The Big Hoax Theory, Black holes and Gravity

[g0pher]

Basically everything modern science teaches about the universe is pretty much bullshit.

A black hole can't exist because it defies all logic. You can't have a point that 'sucks up' every single thing in it's vicinity, including light. Black holes are said to 'bend light' and prevent it from escaping it's pull. That's impossible because light is an expression of existence. It is everywhere. As an example: even inside of a hermetically sealed steel box, there is light, it's just that our eyes can't pick it up. However our vision still sees light no matter what (assuming you weren't born blind), it's just that we aren't able to make out any objects in 'complete darkness'. There is no such thing as 'black'. What we call black is not absent of light, it's not a non-color, it's just the darkest color we have.

Light is everywhere... (not finished)

Basically it's just a matter of the size of a body that determines the intensity of light. Since stars are the largest objects in the universe, they produce the most light. Next would come gaseous planets orbiting stars. You can see jupiter and mistake it for a large star in the sky when it's lined up with the earth. Even though venus would appear to be 'brighter' than Jupiter, it's only because jupiter is so much farther away. Of course that has to do with our sun reflecting on it (as with everything else in the universe), but the only reason that they don't produce as much light, again, is because of their size. They all produce light, it's just the stars overwhelm their brightness. It's almost like an eclipse.

The larger a planet is, the closer it is to being gaseous. The reason a planet like Jupiter isn't a ball of fire is because it's not big enough to 'ignite'. Continue to increase the size and you will eventually get a star. The tremendous amount of gravity our sun has is what makes it burn but to say the size of the sun alone is the reason it's a star is overestimating. The reason it's on fire is because it has too much mass for it to solidify so everything else is going to pull on it, preventing it from solidifying or just being a gaseous planet like Jupiter or Saturn. Anything that's the size of a star is too big to be anything but a star.

The reason we have rocky planets is because they are small and are trapped orbiting around their star. Although there is no such thing as a perfect circle or orbit, their star's immense gravity locks the planet into orbit which forces them to solidify. Gaseous planets on the other hand are far too big to be solid. But all planets contribute to their sun's existence as a star as well, as they are pulling on everything else. Rocky planets are rocky because their star, along with everything else sucks away their potential to be gaseous, although all planets do start out gaseous.

Another point I would like to bring up is the fact that the size of a star also determines it's color, or rather, the color we perceive it to be.

Another interesting point is the fact that larger stars are cooler and die sooner than smaller stars. The reason for that is... they are just too big and vulnerable to everything else for it to be hot enough to live longer. Our sun has an average lifespan because it's average size keeps its fuel abundant. The larger a star is the more fuel it is going to use because of its amount of gravity, affecting the fusion process to make it burn more fuel. Its own mass is its disadvantage. The heat from a star is generated from the combustion occurring in it's core so a small star will be hotter than a big one on the surface. You can correlate the lifespan of a star to a rocky planet. Obviously, a rocky planet can theoretically last longer than any star. They just don't because their lives are dictated by the star they orbit.

So that means black holes can't exist. Black holes are a lie. Black holes are a hoax. Black holes defy the logic of what makes a star a star and a planet a planet. They are the invention of quacks bent on deceiving the masses, trying to make it appear as if we don't know anything for sure and that there is such a thing as separation and control from the rest of the universe. Oh yeah, the same goes for neutron stars, obviously. Something that big could never be anything more than a burning star like our sun.

Now onto gravity. Everything is gravity. If that's too hard to believe then know that everything is everything, so by default everything is gravity, as everything is 'connected' to.. everything. Everything moves and bends, and it must otherwise it wouldn't exist. How can something exist if it doesn't define itself? How can it define itself if it doesn't move? Existence is movement, and the force of gravity that science thinks is just one of 4 forces is actually just everything being everything, so those 4 'forces' must be unified.

The phenomenon of gravity that we see planets and stars exhibiting is what everything is. Stars and planets are just products of existence moving. There is no special thing that makes them what they are. The constant being of what is is what forms stars .Everything is gravity because one thing could not move without everything else moving as well. So this means that the gravity of each object is pulling on all other objects. Everything is everything, so obviously everything affects everything. Even the gravity of a pebble on your driveway affects the furthest star in the night sky.

[MelT]

Gopher, as much as I love your threads, you're wrong about light. And black holes are ex-stars. There are also photographs of them, I think something like a dozen or so at the centre of our galaxy alone.


