tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post4916537248976105556..comments2024-03-04T15:09:00.479-08:00Comments on The Scientific Worldview: Elderly Black Hole in the Infinite UniverseGlenn Borchardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-63933091383847977582020-05-19T19:52:49.511-07:002020-05-19T19:52:49.511-07:00Well said, Glenn.
DuncanWell said, Glenn.<br /><br />DuncanGlenn Borchardthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-78002103531726376872020-05-19T19:51:34.575-07:002020-05-19T19:51:34.575-07:00From Pierre:
Hello, Glenn!
The first thing that...From Pierre: <br /><br />Hello, Glenn!<br /><br />The first thing that pops to the eye is how wrong the animation is. We see a bright bluish light and a faint reddish one both circling around the center point of an an elliptical path. This is physically impossible. For such an orbital configuration to exist, both objects would have to be of the same mass. If otherwise, then the lighter of the two objects would be seen orbiting one of the ellipse's focal point, not the center. This is plain Keplerian mechanics.<br /><br />Secondly, black holes, by their strict definition, are mathematical singularities that correspond to nothing than can possibly exist in physical reality. Astrophysicists are so excited by the concept that they will call « black holes » any mass that they can’t see. Rivinius says « An invisible object 4 times the mass of the sun can only be a black hole ». Sorry, but I can pretty well imagine a star 4 times the mass of the sun with gravity so strong that it’s visible EM emission would be redshifted to radio or even longer wavelengths. <br /><br />The most likely explanation to what we see is an ancient red giant that collapsed to smaller than a neutron star, leaving behind only its main sequence companion on a decaying orbit, but admittedly, this would not make headlines! That being said, your conclusion remains: the phenomenon would take a lot more time to form than the age of the universe. <br /><br />Of course, this is just the opinion of the amateur that I am. I’ll welcome you to validate this with an astrophysicist of your choice who has no vested interest in fame!<br /><br /><br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />--<br />Pierre BerriganGlenn Borchardthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.com