/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10827387]

There are people that literally think these things exist. Yes, there are people that fucking stupid.

[Anonymous No.10827512]

>

[Anonymous No.10827516]

>>10827387
People like you make me want to open a black hole on earth. Just to make you believe in your final terrified moments before I say I told you so.

[Anonymous No.10827518]

>>10827387
>another bus stop masturbator thread

[Anonymous No.10827522]

>>10827387
I'll take the bait.
What proof do you have they don't exist, im willing to spend time reading through whatever you have.

[Anonymous No.10827534]

>>10827522
I want to hear what op thinks happens instead. Gravity turns off if a neutron star gets massive enough?

[Anonymous No.10827552]

>>10827534
I guess i was a bit optimistic that he might actually realize what he thinks could be wrong because nothing proves its right

[Anonymous No.10827584]

>>10827522
>What proof do you have that they don't exist
Doesn't work that way. You have to prove they do exist, and you can't. All observations of black holes can explained just as well by cold neutron or quark stars.

[Anonymous No.10827589]

>>10827534
All theories of gravity break down at small scales. No one really knows what happens at dense scales. But to just assume your theory is fine everywhere and it must collapse to a singularity is psuedo-science. Its an obvious unphysical solution. Its more likely that there is an upperbound on density

[Anonymous No.10827598]

>>10827584
>prove they do exist
not math, retard

[Anonymous No.10827609]

>>10827589
>All theories of gravity break down at small scales
Just curious, but how? "Break down" in the sense that there isn't a quantum mechanical explanation? I thought it just faded into irrelvance/became unmeasurably small

[Anonymous No.10827619]

>>10827584
>>10827589
this is a dumb argument. if GR singularities are your issue then string theory fixes that. black holes are different from neutron and quark stars; there are theorems like the no hair theorem that say black holes can’t have anything beyond a mass, charge, and angular momentum (i guess a magnetic monopole charge too) so you could debunk GR by for example finding a supposed BH that carries an electric dipole moment or a funny magnetic field around it or etc. but there is no evidence for that. OTOH observations by LIGO are consistent with GR and the no-hair theorem

[Anonymous No.10827625]

>>10827619
PS also if you postulate an upper density on mass, then you’d have to explain why we don’t see supermassive neutron/quark stars that AREN’T cold and dark. why wouldn’t there be a supermassive bright neutron star at the center of every galaxy? that idea is ridiculous

[Anonymous No.10827629]

>>10827625
*upper limit on density

[Anonymous No.10827632]

>>10827589
Singularities aren't necessary for black holes to exist. All that is needed is a quantity of matter to fall within its Schwarzschild radius. Also, the Schwarzschild density goes by the inverse square of mass, so more massive objects have a lower required density to form a black hole.

[Anonymous No.10827650]

>>10827619
>No hair theorem
And yet there are no conclusive expiremental observations that prove the "black holes" we observe really are hairless objects. So my point stands. You don't know if that is a black hole you are viewing or just some other very dense non-singularity.

[Anonymous No.10827659]

>>10827650
as i mentioned, observations from LIGO so far support the no hair theorem, and no evidence exists to contradict it, so clearly the reasonable thing to assume is that the evidence is coming in favor of the no-hair theorem

[xxXSuiseisekiXxx No.10827701]

>>10827619
>no hair theorem
How have I been unaware of this. And how many more can you point me to?
Have a cookie.
https://pastebin.com/ryNHVDbA

[Anonymous No.10827715]

My room-mate is one of the people that like to argue black holes don't exist.
How do I go about changing his mind? I'm not well enough versed in physics to argue in a non-refutable way.

Maybe someone can give me sth like a causality chain that proves them?
Something like
>photons have mass > they're affected by gravity > if the gravity is stong enough they can't escape
and
>gravity depends on the mass of a body > the more mass something has, the denser it becomes > black hole forms at the point where the mass/density is strong enough to keep photons in
Might be wrong but you get the point
Thanks guys, I want to spread knowledge

[Anonymous No.10827719]

>>10827715
You ought to consider that he's not wrong. You won't of course as is demonstrated by your posting on /sci/, but you should.

[Anonymous No.10827724]

>>10827719
Well he's arguing that black holes and suns are part of a cosmic electrical circuit and are not actually generating energy (in the case of stars), but are like electrical motors that get their energy from some magic network.

Not sure if that or black holes and normal stars that cause nuclear fusion seem more outlandish..

[xxXSuiseisekiXxx No.10827728]

>>10827715
All I got is a 'skitzo' alternate Big bang. And a bare with me gravity.
And a everything is magnets. Meaning gravity would have to be a halbach array to have a weak side.
Reason, why have many parts when you can work with on and droop for everything.
With a habach array, the strong side field being internal of partials and also interlaced causes it to further repel like a treadmill from field interference.
For Black holes. The event horizon is only as much Planck qbits as matter it has consumed.
qbits are analogous to magnets on the weak side of a halbach array going spastic splitting poles.
>go away till you have proof
Yeah I'll fix my PC soon fggt.

[Anonymous No.10827737]

>>10827584
>All observations of black holes can explained just as well by cold neutron or quark stars.
An invisible object pulling another or lensing light literally can only be explained by a black hole or a dark matter clump.

[Anonymous No.10827744]

>>10827724
>part of a cosmic electrical circuit and are not actually generating energy (in the case of stars), but are like electrical motors that get their energy from some magic network.
ah, an Electric Universe idiot. that’s a very old and unfortunately still popular fringe pseudoscience that’s been widely debunked. plasma cosmology fails to explain plenty of observed things even if you ignore the idea of invisible cosmic electric currents that they hand wave away with “its no worse than dark matter to have ghost electricity flows”. electric universetards are usually closeted newager deepak chopra people who believe in panpsychism and how you can cure cancer with meditation; being scientifically accurate gets trumped in their mind by some “spirituality” magic crap about qi and reincarnation and muh chakras

[Anonymous No.10827746]

>>10827715
>I want to spread knowledge
You might want to get some, first. Photons don't have mass. An object does not need to have mass to be affected by gravity. Density is mass/volume. An object's density increases with mass if you keep the volume constant.
You need to learn gradeschool physics before you consider talking to anyone about black holes.

[Anonymous No.10827761]

>>10827609
Its hard to quantize spacetime so attemps at unifying gravity to the other forces spits out singularities left and right.
The theories that can get around this, like string theory, aren't able to be experimentally verified because of the energy levels you need to harness.

[Anonymous No.10827777]

>>10827744
this whole post perfectly described him, way too real man.

>>10827746
My bad, I wrote it might be wrong and was just to serve as an example, and I know photons aren't affected by gravity because of mass but momentum rather.
For the getting knowledge part, I don't have time to read 7 physics textbooks and educate myself to the level of a university professor just to argue that the generally accepted version of the universe makes moderately more sense than the electrical universe. And that's why I'm here, to get a proper chain of argument which, while having a minimum overview of physics sufficient to see what makes sense and what doesn't, I can't conclusively formulate myself in a non-refutable way.

Also
>sorry for bad English lmao

[Anonymous No.10827824]

>>10827715
>the more mass something has, the denser it becomes
>black hole forms at the point where the mass/density is strong enough to keep photons in
Then how come your room-mate didn't turn into a black hole?
Checkmate

[Anonymous No.10828277]

>>10827589
>upperbound on density
That's what holds white dwarves and neutron stars up but it's relying on the Pauli exclusion principle which only works on fermions.

[Anonymous No.10830096]

Photons doesn't need to have mass to affect gravity.

Model's doesn't work because there is so much fucking light everywhere.

Light interaction can produce matter out of ... well, photons.

[Anonymous No.10830319]

>>10827746
I thought photons had "negligible" mass