Black holes 'do not exist' and dark-energy do not exist ???

[yree]

Black holes 'do not exist' <br />Philip Ball<br />These mysterious objects are dark-energy stars, physicist claims.<br /><br />Black holes, such as the one pictured in this artist's impression, may in fact be pockets of 'dark energy'.<br />© ESA/NASA<br />Black holes are staples of science fiction and many think astronomers have observed them indirectly. But according to a physicist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, these awesome breaches in space-time do not and indeed cannot exist.<br /><br />Over the past few years, observations of the motions of galaxies have shown that some 70% the Universe seems to be composed of a strange 'dark energy' that is driving the Universe's accelerating expansion.<br /><br />George Chapline thinks that the collapse of the massive stars, which was long believed to generate black holes, actually leads to the formation of stars that contain dark energy. "It's a near certainty that black holes don't exist," he claims.<br /><br />Black holes are one of the most celebrated predictions of Einstein's general theory of relativity, which explains gravity as the warping of space-time caused by massive objects. The theory suggests that a sufficiently massive star, when it dies, will collapse under its own gravity to a single point.<br /><br />But Einstein didn't believe in black holes, Chapline argues. "Unfortunately", he adds, "he couldn't articulate why." At the root of the problem is the other revolutionary theory of twentieth-century physics, which Einstein also helped to formulate: quantum mechanics.<br /><br /> It's a near certainty that black holes don't exist. <br /><br />George Chapline<br />Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory<br /> <br />In general relativity, there is no such thing as a 'universal time' that makes clocks tick at the same rate everywhere. Instead, gravity makes clocks run at different rates in different places. But quantum mechanics, which describes physical phenomena at infinitesimally small scales, is meanin

 

[tom_hobbes]

Er...<img src="/images/icons/shocked.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#339966"> I wish I could remember<br /> But my selective memory<br /> Won't let me</font><font size="2" color="#99cc00"> </font><font size="3" color="#339966"><font size="2">- </font></font><font size="1" color="#339966">Mark Oliver Everett</font></p><p> </p> </div>

 

[majornature]

Black Holes and Dark Matter exists. Black Holes swallow up light. Of course it is dark energy... Dark Matter plays a key role in the Universe. Dark Matter exist simply because the Universe is expanding and cooling. How else can the Universe expand? So far, scientist only proved to have revealed ten percent of the universe and Dark Matter is very important because it may be the key to revealing the rest (90%) of the universe. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#14ea50"><strong><font size="1">We are born.  We live.  We experiment.  We rot.  We die.  and the whole process starts all over again!  Imagine That!</font><br /><br /><br /><img id="6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264" style="width:176px;height:247px" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/14/4/6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="276" height="440" /><br /></strong></font> </div>

 

[yree]

"Black Holes and Dark Matter exists. Black Holes swallow up light. Of course it is dark energy... Dark Matter plays a key role in the Universe. Dark Matter exist simply because the Universe is expanding and cooling. How else can the Universe expand? So far, scientist only proved to have revealed ten percent of the universe and Dark Matter is very important because it may be the key to revealing the rest (90%) of the universe."<br /><br />Tf you can find articles rebuttal the articles post. <br /><br /><br />PS thanks

 

[yree]

New doubts on dark energy<br /><br />17 December 2003<br /><br />Most astronomers believe that the universe is dominated by “dark energy” because it has been the only way to explain why the universe is expanding and accelerating at the same time. Now, however, physicists in the Netherlands and France are suggesting that this energy might not exist. They claim that the absence of dark energy could account for recent X-ray observations of the universe that have unearthed puzzling differences between ancient and present-day galaxy clusters (Astron. Astrophys. to be published and arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0311344)<br /><br />In February, NASA unveiled the first detailed full sky map of the cosmic microwave background – the microwave “echo” of the big bang. The data, which were collected by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe satellite (WMAP), supported the currently popular “concordance model” of the universe. This model predicts that the universe is made up of 5% ordinary matter, 25% undetectable "dark matter", and 70% dark energy. Although the nature of dark energy is not yet known, galaxies in a universe with such a low density of matter should have stopped growing early in the history of the universe. They should therefore appear the same today as they did then.<br /><br />David Lumb and colleagues at the Space Research Technology Centre in the Netherlands (ESTEC) have now measured eight distant galaxy clusters using the European Space Agency’s X-ray observatory, XMM-Newton. These clusters - the furthest of which is about 10 billion light years away - provide a picture of the universe as it was around seven billion years ago. Lumb and co-workers surprisingly found that galaxy clusters in the distant universe emit more X-rays than those in the near universe.<br /><br />Moreover, a second group of physicists, led by Alain Blanchard at the Observatoire Midi-Pyrénées have analysed the data to demonstrate that the universe is a high-density environment that contains more matter

