Mordred

If everyone thought like me it would be in dire straits lol

I'm going to assume that English isn't your first lanquage. A pulse is a type of signal with regards to time dilation is is identical to signal propogation delay in an electronic circuit. The pulse RATE will vary not the number of received pulses. In other words the wavelength between pulses will vary as well as the duration of each individual pulse So no it does not prove no time dilation occurs but merely proves you don't understand what is involved with regards to pulse rate vs number of received pulses.

agreed but there is also the problem of role changes for the light cones inside the EH. ie time becomes spacelike and space timelike. Details on that in the links provided.

Are you not aware antimatter has no negative mass, electric charge doesn't depend on negative or positive mass. So why should negative mass affect electromagnetic charge ? I keep asking you the same question. How can you have negative mass and have a positive energy density value. When are you going to address this question I have asked several times now? How can this question be a lanquage barrier when your familiar with those two physics terminology ie they are in your article....

light seed isn't the only process that is affected by the speed limit. All information exchange is affected and under velocity addition even a bullet will be limited to c unless you have a causality violation with time. The mathematics of the transformations do not require light to show the speed limit. That is simply one of the most common examples. An invariant frame as mentioned before as per the M-M experiment would have hydrostatic influences that should be detectable via the M-M experiment. The null results isn't something one can just ignore willy nilly.

they would not be in the same reference frame despite being at the same velocity as they both have different gravitational potentials. A pulsar for one has far more mass than a rocket ship. Here is a little trivia on just how complex this can get. There is time dilation however miniscule between your head and your feet as they reside at different gravitational potentials as you stand on Earth. So is your goal to keep coming up with scenarios hoping to find some mistake ? by the way they will still see the same number of flashes, the wavelengths will vary accordingly to the gravitational redshift formula, however the number of flashes will remain the same. Which by the way happens to involve length contraction.

There is solutions for the interior of 2GM however they require changes of coordinate basis Carroll gives a few examples in the link above but another is to use Painleve-Gullstrand coordinates see Blackholes II of http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf page 564 however there is a huge section previous describing the problems with Schwartzchild and its coordinate singularity in the previous sections. They amount to the same as the Carroll paper however... here is another decent article using the latter coordinates in a simpler format https://arxiv.org/pdf/1008.0470.pdf just aa side note I seriously doubt a spherical symmetric condition can be preserved for a binary BH system. The two EH's should be elongated towards each other but under approximation for simplicity sake that's ignorable for now

Are not those Christoffels calculated with respect to r and not R ? The Schwartzchild is not a combination of vacuum and non vacuum it is strictly a vacuum solution specifically describing outside a BH or star not the interior. It provides the Schwartchild radius but the metric components become singular at this radius. Ie to an outside observer one will never see a particle cross the EH. Even though a particle will pass the event horizon under the Schwartchild the outside observer will never be able to view such a crossing. There is a reason why the Schwartzchild metric is invalid inside the sphere itself and you need a different coordinate system. Try Kruskal coordinates, the problem with the Scwartzchild metric is that it has a coordinate singularity at r=2GM/r as well as r=0. the r=0 is the true singularity which no coordinate change can rectify but the coordinate singularity condition can be removed by the appropriate coordinate system change. Here Sean Carroll has a decent article on this in essence the entire spacetime is represented by 4 regions under Kruskal coordinates. https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/wp-content/uploads/grnotes-seven.pdf I was able to find a copy of Dirac on ebooks here he himself specifies the Schwartzchild is only valid for regions outside the EH.

Those boundary conditions are also mentioned here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff_equation and Markus is absolutely correct on the requirement of smooth and continuous on both the inner and outer regions but also the transiton between the two regions. The solution should also have no maxima on the inner region.

Non Vacuum? the Schwarzchild metric is a spherically symmetric vacuum solution which must satisfy [latex] R_{\alpha\beta}=0.[/latex] from this you calculate the [latex]A_r =(1-\frac{1-2GM}{c^2r})^{-1}[/latex] and [latex] B_r =-c^2(1-\frac{2Gm}{c^2r})[/latex] both [latex]T_{\alpha\beta}, R_{\alpha\beta}=0[/latex] The static requirement means for other readers as well that all metric components are independent on the time coordinate. Which I can't tell if your maintaining from what's above so I will assume you are....however for completeness [latex]ds^2=g_{11}dr^2+g_{22}d\theta^2+g_{33}\phi^2+g_{44}dt^2[/latex] which the four components are independent on t I don't have a copy of that book however I can't see Dirac not employing a vacuum solution. Is it safe to assume you meant vacuum in the quoted section ? PS have you done latex on other sites if so see here for the latex structure for this site. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/108127-typesetting-equations-with-latex-updated/ anyways the density and pressure outside the sphere must be zero for a vacuum solution outside the Schwartzchild radius. here for the formulism above as I don't have Diracs book to see his methodology http://physics.gmu.edu/~joe/PHYS428/Topic10.pdf in terms of what this means on pressure and energy terms. [latex]\rho=P=0[/latex] for [latex] r> R[/latex] where the stress energy momentum tensor is given by [latex]T_{\mu\nu}=(\rho+p)v_\mu v_\nu)-pg_{\mu\nu}[/latex]

Good article thanks for sharing

You can repeat your earlier statement all you want under relativity all observers in the same reference frame as a reference clock will not notice any time dilation it is only an observer seeing a clock in a different reference frame that will notice the difference. regardless of whether or not you feel length contraction is involved is irrelevant compared to the success of relativity. It is one of the most tested theories out there and has been found to be incredibly accurate. The length contraction of geometry is certainly not outside of science despite your opinion lol

Yeah something to forewarn them that we as the repliers will have to approach their problems with the mainstream approach. Far too often they want to ignore the mainstream mainly as they rarely understand it. Hence why they typically try a speculative approach in the first place lol. The one that annoys me is when they resort to redefining terminology of common physics terms such as energy or mass to suit their needs. Far too often the conversation gets stuck in correcting the terminology. What is difficult for many Speculators to understand is in order to compare the strengths and weaknesses of a model one has to compare to the mainstream models. Even professionally peer reviewed alternative models such as MOND compares itself to the concordance such as LCDM in this case. While its great this forum has a Speculation forum, as it does provide a useful outlet to test ideas. It is difficult to regulate and control. It's a rare occasion to see a poster follow the rules and requirements to keep a Speculation post active and fully useful. Far too often due to lack of predictable mathematics, however also a lack of flexibility in learning the mainstream and correcting the misconceptions that led to the speculation in the first place.

Any QM textbook will in its earlier chapters fully describe the atom. I recommend Griffiths "Introductory to QM" https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Quantum-Mechanics-David-Griffiths/dp/1107179866 its fairly easy to understand on the entry level. Feyman lectures isn't bad but not the greatest http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/

Yes use the terminology a multi particle system would be better then you don't need to distinquish between a force field ie electromagnetic or a fermionic matter field. Bosonic fields represent the vector gauge bosons of the fundamental forces fermions are the particles that comprise of matter. energy is simply a property representing the ability to perform work.

and you cannot say I have an energy but you can say this state has an energy. way too much is involved for your work thus far to become a ToE. You haven't even touched the basics behind a ToE yet.

There is one aspect of it that is useful but only one I can see. Some quantities do depend on the observer ie relativity, try switching your frames to inertial frames of reference then your getting somewhere.

Ok then by the precise same argument energy as a property much like color isn't real either.

Then your not using the terminology for Superposition correctly to begin with. Can you tell me the wifi which uses signal frequencies isn't real ? or that electromagnetic radiation isn't real? they both involve waves. Or perhaps your referring specifically to probability waves

Its a measurable quantity, if I have two or more waves overlapping the superposition of those waves will give a sum of the individual vaveforms. What is not real about that ?

here once again the terminology gets in your way. Superposition is a probability terminology. It actually didn't originate under physics but in statistics. However lets stick to the physics treatments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle

ah ok I see where that is going fair enough. A light beam would have a certain density of states which involves the Planck radiation formula.

photon energy is the energy of a single photon which that formula applies to that formula is in quantized units via the Planck constant.

how so when [latex]E=\frac{hc}{\lambda}[/latex] its frequency depends on its energy

more wavy makes no sense what is more wavy about a photon compared to an electron ? Also a photon can have a wide range of frequencies but one frequency is not more wavy than another. A fermion is not like a rock all particles are field excitations. They all exhibit particle (poinlike) and wavelike characteristics via the wave particle duality. The pointlike properties are defined by the particles Debroglie and Compton wavelength. There is no SOLID corpuscular property of any particle. Solid is an illusion.