Are Black Holes a Mathematical Mistake?

[Eski]

The classic Black Hole of Astronomy exists at the exact center of Galaxies and other large accretions of matter.

At exactly this same point exists the Center of Balance/Focus of Mass Vectors/"Center of Gravity." This is a point at which for mathematical purposes, all the matter of the object, e.g. Galaxy, may be considereded to be concentrated.

Evidence for "Black Holes" is essentially that of examinining the orbits of stars and other units about this center.

My question is, "Is there any true evidence that this orbiting is not simply about the Center of Balance/Center of Mass/"Center of Gravity"/Focus of Mass vectors?" Is there any reason to believe that those massive matter eating "Black Holes" actually exist?

Yes, people, I am dead serious. I think that astronomers and science fiction writers have been having fun with a mathematical mistake since Swartschild first did his bit..

I, for one, would have no hesitation on pushing a space probe right through the center of one of those supposed "Black Holes." I'd expect it to come unscathed right out the other side.

 

[IMST]

Imagine a galaxy with no black hole, just a concentration of stars near the center. What would you expect the behavior of the stars at the center to be? Should they whip rapidly around a point at the center?
The answer to that is no. At the center of the galaxy, there is an approximately equal amount of matter in all directions along the plane, with nothing to draw it toward the center and provide the gravity assist for the rapid orbit. There's nothing to create the impetus for such rapid movements. You'd expect no more movement than conservation of rotational energy that the whole galaxy has.
And how, exactly, would you propose to get a space probe anywhere near the center of the galaxy? It's tens of thousands of light years away.
Finally, supermassive black holes at the center of galaxies are not the only kind of black hole expected. Most black holes are the result of the collapse of large stars at the end of their lives.
There's about 100 more ways that you're wrong here, but I'll leave that to people better versed in astronomy than me.

 

[BowlOfRed]

Evidence for "Black Holes" is essentially that of examinining the orbits of stars and other units about this center.

That is false.

 

[dafydd]

Yes, people, I am dead serious. I think that astronomers and science fiction writers have been having fun with a mathematical mistake since Swartschild first did his bit.

What you think has no bearing on science. Do you have any evidence? How much do you know about the subject? Enough to know that his name was Schwarzschild?

 

[dafydd]

I, for one, would have no hesitation on pushing a space probe right through the center of one of those supposed "Black Holes." I'd expect it to come unscathed right out the other side.

And you'd be wrong. Would you be a passenger on the space probe?

 

[theprestige]

The classic Black Hole of Astronomy exists at the exact center of Galaxies and other large accretions of matter.

At exactly this same point exists the Center of Balance/Focus of Mass Vectors/"Center of Gravity." This is a point at which for mathematical purposes, all the matter of the object, e.g. Galaxy, may be considereded to be concentrated.

Evidence for "Black Holes" is essentially that of examinining the orbits of stars and other units about this center.

My question is, "Is there any true evidence that this orbiting is not simply about the Center of Balance/Center of Mass/"Center of Gravity"/Focus of Mass vectors?" Is there any reason to believe that those massive matter eating "Black Holes" actually exist?

Yes, people, I am dead serious. I think that astronomers and science fiction writers have been having fun with a mathematical mistake since Swartschild first did his bit..

I, for one, would have no hesitation on pushing a space probe right through the center of one of those supposed "Black Holes." I'd expect it to come unscathed right out the other side.

Show us the math, then.

 

[dafydd]

The classic Black Hole of Astronomy exists at the exact center of Galaxies and other large accretions of matter.

At exactly this same point exists the Center of Balance/Focus of Mass Vectors/"Center of Gravity." This is a point at which for mathematical purposes, all the matter of the object, e.g. Galaxy, may be considereded to be concentrated.

Evidence for "Black Holes" is essentially that of examinining the orbits of stars and other units about this center.

My question is, "Is there any true evidence that this orbiting is not simply about the Center of Balance/Center of Mass/"Center of Gravity"/Focus of Mass vectors?" Is there any reason to believe that those massive matter eating "Black Holes" actually exist?

Yes, people, I am dead serious. I think that astronomers and science fiction writers have been having fun with a mathematical mistake since Swartschild first did his bit..

I, for one, would have no hesitation on pushing a space probe right through the center of one of those supposed "Black Holes." I'd expect it to come unscathed right out the other side.

Show us the maths, please.

 

[Ziggurat]

At exactly this same point exists the Center of Balance/Focus of Mass Vectors/"Center of Gravity." This is a point at which for mathematical purposes, all the matter of the object, e.g. Galaxy, may be considereded to be concentrated.

Evidence for "Black Holes" is essentially that of examinining the orbits of stars and other units about this center.

