Farsight

Magic? Magic? Aw forget it.

When the atoms in the end of the metal bar gets "frozen" or "glued" will they still be able to mediate the nuclear forces necessarily to keep the bar together, in one piece, to the rest of the bar still outside?

 

No. The portion of the bar that touches the event horizon can't really be described as "bar" any more. For one thing it's been flattened to zero height because of the radial length contraction.

 

But the gravity just above the horizon is stronger than the nuclear forces so it doesn't much matter. The spaceship can't drag the end of the bar across the "surface" of the event horizon, the bar bends instead. If the bar is fairly brittle it will snap quickly, if it's more malleable it will stretch first like toffee before it snaps.

Because it's a total scale change. It affects everything because everything is in essence made out of light - as demonstrated by pair production, wherein a gamma photon is transformed into an electron and a positron.

So you think that the end of the metal bar that get caught inside the EH would still be able to communicate its part of the internal, (nuclear), forces inside the metal bar to the outside part and physically break it ?

 

There's no getting caught "inside" the horizon. Time dilation goes to infinity as you approach it. Everything stops. Utterly, absolutely. People talk about "proper time" but there's no time left. Hence as far as our metal bar is concerned the event horizon is like glue of infinite strength. The spaceship does a flyby, the end of the bar skims closer to the horizon then when it reaches it, it stops. The spaceship keeps on going. The bar breaks.

 

There's other things happening too, such as the tidal forces pulling down on the bar, but if you imagine a small black hole and a very long bar with the spaceship zipping by real fast, the spaceship has gone and the bar is broken long before the tidal force has done its stuff.

 

If you want to consider the tidal force, you can think of the bar as something like taffy: the end of it will be pulled downwards by the enormous gravity. Once it arrives at the location where time dilation is infinite it isn't coming back. No way, no how. If the bar was really strong the spaceship would change course and start going round and round the black hole like it was on a tetherpole, then wham, gone. But if the bar is fairly weak it'll snap and the spaceship escapes. I don't know if you know, but steel is rather like toffee. If you cool it slowly it's soft, something like fudge. If you cool it quickly it's brittle, more like butterscotch.

Huh? Of course it's science. The best science you'll see on this forum. Real science. Here's how it works. Let's look at GPS:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System

 

According to the theory of relativity, due to their constant movement and height relative to the Earth-centered inertial reference frame, the clocks on the satellites are affected by their speed (special relativity) as well as their gravitational potential (general relativity). For the GPS satellites, general relativity predicts that the atomic clocks at GPS orbital altitudes will tick more rapidly, by about 45,900 nanoseconds (ns) per day, because they are in a weaker gravitational field than atomic clocks on Earth's surface. Special relativity predicts that atomic clocks moving at GPS orbital speeds will tick more slowly than stationary ground clocks by about 7,200 ns per day. When combined, the discrepancy is 38 microseconds per day; a difference of 4.465 parts in 1010. To account for this, the frequency standard onboard each satellite is given a rate offset prior to launch, making it run slightly slower than the desired frequency on Earth; specifically, at 10.22999999543 MHz instead of 10.23 MHz.

 

The time "runs" a little slower down here on earth, so the GPS satellite clocks are set to run a little slower than normal. It isn't much, but it's real. So you can get a metre ruler, and measure how long it takes for a beam of light to get from one side to the other. You get the same result in seconds wherever you do it, be it on the surface of the earth or in orbit. But that "same result" down here on earth is different to the value you'd get in orbit by 4.465 parts in 1010.

 

We could do something similar if you were travelling at a relativistic speed compared to me. Remember that length contraction only applies to the direction of travel, so we hold our rulers in a transverse fashion. It's the same size metre, but the seconds are different, so c is different too. In General Relativity the length contraction is radial, akin to the direction of motion in Special Relativity.

 

Wherever there's time dilation, it's because c is different. You can't measure it to be different, because the speed of light defines how you count time. It's a "scale change", and we're totally immersed in it. People call this "curved spacetime" without actually understanding what "curved spacetime" is.

 

It's just all so incredibly simple. Once you see it you'll be amazed that other people can't.

Pound-Rebka, Shapiro, even GPS. The issue is interpretational, not experimental. This hidden "scale change" variation in c is what "curved spacetime" actually is. You might find that difficult to accept. but ask yourself this:

 

What is curved spacetime?

 

Try explaining it to your grandmother. And remember this: I agree with Einstein.

In answer to the original post, the event horizon does have a grip. But it's subtle. It sneaks up on you.

 

Let's imagine a small black hole and a spaceship with a very long metal bar sticking out of the side of it. The spaceship does a flyby, and the metal bar makes contact with the event horizon. Spang! The bar breaks off.

 

The reason it does this is that at the event horizon, time dilation goes infinite. The end of the metal bar cannot move anymore. It has no time in which to move. It's like hitting a brick wall. If you could walk all around it and peer closely, you'd see that the end of the metal bar had melded itself into this "brick wall" and was a part of it. And nothing but nothing is moving.

 

This is why black holes were originally called "frozen stars". All the stars that have collapsed have in essence not finished collapsing, and never ever will.

 

You'll hear about the "proper time" of an infalling object, but that proper time is an abstraction and not a reality.

 

Interesting stuff.

SR is subsumed by GR, Klaynos.

 

But nevertheless, time dilation in SR occurs for the same reason as in GR. There's a "scale change" variation in c that you cannot measure locally. You always measure c to be 299,792,458 metres per second, because light defines your time. When you come back from a relativistic round trip and you've only aged one year while I've aged seven, it's because your speed of light was less than mine, even though we both measured it at 299,792,458 metres per second. Your seconds were different, because your c was different, even though you measured it to be the same.

 

I am right about this. This is the real deal. Einstein was right. And that "law" is a veil of ignorance.

What most people don't realise is that Einstein buried one of the postulates of SR with GR. Look:

 

"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)." Albert Einstein (The General Theory of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General Principle of Relativity)

 

You have to read what he said. Einstein actually said the velocity of the propagation of light varies. He didn't mean spacetime is curved. Einstein didn't talk about curved spacetime. He wasn't treating velocity as a vector quantity where the speed remains the same but the direction changes. He really did mean that the speed of light changes. But this has been lost in the wash, and people are told they have to accept the constancy of the speed of light as a "law". There's no logic to this. Not when Einstein thought different.

Good stuff Albers. Take care who you show it to. You need to work on another crossover point for the muon.

I have finally found how to represent the magnetic vector potential in spheric coordinates. The Minkowski tensor cannot be simply constructed in terms of [math] A_{r,\theta,\phi}[/math]. It is an expression of the curl operation which is defined only on covariant vectors, and the arbitrary A-vector does not qualify. One must construct a multiple of the usual A-vector with the local metric scale, which in spheric coordinates is a 3x3 matrix whose diagonal is [math]<1,r,rsin\theta>[/math].

 

I've written CHARGE EXPLAINED, Albers. I explain electric fields, magnetic fields, magnetic materials, superconductors, why the electron is stable, and why charge is not fundamental. But I'm not posting it on a public forum.

Not when you're in the box.

 

It's simple. You're in the box. There are no windows. You're in freefall. You chuck a ball across the inside of the box and it goes straight as a die, bounces off the side, and back into your hand. You are in an inertial reference frame. You can feel no gravitational force, and you can detect no gravitational force acting upon the ball.

 

Now one hour later you're still in the box, but you landed safely on earth. You chuck a ball across the inside of the box and... it falls in a parabola and you miss it. Because you're in a non-inertial reference frame. You can feel the gravitational force as weight, and you can detect it acting on the ball.

 

The second situation is "equivalent" to this:

 

You're in the box, and it's sitting on top of a rocket powering through space accelerating at 9.8m/s/s. You chuck a ball across the inside of the box and it falls to the floor. Et cetera.

 

But they aren't quite equivalent, because when you're on earth you are in a "proper" gravitational field rather than a "uniform" gravitational field. You can detect the slight change in gravity between the top and the bottom of the box via a Pound-Rebka experiment wherein there is a measurable photon redshift. The gravitational field diminishes with distance from the earth.

I rather think photons are gravitons too. Matter/energy "causes" gravity. Typically a star will loss mass by shining and pouring out light. (Yes, there's solar wind with actual matter flying out, but let's disregard those for now). A photon has energy, or even is energy, and that means it has gravity. You just can't separate out the gravity from the mass/energy. You can't effect a change in a star's gravity without removing some matter/energy. Hence you can't expect to see any free-standing gravitons. IMHO they're a mathematical abstraction that paint the wrong picture.

Go learn some relativity.

A body in freefall is not accelerating. If you say it is, you're mixing reference frames. You're looking at it from some reference frame out somewhere in space rather than from the reference frame of the body in freefall. The principle of equivalence between gravity and an accelerating frame applies when you're standing on the planet, not when you're in freefall. There really is no force acting on that freefalling body. You can't feel any, you can't see any, you can't measure any. Because there is none. And if you look out of the window to see the moon going backwards you're mixing frames again. This is why gravity is not technically a force. Einstein called it a pseudoforce. Note that gravity is not spacetime curvature. A change in gravity is, though even that is open to new interpretation.

 

I could say more, but people who don't know what they're talking about give me sneering abuse, say I'm talking crackpot nonsense, and kick me into pseudoscience. Not good.

Perhaps this might be of some use:

 

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s7-02/7-02.htm

 

The preceding discussion makes clear the fact that general relativity is not a relational theory. Schwarzschild spacetime represents a cosmology with a definite preferred frame of reference, the one associated with the time-independent metric components. (Einstein was most disappointed when he first learned that the field equations have such an explicitly non-Machian solution, i.e., a single mass in an otherwise empty infinite universe)...

 

If we trace along the dotted spacelike surface "t = now" we find that the black hole doesn't exist at time t = now, which is to say, it is nowhere on the t = now timeslice. The event horizon is in the future of every external timeslice, all the way to future infinity...

Sadly, you don't.

 

You suffer from the psychology of disbelief, which so utterly convinces you that you're right, that you dismiss new ideas, you disqualify evidence that threatens your current model, and you pay only lip service to scientific principle. There are some unpleasant similarities with religious dogma.

 

Farsight signing off.

I will Swanson, but not here. I've wasted enough time here. And:

 

travelling at an appreciable fraction of c in their own frame

 

..proves it. OK some of the other contributors here are young and don't know so much. But you're a physicist. A former physics teacher. A "physics expert". But groan. You don't understand relativity.

 

You won't study these essays. You won't be looking at any "foundations" that I might offer. All you will be doing is chucking out discredits like "pseudoscience" instead of offering sincere feedback. I'm busy, I've got work to do, and I've had enough of this silly nonsense. I've already deleted scienceforums from my favourites at work, and now I'm deleting it from my favourites at home.

 

Goodbye, Doubting Thomas.

All: I've just read Edtharan's post. This rather stands out:

 

No, those analogies are not actually a good reason to even consider your essay as being true...

 

I think that says it all. Most of the contributors to this forum have not even considered these essays. Most haven't even read them. Molotov jumps in with same old axiomatic defence. If he'd have actually read this essay instead of skimming it, he would have expressed surprise at the A and B squares in the echalk image. If he'd have actually read TIME EXPLAINED he'd recognise his axiomatic argument as what it is - no argument at all.

 

I have concluded that there are no rational open-minded scientists here who can offer me any feedback of value. You hold concepts that you won't examine and won't talk about. I've tried to engage you. Only Edtharan has put in any effort, but I consider this to have been less than honest.

 

Since I'm busy, I'm going to call it a day here. You will have ample opportunity to reflect hereafter on your contribution to RELATIVITY+. Ciao.

So, tell me, how do you know what Einstein might have come up with. He might have done a lot of things. However, he came up with a theory that is consistent with observation and made predictions.

