Skip to main content

By merging two seemingly conflicting theories, Laura Mersini-Houghton, a physics professor at UNC-Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and Sciences, has proven, mathematically, that can never come into being in the first place. The work not only forces scientists to reimagine the fabric of space-time, but also rethink the origins of the universe.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html#jCp

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

no.......no.....t, I isn't that.......it is the thought of no event horizon. now I'll never get to go there....it's Hawkins fault. he lost the debate with Susskind. If there is no black hole how will we ever prove information is not forever lost in one after it cannot evaporate since there is no black hole to evaporate and Susskind's winning the debate based on information being retained on the other side of the event horizon after the black hole evaporates. now this means that Susskind never in reality existed in the first place. it's aaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwful.

Originally Posted by Quaildog:

By merging two seemingly conflicting theories, Laura Mersini-Houghton, a physics professor at UNC-Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and Sciences, has proven, mathematically, that can never come into being in the first place. The work not only forces scientists to reimagine the fabric of space-time, but also rethink the origins of the universe.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html#jCp

___

I am still agonizing over the de-classification of Pluto as a planet. These presumptuous cosmological myth busters have got to be stopped!

Apparently virtual annihilation is the only thing that can save the world. Who would be the most likely scientist to accomplish the feat? Stephan Hawking immediately comes to mind.

 

On the heels of his loss to Susskind and now this mathematical proof that there are no black holes and Susskind’s proof that no information is lost forever in one that doesn’t exist [mathematically] but evaporates [apparently virtually], Hawking now confirms there is no God.

 

Since Susskind has been annihilated we can assume Hawking’s proof there is no God is sufficient to annihilate virtually the entire universe for those who believe it exists as information not lost since and the unknown to us some portion of the universe the size of which is unknown to us lies beyond the surface of last scattering [at which the big bang lieth and now known not to have existed because it is a non-existent black hole] beyond which now doesn’t exist for the purpose of black holes not to exist but is full of information not lost due to being not lost when it went into its non-existence..

 

Stephen Hawking Says 'There Is No God,' Confirms He's An Atheisthttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/...txtlnkusaolp00000592

And now this:

"Space dust accounts for at least some of the possible signal of cosmic inflation the BICEP2 experiment announced in March. How much remains to be seen."

 

After picking cotton to save for the fair I've apparently blown it on an aquarium to put primordial gravitation waves.

 " the BICEP2 experiment, which in March announced seeing a faint pattern left over from the big bang that could tell us about the first moments after the birth of the universe."

 

"There is still a wide range of possibilities left open,” writes astronomer Jan Tauber, ESA project scientist for Planck, in an email. “It could be that all of the signal is due to dust; but part of the signal could certainly be due to primordial gravitational waves.”" http://www.symmetrymagazine.or...ust-proves-prevalent

 

next thing we'll probably find we are only a two dimensional hologram  "with a pixel size of about 10 trillion trillion times smaller than an atom. This has certain implications, some of which are quite sinister, even unspeakably horrific."

The argument about the nature of the universe hinges on something that 99.99% of people are not able to comprehend even on the most superficial level — namely, a comparison of the energy contained in a theoretical flat universe with no gravity and the internal energy of a black hole, and whether these two energy levels match or not.http://news.yahoo.com/universe...ogram-203240505.html

 

 

 

 

Originally Posted by Aeneas:

When it gets publish in a peer-reviewed journal, and a few other journals follow up on it, I'll consider it to be a legitimate theory.

As long as ArXiv is the only place to find detailed calculations, it's nothing more than an interesting hypothesis.

Actually many things that are called fact are hypothesis in the science world unless you can actually watch and document the action or result and it can be replicated.

Originally Posted by HIFLYER2:
Originally Posted by Aeneas:

When it gets publish in a peer-reviewed journal, and a few other journals follow up on it, I'll consider it to be a legitimate theory.

As long as ArXiv is the only place to find detailed calculations, it's nothing more than an interesting hypothesis.

Actually many things that are called fact are hypothesis in the science world unless you can actually watch and document the action or result and it can be replicated.

Unfortunately the "uncertainty principle" does not allow for that to happen Hi. 

Add Reply


Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×