The Big Hoax Theory, Black holes and Gravity

I started this thread on black holes but then I decided to include everything else in modern science that I don’t agree with, as far as astronomy goes. I’m actually too tired to write about the big bang hoax now which should go first in my thread so I will update this and improve it later… but you can figure just from the below points that basically everything modern science teaches about the universe is pretty much bullshit.

A black hole can’t exist because it defies all logic. You can’t have a point that ‘sucks up’ every single thing in it’s vicinity, including light. Black holes are said to ‘bend light’ and prevent it from escaping it’s pull. That’s impossible because light is an expression of existence. It is everywhere. As an example: even inside of a hermetically sealed steel box, there is light, it’s just that our eyes can’t pick it up. However our vision still sees light no matter what (assuming you weren’t born blind), it’s just that we aren’t able to make out any objects in ‘complete darkness’. There is no such thing as ‘black’. What we call black is not absent of light, it’s not a non-color, it’s just the darkest color we have.

Light is everywhere… (not finished)

Basically it’s just a matter of the size of a body that determines the intensity of light. Since stars are the largest objects in the universe, they produce the most light. Next would come gaseous planets orbiting stars. You can see jupiter and mistake it for a large star in the sky when it’s lined up with the earth. Even though venus would appear to be ‘brighter’ than Jupiter, it’s only because jupiter is so much farther away. Of course that has to do with our sun reflecting on it (as with everything else in the universe), but the only reason that they don’t produce as much light, again, is because of their size. They all produce light, it’s just the stars overwhelm their brightness. It’s almost like an eclipse.

The larger a planet is, the closer it is to being gaseous. The reason a planet like Jupiter isn’t a ball of fire is because it’s not big enough to ‘ignite’. Continue to increase the size and you will eventually get a star. The tremendous amount of gravity our sun has is what makes it burn but to say the size of the sun alone is the reason it’s a star is overestimating. The reason it’s on fire is because it has too much mass for it to solidify so everything else is going to pull on it, preventing it from solidifying or just being a gaseous planet like Jupiter or Saturn. Anything that’s the size of a star is too big to be anything but a star.

The reason we have rocky planets is because they are small and are trapped orbiting around their star. Although there is no such thing as a perfect circle or orbit, their star’s immense gravity locks the planet into orbit which forces them to solidify. Gaseous planets on the other hand are far too big to be solid. But all planets contribute to their sun’s existence as a star as well, as they are pulling on everything else. Rocky planets are rocky because their star, along with everything else sucks away their potential to be gaseous, although all planets do start out gaseous.

Another point I would like to bring up is the fact that the size of a star also determines it’s color, or rather, the color we perceive it to be.

Another interesting point is the fact that larger stars are cooler and die sooner than smaller stars. The reason for that is… they are just too big and vulnerable to everything else for it to be hot enough to live longer. Our sun has an average lifespan because it’s average size keeps its fuel abundant. The larger a star is the more fuel it is going to use because of its amount of gravity, affecting the fusion process to make it burn more fuel. Its own mass is its disadvantage. The heat from a star is generated from the combustion occurring in it’s core so a small star will be hotter than a big one on the surface. You can correlate the lifespan of a star to a rocky planet. Obviously, a rocky planet can theoretically last longer than any star. They just don’t because their lives are dictated by the star they orbit.

So that means black holes can’t exist. Black holes are a lie. Black holes are a hoax. Black holes defy the logic of what makes a star a star and a planet a planet. They are the invention of quacks bent on deceiving the masses, trying to make it appear as if we don’t know anything for sure and that there is such a thing as separation and control from the rest of the universe. Oh yeah, the same goes for neutron stars, obviously. Something that big could never be anything more than a burning star like our sun.

Now onto gravity. Everything is gravity. If that’s too hard to believe then know that everything is everything, so by default everything is gravity, as everything is ‘connected’ to… everything. Everything moves and bends, and it must otherwise it wouldn’t exist. How can something exist if it doesn’t define itself? How can it define itself if it doesn’t move? Existence is movement, and the force of gravity that science thinks is just one of 4 forces is actually just everything being everything, so those 4 ‘forces’ must be unified. The phenomenon of gravity that we see planets and stars exhibiting is what everything is. Stars and planets are just products of existence moving. There is no special thing that makes them what they are. The constant being of what is is what forms stars .Everything is gravity because one thing could not move without everything else moving as well. So this means that the gravity of each object is pulling on all other objects. Everything is everything, so obviously everything affects everything. Even the gravity of a pebble on your driveway affects the furthest star in the night sky.

As far as we know, maybe these things aren’t fully understood, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

Nice!!

Keep going.

This is a rather rude assertion after I spent all that time posting this thread topic. If you can’t focus on at least one point I made and post a rebuttal to it there is no reason to post at all.

Allow me.

It’s actually logic that gives rise to a blackhole. A blackhole is a complex expression of mathematics. Astronomers have found what appear to be blackholes using inductive logic with surrounding stars, and also quasars which are explained by blackholes. By the way, the ‘vicinity’ where nothing escapes is only the event horizon of the black hole. That’s not to say nothing escapes a blackhole…apparently Stephen Hawking says that eventually blackholes radiate all their mass out and disappear, but I haven’t read up on that yet.

Light bends all the time. Light’s ability to bend is scientific fact.

Well, first off, size isn’t the only factor in intensity of light. Huge stars called Red Giants aren’t as intense as smaller stars. And smaller planetoids can be brigther than bigger ones. For example, Io, one of Jupiter’s moons, is a big ball of volcanoes and lava. I don’t know for sure, but one would think it’s naturally brighter than Jupiter, but it doesn’t matter because we wouldn’t be able to see either without the light from the sun. They don’t give off enough light (from electrical storms, radioactive rocks, or superheated materials, etc.)…maybe if you had an extremely high-powered telescope and you knew where to look, but doubtful.

Stars are bright because there’s nuclear fusion occuring on an enormous scale, which is a product of their size and mass, but it’s not simply because they’re ‘big’.

Size has nothing to do with what a planet has made up with. What a planet is made of determines its size, not the other way 'round. Look up the proto-star theory of the solar system. The reason rocky elements even exist is because previous stars made of simple elements have fused elements into heavier and heavier elements.

Non-sequitor. But anyway, black holes don’t defy anything. They used to be stars. The nuclear reactions keeping a massive star alight are also what keeps it from collapsing in on itself due to its own gravity. When the stars run out of the proper fuel they can’t burn enough to push out against gravity and collapse into a blackhole.

Same reason for blackholes, except they weren’t massive enough to collapse to a singularity. And neutron stars have been found. How do you explain pulsars?

What are you trying to refute here?

how scientific!

^^ Of course he is.

Try your best.

The above quote of yours is about as useful as “Yuh huh black holes do exist too!”. “Logic” this and “logic” that. Saying logic over and over again doesn’t prove your assertions. Using big words and terms doesn’t really ‘wow’ me into believing you. You’ll have to try much harder than that.

And I never knew a hole had mass.

“You’re wrong! That’s scientific fact!” Modern science is a load of crap and is full of crackpots and liars. Just because a theory has ‘science’ or ‘scientific’ attached to doesn’t make it a fact. And yeah, I’m going to prove in this thread that modern science is a load of crap. Wait for it. Do NOT make a post regarding THAT UNTIL I have formed my thoughts on it. It would be rather stupid to jump the gun before you have something to shoot.

Um, yes it is. Stars are on fire, planets are not. Btw, larger stars are in fact brighter than smaller stars, as there is more mass to radiate light. You can have a really ‘bright’ pocket flashlight, but a searchlight will light up more of an area. I don’t know where you went to school but it certainly doesn’t take a PhD to understand this. This is simple common sense.

You know, I’m actually having doubts about larger stars being cooler than smaller stars. It would make perfect sense to say that larger stars burn hotter simply because they are so huge.

Larger stars are easier to see in the night sky. A smaller star is outshined by a larger star provided it’s in roughly the same distance away from your eyes.

