A-wal

I notice that no one is actually managing to come with answers to the questions. All you're doing is attacking me personally to try to discredit me. If you really want to discredit me the best way would be to explain why what I said was wrong and how it actually works, in other words to actually answer the questions. At least elfmotat's trying. Cheap shots like that are very easy to do and make you look even worse than my bad attitude makes me look. If you really want to hurt me then you should pick apart my arguments to show why I'm wrong. The fact that you choose not to do it that suggests to me that you can't fault the arguments themselves and you're getting desperate. Maybe I'm wrong but that's how it looks. Hi ACG52. I do tend to do well when everyone's against me. Conflict brings the best out of me, but I take it too far. I'm tired of constantly butting heads. I think "The definitive guide to relativity" is a very reasonable goal, but I just think that gr has it wrong and so far no one has been able to show me what I've misunderstood. I know I'm making a very big claim, but that's no reason to automatically dismiss it. You're right. I should have waited longer. I'm really not going to get so emotional when I post from now on. It's not helping my case. In my defence I'm always getting undeserved attitude and disrespect thrown at me on this site so it's not surprising that I come across as even more of an arrogant arse than I really am. I'm not going to take the bait anymore because that's just making it easier for people to attack me and ignore my arguments. elfmotat: I'm going to respond to your post when I'm happy with the reply. I don't want this thread to get locked or to carry on winding people up. I also want to make my thoughts as clear as possible and show exactly why I think gr has it wrong and sr has it so right.

Why does this site have so much trouble with copy and pasted 's? It looks weird without them. Sorry for the late reply, I had to wait until I'd chilled out a bit. You should have seen my first reply. There's no way I could have posted that. Not so long ago I would of. Also I can't do this stuff whenever I want. I used to be able to but that time has passed. I have to wait until I'm in the right mood now. Let's find out. What? There was no inability to predict anything. I showed you exactly why there's no contradiction between the different frames. The extra length in space is exactly balanced by the extra length in time needed to make it through the hole because time is always extended by the same amount in a frame where length is extended, so it makes no difference. You asked me to explain how the extra length doesn't cause a paradox and that's exactly what I did. You just don't like that I was able to answer your question so you used something that I didn't go into because it's not what you asked about but you used it in completely the wrong way. It's not me you're making look stupid by doing that. It doesn't tilt from the labs frame or in its own frame when its length is extended. How could it? Would the front end tilt up or down, and what would decide this? You've got it the wrong way round! It wouldn't help anyway because the tilting would make it harder for the rod to go through because it would take longer for the extra height to move through. Rotate the hole by ninety degrees if you're having trouble visualising it. The rod tilts from the hole frame because if there's no room to spare in one frame then there's no room to spare in any frame and the hole is time dilated by the same amount as the rod in the labs frame but the rod is the same length that it is in the labs frame because it's length contracted, which would give it room to spare if it wasn't tilted. The extra time it takes to move through the hole because of its tilt is identical to the extra time it takes to go through the hole in the rods frame because of its extra length. You could just as easily use that argument to claim that objects can accelerate to the speed of light using energy. I don't see how there can be a smooth transition to infinity when accelerating to a relative velocity of the speed of light. The whole idea of a finite amount of one force being able to overpower an infinite amount of any other is beyond ridiculous! One moment a finite amount of energy is enough to move away and the next all the energy of a trillion trillion universe isn't. Does that really make any sense to you? Yes they are! Using different words to describe them doesnt make them different. Its the same thing. How can black holes or anything else be infinitely powerful? That's just stupid no matter how you try to justify it! So you're saying that they're never equivalent. So if an object is free-falling away from a second object then there's a different amount of length contraction and time dilation than there is when an object uses energy to accelerate away from another object at the exact same rate? I don't think so. Saying that length contraction and time dilation are not well defined in gr is just another way of saying that gr doesn't accurately describe them. I agree. You're not getting it. Whether or not objects can reach an event horizon should be a coordinate independent statement. They either can or they can't. You said yourself that nothing can actually change when you switch coordinate systems, but that's exactly what happens when you switch between Shwartzchild and Penrose coordinates. No object can reach an event horizon in a finite amount of time using Shwartzchild coordinates and this is an either or statement that can't be Lorenzed away. Show me any other example of coordinate systems in direct contradiction with each other that are both considered correct. Why is it okay when it's a black hole? Sure. General relativity describes a black hole as having an event horizon that expands outwards at c locally, but information propagates through space at c so how can any information coming from the black hole possibly reach any object before the event horizon does? The closer an observer looks towards a black hole, the slower they see time moving on the watch of any object at that distance, and the event horizon and the gravitational influence of the black hole get slowed by the same amount. The event horizon and the information coming from the black hole would always move at the same speed away from a black hole with an expanding event horizon, so how could any object be influenced by a black hole before it reaches the event horizon? That's completely wrong even according to general relativity! Another basic error. Gr describes an event horizon as unreachable from the perspective of more distant objects. When an object approaches an event horizon it slows down in time and space as its relative velocity increases in exactly the same way that sr describes. Gr then goes on to describe objects as being able to reach an event horizon in a finite amount of their own proper time, which is a complete contradiction. You can't change reality by switching coordinate systems. It's like the rod and hole question you asked. If it fits through from one frame of reference then it fits through from all frames. If objects can't reach an event horizon in one valid coordinate system then they can't in any valid coordinate system. It's not complicated at all. It should be obvious. It can't ever be possible for an object to observe another object in front of it reaching an event horizon because if it was then what would happen if the more distant object moves away? Let's say that if you're within one metre of the black hole you can see objects crossing the horizon. If you then moved back to two metres away those objects would have to move back across the event horizon from the inside. If no object can reach an event horizon before you do then all objects must reach it at the exact same time, but this can't happen as long as the event horizon exists. Do you see now? This again proves beyond any doubt that an event horizon can't ever be reached. There simply can't ever be enough time to reach one because of time dilation, and it gets smaller the closer you get to it because of length contraction. Why would mass be able to accelerate objects to a relative velocity faster than light when energy can't? Why would it be any different? That's not an answer! From the more distant objects perspective it will always be possible to pull the closer object away in a finite amount of time with a finite strength rope using a finite amount of energy. Explain! You don't know as much as you pretend to do you? I get the very strong impression that you're just googling what you want to know as you go along, but you're not understanding a lot of it and it really shows. That statement is completely false, even according to gr! If you're not going to think for yourself and you have to copy what you've read then you should at least make sure you have a basic grasp of it before you use it to pretend that you know what you're talking about. And you've got the nerve to tell me that I don't understand relativity! It's not Newtonian. It's anything but Newtonian. The energy required to move away from a black hole is quadrupled every time the distance between it and the object is halved, in exactly the same way that the energy needed for an object to increase its velocity relative to another object by the same amount as before is quadrupled every time the difference in their velocity compared to the speed of light is halved because reaching an event horizon is the same as reaching the speed of light, so why wouldn't it be just as impossible? 4-D nonsense? Closed time-like curves? Wtf? You really don't have the first clue what you're talking about do you? Every object has a four dimensional shape! Black holes are the simplest objects in the universe because there's no internal structure holding them up, so it's not at all surprising that they have the simplest possible shape. Of course they're hyperspheres! Why would their length in time be any different to their length in the other three dimensions? General relativity describes a black hole as a sphere in three spatial dimensions but as a cone in four dimensions, which doesn't make sense. It has to be the same length in all four dimensions, making it a hypersphere with an event horizon that contracts at the speed of light locally but slower the more distance there is between it and the observer as the local space-time around it gets extended the further away it's viewed from. Start with a singularity. It obviously can't be reached because as well as having no length in the three spatial dimensions locally, it has no length in time locally so only exists for an instant. If we switch to the perspective of a more distant observer it gets length extended equally in all four dimensions. The closest any object could have gotten to the singularity at a particular time is marked by the event horizon. If you worked it out like this would you get the same radius as the event horizon? Because a singularity is a single point in time as well as space. If it doesn't exist for any length of time then how can there ever be enough time to reach one before it's gone? You haven't explained anything! All you're doing is parroting back what gr says without even attempting to justify it. You can't use the conclusions of gr as evidence of its validity. There's a coordinate singularity at the event horizon in Schwarzschild coordinates for a very good reason! Super. Of course there's a Rindler horizon behind a falling object! So you think that a signal would catch up to any free-falling object from any distance away given enough time then? A Rindler horizon marks the furthest point that anything could ever catch an accelerating object at that rate of acceleration. Whether the acceleration is being caused by energy or mass is completely irrelevant. When an object free-falls towards a black hole the Rindler horizon is always exactly the same distance behind it as the event horizon is in front of it, getting closer to them as they approach the event horizon and it approaches them slower as their acceleration increases but it can never catch up to them, in exactly the same way that the Rindler horizon approaches at a progressively slower rate behind an object that's using energy to accelerate as their acceleration increases and is always exactly the same distance behind them as the speed of light horizon is in front of them. The rate that the two horizons approach an object at a slower rate in response to the same amount of acceleration as the objects acceleration increases is identical to the rate that an objects velocity relative to another object increases at a progressively slower rate as their relative velocity increases because it's preventing them from ever reaching a relative velocity of the speed of light, which is what would have to happen for an objects Rindler horizon to catch up to it and for it to reach the speed of light horizon/event horizon. Just to clarify. Acceleration can be thought of as velocity relative to energy because energy has the same speed relative to all inertial objects. If an objects acceleration stays the same then its velocity relative to energy stays the same. When an object accelerates, either using mass or using energy, there's a point behind the object marking the furthest point that anything could ever catch up to the accelerator as long as it carries on accelerating at at least the same rate and a point in front of the accelerator the exact same distance away that can never be reached, which is the speed of light. These horizons get further away if the object decreases its acceleration and closer to it if it increases its acceleration. The way that it takes more energy to close the gap on the speed of light relative to another object as their velocity relative to the other object increases is identical to the way that it takes more energy to close the gap on the two horizons as their acceleration increases. In the case of a black hole the speed of light horizon is called an event horizon. The speed of light is very much a horizon. If you know what I mean by that then what happens when you apply that logic to an event horizon? Free-falling objects do experience proper acceleration. Its called tidal force. The Rindler horizon is an affect of all forms of acceleration, because theres no real difference. If I jumped off a cliff Id miss out on all the fun of showing people like you up, and thats far too much of a sacrifice to ask me to make. You don't feel acceleration because velocity is relative and acceleration is just a change in relative velocity. What you feel is the difference in relative velocity over the different parts of your body as the accelerated parts pull the rest of you along. For example, when you're lying down it feels more comfortable than when you're standing up because the acceleration pushing you up that was focussed on your feet is spread over a larger point of contact with the ground. When you're in a car the seat is pushing you in the back which pushes the rest of you along. If every part of your body was accelerating evenly you wouldn't feel a thing. That's why you don't feel acceleration in free-fall. All you feel is the difference in acceleration over the different parts of your body, know as tidal force. Acceleration is every bit as relative as velocity. How could and why would it not be? Is there anything else that makes you think that following a curved path through flat space-time and following a straight path through curved space-time are somehow different from each other? The fact that I don't agree with how gr describes relative motion doesn't mean that I don't understand it. It means the exact opposite. Anyone who truly understands gr would be able to spot the inconsistencies, and be able to point out exactly where I'm going wrong. Gr disproves itself, but I don't want to give them an excuse to lock, delete or move this topic to speculations so I'll stick to asking questions and if you or anyone else can provide solid and self-consistent answers I'll happily hold my hands up and say that I was mistaken. I'm not the one here who's terrified to admit that I was wrong. I don't know why you're all so keep to cling on to gr when the truth is far more beautiful and simpler. Do you really think that you, someone who obviously lacks even a basic understanding of how gr describes relative motion is in any position to judge the validity of this? Do you not think it's at all possible that someone who has a much deeper understanding of relativity than you could ever hope to have has figured out something that you never could have? If an object was actually able to reach an event horizon then it would have reached a velocity of the speed of light relative to the black hole and the event horizon would be infinitely length contracted and time dilated. A black hole is what a singularity looks like from a distance. Think about it. Velocities don't add together like that. An object can never reach a velocity of the speed of light relative to any other object. It works in exactly the same way that it works in special relativity. Why wouldn't it? No diagrams, no equations, no further education and I just totally bitch slapped the most scrutinised theory ever. Who the man? (:

