Black holes may not exist!

[dumbest man on earth]

Sure...Scientific theories, models etc all are open to falsification via the scientific method. Theories, models etc, grow in status, the more observations and experimentations that are made that support them. eg models such as SR/GR and the BB are all overwhelmingly supported within eaches zone of applicibility.....
Those are models, that in all likelyhood [not 100% certain, maybe 99.999% certain] will probably still be standing in a 1000 years, or 10,000 years....Some tinkering around the edges maybe required, but the foundation stone of the above mentioned theories will still be standing.
But they will always be open to falsification.





Certainly not, and they as yet do not have anywhere near the status of SR/GR and the BB. But they are the popular acceptance among most cosmologists and scientists and have arose from the realities of different FoR's in Relativity, and the fact that observations and experimentations show that time and space are not absolute

That is not what I asked.

I will repeat the questions :

Nothing...is...proven...in...science...???!!!

Could you elaborate upon or clarify that statement?

So...have the "theories" proposed by Gevin Giorbran, in his book: "Everything Forever: Learning to See Timelessness" been accepted as "correct"?

 

[paddoboy]

That is not what I asked.

I will repeat the questions :

Nothing...is...proven...in...science...???!!!

Could you elaborate upon or clarify that statement?

So...have the "theories" proposed by Gevin Giorbran, in his book: "Everything Forever: Learning to See Timelessness" been accepted as "correct"?

Read it again...All answered in great detail and in English.

 

[brucep]

That is not what I asked.

I will repeat the questions :

Nothing...is...proven...in...science...???!!!

Could you elaborate upon or clarify that statement?

So...have the "theories" proposed by Gevin Giorbran, in his book: "Everything Forever: Learning to See Timelessness" been accepted as "correct"?

Note the part of the discussion that refers to 'crank' questions about proof.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Proof#Scientific_proof

 

[dumbest man on earth]

In my explorations of timelessness I reveal that ordinary space is not merely full of other empty spaces, but empty space is actually the whole of all physical realities; all the universes of the many worlds theory. Profound as it may be, if the theories I propose are correct, space is full, rather than empty. Material things are less than the fullness of space. In fact, it may be that space must include all possibilities in order to seem empty to us. So in summary, the universe we see is just a fragment nested in a timeless (everything) whole, rather than a single material world magically arisen above some primordial nothing. All universes exist without beginning or end in the ultimate arena of time, and each moment we experience exists forever.

- from : http://everythingforever.com/einstein.htm

Has the ^^above quoted^^ met "popular acceptance among most cosmologists and scientists"?

 

[paddoboy]

Has the ^^above quoted^^ met "popular acceptance among most cosmologists and scientists"?

Certainly not, and they as yet do not have anywhere near the status of SR/GR and the BB. But they are the popular acceptance among most cosmologists and scientists and have arose from the realities of different FoR's in Relativity, and the fact that observations and experimentations show that time and space are not absolute

In response to the following question:
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Originally Posted by dumbest man on earth View Post
So...have the "theories" proposed by Gevin Giorbran, in his book: "Everything Forever: Learning to See Timelessness" been accepted as "correct"?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Note the part of the discussion that refers to 'crank' questions about proof.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Proof#Scientific_proof

Thanks brucep, I was aware of that but applying the benefit of the doubt.

 

[brucep]

- from : http://everythingforever.com/einstein.htm

Has the ^^above quoted^^ met "popular acceptance among most cosmologists and scientists"?

No. A good place to learn about cosmology is at the WMAP experiment site. 'Everything Forever' isn't part of the standard model of cosmology.

 

[paddoboy]

No. A good place to learn about cosmology is at the WMAP experiment site. 'Everything Forever' isn't part of the standard model of cosmology.

THE END OF THE BEGINNING:

"The last word from WMAP marks the end of the beginning in our quest to understand the Universe. WMAP has brought precision to cosmology and the Universe will never be the same."
-Adam Riess, recipient of the 2011 Nobel Prize in physics


STEVEN HAWKING:

"Stephen Hawking recently told New Scientist that WMAP's evidence for inflation was the most exciting development in physics during his career."
-2013 Smart Guide,New Scientist
WMAP AWARDED GRUBER PRIZE

"WMAP has had a transformative impact on the field of cosmology. It provided strong confirmation of our basic picture of the universe and added unprecedented precision. It is the benchmark for almost every other cosmological measurement and sets a very high bar for future experiments."
-Neil Turok, Director of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics
WMAP MISSION SCORES 'WORLD'S MOST CITED' IN SCIENCE PUBS

"WMAP results were among the most-cited scientific papers in the world across all scientific disciplines [in 2011], not just in physics and astronomy. It also happened in 2003, 2007 and 2009. This time WMAP captured the first, second and third spots in the rankings in a single year—a science trifecta."
- Johns Hopkins University Gazette, 2012/04/23
THE RED-HOT RESEARCH PAPERS OF 2011:

"Achieving particular distinction atop the list are three reports from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), launched in 2001. ... Paper #1 in the table, delivering the "cosmological interpretations" of the WMAP seven-year data, had already been cited more than 500 times before the end of its first year of publication."
- Science Watch/ The Hottest Research of 2011 by Christopher King ----The List


"Every astronomer will remember the moment he heard the results from WMAP."
"Before the WMAP results, astronomers and physicists had put together a very implausible picture of our universe. It had a tiny amount of ordinary matter. It had a modest amount of dark matter, whatever that is. It had an overwhelming amount of dark energy, which is a strange beast. I have to confess I was very skeptical of this picture. But the WMAP results have convinced me."
"The announcement today represents a rite of passage for cosmology from speculation to precision science."
- John Bahcall of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J.

"WMAP is the instrument that finally allowed scientists to hear the celestial music and figure out what sort of instrument our cosmos is... WMAP has nearly perfect pitch."
"It ends a decades-long argument about the nature of the universe and confirms that our cosmos is much, much stranger than we ever imagined."
"All the arguments of the last few decades about the basic properties of the universe—its age, its expansion rate, its composition, its density—have been settled in one fell swoop."
-Science Magazine 2003, "Breakthrough of the Year" article

The precise and accurate WMAP result is "now the frame of reference for all cosmological investigations." It "dramatically shrinks the volume of parameter space that describes our universe."
-ScienceWatch: "What's Hot in Physics", Simon Mitton, Mar./Apr. 2008


"In a sentence, the observations are spectacular and the conclusions are stunning," said Brian Greene of Columbia University in New York City. "WMAP data support the notion that galaxies are nothing but quantum mechanics writ large across the sky." "To me, this is one of the marvels of the modern scientific age."


http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/

 

[dumbest man on earth]

- from : http://everythingforever.com/einstein.htm

Has the ^^above quoted^^ met "popular acceptance among most cosmologists and scientists"?

No. A good place to learn about cosmology is at the WMAP experiment site. 'Everything Forever' isn't part of the standard model of cosmology.

Brucep, I did not introduce that Link : http://everythingforever.com/einstein.htm , into this Thread - another Poster did!

I was doing my best to point out to that Poster that the "theory" proposed by Gevin Giorbran had NOT met with "popular acceptance among most cosmologists and scientists"!

Maybe you could recommend "A good place to learn about cosmology", to that Poster!

 

[paddoboy]

Maybe you could recommend "A good place to learn about cosmology", to that Poster!

Oh I don't mind any recommendation re cosmology, and I'm sure you agree with me that WMAP is one of the best.

My link you referred to was of course to highlight the great man's [Einstein] thoughts on the reality of past present and future.
You raised the rest.

here....
Albert Einstein and the Fabric of Time

Surprising as it may be to most non-scientists and even to some scientists, Albert Einstein concluded in his later years that the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. In 1952, in his book Relativity, in discussing Minkowski's Space World interpretation of his theory of relativity, Einstein writes:
Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.


Most everyone knows that Einstein proved that time is relative, not absolute as Newton claimed. With the proper technology, such as a very fast spaceship, one person is able to experience several days while another person simultaneously experiences only a few hours or minutes. The same two people can meet up again, one having experienced days or even years while the other has only experienced minutes. The person in the spaceship only needs to travel near to the speed of light. The faster they travel, the slower their time will pass relative to someone planted firmly on the Earth. If they were able to travel at the speed of light, their time would cease completely and they would only exist trapped in timelessness. Einstein could hardly believe there were physicists who didn’t believe in timelessness, and yet the wisdom of Einstein's convictions had very little impact on cosmology or science in general. The majority of physicists have been slow to give up the ordinary assumptions we make about time.
The two most highly recognized physicists since Einstein made similar conclusions and even made dramatic advances toward a timeless perspective of the universe, yet they also were unable to change the temporal mentality ingrained in the mainstream of physics and society. Einstein was followed in history by the colorful and brilliant Richard Feynman. Feynman developed the most effective and explanatory interpretation of quantum mechanics that had yet been developed, known today as Sum over Histories.

http://everythingforever.com/einstein.htm

 

[Farsight]

It's a mathematical fact. The consensus amongst folks who understand the metric IS coordinate singularity. It can be transformed away by changing coordinates. It's frame dependent. But that continues to be knowledge beyond your grasp. Good reason for you to put a cork in it.

I've explained the issue with "it can be transformed away". It involves a schoolboy error wherein a stopped observer allegedly sees a stopped clock ticking. He doesn't. He doesn't see anything. Ever. And neither pryzk nor James nor you nor anybody else has an answer to that.

 

[nimbus]

Just checking my understanding of The KS diagram.
Noting the infaller’s light cone sides are 45 degrees from vertical on diagram. So, would this mean any timelike separation would need to be within 45degrees of vertical on diagram.
In other words …the infaller’s timelike path can’t miss the event horizon?

 

[przyk]

I've explained the issue with "it can be transformed away". It involves a schoolboy error wherein a stopped observer allegedly sees a stopped clock ticking. He doesn't. He doesn't see anything. Ever. And neither pryzk nor James nor you nor anybody else has an answer to that.

You've been told this is a strawman before. Neither Schwarzschild nor Kruskal coordinates are particularly closely related to what clocks measure everywhere they're defined. General relativity also lacks any preferred or unique way of defining simultaneity over large distances where the curvature is significant, so it is unjustified and completely arbitrary to say that the Schwarzschild time of an infalling clock near a black hole should have anything to do with a remote clock very far away. There's no good reason at all to say that a clock falling toward a black hole really stops because there is no good reason to take what the Schwarzschild coordinate time says seriously in the first place. Physicists more open minded than you understood this already in the 1920s, if not earlier. That's why they were motivated to investigate what was really happening in the vicinity of the event horizon, and you already know the eventual outcome of that.

 

[paddoboy]

I've explained the issue with "it can be transformed away". It involves a schoolboy error wherein a stopped observer allegedly sees a stopped clock ticking. He doesn't. He doesn't see anything. Ever. And neither pryzk nor James nor you nor anybody else has an answer to that.

The way I understand it, any clock approaching the EH does not actually stop from an observers FoR. The clock is just continually red shifted further and further along the spectrum, and never quite crossing the horizon, just fading from view inline with the capabilities of the telescope one is using to view it.
Of course if we are able to construct a better telescope with optics more attuned to the greater red shift, then we will see it again, until the limits of the new telescope is reached.
That is one FoR.

From the clocks FoR, it crosses the horizon and then to oblivion. :shrug:

 

[Farsight]

You've been told this is a strawman before. Neither Schwarzschild nor Kruskal coordinates are particularly closely related to what clocks measure everywhere they're defined. General relativity also lacks any preferred or unique way of defining simultaneity over large distances where the curvature is significant, so it is unjustified and completely arbitrary to say that the Schwarzschild time of an infalling clock near a black hole should have anything to do with a remote clock very far away. There's no good reason at all to say that a clock falling toward a black hole really stops because there is no good reason to take what the Schwarzschild coordinate time says seriously in the first place. Physicists more open minded than you understood this already in the 1920s, if not earlier. That's why they were motivated to investigate what was really happening in the vicinity of the event horizon, and you already know the eventual outcome of that.

That's a non-answer, przyk. You've totally dodged the issue as usual, you have no reasoned rebuttal, all you've given is a haughty dismissal.

So let's try you on another tack. You're standing on a gedanken body, and you're shining a laser pointer vertically upwards. Now we make the body smaller and more massive. The light beam still points vertically upwards. We make the body ever smaller and ever more massive. There comes a point when the light doesn't get out. Why?

 

[Farsight]

The way I understand it, any clock approaching the EH does not actually stop from an observers FoR...

That's the story. But it's a fairy story. Gravitational time dilation is perfectly real, a clock really does go slower when its lower. The observer accompanying it goes slower too. He doesn't appreciate that his clock's going slower. So far so good. The problem comes when you take it to the limit. Gravitational time dilation goes infinite at the event horizon. In that situation the clock isn't just going slower, it's stopped. The observer accompanying it is stopped too. A stopped observer doesn't see a stopped clock ticking normally. He doesn't see anything.

 

[paddoboy]

That's the story. But it's a fairy story. Gravitational time dilation is perfectly real, a clock really does go slower when its lower. The observer accompanying it goes slower too. He doesn't appreciate that his clock's going slower. So far so good. The problem comes when you take it to the limit. Gravitational time dilation goes infinite at the event horizon. In that situation the clock isn't just going slower, it's stopped. The observer accompanying it is stopped too. A stopped observer doesn't see a stopped clock ticking normally. He doesn't see anything.

You miss the point.
An observer in another FoR will not see the clock hit the EH at all....Theoretically speaking, depending on his telescope capabilities, he could see it red shifted further and further towards infinity.
And no, it's not a fairy story.
If you believe that, then you need to get it peer reviewed, don't you?

 

[Farsight]

I don't miss the point. The point is that nobody sees the clock cross the event horizon, because it doesn't.

Oh, it is a fairy story paddoboy. The cherry on top is that the infalling observer goes to the end of time and back and is in two places at once. As for getting it peer-reviewed, think about the response we've seen from przyk and James and Bruce. All totally devoid of content. All totally dismissive. Can you imagine getting this past peer review when those peers are the guys who've been telling the fairy stories? The quacks are in charge of the circus, paddoboy.

 

[paddoboy]

I don't miss the point. The point is that nobody sees the clock cross the event horizon, because it doesn't.

If I had the clock on my person, I would certainly cross the EH in my FoR.....

Oh, it is a fairy story paddoboy. The cherry on top is that the infalling observer goes to the end of time and back and is in two places at once. As for getting it peer-reviewed, think about the response we've seen from przyk and James and Bruce. All totally devoid of content. All totally dismissive. Can you imagine getting this past peer review when those peers are the guys who've been telling the fairy stories? The quacks are in charge of the circus, paddoboy.

No,once again, it is not a fairy story.
And your dismissive rant of mainstream science, is quite similar to the same dismissive rants from other anti mainstreamers, conspiracy pushers, and pseudoscience adherents in general.
I also totally dismiss the quackery like claim of yours about going to the end of time and back and being in two places at once.

GR along with gravitational and cosmological time dilation [which are responsible for the different observations from different FoR] have been validated many times.


Again, if you are confident that you [and you alone] have seen the light so to speak [another characteristic of pseudoscience and conspiracy pushers] than get it peer reviewed.

 

[przyk]

That's a non-answer, przyk. You've totally dodged the issue as usual, you have no reasoned rebuttal, all you've given is a haughty dismissal.

False. I pointed out that your argument is based on a false premise. Put simply, you are attributing more significance to the Schwarzschild coordinates than you can actually justify. I haven't dismissed you. It's you who is ignoring concerns people raised with the Schwarzschild coordinates 90 years ago!

So let's try you on another tack. You're standing on a gedanken body, and you're shining a laser pointer vertically upwards. Now we make the body smaller and more massive. The light beam still points vertically upwards. We make the body ever smaller and ever more massive. There comes a point when the light doesn't get out. Why?

Because, if you work the situation out according to GR, you arrive at the following prediction: once the body reaches a certain critical density, gravitational collapse and the eventual formation of a future gravitational singularity become inevitable. In the simplest case typically studied in textbooks (an uncharged, spherically symmetric collapsing body), the gravitational singularity is (loosely speaking) something that happens at a certain time extended across a whole region of space. This means that there soon comes a point where it's too late for anything limited by the speed of light to escape the singularity before it forms. The light beam still goes up. It's just that, because you believe GR and you've worked out what's going to happen, you know that it's going to land on the singularity within the region of space that the singularity is going to form in.

That the singularity is really something that happens at a certain time, by the way, is also the reason the Schwarzschild coordinate system breaks down the way it does. If a whole region of space is going to become singular at a certain time, you obviously can't have a time coordinate that goes from $$t \,=\, -\infty$$ to $$t \,=\, +\infty$$ everywhere. The Schwarzschild coordinate system tries to insist on having one anyway, with a pathological result: the $$t$$ and $$r$$ coordinates are forced into switching their usual roles inside the event horizon. $$t$$ actually becomes a measure of spatial distance and $$r$$ becomes a measure of time there. That's why we keep telling you that the Schwarzschild coordinate singularity on the event horizon doesn't represent anything physical. It's simply the result of the coordinate system (and only the coordinate system) being badly twisted there.

(This also means that the pop-culture picture of a black hole, with a singularity at the centre and a spherical event horizon a bit further out, is really a popular misconception. $$r \,=\, 0$$, despite what the name would suggest, is not a point in space. It's better thought of as representing a certain time.)

 

[brucep]

Brucep, I did not introduce that Link : http://everythingforever.com/einstein.htm , into this Thread - another Poster did!

I was doing my best to point out to that Poster that the "theory" proposed by Gevin Giorbran had NOT met with "popular acceptance among most cosmologists and scientists"!

Maybe you could recommend "A good place to learn about cosmology", to that Poster!

You asked the question and I answered it. The advice for 'a good place to learn...' was meant for anybody interested in cosmology. You seem to think everything 'said' is a slight against you. You should work on fixing that. The logic path of my comment 'a good place to learn ...' doesn't end at your feet.