nick c wrote:
But isn't that what Hawking is disputing? The article stated:
...Stephen Hawking.... one of the creators of modern black-hole theory, does away with the notion of an event horizon,the invisible boundary thought to shroud every black hole, beyond which nothing, not even light, can escape.
It isn't clear to me exactly what Hawking is stating. The article goes further to say:
"In place of the event horizon, Hawking invokes an “apparent horizon”, a surface along which light rays attempting to rush away from the black hole’s core will be suspended. In general relativity, for an unchanging black hole, these two horizons are identical, because light trying to escape from inside a black hole can reach only as far as the event horizon and will be held there, as though stuck on a treadmill. However, the two horizons can, in principle, be distinguished. If more matter gets swallowed by the black hole, its event horizon will swell and grow larger than the apparent horizon."
So it still sounds like some kind of black hole to me, and I don't think Hawking would claim Sagittarius A* is not some
kind of black hole.
So what is your point?
My point was you invoked the common fallacious argument around here about some supposed inconsistency: "Remember when BH's sucked in everything and nothing could escape? Now they spew everything imaginable." I can't derive that statement from Hawking's latest paper.
Seems to me to be a pretty good analogue to counting angels on the point of a pin...mathematical imaginings of something that does not even exist. I am not going to cite all the evidence and arguments against black holes, I am sure you are familiar with them. If you still choose to believe in them that is your prerogative.
They were just mathematical constructs until we found stars orbiting black bodies at the center of our galaxy. Is it an electro-magnetic phenomenon or gravity keeping the stars in their orbits? I await more evidence. However, EU has holes in its theories, as has been discussed on this board, just like modern astrophysics does too.
The implication being that one of them is wrong; or both.
Of course, but then quantum mechanics and general relativity have been quite successful in many areas. A correct combination of the two may still have something like a black hole.
The EU describes galactic cores as "plasmoids
." A general description of something that will certainly have to be studied further.
So no answer on why it isn't a giant star, like the other stars. Plasma physics is supposed to scale.
Sorry for the "snarky" comments. But the EU is not in a position of authority, censoring and punishing dissenters, and denying perfectly capable researchers PhD's because they are not toeing the line.
Sounds like you're talking about Crothers. I don't think either of us is qualified to judge his work. And you're not holding the high ground when you engage in such snarky comments.
And nobody in the EU ever claimed to have all the answers. It is not only about the answers, it is about asking the right questions, it is a paradigm shift.
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 assumption that gravity can cause an unlimited collapse can only be accepted if one ignores the known properties of plasma.
I propose that the "known properties of plasma" at galactic scales is severely limited in both conventional and EU terms.