Researcher shows that black holes do not exist

[gcthomas]

I wish we could see 50/100 years from now some science papers.

Yes!

 

[Selaphiel]

This is one more example of how science turns theory into fact long before ever proving the theory in the first place. Then, eventually the theory crumbles and we all realize what a waste of time the exercise caused.

Fact is not higher than theory. A theory explains facts. Nor can you you prove a theory, a theory is subject to change because science discovers new facts all the time.

As for black holes: I am no physicist and I certainly do not know enough physics to argue either way about black holes. Interesting nonetheless though, some disagreements should be stimulating for the progress of the field.

 

[MrDeets]

The awesome thing about the whole deal is that IF this thing gets peer reviewed and accepted, the scientific community will acknowledge it, and move on to look for more info and different explanations to describe the universe. There won't be hundred of years of BUT's and waahhh's.

 

[oatmeal]

Black holes have long captured the public imagination and been the subject of popular culture, from Star Trek to Hollywood. They are the ultimate unknown – the blackest and most dense objects in the universe that do not even let light escape. And as if they weren't bizarre enough to begin with, now add this to the mix: they don't exist.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html#jCp

Well, it is not surprising.

Astronomers, climate scientists, and no doubt all branches of so called science like to hold onto pet theories regardless of the evidence against them.

People tend to fear the unknown, to fear that they may be wrong, they fear for their jobs, they will invent excuses to keep the cash coming in.

The idea of dark matter and dark energy is ludicrous as well.

Especially since there are other viable explanations for the facts that are based on known and measurable facts, thus not requiring the hypothesis of dark matter and dark energy.

"The Big Bang Never Happened" is an interesting read along those lines if you can get past some of the preaching.

Astronomers are trying to figure out where the necessary gravitational pull for the formation of celestial objects came from.

They are stuck on gravity, they ignore electromagnetic forces which are much much stronger.

No wonder God speaks of "science falsely so called" I Timothy 6:20

 

[Selaphiel]

Astronomers, climate scientists, and no doubt all branches of so called science like to hold onto pet theories regardless of the evidence against them.

People tend to fear the unknown, to fear that they may be wrong, they fear for their jobs, they will invent excuses to keep the cash coming in.

The idea of dark matter and dark energy is ludicrous as well.

This is just nonsense. How do you know that the ideas of dark matter and dark energy are ludicrous? Do you even possess a conceptual understanding of what they are? I doubt it. Do you really possess an understanding of the scientific cosmological theories that such notions are a part of? Once again, I doubt it. In that case, I wonder how you can claim that they are ludicrous ideas. Dismissing something you do not even comprehend is ridiculous.

As for climate science: Where is the so called evidence against the fact that the global temperature has been and still is increasing? That you can cook up some crackpot that doesn't believe in it, does not mean the science behind it is bad. There is an OVERWHELMING consensus with regards to climate change among RELEVANT experts.

Especially since there are other viable explanations for the facts that are based on known and measurable facts, thus not requiring the hypothesis of dark matter and dark energy.

Such as? Unless it is peer reviewd material, do not bother.

No wonder God speaks of "science falsely so called" I Timothy 6:20

You fundamentalists are experts at anachronistic readings of scripture. Science in the modern sense of professional peer reviewed science was non-existent when that was written. You are just looking for justifcations for holding onto your naive worldview of creationism and other nonsense.
You fundamentalists are in dire need of a crash course in the idea of context. A tip would be to read the verse you quoted in context of the entire chapter. It has nothing to do with dismissing scientific analysis of reality.
The only idle babbling is nonsense such as creationism and flood theories.

 

[Nick M]

Fact is not higher than theory. A theory explains facts. Nor can you you prove a theory, a theory is subject to change because science discovers new facts all the time.

He was referring to scientific law and simply used the term "fact" because it is reasonable and a good layman's term.

 

[Selaphiel]

He was referring to scientific law and simply used the term "fact" because it is reasonable and a good layman's term.

Scientific law is not higher than theory either, they are simply different things. A scientific law simply expresses an observed A theory attempts to explain laws, why the constant relationships described by laws are what they are. You could for example never replace the theory of evolution with law or fact of evolution. The theory is a set of hypotheses that seeks to explain law(s) and observed facts in a coherent way. For example, Einstein's theory of general relativity explains why things fall according to Newton's law of gravitation.

 

[Stripe]

Shouldn't we wait until the physicist's findings go through the peer review process and it is studied by other physicists?

Not to realize that black holes are not fact, only theory.

 

[Stripe]

Fact is not higher than theory.

Yes, it is.

Only evolutionists need theories to be the same as facts, because one of their key methods of obfuscation is to conflate theory with fact.

A theory explains facts.

Which makes fact not higher than theory, how?

I am no physicist.

To be fair, you're not much of a philosopher, either.

In fact, nothing you say amounts to much.

Scientific law is not higher than theory either, they are simply different things.

Evolutionists. :nono:

You could for example never replace the theory of evolution with law or fact of evolution.

Strange. Evolutionists are forever asserting that these two are the same thing.

 

[gcthomas]

Scientific law is not higher than theory either, they are simply different things. A scientific law simply expresses an observed A theory attempts to explain laws, why the constant relationships described by laws are what they are. You could for example never replace the theory of evolution with law or fact of evolution. The theory is a set of hypotheses that seeks to explain law(s) and observed facts in a coherent way. For example, Einstein's theory of general relativity explains why things fall according to Newton's law of gravitation.

Well put. :thumb:

 

[Spitfire]

LOL... not yet blessed by the magical faerie wand of peer review.

 

[Nick M]

A scientific law simply expresses an observed A theory attempts to explain laws,

A theory is an attempt to explain an observation.

 

[noguru]

In 1974, Stephen Hawking used quantum mechanics to show that black holes emit radiation. Since then, scientists have detected fingerprints in the cosmos that are consistent with this radiation, identifying an ever-increasing list of the universe's black holes.
But now Mersini-Houghton describes an entirely new scenario. She and Hawking both agree that as a star collapses under its own gravity, it produces Hawking radiation. However, in her new work, Mersini-Houghton shows that by giving off this radiation, the star also sheds mass. So much so that as it shrinks it no longer has the density to become a black hole.

Three main points stand out in regard to the article.

1.) This is not all black holes. Only the ones thought to have come into existence from the collapse of super large stars. There are still the black holes believed to be at the center of every galaxy we can observe.

2.) We have known for a long while that singularities still emit a form of radiation - per Hawking.

3.) The new research is not saying "there are no black holes", only that there is a limit to how dense an object must be to become a black hole. And that these stars are not within that limit.

I really don't think this is that difficult to understand. Why do so many of you who display a lack of understanding love to trumpet that misunderstanding as if it is something of which to be proud (no one specific, but for whoever this description fits)?

 

[noguru]

A theory is an attempt to explain an observation.

:up:

You're brilliant!

:rotfl:

 

[whitestone]

ahhh,their just trying to explain why the doctors have to use a pair of zoom glasses and a light to look for stuff in their ears,,,,

 

[Sandycane]

Three main points stand out in regard to the article.

1.) This is not all black holes. Only the ones thought to have come into existence from the collapse of super large stars. There are still the black holes believed to be at the center of every galaxy we can observe.

2.) We have known for a long while that singularities still emit a form of radiation - per Hawking.

3.) The new research is not saying "there are no black holes", only that there is a limit to how dense an object must be to become a black hole. And that these stars are not within that limit.

I really don't think this is that difficult to understand. Why do so many of you who display a lack of understanding love to trumpet that misunderstanding as if it is something of which to be proud (no one specific, but for whoever this description fits)?

"3.) The new research is not saying "there are no black holes", "

That may be true... but that's not what the title of this thread, or the article says.
They say:
Researcher Shows That Black Holes Do Not Exist.

I suppose one would have to be a scientist to know they don't mean what they say?

(Weren't you banned?)

 

[noguru]

"3.) The new research is not saying "there are no black holes", "

That may be true... but that's not what the title of this thread, or the article says.
They say:
Researcher Shows That Black Holes Do Not Exist.

I suppose one would have to be a scientist to know they don't mean what they say?

(Weren't you banned?)

The article and the thread, since it based on the article, are both misleading. People are often misled when they do not pay careful attention to detail. One does not have to be a scientist to see that the claims in both the article and the OP of this thread are incongruent with all the evidence as well as even the subject matter I highlighted in the article.

Yes, I was banned for "calling someone names unnecessarily".

 

[Sandycane]

The article and the thread, since it based on the article, are both misleading. People are often misled when they do not pay careful attention to detail. One does not have to be a scientist to see that the claims in both the article and the OP of this thread are incongruent with all the evidence as well as even the subject matter I highlighted in the article.

I think it's obvious the title of the article was intentionally written to be misleading as an attention-grabber. Mission accomplished.

If they wanted to accurately title the article all they had to do was insert a single word:
Researcher Shows That Some Black Holes Do Not Exist.

Which makes me question the credibility of the article.

Yes, I was banned for "calling someone names unnecessarily".

Doesn't surprise me.

 

[One Ugly Christian]

WOW, thanks Knight. I love stuff like this; very interesting

 

[JosephR]

I think it's obvious the title of the article was intentionally written to be misleading as an attention-grabber. Mission accomplished.



If they wanted to accurately title the article all they had to do was insert a single word:

Researcher Shows That Some Black Holes Do Not Exist.



Which makes me question the credibility of the article.





Doesn't surprise me.

Now it makes even less sense to me, how does showing some super novas do not create black holes rectify gravity with relativity and QM?

Special relativity gives room for non locality to help explain but there is not a lot of evidence for that as of yet.