Yeah, thanks for telling me something I already posted in the thread. Next time read the whole post before you start posting your “rebuttals”. Read below in bold to see where I already addressed this.

Prove it. You’re asserting ‘scientific fact’ as if, a ‘scientific fact’ (notice the quotation marks) automatically makes it true. Show your evidence or stop posting in my thread.

I’m tired of deconstructing all of these bullshit theories. We’re sticking to the big bang theory for now, and that’s something I haven’t even addressed in this thread. If I prove the big bang theory is bullshit, then by default all of your other little theories that you can mention are bullshit as well, as they are based on the big bang theory.

That is REALLY annoying when I hear “non-sequitor” over and over again from posters attempting to sound ‘civilized’ and ‘intelligent’. Don’t use your latin phrases with me as if you’re some kind of enlightened despot.

What makes them have so much gravity? Show your evidence please. And btw, if they are absorbing everything in the universe, then yes they do defy everything. Duh.

You’re half right, but there is no evidence that they collapse into a ‘black hole’. You’re trying to sugarcoat the lie of a black hole by saying something true on top of it. Doesn’t quite work with me, sorry. Show your evidence or stop posting, please. I don’t think anyone appreciates people who take discussions around in circles.

They don’t exist. That’s how. Neutron stars have not been found and you have no evidence proving such an absurd theory.

Pretty much every single theory YOU would come up with to explain the universe. Again, it’s not finished. But you have wasted my time, so thanks.

Don’t post anything more unless you can actually provide proof that anything I have said is wrong. Also, until you have heard everything I have stated I would post, do not attempt to tell me that I’m a “crackpot” or a “liar” when you cannot even provide a shred of proof of any of your assertions. Provide proof or you have no right to say anything about my claims. Simple. Common. Sense.

WOW! You totally refuted everything I said because I didn’t say it in the way you wanted to hear it. But then again, if I had said what you wanted, then would I really possess a contraversial view?

Btw, wikipedia is, as is almost every forum and popular site online, biased as can be. There are so many protected mistakes and blatant lies in Wikipedia articles that it’s risky to cite it at all. I’ve tried plenty of times in the past and was proven to be wrong on many occasions, simply because I believed what I read on Wikipedia. So let’s try to not use wikipedia as an arguing point.

I don’t believe in Black Holes, the Big Bang, etc…but I cannot say they are truly hoaxes. In some cases, yes, but in most cases scientists believe they are following the correct theory.

It is much like religion. Get them while they are young and institute your dogma. Of course most 15 year-old boys will believe in Christ if they grow up in the church. No different than the typical science student.

There are certain science groups that are aware of the problems with the Big Bang, etc and do not address them (much like a Pastor dealing with bible contradictions). This is because they are making ALOT of money with a theory that offers up more problems for them to get paid to work on.
It’s a perfect business.

Lohnen’s assertions only seem unscientific because they are viewed from the public’s prehistoric view of physics. The CIA has employed psychics for 50 years, and we have not yet as a public science understood or admitted to the legitimacy of psychic phenomena…

Public knows shit.

Keep going Lohnen!

I did read your whole post. It was painful.

There are at least three provable things I gave you already.

Light bends: Look into the proof of Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity. It predicts that even light is bent, and they were able to show that the light from distant stars was bent by the mass of the sun. They did this during a solar eclipse, and they found that it was bent exactly the amount the equations predicted.

Existence of black holes: What appear to be black holes have been found by inductive reasoning of gravitational effects on surrounding stars, and also the existence of quasars. And of course a black hole has mass, the name is a catchy metaphor. Well, at least it starts off having mass. What happens past the event horizon is a mystery, but at the very least there’s an infinite curvature of spacetime making the place in space appear to be very massive.

Existence of pulsars: Pulsars are neutron stars. Here’s the basic version: When a star dies and sheds off some mass as a nebula, they can look for pulsars in the middle. What happens is the mass all collapses in on itself, getting denser and denser. This causes it to rotate faster and faster because of conservation of angular momentum. The result is an object spinning incredibly fast, which we can detect by the pulses of radiation.

Now, lets here some proof on your assertions.

I guess my extra sense would be my knowing more than you do. Perhaps my extra sense to YOU is actually just common sense. ACtually, that IS what it is.

Prove it. Einstein is a well known plagiarist and complete idiot. His brain size was below average and he even admitted ‘stealing’ ideas that were already published by 2 other men a few years prior to him.

Now, instead of having just one article you could simply label ‘biased’ without actually providing proof that is biased, I will link you to the google search results.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=einstein+plagiarist&btnG=Search

I suppose the ‘mere’ 845,000 results might not be enough for to convince you, though, since searching for ’ einstiein relativity’ shows more. So basically, according to you, even a lie would be truer than the truth if it had more google search results. But oh well. You pick whatever article you want to read. Read both sides, of course, if you’re going to make an argument defending Einstein though.

I’m not believing anything Einstein has said, given the fact that he was a liar and plagiarist. Prove that einstein is right or stop posting in my thread.

Light doesn’t ‘bend’ and there is no evidence that it does. Light is absolutely everywhere in the universe. Again, assertions are not proof.

Prove it.

Prove it.

I’ve already given mine. Mine are perfectly logical and sound. You’re the one injecting all of these quacky theories about how ‘bizarre’ the universe is or how hard it is to understand. You’re dependent on science and what other people say about the universe to argue your point, as if anyone being a scientist somehow automatically makes them more self-aware and by default making anything a person without a PhD thinks about the universe null and void. You have not provided any proof, just literature and quack theories with no substance. You are dependent on me to ‘bow down’ to what scientists say about existence and to relinquish my ability to think for myself. I’ll choose to think on my own, you go ahead and pull all of the articles and papers you want. I’ll use common sense and logic to refute anything you say. You are the one using faith. You believe that because ‘scientists’ believe in the Big Bang Theory and have degrees in their respective fields that they are automatically right. That is faith, and nothing more.

Next you’ll say the truth is subjective. Watch.

Meh. I disagree, but I could care less about arguing about it with you.

I’m not even saying you’re right, which is the funny thing, as you’re convinced you are. I’m just saying you’re a hell of a lot closer than whoever it is you’re arguing with right now.

Like I’ve said twice now, keep going, cause you don’t know more than me :laughing:

Science isn’t biased. Scientists maybe are; but then they are bad scientists.

LohnenNicht says

Science doesn’t make such rash claims

Science says, a theory which has never been proved wrong, predicts blackholes. Now, it doesn’t claim this theory to be true or false and therefore it doesn’t say that blackholes can or can’t exist; just the theory has not been proved wrong.

If einstiens equation for the curvature of free space around a spherical object are wrong then what are the correct equations?

Your just saying its all wong…whats the right theory…

So modern science is a load of crap? the same science that produces computers, phones, spaceships etc. etc.

General Relativity requires a finite, spherical Universe. The Big Bang defines the Universe as all that exists (Both Space and Matter) AND finite and spherical.

Think about that.

Einstein did and realized that the Universe was not expanding. What changed his mind? Two things- Hubble’s Law and Friedman’s use of Einstein’s own equations against him.
Hubble’s Law is known to be wrong so toss that one out.
Friedman solved the collapsing Universe problem, thus eliminating Einstein’s Cosmological and Anit-Gravity Constant. Einstein did not agree.
Einstein did not believe in an expanding Universe, as most people presume he did.
See this link for a look at Einsteins views, and that he doubted gravitational waves himself.
physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-9/p43.html

If anyone has studied Einstein’s Cambridge writings they would know that Einstein disagreed with most of what is taught today.

The man is rolling in his grave.

Equations are representative and tentative. They are estimations, generalizations. They don’t predict anything.

All of our ‘equations’ have anomalies. Space ships blow up their crews, computers crash. Software is never perfect and there is always some type of bug to be worked out. Everything we build requires maintenance. Equations are simply tools, and all tools wear down.

The medium, not light, bends. Much like a penny in a pool. Put your finger over it and you’ll see the wavy edges of the penny. This is the result of the medium…NOT a bending penny.