Hi jbrenner,
I saw this also thanks for the post.
The electric universe theory predicted the black hole theories failure. The next to go is dark matter
And that nonsense.

Pretty cool how science just keeps finding new things. Hypothesize, test, verify/redo! That's the real scientific method!

Not a word about shooting down black hole theory. Why must the accretion disk contain iron? The disk will contain the matter which the black hole attracts to it when it gets too close. If it does not have matter containing iron it will not produce be produced as in the core of a star. But anyway:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.05365.pdf
for some info on that iron spectra problem.

Before jumping on the so called easier with little math bandwagon of EU Theory, look at all the sites which consider it as pseudoscience and then, if understandable from both for and against, decide whether you want to devote a lot of time to the hypothesis which to me explains very little about objective reality.

One more step in the constantly evolving understanding of the universe. It looks to me we are at a stage of knowledge that could be likened to the discovery of electricity. After its establishment as a source of energy, scientists had a way to go before figuring out how to apply that energy and make it work for us.

This is not my scientific response to your post, but my first reaction to it. It is beyond my wildest dreams, the Black Hole Theory, something that will affect all our lives forever. In any case, your comment, "As I get older and (arguably) wiser, I realize that I know less than I thought I knew" should definitely be copyrighted, it is far beyond any scientific or even historical significance. (I love it, I've already copied it down and intend to plagiarize it as soon as I can).

This is interesting to me not only in the context of current hypotheses governing the Big Bang, but because of the First Cause argument propounded by ever so many theists. In these discussions, the definition of the word “universe” is critical, for reasons known to most Objectivists, not to mention other atheists.

As with many other words, the word “universe” can have several meanings. For example, in statistics (and political polls), it is the group being studied.

Moving to astronomy, the OED defines the Universe as: “All existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago.”

I disagree with the OED definition because it is too narrow. While it has application to cosmology studies dealing with the results of the Big Bang, it does not apply to philosophical inquires — or even cosmology from a larger point of view — because we go beyond the “Big Bang.” For example, what existed before the Big Ban? Suppose there have been many Big Bangs, at the same time or sequentially, of which we know only one, are those not part of the universe?

I like the Oxford Reference page better: “Everything that exists, …” Actually, in philosophy, the definition of “universe” presented by Nathaniel Branden (restated) is the universe is all that exists, has ever existed and will include those things which exist in the future at such time as they are created.

The study (http://newatlas.com/black-hole-theory...) at Sandia Labs opens the questions as to the origins of matter used in the experiment as well as questioning the hypothesis of the Big Bang. Very interesting new area for thought and sure to infuriate the Gideons.

Also shot down recently...dark matter and the big bang...it's time to evolve, learn and advance our understanding of the cosmos.

I don't know who writes the headlines for these articles but they should probably take a remedial course in the scientific method. Understanding black holes requires the combined theories and models of both classical and quantum physics. On the large scale they are classical relativistic objects but the space-time curvature becomes so "tight" near the event horizon that it impacts activity at the scale of the atomic nucleus.This is where quantum physics comes in. The problem is that empirical data on black holes is really hard to come by so we are guided more by theories than observations and there are some huge gaps in our theories when it comes to relativistically dense objects like neutron stars and black holes. The behavior of different atomic species, iron for example, under conditions of extreme space-time curvature is very hard to predict. The relativistic solutions to the Schrodinger wave equations are horrendously difficult for complex atoms even for a super computer. Discoveries like this one may provide some of the missing pieces to the puzzle or at least suggest some new places to look.

Now scientists discover strange form of black hole at the heart of Milky Way. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/...

No doubt there is much more to learn here.

I don't love the lay-person description of how "iron ions are stripped away from their atoms". No a good description of how 0.0001% of a thing is removed, but the definition of the thing remained in the 0.0001%.