Do black holes really exist? Maybe not..

[high as hell]

http://space.newscientist.com/articl...ine-news_rss20

Black holes might not exist – or at least not as scientists have imagined, cloaked by an impenetrable "event horizon". A controversial new calculation could abolish the horizon, and so solve a troubling paradox in physics.
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 have fallen out of the universe.
That contradicts the equations of quantum mechanics, which always preserve information. How to resolve this conflict?
One possibility researchers have proposed in the past is that the information does leak back out again slowly. It may be encoded in a hypothetical flow of particles called Hawking radiation, which is thought to result from the black holes' event horizons messing with the quantum froth that is ever-present in space.
But other researchers argue the information may never have been cut off in the first place. Tanmay Vachaspati and his colleagues at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, US, have tried to calculate what happens as a black hole is forming. Using an unusual mathematical approach called the functional Schrodinger equation, they follow a sphere of stuff as it collapses inwards, and predict what a distant observer would see.
They find that the gravity of the collapsing mass starts to disrupt the quantum vacuum, generating what they call "pre-Hawking" radiation. Losing that radiation reduces the total mass-energy of the object – so that it never gets dense enough to form an event horizon and a true black hole. "There are no such things", Vachaspati told New Scientist. "There are only stars going toward being a black hole but not getting there."
Dark and denseThese so-called "black stars" would look very much like black holes, says Vachaswati. From the point of view of a distant observer, gravity distorts the apparent flow of time so that matter falling inwards slows down. As it gets close to where the horizon would be, the matter fades, its light stretched to such long wavelengths by the dark object's gravity that it would be nearly impossible to detect.
But because the pre-Hawking radiation prevents the formation of a black hole with a true event horizon, the matter never quite fades entirely. As nothing is cut off from the rest of the universe, there is no information paradox.
The idea faces firm opposition from other theoretical physicists, however. "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."
There could be a way to test the new theory. The Large Hadron Collider being constructed at CERN in Geneva might just be capable of making microscopic black holes – or, if Vachaspati is right, black stars. Unlike the large, long-lived black holes in space, these microscopic objects would evaporate fast. The spread of energies in their radiation might reveal whether or not an event horizon forms.
Alternatively, colliding black stars in space might reveal themselves, as Vachaspati says they would churn out not only gravitational waves (like colliding black holes) but also gamma rays. He suggests that they could be responsible for some of the gamma-ray bursts seen by astronomers.

[CH3VELLE]

black holes are crazy. just the whole concept of the black hole is extremely intriguing.

gonna go blaze a bowl then come back and ponder the concept of black holes.

[Rasta_Man]

Well that doesn't refute the basic mechanics of a black hole; an immensely dense sphere of mater, it's just proposing new ideas about the even horizon; something which has confounded physicists for a few decades.

It's also cool that Hawking has radiation named after him; he totally deserves the honor.

[Mr.GoodStuff]

My theory is that stars and black holes are related and connected to each other.

The star beams out light that a connected black hole (or many small ones, or several stars connected to a giant black hole) takes in and dishes back out to the star. Stars can still die in this theory, they are just moving around for some reason. (think because they want to, intellegent design)

It is the act of The Father creating and Lucifer destroying so that nothing new is created and nothing is destroyed.

Just a convient disguise for the two.

It is because of the black holes that stars are even allowed to shine. I derive this from the conservation of energy.

So evil really DOES allow for good!

Ironic too that a star's core and form of energy is fusion, based off of crushing forces... A black hole seems pretty related to the forces inside a star- and stars even collapse into them... Maybe black holes form into stars? (I know about star factories (nebulas))

Just a theory

[Rasta_Man]

Originally Posted by Mr.GoodStuff

My theory is that stars and black holes are related and connected to each other.

The star beams out light that a connected black hole (or many small ones, or several stars connected to a giant black hole) takes in and dishes back out to the star. Stars can still die in this theory, they are just moving around for some reason. (think because they want to, intellegent design)

It is the act of The Father creating and Lucifer destroying so that nothing new is created and nothing is destroyed.

Just a convient disguise for the two.

It is because of the black holes that stars are even allowed to shine. I derive this from the conservation of energy.

So evil really DOES allow for good!

Ironic too that a star's core and form of energy is fusion, based off of crushing forces... A black hole seems pretty related to the forces inside a star- and stars even collapse into them... Maybe black holes form into stars? (I know about star factories (nebulas))

Just a theory

I hate to say it, but that just professed your ignorance of stellar activity.

Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with that; the vast majority of people fall into the same category. We're all ignorant of something, right?

Here are some links and resources for your reading pleasure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution
http://www.eclipse.net/~cmmiller/BH/blkmain.html

There is more, but I think those two sites cover it fairly well.

[Zylark]

Originally Posted by Mr.GoodStuff

My theory is that stars and black holes are related and connected to each other.

And they are. Afteral, black holes are nothing but massive stars that collapse in on themselves. Gravity pushing all its mass into a tiny point. Black holes are former stars. And that is their only relation as such. Apart from, you know, gravitational pull on their surroundings and eachother.

