Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #548670 > unrolled thread

Hawking's Latest Black Hole Paper Splits Physicists

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Hawking's Latest Black Hole Paper Splits Physicists Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 17:29 -0600
    Re: Hawking's Latest Black Hole Paper Splits Physicists jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-28 00:25 +0000
      Re: Hawking's Latest Black Hole Paper Splits Physicists john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 17:16 -0800
    Re: Hawking's Latest Black Hole Paper Splits Physicists Juan Sebastián <jseb@montserrat.info> - 2016-01-28 18:32 +0000
      Re: Hawking's Latest Black Hole Paper Splits Physicists Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-01-28 14:11 -0800
    Re: Hawking's Latest Black Hole Paper Splits Physicists Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 00:56 -0500
      Re: Hawking's Latest Black Hole Paper Splits Physicists Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 22:11 -0800
        Re: Hawking's Latest Black Hole Paper Splits Physicists Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 06:47 -0500
          Re: Hawking's Latest Black Hole Paper Splits Physicists Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 05:28 -0800
      Re: Hawking's Latest Black Hole Paper Splits Physicists Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 08:16 -0600
        Re: Hawking's Latest Black Hole Paper Splits Physicists john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 06:38 -0800
          Re: Hawking's Latest Black Hole Paper Splits Physicists Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 08:43 -0600
            Re: Hawking's Latest Black Hole Paper Splits Physicists "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 12:07 -0800
          Re: Hawking's Latest Black Hole Paper Splits Physicists HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 07:01 -0800
          Re: Hawking's Latest Black Hole Paper Splits Physicists Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 03:15 -0500
            Re: Hawking's Latest Black Hole Paper Splits Physicists john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 05:34 -0800
              Re: Hawking's Latest Black Hole Paper Splits Physicists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 09:56 -0600
                Re: Hawking's Latest Black Hole Paper Splits Physicists "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 05:10 -0800
              Re: Hawking's Latest Black Hole Paper Splits Physicists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 11:02 -0600
              Re: Hawking's Latest Black Hole Paper Splits Physicists HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 09:05 -0800
                Re: Hawking's Latest Black Hole Paper Splits Physicists john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 09:58 -0800
                  Re: Hawking's Latest Black Hole Paper Splits Physicists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 12:49 -0600
                    Re: Hawking's Latest Black Hole Paper Splits Physicists shan <shan@enterapps.org> - 2016-02-01 18:51 +0000
                    Re: Hawking's Latest Black Hole Paper Splits Physicists "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 05:30 -0800
                      Re: Hawking's Latest Black Hole Paper Splits Physicists john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 05:44 -0800
                        Re: Hawking's Latest Black Hole Paper Splits Physicists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 09:44 -0600
                          Re: Hawking's Latest Black Hole Paper Splits Physicists john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 08:03 -0800
                            Re: Hawking's Latest Black Hole Paper Splits Physicists Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 10:10 -0600
                            Re: Hawking's Latest Black Hole Paper Splits Physicists HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 08:16 -0800
                              Re: Hawking's Latest Black Hole Paper Splits Physicists john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 09:01 -0800
                            Re: Hawking's Latest Black Hole Paper Splits Physicists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 12:38 -0600
                  Re: Hawking's Latest Black Hole Paper Splits Physicists HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 16:32 -0800
                    Re: Hawking's Latest Black Hole Paper Splits Physicists john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 17:21 -0800
                      Re: Hawking's Latest Black Hole Paper Splits Physicists HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 06:15 -0800
                  Re: Hawking's Latest Black Hole Paper Splits Physicists Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 21:34 -0600
                    Re: Hawking's Latest Black Hole Paper Splits Physicists john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 21:49 -0800
                      Re: Hawking's Latest Black Hole Paper Splits Physicists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 09:37 -0600
                    Re: Hawking's Latest Black Hole Paper Splits Physicists john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 09:06 -0800
                      Re: Hawking's Latest Black Hole Paper Splits Physicists Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 12:47 -0600
                Re: Hawking's Latest Black Hole Paper Splits Physicists "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 05:17 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#548670 — Hawking's Latest Black Hole Paper Splits Physicists

Hawking's Latest Black Hole Paper Splits Physicists
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hawking-s-latest-black-hole-paper-splits-physicists/


> Almost a month after Stephen Hawking and his colleagues posted a
> paper about black holes online, physicists still cannot agree on what
> it means.
>
> Some support the preprint’s claim—that it provides a promising way to
> tackle a conundrum known as the black hole information paradox, which
> Hawking identified more than 40 years ago. “I think there is a
> general sense of excitement that we have a new way of looking at
> things that may get us out of the logjam,” says Andrew Strominger, a
> physicist at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a
> co-author of the latest paper.
>
> Strominger presented the results on January 18 at a crowded talk at
> the University of Cambridge, UK, where Hawking is based.
>
> Others are not so sure that the approach can solve the paradox,
> although some say that the work illuminates various problems in
> physics. In the mid-1970s, Hawking discovered that black holes are
> not truly black, and in fact emit some radiation. According to
> quantum physics, pairs of particles must appear out of quantum
> fluctuations just outside the event horizon—the black hole’s point of
> no return. Some of these particles escape the pull of the black hole
> but take a portion of its mass with them, causing the black hole to
> slowly shrink and eventually disappear.

   This is the kind of thing that we eventually learn from.



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#548677

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hawking's Latest Black Hole Paper Splits Physicists
>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hawking-s-latest-black-hole-paper-splits-physicists/
> 


"This site and the contents thereof (including but not limited to software,
interfaces, files, graphics, text and data found on the site) is the
property of and owned by Scientific American or its licensors and is
protected by copyright, trademark and other laws of the United States
and other countries. Scientific American grants you a revocable license
to display and electronically copy, download and print hard copy versions
of the material contained on the site for your personal and noncommercial
use, provided you do not modify or delete any copyright, trademark or other
proprietary notice that appears on the material you copy, download or print.
No other use of any of the contents of the site is licensed, and you agree
that you will not make any other use of the material on the site, including
but not limited to the copying, modification, distribution, transmission,
performance, broadcast, publication, licensing, reverse engineering, transfer
or sale of, or the creation of derivative works from, any of the contents
of the site. Requests for permission to reproduce or distribute materials
found on our website should be sent to Scientific American, a division of
Nature America, Inc., Permissions Department, One New York Plaza, Suite
4500, New York, NY 10004-1562 or randp@sciam.com."


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#548686

Dinosaurs

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#548810

Sam Wormley wrote:

>> Others are not so sure that the approach can solve the paradox,
>> although some say that the work illuminates various problems in
>> physics. In the mid-1970s, Hawking discovered that black holes are not
>> truly black, and in fact emit some radiation.

>re you crazy? Discovered?


>>  According to quantum
>> physics, pairs of particles must appear out of quantum fluctuations
>> just outside the event horizon—the black hole’s point of no return.
>> Some of these particles escape the pull of the black hole but take a
>> portion of its mass with them, causing the black hole to slowly shrink
>> and eventually disappear.

Nevermind, from a singularity NOTHING possibly may escape.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#548863

On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 10:32:40 AM UTC-8, Juan Sebastián wrote:
> Sam Wormley wrote:
> 
> >> Others are not so sure that the approach can solve the paradox,
> >> although some say that the work illuminates various problems in
> >> physics. In the mid-1970s, Hawking discovered that black holes are not
> >> truly black, and in fact emit some radiation.
> 
> >re you crazy? Discovered?


More like postulated.

Double-A

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#549000

On 27/01/2016 6:29 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>    This is the kind of thing that we eventually learn from.

Or at least Stephen Hawking learns from, and then he unlearns it again. 
I think we're just seeing Hawking's latest disagreement with himself, as 
he debates himself in public.

	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#549002

On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 12:56:18 AM UTC-5, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> On 27/01/2016 6:29 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >    This is the kind of thing that we eventually learn from.

We? We who? We we WE or the other eventual we, Sam Worm Liar?
 
> Or at least Stephen Hawking learns from, and then he unlearns it again. 
> I think we're just seeing Hawking's latest disagreement with himself, as 
> he debates himself in public.
> 
> 	Yousuf Khan

Since Hawking and his manipulating him puppets must be reading here, I
just want to add my weird(y) He he... to your observation Yousuf Khan.

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: River of Time runs deep...”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#549682

On 29/01/2016 1:11 AM, Mahipal wrote:
> On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 12:56:18 AM UTC-5, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> On 27/01/2016 6:29 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>     This is the kind of thing that we eventually learn from.
>> Or at least Stephen Hawking learns from, and then he unlearns it again.
>> I think we're just seeing Hawking's latest disagreement with himself, as
>> he debates himself in public.
>>
>> 	Yousuf Khan
>
> Since Hawking and his manipulating him puppets must be reading here, I
> just want to add my weird(y) He he... to your observation Yousuf Khan.

Why would Hawking be reading here?

	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#549688

On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 6:47:46 AM UTC-5, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> On 29/01/2016 1:11 AM, Mahipal wrote:
> > On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 12:56:18 AM UTC-5, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> >> On 27/01/2016 6:29 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >>>     This is the kind of thing that we eventually learn from.
> >> Or at least Stephen Hawking learns from, and then he unlearns it again.
> >> I think we're just seeing Hawking's latest disagreement with himself, as
> >> he debates himself in public.
> >>
> >> 	Yousuf Khan
> >
> > Since Hawking and his manipulating him puppets must be reading here, I
> > just want to add my weird(y) He he... to your observation Yousuf Khan.
> 
> Why would Hawking be reading here?
> 
> 	Yousuf Khan

Good Morning Yousuf...

Wishful thinking on my part? Also, I was being playful, He he. Having
recently watched Hawking on sitcom TBBT (The Big Bang Theory) reruns.

Actually Dr. Stephen Hawking is an institution, he has many graduate
students. These interns, students, and helpers likely regularly help
gauge his image/sentiment out in the public sphere. This feedback,
somehow would, gets channeled back to the very famous Doctor. It's
also modern common practice in the age of instant real time search
engines performing background checks on mere ordinary bums seeking
employment. Or a date, a hookup! Always first do a LookUp. Lies travel
at the speed of light around the Earth, while the truth just drops
like OneStone to the ground. So, that's why. IME, humble as it is.

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: Weird(y) Burning All My Bridges...”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#549069

On 1/28/16 11:56 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> On 27/01/2016 6:29 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>    This is the kind of thing that we eventually learn from.
>
> Or at least Stephen Hawking learns from, and then he unlearns it again.
> I think we're just seeing Hawking's latest disagreement with himself, as
> he debates himself in public.
>
>      Yousuf Khan


   Good description of Hawking!

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#549078

Too bad about those pesky jets.
And that he has no clue our Suck
Gravity is completely illogical.
Good with math, tho

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#549080

On 1/29/16 8:38 AM, john wrote:
> Too bad about those pesky jets. And that he has no clue our Suck
> Gravity is completely illogical. Good with math, tho >


   Actually, John, you demonstrate over and over that you don't have
   a good concept of a black hole. Stuff that falls in does not come
   out. Furthermore, black holes have three, and only three, properties:

   Mass, charge and angular momentum.
> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/BlackHole.html







-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#549201

On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 8:43:23 AM UTC-6, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 1/29/16 8:38 AM, john wrote:
> > Too bad about those pesky jets. And that he has no clue our Suck
> > Gravity is completely illogical. Good with math, tho >
> 
> 
>    Actually, John, you demonstrate over and over that you don't have
>    a good concept of a black hole. Stuff that falls in does not come
>    out. Furthermore, black holes have three, and only three, properties:
> 
>    Mass, charge and angular momentum.
> > http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/BlackHole.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

Angular momentum is another side of gravity.It goes with acceleration It goes with inertia and gravity the same thing.  Think about it. TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#549085

Too bad about those pesky jets. 
----------

Jets do not a black hole make.
Note that many astrophysical phenomena produce jets.



And that he has no clue our Suck 
Gravity is completely illogical. 
-------------

Out would be easy to say that your fundamental lack of physics education has brought you to the belief that the terms gravity and suck have anything in common. But that would be too easy.

I say it's deeper than that. It's a case of not wanting to know the truth because it will upset your kooky worldview. So it is a willful ignorance. Willful ignorance is at the very heart of religion/insanity

Its similar to a kid putting his hands over his ears and yelling "LALALALA" until he stops hearing what he doesn't want to hear

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#549664

On 29/01/2016 9:38 AM, john wrote:
> Too bad about those pesky jets.
> And that he has no clue our Suck
> Gravity is completely illogical.
> Good with math, tho

Only you have a concept about a "suck gravity", nobody else uses that 
concept.

	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#549689

"
Only you have a concept about a "suck gravity", nobody else uses that 
concept. 

        Yousuf Khan "

The Earth (or any body)
just sits there "warping" space
for ever and ever
and NO ENERGY NEEDED?
(Now give your head a shake.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#549718

On 2/1/2016 7:34 AM, john wrote:
> "
> Only you have a concept about a "suck gravity", nobody else uses that
> concept.
>
>          Yousuf Khan "
>
> The Earth (or any body)
> just sits there "warping" space
> for ever and ever
> and NO ENERGY NEEDED?
> (Now give your head a shake.)
>

Why would you think this requires energy?

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#549914

On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 5:56:32 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/1/2016 7:34 AM, john wrote:
> > "
> > Only you have a concept about a "suck gravity", nobody else uses that
> > concept.
> >
> >          Yousuf Khan "
> >
> > The Earth (or any body)
> > just sits there "warping" space
> > for ever and ever
> > and NO ENERGY NEEDED?
> > (Now give your head a shake.)
> >
> 
> Why would you think this requires energy?
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

=======================
idiot parrot 
because with no energy
nothing is moving and produce work !!
and **can** produce work 
================================
mass is the mother of all forces
including black matter  
and including gravity as well 

Y.P
====================================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#549727

On 2/1/2016 7:34 AM, john wrote:
> "
> Only you have a concept about a "suck gravity", nobody else uses that
> concept.
>
>          Yousuf Khan "
>
> The Earth (or any body)
> just sits there "warping" space
> for ever and ever
> and NO ENERGY NEEDED?
> (Now give your head a shake.)
>

John, just to seed your head, I'm sure you're thinking, "If I warp a 
piece of metal, this takes work on my part, so it's consuming energy."
But maybe look at this in some detail and think about the innards of the 
metal: WHY does it take energy to warp a piece of metal?

When you can think about and account for WHY that takes energy, now you 
can see whether you should think the same thing should be true for 
warping spacetime.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#549728

The Earth (or any body) 
just sits there "warping" space 
for ever and ever 
and NO ENERGY NEEDED? 
(Now give your head a shake.)
-------------

John, here's a simple analogy via a question:

Do binoculars require energy to bring distance objects into view?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web