Steven Crothers , against BB

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by river, Nov 30, 2017.

  1. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    You are using force, which is a Newtonian concept, instead of the appropriate four-vector from GR. You are using the E-field, instead of the appropriate F-tensor from GR. That's what I meant.

    Honestly, I hadn't even seen that type. I read it as "imperviousness".

    I was pointing out the apparent conflict between your statement that "Singularities are moot here" and that there is "an infinitely depressed metric" present here.

    No real comments here, as I still have to dive deeper into GR.
    Just a repeat of my positive criticism: you have to do the maths as well. GR can behave in unintuitive ways, and without the maths backing you up, all you have is a hand-wavy argument. Or at the very least, scientists won't take you very seriously when one has no math to support the claim. That's because quite often when presented with such claims, when the maths is checked, the arguments and conclusion of the thought experiments turn out to be wrong, and scientists (and people in general) don't like wasting their time.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    But electrostatic forces as considered in #79, #96 are just proper qE forces and are necessarily modified by depressed metric. See this is where it will pay to go over those scenarios and ask yourself how can it be otherwise. E field is surely the only relevant component of EM F-tensor to consider re RN metric.
    It's √(g_tt) (or √(g_00) as used in my earlier notation) that is according to GR infinitely depressed at the assumed 'EH'. I consider GR wrong and one indication of that is a supposed 'singularity' residing at some indefinite future as the termination of a weird 'interior metric' that imo is physically absurd. At best, one might concede an EH as the 'real' asymptotic termination point beyond which any infalling matter never passes in finite exterior time (classical GR scenario - no HR or 'firewalls' etc. stuff here please!).
    I understand your pov but trust me or not, the proof stress as source leads to serious inconsistencies is quite solid. I did field a quickie version of it both at PhysicsForums way back, and later here at SF. The savage and unreasonable reactions in both cases left a bad taste in my mouth. At some point I may come back to it with an updated/expanded version, but other things beckon ahead of that.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Thats a good thing it means you probably hit a nerve.
    I remember something said re defamation....the lady would not mind people saying she had a red nose unless she did indeed have a red nose.
    Q-reeus likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Which are modeled fundamentally differently in GR; that's my point. There are a couple of surprising features of EM in GR that aren't obvious when you don't use the GR formulation. And because you aren't using GR formulation, it's not obvious that all these surprising features have been taken into account (because you have to apply them manually, instead of them happening automatically through the maths).

    And it will also pay to use the proper GR terminology and calculations to prove that your description of the scenario is indeed what GR predicts.

    I agree; we both came to that conclusion when discussing the \(F^\text{tr}\) term.

    Then I don't understand what you mean by "infinitely depressed"?

    It's a known limitation of GR: a quantum description of gravity is needed. In other words: GR breaks down before you get to the singularity. Saying GR is wrong because it gives absurd answers in a domain where it is not applicable is the same as saying Newtonian gravity is absurd because it doesn't model the precession of Mercury accurately.

    The event horizon isn't a physical barrier: particles can travel through the event horizon just fine. This is more obvious when using Kruskal–Szekeres coordinates.

    If you have proof (that I can understand), I wouldn't have to trust you. Convincing scientists that GR is wrong is going to require proof that they can understand, that's written in their language.

    That can be easily explained: there are a lot of cranks out there that believe GR is wrong, but can't form a coherent argument as to why. Without any evidence in a language that GR experts can easily understand (i.e. GR terminology), it will be quite difficult to convince GR experts that one's claim is even worth looking into. Many scientists are sick and tired of such cranks, and their claims have so far amounted to nothing, so when somebody comes along and isn't able to set themselves apart from those cranks, that person will get treated as just another one.
    Is that fair? No. But it is (unfortunately) common practice, is quite efficient for the scientists, and better for the general sanity of the scientists.
  8. przyk squishy Valued Senior Member

    What do you think needs to be reconciled? Assuming the eternal black hole, either there's an electromagnetic field extending both inside and outside the event horizon (and by definition, "charge" somewhere, if the electromagnetic field is divergent) since \(t = -\infty\) or there isn't. This doesn't require anything inside the event horizon to be causally influencing anything outside of it.

    No. The electromagnetic field outside the event horizon can only depend on there being an electromagnetic field and/or charges/currents (if any) at earlier times outside of the event horizon.

    I don't see any issue with this. I don't see it as being all that different from, e.g., plane wave solutions to the vacuum Maxwell equations. These are solutions that describe plane waves of infinite extent, propagating through space, that have been there since \(t = -\infty\) and continue to exist through to \(t = +\infty\), with no causal link to any material "charge". This is admittedly not the most realistic situation, but it is perfectly legal as far as electromagnetism is concerned and it shows that one should maybe be careful about thinking too simplistically of electromagnetic fields as always being "produced" by charges or the like.
  9. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Under those conditions, there cannot be any change in the charge of the eternal black hole (i.e. no charge is allowed to fall under the event horizon). I suppose that's an option, but then the RN-metric can only describe these eternal black holes, as a black hole growing by "eating" charged matter is fundamental not the same as the black hole always having that charge.

    (I assume you also don't believe in eternal black holes, then?)

    I don't see a problem either; I mostly see my own ignorance about the topic, triggered by Q-reeus' scenario.

    Sure, but one also must realize that the described scenario therefore doesn't exist in reality, and that it (at best) can be an approximation of reality. Then the question becomes: is the approximation justified? Does the process of constructing a charge black hole by throwing a lot of (partially) charged matter together result in something that can reasonably accurately be modeled by the RN-metric?
  10. przyk squishy Valued Senior Member

    Why? Like the Schwarzschild metric, the RN solution is static in the Schwarzschild-type coordinate system it is usually described in, so if the spacetime geometry and electromagnetic field somehow comes to coincide with the RN solution outside some radial coordinate \(r\) (e.g. left behind by some shrinking charged sphere) then it should stay that way unless something else comes along to change it.

    The Schwarzschild metric describes the gravitational field outside any spherically symmetric mass, not just the eternal black hole. I would expect something similar is true of the RN solution. This getting beyond what I actually remember from studying a couple of GR courses nearly ten years ago, though, so I can't say for certain that this is how it works, but I think I remember something about it working this way.

    I don't see any problem with them theoretically, at least as far as classical GR is concerned. Of course, reality is different and "eternal black hole" doesn't play so well with "universe is only ~13 billion years old" and "Hawking says they should eventually evaporate".
  11. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Sure, but wouldn't there in practice only be a few black holes that form in such a clean way? Those other black holes would then not (necessarily) be properly described by the RN metric.

    Honestly, I would expect the same; the power of the Schwarzschild metric in describing situations that aren't exactly spherical symmetric or static suggests that the RN metric might by equally powerful.

    My point exactly.

    (I really need to stop slacking off, and dive back into my GR books.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    This is way too interesting not to know the details about it!)
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Now why would your amateurish attempt at goading me make me indignant qreeus? After all by your own admissions you are an amateur....
    Not too long ago was banned from another forum - to be precise. In my judgement that ban was both illegal re internal rules and done out of principally one person's spite.
    "Have no formal education in physics but like lots of folks it is a kind of passion and am interested in both learning new things from experts, but also wanting to contribute possibly new angles that may get folks thinking. That would be particularly in the arena of GR but maybe also classical physics. Only claim to fame is to think clearly".

    So, Stephen Crothers is a gardener...what is your claim to fame?
    But anyway Your poster boy Yilmaz is not considered within GR because he has shown to be in conspiracy or any other crap needed...
    And of course you in this thread have been rather misleading at best with relation to your claims "gravity does not make gravity. Gravity/spacetime is nonlinear and as such and as was shown to you many moons ago by at least two professionals, you were wrong in your assumption. You remember don't you? Of course you do! In the meantime the professional opinion is as follows....
    I believe the obvious question that now needs to be asked is why you are in conflict with GR. An agenda of sorts? In relation to your ID support?
    Hi NotEinstein...
    The following may explain further as to what you are dealing with......
    Simple geometric proof GR's GW's are impossible
    A simple proof Einstein got it wrong with GR
    Free-fall to singularity is BS (or - don't just trust 'authorities')

    The above links explain where qreeus is coming from, and the obvious agenda that in my opinion he has: Not to mention the rather provocative goading style of the headlines.

    Let me also say that this post will probably earn me an infraction when exchemist reports it. So be it. My time is spent elsewhere now on a forum where science is the prime consideration and the cranks, god botherers, IDers, and others of that ilk are required to support their generally unsupported nonsense and claims, or they are dispatched within a week or so to the trash bin.
    Just thought I would pop in so to speak and explain the errors of qreeus.
    In essence, the only good thing this thread has going for it, is that at least one reasonably bright mod has seen the need to shift it to speudoscience
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2017
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Ooops sorry, I'm back again! Just forgot to clear up one little point.
    A BH can have three properties, mass, spin and charge.
    Obviously a charged BH would be quickly negated by attracting matter of opposite charge and would not exist for too long.
    A Reissner-Nordström black hole is a black hole with mass and electric charge, but no spin. The geometry was discovered independently by Reissner (1916)1 and Nordström (1918)2.
    Real black holes probably spin, but probably have almost no electric charge, because our Universe appears to be electrically neutral, and a charged black hole would quickly neutralize by attracting charge of the opposite sign. Nevertheless, the internal geometry of an electrically charged black hole resembles mathematically that of a rotating black hole. For this reason the behavior inside a charged black hole is often taken as a surrogate for that inside a rotating black hole.

    The big difference between a charged (Reissner-Nordström) and an uncharged (Schwarzschild) black hole is that the mathematical solution to the charged black hole has, inside its horizon, a one-way wormhole that connects to a white hole that propels you to another space and time. Sadly, the wormhole is violently unstable, and would not occur in reality. Click on Waterfall to learn more about why the charged black hole has a wormhole. Click on Realistic to see what happens in reality, and to learn more about the mass inflation instability that in reality prevents any wormhole from forming.
  14. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    The 'surprising features' are precisely what imo #79, #96, #98 uncover as 'crazy'. If you do nothing but brush up on GR and it's formal inclusion of EM a per RN you will never see the issues. It absolutely requires stepping out of that cycle and applying some kind of independent consistency checks.
    Not obvious? Infinite redshift occurs, not at the supposed 'singularity' as you had thought, but all the way out at the EH where, at perfectly finite r and perfectly finite Newtonian potential, √(g_tt) -> 0.
    A pathology of GR.
    No, I'm saying it's fundamentally flawed leading to absurdities, for among other things, the reason given in appendix A here:
    I'm well aware of the proper time of free-faller stock argument, and how that manifests in e.g. KS coordinate system. And it's BS. Infinite exterior time has passed just getting to the EH. Something conveniently ignored by defenders of GR.
    Right. Right....As stated before I well understand that pov. If you wish to PM me I will furnish links to the two instances I mentioned. You can then feel free to further PM concerning any 'fatal flaws' you think may be present. There are many other ways to show the issues with stress as source, but just the one raised in those threads is a clincher all by itself. Your choice. I won't regurgitate it all here.
  15. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Piss off blowfly. I stand by all you dredged up and regurgitated there with endless malice as motivator. As one living in a glass house throwing stones, it would pay to just keep quiet. Or you would like some tit-for-tat? Like how many times I have exposed your ignorance of plain old special relativity? I went years contributing at PhysicsForums before things came to a head. You lasted just 11 days - having contributed nothing of any use. Unless you think posting a link to the Mule Skinner song was a great addition there.
  16. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    It is comforting to know you are OK and I wish you all the best for the holiday season.
    Re Crothers.
    Have you watched Crothers utube presentation? On GR his comments on CBR is interesting and I wondered I you had any comments on his take on the subject particularly upon the signal to noise ratio and the difficulty, or as he suggests, the impossibility of presenting reliable data in regions of the Milly Way central region.
    Even though he is a Queenslander he may be on the money.
    I suppose I wonder how the map could be considered valid in that region and why they even sought to include that region given the signal to noise ratio could only mean, certainly in my view, it could be considered only an educated guess really.
    I would be interested in your comments as gardener or not he seems to also rely upon an expert in these matter and frankly having to work out signal to noise ratios in doing astro photography I think his view must be taken seriously, even though he is a gardener from Queensland, he seems to make a valid and supportable claim.
  17. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    May I offer my counsel here not to respond to folk who display bitterness for to do so somewhat lowers the level of discussion.

    Perhaps leave it to readers to judge who is capable of discussing the issues and who is not.

