A simple proof of the Nonexistance of Black Holes.

nightbat wrote

Double-A wrote:

Greysky wrote:
While Stephen Hawking recently came to the conclusion black holes are
not
what he thought they were, I find it amazing he took decades to come
to that conclusion.

He didn't want to hurt the sales of the books he had already written.

Double-A

nightbat

You got it Double-A, with my many Maverick posting science years
of net rubbing it in their faces about my dislike for non anchored sci
fi and mathematical reference proof that energy and matter cannot be
destroyed and therefore are always conserved not lost, Hawking had no
choice but to reverse himself. The Bert sci fi loving book sales go on,
while I still attempt to secure a Darla Star Fleet for us. There are no
black holes only my profound " Black Comets" in the center of all active
galaxies and forming new ones.

ponder on,
the nightbat

Greysky wrote:

Not quite. Your bones will also shorten along the direction of motion
so
everything will stay in proportion. The singularity of a black hole
however
will not foreshorten because of relativity. Since it is an
infinitely small
point of gravity it remains a pointlike particle of gravity and
relativity
allows you to look under the holes skirt, which is a no-no.

Precisely what I mean. Being a point, you cannot travel fast enough
to squash the event horizon 'til the singularity is exposed. You'd have
to be traveling at c to make the horizon just barely intersect the
singularity, and of course no external observer is going to be
traveling at c.

-Mark Martin

Mark Martin wrote:
Greysky wrote:

Not quite. Your bones will also shorten along the direction of
motion
so
everything will stay in proportion. The singularity of a black hole
however
will not foreshorten because of relativity. Since it is an
infinitely small
point of gravity it remains a pointlike particle of gravity and
relativity
allows you to look under the holes skirt, which is a no-no.

Precisely what I mean. Being a point, you cannot travel fast
enough
to squash the event horizon 'til the singularity is exposed. You'd
have
to be traveling at c to make the horizon just barely intersect the
singularity, and of course no external observer is going to be
traveling at c.

-Mark Martin


Singularity
Great deals on Singularity
Shop on eBay and Save!
www.eBay.com

Raving Loonie wrote:

Singularity
Great deals on Singularity
Shop on eBay and Save!
www.eBay.com

Another Google side ad:

Read books by Singularity
on Amazon.com

-Mark Martin

Mark Martin wrote:
Raving Loonie wrote:

Singularity
Great deals on Singularity
Shop on eBay and Save!
www.eBay.com

Another Google side ad:

Read books by Singularity
on Amazon.com

-Mark Martin

Mark

Greysky wrote:
SNIP
Indeed, the faster the black hole
passes by the observer, the more flattened out the event horizon will become
in the direction of motion. Eventually, there will come a point in the
velocity curve, when the event horizon will be congruent with the
singularity producing it. At that point, the singularity will no longer be
shielded from the outside observer - it will be visible along the direction
of motion, and able to interact with the external environment.

Eventually there will come a point on this velocity curve where the
relative velocities will pass c. This doesn't mean it can happen in
reality. Just because you can plot something on paper doesn't imply it
has any meaning. Try parameterizing with something besides velocity,
say momentum. Then you'll find this point is never reached.

Since the black hole is spherical (ellipsoidal under contraction) and
the singularity is at its center it will always be interior to the event
horizon up to that non-physical limit where relative motion is, on
paper, at the speed of light.

Note that the enveloping of the singularity is a topological property.
You cannot alter topological properties via changes of frame. They are
global invariants. And double check in your next analysis that the
observer doesn't finally 'see the singularity' by smashing into it.

BTW in general you cannot disprove a theory by using the theory.
If the theory predicts black holes then describing that "the theory says
if you do this then..." won't show that black holes are impossible.
If you really want to invalidate the theory then you have to show that
one of its predictions doesn't happen in the lab/observatory.
And I mean by this you really have to do the experiment/observation
not appeal to our common sense about what it "must obviously show".

Regards,
JB

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message news:udDee.11388$tQ.1600@fed1read06...

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
. ..

Not true. This is easily seen by interchanging black hole and observer. It
is also seen by noting that the existence of points of the manifold
between singularity and horizon implies that they do not intersect (which
you apparently call "congruent", you misuse this word) -- this is
independent of any motion of either black hole or observer.

Therefore, you agree with me that Lorentz Transform only describes what is
observed and not necessarily what reality is.

All of science only describes what is observed. Reality can never be known.

The only possible "proof" of the nonexistence of black holes is an
exhaustive search of the universe. Good luck....

Or you can be as abstract as Mr. Hobba by closing his eyes doing the
searching. Any abstract type of thinking also produces the same equal
abstractness in imagination. However, reality checks.

So, exploring deeper in this subject of black holes, it is a common belief
that a black hole would be affected by the curvature of spacetime created by
another black hole. It is thus understood that 2 black holes have no
problems merging. In doing so, we will be enlightened with a show of
massive amount of gravitational waves. However, according to Schwarzschild
metric, a black creates a well in spacetime so deep that nothing can escape
itself. Since you should also believe in the gravitational wave not
traveling beyond the speed of light, and if the speed of light cannot escape
a black hole, how then can gravitational wave escape this black hole to
affect anything outside? Perhaps, you can resolve this paradox.

AllYou! wrote:
"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
news:udDee.11388$tQ.1600@fed1read06...

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
. ..

Not true. This is easily seen by interchanging black hole and
observer. It
is also seen by noting that the existence of points of the
manifold
between singularity and horizon implies that they do not
intersect (which
you apparently call "congruent", you misuse this word) -- this is

independent of any motion of either black hole or observer.

Therefore, you agree with me that Lorentz Transform only describes
what is
observed and not necessarily what reality is.

All of science only describes what is observed. Reality can never be
known.

The only possible "proof" of the nonexistence of black holes is
an
exhaustive search of the universe. Good luck....

Or you can be as abstract as Mr. Hobba by closing his eyes doing
the
searching. Any abstract type of thinking also produces the same
equal
abstractness in imagination. However, reality checks.

So, exploring deeper in this subject of black holes, it is a common
belief
that a black hole would be affected by the curvature of spacetime
created by
another black hole. It is thus understood that 2 black holes have
no
problems merging. In doing so, we will be enlightened with a show
of
massive amount of gravitational waves. However, according to
Schwarzschild
metric, a black creates a well in spacetime so deep that nothing
can escape
itself. Since you should also believe in the gravitational wave
not
traveling beyond the speed of light, and if the speed of light
cannot escape
a black hole, how then can gravitational wave escape this black
hole to
affect anything outside? Perhaps, you can resolve this paradox.




Everyone bow to the great god of the 'Perceivable' :

"Greysky" wrote in message
...

"Mark Martin" wrote in message
ups.com...

Greysky wrote:
While Stephen Hawking recently came to the conclusion black holes are
not
what he thought they were, I find it amazing he took decades to come
to that
conclusion. Using a proof that relies on relativistic arguments
instead of
information conservation makes things easier to comprehend. It is
assumed
that a non rotating black hole will be observed to have a spherical
event
horizon if observed by someone at rest with respect to the black
hole. Now,
if the black hole is passing by someone at some relativistic
velocity, that
observer will see that the black holes' event horizon is no longer
spherical, and that it is foreshortened in the direction of motion
according to the rules of relativity. Indeed, the faster the black
hole
passes by the observer, the more flattened out the event horizon will
become
in the direction of motion. Eventually, there will come a point in
the
velocity curve, when the event horizon will be congruent with the
singularity producing it. At that point, the singularity will no
longer be
shielded from the outside observer - it will be visible along the
direction
of motion, and able to interact with the external environment.

Heh! That's a lot like saying that an observer near the event
horizon, seeing me whiz by at nearly c, will see my epidermis shorten
until my bones have to stick out of my skin.

Not quite. Your bones will also shorten along the direction of motion so
everything will stay in proportion. The singularity of a black hole however
will not foreshorten because of relativity. Since it is an infinitely small
point of gravity it remains a pointlike particle of gravity and relativity
allows you to look under the holes skirt, which is a no-no.

But because you can't achieve c, the event horizon will always have some dimension to
shroud the black hole.

Are you sure you wanted to make that response to me?

"Raving Loonie" wrote in message
oups.com...

AllYou! wrote:
"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
news:udDee.11388$tQ.1600@fed1read06...

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
. ..

Not true. This is easily seen by interchanging black hole and
observer. It
is also seen by noting that the existence of points of the
manifold
between singularity and horizon implies that they do not
intersect (which
you apparently call "congruent", you misuse this word) -- this is

independent of any motion of either black hole or observer.

Therefore, you agree with me that Lorentz Transform only describes
what is
observed and not necessarily what reality is.

All of science only describes what is observed. Reality can never be
known.

The only possible "proof" of the nonexistence of black holes is
an
exhaustive search of the universe. Good luck....

Or you can be as abstract as Mr. Hobba by closing his eyes doing
the
searching. Any abstract type of thinking also produces the same
equal
abstractness in imagination. However, reality checks.

So, exploring deeper in this subject of black holes, it is a common
belief
that a black hole would be affected by the curvature of spacetime
created by
another black hole. It is thus understood that 2 black holes have
no
problems merging. In doing so, we will be enlightened with a show
of
massive amount of gravitational waves. However, according to
Schwarzschild
metric, a black creates a well in spacetime so deep that nothing
can escape
itself. Since you should also believe in the gravitational wave
not
traveling beyond the speed of light, and if the speed of light
cannot escape
a black hole, how then can gravitational wave escape this black
hole to
affect anything outside? Perhaps, you can resolve this paradox.




Everyone bow to the great god of the 'Perceivable' :