What if relativistic symmetry is only an approximation?

And silly childish sour grapes and conspiracies by you paint you as a fool.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My claims do not need substantiating, as they were spot on, and I'll continue to raise your past stupidity when required.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Just to alleviate your confusion and ignorance......
The spacetime as described by GR, although not a physical entity, has been measured and fits in with the river model [which you are now doing your best to hide from] totally, and it is not the ether as generally inferred.
With the ergosphere with a Kerr BH, I continue to insist that although no information can be obtained from within the EH proper, it is reasonably logical to assign angular momentum to the entire Kerr metric including the mass. This was also verified and totally validated by two or three professors....might even have been four.
Which leaves you once again, out in the cold.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That from someone incapable of writing a single line of maths, yet arrogantly claims to be able to 'sort the wheat from the chaff'. Oh, and 'has no ego to defend'. He he he.

 

You babble incoherently, not recognizing the word-salad nature of your wasteful incursions. This thread might have centered around useful mathematical and physical discussion, but your type soon pollutes it with inflammatory nonsense.

 

More sour grapes ol son?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Oh, and really, as the evidence shows, the only pollution is by your own hands in your efforts with regards to myself.
Do better.

 

Another theory that fits the observation; energy does not appear to leave a black hole is, since energy will red shift, as it moves out of a space-time well, maybe the energy leaving a black hole has red shifted to beyond anything we can measure. The experimental upper limit for measuring wavelength, is not that large and falls way short of infinite wavelength. If we can't see it, we will assume it is not there; out of sight and out of mind. This option has not be eliminated by experiment, only by tradition.

If we stick with the traditions and energy can't escape from a black hole, then energy would be conserved. The result is the BH would get hotter and hotter, since gravity would apply pressure and work and act as a space-time based insulator. This will maintain energy for increasing entropy, to create phases of matter that are stable at these conditions.

These phases might be analogous to ice (matter) and water (energy), where both phases exists at 0C (stable temperature), until either all the ice is melted, or all the water is frozen. In this case, since energy splits into matter and anti-matter as energy increases; entropy increase, energy might be converting into a looser version of matter/anti-matter; energy solidifies into a sub particle soup.

 

The idea that energy cannot escape a black hole is not a tradition it is a theory. There is a rather substantial difference.

 

Hi, Q. As requested, here's Prof. Hamilton's response to Paddo's #37:

 

Thanks for taking that extra effort tashja. I agree with Prof. Hamilton's reply - insofar as we are talking about what classical GR says. Basic logic constrains things. Anyway have no interest in pursuing this matter further.

 

Thanks again tashja, near the same thing he told me when I asked him to verify my response a while back to Rajesh.....

 

Its all very funny, Tashja..........classically speaking BH does not reside in complete isolation, due to accretion of mass by BH, the event Horizon Increases, so anything emitted at EH which is so called hovering dramatically in someone's dreams, is no longer at EH and falls inside.

I do not want to get into any further argument with any of His-Relativitiness-Mr-Black- Hole-Supporter, but making spacetime fall at or more than light speed and making poor photon hang on precariously at EH forever for his life.......is not even science fiction.

 

The thing that's really really funny is that you are too stupid to accept the expert professional reply, not just from one professor, but from many.
Sad.

I suggest you not get involved anymore either, as you are getting deeper into the mire. Let's straighten you out some, the river model of spacetime and BHs, has been mathematically supported, and of course you are confused about spacetime falling in FTL. That only happens inside the EH, where all paths lead to the singularity.

 

You do not believes that Singularity exists !! Still all the paths lead to singularity !! Show some consistency Paddoboy..

 

Why not you show some sensibility Rajesh.....No, I don't believe the singularity exists, but as yet we still have no concrete evidence.
In other words, as usual, you are grasping at straws.
And of course all you were doing is side-stepping another error, by not recognising that it happens inside the EH.

 

But all the paths lead to Singularity, that you believe...ok !!

 

I have a Top (theory of paddoboy). He is indoctrinated into mainstream cosmology so deeply that he will never be convinced that this isn't the way science works. It's the way religion works. They are not the same. That isn't even worth arguing (trolling) about. This thread is a case in point. It wasn't even about cosmology, but only touched on the subject. Bad move. Painful to read, too.

 

You have a good heart, despite your crazy talk...Rajesh certainly needs the support...as fragile as that is.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Just to re-enforce the E-Mail tashja received from Professor Hamilton.
http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html
A more insightful way to conceptualize how a black hole works is to picture space as flowing like a waterfall into the black hole. At left is a movie of Boulder Falls that I photographed. Here's the movie with sound.
Imagine light rays, photons, as fishes swimming fiercely in the current. Outside the horizon, space is falling into the black hole at less than the speed of light (or the speed of fishes), and photon-fishes swimming upstream can make way against the flow. At the horizon, space is falling into the black hole at the speed of light. At the horizon a photon-fish swimming directly upstream will just stay there, swimming like crazy, but not going anywhere, the inward flow of space exactly canceling the fish's motion. Inside the horizon, the space waterfall falls faster than the speed of light, carrying everything with it. However hard it tries to swim upstream, the photon-fish inside the horizon is carried by the flow of space inevitably inward to its ultimate fate.

In the image at right, the (happy) fish upstream can make way against the current, but the (sad) fish downstream is swept to the bottom of the waterfall. This picture was drawn by my daughter Wild, and provided the cover image for the June 2008 issue of the American Journal of Physics4.

Doesn't relativity say that nothing can go faster than light? It is true that nothing can travel through space faster than light. However, in general relativity, space itself can do whatever it likes.

The idea of space moving is one that you may have met before in cosmology (the study of the Universe at large), in the notion that the Universe expands.


The Schwarzschild waterfall

The picture of spacing falling into a black hole has a sound mathematical basis, first discovered in 1921 by the Nobel prize-winner Alvar Gullstrand2, and independently by the French mathematician and politician Paul Painlevé3, who was Prime Minister of France in 1917 and then again in 1925.
It is not necessary to understand the mathematics, but I do want to emphasize that, because the concept of space falling into a black hole is mathematically correct4, inferences drawn from that concept are correct.

The Gullstrand-Painlevé metric is

ds2=−dt2ff+(dr−vdtff)2+r2(dθ2+sin2θdϕ2)
which is just the Schwarzschild metric expressed in a different coordinate system. The free-fall time tff is the proper time experienced by observers who free-fall radially from zero velocity at infinity. The velocity v in the Gullstrand-Painlevé metric equals the Newtonian escape velocity from a spherical mass M
v=−2GMr−−−−−√
with a minus sign because space is falling inward, to smaller radius.
Physically, the Gullstrand-Painlevé metric describes space falling into the Schwarzschild black hole at the Newtonian escape velocity. Outside the horizon, the infall velocity is less than the speed of light. At the horizon, the velocity equals the speed of light. And inside the horizon, the velocity exceeds the speed of light. Technically, the Gullstrand-Painlevé metric encodes not only a metric, but also a complete orthonormal tetrad, a set of four locally inertial axes at each point of the spacetime. The Gullstrand-Painlevé tetrad free-falls through the coordinates at the Newtonian escape velocity.

It is an interesting historical fact that the mathematics of black holes was understood long before the physics. Einstein himself misunderstood how black holes work. He thought that the Schwarzschild geometry had a singularity at its horizon, and that the regions inside and outside the horizon constituted two separate spacetimes. I think that even today research into general relativity is too often dominated by abstract mathematical thinking at the expense of conceptual understanding.

 

Paddoboy,

You are an idiot..

All the threads started by me, have gathered the highest views and maximum responses..........

I do not crawl for support like you, Paddoboy. I have my own beliefs and I think alone,clear and loud, balls to conventional thinking... not some sycophantic-imbecile-follower of others like you. You get it, if not better get it. I am engaging you, because I am on something...otherwise who bothers about an illiterate crap like you.

Because of your BS copy paste and stupid arguments, no fresh ideas are being discussed properly in the sub forum.