Black holes do not exist

[Write4U]

Were you under the illusion that your "speculative contribution" was worthy of further discussion? Funny.

This is not my thread, perhaps you can contribute by offering your perspective to the OP question and/or the possible existence of White holes.

Maybe white holes are really microtubules.

Right, if that is your contribution to this thread, that definitely does not merit a response.

Care to try again?

 

[Write4U]

Were you under the illusion that your "speculative contribution" was worthy of further discussion? Funny.

Apparently it is to some.

Is Time Travel Possible?

Though this is the most physically reasonable description of a time machine, there are still problems. No one knows if wormholes or negative energy exist, nor how to put them together in this way if they do exist. But it is (in theory) possible.

https://www.thoughtco.com/is-time-travel-possible-2699431

Maybe white holes are really microtubules.

Why are you being silly?

Question: How do single celled organisms respond to their environment without brains or neural networks?
Did you know that neurons are single cell organelles.

Did you know that all single celled organisms have a single common denominator? The cytoskeleton and cytoplasma.

What organizes the cytoskeleton and cytoplasm into cells? Microtubules!

In addition to all biological cellular structures, microtubules are the fundamental organizing and duplicating mechanism of neural cells themselves!

No eureka moments yet? No small flickering of "what if" yet? Do I need to stand on my head to wake those lazy microtubules in your brain?

p.s. Come to think of it, if they transport data, maybe white holes are "macrotubules", transferring data from one spacetime region to another. The cytoskeleton of the universe.....

 

[river]

Apparently it is to some.

Is Time Travel Possible?

https://www.thoughtco.com/is-time-travel-possible-2699431

Why are you being silly?

Question: How do single celled organisms respond to their environment without brains or neural networks?
Did you know that neurons are single cell organelles.

Did you know that all single celled organisms have a single common denominator? The cytoskeleton and cytoplasma.

What organizes the cytoskeleton and cytoplasm into cells? Microtubules!

In addition to all biological cellular structures, microtubules are the fundamental organizing and duplicating mechanism of neural cells themselves!

No eureka moments yet? No small flickering of "what if" yet? Do I need to stand on my head to wake those lazy microtubules in your brain?

p.s. Come to think of it, if they transport data, maybe white holes are "macrotubules", transferring data from one spacetime region to another. The cytoskeleton of the universe.....

To your p,s. To what evidence of the data transfer ?

 

[Write4U]

To your p,s. To what evidence of the data transfer ?

What evidence of anything to do with white holes? It is all speculation.

 

[river]

river said: ↑
To your p,s. To what evidence of the data transfer ?

What evidence of anything to do with white holes? It is all speculation.

Obviously . Nonsense speculation . Mathematical speculation only . Nothing physical would produce , white nor black holes . By the way neither can exist in first place .

 

[James R]

Moderator note: river has been warned for trolling.

At least some attempt should be made to back up controversial claims such as "black holes cannot exist". river regularly fails to make any such attempt. Posting controversial statements merely to get a reaction is classic trolling, and we have rules against that sort of thing.

Unfortunately for river, due to his accumulated warning points, he will be taking a long break from sciforums for this relatively-minor infraction. Perhaps he will be more careful on his return, as he is in real danger of getting himself permanently banned.

 

[river]

Moderator note: river has been warned for trolling.

At least some attempt should be made to back up controversial claims such as "black holes cannot exist". river regularly fails to make any such attempt. Posting controversial statements merely to get a reaction is classic trolling, and we have rules against that sort of thing.

Unfortunately for river, due to his accumulated warning points, he will be taking a long break from sciforums for this relatively-minor infraction. Perhaps he will be more careful on his return, as he is in real danger of getting himself permanently banned.

What I claim , black-holes do not exist , is based on the physical . Not mathematics .

Can I continue . In my defence ?

 

[James R]

river:

You just had ... what, a month? ... off for making a stupid claim that you have not at all attempted to support.

Do you really want to push your luck with a repeat of the same silly claim once again?

Okay. It's your funeral.

Post your best argument for black holes not existing, supported by references to respectable science. Go ahead.

Alternatively, if you'd rather not risk another lengthy ban, you can withdraw your (so far) baseless assertion and apologise to your readers for your total ignorance of the topic and your inappropriate assumption that your fantasies or wishful thinking might have a basis in fact somewhere, if only you could be bothered to go look.

 

[river]

river:

You just had ... what, a month? ... off for making a stupid claim that you have not at all attempted to support.

Do you really want to push your luck with a repeat of the same silly claim once again?

Okay. It's your funeral.

Post your best argument for black holes not existing, supported by references to respectable science. Go ahead.

Alternatively, if you'd rather not risk another lengthy ban, you can withdraw your (so far) baseless assertion and apologise to your readers for your total ignorance of the topic and your inappropriate assumption that your fantasies or wishful thinking might have a basis in fact somewhere, if only you could be bothered to go look.

Did you bother to look towards other thinking .

And who gets time on state of the art , telescopes ( Hubble , for example ) super computers , when you have alternative thinking , Zero . Tell me I'm wrong . Tell me that Alternative theories have significant time , to observe what they want to observe , for there own reasons or to prove a point . They don't . You can't prove me wrong .

river

 

[James R]

Did you bother to look towards other thinking .

What other thinking?

Does your thinking go at all beyond the mere thought "Maybe black holes don't exist"?

The problem with that is not in imagining that things might be one way or the other. Of course they could be one way or the other, in the absence of any actual data. The problem you face is that a ton of data and observations supports the claim that black holes exist, and goes against the idea that black holes do not exist.

And who gets time on state of the art , telescopes ( Hubble , for example ) super computers , when you have alternative thinking , Zero .

That's incorrect. Scientists who get time on state of the art telescopes are always testing new ideas and pushing the boundaries of knowledge. At any given time, there are always lots of competing scientific hypotheses that are being investigated by scientists, and every scientist appreciates that some (most, even) of the hypotheses being tested against the data from state-of-the-art telescopes and the like will turn out to be wrong.

The difference between your average backyard wonderer who says "Maybe black holes don't exist" and the scientist who gets time on the James Webb telescope is that the scientist who is given time will always have a well-specified research proposal that says something like: "I need to use the telescope to collect data of types A, B and C on astronomical objects X, Y and Z, with an aim of testing the hypothesis that objects X, Y and Z should show features P, Q and R, according to my hypothesis H". In contrast the barkyard idle speculator might not have a clue on how to construct a falsifiable hypothesis, or what data he would need to collect to test the hypothesis, or how he could use the telescope to collect an applicable data set.

Telescope time is a precious commodity, especially if you're using a 10 billion dollar telescope that has a projected lifetime of only 15-20 years. You won't get time to point it randomly around the sky in the hope that an idea might occur to you at some stage as you look at the pretty images.

You can't prove me wrong .

I don't have to prove your claims wrong. You have to prove them right.

Start by reading the scientific literature on black holes and the evidence that supports their existence. Hell, start by reading the popular science literature. Then come up with a coherent theory that explains why all of that evidence is wrong, and how you will explain it all away in the absence of any theory of black holes. Once you've done that, I'm sure you will be able to get your "alternative" theory published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Having proved Einstein (and a whole bunch of other physicists) wrong, maybe you'll collect a Nobel Prize for your revolutionary new thoughts on what used to be thought of as black holes.

Good luck!

 

[river]

↑

Did you bother to look towards other thinking .

What other thinking?

Does your thinking go at all beyond the mere thought "Maybe black holes don't exist"?

The problem with that is not in imagining that things might be one way or the other. Of course they could be one way or the other, in the absence of any actual data. The problem you face is that a ton of data and observations supports the claim that black holes exist, and goes against the idea that black holes do not exist.

Highlighted

I know this , I've known this for many years .( Black-hole existence is not a new subject with us James , it years old ). It doesn't change my thinking . The only way a black-hole makes sense is in the mathematical world of the Universe , in the physical world of the Universe a black-hole can never happen . So what's going on then . We are in a physical Universe .

 

[river]

All this Data has the mindset to think in terms of BB. Gravity based . I disagree .

To compress the Universe to an extremely small point , a sphere really , is not possible , nor is the black-hole possible . Because energy and matter are three dimensional . Not two . Both energy and matter would push back against any thing that saw their minimum space of existence is being reduced . You can't reduce the physical into nothing . Black-hole theory is about nothing in the end . Which makes no sense .

It would be interesting to see a three dimension energy flow of a galaxy taking energy from another .

 

[Write4U]

You can't reduce the physical into nothing . Black-hole theory is about nothing in the end . Which makes no sense .

Consider this.
If you could reduce physical stuff into nothing, would it follow that you could create physical stuff from nothing?

But does black hole theory predict "nothing at the end"?
AFAIK, black hole theory predicts a singularity at the end (near infinitely small with near infinite energy)

The Energy of a Trillion Atomic Bombs in Every Cubic Centimeter of Space!
Michael Talbot and David Bohm (in quotes) in Talbot's The Holographic Universe, Chapter 2: The Cosmos as Hologram, p.51

According to our current understanding of physics, every region of space is awash with different kinds of fields composed of waves of varying lengths. Each wave always has at least some energy. When physicists calculate the minimum amount of energy a wave can possess, they find that every cubic centimeter of empty space contains more energy than the total energy of all the matter in the known universe!

Space is not empty. It is full, a plenum as opposed to a vacuum, and is the ground for the existence of everything, including ourselves. The universe is not separate from this cosmic sea of energy, it is a ripple on its surface, a comparatively small "pattern of excitation" in the midst of an unimaginably vast ocean.

"This excitation pattern is relatively autonomous and gives rise to approximately recurrent, stable and separable projections into a three-dimensional explicate order of manifestation," states Bohm.[12] In other words, despite its apparent materiality and enormous size, the universe does not exist in and of itself, but is the stepchild of something far vaster and more ineffable. More than that, it is not even a major production of this vaster something, but is only a passing shadow, a mere hiccup in the greater scheme of things. [12] Bohm, Wholeness, p.192
deoxy » Quantum Resonance in the Synaptic Field

 

[river]

↑

You can't reduce the physical into nothing . Black-hole theory is about nothing in the end . Which makes no sense .

Consider this.
If you could reduce physical stuff into nothing, would it follow that you could create physical stuff from nothing?

Highlighted

But you can't . Think about it . If that where possible , physical stuff into nothing . Then non-existence is the result , not only for this Universe , and any other Universe that maybe out there . For infinity . Hence of course we could never exist nor our Universe . In the first place , We do though , exist . And so does our Universe .

Nothing is for infinity nothing .

 

[Write4U]

↑
But you can't . Think about it . If that where possible , physical stuff into nothing . Then non-exist is the result , not only for this Universe , and any other Universe that maybe out there . Hence of course we could never exist nor our Universe .

Yes, but you always default to physical stuff. What if there is stuff that has no physical properties unless it interacts with something else?

Is energy stuff ? Are vectors stuff? Are scalars stuff? Are spinors stuff? Are waves stuff? Is symmetry stuff? Is temperature stuff?

Figure 2–4.
The light cone centered on an event divides the rest of spacetime into the future, the past, and "elsewhere"

Is spacetime stuff ? Can spacetime be infinitely compressed?

 

[river]

↑

But you can't . Think about it . If that where possible , physical stuff into nothing . Then non-exist is the result , not only for this Universe , and any other Universe that maybe out there . Hence of course we could never exist nor our Universe .

Yes, but you always default to physical stuff. What if there is stuff that has no physical properties unless it interacts with something else?

Agreed

To your last statement , highlighted .

Then the stuff had physical properties that we are unaware of .

 

[river]

Is spacetime stuff ? Can spacetime be infinitely compressed?

Is spacetime stuff ? No .

What is space ? Room .

Time is not relevant .

Spacetime compressed , mathematically , but not physically .

 

[Write4U]

Is spacetime stuff ? No .

Yet it has physical properties.

What is space ? Room .

A physical property.

Time is not relevant

In a dynamical universe apparently it does .

Spacetime compressed , mathematically , but not physically .

Are you sure?

How then did the Universe begin as a singularity and has expanded (and possibly contracted) in a wavelike manner ever since.

 

[Write4U]

When experiments suggest that dynamical vibrations can originate patterns.

SONIC WATER * KYMAT

Then apply this to the entire Universe and we discover:

https://earthsky.org/space/is-our-universe-ringing-like-a-crystal-glass/

This is beginning to sound like Bohm's Pilot Wave model (Bohmian Mechanics).
And depending on the harmonics everything inside the universe must also be vibrating.
And that would agree with string theory.
And that would agree with spontaneous pattern formation.
And that would agree with "something from nothing"...... and it ain't magic.

 

[river]

↑

Is spacetime stuff ? No .

Yet it has physical properties

Because it is because of the existence the physical in the first place . Without the physical neither would exist . Space ( room) is based on the physical . Down to quantum level . Every particle has a minimum of room ( space ) needed to exist .