Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cjameshuff
Twisting facts beyond any resemblance to reality to support your argument, as usual. The RHIC "fireballs" are only analogous to a black hole in that they exhibit phenomena that could be described using similar mathematics...IIRC, extending to a phenomenon analogous to Hawking radiation. The only reason to even discuss it was that despite not involving gravity, they could allow some ideas about quantum gravity to be tested. That they were not black holes, or anything close to being black holes was so widely reported that I do not believe you could have missed it.
|
I didn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Platts
However, the RHIC "fireball" probably was not a true mBH: as Namaste himself says, "Most likely there will be no singularity for this black hole." That is, the "fireball" was a "pion analog of" an mBH--a precursor at best. . . .
Here's the official RHIC response to the alledged black hole at RHIC:
Horatiu is referring to a mathematical similarity between the physics of the real world, which govern RHIC collisions, and the physics that scientists use to describe a theoretical, “imaginary” black hole in a hypothetical world with a different number of space-time dimensions (more than the four dimensions — three space directions and time — that exist in our world). That is, the two situations require similar mathematical wrangling to analyze. This imaginary, mathematical black hole that Horatiu compares to the RHIC fireball is completely different from a black hole in the real universe; in particular, it cannot grow by gobbling up matter. [i.e., it is not was not a true singularity.] In other words, and because the amount of matter created at RHIC is so tiny, RHIC does not, and cannot possibly, produce a true, star-swallowing black hole. (my emphasis) |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cjameshuff
Part of it is that Warren's arguments have simply gotten too ridiculous to take seriously...all he does is make up some numbers that suit his needs, multiply them together, and call it a Bayesian analysis. There's no content there to argue...it's no better than a crayon drawing of Geneva being consumed by a black hole.
|
Instead of calling my work ridiculous and disingenuous and comparable to a grade schooler's crayon drawing, why don't you address my Bayesian analysis of
pcatastrophe itself? The value I arrived at is comparable to the quantitative estimates produced by RHIC defenders earlier in this century. Were their estimates comparable to crayon drawings as well? I'd like to see you do a better job at estimating
pcatastrophe--if you can, please be my guest.
Quote:
|
What little substance there is has already been covered quite thoroughly.
|
That's pretty vague, james.
Quote:
|
There's also his habit of taking what his opponents say and deliberately misinterpreting it, making elaborate justifications for doing so and ignoring attempts at correction, or outright fabricating things...why spend time to carefully assemble a counterargument if it'll either be ignored or mangled beyond recognition?
|
I have not deliberately misinterpreted anything anybody has had to say here, nor I have fabricated anything.
I don't believe I've ignored anybody's argument here so far. If I have, please point them out so that I may address their concerns.
Meanwhile, I notice you completely ignore Dr. Plaga's rejoinder to Profs. Giddings and Mangano. . . .
