Do Black Holes Really Exist or Does General Relativity Contradict Itself?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter heiwos
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Contradiction Gr
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the validity of black holes within the framework of General Relativity (GR), sparked by a controversial advertisement in New Scientist claiming contradictions in GR regarding black holes. Participants express skepticism about the claims made in the ad, emphasizing the lack of credible peer-reviewed evidence to support such assertions. The consensus is that while the advertisement raises questions, it does not substantiate a legitimate scientific challenge to the existence of black holes as understood in modern physics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of General Relativity (GR)
  • Familiarity with black hole physics
  • Knowledge of scientific peer review processes
  • Ability to critically evaluate scientific claims
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the mathematical foundations of General Relativity
  • Study the properties and formation of black holes
  • Examine peer-reviewed articles on black hole physics
  • Explore the criteria for evaluating scientific credibility and claims
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of theoretical physics, and anyone interested in the ongoing debates surrounding black hole existence and the implications of General Relativity.

heiwos
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Stumped about GR "contradiction"--help please

Apparently some crackpot blew some $$ on a full page ad in a science magazine, claiming to show that there black holes don't exist because GR contradicts itself about them. I haven't seen the ad, but there's also a blog about it and a thread about it on another forum that you can see by googling for "no black holes (general relativity". I studied black holes & know a little GR, but I can't see the problem. Discussion at another site hasn't shown what's wrong with it. Can y'all help me see it please?

I'm aware that only limited discussion is allowed here about claims of problems with generally accepted physics. That's fine, but since unfounded claims of problems are easy to make in both directions, if this thread is closed before rebuttal can be made (by me, if I can!), can you please continue in the other thread? Thanks! While I don't wish to support a crackpot's delusion, I also want to know the real problem with it; the problems listed on the other thread are not real problems with the blog as far as I can tell.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF heiwos.

I've performed your google search and have indeed found the thread at that other forum. I note in the first line that this was an advert in New Scientist. Since this is not the most respected of magazines, I find it hardly surprising that they will publish crackpot ads. Thus, unless you have a link to a published, peer-reviewed paper on the subject, PF rules forbid the discussion of it here.

Sorry!
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Can light be reflected in a black hole?
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
High School How do Black Holes Grow? A Far-Away Observer's Perspective
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
6K
Undergrad Why doesn't relativity of simultaneity lead to a contradiction?
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
Graduate Stability of the Kerr–Newman black hole under small perturbations
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
744
Undergrad Looking closely at the descent into a black hole
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
2K
Undergrad Evaporating black hole: First principles consideration
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Undergrad Does Kerr's argument against singularities apply to all black holes?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Graduate Do Black Holes have Singularities?
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
Undergrad Black hole and coordinate time from the perspective of Alice outside
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
High School Question about the Entropy of a Black Hole Singularity
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K