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" 1520 laughin 11-Feb-16 16:34
Re: gravity waves "detected" 539 Susan Doris 11-Feb-16 17:44
Re: gravity waves "detected" 431 Sirius7237 11-Feb-16 18:30
Re: gravity waves "detected" 534 laughin 11-Feb-16 21:20
Re: gravity waves "detected" 448 JonnyMcA 12-Feb-16 14:23
Re: gravity waves "detected" 491 laughin 12-Feb-16 15:51
Re: gravity waves "detected" 337 JonnyMcA 12-Feb-16 16:31
Re: gravity waves "detected" 441 laughin 13-Feb-16 18:26
Re: gravity waves "detected" 487 JonnyMcA 13-Feb-16 18:41
Re: gravity waves "detected" 546 Me 15-Feb-16 15:57
Re: gravity waves "detected" 405 laughin 15-Feb-16 20:17
Re: gravity waves "detected" 443 carolb 13-Feb-16 21:53
Re: gravity waves "detected" 336 D-Archer 14-Feb-16 11:16
Re: gravity waves "detected" 353 carolb 14-Feb-16 14:54
Re: gravity waves "detected" 353 Sirius7237 14-Feb-16 20:08
Re: gravity waves "detected" 451 carolb 14-Feb-16 22:31
Re: gravity waves "detected" 466 Aine 15-Feb-16 16:20
Re: gravity waves "detected" 390 D-Archer 15-Feb-16 09:59
Re: gravity waves "detected" 367 JonnyMcA 12-Feb-16 14:31
Re: gravity waves "detected" 408 carolb 13-Feb-16 21:29
Re: gravity waves "detected" 321 laughin 14-Feb-16 15:19
Re: gravity waves "detected" 258 skakos 15-Feb-16 14:07
Re: gravity waves "detected" 354 Pete Vanderzwet 11-Feb-16 21:06
Re: gravity waves "detected" 475 JonnyMcA 12-Feb-16 14:38
Onto Dark Energy waves! 416 Eddie Larry 11-Feb-16 21:34
It took 100 years to discover what Einstein already knew 273 David L 12-Feb-16 12:50
Re: It took 100 years to discover what Einstein already knew 362 Spiros 12-Feb-16 17:09
Re: It took 100 years to discover what Einstein already knew 425 D-Archer 15-Feb-16 12:47
Re: It took 100 years to discover what Einstein already knew 434 Aine 15-Feb-16 16:15
Re: It took 100 years to discover what Einstein already knew 386 D-Archer 15-Feb-16 18:53
Re: It took 100 years to discover what Einstein already knew 405 laughin 15-Feb-16 20:39
Re: It took 100 years to discover what Einstein already knew 341 Aine 16-Feb-16 01:48
Re: gravity waves "detected" 475 dong 12-Feb-16 18:36
Re: gravity waves "detected" 465 laughin 13-Feb-16 03:26
Re: gravity waves "detected" 386 dong 16-Feb-16 07:41
Liego 383 laughin 15-Feb-16 04:17
Gravity Waves of Propaganda the Sequel 371 D-Archer 15-Feb-16 09:48
Re: gravity waves "detected" 457 skakos 15-Feb-16 12:58
Re: gravity waves "detected" 425 Aine 15-Feb-16 22:31
Re: gravity waves "detected" 293 carolb 16-Feb-16 00:57
Re: gravity waves "detected" 367 D-Archer 16-Feb-16 11:47
Re: gravity waves "detected" 506 carolb 16-Feb-16 12:32
Re: gravity waves "detected" 325 D-Archer 16-Feb-16 14:13
Re: gravity waves "detected" 341 carolb 16-Feb-16 14:42
Re: gravity waves "detected" 316 D-Archer 16-Feb-16 15:17
Re: gravity waves "detected" 441 carolb 16-Feb-16 16:27
Re: gravity waves "detected" 446 D-Archer 17-Feb-16 14:08
Really? 342 Sirfiroth 17-Feb-16 15:11
Re: Really? 446 JonnyMcA 17-Feb-16 15:32
Re: Really? 436 D-Archer 17-Feb-16 15:42
Re: gravity waves "detected" 444 carolb 17-Feb-16 18:05
mods! 393 D-Archer 18-Feb-16 11:13
Re: mods! 478 carolb 18-Feb-16 14:14
Re: mods! 472 D-Archer 18-Feb-16 16:02
Re: gravity waves "detected" 553 Sirfiroth 17-Feb-16 01:06
Re: gravity waves "detected" 375 Aine 17-Feb-16 14:48
Re: gravity waves "detected" 416 JonnyMcA 17-Feb-16 15:19
Re: gravity waves "detected" 304 Sirfiroth 17-Feb-16 15:39
Re: gravity waves "detected" 383 JonnyMcA 17-Feb-16 17:37
Re: gravity waves "detected" 472 Aine 17-Feb-16 18:49
Re: gravity waves "detected" 415 laughin 16-Feb-16 20:24
Re: gravity waves "detected" 263 D-Archer 17-Feb-16 16:23
Gravy Waves 576 D-Archer 20-Feb-16 11:39
Playing devil’s advocate on the discovery of gravitational waves 520 laughin 02-Mar-16 18:23
Scientists: we're 100% convinced 346 laughin 07-Mar-16 17:13
Black holes and big bangs can't co-exist 448 laughin 13-Mar-16 04:52
Re: gravity waves "detected" 383 brett z 20-Apr-16 23:42
Re: gravity waves "detected" 394 laughin 21-Apr-16 14:02
Re: gravity waves "detected" 305 OCaptain 10-May-16 12:45
Re: gravity waves "detected" 250 laughin 10-May-16 13:16
Re: gravity waves "detected" 329 OCaptain 10-May-16 13:21
Re: gravity waves "detected" 373 laughin 10-May-16 19:25
Re: gravity waves "detected" 487 OCaptain 10-May-16 22:56
Re: gravity waves "detected" 389 laughin 11-May-16 15:32
Re: gravity waves "detected" 482 JonnyMcA 11-May-16 16:53
Re: gravity waves "detected" 488 laughin 12-May-16 16:26
pompousness "detected" 419 laughin 18-May-16 15:25
bump- 2 weeks 526 laughin 27-May-16 15:02
Re: bump- 3 weeks 460 laughin 02-Jun-16 23:20
Re: bump- 4 weeks and why isn't Carolb patrolling the threads 455 laughin 10-Jun-16 15:42
Gravitational Waves from Black Hole Megamergers Are Weaker Than Predicted 439 laughin 04-May-16 13:15
Re: Gravitational Waves from Black Hole Megamergers Are Weaker Than Predicted 448 D-Archer 09-May-16 19:05
Re: Gravitational Waves from Black Hole Megamergers Are Weaker Than Predicted 263 OCaptain 10-May-16 12:46
Re: Gravitational Waves from Black Hole Megamergers Are Weaker Than Predicted 473 laughin 10-May-16 13:27
Re: Gravitational Waves from Black Hole Megamergers Are Weaker Than Predicted 318 OCaptain 10-May-16 16:39
Re: Gravitational Waves from Black Hole Megamergers Are Weaker Than Predicted 374 laughin 10-May-16 19:10
how many times can you change the rules and still get a black hole 364 laughin 08-Jun-16 14:00
LIGO press conf, June 15 406 brett z 15-Jun-16 11:53
Re: LIGO press conf, June 15 392 D-Archer 15-Jun-16 14:48


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.