Re: Iconic Black Hole Pioneer Disproves The Existence of Singularities

Jan B. wrote:

>
Most (all?) physicist have thought for a long time that singularities in black holes
result from the lack of a good quantum theory of gravity. GR is a classical theory and
just like other classical theories (electrodynamics, Newtonian and Einsteinian mechanics)
it leads to certain mathematical consequences which are non-physical. One well-known
example of that in classical electrodynamics was the ultraviolet catastrophe which was only
resolved by introducing quantum mechanics. Pretty much everyone in physics knows that
something similar needs to happen with GR.
It's all an old hat by now. Your barking at it as if you were holding the
keys to some revelation is just silly.
--
Jan

There is an infinity in SR when considering FTL phenomena, too.  I'm sure you're familiar
with the Bilaniuk, Deshpanda and Sudarshan paper with imaginary mass to cancel the gamma
factor becoming imaginary for u > c.  The relativistic velocity composition equation is
u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2)
where u' reverses sign at v = c^2/u.  Bilaniuk et al took this as a real thing and proposed
their "reinterpretation principle" to save causality.  Many, many physicists preferred to
view the RVCE as disproving the possibility of FTL, starting with Einstein and continuing
to the present.  A few hardy physicists have forged on anyway.  Recami is still using the
"reinterpretation principle" (which I think should be called RIP).
It seems to me that the discontinuity (singularity?) at v = c^2/v represents the limit
beyond which the RVCE is invalid.  Using Tom Robert's language, it exceeds its domain of
applicability.  Thus, conclusions about FTL while using any equation that even implicitly
involves the RVCE must be invalid.  This includes four-momentum transformations and probably
quantum field theory as well.
What do you think?
Gary