2006 April 27
<CENTER>NGC 4696: Energy from a Black Hole
Composite Image Credit: X-ray in red - NASA/ CXC/S.Allen (Kavli Inst., Stanford) et al.;
Radio in blue - NRAO/G.Taylor (VLA); Infrared in green - NASA/ESA/W.Harris (McMaster Univ.) </CENTER>Explanation: In many cosmic environments, when material falls toward a black hole energy is produced as some of the matter is blasted back out in jets. In fact, such black hole "engines" appear to be the most efficient in the Universe, at least on a galactic scale. This composite image illustrates one example of an elliptical galaxy with an efficient black hole engine, NGC 4696. The large galaxy is the brightest member of the Centaurus galaxy cluster, some 150 million light-years away. Exploring NGC 4696 in x-rays (red) astronomers can measure the rate at which infalling matter fuels the supermassive black hole and compare it to the energy output in the jets to produce giant radio emitting bubbles. The bubbles, shown here in blue, are about 10,000 light-years across. The results confirm that the process is much more efficient than producing energy through nuclear reactions - not to mention using fossil fuels. Astronomers also suggest that as the black hole pumps out energy and heats the surrounding gas, star formation is ultimately shut off, limiting the size of large galaxies like NGC 4696.

MelT

[Jcrash]

Black holes do exist however I think we don't know enough about them to actually conclude something. I'm talking about the properties they have and the rules they follow.

Lately I've been intrigued by the concept of "dark matter" and "dark energy." Wiki those topics and just read the synopsis. It's the idea that something is holding our universe together. It's the foundation and structure that defines how fast a galaxy spins, where space gas accumulates, or how stars burn.

Gravity, light, energy, mass, wavelengths, etc. I think there's a few more "real world" phenomena that has yet to be discovered and it involves the 90% of our universe that we don't understand.

They're doing studies now to see if light exerts gravity.

[MelT]

Originally Posted by Jcrash

Black holes do exist however I think we don't know enough about them to actually conclude something. I'm talking about the properties they have and the rules they follow.

Lately I've been intrigued by the concept of "dark matter" and "dark energy." Wiki those topics and just read the synopsis. It's the idea that something is holding our universe together. It's the foundation and structure that defines how fast a galaxy spins, where space gas accumulates, or how stars burn.

Gravity, light, energy, mass, wavelengths, etc. I think there's a few more "real world" phenomena that has yet to be discovered and it involves the 90% of our universe that we don't understand.

I'm an ex-amateur astronomer, but still an enthusiast. I know about dark matter and energy,
http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/dark_energy/

and of course there are things we don't understand in cosmology, that's not in question. But we don't have to know everything about the universe before we can begin to understand individual parts of it. Black holes=real.

We aren't guessing at the existence of black holes, we know they're there - we're just unsure of all their properties.

MelT

[CaliCoast]

I would love to repsond about black holes and gravity but I don't do as good of a job like the guy on NovaScienceNow. Then again theories are just that, a theory. Someday a new scientist will discover something revolutionary that will force people to make new theories. I like science.

[Visine!]

I didnt read all your post, just skimed most of it, but from what i saw your logic is full of holes and false statements, if you want me to go into i can but i still have a hangover and work to do... (If this sounded mean or if i am being too forward or something its probably due to my massive headache...)

[Smigs]

Originally Posted by g0pher

Basically everything modern science teaches about the universe is pretty much bullshit.

Exactly. Why can't people except that science is not always right.

[Visine!]

Originally Posted by Smigs

Exactly. Why can't people except that science is not always right.

No one said it was always right, in fact a lot of it is wrong, thats why there are so many opposing theories and stuff, science isn't about being right, its about trying to prove things and theories right.

[MelT]

Originally Posted by Smigs

Exactly. Why can't people except that science is not always right.

Isn't it funny that christians always accuse science of being flawed because it's not always right, especially when science doesn't claim to be - but christianity does.

Christianity it tells itself, is inerrant:

Science, "We're working our way towards a full understanding..."
Christianity, "We have a full understanding...and we are the ONLY truth."

So, being honest, which really should be told to give it a rest because it's not 'always right', christianity or science?


MelT

[Visine!]

Originally Posted by MelT

Isn't it funny that christians always accuse science of being flawed because it's not always right, especially when science doesn't claim to be - but christianity does.

Christianity it tells itself, is inerrant:

Science, "We're working our way towards a full understanding..."
Christianity, "We have a full understanding...and we are the ONLY truth."

So, being honest, which really should be told to give it a rest because it's not 'always right', christianity or science?


MelT

I hate it when people try to bash things they obviously don't understand.

[g0pher]

The scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to and conditioned by each other.

[Liquidtruth]

Originally Posted by Visine!

I hate it when people try to bash things they obviously don't understand.

I would say MelT has a rather good understanding of the subject matter. Just because his conclusion might not line up with your view of the world does not mean he does not understand, nor does it mean he is wrong.

Originally Posted by Smigs

Exactly. Why can't people except that science is not always right.

People do accept that, quite readily, all the time. I have seen no one suggest anything else.

[g0pher]

Originally Posted by MelT

Gopher, as much as I love your threads, you're wrong about light.

And what is your arguement against my theory about light?

Originally Posted by MelT

And black holes are ex-stars. There are also photographs of them, I think something like a dozen or so at the centre of our galaxy alone.

The event horizon is supposed to mark a boundary beyond which nothing can escape a black hole's gravity. According to the general theory of relativity, even light is trapped inside the horizon, and no information about what fell into the hole can ever escape. Information seems to fall out of the universe.

This contradicts the equations of quantum mechanics, which always preserve information.

Collapse of the massive stars actually leads to the formation of stars that contain dark energy and not black holes, says a scientist.

Black Holes are just staples of science fiction, nothing more. It's a near certainty that black holes don't exist, even Einstein did'nt believe in them.

[MelT]

Originally Posted by Visine!

I hate it when people try to bash things they obviously don't understand.

What part of it are you accusing me of not understanding. Very odd thing to say when you have no idea what I know on the subject.

MelT

[MelT]

Originally Posted by g0pher

And what is your arguement against my theory about light?

Not just light, your understanding of planets too. You said:

Originally Posted by g0pher

A black hole can't exist because it defies all logic. You can't have a point that 'sucks up' every single thing in it's vicinity, including light.

You can. It's super-dense, has massive gravity and will attract everything, including light. Everything of any mass bends light towards itself, not just black holes.

Originally Posted by g0pher

That's impossible because light is an expression of existence.

No it's not. Light is both a particle and a wave form.

Originally Posted by g0pher

It is everywhere. As an example: even inside of a hermetically sealed steel box, there is light, it's just that our eyes can't pick it up.

No there isn't. Without a light source there are no photons within the box.

Originally Posted by g0pher

Basically it's just a matter of the size of a body that determines the intensity of light. Since stars are the largest objects in the universe, they produce the most light. Next would come gaseous planets orbiting stars. You can see jupiter and mistake it for a large star in the sky when it's lined up with the earth.

What you're saying above is that Jupiter is a light source. It isn't, Jupiter reflects the light of the sun in the same way that the moon does, that's why it seems to shine.

Originally Posted by g0pher

The event horizon is supposed to mark a boundary beyond which nothing can escape a black hole's gravity. According to the general theory of relativity, even light is trapped inside the horizon, and no information about what fell into the hole can ever escape. Information seems to fall out of the universe.

No again. Hawking Radiation or something very similar leaks out.

Originally Posted by g0pher

Black Holes are just staples of science fiction, nothing more. It's a near certainty that black holes don't exist, even Einstein did'nt believe in them.

Main question though - why would the entire scientific community falisify the existence of the black holes they've already found? Why would their discovery in tens of galaxies be a common lie throughout every branch of cosmolgy? It's one thing to say that black holes may not exist, I can live with that, but calling it a 'Bg Hoax Theory'? Why the need for it to be a big conspiracy? Why dramatise it?

What you're talking about was posted here, it's the work of just one scientist and the article goes on to say what others think about his theory:

"...http://forum.grasscity.com/spiritual...maybe-not.html

"... "I strongly disagree," says Nobel laureate Gerard 't Hooft of Utrecht University in the Netherlands. "The process he describes can in no way produce enough radiation to make a black hole disappear as quickly as he is suggesting." The horizon forms long before the hole can evaporate, 't Hooft told New Scientist.

Lab testSteve Giddings of the University of California in Santa Barbara, US, is also sceptical. "Well-understood findings apparently conflict with their picture," he told New Scientist. "To my knowledge, there hasn't been an attempt to understand how they are getting results that differ from these calculations, which would be an important step to understanding if this is a solid result."...."

MelT