"No Black Holes" says Hawking!

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

"No Black Holes" says Hawking!

Unread postby neilwilkes » Sat Jan 25, 2014 5:38 am

http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawk ... es-1.14583

He now thinks that a matter-gobbling object as beloved of relativists & Big Bangers is an impossibility as it disobeys Quantum theory - and says there is no Event Horizon at all.
Apparently the whiole process is all very mysterious as it either obeys Quantum or Relativity but not both (which tells me the entire concept needs rethinking) - try this:
“There is no escape from a black hole in classical theory,” Hawking told Nature. Quantum theory, however, “enables energy and information to escape from a black hole”. A full explanation of the process, the physicist admits, would require a theory that successfully merges gravity with the other fundamental forces of nature. But that is a goal that has eluded physicists for nearly a century. “The correct treatment,” Hawking says, “remains a mystery.”


Perhaps someone ought to point out Electricity.........but how sweet it is to see the worm beginning to turn at last
You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.
User avatar
neilwilkes
 
Posts: 359
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am
Location: London, England

Re: "No Black Holes" says Hawking!

Unread postby nick c » Sat Jan 25, 2014 9:07 am

When are they going to learn from the past?
How may angels can fit on the point of a pin?

Black Hole theory is like Freddie Krueger, no matter how many times the theory dies it is resurrected in a revised form. Remember when BH's sucked in everything and nothing could escape? Now they spew everything imaginable.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2464
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: "No Black Holes" says Hawking!

Unread postby Metryq » Sat Jan 25, 2014 10:42 am

nick c wrote:Remember when BH's sucked in everything and nothing could escape? Now they spew everything imaginable.


Ergo, theoretical physicists are black holes!
User avatar
Metryq
 
Posts: 513
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: "No Black Holes" says Hawking!

Unread postby viscount aero » Sat Jan 25, 2014 11:48 am

neilwilkes wrote:http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes-1.14583

He now thinks that a matter-gobbling object as beloved of relativists & Big Bangers is an impossibility as it disobeys Quantum theory - and says there is no Event Horizon at all.
Apparently the whiole process is all very mysterious as it either obeys Quantum or Relativity but not both (which tells me the entire concept needs rethinking) - try this:
“There is no escape from a black hole in classical theory,” Hawking told Nature. Quantum theory, however, “enables energy and information to escape from a black hole”. A full explanation of the process, the physicist admits, would require a theory that successfully merges gravity with the other fundamental forces of nature. But that is a goal that has eluded physicists for nearly a century. “The correct treatment,” Hawking says, “remains a mystery.”


Perhaps someone ought to point out Electricity.........but how sweet it is to see the worm beginning to turn at last

The thing is, most members who have posted here for years about black holes, including myself, have pointed out this very conundrum about black holes--how they went from gobbling up everything, as matter disappeared forever into oblivion, to then somehow becoming the most fertile objects imaginable--spewing forth matter and giving rise to all creation. But now Stephen Hawking is having trouble reconciling this, too! Why did it take him so long to realize this? Isn't he one of the most intelligent minds alive today? What happened? LOL! So thank you, I guess, Mr. Hawking for giving the Holy Annointing on something we already knew!
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: "No Black Holes" says Hawking!

Unread postby chrimony » Sat Jan 25, 2014 2:48 pm

nick c wrote:When are they going to learn from the past?
How may angels can fit on the point of a pin?

Black Hole theory is like Freddie Krueger, no matter how many times the theory dies it is resurrected in a revised form. Remember when BH's sucked in everything and nothing could escape? Now they spew everything imaginable.


Speaking of learning from the past, it's been mentioned here before that "nothing could escape" refers to material that has crossed the event horizon. There's never been a problem with material coming in close and zooming out again.

As for the latest Hawking paper, it's just a continuation on a theme that quantum mechanics and general relativity are fundamentally incompatible. This has been known and been the case for many decades.

Now for the EU theory of black holes, why do the "black holes" at the center of galaxies not resemble a giant star? I can make snarky comments too that all the stars in EU are a Z-pinch effect, but where the biggest effect in the galaxy should be occurring there is no star outshining every other star in the galaxy. Thornhill also invokes an "an unknown universal power source". I guess EU can have its fairy tale physics too.
chrimony
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:37 am

Re: "No Black Holes" says Hawking!

Unread postby justcurious » Sat Jan 25, 2014 5:58 pm

chrimony wrote:
As for the latest Hawking paper, it's just a continuation on a theme that quantum mechanics and general relativity are fundamentally incompatible. This has been known and been the case for many decades.

Now for the EU theory of black holes, why do the "black holes" at the center of galaxies not resemble a giant star? I can make snarky comments too that all the stars in EU are a Z-pinch effect, but where the biggest effect in the galaxy should be occurring there is no star outshining every other star in the galaxy. Thornhill also invokes an "an unknown universal power source". I guess EU can have its fairy tale physics too.


Wall Thornhill doesn't make any claims about the beginnings of the Universe.
And to my knowledge there s no EU theory of black holes.
Newton established the formula for gravity, but made it clear that he does not know why or how it is the way it is, but simply that his model works/fits.
But a catholic priest and a handful of scientists hypothesize that "first there was nothing, and then nothing exploded", and now anyone who questions that is labeled a crackpot.
No galaxy has been observed that has a black hole in the middle.
There are plenty of spiral galaxies which we can see face on, but at the center is where they are brightest.
If you want to know more about plasma cosmology I recommend reading Hannes Alfven and Anthony Perrat, they have great textbooks. They may seem more scientific. Although I personally enjoy Wal's commentary and also his more speculative ideas. Wal also communicates well and in a way that non specialists with a good sense of reason and logic can appreciate and understand.
justcurious
 
Posts: 541
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:03 am

Re: "No Black Holes" says Hawking!

Unread postby Frantic » Sat Jan 25, 2014 6:04 pm

Has anyone ever proposed a ringed superconductor as the center of a galaxy, or a spherical as the center of a star? Is superconducting involved anywhere in electric star theory. I am sorry I have not read enough, I am admittedly ignorant still of much of the EU theory, but I am learning as I have time.
Frantic
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:49 am

Re: "No Black Holes" says Hawking!

Unread postby justcurious » Sat Jan 25, 2014 6:11 pm

Frantic wrote:Has anyone ever proposed a ringed superconductor as the center of a galaxy, or a spherical as the center of a star? Is superconducting involved anywhere in electric star theory. I am sorry I have not read enough, I am admittedly ignorant still of much of the EU theory, but I am learning as I have time.


Pierre-Marie Robitaille proposes that the Sun is made of supercritical liquid hydrogen.
He will be presenting at the EU2014 conference in Albuquerque.
Robitaille is a well known and well respected scientists.
He also proposes that the background microwave radiation measured actually originates from our oceans LOL.
I happen to think that this is a very astute and interesting angle, it makes a lot of sense.

I think Hannes Alfven may have suspected a double toroid in the Sun.

Lots of interesting theories... we'll find out soon enough (hopefully) with all the high tech gear available in this day and age.
justcurious
 
Posts: 541
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:03 am

Re: "No Black Holes" says Hawking!

Unread postby nick c » Sat Jan 25, 2014 6:22 pm

chrimony wrote:Speaking of learning from the past, it's been mentioned here before that "nothing could escape" refers to material that has crossed the event horizon. There's never been a problem with material coming in close and zooming out again.
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.
So what is your point? 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.

As for the latest Hawking paper, it's just a continuation on a theme that quantum mechanics and general relativity are fundamentally incompatible. This has been known and been the case for many decades.
The implication being that one of them is wrong; or both.

Now for the EU theory of black holes, why do the "black holes" at the center of galaxies not resemble a giant star?
The EU describes galactic cores as "plasmoids." A general description of something that will certainly have to be studied further.

I can make snarky comments too that all the stars in EU are a Z-pinch effect, but where the biggest effect in the galaxy should be occurring there is no star outshining every other star in the galaxy. Thornhill also invokes an "an unknown universal power source". I guess EU can have its fairy tale physics too.
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. 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. The assumption that gravity can cause an unlimited collapse can only be accepted if one ignores the known properties of plasma.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2464
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: "No Black Holes" says Hawking!

Unread postby Frantic » Sat Jan 25, 2014 6:27 pm

Pierre-Marie Robitaille proposes that the Sun is made of supercritical liquid hydrogen.
He will be presenting at the EU2014 conference in Albuquerque.


Thank you, I will have to look into that.
Frantic
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:49 am

Re: "No Black Holes" says Hawking!

Unread postby chrimony » Sat Jan 25, 2014 8:26 pm

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.
chrimony
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:37 am

Re: "No Black Holes" says Hawking!

