Black Hole: Without Excuse

Planet Formation Theory Collides with Backward-orbiting Planets - http://www.icr.org/article/5349

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Romans 1:20
Quasars Quash Big Bang Assumption - http://www.icr.org/article/5350
Evolution is a Joke - http://americanvision.org/2006/post/evolution-joke
ICR - http://www.icr.org

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Albert
• Einstein
• Black
• hole
• Henry
• Cavendish
• Karl
• Schwarzschild
• white
• dwarf
• Roy
• Kerr
• John
• Wheeler
• Roger
• Penrose
• pulsars
• Gauss's
• law
• ADM
• mass
• Gravitational
• collapseStephen
• Hawking
• quark
• stars
• neutron
• star

[BereanBeacon1]

@xNeo2Rememberx Amen. Never mix real science with the science fiction of evolution. Any way, we don't have a religion.

Find the love of God here.

Audio, Gospel of John Chapter 1 AV h t t p://w w wDOTyoutubeDOTcom/watch?v=Ao4u­aIjd3xs

[xNeo2Rememberx]

-.- NEVER mix RELIGION with SCIENCE!!

[per50n]

@Bereitwilligkeit You clearly have no idea what you are on about.

1 They are mathematically possible

2 Cores of galaxies are not the only places

3 The have been indirectly observed countless times

4 Boyle's law in no way applies to the matter at hand

5 Cause and effect doesn't seem to apply in a few areas of physics, although I would like to see you explain why they violate it

6 Limits of materials to reductions in VOLUME are overcome by massive gravitational force

Proofs of god never work

[Bereitwilligkeit]

@per50n BLACK HOLES:

Taken together, the arguments for black holes suggest that the cores of some galaxies may contain black holes, but they do not constitute empirical proof. Besides which, they fail to account for the circumvention of such natural laws such as Boyles law, cause & effect, and the limits of various materials to reduction in area. By this standard, the myriad proofs for Gods existence in his creation exceed this many times over yet, you fail to even consider them.

[per50n]

@Bereitwilligkeit Well accepting the existence of a creator is a wildly irrational thing to do, besides the existence of black holes has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt.

I was actually just pointing out that you have no understanding of the basic equation governing gravity, this doesn't show their existence.

However, planets orbiting at massive velocities around invisible neighbours is just one of many pieces of evidence for their existence.

[Bereitwilligkeit]

@per50n You have a spectacular belief in somebodies imagination. H.G. Wells made his fortune writing this kind of stuff. When they have something besides wildest conjecture behind this, let the world know. They're like you; ready to believe anyone except their creator.

[per50n]

@achzdck Evolution = one of the most well supported and fundamental branches of science. Without it, very little in biology makes sense.

Children are not to be insulted by comparison with creationists, who are just ignorant, stupid and/or brainwashed.

[per50n]

@Bereitwilligkeit you have no idea what you are on about. Big 'G' as it is often called, is the gravitational constant, go get a dictionary if you do not know what constant means.

It is incredibly easy to show how a black hole could form, especially if one has an appreciation of the mass of a star.

Even a child can quite easily calculate the schwarzschild radius of a black hole very easily. Light is attracted due to a warping of spacetime, not mass. Go read a middle school text book.

[huntrichardson]

@SofaKingLoaded "seen" = "understood". his (invisible) eternal power is clearly seen/understood by the evidence of what he made: the physical world.

[Bereitwilligkeit]

BLACK HOLES?

The black hole theory sounds suspiciously like it is hypothesized by the same kind of junk science supporting evolution. Gravity, G Is known to be related to an objects mass & density. Black holes demand G become so intense as to radically shrink objects mass, which is contrary to mass causing G, & further, require G to so powerfully attract light (which has no mass to attract) as to negate it entirely. The appropriate question should be: Where did this super gravity come from?