Black holes are kinda wonky in my opinion. I think they are really dense spheres and all the shit they "suck in" is simply slapped onto the surface
[QUOTE=LVL FACTORY;46066709]Black holes are kinda wonky in my opinion. I think they are really dense spheres and all the shit they "suck in" is simply slapped onto the surface[/QUOTE]
Thank you for that opinion which I am sure was informed by years of intensive mathematical and empirical study.
[QUOTE=LVL FACTORY;46066709]Black holes are kinda wonky in my opinion. I think they are really dense spheres and all the shit they "suck in" is simply slapped onto the surface[/QUOTE]
Beyond the singularity who knows what it looks like. That much energy and atoms would just break up or something.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;46064586]Yes, this is totally 100% true and you should remember it before you make rule-breaking posts. Also we are omniscient.[/QUOTE]
all hail the god emperor
Lets test this theory out by taking Laura Mersini-Houghton and throwing her at a supposed black hole and see what happens. When she comes back, she can tell us all about it.
[QUOTE=Chubbles;46064845]You guys are so quick to jump to the conclusion that she's wrong (and I'm not supporting her side, because personally I have faith that black holes do exist), BUT we've never actually seen a black hole for sure. It's always been speculation and theorizing in the first place.[/QUOTE]
It's not about thinking she's wrong, it's about being skeptical. She's had her paper released for months now and it hasn't even been properly peer-reviewed and we only started hearing about it now - if that doesn't start ringing some skepticism bells then I don't know what does.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;46066426]Didn't Hawking himself make waves a while back, saying blackholes don't exist, and it basically boils down some semantics of what a blackhole actually is and what it's true properties are?[/QUOTE]
No, I heard he made particles.
What kinds of studies are being done on black holes today?
Even if we entertain the ridiculous notion that stars cannot collapse into black holes, I presume all of the stars that we thought [I]would[/I] collapse into black holes would instead collapse into neutron stars. Prior to the formation of galaxies I'd presume that in dense regions of star formation neutron stars produced from dying stars would occasionally collide and this [I]is[/I] a mechanism for black hole formation (unless these physicists have issues with that mechanism, too). Ergo even if they're right, we can still have black holes forming in the universe.
so is this a good thing.?
[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;46070242]so is this a good thing.?[/QUOTE]
Not good or bad. Just a thing. A thing that needs peer review.
I don't know man, if there is something which has so much energy that it even sucks in light, how can it be not real? At least the energy has to be real, no?
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;46066855]all hail the god emperor[/QUOTE]the Moderator protects
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
