/sci/ - Science & Math

> I promise we'll find evidence of liquid water please bro
Literally none of them were built with that in mind. Your shitty attempt to copy the particle accelerator thread makes no sense. Try harder.
Also the last generation of telescopes resulted in two Nobel prizes. There is no shortage of discovery.

>No black holes don’t exist
And I'm sure you have a model that can fit all this orbital data without a black hole (or something stranger).
Please link the analysis.
>even if they did what fucking point or use does that information have for humanity?
If it's so irrelevant then why make this thread at all? All you've done is make a statement about your own prejudice, which you dogmatically proclaimed as absolute truth.

>Can we really take the facts presented by astronomers at face value
If you're such a big brain then read the paper and decide for yourself.
>For example, all the exoplanets they claimed to have discover, there is no actual way to verify their existence, is there? If there is even a slight error in their model, the universe might look completely different.
They can be tested with other observations. Like the fact that you have transits detected in a distant star, if these transits are really planets then they can be confirmed with radial velocity follow-up. If it was some random other event causing the transits-like-features then there is no reason it should have the orbital signature of an exoplanet. Some exoplanets have been cross-confirmed by multiple methods.
> The so called photo of a black hole is actually a computer generated image.
Wrong. Pic related.
> The so called photo of a black hole is actually a computer generated image.
Generated from millimeter wavelength very long baseline interferometry data. The same technique which has been used for decades at lower frequencies.

Most people consider this to be ample proof. Stars moving in incredibly rapid orbits around a (mostly) dark compact object. A few million solar masses crammed into something smaller than the Solar System.

>>15964670
So then what are the stars at the center of the Milky Way orbiting?

what is the matter of a black hole singularity made of?
some strange degenerate quark state?
strange matter?
are black holes just super massive strange stars?

>>8896412
Jamie, pull that shit up

>>8177768

>>8176074
Please fuck off, nobody thinks that. Dark matter was empirically motivated by the observation of galaxy clusters.

All these scientists talk about how black holes are real.

Never seen a picture of one that wasn't CG.

>>7620746
>still shit posting in each and every thread

thanks for the bump, she loves you too

>>7620745
Check out >>7617817
more interesting than wiki

>>7067595
>black holes dont exist

So what are these stars orbiting?

>>7055624
Then what is this?

>>6861103
indirectly

>>6348257
But then we see the star moving according to laws of nature.
It's another "God's fucking with us" arguments like the fossil layers.

>>6326126

>>6254632

Have you seen this?

>>>/pol/23844567

Schizophrenic people should be banned access to the internet.

>>6201411

cool,

here are stars orbiting the super-massive black hole at the center of the galaxy over a few years

What are these stars orbiting around OP?

The only possible answer is a black hole

These are stars orbiting around Sagittarius A, which is almost certainly a black hole. I just read a research report on this stuff. Look at the crazy orbits of some of the stars.

>>5402148

I've seen it, yep.

It's called Sagittarius A* (pronounced A-star) and it has a great deal of really old stars orbiting it, and it's blaring a huge amount of x-rays every day.