Black holes may not exist!

[brucep]

The context and values representing the gravity well empirical effects on clocks and the value changes as the effect approaches the limit of the EH boundary condition, in GR terms, would be helpful to the exercise suggested as per my post #514. Maybe you could do it and save przyk and Farsight the trouble of doing that specific exercise?

That post was amended. Also the troll clutter made it likely that James would miss it. Hence the precautionary/emended post further down the page clear of the trolling clutter....for Jame's benefit.

You're the king of word salad. That's saying something.

 

[paddoboy]

Also the troll clutter made it likely that James would miss it. Hence the precautionary/amended post further down the page clear of the trolling clutter....for Jame's benefit.

Well undefined, now that the truth is out, it's fairly obvious why you have objected to my posts, and explains your attitude towards alternative theories and the people that have put them [no matter how bizarre] in other threads.
My insistence of the mainstream models and my many reputable links to it, my many mentions of why anyone with any model worthy of consideration would come to a science forum, rather than getting it properly peer reviewed, then criticism of peer review, all seem to point to extra baggage that you have possibly been carrying for a while now.
All these you seem to have identified with....hence your anguish.

 

[paddoboy]

And of course undefined, James aligns with the proper mainstream position that has the majority of support here.

 

[Undefined]

Well undefined, now that the truth is out, it's fairly obvious why you have objected to my posts, and explains your attitude towards alternative theories and the people that have put them [no matter how bizarre] in other threads.
My insistence of the mainstream models and my many reputable links to it, my many mentions of why anyone with any model worthy of consideration would come to a science forum, rather than getting it properly peer reviewed, then criticism of peer review, all seem to point to extra baggage that you have possibly been carrying for a while now.
All these you seem to have identified with....hence your anguish.

What are you on about, mate? You're mistaking your own misrepresentations for what my posts actually and expressly state my motives/expectations of forum site discussions to be. All else seems to be your construction. Careful as you go, paddo, you know construction activity can be very dangerous for those who aren't paying proper attention to what is actually going on. Good luck.

 

[paddoboy]

What are you on about, mate? .

Undefined, really, I've grown weary of your bullshit.
What I have said, I believe, OK?
You and your agenda have been disclosed.

 

[Undefined]

And of course undefined, James aligns with the proper mainstream position that has the majority of support here.

And? I just solicited Jame's opinion on what he thinks of my mathematical "limits" treatment suggestion for resolving the impasse between ptzyk and Farsight (see posts #514 and #597, respectively). Unless you are now speaking FOR him as to that as well, then I suggest you concentrate on making your own scientific suggestions/arguments and leave others to speak and explain for themselves as the discussion progresses.

Your attempt to put your oar in to 'end discussion' just because you see yourself as the arbiter of what the end of the discussion will produce, is your preconclusionary agenda and not true scientific debate in any way shape or form.

PS:Are you and bruce et al trolling and baiting in order to bury the posts #514 and #597 so that przyk and James miss them? If so, please desist. Thanks.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Don't you want to at least have my math checked before you peddle me off to someone that has me on ignore?

I'm not feeling the love here, RealityCheck.

 

[Undefined]

Undefined, really, I've grown weary of your bullshit.
What I have said, I believe, OK?
You and your agenda have been disclosed.

And precisely what do YOU 'believe' my 'agenda' is, other than the honourable and legitimate ones already stated quite clearly and supported by the record so far?

PS: Mate, if you get your 'personal stuff/information' on that from the trolls, and start 'believing' what they claim as 'gospel', then you have greater problems than I thought. Good luck taking that route to 'scientific and objective truth', paddo.

 

[paddoboy]

And precisely what do YOU 'believe' my 'agenda' is, other than the honourable and legitimate ones already stated quite clearly and supported by the record so far?

PS: Mate, if you get your 'personal stuff/information' on that from the trolls, and start 'believing' what they claim as 'gospel', then you have greater problems than I thought. Good luck taking that route to 'scientific and objective truth', paddo.

My references and links are all reputable...Yours?? Well you have yourself, not sure how you would label that. [a doubtful quantity??]


Interesting though, you have so much time for trolling, yet you claim to be working on some record breaking revelation in modifying GR.
I suspect you have already been told its not worth the paper you have it written on.....

 

[Undefined]

My references and links are all reputable...Yours?? Well you have yourself, not sure how you would label that. [a doubtful quantity??]


Interesting though, you have so much time for trolling, yet you claim to be working on some record breaking revelation in modifying GR.
I suspect you have already been told its not worth the paper you have it written on.....

I also read through here and other sites every day each morning and on breaks from my other work. If I can persuade you and others to stop cluttering up the discussions with trollish/irrelevant personal/repetitive stuff, then I would save more time than I have invested in trying to get you and others to stop doing that. I can only trust that this 'investment' of time and effort to appeal to your integrity and goodwill as a fellow Aussie and as a member of Sciforums will not be in vain.

I will be back to read-only for a while, starting tomorrow. See/read you tomorrow/later, paddoboy, everyone! NO hard feelings. G'night all.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Ok, so attached is the long-awaited graph. It shows Farsight's equation in terms of what the remote observer sees happening to the infalling observer.

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.

Arrogant, derogatory comments made while being wrong don't make you look any better. Clearly, from the graph, you can see that as the infalling observer approaches the event horizon, the time (for the remote observer) between ticks of the infalling observer's clock gets longer and longer. There is an asymptote at 1, which tells us the remote observer never sees the infalling observer reach the event horizon, he just sees him getting closer and closer. The graph tends toward infinity as this happens, but it also never reaches infinity, since infinity isn't a number.

The remote observer may see the infalling observer's clock freeze but only because it isn't precise enough to show the next tick: you can always repeat the experiment with a more precise clock and see it tick longer.

Indeed, you can also always detect the motion of the infalling observer as long as you can see him: he gets redder and redder as he approaches the event horizon, telling you clearly that he is still moving -- until he redshifts out of view.

Now I do have a quibble with brucep's description (and others who understand Relativity have said the same thing), but it is minor in that he's focusing on a different error of yours and Farsight's and glossing over this one, not being precise enough about what is observed. I'm quite certain that he understands that the infalling observer only sorta appears to freeze, but doesn't actually freeze. See:

So if you, watching from a safe distance, attempt to witness my fall into the hole, you'll see me fall more and more slowly as the light delay increases. You'll never see me actually get to the event horizon. My watch, to you, will tick more and more slowly, but will never reach the time that I see as I fall into the black hole. Notice that this is really an optical effect caused by the paths of the light rays.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/fall_in.html

So you and Farsight say you agree with the math of GR, but the math plainly doesn't say what you say it says. No: you do not understand it.

I'm focusing on this error both because it comes first and because I think it is important on its own. But brucep's position is also valid: there is no good reason to prefer the remote observers observations, particularly because they "break" Relativity's first postulate that the laws of the universe are the same everywhere. And transforming to the infalling observer's coordinates makes the problem go away. Essentially, all this is telling you is that space is getting in the way of you seeing what is happening to the infalling observer - this does not imply that he doesn't pass the event horizon. It is - as the name implies - as if he's disappearing over the horizon. A similar thing happens with space expanding faster than the speed of light and not being able to see distant objects because of it: it doesn't mean they aren't there, it's just that their light isn't reaching us.

 

[paddoboy]

I also read through here and other sites every day each morning and on breaks from my other work. If I can persuade you and others to stop cluttering up the discussions with trollish/irrelevant personal/repetitive stuff, then I would save more time than I have invested in trying to get you and others to stop doing that. I can only trust that this 'investment' of time and effort to appeal to your integrity and goodwill as a fellow Aussie and as a member of Sciforums will not be in vain.

I do realize you are not going to stop your trolling, obviously.....We all know forums such as this are the only outlets that the self claimed "Saviours of science" such as yourself have.

 

[paddoboy]

Ok, so attached is the long-awaited graph. It shows Farsight's equation in terms of what the remote observer sees happening to the infalling observer.

Arrogant, derogatory comments made while being wrong don't make you look any better. Clearly, from the graph, you can see that as the infalling observer approaches the event horizon, the time (for the remote observer) between ticks of the infalling observer's clock gets longer and longer. There is an asymptote at 1, which tells us the remote observer never sees the infalling observer reach the event horizon, he just sees him getting closer and closer. The graph tends toward infinity as this happens, but it also never reaches infinity, since infinity isn't a number.

The remote observer may see the infalling observer's clock freeze but only because it isn't precise enough to show the next tick: you can always repeat the experiment with a more precise clock and see it tick longer.

Indeed, you can also always detect the motion of the infalling observer as long as you can see him: he gets redder and redder as he approaches the event horizon, telling you clearly that he is still moving -- until he redshifts out of view.

Now I do have a quibble with brucep's description (and others who understand Relativity have said the same thing), but it is minor in that he's focusing on a different error of yours and Farsight's and glossing over this one, not being precise enough about what is observed. I'm quite certain that he understands that the infalling observer only sorta appears to freeze, but doesn't actually freeze. See:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/fall_in.html

So you and Farsight say you agree with the math of GR, but the math plainly doesn't say what you say it says. No: you do not understand it.

I'm focusing on this error both because it comes first and because I think it is important on its own. But brucep's position is also valid: there is no good reason to prefer the remote observers observations, particularly because they "break" Relativity's first postulate that the laws of the universe are the same everywhere. And transforming to the infalling observer's coordinates makes the problem go away. Essentially, all this is telling you is that space is getting in the way of you seeing what is happening to the infalling observer - this does not imply that he doesn't pass the event horizon. It is - as the name implies - as if he's disappearing over the horizon. A similar thing happens with space expanding faster than the speed of light and not being able to see distant objects because of it: it doesn't mean they aren't there, it's just that their light isn't reaching us.

Nice post Russ, and I like the analogy with the "Universe expanding FTL and distant galaxies".....I did already used the John Baez,.....Didn't appear to impress our nutbag friends though.

 

[James R]

Undefined:

What do you think of my suggestion to przyk and Farsight (see my post #514) as to how they could work together and construct a mathematical LIMITS argument that they both could agree with and see what the results are, according to both the extrapolated empirical effects observed on clocks in gravity wells, and according to the mathematical construct/prediction of what the effect will be at the EH. I think only in that way could their perspectives be resolved to some common point of view that would form the basis for further discussions of all the rest of the issues involved? I would be very interested to see where they end up if they took that LIMITS approach as I described. Cheers.

I haven't read the whole thread. Really I just jumped in to correct some errors that Farsight was making.

Since przyk knows his physics and Farsight doesn't really understand most of the physics he talks about, I can't see that their positions will be easy to reconcile using any approach.

I don't really know what your LIMITS approach is, or what LIMITS stands for. It's in ALL CAPS, so I assume it's an acronym of some sort.

 

[origin]

All Magnum Opuses take time. Can't be rushed. Over that time I've dropped hints, clues, examples, solutions and even some details which have been proven correct despite the trolls trying to distract/deny it. What original ideas/work have you contributed over the same period to the advancement of theory, Declan?

Hopefully you just talk about this 'theory' to try and impress the ignorant, it would be really sad if you were actually living this fantasy. Here's to hoping...

 

[Farsight]

That's according to somebody far from the hole, not according to somebody sitting at the event horizon. You're mixing up Schwarzschild coordinate time with the proper time of some observer.

I'm not mixing anything up at all. Einstein said a clock kept at this place would go at the rate zero. Now think about your pulse. We could use it as a clock of sorts. Only if you were sitting at the event horizon, a clock kept at this place would go at the rate zero, so your pulse rate would be zero. Your brainwave rate would be zero too. So we're all watching you sitting there in front of a clock that isn't ticking, with your heart that isn't beating, and your brain that is flatlined. Have you seen that clock tick yet? No. Let's wait a billion years. Have you seen that clock tick yet? No. Let's wait a trillion years. Have you seen that clock tick yet? No. Do you get it get James? The idea that a stopped observer sees a stopped clock ticking normally, is a fallacy.

There's gravity wherever there is curvature of spacetime. And at the horizon there is certainly curvature.

Not true. Curved spacetime is associated with Riemann curvature, see the depiction on wiki. That's associated with the tidal force. There's no detectable tidal force in the room you're in. But lift up a pencil, and let go: gravity is readily detectable. Curved spacetime is the second derivative of gravitational potential, see the plot here. You need the curvature to get your plot off the flat and level, but the local force of gravity relates to the local slope of the plot. Not how curved it is. For a very big black hole there's no discernible tidal force and no discernible spacetime curvature.

That zero clock rate you keep referring to is not the proper time of a clock located at the horizon. You can't infer what is happening for an observer at the horizon based on what an observer in a different region of spacetime sees. You need to look at what local clocks are doing. And the rate of a clock located at the horizon doesn't drop to zero for a person travelling with that clock.

That will be the person with the zero heartrate, and the flatlined brain.

Not really. The waterfall analogy tells us something about how things look to an observer at the horizon. To a distance observer, far from the hole, the event horizon looks like it is sitting still in one place (provided nothing is crossing it and adding mass to the hole, of course). But to an observer at the horizon, the horizon always appears to be moving outwards at the speed of light. Thus, any light trying to go out radially from the horizon only just manages to keep pace with the horizon itself. And so, it never escapes from the hole. And massive objects at the horizon are restricted to travel slower than the speed of light, which means that they must fall into the hole as the horizon moves outwards away from them.

James, with respect, the waterfall analogy is misleading, it's wrong, it's pseudoscience junk peddled by celebrity quacks like Max Tegmark. A gravitational field is usually described as curved spacetime. This can be treated as inhomogeneous space, see http://iopscience.iop.org/0256-307X/25/5/014 and Einstein saying “empty space” in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic. But in no sense is a gravitational field infalling space or spacetime. Space is not falling inwards in a gravitational field, regardless of whether we're talking about a black hole or planet Earth. General Relativity does permit Chicken Little gravity. The sky is not falling in.

Relative velocities in GR are only definable locally. This is why the velocity of the horizon looks so different to observers who are close to it, compared to ones who are far away.

But the coordinate speed of light is not. And the coordinate speed of light is important when we look to that favourite thing in relativity: the light clock. Imagine you place light clocks in an equatorial slice around the Earth. Now go and look at that depiction on the wiki Riemann curvature tensor page.


ETA:

...Really I just jumped in to correct some errors that Farsight was making.

Since przyk knows his physics...

I'm not making any errors. You are. Yes, przyk knows his physics, but he's learned it from a textbook. And the bottom line is this: it's wrong.

 

[Farsight]

Ok, so attached is the long-awaited graph. It shows Farsight's equation in terms of what the remote observer sees happening to the infalling observer.

...Clearly, from the graph, you can see that as the infalling observer approaches the event horizon, the time (for the remote observer) between ticks of the infalling observer's clock gets longer and longer. There is an asymptote at 1, which tells us the remote observer never sees the infalling observer reach the event horizon, he just sees him getting closer and closer. The graph tends toward infinity as this happens, but it also never reaches infinity, since infinity isn't a number.

The remote observer may see the infalling observer's clock freeze but only because it isn't precise enough to show the next tick: you can always repeat the experiment with a more precise clock and see it tick longer.

Indeed, you can also always detect the motion of the infalling observer as long as you can see him: he gets redder and redder as he approaches the event horizon, telling you clearly that he is still moving -- until he redshifts out of view.

Good stuff Russ. It's nice to see a sincere physics post amidst the clutter.

Now I do have a quibble with brucep's description (and others who understand Relativity have said the same thing), but it is minor in that he's focusing on a different error of yours and Farsight's and glossing over this one, not being precise enough about what is observed. I'm quite certain that he understands that the infalling observer only sorta appears to freeze, but doesn't actually freeze. See:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/fall_in.html

So you and Farsight say you agree with the math of GR, but the math plainly doesn't say what you say it says. No: you do not understand it.

But you still don't get it. The math says what it says, and it says the infalling observer freezes. Bruce ducked and dived to avoid saying this. The error is in thinking a frozen observer sees his frozen clock ticking normally. He doesn't. He doesn't see anything. Ever. See my response to James above. Soon we will see some people here having their OhMyGod moment.

I'm focusing on this error both because it comes first and because I think it is important on its own. But brucep's position is also valid: there is no good reason to prefer the remote observers observations, particularly because they "break" Relativity's first postulate that the laws of the universe are the same everywhere.

Brucep's position is not valid. The clock at the event horizon does not tick. So there is no coordinate system there. It's a corruption of relativity to assert that a coordinate system that does not exist is the equal of one that does.

And transforming to the infalling observer's coordinates makes the problem go away.

It's a travesty of relativity to think you can "transform" coordinates such that a stopped clock isn't stopped any more. It's absurd to say a stopped observer sees a stopped clock ticking normally. It leads to patent nonsense like the elephant that goes to the end of time and back and is in two places at once.

Essentially, all this is telling you is that space is getting in the way of you seeing what is happening to the infalling observer - this does not imply that he doesn't pass the event horizon. It is - as the name implies - as if he's disappearing over the horizon. A similar thing happens with space expanding faster than the speed of light and not being able to see distant objects because of it: it doesn't mean they aren't there, it's just that their light isn't reaching us.

It's telling us nothing of the sort.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I'm not making any errors. You are. Yes, przyk knows his physics, but he's learned it from a textbook. And the bottom line is this: it's wrong.

oke: If m is a particle's mass, p is the momentum magnitude, and K is the kinetic energy, can you tell me why:

$$m=\frac{\text{pc}^2-K^2}{2 \text{Kc}^2}$$

He has me on ignore. So I wont ask him all my text book questions and enlighten me.

But I still like this opportunity of quoting the "Relativity+ guy."

 

[RJBeery]

What's "proper velocity"?

Proper velocity is celerity, or dx / d tau; it's distance traveled per time of the infaller's clock. This reaches c at the event horizon.

Well it seemed to matter to you before. Like I said, it's you who seemed to have some problem with black holes existing, so it's up to you to articulate why you think there's a problem specifically with black holes. For me this doesn't seem complicated: the black hole is just a particular curved spacetime with a singularity in it somewhere, and that singularity has a past light cone which we call the "event horizon".

This discussion has forced me to study and appreciate the Kruskal diagram, and I'm conceding a point you made long ago about being unable to rescue BH infallers after arbitrary amounts of time because I understand it now.

the black hole boundary (the event horizon) is a light cone, so saying an observer remains outside the black hole means that they're keeping the black hole out of their causal past pretty much by definition. A black hole is just a situation where an observer can keep themselves outside of a particular light cone without necessarily expending an infinite amount of fuel to do it.

You dismiss this, but claiming that a certain aspect of black holes is part of their definition simply implies to me that they don't exist today by definition. This is the heart of my point!

Let's discuss your infinite accelerator again, and I will shelve my infinite fuel objection; what was the premise here? If an observer linearly accelerated for eternity then there are certain events that he would never see?

 

[brucep]

Good stuff Russ. It's nice to see a sincere physics post amidst the clutter.

But you still don't get it. The math says what it says, and it says the infalling observer freezes. Bruce ducked and dived to avoid saying this. The error is in thinking a frozen observer sees his frozen clock ticking normally. He doesn't. He doesn't see anything. Ever. See my response to James above. Soon we will see some people here having their OhMyGod moment.

Brucep's position is not valid. The clock at the event horizon does not tick. So there is no coordinate system there. It's a corruption of relativity to assert that a coordinate system that does not exist is the equal of one that does.

It's a travesty of relativity to think you can "transform" coordinates such that a stopped clock isn't stopped any more. It's absurd to say a stopped observer sees a stopped clock ticking normally. It leads to patent nonsense like the elephant that goes to the end of time and back and is in two places at once.

It's telling us nothing of the sort.

You can't figure out anything I wrote down. Probably why you're still waiting Farsight. My position is there are no preferred coordinates. They're all equally valid. Your position is the Schwarzschild coordinates are preferred. The chart you keep referring to is charting the Schwarzschild remote bookkeeper coordinates. Your contention is that the Schwarzschild remote coordinates are the 'real' coordinates. LOL. You never explained why the Schwarzschild coordinates are preferred? You or RJBerry. Wasn't that what you were waiting to explain to me? You keep showing everybody Kevin Brown's chart on the Schwarzschild remote coordinates. Explain why the Schwarzschild chart is preferred over other coordinate charts? Come on quit keeping me in suspense.
To bad AN isn't around he'd pummel you with his intellectual sledgehammer and send you off to sulk.