2nd image of 1st black hole ever pictured confirms Einstein's general relativity (photo)

[Admin]

A second image of the first black hole ever pictured by humanity, the supermassive black hole in M87, taken one year later shows its shadow persists just as Einstein predicted.

2nd image of 1st black hole ever pictured confirms Einstein's general relativity (photo) : Read more

 

[finiter]

What change can we expect in a period of one year? I don't think the second image confirms anything. Gravitational collapse leading to singularity is a theoretical error in both Newtonian mechanics and general relativity. The real picture of gravity is yet to come up.

 

[pdjk]

@ finiter:
As far as I recall Newtonian theory does not provide any basis for a black hole.
The theory of General Relativity does predict black holes and we have since found them both directly and indirectly.
Scientific method involves building theories and testing them, either to destruction or to eventual acceptance as the basis for the next steps of scientific endeavor. This is how we build knowledge and develop our understanding of the universe.
What in your opinion invalidates GR in respect to black holes?

 

[Helio]

What change can we expect in a period of one year? I don't think the second image confirms anything. Gravitational collapse leading to singularity is a theoretical error in both Newtonian mechanics and general relativity. The real picture of gravity is yet to come up.

Are you saying BHs are a theoretical error or that singularities are in error? BH's are well established and fit the theory, but whether any have singularities is not known.

Newton's laws, I think would allow BHs if we establish that there is a speed limit traveling through space (i.e. c).

 

[Torbjorn Larsson]

What change can we expect in a period of one year? I don't think the second image confirms anything. Gravitational collapse leading to singularity is a theoretical error in both Newtonian mechanics and general relativity. The real picture of gravity is yet to come up.

Read the paper (RTFM) and the article! They see the change they predicted from the earlier prediction of the jet angle. And the article points out that the robust image (same shadow size et cetera) with new data means their methods work:

Confirmation of the ring in a completely new data set is a huge milestone for our collaboration and a strong indication that we are looking at a black hole shadow and the material orbiting around it."

The "singularity" was described as a feature of 2/3 of black hole models in a review. 5 out of 15 models predicted no singularity.

 

[Jonathon Moseley]

A second image of the first black hole ever pictured by humanity, the supermassive black hole in M87, taken one year later shows its shadow persists just as Einstein predicted.

2nd image of 1st black hole ever pictured confirms Einstein's general relativity (photo) : Read more

There is no evidence of any black holes. The fact that adults claim that there is displays their appalling lack of knowledge of science. Science requires EXPERIMENTATION confirming an idea, not just superstition. At 55 million light years distance, an object viewed from Earth presents a single point of light as taught in geometry. There is no shape or detail or definition possible at 55 million light years away. It would show a single point of light. There is a smudge on the telescope.

 

[Jonathon Moseley]

What change can we expect in a period of one year? I don't think the second image confirms anything. Gravitational collapse leading to singularity is a theoretical error in both Newtonian mechanics and general relativity. The real picture of gravity is yet to come up.

If the image shows anything at all (at 55 million light years it cannot), what we can expect is that the red giant in the foreground, in front of a giant nova cloud behind it, will continue to move out of view. We will then see the red giant - it is dark only in comparison to the exploding nova behind it off to one side moving away. And then we will see undeniably the exploding nova nebula shining extremely brightly that was previously eclipsed by the red giant.

This of course may take millions of years and arrogant humans will fantasize that we can observe the movement of these objects 55 million light years away and many light years from each other during the lifetime of human history.

Humans will long be extinct before any change is observed in the partial eclipse of the nova cloud in the background by the red giant in the foreground.

 

[Jonathon Moseley]

@ finiter:
As far as I recall Newtonian theory does not provide any basis for a black hole.
The theory of General Relativity does predict black holes and we have since found them both directly and indirectly.
Scientific method involves building theories and testing them, either to destruction or to eventual acceptance as the basis for the next steps of scientific endeavor. This is how we build knowledge and develop our understanding of the universe.
What in your opinion invalidates GR in respect to black holes?

Well, that might be why humanity has never detected any black holes... on account of them not existing.

"

"Scientific method involves building theories and testing them," So sad that we know you are using words that you don't understand. TESTING ideas cannot be accomplished by looking at an object 55 light years away along an extremely narrow angle of view, and not be able to see any other view

Testing the theories of a black hole would require REPEATEDLY constructing overweight stars, causing them to explode in a super-nova, and then watching them collapse into black holes.

That's what the scientific method means by TESTING.

Testing does not mean looking twice at the same smudge in space along a narrow angle so small as to constitute only a geometrically infinitely small point of light.

 

[Jonathon Moseley]

Since the object is purportedly 55 million light years away, we could only see an infinitely small geometry style point of light.

At 55 million light years we could not see any definition of any kind, only a single point of light.

Therefore, we do have confirmation that this computer-constructed "image" is a product of defects and failures in the telescope or some phenomenon much closer to Earth.

Since we cannot physically visit, at the very least we would have to view something from multiple angles like 40 degrees to 90 degrees on either side, to have any clue what the smudge in space might be.

 

[rod]

Well some interesting posts here There is enough from the space.com report and reference paper cited to show some measurements here

M87 super massive BH is said to be some 6.5E+9 solar masses. The diameter using Einstein GR and Schwarzschild radius is close to 257 au across. The reference paper shows a 43.3 micro arcsecond angular size seen or 4.33E-5 arcsecond. "We have confirmed the presence of an asymmetric ring structure, brighter in the southwest, with a median diameter of 43.3−3.1+1.5 μas." https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2024/01/aa47932-23/aa47932-23.html

At a distance of some 1.69E+7 pc, diameter close to 732 au using 4.33E-5 arcsecond size. Impressive image supporting Einstein GR description of gravity

 

[Dr.Matthé]

What change can we expect in a period of one year? I don't think the second image confirms anything. Gravitational collapse leading to singularity is a theoretical error in both Newtonian mechanics and general relativity. The real picture of gravity is yet to come up.

There are no singularities in GR, people forget that time dilation automatically stops them...

 

[Dr.Matthé]

Are you saying BHs are a theoretical error or that singularities are in error? BH's are well established and fit the theory, but whether any have singularities is not known.

Newton's laws, I think would allow BHs if we establish that there is a speed limit traveling through space (i.e. c).

Please explain how time-irreversible BHs fit a time-independent theory.

 

[Newsbuff]

Please explain how time-irreversible BHs fit a time-independent theory.

Let’s assume the impossible big bang did happen. The BANG happened without light which happened sometime later.
Now you have a collapsed star becoming a bh. So now this bh is more than theoretical 13.8 billion?

 

[Newsbuff]

Let’s assume the impossible big bang did happen. The BANG happened without light which happened sometime later.
Now you have a collapsed star becoming a bh. So now this bh is more than theoretical 13.8 billion?

Furthermore, without light, there is no universe.

 

[Dr.Matthé]

Let’s assume the impossible big bang did happen. The BANG happened without light which happened sometime later.
Now you have a collapsed star becoming a bh. So now this bh is more than theoretical 13.8 billion?

Sorry but your comment lacks all coherence...

 

[Newsbuff]

Perhaps my comments are a little too succinct. I would suggest you read up on J0931+0038 and the respond back as to how a star thatlarge can explode rather than compress into a bh. I sincerely doubt the authenticity of these by images. Hocus Pocus from which much money is being made to support such nonsense. Please do not comment back until your research is complete.

 

[Dr.Matthé]

Perhaps my comments are a little too succinct. I would suggest you read up on J0931+0038 and the respond back as to how a star thatlarge can explode rather than compress into a bh. I sincerely doubt the authenticity of these by images. Hocus Pocus from which much money is being made to support such nonsense. Please do not comment back until your research is complete.

You refer to a supernova? That is indeed a star exploding (its outer layers) but at the same time its core gets compressed and assumed to become a BH. Yet I already gave a simple argument why there can be no such things as Black Holes (FYI frozen stars is what you get instead).

 

[Dr.Matthé]

There is no evidence of any black holes. The fact that adults claim that there is displays their appalling lack of knowledge of science. Science requires EXPERIMENTATION confirming an idea, not just superstition. At 55 million light years distance, an object viewed from Earth presents a single point of light as taught in geometry. There is no shape or detail or definition possible at 55 million light years away. It would show a single point of light. There is a smudge on the telescope.

So all pictures of Hubble and JWST are just smudges? Lol.

 

[Dr.Matthé]

Since the object is purportedly 55 million light years away, we could only see an infinitely small geometry style point of light.

At 55 million light years we could not see any definition of any kind, only a single point of light.

Therefore, we do have confirmation that this computer-constructed "image" is a product of defects and failures in the telescope or some phenomenon much closer to Earth.

Since we cannot physically visit, at the very least we would have to view something from multiple angles like 40 degrees to 90 degrees on either side, to have any clue what the smudge in space might be.

Normally experiments correct theories, not the other way around

 

[Newsbuff]

Current cosmology suggests that super large stars can’t explode. Their mass forces them to contract into BLs. My referenced star was low mass huge star so based on current theories it should have become a BH not a supernova. Read up on my referenced exploded star. It’s a very big anomaly on what can happen versus current theory. Please note I am a layman. Personal belief..no black holes..no expanding universe..no big bang..no dark matter..no dark energy. The universe is far more “intelligent” than we give credit. Maybe time to put those pocket books away and start thinking a plasma/electric universe.

 

[Newsbuff]

I agree with JM. Basically fake photos but just think about the money that has been made off this nonsense.

 

[billslugg]

Here is the paper discussing J0931+0038, referenced in post #16.

Spectacular nucleosynthesis from early massive stars

In the conclusions, the authors state there might be a neutron star or black hole that becomes evident after more time passes.

"Though we focused here on the nucleosynthetic implications, we speculate that J0931+0038’s unique composition implies that the rare supernova events that could explain this signature should also be found in upcoming large transient surveys, such as Rubin/LSST (LSST Science Collaboration et al., 2009). If the chemical signature is due to an unusual PISN, the heavy Fe peak and neutron-capture elements point to the presence of a neutron star or black hole remnant involved in the explosion, which may result in unusual observational features of slowly evolving superluminous supernovae (Gal-Yam, 2019; Nicholl, 2021)."

 

[Newsbuff]

Here is the paper discussing J0931+0038, referenced in post #16.

Spectacular nucleosynthesis from early massive stars

In the conclusions, the authors state their might be a neutron star or black hole that becomes evident after more time passes.

"Though we focused here on the nucleosynthetic implications, we speculate that J0931+0038’s unique composition implies that the rare supernova events that could explain this signature should also be found in upcoming large transient surveys, such as Rubin/LSST (LSST Science Collaboration et al., 2009). If the chemical signature is due to an unusual PISN, the heavy Fe peak and neutron-capture elements point to the presence of a neutron star or black hole remnant involved in the explosion, which may result in unusual observational features of slowly evolving superluminous supernovae (Gal-Yam, 2019; Nicholl, 2021)."

Thank you for that.

 

[Newsbuff]

I’m a bit confused. I understand how light can cast a shadow. How can an infinitely dense by cast a shadow on its surroundings?

 

[billslugg]

"How can an infinitely dense by cast a shadow on its surroundings?"
This sentence makes no sense.