3 ms·
Some food for thought. Let me state up front, I am no fan of the "black hole" and "neutron star" concepts so take the following comments as arising from that b
by oldandtired 9y ago
Some food for thought.
Let me state up front, I am no fan of the "black hole" and "neutron star" concepts so take the following comments as arising from that basis.
The x-ray data and observations are only "supposed" to be coming from "black holes" as we cannot and have not directly observed any such entities. Now, it may be that there are specific entities involved that are dark body and gravitationally significant. However, as we are unable to directly observed these entities, they may also be quite visible and as well as gravitationally significant in terms of the effects seen.
The current consensus model for the universe entails a belief that General Relativity is correct and at the base of the GR model is a belief that the ONLY significant force at solar, galactic and universal levels is gravity, in whatever form your model of gravity may specifically mean, as in a force or in GR terms a warping of space due to mass.
Since we also know that there are large areas of charged space, we need to be able to ask the question - "are these charged space areas of such significance that they effect large areas of solar, galactic or universal space?"
The thing that we call gravity is of such weakness that even weak electric or magnetic fields completely override any gravitational effects. The simplest example that I use with my grandchildren is rubbing a balloon against my limited coverage of hair on my head and that balloon will stay connected with my hair against any force of gravity that is around me.
Too oft, methinks, the consensus models of the day are considered "holy writ" and ye are considered "blasphemers of the highest order" if one even dares to voice any doubt in those models. We take ourselves so seriously, even though what we should be doing is knuckling down and looking at all the facts before us.
If our models are wrong, so what? Is not the purpose of participating in any science a means to getting a better understanding of the nature of the universe around us? If our models are wrong in any area, let's try something else. To me in a sense, we are still in the mindset of those who came before who fought against a heliocentric view, they would rather add more gears to the geocentric model than consider that maybe another model is more useful in describing the world around us.
Mayhaps, we need to take some steps back from our current models, put aside our pet theories and just look at the data that we have and see if some other pattern arises. It should be no skin off of our noses if the models and theories we have are shown to be wrong.
Let's make science fun again, because it ain't no fun today.