Black holes may not exist!

[Russ_Watters]

No. We are not talking about 99/3, we are talking about 1/3. Do you know the difference?

Yeah, I do: 99*1/3 = 99/3

Are you going to be getting to a point any time soon? Because I'm starting to get bored here.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Yeah, I do: 99*1/3 = 99/3

Are you going to be getting to a point any time soon? Because I'm starting to get bored here.

Again, we are talking about 1/3, not 99*(1/3)

One divided by three! Not ninety nine times one divided by three. You see the difference?

 

[Undefined]

Hi paddoboy, Farsight, everyone.

For anyone interested in the further professional speculations/hypotheses regarding the nature of the energy-space state(s) inside Black Hole Event Horizons:

http://phys.org/news/2014-02-astrophysicists-duo-planck-star-core.html

Sorry I can't stay and chat. Cheers.

PS: If you are interested, also please see my post #294, wherein I expressed my own long-observed ToE perspective on the energy-space state(s) inside black holes . What do you think, paddoboy, are the conclusions from my ToE regarding BH interior energy-space state(s) not so far from the evolving professional thinking after all?

 

[brucep]

Again, we are talking about 1/3, not 99*(1/3)

One divided by three! Not ninety nine times one divided by three. You see the difference?

You've got to be kidding.

99/3 = 33

99 * 1/3 = 33

 

[paddoboy]

Hi paddoboy, Farsight, everyone.

For anyone interested in the further professional speculations/hypotheses regarding the nature of the energy-space state(s) inside Black Hole Event Horizons:

http://phys.org/news/2014-02-astrophysicists-duo-planck-star-core.html

Sorry I can't stay and chat. Cheers.

PS: If you are interested, also please see my post #294, wherein I expressed my own long-observed ToE perspective on the energy-space state(s) inside black holes . What do you think, paddoboy, are the conclusions from my ToE regarding BH interior energy-space state(s) not so far from the evolving professional thinking after all?

Yep, I saw that early on today undefined....Interesting article.
And obviously further studies will be forthcoming.
But I don't see it as invalidating the accepted standard GR BH model, and the accepted standard mainstream deductions as to what happens from outside and local FoR's, to anyone with a clock approaching and crossing the EH.

This has been mentioned by James in post 323 and detailed as follows by me......

I'm really taken aback here, as to how many off mainstream interpretations we have re what happens approaching a BH.



We have at least three misinterpretations on the subject, that all disagree with each other anyway.
Then of course there is the common good old validated mainstream position.
[1] No FoR sees time, or experiences time as stopped or frozen.

[2] No external FoR will ever see the intrepid traveller to the BH and/or his clock as frozen/stopped in time, because they never ever see the intrepid traveller quite reaching the EH, just slowly being redshifted and fading beyond the viewing capabilities of their instruments

[3] From the local FoR of the intrepid traveller and his clock, nothing special is observed or actually happens as he crosses the EH. [Ignoring tidal effects if any]

That's how I [and the mainstream see it] and I have not yet been given any reason to change that view

 

[Motor Daddy]

You've got to be kidding.

99/3 = 33

99 * 1/3 = 33

You've got to be kidding.

Here's a hint: We are talking about 1's and 3's, not 9's or 99's. There are no 9's, only 1 divided by 3. You with me so far?

 

[Farsight]

Contextless quotes from Einstein before he published GR, much less before black hole theory was well developed are of little value here. He does not address the issue we are discussing.

He abandoned his own SR postulate Russ. And that last quote was from after he published GR.

It's been colder than a freezer in my area this winter and I assure you that my cell phone's clock and GPS receiver work perfectly fine.
Repeating it won't make it true. You have to know you are wrong because you know your own thought experiment is wrong:
Since you know you can't travel at C, you must know that your assumption is non-physical. It doesn't happen in the real world, only in your fantasy universe.

You know what RJ and I are talking about with the time dilation and the clocks. What I've said is no fantasy. The fantasy is the stopped observer seeing the stopped clock ticking normally. The fantasy is the infalling observer going to the end of time and back and being in two places at once.

BINGO!!!! Thank you James...

[to Farsight]

...No, you certainly do not understand it!

James has done a runner, paddoboy. I've explained it, he can't counter my explanation.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Again, we are talking about 1/3, not 99*(1/3)

One divided by three! Not ninety nine times one divided by three. You see the difference?

OK, I'm out. If you make a point, maybe I'll be back in.

 

[Russ_Watters]

He abandoned his own SR postulate Russ. And that last quote was from after he published GR.

You know what RJ and I are talking about with the time dilation and the clocks. What I've said is no fantasy. The fantasy is the stopped observer seeing the stopped clock ticking normally. The fantasy is the infalling observer going to the end of time and back and being in two places at once.


James has done a runner, paddoboy. I've explained it, he can't counter my explanation.

I notice you ignored the quote that directly addresses your claim...here it is again:

A Brief History of Time, page 89+ discusses this issue in detail. A quick quote:

"He would not, in fact, feel anything special as he reached the critical radius, and could pass the point of no return without noticing it."

 

[Motor Daddy]

OK, I'm out. If you make a point, maybe I'll be back in.

I made the point, it went over your head. Maybe if you figure it out you can come back and let me know you figured it out, and that I'm right?

 

[Russ_Watters]

I made the point, it went over your head. Maybe if you figure it out you can come back and let me know you figured it out, and that I'm right?

Cool.

 

[przyk]

He abandoned his own SR postulate Russ.

Yet you explicitly agreed that the coordinate speed of light is generally not an invariant even in special relativity. So there wasn't actually anything to abandon.

See, this is a situation where blindly believing what Einstein says and thinking logically for yourself about Einstein's work get you to different conclusions.

It's interesting that, when faced with the choice, you go for blind belief in your chosen authority figure.

 

[Farsight]

...This is what rpenner would call "naked assertion". Things aren't true just because you say they are.

Agreed. That's why I refer to hard scientific evidence.

...You never seem to grasp that this is the real cause of resistance to things you post here...

IMHO the resistance is because people cling to what they've been taught even though the evidence proves it's wrong.

...It's the all-important "Why should I believe you?" bit that you always leave completely blank.

I explain things with the logic and the evidence, which some then ignore.

For the umpteenth time, Farsight: YES! This is absolutely true, and you should be sceptical when faced with statements based on coordinate systems. So why is it you keep mysteriously forgetting this scepticism when confronted with statements based on the Schwarzschild chart?

I don't forget it. What I do is focus on the evidence, and the speed of light. The measured speed of light isn't the speed of light. The coordinate speed of light is the speed of light. And at the event horizon, it's zero. No more coordinates.

Seriously, look up how the Schwarzschild geometry and coordinates are actually derived sometime. Anywhere (like, don't read MTW if you don't like MTW. Find another complete derivation that you trust more, as long as it covers all the details). Even at a quick glance, you'll see references to "static" and "spherically symmetric" and something called "Birkhoff's theorem" and maybe these things called "Killing vectors". Even you should be able to take the hint, if you look into it far enough: Schwarzschild coordinates are defined, first and foremost, to have certain nice mathematical (in your parlance, "abstract") properties. There's very little there, if anything at all about these coordinates being closely related to observer's experiences and measurements and such. It so happens that the mathematical properties of Schwarzschild coordinates make them very practical for thinking about some problems, like "gravitational time dilation" and Doppler shifts between observers who spend most of their time at fixed Schwarzschild radii, but that's as far as it goes, and you should not unquestioningly take everything stated in Schwarzschild coordinates literally.

I don't take anything unquestioningly.

Every time, you keep responding with this same story about stopped clocks and observers going to the end of "time" and back and such, when Schwarzschild coordinates are not closely defined based on what clocks measure in the first place.

Noted.

You dismissed the point I was making without understanding its implications. Locally inertial coordinate systems are coordinate systems in which all physical behaviour, locally over reasonably short distances, resembles physics in special relativity. In other words, it's not just clocks but all physical behaviour that is practically normal and unremarkable near a black hole event horizon.

That's what you think. You also think that to challenge that, is to challenge the very ethos of general relativity. That "all frames are equal". Yes? Well they aren't.

So your "putting a stopped observer in front of a stopped clock" retort is pure strawman. I'm saying something quite a bit more substantial than that, and it's different enough that it wouldn't work If I tried to say the same thing about a truly frozen observer moving at the speed of light.

It's no strawman przyk. It goes right to the heart of your understanding of gravity and relativity and black holes. And there's no other way I can say this: your understanding is wrong. From your more recent post above:

Yet you explicitly agreed that the coordinate speed of light is generally not an invariant even in special relativity. So there wasn't actually anything to abandon.

Einstein said what he said: "The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is to be abandoned". And he said Geschwindigkeit.

See, this is a situation where blindly believing what Einstein says and thinking logically for yourself about Einstein's work get you to different conclusions. It's interesting that, when faced with the choice, you go for blind belief in your chosen authority figure.

I don't have blind belief in Einstein. Yes, I pay attention to what he says. But the hard scientific evidence says the speed of light varies with gravitational potential. And that hard scientific evidence is more important than anything anybody says.

 

[paddoboy]

James has done a runner, paddoboy. I've explained it, he can't counter my explanation.

You think so?
Maybe he is just too busy to waste time on your continued effort at pushing shit up hill.