Unread postby viscount aero » Sat Jan 25, 2014 11:40 pm

To my understanding, the main issue the EU camp takes with black holes is their premise for existing, ie, that they are a runaway gravity collapse. How can an infinite energy and infinite acceleration due to gravity arise from a finite object of finite mass? That question cannot be answered and thus disqualifies the black hole being derived from a runaway gravitational acceleration. The rest of the physics that must be accepted thereafter kills off the mainstream explanation of a black hole for me.

The problem, however, that EU theory faces is that an invisible center of mass (apparently) is at the center of the Milky Way. And stars are orbiting it from every angle, ie, they're not constrained to an equatorial zone but instead orbit this region like bees around a hive.

I think this presents troubles for both camps.

The mainstream nearly always has a rendering of an alleged gravity black hole with an equatorial zone of accretion. Yet none is observed to my knowledge. An accretion disk, for me, contradicts a gravity black hole because matter would tend to fall into such a region not from an equatorial zone but from any angle--which is what is observed in nature. So the mainstream contradicts itself in substantiating its claims.

The EU, as counterpoint, declares the dark region to be a dark mode "plasmoid." This would predicate that the "swarm of bees" orbiting the region were electrically attracted to it. Yet the Milky Way has a galactic plane, an equatorial zone, scaling itself up from a solar system. So why does the "black hole" feature a behavior around it that does not mirror a solar system or a galaxy? Why are the stars chaotically orbiting the "plasmoid?" Shouldn't the behavior of the stellar orbits about the plasmoid scale up to the size of the galaxy? Why doesn't it?

About black holes spewing matter out, aside from the alleged Hawking radiation, the act of spewing is regularly used in press releases, even if the alleged matter is from the so-called "accretion disk" around the black hole. Yet the manner in which this dynamic and energetic dance of matter eludes the so-called event horizon is never really explained (and maybe what Hawking is actually trying to reconcile here--which would remove a boundary for a "hole"). Moreover, as we on Earth can never witness matter falling into a black hole, we can never know if such a thing ever actually happens. Thus, they are the lap of all creation and everything--half sarcastic of a remark, half mirroring what the papers say.

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencen ... z2rU4hANzn
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: "No Black Holes" says Hawking!

Unread postby nick c » Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:41 am

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.
Again, I am sorry that you find my comments snarky. In my opinion they are anything but. 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.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2464
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: "No Black Holes" says Hawking!

Unread postby Sparky » Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:51 am

Let us assume as do standard modelers, that BH's exist..... 8-)

The concept that I get is that photons will disappear into the BH or be slung off at some speed that is detected, and then there is a suggestion that photons hover over the crevasse, with no energy to escape , but enough to hover. :?

On the face of it, it is nonsense. Seems to me a BH would be Black, a hole in the visible field of space. If anything, a highly red shifted object. The survivors would be crippled photons. The damage done to the Aether in that area would expand, as the Aether is pulled in and stretching for vast distances. If it is a solid Aether, the effects could be observed throughout the universe. It would be a bad Aether day... :cry:

With such results, can we afford to have more than one of these things.. :?

:D
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: "No Black Holes" says Hawking!

Unread postby viscount aero » Sun Jan 26, 2014 1:40 pm

Sparky wrote:Let us assume as do standard modelers, that BH's exist..... 8-)

The concept that I get is that photons will disappear into the BH or be slung off at some speed that is detected, and then there is a suggestion that photons hover over the crevasse, with no energy to escape , but enough to hover. :?

On the face of it, it is nonsense. Seems to me a BH would be Black, a hole in the visible field of space. If anything, a highly red shifted object. The survivors would be crippled photons. The damage done to the Aether in that area would expand, as the Aether is pulled in and stretching for vast distances. If it is a solid Aether, the effects could be observed throughout the universe. It would be a bad Aether day... :cry:

With such results, can we afford to have more than one of these things.. :?

:D

Ok to add to that--wouldn't there be a fuzzy ball of errant/stray photons that have collected around the BH over the aeons? Since these particles, too, would never be seen from our reference frame to ever fall in, then there would be a glowing fuzzy thing at the center of the Milky Way but there isn't. What we see is a finite and small swarm of bees, errant stars, rapidly orbiting in all kinds of eccentric paths, around this invisible region of mass (?) So these things were clearly all captured objects and did not form there. Why are there not more of them than what is observed? Shouldn't there be thousands or millions of particles swarming around the center region? Why aren't there more objects there?

This leads to more questions: Is the center plasmoid/hole a recently created thing? Or.... do objects get captured, orbit eccentrically for a while, then eventually fly off?
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Next

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests