Black Holes Don't Exist

So black holes exist or don't exist due to an agreed consensual opinion?

...

"We don't know for sure"
But we definitely know who is wrong?

No, I know what sarcasm is, but I don't see the need to be sarcastic in return.

So this forum is a place for asps to vent their frustrations?

Perhaps you would like to share some of your problems... I'm listening.

Their theories are restricted by their definition and conclusions about the nature of matter and its existence.
They try to find a model of matter that has no greater contexts than itself, ie, it is self existent.
Now while nature displays such an economy that it seems like it is existing by itself, it is dependent on greater contexts of energy than itself.
There is a lot more to what we see, in that which cannot be seen.
If you put matter into the context of a supporting power or background of forces then, you don't have to try and make its own functions account for its behaviors.

But because we have not discovered these background forces, we rely on making up extreme situations like black holes to balance out the expectations.

So black holes are 'necessary' but not necessarily there to create the missing parts of the puzzle.

Son Goku writes: Can you give concrete reasons as to why you think General Relativity would (not?) be correct about the orbits of planets, the bending of light, frame-dragging, but suddenly false in this case. What is it that the theory assumes, that invalidates black holes, but does not affect its other predictions?

I am pleasantly surprised that you have given the majority of my points credit, normally I would get the "you're delusional" lecture.

Personally I have never believed in GR, SR etc, because they are without any greater context. But the effects of space time bending are real and rightly predicted as well as observed.

My Q is what causes space time bending?

We associate mass and gravity, and a space time bend, but I do not believe they are caused by each other, rather that all of these are caused by a difference in the state of the background force which also helps to make up and produce matter and all the other factors mentioned.
Not just matter, but anti matter and dark matter as well.

It is slowly dawning on some scientists that the universe has much more power behind it than revealed in matter, and that matter is only a small expression compared to that energy. So rather than seeing the universe as empty space with a few stars, it is actually full of energy or elements of some type, and the stars are the lower points of energy in that fabric.

So we can conclude that matter is a result of energy which has settled down.
That settled down state causes a difference with its highly energized environment in the universe.

If we accept that experimentally, then we can see stars not needing to derive their energy from wood, candles, electricity or atomic explosions, or whatever is used as an energy source for man in the future, but simply from the difference in the state of power between matter and the rest of the universe, which is what energy is, a difference which calls for an action to equalize.

It's like putting a frozen potato chip into hot oil, there is a reaction.

I have never believed in the black hole theory either, but I understand why it was predicted, and even now while some are saying that BH's should not exist, I still believe they were justified in seeking them, and that the properties of a BH could be present in another form.
Say for instance that the space time properties of matter, are completely changed in a BH, this itself tells us that the BH cannot be in a particular location in either space or time, relative to our universe, and that its perimeters or place of contact with our space time may be indeterminable.

if that is the case then it does not have to be in a particular location, and could well be everywhere at once, say like a background to all molecules which has locations of high intensity and low intensity depending on the number of molecules and perhaps its own distribution.

So that if there are many stars in a galaxy center, the mass of the stars may not be enough to create the gravity necessary to hold the galaxy together, but the number of stars may indicate an excess or bias in the background force.

Instead of calling it a black hole we could simply say that it is the missing part in between each quantum -(package of energy) say "Black Energy".

But once again it is assuming to have a particular location, where as if it was truly in another space time condition, then it does not have to be intense in one area or another, but each star would simply respond to whatever it is commanded, with no explanation or evidence why it behaves differently.

Edited by Colbard, : Add

Taz writes: I'm missing something here. How is any of this of relevant when the universe is only 6 thousand years old and the rapture is about to happen anytime now?

I don't know how you could conclude that the universe is 6,000 years old and that there is going to be a rapture anytime soon.

But the study and contemplation of the universe is a mind expanding exercise, which helps in any case.

Have you figured out why you have a need to be so angry, and post with a passive aggressive approach?
Would it not bring you relief to get it off your chest?

You don't have to be mad at Rush and others who do not want to think with someone and only against them.

Edited by Colbard, : add

Edited by Colbard, : No reason given.

I find posts easier to read when they are genuine.
I'm not really into games.

Taz writes: The question stands. What force would prevent lots and lots of matter clumped together to collapse?

You would have to take that Q up with those who made up the theory.
Who said lots of matter clumped together would collapse?
It could be true, I have never had a reason to believe it because the universe does not have such horrid items.
Demented men look out there for a moment, then tell us how dismal it all is.
I have studied astronomy when young, searched the sky with a real 10" reflector, and never had a reason to think there were "malevolent forces" out there, and certain doom. I'd prefer that these mental cases kept their dark sentences to themselves.

Cat Sci writes: Thank you for your opinion, but it has been rejected. Scientist will continue to make progress in uncovering the facts about our world despite your indignant opposition.

Of course, I am nothing, just an individual, but thanks for the benefit of the doubt.

We have finally discovered the black holes, in between the left and right ears of science.

Taz writes: Again, the question stands. Can you explain why lots of matter clumped together would not collapse under its own gravity? What happens when there is enough concentrated matter to overcome the pauli exclusion principle?

You definitely know more about this one than I do.
My reckoning is, if mass causes gravity, then as soon as mass collapses in any way the gravity will decrease as well, and the whole thing will reach equilibrium before too much of a phenomenon develops.

First of all I don't think that mass causes gravity. and secondly when you break the structure of the atom you lose its mass.
There is no such thing as collapsing matter down into a smaller unit than itself without disassembling its inner relations, and undoing matter altogether.

Matter is a weaving of two forces which give it certain time to and a certain space to exist.

Atoms can be compressed to a degree but not what you are talking about.

This assumption comes from the idea that matter is mostly empty space. No that empty space is not empty, not by a long shot. In fact the forces that reside and flow through matter are hundreds of thousands of times more powerful than matter.