Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #362874 > unrolled thread

Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-02 20:23 -0700
    Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 20:39 -0700
      Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-02 23:19 -0700
    Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-04 00:23 -0700
      Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-04 03:57 -0700
        Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 09:48 -0700
          Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-05 15:03 +0200
            Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 11:21 -0700
              Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-08 12:19 +0200
                Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 09:18 -0700
                  Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-08 21:29 +0200
                    Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 13:25 -0700
                      Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-08 22:55 +0200
                        Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 15:03 -0700
                          Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-09 20:18 +0200
                            Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 11:50 -0700
                              Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-09 22:35 +0200
                                Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 14:59 -0700
                                  Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-10 12:09 +0200
                                    Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 03:42 -0700
                                      Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-11 08:53 +0200
                                        Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 13:04 -0700
                                    Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 17:03 -0700
                                      Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-15 07:07 +0200
                                        Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 23:34 -0700
                                          Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-15 03:25 -0700
          Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 23:59 -0700
            Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 00:12 -0700
            Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-15 03:58 -0700
              Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 13:43 -0700
                Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 00:55 -0700
                  Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-19 15:04 +0000
                    Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 22:38 -0700
        Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-04 13:15 -0700
          Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 14:23 -0700
    Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 11:26 -0700
      Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane "Lleyton H. Bellucci" <lleyb@stratospheree.org> - 2015-09-04 22:00 +0000
        Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 16:02 -0700
          Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane "Lleyton H. Bellucci" <lleyb@stratospheree.org> - 2015-09-05 11:01 +0000
            Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-05 15:30 +0200
              Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane "Lleyton H. Bellucci" <lleyb@stratospheree.org> - 2015-09-05 13:38 +0000
                Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-05 15:42 +0200
                  Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane "Lleyton H. Bellucci" <lleyb@stratospheree.org> - 2015-09-05 13:54 +0000
              Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane "Lleyton H. Bellucci" <lleyb@stratospheree.org> - 2015-09-05 13:52 +0000
        Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-05 02:08 +0200
          Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane "Lleyton H. Bellucci" <lleyb@stratospheree.org> - 2015-09-05 10:51 +0000
            Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane "Lleyton H. Bellucci" <lleyb@stratospheree.org> - 2015-09-05 11:03 +0000
              Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-05 11:20 -0400
                Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane "Lleyton H. Bellucci" <lleyb@stratospheree.org> - 2015-09-05 15:40 +0000
                  Re: Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-05 13:14 -0400

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#363744

Użytkownik "paparios"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:c1b11873-b2d0-4696-aa94-f57148d3d2f1@googlegroups.com...

On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 7:09:36 AM UTC-3, Maciej Woźniak wrote:

|It is obvious that neither the nym-shifter troll nor the two angry polish 
lovers are here to learn (or teach) anything.

It's obvious that there still are some sane people not bowing
before the incredible wisdom of Great Guru. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#363809

On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 11:53:40 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "paparios"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:c1b11873-b2d0-4696-aa94-f57148d3d2f1@googlegroups.com...
> 
> On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 7:09:36 AM UTC-3, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> 
> |It is obvious that neither the nym-shifter troll nor the two angry polish 
> lovers are here to learn (or teach) anything.
> 
> It's obvious that there still are some sane people not bowing
> before the incredible wisdom of Great Guru.

Your choice of words betrays at once where you're coming from. If you were
merely attempting to debate relativity, you'd do just that. But incessant
use of the phrases "Great Guru" coupled with calling everyone "idiot" and
"moron" makes your agenda obvious: you are simply obsessed with Einstein,
it eats you alive, and all you can do is post nonsense AS LONG AS it
contains certain key phrases, like a magic incantation.

There are a few other regulars here who feel similarly compelled to
post religious mantras.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#364133

On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 3:09:36 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:e6e3adf5-0c2c-40fa-ab36-c31e0b6b101c@googlegroups.com...
> 
> > |Now you are simply lying. I said that this was incorrect from day one,
> >
> > Of course you did. But it was not the only thing you said.
> > Quoting:
> > > But when I will, you will yell, that it's inproper, won't you?
> > No, I said only that these coordinates were
> > End of quoting.
> > Exectly as I said.
> 
> |You make exactly zero sense. I said from the beginning that these
> 
> Of course you did. But it was never the only thing you said.

Of course you snipped the link I provided:
see e.g. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topicsearchin/sci.physics.relativity/authorname$3Amaciej$20AND$20after$3A2013$2F12$2F18$20AND$20before$3A2014$2F06$2F01/sci.physics.relativity/yIaNMFxzzvE
(open my "12/19/13" post).

> |Don't change the subject. It is simply an obvious statement: raw values
> |of man-made coordinates cannot be used to infer the occurrence of any
> |physical phenomenon.
> 
> Obvious for a relativistic moron only.

So you believe in magic. I won't comment on total nonsense any further.

> > Poor, poor idiot. Man made? In oposiion to your interval
> > shit, probably? Yes, it's not man-made. It's Great Guru-made.
> > Makes difference, doesn't it?
> 
> |You must be under some drug influence. Don't post when your mind is
> 
> Poor, poor idiot. Man made? In oposiion to your interval
> shit, probably? Yes, it's not man-made. It's Great Guru-made.
> Makes difference, doesn't it?

Irrelevant. Skip the poetry.

