QM + GR = black holes cannot exist

Thanks tashja. I have to say the above answer is wrong. I can only presume it was something off-the-cuff for the wrong audience. Spacetime curvature, not spatial curvature, is associated with the tidal force, not the force of gravity. Tidal force relates to the second derivative of potential, and it isn't detectable in the room you're in. The force of gravity relates to the first derivative of potential, and there's no problem detecting your pencil falling down. See this black hole article for something about the "spacetime tilt" we've spoken about previously. In flat spacetime all the light cones are vertical, in curved spacetime they tip over towards the star. They're more tipped over closer to the star where the force of gravity is higher. The force of gravity relates to the degree of tipping or tilt. You need spacetime curvature to get this tilt, but the pencil falls down because of the tilt, not the curvature. The steeper the tilt, the greater the acceleration.

PS: At least he didn't say it's because space is falling inwards towards the centre of the Earth.

Nimbus: my previous comments stand. Everything you're quoting dates from 2006.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Acceleration has the units of d/t/t (d t t) whereas space-time is d t. Where does the extra unit of time come from, since acceleration and space-time don't have the same units, but differ by time? Does gravity add time to space-time to get acceleration?

A curved path adds an acceleration. Again this is consistent with adding an extra time unit to space-time to get d t t units.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Trick or Treat: Two comments above by people who don't know maths or physics. At least wellwisher admits it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

OK, you talk the talk, let's see you walk the walk: do an example of a pencil falling and show us where the derivatives come in to play. And show us where the inhomogeneous space comes in.

Then we can see if your "interpretation" of gravity makes any sense.

This is yet another "own goals" from your citations, Farsight. When you first intorduced your idea of "spacetime tilt", you used it as the cause of gravity that was not curved spacetime. Like in the citation you used there, the first use of "spacetime tilt" in that article is, "The curvature of spacetime, then, will be depicted by the tilting of these lightcones." So, your own citation, again, says that gravity is curved spacetime.

You could, perhaps, clear up your position if you walk us through the fall of a pencil with some actual details (that is, mass and velocity values and equations).

Yes, he did. You just can't understand the answer.

Yes, someone who knows the physics might have been hit on the head or had a stroke and forgotten major points in the intervening eight years. However, this would make them a poor choice for an argument from authority.

 

I understand physics, although my math is not what it used to be. I don't agree with math conclusions that are not conceptually consistent with basic observations. I look for better conceptual models behind the math and not math tricks to avoid dealing with conceptual flaws.

I am/was engineer and a simple dimensional analysis is a very useful tool to make sure a complex conceptual model of a process is sound; before you build. Space-time has the units of distance (space) and time, while acceleration, such as via force, is distance (space), time and time. Space-time is consistent with velocity (distance and time). Space-time is missing an extra unit of time, compared to acceleration and curved paths. I gave you a treat (more time) to explain gravity.

My guess is since gravity is caused by mass, mass is adding the extra time to local space-time. Space-time, by itself, does not contain the extra time unit that is given expression via curved paths and acceleration. Mass, via the extra unit of time, allows accelerations due to the gravitational force and as well curved paths due to the imaginary centrifugal force, within space-time.

As I have shown in other topics, gravity generates pressure, which causes phases changes within matter. The solid iron of the earth's core at 6000C, is due to pressure, since on the surface this same iron at 6000C would be in the gas phase. This is not due to space-time or else high velocity would cause material changes due to changes within space-time; space ships would implode. This is not assumed by anyone. Pressure is not a space-time induction. Pressure is cased by the extra time within mass, since pressure is force/area with force an acceleration that needs d,t,t or an extra unit of time.

Time potential connects gravity to acceleration, pressure and curve paths within space-time, with pressure the means by which all the forces become connected, via systematic phase changes, as function of pressure. This in turn, is all connected to extra time potential in space-time.

 

I think it's far too grandiose for you to claim to have shown this, since it has been in every textbook for at least two centuries.

So again I ask you, do you think that there i pressure in Newtonian universal gravity?

 

Sorry folks, I just noticed some of the pages I referred to in my post #603 are restricted.
So, here's pages 504, 506, 507, and 508...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Click on to view and use the top right diagonal arrow to see better image.
I have underlined some.

 

That's some great writing. I'm going to have to see if I can dig up a copy.

Unfortunately, Springer cancelled the "Yellow Sale", at least for the most part, so I'll have to do some hunting.

 

I would like to read textbook writing of present day.

So blame me for being angry if not.

 

Meters per second per second. Meters per second is speed and meters per second per second is acceleration. Can't know to much about physics if dimensional analysis is beyond your ability to understand. A curved path doesn't contribute to the acceleration. Accleration along a curved path doesn't produce a force that would need to be included in the analysis.

 

I'd call you intellectually dishonest but you clearly have no intellect to call dishonest. You proof this every time you post in this forum. You're a poster child for the right wing sycophant.

 

Very informative posts nimbus. Thanks.

 

Why would he change his mind about stuff that's been understood for a century. You're the one who doesn't understand what you're discussing. You can't even understand why you're analysis is full of crap as evidences by your never ending bullshit analysis.

 

Farsight, given that you (john Duffield) are listed as company director of the publishing company (Corella ltd) which published your own book, do you think the book is worth another print run?

Asking me to e-mail Don Koks is so lame.
To use your words 'tell you what', why don't you show us where Mr Koks gets it wrong in his equations on pages 506 t0 508, ending with the statement on page 508...

 

I contacted Prof. Koks and provided him with a link to the thread. Here's his reply:

 

Good stuff tashja. Thanks for doing that, and thanks Don for putting so much time into the reply.

No, I've learned a lot since 2009, I'd do a new book. See above, Don Koks still thinks Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates are valid.

 

Yes, thanks for that Tasha and Don Koks.
Tasha you saved me having to find an e-mail address for don Koks.

Farsight, where does that leave your stopped clocks on the event horizon for ALL frames, including the in-faller's?
You said everyones a 'popsicle' on the horizon.
And, you also said something like...you don't see a stopped clock on the horizon because light has stopped there too.

Don Koks from above...

Farsight,where does that leave your 'idea' has to what gravity is, since when at the horzion you ' find nothing unusual to be happening there,'.
Mr Koks

Farsight, why ' however briefly' at the horizon,' has someone fallen in? and will you be mentioning any of this in your next self published book?

 

I stand by what I said.

It isn't my idea, it's the "frozen star" interpretation referred to here. Don Koks doesn't agree with me, such is life.

I don't know what you mean, nimbus.

What next book? I have no current plans. But you know, maybe I should write a paper.

 

Explain why a pencil falls.