Jump to content
Science Forums

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


Recommended Posts

Not wishing to argue with Newton, but if this True time is imperceptible then it is a useless concept.

 

I completely disagree, but then I don't share your abhorence of "philosophy,"  The "concept" of time must necessarily precede any practical "measurement" of it. But, as I said, conflating the two leads to conceptual confusion. To that end (avoiding confusion) it is a very useful concept.

Edited by Moronium
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

I completely disagree, but then I don't share your abhorence of "philosophy,"  The "concept" of time must necessarily precede any practical "measurement" of it. But, as I said, conflating the two leads to conceptual confusion. To that end (avoiding confusion) it is a very useful concept.

 

Actually, it is this confusion of "time itself" with the readings on clocks that is at the heart of my objections to SR.  In 1905, Einstein, as a disciple of Ernst Mach, was a "positivist"  (itself a "philosophy") and he said something like "Time is what a clock measures."  He later totally disavowed this positivistic philosophy, as he matured.

 

It sounded good to him at the time, though.

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely disagree, but then I don't share your abhorence of "philosophy,"  The "concept" of time must necessarily precede any practical "measurement" of it. But, as I said, conflating the two leads to conceptual confusion. To that end (avoiding confusion) it is a very useful concept.

 

I do abhor useless concepts that have no scientific basis, when discussing subjects in science.

Anyway, you do know that Newton also believed in alchemy and astrology?

 

His idea of an imperceptible True Time was probably inspired more by his religious beliefs than his science-grounded ideas.

 

I fail to see how a belief in an imperceptible True Time reduces confusion; in my opinion it only creates confusion where there is none.

 

But I think we have strayed far enough off topic. Time to give it a rest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, it is this confusion of "time itself" with the readings on clocks that is at the heart of my objections to SR.  In 1905, Einstein, as a disciple of Ernst Mach, was a "positivist"  (itself a "philosophy") and he said something like "Time is what a clock measures."  He later totally disavowed this positivistic philosophy, as he matured.

 

It sounded good to him at the time, though.

 

You are confusing the "reading on clocks" to all change. Clocks have nothing to do with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not wishing to argue with Newton, but if this True time is imperceptible then it is a useless concept....But this is getting to be more philosophical than mathematical science and I try to avoid wasting my time on that.

 

Well, Popeye, given your proclivities, you might come to like Newton's definition if you reflected on it more:

 

Unlike relative time, Newton believed absolute time was imperceptible and could only be understood mathematically.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are confusing the "reading on clocks" to all change. Clocks have nothing to do with it.

 

No, not really.  Clocks are just one way to attempt to measure "duration" (time).  Not the only way.  Whatever you use, it must involve some (at least seemingly) regularly recurring motion (change), such as is found in clocks.  In any event, I was quoting Einstein, not stating my own opinions on the matter.

 

The main point is that motion (change) is used to MEASURE time.  It is not time.  What you measure is not necessarily what is, and man's ability to measure something is not a condition of its existence.

 

You can use a yardstick to measure the length of a football field.  But a yardstick is not a football field.   Nor is it  "distance"  or "length."  Big difference.

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Popeye, given your proclivities, you might come to like Newton's definition if you reflected on it more:

 

 

Well, mathematics makes use of infinity, as a limit in integrals, for example. But that really doesn’t help us to understand the concept of infinity, does it?

 

Infinity is also something that is imperceptible but at least it is a mathematically useful concept.

 

On the other hand, “times” that we use in mathematics, especially differential calculus, all refer to rates of change in some way or another. Using an imperceptible True Time that is not referenced to change would serve no purpose. It would be like interjecting God into a mathematical equation.

 

Just to be clear, I am not knocking anyone’s concept of God. In fact, that concept may be very useful to some people, but it is not a useful concept in the context of science. The same goes for some imperceptible eternal True Time that flows without respect to anything!

 

If Newton thought this could be understood mathematically, why didn’t he write an equation to explain it?

 

Anyway, I am out of my depth now. I am neither a mathematician nor a philosopher, just an engineer who enjoys physics, so don’t expect too much from me!

 

Speaking of that, I have some work to do so no more Time for this interesting discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

an imperceptible True Time that is not referenced to change would serve no purpose. It would be like interjecting God into a mathematical equation.

 

Speaking of that, I have some work to do so no more Time for this interesting discussion.

  

OK. I don't agree with this statement, as I have said.  Maybe we can discuss it later, if you care to. Catch you later

 

But, in the meantime, think about this if you want.  You can't know speed (or any change therein) without first knowing:

 

1.  The time elapsed, and

2.  The distance traveled.

 

The changes in time are just as important as are the changes in distance, so it is mathematically important as a concept, iindependent of rates of change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 If the rate of ALL change is slowing down, (and not just somebody’s clock) then time itself must be slowing down.

 

You may not want to discuss this any further, Popeye, but even if not, I'll repeat a point I brought up earlier.  Even given your position on this, one must be careful not to overgeneralize the ALL part.

 

When I pointed out that clocks slow down, not time itself, Amp responded that ALL physical processes slow down in a moving system, not just clocks.

 

That's true, but not relevant to the point.  ALL processes can slow down for one or more particular individuals, but that would still have no effect on "time itself."  Time is a much more universal concept.  If you kill a guy, then you could say that time has stopped "for him."  But the whole universe doesn't suddenly perish with him.

 

This is just one (of many) misunderstandings displayed by Awol.  He starts thinking that if "time" has "appeared," to him, to stop in another frame, then time must also stop in the frame being perceived..  Of course he compounds this egregious error by trying to make an even more remote "connection."  He's effectively claiming that if one observer "perceives" another's time to have stopped, then that makes time stop for the guy being perceived.  But he can't stop there.  He goes on to essentially claim it also stops for the entire universe.

 

In one of our earlier discussions about clocks and time, it appeared to me that you were making the same sort of mistake.

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

In one of our earlier discussions about clocks and time, it appeared to me that you were making the same sort of mistake.

 

You may or may not remember this.  To summarize, the scenario was something like this:  Assume 5 stop watches, all of which run at different rates.  When a green light comes on, they are all started simultaneously.  At a later time (say after 5 minutes on my personal stopwatch), a red light comes on, and all 5 watches are then stopped simultaneously.  Each of the 5 shows a different amount of time elapsed in the interim.

 

I then suggested that the interval of time elapsed between the green and red lights was the same for all watches.

 

As I recall, you denied this.  The implication was that, since the watches did not record the same amount of time elapsed, the interval could not be the same.

 

To me, that is an example of confusing the rate at which clocks tick with time itself.

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

You may or may not remember this.  To summarize, the scenario was something like this:  Assume 5 stop watches, all of which run at different rates.  When a green light comes on, they are all started simultaneously.  At a later time (say after 5 minutes on my personal stopwatch), a red light comes on, and all 5 watches are then stopped simultaneously.  Each of the 5 shows a different amount of time elapsed in the interim.

 

I then suggested that the interval of time elapsed between the green and red lights was the same for all watches.

 

As I recall, you denied this.  The implication was that, since the watches did not record the same amount of time elapsed, the interval could not be the same.

 

To me, that is an example of confusing the rate at which clocks tick with time itself.

 

 

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

 

Either you are mis-remembering or thinking about someone else or you misunderstood me.

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

You may not want to discuss this any further, Popeye, but even if not, I'll repeat a point I brought up earlier.  Even given your position on this, one must be careful not to overgeneralize the ALL part.

 

When I pointed out that clocks slow down, not time itself, Amp responded that ALL physical processes slow down in a moving system, not just clocks.

 

That's true, but not relevant to the point.  ALL processes can slow down for one or more particular individuals, but that would still have no effect on "time itself."  Time is a much more universal concept.  If you kill a guy, then you could say that time has stopped "for him."  But the whole universe doesn't suddenly perish with him.

 

This is just one (of many) misunderstandings displayed by Awol.  He starts thinking that if "time" has "appeared," to him, to stop in another frame, then time must also stop in the frame being perceived..  Of course he compounds this egregious error by trying to make an even more remote "connection."  He's effectively claiming that if one observer "perceives" another's time to have stopped, then that makes time stop for the guy being perceived.  But he can't stop there.  He goes on to essentially claim it also stops for the entire universe.

 

In one of our earlier discussions about clocks and time, it appeared to me that you were making the same sort of mistake.

 

 

No, I am sure that I have not made that same mistake. I do not believe that all time stops everywhere, just in some particular frame of reference. And if time stops or slows in one frame of reference, it has no effect on other reference frames. If time did the same thing in all frames, you could never detect any change because there would be no reference for comparison.

Either you are confusing me with someone else or you totally misunderstood me.

Please provide a link rather than relying on your memory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. I don't agree with this statement, as I have said.  Maybe we can discuss it later, if you care to. Catch you later

 

But, in the meantime, think about this if you want.  You can't know speed (or any change therein) without first knowing:

 

1.  The time elapsed, and

2.  The distance traveled.

 

The changes in time are just as important as are the changes in distance, so it is mathematically important as a concept, iindependent of rates of change.

 

 

But the elapsed time here is not independent!

 

Speed is the change in position / the change in time

 

So, the change in position is referenced to the change in time. That is a dependent relationship.

 

You can invert that and time would be a function of position.

 

The point is, the elapsed time is not being considered independently of everything else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I am sure that I have not made that same mistake.  Either you are confusing me with someone else or you totally misunderstood me.

Please provide a link rather than relying on your memory.

 

Well, I didn't express that well.  When I said the same "sort of" mistake, I did not mean the exact same mistake. 

 

I'm pretty sure my memory is right about the 5 stop watch example, which is the "mistake" I really had in mind.  It would probably take me quite a while to find the link now, though, and maybe it's not even important.

 

Would you say that the green/red interval is the same, even though the clocks all have different readings?

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as each clock had a different velocity rate they didn't experience the receiving of the photons differently. Only the object in motion precieves its own time differently as the particles themselves had a different time rate as they passed near the object. The photons themselves as they passed over space coming to the object didn't have a different time flow rate, you think of time as this universal concept when only it is relative to the object observing itself.

Edited by VictorMedvil
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I didn't express that well.  When I said the same "sort of" mistake, I did not mean the exact same mistake. 

 

I'm pretty sure my memory is right about the 5 stop watch example, which is the "mistake" I really had in mind.  It would probably take me quite a while to find the link now, though, and maybe it's not even important.

 

Would you say that the green/red interval is the same, even though the clocks all have different readings?

 

 

Of course the interval of time is the same!

 

I would have to have lost all my marbles to say anything else.

 

As I said before, clocks really have nothing to do with time; they are just tools for measuring it.

 

You could use the growth of a plant to measure it, or as we all do, measure time based on the earth's rotation and revolution around the sun.

 

But you need to set some standard for measuring change and that standard has to be accurate within the system you devise. The clocks in your example are useless since they are not standardized and not accurate.

 

Maybe only God can explain exactly what the TRUE nature of time is but we lowly creatures experience it as change so time = change seems to be a good enough way to define it.

 

Saying that it is undefinable and imperceptible serves no purpose; only mystifies the concept.

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...