Proof against black-holes

[shawn001]

Katie Bouman:
How to take a picture of a black hole

"At the heart of the Milky Way, there's a supermassive black hole that feeds off a spinning disk of hot gas, sucking up anything that ventures too close — even light. We can't see it, but its event horizon casts a shadow, and an image of that shadow could help answer some important questions about the universe. Scientists used to think that making such an image would require a telescope the size of Earth — until Katie Bouman and a team of astronomers came up with a clever alternative. Bouman explains how we can take a picture of the ultimate dark using the Event Horizon Telescope."

How to take a picture of a black hole

from 2009
Andrea Ghez:
The hunt for a supermassive black hole

"With new data from the Keck telescopes, Andrea Ghez shows how state-of-the-art adaptive optics are helping astronomers understand our universe's most mysterious objects: black holes. She shares evidence that a supermassive black hole may be lurking at the center of the Milky Way."

The hunt for a supermassive black hole


NASA: Blackholes

Recent Discoveries
Date Discovery
February 6, 2017 Black Hole Meal Sets Record for Duration and Size (XJ1500+0154)
January 9, 2017 A Black Hole of Puzzling Lightness
January 7, 2017 Black Holes Hide in Our Cosmic Backyard
January 5, 2017 Deepest X-ray Image Ever Reveals Black Hole Treasure Trove (Chandra Deep Field South)
January 5, 2017 Powerful Cosmic Double Whammy (Abell 3411 and 3412)
December 12, 2016 Spinning Black Hole Swallowing Stars Explains Superluminous Event (ASASSN-15lh)
November 9, 2016 Starvation Diet for Black Hole Dims Brilliant Galaxy (Markarian 1018)
October 5, 2016 X-Ray Telescopes Find Evidence for Wandering Black Hole (XJ1417+52)
September 15, 2016 Studies Find Echoes of Black Holes Eating Stars
August 24, 2016 A Surprising Blazar Connection
August 10, 2016 A Black Hole Story Told by a Cosmic Blob and Bubble (IC 2497)
July 28, 2016 Chorus of Black Holes Sing in X-Rays
July 12, 2016 Black Hole Makes Material Wobble Around It

Black Holes | Science Mission Directorate

 

[shawn001]

"STAR SHOULD HAVE GONE SUPERNOVA, BUT IT IMPLODED INTO A BLACK HOLE INSTEAD"

Star Should Have Gone Supernova, But it Imploded Into a Black Hole Instead - Universe Today

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

All this is well and good, except for the problem of being selective about the evidence and failing to consider the objective verifiable evidence that Black Holes do indeed exist.

 

[shunyadragon]

And that is no argument against my argument disproving black-holes.

Again ignoring the references that indeed confirm the objective verifiable evidence that Black Holes do indeed exist.

What is your agenda in this line of selective biased use of science?

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

All this is well and good, except for the problem of being selective about the evidence and failing to consider the objective verifiable evidence that Black Holes do indeed exist.

There is absolutely no such evidence.
Had you read the full article you will see the numerous reasons why the LIGO data is false.

These graphs are the data you are referring to, hmm?

Here is the full article that disproves that gw150914 is a pair of 'black-holes':

http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/LIGO/Analysis-GW150914-Bain.pdf

If you take the time to read the entire article carefully, you will get an astonishing surprise.
I never expected to reach such astounding conclusions when beginning the analysis
and fully expected to simply provide a computer model verifying the initial claims.

My motives are purely logical: that is to partake in a cosmology model that
obeys the computational logic required to operate an evolutionary algorithm.

 

[blü 2]

J A B

As I understand it, gravity waves that are big enough for us to detect at present come from cataclysmic events, apparently collisions of large black holes.

Are you able to tell us whether the rules applicable to particles in the Standard Model also apply to gravity waves?

And regardless of that, are you able to tell us whether those gravity waves are all propagated within the black holes, or whether (as seems reasonable to suppose) some may arise near but outside the event horizon?

If the latter, and they're what we detect, that part of the argument in your link would fail, would it not?

Of course, atomic particles can and do escape from black holes by tunneling, or so I've read in reputable journals.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

You are trying to create an argument that does not exist out of bits and pieces,

 

[shunyadragon]

And that is no argument against my argument disproving black-holes.

No, you do not have a coherent argument by patching disjoint pieces of evidence, and excluding the obvious specific evidence for the existence of 'Black Holes.'

 

[shunyadragon]

There is absolutely no such evidence.
Had you read the full article you will see the numerous reasons why the LIGO data is false.

These graphs are the data you are referring to, hmm?

Here is the full article that disproves that gw150914 is a pair of 'black-holes':

http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/LIGO/Analysis-GW150914-Bain.pdf

If you take the time to read the entire article carefully, you will get an astonishing surprise.
I never expected to reach such astounding conclusions when beginning the analysis
and fully expected to simply provide a computer model verifying the initial claims.

