Black holes may not exist!

[Motor Daddy]

To bad AN isn't around he'd pummel you with his intellectual sledgehammer and send you off to sulk.

That's not an insult, because that can be said for 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the world's population. The real problem is finding someone that that CAN'T be said about.

I just realized that my statement can be interpreted two ways:

1. AN can intellectually pummel just about everyone on earth.
2. That you can replace AN with a different person and get the job done.

So, I'm still deciding...

 

[Farsight]

You can't figure out anything I wrote down. Probably why you're still waiting Farsight.

Sorry, did I miss your post where you finally admitted the clock rate is zero?

My position is there are no preferred coordinates. They're all equally valid.

That's the ethos of GR. No problem with that. But...

Your position is the Schwarzschild coordinates are preferred.

No it isn't. My position is that at the event horizon, there are no more coordinates. There aren't any coordinates to be equally valid.

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.

I haven't said that. I've given you Einstein's position. The speed of light varies with gravitational potential. A light clock at a location ticks at a rate proportional to the speed of light at that location, which you would say is the coordinate speed of light. Einstein referred to a place where the clock rate is zero. If the light-clock rate is zero you cannot define a coordinate system. If light doesn't move you cannot define distance and time. Ever looked at the Gravastar? I don't think it's quite right, but look at this: This region is called a "gravitational vacuum", because it is a void in the fabric of space and time. The frozen star black hole is like this. It's more of a hole than the black-hole interpretation that features a point-singularity in the middle.

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.

See above. That Schwarzcshild chart from MTW is badly flawed. It goes up to the end of time, but the vertical axis is truncated, then if you trace a horizontal line across, the infalling body has to be in two places at once. Once on the way up to the end of time. Once on the way back down. Hence Susskind's elephant. Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates tries to airbrush all this under the carpet using its schoolboy stopped observer sees a stopped clock ticking error, and is worse. Cargo-cult physics. Lost in math.

To bad AN isn't around he'd pummel you with his intellectual sledgehammer and send you off to sulk.

No he wouldn't. All he'd do is try to trash the physics discussion by hurling abuse. Because he knew he couldn't put up any evidence or argument that stood a chance against mine. Like you can't.

Or has the penny finally dropped bruce?

Dink a ding a ding a ding a ling a ling....

 

[brucep]

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.

Let's take this a bit further Farsight

You claim your position is what Einstein intended. You're claiming that Einstein is as ignorant of his theory as you are. You're claiming that all the text evaluating the theory are wrong and misinterpreting Einsteins field equations. Yet you're reduced to making argument by 'bullshit and mirrors'. So how about it? Explain why the Schwarzschild remote coordinates are preferred. Explain what goes wrong when we do the transformation to the rain coordinates [the transformations detailed for you and RJBerry] to reduce it from preferred status. How about just acknowledging why you were waiting for me. LOL. Now you just sneak in [nonsense] comments about my position in threads addressed to other folks. Probably because you thought ...... no that is somewhat improbable.

 

[brucep]

Sorry, did I miss your post where you finally admitted the clock rate is zero?

That's the ethos of GR. No problem with that. But...

No it isn't. My position is that at the event horizon, there are no more coordinates. There aren't any coordinates to be equally valid.

I haven't said that. I've given you Einstein's position. The speed of light varies with gravitational potential. A light clock at a location ticks at a rate proportional to the speed of light at that location, which you would say is the coordinate speed of light. Einstein referred to a place where the clock rate is zero. If the light-clock rate is zero you cannot define a coordinate system. If light doesn't move you cannot define distance and time. Ever looked at the Gravastar? I don't think it's quite right, but look at this: This region is called a "gravitational vacuum", because it is a void in the fabric of space and time. The frozen star black hole is like this. It's more of a hole than the black-hole interpretation that features a point-singularity in the middle.

See above. That Schwarzcshild chart from MTW is badly flawed. It goes up to the end of time, but the vertical axis is truncated, then if you trace a horizontal line across, the infalling body has to be in two places at once. Once on the way up to the end of time. Once on the way back down. Hence Susskind's elephant. Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates tries to airbrush all this under the carpet using its schoolboy stopped observer sees a stopped clock ticking error, and is worse. Cargo-cult physics. Lost in math.

No he wouldn't. All he'd do is try to trash the physics discussion by hurling abuse. Because he knew he couldn't put up any evidence or argument that stood a chance against mine. Like you can't.

Or has the penny finally dropped bruce?

Dink a ding a ding a ding a ling a ling....

Yeah you have claimed that Farsight. Now explain why you think Einstein choose a preferred set of coordinates. Discourse with you is a joke. I know you can't make an argument without resorting to irrelevant bullshit. That's because irrelevant bullshit is a limit for you. You're abusing the science in a public forum. So you're not going to do what you said you were waiting for. Big surprise phoney baloney troll. Really? Two places at once.LOL. How about you being at one place at a time and make sense while you're there. They're coordinates at r=2M when you transform the coordinate singularity away. If there wasn't you wouldn't be able to do a transformation. Check it out, no coordinate singularity at r=2M.


from Professor Taylor's bag of tricks.

"we want a metric in the coordinates r, phi, and t_rain. We make this transition in two jumps for events outside the horizon: from bookkeeper coordinates to shell coordinates, then from shell coordinates to rain coordinates. Assume that the resulting metric is valid inside the horizon as well as outside. The transition from bookkeeper coordinates to shell coordinates

dr_shell = dr/(1-2M/r}^1/2 [D]

dt_shell = (1-2M/r)^1/2 dt [C]

Now, to go from shell to rain coordinates use the Lorentz transformation of SR. Choose the rocket coordinates to be those of the rain frame and the laboratory coordinates to be those of the shell frame.

Radial inward direction

dt_rain = - v_rel y dr_shell + y dt_shell [9]

Substitute [C] and [D] into [9]

dt_rain = -[(v_rel y dr) / (1-2M/r)^1/2] + y(1-2M/r)^1/2 dt [10]

Solve for dt

dt = [dt_rain / y(1-2M/r)^1/2] + [v_rel dr / (1-2M/r) [11]

v_rel = (2m/r}^1/2 [12]

y = 1/(1-2M/r)^1/2 [13]

Substitute [12] and 1[13] into [11]

dt = dt_rain - (2M/r)^1/2 dr / (1-2M/r)

Substitute [14] into the Schwarzschild metric and collect terms to obtain the global rain metric in r,phi, and t_rain

This metric can be used anywhere around a non rotating black hole, not just inside the horizon. Our ability to write the metric in a form without infinities at r=2M is an indication that no jerk is felt as the plunger passes through the horizon."

I like the way Professor Taylor explains stuff.

Get it? LOL. Actually you probably don't since doing stuff like this, collect terms to obtain the global rain metric in r,phi, and t_rain, is out of your ability. So I probably better write down the result.

dTau^2 = (1-2M/r)dt_rain - 2(2M/r)^1/2 dt_rain dr - dr^2 - r^2 dphi^2

Once again what Professors Taylor and Wheeler said

"This metric can be used anywhere around a non rotating black hole, not just inside the horizon. Our ability to write the metric in a form without infinities at r=2M is an indication that no jerk is felt as the plunger passes through the horizon."

So we call this science and what you've got to say bullshit.

 

[RJBeery]

{...}the transformations detailed for you and RJBerry{...}

You seem quite hung up in mentioning (something close to) my name in each post, even though I carry no discourse with you. Farsight and I don't even agree on the issue at hand! I suspect your simplistic world is divided into "guys who agree with bruce" and "bad guys". Anyway, my measurement of you in terms of utility was complete long ago.

 

[paddoboy]

You seem quite hung up in mentioning (something close to) my name in each post, even though I carry no discourse with you. Farsight and I don't even agree on the issue at hand! I suspect your simplistic world is divided into "guys who agree with bruce" and "bad guys". Anyway, my measurement of you in terms of utility was complete long ago.

And therein lies the Irony my friends.
We have Farsight, RJBeery and Motor Mouth, all sprouting differing interpretations, claiming that they alone are privileged to the correct Interpretation of GR BH's and reality.
And then of course undefined has another interpretation that he is in the process of developing [and has been for 10 years or so] that reveals the real secrets of GR.
And all abhore the scientific methodology and subsequent peer review that has reinforced the acceptance and validity of the mainstream position,

What a gutless copout!

 

[OnlyMe]

There's gravity wherever there is curvature of spacetime.

James, commenting only on the conceptual interpretation of the above sentence, while it (the above sentence) is in some literal sense true, it suggests that gravity is caused by the curvature of spacetime. And yes, I know there are some here that believe that. However . . .

GR and spacetime are a geometric description of the kinetic interaction between one or more gravitating masses. The geometric description follows from the presence of gravity, rather than the other way around.

It would be more accurate in my estimation to say, "Where there is gravity, there is curvature of spacetime." Or better, "Where there is mass, there is a curvature of spacetime.

Spacetime describes the observed kinetic geometry, not the fundamental mechanism of gravitation.

Note that this is a conceptual issue, but it is also one of the conceptual issues that lies at the heart of bridging the gap between GR and QM, where gravity and even perhaps inertia are concerned.

 

[brucep]

You seem quite hung up in mentioning (something close to) my name in each post, even though I carry no discourse with you. Farsight and I don't even agree on the issue at hand! I suspect your simplistic world is divided into "guys who agree with bruce" and "bad guys". Anyway, my measurement of you in terms of utility was complete long ago.

You started it with your ignorant analysis of Hawkings paper. Your argument is exactly the same as Farsight whether you know it or not.

BAM!

 

[nimbus]

No it isn't. My position is that at the event horizon, there are no more coordinates. There aren't any coordinates to be equally valid.

Farsight, the Schwarzschild coordinate for event horizon is r= 2M.
So, where is this location where your saying light stops if it is not at the Schwarzschild coordinate r=2M ?
And, if your defending the frozen star idea, you must say where this place is.

, but I also think the Schwarzschild singularity is the end of the story. The clock stops, light stops, everything stops, and that's it.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Farsight, the Schwarzschild coordinate for event horizon is r= 2M.
So, where is this location where your saying light stops if it is not at the Schwarzschild coordinate r=2M ?
And, if your defending the frozen star idea, you must say where this place is.

And what time.

 

[paddoboy]

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.

No, it is not wrong...In fact a great analogy, keeping in mind that all analogies have limitations.
It's particularly effective in explaining how photons of light emmitted radially away from the EH, will always just hover above the EH, never quite getting away....The photon of course is moving at "c", and the EH escape velocity is at "c "

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.

No you are the one in error, along with the 4 or 5 other non mainstream interpretations that ironically all differ anyway.
And I suppose you have never picked up a text book?
This is another plaintive cry of the anti mainstream pusher, along with their fanatical claim of the intransigent nature of the mainstream and peer review.
The same plaintive cries are used to effect by the conspiracy nutters......In fact those plaintive cries in both cases are similar in every way and is the only supposed way that some are able to justify their silly claims, and their own actual intransigence in refusing to see how fruitless their campaign to discredit the mainstream is.

 

[Motor Daddy]

In fact those plaintive cries in both cases are similar in every way and is the only supposed way that some are able to justify their silly claims, and their own actual intransigence in refusing to see how fruitless their campaign to discredit the mainstream is.

You seem to think "mainstream" is some specific set of facts that are 100% accurate, that are there to stay. When one of those "facts" you call mainstream is replaced by a "real fact", then that is mainstream. So to say that someone is trying to discredit mainstream by fixing the current problems in "mainstream" is to be considered nutty, and the person saying those things is the Nutter. So you're the Nutter.

 

[paddoboy]

You seem to think "mainstream" is some specific set of facts that are 100% accurate, that are there to stay. When one of those "facts" you call mainstream is replaced by a "real fact", then that is mainstream. So to say that someone is trying to discredit mainstream by fixing the current problems in "mainstream" is to be considered nutty, and the person saying those things is the Nutter. So you're the Nutter.

No, not in the least...and I have reinforced that many times here.
Mainstream opinions do change...but that change is not ratified on science forums by half baked would be's if they could be's.....They are changed, modified via the scientific method and peer review. How sweet it is!
It's about time you realized that.

 

[Motor Daddy]

No, not in the least...and I have reinforced that many times here.
Mainstream opinions do change...but that change is not ratified on science forums by half baked would be's if they could be's.....They are changed, modified via the scientific method and peer review. How sweet it is!
It's about time you realized that.

It's about time you realized that you can't even understand what I'm saying, and yet you claim it to be BS. That's a couple sandwiches short of a picnic. Seek professional help immediately!

 

[paddoboy]

It's about time you realized that you can't even understand what I'm saying, and yet you claim it to be BS. That's a couple sandwiches short of a picnic. Seek professional help immediately!

Oh I understand perfectly well...at least in the realm of current discussion.
The problem is I'm not at the same picnic as you.

Remember that cocky on the biscuit tin?

 

[Motor Daddy]

Oh I understand perfectly well...at least in the realm of current discussion.
The problem is I'm not at the same picnic as you.

You're definitely out there on your own picnic! You can't answer a simple question as to why Farsight was late to school. Get a clue.

 

[Undefined]

Good morning, paddo. Mate, if you can't stop mouthing off about the person instead of keeping to the scientific issues without your constant personal commentaries and cheerleading etc, then you can't expect me to stay read-only while you proceed to mislead everyone about BOTH the person AND what that person is saying on the scientific issues being discussed. So you only have yourself to blame for my posting today instead of staying read-only (in the hope that you would stop your incessant personal 'chatter and libels' and stick to the actual science discussion for a change.

Really, mate, these following posts from you show a distinct and continuing lack of willing to engage on the merits (from your own knowledge) of the points being discussed; whilst STILL cluttering up the exchanges between those who CAN contribute to the discussion with science arguments which they understand and not just 'link/regurgitate' uncomprehendingly and irrelevantly as you've been doing all over the place. So blame yourself for making it only just that I respond in order to quickly set you straight on both the person and the issue you've been mangling with your misconstruings from your own 'belief' in your (patently self-overestimated) capacity for "perfect understandings" of 'mainstream' status quo and evolving status which you seem to want to ignore in your desperately manic pretense to 'knowing/understanding' enough to be able to add anything of value to, or to adjudicate on the merits or otherwise of, these complex and subtle discussions/issues. If all you have to offer is personal opinions and disparagements based on your own misconstruings from your imaginary 'high ground', then maybe you should consider listening-only while those who have a hope of actually understandiing these things get on with it without you getting under foot all the time with your cluttering 'sniping' posts from your patently irrelevancy 'sidelines' position when the actual science is concerned. Ok?

Let's start setting you straight again, beginning with....

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.

The science input/discussion speaks for itself, it doesn't need your negative prejudicial opinions/agenda for such forums as these in any way shape or form. If you are so adamantly set against the flow of scientific discourse here, then you can leave and take your negative opinions about the site's worth away with you to your self-imposed obscurity and irrelevance due to you cluttering and reducing the quality of discourse with your infantile and ignorant 'contributions'. You should be listening and understanding to the scientific conversation on this excellent forum, not cheerleading and trolling/baiting/disparaging the person/source for your silly juvenile self-gratification of your 'me too' self-important image-making for yourself without any real attempt at actual science contribution of your own.

And therein lies the Irony my friends.
We have Farsight, RJBeery and Motor Mouth, all sprouting differing interpretations, claiming that they alone are privileged to the correct Interpretation of GR BH's and reality.
And then of course undefined has another interpretation that he is in the process of developing [and has been for 10 years or so] that reveals the real secrets of GR.
And all abhore the scientific methodology and subsequent peer review that has reinforced the acceptance and validity of the mainstream position,

What a gutless copout!

Different interpretations are what MAKES for good and productive discussion if the science is discussed and NOT the source. That is one stage of the Objective Scientific Method at work. Practice what you preach, paddo.

And as for my interpretation, you gloss over the fact that I have linked more than once to evolving MAINSTREAM thought that approaches ever closer to what my ToE is outputting OBJECTIVELY, without my or anyone else's OPINIONS coming into it at all. Just because this increasingly confirmatory (of my ToE) evolving mainstream thought is not that same mainstream status quo of your (*ahem*) "perfect understanding", it does not justify your continuing disparagement of EITHER my person OR my objectively supported perspectives on the issue under discussion.

What have you 'contributed', when all is said and done? Nothing but me-too parroting and cheerleading with no clue as to the complexity/subtleties being discussed which the mainstream is only recently coming to finally face in a reality-based manner rather than from old abstraction-based manner which had produced the decades long impasse in many areas (especially Gravity and other mechanisms). We have to move on from (admittedly useful modeling) abstractions which have reached their limits for advancing the science into the full reality and not the 'partial' pictures we have had to stagnate in for many decades now.

No, it is not wrong...In fact a great analogy, keeping in mind that all analogies have limitations.
It's particularly effective in explaining how photons of light emmitted radially away from the EH, will always just hover above the EH, never quite getting away....The photon of course is moving at "c", and the EH escape velocity is at "c "


No you are the one in error, along with the 4 or 5 other non mainstream interpretations that ironically all differ anyway.
And I suppose you have never picked up a text book?
This is another plaintive cry of the anti mainstream pusher, along with their fanatical claim of the intransigent nature of the mainstream and peer review.
The same plaintive cries are used to effect by the conspiracy nutters......In fact those plaintive cries in both cases are similar in every way and is the only supposed way that some are able to justify their silly claims, and their own actual intransigence in refusing to see how fruitless their campaign to discredit the mainstream is.

Just to demonstrate that your cheerleader/parroter way of "perfectly understanding" the actual reality is FLAWED and only feeding your obvious elitist way of 'observing/understanding the facts' while you remain ignorant of the implications of those facts, I will point out that:

That photon which you describe as 'hovering' is NOT MOVING at all. Else it would not BE 'hovering'. Consider the actual reality of what is happening to the photon. It is being accelerated by gravity 'downwards', so that its 'upwards' INERTIAL momentum is COUNTERBALANCED. Two forces must equal and their effects on the propagation rate in either direction must result in NOT MOVING in either direction. And THEN there is the further consideration that while Gravity acceleration there is 'always on', it is then a question of whether the inertial momentum of the photon is effectively SAPPED and NULLIFIED gradually or almost immediately, such that the photon only 'hovers' for some short duration while the gravity acceleration overwhelms the initial upwards-directed energy/momentum with which it was generated/emitted [/b](depending on whether it could have been emitted at all there at the EH? see below)[/b]. So your statement, based no doubt on your professed "perfect understanding" of mainstream has LET YOU DOWN at the very first hurdle while you disparage others' person, character, intellect, motives and understandings/perspectives on what YOU obviously do NOT UNDERSTAND at all in its full complexities and subtleties in real fact as opposed to your 'simplistic/regurgitated so-called facts' I highlighted above.[/b] Are you listening and learning from your 'disparagement victims' yet, mate?


Then there is the further subtlety of whether a photon can be generated/emitted AT ALL if the source process is AT the event horizon such that gravity effect on said INTERNAL processes PRECLUDES (as per physically empirically observed slowing-to-max RATE of said internal processes) such that BOTH internal generation AND 'surface processes' involved in REFLECTION processes are effectively physically 'frozen'.

Again, it is important to remember always:

That 'freezing' of processes refers only to INTERNAL/SURFACE processes/dynamics WITHIN/ENVELOPING the overall clock/observer body/process. It is ALTOGETHER SEPARATE issue/effect/process discussion regarding the overall clock/observer INFALLING TRAJECTORY through the energy-space and into the EH by the clock/observer feature as 'a whole body' irrespective of that infalling whole body's internal energy-space states. OK? That was especially for your benefit too, paddo; just in case you again conflate complex/subtle distinctions and then proceed to merrily troll and misconstrue and make opinions based on your own version of what you "perfectly understand". If you have learned that your understandings to date have not BEEN so "perfect" as you seem to think they are, it might pay dividends for your intellectual trajectory in the sciences if you take time to stop your personal/parrot stuff and just listen and undertand the discussions of matters which to date are obviously too complex and subtle for you to comprehend properly/fully enough to support your claim of "perfect understanding", especially where the EVOLVING MAINSTREAM and AMATEUR science discourse/undrtandings is concerned, here or elsewhere.

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...

Since you have been spending most of your life on these sites as part of the scientifically-proven-to-have-existed mod-troll antics, while ignoring those instances where I have been proven correct and more in line with evolving mainstream approaches/speculations/alternative explanations (I recently linked one such for paddo to admire, but he was more interested in just cluttering up and burying whatever didn't suit his "perfect understandings" while continuing his unabated agenda of posting more and more manic 'personal stuff' instead. Moreover, I have given many instances/clues and hints as to where my ToE was ahead of the pack (professional and amateur) because of the complete and consistent from-scratch results, including gravity etc mechanisms which the mainstream is still not fully capable of producing from the current abstract modeling approach. So your opinion, and paddo's or any other baiting/trolling irrelevance is neither here nor there until YOU actually contribute more than PERSONAL NOISE and CLUTTER to the threads/discussions where actual evolving perspectives which can break the impasse of current mainstream status quo are being offered for discussion for/by those who actually CARE about advancing the science from present impasse.


Good luck and good thinking and good discussing, everyone! As always: NO hard feelings at this end...only science and objective observation/discourse on the point not the person/source.

 

[paddoboy]

This may help the stragglers we have here, in their approach to GR and its application to BH EH's and warped/curved space/time in general.
A series of lectures by the world renowned authority on BH's, Kip Thorne.

Prof. Kip Thorne, of course is the is Feynman Professor Emeritus for Theoretical Physics at the California Institute of Technology. His contributions to astrophysics and GR are well known, and his involvement in developing LIGO gravity-wave experiment.

The lectures are divided into those primarily for Physicists and Cosmologists and those for lay people can be found at.....

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~kip/scripts/lectures.html

 

[paddoboy]

Really, mate, these following posts from you show a distinct and continuing lack of willing to engage on the merits (from your own knowledge) of the points being discussed; whilst STILL cluttering up the exchanges between those who CAN contribute to the discussion with science arguments which they understand and not just 'link/regurgitate' uncomprehendingly and irrelevantly as you've been doing all over the place.

I'm not going to bother to answer your lengthy predicted sanctimonious rant, other than to say if hypocrisy was money, You would be a multi billionare.



Another person recently commented on your own contributions to this forum and the science...word salad I think he rightly called it.
Now if you spent more time on your famous alternative model, instead of your silly rantings and ravings, and your support of the alternative theory brigade and trolls that have infested this forum, you may have something possibly to deliver.
Otherwise all I continue to see is hot air.

ps: My contributions will continue and will certainly supplement the more accepted mathematical positions put by Russell and brucep and others.
Live with it.

 

[Undefined]

Undefined:



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.

Thanks for your reply, James.

My question to you will not require you reading the whole thread, mate. My post #514 merely just suggests a mathematical 'limits' approach/treatment to the question of what happens when empirical values for gravitational effects (grav time dilation) can be extrapolated to the extremal case at the EH gravity effects (grav time dilation) on both the internal clock processes and those of the observer infalling with it.

That suggested approach in #post 514 was aimed to help settle the INITIAL question of what is happening to the 'timing/processing' rate INTERNALLY, (as distinct and separate from the further EXTERNAL PROGRESS/MOTION question to be canvassed late once this initial INTERNAL STATES question is resolved to everyone's mutual satisfaction based on that limits exercise as suggested).

If we are ever to reach any sort of 'on same page' state for the discussion on these matters, there must be some way of teasing out the two main aspects (internal-space-states/process-rate/fate, and external-space-infalling-propagation-rate/fate) for treatment one before the other. Else these cross-purpose and round-and round exchanges will go on forever and nothing will be mutually concluded that all can agree is the reality.

I just asked your opinion on my suggestion for treating the internal situation as per a formal mathematical limits argument/exercise and inputing the changing gravity effect values ranging from 'normal' to 'extremal conditions' close to and at the BH event horizon. I feel that some formal math treatment (as przyk and Farsight might both agree with and prefer) that involves empirical effects/values might help the discussion move on from the current frustrating impasse?

That's it, really James. I will soon resume my read-only mode (unless my further reply is indicated). Thanks for your contributions and your efforts here at this increasingly more excellent site. Cheers!