First of all, the researcher, Dr. Mersini-Houghton, submitted her work to an online publication that does not do any peer review.
Nor was it vetted properly to be published in a second-rate science journal in the first place. Peer-review exists in science for a reason.
Ground breaking research, like this claims to be, must first be analyzed, scrutinized, and authenticated before it can be accepted as factual.
I never heard of a law of conservation of information. Who has published about that?
I never heard of a law of conservation of information. Who has published about that?
There are lots of laws you haven't heard about Farbstain.
Has your protection order at the library expired yet?
First of all, the researcher, Dr. Mersini-Houghton, submitted her work to an online publication that does not do any peer review.
show an equation in a textbook. Entropy always increases in natural (nonliving) systems.
Of course, unless you're an expert in a certain area, you're better off not using non-pr sources.
Phys.org shouldn't be including articles which are based on non peer reviewed research.I'd rather hear about stuff like this from real physicists who have cred early like this, personally. It will get peer reviewed, and we'll find out whether it makes it into a journal or not; but Laura is a real physicist, and a real professor, and has lots of peer reviewed articles to her name. This isn't a report on something that she isn't at least going to attempt to get accepted to a major journal. She may have to amend it either by changes or additional data, but she's not a crackpot. Just perhaps a contrarian.
First of all, the researcher, Dr. Mersini-Houghton, submitted her work to an online publication that does not do any peer review. I repeat, her research and claims have NOT been validated by the science community at large. Nor was it vetted properly to be published in a second-rate science journal in the first place. Peer-review exists in science for a reason. Ground breaking research, like this claims to be, must first be analyzed, scrutinized, and authenticated before it can be accepted as factual.While this is true, it is also true that arXiv is intended for pre-peer-reviewed publications that are going to be submitted for peer review and attempt to be published in the scholarly literature. arXiv has a pretty good reputation for looking things over to be sure they're not crank physics before they let them in, and the measure of that is that most things that get published in the scholarly literature appear in arXiv first. contd
Curious Farbstein, you've claimed breakthroughs in most research fields. I'm surprised you aren't also claiming to have your own working fusion power plant. It's just as believable as your other claims.
My points will be proven by the "1"'s that these latter scientists give me.
Thanks Uncle for your civility this time.
NOM-Skippy it's me again. I am surprised he didn't claim that the Laura-Professor-Skippette stole the idea for this paper from him back in 2010 or 2009.I just remembered that Farbstain doesn't need a fusion power plant in his basement. He has 80% efficient solar cells to give him all the power he could ever need.
This is a non peer-reviewed article.
Phys.org shouldn't be including articles which are based on non peer reviewed research.
Researcher shows that black holes do not exist
A consistent ( but unvetted) mathematical proof hardly justifies rebuilding all known astrophysics theories and methodologies derived and used for the past 50 or more years.
If Black Holes DON'T exist: what that is super massive in the very center of ALL known Galaxies DOES EXIST???
Ok ... So then what is Sagittarius A* then?
A plasmoid...
My points will be proven by the "1"'s that these latter scientists give me.
Most people here (Uncle Ira and Antialias) agreed verbally everyone that does not walk on their very narrow path.
"...submitted to ArXiv, an online repository of physics papers that is not peer-reviewed..."
Stopped reading when I got to this part.
Black Holes exists because there is evidence of their existence. Every galaxy in space has a black hole at the center.
If this black hole wasn't formed with collapse of star, then the Mersini mechanism may not apply to it.
?pre-Einstein? Dark star is very new model. The object of 500 to 600 solar masses will not generate the black hole of billions solar masses...
More interesting that some scientists show absolute antipathy to any mention or suggestion of God, and think that "it doesn't belong in science", even though His influence is everywhere we lookWell you're right about that. Everywhere you look religious people are deciding that others who don't believe in their particular god can't be good.
I'm not even sure the professional astronomers are aware of it, because I've never seen them mention it, but I did the calculation-Of course because you never bothered to look. You'd rather pretend to be a freeking genius. You're not.
"There's not just the one black hole. There are four orbiting each other. At some time hundreds of millions or billions of years from now, they will begin to merge, and the Milky Way will become an AGN again."
Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
Reference?Those are quotes. GOOGLE them for the source. Why do you continue to guess when it is obvious you have no idea what you are talking about??
1, Even if there are 4 black holes, the Milky Way won't become an AGN without them having something to feed upon.
Ghost has a habit of not knowing WTF he's talking about, demanding references for common knowledge (which I always present)You said that you didnt think scientists had ever determined sigma for the milky way. A quick search tells us that they obviously DID, using info which you had no idea even existed.
Good luck ever understanding this topic if that's how you're going to beThis from the guy who thinks planetary rotation affects planetary migration. This from the guy who was sure we could mine dry ice in the antarctic. Etcetcetcetc.
If I understand correctly they have shown that the collapse of a single star can not form a black hole. That does not mean black holes don't exist. Only that if they exist, other formation mechanisms should account for their existence.
... We have video of the black hole at the center of our galaxy feeding. She needs to check her math...
There's a law against internet stalking! Cease and desist!There's a law against fraud. Yet you are still trying to con people out of money with your bogus research claims.
93% of scientists in American National Academy of Sciences are atheist or agnostic. The others are presumably senile or near deathNo they won't be. The 1's are because you consistently post drivel.
@verkl If it only were that case. Unfortunately for you, you don't seem to have read the outbursts of the latter scientists to some of the posts of scientists that do believe in God.
... We have video of the black hole at the center of our galaxy feeding. She needs to check her math...
According to the video ( which I am trying to find again) - at the event horizon virtual particles appearing in the vacuum are of two types + and - , the + particles escape (?) while the negative fall into the event horizon. The negative particles act to decrease the mass of the star. At some point there is a balance between incoming -ve mass and the shrinking star.Actually, half of the particles and half of the antiparticles are sucked back in, and half and half escape. They are created as pairs, as vacuum fluctuations, and which (the particle or the antiparticle) falls back in is random. But in either case, which ever one escapes, the mass of the black hole is reduced by it.
This from the guy who thinks planetary rotation affects planetary migration.
If the object is a prograde rotator, the force is in the direction of motion of the orbit, and causes the semi-major axis of the orbit to increase steadily; the object spirals away from the Sun. A retrograde rotator spirals inward. The diurnal effect is the dominant component for larger bodies greater than about 100 m diameter
No Black Holes just Plasmoids!
http://adsabs.har....6...87B
"...it is possible to simulate the production of spiral galaxies and barred spirals."
And you'll still haven't apologized to the FORUMS everywhere, for going all mindless lying apeshit and attacking me because I saw the obvious BICEP2 flaws and you didn't; because you were all so eager to bash cranks with BS BICEP2 'facts'. Shame on you saps.
Hi Ira. :) Here we go again, just the same stuffs as all the other times.
PS: Oh, and Ira, I suggest you and your troll cohort stop your mindless downvoting if you don't even know what you are downvoting, ok? Otherwise people might twig you are really just malignant trolls and simpletons pretending to whatever it is you are pretending. Ok?
How? Source or a full mathematical treatment from axioms, please.This from the guy who thinks planetary rotation affects planetary migration.No, I knew they had calculated Sigma, but their calculation is wrong.
Secondly, regarding planetary migration, there IS an effect, there's even a name for it, which causes rotating objects to be more strongly pushed on the side which is moving towards the sun than the side which is moving away, and this causes the object's momentum to be changed, which means they can be pushed outward over time.However, according to the article you reference this effect declines for bodies above 10 km.
It is usually considered in relation to meteoroids or small asteroids (about 10 cm to 10 km in diameter), as its influence is most significant for these bodies.
i briefly looked at her report and saw her arguments depend on adding negative energy particles to the black hole, instead of simply an exit of massive particles from the event horizon, causing it to shrink.Hmmm, that's not very promising. Holding off on rating this post until I have time to review it myself. "Negative mass particles" is a bit, shall we say, recherche. I'd need to see someone detect "negative mass particles" first.
I saw this diagram at http://www.nature...-1.12726So far so good.
The diagram shows that the theory pictured in the right half is about quantum correlations between pairs of particles created at the event horizon from the quantum vacuum. Those virtual pairs dont have much information in the first place; they are like black body radiation.
The whole controversy they are discussing seems to be missing something; that other processes also destroy quantum correlations. If the black hole's event horizon were replaced with a sphere of antimatter the the particles going toward the black hole would also undergo interactions that caused total quantum decoherence.I don't understand what you mean here.
If the antimatter was replaced by a sphere regular matter the quantum coherence would be ended as soon as they collided with it.Again I don't understand what you mean here. Please explain these two parts better. Not rated until I hear from you
none of true ultimate reality is something ucould perfectly depict by human math imoCorrect. So far, with the conventional cosmology 'unreal maths' with 'abstract inputs' effectively always ending up as GIGO (ie, Garbage-in-Garbage-out) exercises/interpretations, just as the BICEP2 did, your observation on the limited potential of the 'unreal' maths approach is all too sadly true.
I'll take that as a you are in the bad mood again like always.I am neither moody nor personal, it was the answers to your questions. If you can't take the factual answers, don't ask the questions.
So you are back on the list for that. That's all the reason ol Ira needs to downvote you everywhere Cher.There it is again, admission that you downvote from 'lists', irrespective of content or your comprehension (not) of same. That's what loser trolls do. And as you again just admitted, you do it more mindlessly than most trolls. So don't come crying about me being 'couyon'; look to yourself and your equally loser troll mates. :)
So the unseen companion of the blue supergiant HDE 226868, a source of x-rays and a radio jet, around which the supergiant revolves once every 5.6 days, then is called a what?
But for now, Mersini-Houghton says the mathematics are conclusive
Let us start with a spherically symmetric and inhomogeneous dust star, described by the following metric … This form of the metric is convenient for describing a radiating star.
There it is again, admission that you downvote from 'lists', irrespective of content or your comprehension (not) of same.
And as you again just admitted, you do it more mindlessly than most trolls. So don't come crying about me being 'couyon';.
And you didn't provide the link to where you apologized to all the forums for your loser gang misbehavior..
No, I knew they had calculated Sigma, but their calculation is wrongWell that may be true but what are the odds of them being wrong and you being right? Especially since you dont have hardly any of the info they work with, and none of their education.
there IS an effectNO theres not. Planets arent wiffle balls or golf balls or softballs.
there's even a name for it-which you cant produce because it doesnt exist.
which causes rotating objects to be more strongly pushed on the side which is moving towards the sunIf that were true then we should be able to find a ref for it yes? Certainly such a significant effect would be among those cited here
I comprends you enough to vote you bad karma points for trying to be the BIG-CHIEF-Skippy with no Indians for your parade. You do not even have the Flag-Boy-Skippy.The record of your mindless trolling and uncomprehending 'karma' downvoting' on a SCIENCE DISCOURSE site demonstrates clearly that you comprehend neither me nor the science nor humanity at large, let alone even understand yourself and your motives.
Like you don't do I always tell the truth when I admit things. Why I got to cry about you being the couyon? You prove it every day Cher.You lied when you denied you tried to infiltrate your Uncle Ira onto the scifprums site; which was perma-banned quick smart as a sockpuppet. You lied again just now saying you don't lie. You repeat lies and half-truths about RealityCheck/Undefined which your troll 'friends' have 'primed you' with and you willingly and mindlessly promulgated. Not good. Do better.
I did not provide the linkum because I ain't going to apologize to no Tea-Party-Skippys because they get mad with me. I do not like them because they got the small mind and black hearts. If you go to the Tea-Party-Skippy forum you can tell them I said that until I can get over there and tell them myself again.If you understood yourself even a little bit, you would have realized by now that you and those crazy mad-hatters' Tea Party types are just as bad and mean minded as each other. They have an 'excuse' because they 'follow their idiot's god' while acting like crazy egotistical loons; whereas you, an atheist, are following your own self's idiot's ego and pretending to be any better than they are. Besides, any apology for bad behavior on your part should be made without any conditions or exceptions, regardless of the victims involved; because you pretend to know better, but don't.
@ Really-Skippy so you are in the bad mood again today Cher? Life is short to have the bad mood every day. If I make you the misere so much, why you not Skippy-skip over what I say. Everybody knows that was not me on the scifi place. That was you pretending to be me so you would have some boogie-Skippys to do battle with for all the peoples to see how you are the great troll/mod/bot/mafia/gang hunter. Stealing my material from here to snip and glue over there is what you did. Other the wise they would have banneded me for being just the usual on fire troll like at the Tea-Party-Skippy forums. They called that Not-Ira-Skippy a sockpuppet and that means it was another person pretending to be me, not the real me. Oh yeah I almost forget. Who in the whole big world would be stupid enough to ask you to be a moderator of their interweb forum? Where is such a place, it must be big fun with the couyons, eh? P'tit boug, sit down, you make the fool of yourself.It won't wash, Ira; your record speaks for itself. No amount of distractions trying to 'personalize' what this is about will get you off the hook you created for yourself and are now dangling so pathetically from. Make a clean breast of it and apologize. No more lies and irrelevant tactics from you, Ira. Come clean and apologize and stop making a fool of yourself (along with your 'trollish 'friends') in the ratings pages and start afresh. As for not ignoring your silliness and stupidity when you sabotaging a science site, you wouldn't understand, Ira. It has to do with ones duty as a scientist and humanist and just plain world citizen of civilization. Your actions speak of mere trollish stupidity and lack of duty to either science or humanity, let alone to your own human intelligence which could flower must faster and further than at present if you wouyld only drop all this trolish ego-driven mindless crap. Just be normal, courteous and not rate people based on your own motives and misapprehensions. Start actually listening and thinking and discussing properly and you will see a marked change in yourself and your comprehension/intellect. No longer meanminded trollish, but rasonable and objective human being and scientist and atheist who thinks for oneself instead of belonging to gangs who do the 'thinking and lying' for you to mouth like a stooge.
Do a real reality check on yourself and your motives
Else you might remain like that mindless 'Tea Party' type till you shuffle off this mortal coil.
That would be a waste of an otherwise useful atheist intellect and person, Ira. Don't keep wasting it.
I will observe your progress or lack of same
Do a real reality check on yourself and your motivesWill I turn out like you Cher if I do that? No thanks no. If it is all the same to you I would rather be me like I am now. I sure don't want to be like you non.
Didn't you used to boast how you 'ask the google' when you make your troll posts? So why didn't you google "shuffle off this mortal coil" before disingenuously pretending you don't know what it means?Else you might remain like that mindless 'Tea Party' type till you shuffle off this mortal coil.I am sure that means something because you wrote him down. But I don't what it means no.
Your behavior and waste of an otherwise useful atheist intellect and person brings shame and embarrassment to all us atheist scientists and humanists. If you really are an atheist who respects science and humanity, do us atheist scientists and humanists a great favor and do better than this, Ira. It will be much appreciated.That would be a waste of an otherwise useful atheist intellect and person, Ira. Don't keep wasting it.Only thing I'm wasting much of is the money I waste on my hunting and fishing stuffs. That's what the Mrs-Ira-Skippette keeps telling me even though she likes to fish with me most of the times.
Don't waste your opportunities just because you started out on the wrong foot, Ira. Do better and do well as you can, without the troll gang and personal agendas. Ok? Good luck. :)I will observe your progress or lack of sameOkayeei you keep watching me Cher. But if you miss the episode or two don't worry none that you missed something good. Oh yeah I almost forget. What couyon ask for you to be the moderator? I bet that place is fun.
............eh, Special Class Student Ira..........you finished yet with that book you bought on Amazon supposedly explaining Einstein's GR? I still don't understand Ira why you did that when you should have known you could get get the entire GR for free on the internet & the contents would include the Differential Equations as well.
See any Differential Equations in that Amazon book that you need help with? Oh, that's right, you bought that book because there are none of those pesky things in there, you bought the one that has the "different equations".
You are the funny couyon Really-Skippy. What you do when you not out protecting the humans and scientists from the troll/bot/gang/mafia on the interweb? You got the real job or does you mental condition make it so you can't have the regular job?What does it matter, Ira? Is the person more important to you than the scientific work? If so, you miss the whole point of doing science and science discourse: "The person is nothing; the work is everything." Don't recall who said that, but it's apt.
Oh yeah, you almost forget this so I will remind you. What silly couyon asks for you to be a moderator on a forum? Cher that is either some kind of thing in your head because of the mental condition or some really weird place.You wish! Start into a reality check into yourself and your own motives, Ira. Then do better than you have to date with whatever atheist intellect and humanity you possess. Don't waste it like you have been. Good luck. :)
Special Class Student Ira..........you finished yet with that book you bought on Amazon supposedly explaining Einstein's GR? I still don't understand Ira why you did that when you should have known you could get get the entire GR for free on the internet & the contents would include the Differential Equations as well.
See any Differential Equations in that Amazon book that you need help with? Oh, that's right, you bought that book because there are none of those pesky things in there, you bought the one that has the "different equations".
I bet everybody will remember every single one of them because you acted so silly when you were told what is right.
Quoting from the paper,Let us start with a spherically symmetric and inhomogeneous dust star, described by the following metric … This form of the metric is convenient for describing a radiating star.
Since rotation introduces physical asymmetry (ie a bulge) and also a time-dependent asymmetry (ie frame dragging), then the case for rotating stars isn't addressed by this work – is that correct?
There doesn't seem to be any mention either way in the papers. There does apear to be an inconsistency in the maths though. The 2nd paper, page 3, quotes;
'Two auxiliary quantities are given by radial ODEs,'
when in fact all the DE's are presented in PDE form.
@Da Schneib, couldn't find a reference to 'negative mass particle's'That's the only way something can fall into a black hole and reduce its mass, and as far as we can tell even antiparticles don't have negative mass.
One paragraph states quite clearly that when considering 'a spherically symmetric time dependent star' undergoing gravitational collapse the 'backreaction of negative energy Hawking radiation' inside the star leads to a situation where the star collapses to a minimum radius, then bounces before a black hole event horizon or singularity have a chance to form.Hmmm, my understanding is that she doesn't dispute that an event horizon forms, merely that the material that forms the hole never reaches the point of forming a singularity. And I might agree with that; you couldn't tell the difference between that and a "real black hole" from outside.
As I understand it Hawking radiation is difficult to detect so how much more difficult would it be to detect negative HR?That's not really the point. The supposed "negative Hawking radiation" would be contained within the event horizon, and never have any different behavior that would allow it to be detected. It's moot, like anything that happens inside a black hole until we have a consistent quantum gravity theory.
It's moot, like anything that happens inside a black hole until we have a consistent quantum gravity theory.
I repeat: "Grey Holes" are the source, not the sink.
Hmmm, I think the event horizon would scramble the gravity waves on the way out. It might smooth away the waves, leaving only the external gravity that's not waving. But again, I suspect also that we'd need a quantum gravity theory to extract any information about what's inside the event horizon from them even if I'm wrong.It's moot, like anything that happens inside a black hole until we have a consistent quantum gravity theory.Or until we can directly detect gravitational wave radiation, especially the GWs resulting from mergers between two black holes or a black hole and a neutron star, which would provide a new window essentially allowing us to "see" what happens inside an event horizon...
@Da Schneib & Protoplasmix would like to hear your thoughts on the (possible) explosive 'bounce back' that the papers cite.It happens entirely inside the event horizon. I was right; what Mersini-Houghton is arguing is that black holes never form a singularity, not that they never form an event horizon. And once the event horizon forms, what's inside is immaterial; for all intents and purposes other than pretty much outright guessing what's inside the event horizon, the object we'll observe is, in fact, a black hole. Nothing can get out except gravity and charge (the two characteristics of a black hole other than mass and spin).
The heavier chemical elements are produced in Super Nova (fusion) so if BH process is aborted by an explosive bounce back would only certain elements be produced?No. The bounce happens after the event horizon forms. Nothing escapes the event horizon but Hawking radiation, which carries no information about the inside.
Nope, this is not what she derived@Goika-Zephir
Hmmm, I think the event horizon would scramble the gravity waves on the way out. It might smooth away the waves, leaving only the external gravity that's not waving. But again, I suspect also that we'd need a quantum gravity theory to extract any information about what's inside the event horizon from them even if I'm wrong.
@Da Schneib, yes I do understand the differences you mention but please check out my point...which is WHAT the tech paper says. The introduction abstract says:Well, then, what she says in the abstract is different from what she said to HuffPo, and also what she said in the TV interview peter09 linked above.
'This work investigates the backreaction of Hawking radiation on the interior of a gravitationally collapsing star, in a Hartle-Hawking initial vacuum. It shows that due to the negative energy Hawking radiation in the interior, the collapse of the star stops at a finite radius, before the singularity and the event horizon of a black hole have a chance to form. That is, the star bounces instead of collapsing to a black hole'.
It is clear from this that the claim is, no BH OR EH forms.
Well, an EH is just a kink in spacetime, and it's a severe enough kink that once you cross it your "x" is time according to everyone else (if they could see you). I don't know if a ripple can cross that.Hmmm, I think the event horizon would scramble the gravity waves on the way out. It might smooth away the waves, leaving only the external gravity that's not waving. But again, I suspect also that we'd need a quantum gravity theory to extract any information about what's inside the event horizon from them even if I'm wrong.
Hi Da Schneib -- here are some meaty bits: 6. Tests of the Nature and Structure of Black Holes, see 6.2 Tests of black-hole structure using EMRIs, and 6.3 Tests of black-hole structure using ringdown radiation: black-hole spectroscopy
http://relativity...se6.html
Gws are just ripples in spacetime – I don't think anything stops them...
Well, an EH is just a kink in spacetime, and it's a severe enough kink that once you cross it your "x" is time according to everyone else (if they could see you). I don't know if a ripple can cross that.
Two "black holes" encircle each other at the APOD picture. We can see, both black holes emanate pretty jets - yet they're surrounded with no infalling gas. This just means, these black holes evaporate itself - in this sense they're not "black", they behave rather like very dense pulsars.
We're not talking about something falling in, we're talking about waves in a medium crossing a region where the medium is at the amplitude limit.Well, an EH is just a kink in spacetime, and it's a severe enough kink that once you cross it your "x" is time according to everyone else (if they could see you). I don't know if a ripple can cross that.An object plunging into a black hole experiences no 'kink', despite how it may appear to observers in a different inertial frame of reference.
Standard General relativity predicts that pair of black holes circling each other in tight orbit will radiate away so much energy as gravity waves, that they lose weight. That's a different process than hawking radiation.But the holes in those examples are radiating EM radiation, not gravity waves (or none we can detect, anyway; our sensors (LIGO) are undergoing an upgrade, IIRC to be completed next year). So that's not the mechanism either. Keep in mind we have never unambiguously detected a gravity wave.
When other waves hit such a region they do not pass it; they can't exist where the medium is in that state. Why should gravity waves be any different?
Surrounded by no infalling gas? But the caption states quite clearly, "Surrounded by multimillion degree x-ray emitting gasSo emitting or infalling?
Surrounded by no infalling gas? But the caption states quite clearly, "Surrounded by multimillion degree x-ray emitting gasSo emitting or infalling?
I'm not sure you could have one without the other. Unless you're proposing an EU solution like exploding double layers as the cause for heating the gas to those temps, and Alfven waves negating the gravitational attraction of two supermassive black holes. C'mon, Zeph :)
Merger in progress, awesome sight to behold.
EU solutions don't involve fictional objects such as BH's@cd
Electric discharge in plasma at this scale easily produces these emissions, no magical gravity monsters are required.please provide links and empirical evidence from a reputable peer-reviewed source with an impact in astrophysics supporting your conjectures
But as I explained above, the particles of gas inside of strong gravity field behave like the surface of black hole of the same diameter, i.e. they glow with "Hawking" radiation under decomposition
its strong evidence that's touted as proof.Did you try that line in one of your failed court cases Farbstain?
The orbital decay dynamics are presented as the biggest proof that gravitational radiation exists even if its indirect proof.But we've never seen any. Are you saying someone has seen the orbital dynamics of coalescing black holes and measured the decay rate, to show there's an effect on the dynamics from the emission of gravity radiation? I'm not aware of any such observation. I'd like to see a link to a scholarly paper and quotes from it that show this has been observed.
its strong evidence that's touted as proof.By whom?
So? Show it's different in *this* manner. Quote from your link and I'll check it out.When other waves hit such a region they do not pass it; they can't exist where the medium is in that state. Why should gravity waves be any different?
Why? Because GW radiation is not EM radiation. It's very different: http://www.tapir....ces.html
Furthermore, the maths for GR does not break down at the event horizon. The only place it breaks down is at the center of a black hole if and only if there is a singularity of zero volume and infinite density.We don't know that. A black hole has no hair.
The event horizon simply marks the spot beyond which the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light, that's all.And that's the point at which spacetime has been distorted maximally; x has become t, and t has become x. You can't flex it further.
Frame dragging has been confirmed. Gravity waves have not. And I'm sure Kaufman said so. His book may even have predated confirmation of frame dragging by Gravity Probe B.The orbital decay dynamics are presented as the biggest proof that gravitational radiation exists even if its indirect proof.But we've never seen any. Are you saying someone has seen the orbital dynamics of coalescing black holes and measured the decay rate, to show there's an effect on the dynamics from the emission of gravity radiation? I'm not aware of any such observation. I'd like to see a link to a scholarly paper and quotes from it that show this has been observed.its strong evidence that's touted as proof.By whom?
There's an an intermediate level book about it written by Stewart M. Kaufman, it discusses dragging of the metric and gravitational radiation.
As a layman, I have viewed others youtube who mostly infer as 'twofish' does, that basically if BH's don't exist the number of SN's should be much more than we observe at present.Why would there be more supernovae?
Perfectly all right. Furthermore, I'm *sure* I've seen it stated before that a universe without black holes would make more supernovae; I just can't recall where, nor remember the logic chain that led to the conclusion. It will torment me until I find it; thanks for the honest try at it. If I find it before this thread closes I'll post it here.
I uderstood it that it was a question of 'information loss' that was the original motivation. It is said that 'information cannot be lost' and in the 70's Hawking poropsed his idea which challenged this fundamental principle.
DistortedSignature
Sep 24, 2014So what are those things that telescopes see (or not see) when stars transit/orbit "behind"/"around" dark spots?