Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
According to General Relativity an object can pass through an event horizon of a black hole as if it were normal space. From the object's perspective, there would be no difference between normal space and the event horizon of a black hole.
However, according to quantum mechanics there is a "firewall" at the event horizon that breaks down all matter to its base components, a quark–gluon plasma. So an object passing the event horizon of a black hole would be completely obliterated.
Both of these theories cannot be true.
Stephen Hawking's solution combines both GR and QM and conforms with the law of conservation of energy that states energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Hawking already demonstrated in the 1970s that black holes evaporate over time through a process called Hawking Radiation. Hawking's new theory suggests that all the information stored in a black hole will eventually be released through evaporation, although not in the same manner in which it entered the black hole.
It should also be noted that Hawking's paper was published January 22, 2014, is only two pages in length with no mathematical proofs, and has not been peer-reviewed yet.
According to General Relativity an object can pass through an event horizon of a black hole as if it were normal space. From the object's perspective, there would be no difference between normal space and the event horizon of a black hole.
However, according to quantum mechanics there is a "firewall" at the event horizon that breaks down all matter to its base components, a quark–gluon plasma. So an object passing the event horizon of a black hole would be completely obliterated.
Both of these theories cannot be true.
And this was the basis for Stephen Crothers challenge. My question is, how has such a large field of varying disciplines left that theory unchecked and/or took it for face value? I find humor in the fact that people on City Data will make hammerfisted statements like..
"You just don't understand"
But an entire field was either willfully ignorant, blatantly sophist or just completely lost. Because they were called out on a very fundamental principle of physics.
The only thing in question, it seems is that things CAN escape from a black hole, instead of being destroyed by it.
But, don't let that stop the anti-science rant. After all, science hasn't given us anything of merit.
Oh, wait, yes it has.
Yep. That appears to be what Hawking is saying.
That was the biggest problem with Einstein's GR, it violates the law of conservation by claiming energy can be destroyed by a black hole. But if you replace the singularity with an "apparent horizon" that can increase or shrink depending upon the amount of stuff it contains, then it does not violate the law of conservation.
What I found particularly interesting was that the event horizon and "apparent horizon" can be different. When the event horizon is larger than the "apparent horizon" we see the absence light. To the outside observer everything appears to be sucked into a black hole. However, if the "apparent horizon" is larger than the event horizon we would see an object that is glowing brightly.
It will be interesting to read more on the subject in the future. I understand how to calculate the event horizon of a black hole, but I have no idea how to calculate Hawking's new "apparent horizon."
2 - the definition of a black hole is in direct contradiction with Newtonian physics and GR. (Look at the video posted by Shiloh1)
And...that physicists do not seem to care much about their explanation outside of the math.
Those are the main ones.
Do you have any reason to believe they DO?
The video posted by Shiloh1 features not a scientist, but a mathematician who is also a young-earth creationist (his anti-science views that have been thoroughly debunked by actual scientists are why he lost his job as a university professor).
And the thunderbolt project wasn't founded by a scientist and doesn't include much in the way of science, it's mythology (literally, it is based on mythology) founded by a guy (David Talbot) with a B.S. in political science who writes about mythology and alternative history.
That is such a fail on your part it's absolutely hilarious.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
