Black holes do not exist

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Luchito, Mar 3, 2021.

  1. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,152
    Well of course gravity is a physical thing. But I think this accounts for the problem you have with time. You don't really have a grasp of the difference between something physical and a dimension.

    I don't think this is going to go anywhere, actually. I'm going to leave it.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,118
    Is it? I thought gravity was one of the four fundimental forces

    OK

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,152
    These interactions are physical things. They can be measured and quantified.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Luchito Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    389
    Add your quantum at your will.

    It is obvious Relativity is out of science when is reviewed alone and needs of quantum to survive.

    Lets kill both with the same shot.

    Release your quantum here.
     
  8. Luchito Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    389
    What is time in physics?

    Time is just a measure. This measure is obtained when the motion of an object is compared to another object with regular motion, a regular motion established as standard. The most common regular motion used by us is the rotation of earth, to which we call day. We compare day with all our duties, when we work, when we play, when we sleep, when we do experiments. Everything we do and observe we compare it with day.

    To make more accurate our measurements we have divided the period of a day in 24 parts called hours. Hours divided by 60 give us minutes and a minute divide by 60 give us seconds. A more recent clock uses the standard motion of the vibration of the atom of Cesium, but for scientific purposes is also compared to the second.

    Then, time as a measure is all physics need to perform its best.

    Any other idea, insight and/or hypothesis made about time as something else other than a measure, such is pure imagination at work.

    This base foundation made over solid ground with rocks filled with concrete above, debunks the sand base foundation made by Relativity portraying time as capable not only to flow but also to be flexible, like bubble gum.

    When the several articles -assumed to be of scientific origin- talk of time reversal, time warp, lump of time, relativistic time, quantum time, and similar, all these so called studies are nothing but entertainment, science fiction, pseudoscience. Their pages are full of illustrations made with computer programing, but do not represent reality because time is not objective.

    The whole propaganda made about Relativity and its flexible time is based on a fraud made by Eddington in 1919. Rather than Einstein receiving a Nobel Prize because Relativity, the members of the Swiss Academy declared that the prize wasn't given to him because Relativity theory is not science but philosophy.

    Years later, Eddington decided to bring back over the surface the already buried Relativity, inventing the existence of black holes, imaginary bodies in space which are so terrible that can pull light, galaxies, stars, space, and even time on their way. These bodies assumed to be the literal four horses of Revelation if not the Devil himself in person.

    But, these black bodies is not a recent invention. Two centuries before Eddington, a similar body was imagined as well. But contrary to the idea of a collapsed star, it was on the contrary a calculation in paper about a star so big, but so big, that its gravity will prevent its own light to escape. These bodies were known as black spheres.

    The supporters of these fantasies are having great trouble here to show real evidence of the existence of time, also about the real duty of clocks, and they to establish credibility time and black holes really exist in the universe. Enough is to discard time as flowing and dilating, also demonstrating that clocks only perform in a calibrate duty, and Relativity theory is no more in science.

    The members of the Swiss Academy were correct in 1922: Relativity theory is just philosophy and has no business in science.

    Same as well, the theory daughter called black hole is as false as the mother Relativity.

    Now, it is just wait for same old same old denial by relativists. Their show is over, but it seems they have not noticed yet.
     
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,948
    Michael 345,

    If you're just going to ignore my responses to you, and repeat claims that I have already addressed, there's no point in my attempting to engage with you further on this.

    Please read post #449 again (or for the first time if you ignored it).

    This is a matter of basic courtesy.
     
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,948
    No.
    No. You touched on the true reason in one of your earlier posts: the Nobel prize is given for experimental work, not for purely theoretical constructs. In 1920, Einstein's theory of General Relativity was thought to lack sufficient experimental verification to warrant the Nobel prize, even though the theory itself was widely recognised as a masterful achievement. 100 years on, of course, the situation with experimental and observational evidence for relativity is vastly different. There's a reason why GR is still considered our best theory of space and time.
    That's not what they said.
     
  11. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,152

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Er, my hovercraft is full of eels.
     
    Michael 345 likes this.
  12. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,118
    Disagree. His point is the facility does not have a fundamental (not just somebody else's standard) TIME reference to measure and set as a standard so the facility HAS to set its own standard

    We have access to fundamental gravity. Gravity just IS and just IS as it was discovered

    If our science Minions were to meet with another planetary science species once the translation barrier was overcome it would be found that their fundamental gravity calculations would be same as ours. Not so with measurements. And time, as in everyday parlence is a made up measurement

    "fundamental" (note the spelling, BTW) noted - my version must have been added to my personal predictive text list by myself some way back. His now been corrected (deleted and replaced with correct version)

    And there will never be, because fundamental THE does not exist

    QUOTE="James R, post: 3687142, member: 4402"]Yes. It's called a clock. But even you can do it, with your built-in clocks.[/QUOTE]

    Which I think is commented on in the reference

    Apologies. Have been busy since arriving back in Australia after being COVID-19 stranded in Bali for 18 months. Not WITH COVID-19, just not allowed to return to Darwin from Bali as it was designated a hot spot. I never had symptoms and even managed, despite not being Indonesian with a required Indonesian ID number, to obtain a COVID-19 vaccination thanks to girlfriend filling out a ton of paperwork

    As it has been accepted in Australia I was given my second jab here. Due to being stranded numerous medical check-ups were missed (not for any present medical conditions), precautionary checks only. Apart from 2nd jab have received booster and (in the other arm) Pneumonia shot. On next visit wants to jab me for hepatitis

    Gradually my precautionary testing medical schedule is coming back on track

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Luchito said




    Relative to an observer Looking through a telescope like Hubble , 180° degrees from our position ( opposite position , in this Galaxy , Our Milky Way Galaxy ) would be 180degrees different . Would see blue , not red , light shift . Anybody disagree with me here ? If so say so , No insults will be given by me to you if you disagree . Feel Free to Say your thinking .

    For blackhole to exist would mean that from any perspective a red shift in light would be 360° . No blue at all .
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2021
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,948
    What are you talking about? How does this relate to what you quoted from my post?
     
  15. river

    Messages:
    17,307


    Relativity . what post?
     
  16. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    From my post# 470

    For blackhole to exist would mean that from any perspective a red shift in light would be 360° . No blue shift of light at all .
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2021
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,948
    river:

    I can't work out what you're trying to say, so I'm going to leave it.
     
  18. Luchito Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    389
    From the other discussion about time as a fourth dimension, the claims that time dilates have been debunked, and time is found justas a measure invented to obtain data about a motion or decay of bodies.

    With this crucial eveidence, the theory of Relativity fails and is found false, and by consequence the theory of the black hole, which is derived from Relativity, is also found false.

    So far, my claims that black holes don't exist are more stronger and backed with evidence, and I am keeping my house and all my money (read my first post here).

    Too bad I didn't ask my opponents to risk their houses and moneyas well , because at this moment, by the way this discussion have been developed and still doing it with new findings, like the dark holes in that theory -as the inclusion of a case of Doppler effect used on the imaginary black hole- I should be at this moment the owner of lots of houses around the US and even in other parts of the world,.

    I can imagine, me Luchito, the owner of Luchito Home Enterprise Inc. as my new business. Ha ha ha ha ha.

    Then, black holes can't by any means release radiation, can't be observed with naked eye, can't be detected with Doppler effect, do those really exist? How do you know if there is no way to find out?!

    Come on, the whole idea of black holes only exist in a piece of paper, because the theory mother, Relativity, has also been found false already.
     
  19. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Referring to ?

    What can you work out ?
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2021
  20. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    There is no constant wavelength of light that moves towards the centre of the Galaxy . There should be , if a black-hole is actually present .
     
  21. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,285
    Not at our distance from it. You'd have to be very close to it to see any noticeable shift caused by the central black hole. Sagittarius A only has a mass of 4 million solar masses. Now while that is some 400,000 times more massive than the typical stellar black hole, it is minuscule compared to total mass of our galaxy, or even to just that of that part of the galaxy closer to the center than the solar system. That combined mass would have a much, much larger effect on the blue shift for light coming from a direction opposite from the black hole.( And the effect of the galaxy's mass only has a very very small effect on this wavelength shift.) The amount due to Sagittarius A wouldn't even equal that due to just the uncertainty inherent in the measurement.
     
  22. Luchito Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    389
    You are doind an estimate thinkng that galaxies exist close one to another like neighbors in a condominium.

    The distances between stars themselves in a galaxy, and between galaxies themselves are way inmense. And the space between them is like hundreds and hundreds of miles between two houses.

    This is what makes the imaginary black hole to never work. The collpased star will end as a tiny compressed body in space of a size a little bigger than planet earth but way smaller the size of Jupiter.

    With that size, at huge distance from other stars, this collapsed star won't attract anything, neither flies.

    You must be very close to get into its pulling force, but chances for that to happen are one in trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of... come on, forget it. The inventor of that imaginary body also has imagined that celestial bodies pass thru near the others every minute.

    Look at the pictures took of colliding galaxies. Compare them with pictures taken today of the same galaxies. Any changes? Ha ha ha ha. same old same old.

    The pulling or collision between those galaxies will take such amount of years for us that we will be an extincted planet and those galaxies still will be colliding. Do not expect better from the pulling of a dead small body in space trying to pull a star, forget about it. More chances are the star will pull the dead body and make it part of its fusionable environment than the small dead body to pull such a huge star.

    The whole thing about black holes is pure imagination.
     
  23. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,285
    Your entire post has no relevance to mine. I never mentioned or even inferred anything about other galaxies or the distances between them. What I did was compare the mass of our galaxy's mass to that of the black hole at the center to show that the former would has a much larger effect than the later on the solar system, refuting River's claim that we should see some difference in gravitational Doppler shift when looking in different directions due the central black hole's existence.

    That aside, the physical size of a gravitational source has no bearing on the strength of its gravitational field. The only thing that matters is the mass, For us, some tens of light years away from the center of the galaxy, the gravitational pull of Sagittarius A would be the same if it were the size of a baseball or 10 light years across.

    You are arguing against a model for black holes that is not the model real physics predicts, and against claims that science doesn't actually make. The only thing "imaginary" about them is the version you've invented for yourself.
     

Share This Page