Black Holes Do Not Exist

Black holes aren't real. Remember that there is a man who lives in the clouds. More proof the moon landing was a fake.
 
m heisty said:
Black holes aren't real. Remember that there is a man who lives in the clouds. More proof the moon landing was a fake.
Click to expand...

Yes and he needs your money. He also planted Dinosaur bones here to confuse us. He is an evil trickster god.
 
The paper, which was recently submitted to ArXiv, an online repository of physics papers that is not peer-reviewed
Click to expand...

Yeah, I wouldn't give up on black holes just yet.
 
And they say relgious people shove it in other people's faces... but every time I go to threads like these, it's atheists making fun of other people's beliefs.

Anyway, not peer reviewed, is big.

I remember someone telling me someone won a nobel prize for a complicated math equation a while back that turned out to be gibberish. And they only found out because he tried it again, and it looked too similar.
 
I dont know where everyone is getting that "black holes do not exist"

The only thing i am gathering, is that black holes are far less likely to form from a single supermassive star.
 
How does the star shed mass? By going supernova? So she's implying that all stars go supernova? Something, something, given our observations of the rate of such events this might change the age of the universe or the rate of some nuclear reactions? IDK, it's probably easier just to say she's wrong and pretend nothing ever happened.
 
Physics involved at black hole boundary formation levels is not even properly understood. It is entirely likely that this proof is correct, and that black holes can still form due to currently unknown phenomenon.

That's the beauty of science, our understanding of the universe continually increases.
 
Wait, is this physicist claiming to have been able to bridge the gap between quantum mechanics and general relativity? Physicist have been trying to solve this issue for many decades, and it gave rise to superstring theory, among others. No one have yet to find this grand unified theory.

I think I'll wait to see what the physics community have to say about this first.
 
Ocean said:
I dont know where everyone is getting that "black holes do not exist"

The only thing i am gathering, is that black holes are far less likely to form from a single supermassive star.
Click to expand...

Because some of us read the article and remembered what was in it
And as if they weren’t bizarre enough to begin with, now add this to the mix: they don’t exist.
Click to expand...

Now granted it could be a case of news-science misinterpretation, but being as it's written on the universities website and isn't simply a paid piece from the A.P. that gets throw around I'm likely to lean a little more towards more truth in the article than sensationalism :)
 
This hasn't been peer reviewed and is based on current scientific theories, if after it is reviewed it ends up having no flaw then maybe, just maybe, some part of the current scientific theories would have to be analyzed again and suffer a small modification.

Not like this is anything new, i mean, this is how our knowledge of pretty much everything has advanced through history,
 
dmonkey said:
How does the star shed mass? By going supernova? So she's implying that all stars go supernova? Something, something, given our observations of the rate of such events this might change the age of the universe or the rate of some nuclear reactions? IDK, it's probably easier just to say she's wrong and pretend nothing ever happened.
Click to expand...

Well I'm about to go teach my intro astronomy lecture and I'm close to talking about this subject so here it goes....

Stars shed mass constantly via two processes 1) solar winds and 2) making energy, since they make energy via fusion which smooshes particles together to make another but the new particle has less mass than the particles that went into it so that's mass that's lost we see this mass as the light shining from the Sun. So stars slowly get larger over time because they're losing mass constantly, and the pressure inside of them can out push the pull of gravity (due to less mass). Later in life stars that end up getting to giant classes tend to lose a lot more mass due to those stellar winds as those ramp up as the outer layers of the star get farther away from the center. Now this is all stars not just those that go supernova. Stars that go supernova they lose mass when they explode because the shockwave from a collapsing core makes the outer layers push outward leaving just the core which is what turns into a neutron star or black hole, which is why only the most massive of stars (i.e. not our sun) will explode as a supernova.

That said, the mass loss she's referring to is Hawking radiation which is what we believe (math said it's true!) occurs around all black holes, and this causes them to evaporate (Wikipedia it if you want a story on that). My thought is that Hawking radiation only acts as an evaporative means because one of the particles is forever stolen away in a black hole due to the event horizon which for something without an event horizon won't happen because the escape velocity is less than the speed of light. So I'm really confused how she can apply this same idea to something which she claims won't exist in the first place.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
So then, what are the objects that we have photographs of or rather the area surrounding them. Where something is clearly ripping stars apart around it?
Click to expand...

That, sir, is a movie or fiction picture made to show what a "black hole" would "look" like.

There is no "picture" of a "black hole".
 
pothb said:
And they say relgious people shove it in other people's faces... but every time I go to threads like these, it's atheists making fun of other people's beliefs.
Click to expand...

That's because Science is based on facts and hard evidence. Something either exists or it doesn't. Science is very black and white. It doesn't leaving anything open for interpretation. That's the beauty of it.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Well I'm about to go teach my intro astronomy lecture and I'm close to talking about this subject so here it goes....

Stars shed mass constantly via two processes 1) solar winds and 2) making energy, since they make energy via fusion which smooshes particles together to make another but the new particle has less mass than the particles that went into it so that's mass that's lost we see this mass as the light shining from the Sun. So stars slowly get larger over time because they're losing mass constantly, and the pressure inside of them can out push the pull of gravity (due to less mass). Later in life stars that end up getting to giant classes tend to lose a lot more mass due to those stellar winds as those ramp up as the outer layers of the star get farther away from the center. Now this is all stars not just those that go supernova. Stars that go supernova they lose mass when they explode because the shockwave from a collapsing core makes the outer layers push outward leaving just the core which is what turns into a neutron star or black hole, which is why only the most massive of stars (i.e. not our sun) will explode as a supernova.

That said, the mass loss she's referring to is Hawking radiation which is what we believe (math said it's true!) occurs around all black holes, and this causes them to evaporate (Wikipedia it if you want a story on that). My thought is that Hawking radiation only acts as an evaporative means because one of the particles is forever stolen away in a black hole due to the event horizon which for something without an event horizon won't happen because the escape velocity is less than the speed of light. So I'm really confused how she can apply this same idea to something which she claims won't exist in the first place.
Click to expand...

Thanks. And who said I had to pay thousands for a college education? :D
 
Just like to point out that Creation Science tells us those aren't "solar winds", but rather simply unicorn farts. A lot of these Atheist professors refuse to teach alternative theories.
 
Quartz-1 said:
If they don't exist, what are the supermassive objects at the hearts of galaxies?
Click to expand...
ur mom?

in all seriousness though, this just shows blackholes cannot exist (assuming the proof holds up) for the accepted model.
It doesn't dismiss something like a blackhole cannot exist, just aspects about them based upon our present model
 
sfsuphysics said:
Well I'm about to go teach my intro astronomy lecture and I'm close to talking about this subject so here it goes....

Stars shed mass constantly via two processes 1) solar winds and 2) making energy, since they make energy via fusion which smooshes particles together to make another but the new particle has less mass than the particles that went into it so that's mass that's lost we see this mass as the light shining from the Sun. So stars slowly get larger over time because they're losing mass constantly, and the pressure inside of them can out push the pull of gravity (due to less mass). Later in life stars that end up getting to giant classes tend to lose a lot more mass due to those stellar winds as those ramp up as the outer layers of the star get farther away from the center. Now this is all stars not just those that go supernova. Stars that go supernova they lose mass when they explode because the shockwave from a collapsing core makes the outer layers push outward leaving just the core which is what turns into a neutron star or black hole, which is why only the most massive of stars (i.e. not our sun) will explode as a supernova.

That said, the mass loss she's referring to is Hawking radiation which is what we believe (math said it's true!) occurs around all black holes, and this causes them to evaporate (Wikipedia it if you want a story on that). My thought is that Hawking radiation only acts as an evaporative means because one of the particles is forever stolen away in a black hole due to the event horizon which for something without an event horizon won't happen because the escape velocity is less than the speed of light. So I'm really confused how she can apply this same idea to something which she claims won't exist in the first place.
Click to expand...


Thank you,

/thread.
 
It sounds to me like what she is saying is that Stellar Mass black holes are impossible. It didn't say anything about the SuperMassive black holes which they've found evidence of at the center of every galaxy they've searched for them in. The article might be misnamed just to make it more sensational.

They've been trying to reconcile the physics of gravity and quantum mechanics for a long time now. A singularity is really a term for "we don't know what it is". They've been trying to figure out why math showed that a black hole's gravity is infinite, something that should be impossible. Perhaps now she's proven that a black hole's gravity is not infinite?

Something very dense with immense gravity is floating around in the center of galaxies. Perhaps just now they have a better understanding of what they are not. Perhaps they are not holes in space-time, but still powerful, important, and dangerous nonetheless. It is promising news and I'm excited to see what the rest of the community thinks about the findings.
 
I like how she is "merging two seemingly conflicting theories" to create a so called fact.

Sounds legit right?
 
Actually, the published papers never state that Black Holes can't/don't exist.

They state the current hypothesis on how they form is wrong. i.e. stars don't just collapse into a black hole because they lose too much mass during the Nova phase. They (black holes) must form using some other method/process we don't yet understand...

At least that's what I got from reading the papers
 
pothb said:
And they say relgious people shove it in other people's faces... but every time I go to threads like these, it's atheists making fun of other people's beliefs.

Anyway, not peer reviewed, is big.

I remember someone telling me someone won a nobel prize for a complicated math equation a while back that turned out to be gibberish. And they only found out because he tried it again, and it looked too similar.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between someone making a joke about religion and black holes and people who just like to berate people because of their religion/race/ or other things.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
Ahem..You were saying?

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2000/20/image/a/

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2000/21/image/a/

Just a couple examples from way back in the Hubble Days..
Click to expand...

Actually those aren't pictures of black holes, they're pictures of quasars and matter at the accretion disk (which are not parts of the black hole itself).

It is in fact impossible to take a picture of a black hole itself, due to the fact that light cannot escape the point of no return, which is the point at which the black hole starts. You can take a picture in the direction of the black hole and see the lack of light in the area that the black hole "should" be, but it's not a picture of the black hole itself (because, again, it's impossible).
 
I can't speak to whether this will be accepted or someone will find a flaw, but people seem to be confusing two types of black holes. There are smaller black holes created by the leftovers of a supernova, which are the type she says cannot exist. And then there are supermassive blackholes which were formed billions of years ago when the universe cooled and condensed. Those are two entirely different processes and shouldn't be confused.

Both of these are very badly named and it irritates me to see my favorite Sci-Fi shows constantly believe a black hole is an actual hole in space time. It's not, it's just a super dense piece of matter. That's it. The supermassive black holes in the center of galaxies are actually quite large in physical dimensions. Whereas the smaller supernova type could be earth-sized.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Because some of us read the article and remembered what was in it


Now granted it could be a case of news-science misinterpretation, but being as it's written on the universities website and isn't simply a paid piece from the A.P. that gets throw around I'm likely to lean a little more towards more truth in the article than sensationalism :)
Click to expand...


Eh, by everyone i was meaning all the authors of all articles i was reading, not these posters.
I wanted to edit it, but oopsies. Have you found a more scientific link?
 
This is patently garbage. Every galaxy in the universe has a black hole at it's center, What a load of crap. :rolleyes:
 
Krenum said:
That's because Science is based on facts and hard evidence. Something either exists or it doesn't. Science is very black and white. It doesn't leaving anything open for interpretation. That's the beauty of it.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Science is based on MONEY.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top