Am I the only person who does not think black holes are real? - How can they be real?

[Kaede Did Nothing Wrong]

I already fucking did. I got fired the next day when they saw the radiation charts though. Who wouldn't believe a parapelegic and a guy who created a formula that helped invent the atom bomb then married his cousin and cried the rest of his life about how bad he felt helping kill millions of people then made a bunch of money off of it.

These guys I had the job interview with swore some guy named Stephen sent them personal letters before he died claiming there is a space ship that will take you to see this event and he would give them the contact but they just had to suck his paralysed cock first.

Then I found out it was where you work and suddenly I did not feel so bad.

lmao you are one thin skinned fag.

 

[Nobunaga]

Why dont you jump into one and post the results
If flat earthers can do it why not you?

 

[Positron]

To me the whole idea of a black hole violates the concept that energy is never created or destroyed as they seem to relentlessly destroy the fabric of space and time. Scientists have an explanation for that also, of how energy is not destroyed in a black hole.

I don't see how black holes violate the conservation of energy. When a hole swallows matter or energy its mass increases accordingly. I don't know how you understand as "destroy the fabric of space and time" so I can't comment on that part.

Perhaps you confused energy with entropy? Black-hole entropy is still an unsettled subject (is it "real", or is it just an assigned value so that the Second Law of Thermo still holds? A system's entropy depends on the possible microstates of a system but how are you supposed to count the microstates within a black hole? And what about Information?)

If photons are massless, then explain Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

Massless ≠ no energy. The uncertainty principle only holds that a system's energy and the time it holds the energy cannot be both known with precision.

I thought the reason why we can't accurately determine the precise location of subatomic particles was because the photons exert a force on the particles before being reflected to our eyes, which pushes the particles ever so slightly.

This is a very heuristic way of seeing it, good for explaining the Uncertainty Principles to neophytes, but it is factually wrong (but to be fair Heisenberg did use this metaphor himself). The position of a particle is uncertain in itself and this has nothing to do with outside forces.

 

[Tookie]

Is there like an army of @Shiversblood out there?

That would be amazing.

 

[Gym Leader Elesa]

Has OP explained what he proposes is causing the innumerable effects in the universe that have long been posited to be the work of dark stars or is he just like "yo, they're not real, and I have no idea what is at the center of most galaxies or is fucking with all the light."

 

[PowersOfPowers]

You've said multiple times that photons do not slow down except in the presence of gravity. If this is the case how do you explain refraction?

You say that "science"/"they"/"physicists" came up with the concept of black holes as a way to explain areas of space that are apparently lacking stars. Did you know that the mathematical construct of a black hole was pointed out in the physics long before any actual evidence of black holes was observed? are you aware that one of the best ways to determine a black hole's approximate location and mass is to calculate such values based on the orbital parameters of stars orbiting it (or, as you would view "it", stars orbiting an incredibly massive object that emits no electromagnetic radiation)?

Frankly it's not even really possible to begin responding to your questions with actual answers because you have a wild misunderstanding of the fundamental building blocks of physics that things like Special Relativity and the Standard Model build from, and it makes your questions/statements so nonsensical as to be meaningless.

 

[formershroomeryuser]

The mathematical concept to a black hole definitely existed before black holes were observed. I definitely agree. Black holes still have not been observed, and the mathematical concept seems exist way before the fact. So yes correct.
Ok next part. "You seem to have no understanding of the basic building blocks of physics." Well on earth light always reaches its destination in the same time. Gravity does not bend space and time. None of this practically applies to anything on earth. None of what I say can be challenged with mathematical concepts based on variables that do no exist anywhere except in deep space because ... Wait for it.. Those variables do not exist anywhere except in a mathematical concept for unknown observations happening in deep space.
Those observations do not exist on earth? Is that wrong to say? Is it unscientific? Once more. Those variables do not exist on earth. Light and space and time do not behave in such a way on earth.
Well its true. That is a good reason for me not to believe in black holes. Those are not "the basic fundamentals of physics" I do not understand. Those are not physics operate ob earth.
Has anybody said "yes that is how physics work on earth. Gravity bends space and time here on earth." No.
I will now resume believing in a flat earth.

 

[Bum Driller]

Scientific law is the highest level of confirmation in science


Theory is a widely misused term. Theory is definitely beyond hypothesis, but is not necessarily law. For example "The Theory of Relativity"

No scientist would say that there are definite scientific laws, as everything we understand about the nature of reality is prone to change based on our research and new data. Theory of Relativity is essentially "scientific law" as far as you can have one, as it does to a degree correctly express what is happening with certain fundamental forces of existence. However, no scientist would really admit that it's what is happening, merely that it's good enough model of what is happening that it can be used to study these things more and create practical applications based on them.

You can say that it's a scientific law that gravity always works in certain ways; but no physicist is really claiming that we actually know that it does, merely that thus far our observations seem to say so and we can make a deduction that it continues to do so.

In essence, what I'm after is that "scientific law" doesn't mean anything else than that it's the current consensus on something, based on the best data and analyzed by the best minds we can gather on the subject.