If the original estimate for NGC 1277 as suggested in Wikipedia was that it
was "Once thought to harbor a black hole so large that it contradicted
modern galaxy formation and evolutionary theories, re-analysis of the data
revised it downward to roughly a third of the original estimate", existing
theories for galaxy formations were apparently then incorrect.
The theory that was apparently contradicted was written up in Nature--
a..
van den Bosch, Remco C. E. et al. (29 Nov 2012). "An over-massive black hole
in the compact lenticular galaxy NGC 1277". Nature 491 (7426): 729–731.
arXiv:1211.6429. Bibcode:2012Natur.491..729V. doi:10.1038/nature11592.
Retrieved 29 Nov 2012.
I wonder what has changed, if anything, to explain the new large black holes
that are estimated to be 40 Billion Sun masses?
It may be that even peer reviewed items in Nature are incorrect at times.
Wonders never cease.
Bob Cook
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul St. Denis" <paul.st.de...@stonybrook.edu>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2015 9:06 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:This is where it all began?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_massive_black_holes
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Isn’t it bizarre how most physicists will embrace that load of cosmic crap
(FTL expansion) without the least bit of real evidence for it (other than
a
brain-dead theory) … yet … in the next breath they reject out-of-hand the
dozens of successful LENR experiments, simply because those experiments
are
not successful 100% of the time?
From: Bob Cook
Eric brings up a good point…
From: Eric Walker <mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com>
About the big bang theory -- my understanding is that it requires faster
than light expansion in the earliest period. A theory that says the rules
change at some point in time seems a bit ad hoc to me.
