Do black holes really exist in the real world or are they just virtual objects

Such a mainstream kneejerk response

Whats the problem with the website ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Promotes Laviolette's crackpot ideas. Please stop citing crank websites, this forum is trying (and failing) to keep a mainstream semblance.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Tach, saying something which is not mainstream does not make him a crank. Laviolette has apparently been published in a reputable journal, which would make him a bigger authority than you on the subject of expanding universes I'd imagine.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That being said, I googled "Tired Light" and came across this. I don't care enough to study this currently, but it appears that it isn't fair to say that Science doesn't even consider theories such as this if it's been accepted in journals and refutations have been entertained.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Physics Essays (where Laviolette "published") is a virulently anti-mainstream, anti-relativity crank journal.

Laviolette is not in the same category as Magueijo and he's nowhere close to John Moffat. Nice try.

 

He published his main paper in Astrophysical Journal in 1986. Surely you don't find that a crank journal.

My sentence was confusing, but I replying to RIVER'S assertion:

...Laviolette was published in a journal (eventually) and there is information available pointing out the problems with his the theory of Tired Light.

 

....a very bad paper, denying the universe expansion. Coupled with your denial of the existence of BH, I can see why the crankiness resonates with you. I am sure AJ would like to take the embarrassing paper back. Besides, since then, he's published crank stuff in the fringe journal called Physics Essays.

Yes, tired light is a theory that has outlived its time. What does this have to do with your pushing (again) fringe ideas about BH?

 

I'd point out that the only difference between fringe ideas and cutting edge ideas are their veracity as afforded by hindsight. It's very "brave" of you to denigrate an accomplished astrophysicist who was able to look at the world differently and challenge the status quo before you were even born.

 

In your case your fringe ideas are already refuted by existent knowledge.

Don't try to draw a parallel between you and him, you are many levels below LaViolette , though he evolved into a crackpot , you seem to have been born one.

 

I don't know enough of higher University mathematics to know whether RJBeery is right or not.

All that all know on general relativity and quantum mechanics is based on what I have seen Youtube but my knowledge is not based on rigorous mathematical calculations.

Vector calculus is very difficult as well as multivariable calculus, differential geometry, partial differential equations, abstract algebra and other advanced mathematical topics. These are not so easy subjects at all but in order to understand higher physics then you need to know all of these mathematical subjects.

The mathematical symbolism can be quite difficult for me to master and one must have a very good memory in order to be able to master the advanced mathematical language completely.

 

Nothing I've said in this thread is controversial for those that comprehend my argument. Przyk gets it and his response is that "existence" is a term outside the realm of Physics. Refute my logic, if you can, but don't just stick your fingers in your ears.

Define simultaneity, then analyze whether singularities fall within that definition from an outside observer's frame. They don't and you know it.

"If you're right, pound the facts; if you're wrong, pound the table"

 

I already pointed out that the way you are going about this is incorrect. Theory predicts, experiment confirms. You doing the armchair philosophy are going about it the wrong way.

1. Singularities, being a mathematical artifact of the EFE solutions, are NOT physical.
2. As such, their existence has nothing to do with simultaneity
3. The existence of black holes (a physical entity) has nothing to do with the existence of singularities (a mathematical artifact).

Just did.

 

Agreed. Your argument is not difficult to understand and your answer to the question is not controversial: it's just wrong.

 

It isn't just the singularities. What is the proper distance from you to a point within the event horizon? Any reasonable definition of simultaneity will deal with proper distances, or light cones, or some sort of reference to spacetime which breaks down with black holes. In other words, they do not simultaneously exist with us.

If you want to say that black holes in GR break the very concept of simultaneity then I guess I would agree, but if simultaneity has no meaning then you cannot claim that black holes exist anyway because you would be using a meaningless term. You can't have it both ways: claiming that black holes exist until I point out that they don't, at which time your retort is that "exist" is an undefinable term.

 

Don't try to move the goalposts, you posted crackpottery (again), I took it apart.
Look, RJ, you have been posting made-up fringe stuff for many years, why would you take a break, enroll in a class and actually try learning. There are some very good classes that you could take.

I never posted such a crackpottery.

 

It isn't about goal posts, truth is static. The logic is laid out and whether you choose to acknowledge it or ignore it is your prerogative.

I challenge you to define simultaneity in your own words which would include black holes. I'll even grant you the exception of the singularity. Or perhaps you're going to side with Russ_Watters and just point to dark areas in the sky?

 

I just pointed out (several times) that the definition of simultaneity has nothing to do with your crackpot claims of non-existence of black holes.
Simultaneity is a mathematical convention, the existence of black holes is a physical fact, that can be confirmed only by experiment. I gave you a list of experiments conducted in that direction, why don't you spend some time absorbing it before you decide to post some more fringe denials.

 

Sarcastic characterization aside, that's all the question demands of science. Theory predicts, astronomers observe, so black holes exist. Simultenaity plays no role because the observations are being made now (or in the very recent past).

I think the worst part for you here is that no one is disagreeing with the majority of what you are saying. We know singularities may not exist. We know what is inside the event horizon is not observable now or in the future. Neither of those change the fact that theory predicts certain observable properties and those properties are observed.

And I think the silliest part of this is that you are using properties of black holes that are consistent with observation to argue against existence: the fact that we can't see behind the event horizon of Cygnus X-1 is not a flaw, it is a confirmed prediction. Indeed, I suspect most scientists would call that the key defining feature.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

But theory only predicts black holes if we imagine frames entering them. That requires travel into the future. Theory does not predict that black holes exist today, and what you're observing in the sky could very well be what I referred to as a dark star.

 

Reference, please. Did you make this one up all by yourself?

I see, this is your fringe interpretation of GR. Since you do not know GR proper, you just make things up as you go.