Except that there are gravitons moving around in that region. A quantum field theory vacuum is not a classical vacuum, it always has particles within it (if you'd like a few page references for Peskin & Schroeder I can provide them). Furthermore the space-time itself is some seething mass of gravitons knitted together to form some kind of single 'thing' when viewed from our long distance point of view, much like water appears continuous to our eyes despite being made of molecules. This would be the case even in flat space-time but in curved space-time then you have gravitons bouncing around which define the gravitation field. There's a reason the GR metric \(g_{ab}\) appears in quantum field theories in curved space, it alters propagators of other quantum fields. Again, if you read a book like Peskin & Schroeder then you'll learn precisely how they fit together. If you knew anything about gravity you'd know Magneto doesn't. Generally when reading your own work? You quote but you don't' understand.
Gravitons are hypothetical. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton, and try not to confuse hypothesis with reality.
Yet you see no problem posting about how electrons are made of photons, electromagnetism is curved space, and other ideas nobody has ever demonstrated actually work, as if they were fact? :bugeye: By the way, you never replied to post #107.
You're the guy whose (self proclaimed Nobel Prize winning) work can't model anything in the real world. Anything. Besides, are you claiming gravity isn't carried by particles? Nor does that negate the demonstrated fact that the real quantum vacuum is never empty, it is seething with particles blipping in and out of existence. Since pair production is in your 'work' (ie you 'borrowed' the concept from actual physics) you can hardly argue with that. So your own work contradicts what you said. Keep at it Farsight. Maybe one day you'll have a good enough grasp of basic science not to constantly contradict yourself Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Alphanumeric: gravitons are hypothetical, get used to it. And get used to the fact that there is no evidence for particles blipping in and out of existence. There's evidence for vacuum fluctuations in the Casimir effect, and one can liken these to random ripples on the surface of an ocean. But we don't actually see short-lived electrons and positrons. Virtual particles are virtual, not real. Try reading this http://iopscience.iop.org/0295-5075/76/2/189 instead of trying to hiding your faux-pax behind insults. Come off it pryzk. Pair production demonstrates that electrons really can be made from photons. That's solid evidential physics along with spin angular momentum, magnetic dipole moment, electron diffraction, and annihilation. And the stuff I say about electromagnetism goes back to Maxwell and is backed if by gravitomagnetism as per http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/. It's in a different league to gravitons. Please don't get like Alphanumeric and start dismissing real science whilst clinging to unfounded hypotheses that have been bubbling along for decades with absolutely no evidential support. Sorry, I'll get back to you.
No, it is an idea that is consistent with the observation of pair production. I've already explained to you that you are committing a converse error fallacy if you try to say it proves electrons are made of photons. I honestly don't see why you keep trying to bring up pair production as if it were supposed to be impressive. Quantum field theories (which model particles as excitations of underlying quantum fields) have an excellent track record for accurately modelling all sorts of particle creation and annihilation processes, and don't need photons to be made out of electrons to do it. Pointing out that your idea is qualitatively consistent with the observation of pair production is not impressive by comparison. No. Physics is a quantitative science. "Solid" means your theory predicts numbers and experimental results support them. And all experimental results in the relevant domain. Not just the handful you happen to have heard of. That's the bar theories that are considered mainstream (general relativity, standard model) have passed. You don't come anywhere near this.
You don't even know what 'virtual' means. It's a similar mistake to people thinking 'imaginary' numbers are less valid than 'real' numbers in mathematics. They are terms which have some vague association to the underlying principles but they shouldn't be taken to directly mean the layperson definition. Virtual particles are not on-shell, they don't obey the energy-mass-momentum relation. The evidence for particles appearing and disappearing is seen. Electrons have been directly seen to be influenced by vacuum fluctuations. But more manifestly its the direct cause of beta decay. A neutron can only turn into a proton via the production of a weak boson. The weak boson is more than 100 times more massive than the neutron, yet a quark within the neutron produces one, converting into another quark, and the weak boson then decays into an electron and anti-neutrino. The neutron doesn't contain anywhere near the amount of energy needed to make the weak boson but it manages it via quantum fluctuations, particles appearing from nothing for short periods of time. I love how you tell me to read things when I keep mentioning textbooks. Have you read anything like Peskin & Schroder or Weinberg or Ryder? These are books every quantum field theory student has picked up at some point. Or how about relativity, what textbooks there have you read? None. You are functionally illiterate when it comes to particle or relativistic physics because you couldn't get into a university physics degree, never mind pass one and get into research. Now you might call that an insult but I call it a statement of fact. You're welcome to prove me wrong. And my comments about your work being unable to model anything in the real world are also statements of fact. I know you don't like being reminded how epically your delusions of grandeur got smashed to the ground by everyone but reminding you of that by stating the facts is just tough luck for you. I asked you a question, do you think gravity isn't carried by particles? Ahhhhh, Farsight doesn't understand how logic works! If A=>C and B=>C then you cannot say "C is true, therefore A is true". This is why maths books are filled with proofs of "if and only if", ie "C is true if and only if A is true". Your work (A) implies pair production (C). Quantum field theory (B) implies pair production, thus A=>C and B=>C. C=>A would only be true if you proved the 'and only if' part, which you haven't. Perhaps if you spent less time and money advertising your work in magazines and more time reading 1st year maths book you'd understand basic logic. If two different models (not that your work is a model, it can't model anything) lead to the same phenomena then those phenomena cannot distinguish between those two explanations. It's the reason experiments are forever being done, scientists keep coming up with multiple models which explain all present data but which differ elsewhere. We test that 'elsewhere' and we tell which, if any, of those models remain viable. If it is real science why can't your work model any of it? I've been asking you to provide a model for just one phenomenon in the real world your work leads to a model of. You've been utterly silent. And whose definition of 'real science' are you working you? You claim string theory is not science, yet it models more of the real world than your work. Your work has been rejected by every journal and every educated person who has looked at it. You're working to your own definition of 'real science', which makes you a crank. So come on, if we're all clinging to "unfounded hypotheses that have been bubbling along for decades with absolutely no evidential support" please demonstrate your work can model anything. Your choice, pick anything in the entire realm of known physics and demonstrate your work can produce a model for it. You can't and you never will. Yet you go around whining about other people's work, mostly because they don't slap you on the back and feed your delusions with praise. Everyone has rejected your work so you've had to invent your own meaning for 'science', lest the ivory tower you've put your ego in comes crashing down.
Pryzk: sorry to be tardy. In response to your post #107: It doesn't make sense to define coordinates that are divorced from reality and duck this by saying there are no restrictions. A coordinate system is not something real. Kruskal–Szekeres coordinates are a case in point. They totally miss the way that proper time is being measured on a clock that goes slower and slower and then stops at the event horizon. After that, there is no proper time. A stopped clock doesn't tick. That's one explanation. The other, which goes back to Einstein, is that the light curved because there was a gradient in the speed of light. No. An equation of motion is what it is. And do note that I'm the one advocating GR as described by Einstein. The modern interpretation is something different. Again, see http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0204044. They're equations of motion through inhomogeneous space, not curved spacetime. You're the one in denial here, dismissing what Einstein said with phrases like etymological fallacy. For reference, here's those quotes again: 1911: If we call the velocity of light at the origin of co-ordinates co, then the velocity of light c at a place with the gravitation potential Φ will be given by the relation c = co(1 + Φ/c²). 1912: On the other hand I am of the view that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light can be maintained only insofar as one restricts oneself to spatio-temporal regions of constant gravitational potential. 1913: I arrived at the result that the velocity of light is not to be regarded as independent of the gravitational potential. Thus the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is incompatible with the equivalence hypothesis. 1915: the writer of these lines is of the opinion that the theory of relativity is still in need of generalization, in the sense that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is to be abandoned. 1916: In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light). The word he used was geschwindigkeit which translates to speed, he referred to c, and to one of the two fundamental assumptions. That's the special relativity postulate, which is the constant speed of light. Dismiss Einstein if you wish, but I also give the scientific evidence too, which you will still not face up to. You still refuse to address the light-clocks and tape reels as per post 95 and others. I don't lie, pryzk. I know because you evade the evidence, as does Alphanumeric. He even confuses hypothesis with fact, and is adamant that gravitons are real. No, because this is a very simple matter that challenges the axioms you employ. What you really mean is that you're in a corner and you're going to get all abusive then cut and run instead of facing up to the scientific evidence. As above. A child could deal with the issue of the tape reels and light clocks, and make it plain that when one winds less tape or displays a lower readout, it's because it's been going slower than the other. It's that simple pryzk. Do resist the urge to call me names instead of addressing it.
LOL, you really don't get (anything) , do you? Don't worry, you'll never get it. No danger of that. LOL
And yet you then immediately come out with You're misrepresenting what I said and yet you refuse to engage me in discussion. Besides, you spent years not understanding the difference between a mathematical axiom and a physical postulate. How many times on PhysOrg did I try to discuss the difference with you and you just refuse to talk about it? You're not honest, you're not informed, you're not even particularly bright. Instead you have a view of yourself where you're the pinnacle of intelligence and insight and you're 'fighting the good fight'. No one buys it, everyone sees through your delusions. You got the same response to your claims on every forum you posted them on, all independently of one another. You got rejected from all journals. No one takes any notice of you other than to point out the laughable mistakes you make. How much longer do you plan to continue with this Farsight? How many more years are you going to waste? How many more thousands of pounds are you going to waste? Just think of what your obsession has cost you and what have you got to show for it? If you'd sat down all those years ago and opened an A Level physics book by now you could be at the stage where you could perhaps engage in some proper research. Instead you've thrown it all away because you couldn't accept your limitations and develop your understanding in a rational manner. How about you address my request you provide just one model of a real world phenomenon, of your choosing, which your work can produce, rather than avoiding it? You try to take a shot at me for things I've said about gravitons and before that string theory but string theory's model of gravitons leads to general relativity. String theory can model gravity as we experimentally see it. That's more than your work has ever done. So you can make attempts at insults to do with gravitons all you like. It leads to more viable physics than you've ever produced. Furthermore, I raised the issue of gravitons to counter a claim you made. My point was valid, as the quantum field theory vacuum contains other particles. That point you never retorted, you just ignored it like you always do when someone proves you wrong. Once again you try to insult and all you end up doing is falling flat on your face. Go you!
Er, the fact that coordinates aren't real is precisely the reason there aren't any restrictions on them. We can define them any way we want. And we don't just specify disembodied coordinates and leave it at that in GR. We also have a quantity which (among other things) has the use of keeping track of the physical significance of (eg. how stretched or distorted) the coordinate system you're using is. You might have heard of it. It's called the "metric". In GR you always specify a coordinate system and an expression of the metric in those coordinates. One is meaningless without the other. No, they don't. They use a coordinate time that happens not to coincide with the proper time, and use the metric to keep track of the significance of the coordinates. Just as is done in any other coordinate system in GR. It's rather you who has naively taken a result without understanding it again. You say that clocks stop on the event horizon, presumably because that's what you've read/been told, but here's the thing you left out: stopped relative to what?. The answer is "stopped relative to the Schwarzschild time-like coordinate". But that doesn't mean anything, since the Schwarzschild coordinates are no more or less meaningful than Kruskal coordinates, with the added annoyance that they suffer a coordinate singularity on the event horizon, as is evident in the metric. The metric component is \(g_{tt} = 0\) on the event horizon. The Schwarzschild time-like coordinate doesn't actually measure anything there. Except that that's not what you see if you actually look at the calculations he did. In any case, I've repeatedly told you that the speed of light, in the sense you mean it, is coordinate dependent and therefore cannot be attributed any physical significance. You keep ignoring that. You can quote Einstein talking about a variable speed of light all you want; you're still missing that important point: lacking a coordinate-independent definition of the speed of light, all the Einstein quotes in the world are useless. Your etymological fallacy is still an etymological fallacy. I've shown you where Einstein explicitly puts time-like indices on his equation of motion and proved that GR wouldn't be able to reproduce Newtonian gravity if it didn't. You still don't have an answer to that. They don't imply what you want them to, so you just dust them aside. No, a fallacy is a fallacy, and like it or not using one invalidates your arguments. Don't tell me I'm the one in denial here. If you're willing to use any arguments that reach the conclusions you want, and you don't even care that they're fallacious, then that says a lot more about you than it does about me. See above, where I just explained (again!) why blindly quoting Einstein is useless. Yes I did: I told you exactly why I didn't need to say anything about light clocks. It's as if you'd demanded I explain how ice-cream is manufactured, I told you ice-cream had nothing to do with general relativity, and you just continued to berate me for not explaining how to make ice-cream. You said I had proved nothing while I had in fact proved the points just quoted above, which you have never addressed. You tell me then. If that's not lying, what do you call it? I've got nothing to evade. Your words again: "evidence doesn't distinguish between interpretations". This response is completely vacuous. Specifically what axiom did I employ that you don't agree with? Or are you just trying to get out of dealing with a proof you didn't understand? Telling you you are wrong, why you're wrong, where you fail to address points I made, and specifically which logical fallacies you are employing is hardly abuse. I was also the one to remind you you hadn't replied to my post. That's the exact opposite of cutting and running. Again you conveniently leave out the reason that light clocks are not a challenge for me. "Evidence doesn't distinguish between interpretations". I've got a good memory; you're not going to succeed in distracting me from the fact you're trying to set a double standard. I'm going to keep replying with "evidence doesn't distinguish between interpretations" until you stop pretending you didn't say that. (Besides, what names am I calling you? Point out anywhere I eg. called you a "liar" or "hypocrite" without telling you what you were lying or being hypocritical about. Warning: quote me out of context again and I'll supply everything you left out in bold red, for everyone to see, just like I did last time.)
Sorry this slipped off my radar, przyk. I thought I responded at the weekend, but my post isn't here. Probably my mistake. However it was a long post so I did have it saved. Here you go: Any way you want is just not good enough. I know that people say that all coordinate systems are equally valid in GR, but they aren't. Yes, it's an abstract artefact associated with measurement. No problem. I've talked to Jesse in the past about this. Google on Kruskal Szekeres to find him talking about it on another forum. Here's an image he posted from MTW's Gravitation. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The picture on the left depicts Schwarzschild coordinates. It takes an infinite coordinate time to cross the event horizon, which means it takes forever. So it never happens. Adopting Kruskal–Szekeres coordinates is a "humpty-dumpty" way of transforming this away, essentially science fiction that takes you from something that never ever happens, to something that does. No, I worked this out when I analysed time then gravity and read some original material first-hand. Some people insist that "clocks measure proper time", but actually they don't. Clocks clock up local motion. When you see my light clock going slow due to gravitational time dilation, it isn't because "my proper time is going slower", it's actually my light going slower. It is after all a light clock. Take this to the limit and subject me to infinite time dilation, and my clock stops. My light has stopped, along with electron spin etc. That's the end of the story for me. Forever. I don't happily keep on living my life in some Kruskal–Szekeres never-never land beyond the end of time. No, stopped relative to observers in the universe at large. You, me, everybody. You can try finessing this with an infalling observer behind an infalling observer, but all you end up doing is saying that according to a stopped clock another stopped clock keeps on ticking at the same old rate. That stopped clock means an awful lot, przyk. The Schwarzschild coordinates are giving you a picture of reality, the Kruskal–Szekeres coordinates aren't. Exactly. Because nothing is happening. The singularity at the event horizon is telling you that it's the end of events and that there is no central singularity. I don't know why you find it annoying. Accept what it's telling you and don't try to transform it away by defining any coordinates you want. I'll take my cues not just from Einstein, but from the scientific evidence I've referred to. When you see my light clock going slower, just take it face value. That's real, you can see it. You can't say the same about a coordinate system or a metric. It isn't. The etymological fallacy comes from the "modern interpretation" of GR that isn't in line with Einstein. It isn't that. Look at Einstein's operational definition of time. Clocks clock up local motion, and we call it the time. So it's there in his equations of motion. Pack it in przyk. What I've been saying here is only what Einstein said, and it's backed up by patent scientific evidence. I'm not some "my theory" guy making it up out of fresh air. There's no blindly about it. We're talking general relativity here, light is crucial, ice cream is irrelevant. And turning your back on scientific evidence on grounds of interpretation is kicking the scientific method in the teeth. Don't do it. Sticking with the discussion You're still fighting shy of those light clocks and tape reels. You're parked somewhere near a black hole, you send out two astronauts, each with running tape reels and synchronised light clocks. They come back, and their tape-reel readings are different. So where one of them has been, his tape reel was rolling slower. It's the same kind of thing for the light clocks. It's almost too simple to accept, but it really is that simple. You're employing an axiom that says gravity is curved spacetime, and it's acting as a barrier to a more complete understanding of gravity. You're a modicum of civility compared to some, but you do exhibit an emotional response from time to time. Please watch out for it, I'll do the same, and let's stick with the physics. The cut and run remark was to do with the scientific evidence. Granted, you replied, and I needed reminding. I have a good memory too. Don't forget that. And I'm not setting any double standards here, I'm just trying to get you to see how simple it is. You should read your post #102 again. Now let's stop the recriminations and stick to the physics.
I think this should be put in your signature as an indication of your level of understanding of general relativity. If there was a sentence you wanted someone to say so as to demonstrate their complete ignorance of GR, this would be it.
Yes, it's ironic that Farsight regularly complains how us physicists blindly follow the maths and forget what is really happening and yet he demonstrates with that comment he doesn't understand the maths or the physics. Of course he'll ignore you and I Guest, we're just displaying 'outrage'. No doubt you and I will be teaching this in a few years (which he said to me about 5 years ago!) so watch out Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Why isn't any way good enough? What criteria are you imposing and where has anyone else applied them? I already know this. You don't need to post a diagram to prove it to me. That doesn't follow. First of all, forever according to who? The Schwarzschild coordinate time does not coincide with what any clock sitting on or crossing the event horizon would measure. On the other hand, a physical clock falling toward the black hole would measure that it reaches the event horizon in finite proper time. It is no such thing. The black hole metric in Kruskal coordinates is a perfectly valid solution to the Einstein field equation in its own right. You could prove that without ever knowing about Schwarzschild coordinates. That makes the Kruskal metric a prediction of GR at least as legitimate as the black hole metric in Schwarzschild coordinates. Now look where that gets you. The Kruskal metric is a) a valid independent solution to the EFE in its own right that's b) mathematically equivalent to the Schwarzschild solution everywhere c) except where the Schwarzschild solution blows up. Given that I'd say you've got no basis for blaming oddities like infinite Schwarzschild time on anything but the Schwarzschild coordinates. Your light going slower compared with what? Why are you assuming this? GR predicts you'd get exactly the same result with a Casio watch. But that's the whole point. Everything you are saying would be true if you could show that the Schwarzschild coordinates were a "picture of reality" (and you could define what you meant by that). But you haven't, and I could give you one or two reasons to believe they aren't. For example, while the time coordinate blows up on the event horizon, no coordinate-independent (read: "physical") quantities do. The Ricci scalar curvature tends to a finite value on the event horizon for instance. Additionally, you probably believe the Schwarzschild t coordinate measures time and r measures distance, but even that isn't generally true. If you read their roles off the Schwarzschild metric, you see the opposite is true near the gravitational singularity: t becomes a space-like coordinate there while r becomes time-like (incidentally this implies it's much more accurate to think of the singularity at r = 0 as a point in time rather than in space, which is exactly what you see depicted on a Kruskal chart). The coordinates switch roles right on the event horizon. Essentially there's a "twist" in the coordinate map there. Given that it's hardly surprising you get coordinates blowing up there. And forget that the light I'm using to see your clock doesn't reach me instantaneously? Forget that there isn't even a well defined notion of "instantaneous" over large distances in GR, which you could use to make the kinds of comparisons you are trying to with spatially separated clocks? No, the etymological fallacy is that you are concluding the geodesic equation in GR must be an equation in space based only on your personal ideas of motion and the fact the phrase "equation of motion" contains the word "motion" in it. If you really believed that an equation of motion could only be an equation in space, the conclusion you should draw is that the geodesic equation in GR doesn't fit your definition of "equation of motion" and was mislabeled. Because it specifically is an equation in spacetime. Again, I've shown you explicitly where Einstein put time-like indices on it and proved that GR would be unable to reproduce Newtonian gravity if it wasn't. Sure. Just point me to it. Where did Einstein say that? For starters, saying we use periodic motion to track time doesn't make the motion itself time. Time has other properties associated with it - most notably the notions of simultaneity and synchronicity - that you won't get out of starting with motion as an axiom. No it's not. As I told you, the equation explicitly include time-like components. No, it's what Einstein said plus the way you choose to interpret it plus your decision to ignore everywhere you've been told why your interpretation (and possibly Einstein's himself) is wrong. Your evidence is invariably both meager (eg. qualitative instead of quantitative) and already accounted for by mainstream theories. No, you're an "I'm following Einstein's legacy" guy. If you don't see what's wrong with that, try substituting "Einstein" for "Jesus" for a minute. Apparently you believed the exact opposite when you yourself said "evidence doesn't distinguish between interpretations". In fact I don't know why you're so desperate to back peddle now, because you were right earlier: physical evidence can never distinguish between two interpretations of a theory that use the same mathematics (and therefore make the same predictions). That's why it's so silly of you to demand I explain things like gravitational time dilation: if you really understood the "modern interpretation" of GR as well as you say you do, you should be able to transliterate your pet explanation for it into "modern" terms yourself. Synchronised when and how? When the two astronauts are together before being sent out? Er, what exactly are the astronauts trying to measure with their tape reels? Where do I employ such an axiom? In fact, which of my mathematical proofs are we even talking about here? I posted about three different ones showing three different things and none of them actually had much, if anything, to do with curvature. I certainly never needed curvature as an axiom. For example, the first was a proof that inhomogeneity of the \(g_{\mu\nu}\) is coordinate-dependent (and therefore can't be attributed physical significance). The only "axiom" (beyond differential calculus) I used to show this was the transformation rule \(g_{\mu\nu} \rightarrow \frac{\partial x^{\mu}}{\partial x'^{\alpha}} \frac{\partial x^{\nu}}{\partial x'^{\beta}} g_{\mu\nu}\), which I copied directly out of Einstein's paper. That's what tells me you can't have followed my derivations. I didn't just prove that inhomogeneity of the \(g_{\mu\nu}\) was coordinate-dependent based on some axioms I plucked from thin air. I got the sole "axiom" I used from Einstein. I showed my conclusion was a logical consequence of what Einstein said about the metric components. (And I put "axiom" in quotes because even Einstein had no choice in the matter. That transformation rule follows from how the metric components are defined.)
One has to wonder what Farsight hopes to get from all of this. Every person with any kind of formal education in any physics based subject he's talked about (electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, relativity) has disagreed with and corrected him. Every journal has rejected him. Farsight, are you just planning to continue proclaiming your genius on forums and hope you get a letter from the Nobel Prize committee informing you you've got it for physics? The rest of us have moved on, onwards and upwards. You seem to be stuck desperately trying to convince people you know subjects you don't, you demonstrably don't. I used to point out your mistakes and now you ignore me. przyk is doing a bang up job pointing out your mistakes and no doubt a time will come where you start ignoring him too. To what end? przyk, myself, Cpt, Ben, Prom, Guest and a few others who've crossed paths with you, we all have things to show for the time we put into physics, with forums being a side interest. The closest you get to serious physics discourse is a forum like this and yet you gain nothing from it because you won't listen to anyone. You know full well you don't know about tensors, coordinates, manifolds, transformations, the specifics of the Einstein field equations, curvature etc yet you persist, even when your mistakes are laid out in front of you. I know I keep banging on about this but you keep doing it and I'm honestly interested in knowing what on Earth you think you'll get from perpetual lying and deception. 5 years ago you were all about how people like Ben and I would be teaching your work and/or our PhDs would be worthless. 5 years later you're in exactly the same position as you were (minus a lot of money and time) while Ben and I got doctorates and got jobs because of them. No one is teaching your work, no one is even reading it. You complain we're all so useless at this stuff and yet you're stuck talking to us forum posters, rather than to professors. Why? Because your work is worthless. We tried to tell you 5 years ago but you didn't want to listen. Do you plan to spend the next 5 years whining on forums about how you're the one with the 'true' understanding of relativity yet go absolutely nowhere? Do you plan to spend the next 5 years pissing more money down the drain? Are you still going to be telling your kids in 5 years you're the new Einstein and can they make a Facebook page about your next book "Relativity Double Plus", which will cost another few thousand pounds to self publish and sit in boxes in your back room along side your current book? No skin off my nose what you decide to do. I just happen to think your money and time could be spent on better things, either improving your actual understanding or spent on your kids. For instance, given the price of UK university education now I think that sort of cash would be better spent giving your kids a good education rather than indulging your delusions. I don't see why they should pay for your mid-life crisis about your self worth. I honestly can't fathom what goes through your mind (and I think, judging from his posts, neither can Guest and perhaps a few others here). /edit And just to demonstrate how long Farsight has been at this here is a thread from almost 4 years ago where he dismisses supergravity, makes claims about his genius (excelled in every class and his skills are 'subtle') and I offered the same advice then as I do now. The three people disagreeing with Farsight in that thread went on to get doctorates. Farsight and NeoNo.1 (aka Reiku) are still exactly where they were then. You could almost call it experimental evidence crank methods don't work Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I'm imposing a real-solution criterion, first applied by Oppenheimer and Snyder in 1939. Take a look at wikipedia which says "Oppenheimer and his co-authors interpreted the singularity at the boundary of the Schwarzschild radius as indicating that this was the boundary of a bubble in which time stopped". The article then says "This is a valid point of view for external observers, but not for infalling observers." but I'm afraid it's wrong. Time isn't something that moves or flows, clocks clock up motion. That's what clocks do. Light clocks clock up the motion of light. The Schwarzschild radius demarcates a boundary of a bubble in which light stops. And electron spin, and electron motion, and nerve impulses, and clocks. Observers in this real universe. It doesn't. Proper time is nothing more than accumulated local motion. When motion stops, so does proper time. And I can predict that a carpet measuring -4m by -4m will cover my bedroom floor. It's a solution, but it isn't a real solution. The Schwarzschild solution doesn't blow up. People say that the singularity at the event horizon is an illusion, but it isn't. The illusion is that a stopped clock is still making measurements. I know people say things like "By choosing another set of suitable coordinates one can show that the metric is well-defined at the Schwarzschild radius" but that's wrong. The metric is an abstract artefact of measurment. It isn't space. And a stopped clock doesn't measure anything. So that's the end of the metric. Light in the universe at large. The motion of light defines our time. No motion, no time. You might think you can measure c=299,792,458 m/s at the event horizon, but it takes forever for you to make that measurement. Thus you never do it. You don't measure at all. Think about those tape reels and light clocks, take their reduced motion at face value, and you'll get it. Yes, because time is derived from local motion, it "blows up" because motion stops, and that's the end of the story. Everything else is science fiction. The Ricci scalar isn't some real physical quantity. It describes relationships between real physical values, just as curved spacetime describes the relationship between the ticks of a clock at one location as opposed to another. It's science fiction, przyk. The coordinate map stops there. Yes, forget it. See this article about an optical clock. Compare two clocks one a foot above the other, and you can see them go out of synch. Don't start thinking that's because "time passes slower when you're lower". This is an optical clock. And just like the NIST "atomic" clock, it's clocking up the motion of light. That's all I've got time for for now.
Yeah, I find not reading anything related to the physics I talk about takes up a lot of my time. It even happens when I'm asleep! Hell, that's what I'm doing right now! It's so hard to find time to read books when all your time is taken up not reading books.
Clocks do NOT stop "at the horizon" for an observer with a clock in free fall who passes the horizon. The observer doesn't "stop" either. They continue to accelerate towards the singularity, so how can anything "blow up" for that observer? An infalling observer doesn't know where the horizon is, either. When they fall inwards beyond the point of no return, it doesn't look any different to any other point. At least, I think that's what Lee Smolin says. But I'm no expert.
If they can 'see the sky' then they can work out when they cross the event horizon from the influx of matter and radiation from the 'outside universe'. It's not so easy if you're a point particle trapped in a box with no view of the outside world. Neither is Farsight and it doesn't stop him (much to everyone's frustration).
