QM + GR = black holes cannot exist

Farsight, it is difficult to resolve your problem qualitatively...you know the maths, but you are keeping it away, why ??

\frac{dt1}{dt2} =\sqrt{\frac{1-\frac{rc}{r1}}{frac{1-\frac{rc}{r1}}}

Some problem in formula display..It is actually

dt1/dt2 = Sqrt[(1-rc/r1)/(1-rc/r2)].

You know rc stands for EH radius in case of BH....With this where is the problem ?
proper time interval makes no qualitative sense for reference frame at or inside EH.

I have my own issues with BH, but this is not about BH, this is standard time variability in various frames.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You can say these things, but there is no evidence that these are claims based on evidence since you have not been able to answer specific questions about evidence.

Well, no, the evidence speaks against you knowing the appropriate mathematics.

• You once admitted to never reading Einstein's equations past the third page of his book on General Relativity.
• You once entered into a sort of numerology about the fine structure constant in which you repeatedly failed to appropriately take units of measurement into consideration.
• You started multiple threads on different forums asking for help working through some of the mathematics of special relativity. When people pointed out that some of your assumptions were incorrect, you abandoned the threads, seemingly never learning the mathematics.
  
• You have never answered a request to show the mathematics of even a simple model of your personal theories.

This is pretty good evidence that you can't do the mathematics.

Yes, you can occaisionally cherry-pick and cut-and-paste. But we can all see that you essentially made up a quotation from Einstein not two days ago.

Anyone who reads that all the way through will see that he thinks of gravitation as, "structural properties of the space - time continuum". Given that, when one makes an arbitrary decision about spacelike hypersurfaces this indicates the conditions of space.

It can certainly be, depending on our choice of spacelike hypersurfaces; one makes the distinction that the Bae artilce does so that one will not be confused, as you are, into thinking that there is one absolute space in which we should be describing the one-true physics.

If inhomogeneous space is the key to gravity, please show us an example of how inhomogeneous space causes an object to fall.

We both know that you will not do this because you cannot do this. Even you must realize this. Doesn't this prod you to try to learn physics?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If

If there is a distinction between curving space and curving space-time, how do each of these two distinction impact energy emerging from a gravitational field?

My guess is curved space only impacts the wavelength, while curved space-time impacts both the wavelength and frequency at the same time.

The analogy for the difference, is curved space is like a train passing with a Doppler shift that changes wavelength. The curve space-time is like train passing with Doppler shift for wavelength, plus the engineer is also changing the frequency of his whistle, by tweaking the knob.

If there is no difference in energy, space and space-time are the same, with space and space-time making time a passive addendum, even though it is active.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not avoiding it. It just hasn't come up, and it doesn't really explain anything. I thought tex worked here? It doesn't work on a preview, so let me try to show your expressions using John Forkosh's rendering service:

The problem comes when r2 equals rc . Then you're dividing by 1 minus 1 and the result is undefined.

Agreed. All a proper time interval is, is a measure of how much regular cyclical motion has been going on inside a clock. And at a place where the speed of light is zero, there isn't any.

I think the Schwarzschild expression says it adequately, and there's an obvious problem when r equals r0:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The time dilation goes infinite because the light clock stops. And like Moore said, the light can't get out because the light has stopped. And it hasn't just stopped for some distant observer. Put an observer in front of that clock at the event horizon, and he's stopped too. He doesn't see it ticking normally. You can't make a stopped clock tick by putting a stopped observer in front of it.

 

I'm not clear what you mean about energy emerging from a gravitational field. But if it's any use, there's an analogy that hopefully makes the curved spacetime/curved space distinction clear:

Imagine you're standing on a headland looking out to sea. You're gazing upon a flat calm ocean which is disturbed by one single wave coming towards you. After a while you appreciate that the path of this wave is curved, because the sea is inhomogeneous. There's an estuary on the left, so the water is denser on the right. That's like curved spacetime, wherein light curves when it traverses a region of space near a star. However look closely at the surface of the ocean where the wave is. It's curved. That's like curved space. It's just not the same thing as curved spacetime.

They just aren't the same I'm afraid. Curved spacetime is inhomogeneous space, curved space is curved space. Have a read of Inhomogeneous Vacuum: An Alternative Interpretation of Curved Spacetime. Also see The role of the potentials in electromagnetism by Percy Hammond, taking note of this: "We conclude that the field describes the curvature that characterizes the electromagnetic interaction".

We both know I've explained this on numerous occasions, in for example gravity works like this. You take note of the wave nature of matter and simplify the electron to light in a closed path, then simplify it further to a square path wherein only the horizontals bend downwards. Ergo the electron falls down and light is deflected twice as much as matter. Trivial.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes you have, as many more attuned to this facet of science have noted. You actually do all those things which is highlighted by the fact you deride one of the foremst experts on gravity/BH's
Time travel is not forbidden by the laws of physics and GR, and although far beyond any capability and technology we have today, is theoretically possible.

 

You have so much wrong and misinterpreted that its hard to know where to start.

Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself,
are doomed to fade away into mere shadows,
and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality.
~Hermann Minkowski


Perhaps, you should take the advice of your peers in this matter.

 

No I haven't. I'm the one explaining this stuff. You're the one clinging to nonsense like space is falling down. And despite the Minkowski quote, space is not what spacetime is. No matter how much you wish it.

Well it isn't. Go and read A World Without Time: the Forgotten Legacy of Gödel and Einstein, and stop all this clinging to popscience woo. Time is a dimension in the sense of measure, not in the sense of freedom of motion. Clocks "clock up" motion rather than the literal flow of time, you can't move through motion, and there is no such thing as negative motion. So whilst I can hop forward a metre, you can't hop forward a second. Which is why you will never hop backward a second. Time travel is on a par with heaven and hell and fairies and unicorns.

 

Duh! That's because we see it red shifted to infinity from any remote FoR, and of course from a local frame, everything passes through the EH as per normal.....From the local frame of anyone falling into a BH, there is no length contraction, no time dilation, no nuthin! One will then cross the EH, and then all paths lead to the Singularity region.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yeah sure!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I wont hold my breath though for you to get your Interpretation peer reviewed.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Now Farsight ol son, you are entitled to believe your nonsensical take on cosmology and GR, as erroenous as it is.
I actually see your claims you have made on this forum on a par with your ToE claims. Unsupported delusional rubbish.
Just as the good professor has alluded to

 

Thanks. Not sure how that has happened. Apologies to layman for the error.

 

As I explained previously, spacetime, curved or flat, is described using analogies....the stretched rubber sheet and bowling ball, the raisin loaf, the fish swimming upstream, etc.

The "space falling into a BH like a waterfall" is used to describe the scenario of a photon that is emmited just on the EH, directly radially away. In such a case, the photon is seen to hover forever, not quite secumbing to the escape velocity of the EH at 299,792,458 mtrs/sec, and not quite escaping at the absolute speed of light of 299,792,458 mtrs/sec.

In science Farsight, we all use analogies to describe certain situations and theoretical models...The trick though is to be able to recognise the limitations of those models.

 

that word is always the problem with these type of individuals.

 

Here's another example of an analogy, although its validity is questionable....

 

That maybe deserves its own thread Trippy. Note that those posters who have been following this theead will pick up on a few issues with the article. For example:

"Relying entirely on known scientific principles, the black hole appears to spin at nearly the speed of light..."

As Professor Moore said, light doesn't get out because the light is stopped. The speed of light is zero. So that spin at nearly the speed of light is a problem. As is warping space around the black hole. Because as per Baez, space isn't curved where a gravitational field is. Instead as per Einstein space is inhomogenous, in a non-uniform fashion, and we model this as curved spacetime.

Only Professor Moore told you the light can't out because it's stopped. And you know that you can't go faster than light. And that the force of gravity at some location relates to the local gradient in the coordinate speed of light. And that light can't go slower than stopped. Try thinking it through, for yourself, instead of clinging blindly to something you don't understand. Also check out what I said about Winterberg's firewall on the other thread.

 

Incredible. You have no reading comprehension at all. If you see something that doesn't fit into your popscience trash viewpoint, you misunderstand it, then report the author as having taken your point of view.

You should probably see a doctor.

 

OK, so on the one hand, we have every relativity textbook ever published, including Einstein's, that use curved spacetime (in the sense that a number of non-Euclidean geometries involving relationships between space and time form the basis for understanding kinematics central to the physical theory). On the other hand we have one reference Einstein made to inhomogeneous space in one public lecture (where Einstein later referenced the standard equations of spacetime) and Farsight's dogmatic insistence that this is the one true relativity theory.

The textbooks have physics applications. Farsight has...? Can you do a physics application with inhomogeneous space, Farsight?

 

What Prof Moore says:

"The argument presumes that the light signal does not "slow down," but what exactly does that mean? An observer at rest relative to the star will always measure the outgoing light signal to have speed c *locally,* (that is, as the flash passes through a laboratory that is very small compared to scale over which spacetime is locally curved), but to talk about the speed of a signal emerging from the planet's surface and going all the way to infinity, one needs a *global* coordinate system (one that applies at all positions in spacetime, such as the Schwarzschild coordinate system) to talk about the signal's speed at various points. An observer using such a coordinate system will find that the light flash will move *slower* than c close to the planet's surface than it does at at infinity. This does not contradict the previous results, because time runs more slowly for observers close to the planet's surface than for those higher up, so what looks like something moving with speed c to an observer close to the surface looks like something moving slower to someone whose clock is running faster.

As the planet's mass approaches the black hole limit, the signal emitted from the surface will seem to move more and more slowly away from the surface (and will also be seen to be increasingly red-shifted as observed from infinity). When the surface of the planet coincides with the black hole's event horizon, the signal will stop moving outward from the surface (and the redshift observed at infinity will go to infinity). So light no longer escapes.

This also does not contradict the statement about an observer at rest on the surface seeing the signal to have speed c, because as event horizon moves beyond the planet's surface, that surface can no longer remain at rest, but in fact must go to r = 0 in a finite time (as measured by an observer on the surface), just as surely as the past must go towards the future. Even then, an observer on the surface will *still* see the light moving outward at speed c, but from the perspective of the global coordinate system, it is simply that the observer is falling faster toward r = 0 than the signal is.

To understand all this fully, I strongly recommend that the questioner take a course in general relativity!"


Again, it appears you are putting words into people's mouth.
Everything Prof Moore has said, you have mangled and misinterpreted.
Again, what Farsight needs to consider is FoR's.

 

I'm not really too sure how fast a BH can spin, but I do remember something [as discussed by Thorne in his book, BH'S and Time Warps] about the Kerr metric and ergosphere and EH.

I have found this supporting my vague memory.....
http://www.universetoday.com/109308/how-fast-do-black-holes-spin/
where it says in part.....
"One black hole, at the heart of galaxy NGC 1365 is turning at 84% the speed of light. It has reached the cosmic speed limit, and can’t spin any faster without revealing its singularity"