Jump to content
Science Forums

Try To Understand The Center Of A Black Hole


Recommended Posts

Yes AWAl's question is specifically answered on the physics stack exchange. It looks like the answer is nothing ever reaches the event horizon because there's no such thing as a real black hole so you can never see a collapsed star turn into a real black hole because an event horizon can neither grow outward to reach an object, nor can an object reach an event horizon. Someone probably posted a correct answer outside of all this blind dogma and simplistic interpretation of the math but I couldn't be bothered looking for it. So it seems the only true conclusion we can draw is 9 out of 10 physicists do agree on BS. I stand corrected.

Edited by ralfcis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I very much doubt a physicist has said a thing does not pass a horizon (unless of a very special case) where systems hit the horizon like a brick wall, a theory known as the fire wall. But this is heavily disputed.

 

Things do pass the horizon of a black hole, or they could not grow bigger. Hawking was the first to popularize thought experiments which demonstrate observers not only fall towards a horizon, but they fall past the horizon as well. This is not disputed and I have no idea where this notion of ''things don't reach the horizon or pass it'' comes from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. This is not disputed and I have no idea where this notion of ''things don't reach the horizon or pass it'' comes from.

 

 

You or anybody else.  Well, except Awol, I mean.  According to him, everybody knows it except you.

 

That's his standard tactic.  Everything he says is proven scientific fact, and by God, that's FINAL.  Just ask him, if you doubt it.

Edited by Moronium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a real shame how misinformed some of these answers are and have not been properly moderated by a competent physicist... if indeed, anyone has even bothered. Gathering the  overflow of text, I can see why maybe this could take an hour to clean up.

Edited by Dubbelosix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The question asked there is this:  "How can anything ever fall into a black hole as seen from an outside observer?"

 

However you want to answer that, it is irrelevant to the question of whether an object can actually travel past the event horizon.

 

How some guy "sees" something does not affect the thing he is looking at.  Something Awol can't understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it's something you can't understand, the word is perspective not telekinesis.

 

Thank you Dubble, that PSE is just a huge mess so far as I've experienced it. So many wrong opinions are allowed to stand. It is more a popular science stack exchange and you can get backing for whatever you believe. They must start labelling false answers and stop ranking them as a popularity contest. Relativity is about 80% wrong there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it's something you can't understand, the word is perspective not telekinesis.

 

 

Are you trying to say something meaningful, there, Ralf?  Cause you aint.  You miss the entire point completely, just like Awol.

 

The point is that there is no "telekinesis", if you want to call it that, as Awol claims.  It's merely a matter of perspective, which has no effect on the thing being perceived.  Awol thinks that if a distant observer "sees" something a certain way, then the thing he is looking at must conform, in objective reality, to the way he sees it.  Solipsism run wild

 

Read it again:

The question asked there is this:  "How can anything ever fall into a black hole as seen from an outside observer?"

 

However you want to answer that, it is irrelevant to the question of whether an object can actually travel past the event horizon.

 

How some guy "sees" something does not affect the thing he is looking at.  Something Awol can't understand.

 

To deny that is like saying that if you see a distant galaxy as a small speck, then, by God, it IS just a small speck.

Edited by Moronium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Distant observer could not see the object being consumed by the Black Hole due to light cannot escape but the black hole itself does sooner or later consume the light taking it past the event horizon, there is your answer as even motionless there is still gravitational attraction from Energy-Mass into the Black hole as even photons have energy.

Edited by VictorMedvil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...there is still gravitational attraction from Energy-Mass into the Black hole as even photons have energy.

 

Yeah, that too, Vic.  Distant observation does not suspend gravity in remote parts of the universe, either. Awol's reason for raising the question, and his "air tight" proof of his "answer" to the question, was prima facie ridiculous to begin with. It betrayed a very basic misunderstanding on the most fundamental level, but he still won't understand that.

 

Given that, especially, his bluster and bombast got rather irksome, I thought.  Then again, he always does that.

Edited by Moronium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of us are irksome. I'm even irksome outside this forum. 

 

 

No doubt, Ralf.  Often just as much, if not more so, than Awol.  But for some reason I've kinda developed a soft spot for you.  As bigtoted, dogmatic, opinionated, stubborn, ill-informed. self-congratulating, etc., as you can be., you still have a sliver of redeeming quality which Awol doesn't.

 

You are capable, at times anyway, of setting aside your pride and reconsidering some of the propositions you have previously adamantly committed yourself to.  That takes some integrity.  Awol is not capable of that.

Edited by Moronium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I very much doubt a physicist has said a thing does not pass a horizon (unless of a very special case) where systems hit the horizon like a brick wall, a theory known as the fire wall. But this is heavily disputed.

 

Things do pass the horizon of a black hole, or they could not grow bigger. Hawking was the first to popularize thought experiments which demonstrate observers not only fall towards a horizon, but they fall past the horizon as well. This is not disputed and I have no idea where this notion of ''things don't reach the horizon or pass it'' comes from.

It comes from simply being the way that black holes work, I'm surprised you don't know this. Nothing can ever reach an event horizon from any frame external to the event horizon and this is not a disputed fact, it's universally accepted black hole physics.

 

Time dilation, length contraction and redshift all approach infinity from a distant frame as an object approaches the event horizon, so obviously this means that there is never a time on a distant watch when it's too late for a falling object to accelerate away from the black hole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing can ever reach an event horizon from any frame external to the event horizon and this is not a disputed fact, it's universally accepted black hole physics.

 

 

You're kinda like that movie villain that always comes back doing the same thing no matter how many times he get's killed, eh, Awol?  Eternal repetition may serve to convince yourself, but it affects few others.  Most others also pay attention to other facts, evidence, arguments, and common sense.

Edited by Moronium
Link to comment
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...