Three Air Tight Reasons Why No Object Can Ever Reach An Event Horizon

[Moronium]

I'll just leave this here...

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.3619.pdf

 

 

I'll elaborate a little, for those too lazy to look.

 

Falling into the Schwarzschild black hole.  Important details.

 

. ...an observer falling into a Schwarzschild black hole will not cross the horizon at the speed of light...in any orthonormal basis (i. e., in a proper reference system of any observer located in h) γ crosses the horizon moving slower than light.

 

 

Of course this is consistent with observation.  To repeat a post from another thread:

 

Yet another dubious assumption of Awol is that a distant observer would have to perceive an object approaching a black hole as travelling at the speed of light (in the observer's frame, that is).  This assumption does not seem to comport with empirical observation, however.

 

Matter is Going Into this Black Hole at 30% the Speed of Light

SEPTEMBER 25, 2018

 

A team of researchers in the UK have observed matter falling into a black hole at 30% the speed of light. This is much faster than anything previously observed....They used XMM-Newton to examine x-ray spectra from PG211+143.

 

“We were able to follow an Earth-sized clump of matter for about a day, as it was pulled towards the black hole, accelerating to a third of the velocity of light before being swallowed up by the hole.” – Professor Ken Pounds, University of Leicester, Dept. of Physics and Astronomy.

 

The study supports theoretical work already done.

 

 

 

https://www.universe...speed-of-light/

Edited April 2, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

GAHD, this is a great article (haven't finished yet). Do you have one crushing all the popular myths of relativity. The people harboring  those myths are the ones who deny what they're promoting is a myth, just as what AWal did.

 

"Such a person encounters various “paradoxes” and “miracles” (exactly as in studying special relativity or quantum mechanics) and it takes some work to sort them out. Unfortunately, the areal of those paradoxes and miracles is not restricted to student internet forums and popular literature. They have infiltrated the semi-popular, research, and even pedagogical works."

 

That is all the fault of how relativity is taught, scientainers trying to make a buck off of sciensationalization, popular science magazines written by journalists, the rise of wikipedia, people lacking critical thinking who post wiki articles, general lack of mathematical skills, and dumb-*** science forums where everyone has a right to wrong opinions.

Edited April 3, 2019 by ralfcis

[Vmedvil2]

There are no paradoxes in the physical universe otherwise it would rip itself apart and you wouldn't exist.

[ralfcis]

paradoxes was in quotes. But real paradoxes exist in relativity as long as it insists reality is subjective. People who deny this definition of reality causes a paradox are the ones who deny paradoxes exist in relativity and explain them away as being "counter-intuitive". I don't drink that koolaid.

Edited April 3, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

... real paradoxes exist in relativity as long as it insists reality is subjective. People who deny this definition of reality causes a paradox are the ones who deny paradoxes exist in relativity and explain them away as being "counter-intuitive". I don't drink that koolaid.

 

You're catching on, Ralf.  But you continue to create your own paradoxes.  You continue to insist that you don't "drink that koolaid" even while you guzzle it by the gallon 24/7.

Edited April 3, 2019 by Moronium

[GAHD]

GAHD, this is a great article (haven't finished yet). Do you have one crushing all the popular myths of relativity. The people harboring  those myths are the ones who deny what they're promoting is a myth, just as what AWal did.

 

"Such a person encounters various “paradoxes” and “miracles” (exactly as in studying special relativity or quantum mechanics) and it takes some work to sort them out. Unfortunately, the areal of those paradoxes and miracles is not restricted to student internet forums and popular literature. They have infiltrated the semi-popular, research, and even pedagogical works."

 

That is all the fault of how relativity is taught, scientainers trying to make a buck off of sciensationalization, popular science magazines written by journalists, the rise of wikipedia, people lacking critical thinking who post wiki articles, general lack of mathematical skills, and dumb-*** science forums where everyone has a right to wrong opinions.

Yes and no, There's nothing that "crushes" relativity, because that's observed. The closest thing to that is the mathamagics trying to explain larger than around ten degree observations of superluminal jets (that I put up here a while ago) but you'd be just as fast finding the raw datasets for that as I would (arxiv is a beast source, but not the only one). I try not to point too hard to the newer weird theories that explain weird observations unless they're fairly airtight, like how gravity is negative energy in spacetime itself(which despite some pedantic nomenclature arguments CAN do/undo work) or how spacetime "void" can be readily compared with a crystalline matrix of quark pairs for all intents and purposes. Even those are real newage dubiousness that you have to have been paying attention to cutting edge over the last 5 years to really pick up on.

 

As to people having wrong opinions: that's a really slippery slope to play on, just ask the guys who pointed out Terra must revolve around Sol not the other way around...

[fahrquad]

If you got anywhere near a black hole you would be dead.  Does it really matter just how dead you are or in what physical state your remains are in?

[ralfcis]

I don't deny the empirical facts of relativity but I think Einstein's assumptions and circular arguments explaining those facts is the biggest blunder in the history of science. Now, saying that, you're assuming I'm saying I should be censored and not allowed to have a voice on this forum as what I'm saying is clearly wrong to most people. In an ideal world, every source of opinion (forum) should have an expert moderator that attaches  warning labels to opinions. But that's too time consuming for a moderator. Likes and dislikes make a popularity contest out of science and still leads to nonsense (the physics stack exchange is a prime example). But I think math could come to the rescue here. Any opinion that is substantiated by math must be allowed to stand unless someone can find a fault in the math. Or just have a wide open forum where you assume everyone is smart enough to form their own opinion from what is presented and if they can't, it doesn't really matter anyway. I put Moronium on ignore and I have the option if I really want to take a peek at what he says from time to time. He is helpful from time to time even when completely wrong.

Edited April 3, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Most physicists like Penrose and Thorne say if the black hole is big enough, it's a soft cushy wonderland. Those guys are just nuts. You can't even land on a big planet that won't crush you.

[Moronium]

 

Any opinion that is substantiated by math must be allowed to stand unless someone can find a fault in the math. 

 

Yeah, right, eh, Ralf?  I am of the opinion that you are now bankrupt, and I have the math to prove it.

 

1. Six months ago you used all your assets, together with a lot of borrowed money, to buy 6 month options to purchase pork bellies on the commodities exchange.

 

2.  Pork bellies are now selling for less than the option price you agreed to pay, and your options have expired.

 

3.  Now for the math...hold  on for a spell, I've have to give my slide rule a good work-out to calculate all this.......

 

4.  OK, got it!  The value of your options is now zero and you have a boatload of debt.   You are now bankrupt!

 

You must accept my opinion unless you can prove that I made a mathematical error, eh?

[ralfcis]

So dumb. If I counter your argument with 1+1=2 that doesn't mean I'm using math to prove you wrong. A mathematical error is still an error. That's why if you use math and someone finds a flaw in it doesn't mean your opinion stands just because you used math, it means your opinion was wrong.  And, conversely, if no one can find a problem with your math, doesn't mean your opinion was right, it just means it has more gravitas than your unsubstantiated, wiki backed,  finger to the wind opinions and should stand as valid even if there are other math backed opinions that disagree with it. Neither can disagree with the empirical evidence but they can disagree on how they explain the facts.

Edited April 3, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

 if no one can find a problem with your math, doesn't mean your opinion was right, 

 

Wisely changing your tune, I see, eh?

[ralfcis]

Not at all, you've just got your hearing aid plugged into something other than your own microphone.

[Moronium]

 I think Einstein's assumptions and circular arguments explaining those facts is the biggest blunder in the history of science.

 

Yes, and it all had to do with his misconception of time.

 

Lorentz had already formulated the Lorentz transformations, which were designed to explain the facts on the assumption that time was absolute.  His explanation was fully viable then, and it still is today.

 

In the process, Lorentz invented the concept of "local time."  This concept, he said, had no connection to physical reality, but it provided a convenient mathematical shortcut for many of the calculations involved.

 

Enter Al.  He co-opted Lorentz's math, then tried to apply it in connection with premises that were antithetical to those of Lorentz.  He ended up saying that Lorentz's fictitious "local time" was the "true time."  Time, he said, is nothing more than what a clock measures it to be.  This led to the unsupportable conclusion that simultaneity was "relative," which implied that time dilation was "reciprocal," and many other self-refuting implications.  The underlying philosophy was extreme positivism, which then reduced to solipsism.

 

It's past "time" for the mathematicians to give up on relative simultaneity.

Edited April 3, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

And I have a much better theory of time than either of them and I've got all the math to back it up. Too bad no one knows math anymore to prove me wrong because I'd love to go head to head with someone who does. Surely my mathematical contention that light itself doesn't travel at c but at 2c should be enough to provoke a challenge (it does travel at c through space though)..

Edited April 3, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

It is worth noting that Einstein later referred to SR as a "desperate attempt at a half-solution" to problems seemingly created by Maxwell's equations and the application of Galilean relativity.

 

When he matured philosophically, he harshly rejected his earlier positivism and said himself that it reduced to Berkeley's "to be is to be perceived" dictum (extreme solipsism).

 

Too late.  The subjectivists, inspired by Al's "achievements," had already overrun physics by then. 

Edited April 3, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

And I have a much better theory of time than either of them 

 

Heh.