You won't like at all the following, and I can lose my membership here because complaints of many members afterwards. If you want a sure example of science inventing facts, I put my house and all my money, black holes do not exist.Link and examples please
Black holes do not exist
- Thread starter Luchito
- Start date
Why ? Why do black-holes not exist ? Your thinking .
The mathematical background supporting the possible existence of such a body is nothing but pure abstract mathematics.
The whole images shown in the thousands and thousands of publications of all kind, are nothing but computer simulations, and this includes the fake photo released lately claiming to be an "evidence" of the existence of a body which is nothing but imagination alone.
A scrutiny made on the base foundation of the theoretical background supporting the existence of a black hole can easily show its falseness.
This is not only the case of a false theory of science, but also shows how sad are the desperate attempts of some members of the scientific community to compete with religion.
For centuries some scientists have tried hard to diminish religion by attacking it thru "empiric demonstrations", where the claims from religion were "discarded" by using scientific approaches.
Such a tactic didn't work, millions and millions of people didn't buy it and millions and millions of people continue with their religions.
Then, in order to compete and overcome religion, the theoretical department of the branch of science, opted to create hypothesis were "miracles" will happen, as a shrinking star becoming a magnet in space pulling whatever is around.
But it won't be a phenomenon perceived by observation but these scientists will become "prophets" similar to the biblical ones, and thru numbers written in pieces of paper they will make wonders to happen. Millions of ignorant people become followers of the new religion.
Well, yes. Mathematics is mathematics. But in the case of black holes, the mathematics allows us to explain actual physical observations.
Why do you think the recent black hole photograph is a fake?
Great! Please present your easy theoretical disproof of black holes.
What have black holes got to do with religion?
Probably, you need to be specific about which particular "empiric demonstrations" of science you disbelieve, and why.
Black holes aren't miraculous. They are just the inevitable result when you have a lot of mass in a small enough volume. Nothing can stop the gravitational collapse.
It sounds to me like you don't have the best grasp of how science works.
I didn't open this topic. My answer in a religion topic was moved here.
I don't mind about it, however, you better verify how far such shrinking of a body can transform it into a magnet to pull everything around. Rather than looking for black holes where those never existed, prove first such transformation is feasible.
Remember, I don't need to prove a negative, so you must show such transformation is possible.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Uh. That's not how black holes work.
If you don't know how they work, your argument about their non-existence kind of falls apart.
I call dibs on your house.
Janus58
Valued Senior Member
As DaveC426913 pointed out, that is not what anyone who actually grasps what black holes are says will happen.
The gravitational pull of a black hole is no greater than whatever formed it would be at the same distance. If the Sun, for instance, were to become a black hole, the Earth would just continue to orbit it just like it does now.
Black holes form because gravity gets stronger as you move closer to the center of the source and the greater the mass of the source.
With normal stars, planets etc, you can only get so close to its center before you bump into it surface. ( And if you dig down below the surface, it is only that mass of the body closer to the center than you are that contributes to the gravity you feel. Since this decreases much faster than the distance to the center does, the gravity you feel decreases the deeper you go.)
But if you were to compress the star so that it surface got closer and closer to it center, while keeping all its mass still within it then gravity at the surface would increase. (However, gravity at the original surface's distance from the center would not change at all. )
Stars maintain their sizes because they are "puffed up" by the energy produced in their cores. If they run out of fuel, they will collapse down, and if they were a massive enough star to begin with, this collapse will cause them to shrink so small that the gravity at their surface is so strong, that nothing can stop a further collapse. Eventually, the surface gravity becomes so strong that light itself can't escape, and a Black hole is formed. Again, assuming any planets survived the events leading up to the formation of the black hole (which usually involves the star blowing off a good part of its mass in a supernova), they would continue to orbit the new black hole just like they orbited the Star (Black holes that act like a vacuum cleaner, sucking up everything around them is a bad science fiction meme and has nothing to do with the real physics.
The "theoretical" aspects of a Black hole are all about how things behave when you get very close to one, where the gravity gets really strong and produces some interesting results.
Before you go around claiming that something doesn't exist, maybe you should learn what it actually is first.
You are correct. But mathematics alone won't predict if you are going to fart on the next three seconds or, if aunt Mary will remember a joke or, if a star will eruct a massive wave of cosmic rays or, if a volcano suddenly spit a drop of smoke.
The formation of black holes wes based on an invalidated theory, and such is the beginning and the end of this discussion... but I guess you will insist with your story, so lets see what you have to tell.
Of course is fake. Such is not a black hole, such claims are false, 100% false.
Theoretical disproof? No my dear opponent, facts are the ones demonstrating black holes do not exist.
Oh. I am answering your posting again, well... hell, I will continue anyway.
Lets say the radiometric results showing that no seven "days" are possible for the universe to appear like it is today.
Wow. And before such numerical calculation of yours, do you have any observable phenomenon which incited such a cheeky thought of yours? (When I say "yours" I'm talking of the whole people who believe in black holes)
Of course I do: science doesn't work based on numbers written in a piece of paper, this is a fact. No evidence means no science. (remember these words in case we continue discussing this topic).
Before taking the discussion investigating how black holes work, the primeval task is to look at the root of the idea of their existence.
So, what was the main evidence or theoretical source used to obtain the conclusion that black holes can exist?
You can go with references or the answer can be made using a few words.
Be aware that I will allow you to retract yourself as many times as you want. You can change your mind of what you said first and come later with new "updated or upgraded" information. I won't mind at all if you do so, but I will solely ask you to stay with one of those two thoughts from you.
Wait, do you know what? Listen, you can change your mind as many times you want and use all your different thoughts together.
I won't do that. I will maintain my position without change even if such hurts my points, but you feel free to change your points at your will.
So, again, what was the guilty evidence or the theoretical source which provoked such boldness to think that black holes exist?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Whoa, let's back up a bit further. Lets make sure we're even talking about the same thing.
Remember, you said this:
"...shrinking of a body can transform it into a magnet to pull everything around..."
What do you think a black hole is? For all we know, you're talking about a horseshoe magnet. So tell, us: what do you mean when you talking about a black hole?
Last edited:
According to the "rules" of the theory itself, there are requirements for a star to become a black hole, and I guess the sun may be disqualified because it is De Vito, and an Arnold (a big twin brother) is required. Of course there is the assumption of dwarf stars, but loony Hawk...excuse me, but Stephen Hawking said "it won't be so black".(A Breif Story of Time)
Please, lets take aside the "imagination" part of your statements. Like to admit that you can't even get close to a star before melting, or a body (like an asteroid or planet) reaching close to its surface without suffering consequences. If you are to explain your point, please do it the most you can based on reality.
It won't get bored, I promise you.
Sure, but what are the required known and observable conditions for such an "internal/external" pressure? Your point appears to be the ruler of the situation rather than the description of an observable event. Very interesting. Not convincing at all but very interesting.
Great, a star 100 times the size of the Sun, what will be its size after such a collapsing? I need to take notes of that, just give me a rough calculation, do not include decimals... it will be OK.
OK. so the shrinking star still producing light but this light can't escape because the strong gravity. Are you implying the gravity of the star went greater after shrinking or became stronger because the surface is smaller? Please, note tyat I'm asking to take note without doubt about of what are you are telling me. Of course, you are free to change your answer at any time later on.
Main point anyway is that the shrinking star still can produce light but this light can't go anywhere, this is according to what you just say. If you think different, then correct yourself, now wehen you still have time.
Oh! Wow! This is great, even when a partial supernova happens in the process of a black hole formation, planets surrounding that star won't feel sh... oh, excuse me, I mean, won't be affected. Those planets will continue their orbit around the shrinking star as they did before when the star was fatter and shiner.
I truly need to know who was your science teacher.
Of course, and before learning what a black hole is, best is to know the origin of such idea, because this is a case where the idea came before the observation, so lets see how close to reality was such idea.
A black hole is an incredible and fabulous imagination.
Now, lets continue.
What originated the idea of the existence of a black hole?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
This is a non-answer.
Before you challenge mainstream thinking on the science of something, first show you even know what you're talking about.
Because I think you don't know what a black hole is - or isn't. And it's not our job to teach you.
Last edited:
Janus58
Valued Senior Member
The first suggestion that an object could become so massive that even light could not escape was made by the English clergyman John Mitchell. His calculations were however based on Newton's ""corpuscle" model for light, which has since been shown to be incorrect.
The modern idea of a black hole arises from applying Einstein's General Relativity to very small and massive objects.
There is nothing "magical" about them. They are just the result of the laws governing the physics of the universe acting under extreme conditions.
Of course I know where the idea of black holes comes from, the whole story of the several participants who contributed to feed, grow and realize a mature concept of what a black hole is assumed to be.
I don't buy it.
I don't need you to teach me about it, what I'm doing is to make you see you are believing in a farce.
The contradictions in such a theory are enormous, gigantic, greater than the entire size of universe plus four more blocks further.
And yes, avoid debating with me about it, because I will have no mercy in making eat dirt to anyone who challenge me about the possible existence of black holes.
I didn't want to go further with this topic, my messages were just a response giving an example asked by a poster in another thread about science replacing religion. I found out my messages were transferred here, and for me it's find, apparently for you it's not.
But I like going with the traffic, if it is about talking then I talk, if it is about discussing then I discuss.
I discovered black holes do not exist after reviewing the theory two decades ago. When I say "black holes" includes the shrinking star in question plus the surroundings, the assumed space area disturbed by such a body. In my opinion, many scientists found a great entertainment like playing video games when they participate in building the idea of black holes. (Here, between you and I, I think they did it because the pay was good. Lol)
I know that, Mitchell with his 590 times our sun size star, and was called "black sphere".
To find out if black holes theory is valid, you must review Relativity, and if you review Relativity... watch out! Lol.
Janus58
Valued Senior Member
If you review Relativity you find that it is a highly successful theory which has an excellent record in terms of accurate predictions.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
And, apparently, that they turn into magnets?
I remain suspicious that you don't know what they are, so you can't possibly know what they aren't.
Demonstrate you know what you're talking about, and that you're not simply wasting our time.
Last edited:
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
paper money & wall st & bankers, banks, cash/money & crypto currency's & all forms of money (& writing & books & contracts?) ?
are the money lenders(specifically Jews?) also to blame ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
do you have any examples of one of these attacks you can provide a link to ?
Last edited:
Sure! It does predict excellent... in paper.
About explaining the phenomenon as a consequence from a former phenomenon, well, here is when Relativity fails miserably, it doesn't explain anything.
And theories of science are not about "prediction" but surely are about "explanation".
Lets say, criminal "science". A crime happens. What do you need to put the criminal in jail? A prediction or an explanation of the crime?