DARK-ENERGY STARS vs. BLACK HOLES

http://www.analogsf.com/0510/altview.shtml

"Therefore, according to Chapline, there are no black holes in our
universe, only dark-energy stars that contract to some definite size
at which they are stabilized by the negative pressure of the dark
energy inside. This provides a new mechanism that prevents a
collapsing star from progressing all the way to an information-
destroying singularity. Instead, the phase change to dark energy would
produce a stable system of finite size, with no singularities to worry
about. Further, the supposed "evaporation" of black holes by the
Hawking radiation process (which has never been observed) does not
happen, because the quantum processes manifest themselves in a
different way. It's also interesting to note that the supposed
thermodynamic connection between string theory and the surfaces of
black holes, which has recently been publicized as a great triumph for
string theory, may be based on questionable physics."


If Hawking radiation doesn't exist, then while black holes might have
evaporated, dark-energy stars are forever! So what about those
objects they will be trying to create at Cern, and what will they do
to the Earth?

Double-A

Hawking radiation, the big bang theory, and believing the universe to
be probabilistic in itself, just because you are limited to observe it
in a probabilistic way, is junk science.

Why does certain peculiar galaxies with two Quasars, have a different
redshift for each of the Quasars, when they are loctated in the same
region of space?

Why believe that black holes are emitting thermal radiation when it
has never been observed?

Is it science to believe in something unverifiable?

On Sep 25, 3:28 pm, wrote:
Hawking radiation, the big bang theory, and believing the universe to
be probabilistic in itself, just because you are limited to observe it
in a probabilistic way, is junk science.

Why does certain peculiar galaxies with two Quasars, have a different
redshift for each of the Quasars, when they are loctated in the same
region of space?

Why believe that black holes are emitting thermal radiation when it
has never been observed?

Is it science to believe in something unverifiable?


Apparently it is nowadays.

Double-A

"Double-A" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 25, 3:28 pm, wrote:

Hawking radiation, the big bang theory, and believing the universe to
be probabilistic in itself, just because you are limited to observe it
in a probabilistic way, is junk science.

Why does certain peculiar galaxies with two Quasars, have a different
redshift for each of the Quasars, when they are loctated in the same
region of space?

Why believe that black holes are emitting thermal radiation when it
has never been observed?

Is it science to believe in something unverifiable?

Apparently it is nowadays.

Double-A

Evidence of science accepting things that are
unconfirmed is abundant these days. Top this
with the fact that even when things can be
confirmed, they sometimes throw wrenches
into the works. There are lots of confirmations
for Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, and yet
the two still don't work and play well together.

Truth can be hard to come by! I'm hoping that
reality science is on the verge of some great
breakthroughs.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Stardust in the solar wind,
all that is or ever been,
all we shout 'n all we sin,
just stardust in the solar wind.

Indelibly yours,
Paine
http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net

Painius In 1939 black holes were called dark or black stars by
Oppenheimer(of Harvard) A rose is a rose. Hawking radiation does not
mean its coming out from inside the black hole. It is twin particle
pairs separating just before they enter the event horizon. One goes into
the black hole and the other flung back into space. I find that can be
used at the trillionth of a second of the big band. I can also use it
for my Concave & Convex space curve theory. Bert

On Oct 1, 5:36 am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
Painius In 1939 black holes were called dark or black stars by
Oppenheimer(of Harvard) A rose is a rose. Hawking radiation does not
mean its coming out from inside the black hole. It is twin particle
pairs separating just before they enter the event horizon. One goes into
the black hole and the other flung back into space. I find that can be
used at the trillionth of a second of the big band.


Which big band was your favorite, Bert?


I can also use it
for my Concave & Convex space curve theory. Bert

On Oct 1, 5:36 am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
Painius In 1939 black holes were called dark or black stars by
Oppenheimer(of Harvard) A rose is a rose. Hawking radiation does not
mean its coming out from inside the black hole. It is twin particle
pairs separating just before they enter the event horizon. One goes into
the black hole and the other flung back into space.


It is true that Hawking radiation is not thought of as coming from
inside a black hole, but it has to involvle some kind of negative mass
going into the hole to cancel out regular mass. Simply antiparticles
going into a black hole will only increase its mass. Which seems the
hardest to believe? Particles coming out of a black hole to reduce
its mass, even if they have to travel backwards in time to get out?
Or particles having a never before observed negative mass going into a
black whole to cancel out its mass?


I find that can be
used at the trillionth of a second of the big band. I can also use it
for my Concave & Convex space curve theory. Bert


Double-A

Double-A Dark energy is hidden in the fabric of empty space. Like
gravity its source fits with gravities source,and to observe it will
never be reality(not ever) The imperial thinkers use it to expand space
at an accelerating rate, I use it to give deep space a convex curve.
Dark energy comes not from stars. Its the popping of empty space energy
The event of each pop takes place in 10^-21 of a second. Reality is
dark energy plus gravity will from time to time give you a BB Reality
is the area of the universe contains twice as much dark energy that all
of the universe's matter and energy Approximately twice as much. Bert