Science & Space :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For all that is Scientifically related to Cosmology and Space. (NB: Please take discussions about UFOs, possible Alien contact, Crop-Circles, Alien Abductions, Planet-X and Niburu to the ‘Paranormal and Supernatural’ Message Board). 
Welcome! Log InRegister
OCaptain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> laughin Wrote:
>
> > In real science
> > one does not keep "revisiting some assumptions"
> > for each new discovery
> > and then say "black holes do best fit the data"
>
> Then it should be quite easy for you to find
> real published, peer-reviewed science that backs
> your statement. You're asking me to defend the
> science behind black holes, when you haven't even
> shown exactly where black hole theory (or whatever
> you want to call it) falls short. Further, I'm not
> responsible for that science, but unlike you, I
> give specialists the benefit of the doubt - in
> their specialty. I defer to them until I have
> reason not to.



[blackholes.stardate.org]

Quote

When Schwarzschild, a 42-year-old mathematician who was in charge of a German military weather station, read Einstein's new theory, which was published in 1916, he used it to make some calculations of his own. Schwarzschild found that if you squeezed enough mass into a small enough volume, its gravity would become almost infinitely strong. It would warp the space around it so strongly that nothing could escape from it -- not even light. In essence, the object would be invisible to the outside universe: matter and energy could fall into it, but nothing could come back out.

Schwarzschild's calculations provided the scientific basis for the concept of black holes.

This "infinitely strong" gravity is the result of having a "zero" in the denominator of his equation
( see the "dividing by zero" link)
so this is based upon "if" you squeeze enough mass into a small enough volume.....fantasy

Quote

Most of what astronomers know about black holes themselves is based on theoretical models. These models say that a black hole consists of a singularity -- an almost infinitely dense pinpoint of matter that contains the black hole's entire mass -- and a horizon, which to the outside universe forms the black hole's surface. It is not a physical surface, however, but the point at which the black hole's escape velocity -- the speed at which matter or energy must travel to get away -- exceeds the speed of light. Anything passing within the horizon can never come back out: It is trapped -- in a black hole.

Even Jonny here on the board admits there are no singularities....
and by definition, you need a singularity to trigger a black hole to form

and if you use a modified definition (model) to explain black holes
it means the original definition (model) was wrong!!!!

to explain this in basic steps...
1. the original equation (model) had specific terms with specific values
which when solved gave the singularity value = black hole
2. new information about the values of these terms, i.e., spin, temperature, x-rays, gravity waves,etc
have been added to define "what a black hole is"
3. this means the original equation was wrong
because it didn't include this new information
black holes, if they exist, have been the same before us "discovering them"as afterwards
they do not change because we find out new things about them
4. So the original equation and its assumptions of terms and values are incorrect

[blackholes.stardate.org]

Quote

The Science of Imagination

The evolution of our thinking about black holes is an evolution of both science and imagination. As he daydreamed of falling apples, Isaac Newton realized they were influenced by the same force that holds the Moon in orbit: gravity. By applying his discovery, others calculated that some stars might have such powerful gravity that not even light could escape them. And by imagining journeys through time and space, Albert Einstein realized that gravity is a curvature in spacetime; others discovered that it might be curved so severely that a massive object could be cloaked from sight. These discoveries and insights, and many others, led to the discovery and study of some of the most fascinating objects in the universe: black holes.





>
>
> laughin Wrote:
>
> > of course they would
> > when you modify your theory
> > to fit every new thingy that comes along
> >
> > every one of the black hole theories
> > from the beginning until now
> > have been WRONG
> > or else they wouldn't have needed to be
> modified
>
> Can you explain every one of the black hole
> theories from the beginning until now? And can you
> explain how they have each been wrong?
> Specifically?

>



>
> laughin Wrote:
>
> > how many times can a theory be wrong
> > before someone says "maybe we're going down the
> > wrong road"
> > and stops and asks for new directions?
>
> Let's work our way through your claim above
> first, shall we? Because, as of right now, you
> haven't shown that only one of those "theories" is
> wrong.

>
>
> laughin Wrote:
>
> > theories are suppose to PREDICT discoveries
> > and not constantly require modifications to the
> > assumptions
> > making changes to your theory AFTERWARD to make
> > things fit
> > means you don't know jack about what is really
> > going on. PERIOD
>
> Well, we'll see after you explain the specific
> shortcomings of all of the black hole theories.
>
> Go on, we're waiting.
>
> Brian

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
gravity waves "detected" 1501 laughin 11-Feb-16 16:34
Re: gravity waves "detected" 523 Susan Doris 11-Feb-16 17:44
Re: gravity waves "detected" 415 Sirius7237 11-Feb-16 18:30
Re: gravity waves "detected" 518 laughin 11-Feb-16 21:20
Re: gravity waves "detected" 435 JonnyMcA 12-Feb-16 14:23
Re: gravity waves "detected" 474 laughin 12-Feb-16 15:51
Re: gravity waves "detected" 321 JonnyMcA 12-Feb-16 16:31
Re: gravity waves "detected" 422 laughin 13-Feb-16 18:26
Re: gravity waves "detected" 473 JonnyMcA 13-Feb-16 18:41
Re: gravity waves "detected" 529 Me 15-Feb-16 15:57
Re: gravity waves "detected" 391 laughin 15-Feb-16 20:17
Re: gravity waves "detected" 429 carolb 13-Feb-16 21:53
Re: gravity waves "detected" 324 D-Archer 14-Feb-16 11:16
Re: gravity waves "detected" 341 carolb 14-Feb-16 14:54
Re: gravity waves "detected" 341 Sirius7237 14-Feb-16 20:08
Re: gravity waves "detected" 440 carolb 14-Feb-16 22:31
Re: gravity waves "detected" 449 Aine 15-Feb-16 16:20
Re: gravity waves "detected" 377 D-Archer 15-Feb-16 09:59
Re: gravity waves "detected" 354 JonnyMcA 12-Feb-16 14:31
Re: gravity waves "detected" 394 carolb 13-Feb-16 21:29
Re: gravity waves "detected" 308 laughin 14-Feb-16 15:19
Re: gravity waves "detected" 246 skakos 15-Feb-16 14:07
Re: gravity waves "detected" 339 Pete Vanderzwet 11-Feb-16 21:06
Re: gravity waves "detected" 460 JonnyMcA 12-Feb-16 14:38
Onto Dark Energy waves! 402 Eddie Larry 11-Feb-16 21:34
It took 100 years to discover what Einstein already knew 260 David L 12-Feb-16 12:50
Re: It took 100 years to discover what Einstein already knew 347 Spiros 12-Feb-16 17:09
Re: It took 100 years to discover what Einstein already knew 411 D-Archer 15-Feb-16 12:47
Re: It took 100 years to discover what Einstein already knew 421 Aine 15-Feb-16 16:15
Re: It took 100 years to discover what Einstein already knew 374 D-Archer 15-Feb-16 18:53
Re: It took 100 years to discover what Einstein already knew 390 laughin 15-Feb-16 20:39
Re: It took 100 years to discover what Einstein already knew 327 Aine 16-Feb-16 01:48
Re: gravity waves "detected" 462 dong 12-Feb-16 18:36
Re: gravity waves "detected" 439 laughin 13-Feb-16 03:26
Re: gravity waves "detected" 372 dong 16-Feb-16 07:41
Liego 372 laughin 15-Feb-16 04:17
Gravity Waves of Propaganda the Sequel 360 D-Archer 15-Feb-16 09:48
Re: gravity waves "detected" 439 skakos 15-Feb-16 12:58
Re: gravity waves "detected" 409 Aine 15-Feb-16 22:31
Re: gravity waves "detected" 279 carolb 16-Feb-16 00:57
Re: gravity waves "detected" 354 D-Archer 16-Feb-16 11:47
Re: gravity waves "detected" 490 carolb 16-Feb-16 12:32
Re: gravity waves "detected" 313 D-Archer 16-Feb-16 14:13
Re: gravity waves "detected" 326 carolb 16-Feb-16 14:42
Re: gravity waves "detected" 303 D-Archer 16-Feb-16 15:17
Re: gravity waves "detected" 427 carolb 16-Feb-16 16:27
Re: gravity waves "detected" 428 D-Archer 17-Feb-16 14:08
Really? 326 Sirfiroth 17-Feb-16 15:11
Re: Really? 434 JonnyMcA 17-Feb-16 15:32
Re: Really? 419 D-Archer 17-Feb-16 15:42
Re: gravity waves "detected" 429 carolb 17-Feb-16 18:05
mods! 378 D-Archer 18-Feb-16 11:13
Re: mods! 463 carolb 18-Feb-16 14:14
Re: mods! 456 D-Archer 18-Feb-16 16:02
Re: gravity waves "detected" 540 Sirfiroth 17-Feb-16 01:06
Re: gravity waves "detected" 363 Aine 17-Feb-16 14:48
Re: gravity waves "detected" 404 JonnyMcA 17-Feb-16 15:19
Re: gravity waves "detected" 289 Sirfiroth 17-Feb-16 15:39
Re: gravity waves "detected" 369 JonnyMcA 17-Feb-16 17:37
Re: gravity waves "detected" 456 Aine 17-Feb-16 18:49
Re: gravity waves "detected" 401 laughin 16-Feb-16 20:24
Re: gravity waves "detected" 249 D-Archer 17-Feb-16 16:23
Gravy Waves 557 D-Archer 20-Feb-16 11:39
Playing devil’s advocate on the discovery of gravitational waves 505 laughin 02-Mar-16 18:23
Scientists: we're 100% convinced 333 laughin 07-Mar-16 17:13
Black holes and big bangs can't co-exist 436 laughin 13-Mar-16 04:52
Re: gravity waves "detected" 369 brett z 20-Apr-16 23:42
Re: gravity waves "detected" 380 laughin 21-Apr-16 14:02
Re: gravity waves "detected" 292 OCaptain 10-May-16 12:45
Re: gravity waves "detected" 233 laughin 10-May-16 13:16
Re: gravity waves "detected" 309 OCaptain 10-May-16 13:21
Re: gravity waves "detected" 359 laughin 10-May-16 19:25
Re: gravity waves "detected" 474 OCaptain 10-May-16 22:56
Re: gravity waves "detected" 373 laughin 11-May-16 15:32
Re: gravity waves "detected" 461 JonnyMcA 11-May-16 16:53
Re: gravity waves "detected" 470 laughin 12-May-16 16:26
pompousness "detected" 405 laughin 18-May-16 15:25
bump- 2 weeks 513 laughin 27-May-16 15:02
Re: bump- 3 weeks 446 laughin 02-Jun-16 23:20
Re: bump- 4 weeks and why isn't Carolb patrolling the threads 441 laughin 10-Jun-16 15:42
Gravitational Waves from Black Hole Megamergers Are Weaker Than Predicted 425 laughin 04-May-16 13:15
Re: Gravitational Waves from Black Hole Megamergers Are Weaker Than Predicted 434 D-Archer 09-May-16 19:05
Re: Gravitational Waves from Black Hole Megamergers Are Weaker Than Predicted 249 OCaptain 10-May-16 12:46
Re: Gravitational Waves from Black Hole Megamergers Are Weaker Than Predicted 459 laughin 10-May-16 13:27
Re: Gravitational Waves from Black Hole Megamergers Are Weaker Than Predicted 306 OCaptain 10-May-16 16:39
Re: Gravitational Waves from Black Hole Megamergers Are Weaker Than Predicted 360 laughin 10-May-16 19:10
how many times can you change the rules and still get a black hole 351 laughin 08-Jun-16 14:00
LIGO press conf, June 15 392 brett z 15-Jun-16 11:53
Re: LIGO press conf, June 15 378 D-Archer 15-Jun-16 14:48


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.