Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: MikeS on 05/05/2012 08:22:28

The event horizon of a black hole accelerates at the speed of light. Therefore the black hole accelerates at the speed of light( but is hidden behind the EH).
General Relativity states that mass can not accelerate up to the speed of light. Matter being consumed by a black hole accelerates up to the speed of light at the EH.
Is this a paradox? If not why not?

Mike stop posting your ideas in the main forum.

The event horizon of a black hole accelerates at the speed of light.
The event horizon of a black hole is stationary, i.e. it doesn't move at all. It only move relative to the observer who is in free fall. That the event horizon is stationary and the obserer in free fall is not a paradox because they move relative to one another, hence the relative in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

The event horizon of a black hole accelerates at the speed of light.
The event horizon of a black hole is stationary, i.e. it doesn't move at all. It only move relative to the observer who is in free fall. That the event horizon is stationary and the obserer in free fall is not a paradox because they move relative to one another, hence the relative in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.
Pete, thanks for participating.
The event horizon is stationary in the SPACE dimension of spacetime but is accelerating in the TIME dimension of spacetime so it is moving in spacetime.
If you regard the EH to be stationary then the observer must be in free fall and travelling at the speed of light as he enters the EH. That's a paradox.

The event horizon is stationary in the SPACE dimension of spacetime but is accelerating in the TIME dimension of spacetime so it is moving in spacetime.
It is unclear to me how you came up with the notion that the space dimension of spacetime is accelerating in the time dimension. Seems to me that the event horizon of a black hole in Schwarzschild coordinates is a 3D spatial surface. However you're speaking of a different coordinate system. Please provide a derivation of your assertion or if I'm wrong please a derivation of what I did wrong. After that it might take a month or so to (1) finish up my study of Dark Matter and (2) study your claims in detail. It's been a extremely long time since I studied black hole so be complete I'll have to take time to study the spacetime of black holes closely.

The event horizon is stationary in the SPACE dimension of spacetime but is accelerating in the TIME dimension of spacetime so it is moving in spacetime.
It is unclear to me how you came up with the notion that the space dimension of spacetime is accelerating in the time dimension. Seems to me that the event horizon of a black hole in Schwarzschild coordinates is a 3D spatial surface. However you're speaking of a different coordinate system. Please provide a derivation of your assertion or if I'm wrong please a derivation of what I did wrong. After that it might take a month or so to (1) finish up my study of Dark Matter and (2) study your claims in detail. It's been a extremely long time since I studied black hole so be complete I'll have to take time to study the spacetime of black holes closely.
Pete
Much as I would love to provide you with a derivation, Math is not my strong subject.
The reasoning behind the idea is simple. Relativity tells us that gravity is acceleration.
The surface of the Earth constantly accelerates at 1g. This is confirmed by placing an accelerometer anywhere on the Earths surface at sea level.
All of the Earths surface accelerates but it does that without the Earth getting any larger. That is possible as the acceleration is in the TIME dimension of spacetime and not the SPACE dimension of spacetime. Time is most dilated at the Earths surface and less so further from the surface. As the Earth travels through spacetime so it is accelerating. It is continually moving from where time is at maximum dilation to where time is less dilated. As the Earth travels through spacetime so time contracts. (The Earth [traveling at constant velocity according to a distant observer] locally, covers more distance per second as the next second is shorter.) That is acceleration.
A black hole is an extreme demonstration of gravity and the effect of an object accelerating in the TIME dimension of spacetime. The acceleration of the EH is so great that nothing can escape it. The diameter of the EH only grows in proportion to what it consumes not in consequence of the acceleration.

imatfaal
What did I say in the original post that you believe to be non mainstream?

Event horizons are more or less stationary

Event horizons are more or less stationary
Stationary in space or in time?

Milke  Here is an opportunity to learn everything about black holes that you wanted to. Please see  http://www.eftaylor.com/comments/

Pete,
Thanks for the link, there's a lot of reading there but I don't think it answered my original question. There is much that I don't think it addresses, for example. If we assume that matter continues to accelerate toward the singularity after crossing the event horizon then in some sense it must be going backward in time. The book does not seem to take that into account.

Event horizons are more or less stationary
When talking about spacetime, stationary has little meaning.
As time approaches infinite dilation as it approaches the EH then distance approaches infinite contraction. Space 'pours' into the EH like a speed of light waterfall. Or, depending upon how you wish to look at it, the EH accelerates at the speed of light. Either way that's not "more or less stationary".

Pete is perfectly correct Mike. What I think you do here, not being sure btw, is that you decided on one way at looking at the universe. And now you test that view?
But Pete wants the 'goods', the hard math defining your proposal. As you say you don't have that, but then you and Pete will collide. Maybe you could ask him if he can see any way to reconcile his view, and mine I'm afraid, with how you suggest?
It would be a interesting exercise for me. And I don't mind people searching for new interpretations, although they must fit the experiments firstly, the theory, or theories, we have secondly. I like taking my brain for a ride.

I will take a stab on it Mike. Seems as if you want to define something as 'moving in time' although stationary in a positional space you are assuming some definitions. The first one is that the arrow exist as a 'force/stream' that always transports us forward. Doing so there are no stationary positions in space, so even when we define something as unmoving it will still move inside that arrow. It's not that different from a lot of other ideas that I've seen regarding the way SpaceTime seems to be interconnected.
but there is a difference, as I see it, in how you think of it and Einstein did. Einstein assumed a continuum where all aspects of SpaceTime in some mysterious fashion was interweaved. I don't think he saw it as 'split able', instead he saw SpaceTime as a expression that was whole in itself, a four dimensional continuum.
As for 'the arrow' accelerating I'm more confused. When it comes to the arrow having a constant defining it, then we must use a 'clock' to do so, and as 'c' is the clock of choice here, splitting 'c' into even chunks we can define it as such But that is just the best 'clock' both you and me can come up with. It does not state what a arrow comes from, as in a origin, neither does it tell us anything more than this seems the preferred way of describing a arrow inside SpaceTime. As some first ideas this is, I'm still feeling rather slow from yesterdays excursions :)

If you use 'c' defining the arrow then it never 'accelerates' for you. And as it your measurements that decides any proportionality in a comparison between frames of reference the best you can state is that 'the arrow' seems to be different when looking at some other frame of reference. But going there it won't be.

So in a way Einsteins view must be the right one, it's a unsplittable four dimensional continuum that you carry with you, expressed through measurements defined by your local 'clock' and your local 'ruler'. And you can't 'move' outside this definition inside SpaceTime.

yor_on
I am not trying to propose anything new, only clarify and understand the Universe in general and both gravity and time in particular.
Most people are happy to accept what Einstein said about gravity being acceleration. They accept that without understanding it, or being able to explain in what way the Earth or black hole or anything with mass accelerates whilst seeming to remain possibly stationary.
An accelerometer placed anywhere on the Earths surface at sea level will register about 1g. Why? You have to be able to understand what acceleration is and what gravity is and what time is to be able to answer that question.
Anything trapped in the event horizon of a black hole can never escape. It can never escape because the EH is accelerating at the speed of light and nothing can exceed that.

