Jump to content
Science Forums

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


Recommended Posts

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.

 

While 0 Kelvin would be a "Preferred frame" in reality it is much more difficult than you would think to reach 0 kelvin it has never been done just very close to it, in theory if you could reach 0 kelvin that would be IT, but in physical reality it would be impossible to reach that temperature. That would mean that there was not energy in the system what so ever in movement. Even below that you would have to remove all the Fields in the universe as gravitational attraction would instantly give it a movement above 0 kelvin.

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

While 0 Kelvin would be a "Preferred frame" in reality it is much more difficult than you would think to reach 0 kelvin 

 

 Well, OK.  That's how you determine that "everything is moving" then, eh?  By first establishing a "Preferred frame" in reality."  So you are retracting your prior statement that there are no preferred frames, I take it.

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

 Well, OK.  That's how you determine that "everything is moving" then, eh?  By establishing a "Preferred frame" in reality."  So you are retracting your prior statement that there are no preferred frames, I take it.

Yes, but there is no substance in that situation because all of the fields are missing in reality it doesn't work that way, it is a impossibility to reach 0 Kelvin as far as we know. It doesn't explain the way it actually is out in the universe, it retracts from reality quite a bit in a universe filled with fields and matter. If you ever reach a temperature of your "Preferred frame" then let me know because humans don't know what that is like, but nothingness is what "Rest" looks like. If you had a single other piece of matter in the universe the gravitational force would knock the item out of "Rest". Thus because we live in a universe with more than one piece of matter, nothing is in "Rest" nor a "preferred frame".

Edited by VictorMedvil
Link to post
Share on other sites

. Thus because we live in a universe with more than one piece of matter, nothing is in "Rest" nor a "preferred frame".

 

Just because there is a preferred frame, that doesn't require that any material object actually be in that frame, Vic.  You are confusing two different things here.

 

These days, just about every astrophysicist agrees that the CMB effectively serves as a "cosmic rest frame," which can be used to determine the absolute motion of our Galaxy toward the so-called "Great Attractor," for example.  A frame of reference is not a material "thing," it is a concept.  The CMB is not located at some particular place, it permeates the entire universe, and is expanding with it.

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because there is a preferred frame, that doesn't require that any material object actually be in that frame, Vic.  You are confusing two different things here.

 

These days, just about every astronomer agrees that the CMB effectively serves as a "cosmic rest frame," which can be used to determine the absolute motion of our Galaxy toward the so-called "Great Attractor," for example.  A frame of reference is not a "thing," it is a concept.  The CMB is not located at some particular place, it permeates the entire universe.

If you are happy with that solution, I would rather explain what actually is happening exactly not what I would like to be happening moronium, It would be easier if there were a "preferred frame" even that CMB has a motion associated with it, it nothing is truly at "Rest". You can choose a "Preferred Frame" if you would like but that doesn't mean that there actually is in reality a actual "Preferred Frame" if that calculation detracts from reality then the "real" calculation considering all the variables will always trump that calculation in what we would hope to happen. Nothing is truly at rest in the physical universe, but the CMB could serve as it but it wouldn't actually be a "Rest Frame" or "Preferred Frame" but you could if you wanted to, but it wouldn't describe the physical universe to simply it like that.

Edited by VictorMedvil
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing is truly at rest in the physical universe...

 

I think you're still missing the fundamental conceptual point here, Vic.  You cannot even say that "Nothing is truly at rest in the physical universe," unless and until you have posited some motionless frame of reference which can be used to determine if anything is moving (i.e., is either "at rest," or not).  Again, a frame of reference is not a tangible, physical "thing."  No "thing" has to be "in" your established preferred frame in order for it to be a viable concept and standard of reference.

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're still missing the fundamental conceptual point here, Vic.  You cannot even say that "Nothing is truly at rest in the physical universe," unless and until you have posited some motionless frame of reference which can be used to determine if anything is moving (i.e., is either "at rest," or not).  Again, a frame of reference is not a tangible, physical "thing."  No "thing" has to be "in" your established preferred frame in order for it to be a viable concept and standard of reference.

 

That maybe true but good luck getting them into the state in real life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The vacuum of space is as close to empty as we can get and MMX proved you can't have relative velocity to the vacuum of space. You can't have velocity relative to nothing. If you try to measure your relative velocity to nothing, the answer is nothing for you as well, you're not moving even though you turned on your jet pack, was moving for a while, only to end up not moving again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The vacuum of space is as close to empty as we can get and MMX proved you can't have relative velocity to the vacuum of space. You can't have velocity relative to nothing. If you try to measure your relative velocity to nothing, the answer is nothing for you as well, you're not moving even though you turned on your jet pack, was moving for a while, only to end up not moving again.

Which is apart of my point, but in theortical physics that is what you call a "Rest Frame" nothingness.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The vacuum of space is as close to empty as we can get and MMX proved you can't have relative velocity to the vacuum of space. 

 

According to others, this is not correct, Ralf.  Where did you come up with that notion?

 

Most likely, as you’re reading this right now, you’re sitting down, perceiving yourself as stationary. Yet we know — at a cosmic level — we’re not so stationary after all...

 

...But the galaxy itself isn't stationary, but rather moves due to the gravitational attraction of all the overdense matter clumps and, equally, due to the lack of gravitational attraction from all of the underdense regions. Within our local group, we can measure our speed towards the largest, massive galaxy in our cosmic backyard: Andromeda. It appears to be moving towards our Sun at a speed of 301 km/s, which means —when we factor in the motion of the Sun through the Milky Way — that the local group's two most massive galaxies, Andromeda and the Milky Way, are headed towards each other at a speed of around 109 km/s.

 

Based on what we can see, measure, and calculate, these structures appear to cause an additional motion of approximately 300 km/s, but in a somewhat different direction than all the other motions, put together. And that explains part, but not all, of the large-scale motion through the Universe. There's also one more important effect at play, one that was quantified only recently: the gravitational repulsion of cosmic voids.

 

For every atom or particle of matter in the Universe that clusters together in an overdense region, there's a region of once-average density that's lost the equivalent amount of mass. Just as a region that's more dense than average will preferentially attract you, a region that's less dense than average will attract you with a below-average amount of force...

 

If you get a large region of space with less matter than average in it, that lack-of-attraction effectively behaves as a repellent force, just as extra attraction behaves as an attractive one. In our Universe, opposite to the location of our greatest nearby overdensities, is a great underdense void. Since we're in between these two regions, the attractive and repulsive forces add up, with each one contributing approximately 300 km/s and the total approaching 600 km/s.

 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/06/16/how-does-earth-move-through-space-now-we-know-on-every-scale/#57bc19af861f

 

The "cosmic void" being referred to here is essentially the "vacuum."  And we do have a (negative) speed with regard to it, according to this article.  That speed, it says, is "approximately 300 km/s."  Well, actually about 600 km/s, I guess.

 

One side is "pulling" us toward it at about 300 km/s.  The other side (the vacuum) is effectively "pushing" us away at about the same speed.

 

However you want to look at it, it seems that we can both detect and quantify our speed relative to a vacuum.

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, according to SR, all these astrophysicists are completely full of crap!

 

SR says you can never detect, or even talk about, absolute motion.  You can't say anything is ever moving at any particular speed.

 

Who ya gunna believe, Vic?

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

Who ya gunna believe, Vic?

 

Ya gunna believe THIS guy?

 

We attribute the dipole anisotropy to the motion of the Earth and Solar System relative to the universal CMB radiation field and thus the distant matter in the Universe. This would seem to violate the postulates of Galilean and Special Relativity but there is a preferred frame in which the expansion of the Universe looks most simple. That frame is the average rest frame of the matter and CMB and from that frame the expansion is essentially isotropic...It is now believed that summing over the mass in our "neighborhood" (within a 100 million light years) one finds the net unbalanced attraction that explains our motion as detected in this experiment. The CMB is then the standard frame of reference for cosmolgy work.

 

 

 

https://aether.lbl.gov/www/projects/u2/

 

What would he know, anyway?  He's just a measly Nobel Prize winner.  He aint Einstein.

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just leave this here...

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.3619.pdf

Thanks.

 

Well this part is utter bollocks: "...(i. e., in a proper reference system of any observer located in h) γ crosses the horizon moving slower than light."

 

c is the escape velocity of a black hole and it's how the event horizon is defined in the first place so the event horizon is by definition the point when a falling object would have reached the speed of light relative to an object who's at rest relative to the black hole.

 

I should actually read it properly though before I pass judgement.

 

If you got anywhere near a black hole you would be dead.  Does it really matter just how dead you are or in what physical state your remains are in?

Actually this isn't true if the black hole is large enough.

Edited by A-wal
Link to post
Share on other sites

c is the escape velocity of a black hole and it's how the event horizon is defined in the first place so the event horizon is by definition the point when a falling object would have reached the speed of light relative to an object who's at rest relative to the black hole.

 

 

Uh, no, not at all.   The escape velocity is merely the speed required to get out of the hole once you're in it.  It has nothing to do with entering the hole in the first place.  Furthermore that speed is not c.  It is greater than c.  That's why light can't escape the hole.

 

Try jumping off a 10-story building sometime.  Turns out that you don't have to be going the speed of light to hit the ground.  But you WILL hit the ground.  Your speed prior to jumping does NOT exceed the escape velocity of the earth.

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's the escape velocity then it's speed an object is moving when they reach it relative to an object who's at rest relative to the black hole. Jump from a high enough building and you would reach the Earth's escape velocity (not quite because of air resistance) before hitting the ground.

 

Yet another dubious assumption of Awol is that a distant observer would have to perceive an object approaching a black hole as travelling at the speed of light (in the observer's frame, that is).  This assumption does not seem to comport with empirical observation, however.

 

Matter is Going Into this Black Hole at 30% the Speed of Light

SEPTEMBER 25, 2018

 

A team of researchers in the UK have observed matter falling into a black hole at 30% the speed of light. This is much faster than anything previously observed....They used XMM-Newton to examine x-ray spectra from PG211+143.

 

“We were able to follow an Earth-sized clump of matter for about a day, as it was pulled towards the black hole, accelerating to a third of the velocity of light before being swallowed up by the hole.” – Professor Ken Pounds, University of Leicester, Dept. of Physics and Astronomy.

 

The study supports theoretical work already done.

This is very misleading. I don't know if you're deliberately attempting to be deceitful but for one thing it's impossible to see an object reaching an event horizon from the outside, they're clearly talking about the relative velocity of matter before it reached the event horizon.

Edited by A-wal
Link to post
Share on other sites

it's impossible to see an object reaching an event horizon from the outside.  

 

 

Yeah, right.  So you've said about a million times.  The physicists who saw it going into the hole only reported what they saw once.

 

Even so, I'm gunna have to go with them, sorry.

 

Ever occur to you that you should pay more attention to respected physicists than to pseudo-scientific metaphysicians practicizing their craft on an internet message board, Awol?  Especially before announcing to the world what the undisputed scientific proof is?  I'd think about it if I were you.  But I aint you.

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

...Actually this isn't true if the black hole is large enough.

 

Without diving into this never ending and pointless argument that I find tedious, I would say that entering into the intense gravitational influence of a black hole would logically be disruptive to human life (and probably matter as we know it).    :blahblahblah:

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...