Citing John G. Hartnett:
|A binary pair of black holes were observed to coalesce—the first time their existence confirmed.
Their distance, determined from luminosity, is about 1.3 billion light-years.
The black holes had masses of 36 M⊙ (mass of Sun) and 29 M⊙ before coalescence and 62 M⊙ after they combined. An equivalent of 3 M⊙ was radiated away as gravitational waves.
There is very high confidence that the event seen at two widely separated sites must be real. The quality of the detected signals are high and were the same at each site.
This is, in principle, repeatable (with other binary sources) and therefore is operational science. No fudge factors were invoked.
- 1) No fudge factor involved in identifying the two things coalescing into one as black holes, with the implications that usually carries of ultra high density and gravitational blackouting of light coming to close?
Has simple absence of stars been ruled out?
Have angels coming between stars sometimes blackouted by "black holes" and us been ruled out?
Have angels making halos been ruled out for the famous "halo around black hole" phenomenon?
- 2) No fudge factor involved in determining distance to them as "about 1.3 billion light-years" and that "determined from luminosity"?
Luminosity x around a black hole corresponds to red shift y is not a fudge factor?
And red shift y corresponding to such and such a distance z is very definitely a fudge factor, depending ultimately on step one in "cosmic distance ladder".
- 3) No fudge factor involved in identifying original "masses of black holes" as 36 and 29 solar masses? No fudge factor involved in identifying new "mass" of new "black hole" as 62 solar masses (rather than expected 65, leaving 3 as radiation, which is of course not a fudge factor, except in guess identifying loss of gravitation with radiation)?
Measuring densities depend on measuring that of the Sun, hence solar masses as unit (abbreviated M⊙, as per article). But we have no means of directly doing that, we are extrapolating from supposed gravitational only causality of a supposed heliocentric close range of the cosmos. No angels carrying either Sun or Moon or Jupiter or anything around Earth periodically in relation to Zodiac, leaves a gravitational only causality and heliocentrism, leaves a calculation of solar mass.
This is then compared to other supposedly equally gravitation only caused phenomena, in this case perhaps "how much light is caught" - which depends on how much light there would have passed on to us if there hadn't been that black hole, which is speculation.
No fudge factors, seriously?
- 4) I am not really totally confident about the radiation detected being gravitational waves as opposed to other sort. But I am too little familiar with the construction of apparatus to detect where a fudge factor could be in the apparatus. However, gravitation may be a misunderstanding of what happens when things fall to the ground, either of the two main modern ways of describing it, meaning that we are not quite able to rule out that what was measured and what gravitation is supposed to be are two different things, from each other and from what gravitation really is.
Sure, the event was really an event. It was really observed.
It presumably followed natural laws really put in place by God during creation week. Or it certainly did so, since both miracles and ordinary events follow these laws.
But is the understanding of natural laws applied by the scientists coinciding with these natural laws as they really are? Or is it only coinciding partially, where a gross deviation would be grossly detectable at very close hand (like, not light years away from observer and therefore from only one angle) and therefore end the misunderstanding very quickly?
As to the famous "biblical creationist starlight-travel-time problem", Geocentrism and angelic movers take care of it, since they make what is classified as "parallax" (which is first step of cosmic distance ladder) a misclassification of what is really happening and therefore make furthest away verified distances those which can be verified by detecting angle of sunlight on a reflecting object as well as to us and object's angle seen from us (distance to sun giving the famous one distance needed to work out two more in a triangle, with at least three known values).
Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
I Lord's Day of Lent