Can You Answer These Black Hole Questions?

[A-wal]

I think there's something very wrong with relativity but don't worry I know how to fix it. I know how cocky that sounds and that you're thinking, crackpot! Just give me a chance okay. Instead of treating acceleration due to energy (special relativity) as a special case within the generalised structure of gravitationally curved space-time (general relativity), they should be put on an equal footing. If you do this, something truly amazing happens. They become two sides of the same acceleration coin. Gravity is considered an inward curvature of space-time, pulling objects together, but you can just as easily view energy as an outward curvature of space-time, pushing objects apart. There is absolutely no difference between following a straight line in curved space-time and following a curved path in flat space-time. They're physically equivalent. Tomato, tomato. That was just a very brief outline. I'm in the process of writing it up properly. In the mean time:

 

 

1. Three ships approach a 'black hole'. One ship continuously accelerates at a constant rate to keep itself stationary relative to the 'black hole'. One ship cuts off its engines and free-falls. The last ship accelerates away from the hovering ship and steadily increases its acceleration at an ever increasing rate so that it's always moving away from the hovering ship at exactly the same speed as the the free-falling ship is in the opposite direction. From the perspective of the hovering ship the other two ships are continuously becoming more length contracted and time dilated to keep their relative velocities below the speed of light. According to the standard description if we then switch to the perspective of the ship that's accelerating away from the black hole there's no contradiction between the two frames of reference, which is right. This is special relativity. Now if we switch to the perspective of the free-falling ship then according to the standard description it's perfectly okay for the free-falling ship to reach and cross the event horizon despite the fact that it can never happen from the other two ships, or any other objects perspective. This is utter bullcrap. It's a direct contradiction. They have to use multiple coordinate systems to describe the whole thing. If you treat special and general relativity as equivalents of each other then you can use a single unified coordinate system that covers the entire manifold, which you should always be able to do. It's not okay to contradict yourself like this and then claim that it's a self consistent description of reality.

 

2. Black holes are described as having an event horizon that's expanding outwards at the speed of light locally (slower from a distance as an inverse square). Information propagates through space-time at the speed of light (again, slower as an inverse square of the distance from the 'black hole'), so how can the gravitational influence of the black hole reach any object before the event horizon does?

 

3. No object can ever be observed reaching an event horizon from the perspective of any external object because if that where possible then you could observe objects crossing the horizon as you approach it and they would have to then cross back from the inside if you accelerate away. If no object closer the the horizon can reach it before you do then all the objects that ever reach the horizon would have to do it at exactly the same time. Traffic jam!

 

4. If a free-falling object can cross an event horizon then what happens if it's attached by a rope to an object outside the horizon that then accelerates away? From the external objects perspective it's always possible to pull the other object away because it can never reach the horizon, but from the perspective of the object inside the horizon it can't be pulled away. Paradox!

 

5. A singularity is a singular point in time as well as space so it doesn't last for any length of time. Its length in time and space get extended by the same amount as the observers distance increases, making it appear to occupy more space-time the further away it's viewed from (again as an inverse square) making it a perfect four dimensional sphere (hypersphere). In the standard model it's cone shaped in four dimensions. Why would it be cone shaped when space and time are equivalent?

 

6. As you approach a 'black hole' it gets more length contracted and time dilated the closer you get because of the increased gravitation. If an object were able to reach the event horizon then it would be moving at the speed of light relative to the singularity, so the event horizon would be infinitely length contracted and time dilated. A 'black hole' is just what a singularity looks like from a distance!

