Black holes may not exist!

[Undefined]

Oh, and undefined, you mention a few times about me being a mainstream cheer leader.
It's a real shame you were not a party to another forum that I was once participating in.....I was a real Maverick there!

All my efforts here reflect is my distaste for the 'would be's if they could be's" the smart arse UNI student, who after a couple of years extra study, sets out to rewrite a 100 years of science/cosmology/SR/GR
Some will be rewritten, that's for sure...That is part of the scientific method and peer review system that the anti brigade here hate so much.
But we also know enough today to realize/expect that theories such as the BB, SR/GR have that much going for them, that they will not ever be scrapped at all......The BB will be entailed in any future QGT, I'm confident of that...and SR/GR will remain as viable as ever, within their domain of applicablity.
Now that should stir up a hornet's nest!!

I can only go by what you have been posting here, mate. And peer review will eventually arrive at the consensus according to the reality, if I and my soon to be published complete and consistent ToE has anything to do with it. In the meantime, try to give recognition to those valid and reality-based new ideas that professionals are increasingly coming round to even as we speak. Then, once those ideas become mainstream, bruce and you can cheerlead and repeat your understandings of them for all you're worth. Not necessary to the objective scientific success of the new ideas on their own merits; but I'm sure some people will appreciate the tacit recognition that erstwhile 'alternative' ideas made the grade, even though the ideas did not originate with the mainstream 'abstractions modeling' approach (useful as it has been, just as Newton's was useful before Einstein's) but eventually 'peer reviewed' and accepted by it if it provides better reality-based answers than the professional status quo does now.

 

[paddoboy]

- I agree that a lock's bulk body DOES continue traveling across the event horizon (to impact/deconstruct into the more fundamental quark-gluon or lower state distributed within, as indicated/supported by the latest professional speculations I linked to that are increasingly coming around to my ToE perspective);






-I agree with Einstein, that gravity potential at various altitude has ABSOLUTE effects on clock timing process rate depending on altitude in the gravity well; hence the maximum effect on timing PROCESS rate is maximal and hence effectively STOPS those clocking processes (not the overall infalling of the whole clock body and the observer holding it)...

...then you will continue to inadvertently conflate other people's observations with mine, so misrepresenting my actual stance/observations and then attributing YOUR misunderstandings of same to me. Please rake more care if you want to become a real scientist and not remain a layman commentator promulgating your 'beliefs' about what you 'perfectly understand' of the mainstream and of others. Ok? Thanks and good luck in your intellectual trajectory through the exciting and interesting evolving amateur/professional scientific advancement 'times' we are in, mate!

I differ from that, and I believe the mainstream cosmology does also.....
Time is never seen to stop as the clock and its keeper are never seen to reach and/or cross the EH from any remote FoR.

From the local FoR, nothing happens [ignoring tidal gravity effects]
Gravitational time dilation is only observed and real from remote coordinates/FoR's.

 

[Undefined]

continued:
And undefined, any rewriting of scientific theory and thinking, will not, I repeat will not, be done on any tin pot science forums [apologies to the administrators] but per the usual accepted scientific method and peer review.
The Lunatic fringe will not have a say in it.
Have I said that before?

Ideas come before experiments/peer review. The old days were 'coffee house' group 'brainstorming' discussion sessions which eventually led to 'silly' ideas/approaches (like riding in a beam of light, etc etc) making scientific mainstream history. Don't despise any 'venue' where discussion and brainstorming is allowed. Who is to say whence the next 'silly' idea/approach will come that may go on to change mainstream scientific history. Those trolls and envious types who have nothing original to contribute ALWAYS want to drag the 'venue' and its group discussions down to their unimaginative and unoriginal level, because hey fear being left behind and totally irrelevant to the advancement of the scientific discourse. I feel ad for any such who pretend that such forums as these do not have a crucial role to play in the initial stages of evolution of new ideas and their pre-peer-review informal exploration/discussion without pre-conceived bias and elitist dismissal from fear/ego/unoriginality. Good luck in your future attitude/discussion here, paddo, everyone.

