Tuesday, July 8, 2014

Is There A Super Massive Black Hole at the Center of the Galaxy?

Is There Really a Super Massive Black Hole at the Center of the Galaxy? The Scientific Community Now Believes There is Evidence . Here is an Alternative Explanation Lex Loeb Contributor Network . In spite of the reports that scientist have directly observed a black hole at the center of our galaxy and that gives us insurmountable proof that black holes exist there still is room left for doubt. The first assumption made is the area in the Milky way observed is the actual center of the Galaxy. I tend to look at the Milky way directly in the sky and I am not at all sure that it necessarily is a spiral galaxy I am looking at. It is a great theory that it maybe a spiral galaxy but the actual evidence is not entirely there. It is a fanciful idea that our solar system may exist in the milky way and that it is indeed a spiral. A lot of people necessarily accept that it is and they accept to know exactly where the center of that huge part of the sky forms a galactic center. That is just the first assumption one can be skeptical of. OK The astronomers have been observing an area of rapidly moving massive stars that are very close together and they have found that they appear to be revolving around a center point. There is proof of that. In a ten light day period of time they see all or part of the orbits of these massive fast moving stars about a dark point in space. One of the orbits seems to be very oblique and may depend on the actual angle we are viewing it at from earth area observatories to tell just how tight the orbit is. See the attachment link: http://www.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC/index.php to see one of the famous animations that is supposed to illustrate the existence of our galactic super massive black hole. There is no doubt that this is an exciting and important scientific discovery. This area may very well be the center of the Milky way galaxy and it may contain a super massive black hole but there is no direct evidence of a black hole. The way the scientists figure out that there is one is by using Newtonian Physics to calculate the masses of the various orbiting stars and from that they can calculate that at the center of all of those elliptical orbits there has to be an object with sufficient gravity to hold the whole star show together. I was ready to believe them. The evidence seemed insurmountable. Then I started to think of what was missing. There is no evidence yet of any of the star masses orbiting this supposed super massive black hole being digested by the black hole and there is no evidence of an accretion disk from a star that might have been formerly devoured. There is also no accretion ring and there is no visible evidence yet , although there may be once a bigger better telescope goes on the hunt, so there is no evidence of an Event Horizon. Another bit of evidence lacking that has everything to do with event horizons is the lack of what is called a gravity lens. Some of these massive stars are passing behind the black hole the scientists say they know know exists. If that happened and all of their Einstein verses of faith were correct then we should see something absolutely amazing. A Gravity lens effect that should change our view of the star passing behind the black hole to a degree that it would be like looking at a spoon half in a glass of water and half out of a glass of water. Maybe our telescopes are just not that good yet to detect this effect? I am waiting to see just that type of effect where the orbit of the various stars passing behind the gravitational influence of the super massive black hole cause either the star to disappear for a moment during it's orbit or to be visually transposed. This would give me absolute proof that not only were we looking at a super massive black hole but that the rules or relativity were working here at the center of the galaxy. No apparent gravity lens effect and no obscuring of the stars behind the galactic center is also an immediate concern. Perhaps there is no evidence of stars behind this central region and no evidence of a lensing effect but this lensing effect is one more necessary element for the kind of prediction being made. We do need to see gravity lensing effect and that may take big bigger better telescope in the future. I keep looking at the evidence that there is a super massive black hole there at that point in space and do admit it maybe possible but I also feel like other theories might be presented to describe the way things are behaving at that point in space. One of the things missing in the simplified animation used to prove the existence of a black hole at that point in space is a group of stars taken out of there larger context where there are many more stars surrounding them and a lot of those are also in close day light years proximity to each other. I see a swarm of gravitational activity of very massive dynamic visible objects in very close proximity. I started to wonder about how gravity itself worked there. The scientists use Newtonian physics calculations to deduce the existence of a black hole . They are not using one of Einstein's equation to make their proof but they do then fit the Newtonian deductions into a Einstein Scheme and formulate the existence of a black hole as predicted by Einstein not by Newton. I started doing my own thinking as usual,. I started seeing something a bit different than the necessity of having a black hole at a point in space at the galactic center given the animation at: http://www.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC/index.php An object with gravity can influence its own gravity: I understand that the front side of a planet or a star facing has a back side and a spherical edge we see further back in space and time than the light that arrive from the closest part of any sphere to the observer. We know that light from the edge of the sun facing us here on earth takes a bit longer to arrive on earth than the light coming from the closest part of the sun in the middle from us. From that observation I immediately realize that an object with gravity can influence it's own gravity. In other words if the sun has a gravitational anomaly on one part of it's surface because of some build up of a prominence of mass than it can influence it's own gravity. The speed of gravity delayed? There are various scientific camps that believe that gravity works over space or over space-time at the speed of light or that it infinitely fast and instantaneous. Others like myself wonder if the speed of gravity's influence might just be very slow. I think about the concept of escape gravity we use on a daily basis to send rockets of various kinds into space from the earth's surface. If gravity operated at the speed of light I am not sure we could have escape gravity the way we do. You can say I am muddling the argument because there is a difference between the magnitude of the gravity verses it's speed but when I think of that in terms of space-time I rather start to see the need for a delayed effect the force or influence of gravity propagates out into space from the center of an object with gravity. If the earth were to suddenly see the sun disappear the earth and other planets would continue out into space in straight lines because the field lines of gravity would instantly be gone. If that happened. If the sun just suddenly disappeared and ceased to exist it would take a little more than 8 minutes, the time it takes light from the sun to reach the earth, for the earth to start moving in a straight line into space from where it had been retained in the sun's orbit. The amount of force as Newton defined it put on the earth to keep it in orbit is exactly what allows that escape form the orbit. Einstein says that gravity laid down invisible tracks in the solar system where the point of least Resistance for the earth to exist would be in that particular orbit. Maybe those invisible tracks linger longer. The gravitational influence beaten the earth and moon could continue with the disappearance of the sun. The Earth and moon both experience a tidal influence from the other's gravity and we also have a tidal effect on the back side -non frontal facing side of both the earth and the moon. What if that back side tidal phenomenon is evidence of a delayed gravitational influence and the influence of a an object with gravity having the reflexive influence on itself--front and back sides? Delayed and accrued gravity in space? Since we are laying down tracks of gravitational influence like a recession in the fabric of space which is often illustrated in astronomical text books as concave area on a Cartesian plane we are looking at a warped space. That is why the gravity lensing effect is so important in proving that there is a super massive black hole at the center of the milky way. Einstein was convinced that light had mass and would not escape the influence of a super massive black hole.This recession in space is thus necessarily a time delay factor or a space- time delay structure. It does necessarily delay time as Einstein very cleverly said that gravity slows down time. I actually have seen more evidence of gravity speeding up time but we are not dealing here with my published new laws of physics which everyone knows is kook physics. How long is time then delayed. We know from physics texts that time can slow down infinitely at the speed of light as the theory goes because we are dealing with frames of reference. Once being absorbed into a black hole your atomic mass would slow down perhaps infinitely. You become a part of a gravitational singularity as opposed to having any discrete elements of atomic mass. As objects approach a black hole they are supposed to be slowed down in space-time and that is thought by theory to generate a gravity lens. It is light bending in the direction and almost slowing down to infinity just at the edge of singularity that would help create a gravity lens or in the case of a very small supper massive black hole--a unusual sight of what might look like refraction about the Central point. What I am getting at is the necessary delay. We are certainly seeing no delay as the object approach the proposed black hole. The black hole may actually be accelerating these large objects to ultra fast orbits. OK so none of the observed objects have yet gotten close enough to disappear behind the even horizon all or just in part and we will keep watching to see when it happens. Hopefully so. Then I will be a total believer in the black hole theory. The alternative theory: If i make the assumption that gravity spheres of influence by all the objects in the animation seen at: http://www.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC/index.php has a delay factor and acts slower than the speed of light and maybe slower than the orbits observed then I can take the animation and map larger spheres of influence around each of the orbits in the animation. I get a sort of sprirograph effect of donut shaped orbits instead of points in orbit. When I illustrate the animation with the larger spheres of gravitational influence I see the various massive stars having interactive gravitational fields, spheres of influence, or Einstein recessions in the fabric of space and time. Illustrate it anyway you want to and from there you can figure out where a gravitational center between all the objects in the animation not including more that are not shown in the animation around those such that there is a central spot where the influence of gravity between all the high speed elliptical orbits should be strongest. These objects are moving fast in tight orbits and if there is any delay in their gravitational influence zone that it could accrue between them . So you start to calculate the tidal effects of all of these interactive orbits and then you start to see that not only are individual stars having a gravitational effect on themselves, particularly if there is a delay in how it propagates in space but between each of them. Drawing that out on paper and then animating it then there may be no need for a super massive black hole at all. Maybe instead of looking for a black hole in this location in the galaxy the observers should be looking at the delay in propagation of gravitational influence if any and to see if gravity between objects can create points of gravity where there is not interference but a co-gravitational augmentation of Newtonian gravity. How long might 6 , 8 or more tidal areas of gravitational influence linger converging between them somewhere at the center of their mutual orbits? Might that effect give the impression of a black hole with no evidence of any event horizon. No black hole feeding event and no gravity lensing of light observed? I think it is a definite possibility. In my new laws of physics I reach the conclusion that light is not going to found to have mass because of the way it behaves in radiometer experiments and because it cannot have mass that Einstein made a terrific error which still can be corrected by changing the assumption. Once that assumption changes than the theory of black holes cease to exist. When I saw the evidence of black holes at the center of the galaxy healed in the scientific press I was impressed enough to question a few of my new odd laws of physics. If they are right of course I am wrong. Again there is no calculation being done that confirms that Einstein's math is being used to prove this is a super massive black hole. The calculations obey Newtonian physics where mass does not have any known effect on the speed of light. There needs to be more collaborating amid direct evidence to confirm that this is not just a theory based on a few assumptions. It looked so good to begin with I had thought it almost too true to believe and started asking more questions. One more problem exists. Black hole assumed to exist at the center. OK. Then why are there these elliptical shaped orbits? It takes more than one central point to contract an ellipse. which is one more reason to believe that gravitational influence can be deposited in space to an invisible point in space where gravity influence increases as if you might call it a gravity bank. I might also expect to see a kink or a warp effect in these high speed orbits because of the event horizon of an actual black hole especially when passing behind it. Maybe they are suggesting there is a black hole disk and not a black hole point in space? I see larger objects with lots of gravitational influence that should be influencing each other with their own gravity and being influenced. I would sort of expect that in such close proximity they would be ripping each other up at least a bit just thinking of the moon Io of Jupiter that flattens in the influence of the gravity of Jupiter. The deduction platform used to deduce the existence of distant planet also tells us that this Central zone of high velocity massive bodies in motion should have some kinky movements or twitches due to gravitational tides between the objects. Maybe if there is a black hole at the center point it is preventing this planetary behavior because its gravitational field is super massive? But then the black hole itself should also be twitching because of the fast moving lower mass objects around it and it should intern cause the orbits to twitch. After saying all of this I don't know that we have enough evidence yet to go with the black hole as proof positive and I would want to explore the accumulation of gravitational influence in empty space as a kind of unity as one alternative theory. Because these objects are moving so fast around their interconnected orbits they not only have a gravitational effect on one another but possibly a lingering effect on themselves. Whether you believe that massive objects leave a concave warp in the fabric of space or have a force between objects with gravity you should be able to illustrate either a common concave warp area or a gravity force zone that might be a better explanation than a black hole necessarily being there. What if a star orbited an other star such that they orbited each other at very high speed. There is evidence of these binary star systems that do exist in astronomy. You can draw out the tidal spheres of influence between them and more easily see how both stars would be influenced by their own tidal force on the other. Take one away and let it move even faster in a tight orbit and it's own tidal forces and gravity field will influence itself to some degree. In a time lapse image of the star as a bright elliptical donut if there is any delay in the force of the propagation of gravity either as a force or as a warp in time space again you can see how the one solitary fast moving object can influence itself with its own gravity. If you super impose all the bright time delay donuts as an exercise in space time with the animation at: http://www.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC/index.php such that it begins to look like a spirographic image of intersecting zones of propagated gravity then there has to be a central point where over time all of those interacting zones will interact with each of the high velocity orbiting stars. It could just be that at some amazing invisible point in space gravity accrues and influence all of the party stars to that central point and that is enough to mimic what other might think of as the effect of a super massive black hole. These stars may have enough mass and velocity to force each other to accelerate rather than slow down. Remember a black hole should have an event horizon that eventually causes them to slow down. Part of the original theory is that mass slows down sort of like being at absolute zero because radiation ceases to escape but it also ceases to have star like energy at some point approaching the event horizon. Astronomical observations seem to cause the demise of one scientific assumption after another. The more we see the stranger it looks. This area is thought to be the center of the galaxy is definitely strange. No one has seen anything like it before and there are quite a lot of questions about exactly what is being observed. The Newtonian calculations showing the need for a central point which would necessarily be a super massive black hole are very seductive. Evidence that makes this theory necessarily 100% true is still lacking. I think as time goes by we might get to see the event horizon or more evidence along those lines. There still is a good chance that we might find that we are looking at something none of us understand. There is also a good chance that we will find that gravity can accrue in empty space without any mass and influence a variety of objects just because it has a delayed effect either in time or space time if you prefer . Space time is just space and time being the same which it is when you consider that an object moving a distance in space can be measured in distance or time or have distance moved defined as "time." The rational for seeing a black hole at the center of the galaxy may just a sort of coincidence because of something else. There is also evidence of observation of other galaxies and how fast they move from the center to the edges. Again the deductions of black holes at the center remains a guess at best. Mathematic tricks that make assumptions of wavelengths of light observed from distant galaxies is also sill in the realm of conjecture. The best hope is this supposed galactic center of our milky way because it is a lot closer and eventually we should have a much better actual view of what is happening there. I may soon be able to propose a new law of physics based on the tidal forces interacting in spaces between massive objects as being banks of gravitational influence. I can't decide where there is more evidence--if gravity is propagated instantly , at the speed of light or slower. Right now I believe that will be the determining factor and maybe the answer will come from this supposed center of the Milky way galaxy and then only if no black hole is ultimately found residing there that is if something else is not found there. Sometimes I look at galaxies and wonder if there might not be an actual hole at the center because most seem to be sitting on what seems to be a flat or slightly curved surface and they seem to be something like bubble bath foam on the surface of the water in a bath tub above where the water is going down a drain. That is an actual physical hole as opposed to a black hole. T .

No comments:

Post a Comment