Daryl Janzen
@darylj.bsky.social
looking for answers. seeking truth and understanding. observing the world with an open mind. requiring coherence.
cosmiCave.org
cosmiCave.org
So what?!? Measurement uncertainty has nothing to do with it. You’re asking about things that CAN be precisely defined. Measurement is not relevant here.
November 11, 2025 at 7:27 PM
So what?!? Measurement uncertainty has nothing to do with it. You’re asking about things that CAN be precisely defined. Measurement is not relevant here.
An instantaneous occurrence does not exist. Take it as a matter of definition if you need to, but let’s move on please. That’s nothing I’ve got any interest in debating.
November 11, 2025 at 7:22 PM
An instantaneous occurrence does not exist. Take it as a matter of definition if you need to, but let’s move on please. That’s nothing I’ve got any interest in debating.
What?!? Is this just weird mental gymnastics, now? Are you gaslighting me? If you’re just trolling, and don’t actually want to make sense, I’m happy to disengage. It either seems to be that or you don’t hold a coherent enough world view to comprehend the most basic aspects of the problem.
November 11, 2025 at 7:20 PM
What?!? Is this just weird mental gymnastics, now? Are you gaslighting me? If you’re just trolling, and don’t actually want to make sense, I’m happy to disengage. It either seems to be that or you don’t hold a coherent enough world view to comprehend the most basic aspects of the problem.
You’re arguing by assertion AND making irrelevant claims. In physics, an event is well defined. Mathematically, instants and instantaneous events can be described precisely.
November 11, 2025 at 7:03 PM
You’re arguing by assertion AND making irrelevant claims. In physics, an event is well defined. Mathematically, instants and instantaneous events can be described precisely.
Fine, but do you not see that nothing can be “in flux”, by which you might mean it changes, flows, or something else (you didn’t specify) without existing? The flux of electrons through a conducting wire, or molecules in a stream, can’t happen if owe electrons or molecules only happen in an instant.
November 11, 2025 at 6:29 PM
Fine, but do you not see that nothing can be “in flux”, by which you might mean it changes, flows, or something else (you didn’t specify) without existing? The flux of electrons through a conducting wire, or molecules in a stream, can’t happen if owe electrons or molecules only happen in an instant.
This would help. Especially the instantaneous elephant.
theconversation.com/what-exactly...
theconversation.com/what-exactly...
What, exactly, is space-time?
Physicists often say space-time “exists,” but what does that really mean? A hidden confusion between happening and being could be warping our view of reality.
theconversation.com
November 11, 2025 at 5:24 PM
This would help. Especially the instantaneous elephant.
theconversation.com/what-exactly...
theconversation.com/what-exactly...
Now this I agree with!
Re your question—I’m not sure I understand. I’m using “happen” specifically to denote instantaneous occurrences, eg as “events” at precise spatial locations. A photon emitted by a distant star, for instance. Matter that instantaneously occurs is different from existing stuff.
Re your question—I’m not sure I understand. I’m using “happen” specifically to denote instantaneous occurrences, eg as “events” at precise spatial locations. A photon emitted by a distant star, for instance. Matter that instantaneously occurs is different from existing stuff.
November 11, 2025 at 5:23 PM
Now this I agree with!
Re your question—I’m not sure I understand. I’m using “happen” specifically to denote instantaneous occurrences, eg as “events” at precise spatial locations. A photon emitted by a distant star, for instance. Matter that instantaneously occurs is different from existing stuff.
Re your question—I’m not sure I understand. I’m using “happen” specifically to denote instantaneous occurrences, eg as “events” at precise spatial locations. A photon emitted by a distant star, for instance. Matter that instantaneously occurs is different from existing stuff.
Hard disagree. And so would many physicists—though maybe not today’s majority. Operationalism tried to distance physics from ontology. But people failed. That’s in part what this essay is about. The failure of Penrose and others to leave the metaphysics out and focus only on what the math justifies.
November 11, 2025 at 3:17 AM
Hard disagree. And so would many physicists—though maybe not today’s majority. Operationalism tried to distance physics from ontology. But people failed. That’s in part what this essay is about. The failure of Penrose and others to leave the metaphysics out and focus only on what the math justifies.
So reading only the former, that the horizon already formed, is unlicensed metaphysics. The experimental evidence you’re citing works exactly the same in either case.
November 11, 2025 at 1:59 AM
So reading only the former, that the horizon already formed, is unlicensed metaphysics. The experimental evidence you’re citing works exactly the same in either case.
There is no observation that confirms the horizon has already formed. And that’s NOT EVEN the point in the essay. The actual point is that the spatial slices that DO exist outside the past light cone tell an ambiguous story. In some, it’s already formed; in others, it’s still happening.
November 11, 2025 at 1:57 AM
There is no observation that confirms the horizon has already formed. And that’s NOT EVEN the point in the essay. The actual point is that the spatial slices that DO exist outside the past light cone tell an ambiguous story. In some, it’s already formed; in others, it’s still happening.
Just look at the figure in my essay if you don’t want to believe me. The event horizon never enters the past light cone of any external point. At any future time the external world’s past light cone always connects to the still collapsing star, and no causal signal can ever show its completed.
November 11, 2025 at 1:56 AM
Just look at the figure in my essay if you don’t want to believe me. The event horizon never enters the past light cone of any external point. At any future time the external world’s past light cone always connects to the still collapsing star, and no causal signal can ever show its completed.
So, no, the data don’t “prove” that a horizon has already formed. They confirm the exterior metric behaves as if it has. That distinction is the entire point: inevitability ≠ actuality.
November 11, 2025 at 1:53 AM
So, no, the data don’t “prove” that a horizon has already formed. They confirm the exterior metric behaves as if it has. That distinction is the entire point: inevitability ≠ actuality.
Likewise, the EHT “shadow” is an optical effect in the photon sphere region. It depends on exterior null geodesics, not on whether the interior surface has become a true horizon. No observation distinguishes that.
November 11, 2025 at 1:52 AM
Likewise, the EHT “shadow” is an optical effect in the photon sphere region. It depends on exterior null geodesics, not on whether the interior surface has become a true horizon. No observation distinguishes that.
The “ringdown” is a vibration of the exterior metric. GR doesn’t require a formed horizon for that; it requires the asymptotic approach of collapse geometry. Those signals test curvature, not metaphysics.
November 11, 2025 at 1:52 AM
The “ringdown” is a vibration of the exterior metric. GR doesn’t require a formed horizon for that; it requires the asymptotic approach of collapse geometry. Those signals test curvature, not metaphysics.
You’ve actually just illustrated the problem exactly. The issue isn’t about data; it’s about what the data logically license us to infer. Observing a ringdown or a shadow constrains the exterior field — not the internal ontology.
November 11, 2025 at 1:51 AM
You’ve actually just illustrated the problem exactly. The issue isn’t about data; it’s about what the data logically license us to infer. Observing a ringdown or a shadow constrains the exterior field — not the internal ontology.
I’m talking about gravitational collapse. And metaphysical conclusions that are drawn about forever unobservable things. Whether those forever unobservable things, which we know are inevitable, have already happened or are still in progress. That is all.
November 11, 2025 at 1:39 AM
I’m talking about gravitational collapse. And metaphysical conclusions that are drawn about forever unobservable things. Whether those forever unobservable things, which we know are inevitable, have already happened or are still in progress. That is all.
Still, whether they form event horizons in finite cosmic time or continue collapsing forever is irrelevant to stellar evolution in the outside universe.
November 11, 2025 at 1:34 AM
Still, whether they form event horizons in finite cosmic time or continue collapsing forever is irrelevant to stellar evolution in the outside universe.
Yes that’s right. Stars balance gravitational and radiative pressure. But black holes aren’t relevant to that. Black holes form in gravitational collapse of stellar cores when they run out of fuel to produce that outward radiative pressure.
November 11, 2025 at 1:33 AM
Yes that’s right. Stars balance gravitational and radiative pressure. But black holes aren’t relevant to that. Black holes form in gravitational collapse of stellar cores when they run out of fuel to produce that outward radiative pressure.
Sorry, Chris. None of this is actually true. I’m not sure here is the place to explain how stars work and causality and observability and all the things needed to help your understanding though.
November 11, 2025 at 1:23 AM
Sorry, Chris. None of this is actually true. I’m not sure here is the place to explain how stars work and causality and observability and all the things needed to help your understanding though.
So no: this isn’t “beginner’s misunderstanding”. It’s a call for conceptual and logical precision: don’t smuggle metaphysics into physics. Recognize the difference between the math that predicts inevitability and the ontology that declares actuality.
November 11, 2025 at 1:19 AM
So no: this isn’t “beginner’s misunderstanding”. It’s a call for conceptual and logical precision: don’t smuggle metaphysics into physics. Recognize the difference between the math that predicts inevitability and the ontology that declares actuality.
Fourth, the actual argument: GR makes horizon formation inevitable in the manifold sense. But inevitability is not actuality. “Already formed” is a metaphysical leap, not a physical conclusion. A Cartesian reading of a curved geometry projected onto a plane. That’s the fallacy.
November 11, 2025 at 1:17 AM
Fourth, the actual argument: GR makes horizon formation inevitable in the manifold sense. But inevitability is not actuality. “Already formed” is a metaphysical leap, not a physical conclusion. A Cartesian reading of a curved geometry projected onto a plane. That’s the fallacy.
Third, what’s invalid: claiming that LIGO ringdowns or EHT shadows prove formed horizons. Those signals reflect the exterior metric. They tell us nothing about whether any external event has a completed horizon in its past light cone. The completed horizon never enters an external observer’s past.
November 11, 2025 at 1:14 AM
Third, what’s invalid: claiming that LIGO ringdowns or EHT shadows prove formed horizons. Those signals reflect the exterior metric. They tell us nothing about whether any external event has a completed horizon in its past light cone. The completed horizon never enters an external observer’s past.
Second, what’s irrelevant again: EF coordinates remove the coordinate singularity. Correct. I’m working with EF diagrams in the essay that show that clearly! But they don’t say what exists now for distant observers. That’s a metaphysical import, not a GR result.
November 11, 2025 at 1:11 AM
Second, what’s irrelevant again: EF coordinates remove the coordinate singularity. Correct. I’m working with EF diagrams in the essay that show that clearly! But they don’t say what exists now for distant observers. That’s a metaphysical import, not a GR result.
First, what’s true but irrelevant: yes, infalling observers reach the horizon in finite proper time. That’s explicitly acknowledged in the essay. The issue is not coordinate confusion but the unjustified ontological reading of that formal result.
November 11, 2025 at 1:09 AM
First, what’s true but irrelevant: yes, infalling observers reach the horizon in finite proper time. That’s explicitly acknowledged in the essay. The issue is not coordinate confusion but the unjustified ontological reading of that formal result.
Wow! There’s a lot of misunderstanding packed into this thread. You’ve said several things that are true but irrelevant, and others that rest on invalid assumptions about what the essay actually argues. I’ll set aside the tone of contempt and clarify what’s irrelevant, what’s mistaken, and why.
November 11, 2025 at 1:06 AM
Wow! There’s a lot of misunderstanding packed into this thread. You’ve said several things that are true but irrelevant, and others that rest on invalid assumptions about what the essay actually argues. I’ll set aside the tone of contempt and clarify what’s irrelevant, what’s mistaken, and why.