[MissAmericanPie]

If Black holes truly do not exist, how does one explain the existence of liberal democrats such as Kerry? Information vanishes into this mystery and is forever lost in revisions, indecision, distortion, and envy. Democrats can make the tax payers money vanish without a trace of improvement in any area it's expended on.

Of course the Republicans are doing a fair job themselves of learning that trick, such as ten billion down the African black hole for aids when African leaders have tossed the very possibility that aids exist down their own black hole, and an eventually 34 billion in Social Security to Mexico who can make that vanish down a black hole without an illegal ever seeing a dime of it.

[untenured]

Mitra, four years ago, in a controversial paper in the reputed journal, Foundations of Physics Letters...

It's not reputed, it's real enough.

[Right Wing Professor]

99.9% of the claims to have overturned some established principle of science turn out to be nonsense, produced by fringe scientists who have made some fundamental error. I very much suspect this is the case with Dr. Mitra. In particular, there is a vast difference between his claim that black holes cannot exist, and Hawking's claim that black holes, if you feed them absolutely nothing, will shrink by radiation over a semi-infinite time period.

Nonetheless I predict FR's motley collection of science kooks will be exulting at this further evidence of the closed-mindedness of the scientific establishment

[Phsstpok]

OK, biased and uninformative article. Hawking questioned his own conclusion about Black Holes being absolute in his 1988 book "A Brief History of Time." It's the one thing that really bugged me about that book. Just when I was beginning to understand the physics of Black Holes (including absolute enegry/information sinks) about a third of the way through the book you turn the page and he says "and here's why I was wrong."

Now, Hawking's explanation of being "wrong" is based on Quantum Mechanics and "spontaneous" particles appearing near a black hole (Hawking radiation) and this Indian Physiscist bases his argument on the long discredited Einseinian Relativitiy theory (discredited by Quantum physics) makes me a little skeptical about this claim of "vindication."

Bottom line, I'll look at Hawking and then this chap, then I'll make a judgement. I won't take this article at face value.

[gcruse]

India knows from black holes. Calcutta.

[Bush2000]

Gunga galunga... gunga, gunga-galunga.

[SunkenCiv]

a couple of moldy old topics.

Black holes 'do not exist'
Nature | 03/31/05 | Philip Ball
Posted on 03/31/2005 7:41:46 PM EST by Michael_Michaelangelo
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1375044/posts

[kalee]

ping

[Lancey Howard]

Excellent. Hats off to Hawking as well, for having the integrity to admit that he was mistaken.

[edsheppa]

BHCs have intense magnetic fields as predicted by Mitra and therefore are not real black holes which cannot have magnetic field.

But it's well known that black holes can have magnetic fields. IIRC, there've even been some recent proposals which use the black hole's magnetic field to explain how energy can be transferred from the black hole to its accretion disk.

I wonder which is more preposterous, Mitra on black holes or Pat Boone on evolution?

[SunkenCiv]

[Fred Nerks]

Found it, thanks..

Meet the Indian who took on Stephen Hawking
Rediff.com ^ | August 03, 2004 10:06 IST | Rediff.com

Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 3:16:56 PM by CarrotAndStick

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1183887/posts