Philosophy Now Forum

My answer is that Black Holes are sufficiently defined (by their "circles", where the Black Holes start to be black, the rims of them) to consider them defined (as opposed to tacky).

This is in relation to an ongoing discussion that has encumbered my brain for a while now. I'm not sure what the latest is from the Physicists.

Your view?

Aetixintro wrote:My answer is that Black Holes are sufficiently defined (by their "circles", where the Black Holes start to be black, the rims of them) to consider them defined (as opposed to tacky).

This is in relation to an ongoing discussion that has encumbered my brain for a while now. I'm not sure what the latest is from the Physicists.

Your view?

I don't think the definition has changed much lately. Any object that is dense enough to have a region around it, in which escape velocity exceeds the speed of light is a black hole.

It's NO about definition (of a black hole) as such! No, you misunderstand.

It's about this: ...defined (as opposed to tacky)...

Dictionary.com for "tacky" if you like.

The importance of this discussion hinges on what the nature of Black Holes is and thus how this nature has implication on a tacky or defined edge! So the nature of the edge of a Black Hole is really a discussion of the nature of the Black Hole. Alright?

Perhaps you haven't followed the discussion between Hawking and others...

Cheers!

(Correction: "are" -> "is".)

Aetixintro wrote:It's NO about definition (of a black hole) as such! No, you misunderstand.

It's about this: ...defined (as opposed to tacky)...

Dictionary.com for "tacky" if you like.

The importance of this discussion hinges on what the nature of Black Holes is and thus how this nature has implication on a tacky or defined edge! So the nature of the edge of a Black Hole is really a discussion of the nature of the Black Hole. Alright?

Yes. If the event horizon has the shape of an oblate spheroid, it has spin. If we could somehow see the shape of the event horizon, we would be able to calculate its mass and spin.

Aetixintro wrote:Perhaps you haven't followed the discussion between Hawking and others...

Cheers!

(Correction: "are" -> "is".)

I haven't. Please enlighten.

Aetixintro wrote:My answer is that Black Holes are sufficiently defined (by their "circles", where the Black Holes start to be black, the rims of them) to consider them defined (as opposed to tacky).

This is in relation to an ongoing discussion that has encumbered my brain for a while now. I'm not sure what the latest is from the Physicists.

Your view?

Eeeeh, I thnk a definition should describe things in layman terms, thus fully explain things for everyone, not only just some wise people.