Cosmologists recently reported black holes in Markarian 1018. Unfortunately for the cosmologists, black holes do not exist. Crothers, S.J., Comment On The Black Hole In Markarian 1018, http://vixra.org/pdf/1609.0272v1.pdf
My problem with the use of the term 'black hole' is that is was originally a hypothetical entity based off mathematical ideals. So when it comes to real astronomical objects, i see no reason to use the same term since it is impossible that they are related. Furthermore, it seems the quest to unite the model with reality has consistently lead to paradoxes which indicate something very interesting or simply a poor model (maybe both). We might be better served if a good chunk of these theoreticians focused on reality and not hypothetical entities in hypothetical spaces in their imaginations.
So you don't think it is possible for there to be an object in this universe where its gravity is so strong, that light cannot escape it? That is where the roots of black hole theory emerged, long before Einstein's mathematical ideals. They called them dark stars, stars so massive and dense.. that their gravity prevents the light they generate from escaping. I truly hope that anyone who doesn't believe black holes exist.. that they don't believe it is possible to travel faster than the speed of light. If there is no hope in the possibility of there being an object whose gravity is so strong it prevents light from escaping, then there would be no hope for faster than light speed travel.
what are some mutually exclusive absolutes in this subject? i dont think there are any true constants. even tge speed of light off of which much of this is based is only an estimate Sent from my SM-G925V using Grasscity Forum mobile app
thes are no mutual absolutes without constants. theyre biconditional, which means they can define eachothef. therefore the function relating them aRb, is a constant, it will never deviate from its plot Sent from my SM-G925V using Grasscity Forum mobile app
You cannot have a room that is both fully illuminated and completely dark because thise are two mutually exclusive absolutes. Its either light or dark, or some degree in between, it cannot be both extremes at the same time.
So to specifically answer my question instead of providing a vague answer that you don't want to commit to.. do you think it is impossible for there to be an object whose gravity has an escape velocity equal or greater than the speed of light? If you don't think it is impossible.. then you should know that is really all a black hole is.. and I have no clue why you're jumping on the anti-black hole bandwagon. If you think it is impossible.. then you should strike all hopes of faster than light speed travel from your mind.
Well i dont think we have a solid understanding of nature, so i wont speculate as to whether or not that is possible. Until we fully understand gravity, who can guess whether or not there could be such a region? As you were saying to P. Parker, math on paper, or mathematical possibilities may not translate to the physical reality. Is gravity warped spacetime? Is it vacuum pressure? Gravitons? Similar to a hurricane perhaps, can water escape it? There is no water in the center, and temporarily water gets pulled it but it will eventually escape. So if we ask if light can escape a black hole when it is an 'active hurricane' possibly not. And it depends what we consider a black hole as well. We know there are plasma jets ejected from black holes, so it isnt able to pull all light in the vicinity. Is the event horizon the boundry? You know, its an open question, as you said it is a place holder term.
We don't know shit! 1000 years from now we will look back and say how stupid we were. And it'll happen again. And again.
right, and that fact is based on the black body theory, which was bolstered by Plancks equation, which holds that the constant h=6,626×10^-34. you Cannot have mutual exclusivity without constants! think about the notion of exclusivity in the firsy place. its constant, never changing. you cant have a relationship between two things (like a light and dark room) without something to relate them. Sent from my SM-G925V using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Hawking radiation, just as you say the water escapes the hurricane, (but it doesnt, its pulled into the hurricane, and the reason there is no water in the middle is because the middle is so hot the water evaporates, rises, and escapes in a gaseous form.) Hawking radiation is the byproduct of a black hole's consumption of energy in any form. Be it light, astral bodies, what have you, there is nothing in the middle of a black hole, "it" is pulled into the black hole and the middle is so dense the energy is transubtantiated into Hawking radtiation. and use stronger words in your arguments! no one is any more right than you are Sent from my SM-G925V using Grasscity Forum mobile app
the reason i talked about Plancks constant was to show that the mutually exclusive absolute that you provided contained a constant that was well-formed in a logical sense, but still an assumption. in calculus it would be considered a limit, we know that thw value is Reeeaaally close to some value, but we can never know exactly what that value is. i agrwe with you that there are rules and relationships, but constants are more ideal ideas than fact Sent from my SM-G925V using Grasscity Forum mobile app
but we cant know how stupid we were if we dont say stupid things now. like thomas edison? dumb idea, cool, but unlikely, but changed the world Sent from my SM-G925V using Grasscity Forum mobile app
To be clear, when i was replying to Mantikore i was talking about logic not physics. That is why i said i wouldnt say it is impossible, because i dont consider very much truly impossible (aside from violations of the law of non contradiction, which strictly speaking is logic which can be applied to reality to some degree). But my analogy doesnt require a Planck constant necessarily, it is, as you eluded to, a mathematical ideal, not a physical necessity.
i see, so if i umderstamd yiy correctly, he claimed that black holes do not exist based on a physical evidence and you disagree because black holes are a mathematical ideal? we have seen (we think) physical objects disappear into voids. and it is bolstered by mathematical ideals. but two disciplines arriving at similar conclusions still equates only to a least upper bound of probability. i dont think either of you are wrong here is what im getting at now. questioning your arguments was a digression Sent from my SM-G925V using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Nothing can move faster than light. That is one of the corner stone of physics. Of course at the quantum level it's all up for grabs. https://forum.grasscity.com/index.php?threads/1387325/
These are not particles, they are phenomena causing effects at a rate faster than light travels. so although "things" cannot travel at the speed of light we think, (more below) relationships can manifest at a rate at or beyond the speed of light These 4 cosmic phenomena travel faster than the speed of light there are more phenomena, light has been accelerated to speeds greater than light in the EmDrive at Nasa lastly the half life of neutrinos, which are radiated from the sun, is much shorter than the time they take to reach the earth. when they were consitently detected at high altitudes it was calculated that .to reach earth within their half life would mean traveling faster than the speed of light Sent from my SM-G925V using Grasscity Forum mobile app