The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
6 Points

Are black holes real?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/5/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,773 times Debate No: 77316
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




This Debate will be for the July Beginners.

1. No trolling
2. No in-valid points without backup.
3. No calling other's "idiotic" or other names because you disagree.
4. Do not claim you can prove something, and then give no evidence.
5. Please give a logical explanation.

Also, please do not claim you are older/have a higher education then you actually do. This is quite annoying and can lead us to think you are a complete retard, because it's evident in your grammar and typing skills to how old you are.

Do not base your vote on who you like best, or who seems like the funnest/friendliest person, but who poses the best argument, and gives the best information.

Thank you, and let us begin.

Beginning Argument:

Prof. Hawking has given us many new and shocking theories, but this one proves my point in some way.

If light is infinite, how is it to be trapped in one place? It seems nearly impossible for a star to collapse under it's OWN gravity. The star has to be pretty massive in order to cause it to form one, which is pretty rare for a star to be a red giant. Blue Giants, like out sun, cannot form a black hole.

Science says black holes are common. If you claim red giants are rare, and blue giants aren't even large enough to form one, how are they so common?

Stephen Hawking has produced a "mind-bending" new theory that argues black holes do not actually exist - at least not in the way we currently perceive them.

Instead, in his paper, Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes, Hawking proposes that black holes can exist without 'event horizons', the invisible cover believed to surround every black hole.

During a previous lecture, 'Into the Black Hole', Hawkings described an event horizon as the boundary of a black hole, "where gravity is just strong enough to drag light back, and prevent it escaping".

"Falling through the event horizon, is a bit like going over Niagara Falls in a canoe", he said. "If you are above the falls, you can get away if you paddle fast enough, but once you are over the edge, you are lost. There's no way back.

"As you get nearer the falls, the current gets faster. This means it pulls harder on the front of the canoe, than the back. There's a danger that the canoe will be pulled apart. It is the same with black holes."

But now, Hawking is proposing 'apparent horizons' could exist instead, which would only hold light and information temporarily before releasing them back into space in 'garbled form', Nature has reported.

The internationally-renowned theoretical physicist suggests that quantum mechanics and general relativity remain intact, but black holes do not have an event horizon to catch fire.

His work attempts to address the 'black-hole firewall paradox' first discovered by theoretical physicist Joseph Polchinski and his colleagues almost two years ago, when Polchinski and his team began investigating what would happen to an astronaut who fell into a black hole.

They hypothesised that instead of being gradually ripped apart by gravitational forces, the event horizon would be transformed into a 'highly energetic region', and anyone who fell in would hit a wall of fire and burn to death in an instant - violating Albert Einstein's theory of relativity.

In his paper, Hawking writes: "The absence of event horizons means that there are no black holes - in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infinity."

He once said: "There is no escape from a black hole in classical theory, but quantum theory, however, "enables energy and information to escape from a black hole."

Don Page, a physicist and expert on black holes at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada told Nature that "the picture Hawking gives sounds pretty reasonable".

"You could say that it is radical to propose there"s no event horizon", he said. "But these are highly quantum conditions, and there"s ambiguity about what space-time even is, let alone whether there is a definite region that can be marked as an event horizon."

Now you. :)


Cosmology, particle physics, astrophysics, astronomy, quantum mechanics, electromagnetism...they're just names for specific observations of the natural universe that we've categorized after testing and demonstrating their causal links to other natural phenomena.

We determine facts about these categories by observing other related phenomena and by isolating the phenomena's causal links to other observed phenomena.

We watch things happen and test what we've watched; repeat...that's science.

We've been watching black holes for a while now. We've also been testing them and repeating the tests.

When we watch the galactic center of the milky way, it's very clear that there is some phenomenon showing us the ability to move very large bright objects.

These movable bright objects are in fact stars showing us the radiation expected from a star and of course light. We've been watching the radiation from these stars for a while now too. Stars in the galactic center of the milky way are in an orbit that is affected by this phenomenon at the center of the galaxy.

For example, as we watch the star S2 attempt its regular orbit, there is a distinct disturbance in its path. The disturbance in its path moves the star closer to the center of the galaxy, and then the star restores a new orbit closer to the center.

Image of S2 orbiting the center of the milky way from

S2 is the one with the cyan colored path.
What's interesting is that if it is in fact gravity acting on this star, which seems to match the idea of pulling something toward the galactic center, the only things large enough to have that much gravity are other stars.

We've been watching gravity in the universe for a while now too. If it were other stars' gravity pulling S2 toward the galactic center, we would see the light from these high gravity stars.

Instead, what we see is the opposite. We see no light in the galactic center, yet we've watched gravity from there affect large stars' orbits.

The following New York Times video is only like two and a half minutes and explains it well.

So what we know for a fact is that there is a massively gravitational object with no light at the center of our milky way galaxy that manipulates stars' orbits. So we, as observers, need to determine how, without any light, such gravity can exist in the active center of the milky way galaxy.

If only we could find something that is void of light, but has the gravity of many stars...

To quote an iconic theoretical physicist/cosmologist, Stephen Hawking, from his public lecture entitled "Into a Black Hole," which is available in text on his official website:

"It is said that fact is sometimes stranger than fiction, and nowhere is this more true than in the case of black holes...[black holes] are firmly matters of science fact." -Stephen Hawking

The quote is not out of context at all, in fact, check the link yourself.

We also watch stars build hydrogen into helium. The energy from doing this creates outward pressure, which prevents the star from collapsing under the gravity from the star's heavy iron (in gas form) core.

We've watched hydrogen run out, and observed stars collapsing.

From very large stars collapsing, we get a supernova explosion. At the end of the nova cycle, gravity wins out because the star no longer produces outward pressure (Hydrogen to Helium), and the remainder of the heavy star collapses to a black hole.
Journey into a black hole

So from observing these phenomena, testing what we've observed, repeating the testing and observing, and isolating a black hole as the cause for the sprialing of our milky way galaxy, and, more specifically, the manipulated orbits of stars near the center of the milky way holes are real.

Black holes are real because:
1. There is no light escaping from the center of the milky way galaxy, yet there is massive gravitational pull strong enough to change the orbit of stars, like S2, that orbit the center of our milky way galaxy.

2. When stars run out of hydrogen, there is no more outward pressure to prevent a collapse under their massive gravity, and the stellar remnants collapse and become very small and dense; this process forms black holes because without outward pressure opposing the gravity, it must collapse into itself, which creates a balck hole.

Next round I plan to respond to claims about:
-The Event Horizon
-Light being inifinite
-Types of stars
-What physicists say
Debate Round No. 1


Round DOUS! :D

Thanks to the contender for joining the challenge. Appreciated. :)

Your argument does put out some valid points, however, I must throw this out there.

If black holes have to power to suck in ANYTHING within about..4.5 million miles of itself, and are nearly invisible (because of the fact that light is trapped inside it, so it can not be illuminated.), how do we get those fancy pictures of them? If their photoshop, where do we get a reference?

This might bring to mind black holes might be real, but what we know may not be what they look like. I'm not attempting to say that at all, no.

There has been a deliberate suppression of scientific truth by the community of physicists and astronomers concerning the black hole and the big bang. I bring you free access to original papers in the hope that this fraud can be exposed and physics restored to a rational search for knowledge. The black hole has no foundation in theory whatsoever. Neither Newton's theory nor Einstein's theory predict it. In fact, both theories preclude it, contrary to what the relativists claim.

The so-called "Schwarzschild" solution is not due to Karl Schwarzschild at all. The experts have either not read Schwarzschild's 1916 memoir or have otherwise ignored it. Go here to get Schwarzschild's original paper, in English. The so-called "Schwarzschild" solution is due to David Hilbert, itself a corruption of a solution first derived by Johannes Droste in May 1916, whose paper has also been buried or ignored at the convenience of the experts. It appears that the experts have not read Hilbert either. Go here to get a copy of Hilbert's erroneous derivation, in English. Hilbert's mistake spawned the black hole and the community of theoretical physicists continues to elaborate on this falsehood, with a hostile shouting down of any and all voices challenging them. Schwarzschild's solution has no black hole, and neither does Droste's solution. And while you're at it you might as well go here to get a copy of Marcel Brillouin's 1923 paper, in English, in which he demonstrates that the black hole is nonsense. Brillouin's paper has also been ignored.

The 'experts' are always quick to conveniently brand anyone who questions the black hole as a crackpot. Unfortunately for the experts that does not alter the facts. The experts must also include Schwarzschild himself as a crank since his paper invalidates the black hole outright, as does Brillouin's, and Droste's. They must also label Einstein a crackpot, because Einstein always rejected the idea of the black hole, asserting in his research papers and other writings that it is not physical, and that singularities in his gravitational field nullify the theory of General Relativity.

It is also commonly held by experts, for example, Hawking and Ellis, Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, S. Chandrasekhar, that the Michell-Laplace dark body is a kind of black hole, and that black holes can be components of binary systems and that black holes can collide and merge. These claims are patently false. People post things like this around the web; "Go here for a copy of G. C. McVittie's conclusive arguments!" which invalidate these ridiculous claims. So if you are a scientific person you will read Schwarzschild's paper, and those of Droste, Hilbert, Brillouin, and McVittie. You have no legitimate excuse not to, as they are given to you herein. This is not a question of historical priority, as the relativist is apt to claim when confronted with reality, but one of fundamental science.

It is also claimed by the very same "experts" that the Universe is expanding. This is patently false.

Also listed below are my own research papers in which I prove that black holes are not consistent with General Relativity.

So, if black holes are that powerful, we would NEVER be able to capture a picture of them, let alone get a valid reference.

However, in order to understand such things, we must go back to the basics.

To better understand Hawking's remarks, Forum interviewed Robert Lamontagne, an astrophysicist at the Department of Physics, Universit" de Montr"al, and Executive Director of the Observatoire du Mont-M"gantic.
What is a black hole?
"According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, a black hole is kind of cosmic central vacuum cleaner that swallows everything in its reach and lets nothing escape. It emits no radiation," says Lamontagne.
Since it is not visible and has no boundaries as such, a black hole is classically defined by an area of space called the "event horizon," where nothing can escape.
"Beyond this horizon, matter and light flow freely, but as soon as the horizon's intangible boundary is crossed, matter and light become trapped," he says.
However, if we use quantum mechanics to describe a black hole, the laws of thermodynamics must apply. In this description, a black hole emits particles in the form of radiation and, ultimately, evaporates. Hawking himself predicted this in the 1970s.
"Following through with Hawking's argument, we conclude that if there is evaporation there must be a boundary to the event horizon, a place of transition between the inside and outside of the black hole," says Lamontagne. "A high energy envelope, a firewall, which burns up matter, is proposed."
However, this scenario poses a problem: if the firewall exists, we should be able to see it. Furthermore, the existence of a firewall around a black hole is inconsistent with the theory of general relativity.
In search of the Holy Grail
While the two major theories, that of general relativity (a theory of gravity) and quantum mechanics (a description of the microscopic world), work well in their respective fields, they are not universal: neither can explain alone how black holes work. "The Holy Grail would be to find THE theory that would unify the other two. And Stephen Hawking has come back with a new proposal," says Lamontagne. Roughly, Hawking suggests that if the firewall is not visible, it is because its position fluctuates constantly and rapidly. "Hawking says, and this is purely hypothetical, that the fabric of space and time is in turmoil and we cannot define its whereabouts."
In short, since we cannot change the principles of either quantum mechanics or general relativity, Hawking proposes to slightly modify the description of black holes.
Hence his remark that black holes do not exist the way we thought they did, as we thought we knew them.
In a "nearby" black hole
In our galaxy, black holes are less numerous than suggested by sci-fi movies. The largest black hole near us is at the center of our galaxy " the Milky Way. It is 30,000 light-years from Earth. Its mass is about one million times that of the Sun, and it occupies a space equivalent to our solar system. "We cannot see it directly but we have located it because of effects we can observe using various technological methods: it constantly deviates the trajectories of stars in its vicinity," says Lamontagne. Moreover, in 2014, a huge cloud of gas will fall toward this "nearby" black hole. "This is exciting from an astronomical point of view because we will be able to examine the phenomenon for 10 to 20 years to come."

