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

[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.

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.

Notice how he continues to not detail what inconsistency he thinks GR has pertaining to black holes.
Quit being so boring and predictable:

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

And the "prove me wrong" mating call of the common crackpot. The onus is on you to disprove the repeatedly empirically demonstrated GR, not vice versa, but delusional crackpots always hide behind this persistent intellectual dishonesty. See how he dodges detailing this supposed inconsistency? He knows he can't back up that claim, so he has no other recourse but to play the sad "prove me wrong" refrain.

[Kornee]

Should have known better. So I take it you can't follow the straightforward math. The math that undermines GR. Figures.

Your characteristic strategy of indirectly appealing to others here to shun me as a pariah is loathsome. And clearly unnecessary.
Not my style. I prefer just one on one.

[Syne]

You have yet to demonstrate that you understand anything at all, much less GR. You just keep citing websites without even a hint of specificity. Hell, you can't even manage to do something as simple as just explain what you find inconsistent about GR. Just typical evasive crackpot nonsense.

If there were straightforward math than undermines GR, everyone would have heard about, from much more reliable sources than you. But this is all part and parcel with your antisemitism. You cite a website, try to be as vague as possible, and then pretend you are somehow better informed than others. You accept bullshit as evidence and concoct (or more likely, are fed) conspiracy-laden crap that nurses both your sense of victimhood and your delusions to competency.

I dare you to simply state your problem with GR, in simple English. Can you even articulate it at all? Or is it just this vague notion derived solely from the fact that GR seems unintuitive or confuses you? So far, that's the only conclusion that can be reached from everything you've written in this thread. If you're fine leaving us with that as the only impression, so be it. Your choice.

[Kornee]

Give it away fool. Stop your pointless bluster. I led you directly to a step-by-step demo job - proving Schwarzschild solution is an approximation that is inconsistent with Einstein's Elevator analysis done right.
You can't handle the math I have pointed you to. If you could, it should be easy to point to exactly where the exponential metric derivation is flawed. You can't but are too vain to admit it.
But a punching bag. Let out your venom in a useful way - get some healthy exercise while hating away.

Stan Robertson explicitly points out the first order approximate nature of GR's Schwarzschild solution, which leads to all the pathologies in strong gravity regime. Appendix A here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.01417

Wasted edit - given the expected response in #25

[Syne]

You're absolutely right, I can't do the math. I never said I could. Which is why I'm asking if you can explain your position without resorting to it. Apparently you can't, or certainly you would have by now. Unless you just like trolling people. So for me, you haven't demonstrated anything that would convince me you have any valid criticism of GR. You just keep citing largely unaccepted theories and virtual nobodies. Again, nothing I can take as valid criticism. But I suppose you think mainstream physics is just as fraught a conspiracy as everything else you go on about. I don't know if that makes you feel better about yourself...that you can insulate your sense of superiority behind math. I guess that's just your shtick.

I work out twice a day, and only give grief to individuals like yourself, who don't think fighting overt bigotry is "useful." Hope you get even a fraction of that exercise for your hatred of a whole people.

[Kornee]

It's nearly all in that math. If you can't follow it, what's there to say? Just this: Einstein KNEW BETTER back in 1907, as Robertson points out.
But AE opted for the approximation because, among other things, it allowed for his aesthetic choice of 'gravity does NOT gravitate' - as explicitly encapsulated in the RHS of his field equation(s).
The problem there was in free fall 'gravity' as commonly understood vanishes locally, but that seemed to not allow any consistently defined energy density for a gravitational field.

Yilmaz's version solved the issue. Even though a few 'authorities' wrongly claim otherwise.
The same 'authorities' who fidget and squirm when asked to explain the (in)consistent logic behind GR's ad hoc pseudotensor formulations.
The rest of your again misrepresentations and bile I care not to respond to.

[Syne]

Again, as a virtual nobody points out.

Since the invariant energy includes the the energy of the system in external fields, the interior of the free falling frame is not isolated.

Your continued protests about "authorities" is just eye roll inducing.

[Kornee]

Again, as a virtual nobody points out.

Since the invariant energy includes the the energy of the system in external fields, the interior of the free falling frame is not isolated.

Your continued protests about "authorities" is just eye roll inducing.

Do you actually think that string of words has coherent sense to it? Really? Sigh. Goodbye.

[Syne]

Didn't expect to get a real discussion from you anyway.
Notice how that criticism doesn't say anything of substance vulnerable to criticism itself.

[confused2]

I almost lost the will to live while looking at Kornee's ppt thing
https://www.powershow.com/view/1bbc8-Zjh...esentation

The Pound-Rebka experiment deals nicely with 'gravlab'

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2...experiment