Newton's and Kepler's laws about a 4 million sun mass.
Post by Enes Richard
Post by Michael Moroney
Which is pretty much what I said.
I even asked you what is it if it's not a black hole.
Post by Enes Richard
Post by Michael Moroney
I'll ask again, if it's not a black hole, what is it?
It can be a globular cluster with stars moving around
an empty center of mass.
You won't see stars like S2 behave like that when orbiting "an empty center of
mass"! Big violation of Kepler's Laws!
An entire globular cluster is too big (and too bright) to be the 4 million
solar mass thing.
Post by Enes Richard
Many black holes are probably
in the gas and dust ring around Sgr A*, as in many
galaxies and other objects ...
Probably, but the question here is what is that 4 million solar mass
"thing" that S2 and the other stars are orbiting?
4 million masses of the Sun is due to the mistaken assumption.
What mistaken assumption? That Newton's and Kepler's laws are valid?
Or are at least close when we factor in GR?
These laws can be applied to objects occurring realistically.
If we adopt a hypothetical central object, we must write about
it honestly by giving an appropriate objection ... rather than
presenting the result of the calculations as proof of the occurrence
of the object (because something came out of the calculation assuming
it is ... so it must be).

Are not you surprised by the huge discrepancy of the results
obtained from the movement of various stars (1- 5 million S.)?
Try to calculate the mass of the Sun (which is, without the need
for such an assumption) from the motion of different planets
(circulation period, distance from the Sun, Kepler's Third Law).
You will get the same results with high accuracy.
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Enes Richard
The whole globular cluster consists of at most a few thousand
very young stars, probably in the age of several dozen thousand
years.
Typically globular clusters have old stars, but go on...
Post by Enes Richard
In typical globular clusters, stars circle the "empty"
and "moving" center of mass,
A globular cluster is a very complicated multi body problem. However,
a star near the center, which has all the other stars distributed approximately
evenly in all directions, will experience about zero net gravitational force
and move in a straight line. (Similar to the hollow shell problem. Something
inside a uniform hollow shell won't experience any gravitational force toward
any part of the shell. If moving relative to the shell, it will continue in a
straight line until it intersects the shell)
This is a well-known classical problem (static and only gravitational).
It does not apply, you can not make such an assumption. Similarly, it
can not be assumed that in the solar system the mass distribution
is heterogeneous, starting from Mercury's orbit. For the movement of
stars and planets the most important is the principle of preserving
the momentum of momentum, gravity needs a long time.
Post by Michael Moroney
A star near an edge of the cluster, however, would be attracted to the direction
which most of the stars lie. It's sometimes described as being like a swarm of
flying bees.
Gravity has a rather small impact, as in the solar system.
Post by Michael Moroney
Meanwhile, S2 described a very unusual path, very high speed (2% of the speed of
light or so) and extreme acceleration as it whipped around "something" at a very
small distance. This is VERY different from what happens in a globular cluster.
(and besides, if this was a globular cluster, where are all its stars??)
It may be a small globular cluster, similar to the one considered
the youngest jet... W49.
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Enes Richard
similarly in Sgr A * ...It's all
simple and there is nothing extraordinary there.
An extremely large mass like that is rather extraordinary.
Michael Moroney
2019-04-25 14:35:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Enes Richard
Post by Michael Moroney
Meanwhile, S2 described a very unusual path, very high speed (2% of the speed of
light or so) and extreme acceleration as it whipped around "something" at a very
small distance. This is VERY different from what happens in a globular cluster.
(and besides, if this was a globular cluster, where are all its stars??)
It may be a small globular cluster, similar to the one considered
the youngest jet... W49.
You've already been told that a globular cluster has a diameter measured
in light years. Yet the thing SGR A* has a diameter of some 8 light
minutes!

Once again, what is it, if it's not a black hole. Globular clusters have
been ruled out, what else could it be?
Enes Richard
2019-04-26 06:56:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Enes Richard
Post by Michael Moroney
Meanwhile, S2 described a very unusual path, very high speed (2% of the speed of
light or so) and extreme acceleration as it whipped around "something" at a very
small distance. This is VERY different from what happens in a globular cluster.
(and besides, if this was a globular cluster, where are all its stars??)
It may be a small globular cluster, similar to the one considered
the youngest jet... W49.
You've already been told that a globular cluster has a diameter measured
in light years. Yet the thing SGR A* has a diameter of some 8 light
minutes!
I do not recall such a statement. Where?
Perhaps a wreath of dark holes around Sgr A*
has a diameter counted in light years, but
not a dwarf globular cluster.
Post by Michael Moroney
Once again, what is it, if it's not a black hole. Globular clusters have
been ruled out, what else could it be?
These are probably dark holes in the chaplet that caused
the birth of those stars and their movement. Who excluded
the globular cluster and on what basis?

There is a lack of knowledge about the genesis of the right
globular clusters. Here it is served like a soup on a plate,
and eg. Pnalsing is still tedious ... and turns his nose
instead of his head.
p***@gmail.com
2019-04-23 04:08:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Enes Richard
It can be a globular cluster with stars moving around
an empty center of mass. Many black holes are probably
in the gas and dust ring around Sgr A*, as in many
galaxies and other objects ...
I have already shown you that this cannot be the case. Are you incapable of learning?

Omega Centauri, for example, is a 4-million solar mass globular cluster, and it is 172 light years across. It is a typical globular cluster except that it is extraordinarily large and massive.

On the other hand, the 4-million solar mass object known as Sgr A* is only 8 light *minutes* across. This makes the globular cluster over 11 million times larger than Sgr A* and completely inappropriate to be the object at the center of our galaxy.

Do you have any idea just how stupid you seem to be when you insist that the "mystery object" at the center of the galaxy is a globular cluster?

By the way, in any globular cluster *no* stars orbit an "empty center of mass", this is physically impossible... again, you don't know what you don't know, and anyone with half a brain can see this... except for you... you remain clueless...
J***@.
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
in any globular cluster *no* stars orbit an "empty center of mass",
this is physically impossible...
Binary Stars orbit an "empty center of mass".
benj
2019-04-23 16:33:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J***@.
Post by p***@gmail.com
in any globular cluster *no* stars orbit an "empty center of mass",
this is physically impossible...
Binary Stars orbit an "empty center of mass".
Entropy is known to concentrate in empty centers of mass!

That is a given!

snicker.
whodat
2019-04-23 16:36:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J***@.
Post by p***@gmail.com
in any globular cluster *no* stars orbit an "empty center of mass",
this is physically impossible...
Binary Stars orbit an "empty center of mass".
No place in the universe is "empty." Define "center of mass" for your
example.
m***@gmail.com
2019-04-24 02:38:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by whodat
Post by J***@.
Post by p***@gmail.com
in any globular cluster *no* stars orbit an "empty center of mass",
this is physically impossible...
Binary Stars orbit an "empty center of mass".
No place in the universe is "empty." Define "center of mass" for your
example.
If everywhere is the appearance of centeredness in the universe
is why science says it has none and that it is a hypersphere closed
universe.

Mitchell Raemsch
p***@gmail.com
2019-04-24 04:04:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by whodat
Post by J***@.
Post by p***@gmail.com
in any globular cluster *no* stars orbit an "empty center of mass",
this is physically impossible...
Binary Stars orbit an "empty center of mass".
No place in the universe is "empty." Define "center of mass" for your
example.
If everywhere is the appearance of centeredness in the universe
is why science says it has none and that it is a hypersphere closed
universe.
Mitchell Raemsch
Mitch, you remain the King of gobbledegook...
p***@gmail.com
2019-04-24 04:02:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J***@.
Post by p***@gmail.com
in any globular cluster *no* stars orbit an "empty center of mass",
this is physically impossible...
Binary Stars orbit an "empty center of mass".
Binary stars orbit a common center of mass, just like the stars in a globular cluster... the term "empty center of mass" is not used in physics. If you think differently, let's see your reference. If you are going to discuss physics, use the language of physics, rather than just make up your own terms...
J***@.
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
the term "empty center of mass" is not used in physics.
The center of mass of a binary star system is (empty) space,
you pedantic shit.
p***@gmail.com
2019-04-24 05:53:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J***@.
Post by p***@gmail.com
the term "empty center of mass" is not used in physics.
The center of mass of a binary star system is (empty) space,
you pedantic shit.
Yeah, well, maybe it is and maybe it isn't, it all depends on the relative masses of each star. Are you incapable of understanding this? If the mass ratio between 2 stars in a binary system is large enough, the center of mass of the system, the barycenter, can actually be within the larger star's volume.

You really should not be making claims that you cannot support, and this clearly one of them...

In any case, the phrase "empty center of mass" is not used in physics, no matter how much you want it to be...
Enes Richard
2019-04-24 06:13:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Enes Richard
It can be a globular cluster with stars moving around
an empty center of mass. Many black holes are probably
in the gas and dust ring around Sgr A*, as in many
galaxies and other objects ...
I have already shown you that this cannot be the case. Are you incapable of learning?
You did not show much, you use inadequate (weak) arguments.
Post by p***@gmail.com
Omega Centauri, for example, is a 4-million solar mass globular cluster, and it is 172 light years across. It is a typical globular cluster except that it is extraordinarily large and massive.
On the other hand, the 4-million solar mass object known as Sgr A*
is only 8 light *minutes* across. This makes the globular cluster
over 11 million times larger than Sgr A* and completely inappropriate
to be the object at the center of our galaxy.
This is not a good example and comparison. Omega Centauri is probably not a globular cluster and has a completely different genesis. Typical globular clusters do not have central black holes and stars move around a common "empty" center of mass.
Post by p***@gmail.com
Do you have any idea just how stupid you seem to be when you insist that the "mystery object" at the center of the galaxy is a globular cluster?
If you apologize for the naughty tones, maybe I will write something
more about it ...
Post by p***@gmail.com
By the way, in any globular cluster *no* stars orbit an "empty center of mass", this is physically impossible... again, you don't know what you don't know, and anyone with half a brain can see this... except for you... you remain clueless...
Try to free yourself from your limitations and strain your imagination.
This is a public forum, read and written not only by professional physicists. Matters are difficult and require the simplest possible
language, preferably pictorial and colorful, with permissible
simplifications.
p***@gmail.com
2019-04-25 05:22:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Enes Richard
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Enes Richard
It can be a globular cluster with stars moving around
an empty center of mass. Many black holes are probably
in the gas and dust ring around Sgr A*, as in many
galaxies and other objects ...
I have already shown you that this cannot be the case. Are you incapable of learning?
You did not show much, you use inadequate (weak) arguments.
Post by p***@gmail.com
Omega Centauri, for example, is a 4-million solar mass globular cluster, and it is 172 light years across. It is a typical globular cluster except that it is extraordinarily large and massive.
On the other hand, the 4-million solar mass object known as Sgr A*
is only 8 light *minutes* across. This makes the globular cluster
over 11 million times larger than Sgr A* and completely inappropriate
to be the object at the center of our galaxy.
This is not a good example and comparison. Omega Centauri is probably not a globular cluster and has a completely different genesis. Typical globular clusters do not have central black holes and stars move around a common "empty" center of mass.
This is a terrific example. Although we know much about globular clusters, their genesis is not well particularly understood,

