Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Wrong, order is an abstract concept.
Because of it's mathematical ordering imperative.
Black holes do not exist
- Thread starter Luchito
- Start date
The theory of the existence of black holes is based on the theory of Relativity.
Such beginning is complete non sense.
You just can't assert the existence of a physical body in base of a theory based on another theory.
For example, the theory of everything is another absurdity, because is the mixing of several theories from which some have not been proved as true. At the end the theory of everything is just babbling a lot and proving nothing.
The scrutiny made on the "theory mother" (Relativity) reveals that the theory of black holes is false.
Albert Einstein knew a lot about his theories of relativity but he was a complete ignorant about physics and physical reality.
For you to understand it, at the very beginning, when Einstein came with his theory, no one scientist but Eddington alone supported it.
The science historian John Waller in his book Einstein's Luck shows the fraud commited by Eddington to validate Einstein's prediction of the displacement of the image of a star caused by the gravity of the Sun compared to Newton's prediction of the same amount of displacement. The plaques obtained supported Newton but Eddington ended doing make ups to the plates in order to validate Einstein's prediction. The other scientists were in complete disagreement. Eddington was a buddy of the Royal Astronomer and both worked the validation of Relativity.
A comic dialogue happened when Eddington came up victorious with the fraudulent validation of Relativity. It happened that Ludwing Silberstein told him:
-Professor Eddington, you must be one of three persons in the world who understands general relativity.
Eddington said nothing but was like meditating about it.
-Don't be modest Eddington.
Eddington replied:
-On the contrary, I'm trying to think who the third person is.
Such is how much scientists knew about relativity: nothing.
For scientists in those years, the idea of time having flexible capabilities was simply the imagination of an infantile mind.
And I will star with this point to discard the existence of black holes.
In order to continue with my point, you must post here in this thread the required evidence you have to prove dilation or dilatation of time.
You want "evidence" from my part, and such is what you will have.
As I have not found at all the procedure performed by relativists to prove dilatation of time, you as my oponent, in this discussion must be the one presenting the evcidence, because my evidence is your lack of evidence. Allow me to expand.
Show here dilatation of time following the procedure according to the requirements of the scientific method.
-Step 1: Show time at its regular status. If time flows then show its flowing rate. Show what is the composition of time, because according to the theory of relativity, time can be affected by the fast motion of bodies, meaning time is a physical mean. Then,show what time is made of.'
-Step 2: Show the mechanism acting when a body traveling fast causes time to enlarge or dilate. Point by point, I want you to demonstrate such a dilatation of time giving the best explanation given.
-Step3: Show time after the body has slowed down and it returns to its original status or flow.
These three steps are the test of fire for you and for all scientists who support Relativity as a valid theory.
In case no demonstration and explanation of such dilatation of time is provided as asked in point 1,2 and 3, such lack of evidence/observation, analysis, and or review will automatically declare that time dilation/dilatation is just a thought and never happens in physical reality.
You want to talk science, then here you have a good starting point.
I will appreciate very much to stick in the discussion as asked by you, and have a mature debate when presenting our points of view.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
But you can on a axiom. Relativity is axiomatic. It is based on several fundamental abstract principles, such as equivalence, balance, symmetry.
You just can't assert the existence of a physical body in base of a theory based on another theory
Another who does not understand difference between theory in common use and theory in use in scientific matters
Take it away James
Then, lets go to principles.
Axiom: a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference.
In layman language, a conventional idea.
Science is based on evidence, while conventional ideas are used for hypothetical situations, not so to corroborate a fact or probe a theory as true.
No matter how well a theory is based on axioms, without a proper explanation of the phenomenon and without evidence such a theory is invalid.
No matter in what field theory is applied, theory is always synonimous of explanation.
A theory made on a crime will be an attempt to explain how it happened. A theory on the spread of a virus will be an attempt to explain how it happened. A theory in science, in principle is an attempt to explain a phenomenon as a consequence of a former phenomenon.
A theory of science is not prediction and verification of prediction. Prediction is just a corolary which might be required when is possible, but is not what a theory is about.
I guess you were using the wrong encyclopedia when you learned what a theory of science is about.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Thank you . I don't think you can get any clearer than "a statement accepted as true".
The proper explanation and evidentiary proofs have been provided so your objection is baseless..
Last edited:
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
NOT a theory of science a scientific theory
Guess if you are often transposing words you can shuffle them around to support what you wish
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
You rename it, then claim your renamed thing isn't valid. Circular logic.
An axiom is an axiom. They are perfectly valid tools.
That you don't understand them is not their fault. That's on you.
There is explanation, model and evidence for black holes. The theory does an excellent job of explaining the evidence we observe.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Well, one of the axioms is about light propagating in all inertial frames at the speed of c.
Lets see. I have a gun with 6 bullets and I'm traveling in a fast car at 200 miles per hour. I shoot up and the bullet comes out traveling at 1700 miles/hour. Then I shoot in direction of the front of the car and the bullet comes out traveling at 1700 miles/hour. I tried one more time and I shoot in direction of the back of the car and the bullet comes out traveling at 1700 miles/hour. I insisted with my test ans I shoot in direction of the side of the car and the bullet comes out traveling at 1700 miles/hour. Sheesss!!! I shoot tothe floor and again, the bulled comes out at 1700 miles/hour. No way! I know if I shoot the driver that the bullet will coe out traveling at 1700 miles/hour again.
After this experiment I will invent my law of physics, my new axiom, that using moder guns, no matter where your location is about ground, the bullet of a gun will come out at 1700 miles/hour.
You will say that the axiom say "propagating" and not so coming out from a body, like the sun, and here is the point.
In order for you to probe that light always propagates, no matter what, in space at 186,000 miles per second, you must send a light from a point outside of the solar system and measure its speed when arrives to earth.
Why this is a requirement? You might ask.
Simply because in short distances, like here to the moon and coming back to earth, any slowing of light speed won't be noticeable, and you will continue with the belief that if no oposition on its way light will always travel at 186,000 miles per second.
So, such an axiom is just a conventional idea that need to be probed one day, by sending a bean of light from a location outside the solar system to earth to measure its average speed.
By now, until a test made using long distyances is made, such axiom is in the limbo.
Then, light might start its propagation at c, however, the point to validate relativity is "for how long"?
If you believe light will travel at 186,000 miles per second "forever" if no oposition is on its way, then you are not talking about science but about magic.
NOT a theory of science a scientific theory
O.K. scientific theory = scientific explanation.
-Step 1: Show time at its regular status. If time flows then show its flowing rate. Show what is the composition of time, because according to the theory of relativity, time can be affected by the fast motion of bodies, meaning time is a physical mean. Then, show what time is made of.'
-Step 2: Explain the mechanism acting when a body traveling fast causes time to enlarge or dilate. Point by point, I want you to demonstrate such a dilatation of time giving the best explanation given.
-Step3: Show time after the body has slowed down and it returns to its original status or flow.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
And what do bullets have to do with light?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Depending on the nature of the chronology, time is an arbitrary (symbolic) measurement of duration of that chronology from start to end.
time travelling 10 miles @ 60 mph = 10 minutes, time travelling 1o miles @ 30 mph = 20 minutes and vice versa.
IOW, "time of travel" contracts or dilates relative to the speed of travel. The symbolic measurement of minutes remains the same in both cases. In all cases time is a relative measurement of duration of a specific chronology.
That is not a new law of physics that is the same law of physics we have had since Galileo. From the cars frame of reference the bullet always will move at 1700 mph.
No it is science. Why would you think light would change speed if there was no opposition?
Now some are getting it . The physical as the starting point . Good to see. To understanding this Universe .
Luchito:
You're back!
I hope you haven't come back expecting to simply make the same kinds of unsupported assertions you were making back in April. How have you gone with reseaching your answers to the questions I asked you back then? You've had a lot of time to find some answers.
Fundamentally, the reason that time dilation occurs is that there are no preferred frames of reference, or, more precisely, that all inertial frames are equivalent. That's the base of everything that follows in relativity.
The question you ought to be asking is: is the theory of relativity an accurate model of real-world observations/experiments? If you bothered to investigate, even a little bit, you'd find that it does a superb job. Without it, we could never have built atomic bombs or nuclear reactors or the GPS system or lasers, etc. etc.
You're back!
I hope you haven't come back expecting to simply make the same kinds of unsupported assertions you were making back in April. How have you gone with reseaching your answers to the questions I asked you back then? You've had a lot of time to find some answers.
Yes. There is a theory of black holes, and it is the theory of relativity. Quite separate from that, though, are our many observations of black holes and their effects. Which, I might add, are consistent with the theoretical predictions.
You can predict the existence of some kinds of objects or structures based on theory. Of course, in science you then need to confirm that the prediction is true by making some observations or doing appropriate experiments. Which has been done extensively for black holes.
What scrutiny? You haven't presented anything yet. Go back and look at my questions to you. Try to answer them.
Insults won't help you, I'm afraid. Try again. Einstein has scores on the board. You do not.
Let's imagine that you could somehow establish that this fraud you claim actually occurred. That would be one piece of evidence for relativity discredited. What about the next 100 years of accumulated evidence?
In fact, historically, relativity was quickly accepted by physicists who took the time to understand it.
There are many lines of evidence that support the existence of time dilation. Try googling "evidence for time dilation". We can discuss it if you have questions.
You're not showing that you have a very nuanced understanding of relativity, there. Relativity doesn't talk about time "flowing" or about the "composition of time". Relativity is about measurements made by observers who are in different frames of reference. For instance, observers in different frames can measure different time intervals between the same pair of events.
There's no "mechanism". It's just an effect of switching reference frames.
Fundamentally, the reason that time dilation occurs is that there are no preferred frames of reference, or, more precisely, that all inertial frames are equivalent. That's the base of everything that follows in relativity.
Time is not something that bodies have. It is something that observers measure. Time isn't a property of objects.
No. No. No. An absence of an explanation does not mean that a thing does not exist.
The question you ought to be asking is: is the theory of relativity an accurate model of real-world observations/experiments? If you bothered to investigate, even a little bit, you'd find that it does a superb job. Without it, we could never have built atomic bombs or nuclear reactors or the GPS system or lasers, etc. etc.
Great. I'm hoping you'll respond to some of the questions I asked you back in April. You've had a long time to think about them.
I'm starting with your first question from your message in April, if you have not noticed it yet.
Predictions are not evidence. Even religion makes predictions and such is no evidence of the existence of a god.
Theories are explanations and Relativity fails explaining the process of time dilatation. This is what you must do here, presenting the clear explanation of how time dilates by cause of speed of objects. The lack of this explanation automatically invalidates Relativity theory. You can't avoid this request of mine because this explanation is demanded by the scientific method.
You keep leaning your position on "predictions", and in your answers those predictions start to appear like "prophecies". The mathematical background "predicting" black holes existence is just abstract mathematics.
Are you familiar with Fermat's last theorem x^n = y^n = z^n?
Well, this theorem was to be tested for centuries, until the answer was "found". To prove the solution besides arithmetic and algebra also were included other more sophisticated methods to finally solve such equation.
However, that is solving an equation in "a piece of paper". In physical reality you can't solve it using grains of rice or granules of sand.
Same happens with your imaginary black hole, the whole idea is just pure imagination. Remember that Einstein never performed a single experiment in his life, and that his theories have inside pure thought experiments. Can't you realize yet that Einstein was just giving freedom to his infantile imagination which was not supposed to be taken seriously?
You still don't get it.
Look at just one of the claims with that imaginary black hole body.
It says "radiation evaporates", when the correct word is "released". Look in our physical reality here, on ground. Everywhere in our planet radiation is released, it has been found a high level of radiation released in brazil, as an example. But, is such a radiation "visible" to the human eye? Ha ha ha ha, of course no. It has to be an extreme amount of radiation causing the optical effect in our eyes. You can have nuclear material on your side and you won't see its "evaporated" radiation, but its effects will harm you.
The pictures or computer simulations showing such an "evaporated" radiation surrounding the black hole, which by the rules of physics, must be the minimum radiation released ever because comes from a dead star (compressed or not), then by optics can't be noticeable at all. And if special instruments are used to detect such a minimal "evaporated" radiation, such an attempt could be like trying to detect microscopic particles in space from billions miles of distance, and such is lunacies. Have in consideration that if himself Hawking called it "evaporation" is because a body with almost no internal motion can't release strong radiation. Simple basic physics debunks the famous picture of the black hole published some time ago.
I state that the whole topic of existing black holes is fraud. Even the Bible shows much lesser contradictions an errors, ha ha ha ha....
Look, lots of infantile imaginations are the common denominators in each claim made with such a black hole when you start to make scrutiny on each one of them.
Excuse me but lets check about his background. He was a substitute university teacher. Hope you understand that he was not a student but a substitute teacher.
The presentation of thesis is solely for students, not so for substitute teachers. A substitute teacher having his thesis, he must present it in a journal.
However, as a substitute teacher he was allowed to present his thesis and received the diploma of scientist?
Wait, wait, wait... something fishy here, the only diploma he might obtain if a degree of honour, like a troop doing an heroic task and received the captain honour medal. But such won't allow the troop to act and work as a captain, it is just a recognition.
Then, Einstein was never a real scientist because he didn't pass the courses as the rest of students, so any title on him is just honour degree. Giving him a diploma as if he studied in that university and presented his thesis to graduate, such is fraud, he wasn't a student, and there are proper channels that can't be jumped. An honour diploma as recognition of his work is the further he was to receive.
You see, there is the law of fraud. When fraud is found, then the party which committed it loses everything. No exceptions.
Besides, each one of Relativity claims certainly are false.
Ha ha ha ha... that was a good one.
Look, the Photoelectric of Einstein was presented every year to be considered for the Nobel Prize. But other theories were found more solid and accurate and photoelectric was denied each time. After the fraud in 1919, scientists run the voice of what Eddington made. And from unknown sources the propaganda favouring Relativity as accepted theory incited some ones to ask a Nobel prize for Relativity.
Then, it was the review of both, Photoelectric and Relativity for year 1922, for receiving the Nobel Prize.
About Photoelectric, the review showed that following the procedure presented troubles, but that at the end, even when was with confusions inside, the outcoming was as predicted. Today, if you go online and check for the "original" photoelectric paper, you will only obtain the edited copies, which show no troubles and contradictions. Years ago, in a forum like this, a participant claimed he had the chance to review the original photoelectric paper (in Israel, I think the Techno something institute) and he said "it was not a great thing"
About Relativity.
A representative of the Swiss Academy which gives the Nobel Prize of Physics, said that he was happy to announce that Relativity theory was not to receive the Nobel Prize because Relativity wasn't science but philosophy, and he added that in his opinion was "poor philosophy".
There you have it, no matter the results in 1919, Relativity theory to be found as poor philosophy by the givers of the Nobel Prize in physics. After this punch on Eddington's liver, he waited decades for people to forget about such words of the members of the Swiss Academy, and in order to "re-validate" Relativity theory is when black holes existence was invented. Take note that in both events the same Eddington is involved, in the eclipses in 1919 and in the papers of black holes.
continue....