No we don't. We have evidence that "something" exists but it is an affront to science for anyone to proclaim that BHs (and specifically EHs) definitively do. My personal reasons aside...did you even read Hawking's paper?
Black holes may not exist!
- Thread starter RJBeery
- Start date
We have evidence of BH's.....GR is the most competent theory we have to describe them. It has passed all tests asked of it with flying colours. One of the main postulates is curved space/time in the presence of mass. Therefor the application of GR to BH's is logical.
Your personal reasons are neither here nor there, except they appear as somewhat of a burden to you.
http://casswww.ucsd.edu/archive/public/tutorial/GR.html
Careful, mate. Don't be so dogmatic because mainstream doesn't YET have a handle on what it is all about or where it came from; so leave 'dogmatic' mindset/comments to the religious types, hey?
SCIENTISTS/RELIGIONISTS have INTERPRETATIONS of evidence according to whatever religious/scientific belief/hypothetical construct we use for our modeling of that evidentiary set. Interpretations may change with further evidence gathered.
Lemaitre had his Cosmic Egg (which according to his beliefs was laid by his Catholic god, presumably) which was creation 'ex nihilo'.
Whereas mainstream physicists/cosmologists believe in an 'ex nihilo' Big Bang 'Inflation/expansion' without even a clue as to what the 'Scientific Cosmic Egg' was or where it came from etc etc.
See the shaky foundation for EITHER party when being 'dogmatic' about it all?
Physical singularities, loss of information, etc. The pure theory argues against itself.
I don't have time for this, and I regret acknowledging you, but Hawking's paper suggests that the EH might not exist and that information might eventually escape. The EH is the very item which defines GR's black holes.
Wiki said:
Careful, mate. Don't be so dogmatic because mainstream doesn't YET have a handle on what it is all about or where it came from; so leave 'dogmatic' mindset/comments to the religious types, hey?
In actual fact, realizing what a scientific theory is [in short not 100% certainty] the only dogmatism, and "this is the way it is approach" I have seen here are, from two or three alternative theorists/anti mainstream pushers, that divert from the mainstream position.
This is quite evident also and primarily in the alternative theory forum, pseudoscience, and conspiracy forums. :shrug:
Careful, mate. Don't be so dogmatic because mainstream doesn't YET have a handle on what it is all about or where it came from; so leave 'dogmatic' mindset/comments to the religious types, hey?
GR BH's in actual fact, are as well supported and backed by evidence as any scientific theory is.
Your thoughts have been addressed many times earlier in the thread.
As you openly admitted yourself, re your own thoughts on BH's, Hawking's paper makes some theoretical quantum applications re BH's.
Your own thoughts and take on BH's, then grabbed at this vague opportunity to prove your often invalidated concept.
Why bring in the furfy of me and others wanting to "divert from the mainstream"? Pointing out the obvious shortcomings and non-sequiturs and 'other gaps' and providing supporting arguments IS mainstream scientific Method REQUIREMENT which NEVER ceases to apply, no matter where/who the information/claims etc come from. Are you clear on that 'mainstream debate' procedure yet? If so, please stop tarring everyone with the same 'anti-mainstream' PREJUDICIAL LABEL just because they disagrees with YOUR 'uninformed' and 'uncriticallly accepted on faith' opinions about what 'mainstream says'. OK? Thanks.
The BH hypotheses are many, even from mainstream. No-one has yet come up with any real evidence or consistent theory of what happens AT the EH or beneath it. It's still hypotheses upon hypotheses from all 'sides' at this juncture. So all reasonable speculations are equally valid for proper consideration as part of the scientific method of arguing one's case based on the available logics and interpretations from the various theories/conjectures from any source. I trust you will now take it easy and read and understand properly and in context all that is put before you from any source, before making your 'personal opinion based on your uncritical faith in some source or other' at the expense of THINKING IT ALL THROUGH FOR YOURSELF.
Well lets straighten out your unfactual post....Firstly, I certainly raised the four or five alternative positions, as counter to your own silly claim about the dogmatism of mainstream......
Secondly, I don't accept on faith...OK?
GR BH's are well supported for the reasons I have stated, and NO ONE as yet, has invalidated that stance.
The BH hypotheses are many, even from mainstream. No-one has yet come up with any real evidence or consistent theory of what happens AT the EH or beneath it. It's still hypotheses upon hypotheses from all 'sides' at this juncture. So all reasonable speculations are equally valid for proper consideration as part of the scientific method of arguing one's case based on the available logics and interpretations from the various theories/conjectures from any source. I trust you will now take it easy and read and understand properly and in context all that is put before you from any source, before making your 'personal opinion based on your uncritical faith in some source or other' at the expense of THINKING IT ALL THROUGH FOR YOURSELF.
Stop making your presumptions. Mainstream thinking on BH's is relatively secure and aligned with GR classically speaking.
I trust you also will read and understand properly the mainstream position, without the burden of any personal theory or thinking.
You missed that I was observing/cautioning YOUR 'dogmatic' responses as somehow 'representing/understanding correctly' what mainstream is 'saying' on any matter which you yourself have no proper full understanding of and have admitted you 'take uncritically on faith in the source' even though you have not understood what that source actually 'says', let alone what the 'other sources' are presenting that may be too subtle and complex for you to have any truly informed opinion on, let alone make your dogmatic and emphatic statements about, either way. That was the 'dogmatism' I pointed/cautioned about coming from YOU.
Up to the point where the theory fails to say anything sensible at all. Like "singularity". Like "no information/evidence" of what is happening in reality at and below the event horizon.
Paddo, you would do well to read some of OnlyMe's cautions against assuming 'known facts' when you are really only repeating UNKNOWNS/ASSUMPTIONS in mainstream and alternative theories alike. Maybe then you will be more careful to distinguish fact from fiction and be less dogmatic in your incessant opinionating from your own 'uncritical impressions' rather than known facts. Thanks.
More assumptions, presumptions etc etcI'm not the one burdened by "what you see" as the next new age of physics with a personal TOE, which hasn't been completed and/or peer reviewed yet.
When you have achieved that, then come and discuss with me, OK?
Anyway, it appears I'm not getting anywhere with your obvious bias on things, so it's no use discussing any further.
I'm not the one burdened by "what you see" as the next new age of physics with a personal TOE, which hasn't been completed and/or peer reviewed yet.
When you have achieved that, then come and discuss with me, OK?
Anyway, it appears I'm not getting anywhere with your obvious bias on things, so it's no use discussing any further.
If you can mindlessly and 'on faith only' post your opinions, then why do you object to my putting my objectively observed and argued perspectives? Would you try to clutter and censor opinions/perspectives in discussions/threads by those who do not agree with your 'on faith only' so-called understandings/opinions?
Debate on the issues as presented on their merits and objective arguments for or against. Don't just claim 'victory' by making your uninformed opinions THE only view that matters because your opinion should be 'accepted on faith' just as your opinion accepts mainstream 'on faith' not critical understanding.
All I ask is you keep all that irrelevant clutter and opinionating 'on faith' out of the science discourse as much as possible. Thanks.
Actually, it's quite true.....check out the conspiracy threads.
What do you mean just holes?
We have plenty of evidence that something extraordinary exists at the center of galaxies....and the mathematics tells us that these are GR predicted "Gravitationally Completely Collapsed Objects" which we call BH's for sake of conveniance.
They most certainly exist according to the evidence at this time, and as far as I know, the only doubt that may exist, is when quantum mechanics is brought into the picture......and that does not invalidate them.
There is no proof of curved spacetime either.
You may be right. But there are some errors in the standard model, and you are not supposed to think of it as factual.
That is wrong...Plain and simply.
Maybe you need to familiarise yourself with Authur Eddington's 1919 Eclipse data, based on the light from a distant star, which Einstein predicted correctly, would be slightly askew due to curved space caused by the mass of the Sun.......Known gravitational lensing is another...and of course that which was measured to high precision by GP-B.
And a lot more to boot.
It's as close to fact as any scientific theory can be... :shrug: