OT: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

Black holes don't exist!

According to this guy, anyway. Maybe Fyron should update FQM? (jk)

Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

Well I've said it before and I'll say it again, the guy is right about one thing there never has been proof of black holes what so ever we've just beleived the scientists that pulled the "black hole" theory out of their "black holes" heh.

Re: OT: No black holes? One scientist thinks so..
 

Yeah right Geordi LaForge.....

To be honest, I don't know whether or not to believe this guy. I'm not much of a science know-it-all, so I don't get half of what this guy says to base his theory on, but I don't really know what to believe.

Re: OT: No black holes? One scientist thinks so..
 

So no black holes, but 'dark energy stars' which are very similar on the outside, but you may bounce out of them. I don't claim to be any sort of astrophysicist but if you don't bounce out of a dark energy star then it sounds very similar to a blackhole.

Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

Well the adsence of visible proof might just be the proof needed to confirm the excistence of Black Holes.

I mean, because of the extremely high gravitational constant (which increases towards the "middle" of the phenomena) even light is drawn into it. So I think there is enough evidense to say Black Holes exist.

Edit:
No, I haven't read the article... yet.

Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

Ahh but according to this you have 'dark matter/energy stars' which will behave in similar ways.

Although maybe it's my mind playing tricks I do remember some NASA photos from Hubble showing a point in space sucking atmosphere/materials into it. Which I think points towards something black hole like, which even if it's renamed technically will still be a black hole.

Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

1) Degeneracy Pressure cannot hold up a dead star over 1.4 solar masses.
2) There have been found binary systems which:
a) have a compact companion (white dwarf/neutron star or better)
b) which are over the chandrasekhar limit. Eg. 3 solar masses, 8 solar masses, etc.

My opinion:
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, lets call it a duck... Then poke sticks at it and try to peek inside.

Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

Maybe its a goose/duck hybrid?

Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

Ahhh Duose, a fine meal. Especially if you force feed them oranges then make pate de foi quack.

Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

Careful, I hear quack is habit forming.

Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

So, one person says black holes don't exist and suddenly that cancels out the huge body of evidence and the vast majority of the scientific community who do think they exist? That just doesn't do it for me.

This just goes to show that you can't force someone to believe in something against their will. If their belief is strong enough, some people will find ways to reason away anything. I find it amusing that this guy's "dark energy" theory is even more controversial than black holes but he has no problem believing in that.

Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

Dark matter is one explanation for a mathematical equation about how much matter is supposed to be in the universe--which doesn't add up. Adding dark matter makes it add up. It is supported by the absurd rationale that 'dark matter is too small to see/measure', so it could exist (we'll never know).

And as for that "huge body of evidence" for black holes...that's exactly the entirety of the evidence that I have found. "everyone knows" isn't science, it's social acceptance.

Scientists get to saying some really whacky stuff -- like Schroediger's Cat. I think Schroediger was kidding, that he was making a cynical joke for people to see the obvious fallacy. But everyone took him literally because he's famous. It backfired, and people ran around going "the cat in the box is 50% live and 50% dead until we open the bag" If I put a camcorder in the box with the cat, does the cat suddenly stop being 50% live and 50% dead? What if instead of a camcorder, it was just a rock? I could take the temperature of the rock, and determine when body heat stopped affecting it...

Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

I Here by Volinteer to go look for one!!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif


(Edit) Spell check did not work http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/mad.gif

Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

Uhura for instance...

Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

* Waits for Fyron to post...

Re: OT: No black holes? One scientist thinks so..
 

I will believe this guy when the overwhelming majority of the scientific community agrees with him, and then I'll take a look at the evidence. Until that time, I will believe in black holes.

As for dark matter, some evidence for it does exist. Namely, neutrinos. Neutrinos have a very tiny mass, almost non-existant. Also, their miniscule size and mass makes them very very difficult to detect, as they usually do not interact with "normal" (baryonic) matter. As a matter of fact, an absolutely huge amount of neutrinos zip right through your body over the course of your lifetime, and yet the average person only captures one neutrino over the course of their life, which tells you how often they interact with baryonic matter. Neutrinos are so numerous that they make up a substantial portion of "dark" matter. Not a huge percentage, but a measureable amount. Also, just because scientists haven't discovered fully what dark matter is, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Take neutrinos again. There was no evidence for them for years and years, and yet they were predicted to exist. Relatively recently the predictions were proven absolutely true, every star produces tons of them through nuclear fusion (at least, the sun does).

Just because no proof exists, doesn't mean the prediction is incorrect, and just because some supposed proof does exist, doesn't mean the theory is correct.

Re: OT: No black holes? One scientist thinks so..
 

I work on a very simple Principle of Common Sense and Survival. Black Hole or Dark Energy Stars, I still don't want to be near one http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

"Captain, it's a Black Hole! We're getting too close!"
"It's ok, It's a 'Dark Energy Star.' Black Holes were disproved years ago..."
"Oh? Well I feel better then, Full Speed Ahead! Nothing to worry about!"

Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

Greetings,

A hole does not exists by itself. It is what is around the hole that exists...:)

Thank you

Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

Well the dumb thing I think we modern folks have is that when scientists go "We're right" we go "Uhhh Okay" even though every few years a new group of scientists go "No we're right." and we go "uhhhh okay"
And then again and again and again science today is like a passing FAD it's always right till someone proves it wrong and then that's proven wrong and the first theory is proven right again until the next time someone proves it wrong and then so on add nauseum.

I mean seriously blackholes have never had any proof what so ever we just went "duhhh okay" and now we've got a new theory which may well be proven correct in the next couple of years but he has no more or no less proof then black hole guys as it stands.

Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

Tipical humaniform approach to science. It proved to be wrong. The fact you cannot see or touch an object doesn't mean that there's no object. Else all our cosmology would be nothing but idle fancy. BH are "observable" in X-rays and gamma rays emmited by falling gas (in binary systems or BH inside the nebulas).

Some nonsensical quotes:
"Instead, gravity makes clocks run at different rates in different places. But quantum mechanics, which describes physical phenomena at infinitesimally small scales, is meaningful only if time is universal; if not, its equations make no sense."
QM neglect gravity in equations due to vanishingly small influence it has in typical QM scale. It only makes sense beyond the Plank scale. For a particle falling into blackhole there's no time deceleration. Only for outer observer.

""General relativity predicts that nothing happens at the event horizon," says Chapline."
An object will be quickly destroyed by tidal forces, actually.

"Dark matter blah-blah-blah".
Funniest part. Dark matter is no more directly observable than BH and less described in terms of sane theory. So why dark matter? Because it's a fashionable theme and author wanted to have one more publication.

Cheap stuff.

Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

And in our lifetimes, no one will ever fly out and observe one. Pity. We'll never know for sure.

Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

No the point is that they are not observable and as pointed out earlier that is a common myth, no one has seen one ever....if they had then there wouldn't even be room for this guy's disputing the theory to begin with.

Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

Black holes aren't really holes... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

I've also heard them called "Frozen Stars" because the intense gravity changes time inside, to the extent that - from an outsider's perspective - they never fully collapse, just slow down and stop. They're still in the process of implosion, so the end result of a collapsing star is irrelevant to the known universe, since such a thing cannot occur in a finite (external) timeframe.

If you flew into a black hole, you might see the end result of the collapse, but then the information would never get back out http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif The end result is that there are no singularities in the universe, and the mass component of black holes ends up having finite size as far as outsiders are concerned.

Another result is that you can't kill people by throwing them into black holes, unless you also die (assuming the BH is big enough so that tidal forces at the event horizon are weak). You can throw someone in, visit them 10 years later, and they'll still be alive as though no time has passed. Of course, you won't be able to leave once you visit them, and then you'll both die.

Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

Again where does this "time freezes" crap come from, no one knows because no one ever has ever even seen a blackhole muchless measuerd time in there LOL face it scientists LOVE making theories that can never be disproven in their lifetimes

Just like the theory that if your hand should stay on a table for a million years you wouldn't be able to remove your hand because your hand and the table would become the same molecules, yeah they'd be DUST but hey this is a "scientific fact" afterall isn't it ;p.

Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

No, it's a theory. A theory that fits the currently observable data. That's science.

Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

Hmmm... no. This is an obvious extrapolation of tested phenomenae. Time slows in certain situations, particularly at high (relative) speed and at high (relative) gravity. Synchronized clocks have demonstrate these. Extrapolation is very useful in science - for example, absolute zero has never been reached (nor can it be), but its temperature was discovered a long time ago by extrapolating from the behaviour of thermal expansion in gasses. Do you not believe in absolute zero?