To me, I sit at my desktop thinking, "CAN YOU PLEASE JUST SHUT UP??!!" Honestly, to me, this seems like crap. Not to mention, quantum machines seem to hint that a black hole should be able to let SOME things out at least, and, from what we know, they can't. There's a large plot hole there.

Now, go. :D


First I will respond to Con.

Con posed, "If black holes have [the] power to suck in ANYTHING within about..4.5 million miles of itself, and are nearly invisible (because of the fact that light is trapped inside it, so it can not be illuminated.), how do we get those fancy pictures of them?"

1. How is it that we capture images of a non-luminous, invisible black hole?

Any matter, like dust and other particles, that gets close enough to a black hole (call it an event horizon...whatevs) is subjected to gravity that speeds matter up to near the speed of light.

Matter moving at near speeds of light emits massive radiation, and cosmologists call this fast matter, "black hole jets"

2. How is it that the pictures are fancy?

The fancy pictures are radio images of radio waves.

We detect radio waves with a radio telescope and put them into a positive image, so that we may interpret the radio waves in our visual spectrum.

The radio telescope translates the language of radiation into a human image.
Ok, it was just an's not perfect...but it should show that the radio telescope gives us a view into the world of radiation.
This world is invisible otherwise, and accounts for much of our universe.

Hopefully, I answered Con's posed question.

Con claims, "There has been a deliberate suppression of scientific truth by the community of physicists and astronomers concerning the black hole and the big bang."

Ok. Whether or not black holes are real has nothing to do with whether or not science is trying to suppress scientific "truth."

Look, don't just listen to scientists...I know, what am I saying?

What I'm saying is that instead of listening to all of these meteorologists' forecasts, look at the Doppler radar yourself.
We can debate about which meteorologist said which forecast, or how some meteorologists suppress meteorological truths. The radar however, is an objective participant in our acquisition of truth.

In this case, check the radio telescopes yourself.
We can argue that Hilbert's really responsible for the Schwarzschild solution, and that papers were corrupted as posited by Con...

Look at the stars at the center of the galaxy yourself.
You could, in theory, create a radio telescope.

Why are they being manipulated by a light-less, massively gravitational object?
If you definitively find this answer, you could change our knowledge of the universe.

Or you could go to where the evidence points:

1. Objects getting near the center of the galaxy are manipulated by gravity that has no light in the center of the galaxy.

2. Massive gravity with no light is a known result of a collapsing star, which we've observed and tested. Check my round 1 citations.

3. Particles that are near enough to the center of the galaxy (event horizon as it were) nearly reach the speed of light, and give us wonderful radio images scientists call "black hole jets."
From where "jets" get their velocity, you could call that the event just seems like our observations of phenomena should just outweigh what we call them.

To be clear, we have indirectly observed the event horizon given the jets and the stars near it that emit lots of radiation from being moved so quickly by it.

Con continues, "It is also claimed by the very same "experts" that the Universe is expanding. This is patently false."

Distant galaxies are showing light in the red end of the spectrum which means they are moving away from us.
In order for light, over long distances, to be detected in that part of the spectrum, the source must be moving away from the receiver.

These "red shifts" shown by galaxies are evidence of an expanding universe.
Then Con now must explain how "red shifts" are false evidence of galaxies moving away from each other.

Ok, so I actually agree with the sentiment of Con when they say ""CAN YOU PLEASE JUST SHUT UP?" in reference to all of the "Einstein said this, and Hawking says that, and conflicting quotes from different scientists."

I think Con should find ways to observe the natural universe their self, and ignore all of the he said/she said science irrelevancy.

Oh and Einstein's theory was the first to IDENTIFY black holes.

In summary...
-Black holes are a demonstrable fact from indirect, repeatable, testable observations.
-The event horizon is a demonstrable fact in the same manner as the black hole.
-Don't listen to the meteorologists, check the radar.
-Don't listen to the scientists, check the radio telescope.
-Go with the evidence that a massively gravitational dark object is a known result of a large enough star collapsing.
-Never mind the white dwarf, red giant, blue giant distinction...large enough stars will collapse into a black hole.
-Light is not infinite, in fact, infinity may not even be a thing...light is a byproduct of energy, and energy is not infinite.
Debate Round No. 2


WASHINGTON: Black holes - the most dense objects in the universe that do not even let light escape - do not exist, a physics professor in the US has claimed.

Laura Mersini-Houghton at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and Sciences, has proven, mathematically, that black holes can never come into being in the first place.

For decades, black holes were thought to form when a massive star collapses under its own gravity to a single point in space - imagine the Earth being squished into a ball the size of a peanut - called a singularity, researchers said.

An invisible membrane known as the event horizon surrounds the singularity and crossing this horizon means that you could never cross back. It's the point where a black hole's gravitational pull is so strong that nothing can escape it, they said.

The black holes pit two fundamental theories of the universe against each other. Einstein's theory of gravity predicts the formation of black holes but a fundamental law of quantum theory states that no information from the universe can ever disappear.

Efforts to combine these two theories lead to mathematical nonsense, and became known as the information loss paradox.

In 1974, physicist Stephen Hawking used quantum mechanics to show that black holes emit radiation. Since then, scientists have detected fingerprints in the cosmos that are consistent with this radiation, identifying an ever-increasing list of the universe's black holes.

But now Mersini-Houghton describes an entirely new scenario. Mersini-Houghton agrees with Hawking that as a star collapses under its own gravity, it produces Hawking radiation.

However, in her new work, Mersini-Houghton showed that by giving off this radiation, the star also sheds mass. So much so that as it shrinks it no longer has the density to become a black hole.

Before a black hole can form, the dying star swells one last time and then explodes. A singularity never forms and neither does an event horizon.

The take home message of the work is clear: there is no such thing as a black hole, researchers said.

The paper, which was recently submitted to ArXiv, an online repository of physics papers that is not peer-reviewed, offers exact numerical solutions to this problem and was done in collaboration with Harald Peiffer, an expert on numerical relativity at the University of Toronto.

Experimental evidence may one day provide physical proof as to whether or not black holes exist in the universe. But for now, Mersini-Houghton said the mathematics is conclusive.

Many physicists and astronomers believe that our universe originated from a singularity that began expanding with the Big Bang.

However, if singularities do not exist, then physicists have to rethink their ideas of the Big Bang and whether it ever happened. In all honesty, if black holes don't exist, there are a lot of things we need to think about.


Ok, so Con provided an article, which they plagiarized, citing Laura Mersini-Houghton, a legit cosmologist, denouncing the existence of black holes...well not exactly.

The plagiarized article from Con misinterpreted and misrepresented Laura Mersini's article about whether or not black holes exist.
The link is to her not-yet-peer-reviewed paper.

Mersini-Houghton posits that the phenomenon that we see at the center of the galaxy is not a black hole, but a trapped surface..."During the stage that a temporary trapped surface exists around the star, the star would appear the same as a black hole would to an external observer since information about the star is temporarily hidden behind the trapped surface."

So this would seem to explain how stars in the center of the galaxy could be manipulated by gravity with no light, and at the same time not necessarily point to the cause of this manipulation being a collapsed star that turned into a black hole.

The issue is that Mersini-Houghton is arriving at the "temporary trapped surface" idea using symmetries and quantities of dust for stars based on unproven assumptions.

In the article's conclusion, Mersini-Houghton states "It is possible that [my] assumptions of symmetries and dust for the star are not realistic...further work remains to be done for the stability of the solutions found here, and for testing if these findings depend on the choice of the initial state [of the star]"

I would say, that if Mersini-Houghton's assumptions are correct, which have not been demonstrated, then the idea of a "black hole" as we know it may be altered a bit...but...

There is a reason that she has had trouble getting her paper successfully peer reviewed...the problem is in her conclusions where even she states that the "temporary trapped surface" which would replace the explanation of a "black hole" is based on assumptions, not demonstrable proof, that stars have a certain symmetry and quantity of dust in their initial state.

But there is something disturbing about Con's and the plagiarized article's understanding of the big bang.
Both stated "Many physicists and astronomers believe that our universe originated from a singularity that began expanding with the Big Bang."

The Big Bang, and the unexplained characteristics of black holes have NOTHING to do with the big bang.

The big bang didn't come from a singularity like that of a black hole. Cosmologists use the term singularity to represent any breaking down of the laws of physics.

While hawking uses the term singularity as the beginning of the big bang, he is not referring to a black hole's singularity, rather the general definition of singularity cosmologists use to represent a breaking down of the laws of physics.

The big bang is a result of quantum fluctuations from subatomic particles popping in and out of existence, NOT a black hole's singularity.

I will say this again...nothing about the big bang model has anything to do with black holes causing the big bang. Nothing.

The big bang is also well understood and agreed upon by both Stephen Hawking and Laura Mesini-Houghton.

Con has a misunderstanding of how proof works in science, and neglects the obvious doubt that Laura Mesini-Houghton provides in the conclusion of her own theory. Check the link to her unpublished paper.

I would like to say that, if the evidence does actually come in that the "temporary trapped surface" of the star is not based on unproven assumptions of the star's initial state, I would gladly welcome valid evidence for a shift in our knowledge of black holes. This has yet to be done.

Which brings me back to the point that it really shouldn't be about what scientists necessarily say, assume, or believe, rather, we should make our own observations and see if what we observe matches with reality or not.

Given a lack of evidence for a star's initial symmetry or dust levels, black holes are real and explain the immense gravity at the center of our galaxy.
Debate Round No. 3


Paradoxxal forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


Paradoxxal forfeited this round.


Black holes are real.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago

Con's claims seem to be based on a set of assumptions that are couched in actual scientific and mathematical data. I emphasize "seems", because I cannot readily verify that basis. The plagiarism in R3 aside, I don't see any of the sources Con promised in R2, made even worse by the fact that Con was attempting to present his own research. It just makes it look like you're attempting to force Pro to read tremendous volumes of material by not specifying what among the writings of each author you are actually citing. It's made worse by Con absolutely failing to draw from any of these sources. You cannot just say that a 20 page article disproves black holes - summarize what it says that accomplishes that goal. And when the single source I'm able to easily verify from Con is both plagiarized AND examined in detail solely by Pro, this just doesn't look good for Con.

Pro meets his BoP early and holds it. I really don't see it being shaken unless I'm giving Con way too much leeway with his sources and pretty much believing that they nebulously disprove Pro's arguments. So that's sufficient to award Pro arguments.

I'm also awarding sources to Con, for 2 reasons. One, Pro provided sources that directly supported his arguments, empowering his points substantially. Two, the apparent lack of sourcing from Con, plus plagiarism, gives me ample reason to use the source points to punish Con.

Lastly, I'm awarding conduct to Con for the forfeits and the plagiarism. To be clear, you must provide a source and not just quote large swaths of an article, especially as your WHOLE R3.
Posted by tejretics 3 years ago
I assumed Con would argue via plasma cosmology and Occam's razor...
Posted by Millante 3 years ago
You're not open to PMs, so I'll just ask in the comments if you mind if I contend your argument. Astrophysics (as well as biology, but hardly applicable to this question) was my major and I'd love to apply theory and knowledge I've hardly used since leaving college. I'm also new to the site and would although I've lurked for ages and want to get a debate or two on something I'm comfortable with before getting more deeply involved in other issues.

1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.