Hawking Does Intellectual Back-Flip

[Dimsun]

I think it's impossible for an accelerated observer to measure the vacuum state of the inertial observer while in relative motion, and this would apply to Hawking radiation as well, to the tune of what is observed is more of a Cherenkov radiation going in and never coming out.

Why should it be impossible to measure?

Hawking radiation is only relevant for an observer in the gravity field around the black hole (equivalent to acceleration in empty space). Someone who is falling into the black whole sees no radiation at all according to Einstein (equivalent of an inertial observer in relative motion in empty space).

... and this would apply to Hawking radiation as well, to the tune of what is observed is more of a Cherenkov radiation going in and never coming out.

What do you mean by that? The accelerated observer will radiate a kind of Cherenkov radiation? And that radiation will fall into the virtual black hole? In that case I must be radiating at this moment too, because I am in the gravity field of the earth. interesting, but does matter (without any other kind of charge, only mass) radiate when accelerated?

Dimsun.

[N0B0DY]

I think that Hawking Radiation is the determinant factor of the cmb vacuum density as a result of the continual annihilation of mass to energy. The reference to the Cherenkov Radiation refers to the exponential increase in temperature of the evaporating black hole over time. It explains the whole process, internal processes of the universe, which is why I responded in the first place. So, yes, I would say that all masses(not matter) radiate energy.

Essentially, there would be no observed radiation at the event horizon, but both the "observer in the gravity field around the black hole" and the observer falling into the black hole will observe the same radiation because they are both in a gravitational field. This would imply that the event horizon and the singularity are synonymous, and that the mass of the black hole is zero.

The recently-observed relativistic effects of the black holes then are due to the gravitationally-dilated effects of high-energy electrons passing through variable media.

[Dimsun]

I think that Hawking Radiation is the determinant factor of the cmb vacuum density as a result of the continual annihilation of mass to energy.

Hawking radiation is hypothetical. A popular way in explaining it is that in the creation and annihilation of particles according to the heisenberg uncertainty principle, some particles are catched by the black hole while the others become real particles, moving away from the black hole. So what has vacuum density in empty space to do with the special case of space around a black hole?

The reference to the Cherenkov Radiation refers to the exponential increase in temperature of the evaporating black hole over time. It explains the whole process, internal processes of the universe, which is why I responded in the first place. So, yes, I would say that all masses(not matter) radiate energy..

So what is your explanation? Saying that it explains "the whole proces" is not an explanation to me. You are just saying something, not explaining something. Cherenkov radiation is seen in nuclear reactors. What has it to do with black holes?

Essentially, there would be no observed radiation at the event horizon, but both the "observer in the gravity field around the black hole" and the observer falling into the black hole will observe the same radiation because they are both in a gravitational field. This would imply that the event horizon and the singularity are synonymous, and that the mass of the black hole is zero.

"...will observe the same radiation because they are both in a gravitational field." I think that you do not understand general relativity.

The recently-observed relativistic effects of the black holes then are due to the gravitationally-dilated effects of high-energy electrons passing through variable media.

I understand what time-dilatation is, but what are gravitationally-dilated effects?

[N0B0DY]

We each have our own interpretation of scientific principles, Dimsun, and hopefully we don't adhere to what is often errant conclusions of the consensus.

Gravitationally-dilated effects are simply the effects of gravitational time dilation which you said you understand so no explanation needed there; I don't think anyone understands General Relativity, but I don't think it would ever imply that black holes are vacuums. Rather, they emit the exact same amount of energy as they take in based on G = mc^2; this in turn explains the whole process of universal creation because the singularity is the absolute state of the universe, and the relative black-hole effects are based on the increase in temperature as the force increases infinitely towards the singularity.

The relative laws that you have inferred don't apply to the absolute singularity, which equates to all co-ordinate times of all the black holes being reduced to one single point. So in order for the laws to function there has to be an allowance of abstract co-ordinate extensions. I say abstract because like Heisenberg pointed out in the 30's, q values are meaningless at t unless measured to have value at t. So a measurement can have a particular value, but not a particulate value at a particular time.

The vacuum then is equivalent to the black-hole singularity; the cmb is equivalent to the cumulative virtual effects of annihilation; and the "real" particles resulting in the apparent asymmetry you mentioned are solely formed by the gravitational dilation of the accelerated gamma photons.

[Max™]

I'm missing where there was a proven law for the conservation of information.

I disagree with Hawking about black hole radiation, and higgs bosons, why shouldn't I disagree with the concept that you must conserve information?