beecee

I know its only early, but I'm having a beer to Albert!

Any mathematical singularity of infinite density and spacetime curvature, is not really viable and rejected by cosmologists and physicists today. The singularity defined by where our laws break down, certainly does exist, at the quantum/Planck level. Yes, as defined by the quantum/Planck level.

The singularity [where our laws of physics and GR break down] exist at the Planck/quantum level, as in all BH's.

this one? http://digg.com/video/understanding-black-hole-image More data..... https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ab0ec7/meta https://iopscience.iop.org/journal/2041-8205/page/Focus_on_EHT extract: "The sequence of Letters in this issue provides the full scope of the project and the conclusions drawn to date. Paper II opens with a description of the EHT array, the technical developments that enabled precursor detections, and the full range of observations reported here. Through the deployment of novel instrumentation at existing facilities, the collaboration created a new telescope with unique capabilities for black hole imaging. Paper III details the observations, data processing, calibration algorithms, and rigorous validation protocols for the final data products used for analysis. Paper IV gives the full process and approach to image reconstruction. The final images emerged after a rigorous evaluation of traditional imaging algorithms and new techniques tailored to the EHT instrument--alongside many months of testing the imaging algorithms through the analysis of synthetic data sets. Paper V uses newly assembled libraries of general relativistic magnetohydrodynamic (GRMHD) simulations and advanced ray-tracing to analyze the images and data in the context of black hole accretion and jet-launching. Paper VI employs model fits, comparison of simulations to data, and feature extraction from images to derive formal estimates of the lensed emission ring size and shape, black hole mass, and constraints on the nature of the black hole and the space-time surrounding it. Paper I is a concise summary. Our image of the shadow confines the mass of M87 to within its photon orbit, providing the strongest case for the existence of supermassive black holes. These observations are consistent with Doppler brightening of relativistically moving plasma close to the black hole lensed around the photon orbit. They strengthen the fundamental connection between active galactic nuclei and central engines powered by accreting black holes through an entirely new approach. In the coming years, the EHT Collaboration will extend efforts to include full polarimetry, mapping of magnetic fields on horizon scales, investigations of time variability, and increased resolution through shorter wavelength observations. In short, this work signals the development of a new field of research in astronomy and physics as we zero in on precision images of black holes on horizon scales. The prospects for sharpening our focus even further are excellent."

We are living in incredible scientific times! And thanks for the photos and links...nice work!

So far that appears to be the case. At least in early morning [here in Australia's east coast] news reports. Obviously awaiting full confirmation from the professionals.

You need a mathematician for that, and I aint one! but one should be along in time.

Ignoring the confirmation of the MM experiment, we are simply unable to perform any other experiment, that shows that the speed of light isn't constant. Couple that with the fact that the other predictions of SR hold up, and have never been invalidated, one can reasonably conclude that the postulate is valid.

Some important points to remember: [1] Know the model/theory thoroughly you are attempting to invalidate. [2] Understand that SR, the model you are pretending to invalidate, has many observational and experimental results and data confirming that model to the best of our ability. [3] Understand that overwhelmingly supported mainstream theories and models such as SR/GR the BB, are never going to be invalidated by claims on science forums open to any Tom, Dick or Harry. There is a process to undertake if in the unlikely scenario, you have hit upon something that has been overlooked by professional science and scientists. [4] Know the scientific methodology.

Newton's equations are not wrong, but inaccurate as relativistic velocities are approached. The ball, having mass, will never exceed the speed of light, but from various frames of references, time and space will vary.

Hmmm, I personally believe that FRB's and GRB's are the last dying breath before a star becomes a BH.

Thanks. In another forum many many moons ago, I was labeled a "science cheer leader" for that! Actually took it as a compliment although it was not meant to be.

Yep, I did finally wake up to that fact, eventually! Thanks.

Not really......

OK, misunderstood. The paragraph quote you offered in the OP, was it from Carl Schwarzchild? Actually the Newtonian version was hypothesised by John Michell, as you probably would be aware, and called a "Dark Star' [1783] Actually Michell quote then and not Carl.

Any Sun would not be absorbed into a BH per se. A BH is not an all purpose vacuum cleaner. Any star that approaches a BH would actually start orbiting it, and the stellar matter would be sucked off into an accretion disk, which the spirals into the BH. Accretion disks themselves are orbiting at relativistic speeds and very hot as a result.

It seems there has been some confusion re the claim of taking a photo of a BH. From previous information and cosmological knowledge, I imagined they were speaking of the inner most stable orbital parameter of an accretion disk. It get more complicated then that, and actually more towards the EH parameters. the following excellent explanatory video explains....

