Proof that BlackHoles cant exist

Singularity: there are stars out there. Some don't shine any more. They're black, they're small, with intense gravity. And if you fall into one you can't get out, no way, no how. So they're holes. Hence they're black holes. Now my understanding of physics tells me there's no central singularity, but they're still black holes, and whilst I've never seen one, I do believe they exist.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

XTE J1118+480

is an actual black hole consuming nearby stars on its Path

http://www.astronet.ru/db/xware/msg/1170921

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"Black hole candidate XTE J1118+480 ..."

I say its a cold star candidate.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If your trying to disprove something generally held as true to exist, you might want to use something better than conjecture to prove your point.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

instead why dont u tell me how u know for sure that those objects are blackHoles and not cold stars. Since u already know that u should be able to tell it, or else it becomes blind faith.

 

they are not seen in visible in light and emit x-rays only.

 

First thing is that u people are ignorant about the X-Ray stars.

Second, is there any article on Matter crashing on to a cold star ?

I wonder how many dead stars are out there since they died last 5 to 13 billion years ago. :bawl:

 

Thats what i am trying to tell u all. The dead stars are too many out there , dont ignore them, they should form a major chunk of the universe, since universe is too old not to have them in vast numbers.

 

Wrong thread. And not my definitions; they’re Einstein’s, Taylor’s, Thorne’s, and Wheeler’s definitions. Even Einstein disagrees with you about the size of an inertial frame. Take it up with them.

Calculations already done by Taylor, Thorne, and Wheeler. (I used published definitions, and predictions from calculations, done by these relativity experts.) They contradict, as shown in the other thread.

Relies on definitions and calculations by Einstein, Taylor, Thorne, and Wheeler, not me. Take it up with them. Neither you nor anyone else could refute the other thread—it’s that clear cut. (And I notice you didn’t try.) GR is self-inconsistent.

Barely experimentally confirmed. No experimental confirmation at r-coordinate r < 200,000. “Tremendous” predictive power unconfirmed in all but extremely weak gravity nowhere near a theorized horizon of a black hole. You could not show otherwise. Nor does any amount or precision of experimental confirmation save a self-inconsistent theory.

Half truth. There is experimental confirmation of GR in relatively extremely weak gravity. But experimental “confirmation” of black holes depends on the validity of GR; cosmologists use GR to determine the mass, consuming the one and only one observation they use to “confirm” black holes. You could not show otherwise.

Nor could there be one. (A classical theory could even rule out black holes simply via a postulate.) This is mainly what I disagreed with you about in this thread. Now we are in agreement.

It tells us more than that. It tells us that GR predicts its own demise, by predicting that a body must collapse to r = 0 under certain conditions.

The meanings of the words approximation and obey contradict here. A new theory need only approximate Einstein’s equation’s predictions where GR has been experimentally confirmed (relatively extremely weak gravity), just like GR needed only approximate Newton’s equation’s predictions in weaker fields. I notice you limit your comment to weak fields, when a black hole’s field is extremely strong—I thought you said GR was experimentally confirmed for black holes.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No rebuttal is needed. Spacetime curvature is synonymous with tidal force. A tidal force is experimentally confirmed.

A “theory of gravity in which new physics comes in before the formation of a black hole” could be had simply by fixing GR’s proven self-inconsistency at a horizon.

I won’t be convinced I’m wrong unless I’m refuted. Which neither you nor anyone else has done. All of the definitions, and predictions of GR from calculations, are those of top relativity experts, including Einstein. All I did was show that they prove a self-inconsistency of GR.

Yes, of course, if there’s no experimental confirmation of a black hole, then they are not shown to exist in Nature. That’s not a flaw of my thinking; that’s the scientific method. No amount of calculations (which is all that PDF contains) confirm that Nature works like the calculations predict. Only experimental observations do. That is how physics works. Physics does not tell Nature what to do. Nature tells physicists whether their theories are valid.

Astronomers need not observe a horizon directly. Horizons could be all but experimentally confirmed if there was experimental confirmation of another type of GR’s predictions near a horizon, like relativistic orbital precession. But no such experimental confirmation exists today. The observations near a theorized horizon that are used to “confirm” black holes today are plugged into GR to get the mass, so they don’t experimentally confirm GR at all. All that can be said about these observations is that if GR is the correct theory of gravity, then a black hole should exist below the region of the observation.

Heartfelt I’m sure. The rules are designed to keep threads on-topic and scientific.

No consensus overrules the lack of experimental confirmation of black holes, or of any other prediction of GR in that territory. Physicists can believe whatever they want; science doesn’t bow to their beliefs. There’s a huge difference between a consensus based on mountains of data (global warming) and consensus based on no data (black holes). One is science, the other is religion.

I liked the candor of this comment by an astronomy writer in Black Holes by Pickover: “The biggest unsolved problem [related to black holes] is whether there are any black holes in the universe. In my opinion, the evidence so far is slim, and even black-hole aficionados admit this fact (when they believe the public/taxpayers aren’t listening).”

Unlike black hole believers, I actually have information upon which my conclusions are based. And that information comes straight from Einstein, Taylor, Thorne, and Wheeler.

That is not what “attack someone” means. It means a personal attack. Attacking their ideas is A-okay and expected here.

You should show they are crap, not just claim it. For example, give one shred of experimental confirmation of black holes, or of any other prediction of GR in that territory. Or go to the other thread and show a problem with it—a bona fide problem, not just some consensus based on no data. You can’t do it. You have given neither experimental evidence nor sound science to back up your claims. And that shows that your arguments are crap.

Sorry, you’ve succeeded only in proving your immaturity. Why not have adherence to scientific principles as your goal? Wouldn’t that be better than being proven wrong all the time?

 

If light could rise to a higher altitude from the surface of these stars then they wouldn't be black holes by definition, even if our finest instruments could not detect the light emitted from them.

 

All such blockage requires is an object that looks black. That could be just a dark object, or it could be an object whose light is gravitational redshifted to a degree where we can't detect the light. The object need not be a black hole.

The object sighted doing that is not confirmed to be a black hole. There is no experimental confirmation of star matter crossing the horizon of a black hole. There exists only observations of star matter falling into another object that is dark. "Scientific" articles talk about black holes as if they exist for the same reason Bush talks about Iraq as if it's a sovereign nation. Both parties distort the facts due to ulterior motives.

 

That involvement is not known with anywhere near that level of certainty. There is no experimental confirmation of GR anywhere near a theorized horizon. There exist only observations that are plugged into GR to get the mass of the object, and then the mass is plugged back into GR to predict a black hole. That does not constitute an experimental confirmation of black holes, or a 99% certainty of them. That is only an observation that suggests a black hole exists if GR is the correct theory of gravity.

 

That was really funny, :roflmao:

 

By definition a black hole emits no information. Then, logically, there is no way to definitively differentiate, as observed from afar, between a black hole and an object that is not a black hole but is not emitting information in a detectable manner (say, one photon emitted per decade on the observer's clock). A theory besides GR that predicts gravitational redshift to any finite degree, but does not predict black holes, could just as well explain these observations. So the observations are not conclusive evidence of black holes.

 

Its really amazing that where ever a star collides on a black hole it emits X-Rays instead of engulfing it quietly. IF BHs are so powerful then nothing should stop around them to get heated to extent of emitting X-Rays.

And why wont the matter heatup on collision to that extent ?

 

I can see why a theorized black hole would not necessarily swallow a star quietly. If the black hole was small enough compared to the star, the tidal force (synonymous with spacetime curvature) imparted by the black hole could rip the star apart before it crossed the horizon. The "shock wave" or whatever from that cataclysmic event could propagate outwards to us since it happened above the horizon, where light can escape.

 

Now thats not funny, there will be no shockwave. since everthing is going in, nothing will bounce off. ie. if BH exists.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Why must everything go in? Above the horizon there's no requirement for that. Material objects and light can move outward (away from the black hole) from a position above the horizon.

 

Where "BH" could just as well be an object that is not a black hole but emits light at an undetectable (to distant observers) level due to extremely strong gravity at its surface highly redshifting its light.

 

Not that you have shown. There's logically no way to differentiate between the radiation signature of a black hole and that of an object that is not a black hole but emits light undetectably to our instruments, due to its light being highly gravitationally redshifted. That is obvious since there's no observation of a "solid surface interaction" in either case, and so the observation in either case is equivalent. Give me an example how one could differentiate.

Give a reference that supports this.

The observations must support the conclusion. You haven't shown that they do in this case.

The purest kind.