Black holes do not exist

[Luchito]

continued...

There are many lines of evidence that support the existence of time dilation. Try googling "evidence for time dilation". We can discuss it if you have questions.

Please be free to post here at least one link that surely proves time dilates showing the physical process.

You're not showing that you have a very nuanced understanding of relativity, there. Relativity doesn't talk about time "flowing" or about the "composition of time". Relativity is about measurements made by observers who are in different frames of reference. For instance, observers in different frames can measure different time intervals between the same pair of events.

Nope. It is not about measurements, because the claim that a human traveling close to the speed of light will not age as he will be on earth. And that he won't notice it that he is not aging. The claim is not based on speed but on dilation/dilatation of time.

Nice try, but Relativity implies the physical flexibility of a flowing/existing time.

There's no "mechanism". It's just an effect of switching reference frames.

Then you are just talking of illusions caused by motion and distance, and you don't need relativity with dilated time to explain something I can explain using psychology (Sensation and Perception)

Fundamentally, the reason that time dilation occurs is that there are no preferred frames of reference, or, more precisely, that all inertial frames are equivalent. That's the base of everything that follows in relativity.

The problem leans on the imaginary "perfect" universe of Einstein versus the physical real universe. All claims of Relativity, dilatation of time, constant speed of light, and more were invented to make work his theory. Outside his theory, in the physically real universe time is just a measure and can't dilate, light speed decreases or decays, and so forth.

Time is not something that bodies have. It is something that observers measure. Time isn't a property of objects.

No. No. No. An absence of an explanation does not mean that a thing does not exist.

Lack of explanation means the theory in question is good for nothing.

The question you ought to be asking is: is the theory of relativity an accurate model of real-world observations/experiments? If you bothered to investigate, even a little bit, you'd find that it does a superb job. Without it, we could never have built atomic bombs or nuclear reactors or the GPS system or lasers, etc. etc.

Oh come on, records show that Einstein was kicked out from the Manhattan Project. He was consulted to provide some solutions for problems with radioactive isotopes, and the answers given by him were lunacies. He was put outside the project. Einstein later looked for a job building conventional bombs, he invented his own bomb, the papers were sent to Indian Head base in Maryland and found his bomb to be a caricature. Later Einstein looked for job as a consultant and moved to Princeton, Over there he received papers to be solved, and other scientists did the job for him, the reason was obvious, besides his theories based on imaginations, Einstein can't do much.

Of course, I guess you ignored what was going on with him and around him, but surely the building of the atomic bomb is not related at all to Relativity and Einstein. Other nations developing the same bomb never consulted Relativity neither the use of e=mc^2.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Oh come on, records show that Einstein was kicked out from the Manhattan Project.

False.
He was never in it.

 

[James R]

Luchito,

You're still yet to bring anything to the table that actually shows that the theory of relativity is wrong or (on topic) that black holes don't exist. I don't expect you ever will.

Theories are explanations and Relativity fails explaining the process of time dilatation. This is what you must do here, presenting the clear explanation of how time dilates by cause of speed of objects. The lack of this explanation automatically invalidates Relativity theory.

The theory of relativity is the explanation.

But wait! Aren't you the guy denying that time dilation occurs at all? Why do you want an explanation of something that you don't believe in?

You keep leaning your position on "predictions", and in your answers those predictions start to appear like "prophecies". The mathematical background "predicting" black holes existence is just abstract mathematics.

Applied mathematics, if you like.

But this is how science is done. I already explained to you. Science is an interplay between theory and observation/experiment. In Science, we check the predictions made by theories to see whether they are consistent with real-world data. When they are, we say the theory is good; when they are not, we revise or throw out the theory. Sometimes it goes the other way, too. We make an observation that we can't immediately explain. Then we invent models to try to explain it and to predict new things. Then we test those predictions against new experiments/observations that aim to disprove the new theory. And so on.

You don't seem to understand how science is done.

Are you familiar with Fermat's last theorem x^n = y^n = z^n?

Well, this theorem was to be tested for centuries, until the answer was "found". To prove the solution besides arithmetic and algebra also were included other more sophisticated methods to finally solve such equation.

Yes, I'm familiar with it. A mathematical proof involves showing that a given conjecture follows rigorously from agreed axioms of mathematics. No such proof was know for Fermat's theorem for a long time. Then, a clever man eventually found one. Other expert mathematicians agree that the proof is valid, so now it is part of the accepted canon of mathematics.

In a similar way, the theory of relativity in science has been tested many many times, and expert physicists agree that it is an accurate model of the natural world. That is why it is accepted as part of the canon of science.

Same happens with your imaginary black hole, the whole idea is just pure imagination.

No. I already told you: we can observe black holes.

Remember that Einstein never performed a single experiment in his life, and that his theories have inside pure thought experiments. Can't you realize yet that Einstein was just giving freedom to his infantile imagination which was not supposed to be taken seriously?

Wrong again. Einstein intended it to be taken seriously, and it was.

Look at just one of the claims with that imaginary black hole body.

It says "radiation evaporates", when the correct word is "released".

It sounds like you haven't grasped the basics of Hawking radiation, either.

Look in our physical reality here, on ground. Everywhere in our planet radiation is released, it has been found a high level of radiation released in brazil, as an example. But, is such a radiation "visible" to the human eye? Ha ha ha ha, of course no. It has to be an extreme amount of radiation causing the optical effect in our eyes. You can have nuclear material on your side and you won't see its "evaporated" radiation, but its effects will harm you.

If you claim is that nothing can detect radiation, you are wrong, again. The reason scientists "believe in" radiation is because it can be detected, repeatably and reliably, using appropriate equipment.

The pictures or computer simulations showing such an "evaporated" radiation surrounding the black hole, which by the rules of physics, must be the minimum radiation released ever because comes from a dead star (compressed or not), then by optics can't be noticeable at all. And if special instruments are used to detect such a minimal "evaporated" radiation, such an attempt could be like trying to detect microscopic particles in space from billions miles of distance, and such is lunacies. Have in consideration that if himself Hawking called it "evaporation" is because a body with almost no internal motion can't release strong radiation. Simple basic physics debunks the famous picture of the black hole published some time ago.

You're wrong again. Nothing has "debunked" Hawking radiation. Besides, direct detection of the radiation is not the only way to show that it occurs.

I state that the whole topic of existing black holes is fraud. Even the Bible shows much lesser contradictions an errors, ha ha ha ha....

Who cares what your opinion is? You seem to lack any kind of expertise or qualifications to discuss the matter. More importantly, you can't seem to given any concrete reasons for believing the science to be flawed. It's just your gut feeling. Science doesn't care how you feel about it.

Excuse me but lets check about his background.

Let's not. I think it's safe to assume that you've never actually read a book-length biography of Einstein. You've already made a number of biographical errors just in the small amount you've written about him.

Besides, Einstein's background doesn't matter. If you could show, somehow, that Einstein was barking mad, or an outright fraudster, or a con man, it still wouldn't bring you any closer to disproving the theory of relativity. Why? Because the truth of the theory doesn't rest on the authority of the man who proposed it. That's not how science is done.

Besides, each one of Relativity claims certainly are false.

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.

Look, the Photoelectric of Einstein was presented every year to be considered for the Nobel Prize. But other theories were found more solid and accurate and photoelectric was denied each time. ...

Then, it was the review of both, Photoelectric and Relativity for year 1922, for receiving the Nobel Prize.

About Photoelectric, the review showed that following the procedure presented troubles, but that at the end, even when was with confusions inside, the outcoming was as predicted.

And so, the upshot of all that is that Einstein was awarded the Nobel prize, because his theory of the photoelectric effect was correct. Let's move on.

A representative of the Swiss Academy which gives the Nobel Prize of Physics, said that he was happy to announce that Relativity theory was not to receive the Nobel Prize because Relativity wasn't science but philosophy, and he added that in his opinion was "poor philosophy".

History hasn't smiled kindly on that (unnamed) representative of the Swiss Academy, then, has it? The guy was shown to be wrong.

 

[James R]

Please be free to post here at least one link that surely proves time dilates showing the physical process.

I already told you: it's an observer effect, not a "process". It is "proven" by its consistency with thousands upon thousands of experiments and observations - just like every other major scientific theory.

Nope. It is not about measurements, because the claim that a human traveling close to the speed of light will not age as he will be on earth. And that he won't notice it that he is not aging.

Your denials about the actual content of the theory just make you look stupid. Try learning the basics of the theory. Then you might be in a better position to try to pick holes in it. Clearly, you haven't done your homework.

Then you are just talking of illusions caused by motion and distance, and you don't need relativity with dilated time to explain something I can explain using psychology (Sensation and Perception)

Unfortunately for you, psychology won't help you to explain real-world observations of things like muons or black holes. For that, a physical theory is needed.

All claims of Relativity, dilatation of time, constant speed of light, and more were invented to make work his theory.

Yes. Just like in every other scientific theory.

Lack of explanation means the theory in question is good for nothing.

The theory is the explanation. You don't understand how science works.

Oh come on, records show that Einstein was kicked out from the Manhattan Project.

Another biographical mistake. Do your homework first. Don't just make stuff up.

Of course, I guess you ignored what was going on with him and around him, but surely the building of the atomic bomb is not related at all to Relativity and Einstein. Other nations developing the same bomb never consulted Relativity neither the use of e=mc^2.

Other nations who got the atomic bomb were either given the details by the United States, or else the stole the details. No other nation independently developed an atomic bomb. Get your history right. Do your homework.

 

[river]

↑

Please be free to post here at least one link that surely proves time dilates showing the physical process.

It can't . Because time is not a real dimension . Take time out of any physical theory and time does not collapse the three fundamental dimensions of Existence , Breadth , depth and length ( in no particular order of importance ) .

I already told you: it's an observer effect, not a "process". It is "proven" by its consistency with thousands upon thousands of experiments and observations - just like every other major scientific theory.

Disagree . Observations can be interpreted different ways by different theories . That is important to understand .

 

[James R]

It can't . Because time is not a real dimension .

Another fine example of the kind of nonsense that got you excluded from posting in our science sections.

Why do you pretend to have knowledge of science when it is so obviously the case that you do not? And how can you not have learned some science during your years on this site? Surely you should have picked up something by now.

 

[river]

river said: ↑
It can't . Because time is not a real dimension .

Another fine example of the kind of nonsense that got you excluded from posting in our science sections.

Why do you pretend to have knowledge of science when it is so obviously the case that you do not? And how can you not have learned some science during your years on this site? Surely you should have picked up something by now.

James R , you should have picked up something by me really , about my thinking upon time . ( many yrs ) That time is irrelavent to any physical thing as having any efficacy upon any thing at all . Time has Zero efficacy .

 

[James R]

You didn't answer my question.

 

[Luchito]

Luchito,

You're still yet to bring anything to the table that actually shows that the theory of relativity is wrong or (on topic) that black holes don't exist. I don't expect you ever will.

The way you has replied shows a kind of discomfort with your own beliefs. No it's just to keep doing sharper cuts here and there so your thoughts, as a precious diamond in brute might finally become a valuable gem. [/QUOTE]

The theory of relativity is the explanation.

I will make it easy for you. Please provide the words of Einstein explaining in layman language the explanation of dilatation of time. Note that if you can't provide the required explanation, such is an indication that he never did it.

Now well, he, for example, provided the explanation in layman language of the mechanism happening with Mercury's orbit at its perihelion. Of course, and by the way, his explanation is lunacies to the square, but I honour that he did it.

Then, Einstein explained the mechanism of time dilatation with layman language saying...

...(please continue writing his own words)

But wait! Aren't you the guy denying that time dilation occurs at all? Why do you want an explanation of something that you don't believe in?

You see, I have pity on the ignorance of the masses who fell in the trick of a false theory saying that time dilates. So, I'm in a mission like the Blues Brothers...

Applied mathematics, if you like.

Black holes are based on abstract mathematics because are not related to something that is physically real.

But this is how science is done. I already explained to you. Science is an interplay between theory and observation/experiment.

Science requires order, and the order is observation is first, theory is second.

In Science, we check the predictions made by theories to see whether they are consistent with real-world data.

I don't know what kind of science you have learned but the way you understand it is absurd. First think to do is tio check the explanation given by a theory before even attempting to continue to the predictions section. No wonder such a struggled in your thoughts when answering my messages, you have learning science wrong from the very beginning.

When they are, we say the theory is good; when they are not, we revise or throw out the theory.

When you read the theory and mathematical calculations of Ptolemy, well, his predictions were fine, in paper and observation the sun orbited around earth as Ptolemy says.

However, further observation debunked that theory and demonstrated better that the earth orbits around the sun. Your position is practically following Ptolemy theory, a theory based in an illusion. Predictions might fit well, but the theory of yours still is based on an illusion. What good comes from such illusion of yours? Nothing good so far.

Sometimes it goes the other way, too. We make an observation that we can't immediately explain. Then we invent models to try to explain it and to predict new things. Then we test those predictions against new experiments/observations that aim to disprove the new theory. And so on.

As you can see, when a phenomenon can't be explained then you make models to predict somehow some possibilities, but, in this case with black holes, you never had the phenomenon in the first place, but a model invented by the mind of a dude. Are you pretending the world to trust the mind of a dude who believes a certain body exists just because his piece of paper says so? Do you call to that "science? Excuse me but, who was your teacher of science?

You don't seem to understand how science is done.

Sure, you are entitle to your opinion.

Yes, I'm familiar with it. A mathematical proof involves showing that a given conjecture follows rigorously from agreed axioms of mathematics. No such proof was know for Fermat's theorem for a long time. Then, a clever man eventually found one. Other expert mathematicians agree that the proof is valid, so now it is part of the accepted canon of mathematics. [?QUOTE]

Fermat theorem was always part of mathematics, saying it more specifically, abstract mathematics, this is to say, mathematics not related at all with physical reality. The day you prove Fermat theory using grains of rice, then such theorem will be part of science, and more specific, part of physics.

In a similar way, the theory of relativity in science has been tested many many times, and expert physicists agree that it is an accurate model of the natural world. That is why it is accepted as part of the canon of science.

On the contrary, like Fermat's last theorem, Relativity still is just abstract mathematics, not part of science. You have not proved time exists physically, you have not proven anything yet. Come with the evidence and then you can make as many claims as you want.

No. I already told you: we can observe black holes.

Sure, right. Show me the telescope you are using, and prove that what you are observing is a black hole.

Wrong again. Einstein intended it to be taken seriously, and it was.

In an interview, he was asked how it came he was capable to make his Relativity theories, He responded that while people have imaginations when they are children, these are forgotten later on because their responsibilities as adults. But in his case, he, as a retarded person, had the same childish imagination when he grew up as an adult, so he was capable to develop his imaginations at that later age. I wonder why people in those years who heard his words didn't understand the clear signal. The dude wasn't right in his mind.

continue...

 

[Luchito]

continued...

It sounds like you haven't grasped the basics of Hawking radiation, either.

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.

Hawking is the one who knew no science at all. Hard to believe some people still are considering him a genius. Definitively science needs a huge revision and Relativity theories must be discarded for good.

If you claim is that nothing can detect radiation, you are wrong, again. The reason scientists "believe in" radiation is because it can be detected, repeatably and reliably, using appropriate equipment.

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

You're wrong again. Nothing has "debunked" Hawking radiation. Besides, direct detection of the radiation is not the only way to show that it occurs.

Please, stop giving more and more excuses, if you were to discuss science you should be proving your point with evidence, not so with just insignificant expressions of denial. I know you are already finding out the gaps, the holes, the huge errors and lots of fantasies inside Relativity and the black holes theories. True science is taking place, a science method where if you don't have evidence then you are not talking science.

Remember that evolution is an old theory invented centuries ago, when its beginning wasn't observation but philosophy alone. Same with Relativity, another old theory invented under the conventional idea that time flows. As you can see, those theories are now obsolete when evidence contradicted their main original doctrines. Trying to keep those debunked theories as valid is to make yourself an ignorant.

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

Who cares what your opinion is? You seem to lack any kind of expertise or qualifications to discuss the matter. More importantly, you can't seem to given any concrete reasons for believing the science to be flawed. It's just your gut feeling. Science doesn't care how you feel about it.

