Is this 'Einstein' transforming away the r=2m singularity.

I know how to read and can interpret correctly and logically. Hawking and no one else has invalidated HR as yet, nor has anyone claimed to do so in any video.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You are repeating nothing but what you have falsely fabricated in your mind like Farsight.
As at least two others have noted in another thread, the question is either you are just ignorant of the data, and don't have the required skill to absorb, or you are just playing games.
ps: Farsight for your information has also claimed to have a TOE, which if it were true, would have him up for the Nobel Physics prize.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Can I try for an SR equivalence of velocity difference and gravitational potential difference?
Would it help?
Regardless...
I'm going to to use U for the potential difference and v for the velocity.

We know the gravitational potential difference between point A and point B is the work done moving unit mass from A to B.
We know (high school)
Potential Energy = mgh where h is the height difference, g is 'gravity' and m is the mass of the donkey (or whatever)
Newton tells us a mass in a g field acquires a velocity \(v^2=2gh\)
So the velocity equivalent of gravitational potential is
\(U={v^2}/{2}\)
or
\(2U={v^2}\)
The Equivalence Principle?
Should work?
In particular...
\(sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)\)
should be equivalent to
\(sqrt(1-2U/c^2)\)
and even more relevant...
If Farsight has problems with gravitational potential and the speed of light then he also has problems with SR (flat space) and the speed of light which kinda drops him out of the relativity loop until this is resolved.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah, but it keeps coming up, and I'm pretty sure there must be a good reason.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Neither is math a "revealed truth" in any sense that any other symbolic language is, rpenner. It's just less ambiguous, most of the time. It has gaping holes in understanding, which is required for it to maintain a semblance of consistency, and which you routinely demonstrate.

Farsight is rarely moderated off of the other dozens of science forums he frequents under his real name, I have noticed.

Be that as it may, strictly speaking the conversation is beginning to wander from the r=2m singularity of the OP, so let the thread commence without pseudoscience or alternative theories.

As far as I am concerned, any conversation involving wormholes belong there permanently.

 

Math is, at the level being applied in GR, logic about quantities and generalized smooth concepts of space and time and therefore motion. Reality is captured in observation of phenomena. Physics is about modeling the behavior of reality with math and then comparing that math to reality to see if there is a good match. This process will never reveal what reality is, but it will tell us to high precision what reality does. What reality has been observed to do has been, to date, consistent with logic about quantities and generalized smooth concepts of space and time. That's physics.

Dozens? Then he loses nearly nothing if we kick him off here. But my plan was just to encourage him to learn General Relativity to a point where he stops misstating its central premises. Any alternate route to having him stop misstating GR here would be acceptable to the forum, but is suboptimal globally.

I believe traversable wormholes are highly speculative topics in GR absent large amounts of exotic matter with properties unlike any observed, while quantum physics suggests wormholes may be ubiquitous at scales we cannot presently probe by experiment or observation, so again, more than a little speculative. But I don't see why one can't discuss them while remaining scientific.

 

This is why I like you, rpenner.

And, yes, Farsight discusses such things in many obscure and interesting places.

 

The main reason wormholes even began in science fiction is because of the Einstein-Rosen paper. At the end of the paper, which someone linked earlier here, it says that they did not add any assumptions or anything to the theory in order to make this prediction. A lot of the naysayers against it claim that spacetime isn't an actual thing, but if waves can ripple through it, then it is not far off from it being able to warp in this fashion as well under GR. In other words, if it can be proven to be able to ripple, then it can warp as well, and that is what was supposedly proven by the gravitational wave experiment.

I think it mostly got its bad wrap in the early days, because there was a need for anti-gravity to make it work, according to other physicist at the time. Then the Einstein-Rosen paper claims there is no need for anti-gravity. It also influenced people to think that there could be a negative universe created at the moment of the big bang for some of the same reasons, where physical laws would just have the opposite sign in the other universe. Then those theories are most likely not that legitimate.

If GR is 100% correct, then wormholes should be able to exist from large electric charges and black holes with a rapid spin, according to the paper. Physicist like to think that GR is 100% correct, but then they shun the idea of wormholes. None of those people have shown why the Einstein-Rosen paper is wrong. Personally, I just think that people are not ready for it. We just passed a generation where scientific understand has overcame peoples ideological religious beliefs. To tell them that those scientific understanding as lead them back to a world, commonly made up sci-fiction fantasy, would just be too much for them to be able to comprehend. The world still isn't ready to seriously discuss something Einstein figured out over half a century ago.

 

Things don't ripple through spacetime: Spacetime itself is rippling, just as it is warping and curving and twisting in the presence of mass/energy.
And in that respect, it is indeed real.

Wormholes are a prediction of GR, but as yet have not been evidenced either directly or indirectly and so remain speculative.

GR is certainly a correct theory within its known parameters, but no theory yet is all encompassing.
On your last sentence, the world is not ready for what? Wormholes?? I like the idea, and as I said they are allowed for within the equations of GR, but as yet must remain speculative, just as gravitational waves remained speculative until the Hulse-Taylor discovery.

 

I am glad you were able to clear that up for yourself. Are you using a translator to read these forums or something? I don't know why you are still arguing with me on everything I say, even though you take the same position on the topic. You seriously need a psychiatrist if English is your first language. I really don't know what to do or how to talk to someone that has an actual case of Dunning Kruger or some other form of mental illness.

There should be something against people in the forum rules about people that disagree with everything you say, but they then always tell it to you in a way were they are actually agreeing with you, which implies you said something you did not. If paddoboy doesn't have a mental illness, then he is just clearly trying to sabotage the validity everything I say at this point. That is the only way this could not be intellectual dishonesty at this point.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Wow! The truth must hurt my friend, since most of what you suggest obviously concerns yourself, as others have noted.
Let me reiterate....nothing ripples through spacetime....it is spacetime that is rippling itself, OK?

I'll stand by the judgement of our peers on this forum re the incorrectness of your many claims over the last few weeks, just as you will my friend.

 

It was once believed that the wavelike properties of light was caused by the rippling of an aether, but this theory was abandoned after the Michelson-Morley experiment. Then the experiment that detected gravitational waves doesn't make exactly this same claim. The experiment assumes that matter (or everything) ripples, as space ripples through it. Then if space ripples, everything ripples (including the experiment). Maybe that is why you got confused on the wording of my explanation, since you don't claim to not understand English or have any mental illnesses. Just in case, you should know that Windows 10 allows you to translate from any language now for things on the internet...

 

What you said.....

And that is as wrong and as false as when you said that Hawking had withdrawn his Hawking radiation theory, and a few other gross mis-statements by yourself also exist. Insult all you like my friend, but I suggest they all apply to yourself, and moderation may take effect although at this stage I have not reported you.
You know what made Einstein great? Besides his great intuition and SR/GR, his ability to admit when he was wrong and his humility also.
Quite a few here need to take that aboard.

 

The above is just another example of a gross mis-statement by yourself earlier in the thread...shall I go on?

 

Sounds like you didn't get that memo which said how the gravitational wave experiment was going to detect gravitational waves. I thought I had already explained this in the other thread about the gravitational wave experiment. It was assumed that one of the beams would be shorter if a ripple in spacetime went through the experiment, since they are perpendicular to each other. In order for one of the beams to be shorter, a ripple in spacetime would have to shorten the experiment. Therefore, a ripple in spacetime changed the length of the experiment (which was solid).

 

You are just giving more examples of the severity of your Dunning-Kruger disease. I see nothing wrong with them, besides your misinterpretation of what I typed.

 

Is that the best you can do layman?
You need to look at your own wording and cease being so emotional because someone picks you up on an error, as you have been picked up on so many in this thread so far by not only myself but at least two others.
Your problems surfaced early in this thread with your apparent ignorance of frames of references and it continues.
Sure, when gravitational radiation passes through an object as it did in the experiment, the object will follow those same undulations, peaks and troughs in the gravitational radiation.....
And let me further remind you, that even though you have been shown to be wrong in the other areas I noted in this thread, not once have you acknowledged that error....That isn't the sign of a good teacher.
You seem remarkably familiar with this Dunning-Kruger disease...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

When I said, "but if waves can ripple through it", I was referring to spacetime. In this sentence, "it" refers to spacetime. When I said, "A lot of naysayers against it claim that spacetime isn't an actual thing", the word "it" is referring to the Einstein-Rosen wormhole theory. Then you shouldn't think that the word "it" refers to the same thing in this sentence, because a "theory rippling" would be complete nonsense. Then you should assume that the word "it" refers to two different things here, so it makes logical sense, not irrationally false statements all the time. It is the only way you can begin to mask your Dunning-Kruger illness and become able to effectively cope with society...

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Like I said, you appear close to this Dunning-Kruger disease......
What you said.......
Layman said: ↑
A person couldn't fall into a black hole and not fall into a black hole at the same time from two different frames of reference.
And I corrected you, and yet you still fail to see the error in your thinking.
Again, It's to do with frames of references......
If we, you and I, were on a ship approaching a BH, and we stopped out at a safe distance, say more than 3 Schwarzchild radius, and you left me and proceeded to take the shuttle to the BH itself, you would proceed as per normal without any noticeable effects, [ignoring tidal gravitation] firstly you would not really be able to distinguish the BH's EH from the rest of spacetime, secondly, you would eventually cross it onto your one way trip to the singularity at the center..........That's one frame of reference and it is totally real!
But! from my frame watching you, as gravitational time dilation takes hold the more you approach the EH, I would see the light you were emitting being gradually red shifted further and further along the spectrum, as you got closer and closer to the EH.....also obviously I would see the photons being emitted slower and slower as you approached. In time you would gradually fade from the viewing capabilities of my 'scope, before I ever saw you as "stopped"or as having crossed the EH: That is another frame of reference just as valid and as real as your own frame of reference...

 

Yes and that is wrong. So welcome again to your friend/s Dunning and Kruger: You seem quite taken by them.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Waves don't ripple through spacetime: It is spacetime doing the rippling.
What you should have said to convey your thoughts sensibly is "As spacetime ripples"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Although certainly not as wrong as saying
"A person couldn't fall into a black hole and not fall into a black hole at the same time from two different frames of reference".

 

deleted