Black Holes Are An Optical Effect
in [Math]
|
Prev: product of tangents problem
Next: zeta zero
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 30 Sep 2009 06:05 Miguel wrote on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 11:45:12 -0700: > On 29 sep, 14:07, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: >> Miguel wrote on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 06:48:43 -0700: (...) >> > You are implying that a scientist, which has written 225 papers on >> > his career, is jumping from one subject to another, without following >> > a research line....that is what it is really idiotic and clearly >> > shows how little you know of performing a serious research. >> >> I will not even reply this mixture of ad hominem plus straw man >> argument. > > Well it is clear that it was you who wrote: "i) Appealing to old work by > the same author is rather idiotic." > > And, then, it was you again who wrote: "Your idiotic claim is that we > would ignore the "essential new ingredient"". So who is on the ad > hominem game here? My comments were on the "idiotic claim" and the idiotic appealing, i.e. on what was said. >> >> ii) >> >> I re-read that I wrote about fallacies and I want to explain I >> >> really mean. >> >> >> I do not mean that the GR theoretical model was a fallacy. BHs are >> >> clearly a consequence of GR. I mean that the claim that Sgr A* and >> >> others objects are BH with horizons is a fallacy. >> >> >> All those claims are misguided about black holes being real or even >> >> observed are based in ignoring the details and corrections to a pure >> >> GR model. >> >> > The observations are there and they are unquestionable: an object of >> > a mass of around 4.1 million suns is at the center of the galaxy and >> > that mass is concentrated in a very small volume. >> >> Exact that is all that has been scientifically stated. Nothing more. If >> you want go from here to sci.fi or to metaphysics, you are free but do >> not pretend to give scientific existence. >> >> > Whether it is a black hole >> > or a donut, it appears will only be resolved to your satisfaction >> > when you see it by your own eyes. >> >> I do not know any scientist believing that is a donuts. >> >> > More serious people in science are >> > confident the case for a black hole is looking remarkable good. >> >> But I know that serious researchers use the terms "black hole >> candidate", "pressumed black hole" and still more serious researchers >> (as the Nobel winner) have papers on why those objects cannot be black >> holes. >> >> You want them to be black holes and for that you go beyond what has >> been scientifically observed, snip the literature you do not like and >> ignore the theoretical works showing why you are plain wrong. >> >> > A simple search on Scopus, using the word "black hole", returned 22344 > documents, including 19166 journal papers. The top 10 journals on this > subject (and the numbers of papers) are: > > Astrophysical Journal (3,085) > Physical Review D Particles Fields Gravitation and Cosmology > (2,151) > Physical Review D (1,605) > Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (1,245) Classical > and Quantum Gravity (1,229) Journal of High Energy Physics (939) > Astronomy and Astrophysics (794) > Physics Letters Section B Nuclear Elementary Particle and High > Energy Physics (783) > General Relativity and Gravitation (462) Nuclear Physics B (436) > > Nature is behind at number 12 with 384 papers on the topic. The top 10 > publishing researchers are: > > Fabian, A.C. (146) > Shapiro, S.L. (102) > Ho, L.C. (99) > Belloni, T. (96) > Mineshige, S. (93) > Narayan, R. (89) > Chakrabarti, S.K. (85) > Van Der Klis, M. (80) > Mann, R.B. (76) > Ruffini, R. (76) > > So as you are so interested in the correct use of terms such as "black > hole candidate" or "pressumed black hole", you may do your statistical > research with these journals and researchers and report your findings to > us. Being unable to understand why rigorous people use those terms and being unable to accept why Hoof point that (in his own words in his last work): "black holes, space-time singularities, and horizons disappear" after *new* developments in the field, you pretend to focus on more straw-man arguments. Ok, let us continue this funny show. i) A simple search by "black hole" will return items containing black hole candidate and presumed black hole and black hole mimicker and alternative to black hole and works as those by the nobel winner on why black holes are not real... ii) Science is not a democracy. Concepts are not more right or better because more people think on them. Thus using an argument of X people think so and Y people think