<!DOCTYPE html>
<html><head>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
</head><body><p><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Doug, I have my doubts about black holes because all of the phenomena associated with them can be explained by classical physics - for an example see here :- <a href="http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/arch10/100302stretch.htm">http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/arch10/100302stretch.htm</a> .</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 11pt;">I am presently reading the article which you linked.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Personally, I don't think that Sagittarius A* is a BH because BHs are a mathematical artifact only. For a good explanation go to :- <a href="http://alternativephysics.org/book/GeneralRelativity.htm">http://alternativephysics.org/book/GeneralRelativity.htm</a> and scroll down to "</span><span style="font-size: 11pt;">The Black Hole conundrum". That and the next two chapters make for good reading.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Tom Hollings</span></p><p><br></p><blockquote type="cite"><br> <br><div dir="ltr"><div>Hi Tom,</div><div><br></div><div> Similar doubt was expressed in this article: <a href="https://dailygalaxy.com/2018/10/the-milky-ways-central-supermassive-black-hole-is-a-mirage-it-doesnt-exist/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://dailygalaxy.com/2018/10/the-milky-ways-central-supermassive-black-hole-is-a-mirage-it-doesnt-exist/</a></div><div>which is where I first heard of the Event Horizon Telescope project - they seemed to imply the results would be available in Dec. 2018. Chapline's alternative idea seems even stranger though - dark energy stars. <br></div><div>Doug <br></div></div><br><div class="ox-aea3398cd6-gmail_quote"></div>in/mailman/listinfo/physics <br></blockquote></body></html>