Starship Asterisk*

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2009 8:41 am**

According to the theory of black holes, the hole has two tell-tale signatures (a) an event horizon and (b) an infinitely dense point-mass singularity. Nobody has ever found either. No astrophysical scientists can provide anybody with the coordinates of either. They simply interpret their observations in terms of what they believe from theory, and it is from theory that the black hole came to be, allegedly from General Relativity. Therefore, if the theory of black holes is unsound then the interpretation of observations in terms of them is also unsound. Now according to the said theory, it takes an infinite amount of observer time for an observer to confirm the presence of an event horizon, but nobody has been and nobody will be around for an infinite amount of observer time, and so it is impossible in principle to confirm the presence of an event horizon. Nobody has ever observed a celestial body collapse into an infinitely dense point-mass singularity and there is no laboratory evidence of such a phenomenon. Furthermore, General Relativity cannot violate Special Relativity. According to Einstein his laws of SR must hold in finite regions of his gravitational field (see his book 'The Meaning of Relativity'). Now SR forbids infinite density because infinite density implies that material bodies can acquire the speed of light in vacuum. This would require an infinite amount of energy, which is impossible. Since GR cannot violate SR and since SR must hold in finite regions of Einstein's gravitational field, GR too must necessarily forbid infinite density. It does not matter howsoever it might be alleged that infinite density is formed by GR because infinite density cannot be reconciled with SR, which forbids it. But the astrophysical scientists routinely claim that the point-mass singularity of the alleged black hole is infinitely dense, which contradicts the Theory of Relativity, by which it is alleged that the black hole is predicted. Thus, the claim that GR predicts black holes is not consistent with GR. The way the black hole has been 'obtained' from GR by the theoreticians is therefore in serious question.

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2009 9:38 am**

as you yourself had just pointed out, singularities (if they exist) are infinitely far from our reality, so it is not serious question at all.

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:39 am**

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/34239

mark

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:45 am**

G'day rom the land of ozzz

As per Main stream theory nothing can escape a perfect black hole.

Knowing this to be true of a theoretical black hole with a singularity.

Now looking at reality, the compact objects that we see throughout the galaxy and in various numbers at the centre of the MilkyWay with particularly a huge compact body called a so called black hole.

The jets generated by these black holes are small and very large with the ability to eject matter deep into space.

I tend to agree that a vector field can be generated by the conditions and internal forces of the compact body, that could be made by Neutron matter or merging Neutrons or quark amtter or what ever that is able to prevent EMR from escaping.

But! these particles have also a plasma property of double layers electromagnetic fields that are able to PINCH and generate a vortex and eject degenerate matter at close to the speed of light. The vortex is not affected by the extreme gravity of the so called black hole and is able to travel in a straight line for millions of years in some cases. These magnetic pinches can be observed on the surface of a our sun and are responsible for the flares (jets)

Mainstream says that these jets are created by infalling matter and that no matter escapes the black hole but for Hawing radiation.

If infalling matter created these jets their stability would not be great and would break apart from the influence of the extreme gravity of the so called black hole.

I read a paper on the stability of jets, If i find it I will post it.

I'll be back.

Hey! I could be wrong

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2009 2:02 pm**

harry wrote:ok, lets start with proof.

The concept is meaningless in science, except in the negative. Scientists weigh evidence, that's all.

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2009 3:55 pm**

Chris Peterson wrote: I remind you again, this is a science forum. Science is conducted by evaluating evidence and weighing theories according to their success in explaining observations. Those theories that do the best are almost always accepted as the best by the majority of scientists. This isn't a matter of "faith", but is simply method of modern science. It is a rational position to place the most weight on those theories that work best. Note that this isn't the same as simply accepting them. Scientists who explore alternate ideas always admit that the mainstream ideas are better, and recognize that the burden is theirs to ultimately demonstrate why their alternative is better.

Harry posts more links than anybody else, but they almost never make the point he is trying to claim. How does that help?

