And of course most of the knowledgable ones here, including brucep and JamesR, probably have far better things to do then running around forums all day, refuting paranoid anti mainstream fanatics.
Black holes may not exist!
- Thread starter RJBeery
- Start date
And of course most of the knowledgable ones here, including brucep and JamesR, probably have far better things to do then running around forums all day, refuting paranoid anti mainstream fanatics.
This bothers me even more than the crank nonsense. Eternal crank nonsense. The crap that folks like Farsight use 'over and over' to troll the threads. So a guy like you gets a ban out of 'frustration' and the guy trolling you into frustration skates on. I got a warning for calling somebody 'ignorant'. I'd rather the forum wasn't moderated since it might as well not be.
Apart from those where the clock rate is zero. Then there are no coordinates. And no frame of reference.
Because when the clock rate is zero, the person's heart rate is zero. And when that clock is a light clock, it doesn't tick because light doesn't move. So, yes, nothing is seen to happen. Because nothing happens.paddoboy said:
Brucep: I'm wait...ing. See above.
Chuckle!
It does appear that way at times......
The other point is that this thread among one or two others, has really turned into an alternative theory, and should be relegated to that category.
Imagine some layman interested in learning the right stuff re BH's and SR/GR, and discovers this rot in mainstream category....what's he to think?
In essence this thread and a couple of others need to be moved.
That is rubbish and is not what Einstein nor mainstream think....
You are fooling no one but yourself.
What would happen to me if I fell into a black hole?
----------------------------------------------------
Let's suppose that you get into your spaceship and point it straight towards the million-solar-mass black hole in the center of our galaxy. (Actually, there's some debate about whether our galaxy contains a central black hole, but let's assume it does for the moment.) Starting from a long way away from the black hole, you just turn off your rockets and coast in. What happens?
At first, you don't feel any gravitational forces at all. Since you're in free fall, every part of your body and your spaceship is being pulled in the same way, and so you feel weightless. (This is exactly the same thing that happens to astronauts in Earth orbit: even though both astronauts and space shuttle are being pulled by the Earth's gravity, they don't feel any gravitational force because everything is being pulled in exactly the same way.) As you get closer and closer to the center of the hole, though, you start to feel "tidal" gravitational forces. Imagine that your feet are closer to the center than your head. The gravitational pull gets stronger as you get closer to the center of the hole, so your feet feel a stronger pull than your head does. As a result you feel "stretched." (This force is called a tidal force because it is exactly like the forces that cause tides on earth.) These tidal forces get more and more intense as you get closer to the center, and eventually they will rip you apart.
For a very large black hole like the one you're falling into, the tidal forces are not really noticeable until you get within about 600,000 kilometers of the center. Note that this is after you've crossed the horizon. If you were falling into a smaller black hole, say one that weighed as much as the Sun, tidal forces would start to make you quite uncomfortable when you were about 6000 kilometers away from the center, and you would have been torn apart by them long before you crossed the horizon. (That's why we decided to let you jump into a big black hole instead of a small one: we wanted you to survive at least until you got inside.)
What do you see as you are falling in? Surprisingly, you don't necessarily see anything particularly interesting. Images of faraway objects may be distorted in strange ways, since the black hole's gravity bends light, but that's about it. In particular, nothing special happens at the moment when you cross the horizon. Even after you've crossed the horizon, you can still see things on the outside: after all, the light from the things on the outside can still reach you. No one on the outside can see you, of course, since the light from you can't escape past the horizon.
How long does the whole process take? Well, of course, it depends on how far away you start from. Let's say you start at rest from a point whose distance from the singularity is ten times the black hole's radius. Then for a million-solar-mass black hole, it takes you about 8 minutes to reach the horizon. Once you've gotten that far, it takes you only another seven seconds to hit the singularity. By the way, this time scales with the size of the black hole, so if you'd jumped into a smaller black hole, your time of death would be that much sooner.
Once you've crossed the horizon, in your remaining seven seconds, you might panic and start to fire your rockets in a desperate attempt to avoid the singularity. Unfortunately, it's hopeless, since the singularity lies in your future, and there's no way to avoid your future. In fact, the harder you fire your rockets, the sooner you hit the singularity. It's best just to sit back and enjoy the ride.
Back to Black Hole Question List
My friend Penelope is sitting still at a safe distance, watching me fall into the black hole. What does she see?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Penelope sees things quite differently from you. As you get closer and closer to the horizon, she sees you move more and more slowly. In fact, no matter how long she waits, she will never quite see you reach the horizon.
In fact, more or less the same thing can be said about the material that formed the black hole in the first place. Suppose that the black hole formed from a collapsing star. As the material that is to form the black hole collapses, Penelope sees it get smaller and smaller, approaching but never quite reaching its Schwarzschild radius. This is why black holes were originally called frozen stars: because they seem to 'freeze' at a size just slightly bigger than the Schwarzschild radius.
Why does she see things this way? The best way to think about it is that it's really just an optical illusion. It doesn't really take an infinite amount of time for the black hole to form, and it doesn't really take an infinite amount of time for you to cross the horizon. (If you don't believe me, just try jumping in! You'll be across the horizon in eight minutes, and crushed to death mere seconds later.) As you get closer and closer to the horizon, the light that you're emitting takes longer and longer to climb back out to reach Penelope. In fact, the radiation you emit right as you cross the horizon will hover right there at the horizon forever and never reach her. You've long since passed through the horizon, but the light signal telling her that won't reach her for an infinitely long time.
There is another way to look at this whole business. In a sense, time really does pass more slowly near the horizon than it does far away. Suppose you take your spaceship and ride down to a point just outside the horizon, and then just hover there for a while (burning enormous amounts of fuel to keep yourself from falling in). Then you fly back out and rejoin Penelope. You will find that she has aged much more than you during the whole process; time passed more slowly for you than it did for her.
So which of these two explanation (the optical-illusion one or the time-slowing-down one) is really right? The answer depends on what system of coordinates you use to describe the black hole. According to the usual system of coordinates, called "Schwarzschild coordinates," you cross the horizon when the time coordinate t is infinity. So in these coordinates it really does take you infinite time to cross the horizon. But the reason for that is that Schwarzschild coordinates provide a highly distorted view of what's going on near the horizon. In fact, right at the horizon the coordinates are infinitely distorted (or, to use the standard terminology, "singular"). If you choose to use coordinates that are not singular near the horizon, then you find that the time when you cross the horizon is indeed finite, but the time when Penelope sees you cross the horizon is infinite. It took the radiation an infinite amount of time to reach her. In fact, though, you're allowed to use either coordinate system, and so both explanations are valid. They're just different ways of saying the same thing.
In practice, you will actually become invisible to Penelope before too much time has passed. For one thing, light is "redshifted" to longer wavelengths as it rises away from the black hole. So if you are emitting visible light at some particular wavelength, Penelope will see light at some longer wavelength. The wavelengths get longer and longer as you get closer and closer to the horizon. Eventually, it won't be visible light at all: it will be infrared radiation, then radio waves. At some point the wavelengths will be so long that she'll be unable to observe them. Furthermore, remember that light is emitted in individual packets called photons. Suppose you are emitting photons as you fall past the horizon. At some point, you will emit your last photon before you cross the horizon. That photon will reach Penelope at some finite time -- typically less than an hour for that million-solar-mass black hole -- and after that she'll never be able to see you again. (After all, none of the photons you emit *after* you cross the horizon will ever get to her.)
http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html#q3
----------------------------------------------------
Let's suppose that you get into your spaceship and point it straight towards the million-solar-mass black hole in the center of our galaxy. (Actually, there's some debate about whether our galaxy contains a central black hole, but let's assume it does for the moment.) Starting from a long way away from the black hole, you just turn off your rockets and coast in. What happens?
At first, you don't feel any gravitational forces at all. Since you're in free fall, every part of your body and your spaceship is being pulled in the same way, and so you feel weightless. (This is exactly the same thing that happens to astronauts in Earth orbit: even though both astronauts and space shuttle are being pulled by the Earth's gravity, they don't feel any gravitational force because everything is being pulled in exactly the same way.) As you get closer and closer to the center of the hole, though, you start to feel "tidal" gravitational forces. Imagine that your feet are closer to the center than your head. The gravitational pull gets stronger as you get closer to the center of the hole, so your feet feel a stronger pull than your head does. As a result you feel "stretched." (This force is called a tidal force because it is exactly like the forces that cause tides on earth.) These tidal forces get more and more intense as you get closer to the center, and eventually they will rip you apart.
For a very large black hole like the one you're falling into, the tidal forces are not really noticeable until you get within about 600,000 kilometers of the center. Note that this is after you've crossed the horizon. If you were falling into a smaller black hole, say one that weighed as much as the Sun, tidal forces would start to make you quite uncomfortable when you were about 6000 kilometers away from the center, and you would have been torn apart by them long before you crossed the horizon. (That's why we decided to let you jump into a big black hole instead of a small one: we wanted you to survive at least until you got inside.)
What do you see as you are falling in? Surprisingly, you don't necessarily see anything particularly interesting. Images of faraway objects may be distorted in strange ways, since the black hole's gravity bends light, but that's about it. In particular, nothing special happens at the moment when you cross the horizon. Even after you've crossed the horizon, you can still see things on the outside: after all, the light from the things on the outside can still reach you. No one on the outside can see you, of course, since the light from you can't escape past the horizon.
How long does the whole process take? Well, of course, it depends on how far away you start from. Let's say you start at rest from a point whose distance from the singularity is ten times the black hole's radius. Then for a million-solar-mass black hole, it takes you about 8 minutes to reach the horizon. Once you've gotten that far, it takes you only another seven seconds to hit the singularity. By the way, this time scales with the size of the black hole, so if you'd jumped into a smaller black hole, your time of death would be that much sooner.
Once you've crossed the horizon, in your remaining seven seconds, you might panic and start to fire your rockets in a desperate attempt to avoid the singularity. Unfortunately, it's hopeless, since the singularity lies in your future, and there's no way to avoid your future. In fact, the harder you fire your rockets, the sooner you hit the singularity. It's best just to sit back and enjoy the ride.
Back to Black Hole Question List
My friend Penelope is sitting still at a safe distance, watching me fall into the black hole. What does she see?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Penelope sees things quite differently from you. As you get closer and closer to the horizon, she sees you move more and more slowly. In fact, no matter how long she waits, she will never quite see you reach the horizon.
In fact, more or less the same thing can be said about the material that formed the black hole in the first place. Suppose that the black hole formed from a collapsing star. As the material that is to form the black hole collapses, Penelope sees it get smaller and smaller, approaching but never quite reaching its Schwarzschild radius. This is why black holes were originally called frozen stars: because they seem to 'freeze' at a size just slightly bigger than the Schwarzschild radius.
Why does she see things this way? The best way to think about it is that it's really just an optical illusion. It doesn't really take an infinite amount of time for the black hole to form, and it doesn't really take an infinite amount of time for you to cross the horizon. (If you don't believe me, just try jumping in! You'll be across the horizon in eight minutes, and crushed to death mere seconds later.) As you get closer and closer to the horizon, the light that you're emitting takes longer and longer to climb back out to reach Penelope. In fact, the radiation you emit right as you cross the horizon will hover right there at the horizon forever and never reach her. You've long since passed through the horizon, but the light signal telling her that won't reach her for an infinitely long time.
There is another way to look at this whole business. In a sense, time really does pass more slowly near the horizon than it does far away. Suppose you take your spaceship and ride down to a point just outside the horizon, and then just hover there for a while (burning enormous amounts of fuel to keep yourself from falling in). Then you fly back out and rejoin Penelope. You will find that she has aged much more than you during the whole process; time passed more slowly for you than it did for her.
So which of these two explanation (the optical-illusion one or the time-slowing-down one) is really right? The answer depends on what system of coordinates you use to describe the black hole. According to the usual system of coordinates, called "Schwarzschild coordinates," you cross the horizon when the time coordinate t is infinity. So in these coordinates it really does take you infinite time to cross the horizon. But the reason for that is that Schwarzschild coordinates provide a highly distorted view of what's going on near the horizon. In fact, right at the horizon the coordinates are infinitely distorted (or, to use the standard terminology, "singular"). If you choose to use coordinates that are not singular near the horizon, then you find that the time when you cross the horizon is indeed finite, but the time when Penelope sees you cross the horizon is infinite. It took the radiation an infinite amount of time to reach her. In fact, though, you're allowed to use either coordinate system, and so both explanations are valid. They're just different ways of saying the same thing.
In practice, you will actually become invisible to Penelope before too much time has passed. For one thing, light is "redshifted" to longer wavelengths as it rises away from the black hole. So if you are emitting visible light at some particular wavelength, Penelope will see light at some longer wavelength. The wavelengths get longer and longer as you get closer and closer to the horizon. Eventually, it won't be visible light at all: it will be infrared radiation, then radio waves. At some point the wavelengths will be so long that she'll be unable to observe them. Furthermore, remember that light is emitted in individual packets called photons. Suppose you are emitting photons as you fall past the horizon. At some point, you will emit your last photon before you cross the horizon. That photon will reach Penelope at some finite time -- typically less than an hour for that million-solar-mass black hole -- and after that she'll never be able to see you again. (After all, none of the photons you emit *after* you cross the horizon will ever get to her.)
http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html#q3
Here's where you are completely out of your depth and misunderstand.
Two points you need to consider...
[1] That is at the EH: No one is ever seen to reach the EH from any remote FoR.
[2] From the local FoR nothing happens...PERIOD. Gravitational Time dilation is only evident from a remote FoR.
[3]NOTHING EVER HAPPENS WITHIN THE LOCAL FoR, from the point of view of the local FoR.
THAT IS WHAT RELATIVITY IS ALL ABOUT.
Glad to be of assistance.
That explanation is wrong, paddoboy. It's quite easy to work out why. Imagine you drop an electron into a black hole from a great distance. It falls faster and faster and faster. However you know from your general relativity that the coordinate speed of light gets lower and lower and lower. You don't have to be the brain of Britain to work out that there's a crossover, whereupon the electron would be falling faster than the local speed of light. That isn't going to happen. The electron is quite literally made out of light in pair production. It can't go faster than the light from which it was made. Something's got to give. Check out Friedwardt Winterburg's Firewall. Here's the abstract:
"In the dynamic interpretation of relatively by Lorentz and Poincaré, Lorentz invariance results from real physical contractions of measuring rods and slower going clocks in absolute motion against an ether. As it was shown by Thirring, this different interpretation of special relativity can be extended to general relativity, replacing the non-Euclidean with a Euclidean geometry, but where rods are contracted and clocks slowed down. In this dynamic interpretation of the special, (and by implication of the general) theory of relativity, there is a balance of forces which might be destroyed near the Planck energy, reached in approaching the event horizon. In gravitational collapse, the event horizon appears first at the center of the collapsing body, thereafter moving radially outward. If the balance of forces holding together elementary particles is destroyed near the event horizon, all matter would be converted into zero rest mass particles which could explain the large energy release of gamma ray bursters".
Ouch, somebody has removed all reference to Winterberg from the Wikipedia Firewall article. That is underhand. See this from the December version.
"In another article[4] these same authors claimed similar concepts have been proposed in the past.[5][6][7][8][9] Of these Winterberg's proposal[7] has priority".
"In the dynamic interpretation of relatively by Lorentz and Poincaré, Lorentz invariance results from real physical contractions of measuring rods and slower going clocks in absolute motion against an ether. As it was shown by Thirring, this different interpretation of special relativity can be extended to general relativity, replacing the non-Euclidean with a Euclidean geometry, but where rods are contracted and clocks slowed down. In this dynamic interpretation of the special, (and by implication of the general) theory of relativity, there is a balance of forces which might be destroyed near the Planck energy, reached in approaching the event horizon. In gravitational collapse, the event horizon appears first at the center of the collapsing body, thereafter moving radially outward. If the balance of forces holding together elementary particles is destroyed near the event horizon, all matter would be converted into zero rest mass particles which could explain the large energy release of gamma ray bursters".
Ouch, somebody has removed all reference to Winterberg from the Wikipedia Firewall article. That is underhand. See this from the December version.
"In another article[4] these same authors claimed similar concepts have been proposed in the past.[5][6][7][8][9] Of these Winterberg's proposal[7] has priority".
Good morning, paddo, everyone. 
Ahhh, it's good to feel properly rested after a good night's sleep. That Sydney sojourn sure took it out of me, non-stop problem-solving and negotiating on complex matters does that to you, especially at my age.
Good news; I will not dive back into my own work again for today because I need the break, so I will use this extended work break to further 'rest' and 'freewheel' through today, by enjoying catching up with my Sciforum interlocutors, and by replying briefly to those posts to me which I have been neglecting while I have been busy involved with my Sydney stuff over the last couple days. So here goes....
Excellent! Then we're on the same page....only MY page (dictated by my complete and consistent ToE results) contains more and deeper mechanistic detail and explanations based on reality model not abstract models. Yes, gravity is the consequence of energy-space state/condition/content variation/distortion etc, but my page goes the whole hog, and explains whence/how gravity originates, how the surrounding energy-space distortion etc is effected by the gravitating body involved, and not just what it is observed to act like.
Making perfect sense to a layman content to believe in abstractions and not to question deeper into the reality mechanisms for what is observed and abstractly modeled, is you stopping half-way to the whole complete understanding. If you stop half-way and are satisfied to believe you "understand perfectly" an INCOMPLETE and abstract model, then that's your choice. But beware, true professional scientists in the mainstream actually admit they are not yet there, hence the speculations from their ranks which increasingly approach the results of my ToE reality-referencing logical/mechanistic approach (that earlier link to their latest BH 'alternative' explanations being the latest instance of their increasing confirmation that my ToE is increasingly becoming 'mainstream' thought, with the added bonus of also providing the missing link of Gravity and all the other gaps in th abstractions of the status quo mainstream.
You are putting the cart before the horse, mate. Before anything becomes 'mainstream', it was once 'alternative'. The peer review etc comes after the original ideas that eventually became formalized enough for peer review. One step at a time, hey? Don't reject what has not yet been peer reviewed (there I speak for my own imminent ToE results/publication only, you understand, not for anyone else's ideas). Hence the long stage of prior discussion informally (like amongst the coffee house groups in the old days, and in these internet forums today; all important pre-peer-review 'sounding boards' for testing/refining one's ideas. Don't discount the immense value of these internet forums just because parrots and trolls would derail these very important pre-peer-review stage of new ideas; new ideas which sometimes are ahead of the 'mainstream', as that recent link to professional BH speculations shows in my case specifically to do with the BH event horizon zone and interior 'non-central-point singularity spread throughout the BH interior.
Just linking to status quo 'old information/understandings which were admittedly incomplete does not automatically make the new points raised invalid, especially when that mainstream is slowly coming around to MY ToE reality-from-scratch approach results, as exampled by their latest professional speculations re BHs slowly coming into agreement with my own complete ToE reality-referenced perspective.
Less repetition of old partial understandings based on abstraction upon abstraction, and more reality-based modeling and logic flow therefrom, I say! That is the only way mainstream will advance, after peer-reviewing MY complete and real world consistent ToE publication, of course.
Before kneejerking to this post, paddo, please wait to read all my following responses to the posts I have yet to reply to. It may help avoid further repetitive linking and cheerleading from you and others of "perfectly understood" things that are admittedly (by mainstream) only partial and abstract at present....hence their latest attempts which seem to be converging towards my ToE perspective more and more with every passing 'mainstream new idea' presented, like that one I pointed out earlier, and which you have yet to admit was uncannily closer to MY longstanding ToE perspective for some of BH features/mechanisms (as more lately briefly stated in my post #294) than current mainstream abstractions. Thanks.
