QM + GR = black holes cannot exist

Er, I think I have read them all, and Err, yes they do all basically agree.
As one who appears to often misinterpret articles/papers etc, when they fail to support your model, you obviously have done the same here.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No.

Yes.

No. But guys like Albrecht Giese explain it.

I don't know. Maybe tashja could ask the profs why a pencil falls down.

I can address these questions, and you should believe what I say because I back it up with references to Einstein and the evidence.

No they don't. And lying about it does you no favours.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As great as the great man was, he was not infallible. But more to the point, your reputation for misinterpreting, mangling, and misunderstanding what others have said is observed in plague proportions wherever you chose to spread your fairy tails.

Read my previous post, and of course we will both be judged by our peers on this forum.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Woah! I only mentioned in the passed decade, but Einstein is in the century territory. Surely everyone must be really really dumb at this point not to "get it".

Do you have faith in humanity? Can you teach us the great wisdom of Einstein?


And no. You didn't address the questions to any truthful amount.

 

Billy T, I've got another (delayed) reply for your thought experiment:

 

You're asking if massless particles curve sunnyfuffins?

 

If by ''sunnyfuffins'' you mean space, then yes, that is what Billy T is asking.

 

Well, uh, if photons were particular, they wouldn't travel to Earth.

 

Man, curb your spellchecker!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Dang me, dang me, they ought to take a rope and hang me...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But are we sure that some fairies may indeed have tails?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Farsight... just a bit of advice...

and

are hardly "trolling"... in fact, both make good points. Einstein was not infallible, nor are his ideas necessarily the "only truth".

If you are looking for a place to soapbox your ideas without critique, criticism, or disagreement... then this is not the forum you are looking for.

 

You mean Farsight reported my post as "trolling".

Good for him!

 

Gravity not only curves space-time, but gravity also applies pressure to matter. This pressure, added to matter, is independent of space-time, since it can be simulated anywhere in a space-time well, using pressure devices. This pressure does not occur in SR space-time, due to velocity, unless relativistic mass generates pressure via a relativistic version of GR. If we ignore this unproven speculation, then pressure is specific to rest mass and gravity and not to space-time, per se. Pressure is a layer that GR leaves out.

What pressure brings to the table is a way to interact matter, so gravity can directly interface the other three forces, as well as entropy. At the temperature of the earth's core, iron would be a superheated gas on the surface of the earth. Iron gas has certain physical properties connected to the EM force and entropy. In the core, the pressure due to gravity, changes the iron gas into a solid, where the physical properties of the iron, due to EM force and entropy, are quite different.

Gravitational pressure, generated by gravity, connects gravity to the other forces of nature, all the way to the strong and weak nuclear forces; function of pressure. GR does not do this by itself, which is where Einstein and others went wrong. They could not complete the GUT, because they left out gravitational pressure and phase changes that interfaces the forces. My guess is pressure was considered old school physical chemistry and was not exotic enough for the physics of relativity, so it was left out.

If we add the gravitational pressure variable to a black hole, above and beyond changes in space-time, matter and energy phase change at the level of the EM and nuclear force fields, with the entropy of the matter and energy also getting lower. This occurs while space-time contracts toward a point-instant.


My theory is matter and anti-matter are equal in terms of free energy G; where G=H-TS, where H is enthalpy (internal energy) and S is entropy, T is temperature. Both matter and antimatter have the same free energy G, but they are opposites, in terms of H and S. Matter has higher H and higher S, while antimatter has lower H and S with both combinations adding to the same G.

Entropy is an odd duck in that it has to increase; goes in one direction. H or internal energy is reversible and can go both ways. This subtle difference is why we have a matter universe. The higher S of matter makes matter more stable over time. It is the lower S of antimatter, that gives anti-matter the need to increase S over time; has to change sooner. We end with a matter universe.

That being said, a black hole, via gravitational pressure will lower entropy. This will turn matter into anti-matter. There is a phase change due to pressure, with the anti-matter phase an efficient way to eat the incoming matter. Matter that gets through, phases changes into anti-matter; digestion continues.

The lower entropy anti-matter due to the energy of matter and anti-matter annihilation will add H to the anti-matter with the pressure maintaining lowering S. It will change phase again into a type of extreme mass/energy hybrid state that absorbs energy. I am not sure how to describe it. The slowing of time, via GR and space-time helps with the energy containment by freezing this phase in time.

 

I'm only too happy to be met with critique criticism and disagreement. But note that these are not my ideas, I'm referring to Einstein, and I'm not happy to be met with unmoderated abuse from people who say things like misinterpreting mangling misunderstanding dumb not truthful etc in order to dismiss what Einstein actually said and trash the thread. Please read this page of the thread, note how it is being deliberately trashed, and moderate accordingly.

 

Sure, because you seem to like the attention and you like the opportunity to declare yourself an expert and seem smart. You seemingly don't like having to do the actual work to produce evidence for your claims, since in your history on the internet you have never done a physics problem with any details, even when you make specific claims about how physicists do specific problems (e.g., your dark matter claims).

Yes, you "refer" to Einstein, but it is clearly a matter of contention as to whether or not your claims are the claims of Einstein. Since you never discuss Einstein's actual physics and it seems that you cannot do physics, it seems unlikely that your claims are Einstein's claims.

It is not abuse to ask you for some sort of evidence that your claims are true. For example, you claim that inhomogeneous space is the key to understanding gravity, yet you never produce an example of how we could use inhomogeneous space in a physics problem involving gravity. Additionally, when you have not told the truth, it is not abuse to point out that you didn't tell the truth. When you provide a citation that makes the opposite claim of what you say the citation is saying, it is not abuse to point out that you are producing, at best, a misinterpretation of that source.

Farsight, you are now trying one of your standard tactics when faced with a hard question that you can't answer but that you know that you should: you are trying to dodge the question by claiming that you are being attacked.

If you could demonstrate that your ideas can produce physics, you would definitely win hearts and minds. You could start with the pencil example. Then you could use your understanding of gravity to show how inhomogeneous space creates a black hole, with specific numbers chosen to walk through the example. IN all the discussion of metrics, the following has been missing: these metrics are used to discuss model black holes with chosen masses in order to investigate specific potential phenomena. If we cannot use inhomogeneous space to do this, then it is not physics.

 

Referring to someone is not the same as citing/quoting/understanding them nor their ideas...

For example, I could refer to how, say, Wernher von Braun was arguably the "father of modern rocket science" and how he helped develop the testing methods that we still implement today... that doesn't mean I understand rocket science.

 

This is mendacious, I've referred repeatedly to Einstein's Leyden Address where he said "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, and I've referred to Inhomogeneous Vacuum: An Alternative Interpretation of Curved Spacetime, I've responded repeatedly to PhysBang's requests to explain how inhomogeneous space results in gravity, such as here. I have told the truth, I haven't provided a citation that makes the opposite claim of what I say the citation is saying, and I don't dodge hard questions.

What I discuss is physics, PhysBang's diatribe is not.

 

Times up.

Where is the paper on gravity?

 

But I do understand what Einstein was talking about with the inhomogeneous space, and so can you, because you too can read where Bez says gravity is not really a 'force', but just a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Note: not the curvature of space, but of spacetime. The distinction is crucial. So the space in the room you're in isn't curved. So what is it? Inhomogeneous.

 

Still waiting...