Are mainstream theories about astromical black-holes rude?

wax

Mainstream theories say that when stars collapse, after a supernova, part of the star goes on collapsing until all the matter has created and fallen across an event horizon, and forms what they call a 'black hole'.

Hawking made joking references to the anatomical comparisons and in some parts of the world these objects are called 'dark stars' to avoid embarrassment.

I personally don't think black holes form, not in the sense that mainstream science thinks they do. I just think they are gravitationally time-dilated collapsing objects, and all there would ever be was a very very deep gravity well.

Mainstream science seems to loath letting go of their black-hole theories, and I just wonder if it might be because a lot of scientists are a bit anal....to put it bluntly. :)

VagabondSpectre

SR and GR should be able to predict how time dilates in very strong gravity wells. If you don't have any equations, calculations, or plausible models to actually explain and support your hypothesis, why should physicists all change their minds because you just don't agree?

In other words, what evidence do you have?

Your choice of words is interesting. "Rude" has an older connotation meaning "roughly made or done; lacking subtlety or sophistication". In the view of most physicists, it's the lay-stream theories which are the rude ones.

wax

well is the mainstream idea of black-holes differentiable to incipient(ie not quite forms) collapsing stars, by tests and evidence? Is it falsifiable?

If it isn't I would say it's more maths that science.

Paul

Of course black holes are differentiated by tests and evidence. We discover or verify new things about them, like for example Hawking radiation, from observation. We've verified and falsified all sorts of theories about them. They are among the most constantly studied objects in the universe.

If you're going to say we only observe their effects and not the black holes themselves, the same is true of everything else in the universe (we observe how the chair interacts with photons, not the chair in itself).

wax

We discover or verify new things about them, like for example Hawking radiation, from observation — Paul

how has Hawking radiation been observed?

I know there was some experiment using something where the speed of light was reduced , to generate a pseudo event horizon, or something....but that wasn't actually Hawking radiation.

Any stellar black hole will produce so little radiation that it wouldn't even be measurable if one was within a million miles of one, as far as I know.

Are mainstream theories about astromical black-holes rude?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions