matter bettween 2 event horizons

[sjastro]

Bert and Chris,

And thanks for the inane comments.

Would it have been more justifiable to turn the discussion into a mathematical thread given that neither of you would be able to comprehend it?

The statements made in this thread are perfectly valid. It's not the case of being right, wrong or inapplicable. It's shows that people are prepared to think and offer an interpretation to a concept that is not straightforward.

Rob and Craig.
Thanks for your contributions in this thread.

Regards

Steven

[Robh (Rob)]

Thanks Craig and Steven for your time and contributions. As usual, I found it educational and enjoyable.

Who is to say what is impossible or ridiculous in science? It is through imagination, hypothesis, observation/research and analysis that the boundaries of the impossible can be tested.

I am reminded of the following three "laws" made by the eminent Arthur C. Clarke:
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; when he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong.
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Regards, Rob

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by cwjohn

Immensely meaningful at the time but complete nonsense when you sober up.

Chris;

I've been thinking, (and calming down a bit), but I'm left with a question for you..

What exactly do you see about our discussion that is 'nonsense' ?
It seemed completely the opposite to me.

… I'm just intrigued, now.

Cheers

[Karls48 (Karl)]

Originally Posted by Robh

Thanks Craig and Steven for your time and contributions. As usual, I found it educational and enjoyable.

Who is to say what is impossible or ridiculous in science? It is through imagination, hypothesis, observation/research and analysis that the boundaries of the impossible can be tested.

I am reminded of the following three "laws" made by the eminent Arthur C. Clarke:
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; when he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong.
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Regards, Rob

This is best summary of our knowledge and our approach to science I have hear in long time

[cwjohn (Chris)]

Let me first deal with Craig's question. I have degrees in five disciplines including physics and astrophysics (postgrad) and also arts (philosophy). I think therefore that I have a reasonable understanding of the many theories put forward to explain the world as it exists today. Unlike Steven I make no arrogant claims that any of my ideas or statements, nor the statements of anybody else, are perfectly valid. Indeed it must be wonderful for Steven to inhabit such a position of perfect knowledge. What I can do as indeed all reasonably intelligent human beings will do, is decide what for me makes sense about the world and as a result reject other data of hypothesis as non-sensical. Without tending to use the word in a perjorative sense I thus categorise certain hypotheses as "nonsense" maining that they make no sense to me. This is not to say that they are not worthy of intellectual effort but more on that later.

As an interested observer of religion and other descriptions of the way the world is like, for instance "intelligent design" and astrology there have been many sophistocated arguments put forward to justify such positions. I would assume that like me most here would generally reject such positions as "nonsense" but in reality the majority of people do not share these views.

Now I, and probably you, reject these views, mainly because they are simply not scientific, and that contradicts our fundamental belief in science as a paradigm by which we interpret the world. Science however, is not something we can glibly define. With respect to Clark his three laws in no way define "Science" and both intelligent design and astrology would both easily pass his definitions. To put this sort of specious nonsense forward is really pretty demeaning to the scientific method.

Further, to say that we should not judge on what is and what is not science is also fraught with danger as that attitude will see intelligent design taught alongside evolution in schools, and chasing the diminishing science research dollar.

I will not go into the philosophy of science as that would turn this post into a tome but you will instrinsically know that a scientific hypothesis is only validated by its verifiability. It is more complex than this but you get the picture as you have probably seen the movie.

We would therefore dismiss hypothesis like the existance of God, natural selection and astrology as unverifiable and reject them as nonsense given our scientific intellectual and cultural bias, although as I remind you the majority of human beings do not fall into this category.

Following from this it seems to me the height of arrogance to let the so called scientific community led by people motivated by selling books to venture from what is science to what is pure speculation. This has been heightened over the last 30 years in which the theorists have been given their heads in constructing completely unverifiable theories based on mathematic abstraction, mostly based around string theory and black holes because these exiting ideas first and foremost sell books. Again I wont go there, but you will have seen the movie. Indeed it became unfashionable for a long time, although it is changing now due to the fact that physics has languished for around 20 years, to examine the fundamentals of the assumptions we have made for so long. The very nature of mass, what is a particle, what is time, why does GM predict what it does and so on and so forth.

Before I go on here, let me state as I did in my original post I have no problem with pure speculation for speculation's sake, just as I have no problem with people waxing lyrical on other tenuous and non provable speculations. On the contrary it is quite a pleasant exercise to luxuriate in such intellectual meanderings but ultimately as I said one must accept that at base level the fundamental premises are flawed and accept that as a matter of current fact, rather than take a pious position of intellectual superiority.

It therefore concerns me that this thread took on that guise of actually being based on anything tangible rather than speculation.

What do we know about Black Holes. Well again I could write a tome on the basic and arrogant assumptions we make in regard to our interpretation of the EM date we recieve in our little planet in our infinitessimally small region of a huge universe, but I wont go there. Instead I will assume all of these assumptions are correct. Based on this what do we know.

We know black holes exist.

We know that general relativity explains in general terms how a black hole can come to exist.

We know that beyond the event horizon under our current understanding of the laws of physics we cannot know what is contained within the event horizon.

We know that mathematically we can define models for the nature of black holes and their singularities and as a result we can speculate on matters such as entropy, informations exchange, quantum fluctuations and so on and so forth. this all inevitably having to do with the event horizon.

There are many such mathematical models allowing for a variety of conditions including angular momentum and collision scenarios.

Not withstanding such models under our current laws of physics we cannot ever know the very nature of physics beyond the event horizon of a black hole and moreover, astrophysical measurements can never reveal this information.

So let me count the ways :-

Rob said "There are similarities between a black hole's event horizon and a cosmic event horizon". WTF. This is like saying "There are similarities between heaven and the Kingdom of Allah". As Bert says if you were able to visit a black hole event horizon you would no longer be able to measure where or what you were and the cosmic event horizon is merely a fictional place which by definition you can never visit.

Then Steven says boldly "The event horizon is independant of space-time distortion. It is a property of the time component of the Schwarzchild metric. You can create an event horizon by accelerating a clock in flat Minkowski space. The horizon itself doesn't undergo "distortion" by gravity." Now I defy anybody including Hawking itself to make any sense of these statements. What he means to say is that by one mathematical model (probably his own) this statement is correct, but even then I suspect the math will not reflect the hyperbole. Notwithstanding this Steven asserts every opinion he has is perfectly valid and it seems that when others comment they are inane. This sounds very much like the fundamentalist viewpoint expressed by non scientists to me. I am right so you must be wrong. And yes, a few papers and a little math backing up your arguments would not go astray, but even then there are so many theories of black holes that I have no doubt any argument could be adequately supported.

And so it goes on, back and forward, until Bert quite rightly calls a spade a spade to which he gets dumped upon from a great height. How dare he tell us to stop imbibing and go home.

So gentleman, I applaud your prognostications, just as I applaud the latest Harry Potter movie, but let us not delude ourselves into thinking they are anything but pure speculation and certainly let us not delude ourselves into thinking there is anything scientific about them.

[CraigS]

Chris;

Thank you, for what I am assuming, was your reply to my question:
"What exactly do you see about our discussion that is 'nonsense ?"

I believe your outright opinion interjected into the midst of a conversation where all of the participants were doing their best to contribute to this thread, and where all participants were very well aware of the hypothetical nature of the topic, was what I found was frankly, rude behaviour. Also, I for one, find opinions of little value in this forum (my own included).

I have no idea of your background and frankly, I don't really care.

I am interested in positive contributions, which add value to this site, and its threads.

So far, I am yet to see anything of this nature from your fingertips.

I look forward to anything you may have to offer in the future, (other than opinions).

The folk you have attacked in your response are very highly valued here, because of their long histories of unending contributions. They also have a depth of insight and professional industry experience in these topics. Their academic backgrounds are also very sound and their generosity is exhibited every day, by them 'walking the talk'.

Once we've become familiar with your contributions, we may be able to say the same of you.

Frankly, I look forward to that day.

Craig

[cwjohn (Chris)]

Craig

Every time anyone posts he/she is expressing an opinion. It appears that you only regard opinions as positive if they are in accord with yours.

I attacked no one - only expressed views on statements made by others. On the other hand you and Steven used the words "inane" and "rude" in regard to myself and others these words representing value judgements against individuals that I would never make.

Having said that I have no wish to rock the boat with opinions that threaten the status quo and I have no wish to participate in a crude slanging match of invective. Accordingly you will not hear from me again.

All the best
Chris

[sjastro]

I attacked no one - only expressed views on statements made by others. On the other hand you and Steven used the words "inane" and "rude" in regard to myself and others these words representing value judgements against individuals that I would never make.

Of course you didn't attack anyone. Stating that the opinions of others as being nonsense is definitely not an attack. Neither is the attempt to portray me as an arrogant individual flouting an opinionated view. Who in fact has the opinionated view.

Neither are your posts inane. The author of this thread is now fully enriched by your posts, which were on topic, contained valuable insights, offended no one and is a source of learning.
Definitely not inane.

You must be a grossly misunderstood individual.

[Robh (Rob)]

Originally Posted by cwjohn

It therefore concerns me that this thread took on that guise of actually being based on anything tangible rather than speculation.

We know black holes exist.

We know that general relativity explains in general terms how a black hole can come to exist.

We know that beyond the event horizon under our current understanding of the laws of physics we cannot know what is contained within the event horizon.

We know that mathematically we can define models for the nature of black holes and their singularities and as a result we can speculate on matters such as entropy, informations exchange, quantum fluctuations and so on and so forth. this all inevitably having to do with the event horizon.

There are many such mathematical models allowing for a variety of conditions including angular momentum and collision scenarios.


So gentleman, I applaud your prognostications, just as I applaud the latest Harry Potter movie, but let us not delude ourselves into thinking they are anything but pure speculation and certainly let us not delude ourselves into thinking there is anything scientific about them.

Chris,

I read your rather long reply in an attempt to find something constructive to warrant my time on it. Contrary to your opinion that everything about black holes is pure speculation, I thought you did a reasonable job in stating a few tangibles about them.

In dealing with any contentious scientific matter one always strives to find the current boundary between the established and the hypothetical. Years ago, black holes were a hypothetical, now they are pretty much established. There is an extraordinary amount of evidence to support their existence. The physics of event horizons is largely mathematical but their are physical observations that support what we know about them.
What happens inside a black hole is hypothetical but perhaps we might know one day. If no-one were to speculate, science would come to a standstill.

There are many people who spare their time to contribute to these threads. I would say without hesitation that it is their enthusiasm about astronomy and their willingness to help and educate that keeps these threads going.

Each and every person is entitled to a viewpoint on any particular aspect of science. The expectation is that any viewpoint is a constructive argument either for or against the viewpoints stated. I don't think that I have ever read a post and asked for that person's qualifications to answer. A thinking person should have learnt much more than the contents of his degree from years gone by. Often individuals have a particular interest and a lot of accumulated knowledge around it. Most of us can put the jigsaw puzzle together when we're given the right pieces. Invariably posts will refer us somewhere we can verify or rebut the claims.

I always deliberate about any comment I make in a post and welcome any constructive feedback.

Regards, Rob