A-wal Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 (edited) I don't see this as baseless in scientific fact or outside of mainstream physics so I'll post it here. If general relativity is right then what happens when the first of two objects free-falling towards a black hole at slightly different distances reaches the horizon from the perspective of the further object? It can't reach the horizon until the second object also reaches the horizon, which means that all objects would have to cross the horizon at the exact same time. Singularities are always a sign that the theory has broken down. Why general relativity is exempt from this obvious rule is completely beyond me. Two objects start along side each other and fall towards a black hole. Before they reach the event horizon one accelerates away. What you have is simply two objects accelerating away from each other. They can't ever reach the speed of light relative to each other no matter how much energy is used because time dilation and length contraction prevent it. No amount of gravity can make that happen because no amount of energy can. General relativity says the falling object does reach the speed of light relative to one accelerating away, but not the other way round. That's the equivalent of the object accelerating away reaching the speed of light. Length contraction can create potentially infinite distance between any object and the event horizon and time dilation slows any object doing it just as they keep any object from reaching the speed of light by creating more distance and giving them less time to cover it. It's exactly the same situation except one is being caused by an outward force and the other by an inward one. You can view acceleration in flat space-time as curvature just as easily as with gravity. The difference is that gravity is positively/inwardly curved and energy is negatively/outwardly curved. The falling object still feels acceleration, it's just called tidal force. General relativity ignores the force felt by the falling object and says look, it's at rest. Well that can just as easily be done with acceleration as well. Acceleration is just as relative as velocity. If acceleration were smoothly distributed thought a body then all that object would feel is the difference in the strength of that acceleration over the different parts of the object. Feeling acceleration is indistinguishable from feeling tidal force. There isn't one example of how they differ, which means that special relativity is a universal theory of acceleration, explaining gravity just as easily as any other force. The reason why General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics don't work together is because General Relativity's wrong. Singularities are not places where the laws of relativity break down. They're places that the laws of relativity prevent from ever being reached. A black hole is a four dimensional bubble of space-time, with the event horizon representing the physical boundary imposed by the speed of light that increases size the more space-time there is between the it and the observer. The concept of curved space-time hasn't been applied correctly and the result is a description of gravity that treats falling objects as equivalent to objects at rest in the sense that a falling object isn't under the influence of a force. This leads to objects being able to accelerate beyond a relative velocity of the speed of light when the pass the event horizon of a black hole, which is impossible. When an object accelerates away from a black hole it can't pass other falling objects at a relative velocity greater than the speed of light no matter how fast it moves away from the black hole. But in General Relativity the relative velocity between them does exceed the speed of light when the falling object reaches the event horizon. This is because a falling object is wrongly considered to be equivalent to an object at rest in the absence of gravity. In this definition gravity becomes a pseudo-force because it's the space-time between them being affected rather than the objects that occupy that space-time. There is absolutely no difference between describing objects as being accelerated by a force and correctly describing the curvature between them as the mechanism for acceleration. There is a universal law of acceleration. When an object accelerates it creates a Rindler horizon which is mistakenly considered as being equivalent to the event horizon of a black hole. There is a gravitational equivalent of the Rindler horizon but it's not an event horizon. The event horizon is the gravitational equivalent of the light speed horizon. The problem is that General Relativity is a failed attempt to formulate Special Relativity, describing gravity as the curvature of the space-time between objects. In other words describing the space-time between objects as changing instead of the objects being accelerated by a force, but if it's done properly it will lead to exactly the same predictions as using Special Relativity to describe gravity as a traditional force because it's equivalent. Acceleration itself is what causes curved space-time, regardless of the cause. To travel along a curved path you have to move through two dimensions simultaneously. If one of those dimensions is time then you feel yourself being pushed back in one spacial dimension in the opposite direction that you're traveling in and you feel yourself being pushed in time instead of feeling yourself being pushed in the opposite direction of two spacial dimensions. Acceleration in a straight line in three dimensions creates a curved path in four dimensions. Galilean Relativity says that there can be no such thing as absolute motion because if an object is heading towards you then you could equally view yourself as moving towards the other object which is static. You can only view motion as the change in the distance between objects. It doesn't even make sense to ask which ones are static and which ones are moving. We normally measure motion relative to the ground, but ground speed is different to air speed because you're measuring your motion relative to a different background. Whenever you look at an object you're seeing it as it was in the past because you're looking further back in time the further away that light is coming from. The relative velocity of the light itself isn't an issue because it was discovered later that the speed of light is constant. It's impossible to even approach the speed of light from your own perspective and it's impossible for anything with mass to move as fast as light relative to anything else with mass. Light moves at the same velocity relative to every object in the universe regardless of the objects velocities relative to each other or the relative velocity of the source of the light. That means that two objects with different relative velocities are seeing the same light moving at different speeds after their velocity relative to the object producing the light is taken into account. If an object is one light year away from you and heading towards you at half the speed of light then you're going to have to see three years of its history in the two years it takes to reach you so it will look to you as though it's moving quickly through time, so the light waves will be more frequent. The higher frequency of the light waves squashes them making their colour blue shifted. It's called Doppler shift. If it's moving away from you then the light waves get stretched which reduces their frequency, red shifting them and making it look to you like it's moving slowly through time. It doesn't mean their speed through time is actually altered because it's relative and they would see you moving just as quickly or slowly through time because the situation is symmetrical. A spaceship leaves Earth and and accelerates to half the speed of light. From Earths perspective the ship is constantly traveling through space-time that's more and more length contracted and time dilated as its acceleration increases so the same amount of energy is moving it over a shorter distance, so its mass has increased (E=mc^2). It would take an infinite amount of energy for the ship to accelerate to a relative velocity of the speed of light. Earth is also covering less distance (length contraction) and is moving slower through time (time dilation) from the perspective of the ship because both frames of reference are equally valid. It would look the same for the ship if Earth were another ship with its headlights pointing in the opposite direction. What separates them is acceleration. In this case the ship started off in the same frame as Earth and then accelerated to half the speed of light. If they were to accelerate back into Earths frame then more time (time dilation) would have passed on the clocks on Earth, so people who were the same age as you will now be older than you. And you would have traveled further through space (length contraction) by Earths measurements, so the distance between the ship and any object in the direction it was accelerating would have been shortened when moving towards it at half the speed of light relative to Earth. So you can travel great distances (because length contracts) very quickly (because time dilates) from the perspective of whichever frame you happen to be in and do it in a short amount of time by your own watch if you accelerate enough but for those who stayed behind it would take longer for you to travel the same distance and you would have further to go. When an object accelerates relative to a magnetic field the electrons get closer together giving the field a negative charge and turning it into an electric field, which is how electricity and magnetism were unified into the electro-magnetic force. That's Einsteins Special Theory Of Relativity. The ship heads back towards Earth at half the speed of light so is seeing us moving towards it at half the speed of light and sees the bubble of light/radio and whatever waves we're emitting as warped with respect to Earth because the light coming towards the ship directly between them is moving away from Earth at half the speed of light from the ships perspective, and the light moving directly away from the ship and Earth is moving away from Earth at one and a half times the speed of light from the ships perspective to keep the speed of light constant. For the ship to come home it needs to accelerate into Earths frame. From the ships perspective the Earth is heading towards it at half the speed of light and the ship needs to be at rest relative to Earth when the Earth reaches them so it's going to have to accelerate in the same direction that the Earth is traveling, which is the opposite direction to where Earth is now so that when Earth catches up with the ship they will be moving at the same speed and it doesn't get a rock so heavy that it has a cloud of gas held to it by gravity, a magnetic field generated by the molten core to protect itself and spaceship building moss smashing into it at half the speed of light. From Earths perspective the ship needs to break. That warped bubble is going to become a perfect sphere from the ships perspective when it reaches the same relative velocity as Earth and becomes static relative to it. To start with the ship sees the light heading towards them between them and Earth as heading away from Earth at half the speed of light, because Earth's moving towards them at half the speed of light which gives the correct combined relative velocity of the light coming towards the ship. When the ship lands it's going to be in a frame of reference where the light was always moving away from Earth at the speed of light, not half the speed of light. Relative velocity is a measurement of distance over time. So the light had further to travel and/or took longer to do it in the ships previous frame so that the light could speed up relative to Earth from the ships perspective when the ship moved into Earths frame to keep the speed of light the same relative to the ship. Either the ship was measuring less distance over the same amount of space (length contraction) in its previous frame making the light travel through less space in the same amount of time, or it was measuring less distance over the same amount of time (time dilation) than Earth was measuring, making the light take longer to travel the same distance. It's actually half of each because any two objects are separated in time and one spacial dimension because you can draw a straight line between any two objects. The light was moving away from Earth at half the speed of light so the extra distance multiplied by the extra time made up the other half. As the ship was braking from Earths perspective it was measuring the same amount of space and time (when the ship was seeing the light moving away from Earth at half the speed of light in the ship previous frame) covering a greater distance (when the ship was seeing the light moving away from Earth at the full speed of light when they're in the same frame after it landed). So it was getting less and less length contracted and time dilated from Earths frame as it accelerated into it, so more time had passed for the Earth than for the ship when the ship returned because it was the ship that accelerated. The way the amount of length contraction and time dilation changes between different frames is called the Lorenz transformations. Basically length contracts and time dilates for any accelerator to keep all of the different velocities of light relative to the same objects from all the different frames of reference consistent with each other. When an object travels along a curved path it's traveling through two dimensions at the same time which is felt as g-force pulling it to one side. Time is also a dimension so an object can travel along a curved path through time and one spacial dimension. This is acceleration and is felt as g-force pulling an object in the opposite direction to its motion. As an object uses constant acceleration to maintain a constant velocity following a curved path through two spacial dimensions it experiences shortening of its initial two dimensions approaching zero as the angle reaches ninety degrees. The same thing happens in the form of time dilation and length contraction when using acceleration to follow a curved path in time and one spacial dimension which are also at right angles to each other, with ninety degrees representing infinite acceleration at a velocity of the speed of light. When an object moves through two spacial dimensions, if you add up the distance it moved through one dimension to the distance it moved it moved through the other spacial dimension then the total is greater than an object that follows a curved path to reach the same point. An observer at rest is moving through one spacial dimension (as long as you're not at rest relative to it) and one temporal dimension (not that there's any real physical difference between them) and because they're not following a curved path it means that they're taking a longer rout than an object that starts off in the same place as them and then accelerates away, then accelerates back along side them. So more time would have passed for the object that accelerated because they followed a curved path, effectively taking a short cut into the future. General Relativity introduces the concept of curved space-time to explain gravity but it assumes that it's somehow fundamentally different to the other forces and applies only to gravity, and leads to different results than it would if you were to view gravity as a force in flat space-time. One of the postulates of General Relativity says acceleration and gravity are equivalent, but it doesn't describe them as equivalent in every sense. General Relativity describes an object in free-fall as equivalent to an object at rest in flat space-time. This creates an area of space-time where gravity overpowers the other outward pushing forces to produce a black hole. The Earth is a solid object which means there's an electro-magnetic force to counteract the Earths gravity and accelerate us upwards. We can't feel gravity pulling us down which is why we can't feel our weight when we're in free-fall, but we can feel the acceleration that's used to resist gravity which is why we feel our weight when we're not falling. Apparently this distinction is able to explain how it's possible for an object to move past a point in space-time where no amount of acceleration will be able to resist the pull of gravity when it reaches the event horizon of a black hole, because curved space-time is able to move them at a relative velocity of the speed of light and beyond because it's doing it without accelerating them and this creates objects of infinite density called singularities, which is where the laws break down. A group of inwardly contracting objects can't become infinitely dense any more than a group of outwardly expanding objects could become infinitely diffuse because that would literally take forever. Instead length contraction and time dilation allow for an unlimited amount of room to accelerate before that could happen, just as they allow for an unlimited amount of room to accelerate before you could reach the speed of light. When there's no force to oppose gravity it causes objects to keep on accelerating indefinitely while the mass is there. This is why Quantum Mechanics and curved space-time don't work together. Quantum Mechanics shows that gravity needs to be quantisized as well, so the whole concept of curved space-time must be the exact equivalent of a traditional force using particles to interact in flat space-time. Objects under different amounts of gravity accelerate away from each other in the same way they would if they were using different amounts of energy to accelerate. The reason you're not supposed to be able to escape from a black hole is because you can't accelerate away because you're relative velocity increases slower from the perspective of an object that's not accelerating (length contraction and time dilation) to keep the relative velocity below the speed of light, which isn't enough to escape because supposedly gravity has accelerated the objects in the opposite direction to a relative velocity faster than the speed of light. That's ridiculous because acceleration is a change in the relative velocity between two objects. No amount of acceleration would allow an object to reach a point where no amount of acceleration in the opposite direction will move them that way because that would mean that it's reached a relative velocity of the speed of light and that would mean that take an infinite amount gravity. If two objects accelerate in opposite directions enough then of course they'll keep moving away from each other no matter how much gravity they're in. Curved space-time just means viewing the space between objects as changing over time instead of viewing the objects themselves as moving, and it should make no difference to the result of anything because they're exactly equivalent. You can clearly see that acceleration and curvature are the same thing if you look at an accelerating object from the perspective of an object with a different relative velocity. When two objects have the same relative velocity they're always following a straight path because you can always draw a straight line between any two objects, but one of them accelerates then the other object will see the accelerating one following a curved path. This is how gravity curves space-time and it obviously doesn't make any difference whether the curvature is caused by a force of energy or a force of mass unless there's reason to think it does, and there just isn't! You could view all acceleration as a curvature of space-time. The fact that an object can feel acceleration when it's caused by an ordinary force but apparently not gravity because it's special is used to justify why the falling object is equivalent a non-accelerating object in flat space-time. There is an equivalent to the g-force you feel when you accelerate called tidal force. Tidal force is caused by the difference in gravitational strength between two parts of the same object. Well so is acceleration when it's caused by energy. The reason we can feel the downwards force of the acceleration of the ground pushing us up but not the upwards force of gravity pulling us down is because the g-force pulling us down is due to all the upwards force of Earth pushing on us being concentrated on our feet when we stand, which is why we feel like we weigh less when we're lying down and decrease the difference in the amount of energy over the different parts of our body. But the tidal force caused by the difference in strength of gravity over the different parts of our body is always very small, so we don't feel it. You can see that acceleration, curvature and gravity are all the same thing if you imagine two objects orbiting in perfect circles on the same plane in opposite directions. If you just look at the relative velocity between two orbiting objects and ignore everything else then as they move apart the curvature of their orbits causes them to accelerate away from each other at an increasing rate until they're on opposite sides of their orbits, and then they accelerate towards each other again. Their watches always match when they pass because their rate of acceleration is always the same as each others. Any object outside the system watching from a distance would be aging quicker because they're not length contracted and time dilated because they're not accelerating. A force can reduce the space-time between objects or it can create space-time between them, in the same way that space-time can be curved inwards, pulling objects in, or curved outwards, pushing them away. Energy pushes matter outwards and mass pulls matter inwards and because E=mc^2 you would expect gravity to be vastly weaker than a force of energy. I'm guessing gravity has exactly the same strength as the equivalent amount of electro-magnetism if you times it by the speed of light and square it. From the perspective of an object that's using constant acceleration to hover at a constant distance it's impossible for anything to reach an event horizon of a black hole because it's equivalent to an object reaching the speed of light. This is called the Schwarzchild coordinate system. From the perspective of an outside object it's never too late for a falling object (or even an object constantly accelerating towards the black hole) to turn round and come back as long as it has access to an unlimited supply of energy. Gravity increases as an inverse square of the distance so the relative velocity of a free-falling object quadruples when the distance is halved from the perspective of any object that's static relative to the black hole. Length contraction and time dilation continually increase at an increasing rate the closer they look to the horizon, in exactly the same way that it would if they were watching an accelerating object approaching the speed of light relative to them. An object that's quadrupling its acceleration every time the distance between you is halved would never be able to reach you because if the distance between you were to reach zero then the object would be infinitely accelerated and would have reached the speed of light relative to you, but in General Relativity it is supposedly possible for a falling object to reach the speed of light relative to the singularity and every outside object in the universe, which is why not even light can escape from inside an event horizon. General Relativity describes a falling object as equivalent to an object at rest and an object at rest relative to the black hole as equivalent to an accelerating object. It's true that the hovering object is constantly accelerating to maintain a constant distance but the fact that it's consistent means that a hovering object is the equivalent of an object at rest in the absence of gravity because the pull of gravity in one direction is being canceled out by the push of the engines in the opposite direction. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Whenever an object accelerates it creates what's know as a Rindler horizon following behind it. It marks the point past which nothing, not even light would be able to catch an accelerating object as long as it keeps accelerating at at least the same rate. If the object keeps its acceleration constant then the Rindler horizon stays the same distance behind them. It starts off very far away at low acceleration and gets closer to the object if its acceleration increases and would catch up to them if they were able to accelerate to the speed of light, since light from behind this horizon could never reach reach them, which is why it's paradoxical to reach the speed of light. Objects can't ever reach the Rindler horizon from the accelerators perspective. They just get more and more length contracted and time dilated as their velocity increases relative to the accelerating object in exactly the same way that the accelerating object gets more and more length contracted and time dilated from the perspective of an object at rest. They do however cross the Rindler horizon from their own perspective at the point when light from them will never catch up to the accelerating object as long as they don't decrease their rate of acceleration and this is the reason for the difference on their watches when they meet up because it means the accelerator is measuring less distance in space and time the further they look towards the Rindler horizon so that nothing reaches it from their perspective. An object moving past a Rindler horizon from their own perspective is often compared to a falling object moving past the event horizon of a black hole from their own perspective, but that doesn't follow because that's the equivalent of saying objects can reach a velocity of the speed of light relative to every object in the universe when they reach the event horizon of a black hole, but only from their own perspective. Apparently the Schwarzchild coordinates don't cover the entire manifold and that's why a falling object can't reach an event horizon from the perspective of an outside object. A coordinate system that doesn't cover the entire manifold isn't valid. It would mean that there's no absolute truth even within the context of your own frame of reference because objects would be both inside and outside the event horizon and moving above and below the speed of light at the same time when other coordinate systems are taken into account. It's the falling object that's experiencing increasing length contraction and time dilation, and at an ever increasing rate as they approach the speed of light. Less time would have passed for the falling object if they were to pull away and compare watches with the hovering object, so the falling object is obviously equivalent to an accelerating object. There's no distinction between being accelerated by gravity (mass) and being accelerated by energy other than the cause and the fact that mass attracts and energy repels, or mass curves space-time inwards and energy curves it outwards, depending on how you want to look at it. The event horizon isn't equivalent to the Rindler horizon, it's equivalent to the light speed horizon, which would make perfect sense considering the event horizon is the point when any falling object would have accelerated to the speed of light relative to any outside object, which no amount of gravity should be able to do just as no amount of energy can. The equivalent to a Rindler horizon is a horizon that follows behind a faller that even light can't reach them from behind as long as they keep falling at at least the same rate that objects can't reach from the fallers perspective because they just get more and more time dilated and length contracted without ever reaching the horizon. The falling object is being accelerated purely by gravity, so is moving towards an unreachable horizon that's moving away from them at the speed of light and would be length contracted and time dilated from the perspective of a non-accelerating object, exactly like an object approaching the speed light. This horizon would cross them in the opposite direction if they were able to reach the event horizon so that no object in front of them up to an ever increasing distance would be able to catch them. That's the exact equivalent of an objects Rindler horizon overtaking it in the opposite direction if they were able to accelerate to the speed of light so that no object in front of them up to a certain distance would be able to catch them, and it makes exactly the same amount of sense. If nothing can reach a falling object from beyond this horizon then an object following behind them would never be able to reach them no matter how much they accelerate as long as the faller keeps falling at at least the same rate, so what happens when an object from behind this horizon approaches a falling object that they can never catch but also an object that can never reach the event horizon? All an object being accelerated by energy can do is increase its velocity relative to other objects up to but not including the speed of light no matter how much it accelerates. I have no idea why the same wouldn't apply when it's being accelerated by gravity instead of energy. The event horizon must be moving inwards at the speed of light instead of outwards so that the distance between you and the horizon decreases in the same way that the distance between you and the speed of light decreases as you approach it in flat space-time using an equivalent amount of energy. No amount of energy will reduce the gap between an observer and either the speed of light or an event horizon to zero. Gravity is accelerating you towards the black hole and into an area with higher gravity which accelerates you at a greater rate, so of course you're going to approach speed of light without ever reaching it as you get closer to the black hole. If an object were to reach an event horizon it would mean that object has reached a velocity of the speed of light relative to any object on the outside and that the force pulling it in one direction couldn't be overcome by an infinite force in the opposite direction because even accelerating to the speed of light in the opposite direction wouldn't be enough to escape. It's always impossible for any object to reach an event horizon, which isn't surprising because it would mean they have accelerated to the speed of light relative to you. According to General Relativity it's always possible that an object can move away from a black hole from the perspective of any outside object, but this isn't the case for the falling object. From their perspective they are able to cross the event horizon without any problem. This is where physicists say that a coordinate system from the point of view of a distant observer isn't a good one for describing an object reaching the horizon and you have to use one that follows the faller. The fact that General Relativity has to use two completely contradictory coordinate systems to describe the same event is the problem not a solution. I think it's a big contradiction when you start considering what would happen if you tried to follow an object passed an event horizon that object can't reach the horizon from your perspective until you do. But if objects can cross the event horizon in front of you from your perspective before you reach the horizon yourself then if you move away so they're outside the horizon again then they've either escaped from inside the horizon or you've traveled back in time. If there's two ships and one of them flashes a light just before they reach the event horizon from their own perspective as a signal for the second ship to start falling and then a second flash a split second later just after they pass then horizon then will the second ship see the second flash before they reach the horizon? If they do then light has escaped from inside the horizon. If the second ship sees the first ship reach the event horizon but not the second flash before reaching it themselves then the first object is in two places at once because the second object is seeing the first object before they crossed the event horizon because they haven't seen the second flash. They would also be outside the event horizon from the perspective of an object hovering at the same distance that the second objects reached when it sees the first object crossing the event horizon, and that still leaves the problem of what would happen if the second ship fell until they saw the first ship cross the horizon and then starting accelerating away. The first ship would have to then reemerge from inside the event horizon. If the first object doesn't reach the horizon from the second objects perspective before they reach it then the only way an object can be observed reaching an event horizon is if the observing object also reaches it. If this is the case then everything that reaches the horizon has to do it at exactly the same time, and it's always infinitely far off in the future for someone who doesn't cross the horizon. Everything that's ever going to happen in the universe including the second object seeing the first objects light flash and then coming along side them has to happen before the first object reaches the horizon. Black holes don't live forever so at what point in its life does everything cross its horizon? Both objects are in free-fall and the first object is always closer to the singularity than the second object, so is always in higher gravity and always being pulled away from the second object. The gap between them can increase from the second objects perspective as they fall because the first object is always falling through space-time that's more length contracted and time dilated than the second object is falling through. So the distances the first object is covering in space and time look less to the second object, making the first object cover less space and move through time slower from the second objects perspective. But the distance between them has to continuously increase from the first objects perspective as long as they both continue to free-fall, so there must be distance between them when the second object reaches the horizon. If the second object can see the second flash before reaching the horizon then that light has escaped from inside the event horizon, but the second object should be able to see it because the first object sent that flash a moment after they crossed the horizon and the second object is seeing the first object inside the horizon. The event horizon is the point when light wouldn't be able to escape so you can never see an object reaching the event horizon, no matter how close you are to it. To say that the object might have fallen in but you can't see whether it has or not makes no sense. Light keeps slowing down at an ever increasing rate as you approach the event horizon because time does. It's just the same as time slowing down at an ever increasing rate as you approach light speed from the perspective of a non-accelerating observer. From the outside it's always possible for any object to move away from an event horizon (if it had an unlimited supply of energy) no matter how close it gets so it can't be possible for anything to reach an event horizon from the perspective of anything outside it, which means it can't be reached from the perspective of anything falling towards it either. You can create a black hole using a magnet. It's infinitely dense and has infinite strength within a certain range, which is only fair as the singularity is infinitely dense and has infinite gravitational strength over a range dependent on its mass. The magnet has a tiny mass so we can ignore its gravitational attraction. A magnetic object stays an equal distance between the infinitely dense magnet and a black hole hole on the other side, and its gravitational and magnetic attraction are perfectly balanced. The infinitely dense magnet and the black hole aren't moving towards each other. The infinitely dense magnet has a small rocket attached to it and the black hole isn't magnetic. Two more identical objects sit either side of the first object, one slightly closer to the infinitely dense magnet and one slightly closer to the black hole. The two objects slowly drift apart and away from the first object until the black holes affect on the magnet and the infinitely dense magnets affect on the object falling towards the black hole are small enough to be ignored. The magnet and the object falling towards the black hole accelerate away from the object in the centre at an ever increasing rate. Eventually the objects appear to be slowing down from a distance as they become more and time dilated and length contracted as they approach the infinitely dense magnet and the singularity. There's a line that marks the closest point that any object could have gotten to the infinitely dense magnet or the singularity because the two accelerating objects can never reach a velocity of the speed of light relative to the central object, or even relative to each other. This horizon rushes inwards towards the infinitely dense magnet and the singularity of the black hole at the speed of light from the perspective of anything right at the horizon and following it in, but covers less ground and takes more time to do it from the perspective of anything at a distance. Any object approaching either would get more and more red shifted without ever reaching the horizon/speed of light. That's a black hole. To say that the second magnet can reach the speed of light relative to the central object from its own perspective but not from the perspective of the central object wouldn't make any sense, but that's exactly how a black hole is described with the falling object being able to reach the horizon/speed of light from their own perspective but not from the perspective of anything outside. It would be a blatant contradiction to say that using the magnets, and the two situations are identical. It happens whenever there's infinite density. In the case of a black hole it happens because objects need to held up by a force that's opposing gravity and sometimes there isn't one. There is no actual point of infinite density. No physical object can truly be infinite in any sense. Singularities represent unbounded, not infinite acceleration. Objects just keep on accelerating inwards at a faster and faster rate as they get influence by a higher and higher number of electrons/gravitons or move into a sharper and sharper curvature of space-time created by the magnet/gravitational field if you prefer and get more and more length contracted and time dilated and look more and more red shifted from a distance, but they never reach the speed of light relative to any other objects. Gravity is still an attractive force when the arrow of time is reversed in the same way acceleration due to nuclear fusion inside a sun is still a repulsive force. Objects will still be held to Earth and stars don't collapse if you run time backwards. Black holes in General Relativity aren't time reversible because if an object has crossed an event horizon it can't then cross it again in the opposite direction if the arrow of time is reversed. A black hole with an event horizon that moves inwards is time reversible. It looks the same from whichever direction in space and time you look at from. It creates a four dimensional sphere instead of a funnel. A sphere is exactly what shape it should be because it's length in time should be no different than its length in the three spacial dimensions. The first affect of inward moving event horizon on an object right next to it when it forms would be to pull it towards a fully formed collapsing black hole, but it wouldn't last long and wouldn't be very big if you were this close to it. It gets smaller in all four dimensions as time dilation and length contraction increase at a greater rate the closer you get to the singularity. The singularity is a single point in time as well as space because time dilation as well as length contraction are infinite at zero range. It gets bigger and longer lived the further you are away from it, at a rate dependent on its mass. A black hole is just what a singularity looks like from a distance. If you were able to reach an event horizon the tidal force would be infinite because the part of the object crossing the horizon would have been accelerated to light speed relative to any parts of the object outside the horizon. This would spaghettify any object approaching the horizon and the fact that all the way along the length of the object from the front to the back would have to cross the horizon at the same time means the object would become singularity because the horizon and the singularity are the same thing at zero range. The event horizon marks the closest point any object could have gotten to the singularity at the time that you're seeing it, because it's how close an object right next to it when it formed and constantly moving towards it at the speed of light would have gotten. That's the real reason why nothing can escape an event horizon, because there will never be time to reach one, which is why any object approaching one gets more red-shifted from the outside the closer they are to the horizon without ever falling in. Any object approaching it would never be able to reach the speed of light because it would take forever to get there because of time dilation and length contraction. Instead velocities are added in the same way they are in flat space-time. Time is not a special dimension and shouldn't be treated any differently from the other three dimensions, and gravity is not a special force and shouldn't be treated any differently from the other three forces. The only difference with gravity is the cause. All the individual atoms have electrons orbiting them. You can view them as moving in straight lines through space-time that's curved by the strong nuclear force or has as being influenced by tiny force carrying particles in flat space-time. Length contraction and time dilation affect an object accelerating in an straight line in way that keeps their relative velocity below the speed of light but when traveling on a curved path it would be infinitely length contracted and time dilated if it didn't spread outwards pulling objects towards it as gravity, with a higher mass producing a stronger pull because it's caused by the spin of all the electrons which is what gives atoms their mass. Singularities aren't real physical objects, in the sense that they can't ever be reached but it's still useful to refer to them in that context. Singularities are a point-like objects in time as well as space so when the black hole reaches the end of it's life any matter that's close to the horizon is converted to pure energy and released as a gamma ray burst. It's carried by the same outward shock wave that's caused by the expansion of the black hole, because there and be no time between the beginning and the end of the black holes life at the singularity but it obviously doesn't stop expanding outwards when the black hole reaches its maximum size. There's another object that can be turned from a three dimensional cone into a four dimensional sphere. The universe is normally thought of as starting from an infinitely small point and expanding because of the mysterious force of dark energy that expands space. The further away in space you look, the more dark energy there is between you and the object you're looking at so the more red shifted it gets because it's moving away from us faster, but saying time has a beginning is equivalent to saying space has an edge. There's a far simpler explanation. Gravity, curvature and acceleration are all the same thing and are seen as red shift. When we look across space-time to distant galaxies the curvature of the universe becomes noticeable like seeing just the top of a ship as comes over the horizon of the curvature of Earth, and they get more red-shifted the further away they are as they approach the horizon. Sound familiar? It doesn't mean the galaxies are closer together in the past. That's not what it would look like if you were there. Space is unbounded, not infinite, like the surface of Earth. It has no beginning or end so the further away you move from an object in one direction, the closer you get to it in the opposite direction. You're always in the centre from your own perspective. The further you get in one direction, the closer you get in the opposite direction of time as well as space. Why wouldn't the No Boundary principle apply to time as well? The space we're in now is just over the horizon in every direction. The space at the edge is the space we're in, like a fractal, but when we look out to the horizon the horizon itself is the moment of the big bang because the speed of light means if we look further away in space then we look further back in time. We see objects that look like they've been moving away from each other for fourteen billion years, but it always looks like that. Looking towards the edge of the universe from anywhere in it we see the space-time we're in right now because space-time is curved into a loop. A black hole is what a four dimensional sphere looks like from the outside. From the inside it looks like the universe. The horizon is unreachable from both sides. From the outside you keep heading towards it until it at a faster rate until it's gone and it lasts for less time the closer you get, and from the inside you just go round in circles in time as well as space. The strength of the forces is very important for the universe. If gravity were slightly higher the universe would collapse and if it was slightly lower the universe would fly apart according to General Relativity. This lead to the Strong Anthropic principle that says there are many universes so there's bound to be one that has just the right set of rules (the Weak Anthropic principle being that the universe is exactly the way it is because if it wasn't then we wouldn't be hear to ask questions about why it's the way it is), but these aren't needed in a spherical four dimensional universe. If there were less energy in the universe then it would take less energy to make and accelerate atoms and if they were more mass in the universe then it would take more energy to make and accelerate atoms, so either way there would be exactly the same amount of atoms as there are now so proportionally nothing changes and everything would stay exactly the same. When looking across towards the other side of the universe in space or time everything appears to funnel into a singularity from the observers perspective creating what's known as dark flow in space and the big bang when it's done in time. Edited October 6, 2012 by A-wal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 So where's the theory? All I see is word salad. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-wal Posted October 6, 2012 Author Share Posted October 6, 2012 The theory is contained within the word salad that you obviously didn't even read. If you mean maths and diagrams and funny looking symbols, stuff like that, then search for the special theory of relativity. It shouldn't be that hard to find. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Singularities are always a sign that the theory has broken down. Why general relativity is exempt from this obvious rule is completely beyond me. It is not exempt in any way. However, we realise just how good it is at describing classical gravity, provided we are not too close to singularities. The same is true of classical electrodynamics. Here we have the electron self-energy, which if infinite. This means it would take an infinite amount of energy to "assemble an electron". This was resolved when the quantum theory of electrodynamics was discovered. It is expected that a similar situation will be true to the singularities found in general relativity. A quantum theory of gravity would regulate these. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-wal Posted October 6, 2012 Author Share Posted October 6, 2012 Yet it's always claimed that objects can cross the event horizon and reach the singularity from their own perspective in a finite amount of proper time, but not from any other perspective. That's the exact equivalent of saying that an object can accelerate past the speed of light in flat space-time from its own perspective but not from any other. There's no need for quantum mechanics to explain black holes. Special relativity does it perfectly well of it's applied it to mass in the same way that it's used for energy. The confusion arises under extreme gravity because a free-falling object is not equivalent to and object at rest. Being accelerated by gravity is no different than being accelerated by energy accept that it creates an inward curvature in space-time instead of an outward one. It's no different to following a curved path in two spacial dimensions either way. The acceleration felt through gravity is tidal force. There's never enough time to reach the event horizon, as the Schwarzschild and Rindler coordinate systems clearly show. The event horizon is equivalent to the speed of light horizon, not the Rindler horizon. The equivalent to the Rindler horizon is the point behind a falling object where nothing can reach them as long as they keep accelerating at at least the same rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 A wal, you say "Two objects start along side each other and fall towards a black hole. Before they reach the event horizon one accelerates away. " Why. That's not what I'd expect to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-wal Posted October 6, 2012 Author Share Posted October 6, 2012 (edited) The one that accelerates away is using conventional acceleration. Both are accelerating away from each other in exactly the same way, other than the fact that the one moving away has to accelerate harder to overcome the gravity of the black hole but just take that into account so that they're both moving away at the same rate from the perspective of a third object accelerating just enough to stay stationary relative to the black hole. It's silly to say that the one being accelerated purely by gravity can reach the speed of light relative to the object moving away from the black hole but the one moving away can't reach the speed of light relative to the falling object, but that's exactly what general relativity says. There's no difference between flat and curved space-time. It only depends on how you want to look at it. Edited October 6, 2012 by A-wal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amaton Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 If you mean maths and diagrams and funny looking symbols, stuff like that, then search for the special theory of relativity. It shouldn't be that hard to find. I'm no physicist by any means, but I have to ask... Do you have a distaste for mathematical formulation? If so, to me that earns you some discredit. It's not simply "maths and diagrams and funny looking symbols". It's the laws of our universe as provided in our most accepted models. If you don't know the math, you'll never truly understand the theory. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-wal Posted October 6, 2012 Author Share Posted October 6, 2012 (edited) No, you've got it backwards. If it can't be explained without resorting to mathematics then whoever's explaining it doesn't truly understand it. Maths is a short cut, but an extremely precise one. All the equations have already been done in the special theory of relativity. The whole point is that gravity is no different from conventional acceleration except that it produces an inwards curvature of space-time instead of outwards, it's caused by mass instead of energy and it's strength is divided by the speed of light squared because of it. Edited October 6, 2012 by A-wal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 "The one that accelerates away is using conventional acceleration. " Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-wal Posted October 6, 2012 Author Share Posted October 6, 2012 (edited) What do you mean why? To show that the two types of acceleration are equivalent, that's why! It has a cold fusion anti-matter hyperdrive ™. (: Why the fcuk has this been moved? I knew this would happen. All because of that maths comment. I know most of you love to pretend that you've got a deeper understanding than anyone else has a right to have and I must be bruising you fragile little egos but don't blame me if the truth hurts! I've already stated at least three times that all the mathematics used to describe everything I'm talking about is in special relativity! Do you want me to just copy and paste that? If this doesn't belong in the relativity forum then I don't know what the hell does! You want speculation? Okay. Dark matter is caused by burned out stars known as black dwarves. In the current model there hasn't been enough time for any to exist, but in an eternal universe there could be loads. That's speculation. See the difference? I can can show very clearly why everything in the opening post is accurate. Show me one part of it that's speculative! Edited October 6, 2012 by A-wal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 No, you've got it backwards. If it can't be explained without resorting to mathematics then whoever's explaining it doesn't truly understand it. Since mathematics is the language of physics, this is like saying "If Shakespeare can't be explained without resorting to English then whoever's explaining it doesn't truly understand it." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 So, you actually meant "Two objects one of which has some sort of propulsion system start along side each other and fall towards a black hole. Before they reach the event horizon one accelerates away. What you have is simply two objects accelerating away from each other. " That makes a huge difference. In that absence of such a drive you could model the system using the conservation of energy and/ or momentum but if it has an engine that makes a difference to how you work out what should happen. Is there anything else you didn't specify? The thing is that with science you really need to make it clear what you are talking about. And you have not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 No, you've got it backwards. If it can't be explained without resorting to mathematics then whoever's explaining it doesn't truly understand it. Maths is a short cut, but an extremely precise one. All the equations have already been done in the special theory of relativity. The whole point is that gravity is no different from conventional acceleration except that it produces an inwards curvature of space-time instead of outwards, it's caused by mass instead of energy and it's strength is divided by the speed of light squared because of it. Let's try a simple experiment. I've got a hose. I'm going to point it up and away from me at a set angle, and turn the water on at a set amount of force. If you can describe a parabola with enough accuracy that, following only your description, I can predict exactly where the water will land and place a cup there to catch it without your resorting to any math, I will concede the point to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-wal Posted October 6, 2012 Author Share Posted October 6, 2012 'Since mathematics is the language of physics, this is like saying "If Shakespeare can't be explained without resorting to English then whoever's explaining it doesn't truly understand it."' That's an extremely poor analogy. Maths is shorthand. Shakespeares writing is anything but. They're examples of polar opposites. 'So, you actually meant "Two objects one of which has some sort of propulsion system start along side each other and fall towards a black hole. Before they reach the event horizon one accelerates away. What you have is simply two objects accelerating away from each other. " That makes a huge difference. In that absence of such a drive you could model the system using the conservation of energy and/ or momentum but if it has an engine that makes a difference to how you work out what should happen. Is there anything else you didn't specify? The thing is that with science you really need to make it clear what you are talking about. And you have not.' I thought it was implicit, especially when I clarified it by saying conventional acceleration. 'Let's try a simple experiment. I've got a hose. I'm going to point it up and away from me at a set angle, and turn the water on at a set amount of force. If you can describe a parabola with enough accuracy that, following only your description, I can predict exactly where the water will land and place a cup there to catch it without your resorting to any math, I will concede the point to you.' That depends on what you mean by maths. I'm actually using lots of maths, it's just that I'm using words to describe it. From your 'Why has my post been moved to Speculations?' topic: 'No maths. Science requires specific predictions to be made so that a theory may be tested and falsified if it is wrong. Work that needs but lacks a legitimate mathematical framework is almost certain to be moved.' No new maths involved. It's all in the special theory of relativity. 'Incomprehensible. Science uses well-defined terminology, so if you have made up your own, or you have equations and calculations but they are not explained so that anyone can understand them, the material will be moved. The burden is upon you to present the material using the framework that already exists.' The framework that already exists is the special theory of relativity, which I'm using to debunk the general version. 'You are contradicting accepted science. Accepted science has a large amount of data supporting it, so if your thesis runs contrary to experimental results, you have basically pre-falsified your work. If you are proposing a new theory, it has to do better than the one it's supplanting. Remember, you have to be consistent with all of what has been observed, not just some small subset of it.' Oh it most definitely does a whole crap load better than the one it's supplanting. 'No evidence. You have presented no scientific evidence to support your claims. In this context, this means data or observations consistent with your thesis, and also not predicted or explained by accepted science. Vague predictions that can be satisfied by a wide range of results carry little weight.' Dark energy, singularities, dark flow... ect. 'No physical basis A reasoned rationale to justify the hypothesis must exist. A bunch of unconnected numbers or unjustified statements is not science.' I believe I've taken care of that, in the original post and definitely in the subsequent ones. 'Obvious errors. A quick inspection shows statements that are not true. Your conclusion can't be valid if based on a flawed argument.' You can't possibly know that you're wrong, only that you were wrong. Show me where I'm wrong and I will be perfectly willing to concede defeat and bow down to the clever scientists. I'm willing to admit I was wrong if it's shown to be the case, but are you? 'It's not science. Science concerns itself with empirically describing how nature behaves. There must be a means by which the hypothesis can be proven false. Philosophy and metaphysics are separate topics, and for these purposes, considered speculation.' Get a rope and attach them to two space ships, one of which keeps falling towards the while the other hovers until the rope goes taut, which has been calculated as after the free-fallers has crossed the event horizon in proper time from their own perspective according to general relativity. If general relativity is right then for some reason it shouldn't be possible for the other ship to pull the falling one out despite the fact that the falling ship hasn't reached the event horizon from the other ships perspective. If I'm right then it will always be possible to pull a falling ship out. 'X is wrong! posts are likely candidates to be moved, if X is a well-established theory, such as relativity, quantum mechanics or evolution. Such posts typically ignore the vast amount of evidence in support of the theories, and fail to cite any actual contradictory experimental evidence.' Show me one piece of evidence that refutes what anything I've said and supports general relativity at the same time. There isn't one criteria under your own set of rules that justifies this thread being moved! Shenanigans! All because I said that maths is a short cut. It is! Do you really think that someone who can explain it in equation but not words has a better understanding than someone who can explain it in words but not equations? Or is it that you've had so many crackpots in here that you can no longer tell when someone does know what they're talking about? If you move it back to the relativity section then I promise I'll give you the best and clearest description of evolution you've ever read to show to all the creationists! Speaking of which, if you think you know better then you should have absolutely no hesitation in engaging in an actual debate with me because you will be able to show that my interpretations are based on pre-defined notions of how it should work based on at least one faulty assumption that I'm clinging to because I'm not willing to accept the possibility that my rigorously held beliefs are wrong, like, let's say creationists, so as not to embarrass anyone any further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronald Hyde Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 No, you've got it backwards. If it can't be explained without resorting to mathematics then whoever's explaining it doesn't truly understand it. Maths is a short cut, but an extremely precise one. All the equations have already been done in the special theory of relativity. The whole point is that gravity is no different from conventional acceleration except that it produces an inwards curvature of space-time instead of outwards, it's caused by mass instead of energy and it's strength is divided by the speed of light squared because of it. I don't believe that math is a short cut at all. My own view is that the World is somehow made of mathematical relationships, that's all there is to it, so that it must be described mathematically, all current theories are expressed mathematically and I see no way of expressing them any other way. That math underlies everything and there is no way to fit a 'physical picture' underneath the math. It's very illogical captain! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 That's an extremely poor analogy. Maths is shorthand. Shakespeares writing is anything but. They're examples of polar opposites. Yet it shows you the limitations of words when applied to physical concepts. Maths is NOT shorthand. Mathematics is a language with a much more formal structure and definitions that aren't in dispute the way ordinary languages can be. It allows for the discernment of patterns and allows data to be analyzed much more precisely than ordinary language. It's always interesting to me that people who have a hard time with GR or SR (it's almost never both) also claim that the maths are unimportant. That at least is one pattern ordinary language can deal with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 I think the biggest fault of the OP is that its toooo looong and too verbose and just for that reason it should be moved to the least popular forum. No-one should have to read something like that; I certainly didn't. Next time just get to the point before everyone loses interest. I did get something from one of your later posts and I think you need to look up the definition of escape velocity, It is defined as the speed at which an object escapes a gravitational potential to INFINITY. This speed, at the event horizon of a black hole ( simple Swartzchild, not charged and non rotating, so not likely to actually exist ) is the speed of light. Since the inverse is also applicable, in effect, an object would need to be accelerated by a black hole from infinitely far away to reach the speed of light at the event horizon of a simple Swartzchild black hole and in the absence of any other gravitational forces along the way. Not very likely, is it. Black holes are the simplest macroscopic constructs that we know of. The external, macroscopic event horizon is described explicitly byGR and just a few numbers. The fact that its microscopic features, like the possible singularity, is beyond our current ability to describe, is no reason to throw out the GR baby along with the bathwater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Do you really think that someone who can explain it in equation but not words has a better understanding than someone who can explain it in words but not equations? Oh, completely. Words are slippery things, with meanings and definitions which change over time. They are imprecise, and often increase confusion rather than alleviating it. Or is it that you've had so many crackpots in here that you can no longer tell when someone does know what they're talking about? We've had so many that we can tell when they show up again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mellinia Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 (edited) General Relativity describes an object in free-fall as equivalent to an object at rest in flat space-time. This creates an area of space-time where gravity overpowers the other outward pushing forces to produce a black hole. The Earth is a solid object which means there's an electro-magnetic force to counteract the Earths gravity and accelerate us upwards. We can't feel gravity pulling us down which is why we can't feel our weight when we're in free-fall, but we can feel the acceleration that's used to resist gravity which is why we feel our weight when we're not falling. Apparently this distinction is able to explain how it's possible for an object to move past a point in space-time where no amount of acceleration will be able to resist the pull of gravity when it reaches the event horizon of a black hole, because curved space-time is able to move them at a relative velocity of the speed of light and beyond because it's doing it without accelerating them and this creates objects of infinite density called singularities, which is where the laws break down. I think the post is moved here because thinking that GR fails while SR can explain is definitely outside of mainstream. And that people are more likely to read and ponder about the idea if it's here. Stopped reading there. We experience an upwards electromagnetic force on earth? In free fall, the apparatus falls with us. Outside of freefall, the apparatus don't, right? Edited October 7, 2012 by Mellinia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-wal Posted October 7, 2012 Author Share Posted October 7, 2012 "The one that accelerates away is using conventional acceleration. " Why? I can't get over this. All you're doing is going out of your way to find fault. It's very obvious and more than a little pathetic. If that's the best you could do then I must have made a pretty good job of it. It's either that or you really didn't infer that the object must be accelerating under its own power, which would reflect a lot more on you're level of comprehension than on mine. Which is it? I don't believe that math is a short cut at all. My own view is that the World is somehow made of mathematical relationships, that's all there is to it, so that it must be described mathematically, all current theories are expressed mathematically and I see no way of expressing them any other way. That math underlies everything and there is no way to fit a 'physical picture' underneath the math. It's very illogical captain! (: I actually completely agree with this. I've just had a conversation on ted about this. I don't know the rules here about linking off site but you can search for 'We create the universe' if you're interested. I think that maths is all there really is, but if that's the lens you want to look through then what's the point of being alive? I think the biggest fault of the OP is that its toooo looong and too verbose and just for that reason it should be moved to the least popular forum. No-one should have to read something like that; I certainly didn't. Next time just get to the point before everyone loses interest. Right, if I miss something that should be very obvious that I really shouldn't have to specifically spell out then I'm not being precise enough, but if I use too many words then I'm over elaborating. I can't win can I? I did get to the point quickly, right at the start before the first long paragraph. I did get something from one of your later posts and I think you need to look up the definition of escape velocity, It is defined as the speed at which an object escapes a gravitational potential to INFINITY. This speed, at the event horizon of a black hole ( simple Swartzchild, not charged and non rotating, so not likely to actually exist ) is the speed of light. Since the inverse is also applicable, in effect, an object would need to be accelerated by a black hole from infinitely far away to reach the speed of light at the event horizon of a simple Swartzchild black hole and in the absence of any other gravitational forces along the way. Not very likely, is it. I know that! WTF does that have to do with anything? No it doesn't seem very likely! That's the whole point! Don't criticise something that you haven't even bothered to read! No dude, I think you're the one who needs to do some research. Reaching the speed of light relative to any outside object is precisely the reason why objects wouldn't be able to escape from inside an event horizon, but this also prevents them from reaching it in the first place because it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object to the point where it could never escape. Black holes are the simplest macroscopic constructs that we know of. The external, macroscopic event horizon is described explicitly byGR and just a few numbers. The fact that its microscopic features, like the possible singularity, is beyond our current ability to describe, is no reason to throw out the GR baby along with the bathwater. There is when the current model isn't even self consistent and there's a much simpler and more logical explanation. Oh, completely. Words are slippery things, with meanings and definitions which change over time. They are imprecise, and often increase confusion rather than alleviating it. Only when the person using them doesn't really know what they're talking about. We've had so many that we can tell when they show up again. Then why was this thread moved? I think the post is moved here because thinking that GR fails while SR can explain is definitely outside of mainstream. And that people are more likely to read and ponder about the idea if it's here. No, I think it's because I said something that someone didn't like. Stopped reading there. We experience an upwards electromagnetic force on earth? In free fall, the apparatus falls with us. Outside of freefall, the apparatus don't, right? A black hole is what happens when there's not force to overpower gravity. It's all relative but one way of looking at it is that we're constantly moving upwards away from the centre of the Earth and we feel this as a downwards force, like when you're in a lift, and time dilation and length contraction stop us going anywhere relative to anything else. Pretty cool isn't it. I love relativity. (: Yet it shows you the limitations of words when applied to physical concepts. Maths is NOT shorthand. Mathematics is a language with a much more formal structure and definitions that aren't in dispute the way ordinary languages can be. It allows for the discernment of patterns and allows data to be analyzed much more precisely than ordinary language. Shakespeare had a deeper understanding of language than most people and so was able to express himself using more words than were necessary to express his thoughts in a better way. Anyone who thinks they understand physics should be able to do the same using their own words! If you can't explain it in your own words and your only option is to parrot somebody elses work then you obviously don't understand it. The only way to be sure that someone actually knows what they're talking about is if they can express it themselves without referring back to stuff they've memorised. Anyone can do that. It doesn't mean that they understand any of it. All a physicist needs is a good memory! It's always interesting to me that people who have a hard time with GR or SR (it's almost never both) also claim that the maths are unimportant. That at least is one pattern ordinary language can deal with. Is that an indication of your level of wit and intelligence? This is going to be fun. (: Believe me, I have absolutely no trouble at all understanding general relativity. I probably have a much deeper understanding of it and so can explain it a hell of a lot better than you, as you'll see when you read the rest of this post. That's how I know that it doesn't make sense. I'll show you a pattern sunshine. Whenever someone like a creationist or physicist is confronted with something that they don't know how to logically refute they resort to personal attacks. Think about it. You've got a lot more in common than you realise! Answer these questions please. If I were you I'd think very carefully before you answer. Maybe you should get your storeys straight first and decided before hand what you're going to go with. 1. Why do you think that there's a distinction between objects following curved paths through flat space-time and objects following straight paths through curved space-time? What's the difference? 2. Why do you think that there's a distinction between tidal force and proper acceleration? When an object accelerates it feels the difference between the strength of the force accelerating it over the individual parts of the object. That describes both! What's the difference? 3. Is this equivalent to a Rindler? When an object free-falls towards a black hole there is a horizon behind them that marks the point from beyond which nothing including a signal travelling at the speed of light could ever reach them as long as they continue to accelerate at at least the same rate. If you think the answer is no then what's the difference? If you think the answer is yes then is this equivalent to accelerating to the speed of light in flat space-time? The free-falling object emits a light beam in the same direction that they're accelerating and it moves away from them at a slower and slower rate as their acceleration increases, and if they were able to reach the event horizon then the light wouldn't be moving away from them at all. If you think the answer is yes then do you still think that it's possible to reach the event horizon of a black hole? If you think the answer is no then what's the difference? 4. How can an object falling towards a black hole reach a point when no amount of acceleration is enough to move away? If you look at the amount of acceleration needed to escape then it gradually increases at a faster and faster rate as it approaches the event horizon and the increase follows a predictable formula, but then suddenly jumps up to infinity when it reaches the horizon, so it would take an infinite amount of gravitational acceleration for the object to reach the event horizon! 5. The rope paradox. Two ships attached to each other by a rope free-fall towards a black hole and wait until the closer one has crossed the event horizon from its own perspective and then the more distant one accelerates away. From the perspective of the object that has crossed the event horizon it's totally impossible for the more distant object to pull them away, but from the more distant objects perspective it's will always be possible to pull the other object away because the closer object can never reach the event horizon from the more distant objects perspective. Explain! 6. There's an extremely powerful magnet in space that is capable of pulling magnetic objects towards it so fast that if any of them were able to reach it they would have been accelerated to the speed of light. That's completely impossible I know, but your allowed to use dodgy black holes that do exactly the same thing, and nothing ever actually reaches the speed of light in this. My question is how long would it take for an object to reach the magnet? I don't have to bother giving you the starting distance or relative velocity because the answer is always the same. 7. Three objects free-fall together towards a black hole and then one of them accelerates so that they maintain a constant distance from the event horizon and at the same time one of the others accelerates away. The third object just continually free-falls the whole time. The object accelerating away matches the acceleration of the falling object (taking into account the fact that it has to accelerate harder to overcome the gravity of the black hole) so that it's continually moving away from the object that's static relative to the black hole at the same rate as the free-falling object is moving away from the object that's static relative to the black hole. As both objects accelerate away from the middle object they become more and more time dilated and length contracted at the exact same rate from the middle objects perspective as they continually approach the speed of light without ever actually reaching it. The middle object sees absolutely no difference in the effects of time dilation and length contraction between the two objects accelerating away from it, and similarly the two objects accelerating away have an identical perspective of each other, the situation is completely symmetric. If we now switch to the perspective of the object that's accelerating away we see that there's no contradiction at all between their perspective and the perspective of the middle object. The object accelerating away is travelling along a curved path in space-time and sees the distances in space shorten in the direction that they're accelerating in and in time as well, which is why this observer would be younger than the middle object after the return journey. The object that's accelerating away never reaches the speed of light in any way, shape or form from anyones perspective. If we switch to the perspective of the object falling towards the black hole using general relativity to describe it then all hell brakes loose (see my next question). So the question I'm asking here is why do you think it makes more sense to use general relativity, which contradicts itself when switching perspectives and raises lots of other questions that it can't answer when the whole thing stays perfectly self-consistent and symmetric and is so much simpler when you use special relativity to describe acceleration due to gravity? 8. Can an object falling towards a black hole behind another object doing the same see the closer object reach the event horizon before they reach it under any circumstances? Yes or no. I can rip both answers to shreds. If the answer is yes then what happens if the more distant object then accelerates away from the black hole? The closer object would have to reemerge from behind the horizon from their perspective. If the answer is no then no object can reach an event horizon from the perspective of any outside object and it's ridiculous to claim that they can from their own perspective. It would mean that every object that reaches the event horizon would have to do it at exactly the same moment in time! At what point in the black holes life span do you think this happens? 9. If you'd never heard of general relativity but knew how special relativity works and were handed this along side general relativity as potential candidates to describe how gravity works then which one would think is the most probable for providing an accurate description? Be honest! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 It's your job to make it clear.I got as far as the line I quoted and it didn't make sense so I asked. Don't blame me for your lack of clarity. Also, if you want to claim to have a scientific theory you need the maths- pretty much by definition- whether you like it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 1. Why do you think that there's a distinction between objects following curved paths through flat space-time and objects following straight paths through curved space-time? What's the difference? Because an object following a curved path through a flat space-time is undergoing acceleration and must have a force applied to it, whereas an object following the geodesic in a curved space-time is an inertial frame. 2. Why do you think that there's a distinction between tidal force and proper acceleration? When an object accelerates it feels the difference between the strength of the force accelerating it over the individual parts of the object. That describes both! What's the difference? When an object is undergoing acceleration, all parts of it are feeling the same force evenly. An object undergoing tidal gravity feels different force at different parts. The free-falling object emits a light beam in the same direction that they're accelerating and it moves away from them at a slower and slower rate as their acceleration increases, Only as viewed from a distant frame. The free-falling object always measures the speed of the light beam at c. but from the more distant objects perspective it's will always be possible to pull the other object away because the closer object can never reach the event horizon from the more distant objects perspective. Explain! The whole 'the object never reaches the even horizon' thing is an illusion, caused by the infinite redshifting of the last photon emitted by the object before crossing the EH. Much of your arguments are based on this illusion. 9. If you'd never heard of general relativity but knew how special relativity works and were handed this along side general relativity as potential candidates to describe how gravity works then which one would think is the most probable for providing an accurate description? Be honest! In other words, the only way your ideas could appeal is if the reader is dead ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-wal Posted October 7, 2012 Author Share Posted October 7, 2012 (edited) How many more times? THE MATHS IS IN THE SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY!!! All I'd be doing is taking from there and posting it here. I know that's exactly how most physicists do things and then claim that somehow makes them experts but I'm not a physicist, thankfully. I can think for myself! Oh and I was perfectly clear. If you really didn't get what I meant then you have a problem. Edited October 7, 2012 by A-wal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 How many more times? THE MATHS IS IN THE SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY!!! Then you should have no trouble in extracting the relevant equation from SR and posting them here, with the explanation of how they apply you your ideas. but I'm not a physicist, thankfully. I can think for myself! But you're trying to pretend that you are a physicist. If that's not the case, what other purpose do your ideas and posts have? If you were a physicist, you'd know that many of the premises of your ideas are incorrect. Oh and I was perfectly clear. If you really didn't get what I meant then you have a problem. The problem appears to be shared by everyone here except you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts