It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Epic Black Hole Dispute Between Scientists

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Follow the discussion between Dr. Corda, Mr. Crothers, and myself on my blog here:

fascistsoup.com...




posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


So how do we explain stories like this?
Source

Could it be that maybe our understanding is wrong? I think its rather difficult to say something CANT exist.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Personally, I think it's ludicrous to state "Black Holes do not exist". While we may not be describing them accurately, but this phenomenon most assuredly does exist. The existence of what we have named "Black Holes" is not debatable, and cannot be argued away. We've even witnessed the birth of these objects. We've even got a photograph of a gamma ray burst signaling a new, baby black hole. We've seen what happens when they consume too much too fast and become quasars. We watch stars at the center of our own galaxy race around our own black hole at millions of miles per hour. Currently a global network of radio telescopes is under construction for the sole purpose of looking at the super-massive black hole at the center of our galaxy, and the first, rudimentary images of the event horizon are beginning to take shape.

You can't just say they don't exist. Whether or not we understand, or are even capable at this point of understanding the physics involved is an entirely different matter. I'm wrong if I say that 2 + 2 = 5, but that doesn't mean that the number 5 doesn't exist, does it?
edit on 3/31/2011 by Unit541 because: spelling



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Unit541
 


Sure it can be argued away.

Black holes are not the only possible explanations for what we have observed in space, they are the only possible explanations according to general relativity.

There is a big difference.

Here's a few papers that demonstrate black holes are not necessary at all to account for astrophysical observations:
public.lanl.gov...
public.lanl.gov...

And there is more where that came from:
knol.google.com...

Black holes are not required, nor are they valid objects according to special relativity.

They are a fictitious mathematical construct that has no basis in reality.


edit on 31-3-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Black hole eating neighboring star

so if black holes are not real, then what is causing this phenomena when we see stars being consumed by dark objects?



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Im not trying to be arguementative with you. I find astronomy extremely interesting, but I am curious what you think could cause the effects we are seeing and labelling black holes. Im sure you familiar with the "Dark attractor" spot of the universe that seems to be pulling in a large swath of "space"? Do you think these two unknowns could be related?
edit on 4/1/2011 by VonDoomen because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Unit541
 


Sure it can be argued away.

Black holes are not the only possible explanations for what we have observed in space, they are the only possible explanations according to general relativity.


There's some narrow mindedness going on in this thread. You've refuted your own argument, in the first sentence of your argument... You say they don't exist, then you go on immediately to say we've observed them.

I will again state my original point, that it's entirely possible that we have no idea what these things really are and how they actually work (actually, the fact that we don't understand how they work is widely accepted), but this doesn't mean they don't exist.

Would you be satisfied if we just called them something else? You can say you can all you want, you cannot argue away the existence of these objects that we call "black holes". While they may not be what we think they are, nobody, not even you, can dispute the fact that there is something there. We have decided to call these "somethings" black holes, just because it sounds a lot cooler than just calling it a "thing". We know than when the core of a massive star collapses in on itself under it's own mass, it ceases to be what we describe as a star. Does it still exist? Uhh... yeah, it does. Although we can no longer "see" it in the visual spectrum accessible to humans, we do see visual evidence of it's presence in other spectrums. We can also easily identify them as real, active objects by the gravitational lensing that occurs when they appear in our field of view.

So again, how can anyone say that these objects don't exist? Maybe we're completely wrong about how they work, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. For example, I am completely baffled by your stance that these objects don't exist. But, you're still here aren't you...



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Black holes are in fact plasmoids.

www.holoscience.com...




top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join