Black holes may not exist!

[przyk]

Because gravitational time dilation goes infinite.

Gravitational time dilation is not a physical invariant. It's a very heavily coordinate-dependent quantity. The gravitational time dilation factor is not only observer-dependent but also depends on the choice of a (generally arbitrary) simultaneity convention. Even gravitational time dilation going infinite doesn't necessarily mean anything. Accelerating reference frames are a well-known example where gravitational time dilation can become infinite and even negative, purely as a mathematical consequence of how these reference frames are defined.

Go and look at the etymology.

And why would I want to do that? Surely it's how the metric is defined and used in the theory that should matter, and not what it's called. (You know appealing to etymology is a logical fallacy, right?)

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.

And? The times accumulated by the clocks and the ages of the twins won't be the same. (Also, not everything is a light clock.)

In simple steps.

The picture you linked to is an illustration of the rubber sheet view. As you should already know, that is at best a highly inexact and in some ways misleading analogy for general relativity.

That picture isn't new, by the way. It's probably older than I am, and every introductory and popular science-level exposition on black holes seems to include it. If it's actually known to be accurate in some important and relevant way, you should be able to cite where that was demonstrated in the scientific literature.

 

[paddoboy]

In other words undefined you are pushing shit uphill.

 

[Undefined]

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.

You leave out one most crucial fact, paddo. I and Farsight and some others actually present supporting arguments which are empirically obervable/extrapolatable reality/logically/objectively based arguments. You manically and uncomprehendingly repeating/linking ad nauseam those very old text book orthodoxy abstractions and incomplete understandings from partial theories, which don't actually refute the NEW issues/observations being scientifically put and argued, is no way to claim the high ground in any sense, especially in the imaginary sense that YOU have anything to contribute to the NEW OBJECTIVE discourse other than irrelevant and personally malicious clutter and negative attitude trying to poison debate at this site. Chill and learn something new which mainstream is slowly coming round to in its own evolving understandings of the reality beyond the conventional abstractions used so far. Chill.

 

[Undefined]

In other words undefined you are pushing shit uphill.

Is that 'personal opinion from ignorance of the empirical facts and subtleties under discussion' the most 'telling scientific argument in rebuttal' you have, paddo? Seems like it so far.

 

[paddoboy]

You leave out one most crucial fact, paddo. I and Farsight and some others actually present supporting arguments which are empirically obervable/extrapolatable reality/logically/objectively based arguments.

::roflmao:


Well in that case GET IT PEER REVIEWED!!!!!!!!

Or are you now going to manically fanatically and trollishly now claim conspiracy?

 

[paddoboy]

Is that 'personal opinion from ignorance of the empirical facts and subtleties under discussion' the most 'telling scientific argument in rebuttal' you have, paddo? Seems like it so far.

You know damn well what it means.

Until you get your stuff peer reviewed, and accepted by the reputable knowledgable and consisting of the vast majority of physicists, you have and are achieving SFA.
Does that make it any clearer?

 

[Undefined]

You know damn well what it means.

Until you get your stuff peer reviewed, and accepted by the reputable knowledgable and consisting of the vast majority of physicists, you have and are achieving SFA.
Does that make it any clearer?

::roflmao:


Well in that case GET IT PEER REVIEWED!!!!!!!!

Or are you now going to manically fanatically and trollishly now claim conspiracy?

The INFORMAL DISCUSSIONS stage of the OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, remember? Peer review will come when I publish THE LOT all at once for sake of completeness and to avoid risks from plagiarists and to minimize endless piecemeal exchanges with silly internet "me too" trolls like you seem to be morphing into day by day.

How many times does it have to be told you what the site is FOR, paddo; before it sinks in past that ego-tripping 'thick and negative' ego-centered SUBJECTIVE attitude/behaviour of yours? Chill.

 

[brucep]

On this point Walter is wrong...Tidal gravitational effects would be virtually nil for a SMBH, due to a more gradual gradient of critical space/time curvature. One could theoretically approach, and cross the EH, with no slowing or stopping of time and nothing extraordinary happening...At least until a lot closer to the real Singularity.
rain






Hmmmm, Interesting.....I don't believe I have spoken of Hawking Radiation in this thread, I've been too busy refuting the nonsense you are posting about GR and BH's in general.
But actually, quantum mechanical reasoning, does support Hawking Radiation, and I also see it as quite viable and a logical outcome.






You have nothing but more delusions of grandeur and unsupported claims.
If you did have anything of any substance, that invalidates SR/GR, you would not be here.
Time travel also [as with the twin paradox] is theoretically possible, and in limited ways, we see it in particle accelerators and such.






Realy? Are you serious? And the reason why you don't get all these aspects of reality peer reviewed is???? Oh yes, I know...the immovable stubborn nature of mainstream science.
So, you are a conspiracy theorist also?


You realize that if what you say you have was true [which it isn't] you would be a shoe in for next year's Nobel prize for physics?

Since several members have mentioned tidal effects associated with the plunger following the natural path [geodesic] the following is derived from the rain coordinates [coordinates that Farsight and others believe are invalid, not preferred, LOL]. Turns out the plunger won't have the time to realize any painful tidal effects before the plunger is spagettified at r=0.

Start with

dt_rain = dTau

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

First derivative

g_rain = 1/2 (2M)^1/2 / r^3/2 dr/dTau = - M/r^2

dg_rain/dr = - M r^2 / r^4 = 2M/r^3

Now we can predict the radius where the plunger might feel pain associated with tidal effects [spagetification] and the time remaining before the spagetification.LOL.

So

r_ouch = (2M_meters dr / g_ earth)^1/3 [dr represents the length, in meters, of the plunger falling along the radial path and g_earth in geometric units is 1.09E-16 m^-1. If the Mass was a solar mass then it's length M_meters = 1477 meter.]

And

Tau_ouch = 2/3(dr/g_earth}^1/2

So I choose dr=2m and g_earth=1.09E-16 m^-1

Tau_ouch m = 2/3(2m/1.09E-16 m^-1)^1/2 = 90304728.2 m

Convert to seconds

90304728.2 m / 3E8 m/s = 0.31449 second

So this is pretty interesting. When the plunger first feels 'the stretch and squeeze' it isn't associated with the mass of the black hole at all. Only the length of the plunger and delta g across the plungers length. It's also interesting that the theory predicts that the plunger will not feel effects due to delta g over the entire natural path [almost, LOL]. So for this case it's a little < 1/3 of a second before complete spagettification. A question commonly asked to conclude this project is does the plunger actually feel any pain at spagetification? IE does it have time to reach the brain? I say no but ........ ?

 

[Motor Daddy]

Is that 'personal opinion from ignorance of the empirical facts and subtleties under discussion' the most 'telling scientific argument in rebuttal' you have, paddo? Seems like it so far.

You're killin' me, Undefined!

 

[paddoboy]

The INFORMAL DISCUSSIONS stage of the OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, remember? Peer review will come when I publish THE LOT all at once for sake of completeness and to avoid risks from plagiarists and to minimize endless piecemeal exchanges with silly internet "me too" trolls like you seem to be morphing into day by day.

How many times does it have to be told you what the site is FOR, paddo; before it sinks in past that ego-tripping 'thick and negative' ego-centered SUBJECTIVE attitude of yours? Chill.

Yeah yeah yeah yeah......more excuses, more accusations, more claims and more insults.


I predict you will still be claiming this in another 10 years, as will Farsight....and guess what?
The mainstream will have progressed under the same GR and BH models, with maybe some minor tinkering around the edges as per proper scientific methodolgy and peer review.
And this forum will still be under sufference from silly alternative theory claims.

 

[Farsight]

Gravitational time dilation is not a physical invariant. It's a very heavily coordinate-dependent quantity.

It isn't very heavily coordinate dependent. Clocks go slower when they're lower. Not faster.

The gravitational time dilation factor is not only observer-dependent but also depends on the choice of a (generally arbitrary) simultaneity convention. Even gravitational time dilation going infinite doesn't necessarily mean anything.

Observers see the lower clocks going slower, and the meaning of the infinite time dilation is the whole point of our discussion.

Accelerating reference frames are a well-known example where gravitational time dilation can become infinite and even negative, purely as a mathematical consequence of how these reference frames are defined.

Please tell me more about this negative gravitational time dilation.

And why would I want to do that? Surely it's how the metric is defined and used in the theory that should matter, and not what it's called. (You know appealing to etymology is a logical fallacy, right?)

No. Yes, definition and use matter, but one has to beware of Humpty Dumpty logic.

And? The times accumulated by the clocks and the ages of the twins won't be the same. (Also, not everything is a light clock.)

