Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Why the universe isn't a black hole      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Yule_liquor
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 51
Why the universe isn't a black holePage 3 of 5    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

when we discover that the incomplete knowledge we have discerned about reality is no closer to the truth than having no knowledge at all? We discard it!


Having an incomplete knowledge base which hampers one from gaining "truth" of a certain reality is no direct reason to discard it if you don't know what can be know-able. This goes back to the example I gave about finding an unconscious person out in the woods but I guess you didn't get my point here either.


But it does inform us that as far as we know the sum of all of those probabilities must be... vanishingly small.


But not impossible, and if it does happen at some point then the value to ascribe to it is 1.0


They would approximate through a combination of certified learning (passing exams, earning bits of paper), and demonstrated expertise in the general area (teaching, publishing, presenting).


Not to mention a strong alacrity for obtaining & securing grant money....an indispensable talent superseding all other "credentials" you outlined!


You don't think the principia a respectable work for its day?


Didn't say it wasn't, even though there was a bit more to the laws of motion & gravity (hence, incomplete knowledge) than he expounded on.


Maybe it's because it's late, but that isn't making much sense to me.


Well, I hope you haven't lost any sleep over it, because I'm noting that little of what I've said here has registered, so I will simply bow out of this discussion (if that is what it can be called), for I do not wish to insult your intelligence anymore than I might have done already!
 skinnybarncat2
Joined: 5/24/2016
Msg: 52
Why the universe isn't a black hole
Posted: 6/9/2016 6:00:13 AM
In a new paper in Nature, a multinational team of 25 scientists from Yale University, the European Southern Observatory and elsewhere report that they have detected three clouds of cold gas falling toward the black hole’s event horizon at speeds approaching 800,000 miles per hour (1.3 million k/h). That’s exceedingly fast and is not how black holes are supposed to eat.

"-not how black holes are supposed to eat."

Just another red flag that all is not right in the "science" world! There is a better explanation of what they see in space as a black hole. A black hole can not exist, except in the delusional minds of unlearned physicists. Scan all reports of observations of the universe and notice how often they are "surprised" by what is seen. Of course a quick ad hoc explanation is soon put forth and then becomes an assumption, then fact. What nonsense, what very sad nonsense the astrophysical community bows down to. But, they do collect huge amounts of useful data. Data, that will someday be analysed correctly.
 kidreason29
Joined: 9/25/2015
Msg: 53
Why the universe isn't a black hole
Posted: 6/9/2016 10:30:46 AM

So because of newfangled fuzzy-quantum-hippie logic, when I let go of this rock it might not fall, but might instead turn into an invisible pink unicorn


i have my doubts that reality works by binary logic, or that we could ever know anything to be absolutely true/false. continuous logic makes more sense



But wait, don't you know that if you want to argue against logic using logic the universe will implode?


hey... I've expanded on the whole 'what question should i ask?' if i could ask god one question thing. :p
 skinnybarncat2
Joined: 5/24/2016
Msg: 54
Why the universe isn't a black hole
Posted: 6/11/2016 6:00:45 AM

This is the transcript of an interview [1] in which it is explained that the
BICEP2 telescope located at the South Pole did not detect anything other
than galactic noise. Despite reports with great fanfare, BICEP2 did not
detect the signatures of Einstein gravitational waves or an inflationary epoch
in some big bang expanding universe. The reports by the BICEP2 Team that
they detected evidence for some big bang cosmology are demonstrably false.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1410.0137v1.pdf

Let’s consider the salient issues other than the actual operation of the instrument and
the methods of data collection utilised by the BICEP2 Collaboration.

(a) On the basis of Big Bang cosmology theory the BICEP2 Collaboration assumes
that the Universe spontaneously sprang into existence from nothing, or from a point
possessing infinite density, infinite pressure and infinite hotness, called a singularity,
although ‘nothing’ and ‘singularity’ are actually indistinguishable from one another
since a point has no volume and thereby incapable of possessing density, pressure and
hotness, let alone infinities thereof;

(b) They assume an inflationary epoch in some Big Bang expanding universe;

(c) They assume the existence of a Cosmic Microwave Background, the alleged
afterglow of some Big Bang creation event;

(d) They assume that they can separate the galactic foreground signal from the alleged
CMB and the latter’s multipoles;

(e) They assume the existence of Einstein gravitational waves;

(f) They allege that Big Bang cosmology predicts that primordial Einstein
gravitational waves are generated during an inflationary epoch in the history of the
Universe. In a paper titled ‘BICEP2 I. DETECTION OF B-mode POLARIZATION
AT DEGREE ANGULAR SCALES’, Ade et al. [2] say that: “Inflationary cosmology extends the standard model by postulating an earlyperiod of
nearly exponential expansion which sets the initial conditions for the subsequent hot
big bang. … A definitive test of this paradigm would be of fundamental importance. …
Gravitational waves generated by inflation have the potential to provide such a
definitive test. Inflation predicts that the quantization of the gravitational field
coupled to exponential expansion produces a primordial background of stochastic
gravitational waves with a characteristic spectral shape. Though unlikely to be
directly detectable in modern instruments, these gravitational waves would have
imprinted a unique signature upon the CMB. Gravitational waves induce local
quadrupole anisotropies in the radiation field within the last-scattering surface,
inducing polarization in the scattered light. This polarization pattern will include a
“curl” or B-mode component at degree angular scales that cannot be generated
primordially by density perturbations. … The detection of B-mode polarization of the
CMB at large angular scales would provide a unique confirmation of inflation and a
probe of its energy scale.”

------The so-called Cosmic Microwave Background radiation is central to BICEP2.

-------- “The discovery of the Cosmic Microwave
Background (CMB) by Penzias & Wilson (1965) confirmed the hot big bang
paradigm and established the CMB as a central tool for the study of cosmology. In
recent years, observations of its temperature anisotropies have helped establish and
refine the “standard” cosmological model now known as ΛCDM”.


--------In addition, Robitaille, in a
series of papers published in the journal Progress in Physics, has proven that
Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal emission is not universal. On both counts, assignment of
a temperature to the Cosmos by means of thermal emission is inadmissible, even if there is a Cosmic Microwave Background present. However, there is in fact no
Cosmic Microwave Background.

------Since there is no Cosmic Microwave Background radiation there has been no
detection of Einstein gravitational waves, primordial or otherwise, by BICEP2, and no
affirmation of an inflationary Big Bang expanding universe whatsoever.

------None of the dedicated gravitational wave detectors, such as LIGO, GEO, and Virgo,
have ever detected Einstein gravitational waves. This is not surprising, because these
waves are theoretical, obtained from Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, just as
all Big Bang universes and all black hole universes have been obtained, and are easily
proven to be false theoretical conclusions.

-------General Relativity violates the usual conservation of energy and momentum for a
closed system and this also means that Einstein gravitational waves simply do not
exist. The fact that the usual conservation laws are violated by General Relativity
places it in conflict with much experiment, and is therefore untenable. Big Bang
cosmology and black holes of course rely upon General Relativity, and so they have
no valid basis either.

------All alleged black hole universes:

(1) are spatially infinite,
(2) are eternal,
(3) contain only one mass,
(4) are not expanding,
(5) and are either asymptotically flat or asymptotically curved.

However, all alleged big bang universes:

(1) are either spatially finite (in one case) or spatially infinite (in two different cases),
(2) are of finite age (allegedly ~ 13.8 billion years),
(3) contain radiation and many masses,
(4) are expanding,
(5) and are not asymptotically anything.

Thus, by their very definitions, black hole universes and big bang universes can’t
coexist – they are mutually exclusive. No black hole universe can be superposed with
any big bang universe, or with any other black hole universe, including itself.
Likewise, no big bang universe can be superposed with any other big bang universe or
with any black hole universe, or with itself. Despite this fact the cosmologists
superpose everything to generate anything they please. BICEP2 is incapable of
affirming a theory that is false because nothing can validate a false theory.

BICEP2 has not detected Einstein gravitational waves and has not substantiated some
Big Bang creation event and inflation of the Universe in any way whatsoever. The
BICEP2 Collaboration has just done the usual in cosmology; interpreted things in
terms of wishful thinking.
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 55
view profile
History
Why the universe isn't a black hole
Posted: 6/11/2016 7:29:23 PM
Yule, thanks for discussion and it looks like I owe you an apology.

I just watched this video series https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_Y3utIeTPg by Jennifer Nagel at the University of Toronto about Epistemology. Here was me thinking you were being deliberately obtuse, when it turns out that it is not just you that is having problems with understanding the nature of our knowledge concerning reality.

What a mess philosophers are in! Have they never spoken to someone who has a basic understanding of science? By the end they had me mentally screaming at my screen "all knowledge we obtain within our reality is tentative and probabilistic!"... but no matter how hard I tried, they just wouldn't listen.

For example, glancing at a clock that says 3 o'clock and 'knowing' that it is 3 o'clock means we are fairly sure that based on the current evidence it is probably 3 o'clock, even though there remains a small probability that the clock is broken or has been set incorrectly. If our conclusion turns out to be wrong it has not caused a problem for the concept of knowledge; the contradictory new evidence simply means the original hypothesis must be revised or rejected accordingly.

Likewise if it turns out that our conclusion is right only by coincidence - happening to look at a broken clock when it is indeed 3 o'clock - it is also not a problem for the concept of knowledge because we never assume our conclusions are certain or absolute. They are still liable to be falsified the next time we look at the clock. It is no problem, although it is one reason that publishing methods to allow for reproducibility is so important.

In something like an hour and half of well-presented material summarizing the field she did not once use the words probability, coincidence, hypothesis, science. I thought the lottery 'paradox' was finally going to show them the light, but no, they still went away scratching their heads.

On the more generalised question of brains in vats and so on, knowledge is of course impossible. It is a silly question likely to result in people banging their heads against the walls of Plato's cave, and is much like the question of deities. If anyone asserts they 'know' they are or are not a brain in a vat I would back away slowly and try not to make eye contact if I were you.
 kidreason29
Joined: 9/25/2015
Msg: 56
Why the universe isn't a black hole
Posted: 6/13/2016 7:51:22 PM
Consider the input our senses receive to be a frequency of reality that all human beings share. For most of us this seems to be an accurate assumption. If your red was my blue, we would still refer to the same color by the same name, it does not necessarily matter that we see the same thing in other ways, the base should be we agree on what we refer to, the fact that we can make the distinction and give it a referent.

To say that there is a probability this isn't 'real', or we are a brain in a vat, or it is a evil demon playing tricks on us does nothing for progress, all it says is we cannot be certain of anything that of course is always true.

Philosophers tends to chase their own tail, the problems seem to be more centered around linguistics than anything. Which seems to be the case today as more less scientific minded people enter to the field of philosophy with backgrounds of linguistics and psychology.

Philosophy should only be concerned with how we perceive reality utilizing our physiology to experience life. When one learns philosophy they should try to learn other ways to interpret their senses.

To get caught up in definition debates of knowledge, thought, reality, and belief are useless linguistic games coming from the fact that language has no axioms, a definition leads to another definition and so on.
 skinnybarncat2
Joined: 5/24/2016
Msg: 57
Why the universe isn't a black hole
Posted: 6/14/2016 6:29:12 AM

Philosophers tends to chase their own tail,

Totally agree...

To get caught up in definition debates of knowledge, thought, reality, and belief are useless linguistic games.


Yep! So true, unless supported by experiment and observation.

So, what good observations and experiments support the hypothesis of a black hole? We have falsified math, and there is something energetic way off which is speculated to be a black hole. But what else could it be? Maybe something that can be experimentally observed here on Earth, supported by good math?...(;
 skinnybarncat2
Joined: 5/24/2016
Msg: 58
Why the universe isn't a black hole
Posted: 6/22/2016 7:29:57 AM
Here is a short video that summarizes that the history of Einsteins equations, their corruption by others, and how they do not indicate that black holes exist. In spite of the falsification of black hole theory, it is still taught, and supported by media. I won't comment on the way some in the scientific community react to anything outside their understanding, with ad hominems, distortions of facts, and refusal to look at the math without prejudice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJG7Wj5hDFM 8min.


http://www.libertariannews.org/2011/07/08/einstein-was-wrong-2/


It is often claimed that Einstein’s theories of relativity have withstood every test thrown at them. This article attempts to challenge that claim by presenting a list of predictive failures, falsifying observations, and alternative explanations that better agree with the general rule of Occam’s razor. In science, it is generally accepted that the theory with the least amount of hypothetical postulates is superior to one with more. It was primarily on this basis that Einstein’s version of relativity won out over Lorentz’s, as Einstein was able to demonstrate a way to calculate relativistic mechanics without the need for an aether. However, as time has progressed, the amount of hypothetical entities required by Einstein’s theories has grown exponentially.


Am I correct in understanding that it was Hilbert’s derivation of the field equations that got everyone off onto black holes?
 OTTO BONN
Joined: 4/20/2006
Msg: 59
Why the Universe Isn't a Black Hole
Posted: 6/23/2016 7:07:50 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7EAlTcZFwY

That video, Symbols of an Alien Sky, is linked on the https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/ site.

In the Immanuel Velikovsky segment that starts at 24:48 in the video, it is stated that Velikovsky said that the planet Venus had a near collision with Earth which caused the decimation of early civilizations, and that Saturn filled the Earth's sky at one time.

The Cosmic Thunderbolt segment that starts at 41:30 is just complete madness. If Talbott really believes what he is saying, he's got crazium in the brainium.
 skinnybarncat2
Joined: 5/24/2016
Msg: 60
Why the Universe Isn't a Black Hole
Posted: 6/23/2016 8:53:44 AM
Now, now, otto. Try to stay calm. The vid. you looked at and attacked had nothing to do with black holes! Talbot is looking at multi-disciplinarian and ancient evidence and I have to assume that you have not had the opportunity to investigate in such a way.

Velikovsky was a highly intelligent man who researched ancient sources. Whether he came to the correct conclusions is contested. I may not agree with all he concludes, but I respect his efforts.

Your ad hominem against Talbot is not an argument as is your other ad hominems. Using such fallacious arguments is to your discredit, not those who you attack.

If you want to believe in black holes and their associated phenomena, and ignore all evidence of their non existence, then that is non science, and can be corrected in you by you.

otto, try to keep up with the thread...):


A repost:
Here is a short video that summarizes that the history of Einsteins equations, their corruption by others, and how they do not indicate that black holes exist. In spite of the falsification of black hole theory, it is still taught, and supported by media. I won't comment on the way some in the scientific community react to anything outside their understanding, with ad hominems, distortions of facts, and refusal to look at the math without prejudice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJG7Wj5hDFM 8min.

http://www.libertariannews.org/2011/07/08/einstein-was-wrong-2/


It is often claimed that Einstein’s theories of relativity have withstood every test thrown at them. This article attempts to challenge that claim by presenting a list of predictive failures, falsifying observations, and alternative explanations that better agree with the general rule of Occam’s razor. In science, it is generally accepted that the theory with the least amount of hypothetical postulates is superior to one with more. It was primarily on this basis that Einstein’s version of relativity won out over Lorentz’s, as Einstein was able to demonstrate a way to calculate relativistic mechanics without the need for an aether. However, as time has progressed, the amount of hypothetical entities required by Einstein’s theories has grown exponentially.


Am I correct in understanding that it was Hilbert’s derivation of the field equations that got everyone off onto black holes?
 OTTO BONN
Joined: 4/20/2006
Msg: 61
Why the Universe Isn't a Black Hole
Posted: 6/24/2016 5:52:58 AM

Your ad hominem against Talbot is not an argument as is your other ad hominems. Using such fallacious arguments is to your discredit, not those who you attack.

