What if relativistic symmetry is only an approximation?

[Q-reeus]

You think so?
I prefer the following expert opinion:
My questions in blue, and the relevant passage to your erorr is in red.

A black hole is a place where space is falling faster than the speed of light.
http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html
The horizon is the place where space falls at the speed of light.
Inside the horizon, space falls faster than light. That is why
light cannot escape from a black hole.

Light emitted directly upward from the horizon of a black hole
stays there forever, barrelling outward at the speed of light
through space falling at the speed of light. It takes an infinite
time for light to lift off the horizon and make it to the outside
world. Thus when you watch a star collapse to a black hole,
you see it appear to freeze, and redshift and dim, at the horizon.

Since gravity also propagates at the speed of light, gravity,
like light, cannot escape from a black hole. The gravity you
experience from a black hole is the gravity of the frozen star,
not the gravity of whatever is inside the black hole.

> Or are we only allowed to assign angular momentum [frame dragging] to the ergopshere?

All the gravity, including the frame-dragging, is from the frozen star.

> Is it not logical that if we observe frame dragging, we should be able to assume that we have a rotating mass?

Indeed you have a rotating mass.

> And is not angular momentum conserved by the mass that has collapsed to within its Schwarzchild radius to give us a BH?

Yes.

> Other questions that have arisen are...
> Can we have massless Black holes held together by the non linearity of spacetime/gravity?

A black hole has mass, whatever it might have been formed from.

It is possible to form a black hole from gravitational waves
focussed towards each other. Gravitational waves propagate
in empty space, and locally cannot be distingished from empty space.
Nevertheless they do curve space, and do carry energy.

Hope this helps,
Andrew

Well talk about sheer 'coincidences', here's a slightly redacted reproduction of what I wrote 'elsewhere' just recently:
paddoboy's pig-ignorance of what GR as popularly portrayed actually implies re 'ether' needs correcting....pointing out to paddoboy and ilk that e.g. 'dragged spacetime' a la BH ergosphere of Kerr metric has no meaning apart from ascribing some kind of tangible substance (ether!) to spacetime. After all said ergosphere supposedly contains all the angular momentum of such a Kerr BH. Note also that paddoboy is further a well known fan of the 'waterfall' picture of 'infalling' spacetime re Schwarzschild BH - e.g. http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html
Again, such a notion is meaningless if spacetime has no 'substance' to it i.e. some notion of ether.
Similarly, paddoboy & co are firm believers in GW's (gravitational waves) containing physically real momentum and energy, which again is a nonsense unless spacetime 'has substance'....And of course Einstein himself famously admitted that what SR banished, GR brought back via the back-door:

(Above passage was a supposedly 'private' and 'secure' communication, but I have long suspected such nominal conditions have little relevance to real-world conduct. But I digress.)
So, fact is GR IS an ether theory - just a DIFFERENT ether theory than the one being discussed currently. Hence your railing against ether theories rings hollow.

But back to your self-contradictory gaffe in #37, and misdirected 'defense' thereof in #39 above. Evidently it escapes you that 'hovering forever' at an EH is totally incompatible with the notion of simultaneously 'redshifting and fading from view' as seen from a distant observer frame. Make up your mind!
And btw I have dealt with the contradictory aspects of Andrew Hamilton's (and e.g. Carlo Rovelli's) argument re 'focused GW's' elsewhere. GR contains various contradictions that experts either ignore or disagree amongst themselves over. That's just fact.

 

[brucep]

Well talk about sheer 'coincidences', here's a slightly redacted reproduction of what I wrote 'elsewhere' just recently:
paddoboy's pig-ignorance of what GR as popularly portrayed actually implies re 'ether' needs correcting....pointing out to paddoboy and ilk that e.g. 'dragged spacetime' a la BH ergosphere of Kerr metric has no meaning apart from ascribing some kind of tangible substance (ether!) to spacetime. After all said ergosphere supposedly contains all the angular momentum of such a Kerr BH. Note also that paddoboy is further a well known fan of the 'waterfall' picture of 'infalling' spacetime re Schwarzschild BH - e.g. http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html
Again, such a notion is meaningless if spacetime has no 'substance' to it i.e. some notion of ether.
Similarly, paddoboy & co are firm believers in GW's (gravitational waves) containing physically real momentum and energy, which again is a nonsense unless spacetime 'has substance'....And of course Einstein himself famously admitted that what SR banished, GR brought back via the back-door:

(Above passage was a supposedly 'private' and 'secure' communication, but I have long suspected such nominal conditions have little relevance to real-world conduct. But I digress.)
So, fact is GR IS an ether theory - just a DIFFERENT ether theory than the one being discussed currently. Hence your railing against ether theories rings hollow.

But back to your self-contradictory gaffe in #37, and misdirected 'defense' thereof in #39 above. Evidently it escapes you that 'hovering forever' at an EH is totally incompatible with the notion of simultaneously 'redshifting and fading from view' as seen from a distant observer frame. Make up your mind!
And btw I have dealt with the contradictory aspects of Andrew Hamilton's (and e.g. Carlo Rovelli's) argument re 'focused GW's' elsewhere. GR contains various contradictions that experts either ignore or disagree amongst themselves over. That's just fact.

Another clueless crank. I've read several GR text and not once was the ether mentioned as a component of the theory. Not once have I included the ether in any analysis using GR. I must have missed something crank.

 

[tashja]

Lets ask Prof. Hamilton:

Prof. Hamilton,

Would you please clarify this statement for us:

Photons emitted at the horizon fall in; except that if a photon is emitted exactly vertically outward exactly at the horizon, then it will hover at the horizon, not moving at all.

How can a photon stop at the horizon? In which frame of reference does that happen?

The photon does not stop in any locally inertial frame. In any locally
inertial frame, all photons move at the speed of light.

Photons can however be a rest in a coordinate frame. In the case
of the Schwarzschild metric, photons emitted directly outward at the horizon
remain at constant radius for ever. A good way to think about this
(based on sound mathematics), is that all locally inertial frames
are falling at the speed of light at the horizon.

My understanding is that a distance frame will see the photon redshifted until it becomes invisible.

That is correct. One way to see why the redshifting and dimming
happens is that photons emitted from the horizon take an infinite
time to lift off the horizon. Photons emitted from just outside
the horizon take a long time to get out. And photons emitted from
inside the horizon never get out.

And in a local frame, photons always travel at c, i.e, you could never see a photon stopped, so how can a photon hover at the horizon not moving at all?

Correct. The key point is that there is no rest frame at the horizon:
all locally inertial frames fall inward.

Hope this helps,
Andrew

 

[Q-reeus]

Another clueless crank.

Talking to yourself? Only then does that bit make sense.

I've read several GR text and not once was the ether mentioned as a component of the theory.

So what? 'Ether' is a conceptual philosophical position, its in-principle presence quietly swept under the carpet in GR. Not a mathematical framework! Einstein's own words, not only I but paddoboy and Farsight have referenced, not getting through? Or you can explain e.g. GW's having energy-momentum content without implying an ether or some sort? Outright, insulting belligerence is no substitute for reasoned argument.

Not once have I included the ether in any analysis using GR. I must have missed something crank.

You miss many things, but are too vain to admit it. Just one example - you claimed some time back that light has no gravitational mass in GR. I then pointed to a well known and classic GR paper by Tolman et. al. contradicting that, and not once were you decent enough to come back and issue a retraction. And various other examples could be given - just ask if you want specific links!

 

[Daecon]

Conceptual philosophical positions are not science.

 

[Q-reeus]

Conceptual philosophical positions are not science.

You having a go at me? After I went to the trouble of pointing you to a specific answer to your query here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/rate-of-change-in-expansion.146638/
Only to have you come back with a vague comment betraying a lack of any real grasp of physics. One should be careful to speak from a position of authentic knowledge and integrity. Or did I somehow misread your intent above?

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

Lets ask Prof. Hamilton:

Prof Hamilton's link is for demonstration purpose only for young high school boys and girls. This boy got stuck to this fish analogy and has stated it more than 100 times, long ago James tried to help him with red shift concept, I tried all the possible resources but failed miserably. Thanks to your interjection and Q-reeus rebuke, now I hope Paddoboy understands what Prof Hamilton meant.

 

[paddoboy]

Lets ask Prof. Hamilton:

Thanks tashja, confirms exactly what I have been saying despite the whinings, rantings, false indignations and the usual spitting of the dummy of forum fools.....
Your blood's worth bottling!

 

[paddoboy]

I tried all the possible resources but failed miserably. Thanks to your interjection and Q-reeus rebuke, now I hope Paddoboy understands what Prof Hamilton meant.

You have failed at everything you have undertaken Rajesh, and of course our other little friend and his continuing dummy spits are obviously because, I have pulled him up on two previous misunderstandings of his, that have again been supported by expert opinion......[and seeing his thread moved to the fringes]....Did that set him off or what! No anger management course would have helped at all.
They were of course his anti GR rantings, and his crazy objections to the fact that gravity/spacetime being non-linear, means gravity makes gravity.....

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

Well talk about sheer 'coincidences', here's a slightly redacted reproduction of what I wrote 'elsewhere' just recently:
paddoboy's pig-ignorance of what GR as popularly portrayed actually implies re 'ether' needs correcting....pointing out to paddoboy and ilk that e.g. 'dragged spacetime' a la BH ergosphere of Kerr metric has no meaning apart from ascribing some kind of tangible substance (ether!) to spacetime. After all said ergosphere supposedly contains all the angular momentum of such a Kerr BH. Note also that paddoboy is further a well known fan of the 'waterfall' picture of 'infalling' spacetime re Schwarzschild BH - e.g. http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html
Again, such a notion is meaningless if spacetime has no 'substance' to it i.e. some notion of ether.
Similarly, paddoboy & co are firm believers in GW's (gravitational waves) containing physically real momentum and energy, which again is a nonsense unless spacetime 'has substance'....And of course Einstein himself famously admitted that what SR banished, GR brought back via the back-door:

(Above passage was a supposedly 'private' and 'secure' communication, but I have long suspected such nominal conditions have little relevance to real-world conduct. But I digress.)
So, fact is GR IS an ether theory - just a DIFFERENT ether theory than the one being discussed currently. Hence your railing against ether theories rings hollow.

But back to your self-contradictory gaffe in #37, and misdirected 'defense' thereof in #39 above. Evidently it escapes you that 'hovering forever' at an EH is totally incompatible with the notion of simultaneously 'redshifting and fading from view' as seen from a distant observer frame. Make up your mind!
And btw I have dealt with the contradictory aspects of Andrew Hamilton's (and e.g. Carlo Rovelli's) argument re 'focused GW's' elsewhere. GR contains various contradictions that experts either ignore or disagree amongst themselves over. That's just fact.

I will not agree 100% to this thing called space being substance, in fact if any one introduces any material (substance) stuff for space, he is bound to get bulldozed by all and sundry..........You have noted many thing above, warping of space itself suggests some kind of substance, but the name substance or ether or matter will not help in breaking the prevalent scientific reluctance to accept ether (substance).

Space cannot be nothing, it has non zero values of permittivity and permeability, so there has to be something !! A louder and unconventional thinking is required in the lines of dark matter, like massless matter. This will resolve at least MMX. Process needs to be worked out around massless matter.

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

You have failed at everything you have undertaken Rajesh, and of course our other little friend and his continuing dummy spits are obviously because, I have pulled him up on two previous misunderstandings of his, that have again been supported by expert opinion......[and seeing his thread moved to the fringes]....Did that set him off or what! No anger management course would have helped at all.
They were of course his anti GR rantings, and his crazy objections to the fact that gravity/spacetime being non-linear, means gravity makes gravity.....

No, Paddoboy, I never fail...If i take up something, then I only conclude that thing.......I have taken up that this BH mystery must be sorted out and it will be......who knows even you would start working on this instead of getting thrill out of watching some kiddy animation around fish and water........

 

[paddoboy]

Well talk about sheer 'coincidences', here's a slightly redacted reproduction of what I wrote 'elsewhere' just recently:
paddoboy's pig-ignorance of what GR as popularly portrayed actually implies re 'ether' needs correcting....

Not in the least my angry aggressive little friend.
What you need to remember is that Einstein had qualities that you and the other ego inflated alternative nuts here do not have. He entailed the knowledge and work of previous giants of his present and the past, and was a humble man to boot.
The rest of your childish diatribe directed at me will be treated with the contempt it deserves.

Suffice to say the ether as is commonly known, is long dead and buried, and of course any photon emitted directly radially away from a BH's EH, will appear to hover their forever from the photons reference frame.
As I have stated many times, it's analogous to a fish swimming upstream at 10kms/hr, against a current of 10kms/hr.

 

[paddoboy]

No, Paddoboy, I never fail...If i take up something, then I only conclude that thing.......I have taken up that this BH mystery must be sorted out and it will be......who knows even you would start working on this instead of getting thrill out of watching some kiddy animation around fish and water........

Yes, yes yes certainly!
Actually Rajesh, in the real world, we call that delusions of grandeur.
What will happen in the real world:
You'll probably submit another paper with the same questionable publishing company.
It'll sit there and languish until dying a natural death, like the one you previously submitted.
Then you'll do what all alternative nuts do...You rant, rave, fabricate conspiracies, lie, rant some more, on the only outlet people like you will ever have...Public science forums such as this.
In the meantime, the true scientists/physicists will be working away, researching and gathering data at the coal face, and advancing our knowledge of the Universe and our plae in it.
You will not be a part of that...sorry rajesh, you simply lack everything it takes.

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

Not in the least my angry aggressive little friend.
What you need to remember is that Einstein had qualities that you and the other ego inflated alternative nuts here do not have. He entailed the knowledge and work of previous giants of his present and the past, and was a humble man to boot.
The rest of your childish diatribe directed at me will be treated with the contempt it deserves.

Suffice to say the ether as is commonly known, is long dead and buried, and of course any photon emitted directly radially away from a BH's EH, will appear to hover their forever from the photons reference frame.
As I have stated many times, it's analogous to a fish swimming upstream at 10kms/hr, against a current of 10kms/hr.

Tashja / Q-reeus

Thats why I said, I failed miserably in making Paddoboy understand the Physics behind Prof Hamilton fish and river and photon and EH..............he feels that what he was saying is what Prof meant.

 

[Q-reeus]

Lets ask Prof. Hamilton:
Tashja said:
My understanding is that a distance frame will see the photon redshifted until it becomes invisible.

That is correct. One way to see why the redshifting and dimming happens is that photons emitted from the horizon take an infinite time to lift off the horizon. Photons emitted from just outside the horizon take a long time to get out. And photons emitted from inside the horizon never get out.

Tashja, I'm sure your efforts there were well intended. But unfortunately have had the effect of emboldening a certain member who now claims that having a single photon 'hovering forever' at an EH, whilst ALSO 'redshifting and fading from view' wrt a distant observer (assumed to be in an inertial static frame), makes a shred of sense. It does not and cannot. Forever means forever, and even if 'forever' has passed somehow meaning the single photon 'breaks away' somehow, there could not be any 'redshifting and fading' observed by 'distant observer' at 'forever' in the future. The math is clear. Infinite redshift would apply for any observer at any distance beyond EH. No fading - just nothing there 'forever'. Assuming of course the usual classic GR Schwarzschild BH in an otherwise empty universe.

Up to you if you wish to get clarification as to whether AH agrees with the full and exact passage in #37. As you know I dislike arguing by way of authorities, but in this case misplaced 'confirmation' of an erroneous view needs putting down in no uncertain terms.

 

[paddoboy]

As you know I dislike arguing by way of authorities, but in this case misplaced 'confirmation' of an erroneous view needs putting down in no uncertain terms.

Of course you do queeries! All authoritive experts have shown you to be wrong in this incident, and your other rant about GR and the fact that gravity is non-linear and gravity makes gravity.
When will you be right?
Your problem is letting your anger and vengeful thoughts with regards to myself, blur your judgement.
Get over it...umm me! otherwise there'll be a coronary around the corner.

 

[Q-reeus]

Of course you do queeries!

You never learn. Gutter morality and ethics. Emboldened to now repeat such sly insults, owing to an amoral 'up stairs' that gives carte blanche to such. Die in shame.

All authoritive experts have shown you to be wrong in this incident, and your other rant about GR and the fact that gravity is non-linear and gravity makes gravity.
When will you be right?
Your problem is letting your anger and vengeful thoughts with regards to myself, blur your judgement.
Get over it...umm me! otherwise there'll be a coronary around the corner.

Hurling outrageous and in any case factually wrong insults, then suggest I'm ' ready for a coronary'. Who wouldn't given your disgusting 'state sanctioned' antics. Otherwise, you can in no wise backup the other foolish and confused claims. Or would you care to address the substance of my #41 observations wrt GR/ether? I guess not, otherwise it would already have happened.

 

[paddoboy]

You never learn. Gutter morality and ethics. Emboldened to now repeat such sly insults, owing to an amoral 'up stairs' that gives carte blanche to such. Die in shame.

Hurling outrageous and in any case factually wrong insults, then suggest I'm ' ready for a coronary'. Who wouldn't given your disgusting 'state sanctioned' antics. Otherwise, you can in no wise backup the other foolish and confused claims. Or would you care to address the substance of my #41 observations wrt GR/ether? I guess not, otherwise it would already have happened.

Oh fair dinkum querus, grow up and start acting like a man!
You give it, you'll get it back, OK?

Oh and the full E-Mail Professor Hamilton sent me a few weeks ago now.
My questions in blue: the relevant part in question in red:
Andrew.Hamilton@colorado.edu<Andrew.Hamilton@colorado.edu>;
Barry,

> The question being debated is simply, can we logically and reasonably assign angular momentum to a ring singularity/mass, and the spacetime within the EH proper?

A black hole is a place where space is falling faster than the speed of light.
http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html
The horizon is the place where space falls at the speed of light.
Inside the horizon, space falls faster than light. That is why
light cannot escape from a black hole.

Light emitted directly upward from the horizon of a black hole
stays there forever, barrelling outward at the speed of light
through space falling at the speed of light. It takes an infinite
time for light to lift off the horizon and make it to the outside
world. Thus when you watch a star collapse to a black hole,
you see it appear to freeze, and redshift and dim, at the horizon.

Since gravity also propagates at the speed of light, gravity,
like light, cannot escape from a black hole. The gravity you
experience from a black hole is the gravity of the frozen star,
not the gravity of whatever is inside the black hole.

> Or are we only allowed to assign angular momentum [frame dragging] to the ergopshere?

All the gravity, including the frame-dragging, is from the frozen star.

> Is it not logical that if we observe frame dragging, we should be able to assume that we have a rotating mass?

Indeed you have a rotating mass.

> And is not angular momentum conserved by the mass that has collapsed to within its Schwarzchild radius to give us a BH?

Yes.

> Other questions that have arisen are...
> Can we have massless Black holes held together by the non linearity of spacetime/gravity?

A black hole has mass, whatever it might have been formed from.

It is possible to form a black hole from gravitational waves
focussed towards each other. Gravitational waves propagate
in empty space, and locally cannot be distingished from empty space.
Nevertheless they do curve space, and do carry energy.

Hope this helps,
Andrew

 

[paddoboy]

Hurling outrageous and in any case factually wrong insults, then suggest I'm ' ready for a coronary'. Who wouldn't given your disgusting 'state sanctioned' antics. Otherwise, you can in no wise backup the other foolish and confused claims. Or would you care to address the substance of my #41 observations wrt GR/ether? I guess not, otherwise it would already have happened.

I've already addressed your ether problem although your other problems appear far more serious at this time.
Let me tell you again...The ether has commonly recognised does not exist and is redundant.
On the other hand spacetime can be measured, and although real in that sense, is not a physical entity as the ether was once thought of.
Spacetime/gravity are the Universe itself, since the BB was an evolution of this same space and time, henceforth known as spacetime.
http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

The above are the concluding remarks from Einstein in his Leiden address.
I'm sure I don't need to remind you that this was near a 100 years ago, and even though this may seem to be an each way bet, the acceptance and evidence for spacetime is what is now regarded as correct.
Schmelders hypothesis, being entirely theoretical and with no evidence, does not stand up to the rigours and tests that GR has withstood.

 

[paddoboy]

stuff up