Black Holes Are An Optical Effect
in [Math]
|
Prev: product of tangents problem
Next: zeta zero
From: Jerome Walsh on 25 Sep 2009 15:29 On Sep 25, 11:59 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > Albertito wrote on Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:52:37 -0700: > > > > > On Sep 25, 5:36 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > > <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > >> Albertito wrote on Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:22:55 -0700: > > >> > On Sep 25, 5:05 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > >> > <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > >> >> 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 > > >> > No, I'm not slow, I'm faster than light :-D > > >> > If GR is not wrong, why is it that GR can't unify gravity and > >> > electromagnetism? Even a guy like you could guess that > >> > electromagnetism is a special case of gravitation. IOW, EM waves > >> > arise from matter waves. IOW, EM waves are just the expression of a > >> > collision at a distance (non local) of material systems. > > >> sloooooow and wrooooong :-D > > > Then, let me recommend this book to you, "The Relativity of Wrong" - > > Isaac Asimov - > >http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm > >http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Wrong-Isaac-Asimov/dp/1575660083 > > Noooooooooooo (y me espatarro) > > > > > Saludos > > >> >> >> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/ > > >> >> >> BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto... > > >> >> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/ > > >> >> BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto... > > >> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/ > > >> BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto... > > --http://www.canonicalscience.org/ > > BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto... spatarrarse * do the splits (Full Translation) * Gerund: espatarrando * Participle: espatarrado Indicative Presente * me espatarro * te espatarras * se espatarra * nos espatarramos * os espatarráis * se espatarran Pretérito * me espatarré * te espatarraste * se espatarró * nos espatarramos * os espatarrasteis * se espatarraron Pretérito imperfecto * me espatarraba * te espatarrabas * se espatarraba * nos espatarrábamos * os espatarrabais * se espatarraban Condicional * me espatarraría * te espatarrarías * se espatarraría * nos espatarraríamos * os espatarraríais * se espatarrarían Futuro * me espatarraré * te espatarrarás * se espatarrará * nos espatarraremos * os espatarraréis * se espatarrarán Subjunctive Subjuntivo presente * me espatarre * te espatarres * se espatarre * nos espatarremos * os espatarréis * se espatarren Subjuntivo futuro * me espatarrare * te espatarrares * se espatarrare * nos espatarráremos * os espatarrareis * se espatarraren Subjuntivo pretérito * me espatarrara * te espatarraras * se espatarrara * nos espatarráramos * os espatarrarais * se espatarraran Subjuntivo pretérito #2 * me espatarrase * te espatarrases * se espatarrase * nos espatarrásemos * os espatarraseis * se espatarrasen Perfect Presente perfecto * me he espatarrado * te has espatarrado * se ha espatarrado * nos hemos espatarrado * os habéis espatarrado * se han espatarrado Pasado perfecto * me había espatarrado * te habías espatarrado * se había espatarrado * nos habíamos espatarrado * os habíais espatarrado * se habían espatarrado Pretérito perfecto * me hube espatarrado * te hubiste espatarrado * se hubo espatarrado * nos hubimos espatarrado * os hubisteis espatarrado * se hubieron espatarrado Futuro perfecto * me habré espatarrado * te habrás espatarrado * se habrá espatarrado * nos habremos espatarrado * os habréis espatarrado * se habrán espatarrado Condicional perfecto * me habría espatarrado * te habrías espatarrado * se habría espatarrado * nos habríamos espatarrado * os habríais espatarrado * se habrían espatarrado Perfect Subjunctive Presente perfecto subjuntivo * me haya espatarrado * te hayas espatarrado * se haya espatarrado * nos hayamos espatarrado * os hayáis espatarrado * se hayan espatarrado Pasado perfecto subjuntivo * me hubiera espatarrado * te hubieras espatarrado * se hubiera espatarrado * nos hubiéramos espatarrado * os hubierais espatarrado * se hubieran espatarrado Futuro perfecto subjuntivo * me hubiere espatarrado * te hubieres espatarrado * se hubiere espatarrado * nos hubiéremos espatarrado * os hubiereis espatarrado * se hubieren espatarrado mmm
From: Tom Roberts on 27 Sep 2009 09:41 Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote on Thu, 24 Sep 2009 08:59:58 -0500: >> 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 It's no lie. A single article does not display what terms other people in the field are using. Yes, some say "black hole candidate" and others simply say "black hole". People active in the field know what they mean. >>> 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. Show the computation! You are wrong. >> "Quantum effects" do not invalidate GR here >> on earth :-). > > Only a nut would wait Hawking radiation here on earth :-D Physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. For a supermassive black hole, Hawking radiation does not come close to "breaking down" GR near the horizon. Radiation of ~10^-42 Watts for a few million solar-mass object is completely negligible! -- that's negligible in any lab here on earth. BTW the fact that the curvature is so small near the horizon of such a black hole is basically why the Hawking radiation is so negligible (in QFT on a curved manifold, Hawking radiation is due to a coupling of the photon to the curvature). So your confusions are correlated. The HR lifetime of such black holes can be 10^70 times longer than the current age of the universe! In practice, the CMBR influx GREATLY exceeds the HR outflux and such a black hole GROWS even if completely isolated from all other inflows. >> It is near the internal singularity that we know GR must break down -- > > Which is, of course, causally connected with the horizon. Again not true. In GR no point in the interior of a black hole is inside or on the past lightcone of any point on its horizon. You have a lot of misinformation in your head about GR. You need to LEARN what the theory actually says. You could also stand to grow up. You seem to be interested in physics and have some knowledge about it. But nobody takes you seriously when you act like a child. Tom Roberts
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 28 Sep 2009 04:57 Jerome Walsh wrote on Fri, 25 Sep 2009 12:29:18 -0700: > On Sep 25, 11:59 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: >> Albertito wrote on Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:52:37 -0700: >> >> >> >> > On Sep 25, 5:36 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez >> > <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: >> >> Albertito wrote on Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:22:55 -0700: >> >> >> > On Sep 25, 5:05 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez >> >> > <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> > No, I'm not slow, I'm faster than light :-D >> >> >> > If GR is not wrong, why is it that GR can't unify gravity and >> >> > electromagnetism? Even a guy like you could guess that >> >> > electromagnetism is a special case of gravitation. IOW, EM waves >> >> > arise from matter waves. IOW, EM waves are just the expression of >> >> > a collision at a distance (non local) of material systems. >> >> >> sloooooow and wrooooong :-D >> >> > Then, let me recommend this book to you, "The Relativity of Wrong" - >> > Isaac Asimov - >> >http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm >> >http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Wrong-Isaac-Asimov/dp/1575660083 >> >> Noooooooooooo (y me espatarro) >> >> >> >> > Saludos >> >> >> >> >> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/ >> >> >> >> >> BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto... >> >> >> >> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/ >> >> >> >> BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto... >> >> >> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/ >> >> >> BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto... >> >> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/ >> >> BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto... > > spatarrarse > > * do the splits (Full Translation) > * Gerund: espatarrando > * Participle: espatarrado > > Indicative > Presente > > * me espatarro > * te espatarras > * se espatarra > > > > * nos espatarramos > * os espatarráis > * se espatarran > > Pretérito > > * me espatarré > * te espatarraste > * se espatarró > > > > * nos espatarramos > * os espatarrasteis > * se espatarraron > > Pretérito imperfecto > > * me espatarraba > * te espatarrabas > * se espatarraba > > > > * nos espatarrábamos > * os espatarrabais > * se espatarraban > > Condicional > > * me espatarraría > * te espatarrarías > * se espatarraría > > > > * nos espatarraríamos > * os espatarraríais > * se espatarrarían > > Futuro > > * me espatarraré > * te espatarrarás > * se espatarrará > > > > * nos espatarraremos > * os espatarraréis > * se espatarrarán > > > Subjunctive > Subjuntivo presente > > * me espatarre > * te espatarres > * se espatarre > > > > * nos espatarremos > * os espatarréis > * se espatarren > > Subjuntivo futuro > > * me espatarrare > * te espatarrares > * se espatarrare > > > > * nos espatarráremos > * os espatarrareis > * se espatarraren > > Subjuntivo pretérito > > * me espatarrara > * te espatarraras > * se espatarrara > > > > * nos espatarráramos > * os espatarrarais > * se espatarraran > > Subjuntivo pretérito #2 > > * me espatarrase > * te espatarrases > * se espatarrase > > > > * nos espatarrásemos > * os espatarraseis > * se espatarrasen > > Perfect > Presente perfecto > > * me he espatarrado > * te has espatarrado > * se ha espatarrado > > > > * nos hemos espatarrado > * os habéis espatarrado > * se han espatarrado > > Pasado perfecto > > * me había espatarrado > * te habías espatarrado > * se había espatarrado > > > > * nos habíamos espatarrado > * os habíais espatarrado > * se habían espatarrado > > Pretérito perfecto > > * me hube espatarrado > * te hubiste espatarrado > * se hubo espatarrado > > > > * nos hubimos espatarrado > * os hubisteis espatarrado > * se hubieron espatarrado > > Futuro perfecto > > * me habré espatarrado > * te habrás espatarrado > * se habrá espatarrado > > > > * nos habremos espatarrado > * os habréis espatarrado > * se habrán espatarrado > > Condicional perfecto > > * me habría espatarrado > * te habrías espatarrado > * se habría espatarrado > > > > * nos habríamos espatarrado > * os habríais espatarrado > * se habrían espatarrado > > > Perfect Subjunctive > Presente perfecto subjuntivo > > * me haya espatarrado > * te hayas espatarrado > * se haya espatarrado > > > > * nos hayamos espatarrado > * os hayáis espatarrado > * se hayan espatarrado > > Pasado perfecto subjuntivo > > * me hubiera espatarrado > * te hubieras espatarrado > * se hubiera espatarrado > > > > * nos hubiéramos espatarrado > * os hubierais espatarrado > * se hubieran espatarrado > > Futuro perfecto subjuntivo > > * me hubiere espatarrado > * te hubieres espatarrado > * se hubiere espatarrado > > > > * nos hubiéremos espatarrado > * os hubiereis espatarrado > * se hubieren espatarrado > mmm Siiiiiiiiiii :-D http://lavender.fortunecity.com/tombstone/266/serieb/act/1012.htm -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 28 Sep 2009 05:41 Tom Roberts wrote on Sun, 27 Sep 2009 08:41:23 -0500: > Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote: >> Tom Roberts wrote on Thu, 24 Sep 2009 08:59:58 -0500: >>> 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 > > It's no lie. A single article does not display what terms other people > in the field are using. A single citation was enough to show how unfounded your comment was. Of course, again you sniping the link to recent Nature article and once again you use your known tactic of sniping without giving explicit indication of the snip. > Yes, some say "black hole candidate" and others > simply say "black hole". This is not the point, when talking about the theoretical model of GR we use the term "black hole", but when refering to those observed massive objects we refer to "black hole candidate" or "pressumed black hole". Yes, some people as you confound both practices. > People active in the field know what they mean. Exactly, 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. > > Show the computation! You are wrong. Are in the literature cited in a recent and large sci.physics.research thread! It is not my fault if you are again totally disconected from modern physics. >>> "Quantum effects" do not invalidate GR here on earth :-). >> >> Only a nut would wait Hawking radiation here on earth :-D > > Physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. For a supermassive black hole, > Hawking radiation does not come close to "breaking down" GR near the > horizon. This is another very stupid comment. Of course, the model of Hawking radiation is based in an entirely classical model for gravity where the Hilbert-Einstein equations are maintained. Since physics is a quantitative science, nobody *serious* wait quantum effects to "invalidate GR here on earth :-)", just as nobody wait "wait Hawking radiation here on earth :-D". We do the computations and see. Whereas quantum corrections show that GR is a very good approx. for many celestial objects as stars, it is not so good near horizons. (...) >>> It is near the internal singularity that we know GR must break down -- >> >> Which is, of course, causally connected with the horizon. > > Again not true. In GR no point in the interior of a black hole is inside > or on the past lightcone of any point on its horizon. Of course, I did not say the idiocy that you are saying. And of course, that I said "the singularity is causally connected with the horizon" continue being true in GR. This is why one cannot simply take some small region around the central singularity and cut-off it from the rest of the spacetime pretending this solve the problem of singularities. but this is very far beyond your comprension. > You have a lot of misinformation in your head about GR. You need to > LEARN what the theory actually says. > > You could also stand to grow up. You seem to be interested in physics > and have some knowledge about it. But nobody takes you seriously when > you act like a child. If you want to present us your ideas (even those very wrong), it is fine. Not everyone is right in physics tom. But when you snip references to top-journals as Nature to maintain your points, when you show a complete ignorance of last advances in the topic, when you focus on childish personal attacks, and specially when you use unmoderated forums populated by students and amateurs to post your ideas, whereas totally ignoring related threads in moderated forums as sci.physics.research [#] you will continue to look as you look :-D > > Tom Roberts [#] One where I offered detailed computations of why GR breaks down near horizons, for instance. -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: Miguel on 28 Sep 2009 08:21
On 28 sep, 05:41, "Juan R." González-Álvarez <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote on Sun, 27 Sep 2009 08:41:23 -0500: > > > Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote: > >> Tom Roberts wrote on Thu, 24 Sep 2009 08:59:58 -0500: > >>> 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 > > > It's no lie. A single article does not display what terms other people > > in the field are using. > > A single citation was enough to show how unfounded your comment was. > > Of course, again you sniping the link to recent Nature article and once > again you use your known tactic of sniping without giving explicit > indication of the snip. > > > Yes, some say "black hole candidate" and others > > simply say "black hole". > > This is not the point, when talking about the theoretical model of GR we use > the term "black hole", but when refering to those observed massive objects > we refer to "black hole candidate" or "pressumed black hole". > > Yes, some people as you confound both practices. > > > People active in the field know what they mean. > > Exactly, > > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7209/abs/nature07245.html > This link of yours refers to a letter to Nature (two pages long), which describes preliminary results of two days of radio observations performed by Doeleman's research team. The Astrophysical Journal regular paper of Gillessen, is 35 pages long and describes results from 16 years of observations. The Doeleman letter reports, referring to figure 1, "This density lower limit and central mass would rule out most alternatives to a black hole for Sgr A* because other concentrations of matter would have collapsed or evaporated on timescales that are short compared with the age of the Milky Way". They conclude the letter by stating: "Detection of the event-horizon- scale structure reported here indicates that future VLBI observations at 1.3 mm will open a new window onto fundamental black hole physics through observations of our Galactic Centre. Plans to increase the sensitivity of the VLBI array described here by factors of up to 10 are under way, and the addition of more VLBI stations will increase baseline coverage and the ability to model increasingly complex structures". Both these teams are clearly working now and will continue to work to make more evident how these stellar objects look. Miguel Rios |