Actually the "picture of a BH" claim is far better explained in the following video, particularly from the 1m20 sec mark with regards to the shape as close as any image has ever been to the EH, and photon spheres orbitals, which may add confirmation or otherwise for GR. Nice to see you so interested in such a momentous undertaking. If you have a more realistic descriptive language,then be my guest. https://www.space.com/event-horizon-telescope-is-trying-to-photograph-black-holes.html or this may help.....1 min 20 sec mark and 2 min 35 sec mark should help in your understanding.... How to Understand the Image of a Black Hole I hope that helps. It certainly gave me far more insight into the taking a photo of a BH claim. ps: I will also post this video in the appropriate thread I started

This maybe of interest.....https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118655-this-is-stunning-with-an-awe-inspiring-7-minute-video-i-suggest-all-to-watch/?tab=comments#comment-1100314

The only argument as far as I know, is on the quantum nature of the EH and information paradox etc. I doubt there will be any evidence saying BH's per se, do not exist. If I'm wrong, then we probably have something even more bizarre to explain the effects we observe. Let me add that whatever the verdict/validation/invalidation, it's just another example of science, the scientific method and the continued progress, based on further and technically more sound, observational and experimental data. That's how science works.

E-Mailed a Professor Tamara Davis Professor, and Vice-Chancellor Research and Teaching Fellow, at the University of Queensland in Australia after her appearence on a Q+A show last night. Her reply.... "Dear Barry, Astrophysicists are always looking for new theories to try to improve on the old, and this is one new theory amongst many. Interestingly the paper predicts that an image of the supermassive object at the centre of our galaxy should vary with time (on the order of 20 mins, p38 of https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1402-4896/aa93a8/pdf). Such an image is expected to be released by the Event Horizon Telescope very soon, so I guess we’ll find out if that prediction holds! Tamara"

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-07/black-hole-first-ever-photograph-could-be-unveiled-this-week/10979244 The first-ever photograph of a black hole might be unveiled this week. Here's what it could tell us: Scientists are expected to unveil the first-ever photograph of a black hole this week. If they do, it will mark a major breakthrough in astrophysics and could provide new insight into the giant celestial monsters. Here's what we know about the announcement so far. When will it happen? The US National Science Foundation says it will announce during a press conference "a groundbreaking result" from the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) project. The announcement is scheduled to take place on April 10 at 9:00am (Washington time), which will be Wednesday night in Australia. Simultaneous news conferences are also scheduled in Brussels, Santiago, Shanghai, Taipei and Tokyo. extract: The research will put to the test one of the pillars of science — physicist Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity — according to University of Arizona astrophysicist Dimitrios Psaltis, project scientist for the EHT. That theory, put forward in 1915, was intended to explain the laws of gravity and their relation to other natural forces. "The shape of the [black hole's] shadow will be almost a perfect circle in Einstein's theory," Dr Psaltis said. "If we find it to be different than what the theory predicts, then we go back to square one and we say, 'Clearly, something is not exactly right'." Another account....... https://newatlas.com/giant-dust-donut-galaxy-black-hole/59168/ Gigantic dusty donut around a black hole imaged for the first time: 4 PICTURES An illustration of a torus around an active galactic nucleus, which has been imaged directly for the first time(Credit: Bill Saxton, NRAO/AUI/NSF) What do radio galaxies, quasars, blazars, Seyfert galaxies and active galactic nuclei all have in common? Everything, it turns out: These are all different names for the same celestial objects viewed from different angles. Now, for the first time astronomers have directly imaged the last piece of the puzzle that ties them all together – a dusty donut of material that surrounds a supermassive black hole. more at link..... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Exciting times ahead, irrespective of findings I suggest! [And yet we still have troubled souls, pushing personal agendas, claiming the incalcitrance of science!

Did this article, and the video within the link, only resonate with me? Personally, while always doing my best to recycle as much as I can, I did not think that Humanity's thoughtlessness and carelessness had reached to such depths [no pun intended] Again I urge those interested to watch the video around 7 minutes long, within the link https://www.sciencealert.com/stunning-mirror-pools-and-other-wonders-discovered-on-the-edge-of-deep-sea-vents

Again, the position is at this time that your claims are hypothetical at best, and the BB stands as is, despite yourself ignoring that overwhelming supported evidence. My last paragraph stands as does your obvious suggestion and silly claims that mainstream science, is hiding or fudging with the real observational data. There is absolutely no reason why that would be the case. Supporting data you seem to apparently to rely on, seems to have been either discredited, or explained away by natural mechanisms and other possibilities. see..... 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"

Yep, no problems with that really, It's just I thought you seem to be speaking of voids beyond our spacetime/universe: Point I'm making being that we can only ever be aware of our own universe/space/time, I'm pretty sure. Bingo! Or more simply it's the voids/space expanding over large scales [cosmological redshift] between galactic clusters and walls, not the galactic clusters and walls moving away.[Doppler redshift]