Here is why Black Holes dont exist

What really annoys me about science right now is the many worlds hypothesis. For some reason people think it means that whenever you make a choice, reality splits. That would be redundant enough, but what it's actually saying is that every potentiality of every particle actually occurs. Just think of all the variables at play in waking life. They want me to believe there's a different reality for, say, every angle I have my laptop's screen adjusted to. Every angle I have my feet crossed. Whether I'm sitting up or lying down, and every single way I could be sitting up or lying down. Every blade of grass turned every which way in every conceivable combination of ways...and there's a different version of me for all of them. It's so asinine to me. I know there is just one of me, because two of me would just be stupid. That's just one example of something they discuss as though it is a fact. Now, I've heard counter-arguments, too, but more often than not someone is just explaining it as though it is the undeniable solution to quantum uncertainty. They'll come up with anything to dismiss the role of the observer and grant consciousness a role in creating reality. But to me it makes infinitely more sense that our brains are helping to orchestrate the reality they perceive. Rather than invoking infinite worlds that reduce all human action to just garbage. No action or choice has any significance whatsoever if every single action and choice occurs, and even more than that, it's all determined by random chance based on circumstances that also have an infinite number of probabilities of occurring.

 

Well, actually, she has a very valid point about the speed camera analogy


Here is the photo again, the one and only public photo you will see for a while:




Top right hand corner is a composite image from data collected over several days from Iron and Potassium spectra only, of quasar HE 0435-1223. Software used to adjust for microlensing in this case was based on someone elses work entirely 4 years previous. And there is actually a command in XSPEC called fakeit that they use

Image top right hand corner again, I will invite you or anyone else to tell us what we are actually looking at.

4 dots....what are they?
Whereabouts in the photo is the disk around the black hole?

I will give you a hint, one of those dots is not like the others. And the question about where the black hole is, is a trick question

4 dots, what are they?

 

And that's not the post I quoted is it?

 

Doesnt really matter;

This part from the paper:

"Unfortunately, the spin measurement technique presented in this paper can only be used to analyzethe small sample of targets whose X-ray spectra can be measured with sufficient signal-to-noiseratios using the current generation of X-ray telescopes. The next generation X-ray telescopes withan order of magnitude increase in the effective area will allow these measurements in a much largersample. Ideally, we need sub-arcsec angular resolutions to resolve the lensed images to increase theconstraining power for the size and spin measurements. However, a similar analysis can be appliedto the total image of the lensed quasars, where the requirement for the angular resolution is lesscrucial, because the analysis relies on the time-averaged relative microlensing signals between the X-ray continuum and Fe Kαemission regions. In addition, quasar microlensing can induce variabilityin the polarization signals, especially the polarization angle (Chen 2015), which can be detected byfuture X-ray polarization missions and put constraints on quasar black hole spins independently"

Which is basically them just saying we dont have good enough telescopes

Margin of error of +/- 0.16 billion solar masses in the spin calculations, thats billion with a B


I'm not attacking the paper, they arent the ones making the claims you see on Science Daily. 70% of the speed of light, thats not what the paper says at, paper says 10% chance its spinning at 70%,

 

Anyway HE 0435, top right hand corner, the 4 dots are all the same x-ray source, that is, the 4 dots are the same dot












This is an image of the same quasar 28 years ago

 

Hubble photo of HE 0435

 

Which is gravitational lensing

 

So we are just going concentrate on getting butthurt on what Irminsul said?

Because she is at least half right with the gravirational lensing as well.

I will do the short version first this time: If the tecnique was so super dooper you'd get a much clearer picture than the fuzzy blob you see in the image from the Chandra telescope


Long version:

Gravitational lensing just means a source behind a foreground object is amplified a little because of it and ww can see a little further away. Gravitational microlensing is studying the changes over time of whatever EM radiation as the background object changes in relation to the foreground, lensing object. Both have similar sounding names, but really are different kinds of things.

If the foreground object is uniform, the effect looks like a ring. If appears like this one, as four dots, its because the foreground object is not uniform and is blocking part of what we are ever going to be able to see this way. Hence all the probabilty functions in the paper on the quasar. 99% just refers to to the the spectral lines they can see vs the computer model. And casual readers hear 99% and think ooh, that sounds accurate, but the thing is 8 billion light years away and what 160,000,000 solar masses. 1% error is a big deal.

Then they just feed their measurements into the field equations, which were always an approximation anyway. The three constants of the field equations only at 2 decimal places in that paper

Never going to be able to to tell the difference between a black hole of diameter 0 vs the diameter of the moon this way. And infererometry based on earth, this latesr purple blob is sbout as accurate as we are going to get

 

I'm not "butthurt" at all, I just don't see the point in attempting to unpack your points if you're not going to even fairly quote a post I responded to. With your constant defense of Irm along with a couple of the logical and type errors you made earlier, I'm questioning some of your credibility with this stuff. Anyways, as I mentioned, many of the details of this paper are beyond my comprehension .

 

She is right though, we are never going to get the answers we need from this method. Otherwise we would have more than 4 purple blobs by now

 

I'm right?

Imagine that.



They'll write songs about me.

 

Edit... Forget it

 

Fine you feel that way..


I'll side with the Scientists worldwide working on this stuff.

 

Gravity doesn't exist because we can't see it.

 

Lol

 

There's more magical imaginary unseen beliefs in science than in religion. Lol. And no way to prove anything.

 

Gravity is definitely not one of those unproven things

 

Are you sure though? Because there's lots of testing still which coincides with the magnetic universe, the electric universe, sound resonance and frequency just to name a few that aren't so sure gravity is what it's mean to be, or what anyone has been taught.

My favorite of course is the sound resonance and frequency. We are now able to levitate and anti-gravity using sound resonance and frequency, but that's not what teach us, yet it's very real. So if you can create anti gravity using sound, is it really gravity? Or is it sound and frequency, which has been proved to do the same thing? On the opposite side we are now able to use sound to dish out a ton of power too, which would be the opposite of anti-gravity. Sound frequency can eliminate gravity.

All of a sudden, gravity isn't this dominating miracle at all if it's easily manipulated.