Black Holes Do Not Exist!

Black holes do not exist, says George Chapline, a physicist at Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory in California. Instead he proposes an
entity called a Dark Energy Star. He argues that QM, not GR, is the
correct theory for macro as well as micro realms.

"The picture of gravitational collapse provided by
classical general relativity cannot be physically correct
because it conflicts with ordinary quantum mechanics.
For example, an event horizon makes it impossible to
everywhere synchronize atomic clocks. As an
alternative it has been proposed that the vacuum state
has off-diagonal order, and that space-time undergoes a
continuous phase transition near to where general
relativity predicts there should be an event horizon. For
example, it is expected that gravitational collapse of
objects with masses greater than a few solar masses
should lead to the formation of a compact object whose
surface corresponds to a quantum critical surface for
space-time, and whose interior differs from ordinary
space-time only in having a much larger vacuum
energy [1]. I call such an object a "dark energy star".

http://xxx.arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/pa...03/0503200.pdf

http://www.thebridgepaper.com/40-13blackholes.html

Double-A

Hi Thomas Reality is we know a type 11 supernova always leave behind a
neutron star or a black hole. Neutron stars are easy for us to detect
because they give out the strongest magnetic field in the universe.They
can be the size of Boston and this small sphere has the mass of the
entire solar system. People are afraid of the unknown,and black hole
are indeed the most exotic known astronomical phenomenon(by far)
Gravity is infinite in the power of its compression force. No event can
come back out to the universe from a BH. I think that is why its surface
gets the name "event horizon" We observe stars revolving around
nothing. We know this nothing is heavier than the star revolving around
it. It is a black hole. We see Adromeda whose core is shown to us close
up by the Hubble. This core gives off strong X-ray radiation,and also
has blue light. It is a rather small area,but it houses an estimated
mass of 30 million suns. Our Milky Way has a massive black hole
because astronomers have measured how stars move and only an unseen
massive object can explain their movements. Thomas elliptical
galaxies like M32 show strong evidence of a black hole . Galaxy M87
jumps to mind knowing it has the incredible mass of more than a trillion
solar masses. We live in the best of times because Hubble has taken
pictures of all that I've posted. These pictures say it all Black
holes are real. Black holes will not fade away. GR predicted them. with
its math. Karl Shwarzchild used this math to give them size,and mass
density. Hawking has them in every size. Roger Penrose gave them a
singularity at their core. People can argue that they are not real,but
in reality this will not make them go away. The name black hole fits,but
I'm not crazy about that name. To bad we don't know what's inside a
black hole. Some say quarks.or gravitons A rose is a rose Bert

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Hi Thomas Reality is we know a type 11 supernova always leave behind
a
neutron star or a black hole. Neutron stars are easy for us to detect
because they give out the strongest magnetic field in the
universe.They
can be the size of Boston and this small sphere has the mass of the
entire solar system. People are afraid of the unknown,and black hole
are indeed the most exotic known astronomical phenomenon(by far)
Gravity is infinite in the power of its compression force. No event
can
come back out to the universe from a BH. I think that is why its
surface
gets the name "event horizon"
[snip]


Then how is it, Bert, that a black hole singularity moving from way
over there someplace to right here an inch away from your nose can have
any effect on you, since the event of its movement originates inside
the event horizon?

Double-A

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
Hi Thomas Reality is we know a type 11 supernova always leave behind a
neutron star or a black hole. Neutron stars are easy for us to detect
because they give out the strongest magnetic field in the universe.They
can be the size of Boston and this small sphere has the mass of the
entire solar system. People are afraid of the unknown,and black hole
are indeed the most exotic known astronomical phenomenon(by far)
Gravity is infinite in the power of its compression force. No event can
come back out to the universe from a BH. I think that is why its surface
gets the name "event horizon" We observe stars revolving around
nothing. We know this nothing is heavier than the star revolving around
it. It is a black hole. We see Adromeda whose core is shown to us close
up by the Hubble. This core gives off strong X-ray radiation,and also
has blue light. It is a rather small area,but it houses an estimated
mass of 30 million suns. Our Milky Way has a massive black hole
because astronomers have measured how stars move and only an unseen
massive object can explain their movements. Thomas elliptical
galaxies like M32 show strong evidence of a black hole . Galaxy M87
jumps to mind knowing it has the incredible mass of more than a trillion
solar masses. We live in the best of times because Hubble has taken
pictures of all that I've posted. These pictures say it all Black
holes are real. Black holes will not fade away. GR predicted them. with
its math. Karl Shwarzchild used this math to give them size,and mass
density. Hawking has them in every size. Roger Penrose gave them a
singularity at their core. People can argue that they are not real,but
in reality this will not make them go away. The name black hole fits,but
I'm not crazy about that name. To bad we don't know what's inside a
black hole. Some say quarks.or gravitons A rose is a rose Bert

No Bert, the name is very important, because you think about BH as
*singularity*.
I think instead that we can have quark stars or gravastars or dark energy
stars (or every name you want) with *no singularity*.
BH are associated with singularity, other ultrasupermassive objects are not
associated with singularity.
For example in the center of Galaxy M87 you can have a superultramassive
quark star with trillion solar masses.
You can't see *any* difference from this object and a BH but you don't need
to break all physical laws because you love singularity idea (and maybe
wormholes and other weird concepts).

Anyway in 2007 at CERN scientists will try to create black holes, if they
will be able to do that I'll be happy for you...

Luigi Caselli

Luigi Caselli wrote:
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
Hi Thomas Reality is we know a type 11 supernova always leave
behind a
neutron star or a black hole. Neutron stars are easy for us to
detect
because they give out the strongest magnetic field in the
universe.They
can be the size of Boston and this small sphere has the mass of the
entire solar system. People are afraid of the unknown,and black
hole
are indeed the most exotic known astronomical phenomenon(by far)
Gravity is infinite in the power of its compression force. No event
can
come back out to the universe from a BH. I think that is why its
surface
gets the name "event horizon" We observe stars revolving around
nothing. We know this nothing is heavier than the star revolving
around
it. It is a black hole. We see Adromeda whose core is shown to us
close
up by the Hubble. This core gives off strong X-ray radiation,and
also
has blue light. It is a rather small area,but it houses an
estimated
mass of 30 million suns. Our Milky Way has a massive black hole
because astronomers have measured how stars move and only an unseen
massive object can explain their movements. Thomas
elliptical
galaxies like M32 show strong evidence of a black hole . Galaxy
M87
jumps to mind knowing it has the incredible mass of more than a
trillion
solar masses. We live in the best of times because Hubble has
taken
pictures of all that I've posted. These pictures say it all
Black
holes are real. Black holes will not fade away. GR predicted them.
with
its math. Karl Shwarzchild used this math to give them size,and
mass
density. Hawking has them in every size. Roger Penrose gave them a
singularity at their core. People can argue that they are not
real,but
in reality this will not make them go away. The name black hole
fits,but
I'm not crazy about that name. To bad we don't know what's inside a
black hole. Some say quarks.or gravitons A rose is a rose
Bert

No Bert, the name is very important, because you think about BH as
*singularity*.
I think instead that we can have quark stars or gravastars or dark
energy
stars (or every name you want) with *no singularity*.
BH are associated with singularity, other ultrasupermassive objects
are not
associated with singularity.
For example in the center of Galaxy M87 you can have a
superultramassive
quark star with trillion solar masses.
You can't see *any* difference from this object and a BH but you
don't need
to break all physical laws because you love singularity idea (and
maybe
wormholes and other weird concepts).

Anyway in 2007 at CERN scientists will try to create black holes, if
they
will be able to do that I'll be happy for you...

Luigi Caselli


They had better be awfully certain of their Hawking radiation theory
before trying to create something as dangerous as theoretical black
holes. It's odd they can feel so sure of themselves when no one has
ever observed Hawking radiation. If Bert is right about black holes
not evaporating, then doomsday will come a lot sooner than the
projected 2012!

Other concerns about such experiments are that they could accidentally
create a "strangelet" that could change the Earth into strange matter
in a chain reaction. Also there have been concerns that space itself
might be induced to freeze, and that chain reaction could spread
throughout the universe!

Double-A

"Double-A" ha scritto nel messaggio
oups.com...

Luigi Caselli wrote:

No Bert, the name is very important, because you think about BH as
*singularity*.
I think instead that we can have quark stars or gravastars or dark
energy
stars (or every name you want) with *no singularity*.
BH are associated with singularity, other ultrasupermassive objects
are not
associated with singularity.
For example in the center of Galaxy M87 you can have a
superultramassive
quark star with trillion solar masses.
You can't see *any* difference from this object and a BH but you
don't need
to break all physical laws because you love singularity idea (and
maybe
wormholes and other weird concepts).

Anyway in 2007 at CERN scientists will try to create black holes, if
they
will be able to do that I'll be happy for you...

Luigi Caselli


They had better be awfully certain of their Hawking radiation theory
before trying to create something as dangerous as theoretical black
holes. It's odd they can feel so sure of themselves when no one has
ever observed Hawking radiation. If Bert is right about black holes
not evaporating, then doomsday will come a lot sooner than the
projected 2012!

Why 2012? I'm a bit scared...

Other concerns about such experiments are that they could accidentally
create a "strangelet" that could change the Earth into strange matter
in a chain reaction. Also there have been concerns that space itself
might be induced to freeze, and that chain reaction could spread
throughout the universe!

Sad end for the Big Simulation but maybe the Big Architects had some problem
to find money to increase computer power...
The stupid sims continue to increase communications using Internet,
cellulars and so on so it's every day more difficult to run the simulation.
I hope I'm joking...

Luigi Caselli

Luigi Caselli wrote:
"Double-A" ha scritto nel messaggio
oups.com...

Luigi Caselli wrote:

No Bert, the name is very important, because you think about BH
as
*singularity*.
I think instead that we can have quark stars or gravastars or
dark
energy
stars (or every name you want) with *no singularity*.
BH are associated with singularity, other ultrasupermassive
objects
are not
associated with singularity.
For example in the center of Galaxy M87 you can have a
superultramassive
quark star with trillion solar masses.
You can't see *any* difference from this object and a BH but you
don't need
to break all physical laws because you love singularity idea (and
maybe
wormholes and other weird concepts).

Anyway in 2007 at CERN scientists will try to create black holes,
if
they
will be able to do that I'll be happy for you...

Luigi Caselli


They had better be awfully certain of their Hawking radiation
theory
before trying to create something as dangerous as theoretical black
holes. It's odd they can feel so sure of themselves when no one
has
ever observed Hawking radiation. If Bert is right about black
holes
not evaporating, then doomsday will come a lot sooner than the
projected 2012!

Why 2012? I'm a bit scared...


Haven't you heard all nightbat's talk about the Wormwood doomsday comet
arriving in 2012?

Also, I think that is the year the Mayan calendar runs out!


Other concerns about such experiments are that they could
accidentally
create a "strangelet" that could change the Earth into strange
matter
in a chain reaction. Also there have been concerns that space
itself
might be induced to freeze, and that chain reaction could spread
throughout the universe!

Sad end for the Big Simulation but maybe the Big Architects had some
problem
to find money to increase computer power...
The stupid sims continue to increase communications using Internet,
cellulars and so on so it's every day more difficult to run the
simulation.
I hope I'm joking...

Luigi Caselli


Perhaps in reality, 2012 is the year the budget for the Big Simulation
runs out!

Double-A

Luigi Hi again The reason I go with the center of all black holes
having a point,and we call this core area a singularity is it tells me
why nature creates black holes. It is to house the singularity from the
rest of the universe..Conservative thinkers would say they are to weird
to exist,but real hard evidence,and the great pictures of the Hubble
will change their thinking. Luigi seems you don't mind the black
hole,but don't like the thought of a singularity and what nature created
it for. I'm sure that you have a large army of company from the
conservative religious right. A black hole has to have a singularity,as
a universe needs humankind. It gives meaning to both. Bert A
full time member of humankind who's universe's DNA came out of a
mini-bang 22 billion years ago and you too Bert PS Treb agrees with
me

Hi Double -A Nice observation. The BH gravity compression force has an
inseparable appetite It might eat the Cern accelerator for an
apertizer,and make the Earth the size of a pea What a sight for
Darla to see The moon revolving around an invisable object. Well she
will figure out what happened I'm sure. I think she will miss me.
Humankind take big chances.because they feel there is safety in
numbers,and don't realize you don't mess with natures number one force
gravity. Bert

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
Hi Double -A Nice observation. The BH gravity compression force has an
inseparable appetite...

More than you? :-)

Luigi Caselli