QM + GR = black holes cannot exist

I really hate not being able to EDIT and as Bruce mentioned I sometimes have issues with the iPad's spelling correction.

In the above post it should have read, "discussed in this press release from 1999,"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

yeah, that made me actually want to vomit.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

RJ, Prof. Andrew Hamilton's reply to your thought experiment:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Whoever said that is ignorant to a fault.

They proved that 'on tv' during the Apollo project. You'd think they'd seen that during kindergarten class.

 

You don't sound like a broken record. You sound a bit like Sherlock.

 

It's frustrating. There should be a way to shut it off. For science topics it's a mess.

 

Wow, and you want to talk about gravitation. LOL. You must be a juvenile delinquent having ditched high school so much.

 

They did the experiment on the moon during the Apollo project. There's probably a YouTube video somewhere in Internet land. RJBerry must have flunked kindergarten for prospective 'natural philosophers'.

 

Scott and Irwin were the two Astronauts, but I'm not sure which one dropped the hammer and feather.

 

So if you drop a bowling ball while weighing yourself the scale will read heavier, not lighter. At least until impact, and then you get lighter?

 

Not easy to write up a large post when I know I won't be able to edit it. Regardless, here it is...

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

1. Of course not.

2. Depends on which model we're discussing. If we're talking about the "commonly accepted" model, the golf balls enter the event horizon which then grows.

3. Because the definition of the event horizon is such that anything outside of it can escape, in theory. If it can be seen then it can escape (in theory).

4. Again, depends on which model we're discussing. "Commonly accepted" model of GR says the EH grows as matter passes through it. I'm claiming this does not happen.

5. No in any way.

6. The contradiction, for the 10th time, is that the commonly explained description of the GR black hole grows as matter passes into it, yet GR also claims that matter never passes through the event horizon.

7. In MY model, yes, at the center of mass. The Schwarzschild "radius" is simply R=0. There is no contradiction here; matter is gradually "slowed" via time dilation as it approaches the center. It's not like matter all piles up in a giant 2-dimensional wall, even in the traditional explanation of GR.

 

Russ, you've already agreed with me that my description of the currently-accepted explanation of black holes in GR leads to a contradiction. As you can see, your resolution was incorrect, and that what I stated is true. I don't expect you to publicly recant, but I hope you can at the very least acknowledge to yourself that it makes it difficult to accept rationally.

 

Tashja, thanks so much for reaching out to some experts. Unfortunately, Professor Hamilton's explanation is not elucidating to me. The problem is that, in my experience, analyses of black holes always seem to start with their pre-existence. I've not found any literature on their genesis.

As Prof. Hamilton states, we can think of the golf balls as "gravitationally lensing the underlying black hole so that it appears to grow bigger", but you cannot magnify a point! Additionally, his ray-traced visualization link is certainly wonderful, but you will notice that, again, it begins with a pre-existing black hole.

 

Sorry guys, I didn't mean/expect for that to lead us off track. It was just an example.

The math here is pretty straightforward, but what matters is accepting the concept. Newton's equation for gravitational force is:

f=GmM/r^2

Where:
f = force
G = gravitational constant
m = mass 1
M = mass 2
r = radius (distance from center of object)

Deriving graviational acceleration goes like this:

f/m = GM/r^2

Substitute f=ma (a=f/m):

a = GM/r^2

So if you plug in the earth's radius and mass, you get 9.81 m/s^2. That's the part that everyone agrees with. For example, paddoby's explanation, above.

But you are missing the other half of the problem. Gravitational attraction is mutual so the same force acts on both objects. Earth pulls down on that bowling ball with a force of 16 lb, which means the bowling ball pulls up on the earth with a force of 16 lb. So the bowling ball (and the feather) also accelerates objects toward it. Yes, that force/acceleration is vanishingly small (and therefore impossible to prove experimentally for a bowling ball, feather and earth), but it still exists. For larger objects it matters a lot: it causes the objects to wobble when they orbit their common center of mass instead of the simplified explanation that considers the larger of the two objects to be stationary. The moon orbiting the Earth causes the earth to wobble by thousands of miles, for example. This principle is how many exoplanets are discovered.

 

Frankly, I'm pretty disappointed by you and others on this issue.

 

I laughed because I thought you'd posted empty. I don't see the link in a different color from the surrounding text.

Still no independent assessment except for rpenner's confirmation of my assertion, so no apology.

 

Could you please link to your assertion? Because the wording of the "challenge" you issued to me was laid out pretty clearly in the other thread.