Black Holes Are An Optical Effect
in [Math]
|
Prev: product of tangents problem
Next: zeta zero
From: Michael Stemper on 28 Sep 2009 13:31 In article <pan.2009.09.25.15.23.57(a)canonicalscience.com>, "Juan R." =?iso-8859-1?q?Gonz=E1lez-=C1lvarez?= <juanREMOVE(a)canonicalscience.com> writes: >Michael Stemper wrote on Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:18:19 +0000: >> In article <pan.2009.09.24.18.31.08(a)canonicalscience.com>, "Juan R." iso-8859-1?q?Gonz=E1lez-=C1lvarez?= <juanREMOVE(a)canonicalscience.com> >>>> In recent years, knowledgeable people have been simply calling them >>>> black holes in the literature. >>> >>>Of course to maintain this lie you were obligated to snip the link to >>>Nature given by me >>> >>>REINTRODUCING SNIPED LINK >>> >>>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7209/abs/nature07245.html >> >> When I go to that link, I find the following text: >> >> "[...] Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), the compact source of radio, infrared >> and X-ray emission at the centre of the Milky Way, is the closest >> example of this phenomenon, with an estimated black hole mass that is >> 4,000,000 times that of the Sun2, 3. A long-standing astronomical goal >> is to resolve structures in the innermost accretion flow surrounding >> Sgr A*, where strong gravitational fields will distort the appearance >> of radiation emitted near the black hole. [...]" >> >> Two uses of "black hole" and none of "candidate". > >Oh I can see now all of you are trolling me with your selective snipping... > > Event-horizon-scale structure in the supermassive black hole candidate > at the Galactic Centre. My mistake; I only looked at the body of the article, not the headline. The headline does use the term "black hole candidate", unlike the body. -- Michael F. Stemper #include <Standard_Disclaimer> Indians scattered on dawn's highway bleeding; Ghosts crowd the young child's fragile eggshell mind.
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 28 Sep 2009 14:17 Michael Stemper wrote on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:31:36 +0000: > In article <pan.2009.09.25.15.23.57(a)canonicalscience.com>, "Juan R." > =?iso-8859-1?q?Gonz=E1lez-=C1lvarez?= <juanREMOVE(a)canonicalscience.com> > writes: >>Michael Stemper wrote on Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:18:19 +0000: >>> In article <pan.2009.09.24.18.31.08(a)canonicalscience.com>, "Juan R." >>> iso-8859-1?q?Gonz=E1lez-=C1lvarez?= <juanREMOVE(a)canonicalscience.com> > >>>>> In recent years, knowledgeable people have been simply calling them >>>>> black holes in the literature. >>>> >>>>Of course to maintain this lie you were obligated to snip the link to >>>>Nature given by me >>>> >>>>REINTRODUCING SNIPED LINK >>>> >>>>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7209/abs/nature07245.html >>> >>> When I go to that link, I find the following text: >>> >>> "[...] Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), the compact source of radio, infrared >>> and X-ray emission at the centre of the Milky Way, is the closest >>> example of this phenomenon, with an estimated black hole mass that is >>> 4,000,000 times that of the Sun2, 3. A long-standing astronomical >>> goal is to resolve structures in the innermost accretion flow >>> surrounding Sgr A*, where strong gravitational fields will distort >>> the appearance of radiation emitted near the black hole. [...]" >>> >>> Two uses of "black hole" and none of "candidate". >> >>Oh I can see now all of you are trolling me with your selective >>snipping... >> >> Event-horizon-scale structure in the supermassive black hole candidate >> at the Galactic Centre. > > My mistake; I only looked at the body of the article, not the headline. > The headline does use the term "black hole candidate", unlike the body. It was clearly not a mistake since the body contains similar phrases like "are thought to harbour supermassive black holes", and "the presumed black hole". *Relevant phrases* which you sniped earlier in your selective misquoting and now *also* from my message. -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 28 Sep 2009 14:29 Miguel wrote on Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:18:02 -0700: > On 25 sep, 11:21, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: >> Michael Stemper wrote on Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:18:19 +0000: >> >> Rigorous people writes "supermassive black hole candidate", "are >> thought to harbour supermassive black holes", "the presumed black hole" >> >> But more rigorous people knows the fallacies behind the black hole >> model >> >> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0909/0909.3426v1.pdf >> >> > It is interesting that you refer to professor Hooft, naming him as if he > "knows the fallacies behind the black hole model". I wonder what he > would comment about your assertion of his work. For all the interested > ones, http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/ contains a detailed description of > his work, including a nice Introduction to the Theory of Black Holes, > where he hardly describes these alleged "fallacies" of black holes. > > Miguel Rios i) Appealing to old work by the same author is rather idiotic. New work supersedes the old. It does not matter that he wrote ten years ago, but that write today. ii) Those lecture notes describe the theory of black holes. Black holes are a consequence of GR. iii) What is a fallacy is to consider that those black holes are real as done in GR. This is why he says in the cited work that when the things are better done "black holes, space-time singularities, and horizons disappear". Of course, he does not mean that disappear from GR but from real world. -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: Miguel on 28 Sep 2009 15:15 On 28 sep, 14:29, "Juan R." González-Álvarez <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > Miguel wrote on Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:18:02 -0700: > > > > > > > On 25 sep, 11:21, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > > <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > >> Michael Stemper wrote on Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:18:19 +0000: > > >> Rigorous people writes "supermassive black hole candidate", "are > >> thought to harbour supermassive black holes", "the presumed black hole" > > >> But more rigorous people knows the fallacies behind the black hole > >> model > > >>http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0909/0909.3426v1.pdf > > > It is interesting that you refer to professor Hooft, naming him as if he > > "knows the fallacies behind the black hole model". I wonder what he > > would comment about your assertion of his work. For all the interested > > ones,http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/contains a detailed description of > > his work, including a nice Introduction to the Theory of Black Holes, > > where he hardly describes these alleged "fallacies" of black holes. > > > Miguel Rios > > i) > Appealing to old work by the same author is rather idiotic. New work > supersedes the old. It does not matter that he wrote ten years ago, but > that write today. > Well, I do not consider his personal page as old material (for sure he knows better his work than you or me). All his papers and books are for sure there (see http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/gthpub.html). On the other hand he is hardly a black hole "basher" as you seem to imply with your use of the word "fallacies". Miguel Rios
From: Miguel on 28 Sep 2009 16:19
On 28 sep, 15:15, Miguel <papa_r...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > Well, I do not consider his personal page as old material (for sure he > knows better his work than you or me). All his papers and books are > for sure there (seehttp://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/gthpub.html). On the > other hand he is hardly a black hole "basher" as you seem to imply > with your use of the word "fallacies". > > Miguel Rios For example in his paper: The fundamental nature of space and time, in Approaches to Quantum Gravity, Toward a New Understanding of Space, Time and Matter, D. Oriti Ed., Cambridge Univ. Press 2009, ISBN 978-0-521-86045-1, pp. 13-25, he writes the following: "Clearly, black holes will be an essential element in any quantum gravity theory. We must understand how to deal with the requirement that the situation obtained after some gravitational collapse can be either described as some superdense blob of mass and energy, or as a geometric region of space-time itself where ingoing observers should be allowed to apply conventional laws of physics to describe what they see. One can go a long way to deduce the consequences of this requirement. Particles going into a black hole will interact with all particles going out. Of all these interactions, the gravitational one happens to play a most crucial role. Only by taking this interaction into account, can one understand how black holes can play the role of resonances in a unitary scattering process where ingoing particles form black holes and outgoing particles are the ones generated by the Hawking process". Miguel Rios |