Larry Caldwell wrote:
> In article <geqdnR_MEI6bZJfVnZ2dnUVZ_oSunZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> max@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Erik Max Francis) says...
>
>> 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.
>
> I get the impression that you think "general relativity" is some sort of
> magical mantra that automatically wins an argument.
Not sure I think that, but I certainly do think that when talking about
black holes, one needs to reference our premiere theory which predicts
them and describes their behavior, which is general relativity. And
that certainly predicts that black holes can hold electric charge with
no problems.
> I assume you are
> thinking of the Kerr-Neuman Metric, which does not imply what you seem
> to think it implies. Changing the shape of the event horizon does not
> imply that an electrical field can exit the event horizon.
This nonsense about the electromagnetic field not being able to escape
the horizon is frequently applied to the gravitational field itself.
There's even a sci.physics FAQ devoted to this silliness. The field
doesn't have to "escape" the horizon because it was always there in the
first place. Form a black hole from charged matter, and at all times
the electric field is present outside the event horizon. Drop a charged
particle into an uncharged black hole, and again, the field is always
present. It doesn't have to get from point A to point B, because it
started at point B in the first place.
> You also
> seem to be hung up on conservation of charge, which has been determined
> to be invalid for decades now.
Poor Maxwell.
> If any conservation law holds, it would
> be C-P-T, and the change of the direction of time between the two event
> horizons has some implications for that.
Psst. Black holes are a classical prediction of general relativity,
which is a classical theory. One can nitpick about the manifestations
of a potential theory of quantum gravity near the singularity, but the
general properties of the black hole's event horizon are quite
classical, and it's precisely that theory that predicts conservation of
charge.
Not that CPT invariance means quite what you think it means anyway,
evidently, since violations of CPT invariance do _not_ automatically
present violations of charge conservation.
You can rail all you like, but you have a sort of fundamental problem
here, which is that you can't use our existing theories of black holes
to actually back up your claims. "Conservation of electric charge" and
"charged black holes" are topics easily found in the index of any
textbook on general relativity, and when they discuss them, they sure
don't agree with what you're claiming here.
--
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
Money talks / But love is for real / And you know that
-- Neneh Cherry
|
