beecee

I've read enough [although certainly no expert] to understand that cosmological redshift is caused by expanding space, and that the redshifts reported byTifft and others, are rejected as the over-riding basis of the origin and evolution of the universe we observe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift_quantization Redshift quantization is a fringe topic with no support from mainstream astronomers in recent times. Although there are a handful of published articles in the last decade in support of quantization, those views are rejected by the rest of the field. Here is an account by Brian Koberlein..... https://archive.briankoberlein.com/2014/05/30/seeing-red/index.html extract: "What we found was that the ideas of Arp and Tifft don’t agree with observation. What once hinted at redshift quantization is now seen to be due to a clustering of galaxies. When large number of galaxies or quasars are analyzed, the quantization pattern fades. We’ve also found the scale at which galaxies cluster matches the clustering prediction of cold dark matter. The idea that quasars are ejected from galaxies also doesn’t match the distribution of quasar redshifts. A recent study published in the Astrophysical Journal looked at both quasar periodicity (redshift quantization) and ejected quasar using the SDSS database, and found that neither matched observation. And AO 0235+164? Turns out that it’s a quasar behind a closer galaxy. The emission line with a higher redshift is from the quasar, and the absorption line with a lower redshift is from the closer (foreground) galaxy. There are several similar examples, and many of them also show gravitational lensing of the quasar’s light around the galaxy. So both of these models have been largely rejected. With nearly a million measured galaxies and quasars, it has become clear that the one model that best matches the data is an inflating universe with dark energy and cold dark matter. There are still a few researchers who strongly disagree. Their work sometimes get published in a peer reviewed journal, and that’s fine. It’s always good to have a few dissenters pushing to keep the rest of us honest. Of course there is another pattern that has arisen, and that is the one where every time somebody writes about how quantized redshift and Arp’s non-inflationary universe model doesn’t match the data, a flood of amateur commenters hit your page to declare how wrong you are. They troll your comments and send you angry personal messages. They’ll post link after link to other papers, and demand you go through each one in detail. When you don’t accept their view they accuse you of bias and closed mindedness. Which is why every time the topic comes up, it has astrophysicists seeing red". """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" A question for you Ray......we once thought that the Sun revolved around the Earth and we were the center of the universe. Since those days, science has shown we are just another planet revolving around an insignificant yellow dwarf Sun, positioned in the outskirts of an insignificant spiral galaxy, among many billions of other galaxies within the observable universe. Why then would the Milky Way be the center of the universe, [other then of course, the center of our observable universe, which any living being can claim, where ever they are in the universe] as this hypothetical you are pushing is telling us? That, and that alone, in my mind, tells me that your thoughts and the hypothetical you are pushing, is just total unbelievable fantasy. Again, why?

We, scientists that is, no much more about GR and the validity of its predictions then did Schwarzchild or even Einstein himself. The first evidence for BH's did not surface until the early seventies from memory and first suspected with Cygnus X-1. Couple that with the many suspected cases since, the discovery of gravitational waves that "just happened" to align with the GR template, and now this image of a BH, that again, "just happened" to align with exactly what was predicted. As an amateur I can only conclude that you are ignorant of the overwhelming evidence that supports BH's and GR, or you have misinterpreted the evidence, much as some others have, like Arp, Hoyle, Hannes Alfvén, and probably others that I am not aware of. I suppose the momentous findings [with GWs and BH images] of late, have stirred up a hornets nest and enraged the isolated few who doubt the validity of BHs and GR according to current evidence. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Funny one of the papers you cited, does not mention anything about "alleged", either alleged this, or alleged that despie you mentioning that in your OP. It highlights a well constructed experiment, and the resulting image, which just happens to align with what GR and the cosmologists predicted. http://www.space-news.be/2019/mar-avr/100419EHT.pdf First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole Abstract: When surrounded by a transparent emission region, black holes are expected to reveal a dark shadow caused by gravitational light bending and photon capture at the event horizon. To image and study this phenomenon, we have assembled the Event Horizon Telescope, a global very long baseline interferometry array observing at a wavelength of 1.3 mm. This allows us to reconstruct event-horizon-scale images of the supermassive black hole candidate in the center of the giant elliptical galaxy M87. We have resolved the central compact radio source as an asymmetric bright emission ring with a diameter of 42 ± 3 μas, which is circular and encompasses a central depression in brightness with a flux ratio 10:1. The emission ring is recovered using different calibration and imaging schemes, with its diameter and width remaining stable over four different observations carried out in different days. Overall, the observed image is consistent with expectations for the shadow of a Kerr black hole as predicted by general relativity. The asymmetry in brightness in the ring can be explained in terms of relativistic beaming of the emission from a plasma rotating close to the speed of light around a black hole. We compare our images to an extensive library of ray-traced general-relativistic magnetohydrodynamic simulations of black holes and derive a central mass of M = (6.5 ± 0.7) × 109 Me. Our radiowave observations thus provide powerful evidence for the presence of supermassive black holes in centers of galaxies and as the central engines of active galactic nuclei. They also present a new tool to explore gravity in its most extreme limit and on a mass scale that was so far not accessible. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also suggest you go back to the thread about this experiment and the BH image [the one where you attempted to post your speculative scenario in, to seemingly gain some sort of legitimacy for it] and read up on the many links highlighting how this eventuated, what took place, and the nature of the image itself. All of which supports that this is along with gravitational waves, further confirmation and validity of BH's and GR of course.