 

I've read some history, and seen the things Einstein said long after he did GR.

 

Time is not a relative measure of change. Time is a physical dimension in which events occur in sequence. Like any other dimension, things move through it and measurements of it can be made.

 

Wrong. You cannot move through time. I can move through space. Would you like to prove me wrong? Easy. OK I've just hopped back back a metre. Now you hop back a second.

 

And what do optical illusions have anything to do with the theory of relativity? An optical illusion occurs because your brain tries to make order of the oncoming information that it is processing.

 

A lot. The point is that the optical illusion is that A and B are different when in fact they're the same. There's another illusion going on with your concept of time, and it's so total, you take it so much for granted, that you can't even think about it. All you can do is repeat the mantra that you've been taught from an early age. This ppsychology of belief is why we have suicide bombers, and it's actually more prevalent thank you might think.

 

I can list much more than this, but the others have already pointed those flaws and incorrect statements out.

 

No you can't, and no they haven't. All they've done is repeated the same old tired old stuff. It goes like this: "Farsight, you're wrong about time because time is a dimension just like the dimensions of space, it does flow, it does have length and we can travel in it, so QED I've proven you wrong".

Surely someone who understands science as well as you claim to understands the burden of proof. It is up to you to devise tests that will confirm your hypothesis if it is correct, but falsify it if it is not.

 

I'll start you off.

 

If c was changing we should be able to observe this effect. Stars "burn" their fuel in nuclear reactions, and the amount of energy released is dependent on c^2. The energy released should scale inversely with the gravitational potential of a star. I'd imagine this would limit the size of a star, since a massive, compact star would have a very high gravitational potential at its core, where the fusion is taking place, but since c would be smaller, less energy would be released. Gravity would exceed the thermal pressure at some pont. These stars should collapse/ not exist. What's the limit predicted by your hypothesis?

 

We observe gravitational redshift. The amount of energy released in the core of the star looks the same locally because the matter that is being "burned" is in its barest essence made out light, as are we. And we do observe black holes, or things that appear to be black holes. I haven't predicted any limit. You know I haven't.

 

You've also given a scenario where c simply changes based on your speed. Never mind that this introduces a preferred reference frame...

 

c simply changes based on your speed? No. It's subtle, it's the Twins Paradox. Imagine you and I are in two identical spaceships. We each have a light clock and a high speed TV camera trained upon it. Our cameras emit a signal. We zip past one another and just as we do, we press RECORD. We both record our own signal, and each other's signal. Then we play them back side by side. I see your light clock going slower than mine, and at the same time you see my light clock going slower than yours. The problem here is at the same time. Our ships definitely passed, there was definitely some motion through space, but there wasn't any time passing. That's just a figure of speech.

 

... it also means that in a particle accelerator, if you analyze a reaction involving particles travelling at an appreciable fraction of c in their own frame (where their own c is now smaller) you will get a different answer: Collide a proton with another proton. For the proton moving, the collision energy has one value, and you can produce particles of some rest energy, mc^2. Let's say we produce three pi mesons. But in the rest frame, c is bigger, so it takes more energy to produce massive particles. Now there's not enough energy to produce three pi mesons. Oops. That's a bit of a problem.

 

What do you mean travelling at an appreciable fraction of c in their own frame ??? There is no traveling in their own frame. Oops. Their own c still looks like 300,000km/s. The answer is in MASS EXPLAINED. All these particles are "in barest essence" circles of light. It doesn't matter what the value of c is. The collision is translating forward-travelling stress into circular stress that's forward-travelling less. Your problem here is that you're hanging on to mass as some fundamental quantity. Think of a photon. It's moving and you aren't. It has momentum. But if we took a leaf out of our relativity book and said it was you moving instead of the photon, it would have inertia. Mass.

Surely someone who understands science as well as you claim to understands the burden of proof. It is up to you to devise tests that will confirm your hypothesis if it is correct, but falsify it if it is not.

 

I'll start you off.

 

If c was changing we should be able to observe this effect. Stars "burn" their fuel in nuclear reactions, and the amount of energy released is dependent on c^2. The energy released should scale inversely with the gravitational potential of a star. I'd imagine this would limit the size of a star, since a massive, compact star would have a very high gravitational potential at its core, where the fusion is taking place, but since c would be smaller, less energy would be released. Gravity would exceed the thermal pressure at some pont. These stars should collapse/ not exist. What's the limit predicted by your hypothesis?

 

You've also given a scenario where c simply changes based on your speed. Never mind that this introduces a preferred reference frame, it also means that in a particle accelerator, if you analyze a reaction involving particles travelling at an appreciable fraction of c in their own frame (where their own c is now smaller) you will get a different answer: Collide a proton with another proton. For the proton moving, the collision energy has one value, and you can produce particles of some rest energy, mc^2. Let's say we produce three pi mesons. But in the rest frame, c is bigger, so it takes more energy to produce massive particles. Now there's not enough energy to produce three pi mesons. Oops. That's a bit of a problem.

 

That looks like good feedback Swanson.

 

Yes, it is up to me to provide proof. But it's a question of priorities. Do I push forward with the "toy model" or do I consolidate what I've done so far? I've chosen the former to date, and probably will do the same for another three months.

 

Sorry, but work calls, so I have to go now. As I speak I'm thinking that both of the points you raised are based on misunderstanding of how total the scale change is. But I'll check that and get back to you properly later. Meanwhile I recommend that you read MASS EXPLAINED too.

Does this mean that you have no counter arguments to mine? Remember this is a debate forum, so the purpose is to debate ideas . Agreeing to disagree is not in the spirit of debate.

 

LOL!

 

No. It means you have no counter arguments to mine. And this is supposed to be a science forum, not a debate forum. You just don't pay attention to the science. All you do is parrot the very axioms that these essays challenge, as if those axioms prove themselves. You say "Farsight you are wrong about time because time is the fourth dimension, QED". Or you say "Farsight you are wrong about variable c because c is a constant, QED". You never get your teeth into the detailed logic, and the science of why I challenge the axioms that you take for granted.

 

Swansont, I have asked this same question and got no sensible answer. If C is variable, then it will have knock on effects with other physics. E=MC^2 is one in point. This does not say "Observed value of C" but uses the actual value of C.

We've spoken about this at length. And here you go again, you refuse to study the logic, and then you assert that you've been given none or that you've proved it wrong. Stop kidding yourself. Yes there are knock on effects. Gravity! It's there, as obvious as the nose in front of your face. That's where the kinetic energy of a falling object comes from, from the reduced c. Not from some magical alternative source that you can't explain. Read the essay again. Reread the thread.

 

In Farsight's explanations, he has explained that because your local value of C is variable, this effects your "perception" of the speed of C. So if C is reduced, you perceive everything travelling faster and so observe C as the same (even though it has supposed to have been reduced). This is only because of the speed of light is dictating the "Speed of time". However, as E=MC^2 does not work off the "Observed" value of C. So if C really is changing then we should get a different result for the equation as C is changing.

Yep, light defines time, but have you forgotten about Pound-Rebka? The energy of a photon changes with height. And read MASS EXPLAINED to understand how pair production converts a photon (E=hf) into an electron and positron with mass.

 

This effect has never been observed. Not once, but it has been observed that the results of experiments agree with a constant value of C for this equation. This case alone invalidates the proposition that C is variable as your frame of reference does not change the results of this equation.

Yet again you refuse to look at the science, and then pronounce in your best debating style that you've proved it all wrong. Sigh.

You're the one who brought up work as in a job, and you totally missed the "some ways" similarity between joblike work and energylike work. And now you accuse me of equivocation to try to cover up your sloppy mistake?

