Black holes may not exist!

[Undefined]

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.

Did you at least read those bits (in bold) where I corrected your 'scientific understanding' regarding the actual real physical states/motions applying to that photon?

How can you sustain your claim to "perfect understanding" of anything at all IF you don't bother to read those things which may be to your benefit in understanding?

And as for "what people say" about anyone, then mate, if you take PROVEN trolls' libels and lies and such 'sayings' for anything more than trollish silliness, then you had better review your claim to represent 'the high ground'.

Mate, stop, listen and learn. Your past approach is not doing you or anyone, especially 'mainstream', any favours at all; especially the evolving mainstream understandings.

Good luck.

 

[paddoboy]

The Innovativeness of Kip Thorne is his picture of the reality of the Universe and space/time.
He sees space/time as the background of the Universe, whose ability to be stretched, rumpled, squeezed bent, folded etc, a position mathematically supported by the observational data from GP-B.


Likewise his contribution to LIGO and whatever discoveries it eventually makes concerning gravity waves, will no doubt add data and certainty to the GR predicted BH's.


A comment on the silly inferences that some have made here re the intransigence of mainstream science in general, can be well and truly nullified, by the discovery of DE and the fact that it occupied a position, being the vast majority of what makes up the Universe.
Most, if not all, thought at face value it was rubbish, including Thorne.......
Then as data came pouring in and further confirmations were made, it was reluctantly accepted, but accepted it was.

Another point from my position, is the mainstream cosmological picture is largely based on data from COBE, WMAP, and other space probes, as well as Earth based telescopes.
Which one of the many alternative theorists here, have any access to such incredible, precise state of the art instruments.

 

[brucep]

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.

What a dumbshit troll.

 

[brucep]

Did you at least read those bits (in bold) where I corrected your 'scientific understanding' regarding the actual real physical states/motions applying to that photon?

How can you sustain your claim to "perfect understanding" of anything at all IF you don't bother to read those things which may be to your benefit in understanding?

And as for "what people say" about anyone, then mate, if you take PROVEN trolls' libels and lies and such 'sayings' for anything more than trollish silliness, then you had better review your claim to represent 'the high ground'.

Mate, stop, listen and learn. Your past approach is not doing you or anyone, especially 'mainstream', any favours at all; especially the evolving mainstream understandings.

Good luck.

You have to know the science before you can figure out somebody else's interpretation is wrong. Your comments are nothing more than an ignorant troll.

 

[paddoboy]

Did you at least read those bits (in bold) where I corrected your 'scientific understanding' regarding the actual real physical states/motions applying to that photon?

Yes, I read it...word salad.

Here is the way things are.
[1] From a remote FoR observing someone with a clock approaching the EH of a BH, he will see time dilation of the clock and approach to the EH, and a gradual red shift to infinity. The remote FoR will never see the clock or the person holding it reach the EH [HENCE NO STOPPING OF TIME] Just the gradual fading from view, until beyond the capabilities of his telescope.

[2] From the local FoR of the person approaching the EH with his clock, nothing extraordinary is seen to happen...no slowing down of time, no stopping of time, no nothing!!!!!!!! [other than tidal gravity effects depending on the BH's size]

Nice and simple undefined, and more Importantly is the accepted view based on GR and what we presently know.

If you differ, then do as I have asked you to do many times now......

 

[paddoboy]

Did you at least read those bits (in bold) where I corrected your 'scientific understanding' regarding the actual real physical states/motions applying to that photon?

.

And of course your attempt at correction of my understanding was vastly astray.
But out of the goodness of my heart, I now [previous post] correct your's.

 

[przyk]

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.

OK. Why do you think this is important?

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 more to do with there being no universal definition of "today" over significant distances in GR, as I've mentioned before. It works both ways: you generally can't say that the black hole exists "today" because of this, but you also can't say the black hole doesn't exist "today" for exactly the same reason.

Keep in mind this is if you ask for an exact answer for an arbitrary observer outside the event horizon. The definitions of distance, time, and simultaneity that you're used to from SR can still be used and still retain their approximate meanings locally in GR. So an infalling observer (A) just outside a black hole event horizon could say that another observer (B) is already inside the event horizon "now", by approximately the same meaning of "now" that we use in SR.

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?

Yes, he'd become causally disconnected with an entire region of spacetime. There are events that would never fall into his causal past. (Specifically, everything above and to the left of the dashed "end of signal" line I sketched out for you in the Minkowski diagram in [POST=3051585]this post[/POST].)

 

[Undefined]

Yes, I read it...word salad.

Here is the way things are.
[1] From a remote FoR observing someone with a clock approaching the EH of a BH, he will see time dilation of the clock and approach to the EH, and a gradual red shift to infinity. The remote FoR will never see the clock or the person holding it reach the EH [HENCE NO STOPPING OF TIME] Just the gradual fading from view, until beyond the capabilities of his telescope.

[2] From the local FoR of the person approaching the EH with his clock, nothing extraordinary is seen to happen...no slowing down of time, no stopping of time, no nothing!!!!!!!! [other than tidal gravity effects depending on the BH's size]

Nice and simple undefined, and more Importantly is the accepted view based on GR and what we presently know.

If you differ, then do as I have asked you to do many times now......

You read it? And yet all you come back with is some abstract understanding of what you think 'they' say is happening?

Why not just read what was written of the reality aspects which are empirically based extrapolations, instead of just (again) parroting abstract interpretations based on modeling of said abstract interpretations?

Do yourself and everyone a favour, paddo; why not go back; read the actual reality based possibilities/probabilities of what may be happening there to the photon; then try to compare that to your parroted 'abstract explanation'; then see where reality trumps abstraction.....unless it is your intention to forever dwell in abstraction-land than reality-land?

So far your 'responses' and 'contributions' have no relation to what was being said or discussed. You keep repeating your 'stuff' without actually attempting to objectively examine/discuss how the reality-based observations/extrapolations may compare/differ to your 'stuff'-based 'understandings/repetitions'.

 

[paddoboy]

You read it? And yet all you come back with is some abstract understanding of what you think 'they' say is happening?

Why not just read what was written of the reality aspects which are empirically based extrapolations, instead of just (again) parroting abstract interpretations based on modeling of said abstract interpretations?

Parroting????
Hmmm, seems like I have a choice.....Parrot someone like Kip Thorne, or parrot someone like, ummm what's your name???
Don't make me laugh undefined.

You are the one that needs to explain...you are the one who is making unsupported unreviewed claims....[and stop posting word salads.]
I support the mainstream position that has been peer reviewed.

 

[Undefined]

Why the personal BS, bruce? The scientific case/counter-arguments presented there for paddo's benefit should speak for themselves, irrespective of source. It does not need you or anyone to make it out to be dependent on your personal opinions/insults. Haven't you learned the scientific method for scientific debate yet? Cut it out, bruce, or you may be soon falling foul of the mods for your cheap shots, baits and debate-personalizing attempts.

 

[paddoboy]

It would also be nice if you would answer the question I asked you re your view on abstract entities.

What you see as abstract, is forced upon you by your ummm, never ending theory
Others see entities such as space, time, space/time, and 'BH's as real.

 

[paddoboy]

Why the personal BS, bruce? The scientific case/counter-arguments presented there for paddo's benefit should speak for themselves, irrespective of source. It does not need you or anyone to make it out to be dependent on your personal opinions/insults. Haven't you learned the scientific method for scientific debate yet? Cut it out, bruce, or you may be soon falling foul of the mods for your cheap shots, baits and debate-personalizing attempts.

In actual fact all those rule violations you have committed in your last few posts.....Hypocrisy again.
You must have plenty of money.

 

[Undefined]

Parroting????
Hmmm, seems like I have a choice.....Parrot someone like Kip Thorne, or parrot someone like, ummm what's your name???
Don't make me laugh undefined.

You are the one that needs to explain...you are the one who is making unsupported unreviewed claims....[and stop posting word salads.]
I support the mainstream position that has been peer reviewed.

I posted in response to your 'parroted' claims regarding the photon there. Your claims were patently incomplete and abstract-based. I went on to explain where and why, by explaining the reality-based aspects/extrapolations based on empirical facts, not abstract modeling of same.

The onus is NOW on YOU, paddoboy, to either show where/why my correction of your 'parroted abstract understandings' does not stand, according to the EMPIRICALLY DERIVED reality-based observations/extrapolations, OR to for once admit that you may be mistaken and that others may be correct after all on this specific point regarding what is happening to the photon there?

Here it is again, for your proper consideration and response ON POINT according to site scientific/debating rules...

...
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 (depending on whether it could have been emitted at all there at the EH? see below).

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.

...

So, paddo; if you were not just parroting post and paste views from texts/wiki etc, please prove you understand the subtleties and complexities the reality involves above and beyond that which your simplistic and parroted abstract-based 'response' is limited to. Go to it and prove us all wrong about you, mate. More evasions and insults and other trolling/baiting tactics will not answer, ok?

It would also be nice if you would answer the question I asked you re your view on abstract entities.

What you see as abstract, is forced upon you by your ummm, never ending theory
Others see entities such as space, time, space/time, and 'BH's as real.

You already had my answer: that it was the abstract interpretations of real observables that were th abstractions; not the real observables themselves. That you continue to use that troll tactic of accusing others of not answering, though they patently had, is just another step for you along that slippery slope to complete trolldom which you seem determined to continue along. Take care or your mindset will 'freeze' in troll-mode if you don't turn back. Seriously, mate.

In actual fact all those rule violations you have committed in your last few posts.....Hypocrisy again.
You must have plenty of money.

You seem too fond of using (read "misusing") the phrase "in fact", when all that you state is pure hearsay or your own demonstrably mistaken "perfect understanding". No real scientist would ever stoop to such frequent pretense to 'fact' when only his own opinions and misconstruings are all that are in evidence in your claims.

You gloss over the trolling etc of those who 'support' your personal opinions and mistaken 'facts' claims and innuendos, and you have the gall to say I am the troll/hypocrite? Mate, your present intellectual trajectory seems headed for personal malice and spite agenda, not science debate agenda. Do better, paddoboy.

 

[paddoboy]

I'm rather tired of referencing your bullshit....



You explained nothing...just word salad.
The photon is always moving, just as a fish swimming upstream at 10kms/hr, against a stream flowing at 10kms/hr is still moving, depending on FoR.

And you DID NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION!!!

Here it is again....
What was GP-B measuring? ...please no word salad...If you can't answer just do what you do best...keep trolling!



Space, time, space/time are real entities though not physical. That is the view of many scientists smarter then you obviously.

Now again, what was GP-B measuring?
Or if you don't feel like answering, just keep trolling.

In summing, your view, your pet model, contravenes mainstream thought...
You have been supposedly working on it for 10 years or whatever [I don't really care]
What have you got?
THE ONUS IS ON YOU...YOU ARE DEFYING CONVENTION AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, INCLUDING PEER REVIEW.
And it just may possibly be you who has an enforced holiday [again] if you keep trolling.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Yes, I read it...word salad.

You read it? And yet all you come back with is some abstract understanding of what you think 'they' say is happening?

Why not just read what was written of the reality aspects which are empirically based extrapolations, instead of just (again) parroting abstract interpretations based on modeling of said abstract interpretations?

I concur.

Do yourself and everyone a favour, paddo; why not go back; read the actual reality based possibilities/probabilities of what may be happening there to the photon; then try to compare that to your parroted 'abstract explanation'; then see where reality trumps abstraction.....unless it is your intention to forever dwell in abstraction-land than reality-land?

Grok'd!

So far your 'responses' and 'contributions' have no relation to what was being said or discussed. You keep repeating your 'stuff' without actually attempting to objectively examine/discuss how the reality-based observations/extrapolations may compare/differ to your 'stuff'-based 'understandings/repetitions'.

Undefined, I give a nod and a wink to your situational awareness.

I am going to have to read more of your Posts.

 

[paddoboy]

And please, I'm growing rather tired of your continued sanctimonious crap and passive aggressiveness....so desist with the mate bullshit.

 

[brucep]

I'm rather tired of referencing your bullshit....



You explained nothing...just word salad.
The photon is always moving, just as a fish swimming upstream at 10kms/hr, against a stream flowing at 10kms/hr is still moving, depending on FoR.

And you DID NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION!!!

Here it is again....
What was GP-B measuring? ...please no word salad...If you can't answer just do what you do best...keep trolling!



Space, time, space/time are real entities though not physical. That is the view of many scientists smarter then you obviously.

Now again, what was GP-B measuring?
Or if you don't feel like answering, just keep trolling.

In summing, your view, your pet model, contravenes mainstream thought...
You have been supposedly working on it for 10 years or whatever [I don't really care]
What have you got?
THE ONUS IS ON YOU...YOU ARE DEFYING CONVENTION AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, INCLUDING PEER REVIEW.
And it just may possibly be you who has an enforced holiday [again] if you keep trolling.

Try 'ignore'. The only time I see his posts is when somebody references his troll. The forum shouldn't have to put up with this nonsense. Apparently the 'sock puppet rule' doesn't apply to undefined?

 

[paddoboy]

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.


According to General Relativity, as specifically stated by its author Albert Einstein, 'without matter there can be no space-time'. That is because space-time is relational (not a physical "thing"), and without matter there are no relations between physical things.
General Relativity is our most elegant and by far the best-tested theory of how matter, gravitation and space-time work.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-matter-exist-without-space-matthew-kleban/

Now that certainly supports the reality of space/time, along with matter energy

 

[paddoboy]

Try 'ignore'. The only time I see his posts is when somebody references his troll. The forum shouldn't have to put up with this nonsense. Apparently the 'sock puppet rule' doesn't apply to undefined?

Thanks brucep.....

I have a soft spot though, and will always try and help out and pass on what I know to those less fortunate.

 

[Undefined]

Take it easy, mate. Let's just see what's what 'in fact', shall we?

I'm rather tired of referencing your bullshit....



You explained nothing...just word salad.
The photon is always moving, just as a fish swimming upstream at 10kms/hr, against a stream flowing at 10kms/hr is still moving, depending on FoR.

Are you claiming that energy-space is ITSELF 'instreaming' and 'infalling' into the BH event horizon as well? For that is the only way your 'photon swimming upstream' analogy/assumption can be tenable. But we know that energy-space itself may be conditioned differently at various locations, but it does not 'stream' like you claim there for your analogy. Ask your fellow trolls about that failed analogy.

So, how about actually trying to read and understand what I explained from reality-based EMPIRICAL effects extrapolations of the reality without your biased and faulty 'overlays' that are neither here nor there in the matter? Only once you drop your pretense to "perfect understanding" of things which you have no real understanding of except as naff analogies for children, then you can read without bias and maybe learn something real for a change.

Get to it, paddo, for your own sake if for no-one else's.

And you DID NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION!!!

Here it is again....
What was GP-B measuring? ...please no word salad...If you can't answer just do what you do best...keep trolling!



Space, time, space/time are real entities though not physical. That is the view of many scientists smarter then you obviously.

Now again, what was GP-B measuring?
Or if you don't feel like answering, just keep trolling.

In summing, your view, your pet model, contravenes mainstream thought...
You have been supposedly working on it for 10 years or whatever [I don't really care]
What have you got?
THE ONUS IS ON YOU...YOU ARE DEFYING CONVENTION AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, INCLUDING PEER REVIEW.
And it just may possibly be you who has an enforced holiday [again] if you keep trolling.

It was measuring the real observable of energy-space 'conditioned effects' arising from the influence (the mechanism for which is admittedly yet unknown according professional physicists/theory status quo) of the Earth on its surrounding energy-space states with regard to the 'accelerations profile and strengths' over the path taken by the probe.

No more than that was OBSERVED/MEASURED. Those were real observables. Period.

The ABSTRACTIONS come later when the real observables are are input to the abstract mathematical modeling using equally abstract mathematical construct/analytical tools to INTERPRET what those real observables say about the abstract geometric model based on abstract amthematical 'space-TIME' interpretational tool/algorithm.

Can you see the distinction between real observables and mathematical abstract treatments/interpretations of same according to assumptions inherent in the construction of the abstract 'space-time' analytical.predictive model? Or is it still too subtle for you to separate in your "perfect understanding" attempts?

Now please either address ONLY the scientific matter I posed for your response/counterarguments, without further personal/parroted troll-derived guff, or just gracefully concede or at least withdraw as a non-participant in the actual scientific discourse in this specific 'photon at EH' matter.

Thanks in advance for sticking to the science not the person!