Subject: Cross - Re: Black holes may not exist!
      Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 15:11:05 +0000
      From: ray.dickenson@...


   Thanks Terry, wasn't keeping an eye out on that, although did detect earlier signs
   of backtracking Jan 2003 (see below) - and think this's only the start of the fun:-

   You've all probably got some idea how much I dislike saying "told-u-so", especially
   when it might offend `experts' and `academics'? Right - Not at all!

   Reason is - many are ignorant, "follow-my-leader" posers (posing expensively in
   well-paying posts). And the posers don't think scientifically (too busy hyping for
   funding & tenure): like asking the "what-other-ways?" question.

   What's that? There's several ways of saying or proving a [true] statement. All 
   [should] say the _same_ thing, only in different ways.

   Like, four ways of finding (saying) `a cricket ball is denser than a softball'.

   a) carefully weigh both balls, then measure their diameters, calculate respective
   volumes, divide weights by volumes and find `specific density' of a cubic
   centimeter of each ball;

   b) do Archimedes' Eureka trick of using his bath to find same thing - a bit messy
   and finicky;

   c) do simpler version by just watching which ball sinks fastest in the bath;

   d) even simpler - throw each ball at a friend and see which hurts most (from
   personal experience - it's the cricket ball)

   BUT - all are saying the same thing! (Or should be - If it's true.)

   One web-page has been saying (proving) that "black holes don't exist" for quite a
   while now. Amusingly, the most obvious "what-other-ways" have been literally staring
   scientists in the face, but they're only now realizing how foolish is their
   fashionable - and therefore expensive to us tax-payers - "black-hole research".

   If you check the science climb-down ( it began Jan 2003 and is now accelerating
   - 2005, latest at http://xxx.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0503200 ) you'll probably be
   further amused to see they're carefully avoiding admitting their most obvious
   bloomers by cloaking "rethink" in abstruse, wordy "quantum" excuses.

   But it was staring them in the face! Quite literally: an optical naked-eye check,
   available to us all, could have told them they were spouting nonsense!

   To see the different ways - simplest and funniest first - try
   http://www.perceptions.couk.com/uef/nblckhls.html

   cheers
   Ray D 

"Terry W. Colvin" wrote:
<snip> 
> SCIENCE FRONTIERS, No. 162, Nov-Dec 2005, pp. 1 & 2
> Black holes may not exist!

> G. Chapline has described a worthy substitute on *Nature.com*
> (< http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050328/full/050328-8.html >)
[ http://xxx.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0503200 ]

<snip>  

> (Ball, Philip; "Black Holes 'Do Not Exist'" *Nature Online*, March 31,
2005.
> Quotation and review by Tom Van Flandern in *Journal of Scientific
> Exploration*, 19:319, 2005)
> 
> Comment.  One fad (dark energy) may now replace an older fad (the black
> hole)!  When will cosmology become fad-free?


   Ha! When science isn't controlled by self-interested politicans,
   devious bureaucrats and ignorant, "follow-my-leader" posers.

   So - Never!

   cheers again
   Ray D

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Perceptions" http://www.perceptions.couk.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---------------------------------------------

              FURTHER REFERENCES

  GO - "search perceptions" - in SEARCH-ENGINE


file-ID www.perceptions.couk.com/uef/funstart.txt