Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
It would seem that Orac has enormous problems with a frame of reference of a distant observer; I cannot help but feel that this is unfortunate as it is the one 'glued to my feet'. How else can one marry experimental observations with theory?

I have no problem with that frame but don't try and measure anything at the event horizon not accurate enough.

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
He also expresses a problem with QCG 'fields' straddling the event horizon.

Completely wrong .. please read again and get the letters right.

QM doesn't even know what classical physics is. You do get that classical physics is just an approximation. Why the hell would QM care that you drew a line and called it the "event horizon" in space and time is going to stop in your reference frame .... SO WHAT IT MEANS NOTHING.

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
He believes that this is impossible or would lead to the end of the Universe.

Wrong again ... check the context.

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
I know nothing of QCD but cannot understand at all how he imagines that the fate of the Universe hangs on which frame of reference I use.

Yep something you got right .. you know nothing.

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside

As I see it there are three options here.
[*]GR fails near the event horizon
[*]QCD fails at the event horizon
[*]Nothing crosses the event horizon

See it all you like all three are wrong and we don't care what you think.

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
Orac takes a different route: leave out any frame of reference that leaves any sort of infinity at the event horizon but this would break the equivalence principle on which all GR is based.

Never used the word infinity, don't care about it or remotely even need to consider it. You are the only one who seems to care about some infinity.

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
GR has passed every test so far, so I remain hopeful.

Again what would it matter your trash doesn't conform to GR it explicitly violates it.

Edited by Orac (09/07/15 04:32 PM)
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.