Black Holes 'Do Not Exist,' Contends Physicist

SpaceAdmiral writes "Nature reports that, according to a physicist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, 'It's a near certainty that black holes don't exist.' George Chapline argues that the collapse of massive stars is more likely to lead to dark energy stars. These dark energy stars behave somewhat like a black hole outside of the surface, but the negative gravity inside could cause matter to 'bounce back out again.'"

Comments

Dark BS

[gr8_phk]

After calling bullshit on a recent /. thread related to dark matter, I did the math myself. There is no reason to "invent" dark matter to account for the flat galactic rotation curves. A recent /. story also says physicists have decided there is no need for "dark energy" either. These guys need to stop making shit up. Anyone who mentions dark energy or matter automatically gets put on my "quack" list. Not to mention people who submit them to slashdot.

"Black hole: Physicists do not exist"

[untaken_name]

Tomorrow on slashdot, "news" for "nerds", stuff that "matters".

Since you're reading this....

[DG]

Slightly offtopic, but (I hope) interesting, and something you may actually know about:

I've got a piece of technology I've worked out for a story I'm working on.

As I understand it, one theory behind the vacuum is that it is filled with "virtual particles" that pop into existance with their anti-particle somehow nearby. They collide, cancel each other out (with no release of energy? How does THAT work?) and vanish.

Is that right?

So this fictional technology (it's a warhead, actually) creates a field that supresses the generation of one of the two types of virtual particles. That generates a sudden, theoretically infinate (but practically limited ) "burst" of particles within the field limits.

Supress "normal" virtual particles, and you get a ball of antimatter, which immediately contacts the normal matter of the field generator, and BOOM!

Supress "anti" virtual particles, and you get a super-dense ball of regular matter - dense enough to create a small black hole. Trigger this near a planet or a star, and you get enough matter infall to counteract the rate of it boiling away via Hawking radiation, and chomp!

If we handwave away the mechanism behind which the field works, is the rest of this plausible?

Please discuss. I'd love to hear your take on this.

DG

Re:The actual article

[cluckshot]

At last someone who gets it!

Equations are just that, equations. They are little symbols inscribed on paper with graphite. They have no true bearing on realiy.

I have bothered around in physics since I was a teenager. I upset the powers that be in 1975 when I told Kirk Vonnegut (Troy NY) some things about lighting and tornados and their electrical effects. By 1995 I talked with the NASA Environmental guys in Huntsville and they told me that He was saying the same as I had said in 1975. I have because of this the dubious honor (not worth a plugged nickel) of being the one who while not credited actually taught NASA how Lightning worked and much on weather science. This is all important because it leads to one conclusion. Sorry for Einstein and the others but GRAVITY as a force does not exist. The force we call gravity is a side vector product of EM Force Density.

I know I will hear from the equation people who are just sure this isn't so. The Physics types will have a cow right there on the spot and well it will go from there. Frankly there are three great errors in Physics other than believing it. (1) The speed of light is not a constant regardless of media or conditions there is a variability even with frequency. This has long been observed. (2) The G constant does not exist. It is one of those funky numbers cooked up to make the equations work. (3) Finally the issue of Signal to Noise ratios makes any observations beyond those of a few light years highly questionable at best. Refraction and bending of light by media make even closer observations come into question and assure that those at millions of light years are entirely fanciful to assume any data is what we think it is. What are we looking at could be reflections of ourselves for all we know.

Now I guess I will be subject of every insult known to Physics and a few others but I just shot at the Idiots who throw around equations rather than reality. I can expect nothing less. I must have a somewhat crazy side to put up with this but I try to see what is and now what others tell me to see. (Kings new clothes etc)