Black Holes Are An Optical Effect
in [Math]
|
Prev: product of tangents problem
Next: zeta zero
From: Tom Roberts on 24 Sep 2009 09:59 Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote: > 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" In recent years, knowledgeable people have been simply calling them black holes in the literature. > Moreover, from a theoretical point of view we *know* that the black hole model > of GR breaks down near horizon due to quantum effects, Not true. The horizon of a super-massive black hole can have a curvature smaller than here on earth. "Quantum effects" do not invalidate GR here on earth :-). It is near the internal singularity that we know GR must break down -- there the curvature increases without bound as one approaches the singularity, and THAT implies that GR must cease to be valid. It also implies that if quantum gravity behaves at all like one expects, it must become important there. Tom Roberts
From: Miguel on 24 Sep 2009 13:38 On 24 sep, 12:23, Albertito <albertito1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Sure, why not? You look as a dumbo, you smells as a dumbo, you > perform > as a dumbo, so you are most probably....a dumbo. > For sure a very accurate description of yourself in your bathroom every morning. Miguel Rios
From: Albertito on 24 Sep 2009 14:04 On Sep 24, 6:38 pm, Miguel <papa_r...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 24 sep, 12:23, Albertito <albertito1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Sure, why not? You look as a dumbo, you smells as a dumbo, you > > perform > > as a dumbo, so you are most probably....a dumbo. > > For sure a very accurate description of yourself in your bathroom > every morning. > > Miguel Rios Sorry, I didn't know you were really a dumbo.
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 24 Sep 2009 14:20 Miguel wrote on Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:12:42 -0700: > On 24 sep, 05:27, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: >> Miguel wrote on Wed, 23 Sep 2009 12:22:14 -0700: >> >> > 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 >> >> >> 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: >> >> > Well, I consider these people quite rigorous and very knowledgeable, and > they wrote in the following paper: > > Monitoring Stellar Orbits Around the Massive Black Hole in the Galactic > Center > Gillessen, S.; Eisenhauer, F.; Trippe, S.; Alexander, T.; Genzel, R.; > Martins, F.; Ott, T. > The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 692, Issue 2, pp. 1075-1109 (2009). > > "We present the results of 16 years of monitoring stellar orbits around > the massive black hole in the center of the Milky Way, using > high-resolution near-infrared techniques. This work refines our previous > analysis mainly by greatly improving the definition of the coordinate > system, which reaches a long-term astrometric accuracy of ≈300 μas, and > by investigating in detail the individual systematic error > contributions. The combination of a long-time baseline and the excellent > astrometric accuracy of adaptive optics data allows us to determine > orbits of 28 stars, including the star S2, which has completed a full > revolution since our monitoring began. Our main results are: all stellar > orbits are fit extremely well by a single- point-mass potential to > within the astrometric uncertainties, which are now ≈6× better than in > previous studies." Since "monitoring stellar orbits" does not show that the central object was a black hole, the term "black hole candidate" would be preferable as in the Nature article, whose link was sniped by you but reintroduced now http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7209/abs/nature07245.html > They report a mass of 4.31 millions suns for the object. Largest > observed stars have masses on the order of 110 suns and are clearly > visible. This object, of mass 4.31 millions suns is invisible and has a > very close star (S2) orbiting, which in 2002 passed about 17 light hours > from the object. It looks as a black hole, it smells as a black hole, it > performs as a black hole, so it is most probably....a black hole. Since nothing of that is specific of a black hole, but is also explained by other models (those whose links you sniped again), naming it a black hole is either an act of faith or a gross misunderstanding of the scientific method. This is why more rigorous people publish in more rigorous journals as Nature... -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 24 Sep 2009 14:28
Tom Roberts wrote on Thu, 24 Sep 2009 08:59:58 -0500: > Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote: >> 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" > > In recent years, knowledgeable people have been simply calling them > black holes in the literature. Of course to maintain this lie you were obligated to snip the link to Nature given by me REINTRODUCING SNIPED LINK 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, > > Not true. The horizon of a super-massive black hole can have a curvature > smaller than here on earth. You are not serious since computations say otherwise. But > "Quantum effects" do not invalidate GR here > on earth :-). Only a nut would wait Hawking radiation here on earth :-D > It is near the internal singularity that we know GR must break down -- Which is, of course, causally connected with the horizon. Maybe you believe that quantum corrections may eliminate the central singularity whereas the horizon remains intact and well-described by GR, but that is *your* misunderstanding. -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html |