Black Holes Are An Optical Effect
in [Math]
|
Prev: product of tangents problem
Next: zeta zero
From: paparios on 2 Oct 2009 08:35 On 1 oct, 12:52, "Juan R." González-Álvarez <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > papar...(a)gmail.com wrote on Thu, 01 Oct 2009 07:13:46 -0700: > > > 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. > Well...you are wrong! I am a reviewer of several journals, on my expertise area which is not, for sure, black holes. Now regarding your next assertion, what ill-informed opinions are those? I just pointed out to you that, as in several journals is the case, there are published regular papers (such as the Astrophysical Journal, where the 16 year study of the S2 star orbiting the supermassive black hole of our galaxy was reported in 35 pages) and also correspondence (such as the 2 pages letter of Nature you pointed out). You indicated that the Nature letter had your own assigned level of being more rigorous than the regular paper of the Astrophysical Journal, which clearly is not the case. Both Nature and the Astrophysical Journal are highly respected publications and both regular papers and correspondence are also equally valid (a correspondence reporting more recent results and also with a shorter reviewing process). Of course Nature (as well as Science) are more general journals including subjects as biology, medicine, chemistry and physics, while AJ main target is obvious from its title. As a final conclusion, your point of view is that the use of the words "black hole" is wrong and it should follow the guidance of more knowledgeable people (according to your own rating) and use instead "black hole candidate" or "presumed black hole". My point of view, on the other hand, is that long term observations, and new measurement techniques (including larger optical and radio telescopes with proper instrumentation) are making possible to view more and more detail on what is going on in our galactic center, and that those studies are making the case, for the existence of a super massive black hole there, highly probable. We agree to disagree. Let the knowledgeable people find the answers. Miguel Rios
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 2 Oct 2009 14:44 paparios(a)gmail.com wrote on Fri, 02 Oct 2009 05:35:38 -0700: > On 1 oct, 12:52, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: >> papar...(a)gmail.com wrote on Thu, 01 Oct 2009 07:13:46 -0700: >> >> > 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. >> >> > Well...you are wrong! I am a reviewer of several journals, on my > expertise area which is not, for sure, black holes. If you are a reviewer of AJ or Nature then I was wrong. > Now regarding your > next assertion, what ill-informed opinions are those? I just pointed out > to you that, as in several journals is the case, there are published > regular papers (such as the Astrophysical Journal, where the 16 year > study of the S2 star orbiting the supermassive black hole of our galaxy > was reported in 35 pages) This is one of them: "the supermassive black hole of our galaxy" is an ill-informed opinion because nobody has showed such one thing. > and also correspondence (such as the 2 pages > letter of Nature you pointed out). The letter is not correspondence. "Correspondence" is a different section in the journal Nature. > You indicated that the Nature letter > had your own assigned level of being more rigorous than the regular > paper of the Astrophysical Journal, which clearly is not the case. It is well-known that Nature has one of most rigorous (if not the most) refeering processes, where even titles are reviewed. The title "black hole candidate" is by far more rigorus and exact because reflect the knowledge. > Both > Nature and the Astrophysical Journal are highly respected publications > and both regular papers and correspondence are also equally valid (a > correspondence reporting more recent results and also with a shorter > reviewing process). No, again letters are not Correspondence in Nature. > Of course Nature (as well as Science) are more > general journals including subjects as biology, medicine, chemistry and > physics, while AJ main target is obvious from its title. The definition of Letter from Nature editorial board is: short reports of original research focused on an outstanding finding whose importance means that it will be of interest to scientists in other fields. AJ is not specifically devoted to "outstanding findings". > As a final conclusion, your point of view is that the use of the words > "black hole" is wrong This is a complete misunderstanding of what I really said and is archived in this thread. > and it should follow the guidance of more > knowledgeable people (according to your own rating) and use instead > "black hole candidate" or "presumed black hole". I am comfortable that I am on good company. > My point of view, on > the other hand, is that long term observations, and new measurement > techniques (including larger optical and radio telescopes with proper > instrumentation) are making possible to view more and more detail on > what is going on in our galactic center, and that those studies are > making the case, for the existence of a super massive black hole there, > highly probable. You are a liar. Above you said "the supermassive black hole of our galaxy" instead the "PRESSUMED supermassive black hole of our galaxy". Moreover, you are been critizing my suggestion to use the terms "black hole candidate" and "pressumed black hole". Still now you state that new techniques will make the existence of a super massive black hole in our galactic center highly probable. But even ignoring those lies you show again absolutely no idea. First those indirect observations are compatible with the so named black hole mimickers, objects looking like but not being black holes. Pretending that the indirect observations show the existence of black holes is another ill-informed comment. Second, the black hole model is based in the assumptions that GR works at any scale. This unphysical assumption is not different from assuming that classical electrodynamics works for any scale (which is plain wrong). > We agree to disagree. Let the knowledgeable people find the answers. Sure we disagree. In my point iv) in a previous message I wrote: Some of us also know that sci-fi oriented people never will change his mind about black holes. I am confortable seeing more and more people is starting to understand how idealized and irreal the model of black holes is. The latter guy I know is the Nobel tHoof who in a last work accepts that black holes do not exist in Nature when one consider the details. Of course BH will continue to exist in the ideal world of mathematics. -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: Autymn D. C. on 4 Oct 2009 21:12 On Oct 2, 5:35 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > As a final conclusion, your point of view is that the use of the words > "black hole" is wrong and it should follow the guidance of more > knowledgeable people (according to your own rating) and use instead > "black hole candidate" or "presumed black hole". My point of view, on > the other hand, is that long term observations, and new measurement > techniques (including larger optical and radio telescopes with proper > instrumentation) are making possible to view more and more detail on > what is going on in our galactic center, and that those studies are > making the case, for the existence of a super massive black hole > there, highly probable. You are wrong; the black hole is a strawman. Such bodies are nuclear collapsars, relativistic dark stars. -Aut > We agree to disagree. Let the knowledgeable people find the answers.
From: http://meami.org on 4 Oct 2009 21:31 Aut! You may only consent fort=1 -(t)~ime. http://meami.org A@ @e [Light fills->f[ox ]<-black holes]e^pi s t h e I s t Autymn D. C. wrote: > On Oct 2, 5:35 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > As a final conclusion, your point of view is that the use of the words > > "black hole" is wrong and it should follow the guidance of more > > knowledgeable people (according to your own rating) and use instead > > "black hole candidate" or "presumed black hole". My point of view, on > > the other hand, is that long term observations, and new measurement > > techniques (including larger optical and radio telescopes with proper > > instrumentation) are making possible to view more and more detail on > > what is going on in our galactic center, and that those studies are > > making the case, for the existence of a super massive black hole > > there, highly probable. > > You are wrong; the black hole is a strawman. Such bodies are nuclear > collapsars, relativistic dark stars. > > -Aut > > > We agree to disagree. Let the knowledgeable people find the answers. No.
From: Autymn D. C. on 4 Oct 2009 22:16
On Oct 4, 6:12 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > On Oct 2, 5:35 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > As a final conclusion, your point of view is that the use of the words > > "black hole" is wrong and it should follow the guidance of more > > knowledgeable people (according to your own rating) and use instead > > "black hole candidate" or "presumed black hole". My point of view, on > > the other hand, is that long term observations, and new measurement > > techniques (including larger optical and radio telescopes with proper > > instrumentation) are making possible to view more and more detail on > > what is going on in our galactic center, and that those studies are > > making the case, for the existence of a super massive black hole > > there, highly probable. > > You are wrong; the black hole is a strawman. Such bodies are nuclear > collapsars, relativistic dark stars. > > -Aut > > > We agree to disagree. Let the knowledgeable people find the answers. A few fysysysts agree with me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_star "A Q-Star, also known as a gray hole, is hypothetical type of a compact, heavy neutron star with an exotic state of matter." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Star_(semiclassical_gravity) "A black star is created when matter compresses at a rate significantly less than the freefall velocity of a hypothetical particle falling to the center of its star, due to the fact that quantum processes create vacuum polarization, which creates a form of degeneracy pressure, preventing spacetime (and the particles held within it) from occupying the same space at the same time. This energy is theoretically unlimited..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy_star "In March 2005, physicist George Chapline claimed that quantum mechanics makes it a "near certainty", that black holes do not exist and are instead dark energy stars. The dark energy star is a different concept than that of a gravastar." -Aut |