Split from: First ever photo of a black hole to be revealed this week:

[Hassani]

After the so-called GWs detection, today I heard the observation of a supermassive BH in the centre of the giant elliptical galaxy M87.

 As usual, an international team published an article “First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole” (The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 875:L1 (17pp), 2019 April 10) in which they reported the observation of the alleged supermassive BH.

 Incredible but true, in their article, the authors mentioned Schwarzschild's original paper(1916)! However, the concept of BH cannot be deduced from Schwarzschild's original solution.

The genuine scientists have a duty to protect the ‘original Schwarzschild's solution’ as a legacy for the scientific community. The original Schwarzschild's solution obtained in 1915 and published in 1916 [1]:

ds² = (1 ‒ α/R)dt² ‒ (1 ‒ α/R)^‒1 dR² ‒ R² (dθ² + sin²θdφ²),  R ≡ R(r) = (r³ + α³)^1/3, 0 < r < ∞.

 As we can remark more clearly there is only one singularity in Schwarzschild’s solution, at r = 0, to which his solution is constructed. Therefore, contrary to the usual claims made by the so-called GR-experts and reported in many textbooks and peer-reviewed articles, Schwarzschild did not pronounce a single word about the bizarre object that is called a black hole; he did not allege the so-called ‘Schwarzschild radius’; he did not claim that there is an ‘event horizon’ (by any other name); and his solution clearly forbids the black hole because when Schwarzschild’s r = 0, his R = α, and so there is no possibility for his R to be less than α. All this can be easily verified by simply reading Schwarzschild’s original paper [1].

 Thus, the expression:  ds² = (1 ‒ 2Gm/c²r)dt² ‒ (1 ‒ 2Gm/c²r)^‒1 dr² ‒ r² (dθ² + sin²θdφ²),

was and is still wrongly attributed to Schwarzschild in which it is asserted by inspection that r can go down to zero in some way, producing an infinitely dense point-mass singularity there, with an event horizon at the 'Schwarzschild radius' at r = 2Gm/c2: it is the birth of a black hole. Compare this metric with that really obtained by Schwarzschild [1].

Finally, GWs and BHs cannot be predicted in the context and formalism of GRT for multiple reasons.

 Reference:

 [1] [K. Schwarzschild, On the gravitational field of a mass point according to Einstein’s theory. Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss., Phys. Math. Kl., 189, 1916].

 English Translation https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9905030

 

Edited April 12, 2019 by Hassani

[Strange]

!

Moderator Note

As you appear to be claiming that black holes and gravity waves do not exist (or that GR is wrong, it's not clear) this is moved to Speculations. 

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Hassani said:

 Therefore, contrary to the usual claims made by the so-called GR-experts and reported in many textbooks and peer-reviewed articles, Schwarzschild did not pronounce a single word about the bizarre object that is called a black hole; he did not allege the so-called ‘Schwarzschild radius’; he did not claim that there is an ‘event horizon’ (by any other name) 

Other people do physics and have added to the theory of GR. I wasn't aware that all this (the interpretations and ramifications) was chalked up to Schwarzschild by anyone. I just thought they referenced him as the person who did the original math.

Do you have examples of anyone who says what you claim?

[Hassani]

43 minutes ago, swansont said:

Other people do physics and have added to the theory of GR. I wasn't aware that all this (the interpretations and ramifications) was chalked up to Schwarzschild by anyone. I just thought they referenced him as the person who did the original math.

Do you have examples of anyone who says what you claim?

See/read the following papers:

 

1) “First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole” ,The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 875, (17pp), 2019

2) K. Schwarzschild, On the gravitational field of a mass point according to Einstein’s theory. Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss., Phys. Math. Kl., 189, 1916

3) https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9905030

 

Edited April 12, 2019 by Hassani

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Hassani said:

See/read the following papers:

!

Moderator Note

You need to be specific. For example, quote the specific text from those papers that supports what you say.

 

[beecee]

2 hours ago, Hassani said:

Finally, GWs and BHs cannot be predicted in the context and formalism of GRT for multiple reasons.  

We, scientists that is, no much more about GR and the validity of its predictions then did Schwarzchild or even Einstein himself. The first evidence for BH's did not surface until the early seventies from memory and first suspected with Cygnus X-1. Couple that with the many suspected cases since, the discovery of gravitational waves that "just happened" to align with the GR template, and now this image of a BH, that again, "just happened" to align with exactly what was predicted.

As an amateur I can only conclude that you are ignorant of the overwhelming evidence that supports BH's and GR, or you have misinterpreted the evidence, much as some others have, like Arp, Hoyle,  Hannes Alfvén, and probably others that I am not aware of. I suppose the momentous findings [with GWs and BH images] of late, have stirred up a hornets nest and enraged  the isolated few who doubt the validity of BHs and GR according to current evidence.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Funny one of the papers you cited, does not mention anything about "alleged", either alleged this, or alleged that despie you mentioning that in your OP. It highlights a well constructed experiment, and the resulting image, which just happens to align with what GR and the cosmologists predicted.

http://www.space-news.be/2019/mar-avr/100419EHT.pdf

First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole 

Abstract:

When surrounded by a transparent emission region, black holes are expected to reveal a dark shadow caused by gravitational light bending and photon capture at the event horizon. To image and study this phenomenon, we have assembled the Event Horizon Telescope, a global very long baseline interferometry array observing at a wavelength of 1.3 mm. This allows us to reconstruct event-horizon-scale images of the supermassive black hole candidate in the center of the giant elliptical galaxy M87. We have resolved the central compact radio source as an asymmetric bright emission ring with a diameter of 42 ± 3 μas, which is circular and encompasses a central depression in brightness with a flux ratio 10:1. The emission ring is recovered using different calibration and imaging schemes, with its diameter and width remaining stable over four different observations carried out in different days. Overall, the observed image is consistent with expectations for the shadow of a Kerr black hole as predicted by general relativity. The asymmetry in brightness in the ring can be explained in terms of relativistic beaming of the emission from a plasma rotating close to the speed of light around a black hole. We compare our images to an extensive library of ray-traced general-relativistic magnetohydrodynamic simulations of black holes and derive a central mass of M = (6.5 ± 0.7) × 109 Me. Our radiowave observations thus provide powerful evidence for the presence of supermassive black holes in centers of galaxies and as the central engines of active galactic nuclei. They also present a new tool to explore gravity in its most extreme limit and on a mass scale that was so far not accessible.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

I also suggest you go back to the thread about this experiment and the BH image [the one where you attempted to post your speculative scenario in, to seemingly gain some sort of legitimacy for it] and read up on the many links highlighting how this eventuated, what took place, and the nature of the image itself. All of which supports that this is along with gravitational waves, further confirmation and validity of BH's and GR of course.

Edited April 12, 2019 by beecee

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Hassani said:

See/read the following papers:

 

1) “First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole” ,The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 875, (17pp), 2019

2) K. Schwarzschild, On the gravitational field of a mass point according to Einstein’s theory. Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss., Phys. Math. Kl., 189, 1916

3) https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9905030

 

The latter two are by Schwarzschild. How could they possibly be examples of what other people allegedly write? And the first one doesn’t address the issue I raised.

[studiot]

 

 

 

13 hours ago, Hassani said:

Incredible but true, in their article, the authors mentioned Schwarzschild's original paper(1916)! However, the concept of BH cannot be deduced from Schwarzschild's original solution.

 

I have already posted the extract from the original 1783 paper where the existence of what we now call a black hole was posited in the thread this one was a spin off from.

Clearly in the hundred and thirty three years between the papers much (mathematical) work if improvement and development was carried out.

The person who read the original paper had only just been about the first proper measurements of gravity.

 

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118711-an-announcement-for-beecee/?tab=comments#comment-1100487

 

Edited April 13, 2019 by studiot