# Black hole theory

Posted by: Blackholeinside

## Black hole theory - 08/14/15 10:26 AM

Can I posit a different theory? I have been developing an alternative theory for the inside of a black hole (inside the event horizon, that is) and to date have put this on a website at blackholeinside.com
I would greatly appreciate any comments anyone can make - good or bad.
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/15/15 02:05 PM

Dave it is very hard to take you seriously when you can't even get the basics right. I try not to discourage people who are passionate about science but unfortunately because of the your misunderstandings this is going to be all bad, so brace yourself.

Lets start with first basic, a "singularity" and an "event horizon" are in no way directly related. They may occur in the same location such as a black hole under some situations but they can also exist without each other.

Try the wikipedia entry on event horizon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon

So lets be clear what it is
Quote:
In general relativity, an event horizon is a boundary in spacetime beyond which events cannot affect an outside observer. In layman's terms, it is defined as "the point of no return", i.e., the point at which the gravitational pull becomes so great as to make escape impossible.

They go on to talk about it most commonly associated with black holes but it is not always.

A gravitational singularity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

So lets be clear
Quote:
A gravitational singularity or spacetime singularity is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system. These quantities are the scalar invariant curvatures of spacetime, which includes a measure of the density of matter.

Now Dave Proffitt says this
Quote:
That the event horizon 'singularity' that exists in Schwarzschild coordinates is somehow fictitious.

You will first have to explain what "event horizon singularity" is because no scientist is going to have a clue what you are talking about. You joined two non related things to make a nonsensical statement.

Then you take this complete mess and go on some weird journey about something that makes even less sense as you mix in more errors.

Can you please just watch the layman friendly movie here
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20150508-what-happens-when-you-fall-into-a-black-hole/

So then you will have at least some understanding what science says correctly and you will see the event horizon and the singularity are very different things.

The rest of your pages get even worse as you get more muddled.

Lets also cleanup another thing a static or non rotating black hole probably doesn't exist in nature. Most matter in the universe when it is undergoing accretion spins as does every star we have observed. Thus when these objects form black holes they are almost certainly spinning because of conservation of momentum expect black holes to be spinning in nature or convince me how they could form not spinning.

Lets show you the confusion ... your first page shows a spinning black hole graphic ... this one

Then on your second page called "Inside the Schwarzschild black hole" you start dribbling on about a stationary black hole and mathematics.

So be clear you can't relate these two things directly and you need to take care with this sort of detail to be taken seriously.

So I suggest you ignore static black holes they are just a science toy construct to simplify things and likely don't exist in nature. Any "theory" using a static black hole detail and mathematics is equally just a "toy" theory.

So can you first fix all that up, so I can remotely understand what your theory is and I will go from there.
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/15/15 02:46 PM

Dave I just read a couple of your publications and no wonder they get ignored they contain this

The singularity that exists at the event horizon

Where are you getting this idea from ... explain?

All I can think confused you is the famous conjecture (called cosmic censorship) that every singularity is within an event horizon (It still doesn't say is exactly at the event horizon). That is also a very challenged conjecture and there are many known solutions to Einstein's Equations in GR where that is not the case.

The most famous example of the above is the naked singularity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_singularity

See a singularity without an event horizon at all and you will note we are dealing with a spinning black hole.

I was wondering where you got the idea from so I tried googling the exact phrase "singularity that exists at the event horizon" and no surprise to me that your publication is the only match.

When we get thru all that we are going to need to talk about Birkhoff’s theorem because you have some real issues understanding it.
Posted by: Blackholeinside

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/17/15 08:45 PM

Orac Thanks so much for taking the time to look at some of my work. As you have made quite a lengthy post I will stick to the two main points.
First you seem to have a problem with my expression "The singularity that exists at the event horizon". By this I mean the mathematical singularity in the Schwarzschild metric - what is described in Gravitation (Misner, Thorne, Wheeler) as "the Schwarzschild singularity". As this seems to have caused confusion, I will change my use on the website to their usage. As for physical singularities, I fail to fully accept the notion that they can ever exist without associated and unresolvable paradoxes.
The second point is that you would appear to advocate ignoring the Schwarzschild solution and working solely with the Kerr solution. I fully accept that non-rotating black holes probably do not exist in nature, but the Schwarzschild solution is a mathematically valid solution to the Einstein field equations and to fail to take advantage of this fact in achieving a solution for all black holes would be perverse and probably not achievable, at least by me. In this I am following a well-trodden path followed by every graduate text on black holes that I have come across. In fact I would have thought the commonest approach in all theoretical physics.
I should also add that if you had persevered to the fifth page of the website, I do extend the solution given to the Kerr solution, so I hope you are now happy with this.
Dave
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/21/15 04:08 AM

Originally Posted By: Dave Proffitt
By this I mean the mathematical singularity in the Schwarzschild metric - what is described in Gravitation (Misner, Thorne, Wheeler) as "the Schwarzschild singularity". As this seems to have caused confusion, I will change my use on the website to their usage.

I wondered if that is what you meant and then I have a huge issue with your use of it.

The Schwarzschild metric is a solution of Einstein's field equations in empty space, and is valid only OUTSIDE the gravitating body. We can put more constraints that it is also only useful approximation for the outside of slowly rotating black holes. You can not take any of this detail inside the black hole where it is totally meaningless.

Extending the Schwarzschild metric inside the black hole are interesting and I want you to do the reading. Prepare for a shock

If you need a start point you have it on your website under Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates which is the extended solution.

You do the same thing with Birkhoff’s theorem you fail to realize it is an exterior solution even with it highlighted red in wikipedia. You can't use it when any part under discussion isn't on the exterior.

Originally Posted By: Dave Proffitt
In this I am following a well-trodden path followed by every graduate text on black holes that I have come across. In fact I would have thought the commonest approach in all theoretical physics.

You are taking a path very different to the usual student in that your website professes to give answers, and those answers are silly like naive layman answers can be.

I loved the slamming into a rotating Born rigidity solid at the event horizon ... which is doubly impossible and gave me a morning laugh. I know of no textbook that would ever propose that ridiculous idea, that is layman crazy at it's best

You need to tread the usual path of what you can rely on in different circumstances and why.

Dave I have opened an account on your site and will talk to you there in a more direct manner.
Posted by: Blackholeinside

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/22/15 04:38 PM

Hi
The thought that you have been holding back so far in your criticism is challenging. I hope you are not in fear of offending me - I thrive on criticism. You cannot reject answers you do not like out of hand. The Schwarzschild solution to Einstein's field equation is a solution for non-rotating mass throughout all space. You can no more claim is does not work inside a black hole than you can claim it does not work in your back yard. Oppenheimer/Sneider's paper (1938) claimed that you cannot extend the solution through the event horizon because of the nature of the singularity there. This leads one to conclude that the equivalence principle is valid in all space and in all coordinate systems with the exception of Schwarzschild coordinates. I find this so unlikely as to be ridiculous, but for the doubter, I provide a proof that the singularity in Schwarzschild coordinates will remain in any coordinates as the metric function is an invariant function. An infinity in one coordinate system is infinite in any coordinate system.
I believe the same woolly thinking invades your attempt to limit the scope of Birkhoff's theorem to a particular region of space. They are after all closely related.
You seem to think the conclusions I eventually reach are preposterous. The existing solutions lead to(among others) wormholes, time travel, baby universes, multiple realities x, .....
I think I may be on safer ground, so far - not nearly so ridiculous.
Most importantly, and to my mind, conclusively, Einstein's general theory of gravitation is never broken, by my proposal. Does anyone else have a view?
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/23/15 05:18 AM

Hi Dave I really have trouble with your site postings don't seem to work so are you happy to work here.

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
You cannot reject answers you do not like out of hand. The Schwarzschild solution to Einstein's field equation is a solution for non-rotating mass throughout all space. You can no more claim is does not work inside a black hole than you can claim it does not work in your back yard. Oppenheimer/Sneider's paper (1938) claimed that you cannot extend the solution through the event horizon because of the nature of the singularity there. This leads one to conclude that the equivalence principle is valid in all space and in all coordinate systems with the exception of Schwarzschild coordinates. I find this so unlikely as to be ridiculous, but for the doubter, I provide a proof that the singularity in Schwarzschild coordinates will remain in any coordinates as the metric function is an invariant function. An infinity in one coordinate system is infinite in any coordinate system.

A long way to come up with an answer that I totally agree the only reference frame available at the event horizon is the speed of light which is expressly forbidden in GR. The actual problem is the same as trying to "view" the universe from a photons perspective. GR is a classical theory and that is it's classical limit.

I expressed this to Bill S in another chat a similar interface exists at the atomic level, you can't extend classical physics inside that boundary either so there is nothing unique about these sorts of interfaces.

The smooth over is to attempted to take classical spacetime across a time discontinuity which I think we both agree exists. Try taking your smoothed over version of space inside the atom and see how you go.

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
I believe the same woolly thinking invades your attempt to limit the scope of Birkhoff's theorem to a particular region of space. They are after all closely related.

They are and what I was trying to make you realize is there are interior and exterior solutions. Hence the equivalence between Birkhoff's theorem and gravity shell theorem. The fact you have to treat it differently tells you it's an interface just like the surface of earth or any matter is an interface.

I had real issues with one of your papers when you missed you had to change from the outside solution to the inside solution the moment a ball hit the horizon the same as you do with a ball falling to earth. The point of contact instigates the change the same as it does here on earth as it becomes part of the main mass.

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
Most importantly, and to my mind, conclusively, Einstein's general theory of gravitation is never broken, by my proposal. Does anyone else have a view?

You expressly break GR in many of your ideas.

Lets deal with one, GR inherits everything from SR and if GR doesn't cover it then you use SR, they are so to speak joined at the hip. SR states it expressly breaks Born Rigidity and Born Rigidity is a definition in the same way the speed of light is.

There was a nice technical discussion of it on one of the science forums covering all the angles

It doesn't matter how you try and attack the question you arrive at the point GR/SR are incompatible with Born Rigid bodies.

So you claim "Einstein's general theory of gravitation is never broken" in your theory but it has a Born Rigid body in the middle of it defies that
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/23/15 12:17 PM

If you want a really detailed analysis leave it to a string theorist who study all these sorts of things

http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2015/08/rigid-bodies-are-prohibited-by.html

I have to agree with Lubos the paradox's that would open up if such a things was possible means you might as well throw all physics out.
Originally Posted By: LM
A simple Internet search finds lots of pages, books, and papers that say that perfectly rigid bodies aren't allowed according to relativity. But for certain reasons, this obviously true, fundamental, and catchy slogan isn't generally known and appreciated and if you say it and watch the reactions, you might even think that it's controversial! It's crazy.

I think that one reason why many laymen – including third-class physicists – don't like the correct answer is that the answer says that "one can't do something". They prefer the moronic "yes we can" answers to every question, even if these answers are incorrect.

The amount of stupidity and lack of understanding around basic physics on the internet at times is breath taking.

So please don't ever put a born rigid body in the middle of a black hole (worse still a rotating one) and try and tell me it is compliant with Einstein's relativity .... that is a lie.

So your theory is compliant with SR/GR up to the event horizon then takes a sharp left turn, breaks into Dave's physics on the interior which no-one but Dave can understand.
Posted by: Blackholeinside

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/23/15 01:20 PM

Site posting now resolved.
Posted by: Blackholeinside

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/23/15 05:04 PM

The danger of sticking with established theory because everyone of notes says it is so, is that it leaves one stuck in the days of plogiston and the ether. I am not suggesting that the opposite is true, but the only reason to stick to an existing view is because the underlying theory shows it to be correct, and experiment confirms it. Don't have an unduly open mind but never close it entirely.
Posted by: Blackholeinside

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/23/15 06:45 PM

From http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2015/08/rigid-bodies-are-prohibited-by.html
Quote:
If there existed a material that is perfectly rigid and cannot stretch or bend or tear, then it would be impossible to make it spin.

Well, the material does exist inside a Schwarzschild black hole.
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/24/15 06:28 AM

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
The danger of sticking with established theory because everyone of notes says it is so, is that it leaves one stuck in the days of plogiston and the ether. I am not suggesting that the opposite is true, but the only reason to stick to an existing view is because the underlying theory shows it to be correct, and experiment confirms it. Don't have an unduly open mind but never close it entirely.

The problem comes back to if such a thing could happen then relativity falls as a theory, as it is built on this. As black holes are only a prediction of relativity and only relativity then lets just say black holes don't exist then shall we

See the problem you face, you can't rely on a theory on one hand to predict the black hole, and then pull a central tenant out and say it's all ok with hand waving.

You want a born rigid body in the middle of a black hole you can't use relativity and we have no black holes ... the end.
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/24/15 06:41 AM

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
Well, the material does exist inside a Schwarzschild black hole.

You assume it does ... whats your evidence

You may want to consider does classical material exist inside an atom?
Could you show me a theory that includes classic material in the atom and hasn't been falsified?

See my problem is to have a born rigid body, I need classical material

The densest thing we have evidence of is a neutron star and that isn't very classical matter and even according to you it opposes further collapse by quantum degeneracy pressure (I saw you discuss it on your site). The even funnier part is the only classical model of a neutron star is a superfluid, do some reading

Hint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluidity

For a very dense object it's not very rigid one would hope it's going to get rigid very quickly on it's way to the Born Rigid Body in a black hole

Another problem for you a free neutron is unstable, decaying to a proton, electron and antineutrino with a mean lifetime of just under 15 minutes. You are going to need to fix that up as well in your theory.

As you can see I haven't even got started on the problems I have with your theory. I did however dismember your theory without a single calculation and in 10 minutes before my morning coffee when I first saw it.

I have no problem with those who want to extend GR as a classical theory inside the event horizon because that is what we do as science test extensions to theories.

I even have no problem with people who want to propose a change and follow the extensions both in our normal world and inside the event horizon. Those extensions make funny things like wormholes etc and I can go look for evidence of them.

What I can't tolerate is those like many of the crackpots who want to just make up random rules that make no sense. Your theory at the moment is a stock standard version of this.

If you want to move from crackpot status, given you don't trust relativity what you need to do is go back to the start. I need a full theory explaining even why you predict a black hole to exist, and then why it has a born rigid body in it and give me some predictions of your theory.
Posted by: Blackholeinside

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/24/15 12:46 PM

Quote:
Another problem for you a free neutron is unstable, decaying to a proton, electron and antineutrino with a mean lifetime of just under 15 minutes.

But what about neutron stars? Do they only exist for 15 minutes?
Posted by: Blackholeinside

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/24/15 12:48 PM

Quote:
given you don't trust relativity

I absolutely trust relativity - special and general.
Posted by: Blackholeinside

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/25/15 04:37 PM

Good luck in the search for wormholes. I am puzzled by your criteria for what is believable and what is not. The only evidence that I can offer to date is the high spin of black holes after billions of years of slowdown. Not conclusive I know. There is also the model proposed for the origin of supermassive black holes. Again, not conclusive but a better explanation than the other ad hoc processes.
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/26/15 01:32 AM

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
But what about neutron stars? Do they only exist for 15 minutes?

As I said QM stops it by conservation of energy and the electron-degenerate pressure.

Problem is nicely summed up here
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questio...-a-neutron-star

The big problem is when you take a neutron inside a black hole what mechanisms are available to stop the decay

Historical detail related to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutronium

What stabilizes neutrons against beta decay in a black hole in your theory?

You won't easily find a standard science answer on that with google this is getting a little QM specific and very layman unfriendly. So I will give you a lead in hint for it's treatment under QM

Hint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QCD_matter

"The strength of the color force makes the properties of quark matter unlike gas or plasma, instead leading to a state of matter more reminiscent of a liquid" ..... Oh Oh there goes the Born Rigid Solid again

Since your theory does away with all this I guess we can stop work and research on it, I just need the full theory.

Can I take a guess at the real problem here, that you didn't know that classic physics died 100 years ago, it's a reasonable approximation so we still teach it ... but we know it's wrong. You live in a Quantum universe and you can't answer these problems in classical physics.
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/26/15 02:09 AM

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
Good luck in the search for wormholes. I am puzzled by your criteria for what is believable and what is not.

I didn't say I believe in worm holes

What I said was you can construct a scientifically consistent model which predicts such things. Those models also predict other things that I can falsify thus I can make a scientific decision on those theories. Whether they are just "toy" models I can then evaluate.

Your theory is completely inconsistent you just randomly patch things together and I can't for the life of me work with it.

Would you accept that your computer science papers mathematics is incorrect because mathematics is not consistent and varies according to my mood and time of day and how I decide mathematics works today.

Make no mistake that is what you are doing, Born rigid bodies are as inconsistent with SR/GR as the speed of light varying. It is a drop dead condition of the theory and you can't hand wave your way out of it, as the mathematics and physics in SR/GR is very detailed.

So give me a physics and mathematics consistent theory is all I ask.

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
The only evidence that I can offer to date is the high spin of black holes after billions of years of slowdown.

Lets deal with that

1.) What is the evidence that says they are slowing down.
2.) I imagine hawking radiation also says they slow down so does your idea predict a different rate to hawking radiation model.

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
Not conclusive I know. There is also the model proposed for the origin of supermassive black holes. Again, not conclusive but a better explanation than the other ad hoc processes.

When I looked at your pages on supermassive black holes it looked like the standard accretion disk model, you will have to explain the differences to me.

My understanding is the problem with supermassive black holes is not creating them in the universe today it is in the early universe which was much smaller and hence denser on average than it is today. I suspect your theory will collapse in the younger denser universe which is a common problem with these theories. So you need to look at your theory consistency within the framework of the big bang.

In some ways supermassive black holes are trivial. If we could enclose space in the milky way at the radius of neptune from the sun with a latex film and filled it with the air pressure of earth a black hole would open up. It doesn't take much matter in a very large volume to create one, they are much more difficult to create in smaller volumes.
Posted by: Blackholeinside

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/26/15 06:23 AM

It seems you would like me to accept and understand all current theory before daring to move forward. General relativity is a field theory which is yet to be falsified except for the conclusion that it must fail at the singularity at the centre of a black hole. So must all other theories. I believe the other theories may emerge from what I am doing rather than being required. I only have my intuition to guide me in this.
Posted by: Blackholeinside

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/26/15 09:27 AM

Quote:
What is the evidence that says they are slowing down.

There is a vast outpouring of energy from supermassive black holes and the only mechanisms proposed are that the energy comes from the initial spin. In order to justify this, the researchers then have to posit that more spin is donated by accreting matter over time than is lost.
As I indicated, this is far from conclusive for either them or me.
Quote:
supermassive black holes it looked like the standard accretion disk model, you will have to explain the differences to me

The crucial difference is the fact that black holes cannot slow down. I then propose that occasionally, neutron stars merge with a combined spin that is unusually low, and these grow to the size they are today. Normal black holes have high spin which limits their ultimate size.
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/26/15 10:00 AM

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
It seems you would like me to accept and understand all current theory before daring to move forward.

At least enough to make sense of what you are talking about and beyond trash classical physics.

I am sure those involved in Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider should just pack up shop and go home now as it is going to be not needed. Perhaps you might just bother to read what they do and why.
https://www.bnl.gov/rhic/

Perhaps I should publish on computer graphics without even understanding the basics.

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
General relativity is a field theory which is yet to be falsified except for the conclusion that it must fail at the singularity at the centre of a black hole. So must all other theories.

If GR fails then black holes don't exist, I assume you haven't been diagnosed with dementia.

Can you identify any other theory that predicts a black hole?

For exanple Newtonian gravity the one you seen comfortable with creates a dark star rather than a black hole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_star_(Newtonian_mechanics)

Is the logic getting thru yet
SR/GR FAILS = NO BLACK HOLE

If you go to any religious sites that can't and don't accept the big bang. They will tell you GR/SR is wrong and black holes don't exist .. even the religious crazies get the logic. Black holes are a prediction of SR/GR and only it.

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
I believe the other theories may emerge from what I am doing rather than being required. I only have my intuition to guide me in this.

I am struggling to believe you ever published anything in computer graphics/mathematics as that requires logic.

Your intuition and logic are failing you badly and you look like an uneducated Grade A crackpot right now.
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/26/15 10:03 AM

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
The crucial difference is the fact that black holes cannot slow down.

Oh this I have hear about. Why can't a black hole spin slow down
Posted by: Blackholeinside

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/26/15 10:26 AM

I only said GR fails at the central singularity of a black hole - not in my understanding but in the currently accepted theory of black holes. In my development, GR is never broken. It is this fact that for me that confirms it's truth.
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/26/15 01:23 PM

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
I only said GR fails at the central singularity of a black hole - not in my understanding but in the currently accepted theory of black holes. In my development, GR is never broken. It is this fact that for me that confirms it's truth.

You did mathematics and you use that layman or religious crazy trash terms?

Lets be precise GR simply tends to an infinite singularity or an infinite discontinuity along with almost every other physics that exists or ever existed ... why would bother to single out GR?

I can only think of one glaring physics theory example of something that if fully continuous because it actually has only one answer which is a defined number.

In QM, Born's rule states the sum of the squared moduli of the probability amplitudes of all the possible states is equal to one and explicitly one. Weirdly you can't derive the answer in any meaningful way other than say it is that. Those who believe in Everett's multiverse may say they can but the stupidity has all been debunked many times and you can't (it was revived recently by Sean Carroll in a crackpot blog post).

Every other theory you care to name will have an end at an infinite discontinuity I am pretty sure. I was thinking about all the classical physics laws and I can't think of any that are fully continuous.

Try it yourself even the basics like F=MA fails and is undefined at t=0. Force is the change in momentum over time so as time goes to zero you either can't measure anything or your answers will go to an infinite discontinuity depending on the situation.

So in classic physics some people are usually happy to say that you can't instantly change directions when moving or you would create an infinite force and blow yourself and the universe up ... so they generally use common sense and say it is impossible to do. You on the other hand say all things have to be possible so the good old Newtons laws are another fail case.

Some things are impossible in physics and they usually end at infinite discontinuities at least to normal people.

However for you, I guess all of physics and the universe ultimately fails

So my question to you is why worry about a singularity in GR, but not worry you may instantly turn around one day, create and infinite force and blow yourself and the universe up? That is what the formula says can happen and isn't that a big problem?
Posted by: Blackholeinside

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/26/15 02:18 PM

Apart from the selective use of things I say, and the somewhat personal abuse that give your arguments little credit, I seem to be in the position of agreeing with most of what you say in the last post.
We disagree largely on what is the best way forward in physics but that is really just a philosophical debate on the best use of my time. I just do not have time to understand all physics. For now I am concentrating on the small area where I have discovered something new.
I should add that I would never make any claims to be a mathematician. I struggle with it and do make mistakes. I had hoped that I might have any mistakes pointed out but that has not happened yet.
Posted by: Bill

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/26/15 05:58 PM

Unfortunately Orac prefers to run down people who question his wisdom. He just keeps throwing up more obscure references rather than actually addressing the questions which are asked.

In general I doubt if you have actually come up with a new and improved theory of black holes. The current theories are very well developed, although there are plenty of questions that have not been answered. The big problem with developing a new theory is that it does take a huge amount of math. I certainly do not have enough to even start to evaluate any theories.

And of course I agree with one of Orac's questions. Where did you get the idea that a black hole cannot slow down?

Bill Gill
Posted by: Blackholeinside

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/26/15 09:53 PM

Quote:
Where did you get the idea that a black hole cannot slow down?

That follows directly from the theory I have proposed and detailed on my website. The maths required is not that testing.
Posted by: Bill

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/26/15 10:45 PM

Unfortunately since a spinning black hole interacts with space then as it spins it will lose energy. As it loses energy it will slow down. It will take a long time, but it will slow down. The interaction I am thinking of, which assumes the black hole is not interacting with gas and dust, is based on frame dragging. Frame dragging has been demonstrated. So as the black hole causes space around it to twist it will dissipate energy. At least that's what it looks like to me. I'm not sure if a spinning black hole generates gravity waves, but there is a good chance that it will. Gravity waves of course would definitely take energy from the rotation of the black hole.

I have no quantitative calculations of this, it is an extrapolation of the fact that nothing spins forever. It always interacts with something that will cause it to slow down. Of course what happens is that the angular momentum of the black hole will be shared with everything else in its vicinity, since angular momentum is conserved.

Edit: I forgot one effect that would definitely take energy from the black hole. When light passes a gravity well it is deflected. That requires energy, which has to come from the black hole.

Bill Gill
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/27/15 01:44 AM

Bill G has actually said something fully correct and understood something profound. It must be because it's classical but I have hope it is a start.

SideBar: I don't answer stupid questions directly Bill G because I assume the person asking them will have enough intelligence and logic to work it out, if I show problems with there answer. People should be able realize the logical science answers in there own way not have me preach an answer at them. If I am being honest I really don't care what you believe, it isn't my concern, all I can do is show the problems with a belief

Now there is nothing special about a black hole it is a basic gravitational object and as such it exchanges gravitational energy as does any celestial object.

Other bodies can do all the normal gravitational things with a black hole like orbit it, gravitational sling shot off it and deflect past it. The body itself frame drags if it rotates which Bill G correctly noted radiating energy away.

ALL THOSE INTERACTIONS EXCHANGE GRAVITATIONAL ENERGY WITH THE BLACK HOLE

The only way we even detect a black hole is by noticing that energy it exchanges with other things because we can't see the black hole itself.

Do you see the irony of your suggestion when put that way Dave, you couldn't detect the black hole if it didn't interact.

The interactions are so normal we have big black holes in the middle of most galaxies.

So we can confidently say a black hole will definitely slow down like every other celestial body UNLESS it feeds on more energy that it is losing .... LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY.

Anyhow we got there in the end and we finally have black holes exchanging energy correctly.

Now if you are really clever and really logical you can see since the black hole is conserving energy with the rest of the universe then it's no different to F=MA going to infinity situation. The singularity predicted by GR must be either impossible (like you can't change direction infinitely fast, it will be truncated by something) or the singularity itself is linked with the rest of the universe in some way and the physics doesn't end there (Wormholes etc).

Either of those two answers is perfectly acceptable and logical and it isn't up to me to preach which is correct. If you were interested in my opinion I am guessing it is truncated most likely by QM but it is just that an opinion not a fact.

Now if you got to there you DEFINITELY CAN'T HAVE BORN RIGID BODIES IN THE MIDDLE OF A BLACK HOLE IN GR.

So you have to choose Dave which is wrong GR or the BORN RIGID BODY you can't have both as you now have the full continuum. I am happy to accept either answer but not both, they are mutually exclusive (which is why it is a definition in SR). So which do you choose?

For me I am going to be completely logical and choose relativity because I can go from inside the atom to inside the black hole with the one same consistent theory. I suspect most logical people will do the same and your convert and uptake rate is going to be very very low but I wish you luck with it all.
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/27/15 03:32 AM

This is probably going to be to complex but it is sort of topical to this.

Lumo has put up a review of the paper Hawkings has in pre-print at the moment and many of us are digesting.

http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2015/08/stephen-hawking-solves-information-loss.html

I found the article interesting because Lumo basically and forcefully argues that gravity must be Quantum in nature. The article was actually more interesting than Hawkings paper.

For my part I hadn't even realized and thought about a couple of things he says, so I am currently trying to debunk them because they are important. He would probably berate me as much as he does poor Sabine because I have always left open the possibility the gravity is entirely classical.

His example of one boson in Stockholm and one boson in Boston is driving me nuts, I can't break the lack of localization. I think I just took the RED pill and I now officially hate string theorists and I am going to hunt them all down.

Lumo has put me in Dave's position I can have QM OR I can have a classical gravity field but I can't have them both.
Posted by: Blackholeinside

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/27/15 05:51 AM

Thanks for giving me so much to think about. It may be some time before I can answer your points. First off, you do not gain energy by changing direction. So light waves are bent without colour change. Second, their is no radiation from a rotating black hole. Kerr is the asymptotic solution and contains no radiation.
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/27/15 06:16 AM

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
First off, you do not gain energy by changing direction.

NOONE SAID YOU DID.

What was said is you create an infinite force !!!!!!!!

Force = change in momentum / change in time

As change in time goes to zero force goes to infinity.

I will ignore the light bit it is irrelevant.

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
Second, their is no radiation from a rotating black hole. Kerr is the asymptotic solution and contains no radiation.

WOW maybe we need to stay in mathematics you actual make sense in that domain.

You are correct if and only if the black hole is absolutely perfectly symmetrical.

Now try the solution on a feeding spinning black hole on even just one object and tell me what happens.

I will give you a statement of the solution, that gravitational waves are radiated by objects whose motion involves acceleration where that the motion is not perfectly spherically symmetric.

Now use your mathematics to prove or falsify that statement.
Posted by: Blackholeinside

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/27/15 06:16 AM

As I understand it, the energy gain from a slingshot is derived from the translational energy of the more massive object, and not from the spin. The slowing down of celestial object's spin is due to tidal effects, not possible with a Born rigid material. The spin of neutron stars has been shown to decrease but as yet there is no similar demonstration for black holes.
None of this is conclusive but it keeps me hoping for real confirmation.
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/27/15 06:22 AM

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
As I understand it, the energy gain from a slingshot is derived from the translational energy of the more massive object, and not from the spin.

I have heard that said and GR isn't my thing but I would check that, layman say all manner of dumb things. It could just be you can ignore it for stuff NASA has done because the objects are rotating slowly like Earth. My gut feel is if the object isn't perfectly symmetrical then there must be an effect from the frame drag.

Wiki says frame drag matters at the bottom deals with issue ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist ) but I would like to see a calculation first.

I know for example the moon orbit and recession is still out fractionally from what is predicted so you need to check these things. Creationist are all over that one and I actually once wondered whether anyone had done the calc.

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
The slowing down of celestial object's spin is due to tidal effects, not possible with a Born rigid material.

You know my answer .. not worth wasting time to look at ... they can't exist by too many lines of evidence to be wrong. Leaving that to you to worry about.

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
The spin of neutron stars has been shown to decrease but as yet there is no similar demonstration for black holes.

How would you "conclusively measure" the spin of a black hole if it's inside an event horizon

You have obviously made the choice of a born rigid body in the middle still so I guess we wait for your full theory before I can comment further. I will leave you to it.
Posted by: Blackholeinside

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/27/15 09:17 AM

Orac, you seem to be constantly harking back to your statement that a Born rigid object cannot exist if GR/SR are true. I accept that a Born rigid object supported by nuclear or electronic forces cannot exist but a black hole is not one of these.
On thinking about it further, I have now come up with a simple proof that a black hole is Born rigid without delving below the event horizon:
In Schwarzschild coordinates time has slowed down to a standstill at the event horizon of a non-rotating black hole. Consequently, no two points on the event horizon can move closer (or further) away from each other. This is almost a definition of Born rigidity.
The Kerr case would be more difficult; I must find time to look at this.
Anyway I must express my gratitude for making me think this through again.
Posted by: Bill S.

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/27/15 03:41 PM

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
In Schwarzschild coordinates time has slowed down to a standstill at the event horizon of a non-rotating black hole.

Surely this apparent stopping of time is only in the reference frame of a distant observer. It would not occur for an observer at the event horizon.

Would that not mean that it is inaccurate to say that time stops at the EH? Any two points on the EH could move relative to each other, but not in the reference frame of a distant observer.
Posted by: Bill S.

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/27/15 03:49 PM

There was an exchange earlier about rotating BHs losing energy and slowing down. I can see that, but as they lose energy they become smaller, so would their angular momentum not be conserved by an increase in rotational speed?
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/27/15 04:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Surely this apparent stopping of time is only in the reference frame of a distant observer. It would not occur for an observer at the event horizon.

Bingo Bill S you have worked it out he thinks it is real in an absolute frame reference

You know the story from the torture I put you thru with a photon view of universe and really understand it. Now you see why people get confused and lost because of classic physics.

You are correct time is running normally for the infalling observer because in GR we are allowed to have to observers not agree on the same observations. That is what is freaking him out and he has pulled the old "god" frame of reference and let the humour begin.

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Would that not mean that it is inaccurate to say that time stops at the EH? Any two points on the EH could move relative to each other, but not in the reference frame of a distant observer.

No he really thinks that time stops at the EH and that is his justification for being able to break the laws of SR/GR inside it.

Read the comment about his justification carefully he has "reality" and "observation" as the same thing. The confusion leads directly to his theory.

Think about it time has stopped at the black hole EH and can't collapse any further because all your forces must stop as time is stopped. You must also have a solid because nothing can move because time is really stopped. He doesn't have the background to understand that isn't what a solid is and probably more correctly it should be called a "Dave Rigid". It actually isn't even a Born Rigid Body although it shares some common properties basically because time has stopped.

So when he says time has stopped he means it in an absolute frame reference manner. Get why we have no EM or nuclear forces in his black hole but can still have a solid according to his thinking.

So it's obvious you therefore face plant into a "Dave Rigid" at the event horizon and you didn't violate GR/SR... that is the logic.

Think about it in his mind you can't move inside the EH there is no time there how can one move at all.

Oh man don't tell me classic physics can't lead you seriously up the garden path. You know the other half of the story and without understanding there is no chance to convince him.

LOL he is probably wondering why we don't get it as it's so logical, nothing hard about black holes

I vote Bill G is the man to explain it all to him. I am not doing the Pole-Barn paradox with Dave I would rather slash my wrists.
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/27/15 04:15 PM

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
There was an exchange earlier about rotating BHs losing energy and slowing down. I can see that, but as they lose energy they become smaller, so would their angular momentum not be conserved by an increase in rotational speed?

Bingo again but I think it's that time stopped thing that is causing him to not see the issue.

We usually discuss it in reverse that the faster a black hole spins then the smaller is its event horizon but you have nailed it that the formula's go both ways.

You are really good at this now Bill S and see you didn't need a single equation to work it out just a few first principles. I tried to get him to work it out himself but he is closed minded, that time thing is really throwing him a loop.

I could say it reminded me of someone else with a reference on a photon
Posted by: Blackholeinside

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/27/15 07:50 PM

Let us be clear thinking on this. There is no preferred reference frame - the Einstein equivalence principle is fundamental to GR and assumes this. If time stops in my reference frame, this is what I measure. It may not agree with the time measured by an in-falling observer but it is the only measurement available to me. Orac seems to believe that the supposed impossibility of Born rigidity that he has read about is more significant than the equivalence principle but he is simply wrong in this.
Posted by: Bill S.

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/27/15 10:35 PM

Originally Posted By: Dave
If time stops in my reference frame, this is what I measure.

Of course, what you measure is your reality and you have as much right as anyone to claim that your measurement is correct. What, as far as I am aware, you can't do is claim that your reality is valid outside your F of R. You can claim that your measurement is correct in your F of R, but not in the F of R of the object you are measuring.

The following is an extract from my notes of a few years ago.

"Perhaps what popular science books tend to present as a problem is, in reality, nothing more than a recurrence of Zeno’s paradox. If we consider the situation from the point of view of the outside observer as an example of asymptotic decay, in which the infalling object is not simply stuck for ever in the same state, but is gradually vanishing, with its progress being recorded by an asymptotic curve, then, in theory, it would never actually vanish, but in reality, like Zeno’s arrow, it would come to a conclusion. In other words, it would vanish, and time would not actually stop. This seems to be the simplest explanation, and the simplest may well be the best."
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/27/15 11:39 PM

He isn't going to get this Bill S it's the same issue as when you try to be a photon. All your classical physics will tell you time has stopped and you will chase your tail.

What he hasn't realized is he has expressly broken relativity he has put an absolute zero frame on the outside observer. They now control time and define what time is.

What he is neglecting and doesn't get is the infalling observer see none of that time most definitely doesn't stop for them. He won't and can't accept that

It's really funny you see people do this time and time again.

To try and show him how broken has has made relativity all you can do is try two observers moving at a fraction the speed of light say 0.2c and 0.4c looking at the person infalling and ask him to choose which controls time. What he will do then is try an install a third stationary observer again and tell you the new stationary observer controls and defines time and work everything from there. He will try and create an absolute space and time (zero frame reference) every time and doesn't even realize it.

ABSOLUTE SPACE AND TIME LIVES ... CUE MAROSZ

It's like the detail on the black hole interior, it's a time frozen patch of space in his idea not a born rigid body. He isn't being careful with detail, to him those two things are the same and he will argue it. Think about a naive layman stupid description of a solid it's something that doesn't move, and he is using that definition in a science argument. Apparently you can freeze time it doesn't cause any problems, things just get frozen solid and classic physics says a photon sees no time so you are on good solid ground.

Hey I have seen that on countless TV shows it works to every layman ... stop time you get frozen solid

The answer is he has completely broken SR/GR in so many ways it hurts. However ask him and his theory is completely compatible with SR/GR and he will insist it is.

I am bailing from the conversation he is like Bill G he knows enough classical physics to get him into trouble but not enough to get him out and too pig headed to just listen to the real problem. I can't help people who don't want to be helped and we can clearly see the issue.

Notice you got the problem and very fast and it flew straight over the top of Bill G's head all he could do was criticize me. You have come along way in your science understanding and journey.
Posted by: Blackholeinside

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/28/15 10:01 AM

Bill S is quite correct but the quote he gives skips into talking of reality. There is no reality, no true reference frame - they are all equivalent. This is the trap for which I am constantly berated, whereas in truth I keep it constantly in mind.
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/28/15 01:48 PM

So we are not the first to tell you that you do not understand relativity at all?

So why don't you go and learn GR properly, you are not the usual uneducated or religious types that inhabit science forums and it isn't that hard?

Yes you will get berated if you refuse to learn and want to keep dribbling that stuff on a science forum and you deserve it.

You can't really stop time you would get a big rip effect only it would be an instant rip rather than the cosmological slow version. What happens next wouldn't be pretty lets say it all ends badly for us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip

Quote:
When the size of the observable universe becomes smaller than any particular structure, no interaction by any of the fundamental forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, weak, or strong) can occur between the most remote parts of the structure. When these interactions become impossible, the structure is "ripped apart".

That is exactly what you are describing in the middle of your black hole. The observable universe becomes smaller than any particular structure (it actually becomes zero in your theory), the fundemental forces stop (you realized and told me that). What you missed is the structure of space itself then gets ripped apart, instead you freeze everything still like in the movies. Sorry Quantum Mechanics is going to spoil your day and rip every piece of spacetime you stopped time in apart. No frozen solid a gapping tear in the fabric of spacetime.

So the bit the movies leave out when they freeze time is the one where that patch of space they froze then literally rips itself apart.

Guess but a reasonable one is that your instant rip will then spread out until it consumed the entire universe.

You don't have a born rigid solid in your theory you have an "instant rip" in the middle. Fortunately as you violate SR/GR in the first place your version of a black hole could never form and we can all sleep safe in our beds.

So the hint here is whenever you get time being stopped or zero in GR pick another frame of reference as that isn't a global reality but something specific to the frame of reference you have chosen .... you need to be comfortable time can't really stop QM says so. Basically it's telling you there is a problem with your reference frame, all frames are equally valid so pick another one.

The most common way you get this is trying to pick a frame of reference at the speed of light itself, like the photon view of the universe.

That is all that is happening at the event horizon you get time stopping in some reference frames, it isn't a global truth and other reference frames won't see it like that.

If you picked the infalling observer he doesn't see time stop at all, he just has really weird observations as he looks at the universe. See time is perfectly fine and he sails on thru the event horizon (at least in GR) until he gets dies a horrible stretched death.

So no time was not really stopped or harmed in any way. One observer sees time stopping, another observer sees time normal but weird observations. We can calculate why they disagree and yeah it's strange but perfectly expected.

Given that it sounds like you have form of websites, I guess you will stubbornly refuse to try and work out the details and we will all just have to start ignoring you.
Posted by: Blackholeinside

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/28/15 02:33 PM

Orac, so some rather highly unlikely theory gets your full support, although I don't quite get the connection. If you accept Einstein's equivalence principle, so making Schwarzschild coordinates just as acceptable as any other, can you tell we just where what they say about what we observe (in our view) become unacceptable to you? Is it just at the event horizon and is that because you just do not quite get how to handle infinities? You keep bringing up QM but it is just because QM breaks down that black holes form. In particular, the exclusion principle no longer holds sway.
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/28/15 03:42 PM

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
Orac, so some rather highly unlikely theory gets your full support, although I don't quite get the connection. If you accept Einstein's equivalence principle, so making Schwarzschild coordinates just as acceptable as any other, can you tell we just where what they say about what we observe (in our view) become unacceptable to you?

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
so some rather highly unlikely theory gets your full support.

What highly unlikely theory would that be?

Man you really don't get relativity at all do you. You understand QM even less

Your Schwarzschild coordinates are fine from that particular frame of reference and it will create a view that time stops. Take the infalling observer frame and time doesn't stop for him.

So we have a problem don't we, two observers see time doing different things and so what is layman normal to do is try and pick one and falsify the other. It's in our classical physics upbringing that we want one universal classical reality so one must be right and one wrong.

What Eistein realized is what if both are true, time both stops and doesn't stop depending on your frame of reference of motion thru spacetime. He realized it because he got the connection that forces like centripedal force arise from nowhere in a point in space. Someone outside a fast cornering car doesn't see or even realize the occupants inside are experiencing "G forces" as they corner fast. Reality is defined by a frame of reference not universally.

What Eistein realized was both can be true, time can stop in one frame of reference and not stop in another. Every ounce of your classical physics upbringing will fight that. However if you accept it you can quickly realize then that you can't say anything definitive about time from any classical frame of reference.

Once you do that you get the foundation of Quantum Mechanics and it has only one reference and only one reference which is time. So QM is all about time and space is simply a field that results play out in. So in many ways it is the exact reverse of normal classical physics there everything is about space and time is where results play out.

So in QM you can't stop time period .... it is simply not something that can be done. The energy that is vibrating in every point in space would blow up instantly and catastrophically ... bad very bad our friend instant rip appears.

So it's safe to assume QM doesn't break down at the event horizon on a black hole it should go cleanly thru the horizon. There isn't any direct interaction between gravity and QM and you wouldn't even be able to isolate the EH from within QM as there simply isn't anything to look for it would be boring and dull.

So QM sees the event horizon pretty much like the infalling observer reference frame in relativity nothing exciting.

What that means is from gravitational observers frame of reference they should see really weird things because time is stopping for them.

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
Is it just at the event horizon and is that because you just do not quite get how to handle infinities?

There are no infinities in QM reference frame at an event horizon that is what makes it interesting. It is fully defined your gravity frame of references are the ones with infinities. QM sees the EH in agreement with the infalling observer .... BORING.

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
You keep bringing up QM but it is just because QM breaks down that black holes form. In particular, the exclusion principle no longer holds sway.

a.) Some people think QM might break inside a black hole, many others would argue bad bad things will happen if that occured.
b.) If QM does break it's not going to at the event horizon you need far stronger force of gravity than at the EH to break QM. The breaking point for QM would be infintesimely close to a gravity singularity.

See the problem QM will work right thru the EH and about as close to the singularity if it exist as any theory we have.

You seem to accepted that QM is the only thing holding a neutron star from collapsing so you get some idea of the gravity forces it's capable of withstanding. Calculate the force of gravity at the event horizon of a solar mass black hole and compare it to the neutron star ... they aren't even in the same ballpark

What we end up with then is the full picture of a black hole which is compatible with both GR and QM and makes perfect sense.

The problem for you is that you can't do QM in Schwarzschild coordinates and you can guess why ... think what time is doing.

So we have time actually rolling smoothly thru the event horizon but from some gravity frames of reference it will look like time stops and that is perfectly expected.

For humour if you don't accept that .... time doesn't stop by a vote of 2 to 1 .... infalling observer and QM say no.

The lesson here is stopping time is possible in a frame of reference but for goodness sake don't think that reality is a universal truth and it actually stops universally. A quick check from another reference frame should quickly confirm that it hasn't stopped.

See and now when I tell you a photon from the big bang has been travelling for 12 Billion years in my reference frame and it has been travelling for 0 seconds in the photons reference frame should make sense. Except if I am right every brain cell in your classical head will rebel and say that can't be so you want one universal reality and time base and I can't help you.
Posted by: Blackholeinside

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/28/15 04:15 PM

So much of what you have said that I agree with totally but
you say the forces which hold up a neutron star are greater than those at the event horizon?
If you add sufficient mass to a neutron star, wont it collapse to a black hole? That would seem to contradict what you are saying. Could you explain this thinking?
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/28/15 04:21 PM

Yes it will collapse it you keep going but if you are in a speculative mode.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QCD_matter

Get it there is expected to be a collapse state in QM even denser than a neutron star held up by QCD degeneracy.

That what those big relativistic colliders are doing like RHIC.

This stuff doesn't make glossy science media because people just don't understand it because this stuff doesn't look anything like normal matter layman know about.

Whats beyond that well we will know that when we get there.

So actually you went from a neutron star to a black hole and see that is most likely wrong there is probably another step after a neutron star held up by QM forces.

So you missed the possibility of a Quark star
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_star

It gets worse ... you can take QM pretty much up to near the big bang .... see the importance of trusting QM

The trick is predicting what they will look like and how they behave so we can try and look for them ... hence the colliders.

Again you need to understand the important details if you are really wanting to theorize in this area and that is way beyond what is written in glossy media sites.
Posted by: Blackholeinside

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/28/15 04:44 PM

I looked at quark stars but I understood that they had generally been dismissed.
As for expectations for the future - well anyone's guess. So you are saying I should wait for some undiscovered theory to put me right. When that day comes I will withdraw everything.
If there really was a force similar to neutron binding energy but leading to a more dense state, can you explain why the density of large black holes gets less and less?
I do not truly believe that infinity or time standing still is a reality - what we have is an unbounded variable that is increasing without limit. It may become infinite if we wait an infinite time, but that will never happen. But the maths for dealing with this are fairly well understood, and as long as we are not expecting the impossible to happen, so is the physics. Anyway keep scanning the scientific press. Researchers have been looking for such a new theory for some 50 years, so far with no success, just more and more bizarre predictions.
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/28/15 04:58 PM

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
If there really was a force similar to neutron binding energy but leading to a more dense state, can you explain why the density of large black holes gets less and less?

Come on .... really ... you are a mathematician.

The density goes down if you consider it from the event horizon which is what you are doing because that is special to you.

So your excercise put a dot on a page and write a solar black hole mass. Now calculate the radius of the event horizon.

Now double the mass you wrote for the dot and calculate the new event horizon radius.

When you have done that now write the spherical volume for each sphere at the event horizon.

Surely you see what is happening as a mathematician the event horizon is going out as the square or the radius but the volume is going as the cube of the radius.

The reality is all the mass is in a single point but viewed from the event horizon the density is going down as the volume is a cubic .... good old 4/3 * PI * R^3

How hard is that to understand for a mathematician, I would have thought you could work that out yourself.

Density is an AVERAGE that is the problem and you have nothing like a uniform spacing. That actually directly shows you insignificant the Event horizon truely is in that it gives you that stupidity.
Posted by: Blackholeinside

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/28/15 05:01 PM

No, just all the mass at a single dot.
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/28/15 05:02 PM

The density doesn't go down for the single dot ... LOL

Show me anyone who says it does, it goes down if you do density from the event horizon which classical lunatics do because its ever so important.

In a singularity black hole the density of that dot is infinity.

Actually I need to put a clarification if no wormhole exists then density is infinity.

LOL even physics for idiots gets that one right
http://physicsforidiots.com/space/black-holes/

Quote:
Zero Size and Infinite Density.

Sorry I shouldn't laugh but that was almost as funny as really stopping time.
Posted by: Blackholeinside

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/28/15 07:28 PM

So infinite density yes, infinite time no. Your beliefs are clear but the rationale escapes me.
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/29/15 01:50 AM

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

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

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.
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/29/15 05:56 AM

If you are going on you are ready for the Pole In Barn paradox

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/polebarn.html

You have a 20m pole and a 10m barn and we are going to play games and move it up to 0.9c and pass it thru the barn doors at each end of the barn ... we have 3 different observers

a) Which will be you classical lug heads that says the 20m pole wont fit in the 10m barn. It's obvious you claim as you stood there and measured both with a tape measure. Everyone knows a 20m pole wont fit in a 10m barn ... dah how stupid can you scientists be.

b) This group will sit on the roof of the barn see a the pole as 8.7m long approaching at 0.9c and as it enters the barn they close the doors each end simultaneously fully enclosing the pole in the barn. Quickly open the doors and it exits unscathed. To them you miss measured the pole and it is only 8.7m long and it fits completely in the stationary 10m barn.

c) This group are sitting on the pole approaching at 0.9c and they are on a 10m pole approaching the barn. To them the barn is only 4.37m long and both of you miss measured the length of the barn. They passes thru unscathed because the doors open and close at completely different times.

ALL 3 OBSERVATIONS ARE PERFECTLY CORRECT. The problem is it plays with our view with classical physics that there is only one answer which is (a).

The 3 Observers will never agree on anything and yet every observer is correct

You are going to be with group (a) and tell us the other two observers are wrong ... admit it .. you measured it and you know your mathematics.
GOD Dave lives we have our racist frame he will select the "Pure right one" and doubt the other observers

The reality is you can make a 20m pole fit in a 10m barn if you move it at 0.9c because your measurement of length is loaded to a reference frame ... you chose the non moving one to measure. There is no global universal measurement and correctness of length. Your 20m pole is only 20m long in your reference frame.

That is why scientists get upset with mixing measurements from one reference frame to another. A 20m pole wont fit in a 10m barn if both measurements were done in the same reference frame. The mistake the (a) group zealots make is they assume the measurement in there frame is absolute in all reference frames and the pole can never fit in the barn. Move the pole at 0.9c it's actual length is truely 8.7m long if measured in the stationary frame and yes it fits in the barn.

The same problem exists with time it really does change with movement.

Welcome to relativity ... Dave runs screaming from the building no my classical physics says no.
Posted by: Bill S.

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/29/15 02:16 PM

Originally Posted By: Dave
There is no reality, no true reference frame - they are all equivalent.

I think that is what I said. If that was not clear, perhaps I didn’t express it very well.

“There is no reality”. That seems to be a point on which we all agree. Consider the implications, though. What does that actually mean?
Posted by: Bill S.

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/29/15 04:53 PM

Originally Posted By: Dave
is that because you just do not quite get how to handle infinities?

You know how to handle infinities? Please tell.

As far as I was aware the one who came nearest to that was Cantor, and even he hit the ultimate “brick wall” with absolute infinity.
Posted by: Bill S.

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/29/15 05:10 PM

Originally Posted By: Orac
It's really layman stupid....

Orac, this may be a language thing, but you did once say that the only reason you post on SAGG is to improve your English, so it may be worth mentioning that "ignorant" is not synonymous with "stupid". Possibly you are being inadvertently offensive, although, somehow I doubt that.
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/30/15 03:14 AM

Thank you for that Bill S, I will add that to my understanding of English.

So it's like when I was using the word "sanity" ... sigh another one to avoid.

It is another word I have picked up from normal people discussion and actually looking up definition I see why it's offensive. I will avoid using it like I do the other one as there is obviously context around it's use.

I wouldn't have thought to use the word ignorant because clearly Dave is educated. I don't think that is the word I want.

What about naive is that more neutral?

I don't know if I told you I passed my English exam back in October last year. So I fooled them enough to pass school leaving level English.
Posted by: Bill S.

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/30/15 04:13 PM

Naïve is good, inexpert, untrained, untutored, unversed, even unsophisticated, if you want to ring the changes. “Wet behind the ears” is only mildly offensive.

I think I have known what your native language is; one thing I know about it is that your command of English is a lot better than my command of that language.

Having passed “school leaving level English” you are ahead of a lot of native school leavers. It’s a sort of bitter joke around here that kids leave the local secondary school saying, and writing, things like “Look wot I done”. (I pronounced “oy”).
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/30/15 06:57 PM

I googled "Wet behind the ears" that is very clever.

I have been working on a translation of an funny expression from my homeland which a literal translation is "To make heaven one must first die".

Most tell me that means you must go thru really horrible things before good things (heaven).

That doesn't make the correct meaning which is supposed to be ... I really love you (enough to hope you go to heaven) but right now I could kill you.

I have been struggling for weeks trying to get a good English expression for it.
Posted by: Bill S.

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/30/15 08:17 PM

Idioms can be confusing things.

Welsh has "glas wen" which literally translates as "blue white".
A non Welsh speaker might suspect that this has to be "white blue" because of the Welsh order of words, but who would suspect that the idiomatic translation is "sarcastic smile"?
Posted by: Bill S.

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/31/15 07:48 PM

Originally Posted By: Orac
Quantum Mechanics is going to spoil your day and rip every piece of spacetime you stopped time in apart.

I need to get my head round this.
How does it happen?
Does it happen before time stops?
If so, how does QM know time is going to stop?
If not, how can it, or anything else happen after time is stopped?

I suppose it could happen at the instant at which time stops; but that introduces the fun of deciding what an instant is, and how long it lasts.
Posted by: Bill S.

## Re: Black hole theory - 08/31/15 09:25 PM

Originally Posted By: Orac
What Eistein realized was both can be true, time can stop in one frame of reference and not stop in another.

I may be splitting hairs here, but we've all got to do our special thing.

This statement suggests that time can stop in a specific F of R. Would it not be more accurate to say that an observer in one F of R can observe time apparently stopping in another F of R, but could not observe time stopping in his own F of R?
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/01/15 04:13 AM

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
I need to get my head round this.
How does it happen?
Does it happen before time stops?
If so, how does QM know time is going to stop?
If not, how can it, or anything else happen after time is stopped?

I suppose it could happen at the instant at which time stops; but that introduces the fun of deciding what an instant is, and how long it lasts.

The logic is detailed in the cosmological big rip but the discovery of the Higgs tells us that we have field(s) outside what we call space. It has a non-zero constant value in space and although usually unseen to us if we put enough energy into a localized area you can see a very brief interaction which is what we do with the LHC. The EM field is basically the same but has a constant zero value.

That unseen Higgs field is connected in some manner because we detect it via conservation of energy via QFT in the standard model. So in some way time in QM must connect to the Higgs field because QM has no other way to do energy conservation than quantum states in time evolution.

So we are back to frame of reference issues again just because time is stoppped for space it is not going to be stop for whatever the connection is in the Higgs domain as you can't access it. Energy in space and time has conservation with something in the Higgs/EM field domain.

The Higgs/EM fields will resist the change (conservation of energy again). Here is what happens when you collapse an electromagnetic field but constrain the reaction force in one dimension

The experiment take 1 battery connect each terminal to a piece of aluminum foil on a desk and place then seperated but not touching. Now drop something metal between the two strips blocking the field and see what happens.

That experiment sometimes goes by another name called a rail gun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun

There is a really layman friendly description of what is happening here

So the Higss/EM and whatever other fields there are will act according to QFT and oppose your change. The reaction to stopping time in a section of space would be swift and brutal and the best educated guess is it will try to "expel" that section of space hence it would create a rip.

What "expel" looks like in reality is hard to guess at because it hard to put structure and visualization around the field domain. What you can be sure of it's all bad for the section of space you froze time.

You may care to revise Prof Strassler on the Higgs
http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/the-higgs-particle/the-higgs-faq-2-0/

Quote:
"No matter how you are moving, you are not moving relative to the Higgs field. That sounds bizarre, but remember something else bizarre: that no matter how you are moving, light is moving about relative to you at the same speed, namely 300,000 meters per second. Our intuition for space and time is not correct — that’s what Einstein figured out — and it is possible for there to be fields that are at rest with respect to all observers!"

The theory of how is easy ... what it looks like whole other thing

Momentum of field conservation is only briefly covered for layman here at end.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz's_law
You need QFT to go into a proper deeper understanding.

Bottom line stopping time in what we call space would be a really bad idea the fields will react, it's just a matter of how much damage they do in conserving the energy between the domains.
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/01/15 04:20 AM

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
This statement suggests that time can stop in a specific F of R. Would it not be more accurate to say that an observer in one F of R can observe time apparently stopping in another F of R, but could not observe time stopping in his own F of R?

Very nicely done and that is actually important in one situation which I suspect you have realized.

I informally gave the full answer to Dave Proffitt but lets see if you can deduce it ... I am going to reverse your question.

How would you prove that universal time (time in every reference frame) is stopped?

You obviously have friends in high places given our discussions

Your quantum squeezing got a write up today. Now that I never thought I would ever get to actually see
http://phys.org/news/2015-08-scientists-particle.html

Quote:
On the right, part of the field has been reduced to lower than is technically possible, at the expense of making another part of the field less measurable.

And Lubos obviously has friends in CERN as well
http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/both-cms-and-atlas-see-52-tev-dijet-and.html
Posted by: Bill S.

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/01/15 06:59 PM

Interesting that you picked that particular quote from Matt Strassler. I don't know if you looked down the discussion part of the article; but he and I (and my accidental alter-ego) had an exchange on just that point.
Posted by: Bill S.

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/01/15 07:15 PM

Something I should mention before we leave the language thing.

Some time ago, someone on an on-line forum described my son (Chrys) as a “grammar Nazi”. He took it in the light hearted way in which it was intended, and has since used the term to refer to himself. I suspect that in your use of “racist” you may have not intended it to be taken as an insult, but it is not really a term one should use lightly; it can be very offensive.

I note that Dave has been absent from the thread since that remark. Let’s hope we have not lost him; SAGG is not too well endowed with lively posters.
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/02/15 12:02 AM

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Interesting that you picked that particular quote from Matt Strassler. I don't know if you looked down the discussion part of the article; but he and I (and my accidental alter-ego) had an exchange on just that point.

Edited: After I read your exchange will Matt I want to expand some things.

Matt is just echoing a thing everyone who does QFT runs across the problem that we have a reference frame we are exchanging energy that is difficult to reconcile in our time and space reference. To us that domain looks like it has no time (or all times) and spacially it is everywhere and that is difficult to imagine.

Conceptually the only real way to reconcile it is the way you did that the stopping of time in our domain is an illusion of our frame of reference the same as it is at the event horizon of a black hole.

The space part sometimes works to people if you create and use a planck distance grid and put the fields in the gaps, Brian Greene uses that one a lot.

The problem is we don't really know that is true and higher dimensions and holography are equally valid answers.

The only really important part is realizing that you are dealing with two very different "domains", the classical one we recognize and love and one very much different to ours. What these domains are is an open question to be settled sometime in the future.

Then all you need to remind yourself before trying to make things absolute like "stopping time" etc is to think about the other domain. Would and should the happening in our domain translate into the other domain.

As you know all the particles in our domain here have energy and interactions with the higgs and EM fields. So it should be obvious the amount of energy involved and bad things are going to happen if you froze time in only our domain.

For my part I seriously doubt you can actually stop time and so don't bother thinking much beyond it would be very bad.

Can I say for a layman you now have a pretty good understanding of everything from first principles. I think you probably also now realize why at times I pull my hair out with some comments.

When I look that Bill G and you basically started with very similar science understanding and both wanting to try and blend QM into your classical physics. You were stumbling around with energy and time and all sorts of weird classical descriptions of it, and now look at you. You chose to follow the science evidence, asked the questions, and resolved them in the only possible ways. You basically end up exactly where science is today. I have seen you answer questions with authority that a time ago would have caused you endless problems and recognize errors (sometimes even from scientists who should know better). You now need to stop asking me for confirmation of things you have already worked out. Trust what you can deduce logically and listen to arguments against. I am happy to act as a sounding board but I am not interested in making you agree with everything I say or think.
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/02/15 12:20 AM

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Some time ago, someone on an on-line forum described my son (Chrys) as a “grammar Nazi”. He took it in the light hearted way in which it was intended, and has since used the term to refer to himself. I suspect that in your use of “racist” you may have not intended it to be taken as an insult, but it is not really a term one should use lightly; it can be very offensive

No I definitely did not mean offense and yes I now see it's only used for human race situation, it wasn't translating to me like that. So did what I say not make sense or does it just look like another foreigner with a bad English and that what you meant about light hearted.

Looking at synonyms it would appear I wanted discriminatory looking at it's use

examples given

discriminatory practices in housing,a discriminatory tax

So Dave was being discriminatory in his choice of reference frame ... does that work?
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/02/15 02:45 AM

Oh wow Lumo has written an article because another scientist got it wrong on the event horizon in GR

It basically runs thru everything we have been discussing and in extreme detail and fluent English .. unlike mine.

http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/richard-muller-vs-basics-of-general.html#more

Haha he is right and I did.

Quote:
Everyone who got a well-deserved A in any general relativity course will agree with me. The event horizon is not a special locus "locally". Locally it looks like any "fictitious" surface we imagine anywhere in space – which is moving by the speed of light.

He also basically covers off the situation I was trying to make that a solid inside a black hole defies SR/GR. Dave is on one hand using GR to create the black hole and then contradicting GR, all I want is consistency. Either Dave thinks GR is right or wrong it can't be both without heavy explaining.

Quote:
In particular, no plastic foil may be sitting at the event horizon – because the event horizon is a lightlike surface which means that the plastic foil would be basically obliged to move at the speed of light which the massive objects aren't allowed to do. Also, you may stand on the surface of Earth because of the pressure from the solid matter that our planet is made of. But there can't be any "solid surface" inside the black hole (lower than the event horizon) because that surface would be a purely spacelike, 3+0-dimensional surface, and massive objects' trajectories can't be spacelike (a spacelike trajectory only occurs for the forbidden faster-than-light tachyons). So any idea that you may "stand on a permanently solid surface" at a fixed Schwarzschild R inside the black hole contradicts the strictest laws of physics – the most universal laws of relativity. There cannot be anything to safely stand on inside the black hole.

Subjectively that boundary is very much like the sound barrier you don't want to try and sit on it the "vibrations" for want of a better word would be horrific. The same arguments ran on the sound interface for years before someone had the courage to just try and push thru it.

You really would want to pass thru it fast, having said your goodbyes to the world

I had forgotten about the funny partially collapsed star idea that used to circulate because time was really slowing ... it has been a while.

Really that is probably no better or worse than that article by Ethan. Scientists sometimes have gaps in there knowledge and sometimes they don't know them
Posted by: pokey

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/02/15 02:50 AM

Orac typed,

"Looking at synonyms it would appear I wanted discriminatory looking at it's use
examples given"

I would go with "biased".
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/02/15 03:34 AM

Oh good word, I will go with that one in future.

I tend to use that with results in science but obviously it means the same thing when used with people and their views.

Unfortunately using words not specifically for "humans" is actually an insult to Samarkand. I have seen that particular objects do it in English, I love when people call each other "wet mops" that carries the same context to me translated or not.

I understand racism very well as I am Caucasus. An African or Afro-American would face less racism than me in Russia, despite my heritage being neither Arabic/Muslim my language is enough. Google "Caucasus racism" should give you a good splattering of hate sites. Please do not mix up Caucasus meaning all Caucasian like many do .. here is a prime example of a naive American. It's a regional thing, a White American would not face the same problem

In Russia, the term Caucasian is a collective term referring to anyone descended from the native ethnicities of the South Caucasus and North Caucasus.

Strangely one of our strongest terms of endearment translates to "I want to eat your liver". The root of why I occasionally hear in English as well, with the expression "you look good enough to eat". The best bit to eat of any animal in many cultures is the liver and now you have the full context of what the expression means.
Posted by: Amaranth Rose II

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/04/15 11:31 AM

Orac, no calling people names, especially racist. There is nothing in any post to give a hint of that, and it is a very charged epithet. Don't use the term if you don't want to be banned for a while. I want to keep this forum clean and polite, and names like that are beyond the pale. The saying goes, the one who resorts to name calling is admitting he has run out of ideas. Lets keep this forum going with ideas, not name-slinging.
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/04/15 01:02 PM

AR2 did you actually read the posts and it's context?

I was using the word racist in the context of a reference frame. Again that lack of English thing ... wrong word !!!!

It has the right meaning but you don't use it for non human context, I got that now. Bill S and Pokey were offering me correct words, which were discriminatory and biased. I settled on biased which I will use of future, however it reads strange to me.

My native language which is closely related to Arabic
http://en.bab.la/dictionary/english-arabic/biased

We don't use that word as an adjective, even in Arabic they would use the word tendentious or prejudice.

If I translate "someone has a biased view", naively I would think you meant they were facing looking in a particular direction. Now I know what it means the translation sort of makes sense.

The language Lemma's between English and Arabic are very different.

I would like to complain about your consistency. I am berated for using a wrong word yet it took a petition by a group of us to get you to act of postings that claimed the Holocaust didn't happen. You similarly dragged your feet with racist posts from PreEarth. I am not sure you should be lecturing me on things about racism as that was not a choice of word issue but complete lack of sensitivity and understanding on your part.

Now I made this mistake once before using the taboo word "sanity". Since it was pointed out it had bad context have I ever used it? I am sure I can manage to avoid using the word "racism" ever again in a similar fashion now I am aware. The subtleties on taboo context is not something easy to pick up in languages.

Bill S has also pointed out my use of the word stupid in places is offensive, which sometimes was not what was intended (not always). I more correctly mean sometimes mean "naive" so I have another word substitution that I am trying to keep in mind.
Posted by: Blackholeinside

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/05/15 07:22 PM

I have decided to give this forum one more try after all that has been said.
I want to get back to the core objections of Orac because I believe he is not alone in making them. The main one is that he maintains that Born rigidity is not compatible with relativity.
Now this is not one of the core tenets of relativity. It is derived from the belief that no physical body could exhibit Born rigidity - all bodies must yield to sufficient pressure. This is certainly true in everyday experience, but that is no good guide to what happens inside a black hole. Here we do have exceptional circumstances. The forces must already be somewhat greater than those that sustain a neutron star, otherwise the black hole would not have formed. All I am asking is that you accept this as a remote possibility at this stage, rather than asserting that my ideas are not worth investigating further because I do not understand basic relativity.
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/06/15 02:56 AM

You need to post a lot more than some hand waving and ask us consider ... the idea is 100 years old and has been considered

You are right about one thing it is not just me against you, it is anybody who has ever passed first year SR/GR coarse that is against you. There is exactly zero possibility it exists as you can falsify it rather easily.

Can you try to following Lubos's example he put it in nice mathematical terms of your Schwarzschild coordinates in mathematics you love, so perhaps the penny will drop.

http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/richard-muller-vs-basics-of-general.html#more

Yes it makes the geometry "static" but it is easy to show that the apparent "static" is blatantly wrong. Lubos does it two different ways but there are in fact hundreds of way to do it as it really trivial to show time is still actually running at the horizon in different reference frames.

Relativity says all frames are equal and time can appear different in other frames and that includes the illusion of stopping. You also can't take time from one reference frame and impose it on other frames ... that is a NO NO and about the worst breach of relativity possible.

What do you want us to simply ignore the facts?

There is nothing new or novel about your idea, it was known 100 years ago and was an arguement against relativity. Anyone who has done a relativity coarse knows the naive interpretation of Schwarzschild coordinates and it's clear falsification. As Lubos said, it is a bit of a joke with scientists when people take such naive understanding and wanting to put a solid in the black hole interior.

You may investigate it all you like, but no scientist will bother wasting further time on you if you just refuse to learn. The fact is time will cross the event horizon and GR/QM are still holding and so no born rigid bodies can exist there because the argument follows the same maths as outside the black hole. The only point at which GR/QM will break down is much closer into the singularity if such a thing exists and that is the scientifically accepted situation. I am really surprised a mathematician struggles so much with relativity.

You have clearly been told the same answer by a number of us. About all I can see you doing from here Dave is diminishing whatever academic reputation you had by being extremely academically lazy and willfully stubborn in ignoring evidence.

The maths argument against born rigid bodies doesn't change either side of the Event horizon as time hasn't stopped and the forces are fractions of a neutron star at the EH (Your Schwarzschild solution is 1/4M ... it's tiny as M is large ... Neutron star is 7x10E12 ... weird isn't it and it requires understanding). The stranger part for you to understand the bigger the black hole the less surface gravity at the event horizon ... it's all backwards! See you need to understand what surface gravity is and how it's defined, which is why the result seems really strange.

Hint here is you need to turn things to a tidal force between two points at a set distance ... and it still ends up strange

I am done, I can't help someone who doesn't want to be helped. You haven't dealt with a single objection and you can say consider the possibility. Well I considered the possibility and given I can falsify it .... where exactly would I go from there.

Until you look at evidence and frames that time does not stop at the event horizon, no-one can help you. Time is not the same in every reference frame (there are actually tests of it), we hope you did at least get that bit from your poor understanding of relativity .. universal absolute time does not exist in relativity
Posted by: Blackholeinside

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/06/15 06:05 AM

Of course I accept that time is different in different reference frames, I just struggle withe your belief that it has validity in every frame but the one I am standing in.
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/06/15 06:08 AM

You do know the twin paradox has been tested right?

Quote:
The twin paradox has been verified experimentally by precise measurements of atomic clocks flown in aircraft and satellites. For example, gravitational time dilation and special relativity together have been used to explain the Hafele–Keating experiment. It was also confirmed in particle accelerators by measuring time dilation of circulating particle beams.

Hard to believe or not it's beyond you to dispute

You are now drifting into crackpot territory that you want to make black holes special. The beams circulating in the accelerators are at 0.9999c and very close to what should be happening at the event horizon of the black hole.
Posted by: Blackholeinside

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/06/15 06:13 AM

I don't dispute the twin paradox. What is there to dispute. But what are you saying is wrong with my frame of reference?
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/06/15 06:16 AM

You are trying to make the EH and inside special but the accelerator experiments at very close to the speed of light show nothing has changed.

So whats your logic that anything at the event horizon is different?

There simply is no justification for treating anything at or inside the EH differently just because relativity says from one frame time appears to stop. We see that behaviour in lots of places and there is nothing unusual about it. When you run across the problem time appears to stop you just take a different reference frame to get around the illusion, you don't suddenly start believing the illusion is real. The fact we can identify other frames and see that time is fine tells you it's an illusion.

It's like the pole and barn paradox the fact the pole is 20m long doesn't stop it fitting in a 10m barn at 0.9c because your 20m was measured in one reference frame and now you are talking about another. You can argue it won't fit because you measured it all you like, but science and experiments say it would.

The forces at the EH aren't even exceptional compared to places like inside a neutron star surface. The force behaviour is actually really strange but understandable when you look at the formulas. Small black holes are actually worse than big ones which defies your idea

So you completely lost me how or why you justify treating it different ... from a science point of view it looks like a random choice.

So we keeping coming back to why do you treat anything at or inside the EH special?

The second question is why do you refuse to look at the other frames of reference?

You are like the guy standing there with your tape measure saying the pole was 20m long and the barn 10m ... we agree but it doesn't change the fact it will fit in the barn at 0.9c
Posted by: Blackholeinside

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/06/15 09:59 AM

The core point of your argument is that of all of the infinite number of coordinate frames, our's, from here on earth, is not valid; presumably because in shows time slowing to zero. You keep referring to no end of experiments that verify sr and gr but nothing to suggest that the referenc frame of an observer here on earth is invalid.
I rest my case.
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/06/15 10:01 AM

Rubbish we can show time moves on earth ... lift something up 1m and it has been measured.

here let me show you the experiment ... 1 sec
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/06/15 10:12 AM

So here you go using an atomic clock and move it up by 12 inches and it changes

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...r-altitude.html

Technically you need to isolate reference frames even here on earth it's just the deviation is so small you don't notice it.

So you are on completely pseudoscience junk now ... accept the experiments and you are wrong, explain why the experiments do what they do ... OR WALK away.

You are now completely violating relativity and have gone into pseudoscience trash, not bad for a published author.

Time changes depending where you are standing even here on earth and if you were doing things to ultra precision you would have to account for frame of reference changes even on earth. The GPS system here on earth requires the calculations to be built in.

So contrary to idea there is one reference frame on earth there are millions and each is slightly different. Even from earth all the frames wouldn't agree precisely where the EH is, unless you account for the time dilation. So how do we choose the Dave special one because at the moment we have millions of EH's all slightly different. Stand on a desk is enough to make two observers disagree on position of the EH if they measured accurately ... THE REALITY IS YOU ARE WRONG ... the effect is showing you the EH is an illusion no two observers will agree on where it is ... end of story.

In case it hasn't dawned on you, your calculation of where the event horizon is worked from the centre point of a black hole another place your observers on earth won't be able to agree on exactly where it is.

If we place an observer at the centre he won't agree with your earth observers either
Posted by: Blackholeinside

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/06/15 10:53 AM

Isn't that exactly what I am saying? You just seemed to me to be fixed on the view that any reference frame that shows time slowing to a standstill must be excluded from consideration. It is the exclusion that I find hard to accept. This is the critical point because once you accept that it is equally valid, then you will see that what I say is correct for a distant observer (Barring minor corrections for our rotating frame of reference).
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/06/15 10:57 AM

What it is showing you is that what appears as time stopped isn't from another observer.

We aren't talking about a few microns here because of the distortions the distance of disagreement is going to be hundreds of meters possibly kilometers.

So how can a point one observer (A) says is time stopped be such if another observer (B) sees time at that point?

Seriously this isn't hard it must therefore be an illusion and you can run the obvious argument it must therefore be an illusion to everyone because there is no obvious frame that is correct .... it's a rainbow we see them all the time

Mundanely we can create the effect in particle accelerators and it isn't hard to understand when you can actually measure stuff properly. You are ignoring we can create the effect here on earth and measure it.

The particles in the LHC are doing 99.9999991% the speed of light and yeah time to them appears almost stopped only it isn't is it

Using your logic we would take the particle frame of reference and it tells us time is stopped here on earth and expect me to believe you. There is the effect right in front of you and it is an illusion isn't it or is your time really stopped?

From the protons in the LHC time is stopped but for me standing here it isn't. Proof that just because time appears to stop to a frame of reference it doesn't happen globally.

So I guess I should ask how do you know you are not standing on the event horizon edge Dave ... prove it to me?

Your argument is FAIL after FAIL, it is obvious you can show the effect is an illusion because we can identify frames in which it is obviously wrong.

Now on most proper physics forums you will get banned for basically gross stupidity if you continued beyond this. We don't have that policy here we generally just note you as a crackpot and ignore you, a policy I am about to take.
Posted by: Blackholeinside

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/06/15 12:12 PM

There is a lot of difference between time nearly stopping and stopped. Just one final point; distance or interval in 4_space is an invariant. If it is infinite in one frame of reference it is infinite in any frame of reference. So your intuition on time was 100% correct.
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/06/15 12:55 PM

There is a lot more to time and distance than the treatment in classical physics in SR/GR and you have not got past the basics. QM throws up a whole new set of demands, experiments and observations to blend in. It's pointless trying to expand further with your current competency so I will leave it.

Can I ask if you have tried this on other physics forums and did you get banned?

I would have as a moderator, and hence I am wondering if my views are harsher than others.
Posted by: Bill S.

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/06/15 09:11 PM

Originally Posted By: Dave
I have decided to give this forum one more try after all that has been said.

I’m glad you decided to return, Dave. I’ve not had time to look more than briefly at your work, and I suspect that I lack the maths/physics to do it justice. However, this thread has thrown up a few points that are making me think, which, I suppose, is what learning is all about.
Posted by: Bill S.

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/06/15 09:23 PM

SAGG.
Originally Posted By: Orac
When you run across the problem time appears to stop you just take a different reference frame to get around the illusion, you don't suddenly start believing the illusion is real. The fact we can identify other frames and see that time is fine tells you it's an illusion.

Perhaps only a hitch-hiker could raise such a naïve point; but relativity tells us that every F of R is as valid as every other, yet you can, with apparent justification, refer to “reality” in one frame as being “an illusion” relative to another. Would that not imply that because no frame can claim to represent universal reality, any observation, in any frame, must be an illusion?

I quite like that idea.
Posted by: Bill S.

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/06/15 10:15 PM

Originally Posted By: Orac
the effect is showing you the EH is an illusion no two observers will agree on where it is ... end of story.

Isn’t saying “EH is an illusion” a non-relativistic generalisation?

Isn’t it an illusion only in frames that are not its own?

If it were an illusion in its own F of R, how would Hawking radiation work?
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/07/15 02:47 AM

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Perhaps only a hitch-hiker could raise such a naïve point; but relativity tells us that every F of R is as valid as every other, yet you can, with apparent justification, refer to “reality” in one frame as being “an illusion” relative to another. Would that not imply that because no frame can claim to represent universal reality, any observation, in any frame, must be an illusion?

I quite like that idea.

Relativity enshrines that in it's tenet there is no global frame usually referred to as the zero frame but it has a number of names

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center-of-momentum_frame

In that language relativity says there is no Center-of-momentum frame for the universe.
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/07/15 04:41 AM

Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Isn’t saying “EH is an illusion” a non-relativistic generalisation?

Isn’t it an illusion only in frames that are not its own?

Yes and yes ... arg I have create a monster.

I cheated on the first one and took the simplification because if I used the word "reality" it gives the impression there is something special about the observer, some layman take another deviation you then have to deal with. You have come so far now you pick up the contradiction and yes the effects are not an illusion in it's own frame and lets expand on that for you.

The problem is you must consider the frame of reference if the change in frame would create a change larger than the accuracy you are attempting to measure ... that is the technical babble we use. So here on earth we can generally ignore frame of reference stuff as we don't measure to an accuracy that it would change the result, probably the only notable exception is the GPS system because of the distance to the satellite.

Now you can see the issue with the EH from Earth frame clearly, the time dilation is massive so the error will be massive. When you reframe the arguments to an observer right near the event horizon your accuracy is restored and you can more clearly see and measure the physics. In doing so you also understand why the distant observer sees what they do and the strange observations in their frame of reference.

The outside observer will actually see anything infalling apparently freeze at the EH so it looks correct to what his frame deduced was happening to time. However relativity makes you realize that is only true from that frame along way away from the EH.

What layman want to do is take that Earth frame make it global and tell you things about the EH ignoring the massive change of frame reference ... that is they run smack into relativity ignore it and/or violate it.

That is my issue with Dave and why I would have banned him. He said he believed in relativity yet notice he refused to change reference frame which due to accuracy, relativity would demand. The most basic parts of relativity tells you that at 99.9999999% dilation the frame is inaccurate and/or inappropriate.

The sorts of time dilation changes here on Earth are around 0.0000000000005 or 0.000000000000005% as a rough guide and for most general purposes we can ignore them.
ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment

So when you are doing calculations near the event horizon you need to be very careful with frame of reference because of the space curvature and it gets worse towards a singularity.

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
If it were an illusion in its own F of R, how would Hawking radiation work?

Now I am not going to be able to wave hands and do the usual classical physics fool on you here because I have created a monster

I will say I agree .... but not really and I will expand in a separate post as to why because I don't like lying and waving hands to you.
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/07/15 05:16 AM

The monster Bill S vs hawking radiation.

As you have started everything from first principles strangely you actually will get the problems, where sometimes we have trouble with scientists who haven't built the full picture.

To deal with the problem properly you need to take QFT in very close to the event horizon so we have quantum fields propagating in the vicinity of an event horizon and crossing it. Remember from before those fields can carry momentum as well as the particles themselves (our insight from Feynman) and so we now have QM time meets classical time head on.

Worse still we have energy either side on the horizon and for some calculations in the classical physics of GR/SR, energy will be in or out of the system depending how you select.

Essentially I think you will agree the obvious and natural frame of reference to choose is the QM field itself because it cleanly crosses the boundary and must or bad things happen .... remember from stopping time discussion. Lets just say there are some from the classical GR/SR background who don't like that choice and unfortunately most of the time due to lack of understanding rather than a technical point.

You can get massive problems with any classical frame of reference just because of the quantum field itself, it is like trying to understand the double slit experiment all over again.

Lubos being Lubos does a pretty good summation here

The bottom line is Hawkings semi-classical description accurate and our answer from a pure QM standpoint is YES.

So our hand waving was ok and we are satisfied that the classical answer approximation is in agreement with a QM field frame of reference.

Now you can probably guess what goes wrong with the so called "firewall event horizon" idea and it will appear like that because they will have energy coming from "nowhere". Given a bad choice of reference frame in classical physics it's pretty obvious what they will end up arguing, with energy originating inside the horizon transporting across horizon in the field and then suddenly appearing in their reference frame. The energy isn't going anywhere it's just the normal quantum energy of spacetime and it's fields (like every other point in spacetime) but a decision to put a rather arbitrary classical line across it makes the artifact. Suddenly the energy of the quantum fields appears out of nowhere and you haven't had to account for the fact it disappeared from inside the horizon.

Energy and flames, I see energy and flames
Posted by: Blackholeinside

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/07/15 01:03 PM

Bill S - many thanks but I doubt that I can remain when every comment I ever makes is sunk under a pile of irrelevant misquotes. I would just love to have an intelligent discussion on some of the points but it strains my patience too much.
Let us return to the basics. General Relativity is a field theory based on the constancy of the speed of light and the equivalence principle.
It is widely expected that it will fail at the Planck scale. A central singularity in a black hole would require that this scale is breached and there is general agreement that there must be another undiscovered theory to fill the gap.
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?
He also expresses a problem with QCG 'fields' straddling the event horizon. He believes that this is impossible or would lead to the end of the Universe. 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. 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
It is of course, the last of these three that my results
show.
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. This would correspond to the first option. Hopefully, the event horizon telescope will shed some light on this. Results are expected this year. GR has passed every test so far, so I remain hopeful.
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/07/15 02:48 PM

Actually I deleted my big post of answers ... I was going to answer every point but it really is pointless Dave is off to crackpot land ... and it's probably best I just let him go. Science will blissfully ignore him another in a long line of crackpots going to change physics and to naive to know better.

Sidebar: Could I have used "wet behind the ears" as humour or would it come out as an insult?

So which will get the Nobel first Dave or Marosz?

I bet the monster Bill S will see the problem with each and every statement which is either completely wrong or totally misguided and/or both. He could of at least get the acronyms right

Dave still has not even got his head around the fact that he is violating GR in every way possible ... every scientist just pulls their hair and cringes. I am not sure whether to laugh or cry when he does it.

Do you see the common theme which I used to pick Rede, Bill G and "old days Bill S" off on, he is trying to sort of ignore stuff he doesn't understand and using his classical schoolbook physics to solve the problem. There is living proof of why we have to revamp the school physics teaching and bring it up to date and dump some of the old classical physics.

I don't think Bill G is quite as bad as Dave, I suspect he would quickly work out the frame of reference issue (he has read Kip Thorne). Bill G would fall down at the event horizon, his default is to drop back to classical physics and that has some nasty surprises. You can get away with semi classical, so long as you actually understand the proper landscape. Do you see the common theme, they steadfastly hang onto classical physics for dear life and stubbornly refuse to look it's problems. That is why from a teaching point you really have to kick the classic physics crutch out and get them to deal with it.

Can I ask Bill S at what point did it all drop into place and start making sense?
Posted by: Blackholeinside

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/07/15 04:17 PM

Well well Orac. It seems that whenever rational argument against your views are put forward you retreat into name calling worthy of a stroppy teenager. I would love to see your reasoned arguments, if you have any. Why, oh why did you think it better to post this tirade rather than rational discussion? I can only imagine that you want the forum left clear so that you can shine a little in front of novices and newbies. Good luck with that.
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/07/15 04:23 PM

You won't look at the arguments hell you can't even write what I am saying correctly, so why would I waste my time?

You do realize you didn't actually get a single thing correct? Not one but almost every line perhaps I will just list them.

I notice you still avoiding telling me if you have been banned from forums for posting this because other tell you it breaks relativity?
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/07/15 04:31 PM

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.

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.
[list]
[*]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.
Posted by: Blackholeinside

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/07/15 04:32 PM

Originally Posted By: Orac

I notice you still avoiding telling me if you have been banned from forums for posting this because other tell you it breaks relativity?

Not at all. The answer is no.
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/07/15 04:35 PM

Can you give me any links to where you have posted this on other forums I am really interested what they make of it.

I personally don't think anyone can help you as you flat refuse to at least study the basics. It's a case of just ignoring you, seems to be a thing with older males and science ... we won't miss you
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/07/15 04:59 PM

Woah Dave did you just lie to me?

For curiosity I ran a search for "Dave Proffitt relativity" to see what others had made of you and I am getting this off a number of sites.

Quote:
Patrick Tam. I'm glad you banned him. I don't want to interact with dumb, noob, and [censored] people like Dave Proffitt

I really loved this description that would definitely fit you
Quote:
Naive Physics Proffitt

A different Dave Proffitt or something you want to explain?

I am not here to convert you, and I really am not fussed what you believe but I do ask for honesty or there is no point talking.
Posted by: Blackholeinside

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/07/15 08:08 PM

Quote:
dumb, noob, and [censored]

Posters who use the same uncultured insults as yourself: you must feel at home there. For the record I have absolutely no recollection or record of ever posting there.
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/07/15 11:53 PM

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.
Posted by: Bill S.

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/08/15 09:01 PM

Originally Posted By: Dave
In physics we have the case of conductivity of superconductors becoming infinite. Of course we will never have enough time to check the validity of this statement. This example does show that infinities for all practical purposes, do occur in physics.

I have not had time to read much of your work, Dave, but no one will be surprised that I started by looking at infinity.

Could you say a bit more about the logic of this quote?
Posted by: Bill S.

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/08/15 09:40 PM

Originally Posted By: Orac
Can I ask Bill S at what point did it all drop into place and start making sense?

Not an easy one to answer, Orac. I sometimes lose track of when I am playing devil's advocate, and when not.
Posted by: Bill S.

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/08/15 09:50 PM

BTW, Orac, I just found a quote that might help you to sort out which descriptions to use, and when.

"Ignorance can be educated, crazy can be medicated, but there’s no cure for stupid".
Posted by: Amaranth Rose II

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/09/15 12:13 AM

I tend to err on the basis of free speech. Unless a post is blatantly obnoxious or offensive to many I will generally tend to let it stand. Everyone has the right to their own point of view. I don't know beans about particle physics, but I will defend the right to talk about them in this forum. It appears you are trying to be king of the sandbox and kick out all others who disagree with you. This forum is meant to foster questioning and free discussion of thoughts. I don't have any insight as to whether Dave is making an intelligent presentation or something egregiously stupid. But while he is here I expect him to be treated with the same respect as other forum members, and not labelled negatively or called names. If you can't respect others' rights to be heard, don't post a response. You may think you know everything and others know nothing, but don't act like it. Don't be rude or impolite on the forum. Even if you think someone is dumb as a rock, it's not nice to say that, they have something to say and the right to say it. This forum doesn't have so many posters that we can afford to offend anyone who is trying to carry on seriously. If people are misguided, lead them, but don't insult them. It would be a good idea if you can learn to lead without using disparaging comments and insults. A more positive attitude and courtesy will go a long way to helping this forum stay open as a place for free discussion of practically anything at all. And your English is improving. :-)
Posted by: Orac

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/09/15 06:15 AM

I am trying very hard to improve my English and what people sometimes see as rude is actually poor word choice. I fell foul of that earlier in this discussion. I have been told I come across very blunt and forceful, to me it just reads what it is supposed to say, tone in language for someone it isn't natural and I find very hard.

With Dave I looked at his idea tried, to get him to see the problems and when it was obvious he was never going to actually look the problems just fix the one obvious false claim. I actually could not care a less what Dave believes my problem was he was blatantly breaking relativity and claiming he wasn't.

Sorry that is a bit like claiming you are Jewish but you eat pork and attend Muslim church services, it is pretty black and white.

I then quizzed him about surely he had been told this by other people. I can't have been the only one who noticed and generally on a science site it gets you banned. So I was trying to be less confrontational and it wasn't just me being picky. I should have done the search first but he was so convincing, well you know the rest it blew up in my face.

I hope you noticed I even tried to just post my reasons for leaving the conversations, ignore him and walk away but that just made him more cross at me.

My problem I am having with your post above is are we a science forum and this a physics section or is it something else?

Originally Posted By: AR2
A more positive attitude and courtesy will go a long way to helping this forum stay open as a place for free discussion of practically anything at all

Okay sorry I wasn't aware of that change from a physics forum you caught me with that one.

On an actual physics forum a moderator would have told him please don't make that claim it is blatantly wrong. Presumably he would accept that or leave and I saw that on other sites when I followed the search. I am sorry, I can't accept a physics forum that can't and won't make even the most black and white criteria of science and this will descend into chaos.

I have no intention of being the Jew that is arguing with the pork eating Muslims that they aren't Jewish.

I will therefore say my goodbye to all.

Bill S good luck with your quest to mysteries and infinities of life

My parting suggestion for you Bill S is follow the first 20 min of this:
Posted by: redewenur

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/09/15 10:10 AM

As Gracchus said of Crassus (Spartacus, 1960): "He'll be back"
Posted by: Amaranth Rose II

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/14/15 07:51 AM

I am not a physicist. I cannot judge whether a post is right or wrong in its theoretical grounding. I just meant that the forum is open to anyone who wants to discuss physics and whatever the source it is not good to whack at people without telling them why they are wrong. If you have a logical argument why someone is wrong, put it forth. Just don't start calling names and hurling insults in with the debunking. I'm sorry if I didn't phrase it the best I could have. I certainly expect this Physics forum to stick to Physics topics. Other topics can be discussed on other branches of the forum. Just stick to debunking, and leave out the personal comments. That's what I mean when I ask for respect. I don't mean that bunk theories are to be unchallenged. Just do it with some courtesy and don't call anyone a name you would not want to be called yourself.

I'm not a professional moderator, I didn't go to moderator school. I'm learning this by the seat of my pants, and am having some rather intense personal events right now. I mean to say that I want to run this forum as a polite place where people can post their theories and have them politely discussed and the merits tested. By all means point out fallacious theories and correct the incorrect points as they stand. Just don't get personal.
Posted by: Bill S.

## Re: Black hole theory - 09/15/15 05:16 PM

AR11, I think the world of scientific discussion forums badly needs a forum like SAGG, where serious discussion is tempered with humour, and where posters are not promptly banned or even warned as soon as they step outside conventional science, or occasionally lose their cool. On another forum, I was warned because I posted an astronomy question under physics.

I fully support what you say in your last post, but feel I need to ask if it might not be rather poor timing? Could be we were just beginning to get somewhere?
Posted by: Blackholeinside

## Re: Black hole theory - 11/03/15 08:01 PM

Hi
After the last bout of insults I decided that I needed to watch my blood pressure and depart permanently. I came back to see if anything had changed and there are glimmering of that happening.
I do take all of the criticisms (even the ones couched as insults) on board, mostly by clarifying the wording used on my website and elsewhere.
I have yet to see anything that would persuade me yet that my thinking is wrong; I will keep looking/thinking until I can see a flaw in what I am claiming.
The comment that other forums will not tolerate anything that is off message is correct. I am glad to see you (AR11) have a more liberal approach. It is to be commended.
Posted by: Bill S.

## Re: Black hole theory - 11/05/15 06:28 PM

Welcome back Dave. Now I'm going to have to find time to remind myself of the main points of your theory.
Posted by: Blackholeinside

## Re: Black hole theory - 02/21/18 08:36 PM

Thanks, Bill S.
I do keep checking from time to time but have nothing new to report as yet. Time is much more taken up in caring for my wife, of late, and although I have a few ideas germinating, none yet complete.
There are flaws in my theory and flaws in the existing theory. The choice seems to come down to philosophy, in my opinion. I will return when I have something definite to add. Dave.