Black holes may not exist!

[RJBeery]

przyk, it would be understandable if you lost my response to you in all of this noise.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...y-not-exist!&p=3162748&viewfull=1#post3162748

 

[OnlyMe]

Farsight, are you defending something you believe represents some reality? . . . Or is this just an argument based on a narrow subjective conceptual interpretation, of a theoretical discussion that occurred almost 100 years ago?

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

Quoting a single sentence does not give a clear understanding of what Einstein might have been arguing. I have not studied the whole of the paper in any detail, at least not recently, however, consider the intent of your quote above when interpreted in context with the following... All quoted from the same paper.

If one first considers the beginning of the first sentence, the one just before the sentence you quote,

If one considers Schwarzschild's solution of the static gravitational field of spherical symmetry...

Then the first sentence of the second paragraph,

There arises the question whether it is possible to build up a field containing such singularities with the help of actual gravitating masses, or whether such regions with vanishing g_44 do not exist in cases which have physical reality.

And then this, the first sentence of the second to last paragraph in the paper, which seems to act as a conclusion,

The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality

Since it appears that Einstein's intent was an argument that "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in reality, the conclusion that a clock . . , and time stops at an event horizon, based on the geometry of "Schwarzschild singularities" would not represent any conclusive interpretation of reality.

For anyone interested a PDF copy of the paper is available at, http://www.cscamm.umd.edu/tiglio/GR2012/Syllabus_files/EinsteinSchwarzschild.pdf

As I have mentioned earlier, GR tells us nothing of substance (meaning reality) about what happens at or inside an event horizon, beyond the fact that we detect no light escaping. Until we have some better understanding and/or functional model of quantum gravity, that can explain gravity under the conditions that would exist, the reality we can draw from kinetic descriptions of gravity provided by GR, as a matter of reality, must and are limited to those kinetic interactions we can observe and which conform to predictions. These at present do not even approach any event horizon. The best we can do is describe how gravitationally significant masses, orbit a black hole far outside of its event horizon. Again as a completely theoretical debate go for it. Just don't confuse the theoretical debate with reality.

There are similar issues with some of your apparent conclusions that follow, but really . . , they are not worth discussion as presented here. At least not until you move the discussion to some conceptual frame of reference that might be assumed to exist as reality.

 

[Farsight]

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.

They aren't really my ideas, RJ. I'm not some "my theory" guy. All this talking I do is mostly about understanding relativity right. There's other bits on top of that, but they aren't really my ideas either.

 

[RJBeery]

They aren't really my ideas, RJ. I'm not some "my theory" guy. All this talking I do is mostly about understanding relativity right. There's other bits on top of that, but they aren't really my ideas either.

Well you are certainly well-researched with your classical references. I have to chuckle when the dialogue moves from "you're on your own!" to "you're misinterpreting what Einstein said!" to "well...Einstein didn't know everything!"

 

[Farsight]

Farsight, are you defending something you believe represents some reality? . . . Or is this just an argument based on a narrow subjective conceptual interpretation, of a theoretical discussion that occurred almost 100 years ago?

The former. I'm defending the original "frozen star" black hole interpretation, which I believe is correct. I believe the current interpretation which features a point singularity is wrong.

Quoting a single sentence does not give a clear understanding of what Einstein might have been arguing. I have not studied the whole of the paper in any detail, at least not recently, however, consider the intent of your quote above when interpreted in context with the following... All quoted from the same paper....

"...The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality".

Agreed. A single sentence doesn't give a clear understanding. Neither the first nor the last. As I said somewhere back on the thread, the puzzle with this paper is why Einstein didn't consider a straight-down collapse.

Since it appears that Einstein's intent was an argument that "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in reality, the conclusion that a clock . . , and time stops at an event horizon, based on the geometry of "Schwarzschild singularities" would not represent any conclusive interpretation of reality.

It's ambiguous. If you could not reach the location where the clock doesn't tick, you might claim that this location doesn't exist.

For anyone interested a PDF copy of the paper is available at, http://www.cscamm.umd.edu/tiglio/GR2012/Syllabus_files/EinsteinSchwarzschild.pdf

Note that Einstein isn't supporting the current black hole interpretation. He says the "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. I actually think he's wrong about this, but I also think the Schwarzschild singularity is the end of the story. The clock stops, light stops, everything stops, and that's it.

As I have mentioned earlier, GR tells us nothing of substance (meaning reality) about what happens at or inside an event horizon, beyond the fact that we detect no light escaping. Until we have some better understanding and/or functional model of quantum gravity, that can explain gravity under the conditions that would exist, the reality we can draw from kinetic descriptions of gravity provided by GR, as a matter of reality, must and are limited to those kinetic interactions we can observe and which conform to predictions. These at present do not even approach any event horizon. The best we can do is describe how gravitationally significant masses, orbit a black hole far outside of its event horizon. Again as a completely theoretical debate go for it. Just don't confuse the theoretical debate with reality.

I think GR does tell us of something of substance, but that people misunderstand GR and miss this substance. I also think they misunderstand quantum gravity. But that's one for another day.

There are similar issues with some of your apparent conclusions that follow, but really . . , they are not worth discussion as presented here. At least not until you move the discussion to some conceptual frame of reference that might be assumed to exist as reality.

I'm trying to move the discussion. Step one is to understand time. Read the OP on the time travel is science fiction thread. It's fairly agreeable stuff, nothing novel, and not my idea. If you agree with that then we move on to step 2 then step 3. It's more of the same, all agreeable stuff. Only if you agree, you then find that only one black hole interpretation is tenable. And it is not the one that gets the airtime.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

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.

If I remember correctly, all of Farsight's ideas are in his imagination that everything is made of light.

:bugeye:

 

[nimbus]

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.

Love him to bits

 

[Aqueous Id]

If I remember correctly, all of Farsight's ideas are in his imagination that everything is made of light.

:bugeye:

 

[RJBeery]

The former. I'm defending the original "frozen star" black hole interpretation, which I believe is correct. I believe the current interpretation which features a point singularity is wrong.
{...}
Note that Einstein isn't supporting the current black hole interpretation. He says the "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. I actually think he's wrong about this, but I also think the Schwarzschild singularity is the end of the story. The clock stops, light stops, everything stops, and that's it.

OK Farsight, we agree on the ramifications of the event horizon but not on the conclusion. If we agree that matter "never" crosses the event horizon I don't understand how you believe that event horizon came to exist in the first place. I read your analogy about ice freezing "through" surface moisture on a ball of hail, but think in terms of the math: the EH is a boundary within which mass has supposedly been compressed beyond a particular threshold; your "surface moisture on ice" presupposes that the ice exists, where in reality you would agree with me that the "ice" beneath the surface moisture doesn't yet exist, because it has also never quite reached the mathematical threshold to form the proper EH. We can follow this thought process back, via induction, to the BH's formation event. The result isn't even quite a frozen star...just an asymptotically time dilated one.

 

[brucep]

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.

Really? Amazing ability for posting irrelevant bullshit. Same for you.

 

[brucep]

Brucep: I'm still waiting.

You were around but you declined to answer. Your dishonesty is patent. And you know you've lost this debate.

Still waiting until you read what I wrote down. You're just a nonsense machine with zero analytical skills. What did you think I was going to do, nothing? You must have thought so or you wouldn't have made a big deal about you waiting for something you can't understand. LOL.

Once again what I wrote down in post #494

Show us why the Schwarzschild coordinates are preferred. You and RJBerry make this dumb claim.

What I wrote in post #494


What answer? Show me you understand what the coordinates mean. It looks like you just want an answer from the remote bookkeeper perspective? The remote bookkeeper reckons the clock stops ticking at r=2M. That's the GR prediction reckoned from REMOTE frame dependent coordinates.

The local rain observer measures the velocity of the clock at r=2M = 1. [c=1]

dr/dt_rain = (2M/r)^1/2 = (2M/2M)^1/2 = 1 We transform to the local proper rain coordinates to get rid of the Schwarzschild frame dependent coordinate singularity. It's frame dependent because we can transform it away. The source of all your confusion. Now we can calculate the proper time, proper velocity, and proper distance from coordinates outside the coordinates associated with an event horizon to a limit r>0.

This is the remote bookkeeper velocity

dr/dt_bkkpr = (1-2M/r)(2M/r)^1/2 When r=2M dr/dt_bkkpr = 0. Local shell coordinates don't exist at r=2M so we transform away the coordinate singularity.

dr/dt_rain = (2M/r)^1/2 When r=2M dr/dt_rain = 1 [c=1].

dr_shell = dr_rain

You need to explain why the remote coordinates are preferred in a frame independent theory like GR.

There never was a debate with either RJBerry or Farsight since they're both incapable of understanding what was being discussed. This is my prediction about RJBerry and Farsight. They have no intention of doing any analysis.

 

[Russ_Watters]

I'm wait...ing.

I've been busy the past few days and will post it tonight. Since these are your claims though, you really should do the tiny bit of work required to demonstrate your claim. You have claimed that that equation shows time stops (objects freeze) at the event horizon and it is up to you to prove it: explain it and show it.

I've explained what the equation says and will show it when I get the chance.

 

[RJBeery]

Show us why the Schwarzschild coordinates are preferred. You and RJBerry make this dumb claim.
{...}
You need to explain why the remote coordinates are preferred in a frame independent theory like GR.

There never was a debate with either RJBerry or Farsight since they're both incapable of understanding what was being discussed. This is my prediction about RJBerry and Farsight. They have no intention of doing any analysis.

Do you really believe that either of us are unaware of proper time? This is a response given to przyk earlier:

As an infalling body A approaches the event horizon, the distant observer B claims that the A's velocity is approaching zero, and that A's proper velocity is approaching c. At the event horizon those values would be zero and c, respectively. Do you disagree with this? Because I find this to be perfectly consistent with the idea that A is "frozen" from B's perspective. The "external time standard" is literally that: external for ALL FRAMES external to the event horizon! The only clock that would not agree with this is the clock whose proper velocity (as measured by the rest of the observers in the Universe) is moving at c and is, as far as they are concerned, frozen.
{...}
We both agree that coordinate systems are arbitrary, yet causality is absolute. We could discuss causality in terms of (t, r), (U, V), etc, but causality is simplistically bounded by light cones. I'm conceding that there appear to be points within a hypothetical BH which are spacelike separated from external observers, but does that matter? An observer may claim that the black hole exists in the past relative to another observer, but they cannot claim the black hole exists in that other observer's past. Start with three points in spacetime: external observer A, external observer B, and point C which is internal to an event horizon. Observer A can claim that C exists prior to B, but A cannot claim that C is in either A's or B's past light cone. There are simply no observers external to the event horizon which can make that claim about themselves or any other external observers. Without causal notions dictating absolute measurements we are back to the arbitrary nature of coordinate systems...in other words, event horizons do not exist "yet" for any external observers in any absolute sense of the word. Yes?

Also...

You have claimed that that equation shows time stops (objects freeze) at the event horizon and it is up to you to prove it.

Russ, if this concept is unfamiliar to you then you should definitely not be involved in this thread. The disagreement has more to do with the interpretation of what these equations mean. See brucep's comment just above yours; the remote reckoning of the "freezing at the EH" is not in doubt.

 

[Farsight]

OK Farsight, we agree on the ramifications of the event horizon but not on the conclusion. If we agree that matter "never" crosses the event horizon I don't understand how you believe that event horizon came to exist in the first place.

Go back to the hailstone. You're a water molecule. You alight upon the surface of the hailstone. You can't pass through this surface. But other water molecules bury you. The surface passed through you. In similar vein a collapsing star turns into a frozen-star black hole from the inside out. Winterburg said the same in his GRB firewall paper, see http://www.znaturforsch.com/aa/v56a/56a0889.pdf for the abstract. He sent me the full paper, but it's too big for an attachment here.

I read your analogy about ice freezing "through" surface moisture on a ball of hail, but think in terms of the math: the EH is a boundary within which mass has supposedly been compressed beyond a particular threshold;

Uh. OK. Think of it as compressed space. It's so compressed it's like ice to a fish, light can't move through it.

your "surface moisture on ice" presupposes that the ice exists, where in reality you would agree with me that the "ice" beneath the surface moisture doesn't yet exist, because it has also never quite reached the mathematical threshold to form the proper EH.

The hailstone analogy isn't perfect, but ice is just water molecules which have no relative motion. Then your fish can't swim through it.

We can follow this thought process back, via induction, to the BH's formation event. The result isn't even quite a frozen star...just an asymptotically time dilated one.

But ice does form, and fish do get frozen. Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice#Phases

 

[Motor Daddy]

I have to chuckle when the dialogue moves from "you're on your own!" to "you're misinterpreting what Einstein said!" to "well...Einstein didn't know everything!"

That just caused me to chuckle too! lol

 

[paddoboy]

To Farsight:
Not sure if you have me on ignore, nor do I really care, but anyway, here are a few undeniable facts.......
I'm only a layman, and as such you have every right to question and deride my Interpretations on GR BH's and there EH's.
And even though I'm pushing the accepted mainstream version, I understand perfectly why you would treat my view with contempt.

But the following points I make throughout this thread, and which you find so objectionable, are all valid points, whether you see it that way or not.
Firstly, why should I accept your unproven model, over that given by undeniable experts such as Kip Thorne , John Baez and others, when I don't know you from a bar of soap?
Second point is if you were genuine and had some model that reflected reality better then current GR does, why would you argue that point with laymen such as myself, and others on this forum, who like you, are of an unknown quantity as far as GR/BH knowledge is concerned? I mean do you really believe that some internet forum [and presumably other science forums] is the way to go?
Which brings me to the third point.....
Why do you not get your model [in which you believe and have evidence for] peer reviewed through proper channels?
Do you really believe that in todays society, world renowned scientists such as Thorne, Guth, Kraus, Gebhardt and others, would really be so enforced in their own opinions, so entrenched with present accepted mainstream opinions, that they would automatically reject your mathematically backed superior model, if that were true?

Fourthly, Isn't it basic common sense and logic, and the proper scientific methodology, to go with the mainstream position, until that has been shown to be falsified?

And finally, why do you expect anyone to blindly accept your alternative model [taking into account the other points I have made] when we have 4 or 5 different alternative versions already up for discussion in this thread?
Don't you realize that there are many young scientists out there, that would love to supplant the mainstream position and make a name for themselves?
I mean I'm sure the experts must get scientific papers every day from young hopefuls and would be's if they could be's, siting reasons why accepted mainstream is wrong.

Well enough of me for the moment, and whether you read this or not, the points I have made are valid and you [ and the other alternative theorists here] need to address them, if you want people to take you seriously.

 

[paddoboy]

That just caused me to chuckle too! lol

Einstein formulated GR a 100 years ago.....
BH's came later and naturally being a new unexplored prediction of GR, many modifications, additions etc based on new observational data, have been made and accepted.
I'm sure if the great man was alive today, he would agree.

The BB has also been modified.

And of course, if anyone has that elusive better model, surpassing GR, let him have it peer reviewed.

 

[Motor Daddy]

And of course, if anyone has that elusive better model, surpassing GR, let him have it peer reviewed.

You seem to be hung up on peer review. I have an idea of a model. I am not a scientist. I am not a mathematician. I am not a writer, a historian, or a philosopher. I am not qualified to properly draft up a paper, period! So the next idea that comes to mind is go to a science site and tell people my idea and see what the experts have to say. That way, if someone like James R. or Alphanumeric, or rpenner decide that they have something to work with, and they can fix the problem with my idea, then have at it! THEY are qualified to make a paper, I am NOT!

 

[brucep]

I've been busy the past few days and will post it tonight. Since these are your claims though, you really should do the tiny bit of work required to demonstrate your claim. You have claimed that that equation shows time stops (objects freeze) at the event horizon and it is up to you to prove it.

Read the equations of motion I wrote down for the remote and local coordinate frames. The remote coordinates reckon everything stops at the event horizon. The local proper frame coordinates predict that everything is crossing the coordinates associated with an event horizon at c. What they need to do is show us why the remote coordinates are preferred over the local coordinates. The RJBerry and Farsight argument requires the Schwarzschild bookkeeper coordinates to be preferred [IE tell the only real story. LOL].

Some folks might be wondering if the frame dependent coordinates mean anything. They're just as valid as any other coordinates for describing natural phenomena. This is the best example I know of

Joe Dolan finds evidence for the 'dying pulse train' predicted by the Schwarzschild remote bookkeeper.

'Death Spiral' Around a Black Hole Yields Tantalizing Evidence of an Event Horizon
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/exotic/black-hole/2001/03/text/

This is a reenactment of what was recorded by the HST.
http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/videos/hs-2001-03-a-low_mpeg.mpg

This is an important prediction which has been verified empirically.

 

[paddoboy]

Aha!! I see Farsight has me on Ignore [so he says] in the red herring "Time " thread.
That is neither here nor there. Makes not a scrap of difference to the fact that the mainstream position re BH EH's as interpreted and predicted by GR will stand until you get your own model peer reviewed.
Now I realize how much that would hurt you, being lectured like that coming from a lowly layman such as myself, but that is a 100% concrete fact. And if you were really man enough, you would see the error in your nonsensical ways.