 

7. When an objects accelerates using energy there's what's called a Rindler horizon behind it that gets closer to it if it increases its acceleration and further away from it if it decreases its acceleration. No information from beyond this horizon can ever catch up to the accelerating object as long as carries on accelerating at at least the same rate. It approaches at a slower rate in response to the same increase in acceleration the harder the object is accelerating, in exactly the same way that length contraction and time dilation make an objects relative velocity increase at slower rate response to the same amount of acceleration the faster its relative velocity to keep it below the speed of light. Acceleration can be defined as velocity relative to energy. This prevents an accelerating objects Rindler horizon from ever catching up to it, which wouldn't make sense. A Rindler horizon is always exactly the same distance away from the accelerating object as the horizon of it's own light moving away in front of it (the speed of light is only constant for inertial objects, it doesn't apply when they accelerate). There's also a Rindler horizon behind free-falling objects which works in exactly the same way. If an object were able to reach an event horizon then it's own Rindler horizon would have to catch up to it and overtake it so that it's the same distance in front of the object as the event horizon is behind it. It makes no sense for the two horizons to cross over like this. Instead the event horizon works in exactly the same way that the speed of light horizon does for an object using energy to accelerate, because it's the same thing. They're perfectly equivalent.

[A-wal]

I missed one.

 

8. The laws of physics are supposed to be time reversible, but black holes as they're currently described clearly break this rule. If it were possible for an object to cross the event horizon of a black hole then if the arrow of time were reversed then that object would have to reemerge from inside the event horizon despite the fact that gravity is an attractive force regardless of the direction of the arrow of time, which is supposed to be impossible. This is just one more example that shows that black holes as they described aren't even self consistent.

 

1. When an object approaches an event horizon it approaches at an ever decreasing rate the closer it gets from the perspective of a more distant observer because of length contraction and time dilation. It can never reach the event horizon because the rate that length contracts and time dilates from the perspective of a distant observer is identical to the rate that length contracts and time dilates from the perspective of an inertial object observing an accelerating object approaching the speed of light because approaching an event horizon and approaching the speed of light are the same thing. The only difference is that the object is being accelerated by mass (gravity) instead of being accelerated by energy. The Swartzchild coordinate system also describes an object using energy to accelerate. Free-fall is not inertial! If an object were able to reach an event horizon it would be travelling at the speed of light relative to the singularity, and every external object. If an object can never reach an event horizon from the perspective of any external object then it's always possible for the object to accelerate away. It's never too late from the perspective of any external object so it can never be too late from the perspective of a falling object. This is a definite yes/no situation that cannot be Lorenzed away!

[Aethelwulf]

I missed one.

 

8. The laws of physics are supposed to be time reversible, but black holes as they're currently described clearly break this rule.

 

 

Why do you say this? The time reversed solution of a black hole is a white hole.

[A-wal]

Yes but white holes make even less sense than the way black holes are described. They have no way to form for a start, and they repulse objects with infinite force. What force is that supposed to be? Gravity? It's always an attractive force. It's not a valid solution because objects being able to reach an event horizon isn't a valid solution. The Schartzchild coordinate system clearly shows this. Try using Scharzchild coordinates to describe a white hole. You'd obviously have to start with the objects outside the horizon. The only answer anyone seems to be able to give is that Schartzchild coordinates aren't valid when an object reaches an event horizon. What does that even mean? How close does an object have to be before that coordinate system becomes invalid? It can't be at the horizon because objects can't reach an event horizon using Schartzchild coordinates. The Rindler coordinate system is another valid system that can be applied to objects being accelerated by gravity as well as energy, and again the event horizon is unreachable. A time reversed black hole is still a black hole.

Edited March 2, 2013 by A-wal

[Aethelwulf]

Yes but white holes make even less sense than the way black holes are described. They have no way to form for a start, and they repulse objects with infinite force. What force is that supposed to be? Gravity? It's always an attractive force. It's not a valid solution because objects being able to reach an event horizon isn't a valid solution. The Schartzchild coordinate system clearly shows this. Try using Scharzchild coordinates to describe a white hole. You'd obviously have to start with the objects outside the horizon. The only answer anyone seems to be able to give is that Schartzchild coordinates aren't valid when an object reaches an event horizon. What does that even mean? How close does an object have to be before that coordinate system becomes invalid? It can't be at the horizon because objects can't reach an event horizon using Schartzchild coordinates. The Rindler coordinate system is another valid system that can be applied to objects being accelerated by gravity as well as energy, and again the event horizon is unreachable. A time reversed black hole is still a black hole.

 

Keep in mind that time reversal is a much abused concept in physics. White holes probably have a bigger problem ie. they violate the laws of thermodynamics, the second law to be exact.

 

Kaku when describing a white hole, explains that matter and energy is ejected from them. He said, ''what does that sound like? It's sounds like the beginning of our universe.''

[Aethelwulf]

In fact... there has been a serious paper which attempts to explain the big bang in such terms

 

''A recent paper argues that the Big Bang itself is a white hole. It further suggests that the emergence of a white hole, which was named a 'Small Bang', is spontaneous - all the matter is ejected at a single pulse. Thus, unlike black holes, white holes cannot be continuously observed rather their effect can only be detected around the event itself. The paper even proposed identifying a new group of γ-ray bursts with white holes.[13]''

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole

[A-wal]

I don't believe in the big bang. The universe is curved, just like the Earth. When looking across a curved surface objects don't just disappear out of view all of a sudden. The light gets stretched making it redshifted and the further away the object is the more redshifted it is because there's obviously more curvature the greater the distance, which explains exactly way objects tend to be more redshifted the further away the are. The universe is spherical. This doesn't mean that it has edges/borders though. It's not a three dimensional object, you have to think of a four dimensional sphere (hypersphere). Any point in space-time is at the centre of the sphere from its own perspective, with a horizon the same distance away in all directions. This also applies to time in exactly the same way. If we could live forever then we'd end up at exactly the same point of time that we started at. We wouldn't remember having been there before though because you can't get any information through a singularity (although that's not what it would look like if you were there).

 

In the standard model gravity rules. Special relativity describes acceleration due to energy and general relativity describes acceleration due to mass (gravity). In the standard model sr is put within the framework of gr as a kind of sub-theory, as a special case within a gravitational framework of curved space-time. I believe this was a huge mistake. There's absolutely no difference between following a straight path in curved space-time and following a curved path in flat space-time from a localised perspective. They're physically equivalent. If you reverse everything within a system then nothing changes. To see the change you need to view it from an external frame of reference.

 

It's not really that black holes don't exist as such. They are obviously intense bodies of gravitation that emit no light, that much is obvious, but calling them black holes isn't a generic statement. It's claiming that a very specific physical process is occurring that makes no sense mathematically or logically. There's a far simpler explanation based purely on special relativity. To put it simply general relativity claims that gravity is able to accelerate objects to a relative velocity faster than light despite the fact that length contraction and time dilation apply in the exact same way to gravitational acceleration as they do to acceleration caused by energy, which is backed up by the fact that no object can ever witness another object reaching an event horizon. They're described by mainstream cosmology in a very self contradictory way. Singularities do exist, sort of. They occupy a single point of space-time, they don't exist for any amount of time as well as being infinitely small in space. This is because they're infinitely time dilated and length contracted from their own frames of reference. As the distance between the black hole and the observer increases, the size of the black hole increases at a progressively slower rate the greater the distance (as an inverse square of the distance) because there's less time dilation and length contraction the further away they're observed from. This makes them perfect four dimensional spheres (hyperspheres). As an object approached an event horizon the dime dilation and length contraction increase, making the black hole progressively smaller. It's exactly the same as observing an acceleration object approaching the speed of light in special relativity. If an event horizon were reachable (completely impossible because it's the equivalent of accelerating to the speed of light and they don't exist for any length of time) then the black hole would be infinitely time dilated and length contracted, making it a singularity. A black hole is just what a singularity looks like from a distance/a singularity is what a black hole looks like from it's own frame of reference.

Edited March 3, 2013 by A-wal

[A-wal]

Grr, this is getting really frustrating now. I got banned from physicsforums.com a few years ago, but that was my fault for loosing my temper after it became obvious that they weren't even willing to accept the possibility that GR might be wrong no matter how clearly I pointed out it's inconsistencies and I might as well be talking to a religious cult. Then a couple of months ago when I tried again scienceforums.net I didn't loose my temper but I'm no longer allowed to discuss it, and now sciforums.com have crippled my account so I can't post any more without actually banning me because that would make it obvious that they've just got no answers. I wrote this for them but I'll post it here. Please don't take offence at the tone, it's just that the vast majority of physicist I've had contact with haven't even been willing to listen to reason. I stopped posting here before because I didn't get many responses but I was encouraged by what I saw here and hopefully this time I can have a proper and polite conversation without it turning into a attack on me personally and then me having to get very cocky in response. I'm still going to write up the whole thing properly but I'm more of an artist than a scientist so I can't do it whenever I feel like it, I have to wait until it basically writes itself, I can't force it. Anyway here I'm dealing the coordinate systems used to define a black hole, which I think is probably most important thing and the best thing for me to focus on.

 

 

'If an object were able to reach an event horizon eventually from the perspective of an external observer but it happened in a shorter amount of proper time from the free-fallers perspective then there wouldn't be a problem, but the fact that an object can never reach an event horizon from the outside means that it can never reached from any objects perspective, and to claim that an object can reach an event horizon from its own perspective is the exact physical equivalent to claiming that an object can reach the speed of light from it's own perspective but not from any other, it makes no sense whatsoever, especially when you consider that objects themselves are made up of numerous smaller objects to which the same rules also apply. How could the front part of an object possibly reach an event horizon before the back part of the object? If it's not possible to reach it from the outside then it's not possible to reach it. This should be obvious. An event can't both happen and not happen. It can happen at different times from different objects perspectives relative to other events but if something never happens in one frame of reference then it can never happen in any of them. This is standard SR and it's not okay to just ignore it when thinking about gravitational acceleration. You're trying to separate reality from what's seen by creating a coordinate system that allows objects to reach a black hole from their own perspective and claiming that the other coordinate system is wrong when it becomes an inconvenience. You lot really need to stop doing that. You can't brush this point aside and claim it's not significant because it really is. It's what's stopping you from reaching a self-consistent description. You can't have it both ways! Either the Schwarzschild coordinate system is accurate or it isn't. All I keep hearing from physicists is that the Schwarzschild coordinate system "isn't good" near an event horizon. What the hell is that supposed to mean? That's not very scientific! Tell me the exact point that you switch over between the two coordinate systems and I want to see both for this switch over point please, or is it totally arbitrary? How close to the event horizon have to be before the Schwarzschild coordinate system suddenly stops being valid, or is it a gradual separation and they're always slightly out of sync with reality in the presence of gravity? This would seem to make the most sense and if this is the case then this should be testable right? I'm not going to let you brush this point under the carpet and refuse to acknowledge it as a problem. I really want to know why physicists are okay with this. You can't just ignore it. Anyone naive enough to think that this isn't a problem isn't fit to be a scientist, and anyone dishonest enough to pretend it's not a problem isn't interested in the truth and isn't fit to be a scientist. This is a huge problem for GR, like it or not. It completely disproves it and shows that it works just like acceleration in SR. I really shouldn't have to spell it out like this. You've stretched willful ignorance to breaking point here.

 

The whole point of the speed of light being constant is that what's seen to be happening from any objects perspective is what's happening in reality, accept of course that there's always a delay because of lights finite speed. When an object is approaching a black hole it gets length contracted and time dilated from the perspective of other observers as it's relative velocity increases as it's accelerated by the force of gravity to keep it below the speed of light regardless of how much it's accelerated, in exactly the same way that the Lorentz transformations keep the speed of light constant relative to an accelerating object below the speed of light relative to other objects in SR. If an object were able to reach an event horizon then it would be moving at the speed of light relative to all external objects, and we know that's impossible. Instead velocities add together in the same way as in SR to keep the speed of light constant to all inertial observers. A free-falling object is accelerating, so the speed of light is slower relative to them than it is to an inertial observer. If they were to counteract the force of gravity with an equal force in the opposite direction to keeping them hovering at a constant rate above the event horizon then the light would move at the same relative to them as it does relative to inertial objects and the event horizon would be moving away from them at the speed of light locally, but slower relative to them because objects always have to be some distance away from the event horizon. A free-falling observers acceleration is also constantly is increasing, so they're gradually catching up to their own light and their acceleration is increasing at progressively quicker rate, but they're not catching up to their own light at a progressively slower rate because the rate that they're gaining on the speed of light would be decreasing if their increase in acceleration was constant in an identical to the way an objects velocity relative to another massive object increases at a progressively slower rate if it accelerates, and it will never be able to reach the speed of light relative to other objects no matter how hard it accelerates. Acceleration is velocity relative to energy, it works in an identical way. Black holes decrease in size over time, by whatever method, and at no point in the black holes life can any object be observed reaching an event horizon. What size would the black hole be when an object reaches it? Do you even have a way to work that out? You need to realise that black holes are basically nothing more than SR bubbles. The fact that you can't show an object reaching an event horizon from a distance without having to switch coordinate systems shows that it's not logically self-consistent for any object to be able reach one.

