Ego? Delusions of Grandeur??
QM + GR = black holes cannot exist
- Thread starter RJBeery
- Start date
- Status
Ego? Delusions of Grandeur??
Farsight said:
I said:
Prof. Shapiro said:
Once you are inside the event horizon (surface) of a Schwarzschild black
hole, you cannot remain stationary but must fall inward. The
force of gravity, if you like, is sufficiently strong that nothing can
remain or orbit on a sphere of constant area, but must fall inward
and, in a finite time as measure on your watch, plunge into the
singularity at the origin. While you are falling inwards, all light
rays you emit must plunge inward as well.
Prof. Baez said:
It actually does slow down as it ascends... if you time it using a clock on a distant star. Light always has the same speed as measured by someone right next to it. But you've probably heard how "a gravitational field slows down time":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation
This means that someone on a distant star will see things near the surface of your super-massive planet moving slower than normally. This applies to light coming out of the planet, too. At some point, the light no longer escapes at all!
None of this stuff makes real sense until you go ahead and do the math. Purely verbal explanations are much too vague. So, I really recommend some books on general relativity to help you get to the bottom of this stuff:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node15.html
My rough "explanation" is aimed merely at pointing you toward the weak link in your chain of reasoning.
I said:
Prof. Shapiro said:
Once you are inside the event horizon (surface) of a Schwarzschild black
hole, you cannot remain stationary but must fall inward. The
force of gravity, if you like, is sufficiently strong that nothing can
remain or orbit on a sphere of constant area, but must fall inward
and, in a finite time as measure on your watch, plunge into the
singularity at the origin. While you are falling inwards, all light
rays you emit must plunge inward as well.
Prof. Baez said:
It actually does slow down as it ascends... if you time it using a clock on a distant star. Light always has the same speed as measured by someone right next to it. But you've probably heard how "a gravitational field slows down time":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation
This means that someone on a distant star will see things near the surface of your super-massive planet moving slower than normally. This applies to light coming out of the planet, too. At some point, the light no longer escapes at all!
None of this stuff makes real sense until you go ahead and do the math. Purely verbal explanations are much too vague. So, I really recommend some books on general relativity to help you get to the bottom of this stuff:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node15.html
My rough "explanation" is aimed merely at pointing you toward the weak link in your chain of reasoning.
Much as I disapprove of this "Farsight bashing" by members who seem to have no other interest than this (and certainly no demonstrated physics or maths knowledge), let me pick him up on a rather serious mis-reading.....
Farsight is fond of quoting Einstein's Leyden address, which I confess I haven't read. I paraphrase - "space-time is neither homogeneous nor isotropic." This, Farsight claimed, IS spacetime curvature (due to gravity).
So if E. had been addressing a roomful of differential geometers, they would have bee asleep by then - he wasn't it was a public address.
Look - by "inhomogeneity" E. means that spacetime (the spacetime 4-manifold) cannot be covered by a single coordinate chart - in this circumstance of course this manifold is not literally (globally) flat, which is well known
By "non-isotropic" he appears to mean that the metric is semi-Riemann - that is that not all coordinate functions carry the same sign. Again this is well-known to differential geometers.
So, yes, Farsight is correct in this restricted sense, but seems not quite to understand why.
Or maybe he does, and is coy about sharing?
Farsight is fond of quoting Einstein's Leyden address, which I confess I haven't read. I paraphrase - "space-time is neither homogeneous nor isotropic." This, Farsight claimed, IS spacetime curvature (due to gravity).
So if E. had been addressing a roomful of differential geometers, they would have bee asleep by then - he wasn't it was a public address.
Look - by "inhomogeneity" E. means that spacetime (the spacetime 4-manifold) cannot be covered by a single coordinate chart - in this circumstance of course this manifold is not literally (globally) flat, which is well known
By "non-isotropic" he appears to mean that the metric is semi-Riemann - that is that not all coordinate functions carry the same sign. Again this is well-known to differential geometers.
So, yes, Farsight is correct in this restricted sense, but seems not quite to understand why.
Or maybe he does, and is coy about sharing?
When people post in science threads, claiming things not recognised by mainstream science, misquoting and mis-reading as you yourself have acknowledged, they are "open season" as far as I am concerned to be put straight and told what is actually accepted.
If he has some new Interpretation, he should take it to the Alternative section.
But he refuses to discuss anything there.....I see that as an ego problem.
When the same person claims to have a ToE, but at the same time, deride the scientific method and proper peer review, suspicions are naturally aroused.
As a layman, and as being labeled by some in the past as a "mainstream science cheer-leader" all I ask for is [1] proper observational or experimental evidence supporting such concepts and scenarios, and [2] In the absence of my own expertise, I ask them for proper peer review as outlined and detailed with the standard scientific method.
I stand by that code.
And I certainly see no "Farsight bashing" but plenty of "mainstream science bashing" by the same person.
Ah yes but, but, but.....
Differential geometry is not an easy subject, especially for a "layman" - you clearly know none.
I rest my case
Your case? What case is that? Trying to offer moral support to someone delusional enough to claim to have a ToE, and to claim that everything stops at the BH EH, and continually refute all other experts when any dare invalidate his hypothesis?
You are correct though in the fact that I know no Differential Geometry. I do though pride myself somewhat, in being reasonably competent in sorting the wheat from the chaff.
I rest my case.
Last edited:
Prof. Moore also said in an earlier email quoted by Tasha,
Prof Moore said:
So where is your firm support by detailed calculations?
RajeshTrivedi
Valued Senior Member
I'm not avoiding it. It just hasn't come up, and it doesn't really explain anything. I thought tex worked here? It doesn't work on a preview, so let me try to show your expressions using John Forkosh's rendering service:
The problem comes when r2 equals rc . Then you're dividing by 1 minus 1 and the result is undefined.
Agreed. All a proper time interval is, is a measure of how much regular cyclical motion has been going on inside a clock. And at a place where the speed of light is zero, there isn't any.
I think the Schwarzschild expression says it adequately, and there's an obvious problem when r equals r0:
The time dilation goes infinite because the light clock stops. And like Moore said, the light can't get out because the light has stopped. And it hasn't just stopped for some distant observer. Put an observer in front of that clock at the event horizon, and he's stopped too. He doesn't see it ticking normally. You can't make a stopped clock tick by putting a stopped observer in front of it.
farsight,
Please refer your response above wherein you state that problem comes when r2 = rc.
The dt1/dt2 is a comparative ratio between two proper time interval in two different frames....
Based on above it is clear that if one of your frame (you have chooses r2) is placed at EH (at rc), then dt2 = 0. Once dt2 is = 0, what is the mathematics you are suggesting by insisting on problem with dt1/dt2 ?
RajeshTrivedi
Valued Senior Member
Last para of Prof Moore..
.......This also does not contradict the statement about an observer at rest on the surface seeing the signal to have speed c, because as event horizon moves beyond the planet's surface, that surface can no longer remain at rest, but in fact must go to r = 0 in a finite time (as measured by an observer on the surface), just as surely as the past must go towards the future. Even then, an observer on the surface will *still* see the light moving outward at speed c, but from the perspective of the global coordinate system, it is simply that the observer is falling faster toward r = 0 than the signal is......
If a star has collapsed to an extent that its radius has fallen below Rc, then doomed. For r < Rc it is actually r = 0.
The prof statement is unintentionally off the mark when he says " as measured by an observer on the surface". actually inside the EH, time has only spatial meaning, that is a singular move from r = Rc to r = 0. I do not think it can be calculated (or even sensible ?) to find out the time in surface reference for travel of surface between r = Rc to r = Rc/2 etc.
Prof Shapiro says..(Post # 527 above)
Once you are inside the event horizon (surface) of a Schwarzschild black
hole, you cannot remain stationary but must fall inward. The
force of gravity, if you like, is sufficiently strong that nothing can
remain or orbit on a sphere of constant area, but must fall inward
and, in a finite time as measure on your watch, plunge into the
singularity at the origin. While you are falling inwards, all light
rays you emit must plunge inward as well.
True if the surface fall below Rc, it is nothing but r = 0, but again it appears prof Shapiro has given unwarranted emphasis on the time measured by "you" the poor guy who is getting sucked into singularity. This time in his reference makes no sense.
.......This also does not contradict the statement about an observer at rest on the surface seeing the signal to have speed c, because as event horizon moves beyond the planet's surface, that surface can no longer remain at rest, but in fact must go to r = 0 in a finite time (as measured by an observer on the surface), just as surely as the past must go towards the future. Even then, an observer on the surface will *still* see the light moving outward at speed c, but from the perspective of the global coordinate system, it is simply that the observer is falling faster toward r = 0 than the signal is......
If a star has collapsed to an extent that its radius has fallen below Rc, then doomed. For r < Rc it is actually r = 0.
The prof statement is unintentionally off the mark when he says " as measured by an observer on the surface". actually inside the EH, time has only spatial meaning, that is a singular move from r = Rc to r = 0. I do not think it can be calculated (or even sensible ?) to find out the time in surface reference for travel of surface between r = Rc to r = Rc/2 etc.
Prof Shapiro says..(Post # 527 above)
Once you are inside the event horizon (surface) of a Schwarzschild black
hole, you cannot remain stationary but must fall inward. The
force of gravity, if you like, is sufficiently strong that nothing can
remain or orbit on a sphere of constant area, but must fall inward
and, in a finite time as measure on your watch, plunge into the
singularity at the origin. While you are falling inwards, all light
rays you emit must plunge inward as well.
True if the surface fall below Rc, it is nothing but r = 0, but again it appears prof Shapiro has given unwarranted emphasis on the time measured by "you" the poor guy who is getting sucked into singularity. This time in his reference makes no sense.
I cannot really comment, as the mathematics is out of my league, but Rajesh, here's a chance for you to make a name for yourself in two ways...[1] Contact both professors and inform them of their mistake, and [2] Submit a paper of your version of events for peer review.
RajeshTrivedi
Valued Senior Member
Paddoboy,
Pl refer the Post #495 of yours, the article posted by you states...
..........In fact, inside the event horizon, t is actually a spatial direction, and the future corresponds instead to decreasing r. It's only outside the black hole that t even points in a direction of increasing time. In any case, this doesn't indicate that I take forever to fall in, since the proper time involved is actually finite........
This is the general accepted point that inside the EH, time is actually spatial aspect in Schwarzchild solution, because mathematics yields a sqrt of a negative number...
mathematics, which you wish to avoid, can still get you this time value but by interchanging r and t........let me not copy paste..that will further confuse.
So qualitatively what it means is :
For any BH,
r > Rc (EH radius)...things are well defined.
for r = Rc (proper time slows down to zero in frame on EH)
for r < Rc (interchange r and t and get some value for t, which we call as finite time as seen in Schwarzchild coordinate, but mind you this frame cannot be static, it must collapse to r = 0)
So it is not a wrong thread, neither I am questioning these profs, the issues involved are quite complex..
Thats why i said, these profs should have been either careful or should have elaborated what they meant by time measured in a frame moving towards singularity with EH.
Thanks tashja. I'm a little surprised by the reply from S Shapiro, in that he hasn't answered the question. Here it is for reference:
Once you are inside the event horizon (surface) of a Schwarzschild black hole, you cannot remain stationary but must fall inward. The force of gravity, if you like, is sufficiently strong that nothing can remain or orbit on a sphere of constant area, but must fall inward and, in a finite time as measure on your watch, plunge into the singularity at the origin. While you are falling inwards, all light rays you emit must plunge inward as well.
Perhaps he needs reminding of this: "The proposed experiment was designed to verify the prediction that the speed of propagation of a light ray decreases as it passes through a region of decreasing gravitational potential". The reply by Baez looks better, though I think he made a typo when he said it actually does slow down as it ascends. It speeds up. Again for reference:
It actually does slow down as it ascends... if you time it using a clock on a distant star. Light always has the same speed as measured by someone right next to it. But you've probably heard how "a gravitational field slows down time":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation. This means that someone on a distant star will see things near the surface of your super-massive planet moving slower than normally. This applies to light coming out of the planet, too. At some point, the light no longer escapes at all!
This is essentially the same answer as Moore's correct answer: the light doesn't get out because it's stopped. Good stuff. But he goes on to say this which seem a little confusing:
None of this stuff makes real sense until you go ahead and do the math. Purely verbal explanations are much too vague. So, I really recommend some books on general relativity to help you get to the bottom of this stuff:http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node15.html My rough "explanation" is aimed merely at pointing you toward the weak link in your chain of reasoning.
What chain of reasoning? The question was why doesn't the light get out? And he's answered it correctly. But nevermind. I'm encouraged that nobody has come out with the "infalling space" crackpot nonsense.
That's incorrect. Einstein said space is neither homogeneous nor isotropic. And note this Baez article which says this:
"Similarly, in general relativity gravity is not really a 'force', but just a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Note: not the curvature of space, but of spacetime. The distinction is crucial."
Space isn't curved where a gravitational field is. It's inhomogeneous.
No he doesn't mean that. He meant what he said. When Einstein said space-time he meant spacetime, when he said space he meant space. The distinction is crucial!
