"No Black Holes" says Hawking!

[viscount aero]

angular momentum would be conserved

Momentum from when? The star goes through an inflation, implosion to singularity.

would angular momentum be part of that?


No accretion disk!!!! Maybe an accretion sphere or "region".

Of course there would be no "jets" of matter..

First Cause? Galaxy was oval. One of the first stars went BH. Centering all other objects on it....


?

But again, the orbiting stars are not in an orbital/equatorial plane. Why isn't the whole galaxy a giant ball of swarming stars as is seen around the "black hole" at Sag A?

Good point about the angular momentum (unless the spin survives throughout the inflation/nova/implosion stage).

[Sparky]

I suggest that the central stars are captured, and have not had time to stabilize, if that is possible in the highly electrical center. The electrical field is more spherical nearer the center. No equatorial plane.

If we are talking BH, then gravity is a spherical force and very local and strong. The orbiting stars tend to keep their relative position as captured. Probably will be torn apart before they get into anything like an equatorial plane, whatever that is at the center????

I didn't know, being able to argue EU and BH, that I am ambidextreously inclined...

[viscount aero]

I suggest that the central stars are captured, and have not had time to stabilize, if that is possible in the highly electrical center. The electrical field is more spherical nearer the center. No equatorial plane.

If we are talking BH, then gravity is a spherical force and very local and strong. The orbiting stars tend to keep their relative position as captured. Probably will be torn apart before they get into anything like an equatorial plane, whatever that is at the center????

I didn't know, being able to argue EU and BH, that I am ambidextreously inclined...

Yeah I don't expect the questions to be answered anytime soon, just throwing it out there.

If a gravity plane/disk approximately behaves like a person swinging a ball on a rope around them (where the person is the "Sun" and the rope and ball is the planet), then the central BH isn't behaving this way--unless as you say the stars are recently captured. That they are all in highly eccentric orbits at every angle around the BH lends me to believe they are recently captured. The question is, then, why are some of them not orbiting in an equatorial plane--in various stages of orbital evolution as would be seen in an accretion disk? Where is this accretion disk (or at least a number of stars orbiting in an equatorial plane)? Moroever, where did these stars come from? Why are they isolated at the center?

[Sparky]

The question is, then, why are some of them not orbiting in an equatorial plane--in various stages of orbital evolution as would be seen in an accretion disk? Where is this accretion disk (or at least a number of stars orbiting in an equatorial plane)? Moroever, where did these stars come from? Why are they isolated at the center?

No equatorial plane around a BH nor a plasmoid, asfarasiknow...

No Accretion disk around a BH, nor a plasmoid, asfarasiknow...

No equatorial plane at the center....there is nothing to conform to a plane.
The forces are confined to a sphere, then flatten and begin to form arms and a plane with the additional stars.

Stars form in "forming regions"...some could be near the center???

Strong electrical forces have control of those orbiting the plasmoid...

Got this....let's find a magnetic thread....and figure out what a magnetic field is...

[viscount aero]

The question is, then, why are some of them not orbiting in an equatorial plane--in various stages of orbital evolution as would be seen in an accretion disk? Where is this accretion disk (or at least a number of stars orbiting in an equatorial plane)? Moroever, where did these stars come from? Why are they isolated at the center?

No equatorial plane around a BH nor a plasmoid, asfarasiknow...

No Accretion disk around a BH, nor a plasmoid, asfarasiknow...

No equatorial plane at the center....there is nothing to conform to a plane.
The forces are confined to a sphere, then flatten and begin to form arms and a plane with the additional stars.

Stars form in "forming regions"...some could be near the center???

Strong electrical forces have control of those orbiting the plasmoid...

Got this....let's find a magnetic thread....and figure out what a magnetic field is...

Ok let's examine the accepted theory for planar collapse:

from:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/questi ... number=205

"Why do all the planets orbit in the same plane?

I am a novice astronomer and have been enjoying learning about the stars and the local universe. I have noticed that the orbits of the planets are relativly planer (with the exception of Pluto). I'm curious why this is. Are the orbits planer because of the gravitational pull the planets have on each other (I envision the creation of the solar system with eratic orbits all dampening to the center of mass). I don't know if there is a "proven" answer to the question so I am interested in some of the prevailing theories.

answer:

The orbits of the planets are coplanar because during the Solar System's formation, the planets formed out of a disk of dust which surrounded the Sun. Because that disk of dust was a disk, all in a plane, all of the planets formed in a plane as well.

Rings and disks are common in astronomy. When a cloud collapses, the conservation of angular momentum amplifies any initial tiny spin of the cloud. As the cloud spins faster and faster, it collapses into a disk, which is the maximal balance between gravitational collapse and centrifugal force created by rapid spin. The result is the coplanar planets, the thin disks of spiral galaxies, and the accretion disks around black holes."

March 1999, Dave Kornreich

[Sparky]

The orbits of the planets are coplanar because during the Solar System's formation, the planets formed out of a disk of dust which surrounded the Sun. Because that disk of dust was a disk, all in a plane, all of the planets formed in a plane as well.

Speculation that is now assumed...A homopolar motor appears to be in a plane..

Rings and disks are common in astronomy. When a cloud collapses, the conservation of angular momentum amplifies any initial tiny spin of the cloud. As the cloud spins faster and faster, it collapses into a disk, which is the maximal balance between gravitational collapse and centrifugal force created by rapid spin. The result is the coplanar planets, the thin disks of spiral galaxies, and the accretion disks around black holes."

And what is causing the cloud to collapse?,,,,gravity?..static electricity?

Whatever, I agree that if you get a huge cloud to collapse, and it is spinning, it will form a disk eventually.

A galaxy, with magnetic confining fields and currents, with electric fields in the arms is probably a homopolar device.

But, can not see a disk over one point of a spherical BH...Can you:?

[viscount aero]

The orbits of the planets are coplanar because during the Solar System's formation, the planets formed out of a disk of dust which surrounded the Sun. Because that disk of dust was a disk, all in a plane, all of the planets formed in a plane as well.

Speculation that is now assumed...A homopolar motor appears to be in a plane..

Rings and disks are common in astronomy. When a cloud collapses, the conservation of angular momentum amplifies any initial tiny spin of the cloud. As the cloud spins faster and faster, it collapses into a disk, which is the maximal balance between gravitational collapse and centrifugal force created by rapid spin. The result is the coplanar planets, the thin disks of spiral galaxies, and the accretion disks around black holes."

And what is causing the cloud to collapse?,,,,gravity?..static electricity?

Whatever, I agree that if you get a huge cloud to collapse, and it is spinning, it will form a disk eventually.

A galaxy, with magnetic confining fields and currents, with electric fields in the arms is probably a homopolar device.

But, can not see a disk over one point of a spherical BH...Can you:?

Yeah this invites yet again the specious core accretion idea which requires an unknown causal force to collapse a randomly scattered cloud--somehow--then heat it up as it collapses--somehow--avoiding the basic idea that heated gas disperses. No explanation is given for the cloud somehow adopting an angular momentum; no explanation is given for the causal force of the collapse other than "gravity." No causal force is provided for the gas tending to disperse upon heating to somehow break all physical laws and continue to contract into a spinning disk. Both the origin of the spin of the disk and the collapse into a disk are giant leaps of logic with no actual explanation provided.

[Sparky]

I'm off to http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 10&t=12659

[justcurious]

Good for Hawking. I knew he was smart.
He will save himself from going down in history as a fool.
Because the truth is starting to come out, physicist can no longer dream up weird tales of creation that can never be verified, because we are now in the space age and can verify.

[4realScience]

See this nice 'fireside chat' by Erick Lerner just posted in response to Hawking.

http://www.lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.c ... &Itemid=90

[Solar]

See this nice 'fireside chat' by Erick Lerner just posted in response to Hawking.

http://www.lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.c ... &Itemid=90

LOL!!! Lerner4theWin!