 

If there are three objects and one keeps a constant rate of acceleration to stay a constant distance from a black hole while one free-falls towards it and the other accelerates away in the opposite direction and increases it's acceleration at a steadily increasing rate so that both objects are always moving away from the hoverer at exactly the same relative velocity then why would the free-falling object be able to reach a velocity of the speed of light relative to the hoverer when the other object can't? Relative velocities add together according to the Lorentz contractions so that no amount of acceleration could take either object up to a relative velocity of the speed of light, and this is exactly what the Schwarzschild coordinates show. They describe the same the way of adding together of relative velocities as SR does. If you want to view it from the free-fallers perspective then you need to use Rindler coordinates. Relative acceleration (yes, acceleration is just as relative as velocity, how could it not be?) in Rindler coordinates works in exactly the same way as relative velocity in Schwarzschild coordinates. Acceleration can be defined as velocity relative to energy rather than velocity relative to mass and that's exactly what Rindler coordinates describe. The Rindler horizon (the point beyond which no information can ever reach an accelerating observer as long as it keeps accelerating at at least the same rate) also describes the event horizon of a black hole. When an object accelerates at a steady rate the Rinlder horizon stays a constant distance away behind the object at exactly the same distance as the speed of light horizon does in front of it. Objects can't catch up to their own light but they can close the gap by accelerating. Light moves away from accelerating objects slower than the normal speed of light for inertial objects. It takes a greater increase in acceleration to close the gap by the same amount the greater the rate of acceleration in exactly the same way that it takes a greater increase in velocity to increase relative velocity by the same amount the greater the relative velocity. It would take an infinite amount of acceleration for an object to catch up to its own light and for the Rindler horizon to catch up to the accelerating object in exactly the same way that it would take an infinite velocity for an object to reach the speed of light relative to another object. If an object were able to overtake light then their own Rindler horizon would have overtaken them as the two horizons swap over. This is obviously not possible but it's exactly what would happen if an object were able to cross an event horizon. There's a Rindler horizon behind falling objects as well that again is always exactly the same distance behind them as the speed of light horizon (or event horizon as it's the point when objects would be accelerated to a relative velocity of the speed of light) is in front of them, and again it can't catch up to the falling object. This shows that gravitational acceleration is not inertial.

 

Coordinate systems are nothing more than an arbitrary way of describing how objects relate to other objects, in this case over a period of time. If the coordinates are correct and say that something can't ever happen then to switch to a set of coordinates in which that same event can happen is not okay. One of them has to be wrong! You can't claim that objects actually do reach an event horizon when it's always possible for them to escape! GR says that free-fall is inertial and that gravitational acceleration is an acceleration of the reference frame itself and that's what shows that space-time is curved. This is completely stupid. A frame of reference is nothing more than the measurement for length of the dimensions from that perspective compared to objects with a different relative velocity. Reference frames can't accelerate. That's just silly. If you want to view space-time as curved then it's curved by acceleration. Acceleration, curvature and spin are all basically the same thing. They all represent a curved path through space-time. Whether you want to view it as a curved path through flat space-time or a straight path through curved space-time makes no difference because they're completely equivalent. When a black hole forms it's event horizon expands outwards at the speed of light but no gravitational influence can reach an object because information also travels at the speed of light. Once it's reached its maximum size it's shape in four dimensions is half of a sphere. The first thing any object can become aware of is a full sized black hole. At this point the gravitational influence carries on spreading outwards at the speed of light but the event horizon then contracts at the speed of light which makes the other half of the hypersphere. This again means that no object can ever reach an event horizon. All they can do is be accelerated towards it. Tidal force is the proper acceleration that's felt when an object is accelerated by gravity. Tidal force is caused by the difference in force over the different parts of the same accelerating object, and that's exactly what proper accelerating is. If all parts of an extended object are accelerated evenly then no force is felt because acceleration is as relative as velocity. There's no distinction between travelling along a curved path in flat space-time and travelling along a straight path in curved spacetime. How could there be? No object can ever reach an event horizon from the perspective of an external object even according to GR, so how can the front part of an extended object reach an event horizon before the back part?

 

Singularities are single points in time as well as space so how could any object possible reach one? The event horizon marks the point that no object can reach before the black hole is gone. If you use the black holes frame of reference then any object approaching its event horizon would approach it in exactly the same way as an object accelerating towards a relative velocity of the speed of light and if an object were able to reach the horizon it would infinitely time dilated and length contracted. Work out how long it would take for an observer using energy to accelerate to reach an object in the distance if it increases it's acceleration at a smooth rate that quadruples every time the distance between the accelerating object and the destination object halves and would accelerate the object to a velocity of the speed of light relative to an inertial object that it starts at rest relative to. This creates a completely accurate and physical equivalent to an object being accelerated by mass towards a black hole and the accelerating object will never be able to reach the object it's heading towards from the perspective of the inertial object to or from its own perspective. If you can't give a reason for why there should be any difference at all then everything you say about multiple coordinate systems being needed and it not being the equivalent to flat space-time is just meaningless because I've shown conclusively in I don't know how many different ways (I lost count a long time ago) that it's not logically consistent, not even close and I've got a much simpler and far more logical version that actually makes sense. The onus is now on you to show why yours is better!'

[sigurdV]

Suppose energy is curvature then what will cause curvature? And what will the consequences be to Thermodynamics? Can the amount of energy be changed by changing curvature? Can entropy be shown to relate to curvature? And what makes "heat" move to the cold areas? Theres more to energy than is found in the Theory of Relativity I think...

 

Otherwise I think its fun to read you ... And I dont think you deserve banishmet nor closure of your thread.

You need counter arguments. The forums you mention are "deeply religious" and they dont tolerate any "heretic thinking"...

I think they ought to be closed down!

 

They are a threat to Scientific Progress in promoting the techniques of Inquisition instead of Science. No science can be produced in them since you are not freee to think and make thought experiments unless you prove what they already know. Just check their forum rules...

Edited April 26, 2013 by sigurdV

[A-wal]

“Suppose energy is curvature then what will cause curvature? And what will the consequences be to Thermodynamics? Can the amount of energy be changed by changing curvature? Can entropy be shown to relate to curvature? And what makes "heat" move to the cold areas? Theres more to energy than is found in the Theory of Relativity I think...”

 

Curved space-time is just one way of looking at it. You could just as easily say that an accelerating object is following a curved path through flat space-time because it’s the same thing. The only difference between the curvature caused by acceleration (including gravitational acceleration) and curvature in two spacial dimensions is that one of the two dimensions is time, but it’s physically equivalent. You can get all the equations of relativity on a flat two dimensional surface because the relationship between any two dimensions is the same because they’re all at right angles to each other.

 

 

”Otherwise I think its fun to read you ... And I dont think you deserve banishmet nor closure of your thread.

You need counter arguments. The forums you mention are "deeply religious" and they dont tolerate any "heretic thinking"...

I think they ought to be closed down!

 

They are a threat to Scientific Progress in promoting the techniques of Inquisition instead of Science. No science can be produced in them since you are not freee to think and make thought experiments unless you prove what they already know. Just check their forum rules...”

 

(: I’m so glad I’m not the only one who thinks that. Yes I do need counter arguments. When I got them at sciforums.com and then replied their supposedly top scientist through a strop because he couldn’t respond to my arguments (he didn’t even try) and now I can’t post there any more. I’ll post the link later, the website’s down at the moment.

[Little Bang]

The OP is wrong because the only true observation is the one that is done locally.

