A-wal Posted March 25, 2019 Report Posted March 25, 2019 (edited) Thread Hijacked By Moronium's And Ralfcis' Absurd - Can't change the topic title to this or delete it unfortunately. See here for the real topic: Three Air Tight Reasons Why No Object Can Ever Reach An Event Horizon This thread mainly contains:Ralfcis thinking that length contraction isn't real because objects aren't thinner after being in relative motion. :) Ralfcis thinking that without length contraction time dilation would be the same and the speed of light would still be constant. Moronium thinking that he's capable of understanding SR. Moronium thinking that his lack of understanding of SR is beacuse of a flaw in the model. And other ridiculous from these two clueless twerps. Edited March 28, 2019 by GAHD no swearing
ralfcis Posted March 25, 2019 Report Posted March 25, 2019 (edited) The only infinities allowed in physics are those that approach a finite value. If they do not, then the math needs to be massaged such that infinities cancel out. When the infinities cancel out, a new understanding emerges. If the infinities can't cancel out, then the idea is wrong. An example of this is in relativity where a photon appears in every point in space instantaneously from it's perspective the instant it is born which is the same instant it's absorbed because the universe has shrunk to zero space from its perspective. This idea is wrong because it contradicts the physical rule that forbids infinities of this kind. Yet, somehow, relativity was given a pass on this. This is the math problem I'm currently tackling in my relatvity and simple algebra thread. I'm trying to cancel out the infinities that make this idea wrong. PS. The false concept of length contraction need not even come into the picture. Edited March 25, 2019 by ralfcis
A-wal Posted March 25, 2019 Author Report Posted March 25, 2019 Anyone else, preferably who isn't batshit?
ralfcis Posted March 25, 2019 Report Posted March 25, 2019 I can see your perspective, the less one knows, the more batshit everyone who knows looks. Just trying to help. Not really, just trying to get a plug in for my thread.
A-wal Posted March 25, 2019 Author Report Posted March 25, 2019 You're not anyone else, you're the same person. Go away!
ralfcis Posted March 25, 2019 Report Posted March 25, 2019 (edited) What I'm saying is your airtight reasoning is full of holes and you're putting you finger to the wind without presenting any math to back up your assertions. So this thread will soon end up in the no one's interested bin until another lazy idea wanders in between your ears. Take a tip from someone who knows how to reel in readers even though they don't have a clue of what I'm talking about. Ok, I guess I can go away now until maybe I decide to return. Edited March 25, 2019 by ralfcis
A-wal Posted March 25, 2019 Author Report Posted March 25, 2019 If I stop responding to him directly maybe he'll pee off.
Moronium Posted March 25, 2019 Report Posted March 25, 2019 (edited) Given that no amount of time is enough for an object to reach the event horizon of a black hole from the perspective of an observer at a distance, can we accurately say from the perspective of an object falling towards a black hole that an infinite amount of time must pass on the watch of a more distant observer from the perspective of the falling observer before they are able to reach the event horizon? The whole tacit assumption here, i.e., that the "perspective" of a distant observer can have ANY effect on an object light years away, is ludicrous. Where did this belief in subjective magic even come from? If I look at a distant star and decide that, from my perspective, it is moving, does that make it move? Suppose I change my mind and decide that I'm moving, and it isn't. Does that make it stop? Say I change my mind hundreds of times. Does that make it magically start, then stop, then start again, ad infinitum? Can I sit here on my front porch and control the motions of every object in the universe by "perspective," ya figure? I'm gunna have to ask the Gypsy woman about all of this. Edited March 25, 2019 by Moronium
A-wal Posted March 25, 2019 Author Report Posted March 25, 2019 GOD DAMN IT!!! Screw this, I'm going down the pub to watch the football. COME ON ENGLAND!
Moronium Posted March 25, 2019 Report Posted March 25, 2019 (edited) GOD DAMN IT!!! Screw this... I hear ya. I would probably make a big show and stomp out after asking an embarrassing question like this too, eh? Air tight, I tells ya! Edited March 25, 2019 by Moronium
Amplituhedron Posted March 25, 2019 Report Posted March 25, 2019 My understanding is that the observer outside the black hole would see you, falling into the hole, eventually stop at the event horizon, your clock frozen, and then see you red-shift out of the visible spectrum. The falling person would — depending on how quickly she was approaching the event horizon — see the future history of the universe unfold, but not all of it before she crossed the horizon. Some of the light would not catch up with her; none of the light beyond the cosmic event horizon could reach the faller in any case, even if she didn’t fall into the black hole. So the situations don’t seem entirely symmetrical. Here is what fascinates me: Black holes underscore the conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics. A-wal 1
Moronium Posted March 25, 2019 Report Posted March 25, 2019 (edited) Here is what fascinates me: Black holes underscore the conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics. what happens when you fall into a black hole? You might expect to get crushed, or maybe torn to pieces. But the reality is stranger than that. The instant you entered the black hole, reality would split in two. In one, you would be instantly incinerated, and in the other you would plunge on into the black hole utterly unharmed. Two "realities," eh!? Cool! What the hell is wrong with Anne? If you're chilling inside the black hole, surrounded by nothing weirder than empty space, why is she insisting that you've been burned to a crisp by radiation outside the horizon? Is she hallucinating? Actually, Anne is being perfectly reasonable. From her point of view, you really have been burned to a crisp at the horizon. It's not an illusion. Well, OK, then!! Good to know we're not just talking about illusion but instead about really real reality, eh? Are you really dead or are you really alive? The great secret that black holes have revealed to us is that there is no really. Reality depends on whom you ask. This is starting to piss me off. First there's one reality. Then there's two. Now there's none. Which is it? I'm gunna have to ask the Gypsy woman about this too now. If the facts contradict my theory, well, then, so much the worse for the facts. (Hegel) Edited March 25, 2019 by Moronium
Moronium Posted March 25, 2019 Report Posted March 25, 2019 (edited) Here is what fascinates me: Black holes underscore the conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics. What fascinates me is that a grown man could write a story like that and seriously think he is saying something "true." Sounds like the kinda guy who would be a fanatically devout disciple of special relativity, eh? Solipsism Central. Edited March 25, 2019 by Moronium
Amplituhedron Posted March 25, 2019 Report Posted March 25, 2019 Moronium, you know nothing about any of this. Stick with Ralfcis.
Moronium Posted March 25, 2019 Report Posted March 25, 2019 (edited) Moronium, you know nothing about any of this. I'll grant you that. I know very little about Eastern Mysticism, which appears to now be the wife of theoretical physics. I've yet to be indoctrinated How did physics turn into a religion? I blame math and people who think that math is physics. Edited March 25, 2019 by Moronium
ralfcis Posted March 25, 2019 Report Posted March 25, 2019 (edited) Ok this is actually interesting now. Let's model this according to velocity effects as opposed to gravitational effects. Bob is watching Alice fall into the black hole. The gravitational effect would be similar to Alice going away from Bob at near c. Her light would redshift and her time would appear slower and slower from Bob's perspective but remain at the normal rate from her perspective. The gravitational effect would manifest itself just like an imbalance in relative velocity with Alice choosing +c away from Bob. Relativity does not allow the calculation of age difference for this scenario but in my math, Alice is ageing faster than Bob even though he sees time has stopped for her and she sees time remains passing normally within her frame. In the velocity analogy, Alice only ages faster for a time after she makes the jump to near light speed which is analogous to her reaching the event horizon. She will age 2 yrs for every light year separation between the event horizon and Bob's distance from it. Of course, in the velocity analogy, the total faster ageing time for Alice is dependent on light being able to reach Bob from when she jumps to light speed which can't happen from the event horizon. Also, she's accelerating the entire way to the event horizon and it's not like she's making just one velocity change as she would in the velocity analogy so I don't know what the answer is. However, if she jumped to near +c at some distance from Bob and the event horizon towards the event horizon, she is effectively bringing that event horizon outside the black hole to a point where a light signal will reach Bob. So she will age 2 years for every ly separation from Bob when she makes the jump to near +c until the signal reaches Bob that she has made the jump. After that, they continue ageing at the same normal rate even once she reaches the event horizon. This is as close as I can come to an answer with the tools I have. I can't make a call on what happens if she just falls towards the black hole at the acceleration due to gravity. What conclusion can you come to with your relativistic math instead of your fingers to the wind. PS. So I can effectively take the black hole out of the equation and reduce the problem to one of linearizing an average velocity of Alice's fall towards the event horizon from a co-located starting point between Bob and Alice and adding a point where Alice makes a jump to near +c that is consistent with the average velocity of the fall to the event horizon. The time for light to travel back to Bob from that transition point would establish how long Alice would age at 2c which would give a total time Alice has aged more than Bob once she hits the event horizon at c and blows up the entire universe in the process. PPS. What happens after the transition doesn't matter in either case. Whether it's a black hole blocking anymore light reaching Bob or Alice's near light speed causing subsequent light from not reaching Bob, the effects are the same on Bob's perspective reality of Alice. Well, there's your answer. If the event horizon acts in essentially the same way as Alice's jump to +c, I can linearize the average velocity of her fall to the event horizon from her starting point with Bob and she will age 2yrs more than Bob for every light year her starting point is away from the event horizon. She will only begin to age faster once she hits the event horizon and will stop ageing faster once the distance between her and Bob could have been covered by a virtual light signal. Let;s say the distance was 3 light years, she'd age 2 yrs per light year for a total of 6 yrs older than Bob forevermore. Edited March 25, 2019 by ralfcis
GAHD Posted March 25, 2019 Report Posted March 25, 2019 Moronium, you know nothing about any of this. Stick with Ralfcis.a quote from that article is kinda telling though: "That's because quantum physics demands that information can never be lost." Not really true that. Entropy and chaos cause quite a bit of information to be lost all the time. A the information isn't "lost" it's "contained" just like the mass that created the hole in the first place. Also B) all information that CAN affect the outside universe was transmitted via light up until it could no longer affect the universe at large once the boundary was crossed. The negative energy continues to exert it's pull even after crossing too, causing minor but meaningful distortions of the boundary. Editorial science is at best poetry, and at worst fake news... That's why the writer has a degree in philosophy and history instead of in cosmology or math. ;)
Recommended Posts