Black Holes

[harry]

G'day Aris

Smile!!!!!!!! yes I agree

The BBT is a model to help explain the observations.

Observation do not fit the BBT model.

[Chris Peterson]

The BBT is a model to help explain the observations.
Observation do not fit the BBT model.

"Model" is a poor choice of wording. "The" BBT is an umbrella term for a collection of related scientific theories, which are widely accepted because they do a better job of explaining observations than any other theories.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Chris said

Model" is a poor choice of wording. "The" BBT is an umbrella term for a collection of related scientific theories, which are widely accepted because they do a better job of explaining observations than any other theories.

The more I speak with cosmologists, scientists and a few Prof's around the world the more I think that the BBT is not widely accepted.

[Chris Peterson]

The more I speak with cosmologists, scientists and a few Prof's around the world the more I think that the BBT is not widely accepted.

Then I'd have to say they are neither cosmologists, scientists, nor professors of either. You may believe what you want, but to suggest that the BBT is not- by far- the consensus view of cosmology is complete nonsense.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

This is quite interesting, please refer to the science subject and not emotional opinions.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0511628
Do recent supernovae Ia observations tend to rule out all the cosmologies?

Authors: Ram Gopal Vishwakarma (Zacatecas University)
(Submitted on 21 Nov 2005 (v1), last revised 18 Jan 2008 (this version, v4))

Abstract: Dark energy and the accelerated expansion of the universe have been the direct predictions of the distant supernovae Ia observations which are also supported, indirectly, by the observations of the CMB anisotropies, gravitational lensing and the studies of galaxy clusters. Today these results are accommodated in what has become the `concordance cosmology': a universe with flat spatial sections t=constant with about 70% of its energy in the form of Einstein's cosmological constant \Lambda.
However, we find that as more and more supernovae Ia are observed, more accurately and towards higher redshift, the probability that the data are well explained by the cosmological models decreases alarmingly, finally ruling out the concordance model at more than 95% confidence level. This raises doubts against the `standard candle'-hypothesis of the supernovae Ia and their use to constrain the cosmological models. We need a better understanding of the entire SN Ia phenomenon in order to have cosmological consequences from them.

[aristarchusinexile]

The more I speak with cosmologists, scientists and a few Prof's around the world the more I think that the BBT is not widely accepted.

Then I'd have to say they are neither cosmologists, scientists, nor professors of either. You may believe what you want, but to suggest that the BBT is not- by far- the consensus view of cosmology is complete nonsense.

My reading tells me the consensus is either moving rapidly away from being the consensus, or has moved away from the consensus, if you know what I mean, the consensus of BBT. Words like "nonsense", Chris, can serve in two ways, to motivate towards proof, or to alienate away from discussion. We are human, but we should be more careful not to alienate. Perhaps you were goading in a good natured way? I try to think the best, and explore all options of intent.

[aristarchusinexile]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

This is quite interesting, please refer to the science subject and not emotional opinions.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0511628
Do recent supernovae Ia observations tend to rule out all the cosmologies?

Authors: Ram Gopal Vishwakarma (Zacatecas University)
(Submitted on 21 Nov 2005 (v1), last revised 18 Jan 2008 (this version, v4))

Abstract: Dark energy and the accelerated expansion of the universe have been the direct predictions of the distant supernovae Ia observations which are also supported, indirectly, by the observations of the CMB anisotropies, gravitational lensing and the studies of galaxy clusters. Today these results are accommodated in what has become the `concordance cosmology': a universe with flat spatial sections t=constant with about 70% of its energy in the form of Einstein's cosmological constant \Lambda.
However, we find that as more and more supernovae Ia are observed, more accurately and towards higher redshift, the probability that the data are well explained by the cosmological models decreases alarmingly, finally ruling out the concordance model at more than 95% confidence level. This raises doubts against the `standard candle'-hypothesis of the supernovae Ia and their use to constrain the cosmological models. We need a better understanding of the entire SN Ia phenomenon in order to have cosmological consequences from them.

I always had serious doubts about the accuracy of 'standard candle' measurement. In the recent apod of the meteorite fragment the piece seemed to be a large rock and not a 1" fragment. Our ability to perceive and understand the unfamiliar is extremely weak, but our lack of humility fails to recognize our weaknesses.

[Chris Peterson]

My reading tells me the consensus is either moving rapidly away from being the consensus, or has moved away from the consensus, if you know what I mean, the consensus of BBT. Words like "nonsense", Chris, can serve in two ways, to motivate towards proof, or to alienate away from discussion. We are human, but we should be more careful not to alienate. Perhaps you were goading in a good natured way? I try to think the best, and explore all options of intent.

Your reading has been demonstrated as highly selective.

Sometimes, "nonsense" just means "nonsense"- a term applied to a statement that is grossly in error. Literally, in error on the same scale as saying the Earth is flat. The astronomical community is not moving away from the BBT. I work with these people every day. There might be 5% of the professional astronomical community thinking about alternatives, although I doubt the number is that high. And there has been no huge shift, except that over the last couple of decades, as observational evidence has improved, the number of astronomers with serious doubts about the BBT (in particular, the lambda-CDM variant) has decreased. The solid discovery of dark matter and dark energy, which fit so well into this theory, has really made the consensus stronger than ever.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Than Chris start thinking for your self.

My reading is not selective.

Like I say, refer to the science and not to the flow of the MOB.

My reading at the moment is on Magnetic reconnection, for the next 3 months and if you think its selective, than I think your on the wrong boat.

Magnetic Reconnection 2009
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+20 ... /0/all/0/1

Than I start reading the previous years.

I should have taken up tennis.

[Chris Peterson]

My reading at the moment is on Magnetic reconnection, for the next 3 months and if you think its selective, than I think your on the wrong boat.

That's fine. There's some interesting reading in there, if your interest is stellar physics. Nothing to do with cosmology or black holes, though, which are the topics of this discussion, so I don't really get your point.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzz

Chris, you need to understand magnetic reconnection before you can understand so called black holes.

You need to understand how matter can be compacted via what ever mechansim.

Black holes have not been proven to exist, no observation of infinite point mass, no event horizon no nothing. Although there are readings of high compact dense objects.

This maybe of interest

http://www.holoscience.com/news/img/DPS%20talk.pdf
Conference of the German Physical Society, Munich, March 9-13, 2009.
Verhandlungen der Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft
Munich 2009: Fachverband Gravitation und Relativit¨atstheorie
http://www.dpg-verhandlungen.de/2009/indexen.html
The Schwarzschild solution and its implications
for gravitational waves
Stephen J. Crothers

[Chris Peterson]

Chris, you need to understand magnetic reconnection before you can understand so called black holes.

Not in the slightest. There is no connection. Complex magnetic fields and matter jets may be a consequence of black holes, in the right environment. But they have nothing at all to do with the formation of black holes, and certainly nothing to do with the compacting of matter. The papers you listed previously are about stellar magnetic processes in ordinary stars.

[aristarchusinexile]

Your reading has been demonstrated as highly selective.

Without any rancor intended, but rather in a full sense of comraderie, Chris, I must say your remark merely shows the depth of your prejudices. To any asterisk forum reader unfamiliar with my reading I will say my sources are not supermarket checkout displays, but municipal library bookshelves and the science section of those library's magazine racks, and what I find on the internet. All of it claim to have been written by recognized PhDs, and published by reputable publishers.

"The solid discovery of dark matter and dark energy..."

This is surprising to me. Can you provide a url or other reference?

[aristarchusinexile]

"... My reading is not selective.

Chris was referring to my reading, Harry.

I should have taken up tennis.

Harry, for a man with your mental powers to gain satisfaction at tennis you would have to whack the ball aboard a moving train, measuring the effects on the accelerating and decelerating ball-in-motion of the planet's spin and track through space, combined with the track's curvature and angle of ascent/descent at varying altitudes, speed of the train, humidity content of the air aboard the train, whether you're playing in the smoking or non-smoking car, measure of airflow of the ventilation system, photon load, etc. .. that, or win Wimbledon.

[Doum]

by harry on Mon Apr 06, 2009 8:42 am

"Black holes have not been proven to exist, no observation of infinite point mass, no event horizon no nothing."

Not true. I disagree,

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0 ... rizon.html
http://www.universetoday.com/2006/01/11 ... -measured/
http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/01_rel ... 11101.html
http://www.astroengine.com/?p=1503
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=3560
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/090 ... 1105v1.pdf
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/0 ... black.hole
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... 61a3dbb59c
http://www.unisci.com/stories/20013/0906011.htm

These are observations thus detections and measurements and they show the difference between neutron star and black hole and they show the event horizon presence. They are good proofs. Not the ultimate proof but very good proof. Proving they dont exist is the hard part. Good luck to you to prove that.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

I have read the above links before.

We research and we research and yet we cannot prove the existence of black holes. To assume they exist just because we wish for them to exist is another issue.

We do notice the activity of ultra dense compact bodies such as Neutron stars and possibly the exotic stars of quark and neutrino matter, but to say they are black holes. We are far from proving.

I will com back to it.

[Qev]

Astronomers observe infalling gas colliding with the surface of compact objects like neutron stars, which considering the depth of the gravitational well is a rather energetic sort of event. They don't see this occurring with black hole candidates, which implies that there is no surface, ie. an event horizon. What reasonable alternatives exist?

[Chris Peterson]

Astronomers observe infalling gas colliding with the surface of compact objects like neutron stars, which considering the depth of the gravitational well is a rather energetic sort of event. They don't see this occurring with black hole candidates, which implies that there is no surface, ie. an event horizon. What reasonable alternatives exist?

Probably not worth arguing. Harry's disbelief of most modern ideas of physics is philosophical, not scientific. Evidence is not particularly relevant to him. It's like trying to convince somebody to change religions... it usually doesn't work.

[aristarchusinexile]

Astronomers observe infalling gas colliding with the surface of compact objects like neutron stars, which considering the depth of the gravitational well is a rather energetic sort of event. They don't see this occurring with black hole candidates, which implies that there is no surface, ie. an event horizon. What reasonable alternatives exist?

Probably not worth arguing. Harry's disbelief of most modern ideas of physics is philosophical, not scientific. Evidence is not particularly relevant to him. It's like trying to convince somebody to change religions... it usually doesn't work.

I strongly object to your statement, Chris. It is your 'faith' in the consensus BBTview that is philosophical, lacking in evidence, and in my opinion 'opinionated' in a way that prevents you from even considering contrary evidence. Of all the forum posters throughout my history of participation here, Harry seems always to be the most willing and able to provide and post links showing scientific evidence of his statements and ideas.

[Chris Peterson]

I strongly object to your statement, Chris. It is your 'faith' in the consensus BBTview that is philosophical, lacking in evidence, and in my opinion 'opinionated' in a way that prevents you from even considering contrary evidence. Of all the forum posters throughout my history of participation here, Harry seems always to be the most willing and able to provide and post links showing scientific evidence of his statements and ideas.

I remind you again, this is a science forum. Science is conducted by evaluating evidence and weighing theories according to their success in explaining observations. Those theories that do the best are almost always accepted as the best by the majority of scientists. This isn't a matter of "faith", but is simply method of modern science. It is a rational position to place the most weight on those theories that work best. Note that this isn't the same as simply accepting them. Scientists who explore alternate ideas always admit that the mainstream ideas are better, and recognize that the burden is theirs to ultimately demonstrate why their alternative is better.

Harry posts more links than anybody else, but they almost never make the point he is trying to claim. How does that help?

[BMAONE23]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

I have read the above links before.

We research and we research and yet we cannot prove the existence of black holes. To assume they exist just because we wish for them to exist is another issue.

We do notice the activity of ultra dense compact bodies such as Neutron stars and possibly the exotic stars of quark and neutrino matter, but to say they are black holes. We are far from proving.

I will com back to it.

Harry,
You talk of Proof of existance being needed as opposed to proof of concept. You say that, because there is no direct image of a "Black Hole" there is no proof of their existance and should therefore be discounted. Yet further along in your arguements you claim the existance of exotic stars like Quark Stars and Neutrino Stars. Since you are insistant on "Proof" via physical evidence, where is the physical evidence for the existance of these Exotics?
There is no direct image prooving a Black Hole's existance (no event horizon image with a dark mass at its center) is there a direct image of a Quark Star? Or are you simply the Quark calling the Hole Black?

[Doum]

by harry on Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:26 am

"We research and we research and yet we cannot prove the existence of black holes. To assume they exist just because we wish for them to exist is another issue."

I think that what follow is what you are truly saying but you are denying yourself to say it clearly:

"You make many researchs and found a lots of evidences of the reality of black hole and event horizon (But I just dont like those observations and measurements that fit the theory and also i dunno why i dont want them to be true). So i decide to assume they dont exist just because i wish for them not to exist."

I do agree that you have another issue about that but i dont think it is in this forum.

If you say i assume what you think, well of course but look up and you will see that you assume too (Red sentence just above). So knowing that assuming is ok with you. I assume.

I will also continue to show link relevant to black hole and event horizon. Cya!

[harry]

G'day Doum

What you say is correct in a way.

But! evidence is evidence, without it it is just a calculated opinion that can be discussed but not conclude as evidence.

Black hole has many definitions. So pick a definition and show the evidence.

[Doum]

Harry you write:
"But! evidence is evidence, without it it is just a calculated opinion that can be discussed but not conclude as evidence."

So without evidence, it is just an opinion (yours) and that opinion is useless cause it is not base on evidence. (I assume that is what you mean) So it is worthless.

But Evidence being evidence it mean:
Detections and mesurements of black hole effect and it's event horizon effect being proof (Or evidences), the opinion above mean nothing. Cause the evidence show the proof of black hole reality and it's event horizon. But you know what i mean. Black hole and event horizon exist until prove otherwise (Because of evidence of the detection and measurement made). Please dont say that there are no proofs cause it is a false affirmation. So, enjoy the proofs presented and if you disagree, well it's your opinion. Just dont say that there is'nt any proof cause that is false (Again there are proofs wich are evidences). Just dont forget it. Thanks. I beleive you will still enjoy reading on black holes and their event horizons. Cya!

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

Hello doum.

ok, lets start with proof.