No one here needs to be reminded that this is a science forum, Chris, even though regardless of your denial of the involvement of faith, without absolute PROOF the foundation of consensus MUST revert to such a 'primitive' supposition.

In your opinion Harry's links don't prove what he is saying, but that's merely your opinion; and at least he posts links to support what he says, whereas you seem to rely solely on what you seem to perceive is a diet easily digested by the consensus. Where is the science in your method?

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2009 4:01 pm**

makc wrote:as you yourself had just pointed out, singularities (if they exist) are infinitely far from our reality, so it is not serious question at all.

And yet almost every book on astronomy in the public library I use begins with Big Bang .. Big Bang begins with Singularity .. so .. Big Bang seems to be a publishing phenomenon without basis in science .. and this phenomenon, if it is presenting a totally invalid theory, is blinding the minds of generations of students.

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2009 4:14 pm**

mark swain wrote:http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/34239

mark

Excellent. It's obvious from this that no matter how accepted the person, the theory is still just a theory, unless it can be proven, and therefore, while the person may be accepted, the theory should always be in doubt until proven .. and in my wildest imagination I can't picture why a theory needs to be incalpable of being proven. Can astronomy set out on balsa wood raft trips to prove that pre-European ocean migration by people from Peru to Polynesia was possible? And please, Chris, if you say Hyderhal was not a scientist using scientific methods you will simply reveal you need to read Kon Tiki.

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2009 4:23 pm**

aristarchusinexile wrote:And yet almost every book on astronomy in the public library I use begins with Big Bang .. Big Bang begins with Singularity .. so .. Big Bang seems to be a publishing phenomenon without basis in science .. and this phenomenon, if it is presenting a totally invalid theory, is blinding the minds of generations of students.

Obviously almost any general astronomy book will start out with the Big Bang, because there's nothing else they could start out with. It isn't the role of general astronomy books to spend much effort exploring alternate theories that have almost no acceptance. That is the role of specialty publications, or of scientific papers. It would be a disservice to anybody looking for general knowledge to dwell on every possibility under consideration somewhere.

The Big Bang does not necessarily begin with a singularity. The details of the Universe in its first fraction of a second are unknown and undefined; a singularity is only one possibility. Not that there's anything wrong with a singularity, of course.

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2009 9:33 pm**

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Chris you write well, but at the end of the day support your ideas.

These links are just the tip of the iceburg and may alter the way we think about black holes.

To understand so called black holes and killing vectors and properties of ultra dense plasma matter such as Neutron matter and quark composites and so on we need to get out of this fantasy world of black holes that have no evidence but more of imagination.

Beam-like Excitations of Kerr-Schild Geometry and Semiclassical Mechanism of Black-Hole Evaporation
http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.2365
Authors: Alexander Burinskii
(Submitted on 13 Mar 2009)

Abstract: It has been shown (gr-qc/0511131) that exact solutions for electromagnetic (EM) excitations of the Kerr-Schild (KS) geometry form outgoing beams which have very strong back reaction to metric and break the BH horizon. As a result, interaction of a BH with EM vacuum covers the horizon by a set of fluctuating microholes (0705.3551[hep-th]). We show here that twosheeted twistor structure of the KS geometry corresponds to a holographic structure of quantum BH spacetimes, and scattering of the ingoing vacuum take place on the holographically dual 2+1 source of the Kerr BH. We obtain the corresponding exact KS solutions and show that outgoing radiation contains two components: a) the singular set of the beam pulses which are responsible for the transparency of the horizon and b) regular component which are responsible for BH evaporation.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0511131
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.3551
Links below 2 off

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0511131
Rotating "Black Holes" with Holes in the Horizon

Authors: Alexander Burinskii, Emilio Elizalde, Sergi R. Hildebrandt, Giulio Magli
(Submitted on 24 Nov 2005 (v1), last revised 3 Jul 2006 (this version, v2))

Abstract: Kerr-Schild solutions of the Einstein-Maxwell field equations, containing semi-infinite axial singular lines, are investigated.
It is shown that axial singularities break up the black hole, forming holes in the horizon. As a result, a tube-like region appears which allows matter to escape from the interior without crossing the horizon. It is argued that axial singularities of this kind, leading to very narrow beams, can be created in black holes by external electromagnetic or gravitational excitations and may be at the origin of astrophysically observable effects such as jet formation.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.3551
Aligned electromagnetic excitations of a black hole and their impact on its quantum horizon

Authors: Alexander Burinskii, Emilio Elizalde, Sergi R. Hildebrandt, Giulio Magli
(Submitted on 24 May 2007 (v1), last revised 29 Dec 2008 (this version, v5))

Abstract: We show that elementary aligned electromagnetic excitations of black holes, as coming from exact Kerr-Schild solutions, represent light-like beam pulses which have a very strong back reaction on the metric and change the topology of the horizon.
Based on York's proposal, that elementary deformations of the BH horizon are related with elementary vacuum fluctuations, we analyze deformation of the horizon caused by the beam-like vacuum fluctuations and obtain a very specific feature of the topological deformations of the horizon. In particular, we show how the beams pierce the horizon, forming a multitude of micro holes in it. A conjecture is taken into consideration, that these specific excitations are connected with the conformal-analytic properties of the Kerr geometry and are at the base of the emission mechanism.

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:09 pm**

harry wrote:Chris you write well, but at the end of the day support your ideas.

As long as I'm simply supporting the mainstream view, there is no need to provide references (although I'm happy to try doing so given a very specific question).

These links are just the tip of the iceburg and may alter the way we think about black holes.

These links don't meet my standards sufficiently to make them worthwhile to study. Here are the problems:

- They are arxiv links. These can occasionally be useful if you're looking for a preprint in a specific area, and trust the author. But they haven't been peer reviewed yet, and they haven't shown up in a proper journal. I don't want to read every paper from the standpoint of a reviewer. I just don't have that much time. And these are very difficult papers- do you seriously understand them, or are you just stopping at the abstract or conclusions?

- The author is suspicious. All I have to do is look at the papers that have been out there a few years, and check the "cited by" link. Hmmm... the only person citing these papers in other papers is the author. Not a good sign.

- I don't even know what I'm supposed to get from these, because you haven't made a point that you want to use them to support. Sorry, but "maybe you'll understand things better" just doesn't cut it for me.

Posted: **Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:47 pm**

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Chris your a big boy,,,,,,,,,look at the science

Try to understand the workings.

Would you like more papers confirming those.

I was reading this paper yesterday, not that I agree with all what he says, but its interesting reading.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.4365
Black holes in general relativity

Authors: Matt Visser (Victoria University of Wellington)
(Submitted on 28 Jan 2009 (v1), last revised 5 Feb 2009 (this version, v3))

Abstract: What is going on (as of August 2008) at the interface between theoretical general relativity, string-inspired models, and observational astrophysics? Quite a lot. In this mini-survey I will make a personal choice and focus on four specific questions: Do black holes "exist"? (For selected values of the word "exist".) Is black hole formation and evaporation unitary? Can one mimic a black hole to arbitrary accuracy? Can one detect the presence of a horizon using local physics?

Posted: **Fri Apr 10, 2009 12:08 am**

harry wrote:I was reading this paper yesterday, not that I agree with all what he says, but its interesting reading.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.4365

That's a very nice, well written, and humorous overview of black hole physics. It's also about as close to mainstream thinking as you can get. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make with it (if any), but I thank you for a good read.

Posted: **Fri Apr 10, 2009 1:06 am**

The fact remains that the astrophysical scientists claim that the black hole has an infinitely density point-mass singularity produced by irresistible gravitational collapse. But infinite density is forbidden by the Theory of Relativity, so black holes are fallacious, bearing in mind that they were spawned by 'theory' (allegedly GR itself), not by observation or experiment. Astronomical observations have subsequently been deliberately misconstrued in order to legitimise an invalid theory that is held on faith not on science. Black holes are inconsistent with General Relativity, and so General Relativity does not predict them, and neither does Newton's theory, since the theoretical Michell-Laplace dark body does not possess the signatures of the alleged black hole, and so it is not a black hole. Nonetheless, the astrophysical scientists put their heads in the proverbial sand in order to ignore the facts that invalidate their cherished theories, to which they hold with an irrational tenacity inconsistent with the nature of science.

Posted: **Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:08 am**

noblackhole wrote:The fact remains that the astrophysical scientists claim that the black hole has an infinitely density point-mass singularity produced by irresistible gravitational collapse...

I'd suggest you read the paper linked by Harry. It is a nice summary, and quite correctly points out that a "singularity" has multiple interpretations, and there is no clear consensus on how to handle that (or if there is even a problem). It also points out that the observational evidence for black holes is very strong, but that alternate explanations can't be excluded. All of which is very mainstream, and very reasonable.

Posted: **Fri Apr 10, 2009 5:43 am**

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Some papers I post will have interesting reading, but it does not mean that I agree with it.

The point Chris is this, you missed the point to understand and not read people words out of context.

This following link is also interesting, its not my opinion. I'm just sharing the reading. Form your own opinion.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3162
Instability of Black Hole Horizon With Respect to Electromagnetic Excitations

Authors: Alexander Burinskii
(Submitted on 18 Mar 2009 (v1), last revised 31 Mar 2009 (this version, v2))

Abstract: Analyzing exact solutions of the Einstein-Maxwell equations in the Kerr-Schild formalism we show that black hole horizon is instable with respect to electromagnetic excitations. Contrary to perturbative smooth harmonic solutions, the exact solutions for electromagnetic excitations on the Kerr background are accompanied by singular beams which have very strong back reaction to metric and break the horizon, forming the holes which allow radiation to escape interior of black-hole. As a result, even the weak vacuum fluctuations break the horizon topologically, covering it by a set of fluctuating microholes. We conclude with a series of nontrivial consequences, one of which is that there is no information loss inside of black-hole.

Posted: **Fri Apr 10, 2009 9:11 am**

Chris Peterson wrote:

"I'd suggest you read the paper linked by Harry. It is a nice summary, and quite correctly points out that a "singularity" has multiple interpretations, and there is no clear consensus on how to handle that (or if there is even a problem)."

But there is a problem, see:

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

which Harry previously cited. The whole concept of the black hole is based upon fundamental mathematical falsehoods and misapplication of physical principles. The paper to which you refer is a rendition of the same old fallacies, even thought there is some slight indication of backtracking on matters of singularities, where the 'consensus' nevertheless remains with claims of infinitely dense point-mass singularities and event horizons as the signatures of black holes, both of which are phantasms (demonstrably false).

Posted: **Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:29 am**

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

noblackholes said

The whole concept of the black hole is based upon fundamental mathematical falsehoods and misapplication of physical principles

You are right in what you say.

Mimic black holes with a killing vector field is possible.

We are in an unknown area where false or right statments cannot be proven.

Posted: **Mon Apr 13, 2009 11:04 pm**

''Black Holes'' Have been joining/merging together For ''They say'' 13.7 billion years..
Why is there not, a ''Black Hole'' the same size as the void in our universe?

They talk of a ''Big Rip''. Could it not be, that when super giant ''BHs'' get so big they are the ones that do there own ''Rip''
and simply ...................... Vanish?

mark

Posted: **Mon Apr 13, 2009 11:15 pm**

mark swain wrote:''Black Holes'' Have been joining/merging together For ''They say'' 13.7 billion years..
Why is there not, a ''Black Hole'' the same size as the void in our universe?

Why would you expect such a result? Planets have been forming since the beginning, and there is no single planet that occupies all of space. Likewise for stars. Black holes are a tiny fraction of the entire amount of matter. Stellar black holes must only very rarely merge with other black holes. Similarly, supermassive black hole collisions must be rare, since most galaxies don't collide with others. Presumably, most black hole mergers happened much earlier in the Universe, when the density of matter was much higher.

In any case, if all the matter in the Universe somehow came together in a single black hole, it would occupy only a tiny fraction of the volume of the Universe.

Posted: **Tue Apr 14, 2009 2:58 am**

G'day Mark

Black holes have a feed back mechanism that prevents them becoming infite in size. It aslo allows them to merge and share matter.

This feedback mechanism reforms their surroundings.

A true black hole with a singularity would not allow feedback. Since the singularity is only hyperthetical, we can treat the so called black hole as a normal compact object and apply the laws of physics to it.

This is interesting reading, is it correct?. The information on this suject is still in court and nothing is final.

Jets in neutron star X-ray binaries: a comparison with black holes
Feb-06
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.366...79M
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-d ... db_key=AST

We present a comprehensive study of the relation between radio and X-ray emission in neutron star (NS) X-ray binaries, use this to infer the general properties of the disc-jet coupling in such systems and compare the results quantitatively with those already established for black hole (BH) systems. There are clear qualitative similarities between the two classes of object: hard states below about 1 per cent of the Eddington luminosity produce steady jets, while transient jets are associated with outbursting and variable sources at the highest luminosities. However, there are important quantitative differences: the NSs are less radio loud for a given X-ray luminosity (regardless of mass corrections) and they do not appear to show the strong suppression of radio emission in steady soft states that we observe in BH systems. Furthermore, in the hard states, the correlation between radio and X-ray luminosities of the NS systems is steeper than the relation observed in BHs by about a factor of 2. This result strongly suggests that the X-ray emission in the BH systems is radiatively inefficient, with an approximate relation of the form , consistent with both advection-dominated models and the jet-dominated scenario. In contrast, the jet power in both classes of object scales linearly with accretion rate. This constitutes some of the first observational evidence for the radiatively inefficient scaling of X-ray luminosity with accretion rate in accreting BH systems. Moreover, based on simultaneous radio/X-ray observations of Z-type NSs (the brightest of our Galaxy, always near or at the Eddington accretion rate), we draw a model that can describe the disc-jet coupling in such sources, finding a possible association between a particular X-ray state transition [horizontal branch to normal branch] and the emission of transient jets.

Posted: **Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:05 am**

It is noteworthy that Chis L. Peterson has taken no account of the paper previously cited by Harry: http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/DPS-paper.pdf wherein it is clearly demonstrated that the concept of the black hole has been conjured up from a combination of erroneous mathematics and misapplication of physical principles, and continues to talk of black holes as though there is no problem with the concept. There is a problem, a major one, and it cannot be ignored in order to expound on black holes as though all is well in the State of Denmark. As Mr. Peterson himself has previously remarked, this is supposed to be a scientific forum - but ignoring facts and figures is quite unscientific. The foundations of the black hole is quicksand.

Posted: **Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:14 am**

noblackhole wrote:It is noteworthy that Chis L. Peterson has taken no account of the paper previously cited by Harry: http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/DPS-paper.pdf wherein it is clearly demonstrated that the concept of the black hole has been conjured up from a combination of erroneous mathematics and misapplication of physical principles, and continues to talk of black holes as though there is no problem with the concept.

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...

Posted: **Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:29 am**

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

Chris don't hide behind others use your own.

Sceintific evidence is all I want. Not hear say.

I can give you thousands of papers stating they have found a black hole. The evidence is not concrete.

The word black hole has been defined by various means and properties.

The following paper maybe a repeat if it is ,,,,,sorry

Every time a scientists researches into a field we start to learn a little bit more. Sometimes in the wrong direction and thats life.

Can I state this paper is correct, no way, but it is interesting reading.

The progenitors of short gamma-ray bursts
Jan-07
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007NJPh....9...17L
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-d ... db_key=AST

Recent months have witnessed dramatic progress in our understanding of short γ-ray burst (SGRB) sources. There is now general agreement that SGRBs—or at least a substantial subset of them—are capable of producing directed outflows of relativistic matter with a kinetic luminosity exceeding by many millions that of active galactic nuclei. Given the twin requirements of energy and compactness, it is widely believed that SGRB activity is ultimately ascribable to a modest fraction of a solar mass of gas accreting on to a stellar mass black hole (BH) or to a precursor stage whose inevitable end point is a stellar mass BH. Astrophysical scenarios involving the violent birth of a rapidly rotating neutron star, or an accreting BH in a merging compact binary driven by gravitational wave emission are reviewed, along with other possible alternatives (collisions or collapse of compact objects). If a BH lies at the centre of this activity, then the fundamental pathways through which mass, angular momentum and energy can flow around and away from it play a key role in understanding how these prime movers can form collimated, relativistic outflows. Flow patterns near BHs accreting matter in the hypercritical regime, where photons are unable to provide cooling, but neutrinos do so efficiently, are discussed in detail, and we believe that they offer the best hope of understanding the central engine. On the other hand, statistical investigations of SGRB niches also furnish valuable information on their nature and evolutionary behaviour. The formation of particular kinds of progenitor sources appears to be correlated with environmental effects and cosmic epoch. In addition, there is now compelling evidence for the continuous fuelling of SGRB sources. We suggest here that the observed late flaring activity could be due to a secondary accretion episode induced by the delayed fall back of material dynamically stripped from a compact object during a merger or collision. Some important unresolved questions are identified, along with the types of observation that would discriminate among the various models. Many of the observed properties can be understood as resulting from outflows driven by hyperaccreting BHs and subsequently collimated into a pair of anti-parallel jets. It is likely that most of the radiation we receive is reprocessed by matter quite distant to the BH; SGRB jets, if powered by the hole itself, may therefore be one of the few observable consequences of how flows near nuclear density behave under the influence of strong gravitational fields.

Posted: **Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:44 am**

harry wrote:Chris don't hide behind others use your own...

What you consistently miss is that for the most part, I don't spend a lot of time arguing for particular theories. I spend time arguing for a rational, scientific approach to understanding nature.

I am not a black hole researcher, nor a GR researcher, nor a cosmologist. I have a good scientific education, and can usually get useful information from papers about these subjects. I also know that I'd be wasting my time trying to read everything written. So I depend on useful methods of assessing the value of research and papers. Do I know the author and his work? Is he from a reputable institution? Is the work peer reviewed (very important if the author hasn't established a reputation)? What is the quality of the publishing journal?

These things are critical, because there is no way that anybody can evaluate work outside their own area on their own. There is simply too much material.

As I've said before, you seem to lack the ability to assign relative weights to research, based on rational criteria. That leaves you with no way other than your personal world view (which is not scientific) to decide what to believe and what not to believe. Are you a black hole researcher? Are you out there making observations and proposing new theory? No, you're not, and that means you are in a very poor position to support anything other than mainstream thinking.

Starship Asterisk*

Black Holes

Re: Black Holes

Re: Black Holes

Re: Black Holes

Re: Black Holes

Re: Black Holes

Re: Black Holes

Re: Black Holes

Re: Black Holes

Re: Black Holes

Re: Black Holes

Re: Black Holes

Re: Black Holes

Re: Black Holes

Re: Black Holes

Re: Black Holes

Re: Black Holes

Re: Black Holes

Re: Black Holes

Re: Black Holes

Re: Black Holes

Re: Black Holes

Re: Black Holes

Re: Black Holes

Re: Black Holes

Re: Black Holes