The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What happens to the passage of time close to a black hole?  (Read 4950 times)

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1306
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Split of GR = Sun photon time when it reaches Earth
« Reply #25 on: 21/06/2016 19:17:34 »
Perhaps you should also have a watch of the program "Horizon 'the mystery of dark energy"...  to see what some of the best and brightest are saying in relation to GR.

Also please see what one of the best and brightest within the multiverse camp are saying:

http://www.livescience.com/48685-physics-field-revolution.html

I could post many, many more links to the brightest and best talking about their confidence in GR...

Einstein was considered one of the brightest and the best on account of the fact that he did NOT side with the accepted.  If he had of done so we would not even have a General Relativity to debate over.

Are you equating yourself with Einstein?  Really?

Einstein was an exceptional mind, exceptional thinker, and if anyone had what it took intellectually to recognize the .0001% or less position as the one worth taking it was him.  And that was also a long time ago, when so much less was known, and there was such a greater probability that what was theorized at the time was wrong.  They did not have the sort of advanced tests we have today.  So trying to use that to bolster your argument isn't really credible.

And for every one of your best and brightest I could link to 1000.

Furthermore, that documentary was widely regarded as a bunch of bunk, by those who know better, wasn't it?

No - I am not equating myself with Einstein...  On the basis that Einstein quoted:
"The mind is like a parachute, it works best when open"
...I have an idea.

If my idea is correct (unlikely, but there is more probability of my being correct in this idea, than my lottery ticket matching the correct lottery numbers) ...then others 'will' be equating me with Einstein.

(Edit: in fact that is not quite true - if my notion is correct it leads to a fully described cyclic universe and a theory of everything - if it is correct and my suggested experiment and prediction holds true - 'others' will not be equating me with Einstein.... what they will be saying is that I have by far outclassed him!

On the other hand (highly more likely) it could just be one of the best worst theories ever (chuckle)...

And hey, brownie points for trying, right?)

Who said the documentary was a load of old...?   The quandary of physics has been being discussed by theoretical physicists amongst themselves for eons.  The fact that physicists are now publicly stating their concerns in programs such as Horizon and other science media is surely a sign of the times, as Nima states in his interview, with respect to  the situation of physics post LHC expectations.
« Last Edit: 21/06/2016 19:57:19 by timey »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3923
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Split of GR = Sun photon time when it reaches Earth
« Reply #26 on: 21/06/2016 19:54:36 »
Or said physicists are being paid to be on telly. Nothing like cash to sway opinion. Only joking.
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: What happens to the passage of time close to a black hole?
« Reply #27 on: 21/06/2016 21:24:26 »
Perhaps you should also have a watch of the program "Horizon 'the mystery of dark energy"...  to see what some of the best and brightest are saying in relation to GR.

Also please see what one of the best and brightest within the multiverse camp are saying:

http://www.livescience.com/48685-physics-field-revolution.html

I could post many, many more links to the brightest and best talking about their confidence in GR...

Einstein was considered one of the brightest and the best on account of the fact that he did NOT side with the accepted.  If he had of done so we would not even have a General Relativity to debate over.

Are you equating yourself with Einstein?  Really?

Einstein was an exceptional mind, exceptional thinker, and if anyone had what it took intellectually to recognize the .0001% or less position as the one worth taking it was him.  And that was also a long time ago, when so much less was known, and there was such a greater probability that what was theorized at the time was wrong.  They did not have the sort of advanced tests we have today.  So trying to use that to bolster your argument isn't really credible.

And for every one of your best and brightest I could link to 1000.

Furthermore, that documentary was widely regarded as a bunch of bunk, by those who know better, wasn't it?

No - I am not equating myself with Einstein...  On the basis that Einstein quoted:
"The mind is like a parachute, it works best when open"
...I have an idea.

If my idea is correct (unlikely, but there is more probability of my being correct in this idea, than my lottery ticket matching the correct lottery numbers) ...then others 'will' be equating me with Einstein.

(Edit: in fact that is not quite true - if my notion is correct it leads to a fully described cyclic universe and a theory of everything - if it is correct and my suggested experiment and prediction holds true - 'others' will not be equating me with Einstein.... what they will be saying is that I have by far outclassed him!

On the other hand (highly more likely) it could just be one of the best worst theories ever (chuckle)...

And hey, brownie points for trying, right?)

Who said the documentary was a load of old...?   The quandary of physics has been being discussed by theoretical physicists amongst themselves for eons.  The fact that physicists are now publicly stating their concerns in programs such as Horizon and other science media is surely a sign of the times, as Nima states in his interview, with respect to  the situation of physics post LHC expectations.

Interesting post, Thank you!

Alan
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: What happens to the passage of time close to a black hole?
« Reply #28 on: 21/06/2016 21:27:49 »
Perhaps you should also have a watch of the program "Horizon 'the mystery of dark energy"...  to see what some of the best and brightest are saying in relation to GR.

Also please see what one of the best and brightest within the multiverse camp are saying:

http://www.livescience.com/48685-physics-field-revolution.html

I could post many, many more links to the brightest and best talking about their confidence in GR...

Einstein was considered one of the brightest and the best on account of the fact that he did NOT side with the accepted.  If he had of done so we would not even have a General Relativity to debate over.

You are absolutely correct , especially as far as Albert Einstein is concerned he is not just "One of the brightest: He was by far the brightest ever!

Thank you

Alan
 

Offline IAMREALITY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
Re: What happens to the passage of time close to a black hole?
« Reply #29 on: 21/06/2016 21:28:32 »


No - I am not equating myself with Einstein...  On the basis that Einstein quoted:
"The mind is like a parachute, it works best when open"
...I have an idea.

If my idea is correct (unlikely, but there is more probability of my being correct in this idea, than my lottery ticket matching the correct lottery numbers) ...then others 'will' be equating me with Einstein.

(Edit: in fact that is not quite true - if my notion is correct it leads to a fully described cyclic universe and a theory of everything - if it is correct and my suggested experiment and prediction holds true - 'others' will not be equating me with Einstein.... what they will be saying is that I have by far outclassed him!

On the other hand (highly more likely) it could just be one of the best worst theories ever (chuckle)...

And hey, brownie points for trying, right?)

Who said the documentary was a load of old...?   The quandary of physics has been being discussed by theoretical physicists amongst themselves for eons.  The fact that physicists are now publicly stating their concerns in programs such as Horizon and other science media is surely a sign of the times, as Nima states in his interview, with respect to  the situation of physics post LHC expectations.

Interesting post, Thank you!

Alan

May I inquire greater details as to specifically what parts of the above you found interesting and why?
 

Offline IAMREALITY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
Re: What happens to the passage of time close to a black hole?
« Reply #30 on: 21/06/2016 21:39:41 »
Perhaps you should also have a watch of the program "Horizon 'the mystery of dark energy"...  to see what some of the best and brightest are saying in relation to GR.

Also please see what one of the best and brightest within the multiverse camp are saying:

http://www.livescience.com/48685-physics-field-revolution.html

I could post many, many more links to the brightest and best talking about their confidence in GR...

Einstein was considered one of the brightest and the best on account of the fact that he did NOT side with the accepted.  If he had of done so we would not even have a General Relativity to debate over.

You are absolutely correct , especially as far as Albert Einstein is concerned he is not just "One of the brightest: He was by far the brightest ever!

Thank you

Alan

I also ask here, what parts were you saying were correct? Do you also believe that GR is not a sound theory?  Just curious.

As far as Einstein goes, I was actually the one that called attention to his being exceptional, while timey tried to elaborate on that by saying his greatness was because he bucked the standard.  I'd actually argue his mind was exceptional for far more reasons than that alone.  On the flipside though, I would argue to the contrary that he was by far the brightest ever.   From an IQ standpoint, he wasn't even close.  But if we are talking instead not about 'the brightest', but his contribution to science, then even that is up for significant debate.  I'm sure you would get many different answers from many different perspectives, but none of course would be definitive since of course the exercise is subjective.  But one thing I think would be agreed on by most is that even if Einstein won out, it wouldn't be by far.

(edited to add: For what it's worth, my vote would in fact go to Einstein)
« Last Edit: 21/06/2016 21:44:40 by IAMREALITY »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1306
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What happens to the passage of time close to a black hole?
« Reply #31 on: 21/06/2016 22:30:04 »
Yeah, ok Alan M, firstly I thank you kindly for your positive comments.  You are however mistaken about IAMREALITY (IAR).  IAR was not insulting Pete, he was saying that Pete was going to be shredding my post with his superior knowledge.  Therefore actually IAR was actually insulting me.  (Although in fact I wasn't insulted, I purchased elephant skin (fake) on e-bay some time ago now and it serves me well, (chuckle)... I'm a woman btw IAR)

It is true that Pete has superior knowledge.  However he has not skewered my post as IAR suggested he might because (I suspect) he cannot.  The logic (I believe) is sound.  This does not mean that my alternative theory is correct...  Only that my observations of general relativity in relation to experiment concerning what is proven, and what is not, are correct.
« Last Edit: 21/06/2016 22:32:05 by timey »
 

Offline IAMREALITY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
Re: What happens to the passage of time close to a black hole?
« Reply #32 on: 21/06/2016 22:39:51 »
Yeah, ok Alan M, firstly I thank you kindly for your positive comments.  You are however mistaken about IAMREALITY (IAR).  IAR was not insulting Pete, he was saying that Pete was going to be shredding my post with his superior knowledge.  Therefore actually IAR was actually insulting me.  (Although in fact I wasn't insulted, I purchased elephant skin (fake) on e-bay some time ago now and it serves me well, (chuckle)... I'm a woman btw IAR)

It is true that Pete has superior knowledge.  However he has not skewered my post as IAR suggested he might because (I suspect) he cannot.  The logic (I believe) is sound.  This does not mean that my alternative theory is correct...  Only that my observations of general relativity in relation to experiment concerning what is proven, and what is not, are correct.

Oh, you're not Pete?  lmao.  My apologies for the assumption!  I didn't realize that Pmb was in fact Pete!  How in the heck could that post have been confused as an insult towards him???  Ehhh, who cares lol.  But I'm glad you weren't offended by it either, as I wouldn't have thought you would've been.  If it's one thing I've seen from ya, regardless of how I feel about your positions, it's that you most certainly can handle strong debate and have a thick skin!

I will also attest to Pete's superior knowledge.  He's quickly become my favorite poster to read, due to how much I can learn from his posts.  That's really the reason I was looking so forward to his reply, because they are usually filled with so much detail!

And on Edit:  Oh, you're a woman Timey?  My apologies on that front as well!
« Last Edit: 21/06/2016 22:42:55 by IAMREALITY »
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: What happens to the passage of time close to a black hole?
« Reply #33 on: 22/06/2016 06:45:47 »
Quote from: IAMREALITY
Ok, I can't lie... I am VERY much looking forward to PmbPhy's reply to this lol.
Why are you looking forward to my reply so much? And what is it that you wish to read my reply to exactly?

