"Black Hole" on the SciFi Channel

Next Saturday night the SciFi Channel will show their original
production "Black Hole!

http://www.scifi.com/blackhole/

All you true believers can watch it and let your imaginations run wild!

Double-A

"Now, scientists at Lawrence Livermore are challenging accepted
beliefs, claiming that there's no such thing as a black hole. "It's a
near certainty that black holes don't exist", according to George
Chapline. According to him, black holes are actually stars made out of
dark energy formed by the collapse of massive stars."

http://arstechnica.com/articles/colu...e-20050403.ars

Double-A

Double=A I think you are bending towards acknowledging black holes.They
are for real. Reality is no spiral galaxy could live without one They
show us how great (strong) the gravitational compression can get. Black
holes help us understand the universe. They are no longer sci.-fiction
Bert

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Double=A I think you are bending towards acknowledging black holes.They
are for real. Reality is no spiral galaxy could live without one They
show us how great (strong) the gravitational compression can get. Black
holes help us understand the universe. They are no longer sci.-fiction
Bert


Hi Bert,

Welcome back.

Did you climb that holy mountain?

Did you fulfill your vision quest?

I had a mountain top experience several years ago. Looking 700 feet
down a cliff side, everything seemed to come clear to me. Then I
probably made one on the worst decisions of my life! Don't put too
much trust in those epiphanies. Cold logic works better than
revelations.

As for black holes, I do believe there is something, but I just don't
believe they are the way they are currently described based on the
equations of GR. That theory really breaks down at the event horizon
anyway, so it doesn't offer a very good description. And the accepted
view has changed in recent years too. So I am sure it will change some
more in coming years. For instance, they used to think that light or
even objects could rise above the event horizon and fall back. Now
they say that anything once inside the event horizon can never come out
again. This doesn't make much sense when one considers a black hole
the size of the solar system, since the gravity at the event horizon,
say about the orbit of Pluto, would not be very great at all. So why
could nothing rise about the event horizon temporarily, even though
it's doomed to fall back again?

Also I do not do not believe that any such things as point
singularities can exist at our present time, because time slows
infinitely inside the event horizon, and since we think our universe
has only a finite age, that would not provide the infinite time
required for any point singularity to have formed.

Also Hawing's reversal that he now believes that what goes in will
eventually come out, kind of takes away that one-way trip idea that
really defined black holes.

Anyway, good to see you back.

Double-A

"Double-A" wrote in message
ups.com...

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Double=A I think you are bending towards acknowledging black holes.They
are for real. Reality is no spiral galaxy could live without one They
show us how great (strong) the gravitational compression can get. Black
holes help us understand the universe. They are no longer sci.-fiction
Bert


Hi Bert,

Welcome back.

Did you climb that holy mountain?

Did you fulfill your vision quest?

I had a mountain top experience several years ago. Looking 700 feet
down a cliff side, everything seemed to come clear to me. Then I
probably made one on the worst decisions of my life! Don't put too
much trust in those epiphanies. Cold logic works better than
revelations.

As for black holes, I do believe there is something, but I just don't
believe they are the way they are currently described based on the
equations of GR. That theory really breaks down at the event horizon
anyway, so it doesn't offer a very good description. And the accepted
view has changed in recent years too. So I am sure it will change some
more in coming years.

For instance, they used to think that light or
even objects could rise above the event horizon and fall back.

Who said that??? Certainly no one familiar with GR.

Not since John Michell in 1784.

You really need to update your reading list.


Now
they say that anything once inside the event horizon can never come out
again. This doesn't make much sense when one considers a black hole
the size of the solar system, since the gravity at the event horizon,
say about the orbit of Pluto, would not be very great at all. So why
could nothing rise about the event horizon temporarily, even though
it's doomed to fall back again?

Also I do not do not believe that any such things as point
singularities can exist at our present time, because time slows
infinitely inside the event horizon, and since we think our universe
has only a finite age, that would not provide the infinite time
required for any point singularity to have formed.

Also Hawing's reversal that he now believes that what goes in will
eventually come out, kind of takes away that one-way trip idea that
really defined black holes.

Anyway, good to see you back.

Double-A

Double-A wrote:
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Double=A I think you are bending towards acknowledging black holes.They
are for real. Reality is no spiral galaxy could live without one They
show us how great (strong) the gravitational compression can get. Black
holes help us understand the universe. They are no longer sci.-fiction
Bert

As for black holes, I do believe there is something, but I just don't
believe they are the way they are currently described based on the
equations of GR. That theory really breaks down at the event horizon
anyway, so it doesn't offer a very good description. And the accepted
view has changed in recent years too. So I am sure it will change some
more in coming years. For instance, they used to think that light or
even objects could rise above the event horizon and fall back. Now
they say that anything once inside the event horizon can never come out
again. This doesn't make much sense when one considers a black hole
the size of the solar system, since the gravity at the event horizon,
say about the orbit of Pluto, would not be very great at all. So why
could nothing rise about the event horizon temporarily, even though
it's doomed to fall back again?
The 'Event Haze'?

Anyway, good to see you back.
TreBert is no more?

Cordially,

RL

Double-A Rained every day. Could not see even the Sun let alone stars
in the night sky. Did not climb Sugar loaf,and that was my last chance.
The tallest mountain in western Ma. is Greylock and it is 3500ft True
GR breaks down at the event horizon,and QM is very blurry. Even spin of
black holes have to be measured by the accretion disk they create when
pulling apart a star and causing the material to circle in. Gravity
has always been my sci-life quest thinking. To take away black holes my
cosmological thinking would become worthless.(Saul thinks it is anyway)
Double-A I can't look straight down a cliff,but the mountain peaks I
have reached the top of sloop down,and I can live with that. Bert

Zinni I'm sure you can tell us what the event horizon of a BH looks and
feels like. My version is its a trillion times blacker than an 8
ball,and 10 trillion times harder. Trebert

RL I promised nightbat my captain in both universes that I will be gone
tomorrow at 6 pm I'm making that 4 six"s instead of three in hopes
to combat that events happen in three"s(plane crashes etc) TreBert.

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Double-A Rained every day. Could not see even the Sun let alone stars
in the night sky. Did not climb Sugar loaf,and that was my last chance.
The tallest mountain in western Ma. is Greylock and it is 3500ft

True
GR breaks down at the event horizon,and QM is very blurry.

Nonsense.

"The Schwarzschild spacetime geometry appears ill-behaved at the horizon,
the Schwarzschild radius (vertical red line). However, the pathology is an
artefact of the Schwarzschild coordinate system. Spacetime itself is
well-behaved at the Schwarzschild radius, as can be ascertained by computing
the components of the Riemann curvature tensor, all of whose components
remain finite at the Schwarzschild radius."
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schwp.html


Even spin of
black holes have to be measured by the accretion disk they create when
pulling apart a star and causing the material to circle in. Gravity
has always been my sci-life quest thinking. To take away black holes my
cosmological thinking would become worthless.(Saul thinks it is anyway)
Double-A I can't look straight down a cliff,but the mountain peaks I
have reached the top of sloop down,and I can live with that. Bert