Your mistake is that you believe Relativity and black holes is science. 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. May I ask if you have discovered anything in science? No need an answer from your part.

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

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

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?

If no, why?

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.

Let's not. I think it's safe to assume that you've never actually read a book-length biography of Einstein. You've already made a number of biographical errors just in the small amount you've written about him.

There are written records other than biographies if you didn't know. Biographers consult those records to write their versions. What I have wrote is based on the records.

Besides, Einstein's background doesn't matter. If you could show, somehow, that Einstein was barking mad, or an outright fraudster, or a con man, it still wouldn't bring you any closer to disproving the theory of relativity. Why? Because the truth of the theory doesn't rest on the authority of the man who proposed it. That's not how science is done.

You might be right. My older son made an experiment for the Science Fair at middle school which made him win the first place. He was in special education, but fortunately he didn't use his imagination but he used his observation on a phenomenon and he made tests to imitate such a phenomenon. I even found other similar kind of results in nature about the same phenomenon but from different sources. To me was amazing when I later on, after several years, I found out that the same phenomenon happens outside planet earth. And I said, wow!

But, his tests were made after an observation. Einstein's thought experiments were made in base of his own imaginations. So, Houston, we have a problem.

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.

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.

And so, the upshot of all that is that Einstein was awarded the Nobel prize, because his theory of the photoelectric effect was correct. Let's move on.

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

History hasn't smiled kindly on that (unnamed) representative of the Swiss Academy, then, has it? The guy was shown to be wrong.

Nope, because today lots of scientists are discovering better theories which discard relativity. I'm not the only 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..." They are writing their papers trying to flirt with the established scientific inquisition that obligates them to include Relativity and never go against it. But slowly and surely the lack of respect to that good for nothing theory will prevail. You better get informed of the new explanations of what the universe is composed of, and similar new theories... and be aware that you being stuck with Relativity causes you to be far behind in science.

 

[Write4U]

Please be free to post here at least one link that surely proves time dilates showing the physical process.

Man in the box moving downward at a rapid rate (near speed of light)

When the box passes a fixed light outside the box will enter through a small hole in the right wall and travel to the opposite left wall.

Note, the light always travels horizontally but appears to rise only to the man in the box as the box travels downward while the light is traversing the width of the box.

However, the time it takes for the diagonal path to reach the opposite wall is exactly the same as the time it would take if the box were stationary and the light would follow a straight horizontal path to the opposite wall.

Obviously. the diagonal path is longer than the direct horizontal path, yet the light arrives at the opposite wall at the same time.

Time dilation?

 

[Luchito]

Man in the box moving downward at a rapid rate (near speed of light)

When the box passes a fixed light outside the box will enter through a small hole in the right wall and travel to the opposite left wall.

Note, the light always travels horizontally but appears to rise only to the man in the box as the box travels downward while the light is traversing the width of the box.

However, the time it takes for the diagonal path to reach the opposite wall is exactly the same as the time it would take if the box were stationary and the light would follow a straight horizontal path to the opposite wall.

Obviously. the diagonal path is longer than the direct horizontal path, yet the light arrives at the opposite wall at the same time.

Time dilation?

How much longer thought experiments will be used trying to prove Relativity as valid?

Your example is the sure demonstration that no real observation and test can validate time dilatation but the same old same old thought experiment.

Thought experiments are not science, otherwise the imaginary light clock invented by Einstein should be built using physical materials and should be installed in the halls inside several institutions of science demonstrating his theory was correct.

Built the box shown in your thought experiment, make it fall at speed close to speed of light, and make the light enter thru the hole as indicated. Make a video and post it. After that, lets review it together.

 

[Write4U]

Thought experiments are not science, otherwise the imaginary light clock invented by Einstein should be built using physical materials and should be installed in the halls inside several institutions of science demonstrating his theory was correct.

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

How much longer thought experiments will be used trying to prove Relativity as valid?

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.

 

[billvon]

I will make it easy for you. Please provide the words of Einstein explaining in layman language the explanation of dilatation of time. Note that if you can't provide the required explanation, such is an indication that he never did it.

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

On the contrary, like Fermat's last theorem, Relativity still is just abstract mathematics, not part of science.

