beecee

??? Wow! I believe you have the Bull by the wrong end. It is you railing against mainstream science and opinion...mainstream science and opinion that is continually and progressively more and more supported by observational evidence, particularly as per GR and BH's. Yet you still deny such evidence. This is mainstream science that stands sturdy and steadfast, based on those current observations and evidence, yet you want everyone to drop any and all adherence to such accepted models, and accept what you so arrogantly put as "gospel" simply based on your own interpretation and say so? I smell an agenda in actual fact, similar to many agendas that others that like to conduct crusades against current mainstream science and ignore the supportive evidence also have. Such crusades are a dime a dozen, and changes nothing, either that of the opinions of the experts on forums such as this, or the scientific community in general. If you feel so strongly about what you claim, if you believe that mainstream has it wrong, if you have any supportive evidence to support that criteria, then there are pathways and methods available to you...write up a professional paper for professional peer review. That won't happen though, because simply put, you would not accept any other opposing view, just as you have shown here. As I have said before, the proof of mainstream science being continually progressive, is there for all to see, everyday. I post articles at times, supporting that progression. Science has absolutely no reason to be "stuck in the mud" or have any recalcitrant attitude. We test GR every day. The BB is critiqued every day. HR though not observed directly, has as I have shown, been evidenced indirectly. If observational evidence ever surfaces to falsify any of those models, it will be researched thoroughly, just as thoroughly as the BB was, as GR was, as HR was. That's what science does. That's what you have been told many times before. That's what you need to accept in humility.

https://phys.org/news/2019-04-elusive-molecule-universe-space.html Elusive molecule, first in Universe, detected in space: In the beginning, more than 13 billion years ago, the Universe was an undifferentiated soup of three simple, single-atom elements. Stars would not form for another 100 million years. But within 100,000 years of the Big Bang, the very first molecule emerged, an improbable marriage of helium and hydrogen known as a helium hydride ion, or HeH+. "It was the beginning of chemistry," said David Neufeld, a professor at John Hopkins University and co-author of a study published Wednesday detailing how—after a multi-decade search—scientists finally detected the elusive molecule in space. "The formation of HeH+ was the first step on a path of increasing complexity in the Universe," as momentous a shift as the one from single-cell to multicellular life on Earth, he told AFP. more at link...... the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1090-x Astrophysical detection of the helium hydride ion HeH+ Abstract: During the dawn of chemistry1,2, when the temperature of the young Universe had fallen below some 4,000 kelvin, the ions of the light elements produced in Big Bang nucleosynthesis recombined in reverse order of their ionization potential. With their higher ionization potentials, the helium ions He2+ and He+ were the first to combine with free electrons, forming the first neutral atoms; the recombination of hydrogen followed. In this metal-free and low-density environment, neutral helium atoms formed the Universe’s first molecular bond in the helium hydride ion HeH+ through radiative association with protons. As recombination progressed, the destruction of HeH+ created a path to the formation of molecular hydrogen. Despite its unquestioned importance in the evolution of the early Universe, the HeH+ ion has so far eluded unequivocal detection in interstellar space. In the laboratory the ion was discovered3 as long ago as 1925, but only in the late 1970s was the possibility that HeH+ might exist in local astrophysical plasmas discussed4,5,6,7. In particular, the conditions in planetary nebulae were shown to be suitable for producing potentially detectable column densities of HeH+. Here we report observations, based on advances in terahertz spectroscopy8,9 and a high-altitude observatory10, of the rotational ground-state transition of HeH+ at a wavelength of 149.1 micrometres in the planetary nebula NGC 7027. This confirmation of the existence of HeH+ in nearby interstellar space constrains our understanding of the chemical networks that control the formation of this molecular ion, in particular the rates of radiative association and dissociative recombination.

No such inconsistency at all, and so far three [or is that four] papers have been linked to, with regards to various descriptive methods of what is or should be happening. Bingo! I mean if this was just a crusade against Hawking Radiation, one may understand somewhat it ,ay be due to ignorance or misinterpretation, but this is or seems to just be a crusade against mainstream science in general, including GR. I must apologise for a previous comprehensive account of Hawking Radiation by Stephen Carlip that I posted without a link......here is that link.....http://carlip.physics.ucdavis.edu/#Hawkrad

That sounds like ignoring them. Who doesn't respect the conservation laws? Certainly not Hawking or Hawking Radiation that its based on! In other words its more then enough! Again the standard picture re Hawking Radiation, without direct observation, is thought to be a reasonable assertion. Two papers I have linked to even go as far as to say they have observed them in an analogous situations. More support for the reasonably obvious..... The following by Steve Carlip; BA -- Harvard College, Cambridge, MA, 1975 Ph.D. -- University of Texas at Austin, 1987 (adviser: Bryce DeWitt) Postdoc -- Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, 1987-90 Faculty member, University of California at Davis, 1990-present Interests: quantum gravity; classical general relativity; theoretical particle physics; mathematical physics Hawking radiation "There are a number of ways of describing the mechanism responsible for Hawking radiation. Here's one: The vacuum in quantum field theory is not really empty; it's filled with "virtual pairs" of particles and antiparticles that pop in and out of existence, with lifetimes determined by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. When such pairs forms near the event horizon of a black hole, though, they are pulled apart by the tidal forces of gravity. Sometimes one member of a pair crosses the horizon, and can no longer recombine with its partner. The partner can then escape to infinity, and since it carries off positive energy, the energy (and thus the mass) of the black hole must decrease. There is something a bit mysterious about this explanation: it requires that the particle that falls into the black hole have negative energy. Here's one way to understand what's going on. (This argument is based roughly on section 11.4 of Schutz's book, A first course in general relativity.) To start, since we're talking about quantum field theory, let's understand what "energy" means in this context. The basic answer is that energy is determined by Planck's relation, E=hf, where f is frequency. Of course, a classical configuration of a field typically does not have a single frequency, but it can be Fourier decomposed into modes with fixed frequencies. In quantum field theory, modes with positive frequencies correspond to particles, and those with negative frequencies correspond to antiparticles. Now, here's the key observation: frequency depends on time, and in particular on the choice of a time coordinate. We know this from special relativity, of course -- two observers in relative motion will see different frequencies for the same source. In special relativity, though, while Lorentz transformations can change the magnitude of frequency, they can't change the sign, so observers moving relative to each other with constant velocities will at least agree on the difference between particles and antiparticles. For accelerated motion this is no longer true, even in a flat spacetime. A state that looks like a vacuum to an unaccelerated observer will be seen by an accelerated observer as a thermal bath of particle-antiparticle pairs. This predicted effect, the Unruh effect, is unfortunately too small to see with presently achievable accelerations, though some physicists, most notably Schwinger, have speculated that it might have something to do with thermoluminescence. (Most physicists are unconvinced.) The next ingredient in the mix is the observation that, as it is sometimes put, "space and time change roles inside a black hole horizon." That is, the timelike direction inside the horizon is the radial direction; motion "forward in time" is motion "radially inward" toward the singularity, and has nothing to do with what happens relative to the Schwarzschild time coordinate t. The final ingredient is a description of vacuum fluctuations. One useful way to look at these is to say that when a virtual particle- antiparticle pair is created in the vacuum, the total energy remains zero, but one of the particles has positive energy while the other has negative energy. (For clarity: either the particle or the antiparticle can have negative energy; there's no preference for one over the other.) Now, negative-energy particles are classically forbidden, but as long as the virtual pair annihilates in a time less than h/E, the uncertainty principle allows such fluctuations. Now, finally, here's a way to understand Hawking radiation. Picture a virtual pair created outside a black hole event horizon. One of the particles will have a positive energy E, the other a negative energy -E, with energy defined in terms of a time coordinate outside the horizon. As long as both particles stay outside the horizon, they have to recombine in a time less than h/E. Suppose, though, that in this time the negative-energy particle crosses the horizon. The criterion for it to continue to exist as a real particle is now that it must have positive energy relative to the timelike coordinate inside the horizon, i.e., that it must be moving radially inward. This can occur regardless of its energy relative to an external time coordinate. So the black hole can absorb the negative-energy particle from a vacuum fluctuation without violating the uncertainty principle, leaving its positive-energy partner free to escape to infinity. The effect on the energy of the black hole, as seen from the outside (that is, relative to an external timelike coordinate) is that it decreases by an amount equal to the energy carried off to infinity by the positive-energy particle. Total energy is conserved, because it always was, throughout the process -- the net energy of the particle-antiparticle pair was zero. Note that this doesn't work in the other direction -- you can't have the positive-energy particle cross the horizon and leaves the negative- energy particle stranded outside, since a negative-energy particle can't continue to exist outside the horizon for a time longer than h/E. So the black hole can lose energy to vacuum fluctuations, but it can't gain energy".

