Hello, /sci/, no dark matter guy here again. Today I want t

>>8968104
WHY DONT YOU JUST FUCK OFF TO /X BRAINLET

>>8968104
>These paths of free-
fall are called geodesics and they are the shortest, straightest paths through space
Not quite, geodesics are the the minimum of some action.

The argument about the ball and light reflecting off it is just wrong. This stems from the above confusion about a geodesic.

Okay, I'm still reading and it looks like this idea of a geodesic being the "straightest" path is a core idea of yours, but it's completely wrong.

>If tangent produces problematic singularities then it can be multiplied by cotangent
which removes them.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, is it just an anlogy? Because you can't really remove the singularity at [math] \theta = \pi / 2 [/math].

I don't know what you have against E-F coordinates, they aren't meant to remove the physical singularity, just the coordinate singularity. Also [math] 2GM [/math] is a well defined quantity, not a singularity.

You description of a Feynman diagram is utterly bizarre, the "key to understanding it" is not time, it's perturbative QFT, the rest of your description is completely nonsensical. Also Feynman diagrams are non-physical, they're just useful computational aids.

Particles do fall into a black hole. If you were traveling along with them, they would fall inside it in a finite proper time.

>What I wish to propose for what is inside a black hole is a surface like these negative curves
Well alright, but you don't demonstrate that.

>The event horizon keeps particles from getting in
This isn't right, see above.

Your idea makes little sense, is littered with errors and inaccuracies, and fails to convince the reviewer of anything.

>>8968104
GRavity doesn't exist and you know it...just start with that and they'll all catch up.

>>8968182
>Particles do fall into a black hole. If you were traveling along with them, they would fall inside it in a finite proper time.

Proper time is defined by a worldline. The current world lines are drawn under the presumption that they pass the event horizon.

We draw the world line to get the proper time, we get the correct proper time from the world line.

Circular logic.

>>8968182

2GM alone is a defined quality. 2GM in the coordinate system is a coordinate singularity.

>>8968182
>geodesics are the the minimum of some action

Minimum of some action, like travel through space?

>>8968182
>I don't know what you have against E-F coordinates, they aren't meant to remove the physical singularity, just the coordinate singularity. Also [math] 2GM [/math] is a well defined quantity, not a singularity


My position is the singularity is not removed by the Eddington Finkelstein because the EF is derived from the tortoise coordinates which do not coordinate the event horizon. The event horizon's coordinates in the tortoise coordinates includes [math]ln|0|[/math] which is undefined.

>>8968182
>Also Feynman diagrams are non-physical, they're just useful computational aids.

My point about Feynman diagrams is that the progression of time is needed for all particle interactions. Since my position is that time vanishes at the event horizon, so must particle interactions be excluded.

>>8968182
>Well alright, but you don't demonstrate that.

Metric inversion that you conveniently didn't talk about.

>The argument about the ball and light reflecting off it is just wrong. This stems from the above confusion about a geodesic.

I was trying to illustrate null geodesics. More to the point it is difficult for someone to understand that curved lines like ballistics and orbits are actually geodesics, but show the null geodesic of a world line and you get something that is very straight this was also an attempt to bridge space and time in the idea of the null geodesic.

>>8968104
I don't think black holes exist nor that Einstein's relativity is right. Black holes are impossible according Quantum Physics, Special Relativity is impossible because of the Twin Paradox, and General Relativity is impossible because, considering the work of Einstein and Gödel, it leads to time travel including time travel to the past, thus it creates the famous Grandfather paradox. Right?

>>8969011

As the crackpot who makes this shit let me say:

The twin paradox is not a paradox.
The Grandfather paradox does not come into play in general relativity unless the universe is rotating very fast, which is not the case in our universe.
The current black hole theory does appear to have an paradox that violates information theory, but that's part of why I'm doing what I'm doing. General Relativity is the strongest theory we have in explaining how Newtonian mechanics (Minus gravitation), Maxwell's equations and gravity all work in harmony.

If you've got a better idea it's not enough to say it's wrong you actually have to step up and propose an idea that isn't wrong.

You want to know who could be wrong? Me. You want to know what I'm proposing? The Eddington Finkelstein does not remove the singularity and spacetime inverts below the event horizon.
You want to know who else can be wrong? You.
What are you proposing?

>>8969011

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ76aomTnTA

>>8968893
>>8968898
>>8968904
>>8968922
>>8968995
>>8969008
>Samefagging this hard
Dude you're a tedious brainlet. You clearly don't understand enough to even understand why you're wrong.

>>8970210

what is ln|0|?

>>8970213
It's a physical singularity.

>>8970218

Well, ln|0| emerges from the Eddington Finkelstein, at the event horizon. So what you've just confirmed for me is that a physical singularity emerges at the event horizon in the coordinate system that's supposed to remove it.

I'm not saying the singularity cannot be removed, just that the EF doesn't do it.