Thank you all for the various comments made here, both for and against "black holes".
For those who assume that General Relativity is "fact", there is an extension of classical mechanics that gives the same predictions without the space-time curvature aspects. Came out a number of years ago.
For those who believe gravity (and relative density) are the causes of the theoretical entity "black hole", a question to think about in relation to fields, what happens as you move towards the centre of any mass? A second question is related to electromagnetic fields strength and approaching atomic nuclei? The same question applies to "neutron stars".
For those who see want a change of reference between the external universe and the reference point of approaching the "event horizon", what does the observer see of the external universe when falling towards an "event horizon"?
The term "dark star" long predates the GR model and is an entity that is quite different to the "black hole" entity of Einstein's GR theory.
Due to inconsistencies between Einstein's SR theory and his GR theory, which model is more correct, if either are correct?
All of our models and theories are simplifications of the explanation of how our universe works and as such will be subject to change. They all have limits of applicability.
Too often, it is assumed that certain things happen in a specific way because a theory or model has some applicability in explaining observations. What a lot of intelligent people forget is that if you cannot observe some feature of the universe then the explanation of what is going on in that feature is only speculation and belief not "fact", irrespective of how "good" your theory is, including any predictions it makes.
At any time, there are competing theories about specific subjects and each will have it proponents and opponents. Which of them is more correct is not the question, the question is are they useful models to help in understanding the universe around us?
There is nothing wrong with pushing that a specific model or theory is more applicable than another. What we must be careful of is believing that the theories and models we push and believe in are "truth". When we do this, observations that disagree with or theories and models will (due to human nature) be discarded as irrelevant or faulty.
It is interesting to note that there are many observations that have been made that are no longer reported because they do not match the predicted outcomes of the consensus theories and models. This is a shame as we then lose our ability to expand our understanding of the universe about.
It is useful to remember that mathematics is a useful tool to help in building our explanations of what we observe, but every field of mathematics has specific premises, axioms etc that are simplifications or generalisations that are not actually matched by the universe around us.
For those who assume that General Relativity is "fact", there is an extension of classical mechanics that gives the same predictions without the space-time curvature aspects. Came out a number of years ago.
For those who believe gravity (and relative density) are the causes of the theoretical entity "black hole", a question to think about in relation to fields, what happens as you move towards the centre of any mass? A second question is related to electromagnetic fields strength and approaching atomic nuclei? The same question applies to "neutron stars".
For those who see want a change of reference between the external universe and the reference point of approaching the "event horizon", what does the observer see of the external universe when falling towards an "event horizon"?
The term "dark star" long predates the GR model and is an entity that is quite different to the "black hole" entity of Einstein's GR theory.
Due to inconsistencies between Einstein's SR theory and his GR theory, which model is more correct, if either are correct?
All of our models and theories are simplifications of the explanation of how our universe works and as such will be subject to change. They all have limits of applicability.
Too often, it is assumed that certain things happen in a specific way because a theory or model has some applicability in explaining observations. What a lot of intelligent people forget is that if you cannot observe some feature of the universe then the explanation of what is going on in that feature is only speculation and belief not "fact", irrespective of how "good" your theory is, including any predictions it makes.
At any time, there are competing theories about specific subjects and each will have it proponents and opponents. Which of them is more correct is not the question, the question is are they useful models to help in understanding the universe around us?
There is nothing wrong with pushing that a specific model or theory is more applicable than another. What we must be careful of is believing that the theories and models we push and believe in are "truth". When we do this, observations that disagree with or theories and models will (due to human nature) be discarded as irrelevant or faulty.
It is interesting to note that there are many observations that have been made that are no longer reported because they do not match the predicted outcomes of the consensus theories and models. This is a shame as we then lose our ability to expand our understanding of the universe about.
It is useful to remember that mathematics is a useful tool to help in building our explanations of what we observe, but every field of mathematics has specific premises, axioms etc that are simplifications or generalisations that are not actually matched by the universe around us.