Ignorance Strikes Again
did they or did they not "find" black holes on paper first? You played with SR and GR till whalla!!! an infinitely small and dense object was achieved, when object where observed that are so dense they appear to be made entirely of neutrons, the maths was fiddled to allow for this to happen.
Actually a mathematician (which I’m sure does not surprise you) Pierre-Simon Laplace, I think was the first person to seriously propose the idea of a body so massive that even light can not escape, back in 1796.
Indeed Laplace put the idea into his 1796 book
Exposition du système du Monde, but the idea was originated by geologist John Michell in 1783 (
Michell, 1784). Isaac Newton believed that light was made of particles, and there is no reason to prevent bodies massive enough for the escape velocity to exceed the speed of light in Newtonian physics, so such a body would naturally appear dark. But this Newtonian "black hole" is very different from a general relativistic black hole. It is, after all, just a big massive solid object, no different in principle from any other solid object. But the
event horizon makes the general relativistic black hole an exotic object in a class by itself in comparison. This is the solution to Einstein's equations that Karl Schwarzschild figured out (
Schwarzschild, 1916) within a few months of the appearance of Einstein's original paper (
Einstein, 1915).
As for the comments from
Sol88, they are as usual, simply too stupid to hold back the laughter. Of course black holes were found "on paper" first (literally true I am sure in the pre-digital age of paper & pencil). So what? As
edd has already pointed out, "
This is called 'making a prediction from theory'". You make a prediction, and then you conduct a program of observations designed to either verify or falsify that prediction. Are we supposed to be embarrassed or something?
when object where observed that are so dense they appear to be made entirely of neutrons, the maths was fiddled to allow for this to happen.
Ignorance personified again. No, in fact, that is not at all what happened. There were no objects observationally identified as possible black hole candidates until the first rocket borne X-ray telescopes of the 1960's, and the first object seriously considered as a black hole candidate was the X-ray source
Cygnus X-1 in the early 1970's. However, the theory of neutron stars had already been introduced many years before in
Oppenheimer & Volkoff, 1939. So before there was any observational capability to detect either a black hole or a neutron star, the theories for both were already well established. So what really happened was that the first candidate objects were discovered by X-ray astronomers, but their masses could not be determined with sufficient precision to tell the difference between a neutron star or a black hole. That's why
Cygnus X-1 became the first serious candidate, because its mass was clearly just too large to accommodate being a neutron star, which left only black hole in the running.
... but gravity well who knows if it could ever be studied in the lab.
Since this has been explained to you already in detail, one might be excused for suspecting that your investigation of nature here is as honest as one would like to think (gravity is not easy to study in a laboratory, but "we" have been doing it for a long time, i.e.,
Gundlach, 2005 which is freely accessible).
the variables for the maths wrt plasma are so dynamic that the maths becomes extremely difficult and only approximation will do!
Only for you. People who actually do math are not so mentally encumbered.
Maths has it's applications, obviously, but it does not "run" the universe! plasma is like life on Earth, how can you mathematical model that with an equation! It's just to dynamic!
Well, of course it's not
an equation, it's more like
several equations. Still, believe it or not, it can be done (
NRL Plasma Formulary;
Fundamentals of Plasma Physics by Paul Bellan (and see the
Bellan Plasma Physics Laboratory at Caltech);
Plasma Physics for Astrophysics by Russell Kulsrud;
The Physics of Plasmas by Boyd & Sanderson;
The Physics of Solar System Plasmas by Thomas Cravens;
Space Plasma Physics: School of Space Plasma Physics by Ivan Zhelyazkov;
Plasma Astrophysics by Tajima & Shibata, & etc., & etc.).
I don't think that
Sol88 cares at all about "plasma cosmology", or anything else related to this thread. I think the only thing that interests him is arguing. Witness that fact that his "arguments" are almost always devoid of intelligence, content, usefulness, or anything else vaguely identifiable with the concept of "smart". Other than perhaps clarifying things for the occasional lurker, which is why I bother at all, there is certainly no value here.
!