Black Holes Are An Optical Effect
in [Math]
|
Prev: product of tangents problem
Next: zeta zero
From: Michael Stemper on 24 Sep 2009 18:18 In article <pan.2009.09.24.18.31.08(a)canonicalscience.com>, "Juan R." =?iso-8859-1?q?Gonz=E1lez-=C1lvarez?= <juanREMOVE(a)canonicalscience.com> writes: >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 When I go to that link, I find the following text: "[...] Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), the compact source of radio, infrared and X-ray emission at the centre of the Milky Way, is the closest example of this phenomenon, with an estimated black hole mass that is 4,000,000 times that of the Sun2, 3. A long-standing astronomical goal is to resolve structures in the innermost accretion flow surrounding Sgr A*, where strong gravitational fields will distort the appearance of radiation emitted near the black hole. [...]" Two uses of "black hole" and none of "candidate". -- Michael F. Stemper #include <Standard_Disclaimer> Life's too important to take seriously.
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 25 Sep 2009 11:21 Michael Stemper wrote on Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:18:19 +0000: > In article <pan.2009.09.24.18.31.08(a)canonicalscience.com>, "Juan R." > =?iso-8859-1?q?Gonz=E1lez-=C1lvarez?= <juanREMOVE(a)canonicalscience.com> > writes: >>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 > > When I go to that link, I find the following text: > > "[...] Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), the compact source of radio, infrared > and X-ray emission at the centre of the Milky Way, is the closest > example of this phenomenon, with an estimated black hole mass that is > 4,000,000 times that of the Sun2, 3. A long-standing astronomical goal > is to resolve structures in the innermost accretion flow surrounding > Sgr A*, where strong gravitational fields will distort the appearance > of radiation emitted near the black hole. [...]" > > Two uses of "black hole" and none of "candidate". Oh I can see now all of you are trolling me with your selective snipping... Event-horizon-scale structure in the supermassive black hole candidate at the Galactic Centre. The cores of most galaxies are thought to harbour supermassive black holes, which power galactic nuclei by converting the gravitational energy of accreting matter into radiation1. Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), the compact source of radio, infrared and X-ray emission at the centre of the Milky Way, is the closest example of this phenomenon, with an estimated black hole mass that is 4,000,000 times that of the Sun2, 3. A long-standing astronomical goal is to resolve structures in the innermost accretion flow surrounding Sgr A*, where strong gravitational fields will distort the appearance of radiation emitted near the black hole. Radio observations at wavelengths of 3.5 mm and 7 mm have detected intrinsic structure in Sgr A*, but the spatial resolution of observations at these wavelengths is limited by interstellar scattering4, 5, 6, 7. Here we report observations at a wavelength of 1.3 mm that set a size of microarcseconds on the intrinsic diameter of Sgr A*. This is less than the expected apparent size of the event horizon of the presumed black hole, suggesting that the bulk of Sgr A* emission may not be centred on the black hole, but arises in the surrounding accretion flow. Rigorous people writes "supermassive black hole candidate", "are thought to harbour supermassive black holes", "the presumed black hole" But more rigorous people knows the fallacies behind the black hole model http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0909/0909.3426v1.pdf -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: Albertito on 25 Sep 2009 11:38 On Sep 25, 4:21 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > Michael Stemper wrote on Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:18:19 +0000: > > > > > In article <pan.2009.09.24.18.31...(a)canonicalscience.com>, "Juan R." > > =?iso-8859-1?q?Gonz=E1lez-=C1lvarez?= <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> > > writes: > >>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 > > > When I go to that link, I find the following text: > > > "[...] Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), the compact source of radio, infrared > > and X-ray emission at the centre of the Milky Way, is the closest > > example of this phenomenon, with an estimated black hole mass that is > > 4,000,000 times that of the Sun2, 3. A long-standing astronomical goal > > is to resolve structures in the innermost accretion flow surrounding > > Sgr A*, where strong gravitational fields will distort the appearance > > of radiation emitted near the black hole. [...]" > > > Two uses of "black hole" and none of "candidate". > > Oh I can see now all of you are trolling me with your selective snipping.... > > Event-horizon-scale structure in the supermassive black hole candidate > at the Galactic Centre. > > The cores of most galaxies are thought to harbour supermassive black > holes, which power galactic nuclei by converting the gravitational > energy of accreting matter into radiation1. Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), > the compact source of radio, infrared and X-ray emission at the centre > of the Milky Way, is the closest example of this phenomenon, with an > estimated black hole mass that is 4,000,000 times that of the Sun2, 3. > A long-standing astronomical goal is to resolve structures in the > innermost accretion flow surrounding Sgr A*, where strong gravitational > fields will distort the appearance of radiation emitted near the black > hole. Radio observations at wavelengths of 3.5 mm and 7 mm have detected > intrinsic structure in Sgr A*, but the spatial resolution of observations > at these wavelengths is limited by interstellar scattering4, 5, 6, 7. > Here we report observations at a wavelength of 1.3 mm that set a size of > microarcseconds on the intrinsic diameter of Sgr A*. This is less than > the expected apparent size of the event horizon of the presumed black > hole, suggesting that the bulk of Sgr A* emission may not be centred on > the black hole, but arises in the surrounding accretion flow. > > Rigorous people writes "supermassive black hole candidate", "are thought > to harbour supermassive black holes", "the presumed black hole" > > But more rigorous people knows the fallacies behind the black hole model > > http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0909/0909.3426v1.pdf Why don't you write a draft proving that GR is wrong because black holes are fallacies (i.e. they can't exist in Nature)? :-D > > --http://www.canonicalscience.org/ > > BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 25 Sep 2009 12:05 Albertito wrote on Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:38:30 -0700: > On Sep 25, 4:21 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: >> Michael Stemper wrote on Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:18:19 +0000: >> >> >> >> > In article <pan.2009.09.24.18.31...(a)canonicalscience.com>, "Juan R." >> > =?iso-8859-1?q?Gonz=E1lez-=C1lvarez?= >> > <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> writes: >> >>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 >> >> > When I go to that link, I find the following text: >> >> > "[...] Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), the compact source of radio, infrared >> > and X-ray emission at the centre of the Milky Way, is the closest >> > example of this phenomenon, with an estimated black hole mass that >> > is 4,000,000 times that of the Sun2, 3. A long-standing astronomical >> > goal is to resolve structures in the innermost accretion flow >> > surrounding Sgr A*, where strong gravitational fields will distort >> > the appearance of radiation emitted near the black hole. [...]" >> >> > Two uses of "black hole" and none of "candidate". >> >> Oh I can see now all of you are trolling me with your selective >> snipping... >> >> Event-horizon-scale structure in the supermassive black hole >> candidate at the Galactic Centre. >> >> The cores of most galaxies are thought to harbour supermassive black >> holes, which power galactic nuclei by converting the gravitational >> energy of accreting matter into radiation1. Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), >> the compact source of radio, infrared and X-ray emission at the >> centre of the Milky Way, is the closest example of this phenomenon, >> with an estimated black hole mass that is 4,000,000 times that of the >> Sun2, 3. A long-standing astronomical goal is to resolve structures >> in the innermost accretion flow surrounding Sgr A*, where strong >> gravitational fields will distort the appearance of radiation emitted >> near the black hole. Radio observations at wavelengths of 3.5 mm and >> 7 mm have detected intrinsic structure in Sgr A*, but the spatial >> resolution of observations at these wavelengths is limited by >> interstellar scattering4, 5, 6, 7. Here we report observations at a >> wavelength of 1.3 mm that set a size of microarcseconds on the >> intrinsic diameter of Sgr A*. This is less than the expected apparent >> size of the event horizon of the presumed black hole, suggesting that >> the bulk of Sgr A* emission may not be centred on the black hole, but >> arises in the surrounding accretion flow. >> >> Rigorous people writes "supermassive black hole candidate", "are >> thought to harbour supermassive black holes", "the presumed black hole" >> >> But more rigorous people knows the fallacies behind the black hole >> model >> >> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0909/0909.3426v1.pdf > > Why don't you write a draft proving that GR is wrong because black holes > are fallacies (i.e. they can't exist in Nature)? > :-D Because *evidently* GR is not wrong. I think I explained this to you about a half dozen of times before, but unfortunately you are too sloooooow :-D > >> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/ >> >> BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto... -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: Miguel on 25 Sep 2009 12:18
On 25 sep, 11:21, "Juan R." González-Álvarez <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > Michael Stemper wrote on Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:18:19 +0000: > > Rigorous people writes "supermassive black hole candidate", "are thought > to harbour supermassive black holes", "the presumed black hole" > > But more rigorous people knows the fallacies behind the black hole model > > http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0909/0909.3426v1.pdf > It is interesting that you refer to professor Hooft, naming him as if he "knows the fallacies behind the black hole model". I wonder what he would comment about your assertion of his work. For all the interested ones, http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/ contains a detailed description of his work, including a nice Introduction to the Theory of Black Holes, where he hardly describes these alleged "fallacies" of black holes. Miguel Rios |