I dont argue that there is no sag A as we get data saying something is there
..it is called now sag a and most will say it is a black hole... therefore it will be in the form we hold in our minds, a traditional although super massive black hole built from the extrapolation of general relativity to produce such a unit
... all I say is although observations are consistent with the "black hole" predictions I see no reason to exclude other explanations or interpretations of the data...
I defy anyone to show how a black hole in whatever form you conceive it to be can produce the jets they are believed to be responsible for...yet when one considers how a binary system could produce a massive jet it jumps out as being mechanically achievable and indeed simple
....particularly if
..like me you take into account how gravity must work at a physical level as oppossed to a geometric construct born from mind games
....with respect to Dr A... he also thought little of the black hole concept
as I said.
Black holes have run away with our imagination and are attributted with properties that suit Hollywood more than the lab in my view... clearly if one actually does the sums one finds their influence is nothing like we have built in our minds... sag a but one example...there are many reports of super massive black holes but who takes the time to work out how massive they need to be if they are to rule the galaxy by gravity...man it would be so massive ..actually any black hole will have to many times more massive than its host galaxy
...the inverse square rule will produce some big numbers as to mass for a black hole if it were to influence even a grain of sand at the edge of our gallaxy... so how would you go with sombrero galaxy or other biggies...how massive do we need a black hole in m87.. consider some of the diameters of galaxies and then let the inverse square rule take a meaningful grip on its expectations of central mass and galactic influence...
To me the main reason I find attraction unacceptable as the "method" of gravity is the problems it and the inverse square rule generate that seems attraction would never "hold" a galaxy together...needless to say a galaxy can only be held together by an external influence
... the outter stars rotate faster than they should from the current approach so we need dark matter
...not so an external pressure will explain it much more simply
..pass the razor
...
Anyways if they call it black or dark (dark matter) and say its there but we cant see it lets seek more reasonable and realistic explanations of how it all works.
Man we now have dark matter 3d maps... but just look at how they worked out the lensing... I can not see they are right, they have come from the ball and the blanket example to do their science and to me obviously absolutely flawed... but like the effect of super massive black holes on galaxies who actually questions these propostitions... dark matter is unsupportable and the current 3d map really proved it to me..if others cant see it that is not my problem...
We find ourselves where we are via math /geometry extrapolations originating from original general premises..General relativity comes from a premise I believe is irrelevant to considering how the Universe works.. how a man experiences a ride in a lift just does not do it for me...and yet from a simple premise all we have today has grown...All I ask is what if that premise is indeed flawed and inappropriate... what then...will we still have black holes and dark matter?
alex
... this is or is not a fact
