Except when fools are involved, possibly why your discussion rights are curtailed somewhat elsewhere?
You may want to peruse the following, river.
Notice that the resulting "image" is nearly identical to what the hunt was expected to find.
You might also take note that the "image" was "created" from data procured from Radio Telescopes - NOT Optical Telescopes.
This image of a BH was fabricated from a series of radio telescopes from around the world, and so obviously are not actual visible light we generally recognise in photographs. The image though is just as valid, being a composition of the radio images and an accurate visual representation as presented by Janus in the EHT thread.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01155-0
The Event Horizon Telescope’s global network of radio dishes has produced the first-ever direct image of a black hole and its event horizon.
Astronomers have finally glimpsed the blackness of a black hole. By stringing together a global network of radio telescopes, they have for the first time produced a picture of an event horizon — a black hole’s perilous edge — against a backdrop of swirling light.
“We have seen the gates of hell at the end of space and time,” said astrophysicist Heino Falcke of Radboud University in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, at a press conference in Brussels. “What you’re looking at is a ring of fire created by the deformation of space-time. Light goes around, and looks like a circle.”
more at link..........................
Like I said, thanks for re-enforcing my post domoe, much appreciated mate!
No. Frozen star models predict stable configurations without infinities.
Correct.
Sorry, but as long as alternative proposals do not make different predictions about particular effects, any observational evidence is useless to decide between them, thus, cannot favor one of them.
According to GR as well as theories predicting stable gravastars, the origin of star-sized BHs is usual matter of usual stars. The big central BHs of galaxies may have been created by different mechanisms, and dark matter may play a role there, but the material is the usual one found in galaxies (inclusive the usual dark matter presupposed to exist there).
Yes.
None has changed the point that GR is still viable. It makes GR in no way supreme - except for historical reasons.
Except that GR is the supreme theory of gravity, not withstanding any weird slant or meaning you chose to put on it.
They certainly do eliminate it. The Schwarzchild radius/EH is not any physical barrier.
The people making these composite pictures made the same presumptions as you -- that the standard concept of a black hole (with an event horizon) is what they are looking at. A frozen star would have no event horizon but it would have mass at approximately the same radius. We would NOT expect to see light emitted from this surface any more than we would expect to see light reflected from distant planets. The infalling matter would strike the surface and stop radiating light because it would stop accelerating.
I don't believe that is true and is invalidated by the dying pulse train.....Irrespective, I also do not accept in this day and age, [with young up and coming cosmologists/physicists that would give their right arm to show GR BHs as invalid] that mainstream science are indulging in any cover up or conspiracy.
Again: Only for gravastars much greater than their Schwarzschild radius. The dying pulse train shows, essentially, that we cannot see the event of the piece of matter hitting the surface. Usually, for small surface red shift, we would see it. But there are two effects which reduce this if the surface redshift is very large. First, the obvious one - we would see the explosion heavily redshifted. The other one is that the part of the radiation created on the surface which is able to reach infinity decreases - it decreases from 1/2 (everything going at least slightly up) to a very a thin cone around the ideal 90 degrees upward direction, with all the other light falling back to the star.
Anything as I understand it, with a surface which would obviously just be at this side of where the Schwarzchild radius would be, at a very minimum...otherwise of course, GR comes into play. That is once the Schwarzchild radius is reached, then further collapse is compulsory. Or a BH as defined by GR.
Yes, the surface of a gravastar is on this side of the Schwarzschild horizon. But very close to it, so GR effects (resp. what replaces them in the alternative theories) come into play anyway. The alternative theories which have gravastars, in particular my own, are quite close to GR predictions in the region far away from the horizon.
Not really. Most of the evidence is simply evidence of the existence of sufficiently small objects with sufficiently large mass so that they would become black holes in GR assuming the usual assumptions about how matter behaves.
Already done. It is published in Schmelzer, I. (2012). Black Holes or Frozen Stars? A Viable Theory of Gravity without Black Holes, in: Bauer, A.J., Eiffel, D.G. (eds.), Black Holes: Evolution, Theory and Thermodynamics, Nova Science Publishers, ISBN: 978-1-61942-929-1, arXiv:1003.1446.
I don't accept any of that sorry, and again, if the Schwarzchild radius is not reached then the 'dying pulse train' would sort out all the imposter hypotheticals, not that they havn't already been sorted out.
Yes really, as much as you chose to downgrade the generally accepted mainstream account. And of course you mean gravitational waves or radiation from BH collisions, which just so happen to fit the templates for all the 14 or 15 collisions so far [I've actually lost count]
An reputable independant professional review is what is required. A viable theory of gravity although is probably questionable at this time, but irrespective, GR is still the overwhelmingly accepted model. I mean in actual fact there are many so called viable alternatives, and that in the main is where they stay. If they were to invalidate GR or an aspect of it, if they were to make a prediction not made by GR, then they may arise from the pack.
Sorry, but nobody cares about what you accept as long as you do not present arguments.
Peer-reviewed publication is the standard way to publish alternatives. And, of course, viable alternatives to GR do not invalidate GR, GR can be invalidated only by itself (as it does via its infinities) or by observations falsifying it (as it does with tests of Bell inequalities).
Wrong, but don't be sorry. I have presented many arguments supporting the mainstream position and why that position is mainstream, as opposed to your own. The dying pulse train is just one.
And yet the vast majority of cosmologists and physicists do not recognise what you call a failure. All theories/models have limitations. GR is a classical theory.