This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The heliopasaue is the limit of a sun's gravity, and is a region of intense radiaiton, as matter and antimatter anialate there. A non radiant sun lets teh antimatter through, and we get an X-ray star
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The heliopause is teh limit of a sun's gravity, and is a rejion of massive matter/antimatter anhaliation. For a brown star this si mistaken for the event horizon of a black hole: Due to gravitastional lensing, the brown star vanishes whne viewed from afar.
No it's not you fucking idiot! The heliopause is part of the heliosheath, and is the the interaction of the solar wind with the intersteller winds. There are numerous web soureces confirming this, as well as Nasa's website. If it was antimatter the Voyager probe would have been destroyed as it's made of normal matter you stupid, jackass! And yet again you give no evidence. Do the world a favour and drop dead. Resources shouldn't be wasted on retards like you.
So how fast is Andromeda heasding towards us? Distant objects have a red shift from antimatter. I am not a jackass, go to my profile page, and email me, as I am fed up commmunicating liek this. Hafl the objects in the sky should be blue shifted. Discuss.
Only things which are moving towards us are blue shifted. Mosta are moving galaxies are moving away from us. Andromeda is moving towards at about 400000 kph, and its light is blue shifted. Red shift from distant object is due to cosmological red shift due to the expansion of space. Red shift has nothing to do with anti-matter. You are a jackass. Now, where is your proof of anti-matter causing super nova and where is the name of this massive "brown" star I can look up.
@jedisenior Not heard about any blue shifts before. Certainyl if the red shifts were due to an expanding universe, they would be decreasing. THey are not, they are speeding up. The antimatter stuff is my own idea, explaing the release of radiation we see at the helio[pause - as sampled by Voyager.
The heliosheath is not anti-matter. Do you know anything? It's the interaction between the solar wind and the intersteller winds, not evidence of anti-matter. The fact the universe is speeding up is not evidence of anti-matter either. Energy of some kind is driving it, not anti-matter. You really are clueless. Now again, where is your evidence of anti-matter causing super nova and give me a name of a "brown" star I can look up.
And yes, cosmological red shift is due to an expanding universe. The fact you hadn't heard of the doppler blue shift means you know nothing about this, and as usual, are pulling this stuff from your ass!
I hate to break it to you but pretty much ALL of this nonsense you've been spouting is your "own idea". How you think you're qualified to make up theories about stellar evolution, unsupported by any evidence, and come blather them on youtube as if they were facts is a mystery to me.
Again, you claimed blue shift didn't exist and have been proven wrong, yet again. So, provide evidence of massive brown stars and "interstallar" anti-matter causing super nova, or shut up.
Nuclear fusion releases e nergy, until stars are composed of Fe, then fusion shuts down. The Iros star contracts, but has a massive gravitational field.
The various sources available on the web confirm that only stars a lot more massive than the Sun are capable of fusing ANY iron. Thus the vast majority of stars are incapable of producing any iron at all, much less fusing all their lighter elements until the star becomes nothing BUT iron.
The people that shit on science when it suits them yet use the fruits of that same science (semiconductors, satellites, computers, atomic clocks, motors, etc) to spread their lies need to grow the fuck up. Quantum physics, gravity, space-time, relativity, electromagnetism, etc are all well verified and tested by peer-reviewed science.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Stars form, become red, become brown, as they have fuse all the erlemeents up to fe. No light, adn they get an infalla of interstallar antimatter - this is why distant lgiht has more red shit: The antimatter. It becomes an X-ray star, then goes noa, and we may be left with a neutron core. Basic stallar evolution
That's not why a star goes nova, jackass. Their core shuts down contracts, then rebounds blowing the other layers away in a nova. There is no antimatter involved. Extremly massive stars 200+ solar masses have been speculated produce antimatter causing a more powerful explosion. There is no *interstellar (learn to spell idiot) involved. You still haven't given evidence of this "brown star." Name the star!
"more red shit" Haha, you really are an idiot! And distant objects are red shifted because of cosmological red shifts as well as grvitational red shifts. Look then up. Nothing to do with antimatter. Yet more lies from you. I'm still waiting for evidence of these brown stars. Name one.
You sure are an expert on basic "stallar" evolution, dude. So NOW I FINALLY understand why the stars get brown: they've fused up all that iron, and so they get RUSTY! I never knew that! Wow.
There are blue shifts, jackass! Where is your evidence of your evidence of anti-matter causing super nova? Where is your evidence of massive brown stars? Give me a name I can look up.
Yeah, in your insane universe, the Doppler Effect only works in one direction. The waves expand when the objects are moving apart, but magically don't compress when the objects are moving toward each other.
The other thing of many that you're wrong about is that most stars aren't hot enough to do much but fuse hydrogen into helium. The fusing of heavier elements requires a very hot and massive star.
Hey jackass, you claimed there was no blue shift happening in the universe. The light from the Andromeda galaxy is blue shifted, you're an idiot. Now provide evidence of "interstallar" (your spelling) anti-matter causing super nova.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
A star goes brown when it stops fission, but gravitational lensing means it almost vanishes from afar. This sis what we see. Nature does not do infinity.
@jedisenior I have an M.Eng, and Plank's dimensiona have no bearing on stars. After a star has ceased fusion it contracts 1,000 fold, so would seem to vanish, but is only a non-luminant brown star. Engage with this idea, and do not be profane.
Please name the university that would give someone who believes such a vast quantity of nonsense about stellar evolution and dynamics, and whose English is at a 6th-grade level a Master's degree in Engineering.... perhaps it was a university in a country where English is not the native language?
The universe you're talking about is the one you've made up in your head. Naturally, that universe functions exactly like you say it does.
The rest of us live in THIS universe. The only reason all "the laws of the universe" go out the window inside the black hole is because we haven't yet discovered the physics to explain what's going on in there. Once we do, we'll just have a different set of "laws of the universe" that will not, at that point, "be broken".
Just because you can't wrap your childlike intellect around it doesn’t make it fiction. Large? Cygnus X-1 isn't large. Still repeating yourself. Provide proof, jackass.