[A-wal]

The OP is wrong because the only true observation is the one that is done locally.

That's not really true, and even if it was the free-falling wouldn't be able to reach the event horizon from its own frame anyway. No amount of proper time can ever be enough to reach a relative velocity of the speed of light or an event horizon, because it's exactly the same thing. The EV appraoches at the same rate that they Rindler horizon approaches in the opposite direction. Using the perspective of the black hole no object could reach the event horizon because it would be appraoching in the same way that an object approaches a relative velocity of the speed of light.

[Little Bang]

For a distant observer yes, but from the frame of reference of the free falling particle it falls right on through the event horizon. Don't confuse what's happening in one frame of reference with another.

[A-wal]

Not really. I know what you're saying but coordinate systems aren't local. They take into account the fact that measurements change depending on where and when you take those measurements. That's pretty much the whole point of a coordinate system. According to GR the Schwarzschild coordinate system doesn't cover the entire manifold, but it does. If it doesn't then when does it stop being valid? It can't suddenly stop working at the event horizon, it would have to be gradual, meaning the Schwarzschild coordinates are never completely accurate and are always just an approximation that becomes less accurate as you approach an event horizon. This is blatantly not true. They cover the entire manifold, which ends at an event horizon. They describe exactly the length contraction and time dilation associated with SR when objects are moving at different relative velocities. It's never possible for an external object to observer another object reaching an event horizon. This applies on any scale, so it's impossible for the front part of an object to reach an event horizon from the perspective of the back part of that object, so I don't know how physicists can claim that objects can cross the event horizon of a super massive black hole without noticing anything special. That makes absolutely no sense!

[Pmb]

I think there's something very wrong with relativity but don't worry I know how to fix it. I know how cocky that sounds and that you're thinking, crackpot! Just give me a chance okay. Instead of treating acceleration due to energy (special relativity) as a special case within the generalised structure of gravitationally curved space-time (general relativity), they should be put on an equal footing.

What you wrote so far is very confusing. What is is that you’re talking about when you say “of treating acceleration due to energy”? Accelertion is due to a force. Energy only comes it to play when you want to determine how much work is required to accelerate the body to a particular speed. And in what are you talking about when you use the term “generalised structure” and in what sense do you think that they are on or should be put on an “equal footing” and why?

 

If you do this, something truly amazing happens. They become two sides of the same acceleration coin. Gravity is considered an inward curvature of space-time, pulling objects together, but you can just as easily view energy as an outward curvature of space-time, pushing objects apart.

In general relativity gravity is not considered to be an inward curvature of space-time pulling objects together. Where did you get such an idea? It’s quite untrue.

 

There is absolutely no difference between following a straight line in curved space-time and following a curved path in flat space-time.

Wrong. There is a major difference.

 

I’ll address the rest when you’ve answered these questions.

[SaxonViolence]

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is only a problem in a Closed System—Nicht Wahr?

 

One can always import energy from outside the system to cause a temporary and local reversal of Entropy.

 

If white holes exist, they would have to Originate Somewhere outside the Local 4-Space.

 

{Unless you can find a "Hill" that is"Downhill Both Directions" (As Asimov Imagined in a Science Fiction Story).}

 

But lets get into the Philosophical Conundrum of Infinite Regression:

 

Suppose that as each "Higher Dimensional N-Space" runs down and becomes unable to either fight Entropy in its own purview and unable to loan energy to lower Dimensional Systems to fight their own Local Entropy...

 

Suppose that there is an Infinite Number of Higher Dimensions to tap and "Open The System."

 

Yeah, I know that String Theory only Posits a Finite Number of Dimensions—what is the latest guesstimate?

 

But go with me a moment...

 

Are there any Logical Consequences to living in a Multiverse with an Infinite Number of Spatial Dimensions?

 

 

Saxon Violence

[A-wal]

A-wal said:

I think there's something very wrong with relativity but don't worry I know how to fix it. I know how cocky that sounds and that you're thinking' date=' crackpot! Just give me a chance okay. Instead of treating acceleration due to energy (special relativity) as a special case within the generalised structure of gravitationally curved space-time (general relativity), they should be put on an equal footing.

