[Physics] Milky way black hole missing?

[Doug Marett]

 Hey,

   Wanted to let everyone know that the long awaited event horizon
telescope project is revealing it's first image of the alleged black hole
at the center of our milky way this week.
Simultaneous news conferences are scheduled in Brussels, Santiago,
Shanghai, Taipei and Tokyo on Wednesday.
https://www.thetelegram.com/news/world/in-astrophysics-milestone-first-photo-of-black-hole-expected-298732/
   As noted in my previous posts, data was released already by the Atacama
Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA ) in January 2019,and discussed
on Anton Petrov's youtube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiKNMvEnpbQ
Actual paper:   https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.06226

The ALMA study revealed an object that doesn't look anything like the
expected black hole. I guess the question is, are the Event Telescope
people going to say the same thing, or are they going to miraculously get
the result they expect??

Doug

On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 7:21 AM Ilja Schmelzer <ilja.schmelzer at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 2019-02-19 9:36 GMT+06:30, Doug Marett <dm88dm at gmail.com>:
> > I wonder if there is a connection with this kind
> > of object and the ejected quasars from galactic cores that are described
> by
> > Halton Arp:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U-HJGhvN0w since these
> > quasars also have peculiar redshifts and appear to originate from the
> > parent objects currently considered to be black holes.
>
> This would be a possibility.  I have thought about this.  It is not
> completely impossible.
>
> A problem would be that in my ether theory there is one parameter
> defining the redshift of such a frozen star, and the same parameter
> defines the turning point of the Big Bounce which replaces the Big
> Bang.  So, the estimates we have about the very early universe give an
> upper bound for this parameter, and with this upper bound, the
> redshift would be so extreme that this would be too much, quasars
> would be invisible.
>
> But, no, that does not mean that this idea has to be given up.  My
> Lorentz ether is purely elastic, reversible in time, no
> thermodynamics.  It may be simply the elastic limit for small
> oscillations, while the evolution of the universe is covered by
> thermodynamic effects which yet have to be developed.  So, I have not
> given up this idea completely.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20190408/78bc29d3/attachment.html>