Throw hawking radiation theory out the window

[taylordnz]

if an alone black hole is radiating gamma rays that's called hawking radiation that means its losing energy (because gamma rays aren't matter) but whatever size it is it doesn't lose energy that's why black holes go faster and faster the smaller it gets.
Here is two main components why i say throw hawking radiation out the window
1. we can't count the radiation it gives out
2. it doesn't lose energy
3. nothing goes passed the speed of light (not by my theories but that's another post later on)

but i don't have enough time to put my own hypothesis so i say it as straight as i can

we can't see matter lost or energy lost but due to so much energy in its rotation it will have Unstable Neutronic Polar Ejection (UNPE) some more on that later on on this thread

 

[Tail]

I'm sorry, but I don't think you're making any sense at all.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Tail
I'm sorry, but I don't think you're making any sense at all.

There's that, plus we have a separate forum for this type of thing. Please direct all "outside the box" theories to the Theory Development forum.

To give you a little bit of help though, taylor - Hawking radiation doesn't violate any other rules of physics because it doesn't come from inside the event horizon.

HERE is a site explaining it (though I must admit I can understand the watered-down explanation, but not the full mathematical one).

Also, as a general rule of thumb, before trying to take down any accepted theory in science and replace it with your own, its a good idea to gain a thorough (and I mean thorough) understanding of that existing theory

 

[wolram]

at least give the guy credit for thinking for himself,
hawkings radiation has never been observed and probabaly
will never be observerved, to my mind it is one of the
weakest theories, i mean who bets against himself being
wrong and comes up smelling of roses.
as for personal theroies do what RUSS says.

 

[franznietzsche]

credit for thinking yes...credit for understanding hawking radiation to begin with, no.

Quantum theory dictates the possibility of hawking radiation because of randum fluctuations of electromagnetic fields ina vacuum. A position fluctuation in the form of a particle, accompanied by a simultaneous negative fluctuation in the form of an anti particle all occurring out side the event horizon. Antiparticle falls into balc hole, and negative tiny mass + positive big mass = slightly smaller big positive mass, and the randomly generated particle which is outsid the event horizon to being with is free to speed away from the black hole.

 

[NateTG]

Originally posted by wolram
at least give the guy credit for thinking for himself,
hawkings radiation has never been observed and probabaly will never be observerved

I've seen reputable sources suggest that colider-created black holes may be a reality within 10 years.

 

[Integral]

Perhaps I am wrong. I thought that the existence of black holes at the center of galaxies was based on the OBSERVATION of otherwise unexplained x ray sources,i.e. Hawking radiation.

 

[meteor]

No, the X-rays detected come from matter that is spinning in the accretion disk of the black hole

 

[russ_watters]

Most black holes we have found have a companion star to "eat," thowing off x-rays. I think we inferred supermassive black holes from gravitational influences on nearby (but not close enough to eat) stars.

 

[franznietzsche]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Most black holes we have found have a companion star to "eat," thowing off x-rays. I think we inferred supermassive black holes from gravitational influences on nearby (but not close enough to eat) stars.

mmmm...Stars...the other other other white meat.

 

[wolram]

hawkings radiation is an interesting subject, in a purly
hypothetical way, i have had a search on google but i can
not find a paper that suggests a way that this radiation
can be detected, it seems its many orders of magnitude
below any detector we have on Earth and in space to
detect it.

 

[russ_watters]

Black holes themselves had the same status when first proposed: they were nothing more than mathematical derivations from Relativity with no physical evidence of their existence.

 

[wolram]

i agree, but black holes are enigmatic, we have observed
them by there" effects", on other things, but we still
have no idea what they are, i have read a few papers
that are attempting to do away with the singularity, and
some that prefer the term "gravstar", i suppose it matters
very little, we know they exist the detail can come
when we have a means to directly observe them.
hawkings radiation is different it seems our means for
observation would have to increase many fold ie a
satalite orbiting a black hole before it could be
detected.