The light path lengths are the same. Hence the invariant interval. And see the "same essence" here. Think wave nature of matter.

The picture you linked to is an illustration of the rubber sheet view. As you should already know, that is at best a highly inexact and in some ways misleading analogy for general relativity...

It isn't misleading when you understand it. Now please read the time travel is science fiction OP and concur with it. It shouldn't be a problem. Then we can take the next step. We need to do this to avoid going round in circles.

 

[Undefined]

Yeah yeah yeah yeah......more excuses, more accusations, more claims and more insults.


I predict you will still be claiming this in another 10 years, as will Farsight....and guess what?
The mainstream will have progressed under the same GR and BH models, with maybe some minor tinkering around the edges as per proper scientific methodolgy and peer review.
And this forum will still be under sufference from silly alternative theory claims.

What excuses, accusations, claims and insults? I address the reality of the situation and make reasonable observations therefrom.

Are you aware that works of scope and complexity towards completing the science in any field takes DECADES from start to finish and then ready for publication full and consistent for integrated peer-review from many disciplines? It is a fact, whether you are 'privy' in detail to that fact or not despite what you 'believe' one way or the other. In the case of my 'from scratch' Reality-Maths and Reality-Physics combined ToE, it will be the first of its kind, because it will complete/realitize ALL the mathematics Axioms and ALL the Physical Postulates into a UNIFIED THEORY OF EVERYTHING. Patience, scrupulous objectivity and dedicated diligence are paramount for embarking upon and properly finalizing such works.

Try doing THAT yourself, paddo, and see what process' and time it takes, not to mention the intellectual patience, thoroughness and objectivity which you patently lack. Sniping irrelevantly from the sidelines with your 'personality' stuff and 'old-text regurgitations/links won't even register on the scale of SCIENTIFIC RELEVANCE.

Chill and change that egotistical, subjective, thick and negative 'attitude' if you want to make any sort of original impact on the science at any level, anywhere, paddo. Start today. Good luck!

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Do you have any credentials RealityCheck, or plan to get any?

 

[Undefined]

Do you have any credentials RealityCheck, or plan to get any?

Personality and credentials of source is your measure of objective evidence, logical ideas and scientific validity? You're in the wrong 'discipline', Beer w/Straw. Try the 'Science of Advertising'; or maybe join some cult or religion so that your personality/credential approach to 'belief' can defer to some 'god' authority figure which you seem to be wanting. Science, especially the hard objectively considered/discovered science, is obviously not your 'thing'. Good luck on Twitter/Facebook though! Your 'peers' hang upon your every 'tweet' and 'babble' there, I hear!

 

[brucep]

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.

He discovered 40 years ago the classical description would need modification since it's no more a classical object than anything else in the universe.

 

[paddoboy]

Personality and credentials of source is your measure of objective evidence, logical ideas and scientific validity? You're in the wrong 'discipline', Beer w/Straw. Try the 'Science of Advertising'; or maybe join some cult or religion so that your personality/credential approach to 'belief' can defer to some 'god' authority figure which you seem to be wanting. Science, especially the hard objectively considered/discovered science, is obviously not your 'thing'. Good luck on Twitter/Facebook though! Your 'peers' hang upon your every 'tweet' and 'babble' there, I hear!

More excuses, more side tracks, more word salad, more accusations and claims.

personal message to undefined:
After listening to at least two reputable posters here regarding you, I see you as less then expert.
I also see your model [and yes admittedly, I aint sufficiently knowledgable to debunk it fully] as unrealistic and will probably never see the light of peer review.
The little I do know, coupled with common sense re the accepted scientific method and peer review, has me dismissing your model out of hand....
That coupled with the fact that so far we have at least three outright alternative claims in this thread...not requests like "hey what do you blokes think of this model?" or "Do you believe this is correct" just plain ordinary out right claims that GR is wrong, or needs change.
To make such out right claims, is obnoxious to say the least and justifies the delusions of grandeur that I see from at least three of you.
All interesting members and mainstream supporters will easily recognise those three.

 

[Undefined]

More excuses, more side tracks, more word salad, more accusations and claims.

personal message to undefined:
After listening to at least two reputable posters here regarding you, I see you as less then expert.
I also see your model [and yes admittedly, I aint sufficiently knowledgable to debunk it fully] as unrealistic and will probably never see the light of peer review.
The little I do know, coupled with common sense re the accepted scientific method and peer review, has me dismissing your model out of hand....
That coupled with the fact that so far we have at least three outright alternative claims in this thread...not requests like "hey what do you blokes think of this model?" or "Do you believe this is correct" just plain ordinary out right claims that GR is wrong, or needs change.
To make such out right claims, is obnoxious to say the least and justifies the delusions of grandeur that I see from at least three of you.
All interesting members and mainstream supporters will easily recognise those three.

Such uncritical 'trust in authority' dooms those who so naively trust to inevitable embarrassment as the science evolves from orthodoxy to new understanding. As always, because the professional theory is INCOMPLETE and they say as much if you cared to ask.

And of course, 'reputable posters' and 'reputable scientists' and 'reputable sources' have NEVER been known to get things arse-about before, nothing, never! lol

You have some 'comforting belief' there, paddo. Reminds me of The Religionist Credo. All dissenters are 'Heretics'....and should be 'silenced at all costs' in case they are right....and especially if they are right!

We get that is your 'understanding' modus operandi, paddo. No need to repeat that mantra so often in so many threads/discussions. We GET it. Ok?

 

[OnlyMe]

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.

Keeping in mind that time is an abstract concept, trying to put the conversation into terms of past, present and future and then fix the time scale to an observer's frame of reference, thus reducing experience to NOW, is itself ridiculous. Time is counted not only by clocks but by calendars. Is the zero day on our calendar, NOW today.., or some other agreed upon day in the past?

As for moving through space and or time, (remember in this context time is a bookkeeping tool for change) neither space nor time exist unless there is some change. You may in theory imagine a static universe . . . everything in a box and never moving, but that has nothing to do with reality. We would and could know nothing of either spacial separations or what we call time if there were no change.

We experience change and through change are aware of both space and what we call time.

Pick a clock any clock and your time coordinate according to that clock changes constantly. Whether your spacial coordinates change or not. However, to know that you have to be aware of change.

Because time is a measurement of change, you do move through time.., an abstract way of keeping track of change.

 

[Undefined]

Keeping in mind that time is an abstract concept, trying to put the conversation into terms of past, present and future and then fix the time scale to an observer's frame of reference, thus reducing experience to NOW, is itself ridiculous. Time is counted not only by clocks but by calendars. Is the zero day on our calendar, NOW today.., or some other agreed upon day in the past?

As for moving through space and or time, (remember in this context time is a bookkeeping tool for change) neither space nor time exist unless there is some change. You may in theory imagine a static universe . . . everything in a box and never moving, but that has nothing to do with reality. We would and could know nothing of either spacial separations or what we call time if there were no change.

We experience change and through change are aware of both space and what we call time.

Pick a clock any clock and your time coordinate according to that clock changes constantly. Whether your spacial coordinates change or not. However, to know that you have to be aware of change.

Because time is a measurement of change, you do move through time.., an abstract way of keeping track of change.

My bolding above. But see the subtle aspect overlooked in that observation/interpretation in bold?

It is that the CLOCK mechanism/device/processing PARTS/ELEMENTS (whether matter and/or pure radiation etc) are DOING THE MOVING to establish the ESSENCE of the clock time as a representation of MOTION in/across SPACE.

See? It all boils down to that. Empirically observable fundamentals of SPACE and MOTION are what all the 'overlays' of HUMAN MIND philosophical/abstract notions of 'existence', 'change' and 'time' are DERIVED from. It is precisely because they are philosophical, that abstractions (like you agree) such as 'elapsing and passing time' and 'existing for some duration in some unreal sense even if there was no motion or space' etc, can only confuse the discussions going on here and everywhere.

If we can all drop such philosophical overlay abstractions and concentrate anew on the fundamental observables in the ENERGY-SPACE PROCESSING reality, ie space and motion, then we may have a hope of reaching a mutual understanding of all the subtleties and complexities involved. Good luck to all of us!

 

[OnlyMe]

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


...and then went on to give the impression that space and time were somehow inseparable as some sort of 'dimensional inter-relationship'.

Space and time as far as "us" being aware of either are inseparable. Time being a bookkeeping tool to measure change is required to be aware of space. Even laying a ruler out to measure some distance involves change.

As a matter of practical awareness time is defined by the clock on the wall or wrist. A device that forms a basis to understand and communicate past, present and future events... Which are set apart from one another by change.

The abstract concept of time is required to communicate.