The rational is simple .... Relativity ... there is no PREFERRED REFERENCE FRAME.

Time stopped in your reference frame you choose ... big deal means absolutely nothing outside that frame. What are you going to do force that on every other reference frame and tell them they aren't seeing what they are seeing.

So do you understand why your idea isn't compatible with relativity?

It's really layman stupid and simple you have reference frames that tell you time isn't stopping. But you, like stupid layman do, take a reference frame result that time is stopping and try to enforce it on every other reference frame and play GOD.

Dave Proffitt = GOD and chooses the one special reference frame ... all hail the great GOD Dave Proffitt.

THERE ARE NO PREFERRED OR SPECIAL REFERENCE FRAMES IN RELATIVITY

So if you want to have time to universally stop in relativity you have to prove that it stops in each and every reference frame. That is a tall order but you are a mathematician knock yourself out and prove it and I will accept time stops.

So unless you can do that it's safer to just assume there is a reference frame it's still going and the usual first frame to look at is QM because it's pretty tricky to stop time in QM.

Does time really stop on the Event Horizon like in your theory well no because we can identify at least two frames of reference that say it doesn't and one would have been enough. You haven't proven that there is an error in what we describing from our reference frames you simply try and impose your GOD choosen reference frame's time on us ... a big no no unless you are god.

Your idea is falsified and science garbage because we can identify a reference frame that says ..... NO SORRY DAVE TIME STILL RUNNING.

So talk to us about those reference frames Dave what is going on there?
Oh no you don't dare discuss them do you !!!!
What are you going to do tell those observers they aren't really seeing and measuring what they are ... trust GOD Dave.

If you stop ignoring the reference frames that say your theory is wrong, we might not call you a layman idiot.

So if you go on a science forum and try and push that theory in that way, then yes you will get berated. We don't believe in the GOD Dave Proffitt who chooses which reference frame is the "right one" in science.

If you want to get your theory back alive you need to show time is stopped at the event horizon within and using the infalling observer frame of reference and the QM frame of reference. There is simply no reason time would stop for those reference frames the event horizon is dead boring to them.

Sounds like you have tried multiple science forums and I bet they all say exactly the same thing don't they.

So you are the GOD Dave Proffitt in the fast cornering car imposing the "G forces" you experience on the person who is standing watching the car. They tell you then aren't feeling any "G Forces" and you insist no they are and have to be ... they laugh and walk away making crazy gestures smile

So that is what science does with your theory, as it's stone motherless dead and this topic discussion is done. Time lives to fight another day smile

Dave may I suggest you stick to mathematics and computer graphics it suits you better. We respect others in different reference frames in science and berate reference frame racists like yourself. We understand you think your reference frame is special because it's the "pure one" but it's not an attitude we can tolerate. We live in a harmonious tolerant reference frame diverse universe and each reference frame has equal right to exist.

So if you are going on please stop talking about your "Pure racist reference frame" we agree with what it happening in it and yet you keep repeating it over and over again. Talk to us about those other reference frames you don't like, the ones that are Dave unmentionables in which time doesn't stop. That is all I will discuss going forward, I demand equal rights for all frames.


Edited by Orac (08/29/15 04:54 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.