In the unlikely event you were correct, I would agree with that. But the experts you have raised have all refuted your model, havn't they? And really, how unlikely is it for someone to pop out of left field, with a model surpassing what has observational evidence supporting it....Sure, a non zero chance, but that's all. I also have my own model. It concerns the BB being the arse end of a WH from another Universe, and BH Singularities, creating other Universes. But I also realize no matter how much I believe in that scenario, I have no evidence for it.
You haven't shown anybody that you know what it means. This thread started with you making an assumption about the physics you don't understand. Then you argued that the Schwarzschild remote coordinates are preferred. So now you and the big mouth in waiting can show us why the remote coordinates are preferred. LOL. Preferred in a theory that is frame [coordinate] independent.
I think the thought police should detain him until he figures out that he's not the spoke person for Professor Einstein. That's the main feature of his perpetual troll. BTW he wrote a book on this nonsense.
Science isn't about belief. Do you have a specific issue with my model that you disagree with? Maybe you should start at the Schoolboy issue I asked Farsight. Care to help him out as to why he was late? Save the $50 words, I'm not about that. Just tell me what's up in plain, simple, easy to understand words. K?
No science isn't about belief...It's about evidence supporting a particular scenario/model....It's about observational and experimental data supporting that model....It's about further evidence either continuing supporting the model, or maybe falsifying it. It's about the scientific method and peer review. You have achieved none of the above. And I certainly do not see any relevance of a school boy walking to school has to do with BH's and relativistic effects, including gravitational time dilation.
That's because you aren't smart enough to grasp it. You may have a good memory and read books and recall what you read, but your brain isn't equipped to to deal with reality.
The only reality there is of course is that you are like the cocky on the biscuit tin...You aint in it! Your model/position is not accepted....Live with it.
Tell you what. I'm not gonna entertain your BS if you won't entertain mine. WHEN you give me an honest analysis of the Schoolboy scenario THEN we'll talk. 'Til then, enjoy the blissfulness!
Hey bruce, did you ever apologize to Dr. Mansker for accusing him of faking his credentials? I know your wife claims you have integrity and I'm sure you'd hate to disappoint her or be accused of being "intellectually dishonest". Speaking of that term, as a manifested psychological projection, have you ever accused others of it? *plonk* :roflmao:
Ah... I've seen him say it on physforum, but Ben The Man is Alphanumeric's particle physicist friend I believe and that's fine enough for me. (Meaning Google was easier than searching physforum...) Just for citation http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/25981-science-based-criticisms-of-farsights-theories/?p=345213 Farsight didn't answer so I got to put words in his mouth.
AN rules; the rest (without straws, 'course) mostly drool. Same rant but the thread is from '07. I once had a car that couldn't get out of first, but I didn't wrestle with the stick for 7 years. I think AN went from high school to a PhD during that time. His Fill in the Blanks system. Anyway your words had the odor of Farsighted plausibility which his foot lacked. (I couldn't find a pic of Einstein serving mint juleps to a conehead tapping at a keyboard.)
Not really. A's Schwarzschild coordinate velocity approaches zero. This isn't observer-dependent. Anyone expressing A's trajectory in Schwarzschild coordinates would say that. What's "proper velocity"? What is this even supposed to mean? What "external time standard"? If you are talking about the Schwarzschild time coordinate, then time as measured on most clocks would not coincide with Schwarzschild time. Well it seemed to matter to you before. Like I said, it's you who seemed to have some problem with black holes existing, so it's up to you to articulate why you think there's a problem specifically with black holes. For me this doesn't seem complicated: the black hole is just a particular curved spacetime with a singularity in it somewhere, and that singularity has a past light cone which we call the "event horizon". That's true, but it's nothing specific to black holes. It's also true that no outside observer can ever say the black hole is in their causal past, but I find that a bit trivial: the black hole boundary (the event horizon) is a light cone, so saying an observer remains outside the black hole means that they're keeping the black hole out of their causal past pretty much by definition. A black hole is just a situation where an observer can keep themselves outside of a particular light cone without necessarily expending an infinite amount of fuel to do it.
Still waiting until you read what I wrote down. You're just a nonsense machine with zero analytical skills. What did you think I was going to do, nothing? You must have thought so or you wouldn't have made a big deal about you waiting for something you can't understand. LOL. Once again what I wrote down in post #494 [recorded at the end of the derivation.] I'll add this for Farsight and RJBerry to review. Step by step hold your hand [something I always appreciated]. from Professor Taylor's bag of tricks. "we want a metric in the coordinates r, phi, and t_rain. We make this transition in two jumps for events outside the horizon: from bookkeeper coordinates to shell coordinates, then from shell coordinates to rain coordinates. Assume that the resulting metric is valid inside the horizon as well as outside. The transition from bookkeeper coordinates to shell coordinates dr_shell = dr/(1-2M/r}^1/2 [D] dt_shell = (1-2M/r)^1/2 dt [C] Now, to go from shell to rain coordinates use the Lorentz transformation of SR. Choose the rocket coordinates to be those of the rain frame and the laboratory coordinates to be those of the shell frame. Radial inward direction dt_rain = - v_rel y dr_shell + y dt_shell [9] Substitute [C] and [D] into [9] dt_rain = -[(v_rel y dr) / (1-2M/r)^1/2] + y(1-2M/r)^1/2 dt [10] Solve for dt dt = [dt_rain / y(1-2M/r)^1/2] + [v_rel dr / (1-2M/r) [11] v_rel = (2m/r}^1/2 [12] y = 1/(1-2M/r)^1/2 [13] Substitute [12] and 1[13] into [11] dt = dt_rain - (2M/r)^1/2 dr / (1-2M/r) Substitute [14] into the Schwarzschild metric and collect terms to obtain the global rain metric in r,phi, and t_rain This metric can be used anywhere around a non rotating black hole, not just inside the horizon. Our ability to write the metric in a form without infinities at r=2M is an indication that no jerk is felt as the plunger passes through the horizon." I like the way Professor Taylor explains stuff. Show us why the Schwarzschild coordinates are preferred. You and RJBerry make this dumb claim. What I wrote in post #494 What answer? Show me you understand what the coordinates mean. It looks like you just want an answer from the remote bookkeeper perspective? The remote bookkeeper reckons the clock stops ticking at r=2M. That's the GR prediction reckoned from REMOTE frame dependent coordinates. The local rain observer measures the velocity of the clock at r=2M = 1. [c=1] dr/dt_rain = (2M/r)^1/2 = (2M/2M)^1/2 = 1 We transform to the local proper rain coordinates to get rid of the Schwarzschild frame dependent coordinate singularity. It's frame dependent because we can transform it away. The source of all your confusion. Now we can calculate the proper time, proper velocity, and proper distance from coordinates outside the coordinates associated with an event horizon to a limit r>0. This is the remote bookkeeper velocity dr/dt_bkkpr = (1-2M/r)(2M/r)^1/2 When r=2M dr/dt_bkkpr = 0. Local shell coordinates don't exist at r=2M so we transform away the coordinate singularity. dr/dt_rain = (2M/r)^1/2 When r=2M dr/dt_rain = 1 [c=1]. dr_shell = dr_rain You need to explain why the remote coordinates are preferred in a frame independent theory like GR.
Well you are half right. I certainly won't entertain your bullshit for one minute...That part is true. My view is that which I have referenced many times and which aligns to the mainstream view.....That part is as close to reality as we can be at this stage. Whatever light a QGT will throw onto the situation remains unclear. But one thing is clear.....As of today, GR and its predicted observed BH's and EH's, have been enormously succesful and its impossible to Imagine that it will be harmed in any way by the various dog breakfasts variety of alternative rubbish that has graced this thread. At least until a phenomena comes up which actually contradicts the very predictions of this amazingly successful theory. I won't hold my breath though.
OK. So when I want to know what you think, I'll just Wiki it. Unless there is a difference between your view on things and Wiki's view on things? Ooops! I think there's a problem. Do you claim to know as much as Wiki? Or do you just claim to know very small pieces of what Wiki knows? So, really, your opinion on stuff is pretty much useless, right?
uh, I'm a mind reader, because I'm inside paddoboy's mind, and he agrees with Wiki. Hold on now....what the hell is that??? ...and that??? What the heck is going on in here? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