    I would not like to see the discussion here, which has been most interesting, degenerate into name calling as there is absolutely no value to be gained.

    And there is no point in making the obvious observation that you were provoked I and others can see that.

    So I appeal to you to continue and use my advice as insect repellant.
  18. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Mediation has it's place but so does putting someone in their place where and when needed. Peace.
  19. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Trading insults with paddoboy is like wrestling a pig in the mud but after some time you must be aware that he loves it.
    Peace to you as well.
    Q-reeus likes this.
  20. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    If you haven't done the math, how can you be sure you've included all surprising features?

    Perhaps, but at least I can be certain your described scenario operates in GR in the way you claim it does. Without that, there is very little sense in discussing it in detail.

    If you mean an internal consistency check; that's being done all the time, and you've just said those check out one sentence earlier. You haven't given any experimental data, so it's not a consistency check against reality either. I can only assume you are talking about a consistency check against our notions about how things should behave. But that's dangerous, because GR (and QM) often violate those notions, but with reality backing those up.

    Ah, OK. I just have never heard of that term, so I (falsely) assumed it would be at a point where the metric did something weird; i.e. the singularity. I still don't know what the term means, but OK, it's at the event horizon.

    How is that not a result of using a weird metric? At best one can say the used metric is bogus; it doesn't (necessarily) invalidate all of GR.

    Yes, but not to the particle falling in, and that's the point. Obviously, there being only one reality, there's no physical barrier at the location of the event horizon. Particles can pass it just fine. It's just that an observer infinitely far away will never get to see that happening, but it obviously does happen.

    At this moment, I'm not interested in a PM-discussion.
  21. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    The essential relevant maths is right there in the given scenarios. If you insist on some exact solution using EFE's then good luck hiring supercomputer time.
    Well gravitational redshift aka time dilation is experimentally confirmed. The rest then follows logically. The issue is internal self-consistency - or lack thereof.
    So just point to where you think I have misapplied things in given scenarios.
    No idea what you mean there. That set out in that Appendix A nails the problem with standard GR formulation of time dilation - a truncated approximation. Hence Schwarzschild metric also.
    You still miss the key issue. In coordinate aka exterior time, an infaller never quite gets to the EH. GR gate-keepers claim that's just an 'optical illusion' but that is simply not true. The rest of the universe has become infinitely old thus will have disappeared. Hence a fantasy to claim that proper time for infall not only to horizon but then somehow on to 'singularity' is physically sensible.
  22. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Gravity is left out (out of EH) as fossil field, Spin is left out as angular momentum in ergosphere and charge is left out as eletrostatic field outside EH. This mathematical jugglery removes the obvious problem associated with infinite time dilation at or inside EH. You have to appreciate that Einstein never offered BH or such solutions around BH based on GR. It was the overenthusiastic crowd of mathematically oriented physicists who wanted to get into the GR / BH bandwagon. Now as somewhere you have rightly mentioned that the GR has become a 800 pounds gorilla, I would say after nobel on GW, it has doubled its crushing power. I ask a very simple question: the EHs (even for charged or rotating or both) will change its spatial position/size based on mass reduction (HR) or based on mass increase (accretion), the real impact of change in EH happens only after mass has entered the EH, then how does angular momentum or electrostatic filed reorient or realign due to change in EH?
  23. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    No, it isn't. That math isn't expressed in GR terminology.

    I don't see how that's relevant? Many of the GR derivations can be done on paper; see for example that PDF you linked to.

    Yes indeed, so you agree that GR is valid? (Seeing that that's the only theory mentioned in this thread that can explain it.)

    I know that SR is proven to be internally consistent; not sure about GR. So no comment for now.

    Well, I'll have to dive into GR for details, but my guess would be that, since (almost) nothing is expressed in GR maths, it's some surprising feature of GR somewhere.

    The choice of metric is critical in GR. For example, the Schwarzschild metric has a singularity (which is physically weird), but the Minkowski metric has no such problems. Many of the "absurdities" in GR come from the choice of metric, not from GR itself.

    I know of no "GR gate-keepers" claiming this, and I agree with you that anybody who really claims this is not worth their salt in GR.

    Except for the infaller. Are you claiming the perspective of the infaller somehow becomes wrong as it crosses the event horizon?

Share This Page