> > |You are still not answering my question. Are we feeling cornered?
> >
> > You are still not answering my question. Are we feeling cornered?
> 
> |So you have no answer.
> 
> Yes, I do have. You just can't notice it. Samely, as you can't
> notice my questions.
> As expected from a relativistic moron.

So you have no answer.

> > Well, in opposition to you, I do answer.
> > Simply.
> 
> |Where is this answer then? How can a magic spell cause anything to
> |happen?
> 
> We're not talking about magic spells. We're talking about
> words. As "happen" is a verb ("czasownik"), time ("czas")
> have some influence on it.
> Nothing a relativistic moron could understand, however.

You are again talking in riddles and insults instead of simply stating
what you mean. I though my claim was perfectly valid: if you label
space and time by smooth but otherwise arbitrary numbers (4-tuples
of numbers to be exact), you cannot infer from these values _alone_
anything physical. You have to use other mathematical structures
because it's that totality of structures that forms your model.
If you pick and choose you get nonsense.

Say specifically where the error in the above reasoning is.

> > > And your alternative? When and how - exactly - a distant
> > > observer  (like us both) can decide "it happened, object just
> > > crossed the  horizon"?
> >
> > |He cannot
> >
> > So, what is your problem to understand? He cannot
> > detefrmine directly, whether it happened or not,
> 
> |FINALLY you admit it. It took only 2 1/12 years. Exactly right and in
> 
> Imagination, as expected from a relativistic morton.

Reread that post of mine from 2013. I said there as much.

> > so, convention is free to make it for him.
> > Even such a moron should understand it easily.
> 
> |NOW you are saying this. But before you were saying the falling object 
> would
> |not cross the horizon because its radial coordinate was such-and-such.
> 
> I'm just repeating it after your fellow idiot, that wrote it in
> your moronic relativistic wikipedy. I've told you at least
> five times.
> Five times are not enough for a relativistic moron.

And I'm repeating for the fifth time that within GR this is incorrect.
Happy now?

> |If you assume GR, this is an incorrect claim.
> 
> Explain it to your fellow idiot, that assumed GR and wrote it.

I don't feel like editing that Wikipedia article (but I might, depends
on my mood).

> > And, BTW, as you can't determine, whether the
> > event "object crossed the horizon" happened or not,
> > why are you so sure it happened?
> 
> |What I said was that in GR the falling object's proper time would record
> |a finite time before crossing the horizon.
> 
> You said much, much more.

Yes, of course. Talking to you is like writing a Proust novel. Simplest
things take forever to reach you.

> > |1. either assume GR is a good enough model and conclude the object
> > |will cross the horizon in its finite proper time,
> >
> > Who cares?
> 
> |If you assume GR, you must care. This is the crux of the matter.
> 
> No. I don't have to care. Well, GR states so, I've heard, what is
> so important about it?

Nothing except we are discussing GR here. If you prefer to discuss your
pet theory, say so. Oh, you might also tell us some details of that
theory. Last I checked you never did that, you just post screams, insults,
and ludicrous claims. Unending stream of those.

> > As you said yourself, from my point of view it means
> > "object either crossed the horizon or not". And nothing
> > more.
> > Right?
> 
> |Point is that it takes little more to throw away GR than posts saying
> 
> I asked. RIGHT?
> No answer, just a moronic mumble. As usual.

You didn't ask anything. You simply quoted the Wikipedia and started
making farting noises the instant I said (in 2013!) that that Wikipedia
article was incorrect as far as that claim went.

> > You mean - to simplify solving, that "object either
> > crossed the horizon or not"?
> 
> |No, to solve the Einstein equation.
> 
> WHAT FOR? To get information, that for me object either
> crossed the horizon or not?

I've already stated several times what GR said in this situation.
Its philosophical implications are interesting but also a matter
for a different discussion.

> > Well, I can do such things
> > without selecting any coordinates, would you believe?
> >
> > > No.
> >
> > |Well, same thing with coordinates.
> >
> > No, poor idiot. Not same.
> 
> |Why? In both cases you have a situation where a physical consequence is
> 
> Because "time" and "Zurich" are different terms and the
> conventions related to them heve different construction,
> different scale and different range.

Unmitigated nonsense. OK, so you simply believe in magic: attaching numbers
of your choice to events makes phenomena occur or not.

Given that I'm afraid there is little point discussing anything with you.

> Nothing a relativistic moron would know or could understand.
> Or even would be interested in.

Yeah, yeah, sure. Keep saying those magic words, they'll certainly
become true.

--
Jan

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#364147

Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:2adf18a5-9fc4-4e15-b774-4d51fc2a27f6@googlegroups.com...

On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 3:09:36 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:e6e3adf5-0c2c-40fa-ab36-c31e0b6b101c@googlegroups.com...
>
> > |Now you are simply lying. I said that this was incorrect from day one,
> >
> > Of course you did. But it was not the only thing you said.
> > Quoting:
> > > But when I will, you will yell, that it's inproper, won't you?
> > No, I said only that these coordinates were
> > End of quoting.
> > Exectly as I said.
>
> |You make exactly zero sense. I said from the beginning that these
>
> Of course you did. But it was never the only thing you said.

|Of course you snipped the link I provided:

If it was to confirm your "I said" it was irrelevant, as I agreed, that
you said.
Of course, you're to stupid to notice.
And if it was not, what was it supposed to confirm?


> |Don't change the subject. It is simply an obvious statement: raw values
> |of man-made coordinates cannot be used to infer the occurrence of any
> |physical phenomenon.
>
> Obvious for a relativistic moron only.

|So you believe in magic. I won't comment on total nonsense any further.

Indians took gunpowder as magic, because they know nothing about.
I always told you you know nothing about models and modelling.
And you do.



> > Poor, poor idiot. Man made? In oposiion to your interval
> > shit, probably? Yes, it's not man-made. It's Great Guru-made.
> > Makes difference, doesn't it?
>
> |You must be under some drug influence. Don't post when your mind is
>

|Irrelevant. Skip the poetry.

Poor, poor idiot. Man made? In oposiion to your interval
shit, probably? Yes, it's not man-made. It's Great Guru-made.
Makes difference, doesn't it?

> > |You are still not answering my question. Are we feeling cornered?
> >
> > You are still not answering my question. Are we feeling cornered?
>
> |So you have no answer.
>
> Yes, I do have. You just can't notice it. Samely, as you can't
> notice my questions.
> As expected from a relativistic moron.

|So you have no answer.

Yes, I do have. You just can't notice it. Samely, as you can't
notice my questions.
As expected from a relativistic moron.


> > Well, in opposition to you, I do answer.
> > Simply.
>
> |Where is this answer then? How can a magic spell cause anything to
> |happen?
>
> We're not talking about magic spells. We're talking about
> words. As "happen" is a verb ("czasownik"), time ("czas")
> have some influence on it.
> Nothing a relativistic moron could understand, however.

|You are again talking in riddles and insults instead of simply stating
|what you mean. I though my claim was perfectly valid: if you label
|space and time by smooth but otherwise arbitrary numbers (4-tuples
|of numbers to be exact), you cannot infer from these values _alone_
|anything physical.

Can't I? Perhaps because only Gurus are able, eh?
Quoting:
OTOH time dilation is a function of choosing certain very
"nice" coordinates






> I'm just repeating it after your fellow idiot, that wrote it in
> your moronic relativistic wikipedy. I've told you at least
> five times.
> Five times are not enough for a relativistic moron.

|And I'm repeating for the fifth time that within GR this is incorrect.

Your fellow idiot, that wrote wikipedy, would probably not
agree.

> > |1. either assume GR is a good enough model and conclude the object
> > |will cross the horizon in its finite proper time,
> >
> > Who cares?
>
> |If you assume GR, you must care. This is the crux of the matter.
>
> No. I don't have to care. Well, GR states so, I've heard, what is
> so important about it?

|Nothing except we are discussing GR here.

Of course. So, what is your Ingenious Shit telling me about crossing
the horizon by an object in MY time and in MY reference frame?




> > As you said yourself, from my point of view it means
> > "object either crossed the horizon or not". And nothing
> > more.
> > Right?
>
> |Point is that it takes little more to throw away GR than posts saying
>
> I asked. RIGHT?
> No answer, just a moronic mumble. As usual.

|You didn't ask anything.


A lie, as expected from a relativistic moron.
So, I'm repeating:
you said yourself, from my point of view it means
"object either crossed the horizon or not". And nothing
more.
Right?

> > You mean - to simplify solving, that "object either
> > crossed the horizon or not"?
>
> |No, to solve the Einstein equation.
>
> WHAT FOR? To get information, that for me object either
> crossed the horizon or not?

|I've already stated several times what GR said in this situation.

So, what will I get from resolving Einstein equation? The
conclusion, that object either crossed the horizon or not?
I'm talking, as always, about MY point of view. Your
imagination-created observer falling into BH doesn't
interest me at all.

> Because "time" and "Zurich" are different terms and the
> conventions related to them heve different construction,
> different scale and different range.

|Unmitigated nonsense.

That time and Zurich are different terms?

|OK, so you simply believe in magic: attaching numbers
|of your choice to events makes phenomena occur or not.

You do believe the same, unfortunately. Quoting:
OTOH time dilation is a function
of choosing certain very "nice" coordinates

Of course, you're too stupid to understand, what you
believe. As expecting from a relativistic moron.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#364149

On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 10:08:02 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:2adf18a5-9fc4-4e15-b774-4d51fc2a27f6@googlegroups.com...
> 
> On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 3:09:36 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > dyskusyjnych:e6e3adf5-0c2c-40fa-ab36-c31e0b6b101c@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > |Now you are simply lying. I said that this was incorrect from day one,
> > >
> > > Of course you did. But it was not the only thing you said.
> > > Quoting:
> > > > But when I will, you will yell, that it's inproper, won't you?
> > > No, I said only that these coordinates were
> > > End of quoting.
> > > Exectly as I said.
> >
> > |You make exactly zero sense. I said from the beginning that these
> >
> > Of course you did. But it was never the only thing you said.
> 
> |Of course you snipped the link I provided:
> 
> If it was to confirm your "I said" it was irrelevant, as I agreed, that
> you said.
> Of course, you're to stupid to notice.
> And if it was not, what was it supposed to confirm?

This is my last post on this topic as you obviously suffer from some autistic
spectrum disorder and I'm not paid to be your therapist.

To answer your question (you seem to have the memory span of a gold fish) it
was supposed to confirm that I have been telling you the same thing from
day one: the falling object crosses the horizon in finite time according to GR
(ditto for hitting the singularity). I am fully aware other theories may come to
a very different conclusion. If you have other theory, publish it. And I really
don't care much what Wikipedia has to say on the subject either.

> > |Don't change the subject. It is simply an obvious statement: raw values
> > |of man-made coordinates cannot be used to infer the occurrence of any
> > |physical phenomenon.
> >
> > Obvious for a relativistic moron only.
> 
> |So you believe in magic. I won't comment on total nonsense any further.
> 
> Indians took gunpowder as magic, because they know nothing about.
> I always told you you know nothing about models and modelling.
> And you do.

Likewise, I don't care about any "models and modelling" of yours because:

1. perhaps you haven't noticed but you've never told anyone on this NG what
it is, and

2. based on the truly imbecilic corollaries of the said "models and modelling" you
have graciously presented us here with, it is obvious it is not inapplicable to science.
What it is applicable to may be an interesting question on some other group, perhaps 
some CS forum would be more receptive to your rants.

> > > Poor, poor idiot. Man made? In oposiion to your interval
> > > shit, probably? Yes, it's not man-made. It's Great Guru-made.
> > > Makes difference, doesn't it?
> >
> > |You must be under some drug influence. Don't post when your mind is
> >
> 
> |Irrelevant. Skip the poetry.
> 
> Poor, poor idiot. Man made? In oposiion to your interval
> shit, probably? Yes, it's not man-made. It's Great Guru-made.
> Makes difference, doesn't it?

Just reread your post. Just sick mind word salad. Nobody told you that you seem
to have a communication problem?

I doubt very much anyone else is following this exchange any more but for the record
the above inanity was generated by making the trivially true statement that coordinate
values are assigned by humans, hence these assignments cannot make anything
to happen. Maciej debates that. And I am _not_ joking.

> > > |You are still not answering my question. Are we feeling cornered?
> > >
> > > You are still not answering my question. Are we feeling cornered?
> >
> > |So you have no answer.
> >
> > Yes, I do have. You just can't notice it. Samely, as you can't
> > notice my questions.
> > As expected from a relativistic moron.
> 
> |So you have no answer.
> 
> Yes, I do have. You just can't notice it. Samely, as you can't
> notice my questions.
> As expected from a relativistic moron.

Fine, you have nothing to say.

> > > Well, in opposition to you, I do answer.
> > > Simply.
> >
> > |Where is this answer then? How can a magic spell cause anything to
> > |happen?
> >
> > We're not talking about magic spells. We're talking about
> > words. As "happen" is a verb ("czasownik"), time ("czas")
> > have some influence on it.
> > Nothing a relativistic moron could understand, however.
> 
> |You are again talking in riddles and insults instead of simply stating
> |what you mean. I though my claim was perfectly valid: if you label
> |space and time by smooth but otherwise arbitrary numbers (4-tuples
> |of numbers to be exact), you cannot infer from these values _alone_
> |anything physical.
> 
> Can't I? Perhaps because only Gurus are able, eh?

Again, reread what you wrote and meditate.

> Quoting:
> OTOH time dilation is a function of choosing certain very
> "nice" coordinates

So you didn't know time dilation is based on gathering certain data from clocks
prepared certain way? What are you doing here debating me if you don't even know
that?

> > I'm just repeating it after your fellow idiot, that wrote it in
> > your moronic relativistic wikipedy. I've told you at least
> > five times.
> > Five times are not enough for a relativistic moron.
> 
> |And I'm repeating for the fifth time that within GR this is incorrect.
> 
> Your fellow idiot, that wrote wikipedy, would probably not
> agree.

Why should I care? It's simply wrong.

> > > |1. either assume GR is a good enough model and conclude the object
> > > |will cross the horizon in its finite proper time,
> > >
> > > Who cares?
> >
> > |If you assume GR, you must care. This is the crux of the matter.
> >
> > No. I don't have to care. Well, GR states so, I've heard, what is
> > so important about it?
> 
> |Nothing except we are discussing GR here.
> 
> Of course. So, what is your Ingenious Shit telling me about crossing
> the horizon by an object in MY time and in MY reference frame?

I've told you already 100 times. And if you have a problem with that, kindly
complain at the Philosophy Department. (If you want to know what physics
has to say on the subject, learn it. This is the only way to really find out what's
going on. If you don't want to do that, you have to rely on people like me or Tom or
many others who have studied it in detail. Obviously this cannot be a full substitute
for full understanding. But you can't have it both ways: not understanding and
refusing to accept explanations.

> > > As you said yourself, from my point of view it means
> > > "object either crossed the horizon or not". And nothing
> > > more.
> > > Right?
> >
> > |Point is that it takes little more to throw away GR than posts saying
> >
> > I asked. RIGHT?
> > No answer, just a moronic mumble. As usual.
> 
> |You didn't ask anything.

> A lie, as expected from a relativistic moron.
> So, I'm repeating:
> you said yourself, from my point of view it means
> "object either crossed the horizon or not". And nothing
> more.
> Right?

Haha, and now I'm going to leave you hanging. Enough explanations, they are
totally wasted on you.

> > > You mean - to simplify solving, that "object either
> > > crossed the horizon or not"?
> >
> > |No, to solve the Einstein equation.
> >
> > WHAT FOR? To get information, that for me object either
> > crossed the horizon or not?
> 
> |I've already stated several times what GR said in this situation.
> 
> So, what will I get from resolving Einstein equation? The
> conclusion, that object either crossed the horizon or not?

How many times have I told you what GR says the answer is, beginning with
the year 2013? I'm not repeating it again.

> I'm talking, as always, about MY point of view. Your
> imagination-created observer falling into BH doesn't
> interest me at all.

You know what I said 100 times already.

> > Because "time" and "Zurich" are different terms and the
> > conventions related to them heve different construction,
> > different scale and different range.
> 
> |Unmitigated nonsense.
> 
> That time and Zurich are different terms?

HAHAHAHA! You are just totally clueless.

> |OK, so you simply believe in magic: attaching numbers
> |of your choice to events makes phenomena occur or not.
> 
> You do believe the same, unfortunately. Quoting:
> OTOH time dilation is a function
> of choosing certain very "nice" coordinates
> 
> Of course, you're too stupid to understand, what you
> believe. As expecting from a relativistic moron.

You are one ridiculous person, I grant you that.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#364157

On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 8:34:22 AM UTC+2, JanPB wrote:

> This is my last post on this topic as you obviously suffer from some autistic
> spectrum disorder and I'm not paid to be your therapist.

So, run, poor idiot. Till the next time.

> 
> To answer your question (you seem to have the memory span of a gold fish) it
> was supposed to confirm that I have been telling you the same thing from
> day one: the falling object crosses the horizon in finite time according to GR

According to your insane GR shit, time is relative and observer dependent, isn't it?
I know, that the time we're talking about is finite for your moronic imagined observer falling into a black hole, but is it really finite for me too? And, more precisely...


> (ditto for hitting the singularity). I am fully aware other theories may com to
> a very different conclusion.

Not so long you wrote, that according to your shit the same observer can conclude different conclusions about it, depending, what system of coordinates he uses. Wanna quoting?


> And I really
> don't care much what Wikipedia has to say on the subject either.

A true relativistic moron. I SAY!!! I don't care what you say!!!!!!!
I don't care what my felllow idiots say!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 



> Likewise, I don't care about any "models and modelling" of yours because:

Because everything you can't contain in your tiny brain must be either magic, or poetry. 



> 
> I doubt very much anyone else is following this exchange any more but for the record
> the above inanity was generated by making the trivially true statement that coordinate
> values are assigned by humans

:) 
In obvious opposition to your moronic metric, that was assigned by Great Guru himself, not by some mere humans.


> So you didn't know time dilation is based on gathering certain data from clocks
> prepared certain way? What are you doing here debating me if you don't even know

I know, You don't. If you did, you wouldn't yell so loudly, that mere human choices can do nothing physical.


> Why should I care? It's simply wrong.

And why should I care for you more?
BTW. Do you realize, that denying wikipedy you treat most physicists of the world like idiots?

> > Of course. So, what is your Ingenious Shit telling me about crossing
> > the horizon by an object in MY time and in MY reference frame?
> 
> I've told you already 100 times. 

So, repeat once more. Your Ingenious Shit in its whole genious can't tell me, when it will happen?
What a brilliant, nice coordinates your shit has choosen...

> > A lie, as expected from a relativistic moron.
> > So, I'm repeating:
> > you said yourself, from my point of view it means
> > "object either crossed the horizon or not". And nothing
> > more.
> > Right?
> 
> Haha, and now I'm going to leave you hanging.

So, run, poor idiot. Till the next time.



> > So, what will I get from resolving Einstein equation? The
> > conclusion, that object either crossed the horizon or not?
> 
> How many times have I told you what GR says the answer is,

But you've never told, what such an answer can be usable for.

> > > Because "time" and "Zurich" are different terms and the
> > > conventions related to them heve different construction,
> > > different scale and different range.
> > 
> > |Unmitigated nonsense.
> > 
> > That time and Zurich are different terms?
> 
> HAHAHAHA! You are just totally clueless.

Because I say, that time and Zurich are different terms?

> > Of course, you're too stupid to understand, what you
> > believe. As expecting from a relativistic moron.
> 
> You are one ridiculous person, I grant you that.

And you are a poor, poor idiot. I grant you that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#364152

On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 9:48:24 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 3:57:57 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:

> > If You read the Ingenious Shit carefully, 
> > You will know, that, from the point of view
> > of a distant observer (i.e. all of us) the
> > process of a black hole creation takes 
> > an infinite time.

Ignoring the fallacy in the spacetime geometry (explained below), the above remark is indeed very correct.  Thank you.  <shrug>

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/uj1TukLRb8M/7IcudqnBesIJ

> 1. Visual observation (due to the light signal delay the star looks
> frozen - but this is just a mirage),

How does Jan know that?  Remember any equation of differential geometry (including GR) can only deal with how a remote geometry is observed and nothing more.  However, the mathematics does allow the remote geometry to be observed by someone locally.  In doing so, it manifests the fallacy which is explained by the link above.  <shrug>

> 2. If the external observer happens to use a certain labelling system
> called (these days) "the Schwarzschild coordinates".

