Inside Black hole

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Saint, Feb 12, 2020.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,733
    No one ever said it was. Still factually speaking, the accepted evidenced backed theories of the day, are supported by the majority.
    If there is no "valid" derivation, it is then a total dismissal. And again, many other professionals seem to disagree with you.
    I'm confusing Hawking Radiation with nothing, and as you should well know, no scientific theory is proven.
    I said even the BB has problems....no mention of any trans Plankian problem.
    Many other professionals disagree with you.
    https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rsta.2008.0062
    Dumb holes: analogues for black holes
    Abstract
    "The use of sonic analogues to black and white holes, called dumb or deaf holes, to understand the particle production by black holes is reviewed. The results suggest that the black hole particle production is a low-frequency and low-wavenumber process."
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,774
    I support the evidence-backed theories of the day too. My own theories have them as limits. So, accepting them as good approximations is a necessity for my own theories.
    If you read the papers themselves, you will find that they accept themselves that their arguments have some holes. They tend to think that they are, nonetheless, worth something. Here I disagree. I have yet to see the paper where a "valid derivation" of Hawking radiation is claimed which does not accept, inside, that there is no complete proof but at best some plausibility argument.
    The "suggests" already suggests that this does not mean much. Inside the article one finds my main point:
    So, all this are only arguments from analogy, not "valid derivations". So, following your own argument, this is a "total dismissal".
    You are confusing it again, Hawking radiation is a prediction derived from a theory, not a scientific theory itself. Again, I know that scientific theories cannot be proven. But empirical predictions of scientific theories can be proven to be their predictions.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,733
    That's your prerogative.
    I disagree, Hawking Radiation is certainly a theory.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.

Share This Page