The church of SM physics

Quote from Alan Smith

Is it not true (or likely) that tidal forces would kill you before you even reached the event horizon? Death would certainly prevent you from noticing it.

https://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/blackh/4Page33.pdf

That could be true, which is why I said "for a large enough black hole". But even where tidal forces are large an observer falling in would experience nothing different at the event horizon, the tidal forces would go on getting larger as you fell indefinitely.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Your first downvoted answer above. I would downvote it too? Why? Because it is unambiguously wrong. The question was about what different observers would experience inside and outside a black hole

• You claim that an observer falling into a black hole would experience death - some form of singularity - at the event horizon. That is untrue. For an large enough black hole you would not notice the event horizon.
• You give as reason the fact that the transformation between external and observer-relative reference frame coordinates is singular at the event horizon. That is true, but it does not mean what you think it means.
• You say "That's where seconds last for a longer and longer time, eventually lasting for an infinite time. Amazingly, people take this sort of thing seriously." Your inability to accept the consequences of relativity - this infinite time stretching that happens at the event horizon well away from any true singularity - shows a lack of imagination rooted I think in a view that time should "make sense" in classical terms. This problem has been discussed over and over. The equations of GR, at the event horizon, are surprising but perfectly consistent, and all observations back them up.

I didn't say the observer gets killed at the event horizon. I said he gets killed before he gets to the event horizon. He explodes into a gamma ray burst.

The reason I gave is that he falls faster and faster because the speed of light is getting lower and lower, and eventually he'd be falling faster than the speed of light. That can't happen due to the wave nature of matter, and he doesn't slow down. Instead his acceleration increases. So his electrons, protons, and neutrons get ripped apart instead.

As for the other points, let's forget about the gamma ray burst. I said the event horizon is the singularity, and so did Einstein. The infinite time dilation at the event horizon means you can't fall through it in finite time. Pay attention to the drawing from MTW. See the Schwarzschild chart on the left:

The infalling observer goes to the end of time and back in finite proper time. He somehow jumps over the end of time. It's absolutely wrong, Huxley. So is the Kruskal-Szekeres chart on the left which tries to airbrush over the issue by using "tortoise" seconds of ever-increasing duration. MTW then claims that the infalling observer sees nothing unusual at the event horizon "in his frame". That's wrong too, because he's at a place where the speed of light is zero. So he sees nothing. Ever.

The observations back up the gamma ray bursts. Like I said, it was the discovery of gamma ray bursts that reawakened interest in General Relativity in the 1960s. Unfortunately it then changed such that it no longer matches Einstein's original. However this went unnoticed because the Einstein digital papers weren't online. Nowadays if you point out the difference, you may find yourself censored. However more and more people are realising this. It's only a matter of time before everybody knows about it.

IMO the presence of black holes would be destructive anyway, as it should lead to decomposition of existing forces. This is pretty interesting problem actually. In dense aether model the scalar field of gravitating bodies should behave like solvent of all physical bonds. We actually observational indicia for it - for example the annual changes of gravitational constant and rotational speed of Earth coincide. Dense aether model implies, that when massive planets emerge along a single line, then the more dense volume area of vacuum residing there makes massive bodies more lightweight and their gravitational force weaker. So that the Earth expands once it emerges on connection line of Sun with Jupiter and it should also become more lightweight and rotate faster during it.

It means, that center of galaxies - despite it looks composed of normal matter - would actually become unstable, if we would raise it from gravitational well and vice-versa. The process of transport across gravitational potential is what is considered as a time arrow in general relativity - it would also make this matter older and collapsed in expanding Universe model. At any case, this model has consequences for theory of Hawking radiation, accretion and cosmology. In classical theory the accretion radiation arises, when massive particles collide mutually during their fall into black holes. So that if we put the matter into black hole sufficiently slowly, it should get all quietly consumed by black hole. But in dense aether model roughly half of its matter should be converted into radiation no matter how finely and slowly it falls into black hole.

Quote from Alan Smith

Is it not true (or likely) that tidal forces would kill you before you even reached the event horizon? Death would certainly prevent you from noticing it.

https://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/blackh/4Page33.pdf

I looked at the answers in the pdf. They look reasonable, but there's an issue with answer 5.

The tidal force is there because the force of gravity at your feet is greater than the force of gravity at your head.

The force of gravity is directly related to the local gradient in the "coordinate" speed of light. Einstein omitted the word coordinate, but no matter.

The "coordinate" speed of light at the event horizon is zero, and it can't go lower than that.

So there's no gradient in the speed of light at the event horizon. So there's no gravity at the event horizon.

On top of that, can't move faster than that speed of light, so you can't cross the event horizon.

Here's something I've written about this previously:

Einstein wrote a paper on black holes in 1939. It was on a stationary system with spherical symmetry consisting of many gravitating masses. He said “g₄₄ = (1 – μ/2r / 1 + μ/2r)² vanishes for r = μ/2. This means that a clock kept at this place would go at the rate zero. Further it is easy to show that both light rays and material particles take an infinitely long time (measured in “coordinate time”) in order to reach the point r = μ/2 when originating from a point r > μ/2”. That fits with the speed of light being spatially variable. Einstein also said this: “In this sense the sphere r = μ/2 constitutes a place where the field is singular”. He thought of the thing we now call the event horizon as the black hole singularity. That fits with the speed of light reducing to zero. So far so good. But sadly Einstein concluded that “the ‘Schwarzschild singularity’ does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily”. He said that this was “due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light”. He said this even though he knew that the material particle falls faster and faster because the speed of light gets slower and slower. If he had ridden his material particle like he rode the light beam he would surely have known that something had to give and predicted gamma ray bursters. Or if he’d recalled his own words about the energy of the gravitational field acting gravitatively he might have sidelined the material particles and focused on light and energy. Then he would surely have been talking frozen-star black holes. Perhaps with Robert Oppenheimer and Hartland Snyder who’d just written their paper on continued gravitational contraction. But this was 1939, a time of Nazis and war, a time when Einstein had somehow lost his confident intuition that had served him so well. It was not to be.

Re censorship and stackexchange. A comment on JD's first downvoted (incorrect) answer:

So just to be clear, you're saying that everything falling into a black hole explodes at the point where it would exceed the velocity of light measured in the Schwarzschild coordinates? And that all those relativity textbooks saying that a freely falling observer notices nothing special as they cross the horizon are wrong? – John Rennie

I guess they took action against JD because of repetitive long, detailed, but wrong answers that would waste everyone's time?

Quote from THHuxleynew

Re censorship and stackexchange. A comment on JD's first downvoted (incorrect) answer:

So just to be clear, you're saying that everything falling into a black hole explodes at the point where it would exceed the velocity of light measured in the Schwarzschild coordinates? And that all those relativity textbooks saying that a freely falling observer notices nothing special as they cross the horizon are wrong? – John Rennie

I guess they took action against JD because of repetitive long, detailed, but wrong answers that would waste everyone's time?

No, they took action because of long detailed correct answers that referred to "Einstein and the evidence", and other impeccable sources. Answers which demonstrated that answers from people like John Rennie flatly contradicted Einstein, and were wrong.

Don't you want to talk about MTW and that infalling observer who goes to the end of time and back? Or about the Kruskal-Szekeres seconds that last for all eternity?

Don't you want to talk about MTW and that infalling observer who goes to the end of time

An infalling observer takes infinite time to cross the event horizon as viewed from outside.

Finite time as shown by a clock carried by the observer

I don't see any problem here.

Quote from THHuxleynew

An infalling observer takes infinite time to cross the event horizon as viewed from outside.

Finite time as shown by a clock carried by the observer

I don't see any problem here.

The two scenarios are not compatible. Again let's forget about the gamma ray burst for the time being.

The infalling observer takes infinite time to cross the event horizon as viewed from outside. That means he never ever crosses the event horizon. His optical clock goes slower and slower. At the event horizon it stops. He's similarly affected, because fo the wave nature of matter. But note this: a stopped observer doesn't see his stopped clock ticking normally. He sees nothing.

The infalling observer takes infinite time to cross the event horizon as viewed from outside. That means he never ever crosses the event horizon.

Incorrect. you are again thinking there is a single global time that measures never ever.

The universe is said to be 13.8 billion years old, and the universe is as "global" as it gets. See what Einstein said in on a stationary system with spherical symmetry consisting of many gravitating masses: “g₄₄ = (1 – μ/2r / 1 + μ/2r)² vanishes for r = μ/2. This means that a clock kept at this place would go at the rate zero. Further it is easy to show that both light rays and material particles take an infinitely long time (measured in “coordinate time”) in order to reach the point r = μ/2 when originating from a point r > μ/2”.

The infalling observer hasn't crossed the event horizon yet. In a billion years he still won't have crossed it. In a trillion years he still won't have crossed it. In a zillion years he still won't have crossed it. He never ever will. He only falls through the event horizon in a mathematical fantasy that pretends that seconds of infinite duration are finite. It's a schoolboy error, Huxley.

If you'd like another schoolboy error, take a a look at Stephen Hawking’s singularities and the geometry of spacetime dating from 1966. On page 76 he talked about the event horizon, and spoke of “such a strong gravitational field that even the ‘outgoing’ light rays from it are dragged back”. That's wrong. In a gravitational field, the ascending light beam speeds up. See what the physicsFAQ editor Don Koks says: “light speeds up as it ascends from floor to ceiling”. In a strong gravitational field, outgoing light rays aren’t dragged back. They speed up even more. This means Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems are wrong.

For myself, I think you only have to glance at a Penrose diagram to know this. It offers a route to the parallel antiverse. That's on a par with saying a furnace door is the gateway to paradise. The point to appreciate Huxley, is that people believe in heaven and hell and sweet baby Jesus because they're convictional. Not because they're religious. People like you believe in the constant speed of light, the parallel antiverse, and the fabulous Higgs boson for the same reason.

Penrose diagram by Andrew Hamilton

The infalling observer hasn't crossed the event horizon yet. In a billion years he still won't have crossed it.

Again, these statements are meaningless unless you specify relative to what you are measuring time. You know this is (for these statements to be true) an external observer. You then make these statements absolute, generating apparent logical arguments or paradoxes.

GR = General Relativity.

Quote from JohnDuffield

For myself, I think you only have to glance at a Penrose diagram to know this. It offers a route to the parallel antiverse. That's on a par with saying a furnace door is the gateway to paradise. The point to appreciate Huxley, is that people believe in heaven and hell and sweet baby Jesus because they're convictional. Not because they're religious. People like you believe in the constant speed of light, the parallel antiverse, and the fabulous Higgs boson for the same reason.

Penrose diagram by Andrew Hamilton

"Convictional" - well said!

If I had the cash I'd fly Mills, Wyttenbach and ol' Duffield in a room and iron this all out for the next generation - it would take about 72 hours and a few days of video editing and physics would be back on course. Hand to hand combat and man-to-man combat is useless. JD take it from the kids, they are moving trillions of capital out of fossil fuels due to their moral force and war-like activism. I think it'd be better for them to occupy the physics departments till they get answers, and I'm thinking of actually instigating that.

I still like the theory black hole as un-expanded space, ~

Quote from DnG

I still like the theory black hole as un-expanded space, ~

Please tell me more, DnG. I've used the phrase "solid space" when talking about a black hole

Quote from THHuxleynew

Again, these statements are meaningless unless you specify relative to what you are measuring time. You know this is (for these statements to be true) an external observer. You then make these statements absolute, generating apparent logical arguments or paradoxes.

Time is just a measure of motion, Huxley. And at the event horizon, there isn't any. Surely you must know your picture is wrong because it contains a massive contadiction. The infalling observer is said to see himself falling through the event horizon, whilst the outside observer doesn't see the infalling observer falling through the event horizon. Both stories can't be right. The issue is not fixed by fantasy physics where events occur in some never-never land beyond the end of time. But there again, the gullibility of supposedly intelligent people never ceases to surprise me.

Quote from Navid

"Convictional" - well said!

If I had the cash I'd fly Mills, Wyttenbach and ol' Duffield in a room and iron this all out for the next generation - it would take about 72 hours and a few days of video editing and physics would be back on course. Hand to hand combat and man-to-man combat is useless. JD take it from the kids, they are moving trillions of capital out of fossil fuels due to their moral force and war-like activism. I think it'd be better for them to occupy the physics departments till they get answers, and I'm thinking of actually instigating that.

Good stuff Navid. Can I say however that I have a reticence when it comes to energy. There's an awful lot of energy tied up as matter. The Tsar Bomba converted circa 2.33 kg of matter into energy. That’s about the same as a bag of potatoes. The mushroom cloud was forty miles high. Everything within a forty-mile radius was destroyed. Windows broke five hundred miles away. If some nutjob anarchists knew how to convert matter into energy they'd send us back to the stone age.

Quote from Wyttenbach

A bit more precision due to the highly simplifying English language could sometimes help.

Noted, Wyttenbach, noted.

Quote from JohnDuffield

Good stuff Navid. Can I say however that I have a reticence when it comes to energy. There's an awful lot of energy tied up as matter. The Tsar Bomba converted circa 2.33 kg of matter into energy. That’s about the same as a bag of potatoes. The mushroom cloud was forty miles high. Everything within a forty-mile radius was destroyed. Windows broke five hundred miles away. If some nutjob anarchists knew how to convert matter into energy they'd send us back to the stone age.

Noted, Wyttenbach, noted.

We don't want nuclear bombs dirty and toxic. We want to use the power of the mantis shrimp - the smallest and first creature to make hydrino energy - albeit inadvertedly.

100% clean.

If someone could get a EUV camera and show the spectra of this light it would be proof positive.