QM + GR = black holes cannot exist

[PhysBang]

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.

So you, the holy Farsight says. But anyone with a clock lower than the one you are talking about says that your clock is going faster. Can you work through an example that shows that they are wrong?

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.

Can you show us that the coordinates that you use are the one true coordinates? I would like to see the argument for this.

It isn't my model, what I'm talking about is the original "frozen-star" black-hole interpretation.

Here you are effectively lying to us. You have a special interpretation of GR that you do not wish to defend. It happens to vaguely match something that other people talk about. But let's see how your model does with experiment? Lets see how your ideas actually model a black hole and then we can think about comparing them to experiment.

I'm an amateur relativist, not some my-theory guy.

That is a lie. You are clearly a "my-theory" guy. You once wrote, and flogged around the internet, a document that you described as, "I present a new qualitative model built upon a reexamination of base concepts commonly accepted as fundamental and foundational." Your ideas now are essentially the same thing dressed up in new language. This makes it your theory.

So defend your theory with some evidence rather than dodges and lies and random pictures that you never relate to equations.

 

[QuarkHead]

Farsight (all) Think of this as a prayer to St Jude (look it up is you're not a Catholic)

So, leaving aside the strawman ("time flowing" is not a phrase that has been used in this thread), leaving aside the awkward implication that light clocks and mechanical clocks "slow down" according to different physical mechanisms, leaving aside that you deny that GR is generally covariant (measurements are not observer dependent, but can be brought into reister by a general coordinate transformation - leaving all that aside I say, please answer this simple question......

You maintain that, as soon as I cross the event horizon of a Black Hole, the clock I am carrying will stop absolutely, and my flashlight will cease to function absolutely. Have I understood you correctly?

Now assuming the event horizon is induced by the spacetime singularity within it and assuming a gravitational gradient between the horizon and the singularity, why does nothing further happen to my clock and my flashlight as I continue to fall towards the singularity?

Assuming nothing can be "more stopped than stopped", what allows me to make a distinction between the singularity and any other point within the event horizon?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Unfortunately, strictly speaking, the only thing we can really do is provide the truth and hope they are smart enough to see the truth for what it is... it's one of the potentia pitfalls of freedom of speech

Politics is not a mathematical science.

Math is where the only truth can exist.

(I'm also intoxicated ATM so don't ban me please.)

 

[PhysBang]

You really need to stop it with the straw and just sip!

 

[paddoboy]

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.

[1] All observers do not agree that clocks go slower when they are substantially lower in a gravity field.
[2]From a local FoR of someone holding the clock, nothing out of the ordinary happens.
[3]Of course you don't see time flowing through any clock. That is a childish way of viewing relativity, even for an amateur like yourself.
[4] All clocks do is measure how much time has passed, based generally on the movement of astronomical bodies.
[5]Both clocks and light only appear to go slower from any remote distant FoR. From your local frame, light never slows and is constant, and time flows as per normal.
[6] They are all recognised facts of SR/GR.

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.

I assert that that is nonsesnse. I also assert that your self confessed amateur status in SR/GR, would be illuminated somewhat, if you actually understood all of what people are saying. I assert that you need to forgo any fruitless challenges, and conjur up some mathematical proof to support your weird concept of relativity, and listen to what the giants of the present and past are telling you. That includes Einstein.

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.

Agreed.

I'm an amateur relativist

Obviously. Yet your over inflated ego has you Ignoring the experts.

Anyway, the meaning of the event horizon in this interpretation is that it's real. It isn't just a coordinate artefact.

Agreed.

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.

Light is ALWAYS moving and is never seen to stop.
A void in the fabric of space time?????
Obviously you just made that up.

 

[Farsight]

Farsight (all) Think of this as a prayer to St Jude (look it up is you're not a Catholic)

I'm not. I see he's "the patron Saint of desperate cases". There's nothing desperate about any of this. Optical clocks go slower when they're lower, the speed of light varies with position, the light moves slower at the floor than at the ceiling, light doesn't get out because it's stopped. Et cetera. It's physics. It's unfamiliar to you, but again, I'm not just some my-theory guy.

So, leaving aside the strawman ("time flowing" is not a phrase that has been used in this thread), leaving aside the awkward implication that light clocks and mechanical clocks "slow down" according to different physical mechanisms, leaving aside that you deny that GR is generally covariant (measurements are not observer dependent,

I will reiterate that all observers agree that the lower clock runs slower. It isn't like the SR twins who each say the other's clock is slower than his own.

You maintain that, as soon as I cross the event horizon of a Black Hole, the clock I am carrying will stop absolutely, and my flashlight will cease to function absolutely. Have I understood you correctly?

Not quite. I've referred to Friedwardt Winterberg's firewall, wherein you would be annihilated before you got to the event horizon. If we disregard that, then I say the black hole grows like a hailstone, and you can't cross the event horizon. It's a place where the "coordinate" speed of light is zero, and you can't go faster than light. But let's just say you are at the event horizon. Then yes, your optical clock has stopped, so has the light coming up out of your vertically-held torch, and so have the electrochemical signals in your brain.

Now assuming the event horizon is induced by the spacetime singularity within it and assuming a gravitational gradient between the horizon and the singularity, why does nothing further happen to my clock and my flashlight as I continue to fall towards the singularity?

You need to look again at your assumptions. The gravitational gradient relates to the gradient in the coordinate speed of light. This can't be less than zero, so there is no more gradient.

Assuming nothing can be "more stopped than stopped", what allows me to make a distinction between the singularity and any other point within the event horizon?

Nothing. When the Schwarzschild event-horizon singularity isn't a mere coordinate artefact, the central point-singularity doesn't exist. That's the whole point about the frozen-star interpretation.

 

[Farsight]

...A void in the fabric of space time?????
Obviously you just made that up.

No I didn't. Go and do the research instead of playing the naysayer about physics that doesn't match your popscience misunderstanding. Go and read the Gravastar article on Wiki:

"This region is called a "gravitational vacuum", because it is a void in the fabric of space and time.

Mazur and Mottola hypothesize that just outside this region there will be a very dense form of matter, Bose–Einstein condensate..."

 

[QuarkHead]

The gravitational gradient relates to the gradient in the coordinate speed of light. This can't be less than zero, so there is no more gradient.

Farsight, you do realize, I hope, that this 100% circular reasoning based on your previous posts?

Namely "light slows as the gravitational gradient increases" and "light is stopped therefore there is no gravitational gradient"

This is obviously an absurd argument

 

[Farsight]

Farsight, you do realize, I hope, that this 100% circular reasoning based on your previous posts?

It isn't circular at all. I'm afraid your assertion is misguided.

Namely "light slows as the gravitational gradient increases" and "light is stopped therefore there is no gravitational gradient" This is obviously an absurd argument

It isn't absurd at all. You need to understand how gravity works. A concentration of energy usually in the guise of the matter of a planet "conditions" the surrounding space, altering its properties, the effect diminishing with distance. It alters the speed of light, such that "a curvature of rays of light can only occur when the speed of light varies with position". The gravitational gradient is there because the speed of light varies, not the other way around. See Ned Wright's deflection and delay of light and note this: "In a very real sense, the delay experienced by light passing a massive object is responsible for the deflection of the light."

 

[PhysBang]

I'm not. I see he's "the patron Saint of desperate cases". There's nothing desperate about any of this. Optical clocks go slower when they're lower, the speed of light varies with position, the light moves slower at the floor than at the ceiling, light doesn't get out because it's stopped. Et cetera. It's physics. It's unfamiliar to you, but again, I'm not just some my-theory guy.

Of course you are. You have reasons why you adopt these cherry-picked physical phenomena. Yours happen to be crazy, but real physicists have physics behind their argumentation.

I will reiterate that all observers agree that the lower clock runs slower. It isn't like the SR twins who each say the other's clock is slower than his own.

I will reiterate that all clocks run faster. Can you show us, using your reasoning, why clocks run slower? Can you show us using examples where we can see the numbers? Real physicists can tell us how much clocks will run slower in different circumstances, you seemingly cannot.

Nothing. When the Schwarzschild event-horizon singularity isn't a mere coordinate artefact, the central point-singularity doesn't exist. That's the whole point about the frozen-star interpretation.

What is your mathematical argument against the use of normalized units in the Schwarzschild metric?

 

[PhysBang]

It isn't circular at all. I'm afraid your assertion is misguided.

It isn't absurd at all. You need to understand how gravity works.

Why lie to us that that link show how gravity works, when you know that we will follow the link and see that you offer absolutely nothing that can be used to do a physics problem or application with gravity.

Can you please show us, just once, how to use your "inhomogeneous space" in an application? Why not show us a model of a black hole like all the physics textbooks (the ones that you say are false) do?

Of course, you can continue to ignore my questions, like you have dodged questions since you started posting on the internet. I wish that you would just ask forgiveness from everyone and start to learn physics, but if it is in your nature to deny physics and evangelize to everyone, then I suppose you get the derision you deserve when you continue to demonstrate your nature.

 

[QuarkHead]

The gravitational gradient is there because the speed of light varies, not the other way around.

Huh? So gravitational gradient is caused by variation in light speed?

Oh, btw, I am not interested in what random internet searches throw up for you, I am interested in your own argument based on logic (to the extent I am interested in your "understanding" of gravitation at all)

 

[paddoboy]

No I didn't. Go and do the research instead of playing the naysayer about physics that doesn't match your popscience misunderstanding. Go and read the Gravastar article on Wiki:

"This region is called a "gravitational vacuum", because it is a void in the fabric of space and time.

Mazur and Mottola hypothesize that just outside this region there will be a very dense form of matter, Bose–Einstein condensate..."

OK, I was wrong, you didn't make it up.
On second thoughts, the page "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravastar"was last modified in July, and as I needed to point out to our old friend "undefined" at one time, when he also referenced a WIKI page, the modification that aligned with his view just so happened 24 hrs before he referenced it.
Just saying.
A few points from the article anyway.....
"A gravastar is an object hypothesized in astrophysics as an alternative to the black hole theory by Pawel Mazur and Emil Mottola."

and......

" This limit can be imposed on the wavelength of a beam of light so as to obtain a limit of blue shift that the light can undergo. This becomes important for the structure of a gravastar because general relativity says that a gravitational well blue-shifts incoming light,"
But havn't you been saying........
" There's nothing desperate about any of this. Optical clocks go slower when they're lower, the speed of light varies with position, the light moves slower at the floor than at the ceiling, light doesn't get out because it's stopped."

Now that to me sounds rather contradictory, plus of course quite similar to the crazy view of optical clocks that our old friend chinglu often sprouted around the place.

and finally it does say.....
" Theoretical support for the feasibility of gravastars does not exclude the existence of black holes as shown in other theoretical studies."

Obviously they refer to the garden variety of GR BH's

And quite obviously, no where in the article do they make any mention or reference to your age old fairy tales re light slowing down and stopping, and time and clocks stopping.

Not sure though why you call me a "Naysayer" of Physics. Afterall, even though like you an amateur at this game, I do my best to follow the scientific method, and reference stuff that has been peer reviewed, while you condemn both, and in the same breath, claim to have a TOE and to have rewritten 20th/21st century cosmology and physics.

 

[Beaconator]

I believe the fastest anything can travel within the event horizon is one plank unit per second, which would inversly make the entropy emitted by a black hole travel at an infinite measure. Going backwards in time is possible only if the temperature somewhere inside the event horizon reaches values that are negative to absolute zero.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I believe the fastest anything can travel within the event horizon is one plank unit per second, which would inversly make the entropy emitted by a black hole travel at an infinite measure. Going backwards in time is possible only if the temperature somewhere inside the event horizon reaches values that are negative to absolute zero.

Uh I don't want to be mean, but are you trolling?

I don't like to appear mean, because sometime I'm really stupid.

Your post is beyond stupidity however. It's not funny. Especially when Farsight takes dumb to extreme proportions.

 

[Beaconator]

actually it would be 1/4 of a plank length per second. That means after light passes the horizon it travels insanely slow. This is equivalent to light slowing down when introduced to a different medium.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Mathematically show it.

Is there experiment?

 

[Beaconator]

Mathematically show it.

Is there experiment?

l=KA/4

 

[Beer w/Straw]

You're trying to just piss me off.

 

[Beaconator]

ka/4l=0
1-ka*0/4=l actually because even with an infinite temp we have to consider the area as zero and L equalling 1 in the denominator of D/T.