Never say Never?

a reply to: SuiStoic

So, basically your assertion is Albert Einstein, one of the greatest physicists to ever walk planet Earth, along with his General and Special Theory of Relativity are basically all bunko, right?

WOW! Okay, well, good luck with that.

originally posted by: SuiStoic
Black holes are pure science fiction. Infinite gravity and infinite density descriptions are not based in reality. The theoretical math used to describe a black hole doesn't allow for any other matter to exist in a black hole universe.
Stephen Crothers has an excellent lecture on youtube that explains this and destroys Einstein's nonsense concerning gravity and light.
These statements are my opinion, I am not an expert on anything....I seek the truth.

I didn't think black holes were claimed to have infinite mass, but rather just a whole lot of it.

a reply to: SuiStoic



From a physics website:

"Why does a black hole have a finite mass
physics.stackexchange.com...
If something is infinitely dense, must it not also be infinitely massive?

Nope. The singularity is a point where volume goes to zero, not where mass goes to infinity.

It is a point with zero volume, but which still holds mass, due to the extreme stretching of space by gravity. The density is $frac[mass][volume]$, so we say that in the limit $volumerightarrow 0$, the density goes to infinity, but that doesn't mean mass goes to infinity."

--- So a black hole isn't infinite mass. The mass is just so great and dense that spacetime curves too much around it for you to get out.

a reply to: TheValeyard

Correct!

On a related note, two objects traveling at C in opposite directions don't have a velocity of 2C; they can't. So it all depends on a frame of reference, and the difference between those two frames of reference is time.

So, back to a post above challenging Einstein and FTL travel, it's all about temporal position.

a reply to: TheValeyard

Indeed, just enough mass to prevent photons or even gravitational fields from escaping.

Humans believe they know more than they actually do. Science research is interpreted by belief of the time, beliefs that change over the years. I see wo many things that have been interpreted by beliefs to match what is believed to be real that our focus is keeping us from finding reality.

Does it matter if we know what a black hole is and how they work...maybe the ones profiting by doing research or just those who make themselves more prestigious by discovering something irrelevant to us existing it might....but we have so much of this kind of irrelevant research for our existence occurring, it is contributing to our destruction of our planet's ecosystem.

I am sure scientists will disagree, but of course they would because they make a living creating technology for all sorts of things. Do we really need to set foot on Mars, how much destruction of our environment is done by increasing technology...we got along without all this crap for thousands of years, yet we did not destroy the environment world wide as much as we are now with all the stuff science and industry creating all sorts of things that cause harm to the environment over the last hundred years have caused. Is the human race advancing or going backwards in comprehension.

We have though become better at covering up all the real reasons for problems we have caused with the environment by blaming it on cows.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I think what may be happening is that we are in fact being misguided to internment in an Aubrey hole by MSM figures such as Einstein.
Classic.

I wonder how many people saw that in the X-files episode and didn't drown in the pomegranate juice?

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Can you prove it ever happen. I might be able to say you can never prove me wrong. So, prove me wrong.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

The teal issue is you would need something of mass to travel the speed of light and just a bit faster. Can than happen?

SPOOKY!

Audio has been sped up to showcase the spooky sound emenating from a nearby black hole.

To really boggle the mind, theorize on how long they had to record the emenations of this particular black hole specimen to gain enough data to make this sound reconstruction possible and factor in and visualize what kind of fascinating engineering marvel of tehchnology it took to create a device capable of not only locking in on this particular black hole but being able to capture the sound of a phenomena sucking in all matter in it's vicinity so slowly that the real time recording is next to nearly impossible to hear because it's such a low vibration it takes YEARS or even DECADES of a focused tranmitter monitoring the situation to collect enoughdata to make that errie recording audible to human ears.

I've been fascinated with black holes sine I was a young child and would read everything about them from anything I could get my hands on, and by the time Stephen Hawking announced his theory on black holes to the general population, I had already come to the same conlusion decades before because I'd lie in bed thinking about them every night to help me fall asleep.

In respnse to the OP's challenge about the nature of the Event Horizon, you're absolutely right. Even if we were able to send a probe to a black hole to collect more data on the mysteries within, from our persepctive it would remain on the event horizon forever, frozen in time, collecting and sending data for as long as it was able to until one day.....nothing but silence.

I walways wondered how it was possible to convert sound waves into light for data transferrance, what kind of software and techology it takes to analyze said data and speed it up to for a video like the one I posted. The genius minds of the engineers and mathmaticians and programmers....I can grok such things in theroy only, but the higher minds of such disciplines elude me because I still struggle with elemetary mathmatics and balancing my budget!

What really boggles my mind is the entanglement phenomena of folks making "ghost sounds" to convey the "spooky halloween ghost moanings" and how, decades later, we've advanced enough to have audio of a FREAKIN' COLLAPSED STAR LIGHT YEARS AWAY making similar spooky sound in it's death throws.

Sorry.

I'm fangirling again.



Great thread!

the perfect tune for the thread,

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I tend to agree.

Although i do seem to recall something about if they were able to measure the Hawking radiation being emitted by a black hole at the poles.

They may be somehow able to infer the inner properties of the singularity from said data.

Still would not be any sort of direct measurement past the event horizon all the same so...................

a reply to: BernnieJGato

Tune!

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
I am just going by what I have read and watched coming from Eric, he seems to be a top player.

Professor Dave makes a pretty convincing case that both Eric and his brother are charlatans, watch this and then tell me what you think about Eric:

Bret and Eric Weinstein: Brothers in Fraudulence

Also, it is hard to believe that Einstein got it all right decades ago. Einstein no doubt was the leader among theoretical physicists but to think he got it all right is a bit far fetched in my opinion.

You seem to be thinking in terms of black/white, right/wrong, which isn't the way to approach this situation.

Newton's theory matched observations for centuries, and it's so "right" that we still use it predominantly for most things in the modern world. So why would we use a theory that's wrong? I would say it's not really wrong, it applies, as Einstein said, in "the limited case" where velocities are not high relative to the speed of light, and where gravitational fields are not extremely high (such as from a black hole, neutron star, or even the sun). We could barely see the difference in our solar system because the precession of the innermost planet mercury shows a difference in the two theories, because of the sun's gravity.

So, Einstein said that Newton got it right, in most obvious and normal cases, and he had to look hard to find discrepancies where his theory is more accurate.

We might fully expect that someday, we might find the same thing of Einstein's theory, that it seems to match observations in the overwhelming majority of cases, but there may be some exceptions where another theory is required, and there's little doubt that what goes on inside a black hole is a case which requires another theory, such as perhaps a theory of quantum gravity or whatever you want to call it. But, that theory will probably only supplement the gap in Einstein's theory, not replace it, much as Einstein's theory has only patched a gap in Newton's theory, and hasn't really replaced it.

"The sun, the moon, and the stars are painted on the sky .... prove me wrong" ~ Grok, the caveman.

a reply to: Dandandat3

Considering their apparent placement is due to Earth's rotation and perspective, and not a flat backdrop, im afraid poor Grok has a lot to learn.

I get that its levity all the same.

a reply to: Dandandat3

Yes, they are painted onto the Glass Dome, which keeps all the water out. Apparently.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: TheValeyard

Correct!

On a related note, two objects traveling at C in opposite directions don't have a velocity of 2C; they can't. So it all depends on a frame of reference, and the difference between those two frames of reference is time.

So, back to a post above challenging Einstein and FTL travel, it's all about temporal position.

Ah but. Your first sentence you state "they can't". A definitive. Then the next sentence you state "it depends on a frame of reference", which then throws out the definitive.
2 Space ships, space ship A and space ship B are travelling towards one another at C. What speed are they coming together with the observer on space ship A?
This is called "Relativity of simultaneity" and even Einstein threw in the caveat that it might not be the same for deferent observers. So in his words he didn't definitively know this to be correct.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Its only been in the last century or so that the Earth has been able to receive X-ray sources from the sky.
With elementary school math you might project that its has something to do with frequency truncation.
And if two massive star systems were traveling apart from one another faster than the speed of light there would be an event horizon created in a single velocity frame of reference.
You can't win the popular vote for any theories involvig that as nobody on earth has experienced local time dilation.

I wonder if you had a pair of entangled photons and dropped one of them over the event horizon of the black hole, if the entangled one outside would show a change relative to the one that was inside the blackhole.


Far as I understand it, information can't escape once past the event horizon, but I wonder how this experiment stacks up against the model?