RajeshTrivedi
Valued Senior Member
This line needs some correction, time dilation is present between two different frames situated at r1 and r2 distance from the center.
Free-fall to singularity is BS (or - don't just trust 'authorities')
- Thread starter Q-reeus
- Start date
This line needs some correction, time dilation is present between two different frames situated at r1 and r2 distance from the center.
I'm speaking from a local FoR.
If I was falling towards a BH, my time in my FoR according to me, passes as per normal.
Time dilation is only evident from a remote FoR is the way I understand it.
Even if I cross the EH, my time passes according to me, at one second per second.
RajeshTrivedi
Valued Senior Member
Something looks quite disturbing about above line of mine as stated in Post # 50....
to me it still appears to be correct, but significance is quite enormous if it is true...
For example...
The time taken to fall from EH to singularity is finite (say it is x seconds).
1. This x seconds will be observed as x seconds in the falling frame.
2. This x seconds will be observed as x seconds from the Earth (away from the gravity of BH)
3. This x seconds will be hugely time dilated for a frame situated at just outside the EH...even if the frame is situated at 1.000001Rc, this will be dilated by a factor of 1000.
Am I right or I have missed something... Disturbing part is that the time taken to fall from EH will be seen as x at Earth (at very large distance) but seen by a person hanging near the EH (just out...with full power) dilated..
RajeshTrivedi
Valued Senior Member
For near BH, the blue colored observation of yours requires clarification...no dispute with uncolored quote..
If we take a non rotating Schwarzchild BH of a solar mass, then its Rc = 3 Km (hope this is correct), so if there are two frames one at 3.0 Km (slightly outer to EH) and another at 6 Km , then the time dilation factor is 0.7, that is huge.
So actually use of word 'remote' by you appears misleading...
Ask yourself, when does time dilation occur?
I submit this from WIKI.....
In the theory of relativity, time dilation is an actual difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers either moving relative to each other or differently situated from gravitational masses.
An accurate clock at rest with respect to one observer may be measured to tick at a different rate when compared to a second observer's own equally accurate clocks. This effect arises neither from technical aspects of the clocks nor from the fact that signals need time to propagate, but from the nature of spacetime itself.
"Time dilation explains why two working clocks will report different times after different accelerations. For example, ISS astronauts return from missions having aged slightly less than they would have been if they had remained on Earth, and GPS satellites work because they adjust for similar bending of spacetime to coordinate with systems on Earth."
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
And if you are familiar with the famous twin experiment paradox, [which isn't really a paradox] both twins see the other's clocks [both mechanical and biological] running slow.
Each twin observes nothing extraordinary with his own passing of time.
Huge or not, that's not what I'm saying. The one at 6km will see the one at 3km time dilated, while the one at 3km will not notice anything strange about "his"own time passage.
By remote, I mean any other FoR, other then the FoR of the clock and person falling in.
If that's what's misleading, I apologise.....maybe I should use "distant"or "outside"
[1] In the falling/local FoR, x seconds is observed as x seconds.
[2] and [3] are causally disconnected from anything happening inside the EH or with [1]
Folks, I've decided the usual has happened to this thread. Gotten bogged-down in time-wasting repetitive arguments that convinces no-one to change their entrenched views/prejudices. That's the 'good' part. The bad part is the continued flaming/trolling that some just seem to need as a reason to continue existing.
Anyway, all I have to say on the actual OP topic has been said. No point imo to reengage with any posters - especially true of a few spiteful ones. I leave this thread for others to do battle in as they see fit. My only hope is someone(s) out there in silent lurker land will learn from here the value of critical and independent thinking.
Best wishes to those who truly wish the best.
Anyway, all I have to say on the actual OP topic has been said. No point imo to reengage with any posters - especially true of a few spiteful ones. I leave this thread for others to do battle in as they see fit. My only hope is someone(s) out there in silent lurker land will learn from here the value of critical and independent thinking.
Best wishes to those who truly wish the best.
I hope that someone who silently reads this thread understands that you truly are offering and alternative method of doing science. Specifically, you are demanding exactness from a metric choice of convenience that no other scientist demands. Whether the silent reader chooses to join your alternative method is up to them.
I can also identify the luke-warm intellects who try to boost their egos by parroting consensus science without actually understanding it.
Or the individuals with delusions of grandeur, tall poppy syndrome, and anti establishment bias, in arrogant abundance.
the first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.[feynman]
exactly like " qm +gr = black holes cannot exist " thread huh.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
edit:
along with these topic.
http://www.sciforums.com/search/29077/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
just another typical want to be intellect , nothing more.
Last edited:
Although I agree with you, your response implies that your goal is to tear down peoples' self image rather than explore the truth. This pretty much explains why you were impossibly reluctant to concede anything in the Galileo thread...along with about a half-dozen others.
All I ask, is that all our alternative hypothesis pushers, have real observational evidence supporting their claims, or observational evidence invalidating the incumbent model, and most Importantly, that this evidence, [if they have it] explain what we see, better then the accepted incumbent model.
Is that really too much to ask?
ps: And in finality, undergo peer review.
Most probably there was nothing to concede.
This can't be true because my QM + GR = no BH thread STARTED with a peer-reviewed, published paper.
The irony here is that what you call any "anti-establishment view" is actually progress; that's literally how science paradigms shift. Simply declaring that all new ideas are wrong prima facie without striving to understand why they are wrong is not science (even when the new ideas are later proven to be flawed).
Do you really want to goad me into printing a digest of quotes from that thread?paddoboy said:
Actually quite true as you damn well know.
Firstly the article was about a possible theoretical quantum effect. If real, it just pertains to the nature of the EH.
Contrary to what the sensationalist headlines said, it does not mean BH's do not exist.
But you being an avid anti BH person, grabbed it with both hands, and manufactured your own Interpretation on it.
Much the same as the Catholic church having to finally accept the BB and evolution, due to the weight of evidence, but then quite cynically putting that down to the work of some magic pixie in the sky.
Firstly there is no irony at all, and again, "All I ask, is that all our alternative hypothesis pushers, have real observational evidence supporting their claims, or observational evidence invalidating the incumbent model, and most Importantly, that this evidence, [if they have it] explain what we see, better then the accepted incumbent model.
Is that really too much to ask?
ps: And in finality, undergo peer review".
And of course new ideas are accepted and old ideas confined to limits of applicability.
That's how we have arrived at where we are today. To deny that, or to suggest some sort of mainstream conspiracy to keep new stuff out, is just...well...a silly conspiracy.
You are funny...Goad???If you feel like starting another thread, highlighting what you suggest, be my guest.
The paper shows that if QM is correct then the "nature of the EH" is that it does not exist. It's unphysical. And, yes, this would certainly mean that BH's don't exist.
Yes, goad, by denying what happened. As soon as rpenner chimed in people either began agreeing with me or mysteriously leaving the thread. A couple of straggling dunderheads persisted in their denial, but I must admit I admire them in the way I admire Motordaddy...paddoboy said:
If you feel like starting another thread, highlighting what you suggest, be my guest.
You are entitled to your own Interpretation, as wrong as it is, and of course it isn't mainstream, nor what was "validated"by peer review.
Like most agree, a theoretical untested quantum effect.
Again, your unsupported opinion.
You made a few erronious claims in that thread if I remember correctly, and from memory, you may have got one right. :shrug:
I'm speaking of your overall view on the subject.