It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mathematician Claims Black Holes Don't Add Up!

page: 4
43
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 05:42 AM
link   
I have seen and read threads that have 100+ flags and yet are total rubbish,there isn`t enough flags for threads as this one.

I`m in awe.

Thank you to mgmirkin for starting the thread which brought Mr Crothers here to lay it out flat for anyone to challenge and to those with the knowledge that has and will participate positively.

Algebra dumb here,so I`ll bow while slowly walking backwards,but will watch and listen at the window concerning the math.

Mr Crothers in the email you received back from the International Journal of Theoretical Physics it said "The paper did not undergo technical
review and is not being declined for any technical error" that sounds strangely worded to me you said


The entire Editorial Board of The International Journal of Theoretical Physics, amongst which sits Roger Penrose, has acknowledged that two papers I sent it for publication, contain no technical errors.


but how I read it, its saying it wasn`t looked at to fault it or approve it for being correct,I mean how can they say its not being declined for any technical error,without looking at it technically?

I`m guessing that I dont understand what the process is concerning reviews?




posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is not only challenged by Crothers' findings. 

That the speed of light is isotropic was taken as a fact based on the presumed 'null' result of the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment. However, very compelling research by Professor Reginald Cahill at Finders University in Australia has revealed flaws in both the Michelson-Morley 1887 apparatus, and in the theory used to evaluate the obtained data. Cahill has very thoroughly reviewed a series of later experiments by others and he has also devised his own experiments, all in very good agreement. The 1887 experiment was after all not a 'null' experiment. The speed of light is anisotropic and the anisotropy appears to have a measurable direction in relation to a 3-space frame. The solar system appears to be moving through a 3-space at 420±30 km/s in the direction RA=5.5±2 hrs, Dec=70±10°S. Go here for the details: www.scieng.flinders.edu.au...

As if the above was not shocking enough, Cahill has recently published a research paper in which he is challenging the concept of 'Spacetime'. Go here for this paper: www.scieng.flinders.edu.au.... The concept of 'Spacetime' was the result of the efforts to devise a formalism which could accommodate the idea of the isotropy and invariance of the speed of light in vacuum. It appears now that Lorentz and Einstein were on the basis of the incorrectly interpreted Michelson-Morley experiment coming at the problem kind of backwards. 

The proponents of the 'Standard Model' are not amused. To dismiss Crothers was easy. No PhD, no affiliation, no kowtowing to the exalted and uncouth language. Just an Australian nobody. Cahill on the other hand is a full Professor at a respected University. But he is dabbling in fringe science instead of Mainstream Physics. And for some unknown reason, his papers are rarely seen in the major journals but are published in odd places. And he is never seen on the telly or in 'New Scientist'. Timid man. 

Could those two guys be right? Oh Dear God, please let my bedside alarm clock ring now. 



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by gps777
 


Dear gps777,

Thankyou for carefully studying my posts. As I have already remarked, people can decide for themselves when they have all the facts. Unfortunately the proponents of black holes and big bangs systematically suppress facts and are ignorant of many facts themselves, and refuse to accept the facts when dished up on a plate. They don't give people all the facts, deliberately, thereby denying their audience the opportunity to decide for themselves on the balance of hard evidence. That is academic misconduct. They just try to continually decide for us all and tell us all what's good for us, implying that we are incapable of understanding for ourselves - another falsehood. Meanwhile they make piles of money from the taxpayer on "research projects" that are destined to detect nothing because they are fundamentally flawed: misappropriation of vast sums of public money by orchestrated deception.

Concerning the language of the Editor in Chief of the IJTP, his is a bit of double-talk. You are right - he and the Editorial Board, which he represents, must have read my papers to know whats in them! Then they decided not to send them to review but instead to reject them, refusing to provide any further explanation, yet admitting that technical errors they did not find and did not rely upon for rejection. The real reason is that my papers completely invalidate their dogmas (black holes and big bangs), and so they don't want that inconvenient truth in print. So instead they suppress the facts, as usual. I regard that as scientific fraud.

But the truth will ultimately prevail, despite all attempts to silence the truth.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by MacATSMac
 


Yes I've been following Cahill's work as well, interesting stuff. We have quite a few black sheep in Oz in seems. Cahill claims the evidence of relativistic effects are a result of the "abandoned" ether concept and not from warped space time.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by MacATSMac
 


Interesting. I would hope that this work mentions Dayton Miller, who probably has the most comprehensive set of experiments proving the existence of an ether.

www.orgonelab.org...

Miller actually worked with Morley initially to help develop even more sensitive experiments.

Edit:
The first researcher he mentions is Miller, which is a good sign.

[edit on 16-9-2008 by SevenThunders]



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by S.J.Crothers

Thankyou for carefully studying my posts.

Its been my pleasure and must say has rocked my foundations in what I have taken for granted in believing blindly in what has been told as the truth,even though I dont have the knowledge to agree or disprove your math,this thread has been an eye opener.

I know of only one person if I was asked previously "do I know of someone who has the type of knowledge to verify or disprove Mr Crothers equations who is a member of ATS" (though must also tip my hat to SevenThunders now in this regard as far as I`m concerned),the one member has been on this very thread early on.(who I`ll leave nameless.)

I do not have to stretch my imagination at all to think of why others in the scientific Field especially if their pay relies on towing the line would be hesitant to engage you and especially publicly agree if they came to the same conclusion.The TPTB for what ever the reason beit financial,pride,control of the masses etc carry a weighty hammer in controlling those in important or influential positions (teachers etc).

Proving the Big Bang theory incorrect as you or anyone else has or tried,I can liken it some what to someone coming forward with absolute proof that Darwins Theory of Evolution is bunk,it would cause mayhem all round,so TPTB would have to silence them,or a new theory to explain why we are here would be needed,as in the Big Bang theory the masses are comfortable with it,so why take the rug from under them and leave them naked to come to a conclusion of why or how we exist,because people are comfortable with it,until they ask where the mass came from for the Big Bang to occur.

Well thats just me putting on my conspiracy hat on the matter anyway,while trying to think of motives for silencing the truth.


must have read my papers to know whats in them!Then they decided not to send them to review but instead to reject them

Yeah,I can imagine they just needed to see what it is you are/trying to disprove to reject it.

I also agree with all you wrote,though over quoting is frowned on here.



But the truth will ultimately prevail, despite all attempts to silence the truth.


One day Mr Crothers!

How many people sell out Daly to put food on the table,its a powerful tool.

squiz thanks for the posting the documentary,watching it now and its no wonder why Mr Crothers has gone through what he has done.Looks like I`ll be throwing out my DVD`s on the subject now.



EDIT-TPTB for The Powers That Be,for clarity,which I messed up

[edit on 17-9-2008 by gps777]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 02:07 AM
link   
EVENT HORIZONS

My previous posts have already given a sufficient number of facts to prove that the black hole is a fantasy. So it is really redundant to discuss other alleged features of the black hole. However, to complete the whole picture I return now to the question of the event horizon. We already know that it takes an infinite amount of time for any observer “outside” a black hole to verify the presence of its event horizon, and since nobody has been and nobody will be around for an infinite amount of time, the verification of the presence of an event horizon is impossible in principle. It therefore has absolutely no physical meaning. Nonetheless, let’s quickly review the usual arguments.

According to the black holers, a fixed external observer watches a material object in free fall towards the black hole. The alleged observer sees the alleged freely falling material object by the light emitted from it or reflected from it, of course. But we now ask, from where did the observer, the freely falling object and the light by which the latter is seen, all come from? Recall that Ric = 0 is a statement that there is no matter in the Universe, and recall that the Principle of Superposition does not apply in General Relativity. Clearly, it is impossible for an observer (which must consist of matter), a freely falling material object and light to be present in the empty spacetime of Ric = 0, by definition. The black holers, by thoughtless application of the Principle of Superposition (an inadmissible application of Newtonian principles to a non-Newtonian theory), merely insert the observer, the freely falling object and the light into the empty spacetime of Ric = 0, ad hoc, in violation of the field equations Ric = 0. Recall further that all matter present must be described by the energy-momentum tensor because all matter present contributes to the geometry (to the curvature of spacetime, i.e. Einstein’s gravitational field) by the geometry/matter coupling defined by Einstein’s full field equations. But as we have already seen, in the case of Ric = 0 the energy-momentum tensor is zero (no matter) by initial hypothesis.

Also recall that according to Einstein his laws of Special Relativity must hold in his gravitational field (in a sufficiently small region of the field to be more precise). Now as the alleged freely falling body falls towards the black hole event horizon, at any instant of time it has a velocity, and it falls (implicitly by the usual arguments) along a radial line towards the black hole singularity. This velocity causes the mass of the freely falling body to increase according to the observer and according to the black hole, by Special Relativity, as we saw in the calculation related to the prohibition of infinite density. Thus the falling mass can, at any given instant, become arbitrarily large in a spacetime that by definition contains no matter. Contra-hype! Of course, the laws of Special Relativity cannot manifest in a spacetime that by definition contains no matter, as we have already noted.

Thus the concept of the black hole event horizon is nonsense.

And since Ric = 0 is an empty Universe, the point-mass of the singularity cannot be present either. The introduction of mass into the so-called “Schwarzschild solution” is post hoc and therefore inadmissible. This can be amplified even further, which I do in my next post.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 02:08 AM
link   
NEWTONIAN APPROXIMATION?

It is routinely alleged that General Relativity contains Newton’s theory of gravity as an approximation, in the case of a weak gravitational field. This is incorrect.

Newton’s theory of gravitation is based upon the interaction of two bodies. Recall that Newton’s force of gravitation is described by the equation:

F = GMm/r^2

where F is the force of gravitation between the two masses M and m, separated by a distance r between their ‘centres of mass’ and G is Newton’s gravitational constant. His potential function is obtained by dividing through by one of the masses and multiplying though by the radial distance moved by a mass in the field of a given mass. For example, the gravitational potential due to mass M is

Potential = P = Fr/m = GM/r.

His gravitational potential equation, although apparently containing only one mass (it’s on the right side of the equation), does not eliminate the two-body basis in view of the definition of his gravitational potential (Fr/m contains the other mass). His gravitational potential is defined as the work done (force x distance) per unit mass by the gravitational field of a given mass on a mass in the gravitational field of the given mass. In other words, the potential is the work per unit mass (or energy per unit mass). Thus, with a Newtonian potential, the gravitational energy associated with a mass in the field of a given mass is obtained by multiplying the potential equation by the mass in the field of the given mass. This is reciprocal for the two masses. Notice that the whole concept involves the interaction of two masses. There is no meaning to Newton’s theory of gravitation if there is only one alleged mass in the Universe.

Now recall that the black holers, following Einstein, linearise his field equations in order to get themselves a Newtonian approximation. We already know that linearisation is inadmissible, as detailed in one of my previous posts. On top of that fatal error, they also introduce the Newtonian potential function, post hoc, into the so-called “Schwarzschild solution”, and then claim that General Relativity contains Newton’s theory as an approximation (in a weak gravitational field). That is clearly wrong. Newton’s potential implicitly contains two masses interacting, yet the alleged black hole allegedly produces a gravitational field for just one mass in an otherwise empty Universe (Ric = 0, into which the black holers nonetheless arbitrarily stick in other matter in violation of Ric = 0). Ric = 0 is therefore incompatible, in principle, with a Newtonian potential function. It is noteworthy that Schwarzschild did not arbitrarily introduce a Newtonian potential function into his real solution, because he knew that it was inadmissible. It is also clear that the claim that Einstein’s theory reduces to Newton’s theory in the case of a weak field is false, because the Newtonian potential did not fall out of the so-called “Schwarzschild solution” – it was just put in by Einstein and his followers. The argument the black holers rely upon is therefore circular: self-serving: and it is false. One cannot get a two-body concept from an alleged one body problem. Of course, Ric = 0 is not even a one body problem, because there is no matter present by definition. And so to get matter, the black holers simply put it in at the end of their calculations, in the form of a Newtonian potential which is actually a two-body concept, and then claim that they got a Newtonian approximation!



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 02:10 AM
link   
I continue my previous post on NEWTONIAN APPROXIMATION?

There are two other things to note here. First is the notion of radial distance. We already know that the quantity ‘r’ in the so-called “Schwarzschild solution” is not even a distance let alone a radial distance in the alleged gravitational field thereof. It is the inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature of a spherical surface embedded in the spacetime. Yet the black holers invariably treat it as a radial distance. Second, Newton’s theory forbids infinite density. In his theory of gravity a material body is described in terms of its “centre of mass” in that the distance between two separate bodies is that between their centres of mass. The centre of mass is not a physical object. It is a geometric point (zero volume) at which all the mass is taken as concentrated, by mathematical artifice. Nobody claims that Newton’s centre of mass is a physical object, and rightly so. However, the black holers treat their singularity, really a centre of mass, as a real object, mistaken as well that there is matter present (in violation of Ric = 0).

Finally, to recapitulate, as we have seen, since Einstein’s Principle of Equivalence and his laws of Special Relativity cannot manifest in the empty universe of Ric = 0, Ric = 0 doesn’t even describe his gravitational field, despite the claims of the physicists. It is nothing more than a pseudo-Riemannian metric space – a pure geometry – that cannot accommodate Einstein’s gravitational field.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 06:48 AM
link   
For Christ sake.....

Finally someone turns up here with the proof, the math and
speaks in a language we can understand !!!

This is your chance.

Ask the man a question, not just personally berate him !!

You might just learn something.

Just my opinion.

Of course there is always the reptilian shape shifting threads......



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 07:31 AM
link   
It is now plain that Einstein's gravitational waves will not be detected, because there is nothing to detect. This recent LIGO document reports no detection:

www.iop.org...

The Gravity Probe B did not find the alleged "frame dragging" of spacetime and the project is being canceled by NASA:

www.binaryresearchinstitute.org...

But still the magicians cling to their tricks, instead of admitting erroneous theory. In the last link you will find this remark:

"When I met with the GP-B team at Stanford last fall they were still in the early process of analyzing the data but openly discussed the idea of an unknown companion to our sun, including the possibility of a not too distant blackhole."

We know that they will not find a black hole either. Billions of taxpayers' dollars down the drain.

And here LIGO people talk of black holes colliding:

space.newscientist.com...

which we know is just nonsense.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by SevenThunders
 


Cahill did indeed review Dayton Miller's work. He even has provided a link to Miller's original paper from 1933. The problem is that not all his papers are listed on the Department website. That website was 'frozen' (Cahill's word) in March 2004 and remained so for some time because he was labelled as someone dabbling in 'fringe science'. No mainstream physicist wants to be seen in such company! Some of Cahill's other papers can be found on www.ptep-online.com... and some older papers on www.mountainman.com.au.... See also xxx.lanl.gov...:+cahill_reginald_t/0/1/0/all/0/, xxx.lanl.gov...:+cahill_reginald_t/0/1/0/all/0/1 and
www.slac.stanford.edu...
The only experiment that does not line up nicely with all the other experiments is that of Stephan Marinov. Cahill is also discussing this but did not reach a conclusive explanation for the deviation. See arxiv.org....



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   
How would the LIGO people know that the minute variations in tunnel length they're looking for aren't from seismic activity, cars driving close by, some squirrel farting atop the works...?



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   
I just crunched some numbers and yuppers... the guy is right. There are no black holes. Besides... for conclusive proof, I've never seen one other than in my ex-wife's heart.

Ergo, black holes in space are a myth... like the global warming joke that Al Gore (inventor of the internet) is playing on us.

Just to make sure I don't get my wrist slapped for veering a wee bit off topic, I'd like to say that I find it extremely refreshing that there are still people out there like Mr. Crothers who aren't afraid to challenge the current school of thought. Not only refreshing, it's critically important that such people step forth.

There was a time people were burned at the stake for declaring that the earth was round. If the NWO get their way, that day will return and at that point, we won't be able to even hear from people like Mr. Crothers. Let's enjoy him and his ilk, listen to what they have to say, and applaud their courage while we can... while they're still free to speak.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by S.J.Crothers
 


Great posts and I have a couple of questions.

Could Ric=0 apply to a perfect vacuum? Would black holes then exist in our universe because we live in a false vacuum?

Also, what do you think about Randall-Sundrum? It could tie into this because gravity is it's own cause. Randall-Sundrum is a theory by Harvard Theoretical Physicist Lisa Randall and Raman Sundrum fron John Hopkins.

It says we live in 5 dimensions. Four dimensions of space and one of time. They think these 4 dimensions are local and exist on what they call the weak brane but the 5th is a gravity brane and is non-local. So gravity seeps into or onto are brane.

So basically Ric=0 would apply to a perfect vacuum while we live in a false vacuum and I think this might fit with the holographic principle as well.

Great post and S&F.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Albertarocks
I just crunched some numbers and yuppers... the guy is right. There are no black holes.


so i guess all the evidence that points to them being factual entities is to be disregarded over one fashionable number crunchers work?


Cygnus X-1 (abbreviated Cyg X-1) is a well known galactic X-ray source in the constellation Cygnus. It was discovered in 1964 during a rocket flight and is one of the strongest X-ray sources seen from Earth, producing a peak X-ray flux of 2.3 × 10−23 Wm−2Hz−1. Cygnus X-1 was the first X-ray source widely accepted to be a black hole candidate and it remains among the most studied astronomical objects in its class. It is now estimated to have a mass about 8.7 times the mass of the Sun and has been shown to be too compact to be any known kind of normal star or other likely object besides a black hole. If so, the radius of its event horizon is probably about 26 km.

Cygnus X-1 belongs to a high-mass X-ray binary system about 6000 light years from the Sun that includes a blue supergiant variable star designated HDE 226868 which it orbits at about 0.2 AU, or 20% of the distance from the Earth to the Sun. A stellar wind from the star provides material for an accretion disk around the X-ray source. Matter in the inner disk is heated to millions of kelvin (K), generating the observed X-rays. A pair of jets, arranged perpendicular to the disk, are carrying part of the infalling material away into interstellar space


this is just one of these types of objects we have found more than one but cyg is one of the most noted. If it is not a black hole then what else is could it be. . . until someone comes up with a detailed alternative theory to describe what objects like this truely are if not black hole then we shall continue to believe that is what it is.


Ever since Albert Einstein came up with his general theory of relativity, black holes has been central to our knowledge of the Universe.

Now experts say they have shown that the theoretical phenomenon, whose gravitational pull is thought to hold galaxies together, exist "beyond any reasonable doubt".

The team of scientists spent 16 years studying the existence of a super massive black hole thought to be at the centre of our galaxy, the Milky Way.

While the black hole itself is invisible to the eye, the team proved its existence by tracking the motions of 28 stars circling around it.

Just as swirling leaves caught in a gust of wind can provide clues about air currents, so the stars' movements reveal information about forces at work at the galactic centre.

The observations show that the stars orbit a central concentration of mass four million times greater than that of the Sun, claim the team from the Max-Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching, near Munich, Germany.

"Undoubtedly the most spectacular aspect of our long term study is that it has delivered what is now considered to be the best empirical evidence that super-massive black holes do really exist," said study leader Professor Reinhard Genzel.

"The stellar orbits in the galactic centre show that the central mass concentration of four million solar masses must be a black hole, beyond any reasonable doubt."


www.telegraph.co.uk...

what could this actually be if not a black hole?

you can bend and fold mathematics to become what you want it to be. Just because you bent it to say no black holes doesnt make you right. If there are no blackholes then what are these super massive objects. Im willing enough to accept they arent real if they can prove they are not and can explain these peculiar objects. . .


[edit on 18-5-2009 by constantwonder]



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by platosallegory
reply to post by S.J.Crothers
 


Great posts and I have a couple of questions.

Could Ric=0 apply to a perfect vacuum? Would black holes then exist in our universe because we live in a false vacuum?

Also, what do you think about Randall-Sundrum? It could tie into this because gravity is it's own cause. Randall-Sundrum is a theory by Harvard Theoretical Physicist Lisa Randall and Raman Sundrum fron John Hopkins.

It says we live in 5 dimensions. Four dimensions of space and one of time. They think these 4 dimensions are local and exist on what they call the weak brane but the 5th is a gravity brane and is non-local. So gravity seeps into or onto are brane.

So basically Ric=0 would apply to a perfect vacuum while we live in a false vacuum and I think this might fit with the holographic principle as well.

Great post and S&F.


perfect vacuum is not obtainable in the real world it cannot be done so conjecture as to its features is irrelevant


Practically, it is impossible to make a perfect vacuum. A perfect vacuum is defined as a region in space without any particles.

The problem is that to maintain a vacuum in a region you have to shield it from the environment. It is not difficult to make a container that would prevent atoms from entering the region.

The first problem is that the container itself will radiate photons (which in turn can create electron positron pairs in the vacuum) if it is not kept at a temperature of 0°K. Note that a perfect vacuum has by definition a temperature of 0°K. reaching 0 °K is practically impossible.

The second problem is that there are weakly interacting particles that could enter the region. No matter how thick the walls of the container are, there is always a finite probability that, say, a neutrino would enter the region.


www.physlink.com...

en.wikipedia.org...


A perfect vacuum is not in the least obtainable in a laboratory; much of outer space is supposed to consist of an almost perfect vacuum, with a small number of molecules per cubic metre. As well as virtual particles continuously appearing.


www.statemaster.com...


[edit on 18-5-2009 by constantwonder]



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
I posted in this in another black hole thread, thought I may as well post it here where it is more fitting.

Stephen recently gave a lecture at the Conference of the German Physical Society, Munich, March 9-13, 2009.

A summary-


• “Schwarzschild’s solution” is not Schwarzschild’s solution. Schwarzschild’s actual solution does not predict black holes. The quantity ‘r’ appearing in the so-called “Schwarzschild solution” is not a distance of any kind. This simple fact completely subverts all claims for black holes.

• Despite claims for discovery of black holes, nobody has ever found a black hole; no infinitely dense point-mass singularity and no event horizon have ever been found. There is no physical evidence for the existence of infinitely dense point-masses.

• It takes an infinite amount of observer time to verify the presence of an event horizon, but nobody has been and nobody will be around for an infinite amount of time. No observer, no observing instruments, no photons, no matter can be present in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter.

• The black hole is fictitious and so there are no black hole generated gravitational waves. The international search for black holes and their gravitational waves is ill-fated.

• The Michell-Laplace dark body is not a black hole. Newton’s theory of gravitation does not predict black holes. General Relativity does not predict black holes. Black holes were spawned by (incorrect) theory, not by observation. The search for black holes is destined to find none.

• No celestial body has ever been observed to undergo irresistible gravitational collapse. There is no laboratory evidence for irresistible gravitational collapse. Infinitely dense point-mass singularities howsoever formed cannot be reconciled with Special Relativity, i.e. they violate Special Relativity, and therefore violate General Relativity.

• General Relativity cannot account for the simple experimental fact that two fixed bodies will approach one another upon release. There are no known solutions to Einstein’s field equations for two or more masses and there is no existence theorem by which it can even be asserted that his field equations contain latent solutions for such configurations of matter. All claims for black hole interactions are invalid.

• Einstein’s gravitational waves are fictitious; Einstein’s gravitational energy cannot be localised; so the international search for Einstein’s gravitational waves is destined to detect nothing. No gravitational waves have been detected.

• Einstein’s field equations violate the experimentally well-established usual conservation of energy and momentum, and therefore violate the experimental evidence.

In an audience of theoretical physicists there was stunned silence—and not a single question.


www.holoscience.com...



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   
heres some more data recently released that suggests there are black holes


Sagittarius A* (pronounced "A-star") is a region in the center of our galaxy, approximately as wide as the orbit of Pluto, containing 3.7 million solar masses of material. Located near the galactic center, Sagittarius A* is suspected by astronomers to be a supermassive black hole, serving as the center of gravity for the entire galaxy. Sagittarius A* is closely orbited by at least a dozen stars, the trajectories of which have been used to estimate its mass. It may even be orbited by the first observed intermediate-mass black hole, GCIRS 13E, which is estimated at 1,300 solar masses.
As the mass of a black hole increases, the radius of its event horizon increases at a linear rate, but the density decreases as the cube of the radius. So, while black holes like Sagittarius A* are very massive, when you count the huge area of the event horizon, estimated at 6.25 light-hours (45 AU) or about 4.2 billion miles, the average density of the hole is no greater than that of air! Stellar-mass black holes have much greater densities behind their event horizon.
Sagittarius A* is located approximately 25,000 light years away, or half a galactic radius, at the galaxy's center. It probably formed early on in the galaxy's history. We observe supermassive black holes like Sagittarius A* in the process of being formed in other, very distant galaxies. These phenomena are called quasars and blazars.
Because the central singularity in a supermassive black hole is located so far from the event horizon, an astronaut falling into it would not experience spaghettification until deep inside the hole. The inside of a black hole would be a strange place -- with light orbiting the hole at a rapid rate, you would be constantly treated to a repetitive blur of objects in its grasp. Light from the outside would first look like only a hemisphere, with darkness all behind, then the hemisphere would get progressively smaller, becoming a little circle and eventually a point. Falling into a black hole would not be fun!


again i ask what is this object and what others like it if they arent black holes. . . . some post alternative explanation please



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by platosallegory
 


Ric = 0 is indeed a perfect vacuum - it contains no matter whatsoever. Consequently there are no black holes in it either, since black holes are alleged to have mass.

There is no physical evidence to suppose that there are 5 dimensions, 4 of space and one of time. Such a notion has no scientific basis to it whatsoever.



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join