My bad, paddoboy, I was under the impression that this discourse had to do with : I have since discovered that you in some way did not realize that "ones FoR" of any future can only be a mental construct that has no Physical Reality. Because that future "FoR" does not actually exist - YET! I already know what the mental constructs called "Thought experiments" are. They have no Physical Reality either, but thank you just the same. I never claimed it to be "the full quote". The relevant part, common to both of the uses was the "just because he says something does not make it so". I read the article. Thank you very kindly, for taking the time to "answer a couple...questions". Again, thank you very kindly, for taking the time to "answer a couple...questions".
FoR's exist and are all valid...BH's exist and are a valid solution to Einstein's equations, as do EH's. You on the other hand as you have shown, have a problem with [1] understanding, [2] Interpreting, [3] expressing what you want to say in actual posts, and [4] me. :shrug: Not much I can do about any of it.
In relation to your usual misunderstanding/trolling or whatever game it is you play, the aspect of the past, present and future, is something you have failed to grasp....It seems you have failed to grasp the concept of no Universal NOW....eg: your NOW could be what I consider to be the past, or your NOW could be what I see as the future, so consequently as both our NOW's are valid, the past present and future are also valid, as are FoR's......Similar to what I said way back in post 97. Or as the great man said, "The distinction between past, present and future, is just an illusion. A nice little 10 minute video with explanations by Brian Green, Sean Carrol, and Max Tegmark, may make it easier for you to except, rather then from little old me. You should note that I worked hard in finding this video and to try and alleviate your never ending confused state. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-u1aaltiq4 But all of this appears to be getting away from the subject of the thread and BH's and EH's, which we both know now are real...and always will be.
I was answering RJBeery in the context that the EH would not be a barrier to ‘stop’ an in-faller or rock crossing through it. I was also pointing-out that in the in-faller’s coordinate frame, there is no coordinate singularity. ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ One thing I notice about the quantum interpretations of the EH, is that to me, nothing has been said about an in-faller being stopped at the EH (why should they be?), only that the in-faller is fried, the mass still goes through and the BH increases in mass.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Then you should have no have no "problem with [1] understanding or [2] Interpreting, my Post #121, and [3] expressing what you want to say in response to my Post #121 : From my "FoR', there is quite a bit you could do about a good portion of it!
Wait a minute, paddoboy, I thought Hawking's paper was misquoted and out of context; why would you get excited about an article claiming that he's wrong? Which is it? Nimbus...do you really think anyone here doesn't know that? Agreed, BHs and EHs exist in GR, and FoRs shouldn't be preferential; but the problem here is that the introduction of gravity mucks everything up. From our frame of reference the event horizon exists today in the same way that the heat death of the universe exists today. If you have no problem proclaiming that the heat death of the universe exists today then I will at the very least grant you that you are consistent in your logic.
You seem to be grasping at straws. Firstly, and undoubtably, the headline was nothing more than journalistic sensationalism...Secondly, the paper's claims rest on quantum peculiarities, shall we say...Why even Hawking radiation has not yet been shown to exist and as yet we do not have a valid working QGT.....Thirdly, The scientific paper [Hawking's] is new and still in the process of scientific peer review, as a part of the scientific method that science adheres to...Fourthly, it is being appraised as we speak, and my latest article in refutation of the process, is just a part of that appraisal and peer review. The introduction of quantum gravity certainly raises points as yet we are not sure of...In fact according to the latest review at.... http://www.universetoday.com/108870/why-hawking-is-wrong-about-black-holes/ It is not a valid concept.....Of course that opinion has the advantage of hindsight on Hawkings rather wry claim. Glad you agree that all FoR's are valid, as are the concept of past, present, and future as illustrated and detailed at.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-u1aaltiq4, and as I have been saying using the valid scenario of there is no Universal NOW. The video is only 9 minutes long....So please take the time to watch it. Einstein also spoke of time thus, comparing the Newtonian concept with his...Newton likened time as like an arrow shot from a bow...flying straight and true......Einstein showed that it was more like a river flowing to the sea...experiencing rapids, slow downs, back ups, and eddies and whirlpools. Yes, GR BH's certainly do exist and the introduction of quantum actions certainly adds some peculiarities to it...but in no way does it invalidate them.
So there’s no paradox. Black holes can radiate in a way that agrees with thermodynamics, and the region near the event horizon doesn’t have a firewall, just as general relativity requires. So Hawking’s proposal is a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/108870/why-hawking-is-wrong-about-black-holes/#ixzz2sCLGOXRK
Yes, excellent primer on the concept with which I'm thoroughly familiar. I assumed that was for "Dumbest Man on Earth" when you linked it before. Nevertheless there is no inertial frame from Earth in which the event horizon exists "now"; these slices through the spacetime loaf of bread are restricted to a particular angle limited by c, and the same can be said of every point in the universe...at all points in spacetime outside of the EH. Therefore, when you make these grand proclamations like ...it is simply wrong. The EH only exists "now" for those entities at and within it; for everyone else it lies in the infinite future. I'm done explaining this. Either you will get it or you won't, and I truly don't care either way.