so is sorry to say this again rather idiotic iii) Some of us know that none observation has showed that those massive objects are black holes, less still GR black holes. Some of us also know that the model of black holes *ignores* the details. It has the same validity to say that massive objects are black holes as ignoring the details and claiming that electrons are tiny balls described by classical electrodynamics. iv) Some of us also know that sci-fi oriented people never will change his mind about black holes. -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: paparios on 30 Sep 2009 07:56 On 30 sep, 06:05, "Juan R." González-Álvarez <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > Miguel wrote on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 11:45:12 -0700: > > > On 29 sep, 14:07, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > > <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > >> Miguel wrote on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 06:48:43 -0700: > > (...) > > >> > You are implying that a scientist, which has written 225 papers on > >> > his career, is jumping from one subject to another, without following > >> > a research line....that is what it is really idiotic and clearly > >> > shows how little you know of performing a serious research. > > >> I will not even reply this mixture of ad hominem plus straw man > >> argument. > > > Well it is clear that it was you who wrote: "i) Appealing to old work by > > the same author is rather idiotic." > > > And, then, it was you again who wrote: "Your idiotic claim is that we > > would ignore the "essential new ingredient"". So who is on the ad > > hominem game here? > > My comments were on the "idiotic claim" and the idiotic appealing, i.e. > on what was said. > > > > > > >> >> ii) > >> >> I re-read that I wrote about fallacies and I want to explain I > >> >> really mean. > > >> >> I do not mean that the GR theoretical model was a fallacy. BHs are > >> >> clearly a consequence of GR. I mean that the claim that Sgr A* and > >> >> others objects are BH with horizons is a fallacy. > > >> >> All those claims are misguided about black holes being real or even > >> >> observed are based in ignoring the details and corrections to a pure > >> >> GR model. > > >> > The observations are there and they are unquestionable: an object of > >> > a mass of around 4.1 million suns is at the center of the galaxy and > >> > that mass is concentrated in a very small volume. > > >> Exact that is all that has been scientifically stated. Nothing more. If > >> you want go from here to sci.fi or to metaphysics, you are free but do > >> not pretend to give scientific existence. > > >> > Whether it is a black hole > >> > or a donut, it appears will only be resolved to your satisfaction > >> > when you see it by your own eyes. > > >> I do not know any scientist believing that is a donuts. > > >> > More serious people in science are > >> > confident the case for a black hole is looking remarkable good. > > >> But I know that serious researchers use the terms "black hole > >> candidate", "pressumed black hole" and still more serious researchers > >> (as the Nobel winner) have papers on why those objects cannot be black > >> holes. > > >> You want them to be black holes and for that you go beyond what has > >> been scientifically observed, snip the literature you do not like and > >> ignore the theoretical works showing why you are plain wrong. > > > A simple search on Scopus, using the word "black hole", returned 22344 > > documents, including 19166 journal papers. The top 10 journals on this > > subject (and the numbers of papers) are: > > > Astrophysical Journal (3,085) > > Physical Review D Particles Fields Gravitation and Cosmology > > (2,151) > > Physical Review D (1,605) > > Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (1,245) Classical > > and Quantum Gravity (1,229) Journal of High Energy Physics (939) > > Astronomy and Astrophysics (794) > > Physics Letters Section B Nuclear Elementary Particle and High > > Energy Physics (783) > > General Relativity and Gravitation (462) Nuclear Physics B (436) > > > Nature is behind at number 12 with 384 papers on the topic. The top 10 > > publishing researchers are: > > > Fabian, A.C. (146) > > Shapiro, S.L. (102) > > Ho, L.C. (99) > > Belloni, T. (96) > > Mineshige, S. (93) > > Narayan, R. (89) > > Chakrabarti, S.K. (85) > > Van Der Klis, M. (80) > > Mann, R.B. (76) > > Ruffini, R. (76) > > > So as you are so interested in the correct use of terms such as "black > > hole candidate" or "pressumed black hole", you may do your statistical > > research with these journals and researchers and report your findings to > > us. > > Being unable to understand why rigorous people use those terms and being > unable to accept why Hoof point that (in his own words in his last work): > > "black holes, space-time singularities, and horizons disappear" > > after *new* developments in the field, you pretend to focus on more straw-man > arguments. Ok, let us continue this funny show. > > i) > A simple search by "black hole" will return items containing black hole > candidate and presumed black hole and black hole mimicker and alternative > to black hole and works as those by the nobel winner on why black holes > are not real... > > ii) > Science is not a democracy. Concepts are not more right or better because > more people think on them. Thus using an argument of X people think so > and Y people think so is sorry to say this again rather idiotic > > iii) > Some of us know that none observation has showed that those massive objects > are black holes, less still GR black holes. > > Some of us also know that the model of black holes *ignores* the details. > It has the same validity to say that massive objects are black holes as > ignoring the details and claiming that electrons are tiny balls described > by classical electrodynamics. > > iv) > Some of us also know that sci-fi oriented people never will change his > mind about black holes. > Well...you are the one adamantly asserting that knowledgeable people use "black hole candidate" or "pressumed black hole" in their writings. Tom and I have been telling you that that is not the case. From the list I provided, if you select the top ten listed researchers and check the top 100 papers of the set the results are clear: a) All of the 100 papers are from this year (2009), so they are reflecting the current output of their research. b) 38% of the papers have the words "black hole" in the title of the paper. c) None, that is 0%, of the papers have thae words "black hole candidate" or "pressumed black hole" on the title. Miguel Rios
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 1 Oct 2009 06:14 paparios(a)gmail.com wrote on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 04:56:55 -0700: > On 30 sep, 06:05, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: >> Miguel wrote on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 11:45:12 -0700: >> >> > On 29 sep, 14:07, "Juan R." González-Álvarez >> > <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: >> >> Miguel wrote on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 06:48:43 -0700: >> >> (...) >> >> >> > You are implying that a scientist, which has written 225 papers on >> >> > his career, is jumping from one subject to another, without >> >> > following a research line....that is what it is really idiotic and >> >> > clearly shows how little you know of performing a serious >> >> > research. >> >> >> I will not even reply this mixture of ad hominem plus straw man >> >> argument. >> >> > Well it is clear that it was you who wrote: "i) Appealing to old work >> > by the same author is rather idiotic." >> >> > And, then, it was you again who wrote: "Your idiotic claim is that we >> > would ignore the "essential new ingredient"". So who is on the ad >> > hominem game here? >> >> My comments were on the "idiotic claim" and the idiotic appealing, i.e. >> on what was said. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ii) >> >> >> I re-read that I wrote about fallacies and I want to explain I >> >> >> really mean. >> >> >> >> I do not mean that the GR theoretical model was a fallacy. BHs >> >> >> are clearly a consequence of GR. I mean that the claim that Sgr >> >> >> A* and others objects are BH with horizons is a fallacy. >> >> >> >> All those claims are misguided about black holes being real or >> >> >> even observed are based in ignoring the details and corrections >> >> >> to a pure GR model. >> >> >> > The observations are there and they are unquestionable: an object >> >> > of a mass of around 4.1 million suns is at the center of the >> >> > galaxy and that mass is concentrated in a very small volume. >> >> >> Exact that is all that has been scientifically stated. Nothing more. >> >> If you want go from here to sci.fi or to metaphysics, you are free >> >> but do not pretend to give scientific existence. >> >> >> > Whether it is a black hole >> >> > or a donut, it appears will only be resolved to your satisfaction >> >> > when you see it by your own eyes. >> >> >> I do not know any scientist believing that is a donuts. >> >> >> > More serious people in science are >> >> > confident the case for a black hole is looking remarkable good. >> >> >> But I know that serious researchers use the terms "black hole >> >> candidate", "pressumed black hole" and still more serious >> >> researchers (as the Nobel winner) have papers on why those objects >> >> cannot be black holes. >> >> >> You want them to be black holes and for that you go beyond what has >> >> been scientifically observed, snip the literature you do not like >> >> and ignore the theoretical works showing why you are plain wrong. >> >> > A simple search on Scopus, using the word "black hole", returned >> > 22344 documents, including 19166 journal papers. The top 10 journals >> > on this subject (and the numbers of papers) are: >> >> > Astrophysical Journal (3,085) >> > Physical Review D Particles Fields Gravitation and Cosmology >> > (2,151) >> > Physical Review D (1,605) >> > Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (1,245) >> > Classical and Quantum Gravity (1,229) Journal of High Energy >> > Physics (939) Astronomy and Astrophysics (794) >> > Physics Letters Section B Nuclear Elementary Particle and High >> > Energy Physics (783) >> > General Relativity and Gravitation (462) Nuclear Physics B (436) >> >> > Nature is behind at number 12 with 384 papers on the topic. The top >> > 10 publishing researchers are: >> >> > Fabian, A.C. (146) >> > Shapiro, S.L. (102) >> > Ho, L.C. (99) >> > Belloni, T. (96) >> > Mineshige, S. (93) >> > Narayan, R. (89) >> > Chakrabarti, S.K. (85) >> > Van Der Klis, M. (80) >> > Mann, R.B. (76) >> > Ruffini, R. (76) >> >> > So as you are so interested in the correct use of terms such as >> > "black hole candidate" or "pressumed black hole", you may do your >> > statistical research with these journals and researchers and report >> > your findings to us. >> >> Being unable to understand why rigorous people use those terms and >> being unable to accept why Hoof point that (in his own words in his >> last work): >> >> "black holes, space-time singularities, and horizons disappear" >> >> after *new* developments in the field, you pretend to focus on more >> straw-man arguments. Ok, let us continue this funny show. >> >> i) >> A simple search by "black hole" will return items containing black hole >> candidate and presumed black hole and black hole mimicker and >> alternative to black hole and works as those by the nobel winner on why >> black holes are not real... >> >> ii) >> Science is not a democracy. Concepts are not more right or better >> because more people think on them. Thus using an argument of X people >> think so and Y people think so is sorry to say this again rather >> idiotic >> >> iii) >> Some of us know that none observation has showed that those massive >> objects are black holes, less still GR black holes. >> >> Some of us also know that the model of black holes *ignores* the >> details. It has the same validity to say that massive objects are black >> holes as ignoring the details and claiming that electrons are tiny >> balls described by classical electrodynamics. >> >> iv) >> Some of us also know that sci-fi oriented people never will change his >> mind about black holes. >> >> > Well...you are the one adamantly asserting that knowledgeable people use > "black hole candidate" or "pressumed black hole" in their writings. Well... it seems rather reasonable that the same people who writes "black hole candidate" or "pressumed black hole" does because knows what has been measured/observed and what not. This same people also knows what are the theoretical simplifications/assumptions of the black hole model and how the model looks irreal when details are taken into account. > Tom > and I have been telling you that that is not the case. From the list I > provided, if you select the top ten listed researchers and check the top > 100 papers of the set the results are clear: > > a) All of the 100 papers are from this year (2009), so they are > reflecting the current output of their research. b) 38% of the papers > have the words "black hole" in the title of the paper. > c) None, that is 0%, of the papers have thae words "black hole > candidate" or "pressumed black hole" on the title. First, there is more rigorous people than normal in science, just like there is more geniouses than normal. Playing statistics about how many people think or write so was answered in ii) above. It does not matter if 100 articles say so and one or two say the contrary. The paper I cited is much more rigorous than many others (this is specially true in the case of Tom who cited ZERO references). Your argument is so amazing as saying me "oh in 1905 so many people wrote this about aether, therefore they may be correct," still a pair of papers from Poincaré and Einstein said the contrary and founded special relativity. Another example of popularity saying little in SCIENCE... Second, your 0% looks strange, very strange. Looks as Tom usual tactic of sniping references contradicting him and even not noticing the snip! Emphasizing again I do not care about how many people say so, I did a search by "black hole candidate" and 2009 and I do not get zero results: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=es&scoring=r&q=%22black+hole+candidate%22+2009 And I find works published in 2009 with the term "black hole candidate" in the title. E.g. next is the third in the list http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0004-637X/703/1/930 The fact you found "none" either implies you are sniping literature contradicting you or you cannot search, which would explain your ignorance of the field. -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: paparios on 1 Oct 2009 10:13 On 1 oct, 06:14, "Juan R." González-Álvarez <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > papar...(a)gmail.com wrote on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 04:56:55 -0700: > > > Well...you are the one adamantly asserting that knowledgeable people use > > "black hole candidate" or "pressumed black hole" in their writings. > > Well... it seems rather reasonable that the same people who writes > "black hole candidate" or "pressumed black hole" does because knows what > has been measured/observed and what not. This same people also knows what > are the theoretical simplifications/assumptions of the black hole model > and how the model looks irreal when details are taken into account. > That is your personal opinion and, clearly, it is not shared by the editors and reviewers of the top science journals publishing about these objects. > > Tom > > and I have been telling you that that is not the case. From the list I > > provided, if you select the top ten listed researchers and check the top > > 100 papers of the set the results are clear: > > > a) All of the 100 papers are from this year (2009), so they are > > reflecting the current output of their research. b) 38% of the papers > > have the words "black hole" in the title of the paper. > > c) None, that is 0%, of the papers have thae words "black hole > > candidate" or "pressumed black hole" on the title. > > First, there is more rigorous people than normal in science, just like there > is more geniouses than normal. Playing statistics about how many people think > or write so was answered in ii) above. > > It does not matter if 100 articles say so and one or two say the contrary.. > The paper I cited is much more rigorous than many others (this is specially > true in the case of Tom who cited ZERO references). > Again, you are putting yourself in the position of a guy who judges who is rigorous and who is not in these subjects or it is just a personal opinion?. Are you perhaps a reviewer of some of these journals? What are your qualifications on this respect? > Second, your 0% looks strange, very strange. Looks as Tom usual tactic > of sniping references contradicting him and even not noticing the snip! > > Emphasizing again I do not care about how many people say so, I did a > search by "black hole candidate" and 2009 and I do not get zero results: > > http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=es&scoring=r&q=%22black+hole+can... > > And I find works published in 2009 with the term "black hole candidate" in > the title. E.g. next is the third in the list > > http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0004-637X/703/1/930 > > The fact you found "none" either implies you are sniping literature > contradicting you or you cannot search, which would explain > your ignorance of the field. > Well, it appears that you only have access to public databases such as Google or Wikipedia and not Scopus. That is OK. Scopus is a database which is provided to journal reviewers (which is a must when you are reviewing a submitted paper) and, for sure, it is more selective than Academic Google. But, again, even if we use your search tool, we can easily get the following results: i) Search in Academic Google for "black hole candidate" 2009, as you did, delivers 600 documents. ii) Search in Academic Google for "black hole" 2009, delivers 42200 documents. iii) The ratio of "black hole candidate" 2009/"black hole" 2009 hits is of 1.4%, which is consistent with the results provided by Scopus. Miguel Rios
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 1 Oct 2009 12:52
paparios(a)gmail.com wrote on Thu, 01 Oct 2009 07:13:46 -0700: > On 1 oct, 06:14, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: >> papar...(a)gmail.com wrote on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 04:56:55 -0700: >> >> > Well...you are the one adamantly asserting that knowledgeable people >> > use "black hole candidate" or "pressumed black hole" in their >> > writings. >> >> Well... it seems rather reasonable that the same people who writes >> "black hole candidate" or "pressumed black hole" does because knows >> what has been measured/observed and what not. This same people also >> knows what are the theoretical simplifications/assumptions of the black >> hole model and how the model looks irreal when details are taken into >> account. >> >> > That is your personal opinion and, clearly, it is not shared by the > editors and reviewers of the top science journals publishing about these > objects. > >> > Tom >> > and I have been telling you that that is not the case. From the list >> > I provided, if you select the top ten listed researchers and check >> > the top 100 papers of the set the results are clear: >> >> > a) All of the 100 papers are from this year (2009), so they are >> > reflecting the current output of their research. b) 38% of the papers >> > have the words "black hole" in the title of the paper. c) None, that >> > is 0%, of the papers have thae words "black hole candidate" or >> > "pressumed black hole" on the title. >> >> First, there is more rigorous people than normal in science, just like >> there is more geniouses than normal. Playing statistics about how many >> people think or write so was answered in ii) above. >> >> It does not matter if 100 articles say so and one or two say the >> contrary. The paper I cited is much more rigorous than many others >> (this is specially true in the case of Tom who cited ZERO references). >> >> > Again, you are putting yourself in the position of a guy who judges who > is rigorous and who is not in these subjects or it is just a personal > opinion?. Are you perhaps a reviewer of some of these journals? What are > your qualifications on this respect? All this is ridiculous. No I am not a reviewer of those journals. But neither are you or Tom. But wait we may take your ill-informed opinions about Nature as Gospel. >> Second, your 0% looks strange, very strange. Looks as Tom usual tactic >> of sniping references contradicting him and even not noticing the snip! >> >> Emphasizing again I do not care about how many people say so, I did a >> search by "black hole candidate" and 2009 and I do not get zero >> results: >> >> http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=es&scoring=r&q=%22black+hole+can... >> >> And I find works published in 2009 with the term "black hole candidate" >> in the title. E.g. next is the third in the list >> >> http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0004-637X/703/1/930 >> >> The fact you found "none" either implies you are sniping literature >> contradicting you or you cannot search, which would explain your >> ignorance of the field. >> >> > Well, it appears that you only have access to public databases such as > Google or Wikipedia and not Scopus. That is OK. I do not regularly use Elsevier databases (I prefer richer and older databases from ACS and other societies). The reason which I prefered Scholar, (Wikipedia is not a database but an enciclopedia) is because is open everyone. And in fact everyone could check how wrong or liar you are. > Scopus is a database > which is provided to journal reviewers (which is a must when you are > reviewing a submitted paper) and, for sure, it is more selective than > Academic Google. Your claim was that none article published in 2009 used candidate in the title but using Scholar I find some few in a pair of minutes. I gave above the link to Astrophysical Journal, a journal published by the American Astrophisical Journal. This is the presentation of the journal http://www.iop.org/EJ/journal/0004-637X "The Astrophysical Journal is the leading international research journal in its field and publishes papers across the breadth of astronomy and astrophysics." But wait did not you said us that NONE had been published? :-D I am so sorry that your Scopus was so selective... that leaved out the leading journal in the field. Does Scopus give lots of links to low-quality journals published by Elsevier? > But, again, even if we use your search tool, we can > easily get the following results: > > i) Search in Academic Google for "black hole candidate" 2009, as you > did, delivers 600 documents. > ii) Search in Academic Google for "black hole" 2009, delivers 42200 > documents. > iii) The ratio of "black hole candidate" 2009/"black hole" 2009 hits is > of 1.4%, which is consistent with the results provided by Scopus. This kind of scary argument was given before. The response is the same. Copy it from my previous messages. -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html |