# Gravitational Time Dilation

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by RajeshTrivedi, May 4, 2015.

Not open for further replies.
1. ### RajeshTrivediValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,525
An interesting point came to my mind, while getting and defending the hammering in BNS thread. I thought this point will give all the interested members a good idea about Gravitational Time dilation (one of the major outcome of GR) in due course of this thread...

The idea was transient aspect of something inside EH......

So the point is while an object (core) has just gotten inside its own EH, then how much is the smallest possible elapsed time that is Tp (Plancks time = 10^-35 Seconds) there, will be equal to our time ?? Assuming that our frame (Earth) is almost infinitely far from that EH...

danshawen likes this.

to hide all adverts.
3. ### paddoboyValued Senior Member

Messages:
21,803

For some reason, you have a knack of complicating scenarios that could be expressed far simpler.
Anyone falling into a BH with a watch for example, will fall in as though nothing has happened. [Ignoring tidal gravitational effects] He crosses the EH, and his clock ticks as per normal.
Anyone from a remote or distant FoR, will see that person gradually fade from view as they are red shifted further and further along the spectrum, never actually crossing the EH.
This is a fact of SR, just as it is a fact that each and every FoR, is as valid as each other.
This is explained with the other example I have given you many times...regarding photons emitted just on the EH but this side directly radially away. From the photons FoR and point of view, it hovers forever, never secumbing, never getting away. All other photons of course will arc back and secumb to the BHs EH.
But from a remote FoR the photons are red shifted until faded from view and are never seen to cross.
For time for anyone foolhardy enough to cross the EH, he only has one choice and reaches the singularity/mass in a small but finite amount of time, but certainly in a broken down form of fundamental structure, as he is at first stretched and then literally torn apart and disassembled.

To try and compare the time in a FoR for anything or anyone that is inside the EH to someone outside of the BH does not make any sense for obvious reasons.
One being that time comes to a standstill at the EH [although we never see time coming to a stop] and evidenced in the fact that an outside observer will never really see anything fall inside a BH. Strange as it may seem, this even includes the surface of the star that collapses to form a BH.

I hope that this is a genuine question Rajesh, and not another beat up dishonest round about way of pushing another of your ideas.

to hide all adverts.
5. ### RajeshTrivediValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,525
The question is very simple......what is the dt (delta t) at or inside EH, equal to dt (delta t) at Earth ??

to hide all adverts.
7. ### paddoboyValued Senior Member

Messages:
21,803
I've answered that I think, and believe the answer is that what you ask is unknowable and makes no sense.

8. ### tashjaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
715
Hi Raj. See Prof. Poisson's response below:

paddoboy and Kristoffer like this.
9. ### paddoboyValued Senior Member

Messages:
21,803
Why are we only allowed to press the like button once!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Vinaka vakalevu tashja!

10. ### RajeshTrivediValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,525
Thanks Tashja,

Professor is right and on the point, and thats what GTD (Gravitational Time Dilation Says), because it gives absurd value at EH and inside, see below.....when r <= 2GM/c^2........Kind of things stop at EH for remote observer, become asymptotic on time scale...(GR bete noir infinities come by..)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Now the point is....when I talk of time, in general I talk of my time, say I will take so many minutes to do so, or so many hours to reach their or so many days to complete the deadlines....these are all "mytime".....which I can relate with....

1. Q-Reeus said that a transient BNS may exist inside EH...
2. Paddoboy said that if at all the BNS can exist it may exist for Planck'stime (10^-35 Second)
3. Brucep gave some calculations referring to fall from EH to r = o and gave a figure of 72 Hrs.....
4. Professor says that a stable surface cannot form inside EH......

So,
1. transient time of Q-reeus is how much of mytime ?
2. Planck's time inisde EH is how much of mytime ?
3. 72 Hrs of Brucep time inside EH is how much of mytime ?
4. Stable (qualitative word foo time) is in mytime or in EH time ?

Why are we only allowed to press the like button once ??
Because too much of happiness can cause irreparable damage to heart and brain too !!

11. ### paddoboyValued Senior Member

Messages:
21,803
Professor of course was certainly right, as too was paddo boy.
But don't confuse or use the fact that because we are unable to compare times, that we are unable to assign, spin for example, to properties and scenarios inside the EH, as predicted by GR, and as can logically and reasonably be assumed based on what we do know.

:shrug: That's OK, as long as you realise that time and space are not absolute, as Newton and those before Einstein thought. My time may differ from yours due to gravitational potential or speed, but it is just as valid.
You watching me approach an EH will never see me cross it, just fade from view, and every thing that you see and monitor is real. But I will approach and cross the EH and onto oblivion in my own frame, and that is just as real.
There is no universal now.

Everyone said and told you no stable surface can form inside a BH. [Ignoring the Planck/Quantum scale where GR breaks down]
I also said that any NS or any matter what so ever once crossing the EH, will be firstly spaghetiffied and then broken down into its most basic fundamental parts, with gravity overcoming all other forces. In fact that could take place outside the EH, depending how big the BH is.
All Frames of References are valid:
Within each frame of reference, time passes as per normal :

eg: From your frame of reference, watching me approach the EH, and fade from view, if you had a magic rope tied to me and you tugged at it, you could pull me back to safety at anytime you wished...even after a million years by your clocks.
From my frame of reference as I approached the EH in a short but finite amount of time, I would feel you tug me back out to safety just before I crossed the EH.
Otherwise as has been mentioned, comparing time outside to time inside is just plain impossible and makes no sense. As the Professor put it, "the internal and external coordinate systems are not related to each other"

Last edited: May 6, 2015
12. ### tashjaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
715
I asked Prof. Poisson if there was even a remote possibility, according to any theory, that a material object smaller than its Schwarzchild radius could exist at all, and this is what he said:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

13. ### tashjaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
715
And Professor Teukolsky:

14. ### Q-reeusValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,172
I did? So it's not good enough, as per your NS thread, to merely bring up private matters, with negative intent and without seeking consent? Now I am further subject to being unwillingly drawn into this rather pointless thread in order to defend against that false statement. Which unfortunately was further presented to Poisson as an accurate statement as per post #9. Go back and check what I actually said - in full context (any of a number of posts in NS thread).
I never gave any such transient time. A retraction on both your above statements is in order - are you up to offering it?

15. ### tashjaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
715
Q: Nothing you said was presented to Prof. Poisson. Both Profs. were responding to my question: Is there a remote possibility, according to any theory, that a material object smaller than its Schwarzchild radius could exist at all?

16. ### Q-reeusValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,172
OK tashja fine, but it's still the case the way your post #9 reads, Poisson was responding to that quoted passage. No big deal and not blaming you as it was I guess natural enough to assume Rajish had got that much correct.

17. ### tashjaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
715
Q: My bad. I should have quoted the whole post, but I thought that part of Raj's post was a nice segue to present the Profs. replies.

18. ### RajeshTrivediValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,525

This what you said Q-reeus......

...............At best, formation of transient pockets of NS dense matter interior to EH is a projected thing based on a free-falling perspective.........

And this is what I responded about you.....

..................Now coming to you, why you are letting your paper languish at Vixra ?? Why not throw it open at least here for some discussions ? What are you afraid of ??

And by the way what was your conclusion ?? ......................

So, dear friend, neither I have quoted you out of context and nor did I mention any private discussion with you.........

19. ### Q-reeusValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,172
No sweat tashja and thanks for quick and honest reply. No point making mountains out of molehills.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

20. ### Q-reeusValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,172
Well if you honestly feel that way I'm not interested in debating back and forth. I feel more sorry for you than angry. You are having a hard time letting your baby BNS theory go, and the longer it takes, the harder it is on you.

21. ### RajeshTrivediValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,525
A thing will have relevance and significance to me here on Earth, if i can relate with it somehow.......

So, stating the obvious that times are different under different gravitational situation is fine, but I must be able to co relate....so the questions remain.

This is a right statement under relativity theory, that inside and outside of EH are isolated, on the time aspect itself.......Schwarzchilds solution says time become spatial.......so what is the significance of stability / transientness etc of an object inside EH (mind you stability transient aspect is with respect to Earth's time frame) ....when the most important Physical parameter that is time is practically uncertain from Earth's point of view.

Are we talking about stability or instability of an object inside EH in local time frame ?? But then we are measuring the speed/orbits etc of nearby stars (around BH) from Earth's perspective..

22. ### paddoboyValued Senior Member

Messages:
21,803
As I have told you many times....Nothing is stable within the EH of any BH, from any time frame or from any perspective, no matter how you chose to dance around the ignorance you have shown with regards to GR and BHs.

23. ### RajeshTrivediValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,525
Don't run away.......You can question any of my theory, can declare it dead or crap, does not bother me, but do not question some one's personal integrity and run away........I never divulged any personal communication out, my reference was to vixra only......I withdrew my statement when I questioned Paddo on fudging Prof Hamilton response...

And yes, after your 3-4 relentless post in favor of GR, I was forced to ask about your change of heart about GR, which you declared as dead and crap along with SM.......