James has given exactly as I see it, and that which is accepted by the vast mainstream of cosmology.
As I have told others, if you have any other proposal or evidence to support your scenario, you wouldn't be coming here.
You would get it peer reviewed through proper channels.
And that applies to anyone that can falsify any incumbent model.
You should know without being told, that forums such as this, attract the anti mainstreamers, the alternative theory pushers, and conspiracy nutters, like a a magnet.

Personally, I cannot dispute your mathematical claims one way or the other, but that doesn't mean you are automatically correct.
And again, if you do have the confidence in your calculations, get it peer reviewed through reputable channels.

 

[brucep]

You've got to be kidding.

Here's a hint: We are talking about 1's and 3's, not 9's or 99's. There are no 9's, only 1 divided by 3. You with me so far?

Regardless what you're talking about those two expressions are equivalent.

 

[brucep]

He abandoned his own SR postulate Russ. And that last quote was from after he published GR.

You know what RJ and I are talking about with the time dilation and the clocks. What I've said is no fantasy. The fantasy is the stopped observer seeing the stopped clock ticking normally. The fantasy is the infalling observer going to the end of time and back and being in two places at once.


James has done a runner, paddoboy. I've explained it, he can't counter my explanation.

You're the runner. How about showing me what makes the Schwarzschild remote coordinates more fundamental than the transformation to the local rain coordinates that I provided the derivation for? The problem for you is you can't understand the calculus much less the physics. How can we have respect for anything you say when you spend so much time 'murdering' the subjects you choose to 'expound upon' in this forum. Ignorance is a choice Farsight.

 

[przyk]

Agreed. That's why I refer to hard scientific evidence.

This is silly. You've never sent a clock to or through a black hole event horizon and even if you could you probably couldn't get it back. Nobody has direct evidence about what happens to clocks near or at black hole event horizons. This entire discussion is purely theoretical. General relativity was defined in mathematical detail nearly a century ago, and we are discussing how to understand one of its predictions.

IMHO the resistance is because people cling to what they've been taught even though the evidence proves it's wrong.

Your assessment of everyone's reaction to you isn't plausible, particularly the reactions of physicists who have responded here and elsewhere:

• A physicist who learned general relativity will be expected to understand the theory, and how to derive predictions and consequences from it, in far more detail than you do. University-level exams will specifically test for this.
• Physics, for better or worse, has a reputation as a hard subject with reasonable (but not fantastic) job and career prospects. It's not the sort of thing you go to study in university if you just want to put a degree on your CV.
• If you think physics is full of book-memorisers, the job market disagrees with you. Physics graduates routinely end up in programming/software architecture, engineering, and finance/banking/insurance jobs for their general technical and model-building abilities. Book-memorising is not a useful skill in these professions.
• The Galileos and Newtons and Einsteins, who completely revolutionised what they worked on, are cultural heroes in physics. That's the lesson everyone interested in physics learns very early: if you can revolutionise the mainstream understanding of physics, you'll be famous for it. Everyone wants to be the next Einstein.
• Many internet forum users are about my age or younger (late teens to mid or late twenties). This isn't a demographic exactly known for being old and set in its ways.

I explain things with the logic

Your "logical" explanations are not based on the mathematical definition of general relativity. You never argue by GR's own inner logic, You instead post handwavy arguments and stories about light clocks and such, and just assume it's the same thing as GR.

I don't forget it. What I do is focus on the evidence, and the speed of light. The measured speed of light isn't the speed of light. The coordinate speed of light is the speed of light.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

That's what you think. You also think that to challenge that, is to challenge the very ethos of general relativity. That "all frames are equal". Yes? Well they aren't.

Well you don't agree with general relativity then. It is specifically formulated in such a way as to not depend on the choice of coordinates. This is how Einstein did it pretty much right from the start.

It's no strawman przyk. It goes right to the heart of your understanding of gravity and relativity and black holes. And there's no other way I can say this: your understanding is wrong.

I'd counter that your understanding of my understanding is wrong. Nobody is just putting a "stopped clock in front of a stopped observer". The Kruskal and many other coordinate systems successfully remove the coordinate singularity in the Schwarzschild metric at the event horizon. Why can you never criticise them for what they actually do?

I don't have blind belief in Einstein. Yes, I pay attention to what he says. But the hard scientific evidence says the speed of light varies with gravitational potential. And that hard scientific evidence is more important than anything anybody says.

You're still not getting this. You quote Einstein saying that the invariance of c postulate has to be abandoned. Fine. But you also admit that the coordinate speed of light is already not an invariant in special relativity. So you tell me: how can Einstein abandon something that was never a postulate in relativity? Do you really not see the contradiction here?

 

[Undefined]

Hi Russ, Bruce, Motor Daddy.

Russ, bruce, the concepts involved in Motor Daddy's challenge to you are: The UNITARY 'state' concept and the concept of its SEGMENTATION into FRACTIONAL COMPONENTS of that UNITARY 'state'.

The output of such a 'hypothetical' segmentation is what the essential challenge addresses; and whether or not 1/3 is a purely 'mathematical axiomatic abstraction operation' or a 'real physically achievable operation'.

The math treatment/assumptions has it as a 'fait accompli' in ABSTRACTION....whereas Motor Daddy points out (just as I did earlier on elsewhere to Trippy) that the 1/3 'operation' is NOT in reality 'accompli' at all....as it hasn't even been 'started', since no real 'division process' is involved in the maths NOTATION of a STATIC expression which is symbolic only UNTIL the operation IS effected in reality.

Trivial rewriting/re-expression of UNITARY as 99/99 or 2/2 etc etc, is not valid when the ultimate logical essential is the point rather than trivial manipulation/composition/de-composition exercise which miss the point of the essential 'unadulterated' exercise which Motor Daddy has put to you.

Sorry I haven't time to stay and chat. Just thought this observation might help forestall more of the usual cross-purpose exchanges like those between you above. Cheers.

 

[Undefined]

Hi Farsight, przyk, Russ, everyone

A Brief History of Time, page 89+ discusses this issue in detail. A quick quote:

"He would not, in fact, feel anything special as he reached the critical radius, and could pass the point of no return without noticing it."

How can it be "in fact" in any sense but abstractions of mathematical models using abstract static "space-TIME" concept/logics/interpretations? As przyk just pointed out quite correctly:

...never sent a clock to or through a black hole event horizon and even if you could you probably couldn't get it back. Nobody has direct evidence about what happens to clocks near or at black hole event horizons. This entire discussion is purely theoretical. General relativity was defined in mathematical detail nearly a century ago, and we are discussing how to understand one of its predictions.

So, Russ, you can't quote someone's OPINION as 'fact' when its based on purely abstract models which have not actually been tested in reality at the BH event horizon. Your quoted statement 'as fact' is only abstract prediction from abstract models. Period.



PS: I again refer you to my post#... wherein I again pointed out that all these discussions will inevitably end up in these same impasse state of cross-purpose exchanges ad infinitum unless and until you all drop the abstraction os 'space-TIME' as a basis for your conceptual/logical arguments and references to reality....and substitute the REALITY BASED 'ENERGY-space' (or if you will, 'MOTION-space' as Maxila has effectively used it in his explanations that 'TIME' is merely an abstraction used in static maths model 'space-TIME').

It is the continuing insistence on using and relying on this ABSTRACTION ONLY 'space-TIME' construct FROM BOTH SIDES in your discussion that is constantly causing your discussions to end up again and again at an irreconcilable impasse because NEITHER 'side' is basing their observations/logics/interpretations on the REALITY model. Again I strongly suggest you all advance away from mere math 'space-time' based arguments, and move the discussions forward using the reality based 'space-ENERGY' (or 'space-MOTION') analytical approach. Only then will you all be 'on the same page' and the discussions can finally move on from the old cross-purpose, abstraction-based, irreconcilable UNREAL perspectives which is causing so much needless antipathy along the lines of 'who believes who/what' about mere abstractions that do NOT address the reality involved! If what you all like to do is argue round and round while only presenting 'mere abstractions as facts', then go to it. But if you all are serious in trying to actually argue/understand REALITY as it is, you must drop all the 'space-TIME' static assumptions/interpretations model which as passed its use-by-date long ago, useful as it has been until now when we have to move on to reality approach (at last) if we want to progress from abstractions based arguments which are essentially 'philosophical arguments' dressed up 'mathematically' to look like 'reality science'.

I look forward to reading less of the old, seemingly never-ending, cross-purpose round and round exchanges as I now resume read-only mode for another while. Good luck, everyone!


PPS: Paddoboy: But did you note that the perspective output from my complete and consistent ToE 'from scratch' (see my post #294) is highly consistent with the evolving 'professional' physicist perspectives being canvassed more and more lately, as exampled in the linked article in my post #343? Oh, as for the conventional ABSTRACTIONS being repeated as 'facts', I refer you to my comments above to Farsight, przyk et al.

 

[Russ_Watters]

How can it be "in fact" in any sense but abstractions of mathematical models...

That is indeed what Hawking was saying.

So, Russ, you can't quote someone's OPINION as 'fact'...

I did no such thing. I quoted Hawking's opinion as a representation of the mainstream scientific position. What I'm looking for is an acknowledgement from guys like RJ and Farsight that they recognize that they are arguing against the mainstream scientific opinion.

I'm reasonably certain they know it, they just are avoiding it because of the implications.