Back to Home

Blackholes2 Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes II | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Re: Thanx For Being So Harsh - Not At All.

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by yelmalio/">yelmalio on January 18, 2000 12:57:48 UTC

I know it i more than a theory, but how can you see something inspace that is black...

You are of course correct. All you can see is the side effects. If a star has a distinct 'wobble', measured by spectroscopy, you can deduce the mass causing the effect. If the mass is several solar masses and no star is to be seen you have a probable Black Hole. If this is coupled with an X-Ray source you have somehting that is likely to be a Black Hole.

Does this constitute iron clad proof? No. All that can be said is that a theory predicted something with certain properties may exist and something apparently having those properties was observed. Common sense says the object is what you think it is.

and how close to a blackhole have you been? not much closer than I, I would suspect.

Well, errr, you might be surpised.

Actually, no. The point is a valid one but I trust Relativity to be a reasonable description of how spacetime behaves.

Just because we have never seen a Black Hole does not mean the we can not describe them accurately.

yelmalioYour "theory" can be discounted by application of proof by reduction to absurdity. MorganBlackholes in the centre of galaxies is a proven as blackholes themselves, they have "seen" with the hubble and radio telescopes the gas funneling into one of these super massive blackholes... the question still remains no one has ever seen a blackhole just it's effects.

You missed the point I believe. Special and General Relativity says time is measured differently depending on the observor and is affected by Gravity and Velocity. The same theory predicts Holes. The existence of Black Holes supports Relativity. This lends credence to Relativities description of how time works.

To say Black Holes make time is a contradiction of this. It is a logical absurdity.

Well I heard proof to this theory, an abian was captured.

I would really like to see it as Abian refused point blank to even try and provide proof himself, claiming it was so obvious no proof was needed. Dr. Abian is also very dead.

You're not a re-incarnation of him are you?

You would measure the differentiation of the two clocks the one closer to the blackhole and the one further away.

And you would find that the difference would agree with General Relativity. This trick has been done but the clocks involved where particles travelling at relativistic velocities around accretion disks and jets.

Ah so you have really travelled, you have even seen tellar mass holes?

Yup. Got the T-Shirt.

Why not prescribe this theory to them to, if the curve and bend spacetime then why would they not also drag spacetime to them.

Look up Frame Dragging.


Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2020 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins