ECO: magnetospheric eternally collapsing object

Magnetospheric eternally collapsing object
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Objects or MECOs are proposed alternatives to black holes advocated by Darryl Leiter and Stanley Robertson. They are a variant of eternally collapsing objects or ECOs also proposed by Abhas Mitra in 1998.[1] Mitra had devised an ostensive proof that black holes cannot form from the spherically symmetric gravitational collapse of a star. Based on this, he argued that the collapse must be slowed to a near halt by radiation pressure. A proposed observable difference between MECO's and black holes is that the MECO can produce its own magnetic field. An uncharged black hole cannot, but its accretion disc can produce a magnetic field. Astronomer Rudolph Schild claims to have found evidence of such a magnetic field from the black hole candidate in the quasar Q0957+561.[2]

Mitra's proof that black holes cannot form is based on the argument that in order for a black hole to form, the collapsing matter must travel faster than the speed of light with respect to a fixed observer.[3] This has been cited as an example of a "wrong and widespread view",[4] as well as "flat out wrong".[5] In order for a frame of reference to be valid, the observer must be moving along a timelike worldline. Inside the event horizon of a black hole, it is not possible for such an observer to remain fixed; all observers are drawn toward the black hole.

MECOs have not gained wide acceptance among scientists; Gerry Gilmore of the Institute for Astronomy at Cambridge University has stated that the theory is "almost certainly wrong."[6] end quote from Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetospheric_eternally_collapsing_object



Though this is a theory let's see if I understand it. What I get from this is that Black holes are not exactly what people thought they were and that they suck in things slowly because a balance has to be reached between the speed of light in relation to a fixed observer.

However, I disagree with this. I believe that there are all sorts of anomalies present in the universe which break the speed of light. I think that until scientists get over the speed of light as a limitation(just like people had to get over the sound barrier in the 1950s) they won't be capable of understanding the universe better.