Black holes may never actually form..!

yeah, because the above quotes are an obvious question of your claim,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

instead of sitting here and playing the focused, ignorant, pathetic, arguing nonsense,
try looking it up.
simple.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, Russ, at least your post has some meat to it. The referenced theory proposes that the mechanism is vacuum energy. I don't recall discussing this issue with you in the past though. Could you please link to a post to refresh my memory?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's exactly what I thought. Go have yourself a bottle of Lowerbrau and relax.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

thanks for playing the focused, ignorant, pathetic, arguing nonsense.

 

RJ
That is one helluva peculiar way to start a conversation.

 

Sculptor...I was feeling ornery when I wrote that, and perhaps a bit bored. I baited the expected responses though, because the knowledgeable folks who made declarative statements about the definite existence of black holes in the past are keeping quiet...

 

thanks for playing the focused, ignorant, pathetic, arguing nonsense.

except this is obviously and completely not true,
as anyone can read these post.
comical, and a pathetic attempt.

 

You bolded the wrong words. Where's that "white hole" observational evidence, eh? :roflmao:

 

thanks for playing the focused, ignorant, pathetic, arguing nonsense.

 

There is no real theoretical problem. You have a theoretical problem because you chose the Schwarzschild bookkeeper coordinates as preferred. The paper is interesting but you don't seem to remotely understand the content because, for some inexplicable reason, you think it verifies your choice of preferred coordinates. IE why you think we should kiss your a$$. Bonehead philosopher.

BTW-The paper is very interesting on the esoteric side that I seem to enjoy the most. The negative mass at r=0 prevents further collapse and stabilizes the shell outside r=2M. Interesting analysis. In the discussion the authors claim the shell is very similar to the collapsed neutron star. The predicted redshift compares favorably with the redshift associated with surface of neutron stars. So it becomes interesting what a 'pulse train' predicts for collapsed objects with a 'event horizon' and collapsed objects without an event horizon? For the case where there is an event horizon the 'pulse train' will die and disappear from observation while the pulse train that hit's the surface of the neutron star will ......?

 

The information paradox is the theoretical problem.

 

You realize that you're self-identifying as a non-critical thinker when you assume I was talking to you, right?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Anyway, this isn't about preferred coordinates. I've already explained that crossing the theoretical EH remains in the infinite future for ALL external frames in ALL coordinates.

 

Wrong.
The EH certainly exists, while it maybe in the infinite future for all external FoR's, it is and can be crossed by a local frame.
If you chose to believe otherwise, please explain the observations we do see.

 

My statement is a mathematical fact.

 

I'm asking you to explain the observations we see.
And no, your statement is not a mathematical fact.

 

Huh? No it doesn't. Where are you getting this from?

 

It's not a theoretical problem. This has been resolved using physics. This 'says the information problem didn't even need a resolution' in physics because it doesn't exist. So what is predicted and observed for the pulse train falling onto the surface of the neutron star? Compared to the observed dying pulse trains falling towards the black hole Cygnus X-1?

 

Get a clue. You choose the Schwarzschild bookkeeper coordinates as preferred. You don't even understand what that means if you think you explained that using physics. LOL. The way I state your mistake [RJBerry] is the same way rpenner states the obvious to chinglu in the SR thread. You forgot to do any physics when you did your evaluation. Leaving the physics out is bonehead in my evaluation of all the clueless comments you've made on this subject. Interesting paper. Thanks.

 

His [RJBerry] comment is so wrong. LOL. He just said the Schwarzschild bookkeeper coordinates are preferred. LOL. How can he not figure this out? People choose 'being right' over scholarship much to frequently. It's already been established that he's not interested in scholarship so have fun.

 

Learn some physics. It's mathematical physics not algebra. Do the physics and you'll finally figure out how irrelevant your opinion is on this subject.