When the fusion process stops, a star will collapse- it actually loses mass. It then shrinks, and its density is inversely proportional to its size. The amount of gravity it has remains the same, minus the mass loss of the nova effect. It does not go black. Scientists cannot explain the huge force at the center of our own galaxy, nor can they explain that the mass of the galaxy is not enough to hold it together gravitationally.
@MaestroJah its an assumption the sun has a fusion core though most of the evidence indicates it hasnt,reverse thermal gradient,existance of carona,sunspots being dark,lack of neutrinos etc,also electromagnetism easily holds the galaxy together,accounts for its spin rate without gravity which is 10~39 times weaker than electromagnesism, it is that that is overlooked when posturing there is dark stuff we cant detect, with EM none of it is needed space is 99% plasma & obeys known laws
@rubberdown1969 99%- that's the thing. There's a lot left unexplained, but there it is still. Supernovae, "neutron" stars,... The fact that no one has ever witnessed a star being born! It is the religion of science. And science has become less about finding truth and more about explaining away the existence of God. But like you say, sometimes there ARE explanations, but stubborn, proud science won't accept that maybe their first theory was wrong- and besides, the books are already printed.
@MaestroJah Supernovas are exploding double layers in an EM circuit not a star exploding, neutron stars(pulsars) cant exist for the same reasons BH cant & that is the atoms EM is far stronger than any gravity can compress regardless of size, pulsars are a strobe effect, we do witness stars being born in quasars in which some are nearby protogalaxies ejected from a parent galaxy,science of late is nothing to be proud of when agendas & funding are more important than emperical science
@rubberdown1969 While I agree with you on the bias of the scientific paradigm, I must say, I've seen those videos too... No one has ever witnessed a star being born- quasars are too far away to discern any definite structure, as the name implies- quasar being short for quasi-stellar object. But I am curious- what is your vocation? Physics is a hobby for me, as I cannot dedicate enough time to this pursuit to acheive any real meaningful contributions. I am a millwright/operator myself.
@MaestroJah Actually Quasars are not the extremely bright most distant objects as claimed, they have been observed & photographed linked by plasma bridges to some nearby galaxies & even in front of opaque lower redshifted nearby galaxies so redshift is not soley due to recessional velocity as assumed & quasars are not super bright & extremely distant. Most of what we observe can be explained easily in electrical terms & is in fact expected.
@MixR4t to get the infinite mass required for a BH to exist gravity has to magically overcome the EM force - FAIL, the math used to create a BH uses a tensor & that tensor is 0, times by 0,you get 0 an infinite point in nature does not exist a point is an abstract notion not something that is real, the math is a cheat the notion is absurd & plasma physics explains 99% of what we see & detects & is replicated in labs, we live in a EM universe everything conected on quantum level too
Certainly using 'artist's impressions' are not going to serve the science justice.
A singularity isn't something that can be seen or perceived, really. A black hole billions of time the mass of the sun may only appear as a tiny dimple, bending the light around it, etc.
Ultimately, the forces surrounding a singularity (and no doubt what goes on inside one) are a mystery, the physical forces are so intense our understanding of such things goes with it as well.
I just discovered that video because I reached the same conclusion, black holes don't exist, on the other hand the double slit experiment is not a theory, it's a fact and it's observed, and we can learn so so so much more about reality and the universe than with so called black holes.
Now I understand why mass media like to talk about blackholes, and I understand why they never talk about the double slit experiment and it's philosophical consequences.
If by some miracle they find a real black hole which by the way is never going to happen those scientists will first want to stick there cocks in it i'm sure :)
Black holes are based on a theory that derived from a problem with some mathematic equations, and based on physics of an area we don't really understand yet. Adding in the fact that they are invisible does provide a difficult scenario to believe.
Good presentation. You might want to check out the book "Seeing Red" by Halton Arp. My objection to black holes is the concept of a singularity. They only exist in math, not reality. Besides, what is the point of the argument. There is no way prove their existence.
You have to be kidding right, you do know we have proof. I have pictures of them shooting out jets from the center of galaxies. You showed the picture, holy shit if people think this way, we are fucked. LOL You are young, you will see them in the future if people would fund science.
Ill go further and say that all NASA pics are fake, so nothing there is really "real." I was a really bored 9 year old so I find a website saying a guy can prove NASA pics are edited and manipulated. I did exactly what he said, zoomed in on the pics he said, and yes....it was like someone went into paint and blacked a bunch of stuff out. "Stars" looked a lot like glitter on black paper taken with a flash. I'm sure they use Photoshop now.
maybe someone has said this already, but just what struck my funny bone is that he says 99% of the stars in our galaxy are larger then 3 solar masses, however the criteria is the "core" of the star, the central region, has to be larger then 3 solar masses, which leaves only about 1% of the stars. Anyone else think trying to prove something with a false set of data to start with makes it still right in the end?
You are right the you can't directly obsereve a black hole. but thats because its BLACK you dumbass, and space is black. so its like looking for a tiny open flame as big as a tip of a pin in a pit of lava as big as the night sky, its just not possible. So you need an explosure like LIGHT that exploses black holes since they absorb everything. and they have imence gravity to pull stars arround them whick is another way they discovered them.
there is footage of stars orbiting an enormously massive (4 million solar masses) object that does not emit light at the centre of our galaxy. there are also all kinds of compelling theoretical arguments that deal with the compaction of matter under gravity. quasars, nuetron stars, active galactic nuclei, the big bang... its not like there is a shortage of theoretical and observational evidence of large scale matter collapse under gravity.
I think it is great(!) that you are being skeptical and expressing doubt instead of simply 'believing' in black holes; however, you have also demonstrated a serious lack of understanding and a need for further education. Please allow yourself the opportunity to benefit from university level science classes and learn proper physics and cosmology before attempting to forward the sort of (frankly silly) claims you present in your video. You simply do not yet possess the requisite knowledge.
Wow, and I thought that Creationism and Evolution was the dumbest argument ever because nobody would ever agree on anything. This video proved me wrong being the dumbest video ever. Black holes do exist and there not actually black, hiding in plain sight! They emit radiation from every bit of matter that goes into it. If the matter is extremely big, they classify that as Quasars. Now the radiation (whether quasar or not) make colors of gas and dust fly or spin around the center.
@LokiCocola the whole science community is full of RETARDS faggots that lie to idiots like yourself that appeale to authority and do not do there own research that doesn't back you psyentist delusions your a fool who belives othedr fools who aren't real scienctist they only invent stupid retarded idiotic theorys with no basis in reality sence the nature world is to complex and hard you these retarded fug packing faggots to understand. So go on you stupid sheep go fuck ur master fool.
@LokiCocola it's eh not the whole scientific community who believe in black holes some of them actually do not take lsd and have real brain like eh einstein for instance
Observable =/= discover able. When you see a murder victim you 'discover' that there was a murderer as well don't you? Even if the murderer isn't 'visible'. Time and space are on their own criteria, light can't escape a black hole but time and space work differently there. They get warped, they can't not escape because they are everywhere. Lastly, just because a star is bigger than the sun doesn't mean that the remaining core will be that big too.
look dude black holes do exist ok read and learn about it AND YOU WILL UNDERSTAND OK BECUZ IF YOU LISTEN FOR ONCE THE MAN IZ EXPLAINING HOW BLACK HOLES ARE FORMED OK SHUT UP AND LISTEN AND QUICK YAPPING YO MOUTH SO MUCH YOU WOULDNT SAY THAT BLACK HOLES DONT EXIST SO GET IT STRAIGHT DUDE LEARN IT LIVE IT LOVE IT
Sorry, bub, but you're showing your ass on this one; get your facts straight: it is R136a1, not L. It is proposed to become a black hole if it burns off all of its fuel, but the theory amongst astronomers is that it's burn is unstable, and may go through a partial collapse before it depletes its fuel. This will prevent it from becoming a black hole.
This presentation is very sloppy, and poor scientific interpretation. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
you do know that black holes have been observed right? there is even video and pictures, and as time passes the observations will become more clear and defined. though it is not a direct view of the actual black hole it's a view of the event horizon on an angle, though rough now, it's definitive proof. thankyou for your time.
Dude, you just proved that dictionary definitions of black holes, and artists renderings are wrong! Not that black holes don't exist! There are very good reasons a black hole would emit light, and long jets of matter! Nothing can escape a black hole pass the event horizon, and therefore a black hole is black and cannot be seen. But matter near the event horizon is accelerated to the speed of light, and therefore emits energy! That matter is outside the black hole!
