Researcher shows that black holes do not exist

Oh goodness, the deluge of comments about pet theories are on its way.

So what are those things that telescopes see (or not see) when stars transit/orbit "behind"/"around" dark spots?

If I understand correctly they have shown that the collapse of a single star can not form a black hole. That does not mean black holes don't exist. Only that if they exist, other formation mechanisms should account for their existence.

What is the definition of "is and exists and black and hole" and can we expect more from the college of "Oh My! Arts and soft science"?
Impressed am I..... not much.

This is a non peer-reviewed article.

It means that there is an "Almost Black Hole", a kind of smallest star to warp the space-time, but still a star, observable as a non-space due the gravitational lens it generates

1) The bigger a body, the colder it is in terms of Hawking radiation. (mass goes with the cube of radius, entropy with the square, thus the change in entropy over change in energy, the definition of temperature, is like 1/r. Temperature is inversely related to Schwarzschild radius)
2) Most black holes are *far* colder than the CMB. (hence why it will be a long time before they evaporate)
3) Just from these handwave arguments, it strikes me as entirely implausible that Hawking radiation evaporates enough mass away to prevent the formation of a black hole.

As always, peer-review counts.

LMAO....but...it's math guys...how can the math be wrong?
Oh yeah, she COMPARED the math describing seperate events and found both can't be correct if one is.

This is the first of many of these comparisons which will yield the exact same conclusion. Attachment to a belief has no place in science, the 5 of the comments above are more akin to debunking a UFO sighting than someone who has simply compared equations previously derived (and accepted for 50 years)to describe physical realities. That is all she did.

Whine and cry if you don't like her conclusion...but it's not like it was possible for her to come to a different one.

Is this not 'just' a manifestation of the black hole 'firewall' in a dynamic situation?

The black hole firewall is the QM prediction that there is a huge wall of energy just at the event horizon. That's for a static black hole. Now look dynamically. When you collapse, one would think that the firewall would form gradually in some way, and if while forming, its outside the event horizon, the emitted radiation would be very substantial to say the least.

I thought that Hawking radiation was produced at the event horizon, not as a collapsing star "shrinks". A lot of this seems semantic. Time dilation effects would make the "swelling" and "exploding" of the dying star proceed very slowly in a distant outside frame. For all practical purposes you are looking at something that behaves so much like an event horizon, you might as well call it that. As for the singularity, that can never be observed and has no experimental or operational standing at all. It is unobservable in principle. It is a mathematical creature only.

I don't buy it. We've got pretty good observations of objects that can only be black holes, based on the orbits of stars. The universe has a way of making mathematicians erase their chalk boards. For example, I don't see a lot of physicists leaping on board Sean Carroll's conclusion that fluctuations can't occur in empty space based on the calcs he presented a few months ago. We'll see.

So if we assume that all the math involved in this paper is correct. Which much of it is based on theoretical Hawking radiation. Then we can safely say black holes are never formed by collapsing stars. They always go supernova. BUT. That does not mean black holes don't exist. We know they do. Hubble has directly observed the accretion disc. I am going to say the geometry of multiple stars, (such as in the center of galaxies) changes the outcome in a way that prevents mass loss due to Hawking radiation. There could be hundreds of stars in various stages of evolution involved. This paper is very much based on the geometry of a single, round, and contiguous density star collapsing.

That is OK Black Hole, some scientist say that God don't exist either. So the accretion disk and radiation comes from nothing. That means we can scrap the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I never liked it much to begin with.

This article is a direct copy of a UNC press release:
http://uncnews.un...s-exist/
and the only indication of that is a tiny note at the bottom saying "Provided by University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill". PhysOrg, please make it more clear which of your articles are press releases, and which actually represent some degree of original reporting. Thanks.

Stephen Crothers...
...awaits vindication or is vindicated.
Simply wait and see.

His admonition - glitches in the math of black holes.

I repeat: "Grey Holes" are the source, not the sink.

Having read the article, it would appear that black holes of any size or origin are precluded. The mass is converted to outgoing energy as the star approaches the event horizon. Also, it appears the mass-energy conversion is extreme - 50% or more of the star's mass is emitted.

Schroedingar's Black Hole?

This article claiming that Black Holes don't exist, is kind of missing the big picture. There is something out there, that sucks in material and does not emit light directly. There is something massive at the center of galaxies that causes the galaxy to rotate, almost synchronously (objects far away move at the same rate as close objects). There are clearly anomalous objects, call them "Black Holes" or not, they exist and we have not got them figured out yet. Can a star collapse into a black hole? Maybe so, maybe not, but it forms somehow.

I could never wrap my head around the problem of time dilation at the event horizon: if time slows to a stop for the outside observer, how does the in-falling matter ever get inside this side of infinity? Shouldn't almost all of a black hole's mass be concentrated at the EH? But it's supposed to be all scrunched down to whatever that thing is at the center, and from the fact that these monsters appear to sometimes grow to the size of the solar system all of that stuff must get in there somehow! Is a puzzlement!

Trying to get rid of black holes is so 'racist'!

I have been saying for yes that black holes cannot exist, dark planets (very heavy gravity, yes) but a hole in space/time.?
Only with maths.. The same maths that show bumblebees cannot fly and an elephant CAN hang from a blade of grass..

We are all Hawking Radiation.

Einstein also did not think "black holes" were physically possible although he admitted GR permitted them to exist. One of the very first "solutions" to GR equations, from Schwarzchild, for a symmetric sphere gave rise to much of the terminology used for black holes. I'm sure the professor is an excellent mathematician but she's going to have a tough time convincing a lot of cosmologists that black holes don't exist because her mathematics rules them out. Math is a great tool but it does not always represent the reality. Her first mistake, I think, is grossly overestimating the amount of energy radiated as Hawking radiation. It can't possibly be enough to drain away enough "mass" in time.

all they are saying is the instead of an infinite point there is a ball of something created somewhere inside the event horizon which can never be seen or measured or tested so it might as well still be a black hole for all intents and purposes.

The singularity or a dark star would exist somewhere deep inside the event horizon so nothing changes but the way to think about these objects.

Above no_fate wrote: "Attachment to a belief has no place in science...". This is an absurd statement.

Have all scientists tested and proven each and every theory? No!

So ALL scientists MUST have an attachment to a belief - the belief that their peers are fundamentally honest and relaying a true eye-witness testimony to the fact that their experiments support the theories they set out to prove.

Science depends at its core on reliable eye-witness testimony handed down from generation to generation. Science could not advance if this basic premise was not true.

I'll be interested to see what happens in peer review to this paper. This is the type of thing that usually makes it into a Review Letters publication. If she's right, though, it might make it into one of the Bigs- Physics, or Nature, or Science. Mersini-Houghton is a proponent of the multiverse theory, and believes that some of the anomalies in our universe are caused by interactions with other universes.

Technically the singularity would be outside spacetime. So it would not exist, although light and matter could be driven to some limit point and exhibit similar behavior as time freezes the implosion

Penseleit - I was speaking in the context of this comments section. BH's only exist mathematically until proven otherwise, now they mathematically cannot exist. 16 posters above made comments displaying they only trust the math that says they do exist...this is adherence to a belief, which is a better word describing what I am seeing so yes, I should have used "adherence" instead of attachment.

"Science depends at its core on reliable eye-witness testimony handed down from generation to generation. Science could not advance if this basic premise was not true. "

Theoretical astrophysics excluded of course. This arena is more about belief in math than anything, which is why I found the reactions so funny when math should have disproved this belief. This chick might as well have said she could smell that BH's don't exist based on the comments. Instead she is saying she DID the math and it DOESN'T work.

I might actually open a special vintage today.

It must be nice to get a non-peer reviewed paper into the news. Maybe we should get one of these journals in biology. I could really pad my CV then.

Either this article has been plagiarized or someone over at thweek.com has taken large sections of this article and claimed them as their own work. If I were the real author, I'd be pretty angry right about now.

http://m.theweek.com/speedreads/index/268684/speedreads-physics-professor-says-she-has-proof-that-black-holes-dont-exist

Where is all that mass coming from to enable it to radiate and not dissipate? Maybe the stars in it's celestial neighborhood that's it's swallowing? Why it didn't touch on that I can only assume was a purposeful attempt to eliminate the biggest nail in this theories coffin.

Phys.org shouldn't be including articles which are based on non peer reviewed research.

"...submitted to ArXiv, an online repository of physics papers that is not peer-reviewed..."

Stopped reading when I got to this part.

Its just seems wrong. A collapsing star isnt producing Hawking radiation. It is produced near the event horizont. And anyway a stella sized black hole would just produce a tiny ammount of it, equivalent of the mass-energy of a few atomos/year. Its against the definiton of Hawking radiation that a star could shed weight this way. The bigger the objekt, the less Hawking radiation. And anyway it is produced near an event horizon, so:

A black hole-less univese is a Hawking-radiation-less univese. Either you have both, or none of them.

Ok ... So then what is Sagittarius A* then?

I have some major issues with this article and the researches claims. So, Dr. Laura Mersini-Houghton is saying that as a star collapses Hawking radiation is produced, which then ejects so much mass and energy that the star wouldn't contain a sufficient amount to ever create a singularity, thus never being able to form a black hole. This claim seems wrong on so many levels.

First of all, the researcher, Dr. Mersini-Houghton, submitted her work to an online publication that does not do any peer review. I repeat, her research and claims have NOT been validated by the science community at large. Nor was it vetted properly to be published in a second-rate science journal in the first place. Peer-review exists in science for a reason. Ground breaking research, like this claims to be, must first be analyzed, scrutinized, and authenticated before it can be accepted as factual.

Second of all, her mathematical proof apparently concludes that Hawking radiation is to blame. Which seems odd. Hawking radiation is the "separation of virtual matter/antimatter pairs by the intense gravitational force exerted by the black hole, [as well as] the quantum tunneling of a particle, such as a photon out of the black hole's event horizon." According to both NASA, and Stephen Hawking, you can't bake a cake with including its ingredients first.

If you have the effects of Hawking radiation, you much FIRST have an event horizon. And before you can have an event horizon you must first have a black hole. Otherwise, you aren't talking about Hawking radiation, you'd be talking about some other type of radiation. Either the author of the article is confused and misspoke when they called it Hawking radiation, or the research is bonkers. I welcome any comments that can tell me where me logical assumption on why this is BS went astray.

Everybody in this thread knows much more about science than I do, so please help me understand something. I thought there was lots of evidence that the stars, dust, etc. at the center of most galaxies are orbiting around something that is very massive. If the researcher is correct, and that something is not a black hole, does she explain what it is? Thank you for any help you can provide me. .

Laura Mersini-Houghton has proven, mathematically, that black holes can never come into being in the first place.
Well mathematically speaking, you can't get from your couch to your refrigerator either, because the number of half way there's are infinite. But I don't see that stopping people from completing the journey.

First of all, the researcher, Dr. Mersini-Houghton, submitted her work to an online publication that does not do any peer review.

Before ya level criticisms like that, maybe ya should know how it works. arxiv is where ALL reputable people deposit their papers when they submit them.

Nor was it vetted properly to be published in a second-rate science journal in the first place. Peer-review exists in science for a reason.

This paper was only submitted two weeks ago, so it has not be refereed yet. The publication it is submitted to has a very high reputation. It was submitted to a publication with strict peer review.

Ground breaking research, like this claims to be, must first be analyzed, scrutinized, and authenticated before it can be accepted as factual.