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

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#

 

[origin]

Your example is the sure demonstration that no real observation and test can validate time dilatation but the same old same old thought experiment.

You're either being dishonest or you are stupid, I honestly cannot tell which it is and I certainly don't care.

 

[exchemist]

You're either being dishonest or you are stupid, I honestly cannot tell which it is and I certainly don't care.

Just more anti-science trollery, from someone almost as dim as river, but with more attitude.

 

[river]

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

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

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#

Of course speed in density either speeds up or slows down speed . Time doesn't dilate at all . F1 race car driver , the faster he goes the less distinct the forward ground becomes . Every thing starts to blend in with everything else . 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 .

 

[James R]

Luchito,

Let's start with the most ironic comment you made, because I like a good dose of irony. This is you:

Please, stop giving more and more excuses, if you were to discuss science you should be proving your point with evidence, not so with just insignificant expressions of denial. I know you are already finding out the gaps, the holes, the huge errors and lots of fantasies inside Relativity and the black holes theories. True science is taking place, a science method where if you don't have evidence then you are not talking science.

Why can't you take your own advice?

Where have you proved with evidence your points that relativity is wrong and black holes don't exist? According to you, that's what you need to do, yet you don't ever even start to attempt it. Why is that?

So far, you have presenting exactly nothing, in terms of physical arguments or evidence, that would throw the theory of relativity into doubt, or the many observations of black holes.

You seem to think that if you keep just telling us your opinions loudly enough, that will somehow establish your opinioons as fact.

Hint: it won't.

Try to bring some evidence or a theoretical argument to your next post. I dare you.

Otherwise, you'll just remain the laughing stock that you currently are. You're fun, but you're a total lightweight when it comes to science. So far.

 

[James R]

Luchito:

Just for fun, while we wait for you to try to dredge up the start of an actual argument for your position, I'll comment on some of your mistakes and nonsense as well. (You know you've had months already to try to do that, and this is the best you've come up with?)

The way you has replied shows a kind of discomfort with your own beliefs.

I'll add psychoanalysis to the list of things you're not good at.

I will make it easy for you. Please provide the words of Einstein explaining in layman language the explanation of dilatation of time.

No. If you want to read Einstein's words, you go and find them. Don't ask me to do your homework. If you were planning on arguing against things that Einstein wrote, step 1 would be to read what he wrote.

Why are you so focussed on what Einstein said and wrote, anyway? Are you jealous of him, or something? Do you think that the truth of relativity rests on Einstein's authority, perhaps? That's not how science works.

Black holes are based on abstract mathematics because are not related to something that is physically real.

I already told you why that is wrong. Review the previous posts.

Science requires order, and the order is observation is first, theory is second.

Sometimes observation comes first; sometimes theory comes first. I explained this to you in a previous post. Please review.

I don't know what kind of science you have learned but the way you understand it is absurd.

You're right. You don't know the science I learned.

First think to do is to check the explanation given by a theory before even attempting to continue to the predictions section.

How would you check it? Please tell me what you would do, step by step.

No wonder such a struggled in your thoughts when answering my messages, you have learning science wrong from the very beginning.

What makes you think I have struggled? Responding to you isn't exactly an intellectual challenge. Perhaps you're not as smart as you think you are.

When you read the theory and mathematical calculations of Ptolemy, well, his predictions were fine, in paper and observation the sun orbited around earth as Ptolemy says.

However, further observation debunked that theory and demonstrated better that the earth orbits around the sun.

Now you're starting to get it! That's why people had to come up with better models of planetary motion.

Your position is practically following Ptolemy theory, a theory based in an illusion. Predictions might fit well, but the theory of yours still is based on an illusion.

If the predictions fit well, on what basis are you deciding that it's an illusion?

As you can see, when a phenomenon can't be explained then you make models to predict somehow some possibilities, but, in this case with black holes, you never had the phenomenon in the first place, but a model invented by the mind of a dude.

The idea of compressed stars actually pre-dated relativity, but you're right that in this case the theory of black holes came before actual observations of black holes. But these days, we have lots of observations to support the theory.

Are you pretending the world to trust the mind of a dude who believes a certain body exists just because his piece of paper says so?

