Here is why Black Holes dont exist

I think everyone should take everything physicists say with a big grain of salt. They're very fixed on their "rules of reality," but laws were meant to be broken. They're intelligent...for humans. I will never mistake this for meaning they are actually very intelligent at all. I think they're dummies, and I don't think they know very much at all about what's going on in reality.

I watch a lot of science programs about things like black holes and quantum mechanics, though, and they readily admit that they don't know, at times, things like "what is going on in the center of a black hole." But then they'll go ahead and posit that everything can be explained away easily if we just simply introduce infinite universes into the equation, which is absolute rubbish in my opinion.

 

I think it's fairly well established that the event horizon of a black hole acts like a black box which is the primary reasons why physcists don't know for certain what is at the center. The alternative options that I'm aware of is that it could lead to alternative universes, which is also probably not appealing to many opposing the idea of a singularity.

Kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't type thing in regards to phycists hypotheses.

 

Why haven't we sent something into one yet?

 

Distance. Here's the furthest object sent into space vs the closest known Black Hole. Gives you a glimpse into how terrifyingly powerful these things are...

 

I see.
This Universe would be a lot easier to understand if someone hadn't made it so fucking big.

 

We should change this forum to the anti-science forum

 

i am sorry, i just go through "New Posts" and pay no attention to what forum i'm actually in.
really i should start noticing.

 

Me Too......Tit Pleases Me To See I Am In "Good Company".....



Cheers Glen.

 

Also because it is most likely suicide.

 

nobody said we had to send a human into a black hole lol.

 

Here is a flow chart for the scientific method




The first one, it says ask a question

The fourth one says test with an experiment

And the last one, it isnt really science until results match with hypothesis...and then verified independantly at least half a dozen times. Then even then someone can ask the question again

 

An ~Irminsul~ Original. ©®

 

What i find curious and amusing in such sentences and VGs overall arguments on this;

is that he seems to act as if scientists pretent to know everything about black holes. As if the scientific consensus on black holes is 100% based on solid evidence.
You know that just because there's a consensus about the existence of them there's still plenty of uncertainties and that most scientists fully acknowledge that? Just like they and most of us here are aware some of the details are at this point still based on theory. I'm verifying because this seems your main reason for arguing about black holes as you do.

 

'It isn't really science until the results (of the scientific research) match with the hypothesis'. Uhm really? So if scientific research makes clear the hypothesis wasnt right it's not real science?

 

So basically;

When you know its a load of shit, Im pretending scientists think they know everything.

When its something you believe in, scientists do know everthing, we should trust in the "experts" and Amsterdam will be underwater when 5% of the ice melts

 

A strange and also completely unneccesary conclusion.

 

The right side of the chart, the little arrow that goes back to construct a hypothesis

 

I'm not really following the 0 to 0 and Infinity Comparisons with integers but here are Strict Equality Boolean Operations on your examples

 

In that first analogy, using a pointer would be more accurate, like in C, so you wouldnt know what type either 0 is at runtime. If you never saw any oranges or peaches, and say oranges was an int, peaches a long int

And i cant remeber what error you get back, but it would be some kind of undefined, not 0



I think we just went full nerd

 

Pointers can have different byte size from the variables they point to. Probably not the best to use in logical equivalency comparisons.