time travel and wormholes

[fattyjwoods]

i know this questions might have been answered before but i would like to know if there is a possible way to travel back to the past or to the future. Ive read some sites and they do talk about time travel and some of them say, yes its possible. If it is possible it will break some laws of science. Some ideas involve entering black holes, which will proba kill you.

 

"If such a black hole formed out of a lump of non-rotating material, it would simply sit in space, swallowing up anything that came near it. At the heart of such a black hole there is a point known as a singularity, where space and time cease to exist, and matter is crushed to infinite density. Thirty years ago, Roger Penrose (now of Oxford University) proved that anything which falls into such a black hole must be drawn into the singularity by its gravitational pull, and also crushed out of existence.

 

But, also in the 1960s, the New Zealand mathematician Roy Kerr found that things are different if the black hole is rotating. A singularity still forms, but in the form of a ring, like the mint with a hole. In principle, it would be possible to dive into such a black hole and through the ring, to emerge in another place and another time. This "Kerr solution" was the first mathematical example of a time machine, but at the time nobody took it seriously. At the time, hardly anybody took the idea of black holes seriously, and interest in the Kerr solution only really developed in the 1970s, after astronmers discovered what seem to be real black holes, both in our own Milky Way Galaxy and in the hearts of other galaxies." http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/John_Gribbin/timetrav.htm

 

Is this true?

 

And if it is how will you get back if theres nothing there.

 

I know it sounds corny but after watching movies like back to the future Im beginning to think it can be true after all.

 

Yes, i kno there probably wont be huge time machines that teleport u but how about black holes.

[swansont]

i know this questions might have been answered before but i would like to know if there is a possible way to travel back to the past or to the future. Ive read some sites and they do talk about time travel and some of them say, yes its possible. If it is possible it will break some laws of science. Some ideas involve entering black holes, which will proba kill you.

 

 

If it's possible then it really can't be breaking the laws of science.

[iNow]

Well mate, you ask a lot of very interesting questions. Unfortunately, it's tough to give quick answers, as trying to explain the answers to the questions requires explanations of the tenets behind them.

 

Your question is like asking a baker how they make their danish taste so good. Well, they'd first talk to you about the ingredients. They'd then talk to you about the proportion of those ingredients and how to add them together. They'd then talk to you about the mixing process, and how you should not over mix. They'd then talk about the importance of steady heating, and once they'd described each of these things, you'd be much closer to understanding how their danish taste so delightful.

 

Same with discussion about blackholes and wormholes and time. It takes a little bit of effort to form the foundation of your understanding, and you need good teachers to help with that.

 

A book that really opened my eyes and my mind, which is written for the non-expert (and not just people with 4 degrees in math and 2 PhDs in Theoretical Physics... in other words, easy to follow if you're willing to spend some time trying)... and I'd HIGHLY recommend it to help address many (if not all) of your questions above:

 

Kip Thorne: Blackholes & Time Warps - Einstein's Outrageous Legacy.

http://www.amazon.com/Black-Holes-Time-Warps-Commonwealth/dp/0393312763

 

Kip manages to take the reader from start to finish, explaining fundamentals in clever and understandable ways, and he also allows you to use your imagination like he and his students do. It has several pages, and has a lot of information to digest, but you will come away much more informed if you choose to read it. I've actually read it two or three times just because there were some pieces I couldn't fully digest the first time through.

 

Another great teacher is Richard Feyman, but I'd suggest Kip's book above to be your first discussion with "the baker" about his "wonderful tasting danish."

[Realitycheck]

I think what you'll find is that you can only age slower with respect to others. This is the only possible way to travel through time.

[BenTheMan]

I think also somewhere I saw a proof that any worm-holes had to be behind horizons. (I could be mistaken, though.) But if this IS the case, you could go into a worm hole, but you could never get out.

[someguy]

well i have no idea if you're right either ben but that sounds like it would make sense to me. but still, that idea though of having two ring blackholes is a cool thought, i could see they could maybe connect two sections of space-time in some funnel thingy and it seems like that could make some sort of shortcut through space, but also, what would be holding them apart? if they make such big gravity bubbles that they connect and make a tunnel typed thing of space-time then why wouldn't they just attract each other and squish together?

 

personally as for time travel i think agentchange is right.

