QM + GR = black holes cannot exist

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by RJBeery, Sep 24, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    The scientific consensus is there are no problems in GR today. Once again you make unverifiable assertions about the physics you can't understand. I have to use the word 'can't' rather than 'don't' for your case. This you have verified. Over and over and over and over again. To bad Alphanumeric wasn't about. He was pretty good a running you off.
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2014
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Farsight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,475
    Oh no it isn't. The NIST optical clocks run demonstrably slower when they're only 30cm lower. And the Shapiro delay is a fact: "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". Which means you're just some ignorant dishonest naysayer clinging to popscience myths and peddling garbage.

    You're talking out of your hat. We all saw the responses that tashja gathered. The profs did not give a consensus explanation as to why the vertical light beam doesn't get out of a black hole. And by the way, you haven't reponded to what I said about this:

    I said it isn't invariant in the room you're in. If you measure the speed of light at the ceiling you get 299,792,458 m/s. Like Einstein said, a curvature of rays of light can only occur when the speed of light varies with positon. Like Don Koks said, light goes slower near the floor. But when you crouch down there to measure it, your clock goes slower too, so you measure the same old value. Your claim is the tautology that Magueijo and Moffat described in http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4507. There's a gradient in the speed of light in the room you're in, so your "local proper frame" has zero extent. So it doesn't exist. And you don't understand general relativity at all.
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2014
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647

    Again Farsight, the only thing that is popscience, pseudoscience and wrong, is your erroneous Interpretation of what experts have said.
    Let me inform you again......
    [1] No FoR sees light or time "stop" on or near the EH of a BH...
    [2] What is seen is the image redshifted to infinity and gradually disappearing beyond the viewing capabilities.
    [3] From a local FoR of someone falling towards the EH with a watch and a torch, nothing unusual happens...light from the torch appears as per normal, his watch ticks away as per normal, time proceeds as per normal, and he crosses the EH as expected. [Tidal gravitational effects ignored]
    [4] Common sense tells anyone with common sense, that if from the local FoR in [3] time and light did happen to stop, it would create some sort of paradox.....would we cease to exist? It's actually mind numbingly stupid to imagine.

    At this stage I also call the honesty and integrity of your posts into question.
    Not only with reference to misquoting, taking out of context, claims that Einstein and other experts agree with your take on things, but also you have continually derided the space/waterfall analogy, when as I have just as continually pointed out that it is an analogy...The same way "light cones"are an analogy to illustrate a point.



    The following video featuring Kip Thorne, is worth watching.
    Kip of course is one of the world's leading authority on spacetime and BH's, and was the Feynman Professor of Theoretical Physics at the California Institute of Technology.
    The video essentially talks of the importance of FoR's which you some how seem to ignore, with a very Interesting comment at about 3Min 30 secs on the constant nature of the speed of light.
    The video is only 13.5 minutes long Farsight, and is well worth viewing in the hope that that 13.5 minutes can get you to accepting reality an GR as it is actually accepted in mainstream.
    I hope that helps.


    Finally its an example again of the problem you seem to be burdened with of inflated ego and delusions of grandeur, to even attempt to deride another giant of the past in John Archibald Wheeler.
    I mean there is another expert among the many others whom you deride, that just all happen to refute your own fairy tale logic on space, time, spacetime, GR and BH's.
    Your other erroneous material amongst your diatribe is not worth disecting and commenting on again.
    It's been done by others here, far more knowledgable then I.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Throwing out random facts isn't physics. You need to have a coherent theory that allows for detailed description of phenomena so that the relationship of theory to observations can be assessed. So, please, show us the details of your theory, Farsight.
    You like to insult other people with this charge a lot. But yet you never provide us any science. As far as I can tell, you have dodged specific questions about actually doing physics problems with your ideas since you got on the internet, even though you insult others for accepting scientific claims without evidence.

    Except that they all gave answers that are vanilla GR, just using different systems of coordinates. The beauty of GR is that it is fine to use any system. You, Farsight, can show us how we are supposed to do it using any system of coordinates you wish and your particular ideas about how to address this particular type of physical system. You never have, and you very, very likely cannot.
    You seem to be taking your standard, calculus denying position of denying that there is such a thing as a local measurement. The different between the top and bottom of a room precludes a local measurement.
    You are repeating your deceptive claims about Magueijo and Moffat that I addressed earlier: everyone who does GR admits that there is a commitment to the constancy of the speed of light for all possible local measurements; what Magueijo and Moffat discuss is alternatives to GR that have a difference for local measurements at different positions. It is deceptive to use them as a citation in support of GR as a variable speed of light theory, as you have done in the past and appear to be doing now; they go into great lengths to establish the ways that variable speed of light theories are alternatives to GR.

    Don't insult their work by deceiving others about it. Don't insult their work by using it to claim that your variable speed of light ideas are just GR. Don't insult us by asking us to trust your statements without evidence.

    * * *

    Now I note that Farsight is pretty much ignoring me. Given that I tend to ask direct questions that he knows he can't answer, this is unsurprising. Still, it is nice to discuss issues of evidence in physics and to help rehabilitate the names of the people he cites, where possible.
     
    paddoboy likes this.
  8. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    There is nothing wrong with questions that start out, What if, I think, or any other sorts of speculations. Physicists do that all of the time.

    However, that single sentence of yours above is an example of one of your greatest errors.., even if only one!

    You are talking about theoretical situations, hypothetical examples and the physics of things we have no current means of direct observation or measurement, and then presenting your lay interpretaion, as if it were fact.., and proven reality. Anyone who says, I'm right and everyone else is wrong!, as often as you do, is almost certainly, delusional.., meaning you have become so caught up in your own ideas, that you are not able to distinguish the difference between, what you believe and reality.

    Almost everyone opposing you in these discussions does so not because they enjoy the exchange, but because they wish to make sure those just dropping in from time to time, understand that you take the words, of those who do have some expertise on the subject out of context and continue to present your own fantasies, as if they were reality.
     
    paddoboy likes this.
  9. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    This much is true, your choice of interpretation and its implications, is selective and has not been by any means experimentally proven. You choose which interpretation best fits your beliefs and proclaim it a final description of reality.

    Are you suggesting that there is something wrong with real theoretical physicists, writing papers on theoretical physics. Again that is the difference between what you post and most of those working in physics, they know that what they are discussing is theoretical, where you don't seem to understand the difference between, your imagination and theory and reality.
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Bingo!!!
    That sums it up perfectly.
    Farsight is one of four posters here that suffer from delusions of grandeur, and all claim they have a ToE...Then of course those delusions are reinforced by then deluding themselves into believing that mainstream scientists and peer review, are out to stifle their self admired brilliance.
    A sad state of affairs.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Dr_Toad likes this.
  11. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,417
    Except they are on the way OUT, not the way in...?

    And
    Oh? I thought they were emitted from the event horizon as matter collapses into the black hole? As an example:

    http://www.zmescience.com/space/int...ndeed-traced-back-to-supermassive-black-hole/

    Now, granted, I could simply be misunderstanding what they mean by the "core" of the black hole?
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647

    At and just outside the EH.
    Nothing but nothing ever gets out.
     
  13. QuarkHead Remedial Math Student Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,514
    Farsight Just as a question.....

    Although I have no serious serious difficulties with differential geometry, I have a difficulty with your logic when this subject is applied to GR, in particular to Black Holes.

    You quote with some satisfaction those who say that "light speeds up as it moves from a region of low gravitational potential to a higher one." let's leave aside for now that this effect is observer-dependent.

    Assume a spacetime singularity - I suppose we all know know what this means? Assume further that this spacetime "point" and all its surrounding spacetime is capable of emitting EM radiation - say photons.

    Leaving aside the question of what counts as "up in a straight line" (to quote you again) when it comes to our singularity and its environs, my question is this

    Assuming a gravitational (potential) gradient away from the supposed spacetime singularity, and further assuming EM radiation emmenating from this point, if this radiation - this light - is speeding up as it moves away, why can it not escape the spacetime region surrounding it?

    In other words, what is the meaning of the Event Horizon in your model?
     
  14. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    I didn't catch the nonsense about the distance between the roof and the floor to differentiate between local laboratory frames. He's absolutely clueless but we already know the concept of coordinate systems is beyond his abilities to understand. It must be difficult to get up the stairs when the distance between the floor and the roof is close to 1 AU. He must think the lab frame at CERN has a roof and a floor that needs to be accounted for in the experimental results. Maybe that's how he thinks Professor Wheeler messed up GR by not accounting for delta results between the lab roof and the lab floor frames. LOL.
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2014
  15. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    For the Farsights of the Internet I believe it's the low self esteem that gets 'riled up' when the discussion centers around great achievements by admired scientists. Disparaging folks who've produced work that they can't understand magnifies low self esteem into delusions of grandeur. Major character flaw. Not much character building is associated with terminal intellectual dishonesty. Terminal as in 'to the death'.
     
  16. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    In this case, the "admired scientists" are Farsight himself. He has a narrative that I can only barely remember, something about being unimpressed the state of education in the UK. He also once wrote, "I'm more scientific than anybody. Only I believe in experiment and deduction rather than parroting from a textbook."

    And yet here he is today, doing nothing but parroting.
     
  17. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    How would you know who understood GR or not? You're delusional about this subject. Your entire argument is an intellectually dishonest troll. Intellectually dishonest means you don't know what the f..k you're talking about. Delusional in thinking you do. Physics is way over your head you should accept it and leave the rest of us alone. Can't do that because you'd shrink back to < obscurity. The only gradient in this room is between your spew and reality. Nobody gives a crap about your comments other than to ridicule you. Do some actual physics and maybe we won't laugh so hard. The bottom line: regardless your assertions it amounts to nothing worth discussing other than to tell you to shut the f..k up. Now you made me say f..k.
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2014
    Dr_Toad likes this.
  18. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Since I find it informative, and physics is fun, I'll use GR to predict what the Shapiro delay would be over 1 AU. The distance between the Sun and the Earth. The delay will compare the lights travel time to a predicted travel time for a path where no spacetime curvature is present. GR predicts the local spacetime curvature is an infinitesimal over a distance determined by the field. Weak or strong. Our solar system = weak while the spacetime around the black hole, that Farsight thinks don't exist, is the strong field. Think of the Suns photosphere as Farsights roof and where it's received on Earth as Farsights floor. One AU. Then consider what it is for the 30cm distance Farsights whining about.

    I've posted this several times in this forum but I'm pretty sure nobody read it. Probably won't get read this time either.
    The time the light takes to traverse the path is recorded on the remote bookkeepers clock. I'll make a simple example. I'll use light emitted at the surface of the Sun and received on Earth. For conveniece we can say the path of the light is the shortest distance between emission and reception. A radial path.

    The remote radial coordinate speed of light

    dr/dt = (1-2M/r)

    Integrate the remote radial coordinate of light and build a formula for predicting the Shapiro delay. For our case the formula is

    dt = [r_earth orbit - r_sun] + 2M_sun ln[r_earth orbit/r_sun]

    The 1st component is the distance between where the light is emitted, the surface of the sun [photosphere], and where it's received at r_earth. The 2nd component is the predicted Shapiro delay due to a path through curved spacetime.

    I'll solve it for my case

    r_earth orbit = 1 AU = 1.495978E11 m

    r_sun = 6.9598E8 m

    M_sun = 1477 m [using geometric units]

    dt_bkkp = [ 1.495978E11m - 6.9598E8m] + 2954m ln[1.495978E11m/6.9598E8m]

    = 1.4890182E11m + 15854.11645m = 1.489018359E11m

    15854.11645m is the delay time in geometric units. dt_meter.

    To convert this to seconds divide by c.

    dt_second = 15854.11645m/2.99792458E8m/s

    = .00005288367752 second

    ~ 53 microsecond

    That is the extra time due to the path through curved spacetime.

    I wonder if Farsight can figure out what the prediction is for his 30cm. That's a very easy prediction for somebody who understands how GR works. How about it Farsight. Kill two turds with one stone. Proof that you can do some physics using GR and shut the Physbangs of the world up. LOL. If you tell me to find out myself I will and in the process disparage your talents in ways you can't imagine.
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2014
  19. Farsight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,475
    The idea is really simple. Matter falling into the black hole can't survive. It gets ripped apart into gamma photons before it gets to the event horizon, and these photons are moving in various directions. They don't all go into the black hole.

    This article doesn't actually say the gamma ray burst is emitted from the event horizon. It does say this:

    "As the star was ripped apart by the black hole’s gravity, it was actually trained into a loop around the hole with the speed of light which caused a beam of radiation to spill out of latter’s center core."

    But I think that's just a slip-up. The light comes from the infalling matter, not from inside the black hole.
     
  20. river

    Messages:
    9,791
    to the last statement from post # 799

    you really believe what you said ... really ?
     
  21. Farsight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,475
    It isn't observer dependent. All observers agree that optical clocks go slower when they're lower. The GR situation isn't like the SR situation, where your relative motion compared to me has us both claiming your clock is going slower than mine. And note this: when you open up a clock you don't see time flowing through it. So you should be able to work out that when an optical clock goes slower, it's because light goes slower.

    It's like Tom Moore said. Because it's stopped. Like an optical clock at the event horizon. And like I said above, this isn't just some observer-dependent effect. Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates effectively put a stopped observer in front of a stopped clock and assert that he sees nothing unusual, he sees the clock ticking normally "in his frame". I challenge this, on the grounds that the observer is stopped, the clock is stopped, and light is stopped. I assert that the observer sees nothing.

    It isn't my model, what I'm talking about is the original "frozen-star" black-hole interpretation. Kevin Brown refers to it here. He doesn't favour it, but his article is enough to tell you that this isn't something I've made up. I'm an amateur relativist, not some my-theory guy. Anyway, the meaning of the event horizon in this interpretation is that it's real. It isn't just a coordinate artefact. It marks the place where light no longer moves, and therefore where there is "a void in the fabric of space and time" as per the gravastar. Note that this makes the black hole even more of a hole than in the point-singularity interpretation. Think of space as a kind of gin-clear ghostly elastic that can be subjected to pressure and shear stress and waves and curvature, then think of a party balloon, see the Wikipedia black hole article and note this picture:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    CCASA image by cosmologist Alain Riazuelo, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BH_LMC.png
     
  22. river

    Messages:
    9,791
     
  23. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,834
    Farsight, you can assert to the truthfulness of your mistaken view all you like. It still doesn't make your fantasy a fact.

    Just for fun, why don't you post a mathematical proof of your assertion?

    Better yet, post the contents of the email exchanges between yourself and the real physicists you've no doubt brought around to your way of thinking. Surely your superior intellect and knowledge of the subject have been celebrated by them by now?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page