Originally Posted by Mr.GoodStuff

The star beams out light that a connected black hole (or many small ones, or several stars connected to a giant black hole) takes in and dishes back out to the star. Stars can still die in this theory, they are just moving around for some reason. (think because they want to, intellegent design)

It is the act of The Father creating and Lucifer destroying so that nothing new is created and nothing is destroyed.

Just a convient disguise for the two.

This do not make any sense to me. Sorry.

Originally Posted by Mr.GoodStuff

It is because of the black holes that stars are even allowed to shine. I derive this from the conservation of energy.

No. Stars shine because they burn matter in a fusion process. Thus releasing a lot of energy. EM radiation to be precise.

Black holes absorb the same due to them being huge gravity wells. What goes down there do not come out. Well, generally speaking. Black holes do emit some radiation, but it is quite tiny compared to what they gobble up in an average year.

Originally Posted by Mr.GoodStuff

So evil really DOES allow for good!

this is just pure moral-theology and got nothing to do with how the universe works.

Originally Posted by Mr.GoodStuff

Ironic too that a star's core and form of energy is fusion, based off of crushing forces... A black hole seems pretty related to the forces inside a star- and stars even collapse into them... Maybe black holes form into stars? (I know about star factories (nebulas))

Now you are onto something. A black hole is basically a star. Just one where the gravity do not allow any EM emission. Thus it is "black". No light, no radio, no microwave, no nothing. We only "see" them by the way they bend passing light due to their massive gravity.

Kind of like how we "see" dark matter.

Originally Posted by Mr.GoodStuff

Just a theory

Not quite. In the common sense, yes. If by theory you mean a wild assed guess. In a scientific sense it is not a theory. Possibly a hypothesis, but even those got stringent need of objective data to support their further development and research.

[Mr.GoodStuff]

Originally Posted by Rasta_Man

I hate to say it, but that just professed your ignorance of stellar activity.

Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with that; the vast majority of people fall into the same category. We're all ignorant of something, right?

Here are some links and resources for your reading pleasure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution
http://www.eclipse.net/~cmmiller/BH/blkmain.html

There is more, but I think those two sites cover it fairly well.

This is a spiritual theory, it has nothing to do with the way it's been observed. LOL I have books on it, and all it does is explain what has been observed.

What if someone was capable of observing with understanding?

If you only understand what you can see and observe, you will never understand spiritual concepts.

What do you say of love?

@Zylark-

Wild assed guess is the same as a theory, because it hasn't been proven.

I guess before Einstein devoted his life to proving what he understood, his theories were considered wild guesses.

I am only a 22-year-old kid who saw something while I was on LSD, MDMA, THC, and N2O all at once.

But after about 30 years of studying the universe I will be able to show how I come up with my ideas with more clarity in scientific terms.

I will write about it though and try to form a basis beyond what is already understood as fact by me.

If you don't believe in the ALL, or Absolute- my theories are just some crazy speculation. To me however, those who don't believe are blind. (and specifically asked to be)

It's true for both, we both see it differently and equally valid. So in a sense this is just one side of the coin trying to tell the other to be the same as it.

Isn't going to happen, the other side will always want to be opposite.

[Rasta_Man]

Originally Posted by Mr.GoodStuff

This is a spiritual theory, it has nothing to do with the way it's been observed. LOL I have books on it, and all it does is explain what has been observed.

You DIRECTLY contradicted yourself. Please try again.

And I'm sorry to say, that if that was true, than what you're talking about would indeed be science, by definition -- but it's not.

What if someone was capable of observing with understanding?

Um... yes... such as the scientific method?

If you only understand what you can see and observe, you will never understand spiritual concepts.

Perhaps that is because spiritual concepts are bunk, and a fabrication of one's imagination?

Is that not a possibility? Is that in-fact not the most probably scenario?

What do you say of love?

I say love in an endocrine reaction, deep seeded in our evolution, in order to promote altruism in a communal species, and to promote procreation.

Wild assed guess is the same as a theory, because it hasn't been proven.

Unfortunately, you are again, wrong

Originally Posted by wikipedia

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition.

I guess before Einstein devoted his life to proving what he understood, his theories were considered wild guesses.

Yes, and nobody believed them, until they were substantiated with evidence and reason. Again; the scientific method. Hypothesis aren't accepted as a consensual truth until there is evidence. That is why string theory remains a hypothesis.

I am only a 22-year-old kid who saw something while I was on LSD, MDMA, THC, and N2O all at once.

Well the large amount of hallucinogens could explain it.

But after about 30 years of studying the universe I will be able to show how I come up with my ideas with more clarity in scientific terms.

...good luck with that.

If your ideas are eventually accepted as scientific truth, then I will give you a formal apology. Untill then; I'm calling bunk.

I will write about it though and try to form a basis beyond what is already understood as fact by me.

But see, that's the thing, you *already* understand it as fact. It is a dogmatic conviction of yours; not a an idea or hypothesis.

You already have a massive bias; you want to be right and assure yourself that you are.

Even Einstein wouldn't have claimed he is 100% correct without information; no good scientist would.

If you don't believe in the ALL, or Absolute- my theories are just some crazy speculation. To me however, those who don't believe are blind. (and specifically asked to be)

*see above comment*

It's true for both, we both see it differently and equally valid. So in a sense this is just one side of the coin trying to tell the other to be the same as it.

I would contest that. I would call it baseless speculation; not a valid outlook.

[Mr.GoodStuff]

I was talking about a theory, or whatever I'm supposed to call having an idea about something going on behind the scenes.

I was saying that I know you are talking about what you can observe.


I am talking about something different- spiritual in nature. Can you observe a spirit? Your definition of love shuts me completely down. Love is so much deeper than that to me.

I believe science is a fabrication of the mind.

Love brought about the universe you study!

[Rasta_Man]

Originally Posted by Mr.GoodStuff

I was talking about a theory, or whatever I'm supposed to call having an idea about something going on behind the scenes.

I was saying that I know you are talking about what you can observe.


I am talking about something different. Your definition of love shuts me completely down.

I believe science is a fabrication of the mind.

Fabrication of the mind? Even though we can substantiate this kind of thing through controlled experimentation and direct observation?

[Zylark]

Originally Posted by Mr.GoodStuff

I am talking about something different- spiritual in nature. Can you observe a spirit?

Unstated major premise.

First you need to provide evidence that spirits exist (outside and independent of the human brain. More commonly known as the Id, or personality). So far no such thing have ever been proven.

Infact it is just a religious notion of the supposed duality between our cultural self and our animal self.

No such duality exist. We are us, culture and animal and all. We might not like it, or always accept it, but we are driven by instinct just as much as any cat or dog.

Difference is, we can consider our actions abstractly. Animals can't. They are quite literal. Big brain makes for smart monkey

Originally Posted by Mr.GoodStuff

I believe science is a fabrication of the mind.

And religion, notions of spirits, god? Is that not fabrications? At least science got objective data to back up any claim made. Sure the scientific models are human constructs, but they are constructs that fit the data.

Liken it to a map if you want. Science plot the terrain and make an accurate map to the best of our ability.

Superstition disregards the terrain, and draws up a map of how one would like things to be, not how they actually are.

Originally Posted by Mr.GoodStuff

Love brought about the universe you study!

Then you know more than me. I do not know how the universe we live in started. I will make no such claim.

There is a simple reason for that: Wanting something to be true do not make it so. Who am I to profess all knowledge, including what we cannot possibly know quite yet?

Such a claim as you just made is non-founded arrogance. Nothing more. Prove your claims or do not make them.

[BrAiNsTeW]

In M-theory our universe and others are created by collisions between membranes in an 11-dimensional space. Unlike the universes in the "quantum multiverse", these universes can have completely different laws of physics—anything may be possible. So possibly he is correct somewhere no?

[Zylark]

I don't think so in any universe governed by the indifferent laws of nature.

But just for sake of argument, even if it were possible, it would still be entirely incorrect for this universe.

[Mr.GoodStuff]

Originally Posted by Zylark

Unstated major premise.

First you need to provide evidence that spirits exist (outside and independent of the human brain. More commonly known as the Id, or personality). So far no such thing have ever been proven.

Infact it is just a religious notion of the supposed duality between our cultural self and our animal self.

I'm not talking about spirits. I'm talking about THE spirit, the All, the Absolute. It is composed of energy that is infinite in nature. Because of that we are all connected to it and apart of it. You could go as far to say we ARE it. A hair on your arm is a part of you, but it's still you. The hair is not different than you, only a part of you. Take away the small parts and you are left with nothing.

There is a duality in science, that of action/reaction. Our concious mind is the action and the subconsious the reaction. You could observe this from looking at a leaf- you take it in and examine it with your concious mind, and your subconcious mind is the infinite ways you can decide to think about it. It's as if you draw your thoughts from the examinaton from a well in your mind. Where do they come from- if not from you?

Because of this, without you the leaf is for nothing and no one to examine and thus does not exist and/or is pointless considering your ability to give it a name and appreciate it, instead of it being pointless and alone.

No such duality exist. We are us, culture and animal and all. We might not like it, or always accept it, but we are driven by instinct just as much as any cat or dog.

Difference is, we can consider our actions abstractly. Animals can't. They are quite literal. Big brain makes for smart monkey

Not trying to force any ideas on you man. I see duality as an extremely important piece of existance. It is how boundaries are defined and things can be observed.

The light is beaming out energy. Energy that cannot be created out of nothing, only transfered. Because of the conservation of energy- this energy must be collected and then redispersed if the cycle is to continue.

Thus the corrilation between star factories/stars and black holes/giant black holes.

And religion, notions of spirits, god? Is that not fabrications? At least science got objective data to back up any claim made. Sure the scientific models are human constructs, but they are constructs that fit the data.

Liken it to a map if you want. Science plot the terrain and make an accurate map to the best of our ability.

Superstition disregards the te