# Black holes may not exist!

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by RJBeery, Jan 24, 2014.

1. ### UndefinedBannedBanned

Messages:
1,695
According to the professional mathematicians who wrote the article, you mean?

The self same mathematicians who can't prevent the current mathematical construct from being riddled with "undetermined", "undefined" etc outputs due to starting axioms based on unreal philosophical 'notions' like 'dimensionless points' and 'dimensionless zero constructions' and so on, from which more un-real logics/conclusions follow that do not always represent the reality with which ANY and ALL supposed 'starting self-evident truths' for Axioms/postulates should be consistent in the first place if the resulting construct is not to drift off into fantasy world of abtraction upon abstraction despite all the "undefined", "undetermined" "infinity" etc 'elephants in the room' at every 'fantasy story' step along the way?

You mean those kinds of wiki math articles?

to hide all adverts.
3. ### Beer w/StrawTranscendental Ignorance!Valued Senior Member

Messages:
5,245
My question was about wiki in general.

Either take a valium or go post in the appropriate thread.

to hide all adverts.
5. ### Logic101BannedBanned

Messages:
139
Lol!

to hide all adverts.
7. ### brucepValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,098
This is the proper velocity
http://www.lecture-notes.co.uk/susskind/special-relativity/lecture-5/proper-velocity-and-momentum/

For the case of the 'plunger' the proper velocity will equal dr/dt_shell = (2M/r)^1/2 for all r > 2M. Inside the horizon using the rain coordinates the proper velocity

dr/dt_rain = (2M/r)^1/2

For r < 2M the proper velocity is > c.

dr/dt_rain = (2M/M)^1/2 = (2)^1/2 = 1.414214c. When you work it out the average proper velocity over the plungers path r=2M to the limit > r=0 is 3/2 c.

The wiki on proper velocity is easier to understand than the Susskind derivation. For those who just want some verbage on what it means.

8. ### paddoboyValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,846
I've given many more links then WIKI, but they wouldn't interest you obviously.

Let's see so far we have interpretations from RJBeery, undefined, Motor Daddy, Farsight, Trapped from memory...Apologies to any I have left out.
All screaming at various levels against the accepted mainstream version supported by the majority.
Sheeesh!
I once E-Mailed a fellow called Mitch Begalman on BH's re another silly proposal by another anti mainstreamer on another science forum.
He informed me he gets at least a dozen proposals a week from people of various calibre and position, all claiming to have usurped Einstein and the accepted view of GR BH's and EH's.
This dog's breakfast of alternative ideas reminds me somewhat of that.

9. ### UndefinedBannedBanned

Messages:
1,695
*Ahem*
You specifically picked out a mathematical item, ie, that wiki "says .99999r = 1" when making your smart-aleck one liner remark.

You should not feign innocence/cuteness, especially when your intention is to ridicule others. The veneer of your innocence/cuteness has worn thin over the years, Bw/S.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

10. ### Motor Daddy☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼Valued Senior Member

Messages:
5,105
The problem is, I am fully capable of using Google's search engine to my little heart's content. Anyone can use a search engine. I am not asking if you know how to Google, I am asking what's on your mind? What is your analysis of the schoolboy deal? Right, wrong, or indifferent, I want to know!

11. ### UndefinedBannedBanned

Messages:
1,695

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Again, mate, try to discern between the great deluge of real crazy stuff from genuine original stuff. You painting everything and everyone with the same brush willy-nilly without sorting out the chaff from the wheat in your past/elsewhere encounters with crazies is neither here nor there, nor should it be, when real interesting and new threads/discussions and ideas are in play, even though you haven't understood that yourself yet in some (rare) cases which do not need your personal/repetitious stuff in the discussions. Take the time and effort to distinguish before you troll and disparage, mate!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

12. ### Beer w/StrawTranscendental Ignorance!Valued Senior Member

Messages:
5,245
"Trolling, trolling and yet more trolling."

Don't try to start and make me cry, RealityCheck. You might get banned again.

13. ### paddoboyValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,846
Or better still, why not get all the crazy stuff together, and get it peer reviewed?
As I saw the need to inform you earlier, forums are not a vehicle for peer review...discussion yes...
And naturally anyone with anything of substance that could revolutionize science is not going to come to a forum for review.
That is just crazy!
As of today, the mainstream model of GR BH and there EH's is as I have linked to and what most here have agreed on.
All else is just flotsam and jetsam.

14. ### Motor Daddy☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼Valued Senior Member

Messages:
5,105
You minimize the power of an idea. You are clueless!

15. ### paddoboyValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,846
No, its the truth. It just offends you as it is hitting home.

