4 ms·

Wall of text, didn't answer the question.

by platz 4y ago

lisper 4y ago
The question assumes that black holes evaporate, and we don't actually know that they do. Is that better?
- platz 4y ago
  That is a more transparent answer and direct answer, yes. Maybe if you had lead with that sentence, I wouldn't have been inclined to respond. But it also fails to address what I point out below. (as an aside, this answer is also not one that I find satisfactory on the actual topic.) Dllthomas correctly pointed out that given the two premises that (from the frame of the observer) (1) [matter takes infinite time to transit the horizon] and (2) [due to hawking radiation, black holes have a finite time span], then (2) resolves (1) when the black hole disappears. To recap, Instead of acknowledging that (2) resolves (1) you proceed to question the existence of hawking radiation and black hole evaporation, which compared to consensus is a radical view and is not warranted. Also the pivot was done in a way that seems to complicate and obfuscate rather than address the point directly (this is a common debate tactic; however I'm not sure if you were conscious of the behavior or if it was more subconscious/rationalization (more likely); you may not have even been aware you were doing it). It seems like you chose to reject consensus instead of simply accepting that (2) resolves (1), maybe because you seem to have a fixation on not ever conceding a point in a conversation. Sometimes it's ok just so say, "yeah, that's a good point". (btw if you're rejecting hawking radiation why say anything about black hole theory at all this point because it could all be wrong, no reason to speculate about it)
  - lisper 4y ago
    > you seem to have a fixation on not ever conceding a point That is quite the accusation coming from someone whose entry into the conversation was "Wall of text, didn't answer the question." But let's see... > Dllthomas correctly pointed out... dllthomas did not "point out" anything, correctly or otherwise. All he did was ask the following question: "How does that remain true after the black hole has evaporated and there is no longer a horizon?" This question assumes that black holes evaporate. That assumption may be incorrect. We do not know whether or not black holes actually evaporate. In fact, we do not even know whether or not black holes actually form at all. And therefore: > (2) resolves (1) when the black hole disappears That might be true if (2) were true. Even that is arguable, but it is neither here nor there because we do not know whether or not (2) is true > compared to consensus is a radical view Yes, of course. The consensus view leads to a paradox, and so we know that the consensus view cannot possibly be correct. We also know that decades of effort have not resolved this paradox, and so it is extremely unlikely that there is a simple straightforward solution that has simply been overlooked. So the correct solution will almost certainly be a radical departure from the current consensus.

Wall of text, didn't answer the question.

by platz 4y ago

Wall of text, didn't answer the question.

lisper 4y ago

The question assumes that black holes evaporate, and we don't actually know that they do. Is that better?

platz 4y ago
That is a more transparent answer and direct answer, yes. Maybe if you had lead with that sentence, I wouldn't have been inclined to respond. But it also fails to address what I point out below. (as an aside, this answer is also not one that I find satisfactory on the actual topic.) Dllthomas correctly pointed out that given the two premises that (from the frame of the observer) (1) [matter takes infinite time to transit the horizon] and (2) [due to hawking radiation, black holes have a finite time span], then (2) resolves (1) when the black hole disappears. To recap, Instead of acknowledging that (2) resolves (1) you proceed to question the existence of hawking radiation and black hole evaporation, which compared to consensus is a radical view and is not warranted. Also the pivot was done in a way that seems to complicate and obfuscate rather than address the point directly (this is a common debate tactic; however I'm not sure if you were conscious of the behavior or if it was more subconscious/rationalization (more likely); you may not have even been aware you were doing it). It seems like you chose to reject consensus instead of simply accepting that (2) resolves (1), maybe because you seem to have a fixation on not ever conceding a point in a conversation. Sometimes it's ok just so say, "yeah, that's a good point". (btw if you're rejecting hawking radiation why say anything about black hole theory at all this point because it could all be wrong, no reason to speculate about it)
- lisper 4y ago
  > you seem to have a fixation on not ever conceding a point That is quite the accusation coming from someone whose entry into the conversation was "Wall of text, didn't answer the question." But let's see... > Dllthomas correctly pointed out... dllthomas did not "point out" anything, correctly or otherwise. All he did was ask the following question: "How does that remain true after the black hole has evaporated and there is no longer a horizon?" This question assumes that black holes evaporate. That assumption may be incorrect. We do not know whether or not black holes actually evaporate. In fact, we do not even know whether or not black holes actually form at all. And therefore: > (2) resolves (1) when the black hole disappears That might be true if (2) were true. Even that is arguable, but it is neither here nor there because we do not know whether or not (2) is true > compared to consensus is a radical view Yes, of course. The consensus view leads to a paradox, and so we know that the consensus view cannot possibly be correct. We also know that decades of effort have not resolved this paradox, and so it is extremely unlikely that there is a simple straightforward solution that has simply been overlooked. So the correct solution will almost certainly be a radical departure from the current consensus.