• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Black Holes are Fake

Forums New posts
Charlie Prime said:
That's the problem with theoretical physics. At a certain point, it stops being physics (a science which describes reality), and starts being philosophical speculation with no basis in reality.

At that point the philosopher can even abandon mathematical coherence and do irrational things like divide by zero.

The end result is millions of kids sitting around watching ridiculous television shows about nonsense like black holes and and star mass objects supposedly spinning at millions of RPM or 24% the speed of light.
Click to expand...

Math is not the real universe. It's a model of how we think the universe exists. So I agree that theoretical physics does not always predict the universe. Just look at the profound failure of string theory.

At any rate, just because the theory predicts it, doesn't mean that black holes reach actual infinite density. There may be an unknown inflationary pressure which keeps it really dense (therefore acting a lot like a black hole) but not infinitely dense.

Nobody knows for sure.
 
marduk said:
Physicists aren't trying to "fool" anyone.

The current thinking is that we don't understand the math of mass collapse as it approaches infinite density.

The big bang isn't wrong because of infinite density. There's this little thing called "inflation" you might want to look up. Oh, and the 20 year old COBE data, too.

This work provided evidence that supported the Big Bang theory of the universe: that the CMB was a near-perfect black-bodyspectrum and that it had very faint anisotropies. Two of COBE's principal investigators, George Smoot and John Mather, received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2006 for their work on the project. According to the Nobel Prize committee, "the COBE-project can also be regarded as the starting point for cosmology as a precision science".​
Cosmic Background Explorer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


There is no such thing as infinite density. Infinities in reality do not exist and more and more scientists are being honest about it. A few days ago I posted a topic on Boltzmann Brains. This subject can only be real if the Universe expands to infinity. However, most scientists today are working to remove infinity from their equations. They admit it's a slow process but eventually they will have to deal with both Black Holes and the Big Bang. The problem with both is the singularity which simply can not exist. So whatever is at the core of any massive object that scientists falsely call a Black Hole is not a singularity and there was no singularity in the beginning of our Universe because infinities aren't allowed in this reality. Infinities are only a byproduct or artifact of mathematics. So the Universe is not going to expand into infinity, and there is no such thing as infinite density.
 
Last edited:
singularities can't exist in our current model. I actually agree with you in that I'd be very surprised if infinite density existed in the universe... just like I'd be surprised if the square root of -1 existed... but as with all models:

the universe has a nasty habit of proving human models wrong.
 
Charlie Prime said:
Agreed. However, the subject is presented to the public as scientific fact.

That deception is both immoral, and counter-productive.
Click to expand...

Don't agree, and don't know why you're so fussed about it.

Whenever I read hawking, etc, I hear a lot of"current models predict...."

It's not their fault if science reporters state untested models as fact.

Edit: as I re-read your post I think we're agreeing that reporting stinks.

That's not science's fault.
 
Charlie Prime said:
"...because of the formal mathematical equivalence between white holes and black holes, the answer is yes: they really have seen Hawking radiation for the first time."

Apparently, the boys in Vancouver suffer the same notion as the Discovery Channel frauds, that math = observation.

Albert Einstein and Karl Schwarzchild did not believe in black holes. I have to go with those guys rather than some hacks in Canada.
Click to expand...
This is science.

The "hacks" are claiming equivalency and are inviting replication and scrutiny.

As a "hack" from Canada I invite you to go back to your armchair, or go write up a formal refutation.
 
Charlie Prime said:
I agree it's not the fault of science. It is the fault of the scientists who engage in the deception.
Click to expand...
Except that they are not.

This is why peer review and replication exists.

This is one of the great things about the scientific method; eventually it weeds people's opinion's out in favor of what can be proven or at least be supported by the data.

Science is basically open source.
 
Last edited:
Scientists are indeed engaging in deception on popular media outlets such as the History Channel, NOVA, and The Learning Channel.

It's immoral, but I bet they don't see it that way.
 
Charlie Prime said:
Scientists are indeed engaging in deception on popular media outlets such as the History Channel, NOVA, and The Learning Channel.

It's immoral, but I bet they don't see it that way.
Click to expand...
Sure.

So they edit and approve it, just like Chris did for his appearances, right?

It's not like media would do that on their own, right?

What a joke.

I know some of these guys. What's immoral is how little funding foundational science gets, and how much criticism it receives from armchair quarterbacks that know little to nothing of the domain.

If you're so smart that you can judge these guys from what you see on TV, write up a paper and have it peer reviewed.
 
Charlie Prime said:
Scientists are indeed engaging in deception on popular media outlets such as the History Channel, NOVA, and The Learning Channel.

It's immoral, but I bet they don't see it that way.
Click to expand...

Nova is supposed to be based on Science. However, the History Channel, TLC and The Discovery Channel are pretty much anti-Science at this point. I knew a geologist that was pissed off at the Discovery Channel and would cuss up a storm if she was forced to watch a program on the Discovery Channel. National Geographic is getting really bad too.
 
More fraudulent "science" from Professors paid handsomely to sit around and dream up artistic mathematics. The only proofs they provide are that if you pay people to sit around and generate pretty nonsense, they will do exactly what you pay them to do.

 
Charlie Prime said:
More fraudulent "science" from Professors paid handsomely to sit around and dream up artistic mathematics. The only proofs they provide are that if you pay people to sit around and generate pretty nonsense, they will do exactly what you pay them to do.
Click to expand...

Charlie, are you a PhD in some aspect of science? I am asking out of curiosity.

BTW I seem to recall you once saying you were going to attend an Electric Universe conference - did you? If you did, your thoughts?

For myself I am fascinated by the EU Theory, especially since - as indicated in the following video - gravity is not really understood. So much is not understood - and EU Theory is an elegant alternative that really does explain a lot. In the end - as sometimes happens - it may not be either/or, but a combination of both. My bets are on EU Theory winning out, though. It certainly would mean a far more interesting future. The possibilities are endless imo.

The following is from November 14th - and the Rosetta Mission results are analyzed through the EU Theory filter. What makes the EU Theory significant imo is that it can successfully predict. It has reasonable alternative explanations pf phenomenon that are then able to successfully postulate additional scenarios that get proved out.

 
Last edited:
While I was sifting trying to find the above linked video I came across these which are interesting because of the counter to the prevailing (entrenched) theories -

LINK: ThunderboltsProject - YouTube

A stand-alone video posted on 11/25/14.

Rosetta Mission Update | The Rocky Comet

The 12/14/14 Update -

 
Charlie Prime said:
No. I earned an MPA back in 1993. I would have preferred a career in science, but my high-school math education was so pathetic as to be near-criminal. I later got sick of politics, and started over in I.T.
Click to expand...

@Charlie Prime Thank you for the answer - and I had this question, too: BTW I seem to recall you once saying you were going to attend an Electric Universe conference - did you? If you did, your thoughts?

Am I mistaken? I may have conflated you with someone else. Or was it you? Did you go? If so, thoughts?
 
Back
Top