 

time and motion are tightly linked. if there is motion there can be time and vice versa. if you are moving much faster than something else you are progressing through time at a faster rate, so that means that those people moving slower would age at faster rate than you do. you could also do the opposite and make things so that you age much faster than people on earth but you'd need to make the earth move much faster, and who would want to age faster anyways? so personally i think that the only way you could ever move backwards in time would be to move slower than stopped. but how could you do that? there is no such thing. if two objects are traveling at very different speeds they experience time at different rates. if they move at the same speed they experience time at equal rates. so i think in order to go backwards in time you would need to do one better than time at equal rates. but how can you go slower than relative stopped? any change from stationary is motion. not.. anti-motion, or reverse motion or whatever. so personally i think that's why it would be impossible to travel back in time.

 

but i understand that some physicists believe that by warping space-time you could achieve moving back in time. I saw once on discovery this guy was trying to get some kind of particles, i forget really what it was, to travel back in time by making a tower of lasers kind of like the spring for shocks in a car but instead of metal it was lasers that were meant to distort space time like making a whirlpool by spinning water in a bucket. so that he could send those particles or whatever back in time. but i guess time travel by warping space-time is not yet proven and i'm really skeptical about it. not to mention the paradox problems. but i'm not really an expert so i don't know, maybe they'll figure it out. if they ever do figure it out the first thing they should do is to come back right away to our time and let us know that it's possible, the suspense is killing me.

[-I-]

This may not actually be traveling in time but it may be technically,

 

The theory is you are able to pop into another's body/mind instantly because you were already there, its not a matter of taking control of another person, but rather being that person through a realization.

So to time travel which slows down the faster we move away, somebody on a ship may be in the past, technically.

[Farsight]

"If such a black hole formed out of a lump of non-rotating material, it would simply sit in space, swallowing up anything that came near it. At the heart of such a black hole there is a point known as a singularity, where space and time cease to exist, and matter is crushed to infinite density. Thirty years ago, Roger Penrose (now of Oxford University) proved that anything which falls into such a black hole must be drawn into the singularity by its gravitational pull, and also crushed out of existence.

No, this is garbage. There is no singularity at the centre of a black hole. Instead time dilation goes infinite at the event horizon. This means that right now, anything that has ever fallen into a black hole has not reached the centre, and never ever will. Look up the "Weinberg Interpretation" and "frozen stars".

 

But, also in the 1960s, the New Zealand mathematician Roy Kerr found that things are different if the black hole is rotating. A singularity still forms, but in the form of a ring, like the mint with a hole. In principle, it would be possible to dive into such a black hole and through the ring, to emerge in another place and another time. This "Kerr solution" was the first mathematical example of a time machine, but at the time nobody took it seriously. At the time, hardly anybody took the idea of black holes seriously, and interest in the Kerr solution only really developed in the 1970s, after astronmers discovered what seem to be real black holes, both in our own Milky Way Galaxy and in the hearts of other galaxies."

More mathematical abstraction I'm afraid. There is no inside to a black hole. There is no singularity. Time travel is nonsense. You can travel in space, but you can't travel "in time". Not backwards, not forwards, not at all.

 

I know it sounds corny but after watching movies like back to the future Im beginning to think it can be true after all. Yes, i kno there probably wont be huge time machines that teleport u but how about black holes.

It isn't. That's science fiction, not science fact. Sadly some real scientists get sucked into this sort of thing because they cannot distinguish real mathematical solutions from abstract mathematical solutions. When you try to discuss the distinction, they can become very hostile.

[iNow]

No, this is garbage. There is no singularity at the centre of a black hole. Instead time dilation goes infinite at the event horizon. This means that right now, anything that has ever fallen into a black hole has not reached the centre, and never ever will.

 

While your statement might be true *relative to an outside observer,* to the object falling into the BH everything would seem to progress as normal.

 

I concede that our current models tend to break down when trying to accurately describe what happens inside of (what we currently call) a singularity, but there is a lot of great work being done right now on quantum gravity to amerliorate this issue.

 

If you really want to argue that an object cannot successfully fall into the center of a BH, you'd do better to discuss the issue of tidal forces. The influence of gravity at the bottom of the object would be much stronger than the influence of gravity at the top of the object (relative to the center of the BH), and the object would stretch so much that it would eventually get torn apart.

 

More mathematical abstraction I'm afraid. There is no inside to a black hole. There is no singularity.

You've said this twice now, and stated it as if it were fact. Can you support this with some sort of credible evidence?

 

 

Time travel is nonsense. You can travel in space, but you can't travel "in time". Not backwards, not forwards, not at all.

Now this is wrong on a number of levels. Time and space are inseparable. The two are inextricably linked. Further, you travel through time with each passing moment... forward, like an arrow. Time and space are different dimensions of the same coordinate system.

 

Sadly some real scientists get sucked into this sort of thing because they cannot distinguish real mathematical solutions from abstract mathematical solutions. When you try to discuss the distinction, they can become very hostile.

So, if someone were arguing to you that you did not exist at all, and you... standing right there beside them knew, without a shadow of a doubt, that you did exist (since you were right there listening to them)... you may come across to the other person as hostile, but that would make your refutation of their stance no less valid or accurate. Most everybody gets hostile once in a while. It's part of our evolved neurobiology and physiological emotional state.

 

 

It isn't. That's science fiction, not science fact.

I also ask that you recall the fact that human flight was once only science fiction, as was travel deep into the ocean, or computer technology, or the ability to travel to outer space. One must first have vision in order to achieve it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it.

......~Michelangelo

[Farsight]

While your statement might be true *relative to an outside observer,* to the object falling into the BH everything would seem to progress as normal.

 

The thing is this, iNow: as we speak, no object anywhere has fallen through any black hole event horizon anywhere. The infinite time dilation means that the "progress as normal" situation does not in fact progress.

 

I concede that our current models tend to break down when trying to accurately describe what happens inside of (what we currently call) a singularity, but there is a lot of great work being done right now on quantum gravity to amerliorate this issue.

 

There are models that describe what happens, but they don't get an airing any more. The "Weinberg interpretation" is one.

 

If you really want to argue that an object cannot successfully fall into the center of a BH, you'd do better to discuss the issue of tidal forces. The influence of gravity at the bottom of the object would be much stronger than the influence of gravity at the top of the object (relative to the center of the BH), and the object would stretch so much that it would eventually get torn apart.

 

True, but note that gravity can't get any "stronger" than it gets at the event horizon. I've thought through what gravity actually is, and this gives one a rather different picture of what a black hole actually is. It's still a hole, and it's still black. It's still a one way ticket. But a different interpretation of what's actually happening paints a startlingly different picture of what a black hole actually is.

 

You've said this twice now, and stated it as if it were fact. Can you support this with some sort of credible evidence?

 

I can't give you any actual evidence. And sadly because the interpretation is closer to older interpretations, it's classed as a "speculation". I could PM you with further details if you wish.

 

Now this is wrong on a number of levels. Time and space are inseparable. The two are inextricably linked. Further, you travel through time with each passing moment... forward, like an arrow. Time and space are different dimensions of the same coordinate system.

 

You have no actual evidence for this interpretation. I've thought a great deal about this, and am no totally confident that it's the wrong concept.

 

So, if someone were arguing to you that you did not exist at all, and you... standing right there beside them knew, without a shadow of a doubt, that you did exist (since you were right there listening to them)... you may come across to the other person as hostile, but that would make your refutation of their stance no less valid or accurate. Most everybody gets hostile once in a while. It's part of our evolved neurobiology and physiological emotional state.

 

I totally agree.

 

I also ask that you recall the fact that human flight was once only science fiction, as was travel deep into the ocean, or computer technology, or the ability to travel to outer space. One must first have vision in order to achieve it.

 

Again, I totally agree. I have a vision for spaceflight. But it involves a revision to certain concepts that most people take for granted.

[iNow]

The thing is this, iNow: as we speak, no object anywhere has fallen through any black hole event horizon anywhere.

See Chandra X-ray Observatory.

 

 

There are models that describe what happens, but they don't get an airing any more. The "Weinberg interpretation" is one.

Could be that they didn't work. That's the beauty of science, it's amenable. However, perhaps you'd be so kind as to give more information on the Weinberg Interpretation you reference, preferably a few links? It seems, upon quick search, to be related to the many-worlds interpretation of QM, and I'm not sure how/why it would apply here in this discussion. I'd prefer not to email you, but thanks for your PM. Please post here if you have further information.

 

 

True, but note that gravity can't get any "stronger" than it gets at the event horizon.

Huh? Relative to what? Why do you think we have tides in the oceans here on Earth? There's a relative difference in the effect of gravity at the two ends (while this results from the moon, my contention relates specifically to tidal forces). Same with an object falling into a blackhole. Can you support your comment that "gravity can't get any stronger than at the EH?"

 

You see, the EH is simply the point where the effect of gravity overwhelms the ability of light to escape... it's being pulled into the BH faster than it's velocity in the opposite direction (much like a spaceship must have a greater upward thrust than the gravity at the surface of earth pulling it back down, the light's "thrust" is not great enough to escape... it's escape velocity is too slow... once past the event horizon). This does not mean that the effect of gravity cannot still become greater further into the BH.

 

 

 

I too would like for us to better understand the nature of the cosmos, but you seem to be arguing against well established information which has been consistently replicated. In the spirit of Einstein's work improving that which was done by Newton, can you instead propose something which works better?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is this true?

To see the publication which really prompted our current discussion, be sure to check out the following:

 

 

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v61/i13/p1446_1

[BenTheMan]

Ahh farsight---there you go again...misunderstanding physics and breaking Lorentz Invariance.

 

The thing is this, iNow: as we speak, no object anywhere has fallen through any black hole event horizon anywhere. The infinite time dilation means that the "progress as normal" situation does not in fact progress.

 

This is only relative to an observer at infinity. I had a discussion about this with some graduate students last week when I was at Princeton. The time dilation is infinite only when compared to a frame that is infinitely far away. Otherwise the time dilation is large but non-infinite. This means that a nearby observer (i.e. Chandra) can see a black hole form, but asymptotic observes never see such events. (This is at the heart of Hawking's new ideas about information loss---locally it is a fact, but asymptotically observers never see a black hole form, so there can be no information loss.)

 

True, but note that gravity can't get any "stronger" than it gets at the event horizon.

 

Patently false for a plethora of reasons. just look at the potential. At least classically, one expects potentials to be smooth functions, which contrasts what you say.

 

No, this is garbage. There is no singularity at the centre of a black hole.

 

Sure, this is old news---quantum gravity effects take over at the planck scale. But classically, it's quite clear that there is a singularity. And if you're not willing to accept string theory or loop quantum gravity, then you'd better have something good to motivate this statement.

 

I can't give you any actual evidence.

 

This pretty much sums up Farsight's work.

[fattyjwoods]

No, this is garbage. There is no singularity at the centre of a black hole. Instead time dilation goes infinite at the event horizon. This means that right now, anything that has ever fallen into a black hole has not reached the centre, and never ever will. Look up the "Weinberg Interpretation" and "frozen stars".

 

alright i didnt write the bit about the singularity. Its the evidence that hundredes of scientists came up with.

 

There is no inside to a black hole.

 

Then what happens if you get sucked in. do u get crushed? there has to be a inside because what happens if you go inside it?

 

i don get this

[iNow]

Then what happens if you get sucked in. do u get crushed? there has to be a inside because what happens if you go inside it?

 

Take your time, friend. It's not an easy topic, but it's not impossible either.

 

Look here:

 

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... <more at link above>

[fattyjwoods]

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?

 

well dosent the gravitational thingy pull you in? well sooner or later

 

ahaaa! so there is a singualarty. man itll be so cool to fall into one of those things

[Farsight]

Could be that they didn't work. That's the beauty of science, it's amenable. However, perhaps you'd be so kind as to give more information on the Weinberg Interpretation you reference, preferably a few links? It seems, upon quick search, to be related to the many-worlds interpretation of QM, and I'm not sure how/why it would apply here in this discussion. I'd prefer not to email you, but thanks for your PM. Please post here if you have further information.

 

Here's an interesting article on The formation and growth of black holes, by a chap called Kevin Brown:

 

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s7-02/7-02.htm

 

It's not evidence, you can't treat it as definitive, but it is interesting. See this excerpt regarding Weinberg:

 

Remember that historically the two most common conceptual models for general relativity have been the "geometric interpretation" (as exemplified by Misner/Thorne/Wheeler's "Gravitation") and the "field interpretation" (as in Weinberg's "Gravitation and Cosmology"). These two views are operationally equivalent outside event horizons, but they tend to lead to different conceptions of the limit of gravitational collapse. According to the field interpretation, a clock runs increasingly slowly as it approaches the event horizon (due to the strength of the field), and the natural "limit" of this process is that the clock just asymptotically approaches "full stop" (i.e., running at a rate of zero) as it approaches the horizon. It continues to exist for the rest of time, but it's "frozen" due to the strength of the gravitational field. Within this conceptual framework there's nothing more to be said about the clock's existence. This leads to the "frozen star" conception of gravitational collapse.

 

Huh? Relative to what? Why do you think we have tides in the oceans here on Earth? There's a relative difference in the effect of gravity at the two ends (while this results from the moon, my contention relates specifically to tidal forces). Same with an object falling into a blackhole. Can you support your comment that "gravity can't get any stronger than at the EH?

 

You see, the EH is simply the point where the effect of gravity overwhelms the ability of light to escape... it's being pulled into the BH faster than it's velocity in the opposite direction (much like a spaceship must have a greater upward thrust than the gravity at the surface of earth pulling it back down, the light's "thrust" is not great enough to escape... it's escape velocity is too slow... once past the event horizon). This does not mean that the effect of gravity cannot still become greater further into the BH.

 

If you drop an object from an "infinite height" and let it fall into a black hole, by the time it reaches the event horizon, it will be travelling at c. If it kept on falling and accelerating, it would then be travelling faster than c. My physics doesn't allow things to travel faster than c, because in the end we're made out of "electromagnetic effects", in other words light.

 

I too would like for us to better understand the nature of the cosmos, but you seem to be arguing against well established information which has been consistently replicated. In the spirit of Einstein's work improving that which was done by Newton, can you instead propose something which works better?

 

What I'm arguing for is closer to what Einstein actually said rather than what people say he said. I've ended up with something that seems very much like "Einstein's geometrical dream", where forces and matter can be described in terms of space geometry. It's only a toy model, with no mathematical rigour. But it involves "moebius solitons", and it's only recently that the moebius strip has been described mathematically.

 

http://seedmagazine.com/news/2007/07/loopy_logic_moebius_strip_ridd.php

 

alright i didnt write the bit about the singularity. Its the evidence that hundreds of scientists came up with.

There's no "evidence" of a singularity, fatty. Not one shred of evidence. There's plenty of evidence of black holes, but not of the singularity. It's always in the future. It hasn't formed yet, and never will. Apply this rule of thumb: there are no infinities in nature. If you encounter anything where infinity is mentioned, be suspicious. If somebody says "blahblah is infinite", look for a different concept that removes this infinity.

 

Then what happens if you get sucked in. do u get crushed? there has to be a inside because what happens if you go inside it? I don't get this

If you fall in you get crushed, flattened, and you die. Ever been to a New Year's Eve party where people get on the dance floor and form a big circle to do the hokey cokey? Falling into a black hole is like joining the circle of people. You never actually get past the event horizon. You can't. There are no more events past the event horizon. But that circle of people gets bigger, just as the black hole gets bigger.

[BenTheMan]

If you drop an object from an "infinite height" and let it fall into a black hole, by the time it reaches the event horizon, it will be travelling at c. If it kept on falling and accelerating, it would then be travelling faster than c.

 

But if you dropped something from an infinite height, it would take an infinite amount of time to get to the horizon, right?

 

My physics doesn't allow things to travel faster than c, because in the end we're made out of "electromagnetic effects", in other words light.

 

[fattyjwoods]

There's no "evidence" of a singularity, fatty. Not one shred of evidence. There's plenty of evidence of black holes, but not of the singularity. It's always in the future. It hasn't formed yet, and never will. Apply this rule of thumb: there are no infinities in nature. If you encounter anything where infinity is mentioned, be suspicious. If somebody says "blahblah is infinite", look for a different concept that removes this infinity.

 

well then, whats this

http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/BlackHoleAnat.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

 

While general relativity describes a black hole as a region of empty space with a pointlike singularity at the center and an event horizon at the outer edge, the

 

theres a lot more evidence you know

 

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/blackhole/blackhole.html

 

so are you saying all this is fake

 

http://www.geocities.com/autotheist/Physics/bh.htm

 

oh i nearly forgot the great site inow gave

http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html#q3

check this one out

 

ive found my evidence, wheres yours?

[Farsight]

That's not evidence, fatty. All that stuff is hypothesis. Here's another hypothesis. I don't quite agree with it myself, but I prefer it to the never-never land of a singularity that you only reach at the end of time.

 

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00012DEF-46AA-1F04-BA6A80A84189EEDF&sc=I100322

 

Do print and read this:

 

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s7-02/7-02.htm

 

If you want a visceral conceptual idea of what a black hole really is you have to think of electrodynamics in terms of elastodynamics. Imagine that space is transparent ghostly rubber, wherein a photon is a transverse-wave "shimmy" rippling through the rubber. It's not a perfect analogy, but it's pretty close actually. OK, the real world is three-dimensional, I can't show you that. But I can show you something two dimensional: imagine you've got a black party balloon serving as an analogy of space. To make the analogy a little more lifelike, I shall paint some stars and stuff on this party balloon. I'll take care, and make it as realistic as I can.

 

Are you ready? This can be a little shocking.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here you go:

 

 

It's from the wiki black hole page. It's an artist's depiction of gravitational lensing. But it looks like a hole in the balloon. A black hole really is a hole. It's a hole in space, and you cannot get to the middle, because there is no middle. I've got essays on this entitled BLACK HOLES EXPLAINED and SPACE EXPLAINED, so I could back this up. But these essays contain some knockout stuff so I'm sitting on them for now.

[BenTheMan]

I've got essays on this entitled BLACK HOLES EXPLAINED and SPACE EXPLAINED, so I could back this up. But these essays contain some knockout stuff so I'm sitting on them for now.

 

[fattyjwoods]

So are you trying to say all those "hypothesis" is wrong? Are you also trying to say wikipedia is wrong? and also thousands of other scientists that believe in this "hypothesis"?

 

i agree with you with the "middle part" there is no middle but theres a singularity. Sure you cannot reach it alive but there sure is such a thing!

[iNow]

Farsight,

 

I've read your "Energy Explained," "Charge Explained," "Mass Explained," "Money Explained," and "Time Explained" posts elsewhere, and whlie you are a very good writer (presenting ideas in a friendly, informal, readable style, with lots of neat pictures), your "explained" topics tend too frequently to have multiple inaccuracies. This, my friend, does not help your awesomeness.

 

 

Please, keep up the good work. However, please don't disregard existing data which is contrary to your presentations either.

[fattyjwoods]

so are you saying his interpretationof "theres no such thing as a inside or a singularity" is also a bag of rubbish? good on ya inow.

 

by the way where are these essays?

[Farsight]

So are you trying to say all those "hypothesis" is wrong? Are you also trying to say wikipedia is wrong? and also thousands of other scientists that believe in this "hypothesis"?

 

Yes, they're wrong, and their opinions concerning a currently accepted hypothesis is not evidence. You might feel unhappy about that, but that's how science is. Don't forget that many years ago everybody thought the sun went round the earth. And every last one of them were wrong.

 

There's plenty of people who agree with me, or vice versa if you prefer. You might find it difficult to accept, but one of these people was Schwarzschild himself. He thought his solution was an unreal solution, and he was right.

 

Click on that article I linked to, print it out, sit down, and read it. It doesn't say exactly what I'm telling you, but it presents everything at some length in a reasonable fashion along with different viewpoints. The thing to note is that infinite time dilation at the event horizon is of utmost importance. It means that no collapsing star has finished collapsing yet, and never ever will.

 

Farsight' date='

 

I've read your "Energy Explained," "Charge Explained," "Mass Explained," "Money Explained," and "Time Explained" posts elsewhere, and whlie you are a very good writer (presenting ideas in a friendly, informal, readable style, with lots of neat pictures), your "explained" topics tend too frequently to have multiple inaccuracies. This, my friend, does not help your awesomeness.

 

Please, keep up the good work. However, please don't disregard existing data which is contrary to your presentations either.[/quote']

 

Thanks for reading them. OK there might arguably be some "inaccuracies", because they are fairly brief essays addressed to a certain audience. For example I use the short form E=mc² expression for energy. As it happens I think the long-form is a cop-out, but putting that aside, yes, there's things we could talk about as regards accuracy. But there is no contrary data. If you beg to differ, point it out. Note that there are interpretations that are contrary, but not data. The Shapiro Effect is a case in point.

[fattyjwoods]

Thanks for reading them. OK there might arguably be some "inaccuracies", because they are fairly brief essays addressed to a certain audience. For example I use the short form E=mc² expression for energy. As it happens I think the long-form is a cop-out, but putting that aside, yes, there's things we could talk about as regards accuracy. But there is no contrary data. If you beg to differ, point it out. Note that there are interpretations that are contrary, but not data. The Shapiro Effect is a case in point.

 

so are your interpretations of the "hypothesis" inaccurate as well?

 

can you put some evidence that support your "theory"?