 

It just won't do, Edthraran. See below for the relevant paragraph from ENERGY EXPLAINED, which you've forgotten about in your burning desire to discredit these essays:

 

Another illustration is money. You can spend money like you can expend energy. But the money doesn’t disappear, just as the energy doesn’t disappear. Somebody else now has your money, just as some other thing now has your energy. Think about an old house, nestled in the countryside. It’s picturesque, worth a lot of money, and it’s built out of cob. Way back when, some guy put some energy into shifting earth and straw to make the walls of this house. He did the same with the wood, which grew out of the earth because the trees put energy into shifting water and CO2. The guy made money out of that house. They paid for the energy he put into it, through the work he did moving stuff. That’s why money and energy are similar. They get things moving, they get work done. One makes the world go round, and the other one makes the world go round too.

 

Please do try to find flaws, I really do seek feedback. But please try to take a rational, open-minded, scientific approach so that your feedback is quality feedback with undisputed value. Then when I'm a celebrity and RELATIVITY+ is in the physics curriculum, you can say I helped. You can be proud of your contribution to 21st Century physics. The alternative will be guilt and shame for the rest of your life.

 

Think carefully on this.

okay, this is going to show that farsight has actually said nothing and does not understand normal relativity to begin with... you think genral relativity and special relativity are completely separate?

You try to pretend I know no history, that I don't know that GR is a development of SR. Because of the word united? In an essay called RELATIVITY+. Oh please. That is weak.

 

so what if he said 'time is suspect' he didn't put it in his theories. therefore is not applicable in this context.

Yes it is, because of his Princeton years with Godel. This is what Einstein might have come up with remember? It just won't do to discount everything Einstein said or thought post 1916 to protect your stance.

 

and look, your referencing yourself. an essay that also contains little content. you provided no evidence of your claims. why should it be used to prop up another hypothesis of yours?

Huh? It's a linking essay.

 

and what in the name of the little green man from khazakstan has money got to do with relativity in any way shape of form? is it the phrase 'time is money' because if thats your justification its pretty weak. 'time is money' came about because if a business isn't producing for any length of time, it loses money it could have made if it was producing. hardly crucial in a scientific theory.

Like I said in the essay, it's showing you that something you take for granted isn't what you thought it was. Did you actually read the essay?

 

also, again you reference yourself. hardly the good little scientist are you?

You haven't have you? You haven't even read it!

 

a matter of looking at whats really there eh? well, i'm looking and all i'm seeing is smoke and mirrors that don't even hide anything. also, what do optical illusions have to do with anything? i don't think that the way our brains process colour information from our eyes has much to do with relativity.

No, you're not looking. Not at all. Where's your comment on the echalk colour perception test?

 

I contend that you can understand something and still not be able to explain it. I understand imaginary numbers, i know what they are, ho to use them and where to use them but i can't explain them to my dad.

Then you don't understand them. That's the whole point. And you don't understand relativity, or time, or the other things that you think you understand.

 

thats 1 type of energy, there are other yous know. thats not a photon, a photon is a disturbance in the electro-magnetic fields existing in space.

Yes I do know. And what's not a photon? Are you seriously trying to make out that I don't know what a photon is and you do?

 

and, if your moving, it still hits you at the same speed, c is constant remember? unless your accelerating, then there are a few difference which get explained through GR. and another thing, photons are massless.

You didn't quite get round to reading MASS EXPLAINED did you?

 

any evidence? calculations to show why? any reason for the photons to move in circeles? any explanations for point masses? any explanation for photns moving in smaller circles than QM would allow?

No. I've tried to keep it simple. And judging from your responses so far, anything else I did include would be useless. By the way, there are no point masses, because there are no infinities in nature.

 

and we can now see more self referencing. all your claims are relying on things you have said being true. these are called assumptions.

Oh get out of it. You're the one full of assumptions. So full you can't be bothered to actually read the essay, and you drum up any old stuff to try to demonstrate a hatchet job on something you don't understand, and don't want to understand. That's what I meant when I said I understand people. I understand your psychology of belief. You don't.

 

so now its all down to capacitance and charge? what? so are you bringing electrostatics into this then?

Yep. Next essay.

 

so, here we are at the end of another of farsights essays. yet again, we have seen...

 

LOL, I'll snip the fiction and abuse. Listen up: you've said nothing of value. Don't waste my time like this again.