The video is just another example of the mystification and subterfuge that can be found on the site you mentioned. The truth must be told.
 skinnybarncat2
Joined: 5/24/2016
Msg: 62
Why the Universe Isn't a Black Hole
Posted: 6/24/2016 7:37:41 AM
You do not have the ability to judge, using your narrow and highly prejudice knowledge.

History is replete with such people as you. Who, once indoctrinated, can not see outside that myopic view.
 skinnybarncat2
Joined: 5/24/2016
Msg: 63
Why the Universe Isn't a Black Hole
Posted: 6/24/2016 12:03:13 PM
otto,- If you wish to investigate how so called scientists use terror tactics on those who are outside the narrow field they have been indoctrinated into, listen to this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7e0ivLlsE0w
 skinnybarncat2
Joined: 5/24/2016
Msg: 64
Why the Universe Isn't a Black Hole
Posted: 6/25/2016 10:49:35 AM
As far as I can tell there is only one black hole, and that is the superstitious beliefs of people. Such beliefs retard the progress of knowledge, by erecting obstacles of coercion, and even murder, along with the destruction of evidence to prove a new theory, or which may disprove the old.

The evidence for no black holes has been available for decades. There is no evidence that a black hole can even exist.

https://youtu.be/KSNM-Bomp5o

Did you notice how the program was following assumptions that black holes exist, and supporting that assumption with distorted graphics ! The filters that the images are run through makes an image that appears as the imaginary black hole. This circular argument is so clumsy that the producers should be ashamed.
 skinnybarncat2
Joined: 5/24/2016
Msg: 65
Why the Universe Isn't a Black Hole
Posted: 6/27/2016 8:50:49 AM

Other evidence such as x-ray emissions from regions where black holes are predicted also lend themselves to strengthen the theory.

By definition, you are never going to get any direct evidence of a black hole, they are merely mathematical models that are thought to exist.---------Black holes exist when that mathematical model meets an infinity.


How does a dentist produce x-rays? The observance of radio and or x-rays should suggest that they are being produced using the same force that produces them on Earth!

Just because bad math conjures up an entity, black holes, and attempts to prove a hypothesis on that math by observations gives results that fit that hypothesis, does not prove a black hole. The math was falsified, but the search for the conclusion continues. What logic is that?

Ripples in spacetime? If there were spacetime, and all large masses distorts it, and every mass is moving, there would be ripples being produced everywhere. Detecting a ripple is no proof of anything, except the length of nonsense astrophysics will go to for support of their delusions.

Infinity?! You speak of that as if it were a reality, a thing? If your math creates infinities, then the math may be wrong. What terms suggest infinity?
 OTTO BONN
Joined: 4/20/2006
Msg: 66
Why the Universe Isn't a Black Hole
Posted: 6/28/2016 5:44:03 AM
You do not have the ability to judge, using your narrow and highly prejudice knowledge.

https://forums.plentyoffish.com/14029339datingPostpage3.aspx#16540615

I have studied fringe science since the 1990s. It is all bullshit.

History is replete with such people as you. Who, once indoctrinated, can not see outside that myopic view.

All you do is parrot what you read, view and hear.

otto, If you wish to investigate how so called scientists use terror tactics on those who are outside the narrow field they have been indoctrinated into, listen to this.

More propaganda from Talbott to spoon-feed the members of his cult who need to believe in something larger than life no matter how preposterous it is.

As far as I can tell there is only one black hole, and that is the superstitious beliefs of people.

And belief in the Electric Universe theory is like a superstition. Actually, it is not even that credible.

What else you got Sparky?
 skinnybarncat2
Joined: 5/24/2016
Msg: 67
Why the Universe Isn't a Black Hole
Posted: 6/28/2016 6:02:17 AM

Now there are more than one type of infinites and some infinites are bigger than others.


Really, this nonsense is part of a high education? Your dogmatic and arrogant view of science is not what is being done. If you have really studied science history, this would be evident. I do not have to prove to you or anyone my credentials, just supply evidence, which you and others ignore in favor of smug assertions.

Referring back to previous post, which I will answer correctly, since you obviously did not know the answers:

How does a dentist produce x-rays? The observance of radio and or x-rays should suggest that they are being produced using the same force that produces them on Earth!


X-ray machines on Earth produce x-rays by electrical/magnetic acceleration, not gravity. Synchrotrons accelerate particles using electrical/magnetic forces, and this produces x-rays, radio waves, and all the phenomenon observed in space. We on Earth do not use gravity to produce x-rays in the dentist's office!


Just because bad math conjures up an entity, black holes, and attempts to prove a hypothesis on that math by observations gives results that fit that hypothesis, does not prove a black hole. The math was falsified, but the search for the conclusion continues. What logic is that?


There is no good logic to follow bad math and search for anything that is real.


Ripples in spacetime? If there were spacetime, and all large masses distorts it, and every mass is moving, there would be ripples being produced everywhere. Detecting a ripple is no proof of anything, except the length of nonsense astrophysics will go to for support of their delusions.


Again, your attempt to impress with a complicated answer falls short and indicates that you have accepted the consensus view without consideration of the problem in depth. Any ripple in the so called spacetime, and there should be many locally, would show up as spurious signals, negating the proof of theory experiment.


Infinity?! You speak of that as if it were a reality, a thing? If your math creates infinities, then the math may be wrong. What terms suggest infinity?


Your wild assertion, "Now there are more than one type of infinites and some infinites are bigger than others", indicates that you have a delusional understanding. Infinity is just that, infinity! There are no large or small infinities! And the only difference in infinities is what the process of infinity is attached to, and regardless of what infinity is describing, it is still infinity, not finite! Well, except in the delusional world of math, where it seems anything is possible, though not real. r=0 can lead to an answer of infinity.
Why the Universe Isn't a Black Hole
Posted: 6/28/2016 10:40:17 AM

...does not prove a black hole.


...is no proof of anything.


...evidence, which you and others ignore in favor of smug assertions.


We on Earth do not use gravity to produce x-rays in the dentist's office!


...your attempt to impress with a complicated answer falls short and indicates that you have accepted the consensus view without consideration of the problem in depth.

This style of arguing suddenly seems reminiscent of arguments with creationists, god believers, and anti evolution people.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 69
view profile
History
Why the Universe Isn't a Black Hole
Posted: 6/28/2016 1:39:00 PM
^^^

Well, we are all morons... Apparently?

My take: he latched on tho the first thing he could understand, because it used small words and easy concepts, and now he can't let go.
Why the Universe Isn't a Black Hole
Posted: 6/29/2016 3:39:55 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klG9G4BDLtA
 skinnybarncat2
Joined: 5/24/2016
Msg: 71
Why the Universe Isn't a Black Hole
Posted: 6/29/2016 7:06:35 AM
cress, your assumptions are wrong. But, how to prove that to a forum troll who's immature posts validate his own superior sense of self. You make no real contributions! Is that because you are at your intellectual limit with your delusions and have no real understanding outside of those? Moron? No! Just indoctrinated in bad science and immature chat room blather.

drink- you make no effort to understand my position, so your drive by posts of a utube link are ignored. I have no respect for such smug arrogance. This is not suppose to be a chat room! I know you are able to think and to post intelligently, but your arrogance is a sign of fear. learning that you are in error is nothing to fear! IF I can see my errors and attempt to correct them, anyone can do the same. What a nest of cowards I have stumbled into!

like dung beetles, obsessively rolling balls of feces, standard cosmology and it's adherents press on with their droppings as if they have no ability to grab hold of any insightful paradigm. A dung beetle is genetically programmed to work at rolling feces. Could certain people be so programmed to remain in the comfort zone of ignorance and superstition. Standard cosmology people do not know nearly as much as they pretend to. I respect a dung beetle more, as it struggles to work at what it is programmed to do.

Sorry to have disturbed the gang of trolls by not engaging in chat, but by posting strong evidence against the trolls'
superstitions.

So, here is more evidence by opinion, since that is all that is allowed in an immature chat room:
--neither Dark Matter nor Black Holes is necessary to account for the cosmic cohesion that we see, and both concepts can be consigned to the dustbin of human history.
Nicholas JG Sykes, B Sc, Dip Ed, MTS
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 72
view profile
History
Why the Universe Isn't a Black Hole
Posted: 6/29/2016 9:27:03 AM
Skinny:

I am not a masochist, which is why I have no desire to attempt to engage you in a serious conversation.

I've been posting on this forum for about six years now. During that time I've contributed more than my fair share of honest and intelligent debate, with which, I am sure that any of the regular posters here would agree, even if they may not agree with some of my views. It is a matter of respect and I am pretty confident that I have been able to earn at least the respect of others on this forum. So when you come in here with your bullsh!t accusations and insults you just make yourself look like a fool. There is nothing I need to prove to you buddy. My intelligence is already reflected in my writing on this forum, which can be viewed by clicking on my history or more by clicking on my name and checking out the threads I've posted in.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 73
view profile
History
Why the Universe Isn't a Black Hole
Posted: 6/29/2016 11:20:33 AM
https://youtu.be/PDsMpTzyASo?list=FLOiyzn0Yi1UuMsXELa7tDSg

Come let us make bricks and burn them hard
We'll build a city with a tower for the world
And climb so we can reach anything we may propose
Anything at all

Build me up, tear me down
Like a skyscraper
Build me up then tear down
These joining walls
So they can't climb at all

I know why you tore it down that day
You thought that if you got caught we'd all go away
Like a spoiled little baby who can't come out and play
You had your revenge

Build me up, tear me down
Like a skyscraper
Build me up then tear down
These joining walls
So they can't climb at all

Well, madness reigned and paradise drowned
When Babel's walls came crashing down
Now, the echoes roar for story read
That was hardly understood and never any good

Build me up, tear me down
Like a skyscraper
Build me up and tear down
These joining walls
So they can't climb at all

Build me up
Build me up
Why the Universe Isn't a Black Hole
Posted: 6/29/2016 3:55:31 PM

your drive by posts of a utube link are ignored

That's not what she said last night about my utube link post drive...she couldn't ignore it...
 skinnybarncat2
Joined: 5/24/2016
Msg: 75
Why the Universe Isn't a Black Hole
Posted: 7/1/2016 1:19:46 PM

I am not a masochist, which is why I have no desire to attempt to engage you in a serious conversation.

Well, you succeeded. And your attempt to validate yourself, by ranting about your intelligence being reflected in other posts, does not agree with the your posts here. And I am not required to search your other posts, nor do I want to. If you can't say something intelligent in this thread, I have to assume you can not contribute anything of value. You impress me as someone very immature, with an over inflated ego and a myopic view of science.


Cosmologists claim that they have found black holes all over the Cosmos. The black hole is however entirely a product of mathematics. The simplest case is the 'Schwarzschild' black hole, from the solution to Einstein's field equations in the absence of matter, for a static, uncharged, non-rotating mass. "In the absence of matter" involves linguistic legerdemain, but in any event all types of black holes reduce, mathematically speaking, to a very simple question: Can a squared real number take values less than zero? Symbolically this is restated as follows. Let r be any real number. Is r^2 < 0 possible? No, it's not possible. Thus, the black hole is not possible. Anybody who can square a real number is capable of understanding why the black hole is a fantasy of mathematical physicists and cosmologists, illustrating once again why it can be very dangerous to put trust in the word of an Authority.--------

-------Black holes are the product of mathematical fallacies. Just because mathematicians, physicists and
cosmologists do long sums does not mean that they make sense or that their mathematics is even right. Mathematical mumbo-jumbo cannot be observed floating about in the Cosmos, devouring stars and nebulae, or ‘spaghettifying’ intrepid astronauts boldly going where no man has gone before, despite the claims of cosmologists [5]. It is by wishful thinking that observations by cosmologists of what they don’t
understand are made to conform to the mathematical fallacies of the black hole.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1508.0007v1.pdf
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Why the universe isn't a black hole