Black Holes Are An Optical Effect

On Oct 4, 6:12 pm, "Autymn D. C." wrote:
On Oct 2, 5:35 am, " wrote:
As a final conclusion, your point of view is that the use of the words
"black hole" is wrong and it should follow the guidance of more
knowledgeable people (according to your own rating) and use instead
"black hole candidate" or "presumed black hole". My point of view, on
the other hand, is that long term observations, and new measurement
techniques (including larger optical and radio telescopes with proper
instrumentation) are making possible to view more and more detail on
what is going on in our galactic center, and that those studies are
making the case, for the existence of a super massive black hole
there, highly probable.

You are wrong; the black hole is a strawman. Such bodies are nuclear
collapsars, relativistic dark stars.

-Aut

We agree to disagree. Let the knowledgeable people find the answers.

A few fysysysts agree with me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_star
"A Q-Star, also known as a gray hole, is hypothetical type of a
compact, heavy neutron star with an exotic state of matter."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_S...ssical_gravity)
"A black star is created when matter compresses at a rate
significantly less than the freefall velocity of a hypothetical
particle falling to the center of its star, due to the fact that
quantum processes create vacuum polarization, which creates a form of
degeneracy pressure, preventing spacetime (and the particles held
within it) from occupying the same space at the same time. This energy
is theoretically unlimited..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy_star
"In March 2005, physicist George Chapline claimed that quantum
mechanics makes it a "near certainty", that black holes do not exist
and are instead dark energy stars. The dark energy star is a different
concept than that of a gravastar."

-Aut