Re: Olber's paradox: a poll

Jenny wrote:

On Aug 19, 7:37 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Jenny wrote:



What you're saying is that GR says that only Black Holes have event
horizons so seeing an event horizon is evidence of a black hole.

I understand that claim.

I made a different, more specific, claim.

There does not exist a solution to the field equations that permit
anything other than a black hole [narrowed to 3 solutions] once the
existence of the event horizon has been established once the physical
situation is taken into account.

Then the authors should say the same thing, but they don't.

The paper isn't about general relativity, the paper is about the _EVENT
HORIZON_ of the compact object located at Sgr. A*.

[...]


They're specifically saying that they're using GR Black Holes *as
examples* but that there analysis is "considerably more general" and
in their conclusion, they claim that a horizon exists but "cannot yet
say that Sgr A* is described by a GR black hole".

Very good, you can copy and paste. Now let's see if you can read for
comprehension.


"our analysis is... ... in fact considerably more general" must mean
something, don't you think?

Yes, it means that their argument doesn't depend on the particularities of
specific solutions to the field equations. Their exact considerations are
explained, but the gist of it is that the argument doesn't hinge on GR.


I've been telling you for years to read (and write) more carefully,
but you never, ever learn.

How careful do I need to be?

It is a ~4 million solar mass object - see Ghez, et. al.

VLBI imagery gets within a few Schwarzschild radii of the event horizon -
see Doeleman, et. al. Nothing there but plasma.

A combination of VLBI imagery and some other observations show that a
surface cannot exist without invoking physically impossible conversion
efficencies. That's Boderick, et. al's argument.

Scientific doubt needs to be applied all the time, and not just when the
answer rubs you the wrong way. You and Juan keep pushing the goal post
further and further, and I shoved it right down the fucking event horizon
and STILL neither of you are convinced. That's fine, it proves my point.


It seems clear to me. They don't feel they have enough evidence to say
that it's a black hole - because there analysis is too "general".

THEN WHAT THE *** IS IT?

It has an event horizon. We're there. All the properties of a black hole
have been either directly observed or inferred with strong arguments. We got
mass, we got spin, and we got an event horizon.

The only things left to do are a concrete spin measurement [work in
progress] and direct imaging of the event horizon [also in progress].

Sometimes I think some people won't be convinced until they are thrown down
there so they can have a look for themselves much how the moon landing hoax
idiots need to be put next to the flag without a pressure suit.


If they don't, neither should you.

Why not?

Because they understand the limits of their analysis better than you
or I do.

Not good enough.

You seem to want to claim that even though the authors have established
their case that there is an event horizon, that the object is not a black
hole because they say they can't be "certain".

Even though the reason they say that is because their analysis was
specifically crafted to not hinge on general relativity.

So let me help you out. If the analysis is restricted to general relativity,
which doesn't change the analysis in any goddamn way, the object is shown to
be a black hole.

If you continue to resort to the amusing but sad argument to authority that
you are doing now, it will be clear to anyone and everyone with a clue that
you know you are in the wrong but won't admit it because of how deep the
hole you have dug just happens to be.


Unless you can name one object that can mass ~4 million solar masses and
have an event horizon without being a black hole.

Ask the authors of the paper. You claim that it is a black hole, they
specifically back off from making that claim.

Their paper wasn't about black holes, it was about the event horizon.

Feel free to name one example that satisfies the observed conditions and has
an event horizon...but isn't a black hole.

Any object, please. I've asked Juan R. the same thing and he's come up
empty, so he's stuck with either admitting he's wrong or continuing the
argument even though he has lost.


Ask them why they think the analysis is too general.

Why? It is obvious.

They have established a very strong case for an event horizon without
depending on the particulars of general relativity. That way folks can't
nitpick and hem-haw about how its dependent on a particular theory.


Maybe it's not a blachole, maybe it's a trillion cherry bombs trying
to get away from *you*.

Jenny

You thought you had a case of me misrepresenting someone's paper. Now you
are stuck between admitting I'm right or being as nonsensical as many of the
other participants on this newsgroup.

In other words: Stop being a bitch. It accomplishes nothing.
.

Quantcast