Jump to content
Science Forums

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


Recommended Posts

  • 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

Yeah, I'd say check it out but you'd need high school algebra and you were doing something else at the time.

 

I've "checked it out," as you know, Ralf, and have spelled out some of my criticisms and the basis for them.  I won't bother doing that again.  Suffice it to say that your misunderstandings  pertaining to basic concepts are so extensive that you could never understand why it was right, if it was (which it aint), or why it was wrong (which it is).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes Harsh criticism is apart of being a scientist it makes us able to usually eventually win a argument with a single post when it comes to theories we undestand because of how well we understand the subject sooner or later. All this to say relativity does happen but not necessarily as either of you understand it to be or even I understand it to be https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23331184-900-atomic-clocks-make-best-measurement-yet-of-relativity-of-time/ and https://www.sciencenews.org/article/atomic-clocks-einstein-special-relativity-symmetry-test

 

 

I will challenge you both to read Einstein's actual papers that he wrote as I have. Here are the English Translations of this theories during the years at the Swiss Patent office.

 

 

English Vol 2  = https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/

 

English Vol 3 = https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol3-trans/368

 

English Vol 4  = https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol4-trans/

 

Take it from the Master himself, not me. I won't spoon feed you physics.

 

Edited by VictorMedvil
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes Harsh criticism is apart of being a scientist it makes us able to usually eventually win a argument with a single post when it comes to theories we undestand because of how well we understand the subject sooner or later. All this to say relativity does happen but not necessarily as either of you understand it to be or even I understand it to be https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23331184-900-atomic-clocks-make-best-measurement-yet-of-relativity-of-time/ and https://www.sciencenews.org/article/atomic-clocks-einstein-special-relativity-symmetry-test

 

 

I am looking at your first link, Vic.  It seems to be saying the opposite of what you appear to think it does.  I think you are making a very common mistake:  You equate the lorentz transformations with SR.  Although SR does use the LT, so do other perfectly viable theories of motion.  The formal appearance of the math is the same in both theories, and this is one reason this common mistake is made.  However the means of employing the LT and the interpretation is quite different.  The theories are not identical, just because they use the same math.  In fact each is antithetical to the other.

 

Special relativity established that the laws of physics are the same for any two observers moving at a constant speed relative to each other, a symmetry called Lorentz invariance. One consequence is that they would observe each other’s clocks running at different rates. Each observer would regard themselves as stationary and see the other observer’s clock as ticking slowly – an effect called time dilation.

 

 

This makes it clear that the effect being measured is so called "time dilation" (more accurately "clock retardation)."    SR did NOT "establish" that  time dilates.  A pre-existing theory, attributed primarily to Lorentz, did that.  SR just stole the math, that's all.

 

The article goes on to say:

 

Now, Pacôme Delva of the Paris Observatory and his colleagues have used strontium clocks to test time dilation. Two optical fibre links, one between London and Paris and another between Paris and Braunschweig, Germany, were used to compare devices in these locations.

 

These clocks are moving at different velocities because of their position on the Earth’s surface, and relativity makes precise predictions about the extent of time dilation they experience. For example, a clock closer to the equator should tick more slowly than one closer to the North Pole. After one day, clocks in Paris and London should show a difference of 5 nanoseconds.

 

 

 

Their starting assumptions are contrary to SR.   SR says there are no preferred frames and that all inertial motion is relative, but this statement presupposes a valid preferred frame and absolute motion.  It is assumed that these clocks are actually moving at "different velocities."

 

The cities in France and Germany they talk about never move a single inch relative to each other.   Therefore, if SR were correct, and only relative motion caused time dilation, there could be no difference in the ticking rates between the two clocks. But this experiment showed that there is.

 

Einstein did claim, that, for example, clocks would tick at different rates at different latitudes and would tick slower if moving faster.  But this itself conflicts with the theory of SR in general.  This is clear in SR's so-called "resolution" of the twin paradox, for example.  In that scenario time dilation is shown to be an absolute effect, not a relative one.  So, in essence, SR is forced to betray, and contradicts, its own premises in order to get the correct answer to the motion of the two twins.  SR, generally speaking, claims that time dilation is "reciprocal," i.e., that each clock would run slower than the other.  That doesn't happen in the twin paradox.

 

The time dilation predicted by SR (i.e., by the LT) does indeed occur, and experiments have shown this.  However, SR's proposition that this time dilation is "reciprocal" has been shown to be false, many times.

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am looking at your first link, Vic.  It seems to be saying the opposite of what you appear to think it does.  I think you are making a very common mistake:  You equate the lorentz transformations with SR.  Although SR does use the LT, so do other perfectly viable theories of motion.  The formal appearance of the math is the same in both theories, and this is one reason this common mistake is made.  However the means of employing the LT and the interpretation is quite different.  The theories are not identical, just because they use the same math.  In fact each is antithetical to the other.

 

 

This makes it clear that the effect being measures is so called "time dilation" (more accurately "clock retardation)."    SR did NOT "establish" that  time dilates.  A pre-existing theory, attributed primarily to Lorentz did that.  SR just stole the math, that's all.

 

The article goes on to say:

 

 

 

Their starting assumptions are contrary to SR.   SR says there are no preferred frames and that all motion is relative, but this statement presupposes a valid preferred frame and absolute motion.  It is assumed that these clocks are actually moving at "different velocities."

 

The cities in France and Germany they talk about, never move a single inch relative to each other.   Therefore, if SR were correct, and only relative motion caused time dilation there could be no difference in time dilation between the two clocks. But this experiment showed that there is.

 

Einstein did claim, that, for example, clocks would tick at different rates at different latitudes and would tick slower if moving faster.  But this itself conflicts with the theory of SR in general.  This is clear in SR's so-called "resolution" of the twin paradox, for example.  In that scenario time dilation is shown to be an absolute effect, not a relative one.  So, in essence, SR is forced to betray, and contradicts, its own premises in order to get the correct answer to the motion of the two twins.  SR claims that time dilation is "reciprocal," i.e., that each clock would run slower than the other.  That doesn't happen in the twin paradox.

 

Clocks are moving at different velocities Moronium, The Clocks do start to slow down or speed up due to velocity of motion along with the rate of time itself with the velocity of motion change. The entire universe will not change via this but the motion of Electron orbits and other things will actually start to display a different time change, it will take longer for a electron to orbit the atom in faster moving objects than slower moving objects, Thus even to a quantum observer you will view a slower time for that object then the rest of the universe or even other objects in motion at differing speeds which is why atomic clocks measure this difference in time. Radioactive decay for Isotopes even happens at the slower rate for these isotopes in motion. Secondly, Even the Size of the particles strink with Length Contraction being a function of the Electromagnetic and Strong Nuclear Force interaction. It is not just you or I that notice this time change and Length Change the very forces of nature notice that change and slow down which include Electromagnetism, The Strong Nuclear Force, and Weak Nuclear Force for the object in motion the other particles in the universe not in motion do not notice it such as gravity as gravity is the constant attraction of all mass in the universe. For the object in motion the Forces of Nature even change, gravity not being in motion however does not being a measurement of energy though in areas of high gravity the same effect happens such as a Black Hole, though the actual gravitational attraction is not effected nor are the forces just the range of them changes. I could go into a very long lecture about Superstrings and Dimensions but I won't not yet, if you are wondering why the range change but simply because of a change in compression of time-space of the force dimensions.

Edited by VictorMedvil
Link to post
Share on other sites

Clocks are moving at different velocities Moronium, 

 

I don't disagree with anything you've said in this post, Vic, but it says nothing which is responsive to the point being made.

 

Time dilation is NOT reciprocal, so SR cannot be correct.  

 

Furthermore, time dilation is not caused by strictly relative motion.  It is caused by absolute motion.

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with anything you've said in this post, Vic, but it says nothing which is responsive to the point being made.

 

Time dilation is NOT reciprocal, so SR cannot be correct.  

Basically moronium it goes like this, If you compress space you are also compressing time and the size of both becomes smaller. The Compression is caused from Energy-Mass or what you call velocity and that is just how it works.

Edited by VictorMedvil
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, if you say so.  But, you still don't address the point. Did you even understand the post I made?

 

There is no preferred frame it would only just be a frame without Energy-Mass, and I do, being at rest is a illusion. Furthermore, in the twins paradox the Time for the one in motion would be different thus the object would age at a different rate then the one moving more slowly. You must understand everything in constantly in motion unless it is at 0 Kelvin which is unreachable as we know, if you had a object at absolutely 0 kelvin it would age even more quickly than you or I. The twins paradox is not so alien as to say that things is motion have a different temporal velocity than you or I in a faster time frame.

Edited by VictorMedvil
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no preferred frame 

 

So you say.  Many prominent physicists say otherwise.  I have quoted them frequently.  Without a preferred frame you can never say which of two objects is the one moving.  If you say, for example, that the earth is moving around the sun (along with a variety of other motions), you have tacitly postulated a preferred frame from which to discern that motion.

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

So you say.  Many prominent physicists say otherwise.  I have quoted them frequently.  Without a preferred frame you can never say which of two objects is the one moving.  If you as you say, for example, that the earth is moving around the sun (along with a variety of other motions), you have tacitly postulated a preferred frame from which to discern that motion.

Everything is moving, there is no such thing as absolute rest.

 

P.S., reread my responses I edit as you respond for clarification to the reader.

Edited by VictorMedvil
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well nothing can reach 0 kelvin even space has a fundamental movement to it with photons in it, hints the CMB.

 

So you use the frame of reference of "0 kelvin" to establish a preferred frame which is "at rest" and then compare other things to that frame to determine if they are moving, that the idea?

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...