Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 47

Thread: "black hole" mythology

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    46

    "black hole" mythology

    "Black hole" is absurd fiction that is utterly devoid of empirical referent.

    Sent from my A502DL using Tapatalk

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,333
    Well, you found the right section this time for your ATM claims, so that’s good, but do you have any argument beyond another denial of evidence? Do you have an alternative theoretical framework and alternative explanations for evidence associated with BHs?

    Like, for instance, this:

    https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/news/20...-a-black-hole/

    Or the gravitational wave detection of BH mergers?

    Or old school stuff like quasars and AGNs?

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Well, you found the right section this time for your ATM claims, so that’s good, but do you have any argument beyond another denial of evidence? Do you have an alternative theoretical framework and alternative explanations for evidence associated with BHs?

    Like, for instance, this:

    https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/news/20...-a-black-hole/

    Or the gravitational wave detection of BH mergers?

    Or old school stuff like quasars and AGNs?
    Wow, I think you have the cart before the horse here. Are you honestly asking me to falsify "black hole" ideas? We do not simply assume our ideas are correct when we practice science.

    Can you give me what you believe are the defining characteristics of "black hole" so we can be sure we're talking about the same creature?

    Sent from my A502DL using Tapatalk

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Well...
    I should warn you, before you get emotionally invested in this, you are not going to be able to find any refuge from the harsh light of reality here. Your faith is going to falter when you realize your beliefs have no basis. You will become frustrated and angry and demand that I be punished.

    Sent from my A502DL using Tapatalk

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,647
    Quote Originally Posted by showmeonthedollwhere View Post
    I should warn you, before you get emotionally invested in this, you are not going to be able to find any refuge from the harsh light of reality here. Your faith is going to falter when you realize your beliefs have no basis. You will become frustrated and angry and demand that I be punished.

    Sent from my A502DL using Tapatalk
    Perhaps you could just present your theory without the melodrama. You can assume we are taking GR black holes as mainstream.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by showmeonthedollwhere View Post
    Are you honestly asking me to falsify "black hole" ideas?
    Yes?

    The purpose of this sub-forum is for people to present and defend non-mainstream ideas. Not for us to defend established science.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,333
    Quote Originally Posted by showmeonthedollwhere View Post
    Wow, I think you have the cart before the horse here. Are you honestly asking me to falsify "black hole" ideas? We do not simply assume our ideas are correct when we practice science.
    Black holes are mainstream science, with very well established theoretical support and abundant evidence (some examples mentioned in my prior post). Are you arguing against mainstream BH theory and evidence? Do you have an alternative theoretical framework and alternative explanations for supporting evidence?

    Can you give me what you believe are the defining characteristics of "black hole" so we can be sure we're talking about the same creature?
    No thanks, it is your thread and up to you to present whatever argument you may have. If you end up arguing against a misrepresentation of black holes as per mainstream understanding, I expect someone will point it out.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,312
    Quote Originally Posted by showmeonthedollwhere View Post
    Wow, I think you have the cart before the horse here. Are you honestly asking me to falsify "black hole" ideas? We do not simply assume our ideas are correct when we practice science.
    He is asking you to present your alternative explanations for some of the observations that have led to the general acceptance of black holes as likely present. I would like to second that.

    As for the assumptions bit. You may want to revisit the history of black hole physics. It took 30 years of work before the idea was accepted as more than a mathematical curiosity, then another 50 or so years before the observational evidence was considered robust. And there are still some proposed alternatives under investigation. So your job, in making the statement that you have, is to present a clear, scientific and robust counterargument to the current interpretation of observational evidence.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by loglo View Post
    Perhaps you could just present your theory without the melodrama. You can assume we are taking GR black holes as mainstream.
    I'm not going to assume anything about what anyone thinks, first of all.

    I think you misunderstand the situation. I'm not proposing any theory, I simply doubt "black hole" explanations for what we see in space.

    A scientific idea is testable under controlled conditions. We call those tests experiments. Experiments are foundational to science. Can you cite some experimental verification for ideas such as "singularity"?

    If you cannot provide an experimental basis for your beliefs then your belief is based on faith, like religion. We can all extrapolate from that how convincing facts can be to the religiously faithful.

    Sent from my A502DL using Tapatalk

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,632
    I can think of two empirical pieces of evidence that point toward the existence of black holes just off the top of my head.

    1. There is an object, observed at the core of the Milky Way, whose mass we can determine by the orbits of the stars around it, and whose radius we know by the close fly-by of the stars.

    Whatever you want to call it, it's too massive and compact to be any known object other than a black hole.
    https://www.universetoday.com/133511...ve-black-hole/
    (Sorry, the animated gif is too large to display here)

    2.
    Here is the latest picture of one. Yes, that is an actual radio image not an artist's impression.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	495px-Black_hole_-_Messier_87.jpg 
Views:	41 
Size:	6.5 KB 
ID:	24765

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,632
    Quote Originally Posted by showmeonthedollwhere View Post
    I'm not going to assume anything about what anyone thinks, first of all.

    I think you misunderstand the situation. I'm not proposing any theory, I simply doubt "black hole" explanations for what we see in space.

    A scientific idea is testable under controlled conditions. We call those tests experiments. Experiments are foundational to science. Can you cite some experimental verification for ideas such as "singularity"?

    If you cannot provide an experimental basis for your beliefs then your belief is based on faith, like religion. We can all extrapolate from that how convincing facts can be to the religiously faithful.
    Why stop at back holes? Why not anything beyond Pluto? In one fell swoop, you have eliminated pretty much all of astronomy and astrophysics.

    Perhaps you need to revisit your idea of what constitutes science.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by deadie148 View Post
    Yes?

    The purpose of this sub-forum is for people to present and defend non-mainstream ideas. Not for us to defend established science.
    Okay, I just presented the unpopular idea that "black hole" is retarded gibberish and since there is no experimental verification under controlled conditions showing such a creature can exist there's really nothing for me to refute. I guess this thread will be short if nobody can prove the things can even exist.

    Sent from my A502DL using Tapatalk

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,632
    Quote Originally Posted by showmeonthedollwhere View Post
    ... no experimental verification under controlled conditions
    See post 11.

    Quote Originally Posted by showmeonthedollwhere View Post
    I guess this thread will be short if nobody can prove the things can even exist.
    Science is not in the business of "proving" anything.
    Would have expected you to know that.

    But if you want evidence, see post 10.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Black holes are mainstream science...
    It's certainly a mainstream idea but where is the experimental verification of the hypothesis about an object of almost infinite density? You can in any reasonable fashion present an unverified phenomenon as a scientific explanation for something you can only observe and not play with. That's fundamental science right there, don't jump over those steps.

    Sent from my A502DL using Tapatalk

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    He is asking you to present your alternative explanations for some of the observations that have led to the general acceptance of black holes as likely present.
    You're jumping ahead of the game here. I don't have to offer explanations for arbitrary observations to compete with "black hole" as an explanation for all of them.

    I have done countless hours of research over my lifetime and I've yet to see an experiment described whereby the "black hole" phenomenon could be generated and manipulated under controlled conditions. Until such experiments exist there is no compelling reason to accept "black hole" as an explanation every time a cosmological model fails.

    Sent from my A502DL using Tapatalk

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveC426913 View Post
    I can think of two empirical pieces of evidence that point toward the existence of black holes just off the top of my head.
    First you might want to make sure "black hole" is a real phenomenon. We establish that phenomena are real by using science, which requires controlled experiment. Do you know of any experimental verification of that phenomenon?

    Sent from my A502DL using Tapatalk

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,632
    Quote Originally Posted by showmeonthedollwhere View Post
    First you might want to make sure "black hole" is a real phenomenon. We establish that phenomena are real by using science, which requires controlled experiment. Do you know of any experimental verification of that phenomenon?
    These issues have been addressed, above. I'll lay it out:

    1. Einsteinian GR shows that they certainly *can* and *ought* to exist.
    2. We have been spotting things in deep space for decades that emit characteristic EM consistent with theory.
    3. We see evidence of a compact object whose mass and radius constrain its possible source to an object consistent with theory.
    4. We have imaged one. It appears identical to predictions. (Confirmed predictions are considered a strong case for a theory).
    5. We have no competing models.
    6. Not all science is based on controlled experiment. As pointed out, pretty much all of astronomy and astrophysics isn't.

    We've met the burden of evidence, despite the fact that the onus is not on us to do so.

    It's time for you to make a valid argument in favour of your (unfounded) belief.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveC426913 View Post
    1. There is an object, observed at the core of the Milky Way, whose mass we can determine by the orbits of the stars around it, and whose radius we know by the close fly-by of the stars.

    Whatever you want to call it, it's too massive and compact to be any known object other than a black hole.
    You seem to want explanations for your assertions other than "black hole". Okay, I'll think of some.

    1. Poor understanding of the behavior of objects near the center of the galaxy

    2. Miscalculation of the attractive forces between the objects in question

    3. Miscalculation of the mass of the objects in question


    Quote Originally Posted by DaveC426913 View Post
    2.
    Here is the latest picture of one. Yes, that is an actual radio image not an artist's impression.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	495px-Black_hole_-_Messier_87.jpg 
Views:	41 
Size:	6.5 KB 
ID:	24765
    Io has a plasma torus around it and it's not "black hole" so clearly there are other reasonable explanations for x-rays coming from a toroidal plasma.



    https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...p--10zko8oen-e

    Sent from my A502DL using Tapatalk

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveC426913 View Post
    Why stop at back holes? Why not anything beyond Pluto? In one fell swoop, you have eliminated pretty much all of astronomy and astrophysics.

    Perhaps you need to revisit your idea of what constitutes science.
    If you could just lower your histrionics level, thanks.

    This thread is about "black hole". Those other "issues" you imagine would go better in another thread. Go start it.

    Sent from my A502DL using Tapatalk

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveC426913 View Post
    See post 11.


    Science is not in the business of "proving" anything.
    Since you quoted it I'm sure you saw my comment about experimental verification of ideas. That is exactly the business of science. Can you provide experimental verification of "black hole" or is your belief based on faith?



    Sent from my A502DL using Tapatalk

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveC426913 View Post
    1. Einsteinian GR shows that they certainly *can* and *ought* to exist.
    Your comment above may or may not be factual. Either way, science requires experiment, not just thinking about it.

    Sent from my A502DL using Tapatalk

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,333
    Quote Originally Posted by showmeonthedollwhere View Post
    You're jumping ahead of the game here. I don't have to offer explanations for arbitrary observations to compete with "black hole" as an explanation for all of them.
    They aren’t arbitrary observations. Theory and observation together went into establishing the existence of black holes. If you have no alternative theory or explanation for the observations, what do you have to discuss?

    I have done countless hours of research over my lifetime and I've yet to see an experiment described whereby the "black hole" phenomenon could be generated and manipulated under controlled conditions. Until such experiments exist there is no compelling reason to accept "black hole" as an explanation every time a cosmological model fails.
    Are you claiming science can only be done in a laboratory? That would, of course, ignore anything too large to be put in a laboratory, so most astronomy and geology (among other fields) would be excluded.

    In the case of gravitational wave and imaging observations, predictions were made based on general relativity theory and tested. Observations were consistent with predictions, as has been the case for many other predictions. In the real world, this is one of the ways science is done.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveC426913 View Post
    2. We have been spotting things in deep space for decades that emit characteristic EM consistent with theory.
    A more historically accurate description would be that "black hole" mythology can conform to any data set and as an untestable idea it can be ascribed metaphysical properties and behaviors that defy known, proven physics.

    Sent from my A502DL using Tapatalk

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveC426913 View Post
    3. We see evidence of a compact object whose mass and radius constrain its possible source to an object consistent with theory.
    Evidence that you so interpret. However, if your interpretation involves untestable ideas you are just telling stories.

    Sent from my A502DL using Tapatalk

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    19,333
    Quote Originally Posted by showmeonthedollwhere View Post
    A more historically accurate description would be that "black hole" mythology can conform to any data set and as an untestable idea it can be ascribed metaphysical properties and behaviors that defy known, proven physics.
    That certainly does not appear to be historically or scientifically accurate. Could you please explain what you base this claim on?

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveC426913 View Post
    4. We have imaged one. It appears identical to predictions. (Confirmed predictions are considered a strong case for a theory).
    Sooo...your evidence that an object exists from which no radiation can escape is...a picture of it? Hmm. I don't find that convincing. In all honesty a picture of an object kind of proves radiation can escape from it.

    Sent from my A502DL using Tapatalk

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,632
    Quote Originally Posted by showmeonthedollwhere View Post
    You seem to want explanations for your assertions other than "black hole". Okay, I'll think of some.

    1. Poor understanding of the behavior of objects near the center of the galaxy
    2. Miscalculation of the attractive forces between the objects in question
    3. Miscalculation of the mass of the objects in question
    Sure. There can always be other explanations.
    Which is why we science it until we have a pretty high level of confidence.

    We have a high level of confidence.


    Quote Originally Posted by showmeonthedollwhere View Post
    Io has a plasma torus around it and it's not "black hole" so clearly there are other reasonable explanations for x-rays coming from a toroidal plasma.
    [/QUOTE]
    Clearly you have not read up on the work done, or you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it. They don't just throw darts at a board and make fanciful conclusions.

    It is certainly understandable, if you know very little about it, that you could think all manner of things that are superficially similar are the same thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by showmeonthedollwhere View Post
    If you could just lower your histrionics level, thanks.
    It addresses your faulty idea that all science requires controlled experiment. Clearly that is a misconception on your part, as even you can see.


    Quote Originally Posted by showmeonthedollwhere View Post
    Since you quoted it I'm sure you saw my comment about experimental verification of ideas. That is exactly the business of science. Can you provide experimental verification of "black hole" or is your belief based on faith?
    Again, you make an assertion about science that is simply not true.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveC426913 View Post
    5. We have no competing models.
    One need not compete with an untestable model.

    Sent from my A502DL using Tapatalk

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,632
    Quote Originally Posted by showmeonthedollwhere View Post
    Sooo...your evidence that an object exists from which no radiation can escape is...a picture of it? Hmm. I don't find that convincing. In all honesty a picture of an object kind of proves radiation can escape from it.
    OK, it is apparent that you don't actually know how black holes work, rendering everything you've posted moot.
    Here's a hint: accretion disk.

    Get back to us when you've done some homework.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveC426913 View Post
    6. Not all science is based on controlled experiment. As pointed out, pretty much all of astronomy and astrophysics isn't.
    Yes, all science is based on controlled experiment. Astronomy and astrophysics both require experimental verification. You may be thinking of astrology, which is just stargazing and storytelling.

    Sent from my A502DL using Tapatalk

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •