For example, he claims to find black holes…sure, how can this be verified from trillions and trillions of miles away? Distance creates illusions by lots. It is amazing hiow a group of lunatics can deceive the people with such fantasies. If a star collapses and pulls another star, this attraction causes a collision, and this is the end of the collapsed star. The fantasy is found with the silly assumption that the stars will be extinguished by the collapsed star as when a 10 years old boy extinguishes the flames of his birthday candles.
This bears no actual relation to what a black hole is or how it is discovered. A black hole is what remains after the supernova of a massive star, when the gravity of the core becomes so great that not even light can escape it. (Fewer are created by the merger of two massive stars). Black holes are discovered through indirect means: in particular, through gauging the velocity of circling stars or gases. I’m sure you remember Newton’s laws of motion, and that in particular you can calculate the mass of a star by the rotational velocity and orbit of the material surrounding it. Astrophysicists do that calculation and discover there is a hugely massive object in the center of a system, but one that emits no light. That is very good evidence for a black hole.
Look, lets buy for a minute that such a body exists.
You have a not shinning body which will -according to you- it won’t let light to escape from it.
But, is there any current phenomena supporting such peculiar event? Of course no. You even assume that this black hole can be formed by the merger of two massive stars…but you have no evidence that such event can be possible in reality.
If this forum becomes a public debate and proof is asked, you have nothing but thoughts.
I can tell you the next which can explain a possibility of a star not being visible by us: the star collapses, several clouds of gases sorround the dead star, this clouds of gases can impede any light to get out like the greenhouse effect does with heat in our planet, ans the gases are dark enough to absorb any light hitting them.
But, to think that light can be pulled back by gravity, sorry but such kind of ideas are insane.
According to Relativity, light is not even affected by gravity, Relativity explained that the assumed space-time was distorted and that light passing by in its “straight traveling” will appear to be bending by the distorted space-time.
So, look, what Relativity is telling you is that light is not directly affected by gravity but that light appears to be bending because its new environment has been distorted.
Read now what the whole books about black holes which are based in Relativity say: that light is pulled by gravity. See? this contrariety shows how false are the arguments about black holes.
Indeed, IIRC, sometimes when they do that calculation they discover that the mass of the central object is so great that it has to be a black hole.
However all of this has nothing to do with Hawking’s predictions in this thread; it is simply irrelevant. And Hawking is hardly the only person discussing black holes. Yes, he is associated with a black hole’s “Hawking radiation”, but that’s a side-light.
You said “calculation” which is different to a real observable event. What it is clear about black holes is that this idea started as gigantic stars 590 times as large as the Sun with great mass 590 times as the Sun as well. This is how the author of this idea portrayed the possibility that such gravity will pull light.
But, this idea was based in observations? No.
Such idea was based in mere calculations.
Please, wake up to reality, such idea about black holes pulling light are no more than ideas based in calculations, not so because such event was possible in reality.
Read what you said above: ” the mass of the central object is so great that it has to be a black hole.”
It has to be? come on, one has to be stupid to believe in such crap in the first place.
Hawking is practically a clown when he claims that black holes “evaporate”. Read his writings, who knows what the heck he is trying to say with such “evaporate” but this is a new invented meaning for this word because in scientific tterms evaporation was referred to several phenomena but not to radiation going away.
I like this [biblical] “fantasy” better than the fantasies mentioned above by others because I don’t have to do anything but to wait.
It’s one thing to “like” a fantasy, for example as a work of fiction, and quite another to think that it is actually supported by evidence. Believing something because you like it is called “wishful thinking”.
From my part I do not wish such ends of eras, I prefer to work hard to maintain the current status of life on Earth.
Between the scientific fantasies exposed in this topic and the religious fantasies, I strongly think that the fantasies of the bible are 100% more plausible.
... if by “plausible” you mean “without a shred of evidence whatever”, at least as regards the future ... but that’s an odd sort of plausibility.
Just wondering, do you take the Mahabharata as seriously? What about other works of religious fantasy? And if not, why not?
Do you take Star Trek seriously as a prediction of the future? Why not?
Well, as space traveling makes you sick without exceptions, you must have to live consuming drugs in all your traveling to other planets. This will carry consequences because you will survive the traveling but at the costs of harm to your body with drugs which have side effects.
To travel as robots in order to keep “humanity” alive in other planets is also irrelevant by the lack of pro-creation.
So, Star Trek is today an imagination far from our reach, and new movies and tv shows about space traveling must portray people using drugs to keep their health in good shape while going to other galaxies. This will be a more realistic preparation in case that future generations might become capable one day to travel outside our planet to far away planets.
Today, Star Trek shows are portraying space traveling as traveling inside a vehicle from New York to California, this is to say, without the effects in health which are currently observable in the astronauts by standing several months in space.
By the way, check the comic book The Universe in a Nutshell, Hawking loves seeing himself with other travelers in an episode made for Star trek. You’ll love such caricatures found in this book.
Why some religious predictions are more plausible than Star Trek imaginations?
Well, having that the earth is practically a giant meteor and by heating it its compressed water can come out and be preserved as liquid and gases by our atmosphere, we can accept the biblical beginning that the primeval rivers on earth appeared from underground and not by rain. In this, the bible seems to be correct.
The new beginning predicted after the end of the current biblical era is also acceptable when it mentions that new rivers will come out from underground again and new life will start to appear in our planet.
This is a process of recycling, which is also observable in our planet.
The inclusion of giving the credit of those changes to a god as the one who causes them…well, that is a matter which belong to another discussion.
The scenario given in the bible is plausible, it can happen or it can be possible. We don’t know how life was formed from the elements of the universe, but we observe that life exists and in the future life might survive somehow by a process of transformation instead of trying to run away in space ships.