Gravitational Time Dilation

And no, I'm not demeaning the electrical trade. I don't demean any job description at all, nor generally any person. But it is necessary to show you up for what you are.......
a pretentious arrogant individual, with an inflated ego like all our alternative pushers, who is unable to admit any error whatsoever.
Sadly, that is what you are.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thats perfect, but the question is have you understood it ?? I am afraid you have not, for this you must understand what are linear equations and non linear equations. Red color statement deserves to be taken cautiously by those who do not understand the deeper meaning......it cannot be taken literally.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thats ok, thats a routine stand.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

BH with singularity is indeed a fairytale. Fairytales are integral part of mankind, once set extremely difficult to go.

 

Sure I have,
And you now have two questions you are avoiding to answer
[1] Supply any link or any statement that supports any of your views.
[2] Explain to me how any BH is able to hold its shape since no signal can ever travel outwards to any EH?

 

No, the singularity does exist where GR breaks down, at the quantum/Planck level. A QGT should reveal that.

 

Sascha's comments there were somewhat difficult to decipher, but once decoded, overall quite consistent with his less enigmatic ones, which were linked to in that same thread. And you can find them just as easily, but to save a 70-odd year old the trouble, they are given in #66 here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/black-hole-not-so-black.142702/page-4#post-3253852
Together with a better perspective on Markus Pössel's comments earlier made. And btw how come you never bothered to include Peter Donis - who indeed backs my pov? Not that I care for a vote of hands. That's something which impresses the likes of you. That and nice flashy animations - you know - space 'waterfalls' and the like.

As for Rovelli and Unruh - well one has first to accept the physical reality of 'self-gravitating' GW's, or 'fossil field' BH's. If you do so, and it must be done purely 'on faith', it should be in the knowledge such directly contradicts the EFE's where curvature = SET (exclusive by definition of 'gravitational energy density').
I cannot and will not be held accountable for the contradictions of members of a weird Hegelian dialectic cult. Or for the continued rantings of a mindless worshiper of such. Who against continued admonitions, continues to think that SHOUTING louder and longer in bolded text somehow wins the argument. Really a sign of mental and moral impairment.

 

You know my stand on BH...You do the explaining for above statement.................I challenge, You can't ??

you are unnecessarily trolling all the threads on cosmology (even maths/physics) without understanding an iota of the subject.

 

Thought so.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It's simply because gravity/spacetime is non linear.

I believe the powers that be here certainly know who's trolling, and I believe in time, you and your ilk will be judged.

 

Yep, and they certainly did not invalidate the nonlinearity of gravity/spacetime.

Yep again, but remember, I'm there, you have yet to get there. ;( Best of luck in that endeavour.

Of course you don't!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And once again, I dont believe any of the authorities backed your view totally.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411060
abstract:
This paper presents an under-appreciated way to conceptualize stationary black holes, which we call the river model. The river model is mathematically sound, yet simple enough that the basic picture can be understood by non-experts. %that can by understood by non-experts. In the river model, space itself flows like a river through a flat background, while objects move through the river according to the rules of special relativity. In a spherical black hole, the river of space falls into the black hole at the Newtonian escape velocity, hitting the speed of light at the horizon. Inside the horizon, the river flows inward faster than light, carrying everything with it. We show that the river model works also for rotating (Kerr-Newman) black holes, though with a surprising twist. As in the spherical case, the river of space can be regarded as moving through a flat background. However, the river does not spiral inward, as one might have anticipated, but rather falls inward with no azimuthal swirl at all. Instead, the river has at each point not only a velocity but also a rotation, or twist. That is, the river has a Lorentz structure, characterized by six numbers (velocity and rotation), not just three (velocity). As an object moves through the river, it changes its velocity and rotation in response to tidal changes in the velocity and twist of the river along its path. An explicit expression is given for the river field, a six-component bivector field that encodes the velocity and twist of the river at each point, and that encapsulates all the properties of a stationary rotating black hole.

The more appropriate sign of mental impairment, are fools that go on and on with their bullying tactics, calling people cowards and what not, when in reality they are looking into a mirror, and really need to take an anger management course before it's too late.
Finally to finish, there's two people on this forum, I thank fuck that I don't live next door to. Happily, you're one of them.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Hope it all works out OK.

 

Wow !! BH is able to hold on to its shape because Gravity/spacetime is non linear !! That is Paddoscience.....by the way what is the shape of a BH ??

Since Newtonian Gravity math (repeat math) is linear, so ideally poor Earth where Newtonian Gravity is very much sufficient to explain should not be able to hold on to its shape / size / spacetime / whatever ??

See the mockery of Physics, one man without understanding what is linearity and non linearity is trolling and invoking the silent mods for others....

 

Who ever claimed otherwise? Hearing voices in the head? Non-linearity, as Sascha pointed out, is not to be conflated with field self-gravitation. Such things escape you - always.

Then be strong - real strong - in your private beliefs paddoboy. Doing that may even see you to 80!
No juice left in this typically train-wrecked thread worth squeezing.

 

Again do you ever think about the comments you quote?

Interpretation... As long as you don't confuse the usefulness, with the idea that it represents a source of gravity!

paddoboy, you read almost everything.., already knowing what you think they are saying. Most of the expert discussions on this issue are restricted to theoretical speculations about the nature of spacetime. IOW they require that one first accept a specific conceptual interpretation of just what spacetime curvature is.., without any specific definition of what it is, apart from the math... No one has ever observed anything that suggests that any of the theoretical speculations you take as gospel, exists anywhere other than theoretical speculation. The experts understand that they are discussing theory.

 

Read it as you like OnlyMe. As I have told you before, the fact that theories the further they are supported over time, the more certain they become, is a point you appear to ignore.
Perhaps in your efforts to obtain the middle ground in all of this, and your frustrations with Rajesh and your decision not to question his illogical stance anymore, coupled with your own admittance that you have decided to be "hard" [

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

] on me, due to my posting style, is seeing you implementing that old adage we hear so much from fanatical religious and other anti science people...You know the one, "Ahaaa! but it's only a theory"


In the meantime, I have shown enough professional advice to support the concept of gravitational fossil fields and nonlinearity and the general acceptance of such in mainstream cosmology.

All the best in your new endeavour!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The mockery of physics is your own childish banter in comparing Earth to a BH where complete gravitational collapse has been undertaken according to the GR edict.
Again, a BH will hold its shape simply because firstly the gravity is a fossil field from the star from whence it collapsed and secondly the property of nonlinearity of gravity/spacetime.
This can be seen with the following definition of an "Eternal BH"
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/EternalBlackHole.html
A massless black hole which is a stable topological structure held together by the nonlinearity of its gravitational field.
And the following covers it fairly well also........
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/gravity_of_gravity
One reason why the physics of general relativity is much more difficult than that of Newton's theory of gravity or the theory of electrodynamicsis a property called non-linearity. In short, gravity can beget further gravity - where gravitational systems are concerned, the whole is not the sum of its parts.

Now once again, tell us why anyone should take the word of an Electrician who cannot even grasp the fact that once the Schwarzchild radius is reached, further collapse is compulsory, and invokes instead a BNS.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Hans Christian Andersen could not have done better!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And also in reality, perhaps you need to forget about any pretentious mathematical calcs etc when you attempt to answer any question or make one of your profoundly stupid claims, as Professor Bennett Link, showed yours maths as actually nothing more than a dog's breakfast.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I thought that might be the case. Good site.

 

The only voice I hear is your own emotional claptrap and whinging. Take a disprin and have a good lay down!

Like I said, I'm there, you've got to get there! and If I make it to 80 or otherwise, you have certainly given me cause to laugh. I pity your poor neighbours though.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Being a thread of Rajesh's there never was much juice, although you can take comfort in the fact that he appears right behind you. "cranks of a feather"and all that.

 

Intuitively I would have said no. I view energy as a dynamically active force, where IMO, gravity is a static (though causal) field of warped space which an objects must follow, but is not energetic in and of itself.

Is a bend in the road a form of energy, because it forces a car to change direction?

Perhaps I am just making a semantic argument. I tried looking it up and found multiple conflicting answers. But the only answer I have found that addresses the specific question:

Of course science does consider gravity as a one of the four fundamental forces.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html

 

That's an interesting paper on a specific analogue theory of gravity using GR as the basis. The part on the kerr metric gets a reference [267] in the Visser et al paper on analogue gravity models and what they're being derived to analyze.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0505065
Personally. I don't agree with the authors claim that it helps lay people understand GR. But it sounds good and could be generally true? Anybody can learn how to use the metric and figure out for themselves how GR works as a theoretical model. All I've come across are arguments over it without any discussion what an analogue theory is used for. Especially before I read any text on Relativity theory.

 

In the theory of general relativity the local spacetime curvature is made up with components of stress and energy, in all forms, and for the Einstein Field Equations it's the stress-energy tensor.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress–energy_tensor