10
   

stephan Crothers destroys the concept of black holes

 
 
gungasnake
 
  2  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2014 04:53 am
@bobsal u1553115,
Quote:
There is no way to answer this if you're a layman. On the one hand you have Stephen Crothers saying black holes don't exist. On the other hand you have every other physicist since 1916 saying they do.


http://www.express.co.uk/news/science-technology/455880/Stephen-Hawking-says-there-is-no-such-thing-as-black-holes-Einstein-spinning-in-his-grave

Quote:

The wheelchair-bound genius has posted a paper online that demolishes modern black hole theory. He says that the idea of an event horizon, from which light cannot escape, is flawed.

It is considered one of the pillars of physics that the incredible gravitational pull created by the collapse of a star will be so strong that nothing can break free...much of this is thanks to Hawking’s own work.

But Hawking smashes this idea by saying that rather than there being an inescapable event horizon, we should think of a far less total “apparent horizon”. And, at a stroke, he has contradicted Albert Einstein.

He sets out his argument in the paper, called Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting For Black Holes, which is likely to send his fellow scientists into a spin.

Hawking writes: “The absence of event horizons means that there are no black holes — in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infinity.”......
gungasnake
 
  2  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2014 04:57 am
the major thing at the center of our own galaxy is Sagittarius A which is a plasma focus and not a black hole.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120314000701AAHNAQC

Quote:
Best Answer
scowie answered 2 years ago
The stars that orbit Sagittarius A* are often cited as evidence of a black hole, but the lack of any gravitational lensing of these stars could be considered evidence against the black hole hypothesis. Sagittarius A* can be explained better as being a plasma-focus plasmoid...

http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/arch10/100302stretch.htm

0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2014 08:39 am
@gungasnake,
Quote:
Hawking writes: “The absence of event horizons means that there are no black holes — in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infinity.”......


Not the same as a saying "there are no black holes." He seem to be suggesting a revamp of how we understand black holes.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2014/01/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes.html

Stephen Hawking has set the world of physics back on its heels by reversing his lifetime’s work and a pillar of modern physics claiming that black holes do not exist – saying that the idea of an event horizon, the invisible boundary thought to shroud every black hole --the awesome gravitational pull created by the collapse of a star will be so strong that nothing can break free including light-- is flawed. Hawking proposes that instead of an inescapable event horizon, we should think of an “apparent horizon”.
“The absence of event horizons means that there are no black holes — in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infinity.” “There is no escape from a black hole in classical theory. [But quantum theory] enables energy and information to escape from a black hole," Hawking told Nature. His revised theory allows matter and energy to be held for a period of time before being released back into space.

Hawking says that his revsion requires a new theory that merges gravity with the other fundamental forces of nature. “The correct treatment remains a mystery,” he observed.

Context is everything.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2014 11:21 am
Whoever tagged this silly thread "Science" has a wry sense of humor.
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2014 11:35 am
@Setanta,
Shhhhhh ..... ! <snicker> Gunga ..... science? Me ..... science?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  2  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2014 02:24 pm
Basic reality...g ravity is by forty orders of magnitude the weakest force in nature. Asking gravityto hold galaxies together or to form solar systems from spinning bodies of dust is like asking the littlest kid in the school to do the power-lifting event, i.e. it's basically stupid.

ALL of the bullshit fairytale physics of the 20'th century arises from this same mistaken insistence on a gravity-only cosmology, every bit of it, and its' ALL going down and going away.

All of it: the big bang, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, worm holes, string theory....
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2014 04:34 am
All Hawking was saying was that when you add quantum mechanics to general relativity, black holes aren't absolutely black. He wasn't saying that the objects don't exist. Newspaper reporters aren't the best interpreters of science.
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2014 02:30 am
'T Hooft!!!

That man is ridiculous and can't even use logic in his writings!
Crothers is absolutely right!

0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2014 02:35 am
@gungasnake,
Quote:
Basic reality...g ravity is by forty orders of magnitude the weakest force in nature. Asking gravityto hold galaxies together or to form solar systems from spinning bodies of dust is like asking the littlest kid in the school to do the power-lifting event, i.e. it's basically stupid.

