tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post7578254776208682416..comments2019-05-13T18:13:39.942-07:00Comments on Dark Buzz: More monster black holesRogerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03474078324293158376noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-3381344121774145812016-04-10T00:59:50.464-07:002016-04-10T00:59:50.464-07:00I have heard a great deal of misinformation on thi...I have heard a great deal of misinformation on this topic because many scientists have claimed they have definitive refutations of MACHO, RAMBO, etc... Most stellar black holes are impossible to detect and scientists estimate that there are possibly ten million to a billion of them in the Milky Way alone. That's a huge margin of error! Additionally, we have many hints there are intermediate-sized black holes such as with NGC1313X-1. There can be boatloads of mass to stabilize the rotation curve.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-75637035737577912102016-04-10T00:22:27.618-07:002016-04-10T00:22:27.618-07:00The mathematics is complete gibberish but it can c...The mathematics is complete gibberish but it can conceal sensible ideas. Infinitely-dense singularities are non-sense idealizations but they might have some kind physical translation. The three-body problem is exactly what I would give as an example of where analytic methods break down and not reality. Luckily, we have computers. No one has ever looked into a black hole, so one can only guess but boundary value physics is nothing new. The problems in physics are largely a result of poor foundations involving "continuous" math, which is basically degenerate discreteness. Any coherent idea can be simulated on a computer but what model is correct is not resolvable without empirical verification.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-29614532579672278352016-04-09T16:26:01.046-07:002016-04-09T16:26:01.046-07:00The math that even allows for the creation of a &#...The math that even allows for the creation of a 'black hole' (a creation of Hilbert, not Einstein) contains no matter, only gravity. Check up on it, the field equations are also NON-LINEAR, you can't poke more than one mass into a given space time. So, you have a model that can contain only one theoretical mass basically, interacting with nothing. If anyone disputes this, please explain why you haven't published your finding in every physics journal and become famous, as there are no known solutions for more than one mass in a given space time, and over a dozen interpretations of what a Schwarzchild radius describes.<br /><br />Are there incredibly dense gravitational objects in the universe, obviously, yes.<br /><br />Are these objects black holes? Not really. Possibly a black body or some variation, but not a flaky piece of math exuding gravity without matter or volume.<br /><br />If you can call actual objects that are not related to erroneous mathematical artifice a black hole, you can call pretty much call anything whatever else you like as well with similar results. <br /><br />The first step in understanding what is holding the galaxy together would require an actual understanding of what gravity is. We don't have that, just silly linguistics pretending to be explanations. If science can't solve a three body gravitational problem, it isn't ready to lay claim to understanding how galaxies (slightly more than three objects) function. CFTnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-8012379090332112102016-04-08T17:08:49.789-07:002016-04-08T17:08:49.789-07:00"Black holes get to be big somehow."
Ri..."Black holes get to be big somehow."<br /><br />Right. It's called logic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com