MigL

Here is a simple thought experiment... You are in a safe orbit around a Black Hole, well outside the event horizon. You tie a rope to an object, and hurl that object towards the Black Hole. You see the light ( signal ) from the object becoming fainter and fainter as it approaches the EH, and its wavelength stretches to infinity as it reaches the EH so that the signal you are receiving from it is effectively temporally frozen. Do you think the rope that is attached to the object will go slack, since the object has apparently stopped moving ? Or do you think it will still be pulled in after the object has 'frozen' ?

Sorry Carrock, although your posts 'inspired' my response, it was actually meant for Q-reeus, who is no longer with us. I apologize for the confusion my lack of specifics caused.

You fail to realize that these are interpretations. In that particular paragraph he actually uses two interpretations of the mechanism for reducing the EH. One involves particles of negative energy moving forward in time and also positive particles moving backwards in time. The theory/model is mathematical ( which you seem to abhor ); the 'interpretation' is a comparison to easily understood concepts. I'm sure you are familiar with the Copenhagen and Many Worlds interpretation ( and others ) of Quantum Mechanics. Does it mean that if your cat isn't alive AND dead in a box simultaneously, the theory/model is wrong ??? Why didn't you read further in that paragraph where S Hawking states... "It should be emphasized that these pictures of the mechanism responsible for the thermal emission and area decrease are heuristic only and should not be taken too literally." It's obvious we will never convince you, but we are presenting the accepted science. You are more than welcome to post ( and support ) your conjectures in Speculations. Good luck with that.

Here you go... https://www.brainmaster.com/software/pubs/physics/Hawking%20Particle%20Creation.pdf Is the 'father' of Hawking Radiation credible enough for you ?

The link you provided sends me to a post where you are confused about how a BH absorbing one part of a virtual particle pair can lose mass/energy, while a real particle is emitted as Hawking radiation. I thought I, and others, had explained that. I guess the real lack of integrity is not reading other's replies in a discussion forum.

I just take my aspirin straight, without the caustic. Less stomach ulcers that way.

If, by 'horizonless gravity' you mean vector gravity, I thought GWs were putting nails in its coffin with each new observation. ( and I don't like its flat Minkowsky background ) But since 'horizonless' implies no Black Holes, how then do you explain the recently released photos ? Photoshopped maybe ??? Or is the 'theory' more valid than observation ??? You are right, one side is making is making a sh*tty argument, that goes against all observations. ( care to guess which side I'm talking about ? )

I find this line a little funny, Q-reeus... "Given my complete confidence EH's don't and can't exist" Saying a mathematical construct doesn't exist is merely stating the obvious; it has no substance. But stating that there are no consequences to traversing, or position relative to, that mathematical construct would be seriously wrong. If one was to find themselves below the mathematical construct we call sea-level, they may be drowning or at risk of flooding. If one was to be first to cross the mathematical construct we call the 100m mark, at the Olympics, they would receive a gold medal and worldwide recognition. What is any distance where events happen, if not a mathematical construct ? How substantive do they need to be before they exist ? How about where there are consequences of their existence ???

Does it matter if they are particles, or quanta, as you seem to think there is a difference ??? These virtual pairs exist on energy borrowed from the universe, for a brief period of time according to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. And once that time is up the debt must be re-paid to the universe according to stdev(E)*stdev(t) >= hbar/2. If one of the virtual particles ( or quanta ) is no longer available to annihilate with the other, it must become a real ( Hawking ) particle or quanta. That means the universe is owed the equivalent of TWO particle's mass/energy by the Black Hole which has caused this debt. The Black Hole, however, has swallowed ONE particle's mass/energy, so the net effect is that it loses the equivalent of ONE particle's mass/energy. Where is this negative you speak of ??? If I owe you money, does it mean I give you negative currency ???

I did not call it negative energy. There is no such thing, But virtual particles must re-pay their borrowed energy according to Heisenberg. So the 'accountant' puts it in the - column.

Did not want to confuse the issue too much as it did not relate to the OP. You are right, and no version of the Sparrow missile used active guidance. IOW, its own radar does not illuminate the target and home in on it. That is what active means. So semi-active is the correct classification ( which I omitted ), because it does have a targeting radar. Active imparts fire and forget capability to a missile ( see AMRAAM or Meteor ) Targeting by emissions or other than own illumination, I termed passive ( see Sparrow and Skyflash/Aspide versions or Sidewinder ) Good talking to someone who shares similar interests.

Even if you consider just low energy virtual photons, you still need to satisfy conservation laws. You cannot simply have one heading towards the EH. Conservation of momentum dictates its opposing virtual photon is headed away from the EH. And once one of the virtual pair is removed by the BH's EH, the other of the pair becomes a real low energy photon or Hawking Radiation. But those pesky conservation laws again dictate that the energy debt must be repaid, as virtual particles live on borrowed time, and so, the BH gives up that amount of mass/energy to make the re-payment. I don't see the problem Q-reeus, maybe you can elaborate.

I had read this on Daily Mail and figured it was the usual drivel that they publish. It saddens me that it is real.

You seem to have a problem with Beecee and words and phrases he has used ( fact, hope that helps, facts may aspire ), yet you have not posted any meaningful contribution to this topic. What you are doing is not discussion. Grow up, before someone decides to report you.

I believe the term 'black hole' was coined by J A Wheeler, Sensei. However the term has rude connotations in Russian, so Y B Zeldovich called them 'frozen' stars instead. No-one has called them cold stars that I know of. This on account theory predicts that, from an external FoR, a collapsing star will only collapse to its Swartzschild radius, and temporally 'freeze' there. These days, even in Russia, 'collapsar', or black hole, is used.