• Cosmology

  • Black Holes Do Not Exist, claims Mersini-Houghton

Tom,

Well than how about biology. After some billion years of evolution, we evolved have a central nervous system to process information and the respiratory, digestive and circulatory systems to process energy.

I guess that doesn't count, since it's just biology.

Regards,

John M

Tom,

Something that is said to be larger than any quantity cannot be a quantity itself unless it is larger than itself.

This does not contradict to the plausible insight that something finite (1) cannot include something that is in the same respect infinite (2) without logical contradiction: any finite quantity (1) oo (2) is oo.

What about group theory, I guess that Galois started at purely mathematical sound reasoning but its proponents adapted (around 1870 when the point set theory came up) a tendency of treating continua as if they were sets of elements. Later, groups of elements were kept for adequate to all aspects of physical reality. This resulted in symmetries, even between past and future.

Eckard

If black holes do not exist, how do you explain this interminable digression?

    "After some billion years of evolution, we evolved ..."

    As corporations of cooperating cells that continue to evolve on multiple scales of complex activity, even at the subcellular scale. That makes biology interesting, though not physically foundational.

    It's more like infinite regression..

    Or at least that's what Mersini-Houghton and Pfeiffer seem to think. While I agree with your point JRC, I also think this topic invites some wild speculation - due to the interdisciplinary nature of the black hole event horizon question. So yes; we sure do get off topic here, but no it isn't all digression. I'll have to upload and link to the Minkowski reference I wanted to post here, because it is too big to attach.

    That should get things back on topic.

    All the Best,

    Jonathan

    Tom,

    ""If I make breakfast, I have to break a few eggs. The prior form of those eggs ceases to exist."

    Not the energy, however, which is conserved. Form is not foundational."

    Meanwhile the form keeps receding into the past, as the energy marches into the future, but that's not foundational enough either.

    Regards,

    John M

    As for the evidence..

    While people in the Astrophysics community appear content to keep calling them black holes, there is a growing consensus as the evidence shows magnetism sufficient to levitate the accretion disk well above the event horizon. When inferred magnetic strengths from observational evidence are projected toward where a horizon would be, it is seen that the matter and energy disk is suspended above it, rather than being swallowed in. See the following.

    Astrophysicists Closer to Figuring Out the Mysteries of the Milky Way

    Is matter falling into the massive black hole at the center of the Milky Way or being ejected from it?

    DISCOVERY OF SUBSTRUCTURE IN THE SCATTER-BROADENED IMAGE OF SGR A*

    A strong magnetic field around the supermassive black hole at the centre of the Galaxy

    Dynamically important magnetic fields near accreting supermassive black holes

    There are arXiv versions for most of the journal references, which will show up if you do a Google search by title.

    Regards,

    Jonathan

      Of course,

      This latest evidence appears to agree perfectly with what Dr. Mitra has told us, with what Steven Kauffmann has been telling us, along with Corda, Leiter, et al, and others who have been telling the world that the picture of a black hole as a void that swallows everything is misleading. And so is the 'no-drama' picture of crossing an event horizon.

      Steven Hawking's paper on black holes and weather forecasting has made it more reasonable to discuss how and why things stop short of an event horizon formation. The debate over what happens when one crosses the boundary (and how much information is lost) has shifted, or morphed into a debate over whether a given entity could actually get there - to cross that boundary.

      I think this is healthy progress. But as always; we must continue to look to the evidence, so we can see how well our models of reality reflect what is actually there.

      Regards,

      Jonathan

      For the record,

      It would appear that Sgr A* is a classic example of a MECO.

      Regards,

      Jonathan

      The relevance of the above..

      Terrence Barrett's paper on 'Topology and Electromagnetism' introduces some concepts through foundational assumptions, that Peter asserted are essential to understanding Active Galactic Nuclei and the objects heretofore assumed to be Black Holes. I'm assuming that these objects are some form of ECO, likely a MECO in acknowledgement of the evidence presented below. But this makes Peter's assertion of the appearance of non-Maxwellian terms in the plasma dynamics absolutely germane to this discussion.

      The paper he cited is:

      Intrinsic rotation driven by non-Maxwellian equilibria in tokamak plasmas

      And in the modified Maxwell equations suggested by Barrett and others, there are terms for the magnetic circulation currents that Maxwell does not include. This is why I made mention of the book on those equations earlier, and stated that a search for additional references by the author(s) would be helpful. If we want to model the real behavior of plasma ejection, the actual Physics, we need an expanded vocabulary.

      All the Best,

      Jonathan

      Jonathan,

      I suppose a pertinent issue is when does the popular science media decide this is a serious topic and starts to really draw attention to it. I don't suppose you have any contacts you could send that list? Zeeya does seem to have been developing a position in the field and might find it interesting.

      One naturally wonders if there isn't some sense of commitment to the current extravagances in cosmology, in the science media, along with the crop of preferred go to physicists, that might be resisting questioning such an important component.

      As the old saying goes, change happens one funeral at a time.

      Regards,

      John M

      Jonathan,

      "we must continue to look to the evidence, so we can see how well our models of reality reflect what is actually there."

      From the astronomers view where that method is de-rigour it would be great to see it penetrating further into theoretical physics. Our ability to see 'what is actually there' has increased exponentially in recent years.

      On the name 'black hole', in Astronomical terms for those of us who study active galactic nuclei (AGN's) 'black hole' now largely out of use except often to differentiate between scales, i.e. stellar mass, Intermediate and SMBH. In more general astrophysics it's remained, but as much in deference to theorists understanding as anything else.

      We know what AGN's are in some detail now, but astrophysics is as disparate as the rest of physics so much poor understanding continues. The dynamic is toroidal, with counter helical windings around the tubular 'body', which is the same dynamic as a nuclear tokamac, the heart of a fusion reactor. The accreted matter is accelerated around the helical path, heated up and broken down (re-ionized) until it reaches the 'z-pinch' venturi from which the bi-polar collimated jets flow. The flow helicity is added to be precession of the jet origins around each other at the centre point.

      Trying to get from doctrinal theory to there is tricky. I found it better to try to see which analogies can be re-interpreted to have some validity. I also discuss the jet structure and collimation dynamics in my own published paper on the subject, which I'd assumed you'd read? It's stuffed full of excellent references to each part of the complex process. But it does seem most are still far happier to cling on to old concepts and beliefs than objectively analyse physical evidence and face up to more coherent interpretations!

      HJ/VOL36/HJ-36-6.pdf 2014.

      Best wishes

      Peter

        Peter,

        That link doesn't seem to work. Might just be the server I'm channeled through.

        "The requested URL /issues/HJ/VOL36/HJ-36-6.pdf was not found on this server."

        Regards,

        John M

        I think general relativity is perfectly adequate to explain black hole thermodynamics, without ad hoc assumptions. Hawking's ADS-CFT extension is normal spacetime -- chaotic collapse is deterministic.

        This chaotic collapse -- which is also a theme taken up by Pankaj Joshi in a recent cosmology course I was privileged to attend -- may be the missing capstone in Einstein's theory, for the reason:

        Inevitable singularities in Einstein cosmology bound the relativistic model at diffeomorphism; chaotic collapse avoids the singuarity. I think most miss the point of Hawking's analogy with weather forecasting -- that accurate prediction of imminent conditions perfectly capture the local state, implies the unitarity of the global state. The chaotic collapse model supports the premise of general relativity (all physics is local) at the small scale.

        Let's get the basic physics right before we go aimlessly into speculative exotic territory. I am reminded of Einstein: "I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element; I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details."

        Interesting, John, though off topic here. And the author's premise that complex systems are not infinitely adaptive is belied by Bar-Yam's research in multi-scale variety.

        Thanks for the link. Good discussion for another time.

        John,

        Is 'recent posts' shrinking like Dr Who's Tardis in the last 2D 'Flatworld creatures' episode? Or is it Steve's shrinking universe? Clara's solution was brilliant; You can't turn something 2D into 3D if it never was 3D in the first place! She clearly knew a wave isn't 'real', just a simplistic 2D representation of a helical path!

        Sorry about the link. The a pdf is also webarchived here; https://www.academia.edu/6655261

        You too may have seen it, but of course I hope it and the citations are worth almost infinite reads! Have you ever wondered how we could find evidence of what came before the BB? ('Big Blast')

        Best wishes

        Peter

        Tom,

        His point is not that infinitely complex systems are not adaptive, as nature has been proving they are for a very long time. His point is that systems pushed to the breaking point, for any number of reasons, are fragile and prone to break.

        Regards,

        John M