Aside from the relativistic predictions regarding black holes, such as the Shwartzchild solutions, where is the actual evidence that black holes exist? Based on astronomical observations, we can only speculate that certain anomalous observations, such as the Cygnus X3, *could be* black holes. Note: The server where the examples below were residing is no longer operational.
But as far as I’m concerned interpretation of such images as this one,
http://www.cosmiverse.com/reflib/Image_Gallery/hubble/hubbleblackholes1.html (broken link)
or this one,
http://www.cosmiverse.com/reflib/Image_Gallery/hubble/hubbleblackholes9.html (broken link)
as black holes are sheer fantasy. These images are simply a galaxy sized versions of this,
http://www.cosmiverse.com/reflib/Image_Gallery/hubble/hubblestars14.html (broken link)
This image had the following commentary,
“…Newborn stars are normally found precisely in the centers of such donuts of proto-stellar material. The pair of stars below the donut coincides with the point of origin of huge jets of gas blasted into space by one of the twin stars.”
Note the similarity of such formations to galactic observations of “donuts”, as in
Jets are a product of creational processes, IMO, whereas the hour-glass nebula are common to stellar instabilities and novas, a “dieing” process.
Please read this link on superluminal galactic jets, as it gets involved with some of the plasma physics of jets. I think jets are related to, or are, Kiehn’s “Falaco Solitons”.
Note the similarity of jets emitted from stars, to the jets emitted from “active” galaxies.
Finally, I’d like to point out, once again, that super-massive black holes vanish from sight and the universe, according to the math. Further, the spiral formations in both galactic and stellar jets imply that the originating object is possessed of charge.
Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, at page 885 of “Gravitation”, paragraph D, say, “…A black hole with charge Q would exert attractive electrostatic forces on electrons, and repulsive electrostatic forces on protons, that are larger than the hole’s gravitational pull by the factor
A neutral black hole is a Shwartzchild type black hole, stable against perturbations. Infalls of mass into black holes “…should spiral slowly inward …until it reaches the most tightly bound, stable circular orbit…then fall quickly into the hole, emitting a last-gasp burst of waves.”(Wheeler)
Such burst of radiation would obviously be *radial* about the accretion disk of the black hole (Does anyone remember about accretion disks?) *not*, in the form of a dense spiraling jet emmited poloidally, as observed in the many active galaxies, and new-born stars. (Also see “Gravitation”, page 886, paragraph G. Again, this will be a *radial* effect, visible as an optical burst at the accretion disk margin, *not* a poloidal jet-like effect.)
Further, in the Kerr-Newman geometry, photon trajectories are “doubly degenerate, principle null congruences”, describing “barber-pole like *infall* trajectories”, *not* outfall trajectories.
Gads. People must think we’re stupid to fall for such nonsense as to think that galactic jets are evidences of black holes. I reckon it’s a good way to romance the public though, and get additional funding.
Just because many people have the opinion that at the center of every galaxy is a black hole, does not make this a fact. These photographs can be interpreted from several different points of view. In my interpretation, centers of galaxies simply contain high densities of stars, which are rapidly being created and destroyed. Also, in my view, galactic jets are the results of the galactic magnetic field in the company of enormous numbers of stellar births at the centers of galaxies. Such a view used to be universally accepted among the astronomical community. There are many cases in the physics where the romantic aspects of things are preferred to investigations of the actual facts. Good for publicity. Bad for science. R. N. Boyd