Black holes do not exist

[river]

that is a difference between mental ability's
Americans hate that idea because they have a civil cultural religious war against science & intellectualism on going which is fueled by greed & user pays money power

it is the alt-right conservatives who pushed the "every child should be equal" idea to balance their wanted life style choice for religion to have a legitimized place in secular education systems
the alt-right fascists then blamed that on liberal left socialists & called it socialism as propoganda

thought experiment for you to answer your question
explain the difference in a person touching something with their hand to feel something is 3D
then explain someone observing something with their eyes to explain how they perceive something is 3D
then explain the difference between perception & fact

Close your eyes for a day .

 

[Dicart]

humans are not 3D observers
humans are 3D interactive objects
but it is impossible for a human to observe depth of field of an object by seeing it & seeing through it.
so in practicality the human reference frame is objectively 2D

I agree 100%
Concerning the visual perception it is simple to understand.
Light coming from the 3D space project onto the 2D retina.
So primary the visual sens receive 2D information.

Using these informations, the visual aera in the brain translate these stimuli to reconstruct a 3D "reality".

This is also trivialy true with the sens of touch.

 

[Luchito]

long form pure logic of scientific proof

does an exploding atomic bomb provide scientific proof that atomic physics of the atom & its construction & mechanism, prove it exists ?

Yes when will you start?


Well that's a turn up for the books. Black holes are like (equivalent to) god

Nobody knows what god is because he/it does not exist

god = black hole. That should be worth a years worth of Scientific American articles

Then, your black holes are just another religion.

 

[Luchito]

Without science, whatever you say is only common sens.
So, how will you now prove what you just said ? ("Without evidence, whatever you say is not science")


Black holes exist, but you dont understand what the term "exist" stands for when used in the scientific domain.
In some theory time exist, in other theory time do not exist.
You never asked yourself the question why the scientist never complain about this obvious contradiction ?
Are they just too stupid that they not even see this ?

Uhh?

I do.

I have not complained but I have laughed of how several scientists have been fooled by such theory of relativity.

If you call them "stupid" then surely such is what they are, 100% stupid in believing such ideas of dilatation of time, constant speed of light even when is expelled by the source body, and more. Pure nonsense.

Look, at the beginning when that theory was released to the scientific community, no scientist bought the ideas of dilatation of time. They weren't stupid to reject such childish imaginations. Even some scientists proved the formulas of Relativity of ridiculous when the same formula used for Mercury was used on Venus, it gave the result of Venus traveling the opposite way of its orbit, lol. Same formula applied to Mrs and Earth gave out of tolerance results.

Do you think that theory was accepted blinded by scientists? Ha! On the contrary, it was considered as pure imagination.

 

[Luchito]

A Black hole is a giant donut !

It looks like a clown with spherical nose smiling to you.

The guys who created that Photoshop are laughing of us

 

[Michael 345]

Then, your black holes are just another religion.

religion

noun

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

ideas about the relationship between science and religion

a particular system of faith and worship.

Definitions from Oxford Languages

Ya sounds like a black hole

Point me to the nearest church

 

[Luchito]

I agree 100%
Concerning the visual perception it is simple to understand.
Light coming from the 3D space project onto the 2D retina.
So primary the visual sens receive 2D information.

Using these informations, the visual aera in the brain translate these stimuli to reconstruct a 3D "reality".

This is also trivialy true with the sens of touch.

Very good thinking.

The brain will translate the 2D image into 3D image not by chance or imagination but by experience and deduction from former perception.

A visit to a tribe in Africa, who lived all the time in an limited area where they developed their own culture and language -many of these tribes existed in the last past centuries- the members of this tribe weren't familiar with long distances, specially looking down from a mountain. When some of the members of this tribe were taken to another location, on their way they passed thru a mountain, and they became excited when they saw very little people and animals on one side of their path.

What they were looking at, were people and animals down the mountain, but for them, as they didn't experience before the observation of things at long distances, they interpreted their view as things of small size right besides them.

 

[Dicart]

I have not complained but I have laughed of how several scientists have been fooled by such theory of relativity.

Perphaps it is because you dident inderstood the theory ?

If you call them "stupid" then surely such is what they are, 100% stupid in believing such ideas of dilatation of time, constant speed of light even when is expelled by the source body, and more. Pure nonsense.

Nobody who undertand relativity (both SR and GR) believe in dilatation of time.
We talk about time as if there is dilatation or compression of time.
It is like when specialists from the evolutionary domain say that a shark has evolved to better see in the dark.
They dont mean it really, the shark had not intention to evolve and there is no goal !
Same here, even specialists talk about dilatation of time, but they dont mean it really.
This help to speak quickly about the phenomenon but can trick non specialists.

So, no, and that is what is amusing here, SR say exactly the contrary !
Time is time, and time passes the same all around the universe.
Passing of time is one of the universal phenomenon.

Same with constant speed of light.
SR do not say that speed of light is constant.
This would be difficult to maintain, because as you can even yourself observe, light can travel with lower speed as the speed of light in vacuum.
In glass or water, light has a lower speed (this is what cause diffraction).

Furthermore, SR do not speak explicitly talk about light and do not state about the absolute maximum speed of light (so in vacuum).
SR say (this is the hypothesis part of the theory, it is not a claim...) that the interaction (so to observe or to interact, it is the same, it is the reality) do not happen instantly when there is distance .
So, yes, the hypothesis is that there should be some speed limited phenomenon, and yes, light is a good candidate to carry the interaction.

Do you think that theory was accepted blinded by scientists? Ha! On the contrary, it was considered as pure imagination.

There are too much valide experiments and practical use of SR and GR to dismiss these theories.

Today, if someone want to invent a new physic, he must take in account SR and GR and be able to explain the points that explain the differences and similitude with the new theory.
This is what Relativity do with Newton's Theory (Newton's theory is included in relativity as an approximation of the Relativity).

 

[Michael 345]

In glass or water, light has a lower speed (this is what cause diffraction).

Errrr no

diffraction

noun

the process by which a beam of light or other system of waves is spread out as a result of passing through a narrow aperture or across an edge, typically accompanied by interference between the wave forms produced.

Definitions from Oxford Languages

Diffraction, the spreading of waves around obstacles. ... Diffraction takes place with sound; with electromagnetic radiation, such as light, X-rays, and gamma rays; and with very small moving particles such as atoms, neutrons, and electrons, which show wavelike properties.

 

[river]

Dicart said: ↑
In glass or water, light has a lower speed (this is what cause diffraction).

Errrr no

diffraction

noun

the process by which a beam of light or other system of waves is spread out as a result of passing through a narrow aperture or across an edge, typically accompanied by interference between the wave forms produced.

Definitions from Oxford Languages

Diffraction, the spreading of waves around obstacles. ... Diffraction takes place with sound; with electromagnetic radiation, such as light, X-rays, and gamma rays; and with very small moving particles such as atoms, neutrons, and electrons, which show wavelike properties.

View attachment 3977

Yeah your right Dicart . Because of density of both glass and water . Light breaks down into the spectrum of colour .

 

[exchemist]

Perphaps it is because you dident inderstood the theory ?



Nobody who undertand relativity (both SR and GR) believe in dilatation of time.
We talk about time as if there is dilatation or compression of time.
It is like when specialists from the evolutionary domain say that a shark has evolved to better see in the dark.
They dont mean it really, the shark had not intention to evolve and there is no goal !
Same here, even specialists talk about dilatation of time, but they dont mean it really.
This help to speak quickly about the phenomenon but can trick non specialists.

So, no, and that is what is amusing here, SR say exactly the contrary !
Time is time, and time passes the same all around the universe.
Passing of time is one of the universal phenomenon.

Same with constant speed of light.
SR do not say that speed of light is constant.
This would be difficult to maintain, because as you can even yourself observe, light can travel with lower speed as the speed of light in vacuum.
In glass or water, light has a lower speed (this is what cause diffraction).

Furthermore, SR do not speak explicitly talk about light and do not state about the absolute maximum speed of light (so in vacuum).
SR say (this is the hypothesis part of the theory, it is not a claim...) that the interaction (so to observe or to interact, it is the same, it is the reality) do not happen instantly when there is distance .
So, yes, the hypothesis is that there should be some speed limited phenomenon, and yes, light is a good candidate to carry the interaction.


