Theory of Black Holes Disproven?

[JimBowie1958]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9620#.UsadGZWA2Uk

A controversial alternative to black hole theory has been bolstered by observations of an object in the distant universe, researchers say. If their interpretation is correct, it might mean black holes do not exist and are in fact bizarre and compact balls of plasma called MECOs.....

A rare cosmological coincidence allowed Schild and his colleagues to probe the structure of the quasar in much finer detail than is normally possible. Those details suggest that the central object is not a black hole. "The structure of the quasar is not at all what had been theorised," Schild told New Scientist....

A well accepted property of black holes is that they cannot sustain a magnetic field of their own. But observations of quasar Q0957+561 indicate that the object powering it does have a magnetic field, Schild's team says. For this reason, they believe that rather than a black hole, this quasar contains something called a magnetospheric eternally collapsing object (MECO). If so, it would be best evidence yet for such an object.....

The researchers found that the disc of material surrounding the central object has a hole in it with a width of about 4000 Astronomical Units (1 AU is the distance between the Earth and the Sun). This gap suggests that material has been swept out by magnetic forces from the central object, the researchers say, and must therefore be a MECO, not a black hole.

"I believe this is the first evidence that the whole black hole paradigm is incorrect," says Darryl Leiter of the Marwood Astrophysics Research Center in Charottesville, Virginia, US, who co-authored the study. He says that where astronomers think they see black holes, they are actually looking at MECOs.

According to the MECO theory, objects in our universe can never actually collapse to form black holes. When an object gets very dense and hot, subatomic particles start popping in and out of existence inside it in huge numbers, producing copious amounts of radiation. Outward pressure from this radiation halts the collapse so the object remains a hot ball of plasma rather than becoming a black hole.

Well, there goes about half of science fiction premises.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Fascinating (raises eyebrow.)

Of course, it could also be that both are true, and there MECOs AND black holes. When they first discovered gamma ray bursters it shook things up as well. But we've 'seen' black holes already, or at leasts stars in hyper-velocity orbit around them. Could just be this, or most quasars are MECOs instead of black holes. But not all black holes are inside quasars.

 

[editec]

When an object gets very dense and hot, subatomic particles start popping in and out of existence inside it in huge numbers, producing copious amounts of radiation. Outward pressure from this radiation halts the collapse so the object remains a hot ball of plasma rather than becoming a black hole.


Does this radiation radiate from the black holes?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

X-rays get emitted from black holes, so some radiation's emitted yes. Probably seen the pics on tv docs showing either side of the black hole disc shooting jets of energy out?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Fascinating (raises eyebrow.)

Of course, it could also be that both are true, and there MECOs AND black holes. When they first discovered gamma ray bursters it shook things up as well. But we've 'seen' black holes already, or at leasts stars in hyper-velocity orbit around them. Could just be this, or most quasars are MECOs instead of black holes. But not all black holes are inside quasars.

First, I am not posing as some amateur scientist, so this is purely speculation and a rough grasping of straw on my part, but I think the two theories are supposed to be incompatible with each other. Either the universe operates one way or the other.

But who knows?

So much of what the scientific community presents as fact, like the masses of exoplanets, is really just a rough educated guess. It isn't what we would normally classify as knowledge.

Magnetospheric eternally collapsing object - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Magnetospheric eternally collapsing objects or MECOs are proposed alternatives to black holes advocated by Darryl Leiter and Stanley Robertson.[1] They are a variant of eternally collapsing objects or ECOs proposed by Abhas Mitra in 1998.[2] Mitra had devised an ostensive proof that black holes cannot form from the spherically symmetric gravitational collapse of a star. Based on this, he argued that the collapse must be slowed to a near halt by radiation pressure. A proposed observable difference between MECOs and black holes is that the MECO can produce its own magnetic field. An uncharged black hole cannot produce its own magnetic field, but its accretion disc can. Astronomer Rudolph Schild claims to have found evidence of such a magnetic field from the black hole candidate in the quasar Q0957+561.[3]

Neither ECOs nor MECOs have gained any significant acceptance among scientists; Gerry Gilmore of the Institute for Astronomy at the University of Cambridge has stated that the concept is "almost certainly wrong,"[4] and the mathematician Chris Hillman has stated that it is "flat out wrong".[5] Mitra's proof that black holes cannot form is based on the argument that in order for a black hole to form, the collapsing matter must travel faster than the speed of light with respect to a fixed observer.[6] Paulo Crawford and Ismael Tereno have cited this as an example of a "wrong and widespread view," and explain that in order for a frame of reference to be valid, the observer must be moving along a timelike worldline. At or inside the event horizon of a black hole, it is not possible for such an observer to remain fixed; all observers are drawn toward the black hole.

 

[JimBowie1958]

X-rays get emitted from black holes, so some radiation's emitted yes. Probably seen the pics on tv docs showing either side of the black hole disc shooting jets of energy out?

Don't the X-rays come from the event horizon, and not behind it, in theory?

 

[sealybobo]

Mysterious quasar casts doubt on black holes

A controversial alternative to black hole theory has been bolstered by observations of an object in the distant universe, researchers say. If their interpretation is correct, it might mean black holes do not exist and are in fact bizarre and compact balls of plasma called MECOs.....

A rare cosmological coincidence allowed Schild and his colleagues to probe the structure of the quasar in much finer detail than is normally possible. Those details suggest that the central object is not a black hole. "The structure of the quasar is not at all what had been theorised," Schild told New Scientist....

A well accepted property of black holes is that they cannot sustain a magnetic field of their own. But observations of quasar Q0957+561 indicate that the object powering it does have a magnetic field, Schild's team says. For this reason, they believe that rather than a black hole, this quasar contains something called a magnetospheric eternally collapsing object (MECO). If so, it would be best evidence yet for such an object.....

The researchers found that the disc of material surrounding the central object has a hole in it with a width of about 4000 Astronomical Units (1 AU is the distance between the Earth and the Sun). This gap suggests that material has been swept out by magnetic forces from the central object, the researchers say, and must therefore be a MECO, not a black hole.

"I believe this is the first evidence that the whole black hole paradigm is incorrect," says Darryl Leiter of the Marwood Astrophysics Research Center in Charottesville, Virginia, US, who co-authored the study. He says that where astronomers think they see black holes, they are actually looking at MECOs.

According to the MECO theory, objects in our universe can never actually collapse to form black holes. When an object gets very dense and hot, subatomic particles start popping in and out of existence inside it in huge numbers, producing copious amounts of radiation. Outward pressure from this radiation halts the collapse so the object remains a hot ball of plasma rather than becoming a black hole.

Well, there goes about half of science fiction premises.

4 years later I’ve still never heard of mecos

But I’m watching a show on black holes. Did they come first or did stars come first? They don’t know.

In 4 years we’ve learned a lot about black holes. First they exist.

Oh, and this guy could be right. Black holes and what they do is only a theory. Black hole is only a word it doesn’t actually describe what’s there.

I’ll look up this theory and see how it’s doing

 

[sealybobo]

When an object gets very dense and hot, subatomic particles start popping in and out of existence inside it in huge numbers, producing copious amounts of radiation. Outward pressure from this radiation halts the collapse so the object remains a hot ball of plasma rather than becoming a black hole.


Does this radiation radiate from the black holes?

You could be right about what’s happening there

 

[sealybobo]

Fascinating (raises eyebrow.)

Of course, it could also be that both are true, and there MECOs AND black holes. When they first discovered gamma ray bursters it shook things up as well. But we've 'seen' black holes already, or at leasts stars in hyper-velocity orbit around them. Could just be this, or most quasars are MECOs instead of black holes. But not all black holes are inside quasars.

First, I am not posing as some amateur scientist, so this is purely speculation and a rough grasping of straw on my part, but I think the two theories are supposed to be incompatible with each other. Either the universe operates one way or the other.

But who knows?

So much of what the scientific community presents as fact, like the masses of exoplanets, is really just a rough educated guess. It isn't what we would normally classify as knowledge.

Magnetospheric eternally collapsing object - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Magnetospheric eternally collapsing objects or MECOs are proposed alternatives to black holes advocated by Darryl Leiter and Stanley Robertson.[1] They are a variant of eternally collapsing objects or ECOs proposed by Abhas Mitra in 1998.[2] Mitra had devised an ostensive proof that black holes cannot form from the spherically symmetric gravitational collapse of a star. Based on this, he argued that the collapse must be slowed to a near halt by radiation pressure. A proposed observable difference between MECOs and black holes is that the MECO can produce its own magnetic field. An uncharged black hole cannot produce its own magnetic field, but its accretion disc can. Astronomer Rudolph Schild claims to have found evidence of such a magnetic field from the black hole candidate in the quasar Q0957+561.[3]

Neither ECOs nor MECOs have gained any significant acceptance among scientists; Gerry Gilmore of the Institute for Astronomy at the University of Cambridge has stated that the concept is "almost certainly wrong,"[4] and the mathematician Chris Hillman has stated that it is "flat out wrong".[5] Mitra's proof that black holes cannot form is based on the argument that in order for a black hole to form, the collapsing matter must travel faster than the speed of light with respect to a fixed observer.[6] Paulo Crawford and Ismael Tereno have cited this as an example of a "wrong and widespread view," and explain that in order for a frame of reference to be valid, the observer must be moving along a timelike worldline. At or inside the event horizon of a black hole, it is not possible for such an observer to remain fixed; all observers are drawn toward the black hole.

We don’t even know what’s in our own solar system. There may be hundreds of planets beyond Pluto. It so far away from the sun and so dark we can’t see anything

We need to send voyager 3 4 5 - 9 ...out to the outer edge of our solar system and fully understand where we are.

The planets are just 10% of our solar system. It’s so much bigger than we realize