@cmoneygiles now, u got a better point than SkunkHunt. here's the point, right, no one have actually proved or disproved black holes, so everything about it is purely on the theory level. so do a lot of other things in physics. no one have actually proved big bang, vacuum energy, or even neutrinos, according to SkunkHunt's point of view. none of them could be photograph because there's no way to observe it, either because it's in the past or it does not interact electromagnetically.
ESO proved that stars are affected by black holes. Look for yourself. Go to "Science at ESO" and top 10 discovereries its number 1. ESO's website and Did you go to Harvard and study the stars at the one of the most advanced observatory in the world? Well they did.
i'm bored explaining basic concepts to u. please actually read my posts first before commenting. and please make improvements on the parts of the movie which contains false or inaccurate information. or arguing with u is really pointless because non of us benefit from any information we processed and it's a waste of time.
and repeat. black hole had only proved on a theory platform and didn't been proved for real. that's why it's black hole theory. so do big bang theory and a lot of others. but it's commonly accepted because the nature predicts about it fits in the observations exactly
You cannot observe the expansion of the Universe because that is implying that you did and you know the size and shape of the Universe. That means you are turning a concept into an object, which you cannot. The Universe does not have a definitive edge / shape therefore it is a concept. Concepts do not expand. Maybe in your mind.
inside the black hole, the matters' entropy reaches maximum, and it is reduced to its least energy state. all energy released before the particle enters the blackhole will be in forms of different field disturbance, such as electromagnetic waves, gravity waves(if such things exist), etc. that's where the high energy rays escaping the SURROUNDING AREA OF BLACK HOLE came from. also, the high energy jets came from the poles because there is almost noparticlesblockingitsway,otherwiseitwillbeabsorbed
YOu cannot see a black hole so you cannot photograph it? So how do you know what's inside of it? This is not science, this is fantasy. Take your fantasy to Disney and leave me alone!
so within these circumstances, almost all known physics breaks down. the ones didn't predicts that the properties of the "black hole", as it is known as. it is predicted that within its event horizon, any escaping light will have its wavelength increased to infinity, that is, zero energy, by gravitational red shift. that's why no light can ever come out of it. also, any particle escaping it will expect having speed greater than light, which is not allowed.
P.S.: in case u don't know, pauli exclusion principle is a force based upon quantum theory, in which 2 fermions can't have the same position and velocity. it is one of the most important principle in physics.
however, pauli exclusion principle breaks down when there is so much matter concentrated within it's schwarzschild radius(r= 2Gm/cc), in which the matter must have difference in velocity greater than the speed of the light in order to stay apart. but according to general relativity, itcant
I know what the Pauli Exclusion Principle is and I don't need or want you to explain it to me. You're not my teacher and you certainly are not my master. You have no argument if you cannot provide photographs and movies of black holes. THat is a scientific fact. They don't exist and you have no argument.
If you continue to insult my intelligence I can only suggest that we meet up in person so I can show you the error of your ways.
@SkunkHunt and, just to make sure, do u believe in neutrons and neutrinoes? have u ever seen one DIRECTLY?, have you ever photographed one or video-ed one WITH ONE IN IT?
if u don't believe in either of them, then i will stop argue with u. it's pointless to argue with an idiot who know absolutely nothing about physics.
@flymousechiu We have photographs of that sorta thing. Arguably you can name the particles anything you want. What is your point? It seems to me that you have no argument and you're just being a bully. If you want to bully me we should meet up in person because I promise I will make it interesting for you.
Black Holes DO exist, I was astonished when I saw the title of this video. It´s hard to believe for some of you but the universe just build that way it is.
@smackmabitchup If they existed then you'd be able to provide some evidence but you did not, so you haven't therefore you are wrong. You have to back your claim up with photographs and movies, that is science. Take that nonsense somewhere else
@smackmabitchup Whatever you say. While you're saying those things that aren't true I'll be over here with people that actually look at the evidence and consider the source. If you can't think for yourself then we don't want to know what you have to say. Black holes don't exist because they are made up. The theory of black holes is just that a theory and its not even a scientific one at that. You have no argument but thanks for supporting my video with your comments.
@angie4779 Hate to break it to you...but those were computer animations...they weren't photographs and movies of anything real. See that's what I've been complaining about...they mix in the pictures of artist renditions and artist animations...which don't prove anything except that you likely overpayed an intern to make less than box-office quality graphics. It doesn't prove black holes exist. I can show you an animation I made of a dragon...guess that makes them exist!
@shawnowen720 That was more cohesive of a point than anything anybody has said for a while. However, I'd like you to elaborate your theory more, unfortunately, it doesn't help us prove black holes at this point. We need more 'evidence'
@shawnowen720 So true, that. I guess that he hasn't figured out that the deformation of light particles and measurable objects around it give it away. He has yet to understand that relations between objects withn the gravity wells of unseen objects are measurable indicators of dark, high mass objects, such as black holes. Objects do not orbit nothing because gravity works, even in celestial matters such as planetary orbits and mass attraction.
For the record, opinion is not evidence. Evidence is evidence. Only creationists and conspiracy theorists believe that opinion has more value than decades of research and study by qualified scientists.
COmparing artist renditions (fantasy images) to what is out there is like comparing Gone with the Wind to the Civil war. They are not interchangable nor are artist conceptions proof of anything. They are a guess by someone who is an artist, not a scientist. One requires artistic talent and the other requires years of study and knowledge of the mechanics of space and particle physics.
@raptorcat61 Well man when you turn on the TV and you see supposed "science shows" showing you movies and pictures of computer animated nonsense, what are you supposed to construe from that?
I'm just pointing that out, that you're being lied to right to your face and its done like a magician does at a magic show. Slight of hand. just throw in a clever animation (of something never before seen) and people believe it exists.
That's how incredibly dumb our children and generations have gotten.
@SkunkHunt Don't be foolish enough to continue to confuse artist renderings, particularly when they say outright, that they believe that "x" is what they think it would look like, with what astronomers can see and physicists can measure.
I trust science because no scientist would risk the scorn of the scientific community on something that could be dis-proven by someone who is not even a scientist. scientists have reputations to protect. Manipulative deception should be left to creationists.
@SkunkHunt And did you bother to look at the other links on that subject on the NASA website? Have you looked at the sites for every university with an astrophysics program? I doubt it. Like evolution, the evidence is both measurable and overwhelming to the disbeliever, unless that disbeliever is a scientific illiterate that does not understand the scientific process.
But go ahead and prove your point by submitting a paper on it for peer review by the scientific community. Then we will see.
The physics of a black hole make it impossible to photograph in the generally accepted meaning of the word, but black holes do emit particles and radiation in a measurable amount. You're a fucktard, Mr. SkunkHunt.
@flymousechiu I'm not a fanatical about asttronomy or science. I am distraught and angry at the liars that plague them. That would be anybody who repeats hat others have said without first thinking for themselves. This is what I'm assuming about you, because, of course, you can't even imagine what reality is like for me knowing that black holes in fact do not exist! Good day!
@SkunkHunt 'kay. i have been researching about blackholes since i was 6 (when i first read stephen hawking) and i have continued the topic for 8 years. if u think u know more about it than i do, show your knowledge about physics by proving black hole is not possible with formulae rather than try to point out the flaws (which were actually not flaws, just things that u don't understand) in the black hole theory
@flymousechiu That's great, but it doesn't pardon or excuse your prolific spamming of the comments of the video.
Here's the fact jack: You don't have any photographs or movies that can back up your claim of black holes existing. If you did you would have provided a link by now to something. But you have not, therefore you have no arguments whatsoever. If you cannot provide the evidence I require your arguments do not qualify for me to review.
You see, I am interested only in science, not lies
@SkunkHunt the point is, you have absolutely no evidence about the black hole is not true, what u are holding is an empty theory surronding the theory: there is no photographs and video with a black hole in it. by definition, a black hole CANNOT be photographed. so stop bragging about us to show u photographs and videos.
for my identity, my name is 邱子弦, which i'm afraid u r not able to read because it's in chinese, that's why i didn't bother post it out.
The burden of proof is on you and others who claim they exist. I don't have to prove what disproves itself. Black holes by their definition disprove themselves. That is a fact. If you they didn't you would be able to find photographs and movies of them, but you have none. The fact is you have no evidence to support your claims so you are at a loss and you need to move on and only come back if you have evidence. Thanks for wasting my time
@SkunkHunt before claiming that i'm a liar, can u read my posts first? i already tell u that if black hole exist, it can't be photographed. what i say are all very basic facts in physics in which u should know if u ever researched in black hole
@SkunkHunt . i already explained the mechanism of a black hole if it exist. it's u who are trying to prove thatacommontheory(black hole exist)is false,by standard scientific debateprocedure, it's u who need to bring forth the evidence which disproves black hole.if u have any, let me hear about it. and please stop personal attack because that doesn't do any good in studying about physics.
@flymousechiu actually dude, you can't ask someone to prove something doesn't exist that doesnt work. science doesn't work by people just saying hmmm it's possible that there is an invisible dwarf who chews on bubble gum on the other side of jupiter, now come up with evidence to disprove that. you have to have evidence to PROVE something, not disprove it. otherwise the most ridiculous things, that couldnt possibly be disproved could be viable in science.
7. @11:56 you said that the jets are moving faster than light. simply not possible. let's talk at a more common perspective because you won't understand those formulae. when a object is moving faster than light, it must have MORE than infinite energy, which is impossible by it self, and will emit energy at an infinite rate. that means, if that object is moving faster than light, by the time its light reach earth, you will be barbecued long before you made this ridiculous video.
6. @11:14 false data. R136a1 isn't and never is a black hole, just a giant star. theories state that it won't be forming a black hole because the type of supernova it will face, the pair-instability supernova, is way to violent to left a black hole back behind.
4. @8:42, you stated that there are "... jets escaping black hole". those matter that formed the jets simply hadn't entered black hole's event horizon yet, and they got enough energy to escape the black hole's outer gravitational field.
5. @9.09, you said something about "black holes emits light" clarification: it's not the black hole that emits light, it's the accelerating matter that had not yet entered the black hole's event horizon yet.
3. @7:11 you said that:" Around 99% of the stars should become black holes!" 2mistakes: 1. where did u get the data that 99% of the star is bigger than 3 Msun? simply not true. 2. although some stars have mass more than 3 Msun, the average density at any given space is not enough to cause a gravitational collapse. imagine a nebula with 10^5 solar mass and you know. there is just no gravity field concentrated enough in any area to form a black hole.
2. @6:32 you said that :"I assume by the term 'everything' also including space and time itself." False assumption. space and time are not matter, they are just properties of matter.
@flymousechiu If all matter in the universe has the property of time and space then your argument is therefore moot, because 'everything' does include time and space. Duh!
okay, i had watched ur video about blackhole. i'm never an active supporter of blackhole theory, and i don't believe the so-called "hawking radiation", but ur video is too ridiculous. i'm here pointing out some very epic mistakes u have in ur video.
1. @5:35 you stated that black holes can't be observed.
black holes CAN be observed, although indirectly, though the gravitational force it exert through the other objects (as in Cygnus X-1).
@SkunkHunt false analogy. if u can prove the shadow cannot be any other object but the person, you can say that you are observing the person, but not for "A shadow shaped like a person." a black hole has so much mass in an area and so completely "black" it can have no other explanation. as for ur point of view, u can only observe the "shadow" of the subatomic particle, does that mean u can't prove that it exist?
@flymousechiu My analogy was not false. If you continue to say things like that to me that have no merit, I will not answer any more of your comments and I will ban you from ever leaving another one.
By the way, I don't cotton to people who have no face and no name on the Internet. It's very cowardly and ungentlemanly.
i applaud you for thinking out of the box and questioning existing theory (that IS what science is) but you should do more research into the actual physics of the subject and history of the evolution of the theory as more evidence instead of using what you "believe" before going forward with statements like this, science is not a method of belief its a method of observation then testing.
Form a theory through observation then test to try and prove it WRONG , THIS is by definition how its done
more over you CAN observe an object by indirect effects , think of sitting in a dark room in the winter, if its WARM you could assume that there is a source of heat in the room even though you are unable to OBSERVE it directly, the same can be said for black holes.
As matter falls into one it becomes INCREDIBLY hot (though neutron stars display a similar effect), more over you can make a calculation of mass by finding an object orbiting it and plotting velocity vs. orbital severity and distance
so by measuring the indirect EFFECTS of severely warped space by gravity we can observe the effects of a black hole through its stellar interactions.
in order to orbit at a given speed at a given distance and orbital severity you can calculate the mass of the object at the center of that orbit, if that object is both VERY VERY MASSIVE as well as comlpetely dark (if no matter is falling into it) then you could easily say that is an indirect observation
now having said that, i will offer one caveat , black holes (like relativity and the big bang) are THEORY, though they are theory supported by an immense amount of observational data and mathematics but are still THEORY.
Keep looking Up
and Keep thinking for yourself , dont become disheartened by my or anyone else comments and continue to study and educate yourself
@RedneckRager telling me to do more research is ridiculous. Who the fuck do you think you're talking to? I don't have to prove anything about black holes, I am showing they don't exist. That's the facts jack.
Until you can show me a photograph or movie of a black hole doing its thing you have NOTHING TO SAY TO ME so shut up and move on! Good day!
(cont) Light doesn't escape from black holes; the radiation we detect (and the jets we observe) come from the region immediately surrounding the black hole, not the black hole itself. Your confusion over R136a stems from the fact that it was originally thought to be a single much more massive object, but is now known to be a small cluster of high-mass stars. Your knowledge of astronomy is much too poor to be drawing meaningful conclusions.
Unsurprisingly, all of your difficulties with black holes are based on misunderstanding or misinterpretation of what you've been told. Apparent superluminal motion is just that: apparent, not actual. It's an optical illusion, and the cause is well understood. The artists' depictions are of far closer views to black holes than we can get telescopically. And far less than 99% of stars are larger than 3 solar masses. (cont)
@pseudorandomly I don't have any difficulties with black holes. I know where I stand. They don't exist. If you could provide some photographs that would be great. Afterall, the artist depictions are supposed to be based on what the scientists are saying to look for....so what are we looking for? Swirling disks of mass that are being pulled into a hole? Right? Isn't that the truth? Then where is the photographs? I Rest my case.
You don't seem to understand the actual size of a black hole; they're too small to image directly at distance. There is a chance that we might be able to directly photograph the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way with the Hubble Space Telescope, but it would be a quite difficult observation. Your assertion that black holes do not exist is not based on any valid arguments; all you have is misunderstanding based on lack of knowledge.
Black Holes in space and what is the Big Bang theory contradict each other. The Big Bang Theory claims that massive matter explodes. Black Holes in space theorists claim that massive matter annihilates itself. Which is true and which is false?
@apocolypse11 at the time of the big bang the laws of physics were far different than they are now, more over the singularity that theoretically caused the big bang was of infinite density AND mass (as far as we know), a black hole is theoretically of infinate density but it would have a readily measurable MASS, there are similarities between a black hole and the singularity proposed in the big bang theory but they are not by any means IDENTICAL and therefore could easily operate differently -
@apocolypse11 I don't know. I believe that people will contradict themselves when they are wrong, usually. I mean contradictions are supposed to be incorrect as well as paradoxes. A true paradox, by definition cannot exist. Black holes are such a paradox, by almost every definition. Now if you describe them as dark stars, abandon the fancy warping of space crap, you get something more realistic. RIght?
@apocolypse11 big bang theory doesn't claim that massive matter explodes, it is just suggesting that there were a creation of all matter and energy at a finite time in the past through unknown mechanism through one point
@flymousechiu nope einstein claims matter cannot be destroyed or created but yet you tell me that in one time it did. So which one is it? Stop jumping around and stick to your own logic.
@apocolypse11 I dunno but anonymous cowards love to talk shit to me like I don't know what I'm talking about. The truth is, they don't know what they are talking about and they are scared that what I'm showing to be true is shaking the foundation of their reality. Imagine all the bullshit they have to abandon when they realize black holes don't exist!
@killerbacteria1 there's a difference between "discovering" and "discovered" when they have "Discovered" the black hole let me know, cause that's when they will have photographic evidence. So far they have nothing there.
By the way, I've been a professional motion capture tracker so I wish people wouldn't fuck with me when they make claims about something being there when there isn't.
@joedav02 That's interesting. However, when the matter falls into the event horizon where does it go and what does it do for the black hole? Would it not power the black hole when its inside the event horizon or only when its outside in the disk?
@SkunkHunt no. the gravitational red shift will decrease any light wave into zero energy. at this field, the energy can almost act like normal matter.
What an incredibly weak argument. I got one for you: I don't like creationist lunatics. Does that mean that they don't exist, or that they shouldn't exist?
Ever heard of the is/ought problem? Ever heard of special relativity? Ever heard of actually reading articles and staying up to date with the literature?
@SkunkHunt Thank you for pointing out that you are nothing but another of the billion youtube trolls. Just how exactly is someone going to provide photographic evidence of something that CANNOT BE SEEN? You seem to be part of the army of ignorants who pick an infinitesimally insignificant portion of reality that does not arouse your emotion and argue against their existence based on your lack of acceptance of the current explanations. Black holes were predicted to exist by equations, the...
@SkunkHunt ...some missing elements of the periodic table. But for some reason you cannot accept black holes emotionally, so you deny their existence. What, so you want photographic evidence of quarks too? How about coming up with a better model and contributing to science rather than whine something so insignificant? And by the way, you still never answered my original question. That is what people like you do, avoid the questions that really matter.
@Emaniac69 Look you can call me names all you want but the fact is in the battlefield you would fall very fast. If you want to go to blows, we can arrange something.
@SkunkHunt Where is your research? You claim all this stuff but I am more interested in your contributions. Can you post your CV so I can see your publications?
@SkunkHunt We can just drop it right here. You are nothing but a straw-man troll, like a million others on Youtube. You obviously haven't published anything that is why you cannot produce any literature. I don't care about a reference that you found somewhere on google scholar or a NASA website; I want you see what you have published. I want to see you life-changing, epic scientific discoveries. Oh? You don't have any? Exactly.
By the way if you wanted to see my CV you could find it on the Internet quite easily, just look in the bio of my YouTube page and you will find links. It's not hard to do...all it takes is a little... research....hahaha
@Emaniac69 If I'm a straw-man troll, how come I have a face and a name and you like to troll my comments? If I'm fake why would you entertain me? You don't realize it, but you're supporting my efforts by interacting with me at all.
If you want to be a real man we can meet up next time you're in Northern California and we can discuss this in detail face to face like men. Until then, provide some evidence for your claims about black holes, not just further attacks on me. You have no case.
@SkunkHunt Like I said earlier, let's drop this. Wasting my time and yours. I can tell that you haven't published anything, otherwise you would be posting it. All you have done is evade all my questions. You may not be a religious lunatic, but you sure debate just like them. This is nothing more than a plea for attention. If you think you have discovered something important, you would do the world a favor and publish in a peer review journal. There is no peer review on Youtube
By the way, everything I say and do on my video is a result of thousands of hours of research. So I don't see how you can be correct about implying that I don't read articles or stay up to date? That would clearly indicate that you have made no observations about the merit or integrity of my research.
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence which you have not provided in this video. There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of black holes simply by observing their effects on everything around them. As for your claim of a radio galaxy emitting a jet of particles moving faster than light, that has been thoroughly debunked even by those who initially reported the discovery. If the gas jet is pointed at the Earth, it can seem as though the particles are moving faster than light.
Two things:
(1) Scientifically, artist's depictions are irrelevant. Comparisons to them are equally irrelevant.
(2) "I still have my doubts, though," is not a scientific counter-argument. It's a dismissal.
ThreeFangCat 1 day ago
Retard
doodoohead39 6 days ago
Wow... Really?
SwimFellow 1 week ago
When the fusion process stops, a star will collapse- it actually loses mass. It then shrinks, and its density is inversely proportional to its size. The amount of gravity it has remains the same, minus the mass loss of the nova effect. It does not go black. Scientists cannot explain the huge force at the center of our own galaxy, nor can they explain that the mass of the galaxy is not enough to hold it together gravitationally.
MaestroJah 2 weeks ago
@MaestroJah its an assumption the sun has a fusion core though most of the evidence indicates it hasnt,reverse thermal gradient,existance of carona,sunspots being dark,lack of neutrinos etc,also electromagnetism easily holds the galaxy together,accounts for its spin rate without gravity which is 10~39 times weaker than electromagnesism, it is that that is overlooked when posturing there is dark stuff we cant detect, with EM none of it is needed space is 99% plasma & obeys known laws
rubberdown1969 6 days ago
@rubberdown1969 99%- that's the thing. There's a lot left unexplained, but there it is still. Supernovae, "neutron" stars,... The fact that no one has ever witnessed a star being born! It is the religion of science. And science has become less about finding truth and more about explaining away the existence of God. But like you say, sometimes there ARE explanations, but stubborn, proud science won't accept that maybe their first theory was wrong- and besides, the books are already printed.
MaestroJah 5 days ago
@MaestroJah Supernovas are exploding double layers in an EM circuit not a star exploding, neutron stars(pulsars) cant exist for the same reasons BH cant & that is the atoms EM is far stronger than any gravity can compress regardless of size, pulsars are a strobe effect, we do witness stars being born in quasars in which some are nearby protogalaxies ejected from a parent galaxy,science of late is nothing to be proud of when agendas & funding are more important than emperical science
rubberdown1969 4 days ago
@rubberdown1969 While I agree with you on the bias of the scientific paradigm, I must say, I've seen those videos too... No one has ever witnessed a star being born- quasars are too far away to discern any definite structure, as the name implies- quasar being short for quasi-stellar object. But I am curious- what is your vocation? Physics is a hobby for me, as I cannot dedicate enough time to this pursuit to acheive any real meaningful contributions. I am a millwright/operator myself.
MaestroJah 4 days ago
@MaestroJah Actually Quasars are not the extremely bright most distant objects as claimed, they have been observed & photographed linked by plasma bridges to some nearby galaxies & even in front of opaque lower redshifted nearby galaxies so redshift is not soley due to recessional velocity as assumed & quasars are not super bright & extremely distant. Most of what we observe can be explained easily in electrical terms & is in fact expected.
rubberdown1969 3 days ago
Dude, it's a theory...
MixR4t 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MixR4t to get the infinite mass required for a BH to exist gravity has to magically overcome the EM force - FAIL, the math used to create a BH uses a tensor & that tensor is 0, times by 0,you get 0 an infinite point in nature does not exist a point is an abstract notion not something that is real, the math is a cheat the notion is absurd & plasma physics explains 99% of what we see & detects & is replicated in labs, we live in a EM universe everything conected on quantum level too
rubberdown1969 6 days ago
Certainly using 'artist's impressions' are not going to serve the science justice.
A singularity isn't something that can be seen or perceived, really. A black hole billions of time the mass of the sun may only appear as a tiny dimple, bending the light around it, etc.
Ultimately, the forces surrounding a singularity (and no doubt what goes on inside one) are a mystery, the physical forces are so intense our understanding of such things goes with it as well.
technologic21 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
rubberdown1969 6 days ago
I just discovered that video because I reached the same conclusion, black holes don't exist, on the other hand the double slit experiment is not a theory, it's a fact and it's observed, and we can learn so so so much more about reality and the universe than with so called black holes.
Now I understand why mass media like to talk about blackholes, and I understand why they never talk about the double slit experiment and it's philosophical consequences.
So obvious to me now.
rx327prime 2 weeks ago
If by some miracle they find a real black hole which by the way is never going to happen those scientists will first want to stick there cocks in it i'm sure :)
Bearballsruffian2 2 weeks ago
anyone that believes in black holes is a fucking moronic idiot savant! fucking retards!
TheLovesoul1 3 weeks ago
@TheLovesoul1 well said sir they are nothing more than pockets of dark energy glad to see everyone does not think like a primitive chimp :)
Bearballsruffian2 2 weeks ago
:) Nice topic and video presentation.
solarcradle 3 weeks ago
Black holes are based on a theory that derived from a problem with some mathematic equations, and based on physics of an area we don't really understand yet. Adding in the fact that they are invisible does provide a difficult scenario to believe.
youboob6022 1 month ago
Well, for some reasons some people people are inspired with conspiracy theories rather than with a good science. Poor guys...
YehielGotkis 1 month ago
u have aa unice way of thinking but its almost like ur brain has run out of any comman secne witch is stopping you from making any sence
movieatrssmaker 1 month ago
Good presentation. You might want to check out the book "Seeing Red" by Halton Arp. My objection to black holes is the concept of a singularity. They only exist in math, not reality. Besides, what is the point of the argument. There is no way prove their existence.
larrygochanour 1 month ago
You are right in your conclusion. I don't know about the info that got you there.
Vern3666 1 month ago
You have to be kidding right, you do know we have proof. I have pictures of them shooting out jets from the center of galaxies. You showed the picture, holy shit if people think this way, we are fucked. LOL You are young, you will see them in the future if people would fund science.
krapptacular 1 month ago
Take just one astronomy class!
mikejadis 1 month ago
Ill go further and say that all NASA pics are fake, so nothing there is really "real." I was a really bored 9 year old so I find a website saying a guy can prove NASA pics are edited and manipulated. I did exactly what he said, zoomed in on the pics he said, and yes....it was like someone went into paint and blacked a bunch of stuff out. "Stars" looked a lot like glitter on black paper taken with a flash. I'm sure they use Photoshop now.
hathorrox 1 month ago
He´s describing Singularity Points in Space and Time......that´s all.
mzedong001 1 month ago
maybe someone has said this already, but just what struck my funny bone is that he says 99% of the stars in our galaxy are larger then 3 solar masses, however the criteria is the "core" of the star, the central region, has to be larger then 3 solar masses, which leaves only about 1% of the stars. Anyone else think trying to prove something with a false set of data to start with makes it still right in the end?
hemellicht 1 month ago
really? the artist dipictions are complete crap. and almost all scientist agree and get the new updates buddy!!!
emeinem223 2 months ago
231 people like astrology.
EltonJThe 2 months ago
@EltonJThe LOL you mean astronomy?
yko487 1 month ago
You are right the you can't directly obsereve a black hole. but thats because its BLACK you dumbass, and space is black. so its like looking for a tiny open flame as big as a tip of a pin in a pit of lava as big as the night sky, its just not possible. So you need an explosure like LIGHT that exploses black holes since they absorb everything. and they have imence gravity to pull stars arround them whick is another way they discovered them.
084169 2 months ago
They are scientifically proven based off of assumptions that are based off of assumptions that are based off estimations....so yeah not proven.
TheShillman 2 months ago
LOL they are scientifically proven
DingDongSuckers 2 months ago
Hawking radiation proves them real.
ryanduds 2 months ago
0/10
Kainlarsen 2 months ago
there is footage of stars orbiting an enormously massive (4 million solar masses) object that does not emit light at the centre of our galaxy. there are also all kinds of compelling theoretical arguments that deal with the compaction of matter under gravity. quasars, nuetron stars, active galactic nuclei, the big bang... its not like there is a shortage of theoretical and observational evidence of large scale matter collapse under gravity.
12inchvertical 2 months ago
this is wrong. sorry. Get your facts straight.
JBeezie428 2 months ago
I think it is great(!) that you are being skeptical and expressing doubt instead of simply 'believing' in black holes; however, you have also demonstrated a serious lack of understanding and a need for further education. Please allow yourself the opportunity to benefit from university level science classes and learn proper physics and cosmology before attempting to forward the sort of (frankly silly) claims you present in your video. You simply do not yet possess the requisite knowledge.
jssherrard 2 months ago
So how do you explain the existence of black holes?
KilgoreTrout92 2 months ago
@KilgoreTrout92 How do you prove they exist if you cannot see them.
TheShillman 2 months ago
@TheShillman Do some time-traveling?
hathorrox 1 month ago
You're duuumb.
Gasterad12 2 months ago
Wow, and I thought that Creationism and Evolution was the dumbest argument ever because nobody would ever agree on anything. This video proved me wrong being the dumbest video ever. Black holes do exist and there not actually black, hiding in plain sight! They emit radiation from every bit of matter that goes into it. If the matter is extremely big, they classify that as Quasars. Now the radiation (whether quasar or not) make colors of gas and dust fly or spin around the center.
XxDeapAbyss 3 months ago
Do you think that your right and basically the whole scientific community is wrong
LokiCocola 3 months ago 8
@LokiCocola I do, again everything is based off assumptions.
TheShillman 2 months ago
@LokiCocola the whole science community is full of RETARDS faggots that lie to idiots like yourself that appeale to authority and do not do there own research that doesn't back you psyentist delusions your a fool who belives othedr fools who aren't real scienctist they only invent stupid retarded idiotic theorys with no basis in reality sence the nature world is to complex and hard you these retarded fug packing faggots to understand. So go on you stupid sheep go fuck ur master fool.
TheLovesoul1 3 weeks ago
@LokiCocola it's eh not the whole scientific community who believe in black holes some of them actually do not take lsd and have real brain like eh einstein for instance
Bearballsruffian2 2 weeks ago
Hubble just directly observed an accretion disk around a black hole. D'OH!
cosmicharlie1970 3 months ago
Observable =/= discover able. When you see a murder victim you 'discover' that there was a murderer as well don't you? Even if the murderer isn't 'visible'. Time and space are on their own criteria, light can't escape a black hole but time and space work differently there. They get warped, they can't not escape because they are everywhere. Lastly, just because a star is bigger than the sun doesn't mean that the remaining core will be that big too.
Sanquinity 4 months ago
look dude black holes do exist ok read and learn about it AND YOU WILL UNDERSTAND OK BECUZ IF YOU LISTEN FOR ONCE THE MAN IZ EXPLAINING HOW BLACK HOLES ARE FORMED OK SHUT UP AND LISTEN AND QUICK YAPPING YO MOUTH SO MUCH YOU WOULDNT SAY THAT BLACK HOLES DONT EXIST SO GET IT STRAIGHT DUDE LEARN IT LIVE IT LOVE IT
gatorfan96a 4 months ago
Sorry, bub, but you're showing your ass on this one; get your facts straight: it is R136a1, not L. It is proposed to become a black hole if it burns off all of its fuel, but the theory amongst astronomers is that it's burn is unstable, and may go through a partial collapse before it depletes its fuel. This will prevent it from becoming a black hole.
This presentation is very sloppy, and poor scientific interpretation. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
blahmcblahblah 4 months ago
you do know that black holes have been observed right? there is even video and pictures, and as time passes the observations will become more clear and defined. though it is not a direct view of the actual black hole it's a view of the event horizon on an angle, though rough now, it's definitive proof. thankyou for your time.
Sativameister 4 months ago
Also, black holes in this luminous stage of life, are called Quasars!
danielbluesmoke 4 months ago
Dude, you just proved that dictionary definitions of black holes, and artists renderings are wrong! Not that black holes don't exist! There are very good reasons a black hole would emit light, and long jets of matter! Nothing can escape a black hole pass the event horizon, and therefore a black hole is black and cannot be seen. But matter near the event horizon is accelerated to the speed of light, and therefore emits energy! That matter is outside the black hole!
danielbluesmoke 4 months ago 12
@cmoneygiles it's only a common accepted theory.
flymousechiu 4 months ago
@cmoneygiles now, u got a better point than SkunkHunt. here's the point, right, no one have actually proved or disproved black holes, so everything about it is purely on the theory level. so do a lot of other things in physics. no one have actually proved big bang, vacuum energy, or even neutrinos, according to SkunkHunt's point of view. none of them could be photograph because there's no way to observe it, either because it's in the past or it does not interact electromagnetically.
flymousechiu 4 months ago
ESO proved that stars are affected by black holes. Look for yourself. Go to "Science at ESO" and top 10 discovereries its number 1. ESO's website and Did you go to Harvard and study the stars at the one of the most advanced observatory in the world? Well they did.
whale9418 4 months ago 2
please point out any error in my argument if you are trying to disprove my argument.
flymousechiu 4 months ago
i'm bored explaining basic concepts to u. please actually read my posts first before commenting. and please make improvements on the parts of the movie which contains false or inaccurate information. or arguing with u is really pointless because non of us benefit from any information we processed and it's a waste of time.
flymousechiu 4 months ago
and repeat. black hole had only proved on a theory platform and didn't been proved for real. that's why it's black hole theory. so do big bang theory and a lot of others. but it's commonly accepted because the nature predicts about it fits in the observations exactly
flymousechiu 4 months ago
and if u want to exchange opinions with me privately, just look up my name on facebook. we could discuss more.
flymousechiu 4 months ago
Einstein also didn't believe in black holes...he was wrong, i thought Edwin Hubble was the first to observe black holes.
DeathMetalMorty 4 months ago
@DeathMetalMorty edwin hubble is the first one to observe the expansion of the universe.
flymousechiu 4 months ago
@flymousechiu yeah i realized that right after i put the comment.
