# QM + GR = black holes cannot exist

Status
Not open for further replies.
Farsight, No need for light to stop at the horizon, you know of lightcones, which I know you don't think of as 'real' things. They dont have to be real, since they just represent the path of light originating at a place, here the in-faller's frame. See the link below, and notice what happens to the lightbeam's path (or sides of the cone) because of the curvature of spacetime near and at the horizon. The light's path in the altered spacetime near the horizon is destined inwards, that also explains why, because of curvature, no light escapes from within the horizon.
You're misunderstanding this nimbus. The light cones are tilted. The degree of "spacetime tilt" relates to the force of gravity and to how much a light beam will curve. The spacetime curvature relates to the tidal force.
Note to some... Time runs up the page on these diagrams, so that explains why a lightbeam 'shone' backwards also goes into the event horizon because of spacetime curvature in the region. Nowhere does the light have to stop.
But it does. That's what Tom Moore and others have said. If you don't think it does, try to explain why the vertical light beam doesn't get out of the black hole. Like Don Koks said, the ascending light beam speeds up. Remember me saying that it was counterintuitive? See this bit of his reply here:

"...light speeds up as it ascends from floor to ceiling (it doesn't slow down, as apparently quoted on your discussion site), and it slows down as it descends from ceiling to floor; it's not like a ball that slows on the way up and goes faster on the way down. Light travels faster near the ceiling than near the floor. But where -you- are, you always measure it to travel at c, because no matter where you place yourself, the mechanism that runs the clock you're using to measure the light's speed will speed up or slow down precisely in step with what the light is doing."

Light doesn't do this because spacetime is curved. Or because space is curved. It does it because space is inhomogeneous. Because a concentration of energy tied up as the matter of the Earth "conditions" the surrounding space, this effect diminishing with distance as per the plot of
[URL='http://[/COLOR'][URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential]']http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential]
gravitational potential on Wiki. If you placed light-clocks throughout an equatorial slice of space and plotted the light-clock rates, this is what you'd see. And they're light clocks. The rubber-sheet depiction is showing you the variable speed of light. [/URL]

[URL='http://[/COLOR']
nimbus said:
They don't. On one day alone 84 were purchased. And not by me or anybody to do with me.

NB: Something is going wrong with the hyperlinks.
[/URL][/URL]

Last edited:
All from the reference points of external, remote FoR's.
Except, light [and time] are never seen to be stopped.
But obviously you don't like the spacetime/waterfall analogy.
It's popscience. It's pseudoscience. It's garbage. It's wrong.

Let me try a simpler approach.
The escape velocity of the surface of Earth is 12kms/sec.
If this is not achieved then any rocket will fall back to the surface or fall into orbit if matched.
Yes, and like Don Koks said, light speeds up as it ascends. It doesn't slow down or fall down, and space isn't falling down at 12km/s. The 12 km/s relates to the difference between the coordinate speed of light at the surface of the Earth as compared to the coordinate speed of light in free space.

Light that is emitted from just on the EH of a BH, but this side of it, will arc around and fall back to the BH and on into it to oblivion from the local FoR. If that light is emitted directly radially away it will appear to be stationary with respect to a remote, external FoR. This is because the escape velocity at the BH's EH is "c" and light always travels at "c".
You're talking nonsense. The light isn't travelling at c. it's stationary. As above, the escape velocity relates to the difference between the coordinate speed of light at the event horizon as compared to the coordinate speed of light in free space.

Or as I mentioned before, but which you seem to have missed.......
A fish swimming upstream at 10kms/hr in a stream flowing down at 10kms/hr, will from the FoR of someone on the bank, appear to be hovering in the stream, even though he is trying his hardest to make some progress. It's that simple Farsight and is the reason that it is the mainstream view.
It isn't the mainstream view. It's popscience nonsense that totally contradicts general relativity.

And until you can effectively show that your hypothesis is correct, [out of context references, misinterpretations and outright untruths is not counted] with some legitimate evidence, your speculative hypothesis is in reality just cesspool material.
No, your repeated "sky falling in" nonsense is the cesspool material.

I mean for light to "STOP" and time to "STOP" in someones local own FoR, beggars belief.
Would you also magically stop existing? In my opinion, that is what you are implying.
It doesn't beggar belief. Space isn't falling down where a gravitational field is. Nor is spacetime. But that vertical light beam doesn't get out. Because it's stopped. What beggars belief is the notion that you still see everything happening as normal even though light is stopped.

brucep said:
Nice post paddoboy. Very informative. Too bad it's wasted on deaf ears.
No, too bad it's garbage. You must know it's garbage. Do you seriously expect anybody to believe that in the room you're in, space is falling down at 9.8m/s?

Last edited:
Quotes aren't experiments.

What are we arguing here?

Last edited:
I'm confused why people are arguing over the speed of light...

The speed of light is NOT constant - it can be "frozen" even...

The speed of light IN A VACUUM (otherwise notated as C) is a universal constant (as far as we can test/prove/observe)

What's the confusion with this?
The confusion is that the speed of light in a vacuum is NOT constant. Have you not read what Don Koks said?

"...light speeds up as it ascends from floor to ceiling (it doesn't slow down, as apparently quoted on your discussion site), and it slows down as it descends from ceiling to floor; it's not like a ball that slows on the way up and goes faster on the way down. Light travels faster near the ceiling than near the floor. But where -you- are, you always measure it to travel at c, because no matter where you place yourself, the mechanism that runs the clock you're using to measure the light's speed will speed up or slow down precisely in step with what the light is doing."

And like Tom Moore said, the vertical light beam doesn't get out of the black hole because it's stopped.

brucep said:
When measured in local proper frames [like the one you're walking around in over your entire life] the measurement is an invariant.
It isn't invariant in the room you're in. If you measure the speed of light at the ceiling you get 299,792,458 m/s. Like Don Koks said, light goes slower near the floor. But when you crouch down there to measure it, your clock goes slower too, so you measure the same value. Your claim is the tautology that Magueijo and Moffat described in http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4507.

brucep said:
The science says the local speed of light is an invariant c while the remote coordinate speed of light, predicted by the theory of general relativity, can vary.
Quite. It varies in the room you're in. If it didn't, your pencil would fall down. Have you got this yet?

Last edited:
CERN says otherwise.

Experiment with muons.

CERN says otherwise.

Experiment with muons.
Time dilation is not an issue.

Last edited:
I'm wondering if perhaps you are thinking of what happens to light inside a BEC. We could hypothesise that the inside of Farsight's gedanken black hole is made of some sort BEC, and that light apparently comes to a halt there, but then he said ''there's no more gravity,'' which cannot be true as light gravitates according to GR.
It's only like the situation at the centre of the Earth. Gravitational potential is at a minimum there, as is the coordinate speed of light. But there's no gradient in potential or coordinate speed of light, so the force of gravity is zero.

I meant pions.

The speed of light measured in the local invariant frame is a constant. It's an invariant. That means everywhere it's measured locally, in the entire universe, it's an invariant c. When measured from remote coordinates it can vary and these measurements are coordinate dependent.

Yes, coordinate dependent and that’s seconded by Don Koks.
And now finally, you can begin to look at statements about Kruskal coordinates, and appreciate that they are useful for showing that observers sitting (however briefly) right on a Schwarzschild horizon find nothing unusual to be happening there, even though we who are distant from that horizon maintain that their clocks have stopped.
My bold is the clincher part.

Farsight is stuck with Einstein’s 1935 paper which says light stops on the horizon as his holy grail, or should that be albatross.
Farsight is not a mathematician, so he can’t explain or understand how theoretical physicists and mathematicians have resolved that infinity on the manifold at the horizon…They found it to be a coordinate infinity and not a real infinity on the actual manifold like that found at the centre of a classical black hole.
I’m no expert so take the mainstream view because it’s built on expert peer review.

Farsight tends to forget it was someone else ( Schwarzschild ) not Einstein who came up with a solution to Einstein’s field equations. It was someone else who looked at the field equations and all what they involve and came up with the Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates, which are agreeable to people who actually do the math and theoretical physics. People like Carolle, Koks,Wineberg and someone who actually knew and worked with Einstein for a time John Wheeler.

Brucep, as you probably know this is not address to you.

You're misunderstanding this nimbus. The light cones are tilted. The degree of "spacetime tilt" relates to the force of gravity and to how much a light beam will curve. The spacetime curvature relates to the tidal force.

Can you please show us your mathematics on this? This doesn't match what your first citation for "spacetime tilt" says, as it claims this tilt is due to curvature.
But it does. That's what Tom Moore and others have said. If you don't think it does, try to explain why the vertical light beam doesn't get out of the black hole.
Actually, why don't you do this, Farsight? Pick whatever mass you want for the black hole, just show us the calculations that your inhomogeneous space gives us for the trajectory of light.

Koks has physics textbooks on his side when he claims that this difference is due to choice of coordinate system. Let's see your theory of inhomogeneous absolute space and separate time do the same problem. Since you are the person denying the content of every physics textbook on this subject, clearly you have worked this out and you aren't just ranting like a crazy person with no reasoning, are you?

Feel free to pick arbitrary numbers that will make the calculation easier, just show us what you've got that shows inhomogeneous space and its effect on the speed of light.
It's popscience. It's pseudoscience. It's garbage. It's wrong.
OK, so show us the actual science. That is, show us a physics examples with numbers, the equations that fit, and where your ideas can do as well as the physics that we can use to send objects to Mars.
Yes, and like Don Koks said, light speeds up as it ascends. It doesn't slow down or fall down, and space isn't falling down at 12km/s. The 12 km/s relates to the difference between the coordinate speed of light at the surface of the Earth as compared to the coordinate speed of light in free space.
So you say. Since it is possible to use free-falling coordinates to solve gravitational physics problems (they are the preferred coordinates for many problems), you need to show us that your theories can do these problems as well. Choose whatever problem you wish, show us that we can do as well with inhomogeneous space rather than free-falling coordinates.
ou're talking nonsense. The light isn't travelling at c. it's stationary. As above, the escape velocity relates to the difference between the coordinate speed of light at the event horizon as compared to the coordinate speed of light in free space.
Again, you are talking about your 3D absolute space and separate absolute time. You need to show us that it is possible to model this black hole in your theory. If you are not crazy and sticking to this theory without reason, then you must have worked out this model yourself. Please show us.
It isn't the mainstream view. It's popscience nonsense that totally contradicts general relativity.
Since every physics textbook on this subject covers free-falling coordinates, you are clearly wrong about this, Farsight. Unless you can show us how to do these problems in your theory. Then, to show that your theory is faithful to GR, you should walk us through a problem that Einstein did to show us where he used absolute space, absolute time, and inhomogeneous space.
It isn't invariant in the room you're in. If you measure the speed of light at the ceiling you get 299,792,458 m/s. Like Don Koks said, light goes slower near the floor. But when you crouch down there to measure it, your clock goes slower too, so you measure the same value. Your claim is the tautology that Magueijo and Moffat described in http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4507.
Indeed, the speed of light is a conceptual commitment of GR, one vastly different from the one that you are using, Farsight. It is a shame that you did not read any more of the Magueijo and Moffat paper, because they go into great detail about how, if one uses a truly variable speed of light, one has to have a different theory with different physical consequences from GR. That paper lays out reasons why we have to see the actual consequences of your theory. Because I am not a crazy person, I will not blindly accept your vague theories without seeing how they do a physics problem. Because I read a good portion of the Magueijo and Moffat paper, I will not accept your variable speed of light theory until you demonstrate that it matches the available evidence, something that Magueijo and Moffat show has to be demanded of any variable speed of light theory.
Time dilation is not an issue.
You need to demonstrate that your theory can handle time dilation. Since you have not shown us any examples or any hint of the equations you use, this is a fair question.

This is the crux of the problem, Farsight: you have declared yourself the physics expert, yet you insult the people who have taken physics, you insult the people who have worked through problems in physics, and you ask us all to take your word for it while you give us no hint at all about how to properly solve a physics problem. For example, you have told us that the people who measure dark matter in galaxies are wrong, yet you have never shown where in a single paper their mistake is, nor have you shown the correct equations they should be using. You have now tried to bar all physicists from using free-falling coordinates, but you have not shown what equations to use in their place, nor have you demonstrated that your way of doing things can do any physics.

In short, you want us to venerate the text of the past, but you wish us to stop doing physics. You want us to stop flying airplanes, driving cars, operating MRIs, using computers, and so on, all in the name of your holy interpretation of Einstein.

I reject that way of doing physics, of turning physics into a religion where the act of doing physics is reserved for certain holy men of the past.

If you want to do physics, then show us physics, not your theology.

Since every physics textbook on this subject covers free-falling coordinates, you are clearly wrong about this, Farsight. Unless you can show us how to do these problems in your theory. Then, to show that your theory is faithful to GR, you should walk us through a problem that Einstein did to show us where he used absolute space, absolute time, and inhomogeneous space.

I would too like an example.

The confusion is that the speed of light in a vacuum is NOT constant. Have you not read what Don Koks said?

"...light speeds up as it ascends from floor to ceiling (it doesn't slow down, as apparently quoted on your discussion site), and it slows down as it descends from ceiling to floor; it's not like a ball that slows on the way up and goes faster on the way down. Light travels faster near the ceiling than near the floor. But where -you- are, you always measure it to travel at c, because no matter where you place yourself, the mechanism that runs the clock you're using to measure the light's speed will speed up or slow down precisely in step with what the light is doing."

And like Tom Moore said, the vertical light beam doesn't get out of the black hole because it's stopped.

It isn't invariant in the room you're in. If you measure the speed of light at the ceiling you get 299,792,458 m/s. Like Don Koks said, light goes slower near the floor. But when you crouch down there to measure it, your clock goes slower too, so you measure the same value. Your claim is the tautology that Magueijo and Moffat described in http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4507.

Quite. It varies in the room you're in. If it didn't, your pencil would fall down. Have you got this yet?

So... let me get this straight - if light is slowing down closer to the earth... and the stopwatch being used to measure it is slowing down closer to the earth... and both speed up further away from the earth... then to me that sounds more like an issue with perception of time than the actual speed of light.

After all, velocity is simply a matter of distance over time - it is a perceived measurement that is dependent upon a stable flow of time. The argument you are using sounds more like something is FUBAR'ing the perceived passage of time.

Yes, coordinate dependent and that’s seconded by Don Koks. My bold is the clincher part.

"And now finally, you can begin to look at statements about Kruskal coordinates, and appreciate that they are useful for showing that observers sitting (however briefly) right on a Schwarzschild horizon find nothing unusual to be happening there, even though we who are distant from that horizon maintain that their clocks have stopped."
What I'm saying is that their clocks have stopped and so have they, and so has the light. This is not some coordinate-dependent thing. It's real. If it wasn't, a black hole would be black. So it isn't nothing unusual happening there, it's nothing happening there. OK Don doesn't agree with me about this, like I said, such is life.

Farsight is stuck with Einstein’s 1935 paper which says light stops on the horizon as his holy grail, or should that be albatross. Farsight is not a mathematician, so he can’t explain or understand how theoretical physicists and mathematicians have resolved that infinity on the manifold at the horizon…They found it to be a coordinate infinity and not a real infinity on the actual manifold like that found at the centre of a classical black hole.
I’m no expert so take the mainstream view because it’s built on expert peer review.
The bottom line is this: what you think of as the mainstream view is wrong, and I'm right. Think it through for yourself. Light can't get out of a black hole, and space isn't falling down. So like Moore said, light can't get out because it's stopped. The light is stopped, light clocks are stopped. And you can't make a stopped clock tick by changing your coordinate system.

Farsight tends to forget it was someone else ( Schwarzschild ) not Einstein who came up with a solution to Einstein’s field equations. It was someone else who looked at the field equations and all what they involve and came up with the Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates, which are agreeable to people who actually do the math and theoretical physics. People like Caroll, Koks,Weinberg and someone who actually knew and worked with Einstein for a time John Wheeler.
Don Koks is part right. IMHO John Wheeler is responsible for a lot of the problems in GR today.

What I'm saying is that their clocks have stopped and so have they, and so has the light. This is not some coordinate-dependent thing. It's real. If it wasn't, a black hole would be black. So it isn't nothing unusual happening there, it's nothing happening there. OK Don doesn't agree with me about this, like I said, such is life.

The bottom line is this: what you think of as the mainstream view is wrong, and I'm right. Think it through for yourself. Light can't get out of a black hole, and space isn't falling down. So like Moore said, light can't get out because it's stopped. The light is stopped, light clocks are stopped. And you can't make a stopped clock tick by changing your coordinate system.

Don Koks is part right. IMHO John Wheeler is responsible for a lot of the problems in GR today.

Question then...

If time is stopped in a black hole... then why do we get gamma and x-ray bursts from them? If time were stopped, wouldn't those particles be stopped as well?

So... let me get this straight - if light is slowing down closer to the earth... and the stopwatch being used to measure it is slowing down closer to the earth... and both speed up further away from the earth...
That's right.

then to me that sounds more like an issue with perception of time than the actual speed of light.
We call it gravitational time dilation. But note that the clock you're using is typically a light clock. If it's a quartz wristwatch, it's piezoelectric, and it still relies on electromagnetism. If it's a mechanical stopwatch it still relies on electromagnetism because light and matter are "made of the same essence".

After all, velocity is simply a matter of distance over time - it is a perceived measurement that is dependent upon a stable flow of time. The argument you are using sounds more like something is FUBAR'ing the perceived passage of time.
What passage of time? When you open up a clock you don't see any time passing through it. You need to be aware of A World without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein . The passage of time is just a figure of speech.

Question then... If time is stopped in a black hole... then why do we get gamma and x-ray bursts from them?
Because of Freidwardt Winterberg's firewall. An electron falls faster and faster but the coordinate speed of light is getting lower and lower. An electron can't fall faster than the local speed of light. Something's got to give:

"If the balance of forces holding together elementary particles is destroyed near the event horizon, all matter would be converted into zero rest mass particles which could explain the large energy release of gamma ray bursters."
If time were stopped, wouldn't those particles be stopped as well?
Not on the way in.

Last edited:
The bottom line is this: what you think of as the mainstream view is wrong, and I'm right.
I agree, this claim of yours is the bottom line. However, the mainstream view has textbooks, satellites, other physical products and projects, and actual procedures (including equations) for applying the view that support the idea that the mainstream view is at least an excellent approximation to the way things are in the world.

Farsight, all you have is your dogmatic insistence, cherry-picked statements, and the insults you hurl at scientists and people who ask you questions.

You don't do physics. Until you do, you cannot be viewed as other than a crank.

Think it through for yourself.
That's what we ask of you, Farsight, actual thought appropriate for physics.

Question then...

If time is stopped in a black hole... then why do we get gamma and x-ray bursts from them? If time were stopped, wouldn't those particles be stopped as well?
Gamma ray bursts and other tell-tale signs of black holes happen outside of the black hole. They are a consequence of the way matter falls into a black hole.

18th April 1955, the day according to farsight, math and theoretical physics stopped.
Morbid or what.

The confusion is that the speed of light in a vacuum is NOT constant. Have you not read what Don Koks said?

"...light speeds up as it ascends from floor to ceiling (it doesn't slow down, as apparently quoted on your discussion site), and it slows down as it descends from ceiling to floor; it's not like a ball that slows on the way up and goes faster on the way down. Light travels faster near the ceiling than near the floor. But where -you- are, you always measure it to travel at c, because no matter where you place yourself, the mechanism that runs the clock you're using to measure the light's speed will speed up or slow down precisely in step with what the light is doing."

And like Tom Moore said, the vertical light beam doesn't get out of the black hole because it's stopped.

It isn't invariant in the room you're in. If you measure the speed of light at the ceiling you get 299,792,458 m/s. Like Don Koks said, light goes slower near the floor. But when you crouch down there to measure it, your clock goes slower too, so you measure the same value. Your claim is the tautology that Magueijo and Moffat described in http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4507.

Quite. It varies in the room you're in. If it didn't, your pencil would fall down. Have you got this yet?
LOL. Quit trolling Farsight. Another physical constant is your propensity to post irrelevant nonsense. Unverifiable irrelevant nonsense.

Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.