WHY PROVING BLACKHOLES ISN'T AN EASY TASK

   

        The growing evidence for blackholes isn’t one to argue against, but some still feel that the odd nature of these celestial suckers are reason to doubt their existence and to be honest I pretty much see the reason for this doubt  . yes even though highly dense objects exists this doesn’t make them blackholes, another object with high density would be  gravstar and still it wouldn’t qualify as a blackhole.

       Earlier this year gravitational waves were detected, the last prediction gotten from general relativity , detected by LIGO and this was definitive proof that gravitational waves exists and it was produced by two merging black holes and with this merger we could calculate the masses of the initial and final black holes. We know that black holes should depend on quantum gravity and if they did would gravstars also have the same property making it hard for us to differentiate between the two . it turns out yes ! we would be able to differentiate between both celestial machines the detection however wouldn’t be in the same way we detected gravitational waves.

      According to the models, gravstars are so dense they have collapsed into the point of almost becoming a black hole. The merging of two gravstars  would also produce gravitational waves but the difference would be in their vibration, their chirp. Well ofcourse that chirp would be seen as background noise buried in the data.still an argument would still be that either we detected a black hole or a gravstar we can’t be sure.

     However this could mean that the existence of  a black hole is one for debate ? nope , not that fast . Infact while gravstars models argue against black holes there is no definitive ,compelling argument or  evidence for the existence of gravstars.it is good to be skeptical but that is the adventure of science !