UNC made this press release, they are very proud of the work that Dr. Mersini-Houghton does. And rightfully so. She is very often cited in the work of other investigators.

Black hole scenario I read years ago. Black holes are simply stars in an opposite dimension. I read it in some science fiction story but (sans math) it makes as much sense as some of the other stuff I have read.

To ArXiv's non peer reviewed defense:
Grigori Jakowlewitsch Perelman posted his work there first.
The greatest and more important uncontested living mathematician today.

Dear Black Hole Researcher (lol): Please explain the presence of the invisible 4 million solar mass Sag A* at the center of our Milky Way galaxy, and the beautiful stellar orbits around it - recorded by the MPE Galactic Center Team.

Seems Mersini-Houghton forgot that black holes have been long seen in astronomy. =D

I never heard of a law of conservation of information. Who has published about that?

There are lots of laws you haven't heard about Farbstain.

Has your protection order at the library expired yet?

Nowhere in the actual paper does it suggest black holes don't exist - just that the math suggests they're not created by collapsing stars. I know lots of people here know that, but that sensationalized headline is going to cause confusion in the general population. If the paper is accepted as accurate, I'm not sure it's such a big revelation since, as far as I know, there isn't any actual evidence that collapsing stars create black holes. The only thing that would be overthrown is a theory that existed mainly out of convenience. It was better to suggest collapsing stars create black holes than to say nobody knows how black holes are formed. Please correct me if my understanding is wrong.

Observation has to lead theory in science. Facts of Sag A* and others are well established - invisible sources of intense gravity fields. I am fine with you and other theoreticians trying to find a consistent solution to both Einstein's gravity and QM that agrees with the observations - or any new theory(s) that successfully predicts the existence and behavior of super massive gravitating objects. Right now I think such a theory would have to include DM and DE, because they are, apparently, the major constituents of our universe on galactic scales.

NOM-Skippy, how you are?

I never heard of a law of conservation of information. Who has published about that?

There are lots of laws you haven't heard about Farbstain.

Has your protection order at the library expired yet?

Is that who that is? The Neil-Farbstain-Skippy? He is famous, you know that? He is more famous than the Zephir-Skippy and that ain't no tiny accomplishment.

@Jeppe: First you ask for "some picture" instead of observational evidence, then you note that science theory differs from "observation". Here are "some pictures": http://en.wikiped...arius_A* , NuSTAR images.

Sag_A* can only be predicted by a black hole: https://www.googl...54,d.bGQ

@Jeppe: "as we still didn't observe any black hole yet". Wrong, BHs have been observed, see my previous comment. You are confusing pictures with observations.

There is currently no competitive theory for BHs, and none is expected since the old competitors died and new ones aren't forthcoming. Here is the main problem for any such theory applied to Sag_A*: the jet emanates from a region _smaller_ than the event horizon for a BH of the observed mass. That cab only happen if the jet starts further out than the horizon and if there are general relativity effects from massive gravitation. (See the ref in the previous comment.)

Now, any object that you replace a BH is larger and have weaker gravity at the jet starting point. Both factors makes the current fit with observations go away.

Law of Conservation of Information can directly be attributed to the Law of Conservation of Energy. The properties of the Conservation of Energy are easily translated as information and universally fundamental.

@Jeppe: That was a science paper, and a Wikipedia link as well referencing accepted science. At this point everyone else sees that you are either lying or confused, and in either case trolling. That is not a behavior I will support, so here I rest my case: science has shown this, and I pointed to the science.

First of all, the researcher, Dr. Mersini-Houghton, submitted her work to an online publication that does not do any peer review.

Note that her preceding publication has passed peer review (giving an approximate solution to the same problem)

To understand why researchers put papers on arxiv you have to know a few things
1) Journals are expensive. Bundles cost tens of thousands of dollars per year and there are MANY bundles. Not every institute has the funds to have access to every journal article. With arxiv people can make the information available to everyone
2) Once you publish an article in a journal it's no longer yours. It belongs to the journal editors (Springer, Elsevier, etc. ). You are no longer allowed to give it to anyone because that would be a copyright infringement. Putting a minimally different version on arxiv neatly circumvents this kind of needless information blockage.

Ok ... So then what is Sagittarius A* then?

A plasmoid...

Possibly, if I summarize my (amateur) understanding, it will help some.
1. You can't *directly* observe a black hole. Let's be clear that a bh is a singularity surrounded by an event horizon having location, speed, spin, charge and mass as its ONLY characteristics (excepting during massive collisions; for instance, with other black holes). Now once you get down to the subatomic (actually much larger: molecular) scale speaking about "direct" observation needs some philosophical interpretation. No bh have ever been "observed". Massive objects, denser than what normal matter can ever be (based on our theories) HAVE been indirectly shown to exist.

show an equation in a textbook. Entropy always increases in natural (nonliving) systems.

That isn't true. see venturi

2. The event horizon is time-like, not space-like, and it certainly is NOT a "membrane". It is a border like the US-Canadian or US-Mexican or Erie-N.Ireland borders - a concept, a place (actually a time) not a physical "thing". In order for singularities to exist you first need to wait for about ∞ years after it starts forming and then there can be no hidden (unknown) mechanisms between the known repulsive forces [to keep it simple] and infinite collapse - there is NO WAY for us to know IF there are mechanisms we don't know about which prevent it from collapsing and obviously we aren't able to wait around long enough for one to be established.

3. ArXiv accepts manuscripts prior to peer review as well as articles never submitted to peer review. Peer review is important, but not having been peer reviewed doesn't make the claims false. Of course, unless you're an expert in a certain area, you're better off not using non-pr sources.

Of course, unless you're an expert in a certain area, you're better off not using non-pr sources.

Well golly gee, am I the only Skippy here who asked the google about the Laura-professor-Skippette? She sure looks like the expert on the google and the college interweb page to me.

Extraordinary assertions require extraordinary justification. If Black Holes DON'T exist: what that is super massive in the very center of ALL known Galaxies DOES EXIST??? A consistent ( but unvetted) mathematical proof hardly justifies rebuilding all known astrophysics theories and methodologies derived and used for the past 50 or more years. Mathematical consistency WITHOUT predictive nor explanatory results is just an academic exercise.

Curious Farbstein, you've claimed breakthroughs in most research fields. I'm surprised you aren't also claiming to have your own working fusion power plant. It's just as believable as your other claims.

Phys.org shouldn't be including articles which are based on non peer reviewed research.

I'd rather hear about stuff like this from real physicists who have cred early like this, personally. It will get peer reviewed, and we'll find out whether it makes it into a journal or not; but Laura is a real physicist, and a real professor, and has lots of peer reviewed articles to her name. This isn't a report on something that she isn't at least going to attempt to get accepted to a major journal. She may have to amend it either by changes or additional data, but she's not a crackpot. Just perhaps a contrarian.

First of all, the researcher, Dr. Mersini-Houghton, submitted her work to an online publication that does not do any peer review. I repeat, her research and claims have NOT been validated by the science community at large. Nor was it vetted properly to be published in a second-rate science journal in the first place. Peer-review exists in science for a reason. Ground breaking research, like this claims to be, must first be analyzed, scrutinized, and authenticated before it can be accepted as factual.

While this is true, it is also true that arXiv is intended for pre-peer-reviewed publications that are going to be submitted for peer review and attempt to be published in the scholarly literature. arXiv has a pretty good reputation for looking things over to be sure they're not crank physics before they let them in, and the measure of that is that most things that get published in the scholarly literature appear in arXiv first. contd

Curious Farbstein, you've claimed breakthroughs in most research fields. I'm surprised you aren't also claiming to have your own working fusion power plant. It's just as believable as your other claims.

NOM-Skippy it's me again. I am surprised he didn't claim that the Laura-Professor-Skippette stole the idea for this paper from him back in 2010 or 2009.

contd While it's no guarantee that something will in fact pass peer review, it's a place to see what scientists are working on that they plan to try to submit, and plan to allow peer review on. I for one am happy to see stuff like this get out, and it's also where scientists can stake a claim on a discovery to establish priority. This is an important function of arXiv, aside from informing us of what scientists are currently working on. I see nothing wrong with this.

So I guess anything that has been proven mathematically must be good. Not true. A math proof is only good under its axioms (assumptions) and does not mean a thing by itself. Peer review required. Extensive. Any physical proof (positive or negative) must be considered now and in the future. Poor journalism, but sold a look. Hmmm.... so that's the point.

My points will be proven by the "1"'s that these latter scientists give me.

Well shoot Skippy, that ain't no fun. I am not the scientist-Skippy but I really wanted to vote this time. Maybe next time, eh Cher?

Thanks Uncle for your civility this time.

You are welcome this time. But Ira-Skippy does not cheat no. If the voting is closed for not-scientists-Skippys, then I can't vote.

"More interesting that some scientists show absolute antipathy to any mention or suggestion of God, and think that "it doesn't belong in science", even though His influence is everywhere we look."

So you are admitting the Bible guides your views, not scientific evidence.

did any of you thought that maybe 'black holes dont exist' meant something a bit different? like maybe singularity, its timespace bending superpowers and other properties are complete bullshit? mathematical imposibility? they didnt say high gravity objects cant exist. basically: black holes are not what you think they are.

Hawking radiation depends on the existence of a black hole to produce radiation. It is only due to the existence of an event horizon that Hawking radiation is produced. Therefore, to say they "do not exist" is wrong.

If Hawking radiation, once produced immediately after the initial formation of a black hole, somehow prevents larger black holes from forming or prevents collapse, then this would only limit the formation process in some way. This is not preventing their existence since this very limitation is based on their existence, if only temporary.

And has been pointed out else where, if two collapsing stars co-incided, is her proof such that Hawking radiation backpressure would always overcome collapse?

There seems to be something fundamentally wrong with the logic behind this paper. However, understanding backpressure of Hawking radiation after a black hole forms is fascinating when you apply this to Hawking's theory of virtual black holes that would immediately evaporate.

NOM-Skippy it's me again. I am surprised he didn't claim that the Laura-Professor-Skippette stole the idea for this paper from him back in 2010 or 2009.

I just remembered that Farbstain doesn't need a fusion power plant in his basement. He has 80% efficient solar cells to give him all the power he could ever need.

This is a non peer-reviewed article.

This article is not pee-reviewed however it has been submitted to PRB. It will receive the same general treatment. Very curious. I wounder it this has a mass dependent time scale.

Nobody will ever know how pissed the black holes are about this because while they put up a brave front, they are really just hiding their feelings behind their event horizons while they make themselves feel better by over eating safely out of the sight of prying eyes. Then they get upset with themselves for the over eating which makes them more upset so they eat even more and get even bigger. It's a vicious circle of self loathing hidden behind a brave facade that keeps everyone from knowing what they're really going though. It's sad, and now they have to deal with a mathematical proof that they don't exist?!?

No wonder they emit Hawking radiation. Can't you all see that the Hawking radiation is just a desperate cry for help? A desperate plea that says "Here I am, right here inside. I think. I feel. Prick me, do I not hurt? Yes I take your weapon from you never to be seen again, what would you do if you were me? I just don't want to be hurt anymore. Is that too much to ask?"

Something I've always wondered about regarding theoretical black holes: The definition is that all the mass collapses into a "singularity". But, no one has explained to me how Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle allows this? Momentum goes to infinity and so how can this be allowed? Even approaching infinity, quantum tunneling should cause massive leakage of energy out of the black hole. Kind of agreeing as to how they can ever form but I lack the mathematics to prove what I suspect. Can anyone explain this to me? Thanks!

