QM + GR = black holes cannot exist

Did you know he has a self published book? Christmas is coming

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

order early paddoboy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Read the reviews at Amazon first:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

no, recheck from a different source.
they are not the same word at all.
die geschwindigkeit = velocity
die schnelligkeit = speed
or das speed

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

hilarious.

 

Here are two more replies for the tally which should be the last ones unless I get a delayed response. Cheers!

 

What you mean is that you will not admit that you have conflated spacetime and space, and you cannot explain why your pencil falls down.

Er, no they haven't.

No, it means either speed of velocity. And like Don Koks said, Einstein meant speed.

ctamblyn is malicious and dishonest. Read some of the other reviews. Like this one:

But it's academic anyway, the book dates from 2009, and it isn't actively on sale. There a few used copies with prices up to £101.89, but no new copies.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

None of these replies do anything to support your own dishonest position, Farsight. You are continuing to fail to show us that you can use your bizarre theories to describe something as simple as the fall of a pencil (an example you chose).

 

They aren't my bizarre theories, Einstein said light curves because the speed of light varies with position, and Moore and others concur that light doesn't get out of a black hole because it's stopped. The notion that space falls down in a gravitational field is the bizarre theory.

Thanks tashja. It's a bit of a mixed bag isn't it? I thought Bousso was going to agree with Moore when he started talking about light slowing down, but then he wound up saying "space falls down". And Ott's response is different again. There's no mention of light slowing down or space falling down, instead he refers to infinite redshift. That makes me want to ask another gedankenquestion. If you're game, I'd be grateful if you could set them this innocuous little poser:

You're an observer situated in a safe place at a great distance from a black hole. You send a 511keV photon into this black hole.
1) What by your reckoning is the resultant increase in the black hole mass?
2) So by how much did the E=hf photon energy increase?
3) So did the photon frequency increase?
4) If we play the scenario in reverse and say the black hole emitted a 511keV photon which you then detect, did the frequency decrease?

 

If a pencil is in free fall in an inhomogeneous space, what is its trajectory? (Please feel free to set the exact parameters of the pencil and the inhomogeneous space, just show how they interact in order to create the trajectory.)

Alternatively, stop pretending to do physics.

 

I have a new copy, only because I haven't run out of toilet paper.

 

do you speak and understand original german language ?
as obvious as it is, the answer is NO. you have no clue of the language.
once again you have no clue of what you are attempting to talk about.

 

i'm stuck on wondering why there are so many used copies.

 

Its trajectory depends on its initial forward motion. If it doesn't have any, its trajectory is straight down at 9.8m/s². And I've told you umpteen times how they interact. Light curves because the speed of light varies with position, like Einstein said, because a concentration of energy in the guise of the matter of a planet "conditions" the surrounding space, rendering it inhomogeneous, this effect diminishing with distance. See Gravity Works Like This where I then refer to the wave nature of matter. You can make an electron along with a positron out of light waves in pair production. And you can diffract an electron. Plus in atomic orbitals electrons exist as standing waves. So just think of an electron as light going round and round. Then simplify it to light going round a square path, then draw it with the horizontals curving down.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The electron falls down, ditto for protons and neutrons and the pencil as a whole. And because only the horizontals are affected you can see intuitively why the Newtonian deflection of matter is half the deflection of light. Hopefully you can also see that gravity converts internal kinetic energy into external kinetic energy, and the force of gravity at some location depends on the local gradient in the "coordinate" speed of light. Note that Albrecht Geise gives a similar explanation, though there are some things he says that I'm not fond of.

 

This seems to be a cut and paste of your last pathetic attempt mixed in with Farsight's Greatest Hits (or rather, Greatest Misses). You could pick the mass of the pencil, you could pick the initial forward motion (whatever you imagine that is). Yet you fail to give us an example with any details. Where is the inhomogensous space in your post that is actually determining values in a physics problem?

You again prove that you just can't do physics, either with or without your own "interpretation". Thank you for the demonstration.

I once again urge you to learn physics. If you stick to it like you have so far stuck to your dogma, you couldreally contribute.

 

Bah, you never do any physics, or point to any flaws in the physics I provide, because you're just a naysayer troll intent on spoiling discussions and trashing threads. It's back on ignore for you.

He agrees with me about the speed of light varying with position, like Einstein said and optical clocks demonstrate.

The book dates from 2006. If you were to ask him now, maybe he'd have a different view. Tell you what, why don't you email him? Refer him to page 501 where he says light slows to zero as it approaches r=2M, and tell him that I said Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates contain a schoolboy error: a stopped observer allegedly sees a stopped clock ticking normally. No he doesn't. The clock is stopped, and he's stopped too. He sees nothing.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I could have done what Einstein accomplished if I had been privy to Maxwell from the start. And I would have replaced the word "space" with "sunny-muffin".(I also invented the internet.) [video]

Your nit pick with words and lambasting of mathematics... Wait... You just said:

You yourself haven't done any physics! All you do is try to ride Einstein's coat tails -that's all you've ever done! Point out a paper you've published, something peer reviewed of course.

I'd like to see the paper "A pencil falls down".

 

Farsight, usually nobody can point to flaws in your physics because, like you just did, you don't produce physics. You gave a b.s. excuse, a useless jpeg, and no details. Stop pretending.

 

Farsight, I don't remember seeing you do any physics, in any of these discussions. At best you provide speculations based on how you imagine some one other than yourself has explained some bit of physics they did. Even then you cherry pick so often that it is hard to accept your misinterpretation of the physics as anything more than the result of having told yourself the same thing, over and over for so long that you have come to believe it.

Imagination is perhaps (as human beings), one of our greatest assets... That does not mean that everything we can imagine is real. I have said in the past, knowing the difference between what we know and what we think we know is an important distinction. Usually I have intended that as a reference to the difference between theory and proven reality, but it applies equally, to the difference between pure imagination and what is proven to be real.

You don't seem to see the line that separates the two.

So you don't take me wrongly here, I have offered no science myself, other than by reference in any discussion here. And even where reference is made, my posts have been about my interpretation and speculations... But at least I believe I know difference between the reference and speculations. You seem to have slipped too far down your own well of imagination, to see anything but what you think you know.

You have slid down the rabbit hole... and there seems no way to drag you back out.

 

No I haven't. I'm the one who refers to Einstein, who said the speed of light varies with position. R J Beery and I say the light doesn't get out of the black hole because it's stopped, and a majority of the professional physicists who responded to tashja agree. It isn't me who's slid down the rabbit hole, it's you.

 

Do you have a paper published explaining why a pencil falls down or not? Can I assume you've had more than five years to write one? Do you explain it in your book, and if so, why hasn't the physics community caught on yet?

If you can't address these questions, why should anyone believe anything you say. (The previous sentiment has probably been expressed to Farsight countless times within the last decade.)