Re: Why There Are No Black Holes

Article View: sci.misc

Article #660

#660

From: Brett Slocum
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1987 16:20

11 lines
963 bytes

Unfortunately, the poster's arguement against blackholes is a bunch
of speculative handwaving, without any basis in physics.  And he
hasn't kept up with current astronomical discoveries.  Astronomers
have identified a handful of objects that under current theories are
black holes.  Sorry to gravitationally pop your balloon.

-- 
--Brett Slocum  "Never bet with a Sicilian where Death is involved."
UUCP: ...uunet!hi-csc!slocum
Arpa: hi-csc!slocum@umn-cs.arpa     
UUCP: ...ihnp4!umn-cs!hi-csc!slocum (descending order of speed, I think)

Technical Details

Message-ID: <395b7bf6.805@hi-csc.UUCP>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!mnetor!uunet!hi-csc!slocum

References: <2337@dasys1.UUCP>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!mnetor!uunet!hi-csc!slocum
From: slocum@hi-csc.UUCP (Brett Slocum)
Newsgroups: sci.misc,talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: Why There Are No Black Holes
Message-ID: <395b7bf6.805@hi-csc.UUCP>
Date: 29 Dec 87 16:20:00 GMT
References: <2337@dasys1.UUCP>
Reply-To: slocum@hi-csc.UUCP (Brett Slocum)
Distribution: na
Organization: csdd
Lines: 11
Keywords: black holes, event horizon, loud pop

Reply to Parent Message