Mordred

Unfortunately the choice of coordinates do make a difference. The Schwartzchild metric is a static solution. Inside the EH it is anything but static. Here read this page http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_coordinates "Schwarzschild chart, a kind of polar spherical coordinate chart on a static and spherically symmetric spacetime" please note the killing vector section

Look up photon then look up what forces interactions affect the photon. Answer one only electromagnetic. Not the weak force not the strong force. Gravity also does not directly influence the photon. Space time curvature does. Now what does space time curvature really mean? Space is geometric volume, ONLY. space time is any mathematical model of space with the time component. Gravity is an influence upon particles. It cannot influence an empty volume. Gravity affects space time as an influence upon the particles contained within the volume of space time. In other words treat space time as a fluid ( perfect fluid or ideal gas) Higher gravity wells have a higher energy density, energy density per volume has a pressure influence depending upon the particles equations of state. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) The stress energy tensor of the Einstein field equations show the energy momentum relations and includes the energy density to pressure relations. see the matrix on this page http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor Space time curvature is an energy density distribution curve of the influences of gravity upon particles. It is not some magical material that stretches, bends etc. This is the problem with pop media articles. They supply the simple analogies but not what those analogies represent in terms of differential geometry That article you posted above is due to space time curvature. It does not mean light is naturally curved in its trajectory.

Then you need to find some evidence to support your ludicrous claims. As mentioned GR is well tested, physics does not instantly take any claim at face value, GR has been fought tooth and nail trying to prove wrong. GUess what, that hasn't happened. Now on to your ridiculous claim that light naturally curved. I mentioned lasers, if light naturally curved laser would quickly lose coherence, once it leaves the laser. If light naturally curves on its own every image we view in space would be highly distorted we wouldn't even be able to see beyond our own galaxy due to the resultant distortions. Go ahead try it lets say the light path from a star curves 1 degree per Mpc. Would you see an object at 4000 Mpc. Would angles add up to 180 degrees? Instead of randomly denying GR, perhaps you should spend time understanding why the model works and what it really means. Your argument is essentially " I don't like chocolate," " have you tasted it" "No I just don't like it" It's easy to discount something you obviously don't understand. Guess what, if you took the time to understand it, it's not as ridiculous as you might think. By the way space time is not something mystical fabric. That's pop media crap

Geodesics are the shortest path in curved space. In Euclidean geometry the shortest path between two points is a straight line. In curved space it's not the case. Your argument denies curved space. Which by the way is extremely well tested. Photons do not make a path they follow geodesics GR is extremely well tested

Your going to need to provide some references. Photon paths follow geodesics

Your welcome, I posted that paper to assist you in this debate, so you have a reference to discuss. It will help keep the discussion on track. You will also note I posted the second paper in a counter argument to the first paper. In the second paper the EH can be crossed by particles by a removal of the coordinate singularity due to the Schwartzchild metric. Adopting the "tortoise coordinates", is one method, the coordinates Strange mentioned being another. A key thing to realize, GR has come a long way since Einstein and Schwartzchild. Minkowskii metrics for example has limitations. There have been numerous later metrics developed to overcome aspects of the older metrics, The Mathius Blau book in my signature points out numerous shortcomings in the older metrics and shows the solutions with later developed coordinate systems. The first paper, recognizes the coordinate singularity, it points out the possibility, of particles not crossing the EH. However it doesn't conclusively state it is the case. The black hole wars is full of similar arguments lol Oh in regard to Hawking radiation converting infalling matter outside the EH,mentioned in the first paper. That process can't occur, the author of the first paper probably didn't realize Hawking radiation only occurs if the universe blackbody temperature is lower than the BHs blackbody temperature. Just a side note

The term dimensions, can represent various aspects in differential geometry. There is Three spacial dimensions, one time dimension, you can also assign a dimension to specific interactions such as charge, color,flavor, etc. The 11 dimensions you mentioned is string theory.

Galaxy rotation curves is a complex subject. First you have to examine the distribution of visible matter as well as hydrogen and intergalactic plasma. This using keplers laws still won't get the right answer. This is when you need to look at the distribution of dark matter. This article is very basic. However gives the general idea. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve more detail is here http://cds.cern.ch/record/1023900/files/0703430.pdf

This sounds like the information paradox though not precisely. you might want to read this paper as it's directly related to this discussion and what you've been trying to describe. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0609024 Observation of Incipient Black Holes and the Information Loss Problem. The problem with using the Schwartzchild metric is that it is invalid past the EH. The coordinate system no longer works. On a personal note, I keep in mind the expression " The universe doesn't care how we measure it" In this context just because we cannot see the BH form from our observable perspective, doesn't preclude it from forming in a finite time from a different observer perspective. Ie the infalling test particle. As the mathematics can easily model the latter example it is also equally valid. Here "As we mentioned above, astrophysical BHs are the product of gravitational collapse, and then are not eternal black holes. A qual- itative view of the spacetime of a realistic black hole is shown in the Finkelstein diagram in Fig. 1.4, " This paper will step you through the solution http://www.roma1.infn.it/teongrav/leonardo/bh/bhcap12.pdf

Umm no it doesn't lasers is a good example.

To answer that would take far too long. You'd be surprised just how much we can model. Here is a very lengthy and technical paper that covers measurement and modelling the accretion disk including as close to the EH a possible. You might want to study the ZAMO and ZAVO metrics inside the article. http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.5499:''Black hole Accretion Disk'' -Handy article on accretion disk measurements provides a technical compilation of measurements involving the disk itself.

No problem, As this is on topic, here is related posts. I would love to get this guy on this forum. https://briankoberlein.com/2015/01/21/lies-teacher-told/

https://briankoberlein.com/2015/01/24/need-speed/ Came across this good coverage, on my Google+ Thought I'd share it

The most accurate of the three is mass/ energy density keeping in mind mass and energy is interchangeable. Energy being a property of particles. Matter isn't needed to bend space. As fundamental bosons isn't matter particles. You don't need a strong particle physics understanding to understand GR. However it's good to know the basics.

4 forces Photons carry electromagnetic Quarks carry the strong force W and Z bosons carry the weak force http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_carrier The common name is gauge bosons. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_boson Graviton should be for gravity. However we haven't found the graviton. http://www.commonsensescience.org/pdf/articles/elementary_particles_part_1_fos_v7n4.pdf

Who is being sloppy, the person pushing a metric artifact or the professional scientists involved in spotting that GRB? Are you claiming those scientists are wrong simply because of your misunderstanding of the Schwartz child metric? Here this covers what is known as a coordinate singularity. "Before exploring the behavior of test particles in the Schwarzschild geometry, we should say something about singularities. From the form of (7.29), the metric coefficients become infinite at r = 0 and r = 2GM an apparent sign that something is going wrong. The metric coefficients, of course, are coordinate-dependent quantities, and as such we should not make too much of their values; it is certainly possible to have a coordinate singularity The simple solution is change the coordinates. Exactly as Imaatsfal stated. http://preposterousuniverse.com/grnotes/grnotes-seven.pdf There is an expression you should consider. "The universe doesn't care how we measure it". What this means is there is a limit to how far you can take any metric.

And yet we detect blackholes, we also detect the changes in their feeding rates. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150122114555.htm We've also spotted one in its birth moments http://news.discovery.com/space/astronomy/black-hole-birth-spawned-record-breaking-blast-131122.htm The Schwartzchild metric is a very specific vacuum non rotating solution. As pointed out the likely hood of ever seeing a Schwartz child non rotating BH is incredibly remote. Kerr rotating blackholes are however common. Imaatsfal has already pointed out The correction to the Schwartz child metric.

What in the world is phantom matter? Sounds like pink unicorns, Do you have any evidence to show phantom matter exists?

Energy is a property of particles, it doesn't exist on its own. Waves is the influence on particles whether virtual or real. The influence is carried particle to particle by the force carrying boson. Mass does not mean matter, see the previous posts. All particles have particle and waveform properties

Waveforms can be influenced beforei I can answer accurately I need time to study the models involved. From the pop media descriptives I can see the plausibility. This will take take time, but no worries I will offer support.

Many thanks mate hard copies on order http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Experimental-Foundations-Advanced-Theoretical/dp/9810227493 Lol add that to my 20+ collection of physics related books. Ps my wife always asks "Why are you so interested in this universe stuff, you will never go there" My response " I'm already there" After 15 years she still doesn't get it lol Looking over some of the reviews his take on the one way vs two way influences on photons may or may not provide insight beyond what I already understand. Knowledge is always good regardless of perspective.

I'm not too familiar with it myself, however looking over the information I found on the subject I cannot see any violations. It's a process that looks intriquing and complies with the known models from what I've read thus far. Waveforms can interact producing shorter and longer waveforms. A waveform change is a change in energy levels. So yes manipulating a waveform can induce current.

Makes it even more motivating for me to study his work. Any particular article recommendations? ( no limit on technicality) I've always been a firm believer in learning how our models developed historically. This includes major counter theories.

One of his questions was what defines matter. We got sidetracked on the answer lol. Wiki has a good explanation on mass "In physics, mass is a property of a physical body which determines resistance to being accelerated by a force and the strength of its mutual gravitational attraction with other bodies. The SI unit of mass is the kilogram (kg). Mass is not the same thing as weight, even though we commonly calculate an object's mass by measuring its weight. A woman standing on the Moon would weigh less than she would on Earth because of the lower gravity, but she would have the same mass. For everyday objects and energies well-described by Newtonian physics, mass describes the amount of matter in an object. However, at very high speeds or for subatomic particles, special relativity shows that energy is an additional source of mass. Thus, any stationary body having mass has an equivalent amount of energy, and all forms of energy resist acceleration by a force and have gravitational attraction" Keep in mind the word physical means anything that can be described by physics including energy. All particles are affected by gravity http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass Ps thanks for the reminder it's not often discussions on the Pauli exclusion principle comes up, we got sidetracked lol. Just a side note advise, look closely at scientific definitions, there is numerous clues contained in them. The definition of mass is one such example

Thanks for sharing that zyxt, I'll have to study that bit of history in more detail.