Granting that the expansion isn’t accelerating, but this is an artefact of Universal anisotropy, does this mean that the expansion itself is an illusion? Because that, as I have been made to understand, is the basic observation which caused Fr. LemaĆ®tre to posit the existence of a beginning of time: if the galaxies in the Universe are receding from one another, they must have been arbitrarily close at some point in the past.

Now, the arguments against black holes may be invoked to deny the existence of an actual Big Bang singularity, but that is very different from arguing for a Steady-State-type theory. There is still a beginning of time t = 0, even if we can only approach it asymptotically. Where is my reasoning misled?

]]>For example, all real physical objects have finite binding energy, which equals to the work needed for disperses the body to infinity. However for BH “the gravity force so strong, that even light cannot escape”, and this means that the binding energy of BH is equals to infinity. So formation of BH from a star would transform a finite energy to infinite energy which is absurd. ]]>

I am a mathematician outside formal greedy competitive Mathematics ~

I won’t say more

Please check my books if you can kindly do so !

This work was done between 1995 to 1999

I tried to get it be seen by many big big people All over the world ~ Nearly fifty hard copies send to various universities ~ About ten thousand copies send via e mail electronic files to innumerable Mathematics guys! ~ Of course forst sent to Annals LMS ~ ( as early as April !999 if I remember right ~ Annals returbed it with no comment via sea mail ~ LMS simply lost it !!

You know Abhas Mitra ~ It hurt me and highly pained me ~

Thanu was junior at College with me~ Just to note I was instrumental to introduce him to Dirac Principles of Quantum mechanics! Any way that is irrelevant ~ The last I met him ” He asked me for my copy of Roman Elementary particle physics ~( which i swiped from IIT Bombay Librrary and paid the fine!

Roman’s book I had Presented to another friend Parameswaran Nair now professor at Newyork university ( over ~ I told Thanu why worry ~ There is a copy of Roman in Kerala University library ~ You can avail it! Then Thanu told me foolishly that the other friend had borrowed it just to keep him away from it ~ Then he confessed to me such pettiness was common t between them ~ Another woman Rioschen Sasikumar( later a Phd( i taught her dirac, lots of it ~ was the witness and she reprimanded him ~ We were in the canteen in kerala university campus ~ I felt sad and kept silent ~

I had left Physics and science then after encountering Godels incompletness theorem ! ( around 1973 ~ So i was giving away my books to others who had the aspirations for big prizes and so that i they may be benefitted ~ _

Due to random fatality I came back to cantor ~ Found the whole uncountable sets were fraudulent and ignorant

http://auminfinitecosmoses.com/galleries/view/197

( This book I can send you a hard copy if you care ~

Later I got Cohen Ehrlich “Set theory and continuum hypothesis” after great struggle from nagpur university via a friend Dr surendran !

I completely thrashed into smithreens Zeremelo Frankel and Godel Benays systems ~ ie All after Godel incompleteness theorem( the first chapter) were just crap ! Axiom of Infinity Axiom of Powers and Replacement axiom ~~ were dirty sick lies ~

As I was writing my book and its appendix ~ The infinite transcendental numbers were revealed to me like a divine miracle ~ I left that in my software and wrote the following books ~ It took me long to publish it ~

This work was done between 1995 to 1999

I tried to get it be seen by many big big people All over the world ~ Nearly fifty hard copies i sent send to various universities ~ About ten thousand copies sent via e mail electronic files to innumerable Mathematics guys! ~ Of course I first sent to Annals LMS ~ ( as early as April !999 if I remember right ~ Annals returned it with no comment via sea mail ~ LMS simply lost it !!

You know Abhas Mitra ~ It hurt me and highly pained me ~

http://auminfinitecosmoses.com/galleries/view/197

http://auminfinitecosmoses.com/

I requested Thanu to give me a chance to lecture in his intitute ~ I sent him my books the first edition ~ The sick fellow must have oozed with jealousy and told me to approach maths guys ~ I will stop here `

This link i sent to another fellow known to me ~ Check this too ~

http://nanopolitan.wordpress.com/2005/12/23/ranjit-nair-on-this-years-physics-nobel/

I hope you will be kind enough to let me present it in some accepted platform ~ Hopes never die ` Please check the voulme three for further history of the journey of the unfortunate manuscript ~

Yes I essentially understand what you are trying to voice here in your blog here ! I am nobody: my comments are of no validity ~

]]>It seems to me that you are saying something new: that infinite proper time must pass for the the collapsing mass (and the probe) before the mass collapses to singularity. Is this correct?

Does it remain true that it requires finite proper time for an infalling object to cross the event horizon?

]]>1. In Sec. II A (“Choice of the energy conversion rate C”) they choose, via their equation 18, a “scenario where the luminosity at infinity is equal to the expected Hawking radiation”. Does this choice presuppose the formation of an event horizon, which does not occur in this scenario? In the concluding remarks of your Pramana paper “Quantum information paradox: real or fictitious?” you state that “Since there is no exact BH, no Event Horizon, there is no Hawking Radiation and Quantum Information Paradox.” So you would seem to disagree with the choice of boundary condition in Eq. (18) of M-HP, which is crucial for their conclusions.

2. For the sake of argument, let us grant MH-P their equation (18) as boundary condition. According to their conclusion, “Physically the backreaction of ingoing negative energy Hawking radiation reduces the gravitational binding energy in the star with the maximum loss near the last stages of collapse, while taking momentum away from the star. This is the reason for the universal feature of the explosion in the star instead of its collapse to a black hole singularity.” Again granting that the star does expand (to a radius much greater than its Schwarzschild radius) due to the Hawking radiation, at some point during the expansion, should we not expect that the Hawking radiation again becomes insignificant, as was the the case initially in their scenario? Since they claim that it is the Hawking radiation that is responsible for the expansion, then why shouldn’t we expect the star to revert back to the gravitational collapse state? Maybe I am asking a wrong question here due to my limited knowledge of black hole physics. But it seems to me that they have not even come close to establishing that a final “explosion” occurs during the expansion phase, since their numerical code breaks down during this phase (by their own admission).

3. An interesting aside: M-HP’s list of references does contain Hawking’s most recent arXiv preprint which you refer to as a “loose essay” in your comment above. I was curious to know what M-HP had to say about this preprint, but strangely, they have not referred to it at all in the text of their paper! Maybe an oversight, or is it deliberate?

Best regards.

]]>