Quote from: IAMREALITY
  I know he's gonna do a heck of a lot better job skewering it than I would've been able to at my best!
Why do you think that I'm going to criticize something when I haven't even paid much attention to this thread? I've said what needed to be said to answer the OPs question and that's all I'm interested in nowadays.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: What happens to the passage of time close to a black hole?
« Reply #34 on: 22/06/2016 06:48:18 »
Quote from: timey
When you start referring to matters in terms of truths and untruths this gives the impression that the Pound Rebka experiment has unequivocally proved that time runs faster in space.
In the first place it's correct to say that physics is not about proving things. The reason is because it's not possible to say that a law of physics has been proven to be correct. However that in no way means that a law of physics can't be proven to be wrong. And when I said that your statement was the furthest thing from the truth I was saying that it's wrong and that is a perfectly fine statement that can be made in physics.

Suggestion: I recommend that you try to make the distinction between ways of using common phrases in English to express oneself and the use of terms to make a scientific point. I simply didn't think it was necessary to have to phrase it otherwise so that readers didn't assume I was speaking of scientific truths, of which there aren't any. I simply don't wish to triple the time I spend posting so as to make sure that people don't get confused on such points. I always talk to my physics colleagues using phrases like that and so do they. Especially since in this particular case it's actually a real "truth" as in a fact. By that I mean that you misused the phrase purely conjecture. That is a false statement because there's nothing conjectural about that prediction. As I explained before, the term "conjecture" is define to mean "opinion" and the slowing of time near a black hole cannot be referred to as an opinion. Mere opinion is distinctly different from a theoretical prediction.

timey - When you started posting here and making all sorts of assertions and posting your theories it's assumed that you have a basic understanding of the philosophy of science and the scientific method. Comments and mistakes like these demonstrate otherwise. Please understand that I'm most certainly not trying insult you or put you down or anything negative at all. What I'm trying very hard to do is to bring you up to speed with how physics and any other science as a matter of fact, works. To understand physics it is absolutely necessary to understand the philosophy of physics. I'm not being arrogant by any means. This is from having over 30 years experience as a physicist.

I recommend reading the following to get you started: http://www.newenglandphysics.org/other/philosophy_of_physics.pdf

As far as the rest of your argument goes, I'm not interested in discussing it any further. I said what I had to say and I see no reason to add more. What I said is correct and I stand by it. I used to get into long protracted discussions with people when they either couldn't understand the physics or found it difficult to admit they made a mistake. In this case it appears that you have a poor grasp of the philosophy of physics as well as how it pertains to the subject matter. You show no desire for asking for help so there's no point in me saying anything else. I will say this - Your problem might be in not understanding that when you measure a clock slowing down it means exactly this, nothing more and nothing less, than its time itself which is slowing down.

However, if you're able to find a textbook on general relativity that agrees with you I'll be more than happy to read that part which pertains to this subject.

Again, please understand that I don't mean to be offensive or to insult you. I'm strictly going by what you've written ever since you've arrived here and started posting.
« Last Edit: 22/06/2016 07:09:17 by PmbPhy »
 

Offline IAMREALITY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
Re: What happens to the passage of time close to a black hole?
« Reply #35 on: 22/06/2016 14:49:07 »
Quote from: IAMREALITY
Ok, I can't lie... I am VERY much looking forward to PmbPhy's reply to this lol.
Why are you looking forward to my reply so much? And what is it that you wish to read my reply to exactly?

Quote from: IAMREALITY
  I know he's gonna do a heck of a lot better job skewering it than I would've been able to at my best!
Why do you think that I'm going to criticize something when I haven't even paid much attention to this thread? I've said what needed to be said to answer the OPs question and that's all I'm interested in nowadays.
This thread was split off another thread, so the context was lost. In the originating thread, you were in fact going back and forth with timey, and you were on the same side of the argument that I had been on.  In one you gave a reply that I had been very impressed with. So when I saw a reply from timey that I found in my opinion to have multiple scientific misstatements, I merely was looking forward to your reply to it, since you were my favorite poster who I considered to have the most capability on the forum, and figured you would have much to say on it and that I'd also learn a lot in the process (as I usually do from your posts). Had the thread not been split, the context would've been clearer.

Still though, it did make me laugh a bit that you actually seemed to be offended by having a fan of your mental prowess. I promise to not compliment you in the future, lest I offend you any further lol.  :P
« Last Edit: 22/06/2016 15:36:00 by IAMREALITY »
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: What happens to the passage of time close to a black hole?
« Reply #36 on: 22/06/2016 15:57:37 »
Quote from: timey
It is true that Pete has superior knowledge.  However he has not skewered my post as IAR suggested he might because (I suspect) he cannot.
timey - That's a very kind thing of you to say. I'm very honored by it. That said, please do me a favor and refrain from suggesting that because I choose not to continue debating something with you its because I'm unable to or unable to prove your assertions wrong. I stopped because I long ago came to recognize that point where the other person either can't understand what I'm trying to explain to them or will not take the time to learn the reasons why I said they made a mistake. Sometimes that can be quite involved and would require sitting down and spending a month or so studying the subject or the philosophy of physics behind it. So when that comes I simply stop trying. However in each and ever case when that happens the other person gloats saying that I stopped discussing the subject with them because I was unable to prove them wrong. Can you understand exactly how irritating that can be? Please do me a favor and don't be one of those people. Allow me to simply stop posting when the time comes when I realize that I won't get anywhere with you. Okay? Thanks.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: What happens to the passage of time close to a black hole?
« Reply #37 on: 22/06/2016 16:18:07 »
Quote from: IAMREALITY
This thread was split off another thread, so the context was lost. In the originating thread, you were in fact going back and forth with timey, and you were on the same side of the argument that I had been on.  In one you gave a reply that I had been very impressed with. So when I saw a reply from timey that I found in my opinion to have multiple scientific misstatements, I merely was looking forward to your reply to it, since you were my favorite poster who I considered to have the most capability on the forum, and figured you would have much to say on it and that I'd also learn a lot in the process (as I usually do from your posts). Had the thread not been split, the context would've been clearer.
Okay. I understand now. Thanks.

Quote from: IAMREALITY
Still though, it did make me laugh a bit that you actually seemed to be offended by having a fan of your mental prowess. I promise to not compliment you in the future, lest I offend you any further lol.  :P
I recommend that in the future you don't jump to such conclusions. Someone send me a PM quoting you about this "skewering" thing. The person who sent it to me said that you posted an insult directed towards me. However when I read the post I was confused and couldn't understand how someone could say that it was an insult. However I will admit that when the person said it was an insult that biased me so when I read it with a biased mind. That's why I asked you the questions that I did. It was the term "skewering" that confused me for some reason. I misread it for this reason. In my mind, and with the assertion that this was supposed to be an insult towards me, I thought that you were saying that I was going to skew something, as in confuse it.

Can you see how all of this arose now? In the future I recommend that you get the full story from someone before passing judgment on them. Many people won't be able to admit when they make a mistake. I'm not like that. In fact I take pride in the fact that I do my best to admit my mistakes as soon as I realize that I made it.

And thanks to both of you for such kind sentiments. I do my very best because that's why I'm here, i.e. to help people learn physics. When I get compliments like both of you so kindly posted it makes me feel very good about myself, makes my day in fact, because it tells me that I'm accomplishing the goals that I set out for myself. I'll do my best to keep it up in the future. Thanks again.
 

Offline IAMREALITY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
Re: What happens to the passage of time close to a black hole?
« Reply #38 on: 22/06/2016 16:28:43 »
Quote from: IAMREALITY
This thread was split off another thread, so the context was lost. In the originating thread, you were in fact going back and forth with timey, and you were on the same side of the argument that I had been on.  In one you gave a reply that I had been very impressed with. So when I saw a reply from timey that I found in my opinion to have multiple scientific misstatements, I merely was looking forward to your reply to it, since you were my favorite poster who I considered to have the most capability on the forum, and figured you would have much to say on it and that I'd also learn a lot in the process (as I usually do from your posts). Had the thread not been split, the context would've been clearer.
Okay. I understand now. Thanks.

Quote from: IAMREALITY
Still though, it did make me laugh a bit that you actually seemed to be offended by having a fan of your mental prowess. I promise to not compliment you in the future, lest I offend you any further lol.  :P
I recommend that in the future you don't jump to such conclusions. Someone send me a PM quoting you about this "skewering" thing. The person who sent it to me said that you posted an insult directed towards me. However when I read the post I was confused and couldn't understand how someone could say that it was an insult. However I will admit that when the person said it was an insult that biased me so when I read it with a biased mind. That's why I asked you the questions that I did. It was the term "skewering" that confused me for some reason. I misread it for this reason. In my mind, and with the assertion that this was supposed to be an insult towards me, I thought that you were saying that I was going to skew something, as in confuse it.

Can you see how all of this arose now? In the future I recommend that you get the full story from someone before passing judgment on them. Many people won't be able to admit when they make a mistake. I'm not like that. In fact I take pride in the fact that I do my best to admit my mistakes as soon as I realize that I made it.

And thanks to both of you for such kind sentiments. I do my very best because that's why I'm here, i.e. to help people learn physics. When I get compliments like both of you so kindly posted it makes me feel very good about myself, makes my day in fact, because it tells me that I'm accomplishing the goals that I set out for myself. I'll do my best to keep it up in the future. Thanks again.

Lol I know who the poster was.  They stated the same thing in this thread yesterday and attacked me without reason, and it was all deleted.  Yeah, several of us were boggled by how that could've been interpreted as having been an attack on you lol.  But I digress.  I'm stunned that the poster actually went to the degrees of trying to start trouble by sending it through PM as well, but maybe I shouldn't be.

To be clear though, I do want you to know that my last part above was meant as just a light hearted ribbing meant in good humor, which is why I put the cute little tongue smiley.  I didn't mean it passive aggressively or anything, just was bein a lighthearted wiseguy hehehe.

But in all seriousness, I meant the compliments with sincerity.  I haven't been on the board long, but yet have learned so much from your replies already and that is truly why I look forward to your posts.  You explain things so well and support those things with such factual detail that it's impossible to not learn from them, and I find myself in awe of how much you know.  Fact is, I love to learn, about anything, always.  And physics and the like are one of my greatest interests, and that's what led me to this board to begin with.  And it's that love of learning and love of physics that have made me such a fan of yours, cause holy hell, do you know what you're talking about and like I said, I've learned so much from you already!  So please know I was intending to just bust harmlessly with that last statement, and that you have nothing but the utmost respect from me.  :)
« Last Edit: 22/06/2016 16:40:30 by IAMREALITY »
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: What happens to the passage of time close to a black hole?
« Reply #39 on: 22/06/2016 16:48:26 »
Quote from: IAMREALITY
But in all seriousness, I meant the compliments with sincerity.  I haven't been on the board long, but yet have learned so much from your replies already and that is truly why I look forward to your posts.  You explain things so well and support those things with such factual detail that it's impossible to not learn from them, and I find myself in awe of how much you know.  Fact is, I love to learn, about anything, always.  And physics and the like are one of my greatest interests, and that's what led me to this board to begin with.  And it's that love of learning and love of physics that have made me such a fan of yours, cause holy hell, do you know what you're talking about and like I said, I've learned so much from you already!  So please know I was intending to just bust harmlessly with that last statement, and that you have nothing but the utmost respect from me.  :)
Wonderful! I appreciate people such as yourself, i.e. those who go to forums such as this to learn physics because they love it.

It may appear to many people that I myself don't learn a great deal from discussing physics in these forums. Unfortunately there are disgusting people out there who use questions that I post as some sort of "proof" that I'm completely ignorant on the subject that I ask about. Anybody, including the gnats who infest the internet, can claim that the topic I asked a question on was something that every freshman knows and for that reason I've proven to the world that I don't know physics. Or something dumb like that. And its been done several times. Fortunately for everyone here I don't do that myself. Or at least I make a conscious effort not to.
 

Offline IAMREALITY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
Re: What happens to the passage of time close to a black hole?
« Reply #40 on: 22/06/2016 17:14:55 »
Quote from: IAMREALITY
But in all seriousness, I meant the compliments with sincerity.  I haven't been on the board long, but yet have learned so much from your replies already and that is truly why I look forward to your posts.  You explain things so well and support those things with such factual detail that it's impossible to not learn from them, and I find myself in awe of how much you know.  Fact is, I love to learn, about anything, always.  And physics and the like are one of my greatest interests, and that's what led me to this board to begin with.  And it's that love of learning and love of physics that have made me such a fan of yours, cause holy hell, do you know what you're talking about and like I said, I've learned so much from you already!  So please know I was intending to just bust harmlessly with that last statement, and that you have nothing but the utmost respect from me.  :)
Wonderful! I appreciate people such as yourself, i.e. those who go to forums such as this to learn physics because they love it.

It may appear to many people that I myself don't learn a great deal from discussing physics in these forums. Unfortunately there are disgusting people out there who use questions that I post as some sort of "proof" that I'm completely ignorant on the subject that I ask about. Anybody, including the gnats who infest the internet, can claim that the topic I asked a question on was something that every freshman knows and for that reason I've proven to the world that I don't know physics. Or something dumb like that. And its been done several times. Fortunately for everyone here I don't do that myself. Or at least I make a conscious effort not to.

There was somebody on Quora that earlier mocked someone for asking a question, and I just posted this in reply maybe an hour ago:

Quote
Not sure why this is so upvoted, when you did nothing more than to act like an arrogant intellectual bully for no reason, to a poster who asked a question with innocence. Physical bullies do so because they have the physical strength greater than their peers, and use it to make themselves feel superior because they actually suffer from voids of emptiness and inferiority. Intellectual bullies might have greater mental prowess, but engage in their bullying for the same reasons.

Fact is, the poster asked with innocence. Of course they donít know all the intellectual aspects that apply or they wouldnít need to ask the question to begin with. Instead they put their trust in those with greater knowledge to guide them and help them learn. You completely violated that trust by choosing the route of arrogance and intellectual bullying that you had.

Why mock the poster? Why make them feel inferior and stupid? Do you really need to put others down, or their ideas down, in order to make yourself feel worthwhile? So what, the poster didnít think certain things through, or have the knowledge required to accurately assess the question. So what?? That means he or she should be publicly mocked merely because they sought out guidance and clarity? Do you really think mocking someone for such reasons is respectable, honorable or cool? Itís none of those things. In fact, to EVER confront someone willing to learn, wanting to learn, with an attitude of arrogance, condescension and mockery, is just downright pathetic; I must sayÖ

I have no problem (obviously) with harshly critiquing opposing views when I find those views are set forth not inquisitively, not with an open mind, but instead from a standpoint of their being right when they're obviously wrong, and not put forth as a question, or with an intent of learning anything, but instead from a standpoint of trying to ram their position down others throats etc.  I also don't mind attacking flawed logic put forth as solid.  But I think a question asked with innocence, with an intention of seeking knowledge, clarity or understanding, should never be mocked and always addressed with wisdom if such wisdom is available.  Because ultimately we all should always be asking questions, always seeking greater understanding, always willing to learn, admit wrong, and become more aware.  So I'm sorry some use your questions that way.  Unfortunately, the internet will always be the internet lol.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1306
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What happens to the passage of time close to a black hole?
« Reply #41 on: 22/06/2016 22:52:07 »
Quote from: timey
When you start referring to matters in terms of truths and untruths this gives the impression that the Pound Rebka experiment has unequivocally proved that time runs faster in space.
In the first place it's correct to say that physics is not about proving things. The reason is because it's not possible to say that a law of physics has been proven to be correct. However that in no way means that a law of physics can't be proven to be wrong. And when I said that your statement was the furthest thing from the truth I was saying that it's wrong and that is a perfectly fine statement that can be made in physics.

Suggestion: I recommend that you try to make the distinction between ways of using common phrases in English to express oneself and the use of terms to make a scientific point. I simply didn't think it was necessary to have to phrase it otherwise so that readers didn't assume I was speaking of scientific truths, of which there aren't any. I simply don't wish to triple the time I spend posting so as to make sure that people don't get confused on such points. I always talk to my physics colleagues using phrases like that and so do they. Especially since in this particular case it's actually a real "truth" as in a fact. By that I mean that you misused the phrase purely conjecture. That is a false statement because there's nothing conjectural about that prediction. As I explained before, the term "conjecture" is define to mean "opinion" and the slowing of time near a black hole cannot be referred to as an opinion. Mere opinion is distinctly different from a theoretical prediction.

timey - When you started posting here and making all sorts of assertions and posting your theories it's assumed that you have a basic understanding of the philosophy of science and the scientific method. Comments and mistakes like these demonstrate otherwise. Please understand that I'm most certainly not trying insult you or put you down or anything negative at all. What I'm trying very hard to do is to bring you up to speed with how physics and any other science as a matter of fact, works. To understand physics it is absolutely necessary to understand the philosophy of physics. I'm not being arrogant by any means. This is from having over 30 years experience as a physicist.

I recommend reading the following to get you started: http://www.newenglandphysics.org/other/philosophy_of_physics.pdf

As far as the rest of your argument goes, I'm not interested in discussing it any further. I said what I had to say and I see no reason to add more. What I said is correct and I stand by it. I used to get into long protracted discussions with people when they either couldn't understand the physics or found it difficult to admit they made a mistake. In this case it appears that you have a poor grasp of the philosophy of physics as well as how it pertains to the subject matter. You show no desire for asking for help so there's no point in me saying anything else. I will say this - Your problem might be in not understanding that when you measure a clock slowing down it means exactly this, nothing more and nothing less, than its time itself which is slowing down.

However, if you're able to find a textbook on general relativity that agrees with you I'll be more than happy to read that part which pertains to this subject.

Again, please understand that I don't mean to be offensive or to insult you. I'm strictly going by what you've written ever since you've arrived here and started posting.

I've read the pages provided in your link and am in complete agreement with your outlook on the philosophy of physics!  I've read this point of view from many prominent physicists...

However, I find it most confusing indeed that it would seem your attitude in posting on the forum does not correspond with the views that are portrayed in the link, and I am going to show you not only where this is occurring but also why this is confusing in particular with regards to your attitude regarding my posts.

I will acquiesce that perhaps I need to (or at least could) make an adjustment to my use of terminology, so instead of saying that time running slow for a black hole is a 'conjecture', I rephrase this statement to:
"Time running slow for a black hole is a mathematical consequence of the theory of general relativity."

Ok - so, in line with the terminology provided in your link, when introducing a new notion into physics that fits observation and becomes experimentally proven, either abstractly via mathematics, or physically via experiment, we see a pattern of the superseded theory, or theories, becoming the 'covering theory' for the superseding theory.  Whereas the superseding theory becomes the more general theory.  Clearly any theory that supersedes general relativity and quantum is going to have to include both of the premiss for these theories as cover theories to the more general theory of the superseding theory... and that the superseding theory must contain a new idea that can precipitate itself as a more general theory of both quantum and relativity, both mathematically and in prediction of experiment.

You also say that the consequence of this philosophy is that there will be nothing actually 'wrong' with the covering theory.  I would agree that this is the norm, but that in very special and rare cases, if the premiss of the covering theory is wrong in the exact opposite and opposing way to the superseding theory, that a covering theory can be rendered wrong by a superseding theory.  The geocentric model being superseded by the heliocentric model being a classic example.

Now that we are clear on the rules, I'd like to examine your links views on experiment:

Taking into consideration your dialogue on pages 1, 2, and top of page 3, ending in the words:
"Nevertheless, it should be realised that from the logical point of view the final product is an axiomatic, deductive, logical-mathematical system."

So with regards to the logic and mathematical mechanics of GR gravitational time dilation in relation to time running slower for a black hole:
The frequency of the energy transitions of the caesium atom increases in the higher gravity potential.  For the frequency of the energy transitions to be higher, a higher energy level is required, and provided us mathematically by the addition of gravity potential energy. (this is logical)
For an observer with the elevated clock, his time also increases.  For this to be a physical process for the observer, all of the atoms that are his physical make up will also require that a higher energy level is occurring in keeping with the clock.  The atoms that make up the observer will not operate at the same energy level as the clocks caesium atom mechanism, or each other, (as the human form is made of different types of atoms), and via the equivalence principle we can see that the proportionality in energy level of these atoms of the observer in relation to the caesium atom, and each other, will remain constant in proportion to each other with addition or subtraction of gravity potential energy due to location in the gravitational field. (this is logical)

Now we have arrived at the point where the logic starts coming askew. The amount of gravity potential energy an object has is dependant on
it's mass and its height above the greater body of mass.  We already know what time does in Earth's gravitational field.  If we move Earth to the region of a greater gravity field than Earth's, such as a black hole, the energy level of Earth will increase and the frequency that the caesium atoms energy transitions operate at on Earth at ground level will also increase.  Based directly on experiment and observation of the caesium atoms behaviour of an increase in energy causing an increase in frequency of electron energy transition and therefore the rate of time of the clock increasing, now we should look at the energy of the black hole.  Well quite clearly e=mc^2, where e is rest energy and we can say m is the mass of the black hole.  The black hole should have more energy than the Earth, therefore the gravity potential energy at elevation from a black hole should be even higher.

And hey... don't we ***already*** have a little problem with black holes concerning the conservation of energy law, and the second law of thermodynamics?

So we can see that despite the mathematical fit of general relativity to working experiment, that the requirements necessary to state that "we can be reasonably certain" are not met, in that we have not arrived at an axiomatic, deductive, logical-mathematical system that agrees with laws and experiment that we know from observation to hold true.

Ok, a while back I was posting about the Pound Rebka and you said this:

Actually I can't be bothered to trek back and properly quote you, but you said that you didn't know why in the Pound Rebka they had to add a time variance to the test signal.  That you were not an experimentalist expert but you knew someone or dome people that are and you would ask them.  A week or so later you posted back, saying that you were sorry, but you just didn't know.

Presumably you asked your friends about the question.

If there is no tangible answer to the question, then of course you can attribute the velocity of the Doppler shift matched by 'something' in the gravitation gradient as being the equivalent to the velocity of the Doppler shifts of redshift being the speed a light source is expanding away from us at, as per Hubble's law.  But again we can see that when we examine the consequences of everything expanding away being everything originating from a point, we run into trouble explaining where it all came from.
(to be fair, my model, despite the creation moment being placed in the region of microscopic making it entirely more feasible, still has a huge problem with the mechanics of the initial creation process.)
Therefore again, as we have no proofs of expansion, only observations that mathematically fit theory, and we have problems describing the mechanics of the Big Bang and creation of energy and mass, it would seem to me that Hubble's 'law' is a bit of an overstatement.  All we can legitimately state is that "on the basis of" a mathematical fit to theory and observation, IF redshift means that light sources are expanding away from us, then we live in an expanding universe.  This being because the requirements necessary to state "we can be reasonably certain" have again not been met by an axiomatic, deductive, logical-mathematical system.

I believe that I have remained within the remit of discussing relativity in context without straying into the realms of "New Theory".

Now please, don't get me wrong Pete.  I am in full admiration of General Relativity, it's a brilliant piece of work, but I'm not going to let this admiration stop me from red flagging illogicalities concerning GR on the physics board, or putting forward my alternative on the "New Theories" board, along with my request for assistance.

You are correct that I don't really require any advise with the intention of changing my mind about the illogicalities that GR presents.  These ilogicalities have been my main point of study for many years now.  What I am requesting is mathematical assistance with my alternate model.

I don't suppose your going to help me with the maths, aye...;) ?
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1306
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What happens to the passage of time close to a black hole?
« Reply #42 on: 23/06/2016 00:11:02 »
Quote from: timey
It is true that Pete has superior knowledge.  However he has not skewered my post as IAR suggested he might because (I suspect) he cannot.
timey - That's a very kind thing of you to say. I'm very honored by it. That said, please do me a favor and refrain from suggesting that because I choose not to continue debating something with you its because I'm unable to or unable to prove your assertions wrong. I stopped because I long ago came to recognize that point where the other person either can't understand what I'm trying to explain to them or will not take the time to learn the reasons why I said they made a mistake. Sometimes that can be quite involved and would require sitting down and spending a month or so studying the subject or the philosophy of physics behind it. So when that comes I simply stop trying. However in each and ever case when that happens the other person gloats saying that I stopped discussing the subject with them because I was unable to prove them wrong. Can you understand exactly how irritating that can be? Please do me a favor and don't be one of those people. Allow me to simply stop posting when the time comes when I realize that I won't get anywhere with you. Okay? Thanks.

I am not of the nature to gloat.  I view gloating as an unnecessary means of demeaning of ones own self, and quite simply see no reason here that wound even validate such if I were of the nature...

I state simple fact.  You have not answered the question:

"Is an atomic clock measuring what time dilation is doing for the location of gravity field it is elevated in, or is it just measuring what time is doing for its own self when elevated at that location of gravity field?"

If you answer via the 'theory' of general relativity you are forced to say that it is the location being measured.  But the principle of the maths of gravity potential energy, the experimentation of caesium atomic clocks, and due logical process concerning the atoms of an observer with the elevated clock, suggest it is the clocks own experience of time dilation that is being measured.

I am really quite sure that my asking this question does not throw my understanding of physics into question in any shape or form, (I'm extremely well read), and does not reflect any type of misunderstanding or need for being 'educated'.

It's a perfectly reasonable, well thought out, and logical question that has potentially an extremely beneficial reason for being asked.

I can promise you that I am not one of those people you mention.  If you do not enjoy the discussion then just say so, I won't harass you.  I will be disappointed though because if you would just stop trying to 'get anywhere' with me, in that you are mistakenly assessing the fact that I am raising question as to, or making alteration to current theory as my having misunderstood current theory.  (I've been studying physics for 8 years.  I might not be qualified but I am really rather well read), ...then I believe you would make for an interesting input if you could engage yourself without bias within the notion.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3923
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: What happens to the passage of time close to a black hole?
« Reply #43 on: 23/06/2016 02:02:17 »
Physics and mathematics are inseparable. To truly understand a theory is to have a grasp of the mathematics that underpin it. Otherwise the consequences arising from the theory cannot be clearly thought through. To be able to modify or completely change a theory it is absolutely necessary to have a thorough understanding of the mathematical framework as a prerequisite.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1306
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What happens to the passage of time close to a black hole?
« Reply #44 on: 23/06/2016 03:08:22 »
...or be able to visually construct a geometrical representation of the mechanism being described, and to change that geometrical structure via running visual representations of the consequent changes in the geometry through to their conclusion.  Which is, (not forgetting that geometry is indeed mathematics in its purest form), and to make an analogy, akin to being able to play or compose music without understanding how to read or write notation...

Not everyone's brain works the same!
Actually I do very much understand mathematics, it's the rules of manipulation that are fuzzy, in that they exist and I don't know them.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: What happens to the passage of time close to a black hole?
« Reply #45 on: 23/06/2016 03:08:32 »
Quote from: timey
If you do not enjoy the discussion then just say so, I won't harass you.
I've been trying to tell you that all this time? No. I don't want to discuss this with you.
« Last Edit: 23/06/2016 04:37:59 by PmbPhy »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1306
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What happens to the passage of time close to a black hole?
« Reply #46 on: 23/06/2016 04:42:25 »
If you'd like, I'll do the same.

Actually, I just want to have a discussion, not a pissing contest.  I already know that you are intelligent enough to bother talking with.

I'm not with my books but I'll try to remember.  I started out by reading Bill Bryson, a history of everything.  Went on to read e=mc^ by Brian Cox and Mike somebody or another.  The trouble with physics by Lee Smolin, a book called time about relativity, by I can't remember, Quantum by Manjit Kumar (?), a brief history of time by Steven Hawking, another book on time by Sean Carol, antiparticles by can't remember, something with time in the title by Roger Penrose, Lee Smolin's more recent book on time, chaos theory by James G(?), quantum dynamics(?) by Richard Feynman, string theory by Bruan Green, a classic book on thermodynamics called heat, sacred geometry by can't remember, a whole pile of other books on geometry, geometry in relation to harmonics, geometry in relation to planetary motions, etc, a book called All done with mirrors by John Neal about metrology, plus more books on really far out there theories, (edit: a book called the primes by somebody or another, a book called the five great equations by can't remember, the Poincare prize book), (second edit: a translation of Einstein's own papers on special and general relativity, a book called the Big Bang by can't remember), plus reams and reams of all kinds of Internet PDF, science news, Wikipedia, all of Susskind's relativity lectures, Susskind's quantum lectures, the Feynman lectures, wonders of the solar system, cosmos, all manner of documentaries, forum posts, etc, oh, and my sons GCSE text books.

I'm sorry, I should have said 'one' would be forced to.  I didn't specifically mean you.  I don't think the question can be answered with current theory, so I wasn't expecting you to be able to answer it...

When one is measuring gravitational time dilation at ground level with clocks 1 meter apart.  The clocks are in separate reference frames from each other, but the observer is in 1 reference frame with both clocks and is measuring a difference in time between the clocks.  Therefore it is not necessary to state a reference frame in order to address the question.  The elevated clock ticks marginally faster than the lower clock, and we can say that the clock is measuring a shorter second.  My question is concerning whether the shorter second is a measurement of what time is doing for the location of elevation, or a measurement of what time is for the mechanism of the clock, being the caesium atom, when elevated at that location.

You have said you do not wish to talk about time dilation with me, and if you do not answer this post, I will not trouble you any further.
« Last Edit: 23/06/2016 06:07:29 by timey »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1306
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: What happens to the passage of time close to a black hole?
« Reply #47 on: 23/06/2016 04:45:16 »
Oh - it would seem that you have edited out the majority of your post that I was responding to.

Tis ok, just forget it, good day to you!
 

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What happens to the passage of time close to a black hole?
« Reply #48 on: 23/06/2016 08:57:42 »
...When one is measuring gravitational time dilation at ground level with clocks 1 meter apart.  The clocks are in separate reference frames from each other, but the observer is in 1 reference frame with both clocks and is measuring a difference in time between the clocks.  Therefore it is not necessary to state a reference frame in order to address the question.
Particularly since a reference frame is an abstract thing that has no actual physical existence. However, those clocks do. 

The elevated clock ticks marginally faster than the lower clock, and we can say that the clock is measuring a shorter second.
You can, but if you did you'd be missing the trick. Those clocks are likely to be NIST optical clocks, as mentioned here: "But nowadays the precision of the clocks is such that we have to worry, when we compare clocks, if one clock in one lab is 30 centimeters higher than the clock in the other lab, we can see the difference in the rates they run at."   

My question is concerning whether the shorter second is a measurement of what time is doing for the location of elevation, or a measurement of what time is for the mechanism of the clock, being the caesium atom, when elevated at that location.
The caesium clock uses microwaves. It's still an optical clock of sorts. And inside an optical clock, there is no literal time flowing in there, or "doing" anything. When an optical clock goes slower when it's lower, it's because light goes slower when it's lower. See the second paragraph here:



I'm afraid some of those books you've been reading are popscience books which do not get to the heart of the physics. You should read the Einstein digital papers instead.

« Last Edit: 23/06/2016 09:01:20 by JohnDuffield »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3923
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: What happens to the passage of time close to a black hole?
« Reply #49 on: 23/06/2016 09:41:32 »
Let's see what pop science books I have read.  Algebra A complete introduction Hugh McNeill. Calculus A complete introduction Hugh Neill. Calculus For Dummies Mark Ryan. Global Edition Phyisics Principles with Applications Douglas C Giancoli. A student's Guide To Maxwell's Equations Daniel Fliesch.  Applied Linear Algebra Ben Noble/James W Daniel. The battery on my tablet is running low so will continue later.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: What happens to the passage of time close to a black hole?
« Reply #49 on: 23/06/2016 09:41:32 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums