Black holes may not exist!

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by RJBeery, Jan 24, 2014.

  1. Undefined Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,695
    I only presented GR/spacetime facts about what different types of GR warping entail and their inherent propagatory/non-propagatory nature/limitations. What you 'read into' the scientific information I and Declan have presented for your benefit is entirely up to you IF you wish to read it subjectively instead of understanding objectively. That was all that is suggested: Objective reading/assessment. No more; no less.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    My agenda is well demonstrated to be positive about this site, its discussions on scientific issues/merits and NOT the person/source. If you imagine any other 'agenda', it will be demonstrably falsified by the record. How about your agenda, mate; is that as honourable and scientific and objective as mine? Look to your own ego, paddo; then tone down all the 'personal' and 'source' stuff a little bit, hey?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Undefined Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,695
    I'm here for the objective science based discussion of new ideas/perspectives. What you're here for is your affair. The two types of interactions occur here; that is, new ideas discussion and old text exchanges. Just carry on with what you want to get out of the site; don't confuse the two activities; and you won't be disturbed by what 'the other half' is doing. Chill.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    That's quite admirable....Let's hope we have no more claims of people supplanting GR or the BB or any other delusional theory without peer review.
    Because they will be challenged by many here.
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2014
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543


    I read very carefully the three reputable links I gave re GR BH's and EH's.
    They all made perfect sense to me and supported what I have previously read and heard.
    I also read your relevant post but was not really impressed with it at all.
    So there I am in a quandary.....the three links of mine aligning with what I already knew, or the 4 or 5 different other Interpretations as outlined by you and others, each not only contradicting the mainstream version and my links, but all contradicting each other, and none having been peer reviewed.

    I really don't think any more need be said.
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2014
  8. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    I'm here cause I heard this is where they were handing out the Word Salad Awards.

    Also to meet some distinguished and would-be authors. One of whom should be due his five Nobel Prizes soon!
     
  9. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    It was OK before. You can 'extrapolate your imagination' all you want. The point remains that what you're imagining is absurd.
     
  10. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    Noted Declan. Let's see how it goes.
     
  11. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    There's something very real underlying that "abstract phase coordinate space", przyk. But let's talk about it some other time.

    I've criticized them till the cows come home. The clock stops. You can't eliminate that by changing the coordinate system.

    And again, when your light clock stops, you aren't going to be measuring any distance or time. We've spoken previously about the SR invariant spacetime interval being related to lightpath lengths. The lightpath length is zero.

    I'm saying there is a sense in which it's a fair depiction of a black hole. The black region is a hole in your metric.

    No problem. I was saying as such to James.
     
  12. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    Actually Walter, I think they'd die way before that. Check out Friedwardt Winterberg's firewall. If I were to drop an astronaut into a black hole, he would fall faster and faster and faster. But the coordinate speed of light gets lower and lower and lower as he approaches the black hole. Something's got to give. Pooof. At some point, I see a little gamma-ray burst. Well, quite a big one actually.
     
  13. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    All points noted, Undefined. I concur. Doubtless paddoboy will defend Hawking radiation to the death.


    The idea is that the pair have been created from vacuum energy. Spatial energy. Dark energy if you like. Outside the black hole. So if they both fall in the black hole grows.

    There are no negative-energy particles.

    It makes me want to forget Hawking radiation altogether.
     
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Farsight:

    There's not much point in arguing with you on this any further, as far as I can see.

    General relativity tells us that nothing special happens to the proper time of an observer falling into a black hole. The event horizon is a coordinate singularity, not a real singularity. Many alternative coordinate choices (other than Schwarzschild coordinates) remove the apparent singularity that occurs at the horizon. I can think of three commonly-used coordinate systems that have no singularity at the horizon, just off the top of my head. And I'm no expert.

    So, you can talk about people with heartbeats all you like. The fact remains that somebody falling into a black hole will have just as much of a regular heartbeat as those sitting outside at a safe distance. For the infalling observer, nothing obviously special happens at the horizon. In particular, that observer's clocks and heart go right on ticking as usual.

    If you have something that refutes any of this, then we might have something to discuss further. But if all you have is your assertions, I can't see that further discussion will be useful. I'll leave you to it.
     
  15. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    I have something that refutes it. But to convince you that it is refuted, I have to take it one step at a time. The first step is Time travel is science fiction. Read the OP, and indicate your agreement with it. It's very easy to agree with, it's all plain-vanilla mundane stuff. Then I give you the next step, which is more of the same.
     
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Farsight,

    I don't agree with the whole post you linked.

    For a start, I have a problem when you say something like "You can jump 1 metre, but you can't jump 1 second". The problem is that space and time aren't really separate. As you know, they are different aspects of spacetime, and are observer dependent. One observer's space is part of a relatively-moving observer's time, for example.

    I don't see how the linked post is relevant, though, unless you're trying to propose some "preferred" standard of motion.
     
  17. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    James: you should find yourself in agreement with the sense of the post. You really shouldn't have a problem with "You can hop forward a metre, but you can’t hop forward a second. And you can’t hop backward a second either." You and I might move relative to one another as per the twins. Then when we meet up our clock readings are different. But we meet up at the same time, regardless of our clock readings. You don't jump into the past. Time dilation is not time travel. And time travel is science fiction.

    The post is very relevant. You have to understand time, then the speed of light, then gravity, then black holes. And every step of the way you say, yes, I agree with that. You're left with the frozen-star black hole, and nowhere else to go. Any other position is untenable.
     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    The age difference when the twins meet up in the twin paradox is real. Do you agree?
     
  19. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Farsight, your example of hopping a meter or a second is flawed. In "reality" there is no difference. When one hops one meter, one must move across the spacial distance between the beginning and ending of that hop. The same is true for time. The change of location in space, during the hop of one meter, is associated with an equivalent change in time, as the hopper's location changes. The velocity of the change in location being the connecting variable.

    The only real difference is that, one can turn around and hop back in space, while being unable to change direction in time.

    Part of the difficulty is that "time" itself is an abstraction. It is a conceptual observation of change. Change does occur and it always occurs from the present to the future. Time is our way of conceptually providing meaning to the rate of change we observe.

    To answer, Paddoboy's question earlier, while space exists and is real and change exists and is real, spacetime is an abstract geometry which is real only to the extent that it describes, reality . . , meaning that which has either been experimentally proven or observed as occurring in the world, apart from the theoretical model.
     
  20. nimbus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    129
    For that try... Kruskal–Szekeres and Gullstrand–Painlevé.

    This threads going nowhere and Farsight is offering nothing new in respect of challenging the coordinates systems of Kruskal–Szekeres and Gullstrand–Painlevé.
    Those systems having no coordinate singularity anywhere except the central real singularity.
    Farsight has not shown anything new of which Kruskal, Szekeres and Gullstrand and Painlevé were not already aware of when they formed their systems.
    He is demonstrating his inability to understand an evolving GR.
     
  21. przyk squishy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,203
    This is repetition, Farsight. Not criticism. You're not actually criticising alternative coordinate systems because you never refer to how they are actually derived. You're instead dismissing them out of hand because you think the conclusion they show (that the clock isn't really stopped) contradicts what you believe (that the clock is stopped). Why should anyone believe the clock is stopped in the first place? You never explain that, and nor do any of the sources you link to.


    What does this have to do with what I said? My point was that you have an inaccurate appreciation of what a metric is. Certain aspects of the metric are measurable. Others, such as the metric components \(g_{\mu\nu}\) in a particular coordinate system, generally are not measurable.

    Saying the metric is "what you measure" is useless. That's so vague it could mean anything.


    What's the relevance of this? Also, the spacetime interval isn't just "related to lightpath lengths". In fact it's mainly defined for spacelike separated events, where it is generally nonzero.


    So how and where is this derived?
     
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    On this point Walter is wrong...Tidal gravitational effects would be virtually nil for a SMBH, due to a more gradual gradient of critical space/time curvature. One could theoretically approach, and cross the EH, with no slowing or stopping of time and nothing extraordinary happening...At least until a lot closer to the real Singularity.




    Hmmmm, Interesting.....I don't believe I have spoken of Hawking Radiation in this thread, I've been too busy refuting the nonsense you are posting about GR and BH's in general.
    But actually, quantum mechanical reasoning, does support Hawking Radiation, and I also see it as quite viable and a logical outcome.




    You have nothing but more delusions of grandeur and unsupported claims.
    If you did have anything of any substance, that invalidates SR/GR, you would not be here.
    Time travel also [as with the twin paradox] is theoretically possible, and in limited ways, we see it in particle accelerators and such.




    Realy? Are you serious? And the reason why you don't get all these aspects of reality peer reviewed is???? Oh yes, I know...the immovable stubborn nature of mainstream science.
    So, you are a conspiracy theorist also?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    You realize that if what you say you have was true [which it isn't] you would be a shoe in for next year's Nobel prize for physics?
     
  23. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    Of course. But you could achieve the same result a different way. Like this: twins born years apart.
     

Share This Page