Black holes may not exist!

[Farsight]

Sorry to be tardy. It's been a hasslesome weekend.

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.

The hard scientific evidence is for the speed of light varying with position, like Einstein said.

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.

All points noted. But let me reiterate my point: physicists who have been taught relativity don't understand it, and they don't understand gravity or black holes.

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.

My logical explanations are based on the hard scientific evidence and what Einstein said. They aren't handwavey, and you can't fault them.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Remember the Einstein quote and think about it some more: The measured speed of light isn't the speed of light. The coordinate speed of light is the speed of light.

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.

The issue is that general relativity as it is now taught does not agree with Einstein.

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?

Because they aren't successful. Remember the Einstein quote? "This means the clock kept at this place would go at the rate zero. Further it is easy to show that both light rays and material particles take an infinitely long time (as measured in 'coordinate time') to reach the point r = u /2 ..." If the clock rate is zero it doesn't tick. If it takes an infinite time to get there you never get there. You can't change this by transforming coordinates. It's cloud-cuckoo physics.

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?

Przyk, go and look up the postulates of SR. Stop kidding yourself in some desperate attempt to claim I'm wrong. I'm not wrong. Nor was Einstein. Now read what he said, and pay attention instead of believing hook line and sinker in some fairy-tale you've been taught:

1911: “If we call the velocity of light at the origin of coordinates c₀, then the velocity of light c at a place with the gravitation potential Φ will be given by the relation c = c₀(1 + Φ/c²)”.

1912: “On the other hand I am of the view that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light can be maintained only insofar as one restricts oneself to spatio-temporal regions of constant gravitational potential”.

1913: “I arrived at the result that the velocity of light is not to be regarded as independent of the gravitational potential. Thus the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is incompatible with the equivalence hypothesis”.

1915: “the writer of these lines is of the opinion that the theory of relativity is still in need of generalization, in the sense that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is to be abandoned”.

1916: “In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position”.

 

[Farsight]

Let's try again with the info..... http://hubblesite.org/explore_astronomy/black_holes/encyc_mod3_q15.html where it says.....

Imagine that we are on a spaceship near a black hole. We drop a clock into the black hole and compare its time to that of our onboard clock. The falling clock runs progressively slower. It never crosses the event horizon, but stays frozen there in space and time. The falling clock also becomes continuously redder, since its light loses energy as it escapes from the black hole's vicinity.

By contrast, if we were falling with the clock, time would appear to behave perfectly normally. We would see no slowdown as we approached the event horizon.

It's correct up to here. Then it goes wrong.

We would cross the horizon without any perceptible change, and our color would not appear to change. This is the principle of relativity: things can appear different depending on whether you are moving or standing still.

This is bollocks. See above. The falling clock never crosses the event horizon. If you're falling with the clock, you haven't crossed the event horizon yet. Even if you started falling 13 billion years ago.

 

[Farsight]

That is indeed what Hawking was saying.

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.

I'm not avoiding it. What I'm arguing for used to be mainstream. Black holes used to be called "frozen stars". Einstein thought it took an infinite time to get to the event horizon. He talked about the speed of light varying with position. Somewhere along the line relativity changed, and what's now considered to be mainstream doesn't match Einstein and the evidence.

Let me go a bit further and throw down the gauntlet here: I'd say that some of the stuff touted as mainstream is Emperor's New Clothes pseudoscience trash that doesn't stand a moment's scrutiny. And that some of the physicists touted as being great aren't great, and instead are mere celebrity quacks whose contribution to physics is zip.

 

[paddoboy]

Again paddoboy, I apologize for the FACT that if you cannot understand the difference between a theory and a fact - for whatever reason - then further discussion is an exercise in futility.

You apologise only for your own lack of understanding of what a scientific theory is, and its meaning to science. And obviously by the tone of most of your posts,here and elsewhere, this reflects your anti mainstream stance......
Your posts continually argue against the scientific methodology, you make accusations re reification of science, you reflect the notion that science is not real, a dream no less, including SR/GR postulates.
Let me straighten you out.
GR in effect informs us of the very real relationship between the curvature of space/time and mass energy/density.
This is amply illustrated in the following link.....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Can space exist by itself without matter or energy around?

No. Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation.

https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You do observe matter to be real obviously? Then it follows that from whatever that matter arose, also has the same reality.
Got it?
Also on the following.....
Time dilation happens: we have evidence.
Length contraction happens: we have evidence.
We may not have been anywhere near the vicinity of a BH, and probably never will [at least in the near future] but we still are able to make legitimate and logical predictions about what happens.
Have a look at Alpha Centauri tonight.......Are you saying you don't believe you are looking at it, as it was 4.5 years ago?
All the questions you ask me you obviously need to ask yourself.
I stand by and promote the mainstream position on GR and BH's.
You are supporting a non mainstream position.
I've said it many many times, but once again....I suggest you ask your peers promoting the anti mainstream position, if they are confident it represents the "truth" then get it peer reviewed. A Nobel prize maybe waiting in the wings.
It's as simple as that.

 

[paddoboy]

GR is a theory. It is not abstract: no proper scientific theory is. This is yet another attempt by you to denigrate science by adding derogatory adjectives. And another attempt by you to start a completely unnecessary argument about something basic and not in question.

Since you clearly still don't understand the scientific method very well, I certainly agree that discussion of these issues with you is futile. But you're going to continue poking us anyway, because that's what you do.

Jeez, this thread has really gone full crackpot. In the last few posts, we've had:
-It's only a theory.
-I'm smarter than Einstein/Hawking.
-Science is dogmatic.

I should start giving crackpot index scores to peoples' posts when I respond to them!

Well put Russ!!!
Have you noticed how the questions and links I have put [ here and elsewhere] have all gone unanswered?

So far in this thread, we have had a few ideas/hypothesis not aligning to the mainstream....
[1] BH's/EH's dont exist.....[2] BH's exist with no EH,....[3] Time is seen to stop at the EH but you still cross the EH...[4] time stops and you never cross the EH...[5] All FoR's are not valid [6] GR is an abstraction and not real.....[7] It's only a theory!

They can scream and shout and jump up and down all they like, they are like the cocky on the biscuit tin....They just aint in it!

 

[paddoboy]

The hard scientific evidence is for the speed of light varying with position, like Einstein said.

The speed of light does not vary, and I suggest you have taken the great man out of context.

All points noted. But let me reiterate my point: physicists who have been taught relativity don't understand it, and they don't understand gravity or black holes.

The same plaintiff cries from all anti mainstreamers is often heard on these sort of forums.....Afterall, it's the only outlet they have.

The issue is that general relativity as it is now taught does not agree with Einstein.

Rubbish.



As I said to dmoe, if you doubt the mainstream acceptance of GR and BH's, and have real evidence to invalidate it, then get it peer reviewed. Otherwise you are like that cocky I spoke of in the previous post.

 

[paddoboy]

Let me go a bit further and throw down the gauntlet here: I'd say that some of the stuff touted as mainstream is Emperor's New Clothes pseudoscience trash that doesn't stand a moment's scrutiny. And that some of the physicists touted as being great aren't great, and instead are mere celebrity quacks whose contribution to physics is zip.

You've thrown down no more than a thin glove.
It's not the mainstream opinion here that is pseudoscience....It's the 5 or 6 different versions, you and the other anti mainstreamers want to push down others throats.
I suggest you all get your house in order and see what you are able to come up with.
I won't hold my breath though.

 

[paddoboy]

then further discussion is an exercise in futility.

Obviously you have that back to front...upside down........
I take the mainstream position.....which has undergone the scientific method and peer review.....
You occupy the other side, with no scientific method and no peer review.
The evidence therefor shows any futility rests with any discussion with yourself.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

“Space and time are modes by which we think, not conditions under which we live.”
- Albert Einstein

 

[Motor Daddy]

“Space and time are modes by which we think, not conditions under which we live.”
- Albert Einstein

We live in space and our lives elapse in time.

Motor Daddy

 

[paddoboy]

“Space and time are modes by which we think, not conditions under which we live.”
- Albert Einstein

Probably taken out of context.....and of course space and time are not exactly space/time.
Einstein also said Time is an illusion, albeit a stubborn one.
Tell me, one of the many questions you failed to answer in another thread, what was GP-B measuring?
Where does matter come from?
Where does energy come from?
Are they real? Is matter real?

 

[paddoboy]

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.
Einstein's belief in an undivided solid reality was clear to him, so much so that he completely rejected the separation we experience as the moment of now. He believed there is no true division between past and future, there is rather a single existence. His most descriptive testimony to this faith came when his lifelong friend Besso died. Einstein wrote a letter to Besso's family, saying that although Besso had preceded him in death it was of no consequence, "...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one."


http://everythingforever.com/einstein.htm

 

[Motor Daddy]

Where does energy come from?

In my opinion this is the problem. When one asks the question, "Where does energy come from?", that is similar to asking, "Where does Horsepower come from," or "where does voltage come from?"

Energy is Power*Time. Look at your "ENERGY BILL." They charge you by the KILOWATT HOUR, which is a unit of measure of energy. A "Kilowatt" is a unit of measure of POWER. A "Kilowatt Hour" is 1,000 Watts of power for 1 hour.

So to rephrase your question, "Where does a 100 Watt light bulb burned for an hour come from?" (Puzzled)

 

[Undefined]

Good morning, paddo, everyone. I have a couple hours before heading to Sydney, so I take this opportunity to try and forestall what I see as a developing trend (from various quarters) towards micharacterization and generalization of stances/perspective which conflates and confuses the various side-discussions happening in this thread. This instance of nebulous and unhelpful simplistic restatements of opinions in lieu of actually addressing the subtle but important issues involved is a case in point, paddo:

The point is it is the mainstream position for a reason.......
That is according to GR, to be the most likely scenarios.

Mate, seriously, I appreciate your enthusiasm and zeal in trumpeting the status quo as you understand it as a layman, but can you please curb your repetitious "mainstream is all I need to believe" cheerleading tendencies?

Please realize right away that every new idea/perspective was 'alternative to current mainstream' before it was properly considered and (sometimes) becomes part of current mainstream. That is how mainstream science advances, from one impasse to the next, via 'alternative' ideas from professionals, amateurs and joe blow down the road who had a serendipituosly helpful notion which may (and sometimes does!) change the course of history.

So please stop peppering the thread with constant generalized re-iterated mainstream beliefs on your part, and try to actually explore fairly and generously what is being presented from me or anyone else that you consider 'alternative' and hence 'heresy against mainstream' without acknowledging instances where there may actually be validity/merit to an alternative idea even though it was not presented by mainstream/professionals. It's like pulling teeth sometimes, yo get you to acknowledge a good idea; as you tend to discount it if it did not issue from 'mainstream' even though mainstream is 'catching up' to that non-mainstream idea NOW.

For instance, I pointed out where my 'alternative' ToE from scratch has been consistent in outputting the conclusion that the interior of Black Hole features is NOT as the mainstream/GR theories had it for decades now; and that NOW mainstream is speculating with 'altenative ideas' of their own which are uncannily close to my 'alternative' conclusions (ie, that the BH interior consists of infallen matter-energy features which BH conditions cause to phase-change/deconstruct down to the more fundamental energy-space type content which is distributed over much of the volume below the EH 'zone' I also mentioned and not forced into some 'central point-like' singularity). I have also in the past elsewhere pointed out that the BH feature survives until a transition occurs where the energy-space content within outstrips the 'maximal' containment capability of the gravitational effects such that the outwards pressure of the chaotic-dynamics of the quantum-scale fundamental states of interior energy-space BH contents 'violently overwhelm and escape the BH feature which has over-reached its 'maximal' GR-related containment. But your acknowledgement that my ideas are now becoming 'mainstream alternative' postulations is buried underneath yet more cheerleading and reiteration and 'links' from you stressing you contentment at staying with your current simplistic 'understandings' which are being LEFT BEHIND by me and mainstream in this case!

Can you not admit, paddoboy, without mealy mouthed roundabout reiteration of mainstream dogma (as 'cover' for not doing so), that my heretofore 'alternative' conclusions from my ToE are VALID and becoming more 'mainstream' by the day if the mainstream professional speculative own 'alternatives' are also to be taken as seriously as you take all other 'mainstream' authority as seemingly sacrosanct and use that to beat others over the head via a snowstorm of wiki-links etc which are already well known and don't need you to keep plastering over all these tgreads while ignoring/avoiding recognizing where some 'alternatives' from NON-mainstream may be even more valid than current status quo you keep trumpeting your facile 'understanding' of daily without respite and pause for thought about the NEW ideas that are coming from all 'sides' that is CHANGING the status quo as we speak, and so make your 'current facile layman understandings' OLD HAT and beside the point of the new issue being discussed?

As for those that consider mainstream theory 'non-abstract fact', please stop and think long enough to realize that any current theory based purely on the ABSTRACT MATHEMATICAL CONSTRUCT of SPACE-TIME is fraught with interpretations/conclusions which ARE ABSTRACTIONS perforce of the model being fundamentally abstractions-based.

Curb your willingness to treat abstraction as reality, else you become just another 'religious believer in mathematical fantasies' pure and simple, and so never will take the next step which will break the impasse to understanding the reality as it is rather than as you abstract it to be via mainstream OR non-mainstream 'fantasies' which somehow become treated as 'fact' by the unwary practitioners/trumpeters of abstraction.

Understand once for all that progress can only be made when we eschew abstract "TIME" and the abstract "space-TIME" models (useful as they have been to date, but which have now hit a brick wall and so cause all these futile cross-purpose exchanges I see again here). Because both 'sides' in those exchanges claim 'authority' from the ABSTRACT "space-TIME" GR/SR mathematical nodeling FANTASIES, then no wonder those exchanges are increasingly sounding like those silly arguments "how many angels can stand on the head of a pin" fantasy based 'scientific discussions', since BOTH 'sides' are loathe to abandon the abstract fantasy construct and move on to the reality based construct.

So paddoboy, everyone, until we ALL wean ourselves off the abstract-thinking approach to understanding reality, these exchanges are doomed to futility as NEITHER 'side' can 'win' their arguments which are equally abstract and thus can never represent the 'reality case' as it is, no matter what abstract assumptions/interpretatons/conclusions you trade insults over.

Objective friendly suggestion to those who willing to review and advance from the abstractions caused impasse:

Substitute REAL ENERGY/MOTION for TIME; rework all "space-TIME" models old and new into "space-ENERGY/MOTION" models that have some chance at least of representing the observed reality and so can form a REAL basis for interpretations/conclusions to base theory on.

That's it, I have to get ready for my Sydney trip. Back in a couple days if I can. Cheers paddoboy, everyone!

 

[brucep]

I'm not avoiding it. What I'm arguing for used to be mainstream. Black holes used to be called "frozen stars". Einstein thought it took an infinite time to get to the event horizon. He talked about the speed of light varying with position. Somewhere along the line relativity changed, and what's now considered to be mainstream doesn't match Einstein and the evidence.

Let me go a bit further and throw down the gauntlet here: I'd say that some of the stuff touted as mainstream is Emperor's New Clothes pseudoscience trash that doesn't stand a moment's scrutiny. And that some of the physicists touted as being great aren't great, and instead are mere celebrity quacks whose contribution to physics is zip.

Whose going to do the scrutiny. LOL. You? Start by scrutinizing the transformation from remote Schwarzschild bookkeeper coordinates to the local rain coordinates I linked for you. Explain why the remote coordinates are preferred over the rain coordinates. LOL. BTW the last paragraph in your post is complete intellectual dishonest self serving bullshit. It's time for you to anti up some real scientific scrutiny.
chapter 7 [7.4] inside BH.
http://exploringblackholes.com/

My guess is you're going to ignore [avoid] this opportunity to do some 'scrutiny'. Because you can't actually do it beyond quote mining and bullshit analogy. It's clear that your previous attempts at 'scrutiny' have resulted in your complete ignorance of the subject you're scrutinizing. Show me I'm wrong about you being a useless troll.

 

[Undefined]

We live in space and our lives elapse in time.

Motor Daddy

Careful, Motor Daddy! In the reality, to live/exist is a purely philosophical concept, as is eternity/time (as I pointed out in QQ's thread).

In reality, and in the only objectively scientifically tenable observational evidence and conclusions therefrom (and as Maxila keeps reminding us) we actually just OCCUR and CHANGE/MOVE in SPACE. Period.

"All else is fantasy of philosophy/mathematics abstraction and self-referencing subjectivity concepts/conclusions"------Undefined.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Careful, Motor Daddy! In the reality, to live/exist is a purely philosophical concept, as is eternity/time (as I pointed out in QQ's thread).

In reality, and in the only objectively scientifically tenable observational evidence and conclusions therefrom (and as Maxila keeps reminding us) we actually just OCCUR and CHANGE/MOVE in SPACE. Period.

"All else is fantasy of philosophy/mathematics abstraction and self-referencing subjectivity concepts/conclusions"------Undefined.

