Could the entire universe be an illusion? Scientists are actually investigating

[thoughtomator]

There is no more money in black hole theories than there would be in an alternate theory of physics.

What could possibly drive you to make such an absurd assertion?

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

What could possibly drive you to make such an absurd assertion?

Because climate change (which I don't have an opinion on, as I haven't actually looked at the data) is an entirely different model of grants. You need a grant to gather data that confirms or denies climate change, you don't need a grant to create mathematical proofs of a universe without black holes. Equations either work or they don't; they can't be manipulated to the degree data can.

 

[robert68]

@Robert - if you read that article it's the perfect example of calcified science orthodoxy making claims on authority.

Orbits of stars don't prove black holes exist, and that's his top piece of evidence. The rest of his examples are similar - they all depend on the assumption that black holes do exist and then attempt to fit observations to the assumptions. If you attempt to trace any of these explanations back to the fundamentals, they are all based in a circular logic - black holes exist, thus observed phenomena assumed to be effects of black holes are evidence that black holes exist.

The same could be said about solar systems. It’s at minimum the most plausible explanation, not circular. Gravity is defined by predictable effect on things. That’s what I see going on here.

Black holes are a mathematical construct that makes no sense in actual physical reality, which is why they generate a host of unresolvable problems, stuff like infinite density, the information paradox, the naked singularity paradox, and more.

We may know that something is in particular locations where black holes are said to be, but that's light years from proving black holes exist.

The fundamental problem is that we really don't understand what gravity is yet. The black hole is really more of a representation of the black hole in our understanding of gravity, rather than an actual physical object.

Hell, you can't even get a consistent definition of a black hole - are they singularities or regions of space? Each would lead to different real-world physical consequences, yet orthodox scientists freely mix the two when describing these objects.

A lot of science is just pretending to know things that are only being guessed at, and black holes fall squarely into that category.

Anyway... if you are interested in just comfortably confirming orthodoxy, there are plenty of scientists who are paid well by the government to write article after article assuring you that government science has everything correct already. But if you are interested in exercising your mind and imagination and want to figure out the truth for yourself, things can be a LOT more interesting.

As I initially pointed out (with a link), prediction of black holes goes back several hundred years, and they involved single stars with enormous size and densities, and their effect on nearby light. Maybe it's the very concept of gravity that is circular and fuzzy to you.

You're contradicting yourself by asserting both black holes can't exist and it isn't known if black holes exist. Further, your implication that those who say “black holes don’t exist” aren’t paid any money by the government and all those who say otherwise are, is baseless nonsense. But feel free to try to prove otherwise.

 

[DamianTV]

I can prove Black Holes exist! Congress!

 

[Ronin Truth]

Obviously it wouldn't suck as much as a real black hole would.

Not even holographically suck as much holographic stuff? <holographically >

 

[torchbearer]

When the movie's over turn out the lights.
-Jim Morrison

 

[Zippyjuan]