To suggest that they can "clearly see these hidden monsters" is very misleading. You can't see back holes. They've detected x-rays, and made the presumption that they must be generated by black holes. This is piss poor science.

I agree... Black holes might exist, but so do clear, transparent, black, see through blobberglasters.

the link to the same article but with more information

http://www.ras.or...revealed

wow... the number of blackholes increases by a magnitude of 6 - 7 and the truth of the matter is -- this still doesn't explain even 1% of the missing bayronic matter in the universe.... before people jump in saying this will get rid of DM -- it won't, doesn't even come close.

Now that the prevalence of these core stars is acknowledged, I will remind those who down voted me back in 2011 of my prediction, and request, contained within the comments.

http://phys.org/n...ter.html

http://phys.org/n...als.html

And relevant:

http://phys.org/n...wth.html

http://phys.org/n...tml#nRlv

http://phys.org/n...ter.html

So continue denying, as Republicans deny science. Facts are facts, despite the denials.

Even gamma ray flashes have been associated with terrestrial lightning, so why are the authors speculating on invisible black holes?

Bennett pinches and plasmoids are also prodigious x-ray sources, not only that but plasmoids can also create polar jets. Now some astro-maths types may claim that their plasma models cannot account for the necessary energies. Their problem is they are using MHD models "we know from experiment to be wrong", but it doesn't stop them from applying their failed models. This article explains why/how the correct maths/models explain the energies and results just fine. It's time (like 40 yrs now) for astrophysicists to ditch the "mathematically elegant" MHD plasma models for the far more accurate particle/circuit models electric engineers use to actually make stuffs. The astros need to cast their epicycles aside and start doing real science.

https://str.llnl....013/tang

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

black holes are both observed and well documented! Surprised?

Huh? So far we never observed any black hole directly - this is what "observed well" means in religious newspeak of mainstream science proponents?

@Zephir
at least we now know you can't read either... or did you simply ignore the rest of that post?

I'm using 'observed' in the same sense that the vast majority of exoplanets found to date are 'observed' (do you doubt that they are?), and a great many other things in astronomy besides. And the 'observational signatures' of black holes are extremely well documented

this means black holes have orders of magnitude more evidence than your aether or the eu conjectures

especially considering the following: http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf

you never have provided equivalent studies refuting that...

@mytwocts:

Many supermassive small objects have been observed.
Yet, to qualify as a BH an object should be at least as small as its Schwarzschild radius.
As far as I know this has never been unequivocally established for any BH candidate.

A situation that is likely to change in the next ~five years, when the event horizon telescope (http://eventhoriz...ope.org/ ) comes online (it should unequivocally be able to resolve the event horizon of SgrA*, and possibly the SMBH in M87 too.

ROTFLMAO, yep right next to the unicorns and leprechauns...

I've asked this before, what research program would you undertake?

The observations that are taking place now are spectacular, observing pretty much the entire EM spectrum is a fabulous under taking. The irony is that much of what is being studied outside of the visual spectrum was completely unexpected and not predicted by the standard theory.

One reason I ask is that you seem to have close to zero interest in astronomical observations, and also zero interest in doing any research based using such data.

Asinine statement, typical of your unyielding pattern of strawman attacks. I think it's great doing research based upon data. No, what I have a problem with is what you claim of me, the continued confirmation bias and single "accepted" maths based POV which is the MO of the mainstream astronomy. In another piece of irony, "looks like a duck" seems to be ok for particle physicists...http://articles.l...20120705

* "Mainstream" astronomers both denied and ignored the presense and importance of radio, x-Ray, gamma ray emission from extra-solar sources
* Until the space age "mainstream" theory insisted the aurora was entirely local.
* before direct in situ measurements "mainstream" theory insisted electric fields could not occur in space plasmas.
* "mainstream" theory insisted charge separation could not occur in space plasmas.
* "mainstream" theory denies the presence of double layers in space plasmas
* the list goes on and on...
* and the presence of cosmic magnetic fields is hardly disputable and Alfven predicted their existence (galactic) about 80 years ago.
All the above examples were challenged based upon laboratory research, and all examples were confirmed by direct measurement. What's particularly pertinent is that astro research remain in close relationship with experimental foundations and not just GIGO maths.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

@cd
[ suppressing nasty sarcastic comments ]
Now where is your proof that all is GIGO and where is your alternative?

'Simple Proof that Black Holes Have no Basis in General Relativity'
http://vixra.org/abs/1405.0287

'Flaws in Black Hole Theory and General Relativity'
http://vixra.org/abs/1308.0073

Why must I present an alternative? My statement was about GIGO GRT and BH's.

@cantdrive

Crothers? The handyman/gardener incompetent scientist wanna be?

http://rationalwi...Crothers

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

@cantdrive

Crothers? The handyman/gardener incompetent scientist wanna be?

http://rationalwi...Crothers

Nice, an entire page of "Rational" ad hominem attacks. The Irrational wiki rather.

I read part of Hooft's attempt to show Crothers to be wrong. Part of his reasoning is the gravitational field need no matter, the mass of the "gravity" itself is the gravitational field. Dizziness ensues from the circular reasoning... Brilliant, give that man a Nobel! Oh right, we live on bizarro Earth where long lists of pseudo-metaphysicists receive Nobel after Nobel for their "thought experiments". Pathetic to no end!

Here is Hooft's metaphysical mumbo jumbo;

http://www.staff....ceptions

Here is Crother's dismantling of the Hoofty;

http://vixra.org/...72v2.pdf

If Crother's was merely handyman/gardener, incompetent scientist, why then would the Hoofty find it necessary to publish a webpage to try and discredit him? Hmmm.... After reading the manuscripts, it's pretty clear where the incompetence lies. It's with the guy with the Capital N word in front of his name. The Nobel people have become a joke, hell they even gave OBAMA! a peace prize as he was starting a war (several at that). Bizarro World indeed!

the link to the same article but with more information

http://www.ras.or...revealed

wow... the number of blackholes increases by a magnitude of 6 - 7 and the truth of the matter is -- this still doesn't explain even 1% of the missing bayronic matter in the universe.... before people jump in saying this will get rid of DM -- it won't, doesn't even come close.

Microscopic black holes.

They'd need to be so small they hardly ever collide with anything, like Neutrinos.

Leaves no EM signature, so doesn't get detected by any form of direct observation.

Is so small that micro-lensing effects are attributed to surface defects in the telescope equipment, ro the atmosphere or intervening gas and dust in space.

Here is Hooft's metaphysical mumbo jumbo;

I proved t'Hooft's theorem wrong, as I was able to show a scenario with "loss of information" even without the presense of a Black Hole.

His claim that you could identify the contents fo a black hole based on its surface characteristics is nonsense. You can't even indentify the contents of BOOK based on it's cover.

"Never judge a book by its cover" - (hell if I know who said it first).

His theorem is ridiculously flawed, and should be considered nonsense. It no longer even meets the criteria of a hypothesis, because it's one of those situations where we can absolutely prove it wrong, even in ordinary situations.

There is also a possibility that some of the Baryonic matter was moving much faster during the early universe, so that it exited the observable universe even before Reionization occurred. In such a scenario it would seem to leave little or no EM trace for us to observe.

I experimented with filaments of particles with different gravity-anti-gravity characteristics, like gravity-gravity, gravity-antigravity,a nd anti-gravity-anti-gravity pairings of hypothetical unknown particles, but visualizing it becomes too hard. I would need time on a super-computer to be able to run the simulations.

Suffice to say, hidden sheets and filaments of different types of this "ghost matter" as I'd call it, could be suspended in inter-galactic space between the gravity of galaxies. Getting the right combination of attraction and repulsion is too hard to do on paper or with visualization.

