QM + GR = black holes cannot exist

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,390
    And you are still trying.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Either someone has been on the

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    , or drinking his beer through a straw!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Dr_Toad likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,834
    He don't do LaTeX, damnall.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Beaconator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    426
    If I needed to use latex to describe the previous quandry you would have an equation that related momentum to charge in the usual black hole thermodynamic equation
     
  8. Beaconator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    426
    This comming from a man who believes no constants exist beyond the event horizon dispite obvious rules of integration.
     
  9. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,430
    Dear Farsight,

    I think I have found the chink in your armor. You say someone's optical clock is stopped because the light coming up out of their vertically-held torch has stopped. But optical clocks need not be held vertically. And the light in optical clocks does not only travel in one direction, such as up. I got you there, eh? Eh?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Yeah, people have pointed out before that Farsight has ignored direction of travel in favor of his scalar speed of light ideas.

    But it is doubtful that this will ever get through. The man hates math: he denies calculus, he loves numerological exercises, and he can't do arithmetic. I think it's because he knows that a real analysis of his ideas will show how wrong they are. His particular mental construction will just have him ignore any idea that presents a problem. I suspect that he literally forgets certain ideas as soon as he's done reading or hearing them.
     
  11. Farsight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,475
    Pretty much. A light clock doesn't go slower when it's lower because "spacetime is curved". It goes slower because space down there is different to the space up here. Because a concentration of energy in the guise of the matter of the Earth "conditions" the surrounding space. Then when you plot light-clock rates throughout an equatorial slice through the Earth and surrounding space you get a depiction that resembles the Riemann curvature depiction:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Spacetime curvature by Johnstone, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spacetime_curvature.png]Wikipedia[/URL]


    Note that this is a plot of the speed of light.

    Fine. But note that my understanding of gravity comes from what I've read. Newton referred to light bending because the density of "aether" varies, Einstein said light curves because the speed of light varies with position and referred to space as the aether of general relativity, Shapiro talked about the speed of light being slower near the Sun, Ned Wright said much the same, and so on. The important point is that space isn't nothing. See sonar and think of why sound waves curve in water. It's pretty much the same for light waves in space.
     
  12. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,834
    Why don't you do a collaboration with Zephir or something?
     
  13. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    So let's see how you predict how much a clock will slow. Without this kind of thing, you have no science.
     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Sure it's different down there. Spacetime deeper in a gravity well is more critically curved then higher up in the gravity well, and any slowing of clocks or difference in "c" is only evident from an outside/remote/distant FoR.
    From any local FoR, time and "c" are as time and "c"should be...No time dilation evident, and no change in the rate of "c".
    They are postulates of relativity.



    <<<MISUNDERSTANDING of GRAVITY ACTUALLY>>>
     
  15. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Apparently, they do not get along. http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=17244&st=90

    Note the request there for Farsight to produce some actual details about his theory, which Farsight dodges.

    In another thread, http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/Sick-Of-AWT-And-ZEPHIR_17536.html, Farsight disparages the spamming of Zephir. This, as someone in the thread points out, was Farsight's MO on the internet. Farsight appears to have given up on or been banned from every message board but this one and his own.
     
    Dr_Toad likes this.
  16. Farsight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,475
    Now you're really clutching at straws and getting paranoid. I haven't edited any Wikipedia article. And surely you know you can look at a historical version of the gravastar article? Here's one picked at random:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gravastar&oldid=561047569

    It still refers to the "void in the fabric of space and time". Now stop being such a naysayer about bona-fide physics that you haven't come across before. Accept the fact that when I refer to Einstein and the evidence, it's legit, even if it doesn't square with the popscience pseudoscience you've been lapping up.


    You're spouting total garbage. Spacetime curvature has an inflection, it doesn't keep on increasing. And Einstein said repeatedly that the SR postulate of the constant speed of light didn't apply to GR. I've shown you the quotes. You've seen Don Koks refer to them, you've seen the Shapiro quote.
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2014
  17. Farsight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,475
    No. Tom Moore said the vertical light beam doesn't get out because it's stopped. The frozen-star interpretation says optical clocks stop at the event horizon. The speed of light there is zero, it doesn't vary with direction.
     
  18. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,834
    Incredible. You have seen the quotes too, yet you either can't understand them or you refuse to admit your mistakes out of overweening pride.
     
  19. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,834
    Precisely my point.
     
  20. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Could we please see your derivation of this, oh physics expert?

    Or will you ignore this question like you ignore all physics questions?
     
  21. Farsight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,475
    Huh? I can't derive what Moore or Oppenheimer or Brown said.
     
  22. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,834
    Nor do you try to understand what they said. Nor will you do any physics.
     
  23. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Again you try to dodge the question. Hooray for cherry-picking one question, that I had for you out of dozens that you have ignored, that was easy for you to willfully misinterpret. I again thank you for demonstrating your pour character to our readers.

    You are adding to these scientists' claims that light stops in all directions. They did not write this.

    Can we see how you derive the idea that light stops in every direction, rather than just see you tell falsehoods about what others write?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page