Black Holes

[The Code]

Hi,

I totally Agree with what everybody has said in this thread. to the point of physics/math, understanding. Only It has been said in many papers, that in extreme circumstances, physics breaks down. That,s not me saying that, I have heard it countless times. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030303.html If we want to find out what the big picture looks like, don,t we have to find all the peaces to the puzzle first? If nobody is looking for the missing peaces, because they don,t know about the missing peaces, then the jigsaw will forever, never be completed. That includes DM DE.

Mark

[noblackhole]

Chris L. Peterson says:

"Lets see... we have a mathematically dense, non peer reviewed paper from somebody who had to start his own journal as a forum, and who devotes his website to the typical crackpot "the whole world is against me" rants. And on the other hand, we have thousands of highly trained, intelligent physicists who see no fundamental problems with black holes on a theoretical level, and we have countless observations of actual black holes which present just as theory predicts.

Which am I going to place the most weight on? Decisions, decisions.."

There is not a single scientific argument advanced in this response, by a man who professes scientific rationale. The response is dishonest in the extreme. In place of analysis of any argument contained in the cited paper by Harry, you delivery a rather silly set of insults upon the author of the paper, as if that is scientific method.

Let's consider an argument in the cited paper; that "Schwarzschild's solution" is not Schwarzschild's solution at all. It is easy to check this against the evidence, as the author even provides a link to Schwarzschild's original paper (in English translation). I have checked for myself and the author is right, "Schwarzschild's solution" is not Schwarzschild's solution, and the black hole is inconsistent with Schwarzschild's solution, as Schwarzschild's original paper clearly testifies.

Here is a second argument in the cited paper: the "Schwarzschild radius" is not even a distance in the manifold, let alone a radial distance. I checked that too; the author is right, and has given an irrefutable proof.

Mr. Peterson, do you agree or not, and if not, what are your reasons? Fobbing things off by insulting the cited author will not do. Your opinions as to his character are completely irrelevant. The mere fact that you expressed yourself in such a way is not only in poor taste, but perhaps also reveals something about your own character. Let us have your answers to the two foregoing issues.

[Chris Peterson]

There is not a single scientific argument advanced in this response, by a man who professes scientific rationale. The response is dishonest in the extreme. In place of analysis of any argument contained in the cited paper by Harry, you delivery a rather silly set of insults upon the author of the paper, as if that is scientific method.

I disagree. This is a difficult paper to analyze, and frankly, since I'm not a cosmologist (nor a mathematician) it isn't worth my time to try and figure it out. There are thousands of papers floating around on the Internet that purport to disprove well accepted physics. The author of this paper has a responsibility to follow standard scientific procedure if he want a scientific audience. That means publishing in a peer reviewed venue.

I did not insult the author. I didn't even say he was wrong. What I said is that he is operating in the same way that pseudoscientists do: they self-publish dense papers, they post lots of pages about how the establishment ignores them and treats them badly. Anybody would be perfectly justified in their deep skepticism about this paper and its conclusions. Anybody who is not a primary researcher in the paper's area would be completely justified in passing on it.

[aristarchusinexile]

That means publishing in a peer reviewed venue.

Peers often call people who make quantum leaps ahead of them "loonies" .. not just in the sciences, but in all fields, with some of the loonies responding by labelling their detractors with titles such as "Spherical Bastards .. Spherical becuase they are bastards every way I look at them." (His name escapes me at the moment.)

[aristarchusinexile]

Obviously almost any general astronomy book will start out with the Big Bang, because there's nothing else they could start out with.

Quantum fluctuation.

[noblackhole]

Chris L. Peterson wrote:

I did not insult the author. I didn't even say he was wrong.

Let's have a look again at what you said:

"Lets see... we have a mathematically dense, non peer reviewed paper from somebody who had to start his own journal as a forum, and who devotes his website to the typical crackpot "the whole world is against me" rants. And on the other hand, we have thousands of highly trained, intelligent physicists who see no fundamental problems with black holes on a theoretical level, and we have countless observations of actual black holes which present just as theory predicts.

"Which am I going to place the most weight on? Decisions, decisions.."

