PDA

View Full Version : Black Holes: they don't exist!



Prince
2002-Apr-24, 07:38 AM
I told you all along: Black Holes, just like the Earth's undetected translational velocity, the Oort cometary cloud, the "missing mass" of the universe, hot dark matter, cold dark matter, anti-matter, neutron stars, curved space, "variously flavoured" missing Neutrino, WIMP and MACHO partcles etc etc, have never been observed or measured, and only exist in astronomers' minds!

http://www.rense.com/general24/researcherssayblack.htm

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=3914750&BRD=2144&PAG=461&dept_id=367954&rfi=6

Conrad
2002-Apr-24, 08:36 AM
There is so a Black Hole! I watched it on TV a few weeks ago, and it had that feller from Psycho in and some annoying robots and a great big spaceship plus there were meteor storms and a Mad Scientist.

Oh, and a Black Hole.

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

2002-Apr-24, 09:57 AM
<a name="20020424.1"> page 20020424.1 aka Ho
On 2002-04-24 04:36, Conrad wrote: To: 10 CIMI 0 POP


Oh, and a Black Hole.

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif
1:53 A.M. yep? although some may claim none existance
still theres that GREAT attraction, How does
one explain away that GREAT attraction? hmm?

Firefox
2002-Apr-24, 01:11 PM
From the site that brought you proof of the paranormal and UFOs, as well as stunning new alternative health supplements, now gives proof that black holes do not exist!

As for Motolla, he has a lot of work cut out for him if he wants his theory to be accepted. Otherwise, as the article said, astronomers will continue to "hug" their black holes.


-Adam

Peter B
2002-Apr-24, 01:37 PM
Prince

I think you're being mischievous, for several reasons.

1. The articles you link to don't support your contention.

2. The fact that something hasn't been observed doesn't mean it does not exist.

3. I understand there is a fair bit of evidence which can only be explained by the existence of black holes anyway. So saying they exist only in astronomers' minds is also wrong.

Out of interest, can you explain what would happen to a super-massive star when it's exhausted all its fuel? When you can come up with a better explanation than the current theory, we might listen.

David Hall
2002-Apr-24, 04:08 PM
As Peter B said, it's not just in Astronomers' minds. While their existance hasn't yet been proven beyond a doubt, the preponderance of evidence favors their reality. And that evidence has gained a lot of weight over the last 5 or 6 years, especially as to the existence of supermassive black holes at the center of galaxies.

As for me, I take a pragmatic approach. I'm not 100% certain myself, but I accept it as the most likely solution to the evidence at hand. If something comes along that explains observations better, then I'll be happy to switch. Until then, I think black holes are pretty neat.

Azpod
2002-Apr-24, 06:12 PM
On 2002-04-24 03:38, Prince wrote:
I told you all along: Black Holes, just like the Earth's undetected translational velocity, the Oort cometary cloud, the "missing mass" of the universe, hot dark matter, cold dark matter, anti-matter, neutron stars, curved space, "variously flavoured" missing Neutrino, WIMP and MACHO partcles etc etc, have never been observed or measured, and only exist in astronomers' minds!


Antimatter is known to exist. We have created it, experimented with it, destroyed it and even used it in high speed collisers to probe further the nature of matter. As for the rest of the stuff, I don't exactly see you coming up with better theories to explain the universe as we see it today. While I am willing to accept that many of our current theories could very well be incorrect, simply saying that "you're wrong" doesn't exactly do any good unless you have a better expination. The links you provide only talk about new theories about black holes. You don't have anything at all supporting any of the other wild statements that you made.

Martian Jim
2002-Apr-24, 06:13 PM
there are no black holes.
i am currently sending my sister in a space ship with a super scanning device to find out the truth. its currently heading for a "gap in the stars". i can guarantee that......

(sisters ship disapears)

huh?

Russ
2002-Apr-24, 06:55 PM
On 2002-04-24 03:38, Prince wrote:
I told you all along: Black Holes...have never been observed or measured, and only exist in astronomers' minds!


OF COURSE BLACK HOLES EXIST! One lives just down the street from me. He sucks in junk like my Hoover sucks up spilled salt. He takes in everything from junk cars to fine furniture and it all gets ripped appart and amassed around him.

No black holes...GIMME A BREAK! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

Martian Jim
2002-Apr-24, 08:37 PM
i think this is just an attempt by the author to get attention. shame he could of done better by writing something better about something else.

Pi Man
2002-May-12, 02:39 AM
If black holes don't exist:
what are quasars?
what happens when red giants with more than 7 solar masses go supernova?
and where do all of my socks go? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

beskeptical
2002-May-12, 08:20 AM
Pi Man wrote:
and where do all of my socks go? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif


Pi Man, haven't you heard of the sock troll?

I thought there was observable evidence for black holes tugging on space fabric around them. I'll have to hunt for the source but I think it was Hawking, (in addition to the obvious predictions due to the mass math.)

Donnie B.
2002-May-13, 03:35 PM
Satan takes your socks, and turns them into fake fossils for the geologists to find.

OldGreySkeptic
2002-May-20, 12:59 PM
What bothers me is that the Yilmaz modification to Einstein's GR does not allow black holes and it make a lot more sense from a mathematical, Tensor Calc., point of view. The gamma ray bursters seem to point to the modification. I just wish there was a way to test it out...

Tim Thompson
2002-May-21, 01:23 AM
The gravastar hypothesis is described in the Los Alamos press release (http://www.lanl.gov/worldview/news/releases/archive/02-035.shtml), and in the preprint paper Gravitational Condensate Stars: An Alternative to Black Holes (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0109035), Mazur & Motolla, which first appeared in September 2001, and has now been submitted to Physical Review Letters (http://prl.aps.org/). It hardly counts as "news" that general relativity needs to be tamed by quantum mechanics (or perhaps vice-versa). The gravastar hypothesis is not properly interpreted by the claim that black holes don't exist, but rather by the claim that they are quantum mechanical (QM) beasts, rather then purely classical. The QM solution offered is combined with a new solution to Einstein's field equations, which results in an object which does not collapse to a singularity. This solves the mystery of black hole entropy, but does create a different kind of object. There would be no Hawking radiation from a "gravastar", but it would not be as "black" as the usual GR black hole either. Reading the paper, I remain unclear as to the true nature of the event horizon in the gravastar hypothesis. This is important, for if the event horizon looks the same from the outside, then the gravastar is observationally indistinguishable from a regular black hole. This does not appear to be the cae, there does appear to be an observational signature (at least so the paper says). But the event horizon is the key.

The common way of arguing that an object is a candidate black hole is via its mass. If it's too massive to be a neutron star, then we argue that it is probably a black hole (the more massive the merrier). However, as with the "gravastar", it could just mean that there is some new exotic form of matter that survives at higher density. So the mass argument is interesting, and maybe even "compelling", but not "conclusive". But there is a big difference between any "hard surface" and an "event horizon". And therein lies the rub.

Matter accreting onto a hard surface, any hard surface, is going to react vigorously (and luminously) when it contacts that surface at high energy. However, matter that contacts an event horizon instead of a hard surface, will simply fall in. The energetics are not the same. It should be possible to distinguish between a neutron star, or any other hard surface, and an evnnt horizon, by analyzing the energetics of the system. Observational evidence, based on this kind of analysis, supports the existence of black holes, by virtue of their event horizon, rather than mass.

See, for instance, New Evidence for Black Hole Event Horizons from Chandra (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0012452), M.R. Garcia et al., Astrophysical Journal 553(1): L47-L50, Part 2, MAY 20, 2001. The paper extends earlier observations, showing that the quiescent X-ray luminosities of black hole X-ray novas (BHXNs) are significantly lower than those of neutron star X-ray novas (NSXNs), where mass determines BHXN vs NSXN. The difference is significant, and represents luminosity lost to the event horizon for the BH, but retained on contact with the NS hard surface.

See, also, Evidence for the Black Hole Event Horizon (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0204080), Narayan & Heyl, April 26, 2002 (conference proceedings), and On the Lack of Type I X-ray Bursts in Black Hole X-ray Binaries: Evidence for the Event Horizon? (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0203089), Naryan & Heyl, March 6, 2002 (submitted to Astrophysical Journal Letters). The previous paper involves quiescent X-ray flux. These papers add another point. The BHXNs never exhibit flare outbursts. NSXNs do exhibit flare outbursts. This too is significant, as the outburst is a nova type explosion caused by a dense knot of matter impacting on the NS surface. Since the BH has no surface, the dense knot just falls through the event horizon without making a flare.

Observational evidence seems to support the existence of the event horizon, in places where the mass has suggested a black hole. I don't know if a hypothetical gravastar is supposed to have a "usual" event horizon or not. If so, then it is not significantly different, observationally, from a black hole. If not, then observational evidence seems to argue against the hypothesis.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tim Thompson on 2002-05-20 21:26 ]</font>

Pi Man
2002-Jun-27, 07:45 PM
I, the Pi Man, have photographic proof of the existance of at least one black hole. Want to see it?
here it is(Drum roll please.):
it's on this page! (http://www.arn.org/behe/behehome.htm)

P.S. Thanks in advance to Silas whose reply I saw before he posted it by flying into a black hole and narrowly missing the singularity.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Pi Man on 2002-06-29 22:13 ]</font>

Silas
2002-Jun-27, 08:46 PM
Pi Man: oh, well done, sir! A nasty trick, but a funny one!

Silas

Jovianboy
2002-Jun-28, 06:10 AM
On 2002-04-24 04:36, Conrad wrote:
There is so a Black Hole! I watched it on TV a few weeks ago, and it had that feller from Psycho in and some annoying robots and a great big spaceship plus there were meteor storms and a Mad Scientist.

Oh, and a Black Hole.

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif




Yes! Great film that. Maximillian Schell was, as always, brilliant as Dr. Reinhardt. I'll leave the film's bad astronomy alone, though. It was one of my favourites as a kid and it's a bit too dated now to get slammed over at the "bad movies" board. Anyway, bad astronomy or no, it was a *good* movie!

Cheers,

JB.

Pi Man
2002-Jul-09, 09:32 PM
Hey! The sock troll. I saw him on TV once. He was green, and dressed like Ol' Saint Nick. He went down the chimney and took everybody's socks off of the fire place! However I think they called him "The Grinch," not "Sock Troll!"

P.S. If he got stuck in the chimney, how did he get into my dryer? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif