|
|
| Author |
Message |
Greysky
science forum addict
Joined: 05 May 2005
Posts: 50
|
 Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 1:39 am Post subject:
A simple proof of the Nonexistance of Black Holes.
|
|
|
While Stephen Hawking recently came to the conclusion black holes are not
what he thought they were, I find it amazing he took decades to come to that
conclusion. Using a proof that relies on relativistic arguments instead of
information conservation makes things easier to comprehend. It is assumed
that a non rotating black hole will be observed to have a spherical event
horizon if observed by someone at rest with respect to the black hole. Now,
if the black hole is passing by someone at some relativistic velocity, that
observer will see that the black holes' event horizon is no longer
spherical, and that it is foreshortened in the direction of motion
according to the rules of relativity. Indeed, the faster the black hole
passes by the observer, the more flattened out the event horizon will become
in the direction of motion. Eventually, there will come a point in the
velocity curve, when the event horizon will be congruent with the
singularity producing it. At that point, the singularity will no longer be
shielded from the outside observer - it will be visible along the direction
of motion, and able to interact with the external environment.
Since this can not happen, and assuming the rules of geometrodynamics hold
for all observers in any inertial frame, there can not exist black holes of
the type currently envisioned. Damn that was simple. I shall now go on to
prove the existence of God...
Greysky
www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio; presently partially off-line pending
government approved modifications... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Starlord
science forum beginner
Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 1:53 am Post subject:
Re: A simple proof of the Nonexistance of Black Holes.
|
|
|
Killfile time.
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:jGBee.1625$X21.1501@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> While |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom Roberts
science forum Guru
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 1399
|
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 1:57 am Post subject:
Re: A simple proof of the Nonexistance of Black Holes.
|
|
|
Greysky wrote:
| Quote: | the faster the black hole
passes by the observer, the more flattened out the event horizon will become
in the direction of motion. Eventually, there will come a point in the
velocity curve, when the event horizon will be congruent with the
singularity producing it.
|
Not true. This is easily seen by interchanging black hole and observer.
It is also seen by noting that the existence of points of the manifold
between singularity and horizon implies that they do not intersect
(which you apparently call "congruent", you misuse this word) -- this is
independent of any motion of either black hole or observer.
And the singularity does not "produce" the horizon, they are both merely
geometric properties of the manifold....
The only possible "proof" of the nonexistence of black holes is an
exhaustive search of the universe. Good luck....
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Double-A
science forum Guru
Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 342
|
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 2:06 am Post subject:
Re: A simple proof of the Nonexistance of Black Holes.
|
|
|
Greysky wrote:
| Quote: | While Stephen Hawking recently came to the conclusion black holes are
not
what he thought they were, I find it amazing he took decades to come
to that conclusion. |
He didn't want to hurt the sales of the books he had already written.
Double-A |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Martin
science forum Guru
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 310
|
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 2:52 am Post subject:
Re: A simple proof of the Nonexistance of Black Holes.
|
|
|
Greysky wrote:
| Quote: | While Stephen Hawking recently came to the conclusion black holes are
not
what he thought they were, I find it amazing he took decades to come
to that
conclusion. Using a proof that relies on relativistic arguments
instead of
information conservation makes things easier to comprehend. It is
assumed
that a non rotating black hole will be observed to have a spherical
event
horizon if observed by someone at rest with respect to the black
hole. Now,
if the black hole is passing by someone at some relativistic
velocity, that
observer will see that the black holes' event horizon is no longer
spherical, and that it is foreshortened in the direction of motion
according to the rules of relativity. Indeed, the faster the black
hole
passes by the observer, the more flattened out the event horizon will
become
in the direction of motion. Eventually, there will come a point in
the
velocity curve, when the event horizon will be congruent with the
singularity producing it. At that point, the singularity will no
longer be
shielded from the outside observer - it will be visible along the
direction
of motion, and able to interact with the external environment.
|
Heh! That's a lot like saying that an observer near the event
horizon, seeing me whiz by at nearly c, will see my epidermis shorten
until my bones have to stick out of my skin.
-Mark Martin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
science forum Guru
Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 2835
|
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 3:23 am Post subject:
Re: A simple proof of the Nonexistance of Black Holes.
|
|
|
Dear Gresky:
"Greysky" <greyskyat@sbcglobaldot.net> wrote in message
news:jGBee.1625$X21.1501@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
....
| Quote: | Eventually, there will come a point in the velocity curve,
when the event horizon will be congruent with the singularity
producing it. At that point, the singularity will no longer be
shielded from the outside observer - it will be visible along
the direction of motion, and able to interact with the external
environment.
|
What is it about a singularity that you don't understand? How
big is this? What finite dimension is it expected to have? I'm
pretty sure that any finite dimension is larger than a
singularity is expected to be.