Change happens over a duration of time. If at t=0 there was no "occurrence" of "you" and then at t=1 there you are, then time happened, PERIOD! MOVE? Yeah, than means to travel a DISTANCE in space. Travel a distance in space? That took time... Next!

 

[Undefined]

Where does matter come from?
Where does energy come from?
Are they real? Is matter real?

Mainstream does not even pretend to have a consistent theory for the hypothetical Big Bang genesis conditions prior to their equally hypothetical Inflation stage which is as far as the 'abstract space-time' model goes.

So good luck in answering your own questions from the 'mainstream consensus' which you so readily and frequently tout as your 'preferred' source of such abstractions which don't really answer fundamental questions but merely model and predict on an abstract level that which we can observe.

Again, paddoboy, curb your habit of facile understandings as abstract sticks which you try to use when beating others over the head just because they do not share your preference for cheerleading mainstream while missing the actual points being made that show mainstream is itself now moving away from the facile abstract 'understandings' which you seem to be 'stuck' in while ypu clutter these interesting discussions with irrelevant/old 'links' and 'understandings' which 'date' you and your mindset.

Open up, mate....there's a whole new real world construct coming, and it will pass you by if you're stuck on the kerb tied to abstract facile 'understandings' which mainstream is moving on from as we speak. Good luck, mate.

PS: Leaving the house for my Sydney sojourn now. See/read you later, paddo, everyone!

 

[paddoboy]

In my opinion this is the problem. When one asks the question, "Where does energy come from?", that is similar to asking, "Where does Horsepower come from," or "where does voltage come from?"

No, it's not a problem...We have a reasonable theory extrapolated from the expanding Universe, BB and GR that says energy originates from space/time, phase transitions and false vacuums.....I'm not going into that again...you can google.

Mate, seriously, I appreciate your enthusiasm and zeal in trumpeting the status quo as you understand it as a layman, but can you please curb your repetitious "mainstream is all I need to believe" cheerleading tendencies?

Sorry to disappoint you. What I believe of the mainstream, makes perfect sense to me...and if it didn't, I would be asking questions.
I certainly would not be trumpeting that I had found something that 100 years of mainstream science greats have missed.
And until, all here, that are trumpeting against the accepted mainstream picture, get their act together, and present a united front, I'll stick with what I know best.

Please realize right away that every new idea/perspective was 'alternative to current mainstream' before it was properly considered and (sometimes) becomes part of current mainstream. That is how mainstream science advances, from one impasse to the next, via 'alternative' ideas from professionals, amateurs and joe blow down the road who had a serendipituosly helpful notion which may (and sometimes does!) change the course of history.

You are now teaching Granny how to suck eggs.....
I know how mainstream science advances, via the scientific method and peer review....and with apologies to all administrators of science forums everywhere, forums are not peer review.

So please stop peppering the thread with constant generalized re-iterated mainstream beliefs on your part, and try to actually explore fairly and generously what is being presented from me or anyone else that you consider 'alternative' and hence 'heresy against mainstream' without acknowledging instances where there may actually be validity/merit to an alternative idea even though it was not presented by mainstream/professionals. It's like pulling teeth sometimes, yo get you to acknowledge a good idea; as you tend to discount it if it did not issue from 'mainstream' even though mainstream is 'catching up' to that non-mainstream idea NOW.

Again I must disappoint you.....
Maybe you need to discuss the relevant points as James put them the other day, and as put in my three or four reputable links....My thoughts continue to align and support those positions....which just so happens to be the mainstream position.

 

[paddoboy]

So paddoboy, everyone, until we ALL wean ourselves off the abstract-thinking approach to understanding reality, these exchanges are doomed to futility as NEITHER 'side' can 'win' their arguments which are equally abstract and thus can never represent the 'reality case' as it is, no matter what abstract assumptions/interpretatons/conclusions you trade insults over.

Objective friendly suggestion to those who willing to review and advance from the abstractions caused impasse:

What you see as abstractions have been measured and observed by GP-B and other probes, and greater individuals than you and me, see them as real.

For instance, I pointed out where my 'alternative' ToE from scratch has been consistent in outputting the conclusion that the interior of Black Hole features is NOT as the mainstream/GR theories had it for decades now;

Seriously I wish you the best with your alternative TOE....Let me know how peer review takes it.