Black Hole denialism

Post Reply New Topic

That is one possible explanation.

It is the explanation that best fits the observational data. If there is "fluid" in the galactic center, its density would be too low to exert a gravitational effect on the nearby stars. The stars at the center of the galaxy are moving in closed paths around Sagittarius A*. We know stars exists because 1) we can see them(through the naked eye and through telescopes) and 2) they have particular radiation emission spectra. You see there have been plenty of spectroscopic experiments in the laboratory that involve heating plasma to extremely high temperatures and measuring the intensity of radiation emitted across the entire EM spectrum. Likewise, spectroscopy has been used in analyzing the radiation from hydrogen bomb explosions and laboratory inertial confinement fusion experiments.

Well, actually it would. Because given the apparent size and measured mass of Sagittarius A*, the density required to produce enough gravity to explain the orbital motion of stars around it is extremely large(far greater than the Earth or the Sun). Even with the crudest estimates of its density, if it is not a black hole then infalling matter colliding with its surface will result in extremely energetic bursts of radiation that exceed its Eddington limit. This happens because the force of a collision converts kinetic energy into heat through friction(caused by electrical repulsion between electrons and between nuclei due to the Coulomb force which generates radiation pressure). An object that is not a black hole behaving this way would violate thermodynamics and electromagnetics. Sagittarius A* most likely wasn't an actual star! That's NOT what I said. What I was talking about is the observation of a star being sucked into Sagittarius A*. But the key piece of evidence that implies a black hole at the galactic center is the detection of Schwarzschild radius structures very near to the object itself(which is not radiating). That is, there is a steep drop-off in radiation intensity.

It depends on the cosmological model.


Presuming a surface exists.


We could be dealing with a system dominated by other forces than gravity.

And that's the jist of the Black Hole argument for Sagittarius A*! A black hole doesn't have a surface, it has an event horizon which is not made out of any kind of matter. It's a virtual surface where the radiation emitted by luminous matter that passes into it is bent backward and cannot travel past it.


We could be dealing with a system dominated by other forces than gravity.[/quote]

The only other known attractive force that can act at such distances is electromagnetism. And that requires an electromagnetic field of sufficient strength. The strength of such a field depends of its current density and current is moving charge. Since charged particles have mass, this also has very high matter density requirements and if Sagittarius A* were made out of any kind of matter, then it clearly behaves like an object with extremely high density....ergo, it would have a surface.

That's one way to look at it.