Black holes may never actually form..!

here's the paper MY bold

RJ, I do not see any mention in your OP link or the paper of matter will be seen to approach the neutron star asymptotically and so never reaching it.

The Schwarzschild spacetime solution has the formation of an event horizon as part of that solution. The distant observer’s view of an infaller asymptotically approaching the horizon is part of that parcel.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The neutron degeneracy pressure being overtaken by gravity results in "something". The paper is basically claiming that this "something" is another stable state, but still more compact than the neutron star. This would make the appearance in our mind's eye of an object closer to the neutron star in that there is no event horizon. To suggest otherwise would be implying that the authors of this paper had never heard of dying pulse trains, etc, and that their research could be idly dismissed by random amateurs on an obscure online physics forum, which I find to be unlikely. (no offense!)

My personal "asymptotic infalling" is something I've discussed many times over and was directing to specific individuals with whom I've discussed it before.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Again from the Paper...

So, if the gravitational field is not causing a much greater red-shift to that of a low core density neutron star, why are you assuming matter would be seen to approach asymptotically, in such a gravitational field not much greater in strength than a low density neutron star?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Totally in agreement with that scenario.
Although I have seen an alternative description, sort of describing it in reverse.....
http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html
spacetime is like a waterfall into a BH and past the EH.

And why does he not favour that Interpretation? Maybe because it is wrong?

 

That's on the boundary of the cloud. At that point the red-shifting would be the same regardless of the interior (spherical, static) mass arrangement vis a vis the Shell Theorem.

 

A valid interpretation cannot be "wrong". I'm not sure I've read such an anti-scientific thing in a long while. :bugeye:

 

why interpret from the beginning?
if what was read was understood,
then there's no need for interpretation.
simple.

 

There are lots of physicists out agreeing with the idea of events horizons, for us amateurs, ,people like you and I, with no understanding of that maths to idly dismiss their understanding of the complex maths is indeed offensive.
And I agree with you, for you and I, amateurs on a forum saying events horizons don't exist, and for those people wishing to be taken seriously is expecting too much.

 

Perhaps a Quark star.....Although we have yet to observe them.

Like I said previously, we have never as yet seen Quark Degenerate matter, and are [as far as I know] unable to model it.

Agreed....and by the same token the likelyhood of random amatuers coming to a science forum, proclaiming to rewrite 20th/21st century cosmology and have ToE's ready to be published, is just as ludicrious.
No offence meant to any of our reputable people we do have here, but I'm also sure if any of them [the reputable ones] did have a ToE, they would not be getting it peer reviewed here.
That's just the plain logical nature of things.

 

Who said the Interpretation was valid?
To claim EH'S don't exist, or are never reached from any FoR, is just plain wrong.

 

I don't idly dismiss anything. I ask many questions over years and years across multiple forums. I ask my Uni Physics professor, I ask my friends and associates. If I don't understand a response, I ask more questions. I know more about black holes and the attempts to explain them than most here, I'd wager, and I could easily defend the currently-accepted theory with the currently-accepted explanations (I just don't happen to agree with those explanations). Mathematically, I have no problem with the EH, but I'm focusing on reality. In reality we cannot say irrefutably that event horizons exist; this is a statement of fact...yet look at all of these posts demanding that I'm wrong because they can point to a dark area in the sky...

Case in point. BTW, I never said EH's are never reached from any FoR, I said all external FoR would calculate objects to cross the EH in the infinite future. This is not a proper time calculation.

 

Case in point indeed. If BH's exist [any version] then so do EH's by definition.

 

Agreed! Please refer to the title of this thread.

 

this actually made me smile,
and that does not happen regularly.

 

Yeah I figured that would rile someone up

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

i understand what both have stated,
and i must say, both have a point.
but the reality is,
this topic is nothing more than a " it's not true " and " it is true", just like the rest.
not much of a discussion,
well for me at least.

 

I'm not saying I'm right, I'm saying that I know that the popular view is NOT irrefutable. My logic lies in the fact that these alternate views (the paper in the OP, Hawking's recent comments, et al) are given credulity and scrutiny. If the EH were a foregone conclusion both in theory and in observation there would be nothing to discuss here; they would be discarded as quickly as overunity generator proposals.

 

Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes
http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5761

Stephen Hawking: 'There are no black holes'
http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes-1.14583

Hawking changes his mind about black holes
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040712/full/news040712-12.html

it will help if these links are completely read and understood.

 

You mean this?

So?
There was also plenty of sensationalist stuff a couple of years ago about the speed of light being surpassed by some neutronis???
Further review and Investigations revealed an error in measurements.....
The Pioneer probes [and Voyager probes] were supposedly showing we had gravity all wrong [Pioneer Anomaly] until a number of far more obvious likely causes were evaluated and seen as the culprit.

You seem to be just jumping on some sensationalist band wagon at this time.
If it was a game of soccer the score would be
Mainstream model 5: Possible Alternative 1:

 

Krash!! What are you doing? Why would physicists bother with the information paradox? Don't they know brucep has already declared it isn't an issue?