1. Gravity is much weaker than the other forces because it's a force of mass rather than a force of energy, and because E=mc2, the strength of acceleration due to gravity times the speed of light squared is exactly equal to the strength of acceleration due to energy. 2. A black hole is a perfect four dimensional sphere so its length in time is the same as its length in the spatial dimensions, so its life span depends entirely on its mass. 3. The mass of a black hole partly depends on how far away it's observed from because length contraction and time dilation increase the closer an observer is to it, which is why there are no nearby quasars. A black holes mass decreases as an object approaches it and increases as an object moves away from it. 4. Free-fall is not inertial. It's proper acceleration, so the speed of light will never be c locally relative to a free-falling observer, just as it's never c relative to an accelerating observer, and it behaves in exactly the same way, taking more acceleration to close the gap by the same amount as its acceleration increases. 5. There is a Rindler horizon when an object is accelerated by mass just as there is when an object is accelerated by energy, and an event horizon is the opposite to this horizon and so behaves in exactly the same way as the speed of light does when an object uses energy to accelerate. 6. It's always possible to move away from a black hole because its event horizon can never be reached. If an object falls towards a black hole and is attached by a rope to a more distant object which waits until the rope goes taught, which is worked out before hand to be after the falling objects has crossed the event horizon from its own perspective according to general relativity then the more distant object will still be able to pull the falling object away. I think there's at least a couple more but that's all I can think of at the moment.

You mean the fact that I used the term volume for one and two dimensions as well as three? Thats hardly a misunderstanding of relativity. I noticed. You really are nothing but a spiteful and hate filled person arent you? That cant be much fun. A thread started by someone who doesn't understand relativity but can still explain exactly how it works? Explain! What is it exactly that you think I dont understand? Which part? Be specific! What am I not getting? Either put up or shut up. I know what you mean now. I didn't look at the diagram, I don't normally find them helpful, I just suddenly realised what you meant. The answers obvious. If the ruler can get through the hole in one frame then it can in all frames. It can either go through or it cant. You cant change reality by changing perspective or by switching coordinate systems. Well start with the labs frame. Lets say the ruler can just make it through without touching the sides but with absolutely no room to spare. Now if we go to the rulers frame it gets longer because its not length contracted any more, but time gets longer by exactly the same amount because its not time dilated either in this frame, giving its extra length just enough time to pass through the hole, and of course the same thing happens if we switch to the disks frame. Youre going to have to do a lot better than that. This is what I mean when I say space and time are interchangeable and there really is no difference between them. I hate it when one of says time-like or space-like. My turn. 1. When an object uses energy to accelerate it cant ever reach a velocity of the speed of light relative to any other object because velocities dont add together in that way. Length contraction and time dilation prevent any object from doing this, so why would it be any different when gravity is accelerating an object? If there are three objects near to a black hole , one of which is using a constant amount of energy to balance the gravitational attraction and maintain a constant distance from the event horizon while one free-falls and the other accelerates away from the hovering object, steadily increasing its acceleration at exactly the same rate as the free-falling object to keep its velocity relative to the hoverer the same as the free-falling objects velocity relative to the hovering object then at what point does gravity mysteriously become infinitely strong so that no amount of acceleration in the opposite direction is enough to accelerate away? The increasing rate of change in relative velocity between the object using energy to accelerate away and the hovering object decreases as the object accelerates away because of length contraction and time dilation despite the fact that its proper acceleration continuously increases at the same rate, keeping its relative velocity below the speed of light no matter how hard it accelerates. Now if we compare this to the free-falling objects velocity relative to the hovering object, at what point does the decreasing rate of increasing change in velocity relative to the hoverer act differently to the decreasing rate of change in velocity relative to the hovering object of the object thats using energy to accelerate away, and why? In other words, why would length contraction and time dilation work differently when mass is accelerating an object than it does when energy is doing the same? When energy accelerates an object length contraction and time dilation are a consequence of the speed of light remaining constant relative to any inertial observer. Whats the length contraction and time dilation of general relativity based on if not that? 2. How can the Schwarzschild and Kruskal coordinate systems both be considered correct when they clearly directly contradict each other? You cant have it both ways. Either an object can reach an event horizon or it cant. How can both possibly be true? 3. General relativity describes a black hole as have an event horizon that expands outwards at the speed of light locally, so how can any information from the black hole possibly reach any object before the event horizon does when theres simply no way for a black hole with an expanding event horizon to influence anything? 4. How can any object possibly reach an event horizon when theres no way for an object to ever reach it from the perspective of a more distant object no matter how fast it accelerates towards the horizon or how close the more distant object gets? If it were possible for an object to reach an event horizon from the perspective of a more distant object then an object thats crossed the horizon would have to move back across it from inside the black hole, which general relativity says cant be done. 5. If a hovering object and a free-falling object are attached to each other by a rope then what happens if the hovering object pulls the free-falling object away from the black hole after the free-faller has crossed the event horizon from its own perspective? From the free-fallers perspective no amount of energy could ever be enough to escape (yea right) but from the other objects perspective the free-faller can never reach the horizon, so it will always be possible to pull the free-faller away. Paradox! 6. The amount of energy needed to move away from a black hole is quadrupled every time the distance between a free-falling object and the event horizon is halved, so how can it ever reach infinity without using quantisised space-time, which general relativity doesnt do? Its supposed to be a smooth increase so how can it jump to infinity? 7. A singularity occupies a single point in space and time, so length contraction and time dilation are infinite at the singularity and decrease as an observers distance from it increases. Length contraction and time dilation obviously increase at exactly the same rate, making the black hole a perfect four dimensional sphere from any distance that its observed from, so why is it a cone shape in general relativity? 8. A singularity obviously cant ever be reached by an object because it would be gone by the time the object gets there. If you work out the closest point an object can get to it you get an event horizon. As an object approaches an event horizon its radius shrinks as length contraction and time dilation increase. At the event horizon length contraction and time dilation would be infinite because its the equivalent of using energy to accelerate to the speed of light, so its radius would have shrunk to a singularity at zero distance. How could an object reach an event horizon before it reaches the singularity when the event horizon is just what the singularity looks like from a distance? 9. The Rindler horizon approaching from behind an accelerating object but never reaching it no matter how hard it accelerates works in exactly the same way that the speed of light horizon does in front of the accelerating object. The Rindler horizon also works in exactly the same way for a free-falling object, approaching from behind it at the same rate that it does when using energy to accelerate and never reaching it, so why would the event horizon work any differently. Its the equivalent of using energy to accelerate towards the speed of light so how and why would it behave any different to the other horizons? 10. What the hell could possibly make you think that travelling along a geodesic in curved space-time is physically different to following a curved path in flat space-time? Given all this, how can general relativity be regarded as self-consistent?