https://oneminuteastronomer.com/196/globular-clusters/

... but we know that in general that they are very big, with the smallest of them at least 10 light-years across. The object at the center of our galaxy is only about 8 light-minutes across, so even the smallest globular cluster know is about 670,000 times too big... and would have far too little mass. What is it about these physical parameters that you do not understand?
Post by Enes Richard
Post by p***@gmail.com
Do you have any idea just how stupid you seem to be when you insist that the "mystery object" at the center of the galaxy is a globular cluster?
If you apologize for the naughty tones, maybe I will write something
more about it ...
If you apologize for not being prepared to support your own position with proper evidence I will ditch the naughty tones... and the whole problem here is that you insist on writing about them to begin with. It would be a good thing if you stopped writing about things that you know virtually nothing about.
Post by Enes Richard
Post by p***@gmail.com
By the way, in any globular cluster *no* stars orbit an "empty center of mass", this is physically impossible... again, you don't know what you don't know, and anyone with half a brain can see this... except for you... you remain clueless...
Try to free yourself from your limitations and strain your imagination.
Try to avoid letting your imagination run wild and leading you to conceive of ridiculous proposals that have zero bases in facts.
Post by Enes Richard
This is a public forum, read and written not only by professional physicists. Matters are difficult and require the simplest possible
language, preferably pictorial and colorful, with permissible
simplifications.
I have presented the most basic of arguments, and it could not possibly be any simpler. There is a 4-million solar mass object at the center of our galaxy, as calculated by well-documented and easy math, and it has a diameter of about 8 light-minutes. Current empirical evidence all identifies this mass as being a black hole. If you do not agree with this conclusion all you need to do is provide empirical evidence to the contrary. Your assertions do not count as evidence, and this is what the scientific community considers to be empirical evidence...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

"Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation, in the form of recorded data, which may be the subject of analysis (e.g. by scientists)."

Your own wild-ass guesses are essentially worthless. You need to study the subject matter for a number of years before you can speak with any kind of authority, and even then, you must have evidence to back up your claims... just like actual scientists.
Enes Richard
2019-04-25 10:09:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Enes Richard
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Enes Richard
It can be a globular cluster with stars moving around
an empty center of mass. Many black holes are probably
in the gas and dust ring around Sgr A*, as in many
galaxies and other objects ...
I have already shown you that this cannot be the case. Are you incapable of learning?
You did not show much, you use inadequate (weak) arguments.
Post by p***@gmail.com
Omega Centauri, for example, is a 4-million solar mass globular cluster, and it is 172 light years across. It is a typical globular cluster except that it is extraordinarily large and massive.
On the other hand, the 4-million solar mass object known as Sgr A*
is only 8 light *minutes* across. This makes the globular cluster
over 11 million times larger than Sgr A* and completely inappropriate
to be the object at the center of our galaxy.
This is not a good example and comparison. Omega Centauri is probably not a globular cluster and has a completely different genesis. Typical globular clusters do not have central black holes and stars move around a common "empty" center of mass.
This is a terrific example. Although we know much about globular clusters, their genesis is not well particularly understood,
https://oneminuteastronomer.com/196/globular-clusters/
... but we know that in general that they are very big, with the smallest of them at least 10 light-years across. The object at the center of our galaxy is only about 8 light-minutes across, so even the smallest globular cluster know is about 670,000 times too big... and would have far too little mass. What is it about these physical parameters that you do not understand?
I see that you are exceptionally immune to rational arguments
and experimental / observational facts that you simply ignore.
I have already written here that globular clusters differ very
much, it depends on when they arose (at what stage of the
evolution of the galaxy). The oldest (12-13 billion years)
count millions of mainly old stars. The youngest W49 (several
hundred thousand years old) has only about 100 young stars. In
this series the youngest can be a cluster of around several
dozen stars in the age of several dozen thousand years orbiting
in Sgr A*.
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Enes Richard
Post by p***@gmail.com
Do you have any idea just how stupid you seem to be when you insist that the "mystery object" at the center of the galaxy is a globular cluster?
If you apologize for the naughty tones, maybe I will write something
more about it ...
If you apologize for not being prepared to support your own position with proper evidence I will ditch the naughty tones... and the whole problem here is that you insist on writing about them to begin with. It would be a good thing if you stopped writing about things that you know virtually nothing about.
Post by Enes Richard
Post by p***@gmail.com
By the way, in any globular cluster *no* stars orbit an "empty center of mass", this is physically impossible... again, you don't know what you don't know, and anyone with half a brain can see this... except for you... you remain clueless...
Try to free yourself from your limitations and strain your imagination.
Try to avoid letting your imagination run wild and leading you to conceive of ridiculous proposals that have zero bases in facts.
Post by Enes Richard
This is a public forum, read and written not only by professional physicists. Matters are difficult and require the simplest possible
language, preferably pictorial and colorful, with permissible
simplifications.
I have presented the most basic of arguments, and it could not possibly be any simpler. There is a 4-million solar mass object at the center of our galaxy, as calculated by well-documented and easy math, and it has a diameter of about 8 light-minutes. Current empirical evidence all identifies this mass as being a black hole. If you do not agree with this conclusion all you need to do is provide empirical evidence to the contrary. Your assertions do not count as evidence, and this is what the scientific community considers to be empirical evidence...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence
"Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation, in the form of recorded data, which may be the subject of analysis (e.g. by scientists)."
Your own wild-ass guesses are essentially worthless. You need to study the subject matter for a number of years before you can speak with any kind of authority, and even then, you must have evidence to back up your claims... just like actual scientists.
In the same source:
"The standard positivist view of empirically acquired information has been that observation, experience, and experiment serve as neutral arbiters between competing theories. However, since the 1960s, a persistent critique most associated with Thomas Kuhn,[4]... has argued that these methods are influenced by prior beliefs and experiences. Consequently, it cannot be expected that two scientists when observing, experiencing, or experimenting on the same event will make the same theory-neutral observations. The role of observation as a theory-neutral arbiter may not be possible. Theory-dependence of observation means that, even if there were agreed methods of inference and interpretation, scientists may still disagree on the nature of empirical data.[5]"

So according to my previous opinion: scientific syphilis + swamp.

You must change the scientific methodology:
1) There must be a geometric model E3 phenomena / objects and
a mathematical description of the action using the known laws of physics.
2) The experience / observation / measurements must match the model
and its prediction.
3) Other possible models meeting 1 and 2 must be excluded.

btw:
Unfortunately, these criteria do not meet GR and QM.
p***@gmail.com
2019-04-25 14:17:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
W49 in not a globular cluster but rather a stellar nursery, an HII area where stars are being born, forming an *open cluster*, which is very different than a globular cluster. Of course the stars are young there! Globular clusters, on the other hand, have very old stars, as old as the galaxy itself, and they are metal-poor because when they were formed they were very few elements heavier than hydrogen and helium.

You really don't know what you don't know and should not be speculating about any of this, you are completely wrong...
Enes Richard
2019-04-25 18:31:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
W49 in not a globular cluster but rather a stellar nursery, an HII area where stars are being born, forming an *open cluster*, which is very different than a globular cluster. Of course the stars are young there! Globular clusters, on the other hand, have very old stars, as old as the galaxy itself, and they are metal-poor because when they were formed they were very few elements heavier than hydrogen and helium.
Well, what are the theories, this is the classification of objects ...
Look at the classification of galaxies according to Hubble and accept
such an analogy when classifying people: standing, sitting,
without a hand, without a leg, copulating ... Do you accept?

Meanwhile, it seems that galaxies are only formed as spiral.
Their later shape is mainly due to their position with respect
to the marked directions in the Universe.
Post by p***@gmail.com
You really don't know what you don't know...
The same applies to you, did you know about these galaxies?
Post by p***@gmail.com
...and should not be speculating about any of this,
I will stop as a black hole of 4 million S. will be proved,
but not generated by the 30-year-old novice algorithm for
a predetermined assumption, which is to confirm similarly
carried out mass calculations (I have such suspicions).
Post by p***@gmail.com
...you are completely wrong...
There are less and less indications ...
p***@gmail.com
2019-04-25 19:14:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Enes Richard
Post by p***@gmail.com
W49 in not a globular cluster but rather a stellar nursery, an HII area where stars are being born, forming an *open cluster*, which is very different than a globular cluster. Of course the stars are young there! Globular clusters, on the other hand, have very old stars, as old as the galaxy itself, and they are metal-poor because when they were formed they were very few elements heavier than hydrogen and helium.
Well, what are the theories, this is the classification of objects ...
Look at the classification of galaxies according to Hubble and accept
such an analogy when classifying people: standing, sitting,
without a hand, without a leg, copulating ... Do you accept?
Of course, I understand the 'tuning fork' of the Hubble sequence just fine, but this is about galaxies, and NOT about globular clusters or open clusters or planetary nebulae or emission nebulae or any other type of object.
Post by Enes Richard
Meanwhile, it seems that galaxies are only formed as spiral.
Nonsense. Where did you ever get this idea? You are clueless...
Post by Enes Richard
Their later shape is mainly due to their position with respect
to the marked directions in the Universe.
Even more nonsense. You are making claims for which there is ZERO evidence...
Post by Enes Richard
Post by p***@gmail.com
You really don't know what you don't know...
The same applies to you, did you know about these galaxies?
Well, it seems to me that sometime during my college education, while earning my degrees in physics and astronomy, I learned all about galaxy classification... and if there one thing I know, it is what I don't know. You, on the other hand, don't know what you don't know... and should not be speculating about any of this,
Post by Enes Richard
I will stop as a black hole of 4 million S. will be proved,
but not generated by the 30-year-old novice algorithm for
a predetermined assumption, which is to confirm similarly
carried out mass calculations (I have such suspicions).
Post by p***@gmail.com
...you are completely wrong...
There are less and less indications ...
You are way over your head in this discussion because you don't really know the first thing about astronomy and physics. You need to study for several more years, instead of just guessing as you are doing now...
Enes Richard
2019-04-26 07:39:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Enes Richard
Post by p***@gmail.com
W49 in not a globular cluster but rather a stellar nursery, an HII area where stars are being born, forming an *open cluster*, which is very different than a globular cluster. Of course the stars are young there! Globular clusters, on the other hand, have very old stars, as old as the galaxy itself, and they are metal-poor because when they were formed they were very few elements heavier than hydrogen and helium.
Well, what are the theories, this is the classification of objects ...
Look at the classification of galaxies according to Hubble and accept
such an analogy when classifying people: standing, sitting,
without a hand, without a leg, copulating ... Do you accept?
Of course, I understand the 'tuning fork' of the Hubble sequence just fine, but this is about galaxies, and NOT about globular clusters or open clusters or planetary nebulae or emission nebulae or any other type of object.
Post by Enes Richard
Meanwhile, it seems that galaxies are only formed as spiral.
Nonsense. Where did you ever get this idea? You are clueless...
Post by Enes Richard
Their later shape is mainly due to their position with respect
to the marked directions in the Universe.
Even more nonsense. You are making claims for which there is ZERO evidence...
Post by Enes Richard
Post by p***@gmail.com
You really don't know what you don't know...
The same applies to you, did you know about these galaxies?
Well, it seems to me that sometime during my college education, while earning my degrees in physics and astronomy, I learned all about galaxy classification... and if there one thing I know, it is what I don't know. You, on the other hand, don't know what you don't know... and should not be speculating about any of this,
Post by Enes Richard
I will stop as a black hole of 4 million S. will be proved,
but not generated by the 30-year-old novice algorithm for
a predetermined assumption, which is to confirm similarly
carried out mass calculations (I have such suspicions).
Post by p***@gmail.com
...you are completely wrong...
There are less and less indications ...
You are way over your head in this discussion because you don't really know the first thing about astronomy and physics. You need to study for several more years, instead of just guessing as you are doing now...
I think you have a lot of wrong knowledge and now this is your
burden and limitation, but it can be corrected ... what I'm
trying to do.

Rather, one can not change the learned erroneous patterns
of thinking, an example of which is the belief in the truth
when the mathematical correctness of the model and compliance
with experiences / observations. Similarly with the so-called
mental experiences using breakneck assumptions ...

Btw:
I am a little afraid of the fate of this young astrophysicist
with an algorithm to generate black holes. What will be like
a black hole will be generated in Sgr A *, and then it will
be negated / disproved? Who will be a sacrificial goat?
p***@gmail.com
2019-04-26 20:29:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Enes Richard
I think you have a lot of wrong knowledge and now this is your
burden and limitation, but it can be corrected ... what I'm
trying to do.
Well, if you think I have 'bad knowledge', then all you have to do is provide evidence to refute it... but you can't do that because what I am claiming here is common knowledge and is easily supported with lots of references. What you are claiming, on the other hand, is total bullshit and easily refuted. You cannot possibly provide evidence to support your position.

Go ahead, show that I am wrong.
Enes Richard
2019-04-27 16:56:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Enes Richard
I think you have a lot of wrong knowledge and now this is your
burden and limitation, but it can be corrected ... what I'm
trying to do.
Well, if you think I have 'bad knowledge', then all you have to do is provide evidence to refute it... but you can't do that because what I am claiming here is common knowledge and is easily supported with lots of references. What you are claiming, on the other hand, is total bullshit and easily refuted. You cannot possibly provide evidence to support your position.
Go ahead, show that I am wrong.
It's easy. All your knowledge (and hundreds of thousands of
similar ones) about the Universe, and in particular about
the physics of galaxies, is based on the erroneous assumption
of a homogeneous and isotropic structure of the Universe on
large scales:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle

Meanwhile:

1)"The Huge-LQG, discovered in 2012, is three times longer
than, and twice as wide as is predicted possible according
to these current models, and so challenges our understanding
of the universe on large scales."

2)"In November 2013, a new structure 10 billion light years
away measuring 2000-3000 Mpc (more than seven times that of
the SGW) has been discovered, the Hercules–Corona Borealis
Great Wall, putting further doubt on the validity of the
cosmological principle."

And:
"Therefore, the European Space Agency (the governing body
of the Planck Mission) has concluded that it is anisotropies,
in fact, statistically significant and can no longer be ignored."

What are you waiting for, until one half of the universe will
be quite different from the other? Finally, let your theories
do sex ...
p***@gmail.com
2019-04-27 17:29:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
So, you present quotes from a source that you did not reference but is nevertheless easy to find...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huge-LQG

... and you probably did this because there is a section there that refutes these 'discoveries'...

"Seshadri Nadathur at the University of Bielefeld has conducted an even more comprehensive study of the Huge-LQG. After a more detailed study, he announced that contrary to the claim by Clowes about a large clustering, his new map has shown that there is no clear clustering of quasars within the vicinity of the Huge-LQG. The map was actually similar to the one produced by Clowes (see above section) - with the difference that Nadathur's map included all the quasars in that region. After performing a number of statistical analyses on the quasar data, and finding extreme changes in the Huge-LQG membership and shape with small changes in the cluster finding parameters, he determined the probability that apparent clusters the size of the Huge-LQG would appear in a random assortment of quasars. He set up 10,000 regions identical in size to that studied by Clowes, and filled them with randomly distributed quasars with the same position statistics as did the actual quasars in the sky.[10] The data is supporting the study of the homogeneity scale by Yadav et al.,[7] and that there is, therefore, no challenge to the cosmological principle. The study also implies that the statistical algorithm used by Clowes to identify the Huge-LQG, when used to correlate other quasars in the sky, produces more than a thousand clusterings identical to the Huge-LQG. While quasars can represent dense regions of the universe, one must note that all of the quasars in the sky are evenly distributed, that is, one quasar per few million light years, making their significance as a structure very unlikely. The identification of the Huge-LQG, together with the clusterings identified by Nadathur, is therefore referred to be false positive identifications or errors in identifying structures, finally arriving at the conclusion that the Huge-LQG is not a real structure at all.

Several questions arose from the structure's discovery. But it is not told how Clowes detected a clustering of quasars in the region, nor how he found any correlation of quasars in the region. It is specified, that, not only the structure but also other LQGs are not real structures at all."

So you pick some random new theory that sounds sexy and jump on the bandwagon, even though you don't understand the first thing about cosmology, and then you fail to present your source because it shows just how tenuous the theory is to begin with.

There are many, many researchers working on several different theories of cosmology, there always has been and there always will be. You are not one of them.

IT is always interesting to read about these new theories but you should be careful to not get too hung up on any of them until a LOT of other researchers put them through the grinder and find out what is left afterwards. A very large percentage of "new" theories turn out to be mostly or totally wrong, for a variety of reasons, and at this point in time there is no good reason to hang your hat on this one... especially when you dont know what you are talking about. You are in no position to either confirm or deny this new study, and neither am I, or anyone else reading this forum.

For you to claim that "hundreds of thousands" of other scientists are now wrong about their cosmological beliefs because you read something on the internet that you can't possibly even understand just goes to prove my claim that "You don't know what you don't know" is 100% accurate.

Reading about new studies and theories is fun and thought stimulating, but you are not necessarily learning actual facts... maybe, but probably not just yet. It has always been this way and it will always be this way.
Enes Richard
2019-04-27 18:59:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
So, you present quotes from a source that you did not reference but is nevertheless easy to find...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huge-LQG
... and you probably did this because there is a section there that refutes these 'discoveries'...
"Seshadri Nadathur at the University of Bielefeld has conducted an even more comprehensive study of the Huge-LQG. After a more detailed study, he announced that contrary to the claim by Clowes about a large clustering, his new map has shown that there is no clear clustering of quasars within the vicinity of the Huge-LQG. The map was actually similar to the one produced by Clowes (see above section) - with the difference that Nadathur's map included all the quasars in that region. After performing a number of statistical analyses on the quasar data, and finding extreme changes in the Huge-LQG membership and shape with small changes in the cluster finding parameters, he determined the probability that apparent clusters the size of the Huge-LQG would appear in a random assortment of quasars. He set up 10,000 regions identical in size to that studied by Clowes, and filled them with randomly distributed quasars with the same position statistics as did the actual quasars in the sky.[10] The data is supporting the study of the homogeneity scale by Yadav et al.,[7] and that there is, therefore, no challenge to the cosmological principle. The study also implies that the statistical algorithm used by Clowes to identify the Huge-LQG, when used to correlate other quasars in the sky, produces more than a thousand clusterings identical to the Huge-LQG. While quasars can represent dense regions of the universe, one must note that all of the quasars in the sky are evenly distributed, that is, one quasar per few million light years, making their significance as a structure very unlikely. The identification of the Huge-LQG, together with the clusterings identified by Nadathur, is therefore referred to be false positive identifications or errors in identifying structures, finally arriving at the conclusion that the Huge-LQG is not a real structure at all.
Several questions arose from the structure's discovery. But it is not told how Clowes detected a clustering of quasars in the region, nor how he found any correlation of quasars in the region. It is specified, that, not only the structure but also other LQGs are not real structures at all."
So you pick some random new theory that sounds sexy and jump on the bandwagon, even though you don't understand the first thing about cosmology, and then you fail to present your source because it shows just how tenuous the theory is to begin with.
It is known that there are many scientific eunuchs who will defend
the validity of existing theories and stretch / overinterpret
the conflicting experiences / observations. In this case, someone
there then re-established the coherence of this cosmic structure.

And what about a much larger structure that you did not
refer to?
2) "In November 2013, a new structure 10 billion light years
away measuring 2000-3000 Mpc (more than seven times that of of
the SGW) has been discovered, the Hercules-Corona Borealis
Great Wall, putting more doubt on the validity of the
cosmological principle. "

I do not aspire to any scientific honors, I am first and foremost a critic of science, which shows the stupidity and hypocrisy of this area of human life ...
(...)
p***@gmail.com
2019-04-28 01:38:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Enes Richard
Post by p***@gmail.com
So, you present quotes from a source that you did not reference but is nevertheless easy to find...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huge-LQG
... and you probably did this because there is a section there that refutes these 'discoveries'...
"Seshadri Nadathur at the University of Bielefeld has conducted an even more comprehensive study of the Huge-LQG. After a more detailed study, he announced that contrary to the claim by Clowes about a large clustering, his new map has shown that there is no clear clustering of quasars within the vicinity of the Huge-LQG. The map was actually similar to the one produced by Clowes (see above section) - with the difference that Nadathur's map included all the quasars in that region. After performing a number of statistical analyses on the quasar data, and finding extreme changes in the Huge-LQG membership and shape with small changes in the cluster finding parameters, he determined the probability that apparent clusters the size of the Huge-LQG would appear in a random assortment of quasars. He set up 10,000 regions identical in size to that studied by Clowes, and filled them with randomly distributed quasars with the same position statistics as did the actual quasars in the sky.[10] The data is supporting the study of the homogeneity scale by Yadav et al.,[7] and that there is, therefore, no challenge to the cosmological principle. The study also implies that the statistical algorithm used by Clowes to identify the Huge-LQG, when used to correlate other quasars in the sky, produces more than a thousand clusterings identical to the Huge-LQG. While quasars can represent dense regions of the universe, one must note that all of the quasars in the sky are evenly distributed, that is, one quasar per few million light years, making their significance as a structure very unlikely. The identification of the Huge-LQG, together with the clusterings identified by Nadathur, is therefore referred to be false positive identifications or errors in identifying structures, finally arriving at the conclusion that the Huge-LQG is not a real structure at all.
Several questions arose from the structure's discovery. But it is not told how Clowes detected a clustering of quasars in the region, nor how he found any correlation of quasars in the region. It is specified, that, not only the structure but also other LQGs are not real structures at all."
So you pick some random new theory that sounds sexy and jump on the bandwagon, even though you don't understand the first thing about cosmology, and then you fail to present your source because it shows just how tenuous the theory is to begin with.
It is known that there are many scientific eunuchs who will defend
the validity of existing theories and stretch / overinterpret
the conflicting experiences / observations. In this case, someone
there then re-established the coherence of this cosmic structure.
Well, in this case, it is YOU who is the scientific eunuch, defending the validity of an existing theory and then stretching the truth about its place within the scientific community! Such blind faith marks you as an easy target for new and yet unproven theories. You grab it the same way a dog grabs a bone and you just won't let go. It is just another new theory among many, many other new theories. I don't have a dog in this fight and I have no idea if this new theory will be accepted or rejected as it unfolds and further observations are made and refined, and I am not qualified to offer an opinion one way or the other, and neither are you!
Post by Enes Richard
And what about a much larger structure that you did not
refer to?
2) "In November 2013, a new structure 10 billion light years
away measuring 2000-3000 Mpc (more than seven times that of of
the SGW) has been discovered, the Hercules-Corona Borealis
Great Wall, putting more doubt on the validity of the
cosmological principle. "
What about it? It has exactly the same status as the other new theory, which is that it needs more observations by many other researchers before any conclusions can be reached. Are you going to blindly accept these preliminary results as the one and only truth? That is not how science works, not now, not ever. Just who do you think you are?
Post by Enes Richard
I do not aspire to any scientific honors, I am first and foremost a critic of science, which shows the stupidity and hypocrisy of this area of human life ...
You are not qualified to be a critic of science since you don't know the first thing about it. You don't have a clue as to what is either stupid or hypocritical. There is actually very little that is stupid or hypocritical in cosmology and I have no idea where you got the idea that there is. You don't even know the difference between a globular cluster and a galaxy! You are an absolute beginner in cosmology and still need years of study.

Go read a textbook, you are only succeeding in making yourself look very silly here... and again, you don't know what you don't know, obviously.

Pathetic.
Enes Richard
2019-04-28 10:43:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Enes Richard
Post by p***@gmail.com
So, you present quotes from a source that you did not reference but is nevertheless easy to find...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huge-LQG
... and you probably did this because there is a section there that refutes these 'discoveries'...
"Seshadri Nadathur at the University of Bielefeld has conducted an even more comprehensive study of the Huge-LQG. After a more detailed study, he announced that contrary to the claim by Clowes about a large clustering, his new map has shown that there is no clear clustering of quasars within the vicinity of the Huge-LQG. The map was actually similar to the one produced by Clowes (see above section) - with the difference that Nadathur's map included all the quasars in that region. After performing a number of statistical analyses on the quasar data, and finding extreme changes in the Huge-LQG membership and shape with small changes in the cluster finding parameters, he determined the probability that apparent clusters the size of the Huge-LQG would appear in a random assortment of quasars. He set up 10,000 regions identical in size to that studied by Clowes, and filled them with randomly distributed quasars with the same position statistics as did the actual quasars in the sky.[10] The data is supporting the study of the homogeneity scale by Yadav et al.,[7] and that there is, therefore, no challenge to the cosmological principle. The study also implies that the statistical algorithm used by Clowes to identify the Huge-LQG, when used to correlate other quasars in the sky, produces more than a thousand clusterings identical to the Huge-LQG. While quasars can represent dense regions of the universe, one must note that all of the quasars in the sky are evenly distributed, that is, one quasar per few million light years, making their significance as a structure very unlikely. The identification of the Huge-LQG, together with the clusterings identified by Nadathur, is therefore referred to be false positive identifications or errors in identifying structures, finally arriving at the conclusion that the Huge-LQG is not a real structure at all.
Several questions arose from the structure's discovery. But it is not told how Clowes detected a clustering of quasars in the region, nor how he found any correlation of quasars in the region. It is specified, that, not only the structure but also other LQGs are not real structures at all."
So you pick some random new theory that sounds sexy and jump on the bandwagon, even though you don't understand the first thing about cosmology, and then you fail to present your source because it shows just how tenuous the theory is to begin with.
It is known that there are many scientific eunuchs who will defend
the validity of existing theories and stretch / overinterpret
the conflicting experiences / observations. In this case, someone
there then re-established the coherence of this cosmic structure.
Well, in this case, it is YOU who is the scientific eunuch, defending the validity of an existing theory and then stretching the truth about its place within the scientific community! Such blind faith marks you as an easy target for new and yet unproven theories. You grab it the same way a dog grabs a bone and you just won't let go. It is just another new theory among many, many other new theories. I don't have a dog in this fight and I have no idea if this new theory will be accepted or rejected as it unfolds and further observations are made and refined, and I am not qualified to offer an opinion one way or the other, and neither are you!
Post by Enes Richard
And what about a much larger structure that you did not
refer to?
2) "In November 2013, a new structure 10 billion light years
away measuring 2000-3000 Mpc (more than seven times that of of
the SGW) has been discovered, the Hercules-Corona Borealis
Great Wall, putting more doubt on the validity of the
cosmological principle. "
What about it? It has exactly the same status as the other new theory, which is that it needs more observations by many other researchers before any conclusions can be reached. Are you going to blindly accept these preliminary results as the one and only truth? That is not how science works, not now, not ever. Just who do you think you are?
Post by Enes Richard
I do not aspire to any scientific honors, I am first and foremost a critic of science, which shows the stupidity and hypocrisy of this area of human life ...
You are not qualified to be a critic of science since you don't know the first thing about it. You don't have a clue as to what is either stupid or hypocritical. There is actually very little that is stupid or hypocritical in cosmology and I have no idea where you got the idea that there is. You don't even know the difference between a globular cluster and a galaxy! You are an absolute beginner in cosmology and still need years of study.
You say that if there is any theory, it can be verified negatively
through experience / observation (falsification). But when you
get experimental / observational / measurement facts that contradict
the theory, you do not reject the theory, but you try to reject
the facts. We are discussing this example here. Is this not hypocrisy
and stupidity?
Post by p***@gmail.com
Go read a textbook, you are only succeeding in making yourself look very silly here... and again, you don't know what you don't know, obviously.
You've probably heard this stereotypical erroneous phrase and you
keep repeating like a parrot. No one knows what he does not know,
only scientific eunuchs seem to know what they do not know (They
do not know only who will disprove the theories they protect).
Meanwhile, there are things, problems that even philosophers did
not dream about. This is how the history of scientific thought shows ...
Post by p***@gmail.com
Pathetic.
Unfortunately, the state of cosmology is embarrassing, it is
clearly seen that it is pseudoscience, not much worth more
than astrology. There is a need to earn a living there and
there is nothing else ... but more humbleness at the same time,
less shoes and a media hucpa.

P.s.
I have the impression that your presence in this forum may
result from some paid contract that includes defending the current
state of knowledge and proposing ignorance. Am I right?
p***@gmail.com
2019-04-28 19:19:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Enes Richard
You say that if there is any theory, it can be verified negatively
through experience / observation (falsification).
No, I did not ever say that. You are making that up. I said that you can never prove a theory, you can only prove a theory to be incorrect. If you do not understand this claim then you do not understand science at all.
Post by Enes Richard
But when you
get experimental / observational / measurement facts that contradict
the theory, you do not reject the theory, but you try to reject
the facts. We are discussing this example here. Is this not hypocrisy
and stupidity?
Why would I ever reject facts? I might be suspicious about observations and experiments, but that is why such observations and experiments are performed by other researchers, who want to make sure that the original observations and experiments were done correctly in the first place. This is how the scientific process works!
Post by Enes Richard
Post by p***@gmail.com
Go read a textbook, you are only succeeding in making yourself look very silly here... and again, you don't know what you don't know, obviously.
You've probably heard this stereotypical erroneous phrase and you
keep repeating like a parrot. No one knows what he does not know,
only scientific eunuchs seem to know what they do not know,,,
If you actually knew your own scientific limitations you never would have posted here in the first place... but since you only think you know what you are talking about you forge ahead blindly. You think you are right about fully supporting these various new theories but you don't really understand that sooner or later they are likely to be shown to be largely incorrect. Not always, of course, but for the most part, new theories are in for a rough time from the rest of the scientific community. This is how it has always been and how it always will be in the future.
Post by Enes Richard
(They
do not know only who will disprove the theories they protect).
Meanwhile, there are things, problems that even philosophers did
not dream about. This is how the history of scientific thought shows ...
Post by p***@gmail.com
Pathetic.
Unfortunately, the state of cosmology is embarrassing, it is
clearly seen that it is pseudoscience, not much worth more
than astrology.
Once again you present your own ignorance as if it were a blessing to mankind. Once again you prove to the world that you don't have a clue about cosmology or even science in general. Do you want to get a clue? Study! Start here...

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
Post by Enes Richard
P.s.
I have the impression that your presence in this forum may
result from some paid contract that includes defending the current
state of knowledge and proposing ignorance. Am I right?
You are a laugh riot! Sure, that's it, I am paid the Big Bucks to come here and defend the current state of knowledge. You have found out my secret to incredible wealth.

No, you are not right. In fact, you could not be more wrong. You don't have the first hint as to how science works. You are an utter failure in that regard.

You need to study a LOT more. Come back only after you get a clue.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
2019-04-22 00:14:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Enes Richard
We're writing here about the hypothetical black hole in Sgr A *.
The proper name is Sagittarius A* (no space), abbreviated Sgr A*
(again, not space), and it is not hypothetical anymore.
Post by Enes Richard
Who invented that there is a central b. H.
Nobody "invented" that. You are projecting.
Post by Enes Richard
Who later adopted such an assumption
Why do you not do some research before you talk about things?
You do know what Wikipedia is, yes?
Post by Enes Richard
and calculated by abusing the third law of Kepler?
There was no abuse, and Kepler’s third law does not even figure in the
derivation.

You have absolutely no clue. Please shut up and read (before you embarrass
yourself any further).
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
Michael Moroney
2019-04-20 22:10:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Enes Richard
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Enes Richard
What is the prediction of a massive black hole in Sgr A* from?
It is not the result of astrophysical and cosmological theories?
Ordinary Keplerian and Newtonian mechanics predicts "something" that has
a mass of about 4 million suns, but a small diameter. Theories hundreds of
years old. What could it be, if it's not a black hole?
Neither Kepler nor Newton predicted the black hole (the central body) in
Sgr A *, it was invented in modern times (by Hawking or another
fabulist) and Kepler's Third Law was adapted to calculate the mass.
It is possible that this prophecy will turn out to be true ... but
not necessarily.
Even though the idea of a black hole is older than you think, that is not
the point. Kepler's Laws and Newtonian mechanics all predict that a group of
stars is orbiting "something" with a mass of about 4 million suns. They don't
state the nature of it beyond that, and a maximum diameter it can be, otherwise
star S2 would have collided with it during its recent last pass.

So we know the thing's mass and maximum diameter. I repeat my question: What could
it be, if it's not a black hole?
p***@gmail.com
2019-04-21 07:59:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Enes Richard
...with thousands of stars circling around the "empty" center
of mass, as before, about 200 other clusters ejected from the
center of the Galaxy.
The intricate system of black holes can be in the gas ring,
https://www.urania.edu.pl/wiadomosci/uzyskano-pierwsze-w-historii-zdjecie-czarnej-dziury
I wonder if the astrophysics dealing with the subject will succumb
to the temptation of juggling and will generate a picture of the
black hole in Sgr A * by targeted data processing ???
Such were the arrogant announcements resulting from naive mass
calculations based on the movement of only the star S2 ...
==================================
see in that above picture
the zone
that is brighter light
it is some curved structure/shape
so
see as well

http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract
at its appendix !!

(the y circlon mechanism'' )
-----------------------------
TIA
Y.P
===============================
Loading...