 

[paddoboy]

I can only go by what you have been posting here, mate. And peer review will eventually arrive at the consensus according to the reality,

And as I have already said, I wish you the best of luck with your TOE.

When smarter physicists than me accept your TOE after peer review [if they accept it] than I will look at it, ask questions on what I don't understand, and most probably, though not certainly, agree with the new model.

But like I said, the BB, SR/GR [and evolution] will never in my opinion be discarded...some modification, tinkering around the edges etc, but any future TOE, and QGT will certainly encompass the BB/Inflationary model, along with SR/GR.

 

[Undefined]

As you were at pains telling chinglu, clocks are nothing but human devices or organized astronomical events, that we can use to measure and formulate every day life.
They are in no way hard wired to the passage of time.

Time on the other hand is subject to the geometry of space/time and our movement in relation to other FoR.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________


The above statement says it all.
Abstractions as held by some, and the supposed reification of same are no more then a cop out, particularly held by those anti mainstreamers that havn't quite merged from the closet as yet.

All those kinds of sophist 'explanations' are nothing but philosophical cop-outs which are used to deny the origins of 'time' as mere abstractions of the actual reality energy-space extents and dynamics. The relative view merely gives an algorithm to calculate and predict phenomena according to some 'timing construct' used in abstract analysis. The fact that 'time' rate CHANGES according to FR/SR FoR conditions/relativities should tell you in huge neon capitals that 'time' is a tool/convenience derived from the actual space-energy states/motions-across-space which are the only realities. Everything else we use and describe are DERIVED from those essential realities of space and energy change/motion. Our use of a chosen FoR for observations and time rate STANDARDS is just that, a chosen standard among the other possible process-across-space rates we compare and observe and make predictions about using our abstract 'timing' data to calculate and adjust fro variable timing rates according to FoR conditions applying (whether GR or SR conditions).

 

[paddoboy]

All those kinds of sophist 'explanations' are nothing but philosophical cop-outs which are used to deny the origins of 'time' as mere abstractions of the actual reality energy-space extents and dynamics.

Now that is the pot calling Mr Kettle black!

Perhaps you may be able to tell me about the validity of the two FoR's that will exist when I look at Alpha Centauri tonight.

Or maybe tell me what GP-B was measuring to such a high degree of precision, without any referral to sophists explanations and philosophical copouts.

 

[Undefined]

I differ from that, and I believe the mainstream cosmology does also.....
Time is never seen to stop as the clock and its keeper are never seen to reach and/or cross the EH from any remote FoR.

From the local FoR, nothing happens [ignoring tidal gravity effects]
Gravitational time dilation is only observed and real from remote coordinates/FoR's.

You can't keep wanting it both ways, mate. How many times have you and others scolded 'cranks' for not believing in something because they 'can't see' it?

You have to disentangle yourself from the 'both ways' syndrome, and just concentrate on the reality as it is, and not as some abstract model tells you to 'see' it or not.

Just ask yourself:

Do I agree that gravitational effect on clocks gets stronger and slows clocks the lower they go in a gravity well? (no SR complications, just GR effects).

If you do agree with that EMPIRICALLY TESTED and CONFIRMED state of affairs regarding slowing timing rates for clock mechanisms/processes, then you must agree that at some lower/extreme gravity effect state, you and your clock will stop 'timing' AND hence 'observation' processes INTERNALLY as you and your clock continue to fall into the EH?

The question of whether one 'sees' that 'stopping' of INTERNAL timing process (not the progress of infalling trajectory which continues as I stated earlier) is then MOOT, since the GR effects on clocks is maximal when the GR position is maximally extreme as at the EH 'zone' itself.

So your continuing protestations that the timing/observing LOCAL processes are still going on internally in both clock and observer is NOT tenable under any perspective, unless YOU DENY GR effects/theory as already confirmed empirically in a gravity well, and REASONABLY extrapolated to the MAXIMAL EXTREME GRAVITY WELL POSITION case of BH EH.

At that stage, the infalling clock/observer doesn't take any part in any internal processes; hence the stopped state which their energy-space features now effectively represent can only partake of the overall EXTERNAL INFALLING progress across the EH as just more 'dumb' (internally non-processing) energy-matter content for the BH to 'eat'.

