Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Curps (talk | contribs) at 21:50, 18 February 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I strongly disagree that objects fall to the center of a black hole. At least one recent referreed paper havs shown that no object can cross an event horizon (and thus fall to the center). I will go get my reprint later, and include a reference. Beyond that, most everything else is correct.

One item that I would really like to mention is that a gravitational field is equivalent to a region of space with excess volume (e.g. more than 4pi/3 r^3 inside a spherical surface of 4pi r^2.) This is one way of explaining how a wavefront of light is bent by the field. When falling into a black hole, space is observed to expand to an extreme, sometimes called "hyperexpansion". This is the same hyperexpansion which smoothed out many inhomogenieties after the "big bang". In fact, a black hole has a radius where the circumference is a minimum!

Joseph D. Rudmin

That would be surprising. Any general relativity textbook contains a discussion on how a falling object crosses the horizon and hits the singularity in a finite amount of proper time. I don't know what paper you're referring to, unless it's the so-called "gravastar" theory of black holes, which is highly speculative. -- CYD

Here is my reference to the article I mentioned:

"Does the Principle of Equivalence Prohibit Trapped Surfaces from Forming in the General Relativistic Collapse Process?", Darryl Leiter and Stanley Robertson, _Foundation of Physics Letters_, Volume 16 (2003), Number 2, pp 143-161.

I don't think that this correction to black hole theory will invalidate most other work, because most matter falling into a black hole never returns anyway.

I will now create the page for the Schwarzchild metric, and give further details there on how errors in that metric resulted in the myth that an object will fall to the center of a black hole.

Joseph D. Rudmin

In the first paragraph there was the idea, very common, that a black hole is very dense. We actually can not say anything of the structure inside the event horizon, but we can say the mean density inside it, and for large black holes is not so big, that is the reason of the numerical example. It probably could be moved inside the article.--AstroNomer 23:52, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)

Can anyone confirm/deny the recent edit made to this page by Plautus Satire? Looks like nonsense to me, but I don't really know cosmology. He also made an edit to Albert Einstein that looks pretty skewed... Isomorphic 19:33, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As Plautus seems unwilling to discuss or step back from a rather extreme viewpoint, and the edit war is way past 3 reversions, will someone protect? I've had my fill of protecting for a while, but will if no one else is willing. Jwrosenzweig 20:48, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The article is now protected, per request of Jwrosenzweig. --Modemac 20:55, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Real Plasma vs. Hypothetical Black Holes

Discuss what? I just laid out my case, it's up to you to get up to speed with twenty-first century physics. I haven't seen a single shred of evidence presented supporting the black hole myth, just a lot of whining about being dragged kicking and screaming out of the dark ages and into the present. - Plautus

We've seen kooks here at Misplaced Pages trying to promote their fringe theories and heavily opinionated conspiracy theories. In cases like this, you find that the ones trying to present themselves as experts (and subsequently the rest of the world as wrong and "out to get them") usually end up declaring that Misplaced Pages is useless, that it is a bunch of control freaks, and that it has an agenda to suppress the ones who don't agree with the majority. So now that I've said it first, hopefully we won't hear it from our satirical visitor, who bases his arguments upon a poorly-written Web-based article that boldly declares itself as the biggest thing since Copernicus and Galileo. ("They laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Einstein. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.") --Modemac 21:25, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ah yes, the "fringe theory" argument. How transparent. Another word for "fringe" is "edge". Fringe science is edge science. Who's at the edge of science? Here are some clues for you:

http://www.newscienceparadigms.com/astro/plasma_universe.htm
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/plasma_univ.html
http://ojps.aip.org/ppr/?jsessionid=59701074441345379
http://www.astro.umd.edu/academics/brochure/plasma.html
http://www.ipr.umd.edu/Theory/Research/intense.htm
http://www.astro.umd.edu/rareas/spp/
http://www.ireap.umd.edu/Experimental/
http://www.physics.umd.edu/rgroups/plasma_th.html
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/universe.html
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/
http://www.plasmas.org/
http://www.holoscience.com/
- Plautus

Curps' Crusade

Plautus satire originally wrote the following here, and later deleted it himself. Restored because the deletion destroys the context of what follows:
I intend to change the "Observational Evidence" section of the Black Hole entry from "Black holes are also the leading candidates for energetic astronomical objects such as quasars and gamma ray bursts." to "Black holes were once the leading candidates for energetic astronomical objects such as quasars and gamma ray bursts, until it was discovered that many X-ray bursts, gamma ray bursts and quasars are caused by magnetized plasmas around ordinary stars.(1)" - Plautus

Why you felt the need to keep this in here, since it proves you wrong, is beyond me. - Plautus satire 19:18, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I further don't understand your insistence that a reference in the active talk page to an edit that has already gotten me banned once stay here. - Plautus satire 21:31, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Are you saying that quasars are associated with ordinary stars??? Sorry, but that's simply absurd. The NASA link you cite does NOT support what you write. It merely talks about "high-energy gamma rays", not about "gamma ray bursts" (they are not synonyms), and it does not talk about quasars at all.

Yes, the document I cited does support my claims, and proves you to be ignorant and contrary, quibbling over the definition of "gamma bursts" and "high energy gamma rays". Why do you pursue such weak arguments? Just accept the facts and you will be a lot happier in the end, I promise you. - Plautus satire 19:18, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You're partly right, it doesn't mention quasars. But it does say this:

"Many high-energy X-rays and gamma rays detected by astronomical observations come from magnetized plasmas near stars, galaxies, and other objects."

I should have stated that in addition to stars, galaxies and "other objects" can also emit gamma and X-ray bursts.

And this document, http://www.wkap.nl/prod/b/0-7923-3784-0 is a reprint of an article by Anthony Peratt of Los Alamost labs and states the following:

"Plasma astrophysics and cosmology, as a unified discipline, cover topics such as the large scale structure and filamentation of the universe; the microwave background; the formation of galaxies and magnetic fields; active galactic nuclei and quasars; the origin and abundance of light elements; star formation and the evolution of solar systems; redshift periodicities and anomalous redshifts; general relativity; electric fields; the acceleration of charged particles to high energies; and cosmic rays." - Plautus

In the paragraph quoted above, what exactly supports in any way the modification you made to the article text?

Plautus satire originally wrote the following here, and later deleted it himself. Restored because the deletion destroys the context of what follows:

Plautus satire originally wrote the following here, and later deleted it himself. Restored because the deletion destroys the context of what follows:

...and then deleted because it did not destroy the context or meaning of anything. Curps later reversioned yet again, trying to start a reversion war, Plautus left the two identical copies of the same identical answer to the two identical copies of the same identical question in order to satisfy Curps and avoid being banned yet again for minor technical violations that don't even exist as per wikipedia's published policies. Apparently Curps is on his own crusade here to preserve every byte on every talk page (used by Plautus satire). What is your mission here, Curps?

'The part that says "Plasma astrophysicists...cover topics such as...active galactic nuclei and quasars...". Sound an awful lot like plasma theory can be used to adequately PREDICT (not merely explain with ad hoc additions) quasars, and "active galactic nuclei" (can you say no black hole in the center any longer?). Now you really need to give this up. Clearly you can see you're wrong. I'm sorry you were fooled by the black hole myth, but you should move ever forward. Learn from this lesson.

Plautus satire deleted the above a second time, and wrote the following below by way of explanation:

Plautus satire again deleted the previous entry here, as it is identical to the answer to the identical question that was asked twice. One identical answer suffices for both identical questions. The entire text that was deleted appears below, as the two identical passages were condensed into one answer following two identical questions.

Kindly stop wholesale edits of all prior dialog, including your own. Few people have the patience to look through your multiple mass edits to sort out what of substance you are busily altering or what is merely cosmetic. You are deliberately altering the historical record, and it is this very historical record that shows why you were banned multiple times.

Okay, Curps, I am so very sorry that I thought two identical paragraphs following two identical questions would suffice to answer those two identical questions that would have been right next to each other without one of the identical copies of an identical passage.

I'm also sorry that you do not have the patience to conduct a review of the page histories to determine what is a cosmetic change and what is a substantive change before you make your reversions. Perhaps making changes without studying them is a bad way to proceed. I myself have done that in the past, shouldn't we all be striving to determine what it is we're changing before we change it?

