They are only sort of a prediction, more accurately black holes are the point where the theory breaks down resulting in infinities (division by zero).
For example relativity states that time stops totally past the event horizon, on top of that you can't even reach the event horizon because time dialates so much that you can never reach it - yet stuff falls in.
Or for example because length contracts based on speed it's possible for something to look like a black hole if you are moving fast, but not be a black hole if you are moving slow. That causes all sorts of contradictions.
Basically relativity can not calculate anything about the inside of a black hole.
Or for example because length contracts based on speed it's possible for something to look like a black hole if you are moving fast, but not be a black hole if you are moving slow.
How does length contraction make something "look" like a black hole? Gravitational force generated by an object cannot possibly change based on what an observer measures its length to be; No matter how fast or slow the observer is moving.
I don't know an awful lot of physics.
For me, it appears that you are either intentionally throwing up random stuff to confuse others, or you are yourself confused.
[No offense meant]
Gravitational force is also a function of distance - the closer you are to the object the stronger the force.
So if the object contracted and got really small, you could come very close to it and thus feel a gravitational force strong enough to act like a black hole.
Time continues as you continue past the event horizon. The myth that you can't reach the event horizon is an artifact of poor coordinate choices. The length contraction argument is also invalid.
Relativity cannot calculate anything "inside" a black hole because that's the regime where that particular theory breaks down. This is a feature of physics.
The time continues for the item falling, but for the rest of the universe it appears to take an infinite amount of time. It means that the math works, but the actual universe would never have anything fall in a black hole since it can never actually get there.
Why is the length contraction argument invalid? Just saying it's "invalid" doesn't help me much.
"Relativity cannot calculate anything "inside" a black hole because that's the regime where that particular theory breaks down. This is a feature of physics."
I said that didn't I? That was my point - that black holes break a theory, and there are no other theories to replace it. So not having black holes in the first place would help.
When you say feature do you mean "benefit" or "fact"? Because if you mean benefit I don't see how that is.
Please don't forget my original point: that if loop quantum gravity makes black holes impossible that is a plus for that theory. I'm not arguing about whether or not black holes exist, or if their math works.
