Astronomers discover S0-2 star is single and ready for big Einstein test

February 22, 2018, W. M. Keck Observatory
The orbit of S0-2 (light blue) located near the Milky Way's supermassive black hole will be used to test Einstein's Theory of General Relativity and generate potentially new gravitational models. Credit: W. M. Keck Observatory

Astronomers have the "all-clear" for an exciting test of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, thanks to a new discovery about S0-2's star status.

Up until now, it was thought that S0-2 may be a binary, a system where two stars circle around each other. Having such a partner would have complicated the upcoming gravity test.

But in a study published recently in the Astrophysical Journal, a team of astronomers led by a UCLA scientist from Hawaii has found that S0-2 does not have a significant other after all, or at least one that is massive enough to get in the way of critical measurements that astronomers need to test Einstein's theory.

The researchers made their discovery by obtaining spectroscopic measurements of S0-2 using W. M. Keck Observatory's OH-Suppressing Infrared Imaging Spectrograph (OSIRIS) and Laser Guide Star Adaptive Optics.

"This is the first study to investigate S0-2 as a spectroscopic binary," said lead author Devin Chu of Hilo, an astronomy graduate student with UCLA's Galactic Center Group. "It's incredibly rewarding. This study gives us confidence that a S0-2 binary system will not significantly affect our ability to measure gravitational redshift."

Einstein's Theory of General Relativity predicts that light coming from a strong gravitational field gets stretched out, or "redshifted." Researchers expect to directly measure this phenomenon beginning in the spring as S0-2 makes its closest approach to the at the center of our Milky Way galaxy.

This will allow the Galactic Center Group to witness the star being pulled at maximum gravitational strength – a point where any deviation to Einstein's theory is expected to be the greatest.

Lead author Devin Chu of Hilo, Hawaii is an astronomy graduate student at UCLA. The Hilo High School alumnus conducts his research with the UCLA Galactic Center Group, which uses the W. M. Keck Observatory on Hawaii Island to obtain scientific data. "Growing up on Hawaii Island, it feels surreal doing important research with telescopes on my home island. I find it so rewarding to be able to return home to conduct observations," Chu said. Credit: Devin Chu

"It will be the first measurement of its kind," said co-author Tuan Do, deputy director of the Galactic Center Group. "Gravity is the least well-tested of the forces of nature. Einstein's theory has passed all other tests with flying colors so far, so if there are deviations measured, it would certainly raise lots of questions about the nature of gravity!"

"We have been waiting 16 years for this," said Chu. "We are anxious to see how the star will behave under the black hole's violent pull. Will S0-2 follow Einstein's or will the star defy our current laws of physics? We will soon find out!"

The study also sheds more light on the strange birth of S0-2 and its stellar neighbors in the S-Star Cluster. The fact that these stars exist so close to the supermassive black hole is unusual because they are so young; how they could've formed in such a hostile environment is a mystery.

"Star formation at the Galactic Center is difficult because the brute strength of tidal forces from the black hole can tear gas clouds apart before they can collapse and form stars," said Do.

"S0-2 is a very special and puzzling star," said Chu. "We don't typically see young, hot like S0-2 form so close to a supermassive black hole. This means that S0-2 must have formed a different way."

There are several theories that provide a possible explanation, with S0-2 being a binary as one of them. "We were able to put an upper limit on the mass of a companion star for S0-2," said Chu. This new constraint brings astronomers closer to understanding this unusual object.

"Stars as massive as S0-2 almost always have a binary companion. We are lucky that having no companion makes the measurements of general relativistic effects easier, but it also deepens the mystery of this star," said Do.

The Galactic Center Group now plans to study other S-Stars orbiting the supermassive black hole, in hopes of differentiating between the varying theories that attempt to explain why S0-2 is single.

Explore further: Test of general relativity could potentially generate new gravitational models

More information: Devin S. Chu et al. Investigating the Binarity of S0-2: Implications for Its Origins and Robustness as a Probe of the Laws of Gravity around a Supermassive Black Hole, The Astrophysical Journal (2018). DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa3eb

Related Stories

Supermassive black holes can feast on one star per year

February 1, 2018

CU Boulder researchers have discovered a mechanism that explains the persistence of asymmetrical stellar clusters surrounding supermassive black holes in some galaxies and suggests that during post-galactic merger periods, ...

Star in closest orbit ever seen around black hole

March 13, 2017

Astronomers have found evidence of a star that whips around a likely black hole twice an hour. This could be the tightest orbital dance ever seen by a black hole and a companion star in our own Milky Way galaxy.

Recommended for you

Study details the history of Saturn's small inner moons

May 22, 2018

The small inner moons of Saturn look like giant ravioli and spaetzle. Their spectacular shape has been revealed by the Cassini spacecraft. For the first time, researchers of the University of Bern show how these moons were ...

Two bright high-redshift quasars discovered

May 21, 2018

Astronomers have detected two new bright quasars at a redshift of about 5.0. The newly found quasi-stellar objects (QSOs) are among the brightest high-redshift quasars known to date. The finding was presented May 9 in a paper ...

First interstellar immigrant discovered in the solar system

May 21, 2018

A new study has discovered the first known permanent immigrant to our Solar System. The asteroid, currently nestling in Jupiter's orbit, is the first known asteroid to have been captured from another star system. The work ...

245 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

LED_Guy
3 / 5 (2) Feb 22, 2018
Unless I'm wrong, Sag A* is the only supermassive black hole whose environment we can resolve well enough to look at nearby stars.

"We don't typically see young, hot stars like S0-2 form so close to a supermassive black hole."

Since we have only been able to view stars in the immediate neighborhood of Sag A* for about 20 years, we can't make any statements about typical star formation near a SMBH. We need at least several 100,000 years of SMBH observations to make that statement.
Benni
1 / 5 (14) Feb 22, 2018
"The fact that these stars exist so close to the supermassive black hole is unusual because they are so young; how they could've formed in such a hostile environment is a mystery."
......no mystery here to finding something "unusual".

The luminous Accretion Disc that would be the most imposing structure of the galaxy located exactly where the infrared camera is focused is a big no show & would dwarf in size that tiny little star they are tracking. Oh, wait, Pop-Sci Cosmologists have an answer, BLACK HOLE DUST, yeah, special dust, the only kind of dust that infrared spectroscopy can't image through due to black hole magic.

LED_Guy
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2018
"no mystery here to finding something "unusual". "

My point remains a single stellar population observed for roughly 20 years doesn't provide a basis for what is unusual. Do we understand how/why these stars formed, NO. Can we legitimately state that its unusual - NO.

Not understanding doesn't equate to unusual. If we had the capability to look at the immediate environment of every SMBH within 100 million light years we might find massive young stars around each one. A sample of 1 doesn't even let you calculate a standard deviation.
wailuku1943
5 / 5 (13) Feb 22, 2018
I'll just point out that Chu is from my old high school (Hilo High School) and among HHS graduates you can find Jennifer Doudna. It won't be long before my high school gets its first Nobel winner (Doudna).

A small high school in a town of 40,000 on a remote island. We can produce kids who play well in the big leagues, too.
Benni
1 / 5 (10) Feb 22, 2018
Not understanding doesn't equate to unusual


True...........but what they mean by "unusual" is written within a different context than the context by which you are referring to as being "unusual".

If these astronomers would start placing some real focus on locating what should be the most luminous structure in the galaxy, the ACCRETION DISC, then they would soon enough come to the realization that the CENTER of the galaxy is not what their fantasyland cosmology predicts.

A decade ago it was easy to use the excuse for not being able to observe Sag A Black Hole at the center of the galaxy because DUST was blocking our view. Now with infrared cameras unblocking that view, what do we see?

We don't see what should be the most luminous structure in the galaxy, an ACCRETION DISC so large that the size of it would be 5 times that of the BH itself, a size so large it's diameter would encompass the orbit of Mars around the Sun.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 22, 2018
Researchers expect to directly measure this phenomenon beginning in the spring as S0-2 makes its closest approach to the supermassive black hole at the center of our Milky Way galaxy.
This will allow the Galactic Center Group to witness the star being pulled at maximum gravitational strength – a point where any deviation to Einstein's theory is expected to be the greatest.

Amusing! "Pulled at maximum gravitational strength"....
Funny that this theoretical belief has failed direct measurement and already been falsified.
http://www.bbc.co...23517808
Who cares about fact though.
RNP
4.4 / 5 (13) Feb 22, 2018
@cantdrive85
You finally seem to have COMPLETELY lost your mind! You are pulling "facts" out of your posterior.

What "theoretical belief" do the observations of the plumes on a tiny moon of Saturn "falsify"? And what in the name of all reason does it have to do with the gravitational redshift experienced by a star close to a BH?
Benni
1 / 5 (11) Feb 22, 2018
You finally seem to have COMPLETELY lost your mind! You are pulling "facts" out of your posterior.


And the name calling rants by the resident freelance journalist begins!!!!!

Is it ever possible for you to put up a Comment that is suitable digression for conjecture?

Look, when you came on here many months ago bragging about having a degree in Journalism, I guess it should never have been hard to figure out what a repugnant foul mouthed neophyte you'd become.

Here you are, in all your foul mouthed glory, someone who has no concept whatsoever in the difference between KINETIC ENERGY & ELECTRO_MAGNETIC ENERGY, yet you think your degree in journalism rates you a special niche for directing your unscientific foul mouthed filth in any direction that does not support your fantasies.

You aren't interested in reasonable discussions about science, your journalistic instinct is to see how many of 5 Stars your profanity laced foul mouthed filth will garner you.
691Boat
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 22, 2018
@Benni:
again, you are upset that the cameras designed to see through cosmic dust aren't seeing the cosmic dust? Good job.
Benni
1 / 5 (9) Feb 22, 2018
@Benni:
again, you are upset that the cameras designed to see through cosmic dust aren't seeing the cosmic dust? Good job.


Yeah boaty, you bet it's a "Good job". It's also part of my job as the Nuclear/Electrical Engineer in charge of our Gamma Spectroscopy Lab that I can critically acclaim infrared spectroscopy appearing here that overlooks the obvious, of course you would never have likewise noticed the obvious lack of presence of infrared imaging of what would be the largest luminous structure in the galaxy.

So tell us, how did the infrared camera manage to overlook an object whose luminosity would have dwarfed in size every single star anywhere near the center of the galaxy? You don't know how to explain that do you? But I'll just bet you think a reasonable explanation would be to embark on a name calling rant, right?

jonesdave
5 / 5 (10) Feb 22, 2018
@Benni:
again, you are upset that the cameras designed to see through cosmic dust aren't seeing the cosmic dust? Good job.


The bloke is an idiot. I don't know how many times he's been told that the disk isn't particularly luminous. I'll repeat it again, for the hard of thinking - the AD in our SMBH is QUIESCENT. Look up that word Bernie, and you might finally figure it out.
691Boat
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2018
@Benni:
So the x-ray imaging of the actual hot portion counts for nothing? Also, not sure what gamma spectroscopy has to do with IR "imaging" of dust by a camera designed to not see the dust... you really do seem to struggle with the spectrum of colors, eh?

With regards to the luminosity, we do see the luminosity, just not in visible, NIR or IR as far as I know.
jonesdave
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 22, 2018
Yeah boaty, you bet it's a "Good job". It's also part of my job as the Nuclear/Electrical Engineer in charge of our Gamma Spectroscopy Lab


Lol. Is that what they call janitors these days?

of course you would never have likewise noticed the obvious lack of presence of infrared imaging of what would be the largest luminous structure in the galaxy.


Jesus. I've already linked you to a paper that tells you, in very simple English that they do use IR, you burke. Here's another:

The extreme luminosity states of Sagittarius A*
Sabha, N. et al
https://arxiv.org...1351.pdf

Try to read it all, dear. And, more to the point, try to UNDERSTAND it.

jonesdave
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 22, 2018
@cantdrive85
You finally seem to have COMPLETELY lost your mind! You are pulling "facts" out of your posterior.

What "theoretical belief" do the observations of the plumes on a tiny moon of Saturn "falsify"? And what in the name of all reason does it have to do with the gravitational redshift experienced by a star close to a BH?


Yep. Apart from linking to a press release, instead of a paper, he seems to have missed this bit:

Previous models predicted that when Enceladus was near the point most distant from Saturn, the cracks would be pulled open or widened, and the most amount of liquid would escape. This is the first observational data we have that shows quite clearly that is the case.


Seems like a successful prediction to me. So, what exactly was falsified?
Benni
1 / 5 (9) Feb 22, 2018
With regards to the luminosity, we do see the luminosity, just not in visible, NIR or IR as far as I know.
....yeah, as far as you know:

"Black holes glow because they are very messy eaters. As a black hole sucks in surrounding matter, it pulls its food into a disk or a sphere around it, called an "accretion disk" or an "accretion shell," as shown below. And it is partly this disk that generates the incredible glow."

http://www.thephy...on-disk/

You & jonesy need to study more about things that are NOT SEEN but were hypothesized to exist before the days of the 21st century & infrared imaging technology.

Now that we have the technology of infrared imaging, astronomers have yet to locate the ACCRETION DISC of Sag A which would dominate the center of the galaxy with it's "incredible glow", but alas, no such glow exists where it would be the most outstanding feature & structure of infrared imaging.

LED_Guy
5 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2018
@Benni,

Aren't you making a lot of assumptions about the current "feeding rate" of Sag A*? Why would it have to dominate the center of the galaxy if there isn't a lot of matter in it?

Movie versions of black holes tend to show them surround by massive accretion discs, but that doesn't have to be the case. We would see a lot more radio emissions if Sag A* were actively feeding.
691Boat
5 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2018
@Benni:
why are you so fixated on an IR image? And why do you think that an "incredible glow" is implied only to IR? They have plenty of x-ray and radio images of the extremely bright center of the galaxy, but why would IR be the only approved method according to you?
jonesdave
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 22, 2018
^^^^Jesus, how thick is it possible to be? Does anybody seriously think this loon has got a science degree? What was so difficult to understand about that paper I linked Benji? I'm taking it that English isn't your first language, because your reading comprehension seems to be as poor as your grasp of the relevant science.
We can see the flares from the AD in IR. However, it isn't very luminous. Read the frakking paper.

.....showing that the luminosity associated with SgrA* is on the order of 10^−9...^−10 times below
the Eddington luminosity LEdd and many orders of magnitudes below that of SMBHs in active galactic nuclei (AGN) with comparable masses (of about 4 × 10^6 M�Š�). The surprisingly low luminosity has motivated many......


Which part of that are you struggling with? Huh?

So, for the terminally stupid, I'll say it again; Our SMBH is not an AGN. It is quiescent. It is not very luminous. How many times do you need to be told?

jonesdave
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 22, 2018
In its lowest luminosity states SgrA* is difficult to detect though due to the presence of a strong diffuse background at X-ray wavelengths and the confusion with nearby stellar sources in the near-infrared.


A little more, in the vain hope that a certain somebody might start to cotton on. Bloody unlikely, I know!
jonesdave
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 22, 2018
Anyway, away from the cranks, and focusing on the actual article; observations made previously strongly support GR.

Article here: https://www.scien...lativity

Paper here:
Investigating the Relativistic Motion of the Stars Near the Supermassive Black Hole in the Galactic Center
Parsa, M. et al.
http://www.eso.or...051b.pdf
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2018
@Benni,

Aren't you making a lot of assumptions about the current "feeding rate" of Sag A*? Why would it have to dominate the center of the galaxy if there isn't a lot of matter in it? We would see a lot more radio emissions if Sag A* were actively feeding.


If you would really like to see what is going on at the galactic center, link to this site:

http://ircamera.a...nter.htm

According to the theory accretion discs form when a BH is sucking mass off a companion star. scroll down to the bottom of the page on the above link, you will see vast numbers of stars practically sitting alongside one another near where they tell you the galactic BH is, In fact they even plotted out the movements of fast moving stars & animated their movements.

With stars so closely packed to the center & so close ( light minutes) to a BH body of infinite gravity, why no evidence of the telltale accretion disc, it has plenty to feed off of?
mackita
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2018
There is actually no feeding the black hole. The gas existing there is heated by dark matter and it has no tendency to collapse by gravity. Yes, the SgtA is inert - but not so much it would raise too much suspicion.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2018

why are you so fixated on an IR image?


......because IR cameras create a spectroscopy to see images that are behind galactic dust. Here go through this progression of infrared imaging:

http://ircamera.a...nter.htm

..........almost none of this imagery would be possible without infrared imaging which eliminates the scattering effects of shorter wavelengths bouncing randomly off interstellar dust particles.

And why do you think that an "incredible glow" is implied only to IR?
........because it would PLAINLY reveal the HOT accretion disc, just like it PLAINLY reveals all those hot stars located within light minutes of the galactic core.

They have plenty of x-ray and radio images of the extremely bright center of the galaxy
.....yeah, caused by the stars located at the galactic core just as the IR imagery depicts.

why would IR be the only approved method according to you?
......???

jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2018
Aaaaaaand again:

In its lowest luminosity states SgrA* is difficult to detect though due to the presence of a strong diffuse background at X-ray wavelengths and the ***confusion with nearby stellar sources in the near-infrared***


....showing that the luminosity associated with SgrA* is on the order of 10^−9...^−10 times below
the Eddington luminosity LEdd and many orders of magnitudes below that of SMBHs in active galactic nuclei (AGN) with comparable masses (of about 4 × 10^6 Msun). The surprisingly low luminosity has motivated many......


.

jonesdave
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2018
....BH body of infinite gravity.....


Nope. It can only have the gravity due to the mass of the material from which it formed, and that which it has since added.

why no evidence of the telltale accretion disc


There is evidence. How many more papers should I link to, before that becomes obvious?
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2018
There is evidence.
........that there is no ACCRETION DISC

What would be DECISIVELY "obvious" is to see an accretion disc in the IR imaging, it would be the most massive image in the series of IR imaging, it would dwarf any of the largest stars plainly visible in the IR photos.

How many more papers should I link to, before that becomes obvious
.........a picture is worth way MORE than a few thousand words of the worthless papers you link to. Here are pictures:

http://ircamera.a...nter.htm

.........in the meantime all you do is continue with your worthless foul mouthed ranting versus those of us who are educated to evaluate spectroscopy data know all your foul mouthed ranting won't create a BH.

Those still living in the world of 19th Century cosmology welcome your indifference to the Laws of Physics for Kinetic Energy versus those for Electro-magnetic Energy, you still don't know the difference.

mackita
3.5 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2018
it would dwarf any of the largest stars plainly visible in the IR photos
This is just the problem of your reasoning. The clearly visible stars around central black hole means, that there is actually no food for central black hole. No food means no accretion disk means no problem for mainstream astrophysics.
jonesdave
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2018
^^^^^Benny, you are a brain dead moron. Have I mentioned that? Why would the AD be the brightest thing around? We see it in IR when it flares, you loon, so there is obviously an accretion disk. It is extremely difficult to see otherwise. And the papers are only worthless to you because you are too thick to understand them. Which is why you keep trotting out the same inane nonsense. You know crap about spectroscopy, and didn't even know that visible light heats things up! You are too stupid to realise how stupid you are. That is the usual way with D-K sufferers.
jonesdave
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2018
it would dwarf any of the largest stars plainly visible in the IR photos
This is just the problem of your reasoning. The clearly visible stars around central black hole means, that there is actually no food for central black hole. No food means no accretion disk means no problem for mainstream astrophysics.


[sarc]Yes. but Benny is far smarter than anybody who has ever studied BHs, or spectroscopy, or gravitational waves, or....... etc, etc. This is why he he a highly published and cited author on such things.[/sarc]

Or, he knows squat about such things, which is why he comes to a place like this to flaunt his ignorance, and make a complete tool of himself.

Take your pick.
Benni
1 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2018
it would dwarf any of the largest stars plainly visible in the IR photos
This is just the problem of your reasoning. The clearly visible stars around central black hole means, that there is actually no food for central black hole. No food means no accretion disk means no problem for mainstream astrophysics.

What do you think a so-called feeding BH feeds off of if not other stars?

Myriads of millions of stars all within light seconds/minutes/hours of a stellar mass that supposedly has Infinite density & infinite gravity? But the one at the center of our galaxy is the one that can't figure out the feeding trick to create an accretion disc? C'mon here get up to speed with the characteristics of how the so-called experts hypothesize these things form.

An Accretion Disc is supposed to be 5 times the radius of the BH. Do you see evidence in those pics of such a luminous structure that would dwarf in size any of the nearby stars? No.

jonesdave
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2018
I
.....infinite gravity?


Yet more idiocy.
Benni
1 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2018
...infinite gravity? Yet more idiocy.
........directly from your favorite handbook, WikiPedia, of course it's "idiocy". Read it:

https://en.wikipe...ack_hole

Singularity

Main article: Gravitational singularity

"At the center of a black hole, as described by general relativity, lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature (gravity)becomes infinite. For a non-rotating black hole, this region takes the shape of a single point and for a rotating black hole, it is smeared out to form a ring singularity that lies in the plane of rotation. In both cases, the singular region has zero volume. It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution. The singular region can thus be thought of as having infinite density."

If you don't know what "spacetime curvature" is jonesy, then you should get familiar with Einstein's Field Equations for gravity found in General Relativity.

jonesdave
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2018
And you ought to learn to read what you paste:

.....the singular region has zero volume. It can also be shown that the singular region ***contains all the mass of the black hole*** solution. The singular region can thus be ***thought of*** as having infinite ***density***."


What is the mass of Sgr A*? Nowhere does it say that there is infinite gravity. If there were, we'd be in a whole load of trouble.
And the singularity is the point where GR breaks down. All the mass of the BH, say 3 x 10^6 Msun, is compressed at the singularity, and the volume --> 0. However, we can't divide by zero, so this is where things are beyond our ability to describe it currently. So, even though the volume --> 0, the mass does not --> infinity. And therefore the gravity does not.

jonesdave
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2018
Perhaps another way of thinking about why singularities (and therefore infinity density) cannot exist in reality, is this simplistic equation:

Density = mass/ volume. For Sgr A*, we know that the mass = ~ 4 x 10^6 Msun. So, let's rearrange the equation; Mass = density x volume. So, 4 x 10^6 Msun = infinity x 0!
Err, no. That cannot be right, and that is where our current explanations break down, and why such things as 'singularities' and 'infinite density' and 'zero volume' are talked about. They cannot happen in reality. Hopefully.
http://www.askama...-nature/
guptm
1 / 5 (1) Feb 23, 2018
What testing is for...? Wake up. Einstein's theory of general relativity is proven a 1000 times and works perfectly as given!! Put this money somewhere else...
Benni
1 / 5 (9) Feb 23, 2018
Density = mass/ volume. For Sgr A*, we know that the mass = ~ 4 x 10^6 Msun. So, let's rearrange the equation; Mass = density x volume. So, 4 x 10^6 Msun = infinity x 0!
Err, no. That cannot be right, and that is where our current explanations break down, and why such things as 'singularities' and 'infinite density' and 'zero volume' are talked about. They cannot happen in reality.


So why then would you believe BHs exist? There is no observational state of matter that can advance the silly concept that INFINITE DENSITY of MATTER or GRAVITY can exist within a finite stellar mass from which an electro-magnetic wave cannot emanate from it's surface.

All theories about BH formation are a throwback to 19th Century Cosmology in which it was theorized the velocity of light was subject to the gravitational field through which it traveled, and this is EXACTLY what you too believe, you've already been on here stating so.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2018
Light IS subject to gravity. Trivially. It has energy, and therefore MUST be. This is easily shown by gravitational lensing. However, the speed of light is not. That remains at c. Once an object has a gravity that has an escape velocity of > c, then not even light can escape. For a mass of ~ 4 x 10^6 Msun, we can then work out at what distance from a point source that that requirement would be met. That is the Schwarzschild radius. Which is also the EH. Which brings us full circle. If BHs don't exist, then the EH won't exist, and the EHT will find nothing. So, predictions.................?

Why would I believe that BHs exist? Because there is a lot of evidence to say they do. Simplistically, the orbits of the stars in the galactic centre tell us that there is a dark mass of millions of solar masses. Usually, the higher the solar mass, the brighter the star. Yet we can't see a 'star' of 4 m solar masses. So, what is it?
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Feb 23, 2018
Einstein's theory of general relativity is proven a 1000 times and works perfectly as given!! Put this money somewhere else..
The tests of lightweight objects moving around massive ones (black hole in particular) are still nonexisting. The dark matter effects could be significant there. In addition, we have observational data of S0 star anyway - so that there is no large additional cost.
Benni
1 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2018
Once an object has a gravity that has an escape velocity of > c, then not even light can escape
........and this is nothing less than subjecting an Electro-magnetic wave to the Laws of of Physics for Kinetic Energy from which Escape Velocity Equations are derived for particles of MASS.

Your big problem is failure to comprehend the difference between Kinetic Energy & Electro-Magnetic Energy, this simply because you have never sat in a college classroom & studied 1st & 2nd semester Physics.

For a mass of ~ 4 x 10^6 Msun, we can then work out at what distance from a point source that that requirement would be met. That is the Schwarzschild radius.
...........dead wrong, it doesn't work in the real universe of Nuclear Physics, this is just more of the same 19th Century Cosmology of Schwarzschild Black Hole Math subjecting an Electro-magnetic Wave to the Laws of Physics for Kinetic Energy.

slrlw2017
5 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2018
Benni, could you please explain the motion of these stars to us? All you seem to do is attempt persuade people that BHs do not exist yet you do not offer any explanation that would explain the observations.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2018
^^^^^^Oh dear. Benni has lost the plot! Again. We have been through this before, and there is not a snowball's chance in hell that you will ever understand it. Nuclear physics has zero to do with this.
Here is as concise an answer as I can find, but it would require you to actually understand GR, and that ain't going to happen:

https://www.forbe...444711ce

So, can we take it as read that you believe the EHT will find nothing? No EH that is? Can we have that in writing?

jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2018
Benni, could you please explain the motion of these stars to us? All you seem to do is attempt persuade people that BHs do not exist yet you do not offer any explanation that would explain the observations.


Been there, done that, not going to happen :)
434a
5 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2018
.and this is nothing less than subjecting an Electro-magnetic wave to the Laws of of Physics for Kinetic Energy from which Escape Velocity Equations are derived for particles of MASS. etc


Benni, are you saying that EM waves - in this case visible light - do not follow a physical path prescribed by the curvature of space-time, that curvature being described by the mathematics of GR?

I ask the question purely to gain a clearer understanding of your position.
jonesdave
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 23, 2018
I ask the question purely to gain a clearer understanding of your position.


Good luck with that!!
jonesdave
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 23, 2018
Lens-Like Action of a Star by the Deviation of Light in the Gravitational Field
Einstein, A.
https://pdfs.sema...c2bf.pdf

An interesting wee read.
Mark Thomas
5 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2018
jonesdave, I feel your pain here. I often wonder why some folks can't just simply read and reach the most logical, obvious conclusion. It is very tempting to think they lack the mental capacity, but I have to wonder if the real problem in many cases is they choose to ignore facts that don't fit with their own viewpoints because they are overconfident they are right, i.e., the fatal flaw of believing your own bullsh*t.

I see this all time in the more religious and political comments and sometimes wonder how some folks could be so incredibly obtuse and even survive, but it may be their hardware (brain) is just fine, but their software in these areas (viewpoint, philosophy) has been corrupted. These folks can still do everyday things, but when it comes to certain topics, their unwillingness to challenge their own beliefs mean they will never understand. Just thinking out loud here.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2018
Benni, could you please explain the motion of these stars to us?
.....motions of which stars?

All you seem to do is attempt persuade people that BHs do not exist


Take a look at http://ircamera.a...nter.htm , now tell me, in any of those IR images of the core of the galaxy do you see a BH there or even scant evidence of one? Do you know what I mean by EVIDENCE?

What would be EVIDENCE is an Accretion Disc. According to the theory BHs suck off material from nearby stars, resulting in a brilliant luminous very fat doughnut shaped disc that would be at least as bright as any of the nearby stars that can be clearly viewed as being within light seconds/ minutes/hours of one another at the exact center of the galactic core. It would also be far bigger than the biggest star in that region. Do you see anything like that?

Benni
1 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2018
.and this is nothing less than subjecting an Electro-magnetic wave to the Laws of of Physics for Kinetic Energy from which Escape Velocity Equations are derived for particles of MASS.


Benni, are you saying that EM waves - in this case visible light - do not follow a physical path prescribed by the curvature of space-time, that curvature being described by the mathematics of GR?


What does your question have to do with the velocity of an electro-magnetic wave?

All of BH theory is reduced to just one hypothesis, that there exists at the surface of a finite stellar mass a field of gravity so intense that it can reduce the velocity of an electro-magnetic wave to zero.

OK 434, let's see the equations from Special or General Relativity for such a concept that gravity has ANY effect whatsoever on the velocity of an electro-magnetic wave? That concept came from 19th Century Cosmology that Einstein disproved in Special & General Relativity.

jonesdave
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 23, 2018
.......motions of which stars?


The stars orbiting the BH at the centre of the galaxy! Jesus Christ, it's like talking to a six year old. These stars: http://www.galact...ns.html. What are they orbiting? It is 4 x 10^6 Msun. What is it? Comprende?

The rest of your misunderstanding has been explained previously, and you are simply incapable of understanding it, so no point repeating it.
jonesdave
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2018
OK 434, let's see the equations from Special or General Relativity for such a concept that gravity has ANY effect whatsoever on the velocity of an electro-magnetic wave? That concept came from 19th Century Cosmology that Einstein disproved in Special & General Relativity.


I seriously don't think this bloke got past primary school, I really don't! Einstein showed that gravity affects light. I posted the link to the paper. It doesn't affect the velocity, I already told you that. It curves bloody space-time. When the mass responsible for the curving is below a certain threshold, it will make the light follow the shortest route. A geodesic. It causes gravitational lensing. When the mass is above a certain threshold, that curvature is such that the light can never escape. Nothing to do with slowing its bloody velocity! It is a dirty great funnel in space-time which light, even at c, cannot escape from.

mackita
1 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2018
Normal lensing is caused by changing speed of light (refraction index of lenses expresses the ratio of light speed reduced versus original one) - why the gravitational lensing should be different? Doesn't it rather slow down the light?
slrlw2017
5 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2018
Benni, could you please provide a hypothesis for the motion of the stars relevant to this conversation. I do not have any kind of qualification to interpret the images you linked to. I want to make it clear that I am not educated in cosmology or any kind of higher level physics. I am not interpreting any data or forming my own hypothesis on the topic. I do not hold any stakes professional or personal in whatever this phenomenon is. I am asking for you to explain the motion of the stars orbiting what ever Sgr A* is.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2018
Normal lensing is caused by changing speed of light (refraction index of lenses expresses the ratio of light speed reduced versus original one) - why the https://i.imgur.com/nDtkTkR.gif should be different? Doesn't it rather slow down the light?


Not really. It gets complicated in GR as to where one is observing the light. However, in simple terms, the light is just having to travel further due to the curvature of space.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2018
I am asking for you to explain the motion of the stars orbiting what ever Sgr A* is.
......it is obvious from the IR Imaging there is no single body SgrA*.

The motion of the stars in that region is simply the concentrated gravitational attraction created by a compacted grouping of massively large stars packed so close together that millions of those kinds of stars are within proximity of one another whose distances can be measured in light secs/minutes/hours of one another. Our Sun is 8 light minutes from Earth.

The IR Camera images are clear that there is no luminous accretion disc at the center of the core.

With so many millions of stars whose proximity is so close that a BH should have ample stellar material to feed from to create an AD, so why isn't there one? If there isn't an AD to hide the surface of a BH, the next obvious thing we would expect to see is a big huge dark blob bigger than any of the visible stars, the BH, but we don't see that either.
jonesdave
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 23, 2018
^^^^^^Anybody else losing the will to live? So, we can see the ~ 15 Msun star getting within 120 AU, of the mass, but, despite this mass being composed of 'massively large stars', we can't see those 'massively large stars'!!!! Why not? Are they dark stars? Are they playing hide and seek? Why are they invisible, but the titchy ones can be seen? Stay tuned for the next installment of the strange fantasies of Benniworld!
Benni
1 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2018
When the mass is above a certain threshold, that curvature is such that the light can never escape.


Jonesy, complete convoluted nonsense, but coming from someone who doesn't know the difference between Kinetic Energy & Electro-Magnetic Energy I'm anything but surprised.

There is no such thing as a curvature from which light can never escape. That's trying to apply the Laws of Physics for Kinetic Energy for particles of Mass to an Electro-Magnetic Wave that supposedly causes an EM Wave to do what? Travel continuously in circles like planets around a star?

jonesdave
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 23, 2018
^^^^^^^^Pointless conversation. You really don't get it, and never will.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 23, 2018
It is utterly pointless to attempt to discuss science with someone when they rely of pseudoscientific claptrap such as "curvature of space", spacetime, gravity monsters, faerie dust, and moving/frozen-in field lines. It's like the Spock luncheon at a cosplay trekkie convention.
jonesdave
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 23, 2018
It is utterly pointless to attempt to discuss science with someone when they rely of pseudoscientific claptrap such as "curvature of space", spacetime, gravity monsters, faerie dust, and moving/frozen-in field lines. It's like the Spock luncheon at a cosplay trekkie convention.


Science? What would you know about that? You believe EU woo which, by definition, renders you scientifically illiterate. Where was Saturn during the Mesolithic, by the way? What causes craters? What are comets made out of? What powers the Sun? Why are there volcanoes on Io? How did the Grand Canyon form? What about Valles Marineris?
Having explained all that, then point us to the science that explains it, and the evidence for it. That will not take long, boys and girls :)
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2018
Science? What would you know about that?
.........exactly, and I keep asking you how Kinetic Energy Escape Velocity Equations apply to an Electro-Magnetic Wave of Energy & I get:
When the mass is above a certain threshold, that curvature is such that the light can never escape.


So, are you gonna put the equations from SR or GR for that response, or just continue on another of your foul mouthed name calling rants? Actually jonesy, we know, name calling rants are much easier than science & math, you've been the perfect example of that.

jonesdave
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2018
^^^^^No dummy, I am not going to do your homework for you. I am not the one saying that a very large number of extremely well qualified scientists have got things wrong. You are the one doing that. If you think they are wrong, then you prove it, and you publish it. And don't forget to come back and defend your paper when the EHT results come in.
And what is up with these extremely massive invisible stars? Yet to hear how that's working. Got any maths for it? Or just some sh*t you made up on the spur of the moment because you couldn't explain the orbits?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2018
Where was Saturn during the Mesolithic, by the way?

Good question. Why did numerous ancient cultures consider Saturn to be such a prominent god if it were but a dot in the sky?
What causes craters?

There are multiple causes, one is electric discharge, as has been shown via lab experiment.
What are comets made out of?

Rock, just as they appear.
What powers the Sun?

Electricity, not sure why that's so hard to grasp considering we're discussing plasmas.
Why are there volcanoes on Io?

Due to the 3-million-amp electric current. The filamentary plumes are further evidence.
How did the Grand Canyon form? What about Valles Marineris?

The evidence, all of it, points to electric discharge.
jonesdave
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 23, 2018
^^^^Wrong on every single count, and not a jot of evidence either.

Good question. Why did numerous ancient cultures consider Saturn to be such a prominent god if it were but a dot in the sky?


Because some loon misinterpreted mythology, and can't understand the laws of physics.

There are multiple causes, one is electric discharge, as has been shown via lab experiment.


Nope. Ransom & Thornhill p*ssing about is not an experiment. They have no observation and no mechanism.

Rock, just as they appear.


Nope. Not a rock to be seen by multiple instruments. And an impact.

Electricity, not sure why that's so hard to grasp considering we're discussing plasmas.


Wrong. Nuclear fusion. Hence the neutrino flux. And a complete lack of a current. And a thermal spectrum.......could go on all night. Zero evidence or valid science covers it though.

cont.........

jonesdave
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2018
.........cont

Due to the 3-million-amp electric current. The filamentary plumes are further evidence.


Nope. Travels through the ionosphere. As expected. Caused by tidal heating, as Peratt would tell you.

The evidence, all of it, points to electric discharge.


No. Only if you are either stupid or scientifically illiterate. Or both. Which is why you won't find this crap anywhere scientific. Only on Velikovskian mythology based woo sites.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2018
@cantdrive.
Why did numerous ancient cultures consider Saturn to be such a prominent god if it were but a dot in the sky?
Didn't we name some planets after the Roman 'gods' (eg, Mercury, Jupiter, Pluto), not the other way round?
From @jonesdave: What causes craters?

From you: There are multiple causes, one is electric discharge, as has been shown via lab experiment. Tectonic dynamics cause 'rifts' all over the globe on land (Africa) and under oceans. I haven't seen valid realistic explanations for same 'due to electric discharge'.

So please be careful what you claim; and what you can substantiate objectively and tenably: just as I advise ALL scientists, mainstream or otherwise. That's the only way to arrive at a true understanding of reality....from ALL 'sides'.

Gotta rush of now. Cheers. :)
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2018
I am not the one saying that a very large number of extremely well qualified scientists have got things wrong. You are the one doing that. If you think they are wrong, then you prove it,
If you've actually been reading the script of my posts, I haven't addressed your icons, I've been addressing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE from here:

http://ircamera.a...nter.htm

..........pictures are worth more than ten thousands of words.

and you publish it
......it's already "published" as OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE here:

http://ircamera.a...nter.htm.......

Also I claim no credits for Einstein's publication trashing BHs found here:

http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

And what is up with these extremely massive invisible stars?
They're plainly visible in the IR pics. It's your proficiency in math & science skills that are "invisible".
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2018
ERRATA: In my haste to log out, I omitted some quotation formatting symbols and edits. Affected section remedied as follows:

From you (ie, @cantdrive):
There are multiple causes, one is electric discharge, as has been shown via lab experiment.
Divergent Tectonic Plate dynamics cause 'rifts' all over the globe on land (Africa) and under oceans. I haven't seen valid realistic explanations for same 'due to electric discharge'.

Also, various 'fault-line' water-flow erosion-paths-of-least-resistance can form humongous land canyons over millions of years and uplifts/ranges causing huge flooding rains to scour land on the way to lower level lakes/seas/oceans.

Cheers.
jonesdave
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2018
They're plainly visible in the IR pics. It's your proficiency in math & science skills that are "invisible".


Errrr, no they are not. You can plainly see the stars orbiting around 'nothing'. Absolutely no point lying about something that everybody can see for themselves. As the observations of the star in the above article show, there is absolutely no doubt that there are not multiple stars being orbited, as is easy to determine from its orbit. So, your invisible massive stars are just a cop out for your obvious ignorance.
I don't usually link to youtube stuff, but I would recommend watching this:
https://www.youtu...DH3x56eE
About 11:00 on is when it gets to the interesting bit, if you find the rest too taxing to watch.
jonesdave
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 23, 2018
.it's already "published" as OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE here:


Nope. Absolutely nowhere on that page is there evidence of any for your misunderstandings of basic astroophysics. In fact, Arizona Uni, who host that page, do a fair bit of work on cosmology, including black holes. You won't find anything from them that supports your bizarre beliefs.
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2018
..........pictures are worth more than ten thousands of words.


Not when you can neither understand the words nor the pictures, as you have made abundantly clear to everyone.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2018
Arizona Uni, who host that page, do a fair bit of work on cosmology, including black holes.
.......and have you noticed in their commentary alongside their pics that they clearly state they are unable to image the BH?

Neither the Accretion Disc or the BH, two objects, either of which would dwarf in size any of the massive stars at the core, but are just mysteriously invisible amidst the field of plainly visible stars.

Hey, jonesy, maybe ADs & BHs drag mystery clouds around & know exactly when an IR Camera is looking in their direction & they duck behind them? Maybe they're tipped off from Earth by flag signals from you so they too can become as "invisible" as your math & science skills.

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2018
Tectonic dynamics cause 'rifts' all over the globe on land (Africa) and under oceans. I haven't seen valid realistic explanations for same 'due to electric discharge'.

There was never any mention of rifts, and what's that got to do with cratering?
Also, various 'fault-line' water-flow erosion-paths-of-least-resistance can form humongous land canyons over millions of years

That's the only explanation given for Earth's canyons. However, canyons are ubiquitous on many rocky bodies in the solar system, that explanation is limited to Earth and possibly Titan, if it does in fact have liquid hydrocarbons. The physical evidence absolutely does not match that process for Venusian or Martian canyons.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2018
Didn't we name some planets after the Roman 'gods' (eg, Mercury, Jupiter, Pluto), not the other way round?

In nearly every myth, legend, or religion (including Christianity), the "gods" or god (the Sun in the case of Christianity) are celestial objects. You are completely wrong in your assessment.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2018
The physical evidence absolutely does not match that process for Venusian or Martian canyons.


And there is zero evidence for how an electric discharge would create such a feature. None whatsoever. It is merely a bunch of Velikovskian woo, based on his physically impossible tales of Venus doing handbrake turns around the solar system, and interacting with other planets.
Given the dirty great Tharsis bulge not far away, then the canyon is likely due to crustal splitting, and later erosion.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2018
Didn't we name some planets after the Roman 'gods' (eg, Mercury, Jupiter, Pluto), not the other way round?

In nearly every myth, legend, or religion (including Christianity), the "gods" or god are celestial objects. You are completely wrong in your assessment.


Sometimes. However, the likes of Velikovsky and Talbott take every mention of these gods to represent some celestial event. There is no justification for this. Particularly when such interpretations lead to breaking some pretty serious laws of physics.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2018
No "laws of physics" need be broken, just a Universe where celestial dynamics extend beyond the gravity only beliefs.
the likes of Velikovsky and Talbott take every mention of these gods to represent some celestial event.

They limit their claims to widely held archetypes that were established by many, many others. They only connected the dots. Bit why should we be surprised by your typical lies.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2018
No "laws of physics" need be broken, just a Universe where celestial dynamics extend beyond the gravity only beliefs.


There is no option other than gravity at those scales. And no scientific model to replace it. It most definitely does break the laws of physics.

They limit their claims to widely held archetypes that were established by many, many others. They only connected the dots. Bit why should we be surprised by your typical lies.


Not my lies, just your gullibility. Have a look at what former Velikovskian insider, C. Leroy Ellenberger says about Velikovsky and Talbott. It ain't flattering. Which is why nobody takes them seriously. Not other mythologists, not archaeologists, not physicists, not astronomers, nor Egyptologists....you get the picture. They just made s*** up. More fool those who fell for it.

jonesdave
5 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2018
From the aforementioned C. Leroy Ellenberger;

AN ANTIDOTE TO VELIKOVSKIAN DELUSIONS
http://abob.libs....elu.html

TOP TEN REASONS WHY VELIKOVSKY IS WRONG
http://abob.libs....ten.html

An Antidote to Dave Talbott's "Saturn Thesis"
http://abob.libs....dote.txt

Plenty more where that came from!
jonesdave
5 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2018
and have you noticed in their commentary alongside their pics that they clearly state they are unable to image the BH?


Yes, because it's black, you loon. And the EH is not able to be resolved with those telescopes, (Anybody else getting a sense of deja-vu, here?) which is why they are going to use the combined power of the EHT to see the EH. Which you don't have the cojones to make a prediction about.

Neither the Accretion Disc or the BH, two objects, either of which would dwarf in size any of the massive stars at the core..


More idiocy. The BH is black, you loon. The AD is not very active, but can be seen when it flares. For the squillionth time. The only massive stars we can't see are your invisible ones.
So, make a prediction D-K, what are they going to see? We're all waiting.

mackita
1 / 5 (2) Feb 24, 2018
What are they orbiting? It is 4 x 10^6 Msun. What is it? Comprende?
You seems to be too sure with everything - in similar way, like mainstream physicists. Such an attitude is calling for occasional punishing...;-) The objects in Universe actually never orbit each other - what they're doing is, they orbit common center of mass (barycenter). Typically the planets of solar system (including Sun) don't revolve the Sun, they always revolve the barycenter of solar system, which may exist well outside the surface of Sun. Which brings the question how the barycenter of very large massive systems like the Milky Way would look like and why the stars at the center of Milky Way shouldn't encircle the barycenter of Milky Way with no black hole actually existing there. Or some dense artifact can still exist there but it may be way less significant than the speed of S0 star would indicate - it would be actually just one of objects trapped by barycenter of Milky Way - not forming it.
mackita
1 / 5 (2) Feb 24, 2018
Not really. It gets complicated in GR as to where one is observing the light. However, in simple terms, the light is just having to travel further due to the curvature of space.
Well, the devil is in these details again. I know about this way of argumentation - so I drew the path of photons explicitly in my animation. The light is having to travel further (i.e. along longer path) even in my illustration - but macroscopically (from extrinsic perspective being more exact) it's just slowing down. Unfortunately it's just that extrinsic perspective what applies for description of gravitational lensing - not general relativity, which is solely based on intrinsic perspective instead. Don't ignore neither parrot the textbooks - just observe and think.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2018
You seems to be too sure with everything - in similar way, like mainstream physicists. Such an attitude is calling for occasional punishing...;-) The objects in Universe actually never orbit each other - what they're doing is, they orbit common center of mass (barycenter).


Err, I know that, and I'm damned sure the people who did the maths know that. Given the error bars, then the barycentre isn't going to make much difference when we are talking about, say, a 15Msun star orbiting a 4 x 10^6 Msun BH! We don't need, nor can we expect, absolute precision here. At that mass, there is nothing else it can be.

jonesdave
5 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2018
Don't ignore neither parrot the textbooks - just observe and think.


It just so happens that I studied GL quite a bit as part of a project on microlensing. So, thanks all the same, but I think I know what I'm talking about.
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2018
Speaking of microlensing, the central black hole of Milky Way is apparently missing some. Compare also Is M85 Missing a Black Hole?. Something maybe isn't right with black holes inside the mature galaxies.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2018
The objects in Universe actually never orbit each other - what they're doing is, they orbit common center of mass (barycenter).


Our galaxy has many smaller galaxies orbiting it, eg the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds. They are orbiting the same common center of mass & gravity as our Sun, the core of the galaxy in which is contained the most massive stars in the galaxy.

The IR Camera at http://ircamera.a...nter.htm is OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE of the absence of a single body object around which everything else in the galaxy orbits.

Lack of OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE of a single body as the center of galactic gravity/ mass creates a huge problem for BH Enthusiasts. so they make up fiction like this
More idiocy. The BH is black, you loon. The AD is not very active, but can be seen when it flares
as if anyone has ever seen a "feeding" BH at the center of the galaxy.
RNP
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2018
@Benni
The IR Camera at http://ircamera.a...nter.htm is OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE of the absence of a single body object around which everything else in the galaxy orbits.

Lack of OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE of a single body as the center of galactic gravity/ mass creates a huge problem for BH Enthusiasts.


As usual, you have completely missed the point and got it arse-about-face. The lack of an observable body creating the HUGE accelerations of the stars in the galactic centre that you keep referring to (e.g. http://www.galact...ns.html) is DIRECT observational evidence for the existence of the black hole.

RNP
5 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2018
Sorry, the links above should have read http://www.galact...ons.html
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2018
@Benni: In addition, some mysterious glowing still occurs there - from your link. If the central black hole allows massive bodies to fall deeply toward event horizon, its radiation would be heavily redshifted. That means, some object definitely sits there, we just don't know if it really looks like black hole predicted by general relativity.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2018
@Benni: In addition, some mysterious glowing still occurs there


What is "mysterious" about anything that glows in IR imaging where millions of stars are present? Just because there is a faint glow near where a 4 million mass BH was expected to be observed? In fact it is so small it is almost insignificant as an energy source as is pointed out in the comments next to the picture.

If the central black hole allows massive bodies to fall deeply toward event horizon, its radiation would be heavily redshifted. That means, some object definitely sits there,


So if it appears at the center of MASS/GRAVITY of the galaxy, why does that mean the faint glow that appears there must be a feeding BH?

Can you even comprehend the sheer SIZE a so-called FEEDING BH would create exactly where that faint glow appears that is really nothing less than another star? That faint glow would be dwarfed by comparison of it to a feeding BH.

mackita
1 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2018
What is "mysterious" about anything that glows in IR imaging where millions of stars are present?
It emerges and disappears again just at the common focal point of stellar paths all around there.
That faint glow would be dwarfed by comparison of it to a feeding BH
It all depends on the amount of matter feeding BH. As you already pointed out, no significant source of interstellar gas or falling matter (which could fed the BH) are there.
jonesdave
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2018
So if it appears at the center of MASS/GRAVITY of the galaxy, why does that mean the faint glow that appears there must be a feeding BH?


What the hell else would it be? A 4 million solar mass variable star? Variable in that it turns itself on and off when it feels like it?
Benni
1 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2018
It all depends on the amount of matter feeding BH. As you already pointed out, no significant source of interstellar gas or falling matter (which could fed the BH) are there.


......then why is the appearance of it so small?

We're talking here about an object that is a 3-4 million solar mass, a solar mass so HUGE in sheer size that the outline of it within the field of stars surrounding it would dwarf any of them in size. Yet all that appears at the MASS/GRAVITY CENTER is little more than a tiny red dot, almost imperceptible in SIZE? This is not the description of a 3-4 million solar mass object, the outlying boundaries of which would be the dominant feature in those IR photos having the appearance of a looming giant black blob in the absence of an accretion disc.

Start focusing your thinking on the SIZE of what actually appears in those IR photos. Print out a copy of any of those pictures & draw in a scaled size of the 3-4 million solar mass BH.

jonesdave
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2018
It all depends on the amount of matter feeding BH. As you already pointed out, no significant source of interstellar gas or falling matter (which could fed the BH) are there.


That is where Benni is struggling. Well, not the only place actually, just one of many. It seems that he believes that every SMBH must be an AGN, voraciously devouring umpteen solar masses per day! Whereas, estimates for our friendly neighbourhood SMBH put its frugal diet at somewhere between 2 x 10^-7 and 2 x 10^-9 solar masses per year.

A powerful flare from Sgr A⋆ confirms the synchrotron nature of the X-ray emission
Ponti, G. et al
https://arxiv.org...3410.pdf

That is an interesting paper on the observation of a flare simultaneously in x-ray and NIR.

jonesdave
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2018
Print out a copy of any of those pictures & draw in a scaled size of the 3-4 million solar mass BH.


What is its radius? Make something up if you can't work it out.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2018
As you already pointed out, no significant source of interstellar gas or falling matter (which could fed the BH) are there.
.............I have pointed out no such thing, in fact just the opposite.

An object an estimated 44 million km (27 million miles) in diameter would be anything that would be all but imperceptible. Every star of the closest imagery that is viewed at the core would be dwarfed by the looming presence of a black disc right where the only thing that is seen is a tiny faintly glowing blob, a blob so small in SIZE that it cannot possibly be the outline of an object 44 million km/27 million miles in diameter.

C'mon here, queue some scales of comparison here. Take a look at that tiny red blob at the center & it is obvious it is not a 44km/27miles million diameter size object.

Benni
1 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2018
What is its radius? Make something up if you can't work it out.


Jonesy, I'll try not to let the math be over your head here, but let's give it a go:

0.5 x 44 million km diameter = 22 million km radius.

0.5 x 27 million mile diameter = 13.5 million miles

.......by comparison jonesy, do you know what the radius or diameter is of our Sun?

For future reference jonesy, it is ALWAYS safe to assume the radius of a sphere is half it's diameter.

By comparison jonesy, do you know the radius is of our Sun?
RNP
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 24, 2018
@Benni
An object an estimated 44 million km in diameter would be anything that would be all but imperceptible. Every star of the closest imagery that is viewed at the core would be dwarfed by the looming presence of a black disc

AGAIN, YOU SPEW THE SAME NONSENSE!!!!

Let me explain it to you again. Leaving aside the issue of luminosity that @jonesdave has been trying to explain to you, 50 million km at a distance of 25,000 lyr (25,000 TRILLION km) implies tan(A) = 0.0000000002 (A is the angle subtended), equivalent to an angle of 0.00004 arcsec. This angle is MASSIVELY below the resolution of all current optical/IR telescopes which achieve at best 0.05 arcsec. So, your repeated claim that the object would be large in these images is COMPLETELY false and demonstrates your lack of understanding of the subject. The fact that I have had to point this out to you many times, and you still refuse to accept it, means you are either unwilling or unable to understand real science.
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2018
This angle is MASSIVELY below the resolution of all current optical/IR telescopes which achieve at best 0.05 arcsec
Well, not so massively already, once the modern telescope arrays get considered..
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2018
and you still refuse to accept it, means you are either unwilling or unable to understand real science.


No, it means I know you're wrong & the IR pics are right.

Hey, Mr freelance journalist, do you even know how much bigger the hypothesized Accretion Disc is in comparison to the BH? Five times. Do you even know that the AD is hypothesized to cover only about half the surface area of the BH itself?

According to you BH accolytes , the two biggest cosmic structures in the galaxy are INVISIBLE due to:
50 million km at a distance of 25,000 lyr (25,000 TRILLION km) implies tan(A) = 0.0000000002 (A is the angle subtended), equivalent to an angle of 0.00004 arcsec
.......so if you think this means anything, how did the IR camera take all those CLEARLY visible images of all those stars at the galactic core but manage to miss the massively greater imagery of a BH or AD? Maybe they're just too big for the IR imagery technology employed to take the pics?

Benni
1 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2018
An 8-chip mosaic CCD camera was built in Poland and shipped to Chile. OGLE-III (2001–2009) was primarily devoted to detecting gravitational microlensing events and transiting planets in four fields: the Galactic Bulge, the constellation Carina, and toward both Magellanic Clouds.

This camera sees clearly right through the unimpeded dust free observational ports of Baade's Window directly to the galactic core in the wavelength of visible light, thus making even more trash of this dumb assertion:
50 million km at a distance of 25,000 lyr (25,000 TRILLION km) implies tan(A) = 0.0000000002 (A is the angle subtended), equivalent to an angle of 0.00004 arcsec. This angle is MASSIVELY below the resolution of all current optical/IR telescopes which achieve at best 0.05 arcsec.


You freelance journalists are just so typically completely behind the times when it comes to being up to date in technology.

Benni
1 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2018
http://ircamera.a...nter.htm

.........and just look at all the imagery of individual stars as they are packed ever so tightly into the core of the galaxy right next to the below caption I copied & pasted:

"Ever increasing resolution in infrared images showed the black hole is not the energy source. The brightest source in the very high resolution near infrared image to the right is IRS 7, a red supergiant that puts out most of its energy in the near infrared. The other bright stars are also very young and massive. The blue-appearing ones in the center of the image are a unique clustering of very luminous, massive stars. Any black hole must be invisible. (image from Gemini Project). If the black hole dominated the energy of the Galactic Center, it would be the second brightest source in the infrared image."

Hey, Rguy, care to re-explain that "resolution" thing you're so hung up on as being the reason a BH can't be seen?

Benni
1 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2018
Or maybe Rguy you would look at this X-ray image of the galactic core that is immediately below the IR pic
I pointed out in theabove Comment. Explain to us why there isn't a field of X-rays present here that would be the most physically dominating structure in the Xray wavelength.

http://ircamera.a...nter.htm

"Here is a very deep, high resolution (1 arcsec) X-ray image of the Galactic Center -- the source elongated up and down just above and to the right of the center is Sgr A*, but it doesn't stand out at all. Even in X-rays, where we look to find stellar black holes, there is nothing to draw our attention to a supermassive black hole here."
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2018
This is why pseudoscientific claptrap such as BH's, DM, gravitational waves, and the rest of rhe standard theory.
http://www.waking...ew-sham/
It's also the same reason my family and I stay as far as possible away from doctors and hospitals.
jonesdave
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2018
What is its radius? Make something up if you can't work it out.


Jonesy, I'll try not to let the math be over your head here, but let's give it a go:

0.5 x 44 million km diameter = 22 million km radius.

0.5 x 27 million mile diameter = 13.5 million miles


Lol. The bloke that claims to be able to do DEs can't even get a simple maths problem right! What have you done there, D-K? Doubled it or something? Show your working.

A little clue for the mathematically challenged:

Rs = 2GMbh/ c^2. Using the Mbh as 4 x 10^6 Msun, where Msun = 2.0 x 10^30 kg, and G and c as their usual values (except maybe in Benniworld), then I get ~1.2 x 10^10 m = 12m km. The diameter (2 x r) would be close to Benni's guess, but we aren't talking diameter here. So fail, basically.
And the radius of the Sun is ~ 700 000 km. So, Rs = ~ 17 Rsun. And it's black. And it isn't feeding much. So, no, we wouldn't see much.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2018
This is why pseudoscientific claptrap such as BH's, DM, gravitational waves, and the rest of rhe standard theory.
http://www.waking...ew-sham/
It's also the same reason my family and I stay as far as possible away from doctors and hospitals.


Yep, Brendan Murphy - spiritualism, UFOs and aether. Ticks all the right crackpot boxes. You're right to avoid the medical profession. Do you know what 'sectioning' means?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2018
Ad hominem attacks, jonesdumb's M.O. He's got nothing else.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2018
Ad hominem attacks, jonesdumb's M.O. He's got nothing else.


Nope. I looked on the interweb, and found out he's into spiritualism, aether and UFOs. That is crankery in most people's books. Sure as hell has nothing to do with science.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2018
An 8-chip mosaic CCD camera was built in Poland and shipped to Chile. OGLE-III (2001–2009) was primarily devoted to detecting gravitational microlensing events and transiting planets in four fields: the Galactic Bulge,....


I almost missed this idiocy! OGLE is part of the worldwide microlensing network. To cut to the chase; firstly, these are not big telescopes, ~300mm iirc. Secondly, OGLE was looking at the bulge, not the disk. And thirdly, it can see stars there because a foreground star passes in front of a more distant one. Even if the foreground star is unresolvable, it can still cause the background star to be magnified up to thousands of times.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with observing a BH in the centre of the disk.

mackita
1 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2018
I think, that @Benni's on the right track, even mainstream scientists are already aware, that SagA* is behaving strangely - but existing evidence for anomalous behavior of Sag A* or even deep revision of black hole models is still insufficient, as it can be still explained classically.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2018
Nope. I looked on the interweb, and found out he's into spiritualism, aether and UFOs.

And Newton was into alchemy and the occult, what difference does it make what ones hobbies may be? It also doesn't disregard the several different lead editors he quotes. As mentioned, all you ever present as a challenge is a logical fallacy.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2018
Nope. I looked on the interweb, and found out he's into spiritualism, aether and UFOs.

And Newton was into alchemy and the occult, what difference does it make what ones hobbies may be? It also doesn't disregard the several different lead editors he quotes. As mentioned, all you ever present as a challenge is a logical fallacy.


Really? So please point me to his publications. I'm not reading crank websites.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2018
I think, that @Benni's on the right track,............


I think that Benni hasn't got a clue, and is saying nothing that wasn't already known - that is, that the SMBH in our galactic centre is rather quiescent.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2018
what should be the most luminous structure in the galaxy, the ACCRETION DISC
Why should it be so luminous? It's very small. As you've been told over and over and over again, @Lenni.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2018
Do you know what 'sectioning' means?

My father use to do that when he was cutting cattle. You're part of the herd, and I'm just fine that my family and I are not.
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2018
Do you know what 'sectioning' means?

My father use to do that when he was cutting cattle. You're part of the herd, and I'm just fine that my family and I are not.


Nope. I'm part of that section of society who are smart enough to know BS when we see it, and to make informed judgements thereon. You, on the other hand, are part of the uneducated, gullible hordes who latch on to all sorts of pseudoscientific rubbish, because you don't have the ability to see it for what it is. Astrology, homeopathy, EU, magic crystals, Velikovsky, UFOs..........you name it. They've all got plenty of adherents, and not a jot of evidence between the lot of them. That is called faith, my boy.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2018
I'm part of that section of society who are smart enough to know BS when we see it and to make informed judgements thereon.

Yep, like dark matter, dirty snowballs, scary gravity monsters, frozen-in fields, among others. The irony is your herd based group think justifies this nonsense.
jonesdave
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 25, 2018
^^^^^Nope, evidence justifies it. Unlike your scientifically impossible and unevidenced beliefs. Which all come back to Velikovsky's mythology based woo, eventually.
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 25, 2018
@RNP,

.....equivalent to an angle of 0.00004 arcsec. This angle is MASSIVELY below the resolution of all current optical/IR telescopes which achieve at best 0.05 arcsec.


Correct. The VLT infrared telescope can resolve down to ~ 0.04 as (40 mas).
http://www.eso.or...eso0330/ (footnote [3].

The VLBI EHT is/ will be able to see down to ~ 0.000010-20 as (10-20 micro as).
https://public.nr...t/#item1 (point 2)
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Feb 25, 2018
@Beni: The contemporary people just have born under belief that black hole exist despite that they never saw any. You shouldn't convince such a people about opposite until you've not robust evidence - they will not doubt but backfire you and in its consequences your effort will get counterproductive.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2018
@macurinetherapy confuses belief with theory and evidence again.

Even Newtonian TUG predicts black holes. Just as it predicts that light is bent by gravity.

As for evidence, stars move in orbits, and the orbits of the stars around the galactic center are diagnostic of a black hole.

It has nothing to do with "belief." Now stop your urine therapy BS.
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Feb 25, 2018
@macurinetherapy confuses belief with theory and evidence again.
Interestingly I pointed to exactly the same thing: so far the black holes are just a theory, the direct evidence is still missing. Now we can talk about black hole complementarity again at the cognitive level: we both argue by the same argument, despite our local conclusions of this argument are exactly the opposite. You're theorizing, that the claims that black holes are still a theory are also theory.
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Feb 25, 2018
In this sense our local causal time arrows got inverted each other.
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Feb 25, 2018
In this regard the following comment may be illuminating the situation a bit: the black holes don't look and behave like black holes, once we are observing them from proximity - for example in context of the same galaxy, in which they're residing. Which is just the case of Saggitarius A*. In dense aether model the event horizon behaves like any other gradient and it tends to disappear once we emerge inside it (the another question is, if we could do it without punishment). My conclusion is, the space-time inside the galactic bulge behaves a bit differently, once it gets observed from distance. The massive objects residing inside it would collapse if we would lift them at distance and vice-versa: we wouldn't survive inside the galactic bulge, because we would get evaporated there - despite that objects formed there are behaving less or more normally.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2018
Even Newtonian TUG predicts black holes.


Oh for sure TUG did, 19th Century Cosmology applying the Laws of Physics for Kinetic Energy (1/2mv²) to an Electro-magnetic.

Neophytes like you are so frozen in time you're still unable to extricate yourself from Newtonian TUG & move forward into the 20th Century of Special & General Relativity in which Einstein proved an electro-magnetic wave is not subject to 1/2mv².

When you've never sat in a college classroom & taken 1st & 2nd semester physics, how would you know the distinction between the two classes of energy of Electro-magnetic Energy vs. Kinetic Energy, and this is where you & the jonesies remain forever stuck.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2018
Look & read, 21st Century imaging technology outdating 20th century imaging technology you neophytes refer to above. In the picture next to the caption I copied & pasted below, are images of red supergiants up to 1000 times the radius of the Sun & blue giants up 100, right at the galactic center.

http://ircamera.a...nter.htm

"Ever increasing resolution in infrared images showed the black hole is not the energy source. The brightest source in the very high resolution near infrared image to the right is IRS 7, a red supergiant that puts out most of its energy in the near infrared. The other bright stars are also very young and massive. The blue-appearing ones in the center of the image are a unique clustering of very luminous, massive stars. Any black hole must be invisible. (image from Gemini Project). If the black hole dominated the energy of the Galactic Center, it would be the second brightest source in the infrared image."

Benni
1 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2018
With 21st Century IR imaging technology that I've linked to above which clearly shows the stellar discs of super giant red & blue stars at the galactic core, the question becomes the same question posed at the IR Camera website: Where is the BH?

So where is the EVIDENCE for an object that would have a radius dwarfing that of the biggest super red IRS 7? It wouldn't matter if there were no "feeding accretion disc" hiding it, if there were the AD would be 5 times the radius of the BH which in itself is 22 million km radius/ 13.5 million miles.

IRS 7 being in the range of about 1000 times the radius of the SUN would be 1000 x 432,288 mi = or 1000 x 1,390,000 km. So where by comparison is there another object in side that core cluster even close to matching these numbers that would be indicative of a BH that would dwarf IRS 7? The OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE is zero as is posted within the caption next to the picture a bunch of you claim can't exist due to RESOLUTION.

Benni
1 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2018
what should be the most luminous structure in the galaxy, the ACCRETION DISC


Why should it be so luminous? It's very small.
Really schneibo? So you think TOO small is 5 times the size of a BH itself which is the typically accepted size of an accretion disc in relation to it's parent BH?

So here we have at the core of our galaxy, a supposed BH that is 44 million km / 27 million miles in diameter, add to that an AD 5 times that size but it's too small to see from 26000 light years distance using the IR Imaging here:

http://ircamera.a...ter.htm.

Schneibo, why is it that the super red giant image of IRS 7 in the IR pic from the above site is so clearly visible, yet is smaller than either the BH or AD that is supposedly located within light hours or even light minutes distance of IRS 7, yet somehow the BH & AD escape any trace of imagery?

Maybe the BH & AD are too big to be seen, right schneibo?

jonesdave
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 25, 2018
So here we have at the core of our galaxy, a supposed BH that is 44 million km


Wrong. As shown. Your maths is crap. Want me to take you through it?
jonesdave
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 25, 2018
........in which Einstein proved an electro-magnetic wave is not subject to 1/2mv².


So, why did he predict gravitational lensing?
jonesdave
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 25, 2018
Q: So, why can't we see a black hole?
A: It's black.

Q: Why can't we see the AD in IR, for the most part?
A: Because it is rarely feeding, and is emitting mostly non-thermal radiation.

Q: Why can we see stars at that distance?
A: Don't know for sure, but likely due to being thermal emission + long exposure time.

Would be happy to e-mail anyone that Benni nominates to get an answer to the latter, and take an image of any reply and post it online for all to see.

Anything else?
jonesdave
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 25, 2018
The OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE is zero as........


Wrong. Again. Shall I link all the papers with evidence? Could take a while, and it's quiz night tonight. Maybe tomorrow.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Feb 25, 2018
Q: So, why can't we see a black hole?
A: It's black.

Q: Why can't we see the AD in IR, for the most part?
A: Because it is rarely feeding, and is emitting mostly non-thermal radiation.

Q: Why can we see stars at that distance?
A: Don't know for sure, but likely due to being thermal emission + long exposure time.

Would be happy to e-mail anyone that Benni nominates to get an answer to the latter, and take an image of any reply and post it online for all to see.

Anything else

Isn't that convenient? A physically impossible mathematical entity which is not observable, conveniently quiet, and is not falsifiable. Sounds so sciencey!
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2018
so far the black holes are just a theory, the direct evidence is still missing.
What's "just a theory" mean? A theory is as solid as science gets. Also, the direct evidence is the orbits of a bunch of stars around an invisible mass.

Now, you can call that mass what you like; most people call it a "black hole." So basically you either told or repeated two lies, don't know what a theory is, and don't know what evidence is. We can discuss what that's evidence of if you like.
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 25, 2018
Isn't that convenient? A physically impossible mathematical entity which is not observable, conveniently quiet, and is not falsifiable. Sounds so sciencey!


You've obviously not been concentrating. They can detect it through its gravitational effects on stars that orbit it. And when it occasionally flares. And, hopefully, will see the event horizon with the EHT. Far more visible than the current powering the non-existent electric sun!
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2018
Just to set the record straight, the current best estimates place the mass of the black hole at very nearly 4 million solar masses; one study says 4.31 and the other says 3.7. The very most recent has the BH mass at 3.6 and the mass of the accretion disk and associated material at 1 solar mass or so.

The Schwartzchild radius of a 4 million solar mass BH is smaller than the orbit of Mercury around our Sun. The accretion disk is estimated at around 5 times that radius. This puts it within the orbit of Venus. At a distance of 26,000 light years, this makes the angular size of the accretion disk 50 microarcseconds and the Schwartzchild radius 10 microarcseconds. These are respectively 0.00005 and 0.00001 arcseconds; with our best resolution being on the close order of 0.05 arcseconds this is thousands of times smaller than anything we can see. @RNP is correct. @macurinetherapy and @LennitheLiar are trying to bamboozle everyone by confusing milliarcseconds with microarcseconds.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2018
So these individuals are off by a factor of 1,000 and as usual #sciencecrankscantcount.
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Feb 25, 2018
By the time scientists will crawl civilization with illogical and false theories of Einstein. All he could not explain in the universe, he made some formulas and performed "thought experiments," and thus with those "vomits" contaminated science, which still can not recover from these "Einstein pesticides".
First, we need to know the structure of the universe and the sequence of the process of forming matter from the substance AETHER, which is filled with an infinite universe. In this order of formation of matter, from subatomic particles to clusters of galaxies, this does not include processes of formation of black holes. They are formed by a reverse sequence of processes, when the already formed matter should be transformed back into the form of Aether from which it is formed. These places are black holes. This star, SO-2, if it really exists, is directed to a black hole, as well as others to billions of stars.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2018
The OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE is zero as........


Wrong. Again. Shall I link all the papers with evidence? Could take a while, and it's quiz night tonight. Maybe tomorrow.
.................WORDS on "papers" are not OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE, here is observational evidence:

http://ircamera.a...nter.htm

with our best resolution being on the close order of 0.05 arcseconds this is thousands of times smaller than anything we can see.
Wrong again Schneibo, the imagery in at the IR Camera site is evidence you are as clueless as the rest of the BH Enthusiasts living here.........it isn't hard to discern why your science skills have so little value in the 21st Century, you're still living in the world of 20th Century technology & the 19th century TUG Cosmology.
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 25, 2018
^^^^^^Wrong again, idiot. The orbits of the stars around the BH are damn good proof. As is IR, x-ray and radio emission from the ad. And the EHT should see the EH. Predictions? Or lost your cojones again?
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2018
..in which Einstein proved an electro-magnetic wave is not subject to 1/2mv²


So, why did he predict gravitational lensing?
.....so you think gravitational lensing was calculated using 1/2mv² ? I can see your problem.

Q: So, why can't we see a black hole?
A: It's black
............all around my office are things that are "black"; my printer, desk, keyboard, a jacket, guitar case, dulcimer case, and other things that are black that I have no trouble seeing. So what's your problem with seeing things that are "black"?

Q: Why can't we see the AD in IR, for the most part?
A: Because it is rarely feeding, and is emitting mostly non-thermal radiation.


Actually it's because they can't find a BH so it can be proven it doesn't have an AD.

Isn't that convenient? A physically impossible mathematical entity which is not observable, conveniently quiet, and is not falsifiable


CD, the IR Camera I've linked just above does in fact FALSIFY it.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2018
THE crucial question you (and all mainstream astronomers/astrophysicists) should be asking/answering for yourselves/themselves:

QUESTION:

Our MW's galactic "4 million-solar-mass" BH 'feature' should be Gravitationally-Lensing the Infra-Red radiation from the Far-side portion of the huge GALACTIC Accretion disc along our line-of-site....so why do we NOT 'see' this gravitationally-lensed 'IR signal' coming from the direction of where the BH is supposed to be 'located'?

It would be an IR signal 'source' that 'apparently' is 'not moving' (relative to the stellar IR signals/sources moving around the BH's 'location'.

Now, everyone, p-lease pause your personal name-calling and insults feuds, and just for nice calmly and politely consider and answer that question so that at least all 'sides' can come to a mutual understanding of reality instead of just perpetuating old and misleading 'arguments'. Thanks.

ps: I have to go out now; but will be back later today. Cheers.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2018
They can detect it through its gravitational effects

Ironically the same can be said aboit the spiraling magnetic fields measured by Ulysses near the solar pole. NASA created the diagram which descibed these fields yet you are still a denialist.
https://smd-prod....ield.jpg
Don't forget, those magnetic fields cannot be created without electric currents.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2018
@LennitheLiar, the Rayleigh criterion depends on the wavelength as well as the aperture. Now, the real question is, can you calculate the aperture of a telescope needed to see something 0.00005 arcseconds wide, in the NIR spectrum?
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2018
It would be an IR signal 'source' that 'apparently' is 'not moving' (relative to the stellar IR signals/sources moving around the BH's 'location'.
.............OK, that may indicate something. Do you see such a "not moving" IR signal source?

Go to: http://ircamera.a...nter.htm and count down to the 7th frame of pictures which shows the image of IRS 7. I can't quite discern the position where SgrA is supposed to be located in proximity IRS 7 except that it is a short distance to the left in the pic where a very tiny red fuzzy image appears, maybe you can figure out which tiny red image they're referring to.

Benni
1 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2018
@LennitheLiar, the Rayleigh criterion depends on the wavelength as well as the aperture. Now, the real question is, can you calculate the aperture of a telescope needed to see something 0.00005 arcseconds wide, in the NIR spectrum?


Schneibo, find something else to rant about, you're just all bent out of shape because of this:

http://ircamera.a...nter.htm

........and I would believe these pics before trusting in your lying eyes.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2018
@RC, these types of events are very rare for any single star we can see. One star must pass directly between the distant source and Earth. Surveys are required; one doesn't just look at a single star, but thousands to hundreds of thousands of them, and to maximize detection one chooses a background with a high concentration of stars, like the galactic bulge. Even so a single microlensing event is detected very rarely.

Furthermore there is the fact that to see stars near the galactic center the exposure required may be longer than the microlensing event lasts and if it is then the event won't be detected because it didn't give sufficient integration time.

It doesn't matter how massive the lensing object is; what matters is its size.

[contd]
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2018
[contd]
So, the answer is twofold: the chances of seeing a microlensing event for any single lensing object in a year of continuous observation is one in millions; and even if one happens, our current equipment isn't sensitive enough to see it.

Yet another @LennitheLiar fail.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 25, 2018
So you can't tell us the Rayleigh criterion to resolve the galactic center black hole in NIR. That's about what I figured, @LennitheLiar. If you can, then do it. If you can't, then you're lying again. Simple as that.

What we have here is someone who claims to be able to "solve" PDEs yet can't handle a first degree algebraic equation to get a simple solution.

The equation is
R = λ/B

It's got a fraction in it; that's what @Lenni's problem is, he can't do fractions.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2018
Oh, and @RC, I forgot one: the apparent size of the lensed object depends on the distance of the lensing object from us. The apparent size of the lensed image is a few times (ten times at most) the apparent size of the lensing object. If we can't resolve the lensing object by a factor of thousands, we'll never be able to resolve the image either.

In microlensing searches we're looking at stars within a few thousand light years. At 26,000 light years lensing from the galactic center BH is not detectable with our current equipment.

I gave you a 3 for at least asking a reasonable question; you didn't get a 5 because you're back to the habit of claiming someone's wrong because they were mean to someone.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2018
Keep it up, @LennitheLiar, and I'll go find the last 10 threads you posted on and 1 every single post.

If you don't like 1s then don't make ignorant brain dead claims and then fail to back them up when challenged. Learning fractions would help. Do they have adult special education classes for that?
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2018
@Da Schneib.

Thanks for your polite response to my question, mate. :)

Although your post was informative (as far as it went), unfortunately you misunderstood my question. It wasn't 'microlensing of INDIVIDUAL stars' IR radiation, but rather the BH-gravitationally-lensed IR radiation from the FAR-SIDE PORTION of the HUGE GALACTIC ACCRETION DISC (not near-BH puny/faint accretion disc) that the question was about.

Can you address that and give me your own 'explanation' of why we don't 'see' THAT signal (which should be very bright, reasonably constant brightness, and practically 'stationary' relatively 'central' to the pattern of non-stationary IR-signal sources of the moving stars very near to the BH itself)?

Thanks again anyway for your initial response, mate. :)

ps: I will have to log out again soon; so if I miss your further response(s) today, I will check tomorrow. Thanks.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 25, 2018
@RC, microlensing of the type you're talking about only shows individual stars. I don't know what "HUGE GALACTIC ACCRETION DISC" you're talking about. It's made up of individual stars. Unless one of those stars passes directly behind the BH there will be nothing to see.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Feb 25, 2018
It is somewhat amusing how one can lead a horse to water, yet you can't make them think. Just take a look at this radio image;
https://apod.nasa...521.html
You can clearly see the electric motor driving the galaxy. The coils are clear, so is the dynamo and the perpendicular electric currents feeding the motor here;
https://www.nasa....ist.html
Horses, meet water. Just open your eyes and think.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2018
Can you address that and give me your own 'explanation' of why we don't 'see' THAT signal (which should be very bright, reasonably constant brightness, and practically 'stationary' relatively 'central' to the pattern of non-stationary IR-signal sources of the moving stars very near to the BH itself)?


RC.........I see the point that you're making that I didn't discern when I responded to your Comment. Basically you seem to be asking why there is no appearance of something like Einstein Rings around the perimeter of the disc of a BH that would clearly outline it, right?
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2018
@Da Schneib.
@RC, microlensing of the type you're talking about only shows individual stars. I don't know what "HUGE GALACTIC ACCRETION DISC" you're talking about. It's made up of individual stars. Unless one of those stars passes directly behind the BH there will be nothing to see.
The whole galactic disc emits copious amounts of IR radiation. If we look along the line-of-sight connecting Earth-BH-other-side-of-galactic-disc, we should see IR radiation passing the BH on its way to Earth from the 'far side' PORTION of the galactic disc 'opposite' to 'our side'. The 4-million-solar-mass BH gravitational lensing of such a vast region of galactic disc IR emissions would not be a 'micro-lensing', but rather a large 'signal' indicating the 'wall' of GALACTIC disc material/stars emitting IR radiation from a huge expanse of galactic disc 'combined sources' being gravitationally 'focused' for us to 'see'.

Do you see what I'm getting at? :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2018
@RC, they're point sources: stars. For gravitational lensing they have to pass directly behind the BH.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2018
@Benni.
Can you address that and give me your own 'explanation' of why we don't 'see' THAT signal (which should be very bright, reasonably constant brightness, and practically 'stationary' relatively 'central' to the pattern of non-stationary IR-signal sources of the moving stars very near to the BH itself)?


RC.........I see the point that you're making that I didn't discern when I responded to your Comment. Basically you seem to be asking why there is no appearance of something like Einstein Rings around the perimeter of the disc of a BH that would clearly outline it, right?
Right! Thanks. Any ideas why those IR images you linked to do NT show any signs of such?
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2018
@Da Schneib.
@RC, they're point sources: stars. For gravitational lensing they have to pass directly behind the BH.
Think about it: When we see DISTANT GALAXIES as a whole gravitationally lensed, we don't 'see' individual stars 'microlensed'; we see its OVERALL GALACTIC radiation emissions as a whole being gravitationally 'focused' for us to 'see'.

See?

Now apply THAT understanding to what we should be 'seeing' as our BH gravitationally lenses the VAST far-side of OUR galaxy's disc portion IR emissions AS A WHOLE across a vast region and not as individual stars.

Ok? :)
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2018
@RC, we can't resolve the stars in distant galaxies. We can in the galactic bulge of our own galaxy. The analogy fails.
RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2018
@Da Schneib.
@RC, we can't resolve the stars in distant galaxies. We can in the galactic bulge of our own galaxy. The analogy fails.
Not the 'central bulge'; it's the HUGE galactic disc 'far side' portion I am talking of. Ok? :)
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 25, 2018
Doesn't matter. They're still close enough to be individual stars. Galaxies are not thousands but billions of light years away. Our galaxy is only a hundred thousand light years across. You're pretending an ant is the size of the Earth.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2018
Basically you seem to be asking why there is no appearance of something like Einstein Rings around the perimeter of the disc of a BH that would clearly outline it, right?


Right! Thanks. Any ideas why those IR images you linked to do NT show any signs of such?


This is exactly the quandry that started me on this in the first place.

If there is an object of 4 million solar masses near where IRS 7 appears, why is there no outline of it whereby it blocks the field of vision to stars directly behind it, and correspondingly why no evidence of photon deflection of those stars.

We need to keep perspective in mind here, IRS 7 is a super red giant that could be up to 1000 solar radius in size. This star's radius could stretch from the center of the Sun almost to the orbit of Mars. SgrA with an accretion disc 5 times the size of it's parent BH would be almost the same size as IRS 7 & at least as brilliant, but not even a hint of such a presence.

Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 25, 2018
@LennitheLiar, do you see any background stars in that picture?

No.

Did it ever occur to you to wonder why not?

No.

You are an idiot.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2018
Here's something that just occurred to me: if the BH could microlens stars beyond it so could the other stars orbiting it. How come we don't see any of those microlensing events? I mean, if they're so common and stuff.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2018
@LennitheLiar, do you see any background stars in that picture?

No.

Did it ever occur to you to wonder why not?

No.

You are an idiot.


Oh schneibo, get over the fact that the 19th Century & it's decrepit BH Cosmology ended 120 years ago.

You & your TUG math became trash science on the day Einstein published his Special Relativity in 1905 whereby proving that gravitational fields have no effect on the velocity of an electro-magnetic wave. Since then, you BH Enthusiasts have been trying to apply the laws of physics of Kinetic Energy to an electro-magnetic wave which is nothing less than stylized TUG.

Hey, why is it when guys like you, jonesy, RNP, etc have such a proclivity for these name calling rants? I guess when you run out of math & laws of physics there not much else left.

Benni
1 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2018
Here's something that just occurred to me: if the BH could microlens stars beyond it so could the other stars orbiting it. How come we don't see any of those microlensing events? I mean, if they're so common and stuff.


The giant stars seen at the center don't have the gravity at their surface to create the lensing conditions you're looking for, your vaunted BHs have infinite gravity which is part of the problem RC & I are wondering about because there are no lensing effects seen anywhere in the photo frame near where IRS 7 appears that would indicate a mass with higher gravity that could out-micro-lens IRS 7, in other words no BH.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2018
@LennitheLiar lies again. Here's a lie:
You & your TUG math became trash science on the day Einstein published his Special Relativity in 1905
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2018
And another @LennitheLiar lie:
The giant stars seen at the center don't have the gravity at their surface to create the lensing conditions you're looking for
If a star goes behind them the surface gravity is irrelevant. Lensing will occur.

The question is whether you can see it with the instruments we have today and the answer is "no."

Now stop lying, bobbing, and weaving. It's embarrassing to watch.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2018
The Apollo missions to the Moon didn't use relativity. They didn't need it. The difference between TUG and GRT amounts to about two inches (5 cm) for that navigational task. Of much greater importance is that it's a three-body problem, which has no exact solution in any gravity theory, or for that matter the theory of any other force either. So much for TUG being obsolete. Apollo used celestial navigation and the first four terms of the three-body problem numerical simulation.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2018
More here: https://space.sta...ed-for-e See the edit on the second answer which discusses the use of the first four spherical harmonics from launch to lunar orbital injection and one additional tesseral harmonic for descent to the lunar surface and ascent back to the CM.

Doesn't sound obsolete to me. Just sayin'.
Ojorf
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 25, 2018
Benni, maybe you should make an effort to comprehend some of Einstein's articles instead of randomly quoting bits out of context. You consistently get his ideas terribly wrong. I don't even know you and I get embarrassed by the crap you come up with and attribute to Einstein.
Did you know there is a forum here (https://www.physi...ms.com), with real scientists, willing to explain things to ignoramuses like you.
I dare you to join the forum and educate yourself.
Start a thread on any of the crap you posted here, I dare you!
Do you want to learn something, are you even capable of learning?
Bet it won't happen.
I double dare you!
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Feb 26, 2018
Have you ever thought about how and where cameras and telescopes were placed? Is it possible to set them up so that they are directed toward the target object without changing the direction? Take into account the rotation of the Earth around your axis: 360.3600 / 24.3600 = 15, that is, for 1 sec, the dot on Earth turns around for 15 sec, the corners in the space. And when you take the shift around the sun and other rotations, Earth and telescope, can we know what we saw in the universe at such great distances. Try calculating what you see on the moon.
And the black holes and the stars that scientists "see" are just fatamorgans at a certain moment. Nothing is real. Even this shifted shift is not a consequence of the movement of light, and especially some movement through the network of complexity space time. You need to get rid of these fake theories !!
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 26, 2018
If Benni really works in a nuclear power plant, then I think the world has a right to know which one, so that they can live as far away as possible from it! Wouldn't want him cracking the casing with his mop!
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2018
Benni, maybe you should make an effort to comprehend some of Einstein's articles
OK ojo, take a page out of your own playbook of lecturing others & put your own advice to work, read this by Einstein & tell us you're smarter:

Albert Einstein- Oct 1939

On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses

Author(s): Albert Einstein Reviewed work(s): Source: The Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Oct., 1939), pp. 922-936 Published by: Annals of Mathematics Stable URL:.
http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

"The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality. The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light."

jonesdave
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 26, 2018
The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality.


Yawn. And actual scientists have known this for a long time. And you have had it explained to you numerous times. It is where GR breaks down. It is not real. There is no infinite density. There is no infinite gravity. How many times do we need to explain this?

mackita
1 / 5 (1) Feb 26, 2018
Event horizon is singularity too - why this singularity should exist and gravitational one not?
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Feb 26, 2018
It is where GR breaks down.
..........well then supposing you explain how "GR breaks down"? What are YOUR new Black Hole Laws of Physics that Einstein declared could not exist for this reason:

"The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality. The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light."

C'mon, you who manage to spend a whole year at Uni in Auckland but who can't remember whether or not if you took Differential Equations in High School algebra, or if it was during the one year you spent at Uni & refusing to tell us what curriculum you were enrolled in which you only lasted one year.

I sense another name calling rant coming up.......
434a
5 / 5 (7) Feb 26, 2018
@Benni

OK ojo, take a page out of your own playbook of lecturing others & put your own advice to work, read this by Einstein & tell us you're smarter:

Albert Einstein- Oct 1939

On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses

Author(s): Albert Einstein Reviewed work(s): Source: The Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Oct., 1939), pp. 922-936 Published by: Annals of Mathematics Stable URL:.
http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf


If you understand that paper then you understand the mathematical assumption Einstein made in setting out the problem. You should then be able to explain it and more importantly why it's [ [B] not [/B] a problem for his conclusion.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2018
It is where GR breaks down.
..........well then supposing you explain how "GR breaks down"? What are YOUR new Black Hole Laws of Physics that Einstein declared could not exist for this reason:

"The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality. The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light."

C'mon, you who manage to spend a whole year at Uni in Auckland but who can't remember whether or not if you took Differential Equations in High School algebra, or if it was during the one year you spent at Uni & refusing to tell us what curriculum you were enrolled in which you only lasted one year.


From the idiot that couldn't work out the Rs! Lol at the irony.
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Feb 26, 2018
The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily.
The Pauli exclusion principle would exclude it for fermions, but the black holes can be still formed by massive bosons (electroweak and quark stars formed by W boson / gluon condensate). In dense aether model the reason is deeper and it follows from deDuillier/LeSage shielding mechanism of gravity field (which mainstream physics doesn't care at all). The infinitely small body would nothing to shield.

The limits for black hole collapse follow also from general relativity itself, once we realize that for massive bodies the largest gravity/curvature of spacetime doesn't reside at center but at the surface of massive bodies.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2018
Just in case poor old Benni is running out of fingers and toes as he retries the Rs equation, here is some help for the hard of thinking:

Rs = 2GM/C^2
G = Gravitational constant (~6.67 x 10^-11)
M = Mass of BH ((4 x 10^6) x (~2 x 10^30 kg))
c = 3 x 10^8 m/s

2 x (6.67 x 10^-11) x (8 x 10^36)/ (9 x 10^16)
= ~1.2 x 10^10 m, = 1.2 x 10^7 km, = 12 million km.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2018
Just in case poor old Benni is running out of fingers and toes as he retries the Rs equation, here is some help for the hard of thinking:

Rs = 2GM/C^2
G = Gravitational constant (~6.67 x 10^-11)
M = Mass of BH ((4 x 10^6) x (~2 x 10^30 kg))
c = 3 x 10^8 m/s

2 x (6.67 x 10^-11) x (8 x 10^36)/ (9 x 10^16)
= ~1.2 x 10^10 m, = 1.2 x 10^7 km, = 12 million km.

......and this has WHAT (?) to do with Black Holes?
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2018
Just in case poor old Benni is running out of fingers and toes as he retries the Rs equation, here is some help for the hard of thinking:

Rs = 2GM/C^2
G = Gravitational constant (~6.67 x 10^-11)
M = Mass of BH ((4 x 10^6) x (~2 x 10^30 kg))
c = 3 x 10^8 m/s

2 x (6.67 x 10^-11) x (8 x 10^36)/ (9 x 10^16)
= ~1.2 x 10^10 m, = 1.2 x 10^7 km, = 12 million km.

......and this has WHAT (?) to do with Black Holes?


It's the bloody equation for determining the Schwarzschild radius! Which you must have used when I asked you to work it out previously! Which you got wrong. Probably because you didn't understand it.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2018
http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

If you understand that paper then you understand the mathematical assumption Einstein made in setting out the problem. You should then be able to explain it and more importantly why it's [ [B] not [/B] a problem for his conclusion.


........so if you think Einstein was such an ignorant savage, then you should FALSIFY it with your "B" argument as the cornerstone of your paper.

Then after you've FALSIFIED Einstein's "On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses" then you should work on FALSIFYING the absence of OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE that is confirmed in all those IR pics at :

http://ircamera.a...nter.htm

434a
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 26, 2018
http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

If you understand that paper then you understand the mathematical assumption Einstein made in setting out the problem. You should then be able to explain it and more importantly why it's [ [B] not [/B] a problem for his conclusion.


........so if you think Einstein was such an ignorant savage, then you should FALSIFY it with your "B" argument as the cornerstone of your paper.



No, you are not reading that correctly. There is a mathematical assumption that Einstein made in that paper. He didn't try and hide it, he believed it to be correct, he put it in the paper specifically so we could read it. It is critical to understanding how he arrived at his conclusion. If you understand the paper you should be able to explain the assumption and why it is so important. It supports your argument but it is an assumption. Given your reaction I don't really expect you to be able to explain it or its significance.
434a
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 26, 2018
Cont. Assumption is not a dirty word, it is perfectly valid to make assumptions as long as you can explain why you have done it and what impact it might have on your conclusions.
Einstein does exactly this, it's just the explanation is in the maths not the English.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2018
Event horizon is singularity - why this singularity should exist and gravitational one not?
That actually turned out to be a coordinate singularity that only appears if you choose the wrong coordinates. You get the same thing at the North Pole; you can move a few feet across the pole and your longitude appears to suddenly jump by 180 degrees. Nothing physically significant happens; there's no singularity there at all, it's just a matter of the coordinates you chose.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2018
@LennitheLiar still hasn't explained why

a) we don't see any microlensing events for the stars orbiting the BH
b) we don't see any other stars except the ones orbiting the BH

yet still keeps posting the same link like it means something. Typical #sciencecrank, ignores evidence it doesn't like.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2018
Here is how the event horizon is not a true singularity but a coordinate singularity: https://en.wikipe...urvature

In coordinate systems convenient for working in regions far away from the black hole, a part of the metric becomes infinite at the event horizon. However, spacetime at the event horizon is regular. The regularity becomes evident when changing to another coordinate system...


If @macurinetherapy knew anything about black hole physics, it would know that, so either it doesn't know anything about black holes or it's lying and spreading FUD again to disrupt the forum.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2018
@LennitheLiar still hasn't explained why

a)we don't see any microlensing events for the stars orbiting the BH


Sure I have, you simply need to take remedial reading lessons.......it's because there isn't a BH. capiche?

b) we don't see any other stars except the ones orbiting the BH
.......again, it's because there isn't a BH. capiche?

yet still keeps posting the same link like it means something. Typical #sciencecrank, ignores evidence it doesn't like.
.........poor Einstein, a "science crank" is that it schneibo?

Hey, how about if you be the one to FALSIFY:

Albert Einstein- Oct 1939

On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses

Author(s): Albert Einstein Reviewed work(s): Source: The Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Oct., 1939), pp. 922-936 Published by: Annals of Mathematics Stable URL:.
http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2018
it's because there isn't a BH. capiche?
Well, there's something there that the stars are orbiting that we can't see. But that's not the point. The point is, how come the stars themselves aren't lensing anything?

@LennitheLiar is obfuscating.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2018
Sure I have, you simply need to take remedial reading lessons.......it's because there isn't a BH. capiche?]


So, what is the invisible 4m solar mass object that is being orbited?

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2018
And yet again, @LennitheLiar reposts a link that's been refuted. @434a challenged @LennitheLiar to discuss the assumptions Einstein made in that paper and hasn't had any more response than I have. Just because you keep saying something, @LennitheLiar, doesn't make it true.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2018
Assumption is not a dirty word, it is perfectly valid to make assumptions as long as you can explain why you have done it and what impact it might have on your conclusions.


Ok, if you want to take that tact, then tell us why it should be assumed that a 3-4 million solar mass BH exists at the center of the galaxy when there is no OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for it? This IR imaging is lack of evidence such a stellar body exists:

http://ircamera.a...nter.htm

.....and please, don't try to tell me it's because it's black, I can look all around my office here & see all kinds of black things.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2018
No, @LennitheLiar, changing the subject is just more obfuscation. Tell us the assumption Einstein made in that paper. You're squirming @LennitheLiar.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2018
tell us why it should be assumed that a 3-4 million solar mass BH exists at the center of the galaxy


Errrr, we've been through this. Kepler, remember?
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2018
tell us why it should be assumed that a 3-4 million solar mass BH exists at the center of the galaxy


Errrr, we've been through this. Kepler, remember?

First you tell us we can't see it because it's black, now you tell us we can't see it because "Kepler".
mackita
1 / 5 (2) Feb 26, 2018
how the event horizon is not a true singularity but a coordinate singularity
Yep, with radiative time arrow and time dimension inverted in it. This isn't singularity at all... ;-)
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2018
@macurinetherapy, please point out the radiative time arrow and inverted time dimension in Kruskal coordinates.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2018

First you tell us we can't see it because it's black, now you tell us we can't see it because "Kepler".


Oh lordy. Kepler's 3rd law. Calculator here:
http://www.1728.o...er3a.htm

Orbital period of SO-2 =~ 16yrs
Semi-major axis = ~ 919 AU
= ~ 3 X 10^6 Msun.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2018
It should be noted in the equation above that the result is the combined mass of the star and BH. Given that the mass of the star is negligible compared to the BH, then we can ignore it.
mackita
1 / 5 (2) Feb 26, 2018
please point out the radiative time arrow and inverted time dimension in Kruskal coordinates
These coordinates lead to entropic paradox and they're physically nonsensical as the entropy is defined by motion of objects within space, not in spacetime. From Wikipedia:
. These coordinates have the advantage that they cover the entire spacetime manifold of the maximally extended Schwarzschild solution and are well-behaved everywhere outside the physical singularity.
What behaves well for abstract formal models and schematically thinking high school teachers may not behave well for real observable physics.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 26, 2018
@macurinetherapy fails.

Sorry, coordinate systems have nothing to do with entropy.

More FUD.

Let's review: you claimed that there is a singularity at the event horizon of a black hole. I pointed out that an appropriate choice of coordinates eliminates it, indicating it's a coordinate singularity, not a physical one. You tried to change the subject to time's arrow in order to obfuscate and I asked what that has to do with your failure to understand the difference between physical and coordinate singularities. You then tried to obfuscate some more with offhand references to entropy.

Utter fail, and indicative of your agenda, which is not to discuss or enlighten but to distract and disrupt. That's why I call you @macurinetherapy, in reference to another of your attempts at disruption.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2018
Oh, and probably best if you avoid trying to talk about black holes and coordinate systems since you don't seem to understand either one.

A coordinate system is not a "model." And you can't quantify observations without a coordinate system, so it's impossible to do physics without one. Apparently you don't think much of physics.
434a
4.2 / 5 (10) Feb 27, 2018

Ok, if you want to take that tact, then tell us why it should be assumed that a 3-4 million solar mass BH exists at the center of the galaxy when there is no OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for it? This IR imaging is lack of evidence such a stellar body exists: etc


I'm really not interested in baiting you Benni. All I have tried to do is determine if you are capable of understanding the subject at sufficient depth to be able to have a meaningful conversation.
That's not the case, you're still at the "gravity is a force" stage of understanding. It's nothing for you to be ashamed of; that's where most people's understanding stops.

If I'm wrong you can prove it simply, by answering my question. That would be great, we could then explore the subject in more detail.
mackita
1 / 5 (3) Feb 27, 2018
A coordinate system is not a "model." And you can't quantify observations without a coordinate system, so it's impossible to do physics without one. Apparently you don't think much of physics.
Apparently it's part of model, once you can choose it arbitrarily. My knowledge of physics is way better than yours - I know not only about the existing mainstream models, but also their weakness, because I also know about these alternative ones - so I can compare them. For example, the information paradox of black holes is apparently result of poor choice of coordinate system.
Ojorf
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2018
OK ojo, take a page out of your own playbook of lecturing others & put your own advice to work, read this by Einstein & tell us you're smarter


I'll take that as a no. You are not interested in understanding.

I win the bet.
Ojorf
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2018
The comments are a terrible format for an in-depth discussion, why not move it to the forum Benni?

You can start a thread on your favorite subject:

"BHs are BS"
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2018
tell us why it should be assumed that a 3-4 million solar mass BH exists at the center of the galaxy when there is no OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for it? This IR imaging is lack of evidence such a stellar body exists


I'm really not interested in baiting you Benni. All I have tried to do is determine if you are capable of understanding the subject at sufficient depth to be able to have a meaningful conversation.
you're still at the "gravity is a force" stage of understanding.
If I'm wrong you can prove it simply, by answering my question. That would be great, we could then explore the subject in more detail.


You answer your own question by FALSIFYING:

Albert Einstein- Oct 1939
"On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses"

Then FALSIFY: http://ircamera.a...nter.htm

What are you? Lazy? Maybe you don't know how to solve the Differential Equations Jonesy had in HS algebra?
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2018
What are you? Lazy? Maybe you don't know how to solve the Differential Equations Jonesy had in HS algebra?


Lol. This from the idiot who got the Schwarzschild radius wrong! And I already told you why we know there is a 3+ million solar mass object there. Kepler, remember?
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2018
You answer your own question by FALSIFYING:

Albert Einstein- Oct 1939
"On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses"

Then FALSIFY: http://ircamera.a...nter.htm

What are you? Lazy? Maybe you don't know how to solve the Differential Equations Jonesy had in HS algebra?


Hey 434, as a suggestion for you to FALSIFY either of the above, just say it is "black", that way you & jonesy could be on the same page because in the non-physics world of BH Enthusiasts anything that is "black" is invisible. There I solved your query without having to resort to Differential Equations like Einstein did in "On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses"

434a
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2018


You answer your own question by FALSIFYING:
etc
...the Differential Equations Jonesy had in HS algebra?


Benni, if you could do Differential Equations you could answer my question in a heart beat. What was the mathematical assumption Einstein used in that paper and why did he use it.

The sad thing is if you could answer the question you would have a significant piece of information with which to debate with your detractors.

I can tell you don't know it because you have never used or even mentioned it and therefore you can't do the maths.
But surely that's not an insurmountable challenge is it?
Just think, you could do something positive for yourself. You could actually learn DE's and then prove everyone who knows you can't, wrong. Admittedly you'd be doing it for all the wrong reasons, but so what, it would feel good wouldn't it?
Anyway, I don't want to upset you anymore than you already are, I look forward to the day we can discuss this again.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2018
Benni, if you could do Differential Equations..........


Getting the bloody Rs equation right would be a start!
Zzzzzzzz
5 / 5 (9) Feb 27, 2018
I often wonder why some folks can't just simply read and reach the most logical, obvious conclusion. It is very tempting to think they lack the mental capacity, but I have to wonder if the real problem in many cases is they choose to ignore facts that don't fit with their own viewpoints.....
I wonder how some folks could be so incredibly obtuse and even survive, but it may be their hardware (brain) is just fine, but their software in these areas (viewpoint, philosophy) has been corrupted. These folks can still do everyday things, but when it comes to certain topics, their unwillingness to challenge their own beliefs mean they will never understand....

Once a person has invested sufficiently in a delusion, it is very difficult to give up on it. For the less mentally stable, the delusion can be important in maintaining a form of sanity. Since delusions are quite fragile, they must be vigorously defended. Searching for logic or reason in such behaviour is pointless,
Zzzzzzzz
5 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2018
And so the "ignore" button was invented......
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Feb 27, 2018
Once a person has invested sufficiently in a delusion, it is very difficult to give up on it.

The same can be said on an institutional basis, only it is much more entrenched than individuals experience. Those same reasons are why the sciencism acolytes so rigorously defend their fanciful faerie tales of all things dark or black.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2018
But surely that's not an insurmountable challenge is it?


I guess it would be fair & transparent to examine that statement in light of this comparison:

Albert Einstein- Oct 1939
"On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses".....

....in which Einstein concludes black holes cannot exist.

Then comparing Einstein's conclusions to the OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE of:

http://ircamera.a...nter.htm

.....so tell me why ANYONE but dreamers would care about:
The sad thing is if you could answer the question you would have a significant piece of information with which to debate with your detractors.
.....the "detractors" are those who refuse to follow the FALSIFICATION of their bogus claim that there is a 3-4 million solar mass at the center of the galaxy. Einstein predicted there would never be such a single body found there & observational evidence proved it. FALSIFY it.

Ojorf
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2018
LOL

Just answer the question.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2018
Once a person has invested sufficiently in a delusion, it is very difficult to give up on it.

The same can be said on an institutional basis, only it is much more entrenched than individuals experience. Those same reasons are why the sciencism acolytes so rigorously defend their fanciful faerie tales of all things dark or black.


Yep, they defend it with evidence, something you wouldn't know about. Got any yet? Didn't think so. Any sort of working model would be a start. How many decades? Still nothing.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2018
Evidence of dark matter? Evidence of black hole?
Nothing but crickets....
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2018
Evidence of black hole?
Nothing but crickets....


Kepler. Do the maths. What is ~4m solar masses and invisible? Think of an appropriate name for it.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2018
Kepler. Do the maths

That's all you got, flawed maths beliefs as "proof". Contrary to your claims that "only" gravity operates at these scales it has already been falsified. Galaxy rotation rates falsify Kepler at these scales, do the maths and compare to observation! Electromagnetic forces operate here, there is no need for your fanciful gravity monsters or faerie dust.
jonesdave
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2018
Kepler. Do the maths

That's all you got, flawed maths beliefs as "proof". Contrary to your claims that "only" gravity operates at these scales it has already been falsified. Galaxy rotation rates falsify Kepler at these scales, do the maths and compare to observation! Electromagnetic forces operate here, there is no need for your fanciful gravity monsters or faerie dust.


Sorry? Point out the error with Kepler's third law, genius. And then tell us what this EM woo is. And what is the evidence for it?
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2018
Kepler. Do the maths. What is ~4m solar masses and invisible?
Yeah, pretty hard to miss, but it's "black" so it's "invisible" according to Jonesy Physics.

Think of an appropriate name for it.
Center of mass/gravity of the galaxy.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 27, 2018
@Benni, @jonesdave.
Center of mass/gravity of the galaxy.
Sorry Benni, but that doesn't explain it.

Such a 'barycenter' would be 'passive'; without 'locally effective' effects like accelerate/redirect near-BH core stars around it on extreme 'slingshot' type trajectories around 'center'.

CONSIDER: A planet in 'deep space'; far from any significant mass-gravity feature; it's own 'barycenter' is at the center of that planet.

If we could make an open tube through its center from one 'pole' to the opposite 'pole', a test mass in free fall, from the surface of one pole, would travel RIGHT THROUGH that planet's allegedly 'empty barycenter' region, and ALL the way to the opposite surface/pole!

Hence 'Galactic barycenter' would NOT be LOCALLY TRAPPING/RE-DIRECTING near-'BH'-orbiting core stars into such 'slingshot' trajectories/orbits (they would be 'oscillating' from one 'side' to the other equidistantly from 'center'.

See? It must be a 'locally active feature'. :)
mackita
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 27, 2018
milnik
2 / 5 (4) Feb 28, 2018
It seems that you are slowly coming to know the true cause of this phenomenon, related to the galaxy's spacing. You mentioned the "center of the masses" and "baricenter". Well, these two are the same concept. But do you know by what laws galaxies move. If you do not know, I will explain to you. First, Kepler's laws need to be corrected, in relation to the center of mass. Each system of celestial bodies has its own center of mass (baricenter), around which all the participants of that system move. If there are large masses in these systems, then it represents the center of the body mass that rotates around that body, but also the body with its system rotates around the common center of mass. Bodies in the solar system do not move by ellipses, they are carried out by the centers of the mass of the system.
milnik
1 / 5 (4) Feb 28, 2018
So the sun and the planets have a common center of mass around which everyone is rotating, but around the sun rotate planetary systems with their center of mass. So the Earth with the Moon has its center of mass around which it moves and the Earth (with two spins), and the moon. And their center of mass rotates around the sun. It's a complex movement that science does not know, and that's why you're now futile discussing something about science that has no idea. Why does our Moon always have one side facing the Earth? If you know that, it will be clear to you why the galaxies do this.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 28, 2018
Center of mass/gravity of the galaxy.


So, what is causing the permanent radio signature observed from that centre, as predicted by Lynden-Bell & Rees in 1971?
http://articles.a...000.html

And the occasional X-ray and IR brightenings?
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 28, 2018
Perhaps these two answers on Quora, from a physicist who studies BHs will help some of those with a misconception about barycentres:

https://www.quora...e-galaxy

https://www.quora...t-Borkar

The scientist in question:
https://astrotwee...-borkar/
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Feb 28, 2018
So the sun and the planets have a common center of mass around which everyone is rotating, but around the sun rotate planetary systems with their center of mass. So the Earth with the Moon has its center of mass around which it moves and the Earth (with two spins), and the moon. And their center of mass rotates around the sun. It's a complex movement that science does not know, and that's why you're now futile discussing something about science that has no idea. Why does our Moon always have one side facing the Earth? If you know that, it will be clear to you why the galaxies do this.


Yeah, you're right, sorry about the 1 star that was accidental, I thought it was jonesy I was clicking.

The problem jonesy is having with Kepler is because he has never taken 1st semester physics in college in order that he could be well educated enough to understand what is meant by the term Center of Mass/Gravity, he thinks it means SINGLE BODY, it doesn't.

jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 28, 2018
^^^^^^And I just showed you why the barycentre concept is WRONG. Learn to read.
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 28, 2018
The problem jonesy is having with Kepler is because he has never taken 1st semester physics...


Hmmm, well at least I did enough to figure out how to calculate the Schwarzschild radius. You demonstrably cannot. People in glass houses, and all that..................... :)
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Feb 28, 2018
what is causing the permanent radio signature observed from that centre

Electric currents and the central plasmoid.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 28, 2018
what is causing the permanent radio signature observed from that centre

Electric currents and the central plasmoid.


Hahahahahahahahha. Very funny. Try again. Or show us where this has been written up and calculated. My guess is you just pulled it out of your arse. Correct?
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Feb 28, 2018
And the occasional X-ray and IR brightenings?
.......our Sun does EXACTLY the same " occasional" things. You ONLY want to make a big deal about it because it comes from a location that has been identified as near the Center of Mass/Gravity of the galaxy that is conspicuously empty as pointed out by the Scientists who performed the IR Spectroscopy here:

http://ircamera.a...nter.htm

The Center of Mass/Gravity in picture frame 8 is located just below IRS 7 just about where there is a barely perceptible fuzzy red dot. If there were a BH there it would be about the size of IRS 7 & it's luminosity would pale IRS 7 to insignificance, all you need to do is read all the pictorial commentary next to all the pics & it's clear what the problem is, it proves Einstein was right, "On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses", you BH Enthusiasts just don't like OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 28, 2018
^^^^^^^^^^So why does it have a mass of 3-4 million Suns?
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 28, 2018
If there were a BH there it would be about the size of IRS 7 & it's luminosity would pale IRS 7 to insignificance


Wrong. As already explained.

jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 28, 2018
OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE.


https://journals....6.041015
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Feb 28, 2018
Or show us where this has been written up and calculated

The ironic part is plasmoids and electric currents are real plasma phenomena that we know for a fact creates these emissions (and the measured magnetic fields), whereas the black hole is a purely mathematical entity, 100% hypothetical, "invisible", and it defies the very same physics you use to conjure it up. It's truly laughable!
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 28, 2018
Or show us where this has been written up and calculated

The ironic part is plasmoids and electric currents are real plasma phenomena that we know for a fact creates these emissions (and the measured magnetic fields), whereas the black hole is a purely mathematical entity, 100% hypothetical, "invisible", and it defies the very same physics you use to conjure it up. It's truly laughable!


So, where is this plasmoid? And how is it causing the observed orbits of the stars around it? Please show us where this has been calculated.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Feb 28, 2018
So, where is this plasmoid? And how is it causing the observed orbits of the stars around it? Please show us where this has been calculated.
...........so where is the BH?..........http://ircamera.a...nter.htm

Tell us more about those Differential Equations you claim you took in your High School Algebra class.

jonesdave
5 / 5 (7) Feb 28, 2018
Tell us more about those Differential Equations you claim you took in your High School Algebra class.


Sorry? What is the Rs of a 4m Msun object? Care to try it again? Don't even need DEs to do that, and you still managed to stuff it up. Irony, much?
434a
5 / 5 (6) Feb 28, 2018
You answer your own question by FALSIFYING: etc


Benni what is odd is you are saying that GR is wrong and asking me to prove it right and you don't even realise it.

Schwarzschild's solution is mathematically correct. Note mathematically.

In your oft quoted paper, Einstein uses a mathematical term for a physical property of the Universe to state that the physical Universe behaves in a certain way.
That certain physical way ultimately prevents singularities from forming. That is the whole and singular point of the paper.

However, that term for the physical property of the Universe is not a constraint in GR.
It is an assumption about the state of the physical Universe that places a constraint on GR and arises in this paper.
It is an assumption because it is impossible, even now, to prove it experimentally.

Without this constraint GR, mathematically, produces a singularity. With the constraint it doesn't.

Cont.
434a
5 / 5 (5) Feb 28, 2018
Cont.
However, if BH's exist Einstein's original GR is correct.
If blackholes don't exist, then GR requires this modification i.e. GR is wrong, as originally written, and Einstein's modification is correct and GR requires this new term.

You are asking me to prove the original GR is correct by disproving this paper.
Again, you have no idea what that paper actually says.
You don't even realise what you are writing.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.