On 7/22/2010 9:18 AM, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott<sel### [at] npgcablecom>  wrote:
>> guy that
>> concluded that black holes *would* give off some radiation, and was
>> proven right
>
>    I don't think that's correct.
>
>    "However, the existence of Hawking radiation has never been observed."
>
>    "Under experimentally achievable conditions for gravitational systems
> this effect is too small to be observed."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
>
Actually, this is only partly correct. There has been no "direct" 
observation of it, but there has been indirect. But, technically, since 
its so damn small, this would be correct. Mind, if you don't have it, 
then you have to come up with something else to explain radiation from a 
block hole, where there shouldn't be any, and that *has* been seen.

>> How do
>> you get denser than that, even if you reduce the particles to
>> sub-particles, like quarks and muons?
>
>    Matter degenerates under that much gravity. They are not "particles"
> anymore.
>
>    Besides, it doesn't really matter what happens to them. You would have
> to prove that there exists a phenomenon or force in physics which makes
> matter overcome the gravity and stops it from collapsing into a singularity
> inside a black hole. I don't think any such phenomenon or force has been
> observed or even plausibly conjectured.
>
>> But, its still a question to physicists. There has to be a finite size
>> for distance *period*, as with time. If you don't have those, time
>> couldn't pass, and distance could never be crossed.
>
>    What does "finite size for distance, as with time" even mean?
>
>> But, we can't
>> observe the result, to see if that is true, so there *may* be a finite
>> "density", beyond which you can't get any more compact, no matter how
>> much gravity you throw at it.
>
>    You would need to explain what stops the matter from collapsing into a
> singularity. It certainly cannot be a physical force.
>
If its not particles, then what? Energy? Oh, wait, energy is still some 
sort of particle, as near as we can come up with. Mind, it might not be, 
if you go all the way down to String Theory, but that is just pure math, 
it has yet to come up with math that correctly matches the observed 
universe, and at best, *may* describe a near infinite list of "possible" 
universes, of which ours is just one in gazzillions (which makes finding 
the right math to match it, never mind verify that String Theory is 
right, worse odds than winning the lotto).

In any case, no, the problem here is that you have to present a 
plausible thing to "be" there, if you don't have particles, given that 
even breaking up something like an electron gives you... more particles. 
Again, its presupposing what is there, based on what needs to be, for 
the math to come out right. It doesn't prove that the math *is* right, 
in those conditions, or there is some basic limit, just like with 
distance and travel, over time. There is simply the assumption that 
there isn't one.

But, like I said, until he publishes, all we have is the assertion that 
its not happening, combined with the embarrassing fact that certain 
observations are not explained, by other means, without the prior 
Hawking's Radition.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message