Hello, /sci/, no dark matter guy here again. This video is

SSSB

Can you explicitely state what your problem with EF coordinates is?

I also don't follow your video or the naive explanation of why space must go somewhere and what it means to 'add' a lightcone. Afaik EF coordinates are just frames of references that eliminate the trivial singularities of the metric and as a result the lightcone 'tips'

bump coz im interested

File: EddingtonFinkelstein.jpg (59KB, 839x539px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 839x539px

>>7759132

It does not eliminate singularities. We still expect a temporal singularity at the event horizon and a central metric singularity.

What the E-F does is provide light cone constants v an u by applying an inertial light cone.

This in itself is not problematic, and it's simply a coordinate transformation. The problem is that physicists assign constants u and v as physical light cone edges when they are not.

That re-assignment is here represented by adding extra bowls to produce space not present in the metric.

My position is that since the law of general covariance states that coordinate transformations do not effect the form of the physics then the EF transformation does not produce a new light cone.

Equivalence would back up this claim as no light cone closes as described by the Eddington-Finkelstein.

>>7761456

Some clarifications:

>It does not eliminate singularities. We still expect a temporal singularity at the event horizon as evidenced by a proper time of zero and a central metric singularity.

>The problem is that physicists assign constants u and v as physical light cone edges within the gravitational field when they are not.

>Equivalence would back up this claim as no light cones of special relativity close as described by the Eddington-Finkelstein.

Sorry. It's late...Or early depending on how you look at it.

>>7761460
>>It does not eliminate singularities. We still expect a temporal singularity at the event horizon as evidenced by a proper time of zero and a central metric singularity.

This is not true. The TT-component of the metric does indeed get 0 at R=2GM, however that is not a singularity.

>>7761647

Not a metric singularity, no. but a coordinate singularity, yes. The coordinate being time and the light cone being closed has a non-arbitrary significance. My position is that because proper time is zero it must exclude particles, and as the surface is light-like to fall below it is equivalent to an acceleration above the speed of light thus excluding all particles and rendering the surface inversely curved and negatively energetic.

>>7761647

(ctd)
r=2GM is definitely a singularity. I'm sourcing Einstein on that.

http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.48.73

>>7762208
>Not a metric singularity, no. but a coordinate singularity, yes.
But there is no coordinate singularity in EF coordinates, this is simply not true. And what do you mean by 'proper time' being zero?

>>7762243

If there is a coordinate singularity in the unaltered Schwarzschild metric, but there are none in the EF coordinates then can you see that the alterations to light cones and world lines have changed the expected physics and thus violated the law of general covariance?

>>7762243

I should be saying proper time interval is zero. Delta tau is zero.

You know its quite clear when people are pretending to be intelligent... Just go on the science and math board of 4chan....

>>7762316
No. The lightcones look weird because the standard Schwartzschild coordinates aren't well defined in those areas. That doesn't mean the physics is bad, it's just that some choices of coordinate systems are sometimes better than others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinate_singularity

>>7762338
The proper time interval of what is zero when exactly?

>>7762350

Where.

Event horizon.

>>7762346

I submit to you that even in the EF coordinates there is still a singularity at the event horizon because changing coordinate systems should have no effect on closing light cones, and the light cones still close at the event horizon. The depiction of light cones remaining open below the event horizon is wrong. Thus even if there were a is a way to rectify the temporal singularity of the event horizon the EF coordinate system is not one of them.

>>7762580
>I submit to you that even in the EF coordinates there is still a singularity at the event horizon because changing coordinate systems should have no effect on closing light cones,

I don't follow. Singularities are precicely defined and there simply are none in the metric (aside from R=0). Maybe you mean something else?

>>7762589

I know the only metric singularity is at R=0. I have no problem with that singularity because it makes geometric sense.

There is also no problem with a coordinate singularity existing in the field. The metric remains regardless of whether or not a coordinate singularity exists in it.

The only issue that I see is how a temporal singularity effects particles. I view the representation of EF light cones as wrong on the basis of equivalence and the law of general covariance. The coordinate system itself is not wrong as a coordinate transformation cannot be wrong. However the depiction of light cones adopting the outer edge of an inertial frame light cone into itself simply because of a coordinate transformation that incorporates those edges isn't logical.

Current black hole theory only stands if light cone edges are changed, physically, by a coordinate transformation and that does not make sense.

The pure Schwarzschild metric gives us light cones which close at the event horizon, just as would be expected from a Rindler horizon in flat space acceleration. Since gravitation is seen as non-arbitrary relative the gravitating body the only reasonable conclusion is that light cone closure in gravitational fields is also non-arbitrary. A light cone depicted closing anywhere but the event horizon is wrong.

Thus the metric is constant up to r=0 but particles are excluded from that metric at and below r=2GM.

>not quantum gravity
Why even bother arguing with this joker?

>>7762641

Believe me. It's in the pipe, and it's potentially troubling.

>>7762994
>potentially troubling
How so?

>>7763213

It appears to go straight into string theory. No Quanta.

>>7763765

I don't like this, by the way. I've had to re-align what I think of physics because of this hypothesis that hasn't been tested.

However, what the hypothesis presents to me is that Quantum Mechanics is nothing but string theory confined to three dimensions.

I don't have the expertise to make that claim, so I want to present the hypothesis and defend it first. Hence why I'm here.