Explanation for what? What are you talking about? Every single post I've seen of your is exactly the same. Do you even know how to say anything else? Making clearly false statements like that implies one of two things. Either you can't read or you know so little about the subject that you're in no position to pass judgement. If I don't understand relativity then how do you explain this thread? If what you're saying is true then I must have made lots of false statements. Since your so clearly an expert and your reputation must be so high that you don't need to clarify anything and it's enough for you just to say everything is "word salad" I was wondering if I might impose on you to share your great knowledge and tell me what it is I've got wrong? No. I can't see the diagram but I think I know what you mean. They're travelling in different directions so are being contracted along a different axis. There won't be a collision because the second argument is irrelevant since the length contraction in that frame is making the plate thinner but not changing the size of the hole.

And whose fault is it that this thread's been hijacked by resentment? I would have thought the point of this thread was obvious. The clue's very much in the title. This is a scientific thread about the mathematical relationship of relativity. Not using equations doesn't change this fact. You can claim it's not true but no matter how many times you call a Doberman a duck it's still a dog. I'm proving that it's not necessary to learn any of the equations to understand relativity, and you can't stand that. That's why you've got such a problem with me. The fact is you can't refute what I've said in this thread, all you can do is criticise my methods. You do it your way and please let me do it mine. You're the ones who keep giving me attitude. I'm just countering. Are you now going to delete the parts of this paragraph that you dont like you did the other one I wonder.

I used the term volume because it covers the greatest number of dimensions. I know it implies three dimensions (or four?) but don't you think you're being pedantic rather than thorough? I suppose that means you couldn't find anything better to pick apart, so that's good. I really think you've missed the point of this thread.

It IS proportional to the volume that it fills! In zero dimensions it would be infinite. In one its strength would never fall off. In two, if you doubled the distance the strength would be halved. In three special dimensions it's an inverse square. I said that I accidentally missed the comments between my last two posts and that I was going to answer them and that I was going to make a list of definite predictions. Then the thread got locked (I think that's why it got locked to be honest, talk about fixing the fight) and my last post got mysteriously edited, with all the most important bits taken out. It wasn't that I couldn't be bothered to reply. If I do it here I'll probably get told off or even banned. Are you setting a trap for me? I know I was out of line a few times when I first came here and maybe I've brought this on myself but I really do feel like I'm being treated very unfairly.

I do know what a tensor is. I was making a point. It's a way of describing curvature, but I wouldn't recognise it as a tensor if I saw one. What point were you trying to make exactly? That I don't know what I'm talking about? Then how come I can explain what happens under any given circumstances without any errors? Blind luck?

Oh no you don't, not in this thread. If you have an actual question or you think that I've said something that's inaccurate then please by all means speak up. What's a tensor?

I'm getting very irritated by this. I'm not interested in doing the maths. Please stop trying to push your crap on to me. I don't like being pressurised to do something that I don't want to. I know what that crap does to your brain and I'm definitely not going to go down that road so stop asking. My answer is no! Now please stop pushing! See what I did there? Well I would ask the author but I don't think I'll get much of a response. If you want to claim that gr's accurate then it should be able to predict exactly what happens under those circumstances. I'd also really like to see the equation for how the energy requirement to move away from a black hole increases as the distance increase because it can't possibly be right because how could it jump up to infinity? It should be exactly the same as the energy requirement to accelerate in the opposite direction and return to the original velocity relative to whatever if energy was used to accelerate in the first place. It's a true story. I've made a few definite predictions. I'll go through and list them soon and I'll also look at ydoaPs question again. I'm not asking for examples of posts that I didn't pay attention to. I'm asking for examples of specific misunderstandings that you claim I've made. If I really do have misconceptions about any part of relativity then I'd very much like to know what they are, but I suspect you're just making false claims. I don't think I said frozen. I keep saying that objects never freeze at the horizon, they just keep slowing down. Equations are shorthand for the mathematical relationships. I use the right hand side of my brain to visualise everything. I don't think in equations. I like to think about what actually happens. I don't think I ever said it was identical, but if I did I meant that velocities add together in such a way as to keep any relative velocity below the speed of light when mass accelerates an object, in exactly the same way as velocities add together when an object is accelerated by energy. Er, yes what? Did you miss me? Ah, that's so sweet. Oh crap. I forgot to reply to the comments between my last two posts. I'll do that next time.

Yea I'm not taking into account the time it takes for the light to reach the observer. It's not a problem. They compare as the pass each other so that the distance is short enough for the time delay to be negligible. I should have said that though.

Do you think it's possible for an object to ever reach an event horizon from the perspective of any other object? Do you think it makes sense that at the event horizon the difference in the strength of gravity between one plank length and the next is enough to overpower any amount of acceleration in the opposite direction? Before an object reaches the event horizon a finite amount of energy is always enough to accelerate away, and then suddenly it isn't. That's completely stupid! It's so obviously the equivalent of accelerating towards the speed of light using energy, with the horizon moving away at a slower rate but always moving away from the accelerating object, and at the speed of light locally. Objects moving through the curved space-time around a black hole don't have to be thought of as following a straight line in positively curved space-time. They can just as easily be thought of as accelerating towards a singularity in flat space-time, and acceleration in flat space-time can just as easily be thought of as following a straight line in negatively curved space-time. It makes no difference because following a straight line in curved space-time and following a curved path in flat space-time are exactly the same thing. If an object were accelerated to the speed of light then time dilation and length contraction would be infinite at the event horizon, making every point of the event horizon a singularity. This would mean that every point of the event horizon has its own event horizon, also made entirely of singularities. That creates a bit of an infinite paradox problem. When exactly in the life span of a black hole, or to put it another way, what is the radius of the event horizon when an object reaches it? If no object can reach an event horizon from the perspective of any external observer then it must be impossible to cross an event horizon after any other object. That means that all of the objects that ever reach the event horizon of a black hole have to do it at exactly the same time. So ask me. Tell me which parts are unclear and Ill clarify them for you. Is that simple enough for you? Okay that's enough messing about now. You need to explain how an object could possibly be accelerated to the point when no amount of acceleration in the opposite direction would be enough to move away. That makes absolutely no sense and if you want to claim that something that ridiculous is true then you'd better be able to explain how it's possible. Movement is just that, it doesn't matter what accelerated the object, think about it. When an object accelerates using energy it can't possibly ever accelerate enough to reach a relative velocity of the speed of light relative to any other object. Instead it becomes harder for the accelerating object to increase its velocity relative to other objects the faster its already moving relative to them. Length contraction and time dilation make up the difference so there's no contradiction between the different frames of reference because they're mearsuring different distances, because that is how relative movement works. When you say that objects can reach the event horizon of black hole, think about what you're actually saying. You're saying that these rules don't apply when gravity accelerates an object. Why? If an object is free-falling towards a black hole then it's velocity relative to objects using energy to accelerate in the opposite direction and maitain a constant distance from the black hole would increase in exactly the same way that it would if it were using energy to accelerate relative to those objects in the absense of gravity. How can gravity accelerate an object so much that no amount of acceleration in the opposite direction would be enough to counteract it. That's completely insane! You're also saying that it's always possible for an object to escape using a finite amount of energy right up until it reaches the event horizon. The energy requirement increasesby a greater amount over the same distance the closer the object is to the event horizon, which should be as an inverse square of thedistance but can't be if what you're saying is true, so you're saying that gravity moves objects in a completely different way to energy, not just the cause and the strength but actually a completely different form of movement that allows objects to reach any relative velocities they like as long as there's enough acceleration to create an event horizon. Now, gravity does create length contraction and time dilation but it can't be the equivalent to the length contraction and time dilation created when an object uses energy to accelerate because if it were then an object wouldn't be able to reach an event horizon because it would be the equivalent of accelerating to a relative velocity of the speed of light. There must be an equivelent to a Rindler horizon behind a free-falling object that marks the point beyond which no signal could ever reach the free-faller as long as they keep free-falling at at least the same rate. It can't work like the Rindler horizon when an object uses energy to accelerate because this horizon needs to behave in the equal and opposite way to the event horizon. I want you to explain to me exactly how this works, because I know how it works with acceleration due to energy because that's how it has to work to keep the speed of light constant and if gravity accelerated objects in the same way then it wouldn't be possible to reach an event horizon in a finite amount of proper time because the closer you got to, the harder it would be to close the gap as an inverse square and making it impossible to reach in exactly the same way that it's impossible to reach a relative velocity of the speed of light using energy. Length contraction and time dilation do obviously increase the amount of proper time and space that free-falling object expiriences compared to an object that keeps a greater distance from the black hole, but not by enough to stop the object accelerating to a relative velocity of the speed of light apparently, and not the amount required to keep the speed of light constant. So what's the amount of time dilation and length contraction that an object expiriences when being accelerated by gravity based on? How could I have said that with equations? How the hell is this a jumble? Are you seriously telling me you can't follow that? Im glad you asked me about that. Black hole formation is what first got me thinking about this. I thought that I knew what happed to the matter that falls into a black hole. I thought that because the event horizon is the equivalent to accelerating to a relative velocity of the speed of light from every external frame of reference, that must mean matter moves backwards in time from the perspective of those reference frames until it reaches the singularity, where it gets broken down into pure energy and because the singularity is a single point in time as well as space, it gets carried out on the shockwave of the supernova and released as a gamma ray burst. Faulty reasoning though. Theres no way for an object to be accelerated to the speed of light relative to any other object. A gamma ray burst is just the collapsed star. Not true! When? They're not incorrect at all. Just because that's not how you've heard them being refered to before doesn't make them wrong. We'd still be in caves if everyone had that attitude. What did I use to clarify what I meant? Words! Why? I have absolutely no idea and I'm not even going to bother thinking about it because it's not even close to analogous to anything that I'm describing. If I really wanted to I could find out and express it in words because you never need to use equations to describe mathematics, it's just shorthand.