Are you saying that the experiments were in error, or that they should not be used to extrapolate? I don't really understand your claim. It seems to be "Anything is crap unless it was specifically tested, such that dropping a 10 colored balls and watching them accelerate toward the floor gives no indication of what might happen if you drop an 11th ball of an untested color." But such a claim renders all useful knowledge invalid, and science useless, when it has been shown to be very useful... and thus the claim is false.

But that's just my guess of your claim. Could you clarify it?

Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

Yeah your way off considering there i a big difference between bouncing a ball and making a blackhole, we've never EVER made a black hole or anything remotely like what we "think" one would be, we can't even make a large enough ammount of gravity or speed to test the theory properly.
Considering the fact that they were using clocks some people may just argue that the clock's mechanisms suffered from the gravity/speed not actual time it's self.
Unless you stick something that ages or spoils rapidly and place it in a high grav/ high speed environment and see if it spoils at a slower rate you'll always have arguments that you can't "prove" time slows down at all.

My point is, theories are just that theories as in "totally unproven" if it was proven in any way or shape it would no longer be a theory but instead be a scientific fact.

And yes temperature wise absolute zero can be reached in deep space from what I've heard but again I don't think we know for sure so aw well heh....

No I don't think it's "crap" unless it's totally proven I just think we shouldn't take it as "a fact" until it is "a fact" considering how rapidly scientific theories are proven wrong, then right, then wrong again a few months afterward.

Edit:
Repaired Mangled Quote Tags.

Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

Bumblebees can fly, whether we classify them as "aerodynamically sound" or not. You've probably seen them do it. An arrow shot from a bow does in fact strike something, even though it must first cross half the distance, then half that, and so on.

If the explanation does not agree with observations, then the explanation fails it's primary purpose--to explain.

I've never seen an alien space ship. I can say this is because all alien space ships have cloaking technology, and are therefore undetectable. If I preach this loud and long, sooner or later someone's going to take me into custody.

Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

You must be be reading and believing the wrong things. It sounds like you've gotten hooked by the researchers' initial hype, instead of waiting for the process of peer review to work.

You've got to wait to see if the mutant brainchildren survive their own birth.

Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

(Bold added by me.)

Are you sure?

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...mg18524915.400

"The" theory? You mean time changing in accordance with relativity theory? It's been tested to the satisfaction of most scientists.

That's exactly the point - the clock's mechanism is affected, no matter what mechanism you use. Thus, time changed. To quote Einstein, "Time is that which you measure with a clock." Do you have some better definition of time that renders it independant of the rate at which things occur? If so, you're not talking about time anymore.

What if it was a clock based on the rate something ages, like... say... some Cesium atoms? Ooops, that's already what they use in such tests.

No, you'll still have those arguments. As increasingly conclusive evidence is gathered for something, the group of people who argue against it become increasingly stupid and / or psychotic, but they never give up. Talk to people who don't believe in plate tectonics, moon landings, or the "viral theory of AIDS." They love to argue, but they're often stupid, psychotic, illogical, or simply attention-seekers.

I guess you don't understand science. Science is a set of theories and models based on observations. The facts are the observations; the other 99% of science cannot magically leap from "Theory" to "Scientific Fact" no matter how accurate it seems. Science is a method of predicting and explaining. Facts do not predict or explain, but theories and models do.

No, it is fundamental to thermodynamics that absolute zero cannot be reached anywhere through any method. Remember that thermodynamics is spoken of as a set of "Laws," but it is really just a model that fits observations. Nobody has violated it so far.

Can you name a so-called "fact" that has been proven so totally that it cannot be disproven? Like, say, "Paper is made of trees." Do you really know this, or do you just think it's true because you learned it in school and everyone says so? How about, "You are looking at a monitor." Is "I've seen it with my own eyes" undeniable proof? Remember, people claim to have seen aliens and flying saucers, and psychologists have (to the best of their ability) determined that at least some of them believe they are telling the truth.

The only source of "Truth" is in moldy tomes (I love that phrase) like the Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon, "Battlefield Earth" series, and so forth. But none of those have any useful ability to predict or explain, so I tend to go with science.

Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

Personally I've found the Bible and the Book of Mormon very good at explaining societal behavor.

Society is in golden age,
Society starts crumbling as people forget about the principles that brought about the golden age,
Society falls apart into bloody violence,
People start building a new society on proven principles that, at the very least, include dedication,
Society is in golden age,

Rinse, repeat. That's the whole of history, from Rome to Assyria, from the aztec's to Canada, a society is built upon principles. Maybe not good principles, but the people beleive in them and work to make them work. Some of them, like the aztec's, would have crashed anyway, because their principle's were unsuportable (At the least, they would have run out people). Other's, like the romans, had good principles and bad principles - and their empire lasted, in one form or another, for a long time.

Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

. No better than standard history textbook. Cycle birth-death-rebirth of societies was noticed long before Christianity (or monotheism, in general).

Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

Well Rome was never a true "golden age" in the sense of what we would like, because most of us would probobly have hated living in a Roman Empire, because unfortunately for Empires like Rome and Assyria and even in the end Persia they became to conquest bloated that when there was nothing left to conquer they all began to decline, yes in different ways:

Rome Lost their "true" legions with the fully romanized citizens with higher tech then the barbarian hordes they were fighting, and eventually became just a bunch of "barbarians" in service to Rome. The Roman Empire pretty much ate themselves out of existence because the ran out of peoples that they could conquer that were rich enough to fund the next war of conquest.
They stopped developing new weapons and technology and in the Late Western/Eastern roman empires they actually took a drastic backslide in both technology and discipline.

Persia, once they conquered most of their territories, their army's actual fighting skill declined sharply, and they stopped developing good armor and weapons so that they were easily defeated by the more disciplined and skilled soldiers of Greece and Macedon who still had enemies to fight and keep their skills in arms manufacturing and war fighting sharp.



But anywhoo Cherry, you do have a problem with understanding the difference between someone stating "possible" arguments and the irony of modern science which some day will be seen as laughably stupid by our descendents "assuming we don't nuke one another into non-existence beforehand."
What I am saying is that there is no "proof" of science in life, it like Religion is a matter of faith, as is everything we do in modern life, yes there is "proof" in science to an extent but eventually that "proof" is either proven to a "no doubt what so ever" fact like "Why is the sky blue" we know why the sky is blue without a doubt, we know what the speed of light is without a doubt, we know that if you stick a rocket on something you are putting the force of motion against that of inertia, and that an object in motion will stay in motion until it is stopped.

So yes I can point out undeniable "proof" that science has, but until we see a blackhole there is no proof, and thus that theory is no more or less "proven" then many other theories, and we KNOW dark matter exists for a fact.



As far as the rest of that little rant of yours goes with the "Am I really looking at a monitor" and stuff that's not science buddy that's philosophy right up there with "Are any of us really here or is it an illusion in our own mind?" which brings about the question of "How can we have an illusion of being somewhere if we are not in fact somewhere?"
Science and philosophy are two totally different things....

As far as "time" goes by the way you explain if it I just set every clock in my house to run slower then every clock in your house then time is moving slower in my house then in yours when in fact time is moving along steadily at the same pace for both of us, the mechanism of the clock is not what makes time "time".

I am speaking of TIME as in the foward motion of us, clocks can be adversly effected now if you shove a grape in there and see if the grape in the high grav/high speed environment aged slower then that outside THEN you will have "PROVEN" time has aged slower for that grape then the one in normal gravity and environment.

I am not saying this to insult you personally but you are being arrogant to call anyone who disagrees with your way of thinking "stupid" or "psychotic" because for all you know you are just as "stupid" or "psychotic" to someone who is just as sure your way of thinking is wrong as you are that those other people's way of thinking is.

Try and understand what i am saying, SCIENCE can NEVER be fully PROVEN quickly and thus many THEORIES can be adhered to and thought on, just because someone else has a THEORY that is different then yours does not mean you are superior or even correct for that matter.
As I stated before for all you know you me and all the rest of us will be proven totally and unbeleivably WRONG some day in the future.

Understand now?

Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

Only after a fashion - stars at the outer rim of the galaxy seem to be moving at the wrong rate for what gravity can account for with the mass we can verify with our telescopes once you get past about halfway from the galactic core. Dark matter - that is, matter we can't account for via our telescopes (of various sorts) - is the most widely accepted option for explaning the phenomina; but it's only one. There might also be a gravity-esq force that we are unaware of having a similar effect; we could just have a random convergence of stars with no force involved to keep them in the galaxy, and the stars we see past that point are really on their way towards escaping the galaxy. We don't know dark matter exists for a fact.

Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

Another explanation is that the method used for measuring speed of astronomical objects is affected by the distance.

Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

...That's ok. Both books begin well before the birth of Christ...And lot's of people still don't listen. You can't rebuild a society while ignoring it's governing principles, and whatever you tell yourself, you have an influence on society.

Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

Clocks are no more or less than devices that measure the passage of time. If you set your clocks to run slow, the difference is a result of you messing with the measuring mechanism, not time slowing down. In all experiments relating to relativity involving clocks, the scientists have very carefully calibrated the clocks to make sure their mechanisms are in good working order and not tampered with, so that isn't an issue.

How is observing the grape's aging process any different than a clock? It's a very unusual kind of clock, and not likely to be very precise and accurate, but it is a clock. So what makes this particular kind of clock any preferable to the most accurate and precise clocks scientists are capable of building today? Would it help if I described things without using the word "clock" at all? Scientists have taken cesium atoms to places with various strengths of gravity and sent them moving around at very different speeds and very carefully observed the rate at which they aged. These rates have consistently differed from the rates predicted by relativity by an amount so small it can reasonably be attributed to inaccuracy in measurement, even though the expected inaccuracy is far less than the expected and observed differences in aging rates. Happy now?

Relativity has been tested very thoroughly and to the satisfaction of the vast majority of the scientific community. It has yet to make a testable prediction that has been proven wrong, and it's made a lot of predictions. Did you know that GPS systems would be off by a few meters if they didn't take relativity into account? With a complete lack of evidence against relativity and a very long and very good track record of its predictions being found true, it seems entirely reasonable to assume that any other predictions it makes are also true until proven otherwise. It is, of course, reasonable to consider other models as well, but until and unless the other model can make better predictions than the current one, there is no reason to prefer it over the current model. Find an experiment where relativity was tested and found wrong, or an alternative theory that accurately predicts the results of all experimental tests of relativity to date but does not predict black holes, and then I'll start considering the idea that black holes don't exist.

Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

This totally deserves an award... three awesome statements that turn modern science on its head, in two half sentences! I kinda want to post it on the wall in the Graduate Physics department. Anyway, it made me laugh. No offense! Thanks a lot... I like laughing http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Well, to clarify... all people who differ with me in opinion are stupid AND psychotic. Hah, hah! Just kidding. What I mean is, go talk to people who don't believe in things that have overwhelming supporting evidence: "Aids is caused by the moral decay of society, not by viruses!" ...or things that have overwhelming evidence against them: "Wearing a crystal on a necklace will cure my cancer, so I don't need to go to a doctor." Better yet, "Don't let the UN bring vaccines to our impoverished, disease-ridden country! It's a plot by the West to sterilize African Moslems!" These people tend to be stupid, illogical, or psychotic... and often die young of treatable diseases. Coincidentally, these people also have opinions contrary to my own. I know some very intelligent people whose opinions also differ from mine, but I never call them stupid or psychotic, unless I could phrase it in a funny way to make other people laugh at them, and then later prove how right I was, and hopefully win a bet or two in the process. But that's pretty irrelevant to black holes.

Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

If nothing can escape the event horizon of a black hole, then does it exert any gravitational influence on the universe outside itself?

Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

Yes, but nobody knows what gravity is, anyway. And "nothing can escape" might be a bit strong. Normal matter and light cannot escape... er... intact. But if black holes eventually dissolve, then they do release their contents... though not in the same form. Sort of like... burping.

If you think of gravity as a distortion of space rather than a particle, then it doesn't "escape" a black hole, it just happens in and around black holes. If you think of gravity as a massless particle (like a tachyon), then there's no rule stating it can't escape from black holes, or exceed the speed of light. So, black holes are not inconsistent with themselves, in those regards...

Re: No black holes? One scientist thinks so...
 

Meh screw you I miswrote what I meant, but that again is proof of your acting arrogant beyond words.....(rolleyes)
And not entirely anyway that whole "Object in motion will stay in motion and an object at rest will stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force" IS a proven fact.


Although yes I agree with you that those idiots that are like "Aids is a curse from GOD" are stupid considering even if your religious (like me) you know God would hardly send a "curse" that effects everyone moral and immoral alike, and besides that a lot of folks I talk to think AIDS has probobly been around forever it's just that some poor SOB stirred it up somehow and when they spread it they started a chain reaction that has proven disasterous.