I am going to try and be tactful here.

In your defense, your understanding is sort of comical to us, probably like 1+1=3 to you. So someone may have cross posted it thru the academia system as an example of humour especially given the colorful responses.

They have locked the threads so I can't access the original source but it could possibly be another site you have been banned off, perhaps just commenting on a science site. Do you comment on science sites like Scientific America etc?

So I believe you Dave, and can accept you were unaware.

As I said, this is the problem, you are going to destroy any academic reputation you had if you keep going down this track. You have become the butt of jokes and it isn't going to get any better.

Surely the obvious thing to do is actually knuckle down and study the subject correctly, and there are plenty of people willing to help but you need to listen. If a layman like Bill S who doesn't like mathematics can get thru it I am sure with your maths background you will rocket thru it. It isn't anywhere near as hard as it probably looks.

It isn't easy at the start because we first have to deal with all the tricks, shortcuts and hand waving we used in teaching science at a school level.

With what you are trying to understand your first step is to actually understand relativity not just say you agree with it. You have to stop trying to make time universe global you keep doing it making your earth reference frame time say something for everyone and everything in the universe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_time_and_space
Quote:
The theory of relativity does not allow the existence of absolute time because of the nonexistence of absolute simultaneity

Your earth reference frame means nothing to something near the event horizon and the moment you say it does you violate relativity.

You agree the time dilation is massive (99.99999%) and therefore under relativity your observation from where you are standing is fine as an observation to you, but don't think that is what is actually happening locally at the point. You refer back to relativity does not allow the existence of absolute time there is too much going on between those two points in space and you need to take a frame much closer into the horizon.

We know the problem we sort of lead you to believe at school that time was the same everywhere. So what we now need you to understand is we lied because it makes teaching easier and for normal layman they don't need to know.

Your like the child we lead to believe in Father Christmas and now we are trying to correct it but you won't listen. That is why I am not sure we should lie in science at all to children, as much as it makes teaching the subject harder. For some people killing Father Christmas off when they have grown up becomes traumatic.

That is why you are becoming the butt of peoples jokes .... Father Christmas doesn't exist and nor does absolute time at least not in relativity.

You tell us about you earth based observation and we agree, we see that as well. Then you tell us that is is really happening "locally right there" look at my mathematics and we can't help but laugh because you really didn't get relativity at all (1+1=2 NOT 3).

So when you actually understand relativity, you need to put your observer right at the event horizon there simply is no other frame that will suffice because of the level of dilation. When you understand that you will be over your first hurdle and on your way. Bill S used to be like you if you ask him now I am pretty sure he will agree observer must be right near the EH. That is why every science paper on black holes does that frame.

Final comment ...
Originally Posted By: Dave Proffitt
I know that some of you are reading what I say, but even if you think it is all rubbish, I would still like to hear from you.

If you don't like the answers I suggest you drop the pretense and remove the incitement from your forum, facebook and blog.


Edited by Orac (09/08/15 05:52 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.