Batroc Z. Leaper wrote:
> In article <XK-dnYq-KuCCkJrVnZ2dnUVZ_rLinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> max@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Erik Max Francis) says...
>> Batroc Z. Leaper wrote:
>>
>>> With no sup****ting data. The hypothesis of charged black holes is
just
>>> hand waving, with no observational basis.
>> And your claims differ from this how, exactly ... ?
>
> It's not a claim, just an observation that there is no known mechanism
> for EM forces to transmit across an event horizon. EM forces are
> mediated by photons, and photons don't cross the barrier. If you want
> to claim that black holes can exhibit charged behavior, you have to have
> at least a vague idea of how that could happen, or observational
> evidence that it does happen. In the absence of either, it is just hot
> air.
Then maybe, you know, you should go hog wild and read what general
relativity has to say on the subject. Because it simply isn't a
problem, despite what you think.
>> Right, and it would violate several conservation laws. Which is good
>> reason for thinking _it doesn't happen_.
>
> That is *a* reason. You need to establish that it is a good reason.
> Everyone knows that conservation laws are not absolute. The universe
> could not exist if they were. You will also note that I never said that
> charge was destroyed, only that it might not be able to interact with
> the space outside the event horizon. What happens to a charge as it
> crosses the event horizon is a separate question. It might very easily
> continue to affect the internal structure of the black hole, even if it
> is not externally measurable.
Because you're analysis is that whenever a charged object collapses into
a black hole, the charge must go away since it can't get through the
event horizon. Since that would constitute an obvious case of violation
of conservation of electric charge, it's probably a good time then to
actually read up on the actual physics, rather than assuming something
is wrong and then making even more wrong guesses as to what is actually
going on.
> Insane things started happening in physics in 1887, and have been
> getting stranger ever since.
Like people not bothering to learn it before suggesting crackpot
alternatives?
--
Erik Max Francis && max@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
&& http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
I'm paranoid. But am I paranoid enough?
-- Louis Wu
|
