black holes don't exist.

[Iti oj]

Well that what the math and this researcher says. Here is the article http://m.phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html
And the original http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269314006686

 

[Jainarayan]

"I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more surprising than anything I can imagine. Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose."- J. B. S. Haldane

 

[Iti oj]

"I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more surprising than anything I can imagine. Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose."- J. B. S. Haldane

Well if this research is correct then truer words have never been spoken

 

[Alceste]

I think the article overstates the significance of her paper. It's been submitted to an "online repository" of physics papers that is not peer reviewed? Why would that be, I wonder? If it's as important and persuasive as she thinks, wouldn't she be submitting it to a peer reviewed journal?

 

[Iti oj]

I think the article overstates the significance of her paper. It's been submitted to an "online repository" of physics papers that is not peer reviewed? Why would that be, I wonder? If it's as important and persuasive as she thinks, wouldn't she be submitting it to a peer reviewed journal?

I think the paper was submitted originally but had approximate numbers and the new paper which is a collaboration, has exact number solutions supposedly. Hopefully it gets put through the review process.

That being said I found the claim of unification to be shaky at best.

 

[Willamena]

black holes don't exist

I never much cared for them, so I'm glad.

 

[Revoltingest]

The thread's title belie's the speculative intent of the paper.

And, she forgot to carry the one in her cardinal grammeter retroencabulation calculation.

 

[Revoltingest]

I never much cared for them, so I'm glad.

Black holes.....so feared by many ungrateful ape descendents.
But I don't see you complaining about living in a galaxy (which
seems to need black holes for formation). Hmmm....racism?

 

[Jainarayan]

Well if this research is correct then truer words have never been spoken

I don't think Einstein liked the idea of black holes. I can understand a star collapsing to a point of unimaginable gravity (think neutron stars), but do they really have to form a singularity? And how big is a singularity? I could never get my head around that one. Is it sub-subatomic? Truly, does it exist? If she's right it might explain why Michio Kaku once said that black holes are a nightmare because the math explaining the physics breaks down at the singularity. It's interesting nevertheless. If she's right I can understand that a black hole never forms, but the question of the Big Bang is now even more interesting. I imagined it being a singularity from another universe. Though I'm actually pretty dumb on this sort of thing... physics and such.

 

[Iti oj]

I don't think Einstein liked the idea of black holes. I can understand a star collapsing to a point of unimaginable gravity (think neutron stars), but do they really have to form a singularity? And how big is a singularity? I could never get my head around that one. Is it sub-subatomic? Truly, does it exist? If she's right it might explain why Michio Kaku once said that black holes are a nightmare because the math explaining the physics breaks down at the singularity. It's interesting nevertheless. If she's right I can understand that a black hole never forms, but the question of the Big Bang is now even more interesting. I imagined it being a singularity from another universe. Though I'm actually pretty dumb on this sort of thing... physics and such.

The implications are huge. This would be a scientific revolution.

 

[Jainarayan]

I have a headache already.

 

[Iti oj]

I have a headache already.

Yeah I'm trying to imagine but I can't.

 

[sun rise]

This paper surprised me. I'm not seriously troubled by lack of peer review. Someone will review the paper or try to disprove it.

 

[YmirGF]

This paper surprised me. I'm not seriously troubled by lack of peer review. Someone will review the paper or try to disprove it.

I'm not holding my breath that the paper will start a scientific revolution.

 

[Alceste]

This paper surprised me. I'm not seriously troubled by lack of peer review. Someone will review the paper or try to disprove it.

Maybe, but maybe not. That's the whole point of publishing in a peer reviewed journal. Other experts check your work before the paper goes to print.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Nobody worth taking seriously seems to be taking this seriously. Papers not submitted for peer-review are usually not submitted for a reason. A discovery of this type and magnitude would not avoid peer-review if it was legitimate.

 

[YmirGF]

Nobody worth taking seriously seems to be taking this seriously. Papers not submitted for peer-review are usually not submitted for a reason. A discovery of this type and magnitude would not avoid peer-review if it was legitimate.

This ^^^. Not seeking the proper pedigree for something of this importance is almost unimaginable.

 

[Alceste]

Nobody worth taking seriously seems to be taking this seriously. Papers not submitted for peer-review are usually not submitted for a reason. A discovery of this type and magnitude would not avoid peer-review if it was legitimate.

This ^^^. Not seeking the proper pedigree for something of this importance is almost unimaginable.

^^ These.

This is what I hate about science reporting. For scientists, an outlier that contradicts the general consensus of experts is fairly insignificant, and may not even be worth looking at if not peer reviewed and the methodology found to be sound.

For science reporters, an outlier study, however sloppy and however humble the source, is nearly always framed as a major breakthrough that has upended everything we ever thought we knew about the world. :149:

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

This seems just a tad bit presumptuous.

 

[Riverwolf]

^^ These.

This is what I hate about science reporting. For scientists, an outlier that contradicts the general consensus of experts is fairly insignificant, and may not even be worth looking at if not peer reviewed and the methodology found to be sound.

For science reporters, an outlier study, however sloppy and however humble the source, is nearly always framed as a major breakthrough that has upended everything we ever thought we knew about the world. :149:

And this being the case, it's no bloody wonder why people don't understand the sciences very well.