QM + GR = black holes cannot exist

Farsight is like a parody of himself.

Response to his dishonest quoting of people:

Exactly, he quoted them dishonestly.

Response to pointing oput his cherry-picking:

No, what is dishonest is selecting only the quotations that superficially look like they support one's point while ignoring the context of the quotation that show that one's point is incorrect. To be clear, Farsight is not simply claiming a difference in measurement, he is claiming a real difference of state in a 3D space with a fixed, absolute time coordinate that produces the illusion of time change. This change of state is accomplished entirely through "inhomogeneous space", a concept that Farsight will not explain in detail and will not tie to any attempt to make rigorous or determine empirically.

This, too is dishonest cherry-picking because it ignores the reason and the manner in which Einstein said that the speed of light varied with position and is part of a larger pseudo-argument that Einstein claimed the change in the speed of light as a mechanism for change in a 3D space with an absolute time coordinate.

More dishonest cherry-picking that assumes the truth of the position that Farsight is pseudo-arguing for: that the speed of light is an absolute quantity in a real 3D space with an absolute time coordinate and this difference causes all of relativistic physics. That Farsight cannot use this mechanism to do any physics does not stop him from continuing to do dubious, if not outright deceptive, quotation-mining in order to attempt to support his dogma.

What is in doubt is whether Farsight's interpretation has anything to do with physics. Especially when he regularly confuses the variable speed of light in GR with variable speed of light theories that seek to replace GR and with the metaphysical commitment to an absolute 3D space and an absolute time coordinate.

If this was really Farsight's concern, then he would have produced a model using his inhomogeneous space for a black hole. Yet he has not done this. It seems obvious that he cannot do physics.

Only through selective quotation mining can Moore be said to agree with Farsight.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The problem here, Farsight, is in your quote-mining and your failure to be able to do physics. You gloss over the word "seem" in that passage and take the claim that "the signal emitted from the surface will seem to move more and more slowly" as an absolute metaphysical claim. The phrase "the speed of light is constant" means, in the context of GR, that the speed of light is always the same at any point when considering those points at an infinitesimal distance.

Now I know that in the past, Farsight, you have claimed that that means nothing, because infinitesimal distances are nothing. However, in so doing you are rejecting the work of Einstein, who founded GR on this idea.

Here is an informative passage from Relativity:

As we can see, as these are your holy words of Einstein, this not only discards your specious rejection of calculus it also rejects your notion of time which is based solely on the crackpot ramblings of Robert Close's mistaken interpretation of Special Relativity. (Anything of value in Close's paper was stolen from John Bell, anyway!)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We've been through all this. Don Koks quoted Einstein and said he meant speed:

“In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position”.

And there's plenty of other quotes where Einstein said the same thing:

1911: "If we call the velocity of light at the origin of coordinates c₀, then the velocity of light c at a place with the gravitation potential Φ will be given by the relation c = c₀(1 + Φ/c²)”.

1912: "On the other hand I am of the view that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light can be maintained only insofar as one restricts oneself to spatio-temporal regions of constant gravitational potential".

1913: "I arrived at the result that the velocity of light is not to be regarded as independent of the gravitational potential. Thus the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is incompatible with the equivalence hypothesis".

1915: "the writer of these lines is of the opinion that the theory of relativity is still in need of generalization, in the sense that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is to be abandoned".

Would you like some more? How about the Shapiro delay?

"The proposed experiment was designed to verify the prediction that the speed of propagation of a light ray decreases as it passes through a region of decreasing gravitational potential".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sure, more selective quotation.

Quotations from Einstein without any reference to his actual science don't mean much.

What role does that equation play in GR? Farsight, you are supposedly trying to make a point about how Einstein thought about GR, not about ideas he tried and rejected before GR. So show us how that equation is used in GR.

OK, but does that hold in GR or are their exceptions? Again, and with all your other quotations, you are using selective quotations from pre-GR Einstein work to make a claim about GR. That's deceptive, unless you can show exactly how the quotation ties in to GR.

I am quite clear on what I would like: I would like you to walk us through a gravitational example and show us where your "inhomogeneous space" plays a role in the trajectory of an object. It is no mystery why you claim to understand gravity but cannot offer a clear example. You have been dodging being clear and upfront with the details of your idea for about a decade.

 

I'll say what I always have said.
[1] The speed of light, [in the context as generally referred to] is constant.
[2] Time nor light is ever seen to stop at the EH of a BH. From a remote distant FoR, they are red shifted beyond viewing capabilities, and from the local FoR of anyone falling in, nothing strange happens. [Ignoring tidal gravitational effects]
Light if emitted directly radially away from the EH, will seem to hover there forever.
This can be explained by imagining a fish swimming upstream at 10kms/hr, against a 10kms/hr current or flow down stream.
As others have said, the only thing that appears to be brought into contention, is the dishonest quote mining and misinterpretations that you revel in.

 

Click to expand...
What Prof Moore says:

"The argument presumes that the light signal does not "slow down," but what exactly does that mean? An observer at rest relative to the star will always measure the outgoing light signal to have speed c *locally,* (that is, as the flash passes through a laboratory that is very small compared to scale over which spacetime is locally curved), but to talk about the speed of a signal emerging from the planet's surface and going all the way to infinity, one needs a *global* coordinate system (one that applies at all positions in spacetime, such as the Schwarzschild coordinate system) to talk about the signal's speed at various points. An observer using such a coordinate system will find that the light flash will move *slower* than c close to the planet's surface than it does at at infinity. This does not contradict the previous results, because time runs more slowly for observers close to the planet's surface than for those higher up, so what looks like something moving with speed c to an observer close to the surface looks like something moving slower to someone whose clock is running faster.

As the planet's mass approaches the black hole limit, the signal emitted from the surface will seem to move more and more slowly away from the surface (and will also be seen to be increasingly red-shifted as observed from infinity). When the surface of the planet coincides with the black hole's event horizon, the signal will stop moving outward from the surface (and the redshift observed at infinity will go to infinity). So light no longer escapes.

This also does not contradict the statement about an observer at rest on the surface seeing the signal to have speed c, because as event horizon moves beyond the planet's surface, that surface can no longer remain at rest, but in fact must go to r = 0 in a finite time (as measured by an observer on the surface), just as surely as the past must go towards the future. Even then, an observer on the surface will *still* see the light moving outward at speed c, but from the perspective of the global coordinate system, it is simply that the observer is falling faster toward r = 0 than the signal is.

To understand all this fully, I strongly recommend that the questioner take a course in general relativity!"

Remembering of course that the sentence Prof Moore finished up with in his statement at post 702 thus......
"To understand all this fully, I strongly recommend that the questioner take a course in general relativity!"

was addressed to the questioner, who happened to be Farsight.

 

Other replies when taken in full context, do not support the claims that Farsight seems to be making, and which I listed earlier.

 

That's no answer. The wood and the lead fall at the same rate.

 

Yes.

Well, Don Kok is also the one who said this:

"If you measure the speed of light that is right next to you, you'll always find it to move at c."

So the quote you want me to pay attention to should not be interpreted to mean the light right next to you ever stops. Instead, he seems to be trying to explain in laymen's terms how the speed of light can always be c, locally, even if it measures other speeds non-locally.

In contrast, you have been claiming, (please correct me if I am wrong on this), that on a black hole event horizon light stops completely for everyone, including the person right next to it who is falling into the black hole. That is the idea that gets a spanner in the works, because of Don Kok's quote. If the light is always moving at c locally, then it is not "stopped." Do you see the distinction?

I understand that. But the speed of light is constant locally, regardless of what speed it may have for non-local observers. Therefore, the person falling into the black hole must measure the light right next to him to travel at c.

I don't think anyone agrees with your idea that the light stops according to the person right next to it. Everyone seems to agree that the light does not make any progress out of the event horizon, and some people use the word "stopped" to describe that. But I don't think any of them intended to imply the light was stopped according to the person right next to it.

 

My God. Do you need special doorways so your ego can fit through?

None of them agree with your childish misconception. Now you'll set out to "educate" Professor Koks? By email, or will you physically stalk him?

 

I feel a little dissed by three different members. (Can you blame me for not following Farsight forever?)

But this made me laugh:

 

Yes. The idea is that you and your clocks slow down and so does the light, so you always measure the same value. The issue is what happens at the event horizon. I say light slows down so much that it's stopped. And so are you, so you don't measure anything. Others say you still measure light moving at c. I think they're wrong.

We've had a number of professionals give their explanation of why the vertical light beam doesn't get out. I'm sure you've saw Tom Moore's response. In a nutshell he said it was because the light is stopped. So if light is stopped, how can anybody measure it to be not stopped?

It isn't my idea. It's Oppenheimer's idea. Kevin Brown refers to the "frozen star" interpretation in The Formation and Growth of Black Holes.

Maybe not. But I posed my gedankenexperiment for a reason, and was pleased when Tom Moore gave what was essentially the right answer. The light doesn't get out because it's stopped. What the responses have not considered is the implication of this. You can't travel faster than light, so you have to be stopped too, along with your clocks. So there's no way you can measure anything, ever. I was hoping that some of the responses cottoned on to this, but they didn't. I don't think any of them cottoned on to the way the force of gravity relates to the local gradient in the speed of light either. Light can't go slower than stopped. So there's no more gravity. There is no collapse to some point-singularity. You might think I'm wrong about all this, I don't. But each to his own, if you think I'm wrong, that's up to you. Just remember this: you heard it from me first.

 

Yes, that is your idea, even though you lie and lie and lie that it is not.

You don't own up to the idea so that you can try to weasel out of defending your idea.

But you won't do the work to defend you ideas. You won't actually try to model a black hole with "inhomogeneous space". Instead, you will insult the work of scientists and pick individual sentences out of context and certainly away from doing any physics.

Again, you take words out of context. Would you care to run us through a model with some numbers and show us how and where time stops?

Except nobody believes this today but you.

Nice ego you have there. Your fantasies amount to nothing here, even when you are correct, it is in a limited way unconnected to the physics involved. That's because you clearly do not know physics, and it is a shame.

 

It isn't my idea. See Don Kok's response and note this section:

"light speeds up as it ascends from floor to ceiling (it doesn't slow down, as apparently quoted on your discussion site), and it slows down as it descends from ceiling to floor; it's not like a ball that slows on the way up and goes faster on the way down. Light travels faster near the ceiling than near the floor. But where -you- are, you always measure it to travel at c, because no matter where you place yourself, the mechanism that runs the clock you're using to measure the light's speed will speed up or slow down precisely in step with what the light is doing. If you're fixed to the ceiling, you measure light that is right next to you to travel at c. And if you're fixed to the floor, you measure light that is right next to you to travel at c. But if you are on the floor, you maintain that light travels faster than c near the ceiling. And if you're on the ceiling, you maintain that light travels slower than c near the floor."

So it isn't my idea, is it? So it isn't me who is lying, is it?

 

It is your crazy idea that all of GR can be done with a separate 3D absolute space and absolute time coordinate with the slowing down of light causing all the phenomena associated with SR and gravity.

Until you have the ability to do a physics problem, you are just a dishonest fool.

Until you have the ability to answer direct questions instead of avoiding them by focusing on what you think will distract attention, you are just a dishonest person.

 

Farsight, the Kruskal coordinates are formulated on the principle that the speed of light in the infaller’s frame is always c, they were developed that way. And being an extension of Schwarzschild coordinates they ‘probably’ would have been accepted by Einstein had he known of them. Afterall, he ‘liked‘ the Schwarzschild coordinates.

Farsight, nowhere in Prof Koks reply does it mention anywhere that light stops on the horizon except for the distant observer…Can you show us where prof Koks says light stops on the horizon for the observer on the horizon…
As prof; Koks says…Prof: Koks

Note the last part…“even though we who are distant from that horizon maintain that their clocks have stopped.”

Farsight says

Prof: Koks says...

I'm really only repeating what others here have already said.

 

I beg to differ. I take the view I do because I've read a lot of the original material by Einstein. In some respects it's noticeably different to what people say GR says.

No I can't because he didn't. But he did say light goes slower when its lower. It was Prof Moore who said light can't get out because it's stopped.

No problem. The thing is this: hopefully you've seen in this thread that I'm right about something. Such as the speed of light varying with position, and the light not getting out because it's stopped. What you should now do is think it through for yourself, and ask yourself how a stopped observer can still measure stopped light to be still going at c. Has he started his measurement yet? Has he been doing his measurement for a million years? Or a billion years? Has he finished his measurement yet? And since the local force of gravity relates to the local gradient in the "coordinate" speed of light, how can there be any more gravity once you're at the event horizon where light is stopped? Does light go slower than stopped? Methinks not. Methinks there are issues with what paddoboy would call the mainstream description of a black hole. Methinks Oppenheimer's original frozen-star interpretation has to be the one that's correct.

 

But the difference, as you know, is that these other people also read Einstein science and you have not.

We all know that you can't do the physics that these professors can. That's just a fact that you also know. That you choose to keep insulting their intelligence and ours is amazing.

Yeah, in one particular choice of coordinates with a particular definition of speed.

If you want to defend your position, then let's see your solution with your mathematics.

A stopped clock is right twice a day. The Atomists of ancient Greece were right that objects are made up of atoms, but they didn't have convincing reasons, they just happened to luck out and be right.

Let's see your scientific reasons for your positions, Farsight. Just once.

 

This is a pretty good explanation. Really try to understand what I'm saying in the thread, Farsight, and think about what is happening.

http://www.scivillage.com/thread-177.html

 

Is the speed of light constant?