Oh No wrote:

Well it is pretty damned good. Theories which do away with quarks, for
example, are a definite non-starter.

Kerr-Newmann black holes are a theoretical idea, not an empirical fact.
As such we know exactly and precisely what they are. They are that which
is described in the mathematical theory of general relativity. We also
know that we have not quantum description of such a thing. That would
be needed to discuss a proton. Asserting that protons are K-N black
holes is like asserting that "green ideas sleep furiously" (Chomsky).
The words simply do not go together.


I have three quick comments, for now.

1. Not that long ago, the majority of theoretical physicists believed
that Newtonian gravitation was "proven" and that any other theory of
gravitation that deviated from the Newtonian paradigm and Euclidean
geometry would be a "non-starter". Planck told Einstein, when he heard
of AE's basic plan for a new theory of gravitation, 'you are almost
certainly wrong and even if you are right, nobody will believe you'.
Note that Planck said that AE was *almost* certainly wrong. Today's
seers feel that they can forget the "almost" and speak as if they are
in possession of absolute knowledge.

2. My research suggests that we still only have a rudimentary
understanding of matter in ultracompact states. At this neophyte stage,
we might want to be more careful about what we claim to know and not
know about black holes, naked singularities, QFT, 5-d black solitons,
etc.

3. I note that you, also, fail to mention anything about the 5
analogies that I keep referring to (see post #2 in this thread,
11/06/06). Do these empirical, as in well-observed, phenomena have any
educational value? Do you ignore them because they are incorrect? Or do
you ignore them because they support my argument?

RLO