One where they entertain religious nuts, IDers of all denominations, woo adherents, anti mainstream science would be's if they could be's, and anything and everything supernatural and paranormal. Oh and of course the conspiracy nutballs...you know the ones...Faked Moon landings, 9/11 being an inside job etc etc. I prefer not to mention it at this time.

Of course, thanks. What do you think of the two papers showing Hawking Radiation as valid via optical analogue? And do you agree with my assessment, that Hawking Radiation appears a logical concept? I don't believe that any scenario upholding the law of conservation is hand waving...Pretty solid indirect evidence in my book. Ignoring it [law of conservation] is ridiculous.

Laws in Australia are now under consideration re social internet chat sites, with heavy fines if CEOs and controllers of these social interaction sites, do not drag and edit off in short time, all forms of hate speech, bullying etc. This is primarily as a result of that ratbag Aussie in NZ killing Islam adherents while at their place of worship.

When that time comes, if it comes, after all they have been at it for a while now [QGT] I'll take it with a smidgin of salt [careful about my salt intake, reason why I'm fit, taut, and tenacious] and pepper... Then rejoice again, at the inevitable progress of science!

The following article and paper supporting Hawking Radiation stimulating from an Analogue BH certainly adds support along with the other reasons such as the law of conservation, as to why Hawking Radiation is generally accepted by most physicists today as a very reasonable assumption...... https://physicsworld.com/a/physicists-stimulate-hawking-radiation-from-optical-analogue-of-a-black-hole/ extract: "Few doubt that this Hawking radiation, predicted in 1974, is a real phenomenon – but no-one has ever seen it. Direct astronomical observations are very challenging because the radiation is too feeble; the X-rays streaming from suspected black holes are instead emitted by incredibly hot gas as it spirals inwards. But researchers believe that the equivalent of Hawking radiation might be seen emerging from laboratory experiments that mimic black holes in other media, such as light, acoustic or water waves. Now, a team at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, has reported experiments that they say come one step closer to producing Hawking radiation in an “optical black hole”. Virtual particles drive Hawking radiation: "Hawking radiation is caused by quantum events near the event horizon. According to quantum theory, the vacuum of empty space is alive with “virtual particles”: pairs comprised of a subatomic particle and its antiparticle (such as an electron and positron), which may pop briefly into existence in a random quantum fluctuation before annihilating one another. But at the event horizon, one of the pair might fall into the back hole while the other escapes and becomes a real particle. This process draws gravitational energy from the black hole, in effect lowering its mass. In this way the black hole slowly evaporates as Hawking radiation streams from its surface". https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.010404 Observation of Stimulated Hawking Radiation in an Optical Analogue: ABSTRACT: The theory of Hawking radiation can be tested in laboratory analogues of black holes. We use light pulses in nonlinear fiber optics to establish artificial event horizons. Each pulse generates a moving perturbation of the refractive index via the Kerr effect. Probe light perceives this as an event horizon when its group velocity, slowed down by the perturbation, matches the speed of the pulse. We have observed in our experiment that the probe stimulates Hawking radiation, which occurs in a regime of extreme nonlinear fiber optics where positive and negative frequencies mix. "The fact that both the mathematics is so similar and that observations in the analogues are what is predicted gives, to me at least, additional weight to Hawking’s predictions." William Unruh, University of British Columbia :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.00913 Observation of thermal Hawking radiation at the Hawking temperature in an analogue black hole: Submitted on 4 Sep 2018 "We measure the correlation spectrum of the Hawking radiation emitted by an analogue black hole and find it to be thermal at the Hawking temperature implied by the analogue surface gravity. The Hawking radiation is in the regime of linear dispersion, in analogy with a real black hole. Furthermore, the radiation inside of the black hole is seen to be composed of negative-energy partners only. This work confirms the prediction of Hawking's theory regarding the value of the Hawking temperature, as well as the thermality of the spectrum. The thermality of Hawking radiation is the root of the information paradox. The correlations between the Hawking and partner particles imply that the analogue black hole has no analogue firewall." Hi MigL...Just a thought...doesn't this just apply to "real particles" ? It shouldn't apply to virtual particles I suggest.

Virtual particle pair production is a fact. Therefor I don't see nothing too extraordinary in contemplating this same virtual particle production just this side of a BH's EH. Which leaves us a couple of options...both annihilate and that's that...one escapes thereby becoming real and positive, and one falls in becoming negative to maintain conservation laws, and so subtracting mass from the BH. So while it is difficult and near impossible to detect, it seems to me at least to be a reasonable assumption. That view is discussed here..... https://phys.org/news/2014-09-black-hole-thermodynamics.html

Other then getting a room, you blokes are correct. My argument is simply as per the title of this thread, that GR and of course GR type BH's have over the last few years, gained much more certainty. If any anti GR/BH buff disagrees with that, perhaps they should take their arguments to speculations and put up a case there. I'm simply stating the mainstream position and showing the attempts to discredit GR as stupidity and baseless conspiracy nonsense.

I'll let others more qualified then I answer whatever claim you are making. Just a couple of corrections needed...There is no lie and such conspiracies concerning mainstream is without basis and that is shown every day, secondly, despite your continued excuse making re GR...No caveat is needed. It is correct as far as any scientific theory can be correct. I prefer, as I'm sure you remember, "near certain"

If all frames are as valid as each other, how can anyone of them be an illusion? Actually freezing at the EH could be construed as a poor choice of words. An observer from a distance, would simply see a body further and further redshifted along the spectrum, until beyond the ability of the telescope and simply fade from view. Perhaps that is what is meant.

Quite admirable you take Professor Hamilton's calcs "as a given" particularly like the BH image as defined by GR, and the GW discoveries as also defined by the same GR and the fabricated templates which matched, his calcs also in agreement with GR. GR remains the supreme supported mainstream theory of gravity. I am not interested in any other inferences or opinions, all of which appear "alternative" at best. and totally unevidenced at worst. Of course no one has ever suggested that anything is an optical illusion. All frames are as valid as each other, including the unlucky soul approaching the EH, and falling in. He does exactly that...fall in on a one way trip to oblivion.

I'm interested in nothing more then what recent discoveries/experiments have achieved with relation to more certainty in GR and BH's. Both of which your reject and as such, irrelevant in mainstream science. I gave a link, which gives a reasonable answer, quite objectively, without malice or arrogance. I'm with that, OK? Again, You have attempted to make many things clear re GR and BH's and as I see it, failed. And of course what you believe is no more relevant then what some IDer believes, or any other alternative hypothetical speculator...take that with your false assumption about anyone taking GR as being "true" and many things are clear. A theory such as GR is our best estimation at any time, and in recent times, GR has confirmed many predictions and gained in certainty in what we do observe. That of course includes BH's and their existence. again....https://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/bh/singularity.html Redshift map This is a redshift map of the distant sky corresponding to the previous image. Red colours indicate regions of the sky where distant stars (like the blue, green, and yellow stars) would appear redshifted, their spectra shifted to longer wavelengths. Other colours, from orange to violet, indicate regions of the sky where distant stars would appear blueshifted. The main effect is a strong blueshift of photons coming from ahead. This is a special relativistic beaming effect caused by our near light speed motion. The blueshifted region also appears concentrated towards the horizon. This is caused by tidal effects from the gravity of the black hole. Just as the tide stretches you vertically, and squeezes you about your middle, so also photons from both above and below you get redshifted, while photons from the sides get blueshifted. Blueshifted parts of the sky would appear brighter, redshifted parts dimmer. Image distortion inside the black hole At 0.35 Schwarzschild radii. Compare this view to the unconventional view you would see if the Schwarzschild surface were attached to another Universe via a wormhole. Images are being distorted by two effects: a tidal distortion from the gravity of the black hole, and a special relativistic beaming from our near light speed motion. Just as the tidal distortion redshifts images from above and below, and blueshifts them about your middle, so also it tends to repel images from above and below, and concentrate them about your middle. At first, images appear distorted into a kidney shape. As the distortion grows, images become stretched and squashed into a doughnut shape about your waist. Our near light speed motion concentrates our view ahead, by special relativistic beaming. Relative to observers freely falling radially from rest at infinity, our velocity increases towards the speed of light: the relativistic Lorentz gamma factor at radius rr is 1+2rs/r1+2rs/r. The distortions grow At 0.01 Schwarzschild radii. The tidal force continues to concentrate our view into a ‘horizon’ shape, while our near light speed motion further concentrates the view ahead. The tidal force and our motion blueshifts photons from the outside world eventually to very high energies, which we would see as x and gamma rays. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now my reasonable question. If you reject the reasoning and answer in my link, then please tell us why. And while you are at it, please try not to flavour your answers with your "BELIEFS" concerning BH's and GR, which are entirely irrelevant in a mainstream physics discussion. More information re BH's is of course in the BH image thread. Let's also clear up another apparent misconception you probably have. My take on this is from the view of someone who has already crossed the EH, viewing the outside universe. I believe that was Strange's view also, but he can speak for himself.

Not really, and the proof of the pudding is in any of my posts on this forum. You made it clear? You have attempted to make many things clear re GR and BH's and as I see it, failed. And of course what you believe is no more relevant then what some IDer believes, or any other alternative hypothetical speculator...take that with your false assumption about GR being "true" and many things are clear. A theory such as GR is our best estimation at any time, and in recent times, GR has confirmed many predictions and gained in certainty in what we do observe. That of course includes BH's and their existence.

No, I stipulate that GR tells us collapse is compulsory once the EH/Schwarzchild radius is reached. But since it fails at the quantum/Planck level, it is then reasonable to assume that instead of the highly unlikely so called singularity of infinite density and spacetime curvature [which mainstream cosmologists now reject] there probably exists a surface of sorts at or below this quantum/Planck level, which as yet we are unable to really speculate on with any confidence, the likes that GR give us for the rest of the volume that makes up the BH. So any singularity, is simply a singularity defined by the fact that GR and all the other laws of physics fail us there. Just as I have said many many times before with the confidence of the professionals we do have on this forum https://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/bh/singularity.html#distortion Image distortion inside the black hole At 0.35 Schwarzschild radii. Compare this view to the unconventional view you would see if the Schwarzschild surface were attached to another Universe via a wormhole. Images are being distorted by two effects: a tidal distortion from the gravity of the black hole, and a special relativistic beaming from our near light speed motion. Just as the tidal distortion redshifts images from above and below, and blueshifts them about your middle, so also it tends to repel images from above and below, and concentrate them about your middle. At first, images appear distorted into a kidney shape. As the distortion grows, images become stretched and squashed into a doughnut shape about your waist. Our near light speed motion concentrates our view ahead, by special relativistic beaming. Relative to observers freely falling radially from rest at infinity, our velocity increases towards the speed of light: the relativistic Lorentz gamma factor at radius rr is 1+2rs/r1+2rs/r. The distortions grow At 0.01 Schwarzschild radii. The tidal force continues to concentrate our view into a ‘horizon’ shape, while our near light speed motion further concentrates the view ahead. The tidal force and our motion blueshifts photons from the outside world eventually to very high energies, which we would see as x and gamma rays.

beecee also said in direct reply to you... So one must ask, why do you keep misrepresenting what I said? Strange also said in direct reply to you...... And obviously, GR is by far our best understanding of BH's considering its incredible predictive powers, so obvious in recent times, so again its reasonable to assume or speculate what is inside. Or do you have a better answer to add to the knowledge and data in this and/or other BH' threads?

Thanks for that...interesting. Good question. I think actually, the evidence that rejects the Newtonian variety Dark Star, from the more likely GR variety is in the "dying Pulse Train" effect. I'm not exactly up with the exact mechanism or theory of this, other then if there was a surface at or just below the EH, [Dark Star Newtonian variety] it would eject pulses of matter/energy, rather then as observed, absorb them [GR variety which tells us that once the Schwarzchild radius is reached, further collapse is compulsory] http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_1/death_spiral.htm "NASA's Hubble Space Telescope may have, for the first time, provided direct evidence for the existence of black holes by observing the disappearance of matter as it falls beyond the "event horizon." Joseph F. Dolan, of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD, observed pulses of ultraviolet light from clumps of hot gas fade and then disappear as they swirled around a massive, compact object called Cygnus XR-1. This activity is just as would have been expected if the hot gas had fallen into a black hole". <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or this..... https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1104/1104.3164.pdf ABSTRACT Dying pulse trains (DPTs) ñ pulses of radiation with decreasing intensity and decreasing intervals between them ñ are predicted by General Relativity to occur from material spiraling into an event horizon after detaching from the last stable orbit in an accretion disk around a black hole. Two events resembling DPTs were detected in 3 hours observation of Cyg X-1 in the far UV using the High Speed Photometer on the Hubble Space Telescope (Dolan 2001). We observed Cyg X-1, a leading candidate for a black hole, with the proportional counter array on RXTE to seek such events in the low-energy X-ray region. No dying pulse trains with a characteristic timescale between pulses of 1 - 40 ms were detected in 10 hours of observation during Cyg X-1ís high luminosity state, low luminosity state, and transitions between states, although individual pulses are clearly detectable in data with 1 ms temporal resolution. The 2Û upper limit on the rate of DPTís in the X-ray region is less than half the rate reported by Dolan (2001) in the UV. These negative results are consistent with Cyg X-1 being an extreme Kerr black hole with a characteristic timescale between DPT pulses less than 1 ms

Fact: While I have always agreed we will never observationally verify anything within a BH's EH, I also stipulate that we can reasonably use GR as a guide. Hope that helps.

Classic!!!!

https://phys.org/news/2019-04-tiny-fragment-comet-meteorite.html Tiny fragment of a comet found inside a meteorite: A tiny piece of the building blocks from which comets formed has been discovered inside a primitive meteorite. The discovery by a Carnegie Institution of Science-led team, including a researcher now at Arizona State University, was published April 15 in Nature Astronomy. The finding could offer clues to the formation, structure, and evolution of the solar system. "The meteorite is named LaPaz Icefield 02342," says research scientist Jemma Davidson of ASU's Center for Meteorite Studies in the School of Earth and Space Exploration. "The name comes from where it was found in Antarctica's LaPaz Icefield." She adds that it belongs to a class of primitive carbonaceous chondrite meteorites that have undergone minimal changes since they formed more than 4.5 billion years ago, likely beyond the orbit of Jupiter. more at link: the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-019-0737-8 A cometary building block in a primitive asteroidal meteorite: Abstract: Meteorites originating from primitive C-type asteroids are composed of materials from the Sun’s protoplanetary disk, including up to a few per cent organic carbon. In contrast, some interplanetary dust particles and micrometeorites have much higher carbon contents, up to >90%, and are thought to originate from icy outer Solar System bodies and comets. Here we report an approximately 100-µm-diameter very carbon-rich clast, with highly primitive characteristics, in the matrix of a CR2 chondrite, LaPaz Icefield 02342. The clast may represent a cometary building block, largely unsampled in meteorite collections, that was captured by a C-type asteroid during the early stages of planet formation. The existence of this cometary microxenolith supports the idea of a radially inward transport of materials from the outer protoplanetary disk into the CR chondrite reservoir during the formation of planetesimals. Moreover, the H-isotopic composition of the clast is suggestive of a temporal evolution of organic isotopic compositions in the comet-forming region of the disk. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: The sentence highlighted in the Abstract....Is this support for Planetary Migration? A hypothesis I believe has come about due to the observations of extra stellar planets that have been discovered and the many "hot Jupiters"among them, being close to their parent star. The other point that I raise is that the article could have been more informative? Meteorites are the remains of meteoroids/meteors that survive entering the Earth's atmosphere, and are all left over debris from the formation of the solar system. Comets are also the left over remnants from the solar system formation, perhaps originating further out and so acquired water ice. Comets essentially are meteoroids/meteors covered with this water ice and other frozen impurities and in the course of time, will end up being just plain old meteoroids. Finally Asteroids are larger versions of meteoroids/meteors/comets. If I'm correct with the above, I believe that this should have been mentioned in the article.

https://phys.org/news/2019-04-tess-earth-sized-planet.html A nearby system hosts the first Earth-sized planet discovered by NASA's Transiting Exoplanets Survey Satellite, as well as a warm sub-Neptune-sized world, according to a new paper from a team of astronomers that includes Carnegie's Johanna Teske, Paul Butler, Steve Shectman, Jeff Crane, and Sharon Wang. Their work is published in the Astrophysical Journal Letters. "It's so exciting that TESS, which launched just about a year ago, is already a game-changer in the planet-hunting business," said Teske, who is second author on the paper. "The spacecraft surveys the sky and we collaborate with the TESS follow-up community to flag potentially interesting targets for additional observations using ground-based telescopes and instruments." One such tool, the Planet Finder Spectrograph on the Magellan II telescope at Carnegie's Las Campanas Observatory in Chile, was a crucial component of this effort. It helped confirm the planetary nature of the TESS signal, and to measure the mass of the newly discovered sub-Neptune. more at link..... the paper: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ab12ed/meta TESS Delivers Its First Earth-sized Planet and a Warm Sub-Neptune*: Abstract: The future of exoplanet science is bright, as Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) once again demonstrates with the discovery of its longest-period confirmed planet to date. We hereby present HD 21749b (TOI 186.01), a sub-Neptune in a 36 day orbit around a bright (V = 8.1) nearby (16 pc) K4.5 dwarf. TESS measures HD 21749b to be R ⊕, and combined archival and follow-up precision radial velocity data put the mass of the planet at M ⊕. HD 21749b contributes to the TESS Level 1 Science Requirement of providing 50 transiting planets smaller than 4 R ⊕ with measured masses. Furthermore, we report the discovery of HD 21749c (TOI 186.02), the first Earth-sized () planet from TESS. The HD 21749 system is a prime target for comparative studies of planetary composition and architecture in multi-planet systems.

That alone sums up my disgust and such comments entangled in gender/politic bias, as yes, disgusting! It's a great experiment, with a great result, that confirmed BH's and GR to even greater certainty, with a great many participants, who I would suggest also be just as disgusted and sad that such inferences of gender or anything else can raise their ugly head.

Getting back to the subject of the thread, as entitled.....The first BH suspect was "Cygnus X1" https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/multimedia/cygnusx1.html "On the left, an optical image from the Digitized Sky Survey shows Cygnus X-1, outlined in a red box. Cygnus X-1 is located near large active regions of star formation in the Milky Way, as seen in this image that spans some 700 light years across. An artist's illustration on the right depicts what astronomers think is happening within the Cygnus X-1 system. Cygnus X-1 is a so-called stellar-mass black hole, a class of black holes that comes from the collapse of a massive star. The black hole pulls material from a massive, blue companion star toward it. This material forms a disk (shown in red and orange) that rotates around the black hole before falling into it or being redirected away from the black hole in the form of powerful jets. A trio of papers with data from radio, optical and X-ray telescopes, including NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory, has revealed new details about the birth of this famous black hole that took place millions of years ago. Using X-ray data from Chandra, the Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer, and the Advanced Satellite for Cosmology and Astrophysics, scientists were able to determine the spin of Cygnus X-1 with unprecedented accuracy, showing that the black hole is spinning at very close to its maximum rate. Its event horizon -- the point of no return for material falling towards a black hole -- is spinning around more than 800 times a second. Using optical observations of the companion star and its motion around its unseen companion, the team also made the most precise determination ever for the mass of Cygnus X-1, of 14.8 times the mass of the Sun. It was likely to have been almost this massive at birth, because of lack of time for it to grow appreciably. The researchers also announced that they have made the most accurate distance estimate yet of Cygnus X-1 using the National Radio Observatory's Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA). The new distance is about 6,070 light years from Earth. This accurate distance was a crucial ingredient for making the precise mass and spin determinations". ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Other such observations have been made. In recent times the discovery of gravitational waves that just happen to match templates as determined by GR, and of course the new image of a BH at m87, or at least the shadow of the BH. I believe we can be as sure as any scientific theory allows us to be, that BH's are real entities in this big wide wonderful universe we inhabit. Plenty more info and data in the "First real Black Hole image - 10 April 2019" thread.