Skip to comments.Why Hawking is Wrong About Black Holes
Posted on 02/01/2014 1:03:35 PM PST by BenLurkin
Black holes can radiate in a way that agrees with thermodynamics, and the region near the event horizon doesnt have a firewall, just as general relativity requires. So Hawkings proposal is a solution to a problem that doesnt exist.
(Excerpt) Read more at universetoday.com ...
Hawkins is not the guru people make out. Like Billy Nye the Anus Guy.
Interesting read. What would be really interesting is if anyone arrange for a black hole to appear in DC?
What about flotus?
The debt hole in the District of Criminals is quite black.
perhaps we can send a few hundred corrupted politico-leeches from WashDC to the nearest black hole to find out for sure if this theory is correct? starting with...
Hillary Clinton thread so early?
What difference does it make?
Going to a lot of trouble to explain there is nothing to explain . . . beep?
Still Hawking has a point. A black hole is a gravitional center so strong that once something enters,then nothing not even light can escape. Never understood what the source of a such a gravitational field could be and since there is inherent energy associated with mass what happens to all that energy when mass is absorbed by a “black hole”.
Bill Nye is a guy with an engineering degree who has never really done anything with his technical training, and certainly knows very little about science.
Hawking is an important cosmologist with an over-inflated reputation among the general public that he does not have among his peers. His recent statements about Black Holes have been over-hyped in the popular press to promote controversy, but they are really quite mild and don't actually change any of the current theories about Black Holes much. The fact that Black Holes do not have an "exact" Schwarzschild Radius is not new; Hawking Radiation is essentially a manifestation of that fact, which has been known for at least 30 years.
Hawking is over-hyped because of a press fascination with the idea that there is a "smartest man in the world," a ridiculous idea on the face of it.
The most famous example of this myth was Einstein, a truly great physicist like Newton or Archimedes who only comes along every five hundred years or more. He was still not "the smartest man in the world," and by the time the press discovered him his great achievements were many years behind him. The fact that Hawking is disabled and has survived a horrible disease orders of magnitude longer than most adds to his mystique, but he's no Einstein, let alone the "smartest man in the world."
How can Hawking be a famous cosmetologist if he can’t use his hands? I’d hate to see his clients’ makeup.
Truth is, even Einstein wasn't.
So bascially there is either something wrong with Hawking’s theory or there is something wrong with Einstein’s. If the “firewall” exists then general relativity is partially wrong. If it doesn’t, then the idea of Hawking radiation is partially wrong. Either way, I don’t see how entangled particles on either side of an event horizon violates the entanglement.
Hawking has always been overrated. “Einstein’s heir” my ass. And an anti-Semite to boot.
Not quite. They actually evaporate over time.
Never understood what the source of a such a gravitational field could be
The source of the field is a collapsed star or other object with mass greater than the Chandrasekhar Limit. Such an object collapses under its own mass. In General Relativity, this collapse is down to a single point, called "the singularity." We do not have a Quantum Theory of Gravity, but all bets -- and mathematical estimates based on QFT and/or the Uncertainty principle -- are that in the Quantum version, the mass cannot quite collapse to a single point.
what happens to all that energy when mass is absorbed by a black hole
Nothing happens to it. It's still there inside the hole. Because the hole is not a "hole," it's a region of space near the singularity. In the early 20th century, it was known these kinds of masses could theoretically exist; so massive that light could not escape. At that time they were called "frozen stars" to capture the idea that light could not escape them. Black Hole is better but still leaves room for misinterpretation. There is no hole. It looks like a "hole" to an outside observer, because things that get close enough (even light) "fall in." A better term might be Black Suckers or Black Gobblers.
Not only that, but he’s the one in the chair, not the client...
I love scientists and their “laws.”
Mother nature laughs at science.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.