Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Let me get this right (Score 1) 839

by NEDHead (#48161183) Attached to: Bill Gates: Piketty's Attack on Income Inequality Is Right

You give everyone a 'get out of tax free' debit card. Reloads every year with $x value, so for the first $x you pay no tax. You can even set tiers so after $x, then the next $y is at a reduced tax rate, etc. Each card fully resets each year, and is non transferable (photo ID or some such)

Comment: Re:Black holes can exist without a singularity (Score 1) 356

by NEDHead (#47987129) Attached to: Physicist Claims Black Holes Mathematically Don't Exist

I agree that I exaggerated regarding the "whole future of the universe". However my point was that sufficient of the future would be 'seen' that the effect I postulated would be true.

Hey, I wasn't expecting a trip to Oslo.

Can you describe a scenario where I am incorrect on the time dilation issue? Not to be argumentative, but just for my enlightenment.

Comment: Re:Black holes can exist without a singularity (Score 1) 356

by NEDHead (#47985445) Attached to: Physicist Claims Black Holes Mathematically Don't Exist

'Lead to' implies something that occurs after passage of (local) time.

Sure, and in classical GR you end up dividing by zero. The point I was making was that 'finite time' is not zero time, and the disparity in the rate of time inside the event horizon vs far away allows plenty of time for quantum effects in the form of Hawking radiation to intervene and dissipate the black hole before the posited singularity come into existence. Since the events transpire over finite time, no infinite force is required.

Comment: Black holes can exist without a singularity (Score 4, Interesting) 356

by NEDHead (#47984863) Attached to: Physicist Claims Black Holes Mathematically Don't Exist

It is generally posited that a singularity is the result of a gravitational collapse resulting in a black hole. However an event horizon will form whenever sufficient mass density occurs, thus a 'black hole'. If the contention is that the Hawking radiation dissipates the mass before the singularity forms, so be it. Does not mean no black hole, just no singularity.

I have not read the article, so I don't know if this is reflective of her contention, however:

Imagine 2 observers, 1 falling into the black hole, one with great patience a safe distance away. Over time the distant observer will see the black hole eventually become isolated and cease to accumulate new mass (trillions of years perhaps). Thereafter, Hawking radiation begins to dominate and the black hole goes on a diet, eventually going out of existence with a hot bang.

Meanwhile the more adventurous observer is falling toward the postulated center of the black hole, but is experiencing greater and greater time dilation relative to the low density external universe. Thus at some point, before reaching the singularity state, the observer 'sees' the entire future of the external universe, including an ever increasing flood of Hawking radiation that results in the black hole evaporation. So incoming matter never gets to infinite density, no singularity occurs because the evaporation happens on a different time scale than the collapse. Black hole? Yes, Singularity? No

If this is not the equivalent of the cited paper, I am free to go to Oslo at any time.

<<<<< EVACUATION ROUTE <<<<<

Working...