Ahhh, it's good to feel properly rested after a good night's sleep. That Sydney sojourn sure took it out of me, non-stop problem-solving and negotiating on complex matters does that to you, especially at my age. Good news; I will not dive back into my own work again for today because I need the break, so I will use this extended work break to further 'rest' and 'freewheel' through today, by enjoying catching up with my Sciforum interlocutors, and by replying briefly to those posts to me which I have been neglecting while I have been busy involved with my Sydney stuff over the last couple days. So here goes....
Excellent! Then we're on the same page....only MY page (dictated by my complete and consistent ToE results) contains more and deeper mechanistic detail and explanations based on reality model not abstract models. Yes, gravity is the consequence of energy-space state/condition/content variation/distortion etc, but my page goes the whole hog, and explains whence/how gravity originates, how the surrounding energy-space distortion etc is effected by the gravitating body involved, and not just what it is observed to act like.
Making perfect sense to a layman content to believe in abstractions and not to question deeper into the reality mechanisms for what is observed and abstractly modeled, is you stopping half-way to the whole complete understanding. If you stop half-way and are satisfied to believe you "understand perfectly" an INCOMPLETE and abstract model, then that's your choice. But beware, true professional scientists in the mainstream actually admit they are not yet there, hence the speculations from their ranks which increasingly approach the results of my ToE reality-referencing logical/mechanistic approach (that earlier link to their latest BH 'alternative' explanations being the latest instance of their increasing confirmation that my ToE is increasingly becoming 'mainstream' thought, with the added bonus of also providing the missing link of Gravity and all the other gaps in th abstractions of the status quo mainstream.
You are putting the cart before the horse, mate. Before anything becomes 'mainstream', it was once 'alternative'. The peer review etc comes after the original ideas that eventually became formalized enough for peer review. One step at a time, hey? Don't reject what has not yet been peer reviewed (there I speak for my own imminent ToE results/publication only, you understand, not for anyone else's ideas). Hence the long stage of prior discussion informally (like amongst the coffee house groups in the old days, and in these internet forums today; all important pre-peer-review 'sounding boards' for testing/refining one's ideas. Don't discount the immense value of these internet forums just because parrots and trolls would derail these very important pre-peer-review stage of new ideas; new ideas which sometimes are ahead of the 'mainstream', as that recent link to professional BH speculations shows in my case specifically to do with the BH event horizon zone and interior 'non-central-point singularity spread throughout the BH interior.
Just linking to status quo 'old information/understandings which were admittedly incomplete does not automatically make the new points raised invalid, especially when that mainstream is slowly coming around to MY ToE reality-from-scratch approach results, as exampled by their latest professional speculations re BHs slowly coming into agreement with my own complete ToE reality-referenced perspective.
Less repetition of old partial understandings based on abstraction upon abstraction, and more reality-based modeling and logic flow therefrom, I say! That is the only way mainstream will advance, after peer-reviewing MY complete and real world consistent ToE publication, of course.
Before kneejerking to this post, paddo, please wait to read all my following responses to the posts I have yet to reply to. It may help avoid further repetitive linking and cheerleading from you and others of "perfectly understood" things that are admittedly (by mainstream) only partial and abstract at present....hence their latest attempts which seem to be converging towards my ToE perspective more and more with every passing 'mainstream new idea' presented, like that one I pointed out earlier, and which you have yet to admit was uncannily closer to MY longstanding ToE perspective for some of BH features/mechanisms (as more lately briefly stated in my post #294) than current mainstream abstractions. Thanks.
Last edited:
Jesus, this thread has taken a turn...
OK, wait a minute. As an infalling body A approaches the event horizon, the distant observer B claims that the A's velocity is approaching zero, and that A's proper velocity is approaching c. At the event horizon those values would be zero and c, respectively. Do you disagree with this? Because I find this to be perfectly consistent with the idea that A is "frozen" from B's perspective. The "external time standard" is literally that: external for ALL FRAMES external to the event horizon! The only clock that would not agree with this is the clock whose proper velocity (as measured by the rest of the observers in the Universe) is moving at c and is, as far as they are concerned, frozen in time.
I think we've hit on something. We both agree that coordinate systems are arbitrary, yet causality is absolute. We could discuss causality in terms of (t, r), (U, V), etc, but causality is simplistically bounded by light cones. I'm conceding that there appear to be points within a hypothetical BH which are spacelike separated from external observers, but does that matter? An observer may claim that the black hole exists in the past relative to another observer, but they cannot claim the black hole exists in that other observer's past. Start with three points in spacetime: external observer A, external observer B, and point C which is internal to an event horizon. Observer A can claim that C exists prior to B, but A cannot claim that C is in either A's or B's past light cone. There are simply no observers external to the event horizon which can make that claim about themselves or any other external observers. Without causal notions dictating absolute measurements we are back to the arbitrary nature of coordinate systems...in other words, event horizons do not exist "yet" for any external observers in any absolute sense of the word. Yes?przyk said:
No no no! You confuse what Im actually point out. The abstraction is in the 'explanation' of the observations, not the 'observations' themselves. Ok? Please don't conflate that subtle but crucial distinction to be made there. I agree that gravity is the effect of surrounding energy-space conditions/attenuation which are brought about by localized energy-matter features in/of that energy-space. It's just that the 'space-TIME' analytical construct and interpretations currently only describe/predict the observed phenomenon, but NOT actually explain how the central body distorts its energy-space surroundings which we can all observe/predict the effects of by just jumping off a cliff. In no way do abstractions explain WHAT is going to cause your messy death, only observe that you did die a messy death for whatever physically unexplained cause/mechanism, and not just the abstraction from observations of its messy effects.
Thank you sincerely, paddo! You will know when everyone else does; when my ToE is published for all to read and consider, amateurs and professionals alike....I don't discriminate as to the source when it comes to open and free discussion of the new ideas presented by whatever provenance. You will be as welcome as any other to read and understand and make your opinions/counter-evidence known. No cheerleading though, whatever you do, as my ToE will stand on its own and doesn't need to be 'trumpeted' by any 'acolytes', 'priest' and other assorted name-droppers and sycophants for their own self-aggrandizement hanging/riding on the coat tails of others original ideas/work.
Last edited:
What answer? Show me you understand what the coordinates mean. It looks like you just want an answer from the remote bookkeeper perspective? The remote bookkeeper reckons the clock stops ticking at r=2M. That's the GR prediction reckoned from REMOTE frame dependent coordinates.
The local rain observer measures the velocity of the clock at r=2M = 1. [c=1]
dr/dt_rain = (2M/r)^1/2 = (2M/2M)^1/2 = 1 We transform to the local proper rain coordinates to get rid of the Schwarzschild frame dependent coordinate singularity. It's frame dependent because we can transform it away. The source of all your confusion. Now we can calculate the proper time, proper velocity, and proper distance from coordinates outside the coordinates associated with an event horizon to a limit r>0.
This is the remote bookkeeper velocity
dr/dt_bkkpr = (1-2M/r)(2M/r)^1/2 When r=2M dr/dt_bkkpr = 0. Local shell coordinates don't exist at r=2M so we transform away the coordinate singularity.
dr/dt_rain = (2M/r)^1/2 When r=2M dr/dt_rain = 1 [c=1].
dr_shell = dr_rain
You need to explain why the remote coordinates are preferred in a frame independent theory like GR.
Have fun. If you can't respond with anything more than typical Farsight nonsense then I'm not going to respond to you in a civil way. IE: you get my final *plonk*. The ultimate sign of disrespect.
No sweat. But don't conflate many issues under discussion in order to make your personal comments about others, on either 'side' of discussions/issues being discussed on their logics and merits when referenced to reality and not just more abstractions which cause the discussions to go on forever in apples and oranges mode! Try to keep items separate and discuss them, not the source, ok? That is the true scientists way. Only social media types/trolls want the excitement of intentional confusion in preference o distinct enlightenment of the actual points raised. Everyone should decide who they want to be and what their agenda here is. Good luck with your decision, everyone....whatever 'side' of the discussions you are currently on.
Last edited:
Consider:
The meter stick is a STATIC measure for energy-spatial extents under study;
Whereas the clocking mechanism is a DYNAMIC measure of the energy-spatial extent under study AND the changes/motions occurring/ranging within that energy-spatial extent being studied.
See it now, the subtle trap that makes you believe that abstract 'time' is something in its own right? When all it is, is the dynamic measure comparisons of motion/processes occurring ranging in/through the energy-spatial extent under study, as measured statically with the meter stick to determine static distances, and as further measured dynamically with the 'clocking cycle' processes/mechanisms occurring in specially chosen set of clock cycle process/body which you create for that purpose to COMPARE the various 'timings' of what occurs in the static spatial extents whose extents you measure statically with your meter static in the first place to identify what the boundaries for your observations/analysis across the place under study would be ABSTRACTLY via your 'space-time' modeling construct.
That abstract 'space-time' construct has its deeper origins in the reality construct of space and energy/motion IN/THROUGH that space. That's it. No more; no less.
The clocks you use are also essentially closed system cyclic motions in/through a limited STANDARD REFERENCE system for space and motion that you then use for your analysis of other space and motion observed to proceed at their own rate according to the energy-space features and flows involved in that study/comparison exercise. See the subtle trap of thinking that clocks are different from meter sticks as to what they are essentially 'measuring' in their respective ways? The meter stick is a STATIC measure of energy-spatial extents; the clock processes are DYNAMIC measures relating the DYNAMIC motion in/through static spatial extents as measured by the meter stick for the boundary conditions to be applied to the overall ABSTRACT analysis using (currently) an ABSTRACTION from that dynamical spatial-motion measurements/comparisons via the abstraction of 'TIME'. Time is not the essential; the space-motion/energy processes are.
Last edited:
And where has their continued abstraction upon abstraction attempts at correlating with even more abstractions getting them? Nowhere that answers the cause of the energy-space 'curvatures' that produces the gravity effects observed. Those professionals are moving on from those abstractions, and getting closer to what my complete and consistent ToE has been telling me is the reality explanation, not the abstraction. Maybe you can keep your elitist cheerleading and personal stuff to yourself for a while, and read and think long enough about what is happening in the amateur and professional circles NOW. That way you might have a chance to keep up with us amateur/professional original thinkers/reviewers, instead of continuing in your boring and repetitious name-dropping and cheerleading without any original input of your own?
Thanks for your opinion, again, bruce. When you actually present some original thinking of your own, then maybe you would be qualified to make such judgement. Good luck.
Last edited:
Really? LOL. You're not competent in the physics so you don't get to be the judge. Seems like this is the consensus in the local proper frame and the Schwarzschild remote frame.
As you were at pains telling chinglu, clocks are nothing but human devices or organized astronomical events, that we can use to measure and formulate every day life.
They are in no way hard wired to the passage of time.
Time on the other hand is subject to the geometry of space/time and our movement in relation to other FoR.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Can space exist by itself without matter or energy around?
No. Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation.
https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
The above statement says it all.
Abstractions as held by some, and the supposed reification of same are no more then a cop out, particularly held by those anti mainstreamers that havn't quite merged from the closet as yet.
Unless you get it straight that...
- I agree that a clock's bulk body (and the observer holding it) DOES continue traveling across the event horizon (to impact/deconstruct into the more fundamental quark-gluon or lower state distributed within, as indicated/supported by the latest professional speculations I linked to that are increasingly coming around to my ToE perspective); and
- I agree with Einstein, that gravity potential at various altitude has ABSOLUTE effects on clock timing process rate depending on altitude in the gravity well; hence the maximum effect on timing PROCESS rate is maximal and hence effectively STOPS those clocking/local observer's processes (not the overall infalling of the whole clock body and the observer holding it)...
...then you will continue to inadvertently conflate other people's observations with mine, so misrepresenting my actual stance/observations and then attributing YOUR misunderstandings of same to me. Please rake more care if you want to become a real scientist and not remain a layman commentator promulgating your 'beliefs' about what you 'perfectly understand' of the mainstream and of others. Ok? Thanks and good luck in your intellectual trajectory through the exciting and interesting evolving amateur/professional scientific advancement 'times' we are in, mate!
Last edited: