"No Black Holes" says Hawking!

[chrimony]

Again, I am sorry that you find my comments snarky. In my opinion they are anything but.

If I started a post here with: "When are EU theorists going to learn from the past? How may angels can fit on the point of a pin? " ... And then repeated a common fallacious argument, I'm pretty sure you would find it snarky. That you tried to defend such a comment because of "authority" and "censorship" is no excuse. You also tried to back it up with the Natural article on Hawking's paper, but did not respond to my counterargument. If you're wrong it's good form to apologize, not for how I feel, but for being wrong and rude about it.

Yes, I was referring to Crothers and I am quite capable of judging an injustice when I see one, and so are you. It does not matter if he is wrong or right the point is that he is a competent mathematician who has been condemned to be an academic persona non grata by those with an authority- whose power arises from political position...not science.

I am capable of seeing an injustice given enough evidence and expertise, but I don't know if one has been done in this case. You claim he is a competent mathematician. I take it then you have read Clinger's and Sharples' rebuttals, and can judge them? A competent mathematician needs to meet some level of quality and also needs to correct their errors. Throw in an abrasive personality and your margin for error goes down. Here's a quote from Clinger:

Crothers's papers are rife with errors. Many of those errors have already been pointed out by Jason J Sharples, and I will explain some other errors later on in this thread.

Crothers started with and was inspired by a paper that's harder to dismiss:

Leonard S Abrams. Black holes: the legacy of Hilbert's error. Canadian Journal of Physics 67, 1989, page 919ff. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0102055

That paper is very well-written, and its math is almost (but not quite!) correct.

[nick c]

If I started a post here with: "When are EU theorists going to learn from the past? How may angels can fit on the point of a pin? " ... And then repeated a common fallacious argument, I'm pretty sure you would find it snarky. That you tried to defend such a comment because of "authority" and "censorship" is no excuse. You also tried to back it up with the Natural article on Hawking's paper, but did not respond to my counterargument. If you're wrong it's good form to apologize, not for how I feel, but for being wrong and rude about it.

Why would I apologize? There was nothing fallacious about the "head of the pin" statement...it was an analogy - and a good one.

All your protestations and criticisms are hand waving diversions from the real issue.
The entire edifice of modern Black Hole theory is based on one assumption - that gravitational collapse can continue unabated.

If that assumption is invalid, then all the books, PhD dissertations, and peer reviewed papers (each displaying a wealth of elegant equations concerning BH's) are nothing more than.... counting the number of angels that can fit on a pin.
Can you show me why we should consider that assumption to be valid?

[chrimony]

Why would I apologize? There was nothing fallacious about the "head of the pin" statement...it was an analogy - and a good one.

You seem to be doing your best to avoid critical reading and paying attention to previous points. The fallacious statement was what followed: "Remember when BH's sucked in everything and nothing could escape? Now they spew everything imaginable."

As I said in my last post, of which you have ignored the critical meat: "That you tried to defend such a comment because of "authority" and "censorship" is no excuse. You also tried to back it up with the [Nature] article on Hawking's paper, but did not respond to my counterargument."

Please respond to that instead of dodging it.

All your protestations and criticisms are hand waving diversions from the real issue.
The entire edifice of modern Black Hole theory is based on one assumption - that gravitational collapse can continue unabated.

If that was your real issue, then that's what you should have posted in the first place, instead of the snarky and fallacious comment. And the problem remains: We don't know if it can or can't happen. General relativity says it does, but ends up with singularities. Quantum mechanics combined with general relativity should resolve it but we don't have a final theory.

If that assumption is invalid, then all the books, PhD dissertations, and peer reviewed papers (each displaying a wealth of elegant equations concerning BH's) are nothing more than.... counting the number of angels that can fit on a pin.
Can you show me why we should consider that assumption to be valid?

As I already said, the stars orbiting the black body at the center of our galaxy is an indication. There is an unsubstantiated claim by EU that it is an electrical phenomenon controlling the orbits and not gravity. I await further evidence.

[Metryq]

As I already said, the stars orbiting the black body at the center of our galaxy is an indication. There is an unsubstantiated claim by EU that it is an electrical phenomenon controlling the orbits and not gravity. I await further evidence.

I thought the whole "dark matter" patch was argument enough that gravity cannot explain galaxy structure. Then there's the work of Anthony Peratt, which—as a layman—I understood to explain galaxy structure without recourse to gravity. With over a century of laboratory experiments, I'd say we know a lot more about the behavior of plasmas than we do about gravity.

Black holes are "unsubstantiated" too. We know, again from experience, that EM forces can generate X-rays and other emissions otherwise attributed (with a very large dollop of handwavium) to the gravity of black holes.

[Morphix]

I recall a EU hypithesis about a plasmoid at a galactic center relating to the radiant energy and light that is observed, but not about a plasmoid exerting an electromagnetic force that keeps all the stars in orbit. The total system would involve every object and all the plasma in the galaxy, creating an electrodynamic system that forms a highly energetic center, but that center may not have to function like a dark hole gravity-magnet as electrical forces can wotk much differently, especially when most baryonic matter is plasma.. This is certainly an EU chellenge, so let's see what ideas can be developed, and one hopes that mechanisms can be demonstrated in a lab!

[viscount aero]

Another article declaring the black hole spews matter. If you can stand to read it then note the reaching of conclusions that may not necessarily be true:

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... -glow.html

New Discovery Shows Milky Way's Supermassive Black Hole Much More Violent in the Past

Active galaxies have cores that glow brightly, powered by supermassive black holes swallowing stars and other material, and often spit twin jets in opposite directions. In contrast, the Milky Way's center shows little activity. But apparently, according to experts at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, it wasn't always so quiet. New evidence of ghostly gamma-ray beams suggests that the Milky Way's central black hole has been much more active in the past.

"These faint jets are a ghost or after-image of what existed a million years ago," said Meng Su, an astronomer at the Harvard, and lead author of a new paper in the Astrophysical Journal."They strengthen the case for an active galactic nucleus in the Milky Way's relatively recent past," he added.

The two beams, or jets, were revealed by NASA's Fermi space telescope. They extend from the galactic center to a distance of 27,000 light-years above and below the galactic plane. They are the first such gamma-ray jets ever found, and the only ones close enough to resolve with Fermi.The newfound jets may be related to mysterious gamma-ray bubbles that Fermi detected in 2010. Those bubbles also stretch 27,000 light-years from the center of the Milky Way. However, where the bubbles are perpendicular to the galactic plane, the gamma-ray jets are tilted at an angle of 15 degrees. This may reflect a tilt of the accretion disk surrounding the supermassive black hole.

"The central accretion disk can warp as it spirals in toward the black hole, under the influence of the black hole's spin," explained co-author Douglas Finkbeiner of the CfA. "The magnetic field embedded in the disk therefore accelerates the jet material along the spin axis of the black hole, which may not be aligned with the Milky Way."

The two structures also formed differently. The jets were produced when plasma squirted out from the galactic center, following a corkscrew-like magnetic field that kept it tightly focused. The gamma-ray bubbles likely were created by a "wind" of hot matter blowing outward from the black hole's accretion disk. As a result, they are much broader than the narrow jets.

Both the jets and bubbles are powered by inverse Compton scattering. In that process, electrons moving near the speed of light collide with low-energy light, such as radio or infrared photons. The collision increases the energy of the photons into the gamma-ray part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

The discovery leaves open the question of when the Milky Way was last active. A minimum age can be calculated by dividing the jet's 27,000-light-year length by its approximate speed. However, it may have persisted for much longer.

"These jets probably flickered on and off as the supermassive black hole alternately gulped and sipped material," said Finkbeiner.

It would take a tremendous influx of matter for the galactic core to fire up again. Finkbeiner estimates that a molecular cloud weighing about 10,000 times as much as the Sun would be required. "Shoving 10,000 suns into the black hole at once would do the trick. Black holes are messy eaters, so some of that material would spew out and power the jets," he said.

The image at the top of the page shows an edge-on view of the Milky Way galaxy. Newly discovered gamma-ray jets (pink) extend for 27,000 light-years above and below the galactic plane, and are tilted at an angle of 15 degrees. Previously known gamma-ray bubbles are shown in purple.

The Daily Galaxy via Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

Image credit: David A. Aguilar (CfA)

[viscount aero]

I recall a EU hypithesis about a plasmoid at a galactic center relating to the radiant energy and light that is observed, but not about a plasmoid exerting an electromagnetic force that keeps all the stars in orbit. The total system would involve every object and all the plasma in the galaxy, creating an electrodynamic system that forms a highly energetic center, but that center may not have to function like a dark hole gravity-magnet as electrical forces can wotk much differently, especially when most baryonic matter is plasma.. This is certainly an EU chellenge, so let's see what ideas can be developed, and one hopes that mechanisms can be demonstrated in a lab!

The object is mysterious because it only involves very few objects orbiting it in a swarm, not confined to an equatorial plane. And there is no observable symmetrical ring of an "accretion disk." Therefore it already does not fit alleged claims of what should be observed at a black hole location.

Insofar as it being a plasmoid, I have no idea. There are, however, non-visilbe faint gamma ray jets and so-called northern and southern polar "bubbles" thousands of light years in size. This is clearly a plasma structure.

Did all of this arise because ONE STAR decided to "infinitely gravitationally collapse" thus attracting the whole galaxy around it? I find that highly unlikely.

[Morphix]

Right. Most of any galaxy by mass is plasma, with a small amount of mass represented in stars and planets. That those objests remain in orbit around their galactic center and do not show the increase in angular momentum required by gravitational models with increased distance from that center, means we need to focus on the plasma, and not on the scant objects imbedded in the plasma.

An analogy can be made by looking at the behavior of objects moving at various depths and speeds in an ocean. Though we can focus on what happens when they hit each other, aggregate or fall apart, most of their behavior is explained by the medium in which they are dynamically involved. Therefore, one would want to look at currents, pressure differences, thermal variations and so on to understand what is being observed. So in that environment it would be water that dominates, and in a galaxy it would be plasma. And since plasma is most of what any galaxy is made of, a high energy plasmoid at the center could be a very important part of a galaxy's overall dynamic, with stars and planets along for the ride.

This may illustrate the big difference between gravity and EU theories. The gravity approach focuses on locally massive objects and sees plasma as something that is less consequential because, though massive in its totality, it is diffuse and so not gravitationally significant at any one point or area. For the EU theorist, plasma is what makes most everything happen because of its electrical properties, while stars and planets are byproducts where the otherwise relatively weak force of gravity gets to play its only significant role.

Two very different pictures. I find the plasma cosmology and EU theories to be more comprehensive and reasonable.

[nick c]

Wow, I hope this post does not get lost in the sea of responses!

The fallacious statement was what followed: "Remember when BH's sucked in everything and nothing could escape? Now they spew everything imaginable."

I misinterpreted which statement for which you were nitpicking. My error.
My belated response: The idea of BH's has been around long before Relativity. Laplace hypothesized the existence of stars with such great mass that light could not escape, over 200 years ago. In the twentieth century the theory saw a revival. The concept of an event horizon was developed in the 1950's. Since BH theory existed for a long time before there was an event horizon to expel material; the only thing a BH would be expected to do would be to act as a gravitational monstrosity capable of attraction only, not something that radiates light and matter.
But as I stated above, this is nitpicking. A waste of time. Perhaps we should argue the issue of whether or not there are black unicorns or are they all white?

As I said in my last post, of which you have ignored the critical meat: "That you tried to defend such a comment because of "authority" and "censorship" is no excuse. You also tried to back it up with the [Nature] article on Hawking's paper, but did not respond to my counterargument."

Please respond to that instead of dodging it.

This is a diversion as it has no bearing on whether or not BH's exist. I am not even exactly sure what you are looking for here, but upon rereading the posts I assume that it is your question of why isn't there a giant sun at the center of a galaxy? I gave an answer as best as I could. The EU model has a plasmoid at the center of a galaxy. Again, I will paraphrase what was in my post [that 'plasmoid' is a generalized description and more research is needed.]
Maybe it is a scaled up star? It seems that by the loosest of plasmoid definitions a star could be considered a type of plasmoid: "A plasmoid is a coherent structure of plasma and magnetic fields". But I personally, would not go so far as to describe a galactic nucleus as a scaled up star.
So, I do not know. There are a great many things of which I do not know, but I am fairly sure that one thing that I do know is that it is not a Black Hole.

I hear authoritative statements all the time just by listening to Thornhill on the Thunderbolts channel on YouTube, or by reading his writings online. Nothing modest or just asking questions, just "this is the way it is".

The above quote was in response to my posting of the following:
"And nobody in the EU ever claimed to have all the answers...." I got that idea from my reading of EU and TB material. I find it funny that you got the polar opposite impression.

I propose that the "known properties of plasma" at galactic scales is severely limited in both conventional and EU terms

Agreed.

[viscount aero]

Right. Most of any galaxy by mass is plasma, with a small amount of mass represented in stars and planets. That those objests remain in orbit around their galactic center and do not show the increase in angular momentum required by gravitational models with increased distance from that center, means we need to focus on the plasma, and not on the scant objects imbedded in the plasma.

An analogy can be made by looking at the behavior of objects moving at various depths and speeds in an ocean. Though we can focus on what happens when they hit each other, aggregate or fall apart, most of their behavior is explained by the medium in which they are dynamically involved. Therefore, one would want to look at currents, pressure differences, thermal variations and so on to understand what is being observed. So in that environment it would be water that dominates, and in a galaxy it would be plasma. And since plasma is most of what any galaxy is made of, a high energy plasmoid at the center could be a very important part of a galaxy's overall dynamic, with stars and planets along for the ride.

This may illustrate the big difference between gravity and EU theories. The gravity approach focuses on locally massive objects and sees plasma as something that is less consequential because, though massive in its totality, it is diffuse and so not gravitationally significant at any one point or area. For the EU theorist, plasma is what makes most everything happen because of its electrical properties, while stars and planets are byproducts where the otherwise relatively weak force of gravity gets to play its only significant role.

Two very different pictures. I find the plasma cosmology and EU theories to be more comprehensive and reasonable.

Well stated ideas and clarifications. I like your illustration of oceanic behavior as a parallel to a sea of plasma (the cosmos). It would reason that if 90%+ of matter is plasma then said matter would account for most of what is happening in the cosmos. Moreover this does not deny gravity a role. Hardly. It merely puts gravity in a proper context. To eradicate gravity entirely is not the point of EU and should not be. I think at times, however, (much to my disappointment) that the hardliner element of EU theory seeks to erase gravity from the map, as it were, when this is clearly dogmatic. Gravity does matter. But to what extent? That is the question. That modern physics ascribes "runaway infinite acceleration" status to black holes stands as a symbolic statement and metaphor for mainstream thinking, ie, that gravity is all-knowing and all-encompassing even if it can violate conservation at will. Gravity at present has a VIP card to do anything it wishes.

[viscount aero]

This thread dovetails with this one:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=14774

[Morphix]

Hi Viscount. Yes, I think it is obvious that gravity and electrical forces are both be at work, and perhaps proportionally according to their strengths and the phases of matter involved. And you know, there may be some as yet unidentified forces at work, but I am very dobtful of patchwork concoctions such as dark energy and dark matter, which seem even more contrived than black holes. I do know one thing though, and that is that time will tell, because ultimately the scientific approach provides better answers, and always to those who come up with better questions!

[viscount aero]

Morphix, yes I agree.

[Metryq]

I do know one thing though, and that is that time will tell, because ultimately the scientific approach provides better answers, and always to those who come up with better questions!

Given enough time, yes, but don't be so certain that "science" is as pure and empirical as we are taught in school. I recently read Henry Bauer's DOGMATISM IN SCIENCE AND MEDICINE, and it is highly recommended. Halton Arp's story was not a rare case.

Today "science" has become highly political. That does not mean that dissenters are necessarily right, or that what appears to be a conspiracy of suppression is a coordinated effort—it might be "emergent order." What it does mean is that an apparent "consensus" (which has no place in science) may not be.

Sorry to go off-topic. Again, the book is highly recommended.

[Morphix]

Metryq. I agree, which is why I said the scientific approach will ultimately deliver the facts, and right now I believe the EU community are asking the better questions:)