There are no black holes in the universe at all, there are only spherical celestial bodies, the images of so-called black holes are annular eclipses

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Wenbin Zhao

Registered Senior Member
There isn’t any celestial body like a hole in the universe.

The so-called black holes are just black spherical celestial bodies, or shining spherical stars the light emitted from which were completely blocked by a black spherical celestial body or by a smaller star, that means maybe some so-called bask holes are also shining stars, but their light was shaded by black celestial bodies or stars, and so we can’t observe those shining star style so-called black holes. So, the existing images of so-called black holes are representing two celestial bodies, one is a bigger and shining spherical star, another is a smaller and dark spherical celestial body, the star is farther from us and the black celestial body is closer from us. It’s just like an annular eclipse.

 
Stars above a certain mass cannot support themselves against gravitational collapse. We know that black holes have masses that are larger than the critical mass at which any star can exist.

How do you account for this?
 
Wenbin Zhao said:
There isn’t any celestial body like a hole in the universe.

The so-called black holes are just black spherical celestial bodies, or shining spherical stars the light emitted from which were completely blocked by a black spherical celestial body or by a smaller star, that means maybe some so-called bask holes are also shining stars, but their light was shaded by black celestial bodies or stars, and so we can’t observe those shining star style so-called black holes. So, the existing images of so-called black holes are representing two celestial bodies, one is a bigger and shining spherical star, another is a smaller and dark spherical celestial body, the star is farther from us and the black celestial body is closer from us. It’s just like an annular eclipse.
Click to expand...
1. Annular eclipses last minutes at most, because moving bodies don't stay lined up. How do you propose that two stars can stay lined up perpetually with our line of sight, even while they must be moving in their orbits?

2. These objects emit very powerfully in the hard X-ray spectrum, something stars do poorly. They also often have huge accretion discs of infalling matter. How do you explain the fact that these objects act nothing like stars?

3. What are "black celestial bodies or stars"? Have you ever seen a black star? Do you have any evidence at all such a thing exists?

4. As James points out, we know the mass of these things. We also know their size. With those two parameters, we can derive their density. They are more dense than any possible star - indeed, they are more dense than any possible form of matter. They literally cannot be stars, or any other normal-matter object. How do you explain this?
 
Wenbin Zhao said:
There isn’t any celestial body like a hole in the universe.

The so-called black holes are just black spherical celestial bodies, or shining spherical stars the light emitted from which were completely blocked by a black spherical celestial body or by a smaller star, that means maybe some so-called bask holes are also shining stars, but their light was shaded by black celestial bodies or stars, and so we can’t observe those shining star style so-called black holes. So, the existing images of so-called black holes are representing two celestial bodies, one is a bigger and shining spherical star, another is a smaller and dark spherical celestial body, the star is farther from us and the black celestial body is closer from us. It’s just like an annular eclipse.
Click to expand...
Black holes have been observed.
 
Wenbin Zhao said:
Just observed annular eclipse, not a hole.

If there is a celestial body like a hole, how deep is the hole? 1 m, 1 km, 1 million km, 1 billion km, or 1 light year? Who knows?
Click to expand...
Black holes are not holes in the usual sense. It is just a label. You are wildly uninformed.

Have you considered simply reading up on them a bit before summarily dismissing the facts?



Also, again , why are you yelling? It is rude, and it is explicitly mentioned in the site rules, which you agreed to when you signed up.

"H2. Do not use ALL CAPS in posts – this is SHOUTING. Similarly, use of oversized or coloured text to emphasise your posts will be frowned upon. You are encouraged to use italic and bold text for emphasis (but not for entire posts)."

Sciforums site rules

Sciforums - Rules, posting guidelines and advice to members (summary) Sciforums is an intelligent community that encourages learning and thoughtful discussion. We expect and welcome contributions that inform as well as stimulate discussion and debate. At its foundation, sciforums focused on...
www.sciforums.com www.sciforums.com
 
Wenbin Zhao said:
Just observed annular eclipse, not a hole.

If there is a celestial body like a hole, how deep is the hole? 1 m, 1 km, 1 million km, 1 billion km, or 1 light year? Who knows?
Click to expand...
No, they haven't just observed "annular" eclipse there is a body of knowledge on this subject please read some of it.
 
Pinball1970 said:
No, they haven't just observed "annular" eclipse there is a body of knowledge on this subject please read some of it.
Click to expand...

There are countless celestial bodies in the universe, there should be too many chances to observe annular eclipse phenomena, they do have observed the annular eclipses phenomena which they mistakenly thought were black holes.
 
Wenbin Zhao said:
There are countless celestial bodies in the universe, there should be too many chances to observe annular eclipse phenomena, they do have observed the annular eclipses phenomena which they mistakenly thought were black holes.
Click to expand...
You literally have no idea what you are talking about.

Stay in school.
 
Wenbin Zhao said:
If you were in 1600, you would be one of those who rejected Nicolaus Copernicus' heliocentric theory.
Time will tell you that my theory is correct, just wait and see.
Click to expand...
You have been asked not to post in large bold, do you understand what it is we are asking?
 
Wenbin Zhao said:
I understand what you are asking.

But the page is allowing me to post in LARGE BOLD.

You can suggest the webpage owner cancel these options.
Click to expand...
Yes, occasionally you can use italics or bold to emphasize a word, to make a point.
Not to post every single word in every single post that way, it is considered yelling and rude.
 
Pinball1970 said:
Yes, occasionally you can use italics or bold to emphasize a word, to make a point.
Not to post every single word in every single post that way, it is considered yelling and rude.
Click to expand...

Sir, my English is not as good as you, LARGE BOLD can help me quickly find if something is wrong in my writing, and it helps me express my idea correctly.
If I was yelling or not making reasonable arguments, I'm pretty sure you have ignored me early.

Do you agree?

I care about what other people are saying, I don't care about if they post in LARGE BOLD.
 
Wenbin Zhao said:
If you were in 1600, you would be one of those who rejected Nicolaus Copernicus' heliocentric theory.
Time will tell you that my theory is correct, just wait and see.
Click to expand...
You have not offered any theory. Just denial of the current theory.

You are obviously barking mad but, at the risk of corresponding with a nutter, I'll post a link that gives in layman's terms a list of the evidence for the existence of black holes: https://www.livescience.com/how-we-know-black-holes-exist.html

It is true that a lot of this is indirect evidence. But so is the evidence for many things in science, not least subatomic particles. We infer their existnce from phenomena we observe. That is what we do in science. If you contend you really do have an alternative theory to explain the phenomena listed in the link, you are welcome to offer the alternative explanations and a way to test whether your theory makes correct predictions that the current black hole theory does not.

(I trust you will be able to read my post, even though it is not in bold 26pt. ;) )
 
exchemist said:
You have not offered any theory. Just denial of the current theory.

You are obviously barking mad but, at the risk of corresponding with a nutter, I'll post a link that gives in layman's terms a list of the evidence for the existence of black holes: https://www.livescience.com/how-we-know-black-holes-exist.html

It is true that a lot of this is indirect evidence. But so is the evidence for many things in science, not least subatomic particles. We infer their existnce from phenomena we observe. That is what we do in science. If you contend you really do have an alternative theory to explain the phenomena listed in the link, you are welcome to offer the alternative explanations and a way to test whether your theory makes correct predictions that the current black hole theory does not.

(I trust you will be able to read my post, even though it is not in bold 26pt. ;) )
Click to expand...

(I prefer bold 26pt, I trust you can read my posts in bold 26pt more clearly and more easily.)

I wrote a paper about so-called black holes, I only posted the abstract of my paper on this forum, and I submitted my paper to some astronomical journals, they did not say my theory is wrong, they just suggested me to submit it to other journals.
I really want to post my paper on this forum, but there are some images and drawings in that paper, I found that I was only able to post the texts of that paper on this forum, I don't know how to let you and other people be able to read my paper on the so-called black holes.
 
Last edited:
Wenbin Zhao said:
(I prefer bold 26pt, I trust you can read my posts in bold 26pt more clearly and more easily.)

I wrote a paper about so-called black holes, I only posted the abstract of my paper on this forum, and I submitted my paper to some astronomical journals, they did not say my theory is wrong, they just suggested me to submit it to other journals.
I really want to post my paper on this forum, but there are some images and drawings in that paper, I found that I was only able to post the texts of that paper on this forum, I don't know how to let you and other people be able to read my paper on the so-called black holes.
Click to expand...
No actually it's harder in an absurdly large typeface, like the one you have been using.

I'm not surprised they suggested you submit to other jornals. That is their polite way of saying it is not good enough for them. But where is the abstract? I can't see it on this thread.
 
exchemist said:
No actually it's harder in an absurdly large typeface, like the one you have been using.

I'm not surprised they suggested you submit to other jornals. That is their polite way of saying it is not good enough for them. But where is the abstract? I can't see it on this thread.
Click to expand...

There isn’t any celestial body like a hole in the universe.

The so-called black holes are just black spherical celestial bodies, or shining spherical stars the light emitted from which were completely blocked by a black spherical celestial body or by a smaller star, that means maybe some so-called bask holes are also shining stars, but their light was shaded by black celestial bodies or stars, and so we can’t observe those shining star style so-called black holes. So, the existing images of so-called black holes are representing two celestial bodies, one is a bigger and shining spherical star, another is a smaller and dark spherical celestial body, the star is farther from us and the black celestial body is closer from us. It’s just like an annular eclipse.
 
exchemist said:
No actually it's harder in an absurdly large typeface, like the one you have been using.

I'm not surprised they suggested you submit to other jornals. That is their polite way of saying it is not good enough for them. But where is the abstract? I can't see it on this thread.
Click to expand...

I got this idea 6 years ago when I watched the image of the so-called black hole in the M87 Galaxy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top