JEROME - Black holes do not exist

Has it ever been tested? I'm fairly sure we would have noticed....
 
Last edited:
Can we observe gravitational lensing with infrared? Like on the object at our Galaxies center?



Are there any other objects we think are BH's that exhibit Gravitational lensing? How hard is that to see?
 
We have very sensitive gravity measuring devices. Couldn't we test dense and less dense materials with them? To measure the difference in gravity?

I've seen satellite maps of the ocean floor based on how gravity changes the sea level of the ocean, depending on the depth and bottom of the sea. There must be hard science on this. Just how to find it?
 
robinson said:
We have very sensitive gravity measuring devices. Couldn't we test dense and less dense materials with them? To measure the difference in gravity?

I've seen satellite maps of the ocean floor based on how gravity changes the sea level of the ocean, depending on the depth and bottom of the sea. There must be hard science on this. Just how to find it?
Click to expand...

These satellites are mapping the density distribution of a non-uniform object which can all be worked out from Gm1m2r-2 by integrating over the distribution of the masses.

A more exciting measurement is the confirmation of frame dragging due to the rotating mass of the earth.
 
robinson said:
Is there a formula you used to know that?

How is such a formula figured out? Has it ever been tested? Or is this hypothetical?
Click to expand...

Escape velocity = sqrt(2GM/r)

M = 5.9736×10^24 kg (according to wiki)
r = 0.00823 m (according to Paul)

Escape velocity = 311,168,815.3 m/s

If you smoosh the Earth into a ball with a radius of 0.823cm, the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light (299,792,458 m/s), ergo the earth would be a black hole.

Edit: BTW, I did the calcs using an online escape velocity calculator. If my numbers are off, blame the internet not me.
 
Last edited:
Cool. How big (volume and mass) would a normal matter star have to be, to have that kind of escape velocity?

Is that possible? According to theory?
 
robinson said:
Cool. How big (volume and mass) would a normal matter star have to be, to have that kind of escape velocity?

Is that possible? According to theory?
Click to expand...

Back of the envelope?

Smash our star into a ball with a radius of about 3000 meters.

Math isn't my forte so...
 
Last edited:
robinson said:
Cool. How big (volume and mass) would a normal matter star have to be, to have that kind of escape velocity?

Is that possible? According to theory?
Click to expand...
It can't be done with a normal star.

As stars get more massive they fuse hydrogen at a faster rate. When you get to about 1000 solar masses they basically just explode as soon as Hydrogen fusion starts.
 
wollery said:
As stars get more massive they fuse hydrogen at a faster rate. When you get to about 1000 solar masses they basically just explode as soon as Hydrogen fusion starts.
Click to expand...

Where did you get this information, and why are you presenting it as fact?
 
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Why are we presuming that stars are "powered" by nuclear reactions?
Click to expand...

1) because a very considerable body of evidence points towards it, and
2) no alternative source of power that anyone has thought of can come anywhere close to providing enough energy.

You seem determined to ignore point 1, but can you grasp the significance of point 2? Before the discovery of fusion, astronomers beat their heads against the problem of what powers the sun for many, many years with no success. LOTS of theories were tried, and none of them worked. Gravity can't do it, electricity can't do it, there no fuel for fission. Fusion is the only candidate. And it matches what we observe.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
No, that is not what I said.


Should science be building upon that which is not evidenced?

Why are we presuming that stars are "powered" by nuclear reactions?
Click to expand...

Who's presuming?

If you want to know how we know what we know...read a book. Or is it more fulfilling to PRESUME that science is a bunch of lies?
 
KingMerv00 said:
If you want to know how we know what we know...read a book.
Click to expand...
You don't want to trust books, just look at where they come from: One minute you're scrying the aether with the mystical portal, searching for arcane knowledge on the enigma of the universe, and the next thing you know a man arrives at your door with a book. A printed book no less, wherein the text has been reproduced by means of a secret process without the use of scribes. And in this book, a person who calls themselves The Author, declares their absolute knowledge of the secrets of chili cooking, kitten rearing or the hidden mysteries of the strange and unpredictable atom. This author just spouts forth, without so much as a properly convened committee to vet their opinions, as if they had spent years of their life testing and experimenting and researching their subject, and then they expect you to just believe them because they are some sort of expert or Nobel prize winning physicist.

Honestly, it's enough to make you give up alchemy the way people carry on today.
 
KingMerv00 said:
Yes?

You don't believe in nuclear fusion now? Anaxagoras would be proud.
Click to expand...


Not exactly the Eddington limit only relates mass to the maximum luminosity possible for that mass. It does not, itself, require a specific type of power source for that luminosity but just contrasts the outward radiant energy against the inward gravitational energy on the star.

The fact that stable main sequence stars (like our Sun) are in a general state of Hydrostatic equilibrium, outward pressure balanced by inward pressure, indicates the most probable source for the energy of that outward pressure is directly related to the mass of the star. Internal fusion fits those requirements and the observation. But don’t let that stop you, propose any power source that you like and the Eddington limit would still apply (within its constraints), unless of course you are proposing an external power source that would require incoming energetic particles to supply that power and thus increases inward pressure, then you would need a greater output to balance that incoming pressure plus gravity, which would require more energetic, or more, incoming particles to supply that power, increasing the inward pressure, requiring greater output, more inward pressure, requiring greater output, more inward pressure, requiring greater output, more inward pressure……..
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Thanks. Is not this idea premised on the idea that stars are "powered" by nuclear reactions?
Click to expand...
No. This idea is premised on the evidence that stars are powered by nuclear fusion.

Perhaps now that you are back we can get back to the OP.
What doubts do you have about the evidence that there is for the existence of black holes?
Have you found a source for your assertion that "Black holes are another made-up thought with no evidence. This idea seems to fit well with the BBT thus it is kept. Gravity is not strong enough and as such we need make-believe things to account for certain observations"?
I would especially be interested in whether the "gravity is not strong enough" bit is just your personal unsupported opinion or has a founding in fact.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom