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" 1639 laughin 11-Feb-16 16:34
Re: gravity waves "detected" 614 Susan Doris 11-Feb-16 17:44
Re: gravity waves "detected" 502 Sirius7237 11-Feb-16 18:30
Re: gravity waves "detected" 603 laughin 11-Feb-16 21:20
Re: gravity waves "detected" 527 JonnyMcA 12-Feb-16 14:23
Re: gravity waves "detected" 560 laughin 12-Feb-16 15:51
Re: gravity waves "detected" 408 JonnyMcA 12-Feb-16 16:31
Re: gravity waves "detected" 514 laughin 13-Feb-16 18:26
Re: gravity waves "detected" 558 JonnyMcA 13-Feb-16 18:41
Re: gravity waves "detected" 639 Me 15-Feb-16 15:57
Re: gravity waves "detected" 474 laughin 15-Feb-16 20:17
Re: gravity waves "detected" 519 carolb 13-Feb-16 21:53
Re: gravity waves "detected" 411 D-Archer 14-Feb-16 11:16
Re: gravity waves "detected" 431 carolb 14-Feb-16 14:54
Re: gravity waves "detected" 422 Sirius7237 14-Feb-16 20:08
Re: gravity waves "detected" 524 carolb 14-Feb-16 22:31
Re: gravity waves "detected" 544 Aine 15-Feb-16 16:20
Re: gravity waves "detected" 463 D-Archer 15-Feb-16 09:59
Re: gravity waves "detected" 448 JonnyMcA 12-Feb-16 14:31
Re: gravity waves "detected" 476 carolb 13-Feb-16 21:29
Re: gravity waves "detected" 393 laughin 14-Feb-16 15:19
Re: gravity waves "detected" 338 skakos 15-Feb-16 14:07
Re: gravity waves "detected" 426 Pete Vanderzwet 11-Feb-16 21:06
Re: gravity waves "detected" 547 JonnyMcA 12-Feb-16 14:38
Onto Dark Energy waves! 485 Eddie Larry 11-Feb-16 21:34
It took 100 years to discover what Einstein already knew 337 David L 12-Feb-16 12:50
Re: It took 100 years to discover what Einstein already knew 429 Spiros 12-Feb-16 17:09
Re: It took 100 years to discover what Einstein already knew 492 D-Archer 15-Feb-16 12:47
Re: It took 100 years to discover what Einstein already knew 503 Aine 15-Feb-16 16:15
Re: It took 100 years to discover what Einstein already knew 454 D-Archer 15-Feb-16 18:53
Re: It took 100 years to discover what Einstein already knew 477 laughin 15-Feb-16 20:39
Re: It took 100 years to discover what Einstein already knew 414 Aine 16-Feb-16 01:48
Re: gravity waves "detected" 538 dong 12-Feb-16 18:36
Re: gravity waves "detected" 534 laughin 13-Feb-16 03:26
Re: gravity waves "detected" 460 dong 16-Feb-16 07:41
Liego 450 laughin 15-Feb-16 04:17
Gravity Waves of Propaganda the Sequel 446 D-Archer 15-Feb-16 09:48
Re: gravity waves "detected" 538 skakos 15-Feb-16 12:58
Re: gravity waves "detected" 494 Aine 15-Feb-16 22:31
Re: gravity waves "detected" 364 carolb 16-Feb-16 00:57
Re: gravity waves "detected" 438 D-Archer 16-Feb-16 11:47
Re: gravity waves "detected" 587 carolb 16-Feb-16 12:32
Re: gravity waves "detected" 393 D-Archer 16-Feb-16 14:13
Re: gravity waves "detected" 406 carolb 16-Feb-16 14:42
Re: gravity waves "detected" 377 D-Archer 16-Feb-16 15:17
Re: gravity waves "detected" 516 carolb 16-Feb-16 16:27
Re: gravity waves "detected" 521 D-Archer 17-Feb-16 14:08
Really? 411 Sirfiroth 17-Feb-16 15:11
Re: Really? 522 JonnyMcA 17-Feb-16 15:32
Re: Really? 513 D-Archer 17-Feb-16 15:42
Re: gravity waves "detected" 509 carolb 17-Feb-16 18:05
mods! 463 D-Archer 18-Feb-16 11:13
Re: mods! 545 carolb 18-Feb-16 14:14
Re: mods! 550 D-Archer 18-Feb-16 16:02
Re: gravity waves "detected" 631 Sirfiroth 17-Feb-16 01:06
Re: gravity waves "detected" 443 Aine 17-Feb-16 14:48
Re: gravity waves "detected" 496 JonnyMcA 17-Feb-16 15:19
Re: gravity waves "detected" 375 Sirfiroth 17-Feb-16 15:39
Re: gravity waves "detected" 467 JonnyMcA 17-Feb-16 17:37
Re: gravity waves "detected" 541 Aine 17-Feb-16 18:49
Re: gravity waves "detected" 484 laughin 16-Feb-16 20:24
Re: gravity waves "detected" 330 D-Archer 17-Feb-16 16:23
Gravy Waves 652 D-Archer 20-Feb-16 11:39
Playing devil’s advocate on the discovery of gravitational waves 596 laughin 02-Mar-16 18:23
Scientists: we're 100% convinced 425 laughin 07-Mar-16 17:13
Black holes and big bangs can't co-exist 514 laughin 13-Mar-16 04:52
Re: gravity waves "detected" 456 Observer 20-Apr-16 23:42
Re: gravity waves "detected" 461 laughin 21-Apr-16 14:02
Re: gravity waves "detected" 378 OCaptain 10-May-16 12:45
Re: gravity waves "detected" 374 laughin 10-May-16 13:16
Re: gravity waves "detected" 394 OCaptain 10-May-16 13:21
Re: gravity waves "detected" 446 laughin 10-May-16 19:25
Re: gravity waves "detected" 560 OCaptain 10-May-16 22:56
Re: gravity waves "detected" 463 laughin 11-May-16 15:32
Re: gravity waves "detected" 576 JonnyMcA 11-May-16 16:53
Re: gravity waves "detected" 558 laughin 12-May-16 16:26
pompousness "detected" 495 laughin 18-May-16 15:25
bump- 2 weeks 595 laughin 27-May-16 15:02
Re: bump- 3 weeks 538 laughin 02-Jun-16 23:20
Re: bump- 4 weeks and why isn't Carolb patrolling the threads 521 laughin 10-Jun-16 15:42
Gravitational Waves from Black Hole Megamergers Are Weaker Than Predicted 498 laughin 04-May-16 13:15
Re: Gravitational Waves from Black Hole Megamergers Are Weaker Than Predicted 512 D-Archer 09-May-16 19:05
Re: Gravitational Waves from Black Hole Megamergers Are Weaker Than Predicted 341 OCaptain 10-May-16 12:46
Re: Gravitational Waves from Black Hole Megamergers Are Weaker Than Predicted 545 laughin 10-May-16 13:27
Re: Gravitational Waves from Black Hole Megamergers Are Weaker Than Predicted 386 OCaptain 10-May-16 16:39
Re: Gravitational Waves from Black Hole Megamergers Are Weaker Than Predicted 442 laughin 10-May-16 19:10
how many times can you change the rules and still get a black hole 432 laughin 08-Jun-16 14:00
LIGO press conf, June 15 470 Observer 15-Jun-16 11:53
Re: LIGO press conf, June 15 455 D-Archer 15-Jun-16 14:48


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.