 

[Undefined]

Now that is the pot calling Mr Kettle black!

Perhaps you may be able to tell me about the validity of the two FoR's that will exist when I look at Alpha Centauri tonight.

Or maybe tell me what GP-B was measuring to such a high degree of precision, without any referral to sophists explanations and philosophical copouts.

The discussion was about the specific case of infalling clock/observer in maximal ABSOLUTE GR POSITIONAL effects on the internal processes of clock and observer, and their infalling as dumb energy-space features which have no more INTERNAL degrees of freedom at that GR FoR, only EXTERNAL degrees of freedom for their overall infalling progress into the EH.

EXTERNAL FoR's in other situations are made moot AT the EH gravitational extreme condition/effect as far as the INTERNAL STATE of the infalling clock/observer timing/observing PROCESS is concerned. Get the subtle issue AT the EH FoR which becomes MOOT there for the empirically extrapolated effects/reasons which apply unless YOU deny the GR effects on clock/observer FoR process rates?

 

[paddoboy]

You can't keep wanting it both ways, mate. How many times have you and others scolded 'cranks' for not believing in something because they 'can't see' it?

Not me...You are wrong again.
I refute cranks, trolls, anti manisream pushers and conspiracy nutters, because they never have evidence and are unable to point to such evidence.
Please don't lower your style by putting words/claims into other people's mouths.

So your continuing protestations that the timing/observing LOCAL processes are still going on internally in both clock and observer is NOT tenable under any perspective, unless YOU DENY GR effects/theory as already confirmed empirically in a gravity well, and REASONABLY extrapolated to the MAXIMAL EXTREME GRAVITY WELL POSITION case of BH EH.

My continued protestations will continue because what I claim is the mainstream GR position, and I have referenced that at least 5 times.
You ignore the validity of all FoR's.
The EH means nothing to a local FoR, either with any mechanical clock or any person and their biology.
Time dilation and its effects are only real from any remote FoR, and the red shifting of light and time dilation effects from the local FoR, ensure that the EH is never seen to be reached...Therefor time does not stop.

Anyway, I have things to do and places to see...You argue that out with Berkley, John Baez, and the other reputable references I have given.

 

[Undefined]

And as I have already said, I wish you the best of luck with your TOE.

When smarter physicists than me accept your TOE after peer review [if they accept it] than I will look at it, ask questions on what I don't understand, and most probably, though not certainly, agree with the new model.

But like I said, the BB, SR/GR [and evolution] will never in my opinion be discarded...some modification, tinkering around the edges etc, but any future TOE, and QGT will certainly encompass the BB/Inflationary model, along with SR/GR.

Thanks again.

But my complete and consistent ToE is reality 'energy-space' (or if you will, 'space-motion') based from the word go! So you and anyone of reasonably intellect and willingness to actually read and follow the self-directing logic/results flow 'from scratch', then you will be better able to follow the reality explanations of my ToE than the abstractions-upon-abstractions 'explanations' of the current theories flowing from abstract 'space-time' approach. That was the whole point of my longstanding project to simplify and make more reality-referenced the universal observations/modeling/understandings so that anyone can 'get it' without having to subscribe to ad hoc fixes and abstractions to paper over the gaps.

Let me know your opinion when you finally read my ToE publication; you don't have to wait for others to tell you what to think/understand, mate! Your intellect, if healthy and reasonable adult kind, should have no trouble understanding the big picture even though some of the details may take time to assimilate. I will look forward to your own objective critique, no matter how 'layman' you think that critique may be.

 

[Undefined]

Not me...You are wrong again.
I refute cranks, trolls, anti manisream pushers and conspiracy nutters, because they never have evidence and are unable to point to such evidence.
Please don't lower your style by putting words/claims into other people's mouths.





My continued protestations will continue because what I claim is the mainstream GR position, and I have referenced that at least 5 times.
You ignore the validity of all FoR's.
The EH means nothing to a local FoR, either with any mechanical clock or any person and their biology.
Time dilation and its effects are only real from any remote FoR, and the red shifting of light and time dilation effects from the local FoR, ensure that the EH is never seen to be reached...Therefor time does not stop.

Anyway, I have things to do and places to see...You argue that out with Berkley, John Baez, and the other reputable references I have given.

I have no arguments with anybody. My observations merely present the reality based perspective, in which GR extremal GR effects case is empirically confirmed/extrapolated from abstract GR modeling itself.

When you go on a spree of 'refuting cranks/ideas', take care to specifically identify WHICH crank and which idea, before making general/scattergun 'refutations-by-authority-linking' which may not actually address NEW specific issue being discussed. Curb the scattergun attack approach, and either address the actual issues specidfically or leave others who are more aware of what the issues/subtleties being raised may entail in fact.

Thanks again and good luck to you too, paddo.

 

[Undefined]

Double post. Removed by me. Thanks.

 

[brucep]

Farside, when are you going to answer Brucep's questions?
For your convenience here's the requesting posts.





My bold in all.
Your time travel thread is a dodge.

Thanks for doing that. You must be scratching your head about this nonsense. LOL. It's very seldom new members are actually interested in the science. Watching these wild men ski jumpers. Later.

 

[Undefined]

Hi przyk, Farsight.

A suggestion for helping to cut through the continuing cross-purpose exchanges?

przyk, you allude to the mathematical treatment/extrapolations being very important in the discussion between you and Farsight. So how about teasing out the disagreement between you two and treating them separately so that some common ground can be seen?

Let's start with the INTERNAL PROCESSES of both the clock and observer. Leaving aside the EXTERNALITY of infalling progression of clock and observer into the EH.

Now, how about using the mathematical LIMITS argument/approach to determining the limiting state case for any INTERNAL clock/observer PROCESSING RATE as the GR gravity well 'altitude' position of said clock/observer internal processes is increasingly affected by GR aspects?

Why don't both you and Farsight get your heads together in a collaborative effort to construct a LIMITS equation to treat the outcome of RATE SLOWING as the SLOWING (GR time dilation effect) approaches maximal/infinite 'value', starting from 'far away' values to 'just entering the EH' value?

This will separate the internal effects on timing/observing processes from the external overall infalling aspects.

I am assuming that the empirically observed/confirmed GR effects ABSOLUTELY and not merely 'relatively' will be the determining factors when constructing such a mathematical LIMITS treatment to settle once for all what GR 'predicts' would happen to the clock/observer internal processes at the BH gravity well's EH 'altitude' where the extremal GR effects can be calculated using GR?

I will leave you two to it and see what transpires! Cheers.

 

[paddoboy]

undefined, I'm not going to address anything in particular, since it seems we are at cross purposes.
Whatever model you have ready for peer review, and obviously since it is your model, you have a load of faith in it.
At present I believe I have been presenting the accepted version of BH EH's and GR.....
You obviously doubt the reality of some qualities and entities of cosmology. I do not.
I have also asked a couple of questions which not one of the 5 or 6 alternative pushers have answered as yet.


My scatter gun approach is quite adequate in pointing out the uncertainty, unreviewed general concept of all those Interpretations.
So again obviously that approach offends you.

Again, I have given plenty of references, some recent to support my stance on what happens from local and remote FoR's, when approaching a BH.

Until another Interpretation [whether it be yours or not] is accepted by the mainstream, the incumbent model [which I happen to support ] holds firm.
And naturally you agree with me that peer review is not by forum acclamation one way or the other.

 

[Undefined]

undefined, I'm not going to address anything in particular, since it seems we are at cross purposes.
Whatever model you have ready for peer review, and obviously since it is your model, you have a load of faith in it.
At present I believe I have been presenting the accepted version of BH EH's and GR.....
You obviously doubt the reality of some qualities and entities of cosmology. I do not.
I have also asked a couple of questions which not one of the 5 or 6 alternative pushers have answered as yet.


My scatter gun approach is quite adequate in pointing out the uncertainty, unreviewed general concept of all those Interpretations.
So again obviously that approach offends you.

Again, I have given plenty of references, some recent to support my stance on what happens from local and remote FoR's, when approaching a BH.

Until another Interpretation [whether it be yours or not] is accepted by the mainstream, the incumbent model [which I happen to support ] holds firm.
And naturally you agree with me that peer review is not by forum acclamation one way or the other.

Fair enough, paddo! The future will tell.

Oh, by the way, what do you think of my suggestion to przyk and Farsight to use a LIMITS math treatment based on GR empirically proven effect values (as they affect the INTERNAL PROCESSES RATES ONLY, and not the infalling overall)? It is one way to clear up at least one cross-purpose situation between them! Cheers and read/see you round, paddo.

 

[James R]

Farsight:

It was in this paper.

I'm not going to read through an entire paper to try to find what you were referring to.

IMHO it's important to just read what Einstein said, and avoid twisting it to match what you've been taught.

Why is Einstein the unquestionable authority, anyway? Relativity has been around almost 100 years since Einstein.

Yep. No problem with any of that. Now think about the gedanken situation where I let you down very fast, leave you at the event horizon for a hundred years, then haul you back up very fast. You say ready when you are and I say James, we already did it.

Yes. But of course you can't haul me up from the horizon. I have to be just above it. If any part of my body crosses the horizon, that's it - gone.

Wrong again. Gravity does not change a photon's E=hf energy or frequency. You know this, because you can direct a 511keV photon into a black hole. You know that the black hole mass increases by 511keV/c², not by some infinite amount. Try again.

That mass increase is judged from a distance, though. The energy of a photon is relative.

 

[Farsight]

I'm not going to read through an entire paper to try to find what you were referring to.

It's the second sentence. "This means that a clock kept at this place would go at the rate zero".

Why is Einstein the unquestionable authority, anyway? Relativity has been around almost 100 years since Einstein.

He isn't. The evidence is more important than what Einstein said. But if we're talking about things like black holes and gravity, it ought to help my case if I can show that what I'm saying matches what Einstein said.

Yes. But of course you can't haul me up from the horizon. I have to be just above it. If any part of my body crosses the horizon, that's it - gone.

Yes, I can't haul you up from the horizon. But you don't cross it. Seriously. Think about it. The force of gravity in the room you're in is related to the difference in clock rates at the floor versus the ceiling. See the David Wineland interview where he said "if one clock in one lab is 30 centimeters higher than the clock in the other lab, we can see the difference in the rates they run at". If the clocks ran at the same rate, there's no gravitational force. And a clock rate can't go lower than zero. So at the event horizon there's no more gravity. You don't fall down any more.

That mass increase is judged from a distance, though. The energy of a photon is relative.

The measured energy is relative, in that if you lose energy the selfsame photon looks like it's gained it. But conservation of energy applies. Whether the photon is descending, or ascending, there is no magic mechanism which adds energy to it, or steals energy from it. So again, we know that the photon doesn't slow down or fall back or curve round, so why doesn't the light get out? The waterfall analogy is wrong. Przyk's "lands on the singularity" is wrong too. This simple little question is crucial. And to answer it, all you have to do is appreciate what Einstein said, and that Wineland was talking about optical clocks.

Undefined: your post noted. It would be nice if przyk and I could work together.
Brucep: your posts noted too. You've declined to answer the simple maths question. Russ will not be impressed.

 

[nimbus]

Thanks for doing that. You must be scratching your head about this nonsense. LOL. It's very seldom new members are actually interested in the science. Watching these wild men ski jumpers. Later.

Well, I did wonder what farside wanted to know about r=2M (event horizon). Farside must have thought it was going to show proper time (tau) become zero there like bookkeeper's time t.
Another thing, Farside says he going to make his new time travel thread easy to understand with simple logical steps, yes, just like his demonstrating his logical thinking on this thread.

 

[RJBeery]

Well, I did wonder what farside wanted to know about r=2M (event horizon). Farside must have thought it was going to show proper time (tau) become zero there like bookkeeper's time t.
Another thing, Farside says he going to make his new time travel thread easy to understand with simple logical steps, yes, just like his demonstrating his logical thinking on this thread.

His name is Farsight (actually it's John), and he's quite sharp. He also has an amazing ability to relate new ideas through analogies. He certainly has his own ideas in some areas but I would point out that this is a necessary component for progress.