Black Holes are imaginary

[fertilizerspike]

A "black hole" is an imaginary construct with utterly no empirical referent. Said to be entirely unobservable and untestable, they belong completely in the realm of fantasy, not science.

[pwagen]

Said to be entirely unobservable and untestable

Really? By who?

[fertilizerspike]

Really? By who?

 

By you, unless you can describe how they can be observed or tested (as in experimental verification of the phenomenon in the lab).

[pwagen]

By you, unless you can describe how they can be observed or tested (as in experimental verification of the phenomenon in the lab).

Sure, since we've found objects very much resembling the black holes that general relativity predicted, through observing their effects on other bodies, gravitational lensing, and the radiation they emit. But then again, I'm guessing that to you, "in the lab" would mean actually putting a black hole in a lab and running tests on it, so I can probably guess what your enlightened comeback will be.

[imatfaal]

By you, unless you can describe how they can be observed or tested (as in experimental verification of the phenomenon in the lab).

 

In a lab? That proviso screws up most of cosmology! There is fairly good observation evidence of black holes - ie investigations of regions of space with so much mass within a certain volume that anything that dense would have a schwarzchild radius greater than its actual radius

[Enthalpy]

Black holes unobservable?

That was 30 years ago. Meanwhile they're observed.

Find a newer book.

[fertilizerspike]

Sure, since we've found objects very much resembling the black holes that general relativity predicted, through observing their effects on other bodies, gravitational lensing, and the radiation they emit. But then again, I'm guessing that to you, "in the lab" would mean actually putting a black hole in a lab and running tests on it, so I can probably guess what your enlightened comeback will be.

 

I'm well familiar with the various claims about "black hole". It seems that any time astronogers locate an incredibly bright object they name it a "black hole", in utter defiance of the very definition of "black hole", which states they can never be observed because light can not escape them. As for experimental verification, it is essential to science. Until the idea is tested it may be safely deemed imaginary. To date nobody has reproduced the effect of "black hole" in the lab. If that ever changes then so will my conclusions about their existence.

 

 

In a lab? That proviso screws up most of cosmology! There is fairly good observation evidence of black holes - ie investigations of regions of space with so much mass within a certain volume that anything that dense would have a schwarzchild radius greater than its actual radius

 

No, it doesn't screw up any of cosmology, but it does upset a lot of stargazers and storytellers. Science is based on experimental verification. Cosmology is not exempt when practiced as a science. All real phenomena can be modeled and studied in the lab. Note: a computer simulation is not a lab

 

 

Black holes unobservable?

That was 30 years ago. Meanwhile they're observed.

Find a newer book.

 

Oh, have you single-handedly changed the definition of "black hole" so that it is now observable? Publish, you may win the Nobel prize.

Edited April 2, 2013 by fertilizerspike

[pwagen]

 

It seems that any time astronogers locate an incredibly bright object they name it a "black hole", in utter defiance of the very definition of "black hole", which states they can never be observed because light can not escape them.

I'm curious - which object has ever been named a black hole for the sole reason of being incredibly bright?

[ACG52]

I'm well familiar with the various claims about "black hole". It seems that any time astronogers locate an incredibly bright object they name it a "black hole", in utter defiance of the very definition of "black hole", which states they can never be observed because light can not escape them

 

Your second sentence makes it obvious that your first sentence is untrue.

[fertilizerspike]

I'm curious - which object has ever been named a black hole for the sole reason of being incredibly bright?

 

Sagittarius A*, to name just one that's very nearby. But you could name any "black hole candidate" object, they're all prodigious producers of electromagnetic radiation, in utter defiance of "black hole" assumptions. The "singularity" is riotous in itself, it is a purely mathematical construct with utterly no empirical referent.

 

Your second sentence makes it obvious that your first sentence is untrue.

 

You're confusing misunderstanding with fact, that's quite the convoluted error you've engaged in.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Speculations hijack attempt split off and put in speulations

[fertilizerspike]

!

Moderator Note

Speculations hijack attempt split off and put in speulations

 

Put down the crack pipe, there was no hijack, and everything I posted in the thread you cut this from was relevant to the topic. Is there some peculiar and idiosyncratic reason you're suggesting comments about "black hole" don't belong in a thread discussing "black hole"?

Edited April 2, 2013 by fertilizerspike

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

Hijacking includes responding to threads with non-mainstream ideas, you are hijacking the thread with your own ideas not those accepted in the scientific community. The place for those ideas is in the speculations forum.

Please do not respond to modnotes, use the report post feature.

[Dekan]

Believing in Black Holes, is like believing in Relativity.

 

They're both contrary to natural reason. And in that respect, they resemble Religious belief.

 

Religious beliefs are strongly defended. They are mainstream beliefs, accepted by the religious community.

 

The community does not like heretics. They get burned.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Phi for All]

Believing in Black Holes, is like believing in Relativity. They're both contrary to natural reason. And in that respect, they resemble Religious belief. Religious beliefs are strongly defended. They are mainstream beliefs, accepted by the religious community. The community does not like heretics. They get burned.

 

The only similarity is the word belief, and there is a great deal of difference between religious beliefs, based on feelings and hearsay, and scientific beliefs, based on mountains of experimentation and observation.

 

The mainstream religious community is adamant that they've found the answer. The mainstream scientific community usually backs the best supported explanation, but is willing to listen to a better one, and shift their support if one actually comes along. To me, that's the biggest difference.

[swansont]

There's an underlying implication that only direct observation is acceptable, and that is an untenable objection. As is the objection that you can't recreate them in the lab.