Amazing to you perhaps Double-A but not to some of us Mavericks
that have been pointing the way for so many years. If only Scott in alt.
astronomy could see your post, I'm sure he would find it very
interesting. The science newsgroup Kings of the Mavericks take little
consolation in Mr. Hawking's flip flop since it has been amply pointed
out by the more humble and enlightened of energy's indestructibility and
therefore of its information alternate mutual transference in any
gravitational field, strong or weak. It takes a big man to admit he's
wrong, and a greater one to get it right. The black hole theoretical
resolution was long ago presented via nightbat's singularity of the
profound " Black Comet " that even the Darla and company aliens took
notice of. Illusory Shastry may think singularity is point total
consciousness, but if he only was really conscious, perhaps he would of
understood its simple resolution and nightbat theorem. Not only Hawking
but the rest of the theoretical astro science boys need to catch up to
the logical Maverick beautiful theoretical mind likes of Uncle Al,
Varney, oc for Wolter, Painius, OG, Ralph, Old Man, Mr. Green, nightbat,
and select others, to try to get a viable bigger cosmic physics picture.
Poor posting friend to all Bert, this Hawking turn around will be
devastating news to him for he so depends on the main streams prolific
writing and books to get his " what if " thoughts from. Now that Darla
has blown net fan kisses at nightbat it has gotten Bert in a fit for he
thought he could win Darla's attention with sweet pies, and sci fi not
logic. Darla goes both ways, nightbat goes only one way, to solution, is
there any other way?
Thanks for the links Double-A, here is another for you, and if
responding to me, hint, just drop Followup-To for fun.
"MorituriMax" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:hwJJc.48363$[Only registered users see links. ].com...
In recent months I had been wondering how much energy escaped from the
Blackhole in the form of radiation, there no published figures on the
subject, I tended to dismiss it thinking that amount of radiation would
sterilise the whole universe, so the amount of energy I had decided was
small., there must be another form of outlet, or this newish theory is
And then I am back in the room behind the Blackhole where all matter is
stored until it bursts at the seams, and gives birth to another big bang, or
small one whatever you may wish to think, theory is just that strong idea's
usually, but all we have, and lets face it all we are likely to have or
obtain until that ultimate understanding of the universe comes along and
bites us on the bum.
"nightbat" <[Only registered users see links. ].com> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ].com...
Gravity. [Only registered users see links. ]
I read some of what Hawking said, and it seems to me that he was
talking about information ABOUT the black hole coming out, nothing
about information going in being preserved and them coming back out
in the form radiation.
Thanks for the link. It was a very interesting article. MorituriMax was
right though, generally when physicists are wrong about something they
change their minds. It doesn't seem at all strange that he changed his mind.
Even the most intelligent people can be wrong about things. Really not that
amazing, but certainly still interesting and worthy of reading.
"Double-A" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
A black hole is under no obligation to release information in Hawking
radiation.Provided it obeys the second law of thermodynamics , that is
all it needs to do.There may be no singularity in a black hole and
microstates may exist in the hole, but they do not necessarily have to
appear in radiation, not if there are particles other than Hawking
radiation that can escape from the hole.A point in case is gravitons -
if they exist - they must escape from the balck hole to have an effect
on other masses.I would suspect that if Hawking is right, then he will
have had to remove the singularity from both the black hole and from
the beginning of the universe as a whole.
And there's also the question of energy conservation in general
energy is not usually conserved in general relativity.This is at odds
with every other branch of physics.GR needs to have energy
conservation built into it so that it can be combined with quantum
mechanics - in which there is energy conservation - to give quantum
gravity and a clear picture of what goes on in black holes.