-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Proof against black-holes
- Thread starter Jonathan Ainsley Bain
- Start date
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Thanks for the link. Here are some interesting articles that provide something of a refutation:
If light cannot escape the gravitational pull of black holes, how is it that scientists have detected plumes of radiation coming from them?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...-waves-escape-from-a-black-hole/#605254331b53
LIGO Scientific Collaboration - The science of LSC research
Pretty pictures, quickie articles, and anecdotal hypothetical arguments of 'proof' offer nothing, and, of course, nothing is nor can be proven in science.
The existence black holes have been identified and their nature falsified by scientific methods. To find the hypothesis of the existence, you would have provide a valid explanation of the evidence for what we directly observe as black holes like the one at the center of our galaxy. If it is not a black hole what is it?
If you want to criticize the modern ideas about gravity, it would be good to understand what they actually say. Your article shows a lot of misunderstandings.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
What a splendidly horrible website. Is it supposed to be satire?
Nyingjé Tso
Dharma not drama
Vanakkam,
So, are you juste gonna post proof threads with links to your website without discussion or anything ?
Cause it can seems that you are just advertising.
Aum Namah Shivaya
So, are you juste gonna post proof threads with links to your website without discussion or anything ?
Cause it can seems that you are just advertising.
Aum Namah Shivaya
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
We already know black holes exist.
Sagittarius A in our own galaxy and one from Abell 2597.
Pretty pictures in these as well. Hope it helps.
Supermassive Black Hole Sagittarius A*
https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2016-06-scientists-supermassive-black-hole-cold.amp
Last I checked, we have some direct evidence of black holes and a lot of indirect evidence that is almost direct to the point of it might as well being direct.
The reasoning in that article is flawed. In the relativistic model the warping of spacetime isn't like particles. Light is a particle. I'm not sure on the specifics of gravity waves, but it's worth pointing out that only the spacetime right on and past the event horizion is not able to escape. So light and gravity can travel away even just a hair outside of that. The light is severely redshifted of course. There is actually a phenomenon known as Hawking radiation where there is a slight halo of a glow just outside the event horizion due to this boundary area (where the light comes from is a matter takes some understanding/explaining of quantum mechanics that I don't feel like explaining atm but it involves matter and anti matter pairs).
If I understand correctly all gravity waves travel at the speed of light, and probably have the same property of having that fixed speed and so probably have some kind of equivalent to a redshift. So, so long as it's not past the event horizon it can propagate out.
It's been a while since I've brushed up on the subject, but anyone who's actually taken a casual interest a little further than just dabbling in reading about astronomy and blackholes should be able to understand on at least some level that this article is wrong in it's reasoning. People who study this kind of thing for their entire lives would of thought of such a basic refutation if it were true. Scientists are always trying to outdo each other... if someone could so easily disprove blackholes it would shake the scientific community and make them very famous and influential. Making a groundbreaking discovery like that is what every scientist dreams of. Of course, by this point there is too much evidence to refute that they exist, so any such discovery would most likely be that in some fundamental way we misunderstood black holes.
The reasoning in that article is flawed. In the relativistic model the warping of spacetime isn't like particles. Light is a particle. I'm not sure on the specifics of gravity waves, but it's worth pointing out that only the spacetime right on and past the event horizion is not able to escape. So light and gravity can travel away even just a hair outside of that. The light is severely redshifted of course. There is actually a phenomenon known as Hawking radiation where there is a slight halo of a glow just outside the event horizion due to this boundary area (where the light comes from is a matter takes some understanding/explaining of quantum mechanics that I don't feel like explaining atm but it involves matter and anti matter pairs).
If I understand correctly all gravity waves travel at the speed of light, and probably have the same property of having that fixed speed and so probably have some kind of equivalent to a redshift. So, so long as it's not past the event horizon it can propagate out.
It's been a while since I've brushed up on the subject, but anyone who's actually taken a casual interest a little further than just dabbling in reading about astronomy and blackholes should be able to understand on at least some level that this article is wrong in it's reasoning. People who study this kind of thing for their entire lives would of thought of such a basic refutation if it were true. Scientists are always trying to outdo each other... if someone could so easily disprove blackholes it would shake the scientific community and make them very famous and influential. Making a groundbreaking discovery like that is what every scientist dreams of. Of course, by this point there is too much evidence to refute that they exist, so any such discovery would most likely be that in some fundamental way we misunderstood black holes.
Looks like something out of the Onion.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Speed of gravity is 2.55 × 10^8 and 3.81 × 10^8 meters-per-second,
I'd have to read up on it. I never got too much into the specific math more just the conceptual understandings.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I did a quick Google. It's not an exact measurment but a calculated estimate.
I didn't know the speed of gravity either and got curious about it.
The source is not short and is rather long and in depth yet made an interesting read.
What is the Speed of Gravity? – Starts With A Bang! – Medium
Key word left out: *between*.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
It was the direct calculation in the context as was taken from the article.
Shouldn't this be in the jokes section?
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
Logical Positivist
If there was a single object at the center of the galaxy, then the notorious 'problem of rotation curves of galaxies'
would not actually be a problem. AKA Rubin's problem is solved by realizing that spiral galaxies are binary
systems with two super-massive objects emitting stars - that is why there are typically two arms to such galaxies.
Because they emit stars (mass) they can only be called 'white-holes' (apologies if that term is used elsewhere).
The following graph was generated in computer algorithm, and it clearly shows the gravitational structure
of a spiral galaxy by the emission of stars from each of the pair.
More of this is explored at this link:
Summary of Rotation Curves of Galaxies
You may also want to google "Rubin's problem" if you are unfamiliar with it.
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
Logical Positivist
So what you are saying is that the mass beneath the event-horizon is not actually beneath the event horizon.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
To be fair, cranks have always made the internet more fun and interesting.
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
Logical Positivist
And that is no argument against my argument disproving black-holes.