QM + GR = black holes cannot exist

Yes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I hope I'm not one of them. I knew what you meant with the "two sentences" thing, but I just wanted to make sure Farsight re-read the third sentence.

Can't blame you at all...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If those comments on the Amazon site represent number of copies purchased... 5 to 7 copies, the rest of the print run was probably bought up by farsight. I understand you can now donate books to local libraries, OMG what a thought in this case

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I must say I have picked up the habit of repeating myself in posts on forums...do you mean me strawy?
just checked, that "two sentences" thing was aimed at farsight..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Farsight, No need for light to stop at the horizon, you know of lightcones, which I know you don't think of as 'real' things. They dont have to be real, since they just represent the path of light originating at a place, here the in-faller's frame.

See the link below, and notice what happens to the lightbeam's path (or sides of the cone) because of the curvature of spacetime near and at the horizon.

The light's path in the altered spacetime near the horizon is destined inwards, that also explains why, because of curvature, no light escapes from within the horizon.

Note to some... Time runs up the page on these diagrams, so that explains why a lightbeam 'shone' backwards also goes into the event horizon because of spacetime curvature in the region. Nowhere does the light have to stop.

THE LINK

 

I like you.

 

All from the reference points of external, remote FoR's.
Except, light [and time] are never seen to be stopped.
http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html


But obviously you don't like the spacetime/waterfall analogy.

Let me try a simpler approach.
The escape velocity of the surface of Earth is 12kms/sec.
If this is not achieved then any rocket will fall back to the surface or fall into orbit if matched.
Light that is emitted from just on the EH of a BH, but this side of it, will arc around and fall back to the BH and on into it to oblivion from the local FoR.
If that light is emitted directly radially away it will appear to be stationary with respect to a remote, external FoR. This is because the escape velocity at the BH's EH is "c" and light always travels at "c".
Or as I mentioned before, but which you seem to have missed.......
A fish swimming upstream at 10kms/hr in a stream flowing down at 10kms/hr, will from the FoR of someone on the bank, appear to be hovering in the stream, even though he is trying his hardest to make some progress.

It's that simple Farsight and is the reason that it is the mainstream view.
And until you can effectively show that your hypothesis is correct, [out of context references, misinterpretations and outright untruths is not counted] with some legitimate evidence, your speculative hypothesis is in reality just cesspool material.

I mean for light to "STOP" and time to "STOP" in someones local own FoR, beggars belief.
Would you also magically stop existing? In my opinion, that is what you are implying.

 

Nice post paddoboy. Very informative. Too bad it's wasted on deaf ears.
Professor Moore gives a very easy to understand description for those who haven't learned the math needed to do derivations of the physics [the stuff Farsight won't do]. As I've been repeating 'over and over' there are no preferred coordinates. Farsight has to believe the Schwarzschild global coordinates are preferred over local coordinates to continue on with the ignorant troll he's been propagating over the Internet.
The theory Einstein wrote down is a coordinate independent theory. GR is a local theory of gravity and all spacetime events are invariant when and where they occur. I think I read this in Kip Thornes great book that I know you've read. Einstein was pleasantly surprised that Schwarzschild was able to find his [the first] coordinate metric solution to the field equations of GR so soon after GR was published. Over the next century folks have been discovering other coordinate metric solutions to help in the investigation of the theory of gravity Einstein called General Relativity. Yet the theory Einstein wrote down is a coordinate independent local theory of gravity. A theory that didn't have any global coordinates for Farsight to prefer over the local physics.

 

I agree.

Is there someone who disagrees?

 

I'm confused why people are arguing over the speed of light...

The speed of light is NOT constant - it can be "frozen" even...

The speed of light IN A VACUUM (otherwise notated as C) is a universal constant (as far as we can test/prove/observe)

What's the confusion with this?

 

I'm utterly amazed that he cannot/will not see where he comes completely askew with regards to this.......
He seems to be completely forgoing the legitimacy of all FoR's or as you say, "no preferred coordinates".

 

The speed of light being constant was predicted by J C Maxwell, before Einstein. And it makes Einsteins's predictions right.

 

Farsight saying light is variable is so much his lie.

 

Why though... I mean, C is a pretty specific constant... the speed of light, in a vacuum, when not acted upon by an outside force (such as gravity)... it's not like we're arguing about the speed of gravitational attraction over mass or anything like that

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Even in the presence of a gravitational field, the speed of light in a vacuum still measures c locally. It's not as if we have to go to a place far from all gravitating bodies to measure c.

 

The speed of light measured in the local invariant frame is a constant. It's an invariant. That means everywhere it's measured locally, in the entire universe, it's an invariant c. When measured from remote coordinates it can vary and these measurements are coordinate dependent. The reason for this coordinate dependent measurement is because the tick rate between the remote observers clock and the clock at the shell where the remote coordinate speed of light is measured can vary. Both measurements are valid with one being invariant and the other coordinate dependent. When you derive the local speed of light from the local spacetime metric you get

dr_shell/dt_shell = 1 [c=1]

When it's derived from Schwarzschild remote bookkeeper [global] coordinates

dr/dt_bookkeeper = 1-2M [the remote bookkeeper speed of light]. A coordinate dependent observation. The coordinates 2M/r also represent the spacetime curvature component of the metric. This is where the remote coordinate speed of light is predicted to be zero

r=2M [the place where a lightlike separation between the external and internal spacetime of the black hole exists, the event horizon]

dr/dt_bkkpr = 1-2M/r = 1-2M/2M = 1-1 = 0 [this solution relies specifically on the coordinate r=2M.] This solution is coordinate dependent. Still has provided some interesting physics associated with the remote predictions and measurements.

As far as why folks are arguing about this is because 'somebody' keeps bringing up the same bullshit misinterpretations and saying that's what Einstein had in mind when he wrote down the theory. At the same time the forum doesn't recognize this as a serious form of flaming the members of this forum who rather procure scholarship over nonsense.

 

thing is brucep - a person is entitled to their opinions, no matter how wrong they may be

Not going to lie though... what you posted there kind of went over my head XD It's been a LONG while since I was in any science classes (and I was unable to take the physics class I so wanted to because I had an arsehole english teacher that flunked me on a final project that I couldn't complete because the requisite material wasn't available and he wouldn't let me change the topic of my project... and forced me to take two english classes my senior year)

 

I'm wondering if perhaps you are thinking of what happens to light inside a BEC. We could hypothesise that the inside of Farsight's gedanken black hole is made of some sort BEC, and that light apparently comes to a halt there, but then he said ''there's no more gravity,'' which cannot be true as light gravitates according to GR.

 

Science isn't about opinion. It's about the scientific method and scholarship. For Farsight it's about trolling the Internet with his misrepresentations about Einstein and the theory of general relativity. For me it's come to not bothering with this nonsense anymore. Out of sight out of mind. It's not over your head. The science says the local speed of light is an invariant c while the remote coordinate speed of light, predicted by the theory of general relativity, can vary. It's over Farsights head because he needs it to be that way to keep, keeping on.

I understand what the forums issue is but I've never been one to be respectful to folks who are disrespectful to me. Certainly not to those who find it convenient to lie about Einstein in a public science forum.

 

I was referring more specifically to lab tests:

http://io9.com/scientists-freeze-light-for-an-entire-minute-912634479

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130806111151.htm

By 'over my head" I meant that some of the variables and formulas you used are ones I'm not familiar with

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I could probably sit down, research them, and understand them, but from my current knowledge pool they don't mean much to me

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!