Chris Peterson wrote:Seems a little extreme. A simple database upgrade from a reference seems easy enough. (In this case, my database was out-of-date by just a few weeks <g>.)
Of course, it isn't really relevant to anything in the substance of my previous message. It just extends the size range somewhat, and my point to Harry was, so what? What is extraordinary about the fact that such objects can be found with a wide range of masses? What, if any, rethinking of standard theories does this fact require? My assertion is that it requires none.
Chris:
You used words like this: To Harry
Chris Peterson wrote:You're the one making extraordinary claims. I'd ask you what information makes you think otherwise? Certainly, nothing I've seen you post in the past.
When in fact he was right. And:
Chris Peterson wrote:Explain what? That a natural object is found in a range of sizes, depending on its formation history? What's remarkable about that? And what "varies (sic) large black holes" are you talking about in galaxy centers? There is only one black hole found in such spots, perhaps two where there has been a merger of galaxies. There aren't swarms of them. (And I think the largest identified black hole is only two or three billion solar masses, not eighteen.)
Making people feel small, and knowledgeable undermine is not the way to help people. You denied peoples hard work with no counter proof, just your words, in countless threads. And what i have done today is highlighted it to you. If you change your manner and explain why people are wrong
With Proof, then and only then, will i believe things that you say have good standing.
Mark