Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 236 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
12/07/19 03:58 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
paul 1
True 1
Page 5 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >
Topic Options
#54403 - 09/06/15 06:16 AM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
You are trying to make the EH and inside special but the accelerator experiments at very close to the speed of light show nothing has changed.

So whats your logic that anything at the event horizon is different?

There simply is no justification for treating anything at or inside the EH differently just because relativity says from one frame time appears to stop. We see that behaviour in lots of places and there is nothing unusual about it. When you run across the problem time appears to stop you just take a different reference frame to get around the illusion, you don't suddenly start believing the illusion is real. The fact we can identify other frames and see that time is fine tells you it's an illusion.

It's like the pole and barn paradox the fact the pole is 20m long doesn't stop it fitting in a 10m barn at 0.9c because your 20m was measured in one reference frame and now you are talking about another. You can argue it won't fit because you measured it all you like, but science and experiments say it would.

The forces at the EH aren't even exceptional compared to places like inside a neutron star surface. The force behaviour is actually really strange but understandable when you look at the formulas. Small black holes are actually worse than big ones which defies your idea smile

So you completely lost me how or why you justify treating it different ... from a science point of view it looks like a random choice.

So we keeping coming back to why do you treat anything at or inside the EH special?

The second question is why do you refuse to look at the other frames of reference?

You are like the guy standing there with your tape measure saying the pole was 20m long and the barn 10m ... we agree but it doesn't change the fact it will fit in the barn at 0.9c


Edited by Orac (09/06/15 10:00 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
.
#54404 - 09/06/15 09:59 AM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Blackholeinside Offline
Member

Registered: 02/15/15
Posts: 40
Loc: Kent, UK
The core point of your argument is that of all of the infinite number of coordinate frames, our's, from here on earth, is not valid; presumably because in shows time slowing to zero. You keep referring to no end of experiments that verify sr and gr but nothing to suggest that the referenc frame of an observer here on earth is invalid.
I rest my case.
_________________________
Dave Proffitt
http://blackholeinside.co.uk

Top
#54405 - 09/06/15 10:01 AM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Rubbish we can show time moves on earth ... lift something up 1m and it has been measured.

here let me show you the experiment ... 1 sec


Edited by Orac (09/06/15 10:01 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54406 - 09/06/15 10:12 AM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Orac]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
So here you go using an atomic clock and move it up by 12 inches and it changes

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...r-altitude.html

Technically you need to isolate reference frames even here on earth it's just the deviation is so small you don't notice it.

So you are on completely pseudoscience junk now ... accept the experiments and you are wrong, explain why the experiments do what they do ... OR WALK away.

You are now completely violating relativity and have gone into pseudoscience trash, not bad for a published author.

Time changes depending where you are standing even here on earth and if you were doing things to ultra precision you would have to account for frame of reference changes even on earth. The GPS system here on earth requires the calculations to be built in.

So contrary to idea there is one reference frame on earth there are millions and each is slightly different. Even from earth all the frames wouldn't agree precisely where the EH is, unless you account for the time dilation. So how do we choose the Dave special one because at the moment we have millions of EH's all slightly different. Stand on a desk is enough to make two observers disagree on position of the EH if they measured accurately ... THE REALITY IS YOU ARE WRONG ... the effect is showing you the EH is an illusion no two observers will agree on where it is ... end of story.

In case it hasn't dawned on you, your calculation of where the event horizon is worked from the centre point of a black hole another place your observers on earth won't be able to agree on exactly where it is.

If we place an observer at the centre he won't agree with your earth observers either smile


Edited by Orac (09/06/15 10:53 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54407 - 09/06/15 10:53 AM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Orac]
Blackholeinside Offline
Member

Registered: 02/15/15
Posts: 40
Loc: Kent, UK
Isn't that exactly what I am saying? You just seemed to me to be fixed on the view that any reference frame that shows time slowing to a standstill must be excluded from consideration. It is the exclusion that I find hard to accept. This is the critical point because once you accept that it is equally valid, then you will see that what I say is correct for a distant observer (Barring minor corrections for our rotating frame of reference).
_________________________
Dave Proffitt
http://blackholeinside.co.uk

Top
#54408 - 09/06/15 10:57 AM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
What it is showing you is that what appears as time stopped isn't from another observer.

We aren't talking about a few microns here because of the distortions the distance of disagreement is going to be hundreds of meters possibly kilometers.

So how can a point one observer (A) says is time stopped be such if another observer (B) sees time at that point?

Seriously this isn't hard it must therefore be an illusion and you can run the obvious argument it must therefore be an illusion to everyone because there is no obvious frame that is correct .... it's a rainbow we see them all the time smile

Mundanely we can create the effect in particle accelerators and it isn't hard to understand when you can actually measure stuff properly. You are ignoring we can create the effect here on earth and measure it.

