Xref: utzoo sci.misc:663 talk.religion.newage:1356
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!nbires!hao!husc6!uwvax!dogie!uwmcsd1!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!markh
From: markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins)
Newsgroups: sci.misc,talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: Why There Are No Black Holes
Message-ID: <4066@uwmcsd1.UUCP>
Date: 4 Jan 88 01:17:45 GMT
References: <2337@dasys1.UUCP> <395b7bf6.805@hi-csc.UUCP> <2420@dasys1.UUCP>
Sender: daemon@uwmcsd1.UUCP
Reply-To: markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins)
Followup-To: Arguments in pseudo-General-Relativity
Distribution: sci.misc,talk.religion.newage
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Lines: 41
Keywords: black holes, event horizon, loud pop
Summary: Black holes

In article <2420@dasys1.UUCP> gf@dasys1.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>In article <395b7bf6.805@hi-csc.UUCP>, slocum@hi-csc.UUCP (Brett Slocum) writes:
>> Unfortunately, the poster's arguement against blackholes is a bunch
>> of speculative handwaving, without any basis in physics.  And he
>
>On the contrary.  I adduced the same theory (relativistic view of
>gravity) used to think up "black holes" in the first place.  My
>posting may be wrong, or "speculative" (what an offense!) or a
>put-on, but handwaving it's not.  

     Last I recall, General Relativity was couched in the language of Tensor
Calculus (or Spinor Algebra, or Differential Forms as you now have your choice
today) If you're going to become another Goedel, common sense says you'd have
to come up with a more rigorous proof of inconsistency.  As it is you derived
a lot of contradictions by assuming a lot of things that contradict the model
of a black hole given by General Relativity (and you couldn't even do that
right).
     Have you ever considered that time is frozen on the event horizon?  How
are those things you speak of ever to happen if a black hole (also called
"frozen star") never collapses beyond the event horizon (from the perspective
of one on the outside)?  You also assumed that there would be such a thing as
an "inside" to the black hole.  There's nothing that says there even exists an
inside.  One variant model treats the black hole as a "worm-hole".  In that 
case "outside" would be more appropriate.  The event horizon may have two 
outsides and no inside.

>
>> hasn't kept up with current astronomical discoveries.  Astronomers
>> have identified a handful of objects that under current theories are
>> black holes. 
> 
>Astronomers "identified" canals on Mars for many, many years, and even
>drew pictures of them. 

... and found them.  There are huge canyons on Mars that were spotted by 
orbiting spacecraft. There are also the ancient remains of rivers.

>-- 
>Gordon Fitch					{uunet}!mstan\
>The Big Electric Cat     {ihnp4,harvard,philabs}!cmcl2!cucard!dasys1!gf
>New York City, NY, USA  (212) 879-9031          {sun}!hoptoad/