You are trolling again. Stop it, please.There is no constant wavelength of light that moves towards the centre of the Galaxy . There should be , if a black-hole is actually present .
You are trolling again. Stop it, please.There is no constant wavelength of light that moves towards the centre of the Galaxy . There should be , if a black-hole is actually present .
Don't tell lies, please!From the other discussion about time as a fourth dimension, the claims that time dilates have been debunked, and time is found justas a measure invented to obtain data about a motion or decay of bodies.
With what crucial evidence? Where did you present any evidence? Link, or it didn't happen.With this crucial eveidence, the theory of Relativity fails and is found false...
An empty, pointless assertion.So far, my claims that black holes don't exist are more stronger and backed with evidence...
The same way that we do any kind of science, of course! We can certainly use instruments such as telescopes to observe black holes, for example. We also infer their existence from their effects on things around them. If you have an alternative explanation for the observations, why don't you present it? In fact, why do you never present anything but your own empty opinions?Then, black holes can't by any means release radiation, can't be observed with naked eye, can't be detected with Doppler effect, do those really exist? How do you know if there is no way to find out?!
Please don't tell lies. Knowingly telling lies is a breach of our site posting guidelines.Come on, the whole idea of black holes only exist in a piece of paper, because the theory mother, Relativity, has also been found false already.
Distance... my friend... "distance effect" kills your black hole theory....Your entire post has no relevance to mine. I never mentioned or even inferred anything about other galaxies or the distances between them. What I did was compare the mass of our galaxy's mass to that of the black hole at the center to show that the former would has a much larger effect than the later on the solar system, refuting River's claim that we should see some difference in gravitational Doppler shift when looking in different directions due the central black hole's existence.
That aside, the physical size of a gravitational source has no bearing on the strength of its gravitational field. The only thing that matters is the mass, For us, some tens of light years away from the center of the galaxy, the gravitational pull of Sagittarius A would be the same if it were the size of a baseball or 10 light years across.
You are arguing against a model for black holes that is not the model real physics predicts, and against claims that science doesn't actually make. The only thing "imaginary" about them is the version you've invented for yourself.
Don't tell lies, please!
Remember that back in April of this year, you said that you could provide some evidence to "debunk" time dilation and/or the existence of black holes, but since then we have seen nothing of the sort from you. There are only your opinions, which are worthless.
You might think that there are no other explanations for the faster functional work on clocks in outer space that in your opinion is the evidence that time "dilates".
I do have a clear and accurate explanation based in the whole experiments and experiences that have ocurred until today in the space station, an explanation that denbuks without mercy the superfluous idea that time dilates.
You see, you won't obtain the explanation of that behavior in clocks when expoosed to motion in airplanes going east or west, or traveling fast in outer space, just by using a piece of paper and say: "Here!... here says why those clocks show a different time data!"
No, you are dead wrong if you think a dumb piece of paper will be your "evidence".
Evidence is obtained by observation and test, not so by writing formulas. Formulas and equations only show amounts but explain nothing.
Besed on experiments made at the space station thru years and years, you can also find the answer of why atomic clocks give a different time data compared to same clocks on ground zero.
It is just basic physics and you just need to THINK, nothing but to THINK, and find out why.
In order for you to THINK, first is to pull the trash out (Relativity theories doctrines) and study those expetiments with a clear mind.
I can easily drop the bomb and release the findings, but wait... that is not the right way to do it... so a better way is to guide you to find by yourself the causes of such a phenomenon. You won't regret it. You will find out that you can also discover new things in science.
So, you have several experiments from the space station posted in different places online. You can also look in journals. Explore two or three of them, and those will indicate automatically a same common denominator. From here start to find more experiments of all kind which have been performed over there. You will be in the right path to find the answer by yourself.
Having Relativity theory demoinstrated false with sure evidence, then next step is to declare the daughter theory of black holes as false as well. The whole process is following evidence after evidence.
If you didn't know, in science evidence rules over formulas written in a piece of paper. Follow my advice, at least try it once. You are not going anywhere defending a good for nothing theory like Relativity and its daughter the black holes theory.
Distance... my friend... "distance effect" kills your black hole theory....
Yup. One more to add in science dictionaries: "distance effect".
It's not my theory. And you have nothing that "kills" the theory, because you don't have the vaguest notion of how the theory works.
Just saying "distance effect" means nothing. Does gravitational effect fall off with distance? Yes. Is the gravitational acceleration due to the black hole at the center of the galaxy which acts on our Solar system less than 1/trillionth of a g? Yes.
Does this mean that there cannot be a black hole at the center of the galaxy? absolutely not. On the other hand, the fact that we do see stars orbiting something at the center of our galaxy in orbits that indicate that what they are orbiting is very massive, yet relatively small for something that massive, does provide strong evidence that the object is a black hole.
It's not my theory. And you have nothing that "kills" the theory, because you don't have the vaguest notion of how the theory works.
Just saying "distance effect" means nothing. Does gravitational effect fall off with distance? Yes. Is the gravitational acceleration due to the black hole at the center of the galaxy which acts on our Solar system less than 1/trillionth of a g? Yes.
Does this mean that there cannot be a black hole at the center of the galaxy? absolutely not. On the other hand, the fact that we do see stars orbiting something at the center of our galaxy in orbits that indicate that what they are orbiting is very massive, yet relatively small for something that massive, does provide strong evidence that the object is a black hole.
The OP seems to be a bit confused about his own claims. At one point he's arguing against the existence of black holes, and then, when he paints himself into the corner he switches to arguing against relativity.
This thread is about black holes, as per the title.
I'd like to see some solid arguments against the existence of the physical, observable objects, while abstract discussions about relativity are sequestered as off-topic.
Nope. In fact, we use relativity to understand black holes.It has been clarified that black holes theory principles departed from Relativity theory.
We've done both.After the theory mother passes the scrutiny, then next step is to analyze the black holes theory itself.
Nope. You prove it is valid every time you use the GPS in your car.At this point, the theory mother has been found false.
Nobody in the scientific community says that the black hole at our galaxy's center is pulling huge star stars around ( except for those very near it), and definitely not other galaxies. In additio the black hole at the center of our galaxy is not a "compressed star" it is way to massive to have ever been a single star.Hold your horses, you are too close to a huge precipice.
Before you come with your clains of accelerated gravity you must explain how a tiny, dead, compressed, collapse star will star pulling space, "time", light, plus huge stars and galaxies around... where there are trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of miles betwen those bodies.
No, storms and galaxies to not form the same way. While they have a similar spiral pattern, that pattern results from different processes.The more such a collapsed body can attract is cosmic dust.
Galaxies are formed similar to storms.
No. Black holes are a physical, observable object that can be confirmed by empirical methods whether or not you like any given theory that tries to explain them.It has been clarified that black holes theory principles departed from Relativity theory.
Then, in order to analyze black holes theory is a must to review first the theory mother, because the principles come from it.
No it hasn't. Repeating it doesn't make it any less false.At this point, the theory mother has been found false.
No. Black holes are a physical, observable object that can be confirmed by empirical methods whether or not you like any given theory that tries to explain them.
In other words, black holes would be observed even without a relativity model - i.e. even if we were still upholding a Newtonian model of the universe. We might not have the science and math to explain them with a Newtonian model, but the empirical evidence alone would force us to acknowledge their existence (and update our models).
But they aren't. The objects are following orbits. The orbits are determined by the overall total distribution of the matter making up the galaxy. The Black hole at its center barely contributes anything to this because its mass is pretty insignificant in comparison to the total mass of the galaxy. Secondly, for the vast majority of the galaxy, it would not matter if the 4 million solar masses of Sagittarius A was compacted into a black hole or spread out over a larger volume, because, until you get very close to it, a black hole does not differ from anything else in terms of gravity.What empirical methods ?
Understood .
But if all objects were being pulled into the center of our Galaxy , ultimately that is what is going to happen , in the black-hole theory ; then there should be a flow of light moving towards the core of our Galaxy , the black-hole , ultimately ; we don't see this .
Nope. Black holes warp space with their gravity; as a result, objects experience a force pulling towards the black hole. That gravity is exactly the same as the force exerted by our sun on the planets in our solar system. Note that our sun is not "pulling all the planets into the sun" - the planets orbit the sun, and will remain orbiting for billions of years.But if all objects were being pulled into the center of our Galaxy , ultimately that is what is going to happen , in the black-hole theory ; then there should be a flow of light moving towards the core of our Galaxy , the black-hole , ultimately ; we don't see this .
Nope. In fact, we use relativity to understand black holes.
We've done both.
Nope. You prove it is valid every time you use the GPS in your car.
Nobody in the scientific community says that the black hole at our galaxy's center is pulling huge star stars around ( except for those very near it), and definitely not other galaxies. In additio the black hole at the center of our galaxy is not a "compressed star" it is way to massive to have ever been a single star.
While the black hole is at the center of the galaxy, the galaxy doesn't orbit it. The different components ( stars etc), orbit around its center due to the mutual gravitational attraction of those components. The central black hole's contribution to this in minute in comparison, you could remove it from the galaxy entirely, and would even notice it.
<<It is just to say a body twice the size of planet earth will suck the whole Milky Way.... you are bluffing...>>
Nobody is making that claim.
No, storms and galaxies to not form the same way. While they have a similar spiral pattern, that pattern results from different processes.
This proves exactly what I said before: You are trying to rebut a model for black holes that is not the scientifically accepted one, and are saying that science makes claims that it doesn't make.
No. Black holes are a physical, observable object that can be confirmed by empirical methods whether or not you like any given theory that tries to explain them.
In other words, black holes would be observed even without a relativity model - i.e. even if we were still upholding a Newtonian model of the universe.
Sure.Please explain exactly what GPS has to do with Relativity theory.