Here you go River...you will like this...totally anti mainstream The thing to remember is a utube presentation is simply a utube presentation .. Entertaining but not accepted way to present a new model in science or with the one I linked for you probably ...will not change a thing. Alex
He is saying that black-holes do not exist . I agree with what he said . Why ? Because black-holes have always been a mathematical concept . And Steven proves my point .
On what grounds do you claim Black Holes are a mathematical concept? There's a great deal of evidence to show black holes exist... for example: https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/black-holes http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.id=64&cat=exotic
Not a fan . Just pointing out that science is not about any paradigm . Science is an ever changing thinking upon ... When we get stuck into thinking that a thinking becomes a paradigm of which all other thinking upon should be discarded , then we become stagnant in understanding of life and this Universe . And that is dangerous , to thought and our survival .
These prove nothing of black-hole existence . Two Plasma Jets coming from the galactic core , in opposite directions . Now how does any black-hole have the capability to do so ? It can't . Black-hole is by definition a , singularity . Which is one directional , inwards . Of which only light can escape , but here you have a plasma escaping this so called black-hole . In two opposite directions from the galactic core . I wait for an intelligent answer .
I think Einstein never accepted them...must look into that but I seem to recall that...but could have imagined it. River you must know that General Relativity is accepted and approved, and the model can be used to predict black holes and certain observations are offered in support, GWs , quasars which suggest a black hole and other stuff as well...those who support the model are confident. If it works for them its ok . The key is not to worry if you think they are wrong its their problem. And really we can never observe past the event horizon and do anymore than speculate, using the math folk better than us can manage, upon what is going on... But what is important is to extend respect to those who get paid for working in this area...to suggest a black hole does not exist, irrespective of what you may label truth or indeed your strongly held view to the opposite of theirs, for those professionals saying they are wrong can only be met with a call that you don't know enough to know...you won't be received well I expect. I know you seem to think that science is being held back but the system is set up such that only a genius will be able to come up with and get a better model accepted. Its good that way. Alex
Can you outline their conception, birthday and growth? Were they not given consideration in a slightly different form prior to GR. Alex
From a math site certainly not my work or effort... I will edit and give a link... But there it said....Einstein published his [general theory of relativity] in late 1915, and only a few months later, in early 1916, [Karl] Schwarzschild found the first solution of the Einstein equations. [By solution we mean some values for the variables describing the curvature of spacetime and the distribution of matter that satisfy the Einstein equations.] [This solution] describes the gravitational field of a spherically-symmetric body: a black hole. At that time it wasn't understood that that solution corresponded to a black hole. In fact even in the 30s the greatest minds of that time, [including] Einstein himself, despised the idea of a black hole because it contained a singularity, namely a place where curvature is so large that even general relativity breaks down. End Alex
Except it doesn't work that way - not as far as entrenched incumbent GR is concerned. Said genius came up with that better model clear back in 1958 (extended ~ 1973). Once again: http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.07809 A natural better fit with observational data than GR, and with NO free parameters e.g. 'cosmological constant'. No need for 'dark energy'. Sorry to disappoint your peeve with dark matter but that much is still needed. Anyway bandwagon effect is so strong there is almost zero chance that inherently superior theory will gain general acceptance for forseeable future. Just maybe not if accumulating EHT (Event Horizon Telescope) observational data can finely resolve the subtle differences. A very hard ask. That or enough accumulated 'BH' merger GW data from combined observatories. Problem with both is that Yilmaz gravity has been unfairly relegated to the 'fringe' and likely not even considered as worthy of supercomputer modelling unlike various other 'approved' competitors to GR. Crothers staple argument against 'BH's' otoh is equivalent to rejecting that circles exist because at the minutest scale a real circular object is not perfectly smooth. That and his confusion over the way Hilbert rearranged Schwarzschild's original formulation of the idealized metric named after him.
Just don't tell the kids there is no Santa. I sometimes suspect some things that are so bad about what may be going on that I dare not share it. Thanks for all that. Alex
Just what I wrote. OK to try and make it plainer still. His rejection of BH's for entirely the wromg reason revolves around a reductio ad absurdum argument - the idealized metric solution can only be exactly 'correct' in an otherwise empty universe. An absurd position that if applied elsewhere would also 'invalidate' various well established physical theories. The bit about Hilbert's reformulation is a bit difficult to appreciate unless you have a reasonable grasp of how coordinate transformations are done.
A nice treatment by Gerard 't Hooft, without much math to digest can be found under sub-heading "Black holes do not exist,' here: https://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/gravitating_misconceptions.html Mr C is Crothers. I don't agree with everything written by 't Hooft there but he well enough exposes Crother's basic errors of reasoning.
How so ? How does Hooft expose Steven's basic errors of reasoning ? Not just for me but for anybody , reading this thread .
You really are a fan of Electric Universe - right? And it seems so is Crothers. So knocking Crothers somehow is seen as knocking EU. Understood. Well, apart from 't Hooft's own error in claiming vacuum Ricci flatness can be consistent with gravity self-gravitating (it can't - just to that extent Crothers is right), he has exposed Crother's silly objections quite well imo. Let me throw this back on you to see if you even understand what is written there. Which parts of 't Hooft's critique do YOU evidently have an issue with? And if so why exactly?
