Real Photos of Black Holes

Harte

Senior Member
Messages
4,562
I think anything without an event horizon could be described as everything else we do see.

An interesting property of galaxy rotation is that a galaxy rotates about itself as if it were a solid object. And we do know that solid objects don't really need a material center to rotate about its center. So just by using those facts I could infer that anything moving rapidly close to a galactic center might be doing so around a center devoid of any matter at all. It does seem to me that the space-time in a galactic center could be looked at as if it were inside out. So backwards behavior might be something to consider.

Ah, so you don't dispute the presence of a supermassive object, just the nature of the object?

The problem with your theory of an empty centre is that it doesn't match up with the observations. For example, what about the gravitational lensing observed when a free-moving black hole moves across the sky? There's no apparent matter rotating around that object, just the black hole itself occupying a very small volume, invisible but for the effect it has on the stars around it. If the mass were more spread out, the lensing effect would be different.

Lone Black Hole Passes in Front of Star (Hubble View) | ESA/Hubble

_603423_hubb300.jpg


Note the same star appearing twice due to the lensing effect from the black hole.
He explained that in another thread - aberrations in the lens used to take the picutre, even though the "aberration" only appears in certain areas of each pic!

Harte
 

Ayasano

Member
Messages
407
The lensing phenomena can be attributed to the presence of plasma or gas clouds. Something that could be demonstrated in a laboratory setting. But then that would be a fact based observation. I do believe I started a thread on this sometime ago.

Does Gravity Really Bend Light? | Paranormalis

If there is enough gas or plasma to cause a lensing effect in that photo, why can't we detect it? We can easily detect the plasma around the sun, and according to that theory, it must be enough to cause the effect. So why the missing gas/plasma in my example?

I read through your other thread and watched the video, but there's a problem with your reasoning. You're trying to debunk General Relativity, but you can't. The sheer weight of interelated evidence and real world applications based on it makes that impossible. Sure, you can extend it, maybe throw out one or two parts while reconciling it with QM, but you can't just throw away the whole thing entirely.

We know mass affects gravity because we see more massive planets have stronger gravitational fields. We know gravity/mass affects time because we see time speeding up the further away you get from a massive object, because we have to account for that difference in GPS calculations to get the nanosecond scale accuracy. If you don't account for it, the difference is on the order of microseconds. I linked the explanation on another thread, but I'll link it again here.

GPS and Relativity

Also, how would you explain the microlensing effect used to find exoplanets?

Microlensing | The Planetary Society

Here, the lensing effect is observed with both the star and the planet, most of which don't have atmospheres, so there's nothing besides the planet to bend the light.
 

Ayasano

Member
Messages
407
And the second picture looks like a radiant blob. Hardly a candidate for a Black Hole.

Incidentally, the second photo is radiant because it was taken in the x-ray spectrum, of which active galactic nuclei (ie. black holes surrounded by an accretion disc) are noted to radiate a lot of via the accretion disc.

Introduction to X-ray Astronomy

That's why when you point an x-ray telescope at the centre of our galaxy, you see a lot of stars orbiting a seemingly empty point. The black hole in our galaxy is not an AGN, it has no accretion disc. The galaxy in the photo, however, does contain an AGN, which is why in the x-ray spectrum it appears very bright.

If you took a moment to do some research rather than dismissing the evidence simply because you don't understand it, you would learn a lot more.
 
Last edited:

Einstein

Temporal Engineer
Messages
5,367
The lensing phenomena can be attributed to the presence of plasma or gas clouds. Something that could be demonstrated in a laboratory setting. But then that would be a fact based observation. I do believe I started a thread on this sometime ago.

Does Gravity Really Bend Light? | Paranormalis

If there is enough gas or plasma to cause a lensing effect in that photo, why can't we detect it? We can easily detect the plasma around the sun, and according to that theory, it must be enough to cause the effect. So why the missing gas/plasma in my example?

I read through your other thread and watched the video, but there's a problem with your reasoning. You're trying to debunk General Relativity, but you can't. The sheer weight of interelated evidence and real world applications based on it makes that impossible. Sure, you can extend it, maybe throw out one or two parts while reconciling it with QM, but you can't just throw away the whole thing entirely.

We know mass affects gravity because we see more massive planets have stronger gravitational fields. We know gravity/mass affects time because we see time speeding up the further away you get from a massive object, because we have to account for that difference in GPS calculations to get the nanosecond scale accuracy. If you don't account for it, the difference is on the order of microseconds. I linked the explanation on another thread, but I'll link it again here.

GPS and Relativity

Also, how would you explain the microlensing effect used to find exoplanets?

Microlensing | The Planetary Society

Here, the lensing effect is observed with both the star and the planet, most of which don't have atmospheres, so there's nothing besides the planet to bend the light.

I would agree that all the astronomical observations are debatable. Because we can't prove any interpretation is correct. But we could construct those interpretations out of FACTS instead of the ASSUMPTIONS that are prevalent and dominant in our science. So it's merely a matter of preference. Do you want to believe in FACTS? Or ASSUMPTIONS?

All the info that we know about mass and gravity is conveniently described away with assumptions. We can't produce gravity in a laboratory setting, because of those assumptions about gravity and mass that we are taught.

I'm not a subscriber to General Relativity. That theory appears to me to be completely comprised of disinformation.

What about GPS? The engineers that designed GPS say they didn't use General Relativity to design the system. The clocks on the GPS satellites are continuously updated to overcome the positioning errors that develop over time. The accuracy for military positioning is at 2mm. The update frequency is classified. But you could calculate that update frequency using the 2mm error limit as the permissible error allowed. These are the real facts about GPS.

What about micro lensing? Well if gravity doesn't bend light, then we are left with using some other mechanism to describe the observation. The presence of gas and plasma could easily replace an assumption based theory. So we are merely just looking at the presence of gas and/or plasma causing the lensing phenomena. The greater the distance, the higher the lensing. Could be a way to gauge different gas densities at different locations throughout the galaxy.

We daily see this phenomena on the horizon with either the sun or the moon. The thing that surprised me was that the sun or the moon could actually be beyond the horizon when close to the horizon because of this lensing effect. Just like the sun does to stars behind it.

Now lets take a look at the galactic center. Remember I previously stated that there may be nothing at the center. But the direction of gravity is backwards due to the weight of the galaxy being outside the center. So the center would technically be a region of space that behaves like anti-gravity. Time would flow faster there. And those x-ray objects moving toward the center may actually be bouncing off.
 

Einstein

Temporal Engineer
Messages
5,367
My question: Why would NASA and scientists lie about black holes? What would be their motive?

Here is my theory behind that.

The people that develop time travel technology first can go back in time and control and influence how our knowledge base will develop historically. Apparently there seems to be a strong influence to divert all understanding concerning gravity and time toward something that are fictional beliefs. We have been conditioned to accept these beliefs without question. So NASA doesn't know they are operating on a false premise. Everyone is convinced their beliefs are correct. But science isn't about beliefs. And theories shouldn't even be a part of science. Everything could be assembled with fact based building blocks.

So thanks to time travel technology, Einstein a mediocre patent clerk, gets handed some revolutionary scientific papers from an anonymous doner. The fictional theory based science gets a foothold. Facts are discarded in favor of fiction. Science and physics books are rewritten. And surprisingly Nikola Tesla, the father of AC technology, gets mysteriously removed from those textbooks. At least I had a Physics teacher that happened to have mentioned some facts about Tesla.

So what's the motive? Prevent mankind from understanding the true nature of time. If we believe something fictional instead, we can't possibly be a threat.

It almost stands to reason that the ones responsible for controlling our knowledge base may not be men. Since it would be the extraterrestrials that would have the most to gain from our continued stupidity.
 

PoisonApple

Badass ☆。*♡✧*。
Zenith
Messages
2,949
My question: Why would NASA and scientists lie about black holes? What would be their motive?

Here is my theory behind that.

The people that develop time travel technology first can go back in time and control and influence how our knowledge base will develop historically. Apparently there seems to be a strong influence to divert all understanding concerning gravity and time toward something that are fictional beliefs. We have been conditioned to accept these beliefs without question. So NASA doesn't know they are operating on a false premise. Everyone is convinced their beliefs are correct. But science isn't about beliefs. And theories shouldn't even be a part of science. Everything could be assembled with fact based building blocks.

So thanks to time travel technology, Einstein a mediocre patent clerk, gets handed some revolutionary scientific papers from an anonymous doner. The fictional theory based science gets a foothold. Facts are discarded in favor of fiction. Science and physics books are rewritten. And surprisingly Nikola Tesla, the father of AC technology, gets mysteriously removed from those textbooks. At least I had a Physics teacher that happened to have mentioned some facts about Tesla.

So what's the motive? Prevent mankind from understanding the true nature of time. If we believe something fictional instead, we can't possibly be a threat.

It almost stands to reason that the ones responsible for controlling our knowledge base may not be men. Since it would be the extraterrestrials that would have the most to gain from our continued stupidity.
So, according to you, or what you believe to be true, black holes don't exist, or at least they're not what scientists claim they are? And the r3ason scientists believe this is because of extraterrestrials, and/or time travel manipulating theories intofacts for us to believe? And our continued belief that black holes are what scientists and NASA say they are makes us less a threat to extraterrestrials? I'm not saying all this to be a smartass, just trying to understand your point of prespective...
 

Einstein

Temporal Engineer
Messages
5,367
My question: Why would NASA and scientists lie about black holes? What would be their motive?

Here is my theory behind that.

The people that develop time travel technology first can go back in time and control and influence how our knowledge base will develop historically. Apparently there seems to be a strong influence to divert all understanding concerning gravity and time toward something that are fictional beliefs. We have been conditioned to accept these beliefs without question. So NASA doesn't know they are operating on a false premise. Everyone is convinced their beliefs are correct. But science isn't about beliefs. And theories shouldn't even be a part of science. Everything could be assembled with fact based building blocks.

So thanks to time travel technology, Einstein a mediocre patent clerk, gets handed some revolutionary scientific papers from an anonymous doner. The fictional theory based science gets a foothold. Facts are discarded in favor of fiction. Science and physics books are rewritten. And surprisingly Nikola Tesla, the father of AC technology, gets mysteriously removed from those textbooks. At least I had a Physics teacher that happened to have mentioned some facts about Tesla.

So what's the motive? Prevent mankind from understanding the true nature of time. If we believe something fictional instead, we can't possibly be a threat.

It almost stands to reason that the ones responsible for controlling our knowledge base may not be men. Since it would be the extraterrestrials that would have the most to gain from our continued stupidity.
So, according to you, or what you believe to be true, black holes don't exist, or at least they're not what scientists claim they are? And the r3ason scientists believe this is because of extraterrestrials, and/or time travel manipulating theories intofacts for us to believe? And our continued belief that black holes are what scientists and NASA say they are makes us less a threat to extraterrestrials? I'm not saying all this to be a smartass, just trying to understand your point of prespective...

Yes, that is my theory for why we don't understand. Black Holes are not based in any scientific fact. They are based on a fictional mathematical equation that seems to be the basis for their belief.

I could construct an equation showing the orbital path of a purple polka dotted pink elephant orbiting Ganymede. And if I tell the story enough times, do you think it will come true? A Black Hole is just a purple polka dotted pink elephant in disguise. We'll never actually see one. They really don't exist. But if you are someone that is used to believing what you are told, then you can see how the story can catch on.
 

Harte

Senior Member
Messages
4,562
So, according to you, or what you believe to be true, black holes don't exist, or at least they're not what scientists claim they are? And the r3ason scientists believe this is because of extraterrestrials, and/or time travel manipulating theories intofacts for us to believe? And our continued belief that black holes are what scientists and NASA say they are makes us less a threat to extraterrestrials? I'm not saying all this to be a smartass, just trying to understand your point of prespective...
Oooh, such a smartass you are!

He'll get you for that one!

Harte
 

Top