 

[yree]

Editorial: Big bang doubts fuel cosmology boomPremium<br /><br /> * 02 July 2005<br /> *<br /> * Magazine issue 2506<br /><br />News that the big bang is coming under fire from a growing number of directions is not bad news for cosmology - quite the opposite, in fact<br /><br />COSMOLOGY has come a long way. Once upon a time it was akin to theology, and models in which the universe rested on the back of a giant turtle were as plausible as any other. Now we have a sophisticated mathematical model backed up by hard observations. The universe, it says, exploded into existence 13.7 billion years ago, and entities such as dark matter and dark energy are orchestrating its evolution.<br /><br />Yet there remains something disquieting about this model. It contains a huge array of variables that can be changed pretty much at will. So flexible is it that some claim the model can be stretched to fit any observation. It also makes the highly unsatisfying prediction that only 4 per cent of all matter is accounted for by ordinary, familiar atoms. The rest is made up of utterly mysterious forms of dark matter and dark energy.<br /><br />Cosmologists' unease is ...<br />http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18625063.600<br /><br /><br />

 

[valareos]

Here is the interesting thing about the entire thing.<br /><br />Whether blackholes are singularities, or pockets of dark energy, it doesnt matter to the rest of the universe. Their gravity afects it the same, and physics work outside of the event horizon<br /><br />what is the event horizon? it is the point when the escape velosity= the speed of light. photons of light at that point are forever stuck there. (yet according to theory of reletivity, are still travelling at the speed of light, but that is an argument for another day)<br /><br />In other words, no information from inside there can get out! INCLUDING gravitational effects of potential dark matter or energy (unless gravity propels at a speed faster than light, then that opens up a whole new can of worms)<br /><br />What we see is the gravitational effects of the warped space around the object, not the object itself.<br /><br />so even if it is dark energy inside, it can not affect the space outside the event horizon.<br /><br /><br />My personal feelings on this, is that you can have a event horizon without having a singularity<br /><br />think on this... what are white dwarf stars? they are stars that have collapsed under gravity, but are kept from total collapse due to the nice little rule that no particle can occupy the same place, and have the same velocity at the same time. (i forgot the official name)<br /><br />Electrons move so fast, that the energy produced is enough to counteract gravity, without the need for fission to produce the awesome amount of energy needed.<br /><br />Gravity gets too much, the protons slam into electrons, and then the principle applies to the neutrons.. hence neutrons stars.<br /><br />add more gravity, and the physics of 10 years ago claim that there is noting left, and it collapses into a singularity (which is an ugly end)<br /><br />I had theorized 10 years ago that the same principle should apply to the quarks as well I feel validated with the fact that such is now being discovered.<b></b>

 

[yree]

2.- AD is a Quantum Relativistic Theory that follows Galilean and Newtonian common sense. Consequently AD removes all the fantasies of Lorentz and Einstein.<br /><br />[No Big Bang - No Einstein Cross - No Black Hole - No Length Contraction - No Time Dilation - No Space Curvature - No Frame Dragging - No Neutrino – No Twin Paradox – No Failure of Simultaneity – No Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle – No Failure of "Cause and Event" under Faster than Light – No Increasing Entropy]<br />http://www.autodynamics.org/html/ad_in_one_page.html<br />http://www.autodynamics.org/pdf/AutodynamicsinOnePage.pdf<br /><br /><br /> <br /><br />Black Holes Out, Dense Objects in<br /><br />Black holes come directly from the mathematics of Einstein's "Special" Relativity. Einstein's equations approach infinitely as objects approach the speed of light. One of the consequences of this is the so-called "singularity" at the center of black holes. At that point, mass is infinite and light and time do not exist - the exact same state of the universe at the beginning of the supposed "big bang".<br /><br />Autodynamics again gives us a more intuitive and less "mystical" universe. Black holes are replace by very dense objects. Pico-gravitons (the smallest particle in the universe) pack together - not in an infinite mathematical point - but a very dense object. This idea is one of mathematics and has little to do with the physical nature of the universe.<br /><br />Wormholes also a thing of the past. Wormholes supposedly link points of "singularity" with many "ideas" as to what is on the other side. First, wormholes are speculation on top of speculation - that is a wormholes are speculated on top of speculated singularity. As for the explanations of what wormholes produce, there are wild speculations from baby universes, to time travel, to parall

 

[yree]

Bomp

 

[yevaud]

Utter nonsense. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>