Physicists observe wormhole dynamics using quantum computer + Why a singularity?

[confused2]

Could we have a quick recap on falling into a black hole?
My version suggests the faller sees the everything behind him/her grow rapidly older .. the universe dies behind him/her. Looking ahead .. never thought about it - any ideas?
Seen from the outside the faller takes an infinite amount of time to reach the event horizon so kind of glued to the surface but red-shifted to hell.

[Kornee]

Could we have a quick recap on falling into a black hole?
My version suggests the faller sees the everything behind him/her grow rapidly older .. the universe dies behind him/her. Looking ahead .. never thought about it - any ideas?
Seen from the outside the faller takes an infinite amount of time to reach the event horizon so kind of glued to the surface but red-shifted to hell.

If you trawl through PhysicsForums.com relativity subforum, there are many postings by GR buffs trotting out a standard and wholly inconsistent claim.
That the exterior view of an infaller slowing to zero and 'freezing' at the 'EH' is merely an optical illusion. All that matters they insist, is the pov of an infaller, who they say, passes through the EH and on to the dreaded 'singularity' in a typically (~ solar mass BH) very brief proper time interval.

Which conveniently ignores that, as you seem to grasp, the rest of the universe has become infinitely old from the pov of the infaller at the very moment of hitting the EH. Throw in Hawking Radiation and the modification has the infaller riding the shrinking EH down to zero radius in finite exterior time.
Or is vaporized by a 'firewall' much earlier. Or whatever the latest 'surprising new physics' fashion of the BH industry has cooked up.

All such pathological weirdness is done away with in a self-consistent theory of gravity, one which requires an exponential metric where neither an EH or singularity can form. I have posted a link earlier, but it must be read to be appreciated.

[confused2]

Is your new thing..
It [light] propagates isotropically and has the local value c independent of the acceleration and local gravitational field
?
If so then your new thing is one of my old old things.

Clock speed (at sea level) independent of latitude .. did anyone expect anything else? Why would they?

[C C]

BLACK HOLE ALTERNATIVES 

Fuzzball
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzball_(string_theory)

Exotic star (multiple categories)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exotic_star

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

MECO
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosph...ing_object

- - - - - - -

Falling into a black Hole (Andrew Hamilton)
https://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/bh/schw.html

What happens to you if you fall into a black hole? (Matt McIrvin, Harvard 1997)
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/R...ll_in.html

Experience What It’s Like to Fall Into a Black Hole With This 360-Degree Video ... https://youtu.be/17tEg_uTF_A

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/17tEg_uTF_A

[Syne]

Syne has managed to rile me again, elsewhere. To illustrate his pretentiousness, impudence, and general incompetence, here's a special invite to Syne.
In #5 Syne states: "I suggest not falling for every crackpot theory out there.'
Is that so? Well I have made a contrarian claim wrt a well respected authority's claim in support of GR's BH EHs in #8.
What say you Syne? Do you support that 'inflowing space' position as both self-consistent and accurate?
Failure to offer a detailed, relevant, objective not useless rhetorical response, will be taken as an admission of incompetence to judge.

Yes, we know you anti-Semites have no defense of your vile beliefs and behavior.
As always, the onus lies with the contrarian, as the accepted explanation is already...accepted.

"Inflowing space" is a very poor analogy, at best, not a notion anyone familiar with the actual physics would entertain. That you seem to think it's a worthy point of contention only demonstrates that you're out of your depth. If space, itself, "moved," it would be a candidate for the long-debunked aether. What happens at a black hole is just an extreme case of what happens around any mass. Spacetime curves. In the case of the BH, it just curves so much that a photon's straight trajectory through the curved spacetime never finds the event horizon. Has nothing to do with space moving at all. It's just the shape of spacetime.

You being such a conspiratorial nutter, I have no doubt you'll take any amount of objective reason as only reinforcing your delusions. That's the only way the delusional remain so.

If you trawl through PhysicsForums.com relativity subforum, there are many postings by GR buffs trotting out a standard and wholly inconsistent claim.
That the exterior view of an infaller slowing to zero and 'freezing' at the 'EH' is merely an optical illusion. All that matters they insist, is the pov of an infaller, who they say, passes through the EH and on to the dreaded 'singularity' in a typically (~ solar mass BH) very brief proper time interval.

Which conveniently ignores that, as you seem to grasp, the rest of the universe has become infinitely old from the pov of the infaller at the very moment of hitting the EH. Throw in Hawking Radiation and the modification has the infaller riding the shrinking EH down to zero radius in finite exterior time.
Or is vaporized by a 'firewall' much earlier. Or whatever the latest 'surprising new physics' fashion of the BH industry has cooked up.

All such pathological weirdness is done away with in a self-consistent theory of gravity, one which requires an exponential metric where neither an EH or singularity can form. I have posted a link earlier, but it must be read to be appreciated.

It is not an optical illusion. Otherwise it would invalidate the relativistic notion that there is no preferred frame of reference. The external observation is just as valid as the internal. That's what the Lorentz transformations are all about. That you seem to think transforming from one reference frame to another is inconsistent, even though we have the means to consistently do so, would, again, seem to find you out of your depth. And citing PhysicsForums as authoritative is completely laughable.

Hell, you don't even seem to understand the simple GR notion that time is relative, not absolute. That you seem to think the external observation of a slow fall and the internal observation of a fast, finite fall are contradictory, just shows that you don't even grasp the basics of GR.

Cue more of your delusional arguing with links rather than any honest attempt to justify any of your claims yourself. Grade A crackpottery incoming.

[confused2]

The record shows that Einstein (as of 1939) wasn't very happy with black holes. If (as I do) you take Einstein as having intuited first and made up the maths later then you (we) could well be looking at bad maths or more likely maths as a description of reality taken outside its area of applicability. I'd guess every physics student has to calculate the Scharzchild radius at least once so the maths is impeccable - to what extent it is a fair description of reality in the region of 'black holes' is another matter.

[Syne]

Of course Einstein wasn't happy with his own theory predicting a point at which it failed. Like every physicist, he had dreams of explaining everything with a single theory. He also had problems with QM because it stubbornly refused to explain everything, even while consistently predicting results. The black hole singularity is just a point where both GR and QM fail...without a quantum theory of gravity to bridge the gap. The region of a black hole is not in question. It's only that singularity, hidden behind the event horizon, that is the mystery.

[Kornee]

Syne has managed to rile me again, elsewhere. To illustrate his pretentiousness, impudence, and general incompetence, here's a special invite to Syne.
In #5 Syne states: "I suggest not falling for every crackpot theory out there.'
Is that so? Well I have made a contrarian claim wrt a well respected authority's claim in support of GR's BH EHs in #8.
What say you Syne? Do you support that 'inflowing space' position as both self-consistent and accurate?
Failure to offer a detailed, relevant, objective not useless rhetorical response, will be taken as an admission of incompetence to judge.

Yes, we know you anti-Semites have no defense of your vile beliefs and behavior.
As always, the onus lies with the contrarian, as the accepted explanation is already...accepted.

"Inflowing space" is a very poor analogy, at best, not a notion anyone familiar with the actual physics would entertain. That you seem to think it's a worthy point of contention only demonstrates that you're out of your depth. If space, itself, "moved," it would be a candidate for the long-debunked aether. What happens at a black hole is just an extreme case of what happens around any mass. Spacetime curves. In the case of the BH, it just curves so much that a photon's straight trajectory through the curved spacetime never finds the event horizon. Has nothing to do with space moving at all. It's just the shape of spacetime.

You being such a conspiratorial nutter, I have no doubt you'll take any amount of objective reason as only reinforcing your delusions. That's the only way the delusional remain so.

If you trawl through PhysicsForums.com relativity subforum, there are many postings by GR buffs trotting out a standard and wholly inconsistent claim.
That the exterior view of an infaller slowing to zero and 'freezing' at the 'EH' is merely an optical illusion. All that matters they insist, is the pov of an infaller, who they say, passes through the EH and on to the dreaded 'singularity' in a typically (~ solar mass BH) very brief proper time interval.

Which conveniently ignores that, as you seem to grasp, the rest of the universe has become infinitely old from the pov of the infaller at the very moment of hitting the EH. Throw in Hawking Radiation and the modification has the infaller riding the shrinking EH down to zero radius in finite exterior time.
Or is vaporized by a 'firewall' much earlier. Or whatever the latest 'surprising new physics' fashion of the BH industry has cooked up.

All such pathological weirdness is done away with in a self-consistent theory of gravity, one which requires an exponential metric where neither an EH or singularity can form. I have posted a link earlier, but it must be read to be appreciated.

It is not an optical illusion. Otherwise it would invalidate the relativistic notion that there is no preferred frame of reference. The external observation is just as valid as the internal. That's what the Lorentz transformations are all about. That you seem to think transforming from one reference frame to another is inconsistent, even though we have the means to consistently do so, would, again, seem to find you out of your depth. And citing PhysicsForums as authoritative is completely laughable.

Hell, you don't even seem to understand the simple GR notion that time is relative, not absolute. That you seem to think the external observation of a slow fall and the internal observation of a fast, finite fall are contradictory, just shows that you don't even grasp the basics of GR.

Cue more of your delusional arguing with links rather than any honest attempt to justify any of your claims yourself. Grade A crackpottery incoming.

No. What is highlighted above points out your nasty habit of misrepresentation. Go back and check what I actually wrote. The error is all yours.

PS: Someone managed to muck with my internet connection for the last 6 hours or so. Thanks to patient support from ISP, back online.

---

Is your new thing..
It [light] propagates isotropically and has the local value c independent of the acceleration and local gravitational field
?
If so then your new thing is one of my old old things.

Clock speed (at sea level) independent of latitude .. did anyone expect anything else? Why would they?

Sorry but that looks to be very sparse cherry picking. If you want a single clincher, just run through the derivation of horizonless exponential metric, based on correct analysis of 'Einstein's Elevator', from p8 to p19 there.
Let me know if you manage to uncover a fatal flaw. But I note your #16 so the suggested exercise is probably going to fall on deaf ears. Your choice.

[Syne]

See, it's completely pointless to engage this anti-Semite. He has a pattern of finding one thing to whine about so he can ignore the bulk of a post. He claims that something about GR is inconsistent, only points out the discrepancy between different observers' experience of time, and then whines that that isn't the inconsistency he meant...while never getting around to detailing what he's on about. Delusional troll.

[Kornee]

See, it's completely pointless to engage this anti-Semite. He has a pattern of finding one thing to whine about so he can ignore the bulk of a post. He claims that something about GR is inconsistent, only points out the discrepancy between different observers' experience of time, and then whines that that isn't the inconsistency he meant...while never getting around to detailing what he's on about. Delusional troll.

Persisting in your characteristic hatefulness and misrepresentation. No surprise. Give it a rest - again. Oh - and just to point out your incompetence - feel free to be the one to uncover that 'fatal flaw' p8-p19 of ppt article.
What - beneath your dignity perhaps? Ha ha ha ha. I doubt you could follow the straightforward math. But go ahead - prove me wrong.