Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Three Air Tight Reasons Why No Object Can Ever Reach An Event Horizon

General Relativity Black Holes

  • Please log in to reply
176 replies to this topic

#171 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 08 April 2019 - 04:52 PM

In Minkowski Spacetime time is curved and with those curves come things like time dilation,

 

You have added all sorts of math equations to this post, which I didn't really see until now, Vic.

 

But they don't, and can't, prove the point you are trying to make anyway.

 

That's because your initial premise is wrong.  In Minkowski spacetime, space is NOT "curved."  It is flat.  Furthermore, "time" does not even exist in that realm.  Only "spacetime" does.


Edited by Moronium, 08 April 2019 - 04:54 PM.


#172 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 08 April 2019 - 05:18 PM

I don't think he was talking about moving clocks; just a group of clocks sitting together and running at different rates. Broken clocks.

 

Not really "broken," because they're all still running.  They're just not synchronized, that's all.  Clocks can be "out of sync" for any number of reasons, including, but not limited to, the fact that they are moving at different rates of speed.

 

But whether or not two (or more) clocks are synchronized is an entirely different question than whether, because they are not synchronized, "time" has changed.  My argument is that "time itself" has not changed at all, just because the clocks don't all display the the same amount of elapsed time during a time interval that is identical for all.

 

Either way, the same amount of time has passed.  Time is not different for each clock.  Only the clock readings (a function of their mechanical ticking rate) are different.

 

BTW, Popeye, I edited the post (to correct some typos) which you said did not make sense.  You're right, it didn't, as originally written.  Maybe you can make sense out of it now, though.


Edited by Moronium, 08 April 2019 - 08:32 PM.


#173 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 08 April 2019 - 08:07 PM

No physicist has said this. What physicists say about what signals a distant observer see's and what is really happening are two different things.

 

Awol will tell you that the Atlantic Ocean is 183 miles deep.  If questioned about the source of this "information," he will tell you that it's a universally known fact which can easily be confirmed (all while he refuses to confirm it).

 

After repeating this 197 times, he will finally reveal what his immense "support" is.  Something like: "Everybody knows there is an Atlantic Ocean."


Edited by Moronium, 08 April 2019 - 08:14 PM.


#174 fahrquad

fahrquad

    All I know is that I know nothing.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1221 posts

Posted 08 April 2019 - 08:58 PM

In all fairness the Atlantic Ocean is relatively new.  It didn't start forming until the break-up of Pangaea around 163 million years ago.

 

https://youtu.be/UwWWuttntio

 


Edited by fahrquad, 08 April 2019 - 08:59 PM.


#175 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1119 posts

Posted 12 April 2019 - 09:52 AM

With the photo of the black hole I hope the Penrose and Thorne nuts finally crawl into one. The hole is bigger than our solar system so the nuts think the event horizon is far enough from the center to make gravity very weak out at the horizon. But suddenly there's still an accretion disc out there that is caused by very strong gravity. So that very dumb movie "Interstellar" based on the physics stylings of Kip Thorne  was way off. How do Thorne and Penrose keep their jobs?


Edited by ralfcis, 12 April 2019 - 09:55 AM.


#176 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1085 posts

Posted 12 April 2019 - 10:54 AM

I knew this BH was Big, but I didn't fully realize just how big until I looked at this size comparison.

 

That is actually scary.

 

m87_black_hole_size_comparison.png

 

 

I would like to see someone try to approach the event horizon of that monster and land on it!



#177 TonyYuan2020

TonyYuan2020

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

Posted 23 February 2020 - 10:51 PM

 

All you need to know about black holes to understand these is that no object can ever reach the event horizon of a black hole from a distance, an object falling towards the event horizon becomes increasingly time dilated and length contracted but never reaches the horizon.


1).
Given that no amount of time is enough for an object to reach the event horizon of a black hole from the perspective of an observer at a distance, can we accurately say from the perspective of an object falling towards a black hole that an infinite amount of time must pass on the watch of a more distant observer from the perspective of the falling observer before they are able to reach the event horizon?

If the answer is yes then although there would be a time on the watch of the falling observer when they reach the event horizon, how is any lifespan of the black hole long enough for an infinite amount of time to pass on the watch of a distant observer from the perspective of the falling observer before they reach the event horizon? If an infinite amount of time has to pass on the watch of the distant observer in the frame of the the falling observer as well as in the distant observer's frame then it never happens.

If the answer is no then from the frame of falling observer there is a time on the watch of the distant observer when they reach the event horizon but in the frame of the distant observer that time on their own watch passes and the falling observer still hasn't reached the horizon, they can still accelerate away in this frame but in the frame of the falling observer they're inside the event horizon and can't accelerate away once the distant observer's watch reaches that time.


2).
If two observers are falling towards a black hole, one behind the other then can the closer object reach and cross the event horizon from the perspective of the more distant observer before they themselves reach the horizon?

If the answer is yes then how does the closer object after crossing the horizon from the more distant observer's perspective then reemerge from inside the horizon if the more distant observer accelerates away before reaching the horizon themselves?

If the answer is no then all falling objects must reach the event horizon simultaneously so how could any object ever reach an event horizon if they can't reach it from the perspective of an observer falling in behind them?


3).
Gravitation is supposed to be time reversible, it's an attractive force either way. This doesn't hold once an object crosses an event horizon because then that object has to reemerge from inside the event horizon if the arrow of time is reversed and that shouldn't be possible with the arrow pointing either way.

 



Let's sort out the whole process:
1. Morey's experiment, at that time, scientists could not explain it with Newton's theory.
2. Constant speed of light is applied to Lorentz transformation.
3. Einstein put forward the hypothesis that the speed of light is constant and established special relativity.

But now we can easily explain the Morey experiment with classical physics, and conclude that it is wrong to keep the speed of light constant.

Special relativity is a fallacy under the wrong premise.


You can download the derivation paper using Newton's Theory.
http://www.sciencefo...ference-fringe/

Edited by TonyYuan2020, 23 February 2020 - 10:57 PM.




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: General Relativity, Black Holes