White Lies About Black Holes

WHITE LIES ABOUT BLACK HOLES

Kip Thorne introduces his article on black holes in Scientific American
by stating:

Or all the conceptions of the human mind from unicorns to gargoyles
to the hydrogen bomb perhaps the most fantastic is the black hole: a
hole in space with a definite edge over which anything can fall and
nothing can escape; a hole with a gravitational field so strong that
even light is caught and held in its grip; a hole that curves space
and warps time. Like the unicorn and the gargoyle, the black hole
seems much more at home in science fiction or in ancient myth than
in the real universe. Nevertheless, the laws of modern physics
virtually demand that black holes exist. In our galaxy alone there
may be millions of them.

Thorn is saying that because the "laws" of modern physics require them,
black holes must exist. However, it is more rational to conclude that
those "laws" which give rise to the gargoyles, unicorns, and black holes
of physics are wrong--that, as ordinarily expected, deductions from
false premises yield bizarre results. Let us now investigate how such
concepts as the black hole arose historically. The theory of the black
hole stems from the theories of general relativity, the nuclear atom,
and the hydrogen-to-helium conversion process in stars.

In the 1930s, Subrahmanyon Chandrasekhar's investigation of stellar
evolution and structure led him to conclude that, in the process of
converting hydrogen to helium, most stars lose energy and contract until
internal pressures become great enough to cause collapse of atomic
structure. Back in 1924, Sir Arthur Eddington had suggested that the
high density of the white dwarf companion of the bright star Sirius was
due to "electron degeneracy," with all electrens stripped from
individual atoms. Chandrasekhar seemed to provide an explanation of how
this could occur.

At this point someone might have pointed to a simpler solution: perhaps
the nuclear atom concept was incorrect because of the grave difficulty
in explaining the high density of the white dwarfs. Perhaps atoms do not
have electrons circling around ihem at relatively large distances.
Perhaps the postulated hydrogento-helium conversion process in stars was
incorrect.

Mo
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/rs/satz/whiteblack.htm


--

Usenet is filled with abusive and obsessive-compulsive-sociopathic personality disorder sufferers which makes it all the more easily ignored, dismissed and ridiculed.

Not just converting hydrogen to helium. The conversion goes all the
way to iron (and can't go any further). And, not most stars, only the
most massive.

Most stars end energy production and just fade away (cool).

What a biased set of statements that was...

Saul Levy


On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 08:06:42 GMT, Mad Scientist
wrote:

WHITE LIES ABOUT BLACK HOLES

Kip Thorne introduces his article on black holes in Scientific American
by stating:

Or all the conceptions of the human mind from unicorns to gargoyles
to the hydrogen bomb perhaps the most fantastic is the black hole: a
hole in space with a definite edge over which anything can fall and
nothing can escape; a hole with a gravitational field so strong that
even light is caught and held in its grip; a hole that curves space
and warps time. Like the unicorn and the gargoyle, the black hole
seems much more at home in science fiction or in ancient myth than
in the real universe. Nevertheless, the laws of modern physics
virtually demand that black holes exist. In our galaxy alone there
may be millions of them.

Thorn is saying that because the "laws" of modern physics require them,
black holes must exist. However, it is more rational to conclude that
those "laws" which give rise to the gargoyles, unicorns, and black holes
of physics are wrong--that, as ordinarily expected, deductions from
false premises yield bizarre results. Let us now investigate how such
concepts as the black hole arose historically. The theory of the black
hole stems from the theories of general relativity, the nuclear atom,
and the hydrogen-to-helium conversion process in stars.

In the 1930s, Subrahmanyon Chandrasekhar's investigation of stellar
evolution and structure led him to conclude that, in the process of
converting hydrogen to helium, most stars lose energy and contract until
internal pressures become great enough to cause collapse of atomic
structure. Back in 1924, Sir Arthur Eddington had suggested that the
high density of the white dwarf companion of the bright star Sirius was
due to "electron degeneracy," with all electrens stripped from
individual atoms. Chandrasekhar seemed to provide an explanation of how
this could occur.

At this point someone might have pointed to a simpler solution: perhaps
the nuclear atom concept was incorrect because of the grave difficulty
in explaining the high density of the white dwarfs. Perhaps atoms do not
have electrons circling around ihem at relatively large distances.
Perhaps the postulated hydrogento-helium conversion process in stars was
incorrect.

Mo
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/rs/satz/whiteblack.htm