black holes can be detected

[scibuster]

Walter Lewin


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY8ak7hxKpw

not as stand alone black hole but those in a binary star system with accretion disk.

[lcam88]

When our calculations of a binary system result show that a component can only be explained by our concept of a black hole, we can conclude it may be a black hole.

That is very different from detecting the black hole. It is the calculation suggesting that a black hole is present only because the theory and the modeling define them.

Whether that is true or not depends on how good the modeling and theories are.

While we are modeling and theorizing:

Insofar as the certainty of any conclusions (Crt) reached, the more we ignore questioning our theories and presumptions (UCrt), the more certain we may be of conclusions our models reach.

Expressed mathematically we can say Crt = 1 - UCrt/1 where 0 <= UCrt <= 1 and 0 <= Crt <= 1

And if you want to examine that further, if we find that Crt = 1 based on examining the subject heading "Black holes can be detected", when we can calculate that UCrt = 0.

That only saying that you are willing to ignore all questions regarding theory and presumptions.

Crt =1 is fine for a lecture where the professor is teaching a subject, but not quite right when you should be doing science.

Since I'm fine with UCrt > 0, I'll qualify it:

1. Is it indeed true the cause of redshift are only due to the velocity component (v) in our doppler observations?

2. Is it indeed true that the only force we should qualify is gravity (G) in the system?

[scibuster]

When our calculations of a binary system result show that a component can only be explained by our concept of a black hole, we can conclude it may be a black hole.

That is very different from detecting the black hole. It is the calculation suggesting that a black hole is present only because the theory and the modeling define them.

Whether that is true or not depends on how good the modeling and theories are.

While we are modeling and theorizing:

Insofar as the certainty of any conclusions (Crt) reached, the more we ignore questioning our theories and presumptions (UCrt), the more certain we may be of conclusions our models reach.

Expressed mathematically we can say Crt = 1 - UCrt/1 where 0 <= UCrt <= 1 and 0 <= Crt <= 1

And if you want to examine that further, if we find that Crt = 1 based on examining the subject heading "Black holes can be detected", when we can calculate that UCrt = 0.

That only saying that you are willing to ignore all questions regarding theory and presumptions.

Crt =1 is fine for a lecture where the professor is teaching a subject, but not quite right when you should be doing science.

Since I'm fine with UCrt > 0, I'll qualify it:

1. Is it indeed true the cause of redshift are only due to the velocity component (v) in our doppler observations?

2. Is it indeed true that the only force we should qualify is gravity (G) in the system?



redshift can come from 3 things;

doppler-effect redshift
gravitational redshift
expansion of space redshift


do you define a fourth case of redshift ?.

[lcam88]

redshift can come from 3 things;

doppler-effect redshift
gravitational redshift
expansion of space redshift

The doppler red shift case is defined by a velocity component (v). That is the standard case as the video you link indulges.

What variable defined the degree of freedom for gravitational redshift? big G (the gravitational constant) is presumed to be constant. Do you know of another set of equations for this case?

Same question for "Expansion of space redshift", What does that even mean?


do you define a fourth case of redshift ?.

A "fourth" case: As Halton Arp put it is "the inherent component"


Arp believes that the observed redshift value of any object is made up of two components: the inherent component and the velocity component. The velocity component is the only one recognized by mainstream astronomers. The inherent redshift is a property of the matter in the object. It apparently changes over time in discrete steps. He suggests that quasars are typically emitted from their parent galaxies with inherentiredshift values of up to z = 2. They continue to move away, with stepwise decreasing inherent redshift. Often, when the inherent redshift value gets down to around z = 0.3, the quasar starts to look like a small galaxy or BL Lac object and begins to fall back, with still decreasing redshift values, toward its parent. He has photos and diagrams of many such family groupings. Any additional redshift (over and above its inherent value) is indeed indicative of the object's velocity. But the inherent part is an indication of the object's youth and usually makes up the larger fraction of a quasar's total redshift.

A property of the matter in the object.

In other words, not all matter produces the same shift of spectral lines when illuminated by xrays of a specific intensity.

Why?

One idea is that the shifting we may be seeing of the spectral lines used for measuring red shift actually represents a potential difference between the neutral state of the astronomical body being measured and our own neutral state, and the matter being illuminated by the xrays receives those rays at a different energy level than we measure them to be.

If the matter being illuminated is very charged, the energy of the x-rays of a determined energy intensity acts differently due to the differently charged neutral point, which effectively cancels a portion of the xrays energy intensity.

Apparently this difference is noticed in discrete steps.

An analogy could be made with two buckets on a table 3/4 full of water where one is on top of a thick book, if you place a water filled siphon tube between the two, the potential difference (identified by the difference in the level of water between the two), will cause a flow from the higher potential to the lower.

This flow is a type of age identifier for an astronomical body, they are created in very high energy events and thus the body will have a very high charge initially, that soon normalizes.

If you measure water level in a bucket by measuring column pressure with an instrument on the table top (our base reference and neutral), you will always see the bucket on top of the book to be more full than it really is.

The inherent component could be seen as "the thickness of the book" here in this water bucket analogy.