Hawking Radiation Theory is Horseshit

[Anonymous No.15958813]

>This guy's entire career is a fraud.
The fundamental description of a black hole is that is has such a powerful gravitational wave that not even light can escape it.
>Visible light, the segment of the electromagnetic spectrum comprised of photons at a range of wavelengths the eye can see, can't escape a black hole.
Ultraviolet light, more energetic than visible light, can't escape a black hole.
>X-Rays, more energetic than UV, can't escape a black hole.
Gamma Rays, more energetic than X-Rays, can't escape a black hole.
>Radio Waves, much less energetic than visible light, can't escape a black hole.
Microwaves, less energetic than visible light, can't escape a black hole.
>But infrared light, comprised of photons only slightly less energetic than visible light, CAN escape a black hole?
Hawking's entire rationale for Hawking Radiation is that everything emits heat, so black holes must emit heat. And he put together an equation that shows its possible.
>Well I've been to engineering school and I'll tell you that you can put together an equation that shows anything is possible.
Hawking counted on you not knowing that heat is transmitted by light. By photons. By the electromagnetic spectrum. At Infrared frequencies. And he fooled the entire world for decades.

[Anonymous No.15958815]

replaced by an actor in the 80s, probably

[Anonymous No.15958817]

>>15958815
Hi Miles

[Anonymous No.15958821]

>>15958817
How did he live this long?

[Anonymous No.15958824]

>>15958813
Not advocating for pedo cripple but I have to clarify. He isn't saying that black holes themselves emit radiation, he is saying that particle/antiparticle pairs near the event horizon get split.
>The sum of the energy of both virtual particles is zero
>The particle that gets sucked in reduces the size of the black hole because of the sign of its energy
>The particle that gets left out is therefore indistinguishable from radiation coming out of the black hole, because it has as much energy content as what was taken from the black hole by absorbing it's pair.

Temperature is always a tricky thing to work out, but what he did was say "If it quacks like a duck..".

[Anonymous No.15958825]

>>15958821
I'm not disagreeing, its a good theory. Macarthur foundation replaced him or built an animatronic. I believe it. But to my knowledge Miles never deconstructed hawking radiation.

[Anonymous No.15958827]

>>15958824
I don't think that's right because he later also claimed that information was not destroyed in a black hole because it was eventually emitted through his Hawking radiation.

[Anonymous No.15958830]

>>15958824
he also said black holes could eventually disappear through the radiation

[Anonymous No.15958831]

>>15958813
someone is retarded

[Anonymous No.15958832]

>>15958831
well not anymore, he's dead (probably since the 80s)
>VERIFICATION NOT REQUIRED
finally, fuck this captcha

[Anonymous No.15958834]

>>15958824
>particle/antiparticle
yeah I never understood what KIND of "antiparticle". because antimatter + matter = big boom not fucking zero energy. seems like some kind of vampire particle

[Anonymous No.15958840]

>>15958825
Miles is not particularly mathematically gifted, doesn't he have this retarded theory about circular motion?
Oddly good nose for conspiracies though.

[Anonymous No.15958854]

>>15958840
I don't know about the circular motion theory, the one about Pi = 4 was actually what got me thinking about Hawking's entire radiation theory being something that seems reasonable and you can make an equation for it but isn't true.
I recently saw this meme about Pi = 4 and found a similar wikipedia page about showing the hypotenuse of a square should be 2 vs sqrt(2), seems like similar logic to Hawking radiation which got me thinking Hawking is a similar troll.
I actually read Miles mostly to identify where he makes his leaps of logic to reach (mostly false) conclusions. He made it more fun a few years ago, now everything is lazy genealogy stuff.
That said there are some things he has written I've been unable to disprove and believe.

[Anonymous No.15958857]

>>15958854
Do you think he's some sort of controlled release outlet?

[Anonymous No.15958859]

>>15958857
No I think any of us could discover the things he has if we put the time into it

[Anonymous No.15958870]

>>15958857
to give you a better answer, no one believes in the truth
if you control the textbooks and the media you can make the next generation believe anything
and by making the next generation believe your version of facts you can guide them into fake wars, pandemics, whatever.
its like reading Russian vs Ukrainian casualty figures. Obviously both of them are lying, but should I average them to find the truth, or is one lying more than the other?

[Anonymous No.15958894]

>>15958854
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staircase_paradox
found the theory similar to Pi = 4 again, finally

[Anonymous No.15959082]

>>15958813
Look at him. Driving around in a mechanized child molestation robot sex machine with no shame whatsoever. Disgusting. The time to boycott science is now

[Anonymous No.15959139]

>>15958859
he didn't discover anything, people who waste their lives derping about imaginary, fictitious, nonexistent black holes are not intelligent people. he may as well have spent his life theorizing about unicorns

[Anonymous No.15959527]

>>15959139
people like you drained peoples blood to try and cure them of the plague in the dark ages.

[Anonymous No.15960873]

>>15959527
you seem upset

[Anonymous No.15961493]

>>15959527
That was actually the age's leading scientists who were doing that.

[Anonymous No.15962292]

>>15958824
virtual particles are a mischaracterisation of QM designed to help make it make sense for laymen. hawking radiation doesn't even appear at the event horizon, it appears anywhere in the gravitational field of a black hole.

[Anonymous No.15962628]

>>15958813
Bro, he had no idea what was going on.
The wee hats sold the dumb goys on the idea that their greatest thinker is this spastic in a wheelchair who they ventriloquise via RC, and use him as a mouthpiece to sell the absurd theoretical wizardry that they made us believe about basedence

[Anonymous No.15963248]

How did he have so much nonconsensual sex from that wheelchair of his?

[Anonymous No.15964984]

>>15963248
he had an assistant do it for him. before he had the voice tool he had an assistant do all of his talking for him

[Anonymous No.15964994]

>>15958824
No he’s not saying that. Kys, IFLS vermin.

[Anonymous No.15965982]

>>15964984
heres a video of him talking through an interpreter before he had the robot voice
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV5BQEOumD8

[Anonymous No.15966083]

>And he put together an equation that shows its possible.
Literally 99% of physicists, it's all bullshit with confusing math to confuse normies and trick them into giving grant money. People consider physicists some super god geniuses. Instead they are just hairless apes who love money, sex, and drugs. Like all the other hairless apes. They've learned a specific grift and everyone falls for it. 1% actually are smart and do real physics. It's the same concept of a million drunk monkeys typing on a million type writers will eventually write a Shakespeare play.

Not for anything but I'm pretty sure they recently called into question a lot of the things we "know" about black holes and singularities. The more you study what these physicists actually say and what they actually know the more you realize it's all just bullshit they backstop with math after the fact. But the fact that many of the math physicists do can be counter by other math just proves how retarded it all is.

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/singularities-dont-exist-roy-kerr/

https://medium.com/the-infinite-universe/black-holes-probably-dont-have-a-singularity-a15a54a10f27

[Anonymous No.15966443]

>>15958834
well if you actual watched some schizo videos you would know photon is just electron + positron, pseud

[Anonymous No.15966702]

>>15958813
It’s actually simpler than that.
There is no way (actual or proposed) to test whether or not Hawking Radiation exists.
Since we can’t get close to black holes, and because telescopes (radio or optical) can’t tell the difference between matter at the event horizon going into a black hole or being ejected due to tidal forces, there is no way to find out and test what Hawking Radiation actually is.
Therefore, it’s likely to not exist at all.

[Anonymous No.15966708]

The Epstein shit will probably help the world get over their sympathy respect for Hawking. Reminder that he never won a Nobel Prize. If he hadn't had his condition, he would've been treated as any other mid physicist.

[Anonymous No.15966715]

>>15958813
He was a vatican's asset to further discredit science, most of all with his grotesquely appalling appearance.

[Anonymous No.15966779]

>>15966715
probably.
in the last years of his life, didn't he make some midwit krauss-esque statement about how the universe can arise from "nothing," using the law of gravity as the "nothing" or some shit like that? I remember the philosophy freshmen having a field day with that. if you want to ridicule science, have guys like krauss and hawking making statements like that.

[Anonymous No.15966783]

He never received the nobel,which is given all deranged scientist anyway. He was too deranged even for the swedes

[Anonymous No.15966793]

>>15966783
Because he never produced much of genuine value.
He was always more an "I Fucking Love Science" mascot because his chair and voice made him very recognizable. Additionally, he talks about the topic that normies are somehow attracted to like moths to a flame, black holes.

