# QM + GR = black holes cannot exist

Status
Not open for further replies.
And you are still trying.

I believe the fastest anything can travel within the event horizon is one plank unit per second, which would inversly make the entropy emitted by a black hole travel at an infinite measure. Going backwards in time is possible only if the temperature somewhere inside the event horizon reaches values that are negative to absolute zero.

Either someone has been on the , or drinking his beer through a straw!

He don't do LaTeX, damnall.

He don't do LaTeX, damnall.
If I needed to use latex to describe the previous quandry you would have an equation that related momentum to charge in the usual black hole thermodynamic equation

Either someone has been on the , or drinking his beer through a straw!
This comming from a man who believes no constants exist beyond the event horizon dispite obvious rules of integration.

Farsight said:
Then yes, your optical clock has stopped, so has the light coming up out of your vertically-held torch, and so have the electrochemical signals in your brain.

Dear Farsight,

I think I have found the chink in your armor. You say someone's optical clock is stopped because the light coming up out of their vertically-held torch has stopped. But optical clocks need not be held vertically. And the light in optical clocks does not only travel in one direction, such as up. I got you there, eh? Eh?

Yeah, people have pointed out before that Farsight has ignored direction of travel in favor of his scalar speed of light ideas.

But it is doubtful that this will ever get through. The man hates math: he denies calculus, he loves numerological exercises, and he can't do arithmetic. I think it's because he knows that a real analysis of his ideas will show how wrong they are. His particular mental construction will just have him ignore any idea that presents a problem. I suspect that he literally forgets certain ideas as soon as he's done reading or hearing them.

Huh? So gravitational gradient is caused by variation in light speed?
Pretty much. A light clock doesn't go slower when it's lower because "spacetime is curved". It goes slower because space down there is different to the space up here. Because a concentration of energy in the guise of the matter of the Earth "conditions" the surrounding space. Then when you plot light-clock rates throughout an equatorial slice through the Earth and surrounding space you get a depiction that resembles the Riemann curvature depiction:

Spacetime curvature by Johnstone, see [/URL]
[URL='http://[/SIZE']
[URL='http://[/SIZE'][URL='http://[/SIZE'][URL='http://[/SIZE']
[URL='http://[/SIZE']Note that this is a plot of the speed of light.
[URL='http://[/SIZE']
[URL='http://[/SIZE'][URL='http://[/SIZE']
Oh, btw, I am not interested in what random internet searches throw up for you, I am interested in your own argument based on logic (to the extent I am interested in your "understanding" of gravitation at all)
Fine. But note that my understanding of gravity comes from what I've read. Newton referred to light bending because the density of "aether" varies, Einstein said light curves because the speed of light varies with position and referred to space as the aether of general relativity, Shapiro talked about the speed of light being slower near the Sun, Ned Wright said much the same, and so on. The important point is that space isn't nothing. See sonar and think of why sound waves curve in water. It's pretty much the same for light waves in space.[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]

Why don't you do a collaboration with Zephir or something?

Pretty much. A light clock doesn't go slower when it's lower because "spacetime is curved". It goes slower because space down there is different to the space up here.
So let's see how you predict how much a clock will slow. Without this kind of thing, you have no science.

Pretty much. A light clock doesn't go slower when it's lower because "spacetime is curved". It goes slower because space down there is different to the space up here.

Sure it's different down there. Spacetime deeper in a gravity well is more critically curved then higher up in the gravity well, and any slowing of clocks or difference in "c" is only evident from an outside/remote/distant FoR.
From any local FoR, time and "c" are as time and "c"should be...No time dilation evident, and no change in the rate of "c".
They are postulates of relativity.

Fine. But note that my understanding of gravity comes from what I've read.

<<<MISUNDERSTANDING of GRAVITY ACTUALLY>>>

Why don't you do a collaboration with Zephir or something?
Apparently, they do not get along. http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=17244&st=90

Note the request there for Farsight to produce some actual details about his theory, which Farsight dodges.

In another thread, http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/Sick-Of-AWT-And-ZEPHIR_17536.html, Farsight disparages the spamming of Zephir. This, as someone in the thread points out, was Farsight's MO on the internet. Farsight appears to have given up on or been banned from every message board but this one and his own.

OK, I was wrong, you didn't make it up. On second thoughts, the page "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravastar"was last modified in July, and as I needed to point out to our old friend "undefined" at one time, when he also referenced a WIKI page, the modification that aligned with his view just so happened 24 hrs before he referenced it.
Now you're really clutching at straws and getting paranoid. I haven't edited any Wikipedia article. And surely you know you can look at a historical version of the gravastar article? Here's one picked at random:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gravastar&oldid=561047569

It still refers to the "void in the fabric of space and time". Now stop being such a naysayer about bona-fide physics that you haven't come across before. Accept the fact that when I refer to Einstein and the evidence, it's legit, even if it doesn't square with the popscience pseudoscience you've been lapping up.

Sure it's different down there. Spacetime deeper in a gravity well is more critically curved then higher up in the gravity well, and any slowing of clocks or difference in "c" is only evident from an outside/remote/distant FoR. From any local FoR, time and "c" are as time and "c"should be...No time dilation evident, and no change in the rate of "c". They are postulates of relativity.
<<<MISUNDERSTANDING of GRAVITY ACTUALLY>>>
You're spouting total garbage. Spacetime curvature has an inflection, it doesn't keep on increasing. And Einstein said repeatedly that the SR postulate of the constant speed of light didn't apply to GR. I've shown you the quotes. You've seen Don Koks refer to them, you've seen the Shapiro quote.

Last edited:
Dear Farsight, I think I have found the chink in your armor. You say someone's optical clock is stopped because the light coming up out of their vertically-held torch has stopped. But optical clocks need not be held vertically. And the light in optical clocks does not only travel in one direction, such as up. I got you there, eh? Eh?
No. Tom Moore said the vertical light beam doesn't get out because it's stopped. The frozen-star interpretation says optical clocks stop at the event horizon. The speed of light there is zero, it doesn't vary with direction.

Incredible. You have seen the quotes too, yet you either can't understand them or you refuse to admit your mistakes out of overweening pride.

Apparently, they do not get along. http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=17244&st=90

Note the request there for Farsight to produce some actual details about his theory, which Farsight dodges.

In another thread, http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/Sick-Of-AWT-And-ZEPHIR_17536.html, Farsight disparages the spamming of Zephir. This, as someone in the thread points out, was Farsight's MO on the internet. Farsight appears to have given up on or been banned from every message board but this one and his own.

Precisely my point.

No. Tom Moore said the vertical light beam doesn't get out because it's stopped. The frozen-star interpretation says optical clocks stop at the event horizon. The speed of light there is zero, it doesn't vary with direction.
Could we please see your derivation of this, oh physics expert?

Or will you ignore this question like you ignore all physics questions?

Could we please see your derivation of this, oh physics expert?
Huh? I can't derive what Moore or Oppenheimer or Brown said.

Nor do you try to understand what they said. Nor will you do any physics.

Huh? I can't derive what Moore or Oppenheimer or Brown said.
Again you try to dodge the question. Hooray for cherry-picking one question, that I had for you out of dozens that you have ignored, that was easy for you to willfully misinterpret. I again thank you for demonstrating your pour character to our readers.

You are adding to these scientists' claims that light stops in all directions. They did not write this.

Can we see how you derive the idea that light stops in every direction, rather than just see you tell falsehoods about what others write?

Status
Not open for further replies.