Try To Understand The Center Of A Black Hole

[ralfcis]

I don't wonder. They are just the other side of the coin. They're just as sure they're right as I am although I've at least been 90% wrong up until now because I've discounted most of the beliefs that got me to this point. The other side can't say the same. What illiteracy have I proven because I know you're a very literal thinker.

Edited March 31, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

. What illiteracy have I proven...

 

I already pointed it out to you, but you couldn't read or understand it.

 

 

Correct but they would all be wiki authors or scientainers so I'm not worried.

 

You can't understand what you read enough to even know true experts from the "2 people" you know.

 

You wouldn't be capable of reading wiki, let alone the sources they cite.

 

You couldn't begin to understand "Spacetime Physics."  You're far too illiterate (not to even mention dull-witted).

Edited March 31, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Yup, this from the other side of the coin (I'm not saying you're actually on any currency). I do take exception to the dull-witted remark though. My work is done here, time for bed.

Edited March 31, 2019 by ralfcis

[Vmedvil2]

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?

 

This is how gangsters would understand gravity around a black hole, word up.

[Dubbelosix]

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.

 

I don't find this is really the case, I have an account there and my experience is that posts are generally monitored by science minded people - so its not so much what you read is false; the biggest majority of answers are intelligible and clear.

[ralfcis]

Here's an example:

 

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/242043/what-is-the-proper-way-to-explain-the-twin-paradox

 

You can't debate it there but I can tear this this apart line by line. Would you like to see me do it.

Edited March 31, 2019 by ralfcis

[A-wal]

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.

It's definitely not an illusion. What's slowing the light is the same thing that's preventing the falling object from reaching the event horizon in the frame of any distant observer, it's just length contraction and time dilation. It doesn't make sense to say that the falling observer's light is affected but the falling observer isn't.

 

You make it sound like I'm in the minority in thinking that objects never actually reach the event horizon in the frame of distant observer, I assure you that's not the case. No reputable physicist whose area of work includes black holes will tell you that it's in any way illusory. I'm not saying it's right because someone else says it is but it's important to stress that this part isn't just my interpretation. It's always possible in the frame of a distant observer for any object falling towards the event horizon to accelerate away from it, because they haven't ever reached the event horizon in any distant frame.

 

If you want to know what's physically happening to an observer falling towards the horizon you can just look at what's happening in the frame of a distant observer. Assuming black holes don't live forever, once the black hole has shrunk to nothing and died all the objects that were falling towards it are still there in the region of space that the black hole occupied with less time having passed on their watches than on distant watches. So in the frame of the falling observer, distant watches speed up and they can never reach the horizon in a finite amount of time on any distant watch.

 

There is no error in formulation of any of the officially recognised coordinate systems, even ones that show falling objects crossing the event horizon in a finite time on their watches. The mistake is in how those coordinates are applied. The key point is that although there is a time on a falling observer's watch when they would reach the event horizon, no finite amount of time on any distant watch can pass before their own watch reaches their crossing time so the black hole will always die before they can reach the event horizon regardless of how long it lives in any distant frame.

[Moronium]

Like I done said, eh, Dubbo?:

 

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

 

The numerous errors in your reasoning have already been abundantly pointed out by many different posters here, myself included, Awol.

 

I would suggest that you reflect on those posts and respond with actual counter-arguments rather than just glibly dismissing them as wrong, or ignoring them, then repeating yourself again.  But I won't bother suggesting it, because I know that's beyond your capacity.

Edited March 31, 2019 by Moronium

[A-wal]

I've clearly backed up everything I've said and it's all based on accepted black hole physics, specifically on the frames of all distant observers. All you've done is said 'no, you're wrong'. I don't think you even have the first clue what we're talking about so you're obviously in no position to judge its validity, just as you're in no position to doubt the validity of SR. You want to pretend that not getting it somehow gives you superior understanding, you're not fooling anyone.

[Moronium]

Hmm, that's kinda funny.  I being told I "don't have permission" to quote Awol.  What's up with that, I wonder?

[Moronium]

I've clearly backed up everything I've said and it's all based on accepted black hole physics, specifically on the frames of all distant observers.

 

 

I haven't seen you quote a single authority to back up anything you've said, Awol.  Anyone who says what you claim.

 

Look, as I've pointed out, all you do is contradict yourself (not to even mention the premises of SR).   First you admit that the frames of distant observers cannot affect the distant objects being observed, then you "explain it all" by assuming the opposite and calling it "fact."

Edited March 31, 2019 by Moronium

[A-wal]

The frames of distant observers can't affect distant objects but if we can use the frame of distant objects to show that falling observers never reached the event horizon once the black hole is gone then they obviously didn't reach the event horizon in their own frames either.

 

I don't need quote anything because the fact that objects can't reach event horizons from distant frames is well known, and it's not an illusion.

[Moronium]

I don't need quote anything because the fact that objects can't reach event horizons from distant frames is well known, and it's not an illusion.

 

If it's so "well-known," then why don't you cite an authoritative source which agrees with that proposition--especially the part about "distant frames" dictating the behavior of distant ojects? 

 

While you're at it, maybe you can also come up with an expert theoretical physicist who refutes Vic's observations.  Will they say that distant frames also have the "power" to suspend all laws of gravity in regions they are vastly removed from, ya figure?

Edited March 31, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Assuming the validity and applicability of SR (as you do, Awol), let's look at it from the frame of the object approaching the black hole.  In his frame he is absolutely at rest--meaning he's free to accelerate at any speed (less than c, let's say) in any direction he wants, right?

 

But now he spots an object (say earth) millions of light years away, which he believes in receding from him at .9999999(bar) c.  Is he now, suddenly, paralyzed and immobilized by his observation of that distant object?  Why should he be?  He's not the one moving,  he's at rest.

 

He might conclude (rightly or wrongly) that the earth cannot travel any faster, but that's earth's business, not his.  He's still free to mash down on that thrust pedal, full throttle, and go straight into that black hole.

Edited March 31, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Assuming the validity and applicability of SR (as you do, Awol), 

 

Your assumptions about SR are themselves incorrect, Awol, but an even more fundamental mistake is probably to assume that SR is applicable in the first place.

 

While special relativity prohibits objects from moving faster than light with respect to a local reference frame where spacetime can be treated as flat and unchanging, it does not apply to situations where spacetime curvature or evolution in time become important.  These situations are described by general relativity, which allows the separation between two distant objects to increase faster than the speed of light

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe#Comoving_coordinates

 

As I recall, GAHD has already pointed this out to you also.

 

One fundamental assumption underlying your "explanation" is that the speed of light cannot be exceeded.  But the speed of light is not constant in GR, and, in that framework, all bets are off when they are made in reliance on SR.

Edited March 31, 2019 by Moronium

[A-wal]

If it's so "well-known," then why don't you cite an authoritative source which agrees with that proposition--especially the part about "distant frames" dictating the behavior of distant ojects? 

 

While you're at it, maybe you can also come up with an expert theoretical physicist who refutes Vic's observations.  Will they say that distant frames also have the "power" to suspend all laws of gravity in regions they are vastly removed from, ya figure?

I already said that it's got nothing to do with distant frames affecting the falling observers. It's that the falling observers haven't crossed the horizon in distant frames once the black hole has died so they can't have crossed the horizon in their own frames either.

 

I'm not going to link to something that's common knowledge. Objects never reaching an event horizon in any distant frame is a well established and accepted part of black hole physics.

 

Assuming the validity and applicability of SR (as you do, Awol), let's look at it from the frame of the object approaching the black hole.  In his frame he is absolutely at rest--meaning he's free to accelerate at any speed (less than c, let's say) in any direction he wants, right?

 

But now he spots an object (say earth) millions of light years away, which he believes in receding from him at .9999999(bar) c.  Is he now, suddenly, paralyzed and immobilized by his observation of that distant object?  Why should he be?  He's not the one moving,  he's at rest.

 

He might conclude (rightly or wrongly) that the earth cannot travel any faster, but that's earth's business, not his.  He's still free to mash down on that thrust pedal, full throttle, and go straight into that black hole.

You're trying to apply SR to black holes when you can't even grasp the basics of SR, you still think there's a preferred frame for fcuksake.

 

Your assumptions about SR are themselves incorrect, Awol, but an even more fundamental mistake is probably to assume that SR is applicable in the first place.

:) Lol!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe#Comoving_coordinates

 

As I recall, GAHD has already pointed this out to you also.

 

One fundamental assumption underlying your "explanation" is that the speed of light cannot be exceeded.  But the speed of light is not constant in GR, and, in that framework, all bets are off when they are made in reliance on SR.

Objects can't move faster the the speed of light relative to other objects in GR either, but that's got nothing to do with this anyway. The supposed expansion of the universe allowing objects to move faster than light relative to each other is a completely separate topic.

[Moronium]

I'm not going to link to something that's common knowledge. 

 

Yeah, that's what I thought.   Kinda strange that you so boastfully and brilliantly created a novel, "air tight" argument to prove what you claim everyone already knows, eh?

 

You think you're "saving face," but you just continue to embarrass yourself.

 

Rave on.

Edited April 1, 2019 by Moronium