There's no issue about vacuum energy, in fact the spatial energy density increases as you approach a black hole. Indeed it's because of this that light clocks go slower when they're lower. But gravitational time dilation does go infinite at the event horizon, and that means that at that location, the clock is stopped. What paddoboy is saying is that you wouldn't notice anything unusual if you were there too. But what I'm saying is that you wouldn't notice anything. Because light is stopped, along with electrochemical signals in your brain. That's all fine, but the point is that when gravitational time dilation is infinite, time doesn't continue. SR time dilation isn't infinite if you're travelling at close to c. Sorry dan, I don't empathize with this. We talk about 3+1 dimensions, wherein we have freedom of motion in the space dimensions. But we don't have freedom of motion in the time dimension. It's a dimension in the sense of measure, rather than in the sense of freedom of motion. And what we're measuring, is motion. The bottom line is that a clock "clocks up" some kind of regular cyclical motion and shows you a cumulative result that we call the time. But it doesn't literally measure the flow of time. A clock isn't like a gas meter. It doesn't have time flowing through it.
I love it. I see what you wrote there, and have to ask, are you agreeing with the theory that gravitational time dilation can be infinite? Are you agreeing that time stops? Or are you stating those points as part of the generally accepted theory, but not necessarily facts? Certainly the energy density at nature's highest possible level has a limit, unless you posit that the universe began as an infinitely dense zero volume point. Do you agree with that "something from nothing" origin of the universe?
Thanks. I'm agreeing with the theory that gravitational time dilation goes infinite at the black hole event horizon. If it didn't, a vertical light beam would get out of the black hole. And we know that there's something very massive at the centre of our galaxy, and very small, and utterly black. It has to be a black hole. I think the original "frozen star" black hole interpretation dating from Oppenheimer's time is right. (Kevin Brown mentions it but doesn't favour it in his formation and growth of black holes.) And I think the universe was somewhat similar 13.8 billion years ago. High density, but not infinite, and not a zero-volume point. No. I don't agree with the "something from nothing" origin of the universe. Conservation of energy is IMHO one of the most important laws of physics. Creation ex nihilo isn't much better than God did it. Ditto for Hawking saying the universe was created because of a quantum fluctuation. As for what actually happened 13.8 billion years ago, I just don't know.
Time dilation is relative, so you are saying that from the perspective of an observer outside the event horizon, that time on a clock observed entering the EH would appear to stop? That is based then on the invariant speed of light, and when light stops as at the event horizon, does the theory say that time stops, or that the clock would appear to stop to the distant observer? Agreed. But clearly gravitational attration is at its peak there, and GR says that there would be gravitational waves emanating from it, doesn't it? We just can't detect them yet, so gravitational waves would escape the BH. Thanks. I think a position must be taken on the answer to that question if one is going to have an understanding time.
Farsight, Where is your proof that vacuum energy, which you seem to rename above as spacial energy density, increases as you approach a black hole? That would seem to suggest that gravitation is associated with vacuum energy density, a quantum mechanical issue... And again, where is your proof that time dilation in any context becomes infinite? Since a clock is composed of matter and thus has mass, it cannot reach the speed of light in any local frame and thus never stops within the context of SR, and the existence of any clock at, near or within an event horizon is entirely hypothetical........ Once again it seems you confuse the difference between theory and what is known! You are talking about things that remain theoretical, as if they had been proven. Is your assertion that time stops at an event horizon based on the speed of light escape velocity and its SR time dilation implications (addressed above), or having set aside the locally valid SR implications, the effect of graviation itself? If the later, since it is still theoretical and a bit more complicated than the math involved in SR, show us the math..., and demonstrate that you could even get the clock to the event horizon, before the matter it is composed of becomes ionized and the clock thus disfunctional.., by either the affect of relativistic velocities or the gravitational potential destabilizing atomic electromagnetic forces and/or the strong and weak nuclear forces... And if you can do that be clear about what coordinate system you are using and why it is THE coordinate system that is relevant, to the question of the limitations of gravitational time dilation.
But since we don't have a fully consistent quantum mechanical model of what is going on at or within an event horizon, you don't even know that a vertical light beam could be generated... You cannot demonstrate, other than in hypotheticals, that photons can or are emmited by any process at or within an event horizon... There may be no light to escape. Which means your assertions are at best based on imagination and at worst gibberish. Try to make it clear whether your are talking theory or fact. There is nothing wrong with a healthy imagination, as long as it is not confused with reality and what has been proven... You know what they say about the fine line that separates...
There is a tendency on Farsight's part and on my part too, to discuss these issues from a "matter of fact" position that expresses our view points, but does not mean that we are contemplating submitting papers. Why put Farsight under the gun when these topics have no definitive answers, and all theories that invoke an interpretation of "what is time" are still unproven.
Because motion of device called a "clock" is the ONLY observable - not time. Read post 485. I.e. the correlation is 100% with the clock.
I have acknowledged that time is not real, but that its passing is measured by clocks, Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. I know that is an oxymoron, but the concept of time is so simple that it is hard to get exited by the idea that there is no such thing.
that question is specific to farsight since he ALWAYS avoids valid questions, i wanted him to answer in his own words, not with some misinterpreted quote. also, that is incorrect. none have realize how may elements of time are mentioned while attempting to lump them all in one segment. it's not realized how ridiculous this topic has become. it's hilarious to me to see such individuals spew how they understand time, when they can not even acknowledge and/or decipher that little concept i had just mention.
Would that CONCEPT be: "... these topics have no definitive answers, and all theories that invoke an interpretation of "what is time" are still unproven. "? If so, it is not surprising. No more so than that there are many diverse opinions as to what angels are. What is PROVEN* is that reference to time is not necessary for a complete description of the universe's observable events. Thus postulating there is something we call time is violation of Ockham's rule. *First in general terms in post 28; then in post 184 the objection that the proof was only for non-quantum events was refuted; then in post 485 a fully detailed example was given, showing not only that there is no need for time but also that without realizing it mankind ALWAYS does eliminate all use of that postulated to exist time as he ONLY compares ALL motions (including atomic motion we call a chemical reaction rate) to the motion of what we call a clock. Posters here would prefer to babble their OPINIONS than to deal with these PROOFS.
according to whom ? do you realize you have done the same? you are implying an equation to a situation it does not belong to. then on top of that you add in some philosophy. it's all sequenced in levels. all in all, most are speaking in an unorganized thought, without understanding very important aspects. let alone able to recognize this.
Because Farsight, does not just present his opinions, he claims ultimate authority and that all others are wrong. He is not just presenting his views in a matter of fact way. He is presenting them as factual and beyond challenge. Above he, Farsight.., was mixing multiple theoretical models, touching on issues involving theoretical aspects of both GR and QM, to arrive at an absolute conclusion. His statement implying some knowledge about the density of vacuum energy, just one example... So far the substance, if any.., of vacuum energy remains a controversial subject even when addressed solely from QM. How GR might involve or incorporate vacuum energy, is more speculation than even theory at this time... Nothing wrong with theoretical discussions, speculation or even attempting to imagine how things might be, as long as one remembers this is a public forum and many more people than those actively participating in the conversation are reading... Some of them actually looking for credible answers and opinions, this is a science forum. It is important that there be a clear distiction made between speculations and amature opinion, and what is known or even a matter of commonly accepted scientific consensus. Sometimes difficult even for those who know the difference. A group that does not appear to include Farsight.
Does this all mean it would be frowned upon for me to ask, Farsight, why he has not published a paper on gravity? Billy, and and or whoever?
No. I use logic but have not defined all terms in common use. I have asked for, several times, a definition of the "time" you and others postulate to exist. - Only asserted opinions have been offered. Things like it there were not time, then there would be no motions as if time not oxygen caused paper to burn or that time, not gravity makes rocks fall. etc. Pick any sentence in post 485 and tell how it is "unorganized thought." Opinions do NOT refute mathematical PROOF, first given in post 28.
In the same light, can I argue that gravity doesn't exist? That we only observe things falling down, but not gravity itself.
Not sure that works. Isn't, "Things falling down", a crude definition of the word gravity? Wasn't it an apple falling down on Newton's head that got him started?
but your not doing mathematical proof. your taking an improper formula and implying it to an improper situation, with a philosophy touch. then going, ha ha. i solved the theory of time. all in all, i had enough of this topic. it was destroyed a while ago. WHAT ARE MATHEMATICAL PROOFS AND WHY THEY ARE IMPORTANT? http://www.math.uconn.edu/~hurley/math315/proofgoldberger.pdf
