From: Albertito on
On Sep 25, 5:05 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Albertito wrote on Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:38:30 -0700:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 25, 4:21 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> > <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> >> Michael Stemper wrote on Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:18:19 +0000:
>
> >> > In article <pan.2009.09.24.18.31...(a)canonicalscience.com>, "Juan R."
> >> > =?iso-8859-1?q?Gonz=E1lez-=C1lvarez?=
> >> > <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> writes:
> >> >>Tom Roberts wrote on Thu, 24 Sep 2009 08:59:58 -0500:
> >> >>> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>
> >> >>>> Moreover, maintain in mind that no known observation has showed
> >> >>>> the existence of black holes, this is why rigorous and
> >> >>>> knowledeable people uses the term "black hole candidate" "the
> >> >>>> presumed black hole"
>
> >> >>> In recent years, knowledgeable people have been simply calling them
> >> >>> black holes in the literature.
>
> >> >>Of course to maintain this lie you were obligated to snip the link to
> >> >>Nature given by me
>
> >> >>REINTRODUCING SNIPED LINK
>
> >> >>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7209/abs/nature07245.html
>
> >> > When I go to that link, I find the following text:
>
> >> > "[...] Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), the compact source of radio, infrared
> >> > and X-ray emission at the centre of the Milky Way, is the closest
> >> > example of this phenomenon, with an estimated black hole mass that
> >> > is 4,000,000 times that of the Sun2, 3. A long-standing astronomical
> >> > goal is to resolve structures in the innermost accretion flow
> >> > surrounding Sgr A*, where strong gravitational fields will distort
> >> > the appearance of radiation emitted near the black hole. [...]"
>
> >> > Two uses of "black hole" and none of "candidate".
>
> >> Oh I can see now all of you are trolling me with your selective
> >> snipping...
>
> >> Event-horizon-scale structure in the supermassive black hole
> >> candidate at the Galactic Centre.
>
> >> The cores of most galaxies are thought to harbour supermassive black
> >> holes, which power galactic nuclei by converting the gravitational
> >> energy of accreting matter into radiation1. Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*),
> >> the compact source of radio, infrared and X-ray emission at the
> >> centre of the Milky Way, is the closest example of this phenomenon,
> >> with an estimated black hole mass that is 4,000,000 times that of the
> >> Sun2, 3. A long-standing astronomical goal is to resolve structures
> >> in the innermost accretion flow surrounding Sgr A*, where strong
> >> gravitational fields will distort the appearance of radiation emitted
> >> near the black hole. Radio observations at wavelengths of 3.5 mm and
> >> 7 mm have detected intrinsic structure in Sgr A*, but the spatial
> >> resolution of observations at these wavelengths is limited by
> >> interstellar scattering4, 5, 6, 7. Here we report observations at a
> >> wavelength of 1.3 mm that set a size of microarcseconds on the
> >> intrinsic diameter of Sgr A*. This is less than the expected apparent
> >> size of the event horizon of the presumed black hole, suggesting that
> >> the bulk of Sgr A* emission may not be centred on the black hole, but
> >> arises in the surrounding accretion flow.
>
> >> Rigorous people writes "supermassive black hole candidate", "are
> >> thought to harbour supermassive black holes", "the presumed black hole"
>
> >> But more rigorous people knows the fallacies behind the black hole
> >> model
>
> >>http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0909/0909.3426v1.pdf
>
> > Why don't you write a draft proving that GR is wrong because black holes
> > are fallacies (i.e. they can't exist in Nature)?
> > :-D
>
> Because *evidently* GR is not wrong. I think I explained this to you about
> a half dozen of times before, but unfortunately you are too sloooooow :-D

No, I'm not slow, I'm faster than light :-D

If GR is not wrong, why is it that GR can't
unify gravity and electromagnetism? Even a
guy like you could guess that electromagnetism
is a special case of gravitation. IOW, EM
waves arise from matter waves. IOW, EM waves
are just the expression of a collision at a
distance (non local) of material systems.

