That's farsight's logic, not mine. I'm using it to illustrate a couple of points.
The black hole "frozen star" interpretation is the one that's right
- Thread starter Farsight
- Start date
That's farsight's logic, not mine. I'm using it to illustrate a couple of points.
You said:
When exactly does something occurring in the infinite future cease to be an ideation in your head?Trippy said:
Close, but not quite the right question.
It isn't occurring in the infinite future, it is only observed to occur in an infinite future.
Not so. I ate it.
LOL, love it. But note though the black hole forms from the inside out. Like a hailstone. A water molecule doesn't pass through the surface, the surface passes through it. In similar vein you can find yourself inside the event horizon, even though you didn't fall through it. Not that you'll be able to notice much, but hey.RJBeery said:
So, wait a minute...when we adjust for GR in GPS
...you're saying it's simply an illusion?GPS said:
I asked this before. Why would it be fact in our experience but an illusion in the theory of event horizons?
Yes, we seem to disagree on this subtle point. I claim that the black hole "region" continues to slow down in an asymptotic manner, graduated toward the center of its mass, forever; you believe it "freezes solid". Among other things, my explanation solves the information paradox problem.
Illusion is your word, not mine. The theory says and reality confirms that different observers see different things.
But that isn't what my post was about. My post was about the observation of an event being a different event from the event being observed. I don't get instantly vaporized by the sun when I walk outside because I'm watching it from a distance, not experiencing it close up. This error in not separating reference frames and events properly permeates your wrong interpretation.
In SR the time dilation is relative and mutual; in GR it is absolute. It isn't about separating frames of reference when a GPS satellite must adjust for gravitational effects. All parties agree that the satellite experiences time more quickly due to GR (putting SR aside).
Accepting that the infalling observer would not "feel" any different as he passed the EH is irrelevant because it makes the presumption that the EH exists in the first place; this presumption is not possible because it would require mass to have already passed through the EH (in the observer's past light cone) in order for it to have volume. We have already established that GR does not allow this. This is the very subtle point I referred to earlier and I don't expect many to appreciate it.
No you didn't. You ate today's breakfast, not tomorrow's breakfast.
This is pure semantics, of course. When you say "tomorrow's breakfast" the implication is that you are identifying a specific meal at a specific point in time rather than using the general phrase "tomorrow's breakfast" which shifts its meaning relative to when it was said. There's a bar here in Nebraska with a large sign that reads "FREE BEER - TOMORROW!" using the same fallacy. Anyway, using your definition I doubt anyone would claim that "tomorrow's breakfast" exists ever (just like the EH!)
I knew you were going to say that. How did I know you were going to say that? Because you're still missing the point.
What you're describing is a change in reference frame, or a change in co-ordinates, much like switching from polar to cartesian. You're using a different reference frame/co-ordinate system to the one I am. Are you beginning to understand yet?
It's not a fallacy.
Wasn't that the point that I was making in the first place? That according to Farsight's logic, tomorrow's breakfast can never exist?
I don't know what your point was but if that is truly Farsight's logic then it is correct. Tomorrow's breakfast* can never exist.
*using your definition of "tomorrow's breakfast"
In that case, then we can also not ever be able to claim that the sun exists, since we are not observing it's existence "now", we are only observing its existence in the past.
Delete my post if you want. I don't want an infraction, please.
But this thread is getting extremely stupid and should go to cesspool.
But this thread is getting extremely stupid and should go to cesspool.
This is technically true, we can only claim the sun existed recently. I was hoping for a response to post #169 though. I'm curious if you're able to appreciate it.
There is no information paradox, just as there is no twins paradox, and no Zeno's paradox. Whenever you see some kind of paradox, there's always some kind of misunderstanding. Such as "physical information". Ever seen an atom of information? Or a fundamental particle of information? No. As for the freezing, you can work out that I'm right by simply imagining you're holding a laser pointer. You point it up vertically. The light doesn't curve round, it doesn't slow down, and it doesn't fall back. But those things we label as black holes are dark. Light can't get out. Why not?
The mass doesn't pass through the event horizon. The event horizon passes through it. Think about what I said above, and about a water molecule which doesn't pass through the surface of a hailstone. The hailstone still grows.
Let’s distinguish between a primary event (light emission) and a secondary event (light detection).
Perception (light detection) must always be after light emission, and therefore an historical event. It may be a fly on your nose for a nanosecond or a supernova a million ly distant. The future is observer dependent even without time dilation, since light speed is finite and constant.
Using this perspective, an event happening elsewhere for an observer, cannot be occurring in his future.
The observer only has a past light cone, with him at the apex. The future light cone is another of those over-simplistic, naïve, idealizations that may work on paper when dealing with abstract entities, but has no correspondence in the ‘real’ physical world. Wisdom is knowing the difference.
Perception (light detection) must always be after light emission, and therefore an historical event. It may be a fly on your nose for a nanosecond or a supernova a million ly distant. The future is observer dependent even without time dilation, since light speed is finite and constant.
Using this perspective, an event happening elsewhere for an observer, cannot be occurring in his future.
The observer only has a past light cone, with him at the apex. The future light cone is another of those over-simplistic, naïve, idealizations that may work on paper when dealing with abstract entities, but has no correspondence in the ‘real’ physical world. Wisdom is knowing the difference.
Great. And that's my and Trippy's point: your/Farsight's logic doesn't work. It leads to problems in dealing with reality and because of that you don't follow it yourself:RJBeery said:
So you must agree that your requirement that we observe the infaller cross the event horizon in order to be able to say it happened is an irrelevancy. Otherwise, you have to say that nothing outside of your local area exists "now" because you can't observe the existence of anything distant "now".
That's not a very useful philosophical stance and you almost certainly never ahere to it. Otherwise, it would handicap your life. You'd never go to an outdoor event because you couldn't say whether the sun would still be there from one second to the next!
Let me ask you this more directly: How do you know the sun didn't cease to exist sometime in the past 8 minutes? How can you confidently walk out your front door, secure in the knowledge that the sun will still be there from one second to the next?
From post #169:
No, it isn't. That's why it's still called general relativity.
Um...yah... how do you think they calculated ahead of time what rate to make the clock run at?
Sure. So what? All parties also agree that it experiences time more slowly due to SR. Are you suggesting that that isn't true?
Other than demonstrating your understanding of Relativity is a bit thin, what is the point of all of this?
You have the logic backwards. Whether the EH exists or not has no bearing on whether he stops. When falling toward the center of a gravity well - any gravity well - you keep falling until you crash into something. The proposed EH makes no change to that obvious operation of freefall in gravity.
But on the other hand, you are proposing the existence of a barrier in the exact location of the EH, that somehow stops him. Below a certain mass, the infaller keeps falling. Above a certain mass, you claim something stops him. That makes it your claim to prove -- and explain.
For example, if you think things "freeze" at the EH (by all means, propose an alternate name for your theoretical barrier), then what you are claiming is the existence of a zero-thickness, infinitely dense shell of matter and energy at the EH, right?
No. You have previously acknowledged that you are aware that what you are presenting is not GR, but your alternate interpretation of how GR should work -- essentially claiming that all of the millions of scientists and engineers who have studied and worked on GR in the past 100 years are wrong. You are appealing to yourself as an authority -- the authority!