problems with black hole theory

[cyber_space_doc]

I have found a potential field called 'Isochrone potential':-

http://tabitha.phas.ubc.ca/wiki/index.php/ASTR_502

I am not sure why my physics book does not contain an accurate version of this equation. I suppose it is still not connected to a proven effect. It is easy to see how orbits in the center cause a rotation, and the rotation spreads as a chain reaction to the outer arms.

cheers

[safertr]

A black hole is an object with a gravitational field so powerful that a region of space becomes cut off from the rest of the universe ?€“ no matter or radiation, including visible light, that has entered the region can ever escape. The lack of escaping electromagnetic radiation renders the inside of black holes (beyond the event horizon) invisible, hence the name. However, black holes can be detectable if they interact with matter, e.g. by sucking in gas from an orbiting star. The gas spirals inward, heating up to very high temperatures and emitting large amounts of light, X-rays and Gamma rays in the process while still outside of the event horizon.[2][3][4] Black holes are also thought to emit a weak form of thermal energy called Hawking radiation.[5][6][7]

While the idea of an object with gravity strong enough to prevent light from escaping was proposed in the 18th century, black holes as presently understood are described by Einstein's theory of general relativity, developed in 1916. This theory predicts that when a large enough amount of mass is present within a sufficiently small region of space, all paths through space are warped inwards towards the center of the volume. When an object is compressed enough for this to occur, collapse is unavoidable (it would take infinite strength to resist collapsing into a black hole). When an object passes within the event horizon at the boundary of the black hole, it is lost forever (it would take an infinite amount of effort for an object to climb out from inside the hole). Although the object would be reduced to a singularity, the information it carries is not lost (see the black hole information paradox).

While general relativity describes a black hole as a region of empty space with a pointlike singularity at the center and an event horizon at the outer edge, the description changes when the effects of quantum mechanics are taken into account. The final, correct description of black holes, requiring a theory of quantum gravity, is unknown.

http://www.click2finding.com/click2.asp ... /Particle/
http://www.click2finding.com/click2.asp ... Astronomy/

[t00fri]

A black hole is an object with a gravitational field so powerful that a region of space becomes cut off from the rest of the universe ?€“ no matter or radiation, including visible light, that has entered the region can ever escape. The lack of escaping electromagnetic radiation renders the inside of black holes (beyond the event horizon) invisible, hence the name. However, black holes can be detectable if they interact with matter, e.g. by sucking in gas from an orbiting star. The gas spirals inward, heating up to very high temperatures and emitting large amounts of light, X-rays and Gamma rays in the process while still outside of the event horizon.[2][3][4] Black holes are also thought to emit a weak form of thermal energy called Hawking radiation.[5][6][7]

While the idea of an object with gravity strong enough to prevent light from escaping was proposed in the 18th century, black holes as presently understood are described by Einstein's theory of general relativity, developed in 1916. This theory predicts that when a large enough amount of mass is present within a sufficiently small region of space, all paths through space are warped inwards towards the center of the volume. When an object is compressed enough for this to occur, collapse is unavoidable (it would take infinite strength to resist collapsing into a black hole). When an object passes within the event horizon at the boundary of the black hole, it is lost forever (it would take an infinite amount of effort for an object to climb out from inside the hole). Although the object would be reduced to a singularity, the information it carries is not lost (see the black hole information paradox).

While general relativity describes a black hole as a region of empty space with a pointlike singularity at the center and an event horizon at the outer edge, the description changes when the effects of quantum mechanics are taken into account. The final, correct description of black holes, requiring a theory of quantum gravity, is unknown.

Why do you literally copy pages of Wikipedia without citing the source??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

Bye Fridger

[William]

Advancement of Black Hole Theory. Attached is an interesting set of papers concerning a MECO black hole, which differs from a classic black hole in that it does not have an event horizon and has a very strong magnetic field. The MECO solution is consistent with GR. (i.e. It is not new physics.) It also matches observations of quasar structures.


Attached is a Wikipedia link that discusses the black hole MECO solution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magneto...lapsing_object

From the Wikipedia article:

The term Eternally Collapsing Object (ECO) was first coined by astrophysicist Abhas Mitra in 1998[1]. He argued that the so-called observed Black Hole (BH) Candidates must actually be quasistatic ultra compact objects (UCO), called ECOs, though they are asymptotically approaching the true BH state. He mentioned that "Much more importantly, the ECOs may possess magnetic fields whose value could be modest (in extragalactic cases) or extremely high (in stellar mass ECOs). In contrast, the intrinsic magnetic field of supposed BHs is zero. And ECOs might be identified as objects different from BHs by virtue of the existence of such intrinsic magnetic fields"

The following is a paper that discuss why a very, very strong magnetic field is required to explain observed quasar structures.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0505518

Since observations of the Schild-Vakulik structure within Q0957+561 imply that this quasar contains an observable intrinsic magnetic moment, this represents strong evidence that the quasar does not have an event horizon.

This new paradigm came in the form of five sequentially published papers which presented strong observational and theoretical evidence that both galactic black hole candidates (GBHC) and Active Galactic Nuclei AGN have observable intrinsic magnetic moments.

a) First it was argued (Robertson and Leiter, 2002) that the spectral state switch and quiescent luminosities of low mass x-ray binaries, (LMXB) including GBHC, can be well explained by a magnetic propeller effect that requires an intrinsically magnetized central object.

b) Second it was shown (Leiter and Robertson, 2003; Robertson and Leiter, 2003) that this result was consistent with the existence of a new class of gravitationally collapsing solutions of the Einstein field equations in General Relativity which describe highly red shifted, Magnetospheric, Eternally Collapsing Objects (MECO) that do not have trapped surfaces leading to event horizons.

Comment:
The MECO model is a modified solution to the GR equations that produces a compact massive object that has different properties, as compared to a classical BH. [/quote]

[MADISON]

the tv show is actually online, so it can be viewed at leisure:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

Although I am aware that this is a popular science program not a technical program. The author Brian Greene actually wrote the book entitled "The Elegant Universe". The renderings of 3d space are quite worth watching.

**** this is in no way intended as an authoritve discourse ****

I posted this because I wanted to express my disbelief in black hole theory, however I have changed my mind.
I can appreciate that nothing can escape from a black hole by definition, however I do have logical problems with the black hole theory. After reading descriptions on wikkipedia and other websites I found that I did not believe a lot of what I was hearing, for instance the ideas about what is known as a Schwarzschild wormhole did not seem to make sense. Thinking as above the previous post in terms of the popular science concepts of string theory suggest some possibilities that could be explored by a qualified mathematical physicist, and since it is a completely fresh way of thinking about space and time it is almost a relief. The problem is of course that there is no evidence of the existence of superstrings and other dimensions.

My main problem with the mathematical work is that there are too many singularities - real singularities can easily be modelled in electronics however the actual result is never an infinate amplitude or whatever is being modelled, but this may because of bad components.

****

I think there is a great deal of analysis involved.....above all

mathematics,wiki and the all clubbed together works out as mentioned

in the above........