I have been occupied with other things and only now have the time to respond.
Every model of "black hole" has as a fundamental underpinning which is time dilation due to increasing gravity (by whatever definition of gravity you may use). At whichever "event horizon" you may choose (in discussions with physicists, they have claimed a minimum of three different event horizons), time at the event horizon as observed from the universe at large stops. The underpinnings of "black holes" requires an eternal universe, no "big bang", no finite age. Formation as we see stops and can never proceed in finite time. We live in a small isolated part of our galaxy and we are unable to observe clearly many sections of our own galaxy. We rely on proxies and a belief that these proxies are adequate to match to the models and theories that are considered to be correct by consensus.
If you think about "black hole" formation as described by the various models in use, there are a number of assumptions made that don't actually match what see in our observable universe or in any practical experiments we do.
I am no mathematician or theoretical physicist, but every source of mathematics that I have studied and am continuing to study makes it quite clear that our mathematics is approximate in its mapping to reality. There is nothing wrong with this technique, but it does mean that one has to take what results we get with a grain of salt when comparing to the actual universe around us.
I find that when any of the many mathematical models in use today is declared as "reality", then I see this as the peddling of misinformation. Mathematics can and does provide us with a tool that is useful in describing what we see around us. But it is limited and always has its failure points. It is interesting that I have had this discussion about disagreeing with the consensus view with someone (a physicist) who argue for it, yet they themselves hold a particular non-consensus view over other matters relating to cosmology and could not see the extended possibilities in looking at different potential models and theories.
The simple point is that the mathematical models and theories are possible maps of the territory and are not the actual territory itself. It doesn't matter how detailed that map appears to be, it is still missing a great deal of the detail of territory itself. When it is used to decry alternative models because they are different, without actually testing those models for any kind of veracity, then we have a problem.
The simple fact is, we actually have little understanding of the universe about us. When we find discrepancies or phenomena that don't match the current models, we should be big enough to allow people to investigate alternatives freely without treating them as pariahs and heretics. It may well be that those alternatives have no veracity, but then again, they may be the start of a new outlook and understanding of the universe about us.
It is an unfortunate fact of life that people who disagree with the consensus view will be treated badly. This is a function of what it is to be human.
> in discussions with physicists, they have claimed a minimum of three different event horizons
Huh? Where are you getting this from?
> time at the event horizon as observed from the universe at large stops.
Nope. The event horizon is a null surface--it is "made" of outgoing light rays. The concept of "time" does not apply to light rays.
> The underpinnings of "black holes" requires an eternal universe
No, they don't. An "eternal" black hole is an idealization, but a real black hole does not have to be exactly the same as the idealized model. I mentioned numerical simulations in another post down-thread; any realistic black hole cannot be exactly described by closed form equations, it needs to be simulated numerically. Numerical simulations make predictions that match what we see, and show how realistic black holes can form by gravitational collapse of stars and star systems.
> If you think about "black hole" formation as described by the various models in use, there are a number of assumptions made that don't actually match what see in our observable universe or in any practical experiments we do.
I don't know what assumptions you're talking about.
> When we find discrepancies or phenomena that don't match the current models
I don't know what discrepancies you're talking about as far as black holes are concerned.
> It is an unfortunate fact of life that people who disagree with the consensus view will be treated badly.
You can't effectively disagree with the consensus view if you don't understand it. You clearly don't understand the consensus view of black holes. I am simply trying to point out incorrect things you are saying about that view.
From the physicists themselves. Public discussions on their respective blogs.
>Nope. The event horizon is a null surface--it is "made" of outgoing light rays. The concept of "time" does not apply to light rays.
Are you then saying that all the physicists who say time stops here as viewed from outside are wrong?
> > The underpinnings of "black holes" requires an eternal universe
> No, they don't. An "eternal" black hole is an idealization, but a real black hole does not have to be exactly the same as the idealized model. I mentioned numerical simulations in another post down-thread; any realistic black hole cannot be exactly described by closed form equations, it needs to be simulated numerically. Numerical simulations make predictions that match what we see, and show how realistic black holes can form by gravitational collapse of stars and star systems.
The theoretical basis for "black holes" is an eternal universe with a single mass in it. There are many things that can be numerically simulated. However, one must be very careful what you are simulating and on what basis the simulation exists. The "black hole" is a solution from a specific model and that model does not match the real universe as we observe it.
I have no issue with there being large gravitational entities. i do however have an issue with the declarations that said entities are "black holes". We do not know what they are. You cannot in any way "prove" that they are "black holes", no matter what level of consensus you display. We observe by proxy, we are at this point unable to directly test what we see.
All one can say is that there is a model that is believed to be appropriate to explain the phenomena observed.
I'll put it this way by example. We observed an entity that we call and electron that has various observable attributes and we use a variety of models to describe theoretically that entity. Are those models correct. Well, no. They are what we use to try and predict further tests and outcomes that we expect to find. We get some approximate closeness and then move forward. At no point, are the models "fully correct" or "truth", there are still anomalies found between theory and experimentation.
When we forget that our models and theories are only approximations to reality and fall into the trap that they are reality itself, then we will become incapable of actually advancing our understanding.
> I don't know what assumptions you're talking about.
Single mass existing only, asymptotically flat universe are just two of the fundamental assuptions required.
> I don't know what discrepancies you're talking about as far as black holes are concerned.
We are not in a position to directly observe any such entity. The number of times that scientists have declared that we have now seen for the first time a "black hole" over the last how many decades. that alone says that each previous declaration has been a furphy.
> You can't effectively disagree with the consensus view if you don't understand it. You clearly don't understand the consensus view of black holes. I am simply trying to point out incorrect things you are saying about that view.
When simple questions are raised against the model and are not answered by those who lead the charge for the model and when their responses amount to "you don't understand the model, so go away", then you can quite rightly take the view that they themselves don't have a clue about what they are agreeing with. I have yet to see a clear exposition of why such entities such as "black holes" should exist in our universe and answer the various simple questions that arise in opposition.
If such an explanation was to be given in a logically clear manner, then yes, we could then put "black holes" back on the table.
I have been tied up myself and am only now able to respond.
> From the physicists themselves. Public discussions on their respective blogs.
Physicists will say all kinds of things in a popular forum. Do you have any references to textbooks or peer-reviewed paper?
Even on physicists' blogs, I have never seen any reference to three different event horizons, so if you have any specific ones you can point to, it would really help me to understand what you are talking about.
> Are you then saying that all the physicists who say time stops here as viewed from outside are wrong?
If any of them actually are saying that, yes, they're wrong. But I doubt you'll be able to find any textbooks or peer-reviewed papers that say that. I don't care what pop science sources say; they're not valid sources for learning the actual science.
> The theoretical basis for "black holes" is an eternal universe with a single mass in it.
No, it isn't. You are confusing an idealized model used for pedagogy with actual models used to make predictions about actual objects observed by astronomers.
> I have no issue with there being large gravitational entities. i do however have an issue with the declarations that said entities are "black holes".
If you want to be very careful, you could say that black holes are the only entities consistent with our current theories that these "large gravitational entities" could be. It is true that our current theories are incomplete, and it could be true that a more complete theory would tell us that these entities are not anything like our current model of black holes. But even if that happens, it won't be for any of the reasons you are giving.
> Single mass existing only, asymptotically flat universe are just two of the fundamental assuptions required.
Again, you are mistaking an idealized model used for pedagogy with the real models used to make predictions about real observations. The latter do not depend on any such assumptions for the universe as a whole. They only require that a suitable region of spacetime around the object being studied contains only that object (or objects--models of this sort are used to make predictions about multi-object systems such as binary pulsars, for example, as well as black holes) and becomes flat enough at its boundary for asymptotic flatness in the model to be a reasonable approximation. These conditions are certainly met by the objects and systems to which the real models in question are applied.
Every model of "black hole" has as a fundamental underpinning which is time dilation due to increasing gravity (by whatever definition of gravity you may use). At whichever "event horizon" you may choose (in discussions with physicists, they have claimed a minimum of three different event horizons), time at the event horizon as observed from the universe at large stops. The underpinnings of "black holes" requires an eternal universe, no "big bang", no finite age. Formation as we see stops and can never proceed in finite time. We live in a small isolated part of our galaxy and we are unable to observe clearly many sections of our own galaxy. We rely on proxies and a belief that these proxies are adequate to match to the models and theories that are considered to be correct by consensus.
If you think about "black hole" formation as described by the various models in use, there are a number of assumptions made that don't actually match what see in our observable universe or in any practical experiments we do.
I am no mathematician or theoretical physicist, but every source of mathematics that I have studied and am continuing to study makes it quite clear that our mathematics is approximate in its mapping to reality. There is nothing wrong with this technique, but it does mean that one has to take what results we get with a grain of salt when comparing to the actual universe around us.
I find that when any of the many mathematical models in use today is declared as "reality", then I see this as the peddling of misinformation. Mathematics can and does provide us with a tool that is useful in describing what we see around us. But it is limited and always has its failure points. It is interesting that I have had this discussion about disagreeing with the consensus view with someone (a physicist) who argue for it, yet they themselves hold a particular non-consensus view over other matters relating to cosmology and could not see the extended possibilities in looking at different potential models and theories.
The simple point is that the mathematical models and theories are possible maps of the territory and are not the actual territory itself. It doesn't matter how detailed that map appears to be, it is still missing a great deal of the detail of territory itself. When it is used to decry alternative models because they are different, without actually testing those models for any kind of veracity, then we have a problem.
The simple fact is, we actually have little understanding of the universe about us. When we find discrepancies or phenomena that don't match the current models, we should be big enough to allow people to investigate alternatives freely without treating them as pariahs and heretics. It may well be that those alternatives have no veracity, but then again, they may be the start of a new outlook and understanding of the universe about us.
It is an unfortunate fact of life that people who disagree with the consensus view will be treated badly. This is a function of what it is to be human.