tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post2835411199738642800..comments2021-01-15T10:36:20.149-08:00Comments on Dark Buzz: Doctor Quark diesRogerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03474078324293158376noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-74004061955172513382019-05-24T16:59:22.267-07:002019-05-24T16:59:22.267-07:00Here's an idea, instead of just saying pretent...Here's an idea, instead of just saying pretentious crap like 'it's a mathematical idea, we scientists don't like to talk about what exists',<br /> <br />Let's actually talk about the god idea Dr. Bee bases her 'predictive' black holes theory on.<br /><br />General relativity depends entirely upon highly NON-LINEAR field equations.<br /><br />There are no known solutions to Einstein's GR field equations that contain TWO (or more) masses. When you see a ridiculous CGI picture of a rubber gridded sheet with three dimensional planets, stars, blackholes somehow hovering ABOVE the sheet of space time (nonsense inside the very nonsense of the model itself), just count how many objects you see. More than one? Then it is pure bullshit, as there are no mathematically valid ways you can insert more than one mass into a given space time, unless of course you pretend your non-linear equations are linear, and in the case of black holes, you pretend you can set your Ricci tensor to zero (Ric=0) which means you have REMOVED all sources of gravitation from your given time space (matter and energy), and hand waved the mass back into the model surreptitiously using a singularity as a placeholder for mass. A space with No matter, no energy, where the hell is the source of your gravity? A point? Give me a frigging break. <br /><br />GR is effectively holding up an eternal spatially flat mathematical play space that can't even actually model gravitational interaction between anything as a 'model' to describe our universe. So no, I don't 'believe' it, unless of course you can convince me that:<br /><br />1. Dividing by zero can actually result in the infinite density required to produce the black hole in David Hilbert's (not Schwarzchild's) contorted math.<br /><br />2. Provide ONE definition for what a Schwarzchild radius actually is, who the hell knows as there are MANY, such as: <br />a distance<br />the radius<br />the radius of a 2 sphere<br />the coordinate radius<br />the radial coordinate<br />the reduced circumference<br />the shortest distance a light ray travels to the center<br />etc. ad nauseam.<br /><br />3. Show how a model with only one non-interacting mass can possibly be made to model gravitational relations without containing anything that interacts with said gravity. <br /><br />There obviously are very dense gravitational objects in the universe, demonstrated by observation. That said, how can we claim to identify such objects as black holes when the very math they are named after can't model gravitational interactions between two objects at all, even with the empty magical handwaving gestures of mass without a source, division by zero, and infinite density?CFTnoreply@blogger.com