The day that a website science news article written by a journalist actually gets the science accurately, is the day I parade naked through the center of town. It just won't happen in our lifetimes.
Get a grip.
Stephen Hawking: 'There are no black holes'
" A full explanation of the process, the physicist admits,
would require a theory that successfully merges gravity
with the
other fundamental forces of nature. But that is a goal that has
eluded physicists for nearly a century. “The correct treatment,” Hawking says, “remains
a mystery.”
Stephen Hawking: 'There are no black holes' : Nature News & Comment
Basically, many sites do say that he disses black holes. In effect, they are correct, are they not?! Basically, he doesn't know.
The same is true of many things. We know gravity exists,
That's another thread!!!! I challenge that claim when applied to deep space, that gravity exists exactly as we know it here.
we know how it works, we just don't know exactly the "why" of it -
Right, even in the fishbowl you have no idea why it works.
such as, why is gravity always an attractive force and never repulsive.
Well, if we add a spiritual force who knows!! On earth, in a physical only environment, it does just the one thing.
We know matter exists, but exactly "what" matter is, as opposed to energy, is still being investigated.
Maybe find something you do know, this is getting tedious.
Science is always like that. You would have everyone believe that this is one of science's weaknesses. It is not.
Not where ignorance is bliss and godlessness is paramount I guess.
What's weak is finding an answer, accepting that answer, and defending that answer against all evidence to the contrary. And before you mis-interpret that, evidence is not the same as an idea. Rejecting a wild and unsubstantiated idea is nowhere near the same as rejecting repeatedly demonstrated empirical evidence.
Why launch into a pontification right after a list of basics you admit not knowing!!??
I have seen countless times fundies rant about science being "closed minded." Of course it is going to be closed off to new ideas *unless and until* those ideas are backed up by actual, real, empirical evidence.
In other words, physical only, in the fishbowl concepts. We think bigger. We have more open and enlightened minds!
That is the whole point of the methodology. It is a way of weeding out bad ideas, shoddy research, poorly collected data, and numerous other flaws in order to promote only those things that have been well researched, well investigated, and supported by reams of evidence.
It allows only fishbowl ideas. It weeds out the truth of God and all else that gets in the way!
Also, as you probably do not know, there are two different types of black holes being referred to. Which I wouldn't expect anyone without a physics degree to know, much less a journalist.
Both are junk, and based on the same nonsense fishbowl religion.
There are the black holes that result from stellar collapse,
Right, so where is the one predicted for SN1987a!!!!!??? M.I.A. !!
and there are "primordial" black holes. The black holes resulting from stellar collapse were the ones I described above, and there are several objects we've observed that are, very likely, such black holes. Primordial black holes, however, pre-date stars. Those are, I suppose, "invented" black holes in the sense that they were a very plausible answer to the problem of why anything in the universe exists at all.
Wow, even you admit inventing them, they must be pathetic!
The primary problem stemmed from predictions of older BB theory and rapid expansion that, without any other mechanisms, said the universe ought to be essentially homegeneous. Why then was matter "clumped" into stars and galaxies, very sparsely through the universe,
Crazy little premise. Ridiculous!
with largely "empty" space making up pretty much the vast majority? Primordial black holes were one solid answer as they would have upset the homogeneity.
Hilarious. Grasping at fishbowl straws to explain the universe.
Where did they go? Hawking proposed that mechanism - electron-positron pairs spontaneously forming out of the underlying quantum field. Ordinarily such a pair exists for less than the Planck time, and then re-annihilate each other - the Planck time being a brief enough time to stay within the Uncertainty Principle bounds. But if one formed at the edge of a black hole, one of the pair could become trapped in the black hole, and the other would then be free and continue to exist. This also provided an explanation for there being much more matter than anti-matter in the universe
Same earth based laws methodology.
- one type of such pairs (the positron) ended up being more commonly swallowed than the other (the electron). The particle entering the black hole would, along with many other such particles, act to eventually make the tiny black hole evaporate. I don't recall exactly how that works but that was the concept.
Impressive. You are fairly acquainted with the fable. But I see flaws from start to end, and it is certain they could never defend that belief based view of the universe.