My question is, "Is there any true evidence that this orbiting is not simply about the Center of Balance/Center of Mass/"Center of Gravity"/Focus of Mass vectors?" Is there any reason to believe that those massive matter eating "Black Holes" actually exist?

This is a gross misunderstanding of the shell theorem. The mass of a spherically symmetric object can be treated as being a single point only for regions outside that sphere. But you have failed to grasp the second half of the shell theorem: when you're inside a spherically symmetric shell, there is NO gravity from the surrounding shell.

The orbits of stars near these central black holes are far inside the mass of most of the galaxy. Their orbits are determined by something inside that orbit, and not by the surrounding mass.

Yes, people, I am dead serious. I think that astronomers and science fiction writers have been having fun with a mathematical mistake since Swartschild first did his bit..

There is a math mistake here, but I'm afraid you made it, not astronomers.

 

[jasonpatterson]

One strong piece of evidence for the black hole at the center of our galaxy is indeed the orbits of stars near it. You don't seem to understand how such things work though; the stars wouldn't orbit the center of mass of the galaxy simply because it was the center of mass.

To see why this is so, imagine a planet in a binary star system. If we try to orbit the planet around the center of mass of the system, it will be attracted more strongly to the nearer star and will quickly move away from the center. Its ultimate fate would depend on the particulars of the setup, but there is no way to develop a stable orbit around the center of mass of such a system.

An orbiter inside a spherically symmetric shell of stars wouldn't experience any gravitational attraction from the shell and would experience no particular attraction toward the center of the shell. Outside of that shell, the orbiter would experience an attraction from the shell as if it were a point particle in the center, but that's not what we're talking about in this case.

An object inside a disk of matter feels an attraction toward the nearest side of the torus, it would not have a stable orbit around the center any more than a binary or spherical distribution would.

The center of the galaxy appears to be a combination of a spherical shell of stars and a disk, and neither of these would generate stable orbits around their center of mass. It just wouldn't happen. Astronomers have seen an entire orbit of S2 that can only be explained by a mass of something like 4 million solar masses INSIDE the orbit. There is a strong radio emitter in there, but nothing else. If it's not a black hole, it's something else even more exotic.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Poll Options
How do you feel about the implications of the question?
#This post is "right on."
#I'll have to think about this.
#How could astronomers be wrong all this time?
#This thread is rubbish, Black Holes are proven!!

You omitted the best option:
♥ While nothing can ever be "proven" in science, black holes are the best scientific explanation for many astronomical observations and are predicted by general relativity.

 

[Ziggurat]

You omitted the best option:

Plus the obligatory "Planet X has orbiting stars" option.

 

[fuelair]

The classic Black Hole of Astronomy exists at the exact center of Galaxies and other large accretions of matter.

At exactly this same point exists the Center of Balance/Focus of Mass Vectors/"Center of Gravity." This is a point at which for mathematical purposes, all the matter of the object, e.g. Galaxy, may be considereded to be concentrated.

Evidence for "Black Holes" is essentially that of examinining the orbits of stars and other units about this center.

My question is, "Is there any true evidence that this orbiting is not simply about the Center of Balance/Center of Mass/"Center of Gravity"/Focus of Mass vectors?" Is there any reason to believe that those massive matter eating "Black Holes" actually exist?

Yes, people, I am dead serious. I think that astronomers and science fiction writers have been having fun with a mathematical mistake since Swartschild first did his bit..

I, for one, would have no hesitation on pushing a space probe right through the center of one of those supposed "Black Holes." I'd expect it to come unscathed right out the other side.

Riddle me this Batbiter:How is a black hole like a person with no functional education, experience, training or ability in a field who acts as if they did and believes they know more than the people who do know and have all that?

Hee, hee, hee: In both of them stuff goes in, but it can't come out!!




To the direct point, just for fun, find someone with a nice heavy, powerful centrifuge. Tell him/her/them you would like to get in and run it up to, say, 50 Gs for 15-20 minutes. Look carefully at their face(s). Should take care of this.

 

[dafydd]

Riddle me this Batbiter:How is a black hole like a person with no functional education, experience, training or ability in a field who acts as if they did and believes they know more than the people who do know and have all that?

Hee, hee, hee: In both of them stuff goes in, but it can't come out!!




To the direct point, just for fun, find someone with a nice heavy, powerful centrifuge. Tell him/her/them you would like to get in and run it up to, say, 50 Gs for 15-20 minutes. Look carefully at their face(s). Should take care of this.

Who do I believe, physicists, astronomers and cosmologists who have studied and passed exams or somebody on the net who can't spell Schwarzschilde and can't come up with any maths. Decisions, decisions.

 

[franklinveaux]

Riddle me this Batbiter:How is a black hole like a person with no functional education, experience, training or ability in a field who acts as if they did and believes they know more than the people who do know and have all that?

Hee, hee, hee: In both of them stuff goes in, but it can't come out!!

I've noticed a way of thinking in many folks who don't really understand science and can't be arsed to learn all that complicated math stuff, but still are curious about the physical world and enjoy thinking about it.

I used to call it the Time Cube phenomenon, but I don't think it really fits )I think the Time Cube guy is insane, as in actually diagnosably mentally ill); lately, I've been calling it the Anders Lindman effect, after the poster right here on JREF.

It's a belief system rooted in the idea that what scientists do is they sit in chairs and think of stuff, then call whatever it is they think up a "theory." But the stuff they think up is really complicated and doesn't make intuitive sense, so if someone sits in an armchair and thinks up something that sounds plausible (to him) and makes more intuitive sense, well, that's an even better "theory."

It is rooted, I think, in several things: a profound misunderstanding of what science is, a lack of formal background in science or critical thinking, an inability (because of that lack of formal education) to understand the evidence supporting current models of the universe, and a desire for the universe to be comprehensible and intuitive. Folks who fall into this trap aren't necessarily stupid, per se, though it's often true that they are grossly uninformed. For example, the hypothesizing above neglects the fact that black holes exist in places other than at galactic centers.

 

[Loss Leader]

Black holes aren't just predicted for the center of galaxies. They're predicted for the death of supermassive stars. So, even if you were right about the galaxy thing, how do you explain what happen to the mass of dead stars?

 

[Dancing David]

Evidence for "Black Holes" is essentially that of examinining the orbits of stars and other units about this center.

If you can explain something that has as much mass as the black hole theorized to be at the center of the galaxy that is as small as it appears to be, have at it.

 

[dafydd]

I've noticed a way of thinking in many folks who don't really understand science and can't be arsed to learn all that complicated math stuff, but still are curious about the physical world and enjoy thinking about it.

I used to call it the Time Cube phenomenon, but I don't think it really fits )I think the Time Cube guy is insane, as in actually diagnosably mentally ill); lately, I've been calling it the Anders Lindman effect, after the poster right here on JREF.

It's a belief system rooted in the idea that what scientists do is they sit in chairs and think of stuff, then call whatever it is they think up a "theory." But the stuff they think up is really complicated and doesn't make intuitive sense, so if someone sits in an armchair and thinks up something that sounds plausible (to him) and makes more intuitive sense, well, that's an even better "theory."

It is rooted, I think, in several things: a profound misunderstanding of what science is, a lack of formal background in science or critical thinking, an inability (because of that lack of formal education) to understand the evidence supporting current models of the universe, and a desire for the universe to be comprehensible and intuitive. Folks who fall into this trap aren't necessarily stupid, per se, though it's often true that they are grossly uninformed. For example, the hypothesizing above neglects the fact that black holes exist in places other than at galactic centers.

Very perceptive. I move that this effect should be dubbed the Anders Lindman Effect. All credit to you.

 

[dlorde]

I used to call it the Time Cube phenomenon, but I don't think it really fits )I think the Time Cube guy is insane, as in actually diagnosably mentally ill); lately, I've been calling it the Anders Lindman effect, after the poster right here on JREF

I agree about Anders (and certain others), but how is this different from the Dunning-Kruger effect?


Incidentally, have any black holes been definitively detected via gravitational lensing yet ? (I'm aware that quasars will cause GL, but they're usually detected by other means).

 

[ben m]

Eski, are you going to respond to this? It looks like you posted this without knowing most of the facts.

The classic Black Hole of Astronomy exists at the exact center of Galaxies and other large accretions of matter.

Not true; in many ways, the best-studied black holes are the stellar-mass black holes located all over the galaxy, at the center of mass of nothing whatsoever. Also, there is no sense in which galactic-center black holes are in the exact center.

At exactly this same point exists the Center of Balance/Focus of Mass Vectors/"Center of Gravity." This is a point at which for mathematical purposes, all the matter of the object, e.g. Galaxy, may be considereded to be concentrated.

But that's not how gravity works. Not at all.

It's your turn to comment.

 

[Brian-M]

The mass of a spherically symmetric object can be treated as being a single point only for regions outside that sphere. But you have failed to grasp the second half of the shell theorem: when you're inside a spherically symmetric shell, there is NO gravity from the surrounding shell.

Actually, there would be gravity from the surrounding shell. The gravity would be pulling the object outward, towards the closest wall of the shell.

(Or so I assume.)