Jump to content
Science Forums

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


Recommended Posts

Wrong when?  About what?

He would be wrong about time and space being unified into a fabric that time and space are two separate entities in all of his theories time is like the counter space as more time flows, there is more space being that it is turned into a space dimension in the equation as a way to balance out that space terms. In einstein's fields time and space are like saying the samething in how they are written.

Edited by VictorMedvil
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 192
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I browsed the physics stack exchange for more about this, and I get conflicting answers from presumed experts. As you say black holes have life spans and not last for an infinite amount of time — they

You forgot to include the audio demonstration to identify the source of your research, i.e., the great Coasters, eh, Popeye?  Here ya go:  

Apparently, my understanding of BH physics is not as advanced as some of the other people posting here.   Therefore, unlike they, who are able to make grandiose proclamations drawn from their vastly s

...the problem you have is when Time is taken as a dimension of space in the metric, It is taken literally as apart of space and thus is not a illusion but is fundamentally apart of time and space which are unified.

 

 

Yes, I definitely have problems with the attempt to turn time into a dimension of space.

 

With a Minkowski graph, if you are absolutely motionless, then you are moving "through time" at the rate of the speed of light, no less. What possible physical sense can that make?

 

Time in not the kind of thing you can "move through," like a forest, for example, let alone at the speed of light..

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I definitely have problems with the attempt to turn time into a dimension of space.

 

With a Minkowski graph, if you are absolutely motionless, then you are moving "through time" at the rate of the speed of light, no less. What possible physical sense can that make?

 

Time in not the kind of thing you can "move through," like a forest, for example.

 

Well it is written as such that as you move through space you move through time slower as the Time term is minus the Space terms, basically as you move through space time slows down being the term against it. Technically we move through time at a certain speed every moment in his theories as you move through space which is Anti-Time you don't move through time.

Edited by VictorMedvil
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it is written as such that as you move through space you move through time slower as the Time term is minus the Space terms, basically as you move through space time slows down being the term against it. Technically we move through time at a certain speed every moment in his theories as you move through space which is Anti-Time you don't move through time.

 

Well, OK, but again, I would simply ask what physical (as opposed to merely mathematical) sense that makes?  The starkest contrast is saying that if I'm not moving at all, then I'm moving at the speed of light.  

 

But let's reduce the contrast and say that when I'm moving through space at x speed, then I'm only traveling through time at y speed.  Still makes no physical sense to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, OK, but again, I would simply ask what physical (as opposed to merely mathematical) sense that makes?  The starkest contrast is saying that if I'm not moving at all, then I'm moving at the speed of light.  

 

But let's reduce the contrast and say that when I'm moving through space at x speed, then I'm only traveling through time at y speed.  Still makes no physical sense to me.

Well, that is the way Einstein wrote it may more people trusted Einstein's judgement call on this, then others that said otherwise due to it solved a paradox at the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He would be wrong about time and space being unified into a fabric that time and space are two separate entities....

 

Well, yeah, that would be my conclusion.  Einstein was wrong.  "Spacetime" is Newtonian, in my opinion.  3 (of space) + 1 (time).  Everything that SR "explains" in 4 dimensions can be explained much better, much more clearly, and more in tune with actual observation that way. SR is by NO MEANS "necessary" to explain the effects that increased speed has on clocks and rulers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that is the way Einstein wrote it may more people trusted Einstein's judgement call on this, then others that said otherwise due to it solved a paradox at the time.

 

Yes, I agree.  Einstein was trying to reconcile Maxwell's equations with Galileo's relativity principle, and he thought he saw a good way to do it.  I don't think it was a good way (in agreement with many others ever since SR came out).

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, yeah, that would be my conclusion.  Einstein was wrong.  "Spacetime" is Newtonian, in my opinion.  3 (of space) + 1 (time).

 

I think what you mean, is the Newtonian definition of time being absolute. And suppose I was to entertain this, with no basis, you'd still need to explain a semi-classical view based on quantum mechanics. Newtonian space has to be diverted in some way for unification.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I definitely have problems with the attempt to turn time into a dimension of space.

 

 

Well in some ways you might be right, but it becomes a bit of a complicated argument which could go a few different ways. First, let's start off with a quantum argument that contradicts Einstein's application:

 

1. Space is an observable in quantum mechanics

 

while...

 

2. Time is not an observable in quantum mechanics

 

So setting space and time on equal footing would be seen as a problem in quantum mechanics.

 

However, say we only work with a model in 3-dimensions, you cannot obtain the necessary tools to describe curvature. In fact, a little-known fact may put doubt on the quantum mechanical prediction that time is not an observable, as I articulated a while back:

 

''The fourth dimension is manifested in observable three dimensions as the curvature path of a moving infinitesimal (test) particle: In gravitationally-warped spacetime the motion through time manifests as motion through geodesics in space.''

 

So, according to a borderline ad hoc argument, in a way we must view time as a curvature of space rather than a true independent imaginary dimension as a leg of the Pythagorean triangle, though it is likely we have to retain that math until we find new alternative ways to describe it. Further, by viewing time as just a curvature of space, we see that it becomes a real observable in three dimensions - whether this implies time exists is uncertain but what it does show is that the curvature appears from a translation in spacetime (from stress energy contributions) and is not a dimension itself, presumably.

Edited by Dubbelosix
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what you mean, is the Newtonian definition of time being absolute. And suppose I was to entertain this, with no basis, you'd still need to explain a semi-classical view based on quantum mechanics. Newtonian space has to be diverted in some way for unification.

 

I'm not trying to solve all the problems of physics, but it can be noted that QM presumes absolute time.  I don't know what you mean by "with no basis."  Does QM have a "basis?"

 

In quantum mechanics, time is universal and absolute; its steady ticks dictate the evolving entanglements between particles. But in general relativity (Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity), time is relative and dynamical, a dimension that’s inextricably interwoven with directions x, y and z into a four-dimensional “space-time” fabric.   Unifying quantum mechanics and general relativity requires reconciling their absolute and relative notions of time.

 

 

https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-gravitys-time-problem-20161201/

 

My bet would be that GR is the one which will have to give.

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to solve all the problems of physics, but it can be noted that QM presumes absolute time.

 

What I am saying is different, quantum mechanics is discrete, Newton believed time ''flows.'' Newton's definition of the vacuum further has discrepancy with quantum mechanics, which says it isn't a perfect vacuum at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't say that I remember saying anything like that.

 

It would help if you have a link to the specific post you are referring to.

 

 

Not that it really matters, Popeye, but just for the hell of it, I took a few minutes to run this down.  It started way back in January, when you said this:

 

How do you characterize that “duration”? All you are doing is substituting the word “duration” for the word “time”

 

Nothing can change without that "duration"

 

time=change

 

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/34895-personal-topic/page-14

 

I followed up with a series of posts and questions pertaining to "duration" etc, and asked you a number of questions, which you ignored.  See, for example:

 

Not sure what you're asking, Popeye.  Call it an hour, call it anything.  What you call it is irrelevant.  The important point is that, whatever it is, and whatever you call it, it's the same for both clocks.

 

The duration isn't different for each clock.  The rate of ticking is different, that's all.

 

Can you see the distinction?

 

 

I picked up the topic again later, here:

 

Because I'm thinking that you don't see the point (which I may be wrong about), I'll try to put this question one more way.

 

Assume 5 guys, each with a stop watch, are sitting around a table.  One of them says "go" (call that time 1), and they all start their stopwatches.  Then when that guy's stopwatch shows an hour as having passed, he says "stop" (call that time 2) and they all stop their watch

 

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/34895-personal-topic/page-16?do=findComment&comment=367913

 

You finally addressed the topic again later.  First, I asked (again):

 

The duration isn't different for each clock.  The rate of ticking is different, that's all.

Can you see the distinction?

 

 

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/34895-personal-topic/page-19

 

Your response was:

 

I can see the distinction that you are trying to make, but I don’t believe any such distinction really exists....

 

 

Then, over the course of several posts, I tried to pin you down about what you were arguing.  You seemed to avoid my questions and talk about other things, finally dropping the topic again, by saying:

 

Time cannot be a thing unto itself because it does not exist without events, that is, it does not exist unless there is something changing....I just realized I don't have "time" for this thread.

 

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/34895-personal-topic/page-20

 

I still felt the issue was important, and finally picked it up with you again later:

 

I'm glad that you agree that this is correct.  But this is the same principle which you rejected in the time (vs clocks) example we talked about before.  You did not think it was the same interval.

 

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/34895-personal-topic/page-51

 

Best I can tell, you never responded to this either, and I was left with the definite impression that you thought the interval was different for each clock, at least as far as SR is concerned.

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

Best I can tell you never responded to this either, and I was left with the definite impression that you thought the interval was different, at least as far as SR is concerned.

 

What you said in the past is not really the issue, though.

 

If you now acknowledge that the time interval (the duration) is the same, then it seems to me that you are at least implicitly adopting a notion of time as an abstract concept, distinct from change (and not merely the same thing as "change").

 

As the quote from Newton shows, he basically says that "absolute time" is just another word for "duration."

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

What I am saying is different, quantum mechanics is discrete, Newton believed time ''flows.'' Newton's definition of the vacuum further has discrepancy with quantum mechanics, which says it isn't a perfect vacuum at all.

 

I don't know when or where Newton defined "vacuum," to begin with (although Einstein did), but I also don't see how his definition of it, assuming it exists, has anything to do with the notion of "absolute time."

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know when or where Newton defined "vacuum," to begin with (although Einstein did), but I also don't see how his definition of it, assuming it exists, has anything to do with the notion of "absolute time."

 

In 1905 Einstein was, among other things, attempting to dispel the notion of an "aether."  In that respect, it is his definition of a "vacuum" which has been questioned, not Newton's:

 

More recently (in 2005), Robert B. Laughlin (Physics Nobel Laureate, Stanford University), wrote about the nature of space:

 

"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed . . . The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

 

But, again, the point is that, however QM may think about "space," it treats it as something different than "absolute time," which it does not deem to be a "fourth dimension."  It is instead it's own, separate dimension in QM, so the definition of a "vacuum" is irrelevant to that question.

 

You were correct when you said:

 

What I am saying is different...

 

 

What you said really has nothing to do with absolute time, which you apparently thought you were addressing, somehow.

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

However, say we only work with a model in 3-dimensions, you cannot obtain the necessary tools to describe curvature. 

 

 

Exactly.  That's the point, and that's (at least one reason) why GR and QM conflict with each other.  QM rejects space "curvature."  As I've already said, so do I.

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

What I am saying is different, quantum mechanics is discrete, Newton believed time ''flows.

 

I'm aware that you also said this, which I haven't really directly addressed yet.  To me this is just a trivial matter of semantic quibbling.  Time can both flow and at the same time be discrete (as practically measured).

 

But, either way, that's not even the issue in question.  The basic issue is whether time is a "fourth dimension," inevitably and inextricably interwoven with space to form a "fabric" of "spacetime," as GR contends, or if it is a separate, completely distinct, dimension, as QM contends.

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...