Inside Black Hole
- Thread starter john_ricko
- Start date
Is English your second language? I only ask because I think you may be confused on the meaning of "citation."
If you doubt the statements I made, here is some light reading describing something I believe should be common knowledge by this time.
http://www.ibtimes.com/do-black-hol...find-no-evidence-black-hole-formation-1694978
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1837v1.pdf
http://boisestate.newsvine.com/_new...m-equation-predicts-universe-has-no-beginning
I really hate having to provide these couple links since I'm not a teacher and feel as though you should do your own work, but in case you need them, here they are. there are thousands more online if you'd care to learn about how wrong Scientists have been over the years...even, GASP, Stephen Hawking.... I know I know... poor Steven.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
It's just theory anyway! Lighten up. The reason they call it "The Big Bang THEORY" and the "Black Hole THEORY" is...well you get it, right?
From your first link
The scientific meaning of the word theory
I cannot post links - it is from a livescience article called What is a Scientific Theory?
Anyway....
Erm... Sorry what you posted is links to yet another theory from a physicist trying to disprove mathematically that black holes exist. Those aren't findings. There's no fact to back that up besides a postulated theory. A postulated theory (which, stated in your own link) has not been through the peer review process at that. They are essentially the great unknown at the moment. Makes them a little exciting doesn't it? Which is why sweeping statements like "And since they aren't real, or even possible given the latest findings" backed up by links to a paper that hasn't even been through peer review... I'm sorry what you said is simply false. That's not fact. Its another physicist trying to make a name for themselves. For every link you provide, I can provide one counter to it. WHAT are they? How do they work? WHY do they exist? These are all good questions. Your sweeping statements are nothing but misinformation. I know something we DO know though. There is OBSERVATIONAL DATA of the lensing of a black hole. That is indisputable, unless the telescopes aren't working properly. Whether they behave the way we currently think they do or not, that's a matter of debate but there is absolutely NO debate that they exist.
Last edited:
Seems to me that Potato is using the word "citation" in its conventional usage.
The second link is to a paper that argues that black holes cannot form. It has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
That first link is to a brief article in International Business Times on the paper, which contains an opinion of the paper:
“The [paper] is nonsense,” William Unruh, a theoretical physicist from the University of British Columbia, told IFLScience. “Attempts like this to show that black holes never form have a very long history, and this is only the latest. They all misunderstand Hawking radiation, and assume that matter behaves in ways that are completely implausible.”
This is hardly compelling stuff.
I think you and the author of this article misunderstand. The paper referenced in the article doesn't argue against the big bang. It argues against the big bang starting from a singularity. See e.g. http://earthsky.org/space/what-if-the-universe-had-no-beginning . If I recall correctly, Hawking and others have argued something similar.
I dont doubt there is unfinished business with the environment. That's to be expected. I'm just saying that currently they are seriously lacking in the potential department and that department doesn't require a lot of effort to realize a much more full experience.
Just as Hawking faced opposition and ridicule by other scientists about his ideas, these new findings are a threat to those who've spent a life time making a career out of the old theories. The facts are these, Black Holes are un-seen, un-observed, and completely and utterly theoretical. And Mathematically they don't fit. Sure, could they exist? I guess. Could the Universe have been created out of a giant gnat's butt? Sure. Prove otherwise. So far they've proven nothing.
Alice! Lenny always throw Alice in the black hole. I guess it is reference to Alice in Wonderland.
Rest in Peace in Peace?
Sorry XD couldn't help it... i feel bad nowi'm gonna shoot something to cheer up... brb
Dont feel bad, i dont get it either. Do people not know what RIP stands for or is it some kind of internet joke im oblivious to?
Nope, certainly not common knowledge.
Wow - still, thanks for sharing (no matter how begrudgingly), very community spirited of you.
This article would seem to suggest that he's in agreement with some of those theories actually ...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...ole-stephen-hawking-firewall-space-astronomy/
Skimming this stuff it sounds not so much that Black Holes don't exist but that their behaviour re: event horizons and the like is possibly not quite how we originally thought.
The OP seems to have proved this with his original screenshot
Last edited:
^ I figured that since the latest disputes regarding the big bang theory and Black holes, was so widely known that Potato was being facetious.
And yes I guess the OPs photo of a black hole would indeed prove that they are real. So I stand corrected.
(I only point out that there is no proof of any of this. Black holes are a nice...theory...but still a theory.)
And yes I guess the OPs photo of a black hole would indeed prove that they are real. So I stand corrected.
(I only point out that there is no proof of any of this. Black holes are a nice...theory...but still a theory.)
define what a "theory" means in scientific relation
you know what a theory in science is? so not just a theory....
(from wikipedia)
Definitions from scientific organizations
The United States National Academy of Sciences defines scientific theories as follows:
(from wikipedia)
Definitions from scientific organizations
The United States National Academy of Sciences defines scientific theories as follows:
The formal scientific definition of "theory" is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#cite_note-16"][16][/URL]
From the American Association for the Advancement of Science:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#cite_note-AAAS_Evolution_Resources-15"][15][/URL]
Note that the term theory would not be appropriate for describing untested but intricate hypotheses or even scientific models.
ED disappears into a black hole every time I switch my computer off.
Ok, I'm done. We could copy and paste till the cows come home. I agree to not agree. In a few years, long after this spat, when another, better theory pops up, I can expect to receive apologies from online entities.
I never understood that ending... the whole 5th element 'them' things seemed very deus ex machina
Wouldn't he have been killed by spaghettification long before he ended up in behind-the-bookshelf-land ?
LOL
Back track.Observational data, lensing, gravital orbits in the central area are all facts that something that cannot be seen are there.
Fact
We call them black holes and have mathematical models that stand up to many pier reviews
Fact
What are the exact details and final calculations of these objects
Unknown and you seem to be jumping on these finer details by "some" wannabes as to non existence of something that is obviously there.
What should we call them, black holes ?
That is up to you
Are you one of these conspiracy theorists and if so shall we start a moon landing thread ?
Last edited:
You're wrong. Thanks to visionary director Christopher Nolan, we know exactly what it looks like inside a black hole:
View attachment 22228
Also, grating and self-important Hans Zimmer score drones on endlessly inside.
View attachment 22228
Also, grating and self-important Hans Zimmer score drones on endlessly inside.