<p>I haven't got time to write a proper reply and answer individually at the moment but I will because I'm in the library and I've got half an hour. It's not the equations matter, it's the mathematical relationships that they express. It's right here:</p> <p> </p> <p>You can see this for yourself by drawing a simple diagram. Just draw a circle with a vertical and horizontal line going all the way through so they cross in the centre. This isn’t an ordinary diagram or I wouldn’t be using it. Its using two dimensions at right angle to each other to represent exactly that. We can use one of those directions to represent time because there’s no real difference between space and time. The vertical line represents time and the horizontal line represents one of the three spatial dimensions. We only need one spatial dimension because you can always draw a one dimensional straight line between any two objects. Objects always move through space-time with a combined velocity of the speed of light.<br /> <br /> Now use a pencil. An inertial objects path through space-time is represented by a vertical line because they’re travelling through time at the speed of light and not travelling through space at all from their own perspective. Other inertial objects paths through space-time are represented by lines running parallel to the vertical line. Their distance in space is represented by its distance across the horizontal spatial line and its relative velocity is represented by its distance across the vertical temporal line. Other inertial objects moving at different relative velocities are moving through time at the same speed as each other but are at different points along the vertical line and so are looking at each other at a skewed angle and see each other as shortened in time. They would see them as shortened in the spatial dimension that they’re moving through relative to them if they weren’t looking at a one dimensional straight line, but you cant have everything. You could use a sphere I suppose but let's not. This shortening of length from each others perspective represents Doppler shift. Infinitely far away in the vertical direction representing time on the circle would represent an object moving at the speed of light and one that's vertically running exactly parallel would represent an inertial object at rest relative to them.<br /> <br /> An accelerating objects path is represented by an angled line, like the hand of a clock. 12:00 is inertial and 3:00 is infinite acceleration because the dimensions are at right angles to each other. An accelerating objects path is a diagonal line moving across both dimensions of the circle and their speed through the horizontal spatial dimension means that their speed through the vertical temporal dimension is slower than an inertial object to keep their speed through space-time constant at the speed of light. An object that's increasing or decreasing its rate of acceleration creates a curved line. It takes more energy to increase its angle of acceleration the harder it accelerates approaching infinity as it approaches 3:00, which represents an event horizon as well as the speed of light because they're the same thing. This works just as well with gravity. If an object were able to cross an event horizon and move relatively faster than light then it would be moving down the circle instead of up which would mean it would be moving backwards in time relative to other objects.</p> <p> </p> <p>Try it!</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p>It doesn't matter what I do. No matter how many times I show you that gr simply can't work you just refuse to acknowledge it and claim it's a misunderstanding without showing that's the case. The level of intellectual dishonesty here is embarrassing. I know you're just going to say that it's me that's being intellectually dishonest but that doesn't make it true, and it will be obvious to anyone who anyone reading this thread who doesn't have a vested interest in my being wrong. No one has even tried to explain the </p> <p>inconsistencies that I've pointed out in gr. No one has been able to refute the fact that the two accelerations are equivalent, or show that free-fall is inertial. All you can do is attack me and my methods, not the concussions. It's not a fair fight because if I do the same I'll get banned.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p>Could someone please show me the equations for evolution!</p>

That's rich! You obviously didn't bother to read my last post. You replied right after I posted it without bothering to read it complaining that I didn't read a link. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO NEED FOR ME TO USE EQUATIONS BECAUSE I'M DESCRIBING THE MATHEMATICAL REALATIONSHIPS PERFECTLY FINE WITHOUT THEM!!! If you'd read my last post then you'd know that.