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 External Linkhttp://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.