Black holes may not exist!

[Farsight]

Farsight, your example of hopping a meter or a second is flawed.

No it isn't. It isn't flawed at all.

In "reality" there is no difference. When one hops one meter, one must move across the spacial distance between the beginning and ending of that hop.

In "reality" there's a world of difference. Imagine that you and I are in contact. We are at the same spatial coordinates. Then I hop forward a metre. We are no longer at the same spatial coordinates. Then I hop back, and we are. Now you try hopping forward a second.

The same is true for time. The change of location in space, during the hop of one meter, is associated with an equivalent change in time, as the hopper's location changes. The velocity of the change in location being the connecting variable.

There is no change in time.

The only real difference is that, one can turn around and hop back in space, while being unable to change direction in time.

No. You can't hop forward a second. Get used to it.

Part of the difficulty is that "time" itself is an abstraction. It is a conceptual observation of change. Change does occur and it always occurs from the present to the future. Time is our way of conceptually providing meaning to the rate of change we observe.

Change occurs. Saying it always occurs from the present to the future is just more abstract baggage.

To answer, Paddoboy's question earlier, while space exists and is real and change exists and is real, spacetime is an abstract geometry which is real only to the extent that it describes, reality . . , meaning that which has either been experimentally proven or observed as occurring in the world, apart from the theoretical model.

Fair enough, The important point about spacetime is that it's static. Our world is not.

 

[paddoboy]

Of course. But you could achieve the same result a different way. Like this: twins born years apart.

???????

Really Farsight, for someone expressing to be the greatest genius we have ever seen, that comparison is just plain ordinary dumb.
The twin paradox [which isn't really a paradox] is an example of time travel and the validity of GR.

 

[paddoboy]

Change occurs. Saying it always occurs from the present to the future is just more abstract baggage.
.

No, that statement is just a cop out along with many other statements you have made.

 

[Undefined]

That's quite admirable....Let's hope we have no more claims of people supplanting GR or the BB or any other delusional theory without peer review.
Because they will be challenged by many here.

Of course they must be challenged. That is the whole ethos of the scientific method and discussions here. The point is to eschew 'personality/ego' stuff and challenge based ONLY on the relevant logics, science and objective arguments involved. Do you agree with us ALL applying that civilized/scientific principle of "Play the ball, not the man" at this site?

 

[Farsight]

This is repetition, Farsight. Not criticism. You're not actually criticising alternative coordinate systems because you never refer to how they are actually derived. You're instead dismissing them out of hand because you think the conclusion they show (that the clock isn't really stopped) contradicts what you believe (that the clock is stopped). Why should anyone believe the clock is stopped in the first place? You never explain that, and nor do any of the sources you link to.

Because gravitational time dilation goes infinite. And because the light doesn't get out.

What does this have to do with what I said? My point was that you have an inaccurate appreciation of what a metric is. Certain aspects of the metric are measurable. Others, such as the metric components $$g_{\mu\nu}$$ in a particular coordinate system, generally are not measurable. Saying the metric is "what you measure" is useless. That's so vague it could mean anything.

Go and look at the etymology. Metric is all to do with measurement. The metric is not space.

What's the relevance of this? Also, the spacetime interval isn't just "related to lightpath lengths". In fact it's mainly defined for spacelike separated events, where it is generally nonzero.

Think about the twins. One stays at home with his parallel-mirror light-clock. The other goes on an out-and-back trip with his parallel-mirror light-clock. When they meet up, the total light-path lengths traced out by the beams in each clock are the same.

So how and where is this derived?

In simple steps. The first step is to agree that time travel is science fiction.

 

[paddoboy]

I've criticized them till the cows come home. The clock stops. You can't eliminate that by changing the coordinate system.

And again, when your light clock stops, you aren't going to be measuring any distance or time. We've spoken previously about the SR invariant spacetime interval being related to lightpath lengths. The lightpath length is zero.

You have said that many times. Let me put you straight.
Again, time is never seen to be stopped....
[1] From any distant FoR, anyone approaching the EH, is seen to be red shifted to infinity and gradually fading from view with time slowing, but never quite seen reaching the EH, and consequently, time is never seen to be stopped.

[2]From the local FoR, the intrepid traveller approaches the EH, crosses it, with nothing extraordinary taking place....no slowing of time...no stopping of time....and no freezing at the EH.

