On May 3, 9:15 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On May 3, 4:18 pm, JanPB wrote:

If by "black hole" you mean points excluded from space and time in a
finite region then most physicists would probably agree with you.
Everyone knows GR is an incomplete theory (so is QM). You must keep in
mind that when people like Kip Thorne (note the "e" at the end) talk
about black holes, they mean certain property of certain theory, not
necessarily what's "out there". Learn to recognise terminological
shortcuts before you post critiques.

Having black holes or no black holes is a serious matter and not an
issue of terminology. You are very guilty of creating mysticism and
passing it on as wisdom.

** MYSTICISM IS NOT WIDSOM

What you wrote above has no relation to the discussion. Do you read
before posting a followup?

Schwarzschild’s original solution to the field equations does not
manifest black holes, but Hilbert’s solution does which is known as
the Schwarzschild metric. Both solutions are asymptotically flat,
spherically symmetric, and static. Both solutions at weak gravitation
are compatible with Newtonian law of gravity. In fact, there are an
infinity numbers of such solutions that fit these criteria.
Scientifically, there should be no preference as to which solution is
more valid. But through mysticism, you favor the Schwarzschild metric
for some reasons involving the black art.

Not worth asnwering to in detail (again) - it was dealt with in the
past. For the newcomers: the above claims are false. Reader bewa
some poeple around here - Koobee among them - can write stuff that
_looks_ real but it's in fact all fabrication and scientific nonsense.

His knowledge of history of the subject (another hobby of his) is
equally abysmal.

--
Jan Bielawski