ALL of the bullshit fairytale physics of the 20'th century arises from this same mistaken insistence on a gravity-only cosmology, every bit of it, and its' ALL going down and going away.

All of it: the big bang, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, worm holes, string theory....


O yes, How I agree!

And , as I have stated in another thread, there is NOTHING that has come out of "modern physics' NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING and NOTHING .
Which is also a clue that it is al RUBBISH!

No one can name one thing that did came out of 'modern physics'!
Quehoniaomath
 
  2  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2014 03:08 am
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  2  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2014 03:13 am
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2014 03:44 am
Quote:
If new calculations are correct, the universe just got even stranger. Scientists at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, have constructed mathematical formulas that conclude black holes cannot exist. The findings--if correct--could revolutionize astrophysics and resolve a paradox that has perplexed physicists for 4 decades

http://news.sciencemag.org/2007/06/no-more-black-holes
0 Replies
 
Sheppie
 
  2  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2014 07:12 am
@JTT,
A black hole, among the most mysterious elements in the universe, is all that remains of a massive star that has used up its nuclear fuel. Lacking energy to combat the force of its own gravity, the star compresses or shrinks in size to a single point, called a singularity. At this point, pressure and density are infinite. Any object or even light that gets too close to a black hole is pulled in, stretched to infinity, and trapped forever. Black holes, so named by American physicist John Wheeler in 1969, are impossible to see, but may account for 90 percent of the content of the universe.

English geologist John Michell and French astronomer Pierre-Simon Laplace first developed the idea of black holes in the eighteenth century. They theorized that if a celestial body were large enough and dense enough, it would exhibit so much gravity that nothing could escape its pull.

This idea can be explained by looking at the effects of gravity on known objects. To break free of Earth's gravity, a spaceship has to travel at a speed of at least 7 miles (11 kilometers) per second. To escape a larger planet like Jupiter, it would have to travel at 37 miles (60 kilometers) per second. And to escape the Sun, it would have to travel at 380 miles (611 kilometers) per second. A large and dense enough object could require the spaceship to go faster than the speed of light, 186,000 miles (299,000 kilometers) per second. However, since nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, nothing would be able to escape the gravity of such an object. Black holes, indeed, are such objects.
Black hole formation

Once a star's nuclear fuel is spent, it will collapse. Without the force of nuclear fusion pushing outward from its core to balance its immense gravity, a star will fall into itself. Average-sized stars, like the Sun, shrink to become white dwarfs (small, extremely dense stars having low brightness) about the size of Earth. Stars up to three times the mass of the Sun explode to produce a supernova. Any remaining matter of such stars ends up as densely packed neutron stars or pulsars (rapidly rotating stars that emit varying radio waves at precise intervals). Stars more than three times the mass of the Sun explode in a supernova and then, in theory, collapse to form a black hole.

When a giant star collapses, its remaining mass becomes so concentrated that it shrinks to an indefinitely small size and its gravity becomes completely overpowering. According to German-born American physicist Albert Einstein's (1879–1955) general theory of relativity, space becomes curved near objects or matter; the more concentrated or dense that matter is, the more space is curved around it. When a black hole forms, space curves so completely around it that only a small opening to the rest of normal space remains. The surface of this opening is called the event horizon, a theorized point of no-return. Any matter that crosses the event horizon is drawn in by the black hole's gravity and cannot escape, vanishing across the boundary like water down a drain.
Black hole evidence

Black holes cannot be seen because matter, light, and other forms of energy do not escape from them. They can possibly be detected, however, by their effect on visible objects around them. Scientists believe that as gaseous matter swirls in a whirlpool before plunging into a black hole, that heated matter emits fluctuating X rays. Discovery of such a condition in space, therefore, may indicate the existence of a black hole near the source of those X rays.

In 1971, an X-ray telescope aboard the satellite Uhuru detected the first serious black hole candidate in our galaxy, the Milky Way. A black hole is believed to be the companion star in a binary star called Cygnus X-1 (a binary star is a pair of stars in a single system that orbit each other, bound together by their mutual gravities). Cygnus X-1 is emitting intense amounts of X rays, possibly as a result of the unseen companion pulling in stellar material from the other star.

