Black Hole Existence Has Yet to be Proven

DJW001
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Look up the principal theory concerning how Black Holes form. A collapsed star. Don't play semantics here. We're discussing science. Not philosophy.

Actually, I'm discussing science, you are discussing philosophy. I have provided you with objective evidence. You are rejecting it based upon your personal epistemological theories.

Reread your posts. You've offered nothing.

I won't waste my morning on someone that can't even remember what he's posted. Have a nice day.

Xeven
reply to post by NorEaster

 

There is enough evidence to prove black holes exist. What we have not proved is all the theories on exactly what they are, how they work etc...

Again, my point exactly. And yet, we all have a very specific and detailed image in our heads concerning what a "black hole" is, what it looks like, and how they are formed.

Oh, just to address the issue concerning the prevailing wisdom concerning how Black Holes primarily form...

The primary formation process for black holes is expected to be the gravitational collapse of heavy objects such as stars, but there are also more exotic processes that can lead to the production of black holes.
Source

I'm not the guy you should be arguing with about this.

reply to post by NorEaster

Again, my point exactly. And yet, we all have a very specific and detailed image in our heads concerning what a "black hole" is, what it looks like, and how they are formed.

Correction: YOU have a theory about black holes pieced together from science popularization. You then use your misunderstanding of the theory to critique it. When this is pointed out to you, you run away. I'm more than happy to discuss epistemology with you, but let's call it what it is: philosophy, not science.

I thought that a black hole simply is matter crushed into point of almost infinite density, by almost infinite gravity, creating a singularity.
A place where not even light can escape. However... if the singularity doesn't attract any other matter that will get sucked into the black hole. It will lose mass and eventually disappear.

Anyway... I'm no scientist. I only read about this stuff.

reply to post by NorEaster

Reread your posts. You've offered nothing.

You mean other than overwhelming evidence for the existence of something you claim, for no apparent reason, hasn't been proven to exist?

reply to post by NorEaster

I just thought that it might be good to take a moment and clarify exactly where we actually are in our culturally imposed competition to ultimately define the nature of ourselves and our universe.

And you're the one who said this is not about philosophy! Please re-read your own posts!

reply to post by NorEaster


Dude, all of astronomy is models extrapolated from what we "know" of particle physics. No, black holes are not proven. Neither is dark energy, dark matter, nor the Big Bang nor acceleration of the universe's expansion while we're at it. These are theories, and they could all be proven wrong tomorrow. They are not half-assed theories - there are decent (not good, just decent) reasons for them.

Take dark matter. Physicists say 95% of the universe's mass is made of it. Why? Because in observing the rotation of galaxies, combined with models that take the luminosity of galaxies and determine their mass, the rotation is far too powerful - if the models for determining galactic mass can be trusted then there's not nearly enough of it to produce the gravitational effects observed. So instead of reworking the old theories, physicists deemed it appropriate to literally just invent a new kind of matter - totally invisible and undetectable except through gravitational effects - to explain what is far more likely to be the result of a broken theory to begin with.

Similar "ad hoc" bandaids are routinely invented and applied to literally every astronomical observation that isn't explained by current models. Academian Astronomy has become a cult.

This is also why Electric Universe theories are popular - because we're talking about models, theories, imaginative explanations for all the raw observational data. There are a bunch of different ways to explain it. If you're depressed about this state of affairs, well i could use some sympathy myself - i would have pursued a career in astronomy if it weren't for all the BS that has infected the scene. Broke my heart, my childhood dream...

So yeah, read an article on astronomy, many - not all - do seem to treat these crude models of reality as if they were matter-of-fact reflections of reality. If you EVER see such wording, you can rest assured that that author 1) doesn't have a foundational understanding of the subject and 2) is just mindlessly and irresponsibly parroting the prevailing dogma.

DJW001
reply to post by swanne

 

You're welcome.

The article in the OP is misleading insofar as it can be construed to imply that the existence of black holes is in doubt. As I said, there is ample indirect evidence for them. Presumably, the objective of the project is to "probe" the structure of the event horizon to see if the exact direct measurements conform to what is predicted by theory.

I've heard that Europeans disagree with Americans about the mass of the black hole. Maybe the probe could resolve that.

