Stephen Hawking stuns physicists by declaring 'there are no black holes'

Jukiodone
Was thinking about this last week and the terminology "black hole" is indeed quite misleading.

Given the common convention amongst scientists a black hole would in fact be better described as a "Dark Hole" in the same vain as Dark Energy and Dark Matter ( Dark for descriptions of things that scientists can't measure ).

As a staunch believer in Super fluid Vacuum Theory, for me, a black hole is simply an area of space where space itself is at it's densest i.e an area of maximum spatial density.
Gravity is the time based observation of an object within the gradient of quantised space (i.e space itself is made up of the infinitesimally small "bits" that we observe but cant measure at this time thus giving erroneous measurements requiring dark energy and dark matter to fill the Astrophysics gap).

Hawking is seemingly recognising that a black hole cannot infact be infinite which would tie in nicely with Quantum Space Theory as explained here: einsteinsintuition.com...

Quantization also imposes min­imum and max­imum limits for space­time cur­va­ture. The ratio of a circle’s cir­cum­fer­ence to its diam­eter can be used to geo­met­ri­cally rep­re­sent those limits. In flat space­time (zero cur­va­ture) that ratio is equal to π. In regions with nonzero cur­va­ture (e.g.centered around a black hole), the numeric value of that ratio decreases because the circle’s diam­eter pro­por­tion­ately increases. If space is quan­tized, it fol­lows that the diam­eter of a circle with a finite cir­cum­fer­ence cannot be infi­nite (the amount of space inside a finite black hole cannot be infi­nite). In gen­eral, the cutoff pro­vided by quan­ti­za­tion means that the min­imum value for the ratio of a circle’s cir­cum­fer­ence to its diam­eter must be greater than zero.

I hate your face right now, maybe it is the beer, but you just talked science and I didn't understand what you said.....let me reread that again.

OK upon rereading your post, your saying volume increases faster than surface area, thus a black hole would eat its way past the ability to feed itself?

If so, this is a known fact, hence cells in living tissues being small, as the surface couldn't bring in enough to sustain the interior if it got any larger.

If not............plz elaborate a little further......actually plz elaborate further in either case, I think I may like where this is going.

I still pose the question : How far can you crush /squeese Atoms until the charged particles actually short their charges out and become neutrons only ?
How can anyone believe that everything occupied the space of a period on a piece of paper which is filled with nothingness literally ? Where is the logic or scientific proof ? Has science become a faith or religion ? And how would the Big Bang theory differ from faith in God ?

reply to post by Korg Trinity


It makes sense that information can never be lost and then rendered absurd and meaningless within the whole context of all that was, is and will ever be.

Then again, there's some crap that's best flushed right down the drain.

But in truth what's real cannot be made unreal.

I approach these things since i cannot begin to grasp the math and physics involved in philosophical terms.

The universe is forever fully informed - thus it must be considered absolute nonsense that information could be lost from any and every POV.

Therefore he must be right.

Posted by Muzzleflash on Nov 20, 2013:

About the "black hole" I am thinking yes but also with the twist of a paradox.
Such as with the Red-Blue, but something like possibly a "Black - White Hole" ?
Where everything falls in, and everything falls out ?

Will post update to last 2 posts:

"The Gray Hole"
It's black and white. Neither and both.

Link to Shade of Sha thread where I wrote it:
First post (Second post is 2 posts down)

I have always been skeptical about black holes for the simple fact that they have to be an immovable object in space. An infinite force acting on an ifinitely dense object cancels producing no motion.

Grey holes are a little different. They are not infinetly dense but very close, so their motion would be very slight. If there are such a thing as black holes and grey holes they would have been left far behind in an expanding universe or there would be an area of space were they are clustered providing reference to were the initial so called, 'Big Bang', occurred.

reply to post by SimonPeter

How can anyone believe that everything occupied the space of a period on a piece of paper which is filled with nothingness literally ?

The singularity prior to the big bang is thought to be infinitesimally small and infinitely dense and hot. Not emptiness. Emptiness would be contrary to infinite density right?

Has science become a faith or religion ?

Religion has doctrine that's deemed to be absolute truth about the very nature of reality. Science embraces its fallible nature and encourages being proven wrong. Faith doesn't require reason. Science does. So no they are quite different beasts.

And how would the Big Bang theory differ from faith in God ?

That's a loaded question. We talking about a prime mover or a god that wants us to cut the skin off our wankers?

No matter what the truth about the origin of all reality is it's going to blow our minds. That we can count on.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


So what you are saying is I really don't have an idea . You have stated that the singularity is very small . When you go out tonight and look at about a 1/4 of all of the stars that you can see explain how that much matter could be in one single place in any form the size of our moon . This theory is expressed with great authority by the best scientific minds as their best theory ( guess ) . It has been endorsed by most scientist as the premier rebuttal to the Biblical Creation by God , yet it has no basis of science to substantiate it . Just like when a scientist puts forth his oration and it is dismissed as not possible just throw a Billion years in . After all who can prove different .
Yes people have made a religion out of science believing anything that is put forth as long as it debunks the bible . Maybe one of your scientist can explain singularity as having all the mater in heaven in it . With all of the scientific theories being taught to children as if it were almost fact , for a grade , impresses our children that it is indeed fact .

science is a body of knowledge and a investigative process. it (itself) cannot be a religion. however; there are people who become dogmatic and resistant to new information based on a faulty adherence to science. for example evolution has nothing to say one way or another about the existence of a creator God. yet many try to use it for that purpose to which it is unsuited. on the other hand the existence of a creator God does not contradict evolution either. So those on the other side (religious psuedo-fundamentalism) of the coin are also wrong because they make the same assumptions about science as thier ideological foes do and that is why they resist the notion of evolution or the big bang or several other scientific discoveries like that.

a religious person should be aware that if there appears to be a contradiction between the bible or science one or the other is misunderstood. the conflict should always be resolved by deeper study of one or the other or both. The bible properly understood is truth and science when properly understood is also truth. the only difference is the bible addresses everything from the theme of salvation. everything in it is written for that purpose. it is not meant to go into detail into things that are irrelevant to it's reason for existing. it's not a encyclopedia of modern terms and jargon nor is it a textbook on physical laws, biology or anything like that. where it touches on these subjects it is totally ancilliary to it's salvation timeline and theme.

furthermore there are areas where the editors erred in their interpretations that make big differences in the information in it. one of these is responsible for the the people who think the earth is only a few thousand years old and that was just from one word in the text that was in error. once the interpretation is corrected you find that though the age of the earth is not precisely given; it does say it is ages old.

so when you think that science contradicts the bible or conversely that the bible is at war with science you should actually be looking for a misunderstanding of one or the other. there is only one truth. since science is also the search for the truth and the body of what the scientific method has revealed the bible and science do not actually contradict one another. when it comes to the important bits of each neither is minding the other's business. Science does not address the immeasurable. The bible only touches on science incidentally (at often symbolically or metaphorically) to it's own aims which are a intangible realm that science cannot measure or therefore be interested in.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


well, hawking, by your argument there was no time for the big bang to happen either. :|

so, this 'singularity' existed "in the beginning" and it was a point within 'nothing'? so, this 'something' was all there was?
think about it.

reply to post by SimonPeter

You have stated that the singularity is very small

I'm not really stating anything but what I understand the theory to be. You seemed to suggest earlier the big crunch was intrinsic to the model and it's not. Then you claimed it was a state of emptiness and that's not the theory. It's not my theory.

When you go out tonight and look at about a 1/4 of all of the stars that you can see explain how that much matter could be in one single place in any form the size of our moon

So essentially ponder the impossibility of it all? Okay. I actually do that all the time. I fail to see how god or any other possibility is any less mystifying. Either something comes from nothing or there is some component to reality that is truly eternal. Either one is quite magical and mind blowing to me. I don't see why you would isolate the Big Bang's singularity as if there is other explanations that reconcile the mystery. It doesn't make sense therefore 'god did it'? That hardly satisfies.

This theory is expressed with great authority by the best scientific minds as their best theory ( guess )

Theory in science is more than a guess. It's not like they get together and a random scientists raises his hand and says "I've got a new theory. What if Universes are formed with two super massive black holes collide?" And the other scientists go "Yeah sounds good lets go with that". That's guessing and that's not what theory means.

It has been endorsed by most scientist as the premier rebuttal to the Biblical Creation by God

Funny enough when the theory was first posited it was embraced by many theologians as proof of divine creation since it showed there was a beginning. Yet now Christians for the most part seem to hold it with vile contempt. Funny how anything and everything varies in interpretation from the religious.

yet it has no basis of science to substantiate it

I'll admit I am no physicist. Will you?

Yes people have made a religion out of science believing anything that is put forth as long as it debunks the bible

Everything in science somehow revolves around the Bible then?

Maybe one of your scientist can explain singularity as having all the mater in heaven in it .

Our scientists. Welcome to humanity. If you want to disregard science you might want to ditch the computer you're using since it's the pinnacle of scientific achievement.

With all of the scientific theories being taught to children as if it were almost fact

Right because religions don't indoctrinate children with beliefs deemed to be fact. To life's biggest questions nonetheless.

'god' can exist without her\him\it being a 'bible' god or any other god as portrayed by present 'religions'.

reply to post by taoistguy

'god' can exist without her\him\it being a 'bible' god or any other god as portrayed by present 'religions'.

Right.

More often that not there is a religious god underlying said person's words though.

Was that in response to something that was specifically said?

The Big Bang doesn't support or negate a creator. Science can only address that which is within the known Universe. Anything that is supernatural (outside of nature) is by definition outside scientific understanding. On the flip side people shouldn't be attempting to use the supernatural to explain the Universe. Unless of course you're claiming the powers of a prophet and get knowledge directly from this divine source.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


agreed. i'm merely pointing out to christians that they may be incorrect in thinking of 'god' as a biblical god. (and to any scientifically minded folks as well.)
but i also feel that the latter type still get bogged down in semantics and they see their explanation as abolute and 'gospel'.
my own opinion is neither religious or scientiic.

SimonPeter
How can anyone believe that everything occupied the space of a period on a piece of paper which is filled with nothingness literally? Where is the logic or scientific proof? Has science become a faith or religion? And how would the Big Bang theory differ from faith in God?

Sometimes, a picture really is worth a thousand words.Even if the entire volume of energy/mass in the known universe were contained by a singularity ... it would still have to have come from somewhere. At this point in the historical timeline of humanity one takes 'belief' either in religion or science. It doesn't matter which side you pick ... as long as you have 'faith.'

reply to post by stormbringer1701

so when you think that science contradicts the bible or conversely that the bible is at war with science you should actually be looking for a misunderstanding of one or the other.

Genesis, unless taken metaphorically, seems to be at war with science. Give this link a look over:

Debunk Genesis

reply to post by Snarl


Agreed ! So we have no better explanation than the Bible . A singularity still has to be atoms crunched beyond the point of destruction . So in the beginning and from there we just don't know nor could we understand .

SimonPeter
reply to post by Snarl

 

Agreed! So we have no better explanation than the Bible. A singularity still has to be atoms crunched beyond the point of destruction. So in the beginning and from there we just don't know nor could we understand.

The words highlighted in your response above are 'where I always go' when making a 'scientific' point about 'religion.' Those words are scientifically profound ... and they just mysteriously happen to be the first three words in the bible. Such a shame religious texts have been altered to the degree they have. What knowledge may have been carried forward from the past were it not for 'ignorant authority?'

reply to post by Snarl


...and he was a priest. See that's what I was musing over earlier. I said initially Big Bang Theory was embraced by Christians since it showed there was a beginning of creation. Interesting how it has shifted!

Even if the entire volume of energy/mass in the known universe were contained by a singularity ... it would still have to have come from somewhere.

Well…

This is a discussion of origin. Our brains want there to always be one. Singularity? What came before! God? What came before! These questions will always regress to the point where something comes from nothing or, in fact, something is just eternal. That eternity could possibly come in the form of a self-sustaining Universe with no need of a creator. See the mind boggles over that idea, because it implies no origin. Which is no more strange than god since that idea is also without origin.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


One thing we know is that the Creator could never explain to us in detail .