I've an M.Eng in Electrical Engineering. You have no degree, jackass. I can spot a lying, pretender like you a mile off. And what the fuck does "sixe" mean, idiot? Planck's distance/ mass, I've told you to look it up many times, and you still haven't. And yet again, you provide no evidence to backup your bullshit claims.
You are a liar. You're not interested in the truth. All your interested in is what you think the truth should be, which is the position of a delusional twat. You have no education, you can't even spell.
Black holes have spin, size and massive gravity. Thus they ar enon radaint starts at the end of theri lives. Not brown dewarfs which have failed to take off. They have burned down. Black holes have no size, or spin. They do not exist.
They, do have size. We have been over this, jackass. All you are doing is repeating your baseless, biased opinion as if it were fact. Run along now and find another video to spam, little man.
I also like how you contradicted yourself in the same post. First you say black holes have spin, size and massive gravity. Then at the end of your "comment", say they don't. Lol
@jedisenior The o0bjects we call black holes have size, as they are brown stars at the end of their lives, before tehy go nova due to the infalla of antimatter.
Cygnus X-1 is afar smaller than a brown star and far more massive. We have been over this. Are you retarded? Your spelling and grammar, as well as your continued repetition of already refuted comments suggests you are.
No it's not. They become, white dwarfs, neutron stars or black holes, depending on the original mass. I've asked you for proof and you still haven't provided it. We have been over this as well. You have no life idiot. If you had you wouldn't be here trying to pass your stupid opinion off as fact.
No, you're wrong. I've already explained why. Clearly you can't even read properly. You have no evidence to back you at all, that's how science works, on evidence. Doesn't matter how many times you repeat yourself, jackass! You will still be the uninformed nobody you always were.
The knowledge of dark age alchemists exceeds him... he shits on science when he wants to yet without it he would not have the computer he is using to spread his disinformation. Talk about being ungrateful.
You obviously have no idea what the fuck you're talking about or you wouldn't fixate on talking about me. You make a mistake that seems common on YouTube, you think I have some dispute with science. I don't. I dispute fables masquerading as science, such as your "big bang" belief system and your belief in a universe dominated by "gravity". Over 99% of the observable universe disagrees with you, it isn't just me.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
A brown star will have massive gravitational lensing, so from a ditance will have small dimensions: Yes I am reading your stuff - but you keep calling me an idiot!
Brown stars don't even reach 1 solar mass, and are huge compared to Cygnus X-1. But you just continue with your circular logic, where you are right, even when you have no evidence. You're not reading my stuff, as the evidence to back me is there for anybody who can be bothered to look for it.
No, it has an event horizon, which can be measured. The singularity is at Planck's distance, you know the guy who's meantioned in this very video. Yes, you are stupid. Only nubs divide by zero.
Cygnus X-1 has a mass of eight suns. It's far more massive that 70 jupiter masses. Yet it is still far smaller than an object of 70 Jupiter masses. Read and comprehend before you type. But I expect too much, that's clearly above your mental capacity. capacity
The sigularity is at Plancks's distance/mass. Go look it up you scientific illiterate. The onlt ones who would try to divide by zero, are nubs like you.
A star that burns all its fuel, one ot three things. A white dwarf, a neutron star or a black hole. I've asked you for proof of a 1 solar mass brown star, and you haven't done it.
@jedisenior Brown dwarfs NEVER amount to more than .08 solar masses...as anything bigger triggers fusion in the core creating a red dwarf "M class" star...
Space is a virtual coordinate system invented by human minds to help describe reality, it is not something real that can be manipulated or "bent".
Eddington was a fraud, he cited data the accuracy of which was in excess of the capacity of his instruments to provide, and he threw out all but a single observation.
The concept of "black hole" might make compelling Disney movies, but it's not science. Welcome to the twentieth century, now you're just a century behind science.
Space is a virtual coordinate system invented by human minds to help describe reality, it is not something real that can be manipulated or "bent".
Eddington was a fraud, he cited data the accuracy of which was in excess of the capacity of his instruments to provide, and he threw out all but a single observation.
The concept of "black hole" might make compelling Disney movies, but it's not science. Welcome to the twentieth century, now you're just a century behind science.
The comments to this video have turned into a circus with the Science Troll fertilizerspike on the one side battling a lot of well-informed folks with good science knowledge on the other side. Time to stop trying to argue with or educate this fool. We're wasting our time.
Gremlinn7's excellent comment was very apt: "Ever wonder what the equivalent of creationism in fields other than evolution would look like? Witness fertilizerspike."
I see that now. JonThm is the leader of the Cult of the Big Brown Stars, which understands nothing about stellar evolution. They also aren't real big on ENGLISH either: "Stars form, become red, become brown, as they have fuse all the erlemeents up to fe." Isn't it true that the vast majority of stars, the fairly small ones like our sun, never get hot enough to fuse ANY iron, right? Just hydrogen to helium, I think, and no heavier "erlemeents".
Yes that's right. I keep asking him for evidence, but have received none. I'm not going to bother confronting his "arguments" any more. I'm just going asking for evidence, over and over! ; ) I know he won't be able to produce it, because he's making this crap up as he goes along.
The concept of "gravitational lensing" is absurd in the extreme. This imaginary pseudoforce of "gravity" has never been shown to have any effect of any kind on light. Where such "lensing" is taking place it is due to electromagnetic forces, not "gravity".
Wrong, no experiment has ever verified this notion that "gravity" has any effect of any kind on light. You should read up on that. Furthermore, you can't generate x-rays by "black hole" in the lab, chiefly because "black hole" is imaginary and preposterous gibberish, not science. There is nothing even remotely verifiable about "black hole" hypotheses. You don't need absurdly "huge amounts" matter to generate x-rays, all you need is electricity.
Obviously you dont understand... However, you know that if you are standing in front of a car moving towards your position it will eventually hit you. Id be careful with denying that one...
Wrong. No experiment thus devised has ever verified this notion that "space", which is nothing more than an imaginary virtual coordinate system, can be "bent" or manipulated in any fashion. Welcome to the twenty-first century, wave goodbye to superstition and ignorance. You should do a lot more research before you go flapping your gums about science. There is absolutely no barrier to electricity producing x-rays in abundance. We don't generate x-rays with "huge amounts of matter".
Wrong, no experiment has ever verified this notion that "gravity" has any effect of any kind on light. You should read up on that. Furthermore, you can't generate x-rays by "black hole" in the lab, chiefly because "black hole" is imaginary and preposterous gibberish, not science. There is nothing even remotely verifiable about "black hole" hypotheses. You don't need absurdly "huge amounts" matter to generate x-rays, all you need is electricity.
It's perplexing why astronogers always claim x-rays are produced by "black hole". We don't use "black hole" at the dentist to generate x-rays, or in hospitals, we use electricity.
The idea that "black hole" has a "gravity" that's so powerful light can not escape it is idiotic. This imaginary pseudoforce of "gravity" has never been shown to have any effect on light of any kind.
Space is a virtual coordinate system invented by human minds to help describe reality, it is not something real that can be manipulated or "bent".
Eddington was a fraud, he cited data the accuracy of which was in excess of the capacity of his instruments to provide, and he threw out all but a single observation.
The concept of "black hole" might make compelling Disney movies, but it's not science. Welcome to the twentieth century, now you're just a century behind science.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Large stars get to be large brown stars. So non radiant, and loads of gravity. They ahve spin and size though black holes are nto meant to, btu do. Look in a mirror stupid!
Cygnus X-1 is approximately 20km in diameter, and its accretion disk is about 100,000 km in diameter, yet it clocks in at eight solar masses. If it were a large brown star as you claim, it would be huge. But it isn't, explain this.
Wow, you are stupid! Cygnus X-1 a 30 solar mass star with a counter weight of 8 solar masses, we know this from the stars wobbles as it travels through space. We also know from its x-ray signature that this object is tiny. Far too small to be a star yet be so massive. If it's not a black hole, what is it? Also brown drawf stars usually clock in at less than 60 Jupiter masses, and they are much larger than X-1. When more than 80 Jupiter masses and they start to emit visable light.
Typo: When brown dwarfs reach more than 80 Jupiter masses, they start to emit *visible light due to having enough mass and therefore increased gravity, all causing enough pressure at their cores for sustained nuclear fusion. At this stage they are known as red dwarfs.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@jedisenior Large stars get to be large brown stars. So non radiant, and loads of gravity. They ahve spin and size though black holes are nto meant to, btu do. Look in a mirror stupid!
No, dimwit! Large brown drawfs are just 70 Jupiter masses and are considered failed stars. Any larger and they become proper star, red dwarfs. You show me evidence of a brown star that clocks in at even 1 solar mass, I can guarantee you can't do it!
The black holes event horizon does have size, and its size depends on the overall mass of the black hole. You really haven't a clue what you're talking about. The singularity also has size, it is just at Planck's mass/distance making it so small it can be considered infinitely dense, but it isn't quite infinite density. Most singularities also have spin, it's the frame dragging affect which causes matter to spin into a disk around it as such high speeds, rather than fall straight in.
@Wrath0fKhan what im sure you meant to say was gravitational lensing relies on light years for measurement, but if its right, proves that light is relative, and no longer constant, thus cannot be used as a form of measurement....
Wrong. No experiment thus devised has ever verified this notion that "space", which is nothing more than an imaginary virtual coordinate system, can be "bent" or manipulated in any fashion. Welcome to the twenty-first century, wave goodbye to superstition and ignorance. You should do a lot more research before you go flapping your gums about science. There is absolutely no barrier to electricity producing x-rays in abundance. We don't generate x-rays with "huge amounts of matter"
@Wrath0fKhan epic fail... cuz if theres one thing that makes things a hard fact, its being right 100 years ago( i use that argument against women and black people every time they try to escape my plantation) your science rebuttle doesnt make sense, nor apply. ugh. trying to understand those two sentences makes my head hurt more than a drinking a slushie too fast
My rebuttal is in principle "operative". Why? Because we still can conduct the same experiment and it still yields the same results. Even more so. We have much more precise instruments than the scientists had at their disposal hundred years ago. Hence the confidence interval is on a totally different level. The theory in question still applies. Maybe your head does hurt from drinking too fast...
@fertilizerspike When someone says something has been observed you say it lacks experiments to be true and now you say black holes cannot be directly observed therefore they are not real. gtfo
That's exactly correct. Black hole hypotheses state "black hole" will never be observed. That's just one reason "black hole" is a non starter. It might make a compelling Disney movie, but it's not science. Science requires verification. Further, "black hole" violates known, verified principles of physics. It is a preposterous fable utterly bereft of empirical referent and experimental verification, two of the cornerstones of science. Black hole is not science.
Matter is not infinitely compressible. There are many others but one is enough to kill this retarded idea. Like I said, "black hole" may make a compelling Disney movie, but it is not science. Anyone who believes in "black hole" is a fucking retard.
You can ask anything you want. I got my education here on Earth, where do you think? Further, keep this irrelevant bullshit off this page, this is not a page to discuss where I got my education. Oh, also, eat my ass you fucking troll.
@fertilizerspike Oh I do think it is relevant, since you made it relevant by claiming to be most educated and intelligent person here, but since you refer to the place you got your education as "here on Earth" making an impression that it is possible to get education elsewhere, I think you're just a sci-fi nerd who is overcompensating for his small penis and trolls the internet claiming he knows better than PhD's but has no proof or data to back his shit up.
Where I acquired my education is irrelevant. I won't address this again, since it's just wasting everyone's time. The information I've given is accurate, the conclusions I've stated are backed up by over a century of direct observation and experimental verification. Your belief system is based on Disney movies and hero worship of congenital idiot plagiarists. I do know more than most people with PhD's, by the way. Feel free to try and demonstrate otherwise. Good luck.
That's exactly correct. Black hole hypotheses state "black hole" will never be observed. That's just one reason "black hole" is a non starter. It might make a compelling Disney movie, but it's not science. Science requires verification. Further, "black hole" violates known, verified principles of physics. It is a preposterous fable utterly bereft of empirical referent and experimental verification, two of the cornerstones of science. Black hole is not science.
very informative video
TheSanovita 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i like this
TheSanovita 3 weeks ago
awesome video
andreeaweed 4 weeks ago
very-very good vishual video, Thanks for shared
Spasatcom 4 weeks ago
Nothing can escape??
I thought we were past this mistake and yet it keeps coming back.
FAIL
Cunelito 1 month ago
nice video!.. Thanks for shared
directorygod 1 month ago
Very-Very Good Video!!..
ngeliatduit 1 month ago
Interesting video
MyDavidsun 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A scientist is a student of science, who is busy with real stuff
JonThm 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The heliopasaue is the limit of a sun's gravity, and is a region of intense radiaiton, as matter and antimatter anialate there. A non radiant sun lets teh antimatter through, and we get an X-ray star
JonThm 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JonThm
All bullshit lies! You are definitely a retard.
jedisenior 1 year ago
@JonThm
Direct me to a resource confirming your bullshit. Nasa say you're wrong, anybody reading this can look it up and see you're full of shit.
jedisenior 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The heliopause is teh limit of a sun's gravity, and is a rejion of massive matter/antimatter anhaliation. For a brown star this si mistaken for the event horizon of a black hole: Due to gravitastional lensing, the brown star vanishes whne viewed from afar.
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm
No it's not you fucking idiot! The heliopause is part of the heliosheath, and is the the interaction of the solar wind with the intersteller winds. There are numerous web soureces confirming this, as well as Nasa's website. If it was antimatter the Voyager probe would have been destroyed as it's made of normal matter you stupid, jackass! And yet again you give no evidence. Do the world a favour and drop dead. Resources shouldn't be wasted on retards like you.
jedisenior 1 year ago
Typo: *sources
jedisenior 1 year ago
Blueshift...antimatter..aliens..NWO...RETARDS. Discuss
jacksawild 1 year ago
I love how people try to discuss science by pulling information right out of their ass, if you don't know what you're talking about just shut it.
dima80te 1 year ago
So how fast is Andromeda heasding towards us? Distant objects have a red shift from antimatter. I am not a jackass, go to my profile page, and email me, as I am fed up commmunicating liek this. Hafl the objects in the sky should be blue shifted. Discuss.
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm
Only things which are moving towards us are blue shifted. Mosta are moving galaxies are moving away from us. Andromeda is moving towards at about 400000 kph, and its light is blue shifted. Red shift from distant object is due to cosmological red shift due to the expansion of space. Red shift has nothing to do with anti-matter. You are a jackass. Now, where is your proof of anti-matter causing super nova and where is the name of this massive "brown" star I can look up.
jedisenior 1 year ago
Typo: *Most are / *objects
jedisenior 1 year ago
@jedisenior Not heard about any blue shifts before. Certainyl if the red shifts were due to an expanding universe, they would be decreasing. THey are not, they are speeding up. The antimatter stuff is my own idea, explaing the release of radiation we see at the helio[pause - as sampled by Voyager.
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm
The heliosheath is not anti-matter. Do you know anything? It's the interaction between the solar wind and the intersteller winds, not evidence of anti-matter. The fact the universe is speeding up is not evidence of anti-matter either. Energy of some kind is driving it, not anti-matter. You really are clueless. Now again, where is your evidence of anti-matter causing super nova and give me a name of a "brown" star I can look up.
jedisenior 1 year ago
And yes, cosmological red shift is due to an expanding universe. The fact you hadn't heard of the doppler blue shift means you know nothing about this, and as usual, are pulling this stuff from your ass!
jedisenior 1 year ago
@JonThm
I hate to break it to you but pretty much ALL of this nonsense you've been spouting is your "own idea". How you think you're qualified to make up theories about stellar evolution, unsupported by any evidence, and come blather them on youtube as if they were facts is a mystery to me.
leisulin 1 year ago
Any atomic fusion of elemeents over Fe, takes in heat! But stars even form U - so they take in energy from lower atomic number fusion
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm
Again, you claimed blue shift didn't exist and have been proven wrong, yet again. So, provide evidence of massive brown stars and "interstallar" anti-matter causing super nova, or shut up.
jedisenior 1 year ago
I love the way she says black hole.
mellowmark1 1 year ago
Nuclear fusion releases e nergy, until stars are composed of Fe, then fusion shuts down. The Iros star contracts, but has a massive gravitational field.
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm
Where is your evidence of stars going "brown" then anti-matter causing them to go nova.
jedisenior 1 year ago
@JonThm
The various sources available on the web confirm that only stars a lot more massive than the Sun are capable of fusing ANY iron. Thus the vast majority of stars are incapable of producing any iron at all, much less fusing all their lighter elements until the star becomes nothing BUT iron.
leisulin 1 year ago
@leisulin Ant atomic number over Fe takes in heat to form, but stars even make U!
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm
We all know the fusion of iron leads to a super nova. You claimed "interstallar" anti-matter caused them. Provide evidence or shut up.
jedisenior 1 year ago
The people that shit on science when it suits them yet use the fruits of that same science (semiconductors, satellites, computers, atomic clocks, motors, etc) to spread their lies need to grow the fuck up. Quantum physics, gravity, space-time, relativity, electromagnetism, etc are all well verified and tested by peer-reviewed science.
Kargoneth 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Stars form, become red, become brown, as they have fuse all the erlemeents up to fe. No light, adn they get an infalla of interstallar antimatter - this is why distant lgiht has more red shit: The antimatter. It becomes an X-ray star, then goes noa, and we may be left with a neutron core. Basic stallar evolution
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm
That's not why a star goes nova, jackass. Their core shuts down contracts, then rebounds blowing the other layers away in a nova. There is no antimatter involved. Extremly massive stars 200+ solar masses have been speculated produce antimatter causing a more powerful explosion. There is no *interstellar (learn to spell idiot) involved. You still haven't given evidence of this "brown star." Name the star!
jedisenior 1 year ago
Comment removed
jedisenior 1 year ago
Comment removed
jedisenior 1 year ago
Typo: *Extremely massive / *outer layers
jedisenior 1 year ago
@JonThm
"more red shit" Haha, you really are an idiot! And distant objects are red shifted because of cosmological red shifts as well as grvitational red shifts. Look then up. Nothing to do with antimatter. Yet more lies from you. I'm still waiting for evidence of these brown stars. Name one.
jedisenior 1 year ago
Comment removed
jedisenior 1 year ago
Typo: Look *them up. Your stupidity is beginning to rub off!
jedisenior 1 year ago
@JonThm
You sure are an expert on basic "stallar" evolution, dude. So NOW I FINALLY understand why the stars get brown: they've fused up all that iron, and so they get RUSTY! I never knew that! Wow.
leisulin 1 year ago
@leisulin
I also laugh at his claim that "interstallar" anti-matter suddenly comes along out of nowhere and just ruins the "brown stars" day!
jedisenior 1 year ago
@jedisenior If red shifts were due to movemeent, there would be blue shifts too, THere aren't, it is due to the effect of interstallar antimatter.
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm
There are blue shifts, jackass! Where is your evidence of your evidence of anti-matter causing super nova? Where is your evidence of massive brown stars? Give me a name I can look up.
jedisenior 1 year ago
@JonThm
Yeah, in your insane universe, the Doppler Effect only works in one direction. The waves expand when the objects are moving apart, but magically don't compress when the objects are moving toward each other.
The other thing of many that you're wrong about is that most stars aren't hot enough to do much but fuse hydrogen into helium. The fusing of heavier elements requires a very hot and massive star.
leisulin 1 year ago
@leisulin When a stalar body is moving towards you, ti would have a blue shift. O level physics.
JonThm 1 year ago
Comment removed
jedisenior 1 year ago
Comment removed
jedisenior 1 year ago
@JonThm
Hey jackass, you claimed there was no blue shift happening in the universe. The light from the Andromeda galaxy is blue shifted, you're an idiot. Now provide evidence of "interstallar" (your spelling) anti-matter causing super nova.
jedisenior 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JonThm
"When a stalar body is moving towards you, ti would have a blue shift"
Correct. The first true thing you've said. Well, except as an amateur cosmologist, you really ought to learn how to spell the word "stellar".
leisulin 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
A star goes brown when it stops fission, but gravitational lensing means it almost vanishes from afar. This sis what we see. Nature does not do infinity.
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm
Provide evidence or get lost. Name a "brown star" that has eight solar masses.
jedisenior 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@jedisenior There are radiant stars of 20 solar masses. Before they go nova, due to an infalla of interstaller antimatter, they will go brown QED
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm
Where is your evidence? Name the star! And that's not why a star goes nova. You are making things up again.
jedisenior 1 year ago
Black holes by definition have no sixe. What we see are brown stars. Black holes are fiction
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm
They do have size we have been over this. It's just your stupid difinition that says they don't.
jedisenior 1 year ago
@jedisenior Not my definition! Physic's definitionm.
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm
No, jackass. Your bullshit definition! Planck's mass, look it up, uneducated twat.
jedisenior 1 year ago
@jedisenior I have an M.Eng, and Plank's dimensiona have no bearing on stars. After a star has ceased fusion it contracts 1,000 fold, so would seem to vanish, but is only a non-luminant brown star. Engage with this idea, and do not be profane.
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm
It has on the singularity. Read and comprehend! No you, have no education, you can't even spell.
jedisenior 1 year ago
Comment removed
leisulin 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JonThm
Please name the university that would give someone who believes such a vast quantity of nonsense about stellar evolution and dynamics, and whose English is at a 6th-grade level a Master's degree in Engineering.... perhaps it was a university in a country where English is not the native language?
leisulin 1 year ago
@JonThm
Black holes are not fiction: there's one right between your ears.
leisulin 1 year ago
@leisulin Black holes break all the laws of the universe, but brown stars obey them all: Go figure.
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm
Where is your evidence for these massive brown stars. Name a star I can look up.
jedisenior 1 year ago
@JonThm
The universe you're talking about is the one you've made up in your head. Naturally, that universe functions exactly like you say it does.
The rest of us live in THIS universe. The only reason all "the laws of the universe" go out the window inside the black hole is because we haven't yet discovered the physics to explain what's going on in there. Once we do, we'll just have a different set of "laws of the universe" that will not, at that point, "be broken".
leisulin 1 year ago
Large, non radiant stars are brown stars - regular stars that have nto yet gone nova. Black hoels are academic, impossible fiction
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm
Just because you can't wrap your childlike intellect around it doesn’t make it fiction. Large? Cygnus X-1 isn't large. Still repeating yourself. Provide proof, jackass.
jedisenior 1 year ago
@jedisenior I have an M.Eng. How abnout you? Black holes by definition have no sixe. What we see are brown stars. Black holes are fiction
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm
I've an M.Eng in Electrical Engineering. You have no degree, jackass. I can spot a lying, pretender like you a mile off. And what the fuck does "sixe" mean, idiot? Planck's distance/ mass, I've told you to look it up many times, and you still haven't. And yet again, you provide no evidence to backup your bullshit claims.
jedisenior 1 year ago
@jedisenior I have an M.Eng. In Metallurgical Engineering in 1986. I am not a jack ass, just a sceintsit interested in truth.
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm
You are a liar. You're not interested in the truth. All your interested in is what you think the truth should be, which is the position of a delusional twat. You have no education, you can't even spell.
jedisenior 1 year ago
@JonThm
I believe you when you say you're a "sceintsit". I'm not sure what a "sceintsit" is, but there is one thing I AM sure of: I don't aspire to be one.
leisulin 1 year ago
Cool.
Also, that lady has pimpin glasses.
metacarpied 1 year ago
Black holes have spin, size and massive gravity. Thus they ar enon radaint starts at the end of theri lives. Not brown dewarfs which have failed to take off. They have burned down. Black holes have no size, or spin. They do not exist.
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm
They, do have size. We have been over this, jackass. All you are doing is repeating your baseless, biased opinion as if it were fact. Run along now and find another video to spam, little man.
jedisenior 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@jedisenior Black holes are phyolsophical objects with no size. My contention is tehy are non luminant stars.
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm
They have size, Plancks mass for the singularity, the diameter of the event horizon depends on the overall mass. We have been over this also.
jedisenior 1 year ago
@JonThm
I also like how you contradicted yourself in the same post. First you say black holes have spin, size and massive gravity. Then at the end of your "comment", say they don't. Lol
You don't know what you're trying to say!
jedisenior 1 year ago
@jedisenior The o0bjects we call black holes have size, as they are brown stars at the end of their lives, before tehy go nova due to the infalla of antimatter.
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm
Cygnus X-1 is afar smaller than a brown star and far more massive. We have been over this. Are you retarded? Your spelling and grammar, as well as your continued repetition of already refuted comments suggests you are.
jedisenior 1 year ago
Typo: far* smaller
jedisenior 1 year ago
@jedisenior A brown star is a regular star when all fission has ceased: It is not a brown dewarf. AS to my spelling - there is a life I have here!
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm
No it's not. They become, white dwarfs, neutron stars or black holes, depending on the original mass. I've asked you for proof and you still haven't provided it. We have been over this as well. You have no life idiot. If you had you wouldn't be here trying to pass your stupid opinion off as fact.
jedisenior 1 year ago
Non radiant stars will contract a lot, but have massive gravity. Which is what we see
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm
No, you're wrong. I've already explained why. Clearly you can't even read properly. You have no evidence to back you at all, that's how science works, on evidence. Doesn't matter how many times you repeat yourself, jackass! You will still be the uninformed nobody you always were.
jedisenior 1 year ago
fertilizerspike... *sigh*
The knowledge of dark age alchemists exceeds him... he shits on science when he wants to yet without it he would not have the computer he is using to spread his disinformation. Talk about being ungrateful.
Kargoneth 1 year ago 12
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Kargoneth
You obviously have no idea what the fuck you're talking about or you wouldn't fixate on talking about me. You make a mistake that seems common on YouTube, you think I have some dispute with science. I don't. I dispute fables masquerading as science, such as your "big bang" belief system and your belief in a universe dominated by "gravity". Over 99% of the observable universe disagrees with you, it isn't just me.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The notion that space or time or "space-time" can be bent is nonsensical." - fertilizerspike
Satellite telemetry and the constant required synchronization of chronometers refutes you.
Kargoneth 1 year ago
COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
bluffr22 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
A brown star will have massive gravitational lensing, so from a ditance will have small dimensions: Yes I am reading your stuff - but you keep calling me an idiot!
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm
Brown stars don't even reach 1 solar mass, and are huge compared to Cygnus X-1. But you just continue with your circular logic, where you are right, even when you have no evidence. You're not reading my stuff, as the evidence to back me is there for anybody who can be bothered to look for it.
jedisenior 1 year ago
Black holes are probably something outside our realms of understanding.
bicnarok 1 year ago
That massivev star has dinensions - by definition, it can't be a black hole. Boy, you say i am stupid! Are you out of preschool yet?
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm
No, it has an event horizon, which can be measured. The singularity is at Planck's distance, you know the guy who's meantioned in this very video. Yes, you are stupid. Only nubs divide by zero.
jedisenior 1 year ago
Typo: *mentioned
jedisenior 1 year ago
@JonThm
And Cygnus X-1 isn't a star. It's far too small and massive. It's orbiting a star. Look it up any time. Are you even reading what I'm posting?
jedisenior 1 year ago
The most stupid idea I have ever heard, is that an object wtih no dimensions has size: And sceintists are getting money to look into this?
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm
Yes, because they are far smarter than you. You actually think think they divide by zero?! Lol, you're stupid!
jedisenior 1 year ago
Staras which cease to shine, contractt by an order of 1,0000. Giving the gravity and density we see with 'black holes' Really just brown stars.
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm
No, they become, white dwarfs, neutron stars or black holes. You're just making things up and claiming it to be fact. What a loser.
jedisenior 1 year ago
A brown star has the mass of about 70 Jupityers - exactyl the size of teh non radainrt object.
JonThm 1 year ago
Comment removed
jedisenior 1 year ago
@JonThm
Cygnus X-1 has a mass of eight suns. It's far more massive that 70 jupiter masses. Yet it is still far smaller than an object of 70 Jupiter masses. Read and comprehend before you type. But I expect too much, that's clearly above your mental capacity. capacity
jedisenior 1 year ago
Typo: more massive *than 70 jupiter masses
jedisenior 1 year ago
A black holes by definiton has no size. The fact it does, means we are dealing with a brown star.
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm
The sigularity is at Plancks's distance/mass. Go look it up you scientific illiterate. The onlt ones who would try to divide by zero, are nubs like you.
jedisenior 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A black hole by deffinition has no size: So what we are seeing are non luminant brow nstars! That have burn all their H and He.
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm
A star that burns all its fuel, one ot three things. A white dwarf, a neutron star or a black hole. I've asked you for proof of a 1 solar mass brown star, and you haven't done it.
jedisenior 1 year ago
@jedisenior Brown dwarfs NEVER amount to more than .08 solar masses...as anything bigger triggers fusion in the core creating a red dwarf "M class" star...
biancademonet 1 year ago
@biancademonet
I know that! Tell it to JonThm. He's the one mking the claim that black holes are actually "huge brown stars."
jedisenior 1 year ago
@jedisenior I stand corrected
biancademonet 1 year ago
@biancademonet
No problem buddy, I came off a little strong there. I think we are just feeding the trolls!
jedisenior 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AlterGX
Space is a virtual coordinate system invented by human minds to help describe reality, it is not something real that can be manipulated or "bent".
Eddington was a fraud, he cited data the accuracy of which was in excess of the capacity of his instruments to provide, and he threw out all but a single observation.
The concept of "black hole" might make compelling Disney movies, but it's not science. Welcome to the twentieth century, now you're just a century behind science.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@AlterGX
Space is a virtual coordinate system invented by human minds to help describe reality, it is not something real that can be manipulated or "bent".
Eddington was a fraud, he cited data the accuracy of which was in excess of the capacity of his instruments to provide, and he threw out all but a single observation.
The concept of "black hole" might make compelling Disney movies, but it's not science. Welcome to the twentieth century, now you're just a century behind science.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike black holes have been observed idiot...fail...
biancademonet 1 year ago
the volume is too low cant hear shit
awesome pics nevertheless
atheistkyo 1 year ago
The comments to this video have turned into a circus with the Science Troll fertilizerspike on the one side battling a lot of well-informed folks with good science knowledge on the other side. Time to stop trying to argue with or educate this fool. We're wasting our time.
Gremlinn7's excellent comment was very apt: "Ever wonder what the equivalent of creationism in fields other than evolution would look like? Witness fertilizerspike."
leisulin 1 year ago 18
@leisulin
You should have left your original post which included JonThm in it.
jedisenior 1 year ago
@jedisenior
I see that now. JonThm is the leader of the Cult of the Big Brown Stars, which understands nothing about stellar evolution. They also aren't real big on ENGLISH either: "Stars form, become red, become brown, as they have fuse all the erlemeents up to fe." Isn't it true that the vast majority of stars, the fairly small ones like our sun, never get hot enough to fuse ANY iron, right? Just hydrogen to helium, I think, and no heavier "erlemeents".
leisulin 1 year ago
@leisulin
Yes that's right. I keep asking him for evidence, but have received none. I'm not going to bother confronting his "arguments" any more. I'm just going asking for evidence, over and over! ; ) I know he won't be able to produce it, because he's making this crap up as he goes along.
jedisenior 1 year ago
Comment removed
leisulin 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SparkyLen
The concept of "gravitational lensing" is absurd in the extreme. This imaginary pseudoforce of "gravity" has never been shown to have any effect of any kind on light. Where such "lensing" is taking place it is due to electromagnetic forces, not "gravity".
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
Comment removed
leisulin 1 year ago
Comment removed
leisulin 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Wrath0fKhan
Wrong, no experiment has ever verified this notion that "gravity" has any effect of any kind on light. You should read up on that. Furthermore, you can't generate x-rays by "black hole" in the lab, chiefly because "black hole" is imaginary and preposterous gibberish, not science. There is nothing even remotely verifiable about "black hole" hypotheses. You don't need absurdly "huge amounts" matter to generate x-rays, all you need is electricity.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
Obviously you dont understand... However, you know that if you are standing in front of a car moving towards your position it will eventually hit you. Id be careful with denying that one...
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Wrath0fKhan
Your straw man is as pointless as your bald assurance that I'm wrong.
Also, eat my ass, you fucking troll. Save your opinions about me for the next time your mother comes down to the basement to do your laundry.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Wrath0fKhan
Wrong. No experiment thus devised has ever verified this notion that "space", which is nothing more than an imaginary virtual coordinate system, can be "bent" or manipulated in any fashion. Welcome to the twenty-first century, wave goodbye to superstition and ignorance. You should do a lot more research before you go flapping your gums about science. There is absolutely no barrier to electricity producing x-rays in abundance. We don't generate x-rays with "huge amounts of matter".
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
Well... Maybe in abundance in relation to (the needs of) trauma surgery. But thats all...
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Wrath0fKhan
Wrong, no experiment has ever verified this notion that "gravity" has any effect of any kind on light. You should read up on that. Furthermore, you can't generate x-rays by "black hole" in the lab, chiefly because "black hole" is imaginary and preposterous gibberish, not science. There is nothing even remotely verifiable about "black hole" hypotheses. You don't need absurdly "huge amounts" matter to generate x-rays, all you need is electricity.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's perplexing why astronogers always claim x-rays are produced by "black hole". We don't use "black hole" at the dentist to generate x-rays, or in hospitals, we use electricity.
The idea that "black hole" has a "gravity" that's so powerful light can not escape it is idiotic. This imaginary pseudoforce of "gravity" has never been shown to have any effect on light of any kind.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@AlterGX
Space is a virtual coordinate system invented by human minds to help describe reality, it is not something real that can be manipulated or "bent".
Eddington was a fraud, he cited data the accuracy of which was in excess of the capacity of his instruments to provide, and he threw out all but a single observation.
The concept of "black hole" might make compelling Disney movies, but it's not science. Welcome to the twentieth century, now you're just a century behind science.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
In fact, I don't even think you're being sincere.. I think you're just trying to get people to argue with you..
If someone was as stupid as you pretend to be, they certainly wouldn't be able to work the internet..
JesterAzazel 1 year ago
wow over 5k views, 0 dislikes!
ayubzuhair 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Large stars get to be large brown stars. So non radiant, and loads of gravity. They ahve spin and size though black holes are nto meant to, btu do. Look in a mirror stupid!
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm
Cygnus X-1 is approximately 20km in diameter, and its accretion disk is about 100,000 km in diameter, yet it clocks in at eight solar masses. If it were a large brown star as you claim, it would be huge. But it isn't, explain this.
jedisenior 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Lets have the evidence for black holes, rather than brown stars tehn!
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm
Wow, you are stupid! Cygnus X-1 a 30 solar mass star with a counter weight of 8 solar masses, we know this from the stars wobbles as it travels through space. We also know from its x-ray signature that this object is tiny. Far too small to be a star yet be so massive. If it's not a black hole, what is it? Also brown drawf stars usually clock in at less than 60 Jupiter masses, and they are much larger than X-1. When more than 80 Jupiter masses and they start to emit visable light.
jedisenior 1 year ago
Typo: When brown dwarfs reach more than 80 Jupiter masses, they start to emit *visible light due to having enough mass and therefore increased gravity, all causing enough pressure at their cores for sustained nuclear fusion. At this stage they are known as red dwarfs.
jedisenior 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@jedisenior Large stars get to be large brown stars. So non radiant, and loads of gravity. They ahve spin and size though black holes are nto meant to, btu do. Look in a mirror stupid!
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm
No, dimwit! Large brown drawfs are just 70 Jupiter masses and are considered failed stars. Any larger and they become proper star, red dwarfs. You show me evidence of a brown star that clocks in at even 1 solar mass, I can guarantee you can't do it!
jedisenior 1 year ago 2
@JonThm
The black holes event horizon does have size, and its size depends on the overall mass of the black hole. You really haven't a clue what you're talking about. The singularity also has size, it is just at Planck's mass/distance making it so small it can be considered infinitely dense, but it isn't quite infinite density. Most singularities also have spin, it's the frame dragging affect which causes matter to spin into a disk around it as such high speeds, rather than fall straight in.
jedisenior 1 year ago 4
Typo: *at such high speeds
jedisenior 1 year ago
An chust tink, der are mullions and mullions of black haouels in de univerz.
TheLightningStalker 1 year ago
These are good videos, but why do they always have such terrible audio?
TheEpisteme 1 year ago
Possibly the worst english accent ever, Black Howal?
eurogoldexchange 1 year ago
Stefanie is one cute astrophysicist!
whydie666 1 year ago
@whydie666 black howel ?
goreziad 1 year ago
@goreziad I'm just saying I would eat nerds out of her black hole, fucking grammar police
whydie666 1 year ago
@whydie666 black howel ? :D BLACK HAOUEL
goreziad 1 year ago
I'm getting the feeling that fertilizerspike is a massive, and succesfull, troll. Who can deny that gravity affects light?
niiidar 1 year ago 5
@niiidar check out conservapedia they deny the theory of relativity so fertilizerspike might be a homeschooled dumbass
whydie666 1 year ago 3
Stefanie's Glass rock
JosephW99 1 year ago
@Wrath0fKhan what im sure you meant to say was gravitational lensing relies on light years for measurement, but if its right, proves that light is relative, and no longer constant, thus cannot be used as a form of measurement....
HalfGermanAllHammer 1 year ago
@HalfGermanAllHammer
Are you sure you havent been drinking too fast? You still may be experiencing some feeling of dizziness...
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Wrath0fKhan
Wrong. No experiment thus devised has ever verified this notion that "space", which is nothing more than an imaginary virtual coordinate system, can be "bent" or manipulated in any fashion. Welcome to the twenty-first century, wave goodbye to superstition and ignorance. You should do a lot more research before you go flapping your gums about science. There is absolutely no barrier to electricity producing x-rays in abundance. We don't generate x-rays with "huge amounts of matter"
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike
Youve been already exposed... No need to repeated yourself...
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
@Wrath0fKhan epic fail... cuz if theres one thing that makes things a hard fact, its being right 100 years ago( i use that argument against women and black people every time they try to escape my plantation) your science rebuttle doesnt make sense, nor apply. ugh. trying to understand those two sentences makes my head hurt more than a drinking a slushie too fast
HalfGermanAllHammer 1 year ago
@HalfGermanAllHammer
My rebuttal is in principle "operative". Why? Because we still can conduct the same experiment and it still yields the same results. Even more so. We have much more precise instruments than the scientists had at their disposal hundred years ago. Hence the confidence interval is on a totally different level. The theory in question still applies. Maybe your head does hurt from drinking too fast...
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike When someone says something has been observed you say it lacks experiments to be true and now you say black holes cannot be directly observed therefore they are not real. gtfo
SuperiorApostate 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@SuperiorApostate
That's exactly correct. Black hole hypotheses state "black hole" will never be observed. That's just one reason "black hole" is a non starter. It might make a compelling Disney movie, but it's not science. Science requires verification. Further, "black hole" violates known, verified principles of physics. It is a preposterous fable utterly bereft of empirical referent and experimental verification, two of the cornerstones of science. Black hole is not science.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike what principles of physics does it violate?
SuperiorApostate 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@SuperiorApostate
Matter is not infinitely compressible. There are many others but one is enough to kill this retarded idea. Like I said, "black hole" may make a compelling Disney movie, but it is not science. Anyone who believes in "black hole" is a fucking retard.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike Where did you get your education if I might ask?
SuperiorApostate 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@SuperiorApostate
You can ask anything you want. I got my education here on Earth, where do you think? Further, keep this irrelevant bullshit off this page, this is not a page to discuss where I got my education. Oh, also, eat my ass you fucking troll.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike Oh I do think it is relevant, since you made it relevant by claiming to be most educated and intelligent person here, but since you refer to the place you got your education as "here on Earth" making an impression that it is possible to get education elsewhere, I think you're just a sci-fi nerd who is overcompensating for his small penis and trolls the internet claiming he knows better than PhD's but has no proof or data to back his shit up.
SuperiorApostate 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@SuperiorApostate
Where I acquired my education is irrelevant. I won't address this again, since it's just wasting everyone's time. The information I've given is accurate, the conclusions I've stated are backed up by over a century of direct observation and experimental verification. Your belief system is based on Disney movies and hero worship of congenital idiot plagiarists. I do know more than most people with PhD's, by the way. Feel free to try and demonstrate otherwise. Good luck.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike lemme guess, you got it from the same "diploma mill" that Kent Hovind did......
biancademonet 1 year ago
@fertilizerspike yet you provide no proof.
SuperiorApostate 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@SuperiorApostate
That's exactly correct. Black hole hypotheses state "black hole" will never be observed. That's just one reason "black hole" is a non starter. It might make a compelling Disney movie, but it's not science. Science requires verification. Further, "black hole" violates known, verified principles of physics. It is a preposterous fable utterly bereft of empirical referent and experimental verification, two of the cornerstones of science. Black hole is not science.
fertilizerspike 1 year ago