Black holes may not exist!

[Russ_Watters]

Try this one, Farsight: the infalling observer carries a clock with arbitrarily high precision. What time does it read when it freezes?

Better yet, could you graph it for us?

 

[paddoboy]

I said physicists who have been taught relativity don't understand it, and they don't understand gravity or black holes. Because they've been taught wrong. Guys like przyk have great difficulty in coming to terms with this. Guys like me point out what Einstein said, and when it doesn't square with what they've been taught, they go all floppy on you.

You are like the cocky on the biscuit tine: You ain't in it.
Why sprout your stuff here, if it is fact?
Why not get it peer reviewed?
I tell you why not....Because science forums such as this are the only outlet conspiracy pushers, anti mainstream nutters, and pseudoscience ratbags have.
The scrutinization of legitimate peer review, would show your interpretation up for what it is.
And as I mentioned yesterday to undefined, there are around 4 or 5 different anti mainstream versions here so far on GR and BH EH's......I suggest you all come to some agreement on which fairy tale is best, and then see how that stacks up to the real mainstream model which you all so vehemently hate.
I won't hold my breath though.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Try this one: the infalling observer carries a clock with arbitrarily high precision. What time does it read when it freezes?

.999...

 

[origin]

I said physicists who have been taught relativity don't understand it, and they don't understand gravity or black holes. Because they've been taught wrong. Guys like przyk have great difficulty in coming to terms with this. Guys like me point out what Einstein said, and when it doesn't square with what they've been taught, they go all floppy on you.

Your arrogance is only eclipsed by your ignorance.

 

[brucep]

Farsight:

I don't know where he wrote that, but he must have meant "from the perspective of a distant observer".



A person in the same reference frame as a clock always sees that clock tick at the normal rate.



Yes you can. Distant coordinate time blows up at the event horizon, but proper time does not.



Good for you. But if Einstein actually claimed what you're claiming then he was wrong too. (Not that I think he did.)



Your clock is only stopped from the point of view of a distant observer sitting far from the hole. From your point of view, your clock never stops.



But we know that my time goes slow relative to yours when I'm at the bottom of your cable and you're at the top. When you hoist me back up again, we'll agree on how many times I flashed the beam. And I'll tell you that the whole time I was flashing it once every second, as measured on my clock. You, on the other hand, will tell me that my flashes arrived less and less often as you lowered the cable. When I come up, I'll tell you I wasn't down there for very long, and you'll tell me that I was down there much longer than I thought I was (perhaps years longer).



Who's Kevin Brown?



No. Light always travels at c, locally. If I'm carrying a light clock, I can be sitting just above the horizon and I'll still see those light flashes moving at c, as measured in my frame. What you see when you view my light clock from a long distance above the horizon, is different.



One way to think of it is to imagine a river of spacetime flowing into the hole, faster and faster as you get closer to the horizon. Your light beam is like a fish trying to swim against the current. Right at the horizon, the light speed matches the current's speed. Another way to think about it is that the curvature stretches the light waves out, causing the red-shift you see from outside the hole. Right at the horizon, that red-shift becomes infinite, so that notionally the light is still climbing out but its frequency is shifted to zero, meaning it is no longer visible.

Kevin Brown is is a prolific science writer who is an expert on relativity theory.

Math pages
http://www.mathpages.com/home/

He's got the knack for explaining difficult stuff.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Einstein said what he said. And I'm with Einstein. So I'm in the mainstream. So you're not.

You won't get away with that here. All of it is wrong, every bit:
1. You aren't with Einstein.
1a. I just plain don't believe you. I think you know the context of those quotes but don't want to post it because you know it isn't relevant.

2. "the mainstream" is the current prevailing view and you stated explicitly that you disagree with it. You acknowledged it clearly: "What I'm arguing for used to be mainstream." - p383. Even if you were correct that the mainstream view changed, the new view would still be the current mainstream and you'd still be against it. There is no way to twist that around into you being in the mainstream.

2. Einstein did his work before black holes were theorized and as far as I know never spoke on the issue we were discussing directly, which was sorted out decades later (essentially, 1958). So your quotes are not relevant to the issue you and I were discussing.

3. The implication here is that you believe you are right and essentially every modern phsyicist is wrong. Do you really have such delusions of grandeur? Does it cause you significant pain that your genius has not been recognized? Do you practice what you preach? Ie, when you need to find someone to do a task for you, do you seek out people who'se views on how to do that task are against the mainstream? A heart surgeon you met on the internet who has never performed surgery perhaps - would you prefer him over one with a resume that includes heart surgery?

 

[Russ_Watters]

.999...

My clock's precision is an order of magnitude better than that and reads 0.9999

 

[Motor Daddy]

My clock's precision is an order of magnitude better than that and reads 0.9999

That's pretty impressive.

 

[Farsight]

...You acknowledged it clearly: "What I'm arguing for used to be mainstream." - p383. Even if you were correct that the mainstream view changed, the new view would still be the current mainstream and you'd still be against it. There is no way to twist that around into you being in the mainstream.

Let me make it even clearer. What I'm telling you used to be mainstream. And will be mainstream again.

All:

FFS fellas! Whine whine whine! Pack it in and stick to the physics. Why doesn't that light beam get out?

OK, I've taken up brucep's challenge. Here we go, step 1 is Time Travel is Science Fiction. What you have to do is understand my explanation, and ask me if there's anything you're not clear on. Then all you have to do is agree that time travel is science fiction. You could of course hold out for time travel being scientific fact, but if you do I'll rip you to shreds and call you a pseudoscience quack. It won't be pretty. Anyway, I'll be surprised if anybody holds out for that. I imagine everybody will say yeah, I agree, time travel is science fiction. Let's move on to the next step. Apart from brucep of course. LOL.

OK? Game on!

 

[paddoboy]

All:

FFS fellas! Whine whine whine! Pack it in and stick to the physics. Why doesn't that light beam get out?

OK, I've taken up brucep's challenge. Here we go, step 1 is Time Travel is Science Fiction. What you have to do is understand my explanation, and ask me if there's anything you're not clear on. Then all you have to do is agree that time travel is science fiction. You could of course hold out for time travel being scientific fact, but if you do I'll rip you to shreds and call you a pseudoscience quack. It won't be pretty. Anyway, I'll be surprised if anybody holds out for that. I imagine everybody will say yeah, I agree, time travel is science fiction. Let's move on to the next step. Apart from brucep of course. LOL.

OK? Game on!

Who is whining?
You're the one that is not in the biscuit tin.
Your arrogance and delusions of grandeur do not impress me by the way.



On time travel...yep Sci/Fi certainly....so to was going to the Moon, radio, TV, telephones, mobile phones, Internet etc etc etc.
Now back to BH EH's
Time is not seen to ever stop from any FoR...period!

 

[Russ_Watters]

Let me make it even clearer. What I'm telling you used to be mainstream. And will be mainstream again.

...because you are smarter than Steven Hawking and essentially every physicist and non-physicist who studied Relativity since Einstein?

Does it distress you that your genius is not recognized?

OK, I've taken up brucep's challenge. Here we go, step 1 is Time Travel is Science Fiction. What you have to do is understand my explanation, and ask me if there's anything you're not clear on. Then all you have to do is agree that time travel is science fiction. You could of course hold out for time travel being scientific fact, but if you do I'll rip you to shreds and call you a pseudoscience quack. It won't be pretty. Anyway, I'll be surprised if anybody holds out for that. I imagine everybody will say yeah, I agree, time travel is science fiction. Let's move on to the next step. Apart from brucep of course. LOL.

OK? Game on!

Naaa, I'm not playing "Follow the Crackpot Down the Rabbit Hole." Just skip to the end: post your equation and graph showing the time dilation an outside observer sees for the infalling observer.

 

[origin]

I'm on the same page as Einstein.

You mean you agree with Einstein on this part, from the paper you cited?

"...Further it is easy to show that both light rays and material particles take an infinitely long time (measured in "coordinate time") in order to reach r = u/2......"

 

[brucep]

Let me make it even clearer. What I'm telling you used to be mainstream. And will be mainstream again.

All:

FFS fellas! Whine whine whine! Pack it in and stick to the physics. Why doesn't that light beam get out?

OK, I've taken up brucep's challenge. Here we go, step 1 is Time Travel is Science Fiction. What you have to do is understand my explanation, and ask me if there's anything you're not clear on. Then all you have to do is agree that time travel is science fiction. You could of course hold out for time travel being scientific fact, but if you do I'll rip you to shreds and call you a pseudoscience quack. It won't be pretty. Anyway, I'll be surprised if anybody holds out for that. I imagine everybody will say yeah, I agree, time travel is science fiction. Let's move on to the next step. Apart from brucep of course. LOL.

OK? Game on!

What does time travel have to do with those coordinates? You're going to have to do some science Farsight. Start by showing your assertion that the 'Schwarzschild coordinates are preferred'. Scrutinize it for us Farsight. The reality is we all know you can't. Saying you can is a pathetic lie on your part. The only thing you can scrutinize is the paper you just wiped your ass with. Get it? You need to move on and darken some other forums doorstep for awhile. What Einstein said IS the field equations. Everything we know about how GR works is derived from the equations Einstein wrote down. Everything. Folks have worked on this for a century. Einstein never found any solutions to the field equations. It's like a family tree everything springs forth from the field equations so nothing can be removed or added without turning it into something other than GR.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

You can tell me, Farsight, about time travel.

I think I'll be amused.

 

[przyk]

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

The hard scientific evidence is for exactly what general relativity predicts, which is quite a bit more subtle than you're giving it credit for.

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.

I don't think you've given compelling evidence for that. I don't think you even understand the way physicists understand general relativity. (Hint: any physicist will tell you that understanding the mathematical details -- that Einstein himself developed at length -- is an extremely important part of understanding general relativity, and it is a great mistake to treat it like an afterthought or detail that you can skip over. I don't believe for one second you've ever understood the mathematical basis of general relativity.)

My logical explanations are based on the hard scientific evidence and what Einstein said.

This alone indicates you really don't know how to convince a physicist of anything. First, the "hard scientific evidence" is completely irrelevant in a theoretical discussion like this. GR's experimental validity isn't being challenged by anyone here, and in any case, evidence that merely confirms a theory's predictions never adds insight about the theory. So why do you even need to refer to evidence here? Can you not work out GR's predictions and implications on your own?

Second, as has already been pointed out to you only a billion times now, appeal to authority is not a valid form of rational argument, especially when the quotes you find aren't even representative of the authority's work. It's true that Einstein is the person who defined general relativity, but even there, wherever there might be a conflict, it's the mathematical definition of GR that takes precedence (since that is what experiments have actually tested and confirmed). I am actually basing my opinions much more closely on how Einstein defined GR than you are: I'm understanding and reasoning based directly off the mathematical definition, while you seem to be cherrypicking one-liners.

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.

That still doesn't make any sense. The coordinate speed of light is coordinate-dependent. I could make it practically any value just by switching coordinate systems. I can even change the coordinate speed of light in special relativity just by switching from an inertial to an accelerating coordinate system. So the coordinate speed of light in Schwarzschild coordinates isn't, in and of itself, a very useful quantity.

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

Well that's not what I see when I look through, say, Einstein's 1916 paper (a quite mathematical paper that I'm perfectly capable of reading for myself, you know).

Because they aren't successful.

Then why can't you dig up a derivation and point out specifically where it goes wrong? Have you even studied a derivation of the Kruskal coordinate system?

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.

But you haven't shown that the clock rate is zero in any physically meaningful sense. You only have that it's zero in some coordinate time. That's not the same thing.

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

You still don't get it. You agreed that the coordinate speed of light is not an invariant in SR. This isn't about what Einstein or I or anyone else ever said. You are contradicting yourself here. You are holding and believing two thoughts in your head that can't possibly both be true.

 

[LaurieAG]

2. Einstein did his work before black holes were theorized and as far as I know never spoke on the issue we were discussing directly, which was sorted out decades later (essentially, 1958).

That's not quite correct Russ. Einsteins 1939 paper 'On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses' ended with

The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters whose particles move along circular paths it does not seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light.
This investigation arose out of discussions the author conducted with Professor H. P. Robertson and with Drs. V. Bargmann and P. Bergmann on the mathe-matical and physical significance of the Schwarzschild singularity. The problem quite naturally leads to the question, answered by this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of exhibiting such a singularity

http://www.cscamm.umd.edu/tiglio/GR2012/Syllabus_files/EinsteinSchwarzschild.pdf

 

[Farsight]

...because you are smarter than Steven Hawking and essentially every physicist and non-physicist who studied Relativity since Einstein?

I didn't say that. I said they'd been taught relativity wrong. And that I'm with Einstein.

Does it distress you that your genius is not recognized?

Genius? Thank you for the compliment. But really, I'm just an IT guy. Good at logic, and analysis, used to getting under the maths, and very mindful of evidence.

Naaa, I'm not playing "Follow the Crackpot Down the Rabbit Hole." Just skip to the end: post your equation and graph showing the time dilation an outside observer sees for the infalling observer.

What you mean is that you'll put your hands over your ears because you prefer to cling to the neverneverland nonsense wherein an infalling elephant goes to the end of time and back and is in two places at once. Shrug. That's up to you Russ. You quack.

ETA:

You mean you agree with Einstein on this part, from the paper you cited?

Not just that. When I tell you something about relativity or gravity, I'm usually giving some Einstein quote to back up what I'm saying. Then the people who say "that's wrong" totally ignore and/or dismiss what Einstein said. And the evidence too. It's bizarre. Look out for it. They say things like This isn't about what Einstein or I or anyone else ever said. Absolutely absurd.

 

[Farsight]

...I don't believe for one second you've ever understood the mathematical basis of general relativity...

I do. And I will make my point again: many physicists who have been taught relativity don't understand it, and they don't understand gravity or black holes.

...This alone indicates you really don't know how to convince a physicist of anything...

Damn right. You can lead a physicist to knowledge, but you can't make him think. But is physicist the right word there? I wonder, because...

First, the "hard scientific evidence" is completely irrelevant in a theoretical discussion like this.

...you think hard scientific evidence is irrelevant?

SLAP!

Now get a grip przyk. Scientific evidence is more important than anything else.

GR's experimental validity isn't being challenged by anyone here, and in any case, evidence that merely confirms a theory's predictions never adds insight about the theory. So why do you even need to refer to evidence here? Can you not work out GR's predictions and implications on your own?

Trust me, I need to refer to the evidence, and you need to examine it.

Second, as has already been pointed out to you only a billion times now, appeal to authority is not a valid form of rational argument, especially when the quotes you find aren't even representative of the authority's work. It's true that Einstein is the person who defined general relativity, but even there, wherever there might be a conflict, it's the mathematical definition of GR that takes precedence (since that is what experiments have actually tested and confirmed). I am actually basing my opinions much more closely on how Einstein defined GR than you are: I'm understanding and reasoning based directly off the mathematical definition, while you seem to be cherrypicking one-liners.

I'm with Einstein. Get used to it.

That still doesn't make any sense. The coordinate speed of light is coordinate-dependent. I could make it practically any value just by switching coordinate systems. I can even change the coordinate speed of light in special relativity just by switching from an inertial to an accelerating coordinate system. So the coordinate speed of light in Schwarzschild coordinates isn't, in and of itself, a very useful quantity.

We'll come back to the speed of light.

...You still don't get it...

I get it, przyk. And you will too. But like I said, first you have to understand that time travel is science fiction. When you're happy with that we'll move on. We have to take it one step at a time to get past the psychology of belief.

 

[Russ_Watters]

I didn't say that. I said they'd been taught relativity wrong.

I know you don't want to say it, you just imply it and your beliefs require it. Who taught you? Or did you figure it out on your own? Again, how smart do you have to be to figure out on your own that essentially every modern physicist is wrong?

Genius? Thank you for the compliment. But really, I'm just an IT guy. Good at logic, and analysis, used to getting under the maths, and very mindful of evidence.

It isn't a complement it is a statement of your delusional self-belief (you of course know that): I don't believe you are a genius, you do. I think you are completely wrong. Any physicist or other person who understands Relativity as currently taught will think you are completely wrong and not very bright due to an apalling lack of self-awareness, which I think is worse than just being not so smart. So answer the question: does it distress you that nobody recognizes that you have this unique understanding that you claim? Does it bother you that just about everyone you discuss this with will eventually determine you are delusional, not very bright and not self aware enough to recognize it?

What you mean is that you'll put your hands over your ears because you prefer to cling to the neverneverland nonsense wherein an infalling elephant goes to the end of time and back and is in two places at once. Shrug. That's up to you Russ. You quack.

No, what I'm saying here is that I'm not willing to let you get out of your crackpottery by rebooting and starting a new word game. I'm not a physics professor and you aren't paying me: we know that your idea is wrong and it isn't our job to dissect every wrong idea of yours and find out exactly why. And in any case, I've already prompted you to post the required mathematical description and you haven't provided it. It appears to me that you have an aversion to math - you only want to play word games. Well these theories are not word games. Physics not a word game: it requires math, but easy math in this case:

All it takes here is for you to spend just a few seconds looking at the pretty picture (time dilation graph) I mentioned earlier to see that your description doesn't match it. Proving yourself right requires you to generate a new graph that behaves in the way you describe: I don't want the word game, I want the mathematical result.

Not just that. When I tell you something about relativity or gravity, I'm usually giving some Einstein quote to back up what I'm saying. Then the people who say "that's wrong" totally ignore and/or dismiss what Einstein said. And the evidence too. It's bizarre. Look out for it. They say things like This isn't about what Einstein or I or anyone else ever said. Absolutely absurd.

What's absurd is that nobody said those things: You are putting words in peoples' mouths they didn't say - no doubt you are also twisting Einstein's words as well. What I said here is that you need to provide the context of those quotes.

 

[przyk]

I do.

Like I said, I don't believe that for one second. Time and time again you've put your foot in your mouth when trying to talk about GR at a mathematical level. I've seen you make such basic mistakes as confuse the metric and stress-energy tensors for instance. If you understood the mathematics of GR you should have had absolutely no difficulty with [POST=3156006]routine calculations like these[/POST], yet instead you [POST=3156350]unwittingly admitted you were completely mystified by them[/POST].

...you think hard scientific evidence is irrelevant?

When having a purely theoretical discussion about how best to understand a self-contained theory that someone defined nearly a century ago? Yes. Evidence can generally only support or falsify a theory. It isn't going to help you understand a theory any better at all if you already know how to predict the experimental results yourself.

I note you completely ignored this explanation of why evidence was irrelevant here. Seriously, it's like you heard or read somewhere that science is based on "evidence" and should be backed by "good references", but you never understood why, how, or when these should be used. Using evidence and references in the right places and not using them in the wrong places makes all the difference between real science and a cargo-cult mockery of it.

SLAP!

Yup. You've been loudly and publicly misunderstanding how science works for years now.

Now get a grip przyk. Scientific evidence is more important than anything else.

No, that depends on what you're doing. Nobody is challenging GR's experimental validity here, so every time you talk about evidence you're proving you've completely missed the point and that you don't understand what evidence is actually good for in science.

Trust me

I don't trust you.

I'm with Einstein. Get used to it.

I just explained why, when one actually looks at the mathematical blueprint Einstein published for GR, it is clear that you are not with Einstein. Your quotes do not do Einstein's work justice.

I get it, przyk.

I note you still can't give a direct answer to the question I asked: how could Einstein abandon something that even you have admitted could not be a postulate of special relativity? All you seem to do is evade this.