Black Holes (split from: So, you've got a new theory...)

[coffeesippin]

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

The ultimate answers as you claim,  can apply to all scientific theories. No scientific theory is proof. But scientific theories can and do grow in certainty over time. Some [well at least one] is as near certain as one could hope for. GR and BH's at this time are overwhelmingly supported due to the overwhelming evidence, but as in any discipline, there will always be some isolated differences of opinion...Fred Hoyle, as I mentioned before was a "great" astronomer, but he was wrong on a very important specific part of cosmology that we accept today.

My qualifications? wait for it...I do not have any...I ama total amateur and lay person, but I have read many reputable books, I have listened to manyreasonable reputable obviously professionals on forums such as this, and I have asked many questions on those matters that I have not understood, without any preconceived opinion or agenda.

 I could also probably view some of your actions and opinions on this forum the same way.

??? What has that to do with anything? Except possibly reinforcing my opinion of you as having an agenda. The Father of the BB was a Jesuit pries named George LaMaitre. Galileo was religious, as to was Newton. It was the scientific knowledge and learning and reasoning that saw them make notable contributions to science. Religion had nothing to do with it. Again, I stipulate, it will not be some philosophical rhetoric, or some religiously inspired myth that will see science advance and new discoveries made.It will be science, scientists as governed my the scientific method.

Oooopsy daisy! Whinging!!! it should be...My humble apologies.

Amateur .. okay .. I suspected that from your hindered ability to see the open end of conversations here.

To say anything I said or did here was vulgar or lewd is a mere vulgar accusation, despite your smiley face.

I googled Whinging .. it`s quite an insult .. probably equal to troll, and totally inconsistent with my behaviour here except as perceived by your prejudicial blindness caused by my easy admittance that I consider the bible true, which in your opinion seems worse than infantile.   

 

[beecee]

7 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Amateur .. okay .. I suspected that from your hindered ability to see the open end of conversations here.

I have never denied it nor hidden from that fact and have mentioned it many times on this forum...You?

Quote

To say anything I said or did here was vulgar or lewd is a mere vulgar accusation, despite your smiley face.

What is vulgar and rude is how you seem to inevitable bring your god into everything.

Quote

I googled Whinging .. it`s quite an insult .. probably equal to troll, and totally inconsistent with my behaviour here except as perceived by your prejudicial blindness caused by my easy admittance that I consider the bible true, which in your opinion seems worse than infantile. 

 Whatever. ho hum 

Getting back on topic......

The following link gives details and info on the first BH observed, Cygnus X-1

http://blackholes.stardate.org/objects/factsheet-Cygnus-X-1.html

[coffeesippin]

12 minutes ago, beecee said:

I have never denied it nor hidden from that fact and have mentioned it many times on this forum...You?

What is vulgar and rude is how you seem to inevitable bring your god into everything.

 Whatever. ho hum 

Getting back on topic......

The following link gives details and info on the first BH observed, Cygnus X-1

http://blackholes.stardate.org/objects/factsheet-Cygnus-X-1.html

I`ve never seen you advertise yourself as anything but someone who knows far more than most here.  I`m not paid to do what I do, so I`m an amateur.  It would be rude for me not to respond to someone who raises the question of God to me, which is the most frequent way God is mentioned here, as in this very case, when you mentioned `your god.`  I understand this forum has a place for religious discussion.   If you want to start a post there, notify me.  

[beecee]

http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.id=64&cat=exotic

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~narayan/Benefunder/Narayan_McClintock.pdf

Observational Evidence for Black Holes Ramesh Narayan and Jeffrey E. McClintock Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A

Abstract

Astronomers have discovered two populations of black holes: (i) stellar-mass black holes with masses in the range 5 to 30 solar masses, millions of which are present in each galaxy in the universe, and (ii) supermassive black holes with masses in the range 106 to 1010 solar masses, one each in the nucleus of every galaxy. There is strong circumstantial evidence that all these objects are true black holes with event horizons. The measured masses of supermassive black holes are strongly correlated with properties of their host galaxies, suggesting that these black holes, although extremely small in size, have a strong influence on the formation and evolution of entire galaxies. Spin parameters have recently been measured for a number of black holes. Based on the data, there is an indication that the kinetic power of at least one class of relativistic jet ejected from accreting black holes may be correlated with black hole spin. If verified, it would suggest that these jets are powered by a generalized Penrose process mediated by magnetic fields.

1.5 Conclusion

The dawning that black holes are real occurred at the midpoint of this century of General Relativity, at the First Texas Symposium on Relativistic Astrophysics in 1963. There, Roy Kerr announced his solution, Jesse Greenstein described Maarten Schmidt’s discovery of quasars, and Harlan Smith reported on the rapid variability of these objects [69]. Today, black hole astrophysics is advancing at a breathtaking rate. Tomorrow, spurred on by the commissioning of the Event Horizon Telescope and the advent of gravitational wave astronomy, it is reasonable to expect the discovery of many new unimaginable wonders.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-018-0493-1

A luminous X-ray outburst from an intermediate-mass black hole in an off-centre star cluster

 

Abstract

A unique signature for the presence of massive black holes in very dense stellar regions is occasional giant-amplitude outbursts of multi-wavelength radiation from tidal disruption and subsequent accretion of stars that make a close approach to the black holes1. Previous strong tidal disruption event (TDE) candidates were all associated with the centres of largely isolated galaxies2,3,4,5,6. Here, we report the discovery of a luminous X-ray outburst from a massive star cluster at a projected distance of 12.5 kpc from the centre of a large lenticular galaxy. The luminosity peaked at ~1043 erg s−1 and decayed systematically over 10 years, approximately following a trend that supports the identification of the event as a TDE. The X-ray spectra were all very soft, with emission confined to be ≲3.0 keV, and could be described with a standard thermal disk. The disk cooled significantly as the luminosity decreased—a key thermal-state signature often observed in accreting stellar-mass black holes. This thermal-state signature, coupled with very high luminosities, ultrasoft X-ray spectra and the characteristic power-law evolution of the light curve, provides strong evidence that the source contains an intermediate-mass black hole with a mass tens of thousand times that of the solar mass. This event demonstrates that one of the most effective means of detecting intermediate-mass black holes is through X-ray flares from TDEs in star clusters.

[coffeesippin]

Just now, coffeesippin said:

I`ve never seen you advertise yourself as anything but someone who knows far more than most here.  I`m not paid to do what I do, so I`m an amateur.  It would be rude for me not to respond to someone who raises the question of God to me, which is the most frequent way God is mentioned here, as in this very case, when you mentioned `your god.`  I understand this forum has a place for religious discussion.   If you want to start a post there, notify me.  

Regarding your:  

The following link gives details and info on the first BH observed, Cygnus X-1

http://blackholes.stardate.org/objects/factsheet-Cygnus-X-1.html     

As you seem to know, Black Holes if they are reality and match theory, cannot be observed.  I understand you were simply careless in phrasing, and that it is only the effects of BHs that can be observed, but it does reveal your subconscious conviction that Black Holes are in fact reality, and this is bound to hinder your from considering other theories.   I`m NOT trying to tell you they DO NOT exist .. I cannot know that .. to me it`s not very important, except if they do exist the matter that goes into them might come out somewhere else in the universe in another form, and I suspect that form is the anti-gravity in cosmic voids, that being an original idea I had ten or so years ago, but which others have hit upon also.   This is only an easy find, not meant to be authoritative.  https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/308733/galaxy-repelled-by-great-void    Of course, the idea of anti-gravity voids may be classified in this forum as pseudo science, or worse, as it was in the NASA APOD forum I was on when I thought of it. Needless to say I was severely castigated as a lunatic there.  Here`s another link that might have value. http://www.physics.drexel.edu/~pan/posters/2010CoAS.pdf    I play volleyball tonight, and not with other 70 year olds,  so have to take a break for a nap.  

[swansont]

3 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

Phi .. he attacked me.  I was not attacking him, I was telling him why he was attacking me.  Why do you ignore his attack?  is he a pal of yours?

Here is his attack on me:  Feel free to chastise your buddy.

!

Moderator Note

I think you need to do a better job of pointing out specifically where the personal attack is (and do so using the "report post" function). Disagreement, calling out deficiencies in logic or understanding — while you may not like it, that's not a personal attack, that's about the subject matter.

Unlike "insulting demeaning antagonistic troll looking for a fight" which is personal (i.e. it's about the person), and not anything about subject matter (e.g. your assertion is wrong) or the discussion process (e.g. your thinking is muddled). 

 

[beecee]

6 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Regarding your:  

The following link gives details and info on the first BH observed, Cygnus X-1

http://blackholes.stardate.org/objects/factsheet-Cygnus-X-1.html     

As you seem to know, Black Holes if they are reality and match theory, cannot be observed.  I understand you were simply careless in phrasing, and that it is only the effects of BHs that can be observed, but it does reveal your subconscious conviction that Black Holes are in fact reality, and this is bound to hinder your from considering other theories.   

Nonsense my friend...Since I have mentioned many times that we can never see a BH directly and simply observe the effects it has on spacetime and matter energy, it reveals nothing other then your own total misconception re BH's and what I have always said.

Quote

I`m NOT trying to tell you they DO NOT exist .. I cannot know that .

You can though logically and in line with the evidence supporting the existence of BH's, infer that they most probably do exist, until, and if shown otherwise.

Quote

 to me it`s not very important, except if they do exist the matter that goes into them might come out somewhere else in the universe in another form, and I suspect that form is the anti-gravity in cosmic voids, that being an original idea I had ten or so years ago, but which others have hit upon also.   This is only an easy find, not meant to be authoritative.  https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/308733/galaxy-repelled-by-great-void    Of course, the idea of anti-gravity voids may be classified in this forum as pseudo science, or worse, as it was in the NASA APOD forum I was on when I thought of it. Needless to say I was severely castigated as a lunatic there.  

That is nothing more then speculation, as opposed to the very good evidence pointing to the existence of BH's. We cannot know anything with any certainty about what is inside the EH of a BH, other then that GR tells us that further collapse is compulsory once the Schwarzchild radius is breached, at least up to where GR fails to predict at the quantum/Planck level. Most physicists now accept that the mathematical singularity does not exist, due to the associated infinities of density and spacetime curvature. In essence then, a surface of sorts should exist at this quantum/Planck level, consisting of the mass of the BH, in an unknown state.

ps: Nothing wrong with speculation anyway, as long as one accepts that it is still speculatory.

Quote

Here`s another link that might have value. http://www.physics.drexel.edu/~pan/posters/2010CoAS.pdf    I play volleyball tonight, and not with other 70 year olds,  so have to take a break for a nap.  

That's OK, you enjoy yourself....but remember that forums such as this, open to any Tom, Dick and Harry, do not confirm, or invalidate the scientific theories and continued scientific testing that is being done as we speak/type, in professional circles. And further remember as I keep mentioning to a couple of philosopher friends of mine, that it is this continued testing, reevaluating and  researching data as it becomes available, that makes science our most powerful tool for advancement and knowledge and continued correction and updating when needed. Someone mentioned in another thread [probably one of my philosopher mates] about me being a science cheer leader?  I find that rather funny and ironic in that if it wasn't for science, the practical kind, we would not as a species be where we are today.

 

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

I think emotions are a little high in this thread, so I am closing this for now. If anyone wishes to continue discussion of the science in a reasonable manner, feel free to open a new thread.