Is this true about black holes?

No, the existence of black holes (a bad name for them) is not pseudoscience. There is far too much hard evidence to support them. The name originates from the fact that we cannot directly observe them. Everything we can see depends on either producing light (the Sun, stars), or by reflecting light. Black holes do neither and are therefore intrinsically invisible. However, we can certainly see the effects they have on surrounding matter. Probably the easiest way for a layman to understand what a black hole is like this. A black hole is essentially the gravity left behind when a massive star collapses totally under it's own weight. It otherwise behaves exactly like any other physical body. Objects in orbit around it will continue as before (assuming nothing calamitous occurred directly to them). We know of several instances of binary pairs consisting of a black hole and a nearby star. In fact, our whole galaxy is in orbit around a central super-massive black hole. We can also see the formation of these super-massive objects when we look deep into the Universe. They are known as gamma ray bursters and signify the formation of that black hole. A rotating black hole, otherwise known as a Kerr black hole does not provide a method of transport. There s no indication that there is any physical connection between a black hole and any other part of the Universe. People often claim Einstein said that wormholes exist. He didn't, they are simply one solution to the Einstein Field Equations. Science fiction writers seized on it (quite legitimately) but the general public picked it up and ran with it and it has become almost public knowledge (except it isn't true). Work done years ago by the team of which I was a part as a graduate student on computer simulations of wormholes suggested the following. If wormholes exist, they must have an extremely short lifespan. This is because every scenario we tried showed that as soon as a single sub-atomic, or any other particle was introduced into our simulation, the hole snapped shut instantly. Given the known average density of matter in the Universe, it becomes obvious that any putative wormhole will encounter a particle of some sort within a very short space of time, probably in the order of nano seconds. I'm afraid black holes and wormholes don't lead anywhere, except to oblivion.

The last three are not true. If you fell into a black hole, you would probably experience time more slowly as you approached the event horizon. If we watch a clock fall toward a black hole, we would see it tick at the same time distorted rate at which we feel time in the pull of the black hole. There would be no difference between your sense of time and the rate at which the clock would run. A black hole is more likely a vortex in the fabric of spacetime, through which most energy and all matter leaves the observable, and possibly the overlying fabric of the, universe as it is transformed into the basic energy that makes up the fabric of spacetime itself. Since everything that passes through a black hole is transformed into another form of energy, any physical human would not survive the pull of a black hole, much less reach its event horizon. EDIT: Travel from the observable universe will probably take a wormhole of the fabric of space itself. As fabric has many strings or strans that make it up as a whole, space may have, yet, undetectable strings through which, as a wormhole, energy can be sent to various parts of the entire universe. In order to travel this way matter, including a human, will have to be converted or transformed into all the energy that it itself is made of, and there must be a device at a final destination at which the energy can be reformed back into its original form.

Pseudoscience maybe.Star-Trek of other sci-fi,but definitely not science.There was a theory that the object inside was lost permanently,but thanks to Stephen Hawking's research he discovered that it is not lost,it will be radiated out slowly in the black hole's decaying process.In rotating BH the hole slowly loses its angular momentum energy and radiates out the matter fallen in via high energy gamma rays,it will become static and then evaporates.The Hawking radiation will continue until the temperature inside reaches the universe's background temperature.After that it will halt,if the black hole is immensely massive it will exist until the universe cools down sufficiently to let the hole evaporate again,if the hole is relatively small then it will evaporate instantly,and when it becomes tiny and unstable it will blow up.Thus the energy/mass conservation laws are true once again.You can read more about this on BH thermodynamics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_thermodyna...

Not True.

A Black Hole is NOT A HOLE. it is nothing more that a dead Star.

Nobody knows. But it's not likely. Since it is simply a dead star with extreme mass, anything that goes into it (rotating or not) is simply likely to cease to exist in any form that has meaning to any of us out here.

Cant say, bcoz nothin, not even light can come back after reachin d event horizon of a black hole so there is no chance of detectin what's present on the other side of the event horizon

In a very real sense, everything to do with black holes is a pseudoscience. Everything we say about black holes is completely theoretical. We say them because theory predicts them, but there is not one shred of experimental evidence to back up any of those claims. We detect black holes by their mass (and size), but it is THEORY that tells us that they are black holes (for all we know they are just very dense clumps of matter). There is no experimental evidence (to my knowledge) to suggest that something like an event horizon exists.

It's just pseudo-science.

.