Matter would fall faster than light speed. Matter would first reach light speed on the edge of a black hole. Then since there is even stronger gravity inside a black hole matter would then be propelled faster than light. Either way black holes fail.
Light in the vicinity of a black hole(the current term for the extreme of gravity) goes slow in the slower time. Light falls. So we would have to wait for it. It will always come out. I call them Dark Holes instead of "black." The event horizons are the problem. Time ends there. So light would come to a complete halt even if it is headed inward. Stephen Hawking says that GR predicts its own downfall by predicting singularities. What he failed to see(along with Einstein) is that if slow time slows light then it would slow down on approach and park itself at the edge of the black hole. It could no longer move. There is no more time for it to move in. Time for light is gravitational.
As Heinz Pagels has said: eitther way black holes are going out with a bang.
As Heinz Pagels has said: eitther way black holes are going out with a bang.
QUOTE (Nick+Jun 6 2006, 11:44 PM)
Light in the vicinity of a black hole(the current term for the extreme of gravity) goes slow in the slower time. Light falls. So we would have to wait for it. It will always come out. I call them Dark Holes instead of "black." The event horizons are the problem. Time ends there. So light would come to a complete halt even if it is headed inward. Stephen Hawking says that GR predicts its own downfall by predicting singularities.
What he failed to see(along with Einstein) is that if slow time slows light then it would slow down on approach and park itself at the edge of the black hole. It could no longer move. There is no more time for it to move in. Time for light is gravitational.
You misunderstand the physics. Time doesn't really exist in general relativity, in the sense we experience it. There is no present, and the future and past are all relative to one's inertial frame of reference. Anything which doesn't survive the Lorentz transforms cannot be considered a physical entity.
The "t" in relativity is simply an interval of velocity over distance, of which velocity is a derivative. The speed of light is not really a true velocity since the meter is defined by the length light itself travels relative to the oscillations of a Cesium atom. The fixed velocity of light, is a description of the relationship of the electromagnetic field to spacetime. Since there is no concept of simultaneity in the universe, thus time in the human intuitive sense does not exist. Einstein's universe is a block universe where all the spacetime events are mapped out, and our perceptions are simply related to our position in this manifold.
In terms of black holes, they show that light cannot escape the gravitational pull. It is similar to the notion of Unruh davies radiation when a hypothetical traveller approaches the speed of light. Remember in relativity acceleration and gravity are identically experienced forces. Thus an observer near a black holes is equivalent to an observer accellerating to the c.
You misunderstand the physics. Time doesn't really exist in general relativity, in the sense we experience it. There is no present, and the future and past are all relative to one's inertial frame of reference. Anything which doesn't survive the Lorentz transforms cannot be considered a physical entity.
The "t" in relativity is simply an interval of velocity over distance, of which velocity is a derivative. The speed of light is not really a true velocity since the meter is defined by the length light itself travels relative to the oscillations of a Cesium atom. The fixed velocity of light, is a description of the relationship of the electromagnetic field to spacetime. Since there is no concept of simultaneity in the universe, thus time in the human intuitive sense does not exist. Einstein's universe is a block universe where all the spacetime events are mapped out, and our perceptions are simply related to our position in this manifold.
In terms of black holes, they show that light cannot escape the gravitational pull. It is similar to the notion of Unruh davies radiation when a hypothetical traveller approaches the speed of light. Remember in relativity acceleration and gravity are identically experienced forces. Thus an observer near a black holes is equivalent to an observer accellerating to the c.
As Heinz Pagels has said: eitther way black holes are going out with a bang.
His point is that they will eventually evaporate.
Einstein's Equivalence Principle was too generalized. There is a mathematical difference between weight in gravity and weight in an accelerating rocket. Only one has motion. :lol:
The effect of gravity and the effects of unfiform accelerations are indistinguishable. It is a fundamental tenet of general relativity.
There is no such thing as a "timerate."
Gravity doesn't have "weight." Gravity is a force. So a gravity's weight doesn't approach anything like a light speed limit.
I think you need a little physics refresher course.
There is no evidence. Nor is there much understanding about what other dimensions are, if they exist.
And objects don't expand as they accelerate.
Please complete 9th grade before posting here again.
QUOTE
What he failed to see(along with Einstein) is that if slow time slows light then it would slow down on approach and park itself at the edge of the black hole. It could no longer move. There is no more time for it to move in. Time for light is gravitational.
You misunderstand the physics. Time doesn't really exist in general relativity, in the sense we experience it. There is no present, and the future and past are all relative to one's inertial frame of reference. Anything which doesn't survive the Lorentz transforms cannot be considered a physical entity.
The "t" in relativity is simply an interval of velocity over distance, of which velocity is a derivative. The speed of light is not really a true velocity since the meter is defined by the length light itself travels relative to the oscillations of a Cesium atom. The fixed velocity of light, is a description of the relationship of the electromagnetic field to spacetime. Since there is no concept of simultaneity in the universe, thus time in the human intuitive sense does not exist. Einstein's universe is a block universe where all the spacetime events are mapped out, and our perceptions are simply related to our position in this manifold.
In terms of black holes, they show that light cannot escape the gravitational pull. It is similar to the notion of Unruh davies radiation when a hypothetical traveller approaches the speed of light. Remember in relativity acceleration and gravity are identically experienced forces. Thus an observer near a black holes is equivalent to an observer accellerating to the c.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
What he failed to see(along with Einstein) is that if slow time slows light then it would slow down on approach and park itself at the edge of the black hole. It could no longer move. There is no more time for it to move in. Time for light is gravitational. |
You misunderstand the physics. Time doesn't really exist in general relativity, in the sense we experience it. There is no present, and the future and past are all relative to one's inertial frame of reference. Anything which doesn't survive the Lorentz transforms cannot be considered a physical entity.
The "t" in relativity is simply an interval of velocity over distance, of which velocity is a derivative. The speed of light is not really a true velocity since the meter is defined by the length light itself travels relative to the oscillations of a Cesium atom. The fixed velocity of light, is a description of the relationship of the electromagnetic field to spacetime. Since there is no concept of simultaneity in the universe, thus time in the human intuitive sense does not exist. Einstein's universe is a block universe where all the spacetime events are mapped out, and our perceptions are simply related to our position in this manifold.
In terms of black holes, they show that light cannot escape the gravitational pull. It is similar to the notion of Unruh davies radiation when a hypothetical traveller approaches the speed of light. Remember in relativity acceleration and gravity are identically experienced forces. Thus an observer near a black holes is equivalent to an observer accellerating to the c.
As Heinz Pagels has said: eitther way black holes are going out with a bang.
His point is that they will eventually evaporate.
You are working with a failing physics and I have an understanding of what is to come. And Pagels point was Either they will be proven wrong
or we will discover one. What we have discovered is the extreme of gravity and that does not necessarily need to be a black hole.
or we will discover one. What we have discovered is the extreme of gravity and that does not necessarily need to be a black hole.
Weight in gravity is different from rate in acceleration. One moves the other doesn't. Therefore the one that doesn't move has no timerate. AND BECAUSE IT HAS NO TIMERATE IT IS LIMITED. Accelerated motion has a rate and therefore can approach infinity over shorter and shorter intervals . Gravity's weight can only approach a light speed limit.
Einstein's Equivalence Principle was too generalized. There is a mathematical difference between weight in gravity and weight in an accelerating rocket. Only one has motion.
Einstein's Equivalence Principle was too generalized. There is a mathematical difference between weight in gravity and weight in an accelerating rocket. Only one has motion.
QUOTE (Nick+Jun 7 2006, 01:07 AM)
Einstein's Equivalence Principle was too generalized. There is a mathematical difference between weight in gravity and weight in an accelerating rocket. Only one has motion. :lol:
QUOTE
Weight in gravity is different from rate in acceleration. One moves the other doesn't. Therefore the one that doesn't move has no timerate. AND BECAUSE IT HAS NO TIMERATE IT IS LIMITED. Accelerated motion has a rate and therefore can approach infinity over shorter and shorter intervals . Gravity's weight can only approach a light speed limit.
The effect of gravity and the effects of unfiform accelerations are indistinguishable. It is a fundamental tenet of general relativity.
There is no such thing as a "timerate."
Gravity doesn't have "weight." Gravity is a force. So a gravity's weight doesn't approach anything like a light speed limit.
I think you need a little physics refresher course.
QUOTE (Nick+)
Matter would fall faster than light speed. Matter would first reach light speed on the edge of a black hole. Then since there is even stronger gravity inside a black hole matter would then be propelled faster than light. Either way black holes fail.
Please provide a link--or, at least your logic.
As far as I know, matter cannot br propelled faster than light unless the force of gravity is infinite. As far as I know, the force of gravity in a black hole is finite. The reason light cannot escape (as far as I know) is because the surrounding spacetime is all curved inward toward the hole. Black holes aren't technically holes. They are extremely compressed matter that has torn the spacetime around them.
Please provide a link--or, at least your logic.
As far as I know, matter cannot br propelled faster than light unless the force of gravity is infinite. As far as I know, the force of gravity in a black hole is finite. The reason light cannot escape (as far as I know) is because the surrounding spacetime is all curved inward toward the hole. Black holes aren't technically holes. They are extremely compressed matter that has torn the spacetime around them.
Is there gravity inside a black hole? Matter reaches light speed at the event horizon and goes faster inside. The only way to stop a black hole from accelerating things past light speed would be to get rid of the gravity inside .
I have never heard of matter ever traveling at ©. Where is your evidence of this? Where did you hear this?
yeah, I'm wondering the same thing. Why exactly are you stating that matter must reach the speed of light at the event horizon of a black hole? As far as black holes not existing, that's pretty much been proven. You make a set of predictions and then confirm with observations. Is that not what has happened?
QUOTE (555Joshua+Jun 8 2006, 01:20 PM)
I have never heard of matter ever traveling at ©. Where is your evidence of this? Where did you hear this?
It is well known that matter reaches light speed at a black hole. What is less known is that if there is more gravity inside a black hole(!) that matter will be propelled faster than light by this gravity.
It is well known that matter reaches light speed at a black hole. What is less known is that if there is more gravity inside a black hole(!) that matter will be propelled faster than light by this gravity.
I have never heard of this before. You are going to have to give us your source.
QUOTE (555Joshua+Jun 9 2006, 11:42 AM)
I have never heard of this before. You are going to have to give us your source.
I am the source. If time ends at the event horizon it is only obvious that matter has reached the speed of light. See that?
I am the source. If time ends at the event horizon it is only obvious that matter has reached the speed of light. See that?
KREED
Life in a black hole is tight.
Everything here is just speculation..
Playing with 'word' games
Playing with 'word' games
Looks to me everyone forgot about expansion of the object as it accelerates and of course the continuable and ever present possibility of passing through dimensions that would ultimately include an energy state which would be a completely different dimension. Other dimensions have been proven, right? Or everyone leaves that out of the discussion because there is little evidence?
QUOTE
Other dimensions have been proven, right? Or everyone leaves that out of the discussion because there is little evidence?
There is no evidence. Nor is there much understanding about what other dimensions are, if they exist.
And objects don't expand as they accelerate.
Please complete 9th grade before posting here again.
i read that if they exist we may never be able to detect or experience them anyway.
"Please complete 9th grade before posting here again". That is not nice.
Like I was saying before the 2nd graders interrupted us 8th graders...I think it all comes back to the theory of relativity and time-stretch theory: moving faster gathers you more mass, so moving at light speed gives you theoretically huge mass compared to your original mass (normally not a problem, because rays don't really have 'mass' in a traditional sense and nothing else gets that fast).
QUOTE (-Fairy-+Jan 19 2012, 08:29 AM)
i read that if they exist we may never be able to detect or experience them anyway.
So here goes. Well, we need to define an alternate dimension. Oh, since the mass and volume of our detected universe is so massive, if it was possible to travel far enough away from our universe it would ultimately have form. Wither it be a gas or a solid or even a liquid. I think this is a very good case for another dimension, and if there is more than one dimension then there is a good chance of multiple dimensions. Now with all theories there are problems such that what if our universe has no end? I would hypothesis that would put us in a state of huge potential to ultimately, with massive amounts of time to create another dimension. Of course we might have to do our conception on a galactic scale but I see no restrictions except for a lack of imagination or time. If time is certain and unlimited (I am talking years and years) then man could look to the future on such scales. Or, of course if we can conceive on a galactic scale maybe we should look to start on a smaller scale. Which I guess is the reason for the massive colliders currently being constructed. Plus smaller scales would be too hard to control and make adjustments. Back to larger dimensions. First we would have to harness the energy of our solar system then in a million or so years (est.) harness the energy and resources of the "Milky Way", until ultimately in a trillion or more years (est.) we are able to arrange galaxies in such a way as to create life or at least the soup for the potential of life in another dimension. I like it, for all practical purposes we would be invisible yet able to easily influence our creation. A million light years to us would be but a few seconds to the life form mankind created.
Now technically as long as we are invisible and undetected or fathomed we would be from anther dimension...I think. It would be a dimension of "Scale".
So here goes. Well, we need to define an alternate dimension. Oh, since the mass and volume of our detected universe is so massive, if it was possible to travel far enough away from our universe it would ultimately have form. Wither it be a gas or a solid or even a liquid. I think this is a very good case for another dimension, and if there is more than one dimension then there is a good chance of multiple dimensions. Now with all theories there are problems such that what if our universe has no end? I would hypothesis that would put us in a state of huge potential to ultimately, with massive amounts of time to create another dimension. Of course we might have to do our conception on a galactic scale but I see no restrictions except for a lack of imagination or time. If time is certain and unlimited (I am talking years and years) then man could look to the future on such scales. Or, of course if we can conceive on a galactic scale maybe we should look to start on a smaller scale. Which I guess is the reason for the massive colliders currently being constructed. Plus smaller scales would be too hard to control and make adjustments. Back to larger dimensions. First we would have to harness the energy of our solar system then in a million or so years (est.) harness the energy and resources of the "Milky Way", until ultimately in a trillion or more years (est.) we are able to arrange galaxies in such a way as to create life or at least the soup for the potential of life in another dimension. I like it, for all practical purposes we would be invisible yet able to easily influence our creation. A million light years to us would be but a few seconds to the life form mankind created.
Now technically as long as we are invisible and undetected or fathomed we would be from anther dimension...I think. It would be a dimension of "Scale".
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.