Re: A decisive argument in favour of the existence of an aether frame in a state of absolute rest.

Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:

[...]


Poor Eric, the discussion about the "a horizon must exist" is given
*below* in this *same message*. Above I am emphasizing the part "a
consequence, we cannot yet say that Sgr A* is described by a GR black
hole" because you were claimed for days this paper had showed the
existence of a GR BH.

And observe how the goal post has once again shifted.

Now that your black hole alternatives have been eliminated by observation,
you are now arguing that the object with an event horizon is _not_ a GR
black hole despite there being no other meaningful alternative.

[...]


Feel free to name any object that isn't a black hole but still has an
event horizon that you consider acceptable.

First, you used this paper for days to claim that a GR BH had been found,
but it was not. Second, the same observations are exaplined by models
without horizons. I cited some and gave references but you do not
understand.

No, the observations are _not_ explained by models without horizons. That is
the point of the paper.

You keep claiming the observations are "explained" yet you can't cite the
explanation nor can you even point out the error in the logic.


(...)

Observations are compatible with a z--> infinity surface, as that
predicted by other models.

Sure - if and *only if* you can name a near 100% efficient process for
converting infalling matter.

I have given some information in this including a specific model that
predicts both spectrum (black surface) and the radious of the surface.

I doubt it'll hold up.


However, I am still waiting from you to name a physical process for
formation of a spacetime singularity plus a process without quantum
effects plus a physical process to ignore magnetic coupling more...

"On Massive Neutron Cores", J. R. Oppenheimer and G. M. Volkoff, Physical
Review 55, #374 (February 15, 1939), pp. 374?381.


(...)

"Must" but they did not show. Observations are compatible with other
models.

If you are willing to accept the physical absurdities of gravastars or
MECOs, I guess it isn't that much of a stretch to assume there is some
unknown accretion process that is nearly perfectly efficient.

It does not matter for me what you think is absurd or is not. Physics is
not done that way, as I explained to you BEFORE.



Really? Not done that way?

Then what is your objection to the black hole based on?

.

Relevant Pages

  • The Future of Physics and the World
    ... myself in a diversity of fields including Physics, Mathematics, (some ... 3rd volumes of the Federation Series: ... Nothing stays in a black hole. ... Technically, an "event horizon" is ...
    (sci.physics)
  • The Future of Physics and the World
    ... the home site of the Federation Series: ... myself in a diversity of fields including Physics, Mathematics, (some ... Nothing stays in a black hole. ... Technically, an "event horizon" is ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: information loss in black holes
    ... If we treat QM as statistical mechanics, Hawking radiation (or its ... radiation through a gravitational horizon was so ... even though the overall physics now seems to ... through the sound barrier, and phrase it in HR language. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: More on the controversy about the Schwarzschild radius and black holes.
    ... respective spacelike and timelike natures. ... analytical models of gravitational collapse," American Journal of Physics ... coordinates at the event horizon. ... such a surprise that comoving coordinates for radially collapsing matter ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Are Black Holes Stationary?
    ... The horizon consists of nothing at all. ... observation that can identify the event horizon of a black hole. ... A black hole does not have to spin *relative to a space observer* to have ... time passes on a clock positioned on the surface of the spinning object. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading