Black holes may never actually form..!

The evidence you refer to also supports other theories, such as the entity described in the OP, which lacks an event horizon. You insisting that EHs exist is not science. The best you can do is claim that you believe, with most physicists today, that they exist according to GR...even though this view is beginning to be questioned by the scientific community...which just makes your insistence look that much more foolish.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

RJBeery said:
The evidence you refer to also supports other theories, such as the entity described in the OP, which lacks an event horizon. You insisting that EHs exist is not science. The best you can do is claim that you believe, with most physicists today, that they exist according to GR...even though this view is beginning to be questioned by the scientific community...which just makes your insistence look that much more foolish.
______________________________________________________________

GR is our best description.
All descriptions though do support an EH, which by definition is the point at which the gravitational pull becomes so strong that nothing can escape.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Really? You're analysis [the one that led you to proclaim we should all kiss your a$$] was based on your complete misunderstanding of the science of GR. LOL. Science has been researching black hole physics ever since black holes were predicted to exist as natural phenomena. You just don't understand any of it due to lack of scholarship on the subject. Apparently scholarship isn't required for doing your brand of philosophy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Huh? Your response doesn't even make sense. There generally are no inertial reference frames in GR.

 

ALL descriptions support an EH? The frozen star doesn't, and neither does the description outlined in the OP.

*Your LOL
Also, stop trying to make this "RJBeery vs The World". I was only referring to the handful of posters here who insist that we have indisputable evidence of BHs and EHs today; regardless of what I think of your specific critical-thinking skills, you clearly do not speak for everyone else.

Inertial frames exist in GR; certainly locally. It seems insincere on your part to say that external frames would calculate finite times for remote objects to cross the EH while also claiming that frames aren't generally valid in GR.

 

for you to claim (which is highly probable to be fictitious) of being a mensa member , which is also irrelevant to anything.
it's odd that it would be resorted to these ridiculous claims of AI.
it's seems like a form of jealousy, from a result of realizing that one is not as intelligent as one thought,
and attempted to boast about around here.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

typical.
i can not stress enough of how foolish these shenanigans of this poster have become.

i am curious of why you continuously claim that the ones who actually have knowledge and understanding of actual physics/science is an ai.

 

I’m not sure who danshawen is shooting at here?

Dan, if you was adult enough to overlook it in RJBeery’s OP

then why get upset when Brucep repeats those words later? Brucep was only going along with the quality the OP set for the thread ‘discussion’.

 

The definition of an EH is as I have said: The boundary/parameter of a mass at which its density on the surface reaches the escape velocity of light.
That applies to the Newtonian concept and the GR concept.

 

I thought black holes existed as a place to bury purple piles!

 

Krash661, you're the best. We mensans are all idiots. Please remember that; truer words were never spoken.

 

RJ, yes, as the matter spirals inward its emissions would be red-shifted, but that was not the point. The point was the difference in what is expected of those emissions in the case of a neutron star or black hole.

Nasa here.

My bold.

 

The results are also consistent with what astronomers would expect to see if the matter were asymptotically approaching the center of mass of the blob of gas lacking an event horizon. I'm not claiming that a neutron star is in a perpetually stable state incapable of collapse; I'm saying that a collapsing neutron star would not result in an event horizon.

You don't need to agree with me. What you need to do, though, is read the linked article in the OP to understand that all of these concrete, irrefutable pieces of evidence proving that event horizons exist...which keep getting referenced...are ambiguous at best. I'm demonstrating that there is actually a debate going on in the Physics community which would NOT EXIST if black hole science were settled without paradoxes.

 

Nice post.
RJBerry has no business 'making a point' on predictions derived from general relativity. Since he doesn't even have basic scholarship on how the theoretical model WORKS or what natural phenomena it's describing.

You might enjoy reading this paper about detecting dying pulse trains at Cygnus x-1.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.3164v2

 

brucep, are you claiming that event horizons exist today in the universe as an irrefutable fact? Because I've noticed that you're quick with the name-calling but you're pretty careful with saying anything substantive that would expose you to scrutiny.

 

Quantum bounce could make black holes explode
http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-bounce-could-make-black-holes-explode-1.15573

Mysterious black holes may be exploding into ‘white holes’
http://rt.com/news/175436-black-holes-exploding-white-holes/

 

So what about them? Around a black hole, locally inertial reference frames are generally in freefall either away from the black hole or toward it or orbiting it in some way. For an infalling coordinate system, an observer would reach the event horizon in finite coordinate time (or rather, the event horizon would sweep out past them at the speed of light after a certain finite time).

 

An inertial frame and an event horizon would mirror each other. the only main differentiation would be matter transforming into inertia.

 

Only this "finite coordinate time" demands that the infalling observer goes to the end of time. See Kevin Brown's formation and growth of black holes.

"In both of these interpretations we find that an object goes to future infinity (of coordinate time) as it approaches an event horizon, and its rate of proper time as a function of coordinate time goes to zero. The difference is that the field interpretation is content to truncate its description at the event horizon, while the geometric interpretation carries on with its description right through the event horizon and down to r = 0 (where it too finally gives up)."

The thing is this: if the infalling observer started falling into the black hole a billion years ago, his finite proper time hasn't elapsed yet. It never ever will. This is why the frozen-star interpretation which Kevin Brown refers to but does not favour, is the correct interpretation.

 

przyk, I'll simply ask you the same question I posed to brucep: are you claiming that event horizons exist today in the universe as an irrefutable fact? A simple yes or no. You see, when you discuss this or other issues without expressing any real opinion it gives the forum chowderheads the impression that they are speaking in a united front against all ideas they did not read out of a book.