Is this 'Einstein' transforming away the r=2m singularity.

Nope I'm not contradicting myself, and neither is Professor Hamilton at the link.
Just like our friend Farsight you are mingling two frames of references together: That is a no no.
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/singularity.html#r=1
Try again.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh, and I forgot to mention, that is entirely codswallop and crap, to put it mildly.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Although you are referencing the post I posted wrongly in this thread, again you have it all arse up.
Sure the blue dot is an entire galaxy, an AGN no less and a Quasar, which indicates a very active SMBH at its core.
And the red dots, are the gravitational lensing [not refraction] of an even more distant galaxy behind it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wow, then you say I have it all wrong, and then you say exactly what I have been trying to explain to you two the entire time. Absolutely ridiculous...

 

You can believe whatever you like to believe. You are a lost cause. Hovering photons is complete nonsense. Einstein never explained what exactly happens inside of a black hole. Then there is no way we could know for sure anyways. Plus, an infinitely red-shifted photon would cease to exist, and it would destroy the photon. It would no longer have a wavelength. That is just more made up nonsense. The best answer I have found is that the photon just doesn't have enough time to leave the black hole. You just don't meet up with it until you fall inside.

The idea that an object would freeze motionless on the event horizon is a relatively new concept. They didn't really consider this when Einstein wrote his paper on wormholes. This explanation can be misleading, because time dilation doesn't affect overall velocity of an object. Then the calculations do not consider an entire whole object. It only considers particles being weathered together using the laws of thermodynamics. Since you would be spaghettified, you could never exist as a whole object that would be frozen in time. It is actually more like the weather of the events slows down as your strain of spaghetti moves through it.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'll let our peers decide who is or who isn't a lost cause, OK?
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0411060.pdf
and
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/singularity.html#r=1
With regards to your nonsense re an infinitely red shifted photon, of course we never see it get to infinity if you havn't already worked that out...we just see it fade from the capabilities of our instruments to view.
And of course we are not talking about inside any BH: We are referring to anything just this side of the EH:I'll think I'll have another

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Not at all.
Again........
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0411060.pdf
and
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/singularity.html#r=1

But I'll take it further and try and alleviate your confusion re wormholes, which we have not seen as yet:
If by any chance wormholes may exist [and they are allowed for by GR] then it would be at the Singularity/quantum/Planck level where GR does not apply anyway. Perhaps, and this is just speculative, perhaps at that level we have formed an ERB and a consequent wormhole, which would then lead to another spacetime. Remember though this is just speculative.

 

Again, we'll leave those decisions to our peers shall we?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Oh, and the point that as usual you have missed, is your claim that a BH can be actually seen is still nonsense.......
And of course as I have been claiming, and as I have evidenced, we are though able to picture accretion disks and other effects caused by BH's.

 

No, nothing new other than a better analogy to describe it, as I have previously linked to.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0411060.pdf
And no nothing is seen to freeze at the EH from the view point of any frame of reference.
For the umpteenth time, let me describe it again in even more simpler terms.
[1] From a frame of reference at a safe distance, anything approaching the EH is seen to be gradually red shifted until beyond the viewing capabilities.
They literally just fade from view, and are never seen to reach or cross the EH, hence time is never seen to be stopped just further and further dilated just as red shift continues on in to infinity.
[2] From a local frame, say yourself falling towards the EH, nothing extraordinary happens, [ignoring tidal gravity effects] and you cross the EH.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE VALIDITY OF ALL FRAMES OF REFERENCES?

 

That is not actually what happens, because that would result in a paradox. They just tell laymen that someone would be frozen on the edge of the event horizon, but it is not a completely accurate analogy. A person couldn't fall into a black hole and not fall into a black hole at the same time from two different frames of reference. They would just fall inside the black hole, because time dilation doesn't change an objects forward velocity. It just seems like it would, because that example comes from mathematics that do not even consider an object as a whole single object. The mathematics they got that example from just describes thermodynamic systems.
For example, an object is traveling 90% the speed of light. Time for the object slows down. It is still traveling 90% the speed of light. Time dilation isn't going to stop the force of gravity. From the frame of reference of the observer falling into the black hole, he wouldn't even notice his time being slower, and he would continue to fall just as fast as the gravitational pull of the black hole would attract him. A person outside of the black hole would only see his watch slow down as he fell in. Then him and his watch would fall at the same speed.

I know physicist have been saying that a person would stop on the event horizon, but like I said earlier, it is not a literal example of why they think this occurs from the mathematical part of the theory. It actually isn't a better analogy. It would be actually closer to saying that someone falling into a black hole just wouldn't seem to get weathered as much.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That's your own pseudoscientific view of physics as you have been labelled with in the past. It may seem counter intuitive for someone like yourself, but it does happen. And my dear friend it's all based on the Universe's maximum speed which is that of light "c"......Or are you going to claim that is a paradox too.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Let's give you another example that's easier to understand, although noting your form, I'm sure you'll misinterpret that also.
You have heard of the Mars Curiosity Rover? Do you realise when NASA on Earth got word that the Rover had deployed from the Space Craft and was preparing to enter the Martian atmosphere, that in its own frame of reference on Mars, it had already landed safely?
And what do you believe particle accelerators have shown?
SR has shown that particles that are accelerated to near light speed velocities will decay far more slowly then the same particles at normal conditions.
SR has been tested and confirmed time and time again, and I suggest that if you are going to keep on foolishly denying such well evidenced facts, that its time you started to support what you say and give some links to support your nonsense.
I won't bother giving you any reputable link supporting one of the most basic postulates of relativity, as apparently you don't read links, similar to a couple of other cranks we having that do the rounds on this forum on occasions.

 

Not according to the object itself, only according to an observer for whom an orthoganol transformation will brings his coordinates into register with those of the travelling object.

According to whom? The travelling object is entitled to consider itself at rest relative to a suitable set of coordinates. This is the Special Theory of Relativity

Sorry, I cannot parse this statement

Who's watch? The infalling object?

I must say, I have never heard any physicist say this. Give us a name.

 

Leonard Susskind and Stephan Hawking decided that an object would lose its velocity falling into a black hole on its event horizon, and that is how Susskind got Hawking to retract his Hawking Radiation Theory. Personally, I believe it is completely bogus, because they both lost track of the fundamentals of the theory.

To clear things up here, an object can always assume that it is at rest if it is traveling at a constant speed. Then it will have to claim that the other observer is traveling 90% the speed of light if they are to assume they are at rest. Then the relative velocity or difference between their velocity will always be 90%. The time dilation equations do not factor in a new velocity for the object because of time dilation. You would put in the difference between the two objects velocity and find the amount of time dilation, not the other way around. The object is not going to slow down. Overall velocity is unaffected.

That is why it is a bad analogy, because it describes mathematics of thermodynamic systems that no one barely understands. You could run a search on youtube, and it will have them spreading this nonsense.

For your other question, someone that has their time run slower doesn't notice it, because their brain and everything else runs slower too. Then someone traveling 90% the speed of light can say they are at rest, and this doesn't cause a contradiction from them experiencing time dilation affects. They wouldn't be able to measure their own time dilation unless they compared their clocks to another frame of reference.

 

You completely misconstrued my whole point and my entire position on the subject. It is hard to imagine how you could be so wrong about telling me what I just said. How could still manage to read something and be able to repeat it accurately?

I don't have a problem with relativity or the twin paradox. That has nothing to do with what I am explaining. The twin paradox comes from both frames saying the others frame has slowed down. The twin paradox does not include both twins saying that they have a different relative velocity. The twin paradox was solved, and it was proven that it is not actually a paradox. The twin that accelerates is the one who's time actually goes slower. Then that would mean that the person who falls into a black hole would actually have their time move slower. That doesn't mean that both frames would measure a different relative velocity.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Well at least you are correct re the twin paradox not really being a paradox at all. But that is far different from anyone approaching a BH.
Have you heard of the photon sphere? This is effectively where light can actually orbit a BH: If you were at the photon sphere [1.5 Schwarzchild radius] and you shone a torch directly ahead of you, it would orbit and hit you on the back of your head. Which effectively means anything at or within the 1.5 Schwarzchild radius, must need to travel FTL to escape the BH.
Couple that with the fact that anyone just near the EH but this side of it, looking outwards, would see time proceeding at a much faster pace than his own time and clock. He of course, as I have previously said, will proceed as normal and cross the EH in a finite amount of time and finish up totally disassembled at the BH's singularity.
While the observer at a safe distance, observing the person near the EH, would see his time very dilated and the light from him gradually red shifted to beyond the viewing capabilities of his instruments. Note: As I said before, he will never see the person on the horizon cross it, and will actually never see time to be actually stopped, as it just fades from view due to the continuous red shifting.
So there views of each other are not symmetric and of course the person near the EH can not change course and return.

ps: Do you just make up your own scenarios, or do you have any reference supporting the nonsense you propose?

 

It would be very curious - if not circular - if they did. They don't, I agree

, More or less, though I personally would have tried for greater precision.

The object is "not going to slow down" according to whose coordinates? What is "overall velocity"?

Ignoring the implied double negative, I believe that thermodynamics is very well understood - ask exchemist

No, that is not the origin of time dilation. You are totally and utterly confused. I seriously suggest you pick up a good text from Amazon or Alibris and spend a few hours studying it - you may need to spend as little as 20 euros

 

Reference please?
I don't believe that Stephen Hawking has withdrawn his Hawking Radiation theory, nor do I believe the Susskind has any problem with it.
The debate was on the loss of information and Susskind ultimately convinced Stephen Hawking that Hawking’s theory of BH entropy was incorrect.
From my understanding, Hawking suggested that information is lost in BH's, and not preserved with Hawking radiation. Susskind saw this as an error and invoked the most basic scientific laws of the universe, re the conservation of information.

 

lol. Your attempt at greater precision is laughable. They would always measure the speed of light to be the same amount. Then taking their "difference of speed relative to the speed of light" is just word salad.

I am eagerly expecting camera men to start popping out of the bushes laughing, telling me about this practical joke you guys are all in on.

 

If you ever learned how to read, you would have noticed that I already said the video's are on youtube. Just search for them on there.

 

Get lost, Layman - if you have no desire to learn that is your choice. You may NOT choose to insult those who are trying to help you.

In like vein, it would appear that Farsight's misunderstanding of the General Theory of Relativity are so profound and so entrenched that no logic will convince him of this sad fact.

I leave it to others to point out that he doesn't understand what is meant by "potential" (he has it backwards) and that, strictly, there is no potential term in the field equations of gravitation, the internal self-contradictions in his last post, etc etc etc

I promise they will lose the will to live if they try..........

 

Tell them that. I am just repeating the latest "discoveries" in black hole physics.