>> ^charliem:
Like she said...she still didn't get it down to the schwarzschild radius. Either their model for black holes is wrong, or there isn't a black hole there.


Like she said, there are imperfections in the tools they are using. In her own words, correcting the atmospheric imperfections will allow us to see stars closer still than those we can see, meaning more mass, meaning closer to the radius. And who is to say we'll ever be able to see everything that is at the centre? Who's to say the means of correction don't provide false positives or negatives - if i corrected an image of a pebble under a stream, would i see 1 pebble, 2 pebbles, or half a pebble, and if i could never put my hand in and check, how would i know the truth? We'd need more and powerful telescopes outside our own atmosphere. What about the masses of objects that we don't yet know about that we have to identify through means other than direct observation? Yes?

God damn but her voice was annoying. Great video though.

They didn't have the resolution of the schwarzschild radius, but that's not exactly necessary to make a super massive black hole likely. Because they do know that within the relatively small radius they do see there is a mass of millions of stars, and you would expect these to shine quite brightly or show other signs of being there. For example very massive stars have extreme solar winds which could be visible on these scales.

Like she said...she still didn't get it down to the schwarzschild radius. Either their model for black holes is wrong, or there isn't a black hole there.