[Anonymous No.15966842]

>>15966779
Universe obviousely arose from "nothing" and it did it during an infinite ammount of time.
That is something I have been telling for decades now, so he probably tried to discredit this simple observation.
Allow me to explain: nothing is the only "something" to which question "where did THAT come from?" is not applicable.

[Anonymous No.15967503]

>>15966842
>That is something I have been telling for decades now
how old are you?

[Anonymous No.15967545]

>>15958813
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44QV8-lDhas

[Anonymous No.15967548]

>>15966083
>t. engineering major

[Anonymous No.15967571]

>>15958813
If you want to see Blackholes then look in the x-ray and gamma ray spectrums and you can see them. The physics of the larger ones I'd rather not talk about.

[Anonymous No.15967825]

>>15967503
old enough to be speaking about it for almost three decades

[Anonymous No.15969226]

>>15966842
>I know everything about the entire universe
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20366662

[Anonymous No.15969307]

>>15958813
The radiation is not from the black hole but the dimensional antimatter on the other side acquiring equilibrium.

[Anonymous No.15969320]

>>15966443
correction, electron + positron = TWO photons. if it's just one photon that violates charge conservation. this was on my test.

[Anonymous No.15969357]

>>15966083

[Anonymous No.15969771]

>>15969226
> cannot argue the statement
> attacks the person who brought it
How typical, you pathetic slime.

[Anonymous No.15971303]

>>15966715
how come the pope spends more time licking the ass of non catholics than he does seeing to the needs of his own creed

[Anonymous No.15971429]

>>15959527
Bloodletting is not draining all your blood and still exists in the form of blood transfusions, which they would also do.

[Anonymous No.15972107]

>>15969771
is this how you act after dilation troon?

[Anonymous No.15972118]

>>15972107
> keeps on shitting more nonsense
you shouldn't have eaten that nonsense you ate, shouldn't have taken science on faith

[Anonymous No.15972150]

>>15958813
How does it comes that radio waves penetrate walls but light doesn't?

[Anonymous No.15972168]

If black holes suck in everything, how is it that they emit jets of matter?

[Anonymous No.15972300]

>>15972168
Same as when your moms vagina sucks in sperm from everyone and then emits babies.

[Anonymous No.15973273]

>>15972300
so what you're trying to tell us is that you have no idea how black holes from which nothing can escape also supposedly emit massive jets of matter and energy and that pointing out your lack of knowledge in that area upsets you

[Anonymous No.15973331]

If Hawking radiation wasn't real then particle accelerators would have destroyed the earth.

[Anonymous No.15973354]

>>15966083
I saw some quote that only a small amount of mathematics contribute anything of value, lmao wonder whats on all those papers considering even the bogdanoffs can grift this shit

[Anonymous No.15974586]

>>15973273
No I'm trying to tell you you can easily google your questions.

[Anonymous No.15975105]

>>15974586
you don't know

[Anonymous No.15975914]

>>15975105
lol ok

[Anonymous No.15976680]

>>15973354
anyone who retains any respect for academia after learning about the bogs' hoax is a desperate clueless cuck who can't cope with having had the harsh nature of reality revealed to them

[Anonymous No.15976990]

>>15965982
COPE

[Anonymous No.15977820]

>>15972168
Probably a combination of the penrose process and some kind of magnetic acceleration.

[Anonymous No.15977826]

>>15958813
To refute the cosmological argument Hawkings redefined what "nothing" means to not be nothing, the guy's just an arrogant idiot savant.

[Anonymous No.15977849]

>>15977820
that sounds very scientific

[Anonymous No.15977853]

>>15958824
>le pedos are bad
reddit

[Anonymous No.15977870]

>>15966793
and the so called quantum science, for some reason midwits find that irresistible

[Anonymous No.15977890]

>>15977849
If you're going to ask a question that can be googled, at least google the fucking words that are unfamiliar to you, moron.

[Anonymous No.15977929]

>>15958824
>he is saying that particle/antiparticle pairs near the event horizon get split.
Antimatter going into a blackhole feeds it, it does not make it disappear.
>The sum of the energy of both virtual particles is zero
It's not zero as when matter and antimatter collides it creates a big boom boom.

[Anonymous No.15977996]

>>15977929
The issue is that "particle/antiparticle pairs" aren't the real reason for hawking radiation, like i said earlier. they're an extreme simplification of the mechanism, but they work well enough when you don't think too hard about it. that's why they're specifically called virtual particles. what the "virtual particles" refer to is minute disturbances in quantum fields around the black hole, sort of the constant very low energy white noise, random fluctuations.

In reality, hawking radiation is really complicated, but the main comparison to be made is unruh radiation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_effect

Since remaining stationary relative to a gravitational well is indistinguishable from acceleration, the unruh effect can show up around a black hole, and for some reason this makes it lose mass.

You'd probably need a formal education in physics to really understand it, and i don't have one, but I'm pretty sure that's the gist.

[Anonymous No.15978056]

>>15977996
If energy goes into the blackhole it will expand, not shrink.

[Anonymous No.15978114]

>>15978056
Read the wikipedia article i linked. energy doesn't "go in" to the black hole because hawking radiation appears *around* the black hole, not at its event horizon. And nothing even goes into the black hole. i just explained that.

[Anonymous No.15978137]

>>15958824
>Event horizon
>

[Anonymous No.15978566]

>>15978114
If it appears around it, it's not the blackhole that creates it but just from the vacuum of space.
The blackhole does not lose mass because particle and antiparticle pair gets created around it.
It's like arguing that if I create a matter and antimatter throw the matter into space and the antimatter into a blackhole that it will decrease the blackhole's mass.
It's absolutely retarded and you have been taken to be fools.

[Anonymous No.15978633]

>>15977996
Different from the virtual photons causing magnetism, they are particles.
Just another fake and dark mattered pill.

[Anonymous No.15978943]

>>15978566
Nope! it's specifically the black hole's gravitational well that creates it, not the vacuum of space. and it's not made of particle-antiparticle pairs, learn to read.
>>15978633
I'm not sure what you're saying(?), but unruh radiation is real, and yes it's made of photons

[Anonymous No.15980141]

>>15978943
black holes don't exist

[Anonymous No.15980225]

>>15980141
What did the EHT image then? There certainly was an oddly accretion disk-shaped thing at the middle of M87 where a clearly visible astrophysical jet is coming from, but it must be a collective figment of our imagination.

[Anonymous No.15980402]

>>15980225
thats not a real image, it was computer modeled from a template with only some input from the gathered interferometric data. black holes don't exist, they're a soiyence fiction meme with no basis in scientific reality.

[Anonymous No.15980613]

"Black hole" = Light accelerating towards anti-space/the ether (infinity)

It's that shrimple, broskis

[Anonymous No.15980695]

>>15980402
It was not computer modeled from a template at all, lol. it's entirely data, and you can clearly see the doppler effect brightening one side of the accretion disk in the image.

[Anonymous No.15981672]

>>15958840
Was he correct that Pi with a value of 4 gives a more accurate number compared to 3.14 when it's about bodies in motion? I recall vaguely he talked about that is something do in practice.

[Anonymous No.15981747]

>>15980695
its a fake image, kid

[Anonymous No.15982366]

>>15980402
it doesn't show any black hole either, it only shows a ring that people irrationally interpret as being a black hole because that what they've been programmed to expect.

[Anonymous No.15982397]

>>15969320
So where does the negative energy come from to make the whole thing sum up to 0 energy without an event horizon? Positron-electron annihilation is usually plenty exothermic

[Anonymous No.15983842]

>>15982366
M87 has an astrophysical jet, which we know, meaning its SMBH must have an accretion disk, because astrophysical jets don't come from "naked" black holes.

[Anonymous No.15983845]

>>15982397
it's not virtual particles, lol, it's a black hole specific equivalent to unruh radiation.

[Anonymous No.15983929]

>>15982397
>annihilation
nothing gets annihilated, only transformed. the electron and the positron become the two gamma rays

[Anonymous No.15983934]

>>15983842
>because astrophysical jets don't come from "naked" black holes.
black holes don't exist and you have no evidence that they do

[Anonymous No.15983946]

>>15983929
>the electron and the positron become the two gamma rays
where the shit is THAT energy coming from? that's the question. you get energy from nothing, two particles, and when these two particles interact they result in zero energy in that spot, as it was before them popping in existence.
you don't randomly get energy in void. you get these particles which recombine and result again in zero in that spot, unless they are next to event horizon. only then do they separate, at least that's how I understood it.
what kind of particle pair when combined results in zero energy? because matter/antimatter doesn't result in zero energy, results in quite a lot of it.

[Anonymous No.15983965]

>>15983946 me
>because matter/antimatter doesn't result in zero energy, results in quite a lot of it.
or else we could see at night as there would be random photons generated out of fucking nothing. we could collect them and have free energy out of literally nothing.
since we don't get fucking energy out of nothing, it's clear that these particle pairs that spontaneously can arise, in a void, HAVE to result in zero energy when recombined. which isn't the case for matter + antimatter. if you had matter + antimatter particles spontaneously forming in void you'd basically have random energy just appearing out of nowhere. and staying here. that's ... weird. isn't it?

[Anonymous No.15984344]

>>15958813
Is this what you have to believe in to cope with expansion?

[Anonymous No.15985138]

>>15983934
gravitational wave observations by LIGO, direct images of black holes, relativistic jets and quazars, literal footage of stars moving at relativistic speeds around an invisible massive object at the center of our galaxy that happens to also visibly be gravitationally lensing the star in question

[Anonymous No.15985292]

>>15958813
You're a moron
Hawking radiation doesn't come from the black hole, it comes from the space around it, because of how severely the gravitational field fucks with spacetime

[Anonymous No.15985306]

>>15985292
Don't bother. The IQ on here is really fuking low. Anyway who bothers to do basic research would know that Hawking radiation is caused by disruption to the quantum fields caused by spatial curvature in the vincity of the black hole. Is prevents certain modes of fluctuations from neatly canceling out and the result is black body radiation with a thermal distribution. Of course it could be wrong but the concept of hawking radiation is more fundamental than blackholes and multiple different proof have arrived at the same conclusion that some form of radiation must be emmited by black hole like objects.

[Anonymous No.15985445]

>>15985306
>>15985292
thank god some people on here have a brain at least.

[Anonymous No.15985493]

>>15985306
>Is prevents certain modes of fluctuations from neatly canceling out
what kind of particles?

[Anonymous No.15986282]

>>15985493
You really have to read papers written about it to know what going on. I highly encourage you to watch videos by PBS spacetime as a first Introduction on the subject. Then read scientific papers where they specifically model what happens to quantum fields like the EM field, electron field, etc, in the vincity of the blackholes.

It's not my area of expertise as I'm a Condensed matter physics guy but when you go through the math you will find that the most likely thing to be emitted is photons since photons don't have mass and are purely energy. All paticle field are affected but I don't think you will see gluons coming off the blackhole leading to particle jets, I don't know why though. There's definitely a reason for preferring photons. I think it's because photons are massless, electrically neutral, and can be very low energy while also escpaing the blackhole. As blackhole becomes very small I'd imagine that curvature becomes
more severe, more energy is released allowing for other particle emissions. Perhaps electrons and anti electrons. I think that could violate charge conservation though. Gluons have color charge so that wouldn't happen either I think. I can't speak more on this without my own research into the matter

[Anonymous No.15986285]

>>15986282
>I learned everything I know about science from PBS TV shows
lolololololololol

[Anonymous No.15986352]

>>15986285
Anon, PBS spacetime isn't comparable to popsci slop like cosmos or anything narrated by brian cox or stephen hawking. You'd know if you tried to watch one of their videos. try this one. https://youtu.be/G0Q4UAiKacw

[Anonymous No.15986478]

>>15986352
PBS spacetime is definitely way above the rest for quantum stuff but he fucked up general relativity by saying time dilation causes gravity which is wrong. The YouTube channel Dialect gives an excellent description of gravity and once you go down that YouTube rabbit hole you start to see alternative physics stuff like variable speed of light and unified field theory. A video came out recently from someone in that sphere that showed a paper detailing out the gravitational constant G is determined by the mass and radius of the universe following from Machs principle. Absolutely brilliant watch.

[Anonymous No.15986504]

>>15985445
its literally a google search away, people just like to troll to see what kind of answers people will come up with to their nonsensical objections

[Anonymous No.15986681]

>>15986478
Dialect is great for relativity, but PBS spacetime is much more general. where dialect's videos go like, 85% into the complicated stuff for relstivity sprcifically, PBS spacetime goes like 40-70% into the complicated stuff for all the video subjects, and typical popsci shit would go like 25% into astrophysics, and maybe 5-15% into the more complicated physics.