Like someone convince these guys to simulate my hypothesis.

https://www.youtu...a1CP9ImA

Like the simulated galaxy formation link is the best simulation I have ever seen, and it took like 6 months to render that on a super computer, but even it has flaws. It doesn't even try to simulated Dark Energy, which does have effects even in a small cluster of a 10 billion year time span, and its simulation of Dark Matter is flawed at best, because it uses assumptions about Dark Matter which I'm pretty sure we can prove are not accurate (the dark matter should end up congregating into black holes and so would serve its supposed purposes of evening out the stellar orbital velocity scenario).

Recall that I've proven most of the leveling effect of stellar orbital velocity curve is caused by the local gravitational attraction of the starts outside any given ring or shell centered on the galactic center. (this can be proven on paper).

I'm not saying this explains all of the effect, but I found it explains most of the effect using only Newton's Laws.

Anyway, I disproved both aspects of T'Hoofts theorem using relatively simple examples:

Surface characteristics theorem:
Disproven by any book.

No loss of information theorem:

Disproven by a double substitution, transposition, re-substitution encryption algorithm. If you forget the algorithm, the information in the message is lost forever. Moreover, if we send a character in the opposite directions around a sphere until they escape one another's light horizon, the information is lost forever, because there are no physical laws which can bind those pieces of information together to have meaning ever again.

The reason the local shell trick works is because of the inverse squared law. A star that is 20k light years from the center of the galaxy feels very little effects of the SMBH or other core star. However, it feels strong effects from a neighboring star perhaps 3 light years away.

Reciprocal squared:

1/400,000,000 for center of galaxy

1/9 for neighboring star.

This means the local star has 44 million times more gravitational influence per unit mass than does the stars at the center of gravity.

This local star pulls our reference star OUT from the center, creating a "magical" effect where the net acceleration curve remains nearly constant (ok actually it's a bit wavy, but doesn't diverge and doesn't converge to 0 for a very long distance).

The type of Dark Matter being modeled in computer simulations does not do what it is supposed to do.

While an omniscience being might be capable of knowing all information, the universe itself is not capable of knowing all information, simply because of the speed limit of the speed of light. The universe cannot communicate all information about itself to all "viewers"...ever...thus information is definitely lost as far as the science of Physics and Cosmology is concerned.

So your missing Baryonic mass mystery may simple be a matter of "lost information", that is, information which has already escaped our region of the universe, our "light horizon".

@ Returnering-Skippy. How you are Cher? I'm good me, thanks for asking.

Hooyeei you are on the roll today. That's a whole lot of proving for anybody. It that part of your therapy in the place you go for your mental condition treatments?

Oh yeah, I almost forget. Laissez les bons temps rouler Cher.

@cd
[ suppressing nasty sarcastic comments ]
Now where is your proof that all is GIGO and where is your alternative?

'Simple Proof that Black Holes Have no Basis in General Relativity'
http://vixra.org/abs/1405.0287

That paper is rubbish.

How? Why? Be specific please.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

@cd
If you can show the error in the straightforward derivation on
https://en.wikipe...solution
that would be interesting.

The so called Schwarzschild solution is merely a corruption of his work.
http://www.sjcrot...09-b.pdf
Schwarzschild's original paper is here;
http://www.sjcrot...hild.pdf

A person could spend several lifetimes correcting errors on Wikipedia, I've got no desire to do so.

Hi mytwocts. :)

GRT does predict black holes.

Be careful not to sound so certain. The 'black star' was predicted by Newton gravitation. Mitchell calculated the mass/acceleration of gravity required to prevent light from escaping a big star of the requisite mass-density. The GRT gravity theory only predicts an ever-increasing gravitational acceleration that is 'presumed' to cause 'unstoppable collapse' of mass into a 'singularity', where GRT no longer applies at all, so it is mute, both on 'actual' interior collapse/states; merely conjecture from a GRT theory which is no longer applicable within. However, QM has something to say about what 'might' happen to that energy-mass, but it too depends on certain assumptions about the relative strength of 'degeneracy pressure' of the 'quark-gluon plasma' states/processes which may prevent collapse to 'singularity' states. It's mainstream conjecture/extrapolations of GRT/QM, not 'predictions' as to what may exist/go on inside EH. :)

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

I try to understand why some people believe in the existence of a black holes that violate the known laws of physics and concluded that they just want to believe in these theoretical objects. Because if these people accept that black holes may violate any physical laws, why they not think to allow alternative idea that matter behaves differently and unfamiliar to us when is highly concentrated in one place? Which means that it is not necessary to collapse into a singularity when such conditions is met. Reason for this assumption has more than enough. It seems that they want to see lawlessness in nature to be able to conclude that it is a natural thing with which to justify their own iniquity and conscious or not a rebellion against God's order.

Well let me rephrase then. GRT leads to a solution generally referred to as the Schwarzschild solution. A clear derivation is given on https://en.wikipe...olution.
I assume that it is this solution that cd refers to as the "so-called Schwarzschild solution".
He then states that this is a "corruption". I conclude he considers this solution to be wrong.
Therefore I challenge him to point out the error.

Did you not read the paper I linked, it's abundantly clear where his argument lies.
"It is easily proven that the said quantity r is in fact the inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature of the spherically symmetric geodesic surface in the spatial section of the 'Schwarzschild solution' and so does not in itself define any distance whatsoever in that manifold. Thus the 'Schwarzschild radius' is not a distance of any sort."

The error lies in the relativists interpretation of the maths, as such GIGO!

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

You can read about Hilbert's and others corruption of Schwarzchild's solution here;

http://www.sjcrot...bert.pdf

From my work in a big company - a great company to work in - I learned (better: I was forced to accept) that no matter how great your content, you will fail if your politics is poor.

So you are saying regardless of the science, it's about politics? Couldn't agree with you more, at least you understand how science works!

Michell's "Dark Star" model could exist even if the singularity model of Black Holes does not exist in nature.

The so-called "Super-massive black holes" have mass high enough to produce a Dark Star even under purely Newtonian mechanics; one such object is believed to have a mass of some 17 billion suns.

I wouldn't be surprised if scientists one day find a "black hole" or "dark star" or whatever it is, with a mass exceeding 100 billion suns....perhaps even a trillion suns. There doesn't seem to be a hypothetical upper limit to how large such an object can be, provided it has a source of mass (collisions) to keep growing.

ROTFLMAO, yep right next to the unicorns and leprechauns...

Let's revisit your comment when the event horizon telescope publishes its papers on SgrA* (and maybe the SMBH in M87 too) ...

Why wait? Let's revisit it right now: no amount of dust in the foreground or Birkeland currents can explain what are most likely observations of the gamma ray region (at the foot of a jet) around the event horizon of blazar PKS 1830-211, a region roughly the size of our solar system with the mass of a billion suns. See http://www.mpg.de...nal-lens

The observation is a fantastic, ingenious utilization of general relativity - or in CD85 jargon, pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo.

God created people not to die but to multiply. "Be fruitfull"

@renTROLL
assumption without evidence
also note: it says be fruitful, not "fruity"

they would have everything they need in abundance if they believed in Him and followed God's laws and principles

assumption without evidence, but also fallacy. we've already shown propensity for poisoning our own well, so to speak- and that is only the religious x-tians i am talking about: see crusades, inquisition, etc

As a consequence of original sin came death

assumption without evidence- see also mytwocts

Your non-sequitur is just the tip of an iceberg of interconnected non-sequitur spaghetti.

http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

https://www.psych...-sadists

There are several, IMHO very good, discussions/disections of this topic in ISF (they make reference to other discussions too). A quite recent thread is "My Malicious, Gormless Critics by Stephen J. Crothers" http://www.intern...=294406.

If for no other reason than that PO comments are so restricting (format-wise), I'd recommend discussion on this topic continue over there ...

@JeanTate
THANKS for that link!

i've already gotten a good lot of very interesting reading there now
appreciate it.

also note to everyone else: that RealityCheck is NOT the same one as the poster here
just FYI

I read part of Hooft's attempt to show Crothers to be wrong. Part of his reasoning is the gravitational field need no matter, the mass of the "gravity" itself is the gravitational field

While you may have read it, I very much doubt that you understood it.

The circular reasoning is plainly clear, you can read for yourself where he claims the gravity itself creates it own field. And you can also read where Crothers dismantles Hoofty's nonsense. Both links are above.

Because you're so proactive at least try to say something yours and meaningful

@renTROLL

you mean something mine and meaningful like your biblical and religious pontifications with no empirical evidence?

My advice is the same as his: "Study more and come back in a few years!"

I'll save myself from all the unicorns and leprechauns and use my time on real science.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Hi Ren82. :)

God created people not to die but to multiply. "Be fruitfull." And they would have everything they need in abundance if they believed in Him and followed God's laws and principles. As a consequence of original sin came death because sin is incompatible with life.

Consider the logic/effect of such as you claim. Overpopulation/Overexploitation of Earth's resources has killed more people because of starvation, disease, wars over scarce resources due to overpopulation. If humans lived forever then overpopulation/overexploitation of Earth would have occurred almost immediately! So 'death' was only cure for overpopulation/overexploitation. Maybe your 'god planned' to kill off 'surplus population' after all; hence diseases, wars, starvation/chaos would reign in 'god perfect world' too! No different from the real world. Either way, it's up to us humans to solve the problems your 'god created' for us. Keep to science and please give your proselytizing a rest, mate. :)

Hi cantdrive. :)

I read part of Hooft's attempt to show Crothers to be wrong. Part of his reasoning is the gravitational field need no matter, the mass of the "gravity" itself is the gravitational field

While you may have read it, I very much doubt that you understood it.

The circular reasoning is plainly clear, you can read for yourself where he claims the gravity itself creates it own field.e And you can also read where Crothers dismantles Hoofty's nonsense. Both links are abov.

Careful, mate, not to get 'certain cocky' either. While 't Hooft's maths/abstractions don't actually explain gravity mechanism, it does indicate non-linearity involved in energy-space phenomena may arise in some way (eg, I already explained to docile, my ToE indentifies both the actual mechanism and the 'layered' effects as scale of energy-space feature/gravity effects grow in extent). Has Crother provided actual mechanism/non-linearity explanations? I haven't seen it.

Cheers. :)

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Hi Ren82. :)

Consider the logic/effect of such as you claim. Overpopulation/Overexploitation of Earth's resources has killed more people because of starvation, disease, wars over scarce resources due to overpopulation. If humans lived forever then overpopulation/overexploitation of Earth would have occurred almost immediately!

Overpopulation? God created the whole universe. There is a lot of space in it. Your problem is that you are trying to extrapolate what will happen forward in the future without taking into account the abilities and actions of God. Such kind of extrapolation is meaningless.

At exponential growth rate of a humanity 'fruitful and multiplying' as 'immortals', the observable universe volume would soon be wall-to-wall stuffed with humanity and nothing else. Also, if a 'god' is so merciful and powerful as claimed, why allow innocents/children suffer horribly/die prematurely from accidents, crime, disease, natural mutations/disasters? Rethink it. :)

@mytwocts: You're welcome. I do hope your membership application is approved soon.

It's a funny site in many ways; for example, the rules allow a member to be pretty "aggressive" towards non-members, but such aggression towards fellow members gets you suspended, even banned.

Funny he/she says, such rules and behavior sounds so sciency. Sounds like a Klan mediated site. And look, JT would seem to be a charter member.

I wonder if NASA could invent a laser light that we could shine deep into space at the speed of light and see what happens when it reaches a black hole?