Am I the only person who does not think black holes are real? - How can they be real?

[Clop]

I've meant matter of knowing of its existence in everyday life. Your life won't change from knowing about existance of deep space things. You may have a new fancy theme to talk, but as long as you are not an astrologyst or nasa scientist, black holes doesn't mean anything to you and your life.
Even if a black hole will apper near our system and will consume our planet, i don't think you'll have a time to think about it.

Fair enough. Just rings in my ears as saying something like "you don't need to know how a circuit board works" even when it's a major part of your species' scientific pursuits, but I know where you're coming from. Most people don't need to know a lot of things during their lifetimes, but it definitely needs to exist.

 

[The best and greatest]

White holes only in my galaxy gtfo black holes

Disagree but I laffed anyway.

 

[Dial M for Misgender]

Scientific law is the highest level of confirmation in science

What does scientific law mean?

Definition of scientific law in the Definitions.net dictionary. Meaning of scientific law. What does scientific law mean? Information and translations of scientific law in the most comprehensive dictionary definitions resource on the web.

www.definitions.net

Theory is a widely misused term. Theory is definitely beyond hypothesis, but is not necessarily law. For example "The Theory of Relativity"

I disagree that law is a higher level of proof, its qualititatively different. For one thing the definition varies depending on what kind of science you're using it for. I would argue you're misusing "law" if you're suggesting it means a higher level of certainty.

 

[formershroomeryuser]

What do you mean why does time have to change? Nothing happens without a change in time.

Are you asking why something closer moving at the same speed as something farther reaches me sooner?

Once again not my theory. To me speed of light as a constant proves a black hole does not exist and vice versa. To break down what I am trying to explain perhaps these images would help:

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/train_robbery.gif

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/0.png

https://i.stack.imgur.com/AE42g.png

I disagree that law is a higher level of proof, its qualititatively different. For one thing the definition varies depending on what kind of science you're using it for. I would argue you're misusing "law" if you're suggesting it means a higher level of certainty.

Ok let us not take into account that law is definite proof. Maybe not even. Some laws are eventually proven wrong. In general though aside from that yes a law is a much higher level of certainty. There is the law of gravity, the laws of physics, etc. then the Theory of Relativity. Theory's are less certain then laws. Unless everything I learned in elementary school, middle school and highschool about what comes after the hypothesis is wrong.

I am pretty sure it is now. Hyptothesis is most unconfirmed, theory is much more confirmed, law is the most confirmed. This is what I learned. If I remember correctly. Also if google is correct.

 

[Dial M for Misgender]

Yeah that might be how they teach it to kids, but its incorrect. This article explains it:

Scientific Theory vs Law

There is a common misconception that a scientific law is a more sound version of a scientific theory. This is largely due to the fact that…

medium.com

 

[TerribleIdeas™]

OP is apparently a completely exceptional nigger, 2/10, would not smash his gaping black hole.

OT - Pretty sure we've got images of stellar material being slurped towards single points, in much the same way your mom slurps the cake off the dessert cart.

 

[HomeAloneTwo]

Unless everything I learned in elementary school, middle school and highschool about what comes after the hypothesis is wrong.

Yes...It most likely is, just like 80% of everything you learn in school.

 

[formershroomeryuser]

Yeah that might be how they teach it to kids, but its incorrect. This article explains it:

Scientific Theory vs Law

There is a common misconception that a scientific law is a more sound version of a scientific theory. This is largely due to the fact that…

medium.com

"Science Journal
Scientific Theory vs Law
David J Pfeiffer
David J Pfeiffer
Jan 30, 2017 · 7 min read
There is a common misconception that a scientific law is a more sound version of a scientific theory. This is largely due to the fact that the scientific definition of the word is different than the English definition. In this article we define both terms and compare the two definitions. We then apply these definitions to the definition of the scientific method. Finally, we use these definitions to argue that science is the best tool we have to understand the natural world.
English Definition of Theory
A popular online dictionary defines a theory as “a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.” This is an adequate definition for the word as commonly used in the English language. The fact that the theorist has not researched this theory or even backed it up with evidence does not change the fact that it is a theory in the sense of the English definition."

Well I will be damned. My misuse of terminology if extraordinary.

Anyway, all terminology aside I feel quite stuck to my point. Beyond some formulas on a chalkboard and some ideas about how fast light really goes and some further formulas written about some entirely hypothetical variables how confirmed are black holes?

