Only black holes have been proven to exist.

Yes, what people call "black Holes" do exist.
However, they are neither 'black' or a 'hole'.

They are called 'black' because the light event horizon prevents light from escaping the gravity well.
They are called 'holes' because matter and light disappears into the gravity well as if it falls into a hole.

However, if you consider stellar dynamics you will realize so-called black holes are actually supermassive white hot singularities.
As it gathers mass its gravity increases and so does its size. If it were a 'hole' it would not increase in size, matter would fall straight thru the hole.

The fact they increase in mass/size also means mass does not fall into it, mass is pulled onto it.

Just a random thought on this topic -

As matter concentrates it distorts space/time, time slows down the more concentrated matter becomes.

At a black hole's singularity, time is at an almost complete stop relative to our time....matter falling in & concentrating is doing so at a near standstill.

I see humor in the lack of focus to this detail physicists apply to their theories about black holes.

Einstein theorized that white holes can exist, so, given that, what if the ultimate fate of a black hole is to become a white hole, but in our universe's 14 billion year life span there hasn't been enough time for the slowly forming singularity of any black hole to condense enough to that critical state of matter?

Fun with quantum singularities.

From our point of view that is pretty much correct and does make sense.

However, if you consider time is movement (the constant series of change of state) and movement is heat, time doesn't really stop, it speeds up.
It only appears to stop relative to our observations.

Black holes are stars on overdrive, Very Hot because they are superMassive. Its gravitational influence is related to its mass.

Heat is movement. At absolute zero (true absolute zero) there is no movement, matter is stopped (frozen). Therefore, Time is stopped.

For time to stop within the event horizon of light, the black hole would need to be at true absolute zero.


While I agree Einstein's theories were cutting edge during that time period many of his theories have also proven inaccurate or down right wrong at our current level of understanding.
Hawking dedicated much of his time to black holes but much of his theories are also just educated guesses.
As time passes, science self-corrects itself.
Theory is important but always yields to fact.

Fact: Heat is movement
Fact: Stars are collections of mass
Fact: Stars are very hot
Fact: Supermassive stars can become 'black holes'
Fact: Gravity is related to mass
Fact: Time is movement, without movement, time stops
Fact: Relativity is reference from observation. Assessment is relative to the observer.

Just as there is a visible light spectrum and invisible light spectrum there may also be an observable and unobservable time spectrum.
Which may indicate time lapse above a certain point may appear, to an observer, as time has stopped.

The light event horizon is where light cannot escape the gravity well of super mass. However, observation with instrumentation proves the light event horizon is not spherically equilateral.
We 'detect' gamma jets from the poles of supermassive stars and black holes.
This fact indicates black holes are spherical, spinning balls of mass which have an equator and axis poles. Gamma radiation escapes the light event horizon at its weakest point which is at the poles. Gamma is a super fast part of the spectrum and is extremely hot because movement is heat.

If time stops within the light event horizon, not only would a black hole never gain mass, it could not expel gamma at its poles.

If a black hole were a 'hole' it would not change mass and all black holes would be the same because the mass would 'fall thru the hole'.
The fact black holes have different masses and relative sizes is proof it is not a 'hole' but an accumulation of mass.

Also, if it were a 'hole' it would not be super hot and not expel super hot gamma radiation from its poles. It also would not have 'poles' or an 'equator.

It stands to reason if a black hole is a single mass (a hyper massive particle of matter with relative gravitational influence) when no more matter is available to increase its mass, the black hole stabilizes and begins to cool.
It still has its mass and still has its gravitational influence but it has no more matter(mass) to increase its size. It has literally cleared out all the mass within its influence. It stops moving becoming a chunk of frozen mass.

The stars (galaxies) in the Hubble Deep Field are detected because we detect the radiation from those objects over time. It 'looks' back in time.
Our observable Universe is approximately 27.4 billion light years in diameter spherically. 13.7 billion light years spherically from our point of reference.
It follows reason many of the radiations sources we detected may no longer be visible because the have lost mass accumulation and reached absolute zero.

Any mass at absolute zero would be undetectable. However, the mass and the influence of that mass would continue to exist.
This would account for the missing mass and influence we currently call Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
If the trinary stars of the Centauri system were to all reach absolute zero they would still exist and still have gravitational influence but would go Dark because there would be no heat to detect.

We don't actually know how big the Universe actually is because much of it is Dark (frozen).


I've read quantum black holes are created at CERN.
CERN detected the Higgs Boson.
According to what I've read and heard, quantum singularities (quantum black holes) are observed during collisions.
The erupt and wink back out.
The problem with this concerns the fact quantum observations are extremely difficult for us right now.
It also concerns the fact we may not be able to detect the singularity husk at that size and possibly at its temperature.
CERN collisions are extremely hot. Our detectors are calibrated to read activity with range of the expected temperatures. If the tiny(quantum) husk of the singularity's temperature falls below the calibration limits, it would be undetected.
Since it would be quantum, we may not be able to detect it when we do decide we should look for it.
Plus, it may have moved in relation to where it was first detected and on a quantum scale, could be lightyears from its point of origin.
No matter the size, from a supermassive or hyper black hole to a quantum singularity black hole, if it reaches absolute zero, we will not be able to detect it but it would still be there and still have influence within its domain.

Einstein was right about that other thing before it wasn't even known. so why would I go with a different theory on the black hole? that hole not even light can escape theory, I can't buy. Einstein predicted a 3-d alternate world. I going with what he said. his theorys have actually been proven while others are just theory's

Let's look at the reality of this Universe as we know it.

Matter has mass

Mass exerts a gravitational effect on the Universe.

Mass (and gravity) attracts other mass which is added to the whole.

This is how celestial objects (dust clouds, rocks, asteroids, comets, planets and stars) form and grow.

As more mass is added to the whole, that object's gravitational "pull" gets stronger, attracting even more mass to the whole.

A photon can be a wave or a particle.
When it is a particle, it has mass.
We know light is affected be gravity (gravitational lensing).

Since mass is attracted to mass, accumulation of new mass to the whole can be uneven. This creates stellar poles and unstable areas within the whole.

When a certain mass is reached, the star either becomes unstable and explodes (supernova) or a section of it gives way and it pulsates while it spins (pulsar).

If the mass is stable and there is enough new mass within its gravitational horizon it continues to gain mass until its mass is so great, light can't escape its influence.

During this phase of mass, the mass compacts the star into a single unit of mass. Imagine packing a snowball into a single atom of ice but on a much larger, more massive and extremely hot scale.

This single mass now attracts more and more matter which is absorbed into the singularity increasing its gravitational affect. Which in turn, attracts even more mass.
This is how 'black holes' can grow.

If a 'black hole' were a 'hole' or an area of a different dimension, matter would pass thru it not accumulate on it (or to it).
The very fact a 'black hole' attracts matter proves it is not a hole. Its not a 'drain'. Its a supermassive singularity of matter.

Black holes (all matter actually) have multiple event horizons. Only one is the light event horizon. The Earth is currently within Sagittarius A's gravitational event horizon. As a matter of fact, the whole Milky Way galaxy is trapped within its gravitational event horizon. The Earth is also trapped within the Sun's gravitational event horizon. The Moon is trapped within the Earth's and Sun's gravitational horizon.

I mean, lll be honest. I work telecommunications. I'm by far, a astrologer, scientist or whatever. I mean, there you go , I don't even know the proper terminology. like, what is it, 80% of the ocean hasn't even been explored? and that's today but 20 years ago nothing could live at the bottom of the ocean and it was a fact; so they said. that's obviously today, been debunked. that's just an example. which is why I'd back Einstein's theory over that one. that and just understanding what we know, what we don't know and what we think we know. after I consider that, my best bet, would have to go with Einstein who was proven right already. I mean, I understand it's 2 different theory's, theory's being opinions so either one is right at this point in time. thats just my personal opinion ofcouse and a break down why I think that. lol, if the guy who came out with that theory splits the Adam or something I'll have to rethink that.

Can you see the contradiction?

While Einstein was brilliant, along with many others, science does not stagnate. If it does, it becomes religion.

Science pushes what we know (or think we know).
Science once stated the Earth was the center of the Universe. Right now we know that isn't true. It was science, now its not.

Hawking was a leading theorist on black holes. I've read some of his theories, watched some of his lectures. People will swear he had it all figured out but its all just one man's theory which other men adopt as gospel.
That's not science. Science constantly asks questions, constantly questions favorite truths. Its about looking to see if there is more to it than we thought.

Science will not place one man's work over itself. People do that. Not science.

I'll try to explain a little more thoroughly. yes, of coarse I see the contradiction. that why I said above, I understand its theory's, their different opinions. while I agree with you; we must keep looking. see, everyone uses that Steven Hawkins guy but in my view he's just some dude that had a little fam and utilized it to make more money. he wasn't stupid, I'm sure he put together that's it's a theory, so even if it's wrong, he could still be right, somehow. I could never buy anything he was selling. not to mention, he's never been right. I'm sure he had a infatuation with space, in some way and there's Einstein with his theory's; so he reaches for the stars, literally.
on the other hand, Einstein and his theory's; like his theory on general relativity, that has now been proven fact. oh and the three lenses, universal speed thing, you where even if one has more energy they still travel at the same speed, the speed of Earth's yearly rotation and that it gets more round. that's not all now but the point I'm trying to make, oh and space and time warps around objects like black holes, sun and planets. all once theory's but all are now facts is the point in trying to get at. I mean, that being said, if I had to back a "theory" you think I'm going with Hawkins or Einstein, whos already been proven, verified or factually correct? not just once, but at least probably over 10 times. not to mention he used math, trigonometry and stuff to form his theory's while others are just theory's.

oh GPS, also works just the way Einstein predicted.

all ARE hypothetical??

WHAT THEY CALL pROOF IS FROM THOUSANDS OF LIGHTYEARS AWAY AND AMOUNTS TO gUESSING

cern has doomed us all