David A. Smith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koobee Wublee
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 221
|
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 3:25 am Post subject:
Re: A simple proof of the Nonexistance of Black Holes.
|
|
|
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:xWBee.2202$6E.116@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
| Quote: |
Not true. This is easily seen by interchanging black hole and observer. It
is also seen by noting that the existence of points of the manifold
between singularity and horizon implies that they do not intersect (which
you apparently call "congruent", you misuse this word) -- this is
independent of any motion of either black hole or observer.
|
Therefore, you agree with me that Lorentz Transform only describes what is
observed and not necessarily what reality is.
| Quote: | The only possible "proof" of the nonexistence of black holes is an
exhaustive search of the universe. Good luck....
|
Or you can be as abstract as Mr. Hobba by closing his eyes doing the
searching. Any abstract type of thinking also produces the same equal
abstractness in imagination. However, reality checks.
So, exploring deeper in this subject of black holes, it is a common belief
that a black hole would be affected by the curvature of spacetime created by
another black hole. It is thus understood that 2 black holes have no
problems merging. In doing so, we will be enlightened with a show of
massive amount of gravitational waves. However, according to Schwarzschild
metric, a black creates a well in spacetime so deep that nothing can escape
itself. Since you should also believe in the gravitational wave not
traveling beyond the speed of light, and if the speed of light cannot escape
a black hole, how then can gravitational wave escape this black hole to
affect anything outside? Perhaps, you can resolve this paradox. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greysky
science forum addict
Joined: 05 May 2005
Posts: 50
|
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 5:02 am Post subject:
Re: A simple proof of the Nonexistance of Black Holes.
|
|
|
"Mark Martin" <qed100@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115355158.507499.33700@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
Greysky wrote:
While Stephen Hawking recently came to the conclusion black holes are
not
what he thought they were, I find it amazing he took decades to come
to that
conclusion. Using a proof that relies on relativistic arguments
instead of
information conservation makes things easier to comprehend. It is
assumed
that a non rotating black hole will be observed to have a spherical
event
horizon if observed by someone at rest with respect to the black
hole. Now,
if the black hole is passing by someone at some relativistic
velocity, that
observer will see that the black holes' event horizon is no longer
spherical, and that it is foreshortened in the direction of motion
according to the rules of relativity. Indeed, the faster the black
hole
passes by the observer, the more flattened out the event horizon will
become
in the direction of motion. Eventually, there will come a point in
the
velocity curve, when the event horizon will be congruent with the
singularity producing it. At that point, the singularity will no
longer be
shielded from the outside observer - it will be visible along the
direction
of motion, and able to interact with the external environment.
Heh! That's a lot like saying that an observer near the event
horizon, seeing me whiz by at nearly c, will see my epidermis shorten
until my bones have to stick out of my skin.
Not quite. Your bones will also shorten along the direction of motion so |
everything will stay in proportion. The singularity of a black hole however
will not foreshorten because of relativity. Since it is an infinitely small
point of gravity it remains a pointlike particle of gravity and relativity
allows you to look under the holes skirt, which is a no-no.
Greysky |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Hobba
science forum Guru
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 2138
|
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 6:40 am Post subject:
Re: A simple proof of the Nonexistance of Black Holes.
|
|
|
"Koobee Wublee" <kublai@cox.net> wrote in message
news:udDee.11388$tQ.1600@fed1read06...
| Quote: |
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:xWBee.2202$6E.116@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
Not true. This is easily seen by interchanging black hole and observer.
It
is also seen by noting that the existence of points of the manifold
between singularity and horizon implies that they do not intersect
(which
you apparently call "congruent", you misuse this word) -- this is
independent of any motion of either black hole or observer.
Therefore, you agree with me that Lorentz Transform only describes what is
observed and not necessarily what reality is.
|
Semantic gibberish, expressed in you own private language, devoid of any
objective content. Stick to standard terminology if you want to be
understood. Of course that would mean actually studying a text on
relativity - something you have no shown a willingness to do
Bill
| Quote: |
The only possible "proof" of the nonexistence of black holes is an
exhaustive search of the universe. Good luck....
Or you can be as abstract as Mr. Hobba by closing his eyes doing the
searching. Any abstract type of thinking also produces the same equal
abstractness in imagination. However, reality checks.
So, exploring deeper in this subject of black holes, it is a common belief
that a black hole would be affected by the curvature of spacetime created
by
another black hole. It is thus understood that 2 black holes have no
problems merging. In doing so, we will be enlightened with a show of
massive amount of gravitational waves. However, according to
Schwarzschild
metric, a black creates a well in spacetime so deep that nothing can
escape
itself. Since you should also believe in the gravitational wave not
traveling beyond the speed of light, and if the speed of light cannot
escape
a black hole, how then can gravitational wave escape this black hole to
affect anything outside? Perhaps, you can resolve this paradox.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel
science forum Guru
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 3019
|
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 6:53 am Post subject:
Re: A simple proof of the Nonexistance of Black Holes.
|
|
|
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message news:W3Gee.4647$31.2454@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
| Quote: |
"Koobee Wublee" <kublai@cox.net> wrote in message
news:udDee.11388$tQ.1600@fed1read06...
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:xWBee.2202$6E.116@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
Not true. This is easily seen by interchanging black hole and observer.
It
is also seen by noting that the existence of points of the manifold
between singularity and horizon implies that they do not intersect
(which
you apparently call "congruent", you misuse this word) -- this is
independent of any motion of either black hole or observer.
Therefore, you agree with me that Lorentz Transform only describes what is
observed and not necessarily what reality is.
Semantic gibberish, expressed in you own private language, devoid of any
objective content. Stick to standard terminology if you want to be
understood. Of course that would mean actually studying a text on
relativity - something you have no shown a willingness to do
Bill
|
"describes what is observed and not necessarily what reality is."
What a silly thing to say - specially for a retired aerospace
engineer like Australopitheticus ;-)
Dirk Vdm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nightbat
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 29 Apr 2005
Posts: 131
|
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 7:22 am Post subject:
Re: A simple proof of the Nonexistance of Black Holes.
|
|
|
nightbat wrote
Double-A wrote:
| Quote: |
Greysky wrote:
While Stephen Hawking recently came to the conclusion black holes are
not
what he thought they were, I find it amazing he took decades to come
to that conclusion.
He didn't want to hurt the sales of the books he had already written.
Double-A
|
nightbat
You got it Double-A, with my many Maverick posting science years
of net rubbing it in their faces about my dislike for non anchored sci
fi and mathematical reference proof that energy and matter cannot be
destroyed and therefore are always conserved not lost, Hawking had no
choice but to reverse himself. The Bert sci fi loving book sales go on,
while I still attempt to secure a Darla Star Fleet for us. There are no
black holes only my profound " Black Comets" in the center of all active
galaxies and forming new ones.
ponder on,
the nightbat |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Martin
science forum Guru
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 310
|
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 9:48 am Post subject:
Re: A simple proof of the Nonexistance of Black Holes.
|
|
|
Greysky wrote:
| Quote: | Not quite. Your bones will also shorten along the direction of motion
so
everything will stay in proportion. The singularity of a black hole
however
will not foreshorten because of relativity. Since it is an
infinitely small
point of gravity it remains a pointlike particle of gravity and
relativity
allows you to look under the holes skirt, which is a no-no.
|
Precisely what I mean. Being a point, you cannot travel fast enough
to squash the event horizon 'til the singularity is exposed. You'd have
to be traveling at c to make the horizon just barely intersect the
singularity, and of course no external observer is going to be
traveling at c.
-Mark Martin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raving Loonie
science forum beginner
Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 37
|
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 9:59 am Post subject:
Re: A simple proof of the Nonexistance of Black Holes.
|
|
|
Mark Martin wrote:
| Quote: | Greysky wrote:
Not quite. Your bones will also shorten along the direction of
motion
so
everything will stay in proportion. The singularity of a black hole
however
will not foreshorten because of relativity. Since it is an
infinitely small
point of gravity it remains a pointlike particle of gravity and
relativity
allows you to look under the holes skirt, which is a no-no.
Precisely what I mean. Being a point, you cannot travel fast
enough
to squash the event horizon 'til the singularity is exposed. You'd
have
to be traveling at c to make the horizon just barely intersect the
singularity, and of course no external observer is going to be
traveling at c.
-Mark Martin
|
Singularity
Great deals on Singularity
Shop on eBay and Save!
www.eBay.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Martin
science forum Guru
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 310
|
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 10:11 am Post subject:
Re: A simple proof of the Nonexistance of Black Holes.
|
|
|
Raving Loonie wrote:
| Quote: | Singularity
Great deals on Singularity
Shop on eBay and Save!
www.eBay.com
|
Another Google side ad:
Read books by Singularity
on Amazon.com
-Mark Martin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raving Loonie
science forum beginner
Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 37
|
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 10:28 am Post subject:
Re: A simple proof of the Nonexistance of Black Holes.
|
|
|
Mark Martin wrote:
| Quote: | Raving Loonie wrote:
Singularity
Great deals on Singularity
Shop on eBay and Save!
www.eBay.com
Another Google side ad:
Read books by Singularity
on Amazon.com
-Mark Martin
|
Mark |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Fri Jul 30, 2010 5:41 am | All times are GMT
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
Electronics forum |
Medicine forum |
Unix/Linux blog |
Unix/Linux documentation |
Unix/Linux forums
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Science and Technology
»
Physics
»
Relativity
