[removed]

That's not proper skepticism though. Skepticism is what gets us closer to understanding black holes. Simply denying their existence isn't helpful skepticism at all.

Oh it'll spit out the "matter" you were made of but I highly doubt you'd still be alive

I think most of his initial description was lame. But, he promptly deleted it. As for the actual question he posed though? Perfectly valid.

The model has issues, and alternative ideas might be worth looking into. Measured skepticism doesn't hurt, especially in science.

Easy to hunt when they’re frozen in space

I believe if it's so dense that light can't escape then the gravitational force pulling everything to the center is so strong that everything is crushed into an infinitely small single point, and it's like a feedback loop where the more stuff that gets sucked in adds to the density and thus the strength of it's gravitational pull which means it can crush more into the singularity. I don't think there is any physical globe like object, no growing buildup of physical material. The "size" appears to increase because as it gains more mass it's able to pull light in from further away.

Not an expert but that's my basic understanding as a layman.

You’d certainly think so! It’s all just based on the idea that the laws of physics are symmetrical, so if a black hole can swallow matter and information, a white hole should be able to spew it out.

It isn’t really a globe-like object. The event horizon is spherical because that’s the point that light can no longer escape its pull towards the singularity, but it isn’t really a globe.

Even if you criticize the models that still doesn't justify dismissing the thing we are attempting to explain though does it?

Its kind if like saying I don't believe in clouds. I can see them but I don't believe in them? That's nonsense. I might think they aren't explained properly but I can't say I don't believe in them.

Common misconception in play here. If a scientist enters into a commonly agreed upon topic discussion, stating "I just don't believe in x", this is just a bias and is appropriately ignored.

"I have questions about the mechanics of x which makes me think perhaps there's a y that has all the features we've observed about x" is a perfectly fine viewpoint, rooted in scientific method.

"I wonder whether the data we've observed about x is actually just noise/biased/incomplete" is perfectly valid.

"I disgree with the commonly agreed narative for no reason other than my gut" should be ignored until some reasonable evidence as to why they disagree has been presented. If we had infinite manpower and resources, sure, leave no stone unturned! But since we don't, our current scientific model REQUIRES us to ignore such claims, or else we will be distracted from actual observations.

There are, as stated in other comments, some reasons to question black holes as we understand them today, but this was presented as "my gut just says they're not real." Which is fine. They can follow their gut. It's not gonna hurt anyone. But for others to defend that gut feeling as good enough scientific IS harmful and erodes our abilities to reason about and, in the worst case, DO, actual science.

You'd think we would have seen an infinitely bright object with a telescope long before we discovered a totally dark object

In 1971, two astronomers proposed x-ray source Cygnus X-1 might be a black hole. This is the first object to be nominated for being a black hole.

If further investigations proved Cygnus x-1 was not a black hole, Stephen Hawking would be very disappointed because he had done so much work on black holes.

In 1974, Stephen Hawking bet Kip Thorne that Cygnus x-1 was not a black hole. Then if Cygnus x-1 turned out not to be a black hole, Hawking would at least have won a bet.

In 1990, enough evidence had finally accumulated that Kip Thorne conceded and Hawking won the bet. Cygnus x-1 is a black hole.

I didn’t mean the shape, necessarily, but the effect. He had the right idea without the follow through: a star of that density would be a singularity and almost incomprehensibly small for its mass, and most black holes are created from collapsing stars.

So they were pretty close but couldn’t quite get past the idea that it wouldn’t really be a star anymore.

Some scientists believe that the inverse of a black hole is a white hole. Infinitely bright, and matter can never enter it. A Penrose diagram is typically used to represent this theory. Some think that the “other side” of a black hole might actually be a parallel universe, but it’s a one way trip because you can’t ever escape a black hole or enter a white hole once it spits you out. There’s no empirical evidence for the existence of white holes, and most physicists consider them to be purely theoretical. But it’s a fun thought that I wish Christopher Nolan would hear about lol

[removed]

I prefer "she" and yes actually I do, although I still agree I'm kind of stupid

What is the thing though. What is your belief in place of it? The thing with too much mass. The thing that looks like a black hole in space?

Your answer is probably more fantastic than the one we have.

[deleted]

I mean you are totally right and I agree with all that, especially the part about me being ignorant honestly, but it doesn't really change much. Whether we believe in something, right or wrong is irrelevant because the thing in question doesn't really care whether we know how it works or not.

It got mixed reviews when it came out, but was generally praised for the special effects at the time. And it took a darker tone that up until then had been more subtle for most Disney productions so was noteworthy. Wait, what?

Wow that was removed fast. I don't believe this post existed!

Absolutely nothing wrong with not immediately believing what is presented to you and asking questions. You just have to be able to address facts properly in your questions. Are black holes guaranteed to exist? No. Are they currently the most likely candidate for what occupies high gravity wells strong enough to bend light? Yes. How can we test to see if something actually is a black hole? Well one way is to look at it. Funny enough, just recently humanity managed to pull that off. Look at the photo, and question what things do you think could’ve made that photo that don’t break the facts of how it was obtained. Fact, it was done by a large number of people using telescopes around the world, and then it was processed by even more people. You’re not going to create a convincing argument that every human on earth involved is hiding a cover up. So you need to take it as a real photo of something very far away. Do you believe certain stars might burn fuel in a way that absorbs light and emits a higher form of radiation that could decay to the white ring we see in the photo? Do you believe something else? You have to start by critically thinking about the evidence in front of you, and if you can come up with a testable hypothesis about what you see then you SHOULD bring it to other people, you SHOULD test it yourself. And once youve tested it a whole bunch and you have an answer, then you should start asking questions about why you got the conclusion you did. There will always be more questions because that’s how the science rabbit hole works. But at the end of the day, don’t take a given answer at face value if it feels wrong. Come up with a way to test, poke, and prod what is generally considered common knowledge. That’s how we as a species grows.

Edit for reference the radiation decaying is me totally making something random up. I am not suggesting that by any means

I doubt he even knows the scientific process.

Conversely, black holes don’t believe in u/Rabbitlooker.

A radiotelescope image of the black hole at the center of M87 was taken a couple of years ago, adding strongly to the evidence that black holes are real.