Try To Understand The Center Of A Black Hole

[A-wal]

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

Wow, okay. So you believe that time dilated observers don't perceive their own time moving normally then? I'm fairly confident that they do.

[Moronium]

Wow, okay. So you believe that time dilated observers don't perceive their own time moving normally then? I'm fairly confident that they do.

 

 

Sure.  That's not the contradictory part.  That comes in when you also say this:

 

They are continually time dilated.

 

[A-wal]

That's not a contradiction, it's a statement of fact. Falling observers are continually time dilated, and length contracted, at an exponentially increasing rate in the frames of all more distant observers. This is what prevents them from reaching the event horizon before the black hole is gone regardless of its lifespan.

[Moronium]

That's not a contradiction, it's a statement of fact. Falling observers are continually time dilated, and length contracted, at an exponentially increasing rate in the frames of all more distant observers. This is what prevents them from reaching the event horizon before the black hole is gone regardless of its lifespan.

 

Heh, right back to your never ending cycle of self-contradiction, eh?  You've already admitted that distant frames can't affect distant objects.  Now you're right back to denying it.

 

You're clearly saying (now, as you have countless other times before) that the frames of distant observers PREVENT distant objects from moving.

Edited March 30, 2019 by Moronium

[A-wal]

:hammer:

[ralfcis]

Awal I thought you said this:

 

"And yes, objects aren't slowed from their own perspective and there is a time on their watch when they would reach the event horizon and no, there's no paradox."

 

So you're next sentence resolved the paradox that they never reach the event horizon because it evaporates before they get to it? So, in fact, there isn't a time on their watch that they reach the event horizon. If the distance is continually getting shorter for them from our perspective, and they have more and more time to cross that distance from our perspective, I don't see how this can't be resolved by Zeno's paradox. They reach the event horizon in almost none of their time but it just looks like a lot longer, not infinity, from the outside observer's perspective. You're asking me to believe in the concept of infinity and  there's no way I see any proof for that. In the math I did on my thread, the max time for the object that can pass at c receding is 2yrs per light yr over the separation between the event horizon and the observer. What do your rindler metric calculations render? Do  you get a hard number result or is it all just "fully supported by the standard mainstream model for black holes" boiler plate number.

[Moronium]

I wouldn't pay much attention to what Awol says in any one sentence, Ralf.  He'll just contradict it in the next anyway.

 

That's what inevitably happens when you embrace solipsism.  Everything is true, so long as some observer thinks it is, no matter how mutually exclusive the various propositions may be.  The concept of "false" doesn't even exist. Contradiction is impossible, because all standards of logic have been abandoned.

 

.

Edited March 30, 2019 by Moronium

[A-wal]

Awal I thought you said this:

 

"And yes, objects aren't slowed from their own perspective and there is a time on their watch when they would reach the event horizon and no, there's no paradox."

 

So you're next sentence resolved the paradox that they never reach the event horizon because it evaporates before they get to it?

Yes.

 

So, in fact, there isn't a time on their watch that they reach the event horizon. If the distance is continually getting shorter for them from our perspective, and they have more and more time to cross that distance from our perspective, I don't see how this can't be resolved by Zeno's paradox.

The paradox only arises if they reach the event horizon in their own frame, because it would contradict the fact that they never reach the event horizon in a more distant observer's frame, so they'd still be there once the black hole dies. Even if it never dies they still never reach the event horizon in the frame of any more distant observer, so no amount of time that passes on watches of any distant observers is enough for their own watch to reach the point in time when they would reach the event horizon. In their frame they just see the rest of the universe moving faster and faster through time, the universe would end before their watch reaches the time when they would reach the horizon.

 

They reach the event horizon in almost none of their time but it just looks like a lot longer, not infinity, from the outside observer's perspective.

It takes an infinite amount of time in the frames of all more distant observers. This is well established and universally accepted by mainstream physics. Not that that's enough to make it true, just being clear that this isn't just my opinion.

 

You're asking me to believe in the concept of infinity and  there's no way I see any proof for that.

Believe what you like, it's right there in the Schwarzschild coordinates and it's exactly what would have to happen for there to be a black hole.

 

In the math I did on my thread, the max time for the object that can pass at c receding is 2yrs per light yr over the separation between the event horizon and the observer. What do your rindler metric calculations render? Do  you get a hard number result or is it all just "fully supported by the standard mainstream model for black holes" boiler plate number.

I have absolutely no clue what you're on about. Two years according to whose watch? Over what distance of separation between the falling observer and the event horizon, and in whose frame?

 

Even with a well defined situation it would be a very difficult calculation because time dilation and length contraction are continually increasing at a exponential rate as distanced to the horizon decreases.

 

What can be easily shown is that the amount of time on the watch of any more distant observer before an object can reach an event horizon is always infinite because the time dilation and length contraction of a falling object in the frame of any more distant observer always approaches infinity as the object approaches the event horizon.

 

This is more like infinite potential, not a true infinity because objects never actually reach that point in any frame. They just get increasingly time dilated and length contracted as they approach the horizon but never contracted to zero length and their watch never stops ticking, it's just progressively longer between ticks.

Edited March 30, 2019 by A-wal

[Moronium]

The paradox only arises if they reach the event horizon in their own frame, because it would contradict the fact that they never reach the event horizon in a more distant observer's frame,

 

What else is new?  In every single frame of reference in SR the "facts" in one frame contradict the "facts" in every other frame.  SR couldn't possibly exist without those inherent contradictions.

 

And you suddenly want to claim that all frames must agree?

Edited March 30, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

 "Two years according to whose watch? "

 

Well as you said this isn't about reciprocal time dilation, it's about age difference so it doesn't matter whose watch, both watches will agree on the end result regardless of perspective. Let's use this example. Bob and Alice start together and she goes off at .6c, to 3 ly from Bob and she suddenly accelerates to near c away from Bob. This is where the event horizon would have been in my example.  Bob is 5 from his perspective and Alice is 4 at the "event horizon". In the time it takes for light to travel back to Bob from the event horizon, Bob ages 3 yrs to 8 and Alice ages 6 years to 10. She remains 2 yrs older than Bob forever so long as she remains behind the event horizon (equivalent to staying at near c) and they age at the same normal rate after the age difference is settled 3 yrs after the event horizon is passed. Now you may say that's simply impossible because it goes against the "fully supported standard mainstream model for black holes". But my math is open to anyone who can find a problem with it. Using the rindler metric should end up with the same result if you don't want to use my math. The reason that it's finite is because the infinity cancels out so the answer never gets to infinity, it only gets to 2.

[A-wal]

What else is new?  In every single frame of reference in SR the "facts" in one frame contradict the "facts" in every other frame.  SR couldn't possibly exist without those inherent contradictions.

 

And you suddenly want to claim that all frames must agree?

There are no contradictions in SR. Reciprocal time dilation and length contraction is not a contradiction and never will be no matter many times you make this same batshit claim, because once any two observers are in the same frame the always agree on the amount of time that has passed on both of their watches.

 

 "Two years according to whose watch? "

 

Well as you said this isn't about reciprocal time dilation, it's about age difference so it doesn't matter whose watch, both watches will agree on the end result regardless of perspective.

For every second on a distant observer's watch less time passes on the watch of an observer close to the event horizon, but the time on the watch of the falling observer when they would reach the event horizon is the same in both frames and the time on the watch of a distant observer (always infinite time) when the falling observer would reach the horizon is the same in both frames.

 

Let's use this example. Bob and Alice start together and she goes off at .6c, to 3 ly from Bob and she suddenly accelerates to near c away from Bob. This is where the event horizon would have been in my example.  Bob is 5 from his perspective and Alice is 4 at the "event horizon". In the time it takes for light to travel back to Bob from the event horizon, Bob ages 3 yrs to 8 and Alice ages 6 years to 10. She remains 2 yrs older than Bob forever so long as she remains behind the event horizon (equivalent to staying at near c) and they age at the same normal rate after the age difference is settled 3 yrs after the event horizon is passed.

Time dilation and length contraction increase at as the distance between the falling observer and the event horizon decreases, approaching infinite time dilation and length contraction at the horizon.

 

No amount of time of the watch of any distant observer is enough for the falling object to reach the event horizon despite the fact that a finite amount of time would pass on the falling observer's watch if they were able to reach the horizon, any valid calculation for the time that passes on a distant watch compared to the time that passes on the faller's watch at the moment they reach the event horizon always gives the answer infinity.

 

Now you may say that's simply impossible because it goes against the "fully supported standard mainstream model for black holes". But my math is open to anyone who can find a problem with it. Using the rindler metric should end up with the same result if you don't want to use my math. The reason that it's finite is because the infinity cancels out so the answer never gets to infinity, it only gets to 2.

According to the Schwarzschild coordinates which are the standard for describing black holes, it takes an infinite amount of time on the watch of a distant observer for a falling object to reach an event horizon. If you want to claim that this accepted view is incorrect then I have no interested in discussing whether or not objects can reach an event horizon in whatever personal model you're using.

Edited March 30, 2019 by A-wal

[ralfcis]

So you're capable of reviewing Schwarzschild math but not simple algebra and your answer is to just keep repeating the same opinion over and over. So basically, you don't understand what I wrote and don't want to formulate a question asking for clarification because you already have your answer that's "fully supported by the standard mainstream model for black holes" . Alrighty then.

[Moronium]

Reciprocal time dilation and length contraction is not a contradiction and never will be no matter many times you make this same batshit claim, because once any two observers are in the same frame the always agree on the amount of time that has passed on both of their watches.

 

 

 

Exactly.  Once united, they agree, sho nuff.

 

But what do they agree on?

 

That time dilation is NOT reciprocal, that's what, fool.

 

They agree that only one of them is older, that the other is younger, and that each of them is NOT younger than the other.

Edited March 30, 2019 by Moronium

[Dubbelosix]

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.

 

Ok, if it doesn't result in a paradox, what is physically happening to an observer as he falls towards the horizon? From what I can gather, you are trying to take the dilation of light seriously, so seriously that you are arguing things don't get to the horizon.

 

You are quick to point out what is accepted physics, so will you accept that things do fall past a horizon, and the effect of light to a distant observer remains just an illusion? If not, you have not given any reason why things cannot fall into black holes.

[Moronium]

They agree that only one of them is older, that the other is younger, and that each of them is NOT younger than the other.

 

That's not a contradiction in itself, of course.

 

It's just another example of SR contradicting its own claims, that's all.

 

The whole notion of reciprocal time dilation IS inherently contradictory, however.

Edited March 30, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Moronium, you're talking about age difference, not time dilation. One's reciprocal, the other not. One is due to the rindler metric and not the minkowski metric.  Or in my case, one is due to unreciprocated Doppler shift ratio during an imbalance of relative velocity. One remains real after the conditions that caused it are gone. The other is just an illusion arbitrarily defined as a new type of perspective reality by Einstein.

Edited March 30, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

 If not, you have not given any reason why things cannot fall into black holes.

 

 

He' not only given a reason, he has absolutely proven that he is correct.

 

How?

 

By re-asserting his ridiculous claim over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and....  Then, each time, he declares that it is a scientific fact.

 

That's PROOF, by God.  Just ask him

Edited March 30, 2019 by Moronium