"Robert J. Bradbury" wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2000, Jeff Davis wrote:
> > Doesn't the indisputable fact of gavitational influence by the foremost
> > candidates for black holedom suggest that either they are not black holes,
> > or that the theory of black holes is flawed?
> Nope, everything seems consistent.
> The only problem I've seen pointed out with black holes is that they
> violate a "conservation of information" principle. The basic problem
> is that once matter goes into the black hole, its impossible to get
> back any information that was contained in that matter. Now, I'm not
> sure how "strict" that principle is, unlike say "conservation of momentum",
> so it isn't clear (to me) whether that creates big problems or only
> little ones.
Ah, but according to theory, there is conservation of information, as
anything that falls into it retains an image on the event horizon due to
temporal distortion. A spaceship that fell in eons ago you can still see
as an image on the event horizon, because theoretically, its still
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:03:44 MDT