Black Holes Do Not Exist, claims Mersini-Houghton

Tom,

I wrote: "one cannot have two different points of view at a time. Lorentz obeyed this". I wonder if you can give a counterexample. If a train (1) is moving relative to ground (2), there is no preference for choosing either (1) or (2). However, if I am sitting in the train, I cannot at the same time be on ground.

So far you proved also unable to give an example for a concrete item in the real world that has measure zero or measure actual infinity.

You wrote: "at the same time means different things to observers in different frames."

No. If this was correct then the notion time would loose its practical value.

Simultaneity does not mean simultaneous observation.

Einstein's 1905 Electrodynamics paper refers to what an observer at A perceives. Actually, his Poincaré synchronization declares as equal the different delays from A to B and return from B to A in case of relative motion.

You added:"That there is no privileged frame, restores the unitarity that common sense misses."

Initially, neither A nor B were privileged. Einstein disturbed this symmetry by choosing an unbalanced path ABA, i.e. giving the privilege of observation to A.

Does common sense here really miss something? I cannot yet see how Einstein's unreasonable convention of synchronization in physics relates to the mathematical notion unitarity. Please elaborate if you can.

Eckard

Eckard

Tom,

"To what uses do you put your philosophy?"

Proper science is simply to first figure out what is going on, before trying to figure out what uses this knowledge can be put. Otherwise one's desires for preferred results tend to create bias.

"it is a coordinate of opposite sign to the 3 spatial coordinates."

Rather than time simply being a projection of a basic spatial frame, such as from one tick of a clock to the next, it is a multitude of such frames interacting. Molecules of water moving about, with each as its own frame, would be a very simple example. Then we step it up to where smaller frames are components of larger frames. Then the various ways different frames interact, along with the various forces, from momentum to magnetism, etc.

Obviously it quickly gets too complex for even super computers to calculate the actual interaction and changes going on, so we get to such concepts as thermodynamics, statistics, etc to begin to calculate how one state might possibly evolve into another, or affect various others, etc.

So what uses do I put this "philosophy?"

For one thing, it helps me understand why masses of linear thinking people act cumulatively in thermodynamic cycles. As in herd behaviors creating bubbles of activity, which might be apparent as bubbles from the outside, but are still overwhelmingly compelling from the inside.

Do you have any uses for your philosophy of time, outside the lab and classroom?

Regards,

John M

"I wonder if you can give a counterexample. If a train (1) is moving relative to ground (2), there is no preference for choosing either (1) or (2). However, if I am sitting in the train, I cannot at the same time be on ground."

And an observer on the ground cannot be at the same instant in the train. That's why both frames are valid, without preference.

"So far you proved also unable to give an example for a concrete item in the real world that has measure zero or measure actual infinity."

I have. I won't take responsibility for your understanding.

"You wrote: 'at the same time means different things to observers in different frames.'"

No. If this was correct then the notion time would loose its practical value."

Time -- in the context of past, present, future -- never had any practical value to lose.

"I cannot yet see how Einstein's unreasonable convention of synchronization in physics relates to the mathematical notion unitarity. Please elaborate if you can."

Symmetry. All the laws of motion apply in every observer's frame.

"Proper science is simply to first figure out what is going on ..."

Not for you. You already know what's going on, even if it conflicts with the science we know. Nothing to figure out, apparently.

Proper science is demonstrated correspondence between abstract theory and physical result. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Peter,

When I ever start getting frustrated, the examples of those throughout history with far more reason quickly spring to mind. No one is going to burn you at the stake for your ideas!

The fact is that when you are sufficiently outside someone else's conceptual frame, it's like speaking another language, so rather than get frustrated, look at it as another form of challenge, to step back and try to connect to the points where there is some communication and build from there. Try to learn what they have to say, even if it means agreeing with some of their points. If you find ourself unswayed by their position and they are not swayed by yours, then it's time to try someone else.

Regards,

John M

Tom,

Next time you fall into a wormhole, come tell me about it.

Regards,

John M

Thanks Tom,

It is worth the time to do a search for related materials by the authors and their collaborators. With luck, a few more people will understand. Of note is the fact that Terrence Barrett's motivation or derivation is largely topological.

All the Best,

Jonathan

And to Peter,

It's worth doing a search...

"Next time you fall into a wormhole, come tell me about it."

Why would I bother, John?

Remember the story of people who lived in a dry land, with no significant bodies of water. One of them risked an adventure very far away, and returned with the story of a fish as big as a man. His neighbor laughed -- "There's not enough water in the world where a fish that big could live!"

The risky experience of truth rarely has any effect on the warm security of baseless incredulity.

Tom,

So I take it you have actually experienced a wormhole? What eras in time did you travel to?

Like I keep saying, I'm willing to be convinced, but the evidence for blocktime seems significantly less than the evidence against it.

To my description;

"Rather than time simply being a projection of a basic spatial frame, such as from one tick of a clock to the next, it is a multitude of such frames interacting. Molecules of water moving about, with each as its own frame, would be a very simple example. Then we step it up to where smaller frames are components of larger frames. Then the various ways different frames interact, along with the various forces, from momentum to magnetism, etc.

Obviously it quickly gets too complex for even super computers to calculate the actual interaction and changes going on, so we get to such concepts as thermodynamics, statistics, etc to begin to calculate how one state might possibly evolve into another, or affect various others, etc."

You responded;

"Proper science is demonstrated correspondence between abstract theory and physical result. Nothing more. Nothing less."

With no clarification as to why what I say does not correspond to "physical result." Then you go on to defend wormholes.

All I ask is where they occur as "physical result."

Given your anecdote, I suppose; "Over yon mountains."

Regards,

John M

The Mitra and Kauffmann papers along with the Mersini-Houghton work were all really quite illuminating (sorry for the pun). The take away message is that the key to uniting gravity and charge force is at the event horizon.

This is really sweet. The boson star literature has struggled for decades to make that connection with the event horizon as well. It is surprising that a suitable answer has not been forthcoming given the assumptions of space time.

By throwing space under the bus, the contracting universe seems to have a straightforward Schrödinger metric that shows Lorentz invariance and seems to result in either or both gravity or charge depending on the scale and parity of the interaction.

To make a long story short, the typical metric of GR is like a norm or absolute value because it is squared. The square of proper time differential is what I posted before

dtau2 = (1 - 2mi/mo) dt2 + 2(t-to)2/alpha2/mo2 dmo2

But the equation is amplitude and phase, which is like a mean square root energy. Putting these things together is possible in matter time since all matter decays and that decay represents a fundamental link between charge and gravity forces.

The GR metric involves the product of a pair of counterpropagating Schrödinger metrics as complementary matter waves

dtau2 = d tau(+) d tau(-)

d tau(+/-) =(1 - i sqrt(2)psi(inertial)/psi(rest) +/- i 2(t-to) md c^2 /(h/2pi)/alpha/mo^2 dmo^2 ) dt

The Schrödinger metric pair reduces to the inner Schrödinger equation for single particles and represents the outer gravity solution as a pair of complementary particles. The md is the binding energy and ends up as either charge or gravity or a combination of both, so this includes all EM forces.

It is nice that at least in one universe, matter time, there is a fairly straightforward connection between gravity and charge forces. Space is not out of the picture and is simply a result of this action as

ds^2 = c d tau^2

The GR of space time is not wrong, it is just that its circular logic is a dean end with the tails of spatial tensors ending up back to the dragon's mouth, the black hole.

Matter decay provides a method of maintaining Lorentz invariance without spatial tensors and closing the universe nicely on itself. The Schrödinger metric now has continuous solutions even inside of the event horizon, where it is pure light and trapped by the event horizon. No information is lost and there is a temperature and an entropy and the the spin would be near c.

We as beings of atomic time would not do well either near or inside of a black hole, but then again, we also would not do well near or inside of our own sun.

Tom,

"so we get to such concepts as thermodynamics, statistics, etc to begin to calculate how one state might possibly evolve into another,"

To which I would add; "path of least action," as one more such useful concept.

Regards,

John M

Steve,

It seems that with temperature, as well as proximity to black holes and the sun, that space seems a useful context.

Regards,

John M

Yes, space is a very useful concept for more than just temperature. Our whole consciousness is based on the notion of spatial location and density and velocity and acceleration.

That is beside the point.

The fact is that if an object heats up, it gains a mass equivalent to the 1/2 kT of energy per degree of freedom and that mass gain is an equivalent and complementary representation for temperature without any mathematical need for space. Our intuition, though, needs space.

Distance is simply time...even our intuition is fine with using time for distance. Direction is a more complicated function of consciousness and discerning direction takes quite a bit of skill even with the machine of our consciousness.

Essentially we determine direction with familiar objects called landmarks. Our brain is really good at this, but we tend to forget how long it really takes to teach these skills to children.

Steve,

Where does an object gain the energy to heat up, except from outside its original volume?

There are various discussions on this thread about how dimensionless points are a useful fiction, since anything multiplied by zero is zero, so a truly dimensionless point is no more real than a dimensionless apple. Therefore even a line, ie. distance, can't be made up of infinite numbers of dimensionless points, since no matter how many zeros you add together, the result is still zero. So it seems, at least to me, that space is still one of those irreducible concepts.

You stare out into space at night and a proper appreciation for what is being perceived has to include the enormity of space, yet for time all we can perceive is that which is present and the process of change. All else are conclusions drawn from information contained within the state of the present. My argument is that it is time which is an effect of action and it is this change turning potential into actual, then residual, not some vector along which the present moves, from past to future. That is just our perception, in the present, of the sequencing we perceive as individual points of perception and the frames we construct around them.

Regards,

John M

Ps,

As I keep observing, the earth doesn't travel some vector from yesterday to tomorrow, tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth turns.

Also a faster clock only burns/ages quicker, so it falls into the past faster.

Tom,

Instead of providing a counterexample, you confirmed what I wrote: "an observer on the ground cannot be at the same instant in the train" and you added "That's why both frames are valid, without preference". Of course, frame A is valid for A and frame B is at the same instant valid for B. Well, "All the laws of motion apply in every observer's frame." The question is, how can the perspective of an observer at A be also the perspective of an observer at B if A and B are moving relative to each other? The Doppler effect describes why and how a person on the ground perceives the length of a train shorter than it really is as long as it is approaching but enlarged after subsequent departure.

So called Relativity attributes a length contraction to the moving part in both cases, decreasing as well as increasing distance because the Relativistic length contraction depends on the squared velocity which results mathematically simply from c/(c-v) + c/(c+v) = 2c^2/(c^2-v^2).

Einstein distinguished between the moving system and the system at rest instead to symmetrically only consider the relative motion.

In all, Relativity is logically the opposite of relativity and symmetry.

I reiterate: "So far you proved also unable to give an example for a concrete item in the real world that has measure zero or measure actual infinity."

You blamed me for not understanding: "I have. I won't take responsibility for your understanding." Did you really not understand the meaning of "a concrete item in the real world"?

Eckard

"So I take it you have actually experienced a wormhole? What eras in time did you travel to?"

The 21st century. You really don't get it, do you?

"Like I keep saying, I'm willing to be convinced, but the evidence for blocktime seems significantly less than the evidence against it."

Like you keep saying. And saying. And saying. Without ever wondering what it is you're saying. Or what constitutes correspondence of evidence with theory. Just keep on saying, John.

"'so we get to such concepts as thermodynamics, statistics, etc to begin to calculate how one state might possibly evolve into another,'"

First, John, understand the differences between concepts (such as blocktime), sciences (such as thermodynamics) and mathematics (statistics). Your mushing things all together into a ball of confusion leads only to more confusion.

"To which I would add; 'path of least action,' as one more such useful concept."

Least action is not a concept -- it's an empirical measure known for about 400 years now.

The problem with your philosophy is that it can apply to everything. And thus, to nothing.