Try To Understand The Center Of A Black Hole

[Moronium]

Moronium, you're talking about age difference, not time dilation. One's reciprocal, the other not. 

 

Like Awol, you just repeat your misconceptions ad infinitum, despite being corrected innumerable times by many posters, Ralf.

 

Age difference is just a subset of time dilation.  You can't have one without the other.  In essence, they are the same thing.  Two sides of the SAME coin.

 

You're trying to say that each clock runs slower than the other, but that, nonetheless, they age non-reciprocally--an absurd proposition

 

Neither is reciprocal.

 

Give it up.

Edited March 30, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

You try to argue your contention by saying this, Ralf.

 

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.

 

But the point I made applies equally.  You can't have one without the other.

 

If one is an "illusion," then they must both be illusory.  In that scenario there would be no age difference, reciprocal or otherwise.  

 

If you had any understanding of, or respect for, empirical facts, you would never claim that clock retardation is an "illusion" in the first place.

 

Experiments have repeatedly shown that clocks DO, in fact, slow down with increased speed.

Edited March 30, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

.Experiments have repeatedly shown that clocks DO, in fact, slow down with increased speed.

 

And, Awol, guess what?  Those same experiments show that clock retardation is NOT reciprocal.  That's not really  even an empirical question to begin with, though.  You don't have to "test" it.  You can rule it out a priori, because it's logically impossible.

Edited March 30, 2019 by Moronium

[Vmedvil2]

Let's see what Schwarzchild says about this scenario which is basically that the photons orbit the black hole in the photon sphere then get frozen then fall into the black hole, even though time does not move for the object does not mean that gravity does not still pull it in which is just time-space acts on the object, time only gets frozen in the R direction and then only in the direction exiting the black hole, so the photons get frozen in place then time-space(Gravity) pulls them in. http://ion.uwinnipeg.ca/~vincent/4500.6-001/Cosmology/Schwarzschild_Metric.htm

Edited March 30, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[Moronium]

Let's see what Schwarzchild says about this scenario which is basically that the photons orbit the black hole in the photon sphere then get frozen then fall into the black hole, even though time does not move for the object does not mean that gravity does not still pull it in which is just time-space acts on the object, time only gets frozen in the R direction and then only in the direction exiting the black hole, so the photons get frozen in place then time-space(Gravity) pulls them in.

 

I've seen this happen in other circumstances, too, Vic.  For example, I once saw a guy get time frozen for him BIGTIME.  Like, permanently, ya know?

 

It was out in the woods and he got 6 caps busted in his skull.  Time didn't stop for for everyone, just him.  A week later I went back to the the spot and wild animals had scarfed up his sorry carcass.  Time didn't stop for them, for some reason, eh?

[ralfcis]

Was his name Schwarzchild?

[Moronium]

Naw, it was Leroy, but we all called  him "Porkchop."  Them animals had a field day with him.  He was one FAT boy, I tellz ya!  His main problem was his fat mouth, though.

Edited March 30, 2019 by Moronium

[GAHD]

Do tell how the last 3 posts in any way add to the OT discussion?

[Moronium]

Well, GAHD, for one thing, they help illustrate the obvious point, missed by Awol, that the subjective cessation of time does not terminate the entire universe, or even just gravity, for that matter, ya know?

 

Anyway, I'm happy to see that you're not so humorless and staid that you felt compelled to delete them. I don't think they hurt anybody.

Edited March 30, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

"Age difference is just a subset of time dilation." 

 

No, age difference happens independently and due to a separate cause than time dilation. When Alice turns around, she will begin to accrue age difference from Bob at the rate of the Doppler shift ratio Alice perceives of Bob while Bob's perspective of Alice's time dilation continues uninterrupted at the previous reciprocal time dilation between them. From Alice's perspective, she will see both Bob's DSR and time dilation in line with the new velocity she's chosen to travel at relative to Bob. These are 4 different rates all happening simultaneously and non-reciprocal after Alice changes velocity. 

 

"You can't have one without the other."

 

You can if Alice doesn't change velocity and just keeps going away from Bob, they will both experience reciprocal time dilation without any age difference accumulating between them. 

 

"In essence, they are the same thing.  Two sides of the SAME coin."

 

I'd agree if you were talking about time dilation and length contraction but age difference and time dilation are on two separate coins as they are two different and independent things.

 

"You're trying to say that each clock runs slower than the other, but that, nonetheless, they age non-reciprocally--an absurd proposition"

 

Not absurd, I just explained it to ya but you're going to have to try to understand it for yourself. As I said, each clock is perceived to run slower than the other and that's an illusion of perspective, not real except in relativity land. 

 

"Neither is reciprocal."

 

Time dilation is always reciprocal during constant relative motion where age difference just doesn't happen. When age difference happens during the time of relative velocity imbalance, neither is reciprocal. So you get points for a good guess that there is an instance when neither is reciprocal. They can also both be reciprocal if both Alice and Bob make the same velocity changes at the same causal time like at t=t'=4 for example. Both age slower than the other during the time of velocity imbalance which ends up in a null result and they both aged at the same slower rate to end up the same age.

 

I'm sure you won't be able to understand all this so just declare it absurd and endlessly repetitive again. 99% of relativists would agree with you because they are also unaware of these facts. I've only known 2 who were aware and 1 speaks with forked tongue. See what happens when a subject is not taught properly, everyone learns things that just aren't true and I have to argue with them.

Edited March 31, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

I'm sure you won't be able to understand all this...

 

 

You're right.  It's incomprehensible.  It's all based on artificial, contrived, ad hoc, irrelevant, completely unsubstantiated, and contradictory claims that make no sense.

 

For just one example, you claim that:

 

Time dilation is always reciprocal during constant relative motion where age difference just doesn't happen.

 

 

At least some part of that is contrary to every theory of relative motion (not just SR) ever hypothesized and every empirical test ever conducted.  Your own brilliant "theory," (it is an insult to every legitimate theorist to even dignify it with the word "theory") aint so brilliant.  It is just a hodge-podge concoction of claptrap with no comprehensible meaning.  Of course you would never understand how or why that is.

 

Here's another example of your incoherency:

 

They can also both be reciprocal if both Alice and Bob make the same velocity changes at the same causal time like at t=t'=4 for example.

 

 

If you're going to hypothesize that t = t', which some theories do, then you are claiming that time is absolute, not relative.  This hypothesis precludes "reciprocal time (or age) dilation."

Edited March 31, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

To you and most of everyone else. I'm trying my best to spread the truth but I'm not sure there are experts enough on here to back me up. So tell me more about Leroy. Was he killed because of his fat mouth because I have one and it's gotten me into a lot of trouble.

Edited March 31, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

Was he killed because of his fat mouth because I have one and it's gotten me into a lot of trouble.

 

 

I'll just put it this way, eh, Ralf.? If that's the case, your chances of ending up just like Leroy increase significantly.

[Moronium]

Age difference is just a subset of time dilation.  You can't have one without the other.  In essence, they are the same thing.  Two sides of the SAME coin.

 

 

Like I said before, Ralf, you should try doing some research sometime  Wiki, citing the highly regarded and commonly used SR  textbook "Spacetime Physics" by  Edwin F Taylor (M.I.T.) and John Archibald Wheeler (Princeton), says:

 

 

The equivalence of biological aging and clock time-keeping

 

All processes—chemical, biological, measuring apparatus functioning, human perception involving the eye and brain, the communication of force—are constrained by the speed of light. There is clock functioning at every level, dependent on light speed and the inherent delay at even the atomic level. Biological aging, therefore, is in no way different from clock time-keeping.[27] This means that biological aging would be slowed in the same manner as a clock.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#The_equivalence_of_biological_aging_and_clock_time-keeping

 

Give it up.

Edited March 31, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Give it up.

 

Not that I have any illusions.  You just will continue to claim

 

No, age difference happens independently and due to a separate cause than time dilation.

 

 

You could be shown 100,000 highly distinguished physics professors who dispute you, and you would just say none of them have sufficient expertise to understand your brilliance.

Edited March 31, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Correct but they would all be wiki authors or scientainers so I'm not worried. The stuff I made up is extrapolated from the truth I recognized from 2 people. You could spend a lifetime trying to glean the truth from the Physics Stack Exchange but you'd still have to be able to make your own mind up on who to believe. I believe in math.

Edited March 31, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

Correct but they would all be wiki authors or scientainers so I'm not worried. The stuff I made up is extrapolated from the truth I recognized from 2 people.

 

Thanks for immediately proving my point.

 

In the process, you once again prove your illiteracy, too.

 

Wiki, citing the highly regarded and commonly used SR  textbook "Spacetime Physics" by  Edwin F Taylor (M.I.T.) and John Archibald Wheeler (Princeton), says:

 

And you probably still wonder why everybody thinks you're so wrong and can't take you seriously, eh?

Edited March 31, 2019 by Moronium