Quote:
Originally Posted by Insane Climber
That only proves that there is a very large mass there. And as you can probably see by the discussion so far we all pretty much agree that no one knows what a black hole is. And also please remember that i have very little idea what I'm talking about. I only started this discussion to learn. The thing i didn't expect was a bunch of people who keep telling me that "Astronomers" Have it all worked out. Come on guy's. I'm just having some fun here, Now how about coming out with some thought of your own. I read all the magazines too you know.
|
I was having some fun here. This has been an intellectual adventure for me, both hypothesizing and listening to other contributors' opinions. When people put forward the "what ifs", you've always got to have a good think about the feasibility of their suggestions. Obviously, this has to come from some knowledge base and different people know different amounts about different things. All in all, I think the thread has run with a fairly orderly respect!
Not knowing exactly what a Black Hole is (i.e. its internal nature) does not prevent us from actually identifying a Black Hole and predicting/observing its effects on objects around it. The external effects of a BH is primarily due to its mass and predictions have been made from general relativity.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, just how much evidence is needed before we can conclude that any theory is an accurate representation of what we see, or in this case, that BHs exist? The building evidence from many different sources is pointing to the existence of BHs ... fast orbiting stars, galactic core radiation, accretion disks, relativistic jets, X-rays, gamma rays, event horizon shadows, frame dragging. Observations are consistent with theory and they best explain what we see (or in the case of BHs, don't see). I'm personally leaning towards their existence but if suddenly evidence points us in a new direction, I'm prepared to go there as well.
Regards, Rob.