To believe in "black holes" you must be a schizo. It requires a schizo mind. It requires doublethink.
"Black holes" violate Einstein's Relativity theories (let's just pretend they're correct), yet in the institutionalized "settled science" dogma, they simultaneously believe in Relativity. And "black holes" (as defined by the "black hole" believers themselves) can't exist in a Big Bang Universe, yet they simultaneously believe in the Big Bang. And by the official "black hole" """science""" there can't be /multiple/ "black holes" in the same universe simultaneously, yet they believe there are. It's 100% schizo and idiotic.
Institutionalized "settled science" followers are basically religious - they ignore any science and facts which contradicts their belief system.
To everyone who wish to learn and educate themselves, here's an excellent scientific paper describing the problems and contradictions with "black holes" and Relativity: files.catbox.moe/b3aur6.pdf
And here are great educational videos for those who don't want to read (all the following is based on /real science/ and observations of facts, as opposed to the "settled science" dogma):
Is this a discussion on the dirac model and how modeling for the virtual particles makes much more sense as a temporal component than trying to have them as paired ahnialation?
For those curious Virtual particles define "space" Like a bowl of skittles, the space between the skittles cant be counted But if you have smaller skittles you can fill that area in and count it THus you can quantify space But this doesnt work since edgewise pair couples exist only long enough to ahnialate in the next planc and thus cant do anything You cant measure them and they cant interact So quite obviously that doesnt work to have something in space
Dirac's model instead defined space as a series of energy values, 0 for true empty, and everything else for the different particles THis one had an interesting part in that if the energy exceeded a certain point, like a singularity, it then stretched into time Which wraps up much neater
Jonathan Jackson
>"Black holes" violate Einstein's Relativity theories stopped reading there
Cooper Myers
yes Black holes do not exist and anything that does not exist is 0 so yes my density is greater than 0
It's an excellent approximation for most practical applications.
Hunter Roberts
The trajectory if the expanding universe implies a single stsrting point. Big Bang is hypothesized from observation.
There are big circular gaos in our signal data. Black holes are hypithesized from observation.
Liam Long
>"Black holes" violate Einstein's Relativity theories No, they don't.
Xavier James
why don't you post some books on the subject instead of videos? I'd like to see that, a book with proper account of the theory, starting with first principles and including the derivation of all the claims
Einstein confirmed jew hoax but OP is a faggot time to insert dick to space asshole aka black hole TM
Cameron Jenkins
All alleged "black hole" models pertain to a universe that is spatially infinite, is eternal, contains only one mass, is not expanding, and is asymptotically flat or asymptotically not flat.
But the alleged "big bang" cosmology pertains to a universe that is spatially finite (one case) or spatially infinite (two different cases), is of finite age, contains radiation and many masses including multiple black holes (some of which are supposedly primordial), is expanding, and is not asymptotically anything.
Thus black holes and the big bang contradict one another - they're mutually exclusive. This is undeniable and clear as day. It's surprisingly easy to prove that neither General Relativity nor Newton's theory predict black holes to exist.
Despite numerous claims for black holes in their millions, none has ever been discovered. It's also not difficult to prove General Relativity violates the usual conservation of energy and momentum. There are fundamental contradictions contained in black hole theory, big bang cosmology, as well as in General Relativity. Numerical methods are therefore meaningless.
Oh and for those who'd like to use the defense that in an expanding universe energy isn't conserved and thus the "energy conservation law" is false and therefore all criticism of Einstein's field equations are incorrect, friendly reminder to you that Einstein required his field equations to satisfy the usual conservation of energy and momentum.
"Big bang" theory is based upon Einstein’s field equations. Since the field equations violate the usual conservation laws, the theory of a big bang is fundamentally flawed.
Therefore, invoking a "big bang" to attempt to circumvent the violation of the usual conservation laws is a circular argument and therefore completely invalid.
Furthermore, Einstein's field equations are nonlinear and so the principle of Superposition doesn't hold in General Relativity. But it does hold in Newton's theory.
Thus if X and Y are two different solutions to Einstein's field equations, then the linear combination of aX + bY, where a and b are scalars, isn't a solution. Physically this means that one can't simply pile up masses and radiation in any given spacetime to obtain multiple masses and radiation. Additionally, there are no solutions to Einstein's field equations for two or more masses and there is no existence theorem by which it can even be asserted that the field equations contain latent solutions for two or more masses. Thus it's not possible to insert a black hole universe into a big bang universe or into another black hole universe, or to insert a big bang universe into a black hole universe or another big bang universe.
Nevertheless, Einstein's followers routinely and incorrectly claim the existence of multiple black holes from objects such as stars by means of irresistible gravitational collapse.
Now read pic related if you want to understand all of this in depth.:
As the mass of the objects get arbitrarily high, the force of gravity approaches infinity. Why wouldn't black holes exist, under Newtonian physics?
Andrew Richardson
Bump
Ayden Rogers
Wow a post about physics from someone that doesn't understand 3rd grade math. Yas Forums at some point whe need to discuss the SQ (Schizo Question)
Nicholas Brown
Agreed, time can't dilate because it's a relational concept - a way to measure motion. The equations are a way to make the observed phenomenon more tangible, but to assume that's it time dilation that's causing it is a leap of faith, one which makes no sense whatsoever
Jace Richardson
The universe is not expanding, the "redshift" effect has been misinterpreted
Because of the gravitational effect on quantum mechanical phenomena that makes clockwork (including atomic clockwork) function at a slightly different rate based on various factors. Kinda like if you are waist deep in water, you walk half as fast as if you are on land.
Dominic Barnes
>none has ever been discovered They have, though. We even have data enough to make a picture. How else do you explain gravity in those circumstances?
Sebastian Barnes
Right... so... 'time' flows faster for a clock far away from a mass than 'time' does for a clock very near to mass? And due to this, the trajectory of an object will tend to curve towards a mass? As if spacetime was curved?
