Black holes may not exist!

[Undefined]

Um... you know wiki says .99999r = 1 right?

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?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

My question was about wiki in general.

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

 

[Logic101]

Lol!

 

[brucep]

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.

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.

 

[paddoboy]

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?

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.

 

[Undefined]

My question was about wiki in general.

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

*Ahem*

Um... you know wiki says .99999r = 1 right?

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.

 

[Motor Daddy]

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

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!

 

[Undefined]

Paddoboy. 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!

 

[Beer w/Straw]

"Trolling, trolling and yet more trolling."

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

 

[paddoboy]

Paddoboy. 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!

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.

 

[Motor Daddy]

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!

You minimize the power of an idea. You are clueless!

 

[paddoboy]

You minimize the power of an idea. You are clueless!

No, its the truth. It just offends you as it is hitting home.

 

[Motor Daddy]

No, its the truth. It just offends you as it is hitting home.

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!

 

[Undefined]

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.

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.

 

[paddoboy]

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.

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!!!!

 

[Motor Daddy]

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!!!!

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!

 

[paddoboy]

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!

That post needs no more comment.
I'll let others be the judge.

 

[Undefined]

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!!!!

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.

 

[Motor Daddy]

That post needs no more comment.
I'll let others be the judge.

Just glad to be here.

 

[James R]

Farsight:

It's the second sentence. "This means that a clock kept at this place would go at the rate zero".

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.

Yes, I can't haul you up from the horizon. But you don't cross it. Seriously. Think about it. The force of gravity in the room you're in is related to the difference in clock rates at the floor versus the ceiling. See the David Wineland interview where he said "if one clock in one lab is 30 centimeters higher than the clock in the other lab, we can see the difference in the rates they run at". If the clocks ran at the same rate, there's no gravitational force. And a clock rate can't go lower than zero. So at the event horizon there's no more gravity. You don't fall down any more.

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.

So again, we know that the photon doesn't slow down or fall back or curve round, so why doesn't the light get out? The waterfall analogy is wrong.

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.