What is the truth?

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

I promise I will pay you dinner in Stockholm when you collect your Nobel prize.

I will hold you to that, my dear lady.

I suggest you post this brilliant finding.

If time stops at the event horizon of the black hole,
and gravity emitted from the black hole travels at the velocity of light,
then
the black hole could not emit any gravity.

How can gravity be emitted at velocity from the event horizon
if nothing can get past the event horizon?

Please try answer that.
Copy-paste will not help,
because this very simple question disproves
much of Astrophysics for the last century.

Want something a bit more meaty?
This disproves any notion of time being 'relative' from General Relativity:
http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/relativity/general-relativity+time.htm

and it also answers this:

What is illogical about 4dimensional Minkowsky spaces?

btw
tensors are compared to evolutionary computer algorithms
in the same way that rubbing two sticks are compared to dynamite.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

I want to hear it from you.

That is my website links, so I could copy-paste my own stuff
or I could just post the link.

 

[viole]

I will hold you to that, my dear lady.




How can gravity be emitted at velocity from the event horizon
if nothing can get past the event horizon?

Please try answer that.
Copy-paste will not help,
because this very simple question disproves
much of Astrophysics for the last century.

Want something a bit more meaty?
This disproves any notion of time being 'relative' from General Relativity:
http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/relativity/general-relativity+time.htm

and it also answers this:


btw
tensors are compared to evolutionary computer algorithms
in the same way that rubbing two sticks are compared to dynamite.

Well, if you think as gravity in terms of gravitons, or other field theories, then you are not talking general relativity. GR Is a geometric theory. There is not such a thing as particles of gravity flowing around, at least in GR. A black hole can very well modify the curvature of spacetime beyond the horizon, without contradicting the assumption that light (electromagnetic radiation) cannot escape it.

In any case, the information about the mass of the black hole, which can be seen as the gravitational field outside of it, is on the event horizon. And that is mainly why black hole become bigger when they swallow mass. They need to make space on their surface for the information of what fell inside of it. So, even from afield theory point of view, there is no contradiction whatosever.

This is basic stuff. If you really believe you can beat Eistein on this, or even think that Einstein, or Friedman, did not see something so obvious, then you can believe basically anything, including talking serpents and people walking on room temperature water. i am afraid.

My suggestion is that you get some knowledge about the issue before having the ridicolous presumption to have killed the basic theory on which most of cosmology is based. The book Gravitation by Wheeler and co. Is a good start. There you see exactly how it works with Black Holes, too.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Well, if you think as gravity in terms of gravitons, or other field theories, then you are not talking general relativity. GR Is a geometric theory. There is not such a thing as particles of gravity flowing around, at least in GR. A black hole can very well modify the curvature of spacetime beyond the horizon, without contradicting the assumption that light (electromagnetic radiation) cannot escape it.

But then neither can the gravitational wave escape the event horizon.
Hence the black-hole should give off zero gravity.
Which is clearly a contradiction.

The mass is inside the event horizon, btw, not on it!

(The graviton is said to simply be the particle aspect of the gravitational wave.
So according to the particle/wave paradigm, the graviton is synonymous with the gravitational wave from General Relativity.
This is from Hawking, btw)

 

[viole]

But then neither can the gravitational wave escape the event horizon.
Hence the black-hole should give off zero gravity.
Which is clearly a contradiction.

The mass is inside the event horizon, btw, not on it!

(The graviton is said to simply be the particle aspect of the gravitational wave.
So according to the particle/wave paradigm, the graviton is synonymous with the gravitational wave from General Relativity.
This is from Hawking, btw)

Mmh, nope. You can have a static gravitational field without gravitational waves at all.

Because that is what gravity is, according to GM. A non local curvature induced by a pseudo-riemannian metric tensor on the spacetime manifold that has only local value. And geometry of spacetime affects things as light, not its geometry as well.

And, again the apparent paradox is resolved if we think that the information concerning the black hole is all mapped on its horizon event, and is therefore perfectly accessible, even if it is in a very high entropic state.

By the way, since you mentioned Hawking, why do you take him seriously considering that he sees no problem whatsoever for a black hole to influence its surroundings (obviously, being a relativistic scientist)?

Are we selecting what he says, depending on our metaphysical agenda? Maybe?

Ciao

- viole

 

[MonkeyFire]

I found it's best not to navigate the bull****, kind of the gnostic, and virtuous nature of the fallen angels.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Mmh, nope. You can have a static gravitational field without gravitational waves at all.

Because that is what gravity is, according to GM. A non local curvature induced by a pseudo-riemannian metric tensor on the spacetime manifold that has only local value. And geometry of spacetime affects things as light, not its geometry as well.

And, again the apparent paradox is resolved if we think that the information concerning the black hole is all mapped on its horizon event, and is therefore perfectly accessible, even if it is in a very high entropic state.

By the way, since you mentioned Hawking, why do you take him seriously considering that he sees no problem whatsoever for a black hole to influence its surroundings (obviously, being a relativistic scientist)?

Are we selecting what he says, depending on our metaphysical agenda? Maybe?

Ciao

- viole

GM?
Please use real words. (Genetic Modification? - surely not)

to say that something is non-local that only has local value, strikes me to be somewhat contradictory.

1) How did the information jump to the event horizon?
2) and then jump off it
IF
nothing can get past the event horizon?

hmmm 'metaphysical' - the most abused word in the philosophers dictionary.

I address the physics of the dominant paradigm that pervades all types of media.
Sure, there are probably better narratives to juxtapose mine with, logically speaking,
but I have yet to find one that is articulated as clearly. And I want many readers
to be able to put my 'natural philosophy' into a clear context.

So Hawking is the pace-setter.