Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Hawking is Wrong About Black Holes
universetoday.com ^ | February 1, 2014 | Brian Koberlein on

Posted on 02/01/2014 1:03:35 PM PST by BenLurkin

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-58 next last
To: gorush

21 posted on 02/01/2014 1:56:22 PM PST by null and void (<--- unwilling cattle-car passenger on the bullet train to serfdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Fzob

We have one. Just ask Reggie Love...


22 posted on 02/01/2014 1:57:23 PM PST by null and void (<--- unwilling cattle-car passenger on the bullet train to serfdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: montag813

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913 + 1828)


Displaying 1 result(s) from the 1913 edition:
Semitic (Page: 1309)

Sem*it"ic (?), a. Of or pertaining to Shem or his descendants; belonging to that division of the Caucasian race which includes the Arabs, Jews, and related races. [Written also Shemitic.] Semitic language, a name used to designate a group of Asiatic and African languages, some living and some dead, namely: Hebrew and Ph&oe;nician, Aramaic, Assyrian, Arabic, Ethiopic (Geez and Ampharic). Encyc. Brit.

23 posted on 02/01/2014 1:58:06 PM PST by Dalberg-Acton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Telepathic Intruder
So bascially there is either something wrong with Hawking’s theory or there is something wrong with Einstein’s

The theory requires a very minor modification of Hawking's original idea, which was slightly wrong. There is a good link to the explanation at the web site of this article.

GR and Hawking Radiation are still intact. No worries.

Either way, I don’t see how entangled particles on either side of an event horizon violates the entanglement.

The entanglement is violated because the particle that falls into the black hole in annihilated, leaving an orphaned partner. The resolution is that Hawking particles are spawned in entangled pairs of pairs. [Four particles.] In each case the entangled particles fall in, or escape together.

Like a double date, where you go into a bar and get so trashed you wake up in a strange bed, but it's the gal you went in with in the first place, so no "fire wall" to deal with later on...

24 posted on 02/01/2014 2:01:23 PM PST by FredZarguna (Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon
Hawkins is not the guru people make out.

Nor is anyone who disputes his claims.......

After all, it is "Theoretical Science"...........

25 posted on 02/01/2014 2:08:49 PM PST by Hot Tabasco (I think I've lost my mojo.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Fascinating stuff.


26 posted on 02/01/2014 2:16:17 PM PST by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ditter
I still don't understand black holes.

It's simple. Really. A star collapses and dies. It becomes, after a time, a super massive sphere. So massive that its gravitational pull will not allow light to escape. So all this light has to go somewhere...or rather, its energy. So the light is converted to other forms of energy...because we know that energy can not be destroyed but must be converted to some other form.

So the energy from this light is pulled in and gets converted to X-rays and other forms of higher frequency radiation like gamma rays. These, the 'black hole', cannot pull in so they spew out at very high speed and for great distances.

The name 'black hole' (which I detest) is an abysmal moniker for there is no hole. Yes, physical laws would seem to break down but there is no hole. It is nothing more that a super dense singularity that converts energy from one for to another on a MASSIVE scale.

See?

27 posted on 02/01/2014 2:18:03 PM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts ("The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it." - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

OK but explain a singularity. Always thought that all objects had a “gravitational” pull that is proportional to its mass. If an object such as a star “collapses” unto itself, its mass would be a bit more dense but overall less as some of that contracting mass dissipates as energy. Then why is the gravity field so much stronger?


28 posted on 02/01/2014 2:23:22 PM PST by allendale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon

Hawking lost all credibility when he started to become an atheist philosopher, essentially himself buying into the hype that he’s the smartest man in history. He ventured into territory that he had no business venturing into and some of his comments end up sounding like a college student.

His understand of physics is certainly historic, but his understanding of the origins of physics is sophomoric at best. Hawking contradicts himself repeatedly when he talks about the creation of matter.


29 posted on 02/01/2014 2:24:01 PM PST by flintsilver7 (Honest reporting hasn't caught on in the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: flintsilver7

Yeah. Not sure if he saw money in Dawkins’ cottage industry or just wanted to get some publicity.


30 posted on 02/01/2014 2:30:10 PM PST by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

Oh yes, you’re correct. The particle within the event horizon acts like negative matter in order for conservation of energy to be preserved. I missed that little nuance.


31 posted on 02/01/2014 2:32:05 PM PST by Telepathic Intruder (The only thing the Left has learned from the failures of socialism is not to call it that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SERKIT

Reminds me of a buddy of mine who went to a cosmetology seminar on career day in high school expecting to learn about astronomy...


32 posted on 02/01/2014 2:34:19 PM PST by Textide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Fzob

“What would be really interesting is if anyone arrange for a black hole to appear in DC?”

I think Marion Barry nows more than one!


33 posted on 02/01/2014 2:58:57 PM PST by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Paradox

You want a Physics guru, look to Richard Feynman.


34 posted on 02/01/2014 3:12:59 PM PST by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna
It looks like a "hole" to an outside observer,

Shouldn't it look like a black orb? 3-D orb rather than a 2-D hole.

35 posted on 02/01/2014 3:32:50 PM PST by Zuben Elgenubi (NOPe to GOPe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts

thank you, that makes it PERFECTLY clear! ?:[

will there be a test on this later?


36 posted on 02/01/2014 4:23:45 PM PST by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

I thought that the science was settled. Deniers!


37 posted on 02/01/2014 4:33:47 PM PST by Tanniker Smith (Rome didn't fall in a day, either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allendale
Well, remember, gravitational attraction depends only on mass, so theoretically a black hole can have any mass as long as it's small enough. [This isn't really true because the Uncertainty principle limits how small a black hole can be -- but in General Relativity or Newtonian gravity there's no lower size boundary] gravity The fact that some of the star mass is lost doesn't matter all that much. There is also mass loss due to binding energy when the Fermions start collapsing into themselves, and that also doesn't make a whole lot of difference.

The solution of Einstein Field equations is beyond the scope of this reply. However, you can get a very good estimate of the size (it actually turns out to be too large by a factor of 1/2) by using the Virial Theorem of classical physics, and Newtons Law:

Virial Therorem for central forces:
Average Kinetic energy = 1/2 Average Potential Energy.
1/2 mv2 = GMm/2r
r = GM/v2
At Schwarzchild Radius, r = rs, v = c;
rs = GM/c2
Couple examples:
for solar mass [the sun won't become a black hole because it doesn't have enough mass to become a neutron star, but just an example] ~2 x 1030 kg
rs = 1.989E30 kg x 6.67384E-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 / (3.0E8 ms-1) ~ 1500 m. So a black hole with one solar mass would have rs of 1.5 kilometers.


A black Hole with a mass the same as earth: 5.972E24 kg would have rs of about 0.4 cm .

Both of these answers are off by 2, because Newton's gravity doesn't hold for strong gravitational fields.

38 posted on 02/01/2014 4:45:41 PM PST by FredZarguna (Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

Thanks Fred. There is much I do not and never will understand about the nuances of physics.


39 posted on 02/01/2014 5:27:25 PM PST by allendale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Zuben Elgenubi

Well, the event horizon is spherical. But as to how it would “look” we get most of our three-D vision from cues (contrary to popular belief, almost all 3D vision occurs in the brain, binocular vision isn’t necessary.) The event horizon wouldn’t appear to “bulge” because from every angle light would not escape, so no shading, no highlights. When backlit, gravitational lensing would tend to make it look like a hole from every direction there was any significant light behind.


40 posted on 02/01/2014 5:34:15 PM PST by FredZarguna (Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-58 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson