Black Holes Do Not Exist

cbutters

Gawd
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
514
I think many are misinterpreting the article. (maybe I am too)
From what I understood, the theory still supports the fact that stars collapse on themselves and gravity is so great that even light cannot escape, but its the part about black holes becoming a singularity and a tear in the fabric of space time which is not supported by the new theory. I think a better title would be "Black Holes do not exist as previously imagined" as they clearly do exist, just not in the form that previous scientific theories predicted.
 

cyclone3d

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
15,451
I think he annouced that black holes do not make matter / light "disappear" as originally thought.. but merely converts the energy.

Well.. seeing as how energy cannot be destroyed, only converted to another form, that is pretty obvious to begin with.
 

Ashbringer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
5,522
Observed in what context? The most basic definition of a black hole is an object where it's escape velocity (speed needed to escape it's gravity) exceeds the speed of light, at which point it no longer emits light, hence, "black hole". Are you talking about X-Ray observations & similar, or talking about observing light from other sources that has been "bent" (but not captured obviously) by the gravity of the black hole? Both of those things provide data but aren't necessarily conclusive in the context of exactly what a Black Hole is. Or are you referring to some other kind of observation?

He's talking about the Monster of the Milky Way . Which they have found the center of the milky way and there's a lot of stars swirling around something at amazing speeds. That something they can't see and therefore assume it's a black hole. It would have to be super massive cause their calculations show that.
 

CaptNumbNutz

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
24,005
A small black highly massive object that's not a hole, and shouldn't be described as a hole. :D

Ding! We have a winner of the only person to read the article instead of headline award!

For the non-astrophysicists out there, Hawking is arguing the name black hole, he isn't arguing the fact that we have known about points in space that have such intense gravitational pull that they absorb nearly everything that gets too close.
 
D

Deleted member 83233

Guest
Ding! We have a winner of the only person to read the article instead of headline award!

For the non-astrophysicists out there, Hawking is arguing the name black hole, he isn't arguing the fact that we have known about points in space that have such intense gravitational pull that they absorb nearly everything that gets too close.

***Bows graciously...*** :D

Anyway, it's nice when I can actually read the articles. Sometimes, if they're gaming related, or related to things not generally approved for the workplace, I have to respond to the responders, or the blurb. Definitely guilty of that from time to time. Science flies right in past our web filter though. ;)

I even manage the web filter, but I have so many exceptions in place on my own behalf that I hesitate to create too many. :D
 

Semantics

2[H]4U
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
2,811
I think he annouced that black holes do not make matter / light "disappear" as originally thought.. but merely converts the energy.
This is the problem with the disappearance of real newspaper journalism with dedicated sci/law etc journalist that actually know the subject they report on.
 

punisher

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 18, 2001
Messages
6,266
So, external to the event horizon, nothing has changed? The only difference is that there is a finite size for the core/matter of a black hole? Gravity no longer reigns supreme over everything else?
 

rflcptr

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
6,308
So, external to the event horizon, nothing has changed? The only difference is that there is a finite size for the core/matter of a black hole? Gravity no longer reigns supreme over everything else?

given the accelerating expansion of the universe, gravity hasn't reigned in several billion years. :p
 

B!nd.

Gawd
Joined
Mar 14, 2012
Messages
757
I have no doubts in my mind that black holes exist from early proto-stars. The jury is out if they can still be created though. I guess we're waiting on a star like VY Canis Majoris to pop, to really know :D

It probably did already.
 

punisher

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 18, 2001
Messages
6,266
given the accelerating expansion of the universe, gravity hasn't reigned in several billion years. :p

Well hell, let me rephrase that. In the classic black hole gravity overrides matter to form a singularity. In the new view, matter is able to resist being compressed to a singularity? Do you end up with Quark matter, or Preon matter?
 

RadXge

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,849
I suggest to wait for a peer-review before making any conclusion.

Going public without having the comfort of an adequate review from an independent physicist indicates, in my opinion, some lack of judgment.

And since we are not stuck within the horizon of a black hole, time will tell...
 

sfsuphysics

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
15,523
Mathematical proofs are bullshit?

For the most part... yes :)

"Hey I don't have any evidence at all that this is the way it really works, so we'll just use the bean bag approximation method which has been shown to work!"
 

Scythe

Gawd
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Messages
546
Big Bang, Black Holes, etc.....anyone else think these guys watch too much porn?
 

spugm1r3

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 28, 2012
Messages
1,153
Seriously, all jokes aside. The implications of this information are pretty mind-blowing. The entirety of my childhood education about the stars is based on the premise that the Big Bang is real.

Discoveries like this, if validated, are like disproving the Ptolemic universe, or discovering radiation. They are paradigm shifts.

Parents always worry about whether or not we are teaching the right things in school. Then a discovery like this comes along and proves that, in fact, we are not. Even worse, it will be years before the theory, if proven, is vetted enough for the plebian news organizations to report it like the discovery just happened yesterday.
 

Trepidati0n

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 26, 2004
Messages
9,270
This is patently garbage. Every galaxy in the universe has a black hole at it's center, What a load of crap. :rolleyes:

First, you didn't read the article. If you did, you wouldn't post what you posted. Second, we have no proof there is a "black hole" in the center of every galaxy since all of our measurements are indirect and far observed. It is just the best theory out there right now based upon the limited data we have. Humans aren't as smart as we think we are. If we were, the Cardassian wouldn't be popular. :p

Ignoring competing theories because it doesn't agree with yours isn't science...it is politics. Learn the difference.
 

Jagger100

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
7,710
First, you didn't read the article. If you did, you wouldn't post what you posted. Second, we have no proof there is a "black hole" in the center of every galaxy since all of our measurements are indirect and far observed. It is just the best theory out there right now based upon the limited data we have. Humans aren't as smart as we think we are. If we were, the Cardassian wouldn't be popular. :p

Ignoring competing theories because it doesn't agree with yours isn't science...it is politics. Learn the difference.

http://jp10.r0tt.com/l_50ded920-915a-11e2-bfaa-e90c5f200010.jpg
 

RealBeast

Gawd
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
648
So if there are no black holes then the Susskind idea that information is stored on the boundary and by inference that the same is possibly true for the universe, i.e. that we are 2D creatures that think we are 3D is out the window?

Damn, there goes my "I can't mow the lawn because I'm having a 2D day" excuse.
 
D

Deleted member 93354

Guest
Scientist are confused whey we even exists after the big bang. Supposidly due to symmetry rules there should have been equal parts matter and anti matter. And when they combine they annihilate each other leaving nothing left.

The fact we are here proves there was more matter then anti matter violating symmetry.

The day man fully explains how the universe was created, and can recreate it themselves, then that will be the day man becomes god himself. Until then God exists in my book.

Try reading "The Last Question" by Asimov about the heat death of the universe and the attempt to recreate it.
 

punisher

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 18, 2001
Messages
6,266
The day man fully explains how the universe was created, and can recreate it themselves, then that will be the day man becomes god himself. Until then God exists in my book.
.

Feelin' charitable today. Not even going to take the time to rip you a new one. Here is a link that lays out your argument and why it is assinine. Read and enjoy.....and have a great weekend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
 

pothb

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
4,997
Feelin' charitable today. Not even going to take the time to rip you a new one. Here is a link that lays out your argument and why it is assinine. Read and enjoy.....and have a great weekend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

I'm lost at what you're trying to point out here.

That you are arguing, because you don't know if God exists or not? Or he's arguing because he doesn't know if God exist or not?
 
D

Deleted member 93354

Guest
Feelin' charitable today. Not even going to take the time to rip you a new one. Here is a link that lays out your argument and why it is assinine. Read and enjoy.....and have a great weekend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Dear mental midget of an angry self loathing atheist who likes to attack others beliefs to make himself feel better

You're missing the point. Any man who can create a universe is by definition a god. Something created this universe and that something is god. It is the end all be all definition of being a god. You defy both space and time and are master of creation and destruction. I didn't put a definition on what God was.
 

Droc

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 20, 2007
Messages
3,380
this threads first page missed out on so many "Yo MOMA" jokes
 

Methadras

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 19, 2000
Messages
6,132
Then what is in the middle of our galaxy, and has been observed as being a black hole?

Well, clearly it is something with massive gravitation potential, but mathematically, according to this woman it isn't a black hole. I wonder what her feelings on #gamergate are? :D
 

blandead

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
321
Assuming her math is correct she's just showing that black holes can't be formed from collapsed stars because there isn't enough mass for a singularity to occur.

That's all it might prove, not that black holes don't exist, just that we don't understand how they are created.

But even that's not new, technically the sun isn't hot enough to split atoms apart, but it happens anyway.

Even when a spaceship leaves the earths orbit there's extra deceleration that no one can explain or account for.

But I guess we must know everything about imploding suns..
 

Godmachine

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
10,472
I would certainly agree, but the fact that the "proof" comes in the form of an elegant mathematical solution to some previously contradictory mathematical problems makes it seem like it might actually be legit. I'm sure we'll hear lots of counter-arguments from groups whose grant money comes from research into black holes.

Considering all the contrary evidence that supports in direct observation of Black Holes I honestly am skeptical about proposed math being a total "knockout" for Black Holes.

Our Supermassive Black Hole has been observed actually chewing up matter. So if Black Holes do not exist because the singularity can not exist because the matter is subject to being fully emitted before it can form a Black hole then what weights 4.5 Million Solar Masses and has stars racing around it at over a million mph?

Until you can explain what has been observed for decades now by studying our own Supermassive Black Hole then the math will have to be proofed by the scientific community at large.

Sensationalist announcements like this always sound interesting up front and then suddenly come under extreme scrutiny once the community at large has a crack at using this new concept to disprove the mounds of evidence that support the existence of black holes.

I take this announcement personally with 4.5 million solar mass sized grain of salt. Just like the announcement of finding gravitational waves earlier in the year. That is also turning out to be more than likely dust instead of evidence of gravitational waves from the echo of the Big Bang.
 

Wizard220

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 6, 2006
Messages
475
Hmmmm first it was all those hard drives of the IRS that got ate by a black hole then the EPA reported that some of their hard drives got ate by a black holes and now we have Eric "Gun Runner" Holder calling it quits. Wonder what will be reported of a new black hole discovery at the Dept of Justice.

Oh almost forgot, how about that 9 trillion dollars that went missing in that black hole ......
 

Wizard220

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 6, 2006
Messages
475
"Oh almost forgot, how about that 9 trillion dollars that went missing in that black hole ......"

Should say

Oh almost forgot, how about that 9 trillion dollars that went missing from DoD in that black hole.
 
Top