A relativist offers two mutualy incompatible descriptions of what he says a black hole is, as is usual in these so called 'counter-intuitive' irrationalities:
1.) A star shrinks and shrinks until it disappears all together into a non-entity termed 'singularity'.
2.)No, a star doesn't disappear at all. When it is the size of 'Plank's length', we need a theory of Quantum Gravity to describe it and such a theory is not yet complete.
So after triggering the 'waaas' and 'aaahs' amongst the masses by saying that an object can shrink into non-existence, they secretly swap the hats and deny the very thing that they were saying! This is their usual trick. In effect, they are saying that they have 'proven' this irrational object and at the same time that they don't know what it is! What is it that they have seen 'out there' to 'prove' the existence of this beast? A zero-dimensional non-entity or a Planck length long dot?
This is not a scientific theory, anyway! If something can shrink into zero size, then we no longer have the main actor at all! The main actor have effectively shrunk into non-existence. We now just have objects gravitating around empty space, violating the very same theory of 'gravity' which stipulates that 'matter must be present' to cause gravity!
Maybe at this juncture, we need to clearly differentiate the concept 'mass' from 'quantity of matter'. Newton arrived at his conclusion by observing the sizes of gravitating objects. The sun has a huge mass simply because it is large, that is all! Quantity of matter is synonymous to 'volume of matter'. No other notion of 'quantity of matter' has any meaning! If things can shrink or expand without limmit then we cannot form a coherent notion of 'quantity of matter', and hence we can't form a coherent theory of gravity, or quantify anything that demands that we can measure 'quantity of matter'.
Nevertheless, the theory of 'black holes' fails as a science even if we define 'mass' in the usual sense of 'inertia'. We cannot accelerate a 'singularity' in a lab to verify that indeed things are gravitating around a 'massive' empty space termed 'singularity'. We can as well attribute the gravitation to a ghost and we cannot any more falsify the theory. We cannot experiment with abstract concept such as 'singularities' as they are indistinguishable from voids. The theory of 'black holes' relies on 'wink winks' and 'nudge nudge' developed from our OBSERVATION that massive bodies do exert gravity, but deny that our notion of 'massive' is correlate to the concept of 'size'. So they undermine the very same notions that underpins them. Then when they arrive at irrationalities, they blame it all on our 'intuition' rather than in their own incapability of consistently articulating the universe! This is unacceptable!
Lets now close examine the 'quantum' version. Do we need quantum theory to describe a severely compressed huge matter? You find that this appeal to quantum theory is confused because they tell us that it is the presence of huge number of particles that makes a phenomenon appear 'classic' rather than 'quantum'. Here, they switch gears and blame spatial size for 'quantumness'. Is a massive star somehow compressed into a dot describe by a quantum wave function and probabilistic location? Nope! this is a disingenuous way of application of QM because the 'quantumness' arises from the singleness of the particle we are describing it using a single wave function. It is the presence of large number of particles that makes an underlying quantum reality appear classic, not the VOLUME that the particles occupy. This is 'quantum decoherence' caused by a large number of waves vibrating in all manner of frequencies and wavelengths. This same reasoning can be used to similary debunk the 'big bang' version of appeal to QM. There is no way a whole universe can appear 'quantum' just because of its spatial size. It is the size of 'HILBERT SPACE' 'occupied' by the system, not the usual space, that makes quantum theory necessary to describe a phenomenon.
The theory of black holes uses wrong mathematics! It can be seen by a bit simple maths that the structure being described by Schwarzchild metric is not a 'curved space' in which a spherical ball is 'sitting on it' and 'weighing it down'. It is absolutely nothing of the sort. Rather it is a a paraboloid. It is a simple parabola that is 'swang around' as shown in the diagram below. As you can see, it has a hole in the center and as we will see, this hole is of radius equals to 'Schwarzchild radius'. The Einstein Field Equation' in this particular case describes a completely empty universe! There is realy no such a 'center' to hammer in a 'spherical mass' from nowhere, let alone a 'singularity'!
As you can see, the problem is that somewhere, the relativists surprisingly forgot that the 'r' appearing in the Schwarzschild metric refers to the flat background relative to which the 'space' is getting curved. But the same physicist bozos will tell you that 'the universe is not expanding into anything' when you ask them about the 'expansion' due to big bang. In other words they verbally insist that 'we live inside the curved space' but in their mathematics they treat the structure as if we live in the 'flat' background space! If you are careful to follow some simple calculus, you will easily note that this theory of theirs is manifest nonsense!
The following is a simple proof that the structure described by Schwarzchild metric is a paraboloid with a hole of radius a=Schwarzchild Radius.
This is just the equation for a quadratic curve offset from point (0,0) towards r axis by distace a. You can see this because in its equation: r=y^2/4a-a, r=a when y=0. So when we revolve the curve into a paraboloid like we saw in the above diagram, it will leave a hole or radius r=a. I differentiated the curve r=y^2/4a-a and then use the Pythagoras theorem for the infinitesimal triangle with lengths ds, dr and dy. The results yields the grr component of schwarzschild metric (the coefficient if dr^2) clearly proving that Schwarzchild metric describes a revolved parabola with a hole of radius r=a. Then note that they incongruously set a, which is just a radius, to a= 2mG/c^2 to try to force a mere mathematical description of a curve into describing gravity!
Another problem with the black hole theory is that as you can see, parameters turn to infinity when r reaches Scharzchild Radius. 'Time', for instance, 'stops' when you reach Schwarzchild Radius. So you realy never get to cross the radius, which is the event horizon. But maybe one should, at this pount ask 'relative to what' do 'time' dilates in GR. In their mathematics, time is 'bent' relative to the flat background space relative to which, the space time is bent. So 'time dilation' is actually the angle between the 'flat space' in the background and the 'curved space'. So 'time' is dilated relative to points 'outside' the universe, hence which cannot be observed!
The relativist will pretend that since the curved space described by the Schwarzschild metric approaches flatness as we get to a point infinite distance away from the 'center', we can talk of 'time' getting 'dilated' relative to 'time' at a point very far from the center. However, they forgot to think carefully and note that such a distant, supposedly 'faster ticking' clock cannot see itself as to be realy 'ticking faster', thanks to the 'dilation' being claimed to be the 'dilation of space and time' itself rather than that of the clocks. By the time signals reaches the distant observer, they will have been forced to tick exactly like the ambient signals by the very distortion of the space they are propagating in. I have explained in details this problem in a previous blog post.
After supposing that a 'distant observer' cannot see anything cross the event horizon due to 'time stopping' right at the event horizon, they now draw your attention to an observer in a free fall towards the alleged black hole. But this explanation is untenable because they tell us that Schwarzchild Metric, as a solution for Einstein's Field Equation is a complete description for space time in the vicinity of gravitating body. But we don't see these 'this observer sees that and that observe sees this' in the Schwarzchild Metric! We only see a 'curved space' as 'seen' by an hypothetical observer standing 'outside the universe'. It is from this point of view can we draw all these 'infinite time dillation' , 'event horizons' and such. There is absolutely no theory to describe what another observer might be seeing, much less one in which there is actually no event horizon at all. In effect, relativist is switching back and forth between the 'space time' as described by Scwarzschild and another hiding one fabrication in his head in which there are no event horizons etc! To justify existence of black holes, we must see space as described by schwarzschild, which forbids anything from crossing the event horizon. But to justify that things can cross the horizon, he verbally uses another theory, not described by any equation, that talks of a scenario wherein there is no black holes at all! It was the former theory that talked of black holes in the first place! It is clear that this other theory of what different 'observers' sees is never included in the original theory, which is just the Schwarzschild Metric. This is very bad! A theory must include everything in the theory! It must never leave other seemingly plausible claims to be released only during the time of debates. That is like a shell gamer hiding illegal cards behind the sleeves!
Comments
Then again it is clear that Relativist's explanation as to 'why an object does cross the event horizon' is nonsense! In GR, free falling objects follows the geodesics, and the diagram below shows exactly what it means for there to be two different observers. Follow the geodesics and you find that even though the space time will always be locally flat (there is no time dilation, for instance', it doesn't mean that you will cross the event horizon! In fact you will 'boomerang backwards' at the event horizon as if 'entering through a wormhole'.
The relativist's fallacy comes from failing to note that the 'event horizon' scenario is a global property as seen from the 'outside', and we cannot say anything about it by considering what the free falling observer will see entirely in the local. In effect, the relativists are saying that just because the earth seems flat from the point of view of a person walking locally, then the person can move all the way up to stars while still following the earth! He says that the inability of the person walking on the earth surface to exit the earth is only true from the point of view of a distant setlite since it is only from that view do the earth appears curved. But from the point of view of the person walking on earth, the earth is effectively flat, and so he can go all the way up to stars! That is roughly how stupid the relativist's argument that 'object can cross the event horizon despite the infinite time dilation' is!! Via a dat back and forth between 'frames of references', the relativists have so confused themselves that they come a cross like bumbling fools!
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/classe...