[3]This is because according to relativity, as interpreted by 100 years of mainstream physics, time dilation/length contraction are only observed from one FoR, looking at another FoR...NEVER LOCALLY,

 

[Undefined]

It was OK before. You can 'extrapolate your imagination' all you want. The point remains that what you're imagining is absurd.

It was only a PASSING THOUGHT to EXTRAPOLATE logically FURTHER up to unimaginably EVEN LARGER SCALE Black Hole conditions in the vast space regions at their FAR EVENT HORIZON; scales much much larger than which przyk used for his following observation about INERTIAL states of motion, the insignificant tidal forces, and the vast space/time scale between the EH regions and the central core/body of the (as currently hypothesized) black hole...

...

An inertial (i.e. freefalling) observer near the event horizon of a large black hole wouldn't necessarily notice much there, simply because the tidal forces they'd experience can be arbitrarily weak there. If the observer fell into the black hole then of course they'd eventually die, but this could happen long after they crossed the event horizon if the black hole is massive enough.

Do you understand, that if INERTIAL motion is involved (ie, FREEFALLING), and if there is no 'forces' affecting the freefalling constituents (especially if tidal forces can be ignored even more according to przyk's observation), and if the time span for reaching any central core may be TRILLION upon TRILLIONS upon TRILLIONS of lightyears 'into the future' from where some 'observable universe scale' regions/content occuring near such 'gentle and deep' EH ZONE is 'processing', then the 'observable universe' CONTENT/PROCESSES there would 'look' like the INERTIAL/GRAVITATIONAL/ELECTROMAGNETIC etc LOCALLY?

It was just an extrapolation exercise on what przyk pointed to. That's all.

Now, origin, if you can pick out and explain precisely where you think (assuming you even bothered to think about that exercise and the aspects involved before you trolled your unargued opinion) the 'absurd' bit resides in that innocent extrapolation of the same assumptions/facts przyk used for supporting his point, then it should be very interesting to all of us to watch you put your own logics/facts to work, explaining clearly to us just how/where that extrapolation/observation, as put, was "absurd".

Thanks.

 

[Undefined]

Farsight, your example of hopping a meter or a second is flawed. In "reality" there is no difference. When one hops one meter, one must move across the spacial distance between the beginning and ending of that hop. The same is true for time. The change of location in space, during the hop of one meter, is associated with an equivalent change in time, as the hopper's location changes. The velocity of the change in location being the connecting variable.

The only real difference is that, one can turn around and hop back in space, while being unable to change direction in time.

Part of the difficulty is that "time" itself is an abstraction. It is a conceptual observation of change. Change does occur and it always occurs from the present to the future. Time is our way of conceptually providing meaning to the rate of change we observe.

To answer, Paddoboy's question earlier, while space exists and is real and change exists and is real, spacetime is an abstract geometry which is real only to the extent that it describes, reality . . , meaning that which has either been experimentally proven or observed as occurring in the world, apart from the theoretical model.

Hi OnlyMe.

My bolding & underlining above.

All well and good, mate, as far as it goes. But it hits, as it were, the TWO 'brick walls' of logic and reality.

First 'brick wall': You are assuming that space represents a 'time interval', and then introduce 'velocity' calculations which already presumes a time interval from some 'clock' time interval which was obtained VIA MOTION IN SPACE inside the clockwork mechanism. Circuitous and not valid argument for claiming space and time are of equal/complementary nature etc etc. Any theory/interpretations based on such space-time abstract and self-referential circuitous 'construction' cannot be taken seriously when the nature of SPACE, MOTION are what they are, independent of any 'time/timing' circuitously derived ABSTRACT math overlay.

Second 'brick wall': Your inescapable admission/recognition of the REALITY that you cannot change 'direction' in 'time' clearly demonstrates that 'time' is NOT a 'dimension' of ANY REAL SORT, but merely a convenient abstraction for convenient abstract modeling. There are, as you have rightly confirmed for everyone once and for all, NO DEGREES OF FREEDOM AT ALL, OF ANY KIND, attached IN REALITY to the 'time' abstraction. It is totally separated, by reality and logics, from the OBJECTIVE OBSERVABLES of the SPACE and MOTION from which we DERIVE that mathematical abstraction. No more; no less.

Hence the cause of all these interminable cross-purpose exchanges I see everywhere. Because one 'side' is WORKING FROM REALITY while the other 'side' is MODELING FROM ABSTRACTIONS of that reality.

Please take care, everyone, to BRIDGE THAT GAP when discussing these matters, else no mutual understanding between the REALITY arguments and the UNREALITY arguments will ever be achieved. Good luck to both 'sides'.

 

[OnlyMe]

No it isn't. It isn't flawed at all.

In "reality" there's a world of difference. Imagine that you and I are in contact. We are at the same spatial coordinates. Then I hop forward a metre. We are no longer at the same spatial coordinates. Then I hop back, and we are. Now you try hopping forward a second.

There is no change in time.

No. You can't hop forward a second. Get used to it.

When you hop one meter it does not occur in an instant. You are not one place and then another. During the hop you move along a line or arc from one place to another... And that hop represents some measurable change in location. And as that change occurs a corresponding duration of what we call time also occurs. Just because once you hop, you can rotate and hop in another direction.., does not mean that the turn and second jump were not just a continuation of changing location, with an accompanying rate of change we call time. No where did what we call time stop or turn around just because we turn to face a new direction in space.

So if I hop off the roof and it takes some fraction of a second to land on the ground, I have hopped a distance of somewhere around ten feet and forward in time a fraction of a second.

Change occurs. Saying it always occurs from the present to the future is just more abstract baggage.

All we have evidence of is that change moves in one direction, and we have come to call that time. Since that is our only experience and we have no evidence to suggest anything different, it is not abstract baggage, to work on the assumption that time moves only in one direction.

What is abstract, is to assume that since someone can come up with a mathematical proof, that seems to predict that time may move in other than one direction, that time does move both toward the future and the past. It is O.K. to debate math and theory, but one must not lose touch with experience in doing so. Experience says change always moves from now to the future. Since time is a name and means of measurement of change, time also as per experience only moves from now to the future.

(When I was very much younger than I am now, I was shown a mathematical proof that suggested that a bumble bee could not fly. I found it interesting at the time and immediately understood the point.., a mathematical proof represents reality, only to the extent that it describes reality. Since bumble bees do fly, that proof did not represent reality.)

Fair enough, The important point about spacetime is that it's static. Our world is not.

Here again, I do not agree. Spacetime is dynamic, rather than static, even if our methods and means of describing it are limited to instants, such that each slice appears static. You are looking a the photograph of a runner and because it is shows only an instant of the race he runs, you assume he is standing still.

When I said that spacetime is an abstract geometry, I was referring to spacetime as a mathematical description of how we observe objects interact gravitationally. The description is static or composed of a series of static pictures. What it is describing which is also often called spacetime, is not static. The universe is always dynamically changing around us, and with it the spacetime geometry we use to describe it.

 

[OnlyMe]

Hi OnlyMe. [My bolding/underlining above]

All well and good, mate, as far as it goes. But it hits, as it were, the TWO 'brick walls' of logic and reality.

First 'brick wall': You are assuming that space represents a 'time interval', and then introduce 'velocity' calculations which already presumes a time interval from some 'clock' time interval which was obtained VIA MOTION IN SPACE inside the clockwork mechanism. Circuitous and not valid argument for claiming space and time are of equal/complementary nature etc etc. Any theory/interpretations based on such space-time abstract and self-referential circuitous 'construction' cannot be taken seriously when the nature of SPACE, MOTION are what they are, independent of any 'time/timing' circuitously derived ABSTRACT math overlay.

Second 'brick wall': Your inescapable admission/recognition of the REALITY that you cannot change 'direction' in 'time' clearly demonstrates that 'time' is NOT a 'dimension' of ANY REAL SORT, but merely a convenient abstraction for convenient abstract modeling. There are, as you have rightly confirmed for everyone once and for all, NO DEGREES OF FREEDOM AT ALL, OF ANY KIND, attached IN REALITY to the 'time' abstraction. It is totally separated, by reality and logics, from the OBJECTIVE OBSERVABLES of the SPACE and MOTION from which we DERIVE that mathematical abstraction. No more; no less.

Hence the cause of all these interminable cross-purpose exchanges I see everywhere. Because one 'side' is WORKING FROM REALITY while the other 'side' is MODELING FROM ABSTRACTIONS of that reality. Please take care, everyone, to BRIDGE THAT GAP when discussing these matters, else no mutual understanding between the REALITY arguments and the UNREALITY arguments will ever be achieved. Good luck to both 'sides'.

Undefined, I seldom take more than the time to write something with a brief re-read before I post. I am not writing for publication, though in a sense posting is publication. I make many mistakes, more in how I attempt to convey an idea or understanding than in intent. That said.., hogwash.

I think I made it clear that space exists and change exists and that time is an abstraction. We have named our observation of linear change, time. We have even agreed on standards for defining the rate of change. But time itself requires a comparison or observation of change, while change occurs observed or not. What time is has been debated forever, with no real definitive conclusion. But this is now devolving into a more philosophical discussion.

 

[Farsight]

Doublepost deleted.

 

[Farsight]

When you hop one meter it does not occur in an instant. You are not one place and then another. During the hop you move along a line or arc from one place to another... And that hop represents some measurable change in location. And as that change occurs a corresponding duration of what we call time also occurs. Just because once you hop, you can rotate and hop in another direction.., does not mean that the turn and second jump were not just a continuation of changing location, with an accompanying rate of change we call time. No where did what we call time stop or turn around just because we turn to face a new direction in space.

Oh come on, OnlyMe. You can change your spatial coordinates as easily as hopscotch. But you can't change your time coordinate. You're still here, now.

So if I hop off the roof and it takes some fraction of a second to land on the ground, I have hopped a distance of somewhere around ten feet and forward in time a fraction of a second.

That "forward in time a fraction of a second" is just the same if you stayed on the roof. You're still here, now.

All we have evidence of is that change moves in one direction, and we have come to call that time.

Change is change. There is no direction to it.

Since that is our only experience and we have no evidence to suggest anything different, it is not abstract baggage, to work on the assumption that time moves only in one direction.

Light moves. Planets move. People move. Inside a clock cogs move. Not time.

What is abstract, is to assume that since someone can come up with a mathematical proof, that seems to predict that time may move in other than one direction, that time does move both toward the future and the past. It is O.K. to debate math and theory, but one must not lose touch with experience in doing so. Experience says change always moves from now to the future. Since time is a name and means of measurement of change, time also as per experience only moves from now to the future.

Things move. They move up or down or back or forth or round and round et cetera. Time doesn't. That's a figure of speech.

By the by, it would be better to discuss this on the time travel is science fiction thread. Make sure you read the OP.

Here again, I do not agree. Spacetime is dynamic, rather than static, even if our methods and means of describing it are limited to instants, such that each slice appears static. You are looking a the photograph of a runner and because it is shows only an instant of the race he runs, you assume he is standing still.

It's static. It has to be so because it models space at all times.

When I said that spacetime is an abstract geometry, I was referring to spacetime as a mathematical description of how we observe objects interact gravitationally. The description is static or composed of a series of static pictures. What it is describing which is also often called spacetime, is not static. The universe is always dynamically changing around us, and with it the spacetime geometry we use to describe it.

Yes the universe is dynamic. We live in a world of space and motion through it. But again, spacetime is not dynamic. It's like you throw a red ball across the room and film it. Then you develop the film and cut it up into individual frames, then stack them into a block. There's a red streak within the block. But nothing is moving in there.

I think I made it clear that space exists and change exists and that time is an abstraction...

Am I hearing this from the same guy?

 

[Undefined]

Hi, przyk, Farsight.

Question(s) to both of you, if I may, just so I can get a handle on what your thinking is based on regarding the nature of energy-space 'features' once they are near EH and/or accelerated by gravity to lightspeed by the time the freefall has gone on for some distance beginning far away from the EH.

I note the current mainstream concept that 'time stands still' for the PHOTON/RADIATION energy-space 'features' in transit.

If 'time stops' for the photon (perforce of it traveling at lightspeed), then is it unreasonable to say likewise for any clock that has also been accelerated to lightspeed by the stage it reaches the EH?

If the clock matter is accelerated to lightspeed, it effectively constitutes PURE RADIATION characteristics, and not 'matter' anymore? Does the clock's TIME/TIMING processes (just like light's) actually stop (just as for the photon) when it reaches lightspeed?





Anyway, you get the drift. Can you both give me your thoughts on thse observations/extrapolations from current mainstream views on radiation 'seeing/experiencing/involving' NO time at all within its frame of reference (or, have all frames of reference been effectively eliminated from reality consideration once the speed is LIGHTSPEED there for ANY 'thing' falling in?

Thanks in advance for youyr considered logical/scientific opinions on that aspect/query.

 

[Undefined]

Undefined, I seldom take more than the time to write something with a brief re-read before I post. I am not writing for publication, though in a sense posting is publication. I make many mistakes, more in how I attempt to convey an idea or understanding than in intent. That said.., hogwash.

I think I made it clear that space exists and change exists and that time is an abstraction. We have named our observation of linear change, time. We have even agreed on standards for defining the rate of change. But time itself requires a comparison or observation of change, while change occurs observed or not. What time is has been debated forever, with no real definitive conclusion. But this is now devolving into a more philosophical discussion.

Sure, I understood that. The only problem was when you told Farsight that...

...one must move across the spacial distance between the beginning and ending of that hop. The same is true for time.

...and then went on to give the impression that space and time were somehow inseparable as some sort of 'dimensional inter-relationship'. Hence my reminder/caution for everyone to note that the 'velocity' factor used in 'timing space motion' has 'time' (from a 'clock standard of motion in space ONLY) ALREADY built into the abstract modeling/measuring construct.

The point I made is that is circuitous and confuses the essential reality in evidence; and therefore making any attempt to claim that 'space' and 'time' are inextricably some sort of 'complementary dimensional' metrics/references/reality etc ipso facto an invalid argument for YOU saying Farsight's 'hopping a meter" or "hopping a second" explanatory distinction was "flawed".

So you effectively DO agree, after all, that his (and others') logically/empirically argued/supported distinguishing between 'space' motion and 'time' motion IS valid. If you still think not, then you will need to reconsider your opinion based on what I pointed out above.




PS: Oh, I almost forgot...

But this is now devolving into a more philosophical discussion.

...because at every turn, unfortunately and probably unwittingly, certain 'experts', 'mainstream believers' and the like, keep introducing PURELY PHILOSOPHICAL NOTIONS like 'existence', 'duration' and 'time' into what SHOULD be a PURELY REALITY REFERENTIAL PHYSICAL discussion of what actually is EMPIRICALLY 'happening' around us in the OBSERVABLE 'energy-space' PHENOMENA involving ONLY SPACE AND MOTION in reality. If you drop those philosophical notions, I won't complain, mate!

 

[Farsight]

One question to both of you, so I can get a handle on what your thinking is based on regarding the nature of energy-space 'features' once they are near EH and/or accelerated by gravity to lightspeed by the time the freefall has gone on for some distance beginning far away from the EH.

It is said that a body dropped from an "infinite" distance into a black hole is travelling at the speed of light when it crosses the event horizon. But conservation of energy applies. If you drop a 1kg body into the black hole, the black hole mass increases by 1kg only. Not more. The kinetic energy of a falling body comes from the rest-mass-energy of that body. If a body ended up travelling at the speed of light, it would be all kinetic energy. It wouldn't have any rest-mass-energy. It wouldn't be a body. Moreover, the coordinate speed of light varies in a gravitational field. The body is falling faster and faster and faster as the coordinate speed of light is getting lower and lower and lower. The body can't end up going faster than the local speed of light, because of the wave nature of matter. Something has got to give.

I also note the current mainstream concept that 'time stands still' for the PHOTON/RADIATION energy-space 'features' in transit. If 'time stops' for the photon (perforce of it traveling at lightspeed), then is it unreasonable to say likewise for any clock that has also been accelerated to lightspeed by the stage it reaches the EH?

Yes see above, but it is reasonable to say time stops for a clock accelerated to the speed of light. And that time stops for a clock located at the event horizon. Like Einstein said, its tick rate is zero.

Does the clock's TIME/TIMING processes (just like light's) actually stop (just s for the photon)?

Yes, but again see above.

If the clock matter is accelerated to lightspeed, it effectively constitutes PURE RADIATION characteristics, and not 'matter' anymore?

Yes. Hence Winterberg's GRB firewall. You fall into a black hole, and you turn into gamma radiation. Like a bluebottle in an electric flykiller. Only more spectacular.

 

[Undefined]

You have said that many times. Let me put you straight.
Again, time is never seen to be stopped....
[1] From any distant FoR, anyone approaching the EH, is seen to be red shifted to infinity and gradually fading from view with time slowing, but never quite seen reaching the EH, and consequently, time is never seen to be stopped.

[2]From the local FoR, the intrepid traveller approaches the EH, crosses it, with nothing extraordinary taking place....no slowing of time...no stopping of time....and no freezing at the EH.

[3]This is because according to relativity, as interpreted by 100 years of mainstream physics, time dilation/length contraction are only observed from one FoR, looking at another FoR...NEVER LOCALLY,

All that abstract 'spacetime' Relative FoRs modeling stuff goes out the window once GRAVITY at the BH Event Horizon ZONE makes the LOCAL energy-space PROCESSES the only REAL OBSERVABLE ABSOLUTE EFFECTS according to GRAVITY EFFECT conditions LOCALLY....since NO information/signal reaches any other FoR of remote observers.

Drop the repeated abstractions which become IRRELEVANT in this scenario, and actually start yourself THINKING objectively upon the reality based extrapolations of what we KNOW EMPIRICALLY of LOCALIZED PROCESS in GRAVITY wells.

PS: Are you going to keep spamming your "perfect understandings of mainstream understandings" all over the threads till you drop from exhaustion, paddo? Listen to and understand the actual NEW discourse and leave your personalities stuff, your useless quote mining of old texts, and your apparent negative attitude to what this site can produce, out of it for a change. Chill.

 

[Motor Daddy]

...because at every turn, unfortunately and probably unwittingly, certain 'experts', 'mainstream believers' and the like, keep introducing purely philosophical notions like 'existence', 'duration' and 'time' into what should be a purely reality referential physical discussion of what actually is empirically 'happening' around us in the observable 'energy-space' phenomena involving only space and motion in reality. If you drop those philosophical notions, i won't complain, mate!

 

[paddoboy]

All that abstract 'spacetime' modeling stuff goes out the window once GRAVITY makes the LOCAL energy-space PROCESSES the only REAL OBSERVABLE....LOCALLY....since NO information/signal reaches any other FoR of remote observers.

Drop the repeated abstractions which become IRRELEVANT in this scenario, and strat THINKING upon the reality based on extrapolation of what we KNOW EMPIRICALLY of th PROCESS in GRAVITY wells.

PS: Are you going to keep spamming your "perfect understandings of mainstream understandings" all over the threads till you drop from exhaustion, paddo? Listen to and understand the actual NEW discourse and leave your personalities stuff, your useless quote mining of old texts, and your apparent negative attitude to what this site can produce, out of it for a change. Chill.

What you see as repeated abstractions will be repeated when necessary as the mainstream and most here including me, see it differently.
My mining of old text books will continue in the face of the silly unsupported and unreviewed claims, by those that seem to one way or the other, suffer terribly from delusions of grandeur.

In essence then undefined, it is your posts that are irrelevent, word salad [not my description, someone elses]' unreviewed and unsupported to boot.
And your claims of spamming after your last sanctimonous request falls on deaf ears and as is usual with your style of posting, completely twisting the reality.



But as I said earlier in the piece.
You and others can make as many false claims, and false accusations, in the depths of your delusions re GR and BH's, as you like.....the fact remains....The only place where it is being heard is limited to this forum...The halls of the scientific establishment, and the mainstream peer reviewed majority are neither interested, nor taken aback by the noise from the minority.
Afterall, I would guess that most of the 4 or 5 alternative claims that have been made, probably have been made in the past by better men and consequently discarded.

I'm beginning to realize undefined [with your personal attacks on me] that my constant reminding you of the mainstream position, the peer review process, along with all the claims being unsupported, have struck a rather sore note with you and others.
Afterall, they are fact, and they cannot be disputed, and apply to all 4 or 5 that have made such claims.


I confidently expect more irrelevant posts, directed at my person, more spamming and more word salad.
Over to you.

 

[Motor Daddy]

...because at every turn, unfortunately and probably unwittingly, certain 'experts', 'mainstream believers' and the like, keep introducing PURELY PHILOSOPHICAL NOTIONS like 'existence', 'duration' and 'time' into what SHOULD be a PURELY REALITY REFERENTIAL PHYSICAL discussion of what actually is EMPIRICALLY 'happening' around us in the OBSERVABLE 'energy-space' PHENOMENA involving ONLY SPACE AND MOTION in reality. If you drop those philosophical notions, I won't complain, mate!

I just want to reemphasize just how funny this is, Undefined:

Bwahahahahahahahahahaahha

 

[Trapped]

This thread is ridiculous anyway. It's an example about over-enthusiasm about a misunderstood topic. Hawking isn't saying there are no ''black holes,'' he's saying they take on a different nature... using an ''apparent horizon'' as opposed to an ''event horizon.''

Black holes still exist, they just ain't as black as we thought.