Black holes may not exist!

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by RJBeery, Jan 24, 2014.

  1. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    That choice of coordinates is nonsense? If you think Kruskal Szekeres Coordinates [metric] is nonsense then you think the Field Equations are nonsense. You're nonsense and you couldn't figure how metric equations work if your life depended on it. You don't have a clue yet you think you do. Intellectual dishonest farsight.

    Guys like pryzk know what they're talking about. You don't.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2014
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    He's the real smart guy that everybody knows about. Except you.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Thanks for linking that for me. Much appreciated.

    That was a great analysis. He showed at least three different ways that the 'firewall' can't represent real natural phenomena. He's always so easy to read and understand. Hawking leads the way once again.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2014
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. przyk squishy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,151
    Um...

     
  8. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    He already did that. The metric he chose is a local proper frame metric [like the rain metric]. The tick rate is measured on a clock in the local proper frame of the spacetime event [falling into the black hole] distance measurements the same. Both are invariant local proper frame measurements. Proper time and proper length.
     
  9. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    I blew it by linking to przyk post #44. Sorry przyk and RJBerry. I was responding to RJ's post.
     
  10. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    There is also another Thread on this. I posted a Link to the .pdf of the full Paper, in that Thread, so I guess I could also Post in this one.

    The full Paper can be viewed in .pdf format at : http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.5761v1.pdf
     
  11. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Post the abstract so we can tell which is the most recent version. Read citations. To get the pdf all you do is click on PDF on the abstract page.
     
  12. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Delete.
     
  13. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    This is proof farsight thinks the 'only frames are' remote frame dependent coordinates. That's why he thinks the speed of light is variable. Pretty interesting how you cited Peter Browns paper claiming Einstein proved the speed of light is frame dependent. LOL.
     
  14. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    Brucep, I believe this is what you requested. It seems to be dated : 22 Jan 2014 - seems real similar to what I read a few months back.
    - from : http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.5761v1.pdf

    The ^^above quoted^^ is from : http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.5761v1.pdf

    Is that what you requested?
     
  15. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    I was informing you of the best way to link the paper. The abstract introduces the subject of the paper and creates links to the PDF, cite base, provides information about versions,......... etc.... You just linked the PDF. That's why I pointed it out to you. The cite base will be very interesting once the analysis has been scrutinized and how it may apply to others research.

    For example: He shot down, with multiple bullets, the 'firewall' hypothesis. Somebody may respond to that and you can generally find those papers in the cite base. Your link was excellent and I'm a nitpicker.

    This is the abstract for the PDF you linked. Look around. There's no citation because they haven't had time to respond. But the cite base tells you something about how important the science is. No citations doesn't look good [in my amateur estimation].

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5761

    The following is an important paper about an important experiment to directly detect dark matter. Look at the cite base. If I remember right you'll get the first 250.

    A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter
    http://arxiv.org/cits/astro-ph/0608407

    An interesting side to the Hawking paper is how easy it is to read.
     
  16. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    brucep, I am still fairly new to on-line Forums, so I might not get all of the nomenclature correct for "the virtual world".

    I am somewhat left in a quandary however - that is all from the same link that that I Posted in my Post #47. If you would have "Clicked On" the link in my Post #47 - that is what gets displayed on the Page. I thought that that was the best way to Post a Link.?! - On the other hand, in your second paragraph, your final statement :
    Well...I...don't hear...that, much...from any of the...Posters...that "reply with quotes" to...my, dmoe, Posts...so...?!
     
  17. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    I will attempt this again, as I have done in the past. I'd like to point out, however, that I was asking about space-like separation rather than spacetime interval separation. Space-like separation is what I was proposing to use when defining the term "now", which is essential to defining that something "exists now".

    Also...when you said (about a year ago, FYI)
    ...I have a problem with this. If black holes overlap with our causal present then there should be a frame in which they exist in our past. This is not the case, therefore black holes, in their entirety, exist in our future and always will. Do you disagree with this?
     
  18. przyk squishy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,151
    Same difference. I referred to the Kruskal chart because it is designed to be very easy to see which events are space- and timelike separated from one another. Basically, any line you draw on a Kruskal chart that is always inclined at less than \(\pm 45\) degrees (for example, a horizontal line) is a spacelike curve, and any two events connected by it are spacelike separated. As to the separation being finite, the only invariant length you can associate with a spacelike curve is the integrated spacetime interval. Since the metric components in Kruskal coordinates are finite everywhere except the singularity itself, the length of any spacelike curve, including one that crosses the event horizon, will be finite.

    In case you're not familiar with the spacetime interval, you can understand it this way: in special relativity, if two events are spacelike separated, then as you know you can always find an inertial "rest" frame in which those two events occur simultaneously. In that rest frame, the spacetime interval is the same thing as the spatial distance between the events as measured in that frame.

    In GR, globally inertial reference frames don't exist, but an analogous statement holds for infinitesimally separated events: if two events of coordinates \(x^{\mu}\) and \(x^{\mu} \,+\, \mathrm{d}x^{\mu}\) are spacelike separated, then there's a locally inertial reference frame in which 1) the two events occur simultaneously, and 2) the ruler distance between them coincides with the spacetime interval given by \(\mathrm{d}s^{2} \,=\, g_{\mu\nu} \mathrm{d}x^{\mu} \mathrm{d}x^{\nu}\).


    This doesn't make sense: SR-type inertial reference frames generally don't exist in GR. This is practically the defining feature of a curved manifold.

    The closest you can really do is consider the the point of view of a locally inertial (i.e. free-falling) observer somewhere outside a black hole event horizon, but close enough to it that they can define a locally inertial reference frame whose spatial plane crosses the event horizon. In that case, yes, such an observer would consider that parts of the interior of the event horizon were in their past, according to approximately the same definition of simultaneity that we use in SR.


    Where, precisely, are you getting this impression from? As long as you keep making allusions like this without explaining the source of your information, my comment from a year ago stands: I really have no idea where you're getting this "infinite future" stuff from.
     
  19. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    But the title of the thread doesn't say that singularities nor event horizons exist, it says black holes don't exist. The difference may not matter to you, but it matters to many people and if you stated the latter out of the gate, you'd get less resistance. Your tack seems calculated to create controversy where none need exist.

    That said, it is a popular tack: it appears to me that Nature of all publications is doing it too and even worse putting the statement in quotes when near as I can tell, Hawking didn't say it (can anyone verify?). That's really despicable to me.
    You didn't make any arguments. If you're referring to previous threads, you're being disingenuous about the quality of the arguments made against you.
    If we re-define gravity to be a curvature of space-time instead of a force, does that make it not exist?

    The fact of the matter is that if our understanding of those black spots has changed over time, just as our understanding of most things changes. But regardless of their specific nature, those black spots exist and need and have a name. You may want to have that name changed every time the theory changes, but that just typically isn't how it works: it is too cumbersome linguistically. Now if you had stopped at that really irrelevant linguistic issue and we agreed to disagree, that would have been fine, but your arguments went much further.
     
  20. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    In previous threads it has appeared to come down to that yes, he just wants the name changed. To what end, I don't know.
     
  21. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Even if it exists just as an asymptote, it will still be a clearly defined surface and it should still have a concise name.

    Similarly, no matter how long we track a spacecraft, it will never reach infinite distance from earth, but that doesn't mean we should discard the term "escape velocity" or shouldn't say it has escaped.

    And national borders "exist" only as arbitrary lines we have drawn as well and need not have any physical form, but again that is good enough to say they "exist".
     
  22. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    The reason is that the arguments themselves are not in question and never have been, only the logical connection to the conclusion. Jeez, Hawking's own book has a chapter titled "Black Holes ain't so Black"! So there should never be any controversy here.

    ....anyone else feel like maybe Hawking gets a kick out of feeding trolls?
     
  23. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    It's the subject of this thread.
     

Share This Page