Black holes may never actually form..!

I've identified you over a proliferation of bullshit posts based on your bonehead philosophy. I wouldn't say philosophy is bonehead. Yours must be. It's probably a mathematical fact.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Brucep,good point and test.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Years ago I read a book on the crab nebula pulsar. Part of the discussion was 'what happens when matter falls onto the surface of the pulsar'.
Thermonuclear burning. So I googled and from this report from MIT news and the paper being reported on.
A model burster
Researchers find the first neutron star that bursts as predicted.
http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2012/model-bursting-star-0302
MILLIHERTZ QUASI-PERIODIC OSCILLATIONS AND THERMONUCLEAR BURSTS FROM TERZAN 5: A SHOWCASE OF BURNING REGIMES
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/748/2/82

I've been interested in neutron star physics ever since I read the book 'The Crab Nebula' by Simon Mitton published in 1978. I probably read it in the very early 80's. So we have the 'falling matter' [pulse train] resulting in nuclear burning where the pulse train terminates on the surface of the neutron star and 'the dying pulse train' predicted by GR to 'disappear' from observation as it crosses over the apparent horizon. This has been verified by the 'dying pulse train' observation at Cygnus x-1 by Joe Dolan. That's what I thought of when I read the discussion part of the paper RJBerry linked. I think they found some justifications for the analysis from the Stephen Hawking recent paper. Maybe he'll have something to say in a citation? Something you might find interesting for future reading on 'tests of GR'. Read about the Sergei Kopeikin experiment to measure the speed of gravity in the Jovian spacetime back in 2002. Lots of disagreement on what was actually measured. It's a good example of a scientific disagreement via citation. Cool experiment.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It seems already there’s a tick in favour of event horizons when comparing the IGR*J17480–2446 observations and the dying pulse train observation of Cygnus x-1.

IGR*J17480–2446 observation actually having more ‘bursts’ then the model predicted is all the better for black holes.
As usual, more repeats of both these kinds of observations on new candidate neutron stars and suspected black holes would be the scientific way to be sure of results.
That Sergei Kopeikin speed of gravity experiment makes me wonder how physicist keep up with the technology required to allow them to do such tests.

 

I think you guys ought to ask for a refund lol --> http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/stephen-hawkings-blunder-on-black-holes-shows-danger-of-listening-to-scientists-says-bachmann :roflmao:

 

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From the link:
“Actually, Dr. Hawking, our biggest blunder as a society was ever listening to people like you,” said Rep. Bachmann. “If black holes don’t exist, then other things you scientists have been trying to foist on us probably don’t either, like climate change and evolution.”
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Sounds like another moron of the kind Palin is and our own Pauline Hanson in Australia.
Thank f#@$ these pathetic individuals are in the minority.

 

We'll see whether this paper will be cited. I think there will be a problem showing the prediction represents real natural phenomena.

 

Palin and Bachmann should enter the competition for the greatest politico airhead.

 

If black holes don't exist, what is it at the center of our galaxy that is super massive, very black, and has numerous stars in orbit about it? http://www.zmescience.com/space/closest-star-black-hole-orbit-milky-way-20313/

 

A conglomeration of politicians, the densest thing in the universe. The orbiting' stars' are the celebs which like to be seen backing a party

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

How did America put a man on the moon without listening to scientist?

 

Just to correct something for clarity...folks
When I said

I meant the fading to nothing of the Cygnus x-1 dying pulse train, as against the noisy 'bursts' observed as matter hit the surface of neutron star IGR*J17480–2446.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I already have, many times. This is also covered in the referenced article of the OP. Did you read it? Infinite, graded redshifting toward the center of a collapsing neutron star would appear black but avoid any loss of information.

Wait, are you suggesting that there exists an inertial, external frame which would claim that non-local objects are crossing the EH in finite time? Please explain

I don't have any idea what that means. How has the information paradox been "resolved using physics"? Do you mean "resolved via QM, Hawking Radiation, etc"? Because that does not remove the information paradox from GR. Also, my description of a collapsed neutron star, just as the description in the referenced article in the OP, would produce the same dying pulse train that you're talking about.

Those quotes are fake, and if people were making up the same garbage about a female Democrat (e.g. "good thing I never took any Science!") they would be labeled misogynists.

 

Doublepost deleted, I had trouble with the edit button.

 

RJ: don't get too excited about the article and paper. The author doesn't mention the frozen star or the gravastar or Friedwardt Winterberg's firewall. Do however get excited about the frozen star, but don't get excited thinking the frozen star isn't a black hole. It's actually more of a hole than the point-singularity black hole interpretation. It's "a hole in the fabric of space and time". Think of space as a bluish party balloon, then gaze at this gif from the article:

https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/max/600/1*roMIqp-2P3gXe73bL5cGfQ.gif

You might want to look again at the OP in the thread I started. It's amazing that it got moved into alternative theories.

 

LOL. They're orbiting the dunce stool. Think about this. My congressional rep is Darrel Issa. So this district in North County San Diego elect intellectually dishonest self serving sociopaths to represent them in congress. Nitwitville. Good surf though.

 

My point in linking the article isn't that I necessarily believe it supplants current-accepted theory; it's to provide evidence that there is room for theoretical doubt to those who, to this day, insist that we have observational proof of event horizons, as if the entire subject is completely resolved and without doubt. I am well aware of your theory on the matter, Farsight, but I believe it is wrong for the same reason as the current-accepted theory (i.e. theoretical problems such as information loss)

 

RJBeery said:
I already have, many times. This is also covered in the referenced article of the OP. Did you read it? Infinite, graded redshifting toward the center of a collapsing neutron star would appear black but avoid any loss of information.
_________________________________________________________


Again, Wrong.
In reference to a BH, in which I posed my question, 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.

You and Farsight are nowhere near smart enough to rewrite accepted BH cosmology.
If either of you had anything of substance, you wouldn't be wasting your time here.
Ever heard of accepted scientific peer review?

 

RJ: OK. But remember the frozen star isn't my theory at all. It was developed by Oppenheimer and others. See http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.1359 for a mention. Note this:

"Oppenheimer and Snyder found in 1939 that gravitational collapse in vacuum produces a "frozen star", i.e., the collapsing matter only asymptotically approaches the gravitational radius (event horizon) of the mass, but never crosses it within a finite time for an external observer..."

This is IMHO correct. So you might think there are no event horizons. But don't forget the growing hailstone. The water molecule doesn't cross the surface, the surface crosses it. Here's the next bit:

"Based upon our recent publication on the problem of gravitational collapse in the physical universe for an external observer, the following results are reported here: (1) Matter can indeed fall across the event horizon within a finite time and thus BHs, rather than "frozen stars", are formed in gravitational collapse in the physical universe..."

I don't agree with that. IMHO it's more like Chinatown: She's my sister, SLAP. She's my daughter, SLAP. She's my sister AND my daughter. Frozen stars are black holes.

PS: I don't think much of the black hole information paradox, but never mind that.

 

In reference to a BH, I agree with you that the EH does exist because that's one of its defining characteristics; in the same manner, in reference to a magical unicorn, a magical unicorn's horn exists because that's one of its defining characteristics. I don't think you're that clever or pedantic though. I think that you believe there is irrefutable evidence that event horizons exist in reality, and on this point you are simply misinformed.

 

Please excuse my posting style at this time. There appears to be problems either at my end, or with sciforums.
I am unable at this time to get "reply with quote" to operate. :shrug:

_________________________________________________________
RJBeery said:
In reference to a BH, I agree with you that the EH does exist because that's one of its defining characteristics; in the same manner, in reference to a magical unicorn, a magical unicorn's horn exists because that's one of its defining characteristics. I don't think you're that clever or pedantic though. I think that you believe there is irrefutable evidence that event horizons exist in reality, and on this point you are simply misinformed.
________________________________________________________________
Your attempt at a logical analogy fails. The magical Unicorn obviously does not exist, so neither does its horn.
So much for logic.
Evidence exists supporting the existence of BH's. that logically infers the existence of an EH. The EH, for your information is the parameter at which the density of the collapsed mass,s escape velocity exceeds "c".

BH's of sorts was first inferred in the late 1700's and called "Dark Stars" which appear to be the type of entity Farsight keeps raising and which he calls a "frozen star".

GR of course takes this "Dark Star" "Frozen Star" interpretation further with the revelation of the Schwarzchild limit and what it entails.
With the great success of GR, we have no reason to doubt the mainstream accepted GR version of a BH.

Hawking's latest paper is a quantum effect...That plus the journalistic sensationalism that has developed, and his wry sense of humour, in no way has invalidated what we see as a BH.
Hawking, I'm sure would still know they exist.