QM + GR = black holes cannot exist

Here.

I note that you said "an impossibly accurate clock" and bowling ball versus feather in a vacuum. The key that hasn't been addressed to my satisfaction is the "at the same time" part. Explain why that is crucial to your nitpicking.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's a good point Russ.

However, even though the mass of the bowling ball will have a greater affect on how much the earth falls towards the common center of mass, as long as they are dropped toward the earth side by side, their combined affect on the earth benefits both. Meaning any reduction in the distance of the fall is the same for both, the feather and the bowling ball.

As far as GR and classical physics is concerned the only issue is the fact that each object's inertia is proportional to its mass.., and they both hit the ground at the same time.

Unless, you drop the feather and the bowling ball toward the earth from sufficiently far away from eachother, that they pull the earth in different directions, as far as the earth is concerned it is the mass of both objects that is pulling on it.

Drop them from equal distances, at the same time, from opposite sides of the earth and you are right, the bowling ball will hit the ground first.

Any difference that may exist when they are dropped side by side, would be like debating the difference between 1 and 0.999...

Even if you were dealing with more massive objects, unless you separate them by sufficient distance from oneanother, that they pull the earth in two separate directions, the results would be the same.., or within that margin of error described as the difference between 1 and 0.999...

I think your point would be of more significance if the issue were the fundament character of inertia itself, but that would seem to me to be an issue for QM, which has not yet been successfully addressed. For the case discussed here, I don't think it would apply for any test masses, unless you change the distance between the objects being dropped.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So "vanishingly small" takes care of the "impossibly accurate clock". Given that, I'll offer a vanishingly small apology.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"Impossibly accurate clock" for Galileo's time. We certainly have the ability to measure the difference of thousandths of seconds today, which was the difference between the golf ball and the bowling ball I laid out in my thread actually relating to this subject. Why this discussion isn't being carried on over there, I'm not sure.

That being said, apologies on this forum are "impossibly rare" so I tip my hat to you, Dr_Toad.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Thank you very much. My hat appears to be attached to my avatar, damn it.

 

Why's that? What issue are you referring to? The issue where you want to convince the crank that his analysis is bogus for the umpteenth time or the issue where the same crank show's how clueless he is for the umpteenth time when he claims different objects fall at different rates in a vacuum?

 

Have you had a chance to look at my thread on Galileo? http://www.sciforums.com/threads/galileo-was-technically-wrong.142700/

If you have an issue with the math please let me know what it is.

 

You're welcome, RJ. I've got another one for you.

 

[QUOTE="Prof Dolan]Once the matter becomes compacted enough for an event horizon to form an observer at infinity will never see a golf ball actually cross the event horizon[/QUOTE]

Thanks again Tashja. While this is at the very least consistent with my understanding of the currently accepted explanation, I continue to fret about it. If the event horizon has "formed", what is it composed of? If we can see the golf balls arbitrarily near R=0, and can do so for eternity, are we not receiving information, for eternity, from the region near R=0? What about when the supposed event horizon has reached a thousand light-years in radius? We continue to see the golf balls near R=0 but their image has been pushed to the event horizon boundary?

I'm not really asking these questions to anyone in particular, I'm describing why I have a difficulty accepting the current explanations. Clearly, no one who frequents this forum will have any satisfactory answers and it appears that experts in the field have come to accept the standard explanations at face value.

 

The math is juvenile nonsense. You chose to pick values to do the calculation and get the arithmetic you want. A better way to check if this is real natural phenomena is to run experimental tests rather than relying on contrivance calculations from somebody as clueless as you're with respect to physics in general.

http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae6.cfm

Galileo is wrong? Don't think so. Science has been checking this since it was first known. Why don't you EVER check to see what you're saying doesn't wind up with your foot in mouth? When are you going to use your math prowess to check out why they're no preferred coordinate systems? Why I'm actually right about that and your analysis never is? In this thread you, once again, quote mine a serious analysis to support your erroneous pov. At least that was interesting with respect to actual content. Doesn't have anything to do with verifying your analysis.

 

I explicitly analyzed objects dropped separately, while your link says:

If you feel I have somehow cherry-picked the arithmetic could you please specifically point to the area of contention?

 

Bullshit. Nothing within 1.5 Schwarzchild radius can ever escape the EH of a BH, except for light itself.

You can claim all you like.....You are wrong.

A deliberate dishonest misinterpretation of the situation, so often used by God Botherers and other cranks.
Whether matter passes through the EH, depends on the FoR.

 

There's years of experimental evidence which show your CALCULATED analysis is juvenile. Surely you're going to continue to believe you have a clue. Regardless what anybody else has to say or show you. LOL.

 

Hi Bruce, if you continue to have a problem with my analysis of Galileo could you please indicate which part of the math you have a problem with? Preferably in the appropriate thread. Thanks

Surely you don't believe that a black hole would take 1.4 seconds to fall to Earth from a distance of 10 meters?

 

This is false.

 

No its not.
At 1.5 Schwarzchild radius is where light can orbit a BH.
Anything closer then this, would need to be going faster then "c"
Do you know of anything that exceeds "c" [other then spacetime]

 

your juvenile analysis makes a prediction which has been experimentally falsified many times over many experiments. So I don't need to bother with any further problems with your analysis. You should figure it out for yourself and in the process actually gain some scholarship from learning what's wrong with your juvenile analysis. Or as you will do: nothing that could possibly conflict with what you think the science is.

For the earth falling into a Schwarzschild black hole, along the radial path, GR predicts

dr_shell/dt_shell = (2M_meter/r)^1/2 (Just like Newton)

For the case of a solar mass M_meter = 1477m

r = 2M+10m = 2964m

= (2954m/2964m)^1/2

dr_shell/dt_shell = .998311665 (c=1)

You figure out dt for the 10 meters from 2964m to r=2M.

Guess what the coordinates dr_shell/dt_shell are coordinates you think are non preferred. They're local Schwarzschild coordinates. Pretty sure something traveling that fast will cross 10m faster than 1.4 seconds. LOL. Where did you get that figure of 1.4 seconds? Probably some bullshit analysis. Keep in mind that you brought this to this thread.

 

*than

A simple radial path would require an escape velocity < c outside of the Schwarzschild radius. I determined long ago that you have no knowledge of interest to me.