Black Holes

[EarthwormJim 1]

just came across this article about how some scientists are beginning to theorise that black holes dont exist

give it a read and discuss

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/geekend/?p=226

and please, dont bring up god. nobody wants to hear it

[Joe Statler 0]

Interesting, this article couldn't come at a better time. Since I just finished reading a book on Cosmic Expansion. But this is going to make future Sci-Fi shows loose material for an episode. Like the SG-1 episode.

Edited November 21, 2009 by Joe Statler

[Orgcon 11]

Considering that this was "just in" back in 2006, its probably been disproven already! This was even before it was discovered, that there 'IS' a supermassive blackhole at the centre of every galaxy.

Not only that but this theory would disprove many of the fundamentals of 'Quantim Physics' and 'Chaos Theory' that have been proven to be true! TBH I think they have been observing too many 'Dark Stars' and imagining things that aren't actually there!

Edited November 21, 2009 by Orgcon

[Joe Statler 0]

If I remember correctly the Supermassive blackhole was discovered way before 2006, so that article could be taken from information published before 2006 in a scientific journal.

Edited November 21, 2009 by Joe Statler

[Orgcon 11]

Exactly, wasnt proven/accepted worldwide (even though I said "discovered", same difference) until late 2006 at the earliest!

Edited November 21, 2009 by Orgcon

[daangelo29 5]

Old news. For me.

True that the idea of black holes destroying matter is against the rule (not theory) of matter being indestructible, but most scientists who support the black hole idea weren't sure what REALLY happens to matter and energy when they're sucked in, so the whole thing is just an idea about black holes. In fact, I only recall sci-fi mentioning black holes having matter-destroying powers than scientists who started the whole idea.

Not only that but this theory would disprove many of the fundamentals of 'Quantim Physics' and 'Chaos Theory' that have been proven to be true!

Very true. This theory is against more laws/rules in science than the black hole idea itself.

[Evil Morning Operator 0]

Black hole = Dead star which didn't collapsed(just like a pulsar is a dead star too) The star still has gravity and pulls things towards it. But nobody knows what happens with that. They can't see because it's black. I've learned this ages ago. And still believe that it excist. So don't know what you guys or that guys mean with a Black Hole.

[EarthwormJim 1]

emo, actually read the whole article and make sure you understand it before you post.

i just thought this was interesting, im not agreeing with it or anything as its obviously been mostly disproved. but thats how hypothesising works. the fact is we wont know untill we have the technology to actually get up close and personal with one, wich wont be for a very long time. chances are theyr exactly what we think they are though..

[daangelo29 5]

This ain't one of the few times we talked about black holes. In the times when we were talking about wormholes, we were also talking about black holes. Wormholes are basically 2 black holes connected to each other, one being the departure point, and the other being the re-entry point. This is another reason why I keep on saying the blue stuff the DeLorean projects to its front isn't the wormhole (yet) -- if it was, we would perceive it as a black hole, instead of some sort of a blue plasma goo.

Other than that (already-disproved) theory, there are such issues with black holes as the "no hair" theorem and the black hole information paradox (the latter being resolved by the superstring theory).

@emo: When a star turns to a black hole, it does collapse -- but instead of the usual collapsing "outward", it collapses "inward" or onto itself, by its own gravity, which later becomes the black hole. And being black isn't the real reason why we can't see it. It's basically black AND visible because light can't escape its gravitational pull and gets sucked in, so no light gets reflected from it for us to see it (we rely on light reflecting from an object to our eyes to perceive that object).