Black Holes Are An Optical Effect
in [Math]
|
Prev: product of tangents problem
Next: zeta zero
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 29 Sep 2009 05:17 Miguel wrote on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:19:40 -0700: > 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 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 he writes today when knows more and better. Science *evolves* and mistakes are corrected. The reference that you cite above is numbered #225 in http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/gthpub.html However the preprint http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.3426 is his *last work* listed in the same page http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/gthpub.html Titled "Quantum gravity without space-time singularities or horizons" he writes in it [...] we find [...] an essential new ingredient for such a theory. [...] dynamics in a way that appears to be fundamentally different [...] If we add these to our set of symmetry transformations, black holes, space-time singularities, and horizons disappear [...] Your idiotic claim is that we would ignore the "essential new ingredient", just as crackpots in spr like to ignore modern science and still pretend that Newtonian mechanics is all we need :-D 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. -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 29 Sep 2009 05:34 Miguel wrote on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 05:21:32 -0700: > On 28 sep, 05:41, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: >> Tom Roberts wrote on Sun, 27 Sep 2009 08:41:23 -0500: >> >> > Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote: >> >> Tom Roberts wrote on Thu, 24 Sep 2009 08:59:58 -0500: >> >>> 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 >> >> > It's no lie. A single article does not display what terms other >> > people in the field are using. >> >> A single citation was enough to show how unfounded your comment was. >> >> Of course, again you sniping the link to recent Nature article and once >> again you use your known tactic of sniping without giving explicit >> indication of the snip. >> >> > Yes, some say "black hole candidate" and others simply say "black >> > hole". >> >> This is not the point, when talking about the theoretical model of GR >> we use the term "black hole", but when refering to those observed >> massive objects we refer to "black hole candidate" or "pressumed black >> hole". >> >> Yes, some people as you confound both practices. >> >> > People active in the field know what they mean. >> >> Exactly, >> >> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7209/abs/nature07245.html >> >> > This link of yours refers to a letter to Nature (two pages long), which > describes preliminary results of two days of radio observations > performed by Doeleman's research team. The Astrophysical Journal regular > paper of Gillessen, is 35 pages long and describes results from 16 years > of observations. Of course, my comment was not about the rigor of the observations but about the pretension that those indirect observations prove the existence of a black hole. Moreover, the referring process is Nature is much more rigorous than in the other journal, and part of this rigorous referring process includes the selection of titles. This is why the title includes the term "black hole candidate" [#] > The Doeleman letter reports, referring to figure 1, "This density lower > limit and central mass would rule out most alternatives to a black hole > for Sgr A* because other concentrations of matter would have collapsed > or evaporated on timescales that are short compared with the age of the > Milky Way". Again you pretend to misinterpret that the authors are saying. Of course, the observations ruled out several alternatives but not *all*. This is why they use the terms: - "black hole candidate" - "are thought to harbour supermassive black holes" - "the presumed black hole" They know what they observed and what not. Referees and editor also. You don't. Moreover, rigorous theoretical analysis proves that those objects are not GR black holes, horizons, and singularities dissapear when one consider the details. You do not like this but is neither my problem nor that by Hooft. > They conclude the letter by stating: "Detection of the event-horizon- > scale structure reported here indicates that future VLBI observations at > 1.3 mm will open a new window onto fundamental black hole physics > through observations of our Galactic Centre. Plans to increase the > sensitivity of the VLBI array described here by factors of up to 10 are > under way, and the addition of more VLBI stations will increase baseline > coverage and the ability to model increasingly complex structures". > > Both these teams are clearly working now and will continue to work to > make more evident how these stellar objects look. Sure. Never said the contrary. More observations of those objects are welcomed. > Miguel Rios [#] I cannot know if this was original author's title or a referee/editor suggestion. But the fact is that they use the rigorous term "black hole candidate" because they know that no black hole has been showed to exists. I understand that sci-fi writes have generated the idea that black holes are real, but science is more serious. -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: Miguel on 29 Sep 2009 09:48 On 29 sep, 05:17, "Juan R." González-Álvarez <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > Miguel wrote on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:19:40 -0700: > > 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 he writes today when knows more and better. Science *evolves* and > mistakes are corrected. > > The reference that you cite above is numbered #225 in > > http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/gthpub.html > > However the preprint > > http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.3426 > > is his *last work* listed in the same page > > http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/gthpub.html > > Titled "Quantum gravity without space-time singularities or horizons" > > he writes in it > > [...] we find [...] an essential new ingredient for such a theory. > [...] dynamics in a way that appears to be fundamentally different [....] > If we add these to our set of symmetry transformations, black holes, > space-time singularities, and horizons disappear [...] > > Your idiotic claim is that we would ignore the "essential new ingredient", > just as crackpots in spr like to ignore modern science and still pretend > that Newtonian mechanics is all we need :-D > 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. > 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. 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. More serious people in science are confident the case for a black hole is looking remarkable good. Miguel Rios
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 29 Sep 2009 14:07 Miguel wrote on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 06:48:43 -0700: > On 29 sep, 05:17, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: >> Miguel wrote on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:19:40 -0700: >> >> 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 he writes today when knows more and better. Science *evolves* and >> mistakes are corrected. >> >> The reference that you cite above is numbered #225 in >> >> http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/gthpub.html >> >> However the preprint >> >> http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.3426 >> >> is his *last work* listed in the same page >> >> http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/gthpub.html >> >> Titled "Quantum gravity without space-time singularities or horizons" >> >> he writes in it >> >> [...] we find [...] an essential new ingredient for such a theory. >> [...] dynamics in a way that appears to be fundamentally different >> [...] If we add these to our set of symmetry transformations, black >> holes, space-time singularities, and horizons disappear [...] >> >> Your idiotic claim is that we would ignore the "essential new >> ingredient", just as crackpots in spr like to ignore modern science and >> still pretend that Newtonian mechanics is all we need :-D >> >> > 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. >> 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. -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: Miguel on 29 Sep 2009 14:45
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: > > > > > > > On 29 sep, 05:17, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > > <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > >> Miguel wrote on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:19:40 -0700: > > >> 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 he writes today when knows more and better. Science *evolves* and > >> mistakes are corrected. > > >> The reference that you cite above is numbered #225 in > > >>http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/gthpub.html > > >> However the preprint > > >>http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.3426 > > >> is his *last work* listed in the same page > > >>http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/gthpub.html > > >> Titled "Quantum gravity without space-time singularities or horizons" > > >> he writes in it > > >> [...] we find [...] an essential new ingredient for such a theory. > >> [...] dynamics in a way that appears to be fundamentally different > >> [...] If we add these to our set of symmetry transformations, black > >> holes, space-time singularities, and horizons disappear [...] > > >> Your idiotic claim is that we would ignore the "essential new > >> ingredient", just as crackpots in spr like to ignore modern science and > >> still pretend that Newtonian mechanics is all we need :-D > > > 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? > >> 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. Miguel Rios |