It is quite evident that you have been rather disingenuous with your latest claim. The insults you directed at the author are quite clear. Contrary to your avowed principles, your response was not scientific at all.

I also note that you have ignored my other remarks, so I repeated them for you.

"Let's consider an argument in the cited paper; that "Schwarzschild's solution" is not Schwarzschild's solution at all. It is easy to check this against the evidence, as the author even provides a link to Schwarzschild's original paper (in English translation). I have checked for myself and the author is right, "Schwarzschild's solution" is not Schwarzschild's solution, and the black hole is inconsistent with Schwarzschild's solution, as Schwarzschild's original paper clearly testifies.

"Here is a second argument in the cited paper: the 'Schwarzschild radius' is not even a distance in the manifold, let alone a radial distance. I checked that too; the author is right, and has given an irrefutable proof."

It does not take much time and it does not require much in the way of mathematics to verify what this author has said. I have done it. So it should also be well within your ability to verify these facts also. I therefore ask if you will do so as well, or will you ignore the evidence and rely upon your dismissive insult, bearing in mind that you have admitted that you did not even study the cited paper? If you had read the paper before delivering your insults, you will have noticed, as I did, that the cited paper was presented recently at a conference in Munich, convened by the German Physical Society. Here again is the link to the paper cited by Harry:

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/DPS-paper.pdf

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Chris why don't you read some scientific papers?

The more I understand you the more I realize that you move with the flow.

What ever is flowing down main stream is on for today.

Do you understand the full complexity of the the universe with 10^11 galaxies that are observed. Do you understand the phases of star formation and galaxy evolution.


Moving right along:

Interesting reading:

Eight powers of ten: similarities in black hole accretion on all mass scales
Jun-07
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007arXiv0706.3838F
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-d ... db_key=PRE

In this paper we discuss the recent advances in the quantitative comparison of accretion, and the accretion:jet coupling, in accreting black holes in both X-ray binaries (where M ~ 10Msun) and Active Galactic Nuclei (10^5Msun < M < 10^9Msun). These similarities include the radiative efficiency and jet power as a function of accretion rate, which are themselves probably the origin of the `fundamental plane of black hole activity'. A second `fundamental plane' which connects mass, accretion rate and timing properties provides us with a further physical diagnostic. Patterns of radio loudness (i.e. jet production) as a function of luminosity and accretion state are shown to be similar for X-ray binaries and AGN. Finally we discuss how neutron stars are a useful control sample, and what the future may hold for this field.

Most papers write about black holes and not one black hole or event horizon has been seen. The research paper gives us understanding basically of a compact (ultra dense matter) body forming a jet.

[Chris Peterson]

It is quite evident that you have been rather disingenuous with your latest claim. The insults you directed at the author are quite clear. Contrary to your avowed principles, your response was not scientific at all.

I don't know what you mean by "scientific" in this sense. It isn't a question of science, and I wasn't addressing the science. I was addressing the method of presentation. My response was rational.

I also note that you have ignored my other remarks, so I repeated them for you.

I didn't ignore them at all. I said that there was nothing "easy" about checking this paper for accuracy, and there isn't enough evidence that the paper is valid to convince me to make the effort. This isn't my field, and it isn't my duty to try and read everything out there about everything. That's what peer review is for. The fact that this author can't get anybody in the world of academic physics to take the paper seriously (not even his PhD adviser!) really settles it for me.

It does not take much time and it does not require much in the way of mathematics to verify what this author has said.

I disagree. The mathematics isn't all simple in that paper. And it depends on notation conventions specific to the subject, and it depends on some knowledge of assumptions that I can't immediately verify. Just because a set of math is consistent doesn't mean that it represents a valid physical model. Determining the accuracy of this paper is something that needs to be done by an expert in this area of physics, not a mathematician.

If you had read the paper before delivering your insults, you will have noticed, as I did, that the cited paper was presented recently at a conference in Munich, convened by the German Physical Society.

Talks and posters at conferences are usually accepted with nothing more than an abstract. Presentation at a conference doesn't demonstrate much about an idea's validity. As I pointed out, conferences serve as a first platform for new ideas. Many never make it further, as discussion identifies problems.

[Chris Peterson]

Chris why don't you read some scientific papers?

I read papers all the time. But I know enough to focus my efforts on what is important to me, and I know how to assess a paper's value.

The more I understand you the more I realize that you move with the flow.

I have the intellectual honesty to place a high confidence in the consensus view when it comes to areas of science that are not my main focus of study. Frankly, unless you are a primary researcher in black holes, I don't think you have any right to a non-mainstream opinion, because you lack the tools to determine if an alternate idea is correct. I know that you don't read papers: you make this very clear in your posts. You read abstracts and conclusions in papers that you are otherwise unable to grasp, because you don't have the training. To believe something that is poorly supported when you are not an expert is not rational.

I certainly don't "move with the flow" in my own research, where I do propose new ideas and challenge old ones.

[aristarchusinexile]

I have the intellectual honesty to place a high confidence in the consensus view ...

As do Lemmings.

[Chris Peterson]

I have the intellectual honesty to place a high confidence in the consensus view ...

As do Lemmings.

And yet, if you lack the intellectual or educational tools to fully understand a subject, what better way is there than placing high confidence on the opinions of experts?

[The Code]

Question: When is a spiral galaxy not a spiral galaxy?

Answer: When the ''Black Hole'' goes missing?. This can not be observed because it happens over hundreds of millions of years.

Question: What is the difference between a spiral galaxy and a globular galaxy mechanically? That most scientist take as the reason?

Mark

[Doum]

by harry on Wed Apr 15, 2009 11:49 am
"Most papers write about black holes and not one black hole or event horizon has been seen."

Once again Harry, dont say that because it is false.

by harry on Mon Apr 06, 2009 8:42 am

"Black holes have not been proven to exist, no observation of infinite point mass, no event horizon no nothing."

Not true. I disagree,

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0 ... rizon.html
http://www.universetoday.com/2006/01/11 ... -measured/
http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/01_rel ... 11101.html
http://www.astroengine.com/?p=1503
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=3560
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/090 ... 1105v1.pdf
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/0 ... black.hole
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... 61a3dbb59c
http://www.unisci.com/stories/20013/0906011.htm

These are observations thus detections and measurements and they show the difference between neutron star and black hole and they show the event horizon presence. They are good proofs. Not the ultimate proof but very good proof. Proving they dont exist is the hard part. Good luck to you to prove that.

Event horizon effect are observe and measure. Also to have a mimic black hole you have to have an event horizon. So what inside an event horizon is trap. So is it a singularity or a 2 planck lenght in sise or more. No one know. But since it have an event horizon, it is a black hole. Only theory speculate on what is inside. But Black hole are observe and measure. So are event horison.

[noblackhole]

Chris L. Peterson wrote:

"I don't know what you mean by "scientific" in this sense. It isn't a question of science, and I wasn't addressing the science. I was addressing the method of presentation. My response was rational."

It's obvious - you responded with ridicule, not science. That is unscientific. Your response was irrational - you offered no rational argument. Here again is what you said of the author of the paper cited by Harry:

"from somebody who had to start his own journal as a forum, and who devotes his website to the typical crackpot 'the whole world is against me' rants."

I have read the cited paper. It is presented in a scientific fashion. And it is a question of science, since the paper is a scientific paper. What do you claim is unscientific in the presentation of this paper?

Chris L. Peterson wrote:

"I didn't ignore them at all. I said that there was nothing "easy" about checking this paper for accuracy, and there isn't enough evidence that the paper is valid to convince me to make the effort. This isn't my field, and it isn't my duty to try and read everything out there about everything. That's what peer review is for. The fact that this author can't get anybody in the world of academic physics to take the paper seriously (not even his PhD adviser!) really settles it for me."

Really! But you did ignore my requests - you did nothing. It is childishly easy to verify the cited author's assertion that "Schwarzschild's solution" is not Schwarzschild's solution and that black holes are not predicted by Schwarzschild's solution, because the said author provided a link to Schwarzschild's actual paper:

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.c ... schild.pdf

Yet you did not bother to do so. One can easily see that Schwarzschild's solution, given by his eq. (14), is indeed not that claimed to be his solution, and that his actual solution forbids black holes. This is very interesting. And I did not ask you to address everything in the cited paper; only two straightforward issues discussed therein.

