eh, Black Holes do not exist...

Junkyard Tom

http://i.imgur.com/dG9H7MG.jpg

Dohnjoe

ClovenHoof wrote: »

50 years ago you same conformists on here would be defending Archbishop McQuid's Mother and Child bull**** simply because he was a 'respected' authority figure and attacking anyone who pointed out that he was full of **** and a spoofer.


Nothing ever changes. Different generation, same conformists who question nothing.

Somehow I don't think Archbishop whoever's thoughts on some matter are the same as international scientific consensus over the existence of black holes

Here are two circular invisible objects with massive gravitational pulls observed by the Hubble telescope
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/public/bh_obsv.html

colossus-x

ClovenHoof wrote: »

It has already happened many times.

Hawkins is a celebrity more than a scientist. People who read his books know little or nothing about science.

Hawkins is an eminent scientist who became a celebrity because he was such a notable eminent scientist.

Nodin wrote: »

True. Most people who read his books are illiterates.

Who reads his books is irrelevant ( how would you know who reads them anyway) and in any case the intellectual content of his books cannot be judged by the particular IQ of the people who reads them.

brevity

Nodin wrote: »

True. Most people who read his books are illiterates.

That makes no sense.

Ave Sodalis

brevity wrote:

That makes no sense.

I think that was the point

rubadub

ClovenHoof wrote: »

People who read his books know little or nothing about science.

and this coming from someone who says this

ClovenHoof wrote: »

Like Dark Matter, they are purely theoretical and represent the Leprechauns and Pixies of Cosmology.

Do you believe there are loads of anthropologists or zoologists studying and actively out looking for these "theoretical" leprechauns?

If your answer is no you have proven one thing, your analogy is complete and utter shite.

AtomicHorror

OP knows that a cornerstone of modern cosmology and physics is BS.

Also, gets Hawking's name wrong.

I am so ****ing convinced.

galljga1

brevity wrote: »

That makes no sense.

I see you like to keep your posts short.

M5

The rise of dangerous stupidity is frightening. Anti Science, Anti Vaxers, the rise of fundamentalist Christianity/Islam etc.

We are heading for the new dark ages if the tsunami of ignorance is not stopped.

OhHiMark

ClovenHoof wrote: »

50 years ago you same conformists on here would be defending Archbishop McQuid's Mother and Child bull**** simply because he was a 'respected' authority figure and attacking anyone who pointed out that he was full of **** and a spoofer.


Nothing ever changes. Different generation, same conformists who question nothing.

But you're not questioning anything. You're saying that more intelligent people with access to a lot more information than you are wrong, with nothing to back up your point.

Nodin

Bio Mech wrote: »

OP is clearly a witch. Burn em.

I actually thought they were taking the piss meself, until they'd made a few more posts.

hatrickpatrick

To anyone who can't believe anything without visual confirmation (and that's not a criticism, it's a pretty understandable cause of skepticism), there actually is visual proof of one black hole's existence.

These scientists used some infrared telescopes to look at Sagittarius A*, the area where the Milky Way's anchoring black hole was believed to reside.

What they found was a group of stars moving at utterly vast speeds, orbiting around nothing. In other words, there was nothing in the centre of this system to account for how these gigantic stars were orbiting that area and why they were moving at the speed they were moving at.

Mathematically, the only possible explanation for this is that there is several million times the mass of the sun lying in the middle of this group of stars, and a black hole is the only object which can both achieve such an incredible density, and be invisible despite all of the luminous objects and light sources in its immediate vicinity.

If that's not proof, I don't know what is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjzDJWD8k_U

M5

Yep, well you cant see bloody gravity either, wonder if the OP would consider jumping off a cliff due to the theoretical nature of gravity and the lack of direct observation?

Overheal

OP has never heard of the Schwarzchild Radius?

valoren

M5 wrote: »

The rise of dangerous stupidity is frightening. Anti Science, Anti Vaxers, the rise of fundamentalist Christianity/Islam etc.

We are heading for the new dark ages if the tsunami of ignorance is not stopped.

A teacher in the US was once asked "Why do astronauts float in space?"

"Because there is no gravity"

Yep there is no gravity in space

iDave

Shane Warne would be proud of this thread.

ClovenHoof

Oaklynn Short Farmhand wrote: »

If you say so.

Theory finally proven, but what would they knew. Uneducated rabble.


:rolleyes:

NASA Says Indian Scientist's Theory Is Correct, Black Holes Don't Really Exist

Last year even famed British physicist Stephen Hawking contradicts his own theory and says that Black Holes in the real sense do not actually exist.

http://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/nasa-s-says-indian-scientist-s-theory-is-correct-black-holes-don-t-really-exist-247757.html


See, I am not so thick after all!

ScumLord

Seeing is believing.

darkpagandeath

ClovenHoof wrote: »

http://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/nasa-s-says-indian-scientist-s-theory-is-correct-black-holes-don-t-really-exist-247757.html


See, I am not so thick after all!

Well, As far as I know it's kind of correct to say black holes in a real sense don't exist. As we can only detect them by measuring their interaction with Matter/Photons/Energy that fall into it's effect. I don't think you can detect them if they do not interact with said Matter/Photons/Energy we are detecting them through interaction and the massive gravitation effects they exert on body's/stars/Galaxy's in their gravitational sway. As far as I know all Galaxy's have a super massive black holes at the centre.

Duggy747

ClovenHoof wrote: »

http://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/nasa-s-says-indian-scientist-s-theory-is-correct-black-holes-don-t-really-exist-247757.html


See, I am not so thick after all!

That's a misleading click-bait article, it's not that "black holes don't exist" it's that NASA made observations that went against the standard theories of black holes.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

ClovenHoof wrote: »

http://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/nasa-s-says-indian-scientist-s-theory-is-correct-black-holes-don-t-really-exist-247757.html


See, I am not so thick after all!

And, he doesn't know about the one in Calcutta, right beside him???