>
>
>
> >> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/
>
> >> BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...
>
> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/
>
> BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...

From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on
Albertito wrote on Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:22:55 -0700:

> On Sep 25, 5:05 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>> Albertito wrote on Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:38:30 -0700:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 25, 4:21 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
>> > <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>> >> Michael Stemper wrote on Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:18:19 +0000:
>>
>> >> > In article <pan.2009.09.24.18.31...(a)canonicalscience.com>, "Juan
>> >> > R." =?iso-8859-1?q?Gonz=E1lez-=C1lvarez?=
>> >> > <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> writes:
>> >> >>Tom Roberts wrote on Thu, 24 Sep 2009 08:59:58 -0500:
>> >> >>> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>>
>> >> >>>> Moreover, maintain in mind that no known observation has showed
>> >> >>>> the existence of black holes, this is why rigorous and
>> >> >>>> knowledeable people uses the term "black hole candidate" "the
>> >> >>>> presumed black hole"
>>
>> >> >>> In recent years, knowledgeable people have been simply calling
>> >> >>> them black holes in the literature.
>>
>> >> >>Of course to maintain this lie you were obligated to snip the link
>> >> >>to Nature given by me
>>
>> >> >>REINTRODUCING SNIPED LINK
>>
>> >> >>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7209/abs/nature07245.html
>>
>> >> > When I go to that link, I find the following text:
>>
>> >> > "[...] Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), the compact source of radio,
>> >> > infrared
>> >> > and X-ray emission at the centre of the Milky Way, is the closest
>> >> > example of this phenomenon, with an estimated black hole mass
>> >> > that is 4,000,000 times that of the Sun2, 3. A long-standing
>> >> > astronomical goal is to resolve structures in the innermost
>> >> > accretion flow surrounding Sgr A*, where strong gravitational
>> >> > fields will distort the appearance of radiation emitted near the
>> >> > black hole. [...]"
>>
>> >> > Two uses of "black hole" and none of "candidate".
>>
>> >> Oh I can see now all of you are trolling me with your selective
>> >> snipping...
>>
>> >> Event-horizon-scale structure in the supermassive black hole
>> >> candidate at the Galactic Centre.
>>
>> >> The cores of most galaxies are thought to harbour supermassive
>> >> black holes, which power galactic nuclei by converting the
>> >> gravitational energy of accreting matter into radiation1.
>> >> Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), the compact source of radio, infrared and
>> >> X-ray emission at the centre of the Milky Way, is the closest
>> >> example of this phenomenon, with an estimated black hole mass that
>> >> is 4,000,000 times that of the Sun2, 3. A long-standing
>> >> astronomical goal is to resolve structures in the innermost
>> >> accretion flow surrounding Sgr A*, where strong gravitational
>> >> fields will distort the appearance of radiation emitted near the
>> >> black hole. Radio observations at wavelengths of 3.5 mm and 7 mm
>> >> have detected intrinsic structure in Sgr A*, but the spatial
>> >> resolution of observations at these wavelengths is limited by
>> >> interstellar scattering4, 5, 6, 7. Here we report observations at
>> >> a wavelength of 1.3 mm that set a size of microarcseconds on the
>> >> intrinsic diameter of Sgr A*. This is less than the expected
>> >> apparent size of the event horizon of the presumed black hole,
>> >> suggesting that the bulk of Sgr A* emission may not be centred on
>> >> the black hole, but arises in the surrounding accretion flow.
>>
>> >> Rigorous people writes "supermassive black hole candidate", "are
>> >> thought to harbour supermassive black holes", "the presumed black
>> >> hole"
>>
>> >> But more rigorous people knows the fallacies behind the black hole
>> >> model
>>
>> >>http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0909/0909.3426v1.pdf
>>
>> > Why don't you write a draft proving that GR is wrong because black
>> > holes are fallacies (i.e. they can't exist in Nature)? :-D
>>
>> Because *evidently* GR is not wrong. I think I explained this to you
>> about a half dozen of times before, but unfortunately you are too
>> sloooooow :-D
>
> No, I'm not slow, I'm faster than light :-D
>
> If GR is not wrong, why is it that GR can't unify gravity and
> electromagnetism? Even a guy like you could guess that electromagnetism
> is a special case of gravitation. IOW, EM waves arise from matter waves.
> IOW, EM waves are just the expression of a collision at a distance (non
> local) of material systems.

sloooooow and wrooooong :-D

>>
>>
>> >> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/
>>
>> >> BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...
>>
>> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/
>>
>> BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...





--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/

BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: Albertito on
On Sep 25, 5:36 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Albertito wrote on Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:22:55 -0700:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 25, 5:05 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> > <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> >> Albertito wrote on Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:38:30 -0700:
>
> >> > On Sep 25, 4:21 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> >> > <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> >> >> Michael Stemper wrote on Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:18:19 +0000:
>
> >> >> > In article <pan.2009.09.24.18.31...(a)canonicalscience.com>, "Juan
> >> >> > R." =?iso-8859-1?q?Gonz=E1lez-=C1lvarez?=
> >> >> > <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> writes:
> >> >> >>Tom Roberts wrote on Thu, 24 Sep 2009 08:59:58 -0500:
> >> >> >>> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>
> >> >> >>>> Moreover, maintain in mind that no known observation has showed
> >> >> >>>> the existence of black holes, this is why rigorous and
> >> >> >>>> knowledeable people uses the term "black hole candidate" "the
> >> >> >>>> presumed black hole"
>
> >> >> >>> In recent years, knowledgeable people have been simply calling
> >> >> >>> them black holes in the literature.
>
> >> >> >>Of course to maintain this lie you were obligated to snip the link
> >> >> >>to Nature given by me
>
> >> >> >>REINTRODUCING SNIPED LINK
>
> >> >> >>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7209/abs/nature07245.html
>
> >> >> > When I go to that link, I find the following text:
>
> >> >> > "[...] Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), the compact source of radio,
> >> >> > infrared
> >> >> > and X-ray emission at the centre of the Milky Way, is the closest
> >> >> > example of this phenomenon, with an estimated black hole mass
> >> >> > that is 4,000,000 times that of the Sun2, 3. A long-standing
> >> >> > astronomical goal is to resolve structures in the innermost
> >> >> > accretion flow surrounding Sgr A*, where strong gravitational
> >> >> > fields will distort the appearance of radiation emitted near the
> >> >> > black hole. [...]"
>
> >> >> > Two uses of "black hole" and none of "candidate".
>
> >> >> Oh I can see now all of you are trolling me with your selective
> >> >> snipping...
>
> >> >> Event-horizon-scale structure in the supermassive black hole
> >> >> candidate at the Galactic Centre.
>
> >> >> The cores of most galaxies are thought to harbour supermassive
> >> >> black holes, which power galactic nuclei by converting the
> >> >> gravitational energy of accreting matter into radiation1.
> >> >> Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), the compact source of radio, infrared and
> >> >> X-ray emission at the centre of the Milky Way, is the closest
> >> >> example of this phenomenon, with an estimated black hole mass that
> >> >> is 4,000,000 times that of the Sun2, 3. A long-standing
> >> >> astronomical goal is to resolve structures in the innermost
> >> >> accretion flow surrounding Sgr A*, where strong gravitational
> >> >> fields will distort the appearance of radiation emitted near the
> >> >> black hole. Radio observations at wavelengths of 3.5 mm and 7 mm
> >> >> have detected intrinsic structure in Sgr A*, but the spatial
> >> >> resolution of observations at these wavelengths is limited by
> >> >> interstellar scattering4, 5, 6, 7. Here we report observations at
> >> >> a wavelength of 1.3 mm that set a size of microarcseconds on the
> >> >> intrinsic diameter of Sgr A*. This is less than the expected
> >> >> apparent size of the event horizon of the presumed black hole,
> >> >> suggesting that the bulk of Sgr A* emission may not be centred on
> >> >> the black hole, but arises in the surrounding accretion flow.
>
> >> >> Rigorous people writes "supermassive black hole candidate", "are
> >> >> thought to harbour supermassive black holes", "the presumed black
> >> >> hole"
>
> >> >> But more rigorous people knows the fallacies behind the black hole
> >> >> model
>
> >> >>http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0909/0909.3426v1.pdf
>
> >> > Why don't you write a draft proving that GR is wrong because black
> >> > holes are fallacies (i.e. they can't exist in Nature)? :-D
>
> >> Because *evidently* GR is not wrong. I think I explained this to you
> >> about a half dozen of times before, but unfortunately you are too
> >> sloooooow :-D
>
> > No, I'm not slow, I'm faster than light :-D
>
> > If GR is not wrong, why is it that GR can't unify gravity and
> > electromagnetism? Even a guy like you could guess that electromagnetism
> > is a special case of gravitation. IOW, EM waves arise from matter waves..
> > IOW, EM waves are just the expression of a collision at a distance (non
> > local) of material systems.
>
> sloooooow and wrooooong :-D

Then, let me recommend this book to you,
"The Relativity of Wrong" - Isaac Asimov -
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Wrong-Isaac-Asimov/dp/1575660083

Saludos


>
>
>
> >> >> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/
>
> >> >> BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...
>
> >> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/
>
> >> BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...
>
> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/
>
> BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...

From: PD on
On Sep 25, 11:22 am, Albertito <albertito1...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 25, 5:05 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
>
>
>
> <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> > Albertito wrote on Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:38:30 -0700:
>
> > > On Sep 25, 4:21 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> > > <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> > >> Michael Stemper wrote on Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:18:19 +0000:
>
> > >> > In article <pan.2009.09.24.18.31...(a)canonicalscience.com>, "Juan R.."
> > >> > =?iso-8859-1?q?Gonz=E1lez-=C1lvarez?=
> > >> > <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> writes:
> > >> >>Tom Roberts wrote on Thu, 24 Sep 2009 08:59:58 -0500:
> > >> >>> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>
> > >> >>>> Moreover, maintain in mind that no known observation has showed
> > >> >>>> the existence of black holes, this is why rigorous and
> > >> >>>> knowledeable people uses the term "black hole candidate" "the
> > >> >>>> presumed black hole"
>
> > >> >>> In recent years, knowledgeable people have been simply calling them
> > >> >>> black holes in the literature.
>
> > >> >>Of course to maintain this lie you were obligated to snip the link to
> > >> >>Nature given by me
>
> > >> >>REINTRODUCING SNIPED LINK
>
> > >> >>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7209/abs/nature07245.html
>
> > >> > When I go to that link, I find the following text:
>
> > >> > "[...] Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), the compact source of radio, infrared
> > >> >  and X-ray emission at the centre of the Milky Way, is the closest
> > >> >  example of this phenomenon, with an estimated black hole mass that
> > >> >  is 4,000,000 times that of the Sun2, 3. A long-standing astronomical
> > >> >  goal is to resolve structures in the innermost accretion flow
> > >> >  surrounding Sgr A*, where strong gravitational fields will distort
> > >> >  the appearance of radiation emitted near the black hole. [...]"
>
> > >> > Two uses of "black hole" and none of "candidate".
>
> > >> Oh I can see now all of you are trolling me with your selective
> > >> snipping...
>
> > >>   Event-horizon-scale structure in the supermassive black hole
> > >>   candidate at the Galactic Centre.
>
> > >>   The cores of most galaxies are thought to harbour supermassive black
> > >>   holes, which power galactic nuclei by converting the gravitational
> > >>   energy of accreting matter into radiation1. Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*),
> > >>   the compact source of radio, infrared and X-ray emission at the
> > >>   centre of the Milky Way, is the closest example of this phenomenon,
> > >>   with an estimated black hole mass that is 4,000,000 times that of the
> > >>   Sun2, 3. A long-standing astronomical goal is to resolve structures
> > >>   in the innermost accretion flow surrounding Sgr A*, where strong
> > >>   gravitational fields will distort the appearance of radiation emitted
> > >>   near the black hole. Radio observations at wavelengths of 3.5 mm and
> > >>   7 mm have detected intrinsic structure in Sgr A*, but the spatial
> > >>   resolution of observations at these wavelengths is limited by
> > >>   interstellar scattering4, 5, 6, 7. Here we report observations at a
> > >>   wavelength of 1.3 mm that set a size of microarcseconds on the
> > >>   intrinsic diameter of Sgr A*. This is less than the expected apparent
> > >>   size of the event horizon of the presumed black hole, suggesting that
> > >>   the bulk of Sgr A* emission may not be centred on the black hole, but
> > >>   arises in the surrounding accretion flow.
>
> > >> Rigorous people writes "supermassive black hole candidate", "are
> > >> thought to harbour supermassive black holes", "the presumed black hole"
>
> > >> But more rigorous people knows the fallacies behind the black hole
> > >> model
>
> > >>http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0909/0909.3426v1.pdf
>
> > > Why don't you write a draft proving that GR is wrong because black holes
> > > are fallacies (i.e. they can't exist in Nature)?
> > > :-D
>
> > Because *evidently* GR is not wrong. I think I explained this to you about
> > a half dozen of times before, but unfortunately you are too sloooooow :-D
>
> No, I'm not slow, I'm faster than light :-D
>
> If GR is not wrong, why is it that GR can't
> unify gravity and electromagnetism?

Because GR is not a theory of electromagnetism.
This is akin to you saying, "If evolution is right, then how come it
hasn't explained schizophrenia?"
GR makes predictions and the predictions appear to be right.
One doesn't fault a theory about predictions it doesn't make about an
subject where it doesn't apply.

> Even a
> guy like you could guess that electromagnetism
> is a special case of gravitation.

Sure, but what good is a guess?

> IOW, EM
> waves arise from matter waves. IOW, EM waves
> are just the expression of a collision at a
> distance (non local) of material systems.
>
>
>
> > >> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/
>
> > >> BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...
>
> > --http://www.canonicalscience.org/
>
> > BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...

From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on
Albertito wrote on Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:52:37 -0700:

> On Sep 25, 5:36 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>> Albertito wrote on Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:22:55 -0700:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 25, 5:05 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
>> > <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>> >> Albertito wrote on Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:38:30 -0700:
>>
>> >> > On Sep 25, 4:21 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
>> >> > <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Michael Stemper wrote on Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:18:19 +0000:
>>
>> >> >> > In article <pan.2009.09.24.18.31...(a)canonicalscience.com>,
>> >> >> > "Juan R." =?iso-8859-1?q?Gonz=E1lez-=C1lvarez?=
>> >> >> > <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> writes:
>> >> >> >>Tom Roberts wrote on Thu, 24 Sep 2009 08:59:58 -0500:
>> >> >> >>> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >>>> Moreover, maintain in mind that no known observation has
>> >> >> >>>> showed the existence of black holes, this is why rigorous
>> >> >> >>>> and knowledeable people uses the term "black hole candidate"
>> >> >> >>>> "the presumed black hole"
>>
>> >> >> >>> In recent years, knowledgeable people have been simply
>> >> >> >>> calling them black holes in the literature.
>>
>> >> >> >>Of course to maintain this lie you were obligated to snip the
>> >> >> >>link to Nature given by me
>>
>> >> >> >>REINTRODUCING SNIPED LINK
>>
>> >> >> >>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7209/abs/nature07245.html
>>
>> >> >> > When I go to that link, I find the following text:
>>
>> >> >> > "[...] Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), the compact source of radio,
>> >> >> > infrared
>> >> >> > and X-ray emission at the centre of the Milky Way, is the
>> >> >> > closest example of this phenomenon, with an estimated black
>> >> >> > hole mass that is 4,000,000 times that of the Sun2, 3. A
>> >> >> > long-standing astronomical goal is to resolve structures in
>> >> >> > the innermost accretion flow surrounding Sgr A*, where strong
>> >> >> > gravitational fields will distort the appearance of radiation
>> >> >> > emitted near the black hole. [...]"
>>
>> >> >> > Two uses of "black hole" and none of "candidate".
>>
>> >> >> Oh I can see now all of you are trolling me with your selective
>> >> >> snipping...
>>
