Just came accross an interesting paper by Christopher A. Laforet that reinforces what I say in Defending the Schwarzschild singularity. Essentially, I proved that the distance function http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML">D" role="presentation" style="display: inline; line-height: normal; font-size: 18.6667px; word-spacing: normal; word-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative;">in four-space is an invariant and hence the infinite value that it takes on at the event horizon in Schwarzschild coordinates, is the same in any coordinate system. Christopher (correctly) analyses the situation in Kruskal coordinates and shows that at the event horizon, the distance function becomes indeterminate there.
Since publishing this, the paper has been withdrawn. No explanation given.
"Black-holes-may-be-brick-walls-that-bounce-information-back-out/">Black holes may be brick walls that bounce information back out". Based on a paper by the Nobel prizewinner Woke up to "Gerard t'Hooft, this looked like confirmation of my ideas by a higher authority. Reading the paper made it clear this was not to be.
Some time ago, I said, talking about gravitational waves, "Of more interest is what happens if there is a null result". Well, today we have that - see "After 11 years’ work, cosmic search casts doubt on our black hole’s understanding". This was a research project looking for variations in the timing of pulsars due to gravitational waves. What I said then was "Given two weeks and there would be a flurry of papers claiming that this is exactly what we should expect, with the latest simulations"; I will let you know if I hear anything. In the meantime, Also I believe that LIGO has gone live but no results released yet.
Today, I came across a new paper by R J Spivey which shows that for any external observer, irrespective of position or velocity, nothing can ever cross the event horizon in a finite time. Whilst he is just reiterating the views of Einstein, and many other noted researchers, he does it well and with some fresh insights. He then uses this to make the claim that black holes cannot exist as we would need to wait an infinite time before they could form. Whilst I agree that theoretically, this is correct, I still think it shows little regard for reality. To compare this with a more everyday example, consider the charging of a capacity through a resistor. It will take an infinite time to reach the full voltage. Does this mean we should throw out this purely theoretical result? If we took this view, then most of the physics would be reduced to a set of measured but only approximate results with no extensibility.
Page 3 of 5