do black holes exist, or do scientists have it wrong?

[The_Patriot21]

interesting article. would be interesting to see a few math whizes pick it apart.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2769156/Black-holes-NOT-exist-Big-Bang-Theory-wrong-claims-scientist-maths-prove-it.html

[other one]

Don't look at me....    I got out of school studying that level of math in 1969....   I tinkered with it a little a few years ago when I looked into "m" string physics for a different project and discovered that a huge part of it was firmly planted in a part of my brain that hasn't been used in a really long time....

[Enoch2021]

interesting article. would be interesting to see a few math whizes pick it apart.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2769156/Black-holes-NOT-exist-Big-Bang-Theory-wrong-claims-scientist-maths-prove-it.html

 

======================================================================================================

 

I've posted a number of times on various threads here on Worthy why black holes are MATHemagical along with the entire theory of general relativity.

 

You don't actually have to be a math whiz...just a few basic facts:

 

'Black Holes were first discovered as purely mathematical solutions of Einstein's field equations. This solution, the Schwarzschild black hole, is a nonlinear solution of the Einstein equations of general Relativity. It contains no matter, and exists forever in an asymptotically flat space-time."

Dictionary of Geophysics, Astrophysics, and Astronomy, pg 55....

 

"It contains no matter" oh my, come again? "and exists forever"....in the imagination.

Translation: Fairytale

 

There is not ONE Solution to ANY of Einstein's Field Equations for 2 or more masses. Don't you have to have @ least 2 Masses for Gravity?

 

There's another 3 or 4 Proofs that scuttle these shenanigans...but, it would be waaaaay redundant and overkill @ this point. (and it's late   )

 

CMB----COBE/WMAP/Planck, Red Shift are even bigger jokes...if that's possible.

[ollkiller]

I clicked on the link and then realized it was The Daily Mail paper's website, realize mistake and close the link as soon as possible. Why. The Daily Mail is up there as one of the worst papers in existence, pandering to the lowest common denominator on important social issues. A pack of bigoted, ignorant, racist vacuous bullies of journalists. I'll check on the subject matter of the thread through google but never, repeat NEVER through the rag that is the Daily Mail.

[The_Patriot21]

I clicked on the link and then realized it was The Daily Mail paper's website, realize mistake and close the link as soon as possible. Why. The Daily Mail is up there as one of the worst papers in existence, pandering to the lowest common denominator on important social issues. A pack of bigoted, ignorant, racist vacuous bullies of journalists. I'll check on the subject matter of the thread through google but never, repeat NEVER through the rag that is the Daily Mail.

I get that you dislike the source, but you havent told me why the science is wrong. Sometimes even idiots can get it right. Just thought id point that out.

[alphaparticle]

interesting article. would be interesting to see a few math whizes pick it apart.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2769156/Black-holes-NOT-exist-Big-Bang-Theory-wrong-claims-scientist-maths-prove-it.html

Afraid not because General Relativity is, as they say, 'nontrivial' haha. The main thing I'd point out is that there are many observations that imply blackholes, or at least something very close to that object, exist. When it comes to observations in the world and someone's math, the former typically wins. That being said, as she publishes this and her works gets peer reviewed we should have a clearer idea if this is a genuine result or if there is a mistake somewhere.

[JTC]

Last year I got into the comedy series "The Big Bang Theory", and one of the main characters was working on String Theory. I'm no physicist, astro or otherwise, so I didn't know what String theory is. I set out to learn. In my studies I came upon the problem of Black Holes. Since I'm not out to prove anything, one fact became apparent rather quickly. We can never prove the existence of Black Holes empirically. That is to say, while we proved the moon is real by going there, we can never do this with Black Holes. We can't even send a probe near a Black Hole because if it is real, the probe's signal's will be sucked into the Black Hole long before it gets close enough to take pictures. The probe will simply be declared as Lost, and we will never be certain why.
For those of you who don't know, if Black Holes are real, they are thought to have such strong gravitational fields that even light can't escape them. We used to think they are real, and we also thought they were what Star Trek calls a wormhole. That is a tunnel type short cut to another part of the cosmos.

So the fact is, they cannot be proven to exist. Now if only astrophysicists could admit this, they'd save themselves much agony. It seems lately that Black Holes are threatening to change all we now know about physics. I say this is ludicrous. What we already know is real. It lead to the development of atomic power, spacecraft that went to the moon and beyond. On a micro level, our knowledge of physics has lead to computers, smart phones, and even nanotechnology. I see no reason to discard our current knowledge of physics because theoretical Black Holes don't fit. At the end of the day, Black Holes are nothing but theories. Physicists should disregard them and move on. There are much more important things for physicists to work on.
 