16. ### Motor Daddy☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼Valued Senior Member

Messages:
5,105
Hitting home? Your f'n greed and lust for immortality and power is glowing. I don't give .02 about greed or f'n power. I want 100% perfection!

17. ### UndefinedBannedBanned

Messages:
1,695
How many times need you be reminded what the purpose of pre-publication discussions of new ideas is? And that the venues for such discussions have changed over the decades, from coffee-houses, patron salons and the like, to internet forums? Peer review will come when published. The complete works sometimes takes DECADES (as with Darwin, Newton etc etc) to become compiled for eventual publication. What do you think GOES ON during those decades, nothing but silence? The matter was discussed informally, formally, revised and re-formalised etc etc depending on how revolutionary the new work/theory was. Why do you insist on fully fledged presentations here or don't bother at all? This is just the sort of place to soundboard and discuss while one compiles the whole works in detail for full publication complete. Until YOU actually undertake some sort of magnum opus involving complex and subtle matter which demands great discussion and pre-publishing soundboarding and brainstorming as part of a LONG process, you have no conception of what it involves and how many stages come before final publication, sometimes after decades of patient and painstaking work to "get it complete; get it consistent; and get it right from the starting assumption" so that the result will be all those things when finished.

Be more generous to everyone alive and meaning you no harm, as an Aussie should be, paddoboy. Good luck, mate.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

18. ### paddoboyValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,846

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So, in your efforts to justify pseudoscience and alternative ideas, you claim the age of the Internet as justification and then compare Newton and Darwin 300 years ago!

Yes, discussions of new ideas is great....remember I already said that??
But coming straight out and claiming that you have invented/fabricated a model that is going to revolutionize physics/cosmology, and claiming that everyone else including the Guths and Thornes are wrong, that's something else! Remember I already said that too undefined?
So, I must ask then, why do you see the need to misrepresent me?

Again yep, discuss, certainly...But do not claim you are some new aged Einstein and the only one that knows the reality of it all.
That's just plain arrogant bullshit!!!!

19. ### Motor Daddy☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼Valued Senior Member

Messages:
5,105
I hope you're not referring to me as someone that has visions of Einstein Illusions. That's a pretty serious insult that I take extreme offense to. Einstein to me is a 4 letter word!

20. ### paddoboyValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,846

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That post needs no more comment.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'll let others be the judge.

21. ### UndefinedBannedBanned

Messages:
1,695
It was the process involved before final publication that I alluded to. Their work took decades and much to-and-fro stages of discussion/revision etc etc before final publication. That was the point. No more; no less. Anything else is your own imputations.

When the evolving mainstream speculations start closing in on and increasingly confirming what my complete and consistent ToE 'from scratch' work has been telling me for some time now, then I may be excused for thinking that I may be ahead of the pack on many fronts based on the latest examples of the professional developments consistent with mine? Or is that too much for you to bear because you are already so certain that anyone who has posted on internet science forums cannot possibly be right, especially if they were not 'already mainstream' to begin with; you know, the same mainstream that is now coming round to my ToE results without any need for ad hoc fixes/excuses which mainstream has been bedeviled by all this time?

Wait until the published complete and consistent theory before you make such unscientific pronouncements about what is or is not possible/achievable through internet science forum discussions.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

22. ### Motor Daddy☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼Valued Senior Member

Messages:
5,105
Just glad to be here.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

23. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
33,690
Farsight:

That's according to somebody far from the hole, not according to somebody sitting at the event horizon. You're mixing up Schwarzschild coordinate time with the proper time of some observer.

There's gravity wherever there is curvature of spacetime. And at the horizon there is certainly curvature.

That zero clock rate you keep referring to is not the proper time of a clock located at the horizon. You can't infer what is happening for an observer at the horizon based on what an observer in a different region of spacetime sees. You need to look at what local clocks are doing. And the rate of a clock located at the horizon doesn't drop to zero for a person travelling with that clock.

Not really. The waterfall analogy tells us something about how things look to an observer at the horizon. To a distance observer, far from the hole, the event horizon looks like it is sitting still in one place (provided nothing is crossing it and adding mass to the hole, of course). But to an observer at the horizon, the horizon always appears to be moving outwards at the speed of light. Thus, any light trying to go out radially from the horizon only just manages to keep pace with the horizon itself. And so, it never escapes from the hole. And massive objects at the horizon are restricted to travel slower than the speed of light, which means that they must fall into the hole as the horizon moves outwards away from them.

Relative velocities in GR are only definable locally. This is why the velocity of the horizon looks so different to observers who are close to it, compared to ones who are far away.