Black Holes: Viable Scientific Theory? Or Voo-Doo Science?

[Hurkyl]

Now I will address the only logical response to my last post.

If you want to discuss only logical responses, then maybe you shouldn't lace your posts with insults, eh?



Do you dispute this following statement?

Gravity affects light.

 

[FZ+]

Here, I'll show you another example of spatial construction which appears to show galaxies orbiting a huge star,

How the hell do you propose to see an orbit out of 1 still image? Can you see into time or something? This picture shows galaxies in the visual vicinity of a large object. These objects are millions of light years apart. Just like a constellation, they may appear together, but that is no measure of the real distance. As as been said, diffraction spikes = lot closer than you think.

if you don't believe it's a giant star, and then I will be able to discuss the subject with you on your level once I understand more fully what your comprehension level is.

Let's take this on to another level. Do you know what stars are? Yes, giant fireballs, fusing hydrogen. The larger the star, the more hydrogen it is fusing, and the hotter it gets. Hardly rocket science, is it? Now, physical laws show us that as objects get hotter, their radiation changes towards the BLUE end of the spectrum. This has been confirmed by observation. Hence it is impossible for a humongous star to be orange. Hell, due to the high energy, it should be emitting gamma rays - it's just so hot. Well, does that look like it is blue? Or is Planck's law vodoo science too?
Comprehendo?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Do you dispute this following statement?

Gravity affects light.

That depends on what your definitions of gravity, light, and effects are. To me, gravity is a jelly donut, light is the sun, and to effect is to orbit.

So no. The sun does not orbit a jelly donut.

 

[John MacNeil]

So what are you guys trying to say? That diffraction spikes are an indicator of near distance, and so they can be used for scientific measurements and calculations? Did you people skip junior high school, or something? A diffraction spike occurs when rays of light are broken up into dark and light bands or into the colors of the spectrum and it is caused by the interference of one part of a beam with another. It has nothing to do with distance, it has to do with perspective.

And speaking of perspective, if you don't believe there is a giant star controlling the main gravity field from the center of every galaxy, then explain your idea of what is occurring there. Begin with a close one, if you like. What is the organization of the major bodies at the core of our galaxy? If you believe that it is "a normal galactic necleus--lots of stars", then post a reference to that or explain what it is so that we can understand what "a normal galactic necleus--lots of stars" acts like in their orbit. We know from observing our own solar system that there is a constructional order to bodies that orbit in space. Year after year we see the same star patterns in the night sky above us, so we know they follow predictable orbits as well. So it is only logical to deduce that there is a working system at the center of the galaxy, too. So what is the description of that working system?

We hear ad nauseum how "Black Holes" can scrunch a billion star down to the size of a basketball at some imaginary site so far away that we know we'll never get there to be able to get sucked into one. But when it comes to describing something that is close and practical like the galactic core, all the explanations are foggy and non-committal. There is no logic to the "Black Hole" theory and that is evidenced by the people who espouse it claiming that the laws of physics break down when you get sucked past the "event horizon" of a "Black Hole" and reach a spot where even light cannot escape. No one who thinks about that scenario for a little bit can believe that nonsense. Most people who espouse that view do so because other people espouse that view and they don't want to appear as if they "don't get it". So before you try to defend the cartoon theory of "Black Holes" further, take a shot at describing the movements of the bodies at the core of a galaxy.

And what's this theory about giant stars having to be blue? Here's a picture of giant stars as described by NASA. Hint...they're not blue,

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap990429.html

The notion that we can write down a mathematical equation and then state that the equation proves that stars in the universe can only be a certain size, is stupid reasoning. There has never been a mathematical formula that came before a theory, and there never will be. The more we get to see of space, the more we will get to understand what we are seeing and we are sure to continue to find ever larger constructions until we know exactly how the universe is put together. Here's a fine example of that learning curve,

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0001/gacluster_wfi_big.jpg

This is a picture of the great attractor that was taken four year ago. Near the center of the picture you see three large body that glow with a slightly greenish tinge and they form a rough triangle with each side approximately two inches. That is the heart of the Great Attractor system. Three inches away from that system, to the right and slightly below, is another similar triangular construction, which is on a slightly flatter plane, that has bodies which exhibit light on the same wave length as those in the heart of the Great Attractor. It can only be deduced that it is a system of similar construction. That indicates that large system construction in the universe is repetitive and proves that randomness is not a feature of spatial construction.

 

[Hurkyl]

Do you dispute the following statement?

Gravity affects light.

 

[Hurkyl]

So what are you guys trying to say? That diffraction spikes are an indicator of near distance, and so they can be used for scientific measurements and calculations? Did you people skip junior high school, or something? A diffraction spike occurs when rays of light are broken up into dark and light bands or into the colors of the spectrum and it is caused by the interference of one part of a beam with another. It has nothing to do with distance, it has to do with perspective.

So what are you trying to say? That there really are huge light-emitting spikes out there in the universe, occurring only where there is a particularly intense region of light, and they all just happen to orient themselves so they're always parallel to the frame of the picture? And although they happen to look just like the distortion observed of the filming of bright lights here on earth, the ones we see in the sky cannot possibly be the same thing?

We hear ad nauseum how "Black Holes" can scrunch a billion star down to the size of a basketball at some imaginary site so far away that we know we'll never get there to be able to get sucked into one.

I've never heard that before. Even a black hole with a rather meager mass equal to that of our sun still has an event horizon with a radius of 2.95 kilometers. The radius of the event horizon for a billion solar mass black hole would be almost three light-hours.

I.E. slightly larger than a basketball.


This is somewhat irrelevant to the main point, but it demonstrates something we've been trying to tell you; you don't know black hole theory. Because your understanding is littered with misconceptions such as this one, how can you possibly think you know enough about it to know it's wrong?

There is no logic to the "Black Hole" theory and that is evidenced by the people who espouse it claiming that the laws of physics break down when you get sucked past the "event horizon" of a "Black Hole" and reach a spot where even light cannot escape.

When one says "the laws of physics break down", they mean that the conditions required for the accuracy of a physical theory no longer hold. General Relativity's validity requires that quantum "weirdity" be insignificantly small, but GR's predicts that conditions near the center of a black hole are those which would give rise to large amounts of quantum effects. Thus, deep inside the black hole, General Relativity is no longer applicable.

However, the predicted conditions near an event horizon are well-behaved (at least for stellar mass black-holes), giving no reason to doubt GR.

So before you try to defend the cartoon theory of "Black Holes" further

I won't try to defend the cartoon theory of "Black Holes" at all. I defend the real thing.

That indicates that large system construction in the universe is repetitive and proves that randomness is not a feature of spatial construction.

Gasp! Amongst all the trillions of stars in the universe, you found two triangles of the same color!

There's a glaring gap in your reasoning, though. If your green triangles are supposed to be great attractors, then why are we being attracted towards only one of the triangles, rather than to both (and thus towards the region between them)?

 

[marcus]

Originally posted by russ_watters
That depends on what your definitions of gravity, light, and effects are. To me, gravity is a jelly donut, light is the sun, and to effect is to orbit.

So no. The sun does not orbit a jelly donut.

I regret to inform you that you have misconstrued the statement
"Gravity effects light".

If gravity is a jelly donut, and to effect is to orbit, and light is the sun, then the statement is:

A jelly donut orbits the sun.

This is indisputable by the plain evidence of our senses.

It appears on cursory inspection that MacNiel is a loonie and that the other posters on the thread are engaged in the pleasant sport of loonie-baiting. Perhaps I am missing something and should study it at greater length but I have to go see about my jelly donut. Cheers.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
This is somewhat irrelevant to the main point, but it demonstrates something we've been trying to tell you; you don't know black hole theory. Because your understanding is littered with misconceptions such as this one, how can you possibly think you know enough about it to know it's wrong?

ECHO, Echo, echo...

Restated (for further redundancy): If you don't know what a theory SAYS, how can you know that what a theory says is wrong?

Analogy: I don't know how big of an engine a Volkswagen Bug has, but I know its faster than a Corvette. Uh huh.

 

[roxybeast]

New Scientific Theory on Black Holes

New Scientific Theory on Black Holes

I'm going to pose a new scientific thought regarding black holes. I just don't by the current notion that they are the end all to end all. That everything gets sucked in and destroyed never to reappear. The destruction of matter in the most final sense.

That's just nonsense.

Look, Einstein was correct when he postulated that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It is true on earth. And it cannot be disproved in space. Result: the matter, energy, and light entering a black hole must be coming out somewhere. The problem is that we can't see what is produced with the limits of our current technology, telescopes or measuring instruments. We are just presently unable to capture or measure the change.

My theory, and feel free to prove me wrong, is that the matter, energy and light pulled into a black hole are transformed and dispersed in the proximity of the black hole in a different form, a very very small percentage perhaps as incredibly thin light or sound waves, but the vast majority of which are in the form of wave particles much smaller than quarks not yet detected which essentially comprise the vastness of space creating an ever flowing and growing field of invisible waves. Space, in other words, is not space. It is a never ending sea of tiny wave particles which we do not see and cannot yet measure. It fills the void between Earth and moon and on to the ends of the known universe. Scientists know that the universe is expanding. Black holes create the tiny wave matter particles that are sustaining that expansion. Much in the same way that a sea were to expand if we continued to pour water into it. The expansion is the result of the new material created not being anywhere near as dense as the materials and energy destroyed by the forces within the black hole that create it. This also explains why large masses, like stars, tend to look like their gravitational masses are warping the universe causing smaller objects to rotate around them. They are like a heavy object in the sand. A sand that we cannot yet see or measure. But it exists.

There is one true universal rule always at play and that is BALANCE.

It is because of this "rule" that we can establish this new theory to be true.

 

[russ_watters]

"Thin light"? Sorry, that's not a theory, it's just gibberish. Please note - we don't allow this type of free-form, idle speculation here. Before you start re-writing existing theory, you have two large steps to take:
1. You need to learn what a "theory" is. (Or more generally, you need to learn what science is.)
2. You need to learn what the existing theory says/means.

And since this thread ran its course 6 years ago, there is no reason to continue it. Thread locked.