Black Holes

[David Talbott]

I've been reading this forum with some amusement...
I just wanted to agree with 'physicist' - an all-but-lone voice of reason in the midst of confusion.

And will you swear to us that you did not originally enter the Forum under the name of "Physicist"?

Your statement about Stephen Crothers is refuted by numerous members of the Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA), at least a few of whom followed your exchanges with Crothers. (He distributed the exchanges knowing full well that the more mathematically trained readers would get the point.)

Personally, I'd really like to see someone step forward to defend the proposition that a Black Hole is something more than a mathematic contrivance, resting essentially on a metaphysical leap of faith.

How many early proponents of the Black Hole hypothesis predicted the remarkable range of electromagnetic emissions around galactic cores? How many predicted the polar jets, or double radio lobes literally dwarfing radio galaxies? Did the mathematical scheme ever inspire an astronomer to anticipate a major discovery in space?

For myself, simply observing the path of discovery, I cannot understand why the Black Hole theory has not experienced a quiet death. And I'm certainly not alone on this.

One more thing. Argument by simply demeaning another well qualified researcher will not get you very far here.

[Goldminer]

P.S. I really liked what Goldminer wrote about my article: This article attests to the imaginary prowess of an arrogant, distracted, “multitasker,” a legend in his own mind. Probably inebriated on too much spiked egg nog. The article is resplendent with ad homenim, and a condescending, sneering, smarmy, and smug attitude fully compatible with a Stuffed Shirt.

I'm gonna stick that one up on the wall of my office...!

Thanks, Jason! It's always nice to be appreciated. If we could hard-wire some common sense into ya, you could become a World Class Physicist!

.

[JSharples]

Yes David, I swear that I didn't enter the forum under the name physicist - I only learned about this forum last night.

I was wondering if you know of anyone not in the NPA that has refuted my statement about Crothers.

As a mathematician I am not in a position to properly defend the proposition that a BH is something other than a mathematical contrivance - but I can say that the BH rests on more than a metaphysical leap of faith. It is a rigorously defined geometric object that satisfies the Einstein field equations.

Your comments/questions about the predictive ability of the BH "hypothesis" are a little strange. Indeed Eddington's observations were prompted by the Schwarzchild solution. The solar eclipse observations were a major discovery (in space).

Finally, my arguments do not simply demean Crothers - they explicitly point out his errors. Read my "world cup" article and see for yourself.

[JSharples]

As someone that agrees with physicist is it safe to assume that you agree black holes and gravitational singularities are real objects/entities and that the big bang happened. I realise there is no observational evidence to support the claims for black holes but may I ask you what your thoughts are on the following (very old) creation myth, it was written some time between 1194 -1270 by Moses ben Naḥman Girondi.

Hi JaJa,

That BHs and singularities actually exist as physical objects is not something I can agree with 100% - remember scientific knowledge is always in a state of flux. It does seem however, on the base of available evidence and the mathematics (which is absolute), that inferring their physical existence is part of the most consistent view of the universe we presently have. The same is true for the big bang. But I am totally open to the possibility, however unlikely it may presently seem, that there was no big bang, etc.

On the other hand, the mathematical existence of black holes is a derivable fact.

As for your question about the creation myth (note, as far as creation myths go it is not very old at all!)- is does seem to bear a strong resemblance to the account of the big bang. Interesting...!

[JaJa]

Hi back

That BHs and singularities actually exist as physical objects is not something I can agree with 100%... It does seem however, on the base of available evidence and the mathematics (which is absolute), that inferring their physical existence is part of the most consistent view of the universe we presently have.

Call me a sceptic but I have been taught to question everything from my training in law and meta-ethics. I don’t suppose you are saying that because a view is popular it must be correct... are you?

On the other hand, the mathematical existence of black holes is a derivable fact.

I shall leave that squabble to you and Stephen Crothers.

As for your question about the creation myth (note, as far as creation myths go it is not very old at all!)- is does seem to bear a strong resemblance to the account of the big bang. Interesting...!

The similarities between ancient Kabbalah occultism and modern cosmology are astounding but then don't take my word for it. If you have time you could always research this for yourself.

Kabbalah and Modern Cosmology

[JSharples]

Sorry JaJa,

There was typo in my last posting "... can agree with 100%" should have read "can't agree with 100%". I am a sceptic like yourself.

[Goldminer]

". . . I was wondering if you know of anyone not in the NPA that has refuted my statement about Crothers"

Well, here is (link) Professor Reginald Cahill of the School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences at Flinders University in Adelaide who brings forth a dynamic model, Process Physics, which is a whole new paradigm for the modeling of reality. He pretty much refutes your whole scheme.

Here are more links:article by Ryden and: by Ryden and your Nemesis, Crothers. Please observe the well documented references.

. . . Finally, my arguments do not simply demean Crothers - they explicitly point out his errors. Read my "world cup" article and see for yourself."

Or to anyone able to think for themselves you article points out your failure at comprehending simple logic. You of course, as the author of your ramblings, will be forever blind as to their failings.

.

[JSharples]

Hi Goldminer,

Could you please state explicitly where I have "failed to comprehend simple logic" so that I can address your concerns.

Feel free to pm me - this would be better than going "tit for tat" on this forum...

