Why are you replying to my post with this? I literally provided a link to this fact. brucep is the confused one.
QM + GR = black holes cannot exist
- Thread starter RJBeery
- Start date
- Status
In free fall delta tidal forces are infinitesimal. Where you can see the analysis is in the elevator thought experiment where the observer is in free fall with a couple of particles.
Except where they aren't. You're assigning "infinitesimal" to a phenomenon based on variables. For some values of those variables we could have tidal forces of arbitrarily high value.
You seem to be confused in what relevent, reputable posts have said about BH's in general.
You also seem confused as to why tidal effects happen.
I was trying to help out.
Glad to be of assistance.
PS: I don't believe brucep is confused at all. I think he recognises the situation for what it is, without any baggage or agenda, and that BH's do exist, and are shown to exist by the mountains of evidence available.
Clearly not - that's why I asked for more detail!
Ok, I get the setup...
Under currently accepted theory, yes -- and based on your setup, yes (you stated in the setup that only those stamped 1.0x10^32 and greater are external, which means older ones are internal).
Agreed, again, under currently accepted theory.
Why not?
Thought experiments are supposed to logically prove their claims, not just be an elaborate way to state them.
Yes, that's your non-standard idea. I already know that. So what? You're supposed to be proving it here, not just claiming it.
What is a contradiction? All you did here is state the accepted theory, claim it wrong, and then state part of your non-standard theory, but not deal with the problem we're discussing! You haven't attempted to prove anything!
And indeed, the problem of black hole expansion is the problem with your idea, not a problem with the accepted theory. The accepted theory holds that black holes can form and expand. There is no contradiction there. Your idea, though, appears to try to have them expand and not expand at the same time: You recognize that adding mass requires the event horizon to expand, but you haven't explained what you think happens when mass is added, if it can't expand.
Sorry I'm floating around but I quite reading the natural philosophers posts after the last round of black holes don't exist. Id posted a nice set of experimental/observational evidence associated with black hole physics. Most likely unread by the cranks.
Right now I'm the Girl Scout Cookie King. Thanks.Have a Girl Scout Cookie, Bruce.On me.
My apologies, I had presumed that you were aware that, in all external inertial frames, matter does not cross the event horizon in finite time. In other words, the mass can't be added in the first place. Earlier there was some confusion on whether or not the mass decelerates; it does not decelerate, but it appears to do so in so far as the infalling clock (and the object's movement in general) slows to a stop, asymptotically, as it approaches the event horizon.
And since all FoR's are as valid as each other, and since from the local FoR of a person crossing the EH and falling into the BH, that is exactly what happens according to that FoR.
Just because we, from a distant FoR do not see it happen, does not mean it does not happen.
Stop playing games. We've been discussing this on and off for a year and you know full well I know what you claim the issue is. But the problem is that you claim to have a solution yet continue to dodge requests that you explain it:
Then where does that matter go? It was your scenario and you said you were adding matter. What happened to it? You can't have it both ways. You can't pile-up matter in one place and not have the Schwarzchild radius expand.
I wasn't giving my solution, necessarily; I was showing you why I believe it's a contradiction to claim that GR predicts an event horizon in the first place (save for the cases of eternal black holes). Regardless of anyone's feelings about my alternative, any advocates for the traditional GR black hole should be interested in having an explanation for the above scenario, don't you agree? I would be curious to know how one might be able to accept it rationally.
My solution is simply the scenario outlined, without an event horizon. There would be a large collection of golf balls, as expected, but they would all be observable (with perfect instrumentation). The collection would exhibit a graduated sphere of time dilation from edge, inward, asymptotically approaching a complete stop at the center of mass, which would be a physical manifestation of the characteristics we currently attribute to the classical event horizon.
That's it. We don't need QM to forbid black holes, GR does it for us. Note, this avoids the information paradox, the physical singularity, etc.
Ahem, on Friday, I asked you this:
And you responded with this:Russ said:
You are trying to avoid having to justify your assertion that GR is being misinterpreted. You can't have it both ways. If you want to explain that the standard interpetation of GR is wrong, you must explain WHY.RJBeery said:
There is no problem -- the conventional explanation works fine as you gave it. Again: you claimed it doesn't work, but didn't explain why.
That explanation is not self-consistent: that large collection of golf balls would have a Schwarzchild Radius outside of itself. It would be inside the black hole/event horizon. IE:
If that were the case, then you'd be able to see all of those golf balls at lots of different radii from the center, which is self-contradictory. You can't have one golf ball asymptotically approaching R and never cross it while simultaneously being able to see another golf ball at R/2.
Sorry, that first bold quote should say: If you want to CLAIM that the standard interpetation of GR is wrong, you must explain WHY.
But it's not a contradiction, and the only feelings I have is how someone who does not have an agenda could arrive at that conclusion......
https://briankoberlein.com/2014/09/25/yes-virginia-black-holes/
and an extract from post 97.
Dr. Vidotto: I totally agree with you. Yes, we observe things that behave exactly as black holes, soon we will also be able to directly observe the event horizon with the new Event Horizon Telescope... so yes, I think that a theory of non-singular black hole should be compatible with such observation.
See post 100:
BH's exist according to GR, and no misinterpretation will change the general acceptance of that within the logic and sensibility associated with mainstream cosmology.
Conflicts in facts and analysis, especially in leading edge topics like this, is common. What's not so common is for the conflict to resolve itself by overturning huge chunks of scientific knowledge.
Some people feel threatened by science, as you would know by reading the many anti-science posts that plague the threads here.
I've seen you posting for a long time, but I never realized that you harbor some contempt for science until now. A number of your posts are dedicated to attacking the case for black holes. Indeed, why would anyone be phobic about black holes? What is the source of that angst? Well, one reason is that when science upholds the ideas of Stephen Hawking, it is upholding the idea that the universe needs no external agent to create itself. So that looms over your head like the sword of Damocles . . . at least it raises suspicions. Why do people attack relativity and the constancy of c? Because they think it can be used to undermine the dating of strata via radioisotopes. So, indeed, why do people attack the science dealing with black holes?
What truth? There are many.
Facts and evidence which have merit are always popular. What's unpopular are the relentless attacks on science by cranks.
Wasn't your goal to merely to state that science is broken, that scientific consensus is invalidated by subjectivity, and that you feel vindicated or triumphant after finding a paper which might be used to further that goal? That was what I gathered from the way the first few dozen posts went.
You seem comfortable in your own sense of temperate judgment. If I were you, I would be worried that my lack of preparation in this topic would make me a bad judge of fact.
But let's assume for the moment that you are a good judge. Now let's test what you just said here. Let's start with what we know:
(a) Experts have rendered judgments in matters of science.
(b) You are not an expert.
There are several conclusions to draw from this, and there is more to add from the position you adopted at the outset of the thread. For example:
(c) You read a scientific opinion that appears to you to overturn all evidence of black holes. (That seems to be your point anyway.)
Now consider some of the facts offered in rebuttal:
(d) The paper may be considered unpublished and/or unreliable. (Possible question of finality in the remarks, though I doubt it.)
(e) The paper only suggests that, according to theory,-- and a particular method of modelling black holes -- the formation of black holes may be impossible.
All you need next are the facts supporting the existence of black holes. When origin asked you "then what is that thing in the center of the galaxy which is supermassive yet invisible", at that point you shied away from the facts, and offered that it is something unspecified which is not actually invisible, but rather it's undetectable (applying Walter Wagner's remark which seems to answer for you).
So where are the rest of the facts that go into this list of "essential facts needed to arrive at the truth of black holes"? Google "evidence for black holes" etc. and you quickly converge on the facts you've left out. I was surprised you didn't do that, so I went and fetched a few of them for you to add to your list . . . the one needed in pursuit of the truth. So far you haven't acknowledged that these facts are out there waiting for you to digest them. So that begins to look a little fishy, like maybe you would rather sweep them under the rug.
Well you've observed that the experts are persuaded, so that statement can't possibly be true. The only question is why you have decided you can't be persuaded by the facts that persuade experts. That's problematic because you are basing your skepticism on your pedestrian knowledge of the facts, and you've left the facts which persuade the experts as matters to sweep under the carpet. Again this looks fishy.
Any facts suggesting that black holes do not exist are invalidated by the evidence that suggests that they do exist. As I mentioned before, the evidence doesn't vanish simply because an argument is persuasive. Hell, there's a guy on TV who is persuading people to buy stuff they don't need. What does sales have to do with evidence?
So if you are in fact looking for the truth of the matter you have be looking at all the evidence. Primarily you should be looking at (a) and (b), and then the facts that you swept under the carpet. Try to be objective and most likely you will discover the truth.
If that's actually your objective -- rather than simply hoping that this discredits the man who escalated the question of black holes to the question of whether the universe created itself.
He couldn't recognize a persuasive argument if it walked up and kicked him in his 'Natural Philosopher Balls'. He's about as intellectually dishonest as it gets. I think the ulterior motive for revisiting this nonsense is his unending desire to be considered right outside his own mind.
quoting from the blog responses:
"As TomN pointed out the journal is peer reviewed according to their guide for authors. The Editorial board also is made up of physicists at notable high energy institutions (Cern, desy). And with an Impact factor of 4 it looks like a well known journal in the field. While I agree that it sounds a bit off it is probably not as easy to dismiss as you make it sound.
Bonus point: I think there is no experimental proof of hawking radiation yet. So maybe there’s the problem
as noted before, she hypothesizes that Hawking's "negative energy" ('negative mass') arises outside of the event horizon, and essentially blasts away (via excessive 'Hawking Radiation' at the infalling matter, causing it to explode as a supernova, not leaving enough mass to form a black hole.
but I concur with the response above - the problem likely is the 'hawking-radiation'/'negative'-mass concept that she extrapolates upon. there is far too much evidence for black holes (centers of galaxies, missing visible companion of binaries) to believe that they can't form.
I will now be looking for a binary star system named "Cahuna A / Cahuna B".
This is a surprise to me. I always thought of him as a curious person. I never before noticed any antagonism.
I wonder . . . why bother if you're not actually interested in empirical data? Anyone remotely concerned about the subject matter would be elated to discover that new evidence has been found for black holes. They would be fist pumping and doing somersaults. They would probably have a couple of poster sized Hubble images mounted on the wall of the room they've converted into a little observatory. They would be eager to talk about all kinds of personal discoveries they've made, and what they learned from familiarizing themselves with some of the more unusual objects they've been following, like the ones known to be producing jets, that sort of thing, and what they've learned from the facts collected on these objects, whether by studying the catalogs or by following the press releases from NASA, ESA etc., and of course all the awesome probes, experiments and imaging vehicles that have been launched since Hubble proved to be well worth the fixes and upgrades.
That in my mind is the thinking of a person who wants to on top of the science. I can't imagine any other reason for wanting to be considered on top of the situation, for a person who isn't really interested in observation. None other than -- and I hate to sound like a broken record here, but -- a creationist?
- Status