Here is why Black Holes dont exist

You're kind of right actually. We'll have to escape the planet due to increase in Solar Radiation regardless but I forgot about predictions that the Milky Way is set to collide with the Andromeda Galaxy about a half billion years prior to the Sun is predicted to Red Giant.

 

Yeah, but that second one you are just doing a boolean operation on the datatype (string) the computer returns when it calculates 1/0 and 2/0. Not actually a boolean operation on 1/0 and 2/0

 

Incorrect

I don't want to get bogged down in this though...

 

The real question is whether or not information is lost completely when it enters a black hole. For which scientists have theorized a holographic universe, in order to save the information.

 

I'm not anti-science by the way either. I'm anti-human hubris. I just don't think our science is nearly as advanced as we like to think. We've gotten too carried away with being impressed with our own technology. I think it's particularly dangerous for science, as people develop rigid mindsets about what is and is not possible, based on the theories at hand. History shows that what man thinks is true is proven wrong time and time again. It's no different this time around. Richard Dawkins has had something to say about priesthoods, and that goes for science as well.

I am wary. Especially when it comes to things like black holes, the Big Bang, and dark matter.

 

Chandra Views Spinning Black Holes Across Cosmic Sea

• The material around of one these black holes is spinning at greater than about 70% of the speed of light.
• Astronomers used Chandra to study the accretion disks of material around the black holes that are superheated and glow in X-rays.
• The researchers used gravitational lensing that produces multiple images of a background object due to the bending of space-time.

 

A speed camera isn't even accurate. But we are calculating the speed of something we can't even see going around a hole we only assume is there.

 

I also Lol'd at "gravitational lensing" we have never seen gravity, but here's a fancy camera lens.

 

Oh wow, stay in your lane and stick to your imaginary aliens and shit.

 

Hey at least there's a rich colourful history about the aliens and not just made up shit. in line with human history they're more believable than theoretical cosmology.

 

..

 

what shit do you think is made up in that article?

 

Wow. Telescopes can take pictures of things in space. I'm stunned.

 

Isn't everything in theoretical science just made up stuff that calculates as true with zero opportunity or chance to actually test them so they remain theoretical and hypothetical until somebody else comes up with another way or idea or system?

"theoretically" just means, in theory, and in theory goes along with the scientific method and education. So in theory what they say makes sense, but there's really no valid evidence behind it, only evidence to "support" their "theory".

The Anunnaki belief is much more believable because humans already documented what they were taught and what they were taught stands true to what humans have rediscovered. A lot of it is factual evidence they knew about our cosmology, it was never theory. The way the Anunnaki taught humans about our solar systems cosmology are the conclusions that science is starting to make about our solar system, except it is still all theoretical to them, but they're starting to release information that coincides with the Anunnaki/Sumerian mythology about our cosmology so it would make sense for me to acknowledge what our ancient civilisations wrote down because historic events, places, and locations and planets even in our solar system were diagnosed, real and proven to be true/real. It is no longer theoretical.

 

You said you weren't going to come to this forum any longer and lied about that, so no reason to believe any other of this stuff you say.

 

Lol.

 

It's kind of pathetic to be belittled into not coming to a forum because a few people don't agree with what I say, especially in terms of science where all information is meant to be process, understood etc. To tell someone to go away I'm not going to believe you is basically what I feel would be contradictory to science, especially on the topic of "theoretical".

You'd rather shelter yourself in the surroundings of what your comfortable with, even when it's about as fictitious as anything else.

 

Nah, you've already been explained a dozen times in this forum what a scientific theory is, you're just a flat out troll here... and I really don't get it because you're cool in most other forums. It seems like particularly when I share something I find interesting here, you just have to yuck it up without providing any interesting insight. I don't get it really..

 

I don't see myself as a troll, I see myself as someone who asks questions, who doesn't dismiss new evidence and somebody who won't turn their head away from new possibilities.

I read things, I comment on what I read. If I see an inconsistency or read something that contradicts what we talk about then I'm gonna speak up on it. Just like how I defiantly dismissed the photo of a black hole and I was shot down only to find out it wasn't even a photo of a black hole at all but basically an interpretation of data and we were right. -shrug-

No point getting pissy with me, I'm just obviously not wired in the same fashion as some of you and I don't believe I was ever meant to be. Coupled in by the obvious millions of people that share similar feelings as me I really don't know what leg anyone has to stand on to belittle someone over theoretics.

But hey, that's just me.

Everything I believe in has yet to be factually dismissed and hey, in "theory" it all makes sense too. so maybe I do believe in theoretical science after all. . .. Theoretical history.

And for the record I don't get all upset and pissy when you guys tease me or put down my Anunnaki stuff. You're entitled to not believe it or agree. I simply talk about it because I find it interesting, plus it's a good way for me to write and tbh it's probably pushed me into learning about certain science and biology, religions, cultures etc so I see it as a good thing even it is a bit far out there but I also question things like Neon said, you watch a documentary and hear a scientist firmly acknowledge that they don't really know sometimes.

At least I don't think the earth is flat or that climate change is a hoax, right?? See I'm not all bad, I just have a hard time ardently believing in something that we don't actually know.. And the one thing I do know is that mythology often yields fact.

 

Here's the draft paper in PDF that's referenced in the article Chandra Views Spinning Black Holes Across Cosmic Sea:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1901.06007.pdf

I read the abstract and realized this stuff is beyond my comprehension, but it provides sections on Spectral Analysis and Microlensing analysis.