Black holes may not exist!

[paddoboy]

continued from my previous post......

Examples of the themes that we regularly encounter are:
- "Einstein’s equations for gravity are incorrect";
- "Einstein’s equivalence principle is incorrect or not correctly understood";
- "Black holes do not exist";
- "Einstein’s equations have no dynamical solutions";
- "Gravitational waves do not exist";
- "The Standard Model is wrong";
- "Cosmic background radiation does not exist";
and so on.

much much more at the same link

http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/gravitating_misconceptions.html

 

[Undefined]

This seems to absurd to make any sort of scientifically based comment.

You can't imagine extrapolating przyk's SUPERSIZED BH scenario where the EH was so 'gentle' that the infalling observer would feel nothing untoward? Try extraolating that to a UNIVERSAL SIZED BH scenario where that 'gentleness' can almost be described as 'flat space'; and further extrapolate that any 'visible universe' content/process like that which we observe may exist at such a 'flat' space region EH of an unimaginable huge BH. That was all it involves. Your own extrapolation and imagination based on what przyk pointed out obtained in his example. Ok now?

 

[Undefined]

That's why I went for the option of ignoring it.

You didn't even understand it, even though it involved nothing more than straightforward extrapolation from what przyk pointed out as referenced.

See my reply to origin above, then you might comprehend.

Your 'me too' tactics are now used to cover for your own incomprehension while cheerleading obvious trolls who didn't want to comprehend but went straight for the mindless derision button? Careful, paddo; you are doing more damage to mainstream and scientific integrity/comprehension than any other 'cranks' here. Step back from the ego and listen and understand from your own efforts rather than 'me too' following of trolls. Joining 'troll gangs' and 'name-dropping' and 'linking' and 'cut and pasting' without understanding is not debating science, paddo, it is you on ego trips. Look out you don't completely ruin your reputation in your flurry of inconsequential/misconstruing 'post count increasing' motivated posts cluttering up the threads/discussions. Good luck increasing your post count that trivial and unscientific way, paddo.

 

[paddoboy]

. Good luck increasing your post count that trivial and unscientific way, paddo.

You mean like your present post?

 

[Declan Lunny]

I agree with the options you described. I described the option (more likely, given the extreme gravity so near the EH) that any real particle appearing in the vicinity to negate with either of the virtual pair will be dragged into the EH. So THREE particles (two virtual, one infalling real particle) are involved in my extra option.

Ah, yes, now I see what you were saying. My mistake not yours by the by.

I agree with you, the most likely event will be both the virtual particles falling in, so no net change with them and the in-falling real particle will do what we expect it to do. Make the BH more massive in the regular routine way that BH's grow (if anything about a BH could be considered routine.)

 

[paddoboy]

Physicists who write research papers, lecture notes and text books on the subject of General Relativity - like me - often receive mails by amateur scientists with remarks and questions. Many of these show a genuine interest in the subject. Their requests for further explanations, as well as their descriptions of deeper thoughts about the subject, are often interesting enough to try to answer them, and sometimes discussions result that are worthwhile.

However, there is also a group of people, calling themselves scientists, who claim that our lecture notes, text books and research papers are full of fundamental mistakes, thinking they have made earth shaking discoveries themselves that will upset much of our conventional wisdom. Indeed, it often happens in science that a minority of dissenters try to dispute accepted wisdom. There’s nothing wrong with that; it keeps us sharp, and, very occasionally, accepted wisdom might need modifications. Usually however, the dissenters have it totally wrong, and when the theory in question is Special or General Relativity, this is practically always the case. Fortunately, science needs not defend itself. Wrong papers won’t make it through history, and totally ignoring them suffices. Yet, there are reasons for a sketchy analysis of the mistakes commonly made. They are instructive for students of the subject, and I also want to learn from these mistakes myself, because making errors is only human, and it is important to be able to recognize erroneous thinking from as far away as one can ...


http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/gravitating_misconceptions.html

Gerardus (Gerard) 't Hooft (Dutch: [ˌɣɪːrɑrt ət ˈɦoːft]; born July 5, 1946) is a Dutch theoretical physicist and professor at Utrecht University, the Netherlands. He shared the 1999 Nobel Prize in Physics with his thesis advisor Martinus J. G. Veltman "for elucidating the quantum structure of electroweak interactions".

His work concentrates on gauge theory, black holes, quantum gravity and fundamental aspects of quantum mechanics. His contributions to physics include a proof that gauge theories are renormalizable, dimensional regularization, and the holographic principle.

WIKI:

 

[Undefined]

You mean like your present post?

Did you even TRY to stick to the science point outlined? Did you even TRY to understand it without having to wait for some 'troll' to tell you what to 'believe' and what to disparage without knowing what it is you are disparaging? How can a fellow Aussie carry on that way I cannot fathom. Good luck with that internet activity/interaction mode, mate. You'll need it.

 

[Undefined]

Ah, yes, now I see what you were saying. My mistake not yours by the by.

I agree with you, the most likely event will be both the virtual particles falling in, so no net change with them and the in-falling real particle will do what we expect it to do. Make the BH more massive in the regular routine way that BH's grow (if anything about a BH could be considered routine.)

Thanks for your genuine scientific attitude and understanding, and debating courtesy, mate. Much appreciated, I assure you.

 

[paddoboy]

Did you even TRY to stick to the science point outlined? Did you even TRY to understand it without having to wait for some 'troll' to tell you what to 'believe' and what to disparage without knowing what it is you are disparaging? How can a fellow Aussie carry on that way I cannot fathom. Good luck with that internet activity/interaction mode, mate. You'll need it.

You are twisting things undefined...
That's the point though...I certainly do not take too much notice of anti mainstream trolls, and those that claim to be the vessel of knowledge and with claims that mainstream SR/GR is wrong....
Like you, I don't know them from a bar of soap, and like you, at times their contributing posts are just word salad.

I will keep mine short, simple, mostly mainstream, and most of all understandable.

 

[paddoboy]

You are twisting things undefined...
That's the point though...I certainly do not take too much notice of anti mainstream trolls, and those that claim to be the vessel of knowledge and with claims that mainstream SR/GR is wrong....
Like you, I don't know them from a bar of soap, and like you, at times their contributing posts are just word salad.

I will keep mine short, simple, mostly mainstream, and most of all understandable.

Oh, and I refer you to the very valid Gerardus 't Hooft article just above.
It certainly applies in this neck of the woods!

 

[przyk]

Actually, they'd instantly die. They'd be 'sucked in' by the huge gravitational well, and then be beyond the EH (or 'frozen' at the EH if you accept Farsight's interpretation). If you are 'arbitrarily close' to an EH, without any kinetic energy moving you away from the BH's EH, you are then going to be falling into the BH. Whether you 'cross' the EH or are 'frozen' at the EH is irrelevant. You are dead. This is true even if it is a pre-blackhole such as a neutron star that is still sucking in matter, just before it collapses into a BH. If you fall to the 'surface' of a neutron star you are squashed flatter than a pancake, and your atoms are all turned into neutrons (one huge nucleus of neutrons). It's even worse for you if the neutron star takes in more matter and collapses into a BH.

I think you misunderstood my post. An inertial (i.e. freefalling) observer near the event horizon of a large black hole wouldn't necessarily notice much there, simply because the tidal forces they'd experience can be arbitrarily weak there. If the observer fell into the black hole then of course they'd eventually die, but this could happen long after they crossed the event horizon if the black hole is massive enough.

For an observer maintaining a constant Schwarzschild radial distance just outside a black hole (or standing on the surface of a neutron star), the situation is very different: such an observer isn't inertial and would be experiencing a very large proper acceleration, which as you say would kill them very quickly.

 

[Undefined]

You are twisting things undefined...
That's the point though...I certainly do not take too much notice of anti mainstream trolls, and those that claim to be the vessel of knowledge and with claims that mainstream SR/GR is wrong....
Like you, I don't know them from a bar of soap, and like you, at times their contributing posts are just word salad.

I will keep mine short, simple, mostly mainstream, and most of all understandable.

Learn to actually read what is written and try to discern the gems from the dross. Everything is 'word salad' to one who is prejudiced by some 'crank label' given by trolls. Read and understand and discern for yourself based ONLY on the merits/logics/and supporting scientific discussion presented. All else is just 'tarring everybody with same brush', either because the subtleties/complexities are beyond your facile understandings of the old orthodoxy, or because you wish to keep in with the 'troll gang' and just denounce what you don't understand and damn whether or not some new idea/perspective was actually original/correct based on the new science insights being gained by both mainstream and amateur scientists alike. Take care to differentiate between actual cranks and trolls, and genuine original thinkers/thoughts/ideas presenting here. Only then can you understand and assess which to discard and which to listen and learn from. I trust you will do the right thing by everyone as a first courtesy, and only refute via your own arguments and not troll and old 'information'.

 

[paddoboy]

Learn to actually read what is written and try to discern the gems from the dross. Everything is 'word salad' to one who is prejudiced by some 'crank label' given by trolls.

Not at all.....It's the anti mainstream brigade and the delusions of grandeur that some have, that think they can come to a science forum, claim to rewrite 100 years of physics, and expect all and sundry to sit on their hands and say Oooh, Aaaah!

When you get your stuff peer reviewed, then come back and tell me how and why.
In the mean time? read a few of my reputable links.

 

[paddoboy]

. Take care to differentiate between actual cranks and trolls, and genuine original thinkers/thoughts/ideas presenting here. Only then can you understand and assess which to discard and which to listen and learn from. I trust you will do the right thing by everyone as a first courtesy, and only refute via your own arguments and not troll and old 'information'.

You are not apparently listening or reading too well undefined.
I told you yesterday, if anyone had anything worthwhile, they would not really be here.
If you believe they would, you would believe in the reality of fairies.
They would be getting it peer reviewed.
But in general, the only view of the scientific method and peer review from those cranks are CONSPIRACY!!!!! or other such denigrating remarks.

 

[Undefined]

Not at all.....It's the anti mainstream brigade and the delusions of grandeur that some have, that think they can come to a science forum, claim to rewrite 100 years of physics, and expect all and sundry to sit on their hands and say Oooh, Aaaah!

When you get your stuff peer reviewed, then come back and tell me how and why.
In the mean time? read a few of my reputable links.

Yes yes, but practice discernment. You know, don't reject out of hand those that actually present interesting/valid questions/perspectives and supporting scientific arguments for same. Sure, you can reject and ignore those that do not do that. Good. Just be careful not to throw baby out with bathwater, hey mate? You might miss out on an 'a-ha-a!' moment and learning opportunity. That's all I'm saying.

 

[paddoboy]

Yes yes, but practice discernment. You know, don't reject out of hand those that actually present interesting/valid questions/perspectives and supporting scientific arguments for same. Sure, you can reject and ignore those that do not do that. Good. Just be careful not to throw baby out with bathwater, hey mate? You might miss out on an 'a-ha-a!' moment and learning opportunity. That's all I'm saying.

I wish that is all you are saying......

 

[Undefined]

You are not apparently listening or reading too well undefined.
I told you yesterday, if anyone had anything worthwhile, they would not really be here.
If you believe they would, you would believe in the reality of fairies.
They would be getting it peer reviewed.
But in general, the only view of the scientific method and peer review from those cranks are CONSPIRACY!!!!! or other such denigrating remarks.

You come here to try and prove that opinion from your own 'contribution' and attitude. Meanwhile I and certain others have contributed to further scientific insight in those who actually bother to try and understand and see what CAN be originally contributed scientifically to the discourse in THIS and other good sites.

Just because you are making yourself irrelevant from your self-admitted agenda of: "No good can come from this site, so I won't let anyone get away with bringing some good to this site if I can help it! So I'll troll and attack willy nilly and spoil all the discussions!". Not a good attitude/opinion of the site you are a member of; nor is it a good look for any Aussie to offer to the world. Rethink your agenda and attitude, mate. Be positive not negative.

 

[paddoboy]

Funny thing just occurred to me undefined.....Here you are suggesting, I'm throwing the baby out with the bath water [or in other words, not considering that which maybe worthwhile considering], and in the other thread, you are telling me I'm dreaming and not being realistic suggesting that theoretically FTL is possible and should be researched.
Is it just me, or do you smell some hypocritical irony in comparing the two?

 

[paddoboy]

Just because you are making yourself irrelevant from your self-admitted agenda of: "No good can come from this site, so I won't let anyone get away with bringing some good to this site if I can help it! So I'll troll and attack willy nilly and spoil all the discussions!". Not a good attitude/opinion of the site you are a member of; nor is it a good look for any Aussie to offer to the world. Rethink your agenda and attitude, mate. Be positive not negative.

It's your agenda that needs questioning undefined, as I have just shown.

 

[paddoboy]

You come here to try and prove that opinion from your own 'contribution' and attitude. Meanwhile I and certain others have contributed to further scientific insight in those who actually bother to try and understand and see what CAN be originally contributed scientifically to the discourse in THIS and other good sites.

Just to clear up that twisted point you have tried to make...
I'm at this site to answer questions when I can, and to learn from other reputable contributors.
I enjoy speculative ideas, I encourage Innovation, I encourage Imagination...why I even partake in them myself.
I do not though encourage or support any one with delusions of grandeur, coming here, saying they have rewritten a 100 years of physics and cosmology.


In other words just as I have said a dozen times.


And undefined, despite your accusations and claims about me, and what you think of me, both our conduct will be judged by our peers and moderators here.
I'll stand by that,