Try To Understand The Center Of A Black Hole

[A-wal]

It doesn't take much to do a quick search. It's very easy to find countless articles that verify this because it's such a well known aspect of black hole physics.

[GAHD]

It doesn't take much to do a quick search. It's very easy to find countless articles that verify this because it's such a well known aspect of black hole physics.

It's also worth noting that those countless articles have zero real-world evidence to back them up. It's the problem with book-learning not being applicable to reality. There's a point where "publish or perish" forces that kinda tripe onto the market. There's also REAL strangeness that defies those simplistic logic shackles.

[Vmedvil2]

It's also worth noting that those countless articles have zero real-world evidence to back them up. It's the problem with book-learning not being applicable to reality. There's a point where "publish or perish" forces that kinda tripe onto the market. There's also REAL strangeness that defies those simplistic logic shackles.

 

You have a point though these articles maybe mathematically beautiful, they have even less proof than the other theories anyone can publish anything they want as long as they pay the publishing fee. It does not mean they were correct in their assumptions in the article. It could be some undergraduate that knows nearly nothing about physics that is publishing your article that you are reading.

Edited April 8, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[Dubbelosix]

It doesn't take much to do a quick search. It's very easy to find countless articles that verify this because it's such a well known aspect of black hole physics.

 

No one denies that you are right about what you have taken from the known aspects of black holes, it's just that you have constructed a situation in which you have taken those known aspects and put them together in an illogical sense - there are no physicists that say distant signals reflect a real fact about what is going on in the local coordinate system of the poor astronaut falling past the horizon, which he most certainly does, with again the exception of a fire wall which is not well-approved at all in mainstream.

[Moronium]

 you have constructed a situation in which you have taken those known aspects and put them together in an illogical sense - there are no physicists that say distant signals reflect a real fact about what is going on in the local coordinate system of the poor astronaut falling past the horizon, which he most certainly does...

 

Heh, that's only about the 20th time you have told him that, as have many others, eh, Dubbo?  He's just gunna come back and repeat himself, anyway.  Hide and watch.

Edited April 9, 2019 by Moronium

[A-wal]

I can't believe this is being disputed. This is probably the simplest way to put it.

 

According to the official model no object can reach the even horizon of a black from the perspective of a distant observer due to time time dilation and length contraction approaching infinity at the horizon from the perspective of that distant observer. This part isn't in dispute (the fact that this is what the official model describes).

 

Now if we take this to be true then once the black hole has reached the end of its life, from the perspective of any distant observer (that's any distance by the way) all matter that ever approached the horizon never reached it before the black hole died and so is still right there after the black hole has gone. So it makes no sense to claim that matter did cross the horizon from it's own perspective because clearly it didn't if it's still there when the black hole isn't any more.

 

It's true that in principle an object would be able to reach an event horizon in a finite amount of their own proper time but the black hole will always die before their watch reaches that time regardless of the lifespan of the black hole from a more distant observer's perspective. From the perspective of an observer falling towards the horizon an infinite amount of time has to pass on the watch of any distant observer before their own watch reaches the time that they would cross the horizon.

 

It's exactly like an object accelerating towards the speed of light at an ever increasing rate from the frame of an inertial observer. They will never reach the speed of light, something a falling object would have to do to reach an event horizon because the escape velocity at the event horizon is the speed of light.

 

If objects were able to reach an event horizon from their own perspective they would obviously have to reach the horizon from the perspective of any distant observer as well at some point before the black hole dies.

[ralfcis]

Here's an equation for ya:

 

science minus math = philosophy.

 

And another:

 

opinion = facts minus proof.

 

You art history philosopher theologians on here are confusing science with what Superman says in his comic books.

[A-wal]

ad hominem
.

[ad ˈhɒmɪnɛm]

 

 

ADJECTIVE

1.(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

"an ad hominem response"

 

 

Origin

Latin, literally ‘to the person’.

[A-wal]

You can call it philosophy if you want, it doesn't matter. Just look at it as a simple question.

 

Once a black hole has died is the matter that fell towards it still there in roughly the area that the black hole occupied after the black hole has gone, yes or no?

 

If it isn't then it did reach the event horizon from the perspective of all distant observers at some point on their own watch before the black hole died.

 

If the matter is still there then it obviously didn't reach the event horizon from its own perspective.

 

The claim that matter does reach the event horizon from its own perspective but never does from any any distant one is nonsensical.

[ralfcis]

I already answered that question mathematically. There is no infinity in physics, time does not stand still even for a photon. My answer, modeling the twin paradox in SR as gravity's effect on time from GR, concluded that the time difference between the person falling to the event horizon and an outside observer was limited to the person falling only ageing twice as fast as the observer once a significantly close enough speed to c was reached. The ageing rate would only last as long as it took for light to traverse the distance between the person falling and the outside observer he was initially engaged at .6c with. You disagree with that you can propose a mathematical retort but your opinion is about as valid as saying angels on the surface of the black hole are responsible for gravity.

 

I'm actually doing much worse than an ad hominem attack. I'm stripping your individuality and lumping your opinions as physics forum philosophy group think. I look down my nose at the entire group of which you're a part so nothing ad hominem about it.

Edited September 13, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Hold on now, this is impossible because it contradicts Awal's philosophy. I guess this is where Awal vanishes into a puff of smoke again feeling deeply persecuted.