The onlyone you are outsmarting is yourself. Far more people with far greater understanding of how these things work agree that something is there and they call it a blackhole. Therefore it exists. Its your current understanding thats flawed or youre trolling or both. If you were right others would say so. Youre wong and will continue to be wrong because others of greater intelligence than our own have actually figured it out. Because science. What is it that you propose is there? With out all of the mumbo jumbo copy pasta shit. Truly, what are your thoughts on whats going on instead?
I'm afraid it's hopeless. I apply reason, you apply fantasy, mysticism, superstition and belief. You advance no scientific arguments whatsoever. So there is no common ground. Any reader who thinks about things can easily understand that the black hole does not exist, contrary to the claims of the hordes of astronomers and cosmologists you allude to as of much greater intelligence. Crothers, S.J., Time Warps And The M87 ‘Black Hole’, Time Warps and the M87 'Black Hole' | PSI Intl Stephen Crothers on the Synthetic Imaging of EHT’s “First Image of a Black Hole” in M87,
So, submit to a peer reviewed journal and have your ideas checked out by the experts. If You're right, you win the Nobel prize.
I posted when I moved this to Pandora's Box. I believe many of his "peers" have already discounted his theories.
Ahh, I see. He's just a layman of science who thinks all the experts are wrong and He's right because of "Ideas and stuff". Kinda like the Flat Earthers and Moon Landing Hoaxers out there. I will disregard then.
You have been posting copy pasta crap from the internet. Dont believe the internet, it lies to you. And just as i thought, you have zero ideas of your own about whats really there. Zero! Bad troll is bad...
Stephen j crothers ahahahahahaha!! Youre fake as fuck dude. From your fake ass diploma to the perpetual motion energy crap, to posting your shit outside of the peer review process so you dont get laughed at... youre a flake and a crackpot. Stephen J. Crothers - RationalWiki
Anybody can present anything to a group: it isn't indicative of anything, except that they've made a presentation. If anything can be drawn from the lack of response from the scientific community, it is that the hypothesis Mr. Crowley presented is not scientifically credible. That is to say, the hypothesis lacks scientific rigor, i.e, credible hard data. Disproving the existence of black holes would disprove Einstein's theory of relativity. I'm not saying it's not possible.... just remarkably unlikely.
Technically, we don't know that black holes exist, fuck with all of the new discoveries or theories in physics over the last century we are likely even more confused about reality in general. Science is not science if followed blindly, some scientists don't take that to heart and are a little too vocal about a general topic. In situations like this, I think it's safe to assume "black holes" exist in some form no matter what, but as for them having infinite density or what not, we don't know.
We do know they exist. Just because we don't know everything about them doesn't mean there's a chance they don't exist. There obviously is a lot to learn about them however.
What you say is technically true. We have been unable to see into a black hole because by its very nature it is unobservable directly. But the existence of massive black holes in the center of not only our galaxy but every other galaxy we have observed is true. The observations are born out by both math and physics. At this point, doubting the existence of black holes is up there with doubting the sphericality of the Earth. Jack Cohen (a science writer) says, "Many great scientists, for example Galileo, were ridiculed when they offered new insights into the natural world. Scientific crackpots often deduce that because their work is ridiculed, they must be the new Galileo, but that doesn't follow." Mr. Crothers only cites himself as source of the data that he alleges proves his theories. But if there was even the slightest chance that Mr. Crothers' theory held any validity at all, it would be subject to broad discussion throughout the entire scientific community, because his theory would disprove Einstein's dictum E=mc2, one of the foundational premises of physics. It really would be like proving the world flat. Scientists are quite ready to ponder that, should anyone provide data that suggests it's worth a second glance. But Mr. Crothers' work is only discussed by Mr. Crothers, evidently. Finally, I'd like to point out that Mr. Crothers claim to dispute relativity is that it violates the rules of an experimental model of physics. This is crackpot thinking. To a scientist, disproving the rules of an experimental model proves that the experimental model is flawed, not the universe: If I have a theory that a car will get twice as much gas mileage with two tires as it does with four, test the theory, and find that it isn't right, it is the sheerest folly for me to proclaim that I have disproven Newton, not that a car with only two tires doesn't run.
Laws of physics only add up in this realm. They wouldn't add up in a mirrored universe. They are only good here, people shouldn't stick so rigidly to these 'laws'. A pattern, no matter how often it occurs does not make it a law.
Your logic escapes me. 'Laws of physics only add up in this realm, they are only good here. Therefore people shouldn't stick so rigidly to these laws.' That's like a triple "Huh?" The laws of physics aren't actually opinions you know. It's not like we have any choice about terminal velocity or the speed of light. Also, where else have we got to go? There's only this universe to exist in. And on top of that, how does it follow that something good is not good?