This is absolutely nonsense.  The coordinate of choice is the polar coordinate system in which the Schwarzschild metric (the Schwarzschild spacetime geometry) is described through this ordinary polar coordinate system.  <shrug>

Watch out for the priests (Tom) and the altar boys (Jan, Odd Bodkin aka PD, etc.) of the religion of relativity.  They are all full of shit.  <shrug>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#364153

On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 11:59:31 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 9:48:24 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 3:57:57 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> 
> > > If You read the Ingenious Shit carefully, 
> > > You will know, that, from the point of view
> > > of a distant observer (i.e. all of us) the
> > > process of a black hole creation takes 
> > > an infinite time.
> 
> Ignoring the fallacy in the spacetime geometry (explained below), the above remark is indeed very correct.  Thank you.  <shrug>
> 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/uj1TukLRb8M/7IcudqnBesIJ
> 
> > 1. Visual observation (due to the light signal delay the star looks
> > frozen - but this is just a mirage),
> 
> How does Jan know that?  Remember any equation of differential geometry (including GR) can only deal with how a remote geometry is observed and nothing more.  However, the mathematics does allow the remote geometry to be observed by someone locally.  In doing so, it manifests the fallacy which is explained by the link above.  <shrug>
> 
> > 2. If the external observer happens to use a certain labelling system
> > called (these days) "the Schwarzschild coordinates".
> 
> This is absolutely nonsense.  The coordinate of choice is the polar coordinate system in which the Schwarzschild metric (the Schwarzschild spacetime geometry) is described through this ordinary polar coordinate system.  <shrug>
> 
> Watch out for the priests (Tom) and the altar boys (Jan, Odd Bodkin aka PD, etc.) of the religion of relativity.  They are all full of shit.  <shrug>

Sorry, I can only handle one disturbed person per day. Kindly take a number.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#364158

On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 8:59:31 AM UTC+2, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 9:48:24 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 3:57:57 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> 
> > > If You read the Ingenious Shit carefully, 
> > > You will know, that, from the point of view
> > > of a distant observer (i.e. all of us) the
> > > process of a black hole creation takes 
> > > an infinite time.
> 
> Ignoring the fallacy in the spacetime geometry (explained below), the above remark is indeed very correct.  Thank you.  <shrug>
> 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/uj1TukLRb8M/7IcudqnBesIJ
> 
> > 1. Visual observation (due to the light signal delay the star looks
> > frozen - but this is just a mirage),
> 
> How does Jan know that?

Jan is an extreme idiot, even for a relativist. He knows nothing, except how to yell.
Jan, so, how much time (from my point of view) will the process last? After what time I will be able to say "From my point of view process of creation has already finished and now BH exists"?
What is your Ingenious Shit able to say about this?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#364311

On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 3:58:13 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 8:59:31 AM UTC+2, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 9:48:24 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> > > On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 3:57:57 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > 
> > > > If You read the Ingenious Shit carefully, 
> > > > You will know, that, from the point of view
> > > > of a distant observer (i.e. all of us) the
> > > > process of a black hole creation takes 
> > > > an infinite time.
> > 
> > Ignoring the fallacy in the spacetime geometry (explained below), the above remark is indeed very correct.  Thank you.  <shrug>
> > 
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/uj1TukLRb8M/7IcudqnBesIJ
> > 
> > > 1. Visual observation (due to the light signal delay the star looks
> > > frozen - but this is just a mirage),
> > 
> > How does Jan know that?
> 
> Jan is an extreme idiot, even for a relativist. He knows nothing, except how to yell.
> Jan, so, how much time (from my point of view) will the process last? After what time I will be able to say "From my point of view process of creation has already finished and now BH exists"?
> What is your Ingenious Shit able to say about this?

Zzzzzzzzz...

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#364558

Jan Bielawski wrote:
> On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 11:59:31 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > Remember any equation of differential geometry (including GR) can
> > only deal with how a remote geometry is observed and nothing more.
> > However, the mathematics does allow the remote geometry to be
> > observed by someone locally.  In doing so, it manifests the fallacy
> > which is explained by the link above.  <shrug>
>
> Sorry, I can only handle one disturbed person per day. Kindly take a
> number.

Despite being one of the most prolific posters on the net, that is understandable when Jan the relativistic moron is running out of bandwidth in replying to the inquisitors.  <shrug>

> > The coordinate of choice is the polar coordinate system in which
> > the Schwarzschild metric (the Schwarzschild spacetime geometry) is
> > described through this ordinary polar coordinate system.  <shrug>
>
> Zzzzzzzzz...

Jan the relativistic moron has placed its tail between its legs when confronted with Koobee Wublee.  <shrug>

> > Watch out for the priests (Tom) and the altar boys (Jan, Odd Bodkin
> > aka PD, etc.) of the religion of relativity.  They are all full of
> > shit.  <shrug>

It is very fvcking lonely at the top.  <shrug?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#364579

Koobee Wublee wrote:

>> Sorry, I can only handle one disturbed person per day. Kindly take a
>> number.
> 
> Despite being one of the most prolific posters on the net, that is
> understandable when Jan the relativistic moron is running out of
> bandwidth in replying to the inquisitors.  <shrug>

What's your number? Wait your turn.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#364676

On Saturday, September 19, 2015 at 8:04:46 AM UTC-7, Jimmie Wynne wrote:
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Jan Bielawski the relativistic moron wrote:

> > > Sorry, I can only handle one disturbed person per day. Kindly take
> > > a number.
>
> > Despite being one of the most prolific posters on the net, that is
> > understandable when Jan the relativistic moron is running out of
> > bandwidth in replying to the inquisitors.  <shrug>
>
> What's your number? Wait your turn.

Koobee Wuble's number is (7.32 - j 11.475) where (j = sqrt(-1)).  Koobee Wublee believes Koobee Wublee's turn should be next.  <shrug>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#363089

mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> 
> W dniu piątek, 4 września 2015 09:23:06 UTC+2 użytkownik The Starmaker napisał:
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 4:52:56 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 1:50:59 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > > > > Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane
> > > > > > > http://gizmodo.com/stephen-hawkings-new-theory-on-black-holes-is-fantastic-1726513898
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Black holes have a rap for being hopeless vortexes of destruction,
> > > > > > > but what would really happen if you fell into one? According to
> > > > > > > Stephen Hawking, you might end up in another universe.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Isn't he now contradicting what he said just a few years ago?  Could Alzheimers finally be setting in?
> > > > >
> > > > > Double-A
> > > >
> > > > AA I think Pemrose has a lot to say,and helps Hawking all he can.Hawking's name to fame is his books sell great.He uses no math. His life made a good movie,and had great acting. >Hawking said and I agree "Black holes can come in any size." TreBert
> > >
> > > Stephen Hawking has the same predictable pattern...
> > > he just want to convince the world to travel to other worlds.
> > >
> > > When Hawking says go to a black hole and ""you might end up" in another universe" is just
> > > a trick to convince you that black holes are gateways to other universe.
> > >
> > > You don't actually believe he believes a word of it himself, do you?
> > >
> > > It's a con.
> > >
> > > I say, we push Stephen Hawking into a Black Hole and watch him scream.
> > >
> > > https://youtu.be/U_WEvWcVoFw?t=82
> >
> >
> >
> > Who is going to be the first astronut to go into a black hole? How about a Black astronut? Neil-- deGrasse Tyson
> >
> >
> > Black astronuts lives don't matter, is that right?
> 
> If You read the Ingenious Shit carefully,
> You will know, that, from the point of view
> of a distant observer (i.e. all of us) the
> process of a black hole creation takes
> an infinite time.
> In other words, the Shit says directly,
> that for us black holes don't exist and will
> never exist. They exist only from a point of
> view of an observer falling into it. I.e.
> from a point of view of nobody.


"infinite time"? I'm not sure if 'infinite time' exist...

and the rest of the stuff don't make sense.

Which means, i suspect you're posting garbage.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#363099

On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 1:15:43 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> > 
> > W dniu piątek, 4 września 2015 09:23:06 UTC+2 użytkownik The Starmaker napisał:
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 4:52:56 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 1:50:59 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > > > > > Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane
> > > > > > > > http://gizmodo.com/stephen-hawkings-new-theory-on-black-holes-is-fantastic-1726513898
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Black holes have a rap for being hopeless vortexes of destruction,
> > > > > > > > but what would really happen if you fell into one? According to
> > > > > > > > Stephen Hawking, you might end up in another universe.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Isn't he now contradicting what he said just a few years ago?  Could Alzheimers finally be setting in?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Double-A
> > > > >
> > > > > AA I think Pemrose has a lot to say,and helps Hawking all he can.Hawking's name to fame is his books sell great.He uses no math. His life made a good movie,and had great acting. >Hawking said and I agree "Black holes can come in any size." TreBert
> > > >
> > > > Stephen Hawking has the same predictable pattern...
> > > > he just want to convince the world to travel to other worlds.
> > > >
> > > > When Hawking says go to a black hole and ""you might end up" in another universe" is just
> > > > a trick to convince you that black holes are gateways to other universe.
> > > >
> > > > You don't actually believe he believes a word of it himself, do you?
> > > >
> > > > It's a con.
> > > >
> > > > I say, we push Stephen Hawking into a Black Hole and watch him scream.
> > > >
> > > > https://youtu.be/U_WEvWcVoFw?t=82
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Who is going to be the first astronut to go into a black hole? How about a Black astronut? Neil-- deGrasse Tyson
> > >
> > >
> > > Black astronuts lives don't matter, is that right?
> > 
> > If You read the Ingenious Shit carefully,
> > You will know, that, from the point of view
> > of a distant observer (i.e. all of us) the
> > process of a black hole creation takes
> > an infinite time.
> > In other words, the Shit says directly,
> > that for us black holes don't exist and will
> > never exist. They exist only from a point of
> > view of an observer falling into it. I.e.
> > from a point of view of nobody.
> 
> 
> "infinite time"? I'm not sure if 'infinite time' exist...

Maciej is incorrect here. As I mentioned in a parallel posting,
the conclusion he mentions is simply a function of a man-made
convention. One could equally easily set up a different convention
which would imply the opposite.

The bottom line is that paths of free fall cross the horizon in
finite proper time. That the distant observer is able to gather
this information only after a delay is another matter.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#363071

On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 8:23:30 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> > 
> > On Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 4:52:56 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 1:50:59 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > > Stephen Hawking's New Theory on Black Holes is Fantastically Insane
> > > > > http://gizmodo.com/stephen-hawkings-new-theory-on-black-holes-is-fantastic-1726513898
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Black holes have a rap for being hopeless vortexes of destruction,
> > > > > but what would really happen if you fell into one? According to
> > > > > Stephen Hawking, you might end up in another universe.
> > >
> > > Isn't he now contradicting what he said just a few years ago?  Could Alzheimers finally be setting in?

I wanted to point out here one more time that this is all an old hat,
about 1966 or so.

I have no idea why the media present this as something "new" and why on top
of that they present it as Hawking's idea (Hawking IMHO should have fired off
a letter protesting this silliness).

Here is what really happened in real life:

1. In 1963 Roy Kerr found a rotating back hole solution,

2. In 1966 Brandon Carter described an analytic extension of Kerr's
metric (he first described it on the axis of rotation, see:
http://luth2.obspm.fr/~luthier/carter/trav/Carter66.pdf ).

So all this stuff about various spacetime regions connected by horizons
was known by 1966. Similarly, the tidal forces a falling object would
experience were known as this amounts to a simple (a bit tedious)
calculation based on the geodesic deviation formula.

Count on the media to make stuff up when there is nothing else to report.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#363100

Il giorno Fri, 04 Sep 2015 14:23:15 -0700  *_JanPB_* ha scritto:

> The bottom line is that paths of free fall cross the horizon in finite
> proper time. That the distant observer is able to gather this
> information only after a delay is another matter.

What do yo mean by "finite proper time". You make it as time will stop,
which is absurd. You can't stop time. Time is not a speed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#363105

On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 3:00:32 PM UTC-7, Lleyton H. Bellucci wrote:
> Il giorno Fri, 04 Sep 2015 14:23:15 -0700  *_JanPB_* ha scritto:
> 
> > The bottom line is that paths of free fall cross the horizon in finite
> > proper time. That the distant observer is able to gather this
> > information only after a delay is another matter.
> 
> What do yo mean by "finite proper time".

Meaning a watch (Patek Philippe) falling down will cross the horizon
when its hands are in a definite position.

> You make it as time will stop,
> which is absurd. You can't stop time. Time is not a speed.

But time does not stop - that's what I said earlier. The supposed
"time stopping" is just a coordinate (man-made) artifact: a labelling
system was chosen which yields "time" numbers go to infinity. But the 
selection of this labelling is not based on any physical consideration:
it's simply a human preference due to certain computational ease and also
simply tradition.

In the black hole exterior the standard faraway metric we all know
can be expressed near the horizon in many ways, some of them showing
"time slowing down to zero", some of them not. The geometry there
does not of itself favour one type over the other.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#363123

Il giorno Fri, 04 Sep 2015 16:02:44 -0700  *_JanPB_* ha scritto:

> On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 3:00:32 PM UTC-7, Lleyton H. Bellucci
> wrote:
>> Il giorno Fri, 04 Sep 2015 14:23:15 -0700  *_JanPB_* ha scritto:
>> 
>> > The bottom line is that paths of free fall cross the horizon in
>> > finite proper time. That the distant observer is able to gather this
>> > information only after a delay is another matter.
>> 
>> What do yo mean by "finite proper time".
> 
> Meaning a watch (Patek Philippe) falling down will cross the horizon
> when its hands are in a definite position.

That's not a "proper time", but an Eulerian observer travelling along its 
streamline by a marked particle. It looks like you have a lot to catch up 
in Fluid Dynamics.

>> You make it as time will stop,
>> which is absurd. You can't stop time. Time is not a speed.
> 
> But time does not stop - that's what I said earlier. The supposed "time
> stopping" is just a coordinate (man-made) artifact: a labelling system
> was chosen which yields "time" numbers go to infinity. But the selection
> of this labelling is not based on any physical consideration: it's
> simply a human preference due to certain computational ease and also
> simply tradition.

So it does not stop.

> In the black hole exterior the standard faraway metric we all know can
> be expressed near the horizon in many ways, some of them showing "time
> slowing down to zero", some of them not. The geometry there does not of
> itself favour one type over the other.

You just said it does not stop. Now you say it goes down to zero. Choose 
one and stick with it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#363132

Lleyton H. Bellucci wrote:

> Il giorno Fri, 04 Sep 2015 16:02:44 -0700  *_JanPB_* ha scritto:
>> On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 3:00:32 PM UTC-7, Lleyton H. Bellucci
>> wrote:
>>> Il giorno Fri, 04 Sep 2015 14:23:15 -0700  *_JanPB_* ha scritto:
>>> > The bottom line is that paths of free fall cross the horizon in
>>> > finite proper time. That the distant observer is able to gather this
>>> > information only after a delay is another matter.
>>> What do yo mean by "finite proper time".
>> Meaning a watch (Patek Philippe) falling down will cross the horizon
>> when its hands are in a definite position.
> 
> That's not a "proper time",

Your ongoing ignorance (of basic concepts of relativity) is fascinating.

It is not “*a* ‘proper time’”, with “proper” as in “correct”, but *the* 
proper time (as opposed to frame-dependent *coordinate* time).  The original 
German term for “proper time” is „Eigenzeit“ (literally: “own time”; namely 
that of an observer: the time they would read/measure from/on a 
clock/(stop)watch co-moving with them).  As no doubt one of your other 
incarnations has been told before, ’nym-shifting troll.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time>

> but an Eulerian observer travelling along its streamline by a marked
> particle. It looks like you have a lot to catch up in Fluid Dynamics.

ROTFL.


PointedEars
-- 
I heard that entropy isn't what it used to be.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web