Black Holes Are An Optical Effect
in [Math]
|
Prev: product of tangents problem
Next: zeta zero
From: Miguel on 23 Sep 2009 15:22 On 23 sep, 04:45, "Juan R." González-Álvarez <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote on Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:47:26 -0500: > > > Since then a large number of compact and > > extraordinarily massive objects have been observed, for which no other > > theoretical model explains all the observations, > > This, is of course, plain wrong. > The following ESO video, resulting from a 16 year star tracking study of the Galactic Center stars, clearly shows the star S2 orbiting a huge object with a mass of about 3.7 million suns, which is compatible with a black hole. http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2002/video/vid-02-02.mpg Miguel Rios
From: tadchem on 23 Sep 2009 16:11 On Sep 23, 2:41 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > On Sep 22, 1:44 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > They do not physically exist > > > ... neglecting the extensive evidence accumulating showing a lack of > > surface interactions. > > > > as if you were to approach one it would > > > be the same as a heat mirage that looks > > > like water. > > > No surface interactions, even though stuff is falling in. > > Musatov is for one'es wriht. The optical effect is they are out of > band.http://google.com/search?q=site:blogs.discovermagazine.com+Autymn. Saw your post there - back in June. Have you seen your optometrist lately? The "map" you commented on is from here: http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2009/mwrotate/ where the caption says quite clearly "Artist's Conception of our Milky Way Galaxy: Blue, green dots indicate distance measurements." The artist *DREW* four arms. You *think* you see five arms in his drawing, and take that as authoritative data on the structure on the Milky Way? Your thinking is as fuzzy as your spelling (is "one'es wriht" supposed to mean "once is right"?) Tom Davidson Richmond, VA
From: Autymn D. C. on 23 Sep 2009 19:40 On Sep 23, 1:11 pm, tadchem <tadc...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Sep 23, 2:41 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > On Sep 22, 1:44 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > > They do not physically exist > > > > ... neglecting the extensive evidence accumulating showing a lack of > > > surface interactions. > > > > > as if you were to approach one it would > > > > be the same as a heat mirage that looks > > > > like water. > > > > No surface interactions, even though stuff is falling in. > > > Musatov is for one'es wriht. The optical effect is they are out of > > band.http://google.com/search?q=site:blogs.discovermagazine.com+Autymn. > > Saw your post there - back in June. Have you seen your optometrist > lately? The "map" you commented on is from here:http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2009/mwrotate/ > where the caption says quite clearly "Artist's Conception of our Milky > Way Galaxy: Blue, green dots indicate distance measurements." Phil's word was "map". Where did the artist get the drawing from, his bottom? > The artist *DREW* four arms. You *think* you see five arms in his > drawing, and take that as authoritative data on the structure on the > Milky Way? The artist drew a mapload of stars too. I not only think but see the fifth arm, where we are! But it's more commonly called a spur. > Your thinking is as fuzzy as your spelling (is "one'es wriht" supposed > to mean "once is right"?) I'm not the one who writes once but speaks wunss. -Aut
From: Jens Stuckelberger on 23 Sep 2009 20:20 On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:33:49 -0700, M.MichaelMusatov wrote: > Black holes are visual effects. You should know. After all, you spend your life with your head deeply stuck in one.
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 24 Sep 2009 05:27
Miguel wrote on Wed, 23 Sep 2009 12:22:14 -0700: > On 23 sep, 04:45, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: >> Tom Roberts wrote on Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:47:26 -0500: >> >> > Since then a large number of compact and extraordinarily massive >> > objects have been observed, for which no other theoretical model >> > explains all the observations, >> >> This, is of course, plain wrong. >> >> > The following ESO video, resulting from a 16 year star tracking study of > the Galactic Center stars, clearly shows the star S2 orbiting a huge > object with a mass of about 3.7 million suns, which is compatible with a > black hole. > > http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2002/video/vid-02-02.mpg Let us ignoring now the internal inconsistencies of the black hole model [#]. Those observations are compatible with other models, sometimes named black hole mimickers: http://www.google.es/search?q=%22black+hole+mimickers%22 Moreover, maintain in mind that no known observation has showed the existence of black holes, this is why rigorous and knowledeable people uses the term "black hole candidate" "the presumed black hole" and so on: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7209/abs/nature07245.html Moreover, from a theoretical point of view we *know* that the black hole model of GR breaks down near horizon due to quantum effects, just as classical electrodynamics breaks down for scales near electrons, where quantum effects become important. Saying that massive objects are GR black holes is much as saying that electrons are tiny classical balls and that QED is not needed... [#] The famous problem of singularities is the most know but there is others. -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html |