> 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.
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
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
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
> 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?
> 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
> 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.