http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magneto...lapsing_object

Just read this and would like to get peoples feedback. In the end the two are essentially the same thing (for all intensive purposes and to amateurs) but I find the MECO theory much more plausible.
I wouldn't be surprised if all Black Holes are MECO's, in fact it seems to make a lot more intuitive sense (the whole singularity idea is too SF for me).
Anybody have any additional information on the topic from other sites? Would you be inclined to agree or disagree with the idea that BH's don't really exist?

Also I'm a little confused about the idea that black holes have no magnetic properties. I thought anything with charge and angular momentum must create somekind of magnetic force? Or am I missing something?

Hi Splack, this has been covered pretty extensively in my topic "Black Holes don't exist" some time back.

At the time I was arguing that because of gravitational time dilatation it would take an infinite time for a black hole to form, so that from our reference frame we cannot say that they do exist. The ECO/MECO theory affirms this, but goes on to say that some observed supermassive objects at the centres of galaxies (including our galaxy) have intense magnetic fields, and therefore cannot be black holes (which have no "hair"). A later theortical analysis of the collapse process has reported that so much matter would be released as radiation that a black hole could not form anyway.

So as far as I am concerned, there are no event horizons or singularities or wormholes, leaving a much more rational universe (apart from quantum mechanics, that is!).

Mike

__________________
Mike