No. I already walked you through this. Please review previous posts.

Do you call to that "science?

No.

Excuse me but, who was your teacher of science?

Do you want to compare our respective educations and teachers now? Do my formal qualifications matter to you? Why?

Have you studied physics at one or more prestigious universities? Who were your teachers? Do your advanced degrees in Science mean that I should respect your authority?

Fermat theorem was always part of mathematics, saying it more specifically, abstract mathematics, this is to say, mathematics not related at all with physical reality. The day you prove Fermat theory using grains of rice, then such theorem will be part of science, and more specific, part of physics.

It is impossible to ever prove Fermat's theorem with grains of rice. In fact, almost every theorem of any value in mathematics cannot be proved by appealing to some physical model or other.

Consider Pythagoras's theorem, for instance. (Are you familiar with that?) Even if you had 1 million right-angled triangles made out of, say, paper, they still wouldn't prove that theorem. Do you understand why?

On the contrary, like Fermat's last theorem, Relativity still is just abstract mathematics, not part of science.

You have some strange ideas about what is required for something to be a "part of science". Wrong ideas.

You have not proved time exists physically, you have not proven anything yet.

Have you noticed how things don't all happen at once? Is that not good evidence that time exists, physically? Do you own a watch or a clock? Do you remember being younger and then growing older? Do you seriously want to tell me that you don't believe that time exists?

Sure, right. Show me the telescope you are using, and prove that what you are observing is a black hole.

We're talking about science here. There is no proof. There is only the fact that certain observations, made using telescopes, are consistent with the predictions of mathematical models of what are commonly called "black holes".

Prove that what you are currently observing is an LED display. If you can.

 

[river]

Luchtio:

Just for fun, while we wait for you to try to dredge up the start of an actual argument for your position, I'll comment on some of the mistakes and nonsense as well. (You know you've had months already to try to do that, and this is the best you've come up with?)

I'll add psychoanalysis to the list of things you're not good at.

No. If you want to read Einstein's words, you go and find them. Don't ask me to do your homework. If you were planning on arguing against things that Einstein wrote, step 1 would be to read what he wrote.

Why are you so focussed on what Einstein said and wrote, anyway? Are you jealous of him, or something? Do you think that the truth of relativity rests on Einstein's authority, perhaps? That's not how science works.

I already told you why that is wrong. Review the previous posts.

Sometimes observation comes first; sometimes theory comes first. I explained this to you in a previous post. Please review.

You're right. You don't know the science I learned.

How would you check it? Please tell me what you would do, step by step.

What makes you think I have struggled? Responding to you isn't exactly an intellectual challenge. Perhaps you're not as smart as you think you are.

Now you're starting to get it! That's why people had to come up with better models of planetary motion.

If the predictions fit well, on what basis are you deciding that it's an illusion?

The idea of compressed stars actually pre-dated relativity, but you're right that in this case the theory of black holes came before actual observations of black holes. But these days, we have lots of observations to support the theory.

No. I already walked you through this. Please review previous posts.

No.

Do you want to compare our respective educations and teachers now? Do my formal qualifications matter to you? Why?

Have you studied physics at one or more prestigious universities? Who were your teachers? Do your advanced degrees in Science mean that I should respect your authority?

It is impossible to ever prove Fermat's theorem with grains of rice. In fact, almost every theorem of any value in mathematics cannot be proved by appealing to some physical model or other.

Consider Pythagoras's theorem, for instance. (Are you familiar with that?) Even if you had 1 million right-angled triangles made out of, say, paper, they still wouldn't prove that theorem. Do you understand why?

You have some strange ideas about what is required for something to be a "part of science". Wrong ideas.

Have you noticed how things don't all happen at once? Is that not good evidence that time exists, physically? Do you own a watch or a clock? Do you remember being younger and then growing older? Do you seriously want to tell me that you don't believe that time exists?

We're talking about science here. There is no proof. There is only the fact that certain observations, made using telescopes, are consistent with the predictions of mathematical models of what are commonly called "black holes".

Prove that what you are currently observing is an LED display. If you can.

Highlighted .

What would other theories think , given the same data ?