Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: krash661

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: krash661

originally posted by: Mon1k3r
a reply to: krash661

And I just noticed your tagline, "Transforming Sci-Fi Into Reality." This leads me to believe that your agenda is to create your own reality based on fiction, which seems very important to you. Let me know how that works out.

actually,
it says
" transitioning sci-fi into reality "
you just have shown once again,
you clearly do not understand what you read.

also,
it means something you will never experience or grasp.
it means i work on tier one sciences.
tier two is public/mainstream.

Just a quick ques if I a may. Do the folks in tier 1 embrace einsteins gr or do they just chuckle and let the tier 2 wallow in their ignorance?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If that is the case humans will never travel among the stars.
SAD

it's the human element that is the issue when it comes to interstellar travel.
many variables involved.
look into it.

originally posted by: KrzYma

In relativity, light speed is constant in every reference frame, therefore inside the black hole all is the same as outside, light has speed C and Mr. Astronaut is happy living his life that we can not observe.

And this is what seems paradoxical to me. If infinite density/infinite gravity inside the black hole causes people outside the black hole to think that time is not passing within the black hole, how would time actually be passing for the person inside that black hole (assuming, for the sake of this argument, that he somehow can survive inside)?

There lies the paradox. That seems like quite the disconnect between inside and outside the black hole; and that disconnect seems to extreme for me. How could time be passing for those inside, yet not be passing outside, and still the outside and inside both be part of the same reality?


And then there's this paradox:

How does something actually fall into a black hole, as viewed from our time frame? Wouldn't the stuff falling in be frozen in time, and never actually fall in (as we observe it)? Or, maybe as it falls in, its rate passage of time approaches "zero passage of time", and thus takes billions or trillions of years to fall in (again, as we observer it from the outside).

Let's say that while density and gravity approach infinity inside a black hole, but never actually crosses over that "infinite" threshold, then that means that to an outside observer, time may be passing, but at an excruciatingly slow rate -- so slowly that the outside observer, for all intents and purposes, could say that time inside is "frozen".


So is it possible that as we observe a black hole, it is actually in the throes of formation, and its entire life cycle is simply an "event" that happens quickly when experienced at the time dilated time frame inside the black hole, but seems to take trillions of years when observed from the outside?

Maybe a black hole has a much more dynamic life cycle, but that life cycle takes so long to transpire because we see time passing slowly for that black hole. But inside the black hole, things are happening quickly -- i.e., Maybe a black hole that WE think lasts trillions of years (from our time frame) only lasts for a few seconds (from the time frame inside the black hole) .

Maybe while experiencing the birth of a black hole from the time frame of the black hole itself, it is created and then quickly dies in an instant.

originally posted by: krash661

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: krash661

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: krash661

originally posted by: Mon1k3r
a reply to: krash661

And I just noticed your tagline, "Transforming Sci-Fi Into Reality." This leads me to believe that your agenda is to create your own reality based on fiction, which seems very important to you. Let me know how that works out.

actually,
it says
" transitioning sci-fi into reality "
you just have shown once again,
you clearly do not understand what you read.

also,
it means something you will never experience or grasp.
it means i work on tier one sciences.
tier two is public/mainstream.

Just a quick ques if I a may. Do the folks in tier 1 embrace einsteins gr or do they just chuckle and let the tier 2 wallow in their ignorance?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If that is the case humans will never travel among the stars.
SAD

it's the human element that is the issue when it comes to interstellar travel.
many variables involved.
look into it.

Yes human physical limitations are there.
But I was assuming the tier1 is into black projects and the like dealing with ufo like stuff, instant travel and things of that nature travelling thru dimensions

originally posted by: krash661
what appears is going on here,
is a specific incorrect hypothesis called schwarzschild bookkeeper

I asked you this before and you posted a reply but it didn't answer the question so I'll repeat the question:

Are you saying this university source, Professor John Horton's explanation is incorrect? And if so, do you have a better source?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
www.pitt.edu...

If his explanation is correct, it's what I've been trying to convey so if I didn't convey it correctly I don't see how.

a reply to: Arbitrageur
www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

the answers you seek have been answered before you reiterated your post.

edit-
philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds [richard feynman]

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

And this is what seems paradoxical to me. If infinite density/infinite gravity inside the black hole causes people outside the black hole to think that time is not passing within the black hole, how would time actually be passing for the person inside that black hole (assuming, for the sake of this argument, that he somehow can survive inside)?

this could explain the material Hell, you get squeezed and stretched for eternity...
but nobody said infinitely

There lies the paradox. That seems like quite the disconnect between inside and outside the black hole; and that disconnect seems to extreme for me. How could time be passing for those inside, yet not be passing outside, and still the outside and inside both be part of the same reality?

another Universe ?
maybe our Universe was created as mass collapse in some other Universe,
not as infinitely small point but huge collapsing star in pre-Universe,
with all benefits and drawbacks

How does something actually fall into a black hole, as viewed from our time frame? Wouldn't the stuff falling in be frozen in time, and never actually fall in (as we observe it)? Or, maybe as it falls in, its rate passage of time approaches "zero passage of time", and thus takes billions or trillions of years to fall in (again, as we observer it from the outside).

I think we should see it from the side of the space ship and not ours.

We measure ( calculate ) the mass needed for an event horizon in our frame of reference.
But... there is an longer time for the force of gravity to act, from our point of view, then in the reference frame of the ship, where his actions look slow to us (well we cant even see it to the red shift) but not him.
To him all is normal but taking longer and longer in our frame of reference. And the G is calculated for us, remember..

Can the ship survive and just enter another Universe ??

Let's say that while density and gravity approach infinity inside a black hole, but never actually crosses over that "infinite" threshold

there is no threshold to infinity !!!
you can always add 1

those Universes in Black Holes can be, why not ?

So is it possible that as we observe a black hole, it is actually in the throes of formation, and its entire life cycle is simply an "event" that happens quickly when experienced at the time dilated time frame inside the black hole, but seems to take trillions of years when observed from the outside?

Yeah, this is what we observe, our point of view.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Once the ship in reality, crosses (can we agree there is an objective reality, where the ship actually crosses in)

No we can't agree that there's "an" objective reality which implies one. According to relativity, each observer has a different perspective and each is equally objective and real.

Relativistically covariant equations of motion are pretty objective and universal. And electromagnetic charge is the same in every reference frame.

Relativity isn't about denying 'objective reality', it is giving specific quantitative transformation laws for representations of physics in certain coordinate systems, and explaining how fully invariant physics should be written.

This idea of representation & coordinate modification was previously totally normal for Newtonian physics in rotating frames, and Einsteinian relativity above Galilean relativity added gravitational and inertial velocity frames to complete the laws.

originally posted by: KrzYma


this rotating light on the event horizon would be true if gravity would not delay the time.
I don't have any paper on this right now but the point is, bigger mass - slower time flow compared to space without any mass.

In this case, where the ship comes closer to the mass, the electrons move slower radiating longer EM waves.
Finally if it passes the event horizon, for the observer outside the time is frozen for the ship.
This means also no radiation comes from the ship, no light, nothing.

I would like it defined better as to what it means 'time slows down', how exactly is time defined. Is time an inherent physical property of individual particles? And/or is time a measurement of individual particles compared to other individual particles, and/or is time a comparison of individual particles to different complexities/densities/curvatures of space?

If we have a road, point A to point B, and the road is perfectly straight, and you are at point A and I am at point B, and you are in a car that can only ever travel at the speed of light, and you start it and get from point A to point B in X amount of time. And then we go to another road, but instead of a straight road, this road is curvy/windy, and same car that can only travel at the speed of light starts at point A, it will take X amount of time plus or times (im not sure) the way to quantify curvature.

So would you then say that in the second trial, on the curvy road, to an observer of the car driving, 'time slowed down'?

With light, and the gist of my argument, the crux of which was regarding the statement that an outside observer would be able to visually or instrumentarily of some kind, detect the space ship at the event horizon, from creation to reflection to detection is a one way road. Arbitrager immediately loses when suggesting there is no objective reality, but I suppose I am arguing against concepts beyond him, but in reality there is an exact amount of matter and energy at all times, energy cannot be created or destroyed, there is an exact space ship, with its exact quantity of atoms, that is exactly moving through space in relation to the totality of all other objects, so in reality there is a black hole, if we could plot all the particles of the universe, but for this example, we would be focusing in on a relatively small portion of the universe, an observer near the event horizon, a space ship traveling towards the event horizon, and the black hole and its event horizon, we could see in play by play increments of the smallest possibly spatial and temporal pause/play/pause/play steps the mapping and trajectory of this event. The total particle conglomerate of he ship, the total material and energetic conglomerate of the black hole and its event horizon, and we would see the space between the two diminishing with each tick of time.

The space ship is made of a lot of material that is able to radiate. Also, lets say the observer has a lot of laser pointers always pointed at the path the ship is heading towards, and pointed at the event horizon. So the light is going from his lasers, reflecting off the ship, and entering his eyes, or detection devices, and he is observing the space ship travel, and move towards the black hole. At some point in reality the spaceship touches the event horizon, while ignoring the outside observer for a moment, and focusing on what science says would happen physically to a material conglomerate that touches an event horizon (this is the exact thing I guess im arguing against, the well it depends where you are, what 'happens' to the ship), either it will be destroyed/reconfigured, or maintained.

I suppose it is possible for both to occur, 99% of the ship being destroyed, but leaving a completely perfect replica of the ship, like a ghost or silk screen, or photograph, the physicality of the ship burned onto the wall of event horizon, this would be, the ship being destroyed, but also its essence maintained, and is it possible that is what is eternally viewable, arguably until more material and/or radiation come in contact with that newly painted wall of event horizon, and mess it up?

So lets say in reality, the ship actually is sucked in the black hole, and its total molecular relations are not maintained, but ripped apart. As I said the observer was always shinning many lasers onto all the possible path way of this ships trajectory, and the event horizon. So the lasers would reflect off the ship back to the observer, until the ship is destroyed, then there is no ship to reflect light too, all the light that could have touched that ship now has no ship to touch, so the observer cant observe the ship after this point. If I make a painting of a spaceship, and take a picture of it, and then have at it with an axe and a weedwhacker, there is no possible way I can reflect light off the painting any more, to observe the ship, the perfect orientation of its molecules that made it what it was, that caused all light to reflect off it as it did, is no longer an orientation that exists in the universe.

So in reality, if material conglomerates, enter an event horizon, enter a black hole, and do not remain exactly physically as they are, at least now, I have not been confronted by any evidence, that would suggest it would be possible to view said ship, for a longer time after it had been annihilated, then the last light would take to reach the observer, from reflecting off the last known moment of ship existence.

In reality, if when a material conglomerate, a space ship, interacts with the event horizon, or beyond that, enters the black hole, and it is not destroyed. Unless, like the house in wizard of oz, the object touches the event horizon, is not destroyed, but swept up with it, then all light that reflects off the space ship can reflect back, because the space ship is still there, it still exists, it is still intact. But this is only if the house remains 'on' the event horizon, and not sucked in within the black hole. Because as we know, once in the black hole, any light attempting to reach the ship, if it does reach, because of gravity, will not be able to reflect back, right?

I am willing to believe that an observer can detect either the ship itself, or its complete remnants for an indefinite amount of time after the ship touches the event horizon and/or is sucked in the black hole, if! It can be described, where the indefinite quantity of radiation is originating that is reflecting off the ship or its remnant, which then indefinitely enters the observers eye or device. And, if it can be described, whether or not, in the one real, true reality, the ship would be destroyed, and where it would be (either in the black hole, or riding on its event horizon). I need these 2 questions answered, before I can further with any consideration into the idea that a material conglomerate can be detected indefinitely after it touches and/or enters a black hole.

originally posted by: mbkennel
Relativity isn't about denying 'objective reality', it is giving specific quantitative transformation laws for representations of physics in certain coordinate systems, and explaining how fully invariant physics should be written.

In the relativity of simultaneity, we can't say which sequence of events is the "one objective reality", so perhaps that is more clear. The sequence of events in the following animation is different for all three observers. Which observer's sequence is the objective reality?

Relativity of simultaneity


But yes, one reference frame can be translated to another, without any problem, which is what that animation is trying to show.

a reply to: krash661
Once again I don't have a problem with you questioning a source, but I can find more saying the same thing.
However once again you have failed to post a source which, according to you, is more accurate, and this I do have a problem with.
If I was pointing out a bad source I'd provide a better one.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Here you go again with your one objective reality. No, there isn't only one objective reality, that's why relativity says things are relative. If you're an observer on Earth, the ship never crosses the event horizon from your perspective, there's no ghost in your objective reality as an Earth-based observer.

There is one objective material reality. What you are talking about is the way in which 'devices of detection' are moving and detect radiation, which reflects off of the material objects, and how depending on how the material objects that were reflected off of, were moving, and depending on how the device of detection was moving in relation to the material object and therefore in relation to the reflection radiation off of that material objective, it will receive different details of information, and the curvature of space, which the radiation interacts with.

Those variables make the objective material reality, difficult to corroborate, from different perspectives and relative motions, because relative motions of detectors create extra informations.

a reply to: ImaFungi

I would like it defined better as to what it means 'time slows down', how exactly is time defined. Is time an inherent physical property of individual particles? And/or is time a measurement of individual particles compared to other individual particles, and/or is time a comparison of individual particles to different complexities/densities/curvatures of space?

I can't tell you what all the theories are saying, regardless it it's true or not or how exactly the mathematics describe it.

I can tell you what I think.

Electrical potential, E field exactly saying is an additive field. Means, more charged particles closer to each other, higher the tension.
Electro magnetic waves need to overcome this tension as they propagate.
This slows them down, eating up energy from the propagation,

also, taking an positive charge +1 closer to negative charge -1 do not sets the tension to 0...
its little less then 2 to the interaction between them two.

more mass means EM and any charged particle need to compensate for the "density" in E field.

Time is something we measure, progress in movement, if all slows down, time must, as it is only a perception.

a reply to: ImaFungi

If we have a road, point A to point B, and the road is perfectly straight, and you are at point A and I am at point B, and you are in a car that can only ever travel at the speed of light, and you start it and get from point A to point B in X amount of time. And then we go to another road, but instead of a straight road, this road is curvy/windy, and same car that can only travel at the speed of light starts at point A, it will take X amount of time plus or times (im not sure) the way to quantify curvature.

depends on the length of the road, if curved road is longer it will take more time.
If they equal, not.
But why should the road be curved is the question.
Without any other forces straight line..

So would you then say that in the second trial, on the curvy road, to an observer of the car driving, 'time slowed down'?

NO, it takes longer.

a reply to: ImaFungi

With light, and the gist of my argument, the crux of which was regarding the statement that an outside observer would be able to visually or instrumentarily of some kind, detect the space ship at the event horizon, from creation to reflection to detection is a one way road. Arbitrager immediately loses when suggesting there is no objective reality, but I suppose I am arguing against concepts beyond him, but in reality there is an exact amount of matter and energy at all times, energy cannot be created or destroyed, there is an exact space ship, with its exact quantity of atoms, that is exactly moving through space in relation to the totality of all other objects, so in reality there is a black hole, if we could plot all the particles of the universe, but for this example, we would be focusing in on a relatively small portion of the universe, an observer near the event horizon, a space ship traveling towards the event horizon, and the black hole and its event horizon, we could see in play by play increments of the smallest possibly spatial and temporal pause/play/pause/play steps the mapping and trajectory of this event. The total particle conglomerate of he ship, the total material and energetic conglomerate of the black hole and its event horizon, and we would see the space between the two diminishing with each tick of time.

if you looked at it from the side, the ship will be moving faster and faster getting red shifted in spectrum more and more, into longer and longer waves till one infinite wavelength.
It will disappear in front of your detectors.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: krash661
Once again I don't have a problem with you questioning a source, but I can find more saying the same thing.
However once again you have failed to post a source which, according to you, is more accurate, and this I do have a problem with.
If I was pointing out a bad source I'd provide a better one.

if you want a source,
start with any accurate einstein relativity book.
or how about his actual papers if you can read german.
again anything i say can be found on any public publishing.
again start at,
arxiv. since you do not want to do the effort,
i'll post the link for you.
arxiv.org...
they're easily accessible. just look.
there's also a nasa public publishing,
ntrs.nasa.gov...
not only that but neurology and biology has public publishing.
SNIP!

Why are physics principles, theories, and laws named after people? I guess this goes with chemistry too. Like, Bohr's atomic model. Well I don't care to learn the thing if it's named after a dead guy named Bohr. Or Einsteinium, I look through the microscope, Einstein isn't there, so why is it called that? Who decided who would get to name-brand these things?

originally posted by: krash661
again start at,
arxiv. since you do not want to do the effort,
i'll post the link for you.
arxiv.org...
they're easily accessible. just look.

I use arXiv all the time. But the papers on arXiv say the same thing as professor Horton:

arxiv.org...

the possibility to observe the far future of the external Universe is also discussed in the literature, namely due to time dilatation near a black hole. So in [9], p. 92, it is stated “However, a more prudent astronaut who managed to get into the closest possible orbit around a rapidly spinning hole without falling into it would also have interesting experiences: space-time is so distorted there that his clock would run arbitrary slow and he could, therefore, in subjectively short period, view an immensely long future timespan in the external universe”. In Sect.3 of the paper quantitative evaluations for the time dilatation on the circular orbits around the rotating black hole are obtained and it is shown that the effect becomes essential for ultrarelativistic energies of the rotating object.

This is basically what both Horton and I said.

The paper goes on to argue that the observer falling into the black hole can't observe the outside universe for an infinitely long time, but this is a an unrealistic extension of the concept that "his clock would run arbitrary slow and he could, therefore, in subjectively short period, view an immensely long future timespan in the external universe".

So your search link to arXiv confirmed Horton's explanation with another source. I didn't find any sources to support your claims that this explanation and Horton's explanation are wrong.

a reply to: AtomicOrbital1
I'm not sure, but we give people Nobel prizes to honor important discoveries.

Could it be another method of honoring people for their important contributions?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Why are 10 seconds in a black hole, 'slower/longer' than 10 seconds outside?

To avoid circular logic, if you are compelled to say, 'because time dilation', can you describe what that means. What exactly is being dilated, how and why?

Exclaim the simplest number of aspects about this experiment: 2 clocks. Black hole. (What does a black hole mean, extremely dense focal point, which theoretically or practically, allows no light to be reflected off of it, after a certain distance of closeness). The control, clock stays away from black hole. The variable, clock moves towards black hole. Question to you; Why, when the clock that is moving towards the black hole, and subsequently collides and falls in, does the clock physically function slower?

Would you say, it does not physically function slower? Would you say, the light that reflects off of it, which then is collected by an outside observer, when they compare the pico second by pico second (frames) images of light reflected off the clock falling into the black hole, and light reflected from the clock outside the blackhole, that the light reflected off the clock from the black hole, from their graphed comparisons, shows that the light takes longer time to grasp the information, and then travels longer distances, so when it is compiled together there are 'stretched gaps' which when scaled back, reveal less number of time indicators projected, then when compared with the time indicators that are projected from the clock outside.

Pretty much, you are suggesting, that when objects fall into black holes, the way light reflects off of this phenomenon, is in a way similar to how there is a difference in the reflections of light off material when placing a film in slow motion. en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: KrzYma

depends on the length of the road, if curved road is longer it will take more time.
If they equal, not.
But why should the road be curved is the question.
Without any other forces straight line..

In the example I said that. Straight line. Point A to point B. From start to finish. Straight line. (think an amount of distance, 100 yards exactly from point A to point B) Point A to B. Is a certain length. One road is straight line from point A to B. The other road is curved road, from point A to point B, lets say very curved. There still exists an imaginary straight line from point A to B, and it happens that because the straight road is a straight line, it equals that imaginary line distance. It also so happens that because the curved road is not a straight line, the distance of the curved road much be greater. So obviously the road itself must be longer, but the distance from point A to point B is equal. How is this example different from saying 'the clock on the car on the curved road slowed down do to time dilation'. Because the car didnt slow down once! So the clock must have! The only reason light traveling from point A to point B, of any equal straight line from point A to point B distance, would take longer than the speed of light, is if the space from point A to point B it was traveling in was curved. But in this situation, you want to say the time slows down? Instead of, 'it takes longer because the space is curved'.