ajb

I don't think you are doing anything wrong on facebook. Just make sure that whatever you say or link to you are happy for the world to see it.

Does not really make sense. In an inertial frame (maybe just a local one) the observer there does not notice anything 'strange' happen to himself. Time just ticks as it ever did for him. Time slows? You mean when comparing clocks.... this does not have any effect on the local speed of light. Sorry, but none of this makes any sense.

This sounds odd. A meter is a meter. I don't follow... maybe it is in your 'paper'. Time dilation gradient? Also one has to be careful with the 'photon's point of view' - but anyway... Okay, you can always have local inertial frames - but none of these are the photon rest frame - but what is the observers rate of time? You mean the rate at which an inertial observer sees his clock ticking?

Would care to say something about it here first?

I don't see what not. I mean you are only trying to find out if the paper is in the right field for the jorunal. But this should be clear from the aims of the journal. Never submit a paper to more than one journal at the same time. For one, they don't like it. Secondly it is quite possible that the journals will use the same referees!

If you mean 'does this mean black holes don't form?' then the answer no. This does not imply that black holes take an infinite amount of time to form as see by near by observers.

Okay Okay... in the sense that we use mathematics to describe the rate of change of poistion. I think we all are okay with this. (Not quite seeing your point yet) ???? why ???? ???? why ???? ???? why ???? Yes, pi is pi ... ? At last a reasonable statement. cladking - I really have no idea what you are trying to say to me.

A quick look at it showed me that it is not up to the standard one expects of physics papers... sorry. And note that this is not a professional forum - for that you are better off writing a shorter paper and submitting it for publication. Interesting, as nobody in science cares about IQ... Anyway, it is best - assuming you want some discussion - to post some of the basic ideas here.

It is a problem in GR - but we expect quantum gravity will remove this singularity. But still, at distances not too close to 'r=0' the physics will not change much from the classical situation.

What the heck is a Pokemon?

An observer at infinity - so very far from the black hole - will not see anything reach the horizon let alone the singularity. Time dilation effects loosley mean that it will take an infinite amount of time for the object falling into the black hole to reach the event horizon - as measured by the far away observer. As far as the object falling in, it takes finite time to pass the horizon and reach the singularity (mod what is actually at this classical singularity)

Maybe something to do with quantum tunneling - but you will need to tell us more to be sure. And leave spirits out of this please.

What about it? You may model time using mathematics - if that is what you mean by 't' in the above. So what? This does not tell me anything like 'mathematics needs time'.

I don't quite follow your question here. But for sure the quantum nature of particles has little to do with gravitational waves and their detection. The not at all understood quantum nature os space-time has even less to do with this. At some level space-time maybe discrete or fuzzy - but this is not the same as a mechanical aether.

True.

Not that I personally dislike Boris, but he now does seem to change his mind to suit his own agenda. I am not sure he is anything like the best man for this job. Lets see what happens.

Again, you are mixing mathematics and how one does mathematics... There is nothing in inherent in mathematics that tells us anything about time and itself does not need the physical notion of time. And again, mathematicans are of course subject to time - I am not sure how many more times I can say this. Anyway, none of this has anything to do with time being a non-fundamental concept in physics.

Well, we can describe gravitational waves classically, so there is no reason to go into quantum gravity. But you are right that a quantum theory of gravity should exist and that this will give some new insight into space and time. However, we are not there yet.

Without getting into loop quantum gravity - it is another subject really - you will then ask 'what makes up these loops?'. I don't think that a truly satisfactory answer can be found for 'what is space-time', even when it comes to quantum gravity.

What a great come back for a man who did not go for the top position - well done sir... But he does not have a good record with dealing with 'those bloody foreigners'. This is not a joke -- I repeat -- this is not a joke

As the moderator has noted, this has wondered off a bit - someone could start a new thread on loop quantum gravity if they really want to continue.

That will be ypur first problem. How poetic... but you (and others) are reading to much into this as regards to time.

Not in the simple way you mean it - also I think it is more than that. Still, this does not convince me that time is part of mathematics - in the way you mean anyway...

It seems that the mathematical world is not subject to time in any meaningful sense. No - I have a fraction which is really just notation for 'some' real number. Again, doing maths takes time. But thats as deep as it gets here. But we are not.

Loop quantum gravity does not by itself say anything about the particles of the standard model. I know that people have worked in including matter in this picture, but I don't know details here. String theory is more ambitious in that respect - it is 'large enough' to include all the particles of the standard model, and a whole lot more!