Translational Motion of Black Hole

??

OnlyMe has taken up with you rightly.........You clarified your position in the past, that you do not look at the threads here from the authoritative position about the content, thats fair enough and respected. But that means, your assertion that the OPs have been answered with great answers is not based on facts. More importantly, kindly take the help of a Mod who understands the subject, you will realize that although my stand is non conformist but this member Paddoboy's stand is outright shallow, displaying complete lack of understanding beyond basics. You have given fuel to him by making such observation, may be you would like to correct. And yes, I may appear argumentative, but then you should look at these theories from a neutral point of view, and you will realize the shear bull dozing or convenient/untenable explanations after explanations.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thanks for putting this on record.......albeit belatedly.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Paddoboy,

On saner tone...

The professor clearly says that Non Linearity is a mathematical term.....It is not a property of BH.

Your continued insistence that non-linearity property of BH is the answer to OP, makes no sense in the light of above response by the Prof as posted by you only.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That more or less sums up the Paradox in the OP....Thanks.

 

Reference to Planck's time was just to refer about the possible work in the direction of treating Tp as least possible discrete value of time.......

The different rates of 'flow of time' is beyond my comprehension and befuddles me, so you must define the word 'time' used here.

 

My quote in response to Paddoboy..

Schmelzer quote in response to Paddoboy..

If some theory fails at point X or region A, then it fails.......You can't say its failing here and passing there.

So either our interpretation of theory at X or A, is incorrect, or the theory itself requires to be dumped or improvised.

 

The problem is that if a theory is false, it does not mean that it has to be dumped. It is an open scientific problem to find a better one. But until a better one is found, the best available is used. And even after this the old theory may be used as an approximation.

 

Fair enough....I used the word improvised too (along with dumped)...

 

Highlighted part not even wrong - pure gibberish. Exterior Schwarzschild metric uses coordinate space and time by definition (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric) and is the only coordinate chart ending at r = 2M. 'Schwarzschild local proper coordinates' is intrinsically oxymoronic and has no meaning.

 

Your continued denial and misinterpretation of what is said is juvenile to say the least.
Now read his whole post, and take it i conjunction with fossil fields and the fact that your BNS has been thoroughly invalidated from day one.

 

Obviously that is certainly the way any of our alternative hypothesis pushers would like to view it, but facts tell a different story.
GR is an overwhelmingly supported and evidenced theory that has stood to all tests thrown its way.
Like Newtonian that has taken us to the Moon and probes to the solar systems edge, meeting with four planets within the one journey, they all are correct within their known zones of applicability.
Just to clarify once again, obviously you need your ego boosted after many failures on this forum. But you also need to realise that whatever you say here, or anyone for that matter, matters not to the accepted mainstream cosmology academia..... You know the ones at the coal face doing the research....the ones with the PhDs and the access to the many state of the art probes that formulate and modify theories based on proper observations and much data.
They are the ones making the discoveries, they are the ones theorising based on the observations and data. They are the ones revealing the Universe to all and sundry.
You and I Rajesh are just simply onlookers, despite what your ego tells you.

 

Who is talking about BNS ??

Edit: After seeing Paddo Wink, who is talking about BNS here on this thread ??

 

You are. nudge, nudge, wink, wink!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The problem is that there is no problem.
Newtonian has its domain of applicability, and GR has even larger domains with more precision.
A QGT will extend that without making GR wrong.

 

.....

Where did you get this beauty from ?? Its all dreamworld as on date.

 

The only dream world is the one you occupy sonny.
Like I said, the only individuals that infer GR is wrong, or that Newtonian is wrong are our alternative hypothesis pushers.
We use Newtonian extensively and would be Idiots if we were using a wrong theory wouldn't we?
Any more modification you see that mainstream physics should undertake Rajesh?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I knew that 20 years ago dip shit. All you're doing is trolling. Idiotwind.

 

It is very clear that you are not an educated person.

If at all you are one, then you are extremely frustrated, may be some one did some injustice to you, you got shunted out, and still not able to reconcile with your fate....grow up, stop drinking and get back to work, your remaining days will be brighter, otherwise you are pushing yourself to an unending deep dark hole. I can only sympathize at your condition.

 

Matter or energy that is in proximity to other matter or energy experiences different rates of time dilation.

Of course, this will be a trivial amount. It adds weight to this argument when you know for certain that time is something that is infinitely divisible, doesn't it?

 

You're pathetic ignorant.

Trolling the ignorance you've been darkening the forums doorstep with tells everybody what an ignorant fool you are Rajesh. I took you off ignore to give you that answer. But alas we all know why you're posting here. To troll ignorantly. Goofball intellectually dishonest troll. Back to ignore. If I was your employer and found out you cited your employer on that ignorant paper you published I'd fire you on the spot. For involving your employer in your willful ignorance.