Huh? What's that go to do with black holes? I will eat my breakfast tomorrow, just like I ate my breakfast today. That's way different to the clock that goes to infinity and beyond.
The black hole "frozen star" interpretation is the one that's right
- Thread starter Farsight
- Start date
That's because the "eventually" in this case is in the infinite future which is also known as never.
Agreed. Many scientists also believe in God but the existence of either God or Black Holes lies outside the realm of Science until "existence" is defined and the BH (or God) can be verified under that definition.Russ_Watters said:
Of course. However, the observed gravitational field is the same as if the mass never quite passed the EH; the infinite red-shifting would still occur and the area would still look dark and foreboding, it's just that the EH has never formed and there is no technical "point of no return".
As I said, we discussed this already: it is correct to say that the mass and no light (to be vague) are ALSO evidence for other alternate theories, but it is NOT correct to say it is not evidence for anything. That isn't how science works and for someone who tries to be pedantic and philosophical, that is not a forgivable/believable error. You know all of this: you're playing games.
But that isn't your requirement/definition. Your requirement/definition is simultaneous or past "now", not "eventual" past. Why does this matter? Because it IS possible to get the object's entry into your past.
Again: you KNOW what you are saying is false. That makes it lying.
I will of course grant you that the existing evidence does not rule out BHs and EHs; is that what you're looking for? The thing that bothers me is that lesser-knowledgable folks point at a dark area in the sky and say "see?? Black holes exist; end of story." This is not the end of the story, and this mentality is less scientific than the path I pursue. It isn't being pedantic, it's being technical and thorough.
How?
No: we are talking about evidence FOR black holes. Stop pretending you don't know how the scientific method works!
It is being deceitful. It is wrong to use one side's lack of rigor/accuracy as an excuse for your own and it is a strawman to bring it up here when no one is in that group.
At any time in the future you can choose to go see for yourself.
By the way, the same horizon problem exists for the extent of the universe. There are objects we can see today that we will never receive signals from if sent today.
That's rich; theories are not proven, they can only be "not yet falsified". You can't invoke the scientific method if you claim otherwise.
There is nothing you could do to get an object's EH entry into your past light cone, and this includes diving into the EH yourself. This isn't a semantic game, by the way. There would be a physical consequence to an EH "never" forming. It solve the information loss problem, among other things.Russ_Watters said:
I didn't use the word "proven" (nor did you: remember, we're discussing your claim here.). You are dancing around the point, looking for strawmen. Again: stop pretending you don't know how the scientific method works!
We're talking about the existing theory, not your alternate theory. Under the existing theory, what you would see (not accounting for redshift) as you cross the event horizon is the object zip across and away from you.
Your/Farsight's alternative of course createsproblems: objects freezing but not freezing and without anything to stop them.
But according to your logic, tomorrow mornings breakfast is something that "only exists in the future, which means it doesn't exist now, which means it doesn't exist at all, and never ever will."
No, tomorrow morning's breakfast "will exist" tomorrow and "will have existed" two days from now.
No, because it's no longer tomorrow mornings breakfast at those points...
Fair. Surely you agree that tomorrow morning's breakfast does not exist today, yes?
You mean except for the curving of spacetime, the very fabric from which time is derived? If you can accept that an object in a deeper gravity well "moves more slowly" then you must accept that time stops at the EH. Why would you treat the former as science and the latter as an illusion?
I see. And what would you predict that to look like? Would you expect photons to continue reaching your eyes from the "frozen" subjects? Has time ever been seen to slow down due to relativistic, gravitational effects? Do we have a mathematical model describing how it slows down, such that we could make a prediction around an area of sufficient energy density?
No, by definition tomorrow morning's breakfast does not exist at all beyond being an ideation in my head.
Also by definition yesterday's breakfast does not exist at all beyond being a memory in my head.
According to Farsights logic, because tomorrow's breakfast does not exist, it can never exist.
Aside from being critical of Farsight's reasoning, there's a second point that I'm making, that you actually almost touched upon.
Not sure about Farsight's logic but by YOUR logic the EH can never and will never exist, except as an "ideation in our heads". And I happen to agree with that.
I can't predict what it looks like because we never get to see time stopped.
I do though see the time/clock gradually slowed down to infinity and red shifted beyond my viewing capabilities, from a distant FoR of course.
From a local frame of a person holding the clock and approaching and crossing the EH, nothing strange is observed at all. [Ignoring tidal gravitational effects] No time dilation, no length contraction, no red shifting, no nothing.
That's what the concept of FoR's is all about.