Son of Will
So instead of reworking the old theories, physicists deemed it appropriate to literally just invent a new kind of matter

Although I tend to oppose the Dark Matter hypothesis, I must nevertheless point out that it's harder than it looks. We did rework the older theories. But once they got reworked, they didn't work anymore. Modified Gravity theory stated that Newton's force equation was a bit wrong, and added a feature which seemed to give the solution to the galaxy rotation mystery. Unfortunately, this new equation contradicted proper motion velocity for galaxies. Each time we re-work a theory, it does exactly that: it re-works the theory. It stops working as it was supposed to do.

We are missing something, something so obvious but which eludes us. Science should not be taken as a war, but as an exploration. People take different roads to find the treasure. In a way, I'm agreeing with you. I'm confident that by accepting MORE opinions and theories, mankind's knowledge WILL evolve. It's bound to happen.

And BTW your avatar got things coming out of his head.

reply to post by ImaFungi


Black hole: Where the world's economy goes.

Electric Universe is confirmed with comets and the xrays they emit, they're not dirty snowballs, and other things as well...

www.holoscience.com...
Black holes tear logic apart


Black Holes Plasma Cosmology Electric Universe Astronomy

Black holes are theoretical until someone can walk up and give it a tap.The black hole theory is the best working model at the moment and will remain so unless someone can offer a better one.

STRONG EVIDENCE BUT NOT PROOF!

We long observed stellar mass black holes such as Cygnus X-1 (one of the the first to be identified).

Cygnus X-1 was the first X-ray source widely accepted to be a black hole candidate and it remains among the most studied astronomical objects in its class. It is now estimated to have a mass about 14.8 times the mass of the Sun and has been shown to be too compact to be any known kind of normal star or other likely object besides a black hole.

V404 Cygni is a binary star system consisting of a black hole with a mass of about 12±3 solar masses and a late G or early K companion star of mass slightly smaller than the Sun in the constellation of Cygnus. The two stars orbit each other every 6.5 d at fairly close range. Due to their close proximity the main sequence star would be distorted into egg shape by the black hole's gravity and lose mass to black hole.

We have also observed supermassive black holes at the heart of other galaxies.

Black holes are not a theoretical object like wormholes.

They are more like Brown Dwarfs because we have observational evidence.

What seems to have confused a lot of people (due to a very poorly worded media headline) is that the article says we've not imaged ANY black hole, when in reality what the researchers are trying to do is image the supermassive black hole in the center of our galaxy.

NorEaster
Look up the principal theory concerning how Black Holes form. A collapsed star. Don't play semantics here. We're discussing science. Not philosophy.

Yet your entire OP is essentially one based on semantics. We've used multiple types of sensors, telescopes, and satellites to collect data and interpret it, coming to the conclusion that we named "Black Hole". Considering the fact that light, and therefore data bouncing back from any type of device, cannot escape the event horizon of black hole, no one will ever truly "see" a black hole....so what's your point?

reply to post by Son of Will

Dude, all of astronomy is models extrapolated from what we "know" of particle physics.

No. Most astronomical understanding comes from classical mechanics and thermodynamics. Larger scale cosmology does draw on relativity, but it is only the first 100 minutes or so of the life of the universe that requires quantum mechanics to be understood.

No, black holes are not proven.

That, alas, depends on your definition of the word "proven."

news.discovery.com...

arstechnica.com...

phys.org...

Suffice to say, there may be alternate explanations for these observations... but black holes are the best fit.

Neither is dark energy, dark matter, nor the Big Bang nor acceleration of the universe's expansion while we're at it. These are theories, and they could all be proven wrong tomorrow. They are not half-assed theories - there are decent (not good, just decent) reasons for them.

I'm not comfortable with "dark energy" myself, but the other "theories" have strong observational evidence supporting them. You are correct, however, that they may be discarded if the weight of observational evidence should falsify them. We talking about empirical science here, not religion.

Take dark matter. Physicists say 95% of the universe's mass is made of it. Why? Because in observing the rotation of galaxies, combined with models that take the luminosity of galaxies and determine their mass, the rotation is far too powerful - if the models for determining galactic mass can be trusted then there's not nearly enough of it to produce the gravitational effects observed. So instead of reworking the old theories, physicists deemed it appropriate to literally just invent a new kind of matter - totally invisible and undetectable except through gravitational effects - to explain what is far more likely to be the result of a broken theory to begin with.

Not exactly. Dark matter is invoked to explain the "wrapping problem." If stars orbit the center of a galaxy with Keplerian velocities, why don't the spiral arms "wrap up?" How do they maintain their structure? Why is there evidence of large scale structures in intergalactic space? "Dark matter" is easier to accept than the mind blowing alternative: macroscopic probability waves. Which is correct? Flip a coin.

Similar "ad hoc" bandaids are routinely invented and applied to literally every astronomical observation that isn't explained by current models. Academian Astronomy has become a cult.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

This is also why Electric Universe theories are popular - because we're talking about models, theories, imaginative explanations for all the raw observational data. There are a bunch of different ways to explain it.

EU theories are popular because they reject what many feel to be "establishment" values. Like rigor, mathematics and logic.

If you're depressed about this state of affairs, well i could use some sympathy myself - i would have pursued a career in astronomy if it weren't for all the BS that has infected the scene. Broke my heart, my childhood dream...

Again, I'm sincerely sorry you feel that way.

So yeah, read an article on astronomy, many - not all - do seem to treat these crude models of reality as if they were matter-of-fact reflections of reality. If you EVER see such wording, you can rest assured that that author 1) doesn't have a foundational understanding of the subject and 2) is just mindlessly and irresponsibly parroting the prevailing dogma.

Or, more likely, is a journalist who "covers" science rather than actually "doing" it.

Son of Will
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Dude, all of astronomy is models extrapolated from what we "know" of particle physics.

No, that's not always how it works. Astrophysics is maximally successful when the models which are extrapolated from large statistical sets of observed data from the global end can be tied back to models extrapolated from fundamental basic physics.

examples: a) redshift & universe expansion (general relativity) b) stellar evolution & dynamics (nuclear physics & fluid mechanics) c) pulsars (nuclear physics + general relativity) d) baryogenesis (particle physics)

Dark matter and dark energy are those properties which are observed macroscopically but do not have currently satisfactory independent microscopic theories. It was strongly hoped that confirming supersymmetry at the LHC would provide an answer, but so far there is no evidence for supersymmetry even though it is theoretically attractive.

]Take dark matter. Physicists say 95% of the universe's mass is made of it. Why? Because in observing the rotation of galaxies, combined with models that take the luminosity of galaxies and determine their mass, the rotation is far too powerful - if the models for determining galactic mass can be trusted then there's not nearly enough of it to produce the gravitational effects observed. So instead of reworking the old theories, physicists deemed it appropriate to literally just invent a new kind of matter - totally invisible and undetectable except through gravitational effects - to explain what is far more likely to be the result of a broken theory to begin with.

Actually the question of whether it is more likely to be a broken theory or new dynamics is an important one which has been significantly investigated. Recent observations come down on the side of new dynamical degrees of freedom, i.e. actual dark matter. The particle physics is not cooperating.

Similar "ad hoc" bandaids are routinely invented and applied to literally every astronomical observation that isn't explained by current models. Academian Astronomy has become a cult.

Nuclear fusion is not an ad hoc bandaid, and astrophysicists are far from cultists. They examine assumptions all the time. It's natural that you usually assume the best model known at the time, because there isn't anything better that can be done.

DJW001
reply to post by Son of Will

 

Dude, all of astronomy is models extrapolated from what we "know" of particle physics.

No. Most astronomical understanding comes from classical mechanics and thermodynamics. Larger scale cosmology does draw on relativity, but it is only the first 100 minutes or so of the life of the universe that requires quantum mechanics to be understood.

Not really true, you need quantum mechanics to understand white dwarfs and neutron stars and at least some basic phenomenology of nuclear physics. And of course quantum mechanics to explain spectroscopic lines.

mbkennel

DJW001
reply to post by Son of Will

 

Dude, all of astronomy is models extrapolated from what we "know" of particle physics.

No. Most astronomical understanding comes from classical mechanics and thermodynamics. Larger scale cosmology does draw on relativity, but it is only the first 100 minutes or so of the life of the universe that requires quantum mechanics to be understood.

Not really true, you need quantum mechanics to understand white dwarfs and neutron stars and at least some basic phenomenology of nuclear physics. And of course quantum mechanics to explain spectroscopic lines.

Oops! Forgot about the whole degenerate matter thing. Well spotted.