Notices
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Black holes don't exist and neither does the big bang theory.

  1. #1 Black holes don't exist and neither does the big bang theory. 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    4
    At least according to a scientist within a recent article I found.

    I know it's been a while but how have you been? Sorry I don't really have anything particular to talk about.

    I'm unfortunately not quite savvy enough in this field to comment on it, so what does everyone here think?

    Also I'm new here so it's nice to meet everybody and I hope we all get along well.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    4
    For some reason I can't post url's, So instead just google black hole and it should be the first article.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Masters Degree Implicate Order's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    27.4679° S, 153.0278° E
    Posts
    610
    Our current 'best' theoretical models that stand up very well with empirical observation would state otherwise but that doesn't mean they have the final say.

    Could you please provide a link about that reference you read? I would be interested to see who said it.

    I know Hawking is unsatisfied with Big Bang Cosmology and puts forward an alternate cosmological model. Also those physicists in the string theory and loop quantum gravity camp have alternate preferred models. However, they have some way to go in attempting to overturn the lambda CMD model.

    With regards to black holes, many physicists conclude that Schwarzchild black holes are probably more theoretical than real as most suspect that nearly all gravitationally collapsed objects have angular momentum which may mathematically result in the avoidance of characteristic features of black holes such as a singularity and even an event horizon. In fact some physicists view black holes as frame dependent objects where accelerating observers outside a gravitationally collapsed object will see an event horizon as a boundary condition to their universe whereas an inertially moving observer will be none the wiser and see just empty space as they free fall towards the singularity.

    There is umpteen various interpretations to consider which suggests that we currently don't really know. That's what makes science so interesting. We are probably only a short step away from a major scientific revolution.
    Quidquid latine dictum, altum videtur
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    883
    I saw this book once but I didn't buy.
    No Big Bang : Contents

    As for B/H's I think they must exist and there is one at the centre of every galaxy, including our own. The turbulence from the BH would mean that life could only exist at the edge of a galaxy, which is where we are.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor Zwirko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    55° N, 3° W
    Posts
    1,082
    There was a flurry of activity around these two papers recently:


    Backreaction of Hawking Radiation on a Gravitationally Collapsing Star I: Black Holes?

    Back-reaction of the Hawking radiation flux on a gravitationally collapsing star II: Fireworks instead of firewalls

    A popular reference (of which there are many): There Are No Such Things As Black Holes


    Sabine Hossenfelder at BackReaction gives a more technical discussion here: Black holes declared non-existent again (she doesn't agree).


    Not sure if this was what the OP was referring to or not?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwirko View Post
    There was a flurry of activity around these two papers recently:


    Backreaction of Hawking Radiation on a Gravitationally Collapsing Star I: Black Holes?

    Back-reaction of the Hawking radiation flux on a gravitationally collapsing star II: Fireworks instead of firewalls

    A popular reference (of which there are many): There Are No Such Things As Black Holes


    Sabine Hossenfelder at BackReaction gives a more technical discussion here: Black holes declared non-existent again (she doesn't agree).


    Not sure if this was what the OP was referring to or not?
    Nope. I was referring to an an article I found on dailymail.

    Black holes DON'T exist and Big Bang Theory is wrong, Laura Mersini-Houghton claims | Daily Mail Online
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor Zwirko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    55° N, 3° W
    Posts
    1,082
    It's the same. The lead author is Laura Mersini-Houghton.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,014
    This argument ( The article ) would to me seem like a attempt of understanding of what a black hole actually is...
    1. It's not a hole. 2. It's not even black. and before you get all messed up by those words.. try this..
    Re name the BH to 'Density Well'. or Massive Density Well. I find no argument of that they exist. Semantics.. of meanings.
    A argument of better understanding.. What ever you call them. They can be proven as real.
    ~ At the top of the Page.. It's called; The Science Forum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 11
    Last Post: August 4th, 2014, 04:48 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 3rd, 2014, 04:26 PM
  3. Supplement to Rick Thielens theory on big bang,black holes&gravity
    By brett churukian in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 10th, 2012, 02:15 AM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: November 13th, 2011, 04:15 AM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 13th, 2011, 03:03 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •