Black holes may not exist!

[Declan Lunny]

What are you talking about? What do you see when you click the link?

A series of circles with some assorted colored dots, some odd numbers and nothing much else,,,,,, until the photo of Obama popped up. Oh, and a square box, I'm sure that meant something good but I don't know what.

 

[Motor Daddy]

A series of circles with some assorted colored dots, some odd numbers and nothing much else,,,,,, until the photo of Obama popped up. Oh, and a square box, I'm sure that meant something good but I don't know what.

Yeah, the circles and the box. I have no idea about Obama pics so they must be ads or something on your end.

OK. So I just handed you what you were saying couldn't be done. So now the ball is in your court. Are you gonna try to understand it? All the information is provided in the pic.

 

[Declan Lunny]

Yeah, the circles and the box. I have no idea about Obama pics so they must be ads or something on your end.

OK. So I just handed you what you were saying couldn't be done. So now the ball is in your court. Are you gonna try to understand it? All the information is provided in the pic.

No you handed me some cartoon of what you think should convince me I was wrong. I did not find it compelling and I did find it slippery (open to metaphysical word wrangling.) I would not be so quick to say I was unwilling to try understanding it. It's more likely you didn't present enough information for me to understand what you think that cartoon is showing.

I stand by my statement that GR has not failed on any scale in-which it was intended to be applied. I don't know what your cartoon was stating so I don't know what you are standing by. Can you perhaps tell me what I said that you feel is wrong? And why you think it's wrong? And what you think is correct?

 

[Motor Daddy]

No you handed me some cartoon of what you think should convince me I was wrong. I did not find it compelling and I did find it slippery (open to metaphysical word wrangling.) I would not be so quick to say I was unwilling to try understanding it. It's more likely you didn't present enough information for me to understand what you think that cartoon is showing.

I stand by my statement that GR has not failed on any scale in-which it was intended to be applied. I don't know what your cartoon was stating so I don't know what you are standing by. Can you perhaps tell me what I said that you feel is wrong? And why you think it's wrong? And what you think is correct?

It's child's play. If you can't understand it, then where does that leave you?

 

[river]

It's child's play. If you can't understand it, then where does that leave you?

Not understanding your point your way

 

[paddoboy]

It's child's play. If you can't understand it, then where does that leave you?

With the adults, while you continue with child's play?

 

[Motor Daddy]

Not understanding your point your way

So your ability to understand is limited. Did you ride the short bus?

 

[river]

So your ability to understand is limited. Did you ride the short bus?

Since your understanding isn't according to you , limited , then simplifying your point shouldn't be beyond your understanding

 

[Declan Lunny]

It's child's play. If you can't understand it, then where does that leave you?

What does that mean? It leaves me not understanding the child at play I suppose.

If you can't state what you found incorrect in my statement about GR just say that. Or ask me to restate what I said about GR if you don't understand what I was saying. A cartoon with no captions or context and insults doesn't tell me anything about what you think of GR and why you think it's wrong.

 

[paddoboy]

What does that mean? It leaves me not understanding the child at play I suppose.

If you can't state what you found incorrect in my statement about GR just say that. Or ask me to restate what I said about GR if you don't understand what I was saying. A cartoon with no captions or context and insults doesn't tell me anything about what you think of GR and why you think it's wrong.

Just one of the many trolls we have the unfortunate knack of attracting Declan Lunny.
As I have said previously, forums such as this, are the only outlet they have, so I suppose we should expect such nonsense.
[1] Stating alternative nonsense as fact:
[2] No observable or experimental evidence:
[3] Faulty maths :
[4] No scientific methodology:
[5] No peer review :
[6] Conspiracy claims re mainstream intrangenceness :

 

[origin]

What does that mean? It leaves me not understanding the child at play I suppose.

If you can't state what you found incorrect in my statement about GR just say that. Or ask me to restate what I said about GR if you don't understand what I was saying. A cartoon with no captions or context and insults doesn't tell me anything about what you think of GR and why you think it's wrong.

Motor Daddy is one of our resident relativity deniers. He believes all sorts of strange things. He believes things like an observers speed and the speed of light is additive and he cannot comprehend the concept of simultaneity as explained in Special relativity , stuff like that. No one with even the barest understanding of relativity takes any of his comment seriously.

Edit to add: Looks like paddoboy is a faster typer than me.

 

[OnlyMe]

But taking it to limit is the point where the observer/clock crosses the event horizon. The event horizon is the limit for general relativity.

Part of the problem here is the definition of the event horizon. Is it the last location from which light can escape the gravity well, or is it the location where light no longer can escape?

While Farsight may understand what he is arguing, I don't think his approach is a good one. As it is clear that it becomes confused by one's FoR.

I believe what Farsight is trying to argue, is that as a clock moves into a gravity well it slows down. . . That much we have some evidence of. Additionally what he appears to be saying is that at the event horizon the clock will have slowed to a complete stop. Just outside the event horizon an observer would still see his clock ticking away as normal, be that very slowly when viewed from some distance. The difference is how one defines the event horizon.

You framed the definition as follows, "The event horizon is the limit for general relativity." which suggests that GR remains valid at the event horizon.

Reframing that sentence to be consistent with what it appears Farsight is suggesting, you would have something like, "The limit for general relativity, lies just outside the event horizon."

He goes further to suggest that, because at or just within the event horizon the clock stops, the black hole itself must be thought of in a manner consistent with the frozen star model. And somehow this is a product of GR.

One of problem I see with this, is that all of the evidence we have that supports time dilation, or clock rates relative to a gravitational field, is based on the electromagnetic characteristics of atoms... i.e. in a simplistic way electron transitions. We have no direct evidence how the strong and weak nuclear forces are affected by a gravity well, other than to say that they seem to be far more stable than an electron's relationship with the nucleus.

Setting aside speed of light issues, it is not difficult to conceive of a point in a strong gravity well where the emission of photons is suppressed and that, that location coincides with what we refer to as the event horizon. . . But that in itself does not support the frozen star model, because it does not say anything about how the strong and weak nuclear forces behave. Even if one continues this reasoning to the point where the integrity of the proton were disrupted, what then of its constituent parts? Do quarks just stop all zitterbewegung motion at the same point that electrons stop emitting photons?

In the end from the perspective of GR your original statement (setting aside the debate defining the character of an event horizon), "The event horizon is the limit for general relativity." should settle the argument from the perspective of GR. Which is GR can tell us nothing of the character of what lies within the event horizon, other than it results in a gravity well.., outside the event horizon, that so far appears to be consistent with the predictions of GR.

 

[paddoboy]

In the end from the perspective of GR your original statement (setting aside the debate defining the character of an event horizon), "The event horizon is the limit for general relativity." should settle the argument from the perspective of GR. Which is GR can tell us nothing of the character of what lies within the event horizon, other than it results in a gravity well.., outside the event horizon, that so far appears to be consistent with the predictions of GR.

A couple of points or questions even.....
The Schwarzchild limit is derived from Einstein's GR equations, is it not?
And isn't a part of the Schwarzchild solution, that once that limit has been surpassed, further collapse to Singularity status is compulsory?
We may not have any evidence either observational or experimental of what transpires inside the EH, [but neither does any of the 4 or 5 alternative theories here] but so far the predictions of GR have all been validated.
I don't see too many reasons why this one should be doubted.

 

[Declan Lunny]

You framed the definition as follows, "The event horizon is the limit for general relativity." which suggests that GR remains valid at the event horizon.

Reframing that sentence to be consistent with what it appears Farsight is suggesting, you would have something like, "The limit for general relativity, lies just outside the event horizon."

I didn't frame the definition. I'm not that smart, though I have worked through other's maths proofs of solutions of General Relativity's field equations. It's the entire foundation upon which General Relativity is built. The event horizon (where the gravitation is such that such that the escape velocity is "c") is the limit for GR.

Not just this side of the event horizon, not just over the event horizon. The event horizon IS the exact limit to General Relativity solutions for what an outsider observer can see and what an in-falling observer can report. The in-falling observer will never see anything but his clock functioning normally until he crosses the event horizon, he will never see his clock slow and then stop like the outside observer will.

The only way it could be otherwise is if "c" is not a true fundamental constant, but rather local variable. The event horizon defines the escape velocity is exactly "c". Parsing the words so there is wiggle room is how the misconceptions leak into discussions about relativity in particular, and science in general. So I'm sticking with "The event horizon is the limit for general relativity." General Relativity is where the concept of "event horizon" emerged from, as a limiting condition. It's the limit Schwarzchild discovered and has been confirmed by countless others since.

 

[Aqueous Id]

He can not witness time dilation within his own reference frame.

But some other observer some distance away looking at the clock at the event horizon will see it ticking slower and slower until it fades from view as it crosses the event horizon. He witnesses the dilation of time on the clock at the event horizon.

Both observers are experiencing reality, neither is experiencing a preferred reference frame. This is an experimentally well confirmed phenomenon. There is no other way to explain the observations made countless times in countless environments, from cosmological observations all the way down to particle observations and everything in between.

That's very good but you left one thing out.

Not only are space and time relative, but the theory itself is relative. As we see, the deniers have auto-dilated time in one particular part of their brain, the part which recorded the moment the teacher said "Class, open your books to the chapter on Relativity . . . "

The remote observers (the ones who complied) see time stopped in said regions of the deniers' brains. However, unlike the condition you describe the deniers do also experience a cessation of time. They are suspended there, waking each morning to the same old world of absolute coordinates and one universal reference frame, only to get up and post the same old ideas they had just before the teacher began to speak.


We know this, you noticed it too when you drove up, but this is invisible to them. That's how it goes living at the cone.

 

[brucep]

I didn't frame the definition. I'm not that smart, though I have worked through other's maths proofs of solutions of General Relativity's field equations. It's the entire foundation upon which General Relativity is built. The event horizon (where the gravitation is such that such that the escape velocity is "c") is the limit for GR.

Not just this side of the event horizon, not just over the event horizon. The event horizon IS the exact limit to General Relativity solutions for what an outsider observer can see and what an in-falling observer can report. The in-falling observer will never see anything but his clock functioning normally until he crosses the event horizon, he will never see his clock slow and then stop like the outside observer will.

The only way it could be otherwise is if "c" is not a true fundamental constant, but rather local variable. The event horizon defines the escape velocity is exactly "c". Parsing the words so there is wiggle room is how the misconceptions leak into discussions about relativity in particular, and science in general. So I'm sticking with "The event horizon is the limit for general relativity." General Relativity is where the concept of "event horizon" emerged from, as a limiting condition. It's the limit Schwarzchild discovered and has been confirmed by countless others since.

Delete because you're not saying that. LOL. I didn't read far enough.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

No.

I'm saying he won't. I'm saying he won't see anything. He doesn't see his clock stop, because he stops seeing. And thinking.

That's the official story. And I'm saying it's wrong. Imagine you're at the event horizon. I'm watching you through my gedanken telescope. You are subject to infinite time dilation. Has your clock ticked yet? No. I wait a year. Has your clock ticked yet? No. I wait ten years. Has your clock ticked yet? No. I wait a hundred years, a thousand years, a million years. The answer is always no. Your frame only exists in some mathematical never-neverland. Like that coordinate system, it doesn't exist at all.

Where it goes infinite. He never sees it cross the event horizon.

There's no issue with gravitational time dilation. The issue is with taking it to the limit.

I'm not getting into the squabble about what happens 'at' the EH, or inside.

However, Schwarzschild (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Schwarzschild) was doing his calculations while on the Russian Front during WWI, and died from illness later that year. Tragic loss.

What I was wondering is, if you have any inkling as to Hawking's claim about particle production a quantum distance on the outside of the EH. As you know the EH is the demarcation where the gravitational pull is so strong that even light cannot escape. Hawking theorized that particle pair production occurs on the outside of the EH, and that a 'negative mass' particle falls 'into' the BH (not frozen 'at' the EH), substracting from its mass, and its positive-mass pair equivalent then speeds away from the EH, overcoming the gravitational pull. Have you calculated how much kinetic energy such a particle must have to 'escape to infinity' from that intense gravitational well? To me, it seems impossible that such a particle would have spontaneously acquired a huge kinetic energy, absent an input of energy from some source (such as when we do particle pair production at CERN, etc. via huge energy input).

 

[brucep]

That's very good but you left one thing out.

Not only are space and time relative, but the theory itself is relative. As we see, the deniers have auto-dilated time in one particular part of their brain, the part which recorded the moment the teacher said "Class, open your books to the chapter on Relativity . . . "

The remote observers (the ones who complied) see time stopped in said regions of the deniers' brains. However, unlike the condition you describe the deniers do also experience a cessation of time. They are suspended there, waking each morning to the same old world of absolute coordinates and one universal reference frame, only to get up and post the same old ideas they had just before the teacher began to speak.


We know this, you noticed it too when you drove up, but this is invisible to them. That's how it goes living at the cone.

I guess the remote coordinates are preferred for the group you were talking to. LOL.

 

[OnlyMe]

A couple of points or questions even.....
The Schwarzchild limit is derived from Einstein's GR equations, is it not?
And isn't a part of the Schwarzchild solution, that once that limit has been surpassed, further collapse to Singularity status is compulsory?
We may not have any evidence either observational or experimental of what transpires inside the EH, [but neither does any of the 4 or 5 alternative theories here] but so far the predictions of GR have all been validated.
I don't see too many reasons why this one should be doubted.

O.K. A Schwarzchild black hole does not exist in reality. It is a non-rotating spherical mass with no magnetic field. Those do not exist. But by idealizing the problem, it makes some aspects of conceptualizing reality a bit easier, than attempting to deal with the gravitational variations introduced by rotation, magnetic fields and an other than spherical mass. It is a good approximation for planets and stars. Less likely as good for real case black holes. But that gets into a whole different discussion.

So to answer your question in a sense the Schwarzchild solution is a simplification of GR, to an idealized form.

About the collapse.., yes that is what the equations say.., but they also begin to return infinities and are generally not considered as a good description of what goes on in reality, inside the event horizon. That subject has for the most part been turned over to theorists working in quantum mechanics, i.e. searching for a viable model of quantum gravity. However, I don't believe that any serious theorist today believes that point singularities are a reality. The word "singularity" seems to be another of those definitions that has different meanings or interpretations depending of who you are talking to.

Predictions made by GR have to a large extent been verified or in some cases proven, but remember as Declan pointed out the event horizon is the limit for GR. Though it still has some problems at galactic and cosmic scales, GR does a good job of describing and predicting the dynamic relationships of gravitationally significant masses, outside the event horizon.

 

[Undefined]

I'm not getting into the squabble about what happens 'at' the EH, or inside.

However, Schwarzschild (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Schwarzschild) was doing his calculations while on the Russian Front during WWI, and died from illness later that year. Tragic loss.

What I was wondering is, if you have any inkling as to Hawking's claim about particle production a quantum distance on the outside of the EH. As you know the EH is the demarcation where the gravitational pull is so strong that even light cannot escape. Hawking theorized that particle pair production occurs on the outside of the EH, and that a 'negative mass' particle falls 'into' the BH (not frozen 'at' the EH), substracting from its mass, and its positive-mass pair equivalent then speeds away from the EH, overcoming the gravitational pull. Have you calculated how much kinetic energy such a particle must have to 'escape to infinity' from that intense gravitational well? To me, it seems impossible that such a particle would have spontaneously acquired a huge kinetic energy, absent an input of energy from some source (such as when we do particle pair production at CERN, etc. via huge energy input).

Yes, that is a serious reality situation to be considered when all the interpretations from mathematical abstractions and modellings are said and done. Please see where I highlight this specific very real aspect within the first bolded section inside the second quote box in my post #653, the relevant excerpt from which is as follows:

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?

That would go specially for electrons and other 'rest massed' virtual/real particle pair-production 'products'. Well spotted, WLW!