QM + GR = black holes cannot exist

Status
Not open for further replies.
paddoboy said:
How many copies did this "book of fairy tales" sell?
Click to expand...
If those comments on the Amazon site represent number of copies purchased... 5 to 7 copies, the rest of the print run was probably bought up by farsight. I understand you can now donate books to local libraries, OMG what a thought in this case :)
 
Last edited:
Neddy Bate said:
I knew what you meant with the "two sentences" thing, but I just wanted to make sure Farsight re-read the third sentence.
Click to expand...
I must say I have picked up the habit of repeating myself in posts on forums...do you mean me strawy?
just checked, that "two sentences" thing was aimed at farsight..:)
 
Farsight said:
No problem. The thing is this: hopefully you've seen in this thread that I'm right about something. Such as the speed of light varying with position, and the light not getting out because it's stopped. What you should now do is think it through for yourself, and ask yourself how a stopped observer can still measure stopped light to be still going at c.
Click to expand...
Farsight, No need for light to stop at the horizon, you know of lightcones, which I know you don't think of as 'real' things. They dont have to be real, since they just represent the path of light originating at a place, here the in-faller's frame.

See the link below, and notice what happens to the lightbeam's path (or sides of the cone) because of the curvature of spacetime near and at the horizon.

The light's path in the altered spacetime near the horizon is destined inwards, that also explains why, because of curvature, no light escapes from within the horizon.

Note to some... Time runs up the page on these diagrams, so that explains why a lightbeam 'shone' backwards also goes into the event horizon because of spacetime curvature in the region. Nowhere does the light have to stop.

THE LINK
 
Last edited:
Farsight said:
No I can't because he didn't. But he did say light goes slower when its lower. It was Prof Moore who said light can't get out because it's stopped.
Click to expand...

All from the reference points of external, remote FoR's.
Except, light [and time] are never seen to be stopped.
http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html


But obviously you don't like the spacetime/waterfall analogy.

Let me try a simpler approach.
The escape velocity of the surface of Earth is 12kms/sec.
If this is not achieved then any rocket will fall back to the surface or fall into orbit if matched.
Light that is emitted from just on the EH of a BH, but this side of it, will arc around and fall back to the BH and on into it to oblivion from the local FoR.
If that light is emitted directly radially away it will appear to be stationary with respect to a remote, external FoR. This is because the escape velocity at the BH's EH is "c" and light always travels at "c".
Or as I mentioned before, but which you seem to have missed.......
A fish swimming upstream at 10kms/hr in a stream flowing down at 10kms/hr, will from the FoR of someone on the bank, appear to be hovering in the stream, even though he is trying his hardest to make some progress.

It's that simple Farsight and is the reason that it is the mainstream view.
And until you can effectively show that your hypothesis is correct, [out of context references, misinterpretations and outright untruths is not counted] with some legitimate evidence, your speculative hypothesis is in reality just cesspool material.

I mean for light to "STOP" and time to "STOP" in someones local own FoR, beggars belief.
Would you also magically stop existing? In my opinion, that is what you are implying.
 
paddoboy said:
Some quotes......
"No, even with perfect instrumentation you cannot observe them forever.
There is a ³last photon² that they emit/reflect before crossing the
horizon. After that, there is no signal to detect. The same is true of a
star that collapses to form a BH. This is a good in-practice
observational definition of ³when the BH forms² .

Don Marolf
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Prof. Moore:

This is a good example of how intuitive models can go astray.

The argument presumes that the light signal does not "slow down," but what exactly does that mean? An observer at rest relative to the star will always measure the outgoing light signal to have speed c *locally,* (that is, as the flash passes through a laboratory that is very small compared to scale over which spacetime is locally curved), but to talk about the speed of a signal emerging from the planet's surface and going all the way to infinity, one needs a *global* coordinate system (one that applies at all positions in spacetime, such as the Schwarzschild coordinate system) to talk about the signal's speed at various points. An observer using such a coordinate system will find that the light flash will move *slower* than c close to the planet's surface than it does at at infinity. This does not contradict the previous results, because time runs more slowly for observers close to the planet's surface than for those higher up, so what looks like something moving with speed c to an observer close to the surface looks like something moving slower to someone whose clock is running faster.

As the planet's mass approaches the black hole limit, the signal emitted from the surface will seem to move more and more slowly away from the surface (and will also be seen to be increasingly red-shifted as observed from infinity). When the surface of the planet coincides with the black hole's event horizon, the signal will stop moving outward from the surface (and the redshift observed at infinity will go to infinity). So light no longer escapes.

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.

To understand all this fully, I strongly recommend that the questioner take a course in general relativity!

Best wishes, Tom M.
Click to expand...

Nice post paddoboy. Very informative. Too bad it's wasted on deaf ears.
Professor Moore gives a very easy to understand description for those who haven't learned the math needed to do derivations of the physics [the stuff Farsight won't do]. As I've been repeating 'over and over' there are no preferred coordinates. Farsight has to believe the Schwarzschild global coordinates are preferred over local coordinates to continue on with the ignorant troll he's been propagating over the Internet.
The theory Einstein wrote down is a coordinate independent theory. GR is a local theory of gravity and all spacetime events are invariant when and where they occur. I think I read this in Kip Thornes great book that I know you've read. Einstein was pleasantly surprised that Schwarzschild was able to find his [the first] coordinate metric solution to the field equations of GR so soon after GR was published. Over the next century folks have been discovering other coordinate metric solutions to help in the investigation of the theory of gravity Einstein called General Relativity. Yet the theory Einstein wrote down is a coordinate independent local theory of gravity. A theory that didn't have any global coordinates for Farsight to prefer over the local physics.
 
Last edited:
I'm confused why people are arguing over the speed of light...

The speed of light is NOT constant - it can be "frozen" even...

The speed of light IN A VACUUM (otherwise notated as C) is a universal constant (as far as we can test/prove/observe)

What's the confusion with this?
 
brucep said:
Nice post paddoboy. Very informative. Too bad it's wasted of deaf ears.
Professor Moore gives a very easy to understand description for those who haven't learned the math needed to do derivations of the physics [the stuff Farsight won't do]. As I've been repeating 'over and over' there are no preferred coordinates. Farsight has to believe the Schwarzschild global coordinates are preferred over local coordinates to continue on with the ignorant troll he's been propagating over the Internet.
Click to expand...



I'm utterly amazed that he cannot/will not see where he comes completely askew with regards to this.......
He seems to be completely forgoing the legitimacy of all FoR's or as you say, "no preferred coordinates".
 
The speed of light being constant was predicted by J C Maxwell, before Einstein. And it makes Einsteins's predictions right.
 
Beer w/Straw said:
Farsight saying light is variable is so much his lie.
Click to expand...

Why though... I mean, C is a pretty specific constant... the speed of light, in a vacuum, when not acted upon by an outside force (such as gravity)... it's not like we're arguing about the speed of gravitational attraction over mass or anything like that :)
 
Even in the presence of a gravitational field, the speed of light in a vacuum still measures c locally. It's not as if we have to go to a place far from all gravitating bodies to measure c.
 
Kittamaru said:
I'm confused why people are arguing over the speed of light...

The speed of light is NOT constant - it can be "frozen" even...

The speed of light IN A VACUUM (otherwise notated as C) is a universal constant (as far as we can test/prove/observe)

What's the confusion with this?
Click to expand...
The speed of light measured in the local invariant frame is a constant. It's an invariant. That means everywhere it's measured locally, in the entire universe, it's an invariant c. When measured from remote coordinates it can vary and these measurements are coordinate dependent. The reason for this coordinate dependent measurement is because the tick rate between the remote observers clock and the clock at the shell where the remote coordinate speed of light is measured can vary. Both measurements are valid with one being invariant and the other coordinate dependent. When you derive the local speed of light from the local spacetime metric you get

dr_shell/dt_shell = 1 [c=1]

When it's derived from Schwarzschild remote bookkeeper [global] coordinates

dr/dt_bookkeeper = 1-2M [the remote bookkeeper speed of light]. A coordinate dependent observation. The coordinates 2M/r also represent the spacetime curvature component of the metric. This is where the remote coordinate speed of light is predicted to be zero

r=2M [the place where a lightlike separation between the external and internal spacetime of the black hole exists, the event horizon]

dr/dt_bkkpr = 1-2M/r = 1-2M/2M = 1-1 = 0 [this solution relies specifically on the coordinate r=2M.] This solution is coordinate dependent. Still has provided some interesting physics associated with the remote predictions and measurements.

As far as why folks are arguing about this is because 'somebody' keeps bringing up the same bullshit misinterpretations and saying that's what Einstein had in mind when he wrote down the theory. At the same time the forum doesn't recognize this as a serious form of flaming the members of this forum who rather procure scholarship over nonsense.
 
thing is brucep - a person is entitled to their opinions, no matter how wrong they may be

Not going to lie though... what you posted there kind of went over my head XD It's been a LONG while since I was in any science classes (and I was unable to take the physics class I so wanted to because I had an arsehole english teacher that flunked me on a final project that I couldn't complete because the requisite material wasn't available and he wouldn't let me change the topic of my project... and forced me to take two english classes my senior year)
 
Kittamaru said:
The speed of light is NOT constant - it can be "frozen" even...
Click to expand...

I'm wondering if perhaps you are thinking of what happens to light inside a BEC. We could hypothesise that the inside of Farsight's gedanken black hole is made of some sort BEC, and that light apparently comes to a halt there, but then he said ''there's no more gravity,'' which cannot be true as light gravitates according to GR.
 
Kittamaru said:
thing is brucep - a person is entitled to their opinions, no matter how wrong they may be

Not going to lie though... what you posted there kind of went over my head XD It's been a LONG while since I was in any science classes (and I was unable to take the physics class I so wanted to because I had an arsehole english teacher that flunked me on a final project that I couldn't complete because the requisite material wasn't available and he wouldn't let me change the topic of my project... and forced me to take two english classes my senior year)
Click to expand...
Science isn't about opinion. It's about the scientific method and scholarship. For Farsight it's about trolling the Internet with his misrepresentations about Einstein and the theory of general relativity. For me it's come to not bothering with this nonsense anymore. Out of sight out of mind. It's not over your head. The science says the local speed of light is an invariant c while the remote coordinate speed of light, predicted by the theory of general relativity, can vary. It's over Farsights head because he needs it to be that way to keep, keeping on.

I understand what the forums issue is but I've never been one to be respectful to folks who are disrespectful to me. Certainly not to those who find it convenient to lie about Einstein in a public science forum.
 
Last edited:
tashja said:
I'm wondering if perhaps you are thinking of what happens to light inside a BEC. We could hypothesise that the inside of Farsight's gedanken black hole is made of some sort BEC, and that light apparently comes to a halt there, but then he said ''there's no more gravity,'' which cannot be true as light gravitates according to GR.
Click to expand...

I was referring more specifically to lab tests:

http://io9.com/scientists-freeze-light-for-an-entire-minute-912634479

In what could prove to be a major breakthrough in quantum memory storage and information processing, German researchers have frozen the fastest thing in the universe: light. And they did so for a record-breaking one minute.
Click to expand...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130806111151.htm

Physicists have been able to stop something that has the greatest possible speed and that never really stops: light. A decade ago, physicists stopped it very for a short moment. In recent years, this extended towards stop times of a few seconds for simple light pulses in extremely cold gases and special crystals. But now the same researchers extended the possible duration and applications for freezing the motion of light considerably. The physicists stopped light for about one minute. They were also able to save images that were transferred by the light pulse into the crystal for a minute -- a million times longer than previously possible.
Click to expand...

brucep said:
Science isn't about opinion. It's about the scientific method and scholarship. For Farsight it's about trolling the Internet with his misrepresentations about Einstein and the theory of general relativity. For me it's come to not bothering with this nonsense anymore. Out of sight out of mind. It's not over your head. The science says the local speed of light is an invariant c while the remote coordinate speed of light, predicted by the theory of general relativity can vary. It's over Farsights head because he needs it to be that way to keep, keeping on.
Click to expand...

By 'over my head" I meant that some of the variables and formulas you used are ones I'm not familiar with :) I could probably sit down, research them, and understand them, but from my current knowledge pool they don't mean much to me :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top