|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 computed exclusively using .|
|3||In this section, we set .|
|4||Note the error in Figure 1 of Hughes & Blandford (2003), which shows the change in spin for mergers with mass ratio : The darkest contour on that plot should be labelled , not .|
|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 , in conflict with the standard definition among galactic dynamicists, . In fact Hughes & Blandford conclude, in agreement with Merritt & Ekers (2002), that mass ratios exceeding can result in spin-flips.
© Max Planck Society and the author(s)