Black holes do not exist

[James R]

OK, lets go to specifics.

It looks like you're asking me questions, rather than trying to support the claims you have made. Why is that? Are you hoping to catch me in some error?

You have a star 100 times the size of the sun and proportional density.

What does "proportional density" mean? Do you mean it has the same density as the Sun, or 100 times greater density, or what?

... after such weird phenomenon of "shrinking" (???) give the the new size.

Gravitational collapse isn't a weird phenomenon. Do you understand the basics of what keeps the Sun at its approximate current size? Gravity is always there, trying to "shrink" it. So it's something else that stops it shrinking. Want to hazard a guess as to what that might be? And then, consider what happens when that thing stops working.

Lets play with your black hole. Show your measurements with simple mathematics. Find the size of the sun, multiply it by 100, and later apply the formula to find out the size of the out coming black hole.

Okay. Here's a definite figure for you. If we could collapse all of our Sun's mass to a black hole, right now, the resulting black hole would have a diameter of approximately 6 kilometres.

Presumably, being the expert on black holes that you are, you will already know how to do that calculation.

Be aware that other star sizes will be used in order for you to find their size as black holes.

The same formula applies to stars of whatever mass. Look it up.

 

[Luchito]

A star become a black hole when the fusion process stop and the star collapse.
This happens usualy when the star have too much Fe (Fe is the atom that can not fusion or fission any more) so the energy (kinetic) can not hinder the collapse of the star any more.

Stop with such theoretical definition crap.

This is the next step, where all your beliefs will be tested.

 

[Luchito]

Only 14 words in and you're already off the track. Your argument is founded on an ignorance of the appropriate physics.


̶W̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶b̶e̶e̶n̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶l̶a̶s̶t̶ ̶f̶e̶w̶ ̶d̶e̶c̶a̶d̶e̶s̶?̶ ̶

T̶h̶e̶ ̶a̶b̶o̶v̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶a̶l̶r̶e̶a̶d̶y̶ ̶p̶e̶r̶f̶e̶c̶t̶l̶y̶ ̶w̶e̶l̶l̶ ̶d̶o̶c̶u̶m̶e̶n̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶e̶a̶s̶i̶l̶y̶ ̶c̶a̶l̶c̶u̶l̶a̶b̶l̶e̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶a̶p̶p̶r̶o̶p̶r̶i̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶m̶a̶t̶h̶s̶.̶ ̶ ̶Y̶o̶u̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶m̶i̶t̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶l̶o̶g̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ ̶f̶a̶l̶l̶a̶c̶y̶ ̶c̶a̶l̶l̶e̶d̶ ̶a̶r̶g̶u̶m̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶b̶y̶ ̶i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶d̶u̶l̶i̶t̶y̶.̶ ̶Y̶o̶u̶ ̶d̶o̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶k̶n̶o̶w̶ ̶h̶o̶w̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶w̶o̶r̶k̶s̶ ̶s̶o̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶a̶s̶s̶u̶m̶e̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶r̶i̶g̶h̶t̶.̶ ̶ ̶

(̶N̶o̶t̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶m̶e̶n̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶l̶o̶g̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ ̶f̶a̶l̶l̶a̶c̶y̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶k̶n̶o̶w̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶b̶a̶s̶i̶c̶ ̶p̶h̶y̶s̶i̶c̶s̶ ̶-̶ ̶s̶u̶c̶h̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶h̶o̶w̶ ̶s̶t̶a̶r̶s̶ ̶w̶o̶r̶k̶.̶)̶

Never mind anything more complicated, just go do your homework.

Yup.

I understand your disappointment with yourself.

Those black holes deceivers got you, right?

Your legs pulled and you are here evading to go with specifics to confront your beliefs.

I have explained with good details to a group of physics students, all the failures of such black hole theory. At the end, one of them when leaving the room cried loud: Luchito... o mais grande do mundo!

I put my house, all my money and my brand new car (bought a month ago), black holes do not exist.

 

[Luchito]

It looks like you're asking me questions, rather than trying to support the claims you have made. Why is that? Are you hoping to catch me in some error?


What does "proportional density" mean? Do you mean it has the same density as the Sun, or 100 times greater density, or what?


Gravitational collapse isn't a weird phenomenon. Do you understand the basics of what keeps the Sun at its approximate current size? Gravity is always there, trying to "shrink" it. So it's something else that stops it shrinking. Want to hazard a guess as to what that might be? And then, consider what happens when that thing stops working.


Okay. Here's a definite figure for you. If we could collapse all of our Sun's mass to a black hole, right now, the resulting black hole would have a diameter of approximately 6 kilometres.

Presumably, being the expert on black holes that you are, you will already know how to do that calculation.


The same formula applies to stars of whatever mass. Look it up.

Just shrink the star given in my request and come back with results. Your babbling is not needed anymore, results will be the only acceptable answer.

 

[DaveC426913]

I put my house, all my money and my brand new car (bought a month ago), black holes do not exist.

I've already laid claim to your house.

You've demonstrated that you don't even know how stars work. Since black holes come from stars, it follows that you don't know how they work either.

... results will be the only acceptable answer.

The onus is on you to show a flaw in the stellar development as we know it in theory and in observation.
The onus is not on us to teach you stellar physics 101.

You are done here, unless and until you do your homework.


I have provided the full quote of your friend:

one of them when leaving the room cried loud: Luchito... o mais grande idiota do mundo!

 

[RainbowSingularity]

the "real" science of black holes is the answer to humanity's power problems
however... that level of science is probably a long way off, far closer than global peaceful co-operation so it would seem

its hard enough to get the majority of self purporting "sane" people to believe vaccines are real

 

[Write4U]

I put my house, all my money and my brand new car (bought a month ago), black holes do not exist.

Better make a large donation to astronomical research. Below are pictures of an actual black hole and its behavior:

Last year, for the first time, the world gazed in collective wonder at an actual direct image of a black hole's shadow.

Now, looking back at earlier, more rudimentary images, scientists have found evidence that the ring around M87* has a wobble that makes it look as though it's glittering.

"Last year we saw an image of the shadow of a black hole, consisting of a bright crescent formed by hot plasma swirling around M87*, and a dark central part, where we expect the event horizon of the black hole to be," explained astronomer Maciek Wielgus of the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

When you look at the image of M87*, you can't fail to notice that part of the ring is much brighter.
That ring is made up of dust and gas that's swirling around and feeding into the black hole in an accretion disc, and the uneven brightness is another effect predicted by general relativity, called the Doppler effect.

As part of the ring rotates towards us, the viewer, it appears brighter; the part that's rotating away appears fainter.
In their reconstruction, the team found that that bright region isn't fixed in place - it moves around, appearing to glitter or wobble.

https://www.sciencealert.com/the-ring-around-supermassive-black-hole-m87-appears-to-be-glittering

Note that the center of this collapsed star (black hole) is "black", because its gravitational pull does not allow radiation to escape, whereas the center of an active star (a sun) is "bright", because its radiation is stronger than its gravitational pull!

Perhaps the term Black Hole is confusing. The center of a black hole (spacetime pocket) contains a solid body of incredible density.

 

[Luchito]

Lol

Filling this thread with computer simulated images, and never responded what the size of a star will be after "shrinking", is the clear evidence that such theory of black holes is nothing but imposed fantasies.

You are not convincing anyone with those silly images made with Photoshop.

The fraud of black holes is going nowhere, you know that.

This thread is clogged, not because I can't respond your inquiries but because you just can't answer a simple question... you ignore how to apply the formulas to show what the size of a star 100 times the size of the sun will be after "shrinking".

The whole idea of black holes is an imagination born in a piece of paper, and you only have presented, so far, just a piece of paper showing made up pictures to illustrate the imagination.

When I ask to apply science to your imagination, no one comes with a direct answer.

And believe me or not, the question I asked is just the beginning of a path of pain for you, because when I said I put my house, all my money and my brand new car stating black holes do not exist, I have never risked anything, but you trying to contradict my solid position, you right now are losing all your dignity and prestige as people who know science.

You better jump to my train, because my science is way more accurate than those good for nothing theories you have learned in the past. If you think I'm wrong with this statement, then come with the answer, show how you did it, "prove it"... lol

 

[Write4U]

Filling this thread with computer simulated images, and never responded what the size of a star will be after "shrinking", is the clear evidence that such theory of black holes is nothing but imposed fantasies.

Ok. I'm sure you will recognize that there are big black holes and small black holes depending on the size and density of the original star ?

It is impossible to accurately predict the actual size of the central singularity except by its mass and size of its gravitational well.
It is impossible to measure the actual size of the collapsed star. Here is a big one. .

40 billion solar masses

They found that the black hole at the center of Holm 15A clocks in at colossal 40 billion solar masses, or roughly two-thirds the mass of all the stars in the Milky Way.

At that mass, it has a diameter the size of the entire Solar System, an astounding size for any single object to have. Apr 27, 2020

https://astronomy.com/news/2020/04/how-much-space-does-a-black-hole-take-up#

How big the singularity is is anyone's guess. Including yours. But it is of no consequence to you or anybody else. We shall never know the actual size of any object inside a black hole event horizon. By definition events inside the event horizon is outside our ability to measure.

To know its mass is all that needs to be known for practical purposes. Its the size of the black hole that's important, not what's inside it.

Can you tell me size of a 1 lb object, if you are blindfolded and cannot see it?

You better jump in my train, because my science is way more accurate than those good for nothing theories you have learned in the past. If you think I'm wrong with this statement, then come with the answer, show how you did it, "prove it"... lol

This thread is clogged, not because I can't respond your inquiries but because you just can't answer a simple question... you ignore how to apply the formulas to show what the size of a star 100 times the size of the sun will be after "shrinking".

Ok. I give up, but then I never claimed to know. You do.
Now the question becomes if you can prove it. After all you are making the claim and the burden of proof is on you.

Care to share your well guarded secret formula which shall never be revealed except to fellow travelers on your train.....

 

[Luchito]

Ok. I'm sure you will recognize that there are big black holes and small black holes depending on the size and density of the original star ?

It is impossible to accurately predict the actual size of the central singularity except by its mass and size of its gravitational well.
It is impossible to measure the actual size of the collapsed star. Here is a big one. .

Then your theory can't be physically proven.

However, you want to impress others with a fantasy greater of a star 100 times the size of the sun "shrinking into a black hole"

40 billion solar masses

Ha ha ha ha... there is no cure for such a madness... black holes do not exist. Period.[/QUOTE]

 

[Write4U]

Then your theory can't be physically proven.

My theory, what theory?

However, you want to impress others with a fantasy greater of a star 100 times the size of the sun "shrinking into a black hole"

I don't want to impress anybody, you do.
This is your quote "you ignore how to apply the formulas to show what the size of a star 100 times the size of the sun will be after "shrinking".

Ha ha ha ha... there is no cure for such a madness... black holes do not exist. Period.

Then it seems your laughing at yourself, no?
Unless you can prove your formula, you are the object of ridicule.

 

[DaveC426913]

You are not convincing anyone with those silly images made with Photoshop.

Prove they are made in Photoshop.

Why do science deniers come to science sites? Are they masochists?

 

[Dicart]

Filling this thread with computer simulated images, and never responded what the size of a star will be after "shrinking", is the clear evidence that such theory of black holes is nothing but imposed fantasies.

The size is well known, it is the radius of the Schwarzchild event horizon related to total mass.

The Schwarzschild radius (sometimes historically referred to as the gravitational radius) is a physical parameter that shows up in the Schwarzschild solution to Einstein's field equations, corresponding to the radius defining the event horizon of a Schwarzschild black hole. It is a characteristic radius associated with every quantity of mass. The Schwarzschild radius (Sch. R) was named after the German astronomer Karl Schwarzschild, who calculated this exact solution for the theory of general relativity in 1916.

The Schwarzschild radius is given as

where G is the gravitational constant, M is the object mass, and c is the speed of light.[1]

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

 

[Write4U]

The size is well known, it is the radius of the Schwarzchild event horizon related to total mass.

Yes, but that is not the question.
The question is not the size of the radius of the black hole , but the size of the collapsed star of any given mass. The unobservable singularity within the black hole.

Lucito claims he has the formula for calculating the diameter of the singularity inside the event horizon of the BH.

I'd sure like to see that equation. Nobel prize stuff, for sure.

 

[Dicart]

Yes, but that is not the question.
The question is not the size of the radius of the black hole , but the size of the collapsed star of any given mass. The unobservable singularity within the black hole.

Ok.
But the singularity is not "a physical object"...
It is the limit where our equations (GR here) become speculativ.

Lucito claims he has the formula for calculating the diameter of the singularity inside the event horizon of the BH.
I'd sure like to see that equation. Nobel prize stuff, for sure.

So Luchito has the formula to say where our knowledge become speculativ...
But we already know the limit of our knowledge.

Gravitational singularities are mainly considered in the context of general relativity, where density apparently becomes infinite at the center of a black hole, and within astrophysics and cosmology as the earliest state of the universe during the Big Bang/White Hole. Physicists are undecided whether the prediction of singularities means that they actually exist (or existed at the start of the Big Bang), or that current knowledge is insufficient to describe what happens at such extreme densities.

Many theories in physics have mathematical singularities of one kind or another. Equations for these physical theories predict that the ball of mass of some quantity becomes infinite or increases without limit. This is generally a sign for a missing piece in the theory, as in the ultraviolet catastrophe, re-normalization, and instability of a hydrogen atom predicted by the Larmor formula.

Some theories, such as the theory of loop quantum gravity, suggest that singularities may not exist.[8] This is also true for such classical unified field theories as the Einstein–Maxwell–Dirac equations. The idea can be stated in the form that due to quantum gravity effects, there is a minimum distance beyond which the force of gravity no longer continues to increase as the distance between the masses becomes shorter, or alternatively that interpenetrating particle waves mask gravitational effects that would be felt at a distance.

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

 

[Write4U]

So Luchito has the formula to say where our knowledge become speculativ...
But we already know the limit of our knowledge.

No, read again. Luchito claims he has the formula to calculate the "size" of the collapsed star inside the BH.
Yet he does not show it.
Moreover he rejects the fact that black holes can contain the mass equivalence of 40 billion suns and consider 100 suns as the limit of black holes.
What are we to think?

Does he know the size of the universe is some 93 billion light years across? Do the math.

https://twistedsifter.com/2012/10/putting-the-size-of-the-observable-universe-in-perspective/

 

[DaveC426913]

Luchito, show where our current model of general relativity is flawed such that sufficient gravity cannot overcome neutron degeneracy.

Simply put,
1] our atomic model shows that it is possible to gather sufficient mass into a small enough volume (such as a neutron star), such that the force of gravity (which has no upper limit) is able to exceed the repulsive force that keeps protons apart.
2] Once that repulsive force has been overcome, there is nothing we know of to stop atoms from being crushed to theoretically zero volume.
3] Additionally, there is nothing stopping unlimited gravity from curving space time so much that even light cannot escape.

That's our standard model. Theory predicts it, and just as importantly, when we observe such conditions in the real world we see exactly what our theories predict. That's compelling.

You can study up on all the math as you wish, and check all the evidence we have. It's all there. And its accepted science.

The onus is not on us to demonstrate anything further to your satisfaction.
The onus is on you to show where it's flawed.

Do so now, or withdraw your assertion.

 

[James R]

Just shrink the star given in my request and come back with results. Your babbling is not needed anymore, results will be the only acceptable answer.

I already provided you with some figures. What more do you want?

I also asked you some specific questions. You did not reply to them. Why not?

The whole idea of black holes is an imagination born in a piece of paper, and you only have presented, so far, just a piece of paper showing made up pictures to illustrate the imagination.

Okay, then, Luchito.

How do you account for massive energy output of active galactic nuclei?
How do you account for the observed orbits of stars around Saggitarius A*? What is Saggitarius A*?
What happens to massive stars - like that one that's 100 times the mass of our Sun that you mentioned - when it's hydrogen runs out and it's nuclear fusion processes stop? What stops the gravitational collapse?

I look forward to seeing your detailed answers to these questions.

 

[Michael 345]

I look forward to seeing your detailed answers to these questions.

Hope you have a powerful microscope to find them

 

[Luchito]

The size is well known, it is the radius of the Schwarzchild event horizon related to total mass.


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

Apply that "simple formula" with a star 100 times the size of the sun. Show me the results.