I will take a stab on it Mike. Seems as if you want to define something as 'moving in time' although stationary in a positional space you are assuming some definitions. The first one is that the arrow exist as a 'force/stream' that always transports us forward. Doing so there are no stationary positions in space, so even when we define something as unmoving it will still move inside that arrow. It's not that different from a lot of other ideas that I've seen regarding the way SpaceTime seems to be interconnected.
but there is a difference, as I see it, in how you think of it and Einstein did. Einstein assumed a continuum where all aspects of SpaceTime in some mysterious fashion was interweaved. I don't think he saw it as 'split able', instead he saw SpaceTime as a expression that was whole in itself, a four dimensional continuum.
As for 'the arrow' accelerating I'm more confused. When it comes to the arrow having a constant defining it, then we must use a 'clock' to do so, and as 'c' is the clock of choice here, splitting 'c' into even chunks we can define it as such But that is just the best 'clock' both you and me can come up with. It does not state what a arrow comes from, as in a origin, neither does it tell us anything more than this seems the preferred way of describing a arrow inside SpaceTime. As some first ideas this is, I'm still feeling rather slow from yesterdays excursions :)
True
True, I am just trying to understand/interpret what Einstein meant.
Whether you think of spacetime as a four dimensional continuum or three dimensions of space and one of time, I don't think it makes that much difference but it is easier to think of time as being separate.
The arrow is always entropy and possibly the main example of that is gravity. We know that the passage of time can vary locally. Light approaching the Earth is blue shifted as it gets deeper within the Earths gravitational field. The light has accelerated. The light has accelerated because each subsequent second is longer the closer the light gets to the Earth. More cycles arrive per second in a longer second than in a shorter second.

If you use 'c' defining the arrow then it never 'accelerates' for you. And as it your measurements that decides any proportionality in a comparison between frames of reference the best you can state is that 'the arrow' seems to be different when looking at some other frame of reference. But going there it won't be.
Yes, it depends upon your frame of reference. The point is there is a frame of reference from which you can define mass as accelerating.

So in a way Einsteins view must be the right one, it's a unsplittable four dimensional continuum that you carry with you, expressed through measurements defined by your local 'clock' and your local 'ruler'. And you can't 'move' outside this definition inside SpaceTime.
I agree
Never the less there exist other frames of reference that when compared lead to different conclusions. Surely, that's the essence of why it's called Relativity.
We live in a noninertial reference frame.

I think we had that discussion before?
To assume that the event horizon is equivalent to 'c' you also need to to define what happens with infalling mass. In Einsteins universe that mass will pass the event horizon, as observed from its own frame of reference, although there is a lot more to that as 'apparent horizons', gravitational effects etc. But it will pass, and it shouldn't exist at all at that border, if the equivalence to 'c' was at the Event horizon. I too see a equivalence Mike, but I would place it at the singularities center if so. And that place must, if this is correct, be a place where everything we know (physics etc) breaks down.
As for living in a non inertial frame I'm not sure how you mean. A inertial frame is any uniformly moving frame as I think of it. That we call it 'inertial' although those frames can be measured to have different uniform motion, relative Earths for example, state a equivalence between them that makes uniform motion very strange to me, or motion in general. Then we have accelerations that gives us the equivalence to a gravity. You could assume that it is a question of inertia expressed in the matters particles adapting new relations relative each other, time dilated as well as Lorentz contracted though. I'm wondering about that as we write? If that was so, then you might assume that uniform motion, wherein no 'gravity' is existent if ignoring matter itself, is the natural state of the universe. But matter has the ability to distort the 'space' which might be seen as a consequence from the way it 'binds' energy, if we assume energy to be some universal coin of measure.
As long as you don't move you are in what I would call a inertial frame, loosely speaking that is. But as we constantly move you might want to define it as 'noninertial' any way :) It's all a question of your definitions there, but they have to be very strict if you want people to see how you think.

As the arrow being entropy?
I got to admit that I'm not sure what entropy stands for any more. Some want to define the arrow as 'entropy' as if the arrow was something living, constantly 'growing'. I prefer to avoid that word myself, because a lot of definitions of what entropy is seems to exist. It's a little like the idea of 'information' which I, although simpler to understand, also finds hard to melt. If we would be 'information' what about writing a equation on a ice cube? Where did it go, the equation I mean? And maybe that can be used for questioning entropy too?

My own view on it Mike is related to 'energy'. Even though we can't hold a pound of 'energy' in our hands it exist as a conceptual measure of something changing. And in a acceleration you spend 'energy', in a uniform motion you don't.

I think we had that discussion before?
To assume that the event horizon is equivalent to 'c' you also need to to define what happens with infalling mass. In Einsteins universe that mass will pass the event horizon, as observed from its own frame of reference, although there is a lot more to that as 'apparent horizons', gravitational effects etc. But it will pass, and it shouldn't exist at all at that border, if the equivalence to 'c' was at the Event horizon. I too see a equivalence Mike, but I would place it at the singularities center if so. And that place must, if this is correct, be a place where everything we know (physics etc) breaks down.
As for living in a non inertial frame I'm not sure how you mean. A inertial frame is any uniformly moving frame as I think of it. That we call it 'inertial' although those frames can be measured to have different uniform motion, relative Earths for example, state a equivalence between them that makes uniform motion very strange to me, or motion in general. Then we have accelerations that gives us the equivalence to a gravity. You could assume that it is a question of inertia expressed in the matters particles adapting new relations relative each other, time dilated as well as Lorentz contracted though. I'm wondering about that as we write? If that was so, then you might assume that uniform motion, wherein no 'gravity' is existent if ignoring matter itself, is the natural state of the universe. But matter has the ability to distort the 'space' which might be seen as a consequence from the way it 'binds' energy, if we assume energy to be some universal coin of measure.
As long as you don't move you are in what I would call a inertial frame, loosely speaking that is. But as we constantly move you might want to define it as 'noninertial' any way :) It's all a question of your definitions there, but they have to be very strict if you want people to see how you think.
Probably.
As you approach the EH time dilates and distance contracts as viewed by a distant observer. If distance contracts then something must be accelerating, either the object approaching the EH or the EH itself.
By noninertial I mean an accelerating frame of reference.

As the arrow being entropy?
I got to admit that I'm not sure what entropy stands for any more. Some want to define the arrow as 'entropy' as if the arrow was something living, constantly 'growing'. I prefer to avoid that word myself, because a lot of definitions of what entropy is seems to exist. It's a little like the idea of 'information' which I, although simpler to understand, also finds hard to melt. If we would be 'information' what about writing a equation on a ice cube? Where did it go, the equation I mean? And maybe that can be used for questioning entropy too?
As I see it, the BB wound the Universe up. Entropy is the spring unwinding and loosing useful energy. Entropy is the Universes route to its 'most' stable state. That state would ideally be zero useful energy. I don't really understand what it is that you are questioning about entropy?

My own view on it Mike is related to 'energy'. Even though we can't hold a pound of 'energy' in our hands it exist as a conceptual measure of something changing. And in a acceleration you spend 'energy', in a uniform motion you don't.
Very true. Two massive objects will be attracted toward each other, accelerate toward each other. The closer they get the greater their combined mass and the more time dilates for them. Time dilation is a way of tying up useful energy rendering it of little use. So time dilation and gravity are examples of entropy.

:)
Black hole, bign bang, etc,,is only theory,,not measured and proved think.
Humankind has measure spaceobject motion just only about 50 years,,and with satellite only about 30 years. This measuring period is so short that we cannot says even that is earth leaving sun or going on in.
All objects in the space send matter round of it,,like photon,,particles,,etc,,or (mattervibration,,like waves which can only goes if matter exist), ant if this object is so far away that sending thing dont come here,,we cannot observe that object.
But this measuring time,,,,50years,,,if you calculate that thought that we are one point of milkywagalaxy,,how we can prove that,,,? We have round some ,000000degree,,, but are we sure that this means that sunsystem is rounding some galaxy? No,,we cannot be sure.
Spacedata is those longtime and longdistance thought overtheoretized and forget real world and possibility,,i mean measuring time and also measuring systems.
We known actually only little of that space where we live.
:)

The event horizon of a black hole accelerates at the speed of light. Therefore the black hole accelerates at the speed of light( but is hidden behind the EH).
General Relativity states that mass can not accelerate up to the speed of light. Matter being consumed by a black hole accelerates up to the speed of light at the EH.
Is this a paradox? If not why not?
There is no paradox here my friend. You are assuming that matter continues to remain matter thru it's entire trip from the event horizon toward the singularity. Your matter is converted into pure energy before it reaches the speed of light. And BTW, this transformation does not occur at the event horizon. It occurs somewhere between the event horizon and the singularity.