[Anonymous No.15986801]

>>15986681
I agree. PBS has some Gems too like the higgs mechanism explained which was brilliantly illustrated and simplified enough that it was sensible but not super ultra detailed to understand how every particle interacts with it. PBS leads you on to higher detailed explanations and gets math heavy to show why physicists things certain things are the way they are

[Anonymous No.15986855]

>>15986282
the issue is that I can't find info on this negative energy particle that supposedly goes in the black hole "stealing" mass/energy from it. wikipedia says it's antimatter which seems retarded, it doesn't have negative mass. it has mass
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03043-0
and from Hawking radiation wiki:
> instead of cancelling each other out normally, the antimatter and matter fields were disrupted by the black hole, causing antimatter and matter particles to "blip" into existence as a result of the imbalanced matter fields, and drawing energy from the disruptor itself: the black holes (to escape), effectively draining energy from the black hole.

[Anonymous No.15986900]

>>15986855
Stop thinking about particles and only consider fields. Particles are nothing more than an illusion, a highly localised excitation in a quantum field.
Positive and negative modes normally cancel however when their is severe spatial curvature from a blackhole SOME of these modes no longer cancel and roughly speaking you will emit radiation with wavelength on the order of the diameter of the blackhole. Forget about antimatter and matter nonsense. Blackholes are not emitting electrons or anti electrons unless they are so small that each radiation event contains massive amounts of energy. Enough energy to generate an electron or positron from their respective fields.
Blackholes of stellar mass emit photons with extremely low energy and with an energy distribution given by a perfect blackbody equation. This remains unproven directly though...

I will tell you that Hawking's result is a bit of a hack. We ignore the mathematics of quantum fields in severe spatial curvature by only considerng two points very distant from the blackhole in flat spacetime. We conjecture that certain modes are forbidden by this area of space we call the blackhole. And in order to satisfy boundary conditions and other conservations we implicitly derive thermal radiation emition when we follow through the math. Now where the radiation "comes from" I can't remember. It's generated at the event horizon maybe? Also because the photons are real they must take energy from somewhere and so they take energy from the blackhole. I don't know the subject any better as it gets really complicated with locality and relativity and where blackhole information is stored. Contemporary theory states that blackhole info is stored on the event horizon where all matter falling in never reaches past it from our perspective due to gravitational red shift. This is known as holographic principle and it's implications are also profound.

[Anonymous No.15986989]

>>15986900
it's such a fucking shame that the AdS/CFT correspondence probably doesn't have anything to do with how the universe exists (since it uses string theory), because it's so fascinating mathematically.

[Anonymous No.15987994]

>>15986352

[Anonymous No.15988069]

>>15987994
t. didn't watch it

[Anonymous No.15989687]

>>15988069
>I learned everything I know about soiyence from television

[Anonymous No.15989746]

>>15989687
You don't know anything about science at all.

[Anonymous No.15990422]

>>15989746
>I learned everything I know about soiyence from television and it makes me angry to have that pointed out

[Anonymous No.15990543]

nobody cares, not science, its not something that can be checked with experiments

[Anonymous No.15991649]

>>15958813
>black holes
fake and gay, they've been proved to not exist. people only believe in them because they watch too much tv

[Anonymous No.15992670]

>>15990543
scyence fangoys don't care about that, they just want to believe that their comic book fantasy world will one day come true so they use confirmation bias to believe in the sensationalist television popsci

[Anonymous No.15992733]

>>15958824
The only guy in the thread smart enough to post in /sci/.

[Anonymous No.15993385]

>>15985138
how come there is no evidence of gravitational lensing in that pic? isn't gravitational lensing supposed to be one of the tell tale signs of a black hole?

[Anonymous No.15993691]

>>15985138
>direct images of black holes,
fake
>>15985138
>gravitational wave observations by LIGO
data massaged
>>15985138
>literal footage of stars moving at relativistic speeds around an invisible massive object at the center of our galaxy
a big mass doesnt have to be a black hole

[Anonymous No.15994758]

>>15993691
that gif is just objects orbiting the center of mass, anyone who believes its evidence of a black hole must also believe picrel is evidence of a black hole at the center of our solar system

[Anonymous No.15994887]

>>15993385
There is. Look at it again, the fastest star visibly looks stretched.
>>15993691
>fake
nope.
>data massaged
nope.
>a big mass doesn't have to be a black hole
Point out where in that gif you can see a big mass that the stars are orbiting around, that isn't black. Alternatively, give an example of a perfectly black supermassive object that isn't a black hole.
>>15994758
This is like assuming that if you dug a pit through the center of the earth and took an elevator there, we'd float a relativistic speeds around its center of mass.
Without a black hole, most of the galactic mass would be *around* those stars, not next to it. They'd mostly be floating around randomly, with the majority of the galaxy's mass cancelling itself out.
Also, barycenters exist relative to two-body systems, not three of four, let alone 9. the idea of a common solar system barycenter is silly.

[Anonymous No.15994890]

>>15992733
That explanation still doesn't make sense. antiparticles just have a negative electromagnetic charge, not negative mass, so them falling into the black would add their mass to it.

[Anonymous No.15994909]

>>15994887
a mass can be large and not be a black hole. It doesnt have to be a shining star.
As for images and data, its all fake. The signals are just noise filtered with an algorithm until you get what you want to see.

[Anonymous No.15994911]

>>15994890
it doesnt make sense at multple levels
Like these are supposed to be virtual particles, they are not real.

[Anonymous No.15995063]

>>15994909
No, that's not how data works. you've never read a paper in your life.

[Anonymous No.15995067]

>>15995063
>No, that's not how data works
it is exactly how it works
>never read a paper
as if you personally read tb of noise fake data

[Anonymous No.15995068]

>>15994911
The rwason it doesn't make sense is because it's wrong. it's related to the unruh effect and the event horizons's disturbant effect on quantum fields.
The unruh effect is a weird thing where, if an observer accelerates in spacetime, they perceive thermal particles seemingly coming out of nowhere , with their energy corresponding to the amount of acceleration the observer is undergoing. It's really weird so i recommend watching this video as a general primer: https://youtu.be/7cj6oiFDEXc

[Anonymous No.15995069]

>>15995067
You've gotta be baiting, right?

[Anonymous No.15995070]

>>15995069
took you that long to notice? lmaooo

[Anonymous No.15995151]

>>15958813
That guy maybe wrong, but you are a complete moron for sure.

[Anonymous No.15995207]

>>15995070
>>15995069
samefag

[Anonymous No.15995223]

>>15958813
This photo of him was out several years ago. I'm surprised it took this long for the public to find out.

[Anonymous No.15995288]

>>15958813
>FANCY A HANDY STEVIE?

[Anonymous No.15995691]

>>15995207
Nah.

[Anonymous No.15995697]

I'm going to need proof that "Space"/"Spacetime" is a physical media and thus bendable/compressable in the same sense that water is.

Before that, I am going to say Hawking is full of shit.

[Anonymous No.15995869]

>>15995697
You can see gravitational lensing in deep field images of really far away galaxy superclusters.

[Anonymous No.15995966]

>>15966702
Since small black holes evaporate super faster and we can create them, cant we test it?

[Anonymous No.15995968]

>>15995869
Are you trying to say "Spacetime" is just a dumbed down, generalist term for matter interactions in general?

[Anonymous No.15996032]

>>15958830
The idea of a fucking singularity desapearing because of this sounds really wrong

[Anonymous No.15996188]

>>15958827
Information is destroyed, not energy. There is a big difference. Hawking radiation is energy that "escapes" a black hole, but there is no information to it.

[Anonymous No.15996936]

>>15995966
We can't create black holes

[Anonymous No.15998439]

>>15996936
>black holes
they don't exist

[Anonymous No.15998973]

[Anonymous No.15999529]

>>15959082
>boycott science
lol. you i like.

[Anonymous No.16000141]

Is consciousness fundamental, and does it survive death?

I've been having an existential crisis this past year and I wonder what are your thoughts on consciousness and death. Avoid philosphy, I want to hear from a scientific perspective.

And do you like this Donald Hoffman
guy?

https://youtu.be/hbWGJeKq4tU?feature=shared

[Anonymous No.16001376]

>>15998439
tsmt
black holes only exist in scyence fiction movies

[Anonymous No.16001389]

>>16000141
Spam
>Spam
Shill
>Shill
Fuck off okay?