My motives are purely logical: that is to partake in a cosmology model that
obeys the computational logic required to operate an evolutionary algorithm.

Pure logic fails in the face of objective verifiable evidence for the existence.

Logic based coached assumptions, exceptions, and selective out of context evidence is neither ethical nor useful.

 

[shunyadragon]

And that is no argument against my argument disproving black-holes.

Science does not logically prove anything.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

J A B

As I understand it, gravity waves that are big enough for us to detect at present come from cataclysmic events, apparently collisions of large black holes.

Are you able to tell us whether the rules applicable to particles in the Standard Model also apply to gravity waves?

And regardless of that, are you able to tell us whether those gravity waves are all propagated within the black holes, or whether (as seems reasonable to suppose) some may arise near but outside the event horizon?

If the latter, and they're what we detect, that part of the argument in your link would fail, would it not?

Of course, atomic particles can and do escape from black holes by tunneling, or so I've read in reputable journals.

The Standard model is a cataclysmic event.
Note this quote from the mainstream article in the link:

The 'pair of black-holes' are said to emit the waveform due to them being a binary system,
that is why the orbital frequency of the pair dictates the 75 Hz.

That is a gross conflation of: the fluctuation in gravity to be expected from a binary pair, (on the one hand);
and the theory from Einstein of how gravity is propagated (on the other hand). They are entirely different
phenomenon that are fudged together without comprehension.

Read more on this here:
The shape of the LIGO wave-form

(or just google: 'the shape of the LIGO waveform')

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Pure logic fails in the face of objective verifiable evidence for the existence.

The only objective verifiable evidence, is that the LIGO group detected a wave-form
that was a force that was propagated at the velocity of light.

This is that wave-form.
What force caused the LIGO detector to oscillate is a matter of theory and logic.

The most astounding analysis in cosmology since the knowledge of the soul
is here at this link: Computational analysis of LIGO gravitational-wave experiment GW150914

I won't say what the conclusions of the analysis are, because only those who
are rigorous enough to read the entire article carefully will see the Truth for what it is.

 

[blü 2]

Mr Bain

You appear to be agreeing that gravity waves can arise outside of the event horizon.

It follows, does it not, that this part of the argument you linked must fail.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Of course, atomic particles can and do escape from black holes by tunneling, or so I've read in reputable journals.

tunneling is a verb,
requiring time to be moving so that a particle may be
in pre-tunnel; inside a 'tunnel'; and also be in post-tunnel phases.
But the 'black-hole' stops time from operating, allegedly anyway;
so the 'reputable' theory contradicts itself.

My prime point being that according to the 'reputable' theory,
gravity and light move at the same velocity, so its another contradiction
to claim that light cannot escape the 'black-hole' - but that gravity can do so.

After all, the gravity was curved space so that light traveling at C cannot escape,
so the gravity itself would also obey the same restriction.

But there are only about 50 other reasons for demonstrating that
the 'reputable' theory is as visible as a naked emperor's undergarments.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Science does not logically prove anything.

It objectively proves everything. ;0)

 

[Corvus]

After all, the gravity was curved space so that light traveling at C cannot escape,
so the gravity itself would also obey the same restriction.

What? Spacetime distortion, which is what gravity is, does not need to 'escape' a black hole, because a black hole is a spacetime distortion. Illogical statement.

 

[Corvus]

But the 'black-hole' stops time from operating, allegedly anyway;

A consequence of being inside a black hole is experiencing extreme time dilation, as quantified by the Lorentz equations. Plus death by spaghettification.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

What? Spacetime distortion, which is what gravity is, does not need to 'escape' a black hole, because a black hole is a spacetime distortion.

... the gravity is said to travel at the speed of light
... like light does
or does Hawking misquote Einstein? (In A Brief History of Time)

note the terms: velocity & escape velocity are geometrically implicit here.
So 'escape' is logically correct.

Simply conflating a couple of words will not make an algorithm work, see.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

A consequence of being inside a black hole is extreme time dilation. Plus death by spaghettification.

But you could never be sucked into one by its gravity
because that gravity which is said to move at the velocity of light,
would not be able to escape, for 2 reasons in the opening post.

The black-hole is a completely illogical mess of ideas.
That nobody noticed these contradictions suggests that when the aliens arrive,
they gonna make us into a planet of slaves.

 

[Corvus]

... the gravity is said to travel at the speed of light
... like light does
or does Hawking misquote Einstein? (In A Brief History of Time)

note the terms: velocity & escape velocity are geometrically implicit here.
So 'escape' is logically correct.

Simply conflating a couple of words will not make an algorithm work, see.

I don't think you understand what the relativistic definition of gravity is. It is space time curvature, this is an important thing to know.