The scientific consensus is there are no problems in GR today. Once again you make unverifiable assertions about the physics you can't understand. I have to use the word 'can't' rather than 'don't' for your case. This you have verified. Over and over and over and over again. To bad Alphanumeric wasn't about. He was pretty good a running you off.
Oh no it isn't. The NIST optical clocks run demonstrably slower when they're only 30cm lower. And the Shapiro delay is a fact: "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". Which means you're just some ignorant dishonest naysayer clinging to popscience myths and peddling garbage.
You're talking out of your hat. We all saw the responses that tashja gathered. The profs did not give a consensus explanation as to why the vertical light beam doesn't get out of a black hole. And by the way, you haven't reponded to what I said about this:
I said it isn't invariant in the room you're in. If you measure the speed of light at the ceiling you get 299,792,458 m/s. Like Einstein said, a curvature of rays of light can only occur when the speed of light varies with positon. Like Don Koks said, light goes slower near the floor. But when you crouch down there to measure it, your clock goes slower too, so you measure the same old value. Your claim is the tautology that Magueijo and Moffat described in http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4507. There's a gradient in the speed of light in the room you're in, so your "local proper frame" has zero extent. So it doesn't exist. And you don't understand general relativity at all.
Throwing out random facts isn't physics. You need to have a coherent theory that allows for detailed description of phenomena so that the relationship of theory to observations can be assessed. So, please, show us the details of your theory, Farsight.
You like to insult other people with this charge a lot. But yet you never provide us any science. As far as I can tell, you have dodged specific questions about actually doing physics problems with your ideas since you got on the internet, even though you insult others for accepting scientific claims without evidence.
Except that they all gave answers that are vanilla GR, just using different systems of coordinates. The beauty of GR is that it is fine to use any system. You, Farsight, can show us how we are supposed to do it using any system of coordinates you wish and your particular ideas about how to address this particular type of physical system. You never have, and you very, very likely cannot.
You seem to be taking your standard, calculus denying position of denying that there is such a thing as a local measurement. The different between the top and bottom of a room precludes a local measurement.
You are repeating your deceptive claims about Magueijo and Moffat that I addressed earlier: everyone who does GR admits that there is a commitment to the constancy of the speed of light for all possible local measurements; what Magueijo and Moffat discuss is alternatives to GR that have a difference for local measurements at different positions. It is deceptive to use them as a citation in support of GR as a variable speed of light theory, as you have done in the past and appear to be doing now; they go into great lengths to establish the ways that variable speed of light theories are alternatives to GR.
I didn't catch the nonsense about the distance between the roof and the floor to differentiate between local laboratory frames. He's absolutely clueless but we already know the concept of coordinate systems is beyond his abilities to understand. It must be difficult to get up the stairs when the distance between the floor and the roof is close to 1 AU. He must think the lab frame at CERN has a roof and a floor that needs to be accounted for in the experimental results. Maybe that's how he thinks Professor Wheeler messed up GR by not accounting for delta results between the lab roof and the lab floor frames. LOL.
For the Farsights of the Internet I believe it's the low self esteem that gets 'riled up' when the discussion centers around great achievements by admired scientists. Disparaging folks who've produced work that they can't understand magnifies low self esteem into delusions of grandeur. Major character flaw. Not much character building is associated with terminal intellectual dishonesty. Terminal as in 'to the death'.Bingo!!!
That sums it up perfectly.
Farsight is one of four posters here that suffer from delusions of grandeur, and all claim they have a ToE...Then of course those delusions are reinforced by then deluding themselves into believing that mainstream scientists and peer review, are out to stifle their self admired brilliance.
A sad state of affairs.
In this case, the "admired scientists" are Farsight himself. He has a narrative that I can only barely remember, something about being unimpressed the state of education in the UK. He also once wrote, "I'm more scientific than anybody. Only I believe in experiment and deduction rather than parroting from a textbook."
How would you know who understood GR or not? You're delusional about this subject. Your entire argument is an intellectually dishonest troll. Intellectually dishonest means you don't know what the f..k you're talking about. Delusional in thinking you do. Physics is way over your head you should accept it and leave the rest of us alone. Can't do that because you'd shrink back to < obscurity. The only gradient in this room is between your spew and reality. Nobody gives a crap about your comments other than to ridicule you. Do some actual physics and maybe we won't laugh so hard. The bottom line: regardless your assertions it amounts to nothing worth discussing other than to tell you to shut the f..k up. Now you made me say f..k.
Since I find it informative, and physics is fun, I'll use GR to predict what the Shapiro delay would be over 1 AU. The distance between the Sun and the Earth. The delay will compare the lights travel time to a predicted travel time for a path where no spacetime curvature is present. GR predicts the local spacetime curvature is an infinitesimal over a distance determined by the field. Weak or strong. Our solar system = weak while the spacetime around the black hole, that Farsight thinks don't exist, is the strong field. Think of the Suns photosphere as Farsights roof and where it's received on Earth as Farsights floor. One AU. Then consider what it is for the 30cm distance Farsights whining about.
The idea is really simple. Matter falling into the black hole can't survive. It gets ripped apart into gamma photons before it gets to the event horizon, and these photons are moving in various directions. They don't all go into the black hole.
This article doesn't actually say the gamma ray burst is emitted from the event horizon. It does say this:
It isn't observer dependent. All observers agree that optical clocks go slower when they're lower. The GR situation isn't like the SR situation, where your relative motion compared to me has us both claiming your clock is going slower than mine. And note this: when you open up a clock you don't see time flowing through it. So you should be able to work out that when an optical clock goes slower, it's because light goes slower.
It's like Tom Moore said. Because it's stopped. Like an optical clock at the event horizon. And like I said above, this isn't just some observer-dependent effect. Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates effectively put a stopped observer in front of a stopped clock and assert that he sees nothing unusual, he sees the clock ticking normally "in his frame". I challenge this, on the grounds that the observer is stopped, the clock is stopped, and light is stopped. I assert that the observer sees nothing.
It isn't my model, what I'm talking about is the original "frozen-star" black-hole interpretation. Kevin Brown refers to it here. He doesn't favour it, but his article is enough to tell you that this isn't something I've made up. I'm an amateur relativist, not some my-theory guy. Anyway, the meaning of the event horizon in this interpretation is that it's real. It isn't just a coordinate artefact. It marks the place where light no longer moves, and therefore where there is "a void in the fabric of space and time" as per the gravastar. Note that this makes the black hole even more of a hole than in the point-singularity interpretation. Think of space as a kind of gin-clear ghostly elastic that can be subjected to pressure and shear stress and waves and curvature, then think of a party balloon, see the Wikipedia black hole article and note this picture:
It isn't observer dependent. All observers agree that optical clocks go slower when they're lower. The GR situation isn't like the SR situation, where your relative motion compared to me has us both claiming your clock is going slower than mine. And note this: when you open up a clock you don't see time flowing through it. So you should be able to work out that when an optical clock goes slower, it's because light goes slower.
It's like Tom Moore said. Because it's stopped. Like an optical clock at the event horizon. And like I said above, this isn't just some observer-dependent effect. Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates effectively put a stopped observer in front of a stopped clock and assert that he sees nothing unusual, he sees the clock ticking normally "in his frame". I challenge this, on the grounds that the observer is stopped, the clock is stopped, and light is stopped. I assert that the observer sees nothing.
It isn't my model, what I'm talking about is the original "frozen-star" black-hole interpretation. Kevin Brown refers to it here. He doesn't favour it, but his article is enough to tell you that this isn't something I've made up. I'm an amateur relativist, not some my-theory guy. Anyway, the meaning of the event horizon in this interpretation is that it's real. It isn't just a coordinate artefact. It marks the place where light no longer moves, and therefore where there is "a void in the fabric of space and time" as per the gravastar. Note that this makes the black hole even more of a hole than in the point-singularity interpretation. Think of space as a kind of gin-clear ghostly elastic that can be subjected to pressure and shear stress and waves and curvature, then think of a party balloon, see the Wikipedia black hole article and note this picture:
CCASA image by cosmologist Alain Riazuelo, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BH_LMC.png[URL='http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BH_LMC.png[/QUOTE'][/QUOTE[/URL]]
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BH_LMC.png
old thinking