I mean, have we thrown a cooked hot dog into one and it came out back in time uncooked? Or thrown a hot dog into one and its atoms were compressed into the size of an amaoeba or smaller? I mean, is it entirely possible they are not real altogether? Is it entirely possible we miscalculated the speed of light and the effects of gravity? Is it possible that swirling fire tornado deep in space we have a photo of is not a black hole?

To some people not believing in black holes is the same thing as not believing in god. Which is something people who believe in black holes seem to be entirely against.

 

[Dial M for Misgender]

It's theoretical physics, they dont deal in absolute certainty, no science does.

 

[formershroomeryuser]

Yes...It most likely is, just like 80% of everything you learn in school.

Yeah haha you don't college credits in highschool huh? You take the same classes in the 12th grade as you did in the first grade. Math, english, history. Only on a more advanced level. Of course in the 1st grade the shit you are learning actually seems applicable to life since at that point not knowing how to read and write and basic math may actually effect you one day. When you are 17 its total bullshit and never when you apply for a job at Burger King is someone going to give a fuck how well your English composition scores were, only if you know English.

It is bullshit entirely. Kind of like Einstein trying to marry his cousin.

 

[Positron]

It gets crazier. I am like "why would a star so large with so much gravity not already pull in its own light if gravity works that way?" inside my head.

The curvature of spacetime is not determined by mass alone, but by mass-density. This has something to do with the "stress–energy tensor" term in Einstein's equation and I'm no expert on that, but in easy terms, a huge star will not immediately become a black hole unless its volume shrinks, and this shrinkage in volume occurs when the massive star runs out of fuel, so its radiation pressure can no longer counteract gravity.

 

[formershroomeryuser]

It's theoretical physics, they dont deal in absolute certainty, no science does.

A bold statement. Many scientists believe there is absolute certainty.

However I do not disagree. Coming from a person that believes a guy said if you spent your life meditating you can free yourself from the repetitive nature of mind and matter it would not make sense for me to believe in absolute certainty.

We go to sleep every night and wake up not remembering anything. Our entire lives beyond the day we live could have been imagined. I suppose nothing is for certain except death and taxes.

 

[JULAY]

"Science Journal
Scientific Theory vs Law
David J Pfeiffer
David J Pfeiffer
Jan 30, 2017 · 7 min read
There is a common misconception that a scientific law is a more sound version of a scientific theory. This is largely due to the fact that the scientific definition of the word is different than the English definition. In this article we define both terms and compare the two definitions. We then apply these definitions to the definition of the scientific method. Finally, we use these definitions to argue that science is the best tool we have to understand the natural world.
English Definition of Theory
A popular online dictionary defines a theory as “a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.” This is an adequate definition for the word as commonly used in the English language. The fact that the theorist has not researched this theory or even backed it up with evidence does not change the fact that it is a theory in the sense of the English definition."

Well I will be damned. My misuse of terminology if extraordinary.

Anyway, all terminology aside I feel quite stuck to my point. Beyond some formulas on a chalkboard and some ideas about how fast light really goes and some further formulas written about some entirely hypothetical variables how confirmed are black holes?

I mean, have we thrown a cooked hot dog into one and it came out back in time uncooked? Or thrown a hot dog into one and its atoms were compressed into the size of an amaoeba or smaller? I mean, is it entirely possible they are not real altogether? Is it entirely possible we miscalculated the speed of light and the effects of gravity? Is it possible that swirling fire tornado deep in space we have a photo of is not a black hole?

To some people not believing in black holes is the same thing as not believing in god. Which is something people who believe in black holes seem to be entirely against.

Spoiler

 

[HomeAloneTwo]

It is bullshit entirely.

History is an even bigger lie than any applied science we learn, which is basically what rocks are hot and what aren't.

 

[Buster O'Keefe]

"Science Journal
Scientific Theory vs Law
David J Pfeiffer
David J Pfeiffer
Jan 30, 2017 · 7 min read
There is a common misconception that a scientific law is a more sound version of a scientific theory. This is largely due to the fact that the scientific definition of the word is different than the English definition. In this article we define both terms and compare the two definitions. We then apply these definitions to the definition of the scientific method. Finally, we use these definitions to argue that science is the best tool we have to understand the natural world.
English Definition of Theory
A popular online dictionary defines a theory as “a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.” This is an adequate definition for the word as commonly used in the English language. The fact that the theorist has not researched this theory or even backed it up with evidence does not change the fact that it is a theory in the sense of the English definition."

Well I will be damned. My misuse of terminology if extraordinary.

Anyway, all terminology aside I feel quite stuck to my point. Beyond some formulas on a chalkboard and some ideas about how fast light really goes and some further formulas written about some entirely hypothetical variables how confirmed are black holes?

I mean, have we thrown a cooked hot dog into one and it came out back in time uncooked? Or thrown a hot dog into one and its atoms were compressed into the size of an amaoeba or smaller? I mean, is it entirely possible they are not real altogether? Is it entirely possible we miscalculated the speed of light and the effects of gravity? Is it possible that swirling fire tornado deep in space we have a photo of is not a black hole?

To some people not believing in black holes is the same thing as not believing in god. Which is something people who believe in black holes seem to be entirely against.

Is OP saying "I don't believe in black holes because I can't get my head around the science, therefore it must be sketchy or even made up"? Because that would be really fucking exceptional. You can see real world application of relativity ffs.

 

[Ex Cummunicated Sasser HD]

Now I do not mean to be "that guy"

I don't know how to break this to you gently, but guess what?

 

[Christ Cried]

Physicslets get the gas too

 

[formershroomeryuser]

Is OP saying "I don't believe in black holes because I can't get my head around the science, therefore it must be sketchy or even made up"? Because that would be really fucking exceptional. You can see real world application of relativity ffs.

Lol like what?

 

[Christ Cried]

Lol like what?

GPS, deflection of light from stars behind the sun, gravitational fucking waves.

 

[formershroomeryuser]

GPS, deflection of light from stars behind the sun, gravitational fucking waves.

Lol that is pretty insubstantial as far as I am concerned. I suppose one could say our instruments are so sharp in detecting things so far away. Another way of saying things is our technology is not nearly advanced enough to detect such far away phenomon with accuracy. Dust gets in a lens all the time. All sorts of things just don't emit as clear and steady as a flashlight when measuring things so far away. A flashlight can flicker right in front of a person without thousands of light years of physical phenomena to cross to get from the point of origin to the observer. Another way to say it all together is no such observations have been accurately except to make note of such deflections and light changes to fit into the theory of quantum physics. Already in this thread it has been argued to me by someone that did understood Einstein said not only does light stay at the same speed as it is a universal speed limit of a massless unit at a constant speed but did not believe Einstein said time also changes for the observer going faster they will appear to be the same speed as time slows down for someone or something going faster.

Without denying that light has a seemingly unbreakable speed limit I want to say relativity has never practically been applied to anything with good results. Satellites in space apparently synch up to be a second slower then clocks on earth is another one. Of course pressure and gravity could potentially effect the timing mechanism or radiation could effect electronics in space.

Since it has been debated in this thread exactly what confirmed science is and exactly what practicality is I still want to say there is nothing practical about the theory of relativity. It is not daily applied. E=mc2 need not have any relevant application of space time theory to function. It functions as you can apply it many many times in practical ways. This to me is the main reason this black hole thing took off. Einstein blew the world with a formula that aided scientists in understanding how atoms can release energy or multiply energy.

To me the whole idea of a black hole violates the concept that energy is never created or destroyed as they seem to relentlessly destroy the fabric of space and time. Scientists have an explanation for that also, of how energy is not destroyed in a black hole. It comes out another end as radiation and other various things except the theory goes in a black hole the concept of matter is infinitely shredded as gravity continues to multiply as more matter is sucked in.

To me the only practical idea for why a black hole exists is to explain unexplained phenomena where scientists are sure there should be stars but instead there is this large dark area in space with a lot of radiation and nothing to view. Yet there is a confirmed area in space that also has no stars and lots of radiation somewhere distant from us quite a few galaxies worth of light years off that scientists do not believe is a black hole as it is as large as a galaxy and nothing orbits what massive gravity a black hole would produce and instead scientists think it is simply a far off dark area in space in which many stars once lived that are now gone leaving behind black emptiness and tons of radiation.

But anyway who knows. Lol I guess defining what is "practical" or not is the first part of exploring this black hole debate. I think last week or something I say a news article claiming astronomers have found a huge water planet circling a distant star in a distant solar system. According to them the planet could be made of 50% water or 0.01% water. Lol I mean our technology as it is is only so advanced in measuring what is deep in space.