1
$\begingroup$

I have recently encountered a question about Black Holes, marked as a duplicate: Do black holes exist? The question asks whether black holes have information inside and if no, how a hollow sphere can be considered a black hole. The question is marked as duplicate of the question How long does it take for a black hole to form? which is totally different and concerned with the time it takes for a black hole formation.

In short, this question is about information inside, the linked question is about formation time, they cannot be duplicates.

I do not know why people voted to close it, possibly they only read the tite.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Your question says that black holes don't exist because nothing goes inside them. The reason nothing goes inside then is that nothing can pass the event horizon in finite time. The other question says there are no black holes because nothing can pass the event horizon in finite time. To me they seem very much the same. If you're really trying to make a different argument, I think it's up to you to clarify it. $\endgroup$ – Nathaniel Jun 16 '14 at 11:34
  • $\begingroup$ @Nathaniel lol, this is not my question. $\endgroup$ – Anixx Jun 16 '14 at 12:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't see how to interpret "From our point of reference nothing actually goes inside the event horizon right? So is there anything inside the event horizon from our reference?" As anything other than "black holes don't exist because nothing goes inside them." If you mean something else, I think you should edit your question to make it clear. $\endgroup$ – Nathaniel Jun 16 '14 at 12:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Nathaniel again, this is not my question! $\endgroup$ – Anixx Jun 16 '14 at 12:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In that case, ask the OP to clarify it, or ask your own. $\endgroup$ – Manishearth Jun 16 '14 at 12:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @anixx oh I see. But the same thing applies. Interpreted in the most reasonable way it's clearly a duplicate, and if the OP means something else it's up to them to make it clear. $\endgroup$ – Nathaniel Jun 16 '14 at 12:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I also experienced similar unfairness - what the things (as I experienced) really hard makes, that somehow... it is impossible to talk that with the high-reputated reviewers of the site! When I tried to ask them to reopen the questions, they never did that, even if it was clearly a mistake. I think, something goes very, very badly here - but it were a really good thing to convince people here to spare a little bit more with their destructive votes. $\endgroup$ – peterh Jul 16 '14 at 15:18
  • $\begingroup$ @PeterHorvath I've had no such experiences, from what I've seen most high-rep users on here are very approachable and prepared to re-examine their own opinions and judgement when presented with good arguments. Regarding this particular question, I have to agree strongly with John Rennie and Manishearth that the question is all about the "infinite time to reach the event horizon" subject and the information bit is just a conclusion OP draws from what they might be hoping will be the answer. $\endgroup$ – Wouter Jul 27 '14 at 12:48
  • $\begingroup$ Whether or not that second question is the best duplicate for the first one, I don't know, but as @JohnRennie points out there are plenty of questions asking about this "infinite time ..." stuff. So in my opinion it should definitely remain closed unless OP wants to change their question to what your interpretation of it is. $\endgroup$ – Wouter Jul 27 '14 at 12:51
2
$\begingroup$

The last comment by the author says:

I'm asking if it is correct to say that black holes exists from our point of reference, because from our point of reference nothing is inside them. Nothing is inside them, as I understand it, because nothing ever goes through the event horizon from our point of reference.

and this makes it very clear that this is just another recurrence of the many, many "infinite time to reach the event horizon" questions.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

The question asks whether black holes have information inside and if no,

That's not what it looks like to me. The information bit seems to be an afterthought.

If that's indeed what the question is asking, it should be clearer. Currently it's a rather vague question that most people are interpreting as "Does a black hole have matter inside or not?" in a rough way.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .