Black holes may not exist!

That is indeed what Hawking was saying.

I did no such thing. I quoted Hawking's opinion as a representation of the mainstream scientific position. What I'm looking for is an acknowledgement from guys like RJ and Farsight that they recognize that they are arguing against the mainstream scientific opinion.

I'm reasonably certain they know it, they just are avoiding it because of the implications.

For as long as 'mainstream' OR 'anti-mainstream' proponents base any assumption/interpretation etc on the abstraction pure and simple of a mathematical 'space-Time' construct, then NEITHER 'side' is arguing from any reality basis. So any 'in facts' statements from either 'side' are to be taken as pure hypothetical unproven speculations/interpretations from such abstractions, not reality.

Did you read the whole post #359 and other posts mentioned therein? Do you recognize the problem with continuing to use abstractions as if it is reality when discussing these things that will inevitably continue at cross-purposes perforce of protagonists on both 'sides' taking abstractions as proven facts which neither side can really claim IN FACT....and hence the origin of the present/continuing impasse in such futile abstraction-based arguments/approaches/discussions I observe here and elsewhere? :)

I really have to go now. See/read you all round. Cheers; and enjoy your future (hopefully more reality based, on both 'sides') discussions, Russ, everyone! :)
 
That is indeed what Hawking was saying.

I did no such thing. I quoted Hawking's opinion as a representation of the mainstream scientific position. What I'm looking for is an acknowledgement from guys like RJ and Farsight that they recognize that they are arguing against the mainstream scientific opinion.

I'm reasonably certain they know it, they just are avoiding it because of the implications.
The mainstream scientific opinion is a decent measure of veracity...until it's not, at which point it becomes a terrible burden.
 
Hi Farsight, przyk, Russ, everyone:)



How can it be "in fact" in any sense but abstractions of mathematical models using abstract static "space-TIME" concept/logics/interpretations? As przyk just pointed out quite correctly:
So, Russ, you can't quote someone's OPINION as 'fact' when its based on purely abstract models which have not actually been tested in reality at the BH event horizon. Your quoted statement 'as fact' is only abstract prediction from abstract models. Period.



Again, there have been around 3 or 4 different interpretations that disagree with the mainstream position, but more Ironically, they all disagree with each other on at least one point.

And more Importantly a fundamental assumption in Einstein's SR is that all FoR's are equally valid and cannot be downgraded to "just abstractions" just to align with a personal view.
That includes the FoR of someone approaching and crossing the horizon with a clock.....nothing extraordinary happens...no slowing or stopping of time from and within that FoR.
And any and all external FoR's watching the person with the clock approaching the EH.....From those FoR's, they never quite see him crossing the EH, just himself and his clock being time dilated to infinity and redshifted further and further along the spectrum, until beyond their observational capabilities.


That is the mainstream position and one I have supplied a few links in referencing.
Any other hypothetical outcome needs to be peer reviewed.
It's as simple as that.
 
They aren't being formed all the time, RJ. That article is speculative woo. As is Hawking radiation. I mean, have you ever actually looked at the given explanation? Virtual particles are field quanta, they aren't real particles. The gravitational time dilation is totally ignored. There are no negative energy particles. The whole thing is hogwash.

I tend to agree. Here is a quote from the Wikipedia link referenced in the post your comment references (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole):

"A rough picture of this is that pairs of virtual particles emerge from the vacuum near the event horizon, with one member of a pair being captured, and the other escaping the vicinity of the black hole. The net result is the black hole loses mass (due to conservation of energy)."

Not stated in the article is that the virtual particle that falls into the Black Hole is 'negative mass' while the one 'escaping' is positive mass, with the net result being zero mass change (conservation of mass/energy). This appears to be a mathematical construct to have 'negative mass', but it has no real-world counterpart of which I am aware (indeed, it raises interesting sci-fi such as repulsion of particles due to gravity if they have negative mass, etc.).

Further, it appears that for Black Holes with which we are aware of their physical existence (collapsed stars, SM Black Holes at the center of the Milky Way and presumptively other galaxies), if a particle pair were created at the EH, it is difficult to fathom how one of the two would 'wander away' and 'escape' when in the presence of such a massive gravitational field. Instead, they'd both fall into the gravitational well, with no net radiation and no net change in mass/energy. I believe this scales down to even very small theoretical black holes (which might not ever have existed).
 
So, does mainstream science support any purely abstract models which have actually been tested in reality at a BH event horizon?

Does mainstream science support any theory, hypothesis, construct, model, representation or even idea that has actually been tested in reality at any BH event horizon?

I firmly believe that the answer to both of these questions is the same!


Maybe...just maybe...

...it's as simple as that.
 
So, does mainstream science support any purely abstract models which have actually been tested in reality at a BH event horizon?

