Three Air Tight Reasons Why No Object Can Ever Reach An Event Horizon

[A-wal]

Do you deny this, Awol?  As always, you evade giving any substantive response to any criticisms made of your religion.  Instead you run away and start your dubious thread all over again with the same title.

I've answered each of your misconceptions and strawmen countless times you ridiculous moron. You just ignore it and carry on repeating the exact same bullshit over and over. Orbit requires gravitational acceleration, it is not an inertial frame.

[Moronium]

I've answered each of your misconceptions and strawmen countless times you ridiculous moron. You just ignore it and carry on repeating the exact same bullshit over and over. Orbit requires gravitational acceleration, it is not an inertial frame.

 

 

Funny, that's not what Einstein said about the propriety of positing that the earth, rather than the sun, as being relatively motionless, which is an issue that he specifically addressed.

 

But, if that's your "answer," then, like I said, such an answer renders SR applicable to nothing.  It is worthless as a theory of motion.  Why do you cling to it's premises?  It's pseudo science.  Why do you insist that SR has been "proven" via experiments done on and from earth?

 

Contradict yourself much?

Edited March 26, 2019 by Moronium

[A-wal]

It renders SR applicable in every situation in which the the effects of gravity are negligible (the VAST majority of the universe), every situation in which the objects in question are in the same region of a gravitational field (the VAST majority of situations) or in situations in which the effects of gravity can be taken into account (all of the rest).

 

I cling to it because it makes perfect sense, because it's been tested, because it's been verified and because a preferred frame model makes no sense. NOW FCUK OFF!

[Moronium]

Lorentz coordinates and all versions of relativity require c to be constant in all reference frames.

 

 

By the way, Flum, this is an erroneous statement.  In GR the speed of light is variable, as an absolute (frame independent) matter not a relative (frame dependent) matter.  Einstein himself said as much, as have other physicists ever since.  See post #50, below.

 

It also contradicts the explanations given in Ashby's paper.  In the GPS the speed of light is deemed to be "constant" (isotropic) in ONLY one frame of reference (the preferred frame).  In all other frames it is NOT constant, but rather direction dependent.

Edited March 27, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I cling to it because it makes perfect sense, because it's been tested, because it's been verified and because a preferred frame model makes no sense. NOW FCUK OFF!

 

You're right that it's been tested.  You're wrong to conclude that it's been verified.  See, e.g., the Hafele-Keating experiment and the GPS.  The only thing about SR that's been verified is that the LT make extremely accurate predictions when a preferred frame is employed (which SR does, notwithstanding its denial that it does).

 

And SR certainly does not make "perfect sense" from a physical, as opposed to mathematical, standpoint.  It posits the impossible, such as reciprocal time dilation.

 

It can only "make sense" to an abject solipsist, like you, who denies that there is any such thing as objective reality.  All "truth" is strictly subjective for such types.

Edited March 26, 2019 by Moronium

[Amplituhedron]

I've already explained, at some length above, what a "preferred frame" means, and I certainly didn't say it was about subjective personal preference.  What does it mean, Amp?  Do you even know?

 

Are you even capable of addressing the substantive issues?  So far you have only demonstrated your complete inability to do so, all while talking BIG with nothing to back it up.

 

In the process, however, you do prove your own lack of understanding.  Like when you say this, for example:

 

So you think ECI is a preferred frame, huh?

[Amplituhedron]

Also, SR IS a theory of objective reality. 

[Moronium]

So you think ECI is a preferred frame, huh?

 

 

I know that, as a theoretical matter, the ECI  is treated as a preferred frame by the GPS engineers.

 

I also know that doing so generates extremely accurate predictions.

 

I also know that adopting the premises of SR would destroy the effectiveness of the GPS.  Relative motion cannot be used to make accurate predictions.  Only absolute motion does that.

 

The ECI is the preferred frame in this particular instance because it is the center of the locally dominant gravitational mass.  It would NOT be an appropriate preferred frame in different circumstances.  Experience has shown that such a frame is the best one to use to accurately predict the relativistic effects of velocity (not just gravitational effects).

 

Unlike many SR adherents do (with respect to SR), I would never claim that the GPS "proves" that the preferred frame theory being employed is "true."  The very nature of the scientific method prevents any such claim.

Edited March 26, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Also, SR IS a theory of objective reality. 

 

 

Wrong.  SR treats the unwarranted, physically absurd, and contradictory assumptions of subjective observers as all being "true."  This eliminates the possibility of any "objective reality" insofar as it relates to relative motion, which is what SR undertakes to "explain."

 

At best, SR might be seen as a study in human pyschology having nothing to do with physics.  It is an exercise in metaphysical speculation, based upon the philosophical premise of solipsism.

Edited March 26, 2019 by Moronium

[Amplituhedron]

I know that, as a theoretical matter, the ECI  is treated as a preferred frame by the GPS engineers.

 

I also know that doing so generates extremely accurate predictions.

 

I also know that adopting the premises of SR would destroy the effectiveness of the GPS.  Relative motion cannot be used to make accurate predictions.  Only absolute motion does that.

 

The ECI is the preferred frame in this particular instance because it is the center of the locally dominant gravitational mass.  It would NOT be an appropriate preferred frame in different circumstances.  Experience has shown that such a frame is the best one to use to accurately predict the relativistic effects of velocity (not just gravitational effects).

 

Unlike many SR adherents do (with respect to SR), I would never claim that the GPS "proves" that the preferred frame theory being employed is "true."  The very nature of the scientific method prevents any such claim.

 

LOL, I can’t even believe this post! So you admit  that ECI is NOT a “preferred frame” in the sense that physics means it. It was all just smoke and mirrors from you from the get-go, probably from some junk you glommed off the internet.

 

Adopting the premises of SR would destroy the effectiveness of GPS?? It’s just the opposite — as the article to which you linked, ostensibly in support of your idiocy, explicitly concludes! It passes undertstanding how someone could link to an article that directly refustes their claims, in an effort to support their claims!

 

I guess this kind of chutzpah is what we get now in the age of Trump, where facts and truth themselves are just commodities to be bought and sold. Cherry pick and post up some bullshit, say it supports you when it refutes you, and declare victory!

 

BTW, where did your originally pick up on this ECI nonsense? Could it have been from a cell biologist (!) named Kipreos??

 

The work is so abysmally awful that it makes you wonder just how such a paper got accepted for publication.

[Moronium]

LOL, I can’t even believe this post! So you admit  that ECI is NOT a “preferred frame” in the sense that physics means it.

 

 

Wrong, as is virtually everything else you say in this post.  You merely continue bluster and to expose your own illiteracy and inability to understand even the most fundamental concepts pertaining to the theories in question.

 

Ya aint got no game, Amp.

Edited March 26, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

 

BTW, where did your originally pick up on this ECI nonsense? Could it have been from a cell biologist (!) named Kipreos??

 

Heh, since the time of Einstein, all reputable theorists, including Einstein himself, have acknowledged that a preferred frame theory is every bit as viable as SR.  You seem to think it some new "fad," because you neither know nor understand anything about the topic to begin with.

Edited March 26, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

It renders SR applicable in every situation in which the the effects of gravity are negligible (the VAST majority of the universe), every situation in which the objects in question are in the same region of a gravitational field (the VAST majority of situations) or in situations in which the effects of gravity can be taken into account (all of the rest).

 

Like Amp, your pontificating pronouncements only reveal your own lack of understanding.

 

As a theory, SR does not apply to any situation where gravity is present, whether negligible or not.  The speed of light is not invariant in GR, and can't be any time "curved space" is presumed. So long, SR.

 

You now say it applies to EVERY situation, whether inertial or accelerating.  You don't even comprehend the most basic premises of SR. A PFT does indeed apply to any situation, whether inertial or non-inertial.  SR does NOT.

 

Stop your baseless, bombastic bloviating and learn up, Awol.

Edited March 27, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

 . . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity. . .cannot claim any unlimited validity.  A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position.  (Einstein, "Relativity: the special and general theory," 1920)

 

  

In GR, an observer on top a a tall building will determine that the speed of light is higher in his frame than it is on the ground.

 

If that same observer then descends to ground level, he will determine the exact same thing, i.e., that the speed of light is slower on the ground than it is at the elevation of the building top.

 

This is frame independent.  It doesn't depend on having two different observers or on having any observers at all, for that matter.  All observers will see it the same, regardless of which frame they're in.  In GR the gravitational effects on time dilation are absolute, not relative.

Edited March 27, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Moronium, if I join in on this discussion on your side it would only lower your credibility in the eyes of these two guidos but you are right and they are wrong. There is a very subtle distinction between a preferred frame as an absolute frame and a preferred frame as one that is agreed to by all participants. This distinction only becomes important if there were only two inhabitants floating in space with stars way in the background. An absolutist would say, they could each measure their absolute speed with a high degree of accuracy by triangulating their position to the background stars. The stars are so far away they appear to be stationary and it doesn't matter how fast they are actually moving in relation to the astronauts. A relativist would say only the relative velocity between the two matters. They could still work out what that is relative to the background stars. 

 

Earth doesn't care what the GPS satellites'  perspective of our dilated clocks is. Earth doesn't care what a muon's perspective of our clocks is.Earth wouldn't allow every space ship coming into its port to impose its time frame on Earth's. Distance markers or time beacons would be set in advance according to Earth being stationary.  Earth doesn't care that a proton in the LHC sees the entire earth and LHC move around it. Relativity chooses to depict Bob as stationary and Alice moving at .6c because it's impossible to depict both as moving relative to each other at .6c in 1 STD. If you break up the depiction into 2 STD's and depict Alice as stationary and Bob as moving, you are adding the assumption that all of space is whizzing past Alice. That's impossible because space can't move past anything according to the MMX. Alice fired her engines and firing up the universe's engines so that it passes by Alice is not practical. Alice is just not sitting there like a record needle on a spinning universe because that would mean she is tethered to an arm outside the spinning universe. Let's just all agree the earth spins around the sun and not relatively vice versa. 

 

I like relative velocity from a mathematical standpoint. I can even mathematically draw an STD where both Bob and Alice are moving through space even though it looks like Bob is depicted as stationary. I'm not an absolutist that believes in referencing all velocity relative to the CMB. But I'm practical and will choose a common reference frame to the most immovable object. That will form my background cartesian coordinates that are inescapable in relativity. Only completely brainwashed relativists can't see the compromises that must be made and will argue to the death irrelevant niggling purist dogma. 

Edited March 27, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

Yeah, Ralf, one of the most obvious deficiencies in the "all inertial frames are equivalent and equally valid" rubbish, is that it would require a repudiation of all known physical laws to take it seriously.

 

How on earth, could a planet with earth's mass compel the entire universe to revolve around it?  Among other absurdities, this would require the fixed stars to be travelling at speeds far, far in excess of light speed (which SR itself claims is impossible).

 

But what really takes it all beyond the pale is the suggestion all I, as an inhabitant of earth, need to do to make that all happen is to "claim" that I am motionless.  My thoughts, however erroneous, are supposed to control the whole universe.  The ultimate in solipsism.

Edited March 27, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

You can't claim anything is motionless. You claim you are both moving with the same relative velocity but in order to work out the math, you depict the person not initiating a change in that relative velocity at a distance from you as stationary. Or not, it doesn't matter as long as one of you starts out depicted as stationary even though neither of you are. You're confusing depiction with reality. It doesn't matter who's really moving which is what you're hung up about. An absolutist won't allow one he establishes is really moving to be depicted as stationary. Both are really moving relative to each other. That misconception is where your slopisecondism and apophenia originates.

Edited March 27, 2019 by ralfcis