Gravitational Time Dilation

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    and yes,

    I am not saving my BNS, I want to know the alternative, I can say for sure that it is impossible for any collapsing core to collapse from NS to BH (r = 0).......I know that time inside EH has no meaning with respect to Earth, but if the time itself has no meaning then why all are saying that there cannot be stable BNS ?? Is the word stable not linked with time in the context...

    Who knows what is inside EH ?

    BNS - May be ? BH Singularity - Certainly not ?? Gateway to Universe - II may be ? or Greta Garbo may be having pasta with Gilbert !!! Who knows ??
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    My Dear Friend Paddoboy,

    You do not understand what I am referring to, you are a nice old man with admirable interest in cosmology, for a change allow the things to go beyond mundane copy paste......You think that I am so dumb that I do not understand what you and others are talking about ? I request you to to re appreciate what Prof said, that alternative to relativity is a respectable and active research area !!!! So it is no blasphemy now. I am not against any ---....vity, I am just finding certain things difficult to digest, so lets are curtailing...and you are successfully flooding the thread.....
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    You are now a recognised liar Rajesh in claiming I fudged anyones E-Mail...I don't have to...All you need to do is check out his web site. He says exactly the same thing.
    But as obviously everyone now realises, you are grasping at straws and twisting and squirming your way out of admitting you were totally wrong.
    It's either that or the whole world is wrong.
    I may not have received the formal education that you have, but what puts me above you is the application of common sense, and the lack of delusions of grandeur that you suffer from.
    I suppose in essence, It's understandable why I'm the brunt of your attacks, as It is I that have shown you up as a total fraud and hoaxter, that lacks any intestinal fortitude, and that has avoided pertinent questions on your alternative cosmology, and has lied throughout many posts.

    But rest assured, I'' continue to be around to continue to refute your totally unsupported statements.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    No, It s not like that......I am not a static person, I rove around.

    I have changed the Physics around BNS long back....the day I talked of Energy Mass Energy Continuum.......Very soon, may be in a month it will be out here.........BNS is still there but with a change....
  8. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    We could have discussed something on Gravitational Time Dilation.........How sad !!

    There is mythological story, around 5000 years of the sage says to a follower who happen to visit him on a different celestial body, that a moment (say one second) time on his abode is equal to few hundreds of years of Earth's time.......
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Nothing at all exists within any BH EH........
    That is what GR tells us and more then 8 Professors have confirmed.
    Sorry to upset you.
    All matter is demolished by gravity inside any BH, and all forces including the strong nuclear are overcome.
    As GR does fail and break down at the Quantum/Planck level, one is able to speculate a surface of sorts within that domain, consisting of the mass in an unknown form and Ignoring the point Singularity as unlikely.

    With so many errors in so many threads Rajesh, all shown up by reputable links and all shown up by many expert Professors, the best advice one could give you is as one of the Professors has given you already...That is learn some relativity...both Special and General and then try and apply that knowledge to your ignorant thoughts on cosmology.
    Because really, you are not offering much here I'm sorry to say...just a reflection of your total ignorance on the subject.
  10. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Come on Paddoboy !! Accept maths no on says so, and you are under no obligation to believe the maths if you do not know that...

    The right statement is that we do not know for sure what goes on inside EH, we do not know where the mass goes ?
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    And here is again Professor Hamilton's E-Mail to me......
    My questions in red:
    His replies in black bold:

    > The question being debated is simply, can we logically and reasonably assign angular momentum to a ring singularity/mass, and the spacetime within the EH proper?

    A black hole is a place where space is falling faster than the speed of light.
    The horizon is the place where space falls at the speed of light.
    Inside the horizon, space falls faster than light. That is why
    light cannot escape from a black hole.

    Light emitted directly upward from the horizon of a black hole
    stays there forever, barrelling outward at the speed of light
    through space falling at the speed of light. It takes an infinite
    time for light to lift off the horizon and make it to the outside
    world. Thus when you watch a star collapse to a black hole,
    you see it appear to freeze, and redshift and dim, at the horizon.

    Since gravity also propagates at the speed of light, gravity,
    like light, cannot escape from a black hole. The gravity you
    experience from a black hole is the gravity of the frozen star,
    not the gravity of whatever is inside the black hole.

    > Or are we only allowed to assign angular momentum [frame dragging] to the ergopshere?

    All the gravity, including the frame-dragging, is from the frozen star.

    > Is it not logical that if we observe frame dragging, we should be able to assume that we have a rotating mass?

    Indeed you have a rotating mass.

    > And is not angular momentum conserved by the mass that has collapsed to within its Schwarzchild radius to give us a BH?


    > Other questions that have arisen are...
    > Can we have massless Black holes held together by the non linearity of spacetime/gravity?

    A black hole has mass, whatever it might have been formed from.

    It is possible to form a black hole from gravitational waves
    focussed towards each other. Gravitational waves propagate
    in empty space, and locally cannot be distingished from empty space.
    Nevertheless they do curve space, and do carry energy.

    Hope this helps,

    Of course that reply makes a total mockery of all your claims

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    And support basically everything I have been telling you.
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    No, I support the maths...I just don't support your maths nor your lies.
    No, the right statement is that we can logically assume as predicted by GR, that nothing is stable or exists within any EH, at least up to the Planck realm.
    This is where GR fails.
    Plus of course we all nkow that gravity overcomes all forces including the strong nuclear.

    Oh, and here's Professor Hamiltons web page which supports all I have said and refutes all that you have claimed.
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    And here's Mitch Begalman's reply on your paper and this thread which as I thought is another fraud.....:

    This is complete nonsense, since it is not based on any relativistic ideas of gravity. It seems to be based on the simple packing of rigid spheres, but physical spheres could not remain rigid inside the event horizon, since this would require the material composing the spheres to have an internal sound speed greater than the speed of light, which directly contradicts relativity. The fact that the author did not begin the paper by stating this (exceeding the speed of light) as a premise implies a deep ignorance of the subject of the paper.

    On 4/17/2015 12:26 AM, B.C. wrote:
    Hi Professor
    You were kind enough to answer a question/s for me a while back. Again that was much appreciated
    I was wondering if you could give your opinion on this paper and how it fits in with General Relativity
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Old is relative and at least I am there...You have yet to get there.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Particularly as they are all refuting your quackery.
    Yes, as well as avoiding answering questions, as well as telling lies, and as well as being totally delusional.
    Yep, sure it is......Relativity particularly GR is being continually tested to extremes all the time......GP-B was the last big confirmation,,,now evidence of gravity waves is sought. But it is being tested and researched by reputable and learned people all the time.....Certainly not dum dums!!!! That's science, that's the scientific method, that's how it works!
    And you are a liar and a fraud. Grow up and concede like a man!
    Last edited: May 6, 2015
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    With the same publishing company??

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Let me inform you now. Whatever you propose will be nonsense and totally unsupported.
    Nothing exists inside the EH of a BH other then possibly where GR fails...and that is at the quantum/Planck level.
    You got a epic "F" for the last excuse for a scientific paper.....
    Can this one do any worse?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Proabably certainly yes!
  16. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Rajesh, the problem is that you were and are not presenting any alternative. You just toss GR aside and specule without any credible alternative... I have tried to point out several times that what you are imagining requires a credible alternate theory of gravity...

    As at least one of the professors responding to your imagination.., has commented, you don't seem to understand GR to begin with. I am not sure you understand SR or even Newtonian Mechanics.

    Now you want to discuss gravitational time dilation and don't seem to understand the underlying theory, principles and assumptions. It seems you have nothing more than a case of run-a-way imagination!
    paddoboy likes this.
  17. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    A reference? I wasn't aware that there is much of any written record dating that far back.
  18. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Like I've said several times including the first time I presented it for you. The Tau_1 - Tau_2 = ........... Tells you the proper time it takes [measured on a clock with the falling object] to fall from any r to a smaller r. That's what GR predicts. It's derived from local proper frame coordinates not the remote bookkeeper coordinates that predict the distance to the event horizon is infinite. The infinity is associated with a coordinate singularity in the remote coordinate system. To show the distance is finite you just have to integrate the dr component of the metric and the coordinate singularity disappears for the remote coordinates. None of this has anything to do with Planck time. So you should be able to tell us the answer to your query.
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    The saddest thing about it all is that he really does not want to understand anything about it all....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Delusions of grandeur is a nasty far reaching condition with nasty undesirable consequences.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  20. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    I think this is an interesting question, even though the thread seems to have gotten mired in personal attacks and hubris somewhere.

    Is the speed of light the same (proper time) for energy trapped in the EH of a BH? If it is, the time dilation there for energy or for matter falling through it is infinite, and therefore NEITHER YOU, NOR ANYONE ELSE CAN DO ANY MATH OF ANY KIND PERTAINING TO THAT REGION, mainly because INFINITY IS NOT A NUMBER, and there is no verified quantum theory of gravity which excludes that particular infinity and that has been tested or verified.

    Anyone who claims they can solve this problem would simply be exaggerating their analytical abilities.
  21. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Or your interesting point could just be wrong?
    danshawen likes this.
  22. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    I am just as fallible as anyone else, under the circumstances, OnlyMe.

    I know no math to penetrate the veil, but since no one else here does either, what really is there to argue about?

    Time intervals on the order of Planck dilate to infinity just like any other. There isn't actually a smallest time interval, and I suspect that if there was, quantum entanglement wouldn't function as it does and any particles of matter of which the core of a BH was formerly comprised would cease to have inertia, be bound, or to exhibit outward effects of gravitational mass.

    We have observed that whatever is happening in the EH, such bodies appear outwardly to continue to obey GR dynamics as if they remained composed of concentrated mass.
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    GR BHs best fit our description of what we see....Through GR, we are also able to logically deduce that nothing exists [other then curved spacetime] within a BH at least up to the quantum/Planck level where the mass resides ignoring the classical point singularity.
    By the same token time within a BH cannot be compared to time this side of the EH and the question as Rajesh asks is invalid. This was explained in a previous post and confirmed by tashja's Professor.....

    In fact this new thread and the question he asks, is just another dishonest example of keeping alive his long dead BNS rubbish.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page