Strange

It is believed to be: "a 2.6×10(6) M0 black hole that accretes gas from the winds of nearby stars" Because of various lines of evidence. All of the stars can contribute to estimating the mass (and size) of the black hole. S2 has the shortest period and so its orbit is known most accurately. I don't know what you mean by this. The radio source is the black hole. That is where the mass is. You know we do. You have had one (or more) threads about them in the past. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~ghezgroup/gc/blackhole.html I think it means that if all the stars are to one side of the black hole, then the rate of accretion would be reduced. (But I may be wrong about that.) We see them, but only in two dimensions; we can't measure their relative distances. So, for example, S1 could be in a highly elliptical orbit or in a nearly circular orbit that is tilted with respect to our line of site. (A circle seen edge-on is an ellipse.)

Are you sure? Have you tried writing down what your precognition and then comparing the event when it happens? How exactly does it match? Does it always happen in the same time sale? Many times people think "Oh, I had a dream like this" when something happens (i.e. after the dream). They often re-interpret the dream to match events. So they beak a glass and remember having a dream where someone else broke their leg. Well, its the same sort of thing, isn't it. So I would apply a scientific approach to testing that precognition actually happens, before trying to find an explanation.

Then we are not hard-wired to do them.

No it isn't. Nonsense.

Easy: It doesn't!

How much would this cost and how long would it take to make these? Or, in other words, is this even vaguely practical?

So, valid logic requires that both the logical argument is sound and the premises true. We have problems with both of these. There are two assumptions here: 1. That the universe came into existence 2. That it cannot come into existence from nothing Is there any evidence for either of those?

1. Don't know 2 & 3. The accretion disk mainly contains matter from the nearby stars (there may be other sources as well). So it may be in some sort of equilibrium (gas absorbed by the black hole versus new gas from the stars). This has some figures for accretion rate: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/312035/fulltext/ If you search for accretion rate, you will find several other studies proposing mechanisms to describe what is observed.

The number of photons does fall off rapidly, following the inverse-square law. Note that this is not due to scattering, just due to the fact that they are spread out over an increasing volume. However, scattering and absorption by the atmosphere will also reduce the amount of light. Finally, as StringJunky says, this will also be drowned out by other light in the environment (similar to how you cannot see stars during the day - they are still there but the sky is brighter).

Because the eye is not sensitive to single photons. You need to receive multiple photons in a short time (I have no idea what the numbers are) in order to form an image. Some of the images of deep space, for example, require very long exposure times in order to accumulate enough photons to create an image. OK. Just found this: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/see_a_photon.html To which I can only say: "wow".

And yet, rather than comment on any of that, you criticised someone for pointing out one of the flaws in the OP's nonsense.

I think pareidolia is specific to images; apophenia is the more general term. Also, "delusional thinking" ? Except, the point is, they don't.

Are they related?

If it weren't for the expanding universe, then while each star or galaxy at greater distance would provide less light but, at the same time, there would be more of them. So we would expect to see a uniformly bright sky: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27s_paradox This paradox was not properly resolved until the expanding universe was discovered. You could, if you used a large enough telescope (for the necessary resolution) and a long enough exposure (to gather enough photons to form the image).

You seem to have missed the point. Did any of them argue that their ideas must be right because people had believed them for centuries? No, in fact, they were often presenting totally new ideas (that were supported by evidence). We don't accept the ideas of Newton because they are hundreds of years old but because hey are still (largely) consistent with the evidence. We now know areas where they are not, and we have developed bette theories for those cases - based on evidence. Things were very different in Newton's day. Faraday may have been one of the last scientists to work, largely, alone. As for the structure of DNA, there were many people involved in that: http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/discovery-of-dna-structure-and-function-watson-397 And we are talking about science, not inventors. Again, you seem to miss the point. A new theory must be consistent with existing theory because the existing theory is consistent with reality (by definition).

You mean you want to ignore science and just do some more preaching.

I thought it was The Word of God?

Between the lights (stars and galaxies) you see black because there is no visible source of light there. Because our visible universe is finite. You are not observing other "observable universes" becaluse they are not observable!

Why? No.

Again, the *observable* is a sphere (centred on us - every point in the universe has its own visible sphere around it). The shape of the whole universe is not known. But if it is spherical then it must be very large because it is measured to be geometrically "flat". Or it could be smaller with a different topology (shape) such as a torus.

You need to distinguish the visual universe (usually called the observable universe) from the whole universe. The observable univers is a sphere with a diameter of about 93 billion light years that contains everything we can see. Beyond that, the rest of the universe is assumed to be pretty much the same. It is is either very large or infinite. In both cases, there is not thought to be any edge or boundary, and therefore nothing "beyond" or outside.

No you didn't.

That is one possibility, not the only one. The fact that it didn't act as a gas cloud suggest that there is a central star. The size and other details of the star suggest that the star was created at some time by the merger of a binary pair. I would suggest you read the original paper (linked from the paragraph you quoted): http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2041-8205/796/1/L8/meta;jsessionid=821E757EFAC5A42AFA4846CDE1CC705B.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org Note that there was nothing "sudden" about this. A number of astronomers suggested that G2 was a star before the encounter with the black hole (see the references in the above paper). Again, following the references from the paragraph you posted: "[G2] appears to have an unusual, 300-year elliptical orbit around the black hole." http://earthsky.org/space/how-g2-survived-the-black-hole-at-our-milky-ways-heart

No you didn't.

Really? As Eise said, I would also be curious to see this counter evidence of yours.