2 ms·

> The existence of black holes is part of the general consensus at this point. Yes it is, but the lack of understanding of black holes is also part of general

by ars 6y ago

> The existence of black holes is part of the general consensus at this point. Yes it is, but the lack of understanding of black holes is also part of general understanding. Physicists know quite well they don't fully understand what happens in every black hole situation. > It’s fine to suggest they don’t exist, just realize you’re disagreeing with the vast majority of physicists and evidence we have. We don't have any evidence, only conjecture and [incomplete] math. Two things that might prevent black holes: Quark degeneracy pressure (unknown, not even the magnitude is known), and time dilation, which leads to "frozen stars" which hover just before becoming black holes, but never do because that last bit of mass that takes them over the edge takes an infinite time to arrive. Neither of those two are "fringe" theories mind you, they have both been discussed by prominent theorists (I also get to appeal to authority :)

Retric 6y ago
There is quite a bit of evidence, it’s mostly indirect evidence though. First, a quark degeneracy pressure is irrelevant for the existence of black holes as they have lower density requirements the larger the event horizon. A large enough uniform density sphere of say styrofoam would form an event horizon. In terms of evidence, “Frozen stars” don’t match up with the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory’s observations that suggest a collision between a black hole and a neutron star. That said, the Messier 87 black hole image is the closest thing to a direct observation we have. It’s possible that some mistakes where made, but many would argue it’s solid evidence on it’s own. PS: Anyway, I am not suggesting this as some statement from on high. I am saying if most people that take serious time and effort looking into something all come to the same conclusion it’s prudent to dig deep before coming to a different conclusion. That’s especially true of physics where actually understanding the math behind existing models is difficult. Essentially you should be able to point to some math and say see this, this is wrong and then justify that statement.

by ars 6y ago

Retric 6y ago

There is quite a bit of evidence, it’s mostly indirect evidence though. First, a quark degeneracy pressure is irrelevant for the existence of black holes as they have lower density requirements the larger the event horizon. A large enough uniform density sphere of say styrofoam would form an event horizon. In terms of evidence, “Frozen stars” don’t match up with the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory’s observations that suggest a collision between a black hole and a neutron star. That said, the Messier 87 black hole image is the closest thing to a direct observation we have. It’s possible that some mistakes where made, but many would argue it’s solid evidence on it’s own. PS: Anyway, I am not suggesting this as some statement from on high. I am saying if most people that take serious time and effort looking into something all come to the same conclusion it’s prudent to dig deep before coming to a different conclusion. That’s especially true of physics where actually understanding the math behind existing models is difficult. Essentially you should be able to point to some math and say see this, this is wrong and then justify that statement.