<!DOCTYPE html>
<html><head>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
</head><body><p>Doug, I often watch Dr. Robitaille, usually linked to a Stephen Crothers video. This is the first time I have heard (serious) mention of a solid sun. </p><p>Tom.</p><blockquote type="cite">On 18 February 2019 at 17:32 Doug Marett <dm88dm@gmail.com> wrote: <br> <br><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div> Hi Tom, <br></div><div><br></div><div> Thanks for the links - I can see the thunderbolts article disputes the idea that a sun can compress to a point. Have you seen Dr. Robitaille's video's (Sky Scholar) regarding the structure of the sun and how he believes it can't be compressed into a black hole? An example is here: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxEokSd-o5o" target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxEokSd-o5o</a> <br></div><div> Interestingly, the author Alexander Unzicker (Bankrupting Physics) has come out in support of Robitaille's ideas about the sun, see: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w21K4KiYd4I" target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w21K4KiYd4I</a></div><div> These ideas seem to fit with the gravitational redshift discussion that we had here back in December, except coming at the GR critique from a different angle. <br></div><div><br></div><div>Doug <br></div><div><h1 class="ox-c539610fd4-m_-2878752467661469452gmail-title ox-c539610fd4-m_-2878752467661469452gmail-style-scope ox-c539610fd4-m_-2878752467661469452gmail-ytd-video-primary-info-renderer"><br></h1><h1 class="ox-c539610fd4-m_-2878752467661469452gmail-title ox-c539610fd4-m_-2878752467661469452gmail-style-scope ox-c539610fd4-m_-2878752467661469452gmail-ytd-video-primary-info-renderer"><br></h1></div></div></div></div><br><div class="ox-c539610fd4-gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="ox-c539610fd4-gmail_attr">On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 5:52 AM Tom Hollings < <a href="mailto:carmam@tiscali.co.uk" target="_blank" rel="noopener">carmam@tiscali.co.uk</a>> wrote: <br></div><blockquote><u></u><div><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" target="_blank" rel="noopener">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" target="_blank" rel="noopener">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-c539610fd4-gmail-m_-2878752467661469452gmail-m_-2180985984844961381ox-aea3398cd6-gmail_quote"> <br></div>in/mailman/listinfo/physics <br></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></body></html>