Deliberately altering wikipedia? I am also very sorry that I tried to do that, Curps. Can you ever forgive me?

I am very sorry that I altered the record while being unable to change the page histories of wikipedia. I am also very sorry that this bothers you so much, Curps. I suggest you talk to your doctor about getting some valium.

Apparently Curps thinks nothing should ever be deleted from talk pages, especially not alleged vandalism from alleged vandals. Huh???

Again... what exactly, in what you've just quoted, supports the modification you made to the article text?

The part that says "Plasma astrophysicists...cover topics such as...active galactic nuclei and quasars...". Sound an awful lot like plasma theory can be used to adequately PREDICT (not merely explain with ad hoc additions) quasars, and "active galactic nuclei" (can you say no black hole in the center any longer?). Now you really need to give this up. Clearly you can see you're wrong. I'm sorry you were fooled by the black hole myth, but you should move ever forward. Learn from this lesson. - Plautus

Black Hole Myth

The so-called black hole "myth" represents the consensus views of the vast majority of working astronomers. As such, the content of the Black hole page will reflect those consensus views. If you put forward your individual theory, and phrase it with "it has been shown that", and misleadingly provide links to external articles that don't support your modifications in any way... well, your modifications won't survive. That's the way Misplaced Pages works.

It's not an individual theory that plasmas are ubiquitous emitters of electromagnetic radiation. I suggest you investigate plasma physics before you try to comment on it intellgently.

Where is the experimental evidence that proves black holes can exist? I can show you proof that plasmas emit copious amounts of electromagnetic radiation and proof that plasma physics PREDICTS BASED ON OBSERVATION AND EXPERIMENT that gamma bursts, x-ray bursts and many other "bursts" of electromagnetic radiation everywhere in space all the time.

Here YOU go again. I'm am very sorry you are not current with twenty-first century physics and I'm also very sorry that you are in the majority in your ignorance.

But don't let your ignorance be an albatross around your neck. If you have a theory that makes failed predictions and has to be modified with each new observation, throw it out in favor of a theory that scores hit after predictive hit.

Keep in mind you're not trying to shoot down my theory, but the work and research of the bleeding-edge high-energy plasma physicists on this planet, who have arguably the most experience in this field of any human beings. And these people are very few in number. Instead of rejecting their wisdom, you should relish it. - Plautus

You have an unfortunate habit of linking to mainstream external web pages that either have nothing to do with what you write, or even flatly contradict what you write (as in Talk:Gravastar), and then sitting back and pretending that you have proved your views are supported. Your views do not represent those of bleeding-edge plasma physicists.

Yes, the source I cited for the DEFINITION OF GAMMA BURST cites no evidence but merely states that gamma bursts are far away. It diasagrees with me but neglects to present the evidence. And as I explained to you, this belief that all gamma bursts are far away is based on circular reasoning and baseless assumptions, not verifiable, repeatable experiment and observations performed by high-energy plasma physicists. - Plautus

Look, dude, you need to stop taking down that factual, cited information I put in both Black Hole and Gravastar. I'm sorry you jumped the gun, put your foot in your mouth and pulled out enough rope to hang yourself. Can't you just admit you were wrong and that x-ray bursts, gamma bursts and other highly energetic bursts of electromagnetic radiation are not only predicted by the plasma model, but predicted precisely? You really need to stop deleting that relevant, easily-verifiable information. And stop trying to engage in personality attack by adding editing comments like "here we go again". Here we go again what? What did you mean by that? Can I get a flag on this play or does the established complainer base get all the admin authority by proxy? (P.S.: You've already gotten one entry locked, you shooting for two or what?) - Plautus

Gamma Ray Burster Hole

Can you point me to a published paper in which a plasma cosmology paper comes up with GRB energies and spectra?

All I hear you saying is that GRB occur as a result of some process involving plasma. Well DUHHH!!!!! That's not particularly interesting or remarkable information. The unknown fact here is what sort of process can produce what is observed with GRB.

The GRB mystery is not solved by any means. Saying that it happens because of some sort of plasma process around some sort of star is not nearly specific enough.

(You appear to be vastly confusing plasma physics with plasma cosmology. Almost all of the observable matter in the universe is made of plasma, and saying that plasma physics is involved with GRB is not as earth-shaking as you think it is. One should point out for example, that the black hole envelopes are made mostly of plasma.)

Roadrunner

You're the one who's confused here, Roadrunner. Your meaningless distinction between plasma physics and plasma cosmology is patently absurd and disingenuous to say the least. - Plautus

It's not a meaningless distinction. Plasma physics is taken seriously by most astrophysicists. Plasma cosmology is not.

I see. So the distinction you draw is based on who takes it seriously. Sounds meaningless to me. - Plautus satire 21:26, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Synchotron radiation is emitted on Earth from particle accelerators. It is the result of charged particles (electrons or protons) passing near a magnetic field. Plasma physics is the study of behaviours and properties of plasma just such as these. Synchotron radiation is also observed in space, at energy levels that dwarf any terrestrial experimentation with plasmas. These synchotron radiation emissions are commonly referred to as "bursts". Any electromagnetic radiation of sufficiently high energy coming from space is called gamma radiation. - Plautus

Correct, and the prevailing theory of gamma ray bursts is that synchrotron radiation is responsible for gamma ray bursts. Synchrontron radiation also produces much (maybe even most) of the radiation around active galactic nuclei.

Plasma physics predicts that space, being filled with plasma (charged particles), will be filled with tremendous currents (passing through the plasma which generates magnetic fields that self-organize), will self-organize and will emit copious amounts of "gamma" radiation in bursts. - Plautus

O.K. here is where things get dodgy. The problem with synchrontron radiation is that you need a certain level of density and magnetic field to produce it. The interstellar and intergalactic medium don't have enough density or magnetic fields in order to produce gamma rays. So you need something that concentrates the gas, dust, and magnetic fields.

Yes, things are getting very dodgy, since it is the current not field density that is responsible for "high energy" radiation such as gamma ray bursts. The interstellar and intergalactic medium is a near-perfect conductor and it is VAST. Minute amperages over vast distances equals huge current. End of story. Plasmas also SELF-ORGANIZE in the presence of magnetic fields (which they GENERATE) and electromagnetic radiation (which they ALSO GENERATE). In short, plasmas self-organize, there is no need for any other "something" that concentrates the gas (Neutral gas? In interstellar space? No, plasms) and dust (Neutral dust? In interstellar space? No, charged particles) and magnetic fields. - Plautus satire 21:26, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This isn't very hard math, and with basic algebra you can work it out for yourself. How strong a magentic field and how high a density do you need to emit gamma rays? Compare with the intergalactic and interstellar field, won't work. Compare with the fields near a black hole or neutron star. You get reasonable numbers. (Actually the fact that things are beamed helps a lot. You can get 1e+51 ergs of energy without too much trouble. If it weren't beamed, we would be looking at 1e+54 ergs of energy and this is a big problem.) So the prevailing idea is that something causes sychrontron radiation to be emitted.

Your "big problem" only arises if you use a flawed model to analyze the phenomena in question. In other words, it's only a "problem" for black hole hypotheses. It is completely consistent with predictions based on experimental study of plasmas. The energy levels you mention are derived from assumptions that redshift equals distance, therefore gamma bursts are extremely distant. This assumption is shown over and over again to be invalid. Given that plamas can self-organize into beams (check the highest-energy lasers on the planet, they do not use optics because the beams self-focus in the high-energy environment, they DESTROY any optics put in front of them), it's reasonable to assume we're looking at a plasma phenomenon here, not an unprovable magical black hole phenomenon. - Plautus satire 21:26, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If that's not a prediction of gamma ray bursts I don't know what is. - Plautus

O.K. if it is a prediction. How long should the typical gamma ray burst last? Microseconds? Milliseconds? Seconds? Minutes? Hours? How many gamma ray bursts should we expect to see in a year? What is the energy of the gamma rays? What is the polarization? You see a gamma ray burst, and then you point your telescope at that spot. What should you see? If you can't use your theory to answer those questions, then your theory is incomplete. Not necessarily a bad thing, since no one has come up with a theory that answers those questions. They difference between you and the professional astrophysical community is that the latter is willing to admit that they don't know. Roadrunner 20:10, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's not my theory, it's theory based on observed, repeatable, verifiable high-energy plasma phsyics. Plasma physics predicts that naturally-occuring particle accelerators will occur in the universe, and that they will be ubiquitous, and that they will emit copious amounts of gamma rays due to the high energy densities capable at point loads in a plasma system with such vast physical dimensions. Plasma theory does not predict how long each burst will last, as this is dependent on many variables. Plasma theory is capable, however, of predicting some of the behaviours of known quantities of plasma, which black hole hypotheses fail at. Every prediction made by black hole hypotheses has been found starkly wanting when compared to observable reality. Plasma physics scores hit after predictive hit, and comparisons of predictions to previous unaccounted observations show more and more correlation between plasma theory and observed reality all the time. - Plautus satire 21:26, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Once I've decided how I'm going to work this information into the black hole page I'm going to do it. If you want to take it down in contradiction of available evidence, feel free. - Plautus

The fundamental dishonesty of your actions is that you cite external pages which in fact do not support in any way what you write... then you sit back and pretend that they do. There is little point in arguing this further. Cite sources that actually support your text modifications, or else your modifications won't survive. It makes little difference whether I revert them, or any of a hundred other users do.

Your dishonesty doesn't surprise me at all. The sources I cited, and many more that I will cite in the future, back up what I say and demolish the black hole myth. Your willingness to ignore the facts does not make the facts irrelevant, nor does the willing ignorance of "a hundred other users" just like you. - Plautus

I would like to request that most of this section be edited to summarize it or re-written or re-organized or something, it's a jumbled mess and impossible to read for nearly everyone I'm sure. - Plautus satire 18:27, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hypothetical and Unobservable Nature of Black Holes

I have changed the black hole entry to reflect the fact that black hole hypotheses state that black holes are unobservable and to reflect the fact that, given they are unobservable, they will always be hypothetical and never proven. This was "reversioned" by an anonymous user, without any explanation on the talk page. For that reason I am going to unreversion the page so that it more accurately reflects black hole hypotheses. - Plautus

Again the black hole entry has been reversioned without justification on the talk page. I have explained my edits to that entry, and no justification has been proposed for switching it back. Therefore I am going to change the black hole entry so that it is again more accurate and complete. I have explained why I inserted the term "hypothetical" and I have black hole theory to draw on for that claim. No justification has been offered as to why the entry was reversioned so it will be switched back. Plautus satire 19:25, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Again Curps seems to have felt the need to reversion without explanation. Curps, this is your last warning. If you don't start following common practice you risk being banned. Your continual reversion of the black hole entry without qualification on the talk page is unwarranted, unproductive and unnecessarily combative. I will leave the black hole entry alone for the moment, but if a sufficient time passes and you do not support or explain your kneejerk reversionism I will again fix the black hole entry so that it is more complete and accurate. Plautus satire 19:34, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What others explain, you ignore. I will not explain.

Roadrunner, your edit contains a few passeges with which I take issue.

I think you are very confused about what astrophysicists believe. The prevailing belief is that electromagnetic forces are not important over cosmological distances (i.e. millions of light years), not that they are unimportant at all.

For example, you insert the term "accretion disks" in the following line: Other inductive conclusions are drawn from objects, such as stars, that appear to be in orbit around space where there is no visible matter and from accretion disks and jets formed from these disks.

Accretion disks are not predicted by gravity models. Clearly black hole theory rests on gravity being the dominant force, since gravity is said to be overruling the electromagnetic forces driving radiation. - Plautus

No it doesn't. It is a very simple calculation to show that near a black hole, electromagnetic forces are as important or more important than gravity in determining what happens to the matter.

What part of "gravtiy bends light" don't you understand? I'm not saying it occurs, I'm saying that's what black hole hypotheses state. Gravity overturning electromagnetic forces. A condition we know to be impossible by repeated, verifiable experiment. - Plautus

We know that gravity models do not explain a planar disk of material around any body that does not initially exist with this sort of ring around it. Gravity is isotropic, so why would matter accrete due to gravity in a disk-shape?

Angular momentum. Material falls in. As it falls it, it spins faster and faster. Centrifugal force causes things to flatten into a pancake. Spinning charged material material produces huge magentic fields.

That's a nice toy theory, but it doesn't accord with accepted models of gravity. For one thing, it violates causality. Why does it "flatten into a pancake"? You say that the matter speeds up as it "falls in," but then it must also speed up for its centrifugal force to "flatten" it. And why into a disk? What would cause this matter to "flatten" into a disk? Gravity is isotropic, not directed along a plane. What forces are directed along planes? Electromagnetic forces. - Plautus

It wouldn't. That's one issue, one of many I have with your edit. Accretion disks are not predicted and are not explainable using gravity-rules models. And experimental evidence overturns this notion that gravity is able to overpower electromagnetic forces. Electromagnetic forces propagate farther (field strength varies inversely with distance) that gravitational forces (field strength varies inversely with the SQUARE OF THE distance). Why doesn't gravity pull the magnets off your refrigerator or off a metal plate in one's skull?

So, you're saying:

electromagnetic ~ 1/r

gravity ~ 1/r²

What I'm saying is that magnetic field strength varies inversely with simple distance, gravitational field strength varies inversely with the SQUARE of the distance, and thus "falls off" much more rapidly, dwindling to nearly nothing at stellar distances. - Plautus satire 22:04, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Again. The problem is that astrophysicists don't believe what you think they believe. The belief is that electromagnetic fields are not important when you are talking about *distances of several million light years*. We are talking about distance of several kilometers here,

and for these sorts of distances its very possible that electromagnetism is more important than gravity.

I suppose that would be the problem, if we were discussing mere belief. It is not merely possible that electromagnetic forces dominate plasmas on every scale, it is a proven fact. Regardless of any individual's belief, this is a fact, and a verifiable one. And most cosmologers do indeed ignore electromagnetic effects as if they are not relevant. Cosmologers also often skip one essential step in science, which is experiment. - Plautus

Here is another sentence I take strong issue with: For the most part, observations of accretion disks and orbital motions merely indicate that there is a compact object of a certain mass, and says very little about the nature of that object.

This is nonsense. Observations of plasmas show that they are more strongly influenced by electromagnetic forces than by gravity. You even point out that these "accretion disks" are found to be perfectly reasonable by plasma physicists, suggesting theories that sprung from magnetic and plasma research and experiment seem to describe them precisely. It's almost as if they know what they're talking about. But then you go on to say that the "physics" around "black holes" is somehow different. The only reason to suggest "physics" is different around black holes is if black holes do not accord with physics as it is known. If you have an effect of plasmas that is known, proven and verifiable by experiment, why reject it in favor of a hypothetical, unproven and unverifiable (not to mention unfalsifiable) black hole?

Because it's not either-or. Something concentrates the material to the point were you end up with high magnetic fields. That something is a small compact object with a certain mass. General relativity says that that small compact object with a certain mass should be a black hole.

And here you fail again. How many times do I have to explain to you that we can infer nothing about an object that we can not observe? If we see an object moving around an invisible attractor, we have two choices. Ascribe this to the known, quantified, proven effects and behaviours of plasmas, which which it falls in line precisely, or concoct "black holes" that violate common sense, violate causality, violate physics as it is known and not only that violates the mind of every person who comes in contact with this absurd idea based not on science but on ad hoc fairy tale additions to a fatally flawed view of the cosmos. - Plautus

The plasma physics around a black hole is 99% similar to the plasma physics around a non-black hole.

Actually the plasma physics around black hole candidates is 100% similar to all other plasma physics everywhere in the universe. - Plautus

In addition to the above, you misstate the case when you say that an object observed in motion indicates a specific mass under the influence of which that body is. As I have already explained, and as you verified, these "accretion disks" are perfectly reasonable from the standpoint of plasma physics. Given that plasmas are more strongly affected by electromagnetic forces than gravity, all you can say is that SOMETHING is attracting that object.

The problem is that unless you have a gravitational object, you aren't going to get a disk. The thing about electromagnetism is that its equally attractive and repulsive, so its very hard to get an attraction only object out of EM forces.

Another phantom "problem". Gravity would not produce a disk, you know that, I know that, I fail to understand how you can make that claim with a straight face. I can only assume your face is not straight as you type it. And plasma is charged matter, not neutral matter, so it is very easy to influence plasma with electromagnetic forces and much more difficult (since it is generally VERY diffuse compared to "neutral" matter) to affect it in any noticable way by gravitation alone, which seems for all intents and purposes to have NO EFFECT on electromagnetic radiation except for, once again, the hypothetical.

Magnetism can bend and polarize light. There are two known, quantified, proven, and independently veriried effects of magnetism that accomplish this, and they are named the Zeeman effect and the Faraday effect. The effects that gravity can and does have on electromagnetic radiation are speculative at best, unsupported by any verifiable evidence, and has been the subject of more than one hoax to attempt to "prove" it. - Plautus

If it is neutral matter attracting the object, then that neutral matter could be concluded to have boundaries on its mass based on observations of the objects orbiting around it. If, however, the ATTRACTOR is plasma, we need to know both the density of that plasma AND the strength of the electromagnetic fields pumping through it, which would determine that plasma's magentic field strength. In short, knowing that an object is in orbit around a point in space tells us nothing, unless we can sense this ATTRACTOR or deduce its properties. Which is the more rational conclusion when we have an attractor that we can't see? Is it more rational to conclude this attractor is something with zero volume and infinite density or is it more rational to conclude it is plasma, acting the way we know that plasmas behave?

Calculate the following. I have a 2 solar mass object in 10 km of space. What is the density? Answer about 1e+14 grams per cubic centimeter. That's far too dense to be a plasma. (i.e. water is 1 gram per cubic centimeter)

And this is relevant how? Once again, Roadrunner, plasmas are insignificantly affected by gravity. Apparently you are addicted to this gravity model of everything. If you have a volume of space in which you see no matter, do you conclude that it is special unknown and unprovable matter that we can't observe or do you conclude that it is ordinary plasma with known properties?

A volume of "empty" space (filled with diffuse plasma) can have DRASTIC effects on nearby "neutral" matter and even MORE DRASTIC effects on nearby PLASMAS SUCH AS STARS. This volume of space could even be essentially "invisible" to casual observation, but of course it will, like all plasmas, be detecable not only by its effects on other matter, but by its own emissions. Black holes are said to lack electromagnetic radiation emissions of any kind. Another fatal flaw in the hypothesis. - Plautus

The infalling matter is plasma, but the central object is far too dense to be a plasma.

Again you seem to be confused. Where is the proof that "jets" coming "from" stars are "infalling" into black holes? This "central object" to which you refer is, according to the plasma model, in fact a diffuse cloud of plasma delivering a charge to the nearby star. These stellar-scale electric charges are capable of initiating fusion and through the "Z pinch" effect these charges are able to deposit the newly-fused matter onto the surface of a star. This is observed in a lab and is known as a "Birkeland current". What appears to be material jettisoned from an object is actually a plume of matter being deposited onto a point load at the surface of the object. We see this same "electroplating" on Io and many other jovian moons as well as satellites of other planets, particularly Saturn. - Plautus

I'm not going to bother addressing any of the other points, as it's going to become irrelevant soon when I fix the black hole entry again. - Plautus satire 20:01, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Upcoming Edits to Black Hole

And still nobody has offered any explanation for why the word "hypothetical" should not be introduced into the description of black holes in the black hole entry.

Black hole hypotheses state that black holes can not be observed, so they will always and forever be hypothetical. The moment they cease to be hypothetical, they falsify black hole hypotheses.

It's a very precarious perch this hypothesis is resting on. I am going to make one more good faith attempt to insert the word "hypothetical" into the description of black holes as "objects". The reason I am doing this is that no reasonable definition of the word "hypothetical" precludes it from applying to black holes under every circumstance, with one exception; the paradox of proof of existence falsifying the hypotheses. In case such a paradox arises, and black holes can actually be observed, contrary to the hypotheses, I will retract the word "hypothetical" and substitute in its place "paradoxical".

I sincerely hope people don't get too bent out of shape over this proposed edit. It is a minor omission that is going to be corrected, not an assault on the global community of science and scientists. I don't know how much more accomodating I can be on this issue and still accord with observable reality. I feel it is very disingenuous for an encyclopedia to refer to black holes as if they have been observed without mentioning that such an observation would create a paradox with black hole hypotheses and without mentioning that black hole hypotheses state they are unobservable and thus unverifiable and unfalsifiable. - Plautus satire 18:25, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

At the time of this edit there have been many responses to other edits I have made to this talk page, and none to the issues outlined above. I take it from this that nobody who has been active on this page of late has any objections to my addition. Specifically I mean Raul654 and Curps who seem to be terribly interested in the minutae of talk page protection. Since neither Raul654 nor Curps seem to be offering any objections to this specific issue, I take their silence on this specific matter to be their implicit acceptance of my proposed edit. Unless concerns are raised by others I will assume I can make my edit without challenge. - Plautus satire 21:42, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No you can not make your edits without challenge. They will be changed back, without explanation. All the explanation you need is on this page... assuming you haven't altered it beyond recognition. Curps

Plautus banned

I have now banned PLautus. If no one else here objects to the article (as is), I will remove protection shortly. →Raul654 22:18, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

No one objected, so I removed the protection. Happy, Plautus-free editing. →Raul654 22:55, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

More evidence of Raul654's personal crusade against Plautus. - Plautus satire 18:11, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have a personal crusade against people who waste my time (and others' time) for their own personal enjoyment. If your actions put you in that catagory, that's a shame, isn't it? →Raul654 18:19, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

Is that why you're filling up the Black hole talk page by discussing banning me and how happy it makes you to ban me? - Plautus satire 19:31, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the only time you-being-banned was mentioned on this page was when I said I wanted to unprotected it. Since the idea of unprotecting an article might be unfamiliar to you, let me clarify - we unprotect it when vandals are no longer damaging them. Once you were banned (the third time, that is), there was no longer any reason to protect this page. So I asked if anyone wanted to keep it protected - none answered - and it got unprotected. I hope this has been informative. →Raul654 20:21, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

I have a hypotheses about you, Raul654. I suspect you are passive aggressive. I cite as examples of your passive-aggressive nature your capacity to make backhanded insults (like calling my mother a whore by insisting you were not calling her a whore), and your capacity to couch childish gloating in pandering and pronounce it wisdom (like asking for permission from everybody to unprotect the page, so that the enjoyment of the lack of Plautus satire could commence). Raul654, perhaps this is what makes you more popular than I am. Passive-aggressives are very good at slipping under the radar. They use subtle, backhanded insults in place of straightforward, honest insults. They subvert intelligent debate with slanderous assertions that they are simultaneous protector and victim. Raul654, I am going to simply ignore you from now on, as I feel discussion with you would only serve to enrage me. Feel free to abuse your authority on me at every occasion that presents itself to you, I can do nothing to stop it except complain about it. - Plautus satire 20:39, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oh, let me help dispell any misconceptions you might have. First, I might come off as passive aggressive on here because Wikettiquite prevents me from doing so more openly. Second, I ask permission before my actions because Admins aren't supposed to act without consensus. Third, I'm more "popular" than you because I don't go around, inserting blatantly inflammatory material into articles while calling them facts, and because I don't go around reverting what other people have said on the talk pages because I don't like them, and because I don't get my kicks out of harassing other users.. →Raul654 21:03, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

Plautus, you were banned several times for a reason. If it becomes necessary to ask a third-party to arbitrate and decide whether you should be banned yet again, they will naturally want to look at the historical record of this talk page and other pages. You have made a massive, ongoing flurry of edits and reformatting of what was previously written. In many places it's hard to sort out who wrote what and when. Even if these are merely cosmetic changes, why in the world would you need to make cosmetic changes in a Talk page? Just let the historical record stand. Add to it, but don't alter and delete it. Otherwise a reasonable person might assume you have something to hide by changing what you wrote previously.

None of what is on this page above is reliable anymore because you have altered it so extensively.

People go to the trouble of replying to you here, then you delete your own text so that their replies are orphaned and rendered incomprehensible by lack of context. Why go to the effort of replying to you, then? People will just change back your modifications on the article page and be done with it -- but then you will complain that this was done without explanation. Curps

Here here! →Raul654 21:49, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)