DeathMetalMorty 4 months ago
You cannot observe the expansion of the Universe because that is implying that you did and you know the size and shape of the Universe. That means you are turning a concept into an object, which you cannot. The Universe does not have a definitive edge / shape therefore it is a concept. Concepts do not expand. Maybe in your mind.
SkunkHunt 4 months ago
@DeathMetalMorty In my video I go over the history of the invention of black hole myth
SkunkHunt 4 months ago
inside the black hole, the matters' entropy reaches maximum, and it is reduced to its least energy state. all energy released before the particle enters the blackhole will be in forms of different field disturbance, such as electromagnetic waves, gravity waves(if such things exist), etc. that's where the high energy rays escaping the SURROUNDING AREA OF BLACK HOLE came from. also, the high energy jets came from the poles because there is almost noparticlesblockingitsway,otherwiseitwillbeabsorbed
flymousechiu 4 months ago
YOu cannot see a black hole so you cannot photograph it? So how do you know what's inside of it? This is not science, this is fantasy. Take your fantasy to Disney and leave me alone!
SkunkHunt 4 months ago
so within these circumstances, almost all known physics breaks down. the ones didn't predicts that the properties of the "black hole", as it is known as. it is predicted that within its event horizon, any escaping light will have its wavelength increased to infinity, that is, zero energy, by gravitational red shift. that's why no light can ever come out of it. also, any particle escaping it will expect having speed greater than light, which is not allowed.
flymousechiu 4 months ago
@flymousechiu You seem to be the master of the Universe with all of your knowledge about make believe stuff...You are a necktalker
SkunkHunt 4 months ago
P.S.: in case u don't know, pauli exclusion principle is a force based upon quantum theory, in which 2 fermions can't have the same position and velocity. it is one of the most important principle in physics.
however, pauli exclusion principle breaks down when there is so much matter concentrated within it's schwarzschild radius(r= 2Gm/cc), in which the matter must have difference in velocity greater than the speed of the light in order to stay apart. but according to general relativity, itcant
flymousechiu 4 months ago
I know what the Pauli Exclusion Principle is and I don't need or want you to explain it to me. You're not my teacher and you certainly are not my master. You have no argument if you cannot provide photographs and movies of black holes. THat is a scientific fact. They don't exist and you have no argument.
If you continue to insult my intelligence I can only suggest that we meet up in person so I can show you the error of your ways.
SkunkHunt 4 months ago
your voice is as monotone as it gets...
SuperPs3reviewer 4 months ago
@SuperPs3reviewer That was on purpose
SkunkHunt 4 months ago
Go read a physics book. You don't seem to know squat about any higher level physics, besides "what goes up MUST come down"...
Philldapill85 4 months ago
I know you are but what am I?
SkunkHunt 4 months ago
@SkunkHunt and, just to make sure, do u believe in neutrons and neutrinoes? have u ever seen one DIRECTLY?, have you ever photographed one or video-ed one WITH ONE IN IT?
if u don't believe in either of them, then i will stop argue with u. it's pointless to argue with an idiot who know absolutely nothing about physics.
flymousechiu 4 months ago
@flymousechiu We have photographs of that sorta thing. Arguably you can name the particles anything you want. What is your point? It seems to me that you have no argument and you're just being a bully. If you want to bully me we should meet up in person because I promise I will make it interesting for you.
SkunkHunt 4 months ago
no good man :(
justaname111111 4 months ago
Black Holes DO exist, I was astonished when I saw the title of this video. It´s hard to believe for some of you but the universe just build that way it is.
smackmabitchup 4 months ago
@smackmabitchup If they existed then you'd be able to provide some evidence but you did not, so you haven't therefore you are wrong. You have to back your claim up with photographs and movies, that is science. Take that nonsense somewhere else
SkunkHunt 4 months ago
@smackmabitchup Whatever you say. While you're saying those things that aren't true I'll be over here with people that actually look at the evidence and consider the source. If you can't think for yourself then we don't want to know what you have to say. Black holes don't exist because they are made up. The theory of black holes is just that a theory and its not even a scientific one at that. You have no argument but thanks for supporting my video with your comments.
SkunkHunt 4 months ago
@SkunkHunt that´s sad .... what´s with extraterrestrial life? Do you think there´re aliens in the universe?
smackmabitchup 4 months ago
@smackmabitchup For the purposes of remaining in context I will focus my comments on the subject matter of this video.
SkunkHunt 4 months ago
I watched the hubble space telescope imax movie. It showed black holes.
angie4779 4 months ago
@angie4779 Hate to break it to you...but those were computer animations...they weren't photographs and movies of anything real. See that's what I've been complaining about...they mix in the pictures of artist renditions and artist animations...which don't prove anything except that you likely overpayed an intern to make less than box-office quality graphics. It doesn't prove black holes exist. I can show you an animation I made of a dragon...guess that makes them exist!
SkunkHunt 4 months ago
technically you can even see a black hole because not even light can escape
shawnowen720 4 months ago
@shawnowen720 You might want to look into that.
SkunkHunt 4 months ago
@SkunkHunt i mean particals of the black hole can escape though like some of the matter of the black hole
shawnowen720 4 months ago
@shawnowen720 That was more cohesive of a point than anything anybody has said for a while. However, I'd like you to elaborate your theory more, unfortunately, it doesn't help us prove black holes at this point. We need more 'evidence'
SkunkHunt 4 months ago
@shawnowen720 So true, that. I guess that he hasn't figured out that the deformation of light particles and measurable objects around it give it away. He has yet to understand that relations between objects withn the gravity wells of unseen objects are measurable indicators of dark, high mass objects, such as black holes. Objects do not orbit nothing because gravity works, even in celestial matters such as planetary orbits and mass attraction.
raptorcat61 4 months ago
For the record, opinion is not evidence. Evidence is evidence. Only creationists and conspiracy theorists believe that opinion has more value than decades of research and study by qualified scientists.
raptorcat61 4 months ago
@raptorcat61 Interesting point.
SkunkHunt 4 months ago
COmparing artist renditions (fantasy images) to what is out there is like comparing Gone with the Wind to the Civil war. They are not interchangable nor are artist conceptions proof of anything. They are a guess by someone who is an artist, not a scientist. One requires artistic talent and the other requires years of study and knowledge of the mechanics of space and particle physics.
raptorcat61 4 months ago
@raptorcat61 Well man when you turn on the TV and you see supposed "science shows" showing you movies and pictures of computer animated nonsense, what are you supposed to construe from that?
I'm just pointing that out, that you're being lied to right to your face and its done like a magician does at a magic show. Slight of hand. just throw in a clever animation (of something never before seen) and people believe it exists.
That's how incredibly dumb our children and generations have gotten.
SkunkHunt 4 months ago
@SkunkHunt Don't be foolish enough to continue to confuse artist renderings, particularly when they say outright, that they believe that "x" is what they think it would look like, with what astronomers can see and physicists can measure.
I trust science because no scientist would risk the scorn of the scientific community on something that could be dis-proven by someone who is not even a scientist. scientists have reputations to protect. Manipulative deception should be left to creationists.
raptorcat61 4 months ago
@SkunkHunt And did you bother to look at the other links on that subject on the NASA website? Have you looked at the sites for every university with an astrophysics program? I doubt it. Like evolution, the evidence is both measurable and overwhelming to the disbeliever, unless that disbeliever is a scientific illiterate that does not understand the scientific process.
But go ahead and prove your point by submitting a paper on it for peer review by the scientific community. Then we will see.
raptorcat61 4 months ago
The physics of a black hole make it impossible to photograph in the generally accepted meaning of the word, but black holes do emit particles and radiation in a measurable amount. You're a fucktard, Mr. SkunkHunt.
lambofgod368 4 months ago
@lambofgod368 It doesn't matter what your physics say, in science if you cannot photograph something you have no evidence and you have no proof.
You can call me whatever you like, doesn't change the fact that A) you are wrong and B) you are a coward.
SkunkHunt 4 months ago
8,9:@12:20, 12:31 same reason above. ----------debunk by a high school hyper-mega-ultrra-super astronomy fan, flymousechiu
flymousechiu 4 months ago
@flymousechiu I'm not a fanatical about asttronomy or science. I am distraught and angry at the liars that plague them. That would be anybody who repeats hat others have said without first thinking for themselves. This is what I'm assuming about you, because, of course, you can't even imagine what reality is like for me knowing that black holes in fact do not exist! Good day!
SkunkHunt 4 months ago
@SkunkHunt 'kay. i have been researching about blackholes since i was 6 (when i first read stephen hawking) and i have continued the topic for 8 years. if u think u know more about it than i do, show your knowledge about physics by proving black hole is not possible with formulae rather than try to point out the flaws (which were actually not flaws, just things that u don't understand) in the black hole theory
flymousechiu 4 months ago
@flymousechiu That's great, but it doesn't pardon or excuse your prolific spamming of the comments of the video.
Here's the fact jack: You don't have any photographs or movies that can back up your claim of black holes existing. If you did you would have provided a link by now to something. But you have not, therefore you have no arguments whatsoever. If you cannot provide the evidence I require your arguments do not qualify for me to review.
You see, I am interested only in science, not lies
SkunkHunt 4 months ago
@SkunkHunt and ONE LAST TIME, BLACK HOLE, BY DEFINITION, CAN'T BE EITHER PHOTOGRAPHED OR VIDEO-ED. SO STOP ASKING ME TO SHOW U PHOTOGRAPH OR VIDEOS.
flymousechiu 4 months ago
@flymousechiu You admit that you cannot provide photographic or movie evidence of black holes, therefore you cannot prove they exist. Good day!
SkunkHunt 4 months ago
@SkunkHunt the point is, you have absolutely no evidence about the black hole is not true, what u are holding is an empty theory surronding the theory: there is no photographs and video with a black hole in it. by definition, a black hole CANNOT be photographed. so stop bragging about us to show u photographs and videos.
for my identity, my name is 邱子弦, which i'm afraid u r not able to read because it's in chinese, that's why i didn't bother post it out.
flymousechiu 4 months ago
The burden of proof is on you and others who claim they exist. I don't have to prove what disproves itself. Black holes by their definition disprove themselves. That is a fact. If you they didn't you would be able to find photographs and movies of them, but you have none. The fact is you have no evidence to support your claims so you are at a loss and you need to move on and only come back if you have evidence. Thanks for wasting my time
SkunkHunt 4 months ago
@SkunkHunt before claiming that i'm a liar, can u read my posts first? i already tell u that if black hole exist, it can't be photographed. what i say are all very basic facts in physics in which u should know if u ever researched in black hole
flymousechiu 4 months ago
@SkunkHunt . i already explained the mechanism of a black hole if it exist. it's u who are trying to prove thatacommontheory(black hole exist)is false,by standard scientific debateprocedure, it's u who need to bring forth the evidence which disproves black hole.if u have any, let me hear about it. and please stop personal attack because that doesn't do any good in studying about physics.
flymousechiu 4 months ago
@flymousechiu actually dude, you can't ask someone to prove something doesn't exist that doesnt work. science doesn't work by people just saying hmmm it's possible that there is an invisible dwarf who chews on bubble gum on the other side of jupiter, now come up with evidence to disprove that. you have to have evidence to PROVE something, not disprove it. otherwise the most ridiculous things, that couldnt possibly be disproved could be viable in science.
cmoneygiles 4 months ago
7. @11:56 you said that the jets are moving faster than light. simply not possible. let's talk at a more common perspective because you won't understand those formulae. when a object is moving faster than light, it must have MORE than infinite energy, which is impossible by it self, and will emit energy at an infinite rate. that means, if that object is moving faster than light, by the time its light reach earth, you will be barbecued long before you made this ridiculous video.
flymousechiu 4 months ago
6. @11:14 false data. R136a1 isn't and never is a black hole, just a giant star. theories state that it won't be forming a black hole because the type of supernova it will face, the pair-instability supernova, is way to violent to left a black hole back behind.
flymousechiu 4 months ago
4. @8:42, you stated that there are "... jets escaping black hole". those matter that formed the jets simply hadn't entered black hole's event horizon yet, and they got enough energy to escape the black hole's outer gravitational field.
5. @9.09, you said something about "black holes emits light" clarification: it's not the black hole that emits light, it's the accelerating matter that had not yet entered the black hole's event horizon yet.
flymousechiu 4 months ago
3. @7:11 you said that:" Around 99% of the stars should become black holes!" 2mistakes: 1. where did u get the data that 99% of the star is bigger than 3 Msun? simply not true. 2. although some stars have mass more than 3 Msun, the average density at any given space is not enough to cause a gravitational collapse. imagine a nebula with 10^5 solar mass and you know. there is just no gravity field concentrated enough in any area to form a black hole.
flymousechiu 4 months ago
2. @6:32 you said that :"I assume by the term 'everything' also including space and time itself." False assumption. space and time are not matter, they are just properties of matter.
flymousechiu 4 months ago
@flymousechiu If all matter in the universe has the property of time and space then your argument is therefore moot, because 'everything' does include time and space. Duh!
SkunkHunt 4 months ago
@SkunkHunt what i meant is, black hole can only trap matter and specific kind of energy. but space and time is none of them
flymousechiu 4 months ago
okay, i had watched ur video about blackhole. i'm never an active supporter of blackhole theory, and i don't believe the so-called "hawking radiation", but ur video is too ridiculous. i'm here pointing out some very epic mistakes u have in ur video.
1. @5:35 you stated that black holes can't be observed.
black holes CAN be observed, although indirectly, though the gravitational force it exert through the other objects (as in Cygnus X-1).
flymousechiu 4 months ago
@flymousechiu if you see a shadow shaped like a person does that mean that you are observing the person?
SkunkHunt 4 months ago
@SkunkHunt false analogy. if u can prove the shadow cannot be any other object but the person, you can say that you are observing the person, but not for "A shadow shaped like a person." a black hole has so much mass in an area and so completely "black" it can have no other explanation. as for ur point of view, u can only observe the "shadow" of the subatomic particle, does that mean u can't prove that it exist?
flymousechiu 4 months ago
@flymousechiu My analogy was not false. If you continue to say things like that to me that have no merit, I will not answer any more of your comments and I will ban you from ever leaving another one.
By the way, I don't cotton to people who have no face and no name on the Internet. It's very cowardly and ungentlemanly.
SkunkHunt 4 months ago
Singularity exist only in chalk boards in universities and in school books, God also exist only in the bible and church.
apocolypse11 5 months ago
@apocolypse11 thank you for your comments.
SkunkHunt 4 months ago
i applaud you for thinking out of the box and questioning existing theory (that IS what science is) but you should do more research into the actual physics of the subject and history of the evolution of the theory as more evidence instead of using what you "believe" before going forward with statements like this, science is not a method of belief its a method of observation then testing.
Form a theory through observation then test to try and prove it WRONG , THIS is by definition how its done
RedneckRager 5 months ago
more over you CAN observe an object by indirect effects , think of sitting in a dark room in the winter, if its WARM you could assume that there is a source of heat in the room even though you are unable to OBSERVE it directly, the same can be said for black holes.
As matter falls into one it becomes INCREDIBLY hot (though neutron stars display a similar effect), more over you can make a calculation of mass by finding an object orbiting it and plotting velocity vs. orbital severity and distance
RedneckRager 5 months ago
so by measuring the indirect EFFECTS of severely warped space by gravity we can observe the effects of a black hole through its stellar interactions.
in order to orbit at a given speed at a given distance and orbital severity you can calculate the mass of the object at the center of that orbit, if that object is both VERY VERY MASSIVE as well as comlpetely dark (if no matter is falling into it) then you could easily say that is an indirect observation
RedneckRager 5 months ago
now having said that, i will offer one caveat , black holes (like relativity and the big bang) are THEORY, though they are theory supported by an immense amount of observational data and mathematics but are still THEORY.
Keep looking Up
and Keep thinking for yourself , dont become disheartened by my or anyone else comments and continue to study and educate yourself
RedneckRager 5 months ago
@RedneckRager telling me to do more research is ridiculous. Who the fuck do you think you're talking to? I don't have to prove anything about black holes, I am showing they don't exist. That's the facts jack.
Until you can show me a photograph or movie of a black hole doing its thing you have NOTHING TO SAY TO ME so shut up and move on! Good day!
SkunkHunt 4 months ago
black holes do exist because there made of tiny microcells of stardust.
game0wl 5 months ago 2
@game0wl that made more sense than 99.99% of black hole believers... :D
SkunkHunt 4 months ago
You're an idiot. Get a real education.
Hayley457 5 months ago
@Hayley457 Why don't you inform the class what it is you're talking about?
SkunkHunt 5 months ago
@Hayley457 That's what the Internet and YouTube is for right? What a hypocrite you are!
SkunkHunt 4 months ago
(cont) Light doesn't escape from black holes; the radiation we detect (and the jets we observe) come from the region immediately surrounding the black hole, not the black hole itself. Your confusion over R136a stems from the fact that it was originally thought to be a single much more massive object, but is now known to be a small cluster of high-mass stars. Your knowledge of astronomy is much too poor to be drawing meaningful conclusions.
pseudorandomly 5 months ago
Unsurprisingly, all of your difficulties with black holes are based on misunderstanding or misinterpretation of what you've been told. Apparent superluminal motion is just that: apparent, not actual. It's an optical illusion, and the cause is well understood. The artists' depictions are of far closer views to black holes than we can get telescopically. And far less than 99% of stars are larger than 3 solar masses. (cont)
pseudorandomly 5 months ago
@pseudorandomly I don't have any difficulties with black holes. I know where I stand. They don't exist. If you could provide some photographs that would be great. Afterall, the artist depictions are supposed to be based on what the scientists are saying to look for....so what are we looking for? Swirling disks of mass that are being pulled into a hole? Right? Isn't that the truth? Then where is the photographs? I Rest my case.
SkunkHunt 5 months ago
@SkunkHunt
You don't seem to understand the actual size of a black hole; they're too small to image directly at distance. There is a chance that we might be able to directly photograph the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way with the Hubble Space Telescope, but it would be a quite difficult observation. Your assertion that black holes do not exist is not based on any valid arguments; all you have is misunderstanding based on lack of knowledge.
pseudorandomly 5 months ago
Black Holes in space and what is the Big Bang theory contradict each other. The Big Bang Theory claims that massive matter explodes. Black Holes in space theorists claim that massive matter annihilates itself. Which is true and which is false?
Which One?
apocolypse11 5 months ago
@apocolypse11 at the time of the big bang the laws of physics were far different than they are now, more over the singularity that theoretically caused the big bang was of infinite density AND mass (as far as we know), a black hole is theoretically of infinate density but it would have a readily measurable MASS, there are similarities between a black hole and the singularity proposed in the big bang theory but they are not by any means IDENTICAL and therefore could easily operate differently -
RedneckRager 5 months ago
@apocolypse11 I don't know. I believe that people will contradict themselves when they are wrong, usually. I mean contradictions are supposed to be incorrect as well as paradoxes. A true paradox, by definition cannot exist. Black holes are such a paradox, by almost every definition. Now if you describe them as dark stars, abandon the fancy warping of space crap, you get something more realistic. RIght?
SkunkHunt 5 months ago
@apocolypse11 big bang theory doesn't claim that massive matter explodes, it is just suggesting that there were a creation of all matter and energy at a finite time in the past through unknown mechanism through one point
flymousechiu 4 months ago
@flymousechiu nope einstein claims matter cannot be destroyed or created but yet you tell me that in one time it did. So which one is it? Stop jumping around and stick to your own logic.
apocolypse11 4 months ago
@apocolypse11 I dunno but anonymous cowards love to talk shit to me like I don't know what I'm talking about. The truth is, they don't know what they are talking about and they are scared that what I'm showing to be true is shaking the foundation of their reality. Imagine all the bullshit they have to abandon when they realize black holes don't exist!
SkunkHunt 4 months ago
Cygnus X-1, they are even discovering there is one at the center of our galaxy ~
killerbacteria1 5 months ago
@killerbacteria1 there's a difference between "discovering" and "discovered" when they have "Discovered" the black hole let me know, cause that's when they will have photographic evidence. So far they have nothing there.
By the way, I've been a professional motion capture tracker so I wish people wouldn't fuck with me when they make claims about something being there when there isn't.
SkunkHunt 5 months ago
Cygnus X-1
killerbacteria1 5 months ago
The quasar is powered by an accretion disc around the black hole, not the black hole itself.
joedav02 5 months ago
@joedav02 That's interesting. However, when the matter falls into the event horizon where does it go and what does it do for the black hole? Would it not power the black hole when its inside the event horizon or only when its outside in the disk?
SkunkHunt 5 months ago
@SkunkHunt no. the gravitational red shift will decrease any light wave into zero energy. at this field, the energy can almost act like normal matter.
flymousechiu 4 months ago
You're no einstein, are ya?
BillSteer99 5 months ago
Comment removed
SymbolicSoliloquy 5 months ago
What an incredibly weak argument. I got one for you: I don't like creationist lunatics. Does that mean that they don't exist, or that they shouldn't exist?
Ever heard of the is/ought problem? Ever heard of special relativity? Ever heard of actually reading articles and staying up to date with the literature?
Emaniac69 5 months ago
@Emaniac69 YOu haven't provided any photographic evidence to support the claim that black holes exist. So your comment is moot.
SkunkHunt 5 months ago
@SkunkHunt Thank you for pointing out that you are nothing but another of the billion youtube trolls. Just how exactly is someone going to provide photographic evidence of something that CANNOT BE SEEN? You seem to be part of the army of ignorants who pick an infinitesimally insignificant portion of reality that does not arouse your emotion and argue against their existence based on your lack of acceptance of the current explanations. Black holes were predicted to exist by equations, the...
Emaniac69 4 months ago
@SkunkHunt ...some missing elements of the periodic table. But for some reason you cannot accept black holes emotionally, so you deny their existence. What, so you want photographic evidence of quarks too? How about coming up with a better model and contributing to science rather than whine something so insignificant? And by the way, you still never answered my original question. That is what people like you do, avoid the questions that really matter.
You're a straw-man troll
Emaniac69 4 months ago
@Emaniac69 Look you can call me names all you want but the fact is in the battlefield you would fall very fast. If you want to go to blows, we can arrange something.
SkunkHunt 4 months ago
@SkunkHunt Where is your research? You claim all this stuff but I am more interested in your contributions. Can you post your CV so I can see your publications?
Emaniac69 4 months ago
@Emaniac69 It's easy to figure out because you can watch the video and look up every claim I make...and find the resources for it yourself.
Your point is moot. Unless you want me to cite a reference to something, I can do that, but please be specific. Otherwise, you're wasting my time.
SkunkHunt 4 months ago
@SkunkHunt We can just drop it right here. You are nothing but a straw-man troll, like a million others on Youtube. You obviously haven't published anything that is why you cannot produce any literature. I don't care about a reference that you found somewhere on google scholar or a NASA website; I want you see what you have published. I want to see you life-changing, epic scientific discoveries. Oh? You don't have any? Exactly.
And you still keep avoiding my original question.
Emaniac69 4 months ago
By the way if you wanted to see my CV you could find it on the Internet quite easily, just look in the bio of my YouTube page and you will find links. It's not hard to do...all it takes is a little... research....hahaha
SkunkHunt 4 months ago
@Emaniac69 If I'm a straw-man troll, how come I have a face and a name and you like to troll my comments? If I'm fake why would you entertain me? You don't realize it, but you're supporting my efforts by interacting with me at all.
If you want to be a real man we can meet up next time you're in Northern California and we can discuss this in detail face to face like men. Until then, provide some evidence for your claims about black holes, not just further attacks on me. You have no case.
SkunkHunt 4 months ago
@SkunkHunt Like I said earlier, let's drop this. Wasting my time and yours. I can tell that you haven't published anything, otherwise you would be posting it. All you have done is evade all my questions. You may not be a religious lunatic, but you sure debate just like them. This is nothing more than a plea for attention. If you think you have discovered something important, you would do the world a favor and publish in a peer review journal. There is no peer review on Youtube
Emaniac69 4 months ago
@Emaniac69 Who is a creation lunatic?
By the way, everything I say and do on my video is a result of thousands of hours of research. So I don't see how you can be correct about implying that I don't read articles or stay up to date? That would clearly indicate that you have made no observations about the merit or integrity of my research.
SkunkHunt 4 months ago
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence which you have not provided in this video. There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of black holes simply by observing their effects on everything around them. As for your claim of a radio galaxy emitting a jet of particles moving faster than light, that has been thoroughly debunked even by those who initially reported the discovery. If the gas jet is pointed at the Earth, it can seem as though the particles are moving faster than light.
dixievfd55 5 months ago