The particles in the LHC are doing 99.9999991% the speed of light and yeah time to them appears almost stopped only it isn't is it smile

Using your logic we would take the particle frame of reference and it tells us time is stopped here on earth and expect me to believe you. There is the effect right in front of you and it is an illusion isn't it or is your time really stopped?

From the protons in the LHC time is stopped but for me standing here it isn't. Proof that just because time appears to stop to a frame of reference it doesn't happen globally.

So I guess I should ask how do you know you are not standing on the event horizon edge Dave ... prove it to me?

Your argument is FAIL after FAIL, it is obvious you can show the effect is an illusion because we can identify frames in which it is obviously wrong.

Now on most proper physics forums you will get banned for basically gross stupidity if you continued beyond this. We don't have that policy here we generally just note you as a crackpot and ignore you, a policy I am about to take.


Edited by Orac (09/06/15 11:24 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54409 - 09/06/15 12:12 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Blackholeinside Offline
Member

Registered: 02/15/15
Posts: 40
Loc: Kent, UK
There is a lot of difference between time nearly stopping and stopped. Just one final point; distance or interval in 4_space is an invariant. If it is infinite in one frame of reference it is infinite in any frame of reference. So your intuition on time was 100% correct.
_________________________
Dave Proffitt
http://blackholeinside.co.uk

Top
#54410 - 09/06/15 12:55 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
There is a lot more to time and distance than the treatment in classical physics in SR/GR and you have not got past the basics. QM throws up a whole new set of demands, experiments and observations to blend in. It's pointless trying to expand further with your current competency so I will leave it.

Can I ask if you have tried this on other physics forums and did you get banned?

I would have as a moderator, and hence I am wondering if my views are harsher than others.


Edited by Orac (09/06/15 03:13 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54411 - 09/06/15 09:11 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Originally Posted By: Dave
I have decided to give this forum one more try after all that has been said.


I’m glad you decided to return, Dave. I’ve not had time to look more than briefly at your work, and I suspect that I lack the maths/physics to do it justice. However, this thread has thrown up a few points that are making me think, which, I suppose, is what learning is all about.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#54412 - 09/06/15 09:23 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
SAGG.
Originally Posted By: Orac
When you run across the problem time appears to stop you just take a different reference frame to get around the illusion, you don't suddenly start believing the illusion is real. The fact we can identify other frames and see that time is fine tells you it's an illusion.


Perhaps only a hitch-hiker could raise such a naïve point; but relativity tells us that every F of R is as valid as every other, yet you can, with apparent justification, refer to “reality” in one frame as being “an illusion” relative to another. Would that not imply that because no frame can claim to represent universal reality, any observation, in any frame, must be an illusion?

I quite like that idea. smile
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#54413 - 09/06/15 10:15 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Originally Posted By: Orac
the effect is showing you the EH is an illusion no two observers will agree on where it is ... end of story.


Isn’t saying “EH is an illusion” a non-relativistic generalisation?

Isn’t it an illusion only in frames that are not its own?

If it were an illusion in its own F of R, how would Hawking radiation work?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#54414 - 09/07/15 02:47 AM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Bill S.]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Perhaps only a hitch-hiker could raise such a naïve point; but relativity tells us that every F of R is as valid as every other, yet you can, with apparent justification, refer to “reality” in one frame as being “an illusion” relative to another. Would that not imply that because no frame can claim to represent universal reality, any observation, in any frame, must be an illusion?

I quite like that idea. smile

Relativity enshrines that in it's tenet there is no global frame usually referred to as the zero frame but it has a number of names

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center-of-momentum_frame

In that language relativity says there is no Center-of-momentum frame for the universe.


Edited by Orac (09/07/15 02:50 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54415 - 09/07/15 04:41 AM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Bill S.]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Isn’t saying “EH is an illusion” a non-relativistic generalisation?

Isn’t it an illusion only in frames that are not its own?

Yes and yes ... arg I have create a monster.

I cheated on the first one and took the simplification because if I used the word "reality" it gives the impression there is something special about the observer, some layman take another deviation you then have to deal with. You have come so far now you pick up the contradiction and yes the effects are not an illusion in it's own frame and lets expand on that for you.

The problem is you must consider the frame of reference if the change in frame would create a change larger than the accuracy you are attempting to measure ... that is the technical babble we use. So here on earth we can generally ignore frame of reference stuff as we don't measure to an accuracy that it would change the result, probably the only notable exception is the GPS system because of the distance to the satellite.

