Farsight: Your own clock never stops. Time dilation is always something that happens to you from the perspective of some other guy. You never see your own clock slowing at all. Not ever. Got what? You'll need to be specific. On the basics of time dilations, I'm sure that all three of them were on the same page, which is different from what you're saying. You're mixing frames. You're mixing somebody else's coordinate time with proper time. That's your fundamental error here. You're actually answering the question "Has Farsight, sitting at a safe distance from the hole, seen James's clock tick yet?" Answer: no. But that's a different question from "Has James seen his clock tick yet?" Getting a little more complicated, what you're really asking and answering here is: "Has Farsight, sitting at a safe distance, seen James see his clock tick yet?", which is really the first question and not the second one. General relativity says he does. Clearly not. Time dilation is always zero for a clock at rest relative to the observer. That is, the clock at rest always keeps ticking at the normal rate as seen by that observer, no matter what distance observers may see.
Yes, me. And anybody else who wants to. And when we find bullshit, we'll call it out. No. You participate in the thread instead of sniping and throwing red herrings. What do you want me to do exactly? Read a chapter and tell you why it's wrong?
Yes, you never see your own clock slowing. But think about what Einstein said: "the clock kept at this place would go at the rate zero". That clock isn't ticking. If I put you and your clock at this place, you don't see that your clock is stopped. The "mainstream" story is that you see your clock ticking normally. But that clock isn't ticking. So you don't see it ticking normally. Instead you don't see anything. The fact that you can't change reality by changing something abstract. You can't make a stopped clock tick by changing your coordinate system. I'm on the same page as Einstein. There is no error on my part. When you are in that place your clock is stopped and you are stopped too. It is. But the answer is the same. The answer is still no. That isn't the question. And you know it doesn't stand up to scrutiny because we could suspend you on a gedanken cable. We could lower you to somewhere near the event horizon, and you flash an upward light beam every time your clock ticks. We see the light beam, albeit redshifted. And we see it flash once a minute. Then we lower you further. We see it flash once an hour. Then we lower you further. We see it flash once a week, a month, a year, et cetera. We haul you back up and go for a rerun, this time with even more cable: Has James seen his clock tick yet? No. One interpretation of general relativity. Remember Kevin Brown referred to another interpretation that said he doesn't. I'm with Einstein. Your clock is a light clock. You're at that place Einstein spoke of. Your clock is stopped because light is stopped. Light is stopped. So you don't see. I don't know if you saw what I said to przyk, but imagine you're on a planet shining a laser up vertically. The light doesn't slow down or curve round or fall back. Now make the planet more massive and denser. The light still doesn't slow or curve or fall back. Make the planet even denser, and take it to the limit: imagine you're standing at the event horizon shining your laser straight up. Ask yourself why doesn't the light get out.
It was in this paper. IMHO it's important to just read what Einstein said, and avoid twisting it to match what you've been taught. Earlier we saw przyk swearing blind that Einstein hadn't abandoned his own postulate, when Einstein said he had. Unless the clock rate is zero! The observer's heart rate is zero, his brainwave rate is zero, et cetera. James: the clock stops. There is no more proper time. Think again. From your point of view, your brainwaves never stop either. Yep. No problem with any of that. Now think about the gedanken situation where I let you down very fast, leave you at the event horizon for a hundred years, then haul you back up very fast. You say ready when you are and I say James, we already did it. A respected physics educator. The mathspages guy. Yep, no problem with that. But when you're at the horizon? This is the waterfall analogy, and it's absolutely, utterly wrong. In no way is space or spacetime falling inwards in a gravitational field. The suggestion that it is, is chicken-little physics. The sky is not falling in. Wrong again. Gravity does not change a photon's E=hf energy or frequency. You know this, because you can direct a 511keV photon into a black hole. You know that the black hole mass increases by 511keV/c², not by some infinite amount. Try again.
Imagine this! You are standing atop a radio tower on Earth. You shine a laser directly away from the center of the earth ("straight up" like you said, vertically in line with the tower). There is a serious problem. The DAMN PLANET is ROTATING about its axis. Why is that a problem? Because you are motionless compared to the ground, but compared to space you are traveling. The laser light was emitted at t=0, but you rotated away, so there isn't a chance in hell that you can claim that light is on the same line as the new line at t=1 that goes from the center of the earth out through the tower. Two different lines, so no way you can claim that line is still "vertical" at any time greater than t=0. Now what?
Actually who he is and what his background is is unclear. He reads a lot like a good ghost writer... Except in the case of most ghost writers their names, if present appear below the recognized authority they are ghost writing for. I have not read everything he has written, he has been quite prolific, but from what I can tell he does a very good job of presenting historical context, in a manner consistent with a contemporary view. I have not seen much that represents any original contribution.., and some of his conclusions, or what appear to be personal conclusions, seem to be just that personal conclusions, and not always as consistently a representation of contemporary consensus... Then again there are many aspects of the subject matter addressed for which there really does not seem to be any identifiable contemporary consensus. He explains existing information in an easy to read and understand manner. I have seen little in the way of original contribution.., no research papers, theoretical or otherwise. (But again, I have not read everything he has written.) Like I said he reads like a ghost writer. Maybe a lit major with a decent background in math and science.
[One of] Farsight's problem is a junior high level math fail: he doesn't understand the concept of an asymptote.
Yep, this is what all our anti mainstream pushers claim..... The whole world is wrong. I am the only authority that knows the truth... And again taking people out of context or misquoting them is how they play their never ending game.
By the statement he made he disqualified himself as an authority since "all physicists can never understand . . . [the subject matter]". Unless of course he meant someone else -- the guy sweeping up after the students leave, or the one slinging burgers across the street, or maybe the guy who fixes his brakes -- is the only authority. It's kind of like talking to someone who is living under a rock. I sometimes think someone has hired teams of people to sit in cubes and post pseudoscience and anti-science rant all over the web, just to keep the public as skeptical as possible about climate science. Kind of like barrage jamming and a morale-busting with an implied grassroots twist. I'm sure you get enough feel for American culture through movies etc to appreciate that this is well within our capacity. Hell, we can do anything when we really put our minds to it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think I was pretty specific what you needed to do. You need to follow the transformation from the remote bookkeeper Schwarzschild coordinates to the proper frame rain coordinates and explain why you claim the Schwarzschild coordinates are preferred. Apply the 'we bit' of scrutiny you said can be easily done showing why the Schwarzschild coordinates would be preferred. You said the KZ coordinates were bullshit. Actually you need to show us you're not a complete intellectually dishonest troll making irresponsible lying comments like this Farsight said: "Somewhere along the line relativity changed, and what's now considered to be mainstream doesn't match Einstein and the evidence. Let me go a bit further and throw down the gauntlet here: I'd say that some of the stuff touted as mainstream is Emperor's New Clothes pseudoscience trash that doesn't stand a moment's scrutiny. And that some of the physicists touted as being great aren't great, and instead are mere celebrity quacks whose contribution to physics is zip." Throw down the gauntlet lightweight troll. No quote mining irrelevant bullshit Farsight. Do it or quit pretending.
Oh baloney Russ. The Moon rotates once a month, that's good enough, and you're clutching at straws. Let's try again. The vertical light beam doesn't curve round, it doesn't slow down, and it doesn't fall back. Why doesn't it get out? Einstein said what he said. And I'm with Einstein. So I'm the mainstream. So you're not. Like I said, some of the stuff touted as mainstream is Emperor's New Clothes pseudoscience trash that doesn't stand a moment's scrutiny. And it's time you started scrutinising. I said physicists who have been taught relativity don't understand it, and they don't understand gravity or black holes. Because they've been taught wrong. Guys like przyk have great difficulty in coming to terms with this. Guys like me point out what Einstein said, and when it doesn't square with what they've been taught, they go all floppy on you.
That is a load of hogwash! James mentioned about you getting FoR's mixed up, in actual fact, you just seem to be ignoring whatever invalidates your own fairy tale solution on what you claim happens. Let's presume we have ETI on a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri....In my FoR, I'm seeing them as they were 4.5 years ago. That can be verified every night when I go outside and look at Alpha Centauri. Yet from the FoR of the ETL on that planet, they occupy there version of "now" 4.5 years later. Ignoring what is real, is a copout. Both FoR's that I used above exist and are as valid as each other. And again, nothing stops in relation to the entity and clock approaching and crossing the EH in that local FoR. Everything appears as normal...you age normally, a minute equals a minute, the clock ticks normally....ALL NORMAL WITHIN THAT LOCAL FRAME. But from my FoR, a safe distance away from the BH, the entity and the clock are gradually red shifted further and further along the spectrum, until they literally are beyond the viewing capabilities of me and my equipment. I never see you hit the EH [where time would stop in my FoR] SO TIME DOES NOT STOP!!!...slows down due to gravitational time dilation, yes, but never stopped. Again two valid FoR as dictated by GR No you are not. At best, you are taking something out of context...at worst it is a fairy tale.
Personally I don't feel like letting him make the comments about the scientists and get away with it. This 'forum' should decide whether they want somebody posting who is 'that' intellectually dishonest. He hasn't even shown that he understands any of the physics from the folks he called quacks. If those comments aren't viewed as a troll then nothing should be.
OK. No problem. First, I'll start a new thread on time. It will be easy reading and simple and logical. You will not be able to fault it. And when you can't, what you have to do is say yes, I accept it. Then we can move on to the next step. It will take a few steps, and when you've said yes, I accept it to them all, you find yourself painted into a corner, and you have to accept what I say about the coordinates. Doubtless you will start howling and squealing and squeaking long before that. And crying because you're losing, and calling for censorship. Pah. All: OK everybody? I start a thread, I explain something about time, you try to bust it, then when you can't, you accept the explanation. Then we move on to the next bit.
From the paper cited, note the bolded words: "Further it is easy to show that both light rays and material particles take an infinitely long time (measured in "coordinate time") in order to reach r = u/2......"
So you're saying the Moon would be a good enough place to do the experiment because the error in your method would be marginal on the Moon? So, "Not perfect, but close enough"?
Guys like you are irresponsible intellectually dishonest trolls. Maybe you don't understand why folks look at you that way? It's because you're all mouth and no substance. That means what you say can't be trusted regardless what you think. Say something we can trust. Scrutinize it so we feel confident about what you say. Otherwise put a cork in it. Folks are sick and tired of your delusional assertions.
