Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Australis
    Offline

    Australis Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    26

    Black holes cannot actually exist, according to mathematical proof

    Discussion in 'Debate Room' started by Australis, Oct 11, 2015.

    All I can say, is about time.

    http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/space/stories/black-holes-cannot-actually-exist-according-to-mathematical-proof

    Actually, I can say much more than that. Black holes have long been (and continue to be) the get-out-of-jail clause by 2nd class scientists. Instead of saying "We don't know everything", they've long created this magical black hole to hide their limited knowledge. It's like creating God's hand because you don't understand something.

    And then, because the black hole theory wasn't stacking up to mathematical science, they then went totally wild and claimed there must be parallel universes, etc, & etc. This fiction didn't even get questioned, because the "great" Hawkins was on board.


    The black hole fable is hardly dead, lets not pretend otherwise. The fictional science community aren't going to readily give up the religion without a fight. But it is the first scientific clink in the religion's armour. And it's about time.
     
  2. Moth
    Offline

    Moth Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2015
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    82
    To my knowledge, a Black Hole is just a neutron star that gets so dense that its gravity starts pulling in light. Seems perfectly logical to me. Funnily enough, I wrote a blog entry two days ago.

    But hey, I'm no expert. Let the leaned men and women debate about it until a general consensus is reached, that tends to be how science works.
     
  3. Chinspinner
    Offline

    Chinspinner Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,918
    Likes Received:
    1,018
    Location:
    London, now Auckland
    There are many scientific theories that aren't fully understood:

    No-one fully understands singularities and they are called black-holes
    No-one fully understands why the rate of expansion is increasing and it is called dark-energy.
    No-one fully understands why galaxies don't tear themselves apart, and the additional gravity required is called dark-matter.

    This is not scientists pretending they know things they don't, it is scientists identifying things that require further explanation. Try reading up on the scientific method.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2015
  4. Australis
    Offline

    Australis Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    26
    I do know what the scientific method is.

    Black holes, and parallel universes have been treated as biblical truths for a few years by much of the relig..scientific community. It's their God, in spite of it not meeting any type of test, either logic, or scientific.
    And I'll guarantee you, Hawkins, or one of his disciples, will appear on TV in the next month of so, promoting parallel universes through black holes as gospel truth.

    This will be just like the "all fats are bad" religion. Proven scientifically false in the 1950's, yet preached with religious fever until the last 10-15 years. Scientists will lose their careers fighting against the black hole industry, just as many nutritional scientists lost their careers fighting against the "all fats are bad" interest group.

    Btw: I know the different between multi & parallel universe theories.
     
  5. Chinspinner
    Offline

    Chinspinner Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,918
    Likes Received:
    1,018
    Location:
    London, now Auckland
    Well, on that issue, I do find myself thinking that theoretical physics that cannot be experimentally tested is a cul-de-sac we have been stuck in for too long.
     
  6. Moth
    Offline

    Moth Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2015
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    82
    Science is all about establishing an idea and then challenging it in search of the truth. Religion is all about establishing an idea and then preaching it, regardless of the truth. It's probably not best to get into the whole Religion vs Science thing, or the Science is a Religion thing, given this thread is supposed to be about Black Holes.

    Now, I'm no expert, but I'm going to share what I do know.

    Neutron stars gets very, very dense. When they get to a certain density, their gravity becomes so intense that no light can escape. Thus, you have a well in space devoid of light, a "Black Hole". Because of how gravity and time work with each other, Relativity. Black Holes have their own unique set of crazy physics, and no-one really knows exactly what's going there.

    But, just because we don't know everything about Black Holes, it doesn't mean they don't exist. In fact, I'm aware that Black Holes have been seen and recorded numerous times by NASA and others. Take star clusters, for example. People used to think that Black Holes couldn't exist in Globular Star Clusters until they found some that did. A theory was challenged, found wanting, and discarded.

    In the end, if Black Holes don't exist, that's fine. NASA and astronomers the world over will accept it and that will become the new consensus. To refer to the ever-changing realm of science as a religion is simply false.

    But, as I said. Black Holes have been found and demonstrated in active space. They make sense, they're there.
     
  7. Aaron DC
    Offline

    Aaron DC Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2015
    Messages:
    2,554
    Likes Received:
    1,251
    Location:
    At my keyboard
    I like the science is the new religion analogy, personally. Not present day religion, no. Olden day religion.

    When the priests were the only ones who could read or write (only scientists can understand their esoteric fields of study). Where if a priest said something, or said the bible says something (cf a study gets published) people tend to just accept it. There's significant cost to verify a study's findings. Not just purchasing access to the study in question (where raw data tends to be summarised), but its references, etc as well. Even when there's significant disagreement from other scientists, published studies can remain in published form, without any requirement for retraction.

    People just accept things on faith, too.

    Like a second is 9,192,631,770 vibrations of a cesium atom. I mean, it works, right, and there's no need to question it, but no one does.

    Now I realise these things can be measured and consistently arrived at, but not by your average Joe. He's still relying on scientists telling the truth.

    Studies get binned when the results found are negative, or not what the sponsor was looking for. You only tend to see the positive result studies. Scientists and outcomes can be bought and corrupted, just as priests and religions can.

    So no, science and religion are not synonymous, but for me they do bear a striking resemblance in terms of the actors, their roles, claims of authority and immediate acceptance of their proclamations by the uneducated masses. We are now more educated, so religion has lots its allure, but science, imo, is taking on that mantle.

    Would it be truer to say that the apparent effect of the presence of a blackhole has been detected, and ascribed to the presence of said blackhole?

    They can't be seen, and the light that is or is not being detected to indicate a body's existence can be thousands if not more years old.
     
  8. Moth
    Offline

    Moth Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2015
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    82
    You're right, it would be more political to say that the symptoms are there and that, just because the symptoms are there, it doesn't necessarily mean A or B is true or untrue. But evidence is all we have to go on, be it for or against the existence of black holes. But when most of the evidence leans one way, our belief in it follows that leaning.

    For example; there are still people to believe the world is flat, and provide their own evidence as to how they came to that conclusion. But, the vast majority of evidence suggests the world is round.

    That is the same argument we have here, in my eyes. The evidence that black holes exist far outweigh the evidence that they do not. From the radiation that they emit, to the way they warp light, to the simple fact that objects in the galaxy have been seen orbiting other light-less objects that fit the bill for being a black hole.

    All of that, against a non-peer reviewed paper.

    You see why I'm skeptical?
     
  9. Aaron DC
    Offline

    Aaron DC Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2015
    Messages:
    2,554
    Likes Received:
    1,251
    Location:
    At my keyboard
    But you do not understand the science behind it, do you?

    Hence: religion. You simply believe what you are told, and have no way of verifying the claims being made.

    I am not saying whether I believe black holes exist or not, just pointing out that at our level, we have to believe what we are told.
     
  10. Moth
    Offline

    Moth Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2015
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    82
    I understand enough to form my own opinion, as did the OP. At the end of the days, that's all we can hope to do. As I said in my first post here, I'm no expert. Let the people who know this stuff, and do it for a day job, work it all out.

    Yes, I put my trust in the consensus. But just because faith is involved, it does not make science a religion. Any more than having faith that my washing machine will wash my jeans without shrinking them makes me a worshiper of washing machines. Science is permitted - indeed, encouraged to - change and adapt as new information emerges, the written word of God is not. After all, if it's the word of God, how could it be false?

    I know, I'm singling out Abrahamic religions here, but it underlines my point well.

    Though, again, this isn't a debate about religion.
     
  11. Chinspinner
    Offline

    Chinspinner Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,918
    Likes Received:
    1,018
    Location:
    London, now Auckland
    Well the science behind black holes and their formation is pretty simple, I think almost anyone with the time and inclination to research it could understand it quite quickly. Of course the singularity is problematic, but no-one can explain that.
     
  12. Aaron DC
    Offline

    Aaron DC Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2015
    Messages:
    2,554
    Likes Received:
    1,251
    Location:
    At my keyboard
    I mean the evidence that is being touted as supporting the claim of the existence of blackholes.

    Does Moth understand that evidence, or even know what it is?
     
  13. Moth
    Offline

    Moth Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2015
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    82
    Like I said, I understand enough. I wouldn't be arguing my corner if I didn't now, would I? I wouldn't really be able to.

    I suppose you'll want to me explain everything that a simple google search could provide for you? Actually, google would be able to provide you with a lot more. As I said, not an expert. Just someone who likes to form my own opinions.
     
  14. Aaron DC
    Offline

    Aaron DC Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2015
    Messages:
    2,554
    Likes Received:
    1,251
    Location:
    At my keyboard
    You suppose incorrectly. No, I do not want anything from you other than the free exchange of ideas, and the right to ask questions.
     
  15. Moth
    Offline

    Moth Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2015
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    82
    Then by all means, let the information exchanging begin.

    I'll be honest, since seeing this thread posted here, I've been doing some more reading into black holes and why they could/couldn't exist. I'm more skeptical than I was about the existence of black holes, but I am still leaning towards them being a thing that exists outside of fiction.

    Take the famed black hole in Messier 87, for example. Or the theory behind the creation of black holes makes perfect sense, as long as you accept that light can be affected by gravity and that an object can reach the density required, without getting into the headache-inducing complexities of event-horizon theories.
     
  16. ADreamer
    Offline

    ADreamer Banned Sock-Puppet

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2015
    Messages:
    100
    Likes Received:
    24
    2nd class scientists. Oh my, oh my. Then according to you Albert Einstein was a 2nd class scientist. He predicted them by the way. And John Wheeler is a 2nd class scientist. He made the first discoveries of them. And personally I take the merits of a known genius [and a man almost as well known for his discoveries - Wheeler] over some quack math because guess - we know absolutely nothing about the universe and can't say one way or the other if black holes really exist.

    However, given as dwarf stars do condense as they get older and as such that condensing will considerably increase their density / mass the possibility of black holes existing is far more likely than them not existing.
     
  17. Steerpike
    Online

    Steerpike Felis amatus Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    11,051
    Likes Received:
    5,256
    Location:
    California, US
  18. Kingtype
    Offline

    Kingtype Always writing or thinking things XD Staff Role Play Moderator Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2012
    Messages:
    8,949
    Likes Received:
    1,030
    Location:
    Right under your nose!
    @Australis

    Soooooooooo you expect us to believe black holes don't exist, right? Well I'm not gonna fall for your trickery because that's just what someone from a parallel universe would say to throw us off their track!


    You almost had us.

    But we will still invade the other Earths someday!
     
  19. ADreamer
    Offline

    ADreamer Banned Sock-Puppet

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2015
    Messages:
    100
    Likes Received:
    24
    A supernova is what I am supposing you mean? Of course - if something explodes then you'd not have a black hole as there's nothing to create the necessary gravitational pull. It's like asking why the water won't go down the drain when you plug the hole.

    It can't be both, it can only be one or the other.

    Dying star collapses under its own weight - black hole
    Dying star collapses too quickly, loosing its density & gravitational pull in the process equalling an explosion - supernova, which is even less an unproven fact than black holes.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page