Black holes do not exist

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

  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,974
    You are trolling again. Stop it, please.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,974
    Don't tell lies, please!

    Remember that back in April of this year, you said that you could provide some evidence to "debunk" time dilation and/or the existence of black holes, but since then we have seen nothing of the sort from you. There are only your opinions, which are worthless.

    I suppose that, at some level, you are aware that your words are empty and pointless. Knowing that, why do you persist with your nonsense?
    With what crucial evidence? Where did you present any evidence? Link, or it didn't happen.
    An empty, pointless assertion.
    The same way that we do any kind of science, of course! We can certainly use instruments such as telescopes to observe black holes, for example. We also infer their existence from their effects on things around them. If you have an alternative explanation for the observations, why don't you present it? In fact, why do you never present anything but your own empty opinions?
    Please don't tell lies. Knowingly telling lies is a breach of our site posting guidelines.

    If you believe that "relativity has been found false", please post a link to the appropriate findings. If you cannot, don't make that claim.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Luchito Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    389
    Distance... my friend... "distance effect" kills your black hole theory....

    Yup. One more to add in science dictionaries: "distance effect".

    Don't hate me because I'm beautiful.

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Luchito Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    389
    You might think that there are no other explanations for the faster functional work on clocks in outer space that in your opinion is the evidence that time "dilates".

    I do have a clear and accurate explanation based in the whole experiments and experiences that have ocurred until today in the space station, an explanation that denbuks without mercy the superfluous idea that time dilates.

    You see, you won't obtain the explanation of that behavior in clocks when expoosed to motion in airplanes going east or west, or traveling fast in outer space, just by using a piece of paper and say: "Here!... here says why those clocks show a different time data!"

    No, you are dead wrong if you think a dumb piece of paper will be your "evidence".

    Evidence is obtained by observation and test, not so by writing formulas. Formulas and equations only show amounts but explain nothing.

    Besed on experiments made at the space station thru years and years, you can also find the answer of why atomic clocks give a different time data compared to same clocks on ground zero.

    It is just basic physics and you just need to THINK, nothing but to THINK, and find out why.

    In order for you to THINK, first is to pull the trash out (Relativity theories doctrines) and study those expetiments with a clear mind.

    I can easily drop the bomb and release the findings, but wait... that is not the right way to do it... so a better way is to guide you to find by yourself the causes of such a phenomenon. You won't regret it. You will find out that you can also discover new things in science.

    So, you have several experiments from the space station posted in different places online. You can also look in journals. Explore two or three of them, and those will indicate automatically a same common denominator. From here start to find more experiments of all kind which have been performed over there. You will be in the right path to find the answer by yourself.

    Having Relativity theory demoinstrated false with sure evidence, then next step is to declare the daughter theory of black holes as false as well. The whole process is following evidence after evidence.

    If you didn't know, in science evidence rules over formulas written in a piece of paper. Follow my advice, at least try it once. You are not going anywhere defending a good for nothing theory like Relativity and its daughter the black holes theory.
     
    river likes this.
  8. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Brilliant .

    Your Reasoning is spot on .
     
  9. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,286
     
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,500
    The OP seems to be a bit confused about his own claims. At one point he's arguing against the existence of black holes, and then, when he paints himself into the corner he switches to arguing against relativity.

    This thread is about black holes, as per the title.

    I'd like to see some solid arguments against the existence of the physical, observable objects, while abstract discussions about relativity are sequestered as off-topic.
     
  11. Luchito Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    389
    Hold your horses, you are too close to a huge precipice.

    Before you come with your clains of accelerated gravity you must explain how a tiny, dead, compressed, collapse star will star pulling space, "time", light, plus huge stars and galaxies around... where there are trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of miles betwen those bodies.

    It is just to say a body twice the size of planet earth will suck the whole Milky Way.... you are bluffing...

    The more such a collapsed body can attract is cosmic dust.

    Galaxies are formed similar to storms.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2021
  12. Luchito Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    389
    It has been clarified that black holes theory principles departed from Relativity theory.

    Then, in order to analyze black holes theory is a must to review first the theory mother, because the principles come from it.

    After the theory mother passes the scrutiny, then next step is to analyze the black holes theory itself.

    At this point, the theory mother has been found false. By consequence the black holes theory was born with the same fate.
     
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,580
    Nope. In fact, we use relativity to understand black holes.
    We've done both.
    Nope. You prove it is valid every time you use the GPS in your car.
     
  14. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,286
    Nobody in the scientific community says that the black hole at our galaxy's center is pulling huge star stars around ( except for those very near it), and definitely not other galaxies. In additio the black hole at the center of our galaxy is not a "compressed star" it is way to massive to have ever been a single star.
    While the black hole is at the center of the galaxy, the galaxy doesn't orbit it. The different components ( stars etc), orbit around its center due to the mutual gravitational attraction of those components. The central black hole's contribution to this in minute in comparison, you could remove it from the galaxy entirely, and would even notice it.
    [/quote]
    It is just to say a body twice the size of planet earth will suck the whole Milky Way.... you are bluffing...
    [/quote] Nobody is making that claim.
    No, storms and galaxies to not form the same way. While they have a similar spiral pattern, that pattern results from different processes.

    This proves exactly what I said before: You are trying to rebut a model for black holes that is not the scientifically accepted one, and are saying that science makes claims that it doesn't make.
     
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,500
    No. Black holes are a physical, observable object that can be confirmed by empirical methods whether or not you like any given theory that tries to explain them.

    In other words, black holes would be observed even without a relativity model - i.e. even if we were still upholding a Newtonian model of the universe. We might not have the science and math to explain them with a Newtonian model, but the empirical evidence alone would force us to acknowledge their existence (and update our models).

    No it hasn't. Repeating it doesn't make it any less false.
     
  16. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    What empirical methods ?

    Understood .

    But if all objects were being pulled into the center of our Galaxy , ultimately that is what is going to happen , in the black-hole theory ; then there should be a flow of light moving towards the core of our Galaxy , the black-hole , ultimately ; we don't see this .
     
  17. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,286
    But they aren't. The objects are following orbits. The orbits are determined by the overall total distribution of the matter making up the galaxy. The Black hole at its center barely contributes anything to this because its mass is pretty insignificant in comparison to the total mass of the galaxy. Secondly, for the vast majority of the galaxy, it would not matter if the 4 million solar masses of Sagittarius A was compacted into a black hole or spread out over a larger volume, because, until you get very close to it, a black hole does not differ from anything else in terms of gravity.
    Like Luchito, you are basing your arguments on a misconception of what a black hole is and how it is expected to behave.
     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,580
    Nope. Black holes warp space with their gravity; as a result, objects experience a force pulling towards the black hole. That gravity is exactly the same as the force exerted by our sun on the planets in our solar system. Note that our sun is not "pulling all the planets into the sun" - the planets orbit the sun, and will remain orbiting for billions of years.

    Despite what may be portrayed in popular movies, things can orbit a black hole the same way they can orbit a sun (as long as you don't get too close of course.)
     
  19. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,155
    deleted
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2021
  20. Luchito Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    389
    Please explain exactly what GPS has to do with Relativity theory.

    Tell us the history of such application of Relativity with GPS.

    So far no previous formulas predicting the amount of nanoseconds discrepancy were made in advance before the sending of atomic clocks to space, in order to predict the delay or ahead time data from atomic clocks in outer space. The whole process was as usual, trial and error to find out how far the malfunction
    of clocks will be when exposed to a different environment. After the malfunction was found regular, a device to "translate" and actualize the disparate time data from satellites was made, so their information can be continuously updated.

    Then, here you must prove your version showing the mechanism of time dilatation in atomic clocks.

    Provide with your own words the process, please don't start filling up your reply with links. Make a short but detailed explanation justifying your point of view.
     
  21. Luchito Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    389
    https://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/Black_Hole.html

    Supermassive black holes exist in the center of most galaxies, including our own Milky Way Galaxy. They are astonishingly heavy, with masses ranging from millions to billions of solar masses. Why they are so incredibly massive isn't known, but astronomers are pretty sure their development is linked to their presence at the center of their galaxy. There are so many stars and so much gas and dust that the black hole can grow large very quickly. And since many galaxies collide repeatedly during their long lifetimes, supermassive black holes have a ready-made way to collide and coalesce into even heavier supermassive black holes.

    NASA always writing poems or children's story tales. They believe that the stars in galaxies are located two street blocks one from the other.

    Distance prevents their fantasy to become reality.

    And NASA, not only me, also contradicts your point, as you can oobserve.

    Well, such is the size of a collapsed star following the black holes theory instructions. Such a body is inoffensive and won't harm the neighbors.

    The principle of their formation is the same, and no supermassive black holes are neccessary in their centers as NASA claims.




     
  22. Luchito Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    389
    Before the story tale of black holes, two centuries before the fraud of Eddington validating Relativity, in 1783 a guy called John Michell, who was the director of the Thronhill Observatory, made his calculations based on Newton, that a star 590 times the size of the sun, and having the same average density, will prevent the escape of its own light.

    Using Newton, the assumed star won't need any collapsing, but just to be large and dense. By curiosity, Pierre Simon de Laplace also had the same conclusions in 1796.

    So, for centuries astronomers were looking for such a massive body, but the average stars 600 times the size of our sun weren't capable to pull their own light.

    Then, Eddington found a way to make done Relativity alive again with a new fraud. (First fraud was to validate relativity in 1919 even with the opposition of all the scientists involved in the expeditions and the ones who reviewed the taken pictures.) However the Swiss Academy which gives the Nobel Prize of Physics didn't buy it, and declared in 1922 Relativity as philosophy only and this theory was rejected as part of science.

    The idea of the collapsed star was not using Newton's theory but Relativity theory.

    In this theory the dark region caused by a collapsed star was also invisible for everybody. For decades jokes were made showing pictures black from side to side saying such was the picture of a black hole. Then, with Newton and Einstein ideas about bodies pulling their own light, those stars were for not being visible or detected by any means.

    Everything was fine until Hawking, the so called "expert" in black holes, say that this -imaginary- body actually "evaporates" radiation. Then, he opened the hope that black holes can be detected somehow.

    However, the collapsed star won't allow motion of its parts, and is no more than a compressed body which is dead. A dead star is like a corpse, a dead body. It won't function at all. Its pulling force dies as well, because it has a limit, it has to have a limit. Even magnets die and lose their characteristics. So, the dead body -collapsed star- won't be capable to produce any radiation and less to pull anything around, because its size after collapsing will be so small that it won't create any issues.

    The imagination of inmense black holes is based on the butterfly effect fantasy. From a tiny dead star to cause a great pullng zone, you are telling me that such insignificant dead star is going to disrespect other stars and make them prisoners of its extraordinary pulling force... lol... sho u rite... sho u rite...

     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2021
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,580
    Sure.

    GPS sends signals to receivers with very accurate timing. Since the timing is known, and the ephemeris data is known (location of each satellite) the receiver can look at the signal, see how long it took to get from the satellite to the receiver, and then figure out how far away that satellite is (since radio waves, like light, travels about 186,000 miles a second.)

    That requires VERY accurate timing. One nanosecond of error in timing would translate to one foot of error in position. Thus, several atomic clocks are used on each GPS satellite - clocks so accurate that they are off by less than a nanosecond after a day.

    But when these clocks were launched, they no longer kept perfect time due to relativity. They faced two sources of errors:

    1) The warping of space near a gravity well. This made the satellite clocks run faster, since they were farther from the gravity well (the Earth) than people on the Earth. This causes the GPS clocks to gain 45,900 nanoseconds a day.
    2) The contraction of time due to high relative velocity, compared to someone on the surface. This made the satellite clocks run more slowly, since they were going faster than the clocks on Earth. In fact they run 7000 nanoseconds per day slower.

    Combine these two effects and you have the GPS clocks running too fast (compared to the GPS receiver) by 38,900 nanoseconds per day. That means you'd get a 7 mile error by the end of the day - not too useful if you want to land an airplane in fog.

    Now, some ignorant people think that this effect is because the clocks are no good, or that they are influenced by radiation or something. Not the case. You could put meters of radiation shielding, tons of insulation so the temperature never changes by more than a tenth of a degree - and the clocks would still gain 38,900 nanoseconds a day. This is due to the two effects (time contraction in a gravity well, and time contraction at higher relative speeds) predicted by relativity. They cannot be "insulated against." Even if the clock is running perfectly, it will always gain 38,900 nanoseconds a day.

    So we program the computers in the GPS satellites to assume that the clock is running 38,900 nanoseconds slower than the ground GPS stations, so it can take this into account when it is generating the signals transmitted to the ground. And lo and behold - it works.

    So every time you use a GPS, you get the benefit of our understanding of relativity.
     
    river likes this.

Share This Page