Comment Re:Several errors. (Score 2) 337
Sigh. This is the last I'll be writing on the subject, because you're apparently not even bothering to read your own links.
-
Unless, of course, He did. The physics checks out; We've recreated the conditions in the lab. Not hardly. Check your own link: it says several times that an analogue of a gravitic event horizon was used, not an actual event horizon. We haven't recreated a gravitic event horizon in the lab. To the best of our knowledge we've never created a gravitic event horizon in a lab. Finally, demonstrating that something works in an analogue of an environment is useful and illuminating, but it is not in any way proof that it works a certain way in the actual environment. I repeat that Hawking's work in this area is ground-breaking and critical and widely believed to be a correct description of reality, but it is not proven, not even in the loosey-goosey sense of the word. Remember that at one point the luminiferous ether was the best description of reality, too.
-
If it's not rotating at the speed of light, then the particles do not 'think' better of it and shoot out the poles... where would they get the energy to escape from the accretion disk then? If I throw two tennis balls and they collide, they bounce off each other. If I want to make them bounce harder (travel faster), I just throw them harder. The analogy is near-exact for particles. Once they've gone from light-years away to the event horizon they've picked up an unthinkable amount of energy from descending through the gravity well. All it takes is a collision and the vector changes and the particle will go away from the black hole like a bat out of hell. And if it was traveling with more than escape velocity -- which is possible, since we're outside the event horizon -- that particle will never return to the black hole.
-
However, here's the glitch that you missed: Non-rotating black holes also emit energy. I didn't, actually. Stationary black holes are also believed to emit Hawking radiation. However, since it will not become visible until the ambient temperature of the universe drops below a millionth of a kelvin or so, no astronomical black hole has ever been observed radiating Hawking energy. (Black holes of a Planck mass or so are conjectured to exist and to evaporate almost instantly via Hawking radiation, but stellar-mass holes just don't.) A stellar-mass black hole emits Hawking radiation of only about 50 nanokelvins (!!), meaning it cannot be detected against a cosmic microwave background of 2.7K. This also means that instead of evaporating via the Hawking process, stellar-mass black holes will gain mass from the CMB rather than radiate away.
- Science isn't about absolute proof, it's about the best fit model. Yes. On this point we're agreed. But when you make false claims about something having been proven when it hasn't been (hell, we haven't even directly observed a black hole yet, so even that's a lot less settled than many people might think!), claiming that demonstrating something in an analogue is the same as proving it in the real environment, and so forth, it just destroys your credibility.
Seriously. Sit down with a good graduate-level textbook on general relativity. You have a grasp of this subject that veers between the accurate and the wildly inaccurate. Science deserves better than that.