Black holes do not exist

[James R]

Please, study the conditions for radiation to happen. The compressed dead star won't show signals of life at all, and will be no more no less than a compressed corpse in the middle of space, with no signals to release anything but compassion from the rest of the universe for its miserable condition.

How much quantum mechanics have you studied? Where did you study quantum field theory and general relativity?

Are you aware of the mechanism behind Hawking radiation? I ask, because it sounds like you are unfamiliar with the theory.

Hawking is the one who knew no science at all. Hard to believe some people still are considering him a genius.

Like Einstein, Hawking has scores of the board. You do not, as far as I am aware. The scientific community of experts recognises Hawking's important contributions to science.

Where is your list of awards? Where is your list of peer-reviewed publications?

What are your criteria for judging who "knows science" and who does not? Do people have to agree with all your opinions in order to "know science", as far as you are concerned? Are all the experts wrong, and only you are right? Are you just smarter than everybody else? That must be nice for you. Are you in Mensa? Have they given you a Nobel prize yet? Or is the scientific community jealous of you and unwilling to recognise your superiority?

Definitively science needs a huge revision and Relativity theories must be discarded for good.

Tell me why. Provide at least one argument, supported by evidence. If you can. Go on, I double dare you!

The result of a dead star compressed as Hawking and others claim won't be suitable to release any radiation.

Explain what is wrong with Hawking's theory. Please make sure you reference the detail when you do that. Don't just repeat your opinions. Evidence, remember! You said how important it was to bring the evidence! You must have heaps.

Remember that evolution is an old theory invented centuries ago, when its beginning wasn't observation but philosophy alone.

Are you an evolution denier as well as a relativity denier? Perhaps a topic for another thread. Are you a creationist, perchance? They are always fun to play with.

We are in the XXI century, with new discoveries with new approaches. You still standing on in science of medieval eras.

Only the bits that have withstood rigorous testing, using the scientific method.

Your mistake is that you believe Relativity and black holes is science.

You have a screwy idea about what is an isn't science. At the very least, it would be senseless to say that science isn't what the majority of scientists say is science. Maybe you should have payed more attention to your teachers in your advanced physics classes.

I do know science, I myself have discovered a law, and the law I have discovered can be observed and this law has not a single exception.

Let's discuss your law in a separate thread. That could be fun.

May I ask if you have discovered anything in science? No need an answer from your part.

When you did your PhD in physics, you would have published some original research in peer-reviewed scientific journals. As you will be aware, getting a PhD requires that one makes an original contribution to human knowledge. If you like, you can assume that I have some scores on the board in that respect. How about you? What was your PhD thesis topic? I'm assuming that being as advanced as you are in physics, you must at least have some postgraduate qualifications - at least a Master's degree. Am I right?

To follow science is not to learn and repeat what you have learned. To follow science is to question what you have learned.

See above, regarding original research. I see we are in agreement. That's good!

Your position shows you are just very comfortable repeating what others say.

Sure, as long as they are right!

My position is different, I question those teachings, I review them, I use methods to prove them if they can pass the scientific method requirements. This is why I'm confident that black holes do not exist at all.

Great! Please post some evidence, or at least a theoretical argument, refuting Einstein or Hawking, or whatever. You've had months to do this, and yet, strangely, I've seen nothing from you, yet. Why is that? Are you ever planning on posting ny evidence? You said it was important, remember.

I'll give you a tip. To review a theory you are not to follow its doctrines but on the contrary, a theory is to be tested with methods other than the demanded by the theory. Like to say, you want to check if Carbon 14 age results of a tree branch are correct, then you use the method of counting the same tree internal rings. Thgis way you compare the results. If they agree, then the Carbon 14 results can be considered as valid.

Have you tested Relativity using other different methods?

Never mind me. I assume you have, because you have come up with good evidence that shows that relativity and Hawking radiation are bunk, right? Tell me what you did.

Remember that in science you can't take anything for granted and you must continually review the validity of tests, experiments, observations, theories and more. Your position seems to be satisfied just by accepting words of others with blind faith.

We're in agreement. I'm always willing to review new evidence, experiments etc. Have you got any?

Einstein's thought experiments were made in base of his own imaginations.

That's kind of the point of a thought experiment.

Tell me the conditions for light to travel forever if no opposition is on its way. Seeing you trying to prove it might cause laughs, but you can try if you want.

What a strange response! Here's what I wrote:

Don't pretend for a moment that you can show that even one of the claims of relativity is false. You know you can't.
​

You know what that was? It was a challenge to you. You keep saying that you can show that relativity is false. So do what you say you can do! Don't try to turn it around on me. I'm not here to do your homework for you.

