List Of Footnotes

List of Footnotes

1		The author of this study presents his mass deficits as significantly smaller than those found in the earlier studies. However he bases his comparison on values of $Mdef$ computed exclusively using $g0 = 2$ .
2		See http://exoplanets.org
3		In this section, we set $G = c = 1$ .
4		Note the error in Figure 1 of Hughes & Blandford (2003), which shows the change in spin for mergers with mass ratio $q = 0.5$ : The darkest contour on that plot should be labelled $^a = 0.5$ , not $^a = 0$ .
5		Liu (2004) criticized the black hole coalescence model on the grounds that calculations based on general relativity show that the change in inclination of a rotating central SMBH is negligible in a minor merger and a significant reorientation of the active SMBH requires a comparatively rare major merger (Hughes & Blandford 2003). This erroneous statement probably had its origin in the final sentence of the Hughes & Blandford paper, which states that An abrupt change in inclination […] requires a comparatively rare major merger. Hughes & Blandford defined a “major merger” as having a mass ratio $q > 0.1$ , in conflict with the standard definition among galactic dynamicists, $q > 0.3$ . In fact Hughes & Blandford conclude, in agreement with Merritt & Ekers (2002), that mass ratios exceeding $~ 0.2$ can result in spin-flips.