>> >> >> Event-horizon-scale structure in the supermassive black hole
>> >> >> candidate at the Galactic Centre.
>>
>> >> >> The cores of most galaxies are thought to harbour supermassive
>> >> >> black holes, which power galactic nuclei by converting the
>> >> >> gravitational energy of accreting matter into radiation1.
>> >> >> Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), the compact source of radio, infrared
>> >> >> and X-ray emission at the centre of the Milky Way, is the
>> >> >> closest example of this phenomenon, with an estimated black
>> >> >> hole mass that is 4,000,000 times that of the Sun2, 3. A
>> >> >> long-standing astronomical goal is to resolve structures in the
>> >> >> innermost accretion flow surrounding Sgr A*, where strong
>> >> >> gravitational fields will distort the appearance of radiation
>> >> >> emitted near the black hole. Radio observations at wavelengths
>> >> >> of 3.5 mm and 7 mm have detected intrinsic structure in Sgr A*,
>> >> >> but the spatial resolution of observations at these wavelengths
>> >> >> is limited by interstellar scattering4, 5, 6, 7. Here we report
>> >> >> observations at a wavelength of 1.3 mm that set a size of
>> >> >> microarcseconds on the intrinsic diameter of Sgr A*. This is
>> >> >> less than the expected apparent size of the event horizon of
>> >> >> the presumed black hole, suggesting that the bulk of Sgr A*
>> >> >> emission may not be centred on the black hole, but arises in
>> >> >> the surrounding accretion flow.
>>
>> >> >> Rigorous people writes "supermassive black hole candidate", "are
>> >> >> thought to harbour supermassive black holes", "the presumed black
>> >> >> hole"
>>
>> >> >> But more rigorous people knows the fallacies behind the black
>> >> >> hole model
>>
>> >> >>http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0909/0909.3426v1.pdf
>>
>> >> > Why don't you write a draft proving that GR is wrong because black
>> >> > holes are fallacies (i.e. they can't exist in Nature)? :-D
>>
>> >> Because *evidently* GR is not wrong. I think I explained this to you
>> >> about a half dozen of times before, but unfortunately you are too
>> >> sloooooow :-D
>>
>> > No, I'm not slow, I'm faster than light :-D
>>
>> > If GR is not wrong, why is it that GR can't unify gravity and
>> > electromagnetism? Even a guy like you could guess that
>> > electromagnetism is a special case of gravitation. IOW, EM waves
>> > arise from matter waves. IOW, EM waves are just the expression of a
>> > collision at a distance (non local) of material systems.
>>
>> sloooooow and wrooooong :-D
>
> Then, let me recommend this book to you, "The Relativity of Wrong" -
> Isaac Asimov -
> http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
> http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Wrong-Isaac-Asimov/dp/1575660083

Noooooooooooo (y me espatarro)

> Saludos
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> >> >> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/
>>
>> >> >> BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...
>>
>> >> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/
>>
>> >> BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...
>>
>> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/
>>
>> BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...





--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/

BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Prev: product of tangents problem
Next: zeta zero