You might didn't understand correctly. Was correct with lots of issues, like saying, yup, it works but because manipulation of numbers.

Einstein's theory of the photoelectric effect makes predictions that match the results we get when we do photoelectric experiments. What more do you want?

Nope, because today lots of scientists are discovering better theories which discard relativity.

Name one.

What you can read in recent papers is those scientists saying phrases like "Einstein himself said that this part can be modified, and that part might have a different approach..."

What's so surprising to you about scientists doing science?

They are writing their papers trying to flirt with the established scientific inquisition that obligates them to include Relativity and never go against it.

That's not how science is done! You should know that from your PhD studies.

Nothing obliges any scientists to "never go against" relativity - other than it's the best theory we currently have to account for our observations of a whole lot of different things. Nobody has to believe it is perfect or that it will be the best theory forever. In fact, as you know, most physicists would love to be the ones to improve on Einstein's theory.

You better get informed of the new explanations of what the universe is composed of, and similar new theories...

I've been waiting for you to inform me about your important new findings for months now. Are you going to tell me about them any time soon? Or are you just going to keep blathering pointlessly about your opinion that you're smarter than the some of the big names in the history of physics?

When are you going to actually start discussing the science, rather than trying to put other people down with your pathetic posturing?

 

[James R]

What would other theories think , given the same data ?

What other theories would you like to discuss, specifically? What have you got in mind?

 

[river]

What other theories would you like to discuss, specifically? What have you got in mind?

Any that are out there that see the data showing something else going on .

 

[James R]

Any that are out there that see the data showing something else going on .

What data?

 

[river]

river said: ↑
Any that are out there that see the data showing something else going on .

What data?

The data that proves a black hole exists .

 

[James R]

The data that proves a black hole exists .

Oh, okay. Well, as far as I'm aware, the short answer is "No". There aren't any indications that the black holes we have observed are acting in any way that is inconsistent with general relativity, quantum physics or any other widely-accepted physical theory.

Of course, it is recognised that we do not have a complete theory of black holes, yet. For starters, general relativity is a classical theory, so it is very unlikely to hold unmodified in the interior of a black hole. But black holes may not be the best objects to study when it comes to quantum gravity, anyway. For starters, we can't look inside them. Secondly, black holes appear to be very simple objects, from a certain point of view. They only have a few properties: mass, charge, spin. There aren't many handles we can grab onto to test "alternative theories" when it comes to black holes.

That is not to say that we aren't keen on observing black holes. Who knows? More observations may uncover new things that suggest ways in which our theories will need to be modified.

 

[river]

Oh, okay. Well, as far as I'm aware, the short answer is "No". There aren't any indications that the black holes we have observed are acting in any way that is inconsistent with general relativity, quantum physics or any other widely-accepted physical theory.

Of course, it is recognised that we do not have a complete theory of black holes, yet. For starters, general relativity is a classical theory, so it is very unlikely to hold unmodified in the interior of a black hole. But black holes may not be the best objects to study when it comes to quantum gravity, anyway. For starters, we can't look inside them. Secondly, black holes appear to be very simple objects, from a certain point of view. They only have a few properties: mass, charge, spin. There aren't many handles we can grab onto to test "alternative theories" when it comes to black holes.

That is not to say that we aren't keen on observing black holes. Who knows? More observations may uncover new things that suggest ways in which our theories will need to be modified.

To your last statement ; they do need to be modified .

 

[river]

Oh, okay. Well, as far as I'm aware, the short answer is "No". There aren't any indications that the black holes we have observed are acting in any way that is inconsistent with general relativity, quantum physics or any other widely-accepted physical theory.

Of course, it is recognised that we do not have a complete theory of black holes, yet. For starters, general relativity is a classical theory, so it is very unlikely to hold unmodified in the interior of a black hole. But black holes may not be the best objects to study when it comes to quantum gravity, anyway. For starters, we can't look inside them. Secondly, black holes appear to be very simple objects, from a certain point of view. They only have a few properties: mass, charge, spin. There aren't many handles we can grab onto to test "alternative theories" when it comes to black holes.

That is not to say that we aren't keen on observing black holes. Who knows? More observations may uncover new things that suggest ways in which our theories will need to be modified.

Not surprised .

But inconsistent with a non-gravity based theory of the Universe . Gravity theory came from nothing . Need I say more . BB .

In a physical based theory , there was never no something . Nothing is impossible .

 

[Michael 345]

Do you seriously want to tell me that you don't believe that time exists

Like to tell you time does not exist

 

[Write4U]

Can we say that if the temporal future does not yet exist, time itself does not yet exist in the future?
But time has emerged in the past as a measurable result of durations and measurably exists in the past?

 

[billvon]

Of course speed in density either speeds up or slows down speed . Time doesn't dilate at all .

?? I just gave you two concrete examples of time dilation.

F1 race car driver , the faster he goes the less distinct the forward ground becomes . Every thing starts to blend in with everything else .

That has absolutely nothing to do with time dilation.

Hence this thinking of time dilation . To the objects themselves nothing about them has changed . Hence time dilation is not a true dimension . It only affects the observer .

Time dilation affects everything in the moving reference frame - which is far more than "the observer."

 

[James R]

To your last statement ; they do need to be modified .

Well, you'd know. You're the expert.

But inconsistent with a non-gravity based theory of the Universe .

What are you blathering about?

Gravity theory came from nothing .

No.

Need I say more .

I really wish you wouldn't, but you probably will. What is it that gets you excited about making up rubbish pseudoscience?

In a physical based theory , there was never no something . Nothing is impossible .

*yawn*

 

[Luchito]

It has been built using physical materials and demonstrated in many institutions of higher learning.

Good, and I think that moving clock run that fast that was the cause of the ship disappearance shown in the movie Philadelphia Project... (please keep going, you are doing a wonderful job)

Do the physical experiment yourself . It's easy.

Just make sure that the horizontal speed is the same as the vertical speed.

Ever been skeet shooting? That's the same principle.

Thanks, I will follow your advice.

Just in case, can I have my lunch before trying it?

 

[Luchito]

Sure. They are at this link, in his own words: https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol11/vol2-doc/324

I asked for layman language explanation, and your link is about his theorical explanation where he uses his abstract mathematics and formulas.

From your link:

Physical meaning of the obtained equations concerning moving rigid bodies and moving clocks.


We consider a rigid sphere1) of the radius R, which rests relative to the moving system k, and whose center is in the coordinate origin of k. The equation of the surface area of this ball moving relative to system K at speed v is... (formulas)...

The equation of this surface is expressed in x, y, z to... (more formulas)

Relativity is observed science.

Scientists have put very accurate clocks on airplanes and flown them at high speeds. When the plane is flying west, away from the "stationary" clock, it gained time, since in fact it was moving more slowly than the ground based clock (due to the rotation of the Earth.) https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2010.487

L. Essen, the inventor of the atomic clock used in the experiments mentioned in your link, he laughed of relativists and their experiments. Mr. Essen knew better about his atomic clock than anyone else. And he added that Einstein with his thought experiments fooled himself and fooled a whole generation of scientists.

The cause of the difference in data from those clocks used in the experiments is not time dilatation. Time doesn't exist.

To prove that time dilatation is not the cause you must use other models where you can physically prove those clocks will malfunction at a regular rate.

I will mention my older son again. He was in special education. He won a first place once, and for his next year in middle school, the experiment was to check how much a clock will give slow or fast time data when exposed to: speed, heat and freezing temperatures.

Be aware that the experiments were on clocks. The use of 5 watches, digital, with new batteries was the main source of study. For heat one watch was installed in the heat vent pipe, for speed the watch was attached in the blade of a huge and very fast fan, and light weight pieces of wood in the other blades to maintain the balance. Another watch was put inside the freezer compartment of our refrigerator, and one watch hanging on the wall at regular temperature, plus another one placed outside.

After three weeks, when comparing the time data of the watches, the one placed inside the refrigerator showed to have its data 5 seconds ahead compared with the one located at the living room at 70 degrees temperature. The other watches didn't give much difference up to after 10 weeks of testing.Because the testing took longer than expecting waiting for results, his project wasn't presented at the school science fair in that year.

The 5 seconds of fasted time data was regular, this is to say, each day increase 5 more seconds of difference. From my part, I was expected a delay rather than going ahead. but such were the results.

The atomic clocks functioning is affected by an environment other than the one in which they were calibrated. Then, atomic clocks will malfunction at a regular rate when those are sent to outer space. This is the simple explanation of why the difference of time data between clocks in space compared with clocks on earth.

Your "precise" time data as "predicted" by Relativity is just the same old same old manipulation of numbers.

The malfunction of atomic clocks is way more valid because can be proved using other clocks exposed to a different environment, while your time dilatation dies when is confronted to experiments on clocks.

Science rules, Relativity fails.

Scientists have put very accurate clocks on GPS satellites, and have had to "skew" their time (i.e. correct it) for two reasons. One, they are moving quickly, and time dilation means that their clocks will run more slowly, by 7 us/day. Two, they are farther from Earth's gravity well, and thus our clocks run more slowly relative to a GPS clock - that speeds them up by 46 us/day. Combined, that should mean that the clocks on GPS satellites run 38 us/day too fast. That's in theory.

So they launched them and - what do you know? The clocks on board ran 38 us/day too fast. In science we'd call that experimental confirmation. Then they corrected the clocks by 38 us/day - and GPS became much more accurate. Without that correction GPS would be off by about 7 miles a day.

So every time you use the GPS on your phone, you are proving time dilation once again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System#

I will prove your links as dead wrong using the example of Paul and Peter. Both are twin brothers, born "at the same time" (a weird Cesarean procedure from which we better don't talk about because was so ugly, bloody, phew!

Peter leans on the beach on a summer say, drinking his Corona and watching beautiful girls in tanga. Paul is inside a spaceship orbiting earth. According to the fantasies of Relativity, because Paul in inside the spaceship, after a year Paul will be 1 second younger than Peter, because he is traveling at 5 miles per second around earth while Peter is just "at rest" on the beach.

But it happens that Luchito has traveled long ago to Jupiter, and Luchito is orbiting in his spaceship around the big planet. And what Luchito sees, is that Peter resting at the beach, in conjunction with Paul traveling in a spaceship, are both traveling together at 27 miles per second around the sun.

So, if Peter and Paul are traveling at the same speed around the sun, and Peter was never "at rest" but traveling at 27 miles per second, where is your "time dilatation"?

And I will tell you this, your theory is faulty because accepts solely "two frames of reference", and by adding a third frame of reference (Luchito from Jupiter's orbit) your theory is proven false as a thirteen dollars bill.

And if I say it, it's because is true.

Luchito!... Luchito!... Luchito!... Luchito!... Luchito!... Luchito!... Luchito!...


Ipso Facto, black holes do not exist.

 

[exchemist]

I asked for layman language explanation, and your link is about his theorical explanation where he uses his abstract mathematics and formulas.

From your link:

Physical meaning of the obtained equations concerning moving rigid bodies and moving clocks.


We consider a rigid sphere1) of the radius R, which rests relative to the moving system k, and whose center is in the coordinate origin of k. The equation of the surface area of this ball moving relative to system K at speed v is... (formulas)...

The equation of this surface is expressed in x, y, z to... (more formulas)




L. Essen, the inventor of the atomic clock used in the experiments mentioned in your link, he laughed of relativists and their experiments. Mr. Essen knew better about his atomic clock than anyone else. And he added that Einstein with his thought experiments fooled himself and fooled a whole generation of scientists.

The cause of the difference in data from those clocks used in the experiments is not time dilatation. Time doesn't exist.

To prove that time dilatation is not the cause you must use other models where you can physically prove those clocks will malfunction at a regular rate.

I will mention my older son again. He was in special education. He won a first place once, and for his next year in middle school, the experiment was to check how much a clock will give slow or fast time data when exposed to: speed, heat and freezing temperatures.

Be aware that the experiments were on clocks. The use of 5 watches, digital, with new batteries was the main source of study. For heat one watch was installed in the heat vent pipe, for speed the watch was attached in the blade of a huge and very fast fan, and light weight pieces of wood in the other blades to maintain the balance. Another watch was put inside the freezer compartment of our refrigerator, and one watch hanging on the wall at regular temperature, plus another one placed outside.

After three weeks, when comparing the time data of the watches, the one placed inside the refrigerator showed to have its data 5 seconds ahead compared with the one located at the living room at 70 degrees temperature. The other watches didn't give much difference up to after 10 weeks of testing.Because the testing took longer than expecting waiting for results, his project wasn't presented at the school science fair in that year.

The 5 seconds of fasted time data was regular, this is to say, each day increase 5 more seconds of difference. From my part, I was expected a delay rather than going ahead. but such were the results.

The atomic clocks functioning is affected by an environment other than the one in which they were calibrated. Then, atomic clocks will malfunction at a regular rate when those are sent to outer space. This is the simple explanation of why the difference of time data between clocks in space compared with clocks on earth.

Your "precise" time data as "predicted" by Relativity is just the same old same old manipulation of numbers.

The malfunction of atomic clocks is way more valid because can be proved using other clocks exposed to a different environment, while your time dilatation dies when is confronted to experiments on clocks.

Science rules, Relativity fails.




I will prove your links as dead wrong using the example of Paul and Peter. Both are twin brothers, born "at the same time" (a weird Cesarean procedure from which we better don't talk about because was so ugly, bloody, phew!

Peter leans on the beach on a summer say, drinking his Corona and watching beautiful girls in tanga. Paul is inside a spaceship orbiting earth. According to the fantasies of Relativity, because Paul in inside the spaceship, after a year Paul will be 1 second younger than Peter, because he is traveling at 5 miles per second around earth while Peter is just "at rest" on the beach.

But it happens that Luchito has traveled long ago to Jupiter, and Luchito is orbiting in his spaceship around the big planet. And what Luchito sees, is that Peter resting at the beach, in conjunction with Paul traveling in a spaceship, are both traveling together at 27 miles per second around the sun.

So, if Peter and Paul are traveling at the same speed around the sun, and Peter was never "at rest" but traveling at 27 miles per second, where is your "time dilatation"?

And I will tell you this, your theory is faulty because accepts solely "two frames of reference", and by adding a third frame of reference (Luchito from Jupiter's orbit) your theory is proven false as a thirteen dollars bill.

And if I say it, it's because is true.

Luchito!... Luchito!... Luchito!... Luchito!... Luchito!... Luchito!... Luchito!...


Ipso Facto, black holes do not exist.

Suggest checking the meaning of ipso facto.

 

[Write4U]

Good, and I think that moving clock run that fast that was the cause of the ship disappearance shown in the movie Philadelphia Project... (please keep going, you are doing a wonderful job)

This may illustrate :

and this:

 

[billvon]

I asked for layman language explanation, and your link is about his theorical explanation where he uses his abstract mathematics and formulas.

You asked for Einstein's own words. He is a scientist. He will therefore write in that language.

The excerpt below is nothing a layman with a primary school education could not understand. If you cannot understand it, you will not understand what he writes. If you'd like a summary written by a populist science writer, I can find that for you.

The cause of the difference in data from those clocks used in the experiments is not time dilatation. Time doesn't exist.

There is far more proof that time exists than proof that you exist.

To prove that time dilatation is not the cause you must use other models where you can physically prove those clocks will malfunction at a regular rate.

They are not malfunctioning. That is the point. They are 100% accurate. They are measuring a different time because time passes in different rates when the frames are moving at different rates.

The 5 seconds of fasted time data was regular, this is to say, each day increase 5 more seconds of difference. From my part, I was expected a delay rather than going ahead. but such were the results.

Right. Those were faulty clocks. They were overly influenced by temperature.

The atomic clocks functioning is affected by an environment other than the one in which they were calibrated. Then, atomic clocks will malfunction at a regular rate when those are sent to outer space. This is the simple explanation of why the difference of time data between clocks in space compared with clocks on earth.

Every complex phenomena has an explanation that is simple, elegant - and wrong.

But it happens that Luchito has traveled long ago to Jupiter, and Luchito is orbiting in his spaceship around the big planet. And what Luchito sees, is that Peter resting at the beach, in conjunction with Paul traveling in a spaceship, are both traveling together at 27 miles per second around the sun.

Then Luchito is both dead wrong - and is taking into account the wrong variables.

The overriding effect in that case will be how deep you are in a gravity well - and Jupiter is a large gravity well. In addition, relative to you, Peter and Paul are not only going at different speeds relative to each other, they are going at different speeds relative to you. In other words, in your example, there are three frames of reference, all moving relative to each other.

When Earth is approaching Jupiter such that their speeds add, then they are approaching you at 43 km/s. When the Earth is receding from Jupiter such that they are both going opposite directions, then they are receding at 43 km/s. In between those two times, there are periods of time where their relative distance change is zero. And all the while, their observed lateral velocity will change over a similar range.

However, it is extremely likely that they will ALWAYS see their clocks run at a faster speed than yours - since you are deep in Jupiter's gravity well, and time slows in gravity wells.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation

So, if Peter and Paul are traveling at the same speed around the sun, and Peter was never "at rest" but traveling at 27 miles per second, where is your "time dilatation"?

It will be quite evident when you return to Earth. Peter and Paul's clocks will be similar, but be off by a few milliseconds. Yours will differ from both of theirs by several seconds if you were in a low orbit over Jupiter.

And I will tell you this, your theory is faulty because accepts solely "two frames of reference"

Nope. You asked about two frames of reference. Then you asked about three. In reality there are an infinite number of frames of reference.

 

[Michael 345]

There is far more proof that time exists than proof that you exist

Have you got a lump of TIME I could look at please?

Or a photo?

And how many characteristics and / or features does it have?

And finally just to satisfy my curiosity from whence did you obtain this lump of TIME?

 

[billvon]

Have you got a lump of TIME I could look at please?

Nope. Do you have a lump of X coordinate I could look at? How about a lump of gravity, or a lump of strong force?

 

[origin]

Have you got a lump of TIME I could look at please?

Nope, do you have a lump of distance?

Oops, cross post with billvon.