No, it is not wrong. It is right for the many reasons already stated. The point is no one gets your point either here or in the hallowed halls of science in general......Either that or your IQ and knowledge is far beyond that of normal mortal men.
hah, well even if we don't see eye-to-eye on this I like your demeanor paddoboy Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And BTW, przyk gets my point...he simply chooses to adopt the belief that any valid time coordinate in a mathematical analysis of the EH can be substituted for our colloquial usage of the word when talking about existence.
You know... I noticed something in Hawkings approach long before he finalized his contention that black holes... where not actually black. This has not been reported by any media as far as I know, nor have I heard anyone recognize this little gem of a fact. I think Hawking wrote his ''History of...'' book in the 80's... 1985 I think it was. He already contended at that point, that the outer shell, the horizon is such a quantum distorted region of spacetime, due to strong gravitationally-warping frame dragging effects. He said... based on this prediction, black holes should give off a small glow. I realized when I read this, 14 years ago, I think it was, that Hawking had a problem with black holes being completely black. I realized the reason for this... ... It seemed obvious, at least to me, Hawking was bothered about predicting a natural phenomenon that could not be seen directly, only indirectly through gravitational physics. Maybe at the time, he felt this was a loose end because to confirm a real object you need to have light bounce off the object. So thus later, after admitting he was wrong about the information paradox, he created his theory that somehow the information and matter and even energy somehow... quantum tunnelled to the horizon which was let off in a form of radiation, all thanks to the Equivalence Principle, which led me to reformulate a friends equation recently into being given off exclusively by the gravitational field. Hawking clearly wishes to retain his original contentions and propose a theory which we can see directly. He has found a very very very clever way of removing horizon conditions which under normal circumstances, seem almost impossible at heart and knowledge. RJbeery claims he had and still has a ... feeling if you will that horizons somehow defy nature. I am with him on this, but for entirely different reasons. The main reason, is based on the no boundary theorem. Most are aware that parallel universes are not only hard to imagine, but hard to accept. We won't go into this, because if I am not boring a reader already, I will be soon, so I will get to the point. Einstein, knew that one of the most foundational principalities of all laws in relativity was that the universe could not have a boundary. The real test is if anyone can prove whether subsystems can have a boundary in a system called a universe. The no boundary principle touches only on a question which can be answered, if we take into consideration that the universe itself has no boundary. If the universe has a boundary, we must begin to ask what object separates us from something else?
That's nice...I always try to please by generally accepting that view that is most supported by available evidence, as per the scientific method. Anyway, some more stuff for you to ponder on....... " Peet said that although Hawking’s paper has been described as "cryptic," running just four pages long and lacking any calculations, physicists are rightly paying close attention to what he says." Lacking any calculations?? hmmmmmmmm Peet said scientists will be waiting patiently for a possible followup paper from him. "The usual style if you’re famous enough to put out a paper like this, is you follow it up with more details,” she said. "That’s what physicists like me will be waiting on, because it matters what he thinks." Both quotes from..... http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/stephen-hawking-s-black-holes-blunder-stirs-debate-1.2514299 I included the last one because I do have plenty of respect and admiration for Hawking, what he has done and what he has achieved. We could all take a lesson out of that.
You just check his last papers in the last 10 years, hardly any of them contain too much complicated math. I am sorry to say it, but Hawking has resorted to papers with instructions rather than demonstrations... he simply isn't capable of properly getting his most genius idea's across. In a simple stroke of unusual irony, his intellect and his condition are in total competition. I don't know how long the man has got left to live, medically-speaking, he is an anomaly himself, but I doubt he will improve much more on what he has done.
He is getting worse and no one in his life will like to admit this. He has been an inspiration for the world. The mind over matter can be something to keep in mind.
He has been getting worse for 50 years...tell us something new. As much as I admire him, and for the reasons I stated, I believe him to be wrong on this issue, going from what I have found since, and the other stated reasons. Still not sure what you are saying though. [shrug]
Those who have got closest to him, still struggle to properly decipher the maths he tries to articulate through the use of his machine. I saw this in a documentary, the student of choice, was barely able to put what he wanted into mathematical language. A lot of the time, it is a struggle, but they sometimes get there. Hawking is that advanced, AFAIK.
It is an exaggeration to call these different views. General relativity is both a geometric theory and a field theory. Trivially. In GR the metric (which describes the spacetime geometry) is a tensor field. The metric being a field doesn't alter the fact that the same physical metric can be expressed in infinitely many different ways, all related by coordinate transformations. So the "frozen star" interpretation Kevin Brown is describing still requires giving a privileged status to a particular coordinate system (the Schwarzschild chart) in a theory that is supposed to be coordinate-system independent.