Note that Reg Cahill's alternate physical paradigm does not refute my specific statements about Crother's mistakes. Nor does it refute general relativity - it simply offers an alternative theory. Please note also that my disagreement with Crothers is not about the validity of GR per se - it is about the interpretation of the mathematics within the framework of GR.

[klypp]

Could you please state explicitly where I have "failed to comprehend simple logic" so that I can address your concerns.

Let's have a brief look...
First you say,
That BHs and singularities actually exist as physical objects is not something I can agree with 100%
next you say,
On the other hand, the mathematical existence of black holes is a derivable fact.

Conclusion, you don´t agree 100% with your derivable fact.
This is generally called nonsense. Simple logic would tell you that either it is a fact, or it is not a fact. You can't have both.

Then you tell us that this was a typo. Your first statement should read: That BHs and singularities actually exist as physical objects is not something I can´t agree with 100%.
Double negatives normally cancel each other. We remove them, and your statement now looks like this,That BHs and singularities actually exist as physical objects is something I can agree with 100%.
To this you immediately add, I am a sceptic like yourself.

Exactly the same nonsense as before. You are now sceptical to what you agree with 100%.


I can understand why you don't want to discuss your "logic" with the NPA...

[JSharples]

Hi Klypp,

My original post where I said "I can't agree with the physical existence of BHs 100%" was correct. I misread it and thought it needed changing . I was wrong - mea culpa... the down side of imsomnia perhaps (or too much spiked egg-nog)?

However, saying that BHs exist as a mathematical entity and saying they don't exist as a physical entity is not contradictory. There any many examples of things that exist as a mathematical entity without any corresponding physical entity, e.g. imaginary numbers, Klein bottles (without self intersection), unstable travelling wave solutions to reaction-diffusion equations such as those found in combustion, nonlinear optics and nerve transmission theories. There are lots of other examples...

That BH exist mathematically is a derivable fact - they exist as the Schwarzschild solution, they may however not exist as a physical reality. The weight of evidence seems to suggest that they do, but as a skeptic (and a non-specialist in observational astronomy) I can't say that they physically exist with complete certainty.

Hope that clarifies things...

I'm happy to discuss logic with the NPA anytime.

[JaJa]

The weight of evidence seems to suggest that they do

What evidence can you point to in support of this statement? I am at present considering writing my dissertation for my Law degree on the fraudulent claims of BH scientists because as you are aware there are many claims that BH's have been found everywhere. Any information you could provide would be useful.

What I found, upon examination, is that there isn't actually any 'evidence' other than what is being inferred. In my business we call this circumstantial evidence, which in many ways is like one person saying something and then expecting others to believe them - unfortunately it doesn't really stand up.

The weight of evidence also seems to suggest that modern cosmology is a pseudonym for ancient Jewish Occultism. Does that mean it is

http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/Talmud.html

[klypp]

However, saying that BHs exist as a mathematical entity and saying they don't exist as a physical entity is not contradictory. There any many examples of things that exist as a mathematical entity without any corresponding physical entity, e.g. imaginary numbers, Klein bottles (without self intersection), unstable travelling wave solutions to reaction-diffusion equations such as those found in combustion, nonlinear optics and nerve transmission theories. There are lots of other examples...

I guess it is settled then. BHs "exist as a mathematical entity without any corresponding physical entity."

[JSharples]

I guess it is settled then. BHs "exist as a mathematical entity without any corresponding physical entity."

You presume too much Klypp. A proper sceptic would not do this.

However, I am glad that I've convinced you that BH's exist as a mathematical entity - its further than I got with Crothers...

[JSharples]

What evidence can you point to in support of this statement? I am at present considering writing my dissertation for my Law degree on the fraudulent claims of BH scientists because as you are aware there are many claims that BH's have been found everywhere. Any information you could provide would be useful.

What I found, upon examination, is that there isn't actually any 'evidence' other than what is being inferred. In my business we call this circumstantial evidence, which in many ways is like one person saying something and then expecting others to believe them - unfortunately it doesn't really stand up.

The weight of evidence also seems to suggest that modern cosmology is a pseudonym for ancient Jewish Occultism. Does that mean it is

JaJa - I don't think I could provide any more examples than the ones already mentioned in this forum.

Note that in science, and particularly in astronomy, a lot of the knowledge is inferred as direct observation is not possible. The way they detect planets around stars is one example where small wobbles in the stars motion infer that it has a planet (or something) going around it. The inference of course has to be consistent with established theory and observation. Science is a lot more rigorous than a court of law so the inferences have to be backed up fairly solidly and have to be tested further into the future. As I said before scientific knowledge is always in a state of flux and inferred truths will always carry less weight than those that have been directly established through observation.

I wouldn't say that modern cosmology is a "pseudonym" for Jewish occultism - there are many things that cosmology says that Jewish occultism doesn't say, and vice versa. There are indeed some strong parallels between the current sceintific account and Jewish mythology, but I wouldn't try to use Jewish mythology to predict the abundance of hydrogen in the universe, nor would I use cosmology to inform my moral decisions...

[Goldminer]

I wouldn't try to use Jewish mythology to predict the abundance of hydrogen in the universe, nor would I use cosmology to inform my moral decisions...

So, you would use the Talmud for your moral decisions, then?