"Black Holes do not exist" Stephen Hawking

[shadowboxer123]

So apparently black holes doesn't exist. At least not the "classical" idea of one.

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/0503...s050328-8.html

http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-h...-holes-1.14583

http://phys.org/news/2014-01-grey-bl...n-hawking.html

Thoughts?

[Skroe]

There was a response from another physicist I read a few days ago that said that Hawking's very brief publication was very much splitting hairs and doesn't really resolve the problem as to why Hawking said they don't exist (namely the "Wall of Fire" when they decay).

Part of me doesn't quite understand how that's possible. We know what Cyngus X-1 is. We know the exact location, radius (of the event horizon) and mass of Supermassive Black Hole at the center of our galaxy, Saggitarus A*. We've even imaged the entire 12-16 year orbits of stars that are gravitationally bound to it.

So clearly a extremely massive singularity that does not emit any less does observationally exist. But if Hawking is claiming that some of the properties of Black Holes are different now than what was believed prior, that doesn't imply that Black Holes don't exist. That just means that... well... their properties are different. That doesn't not-make-them black holes. It just means our prior suppositions were wrong.

[Deleted]

I'd like to actually SEE/Observe one

By definition, you can't see something that doesn't reflect light.

[Darkrulerxxx]

i don't think we'll ever to be able to find out if there is truly an "event horizon" in which light can not escape unless we can travel right next to the supposed event horizon and test it out.....it's too sad we can't travel there without wasting many years of trying to get there.

stuff like this peaks my interest in this field because i just love to read about it...especially black holes.

because the true question i believe hawking is trying to say is that the supposed event horizon may not be able to keep light from escaping.

[Orestis]

I was getting such an erection reading that, till I came upon the third link and read this tripe linked off of that article.

My happy thoughts were replaced by sad thoughts

[wowaccounttom]

Ah.. this again, its been like 2 weeks since it was posted on yahoo.. probably longer in other places.. anyways.. here is my answer taken from a book....



“(Humans) never know anything. They don't have enough years in their little lives to come to an understanding of anything at all. And yet they think they understand. From earliest childhood, they delude themselves into thinking they comprehend the world, while all that's really going on is that they've got some primitive assumptions and prejudices. As they get older they learn a more elevated vocabulary in which to express their mindless pseudo- knowledge and bully other people into accepting their prejudices as if they were truth, but it all amounts to the same thing. Individually, human beings are all dolts."

"While collectively..."

"Collectively, they're a collection of dolts. But in all their scurrying around and pretending to be wise, throwing out idiotic half-understood theories about this and that, one or two of them will come up with some idea that is just a little bit closer to the truth than what was already known. And in a sort of fumbling trial and error, about half the time the truth actually rises to the top and becomes accepted by people who still don't understand it, who simply adopt it as a new prejudice to be trusted blindly until the next dolt accidentally comes up with an improvement."

"So you're saying that no one is ever individually intelligent, and groups are even stupider than individuals-- and yet by keeping so many fools engaged in pretending to be intelligent, they still come up with some of the same results that an intelligent species would come up with."

"Hive Queen: Exactly.”

- Taken from "Xenocide"

[Darkrulerxxx]

Ah.. this again, its been like 2 weeks since it was posted on yahoo.. probably longer in other places.. anyways.. here is my answer taken from a book....



“(Humans) never know anything. They don't have enough years in their little lives to come to an understanding of anything at all. And yet they think they understand. From earliest childhood, they delude themselves into thinking they comprehend the world, while all that's really going on is that they've got some primitive assumptions and prejudices. As they get older they learn a more elevated vocabulary in which to express their mindless pseudo- knowledge and bully other people into accepting their prejudices as if they were truth, but it all amounts to the same thing. Individually, human beings are all dolts."

"While collectively..."

"Collectively, they're a collection of dolts. But in all their scurrying around and pretending to be wise, throwing out idiotic half-understood theories about this and that, one or two of them will come up with some idea that is just a little bit closer to the truth than what was already known. And in a sort of fumbling trial and error, about half the time the truth actually rises to the top and becomes accepted by people who still don't understand it, who simply adopt it as a new prejudice to be trusted blindly until the next dolt accidentally comes up with an improvement."

"So you're saying that no one is ever individually intelligent, and groups are even stupider than individuals-- and yet by keeping so many fools engaged in pretending to be intelligent, they still come up with some of the same results that an intelligent species would come up with."

"Hive Queen: Exactly.”

- Taken from "Xenocide"

ya all that stuff you posted is pretty unnecessary.

that's the beauty of science....observation....half made-up theories?

i don't think that person understands what a theory is, or you. We don't boast ourselves of understanding everything in the universe...we aren't omniscient. we take practical observations and collect data and there's a rigorous process for it to become a theory.

there will always be revisions among the theory as we get a better understanding of what is going on, but again.....dont de-rail this thread with your stupid quotes

[Bladeface]

By definition, you can't see something that doesn't reflect light.

you can observe it though

[wowaccounttom]

ya all that stuff you posted is pretty unnecessary.

that's the beauty of science....observation....half made-up theories?

i don't think that person understands what a theory is, or you. We don't boast ourselves of understanding everything in the universe...we aren't omniscient. we take practical observations and collect data and there's a rigorous process for it to become a theory.

there will always be revisions among the theory as we get a better understanding of what is going on, but again.....dont de-rail this thread with your stupid quotes

ya all that stuff you posted is pretty unnecessary.

that's the beauty of scientists

i dont think you understand what scientists think of their theories nor knowledge about them. they think whatever they know is right until someone else comes along and proves them wrong

there will always be revisions among the theory as we get a better understanding of what is going on, but again.....dont de-rail this thread with your stupid replies

[Dhrizzle]

I was getting such an erection reading that, till I came upon the third link and read this tripe linked off of that article.

My happy thoughts were replaced by sad thoughts

I'm fairly certain the New Yorker is a real publication, but damn that reads like a parody.

[Darkrulerxxx]

ya all that stuff you posted is pretty unnecessary.

that's the beauty of scientists

i dont think you understand what scientists think of their theories nor knowledge about them. they think whatever they know is right until someone else comes along and proves them wrong

there will always be revisions among the theory as we get a better understanding of what is going on, but again.....dont de-rail this thread with your stupid replies

Theories don't change drastically, as you are putting it. Theories such as evolution and the big bang are pretty much proven to be true. How it's exactly done in the minor details can always be revised. Such as the same with black holes....we know they are there, we can observe it indirectly by radiation detection or the gravity influence it has around stars...the minor details such as if the event horizon truly stops all light from escaping can always be up for revision.

None of these theories are proven wrong, and again you sound like an idiot that probably doesn't even know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory and tout it as being the same.

i don't even know how to respond any more to this idiotic response.

here let me help you out what a theory is:

"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." Theories must also meet further requirements, such as the ability to make falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry, and production of strong evidence in favor of the theory from multiple independent sources."

Infracted: Please do not insult other users

[wowaccounttom]

Theories don't change drastically, as you are putting it. Theories such as evolution and the big bang are pretty much proven to be true. How it's exactly done in the minor details can always be revised. Such as the same with black holes....we know they are there, we can observe it indirectly by radiation detection or the gravity influence it has around stars...the minor details such as if the event horizon truly stops all light from escaping can always be up for revision.

And here I thought "THEORIES" were that.. theories.. and not something that is "pretty much proven to be truth" as you just typed.. By that logic, what S.H. said about black holes is pretty much proven to be true..even though there is no scientific material to prove it. I sure know he didnt just put on his bionic suit and went through a black hole to test it.

Here I thought you were trying to be intelligent by seeming to understand the meaning of a theory, I guess my theory was wrong.

We should work this OUT!!! It could be bunnies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_lId60FF9c

Infracted

[Drakain]

I gave up trying to understand black holes when I couldn't wrap my head around the idea that they have enough gravity to pull in light but also evaporate photons overtime. So now I've just concluded that they're cool and I wish I knew more about astrophysics.

[Darkrulerxxx]

And here I thought "THEORIES" were that.. theories.. and not something that is "pretty much proven to be truth" as you just typed.. By that logic, what S.H. said about black holes is pretty much proven to be true..even though there is no scientific material to prove it. I sure know he didnt just put on his bionic suit and went through a black hole to test it.

Here I thought you were trying to be intelligent by seeming to understand the meaning of a theory, I guess my theory was wrong.

We should work this OUT!!! It could be bunnies

by our observations on earth that is what we have concluded with those theories, and the scientific community has given it an approval.

just because hawking posts a publication with a different view about how they work doesn't mean it's touted to be true...all it means is that more observations and data will be collected to either disprove his statements or to revise the theory to incorporate his explanations...it doesn't disprove the theories of black holes, because they are still there....again a minor revision on how light works inside the event horizon is what is being discussed....

minor minor minor revision to the theory...it doesn't change the major fundamentals of what a black hole is.

i still don't think you understand how these findings work out in the scientific world....it's an arduous process. the decision to change something in a theory doesn't happen over night.

pretty much proven to be true is not definitive true...there's always room to change with conflicting observations and new influx of assumptions that can help better understand a theory.

[Tierbook]

I was getting such an erection reading that, till I came upon the third link and read this tripe linked off of that article.

My happy thoughts were replaced by sad thoughts

If i had a choice of walking into a room full of spiders and a room with Michelle Bachman in it.... I'm taking the spiders

[wowaccounttom]

minor minor minor revision to the theory...it doesn't change the major fundamentals of what a black hole is.

not so minor when the THEORY is that not even light can escape it compared to everything eventually does.

NOTHING =/= EVERYTHING

[Tierbook]

not so minor when the THEORY is that not even light can escape it compared to everything eventually does.

NOTHING =/= EVERYTHING

Clearly Blackholes are Warps just look for areas that have more matter than they should and you found an exit

[Darkrulerxxx]

not so minor when the THEORY is that not even light can escape it compared to everything eventually does.

NOTHING =/= EVERYTHING

i'll say again that not even hawking's paper has even passed peer reviewed status and even after that...we don't if it's true or not...because again....we have to observe to actually see this happen. It doesn't matter if i say it's minor or major...Black holes are still there as far as we know...until there is something to improve upon what we know, that's our current understanding of this. I said from the beginning that we aren't omniscient in all this, we're not all knowing. Science is very exciting because we know there is much to be explained. And as your original quote was saying, we know we don't know everything, but that makes the drive to understand these mysteries ever more apparent.

[Yingyang]

I am glad to see this, because I never got behind the idea of there being such a thing as a Black Hole, like the space whirl pool version. It just never seemed logical. I always though instead of a hole it would just be a black star, but a dark star is much more fitting, as it might lend itself towards the "warping" of light that seems to happen near it.

[Darkrulerxxx]

I am glad to see this, because I never got behind the idea of there being such a thing as a Black Hole, like the space whirl pool version. It just never seemed logical. I always though instead of a hole it would just be a black star, but a dark star is much more fitting, as it might lend itself towards the "warping" of light that seems to happen near it.

just keep in mind that this is just an alternative explanation to how event horizons work, general relativity and quantum theory really begins to fuck with scientists heads, especially with the black-hole fire paradox, so what hawking says works with both but until we have more observations of this new alternative way, we really won't know.

I find this to be really exciting tbh, i've always liked the mysterious nature of black holes...it's crazy.