0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Quote from: AndroidNeox on 28/10/2013 21:59:34Ask a physicist to present an actual calculated result based on Relativity for the amount of time it would take for some object to pass the event horizon and they won't be able to.They will, given the relevant frame of reference (i.e. that of an infalling observer). See '...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN':Quote from: berkeley.eduHow long does the whole process take? Well, of course, it depends on how far away you start from. Let's say you start at rest from a point whose distance from the singularity is ten times the black hole's radius. Then for a million-solar-mass black hole, it takes you about 8 minutes to reach the horizon. Once you've gotten that far, it takes you only another seven seconds to hit the singularity. By the way, this time scales with the size of the black hole, so if you'd jumped into a smaller black hole, your time of death would be that much sooner.

Ask a physicist to present an actual calculated result based on Relativity for the amount of time it would take for some object to pass the event horizon and they won't be able to.

How long does the whole process take? Well, of course, it depends on how far away you start from. Let's say you start at rest from a point whose distance from the singularity is ten times the black hole's radius. Then for a million-solar-mass black hole, it takes you about 8 minutes to reach the horizon. Once you've gotten that far, it takes you only another seven seconds to hit the singularity. By the way, this time scales with the size of the black hole, so if you'd jumped into a smaller black hole, your time of death would be that much sooner.

Neither of those links present the time it takes for the infalling observer to pass the event horizon, from the perspective of an external observer. This is because the time for the external observer is infinite.

Only the time for the infalling observer is finite, but since that time rate slows exponentially, the infalling observer's proper time will not reach the 8 minute mark (from your example) until an infinite amount of time has passed externally.

That's why it's such an interesting example; that the two equally valid but different frames of reference result in such entirely different experiences for the observers involved. For one (or all external observers), the fall takes an infinite time; for the other (the infaller), it takes a finite, relatively short time.

Quote from: dlorde on 29/10/2013 10:17:28That's why it's such an interesting example; that the two equally valid but different frames of reference result in such entirely different experiences for the observers involved. For one (or all external observers), the fall takes an infinite time; for the other (the infaller), it takes a finite, relatively short time.Exactly. And this is why Einstein insisted event horizons cannot form.

The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters whose particles move along circular paths it does not seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light.

There is no difference in Relativity between appearance and reality. It's not an illusion that objects in motion or under acceleration contract. It's not an illusion that time passes more slowly for clocks in motion or under acceleration. It's not an illusion that the infalling object slows to a virtual halt outside the event horizon. Spacetime is stretching without bound. It's a bottomless hole. There is absolutely no theoretical justification for presuming that, in this one case, reality does not obey the same rules it does for the rest of Relativity.

The model you present, where observable reality is “an illusion” that is causally irreconcilable with the “real” reality. It violates GR because it’s non-causal.

There are no viable arguments for asserting event horizons can form. If you know of any, I'd be interested in seeing them. Just an unending repetition of "because it's just so" isn't science. It wasn't until years after Einstein was dead that the idea sprang up and I can't find an explanation. Einstein would have stomped on it.

Quote from: AndroidNeox on 30/10/2013 18:39:14The model you present, where observable reality is “an illusion” that is causally irreconcilable with the “real” reality. It violates GR because it’s non-causal.Ah, no. I explicitly said the two reference frames were equally valid, despite the apparently contradictory experiences. There is only one reality; different observers experience it differently.QuoteThere are no viable arguments for asserting event horizons can form. If you know of any, I'd be interested in seeing them. Just an unending repetition of "because it's just so" isn't science. It wasn't until years after Einstein was dead that the idea sprang up and I can't find an explanation. Einstein would have stomped on it.Are you suggesting black holes can't exist? A black hole has an escape velocity > c. The event horizon is the distance from it at which the escape velocity becomes c. If event horizon can't form, you won't have a black hole...