The black hole "frozen star" interpretation is the one that's right

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Farsight, Mar 12, 2014.

  1. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Hmm.....I wonder if traveling toward a black hole provides you with an infinite amount of time with which to teach a couple of crackpots how asymptotes work?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Motor Daddy ☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    Waste not want not! Why would an excellent teacher need an infinite amount of time to teach a crackpot something?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    It is really amazing all the forums that this guy straight-out lies on. Of course it is his theory and he knows this. His mental illness is not enough to explain these lies.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,189
    A variant of the frozen star interpretation was the norm before the mathematical singularity was removed from the EH. This is not Farsight's personal interpretation, and he is not the only person to suspect that the removal of the mathematical singularity doesn't remove the physical consequence at the EH. I believe the EH doesn't exist at all, but it's a complicated subject that I'm not going to bother explaining to anyone in this thread.

    The last thing I'd say is that claims that the (currently) most-popular treatment of black holes is the final authority on the subject only proves that you're a fool. This is a great read. Here's a snippet:

    They reference:
     
  8. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    LOL. The revisitation of the Schwarzschild remote bookkeeper coordinates. The coordinates that RJBerry and Farsight think are preferred. The problem with 'those two' is they've invested to much in needing to be correct to invest in figuring out what the coordinates mean. So I don't think an infinite amount of time is enough for 'those two' to admit they 'don't know nothin' about the subject of GR, black holes, or the coordinates used to evaluate 'natural paths' through the universe. Everybody who knows physics knows there are no preferred coordinate systems.
     
  9. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    All Farsight and RJBerry are doing is showing everybody how little they know about physics and mathematics. All they're doing is claiming the Schwarzschild remote bookkeeper coordinates are preferred over any transformation to local coordinates. RJBerry thinks it's a trick to 'mathematically remove the coordinate singularity' at r=2M for the remote bookkeeper coordinates. The obfuscation would be pretty funny if it wasn't so overused.
     
  10. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Hopefully Kevin Brown isn't going to see this nonsense.
     
  11. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,189
    Forget the remote bookkeeper. No observer external to the EH whatsoever would claim that the infalling body crosses over. Transforming to coordinates local to the EH is similar to mentally projecting to a point in our future light cones: doing so mathematically does not mean it is physically valid or meaningful today.
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,846


    Except for the infalling body itself.
    And probably for the umpteenth time, all FoR's are as physically valid as each other...the remote FoR that sees the infalling body as redshifted infinitely along the spectrum, fading from view, never quite being seen to cross the EH....and as already stated, the infalling body itself, will cross without anything strange happening with time stopping or even slowing...Everything will [ in his frame] appear quite normal [ignoring tidal gravitational effects, if any]
     
  13. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,189
    I said no external observer; as the infalling body crosses the EH he is not external. Assuming that you're still alive in 10 years, do you consider paddoboy_2024's FoR to be just as physically valid as your current one? What about paddoboy_2004's?
     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,846
    He is external until he crosses though...
    With the rest, yep, sure......
     
  15. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    But the local observer does. And all the remote observers [every observer you mentioned is a remote bookkeeper observer] conclude the local observer did fall into the black hole after transforming the remote coordinates to the local coordinates. That's how the theory works. You choose to believe that the remote bookkeeper coordinates are preferred over the local coordinates. You tell me to forget them and the next word out of your mouth is " No observer external to the EH whatsoever would claim that the infalling body crosses over". Guess what all those observers are BOOKKEEPER OBSERVERS. YOUR PROBLEM is you refuse to investigate what GR actually predicts about the natural phenomena while stonewalling those who have. You don't know what your talking about. Seems to be your chosen path [philosophy].
     
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,365
    Question: Can the above be applied in a description of a quantum event?
     
  17. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    I doubt anyone here actually believes that, but if one had to choose between the current mainstream view and a known to be flawed and therefore obsolete and abandoned view, the safe bet would not to be to place the tri-pointed hat on the person who is aligned with the current state of the art.
    What you are basically saying is that any observer is valid except for the one who is actually experiencing the event. Frankly, I think I'm the person most relevant to describe what is happening to me. I suspect you'd agree if you were falling into a black hole: you wouldn't care what other people see happening to you, you'd only care what you see happening to you.
     
  18. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    [consolidating]
     
  19. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    It does I'm afraid. I know that's not what's taught, but when you start from and move on to the speed of light then gravity, you are forced to look hard at "the coordinate speed of light at the event horizon is zero". You are forced to adopt the original "frozen star" interpretation. If you're scientific. IMHO. Think it through. Your infalling observer goes to the end of time and back and is in two places at once. A stopped observer has been used to pretend that a stopped clock carries on ticking "in his frame".

    But shucks, I can't force people to think this stuff through.
     
  20. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    Thank you RJ.


    Only when everything stops, there is no FoR any more.

    No. He's at a place where light has stopped, his clock has stopped, he has stopped, and so has everything else. He doesn't see everything around him carrying on as normal. He doesn't see anything.

    Moderator: can we do something about the ad-hominem abuse please. It is no substitute for scientific discussion, and its presence here demeans this forum.
     
  21. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,189
    OK, two more questions:

    1) Would you say that Napoleon Bonaparte and, say, the future death of our sun exist in the same manner we mean when we claim that event horizons "exist" today?

    2) Do you think the same thing about paddoboy_infinity, where an immortal paddoboy resides in the infinite future? Does he physically exist today?
     
  22. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,189
    And? Saying something might exist in the future is not the same thing as saying it exists today. You're considering "local" in this case to be a purely spatial distance separating it from all external observers which is wrong.
     
  23. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,189
    Not exactly. Crossing the EH is a temporally-separated event from all external observers. It isn't a matter of the "EH is X spatial meters away from Alice, therefore it exists".
     

Share This Page