Now, to justify your refusal to even check against the evidence you again resort to irrelevant ridicule: "The fact that this author can't get anybody in the world of academic physics to take the paper seriously (not even his PhD adviser!) really settles it for me." This is not a scientific argument. You have addressed nothing contained in the cited paper, nothing whatsoever. From where did you get this irrelevant argument, and how does it have any bearing on the arguments advanced by the author in the cited paper?

In addition, you claim "This isn't my field, and it isn't my duty to try and read everything out there about everything." Yet the cited paper deals with the existence of black holes, and you have expounded much here on black holes. The topic title is "Black Holes". Surely if you are going to talk about black holes you need to know what the facts are. So have you actually been making comments here upon something you do not have adequate knowledge ? As an avowed scientist pledged to the scientific method it is your duty, like it or not, to read about that which you propound, particularly when evidence is given to you for your examination.

I therefore ask you once again, will you verify for yourself that "Schwarzschild's solution" is in fact not Schwarzschild's solution and that Schwarzschild's actual solution forbids black holes ? Will you verify for yourself that the cited author's proof that the "Schwarzschild radius" is not even a distance let alone a radius, in the "Schwarzschild manifold", is irrefutable? Or will you continue to refuse to do so, instead resorting to irrelevant ridicule in place of scientific argument?

Here again is the paper cited by Harry:

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/DPS-paper.pdf.

I'm a layman, and I've carefully studied the cited paper. So surely you, a scientist, can do so. Let us have your scientific arguments concerning the two simple issues I have put to you. Or should I conclude that you, a scientist, holds me, a layman, and other laymen, in utter contempt ? The mere fact that "Schwarzschild's solution" is not Schwarzschild's solution is very disturbing, since it has been the scientists, like you, who have been telling all and sundry that "Schwarzschild's solution" is Schwarzschild's solution and that black holes are predicted by Schwarzschild's solution, yet both claims are demonstrably false. This is a major revelation to the broader community interested in physical science. The proof is now available for all to see for themselves, as I have now done. The broader scientific public must be informed of these facts. It's now plainly evident that we have been led astray by the scientists. Yet the tenor of your pleadings entreats us to put our trust in them. How can we, given these facts?

[Chris Peterson]

I'm a layman, and I've carefully studied the cited paper. So surely you, a scientist, can do so.

It's not worth my time, and neither is discussing it with you.

[Qev]

I have the intellectual honesty to place a high confidence in the consensus view ...

As do Lemmings.

Only when being chased by Disney filmmakers...

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Smile,,,,,,,,,,,,,we do not have to make people read papers.

If Chris or others want to think what they want to think than thats OK.

There are many mainstream thinkers and their thoughts are based on standard models. Right or wrong time will tell.

At the end of the day I do not want to flow down mainstream because the day will come when the direction will change.

As for Lemmings

Who saw the mvie "The Lemming" Euro movie MA?

[The Code]

I have read the paper, twice... 4 hours it took me... and all i see is destruction ...If 400 experts says red is white, and one says red is blue.. im afraid i have to say red is white. untill 400 experts tell me red is blue.

hundreds of years of work, by hundreds of top scientists, who I only want to help unify Gr and other works.. Because i am only one mind..
I wish i had not read the paper now.

Mark

[noblackhole]

Chris L. Peterson wrote:

"It's not worth my time, and neither is discussing it with you."

Wonderful - spoken as a true champion of ignorance and deceit. If you had any scientific credibility to begin with, you have certainly now flushed in down the toilet. I don't think anybody here can take anything you say seriously, given your refusal to engage in scientific discourse, and your refusal to even verify for yourself a couple of simple facts. You do in fact treat people with contempt, and pontificate upon things you do not yourself even understand, by your own admissions. You claim to be scientific, but your behaviour betrays your hypocrisy. And if you, an avowed scientist, can't understand what a layman can, then one can only wonder as to your true scientific caliber.

It is now quite evident that the scientists have deceived us all. This is not something that they will be able to brush under the carpet. Fortunately the internet enables thinking people to obtain the truth. The scientists are in for a rough ride over this fraud, their reputations in tatters.

[aristarchusinexile]

I have the intellectual honesty to place a high confidence in the consensus view ...

As do Lemmings.

And yet, if you lack the intellectual or educational tools to fully understand a subject, what better way is there than placing high confidence on the opinions of experts?

Reserve judgement.

[aristarchusinexile]

I have read the paper, twice... 4 hours it took me... and all i see is destruction ...If 400 experts says red is white, and one says red is blue.. im afraid i have to say red is white. untill 400 experts tell me red is blue.

hundreds of years of work, by hundreds of top scientists, who I only want to help unify Gr and other works.. Because i am only one mind..
I wish i had not read the paper now.

Mark

Mark, 400 experts can be wrong. Michael Faraday's life story, 'The Electric Universe' (not dealing at all with the Plasma theory) is extremely valuable reading as it shows you where one despised man among the many highly credited was absolutely correct. The tragedy of 'consensus' is repeated over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over again, to the destruction of true intellectual power and freedom.

[The Code]

I have my beliefs , but i fear most on here do not want to here it. because it involves a radical new way of thinking.

plus it upsets me to see peoples hard work go down the drain. I wish i,d never read that paper. 20 years ago i told my missus that would happen one day..it does not please me.

mark

[alton]

And yet, if you lack the intellectual or educational tools to fully understand a subject, what better way is there than placing high confidence on the opinions of experts?

Reserve judgement.

One should *always* reserve judgment about that which they do not know. It doesn't matter if the rest of the world thinks the earth is flat, if you haven't verified it yourself you must reserve judgment. Otherwise we end up with scientific inbreeding.

[MacMac]

Parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant

A number of disciples went to the Buddha and said, "Sir, there are living here in Savatthi many wandering hermits and scholars who indulge in constant dispute, some saying that the world is infinite and eternal and others that it is finite and not eternal, some saying that the soul dies with the body and others that it lives on forever, and so forth. What, Sir, would you say concerning them?"

The Buddha answered, "Once upon a time there was a certain raja who called to his servant and said, 'Come, good fellow, go and gather together in one place all the men of Savatthi who were born blind... and show them an elephant.' 'Very good, sire,' replied the servant, and he did as he was told. He said to the blind men assembled there, 'Here is an elephant,' and to one man he presented the head of the elephant, to another its ears, to another a tusk, to another the trunk, the foot, back, tail, and tuft of the tail, saying to each one that that was the elephant."

"When the blind men had felt the elephant, the raja went to each of them and said to each, 'Well, blind man, have you seen the elephant? Tell me, what sort of thing is an elephant?'

"Thereupon the men who were presented with the head answered, 'Sire, an elephant is like a pot.' And the men who had observed the ear replied, 'An elephant is like a winnowing basket.' Those who had been presented with a tusk said it was a ploughshare. Those who knew only the trunk said it was a plough; others said the body was a grainery; the foot, a pillar; the back, a mortar; the tail, a pestle, the tuft of the tail, a brush."

"Then they began to quarrel, shouting, 'Yes it is!' 'No, it is not!' 'An elephant is not that!' 'Yes, it's like that!' and so on, till they came to blows over the matter.

"Brethren, the raja was delighted with the scene."

"Just so are these preachers and scholars holding various views blind and unseeing... In their ignorance they are by nature quarrelsome, wrangling, and disputatious, each maintaining reality is thus and thus."

Then the Exalted One rendered this meaning by uttering this verse of uplift,

O how they cling and wrangle, some who claim
For preacher and monk the honored name!
For, quarreling, each to his view they cling.
Such folk see only one side of a thing.

Jainism and Buddhism. Udana 68-69: Parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant (circa 600 B.C.)

[apodman]

Parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant ...

... applies to this forum often.

http://asterisk.apod.com/vie ... hant#p3096

http://asterisk.apod.com/vie ... hant#p3509

http://asterisk.apod.com/vie ... ant#p84494

http://asterisk.apod.com/vie ... ant#p97678