No he doesn't. He means space is non-isotropic. That it isn't the same in all directions. Point down to the floor, then up to the ceiling. The space down there isn't the same as the space up here. If it was, your pencil wouldn't fall down.
I'm not coy. Methinks you need to read that Leyden Address properly. Read this too: Inhomogeneous vacuum: an alternative interpretation of curved spacetime.
Simple division by zero leading to an undefined result. If one clock is ticking at some rate and the other one isn't ticking at all, you cannot define a ratio between their tick rates. And if you put a stopped observer in front of a stopped clock, you still have an undefined result. Zero divided by zero is not one. It is undefined. The stopped observer does not see the stopped clock ticking normally "in his frame". Light has stopped. So he sees nothing.farsight, Please refer your response above wherein you state that problem comes when r2 = rc. The dt1/dt2 is a comparative ratio between two proper time interval in two different frames....
Based on above it is clear that if one of your frame (you have chooses r2) is placed at EH (at rc), then dt2 = 0. Once dt2 is = 0, what is the mathematics you are suggesting by insisting on problem with dt1/dt2 ?
That was the answer given by Shapiro. And it is mathematically and physically equivalent to all the other answers.
This is why people tell you to learn the science before you make claims about the science.
Farsight, you just took the most favorable interpretation of your nonsense and rejected it.
Again, if gravity is inhomogeneous space, then show us a single example for a falling body or an orbit using inhomogeneous space. If you can't then you are just fraudulently presenting yourself as doing physics.
Wouldn't you rather do physics honestly?
If you compare the curvature of space to the curvature of space-time, these are two different things when it comes to gravity. Gravity not only curves space or space-time but gravity also creates pressure where changes of state can occur within matter not predicted by GR. The solid iron core of the earth exists at 6000C even though the boiling point of iron is 2862C. This is not exactly related to space-time, or else traveling with SR, would cause material properties to change, which is not predicted. It is connected to gravity but not to space-time alone.
Pressure, generated by gravity, brings something extra to the table beyond GR, making GR a subset of gravity in terms of all its integrated effects. This lack of pressure, with GR, is why GR does not unite easily with the other forces; the bolt is missing which alters phases and interface other forces. The new phase of solid iron at 6000C is mediated via other forces induced to action by gravity.
Beyond that, if you look the sun, the core the sun has the highest frequency photons and reactions; fusion, with frequency of the energy and transitions, a measure of time. The surface the sun generate much slower frequency energy which is an inversion of how space-time works. The distance direction of space-time and pressure go in the same direction (smaller) but time and frequency go in the opposite direction. This is the reality observation of gravity and not the bias of math traditions that leave out the impact of gravitational pressure.
The curvature of space-time versus the curvature of space is different in that space is consistent in both GR and pressure since both contract in the same direction. But space-time is not consistent since time goes in different directions for GR and pressure. The difference between space and space-time is the time aspect of space-time is influenced by gravitational pressure.
If we go back to a black hole, distance is consistent in terms of physical space between matter and space of space-time both contracting toward a point. But with time, pressure increases frequency, while space-time cause time to slow, to get a sort of a wash point, where extreme frequency matter/energy slows in time to a constant.
Pressure, generated by gravity, brings something extra to the table beyond GR, making GR a subset of gravity in terms of all its integrated effects. This lack of pressure, with GR, is why GR does not unite easily with the other forces; the bolt is missing which alters phases and interface other forces. The new phase of solid iron at 6000C is mediated via other forces induced to action by gravity.
Beyond that, if you look the sun, the core the sun has the highest frequency photons and reactions; fusion, with frequency of the energy and transitions, a measure of time. The surface the sun generate much slower frequency energy which is an inversion of how space-time works. The distance direction of space-time and pressure go in the same direction (smaller) but time and frequency go in the opposite direction. This is the reality observation of gravity and not the bias of math traditions that leave out the impact of gravitational pressure.
The curvature of space-time versus the curvature of space is different in that space is consistent in both GR and pressure since both contract in the same direction. But space-time is not consistent since time goes in different directions for GR and pressure. The difference between space and space-time is the time aspect of space-time is influenced by gravitational pressure.
If we go back to a black hole, distance is consistent in terms of physical space between matter and space of space-time both contracting toward a point. But with time, pressure increases frequency, while space-time cause time to slow, to get a sort of a wash point, where extreme frequency matter/energy slows in time to a constant.
- Status