The Proper Theory Of Relativity

[MigL]

Seems ACG52 beat me to it. His answers demonstrate that you _do_not_ have a clear, if any,understanding of GR.

 

I would like to add one thing though, The Earth has an escape velocity of approx. 18000 mi/hr, ie to escape to infinity you need to move at that speed. Do you think that means that all objects captured by Earth's gravity have a speed at any time during their fall, or at impact, of 18000 mi/hr ??

 

Similarily a black hole with an escape velocity of c , does not imply infalling objects must reach lightspeed at the event horizon.

[A-wal]

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.

Nope. It's exactly the same. An object that's following a straight path through curved space-time must also have a force applied to it, gravity! It's felt as tidal force.

 

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.

That's not true. You can set it up so that it precisely mimics tidal force simply by applying the same rules, as in gradually increasing the difference in acceleration at an ever increasing rate over the volume of the object.

 

Only as viewed from a distant frame. The free-falling object always measures the speed of the light beam at c.

Oh no they don't. That would mean they would be able to see objects reaching the horizon from a distance.

 

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.

It's not an illusion any more than it's an illusion that an object in flat space-time is unable to accelerate up to the speed of light relative to any other object.

 

In other words, the only way your ideas could appeal is if the reader is dead ignorant.

No, not at all. Read the question again. If someone had never heard of general relativity but knew how special relativity works and were handed this and general relativity then it wouldn't be much of a contest.

 

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.

No, I would have absolutely no trouble at all doing that. If you'd understood what I've wrote then you'd see just how simple that would be to do.

 

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.

Such as?

 

The problem appears to be shared by everyone here except you.

Deliberately taking something that someone has said out of context when it's not a joke is a sign of weakness and desperation!

 

Seems ACG52 beat me to it. His answers demonstrate that you _do_not_ have a clear, if any,understanding of GR.

(: You idiot. You didn't understand hardly any of what I wrote did you? Do you actually know anything about relativity? If you do then read the questions again. Maybe it will click, but I'm not too hopeful to be honest.

 

I would like to add one thing though, The Earth has an escape velocity of approx. 18000 mi/hr, ie to escape to infinity you need to move at that speed. Do you think that means that all objects captured by Earth's gravity have a speed at any time during their fall, or at impact, of 18000 mi/hr ??

You only need to move at one Planck length per whatever unit of time you want to escape. I hate the term escape velocity. It's very misleading. What you need to do is overpower gravity, which is always possible to do using a finite amount of energy because there can't possibly be an infinite amount of gravity.

 

Similarily a black hole with an escape velocity of c , does not imply infalling objects must reach lightspeed at the event horizon.

That's exactly what it implies! How could it not? I really don't think that you're up to this to be honest. You're either not as clever as you think or you really enjoy being made to look stupid. Edited October 8, 2012 by A-wal

[Mellinia]

No, I think it's because I said something that someone didn't like.<br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">

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. (:

 

I believe the moderators are pretty level-headed and will warn you if the thing is minor. There are plenty of people talking about theory without maths first in the physics forum...

Ah, I getcha...but the where does the upwards electromagnetic force of Earth comes from?

 

 

 

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

A-wal,

At SFN, we ask members to post in certain ways so as to facilitate proper discussion without it degenerating into insults and general asininity. You need to stop insulting or trying to aggravate members your comments against their person. Argue the points and questions others present and not the people making them or your time here will be cut short.

Please do not respond to this mod note in thread. If you take issue with it, use the report feature (yellow triangle at the bottom left of this and every other post) or PM a member of staff.

For your own reference, please also read the following:

http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/7813-science-forums-etiquette/

[A-wal]

There's an electro-magnetic field that stops atoms from coming into contact with each other. In normal circumstances the space between atoms is much greater than the atoms themselves. This holds up the planet. I think it's called electron degeneracy pressure, but that might be something else. Neutron stars are so heavy that this isn't enough to hold them up and they collapse until the neutrons (presumably called neutron degeneracy pressure) holds them up instead. A black hole happens when this is also not enough to hold it up and it collapses completely.

[ACG52]

Nope. It's exactly the same. An object that's following a straight path through curved space-time must also have a force applied to it, gravity! It's felt as tidal force.

You are incorrect.

 

That's not true. You can set it up so that it precisely mimics tidal force simply by applying the same rules, as in gradually increasing the difference in acceleration at an ever increasing rate over the volume of the object.

 

Again, incorrect.

 

Oh no they don't. That would mean they would be able to see objects reaching the horizon from a distance.

 

Again, incorrect.

 

It's not an illusion any more than it's an illusion that an object in flat space-time is unable to accelerate up to the speed of light relative to any other object.

 

Again, incorrect.

 

 

Let me just cut to the chase.

 

Just about everything you post is incorrect. You seem to have little or no actual knowledge of physics. I would guess that what you do think you know has been garnered from TV shows and youtube.

[A-wal]

Is that the best you can can do? Seriously? This is too easy. You're not even putting up a fight. Are you trying to get me banned or are you really this st... Ah, you almost got me.

 

"Nope. It's exactly the same. An object that's following a straight path through curved space-time must also have a force applied to it, gravity! It's felt as tidal force."

 

You are incorrect.

Okay so you either think that an object doesn't need the force of gravity applied to it in order to be travelling though curved space-time or you think that it does have to feel at least some tidal force? YOU are incorrect!

 

 

That's not true. You can set it up so that it precisely mimics tidal force simply by applying the same rules, as in gradually increasing the difference in acceleration at an ever increasing rate over the volume of the object.

 

Again, incorrect.

Tidal force is caused by different parts of the same object feeling different amounts of gravity. The feeling of acceleration using a different force is caused by the same thing. Again, YOU are incorrect!

 

 

Oh no they don't. That would mean they would be able to see objects reaching the horizon from a distance.

 

Again, incorrect.

The constant speed of light doesn't apply when an object is accelerating, either through gravity or conventional acceleration. When using ordinary acceleration the speed of light slows down from the perspective of the accelerator. When measuring velocity relative to energy rather than matter you have to replace velocity with acceleration. If light were to move away from an object falling towards a black hole at its normal speed then the falling object would be able to see object closer to the black hole crossing the event horizon, and then if it were to accelerate away then it would have to see that object cross back through the event horizon to be outside the black hole again. Again, YOU are incorrect!

 

It's not an illusion any more than it's an illusion that an object in flat space-time is unable to accelerate up to the speed of light relative to any other object.

 

Again, incorrect.

I think you'll find that it's possible for an object falling towards a black hole to escape from the perspective of a more distant object no matter how long the more distant object waits, so again it is in fact YOU my friend and not me who's wrong. Loooserrr!!! (:

 

Let me just cut to the chase.

 

Just about everything you post is incorrect. You seem to have little or no actual knowledge of physics. I would guess that what you do think you know has been garnered from TV shows and youtube.

TV shows was how it started, then books, then my own thoughts and ideas. I can back up everything I'm saying with next to no effort and all you can do is say no, no, no and no. That's not much of an argument is it? You'd make an absolutely useless lawyer.

[ACG52]

Okay so you either think that an object doesn't need the force of gravity applied to it in order to be travelling though curved space-time

 

 

An object following the geodesic in a curved space-time is in free fall. No forces involved. Do you know what the geodesic is?

 

The feeling of acceleration using a different force is caused by the same thing

 

This is pretty meaningless. When you apply a force to an object, the entire object accelerates evenly. You don't have different pieces of the object being subjected to different rates of acceleration.

 

When measuring velocity relative to energy rather than matter you have to replace velocity with acceleration.

 

Another meaningless sentence.

 

It's not an illusion any more than it's an illusion that an object in flat space-time is unable to accelerate up to the speed of light relative to any other object.

 

 

I'll refer you to pages 244 - 249 of Kip Thorne's Black Holes & Time Warps for the explanation of why it's an illusion. In fact, you should read the whole book. It contains understandable explanations of basic Relativity, something you sorely need.

 

TV shows was how it started, then books, then my own thoughts and ideas.

 

So you have no education in physics beyond mass media popularizations, yet you're convinced you know better.

 

Invincible ignorance is just that, invincible. And it's usless to argue with a crank.

 

Here, read up.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

 

 

[A-wal]

You're not going to be able to climb your way out of this hole. The herder you try, the deeper it's going to get.

 

An object following the geodesic in a curved space-time is in free fall. No forces involved. Do you know what the geodesic is?

Yes it's a straight line. So you don't think there needs to be any gravity involved for an object to follow a straight line through curved space-time then?

 

This is pretty meaningless. When you apply a force to an object, the entire object accelerates evenly. You don't have different pieces of the object being subjected to different rates of acceleration.

Of course you do! The electro-magnatism that's holding it together makes the whole object accelerate, or a planes engines wouldn't take the plane with them. (:

 

Another meaningless sentence.

Not at all. Light energy moves at a constant speed because velocity between masses is relative, but when objects do change their velocity relative to energy when they accelerate either using gravity or a normal acceleration, and it takes a greater amount of accelerating to close the gap the harder they accelerate. It would take an infinite amount of acceleration to catch up to it. Acceleration can in fact be difined as velocity relative to energy.

 

I'll refer you to pages 244 - 249 of Kip Thorne's Black Holes & Time Warps for the explanation of why it's an illusion. In fact, you should read the whole book. It contains understandable explanations of basic Relativity, something you sorely need.

You sorely need to know when you're beaten. If it's not an illusion how come an object can always accelerate away from a black hole from ANY other objects perspective? It's never too late.

 

So you have no education in physics beyond mass media popularizations, yet you're convinced you know better.

 

Invincible ignorance is just that, invincible. And it's usless to argue with a crank.

 

Here, read up.

 

http://en.wikipedia....93Kruger_effect

That's right, I have no education in physics but I understand relativity better than anyone. That really bothers you doesn't it?

[ACG52]

That's right, I have no education in physics but I understand relativity better than anyone. That really bothers you doesn't it?

 

That just confirms your status.

[John Cuthber]

Seen this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

[A-wal]

That just confirms your status.

The fact that I just showed you exactly where and how you were completely wrong about most of how even the accepted facts of relativity work, and the fact that I'm able to explain exactly how it works so easily and precisely, and the fact that I can remove the singularities and contradictions and provide a simpler explanation that solves the unanswered questions of relativity, and the fact that I've provided questions that general relativity just can't answer and I can, and the fact that I've proved that an event horizon is not equivalent to the Rindler horizon because the equivalent to that is the point where no signal can reach a free-faller and so the event horizon is purely the point marking the furthest point that any object could have gotten in the same way that the speed of light restricts how far an object can move relative to other objects when accelerating using energy instead of mass, and the fact that I can do it all using a single unified coordinate system that encompasses the entire manifold prove my status. It's okay to be cocky when you can back it up so I have every right to make that statement. Pretty soon the people here with the qualifications that you seem to hold in irrational high regard (you do realise that they're just pieces of paper that don't actually do anything right?) are going to start saying that I may have a point. You're still digging that hole.

 

Seen this?

http://en.wikipedia....93Kruger_effect

Every creationist and physicist should read that. (:

[Ophiolite]

Oh and I was perfectly clear. If you really didn't get what I meant then you have a problem.

Have you heard of any of the following devices? They have all been found to aid communication. You should try them sometime.

 

1. Paragraphs

2. Executive summaries.

3. Headings

 

and then some techniques:

1. Editing

2. Spell checking.

3. Editing.

4. Did I mention editing?

 

The prime responsibility for a piece of text being understood lies with the writer, not the reader. When multiple readers find comprehension difficult then assuredly the writer is at fault. Becoming frustrated at your audience may be natural, but it is unproductive. Learn to write better

[swansont]

Why the fcuk has this been moved?

!

Moderator Note

Any post that purports to overthrow mainstream science goes in speculations.

[Mellinia]

There's an electro-magnetic field that stops atoms from coming into contact with each other. In normal circumstances the space between atoms is much greater than the atoms themselves. This holds up the planet. I think it's called electron degeneracy pressure, but that might be something else. Neutron stars are so heavy that this isn't enough to hold them up and they collapse until the neutrons (presumably called neutron degeneracy pressure) holds them up instead. A black hole happens when this is also not enough to hold it up and it collapses completely.

 

The constant speed of light doesn't apply when an object is accelerating, either through gravity or conventional acceleration. When using ordinary acceleration the speed of light slows down from the perspective of the accelerator. When measuring velocity relative to energy rather than matter you have to replace velocity with acceleration. If light were to move away from an object falling towards a black hole at its normal speed then the falling object would be able to see object closer to the black hole crossing the event horizon, and then if it were to accelerate away then it would have to see that object cross back through the event horizon to be outside the black hole again.

 

 

 

So the electromagnetic force is the one trying to push us away from the Earth? Technically I am uncharged, right? because the positive charges and negative charges on me cancel each other out.

Isn't the velocity of light photons constant in any reference frame, irregardless of acceleration or position? That's what SR was based on, right? When accelerating, we still measure c as c as length contraction and time dilation occurs.

 

 

[A-wal]

Have you heard of any of the following devices? They have all been found to aid communication. You should try them sometime.

 

1. Paragraphs

2. Executive summaries.

3. Headings

 

and then some techniques:

1. Editing

2. Spell checking.

3. Editing.

4. Did I mention editing?

 

The prime responsibility for a piece of text being understood lies with the writer, not the reader. When multiple readers find comprehension difficult then assuredly the writer is at fault. Becoming frustrated at your audience may be natural, but it is unproductive. Learn to write better

Lol. Point taken. (: I can write much better than that and it definitely needs a good tidy up. I'm honestly not just being lazy though. I wrote that a while ago and I know it covers pretty much everything so I posted it, but I haven't read it since it was written. I never do. That way I can keep coming up with new and better ways of describing it. If I read that now I wouldn't be happy with it and it would be taking a step backwards because I'd be pulled back into old thought processes that I've outgrown.

 

So the electromagnetic force is the one trying to push us away from the Earth? Technically I am uncharged, right? because the positive charges and negative charges on me cancel each other out.

I take it you mean positive and negative as in electro-magnetism and gravity? Yes, the two forces are in perfect balance to keep us and the Earth static relative to each other. The reason we can't feel gravity but we can feel the electro-magnetism (the feeling of our weight is actually caused by the upwards force that we feel pulling us down) is because it's all at our feet, while the force of gravity is nicely spread out almost evenly throughout our bodies. We can reduce the force we feel by spreading it out more. That's why is more comfortable to lay down than it is to stand up.

 

Isn't the velocity of light photons constant in any reference frame, irregardless of acceleration or position? That's what SR was based on, right? When accelerating, we still measure c as c as length contraction and time dilation occurs.

No, it's constant in any inertial frame of reference. When an object accelerates there is a point behind that object called the Rindler horizon that marks the point that no signal could ever reach them as long as they continue to accelerate at at least the same rate. If they maintain a constant rate of acceleration then the Rindler horizon will stay a constant distance away from them. If they increase their rate of acceleration then the Rindler horizon starts catching up to them, remember it marks the point where no signal could reach them from further than this distance. As they increase their rate of acceleration at a constant rate the Rindler horizon gets closer to them at a slower and slower rate. It would take an infinite amount of acceleration for it to actually catch up to them. This is what I meant when I said that acceleration is the equivalent to velocity when moving relative to energy rather than mass, because it's exactly the same as when measuring relative velocity to another object accept that energy keeps a constant velocity relative to an object when it maintains constant acceleration and changing the rate of the acceleration when measuring velocity relative to energy is the equivalent of accelerating relative to mass. The Rindler horizon describes velocity relative to energy behind the accelerating object but the same is true in front of it. Light shining from in front the object would pull away at a constant rate if the objects acceleration were constant, and it would start to catch up to it's own light if it increased its acceleration, and at a slower and slower rate if it's rate of increase remains constant.

 

What nobody for over a century has realised is that this process is also describing exactly how gravity works. It's describing exactly how the event horizon behaves when accelerating (free-falling) towards a black hole.

Edited October 9, 2012 by A-wal

[Ophiolite]

Lol. Point taken. (: I can write much better than that and it definitely needs a good tidy up. I'm honestly not just being lazy though. I wrote that a while ago and I know it covers pretty much everything so I posted it, but I haven't read it since it was written. I never do. That way I can keep coming up with new and better ways of describing it. If I read that now I wouldn't be happy with it and it would be taking a step backwards because I'd be pulled back into old thought processes that I've outgrown.

I am delighted to hear that you recognise the weakness in your writing. However, two points worth considering:

1. If you wouldn't be happy with it I understand this is because you think the idea is not presented as clearly as you would present it now. Is that the best way of convincing people of your idea? Go in with a weak version fo your argument? That doesn't seem wise.

2. Many people would think it rude that you expect them to wade through a dated, sub-standard text that you can't even be bothered to read yourself.

[A-wal]

It wasn't meant to be rude. I struggle when I have to sit and write without actualy talking to someone. I'm not hand waving. It tends to start off well and slowly goes down hill. I do so much better with the back and forth of debate. It brings the best out of me. The initial post contains most of it all in one place and the idea was to clarify it by talking to people. When I've made enough posts I'm going to edit the first one with the best bits I've written copy and pasted from here. That for me is by far the best method.

[Ophiolite]

It wasn't meant to be rude. I struggle when I have to sit and write without actualy talking to someone. I'm not hand waving. It tends to start off well and slowly goes down hill. I do so much better with the back and forth of debate. It brings the best out of me. The initial post contains most of it all in one place and the idea was to clarify it by talking to people. When I've made enough posts I'm going to edit the first one with the best bits I've written copy and pasted from here. That for me is by far the best method.

That may be quite sensible, but if you had explained that at the outset you might not have encountered so much negativity.

 

The thing is that your opening post is lengthy - 8,1260 words. If I were reviewing it internally and costing the exercise, I can't see it coming in at less than $1,000. Yet you expect members here to read it and comment on it for nothing. And you make the task more difficult for them by offering, by your own admission, a sub-standard piece of work. Do you see how ridiculous this is? Do you understand that you have to sell this idea and so far everything you have done in that regard has been hopelessly wrong.

[A-wal]

Sort of, but that's not really how I was looking at it. I didn't think it was that bad. I was hoping people would enjoy reading it even if it's not exactly perfectly written.

 

You can't edit posts after a certain amount of time here can you. ARSE!

[Ophiolite]

You can't edit posts after a certain amount of time here can you. ARSE!

No, but my point is that you could edit them before you even submit them. That is just basic common sense (and common courtesy). I'm trying to help you see that the loser in all this is you. Most of us couldn't give a flying conjugal union about your idea. Your manner of presenting it has helped cement that attitude in place. I don't lose by that: you do.

[MigL]

So, I'm the idiot, A-wal ???

 

It seems to me everyone is dis-agreeing WITH YOU, and these are people with actual degrees, who know their stuff and are well respected in our forum's community.

You, on the other hand, have no relevant education, are ignorant and rude: I don't think you'll last very long as a member before getting banned. You would have been banned already if there was a rule against ignorance and refusal to be convinced by the facts.

 

I guess this is just your online persona that we are presented, because if you acted the way you do online in the real world, you would have gotten your ass kicked way too many times.

[Mellinia]

I take it you mean positive and negative as in electro-magnetism and gravity? Yes, the two forces are in perfect balance to keep us and the Earth static relative to each other. The reason we can't feel gravity but we can feel the electro-magnetism (the feeling of our weight is actually caused by the upwards force that we feel pulling us down) is because it's all at our feet, while the force of gravity is nicely spread out almost evenly throughout our bodies. We can reduce the force we feel by spreading it out more. That's why is more comfortable to lay down than it is to stand up.

 

No, it's constant in any inertial frame of reference. When an object accelerates there is a point behind that object called the Rindler horizon that marks the point that no signal could ever reach them as long as they continue to accelerate at at least the same rate. If they maintain a constant rate of acceleration then the Rindler horizon will stay a constant distance away from them. If they increase their rate of acceleration then the Rindler horizon starts catching up to them, remember it marks the point where no signal could reach them from further than this distance. As they increase their rate of acceleration at a constant rate the Rindler horizon gets closer to them at a slower and slower rate. It would take an infinite amount of acceleration for it to actually catch up to them. This is what I meant when I said that acceleration is the equivalent to velocity when moving relative to energy rather than mass, because it's exactly the same as when measuring relative velocity to another object accept that energy keeps a constant velocity relative to an object when it maintains constant acceleration and changing the rate of the acceleration when measuring velocity relative to energy is the equivalent of accelerating relative to mass. The Rindler horizon describes velocity relative to energy behind the accelerating object but the same is true in front of it. Light shining from in front the object would pull away at a constant rate if the objects acceleration were constant, and it would start to catch up to it's own light if it increased its acceleration, and at a slower and slower rate if it's rate of increase remains constant.

 

Ah, so light speed outside the horizon is not at c.

 

...... We reduce the stress we put on our backbone, by increasing the area of action, right?

So this electromagnetic force is equal to the reaction force of gravitational force?

 

 

 

 

[A-wal]

So, I'm the idiot, A-wal ???

 

It seems to me everyone is dis-agreeing WITH YOU, and these are people with actual degrees, who know their stuff and are well respected in our forum's community.

You, on the other hand, have no relevant education, are ignorant and rude: I don't think you'll last very long as a member before getting banned. You would have been banned already if there was a rule against ignorance and refusal to be convinced by the facts.

 

I guess this is just your online persona that we are presented, because if you acted the way you do online in the real world, you would have gotten your ass kicked way too many times.

What facts? I realise you must have been dying to post something like that but it seems to me that the presentation and length were the biggest problems. That's hopefully sorted now. Why are you putting so much importance on qualifications? It's perfectly possible for someone with no education to understand something and for someone with lots of education to have simply memorised it. In fact both are fairly common. The education system systematically destroys creative thought processes! That's why I got out early. I shouldn't have called you an idiot though. I have no idea whether you're an idiot or not, but I do know that you don't understand much about relativity so you're in no position to criticise or judge this. Do it again and I will make you look stupid! People in real life are a lot more friendly and polite than they are here, and on line in general. If people weren't then I'd get into a lot of trouble but it wouldn't be me getting my arse kicked. I've been more irritable than usual lately and I've lost my temper a few times in the real world too and I haven't got a scratch on me.

 

 

Ah, so light speed outside the horizon is not at c.

Light would still move away at c locally from an object hovering at a constant distance away from an event horizon because it's the equivalent of an inertial frame with inwards and outwards force/curvature in balance with each other. It would slow down as it approaches the horizon. Acceleration is to energy as velocity is to mass, and black holes don't have mass as such, that's gone. They're more like negative energy.

 

Here's a prediction. If free-fall really is inertial then the speed of light should stay the same. If I'm right the speed of light is never c when in free-fall. Why didn't I think of that before? It's so simple. This is what I meant by needing interaction.

 

...... We reduce the stress we put on our backbone, by increasing the area of action, right?

So this electromagnetic force is equal to the reaction force of gravitational force?

I worded that badly. We don't reduce the overall force felt, we just spread it out over a larger area. Gravity is very hard to feel because there's hardly any difference between the amount of gravity at our heads and feet. Gravity is trying to pull us towards the centre of the Earth and electro-magnetism is balancing this force, but it's concentrated only on our points of contact with the ground.

 

 

Short version:

 

Introduction

If you reverse everything within a system then relativity everything stays exactly the same unless it's viewed from an external frame of reference. The general theory of relativity introduces the concept of curved space-time, which basically means viewing motion as a change in the distances between objects rather than movement of the objects themselves. There is absolutely no difference between following a curved path in flat space-time and following a straight line in curved space-time. The reason why quantum mechanics and general relativity are incompatible is because general relativity doesn't treat them as physically equivalent. It describes a free-falling object as the equivalent of an inertial object because the force is acting on the space-time that the object is moving through instead of the object itself. This is incorrect. Length contraction and time dilation also change the space-time that objects are moving through when they accelerate in the conventional sense and this can be used to explain the force they feel as the difference in the curvature of space-time that the different parts of the objects are moving through in the same way that general relativity describes tidal force. Massive objects cause inwards curvature, making them gravitate towards each other, while energy causes outwards curvature, making objects move away the the source. Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, so gravity is that much weaker.

Black Hole Geometry

When a black hole forms it expands outwards at the speed of light until it's reached its maximum size and then immediately contracts inwards at the speed of light creating a four dimensional sphere. Information moves at the speed of light as well so an observer would see it appear at its full size and then rush inwards. It's size in all four dimensions increases as the distance of an observer increases, and at an ever decreasing rate the further away the observer. At zero distance the black hole has no size at all. A singularity is a point in time and space and so can never be reached by an object, even one accelerating towards it because the closer an object gets, the smaller it is. A black hole is just what a singularity looks like from a distance as length contraction and time dilation decrease.

Horizons

When an object is observed free-falling towards a black hole it becomes more length contracted and time dilated as it's relative velocity increases in exactly the same way as an object accelerating away using energy, and light from an ever decreasing distance will never reach them as long as they keep accelerating at at least the same rate in the same way as the Rindler horizon approaches an accelerator if their acceleration increase. If an object were able to reach an event horizon then light from behind it would start from in front of it as the two horizons cross over, in exactly the same way that a Rindler horizon and light emitted from the front of an accelerator would cross over if it were able to accelerate to a relative velocity of c.

 

Event Horizon Paradox

It can't be possible for an object to reach an event horizon from the perspective of any external object, even one accelerating towards the black hole. If it was then then that object would have to escape from the black hole and come back across the event horizon from the external objects perspective if it accelerates away, so if objects can't possibly reach the event horizon while there still is an event horizon. In others words black holes are unreachable.

 

Rope Paradox

A spaceship attached by a rope to a another spaceship maintaining a constant distance from the black hole free-falls towards the event horizon. The rope goes taut after the free-falling ship crosses the event horizon from its own perspective and then the other ship then tries to pull away. The free-falling ship is still outside the event horizon from the perspective of the ship pulling it out so it can be done from the perspective of this ship, but not the free-falling ship. General relativity isn't even self consistent.

 

Universal Curvature/Acceleration

The universe is also a four dimensional sphere, but one that we can't exit rather than enter. It's curved just like the surface of the Earth but in time as well as space. We see red shift because we're looking across this curvature, and objects become more red shifted the further across it we look. Everything funnels into a singularity if we look across to the opposite side of the universe in time or in space, creating the illusion of dark flow and the big bang. I don't think the physical constants are independent variables, they're relative. If you were to adjust one then the others would also change, so that in fact there would be no change at all.

Edited October 13, 2012 by A-wal

[MigL]

Very well, here are the facts...

 

Motion is the movement along geodesics through curved space-time. Not a change of the distance between objects. It only seems like following straight lines in curved space-time because we use light to define straight lines, and light also followes the curvature of space-time.

 

What defines black hole geometry is the mass ( charge and angular momentum can be disregarded for current arguments ). the mass predetermines the radius of the event horizon. There is no outward or inward acceleration or bounces. As the mass gravitationally collapses and passes through the mathematical limit which defines the event horizon, to a distant frame of reference time stops ( the Russians originally called them frozen stars ), which also means reflected light's wavelengths are strtched to infinity and frequency is reduced to zero, making it disappear, ie black. The mass continues contracting to a possible singularity, from a local frame of reference. A quantum gravity theory will eventually confirm or falsify the singularity. Your two ships connected by a rope are no different than a single ship that 'submerges' part of itself inside the event horizon. There is a theory, don't recall if it was Wheeler or Thorne ( or even Hawking or Penrose ) that any pertruding parts of something that enters the event horizon will also collapse spherically into the hole. So there is no paradox.

 

I have tries to use simple understandable concepts and no math ( don't do laTEX anyway ). My views are supported by other members of this forum and by leading experts in the field like the aforementioned Thorne, Hawking and Penrose.

 

So tell me, who supports your views ???