gf@dasys1.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) (12/24/87)
I have put off posting this for some time, in view of the
fact that many physicists, astronomers, and newage gurus have
been making plenty good money postulating black holes,
theorizing about black holes, and looking for black holes.
However, the time has finally come for the truth to out.
There are no black holes, except in certain people's heads.
The reasons why there are no black holes are as follows. Suppose
there existed a sufficient mass in sufficiently little space to
generate a black hole with an event horizon. Then gravity,
as well as light and all other forms of matter/energy, would
be unable to pass through the event horizon. If this were
not the case, then a demon, by jumping from side to side, could
convey energy and information to the outer world, and the event
would not be an event horizon. So the event horizon must interdict
gravity.
Now, if any event horizon forms, then there must be another
event horizon more interior to it, because the force of gravity
increases as one approaches the source of the gravity. So
no event horizon could form, because the interior event horizon
would prevent gravity from reaching it. An event horizon might
form momentarily, but it would collapse almost instantly as
its gravity was cut off. Any matter on any of the transitional
event horizons would be disassembled, since the forces which
hold matter together would be cut by the event horizon.
So, if a black hole were to form, the mass which caused it
would not only disappear into the hole, but it would also
_pull_the_hole_in_after_it_. Nothing would be left behind
but a loud gravitational pop, which, for all we know, may
echo yet amidst the stars.
Sorry, guys.
--
Gordon Fitch {uunet}!mstan\
The Big Electric Cat {ihnp4,harvard,philabs}!cmcl2!cucard!dasys1!gf
New York City, NY, USA (212) 879-9031 {sun}!hoptoad/matt@oddjob.UChicago.EDU (Maxwell House Daemon) (12/25/87)
The poster obviously has no idea what gravity *is*. Nor does he seem interested in learning. Matt Crawford
slocum@hi-csc.UUCP (Brett Slocum) (12/30/87)
Unfortunately, the poster's arguement against blackholes is a bunch of speculative handwaving, without any basis in physics. And he hasn't kept up with current astronomical discoveries. Astronomers have identified a handful of objects that under current theories are black holes. Sorry to gravitationally pop your balloon. -- --Brett Slocum "Never bet with a Sicilian where Death is involved." UUCP: ...uunet!hi-csc!slocum Arpa: hi-csc!slocum@umn-cs.arpa UUCP: ...ihnp4!umn-cs!hi-csc!slocum (descending order of speed, I think)
gf@dasys1.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) (12/30/87)
In article <14170@oddjob.UChicago.EDU>, matt@oddjob.UChicago.EDU (Maxwell House Daemon) writes: > The poster obviously has no idea what gravity *is*. Nor does he seem > interested in learning. > Matt Crawford OK, I'll bite. What *is* gravity? -- Gordon Fitch {uunet}!mstan\ The Big Electric Cat {ihnp4,harvard,philabs}!cmcl2!cucard!dasys1!gf New York City, NY, USA (212) 879-9031 {sun}!hoptoad/
gf@dasys1.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) (01/01/88)
In article <395b7bf6.805@hi-csc.UUCP>, slocum@hi-csc.UUCP (Brett Slocum) writes: > Unfortunately, the poster's arguement against blackholes is a bunch > of speculative handwaving, without any basis in physics. And he On the contrary. I adduced the same theory (relativistic view of gravity) used to think up "black holes" in the first place. My posting may be wrong, or "speculative" (what an offense!) or a put-on, but handwaving it's not. > hasn't kept up with current astronomical discoveries. Astronomers > have identified a handful of objects that under current theories are > black holes. Astronomers "identified" canals on Mars for many, many years, and even drew pictures of them. -- Gordon Fitch {uunet}!mstan\ The Big Electric Cat {ihnp4,harvard,philabs}!cmcl2!cucard!dasys1!gf New York City, NY, USA (212) 879-9031 {sun}!hoptoad/
jesup@pawl23.pawl.rpi.edu (Randell E. Jesup) (01/02/88)
In article <2420@dasys1.UUCP> gf@dasys1.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes: > >On the contrary. I adduced the same theory (relativistic view of >gravity) used to think up "black holes" in the first place. My >posting may be wrong, or "speculative" (what an offense!) or a >put-on, but handwaving it's not. Excuse me, but you seem to have founded your 'proof' upon a mistaken assumption: That no information can cross an event horizon. Remember: gravity is not a particle, though there has been occaisional speculation about 'gravitrons'. Now, an event horizon may well prevent particles, even massless ones such as photons, from escaping, but that doesn't have to mean that gravity cannot have an affect across one. The warping of space/time seems to be an intrinsic property of certain particles (or quarks, whatever). >Gordon Fitch {uunet}!mstan\ >The Big Electric Cat {ihnp4,harvard,philabs}!cmcl2!cucard!dasys1!gf >New York City, NY, USA (212) 879-9031 {sun}!hoptoad/ On to a more intersting topic: if gravity is unaffected by space/time warpage, what implications does this have? I assume from things I've read that gravity is believed to propogate at lightspeed (or rather, it's affect). Is there any experimental proof of this? // Randell Jesup Lunge Software Development // Dedicated Amiga Programmer 13 Frear Ave, Troy, NY 12180 \\// lunge!jesup@beowulf.UUCP (518) 272-2942 \/ (uunet!steinmetz!beowulf!lunge!jesup)
ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) (01/02/88)
There are two possible responses to Mr. Fitch's postings.
One is to politely point out that his argument is *not*
based on General Relativity, our current best theory of gravity.
It is not necessary to wade through a mass of equations to
see the problem. It is very simply that he regards the space-time
background of the black hole as a passive conductor of force from
the center of the black hole to nearby objects. In GR space-time
is a dynamical participant. In particular, a "black hol"
is a distortion of space-time whose nature in no way depends on
the matter that formed it. Nor does anything happening in the
center of black hole contribute in any way to the exterior gravitatioana
field.
Mr. Fitch's argument's are phrased in such a way that I suspect he
doesn't know, or want to know, anything about current physics. This
suggests a second remedy. He should simply edit his header so that
this discussion is confined to talk.rligion.newage. Then it will
appear profound and correct to his audience.
--
I'm not afraid of dying Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy
I just don't want to be {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
there when it happens. (arpanet) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU
- Woody Allen (bitnet) ethan%astro.as.utexas.edu@WISCVM.WISC.EDUwlinden@dasys1.UUCP (William Linden) (01/02/88)
All right, it looks like my turn to object. What does all this physics
controversy have to do with talk.religion.newage?
--
Will Linden {sun,philabs,cmcl2}!phri\
Compuserve 72737,2150 {bellcore,cmcl2}!cucard!dasys1!wlinden
MCI Mail WLINDEN {portal,well,ihnp4,amdahl}!hoptoad/markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) (01/04/88)
In article <2420@dasys1.UUCP> gf@dasys1.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes: >In article <395b7bf6.805@hi-csc.UUCP>, slocum@hi-csc.UUCP (Brett Slocum) writes: >> Unfortunately, the poster's arguement against blackholes is a bunch >> of speculative handwaving, without any basis in physics. And he > >On the contrary. I adduced the same theory (relativistic view of >gravity) used to think up "black holes" in the first place. My >posting may be wrong, or "speculative" (what an offense!) or a >put-on, but handwaving it's not. Last I recall, General Relativity was couched in the language of Tensor Calculus (or Spinor Algebra, or Differential Forms as you now have your choice today) If you're going to become another Goedel, common sense says you'd have to come up with a more rigorous proof of inconsistency. As it is you derived a lot of contradictions by assuming a lot of things that contradict the model of a black hole given by General Relativity (and you couldn't even do that right). Have you ever considered that time is frozen on the event horizon? How are those things you speak of ever to happen if a black hole (also called "frozen star") never collapses beyond the event horizon (from the perspective of one on the outside)? You also assumed that there would be such a thing as an "inside" to the black hole. There's nothing that says there even exists an inside. One variant model treats the black hole as a "worm-hole". In that case "outside" would be more appropriate. The event horizon may have two outsides and no inside. > >> hasn't kept up with current astronomical discoveries. Astronomers >> have identified a handful of objects that under current theories are >> black holes. > >Astronomers "identified" canals on Mars for many, many years, and even >drew pictures of them. ... and found them. There are huge canyons on Mars that were spotted by orbiting spacecraft. There are also the ancient remains of rivers. >-- >Gordon Fitch {uunet}!mstan\ >The Big Electric Cat {ihnp4,harvard,philabs}!cmcl2!cucard!dasys1!gf >New York City, NY, USA (212) 879-9031 {sun}!hoptoad/