MigL

You keep bringing up the far away observer frame of reference and claim that since time comes to astandstill in THAT frame, it must be what actually happens, ie in every frame. You can't grasp the concept that GR is frame independant because there is no absolute frame that determines what actually happens. There is no background frame or stage ( absolute time or absolute space ) upon which events happen. The far away observer only sees reflected light from the object falling in the black hole. Light is a vibration of electric and magnetic fields with a time dependance. The light moving away from the vicinity of the event horizon ( if it still can ) has its time base stretched towards infinity ( just like you claim ) so that light eminating from the event horizon has its time base stretched to infinity and so has no energy left and cannot be seen, ie its black !!! In the objects local frame things are vastly different. There is no time dilation and the object proceeds through the event horizon on its way to meet up with the possible singularity. There are numerous books where this is demonstrated mathematically by people like Oppenhimer. Novikov, Vald'ovich, Wheeler and the previously mentioned Thorne , Hawking and Penrose. Why don't you try reading some of them. Is it any wonder you have no posts in the physics or math forums, but only in speculations ? That's where the kooks and cranks reside, while the rest of us just check in every once in a while to make sure you guys don't hurt your brains. Yeah, you did bitch slap me; What else would I expect from a bitch.

If I say unicorns are pink, and no one refutes it ( either because there are no unicorns so no one knows their colour, or because its a dumb assertion ), does that make unicorns real and pink ?? That's the logic you just used to 'slap me down'. It must be bulletproof.

Very well, here are the facts... Motion is the movement along geodesics through curved space-time. Not a change of the distance between objects. It only seems like following straight lines in curved space-time because we use light to define straight lines, and light also followes the curvature of space-time. What defines black hole geometry is the mass ( charge and angular momentum can be disregarded for current arguments ). the mass predetermines the radius of the event horizon. There is no outward or inward acceleration or bounces. As the mass gravitationally collapses and passes through the mathematical limit which defines the event horizon, to a distant frame of reference time stops ( the Russians originally called them frozen stars ), which also means reflected light's wavelengths are strtched to infinity and frequency is reduced to zero, making it disappear, ie black. The mass continues contracting to a possible singularity, from a local frame of reference. A quantum gravity theory will eventually confirm or falsify the singularity. Your two ships connected by a rope are no different than a single ship that 'submerges' part of itself inside the event horizon. There is a theory, don't recall if it was Wheeler or Thorne ( or even Hawking or Penrose ) that any pertruding parts of something that enters the event horizon will also collapse spherically into the hole. So there is no paradox. I have tries to use simple understandable concepts and no math ( don't do laTEX anyway ). My views are supported by other members of this forum and by leading experts in the field like the aforementioned Thorne, Hawking and Penrose. So tell me, who supports your views ???

David, David... Newton knew the explanation for the tides 300+ yrs ago and could easily have inferred the movement of the moon away from earth. I don't know wether he did or not and don't have time to look it up. But it certainly wouldn't have needed verification from NASA.

Another way to look at it is that momentum is related to the energy of a particle. If you try and confine the particle to smaller and smaller spaces, it bounces around much more violently, so that its energy, and so its momentum becomes more and more indeterminate.

IIn the higher symmetry state, before spontaneous symmetry breaking, all particles are massless. It is through the coupling of these massless particles to the Higgs field, that they aquire mass. Not just quarks, but all fermions like electrons and their relatives, and massive evctor bosons like the +/-W and Z.

David Levy still cannot understand that the reason the moon is slowly moving away from the Earht is due to the change in angular momentum from the tidal forces, ie the orbital radius is slowly increasing. He then says the same thing is happening to Mars to move it away from the Sun compared to past times. I would think any 'tides' caused on the Sun ( it is gaseous after all ) by the tug of Mars' orbit would be obliterated by that of Jupiter, Saturn and even the Earth, Venus and Mercury which are much closer ( remember the inverse square dependance of gravity ). Tidal forces due to Mars would be negligible. Or maybe like his theory on universal expansion, matter is being created in the center of the sun and forcing everything outward. If you were to take a chunk of the frozen ice cap of Mars and you heated it, would it sublimate like CO2 does or would it liquify. If the latter, then the atmosphere of Mars can support liquid water. Its temperature can't. As for Astrology, I haven't a clue what he's on about.

Tidal forces would still be impossible to deal with. Read Kip Thorne's book ' Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's outrageous Legacy' for an explanation of wormholes, their problems and their uses for generating CTL ( time machines ). Turns out the biggest problem is keeping them open as they would collapse immediately upon entry. The only way to keep them open is threading them with exotic matter ( ie possessing negative energy ). The one place this exotic material can be harvested is at the event horizon of a black hole. A Kerr black hole is a rotating black hole and, as a result, has an inner and an outer event horizon which is thickest at the'equator and co-incidental at the poles. This area between the event horizons is an area of negative energy where large amounts of exotic matter could be harvested ( by a sufficiently advanced civilization ).

So, I'm the idiot, A-wal ??? It seems to me everyone is dis-agreeing WITH YOU, and these are people with actual degrees, who know their stuff and are well respected in our forum's community. You, on the other hand, have no relevant education, are ignorant and rude: I don't think you'll last very long as a member before getting banned. You would have been banned already if there was a rule against ignorance and refusal to be convinced by the facts. I guess this is just your online persona that we are presented, because if you acted the way you do online in the real world, you would have gotten your ass kicked way too many times.

Seems ACG52 beat me to it. His answers demonstrate that you _do_not_ have a clear, if any,understanding of GR. I would like to add one thing though, The Earth has an escape velocity of approx. 18000 mi/hr, ie to escape to infinity you need to move at that speed. Do you think that means that all objects captured by Earth's gravity have a speed at any time during their fall, or at impact, of 18000 mi/hr ?? Similarily a black hole with an escape velocity of c , does not imply infalling objects must reach lightspeed at the event horizon.

I've often said the same thing about wave-particle duality, Ronald. You seem to have a lot of knowledge to pass onto others when you're not on one of your flights of speculation. Keep it up.

I wasn't aware that that coud happen. Thanks Timo.

I think the biggest fault of the OP is that its toooo looong and too verbose and just for that reason it should be moved to the least popular forum. No-one should have to read something like that; I certainly didn't. Next time just get to the point before everyone loses interest. I did get something from one of your later posts and I think you need to look up the definition of escape velocity, It is defined as the speed at which an object escapes a gravitational potential to INFINITY. This speed, at the event horizon of a black hole ( simple Swartzchild, not charged and non rotating, so not likely to actually exist ) is the speed of light. Since the inverse is also applicable, in effect, an object would need to be accelerated by a black hole from infinitely far away to reach the speed of light at the event horizon of a simple Swartzchild black hole and in the absence of any other gravitational forces along the way. Not very likely, is it. Black holes are the simplest macroscopic constructs that we know of. The external, macroscopic event horizon is described explicitly byGR and just a few numbers. The fact that its microscopic features, like the possible singularity, is beyond our current ability to describe, is no reason to throw out the GR baby along with the bathwater.

If the Higgs mechanism gives mass to formerly massless particles through their coupling with the Higgs field, then what mechanism imparts mass to the Higgs boson ? The Higgs boson is an 'excitation' of the scalar Higgs field and unless scalar fields are self-coupling ( I'm not sure myself ), there needs to be another, separate mechanism for the Higgs boson's mass. It seems kind of strange that nature would use one mechanism for all particle masses and then tack on another separate mechanism for the bosonic manifestation of the first mechanism. See the following arXiv paper... "What is the Origin of the Mass of the Higgs Boson?" - by Novello and Bittencourt for an elaborate explanation of the Higgs mechanism as opposed to the Machian, metric tensor mechanism for particle masses.

As Timo has stated it is the coupling strength of the particle to the Higgs field, ie. how strongly the particle interacts with the scalar Higgs field, which supposedly determines the mass of the particle. Not the strength of the Higgs field, which would have a constant value. Different quarks, if the superstring representation is valid, would have differing vibrational harmonics which would affect their coupling strength to give different masses for the quarks. Again, assuming the validity of superstring theory. There is also a Machian theory of mass which is due to the local, causal distribution of mass-energy, as I don't think the Higgs boson has been 100% identified yet. And since scalar fields can couple with gravity, the cause of mass could even be a combination of Higgs and Mach mechanisms.

QM takes place on the fixed background of space and time. I rather like the fact that GR gets rid of the fixed background space and time. Loop Quantum Gravity preserves those qualities of GR, but it doesn't seem to get as much exposure as SString or M theory with the only advocates that I'm familiar with being Rovelli and Smolin.

Cut your losses and run ?? Typical crank behaviour, oh and tell us what does SDA stand for ?

No you are missing the point. A static gravitational field emits no gravitational waves according to GR. A varying gravitational field, on the other hand, does, but the only energy 'carried away' by gravitational waves are the variable components. In effect if a mass is orbiting another static ( assume ) mass, gravitational waves carry away the orbital energy such that the orbit decays and eventually joins the static mass, at which point no more energy is lost to gravitational waves. The masses themselves do not decay gravitationally, at least not for more than 10^32 yrs ( proton decay ). What does YOUR patented theory predict ???

Hey Seeger Carbajal, maybe you should remind Swansont and ACG52 That a shair or a hand is mostly empty space and is in fact made 'solid' by electromagnetic forces between atoms, so ultimately it is still electromagnetism counteracting gravity. No seriously, the reason we get so many 'gravity is just electromagnetism' posts, is that obsessive fanatical cranks keep on coming back to the same inane subject and will not take reason for an answer. And incidentally the reason things always start falling at slow speed and accelerate to faster and faster speeds is due to the principle of least action, where the Lagrangian of the system ( kinetic minus potential energy ) is minimised. This follows from symmetry considerations. Massless objects such as photons, that don't obey this principle ( but rather the principle of least time ) do not 'accelerate' to c, rather they start moving at c as soon as they come into being.

Einstein certainly doesn't need my help to save his reputation. But what he mistakenly included for the wrong reason, has turned out to be accurate, is all I've said. Don't go off on a tangent to confuse the issue and avoid having to give explanations for your wild speculation. Gravitational waves have been part of mainstream cosmology for quite a few years, they only needed verification. Its not like the _1993 Nobel prize_ that you keep mentioning was a paradigm shifting of accepted physics. Stop throwing up smoke and mirrors and answer dimreeper's questions if you want to be taken seriously. Otherwise move on to your next psychotic episode.

ou've created a universe in your own mind which works a certain way, makes no prdictions and is untestable. To everyone else it is unnecessarily complex,or simply wrong as it involves throwing out every scientific insight of the last 300 yrs ( since Hyugens ). And it seems no one can convince you of your narrow-mindedness or ignorance of physics. You seem to think everyone else has blinders on. I think this is the reason I don't like to post in speculations. Sometimes the subjects are interesting but it attracts the wrong kind of people.

Just like you told Dimreeper to understand before he criticises, I think you should do the same. You have little understanding of the accepted and consistent way things work as exemplified by your understanding of proton decay, And Einstein did predict dark energy, however he called it a cosmological constant. If you read any advanced cosmology texts you'll find that the two work the same and are both caused by vacuum energy.

The photon is the electromagnetic field, or rather, the manifestation of excitation of the field. The field does not hold photons together. So if its not one 'process' decaying into another but rather two 'processes' with a commonality, can you supply equations that describe this commonality, as Maxwell's equations and those of GR do not. Have you found a unification for electromagnetism and gravity ? Should I submit your name for a Nobel prize yet ? The principle of least action describes pretty well the reason for and mechanism for exchange of potential energy to kinetic energy, and I really don't think any gravitational monopole waves are involved.

The reason your example may work with balls in water is because water waves are in a medium, ie water, there is a distinct difference between water and the wave, they are not the same thing. EM waves on the other hand haven't, nor need a medium. The photons which comprise them are bosons which follow Bose-Einstein statistics. This means you can stack as many as you want into the same state with no repercussions or interactions. So what is the mechanism by which this'decay' from EM waves to gravitatonal monopole ( HUH ?? ) waves happens ? What is the mechanism for mass and energy 'decay' to create space through the continuous release of gravitational waves. It has been experimentally confirmed that the half-life of a proton is greater than 10^32 yrs ( 10,000 billion, billion, billion years !!!), how does that jibe with your decay of mass-energy into space ?? Or does it all sound so unbelievably strange because you are using 100 yr old terminology ????

So, is that a yes then ? According to you EM fields 'decay' into 'gravitational monopole waves', whatever those might be, and so EM fields have a limited, not infinite range. Did you then lie when you claimed to have said no such thing ? And again, how do you reconcile this with Maxwell's equations ? Also, what is the machanism for this 'decay' from EM to GM waves ? Or were you hoping no one would ask you and you could make up the rest of it later ?????