Does mainstream science support any theory, hypothesis, construct, model, representation or even idea that has actually been tested in reality at any BH event horizon?

I firmly believe that the answer to both of these questions is the same!


Maybe...just maybe...

...it's as simple as that.

Or just maybe you are trolling???

You know of course we have nothing concrete re a BH and the EH, other than that predicted by GR, and so far its done a pretty good job.
And the mainstream position as adequately illustrated by James as follows.....

Farsight:



No. Proper time never comes to a halt.



You mean you haven't considered that everybody here gets it except you.



You're better off considering something that can actually happen, like an observer travelling at 99.999999% of the speed of light or something.



Yes.



I don't know what you mean by that.



Right. According to a distant observer, he never falls through the event horizon.

But you're mixing frames - a common error.

In his own proper frame, a traveller has no problem crossing the event horizon of a black hole (apart from possible tidal force, which can be made negligible for a large hole).

Travelling observers, by the way, never see the clocks they carry with them ticking slower or faster than normal. Those clocks are at rest relative to the observer carrying them, so they must be seen to tick at the "rest" rate.

This is basic relativity. I'm somewhat surprised that you, as someone who regularly posts in these kinds of threads, doesn't have a basic understanding of relativity. How long have you been posting about such topics?


is the mainstream position because of those predictions.

And again, one of the main premise of GR, is that all FoR's are valid.
 
Did you read the whole post #359 and other posts mentioned therein? Do you recognize the problem with continuing to use abstractions as if it is reality when discussing these things that will inevitably continue at cross-purposes perforce of protagonists on both 'sides' taking abstractions as proven facts which neither side can really claim IN FACT....and hence the origin of the present/continuing impasse in such futile abstraction-based arguments/approaches/discussions I observe here and elsewhere? :)

)


The point is it is the mainstream position for a reason.......
That is according to GR, to be the most likely scenarios.
 
The mainstream scientific opinion is a decent measure of veracity...until it's not, at which point it becomes a terrible burden.

The mainstream scientific opinion, is based on the most likely scenario after peer review.
Any alternative theories are just that.
 
http://hubblesite.org/explore_astron..._mod3_q15.html


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



http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html#q3


http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...s/fall_in.html


http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/schw.html


Again all those reputable sites support the following....

[1] The local FoR of someone falling into a BH with a clock will not have any thing unusual happen, including no time dilation or stopping of time within that frame. [ignoring tidal effects if any]

[2] All other outside FoR's will see the clock and observer gradually redshifted to infinity until disappearing from the viewing capabilities of the ship/telescope. They will never be seen to reach the EH, [hence no stopping of time] and time dilation will be observed

[3] All FoR's are valid according to GR.

That's the mainstream position and makes the most sense to this little bear.
 
Or just maybe you are trolling???

You know of course we have nothing concrete re a BH and the EH, other than that predicted by GR, and so far its done a pretty good job.
And the mainstream position as adequately illustrated by James as follows.....




is the mainstream position because of those predictions.

And again, one of the main premise of GR, is that all FoR's are valid.

So, is GR an abstract theory or a real fact?

Undefined's Post #359 laid everything out quite clearly.

You have to be able to understand the difference between a theory and a fact.

If you cannot understand the difference between a theory and a fact - for whatever reason - then further discussion is an exercise in futility.
 
So, is GR an abstract theory or a real fact?

Undefined's Post #359 laid everything out quite clearly.

You have to be able to understand the difference between a theory and a fact.

If you cannot understand the difference between a theory and a fact - for whatever reason - then further discussion is an exercise in futility.

I'm not sure how many times you need reminding about what a scientific theory is. Yet you continue to come back with the same inane question...The sort of question that anti mainstream pushers, alternative theory advocates and trolls in general are so apt at asking.

If you or anyone else sees fault with SR/GR, or has a better model, then get it peer reviewed.

If not, you are only pushing shit uphill.
Because GR and the BH's they predict, remain firmly the opinion of the majority of scientists.


Oh, and undefined is wrong....He gives an alternative explanation to the mainstream.
 
So far in this thread, we have had a few ideas/hypothesis not aligning to the mainstream....
[1] BH's/EH's dont exist.....[2] BH's exist with no EH,....[3] Time is seen to stop at the EH but you still cross the EH...[4] time stops and you never cross the EH...[5] All FoR's are not valid [6] GR is an abstraction and not real.....[7] It's only a theory!

:)


Maybe its time a few got together and presented a united front.....It won't help your cause any, but at least gives some illusion of unity. :)

And against all that we have the overwhelmingly accepted mainstream model, built on SR/GR...The model that has changed history and science forever. [well for most of us]
 
Apologies, some of the links in post 371 do not seem to be working....
Let's try again with the info.....

http://hubblesite.org/explore_astronomy/black_holes/encyc_mod3_q15.html

where it says.....
What happens when I drop a clock into a black hole?

According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, massive objects create distortions in space and time. Near a black hole, these distortions become so strong that time behaves in unexpected ways.

Imagine that we are on a spaceship near a black hole. We drop a clock into the black hole and compare its time to that of our onboard clock. The falling clock runs progressively slower. It never crosses the event horizon, but stays frozen there in space and time. The falling clock also becomes continuously redder, since its light loses energy as it escapes from the black hole's vicinity.

By contrast, if we were falling with the clock, time would appear to behave perfectly normally. We would see no slowdown as we approached the event horizon. We would cross the horizon without any perceptible change, and our color would not appear to change. This is the principle of relativity: things can appear different depending on whether you are moving or standing still.


at...
http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html#q3

it says....
What do you see as you are falling in? Surprisingly, you don't necessarily see anything particularly interesting

My friend Penelope is sitting still at a safe distance, watching me fall into the black hole. What does she see?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Penelope sees things quite differently from you. As you get closer and closer to the horizon, she sees you move more and more slowly. In fact, no matter how long she waits, she will never quite see you reach the horizon.


at ....... http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/fall_in.html
it says.....

The time I experience before I hit the event horizon, and even until I hit the singularity—the "proper time" calculated by using Schwarzschild's metric on my worldline—is finite.
So if you, watching from a safe distance, attempt to witness my fall into the hole, you'll see me fall more and more slowly as the light delay increases. You'll never see me actually get to the event horizon. My watch, to you, will tick more and more slowly, but will never reach the time that I see as I fall into the black hole.


Again, apologies if that never came up the first time.
 
Imagine that we are on a spaceship near a black hole.

Imagine!
Imagine!
Imagine!

Theoretical imaginations are not the same as Physical reality
Theoretical imaginations do not create Physical reality.
Theoretical imaginations are attempts to explain the workings of Physical reality.
Theoretical imaginations are not the Physical reality that we (most of us anyway!) exist and live in.

paddoboy, we (most of us anyway!) exist in reality.
We (most of us anyway!) do not exist in a theoretical construct of an imagined reality.
We (most of us anyway!) do not exist in a model of an imagined reality.
We (most of us anyway!) do not exist in a representation of an imagined reality.
We (most of us anyway!) do not exist in an idea of an imagined reality.
paddoboy, the FACT is that we (most of us anyway!) exist in reality.


Again paddoboy, I apologize for the FACT that if you cannot understand the difference between a theory and a fact - for whatever reason - then further discussion is an exercise in futility.
 
The mainstream scientific opinion is a decent measure of veracity...until it's not, at which point it becomes a terrible burden.
Right, and completing the thought: you think you have found a circumstance where the mainstream opinion is wrong and you are the one to correct it.
 
For as long as 'mainstream' OR 'anti-mainstream' proponents base any assumption/interpretation etc on the abstraction pure and simple of a mathematical 'space-Time' construct, then NEITHER 'side' is arguing from any reality basis. So any 'in facts' statements from either 'side' are to be taken as pure hypothetical unproven speculations/interpretations from such abstractions, not reality.

Did you read the whole post #359 and other posts mentioned therein? Do you recognize the problem with continuing to use abstractions as if it is reality when discussing these things that will inevitably continue at cross-purposes perforce of protagonists on both 'sides' taking abstractions as proven facts which neither side can really claim IN FACT....and hence the origin of the present/continuing impasse in such futile abstraction-based arguments/approaches/discussions I observe here and elsewhere? :)

I really have to go now. See/read you all round. Cheers; and enjoy your future (hopefully more reality based, on both 'sides') discussions, Russ, everyone! :)
I don't know why you are trying to argue this with me - I don't disagree with any of that and have never posted anything that should make you think I do! If you did, you misread. Perhaps you think Hawking and his editor are bad at grammar and that I'm not smart enough to know what he meant, I dunno - but I assure you I have no misunderstandings about this issue.
 
So, is GR an abstract theory or a real fact?
GR is a theory. It is not abstract: no proper scientific theory is. This is yet another attempt by you to denigrate science by adding derogatory adjectives. And another attempt by you to start a completely unnecessary argument about something basic and not in question.
If you cannot understand the difference between a theory and a fact - for whatever reason - then further discussion is an exercise in futility.
Since you clearly still don't understand the scientific method very well, I certainly agree that discussion of these issues with you is futile. But you're going to continue poking us anyway, because that's what you do.

Jeez, this thread has really gone full crackpot. In the last few posts, we've had:
-It's only a theory.
-I'm smarter than Einstein/Hawking.
-Science is dogmatic.

I should start giving crackpot index scores to peoples' posts when I respond to them!
 
Back
Top