Ayasano
Member
- Messages
- 407
Since no one here listens to the voice of reason. Perhaps someone with a better understanding of Black Holes than anyone else on the planet might have some credibility.
Stephen Hawking Says No Black Holes Exist
That article is misrepresenting a partial quote to mean something it doesn't.
Some Scientists Not Convinced by Stephen Hawking's New Black Hole Proposal
A longer quote is as follows:
"The absence of event horizons mean that there are no black holes - in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to innity. There are however apparent horizons which persist for a period of time. This suggests that black holes should be redefined as metastable bound states of the gravitational field."
So rather than saying black holes don't exist at all, he's saying they need to be redefined.
Incidentally, here's a very simple explanation of how we know black holes (Or something similar that fits the observations) exist.
HubbleSite - Reference Desk - FAQs
Specifically:
"In 1994, Hubble Space Telescope data measured the mass of an unseen object at the center of M87. Based on the motion of the material whirling about the center, the object is estimated to be about 3 billion times the mass of our Sun and appears to be concentrated into a space smaller than our solar system."
What alternate theory would you propose that explains those observations? Specifically something with an extremely large mass taking up an extremely small amount of space?