Re: GR -> Black Holes Can't Form... Take 2
From: Ken S. Tucker (dynamics_at_vianet.on.ca)
Date: 02/05/05
- Next message: Torkel Franzen: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Jason: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Eric Gisse: "Re: GR -> Black Holes Can't Form... Take 2"
- Next in thread: Eric Gisse: "Re: GR -> Black Holes Can't Form... Take 2"
- Reply: Eric Gisse: "Re: GR -> Black Holes Can't Form... Take 2"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 5 Feb 2005 00:11:02 -0800
Eric Gisse wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > Eric Gisse wrote:
> > > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > > > Eric,
> > > > Schwarzchild, Einstein, Weinberg, Bergmann, Lottinger and
> > > > me Tucker, find BH's impossible. If astronomers can explain
> > > > why those theoreticians are all wrong why haven't they.
> > > > I happen to understand GR, it's possible we made a common
> > > > error, what was it?
> > > > Ken
> > >
> > > Schwarzschild? No way I will believe that without a citation.
> > > Especially considering the rather...short...period between his
> > > publishing of his solution and his untimely death in the trenches
> of
> > > WW1.
> >
> > I mispelled, Lottinger should be LOINGER.
> > He has posted a translation of Schwarzchild's
> > original work in arXiv. I usually have the
> > paper handy but my temp office is a mess.
> > A search will turn it up, we can discuss that
> > if you want, instead of Bergmann's text.
>
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0402/0402088.pdf
Thanks Eric, see also physics/9905030
that's the one I was thinking of, Schwarz.(KS)
puts the singularity at the origin in his
original solution.
> This appears to be the crux of his argument:
>
> "The HDW-form is physically valid only for r > 2m, because within the
> spatial surface r = 2m (a singular locus) the time co-ordinate takes
> the role of the radial co-ordinate, and vice versa (and therefore ds2
> loses its essential property of physical appropriateness) and the
> solution becomes non-static."
>
> It appears that he is saying beyond r = 2m the Schwarzchild solution
[I
> never heard it called HDW until today...*shrug*] is a physical one
and
> thus acceptable. I have always understood this to mean the
coordinates
> outside the event-horizon are time-like - moving along a geodesic
> outside of r = 2m doesn't mean you are destined for anywhere [least
of
> all a singularity].
>
> But when r < 2m, he appears to think it is a non-physical solution
> because there is a transition from time-like to space-like
coordinates
> [time and space swap roles - moving forward in time within r = 2m
means
> you are moving in space].
>
> His entire argument seems to be "r > 2m is physical, r < 2m is not
> because the metric does funky things!".
Ha, no, I think it's because "r" is Euclidian,
and pythagorean, that definition of radius is
modified by GR in g-fields. KS uses R in his
solution. I'll give my understanding if you
want after you look over the original KS
solution.
>He does not address what
> happens to a neutron star of say, 2 solar masses.
So what?
> If, according to him, a black hole can NOT form there must be
something
> preventing a supermassive neutron star [by supermassive I mean a
> neutron star that has a mass that is larger than the Chandreskahar
> limit] from receding beyond its' own event horizon. He offers no
> explanation, which does not satisfy me because the entire reason
black
> holes have any link to reality is through the death of a star.
Einstein suggests, and I agree, that baryons,
under sufficient pressure decay to gamma-rays.
> I would think that with the amount of people who dislike black holes
on
> any level,
>he would find someone to publish him. The best he seems to
> have is an endorsement for the arXiv, which concerns me.
Then go to the original KS solution and Einstein.
I certainly question credentials, that's why I
can provide at least 5 references, and my own
understanding, that's up to you, if trust is
what you need.
> Place two papers side by side and wipe your mind of the ability to
> understand them. One is published ...somewhere... and the other sits
on
> the preprint server without being published. Which one will you
trust,
> even if the trust only goes as far as your ability to throw it?
Damn, I'm not converting GR into a popularity
contest, I'd win based on my good looks!
> > How are you at math and tensors?
>
> The word undergrad comes to mind. Give me the PDE set that falls out
of
> Einstein's equations and I ...might... be able to tell you something,
> but I can't tell you if you have derived them correctly.
>
> I side with the majority opinion on black holes because it is the
> majority opinion, and black holes fit a nice observed cosmic niche.
Democracy, hmmm so Republican's decide on BH's.
> More to the point, I can't reproduce the derivation of any solution
to
> Einstein's equations except by rote. I don't like that but I can't do
> anything about it for at least another year. [Math is hard, hurr]
>
> BTW, Loinger's interpretation of Schwarzschild's that says black
holes
> do not exist is not the same thing as saying "black holes do not
exist"
> because there are other solutions of Einstein's field equations [Kerr
> comes to mind] that yield a black hole. Nor is it the same thing as
> saying that "Schwarzschild says black holes do not exist".
Let's do science not sematics.
Ken
- Next message: Torkel Franzen: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Jason: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Eric Gisse: "Re: GR -> Black Holes Can't Form... Take 2"
- Next in thread: Eric Gisse: "Re: GR -> Black Holes Can't Form... Take 2"
- Reply: Eric Gisse: "Re: GR -> Black Holes Can't Form... Take 2"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
