"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
falling...
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:03:44 MDT