There are too much valide experiments and practical use of SR and GR to dismiss these theories.

Today, if someone want to invent a new physic, he must take in account SR and GR and be able to explain the points that explain the differences and similitude with the new theory.
This is what Relativity do with Newton's Theory (Newton's theory is included in relativity as an approximation of the Relativity).

Some confusion here. It is refraction, not diffraction, that is caused by the change in phase velocity of light in an optically denser medium.

In optically denser media, there are not one but three relevant speeds of electromagnetic radiation: The phase velocity, the group velocity and the front velocity. Normally it is the last of these that determines the speed at which information can be transmitted. It is the speed at which information is transmitted that is relevant for SR. This, I understand, remains at c whatever the medium.

Here is an animation of the relationship between them:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#/media/File:Frontgroupphase.gif

 

[river]

Some confusion here. It is refraction, not diffraction, that is caused by the change in phase velocity of light in an optically denser medium.

Thanks for that

In optically denser media, there are not one but three relevant speeds of electromagnetic radiation: The phase velocity, the group velocity and the front velocity. Normally it is the last of these that determines the speed at which information can be transmitted. It is the speed at which information is transmitted that is relevant for SR. This, I understand, remains at c whatever the medium.

What is " front velocity " exchemist ? I am quite sure that none of us have heard of this before .

Here is an animation of the relationship between them:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#/media/File:Frontgroupphase.gif[/QUOTE]

 

[river]

Thanks for that



What is " front velocity " exchemist ? I am quite sure that none of us have heard of this before .

Here is an animation of the relationship between them:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#/media/File:Frontgroupphase.gif

Carried by what wave ?

 

[RainbowSingularity]

I agree 100%
Concerning the visual perception it is simple to understand.
Light coming from the 3D space project onto the 2D retina.
So primary the visual sens receive 2D information.

Using these informations, the visual aera in the brain translate these stimuli to reconstruct a 3D "reality".

This is also trivialy true with the sens of touch.

Perfect, precisely.
so the human mind defines 3D as a form of interpretive logic, reasoning & language (all 3 combined).

Thus all forms of 3D are subjective language definition and there for the term scientific fact attains a different set of real values from an experiential perspective.

reality & experience are 2 completely separate things
although as scientists suggest a black hole being at the center of our galaxy, we could argue that we have real science fact showing us that gravity is an effect of the black hole so we have real proof black holes exist because we feel gravity(for scientific argument).

personally i do not doubt black holes exist
i "believe" the worlds leading scientists
i have never obtained any experiential evidence to scientifically define an individual unique experience that can be named "black hole proof"

we could argue that Gravity is a collective field from the black hole at the centre of every galaxy and so there for all black holes are self proving etc etc.
NOTE i dont know for my own scientific validity if there is a black hole at the centre of EVERY galaxy, but that is a general speculative rule i have heard suggested.

 

[river]

Dicart said: ↑
I agree 100%
Concerning the visual perception it is simple to understand.
Light coming from the 3D space project onto the 2D retina.
So primary the visual sens receive 2D information.

Using these informations, the visual aera in the brain translate these stimuli to reconstruct a 3D "reality".

This is also trivialy true with the sens of touch.

Perfect, precisely.
so the human mind defines 3D as a form of interpretive logic, reasoning & language (all 3 combined).

Thus all forms of 3D are subjective language definition and there for the term scientific fact attains a different set of real values from an experiential perspective.

reality & experience are 2 completely separate things
although as scientists suggest a black hole being at the center of our galaxy, we could argue that we have real science fact showing us that gravity is an effect of the black hole so we have real proof black holes exist because we feel gravity(for scientific argument).

personally i do not doubt black holes exist
i "believe" the worlds leading scientists
i have never obtained any experiential evidence to scientifically define an individual unique experience that can be named "black hole proof"

we could argue that Gravity is a collective field from the black hole at the centre of every galaxy and so there for all black holes are self proving etc etc.
NOTE i dont know for my own scientific validity if there is a black hole at the centre of EVERY galaxy, but that is a general speculative rule i have heard suggested.

Highlighted

Wrong the Retina is a three dimensional object . Hence depth of our vision .

2D object can never exist . It is missing a key dimension . Hence can not manifest .

Second highlight

No , the mind interprets the image in the 3D because the brain its self is made of three dimensional molecules . 2D can not become 3D .

 

[Dicart]

Some confusion here. It is refraction, not diffraction, that is caused by the change in phase velocity of light in an optically denser medium.

Yes your right, refraction is the phenomenon i was talking about (i used the wrong word).

In optically denser media, there are not one but three relevant speeds of electromagnetic radiation: The phase velocity, the group velocity and the front velocity. Normally it is the last of these that determines the speed at which information can be transmitted. It is the speed at which information is transmitted that is relevant for SR.
This, I understand, remains at c whatever the medium.

I am not sure of that.

Denser media, such as water,[60] glass,[61] and diamond,[62] have refractive indexes of around 1.3, 1.5 and 2.4, respectively, for visible light. In exotic materials like Bose–Einstein condensates near absolute zero, the effective speed of light may be only a few metres per second.
However, this represents absorption and re-radiation delay between atoms, as do all slower-than-c speeds in material substances.

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

But this is not very important, as talking about "a denser media" only says that the photons are slowed by absorbsion and re-radiation delay when interacting with atoms (it is not what i remembered, i was thinking the photons were going around the atoms so loosing time by traveling longer distance, but it is what is writen in wikipedia), and we know that there is almost only vacuum between the atoms...
So the slowing down of light in denser media is some sort of artefact, not a fundamental behaviour of light (thats how i interpret this).

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Wrong the Retina is a three dimensional object . Hence depth of our vision .

2D object can never exist . It is missing a key dimension . Hence can not manifest .

Second highlight

No , the mind interprets the image in the 3D because the brain its self is made of three dimensional molecules . 2D can not become 3D .

you need to do a bit more study

are you talking religion or science ?
some people confuse the 2 when they start to define scientific reason to form scientific fact.

you need to read further into the science rather than just skipping along the nature of heading s and concepts.
once you get inside the scientific concept and how the nervous system & brain functions things will become different in your understanding.

collective entire system speculation by "concept interpretation" is an artist's definition of a process or ability
thought that may render results it does not define the precise ability to pull apart things are study their intrinsic nature of scientific function
(i am trying to word this so as not to provide food for trolls who might criticize you for entertainment)

 

[river]

river said: ↑
Wrong the Retina is a three dimensional object . Hence depth of our vision .

2D object can never exist . It is missing a key dimension . Hence can not manifest .

Second highlight

No , the mind interprets the image in the 3D because the brain its self is made of three dimensional molecules . 2D can not become 3D .

you need to do a bit more study

are you talking religion or science ?
some people confuse the 2 when they start to define scientific reason to form scientific fact.

you need to read further into the science rather than just skipping along the nature of heading s and concepts.
once you get inside the scientific concept and how the nervous system & brain functions things will become different in your understanding.

collective entire system speculation by "concept interpretation" is an artist's definition of a process or ability
thought that may render results it does not define the precise ability to pull apart things are study their intrinsic nature of scientific function
(i am trying to word this so as not to provide food for trolls who might criticize you for entertainment)

The book " Macromolecular Crystallography " ( Deciphering the Structure , Function and Dynamics of Biological Molecules ) . Start from there .

 

[river]

you need to do a bit more study

are you talking religion or science ?
some people confuse the 2 when they start to define scientific reason to form scientific fact.

you need to read further into the science rather than just skipping along the nature of heading s and concepts.
once you get inside the scientific concept and how the nervous system & brain functions things will become different in your understanding.

collective entire system speculation by "concept interpretation" is an artist's definition of a process or ability
thought that may render results it does not define the precise ability to pull apart things are study their intrinsic nature of scientific function
(i am trying to word this so as not to provide food for trolls who might criticize you for entertainment)

Science .

So are you discussing with me that the brain is not made of 3D molecules ?

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Science .

So are you discussing with me that the brain is not made of 3D molecules ?

so you are now trolling with only mentioning 50% of your statement ?

Wrong the Retina is a three dimensional object . Hence depth of our vision .

2D object can never exist . It is missing a key dimension . Hence can not manifest .