[Enoch2021]

 

interesting article. would be interesting to see a few math whizes pick it apart.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2769156/Black-holes-NOT-exist-Big-Bang-Theory-wrong-claims-scientist-maths-prove-it.html

Afraid not because General Relativity is, as they say, 'nontrivial' haha. The main thing I'd point out is that there are many observations that imply blackholes, or at least something very close to that object, exist. When it comes to observations in the world and someone's math, the former typically wins. That being said, as she publishes this and her works gets peer reviewed we should have a clearer idea if this is a genuine result or if there is a mistake somewhere.

 

 

==================================================================================

 

 

as she publishes this and her works gets peer reviewed we should have a clearer idea if this is a genuine result or if there is a mistake somewhere.

 

Black Holes were "Debunked" long before any of her analysis.  "Peer Review" and "Genuine" are a Contradiction of Terms....

 

Craig Venter PhD (Gemomics Pioneer NIH, Celera Genomics):  "peer review is like ‘the prisoners running the prison’.

 

“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

Dr Michael Crichton Speech California Institute of Technology 17 Jan 2003

 

Let's say this "Peer Review" is populated by Einstein and Hawking disciples...do you think we'll get a "Genuine" answer then? 

 

I have a Novel Idea....lets put in in the Scientific Method and VALIDATE the Hypothesis!  Oh that's right, we can't; because it's not "science".

 

 

As if General Relativity didn't have enough problems (The Elephant in the Room---- there are No Known Solutions To Any Of Einstein's Field Equations For 2 or More Masses)----which also takes Gravity Waves to the Woodshed and beats that Senseless then buries it besides it's Fairytale Brethren: evolution, big bangs, multi-verses, nebular hypothesis, et al.  

 

GR was "officially" Debunked (IN TOTO) and sent for it's dirt nap in 1982 by Alain Aspect PhD who Violated Bell's Inequality (which has been repeatedly Violated and Validated by Experiment) showing that Einstein's "Spooky action @ a Distance" was Real.

 

"TIME" dilation and the "Gravity Affects Time" Fiasco was debunked the moment it was postulated by CPT Kangaroo followers.

 

What masquerades as "science" operating under the Pseudo-Later Merit Transferring Equivocation (Fallacy), save for the Actual Empirical Sciences: Physics, Chemistry, Biology; is really a demonstrable rope-a-dope do-si-do for the tenants of Shang Ra La.

[Leonard]

If, as believed light velocity is insufficient to escape a black hole, then at some point the velocity of light within that black hole = 0. Plug THAT value for 'c' into Einstein's equation and 'prove' that infinity = 0!

[alphaparticle]

Last year I got into the comedy series "The Big Bang Theory", and one of the main characters was working on String Theory. I'm no physicist, astro or otherwise, so I didn't know what String theory is. I set out to learn. In my studies I came upon the problem of Black Holes. Since I'm not out to prove anything, one fact became apparent rather quickly. We can never prove the existence of Black Holes empirically. That is to say, while we proved the moon is real by going there, we can never do this with Black Holes. We can't even send a probe near a Black Hole because if it is real, the probe's signal's will be sucked into the Black Hole long before it gets close enough to take pictures. The probe will simply be declared as Lost, and we will never be certain why.

For those of you who don't know, if Black Holes are real, they are thought to have such strong gravitational fields that even light can't escape them. We used to think they are real, and we also thought they were what Star Trek calls a wormhole. That is a tunnel type short cut to another part of the cosmos.

So the fact is, they cannot be proven to exist. Now if only astrophysicists could admit this, they'd save themselves much agony. It seems lately that Black Holes are threatening to change all we now know about physics. I say this is ludicrous. What we already know is real. It lead to the development of atomic power, spacecraft that went to the moon and beyond. On a micro level, our knowledge of physics has lead to computers, smart phones, and even nanotechnology. I see no reason to discard our current knowledge of physics because theoretical Black Holes don't fit. At the end of the day, Black Holes are nothing but theories. Physicists should disregard them and move on. There are much more important things for physicists to work on.

 

 

the reason there are empirical reasons to think black holes exist is because you can observe the gravitational effects of one astronomical object on another and from that infer the masses of these objects. Likewise, you can see what sort of light, whether visible or not, objects emit. So, if you have some object with mass in a certain range that doesn't seem to be emitting any sort of light itself there is a reason to think it could be a black hole. Another way you can infer their existence is again their their gravitational effects, but in this case, via gravitational lensing.

 

So, I see two problems here. One is, this researcher says that her math shows that such objects could  not form because they would shed the mass necessary to make a black hole first. Well, empirical evidence suggests there are objects with the necessary mass. The second thing is that there are objects with the requisite mass that themselves don't radiate light. These are pretty good reasons for suspecting that black holes do in fact exist.

 

The second thing is that general relativity is actually used in our technology also. Your GPS uses special and general relativistic corrections in order to work properly. If our understand of that theory is off, it would be rather important to know for lots of reasons.