The hole story: A simulated image of what you might see as you descended into a black hole, with the Milky Way in the background.
Credit: Wikimedia
Interesting line of enquiry
Astrophysicist Geoff Bicknell from the Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the Australian National University in Canberra, said the research followed an "interesting line" of enquiry despite the negative result.
"Black holes should get kicked when they merge [but]… if we don't see evidence of this, then there may be something wrong with our idea about what happens in this process," he said.
"One difficulty with observing the kick from a black hole merger is that, except under very favourable circumstances the kick will be small — about 100 to 200 km/s," said Bicknell. "Another potential problem is that most supermassive black holes appear to have formed at early epochs of the universe so the effect of that kick may have dissipated."
What black hole?
By what action can a black hole interact with "outside bodies"? First, the fundamental black hole is obtained as a solution for Ric = 0, which is a spacetime that is, by definition, empty - there is no matter present. So the alleged black hole can interact with nothing because its associated spacetime is empty - it precludes the presence of any matter. So there are no "outside bodies" present, by hypothesis. Furthermore, Einstein's theory of gravitation is non-linear and so the 'Principle of Superposition' does not apply. It does apply in Newton's theory. These are fundamentally different theories, and so one cannot simply insert lumps of matter into any spacetime of Einstein by an analogy with Newton's theory. So the notion of black holes at the centres of galaxies is nonsense. This is why the alleged black hole collisions, mergers and binaries are also nonsense. Each black hole is obtained separately as a solution to Ric = 0. The one black hole cannot therefore be in the spacetime of another black hole and mutually interact in a mutual spacetime that by definition contains no matter; yet the black holers would have us all believe that claptrap. Furthermore, before one can talk of black hole interactions it must first be proved that the two-body problem is well-defined within General Relativity. This can be done in only two ways, (a) derivation of an exact solution to the field equations for two bodies, or (b) proof of an existence theorem by which it can be shown that Einstein’s field equations contain latent solutions for such a configuration of matter. There are no known solutions to the field equations for the interaction of two or more bodies, so option (a) has never been fulfilled, and no existence theorem has ever been proven, so option (b) has never been fulfilled either. Moreover, General; Relativity has not been able to account for the simple experimental fact that two fixed bodies will approach one another upon release. So all talk of black holes interacting is nonsense.
On another simple level the black hole is inconsistent with the Theory of Relativity. The alleged singularity of the black hole is infinitely dense. Now Special Relativity forbids infinite density because infinite density implies that a material body can acquire the speed of light in vacuum (or equivalently that there is infinite energy), which violates the fundamental premise of Special Relativity. General Relativity, by definition, cannot violate Special Relativity, and so it too forbids infinite density. Thus, the Theory of Relativity forbids infinitely dense point-mass singularities and hence forbids black holes. Consequently, discussion of lensing by black holes, medium sized black holes, and all alleged black hole phenomena, are meaningless. Black holes are not predicted by any theory. The hypothetical Michell-Laplace dark body of Newton's theory is not a black hole because it possesses an escape velocity, whereas the black hole has no escape velocity; it does not require irresistible gravitational collapse, whereas the black hole does; it has no infinitely dense point-mass singularity, whereas the black hole does; it has no event horizon, whereas the black hole does; there is always a class of observers that can see the dark body, but there is no class of observers that can see the black hole. Thus the Michell-Laplace dark body does not possess the signatures of the alleged black hole and so it is not a black hole. Nobody has ever found a black hole because nobody has ever found an infinitely dense point-mass singularity and nobody has ever found an event horizon. Moreover, it takes an infinite amount of time for an observer to establish the presence of an event horizon, but nobody has been and nobody will be around for an infinite amount of time. All claims for the discovery of black holes are patently false.
A more detailed non-mathematical exposition of the black hole phantasmagoria is here:
www.sjcrother.plasmaresources.com/Unicorns.pdf
and for those who want the full mathematical proofs, go here:
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-09-14.PDF
and here:
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2008/PP-12-11.PDF
Wait, what?
So I fly back from Germany where I was attending the Classification and Discovery in Large Astronomical Surveys conference.
I attempted to google some research information.
However, and unfortunately (for me), my poor googling ability led me to this page where I had the humorous opportunity to read the tom foolery posted to this article.
I've spent many a year now in the field of deep space cosmology and I like to think in part at least some of my work has contributed directly to black holes and their understanding.
I'm not entirely sure where to begin with the post that I am replying to other than to say the sheer magnitude of what you have typed is profoundly incorrect.
The belief that Special Relativity forbids infinite density is categorically wrong.
I think the confusion on your part is the incorrect assumption that infinite density also means infinite mass.
And this isn’t so.
Black holes do not possess infinite mass.
By definition of a singularity they do not.
The equation Rgrav = 2GM/c2ww helps us define what a black hole is by definition.
I think another point of confusion is this belief (and who knows where this comes from), that General Relativity and Newton’s Laws in relationship to Special Relativity are not compatible.
And this is bull plop.
General Relativity is an expansion of Special Relativity.
Special Relativity has at its core light’s constant speed.
Which of course is ultimately determined by Sir Newton’s formulas.
To remove them from one another is a physics faux pas that I don’t think anyone wants to engage.
About a year ago I read a paper by a man named Crothers (I think that was his name anyway), that attempted to sprout this Ric=0 nonsense. If this is the paper where you draw your information from I deeply encourage you to find other sources.
The notion that Ric=0 fails to, or doesn’t adhere to, Einstein's Principle of Equivalence, is simply false.
I won’t bother to go through the proofs here, because once again, in this matter, I’m sure google is your friend. The information is readily available and pointless to reproduce.
The long and short of it is, while I, and perhaps others, appreciate the attempt at some debate on the black hole phenomenon. The debate of their existence really doesn’t exist.