Black holes do not exist

[Write4U]

However, the collapsed star won't allow motion of its parts, and is no more than a compressed body which is dead. A dead star is like a corpse, a dead body. It won't function at all. Its pulling force dies as well, because it has a limit, it has to have a limit. Even magnets die and lose their characteristics. So, the dead body -collapsed star- won't be capable to produce any radiation and less to pull anything around, because its size after collapsing will be so small that it won't create any issues.

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,,

 

[billvon]

And NASA, not only me, also contradicts your point, as you can oobserve.

There's no contradiction. I fear you did not understand either explanation.

 

[Luchito]

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.

Who taught you that?

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.

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.

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.

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...

Like Luchito, you are basing your arguments on a misconception of what a black hole is and how it is expected to behave.

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.

 

[billvon]

However, the collapsed star won't allow motion of its parts, and is no more than a compressed body which is dead. A dead star is like a corpse, a dead body. It won't function at all. Its pulling force dies as well, because it has a limit, it has to have a limit. Even magnets die and lose their characteristics. So, the dead body -collapsed star- won't be capable to produce any radiation.

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:

Its pulling force dies as well, because it has a limit, it has to have a limit.

Just because you don't understand gravity doesn't mean it has to have a limit.

 

[Luchito]

Even I can see the total fallacy of your argument here.
a) A dead star may be a corpse, but it has mass. A big dead star still has big mass!
b) Magnetis does not create gravity, mass does, big Mass creates big gravity!
c) Dead stars don't radiate, infalling bodies do when being torn apart by gravity.
d) Infalling bodies don't just get small 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 hole than I do,,

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.

 

[Write4U]

Its pulling force dies as well, because it has a limit, it has to have a limit.

Yep, its limit is a black hole.
What goes in doesn't come out!

 

[Luchito]

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:

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

Just because you don't understand gravity doesn't mean it has to have a limit.

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.

 

[Luchito]

Yep, its limit is a black hole.
What goes in doesn't come out!

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.

 

[Write4U]

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

Motion has nothing to do with it. It's the mass that warps the fabric of spacetime.

A dead body can't do anything, no more pulling force, no energy at all, just a dead body.

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?

 

[billvon]

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

You were describing a neutron star, not a black hole.

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

What is this limit, and why does it exist?

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.

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."

 

[DaveC426913]

Galaxies form from outside not from a pulling center, like storms do.

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.

 

[James R]

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I can easily drop the bomb and release the findings, but wait... that is not the right way to do it...

Excuses excuses. You have nothing. And you know it. You're a troll, aren't you?

 

[river]

↑

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

Motion has nothing to do with it. It's the mass that warps the fabric of spacetime.

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 .

 

[river]

From post#510

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

Seems to be forgotten . Interesting .

What is this limit, and why does it exist?

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 .

 

[DaveC426913]

If you claim that you have the "answer", you need to present it.

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.

 

[origin]

A dead body can't do anything, no more pulling force, no energy at all, just a dead body.

Your misunderstanding of astronomy and science is amazing, you literally sound like a 7 year old.

 

[Michael 345]

Your misunderstanding of astronomy and science is amazing, you literally sound like a 7 year old.

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

 

[river]

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 .

 

[billvon]

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 .

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.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

I put my house and all my money, black holes do not exist

event horizon gambling

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

Here, perhaps some explaination why (i have selected some verses form the 34) :

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

/topics/their_eyes_will_be_veiled

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

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 .

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)