Read more: http://www.scienceclarified.com/Bi-Ca/Black-Hole.html#ixzz3E8zywyds
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2014 08:18 am
@Sheppie,
What is it you want to say really?

Th link is very stupid you see, those people think that blacj hole exist.
Do uou really think we don't know that (official) nonsense?
0 Replies
 
carloslebaron
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2014 06:33 pm
It is not a surprise that more scientists who are not afraid of telling the truth are exposing the fake theory of relativity.

The science historian John Waller describes in his book "Einstein's Luck" the fraud committed by Eddington doing make ups on the plates obtained by the expeditions to favor Einstein's predictions. The plates favored Newton's predictions, but Eddington refused to accept it.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51wsDu7AKXL.jpg

This same Eddington, with an Indian descendant dude, are the inventors of the fairy tale of black holes. Just search about it, his name is right there.

Something that Crothers forgot to add is that the paper presented by John Michell calculated a star 590 times the size of the Sun and proportional density, in order for this huge body to impede the escape of light. In 1783 the idea of collapsing stars simply didn't exist, this idea belongs to XX century lunatics

On the other hand, Einstein was indeed called to help and work in the Manhattan project. Some papers were given to him to be solved. Einstein returned his "solutions" and the papers were sent to Washington DC.

The solutions given by Einstein were lunacies to the square, they didn't doubt that this dude was the first man walking on the Moon, so he was kicked off the Manhattan project.

To avoid bad fame against him, because he was famous anyway, he was hired to work as head of a project with regular bombs. At the end, as this job was only fictitious to make believe that he knew what he was doing, the project was cancelled because was a fake from the very beginning.

The fact is that Einstein's ideas were mere imaginations that others took as if they were in accord with reality. The video presented by Crothers demonstrates this fact.
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2014 06:56 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:

Hawking writes: “The absence of event horizons means that there are no black holes — in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infinity.”......


Not quite the same as "there are no such things as black holes" by a long shot. And Hawking hasn't fully explained the whole thing yet.

I remember him saying that the matter taken through a black hole hasn't been shown to turn up anywhere predictable, and that some light does escape across an event horizon black holes were still black holes.

Damn - add what brandon9000 said!
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2014 06:57 pm
@Setanta,
or the absurd.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2014 06:59 pm
@Brandon9000,
Damn. I agree with brandon.
0 Replies
 
carloslebaron
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2014 07:21 pm
@Brandon9000,
Error happened. Message is on next posting

0 Replies
 
carloslebaron
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Oct, 2014 07:31 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
All Hawking was saying was that when you add quantum mechanics to general relativity, black holes aren't absolutely black. He wasn't saying that the objects don't exist. Newspaper reporters aren't the best interpreters of science.


Sure.

Hawking affirms that black holes "evaporate".

e•vap•o•ra•tion

n. The process of a liquid converting to the gaseous state.

n. The process in which all or a portion of liquid (in a container) is turned into vapour, in order to increase the concentration of solid matter in the mixture.

n. That which is evaporated; vapour.

e•vap•o•rate (ĭ-văpˈə-rātˌ)
v. To convert or change into a vapor.
v. To draw off in the form of vapor.
v. To draw moisture from, as by heating, leaving only the dry solid portion.

va•por (vāˈpər)

n. Barely visible or cloudy diffused matter, such as mist, fumes, or smoke, suspended in the air.

n. The state of a substance that exists below its critical temperature and that may be liquefied by application of sufficient pressure.

n. The gaseous state of a substance that is liquid or solid under ordinary conditions.

Lets see Radiation.

ra•di•a•tion (rāˌdē-āˈshən)

n. The act or process of radiating: the radiation of heat and light from a fire.

n. Emission and propagation and emission of energy in the form of rays or waves.

n. Physics Energy radiated or transmitted as rays, waves, in the form of particles.

ra•di•ate (rāˈdē-ātˌ)

v. To send out rays or waves.
v. To issue or emerge in rays or waves: Heat radiated from the stove.
v. To extend in straight lines from or toward a center; diverge or converge like rays: Spokes radiate from a wheel hub.


So, Hakings imagines that radiation propagates as vapors.

Lol... what a dump!

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 09:13:44