And you are still trying.
QM + GR = black holes cannot exist
- Thread starter RJBeery
- Start date
- Status
Beaconator
Valued Senior Member
If I needed to use latex to describe the previous quandry you would have an equation that related momentum to charge in the usual black hole thermodynamic equationHe don't do LaTeX, damnall.
Beaconator
Valued Senior Member
This comming from a man who believes no constants exist beyond the event horizon dispite obvious rules of integration.
Either someone has been on the, or drinking his beer through a straw!
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
Farsight said:
Dear Farsight,
I think I have found the chink in your armor. You say someone's optical clock is stopped because the light coming up out of their vertically-held torch has stopped. But optical clocks need not be held vertically. And the light in optical clocks does not only travel in one direction, such as up. I got you there, eh? Eh?
Yeah, people have pointed out before that Farsight has ignored direction of travel in favor of his scalar speed of light ideas.
But it is doubtful that this will ever get through. The man hates math: he denies calculus, he loves numerological exercises, and he can't do arithmetic. I think it's because he knows that a real analysis of his ideas will show how wrong they are. His particular mental construction will just have him ignore any idea that presents a problem. I suspect that he literally forgets certain ideas as soon as he's done reading or hearing them.
But it is doubtful that this will ever get through. The man hates math: he denies calculus, he loves numerological exercises, and he can't do arithmetic. I think it's because he knows that a real analysis of his ideas will show how wrong they are. His particular mental construction will just have him ignore any idea that presents a problem. I suspect that he literally forgets certain ideas as soon as he's done reading or hearing them.
Pretty much. A light clock doesn't go slower when it's lower because "spacetime is curved". It goes slower because space down there is different to the space up here. Because a concentration of energy in the guise of the matter of the Earth "conditions" the surrounding space. Then when you plot light-clock rates throughout an equatorial slice through the Earth and surrounding space you get a depiction that resembles the Riemann curvature depiction:
Spacetime curvature by Johnstone, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spacetime_curvature.png]Wikipedia[/URL]
[URL='http://[/SIZE']
[URL='http://[/SIZE'][URL='http://[/SIZE'][URL='http://[/SIZE']
[URL='http://[/SIZE']Note that this is a plot of the speed of light.
[URL='http://[/SIZE']
[URL='http://[/SIZE'][URL='http://[/SIZE']
Fine. But note that my understanding of gravity comes from what I've read. Newton referred to light bending because the density of "aether" varies, Einstein said light curves because the speed of light varies with position and referred to space as the aether of general relativity, Shapiro talked about the speed of light being slower near the Sun, Ned Wright said much the same, and so on. The important point is that space isn't nothing. See sonar and think of why sound waves curve in water. It's pretty much the same for light waves in space.[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]
So let's see how you predict how much a clock will slow. Without this kind of thing, you have no science.
Sure it's different down there. Spacetime deeper in a gravity well is more critically curved then higher up in the gravity well, and any slowing of clocks or difference in "c" is only evident from an outside/remote/distant FoR.
From any local FoR, time and "c" are as time and "c"should be...No time dilation evident, and no change in the rate of "c".
They are postulates of relativity.
<<<MISUNDERSTANDING of GRAVITY ACTUALLY>>>
Apparently, they do not get along. http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=17244&st=90
Note the request there for Farsight to produce some actual details about his theory, which Farsight dodges.
In another thread, http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/Sick-Of-AWT-And-ZEPHIR_17536.html, Farsight disparages the spamming of Zephir. This, as someone in the thread points out, was Farsight's MO on the internet. Farsight appears to have given up on or been banned from every message board but this one and his own.
Now you're really clutching at straws and getting paranoid. I haven't edited any Wikipedia article. And surely you know you can look at a historical version of the gravastar article? Here's one picked at random:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gravastar&oldid=561047569
It still refers to the "void in the fabric of space and time". Now stop being such a naysayer about bona-fide physics that you haven't come across before. Accept the fact that when I refer to Einstein and the evidence, it's legit, even if it doesn't square with the popscience pseudoscience you've been lapping up.
You're spouting total garbage. Spacetime curvature has an inflection, it doesn't keep on increasing. And Einstein said repeatedly that the SR postulate of the constant speed of light didn't apply to GR. I've shown you the quotes. You've seen Don Koks refer to them, you've seen the Shapiro quote.
Last edited:
No. Tom Moore said the vertical light beam doesn't get out because it's stopped. The frozen-star interpretation says optical clocks stop at the event horizon. The speed of light there is zero, it doesn't vary with direction.Dear Farsight, I think I have found the chink in your armor. You say someone's optical clock is stopped because the light coming up out of their vertically-held torch has stopped. But optical clocks need not be held vertically. And the light in optical clocks does not only travel in one direction, such as up. I got you there, eh? Eh?
Precisely my point.
Could we please see your derivation of this, oh physics expert?
Or will you ignore this question like you ignore all physics questions?
Huh? I can't derive what Moore or Oppenheimer or Brown said.
Again you try to dodge the question. Hooray for cherry-picking one question, that I had for you out of dozens that you have ignored, that was easy for you to willfully misinterpret. I again thank you for demonstrating your pour character to our readers.
You are adding to these scientists' claims that light stops in all directions. They did not write this.
Can we see how you derive the idea that light stops in every direction, rather than just see you tell falsehoods about what others write?
- Status