 

What you wrote so far is very confusing. What is is that you’re talking about when you say “of treating acceleration due to energy”? Acceleration is due to a force. Energy only comes it to play when you want to determine how much work is required to accelerate the body to a particular speed. And in what are you talking about when you use the term “generalised structure” and in what sense do you think that they are on or should be put on an “equal footing” and why?[/quote']Energy accelerates objects away from each other and mass accelerates them towards each other. SR describes acceleration due to energy as taking place on a fixed, flat background and GR describes acceleration due to mass as following a straight path through curved space-time, but both can be accurately described as following a curved path through space-time. Whether you want to view it as objects following a straight path through curved space-time or as following a curved path through flat space-time makes no difference because they're exactly the same thing. Mass curves inwards towards itself, pulling objects towards the source and energy curves outwards away from itself, pushing objects away from the source. Gravitys weakness compared to the other forces is because E=mc^2.

 

A-wal said:

If you do this' date=' something truly amazing happens. They become two sides of the same acceleration coin. Gravity is considered an inward curvature of space-time, pulling objects together, but you can just as easily view energy as an outward curvature of space-time, pushing objects apart.

 

In general relativity gravity is not considered to be an inward curvature of space-time pulling objects together. Where did you get such an idea? It’s quite untrue.[/quote']What? That's exactly how GR describes it!

 

A-wal said:

There is absolutely no difference between following a straight line in curved space-time and following a curved path in flat space-time.

 

Wrong. There is a major difference.

Why even bother to say that without specifying what it is? There is no difference. Why would following a curved path in flat space-time be any different to following a straight path in curved space-time. The result is identical' date=' a curved path! I can't get over how obvious this oversight is.

 

I’ll address the rest when you’ve answered these questions.

Okay but I'm not sure how you're going to judge the validity of this when you don't even know how GR describes it.

 

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is only a problem in a Closed System—Nicht Wahr?

 

One can always import energy from outside the system to cause a temporary and local reversal of Entropy.

 

If white holes exist' date=' they would have to Originate Somewhere outside the Local 4-Space.

 

{Unless you can find a "Hill" that is"Downhill Both Directions" (As Asimov Imagined in a Science Fiction Story).}

 

But lets get into the Philosophical Conundrum of Infinite Regression:

 

Suppose that as each "Higher Dimensional N-Space" runs down and becomes unable to either fight Entropy in its own purview and unable to loan energy to lower Dimensional Systems to fight their own Local Entropy...

 

Suppose that there is an Infinite Number of Higher Dimensions to tap and "Open The System."

 

Yeah, I know that String Theory only Posits a Finite Number of Dimensions—what is the latest guesstimate?

 

But go with me a moment...

 

Are there any Logical Consequences to living in a Multiverse with an Infinite Number of Spatial Dimensions?[/quote']I don't think the standard view includes extra dimensions in its description of a white hole. It shouldn't because GR is purely a four dimensional theory and if a black hole described four dimensionally and the arrow of time is reversed then the corresponding white hole should also be described in four dimensions. White holes make absolutely no sense because gravity is an attractive force regardless of the direction of the arrow of time. What force is it that white holes use that produces infinite repulsion? It definitely can't be gravity. Once you realise realise that SR also describes they way velocities add together due to gravitational acceleration (acceleration due to mass) then you see that reaching an event horizon is no more possible than accelerating due to energy to a relative velocity of the speed of light and gravity is not mysterious and incompatible with the other forces.

 

I don't think infinity works as valid description of anything. Nothing can possibly without limit. I suppose singularities could be considered infinite in density, but they're also infinitely small in space and in time so it's debatable whether they actually exist in reality. They're really just an abstraction where the manifold has been extended into pseudo space-time when in reality the event horizon defines an edge of the manifold that takes the shape of a four dimensional bubble that can never be reached because it's always receding inwards and away from any observer once the information that there's a black hole there reaches them. If there were an infinite number of dimensions then every object would be infinitely large and infinitely small in every individual dimension because their volume would have to by divided by infinity.

Edited May 30, 2013 by A-wal