My take actually says that it is spacetime that is ringing and/or oscilating, analogous to gravitational waves and the Lense Thirring effect. Your last question is best answered imo simply by the fact that all frames of references are as valid as each other.

Either way a coincidental finding, remains hypothetical, and probably nothing more then selection bias..

The donut is around 2.6 Schwarzchild radius from what I understand and the info I have read. In other words while the inner most orbit of the accretion disk is at 3 Schwarzchild radii. It is effectively explained here.....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUyH3XhpLTo Note, the illustration in the video was before this image was released, so it can be seen that the astronomers and scientists were pretty close to the mark of what would be seen. The gravity of a BH operates the same as gravity of any massive object, but obviously far more intense. Photons approaching a BH at the appropriate trajectory would orbit at 1.5 Schwarzchild radius, which is known as the photon sphere and is unstable. Nothing of course can ever orbit any closer. The closest edge of the accretion disk is the inner most stable orbit and is at 3 Schwarzchild radius.. This applies to any non spinning BH [for simplicity sake] and its gets far more complicated for any Kerr spinning BH. Here is a pretty good link maintained by a Professor Andrew Hamilton, that covers most questions etc one would ask about any BH. https://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/

Agreed, but I suggest this would have had him rocking in his wheel chair!

A real shame that Professor Stephen Hawking had not lived long enough to see this momentous event.

Up date of News from aLIGO/CalTech... https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20190411 First Public Gravitational Wave Alert Issued! News Release • April 11, 2019 The LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations are excited to announce that they have sent out their first ever “public alert”, informing the world at large of a possible gravitational wave detection. Beginning with this current observing run (dubbed O3 for the third observing run with advanced detectors), LIGO and Virgo will publicly announce candidate gravitational wave triggers with a high likelihood of astrophysical origin within minutes of the waves arriving in the three detectors (LIGO Hanford, LIGO Livingston, and Virgo). LIGO Laboratory director, Dr. David Reitze, explained the reason for this new approach: "In O3 we transitioned to a system whereby LIGO and Virgo alert the electromagmetic (EM) astronomy community almost immediately that we have a statistically significant trigger; that is, a potential gravitational wave (GW) detection. The rationale for this is simple: The sooner we reveal a GW source, the sooner EM telescopes (X-ray, UV, optical, radio) can search for and hopefully find an electromagnetic signal from the same source. Capturing the EM signal as soon as possible is, in many cases, the key to understanding the dynamics of the event, revealing its true nature." Dr. Jonah Kanner, a senior scientist at LIGO Laboratory, added: "Public alerts will allow astronomers around the world to react quickly to gravitational-wave events, and find counterparts across the electromagnetic spectrum. Gravitational-wave astronomy is still very new, and has a huge potential for discovery.” This first public gravitational wave alert, sent out April 8, 2019, describes what is believed to be a binary black-hole merger that occurred some 4-billion light years away (1473 +/- 358 Mpc). LIGO’s Hanford and Livingston observatories and the Virgo detector in Italy were all in observation mode at the time and contributed to the detection. Combining the data obtained by each site yielded the sky-map seen below. The region of sky believed to contain the source of the gravitational wave detected on April 8, 2019. The area spans 387 square degrees, equivalent to nearly 2000 full-Moons, roughly meandering through the constellations Cassiopeia, Lacerta, Andromeda, and Cepheus in the northern hemisphere. Credit: LIGO/Caltech/MIT Gravitational wave public alerts will include a sky-map showing the possible location of the source on the sky, the time of the event, and what kind of event it is believed to be (e.g., binary black hole merger, black hole/neutron star merger, or binary neutron star merger). More detailed information about candidate events will be published at a later date after each one has been properly vetted and studied. The public can keep track of public alerts at https://gracedb.ligo.org/latest/, and iPhone users can even get an app to receive alerts as they happen! Find it here: Gravitational Wave Events iPhone App LIGO and Virgo anticipate that this is just the first of many public alerts yet to be distributed in the coming year. O3 began April 1, 2019 and is expected to last at least 12 months

No probs. As I previously said, the information and data that will be gained as this methodology is further enhanced and improved, will be enormous and as informative and revealing in detail as the 11 gravitational wave discoveries. I propose a toast! Get yourselves a can of VB and salute old Albert and GR!!!

https://phys.org/news/2019-04-formation-magnetar-billion-years.html Researchers observe formation of a magnetar 6.5 billion light years away: A University of Arkansas researcher is part of a team of astronomers who have identified an outburst of X-ray emission from a galaxy approximately 6.5 billion light years away, which is consistent with the merger of two neutron stars to form a magnetar—a large neutron star with an extremely powerful magnetic field. Based on this observation, the researchers were able to calculate that mergers like this happen roughly 20 times per year in each region of a billion light years cubed. The research team, which includes Bret Lehmer, assistant professor of physics at the University of Arkansas, analyzed data from the Chandra X-ray Observatory, NASA's flagship X-ray telescope. The Chandra Deep Field-South survey includes more than 100 X-ray observations of a single area of the sky over a period of more than 16 years to collect information about galaxies throughout the universe. Lehmer, who has worked with the observatory for 15 years, collaborated with colleagues in China, Chile and the Netherlands, and at Pennsylvania State University and the University of Nevada. The study was published in Nature. more at link................... the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1079-5 A magnetar-powered X-ray transient as the aftermath of a binary neutron-star merger: Abstract Mergers of neutron stars are known to be associated with short γ-ray bursts1,2,3,4. If the neutron-star equation of state is sufficiently stiff (that is, the pressure increases sharply as the density increases), at least some such mergers will leave behind a supramassive or even a stable neutron star that spins rapidly with a strong magnetic field5,6,7,8 (that is, a magnetar). Such a magnetar signature may have been observed in the form of the X-ray plateau that follows up to half of observed short γ-ray bursts9,10. However, it has been expected that some X-ray transients powered by binary neutron-star mergers may not be associated with a short γ-ray burst11,12. A fast X-ray transient (CDF-S XT1) was recently found to be associated with a faint host galaxy, the redshift of which is unknown13. Its X-ray and host-galaxy properties allow several possible explanations including a short γ-ray burst seen off-axis, a low-luminosity γ-ray burst at high redshift, or a tidal disruption event involving an intermediate-mass black hole and a white dwarf13. Here we report a second X-ray transient, CDF-S XT2, that is associated with a galaxy at redshift z = 0.738 (ref. 14). The measured light curve is fully consistent with the X-ray transient being powered by a millisecond magnetar. More intriguingly, CDF-S XT2 lies in the outskirts of its star-forming host galaxy with a moderate offset from the galaxy centre, as short γ-ray bursts often do15,16. The estimated event-rate density of similar X-ray transients, when corrected to the local value, is consistent with the event-rate density of binary neutron-star mergers that is robustly inferred from the detection of the gravitational-wave event GW170817. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: An interesting side story related to the above.... https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gravitational-event-creation-black-hole.html Gravitational wave event likely signaled creation of a black hole: The spectacular merger of two neutron stars that generated gravitational waves announced last fall likely did something else: birthed a black hole. This newly spawned black hole would be the lowest mass black hole ever found. A new study analyzed data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory taken in the days, weeks, and months after the detection of gravitational waves by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO) and gamma rays by NASA's Fermi mission on August 17, 2017. While nearly every telescope at professional astronomers' disposal observed this source, known officially as GW170817, X-rays from Chandra are critical for understanding what happened after the two neutron stars collided. From the LIGO data astronomers have a good estimate that the mass of the object resulting from the neutron star merger is about 2.7 times the mass of the Sun. This puts it on a tightrope of identity, implying it is either the most massive neutron star ever found or the lowest mass black hole ever found. The previous record holders for the latter are no less than about four or five times the Sun's mass. more at link..... <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the paper: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/aac3d6/meta GW170817 Most Likely Made a Black Hole: Abstract There are two outstanding issues regarding the neutron-star merger event GW170817: the nature of the compact remnant and the interstellar shock. The mass of the remnant of GW170817, ~2.7 , implies that the remnant could be either a massive rotating neutron star, or a black hole. We report Chandra Director's Discretionary Time observations made in 2017 December and 2018 January, and we reanalyze earlier observations from 2017 August and 2017 September, in order to address these unresolved issues. We estimate the X-ray flux from a neutron star remnant and compare that to the measured X-ray flux. If we assume that the spin-down luminosity of any putative neutron star is converted to pulsar wind nebula X-ray emission in the 0.5–8 keV band with an efficiency of 10−3, for a dipole magnetic field with 3 × 1011 G < B < 1014 G, a rising X-ray signal would result and would be brighter than that observed by day 107; we therefore conclude that the remnant of GW170817 is most likely a black hole. Independent of any assumptions of X-ray efficiency, however, if the remnant is a rapidly rotating magnetized neutron star, the total energy in the external shock should rise by a factor ~102 (to ~1052 erg) after a few years; therefore, Chandra observations over the next year or two that do not show substantial brightening will rule out such a remnant. The same observations can distinguish between two different models for the relativistic outflow, either an angular or radially varying structure. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< OK, after absorbing the original article, A question has arisen in my mind....If these events had not have happened, and someone were to ask me what happens when two neutron stars merge/collide, I would have unhesitatingly said that a BH would be formed. So why a Magnetar in the original article? Did they just graze each other, with one spinning faster as a result of meeting? It seems that if two neutron stars were to smash into each other, that any joining of the two would then probably exceed the NDP? Is the answer [as appears likely] dependent on the combined trajectories of their meet up? Probably I would think. Any other thoughts?

Did some checking and found that Saturn's rings are around 30ft thick and the icy dust and ice particles are typically tiny, but there are some around a km in size. Accretion disk thicknesses apparently vary somewhat, and are essentially rotating at relativistic speeds so essentially plasma. This may help.....https://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2013-1 and... http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1987ComAp..12...67A

The BB was an evolution of space and time [as we know them] from t+10-43 seconds. Matter came later. The BB and GR [or is that GR and the BB ] are compatible and go together like a hand in a glove. To supplement Strange's excellent answer I found this...... http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/universe.html Why did the universe not collapse and form a black hole at the beginning? Sometimes people find it hard to understand why the Big Bang is not a black hole. After all, the density of matter in the first fraction of a second was much higher than that found in any star, and dense matter is supposed to curve spacetime strongly. At sufficient density there must be matter contained within a region smaller than the Schwarzschild radius for its mass. Nevertheless, the Big Bang manages to avoid being trapped inside a black hole of its own making and paradoxically the space near the singularity is actually flat rather than curving tightly. How can this be? The short answer is that the Big Bang gets away with it because it is expanding rapidly near the beginning and the rate of expansion is slowing down. Space can be flat even when spacetime is not. Spacetime's curvature can come from the temporal parts of the spacetime metric which measures the deceleration of the expansion of the universe. So the total curvature of spacetime is related to the density of matter, but there is a contribution to curvature from the expansion as well as from any curvature of space. The Schwarzschild solution of the gravitational equations is static and demonstrates the limits placed on a static spherical body before it must collapse to a black hole. The Schwarzschild limit does not apply to rapidly expanding matter

Check out the vector gravity thread a few months ago. The above explains the process quite succulently.

GR gravity is the overwhelmingly supported model that in recent times, has been further confirmed with the 11 GW sightings/discoveries, and this EHT image. That is the state of the nation at this time, and as I said previously, any future model should be a QGT, which in all likelyhood would encompass GR. Other purely gravity hypotheticals are novelties. Totally agree re any Vixra link. Bingo!!! Not sure though which is more amazing...aLIGO and its companion detectors, or this EHT arrangement. I would envisage even great findings and dicoveries when the SKA is finished. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_Kilometre_Array

Your so called corrections are no more then opinions and/or pedant nonsense. So far GR has passed all tests thrown its way, and that has continued with GW's and now this EHT image. If and when any other model replaces GR, I'm, that will be a QGT which will probably encompass GR anyway. It is also off topic and against the rules to query rep points. Here are reputable papers from the Astrophysical Journal https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ab0ec7/meta https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ab0c96/meta https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ab0c57/meta https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ab0e85/meta https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ab0f43/meta https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ab1141/meta

You need to read again with more care and clarity. I said "have had more certainty added, and been further validated as per the data available". Off course I stand by those mainstream facts. Whatever makes you happy. Both have had far more certainty added. Your cynicism is noted, but this is the mainstream forum, and as such, GR is the incumbent theory that has had more certainty added, just as the 11 GW discoveries also added. Totally agree. Shame some have taken it out of context.

My point re singularities defined where our laws break down stand, as opposed to your conjecture. As per my science, I align with what is best evidenced at the time. I'm wedded to nothing despite your rhetoric. I align with what is supported by evidence as per the scientific method. Having been labeled a GR fan boy, and science cheer leader in the past, I take both as great compliments, particularly when noting who is giving the compliment and what agenda is applicable. Again as per common knowledge, BH's and GR as an extension, have had more certainty added, and been further validated as per the data available. This is the subject at hand, and just as certainly accepted by mainstream reputable scientists. GR, without doubt, has passed another crucial test.

So we have an actual image of a BH, that aligns with everything GR was telling us, and adds to the certainty of GR and BH's. The more exciting aspect of this new methodology and the new science of gravitational wave detection, is that both the EHT and aLIGO, are just beginning. The GW detectors are about to start their third run, and the EHT will be focused on better resolutions, and the exploration of our very own SMBH at Sag-A.

Umm, not sure what you are on about, but the quantum/Planck level exists, and we have no reason to not believe the same region does not exist at the core of a BH. Add that to the fact that GR says further collapse is compulsory once the EH/Schwarzchild radius is reached, and as we know, is useless at the quantum/Planck level, It's reasonable to assume [understanding the "hard to imagine" mathematical singularity of infinite densities and curvature] that the mass should reside within that Planck region. But of course, actual observation of anything inside the EH is not on, and we just have the overwhelmingly tried and tested GR to rely on. The fact remains, despite your unfounded doubt that this further adds to the validation of GR and BH's in the opinion of most all astronomers/cosmologists so far, and adds even further to the validation that the 11 gravitational waves discoveries so far, gave to BH binary pairs and as a consequence GR according to those at the coal face. GR, without doubt, has passed another crucial test. And of course any final theory [if it is ever achieved] will in all likely hood encompass GR while extending the zones of applicability. Oh, and its VB q-reeus, or Fosters possible. I would need to be desperate to drink Tooheys.

Thanks for that Max...Great stuff!!!! Scientists react to first image of a black hole

Other then the singularity as defined by where our laws of physics and GR do not apply...that is the quantum/Planck level. Well actually nothing is proven in cosmology and physics theories, but they simply get more certain and viable over time as evidence mounts. And in this instant, ignoring all the so called "salivating", certainly more evidence has just been verified, validating further, BH's and GR. But certainly, as I said previously, I'll wait for and research the thoughts on this evidence from the experts at the coal face. I take it you are not going to join me in a beer to Albert?

That's interesting. One is prompted to ask where do politicians come from?

The same bloke is narrating this video on this event..... and this one on Kerr metric BH's One would need to go along way to hear anyone explain a subject matter, more clearly and succulently then this this young fellow.

Agreed that observationaly, we can never really be able to confirm what size the matter that makes up a BH will conform to. But I believe that GR does tell us that when the Schwarzchild radius is reached, that nothing [that we know] can stop further collapse. Current logic with regards to infinity status, tells us that any mathematical point singularity is rejected. Which leaves the quantum/Planck level where we know that GR fails us. Wouldn't that tell us that the favourable/probable collapse is at this quantum/Planck level?

GR tells us that once the Schwarzchild radius [EH] is reached, further collapse is compulsory. That in itself infers to a singularity of infinite density and spacetime curvature. But at the same time, GR fails us at the quantum/Planck level. So most cosmologists today, reject the concept of infinite density and curvature, which suggests that the mass collapses to at least the quantum/planck level, or the minimum size possible.