Thank you, I really enjoyed the that one.

Now, as is known S. J. Crothers has been about the business of dissecting "black holes" and relativity for quite awhile now. It’s gotten to the point that ALL discussion of this topic have the distinctive ring of realizing that one is basically chatting about what *might* go on in mathematical head-spaces. Not real space:

The History:

Neither the layman nor the specialist, in general, have any knowledge of the historical circumstances underlying the genesis of the idea of the Black Hole. Essentially, almost all and sundry simply take for granted the unsubstantiated allegations of some ostentatious minority of the relativists. Unfortunately,that minority has been
rather careless with the truth and is quite averse to having its claims corrected, notwithstanding the documentary evidence on the historical record. Furthermore, not a few of that vainglorious and disingenuous coterie, particularly amongst those of some notoriety, attempt to dismiss the testimony of the literature with contempt, and even deliberate falsehoods, claiming that history is of no importance. The historical record clearly demonstrates that the Black Hole has been conjured up by combination of confusion, superstition and ineptitude, and is sustained by widespread suppression of facts, both physical and theoretical. The following essay provides a brief but accurate account of events, verifiable by reference to the original papers, by which the scandalous manipulation of both scientific and public opinion is revealed. – A Brief History of Black Holes: Stephen J. Crothers

Also:

In a series of pioneering papers, starting in 1979, Leonard S. Abrams (1924–2001) discussed [1] the physical sense of the black hole solution. Abrams claimed that the correct solution for the gravitational field in a Schwarzschild space (an empty space filled by a spherically symmetric gravitational field produced by a spherical source mass) shouldn’t lead to a black hole as a physical object. Such a statement has profound consequences for astrophysics.

It is certain that if there is a formal error in the black hole solution, committed by the founders of this theroy, in the period from 1915–1920’s, a long list of research produced during the subsequent decades would be brought into question. Consequently, Abrams’ conclusion has attracted the attention of many physicists. Since millions of dollars have been invested by governments and private organizations into astronomical research connected with black holes, this discussion ignited the scientific community.

Leonard S. Abrams’ professional reputation is beyond doubt. As a result, it is particularly noteworthy to observe that Stephen J. Crothers [2], building upon the work of Abrams, was able to deduce solutions for the gravitational field in a Schwarzschild metric space produced in terms of a physical observable (proper) radius. Crothers’ solutions fully verify the initial arguments of Abrams. Therefore, the claim that the correct solution for the gravitational field in a Schwarzschild space does not lead to a black hole as a physical object requires serious attention. – On the Current Situation Concerning the Black Hole Problem

Papers and Videos of Stephen J. Crothers

[+EyeOn-W-ANeed2Know]

See this nice 'fireside chat' by Erick Lerner just posted in response to Hawking.

http://www.lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.c ... &Itemid=90

Hmmmm, my virus scanner blocks it...
apparently it thinks lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com is evil.

[Solar]

Hmmmm, my virus scanner blocks it...
apparently it thinks lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com is evil.

Try direct Youtube link below:

Eric Lerner: Einstein said There Are No Black Holes

[viscount aero]

This is all so surreal and awesome. I nearly can't believe the establishment is venturing so far as to claim doubt to event horizons and thus black holes. You'd think this would be headline news but I haven't seen a word of it anywhere outside of science circles.

[Metryq]

This is all so surreal and awesome. I nearly can't believe the establishment is venturing so far as to claim doubt to event horizons and thus black holes. You'd think this would be headline news but I haven't seen a word of it anywhere outside of science circles.

A formal announcement will be made once they figure out how to explain the illusion that black holes do not exist (when they really do) through some jumble of strings, branes, global warming and dark matter. Hawking will be thrown under a cosmic bus, and that will be the end of it.

"Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and refracted the light from Venus."
—K, Men in Black