Now you can see the issue with the EH from Earth frame clearly, the time dilation is massive so the error will be massive. When you reframe the arguments to an observer right near the event horizon your accuracy is restored and you can more clearly see and measure the physics. In doing so you also understand why the distant observer sees what they do and the strange observations in their frame of reference.

The outside observer will actually see anything infalling apparently freeze at the EH so it looks correct to what his frame deduced was happening to time. However relativity makes you realize that is only true from that frame along way away from the EH.

What layman want to do is take that Earth frame make it global and tell you things about the EH ignoring the massive change of frame reference ... that is they run smack into relativity ignore it and/or violate it.

That is my issue with Dave and why I would have banned him. He said he believed in relativity yet notice he refused to change reference frame which due to accuracy, relativity would demand. The most basic parts of relativity tells you that at 99.9999999% dilation the frame is inaccurate and/or inappropriate.

The sorts of time dilation changes here on Earth are around 0.0000000000005 or 0.000000000000005% as a rough guide and for most general purposes we can ignore them.
ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment

So when you are doing calculations near the event horizon you need to be very careful with frame of reference because of the space curvature and it gets worse towards a singularity.

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
If it were an illusion in its own F of R, how would Hawking radiation work?

Now I am not going to be able to wave hands and do the usual classical physics fool on you here because I have created a monster smile

I will say I agree .... but not really and I will expand in a separate post as to why because I don't like lying and waving hands to you.
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54416 - 09/07/15 05:16 AM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Orac]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
The monster Bill S vs hawking radiation.

As you have started everything from first principles strangely you actually will get the problems, where sometimes we have trouble with scientists who haven't built the full picture.

To deal with the problem properly you need to take QFT in very close to the event horizon so we have quantum fields propagating in the vicinity of an event horizon and crossing it. Remember from before those fields can carry momentum as well as the particles themselves (our insight from Feynman) and so we now have QM time meets classical time head on.

Worse still we have energy either side on the horizon and for some calculations in the classical physics of GR/SR, energy will be in or out of the system depending how you select.

Essentially I think you will agree the obvious and natural frame of reference to choose is the QM field itself because it cleanly crosses the boundary and must or bad things happen .... remember from stopping time discussion. Lets just say there are some from the classical GR/SR background who don't like that choice and unfortunately most of the time due to lack of understanding rather than a technical point.

You can get massive problems with any classical frame of reference just because of the quantum field itself, it is like trying to understand the double slit experiment all over again.

Lubos being Lubos does a pretty good summation here
http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/hawking-radiation-pure-and-thermal.html

The bottom line is Hawkings semi-classical description accurate and our answer from a pure QM standpoint is YES.

So our hand waving was ok and we are satisfied that the classical answer approximation is in agreement with a QM field frame of reference.

Now you can probably guess what goes wrong with the so called "firewall event horizon" idea and it will appear like that because they will have energy coming from "nowhere". Given a bad choice of reference frame in classical physics it's pretty obvious what they will end up arguing, with energy originating inside the horizon transporting across horizon in the field and then suddenly appearing in their reference frame. The energy isn't going anywhere it's just the normal quantum energy of spacetime and it's fields (like every other point in spacetime) but a decision to put a rather arbitrary classical line across it makes the artifact. Suddenly the energy of the quantum fields appears out of nowhere and you haven't had to account for the fact it disappeared from inside the horizon.

Energy and flames, I see energy and flames smile


Edited by Orac (09/07/15 08:07 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54417 - 09/07/15 01:03 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Bill S.]
Blackholeinside Offline
Member

Registered: 02/15/15
Posts: 40
Loc: Kent, UK
Bill S - many thanks but I doubt that I can remain when every comment I ever makes is sunk under a pile of irrelevant misquotes. I would just love to have an intelligent discussion on some of the points but it strains my patience too much.
Let us return to the basics. General Relativity is a field theory based on the constancy of the speed of light and the equivalence principle.
It is widely expected that it will fail at the Planck scale. A central singularity in a black hole would require that this scale is breached and there is general agreement that there must be another undiscovered theory to fill the gap.
It would seem that Orac has enormous problems with a frame of reference of a distant observer; I cannot help but feel that this is unfortunate as it is the one 'glued to my feet'. How else can one marry experimental observations with theory?
He also expresses a problem with QCG 'fields' straddling the event horizon. He believes that this is impossible or would lead to the end of the Universe. I know nothing of QCD but cannot understand at all how he imagines that the fate of the Universe hangs on which frame of reference I use. As I see it there are three options here.
  • GR fails near the event horizon
  • QCD fails at the event horizon
  • Nothing crosses the event horizon
It is of course, the last of these three that my results
show.
Orac takes a different route: leave out any frame of reference that leaves any sort of infinity at the event horizon but this would break the equivalence principle on which all GR is based. This would correspond to the first option. Hopefully, the event horizon telescope will shed some light on this. Results are expected this year. GR has passed every test so far, so I remain hopeful.
_________________________
Dave Proffitt
http://blackholeinside.co.uk

Top
#54418 - 09/07/15 02:48 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Actually I deleted my big post of answers ... I was going to answer every point but it really is pointless Dave is off to crackpot land ... and it's probably best I just let him go. Science will blissfully ignore him another in a long line of crackpots going to change physics and to naive to know better.

Sidebar: Could I have used "wet behind the ears" as humour or would it come out as an insult?

So which will get the Nobel first Dave or Marosz? laugh

I bet the monster Bill S will see the problem with each and every statement which is either completely wrong or totally misguided and/or both. He could of at least get the acronyms right smile

Dave still has not even got his head around the fact that he is violating GR in every way possible ... every scientist just pulls their hair and cringes. I am not sure whether to laugh or cry when he does it.

Do you see the common theme which I used to pick Rede, Bill G and "old days Bill S" off on, he is trying to sort of ignore stuff he doesn't understand and using his classical schoolbook physics to solve the problem. There is living proof of why we have to revamp the school physics teaching and bring it up to date and dump some of the old classical physics.

I don't think Bill G is quite as bad as Dave, I suspect he would quickly work out the frame of reference issue (he has read Kip Thorne). Bill G would fall down at the event horizon, his default is to drop back to classical physics and that has some nasty surprises. You can get away with semi classical, so long as you actually understand the proper landscape. Do you see the common theme, they steadfastly hang onto classical physics for dear life and stubbornly refuse to look it's problems. That is why from a teaching point you really have to kick the classic physics crutch out and get them to deal with it.

Can I ask Bill S at what point did it all drop into place and start making sense?


Edited by Orac (09/07/15 04:06 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54419 - 09/07/15 04:17 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Blackholeinside Offline
Member

Registered: 02/15/15
Posts: 40
Loc: Kent, UK
Well well Orac. It seems that whenever rational argument against your views are put forward you retreat into name calling worthy of a stroppy teenager. I would love to see your reasoned arguments, if you have any. Why, oh why did you think it better to post this tirade rather than rational discussion? I can only imagine that you want the forum left clear so that you can shine a little in front of novices and newbies. Good luck with that.
_________________________
Dave Proffitt
http://blackholeinside.co.uk

Top
#54420 - 09/07/15 04:23 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
You won't look at the arguments hell you can't even write what I am saying correctly, so why would I waste my time?

You do realize you didn't actually get a single thing correct? Not one but almost every line perhaps I will just list them.

I notice you still avoiding telling me if you have been banned from forums for posting this because other tell you it breaks relativity?
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54421 - 09/07/15 04:31 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
It would seem that Orac has enormous problems with a frame of reference of a distant observer; I cannot help but feel that this is unfortunate as it is the one 'glued to my feet'. How else can one marry experimental observations with theory?

I have no problem with that frame but don't try and measure anything at the event horizon not accurate enough.

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
He also expresses a problem with QCG 'fields' straddling the event horizon.

Completely wrong .. please read again and get the letters right.

QM doesn't even know what classical physics is. You do get that classical physics is just an approximation. Why the hell would QM care that you drew a line and called it the "event horizon" in space and time is going to stop in your reference frame .... SO WHAT IT MEANS NOTHING.

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
He believes that this is impossible or would lead to the end of the Universe.

Wrong again ... check the context.

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
I know nothing of QCD but cannot understand at all how he imagines that the fate of the Universe hangs on which frame of reference I use.

Yep something you got right .. you know nothing.

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside

As I see it there are three options here.
[list]
[*]GR fails near the event horizon
[*]QCD fails at the event horizon
[*]Nothing crosses the event horizon

See it all you like all three are wrong and we don't care what you think.

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
Orac takes a different route: leave out any frame of reference that leaves any sort of infinity at the event horizon but this would break the equivalence principle on which all GR is based.

Never used the word infinity, don't care about it or remotely even need to consider it. You are the only one who seems to care about some infinity.

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
GR has passed every test so far, so I remain hopeful.

Again what would it matter your trash doesn't conform to GR it explicitly violates it.


Edited by Orac (09/07/15 04:32 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54422 - 09/07/15 04:32 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Orac]
Blackholeinside Offline
Member

Registered: 02/15/15
Posts: 40
Loc: Kent, UK
Originally Posted By: Orac

I notice you still avoiding telling me if you have been banned from forums for posting this because other tell you it breaks relativity?

Not at all. The answer is no.
_________________________
Dave Proffitt
http://blackholeinside.co.uk

Top
Page 5 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.