Proof that BlackHoles cant exist

"Exactly" indicates 0% certainty. If you can't tell whether it's an apple or an orange, then you are no more certain it's an apple than an orange. The certainty you describe depends on GR being the correct theory of gravity, but there is no experimental confirmation of GR anywhere near a theorized horizon of a black hole. Hence we have little reason yet to believe in the reality of black holes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Those "other realms" are nowhere near a theorized horizon of a black hole. GR predicts that a clock runs at 0% of the rate of our clock in the limit (a full stop) at a horizon. In the strongest-gravity experimental confirmation of GR to date, a clock runs at 99.9995% of the rate of our clock. On that scale, GR is only 0.0005% tested. Yet you assume it's correct in the other 99.9995% of the realms in which it's untested. What kind of scientist are you? Do you think no other theory of gravity can approximate GR where it's been experimentally confirmed (so that either theory is experimentally confirmed to all significant digits there), but not predict black holes? I tell you that an infinite number of theories can do that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because, what you call a "cold star" is called a "black dwarf" in astronomy, and There are no existing black dwarfs in the universe.

This is because the the universe is not old enough for a single black dwarf to have formed yet.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I find your "yet" interesting. Do you think that they will eventually form (as opposed to the dark energy separating them into isolated atoms)? - I have no idea. - You are much better than me in these things. What do you think? If you are willing to waste your time here with Singluarity's nonsense, perhaps you are willing to make an educated guess about this pointless question.

 

None of those tests are in "extremely high gravitational regimes". All of those tests are in relatively extremely weak gravity, compared to the strength of a field near a theorized horizon of a black hole. The last two articles cover the strongest-gravity experimental tests of GR, where, like I mentioned, a clock runs at 99.9995% of the rate of our clocks. The minimum r-coordinate radius for PSR J0737-3039 is 105,000 times that of a Schwarzschild radius.

 

Thanks. BTW please bring back you recent advar (or whatever those photos under your name are called). - I almost got around to telling you how much better your "god..ess" was than that stupid old one. The one that sort of looked like a oil tanker, you were using a year or so ago.

 

If you want to call an extremely narrow range of gravitational potentials a "wide range of gravitational potentials", I can't stop you. The experimental evidence is on my side, not yours. The links you gave support me, not you.

That's ironic. I'm the one staying scientific here.

Here's another nice quote from an astronomy writer in Black Holes by Pickover: “My biggest fascination is that people don't get tired of being presented the "final" proof of the existence of black holes every few months.”

 

Everything will go in since not even space is spared, so if the space goes in, everything around it too. Also since there is such a greate G, why would anything wait ?

 

I think universe is very old very very old, at least a trillion years old for sure.

How old should it be to get cold stars ?

 

That’s for one particular test. The result of one experimental test, for a particular gravitational potential, matched the prediction of GR within 0.05%. That doesn’t mean that Einstein is 99.95% correct across the whole range of gravitational potentials. Only an extremely narrow range of gravitational potentials has been experimentally tested to date (only the weakest-gravity 0.0005% of the whole testable range, on one scale).

The last two links you gave are for the strongest-gravity experimental test of GR. The minimum r-coordinate r in that test is 210,000M (geometric units). A theorized horizon is at r = 2M. Observations in the range between r = 2M and r = 210,000M have not been compared to any theory of gravity; we don’t know whether they agree with GR, within any percentage. An infinite number of theories of gravity approximate GR at r >= 210,000M—hence they are also experimentally confirmed—but do not predict black holes. We have no reason to prefer GR over any of those other theories at r < 210,000M. GR is preferred in that region because it’s the status quo, and not for any scientifically valid reason. In fact Occam’s razor prefers the theories that do not predict black holes.

 

GR predicts otherwise. Above a horizon, not everything need go in. For example, light moving directly outward (away from the black hole) will escape (move outward indefinitely), and material objects moving directly outward can escape if they have a sufficiently high outward velocity. In the paradigm in which space flows inward (called free-fall coordinates here), space above a horizon flows inward at a speed less than c. Light and material objects above a horizon can move outward despite the local gravitational acceleration (g) there.

 

That's just your opinion, and from what I can tell, not even an informed one.

 

http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1322599&postcount=17

:bagpuss: