Black holes do not exist

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Luchito, Mar 3, 2021.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,592
    Even I can see your total lack of knowledge about black holes here.

    a) A dead star may be a corpse, but it has mass. A collapsed big dead star still has mass!
    b) Magnetics does not create gravity, mass does. Gravity is a warping of spacetime!
    c) Dead stars don't radiate, infalling bodies do when being torn apart by gravity!d) Infalling bodies don't just collapse, they add their mass to the mass of the central singularity!

    I know very little about black holes, but I know that you know less about black holes than I do,,

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2021
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,607
    There's no contradiction. I fear you did not understand either explanation.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Luchito Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    389
    Who taught you that?

    At the center of a galaxy can be only two scenarios, nothing or a huge group of stars. Nothing is the most plausible. Galaxies form from outside not from a pulling center, like storms do.

    And, according to you, getting near a black hole in order to be pulled, what do you mean with "very close to it"?

    Images shown online -fake from fanatics, computer simi=ulations from science institutions, magazines and more, show stars trapped in such pulling force of black holes, and when you look at them, you can easily conclude that all those images are nothing but fantasies.

    Also, the chance for another planet to hit earth is as rare as my uncle Ricardo Martino hitting someone when driving his car as 10 miles per hour, and you guys talk of stars colilision into black holes as happening every five minutes. A little more and you will start predicting that tomorrow afternoon at three thirty another star will fall deep inside a black hole located besides Sagitario. A fanatic from your gropu will put the video taken that night...

    Come on, too much theoretical garbage. From followers of black holes the only truth in their articles is the date when they wrote them, after that those are nothing but imaginary events, and lots of possible scenarios: ... if you get near a black hole then this... that..and if you travel inside a black hole then this... that.... and if a black hole comes near earth then this... that...

    A black hole is pure imagination at work, it doesn't exist in physical reality. The expectations of the behavior of a black hole depends of what kind of programming you will input in your computer to make it show radiation around it, to show it pulingl other bodies, and so forth.

    When one looks at space he only sees static images from far away, and here is when the imagination prevails over interpreation, and black hole theorists interpret everythting as pulled by black holes...

    Phyics, the branch of science, before Relativity was a respectable part of science, but now is full of clowns who have convert it into a circus.

    How long will be for black holes believers to realize they have been deceived is hard to predict, but this insanity has invaded lots of minds already, and hope is for new generations to grow up free of this kind of pseudoscience like Relativity and black holes.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,607
    You are referring to neutron stars. They are:

    1) composed of collapsed matter (i.e. mostly neutrons)
    2) fairly radiative (since anything that hits the surface generates a huge amount of energy) but not very bright
    3) not _quite_ large enough for the escape velocity to exceed 186,000 miles per second - hence they do not become black holes.

    Two examples of neutron stars are PSR J0108-1431 and PSR B1509-58.

    BTW this is a great example of an argument from ignorance:
    Just because you don't understand gravity doesn't mean it has to have a limit.
     
  8. Luchito Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    389
    a) Not moving mass. You must understand this part. That mass won't move at all. It is FROZEN.
    b) Oh, I see, we never touched this part. Sadly for you, the idea of mass aa a great factor for gravity is 99% false.
    c) Dead mass is what a black hole is, because regardles of gravity as the hangman, the star dies completely.
    d)A collision between a regular star with a collapsed star will cause the dead frozen star to recover its former temperature by activation of its particles and be fusioned to the star. You have that right... finally.
     
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,592
    Yep, its limit is a black hole.
    What goes in doesn't come out!
     
  10. Luchito Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    389
    I truly have no idea what is your point, but sounds handsome. Yup, handsome.

    Gravity between bodies has a limit. Gravity of a body on itself also has a limit.

    There is not such thing as a star -dead or not- so dense preventing the escape of its own light, unless you close the entire atmosphere of the star with a dark cover, because gravity won't work for such a task.

    For you to understand it, just must learn that in 1919, the phenomenon of the displacement of the image of the star close to the Sun, that was observed from earth, was caused by the atmosphere of the sun, not so by its gravity. You see, the displacement of images from far away are due to temperature or gases in the atmosphere, and this phenomenon is very common, and is called mirage by many.

    This is so common, that when you look at the image of the sun close to the horizon line at sunset, what you see is the reflection of the sun in our atmosphere, because in reality its physical body is already under the horizon line. This is a known fact.

    Now apply the same phenomenon to the observations in 1919 and will come out that there was not a gravitaional lens but an atmospheric lens the one causing such displacement of the image of the star in question.

    Newton and Einstein were both wrong.

    But do not worry, you have Luchito here, I will explain you better than those two guys.
     
  11. Luchito Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    389
    When it was going in, it had motion, then the body died. No more motion. It's dead.

    A dead body can't do anything, no more pulling force, no energy at all, just a dead body.
     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,592
    Motion has nothing to do with it. It's the mass that warps the fabric of spacetime.
    Ok, dig a hole in the earth and roll a steel ball into the hole. lt'll just lie at the bottom, unable to roll back out or float back out because it has lost all it's mass, no? Why is that? Gravity!

    Motion? Do you believe a steel hammer falls faster than a feather?
     
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,607
    You were describing a neutron star, not a black hole.
    What is this limit, and why does it exist?
    One of the most famous gravitational lenses is called "The Dragon." It is an image of Abell 370, a galaxy cluster about 6 billion light years away that has been spread out into a huge arc by the gravity of a galaxy between us and Abell 370. The effects extend thousands of light years from the gravitational lens.

    Hopefully you don't think that's due to the "galaxy's atmosphere."
     
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,679
    I call rat.

    No one sincerely interested in discussing astrophysics is this ignorant about the subject.

    Luchito, you are a troll.

    Correcting every falsehood you claim would require a book. Its beyond the scope of this forum.
     
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,104
    No. I don't think that. What I know is that the currently accepted best explanation is relativity.

    I note also that you no alternative to offer.
    Then where is it?

    Why are you consistently unable to produce even one skerrick of the evidence/explanation you claim you have?

    Remember, we started discussing this back in April. You've had months to come up with something. But, despite your repeated claims, you never actually produce anything for examination. All you have are your mistaken opinions.
    Why should I do your homework for you?

    If you claim that you have the "answer", you need to present it. The reason you don't do that, of course, is because you think that you can bluff your way along without limit. I see you. Your bullshit isn't fooling me.
    Excuses excuses. You have nothing. And you know it. You're a troll, aren't you?
     
  16. river

    Messages:
    17,307

    Mass warps , through rotation , fluids in space . Not spacetime . Neither space nor time exist , can exist without the physical . Space can not exist in and off its self . Space without something is not possible . Space depends on the physical to exist .
     
  17. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    From post#510

    Seems to be forgotten . Interesting .


    Highlighted

    Whatever it is . There is a limit . Because without limit , there would be no stability , the periodic table , there would be no existence in the first place . The Universe would not exist without limits . Otherwise there would be this mishmashing of objects that are changing all the time , no concrete objects of consistency . Hence no reality .
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2021
  18. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,679
    No please don't.

    Luchito has already demonstrated a complete ignorance of what is already observed astrophysics-wise. Making up a theory that's based on such ignorance as "galaxies are formed like storms are formed" is just compounding the problem with this thread.

    I think we need to concentrate on correcting or otherwise stopping the misinformation Luchito attempts to promulgate.
     
  19. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,568
    Your misunderstanding of astronomy and science is amazing, you literally sound like a 7 year old.
     
  20. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,295
    Ya possible a few 7 year olds live under a bridge and do not know what the average airspeed velocity of either a African or European swallow

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Anyway , there is no steady frequency of light heading towards the centre of the Galaxy , that would be a signature or evidence of a black-hole . Throughout the Universe .
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2021
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,607
    Again, black holes do not pull every single thing into them. You saw that in a movie. It's not real. All they have is gravity, like every other object in the universe.
     
  23. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,102
    event horizon gambling

    the test of proof that black holes do not exist currently looks harder than the evidence saying they do

    the bible proves black holes do not exist ?
    when did bibles prove this ?


    veiled eyes is an old term for meaning their intentions shall be hidden

    which meaning are you using ?

    the term has at least 4 different meanings

    distance times gravity = ?
    light is a projected energy
    so it has direction & force
    gravity has all directions & no force(or does it have force?)

    in theory
    & this is not my subject
    an event horizon is the point at which light becomes sucked in to a black hole
    so all light outside the event horizon has more energy than the black hole has suction
    combined with other suction from other galaxy's & planets & solar systems
    (theorizing)
     

Share This Page