TED Conversations

A wal
  • A wal
  • Cambridge
  • United Kingdom

This conversation is closed.

General relativity is wrong!

If there are any relativity experts here I'd love to get their feedback on this because I don't think anyone can dispute this. No one's been able to put up a decent counter argument so far. In the other topic (Can Anyone Answer These Black Hole Questions) I briefly cover lots of different points. In this topic I'm focussing on the coordinate systems used to define a black hole because it's right at the heart of what's wrong with general relativity and why black hole event horizons can never ever be reached by any object. Please excuse the tone, it was written for another website and I'm getting frustrated with physicists who can't argue my points but seem equally unable to admit that they're wrong.

'If an object were able to reach an event horizon eventually from the perspective of an external observer but it happened in a shorter amount of proper time from the free-fallers perspective then there wouldn't be a problem, but the fact that an object can never reach an event horizon from the outside means that it can never reached from any objects perspective, and to claim that an object can reach an event horizon from its own perspective is the exact physical equivalent to claiming that an object can reach the speed of light from it's own perspective but not from any other, it makes no sense whatsoever, especially when you consider that objects themselves are made up of numerous smaller objects to which the same rules also apply. How could the front part of an object possibly reach an event horizon before the back part of the object? If it's not possible to reach it from the outside then it's not possible to reach it. This should be obvious. An event can't both happen and not happen. It can happen at different times from different objects perspectives relative to other events but if something never happens in one frame of reference then it can never happen in any of them. This is standard SR and it's not okay to just ignore it when thinking about gravitational acceleration.


Closing Statement from A wal

This is getting really annoying now. I just tried another science forum and the same thing happened. All they do is attack me and don’t put up even a single decent argument to defend their position, because they can’t.

Ask them how an object can possibly cross an event horizon when it’s physically impossible for any object to reach from the perspective of an external observer, which applies to the front part of an extended object being unable to reach the horizon before the back part of the object. If they say that objects can reach an event horizon from the perspective of an external object then ask what happens to the object that’s crossed the horizon if the external object then accelerates away. They can’t answer. It’s hilarious.

Feel free to use any of my arguments and send me a message if you want me to write a reply to something they've said. I'm not making this stuff up, I'm not a crackpot and I'm not mistaken. As unbelievable as it sounds GR really is wrong, and the gits refuse to even acknowledge there's a problem. They're just digging a deeper hole for themselves. It's not just wrong it's inconsistent on so many levels that they really should all be shot, or at least sacked and publicly humiliated, or maybe thrown in jail for stealing peoples money and abusing public trust as well as science.

I'm not really sure where to go from here. Even if I did have the technically knowledge to put together a scientifically presently paper it would never be published because from what I've heard the peer review system is set up to filter out anything that contradicts the mainstream viewpoint so that it's allowed no credibility and then they expel and smear however dared to try it. I've been hearing stories from other people about how they always change part of the submission and then refute it based on the change that they themselves made. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. After speaking to many of them I've realised they're more dogmatic than the religious.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Apr 27 2013: Things get to the event horizon. We can see matter falling into a black hole and jets of radiation emanating out along the axis.
    However, the event horizon is the point at which space becomes so curved as to not allow light out, back into our universe. Therefore, we see something approach the event horizon, but not cross it (obviously) and just fade away.
    You are just postulating a modern example of Achilles and the tortoise paradox again
    • Apr 28 2013: What form/s of radiation escape black holes and what evidence does science have to verify such?
        • Apr 28 2013: Tell us, how does just light show up as an image. If you take a brilliant light behind other obscuring objects, the object putting off the light will not show up, only the light will.
      • Apr 28 2013: You need to type slower because that last question did not make any sense.
        • Apr 28 2013: Only to someone that can't answer the question.
      • Apr 28 2013: I might be able to answer the question if I knew what it was about
        • Apr 28 2013: Science is claiming it can see not only a quasars light behind another galaxy, but science is claiming to see the quasar off to the sides of the galaxy blocking the quasars view.

          My question is, how does light alone carry the image of the quasar itself?

          If science were to set up a glass case with one million candle power behind a fence, would you see the image of the glass case off to the side of the fence?

          Of course science claims that gravity plays a role, so how exactly does gravity or gravitational lensing carry the image of the quasar itself?

          If there was a big mirror to reflect that image onto some dust cloud, maybe that image could travel millions of miles and show up on that dust cloud, but without the --background---dust cloud---- and a mirror to project the image of the quasar, how in the world can science see the images of the quasars?

          The light from a quasar cannot carry its own image.
    • thumb

      A wal

      • 0
      May 1 2013: No I'm not. We can't see matter falling into a black hole. The light would be moving in the wrong direction for us to see it even if it were possible. The jets of radiation aren't coming from inside the black hole. That's impossible even according to general relativity. We never see an object disappear when it approaches an event horizon. It just keeps slowing down. This is not a visual effect. It's caused by length contraction and time dilation. To then say that objects can reach an event horizon from their own perspectives is a complete contradiction. You need to use the Rindler coordinates to see what's happening from the perspective of a falling object. They're used to describe the perspective of an accelerating object, but they also apply to objects that are being accelerated by gravity because free-fall is not inertial as general relativity assumes. There's no difference between following a straight path through flat space-time and following a curved path through flat space-time. They're physically equivalent.
      • May 2 2013: Once you are inside the black hole event horizon light cones are pointed away from you. The jets of radiation are x-rays that are emitted from the pole of the black hole due to infalling matter.
        If you are using Rindler coordinates, it is true that a particle will take infinite Rindler time (T) to reach the event horizon but a finite time in Minkowski time (t) to do so after which it will pass through the event horizon.
        From the point of view of the particle entering the black hole, nothing much will change. In fact, it is possible that passing the point of no return would be missed completely (as it is indistinguishable from all other points in time)
        The Rindler coordinate system does not extend into the black hole and goes imaginary if you try, its value is in describing the coordinate system, and space energy in an accelerating frame or within a gravity field.
        • thumb

          A wal

          • 0
          May 3 2013: Text book answer, and completely wrong.

          Light cones can never point away from you. That would mean the arrow of time would be reversed. The four dimensions are all at right right angles to each other and the light cones tilt less in response to the same amount of acceleration the harder you accelerate. For a light cone to reach 90 degrees an object would have to travel at a relative velocity of the speed of light. It works just like SR.

          Jets of x-ray radiation originate from outside the event horizon, even according to GR.

          The Minkowski and, I can't remember the name of the other one, begins with a K, coordinates are in direct contradiction with the Schwartzschild and Rindler coordinate systems. You can't just switch coordinates that give descriptions inconsistent with each other. You can't change reality by switching coordinate systems. If the Rindler and Schartzschild coordinates fail at an event horizon them they're wrong all the time. Think about. How close to the horizon do you have to be before they stop working?

          No external object can ever observe another object reaching an event horizon. If that were possible then it go close enough to the horizon to see an object cross it and the move away and the object that's crossed would have to then move back across the horizon when the other object has moved a certain distance away. So the back part of an extended object can't reach the horizon before the front part. It would mean that every object that ever reaches the horizon would have to do it at exactly the same time. At what point in the life of the black hole would this happen?

          If you use the frame of reference of the singularity then there's never enough time for any object to reach it and the would be a boundary marking the closest point that any object could have gotten at that time which moves inwards at the speed of light, but slower from a distance as an inverse square in the same way that gravity falls off and you have a black hole.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.