Finally!
I've been receiving heaps of ones because I said exactly that: Black hole do not exist!
And you should open your eyes because the Big Bang nave happened as well.
Unfortunately, cosmology and astronomy are suffering from the peer review and the paradigm that has served to promote hundreds of carriers in the field.
Most people here (Uncle Ira and Antialias) agreed verbally everyone that does not walk on their very narrow path. Quite un-scientifical but that's what our reality is.
Science does not have the open mind she was supposed to have and main stream scientists follow the trend, i.e.; if you do not have the same stance you are WRONG! And should be be removed from our field as you are a hampering our progress. Just watch how many 1s I will receive instead of sound counter arguments.

Phys.org shouldn't be including articles which are based on non peer reviewed research.

I agree. Between this and the study about kids giving away hypothetical millions of pounds, I'm starting to wonder if I'm at the right science site.

Oh, I forgot to ask if black holes could actually be aggregations of dark matter? Doesn't mean dark matter cannot exist outside of black holes, just that black holes represent exceptional aggregations of dark matter.

Researcher shows that black holes do not exist

Not the first time, and in direct conflict to what science should be, will not be he last.

http://vixra.org/...45v1.pdf

A consistent ( but unvetted) mathematical proof hardly justifies rebuilding all known astrophysics theories and methodologies derived and used for the past 50 or more years.

If it's wrong, it's wrong. Only faith requires one to cling to their beliefs.

"When Kepler found his long-cherished belief did not agree with the most precise observation, he accepted the uncomfortable fact. He preferred the hard truth to his dearest illusions; that is the heart of science." Carl Sagan

If Black Holes DON'T exist: what that is super massive in the very center of ALL known Galaxies DOES EXIST???

I think there is a question in that jumble of words, and it was already answered above.

Ok ... So then what is Sagittarius A* then?

A plasmoid...

As Halton Arp said: All Black Holes evidence so far are from White Holes...

@verkle

My points will be proven by the "1"'s that these latter scientists give me.

No they won't be. The 1's are because you consistently post drivel.

I am not educated in physics or anything on this matter really, but assuming the big bang happened and how our universe as we know it is laid out. black holes must exist, ive never bought that they were created by a collapsing star, if so there would be far more black holes.
so as the big bang goes when something is blown apart it does not just land in blobs "galaxies"
it is thrown out evenly all over in the vacuum of space. over time gravity does its work little pieces are attracted to larger ones creating planets, stars ect. and eventually when enough mass is attracted say several stars or other material a black hole may form. the gravity of such a thing will draw in objects from a far over time resulting in the galaxies being a collection of mass circling the black hole. eventually the galaxies will converge upon each other. eventually the mass would become so great it would collapse once more and create the next big bang witch starts the process again. just my thoughts.

Rapidly spinning black holes change there shape and release cosmic super strings from their poles.

Rapidly spinning black holes change there shape and release cosmic super strings from their poles.

So let me get this right... Hawking radiation, which the result of a black hole evaporating is now being evaporated before the black hole even forms? Physics is really jumping the shark now.... how about we realize that the universe is above all an information system and please move things forward... http://www.simulationism.net/

Before I eat my own brain...

'The take home message of her work is clear: there is no such thing as a black hole.'
is the statement above, while;

'Violations of the quantum theory imply Hawking radiation may not exist. Violations of Einstein's theory of gravity, on which the singularity theorem is based, im-
ply black holes may not exist.'
is a passage from the conclusion in the (exact solutions) paper.

I'll leave it those more able to decide whether one is 'stronger' than the other.
The 2 papers also suggest much more work.
However, obviously one cannot deny the importance and impact. I wonder if 'unfication' is also implied.
As a layman I would think (a) independent Pure Mathematician(s) should ensure the equations in both papers are consistent and each step sound before other researchers get involved. Then on to the astro community to argue the implications etc.

Most people here (Uncle Ira and Antialias) agreed verbally everyone that does not walk on their very narrow path.

I do not remember making any statement as to the validity of the paper. I had a go at it, but Hawking radiation and the hydrodynamics of collapsing stars is not my area of expertise. Which means I'll just see how it goes and whether it can make some testable predictions. Heer are a few I could think of:
- one might be that every supernova should leave a visible, stellar remnant.
- another might be the type of stellar lensing around any remnant (e.g. the presence of Einstein rings .)
- and I have a suspicion that the energy output of a supernova should be drastically higher as compared to the standard model

I am really confused.
For all we don't understand about black holes I thought that at least that's clear, that the Hawking radiation by definition is a specific type of radiation emerging from /near/ an event horizon of a black hole... meaning an event horizon is already present, meaning a black hole is already formed.
Isn't it so that no black hole is formed yet, means not event horizon is formed yet, meaning no Hawking radiation is created yet /well, there may be various forms of radiation there, just not that specific type/.

the universe does not need black holes. here's why https://www.youtu...lyiW-xGI

HERE'S MY WEBPAGE LINK. I LIKE TO REINTERPRET EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS SO WE CAN HAVE MORE USEFUL KNOWLEDGE TO GUIDE US IN PROGRESS

https://www.faceb...timeline

"...submitted to ArXiv, an online repository of physics papers that is not peer-reviewed..."

Stopped reading when I got to this part.

I have viewed this site for over 5 years and Phys.org has always posted ArXiv content, so please stfu!

Black Holes exists because there is evidence of their existence. Every galaxy in space has a black hole at the center. If space-time is a fabric, as described in Einstein's theory of general relativity, then with enough gravity, the fabric can warp so much that it forms a hole-like "object" in the Universe. Inside this hole, our current mathematics breaks down, because of infinity. Mathematicians may like infinity, but Physicist hate it. Infinity causes the math of a black hole to break down. To a physicist, infinity is the same as nothingness. It is not even a number -- it is an unknown unknown.

I do not expect this to withstand peer review. The rapid motion of stars at the center of our galaxy can only be explained by the presence of a black hole. If the mass concentration responsible for these motions was in the form of a star cluster (for example), such a body would surely be detectable. Also, as several others have pointed out, the flippant suggestion that Hawking radiation can instantaneously wick away vast stellar masses is a tad gob-smacking.

All that we can know about tales of creation is that our ignorance can become less imperfect if we abandon the silly pursuit of positive proofs from our mere physical senses.

If true black holes cannot exist, then a fifth force(or "something" if it is not a force,) is needed to explain the "invisible object" tracked at the center of the Milky Way. Astronomers can actually watch stars orbiting "something" there, indicating (if Gravity is the only thing in play) a multi-million solar mass object which is totally invisible.

Maybe it's an ultra-dense cluster of dark matter particles?

If Dark Matter is a non-interacting particle, does it form black holes in the absence or ordinary matter, and would it emitt Hawking Radiation, or not, since it doesn't interact? I'd say it shouldn't, as it would make no sense.

Hawking Radiation is based on the notion of QM causing ordinary matter-energy particles to pop in and out of existence at the would-be event horizon, but why should that happen with the non-interacting DM?

Therefore it seems that a black hole may not emitt Hawking Radiation at all if a significnt portion of it's Mass is "Dark Matter".

Black Holes exists because there is evidence of their existence. Every galaxy in space has a black hole at the center.

Not neccessarily.

Don't confuse "interpretation of best theory" with "absolute truth".

The "somethings" at the center of galaxies are assumed to be Black Holes because that is the presumed best theory to explain those "somethings".

However, scientists then run into problems, for example "sigma" for the Milky Way is off by 3 orders of magnitude compared to what it should be, based on measurements and assumptions of other galaxies. This fact has been totally ignored by astrophysics; I'm not even sure the professional astronomers are aware of it, because I've never seen them mention it, but I did the calculation and found it to be so.

The fifth force idea seems appealing to me, because it may involve an equation which can unify all the anomalies: SMBH, "DM", and Dark Energy, all in one go.

If this black hole wasn't formed with collapse of star, then the Mersini mechanism may not apply to it.

The pre-Einstein "Dark Star" mechanism, requiring 500 to 600 solar masses initially at solar density, probably half that realistically, may still be possible. It seems ridiculous that hawking radiation could melt away 300 to 600 solar masses before some sort of event horizon could form.

?pre-Einstein? Dark star is very new model. The object of 500 to 600 solar masses will not generate the black hole of billions solar masses...

No. "Dark Stars" were proposed via Newtonian Dynamics, nearly 100 years before Einstein was even born...

http://en.wikiped...rk_stars

John Michell and dark stars

Besides, my memory is wrong. It's 500 solar radii, not 500 solar masses.

That corresponds to 125 million solar masses, not 500. Nevermind.

The object at the center of the Milky Way is only a few million. However, there need not be the assumption of solar density, which Michell made.

So the first "Black Hole" theory is really about 120 years or so before Relativity.

Returners, whatever DM really is, it's supposed to not participate in electromagnetic interactions, probably in strong too, but may still participate in weak and definitely in gravitational /without that it wouldn't be able to do what it's "developed" for in the first place/, so it seems there's nothing stopping it from creating/participating in development of a BH. But the thing with the Hawking rad. is that it.s not emitted by the matter of the BH itself but rather by the presence of the event horizon in space with non zero energy, so it doesn't really mater what the BH was created of /+ the still not cleared position on the question if BH completely "erases" all the info on the engulfed matter leaving only the "classical" characteristics of mass-charge-momentum/

More interesting that some scientists show absolute antipathy to any mention or suggestion of God, and think that "it doesn't belong in science", even though His influence is everywhere we look

Well you're right about that. Everywhere you look religious people are deciding that others who don't believe in their particular god can't be good.

Everywhere you look these people are denying scientific evidence in favor of myths and lies about the natural world and the way it functions. Everywhere you look you see people begging for god to fix things rather than attempting to fix things themselves.

And everywhere you look, religious people are killing each other over their convictions. Yes gods influence is everywhere. How on earth are we going to get rid of it before it destroys us all?

Heaven on earth when god finally leaves it.

Lrrkrrr

I'm not even sure the professional astronomers are aware of it, because I've never seen them mention it, but I did the calculation

-Of course because you never bothered to look. You'd rather pretend to be a freeking genius. You're not.

"Yet, sigma showed stars in the outer reaches of every galaxy studied rotated around the center at a specific fraction of the speed of the central stars. The central black hole had some major influence on the development of its galaxy.

"M31's black hole is about 30 million solar masses. The black hole at the Milky Way's core is about 3 million solar masses, so we have nothing to worry about.

Or so we thought before the Nuker Group turned the Keck telescopes on the Milky Way's center core. What they found was another shocker.

"There's not just the one black hole. There are four orbiting each other. At some time hundreds of millions or billions of years from now, they will begin to merge, and the Milky Way will become an AGN again."

... We have video of the black hole at the center of our galaxy feeding. She needs to check her math...

... We have video of the black hole at the center of our galaxy feeding. She needs to check her math...

Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

"There's not just the one black hole. There are four orbiting each other. At some time hundreds of millions or billions of years from now, they will begin to merge, and the Milky Way will become an AGN again."

Reference?

1, Even if there are 4 black holes, the Milky Way won't become an AGN without them having something to feed upon.

2, The net gravitational force felt by objects outside the maximum orbital radius of the black holes is actually higher now than it will be when they merge, thus they will actually be less likely to feed after merging.

3, When black holes merge, the Schwarzchild radius of the new black hole is greater than or equal to the sum of their individual radii, which means they engulf one another entirely within the new event horizon at the moment their initial horizons would have touched one another. No "collision" is visible from the outside, because the matter only makes contact within the event horizon.

And here we go.

1. She has not explained DIRECT observational evidence of at least a dozen stars orbiting very rapidly about an invisible object located in the center of our galaxy.

2. She has NOT refuted other observations of otherwise "mathematically impossible objects" either. Think Cygnus X-1

3. All she has done is call into question the origins of STELLAR black holes. Not super-massive.

4. This is all math, there is no observational evidence in existence that supports her theory.

5. And we are just going by "The math" then how come climatology still exists? Its observations fail to match observations as well.She has found ONE thing that questions a mainstream theory and that could re-write it. Many flaws have been found with the climate models and they just say "whatever". As long as the check clears eh?

AGN are active due to the X-rays and Gamma rays emmitted by the friction and particle collisions/mergers between matter in the acretion disk as some of it it is accelerated to near-light speeds due to frame dragging and other effects. It has little to do with the overall mass of the black hole, at least in principle.

Further explanation of 2 above:

While they are farther apart, they sweep out a larger volume along the paths of their orbits, therefore encountering more matter mechanically. Due to the inverse squared law, the gravity of an object with mass 1 unit and located 1 space unit from the CoG is just as strong at a distance of 2 from the CoG of the system as if there were an object of mass 4 units at the CoG instead.

A = G4M/2^2 = GM/1^2 = GM*

*The arbitrary units in the denominator go away as usual.

Now you can visually represent that and see that indeed 4 black holes of mass 1M orbiting one another sweep out much more volume than the gravity of 1 black hole with mass 4M.

"1" me all you want, it doesn't make you, or him right.

Ghost has a habit of not knowing WTF he's talking about, demanding references for common knowledge (which I always present), and then never apologizing when such references are presented.

Hey, if you don't believe me, you can always work the problem for yourself, but I highly doubt whoever gave me a "1" has ever done that.

Good luck ever understanding this topic if that's how you're going to be.

Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Skippy that is fine and dandy for the faithful-Skippys thousands of years ago. But the Hebrews-Skippy did not have the really good telescopes machines and satellites things and computers like we have today. So maybe when the Hebrews-Skippy was writing that he had to make some of it up out of his imaginations?

*Observations fail to match its predictions (point 5 )

The effects of posting before coffee...... :)

@ returners if you're right, and 4 1M BH would sweep out a LARGER AREA, Then perhaps dark matter has finally been flushed.

After all, the mass would be the same, yet the configuration would allow a farther reach. Maybe not as powerful as an object, yet the same reach as a single object with equivalent mass.

Now lets knock it out of the park and put those four objects into motion with a billion stars. Each one its own gravity source, each one linked to the next like a barrel of monkeys, all holding hands right out to the edge. This would cause a dragging effect as the center stars moved they would drag the ones they are linked to, they in turn dragging the ones they are linked to, all the way out to the edge of the disk. They would then naturally form spiral arms, as the delay of motion from the center to the edge increased with each added star, with the star on the very end being like the kid on the very end in a game of "crack the whip".

Reference?

1, Even if there are 4 black holes, the Milky Way won't become an AGN without them having something to feed upon.

Those are quotes. GOOGLE them for the source. Why do you continue to guess when it is obvious you have no idea what you are talking about??

Ghost has a habit of not knowing WTF he's talking about, demanding references for common knowledge (which I always present)

You said that you didnt think scientists had ever determined sigma for the milky way. A quick search tells us that they obviously DID, using info which you had no idea even existed.

You are self-centered, doped-up egomaniac. And a liar.

Good luck ever understanding this topic if that's how you're going to be

This from the guy who thinks planetary rotation affects planetary migration. This from the guy who was sure we could mine dry ice in the antarctic. Etcetcetcetc.

Youre a fucking lunatic.

well, what she describes is a magnetar isn't it? Except that our current theories re magnetars is that they loose so much energy they just exhaust themselves peacefully, right?

grondilu says:

If I understand correctly they have shown that the collapse of a single star can not form a black hole. That does not mean black holes don't exist. Only that if they exist, other formation mechanisms should account for their existence.

Nope. The researcher is saying that any method of event horizon / singularity creation is impossible.

... We have video of the black hole at the center of our galaxy feeding. She needs to check her math...

She has only explained how black holes could not have been formed by the collapse of a single star, not that they don't exist, only that there must be another mechanism that caused them to form.

Are you all deliberately missing the point? This will be peer reviewed, for one thing. If errors are found, she'll be able to either work out another solution or she'll move on.

The most basic thing here is that this is _theoretical physics_. She has found maths that _seem_ to contradict observations _and_ the current mathematical models.

That's why there is peer review. For everyone but Zephyr and FarbStain, and RC, and a countless host of other insane wannabes.

So, when the boffins at the LHC creates a black hole that devours us....fffooop!

I thought ignorance was bliss. Why are you both worrying?

There's a law against internet stalking! Cease and desist!

There's a law against fraud. Yet you are still trying to con people out of money with your bogus research claims.

I was mistaken about the library protection order.On further investigation it was all about you being thrown out of some library for being an arsehole and then you tried to take this to court for "conspiracy" against you. It appears you failed miserably. I'm surprised the library didn't file a protection order against you.

No they won't be. The 1's are because you consistently post drivel.

@verkl If it only were that case. Unfortunately for you, you don't seem to have read the outbursts of the latter scientists to some of the posts of scientists that do believe in God.

93% of scientists in American National Academy of Sciences are atheist or agnostic. The others are presumably senile or near death

@11791

"If I burnt down a library full of original manuscripts a lot of information would disappear from the universe."

No, no it wouldn't. All the information is still there. Just because you can't "access" the information in it's original form or in a timely manner doesn't mean it has disappeared. You could deduce (calculate) from the ashes, smoke, wind speed/direction, etc. the original configuration of the manuscripts.

but dead stars become planets https://www.youtu...tLhHN5yw

HERE'S MY WEBPAGE LINK. I LIKE TO REINTERPRET EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS SO WE CAN HAVE MORE USEFUL KNOWLEDGE TO GUIDE US IN PROGRESS

https://www.faceb...timeline

No Black Holes just Plasmoids!
http://adsabs.har....6...87B
"...it is possible to simulate the production of spiral galaxies and barred spirals."

Yep. A Black Hole is from the imagination of Karl Schwarzchild. I prefer to use the term "degenerate neutron object".

I watched a video of her discussing what she has found.

She say that her work suggests that as the start collapses it is prevented from forming a singularity by the loss of mass to to the incoming virtual particles, however it still is massive enough to have an event horizon, so we would still see what we expect to see.

She suggested that there would be a 'bounce' and the star would eventually return to normal space (no event horizon). She indicated that currently she does not know how long the bounce would take.

As I read it, she is saying that core collapse supernovas (type ii) wont produce a singularity. That doesn't rule out type 1a (accretion) models, and apparently doesn't obviate the SMBH in galactic cores.

Still, I am troubled by something. Hawking radiation happens at the event horizon and as such couldn't dissipate all of the mass of a black hole in so rapidly without releasing huge amounts of energy. Essentially about half the mass of the supposed black hole would have to be converted instantly to energy of some kind. That's a huge amount of energy to release all at once. Perhaps an alternative explanation for the power of GRB?

According to the video ( which I am trying to find again) - at the event horizon virtual particles appearing in the vacuum are of two types + and - , the + particles escape (?) while the negative fall into the event horizon. The negative particles act to decrease the mass of the star. At some point there is a balance between incoming -ve mass and the shrinking star.

Here is the video of her discussing these findings

http://iai.tv/vid...arkness#

... We have video of the black hole at the center of our galaxy feeding. She needs to check her math...

Sure do, but there is no black hole. What you see are stars dancing around a very very strong magnetic field.

According to the video ( which I am trying to find again) - at the event horizon virtual particles appearing in the vacuum are of two types + and - , the + particles escape (?) while the negative fall into the event horizon. The negative particles act to decrease the mass of the star. At some point there is a balance between incoming -ve mass and the shrinking star.

Actually, half of the particles and half of the antiparticles are sucked back in, and half and half escape. They are created as pairs, as vacuum fluctuations, and which (the particle or the antiparticle) falls back in is random. But in either case, which ever one escapes, the mass of the black hole is reduced by it.

There is no negative mass, unless negative energy has it (which is a possibility, but outside the Standard Model, and also outside relativity).

Good question. ;)

Black Holes do not exist as per the accepted model. There is an alternative that has the BH as a source of matter, not a sink. Intergalactic flux tubes exist in space, and when one of these becomes 'pinched', a Z-pinch, then a vacuum spark, or arc occurs, a constant lightning event. Lightning produces gamma rays in terrestrial events, but a BH level event, the energies of the vacuum are being tapped, and the hard gamma rays are produced.
Optical rectification (the vacuum is a non-linear medium at these energy levels) produce the immense electric fields that create the huge observed magnetic fields, and the charge separation is not by an almost infinite mass.
Pair production creates the matter that is observed in the accretion disk, which is rather a creation disk. No matter needs to be falling towards the BH to produce the observed radiation, and it can not be shown that there is matter falling inwards, this is just a presumption that supports the present BH model.

This from the guy who thinks planetary rotation affects planetary migration.

No, I knew they had calculated Sigma, but their calculation is wrong.

Secondly, regarding planetary migration, there IS an effect, there's even a name for it, which causes rotating objects to be more strongly pushed on the side which is moving towards the sun than the side which is moving away, and this causes the object's momentum to be changed, which means they can be pushed outward over time.

Here, pissant:

wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarkovsky_effect

If the object is a prograde rotator, the force is in the direction of motion of the orbit, and causes the semi-major axis of the orbit to increase steadily; the object spirals away from the Sun. A retrograde rotator spirals inward. The diurnal effect is the dominant component for larger bodies greater than about 100 m diameter

As usual, you know nothing, moron.

Dunning Krugger indeed.

You damned fool.

How many times do I have to shut you up?

Hi sap. :) Have I commented on the above article? No.

Are you being your usual irrelevant malignant troll on the net? Yes.

Quit it, sap.

By the way, I see you and 'daisy-chain-gang-of-stupids-and-hypocrites' are still mindlessly at it on my ratings page....

https://sciencex....k/?v=act

How thick as well as malignant of you, to keep doing such anti-science-ethics gang-downvoting crap even after you were proven to be trolls who understand neither the orthodoxy or the alternatives?

When I suggested you should do YOUR OWN scientific objective DUE DILIGENCE before accepting anything from that BICEP2 BS 'exercise' as 'fact', you and that troll gang went 'crazy loon time', but you call others crazy? Wow.

And you'll still haven't apologized to the FORUMS everywhere, for going all mindless lying apeshit and attacking me because I saw the obvious BICEP2 flaws and you didn't; because you were all so eager to bash cranks with BS BICEP2 'facts'. Shame on you saps.

No Black Holes just Plasmoids!
http://adsabs.har....6...87B
"...it is possible to simulate the production of spiral galaxies and barred spirals."

GOIKA you are obviously not paying attention read the abstract then start searching the topic and you will find tons of "experimental/observational evidence.

And you'll still haven't apologized to the FORUMS everywhere, for going all mindless lying apeshit and attacking me because I saw the obvious BICEP2 flaws and you didn't; because you were all so eager to bash cranks with BS BICEP2 'facts'. Shame on you saps.

@ Really-Skippy, where you at Cher? I'm not helping him apologize to the forum because you know I already did that.

I just wanted to let you know I think I got an idea about a Skippy that can help you finally finish your TOES encyclopedium about everything. I mean, not being able to get to end of him after all these years.

Do not get your hopes up because he has not answered me about it but I did ask him. He is really good at writing everything about everything so you two would make a good team, he can write about TOES everything for the book while you carry on with your battles with the troll/bot/mafia/gangs.

If it works out can I get a TOES encyclopedium for half price for helping?

P.S. for you Really-Skippy. One thing I wish you would help me with. Is your TOES encyclopedium about everything going settle this argument about black holes being real or not real? I will tell you the truth Cher, this is the most hardest thing yet I have tried to understand. Not the black holes, the way there isn't any I mean. I even tried to read the Scientist-Skippette's paper and it does not make any sense that I can understand.

I know you are keeping the TOES stuffs secret so you can not say any about the black holes, just can you say if it's going to be in there?

Hi Ira. :) Here we go again, just the same stuffs as all the other times.

I'll take that as a you are in the bad mood again like always.

PS: Oh, and Ira, I suggest you and your troll cohort stop your mindless downvoting if you don't even know what you are downvoting, ok? Otherwise people might twig you are really just malignant trolls and simpletons pretending to whatever it is you are pretending. Ok?

I know you are a rude and silly couyon. So you are back on the list for that. That's all the reason ol Ira needs to downvote you everywhere Cher. I can not do nothing about all those other peoples who think you are silly too and downvote you bad karma points.

This from the guy who thinks planetary rotation affects planetary migration.

No, I knew they had calculated Sigma, but their calculation is wrong.

How? Source or a full mathematical treatment from axioms, please.

Secondly, regarding planetary migration, there IS an effect, there's even a name for it, which causes rotating objects to be more strongly pushed on the side which is moving towards the sun than the side which is moving away, and this causes the object's momentum to be changed, which means they can be pushed outward over time.

However, according to the article you reference this effect declines for bodies above 10 km.

It is usually considered in relation to meteoroids or small asteroids (about 10 cm to 10 km in diameter), as its influence is most significant for these bodies.

In fact, radiation pressure from the Sun outweighs this effect above 10 km body size. We'd need to see a complete mathematical treatment to believe you.

i briefly looked at her report and saw her arguments depend on adding negative energy particles to the black hole, instead of simply an exit of massive particles from the event horizon, causing it to shrink.

Hmmm, that's not very promising. Holding off on rating this post until I have time to review it myself. "Negative mass particles" is a bit, shall we say, recherche. I'd need to see someone detect "negative mass particles" first.

I saw this diagram at http://www.nature...-1.12726
The diagram shows that the theory pictured in the right half is about quantum correlations between pairs of particles created at the event horizon from the quantum vacuum. Those virtual pairs dont have much information in the first place; they are like black body radiation.

So far so good.

The whole controversy they are discussing seems to be missing something; that other processes also destroy quantum correlations. If the black hole's event horizon were replaced with a sphere of antimatter the the particles going toward the black hole would also undergo interactions that caused total quantum decoherence.

I don't understand what you mean here.

If the antimatter was replaced by a sphere regular matter the quantum coherence would be ended as soon as they collided with it.

Again I don't understand what you mean here. Please explain these two parts better. Not rated until I hear from you

Hmmm, perhaps I was too laconic in the post about the negative *energy*. Note that I merely substituted mass for energy; but although negative energy can exist as the lambda in the Einstein equations, I have the same objection to *particles* with negative energy as to particles with negative *mass*. So basically I agree with 11791 that this will require a detection of new particles at the LHC to substantiate, and they are far outside the SM.

none of true ultimate reality is something ucould perfectly depict by human math imo

So the unseen companion of the blue supergiant HDE 226868, a source of x-rays and a radio jet, around which the supergiant revolves once every 5.6 days, then is called a what?

Hi bee_farms_7. :)

none of true ultimate reality is something ucould perfectly depict by human math imo

Correct. So far, with the conventional cosmology 'unreal maths' with 'abstract inputs' effectively always ending up as GIGO (ie, Garbage-in-Garbage-out) exercises/interpretations, just as the BICEP2 did, your observation on the limited potential of the 'unreal' maths approach is all too sadly true.

But once the reality-based maths and the reality-based physics consistent and complete ToE is done, the maths will be based on the physical reality, and so faithfully represent the reality physics as to all the physical entities, mechanisms and observable/unobservable processes/phenomena.

Be patient! :)

Hi Ira. :)

I'll take that as a you are in the bad mood again like always.

I am neither moody nor personal, it was the answers to your questions. If you can't take the factual answers, don't ask the questions.

So you are back on the list for that. That's all the reason ol Ira needs to downvote you everywhere Cher.

There it is again, admission that you downvote from 'lists', irrespective of content or your comprehension (not) of same. That's what loser trolls do. And as you again just admitted, you do it more mindlessly than most trolls. So don't come crying about me being 'couyon'; look to yourself and your equally loser troll mates. :)

PS: And you didn't provide the link to where you apologized to all the forums for your loser gang misbehavior.

PPS: I provided an answer to your "Black Hole" question. The smarter among the forum/readers will take certain ToE physics clues from it. But for you and the trolling stupids it is yet another instance of "Pearls before Swine".

So the unseen companion of the blue supergiant HDE 226868, a source of x-rays and a radio jet, around which the supergiant revolves once every 5.6 days, then is called a what?

Not a black hole, due to the fact they do not exist...

Late edit -

But for now, Mersini-Houghton says the mathematics are conclusive

Since Cygnus X-1 may be spinning at 790 times per second, perhaps Mersini-Houghton has shown all stellar mass black holes are necessarily Kerr black holes?

@Da Schneib, couldn't find a reference to 'negative mass particle's' but both papers depend upon negative 'this & that', such as 'negative flux energy' and the like. One paragraph
states quite clearly that when considering 'a spherically symmetric time dependent
star' undergoing gravitational collapse the 'backreaction of negative energy Hawking
radiation' inside the star leads to a situation where the star collapses to a minimum radius, then bounces before a black hole event horizon or singularity have a chance to form.
As I understand it Hawking radiation is difficult to detect so how much more difficult would it be to detect negative HR?

Quoting from the paper,

Let us start with a spherically symmetric and inhomogeneous dust star, described by the following metric … This form of the metric is convenient for describing a radiating star.

Since rotation introduces physical asymmetry (ie a bulge) and also a time-dependent asymmetry (ie frame dragging), then the case for rotating stars isn't addressed by this work – is that correct?

Black holes clearly exist, we can observe them. She has to be saying the description of a black hole as a singularity is wrong. But one has to question the math . . . actually, not the math logic but its relation to reality. Many things in mathematics have no counterpart in reality, e.g. infinity and the square root of -1 . . . yet they work perfectly well in equations. Maybe the opposite is true too . . . there are things in reality not amenable to mathematical analysis. We can't know if that's the case here since we can't inspect a black hole but a singularity might be a slippery thing to mathematically model. After all they're out of this world and so maybe conform to a different logic.

There it is again, admission that you downvote from 'lists', irrespective of content or your comprehension (not) of same.

I comprends you enough to vote you bad karma points for trying to be the BIG-CHIEF-Skippy with no Indians for your parade. You do not even have the Flag-Boy-Skippy.

And as you again just admitted, you do it more mindlessly than most trolls. So don't come crying about me being 'couyon';.

Like you don't do I always tell the truth when I admit things. Why I got to cry about you being the couyon? You prove it every day Cher.

And you didn't provide the link to where you apologized to all the forums for your loser gang misbehavior..

I did not provide the linkum because I ain't going to apologize to no Tea-Party-Skippys because they get mad with me. I do not like them because they got the small mind and black hearts. If you go to the Tea-Party-Skippy forum you can tell them I said that until I can get over there and tell them myself again.

I don't give a crap about votes!! Aunt Ira needs to take a hike and puss off!
Oh yea. There are no black holes. What u see at the core of our Milky Way IS magnetically driven. NOT gravity based black holes!

No, I knew they had calculated Sigma, but their calculation is wrong

Well that may be true but what are the odds of them being wrong and you being right? Especially since you dont have hardly any of the info they work with, and none of their education.

You spend a few minutes reading an article, get a notion, and write a few posts in a frenzy. They work in teams using data you have no access to and spend months formulating theories and writing peer-reviewed papers.

Most importantly theyre sober while you are mentally deranged and chemically incapacitated.

Youve been disproven by people like me who arent even scientists.

Youre sick, youre a crank, and you really should get some help.

there IS an effect

NO theres not. Planets arent wiffle balls or golf balls or softballs.

there's even a name for it

-which you cant produce because it doesnt exist.

which causes rotating objects to be more strongly pushed on the side which is moving towards the sun

If that were true then we should be able to find a ref for it yes? Certainly such a significant effect would be among those cited here
http://en.wikiped...igration

-as written by experts. But its not. Perhaps you hallucinated it?

You werent aware of any of those were you? And yet you felt qualified to comment on the subject anyway, even as far as declaring the experts wrong and you right. WITHOUT KNOWING ANYTHING ABOUT THE SUBJECT. And not just this subject but many which you obviously know nothing about.

Face it - youre sick.

Hi Ira. :)

I comprends you enough to vote you bad karma points for trying to be the BIG-CHIEF-Skippy with no Indians for your parade. You do not even have the Flag-Boy-Skippy.

The record of your mindless trolling and uncomprehending 'karma' downvoting' on a SCIENCE DISCOURSE site demonstrates clearly that you comprehend neither me nor the science nor humanity at large, let alone even understand yourself and your motives.

It's not about me or you personally, it's that your behavior in sabotaging discussions and persons you don't even have clue one about is mindless to the max without any possible reasonable objective self-justification on your part that makes it anything other than that.

And if I really wanted to be a 'big chief', I wouldn't have effectively WITHDRAWN from detailed science discussion on the net, would I? Noe would I have declined invitations to be a MODERATOR when asked in the past, would I?

Simply because I wish at all times to REMAIN a scrupulously objective and independent LONE RESEARCHER without any 'affiliations' of any kind. Does that sound like someone who wants to be 'the big chief'?

So you see, Ira, you don't comprehend anything while playing your futile ignorance-and-ego-driven sabotage and downvote from lists trollish games that make a mockery of all humanly reasonable and scientifically objective ethics and principles. Not good. Do better.

Like you don't do I always tell the truth when I admit things. Why I got to cry about you being the couyon? You prove it every day Cher.

You lied when you denied you tried to infiltrate your Uncle Ira onto the scifprums site; which was perma-banned quick smart as a sockpuppet. You lied again just now saying you don't lie. You repeat lies and half-truths about RealityCheck/Undefined which your troll 'friends' have 'primed you' with and you willingly and mindlessly promulgated. Not good. Do better.

I did not provide the linkum because I ain't going to apologize to no Tea-Party-Skippys because they get mad with me. I do not like them because they got the small mind and black hearts. If you go to the Tea-Party-Skippy forum you can tell them I said that until I can get over there and tell them myself again.

If you understood yourself even a little bit, you would have realized by now that you and those crazy mad-hatters' Tea Party types are just as bad and mean minded as each other. They have an 'excuse' because they 'follow their idiot's god' while acting like crazy egotistical loons; whereas you, an atheist, are following your own self's idiot's ego and pretending to be any better than they are. Besides, any apology for bad behavior on your part should be made without any conditions or exceptions, regardless of the victims involved; because you pretend to know better, but don't.

That you STILL, on science site, engage in personality cult "Karma Points' ego-driven sabotaging games in the ratings pages, will be the arbiter of what you comprehend' or not; since it is that obvious telltale sign of the mindless anti-science-and-anti-humaniy-ethics TROLL that will put the lie to whatever you claim is your 'excuse'. Not good. Do better, Ira. :)

@ Really-Skippy so you are in the bad mood again today Cher? Life is short to have the bad mood every day. If I make you the misere so much, why you not Skippy-skip over what I say.

Everybody knows that was not me on the scifi place. That was you pretending to be me so you would have some boogie-Skippys to do battle with for all the peoples to see how you are the great troll/mod/bot/mafia/gang hunter.

Stealing my material from here to snip and glue over there is what you did. Other the wise they would have banneded me for being just the usual on fire troll like at the Tea-Party-Skippy forums. They called that Not-Ira-Skippy a sockpuppet and that means it was another person pretending to be me, not the real me.

Oh yeah I almost forget. Who in the whole big world would be stupid enough to ask you to be a moderator of their interweb forum? Where is such a place, it must be big fun with the couyons, eh?

P'tit boug, sit down, you make the fool of yourself.

Hi Ira. :)

@ Really-Skippy so you are in the bad mood again today Cher? Life is short to have the bad mood every day. If I make you the misere so much, why you not Skippy-skip over what I say. Everybody knows that was not me on the scifi place. That was you pretending to be me so you would have some boogie-Skippys to do battle with for all the peoples to see how you are the great troll/mod/bot/mafia/gang hunter. Stealing my material from here to snip and glue over there is what you did. Other the wise they would have banneded me for being just the usual on fire troll like at the Tea-Party-Skippy forums. They called that Not-Ira-Skippy a sockpuppet and that means it was another person pretending to be me, not the real me. Oh yeah I almost forget. Who in the whole big world would be stupid enough to ask you to be a moderator of their interweb forum? Where is such a place, it must be big fun with the couyons, eh? P'tit boug, sit down, you make the fool of yourself.

It won't wash, Ira; your record speaks for itself. No amount of distractions trying to 'personalize' what this is about will get you off the hook you created for yourself and are now dangling so pathetically from. Make a clean breast of it and apologize. No more lies and irrelevant tactics from you, Ira. Come clean and apologize and stop making a fool of yourself (along with your 'trollish 'friends') in the ratings pages and start afresh. As for not ignoring your silliness and stupidity when you sabotaging a science site, you wouldn't understand, Ira. It has to do with ones duty as a scientist and humanist and just plain world citizen of civilization. Your actions speak of mere trollish stupidity and lack of duty to either science or humanity, let alone to your own human intelligence which could flower must faster and further than at present if you wouyld only drop all this trolish ego-driven mindless crap. Just be normal, courteous and not rate people based on your own motives and misapprehensions. Start actually listening and thinking and discussing properly and you will see a marked change in yourself and your comprehension/intellect. No longer meanminded trollish, but rasonable and objective human being and scientist and atheist who thinks for oneself instead of belonging to gangs who do the 'thinking and lying' for you to mouth like a stooge.

Do a real reality check on yourself and your motives, Ira. Else you might remain like that mindless 'Tea Party' type till you shuffle off this mortal coil. That would be a waste of an otherwise useful atheist intellect and person, Ira. Don't keep wasting it.

I will observe your progress, or lack of same, Ira. Good luck. :)

PS: I don't impersonate other people, Ira;that is what TROLLS like your friends' would do though. Choose your 'friends' more carefully, Ira. :)

Do a real reality check on yourself and your motives

Will I turn out like you Cher if I do that? No thanks no. If it is all the same to you I would rather be me like I am now. I sure don't want to be like you non.

Else you might remain like that mindless 'Tea Party' type till you shuffle off this mortal coil.

I am sure that means something because you wrote him down. But I don't what it means no.

That would be a waste of an otherwise useful atheist intellect and person, Ira. Don't keep wasting it.

Only thing I'm wasting much of is the money I waste on my hunting and fishing stuffs. That's what the Mrs-Ira-Skippette keeps telling me even though she likes to fish with me most of the times.

I will observe your progress or lack of same

Okayeei you keep watching me Cher. But if you miss the episode or two don't worry none that you missed something good.

Oh yeah I almost forget. What couyon ask for you to be the moderator? I bet that place is fun.

Hi Ira. :)

Do a real reality check on yourself and your motives

Will I turn out like you Cher if I do that? No thanks no. If it is all the same to you I would rather be me like I am now. I sure don't want to be like you non.

You're not afraid of what you'll find, are you, Ira? Don't be a wuss. Face the introspective reality check of yourself and your motives like a man not a cowardly couyon. As some philosopher once said: "The unexamined life is not worth living for a human being". Socrates, IIRC. And Science is what humans do to examine the universe they live in until they shuffle off this mortal coil.

Else you might remain like that mindless 'Tea Party' type till you shuffle off this mortal coil.

I am sure that means something because you wrote him down. But I don't what it means no.

Didn't you used to boast how you 'ask the google' when you make your troll posts? So why didn't you google "shuffle off this mortal coil" before disingenuously pretending you don't know what it means?

That would be a waste of an otherwise useful atheist intellect and person, Ira. Don't keep wasting it.

Only thing I'm wasting much of is the money I waste on my hunting and fishing stuffs. That's what the Mrs-Ira-Skippette keeps telling me even though she likes to fish with me most of the times.

Your behavior and waste of an otherwise useful atheist intellect and person brings shame and embarrassment to all us atheist scientists and humanists. If you really are an atheist who respects science and humanity, do us atheist scientists and humanists a great favor and do better than this, Ira. It will be much appreciated.

I will observe your progress or lack of same

Okayeei you keep watching me Cher. But if you miss the episode or two don't worry none that you missed something good. Oh yeah I almost forget. What couyon ask for you to be the moderator? I bet that place is fun.

Don't waste your opportunities just because you started out on the wrong foot, Ira. Do better and do well as you can, without the troll gang and personal agendas. Ok? Good luck. :)

............eh, Special Class Student Ira..........you finished yet with that book you bought on Amazon supposedly explaining Einstein's GR? I still don't understand Ira why you did that when you should have known you could get get the entire GR for free on the internet & the contents would include the Differential Equations as well.

See any Differential Equations in that Amazon book that you need help with? Oh, that's right, you bought that book because there are none of those pesky things in there, you bought the one that has the "different equations".

You are the funny couyon Really-Skippy. What you do when you not out protecting the humans and scientists from the troll/bot/gang/mafia on the interweb? You got the real job or does you mental condition make it so you can't have the regular job?

Oh yeah, you almost forget this so I will remind you. What silly couyon asks for you to be a moderator on a forum? Cher that is either some kind of thing in your head because of the mental condition or some really weird place.

............eh, Special Class Student Ira..........you finished yet with that book you bought on Amazon supposedly explaining Einstein's GR? I still don't understand Ira why you did that when you should have known you could get get the entire GR for free on the internet & the contents would include the Differential Equations as well.

See any Differential Equations in that Amazon book that you need help with? Oh, that's right, you bought that book because there are none of those pesky things in there, you bought the one that has the "different equations".

Bennie-Skippy everybody knows you don't know any of that stuffs. You get the easy stuffs wrong all the time so why you think anybody here believes you know anything more than the twelve or eleven words you keep saying over and over? Got the whole list of all the silly easy things you goofed up on me. I bet everybody will remember every single one of them because you acted so silly when you were told what is right.

Hi Ira. :)

You are the funny couyon Really-Skippy. What you do when you not out protecting the humans and scientists from the troll/bot/gang/mafia on the interweb? You got the real job or does you mental condition make it so you can't have the regular job?

What does it matter, Ira? Is the person more important to you than the scientific work? If so, you miss the whole point of doing science and science discourse: "The person is nothing; the work is everything." Don't recall who said that, but it's apt.

No wonder you are interested only in 'eating and entertainment'! Just like the ancient romans with their Emperors making sure there was sufficient "Bread and Circuses" to keep the ignorant masses 'fed and entertained' so they would not start thinking and asking inconvenient questions.

Start thinking, Ira.

Oh yeah, you almost forget this so I will remind you. What silly couyon asks for you to be a moderator on a forum? Cher that is either some kind of thing in your head because of the mental condition or some really weird place.

You wish! Start into a reality check into yourself and your own motives, Ira. Then do better than you have to date with whatever atheist intellect and humanity you possess. Don't waste it like you have been. Good luck. :)

Special Class Student Ira..........you finished yet with that book you bought on Amazon supposedly explaining Einstein's GR? I still don't understand Ira why you did that when you should have known you could get get the entire GR for free on the internet & the contents would include the Differential Equations as well.

See any Differential Equations in that Amazon book that you need help with? Oh, that's right, you bought that book because there are none of those pesky things in there, you bought the one that has the "different equations".

I bet everybody will remember every single one of them because you acted so silly when you were told what is right.

...........hearken, the on-site expert on Einstein because he bought a book on Amazon analyzing mistakes a non-scientist claims Einstein made in his GR. I'm still puzzled, what with all the self-efficacy intellect you are so enamored with, why didn't you just do it yourself & save the cost of the book?

Hey, Ira.....just thought of something. You & twin Stumpy are so cool dudes, I'll just bet the two of you could "ping" up a new book called "Mathless General Relativity", then you could "ping" it to the "doorstep" of all those in your Special Education following imagining how simple life can be without all that pesky math you've never been able to follow anyhow.

@Protoplasmix

Quoting from the paper,

Let us start with a spherically symmetric and inhomogeneous dust star, described by the following metric … This form of the metric is convenient for describing a radiating star.

Since rotation introduces physical asymmetry (ie a bulge) and also a time-dependent asymmetry (ie frame dragging), then the case for rotating stars isn't addressed by this work – is that correct?

There doesn't seem to be any mention either way in the papers. There does apear to be an inconsistency in the maths though. The 2nd paper, page 3, quotes;
'Two auxiliary quantities are given by radial ODEs,'
when in fact all the DE's are presented in PDE form.

There doesn't seem to be any mention either way in the papers. There does apear to be an inconsistency in the maths though. The 2nd paper, page 3, quotes;
'Two auxiliary quantities are given by radial ODEs,'
when in fact all the DE's are presented in PDE form.

Right. In III. Numerical Implementation it's stated, "We rewrite Eqs. (11) with partial derivatives according to Eq. (10)." so that's okay.

Also interesting to note (also p. 3), "For the present work, we assume pressure-less dust, i.e. p = 0 throughout. In the future we will extend the analysis to the case p – we with w =/= 0 the equation of state for the fluid."

Researcher shows that Astrophysics does not exist!

"has proven, mathematically, that black holes can never come into being in the first place"

Which is interesting..

Next conjuring trick.... Rabbit out of a hat, or divide zero by zero?

@Da Schneib, couldn't find a reference to 'negative mass particle's'

That's the only way something can fall into a black hole and reduce its mass, and as far as we can tell even antiparticles don't have negative mass.

One paragraph states quite clearly that when considering 'a spherically symmetric time dependent star' undergoing gravitational collapse the 'backreaction of negative energy Hawking radiation' inside the star leads to a situation where the star collapses to a minimum radius, then bounces before a black hole event horizon or singularity have a chance to form.

Hmmm, my understanding is that she doesn't dispute that an event horizon forms, merely that the material that forms the hole never reaches the point of forming a singularity. And I might agree with that; you couldn't tell the difference between that and a "real black hole" from outside.
contd

As I understand it Hawking radiation is difficult to detect so how much more difficult would it be to detect negative HR?

That's not really the point. The supposed "negative Hawking radiation" would be contained within the event horizon, and never have any different behavior that would allow it to be detected. It's moot, like anything that happens inside a black hole until we have a consistent quantum gravity theory.

Sometimes scientist need to just kick back and think less instead of more! Use the age old KISS method and the answer will come!

What I envision a black hole to be is nothing more than a vortex!!!!!! Just like a tornado, hurricane, or water draining from my bathtub! Surface tension is broken by pressure and vortex begins shaping! Information loss does not occur! The water, air, dust, or space matter in the case of a black hole just relocates itself inside another membrane enclosed area.

Think of two balloons joined together trying to equalize the pressure between them! Once equalized the vortex event dies out! It's really that simple! I know, someone will say but there is no atmosphere in space! It's a vacuum! Well, once again the KISS method to the rescue! The atmosphere is relative to where you are!

Pressure absolutely MUST exist in heavenly bodies otherwise rotation could never happen! Anything passing through some medium fast enough has a tendency to rotate!

Any Question?

So, Black holes do exist a space tornadoes! Big Bangs have happened many times over and we're still in one because we're accelerating meaning there is pressure exerted on us right now!

Wow! we're in the outlet side of a pressure equalization event between two giant membranes!

I am good! I just solved it all after smoking that blunt!

The most important thing I learned in Math is to set everything = zero! Really! You can MAKE math balance out by simply throwing out what you don't want! Not a Math hater here just being realistic about what Physicist often do with data that doesn't fit! That's why I just abandon it for straight forward KISS method! It works better in real life at solving problems than Dif Eq.

It's moot, like anything that happens inside a black hole until we have a consistent quantum gravity theory.

Or until we can directly detect gravitational wave radiation, especially the GWs resulting from mergers between two black holes or a black hole and a neutron star, which would provide a new window essentially allowing us to "see" what happens inside an event horizon...

@Da Schneib & Protoplasmix would like to hear your thoughts on the (possible) explosive 'bounce back' that the papers cite. The heavier chemical elements are produced in Super Nova (fusion) so if BH process is aborted by an explosive bounce back would only certain elements be produced? If so would/could this be a method of detection? Or do you think we are talking about the opposite in a bounce back? Thanks

I repeat: "Grey Holes" are the source, not the sink.

And from the article 'the star "stops collapsing at a finite radius...and its core explodes." '.

http://www.huffin...940.html

LaViolette's SQK predicts exactly that.

Black holes exist, it's singularities that don't exist. There's no interdimensional hole. Sooner or later we are going to find that black holes have a core and its size varies depending on mass. If a singularity existed the mass would disappear along with its volume.

After this revelation I can no longer believe in global warming.

I haven't stopped laughing yet. Some gal just stomped on the feet of all the TV pseudo-scientists.

It's moot, like anything that happens inside a black hole until we have a consistent quantum gravity theory.

Or until we can directly detect gravitational wave radiation, especially the GWs resulting from mergers between two black holes or a black hole and a neutron star, which would provide a new window essentially allowing us to "see" what happens inside an event horizon...

Hmmm, I think the event horizon would scramble the gravity waves on the way out. It might smooth away the waves, leaving only the external gravity that's not waving. But again, I suspect also that we'd need a quantum gravity theory to extract any information about what's inside the event horizon from them even if I'm wrong.

@Da Schneib & Protoplasmix would like to hear your thoughts on the (possible) explosive 'bounce back' that the papers cite.

It happens entirely inside the event horizon. I was right; what Mersini-Houghton is arguing is that black holes never form a singularity, not that they never form an event horizon. And once the event horizon forms, what's inside is immaterial; for all intents and purposes other than pretty much outright guessing what's inside the event horizon, the object we'll observe is, in fact, a black hole. Nothing can get out except gravity and charge (the two characteristics of a black hole other than mass and spin).

The heavier chemical elements are produced in Super Nova (fusion) so if BH process is aborted by an explosive bounce back would only certain elements be produced?

No. The bounce happens after the event horizon forms. Nothing escapes the event horizon but Hawking radiation, which carries no information about the inside.

It is not new.
Black holes are 'closing spacetime' NOT 'closed spacetime' - according to Einstein theory.

@Mimath, you should check out the no-hair theorem and also make sure you understand the difference between a singularity and an event horizon; they are not at all the same thing. Mersini-Houghton's math has entirely to do with events inside the event horizon, and her contention is only that there is no singularity inside the event horizon of a black hole.

Once a black hole forms (and that is defined not as attaining a singularity, but as the formation of an event horizon), it can only be destroyed by either being sucked into another black hole, or by evaporation from Hawking radiation forming at the event horizon.

The larger the hole, the longer Hawking radiation takes to evaporate it; for stellar mass holes, this is trillions of years; for the supermassive holes at the centers of galaxies, it's trillions of trillions (that is, septillions, or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000s) of years, or quadrillions (1,000,000,000,000,000) of times the current age of the universe.

Let me emphasize once again: the statement that this shows "black holes do not exist" is wrong. What Mersini-Houghton has shown (if her math is right, and she's a physics professor with a specialty in relativity, so it probably is) is that there's no singularity *inside* the event horizon; there's still an event horizon, and extremely intense gravity just outside it, which is what astrophysicists call a "black hole." The claim that there is a singularity inside is the only claim she contests. And from an astrophysics point of view, the singularity is not the black hole; the event horizon is. So the claim she's proven "black holes don't exist" is hype and nothing but hype.

Nope, this is not what she derived

@Goika-Zephir
the EASIEST way to prove this point is to show in her calculations...
Take the calculations that you think explain what you are saying from the paper and then share it here.

CLARITY and SPECIFIC MATHS are required to prove your point

Milky Way's Central Black Hole --An Engine of Massive Star Creation?
"...Yet against these extreme odds, ALMA spotted telltale jets of material bursting out of what appear to be dense cocoons of gas and dust. These jets, if they were observed in more placid surroundings, would indicate the formation of a young star. The results were accepted for publication in the Astrophysical Journal Letters. "
http://www.dailyg...ion.html
Black holes are creating matter. Forget the sucking in bit all together.

Again, in the following video of her discussing her findings she distinctly says that an event horizon does form and remains for an indeterminate time before the collapsed star in the centre loses enough mass to return to the normal space-time world.

http://iai.tv/vid...arkness#

@Da Schneib, yes I do understand the differences you mention but please check out my point...which is WHAT the tech paper says. The introduction abstract says:

'This work investigates the backreaction of
Hawking radiation on the interior of a gravitationally collapsing star, in a Hartle-Hawking initial
vacuum. It shows that due to the negative energy Hawking radiation in the interior, the collapse
of the star stops at a finite radius, before the singularity and the event horizon of a black hole
have a chance to form. That is, the star bounces instead of collapsing to a black hole'.

It is clear from this that the claim is, no BH OR EH forms.
Prof. Houghton goes on to say;
'The backreaction of Hawking radiation onto a star collapsing into a black hole, is a long standing problem of major importance. It carries the tantalizing possibility
that black holes may not form at all....The study of the backreaction of Hawking radiation on
the star's interior...' is about STARS, is it not?

Hmmm, I think the event horizon would scramble the gravity waves on the way out. It might smooth away the waves, leaving only the external gravity that's not waving. But again, I suspect also that we'd need a quantum gravity theory to extract any information about what's inside the event horizon from them even if I'm wrong.

Hi Da Schneib -- here are some meaty bits: 6. Tests of the Nature and Structure of Black Holes, see 6.2 Tests of black-hole structure using EMRIs, and 6.3 Tests of black-hole structure using ringdown radiation: black-hole spectroscopy
http://relativity...se6.html
Gws are just ripples in spacetime – I don't think anything stops them...

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." - Albert Einstein

@Da Schneib, yes I do understand the differences you mention but please check out my point...which is WHAT the tech paper says. The introduction abstract says:
'This work investigates the backreaction of Hawking radiation on the interior of a gravitationally collapsing star, in a Hartle-Hawking initial vacuum. It shows that due to the negative energy Hawking radiation in the interior, the collapse of the star stops at a finite radius, before the singularity and the event horizon of a black hole have a chance to form. That is, the star bounces instead of collapsing to a black hole'.

It is clear from this that the claim is, no BH OR EH forms.

Well, then, what she says in the abstract is different from what she said to HuffPo, and also what she said in the TV interview peter09 linked above.

Hmmm, I think the event horizon would scramble the gravity waves on the way out. It might smooth away the waves, leaving only the external gravity that's not waving. But again, I suspect also that we'd need a quantum gravity theory to extract any information about what's inside the event horizon from them even if I'm wrong.

Hi Da Schneib -- here are some meaty bits: 6. Tests of the Nature and Structure of Black Holes, see 6.2 Tests of black-hole structure using EMRIs, and 6.3 Tests of black-hole structure using ringdown radiation: black-hole spectroscopy
http://relativity...se6.html
Gws are just ripples in spacetime – I don't think anything stops them...

Well, an EH is just a kink in spacetime, and it's a severe enough kink that once you cross it your "x" is time according to everyone else (if they could see you). I don't know if a ripple can cross that.

Well, an EH is just a kink in spacetime, and it's a severe enough kink that once you cross it your "x" is time according to everyone else (if they could see you). I don't know if a ripple can cross that.

An object plunging into a black hole experiences no 'kink', despite how it may appear to observers in a different inertial frame of reference. The EH is a region of curved spacetime, not a barrier as such. Once inside that region it's the gravity of the central object that prevents even light from escaping, not some physical barrier at the EH. The gravity curves the spacetime – add more mass and the location of the EH changes accordingly, so it's not rigid or fixed. Hence, perturb it with the GWs (gravity) from another source and the EH should 'ripple' accordingly as well. Why would it not?

Two "black holes" encircle each other at the APOD picture. We can see, both black holes emanate pretty jets - yet they're surrounded with no infalling gas. This just means, these black holes evaporate itself - in this sense they're not "black", they behave rather like very dense pulsars.

Surrounded by no infalling gas? But the caption states quite clearly, "Surrounded by multimillion degree x-ray emitting gas..."

Look instead at these pictures of 3C 75: http://inspirehep...ts?ln=en where it's stated, "These black holes are in the dumbbell galaxy NGC 1128 (whose optical image is on the right), which has produced the giant radio source, 3C 75."

And compare that to Centaurus A and the "best-ever snapshot of black hole jets" ( http://www.nasa.g...ets.html ) paying close attention to the accompanying text where it's stated, "These jets arise as infalling matter approaches the black hole..."

Well, an EH is just a kink in spacetime, and it's a severe enough kink that once you cross it your "x" is time according to everyone else (if they could see you). I don't know if a ripple can cross that.

An object plunging into a black hole experiences no 'kink', despite how it may appear to observers in a different inertial frame of reference.

We're not talking about something falling in, we're talking about waves in a medium crossing a region where the medium is at the amplitude limit.

When other waves hit such a region they do not pass it; they can't exist where the medium is in that state. Why should gravity waves be any different?

Standard General relativity predicts that pair of black holes circling each other in tight orbit will radiate away so much energy as gravity waves, that they lose weight. That's a different process than hawking radiation.

But the holes in those examples are radiating EM radiation, not gravity waves (or none we can detect, anyway; our sensors (LIGO) are undergoing an upgrade, IIRC to be completed next year). So that's not the mechanism either. Keep in mind we have never unambiguously detected a gravity wave.

When other waves hit such a region they do not pass it; they can't exist where the medium is in that state. Why should gravity waves be any different?

Why? Because GW radiation is not EM radiation. It's very different: http://www.tapir....ces.html

Furthermore, the maths for GR does not break down at the event horizon. The only place it breaks down is at the center of a black hole if and only if there is a singularity of zero volume and infinite density. The event horizon simply marks the spot beyond which the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light, that's all.

Surrounded by no infalling gas? But the caption states quite clearly, "Surrounded by multimillion degree x-ray emitting gas

So emitting or infalling?

I'm not sure you could have one without the other. Unless you're proposing an EU solution like exploding double layers as the cause for heating the gas to those temps, and Alfven waves negating the gravitational attraction of two supermassive black holes. C'mon, Zeph :)

Merger in progress, awesome sight to behold.

Surrounded by no infalling gas? But the caption states quite clearly, "Surrounded by multimillion degree x-ray emitting gas

So emitting or infalling?

I'm not sure you could have one without the other. Unless you're proposing an EU solution like exploding double layers as the cause for heating the gas to those temps, and Alfven waves negating the gravitational attraction of two supermassive black holes. C'mon, Zeph :)

Merger in progress, awesome sight to behold.

EU solutions don't involve fictional objects such as BH's. Electric discharge in plasma at this scale easily produces these emissions, no magical gravity monsters are required.

EU solutions don't involve fictional objects such as BH's

@cd
but they do involve fictional speculation from a delusional state like plasma generated grand canyons as well as moon craters, instead of proven factual observed actions like erosion and asteroid impacts on the moon.

Electric discharge in plasma at this scale easily produces these emissions, no magical gravity monsters are required.

please provide links and empirical evidence from a reputable peer-reviewed source with an impact in astrophysics supporting your conjectures

eu is a pseudoscience and has been publicly debunked which is why they refuse to accept public invitation debates with astrophysicists...
it is also why they can't even research modern cosmological papers as noted in the attempts to refute Tim Thompson and actual physics (See: http://www.tim-th...sun.html )
and don't forget Thronhill being totally debunked here: http://www.tim-th...eas.html

But as I explained above, the particles of gas inside of strong gravity field behave like the surface of black hole of the same diameter, i.e. they glow with "Hawking" radiation under decomposition

How so without an event horizon to separate the virtual particle-antiparticle pair? I'm guessing increased dark matter annihilation in the context of strong field 'multimillion degree x-ray emitting gas' is a more reasonable alternative/possibility.

Additionally, discovery of a recoiled black hole will help settle your issue with emitting/infalling gas, when we find some to observe. <--- more of a prediction than a guess, wanna bet me? :)

its strong evidence that's touted as proof.

Did you try that line in one of your failed court cases Farbstain?

I still have that black hole machine to sell. Get it now wand I'll throw in the Brooklyn bridge!

The orbital decay dynamics are presented as the biggest proof that gravitational radiation exists even if its indirect proof.

But we've never seen any. Are you saying someone has seen the orbital dynamics of coalescing black holes and measured the decay rate, to show there's an effect on the dynamics from the emission of gravity radiation? I'm not aware of any such observation. I'd like to see a link to a scholarly paper and quotes from it that show this has been observed.

its strong evidence that's touted as proof.

By whom?

When other waves hit such a region they do not pass it; they can't exist where the medium is in that state. Why should gravity waves be any different?

Why? Because GW radiation is not EM radiation. It's very different: http://www.tapir....ces.html

So? Show it's different in *this* manner. Quote from your link and I'll check it out.

Furthermore, the maths for GR does not break down at the event horizon. The only place it breaks down is at the center of a black hole if and only if there is a singularity of zero volume and infinite density.

We don't know that. A black hole has no hair.

The event horizon simply marks the spot beyond which the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light, that's all.

And that's the point at which spacetime has been distorted maximally; x has become t, and t has become x. You can't flex it further.

This becomes clear when you consider velocity as a rotation. Physicists call that rapidity.

The orbital decay dynamics are presented as the biggest proof that gravitational radiation exists even if its indirect proof.

But we've never seen any. Are you saying someone has seen the orbital dynamics of coalescing black holes and measured the decay rate, to show there's an effect on the dynamics from the emission of gravity radiation? I'm not aware of any such observation. I'd like to see a link to a scholarly paper and quotes from it that show this has been observed.

its strong evidence that's touted as proof.

By whom?

There's an an intermediate level book about it written by Stewart M. Kaufman, it discusses dragging of the metric and gravitational radiation.

Frame dragging has been confirmed. Gravity waves have not. And I'm sure Kaufman said so. His book may even have predated confirmation of frame dragging by Gravity Probe B.

Interesting blog post on this topic at

http://backreacti...ain.html

Very sceptical of claims black holes do not exist.

@Michael Brown found your blog interesting. However, as I mention in my post above, the 2 LMH papers talk about Stars...and that is as it should be IF BH's don't form. As a layman, I have viewed others youtube who mostly infer as 'twofish' does, that basically if BH's don't exist the number of SN's should be much more than we observe at present.

Really good article, Michael. Since the writer is a gravity physicist whose Master's thesis was on black holes, this is a very topical article by an expert in the field, and indicates that Mersini-Houghton's paper is unlikely to pass peer review.

As an added bonus we find out that "negative energy" is usually anti-particles with positive energy when it appears in these types of calculations, and we also find out that the negative energy associated with Hawking radiation can only exist inside the event horizon. Therefore, Mersini-Houghton's use of it *before the event horizon forms* is a major error.

As a layman, I have viewed others youtube who mostly infer as 'twofish' does, that basically if BH's don't exist the number of SN's should be much more than we observe at present.

Why would there be more supernovae?

Da Schneib, yes...good point, but as I posted, I'm only repeating what I've listened to. Prof. Susskind, for example, in one of his many lectures ( the one about him and Prof. Hawkins, if memory serves) suggested that there might be a large number of BH's but if BH's didn't exist then he'd expect more SN's. If you have a different opinion I'd be interested (by private message if you wish). Have a nice w/e one and all.

She uses it before the event horizon forms, Zephir.

Hmmm, well, try to find the reference, Mimath. I'd like to know why he says that.

A backreaction prevents a horizon... is the claim.
A trapped surface or apparent event horizon represents and replaces a event horizon that leads to a information loss paradox.

Here a quote from Sabine Hossenfelder::
"The horizon is why the final state misses information, but the particle creation itself does not necessitate a horizon."

An event horizon never forms. There is no 'before' or 'after' formation.
No major error can be contributed to a formation that never occurs.

Peer review is pending. Amendments, if any, are pending. Exchanges are pending.
Our comments, interpretations, and opinions all premature.
The claim can be repeated. Done.
Misreadings can be corrected. Done.
Now wait.

Da Schneib I think the comment may be explained in the Prof. L. Susskind's book 'Black Holes; My battle with S. Hawking...' I haven't read the book no do I have access to Library (English) where I live. Perhaps you know someone who has a copy.

You mean "The Black Hole War?" I own it. What page?

Never mind, if you don't have access, I'll try to find it. Maybe there will be an index hit on "supernova."

There is no index entry for "supernova" in The Black Hole War. I am currently reading the chapter titled, "Counting Black Holes" looking for the reference; if I don't find it I'll reread the entire book, and also look in the index of The Cosmic Landscape. So far, though, no dice.

Nope, nothing in "Counting Black Holes." Now looking in the index of The Cosmic Landscape.

Bad news: I checked all the references for supernova in The Cosmic Landscape and none of them is about a shortage of black holes causing or being caused by an excess of supernovae. Perhaps you could find the reference. I can't.

check this youtube.com/watch?v=YqKr6zUU1-Y

@Da Schneib, sorry for the delay. I'm pretty sure it was in a lecture of the same name. As soon as I find it I'll let you know.

Cool, thanks Mimath. My curiosity bump is definitely itching. :D

@Da Schneib I have watched the video again,The Black Hole Wars: My Battle with Stephen Hawking, and I was wrong. Prof. L. Susskind's does NOT make the statement that I posted earlier and I'm very sorry that I caused confusion. That was not my intention but I have no excuses. The closest Prof. Susskind's gets to it is that he says in the 'questions & answer' session is that it would be more extreme to suggest that BH's don't exist than to suggest they do. Once again, I aplogize.

Perfectly all right. Furthermore, I'm *sure* I've seen it stated before that a universe without black holes would make more supernovae; I just can't recall where, nor remember the logic chain that led to the conclusion. It will torment me until I find it; thanks for the honest try at it. If I find it before this thread closes I'll post it here.

Hey guys. Great comments. I am personally not a physicist. But my question is this and I'd appreciate any responses. Is there a limit to the magnitude of hawking radiation? Assuming this paper is on to something, I'm curious if perhaps a star can be so large in mass that when it collapses, hawking radiation won't be enough to prevent the formation of a singularity. Maybe a star, or cluster of stars, could be so large that if collapsed would not be dissipate enough mass via hawking radiation to save it from becoming a black hole. Perhaps this will merely redefine the requirements for creating a black hole? Thanks and don't be to harsh!

"...'gravitational collapse' remains one of those postulated fictions that astrophysicists have
quietly elevated from the level of 'hypothetical proposal' to 'accepted reality' and for which no
direct observational evidence has ever surfaced..." D.E. Scott

Perfectly all right. Furthermore, I'm *sure* I've seen it stated before that a universe without black holes would make more supernovae; I just can't recall where, nor remember the logic chain that led to the conclusion. It will torment me until I find it; thanks for the honest try at it. If I find it before this thread closes I'll post it here.

Me too, on both counts. Maybe a small change in G?

Assumption:
a) Hawking Radiation is the spontaneous creation of a particle and antiparticle close enough to a supermassive body's gravity well that one particle falls in while the other escapes.
b) For the gravity well to have such a drastic difference on so small a scale would require that supermassive object to be inside it's Schwarzchild Radius.

Question:
How can a collapsing star lose energy to Hawking Radiation, disproving the existence of black holes, when Hawking Radiation only happens once that star becomes a black hole possessing an event horizon in the first place?

Put another way:
1) Does Hawking Radiation happen elsewhere besides black hole event horizons?
2) Could a collapsing star release enough energy through this type of radiation lose such a vast amount of mass, without it releasing far more energy than is observed?
3) Wouldn't so many particles & antiparticles, made so quickly in such a small area, annihilate, producing observable effects?

@senselocke 'How can a collapsing star lose energy to Hawking Radiation, disproving the existence of black holes, when Hawking Radiation only happens once that star becomes a black hole possessing an event horizon in the first place?'
I may be wrong on this but I don't think it's quite that simple (relatively speacking of course...pardon the pun). I uderstood it that it was a question of 'information loss' that was the original motivation. It is said that 'information cannot be lost' and in the 70's Hawking poropsed his idea which challenged this fundamental principle.

I uderstood it that it was a question of 'information loss' that was the original motivation. It is said that 'information cannot be lost' and in the 70's Hawking poropsed his idea which challenged this fundamental principle.

Thank you for your reply.

I know what Hawking Radiation is intended to address. But my understanding was that Hawking Radiation is a "black hole"-only thing--how does it apply to collapsing stars before they have the characteristics of a black hole? Certainly the math might be "right"--but not if used to describe phenomena it doesn't apply to.

Above, I see the same question asked at least three times, and not answered. Does Hawking Radiation apply to a collapsing star? If not, is this story simply badly described, or has Hawking Radiation been misapplied?

@senselocke Your understanding is the same as mine, although as a laymean, and I can find no reference of Hawking Radiation being about anything other than BH's. I conclude from this that it does not apply to collapsing stars and it would seem that Hawking Radiation has been misapplied.