Comments on: Black Holes don’t exist ? Black Holes do exist! http://blogs.earthsky.org/pamelagay/2007/07/18/black-holes-dont-exist-black-holes-do-exist/ Exploring the sky, one sidereal day at a time. Fri, 16 May 2008 07:38:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=wordpress-mu-1.2.1 By: Bill http://blogs.earthsky.org/pamelagay/2007/07/18/black-holes-dont-exist-black-holes-do-exist/#comment-90 Bill Sat, 28 Jul 2007 15:14:48 +0000 http://blogs.earthsky.org/pamelagay/2007/07/18/black-holes-dont-exist-black-holes-do-exist/#comment-90 I might disagree. It is a bit more than semantics, at least to a non-scientist. What the article failed to discuss is the size of the black entity. If its size is the same under Vackaspati's explanation, then I would have to agree it is mostly semantics. But it sounds like it might be bigger than that usually attibuted to black holes. More importantly, is Vackaspati's description of the physics correct, and does it supplement previous knowledge and theories? If so, then that is much more important than a possible journalistic error of re-naming something without having a sufficient basis to do so. I might disagree. It is a bit more than semantics, at least to a non-scientist. What the article failed to discuss is the size of the black entity. If its size is the same under Vackaspati’s explanation, then I would have to agree it is mostly semantics. But it sounds like it might be bigger than that usually attibuted to black holes. More importantly, is Vackaspati’s description of the physics correct, and does it supplement previous knowledge and theories? If so, then that is much more important than a possible journalistic error of re-naming something without having a sufficient basis to do so.

]]> By: nroberts http://blogs.earthsky.org/pamelagay/2007/07/18/black-holes-dont-exist-black-holes-do-exist/#comment-83 nroberts Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:39:31 +0000 http://blogs.earthsky.org/pamelagay/2007/07/18/black-holes-dont-exist-black-holes-do-exist/#comment-83 So he was basically saying that black holes don't really ever appear to be black holes to us, but black holes by nature are very mysterious and difficult to see without some type of x-ray because of their density and warping of mass, so you can't always trust your eyes to this anyway. Like he is saying, it does slow down time to an observer from the outside, but it does not stop it, so eventually, over many, many years, it will eventually get to the point of forming. He himself said it: "It APPEARS to stop". Just like a snail appears not to move. It's NOT completely stopped forever, it's just moving very gradually from our perspective. A black hole is a black hole, no matter what you call it. So he was basically saying that black holes don’t really ever appear to be black holes to us, but black holes by nature are very mysterious and difficult to see without some type of x-ray because of their density and warping of mass, so you can’t always trust your eyes to this anyway. Like he is saying, it does slow down time to an observer from the outside, but it does not stop it, so eventually, over many, many years, it will eventually get to the point of forming. He himself said it: “It APPEARS to stop”. Just like a snail appears not to move. It’s NOT completely stopped forever, it’s just moving very gradually from our perspective. A black hole is a black hole, no matter what you call it.

]]> By: Eric B http://blogs.earthsky.org/pamelagay/2007/07/18/black-holes-dont-exist-black-holes-do-exist/#comment-78 Eric B Sat, 21 Jul 2007 05:35:51 +0000 http://blogs.earthsky.org/pamelagay/2007/07/18/black-holes-dont-exist-black-holes-do-exist/#comment-78 Petrovay kicked his ass. Petrovay kicked his ass.

]]> By: David LaFerney http://blogs.earthsky.org/pamelagay/2007/07/18/black-holes-dont-exist-black-holes-do-exist/#comment-75 David LaFerney Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:10:46 +0000 http://blogs.earthsky.org/pamelagay/2007/07/18/black-holes-dont-exist-black-holes-do-exist/#comment-75 I've been misunderstanding this. I thought that as an infalling observer approached the speed of light that the advancement of time from their reference almost stops because of special relativity, but to an outside observer they're just gone in a puff of tidal force / acceleration induced energy. If I understand what you are saying it sounds like a black hole would be surrounded by a veritable junkyard of virtual debris. That just isn't tidy at all. What is this effect called? I'm not arguing, I know I don't have enough math background to really understand physics this deep. I’ve been misunderstanding this. I thought that as an infalling observer approached the speed of light that the advancement of time from their reference almost stops because of special relativity, but to an outside observer they’re just gone in a puff of tidal force / acceleration induced energy.

If I understand what you are saying it sounds like a black hole would be surrounded by a veritable junkyard of virtual debris. That just isn’t tidy at all. What is this effect called?

I’m not arguing, I know I don’t have enough math background to really understand physics this deep.

]]>