ps: I read your about page -- and with all due respect ... ((((( cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo )))))
In real life, there is no such thing as a black hole, much less a “star-eating black hole(TM)”. This is almost certainly yet another artifact of mistakenly interpreting redshift as distance.
How do you figure?
In real life, there is no such thing as a black hole, much less a “star-eating black hole
What a bright gal you are, I think black holes are areas where stuff are traveling faster than the speed og light, thereby rendering everything invisible to us, alas black hole. Got this idea some years ago when they started talking about black holes, but no one knew what they were,
I think not much has changed
>> This is almost certainly yet another artifact of mistakenly interpreting redshift as distance.
That reminds me of Einstein’s reference to observations of uniform spectral luminance of eclipsing objects supporting the constancy of light. I’m vague on the specifics, and need to revisit Relativity.
OK, Dr. Smarter-than Hubble1946 -- please share your calculations with us!
But don't waste our time with citing some Irish numbskull who died in 1656...
ps: I read your about page -- and with all due respect ... ((((( cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo )))))
Well.... actually there is such a thing as a black hole, and we can actually see it (them). They are called sunspots (currently).
The current so called 'black holes' are not black holes at all. They are a misunderstanding of the Universe as based on Gravity rather than on Electricity. No scientist yet has been able to explain the Universe based on Gravity, without having to make up stuff like black holes , dark matter and dark energy to explain why the DATA on mass vs. gravity DO NOT WORK.
I like the DORMANT BH lable!