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.
Originally posted by mikesingh
reply to post by Lyrian
Thanks Lyrian! That's what it is - just theory!! I hope you read my links on the subject and the hundreds of equations that prove that Black Holes are a myth!
Cheers!
Originally posted by Shadow_Lord
There is still not enough mass and gravity. That LHC -> black hole concept started because the media does not understand what a black hole is. A very massive ball of "stuff" and lots off it. That "stuff" can no longer produce enough heat to stop the gravity from winning. (All our Sun is, a constant battle between heat and gravity. As the Sun cools, gravity will slowly win.) Other objects nearby will fall into it, increasing the mass/gravity until you finally get a black hole. Earth...cannot do that.
Q: Would a stable black hole have any uses?
A: Indeed it would. It would be an excellent mass-detector and a wonderful energy source. It could be fed mass, and some fraction of the mass-energy (E=mc2) could be recovered and used.
Originally posted by Lyrian
I have read all 8 pages of this "subject" and yes this has something to do with "Black Holes", mikesingh thinks it's theory, thats his belief, I prefer to walk with the mainstream media and "believe" that they do exist, or can mikesingh explain certain abnormalitys with certain stars?... don't want to belittle your beliefs mike, it's a true question waiting for an answer.
A controversial alternative to black hole theory has been bolstered by observations of an object in the distant universe, researchers say. If their interpretation is correct, it might mean black holes do not exist and are in fact bizarre and compact balls of plasma called MECOs (Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Object).
According to the MECO theory, objects in our universe can never actually collapse to form black holes. When an object gets very dense and hot, subatomic particles start popping in and out of existence inside it in huge numbers, producing copious amounts of radiation. Outward pressure from this radiation halts the collapse so the object remains a hot ball of plasma rather than becoming a black hole.
"I believe this is the first evidence that the whole black hole paradigm is incorrect," says Darryl Leiter of the Marwood Astrophysics Research Center in Charottesville, Virginia, US, who co-authored the study. He says that where astronomers think they see black holes, they are actually looking at MECOs.
space.newscientist.com...
Hi Lyrian! I'm back again!
Still not convinced about the myth of 'Black Holes'? Ok, here’s some more gen, this time from New Scientist, which is mainstream media .....
A controversial alternative to black hole theory has been bolstered by observations of an object in the distant universe, researchers say. If their interpretation is correct, it might mean black holes do not exist and are in fact bizarre and compact balls of plasma called MECOs (Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Object).
According to the MECO theory, objects in our universe can never actually collapse to form black holes. When an object gets very dense and hot, subatomic particles start popping in and out of existence inside it in huge numbers, producing copious amounts of radiation. Outward pressure from this radiation halts the collapse so the object remains a hot ball of plasma rather than becoming a black hole.
"I believe this is the first evidence that the whole black hole paradigm is incorrect," says Darryl Leiter of the Marwood Astrophysics Research Center in Charottesville, Virginia, US, who co-authored the study. He says that where astronomers think they see black holes, they are actually looking at MECOs.
space.newscientist.com...
Cheers!
Originally posted by Zelun
I seem to recall astronomers recently observing(admittedly indirectly) a super-massive black hole at the center of our own milky way galaxy.