Try To Understand The Center Of A Black Hole

[Moronium]

Just making the point that the non-reciprocal time dilation caused by gravitational acceleration has nothing to do with the inertial frames of SR.

 

 

Well, why is that point relevant?  You're right, gravitational dilation is absolute and non-reciprocal.  As a consequence, the speed of light is not constant in GR either.

 

But what does any of that have to do with your "air tight" argument, which was based upon the frame of reference of a distant observer?

Edited March 29, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

permanent age difference is non-reciprocal whether it's caused by an accelerating frame due to gravitation or due to relative velocity imbalance. I wouldn't confuse it with the term time dilation which I associate with reciprocal. The "air tight" argument is if you observe time increasingly slow down for the guy approaching the event horizon from your outside perspective, he supposedly ain't ever going to reach it. He did say that the guy would reach it from his own perspective because time goes at the normal rate for him. This sounds very much like Zeno's paradox which is solved by calculus and using velocity instead of distance over time. Again a problem with infinity that yields the wrong answers in physics.

[Moronium]

 He did say that the guy would reach it from his own perspective because time goes at the normal rate for him. 

 

Who's "he?"  I said that, but Awol denies it. His "air tight" argument supposedly proves that the guy can never enter the black hole.

 

Like I said:

 

With abject solipsism as his ontology, Awol will never stop confusing himself.

 

Edited March 29, 2019 by Moronium

[A-wal]

As I already said:

It's more accurate to say that it varies, and depends on direction.  From the standpoint of the inertial observer, the speed of light will not be constant in the accelerating frame.  It will travel faster than c in one direction, and slower than c in the opposite direction.

It's always moves at c in the frame of an inertial observer and slower than c in the frame of an accelerating observer.

 

Well, why is that point relevant?  You're right, gravitational dilation is absolute and non-reciprocal.  As a consequence, the speed of light is not constant in GR either.

 

But what does any of that have to do with your "air tight" argument, which was based upon the frame of reference of a distant observer?

permanent age difference is non-reciprocal whether it's caused by an accelerating frame due to gravitation or due to relative velocity imbalance. I wouldn't confuse it with the term time dilation which I associate with reciprocal. The "air tight" argument is if you observe time increasingly slow down for the guy approaching the event horizon from your outside perspective, he supposedly ain't ever going to reach it. He did say that the guy would reach it from his own perspective because time goes at the normal rate for him. This sounds very much like Zeno's paradox which is solved by calculus and using velocity instead of distance over time. Again a problem with infinity that yields the wrong answers in physics.

No I said that time is moving normally in the frame of the falling observer and there is a time in their watch when they would reach the event horizon but regardless of how long the black hole lasts, their watch will never reach that time before the black hole has gone.

 

The reason the frame of the distant observer is important is because no object can ever reach an event horizon in any distant frame, as is shown by the Schwarzschild coordinate system. So no objects ever reached the horizon once the black hole has gone.

Edited March 29, 2019 by A-wal

[Moronium]

The reason the frame of the distant observer is important is because no object can ever reach an event horizon in any distant frame, as is shown by the Schwarzschild coordinate system. So no objects ever reached the horizon once the black hole has gone.

 

 

But you also admitted that "distant frames" cannot affect the distant object being observed. If it has no effect, then it is irrelevant to the "Schwarzschild coordinate system," or anything else in your argument.  Yet it is the "distant observer" which is the primary foundation of your "air tight" argument.  Which is it?

Edited March 29, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Btw, the "Schwarzschild coordinate system," doesn't help your argument either.

 

We should also note that the extension of the exterior region of the Schwarzschild vacuum solution inside the event horizon of a spherically symmetric black hole is not static inside the horizon, and the family of (spacelike) nested spheres cannot be extended inside the horizon, so the Schwarzschild chart for this solution necessarily breaks down at the horizon.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_coordinates

 

A "solution" which "breaks down" solves the problem, eh?  How does that work, exactly?

Edited March 30, 2019 by Moronium

[A-wal]

But you also admitted that "distant frames" cannot affect the distant object being observed. If it has no effect, then it is irrelevant to the "Schwarzschild coordinate system," or anything else in your argument.  Yet it is the "distant observer" which is the primary foundation of your "air tight" argument.  Which is it?

The Schwarzschild coordinates clearly show that nothing can ever reach an event horizon, so once the black hole has gone all objects are still there because they never reached the event horizon.

 

In the frame of the falling observer the time on the watches of all distant observers speeds up as they approach the horizon. An infinite amount of time has to pass on those distant watches before their own watch reaches the time when they would reach the horizon. Obviously an infinite amount of time never passes, they just see the universe moving faster and faster in time and the black hole always dies before their watch reaches the time when they would have reached the event horizon.

 

Btw, the "Schwarzschild coordinate system," doesn't help your argument either.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_coordinates

 

A "solution" which "breaks down" solves the problem, eh?  How does that work, exactly?

Yes of course Schwarzschild coordinates break down at the event horizon, because that coordinate system shows that nothing can ever reach the horizon. As long as those coordinates are valid everywhere outside the event horizon (they are) no other coordinate system is needed to map the worldlines of infalling objects because they never reach the event horizon.

Edited March 30, 2019 by A-wal

[Moronium]

 An infinite amount of time has to pass on those distant watches before their own watch reaches the time when they would reach the horizon. Obviously an infinite amount of time never passes, 

 

 

Heh, you just keep shifting back and forth.  What difference can the passage of time on "distant watches" possibly make?

 

Furthermore, you have already admitted (I think) that the distant object cannot affect distant watches, either.  The time on the watches of "distant observers" does not change at all as a result on anything to do with distant objects or black holes.

 

You're hopelessly confused.

Edited March 30, 2019 by Moronium

[A-wal]

Heh, you just keep shifting back and forth.  What difference can the passage of time on "distant watches" possibly make?

 

Furthermore, you have already admitted (I think) that the distant object cannot affect distant watches, either.  The time on the watches of "distant observers" does not change at all as a result on anything to do with distant objects or black holes.

 

You're hopelessly confused.

For the last bloody time, it's extremely simple.

 

In the frame of any distant observer no falling observer can ever reach an event horizon. That means that once the black hole isn't there any more any objects that fell towards it are still there, because they were never able to reach the event horizon.

 

It's not that the distant watches affect the falling watches. It's that the black hole is gone but the observers are still there.

Edited March 30, 2019 by A-wal

[Moronium]

For the last bloody time, it's extremely simple.

 

In the frame of any distant observer no falling observer can ever reach an event horizon. That means that once the black hole  isn't there any more..

 

 

Yeah, it's extremely simple, no doubt, for a simpleton.

 

You've never explained, nor can you, how the "frame of any distant observer" can make a black hole disappear.  Where's the causation?

 

How does the "frame of any distant oberver" cause objects light years away to "freeze in their tracks" and remain so permanently?

 

What's "simple" is that there simply is no connection.

Edited March 30, 2019 by Moronium

[A-wal]

Yeah, it's extremely simple, no doubt, for a simpleton.

 

You've never explained, nor can you, how the "frame of any distant observer" can make a black hole disappear.  Where's the causation?

The frame of distant observers isn't what makes the black hole disappear. :)

 

It's just that black holes don't last forever but even if they did, no object ever reaches the event horizon.

Edited March 30, 2019 by A-wal

[Moronium]

Read on, Awol.

 

Why just respond to part of my post?

[Dubbelosix]

No it's definitely accepted. It's explicitly shown by the Schwarzschild coordinates, the most widely used coordinate system for describing black holes.

 

What you are talking about results in a paradox, and these simply are not tolerated by the wise scientist.

[Moronium]

All you do, Awol, is repeat your ridiculous assertion ad infinitum.

 

You never do anything to justify it.  You just contradict yourself.

 

First you you necessarily imply that  the frame of the distant observer can affect remote objects.  Then you admit that the frame of the distant observer CANNOT affect distant objects.  Then you turn around and say that it can, and does. But, of course, you say it LOUDER.

Edited March 30, 2019 by Moronium

[A-wal]

What you are talking about results in a paradox, and these simply are not tolerated by the wise scientist.

It certainly doesn't result in a paradox. It simply means that once the black hole is gone all the objects that fell towards it are still right there because they never reached the event horizon.

 

All you do, Awol, is repeat your ridiculous assertion ad infinitum.

 

You never do anything to justify it.  You just contradict yourself.

 

First you admit that the frame of the distant observer CANNOT affect distant objects, then you turn around and say that it can, and does. 

I'm not contradicting myself. It's not the distant observers or their watches or even the falling watches in their frame that affects the falling observers. It's simply that regardless of how long the black hole lives, nothing has ever reached the event horizon.

Edited March 30, 2019 by A-wal

[A-wal]

Read on, Awol.

 

Why just respond to part of my post?

Because the rest of it wasn't there at the time.

 

How does the "frame of any distant oberver" cause objects light years away to "freeze in their tracks" and remain so permanently?

 

What's "simple" is that there simply is no connection.

It doesn't cause them to do anything. They are continually time dilated and length contracted at an exponentially increasing rate as they approach the event horizon. as shown by the Schwarzschild coordinates. They are never frozen because they never reach the event horizon. Time is moving normally in the frame of the falling observer but they see the rest of the universe moving quickly through time.

[Moronium]

 They are continually time dilated...Time is moving normally in the frame of the falling observer...

 

The "answer" to self-contradiction is more self-contradiction, I see.