{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Secular Sevens
1/26/2014 4:43:03 PM
8
Why does he make the report title "There are no Black Holes" if all he's disproving is the Event Horizon surrounding them?
English
-
I don't think he disproved it. He's just hypothesizing an alternate theory. But this is a pretty big deal; the event horizon is the most defining feature of a black hole - it's what makes a black hole a black hole by definition.
-
Black Holes are known to eject matter, so it's basically proven.
-
They are known to give off radiation, but this radiation comes from outside the event horizon. I don't think we know of any radiation to escape from the event horizon as Stephen Hawking is apparently suggesting is possible in the article being discussed here.
-
Woops I misunderstood something I read similar to [url=http://scitechdaily.com/5000-light-year-long-jet-of-superheated-gas-ejected-from-a-supermassive-black-hole/]this[/url]. I was thinking the gas came from inside.
-
That's an understandable mistake. Those are actually pretty cool. Most black holes don't give off bipolar jets like that, but those are special cases of supermassive black holes at the center of "active galaxies." But, yeah, it comes from the accretion disk, not the event horizon. :P Fun fact: Most galaxies have supermassive black holes at their centers, including our own.
-
And not necessarily even that because he goes out to say that they need the universal theory first
-
I doubt that's the name of the actual report, probably just the name of the article about the report because journalism and shit.
-
It caught your eye and he made some monies.
